24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/19 
Opinion on Community traffic in transit through non-EC countries (Switzerland, Austria 
and Yugoslavia) 
(88/C 134/09) 
On 22 September 1987 the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee decided, under 
the fourth paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedures, to draw up an own-initiative 
Opinion on Community traffic in transit through non-EC countries (Switzerland, Austria 
and Yugoslavia). 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 9 March 1988. The rapporteur 
was Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 254th plenary session (meeting of 23 March 1988) the Committee adopted the following 
Opinion unanimously. 
1. Preliminary comments d) taxes and tolls, and 
1.1. Desirous of uniting Europe and achieving the 
fundamental objective of a steady improvement in living 
and working conditions, the authors of the Treaty of 
Rome set out to secure economic and social progress 
in the Community, particularly through the free move­
ment of persons, goods and capital, the achievement of 
balanced internal trade, fair competition and the grad­
ual removal of international trade restrictions. 
1.2. The authors of the Treaty of Rome were fully 
aware of the relevance of transport to the Treaty's 
objectives. This is what explains and gives legitimacy 
to Treaty Articles 74 to 84, which deal specifically with 
a common transport policy. 
1.3. The Community has a direct interest in tackling 
the problems of transit between the EEC, Austria, 
Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Unless solutions are 
found, there is no chance of achieving a single internal 
market by 1992 even if current intra-Community transit 
difficulties are overcome. 
1.4. The Committee would underline the importance 
of distortions of competition. This mainly affects Italian 
and Greek goods passing through Austria, Switzerland 
and Yugoslavia, but not exclusively so since all EEC 
goods in transit through these three countries have to 
face the following obstacles (as described in greater 
detail in Chapter 2): 
a) inadequate road and rail infrastructure; 
b) major restrictions on the weights and dimensions of 
commercial vehicles; 
c) quota restrictions on road haulage; e) delays at frontiers. 
This situation is particularly serious as the volume of 
intra-Community transport in transit through these 
three countries is expected to increase substantially. 
1.5. It is not only the economic interests of the Com­
munity which are at stake here. The transit countries, 
too, stand to gain from finding balanced solutions. The 
problem posed by the expanding volume of traffic 
cannot be solved by increasing obstacles, even if these 
were to be financially exorbitant. The barriers created 
in Switzerland, for example, have merely diverted traffic 
to Austria and France. 
1.6. Nor can the social aspects of transit problems 
be neglected. A detour of several hundreds of kilometers 
not only pushes up costs but also means trying con­
ditions for drivers, as well as an overall increase in 
pollution and its transfer from one country to another. 
1.7. Degradation of the environment explains some 
of the measures taken by the transit countries. An 
overall solution to the Community's transit problems 
should therefore ideally include not only transport 
aspects per se but also energy, environmental and social 
aspects. A medium-term policy continues to be a vital 
if often neglected instrument in seeking to achieve this 
objective. 
1.8. In the immediate future the planned negotiations 
should aim to remove specific obstacles hindering the 
'transparency' of traffic and equal conditions of compe­
tition, for the sake of all the states concerned. 
No C 134/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
1.9. On 7 December 1987 the Council authorized the 
Commission to negotiate with Austria, Switzerland and 
Yugoslavia on transit and transport infrastructure 
problems. 
1.10. In connection with the preparation of this 
Opinion the Committee took oral evidence from leading 
figures representing the economic and social interests 
of Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. These hearings 
have been most useful for the purposes of drawing up 
the present Opinion. 
2. The present situation 
Goods traffic between the North of the Community 
and Italy/Greece has to be channelled through Austria, 
Switzerland and Yugoslavia. These transit routes are 
also used heavily for Community exports to the Near 
and Middle East. 
2.2. In 1984 some 11,8 million t of Community goods 
were carried through Switzerland, of which about 10,8 
million t went by rail and about 900 000 t by road. It 
is Austria, however, which has now become by far 
and away the most important transit country for the 
European Community, with an estimated 30 million t 
of Community goods carried through it in 1986 (19 
million t by road and 11 million t by rail). Since Greece 
jointed the Common Market, Yugoslavia has also 
become more and more important as a transit country, 
with 85 % of Greece's trade with the rest of the Com­
munity passing through Yugoslavia (85 % by road and 
only 15% by rail). 
