Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) COM(2007) 265 final/3 — 2007/0099 (COD)
Date: 2008-03-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: carriage of goods, exchange of information, international transport, road cabotage, road transport, simplification of legislation, transport licence

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/31

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international road
haulage market (recast)

COM(2007) 265 final/3 — 2007/0099 (COD)

(2008/C 204/09)

On 16 July 2007, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the interna-
tional road haulage market (recast)

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 19 February 2008. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 443rd plenary session, held on 12 — 13 March 2008 (meeting of 12 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 65 votes to 21 with 6 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

2. Introduction

1.1
The EESC notes with interest the proposal for a regu-
lation on access to the international road haulage market. The
decision taken by the Commission in this proposal to opt for a
form of harmonising the regulation's
implementation that
entails a clear and easily enforceable definition of cabotage and
largely improved rules on compliance and enforcement would
meet the demands of the majority of stakeholders in the sector.

1.2
The Committee considers, however, that the social aspect
of access to the international road haulage market warrants
closer attention. Cabotage, like cross-trade (1) (carriage to and
from third countries), can entail unfair competition and social
dumping in the sector, as a result of the wage gap between
drivers from the old and new Member States.

1.3
In the EESC's opinion, requiring cabotage operations to
take place within seven days could make it easier to monitor.
Such operations can only be allowed where they follow an inter-
national journey.

1.4 Monitoring cabotage should form part of a national
strategy for monitoring the implementation of road haulage
legislation and should be coordinated by the Commission. The
Committee would not want to see a plethora of European-level
committees and calls for a single committee made up of repre-
sentatives of the Member States, with the social partners being
given observer status.

2.1
The proposal for a regulation currently under considera-
road haulage market,
tion, on access to the international
addresses matters that form part of the pillars of the internal
market in road transport.

2.2 More specifically, these pillars consist of a legal frame-
work laying down European rules, known as common applic-
able rules, which must be complied with in the international
carriage of goods and passengers by road within EU territory (in
other words the carriage of goods to or from the territory of a
Member State or passing across the territory of one or more
Member States).

2.3

This framework:

— sets minimum quality standards which must be met in order

to enter the profession;

— liberalises

international

road haulage

and occasional

passenger services; and

— establishes regulated competition between regular passenger
services and for cabotage haulage operations by non-resident
hauliers.

1.5
For the longer term the Committee would encourage the
Commission to undertake further analysis with a view to better
achieving the internal market coupled with further harmonisa-
tion of quality standards, worker protection and the fiscal and
social framework, including the reduction of the pay gap.

(1) Cross-trade is deemed to be carriage between country A and country B

undertaken by a haulier established in country C.

the internal

Because the aim of establishing this legal framework was
2.4
to achieve the smooth operation of
transport
market, account was not always taken of its social impact, in
other words the impact on the employment and working condi-
tions of professional coach or lorry drivers (both male and
female). At the time, (the first directive dates back to 1962), the
social dimension of
the internal road haulage market and
sustainable transport were not policy considerations in this
sphere.

C 204/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

3. Commission proposal

3.1
The Commission proposal identifies five policy options
ranging from a 'no change' option to a 'liberalisation' option
that would place virtually no quantitative restrictions on cabo-
tage. The Committee considers that standards vary too greatly
liberalisation to be possible
within Europe at present for full
without eroding standards and quality of service and long-estab-
lished norms for the protection of health, safety and working
conditions in the industry. It is therefore proposing at present a
more limited middle option, the 'harmonisation' option, which
would include a clear and enforceable definition of the circum-
stances in which cabotage operations should be permitted,
along with improved procedures for securing compliance and
enforcement and standardising and simplifying the paperwork
involved.

3.2
This proposal forms part of a legislative package that
includes three proposals for regulations aimed at updating,
simplifying and condensing the rules on access to the interna-
tional
road passenger and goods transport profession and
market and also includes a report on the application to self-
employed drivers of the directive on working time. It makes
sense, therefore, to ensure that the proposal fits neatly into this
package.

3.3 With this in mind, the Commission's rationale for this
proposal for a regulation is the need to enhance the clarity, read-
ability and enforceability of the current rules. Certain measures
forming part of this legislative framework are unequally applied
and enforced because of unclear or incomplete legal provisions.

3.4 More specifically,
ment of the following aspects are a cause for concern:

the implementation and/or enforce-

— the scope of the Regulation on transports by Community

hauliers to and from third countries;

— the difficulties in implementing the concept of temporary
cabotage; despite an interpretative communication published
in 2005 on the basis of the Court of Justice definition of
‘temporary’
in connection with the freedom to provide
services, difficulties have remained and Member States tend
to implement rules which are divergent, difficult to enforce
or which impose an additional administrative burden;

— the ineffectiveness of the exchange of information between
Member States; as a result, undertakings which operate on
the territory of a Member State other than their Member
State of establishment hardly risk any administrative sanc-
tions, as a result of which the competition might be
distorted between these undertakings less inclined to comply
with rules and the others;

— the heterogeneity of

the various documents (Community
licence, certified copies and driver attestation), which creates
problems during roadside checks and often leads to consid-
erable time losses for operators.

The proposal aims at revising and consolidating Regula-
3.5
tions (EEC) No 881/92,
(EEC) No 3118/93 and Directive
2006/94/EC. This is not merely a recast, however, because the
proposal contains new aspects, for example, on cabotage. It is
based on Article 71 of the Treaty, which refers to common
rules applicable to international transport and to the conditions
for allowing non-resident hauliers access to national transport
in a Member State (2).

to attain the objectives of

3.6
The Commission considers that its proposal reflects the
need to ensure the smooth operation of the internal market,
the Lisbon strategy by
helps
improving road safety, contributes to the process of
‘better
lawmaking’ and improves compliance with rules on social
protection.

The proposed act concerns an EEA (European Economic

3.7
Area) matter and should therefore extend to the EEA.

4. General comments

4.1
The EESC is interested to note the proposal for a regu-
lation on access to the international road haulage market. In
principle the EESC believes that the long-term goal should be to
move towards a more liberalised market for road haulage opera-
tions within the EU coupled with proper enforcement of
Europe-wide standards for health, safety and worker protection
and further harmonisation in the fiscal and social
fields,
including the reduction of the pay gap,
i.e. the direction of
movement should be towards the Commission's Option 5. This
option is in line with the existing Regulation nr 3118/93 and
the internal market policy. This might make the industry more
competitive with benefits to all of European business as users of
haulage services, and might have environmental advantages in
reducing the number of empty or part-empty journeys under-
taken because of the present restrictions on cabotage.

(2) Article 71, OJ C 325, 24.12.2002, p. 61, states that:

‘1. For the purpose of implementing Article 70, and taking into
account the distinctive features of transport, the Council shall,
acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions, lay down:
a) ommon rules applicable to international transport to or from
the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory
of one or more Member States;

b) the conditions under which non-resident hauliers may operate

transport services within a Member State;

c) measures to improve transport safety;
d) any other appropriate provisions.

2. By way of derogation from the procedure provided for in para-
graph 1, where the application of provisions concerning the prin-
ciples of the regulatory system for transport would be liable to
have a serious effect on the standard of living and on employ-
ment in certain areas and on the operation of transport facilities,
they shall be laid down by the Council acting unanimously on a
proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. In so doing,
the Council shall take into account the need for adaptation to the
economic development which will result from establishing the
common market’.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/33

4.2
The Committee agrees however with the Commission
that full liberalisation of the haulage market throughout Europe
would be too disruptive at the present time and would carry a
grave risk of eroding social and quality standards and reducing
compliance with them. It believes that the Commission should
be encouraged to undertake the deeper analysis which they have
suggested would need to be involved in moving towards further
liberalisation in the future. But it agrees with the Commission
that the 'harmonisation' option is the best way forward in the
immediate future

cabotage operations, hauliers post workers who have an
employment relationship with those hauliers, from the Member
State where they ordinarily work. This recital does not,
however, appear in either the articles or the explanatory
memorandum.

4.7
This aspect assumes even greater importance since Com-
munity legal provisions for the road transport industry, and in
particular those concerning the social chapter, are not being
properly implemented in all Member States.

4.3

In particular, the EESC considers that:

— the new definition of cabotage, regulating the conditions
under which non-resident hauliers may operate national
road haulage services within a Member State;

5. Specific comments

5.1 Scope (Article 1)

— the requirement for a simplified and standardised format for
the Community licence, certified copies and the driver attes-
tation;

— enhancing the current legal provisions by obliging a Member
State to act, when requested to do so by another Member
State, when a haulier to whom it delivered a Community
licence commits an infringement in the Member State of
establishment or in another Member State;

all help to improve the clarity and enforceability of the current
rules.

5.1.1
The EESC regrets the fact that the regulation does not
apply to international transports of less than 3,5 tonnes. Given
the growth of the express and home delivery sector, in border
regions too,
it would have made sense for this regulation to
include the vehicles of less than 3,5 tonnes commonly used in
this sector, in order to prevent situations of unfair competition.

5.1.2
The EESC wishes to express its fears concerning the
fact that the regulation does not apply to international carriage
between a Member State and a third country as long as no
agreement between the EU and the third country in question
has been concluded. The EESC thus calls on the Commission to
make every effort to conclude these agreements, in particular
with those States sharing a border with the European Union.

4.4
The Committee wishes to point out that the results of
the consultation carried out by the Commission prior to the
legislative package and to this proposal in particular suggest that
most stakeholders consider that what is needed are rules that
in all Member
are clear, straightforward, applicable,
States and easily monitored. The decision taken by the Commis-
sion in this proposal
for a form of harmonisation
entailing a clear and easily enforceable definition of cabotage
and largely improved rules on compliance and enforcement
would meet the demands of these stakeholders.

identical

to opt

4.5
Indeed, although the preamble to Regulation 881/92
refers to eliminating ‘… all restrictions imposed on the provider
of services because of his nationality or the fact that he is estab-
lished in a Member State other than that in which the service is
to be provided’, maintaining the derogation, even on a
temporary basis, in line with Article 71(2) of the Treaty, would
be entirely justified: total liberalisation of the market ‘would be
liable to have a serious effect on the standard of living and on
employment in certain areas and on the operation of transport
facilities …’.

5.2 Definitions (Article 2)

5.2.1
tions of
‘cabotage operations’ are provided.

The EESC welcomes the fact that new, clearer defini-
‘non-resident haulier’ and
the ‘host Member State’,

5.3 The operational definition of cabotage (Articles 2 and 8)

states

The Commission proposal

5.3.1
that hauliers are
permitted to carry out up to three cabotage operations consecu-
tive to an international carriage once the goods carried in the
course of the incoming international carriage have been deliv-
ered. The last cabotage operations must take place within seven
days.

5.3.2
The advantage of this operational definition is that it
clearly prohibits non-resident hauliers from entering a Member
State with an unladen vehicle. Cabotage is only authorised
where it precedes or follows a laden international journey.

4.6
The EESC considers, however, that the social dimension
of access to the international road haulage market warrants
closer attention. A number of recitals, recital 13 in particular,
do, of course, refer to the Directive concerning the posting of
workers (Directive 96/71) in the framework of the provision of
services, which should apply in cases where, for the provision of

5.3.3
The drawback lies in the fact that, in theory, the haulier
can repeat the operation following the 7-day limit, with the
same company, the same type of goods and the same journey.
How, in such cases, can the temporary nature of cabotage trans-
port be guaranteed?

C 204/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

5.3.4
The EESC thus calls for the new text to stipulate and
emphasise that the ‘temporary nature’ of cabotage is one of its
defining features (3).

5.3.5
Although cabotage accounts for only 3 % of interna-
tional freight transport (4), it is nonetheless of importance to the
smaller Member States, where the limited national road haulage
markets encourage hauliers to seek out freight opportunities
abroad. The statistics might not be 100 % reliable — cabotage
is reported by the country in which a haulier is registered —
but they do show that this phenomenon is growing (5).

Although the statistics might be open to discussion
5.3.6
they show that cabotage accounts for a substantial part of inter-
national haulage, especially in the smaller of the older Member
States. Dutch hauliers are the most active caboteurs, followed by
Germany and Luxembourg. These three countries accounted for
half of all cabotage performed by EU-25 hauliers in 2005.
Although, conversely, the penetration rate by country (this rate
is the percentage of cabotage within a country's domestic
market,
i.e. national transport plus cabotage) has experienced
slow but steady growth, it remains within negligible limits. Since
1999, Belgium, Luxembourg and France have been the most
heavily penetrated countries: Belgium 2,87 %, France 2,.50 %
and Luxembourg 1,99 % (6). Cabotage penetration in the new
Member States is generally below 0,3 %, apart from Latvia at
0,8 %.

5.3.7
The Committee is concerned, however, at the detri-
mental effects of cabotage — which will be considerable — on
small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector, when cabo-
tage is carried out in the old Member States by operators from
the new Member States, which will send drivers to carry out
cabotage on wages considerably lower than those paid in the
host State (7).

5.3.8
The EESC is, of course, not against operators from the
new Member States entering the market, but wishes to raise the
issue of limiting and monitoring cabotage in order to prevent
unfair competition and social dumping. The Committee, there-
fore, supports the Commission's choice, which is to establish a
legal framework that encourages regulated competition and not
the complete liberalisation of cabotage.

The

assessment of

the measures
the
5.3.9
proposed by the Commission also highlights the increase in
cross-trade (some people use the term ‘home trade’) (8). Further-
more, a growing number of freight and logistics companies are

impact of

establishing offices in the new Member States and are sending
drivers from these countries to carry out international transport
between old Member States. The pricing of
this transport
excludes all competition because it is based on the wage gap
between drivers from the old and new Member States. The
proposal
for a regulation makes no reference to this other
aspect of unfair competition and social dumping.

5.3.10
This is also why the EESC regrets the absence of the
social aspect from the legislative package and from this proposal
in particular. No account is taken of the considerable wage gap
that exists between the new and old Member States in the
sector, or of the detrimental effect on small and medium-sized
enterprises, employment and drivers' wages.

Turning to the issue of monitoring cabotage (Article
5.3.11
8), according to the Commission, enforcement bodies will be
able to check more easily whether a cabotage is lawful by
looking at the CMR consignment letters which indicate the
loading and unloading of an international carriage.
dates of
Furthermore, for each cabotage operation, the following details
must be provided: the sender, the haulier and the consignee, the
place and the date of taking over of the goods and the place
designated for delivery, the description in common use of the
nature of the goods and the method of packing and, in the case
of dangerous goods, their generally recognised description as
well as the number of packages and their special marks and
numbers, the gross weight of the goods or their quantity other-
wise expressed and the number plates of the motor vehicle and
trailer. Such data will certainly help to improve monitoring of
the cabotage operation, which should take place within seven
days.

The EESC considers, however, that requiring a cabotage opera-
tion to take place within seven days could make it easier to
monitor.

(3) Based on Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993
laying down the conditions under which non-resident hauliers may
operate national road haulage services within a Member State (OJ L
279, 12.11.93, p. 1) and the Commission interpretative communica-
tion on the temporary nature of road cabotage in the movement of
freight, of December 2004.

(4) Statistics in focus, Yves Mathieu, 77/2007, ‘Trends in road freight trans-

port’ 1999-2005, page 4.

(5) Statistics in focus, Simo Pasi, 27/2007, trends in road freight transport
1999-2005, page 6; in 2005, there was an increase of 2 % compared to
2004.

(6) Statistics in focus, Simo Pasi, 27/2007, trends in road freight transport
1999-2005, page 6; in 2005, there was an increase of 2 % compared to
2004.

(7) Commission staff working paper, impact assessment SEC(2007)635/2
explains that labour costs (drivers) in particular can vary from 1 to 3
and even in some cases from 1 to 6 (page 6).

(8) Commission staff working paper,

Impact assessment, SEC(2007)
635/2, page 6 stipulates: ‘cross-trade grew steadily at an annual average
rate of 4,4 % between 1999 and 2003.This rate increased to over 20 %
for 2004 and 2005’.

6. What is the relevance of the directive concerning the

posting of workers?

The Directive

6.1
concerning the posting of workers
(Directive 96/71) in the framework of the provision of services,
for the provision of cabotage
should apply in cases where,
operations, hauliers post workers, who have an employment
relationship with those hauliers, from the Member State where
they ordinarily work.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/35

6.2
The problem lies in the manner in which this directive
has been transposed into national legislation ... which, in this
specific case has resulted in its implementation differing in
terms of the sectors covered and the duration of service provi-
sion. Consequently, some countries apply the directive only to
the construction sector, whilst others make application of the
directive mandatory from the first day on which service is
provided (9). Furthermore, the Directive enables Member States
to exempt the sector from the regulation, by means of collective
agreements, where the length of the posting does not exceed
one month (10).

6.3 Where cabotage is concerned, given that the directive's
implementation today varies from one State to another, even if
properly implemented, it will not solve the problems of unfair
competition and social dumping.

6.4
Furthermore, checks on the implementation of the direc-
tive on posting are non-existent (11). This is a remarkable omis-
sion, given that each Member State is obliged to make provision
for cooperation between the public authorities which, in accord-
ance with social security legislation, are responsible, as set out
in the directive referred to above (12).

6.5
The EESC will, therefore, take note of the results of the
European social dialogue in the road haulage sector on this
subject.

7. Driver attestation (Article 5)

7.1
The EESC calls for the attestation of drivers who are
third-country nationals also to state that they are registered with
the social security system.

8. Enforcement (Articles 10 to 15)

8.1
The proposal for a regulation requires Member States to
exchange information using the contact points established
pursuant to the new regulation on the admission to the occupa-
tion of road transport operator. These are designated administra-
tive bodies or authorities in charge of carrying out the informa-

Brussels, 12 March 2008.

tion exchange with their counterparts in the other Member
States.

It is also stipulated that Member States enter in their
8.2
national register of road transport undertakings all serious
infringements and repeated minor infringements committed by
their own haulier and which have led to the imposition of a
sanction.

8.3
The proposal for a regulation introduces a new proce-
dure to be followed by a Member State detecting an infringe-
ment committed by a non-resident haulier. This Member State
has one month to communicate the information according to a
minimum standard format. It may ask the Member State of
establishment to impose administrative sanctions. The Member
State of establishment of
the haulier concerned has three
months to inform the other Member State of the follow-up.

The EESC considers these new provisions to represent
8.4
progress. The Committee regrets, however, the fragmentation
and diversity of principles and procedures in the enforcement
and implementation of European road haulage legislation. The
EESC considers that the principle of extraterritoriality, which
applies to legislation on driving time and rest periods (Regu-
lation 561/2006), should also be enforced in the event of infrin-
gements of
legislation on cabotage. This would provide a
greater incentive to comply with legislation.

Directive 2006/22 stipulates a coherent national enforce-
8.5
ment strategy and requires Member States to appoint a body to
coordinate enforcement of legislation on driving time and rest
periods. The EESC considers that enforcement with regard to
cabotage should form part of this strategy.

The same applies to the committee established to assist
8.6
the Commission. The EESC is against
this proliferation of
committees and calls for a single committee, made up of
members representing the Member States and the social partners
as observers, entrusted with the task of assisting the Commis-
sion in enforcing and implementing European road haulage
legislation.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(9) Jan Cremers, Peter Donders, Editors, ‘The free movement of workers in
the European Union’, European Institute for Construction Labour
Research, CLR studies 4, 2004. This holds true of the Netherlands in
particular, which applies the directive to the Construction sector and
excludes all others, whilst Belgium applies the postings directive from
the first day on which service is provided.

(10) Article 3(4) of Directive 96/71/EC.
(11) Ecorys, ‘study on road cabotage in the freight transport market’, report

for DG TREN, page 8.

(12) Directive 96/71/EC, Article 3.

C 204/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which were supported by at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the debate:

Points 4.5 and 4.6

Delete points 4.5 and 4.6:

‘4.5 The EESC considers, however, that the social dimension of access to the international road haulage market
warrants closer attention. A number of recitals, recital 13 in particular, do, of course, refer to the Directive
concerning the posting of workers (Directive 96/71) in the framework of the provision of services, which
should apply in cases where, for the provision of cabotage operations, hauliers post workers who have an
employment relationship with those hauliers, from the Member State where they ordinarily work. This recital
does not, however, appear in either the articles or the explanatory memorandum.

4.6 This aspect assumes even greater importance since Community legal provisions for the road transport industry,
and in particular those concerning the social chapter, are not being properly implemented in all Member States.’

Reason

The social dimension of cabotage is to a large extent already regulated by Regulation (CE) No 561/2006 on the regulation
of driving time and rest periods, by the respective ways in which Directive 2002/15/EC on working time is transposed
into national legislation in the different Member States and by the temporary nature of cabotage itself.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 27 Votes against: 41 Abstentions: 5

Point 4.6

Replace the text with the following:

4.6 This aspect assumes even greater importance since Community legal provisions for the road transport industry,
and in particular those concerning the social chapter, are not being properly implemented in all Member States.
In conclusion, a word or two would have been appropriate about the alleged phenomenon of cabotage by haul-
iers from new Member States,
insofar as there are transitional measures following the Accession Treaties
concluded with the new Member States, were it not for the fact that all the transitional measures will come to an
end in 2009 at the latest and cabotage will be allowed..

Reason

Transitional measures applied for the New Member states will come to an end in 2009. Therefore all the countries will be
equally treated as regards the above regulation. The Regulation will come into effect realistically after 2009. This fact is
important to be mentioned because it should help to stop speculations about unfair competition and social dumping
from the new member sates.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 27 Votes against: 47 Abstentions: 4

Point 5.3.9

Replace the text with the following:

5.3.9 The EESC is, of course, not against operators from the new Member States entering the market, but wishes to
raise the issue of limiting and monitoring cabotage in order to prevent unfair competition and social dumping.
The Committee, therefore, supports the Commission's choice, which is to establish a legal framework that
encourages regulated competition and not the complete liberalisation of cabotage. The assessment of the
impact of the measures proposed by the Commission highlights the increase in internal market cross-trade
third country traffic within the internal market) (1). Furthermore, a growing number of freight and logistics
companies are establishing offices in the new Member States and are sending drivers from these countries to
carry out international transport between old Member States. For the EESC, however, this is inherent in EU
enlargement and the objectives of the internal market.

(1) Commission staff working paper, Impact assessment, SEC(2007) 635/2, page 6 stipulates: ‘cross-trade grew steadily at an annual average rate

of 4.4% between 1999 and 2003.This rate increased to over 20% for 2004 and 2005’.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/37

Reason

Again there are fears raised for unfair competition and social dumping and the paragraph reiterates what have already
been repeatedly said. Preferably is to say a word about internal market the EU needs more.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 31 Votes against: 61 Abstentions: 0

Point 5.3.10

Delete paragraph 5.3.10:

5.3.10 The assessment of the impact of the measures proposed by the Commission also highlights the increase in
cross-trade (some people use the term ‘home trade’) (1). Furthermore, a growing number of freight and
logistics companies are establishing offices in the new Member States and are sending drivers from these
countries to carry out international transport between old Member States. The pricing of this transport
excludes all competition because it is based on the wage gap between drivers from the old and new
Member States. The proposal for a regulation makes no reference to this other aspect of unfair competition
and social dumping.

Reason

To put stress on the social aspects in the Regulation does not mean that the new member states always have to be the
only reason to do that.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 33 Votes against: 58 Abstentions: 5

Point 5.3.11

Delete paragraph 5.3.11:

5.3.11 This is also why the EESC regrets the absence of the social aspect from the legislative package and from
this proposal in particular. No account is taken of the considerable wage gap that exists between the new
and old Member States in the sector, or of the detrimental effect on small and medium-sized enterprises,
employment and drivers' wages.

Reason

To put stress on the social aspects in the Regulation does not mean that the new member states always have to be the
only reason to do that.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 27 Votes against: 62 Abstentions: 1

Point 6

Delete point 6:

‘6. What is the relevance of the directive concerning the posting of workers?

6.1 The Directive concerning the posting of workers (Directive 96/71) in the framework of the provision of services,
should apply in cases where, for the provision of cabotage operations, hauliers post workers, who have an
employment relationship with those hauliers, from the Member State where they ordinarily work.

6.2 The problem lies in the manner in which this directive has been transposed into national legislation ... which, in
this specific case has resulted in its implementation differing in terms of the sectors covered and the duration of
service provision. Consequently, some countries apply the directive only to the construction sector, whilst others
make application of the directive mandatory from the first day on which service is provided. Furthermore, the
Directive enables Member States to exempt the sector from the regulation, by means of collective agreements,
where the length of the posting does not exceed one month.

6.3 Where cabotage is concerned, given that the directive's implementation today varies from one State to another,

even if properly implemented, it will not solve the problems of unfair competition and social dumping.

(1) Commission staff working paper, Impact assessment, SEC(2007) 635/2, page 6 stipulates: ‘cross-trade grew steadily at an annual average rate

of 4.4% between 1999 and 2003.This rate increased to over 20% for 2004 and 2005’.

C 204/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

6.4 Furthermore, checks on the implementation of the directive on posting are non-existent. This is a remarkable
omission, given that each Member State is obliged to make provision for cooperation between the public autho-
rities which, in accordance with social security legislation, are responsible, as set out in the directive referred to
above.

6.5 The EESC will, therefore, take note of the results of the European social dialogue in the road haulage sector on

this subject.’

Reason

The specific features of
the transport industry mean that it already regulates its social aspects, through Directive
2002/15/EC on working time, and Regulation (CE) No 561/2006 on the regulation of driving time and rest periods and
also through use of the digital tachograph.

Where other social aspects are concerned, it is one thing to apply Directive 96/71 to a sector such as construction, which
entails stable periods away from home for workers, but another matter altogether to apply this directive to freight trans-
port in the form of individual cabotage services as an extension of an international transport. In the latter case, the driver's
journey is not a journey as such but part of his work as an international haulage driver holding a Community road
haulier licence.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 24 Votes against: 63 Abstentions: 2

Point 6.3

Amend point 6.3 as follows:

6.3 Where cabotage is concerned, gGiven that the directive's implementation today varies from one State to another,

even if properly implemented, it will not solve the problems of unfair competition and social dumping.

Reason

To put stress on the social aspects in the Regulation does not mean that the new member states always have to be the
only reason to do that.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 32 Votes against: 57 Abstentions: 2

Point 1.2

Replace the text with the following:

1.2 The Committee considers, however, that the social aspect of access to the international road haulage market
warrants might warrant closer attention. Cabotage, like cross-trade (1) (carriage to and from third countries), can
entail unfair competition and social dumping in the sector, as a result of the wage gap between drivers from the
old and new Member States.

Reason

If we want to put stress on the social aspects in the above regulation it does not mean that the new member states have
to be the reason to do that. Unfair competition can exist and come from any Member State. As regards mentioning of
social dumping so within the EU this definition of social dumping can not be applied if undertakings or persons acts
absolutely legally wherever they do it.

Result of the vote

Votes in favour: 28 Votes against: 61 Abstentions: 1

(1) Cross-trade is deemed to be carriage between country A and country B undertaken by a haulier established in country C.