ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 349 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 152 
  
 
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 openin g 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), this fi le 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. 
Februar 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 vom 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
C O M (84) 349 final
Brussels, 16 July 1984
FIR ST  R E P O R T  T O  T H E  C O U N C IL  B Y  T H E  C O M M IS S IO N
on the collection of information concerning the activities of 
road hauliers participating in the carriage of goods to 
and from certain non-member countries
C O M (84) 349 final

CONTENTS
I. Introduction and historical background
II. Information supplied by Member States
III. Supporting information
IV. Summary of findings and conclusions.

1·  Historical background
1  .  The problems caused by the activities of road hauliers of  
certain state-trading countries of Eastern Europe have  
been under examination for some time in the Community. In  
its document COM(81) 716 final of 14 January 1982, the
Commission gave an analysis of the situation of which the  
main feature is an imbalance of shares of road hauliers  
of Member States in East-West traffic. In the document  
the Commission came to the conclusion that it is  
desirable to follow the activities of hauliers of  
state-trading countries at Community level with a view to  
putting Member States in a better position to respond to  
the threat directed against their national road hauledge  
industry by East bloc carriers. Consequently the  
Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a  
Council Decision on the collection of information  
concerning the activities of road hauliers participating  
in the carriage of goods to and from certain non-member  
countries (1).
In Annex I to the proposal the Commission listed the  
information to be collected. In Annex II the third  
countries on which information should be collected were  
listed: USSR, Poland, German Democratic Republic,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania.
2. In its session of 9 July 1982 the European Parliament  
approved the Commission proposal (2).
The Economic and Social Committee unreservedly endorsed  
the Commission proposal in its session held on 26 May  
1982 (3 )  .
(  1  )OJn°C36of12.12.1981, P·8
(2 )OJn °c238of13.09. 1982, P·98
(  3 )OJN°c205of09.08. 1982, P·24

- 3 -
3. However, at its meeting of 10 June 1982 the Council did  
not act on the above-mentioned Commission proposal. The  
Council in fact confined itself to take note of
- the Commission's intention of gathering information, as  
from 1  January 1983, on the activities of road hauliers  
participating in the carriage of goods by road on  
certain routes
- the Member States intention of taking the necessary  
steps to ensure ad far as possible close cooperation  
between the relevant national departments and  
Commission departments, with a view to facilitate, in  
partiucular the collection of information by the  
Commission.
Furthermore, the Council asked the Commission to submit  
as from 1  July 1984 an annual report containing its  
conclusion on the experience and results obtained (1).
4. In the Annex I to the Conclusions of the Council of 10  
June 1982, the Council broadly confirmed the type of  
information to be collected as suggested by the  
Commission in Annex I of its proposal to the Council.  
However, the Council did not follow the Commission in  
limiting the data collection to certain state-trading  
countries, but extended the scope of application to all  
European countries outside the Community.
5. Given this situation, the Commission services decided  
to proceed on a two-step basis, the first referring to  
the list of state-trading countries annexed to the  
Commission's proposal and the second to the remaining  
European countries, as staff resources permit.
(  1  )Doc. 7834/82 (TRANS 79).

-  4 -
In addition, the Commission Services decided, as a first  
step, to prepare an inventory of the data already exist­
ing in Member States.
In a letter of 3 November 1982, addressed to all Member  
States, the Commission Services communicated its decision  
and asked Member States to forward the relevant inform­
ation concerning the items specified in Annex I to the  
conclusions of the Council of 10 June 1982 (Annex I).  On  
8 March 1983 a reminder was sent to Member states which  
had not informed the Commission Services by that date.
6. Between 7 December 1982 and 6 July 1983 the Commission  
Services received replies from nine Member States. From  
Denmark no reaction was received.
7. Chapter II of the report is established on the basis of  
the information supplied by Member States; each paragraph  
deals with the four items mentioned in Annex I to the  
Council Minutes. If not stated otherwise, all the inform­
ation relates to 1981. In chapter III supporting inform­
ation will be presented. Chapter IV summarizes the  
findings and draws conclusions

- 5 -
II.  Information supplied by the Member States
1. "In the case of routes between Member States,
information on the possibility of non-Community 
European carriers undertaking the carriage of 
goods."(1)
The following table presents the information made available 
by Member States on the possibility to execute 
intra-Community transport by non-Community carriers.
Table 1  ;  Information on the possibility of non-Community 
carriers to undertake goods transport between 
Member States, 1981
France :no reply received
Germany :yes, to the extent that the yourney is on 
the natural return route to the other 
contracting party
Italy :no reply received
The Netherlands: no reply received
Belgium :no
Luxembourg : yes, on the basis of reciprocity
United Kingdom : no information available
Ireland :yes
Denmark :no reply received
Greece :no, except to the extent permitted in the 
agreements with Czechoslowakia (300 
trips), Poland (100 trips) and Hungary 
(200 trips).
As is shown in the table, only three Member States did not 
supply evidence to answer the question if and to what extent 
third countries, in particular East bloc countries, are free 
to participate in bilateral intra-Community traffic.
(1) Annex I to the Conclusions of the Council of 10.6.1982.

-  6
2. "In the case of routes between Member States and
non Community European countries, information 
concerning:
the quota of bilateral, transit and mixed 
authorisations reciprocally granted for each bi­
lateral route, broken down as follows:
- by journey, (valid for one or more journeys); in 
the case of bilateral and transit authorisations, 
the percentage of the quota utilised should be 
mentioned where possible;
- by time; in the case of bilateral and transit 
authorisations, the average number of journeys per 
authorisation during the period of validity should 
be mentioned where possible."(1)
Various Member States have concluded bilateral agreements in 
which quota are fixed with all or a number of European 
state-trading countries:
France, Italy and The Netherlands concluded quota fixing 
agreements with all state-trading countries.
Belgium has agreements with all Eastern Bloc countries, ex­
cept with the German Democratic Republic.
Greece concluded agreements with permits with Czechoslowa- 
kia, Hungary and Rumania.
Germany made agreements with Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania.
The United Kingdom has only an agreement including permits 
with Hungary.
Luxembourg and Ireland have not concluded such agreements.
In each of these bilateral agreements, information submitted 
by Member States on the number of authorisations, the type 
of authorisations and the utilisation of these authoris­
ations by the hauliers from the Member State, party to a bi­
lateral agreement, is presented in the following table.
(1) See footnote (1) on page 5.

Table 2 :  Quota by bilateral relation, 1981
Bilateral and Bilateral and 
transit journey transit time 
authorisations authorisations
and special 
authorisationsU t i 1 i s at ion 
by hauliers from 
the Member States 
<  * )
%
France and
USRR 1000 0 9
Roland 3000 0 45
GDR 4100 30 70
Czechosl. 830 20 58
Hungary 850 15 99
Bulgaria 4700 15 (  1  ) 38
Rumania 1300 15 (  1  ) 52
Germany and %
Poland 1  8200 0 —
Bulgaria 1  3050 0 --
Rumania 7100 0
""
Italy and
USSR 400 0 the quota are
Poland 3100(2 ) (3 ) nearly fully
GDR 500 0 utilised
Czechosl. 4700(4 ) 0 with the ex-
Hungary 7700(  5 ) (6 ) ception of
Bulgaria 3000(  7 ) 0 those with the
Rumania 1700(8 ) 0 USSR and Bulg.
The Netherlands and%
USSR 500 0 20
Poland 1500 — « · 100(bilat)
50(transit)
GDR 10200 200 25
Czechos1. 4400 0 100(9)
Hungary -- 800 + 18 00 (trips)
Bulgaria 1000 0 20
Rumania 1100 20 80(journey)  
unknown(time)
Belgium and
USRR 800 0 0
Poland 1  400 0 362
Czechosl. 2 200 0 1  52
Hungary 650 0 447
Bulgaria 300 0 34
Rumania 1  000 0 36
N°
United Kingdom and
Hungary 3 650 (10) 0 474(+2734 in
transit)
Greece and 
Czechosl.  10
Hungary 7
Rumania 2000(11) o  --
2 0 0 (12) 0
000 0
no information received.
(*) Information on utilisation by East bloc hauliers is not 
available.

8 -
(1) not used by France)
(2) of which 800 journey licences to carry living animals 
only, 100 licences outside quota, and 200 journey licences 
to and from the ports.
(3) Poland may change 450 journey licences into 30 time 
authorisations.
(4) journey licences to and from the port of Trieste.
(5) of which 2 500 journey licences to carry living animals
only and 1  200 journey licences to and from the port of
Trieste .
(6) 300 normal journey licences may be changed for 10 time 
authorisations, while 400 Trieste licences may be changed 
for 10 time authorisations.
(7) of which 200 journey licences to carry living animals 
anly and 300 journey licences to be used to and from the 
port of Trieste.
(8) of which 300 journey licences to carry living animals 
only.
(9) 65 % of total traffic is transit traffic
(10) of which 650 taxable licences granted for use by U.K. 
hauliers in connection with the carriage of meat, mainly to 
Rumania.
(11) of which 300 licences for carrying to and from third 
countries.
(12) of which 200 licences for carrying to and from third 
countries.

- 9 -
The inf ormat ion presented by Member States, with the except­
ion of Denmark, on the existence and, if any, on the content 
(number of journey, transit, time and special authorisat­
ions) of their bilateral agreements with East bloc countries 
seems to be extensive and complete.
However, the percentage of the quota utilised was only men­
tioned in the case of France,  Germany and The Netherlands, 
as far as the participation of their hauliers was con­
cerned. Belgium and the United Kingdom indicated the number 
of licences utilised. The other Member States did not supply 
any information on this subject.
3· "In the case of routes between Member States and
non-Community European countries, information 
concerning
The tonnage transported by carriers in each non- 
Community European country and each Member State on 
each bilateral route, if possible, broken down by 
NST/R groups (1)." (2)
On this question Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Ireland 
indicated that the information on tonnes transported by flag 
of the haulier in bilateral relations with Eastern bloc 
countries was not available.
Belgium supplied information on tonnes carried by Belgian 
transporters without breakdown by NST-groups.
Germany and the Netherlands presented information on tonnes 
transported by their own carriers and the carriers of the 
partner in bilateral agreement but without NST breakdown.
(1) Standard goods classification for transport statistics,
revised edition, valid from 1.1.1967, S.O.E.C., 1968
edition. See also Annex I to Council Directive 78/546/EEC of 
12 June 1978 on statistical returns in respect of carriage 
of goods by road, as part of regional statistics, OJ N° L 
168, 26.6.1978, p. 29.
(2) See footnote (1) on page 5.

-10-
Italy did not send any information on tonnes transported but 
indicated that an average load could be estimated at 20 
tonnes with which, given the information on quota and the 
utilisation thereof, it would be possible to derive the 
transport activity by Italian and Eastern bloc hauliers
Greece transmitted import and export figures by bilateral 
relation by mode, broken down according to the trade 
classification (SITC), but without the shares of Greek and 
other hauliers.
Only France supplied all the information requested under 
this heading.
Given the difference in the data submitted by Member States, 
the only information which can be presented here is total 
bilateral road traffic, broken down by flag by relation to 
the extent Member States supplied this information to the 
Commission, i.e. for France, Germany and The Netherlands.

-11-
Table 3 :  Tonnes transported by bilateral relation, broken
down by flag in tonnes, 1981
carried bycarried by cross*
Relation Total tonnage hauliers of hauliers of trading
transported EC-partner East-bloc hauliers
in the bi- partner in
lateral re*the bilateral (2 )
lation relation (1)
% % %
France to/from
USSR 22404 5244231  63 1  473 8464
Poland 97759 336433452678541  14381  2
GDR 1668 59 4974630729 1  4444419926
Czechosl. 40528 800920298577426627
Hungary 37954 1  54364 11  75224649961  3
Bui gar i a 22920 27651  2190238311325
Rumania 3 1440 1  4470461  37o04432 1  01  0
TOTAL 4 19864 1293 1  33 122206853684831  6
Germany to/from
USSR 2 16660 32 1511  9899092144557
Poland 299492 1  1  136437163227542490 19
GDR -- --
Czechos 1. 1 639494 680672429332 1  857356041
Hungary 426280 5034 1232484 185812752 130
Bulgaria 68554 1  01081547514691  09321  6
Rumania 63735 19420303 1878501  243720
TOTAL 2 7 142 15 875120321  623245602 1  58508
The Netherlands to/from
USRR 1  2407 12351  01  147290
Poland 45067 1 3026871940393
GDR 227657 68294301  5836370
Czechosl. 130805 2 1907171  0889883
Hungary 72782 36389503639350
Bulgaria 13623 762356+ 600044
Rumania 2416 1 1  587666 828534
TOTAL 530406 1  8 1592343448 1  466
Total over
three 3 6644851  1860 25322 190127602843337
Member States
(1) For the Netherlands :  all other carriers.
(2) For Germany: information on third country hauliers was
not supplied.

-1 2 -
From the table it appears that for three countries con­
cerned only 32% of total traffic is carried by its own 
hauliers. However, on the relation Germany-GDR no inform­
ation was transmitted. At the level of the Community this 
information does not give sufficient evidence to draw up 
a reliable picture.
4. "Where possible, the rates and conditions applied for
the carriage of certain types of goods or certain 
routes."!1)
France and Greece did not give any indications on rates 
and conditions; the other Member States stated that no 
information is available.
5. Taken together, replies from Member States did not lead 
to a complete and reliable picture of the participation 
of Community and Eastern bloc hauliers in bilateral East- 
West traffic. Only on agreements between Member States 
and the state-trading countries of Eastern Europe and 
their content as to the number of the various types of 
authorisations does, a full picture emerged. Neither on 
the number of trips executed by Member States' hauliers 
and Eastern bloc hauliers, nor on the tonnes transported 
by each of the countries' hauliers can a complete picture 
be drawn up.
III. Supporting information
1. In order to arrive at a more complete assessment of the 
situation than would be possible on the basis of con­
tributions of Member States, in particular as far as 
tonnes carried by nationality of the haulier is con­
cerned, the Commission's Services have found that German 
statistics supply that kind of information on bilateral 
German road transports as well as on transit transports 
by road through Germany (2).
(1) See footnote (1) on page 5.
(2) Statistische Mitteilungen des Kraftfahrtbundesamts und 
der Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr, Flensburg.

- 13 -
This information proved to be particularly valuable since 
Germany is the main transit country for road transport 
between Member states and the state-trading countries of 
Eastern Europe. On the other hand, it should be stressed 
that information based on these statistics is not com­
plete either. Parts of road traffic between France and 
the East bloc countries, large parts of road traffic be­
tween Italy and Eastern Europe and practically all road 
transport between Greece and the state-trading countries 
of Eastern Europe are excluded from these figures.
.  Table 4 shows the tonnes transported between Member
States and state-trading countries of Eastern Europe to 
the extent that they transit Germany. For the sake of 
comparability with the information transmitted by Member 
States, data for the year 1981 are shown here. More 
recent informations, from 1982, is available but does not
present big differences at the broad level, compared to 
1981 .
3. To what extent do these figures give a reliable account 
of bilateral road transports under consideration?
If these figures are compared with those transmitted by 
Member States (table 3) a number of striking differences 
emerge.
In some relations the difference can be explained because 
part of the transports on these relations probably does 
not transit Germany (F-Bulgaria, F-Rumania).
On others, an explanation, apart from the difference in 
statistical sources, is hard to find for instance on the 
relations NL—Czechoslowakia and NL—Hungary.
However, given the fact that information from Member 
States did not produce a full picture of the situation, 
the German statistics seem to be the only comprehensive 
source available to cover an important part of East-West 
international road transport movements.
4. To what extent do these figures give a full account of 
bilateral road transports under consideration ? The 
competent services of France, Italy and Greece informed 
the Commission Services of their total bilateral road 
transports to an from Est bloc countries.
In table 5 these figures are shown.

- 14 -
Table 4: Bilateral transports in tonnes by road through Germany between EC - Member
States and state trading countries of Eastern Europe and bilateral Germand Traffic, 1981
USSR Poland GDR Czecho- 
slovak i aHungary Bulgaria Rumania Total
France 21.132 95.458 170.289 44.914 39.667 10.551 20. 133 402. 143
Germany 216.660 299.482 2.912.4 4 61.639.494 426.280 68.554 63.8735 5.626.661
Italy 128 18.587 29 .08 1 7.666 1.061 0 626 57.149
The Netherlands 15.945 55.513 246.065 179.073 95.915 14.570 27.111 634.192
Belgium 13.247 29.723 134.1  36 109.101 56.223 5.329 4.648 352.406
Luxembourg 554 834 3 .363 5.278 886 624 312 11.851
United Kingdom 414 17.855 7 .724 58.224 32.856 1.703 10.483 129.319
Ireland 26 1 91 3 .63 1 1.557 41 75 1.802 7.458
Denmark 30.885 12.422 24 .288 14.357 5.650 1.270 3.411 92.283
Greece 0 74 3 .328 1  4 34 24 183 3.567
Total 299.226 830.039 3.534.3492.066.641 651.710 102.700 132.444 7.317. 109
based on :  Statistische Mitteilungen des Kraftfahrt-Bundesamtes und der Bundesanstalt 
für den Güterfernverkehr, Heft 5, Flensburg, Mai 1982.

- 15 -
Table 5 :  Total bilateral road 
France, Italy, Greece 
trading countries oftransports in tonnes of 
to and from the state 
Eastern Europe, 1981
USSR Poland GDR Czech Hung. Bulg. Ruman. TOTAL
France
Italy
Greece22404 97759 166859 40528 
52600 23732 8592 1550937954 22920 31440 
9835 23894 109794 19 
2 375 
145.864 
834 
1  3 1
TOTAL (table 4 and 5) 9.791.445
A comparison of the tables 4 and 5 shows that 96 % of 
French road transport pass through Germany. For Italy and 
Greece these figures are 2 % and less than 1  % 
respectively. Consequently, final conclusions from the 
German data can not be drawn as far as Greece and Italy 
are concerned.
Taking Table 4 and 5 together, it appears that 74 % of 
bilateral road transports of the Member States to and 
from East bloc countries are transiting Germany.
5. A further analysis of table 4 and 5 shows that, as far as 
transport to and from East bloc countries is concerned, 
Germany is by far the most important partner in bilateral 
road transports with these countries, followed by Italy. 
On the other side, the German Democratic Republic and 
Czechoslowakia seem to be the most important partners in 
bilateral road transport with the EC Member States.
6. Turning to table 4 exclusively and analysing by relation, 
Germany to and from the German Democratic Republic is, 
with 2.9 million tonnes or 40 % of total bilateral road 
transport by far the most important, followed by
Germany-Czechoslowakia (1.6 million tonnes, 22 %).
7. Since transports on the relation Germany - German 
Democratic Republic are not considered to be 
international this relation will be treated separately in 
the analysis.
8. Turning to the nationality of the haulier, a first 
analysis is given from the point of view of road 
transports to and from the individual state-trading 
countries of Eastern Europe from and to all Member States 
as shown in table 6.

-16-
Table 6 ;  Bilateral road transport, by nationality of the haulier, between the state-trading
countries of Eastern Europe and the EC, 1981, in tonnes.
State trading 
countries of 
Eastern EuropeEC hauliers
from country of
origin/destinationEast bloc hauliers 
from country of 
origin/destinationCross-trading 
hauliersTotal road transport 
in tonnes
USSR 3387 1(11%) 2409 1  1(81%) 24444(  8% ) 299226
Poland 196000(37% ) 284924(  54% ) 49.1  1  5(  9%) 530039
GDR 1.  593590(45%) 1822857(52%) 117.902(  3%) 3534349
GDR - D 1.409750(  48% ) 1502696(52%)— 29 1  2446)
GDR 16SS GDR-D 183840(  30% ) 3201  6 1(  52% ) 117.902(  19% ) 62 1.903)
Czechoslovakia 726364(35%) 128837 1(  62% ) 5 1906(  3%) 2.06664 1
Hungary 12 1.365(19%) 344557(  53% ) 185.788 (29% ) 65 1.710
Bulgaria 1  9.689(  19% ) 66.658(65%) 16.350 (  16% ) 102697
Rumania 46595(37%) 55393(  44% ) 23.584 (  19% ) 125.572
Total 2.737.47 1(37% ) 4.103.67 1(  56% ) 469.089(  6%) 7 .3 10.234
Total (less 
GDR-D)1.327.724(  30% ) 2.600.975(59%) 469.089(11%) 4 .397.788
based on :  see table 4.

- 17 -
On average East bloc hauliers from the country of origin 
or destination transport 56 % of bilateral road traffic, 
while EC-hauliers from the country of destinati on or 
origin carry 37 % and cross-trading hauliers (among which 
EC-, East bloc-hauliers and hauliers from other third 
countries) 6 % *  If the relation Germany-German Democratic 
Republic is excluded, these percentages are 59 %, 30 %
and 11 %. respectively. Apart from special political 
aspects, the excluded relation is also peculiar because 
of the shares of participants in the trade :  german
hauliers 48%; hauliers from the GDR 52%; cross-trading 
hauliers 0%.
From the East bloc hauliers of the country of origin or 
destination, hauliers from the USSR, Bulgaria and Czecho­
slovakia carry a bigger share than average: 81%, 65% and
62% respectively. In the relation to and from the USSR, 
Hungary and Bulgaria, EC hauliers from the country of 
origin or destination carry less than average; 11%, 19%
and 19% respectively.
More details, distinguishing between eastbound and west­
bound traffic are presented in table 1  and 2 of Annex II.
9.By looking at the 
transports, tableposition of Member States in these 
7 presents the relevant information.

- 18 -
Table 7 :  Bilateral road transport, by nationality of the haulier, between the Meiaber States and
Eastern Europe, 1981, in tonnes.
EC Member 
StatesEC hauliers 
from country of 
oriqin/destinationEast bloc hauliers 
from country of 
origin/destinationcrosss-trading
hauliersTotal road transport 
in tonnes
France 94.870 (24%) 224.927 (  56% ) 82.316 (  20% ) 402. 143
D
D - GDR 
D less GDR-D2.279.862 
1.402.750 
870.112(41%) 
(  48% )  
(  32% )3 .  1  25.459 
1.502.696 
1.622.763(  56% )  
(  52%) 
(  60% )214.458
214.458(  4$ )  
(  8% )5.619.779 
2.912.440 )  
2.707.333 )
X 21.944 (  38% ) 21.964 (38% ) 13.241 (23%) 57.149
NL 181.591 (29% ) 384.315 (61%) 68.286 (11%) 634. 192
B 59.134 (17%) 225.847 (  64% ) 67.425 (19%) 352.406
L 256(  2%) 8.893 (75%) 2.702 (23%) 11.851
UK 33.321 (26%) 87.007 (67% ) 8.991 (  7%) 129.319
IRL 3.855 (52%) 1.373 (18%) 2.230 (  30% ) 7.4 58
DK 6 1  .766 (67%) 23.850 (  26% ) 6.667 (  7%) 92.283
GR 875(24%) ) 6(  0% ) 2.773 (76%) 3.654
EUR 1  0 2.737.471 (37% ) 4 .  103.671 (  56% ) 469.089 (  6%) 7.310.234
EUR 10 less 
GDR - D1.327.724 (  30% ) 2.600.975 (59%) 469.089 (11%) 4.397.788
based on see table 4.

-19-
From the hauliers of the different Member States, 
hauliers from Denmark and Ireland carry a bigger share of 
road transport than average; respectively 67% and 52%, 
while Luxemburg (2%), Belgian (17%), French (24%) and 
U.K. (26%) hauliers carry less than average.
The market share of East Bloc hauliers is particularly 
strong in transport to and from Luxemburg (75%), the 
U.K. (67%) and Belgium (64%).
Cross-trading hauliers carry an important share to and 
from Ireland (30%), Luxemburg (23%), France (20%) and 
Belgium (19%).
Details about eastbound and westbound traffic are pre­
sented in table 3 and 4 of Annex II to the present 
report.
10. Taken together, the general conclusion on the basis of
this information should be that the participation of 
hauliers of Member States and of hauliers of state­
trading countries of Eastern Europe in bilateral East- 
West road transport is very different: excluding - be­
cause it is not considered to be international transport 
- the relation between Germany and GDR,  Member States' 
hauliers carry only half as much as the hauliers from the 
state-trading countries of Eastern Europe.
11. Although, as far as Italy and Greece are concerned, no 
relevant information is available, but there are no 
reasons to believe that if there was, the conclusions 
would be fundamentally different.

-  20 -
IV.  Summary of findings and conclusions
1. The first results of the monitoring of bilateral road 
traffic between Member States and the state-trading 
countries of Eastern Europe show that not all the Member 
States were fully able to meet the requirements of Annex 
I of the minutes of the Council of 10 June 1982. More­
over, Denmark did not reply at all. However, interesting 
information was nevertheless made available, and the Com­
mission Services were able to use information from other 
sources alongside the data obtained from Member States. 
All in all, sufficient material is available to enable a 
useful picture to be built up.
2. The main lack of information is as follows :
- indication on the possibility for non-community 
hauliers to undertake the carriage of goods between 
Member States; France, Greece, The Netherlands
- information on tonnage transported by carriers of each
non-Community country and each Member State on each 
route: Ireland, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Belgium,
Italy.
- break down by NST/R-groups:  none of the Member States,
except France.
- rates and conditions for the carriage of certain types 
of goods: none of the Member States.
3. The Commission is conscious of the difficulties faced by 
the Member States in introducing the monitoring system. 
However, the information already existing in Member 
States proved to be valuable and, in combination with 
other information, has permitted an increase in knowledge 
on the existing situation. It is possible that present 
data collection methods underlying the supplementary 
information presented in the report will be affected by 
current Community initiatives in respect to trade 
facilitation. Therefore it might be necessary to make use 
of other methods to collect that information in monitor­
ing East/West road transport in the future.

-21-
4. The concerns expressed by the various Community 
institutions on the existence of a serious imbalance in 
the participation of road hauliers from EC-Member States 
and the state-trading countries of Eastern Europe to the 
disadvantage of the Community is to a large extent 
confirmed by the information presented in this report.
On the basis of Member States returns and additional in­
formation from other sources, the share transported by 
East bloc carriers in bilateral road transports would be 
about 60%, while carriers of Member States carry about 
half of that. However, the situation is different from 
country to country and from relation to relation. The 
situation on certain bilateral relations and certain 
routes is certainly more unfavourable to the hauliers of 
Member States, while on others, the situation is 
healthier. In the light of this the Commission Services 
belief that there is continuing cause on certain routes 
for concern about the position of Member States' hauliers 
in bilateral east-west road transport.
5. In the lights of these conclusions the continuation of 
the monitoring system is justified.

P r o c e d u r e s  for t h e  collection of information  
envisaged by the CommissionANNEX I
I. Forwarding of information
The information listed in II below should be oollected at  
least for each calendar year and should be forwarded by  
Member States to the Commission as soon as possible and in any  
oase not later than four months after the end of the period  
concerned·
II, information to be collected
A· In the case of routes between Member States, information
on the possibility of non-community European carriers under­
taking the carriage of goods,
B, In the case of routes between Member States and norv-
Community European countries, information concerning:
(1) the quota of bilateral, transit and mixed authorizations  
reciprocally granted for eaoh bilateral route, broken  
down as follows:
- by journey (valid for one or more journeys); in the case  
of bilateral and transit authorizations, the percentage  
of the quota utilized should be mentioned where possible;  
— by time; in the oase of bilateral and transit
authorizations, the average number of journeys per  
authorization during the period of validity should  
be mentioned where possible;
(2) the tonnage transported by carriers in eaoh non-community  
European country and eaoh Member State on each bilateral  
route, if possible broken down by N3T/S groups (1),
(3) where possible, the rates and conditions applied for the  
carriage of certain types of goods or oertain routes.
(') Standard goods classification for transport statistics, revised  
edition, valid from 1,1,1967» SOEC, 1968 edition. See also  
Annex I to Council Directive 78/546/EEC of 12 June 1978 on  
statistical returns in respeot of carriage of goods by road, as  
part of regional statistics, OJ Wo L 168, 26,6,1978, p, 29,

ANNEX II :  Bilateral East-West road, eastbound and westbound, by nationality of the haulier
Table 1  :  Bilateral road transport (westbound), by nationality of the haulier, between the state trading
countries of Eastern Europe and the EC, 1981, in tonnes
Exporting
countryTotal road trans­
port in tonnesEC hauliers from 
country of destination
%Hauliers
countryfrom
of origin 
%Cross-trading 
hauliers %
USSR 14 18 1  7 2237 1.6 132267 93.3 7 3 13 5 .  1
Poland 30 1744 1  1  34 1  2 37.6 155150 5 1.4 33 182 11.0
GDR
GDR-G
GDR-(GDR-G)2
27 1  2 
507 
20400 1  
1  1  5
8861
136 1  
3 1  7 
43595
740
85550.2 
52.6 
2 1.41
1322
189
133863
375
48848.8
47.4
65.227 543 
27 5431  .  0  
0 .  0  
13.4
Czechoslova­
kia
Hungary1604
4060 19 
520682
76220 
5 1  742.5 
20.2887 
1  9 13 1  8 
28955.3
46.334 48 1  
138 7142.2 
33.5
Bulgaria 72248 1  11  3 1 15.4 5 19 1  3 7 1.9 9 204 12.7
Rumania 70079 20390 29.1 40104 57.2 9 585 13.7
Tota 1 5308428 2267502 42.7 2780904 52.4 260 022 4.9
Total less 
GDR- G280 13 1  3 949762 33.9 1  .59 1  .529 9.3 260.022 9.3

ANNEX II
Table 2 :  Bilateral road transport (eastbound), by nationality of the haulier, between the state trading
~ countries of Eastern Europe and the EC, 1981, in tonnes
East bloc hauliers
State trading Total road trans- EChauliers from of country of Cross-trading hauliers
country of port in tonnes country of origin destination
Eastern Europe % % %
USSR 157409 3 1634 20.1 1  08644 69.0 1  71  3 1 10.9
Poland 228295 82588 36.2 129774 56.8 1  5933 7 .  0
GDR 822348 23 1995 28.2 499994 60.8 90359 11.0
GDR-G
GDR -(GDR-G) 
Czechoslova-4 1  7 
4620 1  7 
6221  39 
44985
1443 3.6 
9.5186 
40 1673
05344.8
86.790 
1  7359
4252 1.6 
3.8
k i a
Hungary 245190 44848 18.3 153268 62.5 47074 19.2
Bulgaria 30449 8558 28.1 1  4745 43.4 7146 23.5
Ruman i a 55493 26205 47.2 1  5289 27.6 1  3999 25.2
Total 200 1806 469972 23.5 1  332767 66 .  1 209067 10.4
Total less 1596475 377962 23.7 1  009446 63.2 209067 13.2
D-DDR

ANNEX II
Table 3  :  Bilateral road transport (eastbound), by nationality of the haulier,
between the Member States and Eastern Europe, 1981, in tonnes
EC
Member StatesEC Hauliers  
country offrom
origin
%East bloc  
country ofhaulier of  
destination  
%Cross-trading
hauliers
%Total road transport  
in tonnes
F 58462 24.2 1251  1  0 5 1.8 58033 24.0 24 1605
G
G -GDR 
G-(G-GDR)196
92
104630
.010
62017.6
22.7
14.7960 
3  1  3 
547888 
.32 1 
56785.9
77.3
76.860
60870
.8705.4 
0  .  0
8.51  118 
405 
713388 
33 1 
057
I 1  4062 46.3 8692 28.6 762 1 25.1 30375
NL 88296 30.8 17 1247 59.8 26668 9.4 2864 1  1
B 458 1  0 23.9 102587 53.6 43168 22.5 19 1565
L 25 0.6 24 1  1 62.3 1434 37.1 3870
UK 2089 1 3  1.1 4 1387 6 1.6 4873 7  .  3 671  5 1
IR 9 1  3 32.6 905 32.3 986 35.1 2804
DK 44705 75.2 9540 16.0 523 1 8.8 59476
GR 1  78 49.3 ---— 183 50.7 36 1
EUR 10 469972 23.5 1  322767 66 .  1 209067 10.4 2  00 1806
EUR 1  0
less (GDR-G) 377962 23.7 1  009446 63.2 209067 13.1 1  596475

ANNEX II
Table 4 :  Bilateral road transport (westbound), by nationality of the haulier^
between the Member States and Eastern Europe, 1981, in tonnes
EC
Member StatesEC Hauliers  
country of  
de stinationf rom 
%East bloc  
of countryhauliers  
of origin 
%Cross-trading  
hauliers
%Total road transport  
in tonnes
F 3640822.7 99847 62.2 24 283 15.1 160 538
G
GDR-G 
G-(GDR-G)2 083 
1  3 17 
765232
740
49246.3 
52.6
38.42 264 
1  189 
1  07557 1 
375
19650.3
47.4 
53.9153 588  
153 5883.4 
7.74 501 391  
2 507 115  
1  994 276
I 788229.4 1  3272 49.6 5 620 2 1.0 26 774
NL 9329526.8 2 1  3068 6 1.2 4 1  6 18 12.0 347 987
B 1  3324 8.3 123260 76.6 24 257 15.1 160 841
L 23 1 2.9 6482 8 1.2 1  268 15.9 7 98 1
UK 1  243020.0 45620 73.4 4 118 6.6 62 168
IR 294263.2 468 10.1 1  244 26.7 4 654
DK 1  706 152.0 143 1  0 43.6 1  436 4.4 32 807
GR
EUR 1  0 2 26750242.7 2 780904 52.4 260 022 4.9 5 308 428 100
EUR 1  0
less(G - GDR)94976233.9 1  59 1529 56.8 260 022 9.3 2801313 1 0 0