NoC169/30 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 6.7.92
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)layingdownthedefinitivesystem
underwhichnon-residentcarriersmayoperatedomesticroadhaulageserviceswithina
MemberState(a)
(92/C169/11
On10December1991theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle75oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforTransportandCommunications ,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingthe
Committee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon10April1992.TheRapporteur
wasMrTukker.
Atits296thPlenarySession(meetingof29April1992)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajority,witheightvotesagainstandtwelveabstentions .
1.Introduction well,therewouldbenofreemovementofservices
withinthemeaningoftheECTreaty.Thedisadvantage
ofthesecondsystemisthatastheMemberStates'
transportlawshavenotbeenharmonized,non-resident
carrierswouldbeoperatingunderdifferentconditions
ofcompetitionfromnationalcarriers.Initspresent
proposaltheCommissionhaschosenamiddleway.
Accesstothecabotagemarketistobefreefromall
quantitativerestrictionsbutcabotagewillbesubjectto
someoftherulesinforceintheStateinwhichthe
serviceisprovided.1.1.On31December1992thetransitionalcabotage
arrangementsintroducedbyCouncilRegulation (EEC)
No4059/89,asamendedbyRegulation (EEC)
No296/91,expire.Thepresentrulesgivenon-resident
carriersauthorizedtoengageincabotageaccessto
nationalroadhaulageservices.MemberStateshave
beenallocatedalimitednumberofcabotageauthoriz­
ationswhichtheyareallowedtodistributeamong
nationalcarriers.
2.ExplanatoryMemorandum
2.1.Conditionsforundertakingofcabotage(Art.1)1.2.ThepurposeofthepresentCommissionpro­
posalistoestablishadefinitivecabotagesystem.The
freedomtoprovidenationaltransportservices,which
comesunderArticle75(l)(b)oftheTreaty,meansthe
removalofallrestrictionsontransportserviceson
groundsofnationalityorestablishment inanother
MemberState.Thebasicpremiseoftheproposalis
thatfrom1January1993anyroadhaulaigecarrier
holdingaCommunityauthorizationtooperateintra­
Communityroadhaulageservicesshallbeentitledto
engageincabotageinMemberStateswithoutanyquan­
titativerestrictions .2.1.1.Article1oftheproposallaysdownthecon­
ditionsforadmissiontocabotageinaMemberState.
Anycarrierwho,inaccordancewiththelawsofa
MemberStateandCommunitylaw,isestablishedin
thatMemberStateandholdsaCommunityauthoriz­
ationmustbepermittedtoengageincabotagewithout
quantitativerestrictions .Theproposalmakesnopro­
visionforaseparatecabotageauthorization ,butrather
linksthiswiththeCommunityauthorization -which
isthuscomplementary totheECRegulationonaccess
totheCommunitymarket.Undertheproposalthe
Communityauthorization willentitletheholderto
engageincabotage,aswellasintra-Community trans­
port,aspertheaboveRegulation .Therequirement
thatnon-residentcarriersholdaCommunityauthoriz­
ationistoguaranteethattheyareproperlyqualified.1.3.Therearevariouswaysofregulatingcabotage.
Onepossibilitywouldbeforthenationalrulesofthe
MemberStatesinwhichcabotagetakesplacetoremain
inforceintheirentirety.Anotherwouldbetokeepthe
applicationoftheserulestoaminimum.Thus,acarrier
inpossessionofaCommunityauthorizationwould
automatically beabletoengageincabotageinthe
MemberStateswithoutbeingsubjecttonationalrules.
Thedisadvantageofthefirstsystemisthatthereare
stilldifferentmarketsystemswithintheEC.Ifthe
capacityrulesweretoapplytonon-residentcarriersas
2.1.2.Article1oftheproposalexplicitlystatesthat
cabotageservicesaretemporaryinnature.The
ExplanatoryMemorandum usesthistemporarycharac­
tertojustifythedifferenttreatmentofnationalcarriers (!)OJNoC317,7.12.1991,p.10.

6.7.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC169/31
andcabotageoperators.Theformercanbemadesub­
jecttonationalquotas,butnotthelatter.Butwhat
does'temporary'meaninpractice?portionality,asexcessivelyburdensomerulescould
restrictthefreedomtoprovideservices.
2.2.Conditionsfortheregistrationandhireofvehicles
(Art.2)2.3.2.AsstatedintheIntroduction ,theCommission
hasoptedforasystemwherebycertainnationalrules
oncabotagearetoapplywithaviewtoequalizing
conditionsofcompetitionfornon-residentandnational
carriers.Thedrawbackhoweveristhatinseveralareas
cabotageoperatorswillbeconfrontedwithforeignlegal
systems.Theywillhavetofamiliarizethemselveswith
theseandcomplywithhighlydiverselegalrequire­
ments.ClearlythelackofuniformityinMemberStates'
legalsystemscouldbearealobstacletotheperformance
ofcabotage.Harmonization oftherulesofthevarious
MemberStateswouldthusseemtobeaprecondition
forthesatisfactoryoperationofacabotagesystem.2.2.1.Article2laysdowntheconditionsforthe
registrationandhireofvehiclesusedforcabotage.
Vehiclesmustberegisteredinthecarrier'snamein
accordancewiththerulesapplicableintheMember
Stateofestablishment—exceptinthecaseoftrailers
andsemi-trailers,whichmayberegisteredorauthorized
inotherMemberStates,providedthatexistingCom­
munityrulesarecompliedwith.Vehicleshiredunder
theconditionslaiddowninCouncilDirective84/647/
EECorunderthesameconditionsasthoseapplicable
tohostMemberStatecarriersmayalsobeusedfor
cabotage.
2.3.Nationallawsapplicabletocabotage(Art.3)2.3.3.Inconclusion,itshouldbepointedoutthat
implementation oftherulesmayvaryfromoneMember
Statetoanother.Thisismoretheresultofcultural
differencesbetweenMemberStatesthanofalackof
harmonization .Uniformityinthisareawillbedifficult
toachievebyfiatfromBrussels.Excessivelystrictappli­
cationofnationalrulestocabotageoperatorscould
contravenetheproportionality principle.Howcan
breachesofthisprinciplebeidentifiedandhowshould
theproblembetackled?
2.4.Crisismechanism (Art.4and5)2.3.1.Article3summarizesthelaws,regulationsand
administrative provisionsofthehostMemberState
applicabletocabotage:
—legallybindingprovisionsconcerningatransport
contract(e.g.thoseregardingliability);according
totheCommissiontariffsarenotcoveredbythese
provisions,
—weights,dimensionsandenvironmental standards
applicabletoroadvehicles,
—requirementsrelatingtothecarriageofcertaincate­
goriesofgoods,inparticulardangerousgoods,per­
ishablefoodstuffs,liveanimalsandabnormalloads;
notechnicalrestrictionsbasedonnationallawmay
howeverbeimposedonvehicles,providingthey
conformwiththecurrentCommunityorinter­
\nationalrulesontechnicalstandardsrelatingtoa
vehicle'sconstructionandequipment,
—drivingandresttime,
—trafficlaws,
—ValueAddedTax(VAT)ontransportservices;this
maynotbeexplicitlyreferredtoinArticle3,but
underDirective77/388/EEConharmonization of
thelawsoftheMemberStatesrelatingtoturnover
taxes(asamendedbyDirective89/465/EEC)thisis
governedbytherulesofthehostMemberState.
InapplyingthenationalrulesofthehostMemberState,
accountmustbetakenoftheprincipleofpro­2.4.1.Article4providesthat,intheeventofaserious
marketdisturbanceinaparticulargeographicalarea
duetocabotageoperations,theCommissionmaytake
actionattherequestofaMemberStateoronits
owninitiative.Aseriousdisturbancemeansproblems
affectingthemarketwhich:
—arelikelytoleadtoaseriousandpotentiallylasting
excessofsupplyoverdemand,
—areduetocabotageoperations,and
—poseaseriousthreattothefinancialstabilityand
survivalofasignificantnumberofroadhaulage
undertakings .
2.4.2.Article5alsocontainstemporaryprovisions
topreventmarketdisturbancesin1993,1994and1995.
ThusMemberStatesmay,withtheCommission's
approval,adoptmeasurestorestrictcabotage,provided
thatcabotageamountstoatleast5%oftheirnational
transportoperationscalculatedintonne-kilometres .

NoC169/32 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 6.7.92
tobemadeinaccordancewithRegulation (EEC)
No4060/89.Cabotage'sshareofnationalroadtransportoperations
maybelimitedto5%in1993,6%in1994and7%in
1995.IntheExplanatoryMemorandum thisprovision
isjustifiedbytheneedforthetransportsectortoadjust
tothenewsituation. 2.7.Implementation oftheRegulation (Art.8)
TheMemberStatesarerequiredtoadoptthelaws,
regulationsandadministrative provisionsneededfor
implementation oftheRegulationingoodtimeandto
informtheCommission .2.4.3.Muchdependsontheextenttowhichuseis
actuallymadeofthesetwocrisisclausestolimitcabo­
tageincertainareas.Imprudentusemustbeprevented.
ItappearsfromtheproposalhoweverthattheCom­
missionwillrequireclearproof,whichwilllimitthe
dangerofpoliticalabuse.ButasArticle4doesnot
definetheterm'crisis'sufficientlyclearly,implemen­
tationmaywellbecomplicatedbyproblemsof
interpretation .2.8.Entryintoforce(Art.9)
TheRegulationwillenterintoforceon1January1993.
3.Comments2.4.4.HowaretheMemberStatesandtheCom­
missiontocollecttheinformationneededtoestablish
theexistenceofacrisis?Successfuloperationofthe
crisismechanismprovidedforinArticle5willrequire
aresponsibleattitudeonthepartofcabotageoperators.
Onlyifcabotagecanbequantifiedasaproportionof
nationalroadtransportcanitbeestablishedwhether
itiscausingadisturbanceofthemarket.Butitisnot
clearhowthisinformation willbecollectedinthe
future.Cabotagecanafterallbecarriedoutonthe
basisofaCommunityauthorizationwithouttheneed
tocompleteatransportreport.3.1.TheCommitteewonderedwhatwasmeantby
thetemporarynatureofcabotageinArticle1,andwas
toldbytheCommissionthatitmeanthavingavehicle
inanotherMemberStatetemporarily .TheCommittee
wouldliketoseetheCommission definethismore
clearly.
3.2.Article3statesthatthelawsofthehostMember
Statewillapplytocabotageinanumberofareas.The
complexityofthelawsandthelackofconformity
betweenMemberStates'legalsystemscouldbean
obstacletocabotage.Everythingpossibleshouldthere­
forebedonetoharmonizethevariousMemberStates'
rules.2.5.MutualassistancebyMemberStates(Art.6)
2.5.1.MemberStatesareexpectedtoworktogether
actively,e.g.byexchanginginformationandassisting
eachothertocombatabusesandinfringementsofthe
Regulationandofthelawsandadministrative pro­
visionsgoverningcabotage.Theproposalprovidesfor
thefollowingsanctions:awarning,atemporaryor
permanentbanoncabotageoperationsinagivenMem­
berStateandwithdrawaloftheCommunityauthoriz­
ation.3.3.Suitableconditionsshouldbelaiddownforthe
safeguardclauseprovidedinArticle4:i.e.theclause
shouldapplyintheeventofadisturbancebutshould
notbeusedtoblocktheopeningupofmarkets.This
procedurethusdependsontheeffectivenessofthecrisis
managementmechanismswhichcanonlyoperatein
conjunctionwithmarketobservation .
3.4.TheCommissionsaysnothingaboutthehar­
monizationofsocialconditions .Inordertoprevent
unfaircompetition,workingconditions,exceptwages,
needtobeharmonized .Whilstrulesondrivingandrest
periodshavebeenintroducedforinternationalroad
haulage,conditionsfornationalhaulagevaryfromone
MemberStatetoanother.2.5.2.ThiscouldbetiedinwiththeECRegulation
onaccesstotheCommunitymarket,ascabotageis
carriedoutonthebasisofaCommunityauthorization .
AsinthecaseoftheaboveRegulation,itisnotclear
whetherthemonitoringandinvestigativebodieswill
beabletosetupaneffectivesystemofchecksand
whetheruniformapplicationoftherulescanbeensured
inalltheMemberStates.
2.6.Checks(Art.7)3.5.Withregardtochecks,penaltiesforinfringe­
mentandtheexchangeofinformation (Art.6),isan
effectivesystemofcheckspossibleandcanreasonably
uniformapplicationofthenewrulesbeensuredin
alltheMemberStates?TheCommitteefeelsthatthe
Regulationshouldincorporateanappealsprocedure.
3.6.TheCommitteefeelsthateffortsshouldbemade2.6.1.ThisArticleforbidschecksattheCom­
munity'sinternalfrontiers.Checksoncabotageare

6.7.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC169/33
eventuallytointroducerulesorformulateaspecial
Regulationinrespectofown-accounttransport.
3.7.Conclusion
TheCommitteeurgesthateveryeffortbemadeto
introducefreecabotageinroadtransporton1January
1993.IntheCommittee'sviewthisistheresponsibilityoftheCouncilpursuanttotheCourtofJustice'sJudge­
mentof22May1985.If,foranyreason,thedeadline
of1January1993cannotbemet,theCouncilshould
ensurethat:
1)freecabotageinroadtransportisachievedby
1January1996atthelatest;
2)inthemeantimethenumberofcabotageauthoriz­
ationsisincreasedby40%perannum.
DoneatBrussels,29April1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH
APPENDIX
totheOpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
ThefollowingamendmenttotheSectionOpinion,tabledinaccordancewiththeRulesofProcedure,was
defeatedinthecourseofthedebate:
Page5
Reword3.4toread:
'TheCommissionsaysnothingabouttheharmonization ofworkingconditions .Suchharmonization is
indispensable ,inparticulartobringCommunitylegislationonworkinghoursintolinewiththeregulations
alreadyintroducedbycertainMemberStates;itshouldalsoprecedethecompletionoftheSingleMarket.'
Reasons
Inpractice,theexistingrulesondrivers'workingandrestperiodsallowfora16-hourworkingday,whereas
the10-hourlimitalreadycontractuallylaiddownincertainMemberStatesshouldapplythroughoutthe
Community .
Voting
For:39,against:45,abstentions :6.