ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (76)75
V ol.1976/0028

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic desarchives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifié par lerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 desRates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(76)75 final.
Brussels .5March 1976 *
COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON
INTERNATIONAL ROAD TRANSPORT TARIFFS
FIFTH REPORT ON MARKET TRENDS IN
THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS
BY ROAD IN THE COMMUNITY
J
1974
COM(76 )75final

I.INTRODUCTION
This report ,drawn uppursuant toArticle 11(3)ofRegulation
(EEC)no.1174/68of30July 1968 ,is,asregards thestatistical data ,
based oninformation supplied bytheexperts from thesixoriginal
laember States only .
However ,itdiffers from previous reports inthat itcovers
thewhole of1974 :theexperts xelt that ,ifpresented annually the
inforaation would bemore uptodate and thestatistics more easily
comparable because seasonal factors have been eliminated .
Asregards thetopicality ofthereport ,itobviously depends
onthenecessary information being provided inreasonable time .
According totheexperience acquired sofartheCommittee Secretariat
hasnoted that this isapparently notpossible inalltheMember States .
Hence thefirst annual report will also bepublished rather late .Its
value asanindicator istherefore relative ^limited asfar asthepresent
market situation isconcerned .Asarecord ofprices ,ontheother hand ,
itisofsome interest .Atallevents this situation shows that ,ifup-
to-date market surveys aretobecarried out ,some method other than the
cumbersome procedure currently used bytheCommittee will have tobe
devised andapplied .Particular attention will also have tobepaid tothis
aspect during thediscussions concerning the establishment ofafuture system
ofobservation ofprices forthecarriage ofgoods byroad ,should it
prove possible toinduce greater interest inamodern market supervision
system iian wasapparently the case with thetariff system embodied in
Regulation (EEC)no.1174/68.
Thecomments made inprevious reports ontherepresentative
nature ofthestatistics used still apply .Only inthe case oftwo
Member States hastheinformation been based onalltransport operations
carried out .Fortherest ,ithasbeen obtained bySampling

and n.eth .od.3 ofextrapolation which vary from onecountry tothenext .
The7should therefore onthewhole beinterpreted ,with caution ."
Also ,toprevent anymisinterpretation ofthis report ,special
attention should ,bedrawn tothefact that' ,when thereport was
published ,thesituation inthemarkets concerned hadaltered radically
compared vrith the "average "situation in1974 ,insofar asanysuch
situation canbesaid tohave existed .Thegeneral recession inthe
economy oftheMember States didnothave itsfull effect onthetransport
markets until well into 1975 *Atthebeginning of1974 andalmost
throughout thesecond sixmonths ofthat year ,theinternational markets
forthecarriage ofgoods canstill beconsidered tohave been normal .It
istherefore probable that thedata given inthis report donot inanyway
correspond tothepresent position (endof1975 )asregards markets and
rates .
II.ANALYSIS OFIjTFOEHATlOH PITRAT'JIS "
2. Thefollowing table hasbeen drawn upinconformity with the
model used intheprevious reports .Inorder tofacilitate comparisons ,
thedata aresetoutside byside .Thefigures incolumn (a)refer to
1973 andthose incolumn (b)to1974 »
Aquestion mark inacolumn indicates that theexperts have
notbeen able toestablish thefigure concerned .Adash signifies the
absence oftraffic .

-4-
Breakdown oftransport operations within andoutside tariff "brackets
CAIÏRI3RSI
Transport operations
within tariff "bracketsTransport operations
under special contracts
Percentage
oftransp .
operations
1Average
rates .,
2Percentage
oftransp .
operations
3Average
.rates
''4
L
a) b);I
&)'I» a)t) a)
1.BDÎISLUX-Tn /^PIC ΓΓΊ
-Belgian I97,4 97,8 85,1 93,8 j2,6 !2,2 ,64,1 69,8
|–Luxembourg 97,- 90,8 78,-86,- 3,- 9,2 67,5 73,6
-Dutoh 100,-100,-85,-88,-
i
2.GERMLN-B3LGIM•»I
iI
I
TRilFFIC
r-German 69,3 72,6 82,9 83,8 30,7 27,4 61,-59,7
-Belgian I92,3
I «'87,8
•i•76,485,3 j.7,7 12,2 !61,6 .61,8
3•'G3RIIAIT-PEB3IICH
I
TRAPFICs
.»
I
I•-German • II86,3 87,7 84,-84,8 13,7 12,3 60,5 61,6
-French " 88, 90,2 ,85,5 85,4 12,- 9,8•>Ί
4.GERMN -ITALIAN'i I
Iί
TRiiPPIGi
!.
-German 99,- 99,-j84,4 84,9 1,- I1,- Ii57,7 60,7
*Italian . ■ .
(100,-1Q0,-87,7 90,5I ■_
i
5.GERÎÎA.N -HJZ5Ï1B0URG\
\i
\ - ■
TRAFFIC
I-German 58,7 89,4 |82,8 84,5 41,3 I10,6 :62,1 65,5
j-Luxembourg' 92,4 94,3I80,-88 7,6 5,7 67,8 68,8
a)year 1973 b)year 1974
Λ

jTransport operations
■within tariff brack ytsTransport operations
vinder special contracts
czjbrct3iPercentageof-transp .-
|operations ••,Average
•ratesPercentage
oftransp ,•.
operationsùverage
rq,tes •
1 2LJ4
à) t) Ia)H­ a) a)I*>
•
6.GSniCÎT-DUTCH !Γr
TRAFFIC
?■;-German 64,7 68,7 83,3 84,4 35,3 31,3 57,5 59,4
Dutch . ' I7.0,- 77,-85,-|89,-
«3o,-I23,- •
>
<57,-62,-
'''i'•','' \
T.B^mO-FTSITCH , jl
I
:TTLIFFIG *■
t i-Belgian 89,5 I85,2 76,9 86,4 10,5 14,8 61,2 61,8
■-Frenoh
i ''
8.B3LG0-ITALÏAÎT79,6 87,1 80,4 86-1.I20,4
i
I •12,9 '-?
!
i4-:
TîLOTIC: ]i
» * '--Belgian I99,'798,9 82,4 :90,7 !P,3j 1,1 76.-70,1
-Italian •
i100,-100,085,6 |94,4I ;„
i'^ "V .T,
9.PPJItTC H-ITALIAHI
ï
'TRAFFIC ? ' •-*I- ■
I.
-French -
i ;-Italian92,2 95,1 86,9-–» 7,8 4,9•*?
100,-100,-!85,9 88,5ι
ii
.0-FKEUIC H-LUXEMBOURG
j "''i1 ''i ■ ■I4
iI
ι
i- tII
I I
-î-mFPIC . . ·ι
> i■■■•- i
•-•Frénoh!92,4 !.9δΗ83,5 86,5 ;•7,6 2,-
'•-Luxembourg 99,6jioo,-80,-88,- 0,4 75,-
LlJ FBEÎTC H-DUTCH1'
TRAPPIC ^ .
!-French r I' 68,-90,9 ^4,3 12,- 9,1•?
9
-Dutch►"· ιI ► I
!72,- 78,- '87H 28,- 22,- 57,-{63,-
a)year 1973 "b)year 1974
•/*

-5a-
iTrans port operations
(within tariff "bracketsTransport opérations
under spécial contracta
CiJlRXERS Percentage
oftransp ,
operationsAverage
ratesPercentage
oftransp ,
operationsAverage
rates
1L„23 I
!a) b)
Ia) |
ia)*>
.2.ITALL'JI-nJXEIiBOimGΓΊ
I ! i
TRAFFIC I
II
II
I
-Italian llOO ,- |100.-85,1 91,7I_
I
"Luxembourg 100 ,-100
101,-
I '90,-
I
I
.3.ITALIAN-DUTCHI
tI
If
I
II
i
TRAFFIC ' I
-Italian 100 ,-100 ,-85,1 90,5!-i_ i
-Dutch |100,-1 100 ,-86,-88.- - - " "
a)year 1973 b)year 1974

3« Although ,asindicated above ,care should betaken ininter –
pretir .,?thefigures shown inthetables asawhole ,andalthough
alio jrJLC.<: also bec.adc forthefact that .there .isnoweighting ; .
between thedifferent types oftransport ,thefollowing general
conclusions canbedrawn :
(i)"In1974 )except forthe'Belgian carriers ,,thenumber oftransport
operations carried outwithin thetariff brackets increased onmost
traffic links by'comparison with 1973 (there wasanextraordinary
increase intraffic between Germajyand Luxembourg -German hauliers )
Thesame -is'true ofthe -rates charged ,,which have gone upeven
I :'faster . _ x
(ii) Theopposite phenomenon wasnoted fortransport operations under
special contracts .Thenumber oftransport operations except for
j',■ theBplgian carriers fell considerably whilst theaverage level "
.ofrates rose only slightly .
> , ' :.«• . *• • :
Some experts would explain themovements noted asfollows :
-" Theperiod under review wascharacterized bytheenergy crisis
andinflation and ",towards the 1end ,bythe'first repercussions ofthe
increasingly market slowing down ofactivity inthetransport markets .
I'scons probable that under thepressure of theresulting rise incost
prices ,some transport operations previously carried outunder theterms
ofaspecial contract have afterwards been executed atrates charged
within the bracket .
Where special contracts were concerned ,although there wasa
quite significant fall inthenumber oftransport operations ,the
average rates rose only slightly .Theexplanation forthis isthat the
sector operates with long–term contracts incorporating substantial
reductions inrates .

-7-
Itisnoticeable that in1974 »with only oneexception ,for
transport operations theaverage level ofrates charged within the
brackets remained at10%andmore below theupper limit .Inspite of -the
very lively demand forgoods transport services intheprofessional
sector .,which wascharacteristic ofthemarket situation atthebeginning
oftheperiod covered bythereport ,thepublished maximum .limits
apparently didnot pull transport rates uptotheauthorized maximum
following therise incost prices .However ,itispossible that during
thesecond half of1974 "therecession affecting allsectors ledtoa
slight lowering ofthegeneral average .Furthermore ,thequestion
which hasbeen asked ever -since theintroduction oftariffs ,namely
whether and towhat extent tariffs maybeincreased inparallel with
increasing cost prices andinspite ofthesituation onthemarket ,
wasnotanswered in1974 since thegovernments took nodecision onthis
point despite certain insistent andrepeated requests from the
professional organizations .
4. Theinformation provided bysome experts ongeneral trends in
rates charged either within thebrackets orfortraffic asawhole
corroborates thegeneral picture which emerges from thetables .
TheGerman experts noted that in1974 theoverall level
ofthe :rates charged byGerman transport operators settled at$4»5%
oftheupper -limit ofthebracket ,compared with 83.7% in1973 *
.TheItalian experts recorded anaverage level of90«47% »
compared with 85.87% in1973j forundertakings intheir country ,which ,
isequivalent toa5«4% increase .Intheir opinion this increase ,
which wasnecessary inview ofrising costs ,might have been even
larger had itnotbeen counteracted byforeign competition .

This point should benoted ,since atfirst sight one might beinclined
tobelieve that Italian undertakings ,which work in <1relatively "weak "
currency ,are net subject toheavy pressure from competitors inthe other
Member States .Italso goes toshow thepositive effects ofthe pro­
gressive interlocking ofall aspects ofthe international transport markets
ofthe Community .
The Dutch experts came tothe same conclusion 011the "basis of
the average rates actually charged bytheir national transport operators
onthe various traffic links .They have recorded the following levels
for the two years shown :im A2H
Bénélux 35 88
Netherlands -Germany 85 89
Netherlands -Prance 02 87
Netherlands -Italy 86 88
The experts feel that the explanation for therelatively moderate
increase inthe rates applied could bethat in1970 thebilateral tariffs
were set too high ,andthat moreover ,pressure ofcompetition prevents
road transport operators from fully reflecting intheir rates the trend in
cost prices .
For 1974 the "e"1rrir .experts noted afairly large increase of
about 9*4/3inrates charged .Thelargest increase wasrecorded '.for the
Benelux tariff where itwasashigh as9«7% andledtothehighest level
(93.8%)onallthetraffic links checked .Asitisaquestion ofan
average figure ,itseems that incertain cases the upper limit ofthe
bracket has been exceeded .Inthis connection itshould benoted -that the
Benelux tariff isthe lowest ofall thetariffs established pursuant to
Regulation (EEC)no.1174/68.
Moreover ,these experts consider that thereduction ofthe operations
carried out within the bracket islikely toshow that ,before the effects of
the economic recession ,certain carriers have rationalised their transport
offers inorder tocarry them out onthe basis ofspecial contracts .

TheFrench experts noted aslight increase inthegeneral level
ofrates forthetraffic asawhole carried outbyFrench hauliers .Ithas ,
indeed ,settled at86.5%oftheupper limit in1974 compared with 85.5%in
1973 .Although ontheonehand ,aconsiderable number oftransport operations
have been carried outunder tariff conditions ,thereduced demand towards
theendof1974 ,theincreased competition resulting therefrom aswell as
thenon-adaptation ofthelevels ofrates have been equally important
factors leading tothedecrease .Asaresult ,therates charged in1974
bytheFrench hauliers ,expressed inconstant terms ,have deteriorated
considerably . , \
5. Some experts provided additional information onrates charged
under special contracts andtheir percentage oftotal traffic .Inorder to
interpret these comments andthecorresponding figures correctly ,itshould
beremembered that thedata refer totariffs which ineach case areexpressed
inthenational currency .Thareference torates charged inside andoutside
the "national "brackets does nottake into account theenlarging ofthe
bracket-spread following themovements inmonetary parities since the
introduction ofthesystem ,which ofcourse have widened ,incertain cases ,
thespread from the23%originally laid down bytheRegulation toalmost
50$.
TheGerman experts noted that theaverage level ofrates charged
under special contracts increased slightly in1974 andsettled at6Cff0of
theupper limit ofthebracket .Fortherest ,thenumber oftransport
operations carried outunder contract inthat year fell by13*4% andtheir
share oftheoverall volume oftransport operations fell from 21.7 "to18$
and tended tostabilize atthis level .

-10-
TheBelgian experts ,fortheir part ,noted that faced with
the worsening recession ,the Belgian hauliers tried increasingly ,during
the second half of1974 ,"tosecure traffic "bymeans ofspecial contracts
and "byturning toproviders ofservices ancillary totransport .
TheItalian experts state that ,thanks tothe existence of
asystem ofquantity rebates within thetariffs with theother Ilemlaer
States ,theItalian hauliers did not conclude anyspecial contracts in
1973 and 1974 .

-11-
III.SPSCIFIC IMFORIIilTIOI'T CQNC3HMIHG C5RTAIH ASPECTS OFTL'iRIPICATIOlT
6,Division oftransport operations' "bycategories and tonnages
;i ;During thetwoyears covered bythistable thetransport j
'operations practised "byGerman hauliers canbebroken down as ■j
•follows (inf>) | | f ! I •.f:.,--
!» •-* ■ -Ï 7-ï S :i . Ï .ï 1
I
Traffio
i ï! bycategories fc-3 !
- bytonnago !<
; I II ■III5M7t lot 15t 20t
I–i– ;– , ■.1iBelgium
?•
France
-,* - ...
■T' .S'J.V fr\ iHlrr ' T:•
■I
Italy -
y
!
?
Luxembourg
u
Eothorlaiids
average $ ;1973
197435.1
28.249,9
53,9γ9,1
10.45,9
;7.57,7
7.721,9
15,413,3
13,712,6
13,2.44,5
50,0
Γ '™ 1
1973
b-97421,9
22,852,0
52,817,0
16,09,1
8,44.6
4.78,7
8,511,6
12,511,0 j11,564,1
62,8
1973
197425,2
25,864,5
59,3■7,3
9,92,5 '
5,0 ;3,4
3,37,0
7,09,7
10,ç11,4
10,6
I68,5
69,1
1973
197416,9
14,029,9
22,936,6
42,516,6
20,64,5
4,36,7
5,79,0
8,011,6
9,268,2
72,8
1973 j
p-97418,3
20,649,1
47,513,9
14,618,7
17,35,3
5,18,5
8.89,7
10,614,3
13,862,2
61,7
L973
L97424,7
23,953,-
52,713,3
13,99,0
9,5 5,1 |11,3
9,511,2
11,7
i12,0
12,060,3
61,7
Itisinteresting tonote from these statistics the increase
inoperations carried out during 1974 asshown under categories III
and IVo,swell asinthe 10and 20t columns .

-12
The data furnished for the Belgian hauliers are asfollows :
ITraffic I1ι
bycategories |' "bytonne ,go j
I II iIII IV
1?t |lot
lI
I15t 20t I
BénéluxF
t
II
1973 14,4 29,7 36,7 19,2 5,4 13,7 12.8 66.2
1974 10,8 30.0 40.5 18,7 1,9 4,7 7,lJ10,3 [76,° I
iGermany Ί
1973 17,4 44,7 27,7 10,2 2,5 5,4 10,9 15,1 66,1
1974 16,5 46,0 23,8 13,7 2,7 5,2 11,4 12,9 67,8
prance -
1973 14,3 34,7 37,5 13,5 1,9 4,5 8,5 14,5 70,6
1974 / I16,2 32,4 15,1 1,7 3,9 9,9 14,2 70,3
Italy
1973 25,5 52,4 18,4 3,7 0,1 0,9 6,3 9,7 83,0
J1974
I 11 1 1 11 1 ■ 1|23,8
à52,3 I19,0 !4,9 I0,6 1,4 7,0 !2,4 II78,6
Owing totechnical difficulties ithas been impossible to
include inthetable above information concerning French hauliers for
1973 -Theinformation istherefore given for 1974 only .

■-13-
TRONIC •bycategories bytonnage
1 I|II'|
iiIII
i -i.iv.
15t 7t !
iîot15tJ20t
Germany 29,4 48,5 1I14,4 7,7 6,7 6,5 17,0 10,3 59,6
[Belgium 29,5 '36,3 24,4 •9,9 5,2 -9,0 15,3 -9,4 61,2
Italy 36,4 41,5 14,8 7,3 5,7 7,4 14,2 10,9 61.8
[Netherlands 29,1 50,0 13,5 7,4 5,0 9,5 11,5 7,8 66,1
ILuxembourg 16,6 26,4 35,8 21,2 6,8 4,7 7,8 7,8 73,0
average % 31,9 43,6 17,1 [8,2 5,9 I7,6
i15,4 10,0 61,2
TheItalian experts have furnished the following information :
TRAFFIC j
Ibycategories
i! bytonnage
LJ
I II n
iIII IVI5t
L7t lot l5t 20t .
––––––
Germany 1
1973
197419,02
!19,3557,69
55,1314,25
14,28 ;9,04
11,191,49
1,614,38
4,5110,08
9,8438,58
35,4945,47
47,55
Belgium
1973
1974[
20,22
20,0156,73 j
56,20 !13,76
13,8s9,29
9,971,60
1,584,96
4,3210,62
10,2136,13
35,2849,69
48,61
France
1973
197422,04
21,8355,74
56,2815,40
14,956,82
6,943,90
4,2111,43
11,2014,44
15,2133,12
32,1037,11
37,28
Netherlands
1973
197422,71
22,3158,58
58,7911,61
11,887,10
7,021,98
2,127,42
6,9812,03
12,8836,61
37,2141,96
40,81
Luxembourg
1973
197421,65
22,1057,95
57,1512,67
13,71
l .7,73
7,042,27
2,036,51
6,7312,97
12,5035,75
33,68v.."
42,50
45,06
average %
1973
197421,01
21,12I
57,34
56,72|13,54
13,738,11
8,432,25
2,316,94
6,7412,03
12,1336,03
34,9542,75
43,87

-14-
Thefigures given below (%ofthetotal )have teen established
for theDutch transport operators :
Category ofgoods Tonnage
I II III IV 5t 7t- lot 15t 20t
1973 11 43 31 - 15 2 4 8 15 .71
1974 11 44 30 '15 2 •4 '9 1471
7. These tables confirm theobservation made inprevious years ,namely
that themajority oftransport operations fall into categories IIandIII ,
Inaddition ,theeconomic recession hascaused transport operations in
category Itodecline whilst atthesame time operations under category IV
expanded .
Thereduction inthevolume ofhigh value goods isprobably a
reflection ofthegeneral weakening oftheeconomy andinternational trade .
Theexplanation fortheincrease incategory IVtransport operations maybe
that international road transport operators have succeeded ,intheface of
falling demand ,inrecovering some traffic from competing methods oftransport .
Asregards tonnage categories , .theclear predominance ofthe20t
category hasbeen' maintained (about 60toJOfoexqept forItalian transport
operators whqse fleets have ,ingeneral ,smaller unit-load capacities ).By
contrast ,5and 7"tloads represent only afairly small proportion ofall
transport operations registered .
.Theforegoing corroborates thewidely held opinion that asimplified
I
andyetviable tarifioation .could quite easily bedevised onthebasis ofa
classification ofgoods providing only twocategories (manuf actured goods
giving rise tothenonpal transport obligations andgoods subject tolesser
obligations ),andatonnage system adding atonnage category of25tonnes to
allow forthe -larger vehicles nowbeing used .Therequired differentiation
inthis general system could beachieved bymeans ofspecial tariffs aJid
contracts ;

-15
8.Involvement of trrTifc-port auxHi-c..rics
Some experts could not provide the complete comparative '
data for 1973 and 197 1*,broken down ,both ,according totraffic and,
according totherates within the bracket and under the system
ofspecial contracts . , , •
Astothe operations carried out bythe German hauliers ,
the involvement of -tr^ioport auxiliaries - - ~
'isasfollows (in%ofthe number oftranspqrt operations )I
TRAFFIC %OF TRANSPORT OPERATIONS
UNDER TARIFF CONDITIONS%OFTRANSPORT
i OPERATIONS UN5ER
I SPECIAL CONTRACT
BELGIUM
1973
1974;53,2
*53,6 ,Ï
18,7
"17,7
FRANCE
1973
1974 • '40,7
40,69,5
10,2
ITALY
1973 ;
1974 -37,0
33,8 • '75,0 (x)
75,0 (*)...
LUXEMBOURG
1973
197if i43,8
58,3 -<
»t
' ' *Z
0,2
2,1
NETHERLANDS
1973
197 1*34,5
37,511,3
27,1
%total
1973 .
1974– 1
M,7
41,6:. ..j.f ■
i
13,4 ■'
20,2 ! i
■*.– I.-itmi■I
(x)Itistobenoted that thetransport operations carried outunder special
contracts arerepresenting only 1%ofthetotal traffic . •/•

AstoBelgian hauliers *thecomparison between theyears 1973 and
1974 isasfollows :
TRAFFIC %oftransport operations ;%ofoperations under !
I ■ j.under tariff conditions Jspecial contract
BENELUX .
1973 21,3 46,0
1574 ÏI.2 I 40.8
IGERMANY
1973 ^ 52.8 53,3
197445,6 _____
FRANCE
1973 39,4 67,5
tl27i __ L ;_3.6,8 _ ..._■ I 58,3 ;
KTALY. . |
i Ί
1973 • 49,6
H974 JI 42^2 ! L. ..3.1,s
TheBelgian experts have ,inaddition ,furnished data permitting
acomparison tobemade between thesecond half 6f1972 ,aperibdf
which hadnotyetbeen affected bytheenergy crisis andtherecession ,
and thesecond half of1974 .
TRAFFIC ■%oftransport operations
under tariff conditions%ofoperations under
special contract
BENELUX
26*half 1972 ;»
2S3half 197412,1 ' '
41,4i
30,- :
. 36,4
1– - --■
SERMANY
Λ52.5
49.6f
30,- . ■j
.66,8
FRANCE
•• <37.6
37.7i
62,-
•59,6
ITALY -
! 65,2
51,5 33,3

