No C 281/2 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 27.11.  76 
II 
(Preparatory  Acts) 
ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
Opinion  on the communication  from  the Commission  to the Council  on the operation  of 
the markets  in surface  goods  transport  within  the  Community  (road,  rail  and  inland 
waterway),  and  on four  draft  Regulations  concerning: 
— a system  for observing  the markets  for the carriage  of goods  by road,  rail and  inland 
waterway, 
— the  fixing  of rates  for international  goods  transport  by rail between  Member  States, 
— a system  of reference  tariffs  for the carriage  of goods  by road  between  Member 
States, 
— a system  of reference  tariffs  for the carriage  of goods  by inland  waterway  between 
Member  States. 
The texts  referred  to the  Committee  have  been  published  in Official  Journals  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 1 of 5 January  1976,  page  37 and  No C 54 of 8 March 
1976,  page  30. 
On 20 October  and  23 December  1975,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned 
proposals  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: A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, aforementioned  proposals,  which  are  related  to the 
communication  from  the Commission*  to the Council 
on the  operation  of the  markets  in surface  goods 
transport  within  the  Community  (road,  rail  and 
inland  waterway), Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  75 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  requests  made  by the Council 
of the  European  Communities  on 20 October  1975 
and 23  December  1975  for  an opinion  on  the Having  regard  to the decisions  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 October  1975  and  12 January  1976  instructing  the 
Section  for Transport  and  Communications  to draw 
up an opinion  and  a report  on these  matters, 
27.11.  76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 281/3 
Having  regard  to its opinions  on earlier  Commission 
proposals  concerning  the organization  of the goods 
transport  market  in the  Community  and  the 
communication  from  the Commission  to the Council 
on the  development  of the  common  transport 
policy  H, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Transport  at its  106th  meeting,  held  on 
8 September  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteurs,  Mr  Heimes,  Mr  Hennig  and  Mr  de 
Vries  Reilingh, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 141st  plenary 
session,  held  on 29 and  30 September  1976  (meeting 
of 30 September  1976), 
Whereas  the proposed  organization  of the market  is 
intended  to form  a basic  component  of the common 
transport  system  and  to help  realize  the aims  of the 
Treaty  of Rome; 
Whereas  freedom  of movement  for services,  as part 
of a system  of healthy  competition,  can  guarantee 
effective  operation  of the  common  market  in 
transport  only  if there  is alignment  of the conditions 
of competition  both  between  Member  States  and 
between  transport  undertakings,  and  all forms  of 
market  disturbance  are precluded  from  the outset; 
Whereas  because  of the  cumulative  effects  of the 
special  characteristics  of the  transport  industry,  an 
effective  market  and  an undisturbed  balance  between 
supply  and  demand  can  be expected  only  if those 
regulative  instruments  are  deployed  which 
permanently  ensure  that  capacity  develops  in keeping 
with the market  and  prevent  excess  capacity  and  a 
less rational,  uneconomical  use  of the  available 
transport  capacity; 
Whereas  the organization  of the market  must  help  to 
ensure  that  transport  undertakings  do, in fact,  cover 
their  costs  from  their  own  revenue, 1.1. The  Committee  regrets  that  it is unable  to 
endorse  the Commission's  proposals  in their  present 
form.  It thinks  that  these  proposals  must  be reviewed 
to see  whether  account  cannot  be taken  of the 
Committee's  reservations. 
1.2. The  Committee  indeed  dojubts  whether  a 
liberalized  transport  market  as envisaged  by the 
Commission  can  be  self-adjusting  without  a 
regulative  framework.  This  is a view  which  the 
Committee  has expressed  on many  occasions  in the 
past to both  the Council  and  the Commission  (2). Its 
view  has  been  based  on consideration  of overall 
economic  aims. 
1.3. The  Committee's  reservations  relate  both  to 
points  of principle  and to specific  shortcomings  in the 
Commission's  'overall  concept'. 
1.4. The  Committee  considers  that  the 
Commission's  concept  is not in accordance  with  the 
real facts  and  requirements.  Various  points  in the 
proposals  need  to be supplemented  and  amended  in 
order  to bring  them  into  line with  the actual  situation 
in the  transport  industry  and  so that  the  high 
requirements  inherent  in workable  competition  in the 
Community's  transport  industry  can be met. 
1.5. The  Committee  reserves  the right  to revert,  at 
a later  date,  to those  questions  which  arise  from  the 
links  between  the  proposed  organization  of the 
transport  market,  as part  of the common  transport 
system,  and  the  development  of the  Common 
Transport  Policy. 
2. General  comments 
2.1. The  Committee's  fundamental  reservations  are 
based  on the following  facts: 
— the Commission's  proposals  do not  give  a clear 
picture  of the effects  which  a liberalized  transport 
market  would  have  on users,  operators,  transport 
workers  and the economy  as a whole, 
HAS ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION  —  the  Commission  takes  uninterrupted  economic 
growth  for granted  in its appraisal  of the state  of 
the markets  in the EEC.  No allowance  is made 
by 70 votes  to 28 with  1 abstention:  for  crises, 
(*) OJ No 168,  27. 10. 1964,  p. 2656/64. (2) OJ No C 126,  17. 10. 1974,  p. 27. 
No C 281/4 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 27. 11.76 
— transport  policy  must  take  into  consideration  the 
requirements  of regional  and  social  policy,  etc. 
This  is of vital  importance  for the organization  of 
the transport  market  ('), 
— the  fact  that  State  railways  run  at a loss  is a 
disrupting  factor  of considerable  importance  and 
one that  by  itself  makes  necessary  special 
treatment  for the transport  market, 
— the  proposals  do not  take  sufficient  account  of 
the lack  of alignment  in conditions  of competition 
in the transport  industry, 
— effective  control  of capacity  is a prerequisite  for 
more  liberal  price  determination, 
— because  of the growing  importance  of traffic  with 
State-trading  countries  — traffic  not  always  in 
accordance  with  economic  principles  — there  is a 
need  for a set of transport  policy  instruments  that 
can, if necessary,  be used  to protect  Community 
operators  when  faced  with  'uneconomic' 
practices, 
— the  system  for  observing  the  markets  is no 
substitute  for effective  crisis  management, 
— the  introduction  of  reference  tariffs  in 
international  transport  may  bring  about 
distortions  in  transport  markets  which  are 
differently  structured. 
2.2. The  Committee  considers  that  the  proposed 
rules  for goods  transport  markets  are deficient  in the 
following  fields: 
— Stabilization  policy: 
There  are  no instruments  provided  for  in the 
road,  rail  and  inland  waterway  transport  market 
organization  that  are  suitable  for  preventing 
market  disturbances  and  obviating  crises; 
— Structural  policy  and  access  to the market: 
The crucial  measures  needed  to improve  the 
structure  of inland  shipping  have  not  been  given 
their  proper  and  necessary  place  in the  overall 
concept  of the  market  organization.  It must  be 
borne  in mind,  however,  that  a Commission 
proposal  in this  field  has been  awaiting  a Council decision  since  1967  (2). The  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  delivered  an opinion  on this  proposal 
on 26 June  1968  (3). No permanent  solution  has 
been  found,  and  there  are no common  measures 
for tackling  structural  problems  (aids  for  the 
scrapping  of vessels,  other  measures  for regulating 
capacity,  other  forms  of assistance). 
This  also  holds  good  for the road  haulage  sector, 
where  rules  on access  to the market  and  capacity 
control  have  still  not taken  on any  final  shape; 
— Harmonization  policy: 
It is a matter  of special  concern  that  no really 
significant  progress  has been  made  with  alignment 
of the terms  of competition  as provided  for in the 
Council's  Decision  of 1965  on harmonization. 
This  alignment,  whose  tax  and  competition 
aspects  are of the greatest  importance,  still  has to 
be carried  out in the following  fields: 
— infrastructure  costs, 
— excise  duties  on mineral  oils, 
— adaptation  of national  tax systems  applicable 
to commercial  vehicles  (harmonization  of: (a) 
the bases  for  calculating  motor  vehicle  tax, 
and (b) fuel  tax rates), 
— adaptation  and  standardization  of  motor 
vehicle  tax rates  in individual  Member  States, 
— standardization  of the dimensions  and  weights 
of commercial  vehicles  in the Community, 
— uniform  application  of social  legislation  in the 
individual  Member  States. 
2.3. The  Commission's  proposal  regarding  a 
system  for  observing  the  goods  transport  market 
provides  for  the  setting  up  of  two  advisory 
committees.  One  of these  committees  is to be 
composed  of  representatives  of  transport 
undertakings,  users,  providers  of services  ancillary  to 
transport  and  transport  workers'  unions.  The  other  is 
to consist  of Member  States'  representatives.  The 
Commission  considers  these  committees  to be the real 
key to the functioning  of the system  for observing  the 
markets.  It realizes  that  only  with  the participation  of 
(*) OJ No C 126,  17. 10. 1974,  p. 22 and  OJ No C 286, 
15. 12. 1975,  p. 1. (2) OJ No C 95, 21. 9. 1968,  p. 1. 
(3) OJ No C 100,  5. 10. 1968,  p. 2. 
27.11.  76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 281/5 
the aforementioned  groups  can  the  information  be 
provided  and  the  conclusions  be drawn  that  will 
further  the overall  objectives. 
2.4. The  Committee  recognizes  that  the 
Community  may  be given  new  tasks  which  should  be 
referred  to advisory  bodies  for initial  clarification.  It 
should,  however,  be examined  first  of all to what 
extent  such  work  can  be entrusted  to bodies  already 
in existence,  so  that  the  powers  of  existing 
committees  and  advisory  bodies  are  not  restricted 
and disputes  do not  arise  as to who  is competent  to 
deal with  what. 
The Committee  is therefore  strongly  opposed  to the 
constant  proliferation  of  committees  at  the 
Commission,  especially  as it must  be feared  that  the 
mere  creation  of such  committees  is no guarantee 
that workable  competition  and  a workable  market 
organization  will  be permanently  assured  (1). 
3. Specific  comments 
3.1. Turning  to the  details  of the  Commission's 
proposals,  the  Committee  would  like  to dwell  on a 
number  of technical  aspects  that  might  be of practical 
help in ensuring  that  the draft  measures  are brought 
more  into  line  with  the  actual  requirements  of the 
transport  industry. 
3.2. System  for observing  the markets 
3.2.1.  The  Committee  has  reservations  about  this 
system  because  practical  experience  has  invariably 
shown  that  in a time  of crisis  a complicated 
information  and  communications  system  generally 
produces  decisions  too  late;  such  decisions  are only 
able to  mitigate  undesirable  developments  (at 
disproportionately  great  expense)  —  they  cannot 
eradicate  them  completely. 
