COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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 FINAL REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services
Date: 2017-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: bus, carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, international road transport, international transport, market access, road cabotage, services of general interest, transport licence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.11.2017  SWD(2017) 361 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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   FINAL REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services {COM(2017) 647 final}  - {SWD(2017) 360 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation .................................................................................. 1 
1.2.  Scope of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 1 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE REGULATIONS............................................................. 1 

2.1.  Description of the initiative and objectives ....................................................... 1 
2.1.1.  Freedom to provide services................................................................ 1 
2.1.2.  Community Licence ............................................................................ 2 
2.1.3.  Authorisation procedure for regular services ...................................... 2 
2.1.4.  Rules applicable to cabotage operations ............................................. 3 
2.1.5.  Enforcement and cooperation between Member States ...................... 3 
2.1.6.  Other modifications ............................................................................. 3 
2.2.  Baseline ............................................................................................................. 4 
2.2.1.  Freedom to provide services................................................................ 5 
2.2.2.  Community licences ............................................................................ 5 
2.2.3.  Authorisation procedure for regular services ...................................... 6 
2.2.4.  Rules applicable to cabotage operations ............................................. 7 
2.2.5.  Enforcement and cooperation between Member States ...................... 8 
2.2.6.  Modal Split .......................................................................................... 8 
2.2.7.  Terminals ............................................................................................. 9 

3.  METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 9 

3.1.  Data sources ...................................................................................................... 9 
3.1.1.  Baseline ............................................................................................... 9 
3.1.2.  Fact Finding Studies ............................................................................ 9 
3.1.3.  Open public consultation ................................................................... 10 
Infringements and complaints ........................................................... 12 
3.1.4. 
Information from Member States ...................................................... 12 
3.1.5. 
3.1.6.  Desk research .................................................................................... 12 
3.2.  Evaluation methodology ................................................................................. 12 
3.3.  Limitations – robustness of quantitative findings ........................................... 12 

4.  MARKET CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT AND STATE OF PLAY ............. 13 

4.1.  Market context and development .................................................................... 13 
4.2.  State of play ..................................................................................................... 14 
4.2.1.  Community licences and authorisations for regular services ............ 14 
4.2.2.  Rules applicable to cabotage operations ........................................... 15 
4.2.3.  Enforcement and cooperation between Member States .................... 16 
4.2.4.  Other effects of the Regulation ......................................................... 16 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................................. 17 

5.1.  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 17 
5.2.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 23 
5.3.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 36 

 
 
5.4.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 39 
5.5.  EU added value ............................................................................................... 45 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 46 

ANNEX  1:  PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION  CONCERNING  THE  PROCESS  TO 

PREPARE THE EVALUATION OR FITNESS CHECK. ....................................... 49 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 50 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 61 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  evaluation  focuses  on  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/2009  (the  Regulation)  laying  down 
common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending 
Regulation (EC) No 561/20061.  

The Regulation establishes the conditions for the international carriage of passengers by coach 
and bus within the EU by carriers for hire or reward. It was adopted as a part of a legislative 
package together with Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 establishing common rules concerning 
the  conditions  to  be  complied  with  to  pursue  the  occupation  of  road  transport  operator  and 
repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC2  and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on common rules 
for access to the international road haulage market3. Together, these three regulations regulate 
the conditions for accessing the profession and for accessing the markets of transport of goods 
and people by road. They aimed to achieve this by harmonising rules and simplifying the legal 
framework in place.   

The purpose of the ex-post evaluation is to provide the Commission with an assessment of the 
implementation of the Regulation and its effects over the period 2009 to 2015. The evaluation 
assesses to what extent the Regulation has contributed to reaching its objectives to create an 
internal market, fair competition and modal shifts. It assess whether the provisions foreseen by 
the Regulation were fit for purpose and still are in view of the changing market situation. The 
aim  is  to  have  a  view  of  the  achievements,  of  the  potential  issues  and  of  possible 
improvements/recommendations.  

The  results  of  the  evaluation  may  either  contribute  to  improving  implementation  of  the 
Regulation  or  be  used  as  an  input  for  possible  future  policy  development,  including  for  an 
impact assessment study. 

1.2. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation covers the 5 standard evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value.  It  covers  the  time  period  of  2009  (entry  into  force  of  the 
Regulation) to 2015. It has the same geographical scope as the Regulation, which is the whole 
of the EU.  

The  provision  in  the  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EC)  561/2006  in  relation  to  driving 
times  and  rest  hours  (Article  29)  are  excluded  from  the  evaluation.  That  provision  was 
introduced  to  encourage  tourism  and  promote  the  use  of  environmentally  friendly  means  of 
transport which are not linked to market access and access to the profession. 

2. 

  BACKGROUND TO THE REGULATIONS 

2.1.  Description of the initiative and objectives  

The  freedom  to  provide  services  is  a  basic  principle  of  the  common  transport  policy  and 
requires  that  carriers  from  all  EU  countries  have  access  to  international  transport  markets 

1 OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, P. 88 

2 OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 51 

3 OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72 

1 

 
 
                                                 
without  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  or  place  of  establishment.  The  Regulation 
establishes the conditions for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus within 
the EU by carriers for hire or reward. 

In  the  1990’s  the  internal  market  for  bus  and  coach  services  was  created  by  two  separate 
pieces of legislation, namely Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 on common rules for the 
international carriage of passengers by coach and bus4 and Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 
laying  down  the  conditions  under  which  non-resident  carriers  may  operate  national  road 
passenger  transport  services  within  a  Member  State5.  It  replaced  national  legislation  (often 
restricting services) and bilateral agreements between the Member States.  

In  2006,  the  Commission  concluded6  that  the  lack  of  clarity  or  complexity  of  the  existing 
provisions  rendered  enforcement  difficult  and  unnecessary  administrative  burdens  were 
identified in the following areas: 

–  The scope of application of the Regulation was unclear as regards passenger transport by 

Community carriers to and from third countries and transiting Member States. 

–  A company wanting to enter the market was faced with barriers such as an application for 
an authorisation when operating a new international line which required the agreement of 
other Member States affected by the service. The procedure was perceived, especially by 
the industry, as creating high barriers for new entrants and unnecessary burdens. 

–  The exchange of information between Member States was rather ineffective. Undertakings 
which  operated  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  other  than  the  Member  State  of 
establishment hardly risked any administrative sanctions, as a result of which competition 
was distorted between these undertakings less inclined to comply with rules and the others. 

–  The  diversity  of  formats  used  for  Community  licences  and  certified  true  copies  created 
problems  during  inspections  and  often  led  to  a  loss  of  valuable  time  for  operators  and 
enforcement staff. 

In  addition  to  the  problem  of  unnecessary  administrative  burden,  the  problems  of  no  single 
market  for  bus  and  coach  services,  discrimination  by  Member  State  authorities  of  non-
national provides and the sub-optimal mix of transport modes for the transport of passengers 
also existed. 

The Regulation was proposed to revise and consolidate the existing Regulations on the access 
to the market of coach and bus services and address the problems listed above. 

Error!  Reference  source  not  found.,  illustrates  the  links  and  causal  relationships  between 
the root causes, problem drivers, problems, general objectives, specific objectives, operational 
objectives and input/output. 

4 OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, p. 1 

5 OJ L  4, 8.1.1998, p. 10 

6  SEC(2007)  635/3  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a 
Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  common  rules  for  access  to  the  market  in 
coach and bus services (recast) COM(2007) 264 final 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: Relationship between the objectives and the problems the initiative aims to address 

1 

There is no single market for bus and coach servicesOpenthe market for cross-border services and for cabotage operations without destroying PSOsDifferent rules on access to the international market in each MemberStateEstablishcommon rules for accessing the marketestablish rules and conditions for giving authorisations for international regular servicesFreedom for the international carriage of passengers on special regular and occasional servicesDriversRoot causesProblemGOSOOOInputs/ OutputsRestrictionson the establishment of regular bus&coach linesPreventdiscrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishmentmutualrecognition of documentsestablish  the features of the licences and provisions for granting access to the marketestablish the conditions for performing cabotage operationsPromote bus and coach transport as asustainable alternative  to individual  car transportensure adequate and proportionate enforcement of the rulesSetup rules to allow enforcement officers to adequatly control  the respect of the provisions of the regulation and penalise offenseslimit the administrative burden to the extent possibleNon-nationalproviders are discriminated by Member State authoritiesSub-optimal mixof transport modes for the transport of passengersUnnecessary administrative burdenDifferent rules on access to the national market in each MemberStateLack of suitable sustainablealternatives to individual passenger car useAccessto the market regulated by bilateral agreements between Member StatesStandardisedand mutuallyrecognised community licence and journey formsRequirements for operators to provide assistance to inspectorsAuthorisation system for the international carriage of passengers on regular servicesFreedom to provide cabotage special regular and occasional services on a non-permanent basisMinimum requirements for transport ticketsCommon framework ruleson penalties and sanctionsProvisions on mutual assistance between MSPossibility for Member States to further open their mutual marketsleave Member States flexibility to satisfy specific market demandPossibility to open the market more than what is required by the Regulation 
 
 
The intervention logic of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 is provided below. 

Figure 2: Intervention Logic 

2.1.1.  Freedom to provide services 

The rules regarding the freedom to provide services remained in substance largely unchanged. 
The  Regulation  provides  carriers  for  hire  and  reward  with  the  freedom  to  provide  regular 
services, including special regular services and occasional services by coach and bus, without 
discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment if he: 
 

is  authorised  in  the  EU  country  of  establishment  to  undertake  carriage  by  means  of 
regular services in accordance with the market access conditions in national law; 
fulfils  the  conditions  within  the  EU  rules  on  admission  to  the  occupation  of  road 
passenger transport operator in national and international transport operations; and  

 

  meets the legal requirements relating to EU standards for drivers and vehicles. 

1 

Open competition for international and domestic commercial (non-PSO) bus and coach services, excluding regular domestic servicesBetter quality and higher reliability of busand coach servicesInputs/OutputsResultsImpactsFreedom for the international carriage of passengers on special regular and occasional servicesStandardisedand mutuallyrecognised community licence and journey formsRequirements for operators to provide assistance to inspectorsAuthorisationsystem for the international carriage of passengers on regular servicesFreedom to provide cabotage special regular and occasional services on a non-permanent basisMinimum requirements for transport ticketsCommon framework ruleson penalties and sanctionsProvisions on mutual assistance between MSPossibility for Member States to further open their mutual marketsCoherent framework conditions for operating bus and coach services in the EU (harmonised paperwork, co-ordinated enforcement, etc.) for the internal market to function correctlyLower prices of servicesBetter modal mix in passenger transport, with positive impact on overall passenger transport sustainabilityLess interurbancongestion, air and noise pollution and GHG emissions thanks to lower use of individual  car transport 
 
 
 
2.1.2.   Community Licence  

The Regulation simplified and standardised the Community licence. It provided more detailed 
specifications  for  the  format  of  the  Community  licence  and  certified  true  copies  of  the 
Community  licence  in  order  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  and  to  reduce  problems 
during inspections that often led to losses of valuable time for operators and enforcement staff. 

Community licences were harmonised and international carriage shall be carried out subject to 
the  possession  of  a  Community  licence  issued by  a  competent  authority  in  a Member  State. 
The Community licences shall be issued for renewable periods of up to 10 years and is non-
transferable. Every two years, Member States must report to the Commission the number of 
carriers possessing Community licences and the number of certified true copies corresponding 
to  the  vehicles  in  circulation.  EU  countries  may  also  decide  that  the  Community  licence  is 
valid for national transport operations. 

2.1.3.  Authorisation procedure for regular services 

The  Regulation  introduced  a  simpler  and  faster authorisation  procedure  for  regular services. 
An authorisation is issued in agreement with the competent authorities of all Member States in 
whose  territories  passengers  are  picked  up  or  set  down.  Applications  for  authorisation  of 
international regular services are submitted to an authorising authority7. 

The authorisations are issued in the name of the carrier for a period of up to five years and are 
non-transferable. However, an authorised carrier, with the consent of the competent authority 
of the EU country where the point of departure is located, may operate the service through a 
subcontractor. 

The new authorising procedure eliminated the special protection granted by Regulation (EC) 
No  684/92  to  railways  and  existing  regular  services.  The  basic  principal  of  the  new 
authorising  procedure  is  that  the  authorisation  is  granted  unless  there  are  clearly  specified 
grounds  for  refusal  attributable  to  the  applicant.  Only  one  ground  for  refusal  relating  to  the 
relevant  market  remains,  namely  that  the  service  applied  for  would  seriously  affect  the 
viability  of  a  comparable  service  operated  under  a  public  service  obligation  on  the  direct 
sections concerned. Transit countries, i.e. Member States which are not affected by the service 
because  no  passengers  are  picked  up  or  set  down,  are  not  heard  anymore,  but  are  informed 
once the service has been authorised.  

As part of the new authorisation procedure Member States were required to establish criteria 
on a non-discriminatory basis, for determining whether a service applied for would seriously 
affect  the  viability  of  the  comparable  service.  It  also  enables  Member  States,  with  the 
agreement of the Commission and having given 6 months’ notice to the carrier, to suspend or 
withdraw an authorisation to run a service 

If the procedure for reaching an agreement does not enable the authorising authority to decide 
on an application, the matter may be referred to the Commission. The Commission shall take a 
decision after having consulted the Member States involved. 

The authorisation must specify the type of service, the route, the stops and timetable, and the 
period of validity, and entitle their holder to operate regular services in the territories of all EU 
countries over which the routes of the service pass. Except in the case of force majeure, the 
operator of a regular service must take all measures to guarantee a transport service that fulfils 

7 The competent authority of the Member State in whose territory the point of departure is situated. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
the  standards  of  continuity,  regularity  and  capacity  and  complies  with  the  conditions  laid 
down by the competent authority. 

2.1.4.  Rules applicable to cabotage operations 

The Regulation defines cabotage operations as either national road passenger services for hire 
and  reward  carried  out  on  a  temporary  basis  by  a  carrier  in  a  host  Member  State,  or  the 
picking up and setting down of passengers within the same Member State, in the course of a 
regular service. 

The  rules  on  the  performance  of  cabotage  operations  remained  in  substance  largely 
unchanged.  Non-resident  carriers  are  permitted  to  operate  national  road  passenger  services, 
but  the  extent  of  permitted  cabotage  operations  is  dependent  on  the  type  of  service.  For 
regular  services  the  performance  of  cabotage  is  permitted  provided  it  is  part  of  a  regular 
international service, excluding urban and suburban services, and subject to the legislation in 
force in the host Member State. 

2.1.5.  Enforcement and cooperation between Member States 

In order to strengthen and facilitate the exchange of information between national authorities 
Member  States  became  obliged  by  the  Regulation  to  exchange  information  via  the  national 
contact  points  which  were  set  up  pursuant  to  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009  on  the 
admission  to  the  occupation  of  road  transport  operator.  These  national  contact  points  are 
designated  administrative  bodies  or  authorities  in  charge  of  carrying  out  the  information 
exchange with their counter parts in the other Member States.  

In  the  event  of  a  serious  infringement  of  EU  road  transport  legislation,  the  competent 
authorities  of  the  Member  State  of  establishment  of  the  carrier  concerned  must  take 
appropriate action, which may include a warning or the imposition of administrative penalties. 
If a non-resident  carrier seriously infringes EU road transport legislation, the EU country  in 
which the infringement is ascertained will send the competent authorities of the carrier’s EU 
country of establishment a description of the infringement, the category, type and seriousness 
of the infringement, and the penalties imposed. All serious infringements must be recorded in 
the national electronic register of road transport undertakings. 

In addition, the Regulation clarifies the sanctions that the Member State  may impose on the 
carriers  established  within  its  territory,  namely  the  withdrawal  (temporary  or  permanent)  of 
certified true copies of the Community licence or of the Community licence. 

The  Regulation  introduces  a  new  procedure  to  be  followed  by  the  Member  State  which 
ascertains  an  infringement  committed  by  a  non-resident  carrier.  The  Member  State  has  6 
weeks  from  the  final  decision  to  communicate  the  information  according  to  a  minimum 
standard  format.  It  may  ask  the  Member  State  of  establishment  to  impose  administrative 
sanctions and the Member State of establishment of the carrier concerned has 6 weeks from 
the final decision to inform the other Member State of the follow-up. 

2.1.6.  Other modifications 

The  reporting  obligations  for  Member  States  were  increased  and  combined  into  one  article. 
Member  States  were  provided  with  the  liberty  to  conclude  bilateral  and  multilateral 
agreements  on  the  further  liberalisation  of  the  services  covered  by  this  Regulation,  in 
particular  as  regards  the  authorisation  system  and  the  simplification  or  abolition  of  control 
documents, especially in border regions. 

3 

 
 
For  regulatory  purposes  international  coach  and  bus  services  in  the  EU  are  categorised  into 
different types as illustrated in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Categories of coach services used in the Regulation 
Type 

Definition 

Market and typical examples 

Special 
regular 
services 

Services  which  provide  for  the  carriage  of 
passengers  at  specified  intervals  along  specified 
routes, passengers being picked up and set down 
by 
at 
whomsoever  organised,  which  provide  for  the 
carriage  of  specified  categories  of  passengers  to 
the exclusion of other passengers. 

predetermined 

stopping 

points, 

Regular 
services 

All other services which provide for the carriage 
of  passengers  at  specified 
intervals  along 
specified routes, passengers being picked up and 
set down at predetermined stopping points. 

Occasional 
services 

All  other  services,  the  main  characteristic  of 
which  is  the  carriage  of  groups  of  passengers 
constituted on the initiative of the customer or the 
carrier himself. 

Regular, scheduled service not open to all 
passengers, such as: 

  School  services  serving  only  those 

attending a school. 

  Staff  services  serving  only  those 

working at a location. 

Regular,  scheduled  service  open  to  all 
passengers. 

Multi-day  visit  or  tour  requested  by  a 
customer or offered by a carrier. 

Excursion  or  day  trip  requested  by  a 
customer or offered by a carrier. 

Local  excursion  or  day  trip  offered  to 
those already on a multi-day visit or tour. 

2.2.  Baseline 

During  the  baseline  period  of  2009  to  2011  Directive  96/26/EC  together  with  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  684/92  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  11/988,  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  12/989 
formed the major regulatory basis for the internal market for international passenger transport 
services by road.  

In comparison to rail and air transport sectors, there was little European legislation applying to 
the coach and bus sector. This resulted in significant differences in the regulatory environment 
within  which  the  coach  and  bus  sector  operated  in  different  Member  States.  A  Study  of 
passenger  transport  by  coach  in  200910  reported  that  the  variation  in  regulation  was 
particularly significant for national regular services and varied from: 

  Liberalisation,  as  in  the  UK,  with  no  restrictions  on  operation  of  new  services  and 

therefore there can be on-road competition between operators. 

  A concession system, as in Spain, where operators bid for the right to operate individual 

routes, but there is no 'on-road' competition. 

  Other forms of licensing restrictions, as in Greece. 

8 OJ L 4, 8.1.1998, p. 1. 

9 OJ L 4, 8.1.1998, p. 10. 

10  Study  on  Passenger  Transport  by  Coach  in  Europe,  July  2009  prepared  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  for  the 

European Commission 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Prohibition on operations, as in Germany, where regular national coach services are (with 

some exceptions) not permitted. 

In 2009, 2 years before the application of the Regulation, the bus and coach sector accounted 
for  a  significant  proportion,  some  8.8%,  of  overall  surface  passenger  transport  within  the 
EU11. However, these high level statistics for the bus and coach sector at the European level 
do  not  accurately  describe  the  types  of  coach  and  bus  services  within  the  scope  of  this 
Regulation.  In  Europe  most  available  statistics  on  bus  and  coach  passenger  transport  are 
defined or categorised differently by Member States. The statistics often cover all types of bus 
and coach services (e.g. urban, school buses, hop on hop off tours, etc.) and may include both 
national  and  international  services.  The  performance  of  the  sector  in  terms  of  vehicle-
kilometres  and  passenger-kilometres  are  estimated  and  reported  differently,  and  mutually 
inconsistent, ways by different Member States. 

2.2.1.  Freedom to provide services  

The  legal  acts  enabled  carriers  to  provide  international  transport  services  between  Member 
States  without  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  or  place  of  establishment,  provided 
that they are authorised in the State of establishment to undertake carriage by coach and bus; 
meet  the  conditions  laid  down  in  accordance  with  rules  on  admission  to  the  occupation  of 
road passenger transport operator; and meet the legal requirements on road safety as far as the 
standards for drivers and vehicles are concerned. 

2.2.2.  Community licences  

The Community licence facilitates inspections made outside the State of establishment. It acts 
as proof that the carrier is authorised in the State of establishment to undertake international 
carriage by coach and bus, and that the undertaking in question meets the conditions of access 
to the profession of road passenger transport operator. 

The  number  of  Community  licences  can  be  seen  as  a  measure  of  the  number  of  operators 
wishing  to  operate  international  services.  The  number  of  Community  licences  for  road 
passenger  transport  in  the  EU-27  at  the  end  of  the  baseline  period  in  2011  was  34,959  (the 
Regulation entered into force on 4 December 2011). The distribution of community licences 
across Member States is illustrated below in Figure 3.  

Figure 3: Community licences by Member State 2011 

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

s
e
c
n
e
c
i
l

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

DE RO PL IT FR ES UK CZ HU IE AT BG SK FI SE DK NL EL BE SI LV PT LT EE MT LU CY

11 EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2011  

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
A  certified  true  copy  of  the  Community  licence  is  issued  for  each  vehicle  used  for  the 
international carriage of passengers at the disposal of the holder of a Community licence. The 
numbers  of certified true  copies  of the  Community licence can  be  seen  as  a  measure  of  the 
number of coaches  potentially  operating international services.  The number of certified true 
copies of Community licences in the EU-27 in 2011 was 260,683. At the same time, the stock 
of registered buses and coaches in the EU was 817,60012.  

Figure 4: Certified true copies by Member State 2011 

d
e
i
f
i
t
r
e
C
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

i

s
e
p
o
c
e
u
r
t

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

R
F

E
D

O I
T
R

S
E

L

K N
U

L
P

G
B

Z
C

T
P

E
I

T
A

K
D

U
H

I

E S
S

E
B

I

K F
S

L
E

T
L

E
E

V
L

U
L

T
M

Y
C

There were an estimated 39,185 enterprises operating bus and coach services in both national 
and  international  markets  (not  including  urban  or  suburban  services)  involved  in  employing 
some 518,300 people with a reported turnover of EUR 33,884 million13. 

The  lack  of  uniformity  of  certified  true  copies  of  Community  licences  creates  problems  for 
carriers during roadside checks especially regarding the authenticity of the control document 
and  this  often  leads  to  considerable  loss  of  time  for  both  operators  and  enforcement 
authorities. 

2.2.3.  Authorisation procedure for regular services 

The  authorisation  procedure  for  international  regular  passenger  services  established  in 
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 provided for authorisations to be issued with the consent of the 
competent authorities of Member States affected by the service. The authorisation procedure 
laid down for regular international services constitutes an important exception to the general 
principle  of  opening  up  the  transport  market.  In  all  passenger  or  goods  transport  sectors, 
whether  by  road,  rail,  sea  or  air,  the  European  Community  has  endeavoured  to  develop  an 
increasingly liberalised market, while also maintaining high standards of services and safety14.  

Member  States  on  whose  territory  passengers  are  picked  up  or  set  down  could  reject  an 
application for one of six specified grounds15. These grounds for rejection, and most notably 

12 EU transport in figures (data include buses, coaches, minibuses and sometimes also trolleybuses). 

13  Estimated  using  EUROSTAT  structural  business  statistics  "other  passenger  land  transport  n.e.c.  (not 
elsewhere  categorised)".  It  is  cautioned  that  this  classification  of  economic  activity  is  indicative  as  it 
includes more forms of land transport than coach. 

14 Communication on the operation and prospects of the Community framework for passenger transport by coach 
and  bus:  access  to  international  transport  and  cabotage  markets,  safety  and  rights  of  passengers  Brussels, 
29.7.2004 COM(2004) 527 final 

15 The six ground for rejection of an application as per Article 7(4) are: 

(1) if the applicant is unable to provide the service that is the subject of the application with equipment directly 

available to him; 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
the  grounds  aimed  at  protecting  incumbents  and  rail,  enabled  the  competent  authorities  of 
Member  States  to  intervene  in  the  market  by  effectively  blocking  market  entry  by  a  new 
operator. The authorising process was time-consuming despite the fact that Regulation (EEC) 
No 684/92 provided for a decision to be taken by the authorising authority within four months. 
The  authorising  procedure  was  cumbersome,  especially  when  transit  countries  had  to  be 
heard, and was perceived, especially by the industry, as creating high barriers for new entrants 
and unnecessary red tape16. 

2.2.4.  Rules applicable to cabotage operations 

Coach  operators  holding  a  Community  licence  were  permitted  to  temporarily  operate 
services17  within  other  Member  States  without  having  to  be  established  in  that  State.  The 
Regulation  did  not  define  “temporarily”  and  in  practice  left  the  definition  to  each  Member 
State.  This  resulted  in  inconsistent  interpretations  across  Member  States.  Operators  reported 
that  the  lack  of  cabotage  as  part  of  an  international  regular  service  was  partly  because  a 
number of Member States had in practice banned all cabotage operations. Even if this was not 
the case, cabotage could only be operated on a temporary basis, so cabotage was impossible to 
operate  as  part  of  international  regular  services  which  were  usually  operated  on  fixed 
timetables over long periods18. 

The rules also provided a safeguard measure that in the event of any serious disturbance of the 
internal market caused by or aggravated by cabotage, the Member State concerned could refer 
the matter to the Commission for consideration but this has never happened. 

The  2009  study  reported  there  were  almost  no  regular  cabotage  services  as  most  Member 
States did not allow cabotage operations in order to protect rail operators, to protect domestic 

(2) if in the past the applicant has not complied with national or international legislation on road transport and in 
particular the conditions and requirements relating to authorizations for international road passenger services 
or  has  committed  serious  breaches  of  legislation  in  regard  to  road  safety,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the 
rules applicable to vehicles and driving and rest periods for drivers; 

(3) if, in the case of an application for renewal of authorization, the conditions of authorization have not been 

complied with. 

(4) if it is shown that the service in question would directly compromise the existence of regular services already 
authorized, except in cases in which the regular services in question are carried out only by a single carrier 
or group of carriers; 

(5)  if  it  is  shown  that  the  said  service  would  seriously  affect  the  viability  of  a  comparable  rail  service  on  the 

direct sections concerned, or 

(6) if it appears that the operation of services covered by the application is aimed only at the most lucrative of the 

services existing on the links concerned. 

The fact that an operator offers lower prices than are offered by other road or rail transporters or the fact that the 
link in question is already operated by other road or rail carriers may not in itself constitute justification for 
rejecting the application. 

16 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment SEC(2007) 636/2 

17 Special regular services, regular services provided they were not urban or suburban services and that the route 

is part of an international service; and occasional services 

18 Study on Passenger Transport by Coach in Europe, prepared by Steer Davies Gleave for the Commission, July 

2009 

7 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
coach operators or because of concerns about the lack of oversight of international operators. 
The  impact  of  cabotage  on  national  markets  was  very  small  with  cabotage  operations  being 
carried out mainly in adjacent Member States.  

For  occasional  services  one  of  the  main  reasons  why  non-resident  carriers  occupy  a  small 
share  is  that  cabotage  had  to  be  on  a  temporary  basis.  If  the  carrier  wanted  to  operate 
effectively  in  another  market  it  needs  to  operate  services  frequently.  To  do  this  it  needs  to 
establish itself in the Member State. 

For  regular  services  Member  States  were  able  to  block  the  operation  of  cabotage  services 
through  their  right  to  refuse  authorisation  for  the  operation  of  international  regular  services 
that cross their territory. However, even if Member States did not block the service, cabotage 
services  were  limited  as  they  could  only  be  operated  on  a  “temporary”  basis  whilst 
international regular services usually operate over long periods. 

2.2.5.  Enforcement and cooperation between Member States 

Regulation  684/92  provided  for  the  mutual  assistance  by  Member  States.  This  included 
exchange  of  information  on  breaches  of  Community  rules  applicable  to  the  international 
carriage  of  passengers  and  on  penalties  imposed  on  own  carriers  in  respect  of  breaches 
committed in the territory of another Member State.  

However cooperation between Member States never fully developed and many contributions 
received during the public consultation19 exercise pointed out the need for applying correctly 
the  existing  rules  and  having  them  enforced  properly20.  The  main  problem  was  that 
infringements committed by operators outside their Member State of establishment were only 
in isolated cases reported by Member States where the infringement took place as required by 
Article 16 of Regulation 684/92 and very rarely resulted in a sanction imposed by the Member 
State  of  establishment  of  the  carrier.  The  failure  to  exchange  information  and  report 
infringements  was  prejudicial  to  road  safety  and  fair  competition  as  operators  had  fewer 
incentives to correctly comply with the rules.  

2.2.6.  Modal Split 

In terms of the modal split of total land-based passenger transport, in 2011 car journeys were 
by  far  the  dominant  mode  accounting  for  73%  of  all  internal  EU‑28  pkm  (passenger 
kilometres). Between 2000 and 2011, there was a strong shift from buses and railways to cars. 
The modal share of bus and coach in 2011 was 8.2% of total passenger transport with a 9.2% 
modal share of passenger transport on land21. 

Figure 5: Modal shares of passenger kilometres 2011 

19 Summary of contributions received by the Commission in response to the consultation paper, 16 October 2006 

20 Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the 

market for coach and bus services (Recast) 10102/07 Brussels 10 July 2007 

21 EEA Report No 11/2013 TERM 2013: transport indicators tracking progress towards environmental targets in 

Europe, European Environment Agency, 2013 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Modal split of 
passenger transport 
(%) - 2011  

2%  1% 

1% 

6% 

8% 

9% 

73% 

Passenger Cars

Air

Buses & Coaches

Railways

Powered 2-
wheelers

Modal split of 
passenger 
transport on land 
(%) - 2011  

7%  2% 2% 
9% 

80% 

Passenger Cars

Buses & Coaches

Railways

Powered 2-
wheelers

2.2.7.  Terminals 

Terminals  are  used  to  assemble  and  disperse  passengers  as  well  as  acting  as  a  location  to 
change  coach  and  to  change  mode.  Terminals  are  of  greater  importance  for  regular  coach 
services than for special regular services of occasional coach services. Special regular services 
are  generally  based  around  the  school  or  workplace  concerned  and  occasional  services  ae 
usually specified by the procurer of the service. 

The 2009 study reported that regular service operators had indicated that access to terminals 
was  a  significant  issue  for  the  operation  of  international  regular  services  to/from  other 
Member States.  For example in  Poland, where practically all the terminals  were owned and 
managed by the dominant bus operator, there were complaints of discriminatory treatment of 
operators. 

In two specific cases (Germany and Greece) the availability of terminal infrastructure was not 
a  problem  due  to  the  overarching  legislation  preventing  access  to  the  market  for  national 
regular services. 

3.  METHODOLOGY  

3.1.  Data sources 

3.1.1.  Baseline 

The  main  sources  used  to  define  the  baseline  in  this  evaluation  are  the  underlying  Impact 
Assessment22 and the Study of Passenger Transport by Coach 200923. 

3.1.2.  Fact Finding Studies 

The  ex-post  evaluation  builds  on  the  findings  of  the  "Comprehensive  study  on  passenger 
transport  by  coach  in  Europe24"  (the  study),  prepared  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  for  the 

22 SEC(2007)635/3 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. 

23  Study  on  Passenger  Transport  by  Coach  in  Europe,  July  2009  prepared  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  for  the 

European Commission  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
European  Commission  in  2016.  The  study  provides  a  thorough  review  and  analysis  of  the 
European  coach  industry,  including  national  long  and  medium  distance  regular  services, 
international regular services, special regular services and occasional transport. It establishes a 
comprehensive and comparative overview of the current situation of the coach industry in the 
EU  through  an  analysis  of  trends  and  possible  future  developments  in  respect  of  key  EU 
priorities: efficient mobility, co-modality, fair competition and social aspects.  

It builds on the work and findings of the "Study on passenger transport by coach in Europe" 
prepared  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  for  the  European  Commission  in  2009.  It  focuses  on  the 
relevant regulatory framework –including both legislative and administrative practices – of all 
28 Member States, including key elements on the structure and operation of the sector and the 
provided  services  in  each  of  the  Member  States.  It  provides  information  on  the  coach 
transport  sector,  its  characteristics,  its  segmentation,  its  needs  and  the  challenges  it  faces  in 
the current economic, legal and social environment. 

Ten case studies  were carried out as  part  of the study. The eight Member States (Germany, 
Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and UK) previously investigated as part of the 
2009  study  were  included  to  enable  investigation  of  the  key  changes  in  their  respective 
markets during the intervening period. In addition, the markets in France and Lithuania were 
investigated to ensure the widest possible range of experience.  

The  case  studies  demonstrate  how  alternative  market  models  have  influenced  the  level  and 
quality of service provided as well as the choice available to passengers. The case studies are 
supplemented  by  a  qualitative  assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  regulatory  and  competitive 
environment on the development of coach services together with an assessment of how far the 
level  of  competition  observed  in  different  Member  States  and  on  major  international  routes 
can  be  explained  by  the  market  models  and  regulatory  framework  and  anti-competitive 
behaviour. 

The  consultation  process  engaged  all  the  identified  stakeholder  groups  and  overall  45%  of 
those  approached  during  the  fact  finding  study  replied.  The  approach  to  stakeholder 
engagement in the study involved telephone interviews using questionnaires covering all 28 
Member States  in  order to  understand the issues, identify the relevant stakeholders, identify 
experts, collect data and find sources of information. This was followed by the detailed case 
studies,  which  built  on  the  information  obtained  in  the  previous  stage  through  face-to-face 
interviews with a number of stakeholders in each of the selected countries in order to obtain 
more specific and detailed information. 

3.1.3.  Open public consultation 

This ex-post evaluation is performed back-to-back with an impact assessment and is covered 
by a single common open public consultation25. The open public consultation was carried out 
by  the  Commission  between  the  14  December  2016  and  15  March  2017.  The  open  public 
consultation was open to everyone and it comprised of two questionnaires, one for the general 
public  published  in  all  24  official  EU  languages  and  a  more  specialised  one  for  key 
stakeholders available in English.  

The  open  public  consultation  provided  the  general  public  and  stakeholders  with  the 
opportunity to express their views on all elements relevant to the functioning of the internal 

24 Comprehensive Study on Passenger Transport by Coach in Europe 2016 prepared by Steer Davies Gleave for 

the European Commission 

25 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/consultations/1073-2009-review-2016_en 

10 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
market in road passenger transport and asked for feedback on the initial problems identified 
during  the  ex-post  evaluation  and  the  main  elements  of  the  impact  assessment,  i.e.  the 
problem  definition  including  respective  drivers  and  root  causes,  the  objectives  of  the 
initiatives, the issue of subsidiarity and the EU dimension to the problem, the policy options 
and  their  likely  impacts.  A  total  of  18  complete  or  partial  responses  were  received  for  the 
general  questionnaire,  mostly  from  citizens/consumers  and  companies,  as  shown  in  Table  2 
below. 

Table 2: Classification of stakeholders responding to the questionnaire - general 
Percentage of 
responses 

Number of 
responses 

Stakeholder category 

A company 

A non-governmental authority (e.g. NGO) 

A road passenger transport worker (e.g. driver) 

A citizen/consumer 

An academic 

Other 

Total 

7 

2 

0 

8 

0 

1 

39% 

11% 

0% 

44% 

0% 

6% 

18 

100% 

A total of 153 complete or partial responses were received for the specialised questionnaire, 
mostly  from companies engaged in the transport chain and  non-governmental authorities. A 
breakdown of respondents is provided in the Table 3 below. 

Table 3: Classification of stakeholders responding to the questionnaire - specialised 

Stakeholder category 

Company engaged in transport chain 

EU Governmental authority 

A non-governmental authority (e.g. NGO) 

Regulatory authority (e.g. national transport regulator, national competition 
authority) 

Enforcement authority 

A road passenger transport worker (e.g. driver) 

A citizen/consumer 

An academic 

Other 

Total 

11 

Number of 
responses 

Percentage of 
responses 

68 

3 

28 

7 

3 

17 

1 

1 

25 

153 

44% 

2% 

18% 

5% 

2% 

11% 

1% 

1% 

16% 

100% 

 
 
 
The outcome of the open public consultation carried out by DG MOVE is the main source of 
qualitative data and complements the statistical data gathered in the fact finding study.    

3.1.4.  Infringements and complaints  

A review of infringements and complaints regarding the Regulation was conducted. The aim 
of the review was to collect information on the problems with the application, interpretation 
and enforcement of the Regulation and to identify why these difficulties may have arisen. The 
information  was  used  to  assess  the  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  Regulation  whilst 
answering the evaluation questions.  

3.1.5.  Information from Member States  

The  reports  submitted  by  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Article  28  of  the  Regulation 
provide  information  on  the  number  of  authorisations  for  regular  services  issued  as  the  total 
number  of  authorisations  at  the  end  of  the  reporting  period.  The  reports  also  provide 
information  on  the  number  of  carriers  holding  a  Community  licence  and  the  number  of 
certified true copies corresponding to the number of vehicles in circulation on that date.  

3.1.6.  Desk research 

The information gathered within the framework of the study and the open public consultation 
was complemented by additional desk research. Primarily, the information gathered by desk 
research was used to verify the evidence from the other data sources, ensuring the robustness 
of  findings  and  an  unbiased  approach.  This  data  collection  process  was  also  carried  out  to 
better  understand  the  underlying  problems  and  to  respond  to  any  information  gaps  whilst 
addressing the evaluation questions. 

3.2.  Evaluation methodology  

The data collected was used to respond to the evaluation questions. All the analytical findings 
constitute the basis for the assessment on how the Regulation has scored on the five defined 
evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value.  

The evaluation process was assisted by a Steering Group composed of the representatives of 
DG  CLIMA,  DG  EMPL,  DG  ENV  and  DG  GROW  as  well  as  the  Legal  Service  and  the 
Secretariat General. DG COMP was also consulted. 

The  Steering  Group  steered  and  monitored  the  progress  of  the  exercise,  ensuring  the 
necessary quality, impartiality and usefulness of the evaluation. Being composed of members 
from  different  functions  and  having  the  necessary  mix  of  knowledge  and  experience,  the 
Steering Group brought together a range of different perspectives and provided the necessary 
input, in particular where the evaluation touched different policy areas.  

3.3.  Limitations – robustness of quantitative findings 

The evaluation was limited in the delivery of robust quantitative findings due to the lack of 
available  and  comparable  statistical  data  on  the  coach  and  bus  sector  in  different  Member 
States, and the difficulty to disentangle the impact of the economic and financial crisis and the 
impact of national measures.  

The  scope,  quality  and  availability  of  data  vary  widely  across  Member  States.  There  are 
inconsistencies  across  Member  States  in  the  definition  of  services  (regular,  international 
regular, special regular  and occasional) and the distinction between bus (usually  urban) and 

12 

 
 
 
 
coach services (usually interurban). Vehicle-kilometres and passenger-kilometres are reported 
in  different  and  mutually  inconsistent  ways  by  different  Member  States.  The  statistics 
available  at  the  European  and  Member  State  levels  frequently  refer  to  all  bus  and  coach 
services  together.  While  some  statistics  are  available  at  an  aggregate  level  (and  usually 
conflate both bus and coach operations) there are few statistics available for sub-sections of 
the market, e.g. medium or long distance coach services.   

The  quality  and  availability  of  data  and  statistics  pertaining  to  aspects  of  the  Regulation  is 
often limited. Although the information required to be reported under Article 28(1) & (2) of 
the Regulation is clear, the start and finish dates of the reporting period are not provided and 
no  deadline  for  the  submission  of  the  report  is  mentioned.  This  has  resulted  in  inconsistent 
reporting periods being used and reported by Member States. Even if good and reliable data 
were  available  on  the  number  of  passengers  and  the  amount  of  passenger-kilometres 
concerning  cabotage  operations,  there  are  few  statistics  available  for  sub-sections  of  the 
market (e.g. medium or long distance coach services) to put the cabotage data into context. 

In general, individual Members States use a variety of different methods to collect data and 
operate under different assumptions. The data is often not comparable or it may not reflect the 
real situation as it is based on permissions (Community licences and authorisations for regular 
services) granted rather than either services operated in the present or the extent to which the 
services are used.   

To address this limitation the available data was examined to determine the extent to which it 
could be used. It was reviewed for inconsistent or implausible values and educated estimates 
were  made  where  deemed  possible.  In  the  course  of  the  fact  finding  study  the  consultants 
were requested to disaggregate the heterogeneous Member State data, which includes all bus 
and coach service, to the extent possible and to use extrapolation where appropriate. 

Between  2008  and  2012  the  impact  of  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  was  evident  in 
passenger  transport  demand  and  traffic  volumes  during  this  period  dropped  significantly  in 
many countries. The impact of the crisis on the coach and bus market masks the full effects of 
the Regulation. For this reason, the evaluation compares percentage share and growth rates of 
different modes rather than absolute values. 

The  international  market  for  coach  and  bus  services  is  strongly  affected  by  the  national 
markets.  Liberalisation  of  national  markets  for  bus  and  coach  services  may  have  a  greater 
impact on the number of international services than pan-European legislation alone. It is not 
possible to eliminate the effect of national markets on the international market. For this reason 
it was decided to ask stakeholders during the study to provide a qualitative assessment of the 
effects of the Regulation on the international market for bus and coach services.   

4.  MARKET CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT AND STATE OF PLAY 

4.1.  Market context and development  

The  international  market  for  coach  and  bus  services,  although  small  compared  to  national 
markets,  plays  an  important  role.  Indeed  it  provides  collective  transport  which,  as  a 
sustainable alternative to private cars, can contribute to reducing emissions from transport and 
to improving accessibility to isolated and low population density regions.  Occasional service 
have  been  liberalised  while  regular  services  are  still  subject  to  an  authorisation  procedure 
prompted by concerns over safety and protection of passengers’ rights.  

The  data  available  does  not  allow  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  overall  market  size. 
Nevertheless,  the  study  estimated  that  international  coach  passenger  numbers  grew  by  40-

13 

 
 
60%  and  international  coach  passenger-kilometres  grew  by  between  0-40%,  between  2009 
and 2014. These estimates suggest that the average international coach trip is getting shorter. 

The study indicates that there has been consistent growth in the market since 2010. The data 
available  does  not  allow  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  overall  market  size,  but  it  can  be 
estimated to be several tens of millions of passengers per year travelling, on average several 
hundred kilometres each. This stronger growth in international markets relative to the overall 
market  suggests  that  operators  have  responded  to  opportunities  provided  by  international 
liberalisation. 

In 2013, 2 years after the application of the Regulation, the bus and coach sector was 8.1% of 
passenger  transport  and  9.2%  of  surface  passenger  transport  within  the  EU26.  Although  the 
sectors share of the surface passenger transport market has grown by 0.4% since 2009 these 
high level statistics do not accurately describe the types of coach and bus services within the 
scope of this Regulation and due to the limitations described in section 4.3. it is not possible 
to  use  them  to  determine  the  size  and  trends  of  the  international  market  for  coach  and  bus 
services.  

The number of enterprises operating bus and coach services in both national and international 
markets  (not  including  urban  or  suburban  services)  grew  by  11%  since  2011  to  43,352  in 
2013.  Over  the  same  period  turnover  grew  by  4.0%  EUR  35,234  million  and  employment 
decreased by 4.0% to 497,800 employees27. In the study employment levels are estimated at 
570,000 in 2008 decreasing to 550,000 in 2014 with a margin of error of ±10%.   

Although  the  time  periods  are  different  it  is  notable  that  both  sources  of  employment 
information  show  decreasing  employment  levels  and  the  trends  remained  stable  for  the 
periods  with  no  visible  change  after  the  4  December  2011  when  the  Regulation  became 
applicable.  This  decline  in  employment  may  conceal  a  mixture  of  growing  volumes  and 
increasing productivity.  

4.2. 

State of play 

The Regulation lays down the rules for the authorisation of regular services. The Regulation 
also contains rules on cabotage operations, enforcement and penalties for infringements of its 
provisions, as well as rules covering administrative cooperation between Member States. The 
Regulation has applied since the 4 December 2011 and the state of implementation of these 
provisions is analysed below. 

4.2.1.  Community licences and authorisations for regular services  

The  Regulation  introduces  a  more  harmonised  and  standardised  Community  licence  and 
certified  true  copy  of  Community  licence  in  order  to  address  the  problems  regarding  the 
authenticity of these documents.  

26 EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2015 (Eurostat, 2015) 

27  Estimated  using  EUROSTAT  structural  business  statistics  "other  passenger  land  transport  n.e.c.  (not 
elsewhere  categorised)".  It  is  cautioned  that  this  classification  of  economic  activity  is  indicative  as  it 
includes more forms of land transport than coach. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
At the end of 2014 there were a total of 35,659 carriers possessing Community licences in the 
EU-28  and  294,425  certified  true  copies  in  circulation28.  There  were  a  total  of  2,412  valid 
authorisations in the EU at the end of 2014.  

Member  States  typically  issue  Community  licences  for  periods  of  5  years  or  10  years.  The 
total number of Community licences in the EU was on a slow upward trend between 2010 and 
2014 with the amount of licences increasing by 3%. Over the same period the total number of 
certified true copies of Community licences increased by 15%. 

Overall,  no  relevant  problems  were  raised  by  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the  Community 
licences. No issues have been identified with respect to the harmonised control documents, the 
implementation of which was meant to make it easier (and therefore quicker) to check licenses 
of non-resident carriers. However, with no comprehensive data on the number of cross-border 
services, or on the origin and destination of passengers using them, the study found that it is 
not possible to estimate the likely value of travel time savings. 

The trend in the numbers of Community licences and certified true copies between 2010 and 
2014  indicates  that  most  of  the  growth  has  come  from  expansion  and/or  consolidation  of 
operators, rather than an increase in the number of operators and that the sector has remained 
relatively stable in the face of recession and an indication of the responsiveness and flexibility 
of commercially focused operators across the EU. 

The evidence suggests consistent growth in the international market since 2010 and against a 
backdrop of recession and slow recovery this indicates that international market liberalisation 
has supported the development of competitive and responsive international coach services. 

The study found evidence of market entry and competition following the introduction of the 
Regulation (e.g. Flixbus rapid expansion into multiple markets along international corridors), 
although this is largely anecdotal and insufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship. 

