No C 356/62 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on common rules for the international 
carriage of passengers by coach and bus (*) 
(87/C 356/16) 
On 7 May 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 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 11 November 1987. The rapporteur 
was Mr R. Bleser. 
At its 250th plenary session (meeting ,of 18 November 1987) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion with 3 votes against and 4 abstentions: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The 1957 Treaty establishing the EEC lays down 
the objective of achieving a common transport policy. 
Account is taken of the particular features of the trans­
port sectors by making provision for state intervention, 
e.g. by determining tariffs and restricting access to the 
market. 
1.2. The 1957 Treaty sets out the following objec­
tives for the common transport policy: 
— common rules for the establishment of freedom to 
provide transport services, and 
— approximation of conditions of competition. 
1.3. In all the measures taken by the EC to achieve 
these objectives, no solution was found to the problem 
of opening up national transport markets to non-resi­
dent carriers. This problem is particularly difficult to 
solve as the authorization of such cabotage transport 
operations may have undesired consequences which 
distort competition. 
1.4. A number of EC Member States therefore took 
the view that the conditions of competition applying to 
internal modes of transport had first to be aligned 
before freedom to provide transport services could be 
introduced. The EC Commission stepped up its work 
in the field of transport policy after the European 
Parliament had successfully brought an action against 
the EC Council of Ministers for a lack of activity in 
pursuing the common transport policy (European Court 
of Justice, Case No 13/83). 
1.5. The EC Commission thereupon submitted a 
white paper in June 1985 setting out detailed measures 
for completing the internal market. The main points 
with regard to transport were as follows: 
— freedom to provide passenger transport services by 
road was to be introduced in 1989, 
(') OJ No C 120, 6. 5. 1987, p. 9. — freedom to provide transport services throughout 
the EC was an important element in the transport 
policy set out in the EC Treaty, 
— the abolition of systematic safety checks—including 
those in respects of coaches and buses—at the Com­
munity's internal frontiers. 
1.6. The European Council then instructed the EC 
Transport Ministers to draw up a concrete programme 
of work. In November 1985 and June 1986 the EC 
Transport Ministers decided on a policy guideline 
whereby a free market in transport services without 
any quantitative restrictions was to be established by 
1992 at the latest. Under this decision distortions in 
competition would have to be removed in the tran­
sitional period. It should be noted that the Transport 
Ministers are not in agreement with regard to the 
removal of distortions in competition. Whilst some 
Transport Ministers are of the opinion that there can 
be no liberalization without harmonization, Transport 
Ministers of other states take the opposite view. They 
do not wish to consider such a linkage, believing that 
liberalization must be able to take place with or without 
harmonization. 
1.7. On the basis of the decisions taken by the EC 
Transport Ministers the Commission has submitted 
two new draft Regulations designed to enable bus and 
coach operators in the Member States to provide trans­
port services throughout the Community. In addition 
to the draft Regulation on common rules a second 
draft Regulation on cabotage has been submitted. The 
previous rules were based on the principle that transport 
operations starting in a particular Member State should 
continue to be open only to carriers resident in that 
state. 
1.8. In order to achieve freedom to provide services 
in international transport, rules will have to be intro­
duced to enable carriers from all Member States to 
have access, under certain conditions, to the market in 
international transport without restrictions based on 
nationality or place of establishment. 
1.9. The following amendments to the existing regu­
lations are being introduced in order to help open up 
the market: 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/63 
— outward journeys may be made unladen, e.g. in 
order to pick up a group of passengers in another 
country, 
— passengers belonging to a group may be picked up 
at several places in the country of departure, 
— the provisions regarding excursions in destination 
countries are being relaxed, 
— the definition of a group is to be made more flexible. 
1.10. The Commission proposes administrative 
improvements to remove delays and difficulties in inter­
national travel by coach and bus. As an example, drivers 
will not have to be in possession of passenger lists. The 
procedure for granting authorizations for journeys is 
also being simplified. 
