Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States.
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU Member State, export policy, free movement of goods, import policy, public consultation, single market, strike, trade restriction

W 

Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 
2679/98 on the functioning of 
the internal market in relation 
to the free movement of goods 
among the Member States 

Written by VVA Consulting 

March 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate B — Single Market Policy, Regulation and Implementation 
Β.1 Single Market Policy, Mutual Recognition and Surveillance 
E-mail:  GROW-B1@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 
2679/98 on the functioning of 
the internal market in relation 
to the free movement of goods 
among the Member States 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs  

2019 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

ISBN 978-92-76-04629-5 
doi: 10.2873/29292 

© European Union, 2019 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 8 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 9 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 13 

1.1.  Scope and objectives of the Evaluation .......................................................... 13 
1.2.  Structure of the report ................................................................................. 13 

2. 

THE CONTEXT OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................ 15 

2.1.  Background to the Regulation ....................................................................... 15 
2.2.  Previous evaluations .................................................................................... 15 
Interrelations with other regulatory initiatives ................................................. 16 
2.3. 

3.  METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ............................................................................... 19 

3.1.  Evaluation framework .................................................................................. 19 
3.2. 
Information and data collection ..................................................................... 21 
3.3.  Challenges in the analysis and mitigation measures ......................................... 24 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATION .................................................................. 25 

4.1.  Key provisions of the Regulation ................................................................... 25 
4.2.  Evolution of the number of obstacles reported to the Commission ..................... 25 

5. 

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REGULATION 2679/1998 ..................... 27 

5.1.  How  is  the  Regulation  applied  in  Member  States?  To  what  extent  have 
Member  States  actually  complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation 
and  the  need  to  safeguard  the  free  movement  of  goods,  in  line  with  the 
principle of proportionality? .......................................................................... 27 

5.2.  Has the Regulation improved the free movement of goods within the internal 
market  in  the  face  of  serious  disruption?  How  much  has  the  existence 
and/or  use  of  the  Regulation  made  it  possible  to  change  behaviour  and  to 
actually  ensure  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  the  face  of  serious 
disruption? ................................................................................................. 30 

5.3.  Have  any  provisions  of  the  Regulation  provided  particularly  good  results 
regarding obstacles hindering the free movement of goods? Have any of the 
provisions  provided  by  the  Regulation  been  particularly  ineffective?  Are 
there any lessons to be learnt from them? ...................................................... 31 

5.4.  To  what  extent  are  interested  parties  informed  of  the  existence  of  the 
Regulation  and  the  possibilities  it  provides?  Is  the  information  exchange 
procedure  set  up  by  the  Regulation  effective,  particularly  in  light  of  rapid 
technological change with regards to the availability of information? .................. 32 

5.5.  To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation  been  useful  in  facilitating  the  free 
movement  of  goods  in  the  face  of  serious  disruption?  Should  additional 
and/or alternative measures be taken to improve the situation? ........................ 33 

5.6.  To  what  extent  did  different 

factors 

influence 

the  progress  and 

achievements observed? .............................................................................. 35 
5.7.  Conclusions on the effectiveness of the Regulation .......................................... 36 

6. 

EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE REGULATION (EC) NO. 2679/98 .................. 38 

6.1.  To what extent are the costs proportional to the benefits achieved? To what 

extent has the application of the Regulation been cost effective? ....................... 38 

6.2.  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  of  the  implementation  of  the 

Regulation? ................................................................................................ 39 

6.3.  How justifiable were the costs borne by different stakeholder groups, given 

the benefits they received? ........................................................................... 39 

1 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

6.4.  Are  there  significant  differences  in  costs  (or  benefits)  between  Member 

States, and what is causing them? ................................................................ 42 
6.5.  Conclusions on the efficiency of the Regulation ............................................... 43 

7. 

EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE REGULATION (EC) NO. 2679/98 .................. 44 

7.1.  To what extent is the Regulation still relevant? ............................................... 44 
7.2.  To what extent have the original objectives proven to have been appropriate 
for the Regulation? How well do the original objectives still correspond to the 
needs within the EU? ................................................................................... 44 
7.3.  How well adapted is the Regulation to subsequent technological advances? ........ 45 
7.4.  How  relevant  is  the  Regulation  to  EU  citizens?  Are  there  areas  of  specific 

needs for free movement of goods that remain to be unaddressed? ................... 46 
7.5.  Conclusions on the relevance of the Regulation ............................................... 47 

8. 

EVALUATION OF THE COHERENCE OF THE REGULATION (EC) NO. 2679/98 ................. 48 

8.1.  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  wider  EU  policy  (transport 
and  environmental  policy 
there  overlaps  or 
complementarities  between  the  measure  and  other  EU  actions  that  have 
similar objectives? ....................................................................................... 48 

in  particular)?  Are 

8.2.  Are  there  any  issues  related  to the internal  coherence  of the  measure  (i.e. 

between various components of the measure)? ............................................... 49 
8.3.  Conclusions on the coherence of the Regulation .............................................. 50 

9. 

EVALUATION OF THE EU ADDED VALUE OF REGULATION (EC) NO. 2679/98 ................ 51 

9.1.  What is the additional value resulting from the application of the Regulation, 
compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  at  national  and/or 
regional levels? ........................................................................................... 51 

9.2.  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the  Regulation  continue  to 

require action at EU level? ............................................................................ 52 

9.3.  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the 

application of the mechanism introduced by the Regulation? ............................. 52 
9.4.  Conclusions on the EU added value of the Regulation ....................................... 52 

10.  ANNEX 1: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ......................................................................... 54 

11.  ANNEX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDES ............................................................................... 56 

11.1.  Interview guide for EU officials and National Contact Points .............................. 56 
11.2.  Interview guide for European and national associations .................................... 57 

12.  ANNEX 3: PUBLIC CONSULTATION ......................................................................... 59 

13.  ANNEX  4:  FRANCE/SPAIN  CASE  STUDY  -  FRENCH  FARMERS  STRIKE  AGAINST 

IMPORTED GOODS ............................................................................................... 68 

13.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem .......................................... 68 
13.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents. ........................................... 74 
13.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the  Regulation 

(EC) No. 2679/98 ........................................................................................ 74 
13.4.  Damages .................................................................................................... 75 
13.5.  Recommendations ....................................................................................... 80 
13.6.  References ................................................................................................. 80 

14.  ANNEX 5: CALAIS PORT CASE STUDY - THE BLOCKADE OF THE FREIGHT PORT OF 

CALAIS / STRIKE OF PART OF THE STAFF (OCT. 2015) .............................................. 82 

14.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem .......................................... 82 
14.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents. ........................................... 85 
14.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the  Regulation 

(EC) No. 2679/98 ........................................................................................ 85 
14.4.  Damages .................................................................................................... 85 
14.5.  Recommendations ....................................................................................... 86 
14.6.  References ................................................................................................. 86 

2 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

15.  ANNEX 6: BULGARIA GREECE CASE STUDY – SEASONAL BLOCKING OF BULGARIA 

BORDER BY GREEK FARMERS ................................................................................. 87 

15.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem .......................................... 87 
15.2.  Mechanism(s) for communicating the incidents ............................................... 90 
15.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the  Regulation 

(EC) No. 2679/98 ........................................................................................ 91 
15.4.  Damages .................................................................................................... 92 
15.5.  Recommendations ....................................................................................... 93 
15.6.  References ................................................................................................. 94 

16.  ANNEX 7: SLOVAKIA CASE STUDY – ROAD I/11 IN KYSUCE REGION .......................... 97 

16.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem .......................................... 97 
16.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents. ......................................... 102 
16.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the  Regulation 

(EC) No. 2679/98 ...................................................................................... 103 
16.4.  Damages .................................................................................................. 103 
16.5.  Recommendations ..................................................................................... 103 
16.6.  References ............................................................................................... 104 

17.  ANNEX  8:  AUSTRIA  CASE  STUDY  –  CITIZENS’  PROTESTS  AGAINST  TRANSIT 

TRAFFIC OVER THE BRENNER PASS ...................................................................... 106 

17.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem ........................................ 106 
17.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents .......................................... 109 
17.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the  Regulation 

(EC) No. 2679/98 ...................................................................................... 110 
17.4.  Damages .................................................................................................. 111 
17.5.  Recommendations ..................................................................................... 111 
17.6.  References ............................................................................................... 112 

18.  ANNEX  9:  BELGIUM  CASE  STUDY  –  SOCIAL  MOVEMENTS  IMPACTING  THE  FREE 

MOVEMENT OF GOODS IN 2014 AND 2016 ............................................................ 115 

18.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem ........................................ 115 
18.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents. ......................................... 117 
18.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the  Regulation 

(EC) No. 2679/98 ...................................................................................... 118 
18.4.  Damages .................................................................................................. 119 
18.5.  Recommendations ..................................................................................... 121 
18.6.  References ............................................................................................... 122 

19.  ANNEX 10: LIST OF LITERATURE .......................................................................... 124 

20.  ANNEX 11: EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................... 126 

20.1.  Intervention logic ...................................................................................... 126 
20.2.  Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 127 
20.3.  Efficiency ................................................................................................. 129 
20.4.  Relevance ................................................................................................ 131 
20.5.  Coherence ................................................................................................ 132 
20.6.  EU added value ......................................................................................... 132 

21.  ANNEX 12: LIST OF OBSTACLES REPORTED TO THE COMMISSION IN THE PERIOD 

2007-2017 ........................................................................................................ 134 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

TABLES  

Table 1: Description of the case studies ............................................................................ 22 

Table 2: Key provisions of the Regulation.......................................................................... 25 

Table 3: Cases that were not reported under Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 ........................... 29 

Table 4: Estimation of economic losses per case study ....................................................... 40 

Table 5: List of interviewees ............................................................................................ 54 

Table 6: List of incidents between Spain and France ........................................................... 71 

Table 7: Prices ............................................................................................................... 75 

Table 8: Estimation of costs per obstacle reported ............................................................. 76 

Table 9: Evolution of the activities of the Port of Calais between 2015 and 2016 .................... 82 

Table 10: List of literature ............................................................................................. 124 

FIGURES 

Figure 1: Intervention Logic ............................................................................................ 19 

Figure 2: Question 6 of the Open Public Consultation ‘Country of residence’ .......................... 23 

Figure 3: Obstacles reported ........................................................................................... 26 

Figure 4: Communication process for notifying obstacles under Regulation 2679/98 in Spain .. 28 

Figure  5:  French  farmers  overturned  two  tons  of  peaches  in  front  of  the  Spanish  consulate  in 
the the city of Perpignan ......................................................................................... 69 

Figure 6: French winegrowers empty Spanish tank truck ..................................................... 69 

Figure  7:  Communication  process  to  notify  obstacles  under  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  in 
Spain .................................................................................................................... 74 

Figure 8: Aerial view of the port of Calais – 2015 ............................................................... 83 

Figure 9: Access to the port of Calais is blocked by security officers on strike - Oct. 2015 ....... 84 

Figure 10: Blockade at the Bulgarian-Greek border ............................................................ 90 

Figure 11: ‘Chýba nám už len kúsok’ meaning ‘We are missing only a little piece’ is a map used 
by local authorities showing the 30km long passage of I/11 connected to motorways. .... 98 

Figure 12: ‘Chýba nám už len kúsok’  the map used  by the ‘D3preKysuce’ campaign organising 
protests  against  the  motorway  construction  postponement.  The  map  also  indicates 
economic activities in the region. .............................................................................. 98 

Figure 13: Inhabitants of Kysuce Region attending one of the 2017 demonstrations, repeatedly 
crossing the road for half an hour to prevent any vehicles from passing ...................... 100 

Figure 14: Trucks affected by the February 2012 severe weather conditions in Kysuce ......... 101 

Figure 15: Trucks affected by the March 2013 severe weather conditions in Kysuce ............. 101 

4 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Figure 16: Location of the Brenner Motorway on the map ................................................. 106 

Figure 17: Citizens' meeting on 28/09/2012, Inntal Autobahn (A12) near Vomp .................. 108 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Abbreviations  

Country abbreviations 

AT – Austria 

BE – Belgium 

BG – Bulgaria 

CY – Cyprus 

CH - Switzerland 

CZ – Czech Republic 

DE – Germany 

DK - Denmark 

EE – Estonia  

EL - Greece 

ES – Spain 

FI – Finland 

FR – France 

HR – Croatia 

HU – Hungary 

IE – Ireland 

IT – Italy 

IS - Iceland 

LT- Lithuania 

LU – Luxembourg 

LV - Latvia 

MT – Malta 

NO - Norway 

NL - Netherlands 

PL – Poland 

PT - Portugal 

SE – Sweden 

6 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

SI – Slovenia 

SK - Slovakia 

UK – United Kingdom 

Other abbreviations 

DG - Directorate General 

EC – European Commission 

EFTA - European Free Trade Association 

EP - European Parliament 

EU – European Union 

MS – Member State 

NCP - National Contact Point 

TFEU - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Abstract 

This report presents the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning 
of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member 
States.  The  evaluation  study  aims  to  establish  the  current  situation  with  regard  to 
serious disruptions of the free movement of goods within the EU, and in particular all 
the  various  means  open  to  enterprises  to  ensure  that  they  are  informed  of  serious 
disruptions. Moreover, the study evaluates, based on data available, damages caused 
by  serious  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  since  the  application  of  the 
Regulation. Finally, the study aims to identify best practices to improve the functioning 
of the Regulation and ensure the free movement of goods without serious disruption. 
The analysis is based on the intervention logic of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 and an 
evaluation  framework  covering  the  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  divided  into  evaluation  sub-questions, 
judgement  criteria,  indicators,  sources  of  data  and  methodological  tools.  The 
methodological  tools  include  an  extensive  document  review, 
interviews  with 
stakeholders  involved  in,  or  affected  by,  the  Regulation,  case  studies  on  examples  of 
different obstacles to the free movement of goods, and an Open Public Consultation. 

8 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Executive Summary 

The report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 
on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  of  goods 
among  the  Member  States.  The  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  Technopolis  Group  in 
consortium with EY and VVA Consulting between March 2017 and March 2018. 

The Regulation 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 was adopted with the aim of preventing and limiting the 
consequences of ‘obstacles’ to the free movement of goods across EU internal borders. 
The  problems  addressed  by  the  Regulation  were  the  lack  of  urgency  and  the  lack  of 
effective responses by the Member States to the direct causes of such obstacles. The 
Regulation contains three components: 

1. An early warning mechanism: Member States are obliged to notify the Commission 
of risks and actual cases of obstacles while economic actors can report such impacts. 
The Commission is in charge of ensuring the information flow to all Member States. 

2. Member States are notified by the Commission about the location and cause of the 
obstacle: Member States must then provide further information about the obstacle and 
give details about the actions that they have taken or will take in response. 

3. An obligation by the Member States to take ‘necessary and appropriate measures’ 
to ensure the free movement of goods. 

Methodology  

The evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 was based on the intervention logic of 
the  Regulation  and  an  analytical  framework  including  the  evaluation  questions  and 
sub-questions,  judgement  criteria,  indicators,  sources  of  data  and  methodological 
tools.  The  evaluation  assessed  the  performance  of  the  Regulation  based  on  its 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU-added value. 

The relevant data and information were collected through the following: 

  Documentary review of policy papers, articles and reports from national 

authorities and trade associations, as well as the previous two evaluation 
studies of the Regulation in 2001 and 2007. 

 

Interviews with 70 stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the Regulation, 
including Commission officials, national contact points (NCPs), European and 
national agriculture/food associations, European and national transport 
associations and other industry associations, trade unions and chambers of 
commerce. 

  Six case studies focusing on examples of different obstacles to the free 
movement of goods that are covered by Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98:  

  French farmers’ strike against imported goods 

  The blockade of the freight port of Calais / strike undertaken by part of the 

staff (October 2015) 

  Seasonal blocking of the Bulgarian border by Greek farmers 

  Road I/11 in Kysuce Region / disruptions due to inadequate infrastructure    

9 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

  Citizens’ protests against transit traffic over the Brenner Pass   

  Social movements impacting the free movement of goods in Belgium in 

2014 and 2016   

  An  Open  Public  Consultation  launched  by  the  European  Commission  on  9 
October 2017 for a period of 12 weeks. The  consultation generated  responses 
from 20 participants whose answers were analysed. 

Given the low number of responses received to the Open Public Consultation, the most 
important  inputs  came  from  the  desk  research,  interviews  and  the  case  studies.  The 
project  duration  was  extended  by  two  months  to  ensure  the  completion  of  the  case 
studies and the analysis of the Open Public Consultation. 

Key findings  

Effectiveness 

Overall,  the  Regulation  has  been  implemented  effectively,  although  some  provisions 
are  only  partially  used.  All  Member  States  have  established  National  Contact  Points 
and the procedure of information exchange between the Commission and the Member 
States  is  correctly  implemented.  However,  our  findings  show  that  not  all  obstacles 
have  been  reported  to  the  Commission  as  per  Article  3,  and  that  a  number  of 
obstacles  have  been  reported  by  economic  operators  rather  than  by  Member  States 
themselves. The Evaluation found that Article 5, which allows the Commission to notify 
a  Member  State  of  an  obstacle  when  it  occurs  and  publish  the  notification  in  the 
Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  has  never  been  used  but  rather  acts  as  a 
deterrent.   

According  to  the  evaluation  findings,  the  main  achievements  of  the  Regulation  are 
that: 

 

 

It has improved the exchange of information between the Commission and the 
Member States via the early warning mechanism (Article 3). 

It  has  been  effective  in  putting  pressure  on  Member  States  to  promptly 
address  cases  of  disruptions  and  has  improved  the  management  of  obstacles 
to some extent (Article 4). 

The main issues identified that hamper the effectiveness of the Regulation are: 

  The 

lack  of  clarity  of  specific  terms  of  the  Regulation  (“obstacle”, 
“immediately”,  “as  soon  as  possible”  “necessary  and  proportionate 
measures”), preventing its consistent and adequate application.  

  The  suitability  of  the  system  of  notification  of  obstacles  via  e-mails  to  the 
Commission  for  obstacles  of  short  duration  (e.g.  one  day  or  less)  given  that 
the  disruption  may  have  ceased  before  the  notification  reaches  the  other 
Member States. 

  The  lack  of  awareness  of  economic  operators  and  local  authorities  about  the 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  and  the  actions  taken  by  the  NCPs  in  case  of 
disruption. 

  The absence of a harmonised compensation system. 

Efficiency of the Regulation  

Overall, the costs of implementing the Regulation are limited in the Member States as 
there  are  only  few  cases  of  obstacles  (12  on  average)  per  year  and  the  exchange  of 

10 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

information takes place by e-mail. Given the low costs of implementation for the NCPs, 
any benefits for  stakeholders  stemming from the Regulation are  considered valuable. 
Overall,  the  main  benefit  of  the  Regulation  is  the 
improved  exchange  of 
communication  between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  leading  to  better 
management  of  the  obstacles,  and  thus  a  reduction  of  their  duration  and  the 
associated damage.   

