ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(82)589
Vol.1982/0186

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
NINTHREPORTBYTHECOMMISSION TOTHECOUNCIL
ontheimplementation ofCouncilRegulation (EEC)No543/69
of25March1969ontheharmonization ofcertainsocial
legislation relatingtoroadtransport
Periodcoveredbythereport:1Januaryto31December1979COM(82)589 final
Brussels 21September 19°2
/•'-iSW*y\'Yï-l-amJ\»û
-3d)CI^m
COM(52)589final

CONTENTS
Page
A.Introduction 1
B.Comparative analysis ofinformation supplied bythe
Member States 2
I.Organizatron ofcontrol
1.Administrative organization ofinspection 2
2.Authorized inspecting officers and their powers 2
3.Methods ofinspection (place andfrequency ) 5
II.Breaches andpenalties 10
1.Number ofbreaches oftheRegulation 10
2.Infringements bynationals andforeigners respectively :
comparative figures 20
3.Penalties imposed 30
III .Multilateral mutual assistance between Member States and
notification ofinfringements 38
IV.Suggestions andcomments bytheMember States 40
1.Overall assessment oftheapplication oftheRegulation 40
2.Difficulties inthe use ofindividual control books in
international transport operations -possible remedies 41
3.Proposals forchanges inthe standard form ofreport 42
4.Proposals formeasures tofacilitate theapplication
ofRegulation (EEC )No543/69 42
V.Comments bythe Commission onthe information supplied
bytheMember States 43
1.Member States' Contributions tothe annual report 43
2.Number andpowers ofthe inspectors 43
3.Inspection methods 44
4.Infringements bynationals andnon-nationals 44
5.Penalties 45
6.Mutual assistance 45
C.Final conclusions bythe Commission 45

INTRODUCTION
1. This istheninth General Report ontheimplementation bythe
Member States ofCouncil Regulation (EEC )No543/69of25March 1969 .
Under Article 17ofthis Regulation ,theCommission isrequired to
present such areport totheCouncil yearly .Theninth Report covers
theperiod 1January to31December 1979 .
2. In1979 ,the "European Communities (Road Transport )Regula­
tion 1979 "entered into force inIreland aspart ofagradual process
ofapplying Regulation (EEC)No543/69.This process will continue
during theperiod upto31December 1980 .
3. Most Member States were once again very slow insubmitting
their reports totheCommission .Insome cases ,thedelay wasconsiderable ,
while some reports were either incomplete orcontained nostatistics .
Moreover ,thefigures were notpresented inauniform fashion .All
these factors make itvery difficult for theCommission todraw upa
supplementary report .
1

-2-
B.COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OFINFORMATION SUPPLIED BYTHE MEMBER STATES
I.ORGANIZATION OFCONTROL
1.Administrative organization ofinspection
Administrative arrangements inBelgium ,Denmark ,theFederal
Republic ofGermany ,Ireland ,Luxembourg ,theNetherlands andthe
United Kingdom were described inthe1978 report .France reported that
various measures hadbeen adopted inorder tohelp theauthorities to
recruit more staff andobtain necessary equipment .They will beimple­
mented instages throughout theduration oftheSeventh Five-Year Plan
(1January 1976 to31December 1980 ).Theability tocarry out inspec­
tions ,which hadbeen increased inJune 1978 through theuseofasemi­
automatic device foranalyzing tachograph discs ,improved still further
in1979 with the introduction ofasecond machine .Itwasplanned to
put afurther machine into service early in1980 .
The Italian Government hadnothing toadd tothesparse
information itprovided in1977 and 1978 .
2.Authorized inspecting officers and their powers
InBelgium ,checks were carried outby193factory inspectorate
officials (inspectors andassistant inspectors )(i.e. 84fewer than in
1978 ).These officials were invested with the same powers asin1978 .
There hasbeen nochange inDenmark and theNetherlands since
the last report asregards inspecting officers and their powers .
IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,asin1978 ,some 2500
officials (police ,theBAG,factory inspectors )were responsible for
monitoring theemployment andactivities ofroad haulage drivers as
part oftheir wide-ranging duties .

-3-
The factory inspectorate employs some 250-300 officials .
The inspectors have thepower toconduct investigations and toreport
offenders with aview tothe imposition ofpenalties .The factory
inspectorate can impose fines forbreaches committed inlong-distance
road transport .The BAGalone can impose fines inrelation toinfringe­
ments byforeign drivers andoperators onthe roads ofthe Federal
Republic .
InFrance ,49factory inspectors (transport )(6more than
in1978 )and 280traffic examiners anddeputy examiners (contrSleurs
etadjoints decontrole destransports terrestres )<20more than in
1978 )were responsible formonitoring theimplementation ofRegulation
543 /69in1979 .
These government officials carry outchecks both ontheroads andat
thefirms 'premises.In addition ,some 6500police andGendarmerie motor
cyclists carry out roadside checks .Any infringements are reported to
the relevant authorities forfurther action .The "police judiciaire "
(Criminal Investigation Department )andofficials authorized torecord road
traffic offences mayimmobilize vehicles iftheir drivers have breached
the rules ondriving and rest periods inroad transport .

-4-
The Irish Government reported that roadside checks and checks
atports are carried outbyTraffic Corps officers (250 inall).One of
their main tasks istomonitor theimplementation ofsocial legislation
relating toroad transport .Moreover ,inaddition tothier normal duties ,
customs andexcise officers stationed atfrontiers andports arealso
responsible forensuring that Regulation 543/69isobserved .Finally ,
four Departments ofLabour Inspectors areengaged solely incarrying out
inspections attransport operators' premises .The Irish Government
reported that thepowers ofofficers and inspectors were unchanged
compared with previous years .
The Italian Government stated that checks are carried out by
traffic police officers and thefactory inspectorate ,butcould notgive
figures astothenumber ofofficers involved .
The Luxembourg Government reported that there hadbeen no
changes initschecking system ,details ofwhich were given inthe1973
report .
TheUnited Kingdom Government stated inits last report (1978 )
that steps had been taken tofill thevacant posts referred tointhe
1977 report .At31December 1978 thetotal strength was226officers ;a
year later ,the figure wasonly 221 .Thepowers oftraffic examiners and
police remain unchanged and are asstated intheprevious report .

3.Methods ofinspection (place and frequency )
InBelgium ,the inspection sociale "(factory inspectorate )was
responsible forthebulk ofthechecks made atoperators' premises ;560
inspections were conducted (430 relating toroad haulage operations and
130 topassenger transport ).TheBelgian Government reported that
transport department officers conducted about 7800 roadside checks (6800
onroad haulage vehicles and 1000onpassenger transport vehicles ).It
should benoted that ,compared with 1978 ,thenumber ofchecks fell by
1838 .There were nofigures available for roadside checks carried outby
theGendarmerie ,Customs andother departments ,but thenumber amounted
toseveral thousand .
The Danish Government reported that since 1978 the Factories
Inspectorate ,inconjunction with thepolice ,hadcarried out aLarge
number ofwide-ranging and systematic checks todetermine whether the
provisions ondriving time and rest periods were being observed .These
operations took theform ofspot checks atmajor intersections .Inaddition ,
thepolice were able toensure that the rules were being observed inthe
course ofchecks carried out inconnection with road traffic legislation .
Unfortunately ,theDanish Government omitted tosupply anyfigures relating
tothe number ofchecks carried out .
Checks inGermany were carried out inthemanner described in
previous reports .Some 60000checks were made in1979 ,ofwhich 14620
were atoperators' premises and the rest onthe road .Itisnotpossible
togive precise figures concerning cheks carried out onthe road .The
figure ofabout 45000 isanestimate based onthenumber offines imposed ,
warnings issued and infringements detected .
InFrance ,the inspection methods used were the same asin1978 .
Roadside checks were carried outprimarily toensure that documentary
records andmechanical instruments were properly used andthat standards

-6-
directly affecting road safety were being observed .Thenumber ofchecks
carried out atoperators' premises was 27799 in1979 asagainst 24928
in1978 .Atotal of255 961 record sheets were analysed .
Atotal of282302checks were carried out onthe road ,but
checks carried out bytheGendarmerie ,forwhich nofigures areavailable ,
also ledtothedetection ofinfringements andshould beadded tothis
total .
The Irish Government provided figures for the first time .In
1979 ,300checks were made atoperators' premises .The checks were carried
outprimarily toensure that documentary records andmechanical instruments
were properly used .The Irish Government stated that thefrequency and me
methods ofroadside checks would begiven inthenext report .
Monitoring ofthe implementation oftheCommunity rules inItaly
consists mainly ofinspections atoperators' premises tocheck whether the
control book andduty rosters have been drawn upandused andwhether the
tachograph hasbeen installed invehicles where this isrequired .In
addition ,aconstant check was kept onvehicles onthe road bytraffic
police officers .These checks were carried out for themost part on a
random basis aspart ofthegeneral control measures carried outbythe
factory inspectorate .The Italian Government stated that itwas unable to
supply figures relating tothenumber offirms atwhose premises inspec­
tions were carried out .
The Luxembourg Government reported that there have been no
changes ininspection methods but asinthepast itomitted toprovide
figures relating totheactual number ofchecks made .

IntheNetherlands ,officials oftheNational Transport Inspec­
torate (seeabove )carry out regular roadside checks ;thepolice often
help with checks onmotorways bystopping vehicles .Frequent border checks
arealso made .Asforchecks onheavy vehicles ,thepolice areresponsible
for technical matters and theNational Inspectorate deals with theadmini­
strative aspect .Thenumber ofchecks made during theperiod under review
exceeded 160000,animprovement on1978 .Inaddition tochecks atfirms *
premises following thedetection ofinfringements during roadside checks ,
National Transport Inspectorate officials conducted 391 in-depth investi­
gations into certain operators *activities .
Asin1978 ,inspection intheUnited Kingdom took theform of
vehicle checks ontrunk roads (twice aweek )organized bytheMinistry of
Transport traffic areas inconjunction with thepolice .Checks onabout
10to15%ofincoming vehicles atports ofentry into theUnited Kingdom
were made and 55530so-called "silent "checks also took place .In1979 ,
156965goods vehicles were inspected ,21616fewer than in1978 .The
figures refer solely totheactivities ofMinistry ofTransport officials
responsible forchecking asthere isnocomplete register ofthemeasures
taken bythepolice .Nofigures were given for checks onpassenger-carrying
vehicles .
Inthetable below ,theCommission hasattempted toindicate the
number ofchecks carried out ineach Member State inorder togive anidea
ofthescale ofinspection operations inthevarious countries .Themost
detailed information was supplied byFrance andBelgium ,both from thepoint
ofview oftheplace andnumber ofchecks made .However ,theresult would
suggest that thefigures relating tothenumber ofchecks carried outdo
not,unfortunately ,present aready basis forcomparison assome countries
(such asBelgium and the Federal Republic )donot indicate clearly whether
they relate tothenumber ofinspection operations ortheactual number
ofcrews checked .

The Commission regrets that for the first time theGerman
Government feels unable toprovide afigure for theactual number of
roadside checks ,although theGerman report itself states that there
hasbeen nochange intheway roadside checks areorganized and carried
out .
The Commission also regrets that thenumber ofchecks carried
out inBelgium and theUnited Kingdom islower than intheprevious
year and that theUnited Kingdom gives noinformation oninspections at
firms' premises orchecks onpassenger vehicles .
Inany case ,asfor1978 ,comparison onthis point isimpossi­
ble since Luxembourg and Italy failed tosupply figures and Ireland
supplied noinformation whatsoever onroadside checks .

-9-
NUMBEROFCHECKSCARRIED OUTIN1979(1)
MemberStatiRoadside Operators' PremisesComparisons between
1978and1979
Belgium 7800(2) 560fewerchecks
in1979
Denmark noinformation noinformation-
Germany 45380(3) 14620morechecks
in1979
France 282302(4) 27799morechecks
in1979
Ireland noinformation 300 -
Italy idem noinformation_
Luxembourg ider, idem-
Netherlands 160000 391indepthchecks morechecksin1979
UnitedKingdom156964(5) noinformationfewerchecks
in1979
(1)Tojudgetheextenttowhichchecksarecomparable,cf.page19
(2)CheckscarriedoutbytheGendarmerie shouldbeadded(figuresnotsupplied)
(3)Thefiguregivenisanestimatebasedonthenumberoffinesimposed,warnings
issuedandinfringements detected.
(4)CheckscarriedoutbytheGendarmerie shouldbeadded(figuresnotsupplied).
(5)Nofiguresavailable onmeasurestakenbythepolice.

-10-
..■■■■..es
Numbercf--eocnesofth?Regulation
BreachesofRegulation542/69inBelgium(2)
Goods PassengerTransport
TransportOccasionalServicesArticle RsgularServices (1)
National Foreign National Foreign National Foreign
6 2
7/1 6-
7/2 18-
7/4 7-
7/1)vehiclesnotreferredto
7/2)inArticle6arenot
7/4)specifiedinthereport
8 4-
11/1 15 -
11/2- -
12 5-
14/1 220 3 23 7
14/2- -
14/7- -
14/8- -
Annex4 - -
15/1- -
15/2- -
16- -
Reg.
1463/70 182 12 194 116
TotaI 465 15 217 123
(1)Asregardsthistypeoftransport,94checkswerecarriedoutatoperatorsCpremises.Oneinfringement wasdetected
butnoprosecution wasbrought.
(2)ThetablegivestheinfringementsdetectedbythetransportdepartmentandtheFactoryInspectorate.TheGendarmerie
wasabletoprovideonlythenumberofofficialreportsmadeundereachheading,withnobreakdownbytypeoftransport
andnationality.Thesefiguresaregiveninthefollowingtable.

-11-
Infringements detectedbythegendarmerie
1.Distancerestriction (Article6): 32
2.Drivingperiods(Article7): 488
3.Breaks(Article8): 318
4.Dailyrestperiod(Article11): 233
5.Weeklyrestperiod(Article12): 39
6.Individual controlbook(Article14andannex):479
7.Checksonregularservices (Article15): 17
Total,:1606
Forthefirsttime,theGendarmerie provideddataonthenumberof
officialreportsmade.TheBelgianGovernment hopestoinclude
thisinformation inthestandardformofreportinfuture.
In1979,theTransport Department andtheFactoryInspectorate made
8360(-9%)checkswhichuncovered 819(-9%)infringements .The <
BelgianGovernment considersthatthefactthatthesefiguresare
lowerthanthosefor1978(when9195checksrevealed896infringe-;
ments)isduetoareductioninthenumberofstaffcarryingout
checks(97fewerthanin1978). !
TheBelgianGovernment alsopointsoutthatincreaseinthenumber
ofbreachesofRegulation (EEC)No1463/70(from52to310)was
counterbalanced byafallinthenumberofinfringements ofRegula­
tion(EEC)No543/69underwhichtheindividual controlbookis
graduallybeingreplacedbythetachograph .

BREACHESOFREGULATIONS 543/69INDENMARK
ArticleGoods
Trsnsport
National ForeignPassengerTransport
RegularServices
NationalForeign(1]OccasionalServices
NatlonalForeign'1J
6
7/1
7/2
7/4
7/1
7/2
7/4
8
11/1
11/2
12
14/1
14/2
14/7
14/8
annex4
15/1
15/2
16
Reg.
1463/7066(2)
59
181(2)Ν
(,>itsz\i7oiXibrVa"Uh"ati°"aU-,h<com"ission-ouidi,k?,o
transporterpasserge^transpor^operations!*Specifyhhethertheinfringementsweredetectedinconnectionwithgoods
lationUld^n0te°'th9tnC£lbrescheswerecommitttdinconjunctionwithinfringenentsofotherArticlesoftheRegu-

IntM«-Federal Republic ofGermany ,there was a11increase inthe
number ofinfringements detected (63567 against 54200 )with 33%
more checks being carried out in 1979 (6000C against 45000).
Ofthese 63567 infringements ,61266 related togoods transport
and 2301 topassenger transport .
Asregards Regulation (EEC )No1463 /70and the AETR ,312and 56
infringements respectively were detected ,e.i .avery sharp increase
toatotal of368 .About 33600 ofthe 63867 infringements concerned
rules onworking tine ,andabout 30000 concerned rules regarding
the records tobekept ..
The table below gives abreakdown :

BRFALHES ATREGULATION -543/69Τ:ThEFEDERALREPUBLIC CFGERMANY
GoodsPassenger Τransport
ΤrensportOccasional ServicesArticle RegularServices
National Foreign Natior.aIForeign National Foreign
6 72 4
7/1 4611 866 4- 96 11
7/2 10556 1153 2,- 58 8
7/4 76 26- - - 2
7/1)vehicles not1437 772 15 3 236 26
7/3)referred to793 680 52 6 392 32
7/4)inArt.6623 12- 2ς 1
8 2468 192 4 6 103 21
11/1 7609 276 noinformation noinformation noinformation noinformation
11/2 noinformatior noinformation 52 13 786 28
12 469 8 12 6 56 6
14/1 20470 48 6■" 32 12
14/7
14/8
annex4
15/1 8– 6
'15/5 14 4 42 8
16
Reg.1463/70
14.2Reg.
543/69

BREACHES CFREGULATION 543/69I«FRANCE(1)
Article (2)Roadside checks ArticleCr.ecksatoperators'
premises
NationaIForeign
108622 50586
7/1
7/2
7/4
8
11/1)
11/2)
12
14/1
14/2
14/3
14/7
14/8
annex4
15/1
15/2
16
Reg.n°
1463/7018940
35090
5683
50828
7146
(1)The-FrenchGovernment didnotspecifywhetherthemfr-,rgements detected
relatedtogoodstransportorpassengertransportoperations .
(2)Inthecaseofinfringements byforeigners detectedinroadsidechecks,
onlythenationality oftheoffenderisspecified,notthetypeofinfrin­
gement.
WhiletheIrishGovernment gavenoinformation whatsoever onthenumberand
typeofinfringements ,theItalianGovernment statedthatitwasunabletosup­
plyfic'trf-sontheinfringements recorded.

BREACHES OFREGULATION 543/69IKLtXEHBCLRG (1)
ArticleGoods
TransportPassengerTrc¡nsport
RegularServices Occasional Services
National Foreign NationaIForeign N'atioraIForeign
6
7/1
7/2
7/4
7/ι)vehicl
7/2t0in
7/4jspecil
gport
11/1>
11/2>
12
14/1\
14/2j
14/7\14/8}
annex4
15/1
15/2
16
1463/701224
1875
157
esnotreferre
art.6arenot
!iedinthere-
835
463
14
157,1
9■A
(1)Theinfringements detectedandspecifiedabovewerecommittedmainlybyLuxembourgnationalsinthecourseofin­
ternationalgoodstransportoperationsusingvehiclesreferredtoinArticle6ofRegulation (EEC)No543/69.
InarecentlettertheLucembourgGovernmentinformedtheCommissionthat,noofficialreporthodbeenmadeagainst
foreignnationals.Itthereforedoesnotseemunreasonabletoassurethatnochecksweremadeonforeignnationals.
AfallinthenumberofinfrigerrentsoftheCommunityRegulation wasrecordedirLuxembourg (from6966in1978to
4734in1979).TheLuxembourgGovernmentinformedtheCommissionthatchecksonregular"servicesshowedthatthe
mainobligations ontheoperatorandeachcrewmemberwererespectedingeneral.

BREAOES CFRF.GlLA~IC'N 5^3/65INTHENETHERLANDS
ArticleGoods
ΤransportPasserger Trarsport
IServices RegularServices Occasiona
NatioraIForeign ΝationeIForeign NatioraI Foreign
6
7/1 1869 46 - 14 3
7/2,7/3¿718 63 20 89 4
7/4 H - 1 -
7/1)
7/2)- - - -
7/4)
8
11/1ï60 43 177 1111/2J
12 20 7 16 -
14/1 443 1 10 17 3
14/2155 7 3 -
14/7
14/8
annex4-
15/1 2
15/2 3
16 P5654 108 219 785 20
1463/70
ThefiguresavailablefortheNetherlands showedthat66.8%ofallinfringements detectedrelatetotheuseofthe
individualcontrolbook(1.630andthetachccraph (65.230(Article14(4)and16).

BREACHES CFREGULATION 543/69IN"HEUN!'ECKINGDOM C1)
Gocds PassengerTr..rsport
Article Transport
RegularServices Occasional Services
NationaIForeign NationaIForeign NationaIForeign
6 ?1
7/1)
7/2)
7/4>2864 12 '
7/1>
7/2>
7/4)
8 ?99 6
11/1'>2M 21
11/2>
12159-
14/*2365 174
14/¿7721 55 -
14/7?21–
14/8
annex4
15/1
15/2
16
Reg.
1463/70
(1)TheUnitedKingdomdoesnotspecifywhethertheinfringements detectedrelatetogooestransportorpassenger
transport.
ThefigurescontainedinthetablerelateonlytotheactivitiesofMinistrycfTransporttrafficcontrollers
anddonotincludethoseofthepolice.

-',9-
Astudyofthevaricestaol.esprovidedbythefieaberStatescanonly
Lcidtc,Itheconclusionthatthescopeandqualityofthe*eifornation
providedendtheterns,i^friinthetablesvariestosuchar>extert
thctanyvalidcomparison is--almostimpossible .

-20-
7.Infringements bynationals andforeigners respectively :comparative
figures
InBelgium,15cfthe480infringements reportedinthegoodstransport
sectorrelatedtovehiclesregisteredir,otherMemberStatesofthe
Community and465tovehiclesregistered inBelgium.Thefollowing
tablegivesabreakdownofthese480infringements .
1
Goodstransport
•Breachesofregulation No543/69inBelgium,bynatior-ality
ArtieleCiUKDFIRLILNILUKTOTAL
I
!6
j2 2
731 31
84 4
!n15 j
Í15
!12 5- I 5
14/1220 12I223
U/26!6
14/70 0
14/80 0
Reg.Mo.182 53 1 3 194
j1463/70
variousarticles ]
TCTAL465 53'
'2
I5 480

-21-
TableIIg^vestheinfringements committedinthepassengertransportsector,
withabreakdown bynationality .About16.9%ofthosedetectedwerecommit­
tedbynon-Belgians .
Passengertransport
Breachesofregulation 543/69inBelgium,bynationality
ArticleΒDKr–––
DFIRLILNLUK TOTAL
6 0
7 0
8 0
11 0
12 0
14/121 13 2 27
14/2 2 1 3
14/70 0
14/80 0
Reg.N°
1463/70190 13322 281265 306
(various
articles)
213 13425 281295 336
Denmarkdidnotdistinguish betweennationals andnon-nationals initsfigures.
Incontrast,theFederalRepublicofGermanysuppliedverydetailedfigures
showingthatnon-Germandriversandtransportoperatorsaccountedforabout
8.4%ofallinfringements detected.In1979,theresponsible authorities
detected58.206infringements byGermancrewsand6.361byforeigncrews.

-22-
Nevertheless,thesefiguresdonotmakeitpossibleforinfringement bynon-
Germanstobebrokendownbynationality .TheGermanGovernmentpoints ,out
thatsuchabreakdownwouldrequireadditionaladministrative resources.In
thiscontext,itshouldbenotedthatGermanyhasprovidedverydetailed
tablesgivingabreakdownofpenaltiesimposedbynationality,butthisdid
notpermitasimilarbreakdowntobemadeofinfringements committedby
foreigners .
InFrance,atotalof254.241Frenchcrewsand28.061foreigncrewswereche­
ckedontheroadin1979.Thesechecksledtothedetectionof108.622infrin­
gementsbyFrenchcrewsand5.058bynon-Frenchcrews.Non-Frenchdriversand
transportoperatorsaccountedforabout4.4%ofallinfringements detected
ontheroad.
BreachesofRegulation N°543/69inFrance,
Bynationality
Article^ΒDKDF(3IRLILNLUKJon-men
)er.coufnes1TOTAL
9
TOTAL 7247409108.622501.833153035971.120113.680
(1)TheFrenchstandardformofreportdoesnotspecifytheArticlesinvolved,
norwhetherthefiguresrelatetogoodstransportorpassengertransport.
(2)Roadsidechecksareincludedinthetable.

-23-
IrelancandItalydidnotsupplyinformation,whileLuxembourgfailedto
distinguish betweennationals andnon-nationals .
ThedetailedtablesentinbytheDutchauthorities showsthat40.788
lnfnnU'St.'.ts werecommitted ayDutchcrewsand320(0.7%)byforeigncrews.
Goccitra■.sport
BreachesofRégulâtio.·c543/69intheNetherlands,bynationality
Article Β:«D'IRLILNL UKNormen
beroom
triesTOTftL
6– - - -
1- - - 0
7/1 10 1327!_9-1.883-51.932
7/2C162V;15-9-4.827 1134.894
7/3(
7/4- - - - -*1 -12- - 13
8- - - - - - - - 0
11/1 1221G16-8 6.455 1116.515
11/2- - - - - - -22038 231
12- - - - - -43- - 43
14/1 1- - - - -470-3 474
14/2- - - - - - _205- - 205
14/4/1ó262202-44 -26.658 161826.786
15/1- - -- - - 2- - 2
15/5- - - - - - - 3- - 3
16- - - – – – – – – – 0
TOTAL 6484454
1-71-40.778 215841.098

-24-
FairlydetailedfiguresweresuppliedbytheUnitedKingdomGovernment .The
responsible authorities checked4.486foreignvehiclesanddetected268infrin­
gements(+5.9%).Atotalof152.478UKvehicleswerecheckedandther.LTiberof
infringements revealedwas13.901(around9.1%).
Goodstransport
BreachesofRegulation N°543/69intheUnitedKingdom
Article DK IRL NLUK1Nonmem
beraart
trjpçTOTAL
6
7
8
11
12
14/1
14/2
14/7
15
TOTAL6
1
4
6
7
242
2
8
152
33
1971
2
5
4
1221
2.864
299
251
159
2.365
7.721
221
3.9011
1
1
9
7
1921
2.876
305
272
159
2.539
7.776
221
0
14.169

-25-
The Commission hasattempted todraw upa .-.umber ofcomparative tables of
theinfringements detected .Toevaluate thenumber ofinfringements ,itis
necessary toconsider t.iem inrelation tothenumber ofchecks carried out :
Count ryNumber orread-side
r.ecKsInfringementsInfringement s
aspercentage of
number ofchecks
carried out
Belgium 7.8GÛ 465 4
Denmark nofigure supplied 307 cannot becalculated
Germany +158.830 63.600 40
France 282.302 108.622 38
Ireland nofigure supplied nofigure supplied cannot becalculated
Italy nofigure supplied nofigure supplied cannot becalculated
Luxembourg nofigure supplied 4.734 cannot becalculated
Nether lands 160.000 41.098 26
United Kingdom 156.964 14.169 9

-26-
Thetableshowshowfarthefiguresarefrombeingcomparable.Inthe
firstplace,thepercentagecannotbecalculatedforfourMemberStates.
Intheremainingcases,thefiguresforthenumberofcheckscarriedout
areoverallfiguresonlyandinmostcasesrelateonlytocheckscarried
outbyspecialinspectors,i.e.theydonotincludecheckscarriedoutby
thepoliceorGendarmerie .
Germanysuppliedafigureof34.450roadsidechecksand10.930special
frontierchecks.Itisnotclearwhetherthesefiguresrelatetothenumber
ofcrewscheckedorthenumberofcontroloperations.Inthelattercase,
eachoperationcouldinvolveanunknownnumberofcrewschecked.Whenasked
bytheCommission,however,theGermanGovernmentstatedthatthefigurein
volvedrelatestocontroloperations andthatthefiguresshouldbemulti­
pliedby3to4togivethenumberofcrewschecked.Accordingly,thetable
givesthefigureof158.830(3.5x(34.450+10.930).
Moreover,thefollowingreservations shouldbemadeasregardsthenumbero
infringements detected :
-thisnumberdependsontheintensityorstrictnessofchecks,
-inFrance,wherethecontrolstandardsdifferfromthoselaiddownin
Regulation n°543/69,thenumbercouLdasaresultbelowerthanina
MemberStateinwhichthestandardslaiddownintheRegulationareused
todetermineinfringements ,
-thefactthatitisstillnotcompulsorytoinstallandusetachographs
intheUnitedKingdomcouldhaveaconsiderable effectonthepercentage
inthatcountry,
-thepercentages showimprobabledifferences .Atfirstsight,thereisno
reasontobelievethattherearesuchdifferences inrespectforthelaw
inthevariousMemberStates.Itismorereasonable toassumethatthe
differences areduetothereasonsgivenabove.

Underthesecircumstances ,thetableinquestionshouldbeusedwiththe
greatestreservations .Thisalsoappliestothefollowingtable.
Themainvalueofthesetablesisinshowingthatthereportreferredto
inparagraphs 17cannotfulfilitspurposeiftheMemberStatesdonot
supplygenuinely comparable figuresestablished onthebasisofcomparable
checks.

-28-
INFRINGEMENTS
Numberofinfringements detected
MemberStatesBynationalsoftheMemberStatesconcernedByforeigners
TOTALGoodsPassenger
GoodsPassenaer
Regular OccasionalRegular Occasional
Belgium 465 213 15 123 816
Denmark307·'
7Π7
FederalRepu-
blicofGermany56.188 195 1.850 5.105 44 212 63.594
France 226.309(3> (2)5.058 231.367
Irelandnoinformation supplied-
Italynoinformatio ιsupplied
Luxembourg 4.734(4)4.734
Netherlands 39.425 1.673 41.098(5)
UnitedKingdom|13.90126814.169

-29-
1.Figuresfornationalsonly;nodistinction ismadebetweengoodsand
passenger transport .
2.Thesefiguresrelatetoinfringements detectedontheroad-nodistinc­
tionbetweengoodsandpassengertransportoperations .
3.Allinfringements detectedinthecourseofchecksatoperators' premises
arebynationals;nobreakdownintogoodsandpassengertransport.
4.AccordingtotheLuxembourg Government,thisfigurerelatesmainlyto
nationalsengagedininternational goodstransportoperations usingvehi­
clesreferredtoinArticle6ofRegulation (EEC)N°543/69;however,the
Commission hasfoundthatinsomecasesthefiguresmakingupthistotal
alsorelatetopassengertransportoperations .Thisdoesnotalterthe
factthatitisnotpossibletomakeareliabledistinction betweengoods
transport andpassengertransport.
TheCommission hasalsoestablished fromotherinformation receivedfrom
thegovernment inquestionthatLuxembourg makesnochecksonforeign
vehicles.
5.TheNetherlands detected39.425infringements concerning goodstransport,
311infringements concerning regularpassengertransport and1.362infrin­
gementsconcerning occasional passengertransport.AlthoughtheNetherlands
supplieddetailedstatistics,thesefiguresdonotallowareliablebreak­
downtobemadeintonationalsoftheMemberStateinquestionandforeig­
nersforeachcategoryoftransport.Itispossibletomakethisbreakdown
onlyforthetotalnumberofinfringements coveringbothgoodsandpassen­
gertransportoperations :Dutchnationals :4.778infringements ;foreig­
ners:320infringements .

-30-
3.Penalties imposed
Asfar asBelgium isconcerned ,previous reports have already set out
the reasons for theconsiderable time-lag between the institution of
proceedings and thepassing ofsentences .These reports show that the
list ofofficial reports made over the year and the action known tohave
been taken bythetime submissions forthis report were dueonly give a
partial picture oftheactual situation asregards penalties imposed .In
thegoods transport sector ,forexample ,480infringements gave rise to
348official reports butpenalties were imposed inonly one case .Inpas­
senger transport ,336official reports were made but nopenalties were
imposed bythe courts .
Official reports and action taken -goods transport operations
Number of
officiai
Reports
2
1
3
223
0
1
0
0
118
348No
further
act ion
16
10
26Out of
Court
sett lement s
16
16
33AcquittalsPenalties
imposed
bycourts

-31-
Officiaireportsandactiontaken-passengertransport operations
NumberofNo Outof Penalties Follow-
Artieleofficiaifurther Court Acquittals imposed up
reports actionsettlements bycoursunknown
7/1 0. .0
11/1 2- 2 - -0
14/127 1 4 - - 22
14/2 3- - - - 3
14/7 0- - - - 0
14/8 0- - - - 0
16 22 3 5 - - 14
Regula­
tion 282 12 14 - -256
1463/70
TotaI336 16 25 0 0295
TheCommission regretsthatextremely fewpenalties wereimposedin
Belgiumin1979.
Denmarkreportedthatthe
finesofuptoDKR2.000,bulkofpenalties
ieDKR1.000lessconsistedofwarningsand
thanin1978.

-32-
Officiaireportsandactiontaken-goodstransportoperations
Articles (1)Nogroundforprosectuion Warning Fine
Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee
7 1 16 14
11 1 15 7
7+11 1 2 15 18
14 1 4 1 99 76
TotaI 2 6 3 145 115
Officialreportsandactiontaken-passengertransportoperations
Articles (1)Nogroundforprosecution Warning Fine
11
7+11EmployerEmployee EmployerEmployee Employer Employee
2
1
TotaI 3
(1)ForArticles7and14theDanishreportdoesnotspecifytheextentto
whichtheofficialreportsrelatetogoodstransportorpassengertransport
operations .

-33-
Thetable below illustrates the situation inthe Federal Republic of
Germany in1979 :
Penalties imposed onGerman crew members inthe Federal Republic ofGermany
Type ofpenaltyNumber
1978 1979Compari son
with
1978
Oral warning
(without fine )
Written warning
(without fine )
Warning and cautionary
fine
a)operators
b)crew members
Written notice
a)operators
b)crew members
Administrative order fine
a)operators
b)crew members
court proceedings
instituted3805
6862
537957
10.667
i230
4781
12369
oneZl71502541
7257
4448
44
17776483
4705
1821
4617}
15225j
sevenfewer warnings
more warnings
more notices
19842 more fines
more court
proceedings
instituted

-34-
Inaddition ,asaresult ofchecks carried outontheroad oratfrontiers ,
thepolice prevented thecrews of31coaches and278lorries from
continuing their journey until they hadhadtherequired daily rest
period .
Penalties imposed onforeign crew members intheFederal Republic ofGermany
Adm
impinistra
osing ftive order
ineWritten notice Warning with
cautionary fineWarning
without fine
1978 1979 trend 1970 1979 trend 1978 1979 trend 1970 1979 trend
17483 16016 1027 1302/17696 22161/823 7«\
TheBAG isalone responsible for imposing fines onforeign crew members
andoperators when infringements occur ontheroad intheFederal Republic
ofGermany .Thepenalties imposed bytheBAGaregiven inthetable above .
The Commission notes that there hasbeen anincrease inthemore severe
fines andwarnings .Another positive aspect initsview isthefact that in
191cases penalties were imposed forfailure torespect thebanonbonuses .
InFrance ,atotal of21.027 special fines were imposed asaresult of
official reports drawn upbyFactory Inspectors (Transport )andRoad
Traffic Controllers .

-35-
Penalties imposedbythecourtsin1979
Fines
Amount(FF)Number Percentage
1979 1978 1979 1978
LessthanFF40 6014 4086 28,6X28X
FF41toFF100 6173 4317 29,4X29,6X
FF101toFF160 2976 2587 14,1X17,8X
FF161toFF220 2623 2088 12,5X14,3X
MorethanFF220 3241 1500 15,4X10,3X
TotaI 21027 14573100X 100X
TheCommissionispleasedtonotetheincreaseinthepercentage of
moreseverepenalties.
InIreland,"theEuropeanCommunities (RoadTransport)Regulation 1979"
enteredintoforceinJanuary1979.Undertheseregulations,afineof
amaximumofIRfc200oruptosixmonths'imprisonnementorbothmaybe
imposedforbreachesofRegulation (EEC)No.543/69.
TheIrishGovernment statedthatalthoughbreachesofRegulation (EEC)No.543/69
weredetected,itwasnotpossibleatpresenttosupplyfigureswhichmeet
theCommission'sreportingrequirements .
TheItalianGovernment reportedthatitwasstillunabletogivethenumberand
natureofthepenalties imposed,astheautomateddata-handling systemisnotyet
operational .Thepreparations forthissystemarestillinprogressinthe
MinistryofTransport .

-36-
Asinpreviousyears,theLuxembourg Governmentfailedtosupplythe
Commissionwithfiguresregardingpenalties.Luxembourgconfineditself
tolistingthevarioustypesofpenaltyimposed.
TheNetherlands onceagainsuppliedaverydetailedlistofthefines
imposedin1979(HFL1.837.545,upon1978).TheCommissionfeelsthat
thistablecouldserveasamodelwhenthestandardformofreportis
drawnup.
Officialreportsandpenaltiesinrespectofgoods
opérâtionsandpassengertransport
Country OfficiaI
reportsInspection
reportsInfringementsTotaloffines
inFlorinsOfficial
reportson
whichno
actionwas
taken
Belgium 19 64 525,- 15PV
Denmark 3 8 - 3
FeJeralRepublicofGermany
France16
1044
54650,-
375,-10
8
Italy 13 71 - 13
therlands 10.555 40.778 1.835.995,-635
"¡itedKingdom 8 21 - 8
or-member
oui.tries20 58 20
TT-ol j10.644 41.098 1.837.545 712

-37-
TheUnitedKingdomsuppliedthefollowingtable:
PenaltiesimposedintheUnitedKingdomroadtransportsector
ArticleOralwarnings Written Injunctions Casesprose-Total
warnings cuted(finesfc)
6 7 14 - - -
7/1 15 220 - 229 2367
7/2 55 1182 6 782 8120
7/4 10 173 4 198 2851
8 15 131 5 153 1578
11 31 112 16 100 1144
12 8 53 - 98 1345
14/1 165 229 162 1971 37540
14/2 389 1733 37 5599 101086
14/7 9 131 81 2474
Total: 704 3978 230 9219 157705
TheCommission departments notedanincreaseinthenumberofpenalties
imposedintheUnitedKingdom.

