ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 134 
 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 051 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(84) 134 final  
Brussels, 11 april 1984
Checks and formalities relating to intra-Community trade in goods
- Analysis and solutions -
(Communication from the Commission to the Council)
COM(84) 134 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
Checks and formalities relating to intra-Community trade in goods
Analysis and solutions
Recent events at various frontier-crossing points and on roads in Europe,  
particularly in the Alps, have shown that the abolition of checks and  
formalities at the borders within the Community is one of the most pressing  
issues of the moment. The presence on roads at some frontiers of queues  
of immobilized lorries tailing back for miles for several days certainly  
fired the imagination of people in Europe and focused the attention of  
the authorities on the urgent need to find solutions to the serious  
difficulties encountered at borders.
At its meeting in Copenhagen at the beginning of December 1982, the  
European Council declared that the abolition of frontiers was one of  
the main priorities of Community policy. Recent events have shown that  
it certainly ought to be. The people of Europe, whether lorry drivers,  
tourists or frontier workers, are no longer prepared to accept internal  
frontiers within the Community in their present form. More than 26 years  
after the establishment of the Community, it can no longer be maintained  
that border checks, which waste time and money and undermine the individual's  
sense of freedom, are compatible with the idea of European unity. Moreover,  
one of the commitments made by the Member States in Articles 2 and 3  
of the Treaty was to promote closer relations between the Member States  
and to abolish obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, goods and  
servi ces.
Recent events have shown that the Community authorities should waste  
no more time in putting into practice the European Council's guidelines.
The time is now ripe for a bold move towards the total abolition of the  
Community's internal frontiers; this will require effective and wide-ranging  
action by the Council.

-  2 -
Apart from making a preliminary analysis of the situation (Part 1), the  
aim of this Communication is to give a summary, and a reminder, of the  
various proposals which the Commission has already prepared with the  
support of the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee  
which, if swiftly adopted by the Council, would ease considerably, and  
immediately, frontier checks and formalities relating to intra-Community  
trade in goods. The Commission therefore urges the Council to take a  
decision with delay on the proposals submitted to it, as listed in  
Items II to IV in Part 2 of this Communication.

- 3 -
CONTENTS
PART 1 - ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION AND THE DIFFICULTIES
I.  FRONTIER CROSSING FORMALITIES FOR THE VARIOUS MEANS OF TRANSPORT
II. FORMALITIES RELATING TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IN GOODS
1. Relocating formalities and inspections inside_the_Member_States:
Community transit
(a) Facilitation of trade
(b) Frontier formalities - an unnecessary complication
(c) Reasons for opting out of the facilities offered by  
the Community transit procedure
2. "£ustoms_clea ranee"
3. Veter^nary^gub li_c-hea lth_and_glant-hea lth_checks
III. PROBLEMS ARISING FROM INSPECTION RESOURCES AND PROCEDURES  
(Staff, equipment, inspection areas, etc.)
IV. BARRIERS ARISING FROM THE MAY IN WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES  
ARE CARRIED OUT
PART TWO - SOLUTIONS
I.  Compliance with Community law
II. Measures concerning the movement of goods
1. Commun2ty_t ransi^t
2. Indirect taxation

4
3. SingLe_doçument
4. Vet er i  na r^_gub I  i^hea 11 h_and_g lant ;hea 11 h_c heck s
5. Monetar^_comgensator^_amounts  
III. Measures concerning transport
1. Directive 83/643/EEC on the facilitation of inspections and
formali t i  es
2. Duty-free fuel
3. infrastructure
4. Other
IV. Negotiations with non-member countries of transit

5
PART 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION AND THE DIFFICULTIES
I. FRONTIER CROSSING FORMALITIES FOR THE VARIOUS MEANS OF TRANSPORT
Because of its overall volume and the variety and mobility of the haulage units  
and the sum of the advantages and constraints attaching to road haulage,  
the latter is the most important of all the modes for the free movement  
of goods.
There are many and varied regulations governing the road haulage operation  
as such:
(a) Road transport operations are more often than not subject to quotas  
when effected beyond the borders of the operator's country.
(b) When a road haulage vehicle crosses a border it comes under a new  
set of regulations governing:
(i) technical compliance in respect of vehicle weight and dimensions;
(ii) taxation, particularly in respect of the quantity of fuel  
in the vehicle's tank.
(c) In some Member States, a special fee is charged for the use of the  
road system.
(d) A transport operation is the subject of inspections - which vary
in intensity - regarding compliance with social regulations (driving  
and rest periods) and detailed statistical monitoring in the various  
count ri es.
This body of regulations gives rise to:
(a) physical inspections of the vehicle, e.g. weighing the total weight,  
measuring the dimensions and gauging the fuel content;
(b) checks on the basis of papers, and other formalities such as stamping  
transport authorizations, handing in statistical returns, payment
of dues in cash in the currency of the country concerned, obtaining  
an international customs pass for temporary admission of the vehicle,

-  6 -
producing driving Licences, vehicle Licences and any other certificates  
showing that the vehicles concerned comply with certain technical  
requi rements.
The place most frequently selected for these formalities and checks is  
the border, it usually being argued that vehicles have to stop there  
<  anyway for other purposes. Although it may be tempting on the fact of
it to concentrate all the operations at one point this simply aggravates  
the frontier delays and bottlenecks. This is because a formality or  
check, however simple in itself, often causes problems which are out  
of all proportion, and which vary in intensity according to how swiftly  
or slowly the customs authorities act, especially if an irregularity  
is brought to light.
The situation varies considerably throughout the Community, some borders  
being easier to cross than others. Studies have shown that in 1982 road  
haulage vehicles were held up for an average of 80 minutes at the Community's  
internal frontiers; the cost of this is estimated at between 30 and 40 ECU  
per vehicle per hour.
These same studies also emphasized that in some cases - e.g. at Kiefersfelden
on the Brenner Pass or the Mont-Blanc/Entreves crossing-point for traffic
to and from Italy - these bottlenecks often give rise to considerable
difficulties. These are the busiest road crossing-points between the
north and south of the European Community. In 1983, for example, 840 000 lorries
crossed the Brenner Pass in one direction or the other, which works out
at a daily average of 3 000 lorries. Another 440 000 lorries used the
1Mont-Blanc crossing-point that year.
Clearly therefore the solution is not to encourage the completion of  
checks and formalities at the frontier itself. While it is true that  
it would be difficult to carry out certain checks, e.g. gauging the quantity  
of fuel carried in fuel tanks, away from frontiers, checks on transport
The 1983 figures for Padborg (at the frontier between Germany and Denmark)  
and Aachen (at the frontier between Germany and Belgium) were 640 000  
and 960 000 lorries.

- ( -
authorizations or on the weights and dimensions of vehicles, or on compliance  
with social regulations, on the other hand, could easily be carried out  
within the country, either at the place of destination or by making spot-checks  
en route.
11■  "CUSTOMS" FORMALITIES RELATING TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IN GOODS
Fifteen years after the abolition of customs duties within the Community,  
goods still need "customs clearance" before they can be "imported".
In spite of the fact that, since 1970, Community regulations have allowed  
these formalities (including those for "exporting" the goods from the  
country of departure) to be carried out inside the Member States concerned,  
it is still far too often the case that these formalities are completed  
at the border; this holds up the vehicle and often causes congestion.
1. Relocating formalities and inspections inside the Member States:
Community transit
(a) Facilitation of trade
The Community transit system is in essence an elaborate scheme for cooperation  
between administration, allowing carriers to pass frontiers quickly and  
to complete the administrative formalities nearer to the exporter's or  
importer's base, as the case may be. It is now much less complicated

-  8 -
for exporters and importers to complete the administrative procedures  
at the place of departure and at the destination even if a number of  
formalities are still necessary, such as the use of T1 and T2 forms and  
the transit advice note and the lodging of guarantees to cover any duties  
and taxes due. Moreover, goods consignments under the Community transit  
procedure can cross the frontier even when the customs offices are closed.
(b) Frontier formalities - an unnecessary complication
To keep track of goods en route, a transit advice note must be lodged  
at the point of entry into the Member State concerned. This is the only  
frontier formality provided for under the Community transit procedure.
This takes a matter of seconds, but the Commission has recently found  
that there are many frontiers where other formalities not required by  
Community legislation are added at the same time. Sometimes, for instance,  
consignments are registered twice; this entails yet more formalities  
such as taking in some of the transit papers, photocopying them if need  
be and, on top of it all, making out more returns containing particulars  
entered on the transit advice note and transit documents already or  
asking for details of the driver himself yet again. All this time vehicle  
and goods are at a standstill at the frontier, resulting in pointless  
and unjustified waits and tailbacks.
Another problem is that many lorries are not sealed before departure;  
this is contrary to the Community rules. Once they arrive at the Swiss  
or Austrian frontier the Swiss or Austrian customs officials duly seal  
them as a matter of course, producing yet longer waits at the frontier.
Austria and Switzerland have special agreements with the Community on
the application of the rules on Community transit (see OJ L 294, 19.12.1972).

- 9 -
(c) Reasons for opting out of the facilities offered by the  
Community transit procedure
Despite the option offered by the Community transit system for the  
"customs clearance" of goods inside the countries concerned, the  
administrative formalities relating to intra-Community trade are 
still very often completed at the frontier. This seriously slows  
down the traffic flow at border crossing-points.
It is therefore worth trying to find out what makes operators decide  
to forgo the benefits and facilities of the Community transit procedure:
(i) In the Member States, it is common practice to turn to agents,  
e.g. customs agents, who have a virtual monopoly for carrying  
out the "customs clearance" operations. By tradition these  
agents have set up their offices at the frontier and they  
therefore prefer to remain there and in some cases actually  
require all formalities to be completed at the border.
The same thing tends to happen when a carrier decides on  
his own initiative to use a customs agent or some other  
agent.
(ii) Often the business hours of customs offices at frontiers  
are longer than those at offices within the country.
(iii) Where goods are grouped, or bound for different destinations  
within the same country, or where the final destination of  
the goods is not yet known, it seems preferable to carry  
out "customs clearance" formalities directly at the border.
(iv) In some cases the Community transit procedure does not
seem to be sufficiently attractive to convince operators to  
clear the goods inside the country. For example the  
frontier might well appear to be the simplest place to complete

-  10  -
the "export" and "import" formalities for traffic between  
neighbouring Member States since a guarantee has to be  
lodged in the event of a transit operation. What is more,  
it is left to the discretion of the national authorities  
to decide on the simplifications allowed at the place of  
departure and at the destination and some may be more  
restrictive than others. As a result the user is denied  
some of the advantages of the system and so he ignores the  
procedure altogether.
(v) Finally, another factor which militates against the use of  
the Community transit procedure is that the vehicle has  
to pull up at the frontier in any case for a serious of  
other compulsory inspections, none of them, strictly  
speaking, to do with "customs" (e.g. checks on the vehicle  
or veterinary examinations). In the circumstances it may  
seem so much more convenient to complete the "customs  
clearance" formalities at the frontier at the same time.
2. "Customs clearance"
The "customs clearance" procedure after a Community transit operation  
is the same whether it takes place inside the Member State, after  
the frontier crossing, or at the point of entry as the frontier is  
crossed. But the inconvenience of this complex procedure is felt  
far more acutely at the frontier which usually has much more  
limited facilities for vehicle stop-overs. By contrast, in certain  
cases "customs clearance" at the destination can literally mean  
clearing the goods on the consignee's own premises.
The raison d'etre of the customs clearance procedure for goods from  
non-Community countries is to apply commercial policy measures,  
where appropriate, and to levy import duties. But in the case of  
intra-Cornmunity trade the "customs clearance" procedure is maintained  
chiefly for the purpose of collecting import taxes, and in particular  
VAT (and also to compile statistics), although some goods, and in  
particular agricultural produce, may also be liable to other taxes  
and charges under certain circumstances (e.g. excise duties, MCAs, etc.).

11
In cases such as these there seems to be no alternative to
collecting the payments in the same way as customs duties, i.e.
1as part of the "customs formalities"^ VAT, however, is charged  
at various stages in the flow of goods through the economy and,  
as such, need not necessarily be tied to customs clearance.
Where the goods imported are liable to VAT, it should therefore  
be easy to calculate and collect the tax separately and to include  
it on the operator's regular tax returns.
Basically, it should be possible to carry out any checks on  
imported goods and to compile statistics on trade between Member  
States without resorting to "customs clearance"; in most cases,  
it should be possible to compile statistics from returns by  
importers (and by exporters in the country of departure). If  
inspection of goods are required, this could be done by making spot  
checks either at the destination or en route.
Countless forms have to be completed and submitted, and often  
different ones in some Member States than in others, in the course  
of "customs clearance" and its corollary the "export" procedure.
The Commission knows of 70 different forms to cover trade between  
the Ten (though this is probably not all since it has not been  
able to conduct any systematic survey). Under the circumstances  
one can well imagine how often drivers are caught without all the  
papers they need (as a result of an oversight, confusion or ignorance  
of recent amendments to the legislation) when they come to cross  
the frontier and/or complete customs clearance formalities, with  
all the attendant inconvenience, delays and complications.
These specific charges should be examined in detail one by one.

-  1 2  -
3. Veterinary, public-health and plant-health checks
Sometimes "customs clearance" is combined with other veterinary,  
public-health and plant-health formalities and checks, involving  
examination of certificates and goods and the taking of samples  
for laboratory testing. These often cause lengthy delays,  
sometimes several days, as is borne out by complaints referred to  
the Commission.
The delays are often caused because of bad organization or because  
specialist staff are not available. For example, not all frontier  
crossing-points are authorized to carry out these inspections and  
this can result in long detours. Moreover, the times during  
which these inspections can be carried out are much more limited  
than the business hours of customs offices. Some countries and  
crossing-points have very few veterinary surgeons available.
However, the biggest problems are caused because in some Member  
States all consignments of agricultural products are inspected as  
a matter of course. This applies both to goods for which there  
is common organization of the market, e.g. beef, pork and poultry  
and goods for which there is no common market, e.g. milk, dairy  
products and lamb.
For products of the first type, Community regulations specify that  
the certificate issued by the authorities in the country of  
departure stating that the products meet public-health and  
veterinary requirements is all that must be checked. Only in  
suspicious cases should the goods themselves actually be checked.
It seems unnecessary to require, as often happens, that the  
certificate be examined by a veterinary surgeon. Even in those  
sectors where there is still no harmonized legislation, Community  
law does not authorize systematic inspectionsof goods. Spot checks  
only should be made, although more stringent inspections are allowed  
where justified under Article 36 of the EEC Treaty.

- 13 -
111Ë ï .  _  BBQBLEMSi ARISING. FR.QKL I MSP ECillOhlSBESOUS CBS uANBOBROC EPURES  
(Staff, equipment, inspection areas, etc.)
The deficiencies in inspection resources and procedures are often  
criticized as being the main source of barriers to trade.
i
The Commission realizes that these problems must be evaluated in  
very different ways, in most cases in the light of particular  
situations or circumstances, whether they concern difficulties  
relating to the infrastructure of customs checking areas or resources  
for the checking of vehicles and goods, problems as regards staffing  
levels or working hours or problems concerning computerized  
equipment.
In this connection, we should not, however, be misled into believing  
that any progress in improving the situation as regards trade and  
facilitating freedom of movement must be sought of necessity and  
primarily in the improvement of inspection resources and procedures.  
Although steps in this direction should not be ruled out it must be  
clearly understood that the main thrust of any action must be to  
simplify the formalities and legal and/or administrative provisions  
which still to an excessive extent hinder the movement of goods and  
vehicles within the Community. Without exaggerating the risks, it  
is true to say that there is still a danger that, once technical  
solutions have been found to the problems of inspection resources  
and procedures, the interest in action to simplify formalities  
will decline and lose its momentum.
IV. BARRIERS ARISING FROM THE WAY IN WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES  
ARE CARRIED OUT
Over and above this, the way in which customs procedures are carried  
out often has a particularly dissuasive effect and as a result,  
hinders trade between Member States, e.g. when:

- 14 -
(a) frontier checks are carried out with more zeal than serves  
their purpose and possibly throw up barriers to intra-Community  
trade (systematic or excessively stringent checks, further  
checks on imported goods, even though similar checks have 
already been carried out in the Member State exporting the  
goods, etc.);
(b) customs clearance procedures give rise to excessive problems,  
delays or expenses compared with normal procedure for these  
operations which are not justified by the objectives pursued  
such as proper administration, efficiency or full employment  
(limited number of entry points, reduced opening hours, etc.);
(c) fees or other charges are levied on operations when "customs clearance"
1is carried out (e.g. even in respect of "customs clearance" carried  
out during official business hours);
(d) the penalties applied by the customs authorities are unjustified  
or out of all proportion to the offences detected (difference  
between an administrative error and a false declaration; e.g.  
the driver is turned back because he did not specify the frontier  
crossing-post in the language of the country of destination);
(e) certain formalities, such as licences and the like, or  
administrative or technical stamps of approval, certificates  
or origin, etc. are required in intra-Community trade even  
though they are not authorized by Community law;
(f) Member States fail to take suitable steps to mitigate the effects  
of behaviour which disrupts or hinders trade.
It should be noted here that the Court of Justice recently gave a  
ruling regarding these charges or fees as taxes having equivalent  
effect to customs duties. The Court refused to accept these  
procedures as being services carried out for the benefit of  
operators for which a charge may justifiably be made (Cases 132  
and 133/82, Commission versus Belgium and Luxembourg, not yet  
pub l i  shed).

- 15 -
PART 2:  SOLUTIONS
The Commission is aware, in presenting its analysis of the difficulties  
encountered with regard to the movement of goods and means of transport  
within the Community, that it is not giving an absolutely full picture  
of all the different situations. In practice, circumstances may differ,  
sometimes considerably, from one Member State to another depending on the  
traffic link, the type of goods carried or the period under consideration.
It is important, nevertheless, to find solutions very quickly to all the  
very apparent difficulties, by making full use of or adapting measures  
already taken, by adopting without delay the measures to be proposed by  
the Commission and above all by enforcing the existing provisions to a  
much greater extent.
I. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAM
In view of the fact that very often frontier barriers are the result of  
poor enforcement of Community law, i.e. of regulations adopted or of the  
principles deriving directly from the Treaty, the Commission thinks that  
it is essential to improve compliance with the rules in force.
The Commission is determined to make greater use of all the means at its  
disposal to get rid of formalities and inspections which no longer serve  
a useful purpose or are not in conformity with Community law and whose  
effects are out of all proportion and discriminatory. In addition, it  
will take pains to ensure that commitments entered into pursuant to Community  
regulations are honoured in full.

- 16 -
The Commission will enforce Community law strictly so as to ensure that  
the rules concerning frontier fromalities and inspections are applied in  
uniform fashion and in such a way as to create as few problems as possible  
for people crossing frontiers.
In this context, it is worth recalling the thinking of the Court of Justice  
on the legitimacy of frontier inspections and formalities:
For example, the Council has supported the banning of such formalities  
in stating that:
"apart from the exceptions for which provision is made by Community law  
itself. Articles 30 and 34 preclude the application to intra-Community  
trade of a national provision which requires, even as a pure formality,  
import or export licences or any similar procedure."
The Court has affirmed that frontier controls:
"remain justified only in so far as they are necessary either for the  
implementation of the exceptions to free movement referred to in Article 36  
of the Treaty; or for the levying of internal taxation within the meaning  
of Article 95 of the Treaty when the crossing of the frontier may legitimately  
be assimilated to the situation which, in the case of domestic goods, gives  
rise to the levying of the tax; or for transit control; or finally when  
they are essential in order to obtain reasonably complete and accurate  
information on movement of goods within the Community. These residuary  
controls must nevertheless be reduced as far as possible so that trade  
between Member States can taken place in conditions as close as possible  
to those prevalent on a domestic market".2
^Joined Cases 51 to 54/71 International_Fruit Company / 1971 / ECR 1107.  
Case 159/78 Commission v Italy / 1979 / ECR 3247.

- 17 -
The Court has also stated that:
"in general terms any administrative or penal measure which goes beyond what is  
strictly necessary for the purposes of enabling the importing Member States  
to obtain reasonably complete and accurate information on the movement  
of goods failling within specific measures of commercial policy must be  
regarded as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction  
prohibited by the Treaty".
Lastly, the Court has stated that:
"the authorities of the importing State are not entitled unnecessarily
to require technical or chemical analyses or laboratory tests when the
same analyses or tests have already been carried out in another Member State
and their results are available to those authorities or may at their request
2be placed at their disposal."
Viewed in the tight of the principles deriving directly from the Treaty,  
recent events have certainly increased awareness that the manner in which  
administrative duties at frontiers are often performed may seriously affect  
the basic principle underlying the Community, namely the free movement  
of goods between Member States.
Case 41/76 Donckerwolcke / 1976_/ ECR 1938  
Case 52/77 Cayrol / 1977_/_ECR 2280.
Case 203/80 Casati /~1981_/ ECR 2595.
Case 272/80 Biologische Producten / 1981_/ ECR 3277.

- 18 -
In addition, recent events clearly underline the need for the Commission  
to strengthen cooperation with the Member States in order to make it easier  
for them to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty, in accordance with  
Artie le 5.
To this end, the Commission proposes to send authorized officials (on a  
more regular basis than hitherto and after informing the national authorities)  
to local customs services and the other administrations concerned in the  
Member States, to make sure that intra-Community trade is functioning properly  
at the frontiers.
These visits should make it possible in particular:
(a) to detect any divergence in the practical application of Community  
rules;
(b) where appropriate, to make any adjustments to existing Community  
rules that are necessary in order to remedy any difficulties of  
this kind;
(c) to examine in conjunction with the authorities concerned in the  
Member States possible ways of making practical improvements at  
frontier posts, if such improvements are needed.
II. MEASURES CONCERNING THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS
1. Community transit
The Community transit system already entails considerable simplifications  
and hence constitutes a sort of "charter" for freedom of movement. However,  
procedures have been simplified much more extensively for the carriage  
of goods by rail than for the carriage of goods by road. In order to put  
this situation to rights, the Commission will make every effort to ensure
with regard to the carriage of goods by road under the Community transit  
system:

- 19 -
(a) that national authorities comply strictly with some of the most basic  
principles of the rules in question, namely that inspections and sealing  
have to be carried out on departure so that they do not have to be  
carrried out, or even repeated, at the border;
(b) that formalities and inspections going beyond what is provided for  
in the rules are eliminated without delay.
The Commission will also step up its efforts to ensure that simplified  
procedures on departure and on arrival are available to a much wider circle  
of users in order to make these procedures more attractive.
In addition, the Commission would point out that (in order to simplify  
the Community transit procedure) it proposed, back in 1975, that provision  
should be made for exempting from the guarantee provisions those consignments  
of goods which are not subject to tax other than VAT or which are covered  
by other guarantees against fraud. On the same lines, the Commission has  
also proposed that measures should be taken which would make it possible  
to abolish the requirement to lodge a transit advice note (OJ No C 204  
of 6 September 1975). This proposal was replaced in 1979 by another with 
the same objective (OJ No C 241 of 26 September 1979). It should be noted  
that these proposals are modelled on simplified procedures which have been  
applied in the Benelux countries for many years.
The Commission considers that the Council should resume its examination  
of these two proposals and take a decision on them as soon as possible.
If these proposals were adopted the Community transit system would be much 
more attractive for operators and frontier crossing would be made much  
easier.

-  20  -
2. Indirect taxation
The present disparities between VAT rates and between the rates for other  
taxes on consumption within the Community is undoubtedly the biggest obstacle  
to freer trade in goods. Harmonization (or at least a significant approximation)  
of the various rates should make it possible in theory to do away altogether  
with the "customs clearance" procedure in intra-Community trade. It is  
for this reason, among others, that the discussions about the harmonization  
of VAT rates are so important and that they should be resumed as soon as  
possible.
Meanwhile, the Commission would emphasize the importance of its proposal  
for a Fourteenth Directive on VAT (0J No C 203 of 6 August 1982) and the  
urgent need, which was expressly recognized by the European Council meeting  
in Copenhagen in December 1982, for rapid adoption of this proposal.
Formalities would be considerably simplified if the proposed measures were  
implemented. All import formalities would be carried out at the importer's  
premises, and the importer himself would calculate the tax due in respect  
the imported goods and would deduct it immediately in his periodic return  
Under this procedure, no import tax would be paid to any customs office  
and the "customs clearance" procedure would therefore be less burdensome.
Sucn arrangements are in fact already in force in the Benelux countries
and the United Kingdom and they operate to the great satisfaction of operators
and, as a general rule, the authorities.
However, it should be noted that the United Kingdom Government recently  
decided to abandon this system and to reintroduce as from 1  October 1984  
the traditional "customs clearance" procedure on the grounds that the present  
system gives importers an advantage over local producers to the extent  
that it is not in force in all the Community countries. The United Kingdom  
Government has said that it would be prepared to reverse its decision if  
the Fourteenth Directive is adopted.

-  21  -
In view of this unfortunate development and the fact that the Internal  
Market Council of 8 March 1984 made no tangible progress with regard to  
the proposal for a Fourteenth Directive, the Commission urgently appeals  
to the Council to take a decision on this proposal in the first half of  
this year.
3. Single document
In this connection, the Commission would once again emphasize the urgent  
need, which was recognized by the Copenhagen European Council, for early  
adoption of its proposals concerning the introduction of a single administrative  
document for intra-Community trade (OJ No C 203 of 6 August 1982,
0J No C 71 of 16 March 1983 and OJ No C 21 of 26 January 1983).
This document is intended to replace all the various administrative documents  
currently required to accompany goods as they circulate within the Community.
In addition, it will make it possible to reduce the amount of information,  
including statistical information, required in intra-Community trade and  
facilitate the computerization of the administrative procedures in the  
Member States and the interlinking thereof.
It should be recalled that the Internal Market Council of 25 November 1983  
adopted a list setting out the information which may be required, and that  
at its meeting on 8 March 1984 the Council confirmed the objective of  
reaching a final decision on the introduction of the single document in  
the first half of the year. In this connection, it said that there was  
broad agreement on the objective and the general conditions concerning the  
computerization of administrative procedures.

-  22  -
4- Veterinary, public-health and plant-health checks
It is important here to bear in mind the distinction between trade in  
products which are the subject of harmonized rules at Community level and  
trade in those in respect of which harmonization has not yet been achieved.
In the harmonized sector, in which the principle is that only checking
of the document certifying conformity with the requirements of the harmonization
directives is allowed, it is the Commission's responsibility to satisfy
itself that this rule is being rigorously applied. In addition, the
Member States should allow the certificate simply to be checked by a customs
official, who need not necessarily be a specialist in this field, instead
of systematically calling on the services of a veterinary surgeon.
In the non-harmonized sector, two avenues of approach should be pursued:
On the one hand, the Commission will carefully examine the behaviour of  
the inspection authorities so as to put an end to the practice of systematic  
physical checks employed in certain Member States.
Since trade in products which are not the subject of harmonized rules  
is subject only to the rules of Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty, as a  
general rule only spot checking is allowed where these products are concerned.
On the other, the Commission wishes to emphasize the urgent need for the  
Council to adopt the 32 Commission proposals concerning veterinary,  
public-health and plant-health provisions before it - some of which were  
submitted a very long time ago. In this connection, reference should  
be made to the Commission's Communication to the Council on the establishment  
of a timetable for measures concerning animal health, plant health and  
feedingstuffs (C0M(83)673 final of 17 November 1983), which sets out

- 23 -
priorities so as to put an end to the delay in harmonizing national laws.  
In this way, solutions can be found to the inspection problems still  
affecting trade in meat (residues, hormones, microbiological inspection,  
and minced meat), milk, eggs and certain live animals (e.g. horses).
Rules on pesticide residues, too, will be harmonized. Finally, amendment  
of the rules on plant-health inspections should make it possible to reduce  
the effect of such inspections on trade.
5. Monetary compensatory amounts
It should also be recalled that the introduction of monetary compensatory  
amounts by Regulation (EEC) No 974/71 of 12 May 1971 resubjected certain  
agricultural products to formalities which had lapsed shortly before with  
the abolition of customs duties during the transition period. The gradual  
phasing-out of monetary compensatory amounts constitutes an important  
step towards freer movement for these goods.
III. MEASURES CONCERNING TRANSPORT
1. Directive 83/643/EEC on the facilitation of inspections and formalities
The Council Directive of 1  December 1983 seeks to facilitate physical  
inspections and administrative formalities in respect of the carriage  
of goods between Member States. It covers both the means of transport  
and the goods carried. Once it is implemented it will have a favourable  
effect on the flow of traffic across the Community's internal frontiers.
OJ No L 359 of 22 December 1983.

- 24 -
The main principles it introduces are as follows:
(i) As far as possible, the various inspections and formalities should  
be centralized in one place.
(ii) Systematic inspections should be discontinued.
(iii) The inspections carried out and the documents drawn up by the 
competent authorities of another Member State which show that  
the goods comply with the requirements of the Member State of  
import or transit should be recognized.
(iv) There should be more bilateral cooperation between the various  
services responsible for inspections and formalities.
Cv) The major frontier posts should remain open:
Ca) 24 hours a day for vehicles travelling unladen or in transit  
(b) during an uninterrupted period of at least 10 hours a day
from Monday to Friday and 6 hours a day on Saturday for other  
vehi c les.
(vi) Business hours and staff available should be tailored to traffic  
requi rements.
(vii) Express lanes should be established for vehicles travelling unladen  
or carrying goods under a customs transit procedure.
According to the Directive, this system will apply as from 1 January 1985.  
However, it allows a two-year derogation from the implementation of the  
provision regarding extending the business hours of customs offices from  
6 to 10 hours a day. Four Member States (France, Greece, Ireland and  
Luxembourg) originally made use of this derogation clause for different  
reasons.

- 25 -
At the Internal Market Council of 8 March 1984, France formally renounced  
this option while the Greek, Italian and Luxembourg delegations stated  
that they were prepared to review their positions. At the Transport Council  
of 22 March 1984, the delegations said they intended to implement the  
provisions concerning longer business hours as from 1 January 1985 at  
least at the major frontier crossing-points in their respective countries.
The Commission considers that in the light of recent events it is difficult  
to justify delays in the implementation of the measures in question.
In fact, the Commission hopes that the Member States will even endeavour  
to implement the directive ahead of schedule.
2. Duty-free fuel
Another measure, which is an important first step - but only a first step -  
towards speeding up the flow of traffic is the directive which increased  
the minimum quantity of fuel contained in the fuel tanks of commercial  
motor vehicles which is admitted duty-free from 50 to 200 litres as from  
1 July 1984. Although, as a result of this directive, the authorities  
in the countries which maintain the 200 litre limit are expected to make  
their inspections more flexible by making spot-checks only, these inspections  
can only be abolished altogether if the duty-free limit is raised to the  
size of a normal tank.
2This is the aim of a new Commission proposal, which if adopted would  
make frontier crossing considerably easier.
Directive 83/127/EEC (0J No L 91 of 9 April 1983).  
C0MC84)171 final of 20 March 1984.

- 26 -
The objective is (a) to discontinue the practice of gauging the contents  
of fuel tanks, which is at present carried out by means of spot checking  
on arrival in a Member State which limits the duty-free allowance, and  
(b) to dispense with the form which drivers at present have to fill in  
when leaving or entering the Member States in question.
The Transport Council of 22 March 1984 held an initial exchange of views  
on this proposal and expressed the desire to facilitate frontier crossing  
in this respect. The Permanent Representatives Committee has been instructed  
to continue the examination of this matter.
3. Infrastructure
In addition, the Commission considers that significant improvements in
transport infrastructure at various frontier crossing-points are needed.
A framework for action by the Community in this area would be created
if the proposal on support for transport infrastructure projects of Community  
.  1 interest, which the Commission submitted to the Council in 1976, was
adopted. Pending this, the Commission recently proposed that the Council
immediately take urgent measures to ensure a smoother flow of traffic
on certain frontier sections.^ The Commission proposes to allocate
30 million ECU for such projects from the funds available for financial
support in the 1983 and 1984 budgets.
In this respect, the Transport Council of 22 March 1984 expressed its  
intention of financing frontier infrastructure (in the Alpine region in  
particular) from the 1983 and 1984 budgets. It instructed the Permanent  
Representatives Committee to continue its deliberations so as to enable  
the Council to take a decision at its meeting on 10 May 1984.
0J No C 207 of 2 September 1976.  
C0MC84)172 final of 20 March 1984.

- 27 -
4. Other
Mention should also be made of a number of Commission proposals before  
the Council which, in one way or another, would bring about additional  
► improvements if adopted:
(a) The proposal for a Council Directive on the weights and certain other  
characteristics (not including dimensions) of road vehicles used
for the carriage of goods (OJ C 16, 18 January 1979).
(b) The proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC)
No 3164/76 on the Community quota for the carriage of goods by road  
between Member States which seeks to abolish the journey record sheet  
accompanying Community authorizations, upon the introduction of the  
'single document' (C0M(84)109).
(c) The proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 65/269/EEC  
concerning the standardization of certain rules relating to authorizations  
for the carriage of goods by road between Member States which seeks
to abolish the journey record sheet accompanying the bilateral  
authorizations subject to quota, upon the introduction of the 'single  
document' (C0M(84)110).

- 28 -
IV. NEGOTIATIONS W ITH  N O N -M E M B E R  C O U N TR IE S  O F  TRANSIT
In order to ensure that a ll the above measures (whether already in force 
or in the pipeline) are as effective as possible in the fin a l analysis, 
i t  w ill be necessary to negotiate sim ilar measures in most cases with 
certain non-member countries of tra n s it which are of p articula r importance 
where the Community is concerned, and especially Austria, Switzerland 
and Yugoslavia. In th is way, the Community and the non-member countries 
in question could m ake a  contribution to more effective harmonization 
in Europe with regard to the sim p lifica tio n  of inspections and form alities 
when goods cross fro n tie rs , by concluding b ila te ra l agreements which, 
as provided for in the international convention on the harmonization of 
goods controls at fro n tie rs , go further than the convention.
The Commission w ill examine this important matter in greater d e ta il and 
w ill submit appropriate recommendations to the Council.