3.2.2.  Article  1 (1) 
As already  mentioned  earlier  on,  the  Committee 
considers  that  the proposed  system  for observing  the 
markets  cannot  by itself  achieve  the  objective  set, 
which  is to ensure  the  smooth  functioning  of the 
markets  in the  carriage  of goods  by road,  rail  and 
inland  waterway.  This  calls  for  more  than  simply 
'observing'  the markets.  Therefore,  it would  be better 
to say  that  the  system  is to 'supply  comprehensive 
(*) OJ No C 115,  28. 9. 1974,  p. 37. data and  information  about  trends  and  conditions  on 
the transport  markets  and  improve  knowledge  with  a 
view  to ensuring  smooth  functioning  of the markets'. 
Consideration  must  also  be given  to the competitive 
role of sea transport  and  the influence  which  this  can 
have  on trends  in railway,  road  and  (perhaps)  inland 
waterway  transport. 
3.2.3.  Article  2 
The Committee  considers  permanent  analysis  of the 
transport  markets  to be a measure  that  can  lead  to a 
precise  communications  and  information  system.  This 
will undoubtedly  involve  a considerable  amount  of 
work  and  call  for  a very  large  volume  of reliable 
statistics  and  the use of econometric  techniques. 
It is very  important  that  the Member  States  should  be 
able continuously  to monitor  their  transport  markets. 
Consequently,  if the  system  is to be introduced,  it 
will undoubtedly  be necessary  for all those  concerned 
to come  to concrete  agreements  and  for  legal 
provisions  to be drawn  up to ensure  collection  of 
data and  flow  of information. 
3.2.4.  Article  2  in  connection  with 
Article  4 
Article  4 deals  with  the  collection  of data  and  the 
relevant  powers.  The  Committee  thinks  it would  be 
more  logical  if Article  4 came  before  Article  2 to 
indicate  the  indivisible  link  between:  (i)  data 
collection,  (ii) data  analysis,  (iii)  the purpose  of the 
analysis,  and  (iv) data  evaluation. 
It should  also  be  stated  quite  clearly  who  is 
ultimately  to collect  the requisite  statistical  data  and 
information. 
3.2.5.  Article  3 
Forecasting  may  well  prove  to be difficult.  The 
drawing-up  of clear-cut  criteria  for  distinguishing 
between  inter-Member  State  traffic  and  domestic 
traffic  will  pose  problems.  Problems  will  also  arise  in 
connection  with  the  plan  to take  account  of 
medium-term  economic  policy  and  regional  policy 
guidelines.  For  example,  there  could  be a time-lag  in 
the coordination  of the  basic  economic  data  for  a 
transport  information  system,  since  developments  in 
the transport  sector  depend  to a large  extent  on the 
No C 281/6 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 27. 11.76 
economic  situation  in individual  regions  and  on 
anti-cyclical  policy. 
The Committee  considers  it vital  that  the  transport 
market  observation  system  should  also  cover  current 
and long-term  problems  in regional  and  employment 
policy,  in incomes  policy,  in investment  and  financial 
policy,  in social  policy  and  in stabilization  policy. 
The Committee  thinks  that  special  problems  will 
arise  in connection  with  the 'indicators'  which  are to 
be used  for  analyzing  the  transport  markets.  No 
conclusions  can  be drawn  about  freight  rates,  for 
example,  unless  the costs  of the services  in question 
are known.  It is, however,  questionable  whether 
individual  carriers  will  be prepared  to provide  those 
data about  their  finances  and  their  costs  which  will 
permit  the  authorities  to accurately  appraise  the 
market  situation.  Experience  has  also  indicated  that 
numerous  cases  of firms  closing  down  or going 
bankrupt  do not show  up in the statistics.  Thus,  only 
a vague  picture  can  be obtained  of fluctuations  on 
the markets  and  the  competitiveness  of carriers  in 
general. 
The Committee  proposes  that  further  'indicators'  be 
included  for inland  waterway  transport,  namely: 
— the  number  of inland  waterway  vessels  laid  up, 
and 
— the  length  of time  they  are laid  up. 
3.2.6.  Article  4 
This  Article  should  come  before  Article  2. 
The Committee  doubts  whether  Article  4, as it stands 
at present,  gives  the Commission  sufficient  powers  to 
collect  data.  The  Committee  thinks  that  there  should 
be a legal  obligation  to provide  information.  If need 
be, there  should  be  a threat  of  sanctions  if 
information  is  refused,  is  supplied  in  a 
non-comparable  form  or is incomplete. 
3.2.7.  Article  5 
One of the points  covered  by Article  5 is the question 
of who  is to receive  the Commission's  reports.  The 
Committee  unanimously  considers  that,  in addition 
to the Community  institutions,  it too  should  be one 
of the recipients. The reports  cannot  serve  their  intended  purpose 
unless  the parties  involved  in transport  can  take  note 
of them  and  plan  accordingly. 
3.2.8.  Article  6 
The Committee  is generally  very  critical  of the 
setting-up  of new  advisory  or standing  committees.  It 
holds  the view  that  the powers  of existing  committees 
and advisory  bodies  will  be restricted  more  and  more 
by such  moves  and  that  disputes  will  arise  about  who 
is responsible  for what. 
Collation  and  evaluation  of the data  produced  by the 
system  are  first  and  foremost  tasks  for  the 
Commission  and  the  relevant  bodies  in the Member 
States.  If it should  be found  necessary  to hold 
consultations  on any  findings,  it would  be only 
rational  to call  upon  existing  bodies,  such  as the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  or its Section  for 
Transport  and  Communications. 
3.3. Fixing  of rates  for international  goods  transport 
by rail 
3.3.1.  The  Committee  notes  that  free  price 
determination  is possible  even  today  in international 
rail freight  traffic,  since  under  Article  9, paragraph  3 
of the  CIM,  railway  undertakings  are  able  to 
conclude  special  agreements.  The  enactment  of the 
Commission  proposal  would  thus  provide  a formal 
basis  in law  for the existing  practice. 
The Committee  approves  the principle  underlying  the 
Commission  proposal,  namely  that  railway 
undertakings  themselves  should  have  greater  powers 
to determine  rates. 
The Committee  would,  however,  point  out  that  if 
a reference  tariff  system  is to be introduced  for 
international  goods  transport  by rail,  then  in times  of 
crisis  the Member  States  involved  should  be able  — 
after  consulting  the  Commission  — to temporarily 
fix compulsory  minimum  tariffs  with  a view  to 
overcoming  the crisis. 
3.3.2.  Article  2 (2) 
The Committee  without  exception  considers  that 
every  effort  has to be made  to improve  the financial 
situation  of railways  in the EEC. 
It believes,  however,  the  provision  contained  in 
Article  2 (2) will  not be sufficient,  in itself,  to put the 
railways'  international  freight  business  on a sound 
financial  footing.  It must  be borne  in mind  that  the 
27.11.  76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 281/7 
railways  still  have  to operate  with  their  existing 
structures  and  under  conditions  of competition  that 
have  not  been  fully  aligned.  In these  circumstances, 
rates  which  cover  all costs  are  not  always  feasible. 
The railways  cannot  be put  on a sound  financial 
footing  merely  by regulations  on rates.  As owners  of 
the railways,  Member  States  should  pursue  a 
long-term  policy  of restructuring  the railways. 
3.3.3.  The  Committee  proposes  that  in the German 
text the  terms  'Ausgaben'  and  'Einnahmen'  be 
replaced  by 'Aufwand'  and  'Ertrage'  (In the English 
text this  would  mean  replacing  'costs'  by 
'expenditure'). 
3.3.4.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  wording 
of Article  2 (2) is incomplete.  It does  not  clearly 
specify  how  soon  receipts  are to balance  expenditure, 
nor does  it indicate  the measures  to be adopted  if this 
obligation  is not  met.  As the text  stands  at present, 
the necessity  to balance  receipts  and  expenditure 
seems  to be more  of an aim  than  an absolutely 
binding  obligation. 
3.3.5.  Article  2 (4) 
The Committee  has  doubts  about  this  provision.  In 
all probability  the  majority  of railways  in the 
Community  will  find  it impossible  to keep  separate 
cost accounts  for  all  expenditure  in respect  of 
international  freight  business. 
3.3.6.  Article  4 (1) 
The Committee  finds  a discrepancy  between  the 
wording  of Article  4 (1) and  the  comments  on this 
provision  (see  point  7 of the  General  considerations 
and the  Special  considerations,  Article  4).  Under 
Article  4 (1),  railways  are  obliged  to establish 
through  rates  for all traffic  between  Member  States. 
For routes  with  only  light  traffic,  this  would  not  be 
worthwhile  because  of the  high  costs.  In the 
comments,  however,  there  is only  talk  of establishing 
through  tariffs  for international  rail  freight  traffic  in 
the Community  where  this  is warranted  by  the 
market  situation  and  is in the railways'  own  financial 
interest. 
The Committee  considers  that  this  approach  would 
be much  wiser,  and  suggests  that  Article  4 (1) be 
amended  accordingly. 3.3.7.  Arti  cle  7 
The Committee  considers  that  the  arbitration 
procedure  provided  for  in Article  7 is unnecessary 
since  the railways  involved  in through  tariff  projects 
can judge  best  for themselves  whether  or not  such 
tariffs  are  in their  own  financial  interests.  The 
Commission  itself  cannot  be  a good  judge  of 
questions  affecting  the financial  interests  of railway 
undertakings.  The  right  of railways  to run  their  own 
affairs,  a right  postulated  in Article  2 and  in keeping 
with  Council  Decision  75/327/EEC  of 20 May  1975, 
would  be taken  away  by the procedure  laid  down  in 
Article  7 — at least  in the event  of a difference  of 
opinion  between  two  railways. 
3.3.8.  Article  8 
The Commission  representative  explained  that  the 
obligation  to provide  information  laid  down  in 
Article  8 was  intended  both  to promote  the flow  of 
information  under  the  market  observation  system 
(Commission  proposal  in part  8 of Doc.  COM(75) 
490),  and  to enable  the Commission  to discharge  its 
supervision  responsibilities  under  Regulations  No 11 
and No  1017,  Article  70 of the  ECSC  Treaty  and 
Article  80 of the EEC  Treaty. 
The Committee  recognizes  that,  for the reasons  given 
by the  Commission  representative,  the  Commission 
and the  Member  States  need  details  of the  specific 
rates  and  conditions  applied  under  the reference  tariff, 
system. 