-38-
HI .MULTILATERAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND NOTIFICATION OF
INFRINGEMENTS
InBelpium .theTransport Department took note of579 official reports
onBelgian crew members byGerman inspecting officers .Lists ofofficial
reports oncrew members ofvehicles registered inother Member States were
sent tothe relevant authorities for information purposes .
Unfortunately nodetails were received ofmeasures applied inother
Member States .
The Danish authorities did not provide any assistance toother Member
States ,butreceived assistance from theDutch Ministry ofJustice (3cases )
and thelabour tribunal inMons ,Belgium (2cases ).Theassistance involved
reports onthe infringements concerned .
Asinprevious years ,the Government ofthe Federal Republic ofGermany
took steps todiscuss the implementation ofRegulation No.5^3/69with
neighbouring states .Bilateral talks were held with representatives ofthe
Austrian ,Danish ,Dutch andFrench Governments .
In1979 »theFrench authorities kept theother Member States regularly
informed ofinfringements committed bytheir nationals inFrance .
The Irish Government reports that adelegation from the Institute for
Industrial Research and Studies visited theUnited Kingdom inAugust 1979
tostudy theBritish system forapplying Regulation No.5^3/69.During that
visit ,the delegation took note ofthe roadside inspection procedure in
the United Kingdom and discussed the organization and registration systems
oftheMinistry ofTransport atanational registration centre .
•/•••

-39-
Noinformation isavailable for Italy .
Luxembourg notified several serious infringements totheMember
States concerned .
The Dutch authorities reported that noassistance had been received
orgiven during theperiod under review .However ,16infringements (a
decline of50 were reported totheFederal Republic ofGermany and a
number ofinfringements reported bytheFederal Republic andBelgium
amounted to3.368 and103respectively .TheFederal Republic itself
reported that penalties hadbeen imposed in3*368 cases .
Inthe United Kingdom repeated infringements continued tobe
reported every three months ,instandard form ,totheauthorities of
theMember States concerned .TheUnited Kingdom Government received only
occasional reports ofinfringements committed byUKoperators inother
Member States .

-ko-
SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS BYTHE MEMBER STATES
1.Overall assessment ofthe application ofthe Regulation
In1979 ,inBelgium ,theTransport Department carried out8.360
checks andrecorded 819infringements .This decrease inthenumber
ofinfringements (asagainst 1978 )isprobably duetoacutinthe
number ofinspectors .
For the first time ,thepolice provided data onthenumber of
reports drawn up.TheBelgian Government hopes toinclude them inthe
standard form infuture .
TheDanish Government reported that there had been asharp
decline inthenumber ofpenalties applied inrespect ofinfringements
ofArticle 14oftheRegulation in1979 following theinstallation and
utilization oftachographs made compulsory byCouncil Regulation
(EEC )No.1483/70.
Inthe Federal Republic ofGermany the checks carried out in1979
showed that itwas essential tokeep aneye onthe observance ofthe
provisions ofsocial legislation inthis field toensure jobprotection ,
road safety and fair competition .
Although theheads ofmany firms endeavour toobserve the pro­
visions -and this attitude filters down tothe crews -nevertheless
ingeneral observance ofthe social provisions isstill far from
satisfactory .

-41-
There areheads offirms and drivers ,who ,even though enforcement procedures
are not relaxed ,repeatedly contravene the legislation .Roadside checks have
shown that many drivers infringe thesocial provisions byextending their
arivirif -time andshortening their rest time .Some drivers stay atthewheel
Loo long toearn more money orhave more free time atthe end ofthe week .
Frequently drivers will take onlong journeys iftheir pay isincreased .
France and Ireland supplied noinformation .
Although theItalian Government supplied nostatistics itreported that from
nil theavailable evidence theRegulation isbeing satisfacotrily applied
throughout the country .
TheLuxembourg Government reported apromising trend intheapplication of
Henulnt ionNo.5^3/69asshown bythedecline inthenumber ofinfringements
committed inLuxembourg .
Figures available for theNetherlands show that 6.7/^oftheroadside checks
]edtothedrawing upofanofficial report .Inaddition ,itisinteresting
tonote that 66.8% ofallinfringements concerned theuseofcontrol equipment .
The United Kingdom reported that operators from allMember States continued to
comply toalarge extent with theCommunity Regulation .
r.Difficulties inthe use ofindividual control books ininternational transport
operations -possible remedies
InHe Igium ,thedecline inthenumber ofinfringements ofRegulation No.5^3/69
was counterb ]anced bythe increase inthenumber ofinfringements ofRegulation
No.I'+63/70now that thetachograph hasgradually replaced theindividual
control book .
The Federal Republic ofGermany had nocomment tomake onthis subject inits
rc,T.;ïrt for 1979 »
Uftrir.inrk observed that problems encountered xnconnection with provisions
onthe use ofthe individual control book had declined sharply in1979
following the compulsory installation andutilization ofthe tachograph .
./...

---H2-
Thr Governments ofFrance ,Italy .Ireland .Luxembourg and the Netherlands
h?ul nothing toadd totheir previous reports .
The United Kingdom reported that ithad not experienced any difficulties
it.thir .;respect .
.Piopf.-.al.s Corchanges inthe standard form ofreport
TheMember States had noproposals tomake regarding changes tothe
standard form ofreport .
h.Proposals formeasures tofacilitate theapplication ofRegulation (EEC )
No.5*t?/69
The Be.lpian Government emphasized theneed foruniform application ofthe
provisions ofRegulations No.5^3/69andNo.1463/70inallMember States .
The Danish Government drew attention tothe discussions being held inthe
Council Working Party ontransport questions .
Th<>German Government again called for thestandardization ofinspection
andprosecution procedures intheMember States .Theaims ofthesocial
pT-ovisi nrs ,that isroad safety ,social protection ofdrivers and fair
competition between transport firms would not beachieved unless com­
pliance with theobligations incorporated intheprovisions ischecked and
penalties imposed for infringement .
.France and Ireland had nosuggestions tomake .
The 1tali .anGovernment reported that there were some deficiencies inthe
application ofspecific provisions regarding theuse ofthetachograph ,partly
due totheconsiderable number ofvehicles which had tobeequipped with
tViir ;instrument .Inany event ,the competent authorities were seeking to
i-iLroduce more effective measures for the enforcement ofthe above
provisi ons .
./...

-^3-
The Luxggibour ?;and Dutch Governments referred toinformation contained
inprevious reports .
TheUnited Kingdom felt that theapplication ofSegulation No.5^3/69
could beimproved byrelatively minor amendments ,e.g. clearer definitions .
V.Comments bythe Commission oninformation supplied bythe Member States
i.Member States' contributions totheannual report
Asnoted under IV.3theMember States have noproposals tomake asregards
changes tothe standard form ofreport .Nevertheless ,use ofthestandard
reports sent bytheMember States totheCommission has caused problems
inrecent years due todifferent ways ofcompleting them ,thelack of
comparability ofthestatistics and long delays indispatch .
The Commission emphasizes that information provided inthereports must
becomprehensible andprecise and must besubmitted promptly .This is
essential toobtain the necessary information regarding theapplication
and observance ofsocial regulations inthe road transport sector .The
Commission notes that due totheir failure toapply Article 17of
Regulation (EEC)No.5^3/69»formal notice hadhad tobesent tothree
Member States .
TheCommission proposes todiscuss possible changes tothestandard
report with therepresentatives oftheMember States todevise abetter
model .Following this ,theCommission would take steps toensure that
thenecessary information was submitted intime .
Number and powers ofthe inspectors
Thenumber ofinspectors isonthe decline insome Member States .This
trend has had repercussions onthenumber ofchecks and penalties
imposed ,both ofwhich are down onprevious years .More complete
information isneeded oninspectors' powers sothat anassessment
can bemade ofthe scope oftherules inforce intheir respective
areas .
./...

-kk-
3.Inepection methode
Inconnection with checks ithas been noted that :
-there isvery little uniformity jsome Member States carry out checks
attheroadside and none atoperators' premises orvice-versa }
-there are differences inthe checks carried out according towhether
the crews concerned are assigned tonational orinternational transport
services ;
-checks are limited tocertain forms oftransport ;insome Member States
checks are restricted tocertain categories only .
For all these reasons itisimpossible tocompare the situation inall the
Member States .From the data available itisonly possible toconclude
that theextent ofthe checks varies from one country to another and
that inmost cases the number ofchecks should beincreased .
'<•Infringements bynationals andnon-nationals
Satisfactory conclusions can only bedrawn from the information supplied
ifarelationship isestablished between thenumber ofchecks and the
number ofinfringements detected .The table drawn upbytheCommission
staff and their attached comments show that itisimpossible toadequately
determine this ratio inrespect ofall theMember States .The quantitative
data relating toinfringements bynon-nationals can serve nopurpose unless
arelationship can beestablished firstly between infringements committed
and penalties applied and secondly between penalties applied tonationals
and non-nationals respectively .
\
Inthis connection ,theCommission feels bound toexpress itsastonish­
ment that inthe absence offigures the Italian Government can state that
''on thewhole the regulation inquestion isapplied inasatisfactory
manner throughout the country ".
./...

-H5-
•?.Penalties
•^h^.l^k ofuniformity asregards penalties istobedeplored .Some
Member States proviS.e^'iivfQra.a.tion regarding theamounts ofthefines
„ ....izcposeci while others give noquantitative information atall .There
ff
isalso alack ofinformation regarding theseverity ofthepenal tiefe *'•"
_i'«iosf 'donpersons atfault .
Toimprove the situation itwould beaa«x»ujle iftheMember States
were toconsult theCommission with aview tobringing national ..
legislation into line tosome extent asregards thepenalties tobe
imposed .
6-Mutual assistance
Themutual assistance provided for inArticle lo(2 )ofRegulation
(EEC )No.5^3/69isinmost cases inadequate andsometimes non­
existent .
C.Final conclusions bythe Commission
Ingeneral ,thefindings outlined inthis report differ little from
those for1978 .Thesituation asitappeared in1979 and1980 cannot
beconsidered satisfactory ;improvements have been slight and in
some cases ,the trend has even been for theworse .
Theabove comments lead totheconclusion that although thenecessary
legal measures have been adopted ,their application inpractice falls
short ofwhat might reasonably beexpected .

-^6-
This isnot the first time such aconclusion has been reached .Asnoted
inprevious reports the number ofchecks varies from one Member State
toanother and inmany cases must beconsidered insufficient .The
situation asregards penalties imposed isstill obscure owing to
divergencies inthe information supplied bytheMember States ;
however ,theannual reports clearly show that inmany cases nopenalties
areapplied .Furthermore ,along period oftime elapses before penalties
are imposed and differences intreatment between nationals andnon-nationals
persist .
TheCommission isgiving considerable attention tothese problems and is
quite aware that objections have been raised with respect tothe com­
plexity ofRegulations Nos .5^3/69and1^63/70andtheir lack offlexibility ,
which makes efficient implementation almost impossible .The Commission
intends toput forward proposals tocontribute tothe solution ofthese
problems andimprove theapplication ofBegulation (EEC )No.543/69.
Clearly ,asaninstrument ofCommunity law ,Regulation Ho.5^3/69cannot
befully effective ,throughout theCommunity unless itisapplied in
identical fashion toallnationals concerned ,whether resident ornot .
Accordingly ,on December I98O theCouncil ofMinisters ,referring to
previous annual reports ,adopted aresolution concerning the implementation
ofRegulation No.5^3/69«Inthat resolution ,theCouncil noted that the
application ofsocial legislation inroad transport was still encountering
difficulties invarious Member States and had not yet given satisfaction ,
and that ifthelegislation was tobeapplied uniformly and correctly the
Member States must check ontheapplication oftheprevisions inforce
aseffectively and thoroughly aspossible .
•/•••

-h7-
Atthat time theCommission urged that action becontinued toharaonize
themeasure adopted bytheMember States toensure effective application
oftherules incases ofinfringement .Atameeting with government
experts intheMember States ,problems connected with theapplication
ofBegulation No.5^3/69,thepenalties andpossibilities forcooperat­
ionbetween theMember States were examined ;Member States were requested
todraw uplists oftheir present systems ofchecks andpenalties and
put forward proposals onways ofimproving theimplementation ofRegulation
No.5^3/69•
The Member States ,apart from France and Italy ,have given theCommission
further information onthe present situation and current problems .Inthe
light ofthis information theCommission staff isatpresent preparing
awo/king paper which will contain anumber ofspecific proposals to
improve theapplication ofBegulation No.5^3/69«These proposals ,which
will cover thequestions ofinspection ,the implementation ofRegulation
No.5^3/69•and therequisite cooperation inthis area will beexamined
with experts from theMember States' Governments .Following this examination ,
theCommission will incorporate specific proposals inadraft resolution
which itplans topresent totLsCouncil before itsnext meeting in19&2 .