COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of the social legislation in road transport: Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on driving times, breaks and rest periods of drivers, Directive 2002/15/EC on the working time of road transport mobile workers and Directive 2006/22/EC on enforcement requirements. FINAL REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 561/2006 as regards on minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, digital technology, drivers, driving period, rest period, road transport, speed control, working conditions

1.   

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 184 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of the social legislation in road transport: Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on driving times, breaks and rest periods of drivers, Directive 2002/15/EC on the working time of road transport mobile workers and Directive 2006/22/EC on enforcement requirements.  FINAL REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 561/2006 as regards on minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs   and   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector   {COM(2017) 277 final} {COM(2017) 278 final} {SWD(2017) 185 final} {SWD(2017) 186 final} {SWD(2017) 187 final}  
 
Table of Contents 
1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 

1.2 

Purpose of the evaluation ........................................................................................................ 3 

Scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................................... 4 

2  Background to the road transport social legislation ........................................................................ 5 

2.1 

2.2 

Description of the initiative and objectives ............................................................................. 5 

Baseline ................................................................................................................................... 6 

3 

Evaluation questions ....................................................................................................................... 9 

4  Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

Quantitative and qualitative data collection .......................................................................... 10 

Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 12 

Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 13 

5 

Implementation state of play ......................................................................................................... 14 

5.1 

Implementation of the road transport social legislation ........................................................ 14 

5.2  Market context and developments ........................................................................................ 18 

5.3 

Social challenges in the sector .............................................................................................. 23 

6  Answers to the evaluation questions ............................................................................................. 25 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 25 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 27 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 41 

Coherence and coordination .................................................................................................. 45 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 48 

7  Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 49 

8  Annexes......................................................................................................................................... 53 

8.1 

8.2 

8.3 

Annex I - INTERVENTION LOGIC DIAGRAM ................................................................ 53 

Annex II - Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation .......... 54 

Annex III –: Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report ...................................................... 55 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION 

The  EU  social  rules  in  road  transport  have  been  in  place  for  quite  a  long  time  almost 
unchanged: the provisions on driving times and rest periods since 1969 and the working time 
rules  since  2002.  But  the  social  environment  of  the  road  transport  sector  has  changed 
significantly over last decade. These changes result from the effects of: the EU enlargements 
in 2004 and 2010, an economic downturn in 2007-2008 and the Eurozone crisis that started in 
2009. This has led to increased competition in the sector, making the transport services even 
more time- and price-sensitive. On the one hand, this is regarded as a positive development as 
it  made  the  sector  more  efficient.  On  the  other  hand,  this  may  lead  to  distortions  of 
competition  between  road  transport  undertakings  at  the  expense  of  the  employment  and 
working conditions of road transport workers.  Fierce competition on the internal market has 
also given rise to the adoption of unilaterally national  measures, which may be  justified on 
the  social  grounds,  but  may  jeopardize  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  All 
these  challenges  should  be  addressed  firstly  by  verifying  the  adequacy  of  the  current  EU 
legislative  framework:  whether  it  still  meets  the  needs  of  the  sector  and  serves  its  initial 
objectives of improving working conditions, road safety and ensuring fair competition. 

1.1  Purpose of the evaluation  

This ex-post evaluation concerns the EU social legislation in road transport, which consists of 
three interconnected and complementary legislative acts, which we are also referred to as the 
Social rules:  

  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/20061  on  the  harmonisation  of  certain  social  legislation 

relating to road transport, called also Driving Time Regulation;  

  Directive 2002/15/EC2 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing 
mobile  road  transport  activities,  called  also  the  Road  Transport  Working  Time 
Directive. It therefore takes precedence over the general Working Time Directive3 
  Directive  2006/22/EC4  on  minimum  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  social 
legislation relating to road transport activities, called also the Enforcement Directive. 

The provisions of these legislative acts apply to road transport operators and to professional 
drivers  (employed  and  self-employed)  engaged  in  carriage  of  goods  by  vehicles  above  3.5 
tons  and  those  engaged  in  carriage  of  passenger  by  vehicles  for  more  than  9  persons, 
including a driver.  

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  analyse  the  actual  performance  of  this  legislative 
framework  in  terms  of  achieving  its  key  objectives  and  assessing  it  by  taking  account  of 

1 Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the 
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, 
p. 1) 
2 Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of 
the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 35) 
3 Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain 
aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9) 

4 Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum 
conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning 
social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, (OJ L 102, 
11.4.2006, p. 35) 

3 

 
 
                                                      
 
developments  on  the  market  and  in  the  sector  as  well  as  relations  with  the  internal  market 
rules in road transport.  

In  particular,  this  evaluation  aims  to  verify  which  provisions  work  well  for  the  sector  and 
which ones do not in terms of their substance and enforceability and why, whether there are 
any  inconsistencies,  legal  loopholes,  red  tape  or  other  internal  or  external  factors,  which 
hamper the achievement of the policy objectives.  

The  results  of  this  evaluation  should  serve  as  a  foundation  for  considerations  on  how  to 
improve the current legislative framework and its implementation. They may be used as an 
input into an impact assessment of possible policy developments. 

1.2  Scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation assesses the implementation of the social legislation in the years 2007-2014 
and  its  main  effects  taking  account  of  the  developments  in  the  EU  road  transport  market 
resulting  from  various  overarching  trends,  such  as  the  economic  crisis,  continued 
enlargement of the EU, internationalisation of transport operations.  

The period for assessment starts when the actual implementation of the legal provisions of the 
above mentioned three legislative acts commenced in 2007. It continues through the period 
marked by the emergence of new business models and employment arrangements, complex 
and  long  sub-contracting  chains  and  changes  in  the  working  conditions  of  drivers.  It  ends 
with  the  year  2014  for  which  the  latest  national  statistics  on  the  implementation  of  the 
legislation are available.  

Specifically, the implementation of the following social rules has been evaluated: 

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - repealed Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 and applied in full since 
11 April 2007, with the exception of a limited set of provisions related to tachographs, which 
entered  into  force  on  1  May  2006.  It  sets  limits  on  drivers’  permissible  daily,  weekly  and 
fortnightly  driving  time,  as  well  as  minimum  requirements  for  breaks  from  driving,  and 
minimum daily and weekly rest periods.  

Directive  2002/15/EC  -  supplements  the  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  by 
setting a limit on mobile workers5’ working time, i.e. time spent working whether or not this 
involves driving. It is a lex specialis to the general working time Directive 2003/88/EC and 
hence,  as  stipulated  in  Article  14  of  the  latter  directive,  takes  precedence  over  the  general 
working  time  Directive  for  the  mobile  workers  included  in  its  scope6.    The  deadline  for 
transposition  of  Directive  2002/15/EC  was  23  March  2005,  but  actually  only  in  2007, 
following  the  infringement  proceedings;  the  majority  of  Member  States  had  their 
transposition  measures  in  place.  As  of  23  March  2009  the  Directive  had  become  also 
applicable to self-employed drivers, who until then were temporarily excluded from its scope.   

Directive  2006/22/EC  -  repealed  Directive  88/599  and  specified  that  the  relevant  national 
transposing measures shall be effective as of 1 April 2007. It imposes minimum requirements 
for Member States to check compliance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 
and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014.  

5 According to Article 3(2)(d) of the Directive 2002/15/EC, ‘mobile worker’ is defined as "any worker forming 
part of the travelling staff, including trainees and apprentices, who is in the service of an undertaking which 
operates transport services for passengers or goods by road for hire or reward or on its own account". 
6 Certain mobile workers are expressly excluded from the scope of the Directive 2002/15/EC and Regulation EC 561/2006. 
The main exceptions are: mobile workers in vehicles weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, vehicles suited to carrying fewer than 10 
passengers, and in regular passenger transport services whose route is less than 50 km. 

4 

 
 
                                                      
The road social legislation works together  with tachograph  Regulation (EU) No 165/2014, 
which sets the requirements on the installation and the use of tachographs in road transport. 
The  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  165/2014  (which  repealed  the  Regulation  (EEC) 
3821/85) are out of scope of this study. However, the tachograph rules are important element 
in this evaluation as they provide basic tools for monitoring and control of compliance with 
the provisions of driving time Regulation (EC) No 561/2006. 

2  BACKGROUND TO THE ROAD TRANSPORT SOCIAL LEGISLATION  

2.1  Description of the initiative and objectives 

The three legislative acts constituting the EU social legislation framework in road transport 
share the same policy objectives: (1) improving working conditions of drivers, (2) enhancing 
road  safety  by  averting  driver's  fatigue  and  (3)  ensuring  undistorted  competition  among 
companies. As a global cross-cutting objective, these legal acts aim to support the completion 
of  common  market  for  road  transport  services  ensuring  at  the  same  time  the  adequate 
working  conditions  of  drivers.  In  particular,  Directive  2002/15/EC  identifies  the  need  to 
protect  workers  against  adverse  effects  on  their  health  and  safety  caused  by  working 
excessively long hours, having inadequate rest or disruptive working pattern.  

As specific objectives, the social legislation aimed at preventing infringements and ensuring 
that the existing social provisions are interpreted, applied and enforced in a uniform manner 
in all Member States. In particular, Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 identifies in its recitals that 
effective  and  uniform  enforcement  of  the  provisions  is  crucial  if  the  objectives  are  to  be 
achieved  and  the  application  of  the  rules  is  not  to  be  brought  into  disrepute.  By  setting 
minimum  common  standards  for  checking  compliance  with  the  Regulation's  provisions 
(through Directive 2006/22/EC) and introducing co-liability and exteriority of infringements 
principles  it  also  aimed  to  create  a  common  enforcement  space  and  promote  compliance 
culture. 

As  operational  objectives,  the  legislative  acts  aimed  at  laying  down  common,  simplified, 
clear  and  enforceable  rules,  determining  the  responsibilities  of  Member  States  authorities, 
transport  operators  and  of  drivers  with  regard  to  compliance  with  the  provisions  and 
introducing  measures  to  facilitate  more  effective  and  uniform  checks  and  sanctions 
throughout  the  European  Union  as  well  as  to  promote  cooperation  between  the  Member 
States in this regard. 

The  intervention  logic  diagram  in  annex  1  describes  the  links  and  causal  relationships 
between  the  problems  and/or  needs,  broader  policy  goals,  the  general,  specific  and 
operational  objectives  that  the  specific  policy  measures  were  designed  to  address,  and  the 
specific actions for addressing those problems and/or needs. 

In  order  to  achieve  these  objectives,  the  following  provisions  have  been  introduced  to  the 
existing general legislative framework: 

-  an obligation of a transport undertaking to organise the driver's work in such a way 

that he/she is able to comply with the Regulation's provisions; 

-  co-liability  principle  throughout  the  transport  chain  for  infringements  committed 

- 
- 

against the Regulation; 
specific provisions for night work of road transport mobile workers; 
requirement  on  Member  States  to  ensure  that  mobile  workers  are  informed  of  the 
national working time restrictions and that records are kept of working time; 

-  uniform enforcement requirements:  

5 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

requirement on Member States to establish national risk rating system that 
can  be  used  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  enforcement  by  targeting  the 
controls; 
requirement to carry out a minimum number of controls at roadside and at 
the  premises  of  the  undertakings  in  order  to  verify  the  driver’s  and 
operator’s compliance with driving times provisions and tachograph rules; 
obligation  to  establish  a  common  range  of  infringements  divided  into 
categories according to their gravity; 
obligation  to  carry  out  concerted  cross-border  control  activities  and  joint 
training programmes for enforcers;  

-  administrative cooperation requirements:  

• 
• 

a principle of extraterritoriality of controls and sanctions; 
establishment  of  national  bodies  for  intracommunity  liaison  to  exchange 
information and data between Member States. 

2.2  Baseline  

The Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 repealed a 20-year old legislation (Regulation (EEC) No 
3820/85)  and  was  accompanied  by  the  introduction,  for  the  first  time,  of  the  EU  minimum 
requirements  for enforcement set out  in  Directive 2006/22/EC. In  the same decade the first 
sector-specific  working  time  Directive  2002/15/EC  was  adopted.  It  was  based  on  the 
Commission's initiative following the failure of the social dialogue launched in the nineties to 
reach the social partners agreement in this field. 

The  adoption  of  these  EU  social  rules  was  neither  preceded  by  a  comprehensive  ex-post 
evaluation  nor  accompanied  by  a  full-fledged  impact  assessment.  Therefore,  the  quantified 
information on the baseline situation prior to adoption of the legislation is not available. The 
need for introduction of new or revised provisions had been emerging on a case-by-case basis 
in  response  to  complaints,  petitions,  infringements  ascertained,  implementation  difficulties 
raised  by  national  authorities  or  other  stakeholder  organisations7,  as  well  as  requests  for 
clarifications  by  the  Commission  or  interpretations  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice.  The 
European Court of Justice issued8 27 rulings concerning the interpretations of the provisions 
of the previous legal acts, namely: Regulation 543/69 and then Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 as 
well as a related tachograph Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85.  

The problems and needs that this legislation was originally intended to address are outlined 
below: 

•  Unclear or inconsistent provisions on organisation of driving time, rest periods, 
and other work of drivers.  

The  flexibility  allowed  by  the  preceding  legislative  act  had  often  been  at  the  expense  of 
consistent  interpretation  and  effective  enforcement.  For  instance,  the  provisions  on 
compensation for reduced daily or weekly rest made the calculation of permissible schedules 
very complex. The absence of specific definitions had led to individual interpretations, which 

7 Source: Commission, DG MOVE databases: NIF (infringements), Themis/EU Pilot (pre-infringement 
communication with Member States) and CHAP (complaints), ARES (correspondence and reports from the 
meetings of Committee on Road Transport). 
8 The overview of relevant Court rulings is available under the following link: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/social_provisions/driving_time/doc/european-
court-judgements.pdf  

6 

 
 
                                                      
in turn resulted in variations in enforcement and four cases9 being referred to the European 
Court of Justice. For example, there was a lack of clarity as to which activities counted as a 
period  of work, rest,  or availability time  for  mobile  workers. The daily and weekly  driving 
times, accumulated and continuous driving periods were not defined in clear terms what each 
period comprises, which lead to divergent application. Finally, there was a need to update the 
rules  in  order  to  reflect  changes  that  had  occurred  in  the  transport  sector  since  the  prior 
legislation was  drafted in  the  1980s.  Since  then,  certain activities10  traditionally  undertaken 
by  government  had  been  privatised,  and  therefore  the  number  of  activities  subject  to 
commercial  competition  had  increased.  The  fact  that  the  rules  did  not  reflect  those 
'privatisation'  developments  lead  to  increasing  number  of  commercial  transport  activities 
being excluded from the driving and resting time rules. In addition, some of the vehicles that 
had  previously  been  granted  exemptions  from  the  rules,  because  they  undertook  short 
distance  journeys  or  operated  within  a  restricted  area  (such  as  specialised  breakdown 
vehicles) were actually being used in other ways, and hence there was a need to update the 
list of exemptions permitted to reflect the market conditions. 

•  Lacking or ineffective and inconsistent enforcement of existing social rules. 

Compliance with the social rules in road transport was considered to be low, as shown in the 
biennial  implementation  reports11,  mainly  due  to  laxity  by  national  authorities  in  enforcing 
the rules.  The 2001 Transport White Paper highlighted that controls and penalties needed to 
be tightened up by making controls and penalties more consistent across Member States, and 
by also increasing the number of controls. The European Parliament had also often called12 
for  better  enforcement  of  the  social  rules,  particularly  during  debates  on  the  biennial 
Commission report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85. Within the road 
transport  sector  the  social  partners  had  long  called  for  better  enforcement13  of  the  rules  to 
promote a level playing field  within the single market and ensure that the driver’s working 
conditions provided for in the legislation are respected. 

There were also problems with enforcement caused by “loopholes” in the rules themselves. 
One such loophole was the fact that drivers who switched between vehicles that were within 
and outside the scope of  the Regulation were not required to provide records of all of their 
driving activities. This created a risk that drivers could be driving in-scope vehicles without 
having taken sufficient rest and not be detected. There was therefore a need to require drivers 
of in-scope vehicles to provide records of all their driving activities, including the driving of 
out-of-scope vehicles. A second apparent “loophole” in the rules was that offences detected 
in one Member State were not being sanctioned simply because they were committed on the 
territory of another Member State. There was therefore a need for Member States to enable 
their  enforcement  authorities  to  sanction  infringements  that  had  been  committed  on  the 
territory of another Member State and not previously sanctioned. 

9 idem 
10 Concerns transport operations in previously state owned sectors: gas and electricity sectors, telegraph and 
telephone services, carriage of postal articles, radio and television broadcasting and detection of radio or 
television transmitters or receivers.  
11 Reports from the Commission: COM(95)713, COM(97)698, COM(2000)84, COM(2001)767, 
(COM(2004)360, SEC(2006)791,COM(2007)622 
12 Studies: Social and working conditions in the transport sector of the European Union, 2009; Overview and 
evaluation of enforcement in the EU social legislation for professional road transport sector, 2012; Social and 
working conditions of road transport hauliers, 2013; Employment Conditions in road haulage sector, 2015;  
13  Joint  position  of  ETF  and  IRU  on  clarification  and  enforcement  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561.2006,  2007; 
Campaign: "Respect for professional drivers", ETF 2012; Working Time Directive Campaign, ETF 2008-2010; 
Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee Road Transport annual work programmes and minutes from the meetings  

7 

 
 
                                                      
•  Unclear liabilities of drivers, operators, and others in the logistics chain.  

There  was  a  lack  of  clarity  about  the  extent  to  which  drivers,  operators,  and  others  in  the 
logistics  chain  could  be  held  liable  for  infringements  of  the  social  rules.  For  example, 
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 stated that undertakings should organise drivers’ work in such 
a way that drivers are able to comply with the driving time rules, but it was still unclear about 
the extent to which undertakings could be held liable for infringements committed by drivers 
acting  contrary  to  the  instructions  of  the  undertaking.  The  responsibilities  of  others  in  the 
logistics  chain,  such  as  consignors, freight  forwarders,  tour  operators,  principal  contractors, 
subcontractors  and  driver  employment  agencies,  whose  demands  could  have  also  incited 
driers' non-compliance with the driving and resting time thresholds, were also not specified . 
Therefore,  there  was  a  need  for  clearer  legal  provisions  on  the  responsibilities  of  different 
parties  in  the  logistics  chain  and  the  extent  to  which  these  parties  could  be  held  liable  for 
infringements.  The  need  to  address  the  issue  of  liability  was  also  identified  as  a  means  to 
ensure a uniform and effective approach to enforcement. 

•  Poor cooperation between Member States on uniform application of the rules. 

The 2001 Transport White Paper indicated the need to encourage the systematic exchange of 
information between Member States, to co-ordinate inspection activities and to promote the 
training of inspecting officers. A number of various authorities within a Member State were 
typically  responsible  for  enforcing  European  road  transport  social  legislation,  rather  than 
having a single coordination point. This lead to a lack of coordination of checks within the 
Member State as well as difficulties for the enforcement authorities of neighbouring Member 
States  to  identify  correctly  the  competent  authority  with  which  they  should  cooperate. 
Another problem with achieving a uniform application of the rules was that Member States 
had devised their own individual interpretations of the EU provisions and a regular exchange 
of  information  and  good  practices  between  Member  States  was  not  existent  which  further 
hampered the consistency and efficacy of enforcement throughout the EU.   

The identified issues could not be quantified due to non-existence of data or only very limited 
documentation on state of play and effects of the preceding legislation in terms of working 
conditions, road safety and level playing field. Information on the previous situation was also 
sought from stakeholders and literature to inform this study, but results could not be obtained.  

Hence, only a qualitative description of the baseline is possible. It was expected that the lack 
of EU action to revise the road social legislation would lead to the following difficulties: 

(a) enforcement would be less effective due to: 

 

the  continued  use  of  flexibilities  (particularly  the  provisions  on  compensation  for 
reduced  daily  or  weekly  rest),  which  would  have  been  difficult  to  compute  using 
digital tachographs;  

  continued different interpretations of the provisions, owing to the absence of specific 

definitions; 
inconsistent controls and penalties;  

 
  poor cooperation between Member States. 

(b) scope would be inappropriate due to: 

trends toward privatisation of activities in the transport sector; 

 
  changes  in  the  usage  patterns  of  vehicles  that  have  been  previously  exempted  or 

derogated;  
loopholes in the provisions that would be increasingly exploited. 

 

8 

 
 
(c) responsibilities would be unclear due to: 

  unclear provisions on liability;  
 

inconsistent enforcement practices concerning liability. 

Incoherent  enforcement  systems  would  have  contributed  to  distortions  in  the  market.  As  a 
result,  this  would  create  a  risk  that  compliant  undertakings  would  be  in  a  disadvantaged 
competitive position in comparison with others who would increasingly infringe the rules in 
order to gain competitive advantage. In addition, the non-compliant operators would exploit 
the  situation  in  countries  with  weak  enforcement  and/or  low  level  of  penalties  where  the 
infringements are less prone to be detected and/or sanctioned. Eventually, this would lead to 
increases in working hours and applying disruptive working patterns, have adverse effects on 
drivers’ working conditions, contribute to their fatigue and consequently impact road safety. 

The  intervention  logic  in  annex  1  describes  the  links  and  casual  relationships  between  the 
problems and/or needs, broader policy goals, the general, specific and operational objectives 
that  the  specific  policy  measures  were  designed  to  address  as  well  as  the  expected  outputs 
and results of the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. 

3  EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

The  evaluation  addressed  five  following  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence  and  coordination,  EU  added  value.  The  12  main  evaluation  questions 
cover all the evaluation criteria as described below. 

  Relevance  

The  evaluation  looked  at  whether  the  current  legislative  framework  remains  adequate  to 
address the social, safety and competition issues identified and whether it still responds to the 
needs of the sector in view of the changes in the road transport market. 

  Effectiveness  

The effectiveness of the social legislation refers to the realisation of the expected effects. The 
evaluation  looked  at  whether  the  legislation  contributed  to  more  uniform  application  and 
enforcement  and  to  better  compliance  with  the  rules  in  force.  Under  this  criterion,  the 
contribution of various inputs to achieving policy objectives of increasing road safety levels, 
improving  working  conditions  and  ensuring  level  playing  field  was  also  carefully  assessed. 
Unintended positive and negative effects were also investigated.  

  Efficiency  

Under the efficiency criterion, the analysis covered the regulatory cost components involved 
for  the  different  stakeholders  (national  administrations,  transport  operators,  drivers)  to 
comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  social  legislation.  This  includes  compliance  costs  and 
administrative burden in relation to enforcement and implementation of the measures.  

  Coherence and coordination 

The  evaluation  looked  at  the  coherence  of  the  framework  of  social  rules  in  road  transport, 
both  internally  (e.g.  gaps  or  overlaps  between  the  relevant  legal  acts  and  with  other  road 
transport legislation) and externally in terms of coherence with challenges and objectives of 
EU transport and social policies.  

  European Added Value  

Finally, the analysis of EU added value looked at whether action at the EU level was the most 
appropriate. 

9 

 
 
4  METHODOLOGY  

As a first step, the Commission made its preliminary assessment on the implementation of the 
social  provisions  and  the  enforcement  regime  based  on  information  collected  over  years 
2007-2014  from  various  stakeholders:  national  administrations,  trade  unions,  road  transport 
associations,  enforcement  organisations,  drivers  and  citizens.  The  rules  in  force  have  been 
assessed  on  case-by-case  basis  by  analysing  various  petitions,  complaints,  requests  for 
clarifications,  discussions  at  the  Committee  on  Road  Transport  as  well  as  interpreting 
judgements  of  the  Court  of  Justice14,  which  have  had  an  important  impact  on  the 
implementation  of  the  relevant  social  provisions.  The  implementation  reports  submitted  by 
Member States regularly every two years also served as a relevant source of quantitative and 
qualitative data for assessing implementation efforts and challenges and level of compliance 
with the rules in force.  

Secondly,  to  collect  hard  data  and  to  analyse  the  effects  of  the  legislation  an  external 
consultant was commissioned. The aim of the support study was to provide an independent 
evidence-based  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  social  legislation  in  road  transport 
over  the  period  of  2007-2014  as  well  as  of  its  effects  on  the  road  transport  market  and  the 
needs it aim to satisfy.  The support study was executed by the consultant over the period of 
12 months and ended with a publication of the final report in June 201615.  

4.1   Quantitative and qualitative data collection 

The  consultant  used  a  wide  range  of  research  tools  during  the  study,  starting  from  a  desk 
research,  where  almost  150  pieces  of  literature  were  reviewed,  including  Commissions 
implementation reports, and exploratory interviews with 6 organisations at EU and national 
level16. Then tailored surveys were performed addressing 5 different target groups, namely: 
national  transport  ministries,  enforcement  authorities,  road  transport  undertakings,  trade 
unions and industry associations. Each survey was pilot-tested before it was distributed more 
widely among stakeholders.  

Then the main interview programme, including follow-up interviews from the survey, was 
performed  to  gather  further  insights  into  experiences  of  stakeholders.  This  related  in 
particular  to  the  functioning  and  effectiveness  of  national  enforcement  and  the  reasons  for 
trends in infringement rates seen (for ministries and enforcers), and a better understanding of 
challenges and best practices in compliance (for undertakings and associations). 

The consultant also carried out 8 study visits, including a participation in roadside controls 
and check at premises, visit to French and Belgian transport undertakings, drivers' interviews 
at parking areas in Italy.  

In  addition  case  study  investigations  were  carried  out  in  9  Member  States:  Belgium  (7 
interviewees),  France  (6),  Germany  (5),  Italy  (12),  Sweden  (4),  Spain  (1),  Poland  (4), 

14 The majority of ECJ rulings relate to old Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 repealed by Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006, however certain Court judgments remain relevant as interpretative guidance on key provisions carried 
over into the current legislation. The relevance of Court rulings for the application and interpretation of 
Regulation 561/2006 should be assessed on a case by case basis.  
The overview of relevant Court rulings is available here:  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/social_provisions/driving_time/doc/european-court-judgements.pdf 
15 The final report of the study on ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and enforcement is 
available on the Commission's website:  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-
fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-eval-road-transport-social-legislation-final-report.pdf 
16 Three EU-level organisations, two national enforcement authorities and one national ministry. 

10 

 
 
                                                      
Romania (3) and UK (5). The analysis involved a detailed review of national legislation and 
enforcement practices, a study of issues/problems encountered by each country and a review 
of national market conditions and a review of additional datasets/reports that were available 
at the national level.   

The stakeholder engagement activities are summarised in Table 1. The provided numbers do 
not include the six exploratory and eight pilot testing interviews that were carried out before 
launching  the  stakeholder  questionnaires.  Responses  were  received  from  the  national 
ministries of 15 Member States, with eight from the EU-15 and seven from the EU-13. 

Table 1: Summary of stakeholder engagement 

Type of stakeholder 
Targeted Surveys 
National ministries 
Enforcement authorities 
Undertakings survey 
Trade union survey 
High level (general) survey (c)  
TOTAL (surveys) 
Interviews 
National ministries 
Enforcement authorities 
Industry associations 
Undertakings 
Trade union 
Specific sectors 
Other  
TOTAL (interviews) 
Drivers (d) 

Approached 

Responded 

% response rate 

119 
142 
(a) 
102 
198 

9 
25 
16 
41 
10 
11 
2 
114 
n/a 

15 
52  
1269 
14 (b) 
64 
1441 

7 
8 
12 
14 
5 
5  
1 
53 
37 

13% 
37% 
n/a 
14% 
32% 

78% 
32% 
75% 
34% 
50% 
45% 
50% 
46% 
n/a 

Notes: Stakeholder consultation took place from June 2015 until November 2015. Response rates are approximate, as some organisations 
forwarded  the  request  to  participate  to  other  organisations  on  the  study  team’s  behalf  –  consequently  it  is  not  known  how  many 
organisations were contacted in total. 
(a) Undertakings surveys were distributed via national associations; hence it is not known how many organisations were contacted in total; 
(b) A number of coordinated responses were received from trade unions; 
(c)  It  was  dedicated  to  identification  of  high  level,  cross-cutting  views  on  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  added  value  of  the 
legislation it was answered by associations of transport operators (50), NGOs (4), individual experts (3) and other types of association(7); 
(d) Driver interviews were carried out during study visits 

Overall,  the  stakeholder  response  rate  was  good  taking  into  account  the  length  and 
complexity  of  the  questionnaires,  and  also  considering  the  highly  technical  and  specific 
nature of the road social legislation. The response rate for the questionnaire parts on Directive 
2002/15/EC  was  slightly  lower  than  for  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006.  The  quality  of  the 
responses  was  overall  good.  Questions  on  quantitative  elements  remained  frequently 
unanswered reflecting a lack of data availability. 

In  parallel  to  those  consultation  activities  carried  out  by  the  consultant  the  Commission 
undertook  the  actions  aimed  at  initiating  a  high  level  structured  discussion  on  the 
shortcomings  of  the  current  road  transport  social  legislation  and  of  its  enforcement  and 
encouraging the active participation of the EU and national stakeholders in this process. The 
following consultation events have been organized and attended by the Commission services 
throughout the year 2015 and 2016:  

  The High Level Conference 4 June 2015 titled 'Social Agenda for Transport', which 

launched the wide debate on social aspects in transport sector; 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  A series of dedicated seminars targeted at EU level stakeholders and concerning the 
road transport issues, including the one on social rules and enforcement of 23 October 
2015,  
the  orientation  debate  on  the  social  aspects  in  road  transport  organized  by  the 
Transport Council on 10 December 2015,  
the  Road  Transport  Conference  on  19  April  2016  with  dedicated  workshops, 
including the one on internal market and social aspects of road transport,  

 

As the aftermath of those meetings the Commission has received several position papers on 
the  issues  raised,  from  the  EU  and  national  stakeholders,  including  national  authorities  as 
well as the business and workers organisations. 

In  September  2016  the  Commission  launched  an  open  public  consultation,  which  aimed, 
among others, at validating the problems identified in  the earlier  consultation activities and 
identifying other problematic issues that had not been revealed before. The consultation was 
composed  of  two  types  of  questionnaires:  (a)  non-specialised  one  addressed  to  individual 
respondents:  drivers,  transport  operators,  shippers,  freight  forwarders,  other  actors  in  the 
transport  operation  chain  and  citizens,  and  (b)  specialised  one  addressed  to  institutional 
respondents:  national  authorities,  enforcement  bodies,  workers'  organisation  and  industry 
associations. The consultation ended on 11 December 2016 yielding 1411 responses in total, 
including  1209  replies  to  non-specialised  questionnaire  and  169  replies  to  specialised 
questionnaire. The 1209 responses from individual respondents provide a good representation 
of  key  stakeholders:  drivers/other  road  transport  workers  (31%),  road  hauliers  (22%), 
passenger transport companies (17%). A total of 23 Member States were represented by the 
respondents.  Among  169  responses  received  from  institutional  respondents,  the  majority  of 
them  were  from  industry  associations  (54%)  and  workers’  organisations  (13%).  The 
remaining  stakeholders  represented  national  authorities  (national  enforcement  authorities, 
regulatory authorities, enforcement authority organisations) and others (academic bodies, EU 
governmental  authorities,  intergovernmental  organisations).  A  total  of  24  countries  were 
represented by the respondents. The detailed overview of stakeholder groups participating in 
the  open  public  consultation  is  presented  in  annex  III  together  with  the  results  of  all 
consultation activities are discussed further in the report.  

4.2  Data analysis 

Based on data collected from various sources through desk and field research the consultant 
carried  out  thorough  analyses  focusing  on  two  key  issues:  (1)  developments  and  trends  as 
regards  compliance  levels  over  the  period  of  2007-2014  and  (2)  developments  in  cost-
effectiveness  of  enforcement.  These  analyses  were  carried  out  taking  account  of  economic 
and social changes in the road transport market that occurred in this period. In addition, the 
responses and position papers submitted directly to the Commission in the framework of the 
described above additional consultation activities carried out by the Commission, have also 
been taken considered in the process of the data analysis.  

In particular, the analyses included identification and assessment of main factors (internal and 
external) affecting positively and/or negatively compliance level. These included: changes in 
functioning  of  the  transport  market,  quality  (relevance,  clarity,  consistency)  of  legal 
provisions,  quality  and  accessibility  of  infrastructure,  compliance  discipline,  enforcement 
regime, dissuasiveness and effectiveness of penalty systems, awareness of transport actors of 
the correct application of the rules. 

The  analysis  of  developments  and  trends  in  enforcement  involved  the  assessment  of  the 
effectiveness and efficiency levels as well as harmonisation of enforcement  practices across 

12 

 
 
the  EU.  The  main  factors  contributing  to  these  developments  included  a  clarity  and 
enforceability  of  provisions,  enforcement  capacities  of  Member  States,  cooperation  and 
coordination of control activities between Member States. 

An analysis on cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness (see below section 4.3 on limitations) was 
also carried out in the course of the ex-post evaluation study. This includes the assessment of 
regulatory costs and benefits for drivers, transport undertakings and national authorities under 
the legislation and potential costs and savings from modernisation of the current framework. 

The results of these analyses fed into a comprehensive assessment of changes in road safety 
levels, quality of working conditions and distortions of competition being a consequence of 
the combination of the implementation of the social legislation as well as the internal factors 
(e.g.: quality and clarity of the legal provisions, number and type of checks, penalty systems) 
and  external  factors  considered  (e.g.:  drivers’  wages,  quality  and  accessibility  of 
infrastructure, presence of international operators). These analyses assisted in providing full-
fledged responses to the evaluation questions. Their results are presented in sections 5 and 6. 

4.3  Limitations 

The  main  limitation  in  gathering  a  neutral  quantified  data  was  linked  to  the  fact  that  many 
types of impacts of the social legislation are of a subjective nature and do not offer unbiased 
quantifiable  baseline  indicators  (e.g.  some  aspects  of  working  conditions,  fatigue  and  well-
being  of  drivers).    Therefore,  based  on  the  information  gathered  from  the  literature  review, 
surveys  and  interviews,  quality  indexes  have  been  established  to  better  understand  the 
functioning of the social legislation. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution 
as regards the impacts on achievement of policy objectives.  

With  regard  to  other  indicators  that  could  be  measured  quantitatively  (e.g.:  number  of 
controls,  infringement  rates,  number  of  vehicles  fitted  with  digital  tachograps,  enforcement 
capacities etc.), the main limitations were gaps and insufficient detail in the national statistics. 
Therefore the complete picture could not be established in particular when trying to evaluate 
a  progress  over  time.  In  addition  information  on  quantitative  indicators  not  included  in  the 
EU and national datasets (e.g.: costs of controlling and reporting, number of prosecutions of 
co-liable  parties,  etc.)  were  extremely  sparse  in  the  literature  or  not  known  to  the 
stakeholders. In particular, for the Working Time Directive the data was more qualitative and 
sparser. This is mainly because Member States are not obliged to collect and report quantified 
data resulting from controlling compliance with the working time provisions.  

For passenger transport the availability of quantified information and evidence occurred to be 
poor  due  to  the  highly  fragmented  nature  of  the  industry  in  terms  of  authorities  involved, 
types  of  market  operators.  Therefore,  it  was  difficult  to  find  alternative  sources  of 
information  in  addition  to  interviews  with  passenger  transport  sector,  to  carry  out 
triangulation of data.  

These  data  availability  limitations  had  to  be  mitigated  by  using  additional  data  sources 
although of more general nature (e.g.: European Working Conditions Survey, CARE database 
on  fatalities)  and  by  making  qualitative  analyses,  including  assessment  by  stakeholders. 
Moreover,  in  some  instances  the  absence  of  data  and  insufficient  quantifiable  information 
resulted in the choice of the cost-effectiveness analysis over the cost-benefit analysis.   

13 

 
 
 
5  IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

5.1  Implementation of the road transport social legislation 

The driving and resting time Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and both directives - enforcement 
Directive 2006/22/EC and road transport working time Directive 2002/15/EC - were designed 
to provide for the legal framework of comprehensive, clear and enforceable rules to drivers, 
operators and national authorities. Most parts of the Regulation came into force on 11th April 
2007. However, certain elements relating to tachographs were applicable as of 1st May 2006.  
The  Road  Transport  Working  Time  Directive17  complements  the  Regulation  (and  its 
predecessor  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3820/85),  which  does  not  stipulate  maximum  hours  for 
activities other than driving, such as loading and unloading and other work in or outside the 
transport  sector,  which  may  have  bearing  on  driver's  fatigue.  The  Directive  only  applies  to 
activities  and  drivers  falling  in  the  scope  of  Regulation  or  the  AETR  Agreement.  Since 
March  2009,  also  self-employed  drivers  are  subject  to  the  Directive's  provisions.  The 
employed drivers who are excluded from the scope of this specific Road Transport Working 
Time  Directive  fall,  in  principle,  under  the  scope  of  the  horizontal  working  time  Directive 
2003/88/EC applicable to all sectors of the economy. 

The enforcement Directive 2006/22/EC entered into force on 4 April 2006 and was supposed 
to  be  transposed  by  Member  States  into  their  national  legal  system  by  1  April  2007. 
However,  by  that  deadline  only  9  Member  States  notified  their  correct  transposing 
measures18. The timely and correct transposition was of paramount importance for achieving 
the policy objectives, as the Directive required setting up a system of appropriate and regular 
checks, both at roadside and on the premises of transport undertakings to control compliance 
of drivers and of operators with the provisions of the driving time regulation as well as with 
the  provisions  on  the  installation  and  the  use  of  tachograph,  as  set  out  in  then  applicable 
Regulation (EEC) 3821/85. Therefore, the Commission launched infringement procedures for 
non-communication or non-compliance against 18 Member States19 who failed to fulfil their 
obligation of transposing and implementing the Directive's provisions. 

According to the assessment of the implementation by the Member States of the legislation in 
the period 2007-2014 the  social  provisions and the enforcement regime harmonised several 
aspects  of  the  operation  of  road  transport  undertakings  with  regard to  work  organisation  of 
drivers, uniform rest and working hours of drivers, clarified to certain extent responsibilities 
of drivers, transport operators and of relevant authorities of Member States.   

In particular, Directive 2006/22/EC by putting in place harmonised requirements for carrying 
out  controls  rendered  enforcement  activities  more  effective  and  uniform,  which  can  be 
concluded  from  the  findings  in  the  subsequent  Commission  implementation  reports.  The 
regular monitoring of the developments in the implementation by the Member States of the 
Regulation was made possible thanks to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 which 
requires Member States to report every two years to the Commission on the application of the 
legislation.  Also  Article  13  of  Directive  2002/15/EC  provides  that  Member  States  should 
report to the Commission on the implementation of the Directive, indicating the views of the 
social partners. Based on the analysis of these national submissions the Commission draws up 

17 Working Time Directive was transposed by all Member States by the time the Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 
started applying in April 2007. 
18 The Directive was fully transposed by all Member States  into national law only in 2009 
19 Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, 
Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and United Kingdom 

14 

 
 
                                                      
a regular biennial report for the European Parliament and for the Council. Since the entry into 
force  of  the  legislation  in  2007  until  the  latest  available  data  from  controls  from  2014  the 
Commission  adopted  4  biennial  reports  based  on  national  submissions  by  Member  States. 
They  contain  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  on  checks  carried  out  at  roadside  and 
premises, including concerted checks, offences detected and other relevant national initiatives 
undertaken. 

The legislation also established the basis for cooperation among Members States and between 
Member  States  and  the  Commission.  This  includes  the  network  of  national  bodies  for 
intracommunity  liaison  to  ensure  coordination  in  carrying  out  concerted  checks  and 
establishing  joint  training  programmes  on  enforcement,  to  facilitate  exchange  of  data, 
experience  and  intelligence  on  application  of  the  provisions.  The  Committee  on  Road 
Transport20 was established in line with the Regulation's provisions to  serve as  a forum  for 
Member States, the Commission and the EU stakeholders to examine the cases of diverging 
understanding, application and enforcement of the provisions. The main  tangible outputs of 
this cooperation between Member States and facilitated by the Commission were commonly 
established  clarification  notes,  guidance  notes,  decisions  on  recommended  approaches  and 
good practices on enforcement, which aimed to provide common understanding of the rules 
in force.   

The monitoring of the implementation of the legislation over years 2007-2014 revealed that 
national authorities and the industry faced significant difficulties with interpreting uniformly, 
enforcing consistently and complying effectively with the rules in force. Therefore, in order 
to  ensure  correct,  harmonised  application  and  enforcement  of  the  common  EU  rules,  the 
Commission, in cooperation with Member States and the EU stakeholders, has undertaken a 
number  of  non–legislative  initiatives  and  legislative  measures.  They  include,  in  particular: 
seven  guidance  notes21  on  implementation  and  enforcement,  seven  clarification  notes22, 
Commission  Directive  on  categorisation  of 
(Directive  2009/5/EC), 
Commission Recommendation on guidelines for best enforcement practice concerning checks 
at roadside (2009/60/EC). The Commission has also co-financed the project called TRACE 
(Transport Regulators Align Control Enforcement), which developed a European harmonized 
training format for enforcers controlling the respect of the above mentioned rules. It also co-
financed a complementary project called CLOSER (Combined Learning Objectives for Safer 
European  Roads)  of  which  the  main  final  output  delivered  in  the  beginning  of  2016  was  a 
training  guide  for  trainers  in  the  field  of  road  transport  legislation  and  for  enforcement 
bodies. 

infringements 

However,  despite  these  efforts  and  achievements,  numerous  difficulties  and  differences  in 
application and enforcement of the provisions in force exist, as well as certain ambiguities or 
inconsistencies in the current provisions.  

For instance, the scope of the Regulation is differently understood, as some Member States 
consider  that  the  Regulation  applies  only  to  professional  drivers23  whilst  other  Member 
States24  apply the rules to the vehicle in scope, hence also to  persons who drive them only 
occasionally. The ECJ ruling of Case C-317/12 of October 2013 gives guidance on this issue 

20 Registered as  C09500   
21 guidance notes are available in all the EU languages on the Commission website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/social_provisions/driving_time/guidance_notes_en  
22 clarification notes are available in English at the mentioned above Commission website 
23 Hungary, Austria,  
24 UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, 

15 

 
 
                                                      
although  it  does  not  entirely  solve  the  uncertainty  revolving  around  the  definition  of  the 
driver. The ECJ ruled that "the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 apply essentially 
to  professional  drivers  and  not  to  individuals  driving  for  private  purposes".  However,  the 
interpretation  of  the  ECJ  ruling  is  not  supported  by  all  stakeholders.  The  UK  for  example, 
takes  the  interpretation  that  the  wording  of  the  Regulation  is  aimed  at  the  type  of  vehicle 
being  driven,  and  the  type  of  journey  being  undertaken,  rather  than  at  the  status 
(‘professional’ or ‘non-professional’) of the driver. As such, the scope of the Regulation still 
differs across Member States depending on their national interpretation – i.e. according to the 
relevant  national  authorities  consulted  for  this  study,  the  Regulation  applies  only  to 
“professional drivers” in Austria and Hungary.  
Also  the  provision  on  the  regular  weekly  rest  is  applied  differently:  8  Member  States25 
consider that drivers may choose to spend their regular weekly rest in the vehicle, whereas 16 
Member  States26  regard  the  prohibition  of  taking  the  regular  weekly  rest  in  the  vehicle 
difficult or impossible to enforce, and 2 Member States27 apply national measures imposing 
severe sanctions for spending the regular weekly rest in the vehicle.  

The  remuneration  based  on  performance  is  allowed  by  the  legislation  provided  that  it  does 
not create incentives to breach the provisions of the Regulation and does not put at risk road 
safety or health and safety of drivers. This type of pay exists particularly among drivers from 
the EU-13 Member States (e.g. Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia or Slovenia) where the variable 
proportion of the driver amounts to 57% on average compared to 21% in EU-15. According 
to 36% of drivers (13 drivers out of 36) interviewed in the framework of this evaluation, such 
payment scheme contributes to stress and sometimes also to non-compliance with the social 
rules.  The  assessment  of  whether  or  not  such  performance-based  remuneration  can  be 
regarded  as  endangering  road  safety  or  encouraging  infringements  is  based  on  national 
criteria. Nevertheless, 65% of enforcers (34 out of 52) who replied to the surveys during this 
evaluation, reported difficulties with enforcement of these payment provisions.  

The  national  risk  rating  systems  were  established  in  Member  States  in  order  to  enhance 
effectiveness of their enforcement activities by targeting controls at the companies at a high 
risk level (non-compliant companies).  However, this tool  has not  been  used  effectively and 
uniformly.  17  28  out  of  the  25  Member  States  (including  Norway  and  Switzerland)  which 
responded to the consultation, use a risk rating system, while 329 of the remaining 8 Member 
States30  admitted  that  they  do  not  have  an  operational  risk  rating  system.  In  addition,  the 
exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  about  the  risk  level  of  non-compliant 
operators was difficult, since different formulas were used by Member States to calculate the 
risk  rating.  The  support  study  confirms  a  lack  of  harmonisation  in  terms  of  the 
implementation of the risk rating system and its penetration across all relevant enforcement 
authorities and the calculation methods used in the system itself.  

The  mentioned  guidance  notes  drafted  by  the  Committee  on  Road  Transport  have  not 
achieved  to  provide  for full  clarity  and  harmonisation  of  enforcement  across the  EU.  Since 
they are not legally binding, their application in daily enforcement is not assured. The same 

25 Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia,  
26 Austria, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, UK, Hungary, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, Greece, Norway 
27 France, Belgium 
28  Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, UK 
29 France, Hungary, Norway 
30 Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Norway, Switzerland 

16 

 
 
                                                      
applies  to  the  common  training  curriculum  for  enforcers,  developed  under  the  mentioned 
TRACE project, which has been taken up and/or followed entirely or partially by 16 Member 
States31,  including  Norway  out  of  25  countries  (including  Switzerland  and  Norway)  who 
responded whilst others32 either did not follow it or were not aware of it.  

The social legislation has also been subject to some ruling of the Court of Justice, which had 
an important impact on the implementation of the relevant social provisions. The Court ruled 
on  the  following  provisions:  daily  rest  periods,  temporary  drivers,  transport  of  animal 
carcasses or waste, specialised vehicles and door-to-door selling, special breakdown vehicles, 
penalties for infringements,  obligations of employers, driving periods  and breaks,  period  of 
work and end of working day, period of 24 hours and day, weekly rest, exception for carrying 
materials and equipment, definition of operating centre33.  

Regardless  of  the  efforts  made  to  enhance  consistency  and  effectiveness  of  enforcement  of 
the  common  EU  provisions  and  a  slight  improvement  in  compliance  level  observed,  the 
number of infringements by drivers and road transport operators against the social provisions 
remain high: 3.3  million offences  were  detected in  the reporting period 2013-2014. Almost 
half of them concerned breaches of the rules on breaks (23%) and rest periods (25%). These 
were  followed  by  infringements  against  the  driving  time  requirements  (16%),  incorrect 
driving time records (17%), the misuse of recording equipment (10%) and the lack of records 
for other work (8%).  
Whereas 3.3 million detected infringements were reported by Member States34 in the first two 
years of the implementation of the Regulation in 2007-2008 and enforcement Directive,  4.5 
million  infringements  were  reported  to  the  Commission  in  2009-201035.  This  rise  can  be 
explained in the increase of checks required by the Directive as well as the introduction of the 
digital  tachograph,  which  allowed  for  faster  and  more  accurate  and  reliable  data.  The 
downwards trend in detected infringements levels can indeed be noticed since 2009, from 4.5 
million  in  2009-2010,  3.8  million  in  2011-2012,  to  3.3  million  infringements  detected  in 
2013-2014.  

these 
However,  no  straightforward  and  definite  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from 
developments. On the one hand, the diminishing levels of detected infringements can indicate 
a better compliance with the rules in force thanks to well-established enforcement practices 
and greater awareness of social rules among drivers. On the other hand, these lower levels of 
infringements  can  also  be  the  result  of  diminished  infringement  detection  rates,  superior 
manipulation techniques and decreasing enforcement capacities in Member States in terms of 
human and financial resources.  

This can be seen in the total average number of controls carried out in 2013-2014 in the EU, 
which decreased by 4.8% compared to 2011-2012 (drop from 158.6 to 151 million working 
days  checked).  Also  the  average  rate  of  offences  detected36  has  declined  throughout 

31 Czech Republic, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Belgium, Cyprus, 
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia and Norway  
32 Belgium, Hungary, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland 
33 The overview of relevant ECJ rulings is available here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/social_provisions/driving_time/doc/european-
court-judgements.pdf  
34 To note that three Member States (The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden did not report data on offences 
for this report) 
35 Finland did not provide data on offences in this reporting period. 
36 The most relevant indicator to analyse the trend of offences detected is the infringement detection rate, 
defined as the number of offences detected every 100 working days checked. 

17 

 
 
                                                      
subsequent reporting periods: from 3.9 detected offences per working days checked in 2007-
2008, 3.1 in 2009-2010, then 2.4 in 2011-2012 and 2.17 offences detected per 100 working 
days checked in the last reporting period of 2013-2014. There are vast disparities in offence 
detection rates at premises between Member States ranging from 0.02 to 14 offences detected 
per  100  working  days  checked.  These  discrepancies  in  detection  rates  confirm  that  the 
European Union is far from establishing a harmonised enforcement area because of diverging 
enforcement  practices  and  resources  for  controlling  compliance  with  road  transport 
legislation. 

More details and statistics regarding the implementation of the social legislation in the years 
2007-2014  can  be  found  in  the  subsequent  biennial  implementation  reports  as  well  as  the 
final  report  for  the  study  on  ex-post  evaluation  of  social  legislation  in  road  transport,  in 
particular  in  Annex  C  on  "Analysis  of  trends  in  compliance"  and  Annex  D  on  "Cost-
effectiveness of social rules enforcement".  

5.2  Market context and developments  

The implementation of the social legislation and its effects cannot be assessed without taking 
into account the developments that occurred in the road transport sector and on the market in 
general  over  the  years  2007-2014.  The  overarching  economic  and  political  trends  brought 
about new challenges that this time- and price sensitive sector had to face. In particular cost 
pressures  in  the  transport  sector  have  led  to  an  increased  use  of  complex  employment 
arrangements,  including  multiplication  of  operational  basis,  long  sub-contracting  chains 
extending across the borders or temporary contracts. These pressures also incite (false) self-
employment in order to cut labour costs and non-complaint behaviour in the Member States 
with  lower  effectivity  and  severity  of  national  enforcement  and  penalty  systems.  While  in 
such  new  complex  contractual  settings  the  argument  concerning  the  positive  impact  of  the 
rules on health, safety and working conditions of drivers remains relevant, the enforcement of 
the  rules  becomes  increasingly  challenging.  In  addition,  the  study  on  ex-post  evaluation  of 
the road haulage legislation37 revealed that emerging illicit or dubious business practices that 
allow  operators  to  gain  unfairly  competitive  advantage  often  deprive  drivers  from  their 
fundamental rights of social protection and adequate working conditions, including minimum 
rates of pay. These unfair business practices38, which take the form of 'letterbox' companies 
and/or illicit cabotage operations, are based on circumventing the law and/or profiting from 
the  deficiencies  and  ambiguities  in  the  legal  framework  as  well  as  an  ineffectiveness  of 
enforcement.  In  response  to  these  developments  some  Member  States  (Germany,  France, 
Austria,  Italy)  introduced  in  2015,  2016  and  2017,  in  the  context  of  implementation  of  the 
Posted Workers Directive39(PWD), the national measures  on the application  of the national 
minimum wages to all foreign operators and drivers carrying out transport activities on their 
territories.  The  numerous  and  severe  national  administrative  and  control  requirements 
imposed on foreign operators with relation to the application of their national minimum pay 
rates  leading  to  great  regulatory  burdens  for  industry  created  heated  discussions  within 
industry and between Member States as regards the applicability and enforceability of PWD 
to  international  road  transport.  This  lead  to  infringement  procedures  launched  by  the 
Commission  against  France  and  Germany  for  alleged  disproportionate  restriction  of  the 

37 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-eval-road-
transport-social-legislation-final-report.pdf 
38 These are addressed directly by the parallel revision of the Regulations on access to profession and access to 
international haulage market 
39 Directive 96/71/EC on posting of workers  and Directive 2014/67/EU on enforcement 

18 

 
 
                                                      
freedom  of  providing  cross-border  road  transport  services  and  incited  deeper  reflections  on 
the sector-specific criteria for application PWD to road transport sector. In the recognition of 
the legal uncertainties and practical difficulties of applying the current horizontal provisions 
on posting to road transport the Commission stipulated in its proposal of 8 March 2016 for 
targeted revision of PWD that: "Because of the highly mobile nature of work in international 
road transport, the implementation of the posting of workers directive raises particular legal 
questions  and  difficulties  (especially  where  the  link  with  the  concerned  Member  State  is 
insufficient).  It  would  be  most  suited  for  these  challenges  to  be  addressed  through  sector-
specific legislation together with other EU initiatives aimed at improving the functioning of 
the internal road transport market." 

Market size 

Freight transport sector 

The  total  volume  of  road  freight  transport  in  the  EU-28  was  around  1,725  billion  t-km  in 
2014, some 10% less than during its peak in 2007, but showing a small increase compared to 
2009 (1,700 billion t-km) (Eurostat, 2016b). This development has been shaped by the global 
financial and economic crisis, which has had severe impacts on the EU.  

In 2014, total road freight transport accounted for around 49% of freight moved in the EU-28 
(Eurostat,  2016b)  (77%  excluding  intra-EU  sea  and  air  transportation),  a  share  which  has 
remained largely unchanged over the past decade (Eurostat, 2016b). Around two thirds (64%) 
of road freight movements are within Member States and one third (36%) is between Member 
States (Eurostat, 2016b).  

Passenger transport 

There  are  considerable  difficulties  in  obtaining  statistics  for  the  passenger  transport  sector 
because  data  are  not  harmonised  across  Member  States  and  are  therefore  not  comparable. 
Eurostat  reports  that  bus  and  coach  travel  combined  accounted  for  549  billion  passenger 
kilometres in 2007, falling to 526 billion in 2014. In 2014 it accounted for around 8.0 % of all 
passenger  transport  (and  9%  of  all  land  passenger  transport),  down  from  8.5%  in  2007 
(Eurostat,  2016).  The  international  market  for  coach  and  bus  services  is  small  compared  to 
national markets. The data available does not allow an accurate estimate of the overall market 
size, the 2016 fact-finding study40 estimated that international coach passenger numbers grew 
by 40-60% and international coach passenger-kilometres grew by 0-40% between 2009 and 
2014,  which  can  be  seen  as  the  response  of  operators  to  opportunities  provided  by 
international liberalisation. At the end  of 2014 there were a total of 35,65941 carriers in the 
EU-28  possessing  Community  license,  which  allows  an  access  for  international  market  for 
coach and busses in the EU. This shows the increase by 3% compared with 34,582 licences in 
2010 (data for EU-27).42 

Market structure 

Freight transport sector 

The road freight market is broadly divided into two main segments. The first are small firms 
that account for the vast majority of the total number of hauliers - 90% of enterprises in the 

40 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/studies/doc/2016-04-passenger-transport-by-
coach-in-europe.pdf  
41 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/haulage/doc/2015-08-06-community-licence-
road-passenger-transport-2010-2014.pdf  
42 Idem 

19 

 
 
                                                      
sector  have  fewer  than  10  employees  and  account  for  close  to  30%  of  turnover  (including 
self-employed) (Eurostat, 2016b). These firms tend to compete mainly on price, with labour 
costs  being  a  key  determinant  of  competitiveness.  At  the  time  the  legislation  was  adopted, 
95%  of  road  transport  firms  had  fewer  than  10  employees,  reflecting  a  slight  trend  toward 
consolidation in recent years43.  

The  second  segment  is  made  up  of  a  limited  number  of  large  firms  that  provide  complex 
logistics services. Firms in this segment compete on price, range and quality of the services 
offered  (WTO,  2010).  Since  economies  of  scale  are  more  important,  there  is  also  a  higher 
degree  of  market  concentration;  around  1%  of  enterprises  are  enterprises  with  over  50 
persons employed, these account for around 40% of sector turnover44.  

Subcontracting  plays  a  major  role  in  road  haulage.  Even  in  2007,  it  was  recognised  that  a 
proportion  of  small  companies  tend  to  be  economically  dependent  on  larger  operators  who 
prefer  to  subcontract  through  exclusive  or  preferential  contracts  rather  than  to  invest  in 
additional vehicles45. There has been a strong increase in subcontracting within the EU road 
haulage market compared to a decade ago. Overall, the European road haulage market can be 
characterised  by  a  chain  of  hire  and  reward  companies  with  large  pan-European  logistics 
companies at the top controlling the largest contracts but subcontracting much of that down 
the chain. Small enterprises and owner drivers either form small consortiums to obtain work, 
rely on subcontracting from larger firms or move loads identified through freight exchanges.  

Rapid expansion of larger operators offering integrated logistics services was identified at the 
period  2007-2014,  along  with  intense  corporate  restructuring.  Large  multimodal  third  party 
logistics providers help to meet the demand for high quality, reliable and predictable door-to-
door  truck  services.  Cost  pressures  for  logistics  providers  mean  that  many  heavily  rely  on 
subcontracting less profitable operations to smaller enterprises and owner-operators, driving 
the number of links in the logistics chain upward46. 

Passenger transport 

The  enlargement  of  the  EU  increased  the  importance  of  scheduled  coach  travel,  due  to  its 
advantages  in  terms  of  safety,  flexibility  and  ability  to  respond  to  changing  demand. 
Although  there  are  a  number  of  very  large  coach  operators  in  the  EU,  the  average  size  of 
companies  are  small,  with  an  estimated  average  of  16  vehicles  per  company.  The  sector  is 
highly fragmented in terms of the size and type of market operators and the range of transport 
operations.47 Services include scheduled long distance services, to school transport services, 
and shuttle services operated for tourists between airports and hotels. The importance of these 
different types of services also varies significantly between Member States.  

Many  coach  brands  are  a  marketing  alliance  or  partnership,  managed  by  one  operator  and 
operated  by  several  companies  or  by  subcontractors.  Many  coach  companies  are  domestic 
subsidiaries  of  foreign  owning  groups,  and  the  ultimate  ownership  of  individual  coach 

43 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement",p. 23 
44 Idem, p. 23 
45 European Commission, 2007a. Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to 
pursue the occupation of road transport operator SEC(2007) 635/3, s.l.: s.n. 
46 AECOM, 2014b. Report on the State of the EU Road Haulage Market, Task B: Analyse the State of the 
European Road Haulage Market, Including an Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Controls and the Degree of 
Harmonisation. s.l.:s.n. 
47 SDG, 2009. Study of passenger transport by coach, s.l.: s.n. 

20 

 
 
                                                      
operators may depend on mergers and acquisitions activity among a more limited number of 
parent companies48. 

Cost structure 

Freight and passenger road transport sector  

Cost differentials between Member States are significant; in road haulage these costs can be 
almost double from one Member State to another.  

During the economic downturn, profit margins have contracted within the logistics sector as 
well  as  in  the  road  haulage  sector.  As  a  result  a  price  competition  within  road  transport 
increased substantially. On the trunk lines of European corridors, reported freight rates have 
fallen even below pre-boom prices in the years up to 2006 to as low as €0.7 per vehicle-km or 
less.  This  corresponds  to  a  reduction  of  some  30%  compared  to  previous  market  prices  of 
about  €0.9  to  €1.0  per  vehicle-km,  which  barely  covers  the  variable  costs  of  haulage,  let 
alone the full cost of vehicle utilisation49. 

Cost levels are one of the key factors determining competitiveness in the road haulage sector. 
As shown in Figure 1, the most important cost components are the driver’s wages and fuel, 
followed  by  vehicle  purchase  costs.  While  in  absolute  terms,  labour  costs  in  the  Member 
States  that  joined  in  2004  and  2007  remain  lower  than  in  the  EU-15,  the  gap  is  steadily 
narrowing.   

Figure 1: Percentage of operating costs per hour in selected Member States 

Notes: Driver costs indicate wages; maintenance includes general vehicle maintenance and tyre replacement 
Source: (Bayliss, 2012) 

Although  there  are  some  signs  of  labour  cost  convergence  across  Europe,  there  are  still 
considerable differences between Member States. For example, the cost of a French driver is 
2.4  times  higher  than  a  Polish  driver  spending  two  to  three  weeks  per  month  outside  their 
respective domestic markets. Even taking into account possible differences in terms of skills 
and productivity, the pay gaps are sufficiently high to conclude that there are still substantial 
differences in the labour costs. Also differences in social insurance contributions can be quite 

48 Comprehensive study on passenger transport by coach in Europe, April 2016; 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/studies/doc/2016-04-passenger-transport-by-coach-
in-europe.pdf  
49 KombiConsult, 2015. Analysis of the EU Combined Transport, s.l.: s.n. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                      
substantial.  As  an  example,  the  estimated  amount  of  the  employers’  mandatory  (net)  social 
security  contributions  for  a  driver  operating  is  €736  per  month  in  France;  €446-630  in 
Germany, €481-584 in Spain, as compared to €316 in Slovakia and €111 in Poland50. 

The high competition in the industry means that transport undertakings are often price takers 
rather than price makers, which yields low profit margins. For this reason, hauliers are always 
looking  at  ways  to  improve  margins  by  reducing  operational  cost.  Efforts  to  improve 
productivity and competitiveness have been made in areas such as reducing empty running, 
outsourcing unprofitable work and sourcing cheaper fuel.  

Employment 

Freight transport sector 
In total, in 2013 there were 563,59851 registered road freight transport enterprises in Europe, 
employing around 2.9 million people (Eurostat, 2016b). 

For a number of years, the industry has been concerned about skill shortages and tight labour 
supply. A shortage of 74,500 professional drivers in Europe was estimated in 2008, which at 
the  time  was  mitigated  by  the  economic  downturn.  In  2013-2014,  around  30%  transport 
operators in Germany and the UK and 36% of transport operators in Belgium have difficulty 
in hiring drivers52. The support study on the ex-post evaluation reveals that countries are still 
experiencing problems with driver shortages  – including eastern European Member States - 
although precise quantification was rare.  

In 2015, the vast majority of heavy truck drivers are still employees (on average, 92%), with 
the remainder being self-employed (Broughton et al, 2015). While it is difficult to determine 
the current true extent of bogus self-employment, evidence from the literature indicates that it 
is particularly common in countries with strong neoliberal trends and weak trade unions, as 
well  as  becoming  increasingly  common  in  Eastern  European  countries  (REMESO,  2013). 
Conversely,  in  France  there  is  little  self-employment.  The  strong  domestic  orientation  and 
culture  of  working  with  employees  rather  than  self-employed  workers  is  thought  to  protect 
the  sector  from  a  strong  growth  of  false  self-employment53.  Nevertheless,  incentives  to  use 
self-employment to cut labour costs have increased following the financial crisis, particularly 
due  to  the  relatively  higher  wages  of  French  drivers  –  leading  to  subcontracting  of  foreign 
firms  with  third  country  drivers  or  self-employed  drivers.  According  to  one  French  study 
“subcontracting  to  dependent  [false]  self-employed  implies  a  level  of  compensation  that 
cannot  cover  costs  if  the  worker  follows  all  road  and  labour  regulations,  thereby  implicitly 
forcing the subcontractor to break the law“.  

Passenger transport 

Figures  from  Eurostat  describing  employment  in  road  passenger  transport  also  include  all 
urban  and  suburban  land  transport  modes  (motor  bus,  tramway,  streetcar,  trolley  bus, 
underground  and  elevated  railways).  The  level  of  employment  was  almost  2.0  million54  in 
2013 – a reduction from 2.1 million in 2007 (Eurostat, 2016b). According to the fact-finding 

50 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement", p.25 
51 Economic activity according to NACE Rev. 2 classification  
52 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement", p. 26 
53 idem 
54 including all urban and suburban land transport modes 

22 

 
 
                                                      
study55  it  has  been  estimated  that  employment  in  the  domestic  and  international  coach 
industry is slowly declining and by 2014 was around 0.55 million, with a margin of error of 
±10%. This decline may conceal a mixture of growing volumes and increasing productivity. 
It suggests that the sector remained relatively stable in the face of recession. 

In  a  number  of  Member  States,  local  bus/coach  operators  have  taken  advantage  of  the  free 
movement of workers to employ drivers from other Member States. For example, it has been 
reported that UK bus operators have recruited drivers in Poland. This has led to a shortage of 
drivers  in  Poland,  which  has  in  turn  prompted  Polish  operators  to  recruit  drivers  from 
Ukraine56. The extent of such recruitment policies could not be identified. The same report57 
informs that between 2004 and 2009, 7,010 heavy goods vehicle drivers from the 8 Member 
States58  registered in the UK, hereby exacerbating problems of driver shortages in their own 
countries.  

Outlook 

As in the EU economy as a whole, employment in the transport sector is facing challenges 
arising  from  demographic  changes  –  in  particular,  the  challenge  of  a  growing  shortage  of 
skilled  workers  in  an  increasingly  competitive  global  environment.  Labour  shortages  are 
expected to become an increasing problem in the next 10 to 15 years as the economy and the 
transport sector return to growth and the number of people retiring from the sector increases. 
Projections of the demand for labour in the land transport sector also predict that the shortage 
will  worsen  in  2020  (due  to  a  predicted  additional  demand  of  200,000  to  500,000  jobs) 
compared to an approximate equilibrium in 201559. 

5.3  Social and market challenges in the sector 

A direct correlation between the market changes described above and the level of compliance 
with  the  social  legislation  as  well  as  the  cost-effectiveness  of  enforcement  is  difficult  to 
establish. However, it was generally recognized during the open public consultation (details 
in  Annex  III)  that  the  increasing  fierce  cost-based  competition  incited  the  emergence  of 
business  practices  and  sometimes  very  complex  working  arrangements  that  affected  the 
proper  application  of  the  EU  social  legislation  and  rendered  the  cross-border  enforcement 
more  challenging.  Fierce  competition  and  cost  pressures  on  operators  had  knock-on  effects 
on the working conditions of drivers. New risk factors have emerged, such as: irregular work 
patterns  including  long  periods  away  from  home/base,  time  pressure,  stress  linked  to  the 
performance-based  payment,  inadequate  resting  facilities,  persisting  differentials  in  labour 
costs  and  social  protection  standards  between  the  Member  States  inciting  illicit  business 
models  and  dubious  employment  schemes.  Dubious  employment  practices  concern  mainly 
applying the terms and conditions of employment of the Members States with lower labour 
and  social  protection  standards  to  drivers  working  habitually  in/from  the  higher  cost 
countries.  The  ex-post  evaluation  support  study60  found  that  letterbox  companies  and  illicit 

55 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/studies/doc/2016-04-passenger-transport-by-
coach-in-europe.pdf  
56 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement", p. 27 
57 idem 
58 Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia 
59 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement" available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives/fair-competition-workers-
rights_en 
60 Ricardo et al, 2015 – Support study for an evaluation of Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and  No 1072/2009. 

23 

 
 
                                                      
cabotage  operations  are  the  emerging  business  practices  that  are  directly  linked  with  illicit 
employment  schemes  used  to  reduce  and  avoid  certain  costs,  such  as  labour  costs,  social 
contributions and taxes.  

Illicit employment practices in the sector pose a serious market challenge as confirmed in the 
open  public  consultation  (details  in  Annex  III).  They  are  resulting  not  only  from  the  
shortcomings of the internal market rules as regards the access to the market and occupation 
but from difficulties of application of the horizontal Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC 
(PWD)  to  the  road  transport  sector.  Persisting  uncertainties  regarding  applicable  terms  and 
conditions  of  employment  to  international  road  transport  contracts,  difficulties  with 
establishing  habitual  place  of  work  of  international  driver  to  determine  genuine  posting 
situation and inherent difficulties with controlling complex employment arrangements are the 
challenges faced by the industry and by Member States' enforcement authorities. 

Whilst  the  first  group  of  shortcomings  will  be  considered  in  the  framework  of  the  planned 
targeted  revision  of  the  relevant  internal  market  road  transport  regulations,  the  issue  of 
applicability  of  posting  provisions  entails  the  revision  of  the  conditions  under  which  the 
Posting  of  Workers  Directive  applies  in  the  road  transport  sector  and  the  efficacy  of  the 
related  enforcement  mechanisms.  The  unilateral  national  measures  undertaken  by  some 
Member States61 (as mentioned in the previous section on market context and developments) 
on  the  application  of  their  minimum  wage  laws  to  road  transport  do  not  ensure  a  balance 
between  the  freedom  to  provide  cross  border  services  and  the  social  protection  rights  of 
workers and create a global risk of fragmentation of the EU internal road transport market. 

 The  issue  of  working  patterns,  including  duration  of  periods  away  from  the  home-base  or 
from the operational centre, is not regulated by the current legislation. However, it is linked 
with the provisions on the organisation of driving and working times. The study62 shows that 
long  periods  away  from  home  have  increased  over  the  last  decade  due  to  the  liberalisation 
and internationalisation of the transport market and contribute to driver's stress and fatigue. 
For  instance,  the  Lithuanian  trade  union  estimated  that  these  periods  have  increased  from 
around  5-10  days  to  5-60  days  in  freight  transport  and  to  5-90  days  in  passenger  transport 
over the past ten years. This development combined with insufficient and/or inadequate rest 
and  sanitary  facilities  contributes  to  the  deterioration  of  working  conditions  of  drivers  and 
decreases the attractiveness of the profession. 

In  addition, increased  market  competition  in  the  road  transport  sector  has  led  to  downward 
pressure on profits and wages and aggravated the risk of non-compliance of the social rules 
by  undertakings  and  drivers  who  are  under  higher  pressure  to  remain  competitive  and  to 
deliver goods on time. This further exacerbates the risks of an unlevelled playing field as well 
as the risks to road safety.  For drivers of vehicles, delivering goods, there is pressure as they- 
may  have  to  compensate  the  client  for  possible  delays  incurred.  This  encourages  drivers  to 
flout  the  rules  in  relation  to  rest  times  so  that  they  can  deliver  on  time  and  remain 
competitive. In the passenger transport sector, fatigue is considered a problem both for coach 
drivers  (due  to  long  driving  distances  on  motorways)  and  bus  drivers (given  the  amount  of 
distractions  and  high  level  of  concentration  needed).  Pressure  often  comes  from  the 
passengers who may not understand why their driver needs to take scheduled breaks and may 
require compensation. 

61 Germany, France  
62 EU-OSHA, 2010. A review of accidents and injuries to road transport drivers, s.l.: European Agency for 
Safety and Health at Work, available at https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-
publications/publications/literature_reviews/Road-transport-accidents.pdf/view 

24 

 
 
                                                      
6  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1  Relevance 

Question 1: To what extent the main risks of the sector (freight and passenger) identified at 
the time of the adoption (i.e. a) unlevelled playing field for drivers and transport operators; 
b) deterioration in the driver's working conditions; c) deterioration in road safety) are still 
persisting? Do the key objectives of the legal framework adequately target them?   

The three main risks identified at the time of adoption of the legislation arise primarily from 
uneven precarious behaviours of operators and drivers and from ineffective enforcement, and 
hence they can only be addressed by uniform rules transcending national boundaries.  

Drivers  have  been  increasingly  subject  to  greater  work  demands,  along  with  a  loss  of 
autonomy, which poses the risk of  unhealthy stress levels and potentially a range of stress-
related  illnesses.  The  risk  of  deteriorating  working  conditions  also  negatively  affects  the 
image and attractiveness of the driving profession, leading to driver shortages and a risk of 
higher pressure on the drivers that remain. The results of the European Working Conditions 
survey (EWCS) (Eurofound, 2015) show that in 2010 37% of the professional road transport 
drivers  consulted,  stated  that  they  typically  work  more  than  48  hours  per  week.  These 
findings are supported by the outcome  of the national study for Germany (HS Furtwangen, 
2012), which found that 56% (out of 1000 drivers) of the consulted drivers in 2011 reported 
weekly  working  times  of  more  than  59  hours.  These  findings  were  validated  by  another 
German study (ZF Friedrichshafen, 2014) for which 2,196 professional German drivers were 
consulted in 2014. The results show that only drivers operating in the local transport segment 
(<50km)  report  weekly  work  hours  below  48h.  Drivers  engaged  in  all  other  transport 
segments report average working times above 48h (90% of drivers consulted) ranging from 
49 hours to 59 hours per week. 

The continued trends of above-average levels of long period away from home/base, atypical 
and irregular working hours, time pressure, stress related to performance-based pay reported 
by  professional  drivers  in  the  course  of  the  evaluation  demonstrate  that  high  levels  of 
protection are needed to prevent further deterioration of their working conditions.  

All of this has clear implications for road safety – both of the drivers themselves and other 
road  users  (due  to  the  higher  mass  of  HGVs  and  buses/coaches,  accidents  tend  to  be  more 
serious and most of those killed are other road users). 

These developments demonstrate the persistence and developments of the risks identified at 
the adoption time.  Hence, the main objectives of the legal framework are still fully relevant 
to directly addressing risk factors of unlevelled playing field, inadequate working conditions 
of drivers and suboptimal road safety for all road users. However, as working conditions are 
influenced  also  by  other  factors  (mentioned  above)  going  beyond  the  current  EU  rules  in 
force, the legislation, though relevant, is not sufficient in addressing all relevant risk factors. 

Question 2: Is the current scope of application of the legislative framework still relevant in 
the context of the recent road transport market developments, including modern complex 
employment arrangements? If not, why? 

It is concluded that the scope of the legislation is still relevant today. This applies to the scope 
in  terms  of  the  type  of  vehicles  covered,  the  types  of  drivers  covered,  and  considering  the 
system of derogations and exemptions.  

Including  self-employed  drivers  into  the  scope  of  the  social  legislation  appears  to  be  still 
relevant today as the needs of such drivers, in terms of health, safety and working conditions 

25 

 
 
are  the  same  as  for  employed  drivers.  However,  cost  pressures  combined  with  the  low 
probability of detecting non-compliance puts them at a higher risk of infringing the rules. The 
fact  that  self-employed  drivers  are  covered  by  the  driving,  working  time  and  resting  time 
rules  reduces  the  risk  of  false'  self-employment  practices  which  aim  to  gain  unfair 
competitive advantage over compliant undertakings. 

The same argument applies to drivers subject to complex employment arrangements (such as 
temporary  contracts  and/or  (cross-border)  subcontracting  chains),  whose  activities  however 
are difficult to retrace for enforcement authorities. Also here, the risk of infringing the rules is 
comparatively higher with adverse effects on their health, safety and working conditions. As 
this  type  of  employment  arrangements  has  intensified  compared  to  when  the  rules  were 
adopted,  there  is    even  a  greater  need  today  to  cover  the  concerned  drivers  by  the  social 
legislation.  

Concerning  the  needs  of  the  sector,  the  analysis  shows  that  these  have  not  substantially 
changed; however the underlying issues that make compliance with prescriptive driving and 
working  time  rules  more  difficult  have  become  more  pervasive.  This  particularly  concerns 
the  external  factors  going  beyond  the  current  rules  such  as  congestion  and  accessibility  to 
resting  facilities,  as  well  as  growing  pressure  from  clients.  The  mechanisms  built  into  the 
rules  that  aimed  to  alleviate  these  issues  (respectively  flexibilities  and  co-liability)  are  not 
sufficient to address all the circumstances and in addition they are not uniformly enforced.  

Therefore,  the  industry  representatives  have  argued  that,  whilst  the  rules  are  still  relevant, 
certain  flexibility  in  their  application  should  be  provided  in  order  to  address  the  specific 
needs  or  circumstances  of  individual  transport  operations.  Around  70%  of  the  freight 
transport  operators63    considered  that  a  lack  of  flexibility  in  the  rules  is  a  major  cause  of 
difficulties in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, and 55%64 regard the lack of 
flexibility as main cause for non-compliance with Directive 2002/15. This view seems to be 
supported by the drivers interviewed: out of the 22 responding drivers engaged in the freight 
transport sector, 15 (or almost 70%) stated that inflexibility in the rules (e.g. to account for 
specific  traffic  conditions)  was  a  cause  of  non-compliance65.  For  instance,  international 
drivers  engaged  in  long  international  transport  journeys,  due  to  unforeseen  waiting  time  or 
traffic obstacles, cannot reach their destination or home/base for the weekly rest. Even if they 
do  not  reach  their  daily  driving  time  limit  they  must  stop  in  order  to  start  the  weekly  rest 
period  and  spend  it  sometimes  not  far  away  from  their  final  destination  or  home.  The 
flexibility in deciding when to  start the weekly rest  while preserving  the daily driving time 
limits would help to address this obstacle which incites the non-compliant behaviour.  

For  drivers  engaged  in  short-distance  local  deliveries  where  driving  periods  are  frequently 
interrupted by short breaks it is difficult to comply with 45 minute break and in the same time 
fulfil the daily delivery multi-stop schedule.  

For the passenger transport sector specifically, there are distinct service needs related to the 
demands of passengers, their personal needs during the journey, their visit plan, that are not 
seen in freight transport. For drivers engaged in the international carriage of passengers the 
lacking flexibility brings about additional stress related to discontent of passengers when they 

63 (out of 784 who responded) 
64 (out of 498 who responded) 
65 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement" available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives/fair-competition-workers-
rights_en 

26 

 
 
                                                      
cannot reach their destination and have to stay at the roadside to let a driver comply with the 
driving  and  resting  rules.  Industry  representatives  consulted  during  the  ex-post  evaluation 
study  argue  that  the  lack  of  flexibility  in  the  current  road  social  legislation  makes  it  more 
difficult  to  comply  and  have  advocated  for  a  more  specific  consideration  of  the  passenger 
transport  sector.  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  stakeholders'  consultation  carried  out 
within the study regard that rules do not fit the specificities of passenger transport services, 
which contributes to non-compliance. Namely: 75% (out of 294 respondents) for Regulation 
(EC) No 561/2006 and 65% (out of 199) for Directive 2002/15/EC). This issue is therefore 
ranked at a similar level of importance to the lack of flexibility, and again the issues are again 
ranked more severely for the Regulation as compared to the Directive. 

With  regards  to  freight  transport  vehicles,  extending  the  social  legislation  to  cover  vans 
(below 3,5 tons) would not address the most important safety risks pertinent to these vehicle 
types.  Considering  that Member States  have  implemented their own national drivers’ hours 
restrictions  for  LGVs66  (Light  Goods  Vehicles),  which  are  typically  based  on  the  limits 
established  in  the  road  social  legislation,  the  relevance  of  explicitly  extending  the  rules  to 
vans as a means to reduce fatigue seems limited. The anecdotal evidence shows that the main 
root cause of the fatigue of van drivers seems more clearly linked with the demands of the job 
such as the pressures of keeping to schedules, increasing traffic, and a higher proportion of 
drivers’ working time taken up by non-driving activities.  

6.2  Effectiveness 

Question  3:  To  what  extent  has  the  clarification  of  the  provisions  on  driving  times,  rest 
periods and organisation of working time of drivers helped to improve the legal certainty of 
the rules and their uniform application? Has the compliance increased as a result of these 
clarifications?   

The  clarity  of  provisions,  being  a  subjective  concept,  is  assessed  based  on  the  following 
indirect indicators that, if they exist for a certain provision, suggest a lack of certainty: 

a)  efforts to clarify the same or newly introduced provisions; 
b)  number and content of petitions, court cases or complaints due to unclear provisions;  
c)  remaining uncertainties indicated by stakeholders during consultation activities.  
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 introduced a total of 23 amendments or additions to the legal 
definitions  compared  to  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3820/85.  These  changes aimed  to  clarify  the 
scope of the legislation regarding the types of vehicles and operations covered, and to more 
precisely define the terms used in relation to rest periods, breaks and driving times. 

The  17  of  the  total  23  (74%)  amendments/additions  to  the  legal  definitions  are  regarded 
successful in  bringing  more  clarity  to the rules,  as  no relevant  uncertainties  were  identified 
according to the indicators described above. The 6 remaining definitions that turned out to be 
unclear  and  resulted  in  non-uniform  application  concern:  'carriage  by  road',  'break',  'driver', 
'daily  driving  time'  and  the  interaction  between  the  definition  of  'other  work'  provided  in 
Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  and  the  definition  of  'periods  of  availability'  provided  in 
Directive 2002/15/EC.   

66 For example, Austria applies more stringent requirements (max. 8 hours per day instead of 9). In Germany the 
requirements for LGVs between 2.8 tonnes and 3.5 tonnes maximum authorised weight are the same as for 
heavy goods vehicles but the requirements for lighter LCVs of up to 2.8 tonnes are more stringent than for 
HGVs (similar to Austrian LCV requirements) (Danklefsen, 2009) 

27 

 
 
                                                      
Table 3 – Summary of legal definitions and other provisions that caused uncertainties and lead to non-
uniform application  

Legal definition 

Identified uncertainties following 
adoption of Reg (EC) No 561/2006 

Further clarification efforts 
undertaken 

‘Break’ in the context 
of ‘Multi-manning’ 

‘Driver’ 

‘Daily driving time’ 

Uncertainty whether the second 
driver may take a ‘break’ in the 
moving vehicle 

Uncertainty as to whether only 
professional drivers are within the 
scope of the Regulation 

Uncertainty regarding when a new 
daily driving period  commences 
after a non-compliant rest 

Guidance Note 2 

ECJ ruling (Case C-
317/12); 
Clarification Note 2 

Commission Decision 
C(2011) 3759; 
Guidance Note 7 (of 
6/2015) 

Outcomes of further efforts / 
current status regarding 
uncertainties 

Lack of uniform application 
remains 

Lack of uniform application 
remains 

No success - Decision did 
not resolve issue; Impact of 
Guidance Note 7 on 
clarifying the issue has not 
yet been assessed 

‘Carriage by road’ 

Uncertainty whether definition 
should be linked to ‘vehicles’ or 
‘drivers’ in case of mixed activities 

No specific clarification 
efforts undertaken 

Uncertainty remains 

Place of regular 
weekly rest 

Uncertainty as to whether regular 
weekly rest is permitted in the 
vehicle 

Response to parliamentary 
questions; EU-Pilots (3 
pre-infringement cases) in 
response to complaints 

Pertaining differing 
interpretations, lack of 
uniform application 

Suitable stopping 
place 

Records for other 
work and availability 

Unclear conditions under which 
deviation to the rules is acceptable 
and what constitutes a suitable 
stopping place 

Further uncertainty on the means and 
the time period for which the records 
on other work, availability and rest 
times must be made when a driver 
was away from the vehicle or was 
engaged in mixed: in-scope and out-
of-scope activities 

Guidance Note 1 

Uncertainty remains, lack of 
uniform application 

Clarification notes:  
5 and  7 

Lack of uniform application 

Payment regimes 

Uncertainty as to what is, and how to 
prove, an unacceptable payment 
based  on performance 

No specific clarification 
efforts undertaken 

Non-uniform application 

Among  all  the  above  described  legal  uncertainties  resulting  from  the  lacking  clarity  of  the 
provisions and their diverging interpretations and enforcement, the provision on the place of 
taking regular weekly rest merits in-depth explanations, because the lacking clarity has led to 
adopting  national  specific  measures  in  France  and  in  Belgium.  These  measures,  based  on 
national  interpretations  of  the  current  EU  (unclear)  provision,  envisage  imposing  severe 
sanctions for taking regular weekly rest in the vehicle, which cannot be entirely warranted by 
the current EU provision in force.   

Article  8  provides  the  provisions  on  rest  periods.  A  recurring  point  of  contention  regards 
Article 8 (8) which states that daily rest and reduced weekly rest may be taken in a vehicle 
“as  long  as  it  has  suitable  sleeping  facilities  for  each  driver  and  the  vehicle  is  stationary”. 
While  the  revised  provision  makes  clear  that  daily  and  reduced  weekly  rest  periods  can  be 
taken in the vehicle under specific circumstances, the location  of where regular weekly rest 
can be taken is not further defined. The national authorities thoroughly discussed this issue at 

28 

 
 
 
the  meetings  of  the  Committee  on  Road  Transport  and  the  CORTE67  enforcement  meeting 
held in March 2015 revealing two main positions: 

1)  Regular  weekly  rests  should  not  be  allowed  in  the  vehicles,  considering  that  “rest”  is 
defined as a period during which the driver may “freely dispose of his time”. Given that 
many  drivers  are  frequently  asked  to  secure  their  vehicles  and  cargo  during  the  rest 
periods that they spend in their vehicles, drivers hence cannot freely dispose of their time 
and such periods should not count as rest. 

2)  Regular  weekly  rests  may  be  allowed  in  the  vehicle  (should  the  driver  choose  so), 
considering that prohibiting this on the grounds that the driver cannot freely dispose of his 
time  would  also  imply  that  he  could  not  spend  daily  and  reduced  weekly  rests  in  the 
vehicle either (which would contravene the requirements of the Regulation). 

Some  Member  States  (Belgium,  France  and  Netherlands)  more  specifically  interpret  the 
relevant  provision  as  having  the  aim  to  improve  the  working  conditions    of  drivers  by 
suggesting  that  regular  weekly  rest  should  be  taken  at  home,  although  this  is  not  explicitly 
stated in the Regulation. Other Member States68  and enforcement organisations emphasised 
that there are uncertain consequences of not permitting the driver to stay in the vehicle, given 
that alternative accommodation is either not available or of insufficient quality. This is indeed 
a  concern,  although  the  availability  of  parking  and  service  areas  that  enables  drivers  to 
comply with their obligations under the EU legislation is the responsibility of the competent 
authorities in each Member State. 

In  the  course  of  the  consultation  activities,  trade  unions  supported  fully  the  first  position 
described above. 

The lack of uniform application persists, with France and Belgium prohibiting drivers from 
spending regular weekly rest in vehicles and sanctioning severely for doing so, and with other 
Member States, such as Bulgaria, Lithuania and Luxembourg, who do not regard spending a 
regular weekly rest in the vehicle as prohibited.  

As regards the working time provisions set out in Directive 2002/15/EC, for 8 of the total 9 
legal  definitions,  no  relevant  uncertainties  were  raised.  Therefore  it  can  be  concluded  that 
these  definitions  achieved  their  aim  of  providing  clear  rules  specifically  for  the  transport 
sector.  For  example,  the  definitions  of  ‘other  work’  and  ‘periods  of  availability’  are 
considered  clear  by,  respectively,  969  and  10  respondents70  out  of  13  ministries71.  The  only 
uncovered uncertainty concerns the 'periods of availability'. Enforcers from the Netherlands 
and Ireland, however, highlighted the difficulty of proving and verifying  whether 'period of 
availability' have been known in advance. As a result, these representatives claimed that the 
provision is unenforceable, which is a different issue.  

In  case  of  the  provisions  of  enforcement  Directive  2006/22/EC  only  the  issue  of  using  an 
attestation  form  to  certify  for  driver's  activity  and  inactivity  periods  when  away  from  the 
vehicle  was  a  subject  to  diverging  implementation  practices.  Despite  the  Guidance  Note  5 
clarifying the use of the attestation form the differences in enforcement across the Member 
States  persisted.  The  lack  of  uniform  application  stems  from  the  fact  that  the  use  of  the 

67 CORTE – Confederation of Organisations in Road Transport Enforcement 
68 Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania Latvia, Spain, UK 
69 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and United 

Kingdom. 

70 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia. 
71 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden 

and United Kingdom. 

29 

 
 
                                                      
attestation form is not mandatory. This lack of harmonisation has been further compounded 
by Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 165/2014, which states that “Member States shall not 
impose on drivers a requirement to present forms attesting to their activities while away from 
the  vehicle.”  This  caused  further  uncertainties  on  how  to  record  and  control  activities  of  a 
driver  when  a  driver  was  away  from  a  vehicle.  In  Austria  the  form  was  still  required  if 
retrospective entries for such activities on the tachograph were not possible. In other Member 
States, such as Finland and Latvia, the use of the form is allowed (but also other proof can be 
provided), while still other Member States, such as France and Greece disregard such forms 
(and other proof for such activities is required). Hence, the attempts made to harmonise the 
use  of  the  attestation  forms  across  the  Union  have  been  unsuccessful.  Prevailing  different 
approaches  to  the  use  of  these  forms  cause  uncertainties  among  drivers  and  undertakings, 
especially when engaged in international transport operations. 

Given the lack of disaggregate data on the detected infringements (i.e. there is no information 
on  whether  specific  infringements  were  due  to  uncertainty  or  a  lack  of  harmonisation)  it  is 
difficult  to  assess  the  impact  of  clarification  on  compliance  levels.  Qualitatively,  answers 
from the stakeholder questionnaires show different views: while  enforcers and trade unions 
do not consider a lack of clarity to be a big factor contributing to non-compliance, drivers and 
undertakings regard it more relevant for a capability to comply. 

Figure 2: Response from different stakeholder groups linking a lack of clarity/coherence in existing rules 
with difficulties in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.  

1 [not a cause]

2

3

4

5 [a major cause]

Don’t know 

Enforcement authorities

11 

5 

4 

1 

Undertakings

178 

242 

275 

227 

247 

64 

Trade unions

8 

2 

3 

1 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

The Figure 2 shows that enforcers and trade unions do not regard the clarity of the rules as a 
potential cause of non-compliance. The responses from undertakings were more mixed, with 
slightly more rating a lack of clarity as a (major or minor) cause of non-compliance versus 
those who rated it as not a cause.  

Figure  3:  Response  from  drivers  to  the  question  whether  any  of  the  three  listed  items  contribute  to 
difficulties in complying with the EU provisions.  

Not a cause

A minor cause

A major cause

No opinion / Don't know

Uncertainty about the rules as they are
inconsistent

Uncertainty about the rules as they are
unclear

Differing control practices among Member
States

11 

11 

1 

1 

8 

9 

6 

3 

12 

2 

2 

2 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Source: Interviews with drivers conducted in course of the evaluation support study  

The above Figure 3 shows that drivers and undertakings, consider a lack of clarity in the rules 
as  a  more  important  contributing  factor  to  non-compliance  than  other  stakeholders.  This 

30 

 
 
 
 
might  reflect  that  they  are  more  aware  of  (and  affected  by)  the  practical  difficulties  of 
correctly interpreting and applying the rules.  

Question  4:  To  what  extent  has  the  package  of  enforcement  measures  (including 
provisions on cooperation) contributed to improving the application of the social rules in 
road transport in a uniform manner throughout the EU and to increasing compliance with 
these  rules?  How  do  results  compare  for  provisions  under  Driving  Time  Regulation  and 
Road Transport Working Time Directive? 

A  range  of  enforcement  measures  were  introduced  to  ensure  harmonised  application,  more 
effective enforcement and subsequently better compliance with the driving time rules across 
Member  States.  These  included:  minimum  thresholds  for  the  number  and  distribution  of 
checks;  common  classification  of  the  infringements;  risk  rating  systems;  co-liability  for 
infringements; body for intercommunity liaison, obligation to exchange data and experience 
between  Member  States,  requirement  to  carry  out  concerted  checks  and  joint  training 
programmes for enforcers.  

The  enforcement  Directive  2006/22/EC  has  had  positive  impacts  in  terms  of  reaching 
thresholds  for  number  of  controls  and  moving  toward  more  checks  at  the  premises,  which 
contributes to a more uniform application of the rules across the EU. In 17 Member States72 
the percentage of working days checked showed an increase between 2005-2006 (before the 
Directive  was  adopted)  and  2007-200873.  By  2011-2012,  the  percentage  of  working  days 
checked  had  increased  in  all  but  one  Member  State (Poland).  The  actual  number  of  checks 
still  varies  substantially  (with  some  Member  States74  reporting  shares  that  are  3  to  5  times 
higher  than  the  minimum  requirements);  however,  the  purpose  of  the  Directive  is  to 
harmonise the minimum standards rather than prescribing a precise number. In this sense, the 
Directive can be  considered to  have been largely successful  in ensuring common  minimum 
standards:  in  2011-2012,  all  Member  States  except  Denmark,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia  and  the 
Netherland  reached  the  minimum  target  of  3%  and  in  2013-2014  the  list  of  countries  that 
have  not  reached  the  3%  threshold  diminished  to  four  Member  States,  namely:  Greece, 
Netherlands, Croatia and Lithuania.  

Concerning the risk rating systems and penalty systems, there is considerable divergence in 
the  application  of  the  rules  (due  to  the  flexibility  allowed  to  Member  States  in  defining 
national provisions). Only 8 Member States75 use the formula for calculation of risk rating of 
the  transport  undertaking  based  on  or  similar  to  the  Commission  recommended  formula 
established in 2007. All others established own methods to calculate risk rating. As a result 
the same type and number of infringements may lead an undertaking to be classified in one 
Member  States  as  a  high  risk  company  which  leads  to  more  frequent  checks,  while  the 
undertaking    can  be  regarded  as  low  risk  in  another  Member  State.    Hence,    undertakings 
established in a Member States with more stringent rules are disadvantaged to those who are 
established in a Member States with a more relaxed calculation method. 

The same applies for the definition of the level of fines and the type of sanctions, which vary 
significantly  across  Europe.  As  a  result  the  same  infringement  is  fined  differently  in  different 

72 Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden - around 80% of the 21 Member States for which 
data are available 
73 Directive 2006/22/EC increased the minimum requirement for working days checked, from 1% before the 
introduction of the Directive to at least 2% of all working days from 1 January 2008 
74 Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, France, Romania 
75 Luxembourg, Poland, France, Netherlands, Latvia, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria 

31 

 
 
                                                      
Member  States,  with  variations  from  60  Euro  fine  to  5000  Euro  or  even  immobilisation  of  the 
vehicle76.  One  of  the  steps  taken  to  (indirectly)  improve  the harmonisation  of  sanctions  was 
the adoption of the Commission Directive 2009/5/EC77 on the common classification of the 
level  of  seriousness  of  infringements.  The  Directive  classifies  infringements  against  the 
provisions of the Driving Time Regulation into three categories according to their degree of 
seriousness  and  specifies  reference  thresholds  for  infringements  relating  to  quantitative 
variables.  However,  since  the  level  of  sanctions  is  a  competence  of  Member  States,  no 
indicative  value  in  terms  of  sanctions  to  be  imposed  has  been  assigned  to  each  of  these 
categories.  Furthermore,  out  of  the  21  Member  States78  that  reported  on  their  penalties 
systems,  only  the  Netherlands  and  Romania  notified  that  they  aligned  their  categories  of 
penalties with the above-mentioned categorisation of infringements. 

These examples show that developments in infringement rates can be influenced by a variety 
of  factors,  and  it  is  not  possible  to  develop  general  conclusions  for  the  EU.  Overall,  the 
developments  toward  a  best  practice  in  enforcement  can  result  in  either  improvement  in 
compliance  and/or  higher  detection  rates.  Examples  of  what  “best  practice”  specifically 
means include: higher quality training of enforcers and better risk-targeting.  

The  principle  of  co-liability  has  not  contributed  to  the  specific  objective  of  uniform 
enforcement  due  to  the  variation  in  implementation  by  Member  States  (allowed  by  the 
legislation) leads to situations where the same facts could make different parties being held 
liable  depending  on  the  Member  State.  Difficulties  in  enforcement  are  typically  due  to  the 
challenges of identifying who is really responsible for any infringements detected, especially 
in  cases  of  extensive  subcontracting  chains.  In  effect,  it  is  typically  a  driver  who  is  penalised. 
Therefore,  the  direct  impact  of  the  principle  of  co-liability  on  improving  compliance  is 
minimal as there is not a real risk to the third parties of actually being held liable in practice. 
Hence  the  situation  in  this  regard  has  not  improved  compared  to  the  time  before  the 
application of the rule.  

The Enforcement Directive increased the requirements for concerted checks as from 2007 to 
six per year, compared to two checks per year under the previous rule. Comments received 
via  the  survey  and  interviews  indicated  that  concerted  checks  contribute  to  improving 
enforcement  capacity  (in  terms  of  knowledge  and  best  practices)  and  consistency  of 
enforcement  practices  over  a  longer  period  of  time  through  the  exchange  of  experience 
between enforcement officers and establishing common approach to enforcement.  

The administrative cooperative measures have not, however, been sufficient to overcome the 
diversity  of  national  applications.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  non-binding  nature  of  the 
instruments,  where  alignment,  through  information  and  best  practice  exchange  and/or 
common training79 is encouraged but not required 

76 Commission report on penalties, COM(2009) 225; Study on the harmonisation of sanctions in the field of 
commercial road transport (2012 - 2013)  available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/road_en  
77 Commission Directive 2009/5/EC of 30 January 2009 amending Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations 
(EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities (OJ L 29, 
31.1.2009, p. 45–50) 
78 Austia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, 
Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, UK. 
79 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement" available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives/fair-competition-workers-
rights_en and a draft Commission Staff Working Document accompanying Report from the Commission on the 

32 

 
 
                                                      
 
The analysis shows that enforcement measures are only partially effective in addressing the 
risk  of  non-compliance.  While  the  enforcement  measures  mitigate  the  risk  of  non-
compliance,  the  risks  of  being  detected  and  its consequences  do  not  outweigh  the  potential 
advantages  (in  terms  of  carrying  out  more  transport  services  due  to  longer  driving  and 
working hours, shorter rest periods) of infringing the rules for all undertakings and/or drivers. 
The extent to which this applies varies across Member States and depends on their specific 
enforcement systems in place, as well as the type of transport operation being carried out and 
therefore cannot be realistically quantified. 

In contrast to the Driving Time Regulation, there is no explicit legal requirement for Member 
States  to  carry  out  regular  controls  on  compliance  with  the  working  time  provisions  and 
subsequently  to  collect  and  submit  quantitative  information  on  the  enforcement.  Therefore, 
no quantitative data is available to assess the harmonisation of its application across the EU 
or the effects on compliance/ levels. A qualitative assessment suggests that the enforcement 
practices  for  the  Working  Time  Directive  vary  significantly  across  Member  States  and  that 
the level of compliance is rather low. This further implies that enforcement in general is not 
effective, which in turn is due to the low priority given to enforcement of the Directive.  

Question  5:  Do  the  monitoring  and  reporting  arrangements  in  place  allow  for  adequate 
checking and follow-up of the legislation?  

The legislation requires Member States  to  submit biennial reports on the driving  time rules 
according  to  a  standard  template.  The  set  of  indicators  available  in  the  Member  States’ 
reports  allows  for  adequate  monitoring  and  follow-up  of  the  legislation  in  terms  of  the 
implementation of its core requirements, such as the number of checks. It also allows for a 
basic  assessment  of  national  enforcement  capacity  and  the  reported  detected  infringement 
rates.  The  timeliness,  completeness  and  consistency  of  the  monitoring  data  submitted  has 
increased  over  time.  In  part,  the introduction  of  the  electronic  reporting  tool seems  to  have 
been  successful  in  encouraging  a  higher  response  rate.  Nevertheless,  continuing  difficulties 
concern the provision of data around certain indicators where Member States are not able to 
collect the data at the level of detail that is requested by the Commission, such as the number 
of  vehicles  fitted  with  a  digital  tachograph  or  the  number  and  type  of  offences  detected  at 
premises and roadside80. 

In contrast with the Driving Time Regulation, there is no explicit legal obligation for Member 
States to include quantitative information in their reports with regard to checking compliance 
with  the  Working  Time  Directive.  As  a  result,  there  is  insufficient  quantitative  data  to 
evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Directive. The current biennial reporting 
is  still  fragmentary  and  in  its  current  state  not  adequate  for  a  comprehensive  checking  and 
follow up of the legislation. 

implementation in 2013-2014 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and of Directive 2002/15/EC – to be adopted 
and published in the first trimester of 2017 
80 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement" available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives/fair-competition-workers-
rights_en and a draft Commission Staff Working Document accompanying Report from the Commission on the 
implementation in 2013-2014 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and of Directive 2002/15/EC – to be adopted 
and published in the first trimester of 2017 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                     
Question 6: Has the EU legislative framework on social rules in road transport resulted in 
improved  working  conditions  of  drivers  (in  particular  in  relation  to  their  health  and 
safety), increased road safety level and contributed to a level playing field? What are the 
main drivers and hindrances to its effectiveness?  

This  evaluation  question  assesses  the  effectiveness  of  the  social  legislation  in  terms  of 
contributing to the policy objectives to improve working conditions, increase road safety and 
avert the distortions of competition.  

The working conditions in general cover several aspects, such as hours of work, rest periods, 
work schedules, remuneration, the physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the 
workplace,  including  degree  of  safety,  fatigue  and  stress  as  well  as  work-life  balance.  The 
assessment of the effectiveness of the social legislation in improving working conditions of 
road transport mobile workers is based on those aspects which can be directly or indirectly 
linked with the existing road transport social rules. The first group of linked factors are those 
which have a direct impact on the fatigue of drivers, namely: working hours, driving hours 
and resting periods.  The second group of linked factors are indirectly  linked to  the rules in 
force  and  could  cause  stress,  namely:  performance-based  payments,  legal  requirements  and 
roadside  checks,  long  periods  away  from  home/base,  work-related  sleeping  disorders,  time 
pressure and unforeseen circumstances.  

According to the drivers' survey the average working times have improved for EU-15 drivers 
but remained stable or deteriorated for EU-13 drivers over past 10 years.  

Figure  4:  Response  of  drivers  to  the  question:  Have  your  overall  average  working  hours  (driving  and 
other work) increased or decreased over the last 10 years?  

Significantly increased

Slightly increased

Neutral

Slightly decreased

Significantly decreased

No opinion / Don't know

EU15

0 

4 

5 

EU13

2 

3 

5 

5 

6 

2 

1 

1 

2 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Source: Survey of drivers conducted for this study 
Notes: n=36; of which 22 from EU-15 and 14 from EU-13; of which 27 engage in international transport operations, i.e. 
outside the MS where they are based 

The  availability  of  data  with  respect  to  enforcement  of,  and  compliance  with,  the  Working 
Time Directive is very limited, mainly due to the fact that Member States are only required to 
provide qualitative data (quantitative data is only provided on a voluntary basis). As a result, 
there is insufficient quantitative data to evaluate the effectiveness of the Directive. However 
the  consultation  activities  carried  out  within  the  study  shows  that  there  is  an  overall 
stakeholders agreement about low compliance with working time provisions across the EU, 
with less than a half out of 36 drivers who responded to the survey reporting that they work 
more than 48 hours on average per week. This shows that the objective of the Working Time 
Directive  to  limit  average  weekly  working  time  to  48  hours  and  hence  reduce  fatigue  and 
improve  working  conditions  has  been  achieved  only  to  a  limited  extent  compared  to  the 

34 

 
 
 
expected  results  behind  this  legislation.  This  is  mainly  due  to  weak  enforcement  of  the 
Directive's provisions, as was already discussed in previous question 4. 

Concerning  the  general  impact  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  on  drivers’  fatigue  and 
health, around 45% (out of 1269) of respondents to the survey of undertakings regarded the 
impacts to be neutral and equal numbers of respondents rated it positively and negatively. A 
higher  share  of  respondents  to  the  same  survey  from  EU-13  countries  responded  positively 
compared to those from the EU-15. Very similar responses were received via the interviews 
with drivers: almost half of 37 of respondents considered there was no change in their fatigue 
over the past 10 years, whereas more than a quarter of them said it had increased and lest than 
a quarter felt it had reduced.  

Several  studies  provide  various  figures  on  fatigue-related  accidents.  The  IRU  in  its  ETAC 
study (IRU, 2007) cites a proportion of fatigue-related accidents of 6%. In a study conducted 
in 2011, the Dutch road safety institute found that fatigue was responsible in approximately 
23%  of  accidents  where  international  truck  drivers  were  involved  (SWOV,  2011),  while 
(Connor  et  al.,  2001)  report  that  fatigue  is  a  contributory  factor  in  a  range  of  10%-20%  of 
road  crashes  where  professional  drivers  are  involved.  Finally,  a  research  conducted  by  the 
Swedish Transport Institute VTI found that 19% of bus drivers had over the past decade been 
involved  in  an  incident  due  to  fatigue  and  7%  of  them  had  been  involved  in  an  accident 
caused by their own fatigue (Anund et al., 2014). None of these sources provide whether the 
fatigue  was  due  to  the  working,  driving  and  resting  times  that  are  regulated  by  the  EU 
legislation or they are more linked to other factors such as: health problems, drugs, alcohol, 
unhealthy  life-style,  sleeping  disorders,  etc.    Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  reliable 
conclusions.  However,  in  the  light  of  the  development  of  increased  competition  and  other 
pressures in the sector, the situation can still be considered an achievement compared to the 
situation of the absence of EU  rules on driving and resting times  which should have  led to 
excessive driving and working times affecting directly the fatigue as well as health and safety 
of drivers.  

The performance-based payment is lawful under the provision of the legislation provided that 
it does not create risks to road safety or encourage infringing the legislation (e.g.: speeding or 
extending driving times and shortening resting periods to carry out more operations in order 
to get more money for better performance in terms of distances travelled or volume of goods 
carried  within  a  month).  The  analysis  revealed  that  on  average  EU-13  drivers  are  paid  less 
than  EU-15  drivers,  yet  have  a  higher  proportion  of  their  salary  that  is  variable  (57%  on 
average compared to 21%). Moreover, the variable part of the salary is typically displayed on 
payslips  as “travel expenses”  (although it is often linked to the travelled distances) and not 
subject  to  charges  including  taxes  and  social  contributions.  According  to  trade  unions 
consulted, distance- or load-based payments account for a relatively low estimated  share of 
drivers  in  the  UK  (5%)  and  Italy  (10%),  whereas  the  estimates  for  other  countries  were 
higher,  including  Spain  (50%),  Poland  (50%)  and  Lithuania  (77%).  Overall  the  share  of 
affected  drivers in  EU-13  countries  range  from  50-77%,  with  the  variable  portion of  salary 
being on average  57%. According to 36%  (out of 36)  of drivers interviewed for this study, 
such payment schemes are a cause contributing to non-compliance with the rules. Based on 
this  data  it  is,  however,  difficult  to  conclude  whether  the  performance-based  remuneration 
contributed or hindered the effectiveness of the legislation. 

The legal requirements that drivers have to be aware of are numerous and extend far beyond 
the social legislation. Road social legislation specifically is comprehensive and demands a lot 
from drivers in terms of understanding and properly recording their activities. According to 
EU-OSHA (2010) stress related to these requirements is therefore likely to be higher among 

35 

 
 
drivers  that  participate  in  international  operations,  since  these  drivers  have  to  be  aware  of 
potentially varying applications or interpretations of the legislation across the Member States. 
The  stress  due  to  roadside  checks  is  likely  to  be  intensified  by  the  risk  that  drivers  will  be 
held responsible for the actual payment of on-the-spot fines when an infringement is detected 
at  roadside.  The  activities  involved  in  time  recording  to  demonstrate  compliance  have  also 
been suggested as a stress factor, since accidental incorrect recording can lead to fines.  

The road social legislation does not limit the time of drivers that they can spend away from 
their  home  base.  According  to  the  replies  of  25  drivers  participating  in  the  drivers'  survey 
EU-13 drivers in particular stayed away for two to four consecutive weeks before returning to 
their  homes,  while  EU-15  drivers  generally  do  not  stay  away  from  home  for  more  than  a 
week. In addition, it was found that out of the 25 responding drivers engaged in international 
transport  operations,  7  typically  spend  their  regular  weekly  rest  on-board  the  vehicle  (all 
engaged in freight transport), 3 spend it in an accommodation provided by an employer (all 
engaged  in  passenger  transport).  While  these  insights  from  the  interviews  do  not  provide 
information on the actual lengths that these drivers spend away from home, this small sample 
does suggest that regular weekly rests on board the vehicle are a common practice. At these 
occasions, the periods away from home are likely to surpass one week or two weeks in case 
the regular weekly rest periods is followed by or follows reduced weekly rest periods. 

Time pressure is reported to be an increasing cause of stress for drivers, as well as imposing 
an increased risk of non-compliance with the road social legislation. The Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006  introduced  the  obligation  of  employers  to  organise  the  work  of  drivers  in  such  a 
way that they can comply with the Regulation's provisions. It also introduced the principle of 
co-liability among relevant actors in transport operation chain. However the potential of these 
provisions  to  mitigate  the  associated  stress  caused  by  market  conditions  and  unforeseen 
circumstances appears to be limited, even if the provisions are respected, since other factors 
outside  of 
legislation  (market  developments,  unforeseen 
circumstances) contribute to increased stress. 

the  scope  of 

the  social 

As  shown  in  Figure  5  below,  the  overall  impact  of  the  social  legislation  on  working 
conditions is perceived as positive by EU-13 drivers, while the view of EU-15 drivers is more 
diversified: 10 out of the 22 interviewed drivers expressed the opinion that the legislation’s 
impact on working conditions was (slightly or significantly) negative.    

Figure 5: Response of drivers to the question: What has been the impact of EU social rules (provisions on 
driving and rest times as well as working time) on your working conditions in general?  

Significantly positive impact

Neutral

Slightly positive impact

Slightly negative impact

Significantly negative impact

"No opinion / Don't know"

EU15

1 

6 

2 

2 

10 

1 

EU13

4 

0%

25%

5 

50%

3 

0 

1 

1 

75%

100%

Notes:  n=36;  of  which  22  from  EU15  and  14  from  EU-13;  of  which  27  engage  in  international  transport 
operations  
Source: Survey among drivers conducted for the support study for ex-post evaluation  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  6  shows  that  the  view  of  other  stakeholder  groups  was  generally  more  positive 
compared to the views of drivers. Only undertakings had a more reserved view on the impact 
of road social legislation on working conditions. All other stakeholders expressed a majority 
view  that  road  social  rules  have  had  a  strong  or  slight  positive  impact  on  drivers’  working 
conditions. The trade unions held by far the most positive overall views.  

Figure 6: Response of different stakeholder groups to the question: What was the impact of road social 
legislation on working conditions of drivers? 

Strongly positive
Slightly negative

Slightly positive
Strongly negative

No material impact
Don't know/No opinion

Unions

Ministries

Enforcers

4 

7 

8 

5 

1 

8 

12 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

High level institutions

4 

27 

9 

9 

3 

3 

Undertakings: Regulation…

61 

164 

185 

279 

177 

75 

Undertakings: Directive…

21 

121 

226 

158 

90 

100 

Drivers

2 

0%

11 

25%

5 

1 

10 

50%

75%

100%

Source: Stakeholder surveys conducted for this study 
Concerning road safety, although road safety levels have improved over the last decade81, the 
impact of road social legislation on this development is impossible to discern given that in the 
same  time  period  numerous  other  road  safety  measures  have  been  implemented  across  the 
Member States (such as speed management measures, enforcement of seat belt use, changes 
in drivers’ education etc.), and available data typically does not allow to identify the cause (or 
the causing party) of an accident.  

Nevertheless, the stakeholder groups consulted for this ex-post evaluation mostly believe that 
the analysed legal acts had a positive or at least neutral effect on road safety levels (60% of 
undertakings,  being  the  most  reserved  stakeholder  group  in  this  respect,  take  this  view).  In 
conclusion,  establishing  the  limits  on  driving  time  by  requiring  drivers  to  take  minimum 
breaks and rest periods, EU social rules help to secure safe transport operations and to avoid 
situations  where  fatigue,  stress,  sleepiness  and  mental  overload  of  drivers  may  be 
contributory factors to road accidents involving commercial vehicles. However, isolating the 
impacts of the road social legislation from the impacts of other safety and security measures 
introduced in the same period is not possible.  Nevertheless, stakeholders generally perceive 
the impact of road social legislation on road safety to have been positive. 

Figure  7  shows  many  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  believe  that  the  impact  of  road  social 
legislation  on  road  safety  was  positive.  However,  views  diverge  across  stakeholder  groups, 
with  trade  unions  being  significantly  more  positive  than  other  stakeholder  groups. 
Undertakings  were  the  least  positive  overall,  but  still  reported  a  neutral  or  slightly  net 
positive overall result.  

81Over the period 2005-2013 road fatalities in freight transport decreased by almost 40% (from almost 1600 per 
year to 900 per year)  and in bus and coach remained stable (ca. 250 fatalities per year) ; source: CARE 
database, 2015 

37 

 
 
 
                                                      
In conclusion, establishing the limits on driving time by requiring drivers to take minimum 
breaks and rest periods, EU social rules help to secure safe transport operations and to avoid 
situations  where  fatigue,  stress,  sleepiness  and  mental  overload  of  drivers  may  be 
contributory factors to road accidents involving commercial vehicles. However, isolating the 
impacts of the road social legislation from the impacts of other safety and security measures 
introduced in the same period is not possible. Nevertheless, stakeholders generally perceive 
the impact of road social legislation on road safety to have been positive. 

Figure  7 Response of  different  stakeholder  groups to  the  question:  What  was  the  impact of  road  social 
legislation on road safety? 

Strongly positive
Slightly negative

Slightly positive
Strongly negative

No material impact
Don't know/No opinion

Drivers

3 

Trade unions

14 

9 

7 

4 

1 

2 

5 

High level institutions

11 

33 

7 

1 

2 

Undertakings: impact of Regulation
561/2006

Undertakings: impact of Directive
2002/15/EC

71 

212 

249 

131 

70 

85 

38 

120 

324 

90 

47 

98 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Source: Stakeholder surveys conducted for this study 

The analysis of a level playing field showed that this has not been achieved. This is partly due 
to  lacking  clarity  in  certain  provisions  and  intended  flexibilities  provided  in  the  legislative 
acts, including those on national penalty systems. This results in the situation that the same 
behaviour of a driver/operator is interpreted in different Member States as compliant or non-
compliant  with  the  rules,  hence  resulting  in  imposing  penalty  or  not.  In  addition,  the  same 
infringement can be sanctioned differently in different Member States, which incites the non-
complaint  behaviours,  to  gain  unfair  competitive  advantage,  in  the  countries  where  the 
penalties are at low levels or enforcement is weak. On the other hand, unintended factors that 
hinder  the  development  of  a  level  playing  field  include:  differences  in  interpretation  of  the 
rules  and  different  implementation  of  enforcement  systems  (in  line  with  Directive 
2006/22/EC)  across  the  Member  States.  This  again  results  in  different  treatment  of  drivers 
and  operators  at  the  controls  depending  on  the  national  interpretation  of  the  rules.  Around 
55%  of  stakeholders  consulted  during  all  consultation  activities  indicated  that  diverging 
national interpretations of the common rules and different enforcement practices are the main 
legislative  challenge  for  the  sector  and  69  %  regarded  that  the  current  legislation  does  not 
address adequately the risk of distortions of competition82.   

Question 7: Does the current system of exemptions and national derogations have impact 
on the achievement of the objectives of the legislation?  

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 contains nine specific exemptions for certain types of vehicles/ 
their types of uses for which the Regulation's provisions do not apply. There are no problems 

82 Results of the consultation activities are presented in more details in Annex III 

38 

 
 
 
                                                      
reported with five exemptions which have been justified on either the basis that the vehicles 
represent very small market shares (e.g. with a maximum speed of less than 40 km/hr or with 
a historic status) or are used for specific purposes in the public interest (e.g. vehicles used for 
emergency  or  medical  purposes).  Allowing  such  exemptions  in  the  Regulation  ensures  that 
the  costs  of  enforcement  and  compliance  for  drivers  are  reduced  without  impacting  on  the 
achievement of the objectives of the Regulation in terms of ensuring road safety and adequate 
working conditions, by nature of the small scale of activities concerned and the coverage of 
such  activities  by  the  general  working  time  rules,  as  set  out  in  Directive  2003/88/EC. 
Conversely,  specific  issues  have  been  uncovered  with  the  remaining  four  exemptions  that 
were  justified  on  the  basis  of  the  short  distances  travelled.  These  problems  mainly  concern 
whether the definitions are precise and clear enough to avoid possible loopholes that enable 
the rules to be circumvented (e.g. in the case of breakdown vehicles), as well as an unlevelled 
playing field in the interpretation and application of such exemptions83.  

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 also offers a list of national derogations that may be granted by 
Member  States,  provided  the  objectives  are  not  prejudiced.  Consequently,  although  the 
freedom for Member States to freely adopt pre-defined derogations appears to be appropriate, 
this may cause uncertainties for drivers, undertakings and enforcement authorities about how 
to handle international operations that are derogated only in some Member States. However, 
the study confirmed that this does not appear to be a major concern. 

For most derogations, no issues were uncovered with regard to possible negative impacts on 
the  objectives  of  the  Regulation,  since  drivers  subject to  derogations  are  still  subject  to  the 
working time rules for mobile workers (Directive 2002/15/EC) and the derogations apply to 
areas where driving is mostly an ancillary activity that happens locally. This is ensured either 
by  imposing  a  restricted  radius  within  which  the  vehicle  is  allowed  to  operate  -  or,  by 
definition,  applying  the  derogation  solely  to  transport  operations  that  are  not  subject  to 
competitive pressures.  

The temporary exemptions are not found to cause any adverse effects on the objectives of the 
Regulation.  Rather,  they  appear  to  be  useful  tool  to  deal  with  exceptional  and  urgent 
circumstances (e.g.: extreme weather conditions resulting in high demands for heating oil to 
the  households  or  de-icing  products  to  the  airports  and    requiring  continuous  transport 
operations) when the suspension of relevant transport operations would not be appropriate.  

Derogations from Directive 2002/15/EC are, per definition, very restricted in their nature and 
furthermore  only  possible  in  consultation  with  both  sides  of  the  industry.  Consequently, 
adverse  effects  on  the  objectives  of  road  social  legislation  are  limited.  They  are  an 
appropriate  tool  to  deal  with  specific  circumstances  within  a  Member  State  (or  within  a 
certain sector or specific business)84. 

Question  8:  To  what  extent  has  the  legislative  framework  created  any  unintended 
negative/positive effects? If so, which stakeholders groups are affected the most?  
The results of the survey for undertakings  85showed that around 30% of respondents had to 
hire additional drivers in order to maintain their level of turnover before Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006  and  in  particular  the  enforcement  regime  established  by  Directive  2006/22/EC 

83 The final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport and its 
enforcement" available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives/fair-competition-workers-
rights_en 
84 Idem 
85 The undertakings survey consisted of 716 respondents involved primarily in goods transport and 299 involved 
primarily in passenger transport 

39 

 
 
                                                      
came  into  force.  Conversely,  60%  (609)  of  undertakings  reported  that  they  did  not  have  to 
hire additional drivers, and over half of them reported that they made no changes at all since 
they already complied with the rules. This implies that labour demand was not increased for 
these  organisations,  as  many  had  complied  with  the  driving  time  rules  prior  to  the 
introduction of the strict enforcement regime. 

Splitting  the  results  by  goods  and  passenger  transport  shows  that  the  passenger  transport 
sector  was  likely  more  affected,  since  around  55%  (164)  reported  a  need  to  hire  additional 
drivers  as  compared  to  20%  (143)  of  respondents  working  primarily  in  goods  transport 
(Figure  7,  left-hand  side).  The  distribution  of  responses  concerning  the  Working  Time 
Directive  was  very  similar,  with  around  half  of  all  respondents  claiming  that  they  already 
complied  and  26%  reporting  that  they  had  to  hire  additional  drivers  (Figure  8,  right-hand 
side). 

Figure  8:  Responses  to  the  question:  In  order  to  maintain  your  level  of  turnover  when  the  social 
legislation came into force, did you need to do any of the following? 

Source: Undertakings survey (716 respondents involved primarily in goods transport; 299 involved primarily in passenger 
transport) 

In  summary,  there  are  two  opposing  effects  of  the  social  legislation  on  driver  shortages: 
firstly,  the  legislation  could  contribute  to  worsening  shortages  due  to  restricting  the 
driving/working hours of those in the profession and leading to greater labour demand.  

The  second effect  of  the  social legislation  works  to  mitigate  driver shortages  by  improving 
the  attractiveness  of  the  profession and  thus  increasing  labour  supply. Views  from  industry 
gathered  from  literature  and  the  national  reports  contributing  to  the  Commission's  biennial 
reports  indicate  a  consensus  that  the  legislation  has  contributed  to  improving  the  working 
conditions of drivers. Conversely, the additional demands  of compliance with the rules and 
the  risk  of  fines  may  detract  from  the  attractiveness  of  the  sector.  The  net  effect  of  these 
opposing forces cannot be determined due to the multitude of other factors influencing labour 
market dynamics. 

The  increase  in  subcontracting  seen  in  the  industry  over  recent  years  has  reportedly  been 
linked to a proliferation of employment practices  that undermine the working conditions of 
drivers, notably bogus self-employment and the employment of non-resident drivers via so-
called letterbox companies. The social legislation is not, however, the primary driving factor 
for  any  increases  in  such  undesirable  employment  practices.  The  most  important  factor 
contributing  to  both  of  these  practices  is  the  need  to  lower  costs  in  light  of  increased 

40 

 
 
 
 
competitive  pressure  in  the  industry.  Nevertheless,  according  to  stakeholders'  opinions 
avoidance of the social legislation is likely to be a secondary contributing factor to the extent 
that  it  allows  companies  to  reduce  compliance  costs  although  risking  high  non-compliance 
costs, which occur when the enforcement is effective.  

There  is  no  evidence  on  negative  impacts  on  bus  services  regarding  installation  of 
tachographs.  On  the  contrary,  the  example  from  Sweden  shows  that  some  companies  have 
installed  tachographs  in  all  buses,  even  if  there  is  a  large  proportion  exempted,  because 
having  the  same  recording  routines  across  all  activities  can  reduce  the  scope  for  manual 
errors. 

There has been a general trend toward a higher number of Light Goods Vehicles below 3.5t 
on  the  EU  roads.  In  2015  LGVs  represented  around  85%  of  new  commercial  vehicle 
registrations in the EU (ACEA, 2016). up from 75% in 2006 (T&E, 2016). The operations by 
these  vehicles  are  not  covered  by  the  social  legislation  in  road  transport.  The  claimed 
increasing  use  of  LGVs  in  commercial  carriage  of  goods  is  likely  to  be  linked  particularly 
with  the  rise  in  home  deliveries  and  developments  in  urban  freight  logistic.  These  types  of 
service  are  best-suited  to  vans  rather  than  trucks  (due  to  the  fact  that  smaller  vehicles  are 
more efficient when making “last mile” deliveries from centralised distribution hubs, as well 
as  due  to  access  restrictions  on  heavier  vehicles  in  urban  areas).  There  is  no  evidence  that 
they  are  actually  taking  market  share  away  from  HGVs  (“switching”)  as  a  means  to  avoid 
legislation and reduce compliance costs. 

Comparing  the  cost  differentials  between  different  types  of  vehicles  in  Europe  shows  that 
HGVs have a considerable advantage over LGVs in all regions. As shown in Table 4, the cost 
of transport per ton by HGV (25t, 80m3) is only around 16% of the cost to transport a ton by 
LGV (1.65t, 20m3). By volume, the cost of transport by HGV is around 60% of the cost of 
transport by LGV. An increase of more than 25% in the freight transport cost price for HGVs 
(against a static LGV rate) would be needed for competition to occur (NEA, 2010).  

Table 4: Cost of transport by HGV relative to LGVs 

Per ton 
Per m3 
Source: (NEA, 2010) 

South West Europe 
16% 
60% 

Southeast Europe 
16% 
62% 

North West Europe  North East Europe 

16% 
60% 

16% 
62% 

Overall, the social legislation is unlikely to be the main cause of the recent increases in vans 
seen on the roads. Even with the combined regulatory burden from relevant road legislation 
(for  which  the  cut-off  point  is  usually  3.5t,  e.g.  tolls,  internal  road  transport  market 
regulations, driver training etc.) it appears unlikely that there is substantial unfair competition 
between  light  goods  vehicles  and  heavier  freight  vehicles  in  international  commercial  road 
freight transport. The main drivers of increased van usage are thought to be due to shifting 
demand patterns (increasing home deliveries, for which vans are the most suitable vehicle), 
rather than explicit efforts to avoid legislation.  

6.3  Efficiency 

Question  9:  To  what  extent  has  the  legislation  been  efficient?  What  are  the  regulatory 
costs and savings involved (i.e. substantial compliance costs, enforcement costs or savings 
and  administrative  costs  of  monitoring  and  reporting  arrangements)  and  are  they 
proportionate to the benefits achieved on working conditions, road safety and competition?  

41 

 
 
 
The efficiency of the social legislation is assessed based on comparison of changes in costs 
and  in  benefits  for:  operators,  drivers  and  national  authorities  and  related  to:  compliance, 
enforcement, monitoring and reporting.   

The table below presents the estimated implementation costs for enforcement authorities due 
to the requirements laid down in the EU social legislation.  

Table 5: Implementation costs for enforcement authorities (total for EU-27) 

Cost Item 

One-off cost**  
(€ million) 

Annual cost*** 
(€ million / year) 

Staff employed in enforcement 

TACHOnet 

Software and hardware equipment 

Training of enforcement staff 

- 

42-43 

45-50 

30 

400 (mid estimate) 
300 - 500 
1.7 

* 

12 

* Software and maintenance costs are not considered as such data was not available at the authorities. 

** One –off costs are investment costs involved in the introduction of social legislation. 

*** Annual costs estimates are based on the latest figures; they do not reflect the costs borne every year since the 
introduction of the legislation. 

The  analysis  shows  that  the  largest  share  of  the  overall  enforcement  cost  is  represented  by 
ongoing staff costs required to maintain the enforcement capacity.  

The benefits of the road social legislation in terms of working conditions cannot be quantified 
by any means for use in a cost-benefit assessment. Benefits in terms of improvements in road 
safety may be quantified, but are subject to such high uncertainty as regards the contribution 
of the social rules, hence no robust conclusions on these basis can be drawn.  
As an alternative indicator, qualitative assessment on the basis of survey among enforcers86  
was  carried  out.  The  results  show  that  43%  (22)  of  respondents  regarded  that  the 
requirements under Directive 2006/22/EC led to higher enforcement costs while at the same 
time  the  effectiveness  in  terms  of  compliance  with  the  rules  also  improved.  Even  more 
positively, a further 14% (7) of respondents considered that there were no material impacts 
on  costs  while  at  the  same  time  the  effectiveness  improved,  and  even  5%  (3)  estimated  a 
reduction in costs while also seeing improvements. No respondents reported increased costs 
and  lower  or  unchanged  effectiveness.  Although  only  based  on  qualitative  estimates,  this 
seems  to  suggest  that  any  increased  costs  have  been  accompanied  by  benefits  in  terms  of 
compliance. 
The enforcement measures put in place resulted in additional costs for national authorities87 
related  to  setting  up  and  maintaining  risk-rating  systems.  Around  47%  (24)  of  responding 
authorities felt that the set-up of the risk-rating system had made a contribution (significant or 
slight)  to  investment  costs,  and  30%  (15)  identified  it  as  making  a  contribution  to  ongoing 
costs.  However,  no  authorities  were  able  to  provide  more  precise  information  as  to  the 
magnitude of these costs. 

At the same time, the risk-rating system is generally considered to have led to efficiency and 
effectiveness  improvements  in  enforcement  –  almost  75%  (39)  of  responding  enforcers 

86 In total 52 enforcement authorities, across 17 Member Sates plus Norway and Switzerland, responded to the 
survey, of which 28 belonged to the national level and 24 to the regional level. 
87 Responses from 15 Member States were received to the survey: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, UK.  

42 

 
 
                                                      
agreed that the system had improved their ability to detect non-compliance. Some enforcers88 
mentioned that the risk-rating system had improved the cost-efficiency of their activities. This 
seems to indicate that, despite the additional costs, the benefits of the risk-rating systems are 
also significant. No other additional costs impacts were identified as being significant.  

In terms of benefits, the potential for greater digitalisation of enforcement systems appears to 
be  strong.  There  are  two  main  advantages  of  a  higher  degree  of  digitalising  enforcement 
systems: (i) easier compilation of reports and (ii) access to real-time information on vehicle’s 
and  driver’s  status  concerning  transport  license  documents,  tachograph  cards,  history  (type 
and frequency) of infringements committed, etc. The more digitalised enforcement system is 
considered to be costly in the short term, but in the longer run it makes the work of control 
officers more efficient. This can lead to gains in efficiency and cost savings. In this respect, 
cost savings are assumed to appear not only for the enforcement authorities when conducting 
checks, but also for the operators since time during which vehicles and drivers are checked is 
minimised.  

For transport operators the main costs of compliance with the legislation are related to:  

  Hardware  -  costs  for  purchasing  tools  to  download  tachograph  data,  such  as  company 

cards, downloading tools etc. 

  Administrative  effort  and  monitoring:  areas  frequently  mentioned  included  the  cost  of 

understanding complex rules, inspection of data, scheduling etc. 

  Staff  costs  and  training:  Transport  operators  are  directly  responsible  for  training  their 
drivers on the functioning and the correct use of the recording equipment as  well as  on 
making  sure  that  their  drivers  have  proper  knowledge  of  driving  time  and  rest  period 
requirement so to guarantee full compliance with EU social norms.  
IT/software:  Technological  and  IT  developments  that  have  occurred  over  the  past  years 
have  made  it  possible  to  purchase  products  that  not  only  enable  the  basic  analysis  and 
reporting  of  drivers’  hours  management  but  are  also  intended  as  a  full  vehicle  fleet 
management tool. 

 

Table 6 shows that, on the whole, cost increases (in % of the firms’ transport-related annual 
turnover) have been estimated by the companies themselves to be around 1-3% for operators. 
Similar  cost  increases  (1.3%)  are  reported  by  the  companies  engaged  in  goods  and  in 
passenger transport operators in the larger firm size bracket (>€5 m). The figures highlight a 
possible disproportionate effect on smaller firms, who appear to incur a larger cost relative to 
their  size  compared  to  large  companies  –  as  is  often  the  case  with  legislation  involving 
administrative burdens. However, the sample size of respondents for the smaller companies 
was  rather  low  (only  29  companies  below  €500,000),  which  makes  it  difficult  to  draw  any 
concrete conclusions.  

 Table 6: Estimated increase in costs due to road social legislation to undertakings as a % of transport-
related revenue since 2007 

Size of firm (annual transport-related revenue) 

Goods transport 
Passenger transport 
Source: Survey of undertakings 
Notes: N=122; 5 companies <100k; 24 companies 100-500k; 65 companies 500k-5m; 28 companies >5m 

< €100,000 
3.0% 
1.9% 

€100,000 - €500,000 
2.9% 
3.4% 

> €5 million 
1.3% 
1.3% 

€500,000 - €5 
million 
1.6% 
2.3% 

88 DE, CY, NO, LT 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
The most substantial cost identified (i.e. costs for the equipment of new vehicles) linked to 
the investments required to comply with the legislation estimates of the investment required 
were carried out. A summary of the calculations is provided in table 7, which shows that the 
estimated  total  cost  for  industry  of  equipping  vehicles  and  training  drivers  to  use  this 
recording  equipment  is  €943.5  million.  Full  details  of  the  calculations  are  provided  in  the 
Final Report of the support study on ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport 
and its enforcement.89  

Table 7: Estimation of costs associated with equipping vehicles 

Item 

Average unit cost (€) 

Number of units 

Tachograph company card 

79 per company 

Downloading equipment, e.g. a 
dedicated "memory stick" 

200 per company 

930,000  
(number of freight & passenger 
undertakings affected) 
930,000 

Total cost (€ 
millions) 
73.5 

186 

558 

930,000 

350 per driver 

600 per company 

Dedicated software to read and 
analyse the downloaded data 
Training on the use of recording 
equipment 
Total 
Sources:  interview  with  a  tachograph  manufacturer;  publicly  available  price  releases  (ShopFTA90,  TachoMaster91, 
SmartCompliance92); (ACEA, s.d.); (CORTE, 2015); (Panteia et al, 2014). 
The majority of undertakings93 (more than 50%, that is 546) reported that no changes were 
required  to  their  operations  in  order  to  maintain  the  same  level  of  revenue  following  the 
introduction  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006.  However,  there  were  some  additional  costs 
borne by firms, in particular:  

3.6 million drivers, of which 
10% are trained each year 

943.5 

126 

•  35%  (380)  of  operators  identified  a  need  to  make  changes  to  daytime  distribution 
schedules, and 25% (317) said that night-time distribution patterns had to be adapted. 

•  29% (368) of operators identified a need to hire more drivers. The estimates ranged from 
1  to  120  (although  not  all  of  the  drivers  were  full  time),  with  the  median  being  2 
additional drivers. 

•  11%  (139)  of  operators  identified  a  need  to  purchase  additional  vehicles  (also  for  the 
purpose  of  substituting  old  vehicles  with  new  ones  fitted  with  digital  tachograph).  The 
increase  ranges  between  1  and  30  new  vehicles,  with  the  median  being  2  additional 
vehicles 

The only direct cost category identified for drivers in relation to compliance with the social 
regulation is represented by the cost of obtaining the tachograph driver card. On average, the 
cost (2014 PPP94 adjusted) for obtaining a tachograph driver card is €68 (range between €20 
reported for Hungary  and €192 reported for Luxembourg).  On average  at the EU level just 
above than 2.2 million drivers are required to apply for a digital tachograph driver card. This 

89  Table 6-16 in the final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social legislation in road transport 
and its enforcement", p.158 and p. 261 (Please note that the number  referred to in the text, i.e. € 853.5 million, 
on p. 158 is incorrect) 
90 https://www.shop.fta.co.uk/c-17-solutions.aspx. Last visit: 31st December 2015. 
91 http://www.tachomaster.co.uk/supplies/. Last visit: 31st December 2015.  
92 https:// smartcompliance.descartes.com/shop/tachograph-hardware/digital-tachograph-download-devices/. 

Last visit: 31st December 2015. 

93 In the undertaking survey, 1269 responded to the survey 
94 Purchasing Power Parity 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
results  in  a  total  compliance  cost  for  them  to  apply  and  obtain  a  tachograph  driver  card  of 
€152 million. 

The  second-most  important  costs  for  operators  and  for  drivers  are  related  to  the 
administrative  costs  of  monitoring  and  reporting  activities.  Administrative  costs  borne  by 
operators  and  drivers  to  report  on  the  compliance  with  the  social  legislation  are  associated 
with the downloading process of the data stored in the tachographs and with the requirement 
of  returning  records.  The  costs  for  reporting  with  use  of  a  digital  tachograph  have  been 
estimated  at  €61  million  on  a  yearly  basis.  For  analogue  tachographs,  this  cost  has  been 
estimated  at  €51  million  on  a  yearly  basis.  The  higher  total  annual  costs  for  digital 
tachographs compared with analogoue tachographs result from the higher number of drivers 
using digital tachographs and vehicles equipped with such. The unitary annual cost of using 
digital tachograph is five times lower than the cost of using analogoue tachograph. 

National  authorities  and  ministries  typically  do  not  consider  that  there  are  significant  costs 
involved to meet reporting requirements. An estimate has been calculated in order to gauge 
the possible level of costs, starting from the value reported by Slovenia. Overall, the cost for 
reporting and monitoring has been estimated at €7-8 million/year for the period 2011-2012. 
The combined reporting of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Directive 2002/15/EC is seen 
as a positive development that has contributed to reducing costs. 

6.4  Coherence and coordination 

Question  10:  To  what  extent  are  the  provisions  and  definitions  of  the  three  legal  acts 
composing the  legal  framework of  the  social  rules in road transport  internally consistent 
and  coherent?  Are  there  any  differences,  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  and  what  are  the 
consequences,  if  any?  To  what  extent  are  the  three  legal  acts  working  together  as  a 
framework for the social rules in road transport?  

The comparative analysis of the two legal acts shows that Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and 
Directive 2002/15/EC are legally coherent with regards to their objectives, general scope and 
definitions/provisions.  The  Directive  has  been  designed  to  act  in  concordance  with  the 
previous  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3820/85,  replaced  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006.  The 
scopes of workers covered by the two acts are rather complementary with some overlaps (for 
drivers) and some workers out-of-scope (self-employed travelling staff).  

Although there are no problems of coherence in a strict legal sense, the analysis did point to 
practical problems with: (i) combining the two systems of breaks provided by the Directive 
and the Regulation and with (ii) combining the driving and working time requirements. 

In  relation  to  breaks,  it  appears  that  the  overlap  between  the  break  requirements  under 
Directive  2002/15/EC  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  make  it  more  difficult  for 
undertakings to appropriately plan the work of drivers.  

The  combined  application  of  the  driving  and  working  time  thresholds  provided  under  the 
Regulation and the Directive leads to practical issues, as only little time is left for other work 
when the maximum weekly driving time is used to its full extent. Some Member States also 
pointed out in the survey that the current legislation does not leave sufficient time for non-

45 

 
 
driving activities.95 However, these overlapping requirements on working and driving times 
do not induce any legal inconsistency. 

The coordination of the legal instruments is evaluated based on assessing the extent to which 
they  are  organised  so  as  to  minimise  their  inputs  (including  personnel  and  equipment), 
without  compromising  the  effectiveness  of  the  legislation.  Coordination  between  checks  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  and  Directive  2002/15/EC  is  generally  high  (i.e.  checks  of 
both pieces of legislation are carried out at the same time by enforcement authorities). There 
appears to be a higher degree of coordination for checks at the premises, since it is not always 
possible to coordinate checks at the roadside and not all of the required records for working 
time are held in the vehicle. 

At the level of the firms, coordination of the processes for the driving time and working time 
rules  can  be  achieved  through  the  use  of  ICT  systems.  Software  packages  are  available  to 
plan schedules and track driver's activities in real time, which can help to minimise the risk of 
infringements and associated penalties.  

Coordinated  efforts  of  enforcers  and  firms  may  also  yield  positive  outcomes  by  supporting 
firms in achieving and maintaining high compliance, which means that enforcers can further 
reduce (on top of using a risk rating system) the need to target them in random checking and 
achieving  good  results  in  terms  of  compliance  levels.  An  example  of  such  innovative 
approach to enforcement based on trust exists in the Netherlands.  

Question 11: To what extent the provisions and objectives of the social legislation in road 
transport are coherent with other relevant EU legal acts?  Has it contributed (and to what 
extent)  to  the  policy  objectives  in  the  area  of  transport,  social  policy,  fundamental  rights 
and environment? 

In  this  question  the  coherence  of  the  social  legislation  with  other  relevant  legal  acts 
applicable  to  road  transport  sector  was  assessed.  The  following  legislative  acts  have  been 
taken  into  account  to  analyse  interactions,  synergies  and  inconsistencies:  tachograph 
regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No  165/2014),  2009  Road  package  Regulations  (Regulation 
(EC)  No  1071/2009  on  access  to  occupation  of  transport  operator,  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1072/2009  on  access  to  the  road  haulage  market  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/2009  on 
access  to  the  passengers  transport  market,  Directive  on  training  of  drivers  (Directive 
2003/59/EC) and roadworthiness package (Directive 2014/45/EU on periodic roadworthiness 
tests  and  Directive  2014/47/EU  on  technical  roadside  inspections)  and  the  Posted  Workers 
Directive 97/71/EC and its enforcement Directive, Directive 2014/67/EU.  

The  external  coherence  of  the  social  legislation  with  those  legal  acts  is  found  in  general 
positive.  The  provisions  complement  each  other  as  they  contribute  collectively  to  the  same 
policy objectives of improving safety of all road users, preventing and combatting distortions 
of  completion  between  transport  operators  and  enhancing  working  conditions  to  improve 
health  and  safety  of  drivers.  However,  there  are  several  inconsistencies  between  specific 
provisions  which  lead  to  practical  difficulties  in  application  or  result  in  diverging 
interpretations and enforcement. For instance, the list of most serious infringements provided 
in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 does not correspond well with the provisions 
in Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, in particular as regards infringements of daily driving time 
limits. Also the obligation of keeping driving time and working time records differ between 

95 Survey of national authorities in Annex E to the final report of the support study "Ex-post evaluation of social 
legislation in road transport and its enforcement" available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-
initiatives/fair-competition-workers-rights_en  

46 

 
 
                                                      
the  Directive  on  Working  Time  and  the  Tachograph  Regulation.  Also  some  exemptions 
established by the Driving Time Regulation and by the Directive 2003/56/EC on the training 
of  drivers  are  not  consistent.  These  particular  discrepancies  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
proper application of the road social legislation, however, they do not result in putting at risk  
the objectives of road safety, working conditions and fair competition. 

In the light of the general policy objectives of the European Union, the road social legislation 
broadly fits in the EU social policy and contributes to some extent to achieving its goals. This 
is  in  particular  the  case  for  the  road  safety,  working  conditions,  and  health  and  safety 
components  of  the  EU  policies,  which  are  among  the  main  objectives  of  the  road  social 
legislation. With regards to the objectives of access to market and fair competition, the road 
transport  social  legislation  contains  adequate  links  with  other  pieces  of  EU  legislation 
regulating these aspects.  

Certain  key  objectives  of  EU  policy  are  however  not  reflected  in  the  road  transport  social 
legislation, namely the efficient use of resources, environmental and sustainability objectives 
and adequate infrastructure  employment ( in particular, changing employment structure like 
increase  of  short-term/temporary  contracts  or  work  organised  via  agencies).  These  aspects 
although  crucial  for  the  transport  -  and  more  particularly  for  road  transport  -  policy  and 
legislation,  have  no  clear  link  with  social  legislation  in  itself.  One  general  policy  objective 
with  which  the  link  is  considered  insufficient  is  the  development  of  infrastructure  (e.g. 
parking  and  rest  areas),  in  particular  in  the  context  of    requirements  on  breaks  and  rest 
periods of drivers.  

Moreover, as regards the Posting of Workers Directive and its enforcement Directive, there is 
a  certain  gap  between  the  application  of  the  two  legal  frameworks  hindering  to  ensure  a 
balance between the freedom to provide cross border services and the social protection rights 
of  workers.  The  legislations  on  the  Posting  of  Workers  does  not  take  into  account  of  any 
sector-specific criteria reflecting the highly mobile nature of the workforce and multi-country 
operations.  As  a  consequence,  Member  States  (like  already  Germany,  France  and  Austria) 
can apply it to each international transport operation carried out by foreign operators on their 
territory  from  the  first  minute  of  such  activity  (see  above  section  5.3  on  challenges  in  the 
sector). 

As  regards  the  broader  EU  legal  framework,  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European Union provides  under its Article 31 the  right  to  fair  and just working  conditions. 
This article grants rights to workers to daily and weekly rest periods as well as a limitation to 
the maximum working hours. It is therefore of particular relevance and concordance with the 
road  transport  social  legislation.  Article  52  of  the  Charter  also  foresees  the  possibility  to 
derogate  to  its  rules,  including  Article  31,  in  specific  circumstances  (limitations  necessary 
and meeting the objectives of general interests or the need to protect the rights and freedoms 
of  others).  This  means  in  particular  that  derogations  must  be  strictly  limited  to  what  is 
necessary to ensure that it fits with the specific requirements of road transport.  

The policies and legislations have been analysed (i.e. White Paper, Charter of Fundamental 
Rights,  Europe  2020,  Cohesion  policy,  Health  and  Safety  policy)  interact  with  the  road 
transport  social  legislation  either  through  direct  links  or  indirect  links  in  different  spheres. 
Links with environment and efficient use of resources are therefore relevant in the context of 
transport policy rather than in the context of social legislation. Nonetheless, the lack of links 
between the road transport social legislation and, on the one hand, development of attractive 
infrastructure  and,  on  the  other  hand,  employment  structure  may  be  detrimental  to  the 
objectives  of  road  transport  social  legislation.  Adequate  infrastructure  is  needed  to  support 
the  requirements  of  the  road  transport  social  legislation  related  to  breaks  and  rest  periods. 

47 

 
 
Ensuring a workforce sufficiently large to cope with the pressure put on the sector could be 
linked to the road transport social legislation. 

Positive  interactions  between  road  transport  social  legislation  and  all  analysed  broader  EU 
policies were identified with regards to road safety, working  conditions, training and skills. 
No negative impacts were identified or reported by stakeholders in terms of coherence. 

6.5  EU added value 

Question 12:  What is the added value of setting the social legislation for road transport at 
the EU level? 

The road transport sector has a strong international character, with highly mobile workforce 
carrying out activities across the borders being an inherent feature of the profession. A third 
of  all  freight  services  in  the  EU  are  operated  between  Member  States.  In  2014,  286,883 
hauliers  were  in  possession  of  Community  licences  allowing  them  to  operate  on  the  EU 
haulage market. This number increased by 3% compared with 279,056 Community licences 
issued in year 200996. As regards passenger transport, 35.659 Community licenses (allowing 
to  operate  on  the  EU  passenger  market)  were  issued  in  2014  showing  a  growth  by  3% 
compared  with  34.582  Community  licences  since  201097.  However,  the  great  majority  of 
passenger transport operations concentrate on domestic markets.  These figures suggest that a 
large share of drivers perform their activities (driving and other work) on the national roads 
of  several  Member  States,  having  direct  impact  on  road  safety  and  indirect  impact  on 
competition between foreign  and local operators. Therefore,  the common rules provided by 
the  road  transport  social  legislation  are  intended  to  ensure  for  drivers  and  operators  equal 
working  and  business  conditions  under  which  they  may  operate  on  the  national  and 
international  market.  The  lack  of  the  EU  common  minimum  requirements  on  driving, 
working and resting times would lead to proliferation of variety of national traffic rules that 
EU non-resident drivers and operators would have to apply. Further it would create a risk of 
choosing  for  operations  the  countries  with  less  stringent  rules  allowing  for  longer  working 
hours.  

In  this  context  the  social  legislation  provide  the  EU  added  value  by  harmonising  the 
minimum  requirements  on  the  organisation  of  driving,  working  and  resting  periods.  
However,  the  potential  EU  added  value  in  achieving  a  level  playing  field  has  not  been 
reached  so  far,  because  some  problems  remain  pertaining  to  the  weak  and  inconsistent 
enforcement  and  diverging  implementation  between  and  within  Member  States.  None  of 
those  problems  though  call  into  question  the  importance  of  the  substantive  principles  and 
provisions, which the social legislation establish. 

The  opinions  of  the  stakeholders  with  respect  to  added  value  generally  validate  the  notion 
found in the legislation itself and in the literature that the EU level is the most relevant level 
to  provide  road  social  rules.  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  surveys  agreed 
(strongly  or  slightly)  that  EU  social  rules  in  transport  have  an  added  value  compared  to 

96 source: Commission; data based on the national implementation reports from Member States, in line with Art 
17(1) of Regulation 1072/2009 
97 Ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 
October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services and amending 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, section 4.2 

48 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
national  level  rules  –  i.e.  80%  (12  out  of  15)  of  responding  ministries  58%  (14  of  24)  of 
enforcers and 50%  (32 of 64) of respondents to the general survey.  

It  seems  that  the  legislative  intention  of  ensuring  subsidiarity  by  the  creation  of  EU-wide 
rules regarding road social legislation with a possibility of applying country-specific rules has 
been  implemented  in  practice.  However,  the  possibility  to  apply  diverging  social  rules  for 
drivers is seen by some of those who commented on this issue prevalently in a negative light, 
i.e.  eighteen  respondents  out  of  eighty  who  responded  to  the  stakeholder  survey  providing 
usable comments to the added value question pointed out that different rules at national level 
hinder the level-playing field, while only two respondents indicated a positive dimension of 
these differences that is due to greater flexibility at national level.  

Since  the  legislative  process  undertaken  at  EU  level  that  is  aimed  at  the  creation  of  the 
European Single Transport Area including road social legislation started a few  decades ago 
and is at quite an advanced stage, choosing an alternative solution now does not seem to be 
justified both in political and economic terms.  

A  different  level  of  regulation  (e.g.  national  regulation,  soft-law  measures)  could  not  have 
been more relevant and/or effective and/or efficient than the current one to achieve its main 
objectives. A low number of cases where road social legislation provides a different level of 
protection  and  a  modest  scope  of  derogations  indicate  that  the  EU  level  is  considered 
appropriate. The European Agreement concerning the work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in 
International  Road  Transport  (AETR)  takes  the  pattern  of  EU  legislation  to  harmonise  the 
road  social  rules  with  non-EU  countries.  This  evidence  leads  to  a  conclusion  that  EU-level 
legislation is the most relevant and effective solution for harmonising road social rules. 

7  CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance 

The social legislation remains a relevant and proportionate tool to address the three risks of: 
1)  unlevelled  playing  in  the  transport  market,  2)  deterioration  in  social  and  working 
conditions of drivers and 3) deterioration in road safety levels. This is due both to the nature 
of the risks – which arise from uneven and ineffective enforcement, and hence by definition 
can  only  be  addressed  by  uniform  rules  transcending  national  boundaries  –  as  well  as 
developments in the market that make it more important than ever to control the risks, which 
have  intensified  compared  to  the  situation  when  the  legislation  was  first  adopted.  In 
particular,  market  competition  in  the  road  transport  sector  has  become  increasingly  intense 
and  this  exacerbates  the  risk  of  non-compliance  by  undertakings  or  drivers  who  are  under 
greater pressure to remain competitive. This means that the external factors that contribute to 
the risk have intensified compared to the situation when the rules were adopted, which in turn 
implies that there is a greater need to guard against them. In the absence of the rules and their 
effective enforcement, there would be greater problems of an unlevelled playing field, as well 
as deteriorating working conditions and road safety.  

The scope of the social legislation is also still relevant today, particularly taking account of 
modern  complex  employment  arrangements.  Concerned  drivers  are  at  a  higher  risk  to 
infringe  the  rules  with  adverse  effects  on  road  safety  and  their  health  and  safety.  This  is 
because  checking  and  keeping  track  of  activities  across  multiple  employers  and/or  (cross-
border) subcontracting chains over a period of time has become an increasing challenge for 
enforcement  officers  and  drivers  themselves.  This  type  of  employment  arrangements  has 
intensified compared to when the rules were adopted, which means that there is today even a 
greater need to cover those drivers by the social legislation.  

49 

 
 
Concerning  the  needs  of  the  freight  sector,  the  analysis  shows  that  these  have  not 
substantially changed; however the underlying issues that make compliance with prescriptive 
driving and working time rules more difficult have become more pervasive. This particularly 
concerns the external factors such as congestion and accessibility to resting facilities, as well 
as growing client pressure – which has led to concerns voiced by industry. The mechanisms 
built  into  the  rules  that  aimed  to  alleviate  these  issues  (respectively  flexibilities  and  co-
liability)  are  not  enforced  uniformly.  In  summary,  the  main  issues  appear  to  be  around  the 
manner  in  which  the  legislation  is  applied  and  enforced  across  Member  States.  As  such, 
industry representatives have argued for more flexibility in the rules, supported to a certain 
extent by drivers. The counterpoints to these views are concerns of enforcers and trade unions 
over  employers  potentially  abusing  additional  flexibilities  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
driving times.  

For the passenger transport sector, there are distinct service needs that are not seen in freight 
transport,  including  regular  stops  for  activities  that  do  not  require  driving  and  the  need  to 
accommodate  passenger  requests  for  flexibility  (e.g.  regarding  additional  stops,  changes  of 
route, changes in departure times etc.). Industry representatives argue that more flexibility in 
the  application  of  the  rules  to  deal  with  specificities  of  certain  transport  operations  and/or 
specific external circumstances is desired and would help to comply with the rules in force. 

Effectiveness 

The  social  legislation  had  in  general  a  positive  impact  on  providing  adequate  working 
conditions.  Even  though  no  significant  improvements  could  be  observed,  the  apparent 
stability  of  the  situation  is  regarded  as  a  success  in  light  of  the  development  of  increased 
competition and other pressures in the sector. These development combined with the absence 
of such EU rules could have led to excessive driving and working times and insufficient rest 
resulting in greater fatigue of drivers and risks to road safety. The exact impact of the social 
legislation on the changes in the level of fatigue of drivers is difficult to delineate as distinct 
from  other  influencing  factors.  The  perceived  downsides  of  the  Regulations  (e.g.  lack  of 
flexibility  and  high  fines)  are  considered  by  some  drivers  and  undertakings  as  refuting  the 
intended  benefits  on  working  conditions  when  confronted  with  day-to-day  demands  of 
driving. 

Although  road  safety  levels  have  improved  over  the  last  decade,  the  impact  of  road  social 
legislation  on  this  development  is  impossible  to  discern  given  that  in  the  same  period 
numerous other road safety measures have been implemented across the Member States (such 
as speed management measures, enforcement of seat belt use, changes in drivers’ education 
etc.), and available data typically does not allow to identify the cause (or the causing party) of 
an accident. Nevertheless, the stakeholder groups consulted for this study mostly believe that 
the analysed legal acts had a positive or at least neutral effect on road safety levels (60% of 
undertakings, being the most reserved stakeholder group in this respect, take this view).  

The analysis of the market showed that a level playing field has not been achieved. This is 
partly due to intended flexibilities that are provided for within the legislative acts and the fact 
that the responsibility for setting up sanction systems remains with national governments. On 
the other hand, unintended factors that hinder the development of a level playing field include 
differences in interpretation of the rules and different implementation of enforcement systems 
(in line with Directive 2006/22/EC) across the Member States. 

The  enforcement  measures  are  found  only  partially  effective  in  addressing  the  risk  of  non-
compliance. While the enforcement measures mitigate the risk of non-compliance, the risks 
of  being  detected  and its  consequences  do  not  outweigh  the  potential  rewards  of  infringing 

50 

 
 
the  rules  for  all  undertakings  and/or  drivers.  The  extent  to  which  this  applies  varies  across 
Member  States  and  their  specific  enforcement  systems  in  place,  as  well  as  the  type  of 
transport operation being carried out and cannot be realistically quantified.  

The combination of external pressures, alongside insufficient enforcement, makes intentional 
non-compliance more likely. There is also the risk of unintentional non-compliance that is not 
addressed  by  the  enforcement  measures.  It  is  due  to  uncertainty  about  the  rules,  lack  of 
awareness  of  the  rules,  or  unforeseen  circumstances  –  issues  that  are  only  insufficiently 
addressed by the legislative framework. 

The set of indicators available in the Member States’ reports allows for adequate monitoring 
and  follow-up  of  the  Driving  Time  Regulation  and  Enforcement  Directive  in  terms  of  the 
implementation of its core requirements, such as driving and resting time thresholds and with 
the minimum number and scope of controls. It also allows for a basic assessment of national 
enforcement  capacity  and  the  reported  detected  infringement  rates.  The  timeliness, 
completeness and consistency of the monitoring data submitted have increased over time.  

In contrast with the Driving Time Regulation, there is no explicit legal obligation for Member 
States to include quantitative information in their reports with regard to checking compliance 
with  the  Working  Time  Directive.  As  a  result,  there  is  insufficient  quantitative  data  to 
evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Directive. The current biennial reporting 
is  still  fragmentary  and  in  its  current  state  not  adequate  for  a  comprehensive  checking  and 
follow up of the whole legislative framework. 

Efficiency 

The  largest  share  of  the  overall  enforcement  cost  is  represented  by  ongoing  staff  costs 
required to maintain the enforcement capacity. The main additional cost category is related to 
the risk-rating systems. At the same time, the risk-rating systems are considered in general to 
have led to efficiency and effectiveness improvements. In terms of benefits, the potential for 
greater digitalisation of enforcement systems could lead to (i) easier compilations of reports 
and  (ii)  access  to  real-time  information  on  vehicle’s  and  driver’s  status,  leading  to  cost-
savings. The requirements under Directive 2006/22/EC have led to higher costs while at the 
same time contributing to higher effectiveness in terms of enforcement and compliance. 

Overall, ongoing cost increases for transport operators have been estimated to be around 1-
3%  of  the  annual  transport-related  turnover  for  operators  to  comply  with  the  social 
legislation.  This  covers  costs  related  to  the  following  main  items:  hardware  (e.g.  tools  to 
download  digital  tachograph  data),  IT/software;  administrative  effort  and  monitoring,  staff 
costs  and  training.  Such  costs  generally  have  a  larger  relative  impact  on  SMEs  than  larger 
businesses who enjoy economies of scale. 

The  companies  are  not  equally  affected  by  increases  in  compliance  costs.  Some  needed  to 
employ  more  drivers  and/or  purchase  more  vehicles  to  maintain  the  same  level  of  revenue 
while complying with the rules, whilst others did not have to introduce any changes to their 
operations.  There  is  no  clear  pattern  of  distribution  of  the  compliance  costs  between  the 
companies depending on their size, type of operations (freight or transport) or Member States 
of establishment. 

It is not possible to weigh these additional costs against the magnitude of benefits since these 
relate  to  subjective  or  diffuse  issues  that  are  impossible  to  quantify.  The  assessment  of  the 
contribution  of  the  social  rules  to  those  benefits  is  not  possible  due  to  very  complex 
interactions with external contributing factors.  

Coherence and coordination  

51 

 
 
The social legislation is generally coherent with other road transport provisions and other EU 
legislation.  Small  discrepancies  or  loopholes  identified  create  indeed  practical  difficulties 
with implementation. These are, however, dealt with through the soft-law measures such as 
guidelines, clarification notes and enforcement good practices. However, there is certain gap 
with  the  application  of  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive  and  its  Enforcement  Directive, 
which hinders a balance between the freedom to provide cross border services and the social 
protection  rights  of  workers.  Therefore  sector  specific  criteria  would  be  needed  for  mobile 
the  PWD.
the  context  of 
workers 

the  application  of 

transport 

road 

in 

in 

52 

 
 
 In the light of coherence with the general policy objectives of the European Union, it can be 
concluded that the road social legislation broadly fits in the EU social and transport policies 
and contributes to some extent to achieving their goals. Certain key objectives of EU policy 
are however not reflected in the road transport social legislation, namely the efficient use of 
resources,  environmental  and  sustainability  objectives,  adequate 
infrastructure  and 
employment  structures.  These  aspects  although  crucial  for  the  transport  -  and  more 
particularly  for  road  transport  -  policy  and  legislation,  have  no  clear  link  with  social 
legislation in itself. In the absence of evidence on these points, the absence of express links 
does not imply that the scope of integration is not fully exploited. 

Despite  certain  inconsistencies  the  three  legal  acts  work  together  forming  a  framework  for 
social  rules  in  road  transport.  This  framework  provides  the  possibilities  for  economies  of 
scale,  although  not  yet  fully  exploited,  in  particular  as  regards  integrated  controls  of 
compliance with the provisions on driving times, resting periods and working times.  At the 
level of the firms, coordination of the processes for the driving time and working time rules 
can be achieved through the use of ICT systems. Nevertheless, the design of the legislation 
seems to indicate that a level of duplication and complexity in terms of record-keeping cannot 
be completely avoided. 

EU added value 

Overall, the social legislation is considered to have led to EU-wide positive results in terms of 
harmonising  the  minimum  working  and  business  conditions  for  drivers  and  operators 
engaged in domestic and cross-border transport activities in the EU. The EU level is the most 
relevant to provide such social rules in order to improve road safety, working conditions and 
prevent distortions of competition on the European market. However, some issues remain in 
relation to the effectiveness of reaching these objectives in the light of derogations that can be 
applied  by  individual  Member  States  and  due  to  diverging  interpretations  and  inconsistent 
and weak enforcement.  

The legislative intention of ensuring subsidiarity by the creation of EU-wide rules regarding 
road  social  legislation  with  a  possibility  of  applying  country-specific  rules  has  been 
implemented in practice. However, the possibility to apply diverging social rules is possibly 
detrimental to the added value given that national rules hinder the level-playing field.  

Since  the  legislative  process  undertaken  at  EU  level  that  is  aimed  at  the  creation  of  the 
European Single Transport Area including road social legislation started a few decades ago 
and is at quite an advanced stage, choosing an alternative solution now does not seem to be 
justified both in political and economic terms.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8  ANNEXES  

8.1  Annex I - INTERVENTION LOGIC DIAGRAM 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
8.2  Annex  II  -  Procedural  information  concerning  the  process  to 

prepare the evaluation  

1. Identification of the lead DG; Agenda planning/Work Programme references 

  DG MOVE is the lead Directorate General. 

  The  evaluation  was  validated 

in 

the  Agenda  Planning  under 

references 

2016/MOVE/005, 2016/MOVE/018 and 2016/MOVE/019. 

2. Organisation and timing 

  The  evaluation  of  the  legislative  acts  was  launched  on  30  September  2014  with  the 
first  meeting  of  the  Steering  Group,  to  which  were  invited  representatives  from  the 
Secretariat  General  (SG),  Legal  Service  (LS),  Directorate-General  for  Employment, 
Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, 
Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs 
(GROW),  Directorate-General  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs  (ECFIN)  and 
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (SANTE). 

  The  evaluation  mandate  (later  in  the  process  converted  into  the  evaluation  roadmap 
following the adoption of the Better Regulation Guidelines), including the evaluation 
questions,  as  well  as  the  terms  of  reference  for  an  external  study  to  support  ex-post 
evaluation  were  discussed  already  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Steering  Group  and 
agreed on in October 2014. 

  On 12 December 2014 the Commission signed a contract with an external consultant 
to carry out the study to support the ex-post evaluation of the social legislation in road 
transport and its enforcement covering the following legislative acts: Regulation (EC) 
No 561/2006, Directive 2002/15/EC and Directive 2006/22/EC. 

  The roadmap on ex-post evaluation of the social legislation in road transport and its 

enforcement was published on 9 October 2015. 

  On 16 January 2015 DG MOVE with a representative of DG EMPL held the kick-off 
meeting with consultant commissioned to carry out the study on ex-post evaluation.   

  The inception report was submitted together with draft consultation documents on 8 
March 2015. These were discussed with Steering Group members at the meeting of 16 
March  2015.  All  comments  and  revisions  concerning  intervention  logic,  evaluations 
questions, assessment metrics and consultation activities have been reflected in the 1st 
intermediate report, which was discussed with the Steering Group on 25 June 2015.    

  The  2nd  interim  report  was  submitted  in  3  September  2015,  sent  for  comments  to 
Steering  Group  members  and  discussed  with  the  consultant  at  the  meeting  of  24 
September 2015.  

  The draft final report (submitted on 18 November 2015) and its subsequent revisions 
were discussed with Steering Group members between November 2015 and February 
2016.  At the meeting of 15 April 2016 the Steering Group members made a quality 
assessment of the final report and agreed on it. The members agreed also that for the 

55 

 
 
 
purpose  of  drafting  Staff  Working  Document  the  evaluation  questions,  which  were 
overlapping, should be merged and simplified. The list of merged questions (from 22 
to 12) was agreed on by the end of May 2016.  

  The consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board did not take place as the evaluation 

was not preselected by the interim Regulatory Scrutiny Board for the scrutiny.  

  The evaluation was subject to back-to-back open public consultation (OPC) covering 
the issues of problem definition and of potential policy measures. The OPC was run 
between 5 September and 11 December 2016 and the findings have been reflected in 
the Staff Working Document on ex-post evaluation. 

3. Evidence used 

  The  evaluation  relies  mostly  on  the  support  study  on  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
social  legislation  in  road  transport  and  its  enforcement  conducted  by  the  external 
consultant. The final report on the study was published on 14 June 201698. 

  Evidence was also gathered from the reporting requirements of Member States under 
Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Article 13 of Directive 2002/15/EC 
as  well  as  from  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  gathered  through:  petitions, 
complaints,  pre-infringement  and  infringements  procedures  and  also  from  direct 
consultations of Member States and stakeholders. 

8.3  Annex III –: Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report 

Consultation activities 

The variety of consultation activities have been carried out in the period between June 2015 
and  December  2016.  This  synopsis  report  provides  a  summary  of  the  outcomes  of  the 
stakeholder  consultation  activities  concerning  social  aspects  in  road  transport.  It  provides  a 
basic analysis of the range of stakeholder groups that have engaged in those activities and a 
summary of the main issues raised by stakeholders. 

The two-fold objective of all those consultation activities was to:  

  provide to the wide public and stakeholders an opportunity to express their views on 
all elements relevant for the assessment of the functioning of the social rules in road 
transport'. 

  gather  specialised  input  (data  and  factual  information,  expert  views)  on  specific 
aspects of the legislation (e.g. working and business conditions, enforcement methods 
and tools, etc.) from the enforcement community and from the industry. 

The consultation was conducted in three steps, through:  

(1) Ad hoc targeted consultation activities organised by the Commission services (Directorate 
General for Mobility and Transport in cooperation with Directorate-General for Directorate-
General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion)  carried  out  between  June  2015  and 
April 2016; 

98  

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=15850394 

56 

 
 
                                                      
 
(2) Targeted consultation activities carried out by the external consultant within the support 
study  for  ex-post  evaluation  of  social  legislation  carried  out  between  June  2015  and  
November 2015; 

(3)  Open  public  consultation  -  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission  services  between  5 
September and 11 December 2016. 

The ad hoc consultation activities by the Commission included:  

-  High Level Conference of 4 June 2015 'Social Agenda for Transport', which launched 
the broad debate on social aspects in road transport and where participants discussed 
key  challenges  in  participatory  workshops.  It  gathered  around  369  participants: 
decision makers, experts in all transport modes and social partners;  

-  Targeted seminars of 28 September, 23 October and 29 October 2015 – which aimed 
at  discussing  the  functioning  of  the  social  and  internal  market  legislation  in  road 
transport and in particular the main problems with the application and enforcement of 
the  rules  in  force.  Based  on  the  structured  list  of  questions  and  the  participants 
debated  on  main  market  and  social  issues  in  road  transport  and  the  correlations 
between them and proposed preliminary solutions to address identified problems. The 
first two seminars were targeted at the industry stakeholders and social partners at the 
EU  level  representing  14  organisations.  The  last  seminar  was  addressed  to 
representatives of Member States.  

-  Road Transport Conference of 19 April 2016 with one of the workshops dedicated to 
internal  market  and  social  aspects  of  road  transport.  It  gathered  around  400 
participants,  mainly  representatives  from  Member  States,  Members  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  key  stakeholders  who  discussed  the  objective  and  scope  of  planned 
Road Initiatives.  
In those targeted consultations all the relevant stakeholder groups, have been actively 
engaged:  national  transport  ministries,  national  enforcement  authorities,  the  main 
associations  representing  road  transport  operators,  freight  and  passenger  transport 
operators,  freight  forwarders,  shippers,  SMEs,  trade  unions,  drivers  and  other  road 
transport workers. 

- 

The targeted consultation activities carried out by the external consultant within the ex-post 
evaluation study consisted of:  

-  Exploratory  interviews  with  6  organisations  (three  EU-level  organisations,  two 
national  enforcement  authorities  and  one  national  ministry).  The  aim  was  to  get 
information necessary to prepare the effective consultation activities that followed;  
-  5  tailored  surveys  targeted  at  the  following  stakeholder  groups:  national  transport 
ministries  (focus  on  national  implementation  and  interpretation  of  the  rules), 
enforcement authorities (focus on enforcement practices and challenges, enforcement 
costs  and  benefits),  undertakings  (focus  on  impacts  of  legislation  at  the  level  of 
individual  undertaking),  trade  unions  (focus  on  impacts  on  drivers)  and  general 
stakeholders (such as industry associations, focus on cross-cutting views on effects of 
the legislation). In total 1441 responses were received (of which 1269 from transport 
undertakings).  
targeted interviews with 90 stakeholders (of which 37 with drivers). The aim was to 
gather the further insight on the stakeholders' experiences with regard to functioning 
and effectiveness of national enforcement, challenges if compliance.  

- 

Results of the targeted consultation activities also contributed to: 
a)  study  visits  to  8  different  sites  (2  freight  transport  undertakings,  3  parking  areas  to 
interview  drivers,  1 enforcement  authority,  1  EU-level  meeting  of  trade  unions,  1  EU-level 
meeting of enforcement authorities); 

57 

 
 
b)  case  studies  covering  9  countries:  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Sweden,  Spain, 
Poland,  Romania  and  the  UK.  The  aim  was  to  analyse  the  national  interpretations  and 
enforcement practices, national market conditions and country-specific challenges. 
The stakeholder engagement activities are summarised in Table .  

Table 1: Summary of stakeholder engagement 

Responded 

Approached 

% response rate 

119 
142 
(b) 
102 
198 

13% 
37% 
n/a 
14% 
32% 

1599 
52100 (28 (a)) 
1269101 
14 (c) 
64 
1441 

Type of stakeholder 
Surveys 
National ministries 
Enforcement authorities 
Undertakings survey 
Trade union survey 
High level (general) survey 
TOTAL (surveys) 
Interviews102 
National ministries 
Enforcement authorities 
Industry associations 
Undertakings 
Trade union 
Specific sectors 
Other (TISPOL, CLECAT) 
TOTAL (interviews) 
Drivers (e) 
Notes: Stakeholder consultation took place from June 2015 until November 2015. Response rates are approximate, as some 
organisations forwarded the request to participate to other organisations on the study team’s behalf – consequently it is not 
known how many organisations were contacted in total. 
(a)  28  national-level  authorities  and  24  regional-level  authorities,  totalling  to  52  authorities  that  responded;  (b) 
Undertakings  surveys  were  distributed  via  national  associations;  hence  it  is  not  known  how  many  organisations  were 
contacted  in  total.  (c)  A  number  of  coordinated  responses  were  received from trade  unions.  (d)  Out  of  the  5  interviews 3 
respondents  said  that  they  had  not  identified  any  issues  with  road  social  legislation  and  could  therefore  not  provide  any 
further comments; (e) Driver interviews were carried out during study visits 

7 
8 
12 
14 
5 
5 (2 (d)) 
1 
53 
37 

78% 
32% 
75% 
34% 
50% 
45% 
50% 
46% 
n/a 

9 
25 
16 
41 
10 
11 
2 
114 
n/a 

Due  to  the  breadth  and  depth  of  issues  that  needed  to  be  covered  in  the  evaluation,  the 
questionnaires  were  necessarily  rather  long  and  complex.  This  may  have  made  it  more 
difficult for some stakeholders to find the time to answer, and it is likely that this impacted on 
the response rate. Overall, the stakeholder response rate can be considered to be very good in 
light of this, and also considering the highly technical and specific nature of the legislation.  

99 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  
100 The enforcement authorities from eight EU-15 countries and from twelve EU-13 countries responded  
101 The response for EU-15 States was much higher than for EU- 13 (99% or 1252 responses against 1% or 13 
responses and 3 responses from other than EU Member States (1 each from Switzerland and Norway and one 
response from ‘other’ (the country was specified)) 
Particularly high number of responses received from Sweden, Austria, Germany and France, respectively: 577 
(45%), 200 (16%), 166 (13) and 160 (13%). Among other EU-15 based undertakings were responses from: 
Belgium – 5, Italy – 7, Spain – 7, UK – 7 Cyprus – 1, Denmark – 4, Finland – 8, Ireland – 6, Netherlands -1) 
Poland – 2 replies, Croatia – 1, Romania – 2, Bulgaria – 3, Czech Republic – 1, Estonia – 1, Lithuania – 3) 
102 The provided numbers do not include the six exploratory and eight pilot testing interviews that were carried 
out before launching the stakeholder questionnaires. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The  open  public  consultation  aimed  to  support  the  back-to-back  ex-post  evaluation  and 
impact  assessment  processes;  hence  it  addressed  the  issues  relevant  for  both  processes:  the 
verification  of  the  problems  faced  by  the  sector  as  well  as  the  identification  of  potential 
solutions to address those problems. The anonymised replies and a summary of OPC findings 
are  available  online  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/consultations/2016-social-
legislation-road_en  
The main objectives of the OPC were: 1) to confirm the preliminary results identified during 
the  ex-post  evaluation  support  study,    2)  to  seek  the  opinion  of  stakeholders  on  possible 
policy measures; and 3) to assess the expected impacts of the possible policy measures.  
Questionnaires were drafted by the Commission services based on the findings of the study 
on ex-post evaluation. To better tailor the questions to the stakeholder groups the consultation 
was composed of two questionnaires: 1) non-specialised questionnaire addressed to drivers, 
operators,  shippers,  forwarders,  citizens  who  submitted  in  total  1209  responses  and  2) 
specialised  questionnaire  addressed  to  national  authorities,  enforcement  bodies,  workers' 
organisations  and  industry  associations  from  whom  169  responses  were  received.  In  total 
1378  responses  have  been  received.  The  further  analysis  is  made  separately  for  two 
questionnaires (two groups of addressees). 

Non-specialised questionnaire 

The 1209 responses provide a good representation of key stakeholders, the profiles of which 
are summarised Table  2. 

Table  2: Analysis of responses by type of operation and geography 

 Stakeholder category 

Region  of  operation 
indicated by respondent) 

(as 

No. 
responses 

of 

% 
responses 

of 

% 
total 

of 

Driver or other road transport 
worker (employee) 

Road haulier 

Passenger transport company 

Self-employed driver 

Other 
transport 
forwarder) 

company 
chain 

in 
the 
(shipper, 

EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 

None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
National 
EU-wide 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 

59 

173 
170 

26 

3 
372 
143 
83 
38 
5 
269 
117 
73 
20 
1 
211 
136 
64 
4 
2 
206 
25 
13 
5 
2 
45 

47% 
46% 

7% 

1% 
100% 
53% 
31% 
14% 
2% 
100% 
55% 
35% 
9% 
0% 
100% 
66% 
31% 
2% 
1% 
100% 
56% 
29% 
11% 
4% 
100% 

31% 

22% 

17% 

17% 

4% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stakeholder category 

Private individual 

Other 

Grand Total 

Region  of  operation 
indicated by respondent) 

(as 

No. 
responses 

of 

% 
responses 

of 

% 
total 

of 

National 
Non-EU/Other 
EU-wide 
None/No response 
Total 
National 
EU-wide 
Non-EU/Other 
Non-EU/Other 
Total 

16 
12 
7 
3 
38 
30 
18 
7 
13 
68 
1209 

42% 
32% 
18% 
8% 
100% 
44% 
26% 
10% 
19% 
100% 
100% 

3% 

6% 
100% 

A total of 126 coordinated responses (e.g. standard replies circulated by associations to their 
members  and  submitted  separately) were  identified  and  dealt  accordingly  in  the  analysis  of 
the consultation results. 

A total of 23 countries were represented by the respondents, and a further 8 respondents listed 
‘other’ as their country of residence/establishment. It has to be noted that 42% (512) of the 
respondents were from Sweden, which was by far the most represented country. The analysis 
of the consultation results considered this particularity to avoid a potential bias in the results.  

Specialised questionnaire  

The  stakeholder  engagement  activities  of  169  responses  received  for  a  specialized 
questionnaire are summarized in Table-3: 

Table-3: Analysis of responses by type of operation and geography  

Stakeholder category 

Region  of  operation 
indicated by respondent) 

(as 

No. 
responses 

of 

Industry association 

Workers' 
trade union) 

organisation 

(e.g. 

National enforcement authority 

National 
EU-wide 
Non-EU/Other 

None/No response 
Total 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
EU-wide 
None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 

Regulatory 

authority 

(e.g.  EU-wide 

60 

34 
55 
3 

0 
92 
11 
0 
11 
0 
22 
1 
6 
0 
0 
7 
2 

of 

% 
total  

of 

% 
responses 
within 
group  

37% 
60% 
3% 

0% 
100% 
50% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
100% 
14% 
86% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
33% 

54% 

13% 

4% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholder category 

Region  of  operation 
indicated by respondent) 

(as 

No. 
responses 

of 

of 

% 
total  

of 

% 
responses 
within 
group  

transport  regulator, 
national 
national competition authority) 

EU governmental authority 

Academic  body  (e.g.  research 
institute, training organisation) 

Enforcement 
organisation 

authorities' 

Intergovernmental organisation 

Other 

Grand total 

National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
National 
EU-wide 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 
Total 
EU-wide 
National 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response  

Total 
National 
EU-wide 
Non-EU/Other 
None/No response 

Total 

1 
0 
3 
6 
1 
2 
0 
1 
4 
1 
2 
0 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 

1 
11 
17 
2 
2 

32 

168 

17% 
0% 
50% 
100% 
25% 
50% 
0% 
25% 
100% 
33% 
67% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 

100% 
34% 
53% 
6% 
0% 

100% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

19% 
100% 

Moreover,  through-out  these  consultation  activities  around  40  position  papers  have  been 
received from variety of stakeholders: industry associations, workers organisations, national 
authorities,  enforcement  organisations  and  other  entities,  such  as  vocational  training 
institution. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions:  

The two-fold objective of the consultation activities has been largely achieved, as all relevant 
stakeholders  groups103  representing  all  EU  Member  States  have  been  extensively  consulted 
providing their views, quantitative information, where available, and suggesting the solutions 
to improve the legislative framework. The information collected corresponded in general to 
the  objectives  and  expectations  of  the  consultation  activities  defined  for  each  stakeholder 
group. However, due to limited availability of quantifiable hard data certain information gaps 
remained, this  includes  in particular the scarce  data on the length and frequency  of drivers' 
periods away from home-base, the extent to which transport operators are hiring drivers from 
countries  with  less  demanding  national  rules  in  terms  of  social  and  working  conditions, 
number  of  drivers  and  operators  affected  by  the  application  of  diverging  national  measures 
linked  to  the  EU  social  legislation.  To  fill-in  these  data  gaps  the  Commission  analysed 
several external studies and reports and launched in 2016 two studies dedicated to collection 
and  analysis  of  the  specific  data.  The  findings  of  these  studies  will  feed  into  impact 
assessment analysis. 

Regardless  these  remaining  specific  information  gaps,  the  consultation  activities  can  be 
regarded  successful  in  terms  of  high  response  rate  and  a  number  of  concrete  proposals 
received from variety of stakeholders.     

Results of consultation activities 

General overview of findings 

All  the  subsequently  organised  consultation  activities  confirmed  and  further  developed  the 
preliminary  identified,  during  the  seminars  and  conferences  mentioned  above,  main 
challenges faced by the road transport sector, namely: 1) distortions of competition between 
transport  operators;  2)  inadequate  working  conditions  for  drivers  and  3)  high  regulatory 
burdens for Member States and stakeholders.  

The  stakeholders'  consultations  also  helped  to  determine  the  main  issues  behind  those 
challenges,  some  of  which  are  of  regulatory  nature  (unclear  or  unfit  legal  provisions, 
divergent interpretations of the rules in force, inconsistent and ineffective enforcement) and 
others  are  market-based  (illicit  employment  practices,  transport  operations  carried  out 
regularly in/from the country other than the country of establishment/employment and linked 
to it long periods away from homebase by drivers). 

The  consultation  activities  also  revealed  that  some  issues,  such  as  illicit  employment  and 
business practices, go beyond the 'traditional' road transport social legislation and are linked 
with the rules on cross-border provision of services (mainly the posting of workers) and on 
access to occupation (stable establishment and cabotage).  

All stakeholders in general agreed that, whilst the current legislation remains a relevant tool, 
it  is  not  sufficient  or  sufficiently  effective  in  addressing  all  the  risks  of  the  sector  and 
therefore  the  intervention  at  the  EU  level  is  necessary  to  improve  the  situation.  They  were 

103 Drivers (employed and self-employed), other road transport workers, transport operators (in freight and 
passenger transport), shippers, freight forwarders, industry associations, workers' organisations, national 
authorities, enforcement bodies  

62 

 
 
                                                      
also  on  the  same  line  that  the  EU  action  should  focus  on:  1)  clarifying,  simplifying  and 
adapting certain rules in force, mainly provisions on weekly rest, breaks and rest periods, co-
liability  for  infringements,  performance-based  remuneration,  long  periods  away  from 
homebase and the scope of legislation in terms of drivers and vehicles covered by the driving 
and  working  time  rules  and  also  by  the  rules  on  the  posting  of  workers;  2)  enhancing 
consistency  and  cost-effectiveness  of  enforcement 
regular 
administrative cooperation between Member States, better exploitation of existing tools and 
systems  for  control  (such  as  risk  rating  systems  and  European  Register  of  Road  Transport 
Undertakings - ERRU) and promoting the quick deployment of smart tachograph.  

through  stronger  and 

The  stakeholders'  views  on  the  key  issues  raised  during  the  described  above  consultation 
activities are presented below. 

Clarity of the rules on driving and working times, breaks and rest periods 

The stakeholders' views on the clarity of existing provisions on driving and working times, 
daily  rest  periods,  breaks  and  availability  periods  differed  somewhat  between  stakeholder 
groups.  11  out  of  the  15  ministries  responding  to  the  general  survey  carried  out  within  the 
support study on ex-post evaluation strongly104 or slightly105 agreed that provisions on driving 
times are sufficiently clear to avoid difficulties in interpretation. However, the provisions on 
weekly rest periods appear to be clear for only six106 respondents out of 15. In the same time 
drivers interviewed for the study were divided on the question of clarity and consistency of 
the rules. 9 out of 31 drivers considered that the lack of clarity and consistency of the rules 
are  major  causes  for  difficulties  in  compliance.  13  out  of  31  assessed  that  these  are  not  a 
cause at all. 52 out of 1287 undertakings who responded to the survey indicated that rules are 
unclear  and  that  in  many  cases  the  inconsistencies  are  due  to  particular  implementation  by 
Member  States  (e.g.  12-day  rule  in  Germany,  Working  Hours  National  Act  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  French  Labour  Code,  Labour  Code  in  Romania).  11107  out  of  21  enforcement 
authorities considered that the lack of clarity or coherence in existing rules was not a cause 
for poor compliance, 6108 authorities designated it as a moderate to major cause.109 Majority 
of  trade  unions  shared  this  view,  as  8  out  of  14  trade  unions  considered  that  a  lack  of 
clarity/coherence in existing rules is not a cause for poor compliance.  
The  open  public  consultation  further  develops  on  this  issue  by  showing  the  views  of 
stakeholders  groups  on  level  of  easiness  or  difficulties  with  compliance  with  those  rules. 
Majority  of  drivers  and  transport  undertakings  reported  no  major  difficulties  in  compliance 
with daily driving times (917 out of 1183 (78%)), weekly driving times (806 of 1179 (68%)), 
daily rest periods (862 of 1177 (73%)). Breaks in driving (776 of 1179 (66%)), weekly rest 
periods (733 of 1171 (60%)) and weekly working time (668 of 1174 (57%)) also had more 
than half of respondents indicate that the rules were rather not difficult or not at all difficult to 
understand and comply with. For authorities, enforcers and industry associations the rules on 
daily rest periods (48 out of 151 (32%)), daily driving times (53 of 151 (35%)) and weekly 
driving times (46 of 151 (30%)) were not difficult to comply with.  

104 Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and United-Kingdom. 
105 Finland and Latvia. 
106 Belgium, Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and United Kingdom. 
107 Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and 
Romania. 
108 Authorities from Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg, Poland, Netherlands and Sweden. 
109 The reasons for the negative assessment were not further described by the authorities. 

63 

 
 
 
                                                      
The most problematic rule to comply with according to all stakeholder groups are those on 
recording driver's periods away from the vehicle (708 out of 1173 of responding drivers and 
undertakings (60%) and 52 of 152 of national authorities and industry associations (34%). On 
the  other  hand  most  trade  unions  who  responded  to  the  survey  (12  of  13)  consider  the 
retrospective recording of activities when the driver was away from the vehicle necessary.  

In the same time, the vagueness of the rules in general are regarded to be a major obstacle to 
the effectiveness of the legislation by 58 % of the individual respondents (drivers, companies) 
from  EU-13  participating  to  the  open  public  consultation  and  by  24  %  of  EU-15  based 
respondents.  

Appropriateness of the rules on driving and working times, breaks and rest periods 

According  to  the  survey  of  undertakings  the  lack  of  flexibility  in  existing  rules  set  out  in 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and the fact that they do not fit to the specificities of certain 
transport operations were rated by 59% and 53% of respondents (1234 respondents) as being 
major  cause  of non-compliance. Among those 80%  of the passenger transport  undertakings 
rate these factors as major cause. The 'inflexible' rules which mostly lead to non-compliance 
are regarded to be those on breaks (671 of 1258 (53%) and daily driving times (654 of 1248 
(52%) and daily rest periods (628 of 1246 (50%)).  

80%  of  respondents  (914  of  1143  respondents)  stated  that  some  flexibility  in  arranging  the 
daily working period, including driving times, breaks and rest periods, should be introduced 
to  better  adapt  to  the  specificities  of  transport  operations  and  traffic  circumstances.  This 
percentage  increases  to  85%  if  looking  solely  at  undertakings  that  are  (also)  engaged  in 
passenger  transport  operations,  and  to  84%  if  looking  solely  at  undertakings  that  are  (also) 
engaged in international transport operations.  

The  working  time  rules  under  Directive  2002/15/EC  were  similarly  considered    by 
undertakings  participating  in  the  survey  inflexible  or  unfit  with  respectively  59  %  (332  of 
564) and 58% (327 of 564) respondents stating that these are the major causes contributing to 
non-compliance.  

The  majority  of  trade  unions  responding  to  the  survey  expressed the  opposing  view  stating 
that lacking flexibility or unfitness of the rules is not a cause at all of non-compliance. 10 out 
of 14 trade unions stated so in reference to the driving and resting times rules and 9 out of 14 
in case of working time rules.  

The responses by drivers and undertakings to open public consultation confirmed that lacking 
flexibility in application of the rules and not fitting the specific needs of the sector are two 
major or moderate obstacles of the effectiveness of the rules, with respectively 80 % (921 of 
1153) and 74 % (853 of 1152) of respondents regarding so.   

Also national authorities, enforces and industry associations regarded these two factors as an 
important obstacle to the effectiveness of the rules, with 70 % (105 of 152) as regards lacking 
flexibility and 72% (109 of 151) for the rules unfit to the needs of the sector. 

The  22  trade  unions  participating  in  open  public  consultation  have  not  indicated  those  two 
factors as a major obstacle to the effectiveness of the legislation.  

As regards the possible solutions 53% (606 of 1146) respondents (drivers and companies)  to 
open public consultation considered that flexible distribution of minimum breaks and resting 

64 

 
 
times to adapt to specific transport services would have a major contribution to improving the 
functioning of the social rules.  

Provisions on regular weekly rest 

The  issue  concerns  whether  or  not  drivers  are/should  be  allowed  to  spend  their  regular 
weekly rest in the vehicle. Within the high level survey with ministries five110 out of the 15 
Member  States  allow  drivers  to  spend  their  regular  weekly  rest  in  the  vehicle.  All  other 
Member States take the official stance that this is not allowed, however express differences in 
how  or  whether  this  is  enforced.  The  Czech  Republic  mentions  specifically  that  EU 
clarification is required on this issue.   

The individual respondents were equally split in their opinions on whether to explicitly forbid 
taking  regular  weekly  rest  in  the  vehicle  (54%,  623  of  1140)  or  to  allow  it  (54%,  617  of 
1137).  The opinions  of  institutional  respondents  were  slightly  mixed  with  45%  (68  of  140) 
supporting the first solution and 58% (86 of 148). 

Scope of the driving and working times rules 
Regarding  the  scope  of  Directive  2002/15/EC  two  Member  States111,  out  of  15  who 
responded  to  the  survey,  proposed  to  exclude  self-employed  drivers  from  the  working  time 
provisions.  The  exclusion  of  self-employed  drivers  from  the  working  time  provisions  was 
proposed  as  positive  contribution  to  better  functioning  of  the  social  rules  by  41  %  of 
individual (467 of 1139) respondents to open public consultation and by 45% (67 of 148) of 
institutional stakeholders. 

The  idea  of  inclusion  of  drivers  of  Light  Goods  Vehicles  (below  3,5  t)  was  regarded  as 
positive contribution by 44 % (73 of 166) of institutional stakeholders and by 53% (614 of 
1146) by individual respondents.  

Remuneration-based performance 

The majority (13 out of 20) enforcement bodies who responded to the survey indicated that 
establishing the link between  the driver's pay and the distance  travelled or  load carried and 
the impacts on road safety is the most difficult element to control. This result was supported 
to a larger extent by authorities in EU-13 Member States than in EU-15. The difficulties with 
enforcement of this requirement was also highlighted by trade unions (6 of 14) responding to 
the  survey,  who  also  stated  that  current  formulation  also  leads  to  abuses,  especially  by 
undertakings  working  with  non-resident  drivers.  Trade  unions  proposed  to  forbid  the 
performance-based payment and to ensure that 'other work' than driving is also remunerated.  

Co-liability for infringements 

The  principle  of  co-liability  of  other  actors  in  transport  chain  (shippers,  freight  forwarders, 
etc.) is not sufficiently enforced or difficult to apply according to the survey of enforcers (9 
of 22) and trade unions (11 of 14) and in line with the opinion of 36 %  (49 out of 138) of 
institutional respondent to open public consultation (national authorities, enforcement bodies, 
industry  associations  and  trade  unions).  Transport  undertakings  survey  reveals  that  the 
implementation  of  this  principle  differs  among  Member  States.  About  50%  of  responding 
undertakings (599 of 1198) stated that they have never been held liable for an infringement 

110 Bulgaria, Czech Republic Latvia, Poland, and Sweden. 
111 Bulgaria and Finland 

65 

 
 
                                                      
that was detected during a roadside check; 35% (419 of 1198) that they have been sometimes 
held responsible for such infringements. In Sweden, 70% (403 of 577) state they have never 
been  held  responsible;  in  Italy  this  percentage  drops  to  35%  (3  of  7).  Looking  at  transport 
undertakings  that  solely  engage  in  international  transport  (104  respondents),  approximately 
an equal amount responded that they have either never been held responsible or  sometimes. 
Less  than  5%  (5  out  of  104)  state  they  have  always  been  held  responsible  for  such 
infringements. 

Application of the provisions on the  posting of workers to road transport sector 

The  lack  of  awareness  or  legal  certainty  regarding  applicability  of  the  provisions  on  the 
posting of workers in road transport prevails in the responses to the open public consultation 
as shown by 54 % (600 out of 1106) of individual respondents (drivers and companies) who 
regard it major problem and 22% (239 out of 1107) respondents replying 'don't know'.  

For 50% of operators and 50 % of workers who responded equally important obstacles were 
other  problems  such  as:  provisions  not  adapted  to  the  specificities  of  highly  mobile  road 
transport  sector,  administrative  requirements  related  to  application  of  posting  provisions, 
burdensome controls, increase in operational costs.  

The  share  of  institutional  stakeholders  who  indicated  that  the  lack  of  clarity  is  a  major 
problem was even higher reaching 61% (84 out of 137). Equally important obstacle for them 
was the problem that the provisions on posting are not adapted to the specificities of highly 
mobile workforce in road transport. It is to be noted that a significant share 45 % (10 out of 
22)  of  respondents  from  the  workers'  organisations  indicated  that  issues  such  as  lacking 
clarity  of  applicability  of  posting  provisions,  not  adapted  rules  to  road  transport, 
administrative requirements, costly and burdensome checks, etc., are not actual problems.  

Establishing sector-specific criteria for posting in road transport and adapting administrative 
formalities was regarded an important solution by 57 % of individual respondents (638 out of 
1117).  In case of institutional stakeholders the support for such measure was even larger with 
62 % respondents (89 of 144).  

Long periods away from homebase 

4  out  of  7  trade  unions  who  responded  to  the  survey  said  that  it  is  difficult  for  drivers  in 
international  transport  to  reconcile  work  and  family  life  (the  other  3  respondents,  labour 
unions from Italy and Lithuania, said that this was not difficult). 6 out of 8 respondents stated 
that  lengths  of  periods  away  from  home  for  international  drivers  have  either  increased  or 
significantly increased in the last ten years. Reasons for this increase listed were: low salaries 
led by high unemployment and lack of clear regulation. 

Enforcement measures 

The  enforcers  taking  part  in  the  survey  indicated  diverse  set  of  problems  affecting  cross-
border  enforcement,  among  which  the  most  significant  contribution  have:  (i)  sophisticated 
means of circumventing rules (19 of 25 responses), lack of enforcement capacity to carry out 
controls  (16  of  25),  differences  in  national  interpretations  (13  of  25),  drivers  not  being 
allowed to spend their weekly rest in the vehicle (16 of 25).  

All stakeholder groups were almost unanimous that the main factor contributing the most to 
non-compliance  with  the  rules  in  force  and  to  difficulties  with  enforcement  is  fierce 

66 

 
 
competition based on costs and pressure on companies / drivers to breach the rules. 11 out of 
14 trade unions who responded to the survey and 14 out of 25 enforcers were of this opinion. 
The  public  consultation  again  confirmed  that  this  is  the  major  factor  contributing  to 
difficulties  with  compliance,  with  67%  (673  out  of  1007)  of  drivers  and  operators  who 
responded and 70% (104 of 147) of institutional respondents that is: authorities, controllers, 
industry associations.  

On the other hand the majority of enforcers (15 of 25) participating in the survey indicated 
that  enforcement  measures  such  as  requirements  for  equipment  of  enforcement  units  and 
requirement  on  exchange  of  information  on  controls  between  national  authorities  have 
increased the ability to detect non-compliance. The concerted checks were regarded by 88 % 
(23  out  of  26)  of  enforcers  as  the  factor  enhancing  harmonised  understanding  and 
enforcement of the rules across the EU.  

Regarding enforcement of the working time provisions majority of enforcers stated that the 
main  obstacles  were  the  excessive  time  needed  for  detecting  infringements  (14  of  21 
participating in the survey), lack of manpower (10 of 19) and language barriers (10 of 19). In 
addition more enforcers from EU-15 (5 of 7) than from EU-13 (3 of 11) regarded that checks 
are not frequent enough. 

Consistency of enforcement is negatively affected by diverging national interpretations of the 
rules in force and different enforcement practices, as it was indicated by 55 % (487 of 879) of 
individual  respondents  (drivers,  operators,  shippers,  forwarders)  to  the  open  public 
consultation  and  70  %  (104  of  150)  of  institutional  respondents  (authorities,  industry 
associations and workers' organisations).  

The majority 54% (619 of 1137) of individual respondents (drivers and companies) and 51 % 
(76 of 148) institutional respondents to open public consultation regarded that clarification of 
liabilities  of  all  actors  in  transport  chain  would  considerably  improve  enforcement.  Other 
important  contributors  according  to  these  stakeholder  groups  were:  promoting  the  use  of 
GNSS digital tachograph systems and harmonizing the control tools used by enforcers (46 % 
of individual respondents (523 of 1140) and 65% (98 of 149) of institutional respondents).  

67