Following technical difficulties which have already been
mentioned the French experts have only been able toprovide informa­
tion concerning operations undertaken under tariff conditions and
for 197^only .
TRAF ""' %INVOLVEMENT OFTRANSPORT
AUXILIARIES . "" " ■'"
GERMANY
BELGIÏÏM
ITALY *
NETHERLANDS
LUXEMBOURG40^ v:; . ;
30,1
43.0
33.1 ""
26,4
%total 37v8

-18-
For 1973 and 1974 thepercentage involvement of
transport .auxiliasrtfcar 1in"the -^sjsbrati onscarrl edT^
outbytheItalian hauliers is'asfollows :
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS UN5ER TARIFF CONDITIONS
BELGIUM •
1973 44,10
1974 * 45,06
(SERRANT ~
1973 51,56
[197452,-15
FRANCE
1973 52,89
1974 52,28 ï
LUXEMBOURG . ,
1973 47,10
1974 48,55
NETHERLANDS
1973 51,17
I1974 50,78
f&total
1973 49,36
1974 49,69
Ashasalready been pointed outpreviously ,Italian hauliers
didnotconclude anyspecial contract during theperiod under
review .
Moreover tduring thetwoabove mentioned years ,only 20%
oftheoperations practised byinvolvement of
/

transport attxiliariare , .had been carried out byapplying the special
bracket provided forthis transport category .
The Dutch experts have ,because ofthe nature ofthe sample
surveys ,only been able tofurnish information according totraffic
and asconcerns 1973 »for the second half only .The information
concerns only operations undertaken within the bracket .
TRAFFIC LINKS |
: ii
1973 197^
BENELUX - 17 % 16 %
K3ERMANY 29 % 31 % :
FRANCE % %
ITALY 29 % 29 %

-20-
9. Implementing réductions for large quantifies i
The Benelux tariff applicable totransport operations between
Belgium t,theNetherlands and Luxembourg ,andthebilateral tariffs between
Italy andtheoriginal Member States include provisions for areduction
where the consignor undertakes toconsign tothe' transport operator a
specified quantity ofgoods over aperiod of90consecutive days .
In1974 "the German transport operators intheir traffic with
Italy ,performed 10,972 transport operations (9,OTfo )under this system
ofreductions forlarge quantities compared with 5»570 operations (5,81$ )
1
in1973 .
The following table shows the transport operations carried out by
Italian carriers ($oftotal number oftransport operations ):
im im
Italy -Belgium 5.55 5.80
Italy –Germany 6.58 7.66
Italy –France 4.30 4.75
Italy -Netherlands 5.88 6.29
Italy –Luxembourg – -
TheItalian experts attribute the decline inall types oftraffic
totherise incost prices ,which leaves noleeway for allowing the
transport operators togive total reductions provided for within thetariff
brackets .
The Dutch experts have recorded amovement inthe opposite
direction *Whilst in1973 "theprovision wasapplied toJ°/oofallBenelux
traffic and 11%oftraffic between theNetherlands andItaly ,these figures
were 8and 14$respectively in1974 *

-21-
IV.GENERAL CCMMEBTS
\
1. 'Market trends during theperiod covered bythis report have not
prompted anyspecific comments from theexperts onthefunctioning ofthe
tariff system .Thereason forthis silence could befound inthefact that
thedemand fortransport inresponse tothevolume ofproduction and
trade hasnotyetreflected theeffects ofthedownturn ofthestate
ofthemarket which hadalready clearly appeared in1974 *Following the
normal time–lag ,therecession wasonly felt attheendof1974 andat
thebeginning of1975 in field -oftheroad haulage ,
Theconsequences ortheabsence ofconsequences ofthis sharp
downturn inthestate ofthemarket upon thetariff system cantherefore
without doubt only beanalysed inthenext annual report .Aninteresting
question could then beexamined astowhether and towhat extent an
obligatory tariff system islikely ,specifically inmarkets suffering
from arecession toencourage discipline over rates within oneform of
transport andtoserve asabasis fordiscussions between transport under­
takings andusers *Thevalidity ofthe'answer tothis question depends
inanycase onthepossibility ofimproving thequality andthequantity
ofthestatistical data ,tofill ingaps inobserving themarkets andto
improve themethod ofinterpretation ofthestatistics .
TheGerman experts reiterated their view asregards theperiod
covered that thecompulsory tariff system introduced byRegulation no.1174/68,
andthepublication ofspecial contracts have ledtogreater stability
intheformation *ofrates andgreater market transparency .Intheir ,
opinion ,thetariff system provided forintheRegulation isoperational .
Itspositive effects could ,however ,still beimproved upon ,inparticular
bysimplifying tariff structures anddrawing uprate schedules which areas
faxaspossible notsensitive tofluctuations inrates ofexchange .

