EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO 
Bryssel, 10.05.1996 
KOM(96) 190 1opull. 
96/0125 (SYN) 
REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEO No 684/92 OF 16 MARCH 1992 
ON COMMON RULES FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE 
OF PASSENGERS BY COACH AND BUS 
(Komission esittämä) 
Ehdotus 
NEUVOSTON ASETUKSEKSI ŒY) 
yhteisistä säännöistä harjoitettaessa kansainvälistä henkilöliikennettä linja-autoilla 
annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 684/92 muuttamisesta 
(komission esittämä) 

REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 684/92 OF 16 MARCH 1992 
ON COMMON RULES FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE 
OF PASSENGERS BY COACH AND BUS 
CONTENTS 
A. INTRODUCTION 
B. CONTENT OF REGULATION 684/92 
Types of services 
(1) Regular services 
(2) Special regular services 
(3) Shuttle services 
(4) Occasional services 
(5) Own-account transport operations 
(6) Authorization procedure 
C. PROBLEMS OF APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION 
1. Scope of the Regulation in relation to third countries 
2. The concept of the various services 
(a) Own-acpount transport operations 
(b) Urban carriage in frontier areas (Article 2(1.2)(d)) 
(c) Regular services and shuttle services without accommodation 
3. Procedure and time limits for granting the authorization 
4. Reasons for rejecting the application (Article 7(4)(a) and (b)) 
D. ACTION BY THE COMMISSION - ARBITRATION (Article 7(6)) 
E. RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL EXPERTS AND THE TRADE 
F. EXTERNAL RELATIONS 
G. AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES (Article 18 of the 
Regulation) 
H. TRANSPORT DOCUMENTS 
I. STATISTICS ON THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED BY 
THE MEMBER STATES 
A 
A. INTRODUCTION 
Council Regulation 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international 
carriage of passengers by coach and bus, which was adopted in the run-up to completion 
of the internal market, laid down the conditions for applying the principle of the freedom 
to provide services in the field of carriage of passengers by road and reduced to a 
minimum the administrative procedures involved for carriers, enabling them to become 
more competitive. 
Article 20 of Regulation 684/92 states that the Commission must report to the Council 
on the application of the Regulation before 1 July 1995. Before 1 January 1996, the 
Commission must present a proposal for a Regulation on the simplification of 
procedures, including - in the light of the report's conclusions - the abolition of 
authorizations. This report gives effect to the provisions of Article 20. 
B. CONTENT OF REGULATION 684/92 
Regulation 684/92 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach 
and bus constitutes the general legal framework för international carriage of passengers 
by coach and bus in all the Member States of the Community and, following the entry 
into force of the EEA Agreement, the countries of the European Economic Area. It 
introduced the principle of the freedom to provide services in this sector, replacing the 
regulations that had been in force since the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. 
In practice, this means that carriers are permitted to carry out international transport 
services between Member States without discrimination on grounds of nationality or 
place of establishment, if they: 
are authorized in the State of establishment to undertake carriage by coach and 
bus; 
satisfy the conditions laid down in accordance with Community rules on 
admission to the occupation of road passenger transport operator; 
meet legal requirements on road safety as far as the standards for drivers and 
vehicles are concerned. 
An undertaking established in one Member State may thus carry out transport services 
between other Member States. 
Types of services 
The Regulation defines the various passenger transport services as follows and specifies 
for each of them the conditions of market access: 
(1) Regular services 
Regular services are services which provide for the carriage of passengers at specified 
intervals along specified routes, passengers being taken up and set down at predetermined 
stopping points. This type of service is open to all, subject, where appropriate, to 
compulsory reservation. Regular services are subject to authorization in accordance with 
a procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation. This procedure is much faster and 
more flexible than the arrangements under the previous rules. The authorization of the 
country of transit (whose territory is crossed without passengers being picked up or set 
down) was abolished and replaced by a simple notification of the application, with the 
possibility for the authorities of the country of transit to submit comments. In addition, 
the Regulation sets out in Article 7(4) six reasons for which an application for 
authorization may be rejected. However, the application of the provisions of Article 7(4) 
has given rise to a number of interpretation problems, which are dealt with in a special 
section below. 
(2) Special regular services 
Special regular services are regular services which provide for the carriage of specified 
categories of passengers to the exclusion of other passengers, notably the carriage of 
workers between home and work, school pupils and students to and from their 
educational institution, soldiers and their families between their state of origin and the 
area of their barracks and urban carriage in frontier areas. All these cases of special 
regular services are exempt from authorization provided that they are covered by a 
contract concluded between the organizer and the carrier. 
(3) Shuttle services 
Shuttle services as defined in Article 2(2) are services organized to carry groups of 
passengers assembled in advance by means of repeated outward and return journeys from 
a single area of departure to a single area of destination. These groups, made up of 
passengers who have completed the outward journey, are carried back to the place of 
departure in the course of a subsequent journey. "Area of departure" and "area of 
destination" mean the place where the journey begins and the place where the journey 
ends together with localities within a radius of 50 km. Outside the areas of departure 
and destination, groups may be picked up and set down respectively at up to three 
different places. The conditions of market access differ according to whether or not 
these services include accommodation: shuttle services without accommodation are 
subject to authorization, while those with accommodation are exempt from authorization. 
(4) Occasional services 
Occasional services are services falling neither within the definition of a regular service 
nor of a shuttle service. These services are described in Article 2(3.1) and the Annex 
, to the Regulation. The same Article provides for the category of residual occasional 
services, namely any service which does not fall within the definition of occasional 
services contained in the Regulation. Only this latter category is subject to authorization. 
(5) Own-account transport operations 
Article 2(4) of the Regulation also determines the conditions applicable to own-account 
transport operations. These operations, which an undertaking carries out for its own 
employees or a non-profit-making body for its members in connection with its social 
objective, are exempt from authorization and subject instead to a system of certificates 
in accordance with models determined by the Commission provided that: 
the transport activity is only an ancillary activity for the undertaking or body; 
the vehicles used are the property of that undertaking or body or have been 
obtained on deferred terms by them or have been the subject of a long-term 
leasing contract and are driven by a member of staff of the undertaking or body. 
(6) Authorization procedure 
Article 7 of the Regulation lays down the authorization procedure. Authorizations are 
issued in agreement with the competent authorities of all the Member States in whose 
territories passengers are picked up or set down. However, the actual authorization 
document is issued by the authorizing authority, i.e. the competent authority of the 
Member State in whose territory the place of departure is situated (one of the termini of 
the service) and where the application was submitted, unlike the system under the 
previous mies according to which the competent authorities of the Member States 
concerned issued an authorization to each undertaking of its nationality participating in 
the pool. 
C. PROBLEMS OF APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION 
The competent authorities of the Member States are responsible for the practical 
application of the Regulation. In this context, the national authorities have sometimes 
encountered difficulties in interpreting several of its provisions. As a result, since 
Regulation 684/92 was adopted and entered into force, the competent authorities of 
several Member States and the representatives of the professional associations have asked 
the Commission departments for clarification of certain provisions. The Commission 
departments gave their legal interpretation of the questions raised without prejudice to 
any other future position of the Commission, stating that it was for the Court of Justice 
to give binding legal interpretations of Community law pursuant to Article 177 of the 
EC Treaty. 
The following are the main problems of application and interpretation of the Regulation: 
L Scope of the Regulation in relation to third countries 
The question of the scope of the Regulation has arisen in connection with the 
authorization of coach services to third countries. Article 1(2) states: "In the event of 
carriage from a Member State to a third country and vice-versa, this Regulation shall 
apply to the part of the journey on the territory of the Member State of picking up or 
setting down, after conclusion of the necessary agreement between the Community and 
the third country concerned". The Commission departments considered that this 
provision could be interpreted a contrario as meaning that the Regulation applies to 
transit through Member States to a third country in the event that there is no picking up 
or setting down of passengers. 
The problem arose in this context of the transit authorization required by the authorities 
of certain Member States whose territory is crossed with no picking up or setting down 
of passengers in the case of a regular service to a third country. Such transit 
authorizations may be required only from non-Community operators or where the service 
is provided by an undertaking established in the Community in conjunction with a firm 
located in a third country. The Commission departments considered that Regulation 
684/92 does not apply in such a case according to Article 1(1) and (2), and the 
competent authorities of the Member States of transit could require a transit 
authorization, in conformity with the general principles of the Treaty. 
The Commission departments also interpreted Regulation 684/92 as meaning that 
passenger transport services between two Member States which involve transit on a 
closed-door basis through a third country, i.e. with no scope for picking up or setting 
down passengers, are to be considered as intra-Community transport and hence subject 
to the provisions of Regulation 684/92. 
If transit via a third country is on an open-door basis, i.e. passengers can be picked up 
or set down, this service is both intra-Community, since the place of departure and the 
final destination are within the European Community, and a service from a Member State 
to a third country and vice-versa (given the intermediate destinations and stops in the 
country of transit) within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation 684/92. In this 
case, Community legislation applies to the intra-Community part of the service, and 
bilateral agreements between the Member States and the transit country plus the ASOR 
Agreement apply (if an occasional service is involved) to the picking up and setting down 
of passengers going to or coming from the third country, pending the conclusion of the 
necessary agreement between the Community and the third country in question. 
However, the application of Community rules and the ASOR Agreement to occasional 
services between two Member States involving transit on an open-door basis through a 
third country may give rise to problems, since the two sets of rules are not liberalized 
to the same degree. If the service in question has not been deregulated under the ASOR 
Agreement, an authorization from the third country of transit could be necessary for the 
part of the journey made on its territory. 
For example, an occasional service between Germany and Italy liberalized under the 
terms of Regulation 684/92 which picks up or sets down passengers in Switzerland will 
require authorization from thé latter, since such picking up or setting down of passengers 
has not been not liberalized under the terms of the ASOR Agreement. 
To sum up, the bilateral agreements continue to apply in relations between Community 
countries and third countries, albeit subject to the obligation pursuant to Article 1(3) of 
Regulation 684/92 that Member States must endeavour to adapt such bilateral agreements 
with third countries in order to ensure compliance with the principle of 
non-discrimination between Community carriers. 
Finally, the ASOR Agreement applies between the Community, Turkey and Switzerland, 
since the remaining contracting parties have become members of the Community or 
parties to the EEA Agreement. 
2. The concept of the various services 
(a) Own-account transport operations 
Own-account transport operations are regulated in Article 2(4) and Article 13 of 
Regulation 684/92. 
In response to a request from the authorities of one Member State, the 
Commission departments considered the case of a private individual using his or 
her own bus for a family holiday in another Member State. They found that this 
does not in principle comply with the definition of "own-account transport 
operation" within the meaning of the Regulation and consequently the exemption 
from authorization is not applicable. However, this would clearly be a 
disproportionate, excessively bureaucratic approach. A solution has been 
considered; the journey in question, which is entirely unconnected with any form 
of economic activity, does not come within the scope of the Regulation. The 
individual in question is neither an own-account carrier nor a carrier for hire or 
reward (Article 1). Hence this transport operation is governed solely by the 
provisions of the Member States applicable to the carriage of passengers. 
After consultation, the Commission departments decided that transport operations 
by a public transport undertaking which, on the occasion of a study trip, carries 
its own employees, should be considered as an own-account transport operation, 
since in this case the carriage of its own employees is merely a one-off, ancillary, 
non-profit-making activity which meets the conditions of Article 2(4) of 
Regulation 684/92. 
The concept of a non-profit-making body also covers non-commercial 
organizations using vehicles for social objectives manned by volunteer drivers.1 
(b) Urban carriage in frontier areas (Article 2(1.2)(d) ) 
The Regulation regards urban carriage in frontier areas as a special regular 
service, the latter being defined as a service which provides for the carriage of 
specified categories of passengers to the exclusion of other passengers, in so far 
as such services are operated under the conditions specified in Article 2(1.1). 
Urban carriage in frontier areas is thus characterized by its "urban", "frontier" 
nature, and by the fact that certain categories of passengers are carried to the 
exclusion of others. 
The Regulation does not define urban carriage in frontier areas. It merely 
provides that the competent authorities of the Member States concerned must act 
together to smooth the way for such services since, under Article 4(2) of the 
Regulation, they are exempt from authorization if they are covered by a contract 
concluded between the organizer and the carrier. 
The Commission departments therefore considered that a transport service is to 
be regarded as urban carriage in frontier areas if it meets the conditions set out 
above and is carried out in a conurbation situated in two or more Member States. 
(c) Regular services and shuttle services without accommodation 
Declaration of the Council and the Commission entered in the minutes of the meeting at which 
Regulation 684/92 was adopted. 
6 
Regulation 684/92 defined several conditions for international passenger services 
by coach and bus, in particular regular services and shuttle services. 
The main differences between the two categories of service are the following: 
- regular services transport individual travellers, whereas shuttle services carry 
previously assembled groups of passengers; 
- in the case of shuttle services without accommodation, the groups of 
passengers must be brought back to the place of departure in the course of a 
subsequent journey, although in the framework of regular services the 
passengers are not obliged to purchase the return ticket. 
There are, therefore, a number of similarities between shuttle services and 
regular services, such as the relative regularity of shuttle services (... by means 
of repeated outward and return journeys ...) and the fact that the stops and 
timetables are determined in advance. It is because of these similarities that 
Article 4 of the Regulation has specified the same conditions of market access for 
shuttle services without accommodation and regular services. The authorization 
procedure is also the same for the two services, as are the reasons for rejection 
of an application for authorization set out in Article 7(4). 
3. Procedure and time limits for granting authorization 
(a) The case of "undertakings associated" for the purpose of operating a regular 
service or a shuttle service without accommodation 
The application of the Regulation revealed a problem concerning the 
determination of the authorizing authority in the case of an association of 
undertakings for the operation of a regular passenger transport service by coach. 
Article 6(1) states very clearly that "applications for authorization shall be 
submitted to the competent authorities of die Member State in whose territory the 
place of departure is situated, hereinafter referred to as the "authorizing 
authority". In the case of regular services, the "place of departure" shall mean 
one of the termini". It is clear that regular services have two termini. The 
Regulation does not give any other indication to the effect that one of the termini 
of regular services takes precedence over the other from the point of view of 
submission and issue of the authorization. In practice, the decision to submit an 
application for a regular passenger service by coach in the one or other terminus 
is at the discretion of the undertakings concerned. 
In those circumstances, the Commission departments took the view that they 
could not accept the interpretation given by certain Member States and certain 
undertakings according to which the Member State on whose territory the 
undertaking "that manages" is established or the Member State in which the 
service originates is to be considered as the place of departure. 
The Regulation does not define the concept of "association of undertakings", so 
a number of approaches could be envisaged according to the possibilities offered 
by the various legal systems of the Member States. The Regulation does not 
require an association to be constituted formally, in the legal sense of the term. 
However, an agreement between all the enterprises in the association on the joint 
operation of the regular service is a minimum requirement. 
As-regards the method of designating the undertaking managing the operation of 
a regular service or a shuttle service without accommodation in the case of an 
association of undertakings where there is no agreement between the various 
members of the association, it is the responsibility of the association to reach 
agreement on designating the managing party. Authorization of the service could 
be delayed until such time as the managing undertaking is designated. 
The Commission departments were asked to comment on the interpretation that 
each undertaking belonging to the association is its "own managing party", which 
they rejected as being in conflict with the wording and the objective of the second 
paragraph of Article 5(1). 
The second paragraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation 684/92 states that "In the case 
of undertakings associated for the purpose of operating a regular service or a 
shuttle service, the authorization shall be issued in the names of all the 
undertakings. It shall be given to the undertaking that manages the operation and 
copies shall be given to the others. The authorization shall state the names of all 
the operators". 
Consequently Regulation 684/92 is based on the criteria of "one service, one 
authorization" or "one authorization for each service". 
They also considered that there was nothing to support the idea of the managing 
party having additional rights or advantages compared with the other holders of 
the authorization in the association. 
The Commission departments found that the procedure according to which 
undertakings applying for authorization to operate a service in association with 
others submit their application in parallel in their respective Member States and 
authorization is granted to each member of the association by its own national 
administration after the details have been jointly agreed, is incompatible with 
Articles 5 and 7 of the Regulation. 
(b) Article 7(2) of the Regulation states that the competent authorities of the Member 
States whose agreement has been requested for the authorization of a regular 
service have a period of two months within which to notify their decision. This 
period is calculated from the date of receipt of the request for an opinion. These 
authorities alone are aware of the exact date of receipt of the request. Efficient 
administration requires that this date should not be unduly far removed from the 
date in the request for an opinion. 
The solution proposed by the Commission departments is to send immediately, 
on receipt of the request for an opinion, an acknowledgement of receipt showing 
the exact date on which the request was received. The two-month period would 
be calculated from that date. 
(c) The competent authorities of Member States whose agreement is requested for the 
establishment of a regular coach service must notify the authorizing authority of 
their decision within two months from the date of receipt of the request for an 
opinion. If, after this time limit expires, the authorizing authority has received 
no reply, the authorities consulted are deemed to have given their agreement and 
the authorizing authority may then grant the authorization. Article 7(1) requires 
the authorizing authority to forward to the competent authorities of all" the 
Member States in whose territories passengers are picked up or set down a copy 
of the application and of any other relevant documentation. It is often the case 
that the authorities of the Member States in which passengers are picked up or 
set down request additional information and that the two-month time limit 
referred to above expires before such information is provided. 
The Commission departments suggested on the basis of consultations with certain 
Member States that the authorizing authority should: 
- forward all the relevant information and documentation together as soon as 
the matter is referred to the authorities of the other Member States in 
accordance with Article 7(1); 
- supply the additional information requested without delay, provided that the 
request for such information is justified and not merely a delaying tactic. 
The checks necessary for applying this Regulation (e.g. Article 7(4)(a) and (b)) 
must be carried out within the time limits laid down in Article 7(2) and (3). The 
Commission departments considered that, if the authorizing authority fails to 
forward the documents in good time or if an unjustified request is made by the 
authorities whose agreement is needed, the procedure for reaching agreement laid 
down in Article 7(1) and (2) has not enabled the authorizing authority to decide 
on the application and the matter may be referred to the Commission in 
accordance with Article 7(6). 
(d) Finally, in accordance with Article 7(6), if the procedure for reaching the 
agreement referred to in paragraph 1 does not enable a decision to be taken, the 
matter may be referred to the Commission within three months of the date of 
submission of the application by the transport undertaking. The matter may no 
longer be validly referred to the Commission on expiry of this period, as has 
been the case on several occasions. 
4. Reasons for rejecting the application (Article 7(4Ha) and (b) 
(a) The competent authorities of one Member State raised a problem concerning 
Article 7(4)(a), first indent, which states that the application for authorization 
may be rejected if the applicant is unable to provide the service that is the subject 
of the application with equipment directly available to him, since the 
Regulation does not require the applicant to give an account of the equipment at 
his direct disposal. 
Article 6(3) of the Regulation states that persons applying for authorization shall 
provide any further information which they consider relevant or which is 
requested by the authorizing authority. 
In this context, the Commission departments suggested to applicants for 
authorization that they should supply the authorizing authority motu proprio with 
all necessary information to enable it to judge whether the equipment directly 
available is sufficient to perform the service which is the subject of the 
application. 
(b) Article 7(4)(b)(i) states that the application for a new authorization may also be 
rejected "if it is shown that the service in question would directly compromise the 
existence of regular services already authorized, except in cases in which the 
regular services in question are carried out only by a single carrier or group of 
carriers". 
Consequently, the request for new authorizations may be refused if there are 
already two other services operating on this route, but proof must still be supplied 
that the new service would directly compromise the existence of the regular 
services already authorized. It is up to the competent authorities to provide this 
proof, rather than for the undertaking making the application to prove the 
existence of a new clientele. Consequently, the grounds for rejection laid down 
in Article 7(4)(b)(i> of Regulation 684/92 cannot be automatically and 
systematically invoked whenever it is discovered that two services have already 
been authorized for a given link. 
(c) The refusal of authorization on the grounds that the new service might directly 
compromise the existence of regular services already authorized pursuant to 
Article 7(4)(b)(i) has posed one of the thorniest problems of interpretation, since 
the Regulation does not provide clear criteria for deciding what it means. The 
Commission departments stressed that, for the purposes of defining this concept, 
account had to be taken of the principle of maintaining the economic and financial 
balance of regular services already authorized, so that it was necessary to 
ascertain whether the entry into the market of a similar new service would disturb 
the economic and financial balance of the undertakings in relation to the 
investments in the operation of the regular service in question, putting in jeopardy 
the very existence or economic survival of the services already authorized. 
(d) According to the information available to the Commission, no request for 
authorization has ever been rejected on the grounds stated in (b)(ii) of 
Article 7(4).2 However, the concept of a "comparable rail service on the direct 
10 
sections concerned" in that provision was the subject of a joint declaration by the 
Council and Commission entered in the minutes of the Council meeting which 
finally adopted Regulation 684/92. According to this declaration, a "comparable 
rail service on the direct sections concerned" may be interpreted as a comparable 
service in terms of fares, frequency and duration of journey. The expression 
"direct sections" must be construed in the geographical sense and, in keeping 
with the criteria concerning comparability with rail services, does not exclude a 
change of vehicles or possible connections involving changes of platform. The 
request for new authorizations may be rejected if a comparable rail service would 
be seriously affected by the establishment of the new coach service, but it is 
necessary to provide actual proof. It is for the competent authorities to provide 
this proof, rather than for the undertaking making the application to prove the 
existence of a new clientele. Consequently, the mere fact that a comparable rail 
service exists for a given link cannot automatically and systematically be taken 
as justification for rejecting an authorization. 
D. ACTION BY THE COMMISSION - ARBITRATION 
Article 7(6) 
Article 7(6) of Regulation 684/92 provides that, if the procedure for reaching agreement 
between the competent authorities of all the Member States in whose territories 
passengers are picked up or set down does not enable the authorizing authority to decide 
on an application, the mattermay be referred to the Commission within three months of 
the date of submission of the application. After consulting the Member States concerned, 
the Commission has to take a decision within six weeks, which takes effect within 
30 days of its notification to the Member States concerned. 
Article 14 of Regulation 517/72 already provided for the possibility of referral to the 
Commission in the event of disagreement between the competent authorities, although 
it did not specify any time limit for this procedure. The Commission took several 
decisions in the framework of that Regulation. 
Regulation 684/92, by contrast, sets very strict, short time limits. The Commission was 
asked to intervene officially on three occasions, but was obliged to refrain from taking 
a formal decision since referral in all cases was made outside the period of three months 
from the date of submission of the application for authorization. 
In spite of this, the Commission departments have always been willing, in the spirit of 
Article 7(6) of Regulation 684/92, to examine together with the parties concerned how 
an agreement might be reached, notably by organizing meetings with the responsible 
officials of the national administrations of the parties concerned. In some cases the 
Commission proposed a course of action which was accepted by the parties. Two cases 
referred to the Commission were satisfactorily solved, leading to an authorization issued 
11 
by the authorizing authority. In one case only which was still outstanding when this 
report was drafted, the Commission's good offices did not lead to an arrangement 
between the parties. The future amendment of the Regulation should allow longer time 
limits for referral to the Commission pursuant to Article 7(6). 
The Commission departments also received complaints regarding unsatisfactory 
application of the Regulation owing to interpretation problems on the part of the national 
administrations. 
E. RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL EXPERTS AND THE TRADE 
The Commission departments attach great importance to relations with the national 
experts responsible for applying the Regulation to international transport by coach and 
bus and with the trade. 
Meetings with the national experts have been organized annually since the entry into 
force ofthe Regulation, in July 1992, July 1993, September 1994 and in June 1995. The 
aim of these meetings was to gain first-hand knowledge of the problems and difficulties 
encountered by the national authorities responsible for implementing the Regulation in 
practice, and to notify all the Member States of the interpretations of the various 
provisions of the Regulation by the Commission departments. 
These exchanges of view were considered fruitful by both sides and the suggestions made 
by the experts have been taken into account for the purposes of amending the Regulation, 
particularly as regards the simplification of procedures. 
In addition, relations with all the national and European professional associations have 
been intensified; two meetings were organized with the representatives of these 
associations in January 1994 and September 1994 with a view to finding out the 
operators' problems in connection with implementation of the Regulation. 
The trade was also consulted at European level in September 1995 on the subject of the 
proposal for amendments to the Regulation. 
F. EXTERNAL RELATIONS 
As already discussed in connection with the scope of the Regulation vis-à-vis third 
countries, Regulation 684/92 applies in the event of carriage from a Member State to a 
third country and vice versa, to the part of the journey on the territory of the 
Member State of picking up and setting down, after conclusion of the necessary 
agreement between the Community and the third country in question. Article 1(3) states 
that "pending the conclusion of agreements between the Community and the third 
countries concerned, this Regulation shall not affect provisions relating to the carriage 
referred to in paragraph 2 contained in bilateral agreements concluded by Member States 
with those third countries. However, Member States shall endeavour to adapt those 
agreements to ensure compliance with the principle of non-discrimination between 
Community carriers". 
12 
When the Regulation was finally adopted, the Council and Commission declared that 
they would take the appropriate measures in conformity with the provisions ofthe Treaty 
with a view to concluding any agreements that might prove necessary between the 
Community and third countries for the purposes of uniform application ofthe Regulation. 
The Commission, for its part, noted with regret that the text adopted by the Council did 
not permit significant progress towards ensuring the freedom of services in links between 
Member States and third countries. 
The Commission, in order to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it under the 
Treaty, presented a recommendation for a Council Decision in December 1992 on the 
opening of negotiations between the Community and certain third countries in the field 
of carriage of goods and passengers by road. At its meeting of 7 December 1995 the 
Council adopted a negotiating mandate for the Commission concerning the opening of 
negotiations on occasional international passenger services by coach and bus. 
In addition, the Council decided on 14 March 1995 to authorize the Commission to 
negotiate an agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation 
in the field of road and air transport which includes the carriage of passengers by coach 
and bus. The negotiations with Switzerland are in progress. 
Regulation 684/92 applies to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as parties to the 
Agreement on the European Economic Area. 
Following the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the Community and the 
application of Regulation 684/92 to the European Economic Area, the ASOR Agreement3 
in fact only applies to occasional services between the Member States ofthe Community 
and Switzerland and Turkey. 
G. AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES (Article 18 of the 
Regulation) 
Article 18 of the Regulation states that "Member States may conclude bilateral and 
multilateral agreements on the further liberalization of the services covered by this 
Regulation, in particular as regards the authorization system and the simplification or 
abolition of control documents". 
On the basis of this provision, the Member States ofthe Community and of the European 
Economic Area agreed to waive the obligation to carry a set of translations of the 
journey form in all Community languages on board the vehicle carrying out a transport 
service exempt from authorization. 
Agreement on the International Carriage of Passengers by Road by means of Occasional Coach 
and Bus Services, signed in Dublin on 26 May 1982. 
13 
Pursuant to Article 11(2), the control document consists of a journey form and a set of 
translations of the journey form. Article 15(1) requires the control document to be 
carried on the vehicle and to be presented at the request of any authorized inspecting 
officers. The Commission will take account of this agreement with a view to making 
the necessary amendments to the current text of the Regulation. 
In addition, the Committee of Ministers of the Benelux Economic Umon adopted a 
Decision on 20 December 1994 laying down certain rules applicable to regular services, 
shuttle services and occasional services within the Benelux area. Among other things, 
these rules concern the possibility of granting provisional authorization for regular 
services without the prior agreement of the host State under certain conditions, the 
derogation from the condition of a group previously assembled in the case of shuttle and 
occasional services and exoneration from authorization for residual occasional services. 
H. THE TRANSPORT DOCUMENTS 
In implementation of Article 5(4), Article 6(2), Article 11(6) and Article 13(3), the 
Commission on 1 July 1992, after consulting the Member States, adopted a Regulation 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 
as regards documents for the international carriage of passengers,4 which contains the 
model of a control document and rules governing its use, the model of applications for 
authorization, of the authorization itself and of the certificates. 
This Regulation applies simultaneously with the basic regulation, i.e. from 1 June 1992, 
although Article 11 provides for the possibility of using the models ofthe documents laid 
down in former Regulations 1016/68 and 1172/72 for a transitional period until 
31 December 1993 on condition that they are amended, legibly, indelibly and 
appropriately insofar as it is necessary, in order to conform to the provisions of 
Regulation 684/92. The objective of this Article was to enable the Member States to 
print and distribute the new documents and use up stocks of old documents. Despite this 
additional period, however, some Member States have had difficulties in issuing the new 
documents at national level. 
In response to requests from the professional associations in the sector of international 
carriage of passengers by coach and bus and by the national experts, the Commission on 
25 October 1993 adopted Regulation 2944/93 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) 
No 1839/92 with regard to control documents for shuttle services with accommodation 
and for occasional services,5 none of which are subject to authorization. 
Two significant changes were made to the new journey forms: 
1. The model control document for shuttle services with accommodation and for 
occasional services was standardized, whereas the previous system had two 
separate journey forms. 
Commission Regulation 1839/92, OJ No L 187, 7.7.1992, p. 5. 
OJ No L 266, 27.10.1993, p.2. 
14 
2. The "pictogram" system on the lines of the ASOR model journey form was 
introduced to make it simpler and easier to use and check by the competent 
officials. 
I STATISTICS ON THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED BY 
THE MEMBER STATES. 
