No C 278/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24.11.76 
changes  on  the  internal  management  of  the 
programmes. 
2.3.3.2.  On  the  question  of external  relationships, 
the Committee  has several  comments.  The  JRC  must 
continue  to strive  towards  better  communications 
with  the Community  at large.  Public  appreciation  of 
the work  being  done  at the  Centre  is essential  to 
guarantee  its  long-term  future,  and  to create  a 
favourable  climate  for  the  future  transfer  of 
appropriate  activities  from  national  responsibility  to 
the JRC.  Specifically,  there  should  be better  reporting 
and publicity  for successful  ventures. 
2.3.3.3.  The  Committee  also  believes  that  there 
must  be closer  links  between  those  responsible  for 
the programmes  and  the potential  users  of the results 
obtained.  The  Committee  therefore  calls  for  the 
creation  of committees  with  appropriate  represen-tation  of industrial  users  and  consumers  to advise 
the Commission  and  the  Council.  Their  task  would 
be to identify  the  needs  for  new  technology  in 
a given  sector  and  to suggest  ways  in which  these 
needs  could  be met.  In this  context  it should  be 
examined  to what  extent  it is possible  to draw  on the 
experiences  of User  Requirement  Boards  in the 
United  Kingdom.  A possible  alternative  solution 
would  be  to broaden  both  the  functions  and 
membership  of the existing  Advisory  Committees  on 
Programme  Management  (ACPM)  in order  to allow 
them  to fulfil  this role. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 September  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the establishment  of common  rules 
for certain  types  of carriage  of goods  by road  between  Member  States 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 1 of 5 January  1976,  page  28. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 October  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  75 of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
141st  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 29 and  30 September  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  75 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 20 October  1975  for 
an opinion, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 October  1975  instructing  the  Section  for 
Transport  and  Communications  to draw  up  an 
opinion  and  report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Heimes, 
24.11.76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 278/19 
Having  regard  to the opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Transport  and  Communications  at its  106th 
meeting  held  on 8 September  1976, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 141st  plenary 
session  held  on 29 and  30 September  1976  (meeting 
of 30 September  1976), 
Whereas  at the  moment  a step-by-step  liberalization 
of haulage  involves  major  dangers,  because  of the 
absence  of a common  transport  policy; 
Whereas  it is doubtful  whether  freeing  certain  types 
of international  haulage  from  official  restrictions, 
without  simultaneous  alignment  of  terms  of 
competition,  is conducive  to effective  competition  in 
the haulage  industry, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 60 votes  to 29 against  with  8 abstentions: 
For the reasons  set out  below,  the Committee  cannot 
endorse  the  Commission  document  in its present 
form. 
1. Until  further  progress  has  been  made  towards 
aligning  terms  of  competition  and  introducing 
relevant  Community  arrangements,  further  liberaliza-
tion of cross-frontier  haulage  will  create  imbalances 
on transport  markets  and  put  some  regions  and 
Member  States  at a disadvantage.  This  also  applies  to 
competition  between:  (i) carriers  operating  for hire  or 
reward,  and  (ii)  carriers  operating  on own  account. 
The incorporation  of own-account  carriers  into  the 
market  arrangements  is a particular  problem  for 
transport  policy. 
2. The  common  transport  market  should  not  be 
arbitrarily  split  up into  sub-markets  which  are  not 
only  separate  but  which  may  also  be regulated  by 
different  unilateral  instruments.  This  is nevertheless 
the approach  adopted  by the  Commission,  which  is 
proposing  the  abolition  of specified  restrictions  in 
certain  markets  (quotas  and  authorization 
procedures  for  the  carriage  of  perishables  in 
temperature-controlled  vehicles,  quotas  for  the 
carriage  of live  animals  in special  vehicles).  It must  be 
remembered  that  these  markets  are  of considerable 
importance  to carriers  in various  Member  States. 
3. Structures  and  administrative  and  geographical 
criteria  vary  considerably  between  the  Member States,  and  the  Committee  fears  that  'frontier  areas' 
will be  determined  differently  by the  individual 
Member  States.  Frontier  areas  might  thus  cover 
highly  industrialized  areas  with  a high  traffic  density 
and also  — particularly  in island  countries  — entire 
areas  which  have  differing  economic  structures.  This 
could  create  new  distortions. 
4. In  the Committee's  view,  the abolition  of quotas 
and authorization  requirements  for  certain  hauls 
within  enlarged  frontier  areas  will  release  an 
indeterminate  number  of  authorizations,  and 
transport  capacity  may  increase  as a result. 
This  may  generate  distortions  in regional  economies 
and the  transport  industry.  In order  to avoid  such  a 
development  the  Committee  suggests  that  a further 
criterion  be adopted  in addition  to those  proposed  by 
the Commission,  namely,  that  the  general  abolition 
of restrictions  on 'small-scale'  haulage  within  frontier 
areas  should  apply  solely  to hauls  over  less  than  a 
specified  maximum  distance,  e.g.,  50 to 75 km (as the 
crow  flies).  This  criterion  was  contained  in the  first 
Directive. 
Such  a restriction  is necessary  if only  because,  in its 
absence,  a considerable  amount  of long-haul  traffic 
from,  say,  Freiburg  in Germany  to Groningen  in the 
Netherlands  could  be  routed  along  frontiers,  i.e., 
through  the newly  created  frontier  areas. 
5. Finally  the  Committee  notes  that  the  abolition 
of quota  and  authorization  requirements  will  make  it 
more  difficult  to keep  a check  on capacity.  Practical 
experience  indicates  that  we  cannot  simply  assume 
that each  Member  State  will  designate  areas  which  it 
can effectively  control.  It is possible  that  each 
Member  State  will  designate  its  frontier  areas 
independently,  without  taking  account  of possible 
adverse  regional  effects  in neighbouring  Member 
States.  Major  difficulties  will  arise  if one  Member 
State  designates  small  frontier  areas,  while  adjacent 
Member  States  designate  areas  which  are  large  and 
where  capacity  monitoring  is ineffective. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 September  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
No C 278/20 Official  Journal  of thef  European  Communities 24. 11.76 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  at the plenary  session: 
Delete  from  the first  'Whereas'  to the end  of the opinion  and  substitute  the following: 
'Whereas  a greater  measure  of liberalization  of international  road  haulage  within  the 
Community  could  facilitate  the establishment  of a common  transport  market, 
HAS  ISSUED  THE  FOLLOWINC  OPINION: 
The Committee  approves  the proposal'. 
Reason 
The proposal  is a step  towards  a phased  liberalization  of the  road  haulage  industry.  The 
amendment's  sponsor  supports  this  trend. 
Result  of the voting 
For: 32, against:  57, abstentions:  11.