Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/29 
provisions should be exchanged by the Member States 
at regular intervals. However, these exchanges should 
also include recommendations on how to improve the checks in practice, with a special view to improving 
road safety and the health and safety of drivers and 
crews. 
Done at Brussels, 2 June 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the charging of transport infrastructure 
costs to heavy goods vehicles (l) 
(88/C 208/10) 
On 26 January 1988, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the Treaty, on the abovementioned 
proposals. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 May 1988. The rapporteur was 
Mr Rouzier. 
At its 256th plenary session (meeting of 3 June 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 103 votes to 14 with 9 abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. In its Communication on the elimination of 
distortions of competition of a fiscal nature in the 
transport of goods by road [doc. COM(86) 750 final], 
the Commission gave initial consideration to the effects 
which motor vehicle taxation, excise duties on fuel and 
road tolls have on terms of competition in road haulage. 
1.2. In its Opinion of 2 July 1987 on this Communi­
cation (OJ No C 232, 31. 8. 1987) (rapporteur: Mr 
Moreland) the Committee unanimously endorsed the 
following points: 
— A solution to the problems of commercial vehicle 
taxation is important in the context of the removal 
of distortions of competition on the internal market 
by 1992. 
— In this context, the idea of aligning tax structures 
first is acceptable so as to ensure that at least 
marginal costs would be covered, whilst providing for the recovery of total costs by both fuel and 
vehicle taxes. 
Failing this, the level of tax rates should be aligned 
more closely; however, this should not simply 
amount to a 'levelling up' of the lowest rates charged 
in the Member States; instead provision should be 
made for a band with the minimum tax based on 
covering marginal costs. 
The levying of taxation on a 'territorial' basis is 
considered by the Committee to be an interesting 
and fair solution; it suggests that the territoriality 
principle serve as a basis for a long-term solution. 
Although Community policy should not be based 
on this option at present, the Commission should 
examine this further at a later stage with a view to 
eliminating the obstacles to its introduction. 
Tolls should be abolished as soon as possible or at 
the end of contractual arrangements, except on 
bridges, ferries and tunnels. 
(!) OJ No C 79, 26. 3. 1988, p. 6. — Solutions must not add to the complexity of tax­
ation or impose additional administrative burdens. 
No C 208/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee would reaffirm the general line 
taken in the above Opinion. It thinks, however, that 
during a transitional period motorway tolls should be 
retained as long as they are needed to repay the loans 
taken out by companies which have received the con­
cessions to build motorways from State and public 
authorities, but that these tolls should, of course, be 
abolished once the loans have been repaid. The Com­
mittee notes that the present proposal is a new step 
towards the completion, by 1992, of a transport market 
free of quantitative restrictions and distortions of com­
petition caused by differences in the charging of infra­
structure costs. 
2.1.2. This proposal, which relates specifically to 
vehicle taxes and tolls, defines the principle to be 
applied to taxation after the completion of the internal 
market (Articles 6 and 10) and lays down transitional 
provisions pending the harmonization of taxes (Articles 
3-5 and 7-9). 
2.1.3. A healthy transport policy—see ESC Opinion 
of October 1982 on the transport policy of the European 
Community in the 1980s (rapporteurs: Mr Rouzier and 
Mr Locuffier, OJ No C 326, 13. 12. 1982)—implies a 
common policy for the development and financing of 
infrastructure and the establishment of a common sys­
tem of charging for the use of all transport infrastruc­
ture. Therefore, it is not possible to act without giving 
due consideration to the impact on other transport 
modes, for rival modes would inevitably suffer (]). 
2.1.4. This system will have to take account in the 
long term of each transport mode's social costs (i.e. 
include external costs caused by congestion, accidents 
and other harmful sources as well as signposting and 
safety). These social costs will have to be analyzed 
objectively between now and 1992. 
2.1.5. The latter objective is a crucial, and indeed a 
key, aspect of every modern transport policy aimed at 
establishing equal competition, for if the wrong system 
(') The Moreland Opinion states that 'any solution should not 
obstruct competition with other modes of transport, particu­
larly in the context of infrastructure costing. In particular the 
proposals in the information report and the Opinion of the 
Committee concerning a common railway policy (OJ No C 
105, 21. 4. 1987) as well as the Commission's proposals on 
railways infrastructure (proposals — OJ No C 36, \0. 2. 1984; 
ESC Opinion, OJ No C 87, 9. 4. 1985) should be acted upon'. is used for the allocation of infrastructure costs, an 
uneconomic mode of transport or route might be selec­
ted by a majority of users. 
The application of the principle of territoriality after 
31 December 1992 
2.2. Subject to the comments made below in 2.3, the 
Committee is favourably disposed towards the principle 
of 'territoriality' used in the proposal, which consists 
of allocating infrastructure costs on the basis of the 
roads actually used by the haulier, and not on the 
basis of the road network in the vehicle's country of 
registration. By applying this principle it will be possible 
to attain two of the main objectives of a system of 
charging for the use of infrastructure, which are to 
harmonize terms of competition within and between 
modes of transport, and to allocate infrastructure costs 
to the actual users. It goes without saying that the same 
principle will be applied simultaneously to road, rail 
and waterway transport. 
2.2.1. The Committee thinks that 'territoriality' 
must be defined exactly so that the allocation of infra­
structure costs is calculated on the basis of utilization 
by each category of vehicles. 
2.2.2. Similarly, the Committee approves the 
inclusion of road tolls in the tax so that on-the-spot 
motorway payments will not have to be made for the 
vehicles defined in Article 2 of the Directive (the tolls 
for bridges, tunnels and ferries are to be retained). 
2.2.3. The attempt to apply the tax fairly, with users 
paying according to the roads they drive on, is con­
sidered by the Committee to be commendable. The 
territoriality principle makes for healthy comparable 
terms of competition between the different modes of 
land transport. 
