EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 27.06.2005 
COM(2005) 0301 final 
2001/0241 (COD)   
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 
 
pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subpa ragraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on the harmonisation of certain social le gislation relating to road transport and 
amending Council Regulations (EEC) 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 
AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION 
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty 
 
EN 2   EN 2001/0241 (COD) 
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 
 
pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subpa ragraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
AND OF THE COUNCIL  
 
on the harmonisation of certain social le gislation relating to road transport and 
amending Council Regulations (EEC) 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 
1. I NTRODUCTION  
Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is 
to deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. The Commission sets out its opinion below on th e 43 amendments proposed by 
Parliament.  
2. B
ACKGROUND  
Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and to 
the Council  
(document COM(2001)573 final - 2001/0241(COD)) 12 October 2001
Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 29 May 2001
Date of the opinion of the European Parlia ment following first reading 14 January 2003
Date of transmission of the amended proposal document 
COM(2003)0490 11 August 2003
Date of adoption of the Common Position by unanimity 9 December 2004
Date of adoption of the resolution at second reading by the European 
Parliament comprising 43 amendments to the Common Position 13 April 2005
3. P URPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL  
The Commission proposal seeks to simplify, clarif y and update the rules contained in Council 
Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 of 31 December 19851 on breaks and rest periods for drivers of 
                                                 
1 OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p.1 
 
EN 3   EN vehicles, as they are complex, interpreted and implemented differently in Member States, and 
need to reflect the considerable changes in the road transport sector over the past 20 years.  
In terms of simplification, it replaces the complex compensation system for reduced daily and 
weekly rest periods and minimises the numerous special arrangements for particular sectors. 
Clarification is improved by adding a consider able number of new definitions as well as 
establishing a committee to look at contentious issues, while exemptions and derogations are 
updated and made more focused, to reflect the increasing private sector provision of public 
services and to limit abuse. Better enforcement is promoted by the introduction of the concept of extraterritoriality for sancti ons, presumption of employer liability and co-liability for the 
whole transport chain.  
4. O
PINION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  
4.1. Amendments accepted by the Commission 
Overall, the Commission can accept 14 amendments  out of a total of 43. Three amendments 
are acceptable as they stand: 14, 33 and 76; one amendment - 45 - is acce ptable in part; ten 
amendments are acceptable in principle or subj ect to redrafting: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 26, 38 
and 43.  
4.1.1 Amendments accepted subject to redrafting  Amendment 1 calls upon the AETR signatory states  and Community to align the AETR 
agreement with the new Regulation as soon as possible. While the Commission agrees with 
this objective, the recital s hould not prejudice th e respective competence of the Community 
and the Member States. 
Recital 8.  
“(8) The provisions of the European Agreemen t concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles 
engaged in International Ro ad Transport of 1 July 1970 (AETR) , as amended, should continue 
to apply to the carriage by road of goods a nd passengers by vehicles registered in any 
Member State or any country which is a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey where that journey is between the Community and a third country other than 
Switzerland and the countries party to the European Economic Area agreement or through 
such a country. It is desirable to amend the AETR so as to bring it into line with the 
provisions of this Regulation.”  
Amendment 7 indicates that enforcement of the fort nightly driving time provision should be 
checkable at the roadside. This is already im plicitly covered in Recital 14. However direct 
reference to a change in Re gulation (EEC) 3821/85 is desirabl e. The Commission prefers a 
staged approach to a 28-day check at the roadsi de, which should be reflected in the text, as 
follows:  
Recital 31(b) (new) 
“(31b) Experience indicates that compliance w ith the provisions of this Regulation, in 
particular the specified maximum driving time over a two-week period and the reduced 
weekly rest compensation arrangements,  cannot be enforced unless proper and effective 
supervision is brought to bear in roadside checks at least in re lation to the whole of the period 
 
EN 4   EN concerned ; drivers should have at their disposal at least 15 days’ records, and after 1 
January 2008, at least 28 days’ records”  
Amendment 26  sets out a definition of ‘driving time’ . The Commission would prefer a less 
complex definition, which simply links this period of time with what is recorded as ‘driving’ 
by the tachograph, namely: 
Article 4, point (ia) (new) 
“. (ia) "driving time" means the duration of th e driving activity recorded by the recording 
equipment defined in Annex 1 and Annex 1B of Council Regulation (EEC) no. 3821/85.” 
4.1.2 Amendments accepted in principle 
Amendment 3. While the Commission accepts that efforts should be made to ensure a 
clarification and uniform implementation of  the rules through the proposed comitology 
committee, a definitive uniform interpretati on could only be achieved through the European 
Court of Justice. The amended text reads: 
Recital 13 
“(13) Full definitions of all key terms should be given in order to render interpretation easier 
and ensure that this Regulation is applied in a uniform manner. In addition, efforts should be 
made to ensure uniform […] implementation of this Regulation by  national supervisory 
authorities  through the committee set up under Ar ticle 24 as provided in Article 25 . The 
definition of "week" provided in this Regulation should not prevent drivers from starting work 
on any day of the week.” 
Amendment 5 now provides a specific recital for tr ansitional measures in Article 28, 
paragraph 2 of the Council’s common position concerning common minimum age limit 
provisions for drivers. The recital should refer on ly to the minimum age for drivers and not to 
driver’s mates.  
Recital 29(a) 
“(29a) Since the provisions concerning the mi nimum ages of drivers have now been laid 
down in Article 5 of Directive 2003/59/EC1 and must be transposed by 2009, only transitional 
provisions concerning the minimum age of  drivers […] are require d in this Regulation.”  
Amendment 9 introduces a direct reference to the current Directive on minimum 
enforcement levels for this Regulation and i ndicates the Parliament’s preferred shorter 
timeframe for the proposed increase in the perc entage of checks to be performed as well as 
the need to include enforcement of working time rules. The Commission could accept inclusion of a reference to the enforcement directive, w ith the proposed increase in 
percentages and a reference to enforcement of wo rking time, but would prefer to keep to the 
less ambitious but achievable Council deadlines. 
Recital 31 
“(31d) Article 2(2) of Directive 88/599/EEC stipulates that at least 1% of working days must 
be checked every year, of which not less than 15% are to be checked at the roadside and not 
less than 25% at the premises of undertakings. In view of numerous pas t infringements, the 
percentage of days checked should be progressi vely raised to at le ast 2% from 1 January 
 
EN 5   EN 2009 , 3% from 1 January 2011  and 4% from 1 January 2013 . At least 30% of all working 
days checked should be checked at the roadsi de and at least 50% at the premises of 
undertakings, as such checks are the only means of ascertaining a driver's overall working 
pattern. In addition, Directive 88/599/EEC should  be amended so that the checks are also 
carried out concerning  Directive 2002/15/EC.”  
Amendment 10 advocates that the provisions rega rding digital tachograph and its 
introduction should be coordi nated with those of the pr oposed Regulation. The Commission 
shares this aim and considers that the current intr oduction date of 5 August 2005 will ensure 
that digital tachograph equipped vehicles are on th e market in time to be used in conjunction 
with the proposed rules. 
Recital 31(e) (new) 
“(31e) The implementation  of provisions relating to digital tachographs should be carried 
out in such a way as to comp lement the implementation of  this Regulation in order to 
achieve optimal effectiveness in monitoring and en forcing social legislation relating to road 
transport.” 
Amendment 15 exempts tractors with a maximum speed of 40-km per hour but links them to 
a definition in Article 4. The Comm ission can accept that agricultural or forestry tractors with 
this maximum speed limit are exempt, but not the more generalised exemption of traction 
units that a linkage to the defi nition in Article 4 entails.  
Article 3, point (ba) (new) 
“(ba) agricultural or forestry  tractors with a maximum aut horised speed not exceeding 40 
kilometres per hour;”; 
Amendment 38  removes the national derogation for speci alised vehicles transporting circus 
and funfair equipment. The Commission could accep t this in principle, on the basis that a 
general exemption might be more appropriate th an a national derogation for such vehicles, as 
some may cross national frontiers in the co urse of their work. It notes however that 
Parliament did not provide a general exempti on and hence wishes to remove any exemption 
or derogation from these vehicles. The Comm ission would be opposed to this approach on 
practical grounds, as carriage by road by these sp ecialised vehicles is an ancillary activity; 
such transport must of necessity be relativel y slow and will not be subject to competitive 
pressure. The Commission therefore reinsert s this category as a general exemption: 
Article 3, point (ba) (new) 
“(ba) specialised vehicles transportin g circus and fun-fair equipment;”  
Amendment 43 stipulates that Member States will lay down a common range of 
infringements based on a Commi ssion proposal, which will be categorised according to their 
gravity. Member States will then lay down pena lties for such infringements. The Commission 
agrees with this objec tive but considers th at the proposed procedure is  not in conformity with 
the institutional system of the Treaty. The Commission is of the view that, instead, the 
common range of infringements, and their categorisation, should be laid down by the 
Commission in accordance with the pr ocedure provided in Article 24  
Article 19, paragraph 1 
 
EN 6   EN “1. The Commission, acting in accordance with  the procedure referred to in Article 24,  
shall lay down rules on a comm on range of infringements of this Regulation and Regulation 
(EEC) No 3821/85, divided into categories accor ding to their gravity. The Member States 
shall provide for penalties for such infringeme nts and shall take all measures necessary to 
ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties  shall be effective, proportionate, dissuasive 
and non-discriminatory. No infringement of this Regulation and Regulation (EEC) 
No 3821/85 shall be subjected to more than one  penalty or procedure. The Member States 
shall notify the Commission of these measures and the rules on penalties by the date specified in the second paragraph of Article 29. The Commission shal l inform Member States 
accordingly.” 
4.1.3 Amendment accepted in part 
Amendment 45  calls on the Commission firstly to support dialogue between Member States 
concerning national interpretati on and application of the Regul ation and secondly to submit a 
proposal on uniform rules for the interpretati on and application of the Regulation. The 
Commission can accept the first pa rt of the amendment, as this  dialogue will be within the 
framework of the new comitology committee to be established. However it will not commit itself to proposing a uniform interpretation of  the Regulation, as this would restrict the 
Commission’s right of initiative under the Treaty. In accordance with Article 25, this task may be undertaken by the committee set up under Article 24.  
Article 22, paragraph 3(a) (new) 
“3a. The Commission shall support dialogue between  Member States concerning the national 
interpretation and implementation  of this Regulation.” 
4.2. Amendments rejected by the Commission 
29 amendments are rejected: 2, 4, 6,  8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 
35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 52, 54, 67 and 69.  
4.2.1 General Exemptions and National Derogations 
In terms of Amendments 4, 17, 21, 36, 37, 39  and 69 the Commission maintains its view that 
a more focussed approach to exemptions an d derogations is required. Humanitarian aid 
(amendment 17 ) is too broad a concept and can be s ubcontracted to commercial operators; 
privatised utilities and services, or those se rvices in which privatised utilities compete 
continue to be subject to competitive pressures ( amendments 4, 37 and 69 ).  
In terms of the national deroga tion in Article 13(1)(d) concer ning vehicles used by drivers 
where driving is not their princi ple activity, the Commission opposes amendment 21  which 
makes a general exemption for some vehicle combinations covered by this derogation and raises the exempted distance for such combin ations to 100 km. The Commission considers the 
provision in the common position suffi cient. The Commission also rejects amendment 36  
which removes the weight limitation of 7.5 tonne s in this national der ogation, as drivers of 
vehicles above 7.5 tonnes need to be in posse ssion of a professional Heavy Goods Vehicle 
licence. Such larger vehicles would normally only be used for professional purposes and 
driven by professional drivers.  
 
EN 7   EN Amendment 39  which allows a national derogation conc erning the carriage of live animals to 
local markets is already covered in Article 13( 1)(b) where a 100-km radius is permitted – the 
Commission considers that the C ouncil’s derogation should suffice. 
4.2.2 Rest and Break Provisions 
While in principle the Commission might support amendments 24 and 29  raising regular 
daily rest to 12 hours, in practice it rec ognises that the Counc il’s common position is a 
delicate compromise between Member States and for this reason will reject these two 
amendments. As for amendment 30 , it acknowledges the road sa fety concerns of permitting 
drivers of all passenger transpor t vehicles to drive for 12 consecutive days without a weekly 
rest. In terms of rest taken in a stationary vehicle ( amendment 31 ), the Commission 
continues to consider that a re duced weekly rest period may be  taken in a suitably equipped 
vehicle, as vehicle design has improve d considerably over the past 20 years. 
The Commission rejects amendment 28  on breaks as this does not address the issue of 
potential abuse of the split break periods. 
4.2.3 Amendments raising issues  of clarity and practicality 
The Commission rejects a number of amendments  that render the text more complex, less 
clear or which in practice raise enforcement difficulties.  
Amendments 18, 34  and 35 are unnecessary, the first because the vehicles exempted are 
already out of scope, the sec ond because the provision is alr eady in force in Directive 
2002/15/EC and the final amendment because Me mber States are not given to overriding 
collective agreements within thei r national road transport sector. 
Amendments 2, 12 and 13 apply the Regulation to vehicles registered in third countries not 
party to the AETR agreement, fo r that part of their journey w ithin the Union. While initially 
favouring this solution followi ng the Parliament’s first re ading, the Commission recognises 
that 
• this is in contradiction with the AETR ag reement to which all 25 Member States have 
subscribed; 
• within the context of the common position text, this would create a discrepancy: for the 
same journey - Community regi stered vehicles would be subject to AETR rules while non-
AETR third country registered vehicles w ould be subject to the Regulation; and  
• this could potentially mean that should the journey of a non-AETR third country registered 
vehicle pass through an AETR third country  to the Union, both AETR rules and the 
Regulation would be a pplied to one journey. 
The Commission therefore rejects these amendments  for the sake of clarity and simplicity. It 
would point out however that it accepts the principle of Amendment 1  to align the AETR 
agreement as soon as possible with the new Regulation. 
Amendment 44 reduces vehicle immobilisation to a temporary sanction without clearly 
harmonising the circumstances under which this  measure can be taken and when it should 
cease. For this reason the Comm ission rejects the amendment. 
 
EN 8   EN Several amendments raise definition difficulties.  Amendment 23 revises the  definition of a 
‘driver’ but implies that proof of purpose may be required. The Commission prefers the 
wider, more inclusive concept of availability. Amendment 25 reintroduces the link between 
reduced weekly rest period and where it is taken, i ndicating that long distance drivers may 
take their compensating rest with in three weeks. Firstly, there is  no definition of long distance 
drivers and secondly, in road sa fety terms it could be argued th at long distance drivers should 
not be able to postpone any comp ensating rest for a prolonged period. 
Several amendments raise practical difficulties. Amendment 6  advocates a restriction of the 
period of transition of the European fleet fr om analogue to digital tachograph use. While 
laudable, this cannot in practice be carried out as some ol der vehicles in national transport 
cannot be equipped with the digital tachograph. Amendment 42  requires the Commission to 
report on the use of exemption clauses. This will in practice be difficult to achieve as the provisions do not always target a specific interest group with iden tifiable representatives in all 
Member States. However the Commission believes  that sufficient time has already been given 
for those directly concerned to make their vi ews known and for Member States to carry out 
consultations. It does not envisage raisin g the issue again in a separate proposal. Amendment 
67 redefines multi-manning by allowing the pres ence of one man only on board for both the 
first and last hours of a journey.  This seems firstly to  be a contradiction in terms, but more 
important, it means that an inspector has no obvi ous means of proving that a single driver was 
accompanied during the previous 21 hour period and could therefore benefit from the more 
liberal driving time and rest period ru les in place for this arrangement. Amendment 32  bans 
remuneration based on distance travelled or amount of goods transported. This ban would 
result in too rigid a form of wage or bonus regime and unnecessarily restrict the sector’s 
flexibility. The qualification of not en dangering road safety is sufficient. 
4.2.4 Digital tachograph introduction amendments  
In view of the advanced state of preparations in the Member  States, the Commission does not 
consider that there is justific ation for the Parliament’s proposal  to delay the obligation to fit 
digital tachographs to now vehicles until 5 August 2006 or to delay the obligation for vehicles entering into service for the first time until 5 August 2007. Nor does it consider that there is justification for granting an additional 12 mont hs to Member States to issue the necessary 
driver cards. It therefore rejects amendments  52 and 54 .  
4.2.5 Provisions more appropriate in the proposed enforcement Directive 
Amendments 8  and 40 go into detail at length about provisions within the proposed 
enforcement Directive and include possible am endments to the Council’s common position on 
the Directive. The Commission considers that su ch amendments are more appropriate for the 
Directive, could cause confusi on if now placed in the Regulation, and therefore rejects these 
two amendments. 
5. C
ONCLUSION  
Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission am ends its proposal as set out 
above.