1.11. Special attention is being paid to safety with 
regard to coach and bus travel. The Commission is 
therefore proposing that the control document and 
authorization contain a timetable of driving and rest 
periods, that the powers of the competent authorities 
to monitor driving times be extended and that carriers 
involved in international transport be obliged to ensure 
that drivers and vehicles comply with national and 
international road safety laws. 
1.12. The new draft Regulation replaces the follow­
ing three existing Regulations: 
— Council Regulation (EEC) No 117/66 of 28 July 
1986 on common rules for the international carriage 
of passengers by coach and bus, 
— Council Regulation (EEC) No 516/72 of 28 February 
1972 on common rules for shuttle services by coach 
and bus between the Member States, 
— Council Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of 28 February 
1972 on common rules for regular services and 
special regular services by coach and bus between 
the Member States. 
2. General comments 
2.1. First impressions suggest that the implemen­
tation of the guiding principle, whereby the market in 
international transport is in future to be opened to 
carriers from all Member States without restrictions as 
to nationality and place of establishment, will clearly 
have major consequences for the economic situation of 
coach and bus operators and the social situation of 
those working in this sector, over and above the 'techni­
cal changes to the organization of transport services' 
referred to by the Commission. 
2.2. In the majority of EC Member States bus and 
coach companies are mainly small and medium-sized 
businesses. To gain access to the market in some Mem­
ber States it is frequently sufficient for undertakings to 
provide proof of a small starting capital. Hence the risk of overcapacity in these Member States as a result of 
the differences in the regulations governing access to 
the market. 
2.3. Supply already exceeds demand on some 
national passenger transport markets in the EC, leading 
to ruinous price competition with damaging effects on 
the working and social conditions of those employed 
in the industry. 
2.4. As an example, coach and bus transport in the 
form of occasional services is being offered at prices 
which barely cover operating costs. This is made poss­
ible by a readiness on the part of operators to commit 
infringements against legal provisions and contractual 
provisions with regard to driving hours and rest periods 
for drivers. 
2.4.1. In long-distance travel coaches and buses are 
sometimes used which do not fully meet the qualitative 
standards currently regarded as normal. 
2.4.2. This also has a bearing on general road safety. 
Checks on compliance with the EC social Regulations 
covering drivers engaged in road transport and on 
compliance with national rules concerning working 
hours have revealed a large number of infringements, 
including in the coach and bus sector. 
2.5. The following new provisions in the Com­
mission document give rise to the fear that competition 
may overshoot the mark in future: 
— greater flexibility with regard to shuttle services and 
the introduction of the 'reverse shuttle', 
— the extended scope of occasional services, 
— the opening of the markets for occasional services by 
freeing from the need for authorization all unladen 
journeys in relation to occasional services, 
— in practice, the examples referred to above will 
have a still greater effect as a result of the planned 
introduction of freedom to provide services (cabo­
tage). 
2.6. In order to prevent the abovementioned type of 
damaging consequences for coach and bus operators 
and their employees, the distortions in competition in 
the following fields should be removed and conditions 
in the EC Member States should be approximated as 
far as possible. 
2.6.1. Harmonization problems 
— Motor-vehicle taxation and fuel taxes 
There is a considerable variation in the levels of 
these taxes in the various Member States. 
— Turnover taxes 
Many European States levy a reduced rate of turn­
over tax on internal transport services. This, too, 
No C 356/64 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
provides competitive advantages to coach and bus 
operators providing services in their own country. 
— Repayment of prepaid tax in Europe 
The various methods of repayment used in the EC 
help to bring about further inequalities. 
2.6.2. Safety problems 
— Binding EC provisions governing the number of 
emergency exists to be fitted to coaches and buses 
should be introduced. 
— The strength of the bodywork of buses and coaches 
needs to be improved. Investigations should be car­
ried out to see whether the current Economic Com­
mission for Europe (ECE) rules can be made binding 
upon all EC Member States. 
— Legal provisions should be introduced with regard 
to the use of inflammable materials in the construc­
tion and interior fittings of coaches and buses. One 
example of such regulations are the French UTAC 
standards (regulations concerning the flammability 
of insulating materials, drawn up by the Motor 
vehicle and bicycle technical association (UTAC, 
Union technique de Pautomobile, du motocycle et 
du cycle)). 
— Standard EC anti-locking systems (ABS) should be 
specified for buses and coaches. 
— Furthermore, since the aim of opening up the mar­
kets is to provide customers with a better service, 
it is clear that standards of safety and comfort 
should be as high as possible. This means that there 
should be binding vehicle construction standards in 
the Community. 
2.6.3. Safety requirements to be met by 
carriers 
2.6.3.1. Besides the Community Directive, a stricter 
technical inspection of commercial vehicles should be 
prescribed in all the EC Member States. At present such 
an inspection exists only in some of the States. Uniform 
provisions should be introduced with regard to the type 
and frequency of inspections. 
2.6.4. Training of drivers 
2.6.4.1. In the interests of general road safety the 
Community should endeavour to achieve the highest 
possible level of driver training throughout the EC. 
Uniform provisions should be laid down with regard 
to the duration and the contents of the training courses 
leading to the award of driving licences for coach and 
bus drivers. Attention should be paid during the training 
to providing trainee drivers with adequate driving prac­
tice under realistic conditions. 
2.6.5. Monitoring of the methods and 
degree of implementation of the 
social provisions 
2.6.5.1. The resolution adopted by the Council of 
EC Transport Ministers on 20 December 1985 with 
regard to improved application of the social regulations 
in road transport should be implemented in the Member 
States. To this end, there is a need to: — increase the staff of the inspectorate. Each year it 
must be possible to inspect at least 30% of all 
vehicles and carriers, as the Commission originally 
proposed, 
— ensure that staff employed in the inspectorate are 
appropriately qualified. They should be provided 
with state-of-the-art equipment for carrying out 
their work. 
2.6.6. Level of sanctions for infringe­
ments 
2.6.6.1. A list should be drawn up setting out the 
sanctions to be applied for particular infringements. 
The findings contained in the Fourteenth Report of the 
EC Commission to the Council on the implementation 
of particular social provisions in road transport show 
that in 1984, in the ten EC Member States, sanctions 
were applied in only 7 % of the cases of infringements 
against the social regulations. 
2.6.7. Qualitative conditions for access 
to the profession 
'2.6.7.1. Provisions should be laid down governing 
access to the market throughout the EC. The require­
ments should include safety and efficiency in the case of 
the transport businesses and personal trustworthiness in 
the case of the entrepreneur. 
2.6.7.2. The proficiency test to determine whether 
an applicant has the technical qualifications required 
of bus and coach operators should be tightened up. 
2.6.7.3. The financial resources of carriers must be 
sufficient to ensure a high level of safety and service in 
bus and coach transport. 
2.6.7.4. The requirements that business operations 
be both safe and efficient should also not be regarded 
as having been fulfilled unless, for example, a transport 
undertaking has a yard or a workshop and sufficient 
vehicles and employees to meet its needs. 
2.7. Revoking of authorizations 
2.7.1. Authorizations are to be withdrawn from car­
riers in cases where the authorizing authorities establish 
that: 
-— the conditions set out under point 2.6.7 (qualitative 
conditions governing access to the profession of 
carrier) are no longer met, 
— public safety regulations are not observed, 
— there have been repeated serious infringements of 
the social or labour provisions laid down by law or 
in collective agreements. This applies in particular 
to infringements against the EC rules on driving 
and rest periods in road transport. 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/65 
2.8. Monitoring of the Regulation 3.3. Article 3 
2.8.1. The Committee calls for the introduction of a 
protective clause which would not only apply in the 
case of the authorization of carriers to enjoy freedom 
to provide services (Article 3(3)) but would also take 
account of overall disruptions in the market. 3.3.1. The Regulations governing access to the occu­
pation of bus or coach operator differ from Member 
State to Member State. The Member States themselves 
are to be left to lay down the criteria such as trust­
worthiness, solvency and professional suitability. 
2.8.2. The Committee is generally sceptical about 
whether it will be possible at all to monitor the various 
modes of transport. Already at the present time, sanc­
tions are regularly not applied in cases of infringements. 
3. Specific comments on the Articles 
3.1. Article 1 
3.1.1. So as to afford better protection for the pro­
fessional market, the use for reward of minibuses with 
seating for less than nine persons and cross-frontier 
travel by taxi should be examined separately. At the 
moment these forms of transport are not regulated 
adequately. 
3.1.2. Transit journeys through a third country 
should also be mentioned in the second indent. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. The definition of shuttle services is to be 
extended, thereby allowing firms in the Member States 
to offer extra services. However, a study should be 
carried out to see whether these extra services cannot 
be provided by existing firms. In some Member States 
there will probably be keen competition between, above 
all, carriers offering 'reserve shuttle' services (where the 
initial outward journey is an empty run). Steps must be 
taken to ensure that rival firms do not engage in 'fare 
dumping', thus jeopardizing the safety and quality of 
services. The term 'shuttle services' should be explained 
more clearly in the Regulation in respect of particular 
circumstances. 
3.2.2. It is no solution simply to define 'occasional 
services' as services other than regular or shuttle ser­
vices. There is a danger that precisely because of the 
unduly flexible definition of occasional services, many 
carriers will not register their journeys as shuttle ser­
vices. This risk is heightened by the provisions of Article 
2 (3)(d). A more accurate distinction should therefore 
be made between the definitions of 'shuttle services' 
and 'occasional services'. 
3.2.3. The meaning of 'with some degree of fre­
quency' in paragraph 3(b) should be clarified. The cases 
'where the route has to be altered in the course of a 
journey or the journey has to be interrupted' should 
also be spelt out. 3.3.2. The objective of the Council Directive of 
12 November 1974 (access to the occupation of carrier 
of passengers by road) was to lay down common rules 
in order to ensure that carriers were better qualified. 
The extent to which this 1974 Directive has been 
implemented in the individual Member States is not 
known. There is an absolute need to harmonize the 
conditions governing access to the occupation under 
the plan to deregulate the Community market in travel 
by ;bus and coach. Harmonization is also vital in the 
field of road safety. Construction standards for motor 
vehicles, the safety standards imposed on carriers (tech­
nical inspectorate) and driver training should be made 
uniform. 
3.4. Article 4 
3.4.1. The definition of occasional services has been 
extended. This will increase the openings for bus oper­
ators in the Member States. However, in the interest of 
fair competition, checks should be made to see whether 
these extra services could not be provided by existing 
firms. 
3.4.2. Because of the tight situation on markets in the 
Member States, it is to be feared that the deregulation of 
bus services in the Community will result in ruinous 
competitive practices and thus jeopardize the safety and 
quality of bus services. 
3.4.3. The types of transport referred to in Section 
II should be dealt with in the order in which the terms 
have been defined. 
3.5. Article 5 
3.5.1. In the main, the proposal states that occasional 
services are to be deregulated and shuttle and regular 
services are to be subject to authorization. 
3.5.2. The meaning of 'occasional services' should 
be spelt out, otherwise the other two terms will have 
no significance. 
3.5.3. In return for being obliged to obtain an autho­
rization, regular services are able to pick up and set 
down passengers at several points, while shuttle services 
can.'transport groups of passengers in succession. 
3.5.4. Occasional services should not encroach on 
the other two services for they are not subject to any 
No C 356/66 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
authorization. They must therefore engage in closed-
door group travel or operate round trips for individuals. 
3.5.5. Under no circumstances should they carry dif­
ferent groups on round trips (i.e. one group on the 
outward journey and another on the return journey). 
3.5.6. The application of the new rules will depend 
on the checks kept on occasional services. 
3.5.7. Consequently, the new rules will mean tighter 
checks if services subject to authorization are to be 
maintained. This presupposes some sort of protection 
from bogus occasional services. 
3.5.8. It is necessary to delete the reference to excur­
sions in Article 5 (2) (c) and add a new point (d) reading: 
'the 'optional' excursions possible under Article 2 
(3) (d)\ 
(The checking procedures for these 'national' services, 
which are only provided for passengers carried by the 
same undertaking, presuppose the issuing of an individ­
ual ticket bearing the undertaking's name). 
3.6. Article 7 
3.6.1. The number of places or areas served should 
be limited; it should not be possible to pick up and set 
down passengers anywhere, as the proposal states at 
present. 
3.7. Article 8 
3.7.1. The German text of paragraph 1 refers to 
'Verkehrsunternehmer' (transport operator), while the 
French text talks about Tentreprise de transport' (trans­
port undertaking). Another point which should be clari­
fied is the legal status of a temporary consortium of 
several undertakings or operators. 
3.7.2. The term 'gewisse verhaltnismafiige Auflagen' 
in paragraph 4 of the German text must be rephrased 
or brought into line with the French version. 
3.8. Article 11 
3.8.1. A list of criteria for what is meant by unfair 
competition should be drawn up. Above all, the fare 
charged for the service should serve as a yardstick. This 
fare must be based, among other things on the legal 
provisions governing bus safety and the legal and con­
tractual provisions governing staff working conditions. 3.8.2. Too much discretion is left to the authorizing 
authorities over the refusal of applications. In particular 
in the case of repeated serious breaches of legislation 
governing road and vehicle safety and driving and rest 
periods, consideration should be given to the need for 
automatic rejection. 
3.8.3. The very existence of a market in transport 
between Member States presupposes an appraisal of 
how individual routes (including existing services in 
transit countries) are affected. Hence the need to substi­
tute 'on the routes in question' for 'in the areas in 
question' in paragraph 2. 
3.9. Articles 12 and 13 
3.9.1. The deadlines for the authorization and arbi­
tration procedures should be shorter. 
3.10. Article 15 
3.10.1. Under the new proposal only the notification 
of the authorizing authority is required to operate reg­
ular services, whereas Directive 517/72/EEC also 
required the authority to examine whether the service 
which a firm was applying to operate was not already 
being provided satisfactorily under existing coach or 
bus schedules. The examination of whether or not there 
is a need for the new service should be retained in the 
interest of fair competition. 
3.11. Article 20 
3.11.1. To be added at the end of paragraph 3: 
'In the event of the application being refused, the 
authority shall state its reasons.' 
3.12. Article 22 
3.12.1. What is the meamng in Article 22 (2) of the 
phrase 'where demand for a special regular service has 
ceased to exist'? 
3.12.2. There is also a need to clarify in this connec­
tion whether the authorization is to lapse automatically 
if a firm runs into financial difficulties or goes bankrupt 
and how the legitimate interests of transport users are 
protected. 
3.13. Article 24 
3.13.1. There must be enough inspectorates or per­
sonnel to carry out the planned inspections. 
3.14 Article 33 
3.14.1. Approval of the Commission's proposal is 
dependent on the above general and specific comments 
being taken into consideration. It is highly unlikely 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/67 
from what has been said above that the Regulation can should be made to ensure that it enters into force at 
enter into force on 1 January 1988. However, efforts the earliest possible date. 
Done at Brussels, 18 November 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following point in the Section Opinion was deleted after the adoption of an amendment during the 
debate: 
Point 3.10.2 
Article 15 (3) (b) should'be deleted. 
Reasons 
In the Explanatory Memorandum of its proposal (doc. COM(87) 79 final), the Commission notes that Articles 
15 and 16 define the obligations towards passengers imposed upon a transport firm operating a regular 
service. The obligations in question are incombent upon all public service operators, including operators of 
regular services, so it is only normal that the authorization also specifies the fares and conditions of carriage. 
Voting 
Carried unanimously.