-22-
TheFrench experts hold analmost diametrically opposite view .
According totheir findings ,thetariffs have notfulfilled expectations .
They consider this set "back tobedue tothefact that control leaves
much tobedesired andthat ,because oftheeconomic situation andgeneral
economic policy ,itisimpossible toadjust tariff levels totrends in
costs .Instead ofsupporting transport undertakings intheformation of
their rates ,thetariffs have held back anddistorted developments in
transport rates .Because ofthis theprofitability oftheundertakings has
notonly notimproved but ,onthecontrary ,hasbeen subject tothe
increasingly unfavourable influence ofthegrowing gapbetween cost prices
and the tariff level .
2. While notinsisting onadaptation ofthetariff level ,the
Italian experts have renewed their request foritsrevision especially
with theaimofeliminating thenegative effects ofadjustments tothe
monetary parities andthus tore-establish brackets equivalent to23^
incurrency terms .
TheChairman considers that only byusing aunit ofaccount would
itbepossible atpresent ,ifnottoresolve theproblem ,atleast
appreciably toreduce it.Thenewunit ofaccount oftheEuropean Communities
would betheappropriate tool .
3. As,atleast from thepolicy point ofview ,ithasbeen established
since December 1974 that thetariff system inRegulation no.1174/68would
notbeapplied totraffic between andwith thenewMember States ,the
Chairman asked theexperts whether theexistence side-by –side ofcompulsory
bracket tariffs and aprocess offormation ofrates without anyintervention
bytheauthorities hadhadanynoticeable effect ontheinternational trans­
port market intheCommunity .
Thesomewhat sketchy replies given bysome experts suggest that no
negative consequences have been recorded .Apart from this general finding ,
attention should bedrawn tocertain viewpoints .

-23-
The United Kingdom experts feel that there isnothing tomake tnem
orUnited Kingdom economic circles (operators andusers )alter their view
that theunrestricted formation ofrates is,from every point ofview ,more
efficient than the complex andrigid tariff system embodied inthe
Regulation .
TheIrish experts indicated that ,asfar asthey knew ,the •
divergent opinions ofIrish road hauliers and shippers onthe subject
ofcompulsory tariff systems had not changed .
The Dajiish experts found nodisadvantages inthere being two
systems for forming rates ,certainly notinthe freedom enjoyed bytheir
own undertakings .
The French experts adopted amore subtle position and,like the
Belgian experts ,said that since itwaspossible tonegotiate special
contracts ,there was inpractice nogreat divergence between the degrees
offreedom inthe formation ofrates inthe various markets .
Thereply ofthe German experts isinteresting inthat they point
out that unrestricted formation ofrates isnot authorised for traffic
between the Federal Republic ofGermany and the new Member States since
theundertakings (road hauliers andshippers )areobliged toapply the
domestic German tariff forthat part ofthe route lying within Germany
(Reichskraftswagentarif –motor vehicle tariff )andtoclaim orpayan
appropriate transport rate forthat part ofthe route which runs through a
foreign country .
4. Conclusion
The findings ofthe Committee ofExperts and the conclusions drawn
from them are most valuable forthe development ofapolicy fortransport
rates inthis sector aswell asforthe carriage ofgoods ingeneral .
Asthe organisation ofthe Community 'stransport markets is
atpresent thesubject ofdiocuccicnj itwould beappropriate ifall
interested parties would take note ofthis report .