Opinion on the Commission proposal for a Council Directive on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (1) (94/C 195/08)

On 18 January 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 April 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Giesecke.

At its 315th Plenary Session (meeting of 27 April 1994) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. Approximately 20 % of all goods carried by road are dangerous goods. Ordinary members of the public, politicians and administrations are becoming more and more aware, both nationally and internationally, of the risks involved; hence the steady rise in the number of regulations in this area. The number of 'dangerous' goods being transported today is increasing almost daily even though no overall picture is available. As the volume of dangerous goods transported increases, so too do the dangers. The number of undertakings transporting dangerous goods is also increasing, as is the volume of traffic as a whole, which will continue to expand with the opening of EC borders. The amount of dangerous goods produced will also continue to rise because of scientific, technical and economic progress. The more or less logical consequence of this is that the transport of dangerous goods will pose an increasing threat unless further measures are taken to reduce the danger.

1.2. Industry itself is becoming more and more interested in ensuring that the transport of dangerous goods is made as safe as possible. As a result of international agreements and internationally recorded accidents involving dangerous goods, increasing numbers of laws, regulations and directives on the daily problems of transporting such goods are being adopted.

1.3. Harmonized national and international regulations alone, however, are not sufficient; checks also need to be made to ensure that they are complied with whilst the undertakings and vehicles concerned need to be kept under surveillance.

1.4. Member State procedures for carrying out checks also need to be harmonized in the interests of greater safety and to avoid possible discrimination which might distort competition.

2. The Commission proposal

2.1. The Commission proposal for a Council Directive on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road is designed to meet this need.

2.2. Checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road at the Community's internal borders were abolished under Regulations (EEC) No 4060/89 and 3912/92 as part of the moves towards completion of the Single European Market. In the absence of Community or international regulations, Member States are obliged to apply their own generally differing criteria when assessing dangerous goods transportation. Depending on the number and type of checks, this can result in a proliferation of roadside controls.

2.3. This means the continuing presence of those very barriers whose removal was one of the main objectives of the abovementioned Regulations. Now that checks at the Community's internal borders have been abolished, it is absolutely essential to introduce a system of roadside checks on the transport of dangerous goods which is as uniform as possible.

2.4. The proposed Directive sets out to achieve, in particular, the following objectives:

- to enable checks on the transport of dangerous goods within the Community to take place throughout the territory of the Member States, provided that they are carried out within the framework of normal checks, and without discrimination based on a) the nationality of the driver or b) the country in which the vehicle is registered. The same applies to the transport of dangerous goods coming from third countries, in that checks need not necessarily take place at the external border of the Member State where the consignments in question enter the Community;

- to create a uniform and adequate basis for meeting safety standards by drawing up a list of the minimum points to be checked and specifying the infringements to be penalized;

- to apply this uniform list also to consignments transported by vehicles registered in a third country, or allowed to operate in a third country, whether or not that country is a contracting party to the European Agreement for the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR);

- to provide the driver with a copy of the results of the checks carried out on the basis of the uniform procedure, in order to avoid wherever possible a succession of checks during a journey.

3. General comments of the Committee

3.1. The Committee welcomes the content of the Commission proposal.

3.2. The Committee would nevertheless point out that there are significant differences between Annex II of the Commission proposal and the corresponding ADR provisions. These might give rise to dangerous misunderstandings. In the ADR Annexes all infringements have already been spelt out in detail.

In its Opinion on Draft Directive (COM) 548/93, the Committee is therefore proposing that the Commission make dynamic, automatically updated, references to the ADR Agreement rather than drawing up its own legislative provisions.

3.3. The Committee believes that the reporting requirements laid down in Article 9 and Annex III are excessively detailed. It questions whether the Commission could effectively deal with details of each and every check carried out in all the Member States - which could amount to more than 100,000 per annum - and whether such information (which would be costly to collect and to collate) would serve any useful purpose. Member States should report in summary form only.

3.4. The Committee wonders whether the legal instrument should not take the form of a Regulation to ensure the rapid, uniform implementation of minimum standards. Member States should also be able to swiftly introduce more stringent checks along the lines of the proposed model. By doing so, the advantages of uniform procedures for carrying out checks would be turned to good effect more rapidly.

3.5. The Committee notes that no Fiche d'Impact is appended to the Draft Directive and would wish to be reassured that the level of costs will not be excessive.

4. Specific comments

4.1. The reference to Directive 79/116/EEC in the preliminary remarks of the Explanatory Memorandum (Section A) could be deleted. The Directive in question concerns minimum requirements for ships and is of no relevance to road transport.

4.2. It could be made clearer in Section C of the Explanatory Memorandum of the proposal for a Directive that spot-checks at the very least will still need to be carried out at the Community's external borders on vehicles entering the Community with dangerous goods. Although full checks at external borders will hardly be possible, the wording chosen suggests that such checks will be a rare, isolated occurrence.

4.3. The penultimate recital and Article 6 speak of checks being carried out on the premises of undertakings. The possibility of being able to carry out checks before the transport operation actually gets under way, is warmly welcomed. The penultimate recital and Article 2 should not however speak of undertakings storing dangerous goods, but of undertakings in which dangerous goods are temporarily stored in the course of a transport operation ('intermediate, transport-related storage'). Since temporary storage may also entail risks, the undertakings concerned should likewise be subject to checks.

4.4. Under the second paragraph of Article 1, Member States cannot extend the Directive to cover 'vehicles belonging to the armed forces'. In some countries checks similar to those provided for in the Directive are also carried out on vehicles of the armed forces, which are being used more and more in accordance with Annexes A and B of the ADR Agreement. It would be a good thing if vehicles belonging to the armed forces could also be subjected to the checks.

4.5. The same is true of the proposal to exclude postal consignments from the scope of the Directive (also second paragraph of Article 1). Such an exclusion can no longer be justified given that the state monopoly with regard to postal services has already been broken up or is to be broken up in some cases.

4.6. The ADR Agreement and the proposed ADR Framework Directive should both be drawn on in defining 'dangerous goods' (Article 2), just as they are used for the purpose of defining 'vehicle' (also Article 2).

4.7. Article 3 does not state explicitly that a representative proportion of the total volume of dangerous goods must be checked in every Member State. The Committee believes that the Commission should make this obligatory and lay down uniform criteria for the practical fulfilment of this obligation by the Member States. A proposal to this effect should be submitted to the Council by the Commission.

4.8. The phrase 'provided such checks are not carried out at the internal frontiers of the Community' (also in Article 3) would seem to be misleading. Checks on consignments of dangerous goods have been abolished at the Community's internal frontiers, but they must still be carried out at the Community's external frontiers.

4.9. Article 5 states that when infringements of safety standards have been established, journeys may be continued only after the safety standards have been complied with. The Committee assumes that other appropriate measures will be taken if the infringements and defects are of a petty nature.

4.10. The reporting procedure set out in Article 9 would involve the authorities in a disproportionately large amount of work since the procedure is clearly designed to ensure that reports are submitted on the results of all checks. The Committee considers that such action is neither advisable nor necessary and would also pose a number of problems relating to the laws on data protection. The Directive should merely lay down the points to be covered by the Member States in their summary reports to the Commission on the checks ondangerous goods carried out within their territories over a calendar year. Furthermore, the Commission should process all the Member States' reports on a regular basis (e.g. every three years) and forward a synopsis thereof to the Council of the European Union.

4.11. It is imperative that the checklist in Annex I makes a specific reference to checks carried out on the basis of other legal provisions (e.g. road traffic law, social legislation, etc.).

4.12. The Directive/Regulation should also contain an Article stipulating that equivalent penalties (including time limits) should be imposed in all Member States in the event of infringements.

Done at Brussels, 27 April 1994.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

(1) OJ No C 26, 29. 1. 1994, p. 10.