The Committee  considers  that  the  obligation  to 
provide  information  with  a view  to facilitating 
market  observation  should  be specially  designed  for 
this purpose,  and  should  be different  in content  from 
the obligation  laid  down  for  the  purposes  of 
statutory  supervision  under  Regulations  No  11 and 
No 1017,  Article  70 of the ECSC  Treaty  and  Article 
80 of  the  EEC  Treaty.  The  obligation  to 
communicate  information  for the purposes  of market 
observation  should  be laid  down  in the  Regulation 
on that  subject.  On the other  hand,  there  are already 
adequate  legal  bases  for  the  obligation  to supply 
information  for the purposes  of statutory  supervision 
of transport  rates  and  conditions. 
It is proposed  that  the notification  requirement  under 
the market  organization  rules  should  take  the 
following  form:  when  the  reference  tariff  is in 
bracket  form,  only  rates  outside  the bracket  should 
have  to be  notified;  when  the  reference  tariff 
comprises  only  one  table  of freight  rates,  only  rates 
that diverge  more  than  25 % from  the tabulated  rates 
should  have  to be notified. 
No C 281/8 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 27. 11. 76 
3.4. Reference  tariffs  (road  transport) 
3.4.1.  The  Committee  believes  that  the  system  of 
compulsory  bracket  tariffs  currently  in force  has  not 
lived  up  to expectations  because  it has  not  been 
applied  consistently.  The  system's  failure  is due  to the 
following  facts: 
— not  all Member  States  have  taken  steps  to ensure 
that a proper  check  is kept  on the bracket  tariffs, 
— the  tariffs  were  drawn  up on the  basis  of 1969 
cost calculations.  They  have  not  been  adjusted 
since  to take  account  of the  sharp  increases  in 
costs, 
— agreements  on  the  establishment  of  special 
transport  rates  have  been  based  on  criteria 
differing  from  State  to State, 
— finally,  the  changes  in the  parities  of Member 
States'  currencies  have  distorted  the  system  of 
bracket  tariffs. 
3.4.2.  The  Committee  notes  that  the proposal  does 
not seek  to iron  out  the  deficiencies  of compulsory 
bracket  tariffs  but  aims  at free  determination  of 
international  freight  rates. 
3.4.3.  The  Committee  also  holds  the view  that  the 
proposed  system  is going  to create  a vast  bureacratic 
machine  that  will  not  have  any  positive  effect  on the 
actual  determination  of rates  or the attainment  of the 
stated  objectives.  It will  merely  serve  to establish 
non-compulsory  tariffs  without  supervising  their 
application  or correctness.  In other  words  this  is 
simply  legislation  for its own  sake,  something  that  will 
merely  generate  costs  without  being  of any  benefit. 
3.4.4.  The  Committee  would  have  less  objection  to 
a reference  tariff  system  if it were  made  compulsory 
to give  notice  of transport  tariffs  that  were  a certain 
percentage  below  the reference  tariffs. 
The future  transport  rate  system  would  also  have  to 
allow  effective  intervention  on the  transport  market 
in times  of  crisis,  by  making  it possible  for 
compulsory  minimum  tariffs  to be laid  down.  This 
would  have  to be coupled  with  appropriate  checks 
and penalties.  The  Commission  would  then  have  a 
crisis-management  tool  which  the  Committee 
considers  essential  in the area  of tariffs. 3.4.5.  The  Committee  also  examines  how 
'uneconomic'  pricing  could  be ruled  out  under  a 
system  based  on non-compulsory  tariffs  and  the  free 
determination  of rates.  It notes  that  the  proposed 
reference  tariff  system  in its present  form  cannot 
preclude  such  practices  directly.  However,  no views 
can be voiced  on the  matter  until  more  is known 
about  the Commission's  plans. 
3.4.6.  Article  4 
The Committee  considers  that  the  expressions  'fair 
profit'  and  'properly  managed  and  rationally 
operated  undertaking'  used  in this  Article  are  very 
vague  from  the  legal  point  of view.  The  economic 
significance  of  these  expressions  may  vary 
considerably  according  to the  cost  structure  of firms; 
the range  of services  they  offer,  the way  they  are run 
and the situation  on the market.  This  Article  which  is 
intended  mainly  to influence  the  pricing  policies  of 
transport  operators,  will  also  be difficult  to apply  in 
practice  in view  of the  fact  that  it is mainly  the users 
of freight  services  who  take  the  initiative  on the 
question  of prices  and  who,  through  their  strong 
position  on the  market,  exert  a decisive  influence  on 
transport  rates. 
The Committee  considers  that,  in addition  to these 
principles  concerning  the  determination  of rates; 
general  criteria  will  have  to be drawn  up  for  the 
framing  of reference  tariffs.  The  differences  in cost 
and operating  structures  determine  transport 
firms'  market  behaviour  much  more  strongly  at 
international  than  at domestic  level.  These  differences 
lead to competitive  advantages  and  disadvantages.  In 
addition,  statutory  provisions  are  responsible  for 
distortions  of competition  which  widen  the  gaps 
between  Member  States  and  between  operators.  As 
long  as distortions  of competition  have  not  been 
ironed  out,  and  the  terms  of competition  have  not 
been  aligned,  freely-determined  rates  for the carriage 
of goods  and  non-compulsory  reference  tariffs  will 
not lead  to optimum  allocation  of the  factors  of 
production. 
3.4.7.  The  Committee  accepts  the principle  set out 
in the Commission's  proposal  regarding  consultations 
(Article  5 (1)).  It considers,  however,  that  such 
consultations  may  be optional  and  could,  moreover, 
be for information  purposes  only. 
In the  event  of a crisis,  however,  consultation  of the 
various  organizations  should  be compulsory.  All  the 
same,  the  Committee  is  strongly  opposed  to 
consultation  of bodies  representing  transport  users. 
27.11.  76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 281/9 
3.4.8.  Article  6 
The deadlines  laid  down  in Article  6 for  the  entry 
into force  of the tariffs  would  appear  to be very  long. 
Shorter  deadlines  would  be in keeping  with  practical 
requirements. 
3.4.9.  Article  9 
The Committee  considers  it important  from  the 
regulative  point  of view  that  the Commission  and  the 
competent  authorities  in Member  States  can  require 
transport  operators  to furnish  information  relating  to 
the rates  applied  in the  international  road  haulage 
sector.  An  obligation  to divulge  information  merely 
upon  request  is not  adequate  for  monitoring  the 
market,  especially  as regards  the  transport  rates 
applied.  Instead,  there  should  be an obligation  to 
notify,  so as to ensure  a continuous  flow  of the 
requisite  data  and  enable  a constant  watch  to be kept 
on the  market  and  on transport  rates.  Only  then  will 
one of the  preconditions  have  been  met  for detecting 
'uneconomic'  pricing  and  serious  disturbances  on the 
market. 3.5.2.  The  Committee  draws  attention  to the  fact 
that,  in view  of the  specific  characteristics  of the 
inland  shipping  industry,  it does  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  same  tariff  system  should  be 
introduced  as is applicable  to road  and  rail  transport. 
The Committee  would  point  out  that  80 to 90 % of 
international  goods  traffic  on the  Rhine  consists  of 
bulk  cargo  and  a considerable  amount  of this  is 
covered  by  long-term  contracts  with  freight  rates 
covered  by revision  clauses. 
In view  of this  situation,  there  must  be doubts  as to 
whether  introducing  reference  tariffs  for  such 
transport  would  have  any  appreciable  influence  on 
the tariffs  applied  in practice. 
3.5.3.  Article  3 
The Committee  notes  that  mention  is made  in Article 
3 (2)  of the  'establishment  of rates  which  relate  to 
costs  and  the  market  situation'.  As these  two  factors 
may differ  considerably,  it is suggested  that,  to avoid 
misunderstanding,  the  words  'which  relate  to costs 
and the market  situation'  should  be deleted. 
3.4.10.  Article  11 
The Committee  questions  the  advisability  of the 
provisions  of Article  11.  It is doubtful  whether  it is 
justifiable  to replace  the  current  compulsory  bracket 
tariffs  in the  proposed  way  by  non-compulsory 
reference  tariffs. 
3.4.11.  Article  13 
The Committee  notes  that  it is not  necessary  to 
exempt  certain  types  of carriage  from  the  system  of 
reference  tariffs,  because  such  a system  only  makes 
non-binding  recommendations  with  respect  to 
transport  rates.  Thus,  transport  operators  can  freely 
decide  on exceptions  at any  time.  Under  the  system 
of compulsory  bracket  tariffs  currently  in force 
exempting  certain  types  of carriage  was,  however,  in 
keeping  with  the logic  of the system. 
3.5. Reference  tariffs  (inland  waterways) 
3.5.1.  The  Committee  considers  that,  when 
assessing  the  Commission's  proposal,  account  must 
be taken  of the  fact  that,  in Member  States  where 
inland  shipping  is of major  importance,  there  are 
compulsory  tariff  systems  for  domestic  goods 
transport. 3.5.4.  Article  4 (1) 
In view  of the  importance  of having  reference  tariffs 
which  are  as realistic  as possible,  the  Committee 
considers  it highly  desirable  that  organizations 
representing  transport  users  should  be involved  as 
closely  as possible  in the  fixing  of such  tariffs, 
although  it would  not  wish  to detract  from  the 
autonomy  of  inland  waterway  carriers'  trade 
associations. 
As regards  the  planned  consultation  of transport 
workers'  unions,  the  Committee  thinks  that  in 
principle  this  can  be on a purely  optional  basis  and 
could  be simply  for information  purposes.  But,  in the 
event  of compulsory  tariffs  being  drawn  up,  it should 
be obligatory  for  the  body  setting  the  tariff  to carry 
out such  consultation. 
3.5.5.  Article  4 (2) 
The Committee  considers  that  the  beginning  of this 
paragraph  should  read:  'When  the  procedure  referred 
to in paragraph  1 has been  completed  ...'. 
3.5.6.  Article  5 
The Committee  thinks  that  to avoid  misunderstan-
dings,  the  words  'the  inland  waterway  carriers' 
associations  concerned'  should  be used  in Article  5 
(1). 
No C 281/10 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 27. 11. 76 
The Committee  appreciates  that  this  exemption 
clause  has  been  included  for  practical  reasons.  It 
would  like  to widen  its scope  slightly  and  therefore 
suggests  that  the  text  of Article  6 (1) reads:  '...  for 
traffic  on,  originating  and/or  terminating  in water-
ways  with  a gauge  precluding  their  use  by vessels 
capable  of carrying  over  400  metric  tons'. 3.5.7.  Article  6 but consider  that  at the same  time  stress  must  be laid 
on the  obligation  of professional  secrecy  regarding 
information  on individual  firms.  Although  it is in 
favour  of the  Commission  having  the  opportunity  of 
publishing  overall  data,  it would  point  out  that  steps 
must  be  taken  to make  it impossible  to derive 
information  on individual  firms  from  such  data. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 September  1976. 
3.5.8.  Articles  7 and  8 
The Committee  believes  that  the  Commission  should 
be able  to ascertain  what  rates  are applied  in practice, The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected: 
Replace  the recitals  of the opinion  by the following: 
'Whereas  the  Commission's  proposals  make  a concrete  contribution  towards  aligning 
conditions  of competition  in the transport  industry  by approximating  the different  systems 
applying  to the different  modes  of transport; 
Whereas  it is gratifying  that  the  Commission  has  taken  this  initiative  without  waiting 
for full  alignment  of conditions  of competition  in the transport  industry; 
Whereas  it is, however,  to be noted  that  the  proposals  do not  fully  adhere  to the 
programme  for  the  gradual  liberalization  on the  markets,  as defined  earlier  by the 
Commission,  and  that  they  concern  only  a small  part  of intra-Community  transport.' 
Replace  1.1 to 1.5 by the following: 
'1.1. The  Committee  approves  the  Commission's  liberal  basic  principles  and  considers 
that the transport  markets  should  be subject  to the minimum  of restrictions. 
1.2. Greater  liberalization  of prices,  in particular,  would  make  for  further  integration 
of the transport  markets. 
1.3. The  Committee  would,  however,  like  the Commission  to go beyond  the  proposed 
initial  moves  towards  liberalization  and  dispense  with  reference  tariffs  in those  sectors 
which  are already  completely  free  of intervention.' 
Replace  2.1 to 2.4 in the General  comments  by the following: 
'2.1. The  Commission's  proposed  system  for  observing  the  goods  transport  markets 
includes  two  advisory  committees  which  the  Commission  regards  as being  of very  special 
importance. 
27.11.  76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 281/11 
The Committee  thinks  that  the  creation  of new  advisory  committees  in itself  will  not 
necessarily  ensure  fair  competition  and  efficient  market  organization  in the long  run  in the 
goods  transport  sector. 
Nevertheless,  the Committee  recognizes  that  the Community  may  be given  new  tasks  in the 
future  which  should  be referred  to advisory  bodies  for initial  study.  It should,  however,  be 
examined  first  of all to what  extent  such  work  can  be entrusted  to bodies  already  in 
existence. 
2.2. In  this  context,  the  Committee  holds  the  general  view  that  the  Committee  83 and 
the Economic  and  Social  Committee's  Section  for  Transport  and  Communications  are 
prevented  from  fulfilling  this role  by their  terms  of reference  and  composition.' 
Replace  3.2.1  to 3.2.8  by the following:  v 
'3.2.1.  The  essential  object  of a system  for observing  the functioning  of goods  transport 
markets  should  be to provide  better  information  for individual  enterprises  and  to help  them 
to make  their  decisions.  Hence,  the Committee  would  like  the market  observation  findings 
to be widely  disseminated. 
3.2.2.  However,  the  Commission  also  wants  to use  this  market  observation  as an 
instrument  of intervention  in times  of crisis.  This  second  function  raises  various  questions 
of principle  which  make  it impossible  for  the  Committee  to approve  the  proposal  in its 
present  form.  In particular,  the Committee  notes  that: 
— while  the indicators  of the market  situation  and  trends  are briefly  defined  in Articles  2 
and 3, nowhere  are  the  criteria  for  a serious  and  persistent  market  disturbance  made 
clear  or even  mentioned, 
— the  system  does  not  delimit  the type  of intervention  which  could  be undertaken  in the 
case of a grave  and  persisting  disturbance  of the market, 
— it is not  laid  down  at what  level  (Community,  national,  sectoral  or even  on private 
initiative)  intervention  should  be decided  or what  the  priorities  should  be in such 
decision-making. 
3.2.3.  This  being  so, the Committee  would  like  to have  clear  answers  to these  questions 
before  taking  a final  stand.  It also  requests  that,  as regards  the  working  of the  advisory 
committees  envisaged  in Article  6, precise  proposals  be made  as to how  these  committees 
are to meet  and  deliver  opinions.  At all events  it seems  out of the question  that  Committee 
83 or the  Economic  and  Social  Committee's  Section  for  Transport  and  Communications 
could  fulfil  such  a role,  in view  of their  terms  of reference  and  composition. 
Finally,  Article  4 (1) and  (2) should  be amended  in such  a way  that  enterprises  will  not  be 
obliged  to provide  any  information  which  comes  under  the heading  of professional  secrets.' 
Replace  3.3.1  to 3.3.7  by the following: 
'3.3.1.  In  freight  transport  there  is evidence  of a trend  towards  relaxing  the  tariff 
constraints  exercised  by States.  This  should  facilitate  the  transition  from  a system  of 
national  tariffs  to a flexible  system  of bilateral  or multilateral  enterprise  tariffs.  There  is, 
moreover,  reason  to think  that  the generalization  of through  international  reference  tariffs 
will make  it possible  for the railways  to strengthen  their  competitive  position. 
3.3.2.  Moreover,  in contrast  to the  opinions  expressed  in other  circles,  the  Committee 
believes  that  the introduction  of a system  of reference  tariffs  for rail  freight  could  help  to 
put the railways  on a sound  financial  footing. 
3.3.3.  In  general,  the  Committee  cannot  understand  why  the  methods  envisaged  for 
working  out  railway  tariffs  are different  from  those  for  other  modes  of transport.  At all 
events,  the Committee  considers  that  there  should  be provision  for consultations  in the case 
of rail  transport,  just  as in the case  of road  and  waterway  transport. 
No C 281/12 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 27.11.76 
Replace  3.4.1  to 3.4.5  by the following: 
'3.4.1.  The  Committee  is strongly  opposed  to any  regulation  of international  road 
haulage  tariffs.  The  1960's  saw  an unprecedented  expansion  of international  road  transport, 
and this  was  a period  of free  rate  determination. 
3.4.2.  In  some  cases  compulsory  bracket  tariffs  have  been  found  to have  an adverse, 
inhibiting  effect  on the development  of road  transport.' 
Reasons 
The parts  of the  Section's  opinion  referred  to should  be replaced  by the new  wording  given  in 
the above  amendments. 
Contrary  to what  is said  in the Section's  opinion,  the Commission  proposals  will  help  to remove 
disparities  in the  terms  of competition  between  the  different  modes  of transport  by 
standardizing  the arrangements  applicable  to them  and  will  also  make  for improvement  of the 
quality  of life  and  the working  environment  and  for a balanced  development  of transport  at the 
smallest  cost  to the Community. 
Also,  the  Commission's  proposals  on the  future  shape  of the  transport  market  have  taken 
account  of the  essentially  commercial  nature  of the  goods  transport  industry,  the efficiency  of 
the mechanisms  for adjusting  supply  to demand  in the  free  market  economy  and  the  need  to 
accord  greater  responsibility  to those  actually  involved  in the transport  industry. 
However,  if the Community  is to concern  itself  mainly  with  inter-Member  State  traffic  (as part 
of its work  to bring  about  free  movement  of goods),  it must  take  care  not  to aggravate  the 
distortions  which  may  exist  between  the  arrangements  for  national  and  inter-Member  State 
traffic. 
The main  reasons  for the stagnation  and  even  decline  of rail  freight  traffic  are: 
— lack  of funds  for investment  so that  the  railways  can  adapt  to meet  competition  from  the 
other  modes  and  to users'  requirements, 
— changes  in the consumption  pattern  of some  bulky  goods, 
— government  interference  in the commercial  management  and  rates  policy  of railways  in some 
countries. 
As regards  the last  two  reasons,  it is indisputable  that  the  Commission  proposal  to institute  a 
thorough  international  rail  tariff  system  will  pur  the railways  in a position  to adapt  to changes 
in the market  and  the needs  of users. 
In road  transport,  difficulties  may  arise  as a result  of a crisis  in a particular  market  or of a 
general  crisis  throughout  transport. 
In the  first  case,  the  usual  marker  economy  mechanisms  would  naturally  tend  to restore  the 
balance. 
In the second,  the crisis  would  coincide  with  a general  crisis  in the  economy,  and  in this  case 
any measures  the government  decided  upon  to remedy  the situation,  would  not  be confined  to 
the industrial  and  commercial  sectors,  but would  necessarily  also  affect  transport. 
At all events,  a chronic  serious  disturbance  of the  market  would  remain  an  exception. 
Discussions  between  carriers  and  users  could  determine  whether  such  a disturbance  in fact 
existed. 
Where  the  procedure  proposed  by the  Commission  came  into  play,  the  consultations  would 
make  sure  that  any  capacity  limitation  or rate  support  measures  that  were  proposed  would  not 
hinder  economic  recovery. 
27. 11. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 281/13 
The final  decision  on the action  to be taken  must  rest  with  the public  authorities,  and  any  such 
measures  must  be of limited  duration,  leave  room  for a certain  amount  of flexibility  and  must 
in no circumstances  apply  to own  account  transport. 
Voting 
For: 40, against:  63, abstentions:  6. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Decision  concerning  the entry  into  force  of the 
Agreement  on the  international  carriage  of perishable  foodstuffs  and  on the  special 
equipment  to be used  for such  carriage  (ATP) 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 209  of 4 September  1976,  page  4. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 August  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  43 and  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 
Articles  43 and  75 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 20 August  1976  for an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Chairman 
on 25  August  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Transport  and  Communications  to draw  up  an 
opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Transport  and  Communications  at its 106th 
meeting,  held  on 8 September  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Renaud, Having  regard  to the discussion  at its 141st  plenary 
session,  held  on 29 and  30 September  1976  (meeting 
of 29 September  1976), 
Whereas  on 1 September  1970  the  United  Nations' 
Economic  Commission  for  Europe  published  the 
Agreement  on the international  carriage  of perishable 
foodstuffs  and  on the  special  equipment  to be used 
for such  carriage  (ATP); 
Whereas  the Agreement  was  opened  for accession  on 
31 May  1971,  and,  since  the  requisite  number  of 
parties  have  acceded  to it, it will  enter  into  force  on 
21 November  1976; 
Whereas  the nine  Member  States  of the  Community 
took  part  in the drafting  of the ATP  Agreement  and 
whereas,  at the  present  time,  France  and  Germany 
have  already  ratified  the said  Agreement;