28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 101/5 
Member States can be avoided and so that further alignments on intra-Community trade can be 
made, where necessary. That is the purpose of the amendment of Article 8 of Regulation EEC 1900/ 
85. 
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 83/643/EEC on 
the facilitation of physical inspections and administrative formalities in respect on the carriage 
of goods between Member States {l) 
(86/C 101/03) 
On 17 September 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Articles 75 and 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 12 February 1986, in the light of the 
report by Mr Plank. 
At its 234th Plenary Session (meeting of 26 February 1986) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion unanimously: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission proposal 
inasmuch as it is intended to supplement the original 
Directive (83/643/EEC) and to contribute to the com­
pletion of the internal market. At the same time, it feels that 
the ultimate purpose of the proposed measures should be to 
abolish checks on the transport of goods, in other words to 
ensure that goods can move freely between Member States. 
The Committee also thinks that the proposed measures 
should be applied urgently. It considers that all restrictions 
on the movement of goods and transport must be 
eliminated as part of the plan to achieve the internal 
market, and that the Commission must draw up a timetable 
for this purpose. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Council Directive 83/643/EEC of 1 December 
1983 (2) includes a package of measures to simplify the 
checks and formalities which hinder goods traffic between 
the Member States. In its opinion on this subject of 24 
February 1983 (3), the ESC approved the proposed 
measures, but regarded them as only a first step towards the 
(!) OJ No C 237, 18. 9. 1986, p. 3. 
(2) OJ No L 359, 22. 12.1983, p. 8. 
(3) OJ No C 90, 5. 4. 1983,p. 22. free movement of goods between the Member States and 
called for them to be supplemented. 
2.2. Thus, the Committee welcomes the Commission's 
proposed measures which aim to ease further the checks 
and formalities in trade between Member States. These 
measures acquire special importance in view of the efforts 
now being made to promote a common transport policy, 
particularly as action has been made necessary by the 
judgement of the European Court of Justice in the 
European Parliament's case against the Council for failure 
to act in this field (Case 13/83). The Committee has already 
called for the simplification of border formalities in its 1982 
own-initiative opinion in support of a common transport 
policy. (4). 
2.3. An additional reason for supporting the proposed 
measures is that they contribute to the completion of the 
internal market — one of the fundamental objectives of the 
Community — which is scheduled to be achieved by 1992 
and which the ESC endorsed in its recent opinion (5)on the 
Commission's White Paper on completion of the internal 
market. More recently, this objective received the backing 
(4) Transport Policy of the European Community in the 1980s, OJ 
No C 326,13. 12. 1982, p. 9. 
(5) OJ No C 344, 13. 12. 1985, p. 16. 
No C 101/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
of the European Council at the last European Summit in 
Luxembourg on 2 and 3 December 1985. 
2.4. The Committee would reiterate the fact that the 
application of Directive 83/643/EEC has undoubtedly 
yielded positive results to date even though the Directive 
has still not provided adequate legal clarity. Recently, the 
formalities and checks with regard to the transport of 
goods between Member States have been relaxed, although 
this cannot be attributed exclusively to the influence of the 
Directive. An important part has been played by other 
factors, such as the Schengen Agreement on the gradual 
abolition of frontier checks, signed on 14 June 1985 by the 
Benelux countries, the Federal Republic of Germany and 
France. 
2.5. Another positive element is the fact that, in its latest 
proposals, the Commission sets out to improve the checks 
and formalities concerning the transport of goods by air, in 
particular the opening hours of customs offices at airports. 
The Committee also welcomes the publication, in the form 
of an annex to the Commission document, of a report on 
intra-Community air freight. This report parallels a similar 
report on the difficulties in cross-border road, rail and 
waterway transport. 
2.6. The measures on air transport do not go far enough, 
however. The Commission's Second Memorandum on Air 
Transport declared that time-consuming procedures for 
cross-border purposes were a primary factor in inhibiting 
the movement of air freight which often took longer than 
carriage by road. To compete, air transport must 
emphasize its primary characteristic which is speed. It is of 
the utmost importance that this advantage is not negated by 
slow and cumbersome procedures on the ground. The 
Commission should therefore submit further proposals as 
quickly as possible, taking account of this special feature of 
this mode of transport. Sufficient allowance should be 
made for the rules and regulations of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and, in particular, Annex 9 
to the Chicago Convention. It should also be stressed that it 
is not sufficient to simplify formalities in the air freight 
sector: in the final analysis checks must actually be 
abolished, at least in the case of some categories of goods. 
One particular difficulty in the field of air freight is that 
Community and non-Community goods are normally 
shipped together and that Community goods are not 
handled separately at airports. 
The Committee supported the call for improvements in 
infrastructure, customs formalities and customs clearance 
procedures at Community airports in its opinion on the 
Second Memorandum on Air Transport. The opinion (J) 
contained concrete proposals for action including the 
elimination of formalities at either the point of arrival or 
departure of intra-Community flights and — as a first step — the introduction of a system of spot checks as is the case 
with other modes of transport. 
2.7. The same remarks are broadly applicable to rail 
transport, which is not mentioned at all in the Commission 
proposals. There is still considerable room for improve­
ments in cross-frontier rail freight if the authorities and the 
railway companies act jointly. The Commission must 
adopt appropriate measures without delay in this context. 
It should take steps to shorten trains' border stops, e.g. by 
ensuring that technical checks are not repeated and that the 
people assembling trains make allowance for whether 
border inspections will be necessary. 
2.8. A further general comment should be made as 
regards the application of the proposed measures to traffic 
with non-Community countries. The Committee believes 
that negotiations should be held to this end with European 
countries not in the EEC, particularly those through whose 
territory goods pass in transit (e.g. Austria, Switzerland and 
Yugoslavia). The main aim here should be to ensure that 
the relevant national authorities work together as closely as 
possible and that allowance is made for the special 
requirements of transit traffic. In addition, road dues and 
levies on heavy goods vehicles should be abolished, since 
they slow down customs clearance. However, this will 
make it vital, as part of a coordinated transport and 
environment policy with non-member countries, to find 
solutions to the problem of infrastructure and its use. 
2.9. The Committee would also refer to the general and 
specific comments made by the ESC in its abovementioned 
opinion of 24 February 1983 (2). It would particularly like 
to stress the fact that the proposed measures should not be 
seen in isolation, but as an integral part of the initiative to 
establish a common transport policy and an internal 
market. 
Since the Committee issued its 1983 opinion, substantive 
improvements have been made with regard to: 
— the elimination of fuel checks at borders, 
— the harmonization of commercial vehicles' weights and 
dimensions. 
Be this as it may, the other checks still made should be 
abolished. Further formalities and checks should be 
eliminated by: 
— replacing bilateral licences by Community licences, 
prior to the abolition of road haulage quota systems in 
general, 
— harmonizing tax policy in the transport field, and 
(!) OJ No C 303, 25. 11. 1985, p. 31, para. 3.6. (2) OJ No C 90, 5. 4. 1983, p. 22. 
28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 101/7 
— granting financial support to frontier infrastructure 
projects and eliminating traffic bottlenecks. 
With regard to the latter point, the Commission Decisions 
of 8 October 1985 (^granting financial support for the 
implementation of 11 frontier infrastructure projects in the 
Community are a step in the right direction. 
2.10 In addition, the following appear especially 
important: 
— greater use of the simplified procedures under the 
Community transit provisions, 
— implementation of the 14th VAT Directive, 
— dismantling of the provisions governing freight trans­
port within the Community, 
— reduction of paperwork, e.g. by introducing a uniform 
document. 
2.11. Further simplification could be achieved through 
greater use of data processing. This is particularly 
important for the intended speeding up of air freight 
traffic; in designing such EDP systems it should be borne in 
mind that checks and formalities with regard to goods 
transport in the Community are due to be abolished by 
1992. The Committee would urge the implementation of 
EDP systems in all Member States as a matter of urgency 
with special emphasis on those States which are lagging 
behind. In some States the carriers, the airports and the 
freight agents are already computerized but cannot take full 
advantage of their investment until the customs authorities 
in those States are also computerized. The Committee 
notes the adoption on 15 May 1984 of a resolution by the 
Council which calls on the Member States to expand their 
computerized administrative procedures. The Committee 
also endorses the Commission's warning (Second Memo­
randum on Air Transport Policy, Section 81) that 
computerization is useless unless there is interface between 
all the parties concerned. 
2.12. Finally, the Committee thinks that all the social 
implications should be worked into the proposed measures. 
Working conditions must not deteriorate, and the simplifi­
cation of checks at frontiers should not lead to less stringent 
road safety policing (e.g. checks on the implementation of 
the drivers' hours Regulation or on vehicles' roadworthi­
ness). 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 2 of Directive 83/643/EEC 
The Committee agrees with the aim of having checks 
carried out preferably at the point of departure or the 
destination, and of generally centralizing such checks. 
0) OJNoL325, 5. 12. 1985, p.l. However, in practice this would mean that checks required 
by traffic laws would be dropped. These should be carried 
out just as they are in the case of domestic traffic and should 
not lead to special checks on cross-frontier traffic. The 
transfer of formalities to the point of departure or 
destination should also mean that the Member States 
would make much more use than hitherto of the simplified 
procedures under the Community transit regulations. As a 
matter of principle, however, all the parties involved in the 
transport of goods must continue to be free to decide for 
themselves whether the goods are to be cleared at the point 
of departure, the destination or the border. 
3.2. Article 3 
Even closer cooperation between Member States in the 
following fields: 
(a) Directive 83/189/EEC on an information procedure in 
the field of standards and technical specifications 
should be applied at all times, and above all should 
include food legislation. An information procedure of 
this kind is necessary wherever new national rules and 
regulations may impede goods traffic. 
(b) The White Paper on completion of the internal market 
suggests that in future the Council should no longer 
concern itself with technical details but simply lay down 
the basic preconditions for the circulation of goods. 
Until suitable rules and regulations are enacted, one 
possible simplification would be for the checking of 
documents to be based on the provisions in force the 
country of export. When goods are carried in transit in 
sealed vehicles, only the documents should be checked. 
3.3. Article 4 
With a view to even closer cooperation, consideration 
should be given to whether customs clearance operations at 
frontiers should only be carried out by the authorities of the 
country of import (this is now being done in some cases at 
the German-Dutch frontier). This will require close 
cooperation not only between the customs authorities but 
also between all the offices, etc. involved in the clearance of 
goods at frontiers. 
It would also be desirable to cut out certain frontier checks 
on road haulage vehicles (e.g. weights and dimensions, 
roadworthiness of vehicles and, in some cases, road 
haulage licences) and to recommend to European railways 
that their technical checks at frontiers are coordinated 
more closely. 
3.4. Article 5 
The changes envisaged with regard to opening hours are to 
be welcomed. Other more liberal provisions should also be 
envisaged if the sector itself prepares the ground for special 
No C 101/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
inspection methods. In addition, opening hours should 
allow for the preferential treatment granted to intermodal 
transport, in particular its exemption from driving bans. 
3.5. Article 6 
The Committee lends its full support to the proposed 
change. 
3.6. Article 6 a) 
The Committee approves transfer of responsibilities to 
specific supervisory bodies. Above all, these bodies should 
act on the principle that only the essential factors need to be 
supervised. 
3.7. Article 7 
The separation of vehicles into those waiting to be cleared 
and those carrying goods under a customs transit 
procedure or travelling unladen is one of the key practical 
measures for speeding up traffic at frontier crossing points. 
However, the possibilities afforded here will not be of any 
benefit unless the checks stipulated by traffic laws (e.g. 
checks on weights and axle loads), are carried out on a spot-
check basis and do not take place at frontiers. This should 
also apply by analogy to the clearance of air freight. 3.8. Article 8 a) 
An information system is necessary and should not be 
confined to the responsibilities of frontier checking posts 
for goods traffic. Information on veterinary and plant 
health regulations and legal retrictions on traffic (ban on 
journeys on Sundays or public holidays) should also be 
included. The Community should also codify relevant 
Community law so that anyone involved in international 
goods traffic can obtain an overall view of the relevant 
provisions at any time. 
3.9. Article 10 a) 
The form proposed by the Commission for the committee is 
not expedient. It would be more expedient for the 
Commission to intervene directly in local problems of 
special importance for cross-frontier goods traffic. The 
Committee thinks that, if practical solutions are to be 
found as quickly as possible, direct contacts between the 
Commission and all those directly involved in freight 
transport are more important than a committee consisting 
of representatives of the Member States and the Commis­
sion. 
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on European Road Safety Year (1986) 
(86/C 101/04) 
At its 168th meeting of 12 February 1986, the Section for Transport and Communications acted on 
the request from its chairman under Article 20 (4) of the rules of procedure to draw up an own-
initiative opinion on European Road Safety Year (1986), with reference to the 1984 Committee 
opinion on road safety (]). It adopted a draft opinion prepared by Mr Masprone, who had also been 
the rapporteur for the 1984 opinion. However, the procedure still remained subject to the 
agreement of the Committee Bureau, which was granted on 25 February 1986. 
At its 234th Plenary Session (meeting of 26 February 1986) the Committee adopted the following 
opinion by a unanimous vote: 
(!) Committee opinion adopted on 24 May 1984, OJ No C 206, 6. 8. 1984, p. 60.