Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (Recasting)’ (COM(2003) 621 final - 2003/0252 (COD))
Date: 2004-03-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European driving licence, driving licence, harmonisation of standards, mutual recognition principle

C 112/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (Recasting)’

(COM(2003) 621 final - 2003/0252 (COD))

(2004/C 112/09)

On 13 January 2004, the Council decided to consult the European 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 2 March 2004. The rapporteur was
Mr Simons.

At its 407th plenary session (meeting of 31 March 2004) the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion with 99 votes in favour and one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1 Mobility is a key issue for very many Europeans of all
ages. The vast majority of Europeans over the age of 18 hold a
driving licence, giving them access to motorised mobility. In
Europe in particular, with its increasingly ageing population,
holding a driving licence is often vital for maintaining contact
with the outside world, and even for meeting basic needs. Any
proposal
for a European directive on driving licences thus
affects all Europeans. The importance of such a proposal
cannot therefore be underestimated.

In submitting legislation on driving licences in the EEA,
1.2
the European Commission is seeking to enhance the free move-
ment of Community citizens, reduce the possibility of fraud
and help improve road safety. The Commission had these
objectives in mind in earlier driving licence legislation and they
will continue to underpin future laws in this field.

1.4
In addition to moves by the Commission to secure the
full mutual recognition of driving licences so as to foster the
free movement of Community citizens,
the directive also
proposes a number of specific legal changes designed to
promote road safety. These measures include the introduction
of new vehicle categories for driving licences, the introduction
of tiered access to these categories so that drivers first acquire
experience with smaller vehicles, harmonisation of the periodi-
city of the checks on drivers' medical fitness, special considera-
tion for disabled driver access to motorised transport, and
minimum training requirements for examiners.

1.5
The third key point in the proposal relates to reducing
the possibilities of fraud in driving licences. The aim is to make
driving licences less susceptible to fraud by eliminating the
possibility of
issuing paper models through the mandatory
introduction of a plastic card, and by limiting the licence's
administrative validity.

1.3 Over the past few years, Community citizens have faced
more rather than less legal uncertainty in spite of all
the
measures that have been taken over that period. (1) The Euro-
pean Commission considers it essential that the legal uncer-
tainty for citizens, which hinders their free movement, be
removed. This objective falls within the framework of
the
in the
much wider objectives set by the European Council
Lisbon agenda, namely achieving 100 % functioning of the
internal market,
including in the field of competition. The
proposed directive seeks to remove the last obstacles relating to
driving licences, and the Commission views this as the end of a
process of gradual harmonisation.

2. General comments

2.1
The Committee endorses the European Commission's
objectives in submitting this proposal (improving road safety,
reducing the possibilities of fraud and enhancing the free move-
ment of Community citizens). The proposal ties in with the
Commission's European Road Safety Action Programme:
Halving the number of road accident victims in the European
Union by 2010: A shared responsibility (2) and the earlier
White Paper European transport policy for 2010: Time to
decide (3).

(1) Commission interpretative communication on Community driver

licensing, OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 5.

(2) COM (2003) 311 final
(3) COM(2001) 370 final – Committee opinion, OJ C 241, 7.10.2002,

p. 168

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/35

2.2
The Committee is particularly pleased that the proposal
stresses the human aspect of transport and that it puts forward
practical measures for dealing with the human side of road
In its opinion on the European Road Safety Action
safety.
Programme: Halving the number of road accident victims in
the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility (1) the
Committee noted the importance of the human element of
road safety, and it is thus very pleased that the Commission
proposal focuses on that aspect in particular.

2.3
The Committee considers that many of the proposed
measures have far-reaching implications for Member State citi-
zens (the limited administrative validity of driving licences), for
driving licence applicants and holders in certain categories
(medical checks, progressive access to certain categories, higher
minimum ages) and for driving schools
(new categories,
changed vehicle requirements in categories C1 en D1). These
implications will not always be welcomed by the individuals
concerned and, in a number of cases, there will be increased
administrative pressure and higher costs. The Committee would
ask that consideration be given to the impact of this directive
and draws the Commission's attention to the need for a suffi-
ciently long transitional period for implementing the measures
under it. Such an approach is warranted inter alia because, in a
number of Member States, the changes required under Direc-
tive 91/439/EEC (2) have not long been in place. This does not
mean that
the Committee does not broadly endorse the
measures proposed under this directive, but it is critical of
some points.

give its approval’. This recommendation is prompted, among
other things, by the fact
in some countries, driving
that,
licences may also be used as identity documents. Anti-fraud
protection is thus of crucial importance.

3.2
The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal to
replace paper driving licence models with a plastic card,
possibly with a built-in chip. The Committee feels that this
makes for greater uniformity between the Member States and
significantly reduces the possibility of fraud. At the same time,
the Committee also recommends that even more be done to
protect the document against fraud, and calls for optimum
security features both in and on the document similar to the
security requirements for passports.

3.3
The Committee also endorses the proposed harmonisa-
tion of medical checks for holders of Group 2 licences. Both
the periodicity and the content of these medical checks need to
be harmonised at Community level to prevent distortions of
competition between the Member States. That
the
Committee is not happy about applying the same requirements
for medical checks both to the ‘big’ categories C and D (lorries
and buses) and the ‘small’ categories C1 and D1. The
Committee feels that less frequent medical checks would be
appropriate for categories C1 and D1. The Committee also
feels that
this requirement should likewise apply to other
professional drivers who, by virtue of their vehicle definition,
hold Group 1 licences. Taxi drivers are a case in point.

said,

3. Specific comments

3.1
The Committee endorses limiting the administrative
validity of driving licences. It agrees with the reasoning that
this both enhances the free movement of Community citizens
and reduces the possibility of fraud with the driving licence
document. The European Commission does not consider it
the validity of driving licences that are
necessary to limit
already in circulation.
It argues that, under the subsidiarity
the Member States are authorised to recall older
principle,
models that no longer comply with fraud prevention require-
ments. The Committee would question this partial exemption
as it means that some Member States will have an actual transi-
tional period of more than fifty years. The Committee thus
proposes firming up Article 3(2) to provide greater security
with regard to the exchange of older driving licence models
that do not meet the fraud prevention requirements. This could
be achieved by replacing the words ‘They shall
inform the
Commission thereof’ in Article 3(2) by ‘The Commission must

(1) OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004
(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991

3.4
The present Commission proposal no longer allows
Member States to issue driving licences with limited validity for
medical reasons. Member States had that power under previous
legislation, and the Committee feels they should retain it.

3.5
The Committee fully endorses the proposed vehicle re-
categorisation for driving licences. The introduction of a
driving licence category AM and the mandatory introduction of
the light motorcycle category A1 at the age of sixteen will
resolve many of the difficulties surrounding these light two-
wheelers. In particular, the Committee feels that there will be a
direct improvement in road safety by giving sixteen-year-old
drivers in the Member States an alternative to the accident-
prone moped that involves more thorough training and both
theoretical and practical
tests. An added distinction is also
being made between categories A2 and A, with a mandatory
second driving test and higher age limits. These are promising
developments for a vehicle type with a disproportionately high
accident rate.

C 112/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3.6
The Committee fully supports the new definition of
vehicle categories C1 and D1, with the maximum permitted
weight now fixed at 6,000 kg as opposed to the original figure
of 7,500 kg. The Committee welcomes this move, particularly
as it better reflects the vehicles' technical characteristics. The
Committee also endorses the equivalence between C1 en D1
vehicles. This equivalence is not detrimental to road safety as
the vehicles in these two categories have the same technical
specifications and are, for instance, equipped with the same
type of brake fittings. The 6,000 kg upper limit also marks the
transition to a different
for
technical
instance, a different type of brake fitting. Thus, drivers trained
to operate category C1 vehicles are just as well equipped to
operate category D1 vehicles as well. This equivalence also
offers drivers of these vehicles greater freedom and enhanced
possibilities.

specification, with,

B+E – is deemed undesirable by the Committee. This combina-
tion, which the Committee feels is used only for professional
transportation, would be better suited to category C1+E, but
that is not possible under the proposed definition.

3.10
For that reason, the Committee would ask that further
consideration be given to the definitions of trailer classes. One
option that would secure clarity for both the public and enfor-
cement agents and would also improve road safety would be to
define trailer classes independently of the weight of the tractor
vehicle, and to include not only a lower weight limit, but an
upper limit as well.

3.7
The Committee feels that the mandatory introduction of
the ‘small’ categories C1 and D1, which were still optional
under the Directive on driving licences (91/439/EEC), will also
enhance road safety, especially in urban areas. The Committee
expects increasing use to be made of these vehicle categories in
urban areas to deliver goods and transport people. This means
that ‘large’ vehicles will no longer need to enter town centres,
benefiting urban dwellers in terms of both road safety and
pollution emissions. The Committee does feel, however, that,
for this effect to kick in, these categories must be made more
attractive, for instance by requiring less frequent medical exam-
inations for categories C1 and D1.

The Committee welcomes the clarification of the defini-
3.8
tion of vehicle category B+E. The revised definition clarifies this
category by stipulating, among other things, that a B+E licence
is required to drive trailers with a maximum authorised mass
exceeding 750 kg. The Committee very much welcomes the
clarification this brings both for the public and for enforce-
ment.

3.9 On the other hand, the definition of vehicle categories
B+E and C1+E could be made clearer. The Committee feels that
the definition of vehicle category C1+E raises particular difficul-
ties as the maximum authorised mass of the trailer is contin-
gent on the maximum authorised mass of the tractor vehicle.
This means that, under this category of driving licence, only
extremely light trailers are allowed, while much heavier trailers
may be used with driving licence category B+E. For instance,
under the present and proposed new definition,
it is not in
practice possible in view of the weight distribution to drive a
combination of a tractor vehicle and semi-trailer in category
C1+E, while the same option is open under category B+E.
Indeed,
this very possibility – driving a combination of a
tractor vehicle and semi-trailer under driving licence category

The Committee would also point out that the require-
3.11
ment placed on caravan owners under
the Commission's
proposed definition of vehicle category B+E may be too high.
Under the current definition of vehicle category B, most cara-
vans may be driven with a vehicle category B licence. Under
the Commission proposal, this right no longer applies to new
drivers and all caravans are to come under licence category
B+E, with drivers
required to sit an examination. The
Committee would point out the potential implications of this
road safety
proposal
reasons, a one-day training course be made mandatory for
certain kinds of trailer, including a large percentage of caravans.
A code on the driving licence could indicate that the holder
has attended such a course. The Committee proposes using
code 96 for that purpose.

industry, and suggests

that,

for

for

3.12
The Committee notes that many category B drivers
(vans) are professional transporters and that the proposed direc-
tive introduces no additional measures to combat the high acci-
dent rate (1) within this category. This means that, at
the
moment, this group of drivers is not subject to rules about
driving hours, rest periods and aptitude, and that the vehicles
need not be fitted with speed limiters. The Committee is parti-
cularly concerned about white vans with a maximum
authorised mass not exceeding 3,500 kg and the danger posed
by this sector on EU roads. The Committee would like to see
the several possible
the Commission tackle this sector. Of
options, the Committee feels the soundest would be to require
drivers of all vehicles with a maximum authorised mass not
exceeding 3,500 kg and a payload of more than 1,000 kg to
obtain a C1 licence. They are thus automatically classed and
treated as professional drivers. Such a definition would make
drivers of these vehicles subject to the provisions of Directive
2003/59/EC and require them to gain an initial qualification
and undergo periodic training. The Committee feels that it
would be a positive step to make Group 1 professional drivers
(such as van, taxi and ambulance drivers) subject to the same
medical testing requirements as Group 2 professional drivers
(lorry and bus drivers).

(1) For the situation in the Netherlands, see inter alia the following
reports: C. Schoon, Ontwikkelingen in parkomvang en onveiligheid
bestelauto's. Een verkenning binnen het thema Voertuigveiligheid
van het SWOV-jaarprogramma 2000-2001 - report reference R-
2001-33; and A.A. Kampen, Onveiligheid van Bestel- en Vrachtau-
to's binnen de bebouwde kom - report reference R 97-53 SWOV
(Netherlands Institute for Road Safety Research). These reports indi-
cate that delivery vans are the only vehicle category to show a
steady rise in the number of fatal accidents. Taking 1984 as a base
year (= 100), the figure for 2002 had risen to 138, while, for all
other categories, it had fallen to below 85.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/37

In the light of the above comments, the Committee would propose the following new definitions

3.13
for driving licence categories B, B+E, C1 and C1+E:

Driving licence category

Maximum authorised
mass of the tractor
vehicle

Maximum payload of the
tractor vehicle

Maximum authorised mass of the trailers

B

< 3,500 kg

< 1,000 kg

< 750 kg

B+ training + code
inserted in licence

< 3,500 kg

< 1,000 kg

> 750 kg; < 1,400 kg; maximum trailer
length 7.0 metres

B+E

C1

C1

C1+E

< 3,500 kg

< 1,000 kg

combination
< 3,500 kg;
> 750 kg;
< 7,000 kg; maximum trailer length 7.0
metres

< 3,500 kg

> 1,000 kg

> 3,500 kg;
< 6,000 kg

> 3,500 kg;
< 6,000 kg

n.a.

n.a.

< 750 kg

< 750 kg

> 750 kg; combination < 12.000 kg

3.14
The Committee is somewhat concerned that Member
States are to have the option of lowering the minimum age for
obtaining a driving licence, as provided for under Article 7(2).
No distinction is made, either in the explanatory memorandum
or in the article itself, between Member States' differing prac-
tices on this front. Lower age limits apply in three distinct
cases:

a) to the licence itself, as in Ireland and the UK, for instance;

b) during training, as in France and Sweden, for instance; and

B driving licence and the AM moped category. The AM cate-
gory examination consists of a theoretical test only, covering
broadly the same knowledge as that required for a B licence.

3.16
The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal
to harmonise minimum training standards for driving exami-
ners. Genuine harmonisation between the EU Member States
can only be realised if driving licence applicants have to meet
the same requirements. It is only natural, therefore, that the
parties assessing whether applicants meet those requirements
should also operate in a harmonised way.

c) during training, where the licences issued are initially valid
in Austria and some

instance,

for

only nationally, as,
German Länder.

3.15
The Committee rejects the equivalence between vehicle
categories B and A1 as laid down in Directive 91/439/EC,
which the Commission does not intend to change. Although
the Committee feels that this provision does give car drivers
more freedom and more options, it is not conducive to road
safety. Studies from countries that have equivalence of this
kind show that it has an adverse impact on accident figures for
this category of two-wheeler. The Committee thus believes that
separate training and examination are needed for each type of
vehicle. The Committee could approve equivalence between the

4. Summary and conclusions

4.1
The Committee very much welcomes the Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
driving licences, although it is critical of a number of points
relating to the practical application of some of the measures.

4.2
The Committee is particularly pleased that the proposed
directive focuses on improving road safety by introducing a
number of changes to the system that are designed to factor in
the human element of transport, without playing down the
directive's other objectives (free movement of citizens and redu-
cing susceptibility to fraud).

C 112/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

4.3
The Committee asks that consideration be given to the
expected reaction to the proposed measures in some Member
States and among certain target groups. Much of the resistance
could be prevented by having a sufficiently long transitional
phase, which would not, however, mean having to delay the
measures indefinitely. Given the proposed new measures for
vehicle categories C, C1, D, D1 and their respective trailer cate-
gories, and in the light of Directive 2003/59/EC recently
adopted by the Commission and Council on the aptitude of
the synchronised introduction of some
professional drivers,
parts of this directive would be helpful
for many Member
States.

The Committee asks that attention to be drawn to the
4.4
high accident rate among professional drivers in licence cate-
gory B. The Committee would very much appreciate a Euro-
pean Commission proposal for drivers in this group.

4.5
The Committee recommends a rethink of the definition
of trailer classes B+E and C1+E. In the current proposal, the
Committee notes a lack of clarity in the suggested definition,
the problem of weight distribution in licence category C1+E
and the disparity between licence categories B+E and C1+E.

The Committee welcomes

4.6
the equivalence between
licence categories C1 and D1. However, it is not happy about
the expected impact of equivalence between licence categories
B and A1. The Committee is aware that such equivalence is
already in place in a number of Member States but is concerned
about the impact of such a step.

4.7
The Committee feels that Member States should retain
the authority to issue driving licences with limited validity for
medical reasons.

Brussels, 31 March 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH