Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘A European highway code and vehicle register’
Date: 2004-12-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, highway code, road traffic, traffic regulations

C 157/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘A European highway code and
vehicle register’

(2005/C 157/04)

On 29 January 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion,
under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on ‘A European highway code and vehicle register’.

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 5 October 2004. The rapporteur
was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 413th plenary session of 15 and 16 December 2004 (meeting of 15 December 2004), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 147 votes to one with three absten-
tions.

1. Introduction: Aim of the opinion and grounds

1.1
At its meeting on 29 January 2004, the EESC accepted
the TEN Section's request to draw up an own-initiative opinion
on a European highway code.

1.2
In view of the fact that (a) the free movement of people
is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaty (1),
(b) the abolition of border controls between the Member States
the EU's objectives (2), as consolidated by the
is one of
Schengen acquis (3), and (c) transport is one area where the
Community has a common policy (4), harmonising road traffic
legislation would seem to be an issue of paramount impor-
tance, particularly for completing the internal market (5).

1.3
Account should also be taken of the volume of road
passenger and freight transport in the Europe of 15, which has
grown exponentially in recent years.

The latest statistics indicate in particular that:

— the land transport sector employs 3.9 million people (data

for 2001);

— road freight haulage accounts for 45 % of all

freight

haulage, having grown by 120 % since 1970;

— road passenger

transport accounts
passenger transport, having grown by 128 % since 1970;

for 86.8 % of all

— turnover

(data for 2000)

transport
for
(€55.455 million) and freight haulage (€220.787 million)
accounts for around 49 % of total turnover in the transport
sector (€566.193 million)
(no statistics are available for
Greece) (6).

land passenger

1.4
Road passenger and freight transport is governed by
many different national regulations, even as far as basic driving
rules and principles are concerned.

(1) Articles 39 et seq. of the EC Treaty.
(2) Article 2, 4th indent of the EU Treaty and Articles 61 et seq. of the

EC Treaty.

(3) Protocol No. 2 to the EU Treaty.
(4) Articles 70 et seq. of the EC Treaty.
(5) Articles 95 et seq. of the EC Treaty.
(6) See ‘EU Energy and Transport in Figures’, DG Energy and Transport in

cooperation with EUROSTAT (2003).

1.4.1
As well as this, several international conventions are
also in force, each with varying scopes and conflicting provi-
sions.

A simple

1.4.2
therefore
subjects drivers to varying rules and regulations, exposing them
to diverse and sometimes contradictory rules.

road journey across Europe

1.4.3
This situation has become even more complicated
with the recent EU enlargement, and the arrival of new
Member States which also have their own particular driving
rules.

1.5
The objective of this own-initiative opinion is to urge
the Commission to consider the necessity and advisability of
legislation to harmonise driving rules across the European
Union, albeit with a number of exceptions, conducting an
analysis of comparative law to highlight discrepancies in the
rules and regulations contained in the highway codes of the
various Member States, and proposing possible solutions for
European-level harmonisation.

1.6 When drawing up this opinion, it was deemed essential
that the main stakeholders' views be taken into account (via
representatives of road users, vehicle manufacturers and regula-
tory bodies). A public hearing was therefore organised in
parallel with the second study group meeting on 17 May 2004,
and was attended by individuals involved in the sector.

1.6.1
To facilitate discussions, and at the same time collect
information, a questionnaire was prepared and submitted to
group members for their views.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/35

2. Background to the opinion

2.1
The idea of drawing up a universal highway code is not
indeed, where Europe in particular is concerned, there
new;
have already been initiatives in this area, such as the call for
codification of existing rules at the VIII International Congress
on Traffic (7).

2.4
Particular emphasis must be given to the conclusions of
a study recently conducted for the European Commission's DG
Energy and Transport, which put forward the arguments for
harmonising traffic rules and enforcement practices through
future EU legislative initiatives (10).

The EESC has, in turn, in various opinions, drawn atten-
2.5
tion to the need ‘to allow more free movement of vehicles within the
Union’, placing ‘a responsibility on national authorities to abolish
certain kinds of domestic rules and regulations which make it difficult
for their own nationals to use vehicles registered in another Member
State’ (11).

Also during the 38th Conference of the German Council
2.2
of Transport Authorities held in January 2000, Working Group
IV highlighted the harmonisation of European traffic rules as a
key objective (8).

3. Brief summary of legislation set out in conventions and

the scope thereof

2.3
The Commission has been pursuing various initiatives
arising from the same concern and targeting the same objec-
tive, but until now it has not fully taken on board the idea of
drawing up a European highway code as such (9).

(7) Dott. Argante Righetti, Procuratore Pubblico, Bellinzona – Ticino,
Criteri di applicazione delle norme di circolazione per i veicoli stra-
nieri in caso di difformità fra la Convenzione di Ginevra e la legisla-
zione interna degli Stati aderenti, Automobile Club di Perugia, 8-10
September 1961.

(8) This subject should be broached at the upcoming European Traffic
Law Days (Trier V) in October 2004 and during the 1st European
Road Congress, to be held in Lisbon from 24 to 26 November 2004,
on the subject of ‘Mobility in an enlarged Europe: challenges and
responsibilities in the Road Sector’.

are

trailers

(9) In particular, Council Act of 17 June 1998 drawing up the Conven-
tion on Driving Disqualifications (OJ C 216 of 10/07/98), Regu-
lation (EC) No. 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 (OJ L 299 of
10.11.1998) on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the
distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles
registered, Directives 1999/37/EC and
and their
2003/127/EC of 29 April 1999 and 23 December 2003 on the
registration documents for vehicles (OJ L 138 of 01.06.1999 and
OJ L 10 of 16.01.2004), Council resolution of 26 June 2000 on the
improvement of road safety (OJ C 218 of 31/07/2000), Commission
Recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of
road safety (OJ L 111 of 17/04/04), Commission Decision of 23
December 2003 on the technical prescriptions for the implementa-
tion of Article 3 of Directive 2003/102/EC relating to the protection
of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (OJ L 31 of
04/02/04), Directive 2004/11/EC of 11 February 2004 relating to
speed limitation devices or
speed limitation on-board
similar
systems of certain categories of motor vehicles (OJ L 44 of
14/02/04), Commission Decision of 2 April 2004 on the applica-
tion of Council Directive 72/166/EEC with regard to checks on
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehi-
cles (OJ L 105 of 14/04/04), the proposal for a Directive of 21
October 2003 on driving licences (COM(2003) 621 final), Proposal
for a Directive on the establishment of common rules for certain
types of carriage of goods by road (COM (2004) 47 final of
02/02/04), and the proposal for a Regulation on the gradual aboli-
tion of checks at common borders as regards access to the Schengen
Information System by the services in the Member States respon-
sible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles (COM(2003)
510 final of 21.08.2003). Likewise, Regulations 39, 60, 62, 71, 73,
78, 101 and 103 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the
United Nations (UN/ECE) have the same objective of providing
information (OJ L 95 of 31.03.2004).

International

3.1
road traffic rules are enshrined in a
number of conventions, the most important ones being the
1926 Paris Convention, the 1949 Geneva Convention and the
1968 Vienna Convention.

3.2
The International Convention relative to Motor Traffic
was signed by 40 States in Paris on 24 April 1926. The
Convention aimed to facilitate international
tourism and is
currently in force in over 50 countries.

3.2.1

The main objectives of this Convention are:

a) to define minimum technical specifications for motor vehi-
cles, including registration, lights and vehicle identification
in each State visited;

b) to lay down rules on the issuing and validity of international
motor vehicle certificates, so that drivers can legally enter
and drive in the territory covered by the Convention;

c) to recognise certain domestic driving permits and define the
features of international driving permits valid in Contracting
States that do not recognise other States' domestic permits,
without any intention of replacing the latter;

(10) Comparative Study of Road Traffic Rules and corresponding enforcement
actions in the Member States of the European Union, carried out by
TIS.PT, Consultores em Transportes, Inovação e Sistemas, S.A. and
completed in February 2004.

(11) Cf OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004 on the Proposal

for a Regulation
amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement
of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common
borders as regards access to the Schengen Information System by
the services in the Member States responsible for issuing registra-
tion certificates for vehicles, for which the Rapporteur was Mr
Barros Vale. Also see inter alia OJ C 112 of 30.4.2004 on the
Proposal for a Directive on driving licences (Recasting), for which
the Rapporteur was Mr Jan Simmons, and OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004
on the Communication from the Commission on Information and
Communications Technologies for safe and intelligent vehicles, for
which the Rapporteur was Mr V Ranocchiari.

C 157/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

d) to establish (six) danger signs which must be used by the

Contracting States on roads within their territory;

e) to set up a system for exchanging information on drivers
holding an international certificate and permit and involved
in a serious accident or violating domestic road traffic laws.

3.2.2 While this Convention simplified customs procedures,
it did not exempt drivers
from knowing and observing
domestic road traffic laws.

3.4.1
This Convention is the most comprehensive in terms
of road traffic regulations, dedicating a whole 30-article chapter
to the rules of the road and laying down rules on the main
manoeuvres found in modern-day highway codes. The 1968
Convention went further than the previous — minimalist —
conventions, which had just dealt with the passing of
oncoming traffic and the associated signs and signals; it not
only laid down the principles to be observed by drivers when
performing the most dangerous manoeuvres (e.g. overtaking,
change of direction, precautions to take vis-à-vis pedestrians,
etc.) but also regulated standing and parking, passengers
boarding and alighting from vehicles, driving in tunnels — in
short, the whole gamut of typical situations that drivers face.

3.2.3 Moreover, the Convention did not enter into force
until it had been ratified by each State and the respective rati-
fied convention deposited. As a rule, the Convention is only in
force in the main territory of the Contracting State; an explicit
declaration is required for it to take effect in other territories
under its administration.

This Convention went

3.4.2
further than previous texts
requiring the Contracting and Signatory States to bring the
substance of
their domestic legislation into line with the
driving rules laid down in it. The advantage of this for drivers
was that they would be familiar with the main driving rules
when driving in other Signatory States.

3.3
The Convention on Road Traffic was signed by 17
States in Geneva on 19 September 1949. It is currently in force
in over 120 countries and replaces the 1926 Convention in
relations between the Contracting and Signatory States.

3.4.3
rejecting amendments to the Convention.

Nonetheless, States were still given the option of

3.3.1
This Convention fleshed out the principles enshrined
in the earlier convention, in line with developments in the car
industry, and revealed a growing concern for road traffic safety.

3.3.2 While it did not stipulate the use of specific traffic
signs, it did require that States adopt a homogeneous system of
road signs and signals and only use them where strictly neces-
sary.

3.3.3
This Convention did not lay down very many driving
rules or introduce much which was new, other than precau-
tions to take when passing oncoming traffic, rules on priority
and the use of lights.

The Convention's entry into force was subject to the
3.3.4
same conditions as previously, while moves to introduce
harmonisation were tempered by the fact that States were not
bound to adopt certain provisions and could also reject amend-
ments to it.

3.4
The Convention on Road Traffic of 8 November 1968
was signed in Vienna by 37 States and is currently in force in
around 100. Once ratified and deposited,
this Convention
replaced the 1926 and 1949 Conventions in relations between
the Contracting States.

As

this overview clearly shows,

3.5
three international
conventions are in force in the European Union (which now
includes ten new members), although not every Member State
has signed up to all three Conventions (12). The EU is therefore
still far from having harmonised road traffic rules, particularly
if twenty-five constantly evolving domestic bodies of law are
added to the conventions mentioned above (13).

A number of barriers have been — or are in the process
3.6
of being — overcome, such as the abolition of border controls,
conditions for the type-approval of vehicles and their compo-
nents, and the mutual recognition of — and harmonisation of
rules on — driving licences. However, the fundamental aspects
of road traffic remain unresolved: driving rules and road signs
and signals.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, while these
3.7
conventions facilitate customs procedures and driving within
the Community, third-country nationals visiting the EU come
across as many different driving rules and regulations as they
do States.

(12) For example, between Portugal and Germany, the 1926 Convention
is in force; between Portugal and Belgium, the 1949 Convention;
between Germany and Belgium, the 1968 Convention. There are
even more examples if account is taken of the new Member States.
Further examples include the 1926 convention between Germany,
Ireland and Holland; the 1949 one between Holland, Portugal and
Sweden; and the 1968 one between Finland, Italy, Austria and
Latvia. This diversity is rooted in the accession (or not) of states to
the most recent instrument. Thus, when two or more countries
sign up to the most recent instrument, previous conventions are no
longer in force between them, but continue to be in force in rela-
tion to the other countries not signing up to the latest convention.
(13) For example, Portugal recently revised its highway code and Italy

has just started to do the same.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/37

4. A number of glaring discrepancies between Member

Requirement to give way to cyclists at a roundabout

States' national legislation

4.1
A brief study of comparative law clearly reveals that
there are significant differences between the road traffic legisla-
tion of the various Member States in a number of key areas.
Such discrepancies constitute a genuine barrier to free move-
ment and are likely to jeopardise the safety of people and
goods and result in more accidents across Europe.

DE

PT

Yes

No

4.2
The following comments take particular, but not exclu-
sive, account of observations made in the aforementioned
study carried out for the Commission, which discusses these
aspects in depth (14).

Below are some (of several) particularly significant and

4.3
worrying current examples of differences in laws:

Speed limit outside built-up areas on roads where there is a physical
barrier separating the two carriageways

Requirement to give way to public transport vehicles pulling out of
bus and tram stops

ES

IT

Yes

No

Requirement to use lights during the day outside built-up areas

BE

PT

UK

Serious offences

BE

PT

Alcohol

SE

UK

120 km/h

90 km/h

70 mph (112 km/h)

+ 10 km/h

+ 30 km/h

0.2

0.8

Requirement for light vehicles to be equipped with a first aid kit

EL

FR

Red + amber light: prepare to move forward

DK/FI

NL/ES

(14) See the footnote referred to in footnote 10.

Yes

No

Yes

No

IT

LU

No-parking sign

IE

Yes

No

White background and red
border

Other States

Blue background and red border

Passengers prohibited from alighting on the carriageway

PT

IE

Yes

No

4.4
However, as the aforementioned study demonstrates in
detail, similar discrepancies can also be observed in areas such
as driving licence requirements, road signs and signals, compul-
sory safety equipment, pedestrian crossings, rules on priority,
the use of lights, the conditions under which passengers may
board and alight from a vehicle, the use of special lanes, over-
taking, vehicle classification, types of tyre, towing and even the
form of traffic signs and lights themselves. The study identifies
a total of
forty-five discrepancies in basic everyday driving
rules.

C 157/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

4.5
Furthermore, although there are significant differences
just in the way that basic traffic rules are formulated, even
more serious is the fact that these rules are interpreted and
applied differently in the various Member States. This is not
only because people view failure to comply with these rules
differently, but also because the penalties for driving offences
vary considerably too.

for drivers when driving vehicles outside their home
country;

d) the main differences highlighted,

in addition to those

mentioned in the TIS-PT study, include:

— differences in the legal limits for blood alcohol levels

— speed limits

— traffic signs, traffic police signals and road markings

5. Summary of the hearing held on 17 May 2004

— penalties for offences and the procedural rules for enfor-

5.1
Thanks to the quality of the contributions, this public
hearing — attended by representatives of i) various private
bodies representing the interests of drivers, the car industry,
road safety and accident prevention and ii) the boards of the
AIT–FIA and TIS-PT, which is the company coordinating the
study referred to above (15) — held on 17 May 2004, helped to
clarify and explain various points relevant
to this opinion,
reflecting the viewpoints of
the main stakeholders in civil
society.

Various bodies also supplemented their statements by sending
in responses to the questionnaire which they had received on
the subject.

cing them and

— mandatory safety equipment;

e) a step-by step approach to the process of aligning legislation
leading to possible Community-wide harmonisation of
traffic rules should be adopted;

f) full harmonisation does not seem to be possible at the

moment, except in key, fundamental areas;

g) these areas must include:

— various aspects of road safety

— mandatory equipment for vehicles (e.g. replacement car
light bulbs, warning triangles, hands-free mobile phones,
airbags, etc)

Taken together, the statements and written contributions
5.2
show that there is widespread acceptance of the substance and
timeliness of the EESC's initiative to introduce a certain degree
of Europe-wide harmonisation of road traffic rules. Also, some
parties have been open to the possibility and desirability of
gradually aligning systems for a vehicle register and vehicle
registration.

— road signs and markings

— criteria for awarding driving licences

— standard penalty points on driving licences

— the type of penalties for more serious offences;

In this connection, the following points were highlighted

5.3
in particular:

a) the EU framework decision of 8 May 2003 — which covers
the cross-border recognition and enforcement of financial
penalties for offences against the Highway Code — implies
and requires measures to make road traffic rules uniform
throughout Europe;

b) at the same time,

it is important to bear in mind i) the
procedural rules for setting and applying fines and penalties
and ii) the legal defence options available in the different
Member States;

c) driving rules do in fact vary considerably in key areas in the
different Member States, and this entails increased dangers

(15) Cf points 2.4 and 4

h) the model to follow for such a legislative alignment should

be the Vienna Convention;

i) prior to any proposal, a cost-benefit study should be carried
out along the lines of the ones already used for some trans-
port sectors and road safety initiatives (16);

j) special focus should be on effective enforcement of traffic

rules, their monitoring and penalties for offences.

Some parallel and complementary aspects mentioned

5.4
for any initiative in these areas include:

a) standardised systems

for

the

automatic payment of

motorway and bridge tolls (17);

(16) Cf the Report of the European Transport Safety Council on ‘Cost
Effective EU Transport Safety Measures’(2003) and the Final report on
‘Cost-Benefit Analysis of Road Safety Improvements’ carried out by ICF
Consulting, Ltd, London, 12 June 2003.

(17) Cf. Directive 2004/52/EC of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability
of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ L 166 of
30/04/04).

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/39

b) standardised definitions of vehicle weight and size and the

b) drivers' signals;

concomitant restrictions;

c) minimum amount of driving instruction for drivers,

depending on the type of vehicle involved;

limit);

c) speed when driving (not necessarily the maximum speed

d) that fact that this instruction should cover what to do in the

event of an accident, as well as first aid;

e) definition of minimum quality standards for building road

infrastructures; and

f) traffic and accident prevention education campaigns at all

levels of education and also for adults.

6. Scope of a European highway code

Following the hearing referred to above, a clear desire
6.1
was expressed to move towards the harmonisation of road
rules, not however
traffic issues, but also
limited to just
affecting matters such as road infrastructures and road safety.

Since it was established, the European Union has issued
6.2
numerous pieces of
legislation on road traffic: on driving
licences, type-approval of vehicles and their components, rules
applying to transport, motor insurance, etc. What is at stake
here is the establishment of traffic rules, with a view to harmo-
nising these rules; this could help further other areas of inter-
ests, such as road safety which is affected by a driver's certainty
and knowledge regarding what course to adopt in different
driving circumstances.

As already mentioned above, the 1968 Vienna Conven-
6.3
tion contains the most complete text regarding road traffic; it
goes into this matter in the greatest of detail, and — being the
one international instrument adopted by most European coun-
tries — has the particular feature of requiring the signatory
states to bring their national laws into line with the Conven-
tion's provisions. Given that this is the best known and most
widely accepted text amongst
this
convention could serve as a basis for wider discussion on the
European Highway Code..

the European countries,

d) general

rules for priority at crossroads,

junctions and

roundabouts and between vehicles;

e) overtaking;

f) changing direction;

g) reversing;

h) U-turns;

i) stopping and parking;

j) capacity and size of vehicles, passenger and goods trans-
loading and

port, boarding and alighting of passengers,
unloading operations;

k) lights and the use thereof;

l) emergency vehicles and special

lanes, e.g. on motorways
and similar roads, level crossings and lanes reserved for par-
ticular vehicles, whether or not on rails;

m) legal limits for blood alcohol levels and levels of psycho-

tropic substances;

n) use of safety equipment (seat belts, child restraints);

o) mandatory documents;

p) what to do in the event of an accident or breakdown;

q) standardised definition and rules applying to the various
users of public roads,
in particular motorcycles, quadri-
cycles, tricycles, mopeds, bicycles, roller-skaters and skate-
boarders and drivers with disabilities;

r) rules for pedestrians and precautions to be taken by

drivers;

s) special rules for drivers to observe as regards public trans-

port and special vehicles; and

6.4
Thus, the proposal being put forward is to harmonise
the traffic rules which form the nucleus of the most modern of
the European highway codes — especially, but not exclusively:

t) animals on the road.

a) general rules for driving vehicles: starting up and moving
off, putting the car into gear, multiple traffic lanes and
parallel lanes, crossroads, junctions, roundabouts, distance
between road edge and pavements, speed and distance
between vehicles;

6.5
Traffic rules must be supplemented and clarified, and
any exceptions made clear, using traffic signs to provide a
variety of
information likely to increase road traffic safety.
Thus, road signs should be standardised in terms of shape,
content, location and precedence in relation to the traffic rules,
ensuring better management as regards their quantity and visi-
bility.

C 157/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

Road signs are not the only area targeted here. It would
light

6.6
also make sense to harmonise traffic police signals,
signals, drivers' signals and road markings.

The possibilities would thus be greater

7.4
for buying,
insuring and registering a vehicle in any Member State and this
would make a key contribution to boosting cross-border trade
in vehicles, people's mobility, tourism and the development of
the single market (18).

It is an offence not to comply with traffic rules or
6.7
follow the instructions on road signs; this implies standard
rules for monitoring procedures, particularly in detecting speed,
blood alcohol
levels and psychotropic drug levels. However,
prior to this, Member States must agree on what constitutes an
offence, so as to avoid a situation where one activity is an
offence in one Member State but not in another. Therefore, the
definition of offences must be standardised.

7.5 Moreover, a single European vehicle registration system
seems to be extremely worth-while, in addition to the fact that
it would be possible to set up without excessively high costs; it
would initially involve enormous advantages from the point of
the vehicle's papers
view of: determining the holder of
legal certainty in
(ownership or other
theft and fraud prevention; and easier
vehicle transactions;
monitoring and penalties
for offences committed in any
Member State.

legal arrangement);

6.8
It is consequently important to study and set up simpli-
fied mechanisms to promote a uniform interpretation of a
European Highway Code, given that procedures relating to
traffic offences must be speedy if their standards are to be effec-
tive — basically what is needed is a simplified process for ques-
tions referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

7. A single vehicle

registration number

throughout

Europe

Vehicle

registration requirements,

7.1
and
procedures also vary considerably across the Member States.
The possibility of moving towards a single European vehicle
register was also discussed at
the hearing, and there was
support for this from several quarters.

instruments

taxes and other associated costs,

7.2
In addition, the hearing weighed up the pros and cons
of a central European register of vehicle ownership, which
could also record other key points relating to the vehicle such
as duties,
together with
different forms of ownership/use. Highlighted in this connec-
tion were the advantages of this kind of solution for intra-Com-
munity trade in vehicles, fraud and vehicle theft prevention,
and the prosecution of drivers from other Member States who
have committed traffic offences.

The feeling is that conditions are right

7.3
for moving
towards the introduction of a single vehicle register, linked to
the vehicles themselves and not the vehicle owners or users.
This would make use of experience already acquired with the
information system on registration numbers and owner identifi-
cation for motor insurance (3rd Directive).

8. Legal basis and appropriate Community instrument

8.1
As things stand at present, the EESC feels that the most
appropriate legal instrument for launching an initiative of the
scale set out here would be a directive for minimum harmoni-
sation..

8.2
The legal basis for adopting such a directive should take
the initiative as a means of
into account
completing the single market and increasing freedom of move-
ment within the Community for the people in Europe.

the impact of

9. Conclusions and recommendations

A) A European Highway Code

The EESC holds the view that a certain degree of harmo-
9.1
nisation of legislation on road traffic rules is not only an effec-
tive way of speeding up completion of the single market, but
also of ensuring the safer movement of cars on the European
market.

9.2 Moreover, the EESC feels that such harmonisation may
well make a key contribution to boosting road safety and
promoting accident prevention, thus securing more consistent
freedom of movement for the people of Europe.

The EESC believes that

9.3
for
launching preparatory work for a Community legislative initia-
tive with the above-mentioned aims, taking into account the
various points of view and difficulties set out in this Opinion.

the conditions are right

(18) Some members of the study group suggested moving forward now
with a system whereby it would be possible to buy and register a
vehicle on a trans-national basis, to cover the circumstances of
people who, for professional reasons, are in a Member State on a
temporary basis or are obliged to visit that country regularly.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/41

9.4
It understands that as matters stand at present, the possi-
bility of using a directive for minimum harmonisation should
be considered as a first step towards setting up a European
Highway Code, using the Vienna Convention as a model, with
a definition of basic traffic rules and signals, drivers' qualifica-
tions and licences, and the nature of offences and the associated
penalties.

B) A single Europe-wide vehicle register

The EESC also thinks that

9.5
legal certainty in motor
vehicle use, because it makes it easier to trace vehicles, will
benefit considerably from the creation of a single European-
wide vehicle register,
linked as it would be to the vehicles
themselves.

The EESC also considers that a binding Community
9.6
instrument could define the basis for setting up a single system
for a European vehicle register, strongly based on experience to
date in cooperation between the national bodies responsible.

Consequently, it urges the Commission to start up the
situation

9.7
studies necessary for analysing the
regarding the various areas to be harmonised.

cost/benefit

Brussels, 15 December 2004

C) Conclusion

9.8
It suggests that the Commission use a ‘Green Paper’ to
launch a public discussion on the issue, with a view to
obtaining the views of as many stakeholders as possible.

In the meantime, it urges the Commission, for its part,
9.9
to continue with its current studies with a view to ever-greater
harmonization of matters related to driving in general and to
the increased safety of cars themselves.

9.10
The EESC would draw Member States' attention to the
need for and timeliness of adopting increasingly stringent
measures
cooperation and coordination in matters
pertaining to road traffic rules, accident prevention, first aid/
initial steps to take in the event of an accident and damage
compensation.

for

9.11
fully support
Council to take steps to carry out its objectives.

The EESC hopes that the European Parliament will
this initiative and urge the Commission and

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND