Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on a transparent system of harmonized rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads` () (98/C 407/19)

On 8 June 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 July 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Wright.

At its 357th plenary session on 9 and 10 September 1998 (meeting of 9 September) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes for, 1 vote against and 3 abstentions.

1. Gist of the Commission proposal

1.1. Current confusion in driving bans () often results in journeys being concentrated on a limited number of days which increases risks of accident, causes congestion and damages the environment - contradicting the very aim of a lorry ban.

1.2. The aim of the Commission's proposal is to harmonize rules at EU level so that hauliers may make the best use of logistical planning tools for their international transport operations. The bans, where adopted, only apply to a limited network of major international roads - the Trans-European road Network. On all other roads, and for all non-international traffic, Member States will continue to have the right to set whatever driving bans they wish.

1.3. The Commission therefore proposes for Member States that wish to have driving restrictions:

- a harmonization on the TENs road network of the time period i.e. Sunday 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (midnight in summer) in which restriction on international transport may be applied;

- a harmonization of the type of vehicles and transport operations exempt from driving bans;

- a system of notification: the Commission, on the basis of information provided by Member States will publish an annual report on bans for the forthcoming year.

1.4. Driving bans on trucks which exceed EU noise standards can also be imposed at night (between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.). A series of derogations is foreseen for exceptional circumstances where bans are justified.

1.5. A Member State may extend the bans on parts of the TENs network if it can justify the need on objective environmental, safety or social grounds. A Committee procedure has been created to examine such requests and there is a guarantee that the Commission will deal with all such requests within two months.

2. General Comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes with some reservations the proposed Directive. It will provide the basis upon which a fair and workable system of harmonized rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) involved in international transport on designated roads can be developed and applied.

2.1.1. Further, the Committee agrees with the Commission's fundamental argument that the present position with regard to restrictions on HGVs operating across the Community is untenable.

2.1.2. The Committee supports in principle the harmonized restrictions proposed in the Directive but has some reservations as to the effectiveness of the system by which they will be applied. Furthermore, the Committee would draw attention to the fact that, as currently proposed, the intention to harmonize the voluntary restrictions on HGV driving on the TENS network will, in all probability, only be applied by the seven Member States currently operating some form of driving restrictions. The Committee does not believe this is consistent with the long term objective of creating a 'level playing field` throughout the Community for the road haulage industry. Recognizing the practical difficulties involved and the lack of convincing data on the effects of driving restrictions, the Committee suggests the proposed Directive should be regarded as a first step towards achieving a genuinely harmonized, Community-wide position regarding the desirability or otherwise of driving restrictions on HGV traffic.

2.1.3. In view of the economic, social and environmental importance of the issues involved and the considerable weighting of public opinion in the question, the Committee calls upon the Commission to ensure the annual report on driving restrictions includes as much up to date research data as is practicable on the quantitative and qualitative effects of these restrictions.

2.2.1. As shown by the Commission's explanatory memorandum, the present position regarding restrictions on the operation of HGVs within the EU is both confusing and uneven. Seven of the fifteen Member States apply some restrictions mainly at weekends. In every case the decision to apply a restriction rests with the Member State. Looking at those applied by the seven Member States, we find different starting and finishing times and even different definitions of the vehicles to be covered. The position is further complicated by the differences in public holidays which apply across the Community in a mostly uncoordinated way thereby disrupting the planning of HGV journeys through certain Member States. Moreover, differing reasons are advanced by Member States for the need for such restrictions.

2.2.2. The existence of these restrictions, in effect, raises the costs of road haulage in member States where they apply and in general adds complications to the scheduling of international haulage. There is evidence that the existence of uncoordinated restrictions is particularly burdensome for hauliers involved in long distance transport. It is not surprising, then, that several member States have asked the Commission to come forward with proposals to limit the negative effects of driving restrictions. The Committee agrees that a Directive aimed at clarifying and harmonizing driving restrictions on HGVs is required. More than anything else, in our view, to ensure a 'level playing field` is created that promotes the operation of HGVs consistent with the development of TENs whilst balancing economic, social and environmental needs.

2.2.3. It is worth noting in this regard that the Commission in its explanatory memorandum makes a powerful case for the dropping of weekend driving restrictions on HGVs. For example, it is argued there is no evidence to show that weekend driving restrictions have lead to a shift from road to rail transport over the weekend. The Commission finds no prima facie evidence that general weekend driving restrictions on HGVs reduce road accident levels at weekends. As a general rule it is suggested weekend driving restrictions are unlikely to reduce air pollution from transport. Furthermore, the Commission points out that international HGV movements are a relatively small part of total vehicle movements within the Community - accounting for just 2,7 % of all movements on German roads for instance.

2.2.4. By contrast, it is argued from a congestion point of view that dropping the restrictions altogether would spread the same number of HGVs over six or seven days rather than five (although it has to be said the availability of unrestricted access to the road network may attract more HGVs into operation) whilst permitting cost savings in the region of ECU 3 bn. In addition, the Commission contends that current uncoordinated restrictions are in some cases undermining the implementation of Council Regulation 3820/85 covering the harmonization of social legislation relating to road transport. Driving restrictions are evidently imposing rest periods on drivers, which may not coincide with and are of a different duration from those, required by Articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation. The enforcement of rest periods is already causing substantial problems insofar as the parking of HGVs is concerned particularly on motorways and around certain ports. There is plainly some scope for a public/private initiative on the issue of appropriate parking provision. The Committee would urge the Commission to investigate this and come forward with proposals in order to support and enable the driving restrictions outlined in the current proposed Directive to be implemented effectively.

2.2.5. Notwithstanding these strong arguments in favour of lifting existing driving restrictions on HGVs, the Commission recognizing the considerable weight of public opinion, accepts there are valid arguments in favour of keeping some driving restrictions. It recognizes that traffic conditions differ between Member States and that, as far as possible, they should respect the Member States competence to decide upon traffic management issues and leave untouched restrictions that do not affect international traffic. Hence, the Commission's proposal is limited to international HGVs on the TENs road network. The objective as put forward by the Commission is to create a 'transparent system of harmonized rules` at EC level to ensure 'proper logistical planning of international transport operations` and ultimately to improve the functioning of the Single Market.

2.2.6. The Committee would make two comments at this juncture. First of all, whilst welcoming the efforts of the Commission to gather hard data on the effects of existing driving restrictions on key economic, social and environmental concerns, it would urge the Commission to make available a more detailed review of the research evidence in these areas. Moreover, where the statistical database is lacking, as seems to be the case with certain information, to put in train actions to remedy the situation such that the consideration of future actions can be properly informed. In the second place, and of fundamental importance, is the seeming contradiction between the stated objective of providing a transparent system of harmonized rules and allowing Member States the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to have driving restrictions on HGVs in their territory.

2.2.7. The proposals in the Directive do provide a system of harmonized rules. However, since it does not include any means of ensuring the rules are applied evenly across the Community it is unlikely to change radically the uneven operation of weekend restrictions on HGVs. As the Commission acknowledges currently more than half of the Member States do not operate weekend driving restrictions on HGVs. There is little reason to suppose the Directive as currently proposed will change the attitude and policy of these States. Hence, the confusing and uncoordinated situation across the Community is likely to continue improving only in those States who presently operate weekend restrictions and even then only if they choose to adopt the new rules. It should be noted that the Committee is concerned at the likely persistence of the uneven application of driving bans on HGV vehicles and accordingly urges the Commission to work with all Member States to ensure a greater coordination of driving restrictions consistent with the intention of this Directive.

2.3. In the view of the Committee, the Commission should re-examine the question of how to ensure coordination of the proposed restrictions on HGVs in all Member States. The Committee appreciates the difficulties involved here and the need to introduce a harmonized framework that will be both effective and fair. It also acknowledges the importance of preserving the rights of individual Member States with regard to traffic management. To this end, it would suggest adding a time limit of five years in order to give Member States the opportunity to bring their own practices into line with the proposed restrictions on HGVs on TENs road networks. This is of course a common practice with Directives which require significant changes on behalf of some Member States.

3. Specific comments

3.1. In line with the comments in the previous paragraph the Committee would suggest the following amendments:

3.1.1. Article 6

Add to the end of this article:

'The annual report will include a statistical analysis of the economic, social and environmental effects of the driving restrictions on HGVs as set out in this Directive. In particular, this should include comparisons of key outcomes as between those Member States who continue to operate driving restrictions and those who choose not to apply such restrictions. The report will also draw attention to and review relevant research in these fields.`

3.1.2. The Committee supports the other articles, clauses and appendices contained in the draft Directive. It would, however, wish to see more detail on the means by which the representative committee set out in Article 8 is to be created. At the very least, the Committee would expect this body to be fully reflective of the appropriate economic and social partners.

3.1.3. Article 10

After clause 2 insert a new clause 3:

'Member States who do not adopt the provisions of this Directive as set out in clause I above, should review their position at least annually with the Commission with respect to driving restrictions on HGVs to ensure progress towards greater harmonization and coordination in this regard is maintained across the Community.`

Brussels, 9 September 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 198, 24.6.1998, p. 17.

() Seven of the 15 Member States of the European Union ban lorries through their territory for part of the weekend and during public holidays - but the dates of holidays, the start and duration of the weekend ban, exceptions to it and even the definition of what constitutes a lorry on an international journey, differ.