2.3. The Community has been grappling with the 
problems posed by goods traffic in transit through 
Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia for a number of 
years now. In the case of Austria there have already 
been exploratory talks, as well as meetings up to minis­
terial level between Austria and the countries most 
directly concerned; as far as Yugoslavia is concerned the 
EEC contributes to the funding of certain infrastructure 
projects via the European Investment Bank; and in 
the case of Switzerland a number of specific problems 
(motorway tolls, weights and dimensions) have been 
discussed. 
2.4. As far as the three transit countries are con­
cerned, solutions have to be found to two types of 
problems: 
a) regulations and administrative problems (quotas, 
taxes and tolls, delays at frontier); 
b) obstacles relating to non-existent or inadequate 
road and rail infrastructure (motorways/Alpine 
tunnels/facilities for combined transport). The 
European Community, as the source of the transit 
traffic, needs to be involved more actively in the infrastructure investments of the transit countries: 
this is why it is important to mention that a new 
loan of the European Investment Bank, worth 550 
million ECU (without interest rate subsidies), has 
recently been granted to Yugoslavia, principally for 
transport infrastructure projects of common interest 
(the trans-Yugoslav motorway, including feeder 
roads) and that Austria filed a request as early as 
1977 for a Community contribution to the financing 
of the Pyhrn motorway. 
2.5. The situation can be summed up as follows: 
Switzerland 
2.6. Under its own national transport policy, Switz­
erland has adopted a series of measures to reduce intra-
Community road traffic passing through it to a mini­
mum. The measures include: 
— a 28-t weight restriction on heavy vehicles (40 t in 
the Community), 
— a 2,30 m width restriction (2,50 m in the Com­
munity), 
— the opening hours of customs offices, 
— a high fixed-rate charge for heavy vehicles, 
— non-harmonized customs procedures (method for 
calculating customs costs, different sequence of 
operations for drivers), 
— various restrictions on traffic movement (generally 
accepted ban on Sunday and bank-holiday driving; 
ban on driving at night; ban on certain routes), 
2.7. Crossing Switzerland by road is made difficult 
by the inadequate number and restrictions on the use 
of transalpine routes. This often causes lengthy detours 
and overloads transit routes across Austria. A Swiss 
Government Report has estimated that about 
15 million t of road traffic is diverted from Switzerland, 
mainly to Austria. The Committee notes that much of 
this diverted traffic uses the Brenner. 
2.8. The situation is not so bad in the rail sector. 
Certain improvements are already being made or are 
at the planning stage (doubling of the Brig/Berne line, 
new line through the Gotthard) although the new 
schemes will not be enough to cope with the expected 
increase in traffic. 
Austria 
2.9. The Austrian Government has also taken a num­
ber of restrictive measures in the form of: 
— a tax on heavy vehicles and tolls on certain Alpine 
passes, — the Rail and Bus 2000-project to promote public 
transport. 
24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/21 
— quotas on foreign road haulage. 
2.10. Austria has a particularly difficult road traffic 
situation to contend with and there is a danger that it 
might be tempted to take more restrictive measures. It 
is therefore pleasing to note that Austria's social part­
ners are willing to get to grips with this difficult problem 
with a view to genuine cooperation with the EEC and 
possibly securing its participation in certain ventures. 
Yugoslavia 
2.11. There are difficulties here with respect to both 
infrastructure and regulations: 
— the trans-Yugoslavia motorway is not yet complete 
and is inadequately maintained, 
— the trans-Yugoslav railway is not up to average 
European standards, 
— the Yugoslav Government has introduced road 
haulage quotas, 
— a special tax has been imposed on road haulage, 
and is calculated on the basis of (a) the number of 
kilometers travelled and (b) vehicle weight (only 
foreign vehicles are subject to this tax), 
— waits at frontiers and delays en route are long. 
