8. 8. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 211/37 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions under which 
non-resident carriers may operate certain national transport services within a Member 
State 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 18 of 22 January 1983, page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 January 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
208th plenary session held in Brussels on 1 and 2 June 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, A. General comments 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 75 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
on 5 January 1983 for an opinion on the aforemen­
tioned proposal ('), 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 28 January 1983, in accordance with Article 22 of 
the Rules of Procedure, instructing the Section for 
Transport and Communications to draw up an opin­
ion on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Transport and Communications at its 150th 
meeting held on 11 May 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Binnenbruck (Article 29 of the Rules of 
Procedure), 
Having regard to the discussion on 2 June 1983 
during the 208th plenary session held on 1 and 
2 June 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 58 votes to 42 with four abstentions: 
The Economic and Social Committee endorses the 
Comission's proposal subject to the following com­
ments: 
(') OJ No C 18, 22. 1. 1983, p. 3. 1. The Commission is resurrecting its 1967 initia­
tive and is proposing that 'cabotage' be permitted 
on national road haulage markets, i.e. that Member 
States should allow non-resident carriers to operate 
on their domestic markets on a limited scale. 
2. The Section notes that Article 75 (l)(b) of the 
EEC Treaty stipulates that the conditions under 
which non-resident carriers may operate transport 
services within a Member State are to be laid down. 
2.1. The Section subscribes to the general ideas 
behind the proposal. 
2.2. It welcomes the fact that the proposal will per­
mit commercial vehicles to improve their productiv­
ity on bilateral or multilateral hauls by putting an 
end to the wasteful practice of limiting the scope for 
international hauliers to pick up return loads in 
other countries. 
2.3. In addition, the proposal fully serves major 
objectives of the European Communities, viz.: 
— a more liberal approach to transport policy, 
— better integration of transport markets and 
trade, 
No C 211/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 83 
— reduction of fuel consumed per tonne of freight 
carried, 
— reduction of wasteful empty running of vehicles 
which the Commission notes is about 40 % on 
international journeys, 
— avoid discrimination against the rights of estab­
lishment, 
— give effect to Article 75(1) (b) of the Treaty, 
— contribute to improvements in the operation of 
the internal market, 
— contribute to the cost-effectiveness of interna­
tional journeys and the productivity of the hau­
lage industry, 
— contribute to improving trade by reducing costs 
of transport to users (this will in the long run 
increase demand for transport). 
2.4. Another point in favour of the Commission's 
proposal, even though not expressly mentioned 
therein, is the general provision of Article 7 of the 
EEC Treaty, which stipulates that 'within the scope 
of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice 
to any special provisions contained therein, any dis­
crimination on grounds of nationality shall be pro­
hibited'. distortions of competition caused by different 
national schemes for: rate formation, access to 
the market, application of tax and insurance 
measures to non-resident hauliers. 
The Section notes that the Directive will only apply 
to carriers operating between Member States who 
carry goods for reward between two points within a 
Member State in the same vehicle, where the place 
of origin and destination for this inland operating 
lie on a route between the final destination of the 
original international transport operation and either 
one of the frontier exists to the State where the vehi­
cle is registered or the Member State in which the 
international operation began. In this way the scope 
of the Directive will be limited. Such a measure will 
also facilitate monitoring and control. 
For this reason the Section thinks that the Directive 
should apply for a trial period initially so that its 
effects can be observed and that it should be supple­
mented by other measures, if need be. 
2.5. The Section thinks that care should be taken 
to ensure that the Directive is not frustrated by 
obstacles such as: 
— some Member States' reluctance with regard to 
the annual increase in haulage quotas; B. Specific comments 
Articles 1 to 6 
No comments. 
Done at Brussels, 2 June 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Defeated amendment 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, defeated by the 
Committee during Plenary Session discussions: 
The following passages from the Section opinion were replaced by an amendment: 
8. 8. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 211/39 
Pages 2 to 4 
'2. The Section notes that Article 75 (1) (b) of the EEC Treaty stipulates that the conditions 
under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State are to be 
laid down. This is a basic requirement which cannot be judged in isolation and is linked to other 
questions and problems concerning the development of the right of establishment in the Com­
munity, the framing of a common policy on rate formation and capacity control in the Com­
munity roadhaulage sector, the harmonization of the terms of competition (commercial vehicles' 
weights, dimensions and taxation and infrastructure costing), the framing of a common infras­
tructure policy for road and rail, the railways' critical situation, road/rail cooperation and, last 
but not least, the maintenance of an efficient transport system for the Community as a whole. 
3. It is in this wider context that the Section views the Member State governments' failure to 
permit cabotage in road haulage. Competition between carriers from individual Member States 
is, in fact, so distorted that it is impossible to say that all carriers resident in the Community com­
pete on equal terms. For example, freight costs differ appreciably between almost all Member 
States and, if cabotage were to be permitted even on a limited scale, these differences would ena­
ble operators from low-cost countries to force carriers based in high-cost countries out of busi­
ness. 
4. The common transport policy has still not succeeded in integrating transport to a point where 
resident and non-resident carriers are treated the same. The Community transport system is still 
in the making and priority should be given at the moment to improving the financial situation of 
the railways and extending the infrastructure network. The Section considers that these matters 
must be resolved before the question of cabotage is tackled. 
5. The present transport situation in the Member States is not satisfactory from the point of 
view of employment and capacity utilization. Everywhere capacity is lying idle and jobs are 
being lost because there is not enough freight and orders on the books. This also has a spin-off 
effect on the productivity of goods transport between Member States, which is particularly poor 
on routes where the flow of traffic is uneven, where work is seasonal and on the specialized-vehi-
cle market. Even if trade between Member States were to expand, this need not necessarily lead 
to an upturn at a regional level on individual domestic markets. 
6. The Section notes in this connection that the Commission has not made a detailed survey of 
how international haulage stands in relation to domestic haulage in the different Member States. 
Unless the possible effects of cabotage are analyzed in depth, it will probably not be possible to 
give a clear answer, in keeping with the EEC Treaty, to the question of how domestic business 
could be split between resident and non-resident carriers. 
7. The European haulage industry is currently discussing ways and means of improving cross-
frontier cooperation and increasing productivity. The main purpose is to develop information 
systems — which would straddle frontiers — for avoiding empty runs. Such a development 
would help to rationalize the use of vehicles, improve the competitiveness of international car­
riers, save energy and vehicle costs, improve workers' conditions and even out the earnings made 
from runs. Road-rail cooperation should also be included in these systems. 
8. Finally, the Section would point out that some Member States encourage carriers to offer 
their services abroad, i.e. carriers can obtain special international haulage licences and qualify for 
tax rebates and other concessions under certain circumstances. These forms of encouragement 
jeopardize the existence of carriers which operate only on home markets. The Commission does 
not deal with this matter in its new proposal.' 
No C 211/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 83 
Pages 5 to 7 
'B. Specific comments 
1. Article 1 
No comments. 
2. Article 2 
(a) The authorities would have to go to great lengths to ensure compliance with the con­
ditions under which cabotage is to be permitted. 
Furthermore, the relevant administrative machinery does not yet exist in some Member 
States. 
(b) The geographical location of some Member States would allow some carriers' vehicles 
to engage freely in cabotage on their homeward journeys. It would also mean that com­
petition in some Member States is likely to be keener than in others. This would not be 
conducive to a Community transport system as long as the conditions for a common 
transport market have not been aligned and the terms of competition have not been har­
monized. 
(c) The conditions governing the formation and application of rates differ from country to 
country. If the Commission's proposal were to be accepted, every Member State would 
have to impose all the other Member States' rules and regulations concerning rate for­
mation on its carriers wanting to engage in cabotage. As far as the Section is concerned, 
such action cannot be regarded as meaningful or of any benefit to the Community. 
3. Article 3 
International hauliers should not be treated more favourably than domestic hauliers. If 
domestic hauliers are subject to quantitative or qualitative restrictions, non-resident hauliers 
operating on domestic markets cannot be exempted from these restrictions. 
4. Article 4 
It is not clear how the obligation to provide proof is to be satisfied and how Member States 
can fulfil their supervisory duties. 
5. Article 5 
Judging by the history of the common transport policy, the deadline given in Article 5 is too 
short. The Section proposes that the proposal be worked into the general framework for the 
common transport policy and placed in a wider context. 
6. Article 6 
The Section thinks that there is an urgent need for the Member States to make every effort to 
find the earliest possible answers to the many problems littering the path towards a common 
transport policy. Solutions focussed on the creation of a single transport market must be pre­
ferred to solutions which lower the productivity of cross-frontier transport.' 
Voting: 
For: 45, against: 54, abstentions: 4.