Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to motor vehicles and their trailers transporting certain animals and amending Directive 70/156/EEC in respect of the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers'
Date: 1997-12-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal welfare, commercial vehicle, motor vehicle, technical specification, transport of animals

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/13

4.11. Preamble 2l

The original text of preamble 21 should be replaced as
follows:

‘Whereas manufacturers or their authorized rep-
resentatives established within the Community who
are responsible for placing products on the Com-
munity market are liable for all aspects of those
products under Community law, including the pro-
visions on product liability in Directive 85/374/EEC,
whereas Community law also recognizes manufac-
turers’ liability for products used by businesses and
other users of telecommunications that are not
natural persons;’.

(This point follows from General Comments 3.9 and
3.10.)

4.12. Proposed new Article 6.4

‘The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the
application in any Member State of the measures
referred to in Article 8 of Directive 89/336/EEC, nor
shall they prevent any redress otherwise available
under Community law against damage or harm to
persons or property caused by equipment which
meets the essential requirements applicable at the
time of first placing on the market.’

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Directive relating to motor vehicles and their trailers transporting certain animals
and amending Directive 70/156/EEC in respect of the type-approval of motor vehicles and
their trailers’

(98/C 73/03)

On 3 July 1997 the European Council decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 December 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Gardner.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 84 votes to two, with three abstentions.

1.

Introduction

and trailers made according to this directive but may
approve units made to national specifications as well.

1.1.
This is a ‘separate directive’ under the framework
type approval Directive 70/l56/EEC. It deals separately
with type approval for complete vehicles, the chassis
(often standard units produced in large runs) and the
specialized bodywork (often small production runs).
Because the proposal covers a wide range of vehicles,
from large multi-deck trucks to small trailers hitched on
to four wheel drive cars, common solutions present a
particular difficulty.

Like most other type approvals it applies optional
1.2.
harmonization — Member States must accept vehicles

This proposal is under Article 100A and deals
1.3.
only with type approval of vehicles and trailers. It does
not deal with the use of these and with actual transport
conditions. These come under Article 43. The Com-
mission was supposed to propose legislation on these
several years ago but now states that it will do so as
soon as the present 100a Directive has been adopted.

C 73/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

‘use’

Community

1.4.
(Directive
91/628/EEC) do not cover farm vehicles and ones used
for journeys under 50 km, consequently vehicles intended
for this purpose should be exempted from this directive.

requirements

2. General comments

This proposal would remove a set of barriers to
2.1.
the single market. The ESC therefore approves the
principle but sees a number of problems with the
execution. These problems are caused by the Com-
mission trying to separate use and construction require-
ments. As an example:

2.1.1.
Simultaneously with this proposal, another
part of the Commission has issued a proposal under
Article 43 (1) giving additional standards for vehicles
transporting animals for over eight hours. This contains
a number of mandatory constructional requirements
such as 200 litre water storage tanks which are not
present in the type specification proposal.

2.1.2.
The effect is that the type specification only
applies to vehicles used for journeys below eight hours.
For all others national specifications will continue to
apply.

2.1.3.
That is an illustration of the problems arising
from trying to separate use and construction specifi-
cations.

Use and construction specifications therefore
2.1.4.
must be concordant and established in parallel. This
also applies to other proposals which we understand are
currently being elaborated.

3. Recommendation by the ESC

3.1.
To be of any real benefit a type specification
must cover at least the majority of vehicles involved.
Given the large range of uses and of climatic conditions
the ESC recommends that this proposal is kept on hold
until the use requirements have been, as soon as possible,
established. It should then be complemented by separate
annexes giving essential type-approval requirements for
vehicles used on long journeys, in extreme climatic
conditions, etc.

(1) COM(97) 272.

4. Detailed comments (the numbers in brackets are

those in the Proposal)

4.1. Annex I — Definitions of type

4.1.1.
approved:

There are four processes that need to be

1) A complete vehicle with bodywork built by one

manufacturer (typically small trailers).

2) A vehicle built in multi-stages by more than one
manufacturer e.g. a specialist body builder making
an animal transport vehicle on a vehicle chassis
made by another manufacturer.

3) A body superstructure (a Separate Technical Unit)

made by a specialist.

4)

Installation of an STU on a vehicle chassis.

4.1.2.
Annex I (4.1.1 and 4.2.1) does not adequately
address these. For example in 4.1.1 ‘number of axles’ is
not relevant to the requirements to transport animals
and should be deleted.

In 4.2.1 why is it necessary to restrict ‘type of
4.1.3.
superstructure’ with construction and design details
such as mass and dimensions when these are not needed
for a ‘type of vehicle’ in 4.1.1?

The ESC recommends that the Commission
4.1.4.
working Group OTA (Operation of Type Approval)
look at Definitions of Type and Annexes V, VI and VII
with a view of harmonizing with existing separate
Directive procedures under 70/156/EEC.

Appendix 1

4.2. General Requirements (0)

4.2.1. C a v i t y w a l l s (0.1.3)

requirement

This
expensive.

is unclear and potentially very

4.2.1.1.
(0.1.3) The ESC understands from the Com-
mission that reference to ‘light metal’ refers to aluminium
alloys though others believe it to be a reference to thin
metal (e.g. light gauge).

The ESC also understands from the Commission that
the purpose of specifying cavity-wall construction is to
achieve thermal insulation in both winter and summer
conditions. Therefore manufacturers should be permit-

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/15

ted to use other forms of construction which can achieve
thermal effects equivalent to cavity-wall construction
using aluminium whilst at the same time satisfying the
relevant strength requirements.

Cavity-wall construction could present hygiene prob-
lems if one layer is punctured and debris, excreta, etc.
get in between the layers.

4.3. Ventilation (0.4)

4.3.1. Neither this section nor the additional venti-
lation requirements address the use of the unit on Ro-Ro
ferries, where there are no natural draughts. This point
is however covered by the construction requirements of
the rival Proposal COM(97) 272. Here we have a good
illustration of points 2.1.1 and 3.1.

4.7. Sick animals

On short journeys, effluent from sick animals can be
absorbed satisfactorily by using litter. There may need
to be constructional solutions for longer journeys.

5. Additional requirements

5.1. Ventilation apertures (1.3.3-1.5.3)

The ESC doubts whether all ventilation apertures need
to be capable of being closed weather tight. Overheating
is often a problem.

4.4.

Intermediate floors (0.1)

5.2. Floors, side and front walls (1.1.1 to 5.1.1 and

1.2.1 to 5.2.1)

H e i g h t a d j u s t a b l e i n t e r m e d i a t e f l o o r s
(0.7.1)

Automatic locking devices can be dangerous in the
event of malfunction. In practice, conventional manual
systems, which can only be operated from outside,
remain safer. Remote-control floor adjustment systems
are also inadvisable since, although easy to use, they
may be operated from inside, with all the attendant
hazards.

4.5.

Inspection (0.9)

4.5.1.
This vague requirement is probably adequate
for small trailers towed by FWD cars. For large vehicles
covering long distances however other points need to be
covered such as:

— layout suitable for ready inspection;

— access and removal of sick animals;

The figures given in these sections do not appear to be
internally consistent. The ESC understands they are
based on a Swedish standard. The ESC is not competent
to evaluate whether they are correct and proposes they
are examined by a relevant technical committee.

5.3. Ramps (1.5.3-5.5.3)

The maximum incline has been set at 25(cid:176)
throughout.
This is probably the best compromise between the
requirements of animal welfare and of vehicle construc-
tion.

5.3.1. However 20o should be the maximum for pigs
and these should be loaded on level platforms where
possible. On the other hand goats and sheep can perfectly
well cope with 30o. Provision should be made for these
differences in the directive, especially for smaller vehicles
and trailers. For the latter 25o may not always be
possible.

— provisions for dealing with dangerous animals (bulls

and boars).

5.3.2. S t e p s (1.5.1 to 5.5.1)

4.5.2.
proposal COM(97) 272 final.

These again are partly covered by the rival

100 mm step heights are unnecessarily low, 200 mm is
the norm. By allowing higher steps, ramp lengths will
be reduced enabling easier handling and stowage.

4.6. Lighting (0.10)

Here and throughout the general requirements, more
detailed guidance should be provided to avoid large
interpretation by national approval
differences of
authorities.

5.3.3. T r e a d s (1.5.3 to 5.5.3)

Bars not more than 100 mm apart could trap the hooves
of animals, spacing of 200-250 mm is more realistic.

C 73/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

6. Height limitation

7.

Impact statement

Appendix 2, Addendum, 1.6 and Annex VII, 1.1.2

There is already Community legislation in place concern-
ing masses and dimensions of vehicles in Community
traffic. It is not appropriate or necessary to repeat part
of these in this separate directive which is under
Article 100A and does not control the use of vehicles.

This is very unsatisfactory and inadequate. Small and
medium-size companies are very much involved. The
extra complications of this proposal are likely to affect
productivity and the social partners should have been
consulted.

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Decision amending the Decision of 19 December 1996 adopting an action
programme for customs in the Community — “Customs 2000”’

(98/C 73/04)

On 26 September 1997, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 December 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Giesecke.

At its 350th plenary session held on 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 101 votes to two, with six
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. Measures proposed by the Commission

1.1.
The proposal for a decision seeks to increase the
funding available for the action programme for customs
in the Community (‘Customs 2000’) for the period
1998-2000. The Committee endorsed the action pro-
gramme in an opinion adopted in September 1995 (1).

1.2.
The primary source of funding for the action
programme is the IDA programme. As the latter expires
on 31 December 1997 and the ‘Customs 2000’ programme
is set to run until the end of the year 2000, suitable
additional funding is, however, required to cover the
period 1998-2000.

2.1.
The Commission therefore proposes to amend
the financial framework of Decision No 210/97/EC (2)
so as to cover the period 1998-2000, too.

It is proposed that funding for computerization
2.2.
under the ‘Customs 2000’ programme be set at ECU
58 million, rather than the figure of ECU 23 million
stipulated hitherto.

3. Comments by the ESC

3.1.

The ESC supports the Commission proposal.

(1) OJ C 301, 13.11.1995.

(2) OJ L 33, 4.2.1997, p. 24.