COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 with a view to adapting them to developments in the sector
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: access to a profession, administrative cooperation, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, inland transport, international transport, road transport, transport policy, transport regulations

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 195 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 with a view to adapting them to developments in the sector {COM(2017) 281 final} {SWD(2017) 194 final}  
 
 
Impact  assessment  on  the  revision  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009  on  access  to  the  occupation  of  road 
transport operator and of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on access to the international road transport market  

Executive Summary Sheet 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
The main problems identified are:  

Factors undermining fair competition between resident and non-resident transport operators.  

 
  High costs for the industry and for the EU Member State (MS) enforcement authorities.  

These problems derive from:  

Inconsistent and ineffective enforcement.  

 
  Shortcomings of the rules. 
  Different scope of application of the rules.   

These  problems  affect  mainly  hauliers  and  their  employees,  but  also  others  that  are  involved  in  the  transport 
chain, such as shippers, freight forwarders and end users.  
What should be achieved?  
The general objectives of the intervention are to:  

  Help achieve balanced conditions for competition between resident and non-resident hauliers. 
  Reduce costs for businesses and ensure efficient enforcement of the rules. 

The two specific objectives are to:  

  Ensure coherent and consistent monitoring and enforcement of the existing rules in MS. 
  Better specify the rules and reduce the options available for MS. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
The  shortcomings  of  the  rules  are  unlikely  to  be  solved  in  the  absence  of  action  by  the  EU.  The  only  way  to 
overcome them is through legislative intervention to further harmonise the rules. Enforcement is mainly a matter 
for  the  MS  authorities.  In  order  to  achieve  a  more  uniform  level  of  enforcement  and  similar  enforcement 
practices, the EU must set rules to make enforcement easier and more efficient and require a minimum common 
level of enforcement.             

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
Option 1: Clarification of the legal framework: measures to clarify existing ambiguities and further specify the 
rules, without substantially changing them. 

Option 2: Strengthening of enforcement: besides the measures in Option 1, this option includes measures to 
strengthen enforcement. 

Option  3:  Extensive  revision  of  the  rules:  in  addition  to  the  previously  mentioned  measures,  this  includes 
further measures intended to substantially change the existing legal framework. 

Option 4 - horizontal: Extension of the scope of the regulations: this option involves extending the application 
of one or both of the regulations to include light commercial vehicles (LCVs) fully or partly. It could be combined 
with any of the other options. 

The preferred option is a combination of Option 3 and a partial extension of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 to 
LCVs. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
      
 
There is broad agreement on most of the measures aimed at further clarifying and specifying existing concepts 
and  strengthening  enforcement  of  the  rules.  Positions  are  split  on  key  measures  which  could  alter  the 
competitive  positions  of  hauliers  from  different  MS.  High-wage  MS,  supported  by  trade  unions  tend  to  favour 
stricter  rules  on  cabotage,  whereas  low-wage  MS,  supported  by  most  of  the  hauliers'  associations,  tend  to 
favour further liberalisation of the cabotage rules. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
- Savings for businesses through the use of electronic transport documents and clearer rules (EUR 3-5 billion for 
the EU-28 in 2020-2035). 

-  More  effective  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  the  rules  and  fewer  infringements.  An  expected  reduction  of 
infringements of cabotage rules of up to 62 % and a reduction of the risk of letterbox companies of about 10 %. 

- Coherent application of rules across the EU-28. 

- Better working conditions for drivers. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
- Increased implementation and enforcement costs for MS (EUR 65-166 million for the EU-28 in 2020 -2035). 

- The partial application of the rules to LCVs will trigger additional costs for businesses in the order of a 4-10 % 
increase in operating costs.  
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
Most measures are not expected to have particular impacts on SMEs. However, the partial extension of the rules 
to LCVs may affect to a greater extent very small operators, given that they make greater use of LCVs.  
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
As mentioned above, additional costs for MS to enforce the rules. 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
No significant environmental impacts or impacts on the overall level of jobs at the EU level. 
Synergies with the social initiative, namely:  

1) measures intended to improve enforcement; and  

2) the combination of the new cabotage rules with the time-based approach for posting of workers envisaged 
under the social initiative will ease the enforcement of both sets of rules.    
Proportionality?  
The preferred option does not exceed what is necessary to solve the original problem and meet the objectives of 
the initiative.  

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
An evaluation of the amending Regulation is envisaged for 2025, provided that it enters into force in 2020. 

3