26. 5. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 180/37 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the conditions under which 
non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (l) 
(87/C 180/12) 
On 18 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion 11 March 1987, in the light of the 
report by Mr Bleser. 
At its 246th plenary session (meeting of 13 May 1987) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote in favour and two votes against, with one 
abstention: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Judgment of the European Court of Justice 
of 22 May 1985 in Case 13/83 brought by the European 
Parliament against the Council of Ministers ('failure to 
act' case) has spurred the Council into action in the 
field of transport policy, while the publication of the 
white paper on completing the internal market led the 
transport ministers of the Community on 14 November 
198511) to lay down policy guidelines which were con­
firmed by the Council on 30 June 1986. 
1.2. With regard to the Community transport master 
plan the Council states that 'it is necessary to examine 
transport problems in an overall context with the aim 
of improving efficiency and profitability in that sector 
and with a view to consolidation of the internal market, 
harmonious inegration, economic convergence and 
social progress'. 
1.3. Attention must be focussed on the importance 
of achieving a free market in the transport sector by 
the end of 1992, without however losing sight of the 
political and economic interplay which exists between 
the different modes of transport. It has still not been 
possible to define a common policy for transport as a 
whole or for the individual modes; at present all that 
exists are embryonic and sectoral arrangements. 
1.4. The Committee notes that Article 3 of the draft 
Regulation stipulates that non-resident — like national 
— carriers are subject to the laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions in force in the Member State 
in which the transport operations are carried out. In 
other words, the repercussions of a national market 
which is liberalized, subject to quotas or regionalized 
will be passed on equally to non-resident carriers and 
will still prevent the alignment of the various national 
policies on road haulage capacity. 
(!) OJ No C 349, 31. 12. 1986, p. 26. 1.5. The sole aim of the Commission draft is equal 
treatment between national and non-resident carriers. 
In practice this will have the following consequences: 
— foreign carriers can carry out non-quota cabotage 
operations in markets without quotas (Benelux, 
Denmark, Ireland, Great Britain), 
— in road haulage markets where a distinction is made 
between short-haul and long-haul operations com­
plex changes could take place. In short-haul markets 
not subject to quantitative restrictions for resident 
firms, no such restrictions may be imposed on for­
eign carriers who offer their services. For long-haul 
operations subject to quotas, a special quota may 
be introduced, in the Federal Republic of Germany, 
France or Italy for instance. 
1.6. The Committee is convinced that the effects of 
the admission of non-resident carriers (cabotage) to the 
national markets of Member States will be far from 
negligible. Firstly, the proposal will have an impact on 
unladen journeys, estimated at between 24 and 30% 
according to Member State; secondly, adverse economic 
and "social repercussions can be expected. The Com­
mission's present approach will result in completely 
different de facto rights for carriers in the various 
Community transport markets due to the varying 
degrees to which the relevant national markets are 
regulated. 
1.7. In the grounds for its Judgment the European 
Court of Justice stated that the introduction of the 
freedom to provide transport services could not legally 
be made subject to the prior harmonization of con­
ditions of competition. At its meeting on 14 November 
1985 the Council of Transport Ministers did, however, 
establish a political link between the liberalization of 
the transport markets and the harmonization of key 
conditions of competition. This was clearly because in 
exercising the freedom to provide transport services, 
carriers are only subject to some of the laws of the 
Member State on whose territory they are operating; 
they are not subject to that Member State's laws in 
respect of, for instance, commercial vehicle taxes and 
No C 180/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 87 
charges, company taxation, vehicle inspections, moni­
toring of compliance with social provisions at their 
registered place of business, registration fees and third 
party vehicle insurance. 
1.8. If the transport markets are to be integrated 
it is necessary to align the different national laws^ 
regulations and administrative provisions; otherwise it 
would in practice be difficult for non-resident carriers 
to exercise the freedom to provide services. Cabotage 
traffic is subject to national laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions, e.g. as regards insurance, 
liability, shipment, transport of dangerous goods. 
National tariff provisions must also be complied with. 
Furthermore, some Member States can be expected to 
impose quotas on cabotage operations. At all events it 
is important for the non-resident carrier to know which 
are the relevant national authorities and which adminis­
trative procedure has to be followed. The need to have 
a knowledge of the different national laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions will alone in many cases 
constitute an almost insuperable barrier to non-resident 
carriers. Accordingly, the Commission should also 
make provision for an information and advisory pro­
cedure which would make it easier for non-resident 
carriers to provide their services and ensure that they 
are not put at a disadvantage. 
1.9. As part of the drive to eliminate distortions of 
competition between the Member States, it should be 
pointed out that Directive 74/561/EEC, on admission 
to the occupation of road haulage operator, is not 
applied correctly in all the Member States or is applied 
differently. 
1.10. For this reason the Committee cannot give 
its unqualified approval to the Commission proposal. 
Some changes are required and these are examined in 
greater detail in chapter 2. 
1.11. So as to eliminate existing distortions of com­
petition between the Member States and avoid creating 
new ones, adoption of the draft Regulation must be 
accompanied by progress in key areas of harmoniza­
tion, e.g. relevant taxes and toll fees. The Committee 
therefore calls on the Commission to place the Council 
in a position where it can take a decision on the above-
mentioned harmonization measures concurrently with 
the draft Regulation. This is simple political common 
sense as otherwise, in view of the interests represented 
in the Council, the Commission proposal could encoun­
ter a number of difficulties. Such an approach is also 
consistent with the outcome of the Council meeting of 
14 November 1985 and in line with the Commission 
Communication to the Council of 23 December 1985 
on intra-Community road haulage. 
1.12. The Section calls on the Commission to present 
forthwith an overview, on which the Committee would 
be consulted, containing the following information: 1.12.1. A list of all the liberalization measures to be 
taken in the transport sector by 1992; 
1.12.2. A list of the concurrent harmonization meas­
ures required for the sound development of the trans­
port market; 
1.12.3. A timetable for the phased implementation 
of harmonization and liberalization measures; 
1.12.4. An analysis and assessment of the possible 
social, economic and technical consequences of these 
measures in the individual Member States for the differ­
ent modes of transport and the drawing-up of a pro­
gramme of social back-up measures. 
1.13. Finally, the Committee would ask the Com­
mission to study the effects of the policies of certain 
non-member transit countries as they affect the Member 
States of the Community. The Committee considers 
that the implementation of the principle of the freedom 
to provide services within the Community could in fact 
be considerably impeded if transit is not guaranteed 
equally for all Member States. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. The Commission proposes that the right to 
engage in cabotage be confined to road hauliers for hire 
or reward who are established in a Member State and 
satisfy the conditions for admission to the occupation. 
It should be made clear that, for international transport 
operations, solely the national authorization of a Mem­
ber State is necessary to engage in cabotage in that 
State. There is still a need to clarify what is meant by 
the temporary pursuit of transport activities on the 
national transport market of another Member State. 
Article 60 of the EEC Treaty refers to 'temporarily 
pursue ... activity' in another Member State. Clarifi­
cation is important also because the motor-vehicle tax 
exemption agreements make provision only for activity 
of a limited duration in another Member State and 
account also has to be taken of the customs provisions 
relating to the import of means of transport. In principle 
therefore the carrier should be free to decide whether 
he avails himself of the right under the EEC Treaty to 
excercise the freedom to provide services or establishes 
a branch in another Member State. Hence, if the free­
dom to provide services is to become a reality in the 
transport sector, there must be no time limits on the 
right to exercise this freedom. 
2.1.2. The Committee regrets that Directive 
74/561/EEC has still not been applied in some Member 
States; as a result the road hauliers of these States are 
D5B,D^ COfficial]ournal of the European Communities ^oCl^A^ 
unable to supplytheproofthatthey fulfil theconditions 
requiredforparticipation in thecabotage arrangements. 
^.L In the Commission^sview the freedom to pro^ 
vide servicesistobegrantedtonaturalpersons who 
are a national of one of the Member States^ in the 
case of legal persons, only carriers which fulfil certain 
conditions relating to company law and capital holdings 
are to be allowed to benefit from the freedom to provide 
services.^fhis means that not all carriers established in 
aMember State will be able to exercise the freedom to 
provide transport services.The Commission is seeking 
to avoidasituation in which the admission of non^EEC 
carriers could disrupt the market in some Member 
States. Similarprovisionshavealready been adopted 
with regard to participation in Rhine transport 
^additional protocol andprotocolof signatures This 
action has doubtless been taken in order to prevent 
possiblethreatstotransport marketsintheMember 
Statesas a result of competition from Comeconand 
other third country carriers.Phe Committee notes with 
satisfaction that Article^^of the Commission^spro^ 
posal on access to the market for the carriage of goods 
by road betweenMember Stateseven provides for a 
suspension of the right to carry out national road 
haulage operations inaMember State where the market 
in question is seriously disturbed. 
^EL^. The restrictions proposed by the Commission 
with regard to the freedom to provide services are 
unsatisfactory.^here particular carriers are not to be 
admitted to transport operations in particular Member 
States,thisshouldbe covered by provisionsbased on 
the right of establishment which would apply to activP 
ties on all transport markets in the Community. Under 
the e^istingprovisions carriers which are controlled 
from non^EEC countries may be excluded from cabo 
tageinotherMember States whilst at the same time 
being able to provide transport services, without restric 
tions, both in the Member State in which they are 
established and also in international traffic. 
^.B^L Under the Commission^sproposals the Mem 
berStatein which acarrier isestablishedmaygrant 
derogations in respect of company law and capital 
requirements, provided that this is not likely to disturb 
the transport market.The prior conditions to be met 
in this casehave still tobe defined ashasthe extent 
to which the arrangements woulddependon market 
observation systems, which e^ist, however, only in 
some cases. 
