WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/02 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Digital tachograph.
Date: 2002-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: computer crime, data processing, driving period, fraud, in-service training, police checks, restriction on competition, road transport, speed control

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/137

(2002/C 309 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Digital tachograph

Once Technical Annex IB has been approved by the Council of Transport Ministers and published in the
Official Journal, Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 (1) will come into force. This means that, 24 months after its
publication in the Official Journal, all vehicles put into service for the first time must be equipped with a
digital tachograph.

One of the aims of introducing the digital tachograph is to ensure fully automatic recording which does
not allow for any tampering. However, recent research has confirmed the suspicion, raised a number of
years ago, that unauthorised interference is both possible and simple, particularly with regard to smart
cards (see the report entitled ‘Smart card found to be vulnerable’, in the ‘International Herald Tribune’ of
14 May 2002). This means that security and data protection cannot be guaranteed.

How does the Commission view the research results? What measures will
it take to prevent possible
tampering in practice? How will it ensure that the requisite number of tamper-proof cards is available
throughout the EU by the date set?

A further aim of introducing the digital tachograph is to ensure ‘(…) that the data recorded are retrievable,
clear, intelligible when printed out, and reliable (…)’ (Regulation (EC) No 2135/98, Recital 6). Has the
Commission verified whether the digital tachograph’s print-outs can be understood by inspectors in the
Member States and whether their interpretation leads to clear results? How can an equivalent level of
training for inspectors throughout the EU be guaranteed in order to avoid distortions of competition
arising from varying control mechanisms?

(1) OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

On 13 June 2002 the Commission adopted the Regulation introducing the technical specifications for the
digital tachograph (Annex 1B) (1).

While the existing tachograph consists of a mechanically operated vehicle unit and paper record sheets, the
new tachograph comprises a digital vehicle unit and a personal driver card. The digital tachograph
automatically registers the activity of the drivers and keeps the information for a year. The personal driver
card that drivers must have in their possession records and stores their activities for the last 28 days.

With the use of digital technology the data recorded by the new tachograph will undoubtedly be much
more tamper-proof and much more reliable than the current equipment.

The article in the International Herald Tribune of 14 May 2002 refers to smart cards in general. However,
for the construction of tachograph cards a set of specific functional requirements have been developed.
A specific appendix, dedicated to the generic security targets of the tachograph system, contains specific
security objectives and functions for the tachograph cards.

To help the Member States implement the tachograph card requirements, the Commission supported the
work of experts from the Member States. This work included the development of security aspects of the
cards and will continue in 2002, in order to prepare the secure implementation of the technical provisions
concerning the tachograph cards.

The Commission also supports the work of a group of enforcement experts from the Member States, in
order to ensure a better understanding of the data.
In addition, the Commission will soon present
proposals for more uniform checks in the road transport sector, as well as to improve the quality of these
checks.

C 309 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The training of enforcement officers is in the first place a task of the Member States. Nevertheless, the
Commission will consider the possibility of supporting a communication project to promote knowledge
and understanding of the new equipment amongst its users. The project could focus on an information
campaign directed at enforcement officers, as well as drivers and the management of undertakings.

(1) Commission Regulation adapting for the seventh time to technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85

of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(2002/C 309 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/02

by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Transport of mortal remains within the European Communities

The transport of the mortal remains of persons who have died in a country other than their country of
origin is at present governed by the 1937 Berlin Agreements and the Strasbourg Convention drawn up in
1973 by the Council of Europe. These ‘pre-single market rules’ create unnecessary problems for the next-
of-kin and also do not appear very appropriate. Not only do they assume the existence of border controls
and fail to take into account the establishment of a European Economic Area, but they also entail
considerable costs attributable to the lack of standardised formalities and to the obligatory use of products
(zinc-lined coffins).

It is difficult to understand why mortal remains can be transported from Vienna to Bregenz (510 km)
without a zinc-lined coffin whilst such a coffin is required for a transfer from Salzburg to Freilassing
(10 km). There are no compelling technical arguments here on the grounds of hygiene or safety.

Under these circumstances,
is it possible for the Commission to draw up corresponding legislative
proposals on uniform rules for the transport of mortal remains from one country to another within
Europe, so that, in future, the cross-border transport of mortal remains is not more difficult than transport
within a Member State? Do specific plans already exist?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

The Commission refers to its joint reply to recent Written Questions E-0923/02 by Mrs Raschhofer,
E-0935/02 by Mr Rübig, E-1122/02 by Mr Bösch and E-1133/02 by Mr Marínos (1). For convenience, the
Commission’s position is set out below.

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another
Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the
family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary
questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised
difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an
overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community
policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would
be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing
the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, No
4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of
it should be recalled that Member States which
Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event,