2.3. Of course, the fact that the Committee sub­
scribes to the territoriality principle by no means implies 
that it is convinced of its feasibility or that it will 
necessarily agree with future proposals regarding the 
form to be taken by the system (tax disc, statistical 
returns, registration of vehicles at frontiers, price of 
fuel, system based on use of new technologies, satellites, 
etc.). 
2.3.1. The Committee reserves the right to voice its 
views on this aspect when the Commission submits a 
proposal, but it would stress here and now that the 
scheme selected should: 
— permit a sufficiently exact assessment and allocation 
of costs, 
Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/31 
eliminate tax-related distortions of competition, 3. Specific comments 
not introduce any form of checks which disrupts 
the flow of traffic, Article 3 
cost as little as possible to operate, 
not force firms, and especially small firms, to be 
involved in extra expense or paperwork. 3.1. The list of vehicle taxes affected by the Directive 
should be revised to take account of most recent devel­
opments, especially in Italy, Spain and Portugal. 
Article 4 
2.3.2. Accordingly: 
The Committee would draw attention to the need 
to ensure the 'feasibility' of the taxation whose 
final calculation will incorporate numerous data 
(duration of the journeys, tonnage of the vehicles, 
special features of infrastructure area-by-area and 
tolls). At all events any complications or incon­
veniences arising from the attempt to be fair should 
not be out of proportion to the taxation. 
The Committee would also point out that a part of 
infrastructure costs is borne by revenue accruing 
from the excise duty on diesel fuel. Therefore, the 
revenue from vehicle taxes should only cover part 
of infrastructure costs. The ratio between taxes and 
excise duties should depend on economic circum­
stances and the policy decisions of the Community 
and the Member States. 
The Committee reserves its views on the methods 
for calculating the tax, allocating and charging 
infrastructure costs, redistributing revenue and 
financing a Community infrastructure programme 
pending the publication of the additional proposal 
which is scheduled for 1 July 1989 (Art. 10). It 
thinks that publication of this proposal should be 
speeded up so that Member States'current legis­
lation can be adapted more readily and the tran­
sitional measures can be implemented more easily. 3.2. The reference to 'minor' specific taxes or dues 
should be clarified in order to rule out abuse on the 
part of the Member States and prevent the Directive's 
objectives from being circumvented. It goes without 
saying that Member States have the duty to inform the 
Commission about the state of their legislation. 
Article 5 
3.3. The rule that tolls have to be 'related' to the 
costs of constructing and operating the infrastructure 
concerned as well as the costs of its use seems to the 
Committee to be too imprecise on several counts. Other 
points in need of clarification are whether external costs 
are included in operating costs and which body is 
empowered to check compliance with the requirement 
that tolls should be related to costs [Art. 5 (1) (b)]. 
Article 6 
3.4. The Committee expressly endorses the basing 
of vehicle taxation on the maximum permissible weight, 
even though this will involve a radical change in policy 
in some Member States. 
3.4.1. With regard to the Directive's layout, Article 
6 and Article 10 should form a separate chapter as a 
clear indication of the fact that they will apply after 
the transitional period (i.e. after 31 December 1992). 
Article 9 
The Committee calls for the rapid adoption of the 
proposal by the Council. 3.5. Article 9 forbids Member States to reduce exist­
ing taxes. The Committee thinks that the Article should 
not stop reductions which lead to closer alignment 
on the average rate levied currently throughout the 
Community. However, any such reduction must not 
distort intermodal competition. 
2.4. For the sake of clarity, the layout of the Directive 
should have reflected the fact that most of the pro­
visions will apply only during the transitional period 
up to 31 December 1992, after which the principle of 
territoriality will apply. 3.5.1. The Committee would also draw attention to 
a) the conditions governing the taxation of vehicles 
from third countries at common borders. Reciprocal 
No C 208/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
3.5.2. The procedure laid down in Article 9—and 
especially the Commission's role—should also be clari­
fied. 
3.5.3. The Committee thinks that in order to prevent 
Member States from subsidizing their hauliers by reduc­
ing tax levels, Article 9 (2) should specify that a 
reduction in taxes is possible only after the Commission 
has given a favourable opinion. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments to the Section Opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were 
defeated during the discussion: 
Point 2.1.3. 
Add: 
'Charging for the use of transport infrastructure is not an end in itself and should not merely serve to align 
the conditions of competition between carriers from different countries and between different modes. Instead 
the dues paid by users in the form of motorway tolls, road taxes and fuel taxes should help to repair and 
maintain infrastructure and pay for new capacity required. Extra capacity on the main European road 
networks is one of the priorities of a European transport policy in connection with completion of the internal 
market.' 
Voting 
For: 33, against: 78, abstentions: 7. 
Point 2.1.4. 
Substitute the following: 
initially the rules should apply only to the cost of maintaining, repairing and renewing roads and road 
building and widening schemes in accordance with the breakdown given in the Accounting Regulation (EEC) 
No 1108/70. It is important to agree as soon as possible on Community rules for the harmonization of the 
terms of competition whose effects on all parties are calculable. The charging of external costs should not 
take place until later, when their size and apportionment have been calculated beyond doubt. Also, when 
charging external costs it is necessary to bear in mind the external benefits of each mode of transport. 
However, it is more important for the Community to pursue a policy which avoids external costs in transport 
wherever possible, e.g. by means of vehicle technology and infrastructure design.' 
Voting agreements based on the nationality principle 
should be revised; 
b) the fact that because of the freezing of the rates 
from 1990 to 1992, the differences in Member States 
will persist and will temporarily maintain unfair 
competition between them. 
Done at Brussels, 3 June 1988. 
For: 29, against: 79, abstentions: 6.