31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/133 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the introduction of the final 
regime for the organization of the market for the carriage of goods by road (1) 
(90/C 332/37) 
On 28 March 1990 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 on 18 July 1990. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Tukker. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a large majority, with two votes against and 
eight abstentions. 
1. General comment 
The proposal for a Council Regulation on the introduc­
tion of the final regime for the organization of the 
market for the carriage of goods by road follows on 
from Council Regulation No 1841/88 (2) of 21 June 
1988. Article 3 of this Regulation states that the Council 
shall, at the Commission's proposal, reach a decision 
by 31 March 1990 on the measures to be adopted in 
the event of crisis. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
The Commission proposes to make the crisis mechan­
ism applicable in a specific region or Member State, 
and possibly also throughout the Community. The 
Committee feels that in the former case the Member 
State itself should adopt measures in consultation with 
the EC and in the latter case the Commission should 
intervene. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. The Committee considers this Article accept­
able, providing the Commission can agree (together 
with employers and workers) on sufficiently precise 
guidelines for establishing the existence of a crisis. 
2.2.2. In its proposal the Commission speaks merely 
of national and Community road haulage, but nowhere 
does it specify to what kinds of vehicle the crisis measur­
es are to apply. The Committee feels that, as in other 
cases the proposal should apply only to vehicles of 
more than 3,5 tons capacity. 
2.2.3. It is important that 'properly managed under­
taking' and 'financial stability' be clearly defined. If 
there is no yardstick, this could lead to major disparities 
and difficulties. 
(*) OJ No C 87, 5. 4. 1990, p. 4. 
(2) OJ No L 163, 30. 6. 1988, p. 1. 2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. A crisis system will only work if there is a 
perfectly developed market monitoring system. It is 
very important that the Commission set up a rapid 
information system. It is better to have a little infor­
mation quickly than more information with a later 
publication date. The data should be published so that 
they can be used by businesses for decision-making, 
e.g. investment decisions. Publication of the number of 
company failures in road haulage could also serve as a 
yardstick. 
2.3.2. The data which the Commission says it needs 
in its proposal are much too comprehensive and are 
not essential for appraisal. The processing of so much 
information will delay completion of the analysis and 
its publication unnecessarily. 
2.4. Article 4(1) 
The powers given to the Commission are far too vague 
and should be more precisely defined. 
2.5. Article 5 
2.5.1. If special measures are to be adopted in times 
of crisis, firms must know in advance what measures 
to expect. The Commission document contains a few 
ideas, but no concrete proposals. 
2.5.2. In the explanatory memorandum the Com­
mission gives a few examples of possible measures. 
These should be drawn up in consultation with 
employers and workers in the industry however. 
2.5.3. In the explanatory memorandum the Com­
mission suggests as one possible measure the establish­
ment of a maximum tonnage for each undertaking. 
This in practice means forbidding firms to expand, 
which will probably be unacceptable to some Member 
No C 332/134 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
States where such a prohibition would be illegal. It 
should however be possible to allow for the replacement 
of old vehicles providing that tonnage equal to that of 
the new vehicles is disposed of (i.e. scrapped)—the 'new 
for old* rule. 
2.5.4. Explanatory memorandum: proposal renew 
transport operators' acess to the market. 
The Committee wonders how a transport operator new 
to the market can already have complied for a given 
period with the Community provisions on access to the 
occupation of road haulier? 
2.5.5. Explanatory memorandum, page 4, fourth 
indent. See under point 2.5.3 above. Acceptable. This 
is the only one of the Commission's proposals which 
is feasible. 
2.5.6. Explanatory memorandum, page 5, first 
indent. How can an operator make employees redun­
dant if he does not know how long a crisis is likely to 
last? Is the Commission not aware that in some Member 
States it takes at least six months to get authorization 
for redundancies, and that on top of this a period of 
notice is required? In such a case it would be easier for 
an operator to go bankrupt, but this would not reduce 
the number of vehicles or overcapacity. 
2.5.7. Proposal (explanatory memorandum, second 
indent on page 5): cooperation between small and 
medium-sized firms. Article 5 of the regulation (page 
5) lays down the following measure: temporary 
reduction of capacity in the affected market. This could 
mean reducing transport capacity by a certain percent­
age which could be done in two ways: 
a) by loading vehicles only up to a certain percentage 
of total carrying capacity; 
b) by taking a certain percentage of vehicles out of 
service. 
The first method is impossible to monitor and very 
uneconomic. It would lead to a steep rise in freight 
rates. 
The second approach is only possible if small and 
medium-sized firms work together and register their 
combined vehicle fleets. They will then be able to 
comply if a certain percentage of vehicles has to be 
taken out of service. 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. The crucial question remains: who will pay for idle 
vehicles and employees? 
The Commission's suggestion that small and medium-
sized firms should cooperate for greater efficiency is 
appealing, but the firms themselves have to decide. The 
EC is a strong advocate of the free market economy. 
2.6. Article 6 
The Committee endorses this Article. 
2.7. Article 7 
Agreed, providing that the Commission does not use 
this committee as an alibi vis-a-vis the European Parlia­
ment and the ESC. Advice given by this Committee 
should be made public. 
2.8. Articles 
Agreed. 
2.9. Article 9 
Agreed. 
2.10. Article 10 
Add to the end of this Article after the words'... remain 
in force' the words 'or be amended'. 
3. Final comment 
The Committee feels that a perfect but simple monitor­
ing system is needed if the crisis mechanism is to work 
properly. 
Measures should be drawn up, in consultation between 
all the parties involved (the Commission, road haulage 
employers and workers), which could immediately 
enter into force in the event of a crisis. 
If must be decided, following discussion by the various 
parties involved, who is to bear the costs of any necess­
ary crisis measures. 
Subject to the above comments the Committee endorses 
the Commission proposal. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE