No C 138/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 6. 81 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending the First Council Directive of 
23 July 1962 on the establishment of common rules for international transport (carriage of 
goods by road for hire or reward) and the Council Directive of 13 May 1965 on the 
standardization of certain rules relating to authorizations for the carriage of goods by road 
between Member States 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 253 of 1 October 1980, page 6 and C 350 of 31 December 
1980, page 19. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 26 September 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 75 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
185th plenary session held in Brussels on 25 and 26 February 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 75 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council on 
26 September 1980 for an opinion on this 
subject (1), 
Having regard to the First Council Directive of 
23 July 1962 on the establishment of common rules 
for international transport (carriage of goods by road 
for hire or reward) (2), 
Having regard to the Council Directive of 13 May 
1965 on the standardization of certain rules relating 
to authorizations for the carriage of goods by road 
between Member States (3), 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 
3164/76 of 16 December 1976 on the Community 
quota for the carriage of goods by road between 
Member States (4), as last amended by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 305/81 of 20 January 
1981 (5), 
(i) OJ No C 253, 1. 10. 1980. p. 6. 
(2) OJ No 70, 6. 8. 1962, p. 2005/62. 
(3) OJ No 88, 24. 5. 1965, p. 1465/65. 
(*) OJ No L 357, 29. 12. 1976. p. 1. 
(5) OJ No L34, 6.2. 1981, p. 1. Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 3 October 1980, instructing the Section for 
Transport and Communications to draw up an 
opinion and a report on the matter (Article 22 of the 
Rules of Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by that Section 
at its 136th meeting, held on 11 February 1981, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Renaud, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting on 
26 February 1981 (185th plenary session of 25 and 
26 February 1981), 
Whereas the aim of the Commission's proposal is to 
facilitate trade between Member States by moving 
towards the liberalization of international road 
transport, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 36 votes to 20, with 18 abstentions: 
1. The Committee notes the Commission's 
intentions. It has put forward the proposal for a 
Directive as it considers that: 
— there is a need to move towards the liberalization 
of international road transport, 
9. 6. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 138/57 
other hand, in connection with the scope of the 
ECMT provisions on which the Commission is 
attending to align these rules. 
3. The Committee considers that the First Directive 
of 23 July 1962 provides a legal basis for phased 
liberalization of access to the market in road hauls 
between Member States. 
4. The Committee notes that the draft Directive 
amplifies this liberalization and is vital to the 
development of trade between Member States which 
is a fundamental objective of the EEC Treaty. 
5. The Committee accordingly endorses the draft 
Directive. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following passage in the Section opinion was replaced by amendments adopted at the plenary 
session: 
1. Pages 2 to 5: 
'Advisability of liberalizing some categories of transport 
1.3. -The first Directive of 23 July 1962 sets out liberalization and simplification measures for a 
limited number of transport operations which all have only a slight effect on the market in 
transport for hire or reward between Member States. 
1.4. In the proposal under consideration the Commission seeks to introduce two new 
categories of transport into Annex II (covering transport operations which are exempt from 
quotas but may be subject to authorization), namely: the carriage of perishable goods and the 
carriage of goods by motor vehicles having a payload of six tonnes. These categories will be 
considered in the specific comments below. 
Liberalization pure and simple would not satisfy the Commission's objectives in respect of the 
organization of the market as these objectives imply a degree of regulation of capacity. 
The Section notes that the Decision taken by the Council on 20 December 1979 on the 
adjustment of capacity in respect of the carriage of goods for hire or reward by road between 
Member States covers capacity in respect of the carriage of goods between Member States as — the rules governing transport in the EEC must not 
lag behind the arrangements made by the 
European Conference of Ministers of Transport 
(ECMT). 
To this end the Commission proposes that the scope 
of the Directive be extended by amending its two 
Annexes. It is proposed to introduce a new type of 
'multilateral' authorization for the transport 
operations covered by Annex II. 
2. However valid these objectives may be, the 
Committee considers that they must be judged, on 
the one hand, in the context of the EEC rules on 
which the Commission is basing its action and, on the 
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1981. 
No C 138/58 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 6. 81 
determined by bilateral agreements. The Council Decision stipulates that Member States must 
take account of well-defined economic criteria when determining quotas (!). 
In so far as there must be a degree of consistency in the preparation of a policy on capacity, the 
use of the procedure involving the First Directive of 1962 would not appear to be the best way 
of "liberalizing" types of transport which are not specific and restricted like those covered by 
the Directive of 23 July 1962. 
1.5. The new model authorization set out in Annex III envisages that the transport operations 
listed in Annex II will be of a multilateral nature. The Section cannot approve this qualification 
which is not in line with the requirements of the market for the transport operations liberalized 
by the First Directive. The Section would draw attention to the disruptions which would be 
caused by introducing uncontrolled multilateralism to a market which is characterized 
essentially by bilateral relations. In the Section's view multilateral transport operations are 
currently covered by the Community quota and the increase in this qouta which has been 
proposed by the Commission, with the support of the Economic and Social Committee, must 
enable the requirements of multilateral transport operations to be met. 
1.6. The draft Directive also proposes that five categories of transport currently contained in 
Annex II be transferred to Annex /(transport operations exempt from authorization). A sixth 
category of transport, international removals, is covered by a specific Directive. 
In the Section's view this amendment represents an administrative simplification which cannot 
but be approved in the case of the four categories referred to in points 14, 18, 19 and 20 of 
Article 1 (1) of the draft Directive. 
The Section also approves the addition of two new categories to Annex I (points 16 and 
17). 
On the other hand, the Section does not think it advisable to exempt from authorization the 
carriage of live animals (point 15). This category of transport must be subject to administrative 
supervision in order to ensure that it satisfactorily complies with the rules in respect of health, 
safety and movement. The issuing of authorizations under the First Directive constitutes a 
means of monitoring this form of transport which should not be disregarded as things stand at 
present. 
The common policy and the ECMT resolutions 
1.7. The Commission's desire to remove the discrepancies between EEC transport provisions 
and ECMT resolutions must not lead to an alignment of the provisions without first assessing 
the justification of each measure. 
The ECMT resolutions referred to by the Commission have given rise to reservations on the 
part of EEC Member States, prospective EEC Member States and third countries. The Section 
does not agree with the Commission that provisions should be introduced which would be 
binding upon all EEC Member States even though some of these States did not support the 
ECMT resolutions which the Commission now wants to incorporate into Community law.' 
Result of the voting (see Appendix for roll call) 
For: 17; Against: 29; Abstentions: 25 
2. Page 5 et seq.: 
'2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 (1), point 15 
In the Section's view authorizations for the transport of live animals should not be completely 
abolished because of the particular need to ensure that animals are transported under good 
conditions as regards health, safety and movement. 
2.2. Article I (2a) 
Point 7 of Annex II must not be deleted for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 above. 
(1) OJ No L 18, 24. 1. 1980, p. 21. 
9. 6. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 138/59 
2.3. Article 1 (2b) 2 — Carriage of perishable goods 
In the Section's view the carriage of perishable goods is a fundamental part of the market for 
the transport of goods by road between Member States. (This form of transport accounts for 
approximately 10 % of the market in France, 50 % in Denmark and 100 % in Ireland.) 
The Section cannot approve the automatic liberalization of this type of transport without 
reference to any policy on transport capacity which takes account of the need for a sound 
regulation of the market and the harmonization of conditions of competition, particularly as 
regards technical, social and tax provisions. 
The Section also points out that the rules governing the carriage of perishable goods cannot be 
considered without taking account of the problems connected with reloading vehicles with 
various types of goods for the return journey. 
2.4. Article 1 (2b) 3 — Carriage by vehicles with a payload of six tonnes 
The Section notes that carriage by vehicles with an authorized payload not exceeding six 
tonnes, does in practice, involve lorries with a total weight of 10 to 11 tonnes. 
To liberalize carriage by such vehicles would be tantamount to encouraging the use of vehicles 
which are least effective as regard fuel consumption. The Section regards such a measure as 
particularly unfortunate given the current energy situation. 
2.5. Article 2 
In the Section's view, the authorization provided for in Annex III cannot be multilateral. 
The First Directive of 23 July 1962 concerned primarily crossborder transport or transport 
between neighbouring States, which means essentially bilateral transport. Further, no control 
could be exercised over the liberalization of own-account transport as described under Point 11 
of Annex I if authorization was given on a multilateral basis. The disruptive effects of the 
proposed multilateral liberalization have been set out in the general comments. This form of 
liberalization is therefore unacceptable to the Section, which is in favour of deleting all 
reference to multilateralism. 
2.6. Annex III 
In addition to the above comments, the Section regards a new model authorization covering the 
transport operations specified in Annex II of the First Directive, as superfluous. 
In the event of such an authorization being introduced, the Section urges that it should be for a 
uniform period and that the "restrictions" heading should be spelt out in greater detail.' 
Result of the voting: 
For: 4; Against: 36; Abstentions: 32 
No C 138/60 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 6. 81 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
ROLL CALL VOTE ON PAGES 2 TO 5 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the initial text of the opinion: (points 1. 3 
to 1.7): 
Mr Blasig 
Mr Buckton 
Mr Broicher 
Mr Burnel 
Mr Chabrol 
Mr Drain 
Mr Hennig 
Mr Hilkens Mr Jaschick 
Mr Jonker 
Mr Law 
Mr Loccufier 
Mr Ognibene 
Mr Renaud 
Mr Seydaack 
Mrs Strobel 
Mr Zunkler 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the initial text of the opinion (points 
1.3 to 1.7): 
Mr Bernaert 
Mr Berns 
Mr deCaffarelli 
Mr van Campen 
Mr Clavel 
Mr Couture 
Mr de Bievre 
Mr de Tavernier 
Mr Drago 
Mr Emo Capodilista 
Mr Gallacher 
Mr Hatry 
Mr Hemmer 
Mr Jakobsen 
Mr Leddy 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: Mr Loughrey 
Mr Masprone 
Mr Militello 
Mr Mills 
Mr Pronk 
Mr Romoli 
Mr Savini 
Mr Scalia 
Mr Storm Hansen 
Mr Vanni 
Mr Wagner 
Mrs Weber 
Mr Zinkin 
Mr Zoli 
Mr Bornard 
Mr Carroll 
Mr Cremer 
Mr de Grave 
Mr Doble 
Mrs Engelen-Kefer 
Mr Etty 
Mr Friedrichs 
Mr Glesener 
Mr Gormley 
Mr van Greunsven 
Mr Houthuys Mr Laval 
Mr Milne 
Mr Muhr 
Mrs Nielsen 
Mr Nierhaus 
Mr Pfeiffer 
Mr van Rens 
Mr Rollinger 
Mr Rouzier 
Mr Schneider 
Mr Theisen 
Mr Wagenmans 
Mr Walsh