2.12. Even so Yugoslavia is willing to give serious 
and full consideration to these problems in the light of 
the Community's intention to deregulate traffic by 1992. 
2.13. The Community must be aware of the invest­
ment required to secure such improvements and of the 
fact that it may also be necessary to apply the Yugoslav 
regulations on mixed companies, now in the pipeline. 
3. Principles which should underline the negotiations 
of conditions of transit 
3.1. In order to ensure genuine equality on the mar­
ket, i.e. to achieve a single internal market, it is of 
fundamental and even vital importance to be able to 
transport goods (or persons) from one Member State 
to another on equal terms, regardless of whether it is 
necessary to cross a non-member country in order to 
follow the shortest route. 
3.2. The conditions under which Community traffic transits Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Austria are thus 
of concern to the entire Community. 
3.3. The aim of bilateral and/or multilateral transit 
negotiations between the Community and Switzerland, 
Yugoslavia and Austria is to ensure basically equal 
conditions for transit traffic, if necessary in stages. 
3.4. Failure to achieve a satisfactory outcome to the 
Community's negotiations within a reasonable space 
of time will cause a serious crisis in relations with 
Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Austria, prolonging 
serious distortions of competition between the Member 
States. 
3.5. From the very start the Community must be 
absolute clear in its approach to the negotiations: 
3.6. The Community must first of all recognize that 
a fair solution to the problem of transit traffic in 
the three countries concerned poses serious problems. 
Consequently, the real problems regarding the protec­
tion of the natural environment, the development of 
lines of communication and congested road and rail 
traffic (always a possibility), will have to be looked at 
very closely and in a most constructive frame of mind. 
3.7. The Community will therefore have to approach 
negotiations in a spirit of understanding and practical 
cooperation; it will also have to be prepared to make 
a financial contribution (in one way or another) as 
envisaged in the past. 
3.8. This, however, does not mean being prepared 
to sit back and accept unilateral decisions. Even if it is 
beyond dispute that every country has sovereign rights 
and can decide by itself how to exercise these rights, it 
is also perfectly clear that it is through negotiations— 
and in no other way—that ways will have to be found 
of restoring basic conditions of equality and non-dis­
crimination for Community goods and traffic in transit 
through the three countries in question. Agreements 
which only partially solve contentious issues cannot be 
envisaged—at least not in principle and not as the 
outcome of a possible transitional period. Negotiations 
will therefore have to end in an overall agreement even 
if, to reach such an agreement, it will be necessary 
to adopt provisional solutions and move through a 
succession of phases. 
3.9. Consequently, any attempt on the part of one 
of the three countries to now impose new restrictions 
on existing conditions of rail road transit, or any 
attempt by the Community itself to impose restrictions 
on the transit of Austrian, Swiss or Yugoslav goods 
through the Community's own territory, would have 
to be decisively rejected not only as an unacceptable 
No C 134/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
bid to 'force' the imminent negotiations but also as a 
grave and flagrant violation of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) principle of standstill. 
4. Some indications of the subjects to be discussed 
The North-South route to and from Italy through 
Austria and Switzerland 
4.1. The Brenner tunnel: the decision to build has 
already been taken by Austria: work could be completed 
in 4-5 years: the new Brenner tunnel will certainly make 
a decisive contribution to meeting new traffic demand 
between now and the year 2000 and will keep the 
impact on the environment down to a minimum. 
4.2. The Splugen tunnel and the doubling of the 
Gotthard line: These are two clear alternatives. Until a 
few weeks ago the Swiss Federal Government seemed 
to have reached a decision in favour of the Gotthard. 
Militating in favour of the Gotthard is the inadequate 
railway system on the territory of the Federal Republic 
of Germany to the North of Splugen and the German 
Bundesbahn's unwillingness to modernize its railways 
in this area because of investment commitments else­
where. The Italians on the other hand are strongly in 
favour of the Splugen tunnel, mainly because they want 
to avoid an increase in traffic passing through Chiasso 
for environmental reasons and because of the proven 
difficulty in finding the necessary space in the Chiasso 
area for interconnections and services. 
Recently, however, there seems to have been serious 
support for the building of a tunnel on the Bern-Brig 
route, with a direct opening at Brig. This scheme would 
not only have the advantage of costing less, it would 
also help ease the flow of traffic from France. At the 
same time, however, it would place an extremely heavy 
burden on the Milan area. 
4.3. Bern, Lotschberg, Brig: Work on doubling the 
railway track is already underway, but: 
— a great deal of time will be required to complete 
the work, 
— train speeds will be limited because of the gradients 
and the sharp bends, 
— the infrastructure on the Italian side is already close 
to completion. 
4.4. Road-widening between Lausanne, St Bernard 
and Aosta, or between Lausanne, Brig, Domodossola 
and Sesto Calende. Since more and more road traffic 
will sooner or later have to pass through Switzerland, one of these road links should be widened. In addition, 
further consideration should be given to the possibility 
of building a twin St Gotthard road tunnel which, 
according to Swiss calculations, would cost only 10 % 
of the new St Gotthard rail link. 
The N or th-W est/South-East route to and from Greece 
through Austria (Switzerland) and Yugoslavia 
4.5. The motorway through Yugoslavia, the trans-
Yugoslavia railway line, the Karawanken tunnel: 
The basic problem is funding. This has already been 
referred to in Chapter 2 and is mentioned again in point 
4.12. 
4.6. The development of the port infrastructure in 
the Northern Adriatic (Trieste, Koper, Rijeka, Venice). 
Improvements in road and rail infrastructure in the 
area will ensure that the South-Eastern part of Central 
Europe has adequate access to the sea. Solutions to this 
age-old problem are needed—as are proper agreements 
to settle the ancient disputes between these ports which 
have virtually led to stagnation if not outright paralysis. 
4.7. The Patras-Bari ferry. The development of the 
existing line would be welcome, especially in view of 
the development of combined transport. 
Topics common to both major routes 
4.8. There are problems on both North-South and 
North-West/South-East transit routes. Solutions to 
these problems should be negotiated between the Com­
munity and the transit countries. The main problems 
are: 
— the speeding-up of customs formalities and the 
efficiency of checks, 
— goods depots and parking space at customs posts 
for heavy goods vehicles, 
— weights and dimensions, 
— quotas, 
— other limitations to traffic flows. 
The primary objective should be to remove all these 
restrictions in order to be able to achieve a single 
internal market by 1992. 
This prospect and the associated Community regu­
lations must be taken into consideration when negotiat­
ing with the transit countries. 
4.9. With regard in particular to rail traffic and 
rolling stock, the aim should be: 
24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/23 
— to standardize line voltages, 
— to use electric power units which are able to operate 
on different voltages, 
— to lay down the specifications for a 'standardized' 
high-speed goods wagon, 
— to reduce progressively the transit time of freight 
trains and to introduce high-speed goods trains over 
medium/long distances (using the new high-speed 
European railway lines, especially at night when the 
lines are used less by passenger trains). 
The Committee would emphasize that freight speeds, 
however important, are only a relatively small part of 
total transit time when what the customer wants is a 
competitive rail time from door to door. 
4.10. In the field of combined transport (which offers 
many opportunities for using existing potential more 
efficiently), the Committee would like to see a more 
positive approach by the railway companies concerned 
so that they can compete freely on equal terms in the 
post-1992 freight market, not only for short distance 
transit traffic through Austria, Switzerland and Yugo­
slavia, but for the more viable traffic between Northern 
and Southern Europe. 
4.11. Although maritime transport is not covered by 
the negotiating brief, the Committee considers that 
steps should be taken to ensure that it makes a bigger 
contribution to North-South transport. The same 
objective could be served by developing inland water­
ways. 
Funding of infrastructure 
4.12. Fair apportionment of infrastructure develop­
ment costs is one of the most sensitive issues to be 
negotiated. The Committee notes from the information 
obtained in the course of its work that the three transit 
countries all stress the 'user pays' principle, while differ­
ing in approach as regards their practical demands for 
cost apportionment. 
Switzerland does not request Community financial 
assistance but levies taxes and tolls to recoup capital 
costs. 
Austria has unsuccessfully asked for Community 
financial help in the construction of the Pyhrn motor­
way and is currently seeking assistance in funding the 
Brenner tunnel and rail extension works. If the Com­
munity fails to make a contribution, Austria will come 
up with the necessary funds, recouping costs through 
taxes and tolls. Yugoslavia is unable to fund the required capital 
investment on its own. It therefore applies regularly 
for soft loans, and even Community subsidies. Serious 
consideration should be given to the feasibility of setting 
up mixed companies to manage the construction of 
transport infrastructure, particularly in the light of 
Yugoslav legislation on foreign capital investment, 
which is in the process of being amended. 
4.13. The current negotiations must therefore aim at 
compromise solutions accommodating the interests of 
all parties. By agreeing to greater participation (at the 
preliminary or end stages) in the cost of constructing 
and maintaining infrastructure used by Community 
transit traffic, the Community could exert greater press­
ure for the harmonization or relaxation of the official 
formalities imposed by the three transit countries. 
4.14. The Committee calls on the parties concerned 
to devote their efforts to achieving an overall agreement 
on funding. 
4.15. The Committee reserves the right to return to 
the matter of taxes and tolls in possible future Opinions. 
5. Some final comments 
5.1. The good intentions voiced by the EEC partici­
pants should be reflected in their negotiating positions, 
and ultimately in the agreements. The considerable 
indirect advantages to be reaped by the three transit 
countries from development of the Community of the 
Twelve must clearly be matched by genuine determi­
nation to work out joint solutions to individual prob­
lems. 
5.2. In other words, this principle holds good first 
and foremost for the entire EEC and not just for Switz­
erland, Austria and Yugoslavia. Here the statement 
made by Mr Burke, EEC Commissioner, at the Euro­
pean Parliament sitting on 24 September 1979, is appo­
site. Mr Burke recalled the problems encountered by 
transit traffic in crossing certain non-Community 
countries, and mentioned in particular: 
'The difficulties experienced in the Alpine regions, 
on the North/South and North-West/South-East 
routes. The improvement of transit traffic through 
Austria, Yugoslavia and Switzerland is one of the 
Commission's key transport policy priorities. This 
presupposes a multilateral solution extending 
beyond the Community's borders and taking 
account of the interests of both the transit countries 
and the countries which depend on them for transit 
purposes.' 
5.3. It has taken more than eight years to rough out 
a negotiating position and obtain a brief from the 
Council. In this period the situation has deteriorated 
badly. Failure to take appropriate action has, for 
No C 134/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
instance, resulted in the artificial diversion of virtually 
all road-haulage traffic (15 million t, according to 
various estimates) from Switzerland to France and 
Austria, particularly the latter. This is a totally unnatu­
ral situation; steps to restore the balance gradually (e.g. 
by means of combined transport) must be precondition 
of the negotiations. 
5.4. It remains true that agreements between the 
Community and neighbouring countries would be 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988. achieved more readily if the latter were to participate 
in the preparation of Community regulations. 
5.5. The Committee asks the Commission to keep it 
informed of the progress and outcome of the nego­
tiations. It expects to be formally consulted and may 
decide to give detailed consideration to a number of 
aspects which for practical reasons have not been 
covered by the present Opinion. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Network of rail links of Community 
interest 
existing lines. 
new lines or lines under construction. 
— -«-.. new lines being planned. 
lines to be improved (speed; gauge). 
I 
Source: EC-Commission 
THE BARRIER OF THE ALPS 
FRANKFURT HAMBURG 
LUXEMBOURG 
PARIS 
WIEN 
LYON 
MARSEILLE 
ALPINE REGION 
ROAD NETWORK 
.' Motorway. 
— — — . Main road. 
—| I ; Alpine crossing MARIBOR 
ZAGREB 
ALPINE CROSSINGS 
1. Pre jus 
2. Mont Blanc 
3. Grand St Bernard 
4. Simplon 
5. St Gotthard 
6. San Bernardino/Spliigen 
7. Brenner 
8. Tauern 
9. Pyhrn 
10. Karawanken I