No C 232/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Regulation on access to 
the market for the carriage of goods by road between Member States (*) 
(87/C 232/17) 
On 10 and 11 November 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articles 75 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
In anticipation of the request for an opinion the ESC Bureau decided at its meeting of 22 October 1986 
to instruct the Section for Transport and Communications to carry out the necessary preparatory 
work. 
Since the Commission proposal envisaged inter alia a 40 % increase in the Community quota on 1 
January 1987, an opinion by the Economic and Social Committee was urgently required, at least on 
this aspect of the proposal. This is also reflected in the letter of 14 November 1986 in which the 
Council specially requested the Committee to deliver an Interim Opinion on Article 2 of the Proposal 
for a Regulation in November 1986. At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 26 November 1986), the 
ESC adopted its opinion on Article 2 by 87 votes to 19, with 14 abstentions. 
Since the Council failed to adopt the Commission's proposal concerning the Community quota 
(Article 2) a single annual increase for 1987 is the aim of an ad hoc regulation (2) following a proposal 
from the Commission and consultation of the European Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee. 
The Committee's opinion on this proposal for a Council 
Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3164/76 on the 
community quota for the carriage of goods by road between 
Member States was adopted at its 246th plenary session of 
13/14 May 1987 with no dissenting votes and nine 
abstentions. The Committee gave its qualified support to the 
Commission proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the 
abovementioned proposal for a Council Regulation on access 
to the market adopted its opinion at its 178th meeting on 10 
June 1987, in the light of the oral report by the rapporteur, 
Mr L. J. Smith. 
At its 247th plenary session on 1/2 July (meeting of 1 July) 
the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following 
opinion with no votes against and one abstention. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee is well aware that it would be 
extremely difficult to set up a 'ready-made' European market 
regulatory system. The Committee would also like to make 
clear that it is not opposed in principle to a new regulatory 
system for the goods transport market. A fair appraisal of the 
general comments will suffice to show that this is not so. The 
(*) OJNoC 65, 12. 3. 1987, p. 4. 
(2) COM(87), 16. 3. 1987. Committee considers however that a 'modern' European 
market regulatory system should not be set up without regard 
for the interrests of transport firms, their employees and 
customers in the Member States. 
1.2. Although in principle in favour of steps to establish 
an internal market in goods transport, the Committee 
believes that the setting-up of a modern European market 
regulatory system requires a more sophisticated approach. In 
establishing greater freedom of competition and a system 
based on market economics all relevant factors have to be 
taken into account and a balance found between the various 
interests. 
1.3. In earlier Opinions on road haulage the Committee 
made it clear that it would only support phased liberalization 
of the road haulage market if this were accompanied by 
simultaneous progressive harmonization of conditions of 
competition in the following areas: 
1.3.1. Vehicle and fuel taxes; 
1.3.2. Social security cover for workers and uniform 
application of Community rules in this sector; 
1.3.3. Compulsory insurance for goods and vehicles; 
1.3.4. Taxes on the purchase of vehicles and spare 
parts; 
31. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 232/35 
1.3.5. Charges and taxes for the use of infrastructure and 
tolls. 
The Committee reiterates this view in its present opinion. 
1.4. Approval of the Commission proposal is also 
contingent on the insertion of new provisions, or else 
amendment of the draft, to reflect the following 
considerations, some of which are dealt with in the specific 
comments. 
1.4.1. A provision should be added to the proposal to the 
effect that transport companies already operating in the 
market shall be deemed to have proved that they fulfil the 
qualitative criteria for access to the market. In other words 
the Committee would like to see the draft Regulations 
guarantee the rights of companies already operating in the 
market. 
1.4.2. The proposal should take account of problems 
affecting transit traffic through non-Community countries. 
1.5. The Commission proposal should be assessed in the 
light of the following. 
— Articles 3 (f) and 78 of the EEC Treaty, 
— the Council Decision of 13 May 1965 on the 
harmonization of certain rules affecting competition in 
rail, road and inland waterway transport 
(65/271/EECM1), 
— Judgment 13/83-of the European Court of Justice of 22 
May 1985 which requires the freedom to provide services 
to be established in the field of transport within a suitable 
time scale, 
— the Commission's White Paper on completion of the 
internal market (COM(85) 310 final) which was 
welcomed by the Milan European Council of 28/29 June 
1985 and the opinion of the Economic and Social 
Committee on this (2), 
— the guidelines set for the international transport of goods 
by the Council of Transport Ministers of 14 November 
1985 under which: 
— a free market in transport with no quantitative 
restrictions is to be created by 1992, at the latest, 
— bilateral quotas are to be aligned in stages (without 
creating discrimination), and the Community quota, 
to be developed, during the transition period. 
— distortions of competition are to be eliminated during 
the transitional period. 
1.6. The Commission proposal must be seen as a 
fundamentally important piece of legislation to be considered 
(1) OJ No 88, 24. 5. 1965, p. 1500. 
(2) OJ No C 344, 31. 12. 1985. and assessed in conjunction with the proposals on the 
introduction of cabotage for the transport of persons and 
goods by road and inland waterway, and the Commission's 
communication to the Council on vehicle and petroleum 
taxes and road tolls. 
1.7. At present the market organization system for the 
international carriage of goods and for road haulage within 
the individual Member States does not provide freedom to 
provide services or fulfil the demands of a true internal 
market. The market organization system for the 
international carriage of goods is based to a large extent on 
bilateral agreements, with Community law playing only a 
subsidiary part. 
1.8. The Commission considers that a pragmatic 
approach is called for and suggests that where discriminatory 
practices result from the common policy arrangements, they 
are best countered by practising from 1987 onwards an 
automatic 40 % annual increase on the Community quota. 
Even allowing for the present low level of Community 
authorizations, this would lead to a substantial increase in 
authorized capacity. 
1.9. From the point of view of the economic and social 
interest groups, transport's contribution to the completion of 
the internal market should not be overlooked. This sector has 
grown at a much faster rate than overall internal traffic in the 
Member States. In France for example international road 
haulage increased its volume more than fivefold between 
1964 and 1984 (14,5 million tonnes compared with 76,5 
million tonnes). During the same period overall transport 
volume less than doubled (volume up 1,8 times). In Germany 
transfrontier road haulage increased threefold in the period 
between 1970 and 1985 alone (44 million tonnes/140 
million tonnes). The corresponding volume of transfrontier 
rail transport fell during the same period. In some Member 
States, rail transport stagnated or increased slightly. 
1.10. From an economic point of view it is easy to see why 
such great interest will in future continue to be focused on the 
international carriage of goods. For its production and 
distribution the European economy will depend to an even 
greater extent on high quality transport services. The 
European internal market for trade and industry cannot be 
fully achieved unless the traditional suppliers of services, 
particularly in transport, are part and parcel of the internal 
market. Thus the Commission, in its White Paper rightly 
refers to the central role of transport services for the internal 
market. 
1.11. Given the central role of road haulage, it is 
particularly important that firms in this sector should be able 
No C 232/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
to adapt to changing market demands with maximum 
flexibility and minimum administrative formalities. 
1.12. Market organization systems for international 
transport, even in those countries which lean towards 
restrictive interpretation, have not been particularly effective 
as a means of protecting the railways. On the other hand 
quotas which were supposed to help certain firms, have to 
some degree acted as a non-tariff barrier and have prevented 
some transport firms from meeting international contracts 
for lack of authorizations. To this are added problems in 
bilateral relations on the allocation and distribution of 
quotas, e.g. between Germany, Spain, France and Italy. 
What, then are quotas supposed to achieve? 
1.13. The Commission proposal should be regarded as 
part of an as yet incomplete policy. It does not deal with 
access to the market between Member States and 
non-Community countries, nor with Member States' 
domestic traffic arrangements; nonetheless considerable 
economic repercussions are involved. Nor does it deal with 
harmonization of conditions of competition whether taxes or 
technical questions. 
1.14. One conclusion to be drawn from this is that the 
Community should include, as an integral part of its overall 
approach, the need to open negotiations at the earliest 
opportunity with the non-Community countries on means to 
achieve a coordinated transport and internal market policy. 
This specifically concerns relations with Yugoslavia, Austria 
and Switzerland. 
1.15. The major objection to the abolition of quotas on 
cross-frontier transport is, however, that it makes 
harmonization of conditions of competition necessary, 
particularly in view of the differing levels of vehicle tax. In its 
explanatory memorandum the Commission maintains that 
some results have been achieved in removing distortions of 
competition between firms from different Member States, 
especially in relation to harmonization of social regulations 
and their implementation in practice as well as the 
harmonization of weights and measures of commercial 
vehicles. The taxation of commercial vehicles is also to be 
examined. The Commission has sent a communication to the 
Council on this subject (COM(86) 750 final) but this does 
not contain either proposals for concrete measures, or a 
time-scale for their implementation. 
Harmonization of conditions of competition 
1.16. The need for harmonization of the ground rules 
governing competition, as part of the creation of the internal 
market, is not in doubt. This is true first of all because no genuine internal market can function without common rules. 
Those which the Community has so far adopted cannot be 
regarded as sufficient. In addition, harmonization must also 
mean ensuring that where Community law exists, it is 
applied uniformly, in all the Member States. And this is not 
only true of drivers' hours and rest periods which, as enacted 
in Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985, 
falls far short of the recommendations of the Economic and 
Social Committee. It also applies to other legal provisons, 
such as those governing access in the individual Member 
States to the profession of road haulier. The ceilings for 
vehicle weights range from 38 to 50 tonnes. So here too there 
is no uniform Community ruling. 
1.17. If, as part of the regulation of goods transport 
market, greater importance is in future to be attached to 
qualitative criteria for access to the profession, the 
Commission and Council should take joint responsibility for 
ensuring that discrimination does not arise as a result of 
different administrative practices in the individual Member 
States. The same applies to the Member States' different 
approaches to aid the transport sector. The Commission 
should therefore ensure stricter observance of Community 
law in these areas. 
1.18. Harmonization of the tax system, vehicle taxes, 
fuel taxes and road tolls, as part of the creation of the internal 
market, is likely to be an extremely difficult task. This is 
particularly true because fuel taxes are an important source 
of revenue for many Member States. The effects of tax 
harmonization on the financing of investment in transport 
routes cannot be disregarded. This aspect must, from the 
very outset, be taken into consideration in discussing the 
future shape of the new market regulatory system for goods 
transport. 
1.19. In much of the market there is competition between 
different modes of transport as well as within the road 
haulage industry itself. These other modes of transport will 
also be affected by the Regulation. Progress must be made on 
harmonizing conditions of competition for these sectors of 
the transport industry too, as the Committee urged in its 
February 1987 opinion on rail policy. 
1.20. As already mentioned in point 1, distortions of 
competition are to be eliminated during the transitional 
period. 
Introduction of a safeguard clause 
1.21. The Commission's planned market regulatory 
system provides for the introduction of a safeguard 
31. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 232/37 
mechanism for the transitional period. This subject will be 
dealt with in greater detail in the discussion of Article 5. It is 
true that the Commission, in the explanatory memorandum, 
argues that its proposal will enable the transport industry to 
adapt gradually to changed market conditions, thus 
preventing disturbances of the market. But on the other hand 
the Commission appears to suggest that even the planned 
increase in the Community quota of 40 % annually could 
disturb the market. In order to counter 'serious and possibly 
persistent disturbances of the market' there are provisions, 
covering the transitional period, enabling the issue of 
authorizations to newcomers to be made subject to special 
conditions, or even suspended altogether. The Commission 
has not cited any evidence — experience of liberalized 
markets would be particularly relevant here — to support the 
view that a crisis- management system of this kinddd is 
necessary. 
1.22. The essential point for all concerned, industry, 
commerce, transport firms and workers, is to ensure that 
market disturbances do not arise in the first place. The 
Committee has not rejected the possibility of applying a free 
market approach to the goods transport market. But the 
main criticism of the Commission proposal is that it does not 
make liberalization of the market dependent on real progress 
in the harmonization of conditions and competition. This 
leads the Committee to consider the proposed safeguard 
mechanism (Article 5) as not only impracticable but possibly 
also unnecessary if conditions of competition were 
harmonized. In any case, and not least for the above reasons, 
the Committee considers that decisions on the increases in the 
annual Community quota for authorizations should not be 
made according to a pre-arranged automatic formula (Article 
2). Rather they should be taken in the light of circumstances 
prevailing on the market, the aim being to achieve an orderly 
transition to 1992. 
Need for a broader regulatory system 
1.23. The Committee notes that there are as yet no 
known plans providing for further alignment of the rules and 
regulations which at present govern the workings of national 
transport markets. The Committee finds it hard to believe 
there will be no need for some such measures. It is clearly very 
difficult to solve the problems of cabotage as long as 
significant distortions of competition, caused by major 
differences in these rules, persist. It is likely moreover that 
further liberalization of cross-frontier goods transport will, 
in the absence of such further measures of harmonization, 
worsen discrimination between transport companies in 
different countries. 
1.24. The Committee concludes that the Commission is 
taking the easy way out, hoping that a liberal proposal, 
however pragmatically worded, will increase the pressure for political recognition of the need for parallel progress on 
harmonization. The Committee feels that this proposal taken 
in isolation is not capable of being rapidly translated into a 
credible policy for the establishment of a European internal 
market in transport. 
Efficient use of transport infrastructure with due regard for 
general interests 
1.25. In working out a regulatory system for transport in 
Europe, the special position of major transit countries, both 
within and outside the Community, must be taken into 
consideration. The Committee feels that the Commission 
proposal inclines too far towards the 'purist view' that 
markets should be governed essentially by direct costs and 
prices. In this way it signally fails to do justice to the wider 
aims which an economically and socially acceptable 
transport policy should promote, in particular the effective 
use of transport infrastructure in conjunction with a proper 
respect for such overriding interests as protection of the 
environment, energy savings and road safety. 
2. Specific comments on the articles of the proposal 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. So far the Regulation applies only to commercial 
road haulage operations between Member States; it does not 
only apply to traffic with third countries. The Commission 
points out in its explanatory memorandum that the rules for 
the final phase will not become fully operative in every 
Member State until the problem of non-Community transit 
has been solved. The Commission therefore wants to set 
measures in train immediately. 
2.1.2. Special consideration has to be given to the 
problems of Alpine transit countries — which are not subject 
to any legal constraints deriving from the Community 
institutions' interpretation of the Treaty's articles on the 
common transport policy and where the financial problems 
of providing infrastructure for HGVs in transit are 
exacerbated by the high cost per kilometer arising from the 
mountainous terrain. It would be particularly unfortunate, 
were the Community to adopt a hectoring attitude towards 
two, possibly three, non-aligned countries whose situation 
has dictated a different sort of transport policy than that 
currently favoured by the European Commission and a 
number of Member States. 
2.1.3. It is pointed out in this connection that the great 
improvement in the quality of rail and inland waterway 
No C 232/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
goods services (especially in combined transport) have 
succeeded in coordinating transport more closely and 
making these modes of transport into viable alternatives once 
again. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. The number of Community authorizations to be 
allocated during the transitional period is laid down in 
Article 2. 
2.2.2. There is a danger of a considerable increase in 
capacity resulting from the cumulative increase in the 
Community quota over the period to 1992. Future 
deliberations should take into account the following: 
— the Commission's contention that by the end of this 
period only 50 % of total traffic will be carried out under 
Community authorizations, 
— a more than tenfold increase in the number of 
Community authorizations over a period of less than 10 
years (4 427 authorizations in 1984 as against more than 
44 000 authorizations by 1992), 
— specific characteristics of the Community authorization 
which make it difficult to relate its capacity-generating 
potential to that inherent in the bilateral 
authorization, 
— the maintenance up to 1992 of the bilateral quota and of 
other bilateral arrangements under which traffic between 
the Member States concerned is not subject to 
quantitative restrictions. 
2.2.3. It is evident that the overall effect on capacity 
available in 1992 is going to be very difficult to predict with 
any accuracy. Accordingly, the Commission's postulate of a 
50 % share of traffic being carried under the Community 
quota by 1992 must be considered as highly speculative. 
However, in view of the quasi-exponential increase in the 
number of authorizations over the period to 1992 it is clear 
that the present effect must be relatively small; accordingly 
any warning signs of over-capacity already existing are 
bound to raise serious misgivings about the much greater 
effects to come. With regard to the relative 
capacity-generating potential of Community authorizations 
as opposed to bilateral authorizations, is has to be borne in 
mind that the Community authorizations enable an 
undertaking to perform international transport operations 
from any point in the Community to any other, quite 
regardless of the State of registry. An operator domiciled in a 
particular Member State could be principally, perhaps 
exclusively, engaged in carrying out international transport 
operations between Member States other than his own, the 
capacity-generating effect being enhanced by the possibility 
of carrying out successive follow-on international operations from the preceding destination. The rigidity and essentially 
bipolar nature of the international journey — or pair of 
journeys — carried out under bilateral arrangements have, 
thus, to be set against the flexibility and potential for 
optimizing vehicle productivity inherent in the Community 
quota. 
2.2.4. It has also to be borne in mind that under existing 
bilateral arrangements, traffic on some important routes is 
not subject to quantitative restrictions: these include 
international traffic between many Member States (*). It 
seems then — not least with regard to these particular 
bilateral arrangements — that there is but limited scope for 
balancing the increase under the Community quota by a 
corresponding decrease in capacity under bilateral 
arrangements. Indeed, the indicators point rather to a 
parallel increase in capacity available under the bilateral 
arrangements. It is highly questionable whether this increase 
in capacity will be matched by an equivalent increase in 
demand. It is also doubtful whether the increase in capacity 
will be uniform: certain types of carrier may well benefit at 
the expense of others and — with particular reference to the 
terms of the court judgment — carriers of certain 
nationalities may well benefit at the expense of those of other 
nationalities. 
2.2.5. In the abovementioned opinions of 26 November 
1986 and 14 May 1987 the Committee expressed its views on 
these issues and endorsed an increase in the Community 
quota for 1987 only. In the same opinions the Committee 
expressed its unequivocal opposition to an automatic 
increase in the Community quota. The Committee does not 
however rule out an annual increase, provided that (a) it is 
economically justified and (b) any increase is matched by 
corresponding progress on harmonization. For economic 
and social reasons, however, overcapacity in this sector must 
be avoided, as it could have a detrimental effect not only on 
road haulage but also on other modes of transport. The 
Committee, which represents the social and economic 
interest groups concerned, must have an opportunity to 
make its voice heard on this subject. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. As in the past, Community authorizations are to be 
made out in the name of the carrier, thus enabling vehicles to 
be deployed flexibly by their owners. In the eyes of some 
members, this is to be welcomed as a whole. There is also no 
objection to the fact that, as long as it is not possible to issue 
I1) B with GB, L, NL; I with L, NL; GB with B, DK, GR, L, NL; IRL 
with L, NL; NL with B, DK, GR, IRL, I, L, GB; P with GR, IRL; 
DK with GR, L, NL, GB; E with GR, IRL; GR with DK, L, NL, 
GB, E, P; L with B, DK, IRL, I, NL, GB; F with L, NL. 
31. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 232/39 
one Community authorization per carrier, the authorizations 
are to be allocated within each Member State on the basis of 
the use that can be expected to be made of them. 
2.3.2. Care should be taken to ensure that in the 
transition and final stage, the changes in Community 
authorizations do not jeopardize the rights acquired by 
hauliers who already operate between Member States. 
2.4. Article 5 
2.4.1. The Commission proposes that measures be taken 
even during the transitional period to deal with serious 
disturbances on the transport markets which are likely to 
persist. This is the case when the 'average profits' of a 
properly managed undertaking are insufficient, when 
'international road haulage capacity is well above demand,' 
when bankruptcies and unemployment are on the increase, 
or when the environment is seriously threatened by 
congestion on certain routes. 
2.4.2. First of all, the Commission — like the Member 
States — should pursue a policy for regulating the market 
which in the long term ensures a balance between supply and 
demand. The Commission's and the Member States' policies 
should focus on creating the right general conditions for (a) 
furthering corporate needs, (b) making the roads safe and 
protecting the environment (to be achieved above all by 
ensuring that technical specifications for vehicles and roads 
are introduced and strictly monitored) and (c) coordinating 
transport more closely through the provision of economic 
incentives and the development of alternative forms of 
transport in line with demand. However, workers' interests 
should not suffer in the process. 
2.4.3. The criteria listed are neither a reliable nor a 
significant measure of imbalance between supply and 
demand. Another reason why the Commission's solution is 
unsatisfactory is that it is only valid for parts of the market 
and would inevitably lead to firms attempting to deploy spare 
capacity elsewhere. 
2.4.4. This raises the question for economic 
policymakers of whether the fall in demand evident in the 
road haulage sector ought not to be halted by launching a 
general policy for reviving the economy and boosting 
growth. 
2.4.5. In paragraph 1.22 the section suggested that, given 
progress aachieved to date on the harmonization of conditions 
of competition, the safeguard clause, as at present defined by 
the Commission, could be dropped. Should the Council not 
share this view, then at the very least the criteria should be 
more precisely drafted and made less ambitious to 
interpretation. This would prevent valuable time being wasted on attempts to establish the precise meaning of 
'average profits,' 'a significant increase in the incidence of 
bankruptcy,' 'an appreciable increase in unemployment' or 'a 
serious threat to the environment.' 
2.5. Article 10 
2.5.1. The authorizations are to be issued during both the 
transitional and final phases to carriers who personally 
satisfy the conditions governing admission to the occupation, 
have not been convicted of committed any 'serious and 
repeated infringements' of national and international 
provisions during the previous three years, and have been 
engaged for at least three years as road haulage operators on 
domestic routes. The applicant also has to prove a genuine 
need for the authorizations. Member States may, however, 
also lay down further requirements, though these must be 
compatible with the principle of the freedom to provide 
services. 
2.5.2. It should be pointed out in this connection that the 
conditions governing admission to the occupation have so far 
not been applied uniformly in all Member States, if at all. The 
Commission should make absolutely sure that Community 
law applies equally in all Member States and that the 
conditions governing admission to the occupation are 
harmonized. Article 10(1) should, in referring to the criteria 
provided for in Article 3 of the Council Directive of 12 
November 1974 on admission to the occupation of road 
haulage operator in national and international transport 
operations (74/561 /EEC), make it clear that the criteria in 
question must be: of good repute, appropriate financial 
standing and the professional competence of the natural or 
legal person wishing to engage in road haulage. The 
knowledge which a road haulier has to demonstrate as proof 
of his professional competence is already defined in detail in 
the above Directive. Good repute and appropriate financial 
standing also need to be defined as precisely as possible. Only 
then will the necessary uniformity of application and 
monitoring throughout the Member States be possible. 
These criteria will also make it easier to identify 
infringements of the type referred in the first indent of Article 
13. 
2.5.3. It is also not very practical to require that the need 
for extra authorizations has to be proved. It has been 
sufficiently clear in the past that it is possible to determine ex 
post facto from statistics whether adequate use has been 
made of authorizations, but this is not so at the moment an 
application is made. In practice this merely results in 
unnecessary bureaucracy without the issuing authorities 
actually being in a position to check the validity of the 
documentary evidence. This stipulation should therefore be 
dropped. So too, should the possibility which Member States 
will have to lay down extra conditions for carriers established 
in their territory. The substantive rules and regulations 
No C 232/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
governing transfrontier goods transport should in future be 
common to the whole of the Community; Member States 
should not be able to adopt solutions of their own. 
2.6. Article 11 
2.6.1. The authorizations are to be valid for a maximum 
of three years during the Regulation's final phase. Member 
States will thus be able to determine whether adequate use 
has been made of the authorizations. In addition, it will not 
be possible to intervene on the road haulage markets unless a 
system of renewable authorizations is retained. When the 
switch is made to a quota-free regime it will not be possible to 
dispense with authorizations. The Commission should, 
however, examine after a further transitional period whether 
the experiences gained with markets not restricted by quotas 
do not justify a changeover to licensing arrangements. 
2.7. Article 12 
2.1 A. The issuing of authorizations is also conditional on 
the applicant indicating the number of vehicles to be 
deployed together with their registration numbers. The 
flexible deployment of vehicles, and in particular the hiring 
and leasing of commercial vehicles, is made difficult by such a 
restriction. 
2.8. Article 13 2.9. Article 15 
2.9.1. Just as for the transitional period, machinery is to 
be provided for the post-1992 period to deal with crises in 
international road haulage. The comments made above with 
regard to the equivalent procedures for the transitional 
period apply mutatis mutandis. However, the possibilities 
available for withdrawing authorizations have been 
restricted further and apply only to parts of the market. 
2.10. Article 16 
2.10.. The Member States must be obliged to liaise in 
applying and supervising the regulation. It has already been 
pointed out in this connection that, above all, the 
Commission will have to ensure that Community law is 
applied uniformly in the Member States. In addition, 
cooperation should mainly be confined to dealing with 
offences and infringements. It should also be ensured that 
equivalent standards and administrative practices are 
introduced with regard to the rules governing admission to 
the occupation, the technical inspection of commercial 
vehicles and the supervision of drivers' hours. The 
information about infringements will be pointless if the 
supervisory measures differ greatly from one Member State 
to another. To this extent the correct prerequisites must be 
created first of all in the individual Member States. This is a 
matter for which the Commission should bear responsibility 
in the interests of a properly functioning road haulage market 
that provides a high-quality service. 
2.8.1. With regard to the withdrawal of authorization, 
the Committee questions what personal consequences there 
might be for the employees involved irrespective of whether 
withdrawal is the result both in cases of incorrect 
information being supplied or of infringements of the rules 
on driving and rest periods. 2.11. Article 19 
2.11.1. The entry into force of the Regulation should be 
scheduled for 1 January 1988. 
Done at Brussels, 1 July 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear 
accident 
(87/C 232/18) 
On 1 July and 24 October 1986 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with the 
fourth paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on the consequences of 
the Chernobyl nuclear accident.