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) 561/2006 as regards 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

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2017  SWD(2017) 187 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) 561/2006 as regards 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) 184 final} {SWD(2017) 185 final} {SWD(2017) 186 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet (Max 2 pages) 

Impact  assessment  for  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending 
Regulation  (EC)  561/2006  on  driving  times,  breaks  and  rest  periods  of  drivers,  and  for  a  Directive  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC on enforcement requirements and  on 
laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the 
road transport sector. 

A. Need for action 

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

 
Inadequate working and social conditions of drivers;  
  Distortions of competition between transport operators.  

They derive from:  

o  deficiencies of the existing social road transport legislation (driving, working and resting times of 

drivers);  
inefficient implementation of the provisions on posting of workers in road transport.  

o 

They are also linked with the market issues of 'letterbox' companies and illegal cabotage addressed in another 
Impact Assessment1. In the absence of EU intervention, these problems are expected to persist and amplify. 
What should be achieved?  
General objectives of the intervention are to:  

 
 
 

ensure adequate working conditions and social protection of drivers;  
avoid distortions of competition; 
contribute to road safety.  

Specific objectives are to: 

o  clarify and adjust the EU social rules applicable to road transport (including on posting);  
o  provide for uniform interpretation and application of the rules;  
o 
o 

facilitate cost-effective and consistent cross-border enforcement of the social legislation;  
strengthen cooperation between Member States.  

The overarching goal is to establish a balance between ensuring the protection of the rights of workers and 
facilitating the freedom to provide cross-border services for operators. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
The shortcomings of the rules are unlikely to be solved without an EU action. The hitherto efforts made by the 
Member States and the Commission to ensure common understanding and consistent enforcement of the rules 
appear  unsuccessful.  Therefore,  the  EU  action  is  justified  to  provide  EU  solution  and  prevent  proliferation  of 
diverging  national  measures.  The  EU  added  value  is  in  providing  for  clear  and  balanced  rules,  their  uniform 
implementation, application and enforcement, which is not possible to achieve at the Member States level.   

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
 Policy Package 1: Clarification of the legal framework & improve cooperation – measures clarifying ambiguities 
without  substantially  changing  the  rules  and  improving  cooperation  among  enforcement  authorities  without 
significant costs impacts. 
Policy  Package  2:  Strengthening  of  enforcement  and  changes  to  obligations  –  besides  the  PP1  measures,  it 
includes  the  measures  adapting  certain  rules  and  strengthening  enforcement,  which  may  involve  some 
regulatory costs. 
Policy Package 3: Targeted revisions of the social legislation – significant changes to the current provisions and 
introducing derogations for specific activities from the scope of the legislation. 

Policy  Package  2  is  the  preferred  option  in  terms  of  strengthening  of  enforcement  and  clarification  of  the  EU 
legal framework. 

Policy Package 4 is horizontal providing for sector-specific rules on posting in transport - it contains measures on 
lighter administrative and control requirements and four variants corresponding to 4 thresholds of: 3 days per 
month  (PP4a),  5  days  (PP4b),  7  days  (PP4c)  and  9  days  (PP4d)  for  a  total  accumulated  duration  of  activities 

1 Review of Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 on access to occupation of road transport operators and 1072/2009 
on access to haulage market 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
carried  out  in  host  countries,  below  which  the  drivers  would  not  fall  under  the  full  application  of  Posting  of 
Workers Directive. The administrative burden is significantly reduced regardless the threshold.  The compliance 
costs  for  operators  are  lower  for  higher  thresholds.  From  the  point  of  view  of  workers  lower  time  thresholds 
have  higher  positive  effects  in  terms  of  improving  social  and  working  conditions  of  drivers  and  increasing  job 
attractiveness.  Considering the various impacts of each option and the difficulty to compare them, the option to 
be retained is a political decision. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
PP1 is the least favoured option by all stakeholder groups. PP2 is largely supported by operators and drivers as 
measures  allow  for  more  efficient  organisation  of  transport  operations,  more  favourable  and  better  adapted 
working  and  resting  time  requirements  and  more  effective  and  uniform  enforcement.  The  trade  unions  and 
national  authorities  present  mixed  views.    PP3  is  favoured  by  bus  and  coach  industry  (mainly  large  EU-15). 
Trade  unions  support  only  one  measure  of  PP3  (prohibition  of  performance  based  pay)  rejecting  other 
measures.  PP4  is  favoured  by  the  industry  and  majority  of  Member  States  due  to  providing  clear  and 
proportionate  solutions  for  applying  posting  provisions.  Trade  unions  and  three  Member  States  oppose  the 
solution of time-thresholds triggering the full application of PWD.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option? 
-  Improvement  in  working  and  resting  conditions  of  drivers  due  to  more  suitable  and  flexible  rules,  clarity  on  
applicable  pay  rates  and  other  social  protection  conditions  when  working  abroad,  better  resting  conditions, 
shortened periods away from home.  
- Improvement in operators' ability to organise the drivers' work more efficiently; 
- Cost savings to operators in administrative costs of around € 785 million/year  
- Increase in remuneration of drivers involved in transport operations in Member States with higher pay rates; 
- Legal certainty and consistency in enforcement. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
-  Small  short-term  increase  in  enforcement  costs  for  authorities  to  be  offset  in  longer  term  by  more  efficient 
enforcement; 
-  Small  short-term  increase  in  compliance  and  administrative  costs  for  operators  due  the  obligation  on 
accommodation for regular weekly rest, a potential need for employing new drivers, applying higher wages of 
host Member States. 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Most  measures  are  not  expected  to  have  particular  impacts  on  SMEs.  However,  the  obligation  on 
accommodation  for  drivers  and  the  changes  to  calculation  of  weekly  working  time  may  affect  more  micro-
companies  who  have  less  flexibility  in  organising  operations  to  avoid  the  increase  in  costs.  Conversely,  the 
expected  reduction  in  administrative  costs  and  compliance  costs  linked  to  the  posting  provisions  will  be  more 
significant to small companies, in particular those from EU-13.   

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
No, only slight short-term increase in enforcement costs offset in longer term by savings due to more efficient 
controls. 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
No environmental impacts or significant impacts on the overall level of jobs at the EU level. Synergies with the 
initiative  on  access  to  haulage  market:  1)  improved  efficiency  of  enforcement,  2)  more  efficient  fight  against 
illegal employment practices. 
Proportionality?  
The preferred option does not exceed what is necessary to solve the original problem and to meet the objectives 
of  the  initiative.  The  initiative  offers  proportionate  and  balanced  solution  to  interlinked  social  and  competition 
problems. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The ex-post evaluation will be carried out according to a regular policy cycle (in 5 -7 years).  

3