In order to assess the extent to which Regulation 684/92 is being applied, it has to be 
borne in mind that to a very large extent it favours international passenger transport 
services not subject to authorization, i.e. occasional services. It is thus difficult to 
quantify this part of the Regulation given that no prior official steps are necessary. By 
contrast, the table below shows the number of authorizations granted by the Member 
States for each ofthe categories of international passenger transport services still subject 
to authorization. These figures include all the authorizations granted since the entry into 
force of Regulation 684/92. These figures supplied by the Member States clearly show 
that the number of regular services created under the present system has significantly 
increased, with new routes being offered that often serve peripheral areas of the 
Community and so promote the mobility of its citizens. 
However, the table also shows that certain categories of services subject to authorization 
provided for by the present legislation, namely shuttle services without accommodation 
and special regular services, are not particularly attractive to the transport undertakings. 
Consequently the Commission makes provision in its proposal for a Regulation amending 
Regulation 684/92 for abolishing the shuttle category of services and liberalizing all 
special regular services. Given the small number of authorizations granted for the latter 
by Member States, this is unlikely to disrupt the market for international coach services. 
Furthermore, the current legislation has a category of residual occasional services for all 
services that cannot be classified in the other categories. The Spanish authorities alone 
have granted 80 authorizations to this category, but its use is nonetheless insignificant, 
since the very same services can be classed in the occasional services category specified 
in Article 2(3.1)(b) of Regulation 684/92. 
15 
TABLE ON THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED BY THE MEMBER STATES 
Number of authorizations issued under Regulation N ' 684/92 
Member State 
(M.S.) 
Belgium 
Denmark 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Italy 
Ireland 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain Regular Service 
19 
22 
100 
76 
12(3) 
17 
51 (4.1) 
5 
12 
17 Special Regular 
Service 
KD 
0 
0 
10 
0 
0 
0 (4.2) 
3 
0 
0 Shuttle Service 
without accommodation 
1 
0 * 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 Residual Occasional 
Service 
1 
0 
8(2) 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
80(5) Own-Account 
Service 
6(1.2) 4(1.3) 
0 
83 (1.2) 
0 
0 
0 
0 
52 
0 
1 Situation on 
31.12.1994 
5.5.1995 
19.5.1995 
31.1.1995 
27.2.1995 
9.3.1995 
14.2.1995 
No answer received 
17.1.1995 
31.3.1995 
10.1.1995 
16 
Member State 
(M.S.) 
United Kingdom 
New Mi. 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EEA 
Iceland 
Norway Regular Service 
5 
0 
0 
1 Special Regular 
Service 
1 
0 
0 
0 Shuttle Service 
without accommodation 
1 
0 
0 
0 Residual Occasional 
Service 
16 
0 
0 
0 Own-Account 
Service 
0 
0 
0 
0 Situation on 
20.2.1995 
• 
16.3.1995 
22.2.1995 
21.06.1995 
(1) With the exception of a specific case of carriage of workers, all the other new special regular services were in the categories defined in Article 2(1.2) and can be organized on the basis of an 
agreement concluded between the carrier and the organizer of the carriage. 
( 1.2) Non-liberalized own-account service. 
(1.3) Liberalized own-account service. 
(2) All services with the UK. 
(3) 16 authorizations requested and four of them have been rejected. 
(4.1) Regular service including special regular services defined in Article 2(1.2). 
(4.2) Special regular services other than those defined in Article 2(1.2). 
(5) The occasional residual services authorized are combined air/coach services mat could have been included in Article 2(3.1)(b) of Regulation 684/92 and are therefore exempt from authorization. 
17 
PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 on common rules for the 
international carriage of passengers by coach and bus 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
A. BACKGROUND 
1. The first joint action in the field of the international carriage of passengers by 
coach and bus dates from the 1960s, when Council Regulation No 117/66/EEC 
of 28 July 1966 on the introduction of common rules for the international carriage 
of passengers by coach and bus1 was adopted. In conformity with Articles 7 and 
8 of this Regulation, common rules for regular services were laid down by 
Council Regulation 516/72/EEC of 28 February 1972,2 and common rules for 
shuttle services by Council Regulation 517/72/EEC of 28 February 1972.3 The 
provisions of these two Regulations remained in force until the adoption of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92/EEC of 16 March 1992.4 
2. The latter instrument constitutes the authoritative legal framework for the 
international carriage of passengers by coach and bus. It lays down the conditions 
for applying the principle of the freedom to provide services in this sector and 
applies to all Member States of the Community and, following the entry into 
force of the EEA Agreement, the countries of the European Economic Area. In 
practice, it enables carriers to provide international transport services between 
Member States without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of 
establishment, provided that they 
are authorized in the State of establishment to undertake carriage by coach 
and bus; 
meet the conditions laid down in accordance with Community rules on 
admission to the occupation of road passenger transport operator; 
meet the legal requirements on road safety as far as the standards for 
drivers and vehicles are concerned. 
In addition, the Regulation defines the different transport services and determines 
for each of them the conditions of market access. Shuttle services with 
accommodation, most occasional services, practically all special regular services 
and own-account transport operations do not require authorization. By contrast, 
all regular services and shuttle services without accommodation, residual 
occasional services, certain special regular services and certain own-account 
OJ, 9.8.1966, p. 2688. 
OJL67, 20.3.1972, p. 13. 
OJL67, 20.3.1972, p. 19. 
OJL74, 20.3.1992, p. 1. 
transport operations are still subject to authorization. The procedure for the 
granting of authorizations has been simplified and, in the event of authorization 
being rejected, the precise reasons must be given. 
4. Article 20 of Regulation 684/92 states that the Commission must report to the 
Council on its application before 1 July 1995. Before 1 January 1996, the 
Commission must present to the Council a proposal for a Regulation on the 
simplification of procedures including - in the light of the report's conclusions -
the abolition of authorizations. 
5. In response to these provisions, the Commission has drafted a new proposal for 
a regulation making the following amendments: 
abolition of the category of international shuttle services 
abolition of the category of residual occasional services 
liberalization of all occasional services 
liberalization of all special regular services and- own-account transport 
operations 
improved wording of the definition of occasional services 
introduction of the Community coach licence 
restoration of competition between regular coach and bus services and 
regular rail services by deleting point (ii) of Article 7(4)(b) 
extension of certain time limits. 
B. JUSTIFICATION OF THE MEASURE AT COMMUNITY LEVEL 
I. Subsidiarity and proportionality 
(a) What are the objectives of the proposed measure with regard to the 
Community's obligations? 
This proposal aims to continue the liberalization process initiated at Community level in 
the field of international carriage of passengers by coach and bus. It thus reflects the 
progress made in completing the internal market. The fundamental objective is to 
implement the freedom to provide services in the transport sector by eliminating 
unjustified and/or excessive restrictions, in particular any discrimination against the 
service provider on grounds of nationality or establishment in a Member State other than 
that in which the service is to be provided. 
(b) Does competence for the proposed measure lie solely with the Community or 
is it shared with the Member States? 
This is a measure for which the Community has exclusive competence (Article 75(1 )a 
of the Treaty). 
(c) What forms of action are open to the Community (recommendation, financial 
support, legislation, mutual recognition, etc.)? 
2Q 
This proposal sets out to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 and thus it, too, 
takes the form of a Council regulation. It lays down common rules for the international 
carriage of passengers by coach and bus in order to prevent distortion of competition. 
Since a regulation is binding in all its parts and directly applicable in all Member States 
of the Community, it is the only legal instrument conceivable. 
(d) Is it absolutely necessary to adopt uniform rules or would a Directive 
establishing general principles and leaving implementation to the Member 
States be sufficient? 
As mentioned in (f) above, this proposal amends an existing regulation and must 
therefore itself take the form of a regulation. Moreover, the sector in question requires 
the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus to be carried out under the 
same conditions using the same control documents. A directive would therefore not be 
the appropriate instrument. 
II* Economic advantages of continuing the harmonization process 
The economic arguments in favour of greater harmonization and liberalization of the 
rules on international carriage of passengers by coach and bus are as follows: the new 
proposal for a regulation aims to simplify and clarify the current provisions. 
Consequently, it abolishes the "shuttle" category by assimilating shuttle services without 
accommodation to regular services, and shuttle services with accommodation to 
occasional services. In addition, the proposal aims to restore competition between 
regular coach and bus services and regular rail services by deleting point (ii) of 
Article 7(4)(b), and harmonizes and further simplifies the administrative procedures. 
The new standards will introduce greater flexibility and the more appropriate criteria will 
open up new markets. The abolition of the restrictions maintained by the current 
Regulation will enable the transport undertakings to optimize the management of their 
activities and the profitability of their vehicle fleets. 
It is also worth noting that, since the entry into force on 1 July 1994 of the Agreement 
on the European Economic Area, the application of Regulation 684/92 concerns a total 
population of 370 million inhabitants. It thus offers new opportunities to operators of 
coach and bus services. These new opportunities may generate new jobs in the transport 
industry. 
In order to avoid any distortion of competition, the proposal for a regulation lays down 
identical conditions of market access for transport undertakings from the European 
Community and the European Economic Area in conformity with the non-discrimination 
requirement, so avoiding imbalances between those countries which restrict access to 
their national market as regards non-residents and those which open it up completely to 
other carriers. 
C. EXAMINATION OF THE ARTICLES 
Article 1 
3o 
Article 1 of the proposal amends Article 2 of Regulation 684/92 as follows: 
Urban carriage in frontier areas 
Regulation 684/92 considers urban carriage in frontier areas as a special regular service, 
which in turn is defined as a service providing for the carriage of specified categories 
of passengers to the exclusion of other passengers, insofar as such services are operated 
under the conditions specified in Article 2(1.1). Urban carriage in frontier areas is 
therefore characterized by its "urban", "frontier" quality, and by the fact that certain 
categories of passengers are carried to the exclusion of others. In actual fact, urban 
services in frontier areas should be considered as a special case of regular services rather 
than of special regular services, since urban services in frontier areas must be accessible 
to all and not only to certain categories of passengers to the exclusion of others. 
Additional vehicles 
Article 2(1.3) of Regulation 684/92 provides that the operation of additional vehicles for 
existing regular services is governed by the same rules as these regular services, i.e. it 
is subject to authorization. Such a procedure would not appear to be justified, since 
Article 10 of the Regulation requires service operators to take all measures to guarantee 
a transport service that fulfils the* standards of continuity, regularity and capacity. Where 
necessary owing to the growth in demand, the carrier is obliged to operate additional 
vehicles on the service. This obligation could not be fulfilled if the operator had to 
follow the authorization prooedure, which takes a minimum of three months. 
The proposed amendment provides for abolition of the authorization obligation for the 
operation of additional vehicles. Consequently, this amendment will give the 
undertakings greater flexibility, particularly during periods of increased demand. 
Shuttle services 
The proposal for a regulation provides for abolition of the concept of shuttle services. 
This is justified for several reasons: 
1. According to the information available to the Commission departments, this 
concept does not exist in Member States' internal legislation. 
2. The report on the implementation of Regulation 684/92 shows that scarcely any 
authorizations have been granted for shuttle services without accommodation. 
3. There are several similarities between shuttle services without accommodation 
and regular services, such as the relative regularity of shuttle services (... by 
means of repeated outward and return journeys ..J and the fact that they also 
have predetermined stopping points and timetables. It is because of these 
similarities that Article 4 of the Regulation has stipulated the same conditions of 
access to the market for both shuttle services without accommodation and regular 
services. The authorization procedure is the same for the two services, as are the 
reasons for rejection of the application for authorization set out in Article 7(4). 
4<? 
4. By contrast, shuttle services with accommodation could be considered as 
occasional services. For one thing, the conditions of market access and the 
control document are currently the same. 
Abolishing the shuttle category of services would greatly simplify the nomenclature of 
passenger transport services by coach and bus. These would be classed as regular 
services, special regular services, occasional services and own-account transport 
operations. This classification coincides with that used in the legislation of most 
Member States. 
Occasional services 
The concept of occasional services has been considerably simplified. These services are 
currently defined by default, i.e. those which do not come into the category of regular 
services or special regular services. The list of these services in Article 2(3.1) of 
Regulation 684/92 and in the Annex is deleted. Some elements characterizing occasional 
services have been included in the definition, but as a guide. 
Consequently, in order to distinguish between an occasional service and a regular or 
special regular service, it is necessary to stipulate that the occasional service does not 
meet the criteria laid down in the Regulation for those two services. 
As the report on the implementation of Regulation 684/92 shows, the number of 
authorizations granted by Member States for residual occasional services is insignificant. 
Abolition of the concept of residual occasional service is therefore justified. 
Occasional services remain exempt from authorization. By contrast, the organization of 
parallel or temporary services comparable to existing regular services and serving the 
same clientele as the latter is subject to authorization according to the procedure laid 
down in the Regulation. The objective of this provision, which is already contained in 
Article 2(1.3) of the current text of Regulation 684/92, is to avoid unfair competition 
with regular services on the part of "false occasional services", i.e. occasional services 
exempt from authorization which in practice are regular services. 
Own-account transport operations 
The definition of own-account transport operations has been supplemented by an explicit 
reference to their non-commercial character, which is, moreover, an essential feature of 
this type of service. 
Article 2 
No comment. 
Article 3 
Article 3 of the proposal introduces a new Article 3a which contains an important 
innovation in the sector of international carriage of passengers by coach and bus. This 
5« 
is the "Community licence", which is issued by the competent authorities of the State of 
establishment to carriers meeting the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of 
Regulation 684/92 and is based on a model contained in the annex to the Regulation. 
At present, each Member State draws up its own model authorization for international 
carriage, although the qualitative criteria for operation of these services are laid down 
by Regulation 684/92. 
The Community licence will facilitate checks made outside the State of establishment, 
particularly in the case of occasional services, since these are exempt from authorization 
and currently operated under cover of a journey form which provides information on the 
service, but very little on the carrier involved. The Community licence will be the proof 
that the carrier is authorized in the State of establishment to undertake international 
carriage by coach and bus, and that the undertaking in question meets the conditions of 
access to the profession of road passenger transport operator pursuant to the Community 
directives.5 
The Community licence will replace the current document(s) issued by the competent 
authorities of the State of establishment attesting that the carrier is admitted to the market 
in international carriage of passengers by road. 
Article 4 
Article 4 of the proposal amends Article 4 of Regulation 684/92 as regards the 
arrangements for market access as follows: 
All occasional services are exempt from authorization, unlike the system under 
Regulation 684/92 according to which residual occasional services have to be 
authorized. As the report on the application of Regulation 684/92 shows, 
Member States issued only an insignificant number of authorizations for residual 
occasional services. The latter category has therefore been abolished. 
All special regular services and urban carriage in frontier areas are exempt from 
authorization if they are covered by a contract concluded between the organizer 
and the carrier. Article 2(1.2) of Regulation 684/92 in conjunction with Article 4 
requires special regular services to be authorized with the exception of those 
listed in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1). In practice, the number of 
special regular services subject to authorization pursuant to Regulation 684/92 is 
very limited, as can also be seen from the report on application of the Regulation. 
Abolition ofthe authorization requirement for these services is therefore justified. 
Regular services remain subject to authorization. 
Article 5 
Council Directive 74/562/EEC, OJ L 308, 19.11.1974, p. 23, as last amended by Council 
Directive 89/438/EEC, OJ L 212, 22.7.1989, p. 101. 
No comment. 
Article 6 
Article 6 ofthe proposal amends Article 5 of Regulation 684/92 with regard to additional 
vehicles. 
No comment on paragraphs 1 to 4. 
A new paragraph 5 is inserted. 
Article 1(3) of the proposal for an amendment provides for the abolition of the 
authorization obligation for the operation of additional vehicles. 
The proposed amendment to Article 6 requires the carrier who makes additional vehicles 
available to the operator of the regular service to carry the following documents on the 
vehicle: 
a true copy of the Community licence of the carrier providing the additional 
vehicle; 
a copy of the equivalent contract or document between the operator of the regular 
service and the carrier providing the additional vehicle; 
a copy of the authorization of the regular service. 
This new system will clarify the difference between the concept of "the use of additional 
vehicles" and "subcontracting". 
As already discussed, the use of additional vehicles is justified by the temporary or 
seasonal growth in demand such that the holder of the authorization would be unable to 
meet the carriage obligation with the vehicles at his or her direct disposal. 
A carrier who makes vehicles available to the holder of the authorization for the regular 
service through a hire contract, for example, is not named in the authorization document 
since the regular service is operated on behalf of the authorization holder and for a very 
specific period. 
The subcontractor, by contrast, is a transport undertaking which becomes responsible for 
the operation of the regular service on a permanent basis under the terms laid down by 
the Regulation and by the authorization. The subcontractor must be approved by the 
authorities involved in issuing the authorization and must figure in the authorization as 
the undertaking which operates the service on a subcontracting basis, and not as an 
undertaking which might be chosen from a list at a given moment to provide an ad hoc 
service. 
Article 7 
Article 7 of the proposal amends Article 6 of Regulation 684/92 concerning the 
submission of applications for authorization of regular services. 
No comment on paragraph 1. 
Paragraph 3 of that Article specifies that persons applying for authorization shall provide 
any further information which they consider relevant or which is requested by the 
authorizing authority. This provision was developed by Article 7 of Commission 
Regulation 1839/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 684/92 as regards documents for the international carriage of passengers. 
This Article stipulates the information which must be supplied by the applicant for the 
authorization, in particular the timetable, fare scales, evidence that the applicant meets 
the conditions applicable in the State of establishment to the international carriage of 
passengers by coach or bus, information regarding the type and volume of traffic 
expected and a map showing the route and stopping points. 
The proposed amendment concerns the requirement to draw up a plan with operational 
details ofthe regular service in order to satisfy the Community legislation on driving and 
rest periods6 and to supply a copy of the Community licence for the international carriage 
of passengers by road for hire or reward laid down in Article 3a. 
The obligation to draw up an operational plan for the regular service is all the more 
justified as it requires the carrier to organize stops in line with the Community legislation 
on driving and rest periods. It therefore concerns a prior check of compliance with this 
legislation, the fundamental objective of which is to ensure maximum road safety. 
Article 8 
Article 8 of the proposal amends Article 7 of Regulation 684/92 on the authorization 
procedure for regular services. 
1. It concerns, firstly, extending all the time limits laid down in that Article, since 
they have proved too short in practice: 
the period for referral to the Commission pursuant to Article 7(6) will be 
four months instead of three from the date of submission of the 
application; 
the period within which the Commission decides on a referral is ten weeks 
instead of six. 
2. The second important amendment to Article 7(2) of the Regulation concerns the 
exact date from which the two-month period is calculated. 
This Article stipulates that the competent authorities of the Member States whose 
agreement has been requested regarding the issuing of an authorization for a 
regular service have two months within which to notify the authorizing authority 
of their decision. This period is calculated from the date of receipt of the request 
for an opinion. Only the authority whose opinion has been sought knows the 
exact date of receipt. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and 3821/85 of 20 December 1985, OJ L 370, 
31.12.1985, p.l. 
8« 
The problem can be solved by sending immediately on receipt of the request for 
an opinion an acknowledgement of receipt showing the exact date on which the 
request was received. The two-month period would be calculated from the date 
shown on the acknowledgement. Efficient administration requires that the date 
in the acknowledgement of receipt should not be too far removed from the date 
shown in the request for an opinion. 
3. The current wording of Article 7(5) states that "the authorizing authority may 
refuse applications only on the basis of reasons compatible with this Regulation". 
This provision should be applicable not only.to the authorizing authority, which 
is the authority that must formally grant the authorization, but also to the 
competent authorities of all Member States on whose territories passengers are 
picked up or set down and who participate in the construction of the agreement 
necessary to grant the authorization. This is the objective of Article 8(5) of the 
draft amendment. 
4. The draft amendment provides for deleting point 4(b)(ii) of Article 7 according 
to which: 
"The application may be rejected: 
(ii) if it is shown that the said service would seriously affect the viability of a 
comparable rail service on the direct sections concerned. " 
Deleting this provision is justified from the point of view of the principle of 
freedom of competition between the various transport modes. Furthermore, 
according to the available information, no authorization has been rejected for this 
reason. -r 
In addition, the wording in 4(a) and (b) "An application may be rejected if :..." 
has been replaced by the phrase "Authorization shall be granted unless: ..". The 
purpose of this amendment is to limit as far as possible the discretionary powers 
ofthe national administrations when they state reasons for refusing applications. 
Authorization will have to be granted if none of the reasons for rejection 
specified by the Regulation can be advanced. 
The first, second and third indents of point (4)(a) and subparagraphs (i) and (iii) 
of point (4)(b) have been incorporated in full from the text of Regulation 684/92 
in the interests of greater clarity of Article 7(4). 
Article 9 
No comment 
Article 10 
No comment 
Article 11 
Article 11 of the proposal amends Article 11 of Regulation 684/92. 
9* 
According to Article 11(2) of Regulation 684/92, the control document consists of a 
journey form and a set of translations of the journey form. Article 15(1) requires the 
control document to be carried on the vehicle and presented at the request of any 
authorized inspecting officer. The objective of this amendment is to abolish the 
obligation to carry the set of translations of the journey form on the vehicle. 
On the basis of Article 187 of Regulation 684/92 the Member States of the Community 
and of the European Economic Area have agreed to waive the requirement for the set 
of translations of the journey form in all Community languages to be carried on a vehicle 
undertaking a transport service exempt from authorization. 
Article 12 
This Article deletes Article 12 of Regulation 684/92 according to which "within the 
framework of an international shuttle service with accommodation, or an international 
occasional service, a carrier may carry out occasional services (local excursions) in a 
Member State other than that in which it is established (...)". In practice, this provision 
enables non-resident carriers to carry out strictly national services under certain 
conditions. 
This issue has already been solved in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 2454/92 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate 
national road passenger transport services within a Member State. Pursuant to Article 3 
of this Regulation, permission to operate cabotage transport operations in the form of 
non-regular services will be restricted to closed-door tours until 31 December 1995. 
After that date, all cabotage transport operations will be authorized for all non-regular 
services. 
Consequently, since the entry into force of Regulation 2454/92, cabotage in the form of 
"local excursions" as referred to in Regulation 684/92 has been liberalized to a much 
greater extent than provided for in Article 12 of the latter. This provision has thus 
become obsolete. Any carrier wishing to undertake a cabotage operation following an 
international service will be able to do so under the conditions set out in the cabotage 
Regulation. 
Article 13 
Article 13 of the proposal deletes Article 13(2) of Regulation 684/92. 
The objective of this amendment is to exempt from authorization all services for own 
account and not only those listed in Article 2(4) of Regulation 684/92. 
Article 18 of the Regulation states that "Member States may conclude bilateral 
and multilateral agreements on the further liberalization of the services covered 
by this Regulation, in particular as regards the authorization system and the 
simplification or abolition of control documents". 
10 * 
Article 14 
No comment 
Article 15-
Article 15 of the proposal amends the second paragraph of Article 19 of Regulation 
684/92. This amendment concerns the penalties that Member States must adopt to 
implement the Regulation. These penalties must be effective, proportionate and 
dissuasive. The wording of the current proposal is taken from the model proposed in the 
Annex to the Commission Communication to the Council and European Parliament on 
the role of penalties in implementing Community internal market legislation 
(COM(95)162 final). 
Article 16 
Article 16 of the proposal concerns the deletion of the Annex to Regulation 684/92 
containing the description of certain occasional services exempt from authorization. This 
description is now redundant since the proposal liberalizes all occasional services. 
Articles 17. 18 and 19 
No comment. 
11 « 
EHDOTUS 
NEUVOSTON ASETUS 
annettu 
yhteisistä säännöistä harjoitettaessa kansainvälistä henkilöliikennettä linja-autoilla 
annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 684/92 muuttamisesta 
EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, joka 
ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 75 artiklan, 
1 kohdan, 
ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen, 
ottaa huomioon talous- ja sosiaalikomitean lausunnon, 
toimii yhteistyössä Euroopan parlamentin kanssa, 
sekä katsoo, että 
perustamissopimuksen 75 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohdan mukaisesti yhteisen 
liikennepolitiikan toteuttaminen edellyttää muun muassa sellaisten yhteisten sääntöjen 
antamista, joita sovelletaan kansainväliseen henkilöliikenteeseen maantiellä, 
kansainvälisen linja-autoliikenteen eri palvelujen määritelmiä olisi yksinkertaistettava, 
kansainvälisen linja-autoliikenteen palvelut voidaan luokitella säännölliseen liikenteeseen, 
säännölliseen erityisliikenteeseen ja satunnaisliikenteeseen ja sen vuoksi 
edestakaisliikenteen käsite voidaan poistaa käytöstä, 
olisi säädettävä järjestelmästä, jossa satunnaisliikenteen, säännöllisen erityisliikenteen ja 
omaan lukuun harjoitettavan liikenteen markkinoille pääsy ei edellyttäisi lupaa, 
säännöllisen liikenteen osalta luvanantojärjestelmä olisi säilytettävä, 
intermodaalinen kilpailu olisi säilytettävä ja sen vuoksi on tarpeen poistaa 
rautatieliikenteeltä etuoikeusasema aloitettaessa liikennepalvelua linja-autoilla, 
kuljetustoiminnan valvonnan helpottamiseksi kaikkien kansainvälisen maanteiden 
henkilöliikennemuotojen harjoittamisessa toisen lukuun olisi edellytettävä 
yhdenmukaistetun mallin mukaista yhteisön liikennelupaa, 
määräaikoja on luvanantomenettelyn osalta tarpeen lykätä, 
jäsenvaltioiden tehtävänä on toteuttaa tämän asetuksen täytäntöönpanemiseksi tarvittavat 
toimenpiteet, erityisesti rangaistukset, joiden on oltava tehokkaita, oikein suhteutettuja 
ja varoituksenomaisia, ja 
tämän asetuksen soveltamista on seurattava komission antaman kertomuksen perusteella, 
44 
ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN: 
1 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 2 artikla seuraavasti: 
1) Lisätään 1.1 kohtaan uusi alakohta seuraavasti: 
Kahden tai useamman jäsenvaltion alueella sijaitsevassa kaupunkitaajamassa harjoitettavaa 
säännöllistä liikennettä kutsutaan jäljempänä 'kaupunkikuljetuksiksi raja-alueilla'. 
2) Poistetaan 1.2 kohdan d alakohta. 
3) Poistetaan 1.3 kohdan maininta "lisäajoneuvojen ja". 
4) Poistetaan edestakaisliikenteeseen liittyvä 2 kohta. 
5) Korvataan 3.1 kohta seuraavasti: 
"Satunnaisliikenne on liikennettä, joka ei vastaa säännöllisen liikenteen eikä säännöllisen 
erityisliikenteen määritelmää, ja johon kuuluvat varsinkin ennalta muodostetun 
matkustajaryhmän kuljetukset, tilauksesta järjestettävät kuljetukset, majoituksen tai muita 
turistipalveluita kuljetukseen tai määräpaikkaan kuulumattomina sisältävä liikenne, jonkin 
erity istapahtuman yhteydessä järjestettävät, meno- tai paluumatkan tyhjänä ajettavat 
kuljetukset taikka kiertoajelun järjestämiseksi ajetut kuljetukset. 
Sellaisen väliaikaisen tai rinnakkaisliikenteen järjestämiseen, joka on verrattavissa 
olemassa olevaan säännölliseen liikenteeseen ja joka palvelee sen kanssa samaa 
asiakaskuntaa, on haettava lupaa tämän asetuksen II jaksossa säädettyä menettelyä 
noudattaen. " 
6) Poistetaan 3.2 kohta. 
7) Korvataan 4 kohta seuraavasti: 
"Liikenne omaan lukuun on liikennettä, jonka varsinkin yritys kaupallista hyötyä 
tavoittelematta järjestää omille työntekijöilleen tai voittoa tavoittelematon yhteisö 
jäsenilleen sosiaalisin tarkoituksin, jos: 
liikenne on vain yrityksen tai yhteisön tavanomaisen toiminnan lisäksi tulevaa 
toimintaa; 
liikenteeseen käytetyt ajoneuvot ovat yrityksen tai yhteisön omaisuutta tai yritys 
tai yhteisö on ostanut ne osamaksulla tai ne on hankittu pitkäaikaisella 
vuokrasopimuksella ja jos yrityksen henkilökuntaan kuuluva tai yhteisön jäsen 
ajaa niitä. 
2g 
2 artikla 
1) Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 3 artiklan 1 kohdan ensimmäinen luetelmakohta 
seuraavasti: 
"- hänellä on oikeus harjoittaa sijoittautumisvaltiossa säännöllistä liikennettä, säännöllistä 
erityisliikennettä tai satunnaisliikennettä linja-autoilla. " 
3 artikla 
Lisätään uusi artikla 3a asetuhseen 684/92: 
"3 a artikla 
Yhteisön liikennelupa 
1. Edellä 3 artiklan ensimmäisen kohdan arviointiperusteet täyttävällä 
liikenteenharjoittajalla on oltava sijoittautumisvaltion toimivaltaisten viranomaisten 
antama, tämän asetuksen liitteessä olevan mallin mukainen yhteisön liikennelupa. 
2. Sijoittautumisvaltion toimivaltaiset viranomaiset antavat liikenneluvan haltijalle 
yhteisön liikenneluvan alkuperäiskappaleen, jonka säilyttää kuljetusliike, sekä yhtä monta 
oikeaksi todistettua jäljennöstä kuin yhteisön liikenneluvan haltijalla on ajoneuvoja, jotka 
ovat joko täysin tämän omistuksessa taikka muulla tavoin tämän hallinnassa erityisesti 
osamaksu-, vuokra- tai leasing-sopimuksella. 
3. Yhteisön liikennelupa laaditaan liikenteenharjoittajan nimiin. Tämä ei saa siirtää sitä 
kolmansille osapuolille. Oikeaksi todistettua jäljennöstä yhteisön liikenneluvasta on 
pidettävä ajoneuvossa ja se on esitettävä tarkastusviranomaisen pyynnöstä. 
4. Yhteisön liikennelupa annetaan viideksi vuodeksi kerrallaan, minkä jälkeen se voidaan 
uudistaa. 
5. Edellä 2 kohdassa tarkoitettu yhteisön liikennelupa korvaa sijoittautumisvaltion 
toimivaltaisten viranomaisten antaman asiakirjan, joka osoittaa, että liikenteenharjoittaja 
on hyväksytty kansainvälisen maanteiden henkilöliikenteen markkinoille. 
6. Sijoittautumisvaltion toimivaltaiset viranomaiset tarkistavat liikennelupahakemuksen 
jättämisen yhteydessä ja enintään viisi vuotta liikenneluvan antamisen jälkeen sekä siitä 
alkaen vähintään joka viides vuosi, täyttääkö liikenteenharjoittaja edelleen 3 artiklan 1 
kohdassa tarkoitetut vaatimukset. 
7. Jos 3 artiklan 2 kohdassa mainitut vaatimukset eivät täyty, sijoittautumisvaltion 
toimivaltaiset viranomaiset kieltäytyvät perustellusta syystä antamasta tai uudistamasta 
yhteisön liikennelupaa. 
8. Toimivaltaiset viranomaiset peruuttavat yhteisön liikenneluvan, jos liikenneluvan 
haltija: 
- ei enää täytä 3 artiklan 1 kohdan edellytyksiä 
- jos tämä on antanut virheellisiä yhteisön liikenneluvan saamiseksi tarvittavia. 
9. Jos tapahtuu vakavia taikka vähäisempiä mutta toistuvia liikenteeseen liittyvän 
lainsäädännön rikkomuksia, sen jäsenvaltion toimivaltaiset viranomaiset, johon 
rikkomukseen syyllistynyt liikenteenharjoittaja on sijoittautunut, voivat väliaikaisesti ja/tai 
osittain peruuttaa yhteisön liikenneluvan oikeiksi todistetut jäljennökset. 
Näistä seuraamuksista päätetään yhteisön liikenneluvan haltijan tekemän rikkomuksen 
vakavuuden ja tämän hallussa kansainvälistä liikennettä varten olevien oikeiksi 
todistettujen jäljennösten kokonaismäärän perusteella. 
10. Jäsenvaltiot varmistavat, että yhteisön liikenneluvan hakija tai haltija voi valittaa 
sijottautumisvaltion toimivaltaisten viranomaisten päätöksestä evätä tai peruuttaa kyseinen 
liikennelupa. 
11. Jäsenvaltiot ilmoittavat komissiolle vuosittain viimeistään 31 päivänä tammikuuta 
yhteisön liikenneluvan haltijoina edellisen vuoden 31 päivänä joulukuuta olleiden 
liikenteenharjoittajien sekä kyseisenä päivänä liikenteessä olleita ajoneuvoja vastaavan 
oikeiksi todistettujen jäljennösten määrän." 
4 artikla 
"Korvataan asetuksen 684/92 4 artikla seuraavasti: 
"1. Edellä 2 artiklan 3.1 kohdassa tarkoitetun satunnaisliikenteen harjoittaminen ei 
edellytä lupaa. 
2. Edellä 2 artiklan 1.2 kohdassa tarkoitetun säännöllisen erikoisliikenteen harjoittaminen 
taikka 2 artiklan 1.1 kohdan toisessa alakohdassa tarkoitetut kaupunkikuljetukset raja-
alueilla eivät edellytä lupaa, jos järjestäjän ja liikenteenharjoittajan tekemä sopimus kattaa 
sen. 
3. Tyhjien ajoneuvojen kuljettaminen 1 ja 2 kohdassa tarkoitetun liikenteen yhteydessä 
ei myöskään edellytä lupaa. 
4. Edellä 2 artiklan 1.1 kohdan ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitettu säännöllinen 
liikenne on luvanvaraista 5-10 artiklan mukaisesti. 
5. Omaan lukuun harjoitettavan liikenteen järjestämisestä säädetään 13 artiklassa." 
4& 
5 artikla 
1) Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 II jakson otsikko seuraavasti: 
"Luvanvarainen säännöllinen liikenne". 
6 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 5 artikla seuraavasti: 
1) Poistetaan 1 kohdan toisesta alakohdasta seuraava: "tai edestakaisliikennettä, johon ei 
sisälly majoitusta". 
2) Poistetaan 2 kohdasta seuraava: "ja edestakaisliikenteessä, johon ei sisälly majoitusta, 
kaksi vuotta". 
3) Poistetaan 3 kohdan d alakohdasta seuraava: "säännöllisen liikenteen osalta". 
4) Poistetaan 5 kohdasta seuraava: "ja edestakaisliikennettä, johon ei sisälly majoitusta". 
5) Lisätään uusi 6 kohta seuraavasti: 
"6. Jos säännöllisessä liikenteessä otetaan käyttöön lisäajoneuvoja, kyseisessä ajoneuvossa 
on pidettävä oikeaksi todistettua jäljennöstä vastaavasta säännöllisen liikenteenharjoittajan 
ja lisäajoneuvot käyttöön antavan liikenteenharjoittajan välisestä sopimuksesta tai muusta 
asiakirjasta sekä jäljennöstä säännöllisen liikenteen harjoittamiseen oikeuttavasta luvasta 
Lisäajoneuvot käyttöön antavalla liikenteenharjoittajalla on oltava 3 a artiklassa tarkoitettu 
yhteisön liikennelupa. Lisäajoneuvossa on pidettävä oikeaksi todistettua jäljennöstä 
yhteisön liikenneluvasta." 
7 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 6 artikla seuraavasti: 
1) Korvataan 1 kohta seuraavasti: 
"1. Säännöllistä liikennettä koskevat lupahakemukset esitetään sen jäsenvaltion 
toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle, jäljempänä 'lupaviranomainen', jonka alueella lähtöpaikka 
sijaitsee. Säännöllisen liikenteen ollessa kyseessä 'lähtöpaikalla' tarkoitetaan yhtä 
terminaaleista." 
5& 
2) Muutetaan 3 kohta seuraavasti: 
"3. Luvan hakijan on annettava kaikki tärkeinä pitämänsä tai lupaviranomaisen pyytämät 
tiedot ja erityisesti säännöllisen liikenteen toimintasuunnitelma ajo- ja lepoaikoja 
koskevan yhteisön lainsäädännön noudattamiseksi, sekä jäljennös 3 a artiklassa 
tarkoitetusta yhteisön liikenneluvasta toisen lukuun harjoitettavalle kansainväliselle 
maanteiden henkilöliikenteelle. 
8 artikla 
Korvataan asetuksen 684/92 7 artikla seuraavasti: 
"1) Lupa on annettava kaikkien niiden jäsenvaltioiden viranomaisten yhteisellä 
sopimuksella, joiden alueella matkustajia otetaan kyytiin tai jätetään kyydistä. 
Lupaviranomaisen on toimitettava hakemuksen jäljennös ja jäljennökset kaikista muista 
tarpeellisista asiakirjoista sekä oma arvionsa mainituille matkustajille, samoin kuin niiden 
jäsenvaltioiden toimivaltaisille viranomaisille, joiden alueet ylitetään ottamatta matkustajia 
kyytiin tai jättämättä matkustajia kyydistä. 
2) Niiden jäsenmaiden toimivaltaisten viranomaisten, joilta pyydetään suostumusta, on 
ilmoitettava päätöksensä lupaviranomaisille kahden kuukauden kuluessa. Tämä 
määräaika lasketaan lausuntopyynnön vastaanottopäivästä, joka ilmenee 
vastaanottotodistuksesta, joka kyseisten viranomaisten on toimitettava lupaviranomaisille. 
Vastaanottotodistuksen on oltava sellaisen mallin mukainen, jonka komissio on 
vahvistanut jäsenvaltioita kuultuaan. Jos lupaviranomainen ei ole saanut vastaustatämän 
määräajan kuluessa, kyseisten viranomaisten katsotaan antaneen suostumuksensa, ja 
lupaviranomainen antaa luvan. 
Niiden jäsenvaltioiden viranomaiset, joiden alue ylitetään ottamatta matkustajia kyytiin 
tai jättämättä matkustajia kyydistä, voivat ilmoittaa lupaviranomaiselle huomautuksistaan 
ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitetun ajan kuluessa. 
3) Jollei 7 ja 8 artiklasta muuta johdu, lupaviranomaisten on tehtävä päätös hakemuksesta 
kolmen kuukauden kuluessa siitä, kun liikenteenharjoittaja on jättänyt hakemuksen." 
4) Lupa myönnetään, jollei:" 
a) hakija ole kykenemätön harjoittamaan hakemuksen mukaista liikennettä niillä 
välineillä, jotka hänellä on käytössään; 
b) hakija ole aikaisemmin jättänyt noudattamatta kansallisia tai kansainvälisiä 
tieliikennesäännöksiä ja erityisesti kansainvälisen tieliikenteen lupaehtoja ja -vaatimuksia 
tai on vakavasti rikkonut tieturvallisuutta koskevia säännöksiä, erityisesti ajoneuvoja ja 
kuljettajien ajo- ja lepoaikoja koskevia normeja; 
c) lupaehtoja ole jätetty noudattamatta luvan uudistamista haettaessa; 
6% 
d) voida osoittaa, että kyseinen liikenne vaarantaisi suoraan luvan jo saaneen säännöllisen 
liikenteen toiminnan, paitsi niissä tapauksissa, joissa kyseistä säännöllistä liikennettä 
hoitaa vain yksi liikenteenharjoittaja tai liikenteenharjoittajien ryhmä; 
e) osoittaudu, että sellainen liikenne, jota lupa koskee, on tarkoitettu harjoitettavaksi vain 
kaikkein kannattavimmilla yhteyksillä. 
Liikenteenharjoittajan tarjoamat muita maantie- tai rautatieliikenteen harjoittajia alemmat 
hinnat tai se, että joku muu maantie- tai rautatieliikenteen harjoittaja jo harjoittaa 
liikennettä tällä yhteydellä, ei itsessään oikeuta hylkäämään lupaa. 
5) Lupaviranomainen sekä kaikkien niiden jäsenvaltioiden toimivaltaiset viranomaiset, 
joiden on oltava mukana 1 kohdassa tarkoitemssa sopimusmenettelyssä, voivat hylätä 
hakemukset ainoastaan tämän asetuksen mukaisin perustein. 
6) Jos 1 kohdassa tarkoitettu sopimusmenettely ei johda tulokseen, asia voidaan saattaa 
komission käsiteltäväksi neljän kuukauden kuluessa siitä, kun liikenteenharjoittaja on 
jättänyt hakemuksen. 
7) Kuultuaan kyseisiä jäsenvaltioita komissio tekee kymmenen viikon kuluessa päätöksen, 
joka tulee voimaan kolmenkymmenen päivän kuluessa siitä, kun kyseiselle jäsenvaltiolle 
on ilmoitettu asiasta. 
8) Komission päätöstä sovelletaan edelleen, kunnes kyseisten jäsenvaltioiden kesken 
päästään sopimukseen. 
9) Kun tässä artiklassa säädetty menettely on saatettu päätökseen, lupaviranomaisen on 
ilmoitettava päätöksestään kaikille 1 kohdassa tarkoitetuille viranomaisille ja lähetettävä 
heille tarvittaessa jäljennös luvasta; kauttakulkujäsenvaltioiden toimivaltaiset viranomaiset 
voivat ilmoittaa, etteivät he halua tällaisia tietoja." 
9 artikla 
Poistetaan asetuksen 684/92 9 artiklan 4 kohta. 
10 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 III jakson otsikko seuraavasti: 
"Satunnaisliikenne ja muu liikenne, joka ei edellytä lupaa" 
ii 
11 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 11 artikla seuraavasti: 
1) Poistetaan 2 kohdasta seuraava: 
"ja sen käännöksistä". 
2) Poistetaan 3 kohdasta seuraava: 
"ja majoituksen sisältävää edestakaisliikennettä". 
3) Poistetaan 4 kohdan c alakohta. 
12 artikla 
Poistetaan asetuksen 684/92 12 artikla. 
13 artikla 
Poistetaan 13 artiklan 2 kohta. 
14 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 14 artikla seuraavasti: 
1) Poistetaan 1 kohdan ensimmäisestä alakohdasta seuraavat sanat: 
"tai edestakaisliikenteessä". 
2) Poistetaan 1 kohdan viimeisestä luetelmakohdasta seuraava: 
"ja niiden matkustajien osalta, jotka ovat maksaneet majoituksesta, matkan kokonaishinta 
mukaan lukien majoitus, sekä majoitusta koskevat tiedot". 
15 artikla 
Muutetaan asetuksen 684/92 19 artiklan toinen alakohta seuraavasti: 
"Jäsenvaltioiden on toteutettava erityisesti toimenpiteet, jotka koskevat valvontakeinoja 
sekä seuraamusmenettelyä, joita sovelletaan tämän asetuksen säännösten vastaisiin 
rikkomuksiin, ja niiden on toteutettava kaikkia tarvittavia toimenpiteitä näiden säännösten 
täytäntöönpanon varmistamiseksi. Näin säädettyjen seuraamusten on oltava tehokkaita, 
rikkomiseen suhteutettuja ja varoimksenomaisia. Jäsenvaltioiden on ilmoitettava näistä 
säännöksistä komissiolle 31 päivään joulukuuta 1996 mennessä ja kaikista niitä koskevista 
myöhemmistä muutoksista mahdollisimman pian. Niiden on varmistettava, että kaikkia 
toimenpiteitä sovelletaan ilman kansallisuuteen tai liikenteenharjoittajan 
sijoittautumispaikkaan perustuvaa syrjintää." 
8& 
16 artikla 
Kumotaan asemksen 684/92 liite. 
17 artikla 
Jäsenvaltioiden on 31 päivään joulukuuta 1996 mennessä ja neuvoteltuaan komission 
kanssa toteutettava tämän asemksen täytäntöönpanon edellyttämät toimenpiteet ja 
ilmoitettava niistä komissiolle. 
18 artikla 
Komissio antaa neuvostolle ennen 31 päivää joulukuuta 1999 kertomuksen tämän 
asemksen soveltamisesta. 
19 artikla 
Tämä asetus tulee voimaan kolmantena päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu 
Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisessa lehdessä. 
Sitä sovelletaan 1 päivästä kesäkuuta 1996. 
Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa 
jäsenvaltioissa. 
Tehty Brysselissä 
Neuvoston puolesta 
9H 
* LIITE 
EUROOPAN YHTEISÖ 
(a) 
(Sininen kartonki - mitat DIN A4) 
(Liikenneluvan ensimmäinen sivu) 
(Laadittava liikenneluvan antavan jäsenvaltion virallisella kielellä, sen kaikilla 
virallisilla kielillä taikka jollakin niistä) 
Valtion kansainvälinen tunnus3 
Antava jäsenvaltio 
Toimivaltaisen viranomaisen tai toimielimen nimi 
Liikennelupa N:o 
toisen lukuun harjoitettavalle kansainväliselle maanteiden 
henkilöliikenteelle linja-autoilla 
Tämän liikenneluvan haltija4 
saa yhteisön alueella harjoittaa kansainvälistä maanteiden henkilöliikennettä toisen lukuun 16 päivänä 
maaliskuuta 1992 annetussa neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 684/92, sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi 
muutettuna asetuksella .... vahvistettujen edellytysten sekä tässä liikenneluvassa olevien yleisten määräysten 
mukaisesti. 
Huomautuksia: 
Tämä liikennelupa on voimassa -
Annettu 
(paikka) (aika) 
5 
3 Valtion kansainvälinen mnnus: (B) Belgia, (DK) Tanska, (D) Saksa, (GR) Kreikka, (E) 
Espanja, (F) Ranska, (IRL) Irlanti, (I) Italia, (L) Luxemburg, (NL) Alankomaat, (P) 
Portugali, (UK) Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta, (FIN) Suomi, (A) Itävalta, (S) Ruotsi. 
44 Liikenteenharjoittajan nimi tai toiminimi ja täydellinen osoite. 
5 Liikenneluvan antaneen toimivaltaisen viranomaisen tai toimielimen allekirjoitus ja 
10 Jt 
Yleiset määräykset 
1. Tämä liikennelupa annetaan yhteisistä säännöistä harjoitettaessa kansainvälistä 
henkilöliikennettä linja-autoilla annetun neuvoston asemksen 884/92 muuttamisesta 
... annetun neuvoston asemksen ... nojalla. 
2. Tämän liikenneluvan antavat sijoittaummisjäsenvaltion toimivaltaiset viranomaiset 
toisen lukuun toimivalle liikenteenharjoittajalle: 
jolla on oikeus harjoittaa sijoittautumisvaltiossa säännöllistä liikennettä, 
säännöllistä erityisliikennettä tai satunnaisliikennettä linja-autoilla, 
joka täyttää yhteisön säännösten mukaiset edellytykset kansallisen ja 
kansainvälisen maanteiden henkilöliikenteen harjoittajan ammattiin 
pääsystä, 
joka täyttää kuljettajiin ja ajoneuvoihin sovellettavien vaatimusten osalta 
tieliikenneturvallisuutta koskevat säännökset. 
3. Liikennelupa oikeuttaa yhteisön alueella tehtävien matkojen osalta kansainvälisen 
maanteiden henkilöliikenteen harjoittamiseen toisen lukuun kaikilla 
liikenneyhteyksillä: 
joilla lähtö- ja määräpaikka ovat eri jäsenvaltioissa, myös kauttakulkuna 
yhden tai useamman jäsenvaltion tai kolmannen maan kautta, 
joilla lähtöpaikka on jossakin jäsenvaltiossa ja määräpaikka kolmannessa 
maassa tai päinvastoin, myös kauttakulkuna yhden tai useamman 
jäsenvaltion tai kolmannen maan kautta, 
kolmansien maiden välillä kauttakulkuna yhden tai useamman jäsenvaltion 
kautta, 
sekä ajoneuvojen kuljettamiseen tyhjillään näiden kuljetusten yhteydessä 
neuvoston asetuksessa 684/92, sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna asetuksella 
annetuin edellytyksin. 
4. Liikennelupa on henkilökohtainen eikä sitä saa siirtää kolmannelle osapuolelle. 
5. Antavan jäsenvaltion toimivaltainen viranomainen voi peruuttaa liikenneluvan 
erityisesti, jos: 
liikenteenharjoittaja ei täytä kaikkia niitä edellytyksiä, joiden perusteella 
liikennelupa on annettu; 
leima. 
ui 
liikenteenharjoittajan antamat yhteisön liikenneluvan saamiseksi tai 
uudistamiseksi tarvittavat tiedot ovat virheellisiä. 
Liikenneluvan alkuperäiskappaletta säilyttää kuljemsliike. Kansainvälistä 
liikennettä harjoittavassa ajoneuvossa on pidettävä oikeaksi todistettua jäljennöstä 
liikenneluvasta. 
Liikennelupa on esitettävä tarkastusviranomaisen pyynnöstä. 
Liikenneluvan haltijan on noudatettava kussakin jäsenvaltiossa siellä voimassa 
olevia, erityisesti liikennettä ja liikkumista koskevia lakeja, asemksia ja 
hallinnollisia määräyksiä. 
12 i 

ISSN 1024-4492 
KOM(96) 190 lopullinen 
ASIAKIRJAT 
FI 07 11 06 
Luettelonumero : CB-C0-96-198-FI-C 
ISBN 92-78-03191-7 
Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto 
L-2985 Luxemburg 
\b t