31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/51 
implementation of the new provisions, so that their 
benefits will be accessible even to those who, for purely 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee expressed reservations about 
the aforementioned Commission proposal in its 
Opinion of 2 June 1988 (2), because not enough infor­
mation had been provided about the real reasons for 
the amendments. It therefore announced its intention 
to produce an additional Opinion, which would deal 
mainly with the new proposals amending Regulation 
(EEC) No 3820/85 and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The basic aim of the Commission's proposed 
amendments of 24 March 1988 [doc. COM(88) 21 final] 
is to eliminate the difficulties which have supposedly 
arisen with regard to the interpretation and monitoring 
of Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) 
No 3821/85—which did not enter into force until 29 
September 1986—and also with regard to cooperation 
(') OJ NoC 116,3.5. 1988, p. 15. 
(2) OJ No C 208, 8. 8. 1988, p. 26. technical reasons, are unable to comply with the dead­
lines. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
between Member States on this matter. To support its 
case, the Commission lists a number of reasons, which 
do in fact go beyond this limited objective and call to 
question the very substance of the Regulations. 
2.1.1. Even after giving further careful consideration 
to the purpose of the technical adjustments to the social 
legislation governing Community road transport it is 
not clear to the Committee why Regulations (EEC) 
No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 are to be amended. 
It considers that the new definitions for driving periods, 
breaks and rest periods will be of little use for the 
monitoring. The Commission will not achieve what it 
hopes to achieve; the new definitions will not benefit 
transport or social policy and do not make any sense 
in administrative terms. 
2.2. The Committee also fails to see the Commission 
proposals providing an indirect stimulus, which, in a 
roundabout way, might make for more social progress 
in Community road transport in the medium or long 
term or make the social legislation easier to accept. Additional Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and 
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport i}) 
(88/C 337/17) 
On 11 May 1988 the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third 
paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The section for transport and communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 October 1988. The rapporteur 
was Mr von der Decken. 
At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988), the Committee adopted the 
following Opinion by a large majority with 1 abstention. 
No C 337/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
2.3. The Committee considers that the proposed 
amendments are not suitable for eliminating or even 
alleviating the problems involved in observing and 
monitoring the social legislation. Therefore it cannot 
endorse these amendments even though it has advo­
cated (*), and still advocates (2), the objective and a 
number of measures for simplifying, streamlining and 
standardizing the monitoring of the legislation. 
The Committee's own recommendations of 27 February 
1985 were accepted by both the European Parliament 
and the Commission as a reasonable basis for more 
effective enforcement. The Economic and Social Com­
mittee stands by these recommendations and calls for 
them to be re-introduced. 
2.4. The reasons for the Committee's response are 
as follows: 
2.4.1. The Commission has undoubtedly attempted 
to obtain from the Member States all the information 
required for pinpointing the real reasons for the alleged 
difficulties with regard to the social legislation. Never­
theless, according to the Committee, there is a decisive 
gap in information available about the whole problem 
so that the significance of the Commission's new initiat­
ive cannot be assessed in full. 
The two Regulations did not enter into force until 
29 September 1986 and have not yet been fully 
implemented in all Member States. The Commission's 
reports so far about the application of the social legis­
lation and its consequences therefore do not provide a 
full picture for the Community as a whole; they are 
also of little use for a conclusive appraisal of the legal 
situation and the position with regard to competition 
because their statistics are based on data from 1984 and 
1985, prior to the Regulations' entry into force. The 
Committee considers this in particular to represent a 
failure to pinpoint the problem; it is therefore unable 
to deduce why provisions which did not enter into force 
until 1986 have to be amended again after only one and 
a half year. 
2.4.2. The Committee also thinks that there are no 
factual or policy reasons for the technical revision of 
the social legislation at this stage: 
(!) Simpler, more efficient and uniform checks were called for 
by the Committee in its Opinion of 27 February 1985 on the 
proposal amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 543/69 (OJ 
No C 104, 25. 4. 1985, p. 4). 
(2) Its approval of and views on the objective of implementing 
uniform checks in all Member States as quickly as possible 
have been voiced by the Economic and Social Committee, in 
particular in its most recent Opinion on the proposal for a 
Council Directive on the uniform application of Regulations 
(EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 (Opinion of 2 June 
1988, p. 2). — Legally justifiable reasons, e.g. the need for more 
equality before the law (same legal status), greater 
legal certainty or improved administrative pro­
cedures, are not quoted by the Commission as being 
to blame for the difficulties. The Committee cannot 
therefore understand the legal reasons for the Com­
mission's move. 
— Policymaking reasons e.g. more protection of legal 
rights or of occupational health and safety, 
improved road safety or a better competitive footing 
for smaller carriers and their drivers are hardly 
taken into consideration or are merely mentioned 
as background. 
— The concerns of interested parties are also not an 
apparent reason. At any rate the section is not aware 
of any current moves on the part of trade unions or 
employers' associations to amend the Regulations 
along the lines proposed by the Commission. 
— There is also no clear justification to be found for 
the new technical proposals in the programme for 
the completion of the barrier-free Community mar­
ket. The sole aim of the proposals is to simplify the 
interpretation of social legislation, checking pro­
cedures and the exchange of information by authori­
ties, and the Commission can clearly think of no 
good reason why the proposals should represent a 
major contribution towards the completion of the 
barrier-free market. 
2.4.3. The Committee is definitely aware of the prob­
lems associated with the establishment of uniform and 
unifying social legislation in Community road trans­
port, but thinks that first of all the use of Community 
Directives (as proposed by the Commission) and 
national implementing provisions should and could be 
explored in full as a means of achieving the uniform 
interpretation which is required for monitoring pur­
poses. 
2.5. The Committee agrees basically with the Com­
mission that uniform, clear and applicable provisions 
with regard to driving periods, breaks and rest periods 
are required in a common barrier-free market. If legis­
lation is to be applied properly, it must be simple 
enough to be monitored and enforced uniformly and 
effectively 
2.6. However, this means standardizing the measures 
which make the monitoring effective and provide for 
sanctions. It is not only legally self-evident and vital for 
the monitoring procedures but also necessary for the 
social legislation per se to have uniform powers to 
impose sanctions which are governed by the same or 
comparable stipulations. The Committee would there-
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/53 
fore stress once again that technical provisions which 
are adopted for monitoring purposes lose their real 
meaning if no provision is made for appropriate sanc­
tions and bodies with sufficient powers. This is missing 
at the moment in the Commission's proposals and is 
thus a point against them. 
2.7. The Commission also does not refer to the con­
nections between driving and rest periods and the safe­
guarding of health when making out its case for its new 
technical provisions. However, this matter will be of 
fundamental importance in the Committee's view when 
questions relating to working conditions in road trans­
port are eventually voted on in a barrier-free Com­
munity market. One question which should be discussed 
in due course is to what extent the uniform restriction 
of working hours might serve road safety and occu­
pational health and safety. It is impossible to imagine 
a barrier-free Community market in which working 
hours are not regulated. 
2.8. After weighing up the factual and political argu­
ments for and against the Commission's legal proposals, 
the Committee thinks it would be wise to comment on 
a number of details in the proposed Regulation. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
3.1.1. For the Committee, the main proposal being 
made is that each driver should work a moveable week. 
The moveable week worked by the driver is to be a 
period of seven consecutive days which no longer 
coincide with the calendar week. Each driver is to be 
bound individually by this general concept. 
3.1.2. The Committee thinks that the present defi­
nition of a week in Article 1 (4) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3820/85 is clear and should not be changed. This 
norm is practical and recognized worldwide; it seems 
to be acceptable to both sides of industry and complies 
with convention 153 of the International Labour Organ­
ization (ILO), which however has not been ratified by 
the EC Member States. The introduction of a moveable 
rolling week would merely create confusion and give 
drivers two weekends, viz. the weekend belonging to 
the normal calendar week and the weekend which is 
part of their moveable driving week. In the long run 
this may be to the disadvantage of drivers 'and crews' 
working and private lives. 
The moveable week also reduces the flexibility which 
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 was meant to introduce. 
For example, — rest not taken one week cannot be compensated for 
the following week because a weekly rest period 
which has not been taken may not be carried for­
ward to the following week, or 
— driving for the maximum permissible number of 
hours one week can reduce the time which may be 
spent at the wheel the following week. There is no 
way in which this can be justified in terms of road 
safety or occupational health and safety. Instead of 
the average 45 hours only 34 hours may be worked 
in such instances. 
Checking procedures would not be made any easier for 
the authorities. Drivers and crews want to stick to the 
calendar week. The Committee rejects the proposal not 
only for this reason but also because the calendar week 
is the unit of time generally adopted by shipping agents, 
customers and the authorities. 
3.2. Article 2 
The Committee also rejects the amendment to Article 
4 (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, because private 
carriers working for public authorities cannot be treated 
differently to private carriers with private customers. 
3.3. Article 3 
This new provision is the logical consequence of 
Article 1 and should accordingly be rejected. 
3.4. Article 5 
There is no recognizable need for this proposal, which 
is linked to the moveable driving week. 
3.5. Article 6 
The Committee supports the line taken in this proposal. 
The Directive presented by the Commission and already 
approved by the Section would achieve this. 
3.6. Article 7 
The annual report on the social regulation's implemen­
tation should be forwarded not only to the Council and 
the European Parliament but also to the Economic and 
Social Committee. 
3.7. Article 8 
This provision would certainly be endorsed as being 
appropriate and necessary for the monitoring if the 
No C 337/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
moveable week were considered desirable and advis­
able. However, it must be rejected since the Committee 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 
1. The Punta del Este declaration of 20 September 
1986, which launched the new round of multilateral 
trade negotiations, gave an important place to nego­
tiations in the agricultural sector. The course of the 
initial phases of the negotiations and the attitudes and 
proposals of the contracting parties concerning the 
conduct of the negotiations in the agricultural sector, as 
well as the deliberations at the major intergovernmental 
meetings, have tended to add to this importance. That 
is why the Committee with the ministerial meeting in 
Montreal in mind, considers it appropriate to make 
known its views on the conduct of these agricultural 
negotiations, it being understood that the general 
aspects of the multilateral trade negotiations, which 
concern also agriculture, are covered by the Committee 
Opinion on the current state and future prospects of 
the GATT/Uruguay Round negotiations (1). 
(') ESC of 29 September 1988 (OJ No C 318, 12. 12. 1988). regards the moveable week as being as retrogressive 
step if the aim is greater simplicity and flexibility. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
General points 
2. After two years devoted to identifying problems 
of presentation and to examining various proposals and 
objectives concerning the agricultural negotiations, the 
ministerial session scheduled for 4 and 5 December in 
Montreal would seem to be extremely necessary in 
order to draw up a balance sheet at the mid-way stage 
of the negotiations. 
This session should also be the occasion for finally 
entering into a genuine dialogue, for taking stock of 
the points on which convergence is discernible and, on 
the basis thereof, for mapping out, if possible, the broad 
outlines of negotiations in the coming two years aimed 
at establishing a better balance between supply and 
demand. 
3. In this connection it is necessary to reaffirm the 
principle that the negotiations form part of a whole, 
as laid down in the Punta del Este declaration: 'The 
launching, the conduct and thefimplementation of the 
outcome of the negotiations shaffl be treated as parts of 
a single undertaking.' Opinion on the current state and future prospects of the GATT/Uruguay Round negotiations 
as regards agriculture and the agro-food sector 
(88/C 337/18) 
On 31 May 1988 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph of 
Article 20 of its rules of procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the current state and 
future prospects of the GATT/Uruguay Round negotiations as regards agriculture and the 
agro-food sector. 
The section for external relations, trade and development policy, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on September 1988. 
The rapporteur was Mr Clavel. 
At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion.