Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum conditions for the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2005-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, European social policy, labour law, occupational safety, road safety, road transport

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.6.2005 
COM(2005) 302 final 

2003/0255 (COD) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
AND OF THE COUNCIL 

 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and Council 
Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to 
road transport activities 

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION  
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2003/0255 (COD) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
AND OF THE COUNCIL 

 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and Council 
Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to 
road transport activities 

  1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is 
to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament  at  second 
reading.  The  Commission  sets  out  its  opinion  below  on  the  35  amendments  proposed  by 
Parliament.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and to 
the Council  

(document COM(2003)628 final - 2003/0255(COD)) 

2 December 2003

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 

3 June 2004

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament following first reading 

20 April 2004

Date of adoption of the Common Position by qualified majority 

9 December 2004

Date of adoption of the resolution at second reading by the European 
Parliament comprising 35 amendments to the Common Position 

13 April 2005

3. 

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL 

The  Commission  proposal  seeks  to  improve  enforcement  of  Community  social  rules  by 
increasing  the  quantity  of  checks,  improving  the  quality  of  enforcement  activity  and 
addressing the issue of a harmonised approach to infringements and sanctions.  

In terms of increasing the quantity of checks, the Commission proposed raising the minimum 
percentage to 3% immediately, with a greater percentage of such checks being carried out at 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
the premises (at least 50% as opposed to the current 25%) and at the roadside (at least 30% as 
opposed  to  the  current  15%).  In  terms  of  concerted  checks,  the  Commission  proposed  to 
increase  the  minimum  from  two  to  six  per  year,  to  encourage  greater  cooperation  and 
exchange of best practice between enforcement authorities.  

To enhance the quality of enforcement activities, the Commission proposed minimum training 
and  equipment  for  enforcement  staff,  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  national 
enforcement  strategy  by  Member  States,  the designation  of  a  co-ordinating  body  to  oversee 
this strategy and liaise with enforcement authorities of other Member States. In terms of road 
infrastructure, sufficient parking areas were to be put in place to allow drivers to rest and to 
facilitate  roadside  checks.  In  terms  of  co-operation  between  Member  State  enforcement 
authorities, a committee would be established to facilitate exchange of best practice, prepare 
common rules on risk assessment of undertakings for targeting enforcement operations, agree 
on  uniform  documentation  concerning  proof  of  sick  and  annual  leave  and  the  criteria  for  a 
common electronic exchange of information and intelligence. Joint training sessions were also 
envisaged.  

As  regards  a  common  approach  to  infringements  and  sanctions,  the  Commission  proposed 
that  Member  States  make  available  to  their  enforcement  authorities  the  temporary 
immobilisation  of  a  vehicle,  along  with  other  specified  sanctions.  Proportionate  financial 
sanctions were proposed for those in the transport chain where non compliance of these rules 
has  led  to  profits  for  them.  A  common  list  of  serious  infringements  was  set  out,  for  which 
Member States were to notify the sanctions laid down. The Commission would then draw up 
a report analysing the penalties set out for serious infringements and concluding on the extent 
to which they should be harmonised.  

4. 

OPINION  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  BY  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

4.1. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission 

Overall the Commission can accept 26 amendments out of a total of 35. 20 amendments are 
acceptable as they stand: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 36 and 
37.  

Four amendments are acceptable in principle or subject to redrafting: 2, 27, 31 and 35; two 
amendments are acceptable in part: 15 and 17.  

4.1.1 Amendments accepted subject to redrafting 

Amendment 2  advocates interoperability and practicability  in  monitoring  systems.  In  terms 
of enforcement officer equipment and electronic exchange of intelligence, interoperability is 
highly desirable. The objective would need redrafting to highlight the need for coordination at 
EU level through the proposed comitology procedure, as follows: 

Recital 5(a).  

“The  interoperability  and  practicality  of  national  monitoring  systems  should  be  facilitated 
through the Committee procedure referred to in Article 12;” 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Amendment  35  includes  checks  on  weekly  and  fortnightly  driving  limits  at  the  roadside, 
which  the  Commission  strongly  supports,  particularly  as  a  logical  consequence  of  the 
introduction  of  the  digital  tachograph.  Mention  of  checks  of  the  preceding  28  days  would 
have to be redrafted to take account of the staged approach to this provision, as follows:. 

Annex  I,  Part  A,  point  (1)“(1)  daily  and  weekly  driving  periods,  total  accumulated  driving 
time  during  two  consecutive  weeks,  breaks  and  daily  and  weekly  rest  periods  and 
compensatory rest periods; also the preceding […] record sheets which have to be carried on 
board  the  vehicle  in  accordance  with  Article  15(7)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3821/85  and/or 
the  data  for  the  same  period  on  the  driver  card  and/or  in  the  memory  of  the  recording 
equipment in conformity with Annex II to this Directive and/or on printouts […]. 

4.1.2 Amendments accepted in principle  

Amendment  27  states  that  repeated  offences  should  be  more  heavily  penalised.  The 
Commission could support this logical approach, as follows: 

Article 9, paragraph 2 

“2. Undertakings with a more high-risk rating shall be checked more closely and more often, 
and, if repeated infringements are detected, a proportionate sanction shall be applied.”  

Amendment  31  sets  out  in  detail  what  the  Commission’s  report  on  penalties  for  serious 
infringements should include. The issue raised in the amendment could form part of a more 
general aim of the report, but should not restrict it to this aspect, as follows: 

Article 10, paragraph 1 a (new) 

“The report shall include divergences between penalties and the impact of harmonisation of 
such penalties on enforcement and road safety.” 

. 

4.1.3 Amendments accepted in part 

Both amendments 15 and 17 go into an excessive amount of detail.  

Amendment 15 requires enforcement staff at roadside checks to specify where their checks 
are  carried  out  which  might  compromise  their  inspection  regime.  Moreover  they  are  to 
demand information  from the  driver  that he might  not  know  (number  of vehicles owned  by 
the company). However the Commission could support noting the country of registration of 
the  vehicle  and  country  of  origin  of  the  driver  and  undertaking  which  could  help  inform 
enforcement  operations,  and  serve  to  ensure  non-discrimination.  The  revised  text  reads  as 
follows: 

Article 3, paragraph 1, point (a), point (i)(a) (new) 

“(i)(a) country of registration of the vehicle inspected, country of origin of the driver and of 
the undertaking; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Amendment  17  lists  a  series  of  places  for  checks.  The  Commission  could  accept  ‘service 
stations’ and ‘other safe locations’ which could indeed cover the other examples given. The 
revised text reads as follows: 

Article 4, paragraph 2, point (a) 

(a) sufficient provision is made for checkpoints on or nearby existing and planned roads and, 
in particular, that service stations and other safe locations along motorways can function 
as checkpoints ; 

4.2. 

Amendments rejected by the Commission 

Nine amendments are rejected, as they raise issues of clarity and practicality: 7, 11, 12, 13, 
16, 18, 28, 30 and 34. 

Amendment 7 sets out the type of journeys to which this Directive should apply. There is no 
need  to  include  this  provision,  as  the  minimum  enforcement  conditions  contained  in  the 
proposed Directive are dependent on the scope laid out in the related Community legislation, 
namely,  Regulations  (EEC)  3820/85  and  3821/85  as  well  as  Directive  2002/15/EC. 
Amendments  11  and  12  introduce  more  ambitious  deadlines  for  the  staged  increase  in  the 
percentage  of  checks.  The  Commission  prefers  a  set  of  more  realistic  and  achievable 
deadlines to enable all Member States to respect the rules.  

While  Amendment  13  seeks  an  immediate  increase  in  the  number  of  checks  at  company 
premises  from  25%  to  50%  of  all  checks  undertaken,  the  Commission  prefers  a  more 
managed approach and one that includes an increase in the minimum percentage of roadside 
checks from 15% to 30%.  

Amendments 16 and 18 introduce an unnecessary burden on undertakings and enforcement 
officers  respectively.  The  former  requires  undertakings  to  keep  records  of  checks  they  have 
experienced  over  the  previous  year  –  the  added  value  of  this  requirement  is  questionable. 
Those  undertakings  who  wish  to  demonstrate  that  they  have  already  been  sanctioned  for  an 
offence  detected  during  roadside  checks  will  have  doubtless  kept  a  record.  However  an 
undertaking will not always be in a position to hold a comprehensive database, if their driver 
decides to pay the fine and not declare it. Likewise, the latter amendment obliges enforcement 
officers  to  maintain  a  balance  in  the  intensity  of  their  roadside  checks.  Just  what  ‘balance’ 
means is unclear; moreover if rigidly interpreted, it could interfere with the proper discretion 
of enforcement officers in carrying out their duties. 

Amendment  28  runs  counter  to  the  principle  of  extraterritoriality  in  terms  of  sanctions 
introduced by the proposed new Regulation on driving times and rest periods. It returns to the 
largely  ineffective  and  rarely  used  current  system  of  exchange  of  information  on 
infringements detected. 

Amendment 30 advocates that the Commission make a proposal to harmonise penalties for 
serious infringements following its report on this issue. The Commission considers that this 
amendment would unduly restrict the right of initiative of the Commission.  

Amendment 34 removes the provision enabling the Community to negotiate primarily within 
the context of the AETR agreement to ensure similar enforcement standards are also applied 
beyond the Union’s borders. This would be a step backwards. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
5. 

CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out 
above. 

EN 

6 

   EN