Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee under Article 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time arrangements
Date: 2007-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: energy saving, environmental impact, impact study, road safety, summertime

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.11.2007 
COM(2007) 739 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE  

under Article 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time arrangements

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

CHRONOLOGY OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION .................................................. 3 

Summary of the Commission’s in-depth analysis of the implications of summer time
...................................................................................................................................... 4 

The implications of summer time – summary of the information provided by the 
Member States.............................................................................................................. 5 

Member States’ opinion of the current arrangements .................................................. 5 

Impact on the economic sectors most affected ............................................................ 5 

New studies .................................................................................................................. 5 

Public opinion .............................................................................................................. 7 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 8

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE 

under Article 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time arrangements  

(Text with EEA relevance) 

BACKGROUND 

On 19 January 2001 the Council and the European Parliament jointly adopted the Directive on 
summer-time arrangements1. 

Article 5 of the Directive provides that the Commission is to submit a report on the impact of 
the  provisions  of  the  Directive  on  the  sectors  concerned  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. It also provides that the report is 
to  be  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  the  information  made  available  to  the  Commission  by  each 
Member State by 30 April 2007. 

This Communication constitutes the report required under Article 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC. 

1. 

CHRONOLOGY OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION 

Most  Member  States  introduced  summer  time  in  the  1970s,  although  some  had  started 
applying it much earlier for varying lengths of time. 

The First Directive of 22 July 1980, which entered into force in 1981, laid down a common 
date  only  for  the  beginning  of  the  summer-time  period.  Successive  Directives  laid  down  a 
common date for the beginning, i.e. the last Sunday in March, and two dates for the end: one 
on the last Sunday in September applied by the continental Member States, and the other on 
the fourth Sunday in  October  for  the  United Kingdom  and  Ireland.  This  situation  continued 
until  the  adoption  of  the  seventh  Directive  (94/21/EC)  of  30  May  1994,  which  for  the  first 
time provided for a common ending date, i.e. the last Sunday in October, from 1996 onwards. 
That Directive at last brought about the complete harmonisation of the calendar 16 years after 
the  adoption  of  the  first  Directive.  The  eighth  Directive  (97/44/EC)  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  July  19972  extended  the  provisions  of  the  seventh 
Directive for a period of four years (from 1998 to 2001 inclusive). 

Lastly, the present Directive extends the provisions  of  the eighth Directive for  an unlimited 
period (in contrast to all the previous Directives). This is because, as is set out in the recitals 
to the Directive, the proper functioning of certain sectors requires stable, long-term planning. 
However, it is also stated that implementation of the Directive should be monitored by means 
of a report from the Commission. 

1 
2 

OJ L 31, 2.2.2001, p. 21. 
OJ L 206, 1.8.1997, p. 62. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  COMMISSION’S  IN-DEPTH  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  IMPLICATIONS  OF 
SUMMER TIME 

Before it proposed the ninth Directive, the Commission conducted an in-depth analysis of the 
implications  of  summer  time  in  the  European  Union  Member  States,  i.e.  changing  the  time 
twice per year and the fact that it is darker in the morning and lighter in the evening. 

A study was carried out at the time by an independent consultant. The consultant’s task was to 
review  the  various  existing  studies  on  the  subject  at  both  Community  and  national  level, 
question experts in the various areas concerned, consult stakeholders and the Member States, 
and  present  conclusions  and  submit  recommendations  on  the  basis  of  the  analyses  and 
investigations carried out. 

The Commission’s main conclusions, based on that study and set out in the proposal for the 
current Directive, can be summarised as follows3: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

3 

More  than  20  years  on  from  the  adoption  of  the  first  Directive  in  this  field,  the 
economic  sectors  seen  as  being  the  most  affected,  i.e.  agriculture,  tourism  and 
transport, have embraced summer time and no longer question its raison d’être. 

As  regards  transport,  the  introduction  of  complete  harmonisation  of  the  timetable 
has led to the removal of the major obstacles encountered in the past. 

Summer time provides greater opportunities for all sorts of evening leisure activities 
because of the natural light available. 

Given that studies in this area contradict one another, it is impossible to draw valid 
conclusions  on  the  impact  of  summer  time  on  the  environment.  This  applies  in 
particular to the question as to whether summer time leads to an increase or reduction 
in ozone production as compared with a scenario with no change in the time. 

Summer  time  helps  to  save  energy  since  less  electricity  is  used  for  lighting  in  the 
evening due to the fact that it is lighter. However, the increased energy consumption 
for  heating  during  the  morning  when  the  time  is  adjusted  and  the  higher  fuel 
consumption  caused  by  a  potential  increase  in  traffic  in  the  evenings  when  it  is 
lighter have to be deducted from these savings. Also, the savings actually achieved 
are difficult to gauge and in any event are relatively small. 

Most of the possible effects of summer time on health are linked to the fact that the 
body has adapt to the change in time in April and October. Specialists recognise that, 
at the current stage of research and know-how, most of the difficulties experienced 
are of short duration and are not a health hazard. 

As  regards  road  safety,  the  question  is  whether  darker  mornings,  in  particular  in 
spring  and  autumn,  and  lighter  evenings  have  an  impact  on  the  number  of  traffic 
accidents.  The  lack  of  sufficient  data  and  the  interaction  of  other  factors  such  as 
weather conditions do not enable a definite causal link between summer time and the 
number of accidents to be established. 

See summary of the conclusions set out in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for Directive 
2000/84/EC. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  for  drawing  up  this  report  should  make  it 
possible to update and/or supplement the conclusions of the study. 

3. 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUMMER TIME – SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED 
BY THE MEMBER STATES 

Twenty-five  Member  States  sent  the  Commission  their  comments  on  the  impact  of  the 
summer-time  arrangements  in  their  country.  As  regards  the  other  Member  States,  the 
Commission  concludes  that  they  do  not  have  any  specific  information  on  the  impact  of 
summer time4. 

The Member States’ contributions can be summarised as follows: 

3.1.  Member States’ opinion of the current arrangements 

No  Member  State  is  calling  for  changes  to  the  current  arrangements.  The  majority  of  the 
Member States stress the importance of harmonising the summer-time timetable in the EU, in 
particular as regards transport. 

Belgium  is  in  favour  of  maintaining  the  current  arrangements  or,  alternatively,  applying 
summer time throughout the year. 

3.2. 

Impact on the economic sectors most affected 

Most  Member  States,  partly  on  the  basis  of  the  results  of  consulting  the  sectors  concerned, 
conclude that there is no indication of any significant impact of summer time on the economic 
sectors most affected in their country, i.e. agriculture, transport and tourism. 

In Latvia the tourism experts regard summer time as having a positive impact on tourism to 
the  extent  that,  for  example,  there  is  greater  demand  for  leisure  products  (cycling,  boating, 
etc). 

Italy  reports  that  the  construction  and  agriculture  sectors  benefit  from  summer  time, 
particularly in the south of the country, due to the fact that it is cooler in the morning than it 
would be at the same time of the day without summer time. 

On the basis of the information available in the Member States it appears that the conclusion 
drawn in the proposal for the current Directive is still valid: the various economic sectors have 
embraced summer time. 

3.3. 

New studies 

A few Member States sent in information on recent quantitative studies, relating to the impact 
of summer time on energy consumption, road safety and health. 

Energy 

4 

The Commission wrote to the Member States in June 2007 informing them of its intention to do so in 
cases where a Member State had not responded by the end of July 2007. This report is therefore based 
on all the information available to the Commission on 31 July 2007. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In Bulgaria, a statistical analysis carried out by the operator of the electricity system covering 
electricity consumption over the last three years shows that savings have resulted from non-
use  of  artificial  lighting  estimated  at  20.5  GWh  per  year,  i.e.  about  0.01%  of  the  country’s 
overall consumption in 20055. 

A  study  carried  out  in  France  in  2006  compared,  on  the  basis  of  simulations,  the  present 
situation with a “without summer time” scenario. The study showed that summer time led to 
energy  savings  of  684  GWh  (lighting  and  air  conditioning)  and  additional  consumption  of 
14 GWh for heating, i.e. a saving of 0.014% in overall consumption in 20056. The study also 
showed that bringing forward the adjustment to summer time by one month would provide an 
additional saving of 45 GWh for lighting. 

In  Slovenia,  various  statistical  analyses  carried  out  by  the  electricity  companies  show  that 
changing  the  time  in  March  and  October  has  only  very  little  or  no  impact  on  electricity 
consumption. 

In Estonia, the statistics show that in 2000 and 2001, when summer time was exceptionally 
not  applied  in  that  country,  household  electricity  consumption  during  the  period  April-
October was higher than in the years before and after 2000 and 2001. However, the difference 
was  less  than  10%  and  the  ratio  of  consumption  in  summer  to  that  in  winter  was  similar  to 
that found in years in which summer time was applied. 

In Latvia, electricity consumption and the maximum load on the electricity system before and 
after the date on which the time was changed in spring were compared at the end of March 
2006. The changes found in these two parameters were minimal. 

In  Cyprus,  the  Astronomical  Society  proposes  in  a  report  that  the  duration  of  summer  time 
should  be  shortened  and  should  only  be  applied  between  May  and  September.  This  would 
include  those  months  with  more  than  12  hours  of  sunlight,  except  April,  and  an  average 
temperature  above  24°C.  The  report  claims  that  energy  savings  could  thus  be  achieved  as 
compared  with  the  current  time  system,  although  the  claim  is  not  backed  up  by  any 
quantitative analysis. 

Road safety 

In Estonia, a comparative study of the number of accidents involving fatalities and casualties 
30 days before and after the time adjustments in 2004 to 2006 did not show any significant 
statistical variations of the annual number of accidents. 

Research by Estradas de Portugal7 did not reveal any direct link between summer time and 
road safety. This view has been confirmed by several transport experts. 

Health 

In Finland, in 2003 and 2004 two studies looked into the impact on the body of changing the 
time in March, based on a sample of 10 people. The studies found some impact on sleep and 
biorhythm  in  the  four  days  following  the  time  change.  However,  the  authors  stress  that  the 

5 
6 
7 

Source: statistics published by EURELECTRIC. 
Source: statistics published by EURELECTRIC. 
The public body in charge of road management in Portugal. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
studies do not allow any conclusions to be drawn for the population as a whole because of the 
small size of the sample. 

In conclusion, particularly as regards the impact on energy, some recent quantitative studies 
confirm that energy savings have been made, albeit small ones, in relation to overall energy 
consumption,  but  they  do  not  take  account  of  a  potential  rise  in  consumption  due  to  the 
possible  increase  in  road  traffic  in  the  evenings.  It  is  also  true  that  the  energy  savings  on 
lighting  will  probably  tend  to  decline  as  a  result  of  the  more  widespread  use  of  low-
consumption bulbs, as pointed out by the French Association Against Double Summer Time 
(ACHED).  However,  only  future  experience  will  show  to  what  extent  these  reductions  in 
savings  will  be  offset  by  greater  savings  in  the  field  of  air  conditioning  as  a  result  of  more 
widespread use of air conditioning in offices. 

3.4. 

Public opinion 

Opinion polls in the Member States 

Some  Member  States  sent  in  the  results  of  recent  opinion  polls  or  public  consultation 
exercises (over the internet) on summer time. 

In Estonia, a poll conducted in 2001 showed that the number of proponents and opponents of 
summer time was almost identical. 

In Lithuania, a poll conducted in 2006 showed that 55% were against and 32% for summer 
time. 

In Latvia, two internet consultations were carried out in 2006. They showed that about 60% of 
those taking part were opposed to summer time. However, it should be pointed out that this 
result was not obtained using a representative sample of people but on the basis of people who 
decided to take part in the consultation. 

According  to  a  survey  conducted  by  the  CREDOC  institute  in  France  in  2005,  about  two 
thirds of the French are in favour of or do not care about summer time, i.e. since 1993 positive 
opinion  has  increased  by  12  points  while  negative  opinion  has  decreased  by  13 points. 
However, in a survey conducted by SOFRES in 2002, 45% were in favour of summer time 
throughout the year, 31.4% did not care and 26.3% were opposed to summer time. 

To  conclude,  the  very  small  number  of  recent  surveys  on  this  subject  do  not  enable  valid 
conclusions to be drawn, especially since the degree of representativeness and the results of 
the surveys vary from one country to the next. 

EUROBAROMETER 

The Eurobarometer survey conducted in 1990 arrived at a satisfaction index of about 57.4% 
for the European Community as a whole. 

The  Eurobarometer  survey  conducted  in  1993  on  the  date  on  which  summer  time  ends 
showed that most people in the Community of Twelve were for the end of October (54.5%) as 
opposed to the end of September (38.4%), i.e. the current arrangements. 

Contacts with associations and citizens 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
The  Commission  was  regularly  contacted  by  ACHED,  a  French  association  opposed  to 
summer  time  in  France  and  Europe.  Among  other  things,  ACHED  sent  in  letters,  notes, 
articles  and  reports  –  most  of  them  from  the  1980s  and  1990s  –  in  which  the  authors 
expressed  their  opposition  to  summer  time  for  one  reason  or  another.  The  association  also 
referred to a number of older studies on the impact of summer time. 

No  other  associations,  including  associations  in  the  various  sectors  concerned,  made  their 
opinion known to the Commission. 

However,  the  Commission  occasionally  receives  correspondence  from  ordinary  citizens 
calling  for  a  change  to  the  current  arrangements  (e.g.  the  abolition  of  summer  time  or  the 
introduction of summer time all year round). 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  information  made  available  to  the  Commission  for  drawing  up  this  report  allows  the 
conclusion  to  be  drawn  that  the  analysis  set  out  in  the  proposal  for  the  Directive  remains 
valid:  apart  from  the  fact  that  it  provides  greater  opportunities  for  a  wide  range  of  evening 
leisure  activities  and  produces  some  energy  savings,  summer  time  has  little  impact  and  the 
current arrangements are not a subject at the forefront of people’s minds in the EU Member 
States. 

Against this background, the Commission takes the view that the summer-time arrangements 
as introduced by the Directive continue to be appropriate. No Member State has expressed a 
wish  to  abandon  summer  time  or  change  the  provisions  of  the  current  Directive.  On  the 
contrary, it is important to maintain the harmonised timetable to ensure the proper functioning 
of the internal market, which is the main objective of the Directive. 

EN 

8 

   EN