EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION 
Brussels, 12.1.2015  
COM(2015) 7 final 
2013/0105 (COD) 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 
pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on  the Functioning of the European Union 
 
concerning the 
position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road 
vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in 
national and international tr affic and the maximum authoris ed weights in international 
traffic 
(Text with EEA relevance) 
 
 
EN 2   EN 2013/0105 (COD) 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 
pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on  the Functioning of the European Union 
 
concerning the 
position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road 
vehicles circulating within the Community  the maximum authorised dimensions in 
national and international tr affic and the maximum authorised weights in international 
traffic 
(Text with EEA relevance) 
1. B ACKGROUND  
Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and to the 
Council 
(document COM(2013) 195 final – 2013/0105  (COD): 16 April 2013  
Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee:  11 July 2013 
Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading:   15 April 2014 
Date of transmission of the amended proposal: N/A  
Date of adoption of the position of the Council: 5 June 2014  
2. O BJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION  
Directive 96/53/EC establishes maximum dime nsions of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and 
buses in international traffic and their maxi mum weights in international traffic (Member 
States are allowed to go beyond these dimensions  or weights in nationa l traffic under certain 
conditions). 
The main objective of the amendment is to make HGVs and buses gr eener and safer by 
allowing derogations on weight s and dimensions in certain  cases and under determined 
conditions, where improvements are currently not feasible with the lim itations set out by the 
Directive. Greener trucks are expected to bring improvements in fuel efficiency of around 7-
10%, and a corresponding reduction in emission of CO2 and GHG. Safer HGVs could save up 
to 500 lives per year, mainly among vulnerable users like pedestrians and bikers in urban 
areas. 
In particular, the Commission proposal aims to:  
– Facilitate the aerodynami c streamlining of vehicles : by allowing a length extension 
to design more aerodynamic cabs . These smart cabs would also  increase visibility for 
the driver and a better energy absorption in case of an accident. The proposal also 
 
EN 3   EN authorizes the use of aerodynamic flaps  attached to the rear of trailers, semi-trailers 
or trucks, flaps which are market-ready and increasingly in use, for example in the United States. No increase in loading capacity is provided for by the proposed Directive.  
– Allow a weight increase for hybrid or electric propulsion
 up to 1 ton. 
– Introduce provisions related to enforcement,  due to worryingly high levels of 
overweight. The new pr ovisions recommend  the use of on-board weight sensors on 
trucks and the deployment of weigh-in-mo tion stations on the ro ads, while obliging 
Member States to carry out a defined number of checks pr oportionate to the traffic. 
– Introduce joint liability between the shipper and the hau lier in case of overweight 
during road transport (where information provided by the shipper is missing or 
misleading). 
– Facilitate intermodal tr ansport of containers, by providing a derogation of up to 44 
tonnes and of 15 additional centimeters on length for the transport of 45-foot containers and swap bodies in intermodal transport. 
– Allow 1 additional ton for buses, 
in order to take into account the increase in the 
weight of passengers and their luggage. 
In addition to the main objectives of the am endment, as set out above, the Commission 
proposal also reflected the clarification pr ovided by the Commission to the European 
Parliament1 on the issue of cross-border traffic of longer vehicles  (i.e. existing rules allow 
crossing one border between two adjacent Memb er States authorising the use of longer 
vehicles on their respective territories). 
3. C OMMENTS ON THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL  
The political agreement adopted by the Trans port Council on 5 June 2014 supports the main 
objectives of the Commission proposal of enabling the design of greener and safer trucks, 
while deviating on some othe r aspects, in particular: 
• Considerable timeframes are proposed both fo r the transposition of the new Directive 
(3 years) and for the implementation of the provisions of its Ar ticle 9 on the design 
of new cabs (5 years after the necessary modification of Directive 2007/46, including 
its implementing acts), in order to accommoda te the capacity of investment of some 
vehicle manufacturers. In the Commissi on proposal, a transposition period of 18 
months was provided for. The Commission recalls that its proposal is of an enabling 
nature, meaning that manufacturers would not  be obliged to produce such cabs unless 
they believe that there would be a market  for the product. The Commission considers 
that the proposed long dead lines are unwarranted, as n ecessary technologies are 
already available and the Union citizens shoul d be able to benefit from greener and 
safer trucks as soon as possible.  
• The enforcement pillar proposed by the Commission to sanction infringements of 
overweight (Articles 12 a nd 13), has largely been rejected by the Council which 
deleted Article 13 on categorization of in fringements and watered down Article 12 
on enforcement. For instance, the Counc il replaced the numerical indicator of 
preselection checks proposed by the Comm ission (already applied by some Member 
                                                 
1 Letter of Vice President Kallas to Brian Simpson, Chairman of the EP TRAN committee dated 13 June 
2012. 
 
EN 4   EN States) by an "appropriate level" of checks. In reality this would mean no significant 
change from the current unsatisfactory situa tion. In addition to accelerated road wear 
and tear leading to additional cost of main tenance, the Commission considers that the 
overweight of the vehicles  compromises road safety and distorts competition between operators who comply with the rules and those who do not. The lack of 
harmonisation of enforcement procedures an d of the level of penalties between the 
different Member States sends confusi ng messages to hauliers and reduces the 
effectiveness of enforcement. The Council how ever agreed that Member States have 
to report to the Commission on the nu mber of checks and infringements. 
• The Council invokes Article 5, paragraph 4, second subparagraph, point (b) of 
Regulation 182/2011 ("no opinion-clause") in Article 10h(5) in its position of first 
reading. The Commission has made a statem ent recalling that recourse to this 
provision must not be made systematically but respond to a specific need to depart 
from the rule of principle which is that the Commission may adopt a draft 
implementing act when no opinion is delivered. Given that it is an exception to the 
general rule established by Ar ticle 5, paragraph 4, recour se to second subparagraph, 
point (b) cannot be simply seen as a "discr etionary power" of the legislator, but must 
be interpreted in a restrictive ma nner and thus must be justified. 
On the other hand, the Commission welcomes the following points: 
• Articles 8 and 9 on aerodynamic features ha ve kept the drafting proposed by the 
Commission in terms of both objective and c ontent. Despite the fact that the Council 
replaces the proposed delegated acts by impl ementing acts and limits them to Article 
8, the Commission can agree to this approach, in view of the work of an expert group 
the Commission has created, to detail and defi ne the technical content of these acts. 
The content of the  de legated acts provided for in Artic le 9 could be incorporated in 
an update of the Regulations on type approval of vehicles under Directive 
2007/46/EC. In Articles 8 and 9, the Council ha s made clearer the role of the type 
approval legislation (Dir ective 2007/46/EC, Regulati ons 661/2009 and 1230/2012). 
• The introduction of joint liability between shipper and haulier fo r the transport of 
containers. 
• The extension of the scope of the proposed additional weight allowance for electric / 
hybrid vehicles to alternatively fuelled vehicles, to accommodate the extra weight 
needed for these alternative technologies. 
• The Council has adopted a new definition of the intermodal transport operation 
which appropriately addresses the specifici ty of waterborne transport. This new 
definition would be applicable for the dero gation of 15 additional centimetres and 44 
tonnes for 45-foot containers and swap bodies. 
• The Council has increased to 19.5 tonnes th e weight allowed fo r 2-axle buses (500 
kg more than the weight set forward in the Commission proposal) to also handle the 
increase of weight due to mandatory onboard systems (Euro VI class, safety 
equipment). 
With regard to cross-border traffic of l onger vehicles, the Commission takes note of the 
diverging opinions between Memb er States, and of the decision of the Council not to modify 
the text of the current Directive. The Commis sion can accept the compromise to delete the 
provisions of the corresponding Article, thus maintaining the status quo of the current 
Directive. The Commission issued a statemen t confirming its interp retation concerning the 
 
EN 5   EN cross border traffic of longer vehicles, as set out already in the abovementioned letter of VP 
Kallas to Mr Simpson.  
4. C ONCLUSION  
The Commission considers that an update of th e legislation on weights and dimensions of 
heavy goods vehicles and buses is  crucial for the realization of the objectives of reducing 
emissions of greenhouse gases. Not only will new cabs be more aerodynamic, but enlarged 
cabs will also allow introducing in the future  vehicles with new equipment improving fuel 
efficiency. Similarly, the Co mmission believes that the new designs will allow the 
introduction of safer trucks, helping to save lives in urban areas in low-speed accidents 
involving heavy vehicles. For these reasons, the Commission considers that  it would be 
contrary to the interests of the Union citize ns to wait for a number of years before 
manufacturers introduce the new designs, which ar e, to a large extent, ready for deployment. 
The Commission is of the view that those issues deserve to be addressed during the 
negotiations between the co-legislators.