30.3.2004 EN C 80/81 Official Journal of the European Union
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/24/EEC relating to speed
limitation devices or similar speed limitation on-board systems of certain categories of motor
vehicles’
(COM(2003) 350 final — 2003/0122 (COD))
(2004/C 80/22)
On 25 June 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.
The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 November 2003. Therapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.
At its 404th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 2003), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes to one, with one abstention.
1. Introduction
1.1. Speed limitation devices for certain vehicle types in
categories N (goods vehicles) and M (passenger vehicles) havebeen a specific part of the broad framework of motor vehicle
type-approval regulations since the 1990s.
1.2. Currently, the technical requirements for type-approval
of speed limitation devices that are compulsory for motor
vehicles of categories N2 (medium trucks) and M3 (buses andcoaches) exceeding 10 tonnes, and for motor vehicles of
category N3 (heavy trucks with a maximum mass exceeding
12 tonnes), are set out in Directive 92/24/EEC.
1.3. Directive 92/24/EEC is linked with Directive 92/6/EEC,
which regulates the installation and use of speed limitation
devices for the same categories of vehicles.
1.4. Recently, Directive 2002/85/EC extended the scope of
Directive 92/6/EEC by introducing compulsory installationand use of speed limitation devices in all passenger vehicles
with more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat
(categories M2 and M3) and in all goods vehicles with amaximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes (categories N2 and N3).
1.5. Hence the need for the present proposal to update the
scope of the above-mentioned Directive 92/24/EEC and to
permit the type-approval of the speed limitation devices to beinstalled in vehicles previously exempt.1.6. This proposal for a Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council therefore completes the process ofproviding for the type-approval, installation and use of speedlimitation devices on all motor vehicles designed for goods or
passenger transport and falling within categories N2, N3, M2
and M3.
2. General comments
2.1. The use of speed limitation devices on motor vehicles
in the heavier categories since the mid-90s has certainly helped
to improve road safety. Furthermore, a number of MemberStates asked by the European Commission to report on their
experience in the field have stressed the positive effects on the
transport sector in terms of reducing fuel costs and wear andtear on tyres. Last but not least, some also reported a reduction
in vehicle emissions, as a clear result of lower speed and fuel
consumption (
1). On the other hand, the negative effects
mentioned include: less safety when overtaking, since overtak-
ing is slower, and increased delivery times owing to longer
journey times.
2.2. Directive 2002/85/EC thus meets the need to improve
vehicle performance from an environmental and safety point
of view. It will therefore become compulsory to install the
device on all goods and passenger vehicles in the N2, N3, M2and M3 categories.
(1) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council on the implementation of Council Directive 92/6/EEC of10.2.1992 on the installation and use of speed limitation devicesfor certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community —
COM(2001) 318 final Volume I, of 14.6.2001.
C 80/82 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
2.3. First of all, the Committee is pleased that the above
Directive has taken on board its suggestion that the treatment
of vehicles should depend on their maximum mass in order to
allow, when necessary, for derogations on installation, stag-gered over time (
1).
2.4. In the above-mentioned opinion, the Committee also
foresaw the need for a type-approval directive to updateDirective 92/24/EEC (
2) regarding construction requirements.
It therefore highlighted the need to extend the type-approval
standards for vehicles and devices originally aimed at heavier
vehicles to the lighter vehicles targeted by Directive 2002/85/EC.
2.5. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s prompt
action and appreciates its policy of taking any decisions withpositive implications for safety as rapidly as possible, without
penalising the industry.
2.6. It would also stress that technological progress in the
sector is making current speed limitation devices safer and
more tamper-proof.
3. Specific comments and conclusions
3.1. Coming back to the present proposal for a Directive,
the first question is whether under these circumstances it
might not have been possible and thus preferable to use
the adaptation to technological progressprocedure. ‘Required’legislation of this kind ought to be treated in just the same
way as technological adjustments concerning matters already
governed by Directives.
3.2. In any case, there are two aspects that call for particular
attention:
a) In type-approval regulations, deadlines are known to
affect the production of the vehicles concerned and thusthe capacity of the manufacturers to respond. While it is
true that the economic impact is not significant (
3), it has
been important to ensure (in Directive 2002/85/EC) thatexcessively tight deadlines do not cause problems for any
manufacturers. A positive result has been achieved and a
similar approach is therefore to be followed for the type-approval deadlines.
(1) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of theCouncil amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installationand use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motorvehicles in the Community (Rapporteur: Mr Colombo, OJ C 48,21.2.2002).
(
2) of 31.3.1992, OJ L 129, 14.5.1992.
(3) See above-mentioned Committee opinion.b) The requirements set out by the draft Directive must
allow Member States that so wish to exempt certain sub-
categories of vehicle from the compulsory application of
the device, as provided for under Article 4 of Directive2002/85/EC.
3.3. As far as point a) is concerned, there do not seem to
be any problems, as the deadlines suggested by the draft
Directive comply with those laid down in Directive 2002/85/EC. The times allowed for complying with technical provisionsreflect the deadlines adopted in the Directive extending the
compulsory nature of the device.
3.4. The same is true for the possible derogations referred
to in point b):
— M2 and M3 with maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes and
less than 10 tonnes and N2: for vehicles registered from1 January 2005 the proposal will apply as of 1 January
2005.
— For vehicles complying with Directive 88/77/EEC (
4) and
registered between 1 October 2001 and 1 January 2005,
the proposal will apply as of 1 January 2006 as concernsnational and international transport operations and as of
1 January 2007 for vehicles intended for national trans-
port operations only.
— Derogation: an individual Member State may choose to
grant a derogation until 1 January 2008 for N2 and M2vehicles with a maximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes and
under or equal to 7,5 tonnes registered and operating in
that Member State.
3.5. The deadlines set for meeting the obligations arising
from the type-approval are the same and are designed to leave
Member States a free hand to apply derogations if necessary.
3.6. The deadlines set are not absolute, but relate to the
date on which the Directive enters into force, as is usual for
type-approval regulations. The approval process should notpose any problems at all providing it is swift.
(4) Council Directive 88/77/EEC of 3 December 1987 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to themeasures to be taken against the emission of gaseous pollutants
from diesel engines for use in vehicles — OJ L 36, 9.2.1988.
30.3.2004 EN C 80/83 Official Journal of the European Union
3.7. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the
footnote to Article 2(2) of the proposal for a Directive refersto document COM(2001) 318 final relating to the proposalfor a Directive extending the compulsory introduction of speedlimitation devices to vehicle categories N2 and M2. Thatproposal then became Directive 2002/85/EC, referred to morethan once as being the basis for the current proposal. Thefootnote should therefore be corrected, and reference made tothe Directive and its timetable.
Brussels, 10 December 2003.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Roger BRIESCH
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council on Interoperable Delivery of pan-European eGovernment
Services to Public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens (IDABC)’
(COM(2003) 406 final — 2003/0147 (COD))
(2004/C 80/23)
On 17 July 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.
The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 November 2003. The
rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.
At its 404th plenary session on 10 and 11 December 2003 (meeting of 10 December), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to one with one abstention.
1. Introduction
1.1. Networking across borders, by making use of infor-
mation technologies (IT), has become the key instrument for
bringing public administrations together and supporting their
cooperative efforts towards a modern, enlarged and secureEurope. Furthermore, studies conducted by the Commission
consistently show that investments in this area boost the
economy (with high rates of return). A Community initiativeon the subject, ‘Interchange of Data between Administrations’(IDA), was launched by the Commission in 1993-1995 with
IDA I (1995-1999). Between 1999 and 2004, EUR 127 million
of Community resources have been allocated for IDA II. Ofthese, around 60 % have been used for sectoral projects of3.8. The Committee hopes that the legislative process will
be completed rapidly. Health protection and road safety shouldbe treated as a vital joint commitment of universal value, givenprimarily the social and then the economic costs generated byroad accidents.
common interest (PCIs), and the remainder for horizontal
measures aimed at ensuring interoperability and full accessi-bility of trans-European networks.
1.2. The interoperability of information systems, the shar-
ing and re-use of information, and the joining-up of adminis-
trative processes are essential for the provision of high quality,interactive, user-centric eGovernment services. The IDA IIProgramme has been an effective support tool and has also
given an important boost to the administration of the internal
market, by facilitating the mobility of European citizens andbusinesses across borders.