Reports from Member States,  submitted in  accordance with  Article 28(2) of the Regulation, 
indicate  significant  growth  in  the  number  of  authorisations  issued  and  the  number  of  valid 
authorisations. In 2013 Member States reported issuing 493 authorisations with 1331 valid at 
the end of the year. In 2014 the number of authorisations issued increased to 904 with 2412 
authorisations valid at year end. 

No  relevant  problems  were  raised  by  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the  authorisation  procedure 
for regular services.  The study found that a number of stakeholders referred to delays with the 
application  process  but  none  provided  evidence  of  a  negative  impact  of  these  delays  e.g.  to 
either coaches or staff being kept idle and wholly unproductive. 

4.2.2.  Rules applicable to cabotage operations 

The Regulation defines cabotage operations as either national road passenger services for hire 
and  reward  carried  out  on  a  temporary  basis  by  a  carrier  in  a  host  Member  State,  or  the 
picking up and setting down of passengers within the same Member State, in the course of a 
regular international service. 

There have been very few (24) cabotage operations reported on regular international services 
in  201429.  There  has  only  been  one  report  of  cabotage  during  a  special  regular  service  and 
only a few reports of cabotage during occasional services.  

28 A number of countries phased out national licences and (gradually) replaced them with Community licences. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
No  relevant  problems  were  raised  by  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the  rules  applicable  to 
cabotage  operations.  However,  the  report  did  indicate  that  national  regulatory  frameworks 
may  impact  on  the  approval  of  cabotage  operations.  For  example,  in  201330  the  French 
competition  authority  (Autorité  de  la  concurrence)  argued  that  the  system  for  authorising 
cabotage in France was inefficient and lacked transparency and, given that the French state is 
also the main shareholder of SNCF, proposed an independent regulator for the coach sector. 

4.2.3.  Enforcement and cooperation between Member States 

Consistent  information  on the enforcement effort by Member States of compliance with  the 
relevant  provisions  of  the  Regulation  was  very  difficult  to  gather,  only  15  Member  States 
answered to the requests for this information within the study. Reporting required under the 
Regulation does not require Member States to provide information on enforcement operations 
or to collect and submit statistics on controls or penalties. 

The  provisions  on  mutual  assistance  of  the  Regulation  require  Member  States  to  grant 
reciprocal  assistance  in  the  application  and  monitoring  of  the  Regulation,  and  to  exchange 
information via the national contact points.  

No evidence was found to indicate that the enhanced legal provisions obliging Member States 
to act when requested to do so by another Member State when a carrier to whom it delivered a 
Community  licence  commits  an  infringement  in  another  country  is  being  applied  in  any 
Member State. 

4.2.4.  Other effects of the Regulation 

Some stakeholders voiced concerns over the potential for operators to use vehicles that carry 
less than nine persons, including the driver, in order to avoid the application of the Regulation 
and the other legal acts concerning road passenger transport. However there is very little data 
to support or refute claims of the use of smaller vehicles. 

The study indicates that a critical factor to the provision of new international services can be 
more  general  national  liberalisation  in  one  or  more  of  the  Member  states  involved.  Once 
national  markets  reach  a  "critical  mass",  the  barriers  to  operating  international  services  are 
relatively  small  and  it  appears  that  national  liberalisation  has  generated  considerable  new 
activity  within  the  European  coach  sector.  Coach  operators  and  representative  associations 
have  called  for  further  market  opening  in  long  distance  collective  land  transport  in  EU 
Member States.31  

Member  States  have  adopted  a  number  of  approaches  to  how  national  markets,  where  they 
exist,  are  regulated,  categorised  and  monitored.  In  different  Member  States,  coach  and  bus 
service may variously be liberalised, a national responsibility, or a regional responsibility with 
varying degrees of liberalisation in different regions or urban areas. There is a general trend 
toward  liberalisation  of  national  markets  across  the  EU.  Members  States  that  have  recently 
lifted  restrictions  on  access  to  the  market  for  national  regular  services  have  witnessed 

29  Reported  by  Member  States  to  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  Article  28.2  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 

1073/2009 

30  Autorité  de  la  concurrence,  avis  n°  14-A-05  du  27  février  2014  relatif  au  fonctionnement  concurrentiel  du 

marché du transport interrégional régulier par autocar 

31  Proposal  for  a  2015-2025  Action  Programme  on  doubling  the  use  of  collective  land  transport  in  the  EU, 

European Citizens Mobility Forum 2015 

16 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
significant  growth  in  the  demand  for  interurban  bus  and  coach  services.  In  Germany,  since 
liberalisation  on  1st  January  2013,  the  demand  for  interurban  bus  and  coach  services  has 
continued to expand. The number of passengers almost doubled in 2014 to 16 million, i.e. 12 
million  (+80%)  national  and  4  million  (+160%)  international.  In  Italy,  after  approximately 
one year of full liberalisation, services had grown by 38%. More recently, in February 2016, 
France has reported that in the first six months of its liberalisation of interurban services 1,300 
direct jobs were created and about 1,500,000 passengers were transported throughout France. 

The regulatory frameworks for national coach services vary widely between Member States. 
The regulatory frameworks also vary within Member States that have a regional, provincial or 
county  level  of  government  where  there  is  often  a  subdivision  of  responsibility  between 
national  and  other  authorities.  The  frameworks  can  vary  between  regions,  within  regions 
between municipalities, and within municipalities between coach terminals or even between 
bus stops.  

Emerging evidence from Germany32 and France33 suggests that the demand for coach and bus 
services, especially regular services, has led to growth in passenger numbers both from new 
users  and  through  mode  shift.  This  has  resulted  in  increased  price  competition  and  product 
differentiation.  However,  it  has  also  revealed  a  shortage  of  terminal  capacity  in  certain 
Member  States  such  as  Germany  where  stakeholders  have  reported  that  the  rapid  growth  of 
services since liberalisation has exposed a shortage of capacity at existing terminals. Limited 
capacity  was  also  revealed  in  Sweden  and  the  UK  where  main  terminals  were  found  to  be 
congested which limits the scope for new entry.  

Finally,  the  study  revealed  a  barrier  to  entry  based  on  the  issue  of  access  to  terminals. 
Discriminatory  access  to  terminals  is  reported  by  the  study  in  Austria,  Czech  Republic, 
France,  Croatia  and  the  UK.  In  some  cases  an  operator  may  be  denied  access  to  a  terminal 
owned or controlled by an operator of coach or rail services with which it may compete.  This 
distorts  the  market  for  regular  services  as  the  denial  of  access  to  terminals  interferes  with 
service  patterns  and  prevents  coach  and  bus  services  from  functioning  effectively  and  from 
functioning with  other modes of collective  passenger transport as  sustainable alternatives to 
private car use. 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.  Relevance  

Question 1: To what extent is the opening of the market for the international carriage of 
passengers  and  for  cabotage  operations  as  introduced  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/2009 
necessary  and  sufficient  to  address  the  pre-existing  problems  of  fragmented  internal 
market,  discrimination,  unnecessary  administrative  burden,  and  sub-optimal  mix  of 
passenger transport modes? 

The assessment of relevance analyses the objectives of the Regulation and how well they still 
match  current  needs  and  problems.  It  also  identifies  if  there  is  any  mismatch  in  the 
relationship between the problems and the objectives of the intervention. This relationship is 
illustrated in Figure 1.  

32 See https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2015/02/PD15_043_461.html 

33 See http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/tourisme-transport/021732923777-six-mois-apres-la-loi-macron-

15-million-de-voyages-par-autocar-1203693.php 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  EU  separate  national  markets  still  exist  for  bus  and  coach  services  and  the  type  of 
services  which  have  been  liberalised  and  the  extent  of  liberalisation  vary  widely  between 
Member  States.  Cabotage34  is  a  special  category  of  national  operations  and  is  explicitly 
provided  for  in  TFEU  Article  91(1)(b)  as  one  of  the  elements  to  be  laid  down  in  order  to 
implement a common transport policy. The objective is to create a liberalised road transport 
market by removing all restrictions that are based on the nationality of carriers or the fact that 
they  are  established  in  a  different  Member  State  to  the  one  in  which  they  are  providing  the 
service.  Cabotage  operations  are  defined  in  Article  2(7)35  and  the  conditions  for  performing 
cabotage operations for each form of service are prescribed in Chapter V of the Regulation. 
The  targeting  of  Chapter  V  of  the  Regulation  on  Cabotage  means  that  the  provisions  are 
focused  on  the  issue  of  cabotage  and  thus  can  be  considered  appropriate  in  that  sense.  The 
provision  of passenger cabotage  operations on international regular  services  is authorised  as 
long as it is performed as part of an international service and does not meet the needs of an 
urban centre or conurbation, and the transport needs between it and the surrounding areas are 
not authorised cabotage operations. 

The  Regulation  provides  Member  States  the  flexibility  to  satisfy  specific  market  demand.  It 
permits bilateral and multilateral agreements on the further liberalisation of and in particular 
as regards the authorisation system and the simplification or abolition of control  documents, 
especially in border regions. There is one example, from 2003, of Member States using this 
possibility  to  further  open  the  market.  Denmark,  Finland,  Norway  and  Sweden  signed  an 
agreement  abolishing  the  requirement  for  the  journey  form  when  performing  occasional 
service in the Nordic countries. Stakeholders from these Member States have reported that the 
abolition  of  the  journey  form  has  reduced  the  administrative  burden  without  causing  any 
additional problems. 

Discrimination of non–national providers 
By  abolishing  most  of  the  grounds  for  refusal  relating  to  the  relevant  market  (with  the 
exception that the service would seriously affect the viability of a comparable public service 
obligation)  and  replacing  them  with  grounds  for  refusal  attributable  to  the  applicant,  the 
Regulation  tried  to  address  the  problem  of  discrimination  for  the  international  carriage  of 
passengers.  

The  risk  of  indirect  discrimination  was  addressed  through  the  standardisation  and 
harmonisation of control documents. This aimed to make enforcement quicker when dealing 
with non-national coaches by simplifying the work of enforcement bodies. It removed doubt 
about the validity or authenticity of documents which leads to efficiency gains for operators 
and enforcement bodies. 

The establishment of the conditions for performing cabotage operations enabled non-resident 
carriers to operate national road passenger services. However, as described in section 4.2.2., 
the  cabotage  penetration  rate,  which  means  the  share  of  cabotage  transport  in  total  national 
transport of a country, has remained significantly low and does not appear to have increased 
as expected due to the implementation of the Regulation. 

34  The  provision  of  services  by  non-resident  carriers  within  another  Member  State  is  normally  known  as 

"cabotage". 

35  ‘cabotage  operations’  means  either:  national  road  passenger  services  for  hire  and  reward  carried  out  on  a 
temporary basis by a carrier in a host Member State, or the picking up and setting down of passengers within 
the same Member State, in the course of a regular international service, in compliance with the provisions of 
this Regulation, provided that it is not the principal purpose of the service; 

18 

 
 
                                                 
Member States often still require establishment in their markets, even after liberalisation, and 
incumbent  operators  still  benefit  from  direct  restrictions  on  access  to  national  markets  for 
regular services.  

Taken  together,  the  problem  of  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  or  place  of 
establishment remains relevant but the objective has not fully addressed the problem.   

Unnecessary Administrative Burden 
The  opening  of  the  market  has  reduced  the  administrative  burden  associated  with  the 
authorisation procedure. The Regulation has made the authorisation regime more transparent 
and  effectively  reduced  the  regulatory  costs  for  operators  and  authorising  authorities.  The 
study estimates that the standardised authorisation procedure may have reduced the operators’ 
workload of completing applications to authorising authorities by the equivalent of between 
three  and  twenty-one  full  time  equivalent  members  of  staff.  Furthermore,  the  Regulation 
simplified and standardised the Community licence as described in section  4.2.1 in order to 
reduce  regulatory  costs  and  delays,  especially  at  road  side  checks.  The  disruption  to  coach 
operators and their passengers from inspections should be less, with potential for both journey 
time and reliability improvements. Due to the lack of comprehensive data on the number of 
international services it is not possible to estimate the likely value of travel savings.  

However, there is evidence that administrative costs incurred by operators can be material and 
that  administrative  processes  can  delay  entry.  The  requirements  for  authorisation  of 
international  services  vary  significantly  by  Member  State  and  operators  would  welcome 
simpler  and  more  efficient  mechanisms  for  authorising  new  services.  It  is  clear  that  there 
remains a need to address the problem of unnecessary administrative burden.  

Sub-optimal mix of Transport Modes 
The  performance  of  coach  and  bus  services  has  remained  unsatisfactory.  The  objective  of 
promoting bus and coach transport as a sustainable alternative to individual car transport was 
developed  to  encourage  a  modal  shift  from  passenger  car  to  coach  services  and  therefore 
address  the  problem  of  sub-optimal  mix  of  transport  modes.  Although  there  are  some 
indications  of  a  growth  in  the  use  of  bus  and  coach  services  for  international  journeys  the 
inter-urban coach and bus sector as a whole has failed to grow at a rate comparable to that of 
other transport modes the mix has not significantly changed.  

Encouraging a modal shift from car to coach is a challenging objective and appears to have 
been  over  ambitious.  From  a  passenger’s  perspective,  travel  by  car  is  more  flexible  and 
convenient  (since  travel  times  are  not  constrained  by  a  published  schedule)  and  typically 
faster (since a car driver can select the quickest route and does not need to make intermediate 
stops) so changing modes would require a considerable behavioural change. Furthermore, the 
results  of  a  Eurobarometer  survey36  confirms  that  persuading  citizens  who  never  use  coach 
services to consider doing so is a considerable challenge. One fifth (20%) of those who never 
travel by coach actually say that no change to any aspect of coach travel would make them 
more likely to use coach services.  

The objective taken in addressing the problem of sub-optimal mix of transport modes appears 
not  to  sufficiently  address  the  needs  of  citizens.  Whilst  it  is  important  to  acknowledge  that 
there  is  a  sub-optimal  mix  of  transport  modes  it  is  suggested  that  the  main  problem  is  that 
citizens  with  little  or  no  access  to  cars  or  other  transport  modes,  those  that  live  in 
disadvantaged  regions and those with reduced  mobility  all suffer from  poor  connectivity. A 

36 Special Eurobarometer 457 Report Coach Services March 2017 

19 

 
 
                                                 
revised  objective  should  be  matched  to  the  needs  of  these  citizens  who  are  deprived  of 
connectivity. This should result in new services supplementing existing bus and rail networks 
and  offering  an  attractive  combination  of  alternative  modes.  It  is  suggested  that  a  revised 
objective would be more relevant to address the needs of citizens without cars or who have 
little  or  no  access  to  other  transport  modes  so  that  they  have  an  attractive  combination  of 
alternative modes of transport and therefore improving their access to employment, education 
and leisure opportunities across the EU. 

Additional problems 
During  the  course  of  the  evaluation  an  additional  problem  was  identified  that  is  not  being 
addressed by the Regulation. As described in section 4.2.4, carriers are being discriminated by 
terminal operators and do not have equal access to terminal infrastructure. The study indicates 
that  Stakeholders  in  a  number  of  Member  States  have  complained  of  potential,  or  actual, 
abuse of dominance to limit access to terminals. In the public consultation 59% (90 of 153) of 
respondents  agreed  that  this  is  a  problem,  with  39%  (59  of  153)  considering  it  a  major 
problem. The lack of access to existing terminal infrastructure results in market distortions as 
they distorts service patterns (of the 39 companies that responded 31 consider it has a negative 
impact on the number of international and can increase costs for operators and passengers and 
30 consider it has a negative impact on national services) and 74% (23 of 31) of companies 
consider that this results in administrative costs for carriers.  Another impact of this problem 
is insufficient integration of coaches with other transport modes.  

Conclusion 
Based  on  the  2011  White  Paper  as  well  as  the  above  analysis,  it  can  be  concluded  that 
fragmented internal market for coach and bus services remains a problem today. Whilst there 
is no evidence of any significant differences in the rules on access to the international market, 
the persistence of separate national markets impede integration and undermine efficiency by 
imposing  high  administrative  burdens  on  coach  and  bus  services.  Hence,  the  objective  of 
opening  the  market  for  the  international  carriage  of  passengers  and  for  cabotage  is  still 
relevant to the problems identified.  

The  different  rules  on  access  to  national  markets  in  Member  States,  the  requirement  for 
establishment in the Member State and the low number of cabotage operations indicates that 
the  objective  to  open  the  market  remains  relevant  to  address  the  problem  of  non-national 
providers  being  discriminated  by  Member  States.  The  opening  of  the  market  remains  a 
relevant objective to reduce the administrative burden that results from what was considered a 
cumbersome authorisation regime.  

The objective taken in addressing the problem of sub-optimal mix of transport modes appears 
not  to  sufficiently  address  the  needs  of  citizens.  It  may  be  more  relevant  to  enhance  the 
accessibility of coach and  bus  services to  address the needs of citizens without cars or  who 
have  little  or  no  access  to  other  transport  modes.  The  provision  of  attractive  alternatives 
would  alter  the  mix  of  transport  modes  and  as  coaches  and  buses  are  the  lowest  emitter  of 
CO2 it would continue to fit with the European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility37. 

In summary, the original operational objectives of the Regulation are still relevant to meet the 
problems of a fragmented internal market, discrimination and unnecessary burden. However 
objective addressing the sub-optimal mix of transport modes is not sufficiently addressing the 
needs of citizens and should be revised. The regulation works alongside other legislation as 

37  A  European Strategy  for  Low-Emission  Mobility {SWD(2016) 244 final}  Brussels,  20.7.2016,  COM(2016) 

501 final 

20 

 
 
                                                 
part  of  an  integrated  approach  (see  section  5.4)  and  their  objectives  support  the  EU  goals. 
Unequal access to terminals was identified as a problem that is not addressed by the original 
objectives.  

Question 2: Are the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 still relevant considering 
the  evolution  of  the  market,  the  present  transport  policy  priorities  and  the  successive 
enlargements of the EU? 

Transport Policy Priorities 
The  ultimate  aim  of  the  EU  transport  policy  remains  the  creation  of  a  single  European 
transport  area,  to  help  the  EU  stay  competitive  by  optimising  the  performance  of  the  entire 
transport  sector  for  the  benefit  of  all.  Progress  towards  opening  up  the  market  for  road 
passenger transport services has been slow.  The Impact Assessment accompanying the 2011 
White  Paper  on  Transport38  found  that  the  level  of  integration  of  the  EU  transport  market 
remains low in comparison to other parts of the economy and that a genuine EU-wide internal 
market  exists  only  in  air  transport,  while  other  transport  modes,  including  road,  suffer  from 
different  degrees  of  fragmentation  along  national  borders.  It  also  found  that  cross-border 
transport  and  competition  in  national  markets  is  hindered  by  protectionist  regulations  or 
attitudes, often defending the interest of incumbents and restricting foreign operators and new 
market entrants access to national markets. 

As  described  in  the  study,  the  absence  of  applicable  common  EU  rules  for  national  regular 
services has enabled the emergence of different national models and has caused a patchwork 
of  regulatory  frameworks  and  the  persistence  of  a  fragmented  market.  The  objective  of 
opening the market and preventing discrimination therefore remains relevant and fits with the 
deeper and fairer internal market priorities of the Juncker Commission. 

The  2011  White  Paper  describes  the  Commission's  vision  for  a  competitive  and  sustainable 
transport system and the need for the consolidation of large volumes of passengers over long 
distances is publicised. This implies greater use of buses and coaches, rail and air transport for 
passengers i.e. collective transport.  

Although curbing mobility is not an option there are other policy priorities that must also be 
considered, e.g. the greenhouse gas emissions of transport are to be reduced by 60% by 2050 
compared with 1990 levels and the number of road fatalities is to be halved by 2020 compared 
with 2010, with a vision of close to zero road fatalities by 2050. 

The case for greater use of collective transport is reinforced by: the European Energy Union's 
aim of a sustainable, low-carbon and climate friendly economy that is designed to last39; the 
COP 21 Agreement's aim to peak global emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance 
between  man-made  emissions  by  sources  and  removals  by  sinks  of  greenhouse  gases  in  the 
second half of this century; and with the European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility.   

The  2011  White  Paper  and  the  European  Strategy  for  Low-Emission  Mobility  aim  at  an 
efficient  core  network  for  multimodal  intercity  travel  and  transport.  To  develop  the  core 
network  there  is  a  requirement  for  greater  integration  of  the  modal  networks.  For  the 

38 SEC(2011) 358 final, Impact assessment, Accompanying document to the White Paper Roadmap to a Single 
European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, 28.3.2011 

39 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  A  policy  framework  for  climate  and  energy  in  the 
period from 2020 to 2030, /* COM/2014/015 final */ 

21 

 
 
                                                 
integration of bus and coach services into the network these services must have equal and non-
discriminatory access to terminals. As mentioned in Section 6.1., the original objectives of the 
Regulation do not address this problem of discriminatory access to terminals and the lack of 
integration of coach and  bus services into the multi-modal networks may be  a constraint on 
the development of the coach and bus market as well as other forms of collective transport.  

EU enlargement 
Croatia became the 28th Member State on 1 July 2013. This has been the only enlargement of 
the  EU  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation  and  although  its  accession  led  to  the 
growth  on  the  internal  market  and  the  introduction  of  an  additional  national  regulatory 
framework  it  has  had  no  discernible  impact  on  the  relevance  of  the  objectives  of  the 
Regulation.  

Market developments 
As mentioned in section 4.2.4, there has been a general trend toward liberalisation of national 
markets for regular services across the EU. This has resulted in significant growth in demand 
for national and international interurban coach and bus services e.g. Germany40, France41, and 
Italy42. However, the study found that the types of service and the extent of liberalisation have 
continued to vary widely between Member States making it difficult for carriers to exploit the 
full  potential  of  operating  in  an  Internal  Market.  The  public  consultation  indicates  that 
stakeholders consider the patchwork has a significant negative impact on administrative costs 
for carriers, compliance costs for carriers and the number of national regular services.  

These  market  developments  have  resulted  in  new  operators  facing  barriers  to  entry.  It  is 
difficult  to  determine  the  effect  of  these  barriers  because  their  scale  and  impact  vary 
significantly  between  markets  but  the  study  found  clear  evidence  that  the  development  of 
services is being unduly constrained in some markets (AT, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HR, IT, SE, SK 
& UK). 

The  evidence  indicates  that  number  and  diversity  of  regulatory  frameworks  across  the  EU 
deters coach operators from providing international services. This is confirmed by the public 
consultation in which all stakeholder groups agreed that the patchwork has a negative impact 
on the number of international regular services. The majority of all stakeholders in the public 
consultation  also  agreed  that  the  patchwork  has  a  negative  impact  on  administrative  and 
compliance costs.  

The  study  found  that  access  terminals  can  be  a  barrier  to  entry.  The  majority  of  terminals 
provide a range of services and onward connectivity making them particularly attractive and 
important  for  operators of  long-distance  coach services.  It  also  found  evidence  that  in  some 
Member  States  operators  suffered  from  discriminatory  access,  abuse  of  dominance,  or 
constrained capacity when accessing terminals. These restrictions distort service patterns and 
can increase costs. The problems are accentuated in newly liberalised countries (e.g. Germany 
and France) as a result in the increased demand for coach and bus services. The lack of access 

40 Fernbusmarkt wächst weiter: 25 Prozent mehr Linien seit Beginn des Jahres. IGES Institut Derlin 9 November 

2015 www.iges.com 

41 Communiqué de presse N° 1073 www.economie.gouv.fr Paris, le 15 décembre 2015 

42 The liberalisation of Italian long distance bus market. First results, opportunities and threats. Beria P., Laurino 

A., Bertolin A., Grimaldi R. (2015) 

22 

 
 
                                                 
 
to  terminals  restricts  the  use  of  multimodal  connection  platforms  and  may  impede  the 
development  of  an  efficient  core  network  for  intercity  travel.  This  problem  prevents  the 
development of multimodal passenger transport chains and may be constraining the coach and 
bus sector from providing services that would capture modal share from passenger car. 

One  stakeholder  in  the  public  consultation  commented  that  it  is  unclear  how  to  classify 
commercially  viable  on-demand  services  managed  through  an  App  or  through  digital 
platforms  and  that  innovative  services  are  not  able  to  fit  with  the  present  regulatory 
framework. 

Conclusion  
In summary, the original objectives remain relevant as the internal market remains fragmented 
and  there  remains  a  sub-optimal  mix  of  passenger  modes  but  this  problem  needs  to  be 
redefined Although the intervention does not aim at integrating national markets for regular 
services,  the  national  markets  are  recognised  as  a  critical  factor  in  the  provision  of 
international services and the evolution of the market, in terms of different and divergent rules 
on access to national markets in Member States, is a problem that was not previously apparent 
or considered when the intervention was designed.  

The objectives were not aimed at the problem of discrimination in access to terminals. This 
introduces  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  operators  and  hampers  the  possibility  to 
develop an efficient core network for multimodal intercity travel. In the Member States where 
the  networks  of  regular  services  are  restricted  citizens  may  be  denied  access  to  affordable 
services and forced to either curb their mobility or use less efficient (combination of) modes, 
e.g. passenger cars. This is likely to be negatively impacting on the mobility of EU citizens. 
The evolution of the market has made visible the transport needs of citizens as is evident from 
the significant growth in demand witnessed in the recently liberalised Member States but it is 
not clear how new and innovative services, such as on-demand services managed through an 
App or digital platform can fit within the present framework.  

5.2.  Effectiveness  

Question 3: To what extent has the Regulation led to the establishment of a true internal 
market for bus and coach services? 

The establishment of an internal market for coach and bus services involves the removal of 
barriers  to  market  access  and  any  other  technical  and  administrative  barriers  that  generate 
bottlenecks. This also often requires the streamlining of national differences which can cause 
distortions  of  competition.  The  assessment  of  effectiveness  analyses  how  successful  the 
intervention  has  been  in  achieving  or  progressing  towards  the  objective  of  a  true  internal 
market for coach and bus services. 

Progress towards an Internal Market 
Progress towards removing all restrictions on access to the internal market for road passenger 
transport  services  has  remained  slower  than  other  modes  of  passenger  transport  and  also 
slower than road haulage. The following markets remained closed for bus and coach services: 

  national  regular  services  which  are  not  performed  as  part  of  a  regular  international 

service; 

  urban services; 

  suburban services. 

23 

 
 
Since  the  Regulation  became  applicable  in  2011,  the  reports,  submitted  in  accordance  with 
Article 28(1), from Member States indicate a relatively slow upward trend in the number of 
carriers  holding  a  Community  licence  for  road  passenger  transport,  from  34,959  in  2011  to 
35,07743  in  2014.  Romania  is  the  Member  State  that  reported  the  largest  increase  to  the 
number of Community licences held between 2010 and 2014 (700 licences) which reflects the 
trend in coach demand which increased by 16% over this period. It is also notable that during 
this period Romania also opened its national market for coach and bus services based on the 
principles of non-discriminatory and free competition.  

The increase in the numbers of certified true copies of Community licence held in the EU-28 
of  11.4%  between  2011  and  2014  suggest  that  growth  has  come  from  expansion  and/or 
consolidation of operators, rather than an increase in the number of operators. However, as a 
number  of  Member  States  phased  out  national  licences  and  replaced  them  with  Community 
licences, and as the licences are in practice permissions granted rather than services operated, 
caution should be exercised whilst drawing conclusions from these statistics. 

The  study  found  evidence  of  substantial  annual  growth  (2009-2014)  in  international  
passenger numbers in a certain Member States, notably Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland. 
The available data on international coach passenger-kilometres echo the trends in number of 
passengers with growth in Poland and Estonia being similarly strong. 

This evidence taken together indicates that the market for international coach and bus services 
has  expanded  between  2009  and  2014  with  market  entry  and  competition  following  the 
introduction of the Regulation. However, it has proved difficult to find evidence that directly 
links  increase  in  activity  to  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  and  some  of  the  evidence  is 
largely anecdotal and insufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship as described in section 
4.2.1.   

The  available  data  indicates  that  opening  the  market  has  had  little  impact  on  the  cabotage 
penetration  rate  whether  for  regular,  special  regular  or  occasional  services.  However,  as 
described  in  section  4.2.2.,  this  low  number  may  be  due  to  the  manner  in  which  cabotage 
operations are monitored. On the other hand, during the study operators reported that there is 
an administrative barrier associated with regular services cabotage operations as the operator 
is often required to prove that a cabotage operation is not the principle purpose of the service.  

There  is  conclusive  evidence  that the  liberalisation  of  national  markets in  combination  with 
the liberalisation of international services created a favourable environment for the expansion 
of  coach  services  at  national  and  international  level.  The  opening  of  national  markets  for 
regular  services  in  countries  such  as  Italy,  Germany  and  France  that  followed  the 
liberalisation of international services triggered the expansion of some transport operators and 
enhanced the provision of new international services. It appears that once a national market 
for  regular  service  is  established,  operators  may  choose  to  exploit  their  national  position 
through offering services to neighbouring countries.  

The study indicates that for example following the liberalisation of the German coach market 
in 2013, start-up FlixBus expanded rapidly within the German market, most notably through 
merging with competing start-up MeinFernbus. In addition to operating international routes to 
Denmark,  Sweden  and  Belgium  from  Germany,  the  company  has  begun  a  programme  of 
internationalisation  through  entry  into  other  national  markets.  Since  July  2015,  FlixBus  has 

43 This excludes the statistics from Croatia as they were not part of the EU in 2011. Inclusion of the Croatian 

statistics increases the 2014 total to 35,659. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
entered the Italian, French and Dutch markets and expanded its international route network to 
serve these countries. Of particular note is its introduction of international services which do 
not have an origin, destination or intermediate stop within Germany. The Regulation is likely 
to have enabled FlixBus’s rapid expansion into multiple national markets along international 
corridors. 

Barriers to the internal market 
The  evidence  presented  in  the  study  suggests  that  some  barriers  to  the  internal  market  still 
exist.  Operators  have  reported  that  the  administrative  barriers  to  operating  international 
regular services remain high and the authorisation procedure causes a bottleneck as there is a 
lack  of  clarity  and  diverging  interpretations  concerning  the  authorising  procedure  and  some 
Member  States  unnecessarily  delay  authorisations  by  the  maximum  period  permitted.  They 
also  reported  that  the  administrative  barriers  for  cabotage  operations  remain  high  with 
unnecessary burdens on these types of services due to Member States requesting operators to 
provide  further  information  which  they  deem  relevant  in  support  of  the  application  for 
authorisation. There is some evidence in the study indicating that this burden is often linked to 
national requirements and these national burdens may mask the scale of benefits delivered by 
the Regulation.  

Whilst the evidence indicates that international coach services have expanded since the entry 
into  force  of  the  Regulation  with  stronger  growth  in  international  markets  relative  to  the 
overall market and an increase in cross-border competition there are a number of reasons (e.g. 
accession  of  Croatia,  national  liberalisation,  operator  expansion  and  consolidation  and  the 
effects of European Regulation) that make it difficult to apportion the growth between these 
various factors. 

The  evidence  presented  in  the  study  suggests  that  the  patchwork  of  national  regulatory 
frameworks  presents  an  administrative  barrier  to  the  operation  of  international  services  and 
the range of access arrangements deters national coach operators from providing international 
services.  The  flexibility  for  Member  States  to  organise  the  conditions  for  national  transport 
services has resulted in separate national markets which is contrary to the establishment of a 
true  internal  market.  This  patchwork  disproportionately  affects  SMEs  which  have  limited 
resources with which to develop EU-wide business strategies. SME's may act in partnerships, 
groups or alliances if it enables them to offer a more effective network.  

Member  States  may  organise  the  conditions  under  which  these  transport  services  can  be 
provided in their jurisdiction and this has resulted in the patchwork of regulatory frameworks. 
As  operators  require  establishment  in  a  Member  State  in  order  to  provide  international 
services  these  patchworks  create  differences  between  Member  States  and  divergent 
implementation of the provisions of the Regulation.  This results in an administrative barrier 
that  negatively  impacts  on  the  extent  to  which  the  regulation  has  opened.  In  the  public 
consultation companies reported that the requirement to be established has significant negative 
impacts  in  terms  of  administrative  costs (81%;  29  of  36)  and  compliance  costs  (53%;  18  of 
34) but the extent of the impact is unclear. 

Most  Member  States  require  operators  of  national  regular  services  to  be  locally  established 
creating  an  administrative  and  technical  barrier.    Although  the  Regulation  provides  the 
possibility for Member States to decide that the Community licence is also valid for national 
services and removes this administrative barrier there is no evidence that Member States have 
availed of this provision. 

25 

 
 
The study maintains that international coach operators may face barriers at national, regional 
and local levels through lack of suitable facilities or either compulsory use of, lack of capacity 
at, or difficulties in obtaining access to, suitable terminals. 

Conclusion 
Without doubt, the elimination of the special protection provided to incumbent road passenger 
transport operators and railways in Regulation 684/92 has opened the international market to 
cross-border competition and progressed towards the establishment of a true internal market 
for  bus  and  coach  services.  The  available  data  broadly  indicates  that  market  opening  has 
resulted  in  growth  in  the  number  of  operators,  numbers  of  passengers  and  the  number  of 
services;  however  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  growth  that  can  be  attributed  to  the 
Regulation  in  isolation.  The  authorisation  procedure  became  more  transparent  and  it  now 
favours operators as there are fewer possibilities for refusal of applications for services. 

The  patchwork  of  national  regulatory  frameworks  undermines  competition  and  hinders  the 
development  international  services  and  of  a  true  internal  market  and  also  introduces 
administrative  costs  but  the  extent  of  the  impact  is  unclear.  The  requirement  for  local 
establishment  acts  as  an  administrative  and  technical  barrier.  Market  opening  has  had  little 
impact  on  cabotage  operations  and  the  market  penetration  for  all  types  of  bus  and  coach 
services appears to have remained persistently low although with the caveat that the data is not 
considered  very  robust.  Member  States  have  not  availed  of  the  opportunity  for  further 
liberalisation provided for in the Regulation.  

Although the Regulation has resulted in further progression towards, it has not lead to a true 
internal  market  for  bus  and  coach  services  and  the  study  provides  clear  evidence  that  the 
development  of  services  is  being  constrained  in  some  markets,  including  the  international 
market, by barriers. The persistence of these barriers is contrary to the establishment of a true 
internal market. 

Question 4: To what extent has the intervention enhanced fair competition including non-
discriminatory access to all the markets covered by the provisions of the Regulation? 

The  Regulation  aimed  at  enhancing  fair  competition 
discrimination. 

including 

the  prevention  of 

Promotion of fair competition 
The Regulation aims at promoting fair competition which implies an open market and a level-
playing  field  in  order  to  provide  carriers  with  equal  conditions  for  operating.  This  requires 
that carriers from all Member States be guaranteed access to international transport markets 
without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment. Fair competition is 
a  key  principle  to  achieve  the  benefits  of  liberalisation  such  as  the  provision  of  choice  and 
value  for  money  for  consumers  whilst  supporting  quality,  productivity,  efficiency  and 
innovation in the road passenger transport sector. 

Access to markets 
There is some evidence of negative impacts of the intervention on competition. In the context 
of  the  ex-post  evaluation  there  have  been  a  number  of  complaints  included  in  submissions 
from operator representative bodies and operators about persistent anti-competitive practices. 
One  large  European  operator  representative  body  maintains  that  the  patchwork  of  national 
regulatory systems across the EU enables operators in protected markets to remain insulated 
from  competitive  forces  introducing  the  risk  that  they  use  profits  to  develop  business  on 
markets  which  are  open  to  competition,  (e.g.  international  regular  services),  and  this  also 
introduces  the  risk  of  dumping.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  reciprocity  of  opening  of  markets 

26 

 
 
across  Member  States  which  causes  imbalances  between  Member  States  and  continued 
fragmentation of the internal market.  

For instance, carriers may remain protected against competition on their historic market and 
can  use  the profit to  develop business on markets which are open to  competition leading to 
unfair competition between carriers. In similar fashion, a carrier operating in a host Member 
State is permitted to pick up and set down passengers in that Member State in the course of a 
regular international service provided that this is not the principal purpose of the service. In 
contrast,  a  carrier  established  in  that  same  Member  State  may  be  refused  permission  to 
operate  a line  on  the  same  route.  Accordingly,  national  carriers  do  not  have  a level  playing 
field with carriers from another Member State. 

Operator  representative  bodies  and  some  operators  also  claim  that  national  carriers  do  not 
have  a  level  playing  field  with  carriers  established  in  other  Member  States  whilst  both  are 
operating international regular services. National carriers may be prohibited from picking up 
and setting down passengers on a line in their country of establishment (even if this part of the 
service is part of an international regular service) whilst a carrier from another Member State 
may be authorised to operate this service. The Regulation prescribes the conditions to pick up 
and  set  down  passengers  within  a  Member  State  but  Article  15(c),  on  cabotage,  explicitly 
gives  this  right  to  operators  not  established  in  the  host  Member  State.  Carriers  operating 
within  their  Member  State  of  establishment  cannot  invoke  this  provision  to  provide  such 
services.  Whilst  this  is  not  incompatible  with  EU  law  operators  have  reported  that  these 
circumstances create an unlevel playing field. 

On  the  other  hand  a  large  pan-European  operator  reported  that  the  regulation  has  caused 
important  positive  outcomes  and  that  the  enhanced  fair  competition  and  has  resulted  in 
lowered prices, improved quality, increased standards and delivered a better overall product to 
the  market.  Furthermore  it  believes  that  it  has  fostered  employment  and  economic  growth. 
The  study  also  identified  limited  evidence  that  market  liberalisation  placed  competitive 
pressure on the evolution and dynamics of coach fares. 

Access to Terminals 
The study indicates that carriers may be denied access to terminals in certain Member States 
(e.g.  Austria,  Czech  Republic,  France,  Croatia,  &  the  United  Kingdom).  The  public 
consultation indicates that discrimination in access to terminals is a problem with 59% (90 of 
153)  stakeholders  agreeing  including  the  majority  of  all  stakeholder  groups.  Terminals  are 
vital  links  in  the  mobility  chain  and  essential  infrastructure  required  to  consolidate  large 
volumes  of  passengers  for  transfers  over  medium  to  long  distances.  The  refusal  of  terminal 
operators  to  provide  access  to  coach  operators  limits  capacity  in  the  market,  denies 
competitors  access  to  the  market  and  distorts  service  patterns.  While  coaches  are 
discriminated from accessing terminals they cannot integrate effectively into the door-to-door 
mobility  chain.  Notably,  denying  coach  and  buses  access  to  multi-modal  terminals 
significantly  reduces  the  possibility  to  create  and  efficient  core  network  for  multimodal 
intercity  travel  and  the  potential  for  optimising  the  performance  of  all  resource-efficient 
collective modes of transport. Examples of discriminatory access to terminals include France 
where the only suitable terminal space in many towns and cities is the railway station operated 
by  SNCF,  which  may  refuse  access  to  potential  competitors.  A  further  example  is  Croatia 
where many terminals are operator owned and they may deny access to potential competitors. 

The  study  also  suggests  that  terminals  can  be  a  barrier  to  entry  where  no  discrimination  or 
abuse  exists  but  capacity  is  constrained.  This  is  the  case  in  Stockholm  (Cityterminalen), 
London  (Victoria  Coach  Station)  as  they  suffer  from  congestion.  It  is  also  the  case  in 
Germany where there has been widespread lack of terminal capacity since liberalisation. 

27 

 
 
Complaints about unfair competition and discriminatory practices 
The  Commission  has  not  received  complaints  about  unfair  competition  or  discriminatory 
practices  for  regular  services  or  occasional  services  since  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation. However the Commission  received one complaint about discriminatory practice 
on  a  special  regular  service.  The  complaint  focused  on  the  interpretation  of  the  temporary 
character of the provision of these services. However this had previously been clarified by the 
Commission "The expression 'on a temporary basis', contained in Article 2(7) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1073/2009 is not relevant for the authorised cabotage operations mentioned under 
(a)  and  (c).  In  practice,  it  concerns  only  occasional  services  mentioned  under  (b)  to  be 
performed 'on a temporary basis', which is necessarily the case, given the nature of the latter 
services.  In  this  limited  part  of  the  market  (occasional  services),  the  legislator  decided  to 
leave to the Member state the definition of what they consider to be 'services carried out on a 
temporary basis'44." 

Prior to the implementation of the Regulation the Commission had to act as arbitrator in the 
authorising  procedure  for  regular  services  on  several  occasions45.  Since  its  implementation 
there  has  been  no  referral  of  an  application  to  the  Commission  by  an  authorising  authority. 
The absence of referrals implies a positive impact of the intervention and there appears to be 
an increase in the authorising authority ability to make a decision on applications due to the 
improved clarity and the abolishment of some of the grounds for refusal. 

Conclusion 
In summary, the available evidence indicates that the Regulation is partially effective and that 
it  has  had  a  mixed  impact  on  enhancing  fair  competition.  The  market  remains  fragmented 
causing imbalances between Member States and unfair competition between operators. Also, 
there  is  evidence  that  operators  are  denied  access  to  and  are  discriminated  from  accessing 
terminals causing problems in areas such as service patterns, interchanging to other coach and 
bus  services,  transfers  to  other  collective  modes  of  transport,  and  accessibility  for  persons 
with reduced mobility.      

Question 5: Has market opening of bus and coach services contributed to a shift from other 
passenger transport modes (individual car transport, rail transport and aviation) and hence 
led to an increase in the use of bus and coach services? In case a shift took place, is it in 
line with overarching EU transport policy goals? 

The  Regulation  aimed  at  promoting  bus  and  coach  transport  as  a  sustainable  alternative  to 
individual car use. The ideal situation, as incorporated in overarching EU transport policy, is 
for bus and coach services to operate in competition with individual car and complementary 
to other forms of collective transport modes such as rail and airlines. 

General trends in passenger transport  
As indicated in Section 3.3 and in the study, the limitations in high level statistics mean it is 
not  possible  to  determine  the  size  and  trends  of  the  international  market  for  coach  and  bus 
services.  

Between  2009  and  2014  individual  car  transport  decreased  by  2.1%.  The  decrease  mainly 
affected EU-15 countries, with a total decrease of 3.1%, whereas car transport in the EU-13 

44 Reply to Parliamentary question E-011304/2013 on 22 November 2013. 

45 OJ L 33, 6.2.1999; OJ L 222, 7.8.1992; OJ L 272, 21.9.1989; Commission Decision of 11 November 2010 on 
a  dispute  between  Germany  and  Romania  on  the  authorisation  of  regular  international  services  (not 
published in the OJ). 

28 

 
 
                                                 
grew  by  4.6%.  Notably  there  are  considerable  differences  between  countries  during  this 
period. The demand for individual car transport increased significantly in some countries e.g. 
Poland 16.6% and Bulgaria 10.9%. This strong growth could be due to the much lower levels 
of car ownership and use compared to the EU-15 at the start of this period. On the other hand, 
it  decreased  significantly  in  others e.g.  Italy  16.8%,  Czech Republic  10.6%  and  Spain  9.7% 
which may be a result of the economic downturn. 

Analysis of the other relevant forms of passenger transport reveals increases in demand. Rail 
passenger  transport  volumes  grew  by  5.1%.  Whilst  growth  was  significant  in  the  EU-15  at 
6.7% the EU-13 recorded a similarly significant decrease in demand of 7.4%.  

Air  passenger  transport volumes  increased  by  11%.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  traffic 
volumes in 2009 had fallen to record lows with a decrease of 6.9%. 

Modal Shares in passenger transportation 
The role and competitive traits of coach or bus services have not been studied as intensively as 
other  modes  of  transport46.  The  study  found  that  the  provision  of  coach  services,  and  their 
relative success, generally depends on the characteristics of competing  modes including car, 
rail and air. The factors considered by passengers when deciding on which mode to choose are 
usually distance, travel time, frequency, price and purpose of journey.  Competition between 
modes is particularly relevant for distances between 300 km and 700 km, as it seems to be the 
only  segment  for  which  coach  and  bus  services  compete  with  car,  trains  (conventional  and 
high speed) and planes47. A review of some recently published reports indicates that coach and 
bus services may compete more with passenger car than other modes of transport for intercity 
transport. 

For  example,  the  French  authorities,  in  their  review  of  the  interurban  bus  market  6  months 
after liberalisation of the national market for coach and bus services, found that the interurban 
bus services were competing more with car and carpooling than with rail48. In Italy a recent 
study  found  that  long  distance  coach  and  rail  transport  are  basically  complementary,  and 
coach services often fill the qualitative and quantitative gaps of the rail49. Finally, in Germany 
the  intercity  coach  market  grew  by  25%  in  2015  compared  to  2014,  with  a  significant 
proportion  of  demand  transferring  from  less  sustainable  modes  including  the  private  car. 
There are major differences between data with regard to which means of transport were used 
by  coach  customers  before  the  coach  market  was  liberalised.  In  2013  the  Federal  Office 
estimated  that  10-15%  had  previously  travelled by  rail  but  some  surveys  put  this  as  high  as 
30%  from  long  distance  rail.  It  is  estimated  that  38%  of  passengers  previously  used  car.  It 
should also be noted that since rail had almost no competition prior to the liberalisation of the 

46  EEA  Report  No  7/2014,  Focusing  on  environmental  pressures  from  long‑distance  transport,  TERM  2014: 

transport indicators tracking progress towards environmental targets in Europe 

47 Kågeson, P., 2009, Environmental Aspects of Inter‑City Passenger Transport, Discussion Paper 2009-28, 
OECD/ITF, Paris. 

48 Autocars interurbains : un bilan après 6 mois d’ouverture, La note d’analyse, France Stratégie, Février 2016 

49  Long  distance  coach  transport  in  Italy:  state  of  the  art  and  perspectives.  Paolo  Beria  and  Ra 

aele Grimaldi and Antonio Laurino, Politecnico di Milano, February 2013 

29 

 
 
                                                 
coach market, it seems obvious that a large proportion travellers would have previously used 
rails as well as private transport50. 

In  terms  of  modal  share  the  high  level  trends  have  remained  generally  stable  between  2009 
and  2013.  The  decrease  in  individual  car  transport  has  been  very  modest  from  73.5%  to 
72.3%.  This  has  been  to  the  benefit  of  rail,  which  increased  by  0.4  percentage  points  %,  to 
6.6% and air which increased by 0.9 percentage points to 9%. Between 2009 and 2013 buses 
and coaches lost 0.1 percentage points of market share and in 2013 it had an 8.1% share. This 
is not a new trend as it has been continuing to lose market share at a very slow rate since 1992 
when  its  share  was  9.4%.  However,  the  study  found  broad  indications  of  an  increase  in 
international passenger numbers across Europe, although this headline trend hides significant 
variation  by  Member  State.  As  such,  the  study  estimated  that  international  coach  passenger 
numbers grew by 40-60% and that international coach passenger-kilometres grew by between 
0-40%, between 2009 and 2014. 

Conclusion 
EU policy aims at greater numbers of travellers being carried jointly to their destination by the 
most efficient and low emissions (combination of) modes of transport and passengers making 
greater  use  of  bus  and  coach  as  part  of  the  core  network  for  multimodal  intercity  travel. 
Although the numbers of passengers using international regular services has increased there is 
no data available that indicates any significant shift from passenger car to buses and coaches, 
during  the  reference  period  but  any  shift  could  be  masked  by  the  difference  in  relative 
volumes  of  passengers  between  the  two  modes.    The  potential  for  coach  and  bus  to  shift 
passengers from car is apparent from observing the recent evolution of the Italian, French and 
German  markets  where  there  is  data  available  that  shows  growth  in  the  coach  sector  has 
resulted in a significant number of passengers shift from cars.     

Question 6: To what extent has the Regulation had an impact on the quality, reliability and 
price of the services? 

Quality and reliability of services 
Attractive  frequencies,  safety,  comfort,  easy  access,  reliability  of  services,  and  intermodal 
integration are the main characteristics of service quality. The availability of information over 
travelling  time  and  routing  alternatives  is  equally  relevant  to  ensure  seamless  door-to-door 
mobility, for passengers. These are the expected outcomes of increased competition as a result 
of opening the market for the international carriage of passengers and for cabotage operations 
as introduced by the Regulation. 

The  study  provides  evidence  of  growth  in  the  international  market  and  increases  in  the 
frequency and number of services for regular international services since the implementation 
of the Regulation as described in section 4.1. However, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions 
on the basis of the limited data available and there is little evidence to suggest that this growth 
is caused by the implementation of the Regulation.  

The  study  indicates  that  the  standardisation  of  documents  across  all  28  Member  States  is 
likely to have reduced the disruption to coach operators and their passengers from inspection 
with  potential  for  both  journey  time  and  reliability  improvements.  However,  with  no 
comprehensive data on the number of cross-border services, or on the origin and destination 

50 Marktbeobachtung Güterverkehr, Marktanalyse des Fernbuslinienverkehrs 2014, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr 

Dezember 2014 

30 

 
 
                                                 
of passengers using them, it is not possible to estimate the likely value of travel time savings 
or reliability improvements. 

In terms of safety, the number of people killed in these accidents in the EU fell from 964 in 
2009 to 736 in 2013, a fall of almost 24%. This trend of decreasing the number of fatalities 
extends back to 2004 when 1,437 people were killed. For comparison, over the same period 
fatal car accidents reduced from 24,334 in 2004 to 11,838 in 2013.The portion of fatalities in 
accidents involving buses and coaches has remained relatively consistent at about 3%51. 

Bus and coaches remains one of the safest modes of transport. Comparisons of fatality risks 
for travelling passengers (occupants) across the different modes of land transport reveals that 
a  rate  of  0.16  fatalities  per  billion  passenger  kilometres  (2009-2014)  which  is  only  slightly 
behind rail 0.14 and  is considerably lower than car (2.28) or powered two-wheeler (37.5)52. 
Coach and bus therefore remains one of the safest modes of transport.  The fatality risk of a 
bus and coach passenger is comparable to the risk of a railway passenger (see Table 4). 

Table 4: Fatality risk of passengers using different modes of transport (EU-27 in 2008-
2012)53 
Transport mode used by user 

Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres (2009-2013) 

Airline passenger 

Railway passenger 

Bus/Coach passenger 

Car occupant 

Powered two-wheelers 

0.01 

0.14 

0.16 

2.28 

37.50 

Over the past 15 years, successive EU road safety action plans have been implemented by the 
European  Commission  and  Member  States,  with  support  from  the  EU  institutions.  The  EU 
interventions  which  are  likely  to  be  influencing  current  road  safety  outcomes  the  most  are 
legislative  initiatives  adopted  before  2011  in  motor  vehicle  design  and  safety  equipment: 
electronic stability control systems in cars and trucks; advanced and anti-lock braking systems 
in  motorcycles;  daytime  running  lights  in  powered  two-wheelers,  cars  and  trucks  and 
pedestrian  protection54.  Although  the  evidence  indicates  that  there  have  been  significant 
improvements in safety it is impossible to establish a link between the Regulation and these 
improvements due to the wide variety of factors and actions that influence road safety.  

Comfort level is another characteristic of service quality and is one of the top criteria affecting 
customer  satisfaction.  Stakeholders  reported  that  the  comfort  level  on  coaches  continues  to 
improve but this cannot be directly attributable to the Regulation. In addition to providing air 
conditioning and WC facilities, they report that customers are often provided with reclining 
seats,  free  Wi-Fi,  touch  screen  multi-media  devices,  power  supplies.  The  average  age  of  a 

51 Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2015, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses 

52 EU transport in figures (Statistical Pocketbook) 

53 EU transport in figures Statistical Pocketbook 2015 

54 Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020 

31 

 
 
                                                 
coach  provides  an  indirect  indication  of  the  quality  of  the  services  provided  in  terms  of 
comfort  levels  as  well  as  safety  and  environmental  performance.  There  is  very  little  data 
available  regarding  average  fleet  age  or  fleet  quality.  However,  the  available  vehicle 
registration  data  suggests  that  the  demand  for  coach  vehicles  has  been  remarkably  stable 
through time, despite the 2008 economic downturn.  

Terminals  have  an  important  role  in  the  quality  of  services  as  the  facilities  in  terminals  are 
linked  with  comfort,  easy  access  and  intermodal  integration  of  bus  and  coach  services.  The 
range  of  facilities  and  onward  connectivity  which  the  majority  of  coach  terminals  provide 
makes  them  particularly  attractive  (and  important)  for  operators  of  long  distance  coach 
services where catchment areas for access and egress may be large, and where the propensity 
for passengers to interchange between services is greater. 

The  provision  of  terminals  across  Member  States  remains  variable.  While  some  Member 
States (CY, EL, HU, RO) appear to consider it to be an integral part of the responsibilities of 
competent  authorities,  others  (BE  &  FR),  have  no  systematic  provision  of  terminals.  The 
attitude  toward  the  protection  of  customers  from  the  weather  appears  to  depend  on  local 
expectations. The study reports that the location of terminals varies. Many of them are located 
in city centres but this is not always the case for a variety of reasons such as the population 
density of historic city centres or active decisions by authorities to place the terminal on an 
urban periphery. Terminals are generally well connected to local bus services. Connection to 
rail  and  metro  is  more  variable.  With  the  exception  of  Germany,  as  a  result  of  recent  rapid 
growth  of  services,  many  terminals  appear  to  have  adequate  capacity  for  current  services, 
particularly if they were built at times when car ownership was lower. 

There is no evidence that the location, accessibility or range of services of terminals has been 
impacted by the Regulation. However, there is evidence that the recent liberalisation of some 
national  markets  has  impacted  significantly  on  the  availability  of  terminal  services.  For 
example the conditions and siting of terminal infrastructure is viewed as a major obstacle to 
the  development  of  the  market  in  Germany  where  stakeholders  have  reported  that  the  rapid 
growth of services since deregulation has exposed both a shortage of terminals and a shortage 
of capacity at existing terminals55. 

Price of services 
Evidence presented in the study suggests that average coach fares vary widely between routes 
in  different  Member  States.  In  the  EU15,  there  is  often  a  wide  range  between  highest  and 
lowest  coach  fares  and  coach  is  normally  cheaper  than  rail.  In  the  EU13  coach  is  more 
expensive  than  rail.  Most  international  coach  services  are  cheaper,  on  a  fare  per  kilometre 
basis,  than  the  equivalent  rail  service.  This  may  be  because  rail  often  offers  faster  journeys 
and can therefore act as a market ‘price-maker’. However, in two corridors between Romania 
and  Hungary,  and  Bulgaria  and  Greece,  coach  fares  are  between  two  and  three  times  the 
equivalent  rail  fare,  despite  average  speeds  being  similar  between  modes.  In  this  case  it  is 
likely  that  there  are  additional  factors  such  as  service  frequency  and  quality  which  permit 
coach operators to charge a much higher fare. 

Where  one  mode  offers  more  frequent  and  faster  services,  the  other  may  have  the 
characteristics  of  an  “inferior  good”  and  have  to  accept  lower  fares.  Nonetheless,  coach 
operating costs are often less than those of rail, and coach fares can be less than EUR 0.05 per 
kilometre.  At  long  distances,  where  air  services  are  available,  coach  services  can  attract 
passengers by not charging for heavy baggage, and may be viable when rail services are not.  

55 Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Marktbeobachtung Güterverkehr - Bericht Herbst 2014 www.bag.bund.de 

32 

 
 
                                                 
Conclusion 
The  available  evidence  indicates  that  the  quality  of  service  has  improved  in  terms  of 
frequency, availability, safety and comfort levels but there is little evidence that this growth is 
caused by the Regulation. The Regulation has had no impact on the level-of-service in terms 
of terminal standards and facilities. Finally, market liberalisation has placed some competitive 
pressure on the evolution and dynamics of fares but it has not been possible to determine the 
extent of the impact of the Regulation due to the lack of time series data on fares or yields. 
Using  a  sample  of  international  coach  services  originating  in  different  Member  States  the 
study  finds  that  at  long  distance,  air  may  be  the  main  mode,  but  coach  operators  can  offer 
fares  as  low  as  EUR  0.05  per  kilometre.  Most  international  services  are  cheaper  than  the 
equivalent  rail  service.  However,  where  one  mode  offers  more  frequent  and  faster  services, 
the other may have the characteristics of an 'inferior good' and have to accept lower fares. 

Question 7: To what extent has the Regulation brought unwanted or unexpected effects? 

As mentioned in section 2.1, the Regulation is to a large extent a recast of two pre-existing 
pieces  of  legislation  in  order  to  make  the  rules  clearer  and  simpler.  It  is  therefore  not 
surprising  that  stakeholders  have  not  reported  that  they  have  suffered  from  any  unwanted 
negative experiences.  

However,  the  stakeholders  have  indicated,  in  the  fact  finding  study,  the  public  consultation 
and  through  complaints  to  the  Commission,  that  the  Regulation  has  had  some  unexpected 
effects as  a result of the design and/or implementation of the regulation which  mainly  stem 
from unclear definitions and certain provisions. 

Effects caused by unclear definitions 
The definition of 'international carriage', as prescribed in Article 2 of the Regulation, does not 
include closed-door tours. Closed-door tours are a specific type of occasional service where a 
previously  assembled  group  of  passengers  are  returned  to  the  location  from  which  they 
departed.  However,  if  this  tour  visits  other  Member  States  before  returning  to  its  Member 
State of departure the Regulation does not define this as international carriage. It is noted that 
this type of service was included in the EU legislation that preceded the Regulation and was 
exempted  from  authorisation.  The  international  character  of  this  type  of  service  is 
demonstrated by crossing the border into a different Member State. 

This ambiguity results in different interpretations of whether this type of closed-door tour is 
within  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  which  leads  to  legal  uncertainty  for  operators  and 
enforcement  authorities.  Member  States  have  raised  this  issue  through  the  SOLVIT  and 
operator  associations  have  also  confirmed  that  varying  interpretations  causes  difficulties  for 
their members, especially during inspections.  

There is also an unclear definition of 'regular services', as regards the requirement to have at 
least  one  stopping  point  along  the  route  of  the  journey.  Some  countries  require  at  least  one 
intermediate stopping point while others do not. For example, the United Kingdom considered 
that to be classified as a regular service the service must have at least one stopping point along 
the route of the journey. 

Effects caused by unclear provisions 
It  is  unclear  if  the  certificate  for  own-account  operations,  issued  in  accordance  with  Article 
5(5)  is  intended  only  for  the  holders  of  a  Community  licence.  The  requirement  to  have  a 
Community  licence  places  a  considerable  regulatory  burden  on  own-account  carriers.  This 
provision  is  interpreted  differently  by  Member  States  and  has  been  the  subject  of  many 
enquiries  to  the  Commission.  On  the  one  hand,  Article  4(1)  states  that  the  international 

33 

 
 
carriage of passengers by coach and bus shall be carried out subject to a Community licence. 
This does not distinguish between carriers operating for hire and reward or by own account 
operators. On the other hand, Article 5(5) does not state that the certificate can only be issued 
to  own-account  operators  in  possession  of  a  Community  licence.  Article  2(2)  permits  own-
account  carriers  to  carry  out  transport  services  if  authorised  in  the  Member  State  of 
establishment. It does not require own-account operators to possess a Community licence in 
order  to  carry  out  transport  services.  In  Article  3(b)  there  is  a  requirement  for  a  carrier 
carrying  out  transport  services  for  hire  or  reward  to  satisfy  the  conditions  laid  down  in 
accordance with Community rules on admission to the occupation of road passenger transport 
operator  in  national  and  international  transport  operations.  In  Article  3(2),  which  regulates 
own-account  operators,  there  is  no  such  requirement.  The  model  of  the  Community  licence 
provided in Annex II states “the holder of this licence is authorised to carry out international 
carriage by road for hire or reward…” which indicates the Community licence is not required 
for  own-account  operations.  In  Regulation  (EC)  No  361/2014,  Article  9(2)  requires  that 
undertakings  requesting  certificate  to  provide  the  issuing  authority  with  evidence  or  an 
assurance  that  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Article  2(5)  of  the  Regulation.  Neither  of  these 
articles  requires  the  undertaking  to  be  in  possession  of  a  Community  licence.  And  finally, 
Annex  V  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  361/2014  provides  the  model  for  the  certificate  issued  for 
own-account  transport  operations  by  coach  and bus  between  Member  States  on  the basis of 
the Regulation. There is no reference to Community licence in this Certificate.  

Although few stakeholders (14%; 21 of 153) reported that the market access rules for own-
account  operators  are  unclear  one  commented  that  these  types  of  undertaking  is  not  a 
passenger  transport  operator  and  so  should  not  require  a  Community  licence  whilst  another 
reported  that  it  needs  to  specified  in  a  more  accurate  way  suggesting  there  is  a  case  for 
clarification 

The  permissibility  of  the  cabotage  operations  for  the  different  types  of  services  listed  in 
Article 15 is unclear. Article 15 states that "Cabotage operations shall be authorised…". The 
evidence indicates that the operators are unclear if this means that these cabotage operations 
require authorisation in accordance with Article 8 or if these cabotage operations are already 
authorised. This provision is interpreted differently in some Member States (e.g. between the 
Slovak  Republic  and  neighbouring  Member  States)  and  the  IRU  confirmed  during 
consultation that there is still a general lack of clarity and diverging interpretations concerning 
cabotage in the framework of international lines. The majority of national authorities in each 
stakeholder category agreed that the cabotage rules are unclear. 

The lack of clarity in these two provisions results in hassle costs for road passenger transport 
operators  and  competent  authorities  as  a  result  of  operators  seeking  clarification  from 
competent authorities prior to engaging in these types of operations.   

Conclusion 
Stakeholders  have  indicated  that  some  unclear  definitions  and  provisions  have  resulted  in 
unexpected effects which results in specific problems for operators and enforcement officers 
but they have not reported any unwanted effects of the Regulation. Although the majority of 
stakeholders do not appear unduly concerned about the lack of clarity the fact that some have 
reported difficulties and have requested clarification of certain provisions suggests there is a 
case for modification of certain definitions and terms. 

Question 8: To what extent has the Regulation had an effect on employment (employment 
level,  geographical  shift,  etc.),  on  working  conditions  (level  of  wages,  working  time,  etc.) 
and on worker's mobility in the road passenger transport sector? 

34 

 
 
The analysis of effectiveness defines whether and to what extent the intervention has had an 
impact  on  employment,  working  conditions  and  on  worker's  mobility  in  the  road  passenger 
transport sector. 

Framework of social rules 
One  of  the  general  aims  of  the  EU  legislation  that  governs  the  road  transport  sector  is  to 
provide protection of employees. This  is addressed in  part by the framework of social rules 
which  aims:  to  ensure  that  adequate  social  protection  is  provided  by  road  transport 
undertakings; to guarantee fair competition between undertakings; and to improve road safety 
by averting road fatigue.  

The  protection  of  employees  includes  Regulations56  on  the  harmonisation  of  certain  social 
legislation  relating  to  road  transport  and  tachograph  rules,  the  Directive57  laying  down 
minimum  requirements  with  regard  to  the  organisation  of  the  working  time  and  the 
Directive58  laying  down  the  minimum  level  of  enforcement  required  to  ensure  compliance 
with the rules, the Posting of Workers Directive and the Rome I Regulation. 

The  Study  only  entails  estimates  of  volume  of  employment  and  working  conditions,  in 
particular wages are not analysed. The only exception is for France with the conclusion that 
the wages decreased by 3.3% in real terms.  For other Member States no impact on working 
conditions was reported. 

Volume of employment 
The  study  estimates  that  the  volume  of  employment  in  national  and  international  coach 
industry was slightly higher in 2008 (0.57 million) than 2014 (0.55 million), with a margin of 
error  of  ±10%.  There  was  no  visible  change  to  the  volumes  of  employment  after  the  4 
December  2011  when  the  Regulation  became  applicable.  It  appears  that  the  overall 
employment in the coach industry was in slow decline, at least until 2013, the year in which 
the  large  German  market  was  liberalised.  This  decline  may  conceal  a  mixture  of  growing 
volumes  and  increasing  productivity.  It  is  also  consistent  with  the  view  that  the  sector  has 
remained relatively stable in the face of recession and an indication of the responsiveness and 
flexibility of commercially focused operators across the EU.  

Working conditions & workers mobility 
The  study  did  not  provide  a  real  insight  on  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  working 
conditions  or  workers  mobility.  For  most  Member  States,  no  data  could  be  gathered.  The 
issue of working conditions and workers mobility is to be seen against the background of the 
whole  liberalisation  process  in  the  sector  and  not  only  of  its  last  step  (the  2009  Recast 

56   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  Regulations 
(EEC)  No  3821/85  and  (EC)  No  2135/98  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3820/85.  Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  3821/85  of  20  December  1985  on  recording  equipment  in  road  transport  – 
Tachograph.  Regulation  (EU)  No 165/2014 of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council of  4 February 
2014  on  tachographs  in  road  transport,  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3821/85  on  recording 
equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport 

57 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 

58  Directive  2006/22/EC  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 

35 

 
 
                                                 
Regulation). No conclusive evidence was gathered at this stage but experience from the road 
freight transport sector will need to be considered if any further steps are to be taken. 

Conclusion 
The available evidence indicates that the Regulation has not had any discernible effect on the 
volume of employment. No conclusion could be drawn regarding the evolution of the working 
conditions of drivers. 

5.3.  Efficiency 

Question 9: To what extent are regulatory costs for national administrations (licensing and 
authorisation,  inspections,  penalty  system,  mutual  assistance)  and  for  transport  operators 
proportionate and necessary in relation to the outputs and results achieved?  

In order to assess the efficiency of the Regulation it is necessary to analyse whether its effects 
were  achieved  with  a  reasonable  use  of  resources  and  whether  the  same  results  could  have 
been achieved with less resources.  

Implementation  of  legislation  usually  results  in  some  regulatory  costs  for  authorities  and/or 
operators.  These  costs  can  be  classified  into  direct  costs  and  enforcement  costs.  The  direct 
costs  are  direct  compliance  costs  and  hassle  costs.  The  direct  compliance  costs  consist  of 
charges,  administrative  burdens  and  compliance  costs.  Hassle  costs  take  account  of  waiting 
time, annoyance and corruption. Enforcement costs consist of enforcement, monitoring, and 
adjudication59.  

Regulatory costs for national administrations 
None of the stakeholders in the study referred to any change in the level of enforcement costs 
as  a  result  of  the  application  of  the  Regulation.  However,  benefits  may  have  been  realised 
through the standardisation of documents. The study indicates that for national authorities the 
time taken to undertake roadside inspections of foreign coaches has reduced as a result of the 
standardisation  of  documents  but  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  reduction  in  time.  This 
provides enforcement officers with more time to undertake other potentially more productive 
activities. As there is no comprehensive data on the number of cross-border services, or on the 
origin  and  destinations  of  passengers  using  them,  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  likely 
enforcement cost saving of this benefit.    

Article  28  of  the  Regulation  introduced  reporting  requirements60  for  Member  States. 
However,  the  evidence  in  the  study  suggests  that  this  provision  is  of  limited  value  in 
monitoring the market. A number of barriers to effective market monitoring were identified 
including  freedom  to  simplify  or  abolish  control  documents,  a  highly  fragmented  market, 
wide  range  of  services,  and  inconsistent  reporting  definitions.  In  addition  to  these  barriers 
other problems with the reporting requirements of Article 28 are provided in section 4.3. The 
reporting  procedures  do  not  provided 
the  Commission  with  comparable,  reliable, 
synchronised, regular and comprehensive statistical data on the scale and development of the 

59 Assessing the costs and benefits of Regulation Study for the European Commission Secretariat General, 

10 December 2013, Brussels 

60  MS’s  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  number  of  authorisations  of  regular  services  issued  and  valid 
including the number of cabotage operations, information on cabotage in the form of special regular services 
and occasional services every 2 years and the number of Community licences and certified true copies every 
year. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
carriage of passengers by road in order to carry out the tasks entrusted to it in the context of 
the common transport policy. The Commission, the Member States or the public still do not 
have access to robust market information, disaggregated sufficiently to distinguish activity in 
the  many  international  and  national  bus  and  coach  markets.  This  reporting  procedure  is 
considered  inefficient  and  ineffective  as  the  reporting  procedures  have  not  resulted  in  any 
regulatory benefits. 

The  study  suggests  that  the  processing  of  applications  for  authorisations  would  rarely  have 
required more than one full-time employee per Member State. The evidence indicates that the 
greatest element of workload associated with an application for authorisation may relate to the 
work  by  competent  authorities,  which  may  be  national,  regional  or  local,  in  assessing  the 
application against the possible grounds for refusal in Article 8, and in particular the “detailed 
analysis” which is now required before an application can be refused. Competent authorities 
which do not wish to authorise international services may still carry out the detailed analyses 
listed in Article 8. The study found that there is no reason to assume that their workload will 
have been reduced as a direct result of the Regulation, but note that it is largely self-imposed. 
The  evidence  suggests  that  any  benefits  for  the  national  authorities  are  likely  to  have  been 
small  and  that  any  additional  direct  or  indirect  costs  for  national  authorities  would  also  be 
very small.    

Regulatory costs for transport operators 
Similar  to  the  findings  for  national  authorities  it  would  be  logical  that  benefits  should  have 
been  realised  for  transport  operators  through  the  standardisation  of  documents  across  all  28 
Member  States.  The  disruption  to  coach  operators  and  their  passengers  from  inspection 
should be less, with potential for both journey time and reliability improvements but due to 
lack of data it is not possible to quantify the likely value of travel savings. 

The simplification of the authorising procedure appears to have had more benefits for carriers 
than national authorities and it seems that the benefits anticipated in the Impact Assessment 
for  the  Regulations  have  not  been  completely  achieved.  It  was  assumed  that  the  simplified 
procedure would deliver an authorisation three months earlier and that in those three months 
an operator would gain EUR 25,000 in  additional revenue61. However, the study found that 
while  stakeholders  referred  to  delays  with  the  application  process,  none  of  them  made  any 
reference to either vehicles or staff being kept idle or wholly unproductive as a result of the 
delays. It was also noted that operators familiar with the authorisation procedure may simply 
submit applications further in advance. The analysis in the study suggests that a delay of three 
months  in  the  authorisation  procedure  would  delay  the  redeployment  of  resources  to  more 
commercially attractive  routes  and there would be an associated  opportunity cost. Based on 
the  same  assumptions62  used  in  the  Impact  Assessment  the  study  estimates  that  the  delay 
would reduce revenue by EUR 10,800 per application63.  

The authorising procedure eliminated the special protection previously provided to incumbent 
operators  and  railways  and  therefore  enabled  transport  operators  to  provide  services  where 

61 Table 6.12 of “Impact assessment of legislative proposals on the admission to the occupation and access to the 

market of road transport, Final Report”, ECORYS Nederland BV and NTUA, April 2007. 

62 Coach is operating 20 days a month, 300 km a day with average load of 20 passengers 

63 If administrative procedures delay the redeployment of resources to more commercially attractive routes there 
will be an associated opportunity cost. The estimated reduction in revenue of EUR10,800 per application is 
based on serving an international route generate returns of EUR0.10 per passenger-kilometre compared to 
EUR0.07 per passenger-kilometre with a delay of three months in the authorisation procedure. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
previously  they  would  have  been  prohibited.  These  market  efficiency  benefits  for  operators 
have been realised without any reported associated regulatory costs. 

However,  when  stakeholders  were  asked  for  feedback  in  the  public  consultation  about  the 
impacts of the problems identified, they reported that for each problem the greatest negative 
impact is administrative costs for carriers.  

Table  5:  Stakeholders  responses  about  the  impacts  of  problems  on  administrative 
burden 
Problem 

stakeholders 

impact 

on 

on 

Responses 
from 
administrative costs for carriers 

Restriction in access to national markets  80%  (67  of  84)  of  stakeholders  indicate  this  problem 
has a negative impact with 45% (38 of 84) considering 
the  impact  significantly  negative.  Only  4%  (3  of  84) 
consider it has a positive impact. 

Requirement for local establishment 

Patchwork  of  approaches  to  liberalising 
national markets 

Discrimination on access to terminals 

79%  (60  of  76)  of  stakeholders  indicate  this  problem 
has a negative impact with 67% (52 of 76) considering 
the  impact  significantly  negative.  Just  8%  (6  of  76) 
consider it has a positive impact. 

83%  (65  of  78)  of  stakeholders  indicate  this  problem 
has a negative impact with 37% (28 of 78) considering 
the  impact  significantly  negative.  Just  8%  (6  of  78) 
consider it has a positive impact. 

59%  (44  of  75)  of  stakeholders  indicate  this  problem 
has a negative impact with 32% (24 of 75) considering 
the  impact  significantly  negative.  Just  1%  (1  of  75) 
considers it has a positive impact. 

Evidence  from  stakeholders,  and  in  particular  the  IRU,  suggest  that  journey  forms  for 
occasional services no longer serve any purpose in the current market and their use should be 
discontinued.  70%  (103  of  148)  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  view  the  journey 
form as “very useless” or “rather useless” with only 16% (24 of 148) finding it “rather useful” 
or  “very  useful”.  In  2003  the  Nordic  countries  abolished  the  journey  form  for  operators 
performing occasional services in those countries with no reported negative consequences. 

The study suggests that national liberalisation in some Member States can be expected to have 
reduced the administrative burden for international regular services in some cases. However, 
the problems listed in Table 5 may also be expected to increase the administrative burden for 
operators.    Furthermore,  the  study  finds  that  the  range  of  access  arrangements  deters  coach 
operators from providing international services and seeking access to more than one national 
market  for  regular  services.  This  disproportionately  affects  SMEs  which  have  limited 
resources with which to develop EU-wide business strategies.  

Conclusion 
Allowing  for  the  lack  of  quantitative  data,  the  qualitative  data  indicates  that  on  balance  the 
changes introduced by the Regulation appear to have been efficient delivering in benefits with 
minor  regulatory  costs.  The  standardisation  of  documents  has  been  beneficial  to  all 
stakeholders. The modification of the authorising procedure has improved market efficiency 
and,  although  it  is  estimated  that  it  has  not  brought  about  all  the  benefits  expected  in  the 
Impact Assessment, it is assumed to have reduced costs and enabled the provision of a wider 
range of services. However, the reporting provision in Article 28 is considered inefficient as it 

38 

 
 
 
has  not  resulted  in  any  regulatory  benefits.  Finally,  the  patchwork  of  national  regulatory 
frameworks,  requirement  for  local  establishment,  restrictions  in  access  to  national  markets 
and  discrimination  in  access  to  terminals  all  increase  regulatory  costs  for  operators  and  can 
deter them from providing international regular services and national regular services in more 
than one Member State.  

5.4.  Coherence  

Question 10: Are the provisions of the regulation, including in particular the definition of 
cabotage operations, consistent with those of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 which governs 
access  to  the  occupation  of  road  transport  operator  and  (EC)  No  1072/2009  which 
regulates access to the market of international freight market?  

This  concerns  the  question  of  how  well  or  not  different  actions  work  together.  It  examines 
how well the Regulation interacts with Regulation 1071/2009 and Regulation 1072/2009.  

Road Package 2009 

As mentioned in Section 2.1 these two regulations were adopted along with the Regulation as 
a part of a legislative package in 2009 to regulate the conditions for accessing the profession 
and  for  accessing  the  markets  of  transport  of  goods  and  people  by  road.  Together  the 
Regulations were developed at solving problems in seven main areas64: 

(1)  Difficulties to monitor properly companies without stable and effective establishment. 
financial  capacity 
(2)  Non-comparable  certificate  of  professional  capacity  and 

requirements for being admitted to the occupation. 

(3)  Unclear link between the holder of the certificate of professional capacity ("transport 
manager")  and  the  undertaking  using  his/her  certificate  to  obtain  the  licence  giving 
access to the market. 

(4)  Unclear definition and control of temporary cabotage. 
(5)  Burdensome procedure for authorising international regular passenger services. 
(6)  Heterogeneity of a number of control documents. 
(7)  Uneven level of monitoring of compliance. 

As well as the simplification and clarification of the legal provisions, and making them more 
enforceable, the operational objectives of the legislative package were: 

  Contribute to a level playing field and reduce distortion of competition. 
  Raise the level of professional qualifications of road transport managers. 
  Reduce the administrative burden. 
  Enhance compliance with safety, social and technical rules. 
  Contain the environmental impact of road, notably empty returns of vehicles. 

As part of a legislative package the interaction of the Regulations is direct in that they share 
common  objectives.  The  impact  on  the  objectives  of  the  Regulations  is  coherent  as  they  all 
intend  to  improve  the  current  rules  on  access  to  the  market  and  to  the  profession  with  the 
overall goal of making sure that the rules better contribute to achieve the EU road  transport 
policy.  This  is  in  line  with  the  White  paper  which  states  that  “the  elimination  of  remaining 
restrictions on cabotage should be pursued”. 

64 SEC(2007) 635/2 Commission Staff Working Paper Impact Assessment  

39 

 
 
                                                 
Coherence with Regulation 1071/2009 

Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 sets out rules for companies wanting to enter and be active in 
the road haulage and passenger transport business. The exercise of road passenger transport 
operator  requires  an  authorisation  to  pursue  the  occupation  delivered  following  Regulation 
1071/2009  and  a  Community  licence  delivered  following  the  Regulation.  The  main 
interactions  between  Regulation  1071/2009  and  the  Regulation  relate  to  the  requirement  of 
good  repute,  the  consequence  of  infringements  and  uniform  monitoring  to  ensure  fair 
competition and road passenger transport that is fully compliant with the rules.  

In  order  to  satisfy  the  requirement  of  good  repute  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009  the 
carrier must, amongst others, not in one or more Member States been convicted of incurred a 
penalty  for  a  serious  infringement  of  Community  rules.  National  authorities  are  responsible 
for monitoring undertakings and ensuring they meet the requirements for engagement in the 
occupation  and  if  necessary  to  take  suitable  measures  against  carriers  who  are  repeatedly 
negligent  or  act  in  bad  faith.    Both  Regulations  provide  an  obligation  for  mutual  assistance 
and the exchange of information through a shared contact point. The Regulation provides an 
obligation on host Member States to inform a carrier’s Member State of establishment about 
any  serious  infringement  of  Community  road  transport  legislation  attributable  to  a  non-
resident  carrier.  Additionally,  Member  States  are  required  to  enter  into  their  national 
electronic register of road transport undertakings all serious infringements which have led to 
the imposition of a penalty. No contradictions were identified between the texts with regards 
to monitoring and exchange of information between Member States and the measures to allow 
for the effective sanctioning of serious infringements and the objectives of the Regulations are 
considered coherent.  

Coherence with Regulation 1072/2009 

Regulation (EC) 1072/2009 lays down common rules applicable to access to the market in the 
international carriage of goods by road within the EU. International road transport operations 
have  been  fully  liberalised  within  the  European  Union.  However,  national  road  transport 
within  an  EU  country  by  hauliers  not  resident  in  that  country,  known  as  cabotage,  is  still 
subject  to  restrictions.  During  the  targeted  consultation  conducted  as  part  of  the  evaluation 
stakeholders generally shared the view that two separate sets of rules are required for freight 
transport and passenger transport as they do not have sufficient commonalities to be combined 
into one legal text.  

The scope of the regulations is similar in that they encompass international transport services 
and  the  application  of  the  regulation  to  national  transport  services  for  hire  and  reward 
operated on a temporary basis by a non-resident carrier. The objectives of the Regulations are 
coherent in that they pursued to lay down common rules on access to the international market 
and for performing cabotage operations. However some inconsistencies were found between 
the Regulations. 

Regulation  1072/2009  enables  the  Commission  to  adapt  the  period  of  validity  of  the 
Community  licence  as  a  result  of  technical  progress,  in  particular  the  national  electronic 
registers  of  road  transport  undertakings  as  provided  for  in  Article  16  of  Regulation 
1071/2009. This is inconsistent with the Regulation as it does not contain the same provision 
even  though  Article  16  of  Regulation  1071/2009  applies  to  both  Regulation  1072/2009  and 
the Regulation.  

Although  both  regulations  share  the  common  operational  objective  of  establishing  common 
rules  for  performing  cabotage  operations,  the  definitions  and  legal  frameworks  of  cabotage 

40 

 
 
operations are different. The differences can be explained and justified by the particularities 
of each sector. 

Conclusion 

The  regulations  are  generally  coherent  with  some  minor  inconsistencies.  The  main 
inconsistencies  are  with  Regulation  1072/2009  in  that  it  prescribes  when  a  Community 
licence must be issued by a Member State and it enables the Commission to adapt the period 
of validity of the Community Licence  as  a result of technical progress. The other identified 
differences appear to stem from the particularities of each sector. 

Question  11:  Is  the  objective  of  promoting  bus  and  coach  transport  as  a  sustainable 
alternative to individual car transport coherent with the EU's modal shift policy (as notably 
expressed  in  the  2011  White  Paper  on  Transport),  and  more  generally,  with  overarching 
EU  strategies  (policy  on  combating  climate  change,  providing  for  a  deeper  and  fairer 
internal market, Energy Union, etc.)?  

This  concerns  the  question  of  the  Regulation's  complementarity  and  consistency  with  other 
EU policies with similar objectives. It examines how well the Regulation interacts with other 
EU interventions and strategies. 

Coherence with EU Transport Policy on mobility patterns 
The general aim of EU transport policy is to reduce the adverse effects connected to mobility 
which above all means the promotion of co-modality i.e. optimally combining various modes 
of transport within the same transport chain. The continuing importance of pursuing a single 
European transport area and removing competitive distortions is reiterated in the White Paper.  

The  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  2011  White  Paper  carried  out  the  assessment  of 
current problems and needs of the EU transport sector. It found that the level of integration of 
the EU transport market remains low in comparison to other parts of the economy and that a 
genuine  EU-wide  internal  market  exists  only  in  air  transport,  while  other  transport  modes 
suffer  from  different  degrees  of  fragmentation  along  national  borders;  this  concerns  in  first 
place  rail  and  inland  waterways,  but  road  and  short  sea  shipping  are  also  affected.  It  also 
found  that  cross-border  transport  and  competition  in  national  markets  is  hindered  by 
protectionist  regulations  or  attitudes,  often  defending  the  interest  of  incumbents  and 
restricting access to national markets by foreign operators and new market entrants. 

The White Paper sets out the Commissions vision for a competitive and sustainable transport 
system, acknowledges that curbing mobility is not an option and that new transport patterns 
must emerge, according to which larger volumes of freight and greater numbers of travellers 
are  carried  jointly  to  their  destination  by  the  most  efficient  (combination  of)  modes.  It 
recognises that an efficient core network for multimodal intercity travel and transport requires 
greater  use  of  buses  and  coaches  and  that  better  modal  choice  will  result  from  greater 
integration  of  modal  networks  which  should  increasingly  be  linked  and  transformed  into 
multimodal  connection  platforms  for  passengers.  It  calls  for  a  higher  share  of  travel  by 
collective  transport,  combined  with  minimum  service  obligations,  which  will  allow  the 
density  and  frequency  of  service  to  increase,  thereby  generating  a  virtuous  circle  for  public 
transport modes.  

The  objective  of  promoting  bus  and  coach  transport  in  the  Regulation  as  a  sustainable 
alternative to individual car transport is coherent with the 2011 White Paper in that they both 
aim to make greater use of bus and coach as part of the core network for multimodal intercity 
travel.  

41 

 
 
Coherence with EU initiatives on climate change 
Several  EU  initiatives,  but  primarily  Europe  2020  Strategy  -Europe's  growth  strategy,  its 
flagship  initiative  for  resource  efficiency,  the  Energy  Union  Package  2015,  A  European 
Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility and the 2011 Transport White Paper, consider adaptation 
to  climate  change  by  aiming  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth.  Together  these 
initiatives provide a long-term plan for how the European Union will make the transition to a 
sustainable, low-carbon, and climate-friendly economy that is designed to last.   

Although these strategies have not been designed specifically for the road passenger transport 
sector  they  are  related  as  regards  to  the  promotion  of  bus  and  coach  as  a  sustainable 
alternative to individual car use. Common rules for air quality, vehicle emission standards and 
fuel quality are other important elements to enable the implementation of these strategies.  

According to the Commission's Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 
2050 and the White Paper, transport as a whole has to reduce its CO2 emissions by 2050 of 
about  60%  vs  their  1990  level.  As  more  resource-efficient  vehicles  and  cleaner  fuels  are 
unlikely to achieve on their own the necessary cuts in emissions the White Paper promotes the 
consolidation of large volumes of passengers for intercity travel which implies greater use of 
buses and  coaches, rail and air transport.  It states  that  better  modal choices will  result from 
greater  integration  of  the  modal  networks:  airports,  ports,  railway,  metro  and  bus  stations, 
should  increasingly  be  linked  and  transformed  into  multimodal  connection  platforms  for 
passengers. The Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the White Paper calls 
for more sustainable and efficient interurban travel also requires a systematic choice in favour 
of the most efficient mode among the public and private transport means. Despite progress in 
all modes, their relative position in terms of energy efficiency is unlikely to change, owing to 
their  intrinsic  characteristics,  so  in  order  to  achieve  further  energy  savings  and  emission 
reductions in interurban passenger transport, coaches and railways will need to take a greater 
share in traffic, partly substituting cars and planes. 

The average CO2 emissions of bus and coach per passenger transported are best in class for 
long  distance  transport  and  as  such  these  services  can  play  a  significant  role  in 
decarbonisation  of  transport.  The  Regulation  is  coherent  with  these  strategies  as  the  aim  of 
sustainability  is  shared  and  the  shift  of  passengers  from  passenger  car  to  bus  and  is 
complementary  to  the  aims  of  emission  reduction,  low-carbon,  and  a  climate-friendly 
economy.    

Coherence with fairer internal market 
The  continuing  importance  of  pursuing  a  single  European  transport  area  and  removing 
competitive  distortions  is  reiterated  in  the  White  Paper.  By  aiming  to  open  the  market  for 
cross-border services and for cabotage operations, and preventing discrimination on grounds 
of  nationality  or  place  of  establishment  the  Regulation  is  clearly  coherent  with  the 
development of the single European transport area. 

With regard to the Regulation and market access, completion of the single market remains a 
highly relevant goal. The Report of the Commission on A Single Market for Growth and Jobs 
2013    states  that  to  achieve  a  true  internal  market  for  transport  services,  more  needs  to  be 
done  at  Member  State  level,  as  divergent  national  priorities  and  the  fragmentation  of  the 
transport market continue to negatively affect the quality of transport services in Europe. The 
report  called  on  Member  States  to  review  any  remaining  national  restrictions  to  access  to 
national road passenger markets with a view to ensuring their full compatibility with existing 
EU legislation. 

42 

 
 
Significant  differences  in  the  regulatory  arrangements  applying  to  national  regular  services 
which  are  not  performed  as  part  of  a  regular  international  service  have  been  found  across 
Member  States.  These  national  developments,  which  are  not  supported  by  harmonised  EU 
legislation, create a patchwork and are not consistent with the objective of a single European 
transport  area  and  might  be  counterproductive  to  an  internal  market  for  bus  and  coach 
services. 

Coherence with Road Safety Policy 
The White Paper sets a road safety goal of achieving close to zero fatalities in road transport 
by 2050 and to halve road casualties by 2020.  

As described in section 6.6., the evolution of safety for both coach and car and taxi is similar 
in  terms  of  showing  a  general  downward  trend  in  fatalities,  but  the  major  difference  is  the 
actual number of deaths. Coach and bus account for 1% of the distribution of road fatalities 
whilst car and taxi account for 45%.  

The impact of the Regulation on road safety is unclear due to the wide variety of factors and 
actions  that  influence  road  safety  including  education  and  training,  enforcement,  safer 
infrastructure, safer vehicles, protection of vulnerable people and improvements in emergency 
services. However, it is apparent that the introduction of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 has 
not had a negative impact on the trend of a reduction in bus and coach fatalities. 

Although there is no direct link between the objectives of the road safety and the Regulation 
undoubtedly there are indirect links. The Regulation can play a supporting role in creating the 
right  framework  conditions  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  safety  legislation  and  hence  be 
considered coherent in this respect.  

Conclusion 
The objective of promoting coach and bus transport as a sustainable alternative to individual 
car transport is coherent with EU policy. However the absence of explicit targets for coaches 
and  buses  may  hamper  the  development  of  coach  and  bus  services  even  when  they  offer  a 
better  solution  than  rail  or  provide  complementary  services.  The  absence  of  specific 
objectives  is  not  coherent  with  the  policy  to  promote  greater  integration  of  the  modal 
networks and this indirectly promotes the use of passenger car as coach and bus services are 
not integrated into the door-to-door mobility chain. 

The  Regulation  is  coherent  with  the  EU  initiatives  on  climate  change  as  the  aim  of 
sustainability is shared and the aim of shifting passengers from car to bus is complementary to 
the  aims  of  emission  reduction,  low-carbon,  and  a  climate  friendly  economy.  It  is  also 
coherent with the Road Safety Policy. 

The persistence of a patchwork of national regulations is not coherent with the objective of a 
single European transport area and might be counterproductive to an internal market for bus 
and coach services.       

 Question  12:  To  what  extent  are  enforcement  rules  of  the  Regulation  compatible  with 
similar  rules  in  other  pieces  of  legislation  applied  to  the  same  operators?  In  practice,  to 
what extent are enforcement rules streamlined? 

As  well  as  the  interaction  with  Regulation  1071/2009,  the  Regulation  interacts  with  the 
enforcement rules of several and different legal instruments at EU level. The analysis for this 
question considers the coherence between the specific enforcement rules. 

43 

 
 
 
Coherence with Regulations 1071/2009 
At the level of policy objectives and the respective provisions, the two Regulations are clearly 
coherent  with  goals  of  EU  transport  policy  such  as  a  higher  degree  of  convergence  and 
enforcement  of  social  and  safety  rules,  since  their  objectives  are  to  contribute  to  increased 
compliance  with  EU  road  transport  social  and  safety  legislation.  The  similarities  and 
inconsistencies between the Regulations are reported in section 6.10.  

Enforcement is streamlined through the obligation on Member States to assist one another and 
exchange  relevant  information  via  national  contact  points.  Both  regulations  allow  for  the 
sanctioning  of  serious 
legislation  and 
infringements  of  Community  road 
stakeholders have reported that the harmonisation of control documents which made it easier 
and quicker to check the licences of non-resident hauliers. 

transport 

Coherence with social provisions 
The  EU  legislative  framework  on  the  social  aspects  of  the  road  transport  sector  includes 
Regulation  No  561/2006  on  driving  time  and  rest  periods  and  Directive  2002/15/EC  on  the 
organisation  of  the  working  time  of  mobile  workers65.  To  ensure  the  good  enforcement  of 
these rules, these provisions are completed by rules on minimum levels of checks (Directive 
2006/22/EC66)  and detailed legal  and technical  provisions on the recording equipment  to  be 
used in road transport (Regulation (EEC) No 3821/8567). These provisions act together with 
Regulations 1071/2009, 1072/2009 and the Regulation with the aim of completing the internal 
market in road transport while ensuring fair conditions of competition and adequate working 
conditions.  

The main interaction between Regulation 561/2006, Directive 2002/15/EC and the Regulation 
relates  to  serious  infringements  of  Community  road  transport  legislation,  in  particular  with 
regard to driving and rest periods for drivers, and to the sanctioning of these infringements by 
the Member State of establishment.  

There  are  no  contradictions  between  the  objectives  of  Regulation  561/2006,  Directive 
2002/15/EC  and  the  Regulation.  Desk  research  revealed  a  consistency  concern  between  the 
liability  for  infringements  Regulation  561/2009  and  the  Regulation.  Regulation  561/2006 
provides  for  the  principal  of  co-liability  whilst  there  is  no  co-liability  provision  in  the 
Regulation.  In  Regulation  561/2006  the  liability  of  transport  undertakings  does  not  exclude 
proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, or instigators of, or accessories to 
infringements  of  Regulation  561/2006.  This  extension  of  liability  encompasses,  amongst 
others, principal contractors, sub-contractors and tour operators.  There is no similar provision 
in the Regulation and the liability for infringements of the Regulation does not extend beyond 
the transport undertaking. There are no reports of this inconsistency being problematic. 

The  objective  of  Directive  2006/22/EC  is  to  lay  down  clear,  common  rules  on  minimum 
conditions  for  checking  the  correct  and  uniform  implementation  of  social  legislation 
applicable  to  road  transport.  The  objectives  pursued  by  Directive  2006/22/EC  are  coherent 
with the objectives of the Regulation.   
The  basis  for  the  tachograph68  was  provided  for  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  3821/85  on 
recording equipment in road transport. The main interaction between the tachograph rules and 
the Regulation is the possibility to use tachographs for enforcement of certain provisions of 

65 OJ L   80, 23.3.2002, p. 35 

66 OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35 

67OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8 
68 The tachograph is a device that records the driving time, breaks, rest periods as well as periods of other work 

undertaken by a driver. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
the Regulation e.g. cabotage or the provision of parallel or temporary services. However this 
additional capability stems from the use of the digital tachograph which is only mandatory for 
new vehicles registered after 1 May 2006. It is likely that analogue tachograph will continue 
to exist for a considerable time but this should not hinder the possibility to use the tachograph 
to assist with the enforcement of the Regulation. 

Coherence with posted workers directive 
Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of 
services69 applies to undertakings established in a Member State which, in the framework of 
the  transnational  provision  of  services,  post  workers,  to  the  territory  of  a  Member  State. 
Directive  2014/67/EU  aims  to  ensure  the  correct  application  of,  and  to  monitor  compliance 
with,  the  substantive  Union  rules  on  free  movement  of  workers  and  to  ensure  that  Member 
States  take  the  appropriate  measures  to  protect Union  workers  and  members  of  their  family 
exercising their right to free movement against both discrimination on grounds of nationality 
and any unjustified restriction or obstacle to the exercise of that right. The freedom to provide 
services includes the right of a service provider established in a Member State to temporarily 
post  its  workers  to  another  Member  State  in  order  to  provide  a  service.  This  is  obviously 
relevant in the field of the international carriage of passengers by coach or bus.  

Whereas  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive  96/71/EC  in  principle  applies  to  cabotage 
operations70,  in  practice it  is  not  being  enforced.  There  is  an inherent  difficulty  in  checking 
whether drivers  performing  cabotage  are granted the minimum conditions of the workers in 
the  country  where  they  perform  cabotage  and  for  the  part  of  their  trip  where  they  are 
performing  such  cabotage.  Therefore,  although  legally  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any 
inconsistency  between  the  Regulation  and  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive,  there  are 
practical difficulties in enforcing the latter directive in relation to cabotage operations. 

Conclusion 
The enforcement rules of the Regulation are compatible with similar rules in other pieces of 
legislation  applied  to  the  same  operators.  There  are  no  major  inconsistencies  between  the 
Regulations and other legislation with which it interacts. However, liability for infringements 
raises  a  consistency  concern  as  the  extension  of  the  liability  of  transport  undertakings 
established by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and with Directive 96/71/EC is not provided for 
in the Regulation.  

5.5.  EU added value  

Question 13: To what extent has the Regulation permitted achievements which could not be 
reached at Member State level through the bilateral agreements previously in place? 

This question considers the added value of an action at the EU level compared to other actions 
that could be taken by Member States. It also considers if the subsidiarity principle has been 
taken into account and whether the same results could not have been obtained by regulation at 
national level. 

The objective of the Common Transport Policy is to remove obstacles at the borders between 
Member  States  so  as  to  facilitate  the  free  movement  of  persons  and  goods.  To  this  end,  its 

69 OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1 

70 Recital 11 of Regulation 1071/2009 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
prime  objectives  are  to  complete  the  internal  market  for  transport,  ensure  sustainable 
development and promote a better territorial cohesion. This is enshrined in Article 90 TFEU, 
according  to  which the  fundamental  objectives  of  the  common  transport  policy  are those  of 
the Treaties themselves.  

The  scope  of  the  Regulation  includes  the  international  carriage  of  passengers  by  coach  and 
bus within the territory of the EU as well as the conditions under which non-resident carriers 
may operate national transport services within a Member State. As noted in the 1992 White 
Paper, added value is highest for EU legislation in areas which relate to cross-border transport 
and hence where the existence of different regulatory environments of Member States would 
create barriers and/or additional costs for economic operators. National legislation or bilateral 
agreements cannot ensure common rules at EU level due to their limited geographical scope. 
Moreover, the intervention sought to enhance the existing exchange of information between 
Member  States  which  could  not  be  made  by  individual  Member  States  and  could  only  be 
made in a fragmented way by Member States using bilateral agreements.  

The  objectives  of  the  intervention  went  beyond  clarification  and  simplification  of  the 
preceding Regulations. The intervention aimed at further opening the internal market with the 
inclusion  of  a  general  objective  of  opening  the  market  for  cross-border  services  and  for 
cabotage operations without jeopardising PSO's. Meeting these objectives and further opening 
of the Internal Market for coach and bus services would have been unlikely to happen on the 
basis of regulation at the national level.  

For  a  policy  intervention  in  the  internal  market,  and  more  importantly  for  international 
transport, it is  appropriate to  have  uniform implementation  across  all Member States  and to 
ensure the homogeneous application of the rules and provide for fair competition. Under these 
conditions  regulations  are  the  most  commonly  used  instrument  as  they  provide  clarity  and 
they  do  not  need  to  be  mediated  into  national  law  by  means  of  implementing  measures. 
Besides,  a  common  issue  with  soft  law  instruments  is  that  whilst  they  would  interpret  or 
complete  Regulations,  they  are  not  formally  binding  and  the  Commission  cannot  sanction 
Member States that do not adhere to them. This being the case it would not be appropriate for 
the Commission to adopt so called 'soft' or more flexible instruments.  

Conclusion 
It can be concluded that a regulation was the correct instrument to implement the policy and 
that  it  is  more  relevant,  effective  and  efficient  than  national  legislation  on  access  to  the 
international market for bus and coach services and on the functioning of the internal market.  

In  general,  the  Regulation  is  considered  to  have  led  to  positive  effects  compared  to  the 
situation prior to when it entered into force. This provides support to the conclusions that an 
EU  approach  in  the  form  of  a  regulation  is  the  most  suitable  way  to  ensure  access  to  the 
market for bus and coach services.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The analysis of relevance shows that the problems of discrimination on grounds of nationality 
or place of establishment and unnecessary administrative burdens remain relevant and are not 
adequately  addressed  by  the  existing  objectives.  There  is  a  mismatch  in  the  relationship 
between the problem of sub-optimal mix of transport modes and the objective of promoting 
bus and coach as a sustainable alternative to individual car transport and they both appear not 
sufficiently  defined.  It  is  suggested  that  the  main  problem  is  the  lack  of  attractive  mix  of 
alternative transport modes for citizens. This is particularly problematic for those with little or 

46 

 
 
no access to cars or other transport modes, those that live in disadvantaged regions and those 
with reduced mobility. 

The objectives were not aimed at the problem of discrimination in access to terminals. Yet, 
terminals serve a vital role acting as a hub in a network enabling passengers to change coach 
or acting as a multimodal hub enabling passengers to transfer to another collective mode of 
transport.  The  evaluation  found  evidence  of  discriminatory  access  to  terminals  (e.g.  Austria 
and  France)  which  distorts  service  patterns  and  limits  the  possibility  of  operators  to  adapt 
services to passenger demand. The accessibility to terminals as well as the extent to which the 
terminals  are  linked  to  other  modes  of  transport  is  particularly  important  for  international 
regular services. 

The  changes  brought  about  by  the  Regulation  have  contributed  to  progression  towards  the 
establishment  of  a  true  internal  market.  However,  the  persistence  of  national  markets  with 
separate  national  procedures  and  requirements  impedes  integration  and  undermines  the 
efficiency  of  coach  and  bus  services  and  suggests  that  a  lack  of  integration  of  the  internal 
market for coach and bus services will remain a problem into the future. 

The intervention did not aim at integrating national markets for regular services but national 
markets  are  recognised  as  a  critical  factor  in  the  provision  of  international  services.  The 
evolution of the market, in terms of different and divergent rules on access to national markets 
in  Member  States,  is  a  problem  that  was  not  previously  apparent  or  considered  when  the 
intervention was designed. This patchwork of regulatory systems in the EU makes it difficult 
for carriers to exploit the full potential of operating in an Internal Market and contributes to 
the inability of coach and bus services to capture significant modal share from passenger car. 

The evidence broadly indicates that market opening has resulted in growth in the number of 
operators,  numbers  of  passengers  and  the  number  of  services  however  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  the  exact  growth  that  can  be  attributed  to  the  Regulation  in  isolation.  The 
Regulation  has  had  little  impact  on  cabotage  operations  with  the  market  penetration  of  all 
types  of  services  remaining  persistently  low.  The  development  of  services  is  being 
constrained  in  some  markets,  including  the  international  market,  by  barriers  which  are 
contrary to the establishment of a true internal market. These barriers include the patchwork 
of national regulatory frameworks and the requirement for local establishment. 

There  has  been  a  mixed  impact  on  enhancing  fair  competition.  The  fragmented  internal 
market causes imbalances between Member States and an unlevel playing field. Undertakings 
attempting to enter the market in some cases encounter discrimination in obtaining access to 
the terminals which are often owned and operated by the incumbent bus or rail undertakings. 
On the other hand the market liberalisation attributable to the Regulation, as documented by 
the study, has had positive impacts such as placing competitive pressure on the evolution and 
dynamics of coach fares.  

The  level-of-service  has  improved  in  terms  of  frequency,  availability,  safety  and  comfort 
levels but there is little evidence that this growth can be attributed to the Regulation. 

As  regards  efficiency,  the  benefits  achieved  from  the  modification  of  the  authorising 
procedure has improved market efficiency and, although it is estimated that it has not brought 
about all the benefits expected in the Impact Assessment (i.e. the operator would gain EUR 
25,000  in  additional  revenue),  it  assumed  to  have  reduced  costs  by  EUR  10,800  per 
application. The new procedure has also enabled the provision of a wider range of services. It 
is  expected  that,  and  confirmed  by  most  stakeholders,  the  standardisation  of  control 
documents  has  resulted  in  cost  savings  by  shortening  the  time  required  for  roadside 

47 

 
 
inspections but there is no comprehensive data available to quantify the savings. However, the 
patchwork of national regulatory frameworks, requirement for local establishment, restrictions 
in access to national markets and discrimination in access to terminals all increase regulatory 
costs  for  operators  and  can  deter  them  from  providing  international  regular  services  and 
national regular services in more than one Member State. 

Journey  forms  are  reported  to  no  longer  serve  any  purpose  and  have  been  abandoned  in 
Nordic  countries  with  no  negative  impacts.  The  reporting  provisions  are  inefficient  as  they 
have not resulted in any regulatory benefit. And finally the patchwork of national regulatory 
frameworks  naturally  increases  the administrative  burden  for  operators  in  having  to  comply 
with different national procedures and requirements. 

As  regards  coherence,  the  Regulation  is  generally  coherent  with  other  road  transport 
legislation,  EU  Modal  shift  policy  and  overarching  EU  strategies.  However  the  absence  of 
explicit  performance  targets  may  hamper  the  development  of  coach  and  bus  services  even 
when  they  offer  a  better  solution  than  rail  or  provide  complementary  services.  This  is  not 
coherent with the policy to promote greater integration of the modal networks and indirectly 
promotes the use of passenger car and other less sustainable modes of transport. 

The Regulation is coherent with the EU initiatives on climate change and is complementary to 
the  aims  of  emission  reduction,  low-carbon,  and  a  climate  friendly  economy.  It  is  also 
coherent  with  the  Road  Safety  Policy.  With  regards  to  the  coherence  of  enforcement  rules 
there  are  no  major  inconsistencies  but  from  a  practical  viewpoint,  the  Regulation  has  little 
coherence  with  the  co-liability  principle  established  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  and 
with Directive 96/71/EC as the enforceability of these provisions is highly questionable. 

In general, the adoption of the Regulation has led to positive effects compared to the situation 
prior to when it entered into force. The analysis indicates that it is more relevant, effective and 
efficient  than  national  legislation  on  access  to  the  international  market  for  bus  and  coach 
services  and  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  This  provides  support  to  the 
conclusions  that  an  EU  approach  in  the  form  of  a  Regulation  is  the  most  suitable  way  to 
ensure access to the market for bus and coach services.  

The Commission does not have at its disposal comparable, reliable, synchronised, regular and 
comprehensive statistical data on the scale and development of the carriage of passengers by 
road by means of vehicles registered in the EU, and on the degree of utilisation of vehicles 
carrying out this transport. This makes it difficult for the Commission to carry out the tasks 
entrusted to it in the context of the common transport policy. 

48 

 
 
ANNEX  1:  PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION  CONCERNING  THE  PROCESS  TO  PREPARE  THE 
EVALUATION OR FITNESS CHECK. 

1. 

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

  DG MOVE is the lead Directorate General for the evaluation of Regulation (EC) 

No 1073/2009. 

  The  evaluation  was  validated  in  the  Agenda  Planning  by  Commissioner  Bulc  on 

27 July 2015 under reference N° 2016/MOVE/011. 

2.  

Organisation and timing 

  The evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 was launched on 23 March 2015 
with  the  first  meeting  of  the  Steering  Group  in  the  premises  of  DG  MOVE. 
Representatives  from  Secretariat  General,  Legal  Service,  Directorate-General  for 
Mobility  and  Transport  (MOVE),  Directorate-General  for  Environment  (ENV), 
Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs 
(GROW)  and  Directorate-General  for  Climate  Action  (DG  CLIMA)  were 
appointed to the Inter-Services Steering Group. 

  The second meeting of the Steering Group for the evaluation of Regulation (EC) 

No 1073/2009 was held on 1 July 2015 in the premises of DG MOVE.  

  The  evaluation  roadmap,  including  the  evaluation  questions,  was  published  in 

Agenda planning on 8 September 201571. 

  The  Comprehensive  Study  on  Passenger  Transport  by  Coach  in  Europe  was 

approved on the 29 April 2016; 

 

Intermediate Report for the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 was sent 
to the Steering Group on 22 June 2016; 

  The  Final  Report  for  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/2009  was  sent  to  the  Steering 
Group on 12 April 2017. The Final Report was approved by the Steering Group on  
2017. 

  The Final Report was sent to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 21 June 2017. 

3.  

Evidence used 

  The evaluation relies mostly on the "Comprehensive Study on Passenger Transport 

by Coach in Europe" conducted by an external consultant72. 

  Evidence  was  also  gathered  from  the  reporting  requirements  of  Member  States 
under Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 and from the implementation 
of  the  Regulations,  e.g.  infringement  and  pre-infringement  procedures,  and  also 
from direct consultations of Member States and stakeholders. 

71 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_move_011_evaluation_passenger_coach_bus_transport_en.pdf  

72 Comprehensive Study on Passenger Transport by Coach in Europe, completed by Steer Davies Gleave for the 

European Commission, April 2016. 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Introduction 

This  stakeholder  consultation  synopsis  report  provides  a  summary  of  the  outcomes  of  the 
stakeholder  consultation  activities  which  were  carried  out  as  part  of  the  review  of  the 
legislation on access to the international market for coach and bus services. It provides a basic 
analysis  of  the  responses  of  stakeholder  groups  involved  in  the  consultation  process  and  a 
summary  of  the  main  issues  which  they  raised.  Five  separate  consultation  activities  were 
undertaken, namely: 

  an  open  public  consultation  organised  by  the  Commission  services  which  was 

launched on 14/12/2016 and lasted until 15/03/2017 (13 weeks);  

  a  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  organised  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  which  was 
launched on 27 January 2017 and remained open until 24 March 2017 (9 weeks); 

  18 interviews with a number of stakeholders, including industry representatives, trade 
unions, national authorities and operators, which took place during the period 9 March 
2017 to 19 April 2017;  

  a  Special  Eurobarometer  organised  by  the  Commission,  based  on  interviews  with 
27,901 respondents at their homes across 28 Member States between 18 March 2017 
and 27 March 2017; and  

  stakeholder seminars and discussions at several different events. 

The objectives of the consultation activities were to:  

  provide the public and stakeholders with an opportunity to express their views on all 
elements  relevant  for  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  road  passenger 
transport, as well as to express their positions on the possible/desirable changes to the 
regulatory framework; and 

  gather  specialised  input  (data  and  factual  information,  expert  views)  on  specific 
aspects  of  the  legislation  (e.g.  national  markets  for  regular  services,  terminals,  etc.) 
from the enforcement community and from the industry, in order to prepare the impact 
assessment and the legislative proposal. 

Consultation activities 

Open public consultation (OPC) 

The objectives of the OPC were to help verify the problems faced by the sector, as identified 
in  the  ex-post  evaluation,  validate  the  objectives  of  the  possible  policy  interventions  and 
obtain  the  opinion  of  stakeholders  on  the  appropriateness  and  expected  impacts  of  the 
interventions. It was comprised of two questionnaires, one for the general public and a more 
specialised  one  for  key  stakeholders,  which  were  made  available  online  through  the 
Commission’s  EU  Survey  facility,  ‘Your  Voice  in  Europe’.  The  survey  was  open  to  all 
categories of respondents (individual citizens, representatives of business including individual 
firms or associations, public authorities and civil society organisations). 

50 

 
 
 
 
The general questionnaire was concerned with establishing how frequently respondents used 
coach services, their view on the importance of such services and their motivation for using 
them.  A  total  of  18  responses  were  received:  eight  from  consumers/citizens,  seven  from 
companies, two from non-governmental authorities and one other as shown in the table below.  

Table A.2-1: Classification of stakeholders responding to the general questionnaire 

Stakeholder category 

A citizen/consumer 

A non-governmental authority (e.g. NGO) 

A company 

Other 

Total 

Number of responses 

% of responses 

8 

2 

7 

1 

18 

44% 

11% 

39% 

6% 

100% 

Notes: “Other” is based on the respondents’ choice. 

Respondents  resided,  or  were  based,  in  nine  different  Member  States  (Austria,  Finland, 
Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). The most 
responses  were  from  Austria,  Germany  and  Hungary,  each  accounting  for  three  responses 
(17% of the total). 

Six (33%) of the responses were from EU-13 Member States and 12 (67%) were from EU-15 
Member States. 

The  specialised  questionnaire  was  concerned  with  determining  stakeholders’  views  on  the 
performance  of  the  market  and  the  possible  impacts  of  potential  changes  to  Regulation 
1073/2009. There were a total of 153 complete or partial responses, including 68 companies 
involved  in  the  transport  chain,  28  non-governmental  authorities  and  17  road  passenger 
transport workers, as shown in the table below. 

Table A.2-2: Classification of stakeholders responding to the specialised questionnaire 

Stakeholder category 

A citizen/consumer 

A road passenger transport worker (e.g. driver) 

Company engaged in transport chain 

EU Governmental authority 

Enforcement authority 

Regulatory  authority  (e.g.  national 
regulator, national competition authority) 

transport 

A non-governmental authority (e.g. NGO) 

An academic 

Other 

Total 

Number of responses 

% of responses 

1 

17 

68 

3 

3 

7 

28 

1 

25 

153 

1% 

11% 

44% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

18% 

1% 

16% 

100% 

Notes: “Other” is based on the respondents’ choice. 

Respondents  resided  in,  or  were  based  in,  16  different  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium, 
Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, 
Portugal,  Romania,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom).  Four  respondents  were  from 
other European non-EU countries. 90 responses (59%) were from Germany. 

51 

 
 
Five (3%) of the responses were from EU-13 Member States and 144 (94%) were from EU-15 
Member States. 

Targeted stakeholder consultation 

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  involved  sending  a  detailed  questionnaire  to  key 
stakeholders identified during the inception stage of the study. Four different questionnaires 
were produced, each tailored to the type of stakeholder.  

A total of 31 responses were received, and a breakdown by stakeholder group is shown in the 
table below. 

Table A.2-3: Targeted questionnaire responses 

Type 

Questionnaires sent  Responses received 

Percentage 
questionnaires sent 

of 

Ministry / Regulator 

53 

Pan-European organisation  14 

Operator 

Operator association 

91 

27 

20 

2 

3 

6 

38% 

14% 

3% 

22% 

Table A.2-4: Responses to questionnaire 

Member State 

Number of responses 

Percentage 

EU13 

EU15 

Pan-European 

10 

19 

2 

32% 

61% 

6% 

Interviews were conducted with the aim of gathering more detailed insights into stakeholder’s 
experiences as  well as  their  views on the different measures under consideration. They also 
provided  an  opportunity  to  request  quantitative  data  required  for  the  impact  assessment.  In 
each  case,  we  submitted  specific  questions  in  advance  and/or  sought  clarification  on 
information provided through the questionnaires. Interviews were held either face-to-face or 
by phone. 

Table A.2-5: Summary of interview programme 

Type of stakeholder 

Ministry / Regulator 

Pan-European organisation 

Operator 

Operator association 

Number 
completed 

of 

interviews 

Member States covered 

6 

4 

4 

4 

UK, EL, IT, IE, NL, FR 

UK, FR, ES 

DE, UK, IE, SE 

52 

 
 
 
Eurobarometer 

A Eurobarometer public opinion survey is to be conducted amongst European citizens in the 
28  Member  States  of  the  EU.  The  objective  of  this  survey  was  to  gather  the  opinion  of  the 
European  citizens  on  a  series  of  issues  related  to  satisfaction  with  current  coach  services  in 
their country and reasons for using/ not using such services. 

Targeted stakeholder consultation 

The  consultant  responsible  for 
through 
questionnaires. The questionnaires were targeted at each relevant stakeholder group and were 
adjusted to the needs of each particular group. 

the  support  study  consulted  stakeholders 

The survey investigated:  

the extent of both domestic and international coach travel;  
the purposes for which coach services are used;  

  how many Europeans use coach services and how regularly they do so;  
 
 
  how  users  rate  coach  services  in  general,  and  how  they  rate  specific  aspects  of  the 
service  including  feelings  of  safety,  punctuality  and  reliability,  fares,  comfort  and 
integrated ticketing;  

  perceptions of service quality among non-users;  
 
  what improvements in existing services, if any, would make them more likely to use 

the reasons why citizens choose to travel by coach; and  

coach services. 

Conclusions and limitations 

The  objectives  of  the  consultation  activities  have  been  largely  achieved.  All  relevant 
stakeholder  groups  within  all  EU  Member  States  have  been  consulted,  and  most  provided 
their views to the policy measures under consideration. 

It  was  difficult  to  engage  stakeholders  due  to  the  level  of  consultation  activity  in  2017  in 
support of the study and that undertaken in 2016 as part of the evaluation. The feedback from 
most  stakeholders  we  contacted  was  that  they  had  already  responded  to  the  OPC  and/or 
targeted  stakeholder  questionnaire  and  were  too  busy  to  engage  further.  Consulting  via 
various  methods  on  the  same  subject  in  a  short  period  meant  that  there  was  only  a  limited 
response in some areas. 

Although  we  requested  that  stakeholders  send  us  any  available  data  on  the  coach  market, 
relatively little was received. This reflected the following: 

  many  Member  States  do  not  collect  statistics  for  the  coach  market  and  are  only 

 

concerned with the authorisations granted; and 
the  operators  we  spoke  to  would  not  share  data  for  reasons  of  confidentiality  or 
because of their company policy. 

Results of consultation activities 

Stakeholder input on problems with current legislation 

53 

 
 
 
Stakeholders provided significant input that helped to validate and elaborate the definition of 
the  problem  and  identify  potential  changes  to  the  current  legislation.  Input  relating  to  the 
problem definition came primarily from the OPC and the targeted stakeholder questionnaires, 
and to a lesser extent from the interviews and Eurobarometer. 

The  sections  below  summarise  the  inputs  provided  and  their  implications  for  the  following 
aspects of the problem:  

restricted access to the market for domestic regular services;  
the requirement for establishment in Member State;  

 
 
  different  national  approaches  to  liberalisation;  discrimination  in  access  to  bus  and 

coach terminals;  

  and the role of coach services in improving connectivity and economic development. 

Access to the market for domestic regular services is restricted 

The  Open  Public  Consultation  Specialised  (OPCS)  stakeholders  agreed  that  restrictions  on 
access to the national market for regular coach and bus services constitute a problem. 50 of 
the 153 (33%) respondents agreed that it is a major problem and 42 (27%) agreed that it is a 
minor  problem.  30  of  the  45  (67%)  of  companies  engaged  in  the  transport  chain 
(“Companies”)  indicated  that  the  restrictions  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  ability  of 
undertakings  to  expand  into  new  markets,  and  none  expressed  the  view  that  they  had  a 
positive impact. A majority of stakeholders stated that establishing a common EU framework 
for access to national markets for regular services would reduce the cost of compliance with 
legislation relative to the costs under the present rules. However, such a framework was also 
considered to have a possible negative effect on incumbent coach operators by 22 of the 68 
(32%) Companies, two of the three (67%) EU Governmental Authorities, 19 of the 28 (68%) 
NGOs and seven of the 17 (41%) Workers.  

In an interview, National Express stated there was no discrimination in providing access to the 
UK market. They cited an example of a new entrant from the US gaining access and operating 
a service within six months of announcing its intention. However, two operators responding to 
the targeted stakeholder questionnaire noted that they had been refused access to the domestic 
market, given partial permission to operate or asked to modify their schedule because it was 
in competition with an existing public service. 

The requirement for establishment in Member State 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  responding  to  the  OPCS  stated  that  the  specific  requirement  for 
local  establishment  is  a  concern,  with  83  of  153  (54%)  identifying  it  as  either  a  minor  or 
major problem. 39 of the 68 (57%) Companies who responded stated that it was a major or 
minor problem. However, two of three responses from EU Governmental Authorities, 14 of 
28 (50%) from NGOs and four of seven (57%) from Regulatory Authorities indicated that the 
requirement  was  not  a  problem.  The  biggest  perceived  negative  impact  of  this  requirement 
among Companies was the associated administrative costs for carriers  – 29 of the 36 (81%) 
identified these costs as a negative impact.  

Moreover, a majority of stakeholders considered that assisting entry into national markets by 
carriers resident in other Member States would be beneficial. 38 of the 68 (56%) Companies 
and 11 of the 17 (65%) road passenger transport workers (“Workers”) stated that this would 
make a positive contribution to the market. At the same time, a majority of NGOs, 15 of the 

54 

 
 
28 (54%), and Regulatory Authorities, three of the seven (43%), stated that there would be no 
impact on the market. 

Different national approaches to liberalisation 

43  of  the  68  Companies  (63%)  and  14  of  the  17  Workers  (59%)  responded  that  the 
‘patchwork’  approach  to  liberalisation  across  the  EU  was  a  problem.  However,  two  of  the 
three  EU  Governmental  Authorities  (67%),  16  of  the  28  NGOs  (57%),  four  of  the  seven 
Regulatory  Authorities  (57%)  and  two  of  the  three  Enforcement  Authorities  (67%)  did  not 
consider the differences between the levels of liberalisation in different Member States to be a 
concern.  Again,  the  effect  on  the  administrative  costs  for  carriers  was  considered  to  be  the 
greatest negative impact, with 32 of the 38 (84%) Companies, seven of the nine (78%) NGOs, 
two  of  the  three  (67%)  Regulatory  Authorities,  six  of  the  eight  (75%)  Workers  and  an 
Enforcement  Authority  respondent  indicating  that  there  would  be  a  significant  negative 
impact or negative impact.   

This  view  was  reinforced  during  interviews  with  operators.  For  example,  National  Express 
highlighted that consistency on market access rule is needed as some countries’ national rules 
have precedent over European rules, making it difficult to enter new markets. However, the 
European  Trade  Worker’s  Federation  (ETF)  said  that  they  disagreed  with  liberalisation  as 
there are no consistent rules governing driver working conditions across the EU. They cited 
the freight industry as an example of how problems can arise in a mature liberalised market. 
This  opinion  was  supported  by  other  Pan-European  organisations,  including  the  European 
Disability  Forum  (EDF),  which  stated  in  interview  that  it  would  prefer  a  more  regulated 
market, as in the rail sector.  

Discrimination in access to bus and coach terminals 

A majority of stakeholder groups responding to the OPCS stated that discrimination against 
new entrants in providing access to terminals was a problem. 39 of the 68 Companies (57%), 
two of the three EU Governmental Authorities (67%), 15 of the 28 NGOs (54%), four of the 
seven  Regulatory  Authorities  (57%)  and  10  of  the  17  Workers  (59%)  indicated  that 
discrimination was either a major or a minor problem. 26 of the 32 (81%) Companies stated 
that  the  resulting  administrative  costs  for  carriers  constituted  a  negative  impact.  No 
stakeholder  group  considered  that  discriminatory  access  to  terminals  had  a  positive  impact. 
Two  of  the  three  (67%)  Enforcement  Authorities  that  responded  did  not  consider 
discrimination to be a problem however. 

When  asked  about  complaints  from  operators  in  regards  to  terminal  access,  the  French 
Regulator gave an example of an ongoing dispute by a coach operator. The operator could not 
gain  access  to  the  coach  terminal  at  Beauvais  airport  due  to  the  non-publication  of  the 
terminal access rules. The case was dismissed after the rules were subsequently published, but 
it was decided at the end of December 2016 to open an infringement procedure to investigate 
possible breaches by the operator of its legal obligations. In the Regulator’s opinion, the rules 
were  not  objective,  transparent  and  non-discriminatory  in  nature.  The  investigation  is  on-
going.  

The view that terminal access is discriminatory was supported by Megabus who told us that 
they  had  been  denied  access  to  the  terminal  in  Birmingham  which  is  privately  owned  by 
National  Express,  a  rival  operator,  and  have  had  difficulty  obtaining  departure  slots  at  the 
public terminal in Leeds which is managed by National Express.  

55 

 
 
The role of coach services in improving connectivity and economic development 

Six of the eight Consumers (75%) and six of the seven Companies (86%) participating in the 
Open  Public  Consultation  General  (OPCG)  gave  a  positive  response  when  asked  if  coach 
services were viewed as important for the economic development of the respondent’s region 
and  jobs.  A  frequent  comment  in  the  free  text  section  was  that  better  connections  and 
coordination  between  different  modes  of  transport  would  encourage  greater  use  of  coach 
services.  In  general,  respondents  did  not  consider  that  the  use  of  coach  services  was 
discouraged by excessive fares, with four of the seven (57%) Companies, 100% of NGOs and 
five of the eight (63%) consumers viewing fares positively. 

However, these results must be qualified to some degree by the results of the Eurobarometer 
survey.  Across  the  EU,  some  35%  of  those  surveyed  made  some  use  of  coach  services  to 
travel  within  their  own  country,  with  25%  using  them  to  travel  to  destinations  in  other 
countries. The majority of journeys are made for leisure purposes, although some passengers 
use coach services to connect with airports and rail stations as well as to make work-related 
trips.  The  primary  reasons  for  travelling  by  coach  are  the  availability  of  low  fares,  even 
among countries with more liberal market access rules, although lack of access to a car was 
also frequently cited a reason for choosing coach services. 

Nevertheless, the Eurobarometer results also provide some evidence that fares continue to be 
a barrier to coach travel. Among non-users, the most frequent responses to the question ‘what 
would make you more likely to travel by coach?’ were lack of access to a car (37% of non-
user responses) and lower prices (26% of non-user responses). The corresponding responses 
among  economically  disadvantaged  non-users  (facing  difficulties  paying  bills  most  of  the 
time) were similar (35% and 32% respectively). Moreover, among users of coach services in 
the  same  disadvantaged  group,  low  prices  accounted  for  32%  of  responses  to  the  question 
‘why  did  you  decide  to  travel  by  coach  on  the  most  recent  trips?’  This  suggests  that  lower 
income  passengers  are  aware  of  the  price  competitiveness  of  coach  travel  but  would  make 
more trips if fares were even lower.  

Stakeholder input on policy measures considered 

Stakeholders  provided  input  on  the  level  of  support  and  expected  impacts  of  the  policy 
measures under consideration. An analysis of the views expressed is presented below. 

Extend  the  scope  of  the  legislation  to  include  all  regular  services  (both  international  and 
national services)  

The majority of respondents to the OPCS supported establishing a common framework in the 
EU for access to the national for markets for regular services. 44 of the 68 (65%) Companies, 
four of the seven (57%) Regulatory Authorities, all three (100%) Enforcement Authorities and 
11  of  the  17  (65%)  Workers  gave  the  opinion  that  the  measure  would  improve  the 
performance of the coach market. Two of the three (67%) EU Governmental Authorities and 
15 of the 28 (54%) NGOs responding stated that this proposed measure would not contribute 
to the performance of the coach market. 

The  respondents  to  the  targeted  questionnaire  expressed  mixed  opinions  on  the  proposed 
extension of scope. Most Ministries/Regulators that offered an opinion (six out of eight) did 
not support the extension or considered that it should be limited and only applicable in certain 
circumstances. The reasons given ranged from concerns about unfavourable impacts on coach 

56 

 
 
 
 
sector  employees  to  the  potential  adverse  impact  on  services  operated  as  public  service 
obligations. However, two of three operators, the two Pan-European organisations, and two of 
three  operator  associations  offering  an  opinion  were  supportive.  A  number  of  these 
respondents  cited  the  success  of  liberalisation  in  Germany  and  France,  a  reduction  in 
bureaucracy caused by national regulations and prevention of unfair competition as reasons to 
extend the scope. 

Abolish  the  authorisation  procedure  so  that  any  undertaking  established  in  a  Member  State 
would be free to operate new regular international and national services on any route whether 
it is already operated by one or more transport undertaking 

15  of  the  20  Ministries/Regulators  (75%)  that  responded  to  the  targeted  stakeholder 
questionnaire supported keeping the authorisation procedure. In their opinion it was a useful 
tool to monitor the market and ensure safety standards were met. Only one Ministry/Regulator 
supported  abolition  of  the  authorisation  procedure,  stating  that  the  current  process  was  an 
unnecessary  administrative  burden.  Four  of  the  six  operators  who  responded  (67%)  also 
supported keeping the authorisation procedure but highlighted that they would like to see the 
timescale reduced. There was mixed support among operator associations, with two arguing 
for abolition to increase transparency and two stating that it should be kept but standardised. 

When interviewed, the Italian Regulator was in favour of keeping the authorisation procedure 
and  establishing  a  framework  that  could  be  used  to  evaluate  the  economic  and  financial 
capabilities of applicants. The main reason authorisations are refused in Italy is because the 
applicant  does  not  meet  the  minimal  financial  requirements  to  guarantee  the  service.  This 
view  was  supported  by  National  Express,  who  noted  that  the  authorisation  procedure  was 
robust albeit time consuming. They suggested that the length of the process could be reduced 
from three to two months.  

Set  common  requirements  for  the protection  of  public  service  contracts  so  as  to  ensure  that 
Member  States  are  permitted  to  take  action  to  protect  public  services  contracts  from 
competition 

36 of the 68 Companies (53%) and eight of the 17 Workers (47%) responding to the OPCS 
stated  that  removing  the  protection  of  public  service  contracts  from  competition  would 
contribute  to  improving  the  performance  of  the  market.  The  biggest  negative  impact  was 
perceived to be the effect on incumbent coach operators.  

The Italian Regulator suggested in an interview that removing the national limitation for PSOs 
would  be  beneficial.  If  a  service  in  Italy  crosses  two  regions  it  is  regulated  at  the  national 
level,  and  otherwise  subject  to  regional  regulation.  Introducing  a  kilometre-based  definition 
for the purposes of determining regional jurisdiction would simply the process. 

The  response  to  the  targeted  stakeholder  questionnaire  was  more  divided.  Six  out  of  20 
Ministries/Regulators (30%) supported a set of common requirements on the grounds that this 
would help to create a more level playing field, while five (25%) did not support the proposed 
measure.  

Require that carriers from all Member States be guaranteed access to national regular services 
markets without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment 

57 

 
 
The responses to an OPCS question concerning abolition of restrictions on access to national 
markets  for  regular  services  were  mixed.  42  of  the  68  Companies  (62%),  four  of  the  seven 
Regulatory  Authorities  (57%)  and  10  of  the  17  Workers  (59%)  stated  that  abolition  would 
contribute  to  improving  performance  of  the  market.  However,  two  of  the  three  EU 
Governmental Authorities (67%), 17 of the 28 NGOs (61%) and two of the three Enforcement 
Authorities (67%) did not consider that the proposal would be beneficial.  

9  of  the  20  Ministries/Regulators  (45%)  that  responded  to  the  targeted  stakeholder 
questionnaire  did  not  support  this  proposal.  They  considered  that  the  measure  could  lead  to 
discriminatory  conditions  or  have  a negative  impact  on  employment.  The  other  respondents 
within  this  category  either  did  not  express  an  opinion  or  did  not  recognise  the  underlying 
concern. The only support for the measure came from the operator associations  - 3 of the 6 
respondents in this category (50%) considered that it would benefit customers and lead to a 
better quality of service.  

Devise a definition of a coach terminal  so that it can  be differentiated  from stopping  points 
and on-street bus stops 

The  respondents  to  the  targeted  stakeholder  questionnaire  broadly  supported  this  proposal. 
Two of the three operator associations (67%) that responded to the question believed it would 
be  useful  to  have  one  transparent  definition.  Of  the  Ministries/Regulators  that  responded,  8 
(40%)  supported  having  a  common  definition  while  5  (25%)  did  not  see  any  merit  in  a 
definition and considered that it should be left to Member States. 

When interviewed, the EDF highlighted their preference for terminals in defined locations to 
guarantee  better  access  for  disabled  people.  EDF  added  that  this  was  particularly  important 
for people with autism as it allowed them to plan their trips in advance. 

Establishing minimum common requirements to ensure that coach terminals provide access to 
operators of regular services on fair and non-discriminatory terms 

A  majority  of  respondents  to  the  OPCS  considered  that  facilitating  a  level  playing  field  in 
access  to  terminals  would  help  to  improve  the  performance  of  the  market.  46  of  the  68 
Companies (68%), 15 of the 28 NGOs (54%), five of the seven Regulatory Authorities (71%) 
and  11  of  the  17  Workers  (65%)  responded  positively  to  this  proposal,  although  two  of  the 
three (67%) Enforcement Authorities that responded considered that it would have a negative 
impact. 41 of the 68 Companies (60%) and 10 of the 17 Workers (59%) stated that the effect 
on service quality would be beneficial.  

Moreover,  the  majority  of  Ministries/Regulators  that  responded  to  the  targeted  stakeholder 
questionnaire  supported  establishing  common  requirements  to  ensure  that  access  to  coach 
terminals  is  fair  and  non-discriminatory.  Seven  of  those  responding  (35%)  supported  the 
proposal, although two  considered that it should be  left to  best practice and four stated that 
there  are  sufficient  measures  already.  All  three  Pan-European  organisations  and  all  three 
operator  organisations  that  responded  supported  the  proposed  measure.  Two  operators 
indicated that establishing requirements was an essential measure. 

In an interview, the operator association Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) stated 
that  terminal  access  was  a  major  concern.  They  suggested  that  there  should  be  an  EU-wide 
regulation  requiring  Member  States  to  adopt  appropriate  measures  to  enhance  and  manage 

58 

 
 
terminal capacity. CPT also indicated that the coach terminal at Heathrow in the UK was an 
example of good practice in the definition and transparency of schedules and tariffs.  

Abolish the requirement for occasional services to require a journey form 

There was a positive response to the OPCS on whether journey forms are useful. Three EU 
Governmental  Authorities  (100%),  six  of  the  seven  Regulatory  Authorities  (86%)  and  two 
Enforcement  Authorities  (67%)  supported  this  view.  However,  49  of  the  65  Companies 
(75%),  21 of the 27 NGOs (78%)  and 15 of the  17  Workers (88%)  considered that journey 
forms served no useful purpose. 

Only one Ministry/Regulator responding to the targeted stakeholder questionnaire supported 
abolition of the requirement for a journey form. 13 of the 14 Ministries/Regulators (93%) that 
responded to the question wanted to keep the requirement as they regard it is a useful means 
of  monitoring  and  regulating  coach  services.  one  operator,  one  Pan-European  organisation 
and one operator association stated that journey forms should be retained. However, three of 
the operator associations that responded (75%) and one Pan-European organisation stated that 
journey forms should be abolished in the interests of reducing bureaucracy. 

Clarify  the  definition  of  ‘international  carriage’  to  ensure  that  closed-door  tours  that  visit 
other Member States are not excluded from the scope of the Regulations 

The respondents to the targeted stakeholder questionnaire did not offer specific support on the 
clarification of the definition of ‘international carriage’, although only one Ministry and one 
operator explicitly stated that the meaning is currently clear and well-understood. 

Similarly  a  majority  of  stakeholders  responding  to  the  OPCS  considered  that  the  definition 
was  sufficiently  clear.  40  of  the  66  Companies  (61%),  two  of  the  three  EU  Governmental 
Authorities (67%), 20 of the 26 NGOs (77%), six of the seven Regulatory Authorities (88%), 
13  of  the  16  Workers  (81%)  and  all  three  Enforcement  Authorities  participating  stated  that 
further clarity was not needed. 

Clarify  the  definition  of  “regular  services”  to  ensure  that  there  is  no  requirement  to  have 
stopping points along the route but if there is stopping points they must be known in advance 

The respondents  to the targeted stakeholder questionnaire did not  offer any  specific support 
for clarifying the definition of ‘regular services’, although only one Ministry and one operator 
explicitly  stated  that  the  meaning  is  currently  clear  and  well-understood.  One  Ministry 
mentioned that it would support a clear definition of ‘special regular services’. 

A  majority  of  all  stakeholder  groups  responding  to  the  OPCS  also  stated  the  definition  was 
sufficiently  clear.  35  of  the  65  Companies  (54%),  two  of  the  three  EU  Governmental 
Authorities (67%), 20 of the 27 NGOs (74%), four of the seven Regulatory Authorities (57%), 
nine of the 16 Workers (56%) and all three Enforcement Authorities participating stated that 
clarity was not required. 

Clarify  that  there  is  no  requirement  for  an  own-account  operator  to  possess  a  community 
licence to be issued a certificate for own-account operations 

Similarly, respondents to the targeted stakeholder questionnaire did not offer specific support 
for  clarifying  that  there  is  no  requirement  for  an  own-account  operator  to  possess  a 
community  licence  if it is  to  be  issued  a  certificate  for  own-account  operations.  Among  the 

59 

 
 
stakeholder  groups  responding  to  the  OPCS,  only  two  of  the  three  EU  Governmental 
Authorities (67%) indicated that the current provision is not sufficiently clear. 

Clarify the meaning of “Cabotage operations shall be authorised…” in Article 15 to mean that 
cabotage operations are authorised rather than need to be authorised 

10  of  the  20  Ministries/Regulators  (50%)  that  responded  to  the  targeted  stakeholder 
questionnaire specifically mentioned that they would support clarification of the meaning of 
this  provision.  This  view  was  supported  by  the  two  Pan-European  organisations  that 
responded, and an operator noted that it was particularly important as interpretations vary by 
country.  Moreover,  only  four  Ministries/Regulators  (20%)  considered  the  meaning  to  be 
sufficient already. 

The need for greater clarity was generally supported by the results of the OPCS. Two of the 
three  EU  Governmental  Authorities  (67%),  four  of  the  seven  Regulatory  Authorities  (57%) 
and two of the three Enforcement Authorities (67%) indicated that the current cabotage rules 
are sufficiently clear. However, 26 of the 67 Companies (39%), 20 of the 27 NGOs (74%) and 
seven  of  the  15  Workers  (47%)  saw  no  value  in  further  clarification.  The  biggest  negative 
impact  of  not  having  clarification  was  perceived  to  be  the  enforcement  costs  for  Member 
States. 

Use of consultation results 

The  open  public  consultation  was  mostly  used  as  a  test  of  the  validity  of  the  Commission's 
understanding of the problems at stake and of the most adequate policy measures considered. 
The results confirmed the Commission's initial views and approach to the ex-post analysis and 
to the Impact Assessment.  

The  OPC  and  the  targeted  stakeholder  questionnaires,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  from  the 
interviews and Eurobarometer provided the information for the problem definition. It was not 
possible  to  get  much  more  quantitative  (data,  statistics)  information  from  the  stakeholders 
during the consultation process. However, it was a rich source of qualitative (opinions, views 
and suggestions) information which helped close the Commission’s knowledge gap. 

60 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

Relevance 

1.  To what extent is the opening of the market for the international carriage of passengers 
and  for  cabotage  operations  as  introduced  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/2009 
necessary  and  sufficient  to  address  the  pre-existing  problems  of  fragmented  internal 
market,  discrimination,  unnecessary  administrative  burden,  and  sub-optimal  mix  of 
passenger transport modes? 

2.  Are  the  objectives  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/2009  still  relevant  considering  the 
evolution  of  the  market,  the  present  transport  policy  priorities,  and  the  successive 
enlargements of the EU? 

Effectiveness  

3.  To what extent has the Regulation led to the establishment of a true internal market for 

bus and coach services?  

4.  To  what  extent  has  the  intervention  enhanced  fair  competition  including  non-
discriminatory access to all the markets covered by the provisions of the Regulation?  
5.  Has  market  opening  of  bus  and  coach  services  contributed  to  a  shift  from  other 
passenger  transport  modes  (individual  car  transport,  rail  transport  and  aviation)  and 
hence  led  to  an  increase  in  the  use  of  bus  and  coach  services?  In  case  a  shift  took 
place, is it in line with overarching EU transport policy goals?  

6.  To what extent has the Regulation had an impact on the quality, reliability, and price 

of the services?  

7.  To what extent has the Regulation brought unwanted or unexpected effects? To what 
extent  has  the  Regulation  had  an  effect  on  employment  (employment  level, 
geographical  shift,  etc.),  on  working  conditions (level  of  wages,  working  time,  etc.), 
and on worker's mobility in the road passenger transport sector?  

8.  To what  extent has the Regulation had an effect on employment (employment level, 
geographical  shift,  etc.)  on  working  conditions  (level  of  wages,  working  time,  etc.) 
and on worker’s mobility in the road passenger transport sector? 

Efficiency 

9.  To  what  extent  are  administrative  costs  and  enforcement  costs  for  authorities 
(licensing  and  authorisation,  inspections,  penalty  system,  mutual  assistance),  and 
compliance  and  administrative  costs  for  transport  operators  proportionate  and 
necessary in relation to the outputs and results achieved? 

Coherence 

10. Are the provisions of the regulation, including in particular the definition of cabotage 
operations,  consistent  with  those  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009  which  governs 
access  to  the  occupation  of  road  transport  operator,  and  (EC)  No  1072/2009  which 
regulates access to the market of international freight market? 

11. Is  the  objective  of  promoting  bus  and  coach  transport  as  a  sustainable  alternative  to 
individual  car  transport  coherent  with  the  EU's  modal  shift  policy  (as  notably 
expressed  in  the  2011  White  Paper  on  Transport),  and  more  generally,  with 
overarching  EU  strategies  (policy  on  combatting  climate  change,  providing  for  a 
deeper and fairer internal market, Energy Union, etc.)? 

12. To what extent are enforcement rules of the Regulation compatible with similar rules 
in other pieces of legislation applied to the same operators? In practice, to what extent 
are enforcement rules streamlined?  

EU added value  

61 

 
 
 
13. To what extent has the Regulation permitted achievements which could not be reached 

at Member State level through the bilateral agreements previously in place? 

62