No C 159/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
effect of different data-collection procedures on edu­
cation and training and the relative social importance 
of the different information services (provided for by 
Action Line 4 and aimed, for example, at employers' 
and workers' organizations, consumer associations and 
associations representing the handicapped), which the 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1991. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. In 1986 the Commission put forward a docu­
ment (*), concerning the elimination of distortions in 
competition in goods transport: Survey of vehicle taxes, 
fuel taxes and road tolls. The Economic and Social 
Committee (2) agreed in principle to the objectives of 
the Commission with regard to the future taxation of 
goods vehicles such as: 
— elimination of distortions in competition within and 
among modes of transport, 
— charging of the overall economic infrastructure 
costs to the user, 1984 Opinion identified as crucial to the definition of 
assistance priorities. 
3.10. The Economic and Social Committee expects 
the Commission to take due account of these comments 
when taking further action. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
— sufficient tax yield for Member States, 
— free flow of goods and passengers within the Com­
munity, 
— acceptable transit agreements with Non-Member 
States. 
In its report, unanimously passed, the Committee 
emphasized inter alia that: 
— distortions in competition must be eliminated by 
1992, Opinion on the modification of the Proposal for a Council Directive on the Charging of 
Transport Infrastructure Costs to heavy goods vehicles 
(91 /C 159/07) 
On 13 March 1991, the Council asked, under Article 198 of the Treaty, the Economic and 
Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for the preparatory 
work, adopted its Opinion on 10 April 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr. Moreland. 
At its 286th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, with 3 abstentions. 
(!) COM(86) 750 final. 
(2) OJ No C 232, 2. 7. 1987, p. 87. — in this context an agreement on tax structures must 
be reached, covering at least the marginal costs, 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/19 
— the levy of taxes according to the principle of terri­
toriality would be a reasonable solution, in the long-
termed option but saw practical problems, 
— road tolls except for bridges, ferries and tunnels 
should be abolished at the end of contractual agree­
ments, 
— the chosen solution should not entail a complicated 
tax practice and avoid any administrative over­
burden. 
1.2. Next the Commission presented in 1987 a first 
proposal for a Directive on the charging of transport 
infrastructure costs to heavy vehicles [COM(87) 716 
final]. The Committee (*) gave its opinion to this and 
stated in its report, carried by a majority of votes: 
— that in the long run a regulation must take allow­
ances for the economic and social costs of each 
mode of transport, 
— that the introduction of the principle of territoriality 
could lead to the harmonization of competing con­
ditions as well as to the charging of infrastructure 
costs to the actual user and that the same principle 
should obviously be in force for road transport, 
railways and inland shipping, 
— that the Committee supported the principle of terri­
toriality although it recognized practical problems 
in following fully this principle. 
1.3. The Commission has now modified its proposal 
for a Directive. With regard to the charging of infra­
structure costs it draws a distinction between motor­
ways of the Community being financed directly by way 
of road tolls and those that are not liable to way tolls. 
With regard to the harmonization of vehicle taxes the 
Commission proposes a gradual approach, so that 
beginning 1992 minimum rates are fixed for the differ­
ent categories of goods vehicles, which are to be 
increased in 1993 and 1994. From 1995 the vehicle and 
fuel tax rates should be related to infrastructure costs 
and, where necessary, be gradually increased to the end 
of 1999 when the Commission expects to have precise 
data on the impact of infrastructure costs. Thus there 
will be a gradual increase in the coverage of infrastruc­
ture costs ensuring that commercial vehicles pay for the 
infrastructure costs they cause from 2000. To avoid 
vehicles being charged twice for infrastructure costs 
through the application of tolls, Member States will 
have the opportunity, without obligation, to credit the 
paid toll against vehicle taxation. 2. General Comments 
2.1. The Commission had made a number of 
attempts to obtain agreement on goods vehicle taxation 
since 1968. So far all have run into difficulty in the 
Council. The Committee must stress, as it did in its 1986 
and 1987 Opinions, that 'a solution to the problems of 
commercial vehicle taxation is important in the context 
of the removal of distortions of competition on the 
internal market'. It is concerned that time is not on the 
side of the Council in meeting the 1992 deadline. 
2.2. Consequently the Committee stresses the 
importance of agreement to be taken in June 1991 as 
envisaged by the Council. Nevertheless, the Committee 
realizes that the solution may have to be an 'acceptable' 
and/or 'step-by-step' solution rather than an 'ideal' one. 
Given that the problems essentially lie between the 
Member States the Committee believes that the onus is 
on the Council rather than the Commission to seek a 
solution, and consequently believes that this modified 
proposal need not be the only possible solution for 
discussion and, for example, a simple solution based 
largely on ensuring that related infrastructure costs are 
covered, may be an alternative. 
2.3. The statements made by the European Parlia­
ment and the Economic and Social Committee are 
only partly taken into account by the Commission's 
proposal. It refers exclusively to goods vehicles with a 
permissable total weight of 121 and more. The inclusion 
of other transport systems into a global policy of the 
charging of infrastructure costs, as demanded by the 
Committee, remains unsettled. 
2.4. The Committee notes that while the Com­
mission refers to the European Parliament's amend­
ments it makes no mention of the Committee's amend­
ments on the original proposal. The Committee believes 
that, while some amendments appear to have been 
overtaken by the Commission's amendments, others are 
still relevant and are repeated in the specific comments. 
2.5. In coming to a solution, the Committee believes 
that the Council should tale the following into account: 
— that in principle the taxation of goods vehicles 
should cover all costs caused by such vehicles — at 
the very least it should cover the marginal costs 
caused by such vehicles, 
— that territoriality is a 'fair' basis for taxation and 
should be the ultimate objective, 
(!) OJ No C 208, 3. 6. 1988, p. 88. — that solutions must not add to the complexity of 
taxation or impose additional administrative bur­
dens. 
No C 159/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
2.6. While the Committee maintains its view that 
road tolls except for bridges, ferries and tunnels should 
be abolished at the end of contractual agreements, it 
realizes that practical and political problems are 
involved in their abolition. However, the distinction 
between toll roads and non-toll roads together with the 
deduction of paid tolls from the vehicle tax could lead 
to the additional introduction of toll motorways in 
Member States. The proposal could induce Member 
States to introduce toll motorways, for its transport 
infrastructure would be partly financed by other Mem­
ber States. 
2.7. The calculation of infrastructure costs is essen­
tial for the future charging of road haulage. The defi­
nition and calculation of the costs are essential for 
taxation charges of road haulage. However it cannot 
be considered as a technical question to be settled only 
by the Commission. 
2.8. An emphasis on 'territoriality' would be high-
ligted with an increasing emphasis on fuel tax, vis-a­
vis vehicle tax. While, there is a strong argument in 
favour of the fuel tax to cover variable infrastructure 
costs, a fuel tax rate of ECU 245-270/1 000 1. implies a 
considerable tax increase for many road hauliers in 
some Member States and thus an increase in costs. For 
that reason the Committee is in favour of a step-by-
step approach. 
2.9. The taxation system allows for a certain double 
taxation. Goods vehicles using toll motorways are char­
ged with toll as well as fuel taxes and partly vehicle 
taxes. Smaller goods vehicles are charged with taxes 
and levies that are out of proportion compared to those 
of bigger goods vehicles. 
3. Specific Comments 
3.1. Preamble (New fourth paragraph) 
3.1.1. The Committee welcomes the use of a 'certain 
threshold tonnage' and believes it would be unnecessary 
and unduly bureaucratic to include small goods 
vehicles. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. The Committee welcomes the modification 
which, inter alia, simplifies the directive. 
33. Article 3 
3.3.1. The Committee notes that the Commission 
does not propose to modify this Article. As the Commit­tee stated on the original proposal, the Commission 
should update the list of vehicle taxes affected by the 
Directive. 
3.4. Article 4 
3.4.1. It is not clear why the Commission considers 
its modifications to be 'technical'. The Committee 
would feel it regrettable and out of line with the public 
interest if Member States are restricted from taking 
pollution costs into account when devising vehicle tax­
ation. This should be dealt with in the new Article 10. 
As Paragraph 2(b) is 'Parking fees and urban traffic 
charges', 'tolls' which are a separate issue should be a 
new indent say 2(c), making 2(c) 2(d). 
3.4.2. The Committee reminds the Commission and 
Council that in its original Opinion it said that 'the 
reference to 'minor' specific taxes or dues' should be 
clarified (or amplified) in order to rule out abuse on 
the part of the Member States. 
3.5. Article 5 
3.5.1. 1 (b) 
3.5.1.1. The Committee is surprised that para­
graph 1(b) is not revised. As it stated in its original 
Opinion it is too imprecise. 
3.5.2. New second paragraph 
3.5.2.1. The Committee (as stated in 2.6) remains 
opposed to tolls. Nevertheless it falls to see the advan­
tage of the new paragraph over the simpler old para­
graph. In any event the new paragraph is confusing, 
e.g. what is a 'specific' motorway? It is also not clear 
if a 'motorway' must satisfy all or only one of the 
criteria listed in (1), (2) and (3). 
3.6. Article 6 
3.6.1. As in its original Opinion the Committee 
'expressly endorses the basing of vehicle taxation on 
the maximum permissible weight'. 
3.7. Article 8 
3.7.1. Notwithstanding its overall opposition to road 
tolls, the Committee welcomes the removal of the orig­
inal 8 (2b). 
IBD^l COfficial]ournal of the European Communities ^oCL^^l 
^, Arr^^ 
^.^A. The rates planned for the transition period 
seem^^or^ tobe acceptable asacompromise with 
regard to a gradual harmonization and charging of 
infrastructure costs. However, a final judgement 
requiresaclanfication of the methodology ^see-LlLLP 
^ Arr^^^ 
^.1. Lhe Committee supports this proposal in pnn 
ciple but believes it to be desirable to leave the member 
states more flexibility in filing their rates. 
^.^.^.. ^ome clarification is needed as regards asocial 
costs5Before any decisions can be made in this content, 
the Committee believes more information is needed on 
the nature and result of the calculation of social costs, 
not least the costs related to pollution. 
^.^. The Committeeis surprised at the fact that 
the Commission wants to put forward an infrastructure 
cost account for the entire Community as an average 
value, thus drawing back from its originally advocated 
pointof view that the infrastructurecosts vary from 
one member ^tate to the other and consequently must 
lead to different charges. In case the differences of 
these infrastructure costs would be insignificant such an 
average value could be accepted in order tomtroduce 
a possible uniform and nonbureaucratic procedure. 
rooneatBrussels,^Apnlr^L However,one should takecare that the information 
furnished by each member ^tate are actuallycompar 
able.The bookkeeping rules of the Commumtycould 
serve asabasis. 
^.10, Arr^A^^ 
^.10,i, This Article appears to leave reimbursement 
to the discretion of individual member ^tates^which 
presently could occur under existing Community law^ 
^see^.^. Logically to meet therequirementof tern 
tonality the reimbursement should be mandatory. 
^.1L A^^^^^ 
^.ILL Apart fromareference to thel^^ nuclear 
Energy Agency ^EA^ report and the coefficients publi 
shedbytheUKToepartmentofTransportnobasisor 
reason is given for the taxation figures set out in 
Anne^^.Consequently,more complete information is 
needed. Civen theimplicationthatthisproposal will 
lead to higher vehicle ta^es in certain member states, 
more information — before agreement — is required. 
^. Eurther Comment 
^.L The Committee would draw attention to the 
conditions governing the taxation ofvehicles from third 
countries at common borders.