Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98
Date: 2001-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export policy, free movement of goods, import policy, single market, strike, trade restriction

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 22.3.2001
COM(2001) 160 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98

LIST OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3

General framework ...................................................................................................... 3

Context and objectives.............................................................................................. 3

The provisions set out in the Regulation ................................................................... 4

The undertakings listed in the Resolution.................................................................. 5

3.

Implementation of the regulation and the resolution..................................................... 6

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

By the Commission .................................................................................................. 6

By the Court ............................................................................................................. 6

By the Member States .............................................................................................. 7

4.

Application of the regulation........................................................................................ 8

4.1.

4.2.

Cases of application.................................................................................................. 8

Findings ................................................................................................................... 8

5.

Assessment ................................................................................................................ 10

5.1.

5.2.

The weaknesses of the Regulation .......................................................................... 10

Opinions on the Commission's action ..................................................................... 10

6.

Main issues and avenues for further reflection on improving the regulation ............... 11

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

The importance of the political aspect..................................................................... 11

Limits to intervention by the Commission and the Member States .......................... 12

Conclusions: three possible scenarios ..................................................................... 13

6.3.1. Maintaining the status quo...................................................................................... 13

6.3.2. A more dynamic approach in applying the Regulation and compliance with the

Resolution .............................................................................................................. 14

6.3.3. Amendment of the Regulation to extend and improve its scope .............................. 14

ANNEXES

2

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.

INTRODUCTION

Two years after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7
December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free
movement of goods among the Member States (hereinafter referred to as "the
Regulation")1, the time has come to assess progress in its application in the light of
the experience gained.

In so doing, the Commission is thus responding to the invitation which the Council
and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the
Council had addressed to it in their Resolution adopted on the very day of the
adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 (hereinafter
referred to as "the
Resolution")2.

2.

GENERAL FRAMEWORK

2.1.

Context and objectives

• The European Council in Amsterdam on 16 and 17 June 1997 noted the limits to
the infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC in the case of serious
It
obstacles to the free movement of goods requiring urgent
underlined the crucial importance of establishing ad hoc procedures capable of
responding rapidly and effectively to the restrictions on the free movement of
goods resulting from such obstacles. The European Council therefore asked the
Commission to look into ways of ensuring effectively the free movement of
goods, including the possibility of imposing penalties on the Member States.

rectification.

• In response to this remit, the Commission presented to the Council and the
European Parliament, on 18 November 1997, a proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) setting up a specific mechanism for rapid intervention by the Commission3.
Under this mechanism, the Commission would have requested the Member State
concerned, by means of a Decision, to take the measures necessary to remove a
clear and unmistakable obstacle to the free movement of goods within the
meaning of Articles 28 to 30 EC. Individuals could have had the Decision rapidly
enforced before the national courts and could, by means of national redress, have
to
obtained provisional measures, combined with penalty payments or fines,

1

2

3

OJ L 337 of 12.12.1998, p. 8.
OJ L 337 of 12.12.1998, p. 10.
Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) creating a mechanism whereby the Commission can intervene
in order to remove certain obstacles to trade. COM (97) 619 final – 97/0330 (CNS), OJ C 10 of
15.1.1998, p. 14.

3

prevent extension or aggravation of the obstacle, to end the alleged infringement
and, if appropriate, obtain compensation for the loss suffered.

• This proposal was not accepted by the Council4, which preferred a compromise

solution consisting of two components:

–

–

a Regulation5 based on three approaches: an early warning mechanism in
the event of an obstacle or the risk of an obstacle, an obligation on the
Member States to take the necessary and proportionate measures needed
to ensure the free movement of goods, and Commission action notifying
the Member States and urging them to take such measures; and

a Resolution6 reaffirming the Member States' undertaking to respond
rapidly to any move by the Commission and to ensure compensation for
losses incurred by individuals.

• The European Parliament held several debates on the scope of the Regulation, its
value added and its impact on the right to strike. It proposed three amendments7,
one of which was accepted by the Council8.

• While the discussions were being held in the Council and the Parliament, the
Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereinafter referred to as "the
Court") handed down a judgment relating to serious obstacles to the free
movement of goods9. In that judgment, the Court found that a Member State was
failing to comply with the obligations deriving from Article 28 EC, in conjunction
with Article 10 EC, "since the measures adopted to deal with actions by private
individuals which create obstacles to the free movement of certain [...] products
[...] were manifestly inadequate to ensure freedom of intra-Community trade in
[...] products on its territory by preventing and effectively dissuading the
perpetrators of the offences in question from committing and repeating them10”

• More recently, the Court has been asked for a preliminary ruling on a national
dispute involving an application for compensation for losses suffered as a result of
the blocking of a motorway by a demonstration authorised by the authorities of a
Member State11.

2.2.

The provisions set out in the Regulation

• Article 1 of the Regulation defines the obstacles to the free movement of goods on
which its application is based. They must be likely to constitute a breach of
Articles 28 to 30 EC12, lead to serious disruption of the free movement of goods,

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Cf. opinion of the Council's legal service of 4 February 1998, 5731/98 JUR 53.
Annex to 9348/98 MI 66.
Annexe to 8902/98.
12752/98 PE-RE 76.
An amendment to the wording of Article 5(5) of the Regulation.
Judgment of the Court of 9 December 1997, Commission/France (C-265/95, Rec. p. I-6959), hereinafter
referred to as the "strawberries" judgment.
Cf. summary of the judgment.
Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Int. Transporte / Austria.
The Regulation thus applies only to intra-Community trade, and not to trade in goods between Member
States and third countries, which is governed by the relevant international agreements (in particular the

4

cause serious loss to the individuals affected and require immediate action in
order to prevent any continuation, increase or intensification of the disruption or
loss in question. It is immaterial whether the obstacles are the result of action or
inaction by a Member State, since the latter is defined according to the terms of
the aforementioned case law of the Court.

• Article 2 of the Regulation makes it clear, however, that it does not affect the

exercise of fundamental rights, including the right to strike.

• The warning mechanism is defined in Article 3 of the Regulation. It must be
implemented in the event of an obstacle or the threat of an obstacle and involves
the Member States transmitting information to the Commission which the latter
passes on to all the other Member States.

• Article 4 of the Regulation requires the Member States, in the event of an
the free
to take all necessary and proportionate measures so that
obstacle,
movement of goods between Member States is assured in its territory, and to
inform the Commission of such measures.

• Where an obstacle occurs, the Commission must, pursuant to Article 5 of the
Regulation, notify the Member State concerned of the reasons for its action and
request
to take the necessary and proportionate measures to remove the
obstacle. This notification may be published in the OJEC and is transmitted to any
party which requests it.

it

2.3.

The undertakings listed in the Resolution

• The Member States undertook to maintain the free movement of goods and to deal
rapidly with the obstacles defined in the Regulation, to inform their economic
operators in this respect,
to ensure that rapid and effective procedures are
available to compensate any person who has been harmed as a result of such
obstacles, and to take the necessary steps to have the matter discussed swiftly
within the Council, should the circumstances warrant this.

• The Council and the Member States took note of the tight deadlines for
infringement proceedings in cases falling within the scope of the Regulation and
of the fact that the time set by the Commission for submission of observations
may be as short as five working days, as may also the time for response to a
reasoned opinion.

• The Council invited the Court to consider whether cases within the scope of the
Regulation could be expedited and indicated its readiness to examine urgently and
with an open mind any proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Justice.

association agreements and the GATT)).
In this context, it should be noted that the extension of the Regulation to the entire territory of the
European Economic Area has still to be the subject of a Decision by the Joint Committee of the
European Economic Area.

5

3.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATION AND THE RESOLUTION

3.1.

By the Commission

• In order to ensure a rapid response, processing of cases falling within the scope of
the
the Regulation has been centralised in one Directorate-General of
Commission13 That Directorate-General
is responsible for coordinating the
application of the Regulation with the other associated departments of the
Commission (Agriculture, Fisheries, Enterprise, Transport, Legal Service,
Employment and Social Affairs).

• In April 1999, the Commission invited the Member States to designate contact
points so that the network thus established14 could ensure the rapid transmission
of the information submitted under the early warning mechanism set up by the
Regulation. The Commission also expressed its wish for such information to be
transmitted to it by fax or electronically, in order to avoid the situation arising
where letters arrive only after disappearance of the obstacle had disappeared. This
wish was received favourably by the Member States. The same applies to the
requests for information sent by the Commission to the contact points in the
Member States.

• The information exchanged between the Commission and the Member States
through the early warning mechanism was initially transmitted to all the Member
States and distributed within the Commission by fax and, as from 2000, on the
basis of an electronic distribution list.

• The Commission has worked to arrive at a common interpretation of the
provisions of the Regulation throughout the Member States. To this end, at a
meeting with the Member States15, a working document was distributed on the
experience acquired in applying the Regulation, together with a questionnaire on
various aspects relating to application of the Regulation.

• With regard to the notification provided for under Article 5 of the Regulation, the
Commission noted that this is an act which must be adopted by the College. In
principle, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission16 do not stand in the way of
the rapid adoption of such an act. If actual practice, of which there is as yet none,
shows this not to be the case, there would be grounds for looking into an
adaptation of the internal rules of the Commission, while informing the Council in
accordance with the provisions of point 5 of the Resolution.

3.2.

By the Court

• On 4 July 2000, the Court presented to the Council a proposal for amendments to
its Rules of Procedure17, one of the aims of which is to introduce an expedited
procedure for
for preliminary rulings. The Court
recognises that this expedited procedure applies only to disputes involving the

references to the Court

13

14

15

16

17

Internal Market Directorate-General
Cf. Annex 1.
Meeting of the chairmen of the "Internal Market package" meetings held in Brussels on 13 April 2000
OJ L 308 of 8.12.2000, p. 26.
http://europa.eu.int/cj/en/txts/propositions/txt5a.pdf

6

application of the Regulation in which a swift decision on the existence of an
obstacle to the free movement of goods in a Member State is required. According
to the Court, "Under the provision proposed [...], the procedure is to be expedited
by attaching greater importance to the oral stage of the proceedings, which will
become obligatory, and by limiting the written procedure to a single exchange of
written pleadings between the parties".

• With the unanimous approval of the Council having been given on 16 November
2000, the amendments to the Rules of Procedure were adopted by the Court on 28
November 200018.

3.3.

By the Member States

• Cooperation between the Member States and the Commission has been of limited
effectiveness as regards setting up the network of contact points and responding to
the questionnaire on seeking to arrive at a common interpretation of the
Regulation.

• The process of designating contact points was lengthy, and certain Member States
(Belgium and Ireland) never set them up. Moreover, when a designated contact
point ceases to function, the Member States do not immediately appoint a new
one.

• The questionnaire mentioned above produced no response from several Member
States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands).

• Nor have the Member States communicated to the Commission the arrangements
for implementing the undertakings assumed in the Resolution. In particular, on the
basis of the information available to the Commission, there have been difficulties
in transmitting the content of the information exchanged under the early warning
mechanism to the economic operators, who also consider
the national
compensation procedures, where they exist, to be very lengthy and complicated19.

• Nevertheless, the "Transport" Council of 20 September 2000 confirmed "the need,
in the event of obstruction of traffic in a Member State, for an effective
mechanism allowing undertakings, the public, the Commission and the other
Member States to be immediately informed and specific measures to be taken to
remedy such situations, taking into account the arrangements that have existed
since 1998".

18

19

OJ L 322 of 19.12.2000, p. 1.
Common position of the International Road Transport Union , UNICE and the European Shipowners'
Council, transmitted to the Commission on 1 December 2000.

7

4.

APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION

4.1.

Cases of application

• The Regulation was applied four times in 1999 and 18 times in 200020. Only the
early warning mechanism was used in those cases, as it has never proved
necessary to notify the Commission under the terms of Article 5 of the Regulation
in view of the short duration of the incidents concerned.

• Most of the cases concerned blockades of roads in one or other Member State.
Apart from a request for information addressed to all Member States on the
occasion of the day of action by road hauliers in Europe on 5 October 1999, the
early warning mechanism was activated for road blockades occurring in the
following Member States: Belgium and France (three times each), Austria, Spain,
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. Intervention was also required
four times for blockades of ports (Spain, France, Greece and Ireland). In addition,
air traffic restrictions were the subject of requests for information from France and
Italy.

• To these cases must be added two more special cases concerning the interception
and destruction of the loads of Spanish trucks in France and Portugal. Finally,
Belgium asked the Commission to apply the Regulation on the occasion of the
restrictions on Belgian products in certain Member States during the dioxin crisis
of 1999.

4.2.

Findings

• Only Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain communicated to the
Commission, under Article 3(1)(a) of the Regulation, information which they held
on any obstacle or the threat of an obstacle; in most cases, no information was
transmitted. The ignoring of this provision by Member States is all the more
disturbing in that such information was frequently public knowledge several days
before the obstacle materialised21.

• Where this information was sent to the Commission, it generally arrived too late
to justify any action by the Commission, as the obstacle had meanwhile
disappeared. The only exceptions to this tendency were the information sent by
Austria about the blockade of the Brenner motorway in June 2000, and by
Luxembourg about the blockade of its frontiers on the occasion of the "Transport"
Council in September 2000.

• The information transmitted by the Member States to the Commission under
Article 3(1)(a) and 3(2) of the Regulation raised the question of the confidentiality
of any data it might contain,
information reflected
complaints by identifiable economic operators, since the Commission has to
transmit this information to the other Member States.

in particular whether

20

21

Cf. list attached.
For instance, the announcements of road blockades during the protests against the 35-hour week or
against fuel price increases.

8

• After examining this question with the contact points in the Member States
concerned, it was established that the role of the Commission was limited to that
of an intermediary, with no involvement
in the content of the information
transmitted by the Member State concerned, which remained wholly responsible
for the consequences of divulging confidential data. The Member States approved
this finding at the meeting of 13 April 2000. The Commission therefore limited
itself to forwarding the information in its original form.

• The deadlines set by the Commission for the Member States to reply to its
requests for information varied from case to case. In most cases, it was 48 hours.
The deadline was set at 24 hours in particularly serious or urgent cases.

• The responses to requests for information seldom arrived within the deadline set.
The delays ranged from several hours to several days. Reminders had to be sent in
two cases (one each for France and Italy). The most serious failure occurred in the
case of the day of action by road hauliers in October 1999: only 7 Member States
(Austria, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain) replied to
the request for information sent to all Member States.

• As regards the content of the information, it must be said that the quality of the
responses received by the Commission varies considerably from one Member
State to another, and from one case to another. While some Member States
transmit detailed information and update it as the situation concerned by the
request evolves, other Member States send only laconic and brief replies. In such
cases, it has been necessary to send requests for further information (France and
Italy).

• Thanks to the introduction of an electronic distribution system, the Commission
has ensured the rapid transmission of the information exchanged under the early
warning mechanism. However, the Commission has never been informed of the
action taken in response to this information transmitted by the Member States.

• The Commission has established that, in most cases, the Member States have not
made provision for taking measures, in the event of an obstacle, to restore as soon
as possible the free movement of goods in their territory in order to avoid the risk
that the disruption or loss in question will continue, increase or intensify and that
there may be a breakdown in trade and in the contractual relations which underlie
it22. They have negotiated the removal of the obstacle itself in a more global
framework23, without at the same time ensuring the free movement of goods in
their territory.

22

23

Cf. recital 8 of the Regulation.
It should be noted that some of the measures taken may prove to be contrary to Community rules, in
particular as regards State aid.
In this respect, it must be stressed that the measures which the Member States are called upon to adopt
under the Regulation must comply with Community law. A Member State cannot therefore cite its
obligations under the Regulation in order to justify measures which run counter to Community law.

9

5.

ASSESSMENT

5.1.

The weaknesses of the Regulation

• As regards the information obligations of the Member States, no penalty is
provided for by the Regulation when a Member State which holds information on
an obstacle does not communicate it to the Commission under Article 3(1)(a) of
the Regulation, either in the event of the threat of an obstacle or where it has
materialised and/or is continuing. Nor is any penalty provided for in the absence
of a reply to a request from the Commission for information under Article 3(2) of
the Regulation or of a notification under Article 5 of the Regulation. Finally,
when a Member State takes the measures needed to ensure the free movement of
goods but omits to inform the Commission under Article 4(2), the Regulation
does not provide for any penalty for this absence of information.

• In general terms, monitoring Member States' compliance with their obligations as
regards both informing the Commission and taking the necessary and
proportionate steps to ensure the free movement of goods in the event of an
obstacle should be enshrined, at the very least, in the Regulation. As things stand,
is materialising or has
the obstacle is imminent,
depending on whether
materialised, and on the type of obligation incumbent on the Member State, the
provision applying is either Article 5 of the Regulation or Article 226 EC.
However, the scope of Article 5 is currently too limited, since it can be applied
only when the obstacle is in place.

• The definition of the scope of the Regulation, as set out in Article 1, is abstract
and open to varying interpretations. Moreover, the Regulation does not specify the
type and nature of the necessary and proportionate measures which the Member
State must take to ensure the free movement of goods in the event of an obstacle.
This question is of major importance, as the Commission has to assess whether
such measures are proportionate, while taking account of two elements: the choice
of measures is a matter for the Member States24 and the Commission has to
monitor whether the Member State is taking all the necessary and proportionate
measures.

• The Regulation does not effectively resolve the question of speedy and effective
complaint procedures for compensating the economic operators, as
such
compensation is governed the national law of the Member States, while respecting
Community law and the undertakings embodied in the Resolution.

5.2.

Opinions on the Commission's action

• The Member States and the European Parliament have always targeted the
Commission when there were obstacles within the meaning of the Regulation.
Parliamentary questions25 and letters to the Commission have called on it to take
firmer action. There are three strands of opinion:

24

25

Cf. recital 6 of the Regulation.
P-0153/00, P-0168/00, P-0331/00, P-0347/00, P-0370/00, P-0413/00 and P-2422/00

10

–

–

–

The first merely calls for stricter application of the Regulation as it
currently stands (swift despatch of notifications, activation of the ex-
Article 226 procedure for failure to cooperate on the part of the Member
States, etc.).

The second appears to disregard the fact that the Commission has only
limited means of action and proposes, sometimes in emotive terms, that it
intervene on the site of the obstacle, impose penalties on the Member
State where the obstacle occurs, and itself call for compensation.

The third recommends that the Regulation should be amended to give the
Commission more powers.

• In contrast to the above current of opinion, there are those who consider that, by
merely sending a request for information under the early warning mechanism, the
Commission is already interfering excessively in the existence and exercise of the
right to strike, as recognised in the Member States - as witnessed by the questions
put by some Members of the European Parliament26.

• The Commission is also targeted by individuals affected by obstacles. The fact is
that the Member States have not put in place effective compensation procedures
as they undertook to do in the Resolution. This means that compensation is
governed by common law, which requires proof of the existence of an obstacle
and of damage caused by the obstacle, and this is difficult to establish. That is
why the individuals and businesses affected continue to turn to the Commission in
this regard.

6.

MAIN ISSUES AND AVENUES FOR FURTHER REFLECTION ON IMPROVING THE
REGULATION

6.1.

The importance of the political aspect

Businesses and the public in Europe continue to appreciate the advantages of the
internal market, since it plays a crucial role in the general strategy of the European
Union aimed at fostering competitiveness, economic growth and employment.

However, as the Council and the Member States reiterated in the Resolution, "Severe
obstacles to the free movement of goods impose significant economic costs on
individuals, obstruct modern distribution and production methods [... and ...] cast
strong doubt on the credibility of the Single Market, the effective functioning of
which has become increasingly important in view of the Economic and Monetary
Union and enlargement".

Community intervention to deal with such obstacles is thus of
fundamental
importance and requires maximum cooperation between the Commission and the
Member States.

26

H-0708/99, P-3079/00 and H-0877/00

11

6.2.

Limits to intervention by the Commission and the Member States

The experience gained in applying the Regulation has shown its limits. Although it is
an instrument born of political will, the Member States have not given it any teeth by
including effective means of intervention in the text.

• It has to be noted that the Commission does not itself have the necessary means to
remove the obstacles. This is the task of the Member States, which are
responsible, under the supervision of the Commission and the Court, for choosing
the most appropriate measures in each individual case.
In this context,
considerations of the maintenance of public order, safeguarding internal security
and the exercise of fundamental rights27 play a crucial role.

• When an obstacle arises, the Regulation only allows the Commission, apart from
making the request for information under Article 3, to send the notification under
Article 5 and to publish it in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
When the obstacle is of short duration and has come to an end, even this
possibility does not exist.

• In any event, if the Member State in question has not taken the necessary and
proportionate measures to ensure the free movement of goods while the obstacle
was arising, the Commission can initiate infringement proceedings against it.
However, this procedure is based directly on Article 226 of the Treaty and not on
the Regulation. The Commission could therefore, on the basis of this provision,
also initiate infringement proceedings against Member States which are not
complying with their obligation of informing the Commission under the various
provisions of the Regulation.

to provide

However, experience has shown that initiating infringement proceedings under the
Regulation (obligations
information and to respond to the
Commission's request and obligation to take steps to ensure the free movement of
goods) runs into difficulties when the situation which gave rise to the obstacle has
disappeared. These difficulties arise from the legal uncertainty as to the case law
of the Court. On the one hand, as regards the active behaviour of the Member
States, the Court has considered that infringement proceedings are inadmissible if
the infringement has already come to an end and there is no longer any dispute
between the Commission and the Member State concerned28. On the other hand,
as regards omissions or failure to take action on the part of the Member States, the
Court has established infringements with regard to past events, even when the
Member State had subsequently remedied the situation, since the steps which the
Member State was supposed to take had not been taken in good time29.

Whatever the case, the final outcome of such a procedure can never go beyond a
judgement of the Court establishing the past infringement by the Member State

27

28

29

On this point, the Commission draws attention to the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union, Article 28 of which recognises the right of workers and employers, in accordance
with Community law and national legislation, to take collective action in defence of their interests,
including the right to strike.
See judgment of the Court of 31 March 1992 Commission v. Italy (C-362/90, ECR p. I-2353).
See,
published in the Reports

in particular, the judgment of 1 February 2001, Commission v. France (C-333/99, not yet

12

concerned - a judgement which will always take some time to reach, even though
the procedures before the Commission and the Court are being considerably
shortened.

• Nor is the Commission in a position to demand that the damage suffered by
individuals
in the event of an obstacle be compensated. Under certain
circumstances, such compensation is the logical consequence of failure to comply
with the provisions of Community law, even if this has not been established by
the procedures to be applied for demanding such
the Court. However,
law of the Member States. The
compensation are governed by the national
for cases covered by the
Member States have undertaken to ensure that,
Regulation,
the economic
operators are informed of them. However, the operators still complain that the
procedures are too long and complicated, and that compensation is limited to
operators blockaded on the territory of the Member State concerned and does not
cover those who, as a result of the obstacle, were prevented from entering its
territory30. Moreover, when operators encounter
short-lived
obstacles, they prefer not to embark upon lengthy procedures where the damage
suffered in each specific case is not insurmountable (although it may become so if
all obstacles are taken as a whole).

these procedures are rapid and effective, and that

repeated but

• In view of this situation, the despatch by the Commission of a notification to the
Member State concerned and its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities may prove useful for economic operators in their cases
before the national courts, while not in any way directly resolving all their
problems.

6.3.

Conclusions: three possible scenarios

6.3.1. Maintaining the status quo

Economic operators recognise that the information exchange system, as enshrined in
the Regulation and the Resolution, has on the whole functioned fairly well over the
last two years. However, there are doubts about the real effectiveness of these two
legal instruments in preventing or eliminating obstacles. The only thing that can be
established is the existence of short-lived obstacles.

The Commission feels
the existing legal
cooperation with the Member States at several levels:

that

framework requires genuine

– prompt information on the threat of obstacles,

– detailed and prompt responses to the Commission's requests for information, and

– the adoption, on an ad hoc basis, of supporting measures to restore the free
movement of goods as soon as possible on their territory, in order to avoid the risk
that the disruption or loss in question will continue, increase or intensify and that
there may be a breakdown in trade and in the contractual relations which underlie
it.

30

The Court should investigate the questions relating to the procedural rules for the responsibility
requirement in the aforementioned and pending Eugen Schmidberger case.

13

The Commission considers that the Member States are directly responsible for
improving this cooperation.

6.3.2.

A more dynamic approach in applying the Regulation and compliance with the
Resolution

Without having to amend the existing legal framework, the Commission could take
the following initiatives:

• Adoption of a vade-mecum intended for the Member States and economic
operators, explaining and setting out the obligations laid down by the Regulation.

• Establishment of an ad hoc system of regular information for the Council and the
European Parliament on the course of each case of application of the Regulation.

• Use of existing structures at Community level, such as the social dialogue

committees31

• Raising awareness in the media and amongst economic operators, in particular

through the creation of a specific Internet site.

• In order to maintain the main thrust of the Regulation, initiation of infringement
proceedings on the basis of Article 226 EC against Member States infringing one
of the provisions of the Regulation32.

6.3.3.

Amendment of the Regulation to extend and improve its scope

In view of the unanimity rule governing any amendment to the Regulation, a broad
political consensus is required if the Commission is to be given effective means
commensurate with the Member States' determination to eliminate serious obstacles
to the free movement of goods effectively. The Commission intends to examine
certain developments which would lead to an amendment to the Regulation to
improve its operation:

• Elimination of any ambiguity in the definition of obstacles requiring rapid

intervention under the Regulation.

• An illustrative list of the necessary and proportionate supporting measures to
restore as soon as possible the free movement of goods in the territory of the
Member States, in order to avoid the risk that the disruption or loss in question
will continue, increase or intensify and that there may be a breakdown in trade
and in the contractual relations which underlie it.

• An extension of the scope of Article 5 of the Regulation to include situations
which are not currently covered, and in particular the failure to comply with the
information obligation incumbent on the Member States in the case of an obstacle.

31

32

Cf. Commission Decision 98/500/EC of 28 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue
Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level (OJ L 225 of
12.8.1998, p. 27).
I.e. failure to comply with the information obligations and failure to take the supporting measures
needed to ensure the free movement of goods.

14

• The introduction of an accelerated procedure for bringing proceedings before the
Court of Justice in the absence of a reply from a Member State to a notification
under Article 5 of the Regulation, along the lines suggested by the Commission in
its proposal33.

• The insertion of a provision in the Regulation requiring Member States to adopt
swift and effective ways and means of compensating individuals damaged by an
obstacle.

* * *

The Commission invites the Council and the European Parliament to take note of this
report.

33

Cf. footnote on page 3.

15

ANNEX 1

NATIONAL CONTACT POINT

PR CONTACT POINT **

Germany

Mr Wolfgang GERSTMANN (BWT)
Fax : +49-30-20147045

Mr Christoph PAPE
Fax : +32-2-2381978

Austria

Mr Othmar HORVATH (BWA)
Fax :
Othmar.Horvath@bmwa.gv.at

Mr Robert PROCHAZKA
Fax : +32-2-2356100
Robert.Prochazka@bmwa.gv.at

Belgium *

Mr Frank VANDE CRAEN (MAE)
Fax : +32-2-5143067

Fax : +32-2-2311075

Denmark

Mr Keld DYBKJAER (ATI)
Fax : +45-35-466001
kd@efs.dk

Fax : +32-2-2309384

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Mr Cristóbal GONZÁLEZ-ALLER (MAE)
Fax : +34-91-3798306
Cristobal.gonzalez-aller@sepeue.mae.es

Mr Miguel Angel NAVARRO
Fax : +32-2-5111940

Mr Eero MANTERE (MTI)
Fax : +358-9-1604022
Eero.mantere@ktm.vn.fi

Mrs Anne Florence POULIGO (SGCI)
Fax : +33-1-44871293
anne-florence.pouligo@sgci.finances.gouv.fr

Mr Antti RIIVARI
Fax : +32-2-2878681
Antti.riivari@formin.fi

Fax : +32-2-2298282

Mr Fotis SPATHOPOULOS (MEN)
Fax : +30-1-3332341

Fax : +32-2-5515651

Ireland *

Mr Michael GREENE (DETE)
Fax : +353-1-6312826

Italy

Mrs Giuseppina VALENTE (PCM)
Fax : +39-06-6991435
Info@politichecomunitarie.it

Luxembourg Mr Nicolas MACKEL (MAE)

Fax : +3524782329
Nicolas.mackel@mae.etat.lu

Netherlands Mr G. Th. MICHELS (MBZ)

Fax : +31-70-3484086
Gth.michels@minbuza.nl

Portugal

United
Kingdom

Sweden

Instituto Portugues da Qualidade
Fax : +351-21-2948223
Reg2679@mail.ipq.pt

Mrs Julie EVANS (DTI)
Fax : +44-171-2154720
julie.evans@eirv.dti.gov.uk

Kommerscollegium
Fax : +46-8-200324
Registrator@kommers.se

Fax : +32-2-2303203

Mr Carlo PRESENTI
Fax : +32-2-2200483
Normtec@rpue.it

Mr Jean OLINGER
Fax : +32-2-7375610
Jean.olinger@rpue.etat.lu

Mr Matthijs VAN MILTTENBURG
Fax : +32-2-6791775
Matthijs.vmiltenburg@senc.minvenw.nl

Fax : +32-2-2310026

Mr Stuart GILL
Fax : +32-2-2878395
Stuart.gill@ukrep.mail.fco.gov.uk

Fax : +32-2-2895600

*

**

If no contact point is indicated, correspondence should be addressed to the Chairman of the package meeting

If no contact point is indicated, correspondence should be addressed to the switchboard of the Permanent Representation

16

ANNEX 2

1999/I

Blockade of certain highways in Belgium as a result of action by road hauliers (4 June 1999)
The Commission, informed by the Member State concerned, asked for further information. The
response indicated that the blockade had finished

1999/II Blockade of certain highways in Belgium as a result of action by farmers during the dioxin crisis

(10 June 1999)
As above.

1999/III Obstacles to the distribution and marketing of Belgian products in other Member States at the

time of the dioxin crisis
The Commission, informed by Belgium, did not request information from the other Member States
under the Regulation, and limited itself to passing on the Belgian request to the contact points. The
reason was that the matter had already been under examination for a month on the basis of several
complaints under Article 28 EC.

1999/IV Day

of

by

action

1999
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information from all Member States. It received few
more or less detailed responses (FIN, L, A, S, E, D and NL), which indicated that the action had
ended.

October

hauliers

Europe

road

on

in

5

2000/I

Blockage, as from 10 January 2000, of roads in France as a result of action by employers in the
road haulage sector against the 35-hour week
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. It received some replies, by which time
the blockade had ended.

2000/II Blockade, as from 31 January, of roads in France as a result of action by trade unions in the

road haulage sector against the 35-hour day
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. After receiving an unsatisfactory
response, it asked for further information. By the time the response to that request arrived at the
Commission, and when it was considering sending a notification, the blockades had been dismantled.

2000/III Blockade of the Brenner motorway in Austria organised by an NGO (23-24 June 2000)

The Commission, informed by the Member State concerned, asked for further information. The
response was considered satisfactory.

2000/IV Pickets organised by Italian road hauliers at the Alpine frontiers as part of a strike in June 2000

At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. In the absence of a response, it sent
another request. The response arrived late, and the blockades had meanwhile been lifted.

2000/V Incidents in Portugal, where Spanish trucks were attacked at Matosinhos on 23 June 2000

The Commission, informed by Spain, asked the Portuguese authorities for further information. The
response, which was considered satisfactory, pointed out the one-off nature of the incidents and the
specific measures taken to avoid their recurrence.

2000/VI Strike of air traffic controllers in France on 26 June 2000

At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. It received a satisfactory response to the
effect that minimum services were being maintained.

2000/VII Blockade of the port of Castletown in Ireland (14-16 July 2000)

The Commission did not ask for information, as the blockade had occurred well before it had been
informed about it by the Member States. It did, however, remind the Irish authorities of its obligation
to provide information in the future.

2000/VIIIStrike of Italian air traffic controllers on 27 July 2000

As in case 2000/VI.

2000/IX Blockade of ports by French fishermen protesting against the increase in the price of fuel

(August 2000)

17

At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. Although the response was far from
satisfactory, the conflict was soon over.

2000/X Interception at the French frontier of Spanish trucks with loads of garlic (August 2000)

At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. The response arrived late, but the
incidents had been sporadic for only one day.

2000/XI Widespread blockades in France in protest at the increase in the price of fuel (August-

September 2000)
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. Although the response was far from
satisfactory, the conflict was over before a notification could be considered.

2000/XII Widespread blockades in Belgium in protest at the increase in the price of fuel (September 2000)

At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. A satisfactory response was received
after a second request for information.

2000/XIIIWidespread blockades in the Netherlands in protest at the increase in the price of fuel

(September 2000)
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. The problem had been resolved by the
time of the reply.

2000/XIV Widespread blockades in Sweden in protest at the increase in the price of fuel (September 2000)

At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. The response was satisfactory, and the
conflict was soon over.

2000/XV Widespread blockades in Spain in protest at the increase in the price of fuel (October 2000)

As in the previous case.

2000/XVI Blockade of the frontier in Luxembourg at the time of a Transport Council (October 2000)

The Commission, informed by the Member State concerned, did not consider it necessary to activate
the Regulation.

2000/XVII Blockade of the port of Patras in Greece in protest at the increase in the price of fuel (October

2000)
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. The response indicated the absence of an
effective blockade.

2000/XVIII Blockade of ports by Spanish fishermen protesting against the increase in the price of fuel

(October 2000)
At its own initiative, the Commission asked for information. A very detailed response was followed
by further information.

18