^ Arr^A^ 
^.L Member States are only to be required to 
eliminate discrimination on the grounds of nationality 
from the cabotage provisions, national rules on 
capacity and rates may be retained. This may in practice 
lead, however, to discrimination against hauliers estabD 
hshedmaparticularMember State, e.g. in respect of 
compliance with tariff and social provisions, as it is preferable that hauliers should be subject to the laws, 
regulations and administrative provisions of the Mem 
ber State in which they are established. Eor this reason 
— in addition to the fundamental problem that the 
measuresproposedby theCommissioncoulde^acer 
bate the division inthe market between national and 
international transport — it would be preferable to 
adoptan integratedapproach which wouldappro^i 
mate the laws, regulations and administrative pro 
visions of the individual Member States. 
^..o.^. At all events the Committee believes that an 
information and advisory procedure is necessary to 
inform non-resident carriers about the legal and admin 
istrativeprovisions with which they mustcomply as 
regardsliability, insurance, authorization, tariffs, the 
transport of dangerous goods ^derogations from the 
Agreement on the carriage ofdangerous goods byroads, 
nationaldifferencesfromEECsocialprovisions. The 
aimshouldbe the alignmentof national laws, regu 
lations and administrative provisions and their harmon 
ization withtherelevantinternationaltransportpro 
visions, in particular with regard to the provisions of 
theConventionon thecontractfortheinternational 
carriage ofgoods by road ^CMR^, social provisions and 
the transport of dangerous goods. 
^.^. Toensure that carriers receive equal treatment 
inpractice on allthemarkets of the Member States, 
the Communityauthorizations could form part of an 
integrated Commission plan. Initially the holders of 
Community authorisations couldbeallowedto carry 
out cabotage operations, the number of firms author! 
^ed in this way being increased progressively as the 
Councifsconclusionsof^]unel^^ are implemented. 
This would make it possible to link the growth in 
international capacity with the growth in domestic 
capacity in the individual Member States, possession of 
aCommunityauthori^ation should in future entitlea 
carrier to offer services on all the Community transport 
markets. Real equality of treatment, however, also pre 
supposes free transit through third countries.Transit is 
of fundamental importance for the peripheral Member 
States especially whichdonot have commonborders 
with other Member States. 
^. Arr^^new^ 
^.L There is no point in laying down the con 
ditions under which nonresident hauliers may perform 
national transport operations unless theseconditions 
are effectively enforced. 
Toguaranteethis,anewArticle^^the present Article 
^becomes Articled,etc.^ should be inserted in the draft 
Regulation. 
^BL This Article could read as follows^ 
^L The competent national authorities, or those 
to be set up and provided with suitable resources, 
shall ensure that the conditions set out in the precede 
No C 180/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 87 
ing Articles are respected and shall take action 
against offenders. The competent authorities shall 
assist each other in the case of infringements of 
national transport rules by non-residents. 
2. The Commission will draw up appropriate 
provisions governing checks on infringements and 
the intensity of these checks. In the case of infringe­
ments, non-resident carriers must not be discrimi­
nated against. 
3. In all the Member States the amount of the 
penalties shall exceed the economic benefit accruing 
from an infringement of the relevant provisions. 
4. In the event of convictions for repeated serious 
infringements, the authorization of the carrier in 
question shall be withdrawn for international trans­
port operations.' 
2.5. Article 4 
2.5.1. Carriers must be allowed to select a fictitious 
registered place of business. This provision is aimed at 
the various restrictions linked with location (e.g. short-
haul transport regulations) applied by some Member 
States. It should be made clear what conditions the 
fictitious registered place of business must fulfil if 
restricted regional markets still exist. 
2.6. Article 5 
2.6.1. Independently of a general right to engage in 
cabotage, Member States are in future to permit haul­
iers from other Community Member States to carry 
out two transport operations, without quantitative or 
qualitative restrictions, as 'follow-on' cabotage. The 
intention of the Commission in putting forward this 
proposal is to reduce the number of unladen journeys 
Done at Brussels, 13 May 1987. in international traffic. A stipulation, however, is that 
an international transport operation should have been 
carried out first. The Committee wonders how the 
Commission intends to check the precise number of 
cabotage operations. The qualitative restrictions which 
may not be imposed by the Member States have also 
still to be determined. Given the considerable volume 
of traffic between Member States, a large proportion 
of national transport operations could in future be 
performed outside the scope of national rules on 
capacity and could, in conjunction with higher Com­
munity quotas, lead to a substantial and volatile 
increase in traffic. 
2.6.2. For this reason the Committee recommends 
the complete deletion of Article 5 of the Commission 
proposal, especially as, with the mandatory introduc­
tion of the freedom to provide services pursuant to the 
Court of Justice's Judgement of 22 May 1985, there is 
no legal obligation to introduce follow-on cabotage. 
2.7. Article 8 
2.7.1. On the basis of its preceding comments and 
since the Member States still have to take the measures 
necessary to implement the Regulation (under Arti­
cle 7), the Committee thinks that the date for its entry 
into force should not be before 1 January 1988. 
2.7.2. At the same time the Commission should sub­
mit a precise timetable for the measures to be taken 
regarding the harmonization of conditions of compe­
tition. This could make for a smooth and gradual 
adjustment to a Community transport market regime. 
3. In conclusion the Committee approves the Com­
mission's proposal provided that account is taken of 
the general and specific comments set out above. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT