Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport" (COM(2001) 573 final — 2001/0241 (COD))
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, occupational safety, road transport, social legislation, working conditions

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/19

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
transport’

(COM(2001) 573 final — 2001/0241 (COD))

(2002/C 221/06)

On 24 October 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 71 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 30 April 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Garcı´a Alonso.

At its 391st plenary session on 29 and 30 May 2002 (meeting of 29 May) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2.

Introductory comments

The need to update Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85
1.1.
follows the amendment of Directive 93/104/EC (the Working
Time Directive) by Directive 2000/34/EC, which lays down
the minimum requirements applicable to mobile workers in
the road transport sector. One reason is that the rules on
working time set out in the aforementioned directive and the
rules on driving time set out in the regulation are directly
connected, and the provisions of both on common matters
must therefore correspond.

It is thus important to acknowledge and thank the
1.2.
Commission for its efforts in adopting this proposal
for
amendment, the main objectives of which — harmonisation
of the conditions for competition, improvement in working
conditions and in road safety — the Committee fully supports.

The Committee considers, nonetheless, that the pro-
1.3.
posal could be improved in certain respects:
in terms of
wording, to clarify certain concepts, and to a lesser extent in
terms of content, to facilitate implementation and compliance
it must be
and improve road safety in a sector which,
remembered, provides a service of general
interest. This
factor often has a decisive influence on the decisions of
businesspeople, and thus on the interests of workers, vis-à-vis
the quality services requested by customers.

2.1.
The Committee welcomes the proposed amendment
of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, designed to facilitate har-
monisation of various aspects of social legislation on driving
time, breaks and rest periods upon introduction of
the
digital tachograph. However, it would draw attention to the
continuing difficulties with regard to adoption at Community
level of
tachograph technical annex, and the
corresponding lack of knowledge regarding the technical
requirements of the new equipment, which have to some
degree influenced amendment of the current Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85.

the digital

2.2. While the road transport sector has certainly under-
gone significant changes in the seventeen years since Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3820/85 was adopted, it is important to stress
that many of the changes in the sector have benefited the
driving profession. Vehicles are more technically advanced and
road infrastructure is better, which has improved drivers’
working lives. But there are also problems, such as those
connected with traffic, congestion, stress and unfair compe-
tition, which must be overcome.

2.3.
The EESC welcomes the new paragraphs in Article 10
on the responsibility of the employer of giving the driver the
possibility to be able to follow the driving time rules. Article 10
now regulates the division of responsibilities between driver
and employer in a clear way which is a noticeable improvement
compared with the previous wording of this article.

2.4.
The EESC also welcomes the new paragraph on
responsibility for the total distance driven in a day even if this
covers several Member States.

1.4.
The European Economic and Social Committee’s final
proposal seeks to strike an appropriate and reasonable balance
in a sector where the rules must allow for a certain degree of
flexibility and acceptable social conditions are required. This
will facilitate effective and uniform implementation of the
regulation, which must also be tailored to the continuing
changes in the sector and encourage good practice.

2.5.
The EESC supports the creation of a special advisory
committee on the implementation and control of this new
amended regulation. If its work is connected to the meetings
between the social partners in the road transport sector
this will create possibilities for a good implementation and
interpretation of the regulation.

C 221/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

2.6.
Some difficulties in interpretation have highlighted the
question of driving time for drivers excluded from the scope
of the proposal, e.g. those providing passenger services whose
route does not exceed 50 km, but who also provide services
falling within the scope of the proposed regulation. At this
juncture, it is necessary to consider what other measures, aside
from the tachograph, the Community institutions should
adopt to address the issue of the total daily driving time of
drivers providing both a service that is excluded from the rules
and one that is included in the scope of the proposal.

3.6.
The notion of ‘regular’ services should also include
‘special-use regular services’, such as services for workers or
schoolchildren, which also have a regular timetable, schedule,
route, etc., as referred to in Article 2(1), subparagraph 2,
indents a, b and c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of
16 March 1992.

3.7.
Article 4(14) should close with the phrase ‘who also
drives the vehicle’. The wording of Article 4(15) should be
more specific, particularly from a professional perspective.

2.7.
It is possible to reduce further still the number of
exceptions provided for by the regulation. For example, there
are no grounds for excluding the transportation of circus
equipment listed under Article 3. This article suggests that the
rules apply to vehicles rather than to driving time.

3.8. With regard to the scope, the following wording is
proposed: vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on
services within a 50 km radius.

3. Comments on the text of the proposal

Chapter I.

Introductory provisions

The proposal for a regulation details the different
3.1.
concepts to which it applies. In this regard the following
improvements are proposed: In Article 1,
‘methods of (...)
transport’ should be replaced by ‘modes of (...) transport’.

3.2.
In Article 2(1)(a), ‘3,5 tonnes’ should be replaced by
‘2 tonnes’, as statistics show that there is a high accident rate
in the 2 — 3,5 tonne goods transport vehicle sector.

3.3.
In Article 4(4) concerning breaks: a ‘break’ should be
defined as follows: any period of time during which a driver
does not carry out any other work.

The following changes are proposed with regard to the
3.4.
daily rest period referred to in Article 4(7): ‘daily rest period’
means the period of time of which the driver may freely
dispose, be it a ‘regular daily rest period’ or a ‘reduced daily
rest period.’

Under Article 3(5) the phrase ‘owned or hired in
3.9.
without a driver by the State’ should be deleted, since whether
the vehicle is owned or rented is immaterial to the aims of the
proposal. The text would thus read as follows:
‘Specialised
vehicles used for medical purposes’.

3.10.
Concerning Article 3(7), the phrase ‘operating within
a 50 km radius of their base’ should be replaced by ‘operating
within a radius of not more than 50 km from their base’.

Chapter II. Crew, driving times, breaks and rest periods

3.11.
Article 5 makes no reference to a minimum age for
drivers, from which the Committee concludes, in the context
of the current debate within the Community institutions on
the directive on vocational training for drivers, that drivers
could be as young as 18. This measure could be extremely
positive for the sector and for job creation in general, given
the current shortage of drivers.

3.12.
For this reason, it is proposed to delete paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 5 of the proposal in relation to conductors
and driver’s mates, since if the age threshold for the largest
category (drivers) is removed, it seems logical also to remove
that for those less involved in the actual transportation, i.e.
conductors and driver’s mates, who would be subject
to
general national employment law.

3.5.
Similarly, with regard to the weekly rest period referred
to in Article 4(8), the following small changes are proposed:
‘weekly rest period’ means the period of time of which the
driver may freely dispose, be it a ‘regular weekly rest period’ or
a ‘reduced weekly rest period’.

3.13.
The Committee has no objection to the new wording
of Article 7(1) and (2), but considers it essential to retain the
possibility of splitting breaks, which also facilitate improved
service (particularly in passenger transport) and help to
improve levels of road safety. It is thus proposed to include
under Article 7 a third paragraph, to read as follows:

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/21

‘In the case of regular passenger services, the breaks
referred to in previous points may be broken down
into periods of at least 15 minutes each, interspersed
throughout the driving time.’

3.16.
Amendments are proposed to make Article 11 clear-
er. There should be a reference to the regulation, thus: ‘than
those laid down in Articles 6 to 9 inclusive of this Regulation
to carriage by road.’

3.14.
In the closing sentence of Article 8(6), ‘is stationary’
should be replaced by ‘is stationary in the case of the daily rest
period, or parked in the case of the weekly rest period’. It is
preferable for the weekly rest period to be taken outside the
vehicle.

Chapter III.

Liability of the undertaking

3.15.
Article 10(4) establishes that transport undertakings
are liable for infringements committed by drivers for the
benefit of those undertakings, even if the driver was not
present on the territory of the Member State at the time of the
infringement. The limits to the application of this rule should
be considered and defined more specifically, for example in
the case of subcontracted services.

Chapter V. Control procedures and penalties

3.17.
Article 19(2). Replace by the following: ‘the penalties
shall include the possibility of immobilisation and removal of
the vehicle for serious infringements’. The EESC supports
harmonisation of infringements and penalties by means of a
new directive on driving and traffic.

3.18.
The EESC calls on the Commission to consider
involving the social partners in implementing the regulation,
in particular Articles 22 and 23.

3.19.
In Article 23(1), ‘may bring (...) to the attention of the
Commission’ should be replaced by ‘may refer (...) to the
Commission’.

Brussels, 29 May 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS