Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland'
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Switzerland, axle tax, commercial vehicle, road traffic, road transport, traffic regulations

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland’ (1)

(1999/C 329/01)

On 14 June 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under the second
paragraph of Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 July 1999. The rapporteur
was Mr Kielman.

At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 101 votes to 1.

1.

Introduction

At the Council of Ministers meeting on 30 November
1.1.
and 1 December 1998, a political agreement was hammered
out between Switzerland and the European Community for a
system of rules on the transport of goods and passengers by
rail and road.

1.2.
The text on the transport of goods and passengers is
one of the seven areas on which the EU and Switzerland have
reached agreement. The others are: freedom of movement for
workers, free trade in agricultural products, technical barriers
to trade, access to public or semi-public corporations, the
research market and air transport.

1.3.
Part of the agreement on the transport of goods and
passengers regulates how EU hauliers whose vehicles or vehicle
combinations exceed 28 tonnes maximum total weight are to
be allowed on to Swiss territory. Until now, Switzerland has
not accepted lorries exceeding this weight.

1.4.
The proposal involves granting permits to Member
States for their lorries circulating in Switzerland. The arrange-
ments will run for five years, starting in the year 2000 and
ending on 1 January 2005, when Switzerland will align fully
on EU standards for the weights and dimensions of goods
vehicles.

1.5.
For the year 2000 there will be a total of 250 000 of
these ‘full-weight permits’ available for EU-registered lorries.
For 2001 and 2002 the total will rise to 300 000 and for
2003 and 2004 it will be 400 000.

Permits in the year 2000 will allow lorries to circulate
1.6.
on Swiss territory at weights of over 28 tonnes, whilst permits
for the years 2001 to 2004 will allow lorries of over 34 tonnes.
After 2000, lorries under 34 tonnes will not need a permit to
enter Switzerland. After 1 January 2005 there will be free
access for all lorries up to a maximum weight of 40 tonnes.

(1) OJ C 114 of 27.4.1999, p. 4.

Obviously, the EU maximum weight of 40 tonnes will be in
force throughout the period 2000-2004.

C 329/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

1.7.
During the transitional period the agreement allows a
certain number of permits to be granted to EU hauliers
enabling them to transit Switzerland if their lorries are empty
or are carrying certain specified loads. These are to be known
as ‘empty permits’.

The annual quota of empty permits is fixed at 220 000
1.8.
for 2000-2004. The infrastructure charge for a lorry transiting
Switzerland with such a permit will be CHF 40 in 2000, rising
by CHF 10 per year to CHF 80 in 2004 (see Appendix 1).

1.9.
In Annex III, the Commission describes its method-
ology for determining the allocation of permits to the Member
States. As regards full-weight permits, its proposals are that:

— A basic allocation of 1 500 permits will be made to each

Member State.

— For bilateral traffic, the allocation will be made on the basis
of the shares of heavy vehicles registered in the Member
States in bilateral road transport to and from Switzerland.

— For transit traffic, the allocation will be made on the basis
of the shares of heavy vehicles registered in the Member
States in the total number of diverted kilometres in
North-South transalpine road traffic as a result of the
current weight restrictions in Switzerland.

The Commission proposes carrying out a compre-
1.9.1.
hensive survey in 1999 which will
include details of the
nationality of vehicles and the additional mileage covered
because of diversions; the findings may lead to changes in the
currently recommended allocation. The Commission would
like to submit any proposal on this to the committee which is
to be set up under the regulation.

1.9.2.
The Commission suggests that ‘empty permits’ be
allocated on the basis of the shares of vehicles registered in the
Member States in transit traffic through Switzerland of vehicles
with a laden weight of between 7,5 and 28 tonnes.

2. General comments

The aim of the draft regulation is to allocate permits
2.1.
between all the Member States up to the end of 2004. From
2005 onwards HGVs are to have unlimited access to Swiss
territory, though such access will be subject to high fees (see
Appendix 2). Since the planned transalpine rail tunnels (NEAT)
are not scheduled for completion before 2010, the volume of
diverted traffic will be very high until then, or even afterwards
if necessary. Anyway, the ESC feels that while the rail tunnels

may in themselves be a good option for road transport, use of
the railway must not be imposed through artificial tariff
incentives (1).

2.2.
The Commission’s plan for allocating permits is based
on two factors: (i) the share of each Member State in bilateral
traffic with Switzerland and (ii) their share in transit traffic
through Switzerland.

2.3.
Although the Commission’s methodology is — pro-
visionally — based on statistics on each EU Member State’s
trade with Switzerland, the ESC feels the Commission should
also use transport statistics, which are more reliable for this
purpose than overall trade figures. The ESC regrets that the
Commission has to base its calculations on these trade figures
for the moment, but carefully notes its undertaking to act as
quickly as possible if the 1999 survey shows that permits need
to be allocated differently.

2.4.
The ESC has noted the regrettable, tragic accident that
has led to the closure of the Mont Blanc tunnel for an
unspecified — but certainly long — period.

This has led, among other things,

2.4.1.
to increased
congestion at other border crossings, such as Frejus, which has
hampered the free movement of goods and diminished road
safety. The impact on trade and economic development
throughout the EU and the social consequences for the people
concerned have also been severe.

2.4.2.
this situation would be to:

The ESC thinks that two possible ways of relieving

— allow all HGVs to pass freely through Switzerland until the

permit scheme comes into force; or

— bring forward the date on which HGVs up to 40 tonnes

can transit through Switzerland.

2.4.3.
such an agreement with Switzerland.

The ESC urges the Council/Commission to conclude

2.4.4.
Since the agreement still has to be signed by the
Council, the Committee considers that the measures referred
to in 2.4.2 could be discussed in greater detail.

2.5.
By using trade statistics rather than transport statistics,
the Commission does not take account of vehicles’ nationality,
which will lead to questionable conclusions being drawn when
allocating permits among the Member States. No account
whatsoever is taken of ‘third country traffic’, i.e. transport
between two Member States using a HGV registered in a third

(1) OJ C 116 of 28.4.1999, p. 28.

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/3

Member State. Trade statistics attribute such transport to a
haulier from one of the first two Member States. As a result,
one of these two Member States will be allocated too many
permits — as their traffic share will be over-estimated — while
the third country, which actually performed the transport
operation, will lose out. For some countries such ‘third country
traffic’ represents more than 10 % of
their international
operations, so the trade statistics method may substantially
distort the true state of affairs.

As the number of available HGV permits is limited in
2.6.
comparison with the number of recipient countries,
the
Commission proposes a minimum annual quota of 1 500 for
each Member State.

2.6.1. Moreover, the Member States must return unused
permits to the Commission by 15 November each year for
redistribution.

2.6.2.
The ESC thinks this date should be brought forward,
so that the permits can be actually redistributed. In addition,
the redistribution of permits among the Member States on the
basis of the survey should include the minimum quota of
1 500 permits for each Member State.

2.7.
The Commission uses the same allocation criteria for
bilateral and transit traffic. It proposes to allocate permits
equally to both types. The Commission offers no justification
for this other than a directive from the Council of Ministers.
The ESC accepts this political situation but recommends that a
different allocation policy be adopted if the survey shows that
the actual ratio of bilateral to transit permits is different. Given
the limited number of permits available, they should be used
in the best way possible.

It should also be pointed out here that bilateral traffic
2.7.1.
is considered as a round trip, requiring only one permit, while
two permits are necessary for a two-way transit journey.

2.8.
In order to determine accurately the number of permits
to be allocated to each Member State, it is important to have
information on the nationality of vehicles and on distances
and diverted mileage. The EU Statistical Office can only provide
information on this area and the Commission
piecemeal
therefore says that
it must use an approximation when
allocating shares.

2.9.
The Commission proposes to carry out traffic counting
surveys this year so it can work with more reliable data as
quickly as possible.

2.9.1.
set out in point 1.9.

The parameters to be used by the Commission are

2.9.2.
Traffic will be counted at all the border crossings
with Switzerland, through the Frejus tunnel, the Gotthard
tunnel and the Brenner pass.

2.9.3.
The ESC also assumes that the committee to be set
up under the regulation will include, at least as observers,
representatives of road transport organisations or the IRTU, in
addition to representatives of the Member States and the
Commission.

The ESC can go along with the method proposed by
2.9.4.
the Commission, provided that permits are reallocated among
the Member States as soon as the traffic surveys have been
carried out.

3. Specific comments

Page 3 of

the proposal

(point b) states that

3.1.
the
Commission considers that the share-out of quotas should be
based on the shares of Member States’ hauliers in the total
costs to the Community of the 28-tonne weight limit: i.e. every
from the same percentage
Member State should benefit
reduction in its costs. The ESC would like the Commission to
provide further explanation on this point.

On page 6 of the proposal the Commission estimates
3.2.
that 28 % of total diverted mileage comes from vehicles
registered in Italy. But a very large part of the transalpine
traffic between Italy and Germany goes through the Brenner
pass in Austria.

Can the Commission explain how it arrived at this figure of
28 %?

3.3.
The ESC has strong reservations about the data compi-
lation exercise that the Commission intends to carry out in
order to obtain better transport figures. Does the Commission
intend to take account only of the nationality of the vehicles,
or will it also check whether they are ‘empty’ or ‘loaded’? This
question is very important for deciding what type of permit
should be granted.

2.8.1.
Countries which do have more detailed data consider
this to be extremely unsatisfactory, since the ‘better’ infor-
mation is not taken into account and, in particular, countries
which practise ‘third country transport’ suffer, because trips
are counted in the trade statistics of the supplying country,
and not in the transport statistics of the transporting country.

3.4.
The ESC states categorically that the present method
proposed by the Commission for allocating permits can only
be temporary, since it must perforce be based on trade statistics
instead of transport statistics, a method which may give false
results, especially for countries which are heavily involved in
third country transport.

C 329/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

4. Summing-up and conclusions

The ESC thinks that, in view of the political straitjacket
4.1.
in which the Commission had to draw up the proposal on
allocating permits, it has produced an initial proposal based
on a methodology that is inherently acceptable.

The ESC assumes moreover that as soon as the results
4.2.
of the survey on the nationality of vehicles are available,
permits will actually be redistributed, so as to correct the
injustices mentioned earlier. The ESC feels that this should
apply both to the allocation of permits among the Member
States and to the ratio of bilateral to transit permits.

4.3.
As regards the impact on road transport of the closure
of the Mont Blanc tunnel, the ESC would highlight the social
in particular, of this closure for the other
consequences,
tunnels and border crossings.

Brussels, 22 September 1999.

4.4.
So that the Member States in question suffer no serious
social or economic consequences, the ESC would urge the
Commission, Council and Parliament to do everything in their
power to approve temporary solutions as quickly as possible
and to put pressure on Switzerland using all possible means.

4.5.
The ESC feels that the construction of rail tunnels
through the Alps may in itself be a good option for road
transport, but considers that use of the railway must not be
imposed through artificial tariff incentives (1).

4.6.
The ESC thinks the deadline of 15 November, by which
the Member States are supposed to return unused permits to
the Commission, should be brought forward to allow the
permits to be used during the current year.

(1) OJ C 116 of 28.4.1999, p. 28.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/5

APPENDIX I

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Current charge

The current charge (the ‘Schwerverkehrsabgabe’) payable by laden or empty vehicles with a total authorised weight
exceeding 3,5 tonnes is CHF 25 per day.

APPENDIX II

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Charges after 1 January 2005

The following charges will be payable by HGVs with a maximum total weight of 40 tonnes travelling on the
Basle-Chiasso route.

— if the Lötschberg tunnel is not used, the average charge will be CHF 297,

— this will apply until 2007 at the latest;

— if the Lötschberg tunnel is used, the average charge will be CHF 330 until 2008 at the latest.

Empty vehicles will attract the standard ‘Schwerverkehrsabgabe’.