One  of  the  internal  factors  diminishing  the  efficiency  of  the  Regulation  is  the  lack  of 
clarity  of  some  provisions,  such  as  the  definition  of  “obstacle”,  resulting  in  obstacles 
not being notified to the Commission and other Member States. Moreover, the current 
timing of the warning mechanism is considered too slow, given that it is acknowledged 
that a digital platform with real time information would provide greater benefits to all 
Member  States  and  to  stakeholders  affected  by  the  obstacles  than  the  simple  e-mail 
warning  mechanism.  The  main  external  factor  influencing  the  efficiency  of  the 
Regulation  is  that  the  Regulation  does  not  prevent  obstacles  from  occurring  in  order 
not  to  interfere  with  the  right  to  strike.  Therefore,  it  does  not  prevent  losses  for 
economic operators, although it can help to shorten the duration of the disruption and 
thus related damages.  

In  Member  States  where  disruptions  happen  or  where  economic  operators  are 
affected, particularly in cases of repeated obstacles, the costs of implementation of the 
Regulation incurred by NCPs and the costs of damages incurred by economic operators 
are  higher.  But  the  benefits  of  triggering  the  early  warning  mechanism  can  also  be 
greater  when  this  ensures  that  Member  States  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
shorten the duration of disruptions. 

Relevance of the Regulation  

Overall,  stakeholders  considered  that  the  Regulation  is  still  relevant  in  ensuring  the 
free  movement  of  goods  and  that  the  early  warning  mechanism  is  appropriate  for 
improving  the  exchange  of  information  and  prompting  Member  States  to  take 
necessary  and  proportionate  measures  in  the  event  of  disruption.  However, 
stakeholders agree that some of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 should 
be  revised  to  better  address  current  needs  and  problems  directly  related  to  the  free 
movement of goods.  

To  adapt  the  Regulation  to  the  new  technological  developments,  in  order  to  ensure 
faster  communication  of  the  obstacle  and  also  to  inform  interested  parties, 
stakeholders  identified  the  need  for  greater  modernisation.  A  unified  digital  solution 
would  ensure  real  time  information  is  accessible  to  NCPs,  businesses  and  national 
associations. 

In addition, some new challenges, such as fluctuations of agricultural prices, migration 
flows and security threats, are not addressed by the Regulation. NCPs considered that 
it would be useful to include a set of concrete measures to be taken by Member States 
to prevent or resolve incidents. Moreover, several stakeholders suggest that sanctions 
should penalise Member States that do not comply with the legally binding obligation 
to  report  and  prevent  such  incidents.  Finally,  business  associations  considered  that 
Regulation  No.  2679/98  should  promote  a  transparent,  non-discriminatory  and  rapid 
procedure  to  compensate  economic  operators  for  losses  or  damages  related  to 
disruptions.  

Coherence of the Regulation  

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is considered a useful instrument that does not interfere 
with other EU or national policies. In particular, Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is overall 
consistent with EU transport and environmental policies. 

11 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

The  provisions  of  the  Regulation  are  coherent,  although  some  concerns  have  been 
noted regarding the use of the Regulation in case of strike. The aim of the Regulation 
is to prevent obstacles, while at the same time not interfering with fundamental rights 
such as the freedom to strike.  

EU Added Value of the Regulation 

Many  disruptions  taking  place  at  the  borders  between  the  Member  States  have  not 
been addressed by Regulation No 2679/98 because not every Member State complies 
with  the  requirements  set  out  by  the  Regulation  (e.g.  communicating  obstacles 
immediately and taking all necessary and proportionate measures). National, regional 
and local media coverage of the incidents is proving to be a more effective instrument 
for  informing  the  wider  public  about  disruptions  than  the  early  warning  mechanism. 
However,  the  majority  of  stakeholders  tended  to  agree  on  certain  benefits  that  the 
Regulation  brings  to  the  internal  market.  One  is  its  deterrent  effect  by  putting 
pressure on Member States to act quickly when an obstacle has occurred, and another 
is the use of the early warning mechanism.  

Recommendations 

Based  on  our  evaluation  and  in  line  with  the  feedback  from  NCPs  and  economic 
operators, we propose the following recommendations to mitigate the abovementioned 
issues and ensure a more effective implementation of the Regulation: 

  Better  definition  of  “obstacles”,  the  timing  of  communications  (“immediately” 
and  “as  soon  as  possible”)  and  “necessary  and  proportionate  measures”  to 
ensure the correct application of the Regulation. 

 

 

Introduction  of  a  monitoring  mechanism  to  check  Member  States’  compliance 
with  their  obligations  to  both  inform  the  Commission  and  take  the  necessary 
and proportionate steps to ensure the free movement of goods in the event of 
an obstacle, and thus ensure better enforcement of the Regulation. 

Introduction  of  a  unified  digital  solution  with  real  time  information  accessible 
to businesses and national associations to speed up information exchange and 
reduce the asymmetry of information.  

  Establishment of a transparent, non-discriminatory and effective procedure to 
compensate  economic  operators  for  any  loss  or  damage  related  to  the 
obstacles. 

12 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

1.  Introduction 

This  report  presents  the  results  of  the  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  on 
the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  of  goods 
among the Member States. The evaluation was commissioned by  Directorate-General 
for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  and  was  carried  out  by 
Technopolis Group in consortium with EY and VVA Consulting.   

The contract was signed on 6 March 2017, and the study implementation period is 10 
months.  However,  the  contract  was  extended  by  two  months.  The  final  date  of  the 
contract is 6 March 2018. 

1.1.  Scope and objectives of the Evaluation 

The objectives of the evaluation are three-fold: 

  To  establish  the  current  situation  with  regard  to  the  serious  disruption  of  the 
free movement of goods within the EU, and in particular all the various means 
open to enterprises to ensure that they are informed of serious disruptions. 
  To  evaluate,  to  the  extent  possible,  damages  caused  by  serious  obstacles  to 

the free movement of goods since the application of the Regulation. 

  To  identify  best  practices  aiming  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  Regulation 
as a means to ensure the free movement of goods without serious disruption. 
Such  best  practices  can  be  linked  to  possible  ways  to  improve  its  functioning 
and can also examine alternative methods to address the obstacles to the free 
movement of goods, either at EU or national level. 

This  report  evaluates  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  following  the latest  EU  Evaluation 
Guidelines.1  The  final  report  is  being  submitted  to  the  study  Steering  Group  and  the 
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.  

The  scope  of  the  evaluation  covers  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  and  its  operations 
and processes, including the following aspects:  

  Effectiveness: relationship between the objectives and results obtained through 

the implementation of the Regulation; 

  Efficiency:  relationship  between  the  outputs/results  and  inputs  obtained 

through the implementation of the Regulation; 

  Relevance:  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  in  society  and  the 

policy intervention; 

  Coherence:  relationship  between  the  EU  policies  directly  linked  to  the 
Regulation,  such  as  environmental  and  transport  policies  as  well  as  national 
legal instruments that are in place as an additional measure to prevent physical 
obstacles; 

  EU Added value: the extent to which the outcomes from the Regulation are of 
an  added  value  to  that  would  have  resulted  from  interventions  initiated  at 
regional or national levels by both public authorities and the private sector. 

1.2.  Structure of the report  

This Final Report is structured as follows: 

  Chapter 1 is the introduction; 

1  

European Commission: Better Regulation Toolbox, Identifying the evaluation criteria and questions, p. 
271: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap6_en.htm 

13 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

  Chapter 2 presents the context of the evaluation; 

  Chapter 3 presents the methodological approach;  

  Chapter 4 presents the implementation of the Regulation; 

  Chapter  5  presents  the  key  findings  and  analysis  of  the  effectiveness 

evaluation criterion;  

  Chapter  6  presents  the  key  findings  and  analysis  of  the  efficiency  evaluation 

criterion; 

  Chapter  7  presents  the  key  findings  and  analysis  of  the  relevance  evaluation 

criterion; 

  Chapter 8 presents the key findings and analysis of the coherence evaluation 

criterion; 

  Chapter  9  presents  the  key  findings  and  analysis  of  the  EU  value  added 

evaluation criterion; and 

  Annexes contain:  

o  Annex 1: List of interviewees; 

o  Annex 2: Interview guides; 

o  Annex 3: Public consultation; 

o  Annex  4:  France/Spain  Case  study  –  French  farmers  strike  against 

imported goods; 

o  Annex  5:  Calais  port  Case  study  –  The  blockade  of  the  freight  port  of 

Calais / strike of part of the staff (Oct. 2015); 

o  Annex  6:  Bulgaria  Greece  Case  study  –  seasonal  blocking  of  Bulgaria 

border by Greek farmers; 

o  Annex 7: Slovakia Case study – Road I/11 in Kysuce Region; 

o  Annex  8:  Austria  Case  study  –  Citizens’  protests  against  transit  traffic 

over the Brenner Pass; 

o  Annex  9:  Belgium  Case  study  –  Social  movements  impacting  the  free 

movement of goods in 2014 and 2016; 

o  Annex 10: List of literature; 

o  Annex 11: Evaluation matrix and intervention logic; 

o  Annex  12:  List  of  obstacles  reported  to  the  Commission  in  the  period 

2007-2017. 

14 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

2.  The context of the evaluation 

2.1.  Background to the Regulation 

The right to free movement of goods originating in Member States, and of goods from 
third  countries  that  are  in  free  circulation  in  the  Member  States,  is  one  of  the 
fundamental principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 
28 TFEU). In addition to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 
various  EU  regulations  and  policies  also  safeguard  and  protect  the  free  movement  of 
goods in the European internal market (see Section 2.3).  

Physical  barriers2  to  trade,  such  as  border  blockages,  demonstrations  and  attacks  on 
trucks,  create  major  obstacles  to  the  smooth  and  free  movement  of  good  in  Europe, 
leading to serious economic losses for affected parties.   

During  the  1990s,  various  obstacles  affected  the  free  movement  of  agricultural 
products  (mainly  strawberries,  tomatoes  and  wine)  from  Spain  and  other  countries 
into  France.  Consequently,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2679/98  of  7  December  1998 
on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  of  goods 
among the Member States, known as the ‘Strawberry Regulation’, was adopted.  

The overall objective of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is to ensure the free movement 
of  goods  by  preventing,  and  dealing  effectively  with,  cases  of  obstacles.  To  achieve 
this  objective,  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  aims  to  specifically  ensure  the 
adequate  and  rapid  exchange  of  information  between  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission on possible obstacles to the free movement of goods. 

Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  was  established  to  deal  with  situations  involving  in 
particular: 

  The  immobilisation  of  goods:  restriction  of  their  entry  to,  export  from  or 
movement  within  the  territory  of  another  Member  State  (for  example, 
obstacles to transport at borders, on motorways, in ports or at airports,  along 
with blockades of warehouses);  

  The destruction of goods from other Member States on roads, trains and ports. 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is based on three approaches: 

  An early warning mechanism in the event or risk of an obstacle; 
  An  obligation  by  the  Member  States  to  take  necessary  and  proportionate 

measures needed to ensure the free movement of goods;  

  The Commission notifying Member States and urging them to take action. 

2.2.  Previous evaluations  

Following the adoption of the Regulation in 1998, the Commission published a report 
in  2001  relating  to  the  application  of  the  Regulation,  and  an  evaluation  was 
undertaken in 2006/2007. The 2001 Report identified a number of weaknesses of the 
Regulation:  

  The Regulation does not allow for a penalty to be imposed on a Member State if 
it  does  not  communicate  an  obstacle  or  fails  to  reply  to  the  Commission’s 

2  

These physical barriers to trade do not stem from national technical regulations, but from the actions of 
individuals or national authorities. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

request  for  information.  Therefore,  Member  States  are  not  compelled  to 
cooperate fully.  

  The  monitoring  of  Member  States’  compliance  with  their  obligations,  both 
regarding  both  informing  the  Commission  and  taking  the  necessary  and 
proportionate  steps  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  the  event  of  an 
obstacle, is not currently enshrined in the Regulation.  

  The  scope  of  the  Regulation  is  abstract  and  open  to  varying  interpretations 

(e.g. the definition of ‘obstacles’).  

  The Regulation does not resolve the question of speedy and effective complaint 

procedures for compensating economic operators.  

These  shortcomings  were  confirmed  by  the  2006/2007  Evaluation  which  found  that 
the following limitations existed:  

  Unclear scope of the Regulation;  
  Lack of consistent cooperation; 
  Lack of arrangements to monitor compliance by the Member States;  
  Absence of any financial penalty for Member States; and  
  Lack  of  fast  and  effective  complaint  procedures  to  compensate  economic 

operators.  

While  limitations  were  identified,  the  past  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  drew  up  a 
number of conclusions relating to the Regulation’s impact considered to be positive:  

  Most obstacles appear to have been reported; 
  The  application  of  the  Regulation  helped,  in  some  instances,  to  forewarn 
operators  of  incidents,  though  transport  operators  did  not  consider  this  to  be 
an essential component of the Regulation; 

  The presence of the Regulation (or the jurisprudence of the European Court of 
Justice) increased the awareness of some Member States of the seriousness of 
obstacles  and  their  obligation  to  react  in  ways  that  would  mitigate  the 
consequences. 

Nevertheless,  the  Regulation  has  not  been  revised  following  the  2006/2007 
Evaluation, and no relevant measures to address the aforementioned points have been 
undertaken at EU level. 

2.3. 

Interrelations with other regulatory initiatives 

Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  embedded  in  the  context  of  the  free  movement  of 
goods, which is one of the fundamental principles of the European Single Market and 
enshrined  in  Title  II  of  the  TFEU3.  While  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  focuses  on 
obstacles  to  the  physical  movement  of  goods,  other  Regulations  ensure  that  no 
regulatory or technical barriers hamper the free trade of goods in the EU. 

A variety of product sectors is harmonised under EU law, meaning that sector-specific 
safety,  health  and  environmental  protection  requirements  apply.  Where  no 
harmonisation  legislation  exists,  products  generally  must  comply  with  national 
requirements. Nevertheless, the general principles of Title II TFEU are still applicable. 
The safeguarding of these principles is ensured by several Regulations and Directives 
in  addition  to  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98,  which  this  study  is  evaluating  –  for 
example, Directive (EU) No. 2015/15354 on the provision of information in the field of 

3   Treaty  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  Available  at:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=FR 

4   Directive  (EU)  2015/1535  of the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  September  2015  laying 
down  a procedure for  the  provision  of  information  in  the  field  of  technical  regulations  and  of rules  on 
Information 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L1535&from=EN 

(codification). 

Available 

services 

Society 

at: 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

technical regulations, Decision No. 357/2009/EC5 on a procedure for prior examination 
and  consultation  in  respect  of  certain  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
concerning  transport,  and  Regulation  (EC)  No.  764/20086  on  procedures  relating  to 
the application of certain national technical rules. 

Directive (EU) No. 2015/1535 aims to prevent potential trade barriers by introducing a 
notification  procedure  for  technical  requirements.  When  a  Member  State  intends  to 
adopt  technical  requirements  that  could  result  in  barriers  to  the  free  movement  of 
goods,  the  Member  State  is  obliged  to  submit  a  draft  of  these  requirements  to  the 
European Commission, which submits the draft to the other Member States. Within a 
deadline of three months, the Commission and all Member States  can make remarks 
regarding  the  draft  requirements,  which  the  adopting  Member  State  must  take  into 
account. 

Decision  No.  357/2009/EC  aims  to  prevent  the  transport  policies  of  Member  States 
from  diverging  and  to  facilitate  the  progressive  implementation  of  the  common 
transport  policy.  Similarly  to  the  procedure  of  Regulation  (EU)  No.  2015/1535, 
Member States who propose to adopt any transport laws, regulations or administrative 
provisions  liable  to  interfere  substantially  with  the  implementation  of  the  common 
transport  policy  shall  notify  the  Commission  of  such  measures  and  inform  the  other 
Member  States.  Within  a  deadline  of  two  months,  the  Commission  and  all  Member 
States  can  make  remarks  regarding  the  draft  requirements,  which  the  adopting 
Member State must take into account. 

Regulation  (EC)  No.  764/2008  sets  out  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition,  under 
which Member States are obliged to allow the marketing in their territory of a product 
that is legally marketed in another Member State. A company that already sells goods 
in one Member State should therefore not be required to fulfil additional requirements 
if it intends to sell the same goods in another Member State. The Regulation requires 
Member States to justify any decision addressed at an economic operator insofar as it 
prohibits or hinders the introduction of goods to the market that are lawfully marketed 
in  another  Member  State,  and  the  justification  must  be  based  on  reasons  qualified 
under  Articles  34  and  36  of  the  TFEU.  In  addition,  the  Regulation  provides  for  the 
establishment of national Product Contact Points.  

In December 2017, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on 
the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State to repeal 
and replace Regulation (EC) No. 764/20087 (COM(2017) 796 final). The proposal aims 
to improve the mutual recognition mechanism by introducing measures to reduce the 
time  for  companies  to  receive  market  approval  from  the  authorities,  as  well  as 
voluntary conformity declaration and problem resolution mechanisms. 

Directive  (EU)  No.  2015/1535,  Decision  No.  357/2009/EC  and  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
764/2008  are  closely  related.  While  the  aim  of  Directive  (EU)  No.  2015/1535  and 
Decision  No.  357/2009/EC  is  respectively  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  national 
technical  requirements  that  may  hinder  the  free  movement  of  goods,  and  the 
introduction  of  transport  policies  that  may  hinder  the  common  transport  policy, 
Regulation (EC) No. 764/2008 is directed at safeguarding the free movement of goods 

5   Decision  No  357/2009/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  April  2009  on  a 
procedure  for  prior  examination  and  consultation  in  respect  of  certain  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  concerning  transport  proposed  in  Member  States.  Available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009D0357&from=EN 

6   Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down 
procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another  Member  State  and 
repealing  Decision  No  3052/95/EC.  Available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0021:0029:en:PDF 

7   COM(2017) 796 final. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

after  technical  requirements  have  been  established.  Both  Directive  (EU)  No. 
2015/1535  and  Regulation  (EC)  No.  764/2008  concern  the  regulatory  action  of 
national  authorities  with  regards  to  the  introduction  of  products  to  the  national 
market,  while  Decision  No.  357/2009/EC  aims  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the 
common transport policy.  On the other hand, Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98, while also 
addressing free movement of goods, focuses on physical obstacles to the movement of 
goods at the border and on the obligation of Member States to remove such obstacles. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

3.  Methodological approach  

3.1.  Evaluation framework 

Our  approach  to  the  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  aligned  with  the 
intervention  logic  of  the  Regulation  as  explained  in  the  EU’s  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines.8  The  intervention  logic  is  illustrated  by  a  diagram  summarising  how  the 
intervention  is  expected  to  work,  showing  how  different  inputs/activities/outputs 
triggered  by  the  EU  regulation  are  expected  to  interact  to  deliver  the  promised 
changes over time and ultimately achieve the objectives.  

We  present  the  intervention  logic  using  a  visual  logic  diagram  to  help  illustrate  the 
inputs  and  the  causal  linkages  of  the  intervention  behind  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98. The text below presents how the different measures are expected to interact 
with each other and how the different components are expected to fit together. 

Figure 1: Intervention Logic 

Source: Technopolis group 

The  “specific  objectives”  (e.g.  to  ensure  the  adequate  and  rapid  exchange  of 
information on possible obstacles) represent the main facts that  identify the need for 
public  policy  intervention.  The  needs  identified  (e.g.  the  need  to  improve  the 
notification  of  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods)  trigger  the  “operational 
objectives” setting of the  Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98  (e.g. Member  States to notify 
the  location  and  cause  of  obstacles  and  provide  information  on  actions  they  have 
taken). 

8 

European Commission: Better Regulation Toolbox, Identifying the evaluation criteria and questions, p. 
271: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap6_en.htm 

19 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

After setting up the Regulation’s “objectives”, the “activities” are realised (steps taken 
for  EU  action),  in  order  to  meet  these  “objectives”.  Those  “activities”  will  then 
generate  the  “outputs”,  namely  the  direct  outcome  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98  towards  a  well-functioning  internal  market  free  of  obstacles  (e.g.  goods  are 
not damaged or destroyed when being transported within the EU).  

The EU intervention represents the link through which “activities” are transformed into 
concrete  and  measurable  “outcomes”  that  have  direct  “impacts”  on  the  everyday  life 
of the EU citizens. 

The  evaluation  themes  are  those  defined  by  the  European  Commission  in  the  Better 
Regulation "Toolbox", namely:  

  Effectiveness (How effective has the EU intervention been?) 
  Efficiency (How efficient has the EU intervention been?) 
  Relevance (How relevant is the EU intervention?) 
  Coherence (How coherent is the EU intervention internally and with other (EU) 

actions?) 

  EU added value (What is the EU added value of the intervention?) 

The  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  /98  was  assessed  by  linking 
the  “objectives”  to  the  “outputs”.  Thus,  we  linked  the  outputs  put  in  place  after  EU 
intervention  through  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98,  to  the  objectives  of  the 
intervention  and  checked  whether  the  outputs  responded  to  the  objectives,  allowing 
us to check whether this intervention was indeed effective. Our evaluation answers the 
following sub-questions: 

  How  is  the  Regulation  applied  in  Member  States?  To  what  extent  have  Member  States 
actually complied with the requirements of the Regulation and the need to safeguard the 
free movement of goods, in line with the principle of proportionality? 

  Has the Regulation improved the free movement of goods within the internal market in 
the face of serious disruption? How much has the existence and/or use of the Regulation 
made  it  possible  to  change  behaviour  and  to  actually  ensure  the  free  movement  of 
goods in the face of serious disruption? 

 

  Have  any  provisions  of  the  Regulation  provided  particularly  good  results  regarding 
obstacles  hindering  the  free  movement of  goods?  Have  any  of  the  provisions  provided 
by the Regulation been particularly ineffective? Are there any lessons to be learnt from 
them? 
To  what  extent  are  interested  parties  informed  of  the  existence  of  the  Regulation  and 
the  possibilities  it  provides?  Is  the  information  exchange  procedure  set  up  by  the 
Regulation  effective,  particularly  in  light  of  rapid  technological  change  with  regards  to 
the availability of information? 
To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation  been  useful  for  facilitating  the  free  movement  of 
goods  in  the  face  of  serious  disruption?  Should  additional  and/or  alternative measures 
be taken to improve the situation? 
To what extent did different factors influence the progress and achievements observed? 

 

 

The  efficiency  criterion  was  addressed  by  considering  the  inputs  and  the  outputs  of 
the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.  Looking  at  the  steps  taken  by  the  EU  (inputs)  and 
the  actual  outputs/solutions  realised  due  to  EU  intervention,  we  were  able  to  assess 
whether  the  EU  intervention  has  been  efficient.  Our  evaluation  answers  the  following 
sub-questions: 

 

To what extent are the costs proportional to the benefits achieved? To what extent has 
the application of the Regulation been cost effective? 

  What factors influenced the efficiency of the implementation of the Regulation?  
  How justifiable were the costs borne by different stakeholder groups, given the benefits 

they received?  

  Are there significant differences in costs (or benefits) between Member States, and what 

is causing them? 

20 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

The  relevance  criterion  had  to  be  understood  and  assessed  by  focusing  on  how  the 
Regulation’s “objectives” intended to address the “needs and problems” of society. To 
know whether the  Regulation and the EU intervention  are  relevant, it is necessary to 
take into account the needs of the field studied and to link them to the objectives of 
the  Regulation.  If  the  objectives  match  the  needs  and  problems  of  this  specific  area, 
the  intervention  is  proved  to  be  relevant.  Our  evaluation  answers  the  following  sub-
questions: 

 
 

To what extent is the Regulation still relevant? 
To  what  extent  have  the  original  objectives  proven  to  have  been  appropriate  for  the 
Regulation? 

  How well do the original objectives still correspond to the needs within the EU? 
  How well adapted is the Regulation to subsequent technological advances?  
  How  relevant  is the  Regulation  to  EU  citizens?  Are there  areas  of  specific  need  for  the 

free movement of goods that remain unaddressed? 

The  coherence  of  EU  intervention  regarding  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  was 
assessed  by  studying  both  the  needs/problems  and  the  outputs/results  of  the 
intervention.  This  allowed  us  to  check  whether  the  EU  intervention  has  contradicted 
other  relevant  EU  legislation  regarding  the  needs  of  the  intervention.  Indeed,  if  the 
results of the intervention appear to have been realised already through another piece 
of legislation or EU action, the intervention  is incoherent. Our evaluation answers the 
following sub-questions: 

 

To what extent is the Regulation coherent with wider EU policy (transport and 
environmental policy in particular)? Are there overlaps or complementarities between 
the measure and other EU actions that have similar objectives?  

  Are  there  any  issues  of  internal  coherence  of  the  measure  (i.e.  between  various 

components of the measure) 

To address the EU added value question, we studied the outputs and impacts of the 
EU  intervention.  This  allowed  us  to  assess  whether,  considering  the  outputs  of  EU 
intervention,  the  Regulation  has  had  a  greater  impact  than  what  could  have  been 
achieved  at  national,  regional  and  local  level.  Our  evaluation  answers  the  following 
sub-questions: 

  What is the additional value resulting from the application of the Regulation, compared 

 

to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? 
To what extent do the issues addressed by the Regulation continue to require action at 
EU level? 

  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the application 

of the mechanism introduced by the Regulation? 

The full analytical framework (Evaluation matrix) is available in Annex 11. 

3.2. 

Information and data collection  

This  section  presents  the  different  activities  by  which  the  evaluation  team  collected 
information and data to answer the evaluation questions. 

3.2.1.  Document review  

Document review was conducted to identify the legal requirements under Commission 
Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98.  

For the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency aspects, evidence was collected 
through the review of policy papers, articles and reports from national authorities and 

21 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

trade  associations,  as  well  as  the  previous  two  evaluation  studies  of  this  Regulation 
from 2001 and 2007.  

To assess the perception of stakeholders regarding the  Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98, 
the  evaluation  team  has  analysed  online  media  and  the  results  of  position  papers  of 
external stakeholders (e.g. transport and agriculture associations). 

The complete list of literature consulted can be found in Annex 10. 

3.2.2.  Interviews 

A  total  of  70  face-to-face  or  telephone  interviews  were  conducted  with  the  different 
categories  of  stakeholders  involved  in  or  impacted  by  the  Regulation,  including 
Commission  officials,  national  contact  points  (NCPs),  European  and  national 
agriculture/food associations, European and national transport associations and seven 
further organisations, comprising industry associations, trade unions and chambers of 
commerce. The complete list of stakeholders interviewed can be found in Annex 1. 

To take into consideration the specificity and relevance of information collected during 
the  interviews,  different  sets  of  questions  were  asked  regarding  the  profile  and  the 
specific  area  of  competence  or  activity  of  the  stakeholders.  The  interview  guides  can 
be found in Annex 2. 

3.2.3.  Case studies 

To  further  investigate  the  potential  impacts  of  the  application  of  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98,  six  in-depth  case  studies  were  carried  out.  Based  on  the  findings  of  the 
interviews  and  on  the  desk  research  conducted,  we  focused  on  examples  of  different 
obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  that  are  covered  by  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98, and we carried out the following case studies. 

Table 1: Description of the case studies  

Case study  

Short description  

French 
against imported goods 

farmers’  strike 

Incidents  that  happened  in  2015,  2016  and  2017  include  farmers’  strikes, 
commercial  protests  in  front  of  embassies  and  consulates,  direct  attacks  on 
parked  trucks  and  obstacles  at  the  tolls  for  product  inspection  or  destruction. 
Only one out of 20 of these events was reported to the Commission under the 
Regulation. 

The  blockade  of 
the 
freight  port  of  Calais  / 
strike by part of the staff 
(October 2015) 

During this strike, the truck control counters were partially or totally closed. This 
movement caused a traffic jam of trucks at the Port of Calais. At the peak of the 
crisis, about 700 trucks were waiting for control in the port area. This event was 
not reported to the Commission under the Regulation. 

Seasonal  blocking 
border 
Bulgarian 
Greek 
2009, 2013, 2016) 

farmers 

of 
by 
(2007, 

Blockages at I/11 road in 
Kysuce Region 

To  persuade  the  authorities  in  Athens  to  comply  with  particular  demands, 
farmers  frequently  used  blockades  to  make  a  statement.  Very  often,  these 
demands were related to the tax policy and financial initiatives provided by the 
Greek  government  that  impact  directly  on  agricultural  businesses.  All  events 
were notified to the Commission under the Regulation. 

The  I/11  road  leads  to  two  borders  connecting  two  motorways  from  both 
endings:  the  motorway  coming  from  Poland,  connecting  to  the  I/11  road  in 
Čadca, leading all the way to the Baltic sea, and the motorway connecting to the 
road  in  Žilina,  leading  all  the  way  to  the  Adriatic  Sea  in  Italy.  Hence  an 
1,430km-long  combination  of  motorways  and  fast  roads  stretching  all  the  way 
from Gdansk in Poland to Trieste in Italy is interrupted by a 30km-long segment 
of  an  ordinary  road  passing  through  towns  and  villages.  This  creates  constant 
traffic  jams,  delays  and  accidents.  The  Commission  was  not  notified  of  the 
disruptions under the Regulation. 

22 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Case study  

Short description  

Citizen  protests  against 
transit  traffic  over  the 
Brenner Pass   

Their  protest  is  based  on  the  claim  that  exhaust  fumes  and  noise  pollution  is 
having  negative  impact  on  the  environment  and  people’s  health,  leading  to 
respiratory disorders and diseases in particular. The 2012 blockade was relayed 
to the Commission under the Regulation.  

movements 
Social 
impacting 
free 
the 
movement  of  goods  in 
2014 
in 
Belgium 

2016 

and 

Several national strikes in Belgium have brought air, rail and road transport to a 
standstill and affected the free movement of goods in 2014 and 2016. While the 
general  strike  of  December  2014  blocked  the  whole  country  and  affected 
transport  by  rail,  air  and  boat,  the  strike  of  March-April  2016  was  more  local 
and  mainly  affected  road  transport.  Finally,  the  strike  of  May-June  2016  had 
little  impact  on  cross-border  movement  of  goods.  Only  the  truck  driver 
movement of April 2016 was reported to the Commission under the Regulation. 

The  case  study  template  was  drafted  carefully,  studying  the  evaluation  matrix  and 
correlating the information collected to the evaluation questions and sub-questions of 
the matrix in order to allow these examples to feed into the analysis. 

3.2.4.  Public consultation  

The European Commission launched the public consultation online on 9 October 2017, 
for  a  period  of  12  weeks.  The  public  consultation  was  closed  on  31  December  2017. 
The  European  Commission  sent  the  results  to  the  evaluation  team,  which  developed 
the analysis and included it in the Final Report. 

A short analysis of the respondents’ profiles is provided below.  

A  total  of  20  people  responded  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation.  Among  those,  one 
answered  as  an  individual  in  their  own  personal  capacity  and  the  others  in  their 
professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation. The respondents comprised:  

  Seven transport companies or a federation/association of transport companies; 
  Seven government institutions; 
  Four national contact points; and 
  Two who did not specify their role.  

Figure 2 presents the Member States represented by the respondents.  

Figure 2: Question 6 of the Open Public Consultation ‘Country of residence’  

3 

3 

2 

2 

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Source: Open Public Consultation 

23 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

3.3.  Challenges in the analysis and mitigation measures 

Given  the  lack  of  awareness  of  the  Regulation  among  several  stakeholders,  it  was 
sometimes difficult to draw robust findings from them.  To mitigate this challenge, we 
conducted interviews with additional stakeholders and triangulated their answers with 
the results of the Open Public Consultation, the case studies and the desk research. 

As outlined above, only 20 answers to the Open Public Consultation were received. In 
order  to  reflect  this  small  base  of  answers,  we  mentioned  the  exact  number  and 
proportion  of  respondents  in  our  analysis.  We  also  triangulated  the  responses  to  the 
Open  Public  Consultation  with  the  results  of  interviews,  desk  research  and  the  case 
studies.  

It  was  challenging  to  estimate  the  costs  and  benefits  stemming  from  the  Regulation, 
particularly  with  regards  to  the  Efficiency  evaluation  criterion.  We  collected  the 
perception of the benefits mainly through the interviews and gathered estimations of 
the costs and damages from a combination of desk research, interviews and answers 
from the Open Public Consultation.  

The  Regulation  does  not  contain  a  monitoring  mechanism  and  we  therefore  received 
direct information from the Commission on the implementation of the Regulation and 
the  number  and  type  of  notifications  of  disruptions  received  (see  list  of  obstacles 
reported to the Commission in Annex 12).  

To  analyse  all  data  gathered  from  interviews,  desk  research  and  the  Open  Public 
Consultation,  the  study  team  developed  an  Excel-based  database,  allowing 
information  gaps  to  be  filled  in,  data  triangulated  and  the  evaluation  questions 
answered.    

The project duration was extended by two months due to the finalisation of case 
studies and the analysis of the Open Public Consultation requiring more time than 
expected. 

24 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

4.  Implementation of the Regulation  

4.1.  Key provisions of the Regulation 

The following table presents the key provisions of the Regulation that are of particular 
importance for this evaluation. 

Table 2: Key provisions of the Regulation 

Article 

Description 

Article 1 
Definitions 

The  term  ‘obstacle’  is  defined:  an  obstacle  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  among  Member 
States which is attributable to a Member State, whether it involves action or inaction on its 
part, which may constitute a breach of Articles 30 to 36 of the Treaty and which: (a) leads to 
serious  disruption  of  the  free  movement  of  goods  by  physically  or  otherwise  preventing, 
delaying or  diverting  their  import  into,  export from  or  transport  across  a  Member  State  (b) 
causes serious loss to the individuals affected and (c)  requires immediate action in order to 
prevent any continuation, increase or intensification of the disruption or loss in question.  

The term ‘inaction’ shall cover the case when the competent authorities of a Member State, 
in the presence of an obstacle caused by actions taken by private individuals, fail to take all 
necessary  and  proportionate  measures  within  their  powers  with  a  view  to  removing  the 
obstacle and ensuring the free movement of goods in their territory. 

Article 2 

Provides that fundamental rights in the Member States are not affected by the provisions of 
the Regulation, e.g. the right to strike or the freedom of assembly. 

Provides  for  actions  to  be  taken  when  an  obstacle  occurs  or  where  there  is  a  threat  of  an 
obstacle occurring.  

Provides an obligation on Member States to immediately transmit relevant information to the 
Commission, regardless of whether or not it is the Member State concerned (Article 3(1)(a)).  

Article 3 

Provides  an  obligation  on  the  Commission  to  immediately  transmit  that  information  to  the 
Member States (Article 3(1)(b)).  

The Article also places an obligation on the Member State concerned to respond as soon as 
possible  to  requests  for  information  from  the  Commission  and  from  other  Member  States 
concerning  (a)  the  nature  of  the  obstacle/threat  and  (b)  the  action  which  it  has  taken  or 
proposes to take. 

Article 4 

Provides an obligation on the Member State concerned, where an obstacle occurs, (a) to take 
all necessary and proportionate measures so that the free movement of goods is assured in 
the  territory  of  the  Member  State,  (b)  to  inform  the  Commission  of  the  actions  which  its 
authorities  have  taken  or  intend  to  take.  The  Commission,  according  to  paragraph  2,  is 
obliged to immediately transmit this information to other Member States. 

This  provision  provides  for  notification  by  the  Commission  to  the  Member  State  concerned 
where the Commission considers that an obstacle is occurring. The Commission can request 
the Member State to take all necessary and proportionate measures. 

Article 5 

Paragraph 3 provides that the Commission may publish the text of the notification sent to the 
Member State concerned in the Official Journal. 

Paragraph 4 provides that the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission of the 
steps taken or communicate reasons as to why no obstacle exists within 5 working days. 

Exceptional deadlines are also provided in this Article. 

4.2.  Evolution of the number of obstacles reported to the Commission 

As  per  Article  3,  Member  States  report  obstacles  to  the  Commission,  which  then 
informs  the  other  Member  States.  This  early  warning  mechanism  takes  place  by  e-
mail.  The  analysis  of  the  evolution  of  obstacles  is  divided  between  the  period  1999-
2006  and  2007-2017,  as  results  were  already  collected  and  analysed  under  the  first 
evaluation  of  the  Regulation  published  in  2007.  The  full  list  of  obstacles  reported  to 
the Commission during the 2007-2017 period is presented in Annex 12. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  (1999  to  the  end  of  2006),  90  ‘obstacles’ 
were  notified/identified/reported  to  the  Commission  across  the  EU.  41%  of  the  cases 

25 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

that occurred took place in France. Austria had the second highest proportion of cases 
with 19%. Together these two countries accounted for 60% of all cases. Fifteen other 
countries  experienced  ‘obstacles’  on  their  territory  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation, which means that in total 17 countries have experienced ‘obstacles’ within 
their national borders.9 

Between  2007  and  February  2017,  129  obstacles  were  reported  to  the  Commission 
representing an average of 12 notifications per year (Figure 3), with an increase in the 
annual  number  of  notifications  since  2011  and  an  increase  from  the  last  period 
observed  under  the  2007  evaluation  study.  More  than  50%  of  the  notifications  that 
occurred  between  2007  and  2017  were  initiated  by  three  Member  States:  Romania 
(25%  or  33  notifications);  Greece  (15%  or  20  notifications)  and  Italy  (13%  or  17 
notifications),  with  nine  Member  States  or  EEA  Members  not  having  sent  any 
notifications (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, 
the Netherlands and Sweden).  

Figure 3: Obstacles reported 

Source: European Commission data ‘List of notification cases’ 

Section 5.1 analyses in detail the implementation of the Regulation across the Member 
States. 

9  

Evaluation of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December, 1998, on the functioning of 
the  internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  among  the  member  states,  GHK  and 
Technopolis, 2007. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

5.  Evaluation  of 
2679/1998 

the  Effectiveness  of 

the  Regulation 

Chapter  5  presents  the  findings  and  analysis  on  the  effectiveness  of  Regulation 
2679/1998. This section focuses on the achievement of the policy objectives.  

The  effectiveness  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  assessed  through  the  following 
evaluation sub-questions:  

  How is the Regulation applied in Member States? To what extent have Member 
States actually complied with the requirements of the Regulation and the need 
to  safeguard  the  free  movement  of  goods,  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
proportionality? 

  Has  the  Regulation  improved  the  free  movement  of  goods  within  the  internal 
market  in  the  face  of  serious  disruption?  How  much  has  the  existence  and/or 
use  of  the  Regulation  made  it  possible  to  change  behaviour  and  to  actually 
ensure the free movement of goods in the face of serious disruption? 

  Have  any  provisions  of  the  Regulation  provided  particularly  good  results 
regarding  obstacles  hindering  the  free  movement  of  goods?  Have  any 
provisions  provided  by  the  Regulation  been  particularly  ineffective?  Are  there 
any lessons to be learnt from them? 

  To  what  extent  are  interested  parties  informed  of  the  existence  of  the 
Regulation  and  the  possibilities  it  provides?  Is  the  information  exchange 
procedure  set  up  by  the  Regulation  effective,  particularly  in  light  of  rapid 
technological change with regards to the availability of information? 

  To what extent has the Regulation been useful in facilitating the free movement 
of goods in the face of serious disruption? Should additional and/or alternative 
measures be taken to improve the situation? 

  To  what  extent  did  different  factors  influence  the  progress  and  achievements 

observed? 

5.1.  How  is  the  Regulation  applied  in  Member  States?  To  what  extent 
have Member States actually complied with the requirements of the 
Regulation and the need to safeguard the free movement of goods, 
in line with the principle of proportionality? 

  The early warning mechanism in the event or risk of an obstacle (Article 3) 

In  April  1999,  the  Commission  invited  the  Member  States  to  designate  National 
Contact  Points  (NCPs)  in  order  to  establish  a  network  of  contacts  across  the  EU  to 
ensure  the  rapid  transmission  of information under  the  early  warning  mechanism  set 
up  by  the  Regulation  (Article  3).  In  most  Member  States,  the  NCPs  are  ministry 
officials  working  in  the  following  areas:  economy,  transport,  enterprise,  trade, 
industry,  employment  and  foreign  affairs.  For  some  Member  States,  staff  of 
Permanent  Representations  to  the  EU  are  also  indicated  as  contact  points. 
Communication  between  the  NCPs  and  the  Commission  to  notify  obstacles  and 
exchange additional information under the early warning mechanism (Article 3) takes 
place  by  e-mail.  In  some  Member  States  frequently  affected  by  obstacles,  a  clear 
communication  process  to  notify  obstacles  under  Regulation  No  2679/98  has  been 
established. In Spain, the overall process for communicating the event of an obstacle 
or  the  risk  of  an  obstacle  by  the  Spanish  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  Cooperation 

27 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

(MAEC) to the European Commission is illustrated in Figure 4. Spain and France have 
a  long-lasting  trade  relationship;  thus,  the  Spanish  ministries  (MAEC  and  MAPAMA) 
have  meetings  in  order  to  evaluate  reported  claims  and  avoid  any  damages  to 
commercial relations with France.10  

Figure  4:  Communication  process  for  notifying  obstacles  under  Regulation 
2679/98 in Spain 

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MAEC)  

 

Incidents reported 

Ninety obstacles to the free movement of goods had been notified to, or identified by, 
the Commission between 1999 and 2006 under the early warning mechanism (Article 
3). During the period 2001-2006, economic operators reported 36 obstacles (40%) to 
the  Commission,  while  Member  States  notified  the  Commission  of  the  obstacle  in  23 
cases (26%). This represents an increase compared to the 1999 to 2000 period, when 
the Commission identified most of the cases, and an increased level of involvement of 
stakeholders  (e.g.  economic  operators  and  government  bodies).  During  the  period 
2007-2017,  of  the  129  notifications  of  obstacles  received  by  the  Commission,  16 
(12%) were reported by stakeholders.  

Almost  half  of  the  notifications  received  by  the  Commission  between  2007  and  2017 
concerned  obstacles  occurring  in  three  Member  States:  Romania  (25%  or  33 
notifications); Greece (15% or 20 notifications) and Italy (13% or 17 notifications). In 
comparison,  in  the  1999-2006  period,  obstacles  reported  occurred  in  France  and 
Austria in 60% of the cases.  

Throughout  the  period  1999-2017,  Member  States  generally  responded  to  the 
Commission’s  requests  for  further  information  within  the  two  working  days  deadline 
usually set by the Commission. 

Overall  since  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation,  in  the  219  cases  mentioned  above  the 
obstacle  was  reported  to  the  Commission  under  the  early  warning  mechanism, 
following  which  the  Commission  could  inform  the  other  Member  States.  However, 
information  collected  from  desk  research  and  interviews  with  economic  operators 
shows  that  a  certain  number  of  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  were  not 
reported by Member States to the Commission. This means that some Member States 
did  not  use  the  Regulation  No  2679/98,  even  though  obstacles  occurred  within  their 
borders. One of the explanations given by NCPs relates to the different interpretations 
of obstacle as it is not clearly defined by the Regulation. Moreover, some NCPs argued 
that  sometimes  it  was  not  appropriate  to  apply  the  Regulation,  particularly  with 
regards  to  the  right  to  strike.  The  box  below  illustrates  cases  for  which  notifications 
were not sent under Regulation No 2679/98, even though obstacles were identified.  

10

   Interview with MAEC, conducted on 31.10.2017. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Table 3: Cases that were not reported under Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

1. French farmers’ strike against imported goods 

From the list of incidents of the last three years (2015, 2016 and 2017) shared by the Spanish NCP, only 
one of the 20 incidents were notified under Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. The 20 incidents recorded in 
this  list  came  from  claims  reported  by  transport  companies  at  the  Spanish  consulates  in  France.  Spain 
and France have a long-lasting trade relationship; thus, the Spanish ministries (MAEC and MAPAMA) have 
meetings to evaluate reported claims and avoid any damages to commercial relations with France. 

2. General strike of 15 December 2014 in Belgium  

No notifications were received by the Commission regarding the general strike of 15 December 2014, in 
Belgium, one of the largest strikes in many years, when access to and from the country was completely 
cut off. 

3. Road I/11 in Kysuce Region (Slovakia) 

According  to  the  list  of  cases  notified  under  Regulation  (EC)  No. 2679/98  provided  by the  Commission, 
Slovakia  has  reported  only  one  disruption  since  2006.  This  disruption  concerned  numerous  road 
obstacles  that  occurred  in  2009.  As  confirmed  by  the  regional  authorities  of  Kysuce,  this  disruption 
notification did not concern the situation on the I/11 road.11 The Regulation has therefore not played 
the role of an early warning mechanism in any of the disruptions on the I/11 road, despite the 
fact that two of the mentioned demonstrations were communicated in advance to the police.12 Moreover, 
local authorities had no previous knowledge of this Regulation and neither did they know how to report 
an obstacle or disruption.13 

  Obligation by the Member States to take necessary and appropriate actions 

needed to ensure the free movement of goods (Article 4) 

As  part  of  the  Commission’s  requests  to  Member  States  for  information  concerning 
(potential)  obstacles,  Member  States  are  asked  about  the  actions  they  are  taking  to 
safeguard the free movement of goods.  Such actions typically include one or more of 
the following measures:  

Information broadcast on radio or displayed on highways;  

  Disseminating information to stakeholders;  
  Ensuring alternative routes;  
 
  Allocating (additional) police resources;  
  Setting up of specific support measures;  
  Establishing dialogue with demonstrators;  
  Creating a coordination cell within the relevant ministry or department;  
  Organising a meeting with relevant stakeholders; and 
  Ensuring communication with local authorities.  

Limited information was available on the actions taken by the Member States and how 
the  Commission  and  other  Member  States  were  informed  of  these  measures. 
Furthermore, the case studies illustrated that the NCP does not always coordinate the 
management  of  the  incidents  as  they  are  often  handled  by  local  and  regional 
authorities. Thus, most communication actions take place at local and regional levels, 
with  many  stakeholders  involved  in  the  flow  of  information  (e.g.  the  police,  trade 
unions and local authorities).  

The  Regulation  does  not  foresee  any  direct  communication  between  the  NCPs  of  the 
different  Member  States  when  an  obstacle  occurs,  but  the  Brenner  Pass  case  study 

11   Based on interviews 
12  

Interview  with  the  chairman  of  the  Association  of  Kysuce  Businesses  and  member  of  D3preKysuce, 
conducted on 20.11.2017. 

13   Based on interviews

29 

 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

illustrated  an  example  of  neighbouring  regional  authorities  being  informed  about  the 
expected obstacles via informal bilateral channels.   

  Commission action notifying the Member States (Article 5): 

To date, there have not been cases where the Commission notified Member States of 
obstacles  occurring  in  their  territory  and  published  the  notification  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union, although the possibility has been mentioned in cases of 
long-lasting obstacles.  

5.2.  Has  the  Regulation  improved  the  free  movement  of  goods  within 
the internal market in the face of serious disruption? How much has 
the  existence  and/or  use  of  the  Regulation  made  it  possible  to 
change  behaviour  and  to  actually  ensure  the  free  movement  of 
goods in the face of serious disruption? 

  Changes in the reported obstacles 

Despite  the  enlargement  of  the internal  market  since  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation, 
the number of obstacles identified or reported to the Commission has remained stable 
since 1999. In recent years, however, an increase in the average number of cases per 
year can be noted, with at least 12 cases per year since 2012 (see Section 4.2). The 
case  studies  illustrate  that  the  increase  in  the  number  of  notifications  is  due  to  both 
traditional trade challenges14 and new challenges emerging in the Schengen area (e.g. 
Calais  port  blockage  to  the  port  for  freight  trucks,  demanding  an  increase  in  the 
workforce due to the work overload associated with migrant intrusion).   

Since  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation,  obstacles  were  most  often  caused  by 
construction  work  and  demonstrations  or  strikes.  In  the  period  2007-2017, 
construction  work  or  maintenance  were  the  cause  of  43  (33%)  of  the  129  obstacles 
reported  to  the  Commission  under  Article  3,  while  strikes/demonstrations  accounted 
for  41  (32%)  of  obstacles.  In  some  cases,  weather  conditions15  (e.g.  snow  and  heat 
waves) or specific events16 (e.g. State visits and festivals) also caused obstacles. The 
large majority of cases concerned the immobilisation of goods, whereas a minority of 
events concerned the destruction of goods, and this ratio has remained stable both in 
the  period  before  the  Regulation  was  adopted  and  since  its introduction.  Overall,  the 
destruction  of  goods  is  more  frequent  when  the  goods  are  being  transported  rather 
than when in storage or at a point of sale.17  

Road  transport  is  the  most-affected  transport  mode,  however  sea  ports,  air  and  rail 
transport were also affected in the disruptions reported to the European Commission: 

 

In  the  1999-2006  period,  the  disruptions  concerned  road  transport  in  52%  of 
the  events  reported  to  the  Commission,  increasing  to  63%  (81  out  of  129 
obstacles) for the 2007-2017 period.  

  Since the introduction of the Regulation, sea ports were affected in 12% of the 
obstacles  reported.  The  figure  has  remained  stable  in  the  1999-2006  period 
and the 2007-2017 period. 
In the 2007-2017 period, disruptions of airport traffic presented 23 out of 129 
of the obstacles notified.  

 

  Obstacles  to  railway  transport  are  relatively  rare,  accounting  for  only  four  out 

of 129 notifications in the 2007-2017 period.      

14   E.g. protest against Spanish imports to France 
15   7 out of 129 notifications in the 2007-2017 period 
16   5 out of 129 notifications in the 2007-2017 period 
17   European Commission, February 2017, List of cases notified under the Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

  Changes in Member States’ behaviour to ensure the free movement of goods 

Although  the  occurrence  of  obstacles  has  not  significantly  decreased  since  the 
adoption of the Regulation, findings from  the desk research and interviews show that 
the  main  benefits  of  the  Regulation,  in  terms  of  changes  in  the  behaviour  of  public 
authorities,  have  been  to  speed  up  the  responses  and  actions  of  some  national 
authorities  to  reduce  the  consequences  of  obstacles  due  to  the  pressure  from  the 
Commission and other Member States.   

According  to  the  2007  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  and  some  interviewed  NCPs,  the 
Regulation has helped to reduce the duration of the obstacles and thus the associated 
damage thanks to improved information flows on anticipated obstacles (Article 3) and 
to  the  pressure  on  Member  States  to  take  adequate  actions  and  resolve  the  issues 
(Article 4). Twelve out of 20 respondents to the Open Public Consultation affirmed that 
the Regulation has improved the management of obstacles at Member State borders. 
According  to  an  interviewed  NCP,  the  time  gap  between  the  communication  of  the 
disruption  and  the  implementation  of  actions  to  resolve  the  issue  ranges  from  a  few 
hours to a day.  

On  the  other  hand,  based  on  findings  from  some  interviews  and  the  case  studies, 
Regulation  2679/98  is  not  always  effective  in  resolving  incidents  or  reducing  their 
duration.  For  example,  although  recurring  blockages  at  the  Bulgarian-Greek  border 
have been  reported to  the Commission, their duration has increased  from two  weeks 
to  over  four  weeks.  Below  is  list  of  the  dates  of  blockages  that  have  occurred  at  the 
Bulgarian-Greek border since 2006 and the duration times.    

  24.01.2007 – a blockage of two weeks;  
  26.01.2009 – a blockage of three weeks; 
  20.01.2013 – a blockage of 18 days; and 
  16.01.2016 – a blockage of 40 days.   

Moreover,  11  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  (including  NCPs 
and  economic  operators)  considered  that  the  Regulation  has  not  been  effective  in 
obliging  Member  States  to  take  the  necessary  and  proportionate  measures  to  ensure 
the free movement of goods. 

5.3.  Have  any  provisions  of  the  Regulation  provided  particularly  good 
results regarding obstacles hindering the free movement of goods? 
Have  any  of  the  provisions  provided  by  the  Regulation  been 
particularly  ineffective?  Are  there  any  lessons  to  be  learnt  from 
them? 

The  overall  findings  are  that  the  provisions  of  the  Regulation  have  provided 
satisfactory results, although their effectiveness can be hampered by a lack of clarity 
of specific terms.  

Based  on  findings  from  the  desk  research  and  interviews,  the  provisions  of  the 
Regulation  concerning  early  warning  and  the  exchange  of  information  on  obstacles 
under Article 3, and hence the opportunity for proactive action from Member States as 
per  Article  4,  have  generated  satisfactory  results.  Nine  out  of  20  respondents  to  the 
Open Public Consultation considered that the Regulation has been effective in ensuring 
the adequate and rapid exchange of information between the Member States and the 
Commission.  However,  the  majority  of  stakeholders  interviewed  questioned  the 
quickness of the early warning mechanism by e-mail, and some NCPs suggested that 
the  provision  of  real  time  information  about  the  obstacles  on  a  common  digital 
platform  would  increase  the  possibility  to  quickly  address  the  issues  and  propose 
alternative  routes.  In  addition,  the  case  studies  illustrate  that  the  Regulation  is  not 
always  used  in  cases  of  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  and  that  several 
cases of disruptions are solved directly at the local or national level without using the 
early warning mechanism. 

31 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

The  provisions  of  Article  5,  namely  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  notify  a 
Member State of an obstacle happening on its territory and to request action, and the 
possibility for the Commission to publish this notification  in the Official Journal of the 
European  Union  have  never  been  used.  These  provisions,  and  especially  the  ‘name 
and  shame’  effect,  may  have  a  deterrent  effect  on  Member  States,  which  are 
encouraged to act quickly in cases of obstacles occurring in their territory.  

Although  no  provision  can  be  said  to  be  particularly  ineffective,  the  effectiveness  of 
the  Regulation  may  be  hampered  by  the  lack  of  clarity  of  some  of  its  terms.  The 
previous  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  and  interviewees  reported  ambiguities  in  the 
definition of “obstacles” and the timing of communication (“immediately” and “as soon 
as  possible”  in  Article  3)  or  the  resulting  actions  (definition  of  “proportionate” 
measures). As confirmed by interviewees, due to the lack of clarity of the definition of 
‘obstacle’ (how to define “serious disruption” and “serious loss”), some Member States 
are  not  sure  of  which  disruptions  are  in  the  scope  of  the  Regulation,  which  may 
explain  why  they  do  not  report  all  events  to  the  Commission.  Twelve  out  of  20 
respondents to the Open Public Consultation considered that a more detailed definition 
of  measures  through  which  Member  States  can  prevent/solve  incidents  from 
obstructing  the  free  movement  of  goods  would  be  very  useful.  As  pointed  out  by 
several  NCPs,  it  would  be  beneficial  to  organise  more  meetings  or  workshops  among 
NCPs  to  exchange  best  practices  and  clarify  possible  questions  of  interpretation,  in 
order to ensure a more effective implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98.  

5.4.  To  what  extent  are  interested  parties  informed  of  the  existence  of 
the  Regulation  and  the  possibilities  it  provides?  Is  the  information 
exchange procedure set up by the Regulation effective, particularly 
in light of rapid technological change with regards to the availability 
of information? 

Overall,  we  have  found  that  there  is  a  relatively  good  level  of  awareness  of  the 
Regulation  among  national  authorities  and  some  business  associations.  However,  a 
large number of stakeholders and especially individual companies are not aware of the 
Regulation  and  its  outcomes.  The  introduction  of  a  unified  digital  platform  to  report 
obstacles  would  raise  more  awareness  across  Member  States  and  stakeholders  and 
speed up information exchange. 

  Awareness of the Regulation among the interested parties 

The main findings from interviews and the Open Public Consultation suggest that while 
National  Contact  Points,  EU  officials,  European  associations  and  some  national 
associations  (mostly  transport  associations  and  business  associations)  are  aware  of 
the  Regulation,  public  authorities  at  local  and  regional  level  and  economic  operators 
are  not  sufficiently  aware  of  the  provisions  offered  by  the  Regulation  and  in  what 
situations  they  would  apply.  Twelve  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public 
Consultation  considered  that  the  Regulation  has  not  been  an  effective  means  for 
communicating  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  to  economic  actors  in  a 
timely  manner.  An  example  of  the  lack  of  stakeholders’  awareness  of  the  Regulation 
becomes  evident  when  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  occur  repeatedly, 
such as those on the I/11 road in the Kysuce region.18 The authorities that dealt with 
the  disruptions  were  either  the  local  police  or  the  Slovak  Road  Administration, 
depending on the nature of the incidents, but at the local level these local authorities 
neither had previous knowledge of the Regulation nor did they know how to report an 
obstacle or disruption. The main reason for the lack of awareness of the Regulation is 
that  while  it  contains  provisions  to  ensure  the  exchange  of  communication  between 
the  Member  States  and  the  Commission,  it  does  not  ensure  that  other  stakeholders 
should be informed. In some Member States, the NCPs indicated that they publish the 

18   Slovakia Case study – Road I/11 in Kysuce Region    

32 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

notifications  on  their  websites  (namely  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  Sweden)  or  inform 
the relevant stakeholders directly (namely in Cyprus and Ireland). 

On  the  other  hand,  some  stakeholders  –  mainly  transport  operators  –  appeared 
particularly aware of the provisions of the Regulation as they report cases of obstacles 
directly to the Commission (40% of the cases in the 2001-2006 period, 12% between 
2007  and  2017).  In  addition,  national  authorities  and  economic  operators  were 
relatively aware of the measures taken by Member States to prevent or limit obstacles 
to  the  free  movement  of  goods  or  to  mitigate  their  consequences.  Among  these 
measures,  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  appear  most  aware  of 
measures  such  as  redirections  of  traffic19,  as  well  as  ensuring  the  presence  of  police 
and requesting authorisation for demonstrations.20  

 

Information exchange mechanism 

The information exchange procedure via e-mail between the Commission and Member 
States  can  be  ineffective  if  the  recipient  of  the  information  is  absent  and  unable  to 
react  in  sufficient  time.  To  improve  the  direct  exchange  of  information  between 
Member  States  and  other  interested  parties,  several  NCPs  (namely  from  Austria, 
Croatia,  Germany,  Greece,  Finland, 
Italy,  Latvia,  Liechtenstein,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Spain,  UK)  and  transport  associations  or 
companies  would  be  in  favour  of  a  central  electronic  platform  where  information  on 
notifications  and  obstacles  would  be  directly  available  to  national  authorities  and 
stakeholders.  Nineteen  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation 
considered that the introduction of a unified digital solution with real time information 
accessible  to  businesses  and  national  associations  would  be  useful.  Such  a  central 
platform  would  allow  stakeholders  to  be  directly  informed  of  disruptions  and  quickly 
plan  alternative  solutions.  Currently,  most  transport  stakeholders  rely  on  national 
traffic  websites,  on  the  media  or  on  business  associations  to  be  warned  about 
obstacles  and  learn  about  alternative  routes.  The  Austrian  NCP  mentioned  the  good 
practice example of the Austrian online traffic information platform (Verkehrsauskunft 
Österreich  –  VAO)21  and  apps,  a  joint initiative of  all local public  transport  providers, 
ministries, the national motorway operator and many other stakeholders to provide a 
coherent  data  exchange  and  information  system  to  be  used  jointly  by  all  these 
partners. 

5.5.  To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation  been  useful  in  facilitating  the 
free  movement  of  goods  in  the  face  of  serious  disruption?  Should 
additional  and/or  alternative  measures  be  taken  to  improve  the 
situation? 

  Effectiveness of the Regulation in facilitating the free movement of goods  

Overall,  the  objectives  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  are  to  contribute  to  resolving 
the  disruptions  to  the  freedom  of  movement  of  goods  in  the  internal  market  by 
improving the information exchange between Member States and the Commission and 
by putting pressure on Member States to promptly take all the necessary measures to 
ensure  the  free  movement  of  goods.  However,  the  Regulation  does  not  prevent 
obstacles from happening and does not specifically address issues of short duration. 

Thirteen  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  believed  that  overall 
the Regulation has contributed to the prevention or reduction of serious disruptions to 
the  free  movement  of  goods  occurring  at  the  EU  internal  borders  only  to  a  limited 
extent. While the early warning mechanism has improved the exchange of information 
between  Member  States  and  the  Commission,  the  information  is  not  available  to 

19   7 out 7 respondents aware of measures taken by Member States 
20   5 out 7 respondents aware of measures taken by Member States 
21   http://www.verkehrsauskunft.at/ 

33 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

stakeholders  in  real  time.  Interviewed  stakeholders  reported  that  they  usually  use 
other  information  sources  (e.g.  media,  traffic  websites,  information  from  national 
authorities  or  business  associations)  to  learn  about  disruptions  and  about  alternative 
routes.  Furthermore,  the  system  of  notification  of  obstacles  via  e-mails  to  the 
Commission may not be suitable for obstacles of short duration (e.g. one day or less), 
since  the  disruption  may  be  over  before  the  notification  reaches  the  other  Member 
States.  

Although the Regulation is useful to put pressure on Member States to take necessary 
measures,  in  practice,  as  illustrated  in  the  case  studies,  the  obstacles  are  usually 
solved  by  direct  actions  at  local level  (e.g.  rerouting,  negotiations  between  economic 
operators  and  authorities,  bilateral  talks  between  neighbouring  regional  authorities) 
which are not necessarily related to an intervention from the NCPs or the Regulation. 
For instance, during the blockages at the Brenner Pass, the police coordinated at the 
regional  level  to  ensure  smooth  operations  on  the  day  of  the  blockade.  The 
neighbouring regional authorities in Italy and Germany were informed bilaterally about 
the  expected  obstacles.  In  addition,  transport  industry  associations  were  informed 
through the Tyrol Chamber of Commerce, while the media were informed through the 
press department of the Tyrol region.  

Finally, although the Regulation has a preventive effect on long disruptions by putting 
pressure on Member States to act immediately to ensure the free movement of goods, 
it  does  not  prevent  obstacles  from  happening  in  the  first  place.  Twelve  out  of  20 
respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  considered  that  the  Regulation  has  not 
been  effective  to  prevent  obstacles/disruptions.  Indeed,  as  stated  in  Article  2,  “this 
Regulation may not be interpreted as affecting in any way the exercise of fundamental 
rights  as  recognised  in Member  States,  including  the  right  or  freedom  to  strike”.  The 
average number of disruptions reported to the Commission, however, shows a certain 
stability over the years, with 12 obstacles per year on average.     

  Further measures needed 

The  main  suggestions  for  improvements  to  the  Regulation  involve  a  clarification  of 
definitions  regarding  obstacles  and  proportionate  measures,  and  of  the  timing  for 
communication  and  action,  as  well  as  a  modernisation  of  the  information  exchange 
procedure to be in line with technological developments. 

First, as indicated by interviewees and respondents to the Open Public Consultation, a 
clarification  of  the  definition  of  “obstacle”22  would  allow  NCPs  to  more  effectively 
report  disruptions  to  the  Commission.  Currently,  not  all  events  are  notified  to  the 
Commission, as illustrated by the case studies. In addition, more clarity on the timing 
of  communication  and  action  (definition  of  “immediately”23  and  “as  soon  as 
possible”24)  and  a  more  detailed  definition  of  “necessary  and  proportionate 
measures”25  to  prevent  or  resolve  obstacles  would  allow  Member  States  to  act  more 
effectively in cases of disruption.   

Secondly,  in  order  to  streamline  the  information  exchange  procedure  between  the 
Commission  and  Member  States  and  allow  economic  operators  to  be  better  informed 
about the obstacles and measures taken to prevent or resolve them, interviewees and 
respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  (19  out  of  20)  would  welcome  the 
introduction  of  a  unified  digital  solution  with  real  time  information,  accessible  to 
businesses  and  national  associations.  Indeed,  currently  very  few  economic  operators 
are aware of the Regulation or informed about the actions taken by the NCPs in cases 
of  disruption,  so  a  common  digital  platform  would  address  the  asymmetry  of 

22   Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 of Regulation No 2679/98 
23   Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b), 3.2, 5.3 of Regulation No 2679/98 
24   Article 3.2 of Regulation No 2679/98 
25   Articles 1.2, 4.1(a), 5.1 of Regulation No 2679/98 

34 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

information  and  ensure  a  better  flow  of  communication  of  the  incidents  and  their 
preventive measures.   

Thirdly, stakeholders interviewed and respondents to the Open Public Consultation (10 
out  of  20),  mainly  transport  and  food  associations,  called  for  a  transparent,  non-
discriminatory and effective procedure to compensate economic operators for any loss 
or  damage  related  to  the  obstacles.  The  Council  Resolution  of  7  December  199826, 
reaffirmed the Member  States’ undertaking “to ensure that rapid and effective review 
procedures are available for any person who has been harmed as a result of a breach 
of the Treaty caused by an obstacle within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) 
No.  2679/98”  (Article  3).  Due  to  the  current  lack  of  harmonisation  of  the  regime  for 
compensation  across  Member  States,  some  stakeholders  considered  that  access  to 
compensation  can  be  lengthy,  complicated  and  discriminatory  against  economic 
operators.  For  instance,  the  case  studies  confirm  that  none  of  the  damages  incurred 
by the analysed obstacles were covered by any national, regional or local authorities. 

5.6.  To  what  extent  did  different  factors  influence  the  progress  and 

achievements observed? 

The  achievements  of  the  Regulation  have  also  been  influenced  by  internal  factors, 
such  as  the  insufficient  power  of  the  Commission  to  enforce  implementation,  and 
external factors, such as trade protectionism and security challenges at the borders. 

 

Internal factors 

Regarding  internal  factors,  when  faced  with  a  risk  or  event  of  obstacle  to  the  free 
movement  of  goods,  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  gives  the  Commission  the 
possibility  to  address  the  issue  only  through  the  exchange  of  information.  Although 
this reinforces the cooperation between Member States and encourages their national 
authorities  to  take  action,  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  does  not  provide  the 
Commission with the possibility to resolve issues through direct intervention. 

With regards to the possibilities for resolving obstacles, Article 4.1 of Regulation (EC) 
No.  2679/98  requires  Member  States  to  take  necessary  and  proportionate  measures. 
However,  there  is  no  sanctioning  mechanism when  Member  States  fail  to  take  action 
and guarantee the free movement of goods. Article 5 acts as a deterrent as it provides 
the right for the Commission to notify a Member State about a disruption occurring on 
its  territory  and  to  publish  the  notification  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Union.  However,  this  provision  has  never  been  used  since  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation.  Eleven  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation 
recommended  giving  more  power  to  the  Commission  to  make  binding  decisions  and 
guarantee  their  implementation  as  well  as  to  impose  sanctions  on  Member  States 
which were in breach of their obligations. Infringement proceedings can be initiated in 
cases  of  inaction  of  Member  States  in  the  presence  of  an  obstacle,  but  the  length  of 
such proceedings tends to be longer than the duration of the obstacle. Only one case 
was brought to the European Court of Justice by the owner of a truck company against 
the Republic of Austria in 2005 due to the blockades at the Brenner Pass.27 However, 
this infringement proceeding was initiated on the basis of Article 258 (ex-Article 226) 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union rather than under Article 5 of 
the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.  The  Court  of  Justice  held  that  the  competent 

26   Resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting 
within  the  Council  of  7  December  1998  on  the  free  movement  of  goods.  Available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:41998X1212(01)&from=EN 
Schmidberger, 

Transporte 

27  Case 

C-112/00, 

Available 

Austria. 

Eugen 

Int. 

at: 

/ 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dc5a9bb02c14504ddd9baee4e9b8e061
0b.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNaN10?text=&docid=47920&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=
&occ=first&part=1&cid=233804 

35 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

authorities  in  Austria  had  taken  various  administrative  and  supporting  measures  in 
order to limit as far as possible the disruption to road traffic, and that an outright ban 
on  the  demonstration  would  have  constituted  unacceptable  interference  with  the 
fundamental rights of the demonstrators. 

  External factors 

Regarding  the  external  factors  affecting  the  achievements  of  the  Regulation,  trade 
protectionism and security issues linked to refugee flows and terror attacks represent 
new challenges for the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. 

New  security  challenges  observed  since  2011  have  pushed  Member  States  to 
reintroduce border controls, thus giving rise to potential barriers to free movement in 
the Schengen Area. The border controls were  mainly designed as responses to terror 
attacks or to the arrival of a large number of people seeking humanitarian protection. 
For  example,  as  indicated  in  the  Study  on  ‘Internal  border  controls  in  the  Schengen 
area:  is  Schengen  crisis-proof?’28,  several  Schengen  countries  –  Austria,  Belgium, 
Denmark,  Germany,  Hungary,  Norway,  Slovenia,  and  Sweden  –  reintroduced  border 
controls  after  September  2015  due  to  the  ‘big  influx  of  persons  seeking international 
protection’  or  ‘unexpected  migratory  flows’.  The  majority  of  these  countries  invoked 
Article  28  of  the  Schengen  Borders  Code  to  reintroduce  border  controls  in  light  of  a 
‘serious threat to public order or internal security’. 

Additionally, representatives of food, agriculture and transport associations referred to 
the  protectionist  measures  undertaken  by  some  Member  States  with  regards  to  the 
new rules on labelling (e.g. those concerning country of origin and ingredients of food 
products) to explain some of the disruptions. The latter challenge, however, is outside 
the scope of the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 but targeted by Regulation No 764/2008 
that  sets  out  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition,  under  which  Member  States  are 
obliged to allow the marketing in their territory of a product which is legally marketed 
in  another  Member  State.29  Some  cases  of  disruptions  due  to  destruction  of  goods 
(e.g. actions of French farmers against Spanish trucks) also result  from the economic 
context and, in particular, from differences in agricultural prices across borders. 

5.7.  Conclusions on the effectiveness of the Regulation 

Overall,  the  Regulation  has  been  implemented  effectively,  although  some  provisions 
are  only  partially  used.  All  Member  States  have  established  National  Contact  Points 
and the procedure of information exchange between the Commission and the Member 
States  is  correctly  implemented.  However,  our  findings  show  that  not  all  obstacles 
have  been  reported  to  the  Commission  as  per  Article  3,  and  that  a  number  of 
obstacles  have  been  reported  by  economic  operators  rather  than  the  Member  States 
themselves.  Article  5,  which  allows  the  Commission  to  notify  a  Member  State  of  an 
obstacle and publish the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union, has 
never been used but acts as a deterrent.   

According to the evaluation findings, the main achievements of the Regulation are: 

 

Improved  exchange  of  information  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States via the early warning mechanism (Article 3). 

  Pressure  effectively  put  on  Member  States  to  promptly  address  cases  of 
disruptions and improved management of obstacles to some extent (Article 4). 

The main issues identified that hamper the effectiveness of the Regulation are: 

28  

Internal border controls in the Schengen area: is Schengen crisis-proof?, Study for the LIBE Committee, 
2016 

29   See Section 2.3 

36 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

  Lack  of  clarity  of  specific  terms  of  the  Regulation  (“obstacle”,  “immediately”, 
“as  soon  as  possible”  and  “necessary  and  proportionate  measures”), 
preventing its consistent and adequate application.  

  Unsuitable  system  of  notification  of  obstacles  via  e-mails  to  the  Commission 
for obstacles of short duration (e.g. one day or less), since the disruption may 
be over before the notification reaches the other Member States. 

  Lack  of  awareness  of  economic  operators  and  local  authorities  about  the 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  and  the  actions  taken  by  the  NCPs  in  cases  of 
disruption. 

  Not all damages and losses incurred are compensated. 

In line with the feedback from NCPs and economic operators, we propose the following 
recommendations to mitigate the abovementioned issues and ensure a more effective 
implementation of the Regulation: 

  Better  definition  of  “obstacles”,  the  timing  of  communication  (“immediately” 
and  “as  soon  as  possible”)  and  “necessary  and  proportionate  measures”,  to 
ensure the correct application of the Regulation. 

 

Introduction  of  a  unified  digital  solution  with  real  time  information  accessible 
to businesses and national associations to speed up information exchange and 
reduce the asymmetry of information.  

  Transparent,  non-discriminatory  and  effective  procedure  to  compensate 

economic operators for any loss or damage related to the obstacles. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

6.  Evaluation  of  the  Efficiency  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No. 

2679/98 

Chapter  6  presents  the  findings  and  analysis  of  the  efficiency  of  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98.  This  section  focuses  on  the  relationship  between  the  outputs/results  and 
inputs of the intervention and their proportionality.  

The  efficiency  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  assessed  by  asking  the  following 
evaluation sub-questions: 

  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  proportional  to  the  benefits  achieved?  To  what 

extent has the application of the Regulation been cost effective? 

  What factors influenced the efficiency of the implementation of the Regulation?  

  How justifiable were the costs borne by different stakeholder groups, given the 

benefits they received?  

  Are there significant differences in costs (or benefits) between Member States, 

and what is causing them? 

6.1.  To what extent are the costs proportional to the benefits achieved? 
To  what  extent  has  the  application  of  the  Regulation  been  cost 
effective? 

Overall, the costs of implementing the Regulation are limited in the Member States as 
there are only few cases of obstacles per year and the exchange of information takes 
place by e-mail. 

For the national contact points (NCPs), as reported during interviews and  in the case 
studies,  the  costs  of  communicating  the  disruptions  to  the  Commission  and  other 
Member  States  do  not  constitute  an  administrative  burden  as  they  consist  of 
exchanging  information  by  e-mail  or  through  existing  information  networks  (e.g. 
Internal Market Information System – IMI), and updating relevant information on their 
respective websites.  On  average,  only 12 cases of  obstacles per year are  reported to 
the  Commission  and  trigger  the  use  of  the  Regulation,  so  these  costs  are  minimal. 
Similarly, in the previous evaluation of the Regulation30, most Member States found it 
difficult  to  provide  an  estimation  of  costs.  Only  few  Member  States  provided  the 
following estimations:  

  Around  5%  of  the  Unit’s  time  is  spent  on  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98 

(National Contact Point for Finland); 

  Costs are estimated at around EUR 100 per month, including staff and material 

costs (National Contact Point for the Slovak Republic); 

  Costs  are  estimated  to  be  one  full-time  employee  for  one  month  per  annum 

(National Contact Point for Slovenia). 

Although one must be cautious in drawing general conclusions on the basis of the very 
limited data available, the information points to low costs of implementation for NCPs. 
Thus, some NCPs pointed out that given the low cost of implementation, any benefits 
for  stakeholders  stemming  from  the  Regulation  are  valuable.  As  highlighted  by  some 

30   Evaluation of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of 
the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States, GHK and 
Technopolis, 2007 

38 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

NCPs and the previous evaluation, the main benefit of the Regulation is the  improved 
exchange of communication between the Member States and the Commission, leading 
to a reduction of the duration of the obstacles and of the associated damage.   

While  for  the  NCPs,  the  costs  and  benefits  of  implementation  of  the  Regulation  are 
proportionate, for the economic operators affected by the obstacles the ratio is not as 
positive.  They  may  experience  severe  consequences  in  terms  of  losses  and  damages 
due to delays and the rerouting or destruction of goods (see Section 6.3).  

6.2.  What factors influenced the efficiency of the implementation of the 

Regulation? 

In  terms  of  internal  factors  affecting  the  efficiency  of  the  Regulation,  the  costs  of 
implementation of the Regulation are minimal for NCPs as they exchange information 
about  obstacles  via  e-mail  and  only  a  few  (12  on  average)  cases  of  obstacles  are 
reported to the Commission every  year. On the one hand, the improved exchange of 
information  (Article  3)  and  the  pressure  put  on  Member  States  to  take  all  necessary 
and  proportionate  measures  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of  goods  (Article  4)  allow 
resolution of the disruptions to be solved quicker to some extent. On the other hand, 
the case studies illustrate that in several cases the Regulation was not used to address 
obstacles. The Regulation offers an information and prevention mechanism, but it does 
not  provide  the  Commission  with  the  possibility  to  resolve  the  issues  through  direct 
intervention.  All  in  all,  our  findings  show  that  with  the  limited  costs  and  little  time 
spent by NCPs in the implementation of the Regulation, its impact is also limited. With 
the availability of a unified digital tool for exchanging information about obstacles that 
is open to Member States and economic operators, the interviewees argue that more 
stakeholders  would  benefit  from  the  Regulation,  as  more  stakeholders  would  be 
informed about the disruptions and the preventive measures applied. According to the 
previous evaluation report31, the additional costs engendered by the implementation of 
new technological means for notification would be proportionate and absorbed by the 
new efficiency gains. 

With  regards  to  external  factors,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Regulation  does  not 
intend  to  undermine  the  right  to  strike  and  does  not  prevent  obstacles  from 
happening.  As  guaranteed  in  Article  2,  “this  Regulation  may  not  be  interpreted  as 
affecting  in  any  way  the  exercise  of  fundamental  rights  as  recognised  in  Member 
States, including the right or freedom to strike”. The findings from the desk research, 
interviews  and  the  case  studies  showed  that  the  obstacles  incur  significant  costs  for 
the  economic  operators,  particularly  those  in  the  transport  and  food  sector.  The 
obstacles analysed in the case studies led to direct economic losses ranging from EUR 
39,200  to  EUR  550,000  (see  Section  6.3).  The  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  the 
mitigation  of  these  costs  appears  to  be  limited  according  to  feedback  from  the 
interviews,  but  the  main  benefit  highlighted  was  that  triggering  the  early  warning 
mechanism raised awareness about the importance of assuring the free movement of 
goods,  and  put  pressure  on  Member  States  to  manage  the  disruptions  as  best  they 
can, for instance by proposing alternative routes and warning neighbouring countries.     

6.3.  How  justifiable  were  the  costs  borne  by  different  stakeholder 

groups, given the benefits they received? 

As indicated in the previous sections, the implementation costs of the Regulation (EC) 
No.  2679/98  are  generally  estimated  to  be  low  for  NCPs  and  therefore  seem  to  be 

31   Evaluation of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of 
the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States, GHK and 
Technopolis, 2007

39 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

lower  than  the  potential  benefits  in  terms  of  reducing  the  disruption  period  and  the 
damages once an obstacle is notified and prevented.  

The  case  studies  provided  some  estimations  of  economic  losses  engendered  by  the 
disruptions. The table below shows the estimation of economic losses per case study. 
The estimates of direct costs from disruptions range from EUR 39,200 to EUR 550,000 
per  event  for  companies.  Estimations  of  direct  and  indirect  costs  for  the  national 
economy range from  EUR 10 million for each blockade at the Bulgarian border to EUR 
480 million for the general strike taking place in Belgium in December 2014. 

Table 4: Estimation of economic losses per case study 

Case study  

Estimation of costs  

French 
against imported goods 

farmers’  strike 

The average total direct cost per incident is EUR 39,200 for transport and food 
companies.32 

The  blockade  of 
the 
freight  port  of  Calais  / 
strike by part of the staff 
(October 2015) 

of 
Seasonal  blocking 
by 
border 
Bulgarian 
Greek 
farmers  (2007, 
2009, 2013, 2016) 

Blockages at I/11 road in 
Kysuce Region 

The total direct cost of the strike at Calais in October 2015 would range between 
EUR 192,500 and EUR 550,000 for transport companies.33  

Each  event  in  2007,  2009  and  2013  cost  around  EUR  10  million  for  the 
Bulgarian  economy.34  The  2016  event  led  to  estimated  direct  and  indirect 
damages ranging from around EUR 10 million35 to EUR 12-15 million36 in the 
road  transport  sector,  and  EUR  3.5  million37  for  the  Bulgarian  agriculture 
sector. 

No direct costs caused by these incidents could be calculated.  

Citizens’ protests against 
transit  traffic  over  the 
Brenner Pass   

The total direct and indirect damages suffered during a 24-hour blockade in the 
Brenner Pass are estimated at up to EUR 15.2 million for logistics companies38 
and EUR 426,00039 for the lost revenues from the toll road. 

in 
Social  movements 
Belgium 
impacting  the 
free  movement  of  goods 
in 2014 and 2016 

The  general  strike  of  15  December  2014  had  an  direct  and  indirect  economic 
impact of EUR 264.8 million on the private sector, and EUR 480 million when 
also taking into account the impact on the public sector.40 The road blockades in 
April 2016 affected 70% of  Belgian food companies, with an average impact of 
EUR  18,000  per  day  per  company.41  The  May-June  2016  train  strike  cost 
around EUR 5 million to the freight operators (direct and indirect costs).42 

Source: case studies 

32   Calculation based on figures provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation 
33   Calculation based on a methodology of IRU (World Road Transport Organisation) 
34  According 

Bulgarian 

Minister 

the 

to 

of 

Transport. 

See 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-
granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html 

35   Interview with the Bulgarian Union of International Transportation Companies 
36   According to the Alliance of International Carriers http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-

iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-sadilishta  

37  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/miroslav-naidenov-ima-mehanizmi-s-koito-da-sprem-

blokadata-po-granitsata-s-gartsiya.html  

38   Calculation based on the figures of the Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte 

und Planzüge v Republik Österreich (2003),  adjusted for inflation. 
annual 
the 

39  Calculation 

figures 

based 

from 

on 

toll 

road 

revenues. 

See 

https://www.wko.at/branchen/transport-verkehr/die-oesterreichische-verkehrswirtschaft-2017.pdf 
40   DH.be (2014) Grève nationale: les derniers piquets levés en soirée, satisfaction des syndicats. Available 
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/greve-nationale-les-derniers-piquets-leves-en-soiree-

at: 
satisfaction-des-syndicats-5489f3703570a0fe4ce9e053

41   FEVIA, 07/04/2016, Blocages routiers: La moutarde monte au nez de l’industrie alimentaire. Available 
https://www.fevia.be/fr/presse/blocages-routiers-la-moutarde-monte-au-nez-de-lindustrie-

at: 
alimentaire 

42   Interview with the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB) 

40 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Findings  from  responses  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation,  interviewees  and  desk 
research  also  provided  cost  estimations  of  the  disruptions  occurring in  the  context  of 
the  migration  crisis.  Following  restrictions  on  cross-border  movements  of  refugees 
between Croatia and Slovenia in September 2015, the costs for the different economic 
operators  could  be  estimated  at  around  EUR  2-5  million.  The  Dutch  transport  and 
logistic association also estimated that, based on a survey of around 400/600 member 
companies, the annual damage caused by road blockades due to the migrant crisis in 
Calais  amounted  to  around  EUR  150  million  per  year  over  the  past  three  years.  In 
2009 according to the UK Federation of Small Businesses, the closure of Calais for just 
one  day  imposed  a  cost  of  EUR  1.03  million  (GBP  1  million)  on  the  UK  haulage 
industry.43  A  report  by  Charlie  Elphike,  UK  member  of  parliament,  indicates  that  the 
2015 strikes at Calais cost the UK economy EUR 1.12 billion.44 

Regarding  the  disruption  caused  by  the  Koper  Port  Strike  in  Slovenia  in  July  2016 
(reported to the Commission under the Regulation), the costs amounted to more than 
EUR 10 million across different economic operators45, while railway operators reported 
a loss of EUR 700,000 per day.46 

Overall,  it  can  be  noted  that  even  the  obstacles  reported  to  the  Commission47  under 
the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  incurred  significant  costs,  particularly  through  the 
delays caused to economic operators, and that the Regulation does not appear to have 
mitigated  these  costs.  It  should  be  recalled  that  the  Regulation  is  not  meant  to 
interfere with the right to strike but to manage as well as possible the obstacles to the 
free  movement  of  goods.  In  the  cases  of  demonstrations  in  the  Brenner  Pass  in 
Austria  and  the  blockades  at  the  Greek-Bulgarian  borders  (see  case  studies), 
triggering the information mechanism contributed to identifying the incidents as major 
disruptions,  thus  raising  awareness  among  the  stakeholders  involved  to  manage  the 
incidents  and  raise  awareness  about  the  importance  of  guaranteeing  the  free 
movement of goods. 

Sectors most affected by the disruptions are the transport and logistic sector and the 
food sector. In the transport and logistic sector, the direct damages are caused by the 
stationary  periods  of  the  trucks  (EUR  55/hour),  the  fixed  costs  for  the  drivers  and 
compensations for late deliveries. The indirect damages are caused by  spoiled goods, 
extra  fuel,  lost  opportunities  due  to  the  inability  to  use  the  vehicle  (EUR  800-
1000/day)  and  lost  profits.48,49,50  Interviewees  also  estimated  that  the  potential 
economic losses due to a serious disruption lasting several days could be estimated at 
up to several million euros, given that the whole logistic chain in the economic process 
is affected. In the food sector, an interviewee mentioned that additional time required 
or delays in transit can have serious economic consequences for agricultural products 
and  the  associated  value  chain.  For  example,  delays  require  additional  storage  time 
and degrade the freshness of the food, thus affecting consumer satisfaction and sales 

43  http://www.fsb.org.uk/docs/default-source/fsb-org-

uk/policy/assets/fsbblockadescomplaint.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=1 

44   http://elphicke.com/downloads/ready-on-day-one--meeting-the-brexit-borders-challenge.pdf 
45   Response to Open Public Consultation 
46   Libcom.org,  24.07.2016,  Strike  in  the  port  of  Koper.  Available  at:  https://libcom.org/blog/strike-port-

koper-24072016 

47   One out of 20 events at the French-Spanish border, all blockades at the Bulgarian border, the event at 
the  Brenner  Pass,  and  the  road  blockades  by  Belgian  trucks  in  April  2016  have  been  reported  to  the 
Commission under Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. 

48   Case C-112/00. Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003. Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale 

49  

Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich.  
Interview with the Bulgarian Union of International Transportation Companies 

50   Interview with IRU (World Haulage Association) 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

price.  Finally,  obstacles  can  also  have  an  impact  on  other  sectors,  such  as  postal 
services and tourism, or on public entities (e.g. lost tax and road toll revenues).51 

Economic operators can claim compensation from their insurances or from civil courts. 
In some  cases where obstacles  had a long duration or were systematic,  stakeholders 
filed claims for compensation in the Member State where the obstacle took place. For 
instance,  in  the  case  of  the  long  2016  blockade  at  the  Greek-Bulgarian  border,  the 
Alliance  of  International  Carriers  prepared  a  collective  claim52  for  compensation 
against Greek farmers to file in Bulgarian courts, and suggested that individual claims 
for  compensation  could  be  directly  filed  in  Greek  courts.53  The  organisation  indicated 
that it also filed documents with the European Commission to initiate an infringement 
procedure  against  Greece.  Bulgaria’s  Parliament  approved  a  declaration  on  19 
February  2016,  calling  on  the  European  Commission  to  initiate  infringement 
proceedings against Greece, on the grounds that Greece has failed to defend the free 
movement  of  goods,  persons  and  services.54  The  Commission  answered  that  it  had 
been notified of the blockades by both the Greek and Bulgarian NCPs and that “it is in 
first instance for the Member States to determine which measures are necessary and 
proportionate  in  order  to  facilitate  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  their  territory  in  a 
given  situation”.  The  Commission  also  said  that  “any  compensation  for  the  possible 
losses to operators would be a matter for national courts”.55 

Although  the  Regulation  does  not  prevent  obstacles  from  occurring,  it  has  brought 
benefits  by  improving  the  exchange  of  communication  with  the  Commission  and 
putting  pressure  on  Member  States  to  take  action  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of 
goods.  Although  the  exact  benefits  from  the  Regulation  in  terms  of  time  or  cost 
savings  could  not  be  estimated,  11  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public 
Consultation  acknowledged  that  the  Regulation  has  improved  the  management  of 
obstacles, and an interviewee noted that the Regulation brought benefits to transport 
operators by allowing them to avoid obstacles or be affected for a shorter time.  

6.4.  Are  there  significant  differences  in  costs  (or  benefits)  between 

Member States, and what is causing them? 

NCPs of all Member States reported low costs of implementation of the Regulation as it 
only  concerns  forwarding  information  by  e-mail,  involving  a  limited  number  of  cases 
per  year.  For  Member  States  where  no  obstacle  occurs,  these  are  the  only  costs  of 
implementation, while the main benefit is to be kept informed about disruptions. 

On  the  other  hand,  Member  States  where  the  disruptions  occur  must  notify  the 
Commission of these obstacles, take all necessary and proportionate measures so that 
the free movement of goods is assured, and keep the Commission informed about the 
measures  taken.  The  administrative  burden  is  thus  greater  in  these  countries, 
although cost estimations could not be provided. In the Member States affected by the 
obstacles,  the  economic  operators  suffering  damages  also  put  pressure  on  their 

51  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/miroslav-naidenov-ima-mehanizmi-s-koito-da-sprem-

blokadata-po-granitsata-s-gartsiya.html  

52  http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-

sadilishta  

53  http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-

sadilishta  

54   The Sofia Globe, 26/02/2015, Open and shut case: Bulgarian – Greek border blockade saga continues. 
Available at: https://sofiaglobe.com/2016/02/26/open-and-shut-case-bulgarian-greek-border-blockade-
saga-continues/ 

55   Novinite.com, 09/02/2016, No Decision for Proceedings against Greece over Border Blockade, EC Says. 

Available 
http://www.novinite.com/articles/173026/No+Decision+for+Proceedings+against+Greece+over+Borde
r+Blockade%2C+EC+Says+ 

at:   

42 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

national authorities to act, as illustrated in the case  studies on the Calais strikes and 
on  the  blockades  at  the  Greek-Bulgarian  borders.  The  costs  of  the  obstacles  can  be 
significant for the economies of the neighbouring countries, even when the cases have 
been reported to the Commission under the Regulation (e.g. EUR 1.12 billion in the UK 
due to the 2015 Calais strikes56 and EUR 10 million for the Bulgarian economy for each 
blockade at the Greek border57).  

Thus,  in  Member  States  where  disruptions  happen  or  where  economic  operators  are 
affected, particularly in cases of repeated obstacles, the costs of implementation of the 
Regulation  incurred  by  NCPs  and  the  damage  costs  incurred  by  economic  operators 
are  greater,  but  the  benefits  of  triggering  the  early  warning  mechanism  can  also  be 
greater  when  this  ensures  that  Member  States  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
shorten the disruptions.  

6.5.  Conclusions on the efficiency of the Regulation 

Overall, the costs of implementing the Regulation are limited in the Member States as 
there are only a few cases of obstacles (12 on average) per year and the exchange of 
information takes place by e-mail. Given the low costs of implementation for the NCPs, 
any benefits for stakeholders stemming from the Regulation are valuable. Overall, the 
main benefit of the Regulation is the improved exchange of communications between 
the  Member  States  and  the  Commission,  leading  to  a  better  management  of  the 
obstacles, and thus a reduction of their duration and associated damage.   

One  of  the  internal  factors  influencing  the  efficiency  of  the  Regulation  is  the  lack  of 
clarity  of  some  provisions  such  as  the  definition  of  “obstacle”,  resulting  in  obstacles 
not  being  reported  to  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States.  Moreover,  a  digital 
platform  with  real  time  information  would  offer  more  benefits  to  all  Member  States 
and to stakeholders affected by the obstacles than the simple warning mechanism by 
e-mail. The main external factor influencing the efficiency of the Regulation is that, in 
order  to  not  interfere  with  the  right  to  strike,  the  Regulation  does  not  prevent 
obstacles  from  occurring,  so  it  does  not  prevent  losses  for  economic  operators, 
although it can help to shorten the time of disruption and thus related damages.   

In Member States where disruptions occur or where economic operators are affected, 
particularly  in  cases  of  repeated  obstacles,  the  costs  of  implementation  of  the 
Regulation incurred  by  NCPs  and  the  costs  related  to  damages  incurred  by  economic 
operators are higher, but the benefits of triggering the early warning mechanism can 
also be greater when this ensures that Member States take the necessary measures to 
shorten the duration of the disruptions. 

56   http://elphicke.com/downloads/ready-on-day-one--meeting-the-brexit-borders-challenge.pdf 
57  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

7.  Evaluation  of  the  Relevance  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No. 

2679/98 

Chapter 7 presents the findings and analysis on the relevance of  Regulation (EC) No. 
2679/98.  This  section  examines  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  to 
be addressed and the objectives of the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. 

The  relevance  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  assessed  through  the  following 
evaluation sub-questions: 

  To what extent is the Regulation still relevant? 

  To  what  extent  have  the  original  objectives  proven  to  have  been  appropriate 
for  the  Regulation?  How  well  do  the  original  objectives  still  correspond  to  the 
needs within the EU? 

  How well adapted is the Regulation to subsequent technological advances? 

  How relevant is the Regulation to EU citizens? Are there areas of specific need 

for free movement of goods that remain to be addressed? 

7.1.  To what extent is the Regulation still relevant? 

The  National  Contact  Points  (NCPs)  and  EU  level  stakeholders  underlined  that  the 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  a  positive  tool  for  ensuring  the  free  movement  of 
goods between the Member States. The NCPs agreed that there is a general need for 
an  instrument  to  oblige  Member  States  to  communicate  disruptions  and  share 
information  on  disruptions  and  future  obstacles.  Likewise,  national  associations 
believed  that  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  relevant  for  addressing  the  current 
needs of their members and mentioned that the EC’s role to monitor obstacles to free 
movement  of goods is still appreciated as it serves as a preventive tool  for impeding 
obstacles  by  prompting  Member  States  to  quickly  react.  International  and  European 
associations  indicated  that  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  appropriate  and  that 
even though some member organisations might not be aware of the Regulation itself, 
they  are  conscious  that  a  mechanism  to  prevent  and  resolve  physical  obstacles  is  in 
place at the EU level. 

7.2.  To  what  extent  have  the  original  objectives  proven  to  have  been 
appropriate for the Regulation? How well  do the original objectives 
still correspond to the needs within the EU? 

Overall,  stakeholders  considered  that  the  original  objective  of  ensuring  the  free 
movement  of  goods  is  still  appropriate  for  the  Regulation,  as  well  as  the  operational 
objectives  of  having  an  early  warning  mechanism,  prompting  Member  States  to  take 
necessary  and  proportionate  measures  in  the  event  of  disruption.  However, 
stakeholders  seem  to  agree  that  some  of  the  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98  should  be  revised  to  better  address  current  needs  and  problems  directly 
related to the free movement of goods.  

Firstly, some NCPs indicated that there is a need to include a set of concrete measures 
to  prevent  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  and  to  resolve  obstacles  when 
they arise, as currently the type of “necessary and proportionate measures” (Article 4) 
to  be  taken  is  left  to  the  interpretation  of  Member  States.  There  are  measures  that 
could  be  included  in  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  without  undermining  the  right  to 
strike. According to the stakeholders, if Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 were to include a 
set  of  concrete  measures  the  current  needs  of  European  businesses  could  be  better 
targeted.  These  measures  include  using  the  early  warning  mechanism  in  cases  of 
construction works that also impede the freedom of movement of goods, as only few 

44 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

of  them  are  currently  reported  under  the  Regulation.  Although  delays  linked  to 
construction  works  are  not  always  preventable,  the  early  warning  mechanism  could 
serve  as  an  information  channel  for  individuals  and  companies  to  find  an  alternative 
route. Furthermore, the early warning mechanism could be transformed into an up-to-
date online tool which could be accessed also via mobile phones in order to spread the 
information  about  possible  obstacles  faster.  At  present,  the  information  exchange  by 
e-mail  is  too  slow  to  prevent  short-term  disruptions,  and  it  does  not  allow  all 
stakeholders concerned to be quickly informed.  

Many  involved  parties  expressed  different  views  when  asked  if  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98 is the right instrument to address today’s needs and problems related to the 
free  movement  of  goods.  Some  NCPs  tended  to  agree  that  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98  must  address  certain  Member  States'  lack  of  urgency  in  reporting  and 
mitigating  obstacles  and  that  it  also  now  has  a  preventative  function.  The  NCPs 
considered that there are new challenges and threats to the free movement of goods 
that are not addressed by the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98, such as:  

  The  economic  context  with  the  fluctuation  of  agricultural  prices,  may  lead  to 
cross-border  disruptions  (e.g.  case  study  on  French  farmers  strikes  against 
imported goods). 

  Migration  flows  and  security  threats  have  led  Member  States  to  close  their 
borders and have created additional blockades (e.g. case study on the blockade 
of the freight port of Calais). 

  The compensation procedure for damages is not harmonised.  

Likewise, the  respondents to the Open Public Consultation also  agreed that there are 
current needs which are not  covered by the Regulation.  Among the uncovered needs 
identified  is  improved  access  to  information  and  communication  for  more  effective 
crisis management. 

7.3.  How  well  adapted  is  the  Regulation  to  subsequent  technological 

advances? 

As highlighted by NCPs and business associations, the Regulation is not yet in line with 
the technological advancements that would allow all parties to receive notifications of 
the  obstacles  in  real  time.  The  current  e-mail-based  system  is  rather  slow  and  does 
not  provide  economic  actors  (e.g.  truck  drivers)  with  real  time  information.  Thus,  by 
the  time  the  information  gets  to  the  parties  that  could  be  affected  by  the  incidents, 
there  is  not  enough  time  to  choose  an  alternative  route.  In  practice  the  information 
takes too long to reach companies,  and they tend to rely more on media information 
or on traffic webpages. Often these sources acquire the information much faster than 
the  NCPs.  In  general,  a  digital  interface  rather  than  the  current  system  of  the  early 
warning  mechanism  is  considered  to  be  a  more  efficient  way  of  exchanging 
information  on  problems  related  to  the  freedom  of  movement  of  goods  that  better 
reflects  current  needs.  The  absence  of  a  fast  information  exchange  mechanism  can 
also explain why some obstacles are not reported, as they may be  resolved faster by 
local or regional action. In the case studies, most of the incidents that occurred at the 
selected borders were not reported, and in five out of six case studies the same types 
of incidents still occur repeatedly, with the Regulation not playing the role of an early 
warning mechanism.58  

58   French  farmers’  strike,  Road  I/11,  Brenner  Pass,  Bulgaria  Greece  Case  study  and  the  Belgium  Case 

study. 

45 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Suggestions  for  technological  developments  to  improve  the  current  early  warning 
mechanism mentioned by interviewees and case studies, include:  

  Making use of existing European communication platforms such as the SOLVIT 

 

platform59 and the Internal Market Information System;  
Introducing  a  unified  digital  solution  accessible  to  businesses  in  which  all 
transport providers could update information on incidents in real time; 

traffic-monitoring 

technologies  as  well  as  more 

  Setting  up  a  web  portal  to  track  disruptions  across  the  EU,  making  use  of 
modern 
traditional 
notifications. Rather than e-mailing notifications and alerts, notifications could 
be uploaded to a central Commission website to which interested parties could 
subscribe  for  updates.  It  could  also  incorporate  other  useful  information  in 
relation  to  traffic  disruptions  or  extreme  weather  events  which  would  be 
relevant to the goods industry;  

  Considering other informal communication systems such as the Across the Alps 
website.60 The website provides users with an information system on the main 
transit axes through the Alps in Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Slovenia and 
Switzerland. 

7.4.  How  relevant  is  the  Regulation  to  EU  citizens?  Are  there  areas  of 
specific  needs  for  free  movement  of  goods  that  remain  to  be 
unaddressed? 

While  EU  citizens  benefit  eventually  from  the  Regulation  intervention  to  reduce  the 
impact of obstacles, national business associations, particularly transport associations, 
indicated that Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 does not correspond to the current needs 
of  their  members  as  it does  not  set  a  clear  framework  on  compensations.  Significant 
losses  are  experienced  by  transport  companies  due  to  these  incidents  (see  Section 
6.3),  which  are  in  most  cases  not  compensated.  At  present,  there  are  different 
procedures  in  place  across  Member  States  to  claim  compensation  via  insurance 
companies or civil courts. Many European businesses are not compensated for losses, 
neither  by  the  regional/national  authorities  nor  by  the  insurance  companies.  Hence 
several  business  associations  considered  that  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  should 
promote  a  transparent,  non-discriminatory  and  effective  rapid  procedure  to 
compensate  economic  operators  for  any  loss  or  damage.  A  member  of  the  European 
Parliament suggested the inclusion of a minimum requirement in the  Regulation (EC) 
No.  2679/98  (e.g.  certification  of  losses  to  be  provided  by  the  regional/national 
authority  to  the  actors  involved  in  an  incident)  in  order  to  allow  businesses  to  claim 
any  damages  from  their  insurance  companies.  Several  stakeholders  in  interviews 
called  for  a  harmonised  compensation  system,  and  10  out  of  20  respondents  to  the 
Open Public Consultation considered that it would be useful to create a compensation 
mechanism funded by the EU budget for private companies that incurred damages due 
to the obstruction of free movement of goods.   

Moreover,  several  stakeholders  suggested  that  sanctions  should  penalise  Member 
States  which  do  not  comply  with  the  legally  binding  obligation  to  report  and  prevent 
such  incidents.  Eleven  out  of  20  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation 
considered  that  it  would  be  useful  to  give  more  power  to  the  Commission  to  take 
binding  decisions  and  guarantee  their  implementation  as  well  as  to  impose  sanctions 
on  Member  States  which  were  in  breach  of  their  obligations  This  would  have  a 

59   SOLVIT platform. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/problems-solved/index_en.htm 
60   Across the Alps platform. Available at: http://www.acrossthealps.eu/ 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

deterrent effect on Member States  which do not take all necessary and proportionate 
measures when disruptions occur. For instance, in case of the disruptions in Greece61 
or  Slovakia62,  the  countries  seem  to  have  the  power  to  resolve  or  prevent  such 
incidents  in  the  future;  in  the  case  of  Slovakia  this  would  be  to  build  the  long-
postponed motorway, but for various reasons the country has chosen not to do so.  

7.5.  Conclusions on the relevance of the Regulation 

Overall, stakeholders considered that the Regulation is still relevant to ensure the free 
movement of goods and that the early warning mechanism is appropriate to improve 
the  exchange  of  information  and  prompt  Member  States  to  take  necessary  and 
proportionate measures in the event of disruption. However, stakeholders agreed that 
some  of  the  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  should  be  revised  to  better 
address current needs and problems directly related to the free movement of goods.  

To  adapt  the  Regulation  to  the  new  technological  developments,  ensure  faster 
communication of the obstacle and also inform interested parties, stakeholders  called 
for a unified digital solution with real time information accessible to NCPs, businesses 
and national associations. 

In  addition,  some  new  challenges  are  not  addressed  by  the  Regulation,  such  as 
fluctuations  of  agricultural  prices,  migration  flows  and  security  threats.  NCPs 
considered  that  it  would  be  useful  to  include a  set  of  concrete  measures  to  be  taken 
by  Member  States  to  prevent  or  resolve  incidents.  Moreover,  several  stakeholders 
suggested that sanctions should penalise Member States  that do not comply with the 
legally  binding  obligation  to  report  and  prevent  such  incidents.  Finally,  business 
associations  considered  that  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  should  promote  a 
transparent,  non-discriminatory  and  rapid  procedure  for  compensating  economic 
operators for loss or damage related to disruptions. 

61   Bulgaria Greece Case study – seasonal blocking of Bulgaria border by Greek farmers 
62   Slovakia Case study – Road I/11 in Kysuce Region   

47 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

8.  Evaluation  of  the  Coherence  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No. 

2679/98 

Chapter 8 presents the findings and analysis of the coherence of  Regulation (EC) No. 
2679/98. The section assesses the relationship between the free movement  of goods 
principle, the EU policies directly linked to the Regulation, such as environmental and 
transport  policies,  and  national  legal  instruments  that  are  in  place  as  additional 
measures for preventing physical obstacles. 

The coherence of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is evaluated by analysing the following 
evaluation sub-questions: 

  To what extent is the Regulation coherent with wider EU policy (transport and 
environmental  policy  in  particular)?  Are  there  overlaps  or  complementarities 
between the measure and other EU actions that have similar objectives?  

 

Is  there  any  issue  of  internal  coherence  of  the  measure  (i.e.  between  various 
components of the measure)? 

8.1.  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  wider  EU  policy 
(transport  and  environmental  policy  in  particular)?  Are  there 
overlaps  or  complementarities  between  the  measure  and  other  EU 
actions that have similar objectives? 

In relation to the overlaps or complementarities with other EU actions and coherence 
with  other  EU  policies,  most  of  the  national  contact  points  (NCPs)  and  stakeholders 
indicated that the purpose of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is its use as an additional 
instrument for enforcing Articles 34–36 of the TFEU.63 Additionally, they believed that 
the Regulation does not overlap with any other legislative measures, indicating that it 
protects the principle of free movement of goods from physical obstacles. 

The results of the public consultation and interviews indicated that some stakeholders 
tended  to  confuse  the  different  legislative  provisions  ensuring  the  free  movement  of 
goods,  which  are  nevertheless  complementary.  For  example,  the  Regulation  (EC) 
No.764/200864  sets  out  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition,  under  which  Member 
States  are  obliged  to  allow  marketing  in  their  territory  of  a  product  which  is  legally 
marketed  in  another  Member  State.  Both  of  the  Regulations  are  very  closely  related, 
as the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 aims to resolve any physical obstacles preventing 
the  freedom  of  movement  of  goods.  Regulation  (EC)  No.  764/2008  deals  with  the 
technical requirements of this principle. Similarly, the Directive (EU) No. 2015/153565, 
which prevents the introduction of national technical requirements that may hinder the 
free  movement  of  goods,  deals  with  the  policy  aspect  of  freedom  of  movement  of 
goods.  Finally,  Decision  No.  357/2009/EC66  prevents  the  introduction  of  national 
transport  policies  which  may  affect  the  implementation  of  the  common  transport 

63   Treaty  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  Available  at:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=FR 

64   Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down 
procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC 

65   Directive  (EU)  2015/1535  of the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  September  2015  laying 
down  a procedure for  the  provision  of  information  in  the  field  of  technical  regulations  and  of rules  on 
Information Society services (codification) 

66   Decision  No  357/2009/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  April  2009  on  a 
procedure  for  prior  examination  and  consultation  in  respect  of  certain  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  concerning  transport  proposed  in  Member  States.  Available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009D0357&from=EN 

48 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

policy.  The  public  consultation  indicated  that  Regulation  (EC)  No.  764/2008  and 
Directive (EU) No. 2015/1535 might complement the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 as 
all three safeguard the principle of freedom of movement of goods, although the latter 
one deals with the physical obstructions while the other two are policy oriented.   

In  contrast,  the  case  studies  showed  that  the  Regulation  did  not  necessarily  prevent 
the  obstacles  to  freedom  of  movement  of  goods  from  happening,  but  rather  that 
alternative national routes or negotiations between stakeholders were used to avoid or 
resolve  the  incidents.  In  the  case  of  the  social  movement  taking  place  in  Belgium  in 
2014  and  2016,  the  incident  was  resolved  via  negotiations  or  upon  request  of  public 
authorities,  but  not  directly  through  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.67  Regulation  (EC) 
No.  2679/98  did  not  play  a  strong  role  in  preventing  or  resolving  the  incidents 
analysed  in  the  case  studies  due  to  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98  among  those  who  should  report  the  incidents  (e.g.  Slovakia  case  study)  or 
lack  of  cooperation  between  the  national  and  local  levels  of  administration  (e.g. 
Greece-Bulgaria case study). 

Different views emerged when discussing more in depth the concrete EU policies, such 
as  those  regarding  transport  as  well  as  the  right  to  strike  guaranteed  in  Article  2  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.  According  to  some  national  associations,  tension  and 
confusion in certain Member States persist on when and how to use the Regulation in 
cases  of  strikes.  Moreover,  the  German  Federal  Association  for  Road  Transport 
Logistics  and  Disposal  (BLG)  stated  in  a  report  that  legitimate  protest  measures  and 
illegal blockage actions should be distinguished from  each other and the latter should 
not be covered by the right to strike or engage in demonstration. In the case of illegal 
blockages,  Member  States  should  be  required  to  protect  drivers  and  vehicles  against 
attacks and to provide access to sanitation and other facilities for those held up by the 
blockages.68 

Overall, Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is coherent with EU transport and environmental 
policies and the weighting of different objectives (e.g. free movement goods vs. other 
public  policy  objectives)  is  done  on  the  basis  of  TFEU69  Articles  and  case  laws  of  the 
CJEU.  For  instance,  in  Case  C-28/0970,  the  CJEU  held  that  the  sectorial  truck  traffic 
ban  introduced  by  Austria  in  the  Tyrol  region  to  limit  air  pollution  was  incompatible 
with the free movement of goods.  In addition, as noted by a  stakeholder,  Regulation 
(EC)  No.  2679/98  aims  to  avoid  the  immobilisation  or  destruction  of  goods  at  the 
border,  and  thus  prevents  food  waste,  which  is  in  line  with  EU  environmental 
objectives. 

8.2.  Are  there  any  issues  related  to  the  internal  coherence  of  the 
measure (i.e. between various components of the measure)? 

The  responses to the public consultation and interviews, as well as the  results of the 
case studies, suggest that the stakeholders are not always aware of the exact scope of 
the  Regulation  and  its  components,  especially  due  to  the  lack  of  clarity  of  some 
“necessary  and  proportionate  measures” 
definitions 

(“serious  disruptions”, 

67   Belgium case study - Social movements impacting the free movement of goods in 2014 and 2016   
68   Opinion about the revision of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in 

the context of the free movement of goods between Member States, BLG Germany, 2017. 

69   Treaty  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  Available  at:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=FR 

70   Case C-28/09, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011, European Commission v 
fulfil  obligations.  Available  at: 

Republic  of  Austria,  Failure  of  a  Member  State 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddb062fa66ace44addb345
997378e4ad65.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNb3j0?text=&docid=117181&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&m
ode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=436132 

to 

49 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

“immediately” and “as soon as possible”), although some agree that the Regulation is 
internally coherent. 

Nonetheless, the desk research revealed that the relation of Article 2 of the Regulation 
with other provisions could appear challenging. According to the Regulation, the term 
“obstacle” refers to a matter that leads to serious disruption of the free movement of 
goods  by  “physically  or  otherwise  preventing,  delaying  or  diverting  their  import  into, 
export  from  or  transport  across  a  Member  State”  (Article  1).  In  such  a  case  the 
Member States should “take all necessary and proportionate measures with a view to 
facilitating the free movement of goods in their territory” (Article 4). However, Article 
2 of the Regulation states that the Regulation  “may not be interpreted as affecting in 
any way the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised in Member States, including 
the  right  or  freedom  to  strike”.  Hence,  the  Member  States  cannot  prevent  or  take 
measures  to  prevent  the  right  to  strike  and  might  have  to  carry  out  only  additional 
measures  or  secure  alternative  routes  as  in  the  Brenner  case  study.  In  the  Case  C-
112/0071,  the  EU  Court  of  Justice  held  that  the  fundamental  rights  of  the 
demonstration  organisers,  notably  the  freedom  of  speech  and  the  freedom  of 
assembly,  outbalanced  the  fundamental  freedom  of  movement  of  goods,  and  that 
Austria had taken all the necessary and preventive measures.  
In  order  to  prevent  any  misunderstandings,  stakeholders  considered  that  the 
Regulation  should  provide  a  clearer  definition  of  an  obstacle  to  ensure  that  people’s 
rights are protected.  

In  complementarity  with  the  Regulation,  Member  States  also  have  additional  legal 
instruments  to  ensure  and  protect  the  free  movement  of  goods  from  physical 
obstacles. The national measures include:  

  Legislation  on  demonstrations  and  measures  to  limit  the  restrictive  effects  of 

blockages caused by demonstrations in the Member States; 

  Use of civil procedures and military intervention; and 
  Procedures  to  remedy,  compensate  or  sanction  the  damages  resulting  from 

obstacles. 

8.3.  Conclusions on the coherence of the Regulation 

Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  considered  to  be  a  useful  instrument  that  does  not 
interfere with other EU or national policies. In particular, Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 
is overall consistent with EU transport and environmental policies. 

The  provisions  of  the  Regulation  are  coherent,  although  some  concerns  have  been 
noted  regarding  the  use  of  the  Regulation  in  case  of  strike,  as  the  aim  of  the 
Regulation  is  to  prevent  obstacles,  while  at  the  same  time  not  interfering  with  the 
fundamental rights such as the freedom to strike.  

71   Case  C-112/00-  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  12  June  2003.  Eugen  Schmidberger,  Internationale 

Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

9.  Evaluation  of  the  EU  added  value  of  Regulation  (EC)  No. 

2679/98 

Chapter 9 presents the findings and analysis of the EU added value of Regulation (EC) 
No. 2679/98. This section focuses on the extent to which the value resulting from the 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  higher  than  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from 
interventions initiated at regional or national levels by both public authorities and the 
private sector in the absence of any EU action.  

The  EU  added  value  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  evaluated  by  analysing  the 
following evaluation sub-questions: 

  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  application  of  the  Regulation, 
compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  at  national  and/or 
regional levels? 

  To  what extent do the issues addressed by the Regulation continue to require 

action at EU level? 

  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the 

application of the mechanism introduced by the Regulation? 

9.1.  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  application  of  the 
Regulation, compared to what could be achieved by Member States 
at national and/or regional levels? 

Most of the disruptions occurring at the borders between the Member States are of a 
short-term nature and  easily solvable. Therefore, at first glance,  EU action might not 
be  seen  as  necessary.  However,  many  of  the  National  Contact  Points  and  national 
associations agreed that Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 should stay in place as it helps 
to increase the coordination and exchange of information between the Member States.  

The  National  Contact  Points  (NCPs)  appreciated  the  opportunity  for  exchanging 
information  between  the  Member  States,  the  early  warning  mechanism  as  well  as 
coordination  efforts.  These  elements  would  be  difficult  to  apply  among  the  Member 
States without EU intervention. After  all, the freedom of movement remains an issue 
that needs to be addressed at the EU level.  

At the same time, it was observed that many Member States fail to fulfil their duty in 
reporting the obstacles or that the exchange of information is slow and inefficient. This 
has  been  observed  in  most  of  the  case  studies  carried  out  for  the  purpose  of 
evaluating  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.  The  interviewed  stakeholders,  regardless  of 
whether they are NCPs, associations or stakeholders at the EU level, seemed to share 
the view that coordination needs to be improved and that Member States should fulfil 
their obligations in notifying other Member States about any disruptions. The extent to 
which the EU intervention has been successful or not could be better assessed if NCPs 
were  to  fully  comply  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98,  under  which 
Member States must immediately inform the European Commission when an obstacle 
to the free movement of goods occurs.    

In other instances, such as in the case study of the Brenner Pass in Austria, the early 
warning  mechanism  played  no  role  in  either  preventing  or  resolving  the  obstacles  to 
the  freedom  of  movement  of  goods.  As  the  main  obstructions  were  authorised 
demonstrations,  which  fall  under  the  organisers’  fundamental  rights,  the  local 
authorities  could  neither  prevent  nor  resolve  the  obstacles.  Instead,  the  local  and 
regional  authorities  focused  on  providing  alternative  routes  and  informing  the  wider 

51 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

public about the situation. In this particular instance, the motorway operator ASFINAG 
was involved and parking spots for trucks were arranged. Moreover, the Austrian local 
authorities  communicated  with  the  neighbouring  regions  via  bilateral  informal 
channels. 

9.2.  To what extent do the issues addressed by the Regulation continue 

to require action at EU level? 

The case studies have revealed that most of the incidents were communicated by local 
and  national  media  without  resorting  to  the  Regulation  and  its  early  warning 
mechanism.  Moreover,  the  media  played  an  important  role  in  several  case  studies 
(e.g.  seasonal  blocking  of  the  Bulgarian  border  by  Greek  farmers  and  Road  I/11  in 
Slovakia),  providing  information  in  real  time  and  reaching  a  wider  audience.  The 
mediatisation of the incidents helped the wider public and drivers to be informed about 
the  happenings,  and  often  this  is  the  only  way  for  them  to  be  informed  about  the 
blockages.  Thus,  the  case  studies  also  show  that  the  media  plays  a  greater  role  in 
communicating incidents than Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 itself.  

As  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  Slovak  Road  I/11,  the  media  can  also  play  a  role  in 
prevention.  Due  to  the  high  mediatisation  of  the  situation,  drivers  are  now  aware  of 
the  obstacles  reoccurring  during  certain  times  of  day  or  seasons  and  could  opt  for 
alternative routes accordingly.   

However, as illustrated by the case studies on the Brenner Pass and on the blockades 
at  the  Greek-Bulgarian  border,  triggering  the  information  mechanism  nevertheless 
contributed  to  identifying  the  incidents  as  major  disruptions,  thus  raising  awareness 
among  the  stakeholders  involved  and  prompting  public  authorities  to  manage  the 
incidents more effectively. 

9.3. 

 What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or 
withdrawing  the  application  of  the  mechanism  introduced  by  the 
Regulation? 

In cases of the absence of an EU instrument such as Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98, the 
major cost would be: 

  Lack of an early warning mechanism; and 
  Lack of a supranational mechanism for exchanging information on disruptions.  

Nevertheless,  a  couple  of  National  Contact  Points  mentioned  that  the  absence  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  would  not  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  freedom  of 
movement of goods. This is due to the nature of the most common disruptions which 
are  usually  resolved  quickly  without  any  long-term  negative  consequences.  One  NCP 
even  mentioned  that  withdrawing  this  legislation  would  lower  the  administrative 
burden  in  case  of  short  disruptions.  In  cases  of  an  absence  of  an  early  warning 
mechanism,  the  neighbouring  Member  States  could  establish  bilateral  channels  to 
exchange information on any obstacles, as seen in the case study of the Brenner Pass.  

9.4.  Conclusions on the EU added value of the Regulation 

Many  disruptions  taking  place  at  the  borders  between  the  Member  States  have  not 
been  addressed  by  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  as  not  every  Member  State 
complies  with  the  requirements  set  out  by  the  Regulation  (e.g.  communicating 
obstacles  immediately  and  taking  all  necessary  and  proportionate  measures). 
National,  regional  and  local  media  coverage  of  the  incidents  is  proving  to  be  a  more 
effective  instrument  for  informing  the  wider  public  about  disruptions  than  the  early 
warning mechanism. However, the majority of stakeholders tended to agree on certain 
benefits that the Regulation brings to the internal market, one of them being deterrent 

52 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

effect  by  putting  pressure  on  Member  States  to  act  quickly  when  an  obstacle  has 
occurred, and the use of the early warning mechanism.  

53 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

10. Annex 1: List of interviewees 

Table 5: List of interviewees 

Country  Organisation Name 

AT 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BG 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU  

EU  

EU  

FI 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

HR 

HR 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IT 

LI 

LT 

LT 

National Contact Point 

Agriculture and Food Association 

Agriculture and Food Association 

Ausloos Truck company  

SECOP/ISTRE 

CGSLB (Trade Union) 

Federation of Belgian Enterprises  

National Contact Point 

Ministry of Transport, Information and Communication 

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

Czech Road Transport Association (CESMAD)  

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

FEPEX 

MAPAMA  

FIAB  

Conf. Española de Asoc. de Fabricantes de Productos de Construcción  

National Contact Point 

EP 

DG AGRI 

DG Move 

Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins (CEEV) 

World's road transport organisation (IRU) 

FoodDrinksEurope 

European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) 

National Contact Point 

Elintarviketeollisuusliitto (ETL) - Food association  

Kauppa (Chamber of Commerce) 

National Federation of Road Transport of Champagne Ardennes  

Direccte Hauts de France  

ANIA - National Association of Food Industries  

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure 

Food and Drinks Ireland 

Irish Exporters Association 

National Contact Point 

Retail Ireland 

Agriculture and Food Association 

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

Linava 

54 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

LT 

LU 

LV 

LV 

MT 

MT 

NL 

NL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

SK 

SK 

SK 

SK 

SK 

SK 

SK 

SK 

The Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists (Lietuvos Pramonininkų Konfederaciją LPK) 

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

Business Association 

National Contact Point 

MaltaEnterprise 

Transport Association 

Agriculture and Food Association 

Ministry of Economy 

Polish Chamber of Shipping and Logistics (PISIL) 

National Contact Point 

Portuguese Institute for Quality 

National Union of Road Transport of Romania 

National Contact Point 

National Contact Point 

D3prekysuce 

Kysuce Regional Authority 

KIA Slovakia 

National Contact Point 

Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing 

Association of Logistics and Freight Forwarding of the Slovak Republic 

Potravinárska komora Slovenska 

Slovakian Association of Trade and Tourism (ZOCR SR) 

Cargo 

UK  

UK 

National Contact Point 

Trade Union Centre 

55 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

11. Annex 2: Interview guides   

11.1.  Interview guide for EU officials and National Contact Points 

1.Effectiveness of the Regulation: 

This section aims at assessing whether the Regulation has achieved its objectives and 
if  the  Regulation  has  effectively  ensured  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  the  face  of 
serious disruptions72.  

  Are  there  disruptions  in  your  country  and  are  they  communicated  on  time 
(early warning mechanism) meaning early enough to allow for relevant action? 
Did the regulation contribute to this? 

  What measures exist to prevent disruptions from happening and to solve them 
if they happen? Did the regulation contribute to setting up these measures? 
  Did  the  regulation  help  improve  the  EC  collaboration  with  Member  States  to 

stop on-going disruptions? 

  Has  the  Regulation  led  to  reduced  duration  of  disruptions  (the  time  between 

the beginning and solving the disruption)?   

  To what extent are interested and relevant parties73 informed and aware of the 

existence of the Regulation and the possibilities74 it provides? 

2. Efficiency and cost effectiveness: 

This  section  aims  at  collecting  the  views  of  the  different  stakeholders  on  the  costs 
incurred by the Regulation and the worthiness of the investments made to implement 
this Regulation.  

  Have  the  costs  incurred  by  the  Regulation  been  proportionate  to  the  benefits 
obtained  by  stakeholders  which  have  experienced  losses  due  to  a  disruption? 
Why? 

  Do  you  know  of  any  important  disruptions  that  should  be  considered  in  this 
study?    If  so,  do  you  have  access  to  an  estimation  of  the  costs  and  value  of 
damages incurred during these disruptions?  

3.Relevance of the Regulation: 

This  section  on  relevance  aims  at  assessing  if  the  Regulation  addresses  the  need  to 
safeguard the free movement  of goods and if it is still consistent with the needs and 
problems being experienced by different stakeholders and the whole society.   

  To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation75  been  appropriate  to  address  the  need  to 
safeguard the free movement of goods? Does it still correspond to the current 
needs of the EU and EU citizens? 

  Are there needs which are currently not covered by the Regulation?  
 

Is the Regulation in line with technological advances?  

72   Disruptions such as: border closures in response to general protests about issues that are not 

necessarily related to free movement (e.g. price fluctuations, general economic conditions, etc.), 
targeting of trucks / crossings of goods from one Member State to another.  
Interested parties such as transport companies, retailers, police forces etc.  

73  

74   Possibilities  such  as  an  early  warning  mechanism,  obligation  of  Member  States  to  communicate  and 

prevent disruptions etc.  

75   To ensure the exchange of information between Member States and the Commission, to oblige Member 
States  to  adopt  necessary  and  proportionate  measures  to ensure  the free  movement  of  goods  and  to 
inform  the  Commission  thereof,  and  the  Commission’s  empowerment  to  send  a  notification  to  the 
Member State concerned requesting that those measures be adopted within a deadline. 

56 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

  What further actions/measures would you recommend?  

4.Coherence with other EU and national instruments and initiatives: 

This section aims at assessing the coherence of the Regulation with other instruments 
in place at the EU and national level and with the needs and problems in society.  

  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  wider  EU  policy  (in  transport 
national 

environment 

particular) 

other 

with 

and 

in 

and 
regulations/mechanisms? 

  To what extent are there  overlaps or complementarities between the  measure 
and  any  other  EU  action  which  have  similar  objectives?  Isn’t  Articles  34-36 
TFEU enough?  

5.EU added value of the Regulation:  

This  section  aims  at  collecting  the  opinions  of  the  stakeholders  on  what  could  be  the 
main additional elements of EU value added of the Regulation.  

  To what extent is the EU action required to solve disruptions to free movement 

of goods and prevent them from happening?  

  Has  the  Regulation  filled  important  gaps  not  addressed  by  national  and/or 

regional policies? Why? If yes, how? Is there any added value?  

  Has  the  Regulation  helped  to  increase  coordination  and  information  exchange 

 

across Member States to ensure the free movement of goods? Why? 
In  your  opinion,  what  would  be  the  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing 
the early warning mechanism introduced by the Regulation? 

11.2.  Interview guide for European and national associations 

1.Effectiveness of the Regulation: 

This section aims at assessing whether the Regulation has achieved its objectives and 
if  the  Regulation  has  effectively  ensured  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  the  face  of 
serious disruptions76.  

  Are you aware how the Regulation is being applied? 
  Are  you  and  your  members  aware  of  the  types  of  disruptions  covered  by  the 
Regulation  and  the  mechanism  in  place  to  notify  a  disruption  or  future 
disruption? 

  Are  you  aware  of  any  disruptions  that  have  been  prevented  and  the  national 
and  regional  measures  to  prevent  disruptions  from  happening  or  to  solve  a 
disruption while happening?  

  Are on-going or possible future disruptions reported on time? 
  How is the collaboration between parties involved in a disruption? 

2. Efficiency and cost effectiveness: 

This  section  aims  at  collecting  the  views  of  the  different  stakeholders  on  the  costs 
induced by the Regulation and the worthiness of the investments made to implement 
this Regulation.  

76   Disruptions such as: border closures in response to general protests about issues that are not 

necessarily related to free movement (e.g. price fluctuations, general economic conditions, etc.), 
targeting of trucks / crossings of goods from one Member State to another.  

57 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

  What  have  been  the  important  disruptions  in  your  country  and  have  any  of 

your members suffered losses due to them?  

  Have your members been compensated in some way?  
  Have  you  or  any  of  your  members  estimated  the  costs  and  value  of  damages 

incurred during these disruptions? If so can you provide us with data?   

3.Relevance of the Regulation: 

This  section  on  relevance  aims  at  assessing  if  the  Regulation  addresses  the  need  to 
safeguard the free movement  of goods and if it is still consistent with the needs and 
problems being experienced by different stakeholders and the whole society.   

  To what extent is the Regulation77 appropriate and relevant to address the need 
to  safeguard  the  free  movement  of  goods  and  does  it  still  correspond  to  the 
current needs of your members? 
In your opinion, to what extent are your members informed of the mechanisms 
within the Regulation in cases of disruption?  

 

  Are  there  areas  of  specific  needs  for  free  movement  of  goods  that  remain 

unaddressed?  

  What further actions/measures would you recommend?  

4.Coherence with other EU and national instruments and initiatives: 

This section aims at assessing the coherence of the Regulation with other instruments 
in place at the EU and national level and with the needs and problems in society.  

  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  wider  EU  policy  and  EU 

transport and environmental policy in particular?   

  To what extent are there  overlaps or complementarities between the  measure 
and  any  other  EU  action  which  have  similar  objectives?  Isn’t  Articles  34-36 
TFEU78 enough?  

5.EU added value of the Regulation:  

This  section  aims  at  collecting  the  opinions  of  the  stakeholders  on  what  could  be  the 
main additional elements of EU value added of the Regulation.  

  To what extent is the EU action required to solve disruptions to free movement 

of goods and prevent them from happening?  

  Are  you  and  your  members  aware  of  national  and/or  regional  policies  that 

overlap with the Regulation? 

  Are  you  aware  if  the  Regulation  helped  to  increase  coordination  and 
information  exchange  across  Member  States  and  economic  operators  (e.g. 
transport companies) to ensure the free movement of goods? Why? 

77   To ensure the exchange of information between Member States and the Commission, to oblige Member 
States  to  adopt  necessary  and  proportionate  measures  to ensure  the free  movement  of  goods  and  to 
inform  the  Commission  thereof,  and  the  Commission’s  empowerment  to  send  a  notification  to  the 
Member State concerned requesting that those measures be adopted within a deadline. 

78   On the prohibition of quantitative restrictions between Member States 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

12. Annex 3: Public consultation   

Deadline:  

30 November 2017 

Title:  

Consultation on the evaluation of Regulation (EC) 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  among 
the Member States. 

Policy field(s) 

Internal market, trade, industry 

Target group(s) 

Contributions to this public consultation are sought from all citizens and organisations. 
Contributions  are  particularly  sought  from  public  authorities,  consumer  and  transport 
associations  and  representatives  from  industry  involved  in  the  transport  of  goods  in 
the internal market.  

Objective of the consultation  

This  public  consultation  is  designed  to  support  the  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EC) 
No.  2679/98  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free 
movement of goods among Member States (hereafter the 1998 Regulation). The 1998 
Regulation  ensures  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  in  order  to  deal  with  occasions  where  the  free  movement  of  goods  is  or 
may  be  seriously  compromised  either  by  action  by  Member  States  or  their  inaction 
when demonstrations by private individuals occur. 

The  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  aims  to  assess  the  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Regulation.  In  particular,  this 
evaluation study will: 

  Establish the current situation with regard to the serious disruption of the free 

movement of goods within the EU, 

  Evaluate,  to  the  extent  possible,  damages  caused  by  serious  obstacles  to  the 

free movement of goods since the application of the Regulation, 

 

Identify best practices aiming to improve the functioning of the Regulation as a 
means to ensure the free movement of goods without serious disruption. 

For more information on this consultation, please read the background documents and 
the roadmap. 

How to submit your contribution 

You  can  contribute  to  this  public  consultation  by  filling  out  the  online  questionnaire. 
You  may  find  it  useful  to  refer  to  the  background  documents  which  are  published 
alongside this consultation. 

As  part  of  the  European  Transparency  Initiative,  the  Commission  asks  organisations 
(including NGOs, trade associations, enterprises etc.) that wish to participate in public 
consultations to provide the Commission and the public with information about whom 

59 

 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

and what they represent, their objectives, funding and structures, by registering in the 
Transparency Register and subscribing to its Code of Conduct. 

 

 

If  you  are  a  Registered  organisation,  please  fill in  your  Register  ID  number  in 
the questionnaire. Your contribution will then be considered as representing the 
views of your organisation. 
If your organisation is not registered, you have the opportunity to register now. 
Then  return  to  this  page  to  submit  your  contribution  as  a  Registered 
organisation. 

If  an  organisation  decides  not  to  provide  this  information,  it  is  the  Commission's 
stated  policy  to  list  the  contribution  as  part  of  the  individual  contributions 
(Consultation Standards, see COM (2002) 704? and Communication on ETI Follow-up, 
see COM (2007) 127 of 21/03/2007). These replies will be published separately. 

Disclaimer and data protection 

The  objective  of  this  consultation  is  to  gather  the  views  of  stakeholders  and  others, 
possibly  for  publication  on  the  Internet.  The  questions  do  not  reflect  the  European 
Commission’s  official  position  and  in  no  way,  prejudge  any  decisions  it  may  take  in 
future  on  the  framework  for  labour  migration.  As  this  online  service  collects  and 
further  processes  personal  data,  it  is  subject  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  45/2001  on  the 
protection  of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the 
Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. 

Received  contributions  will  be  published  on  the  Internet,  unless  you  provide  a 
substantial justification for your opposition to the publication of your contribution. It is 
important  to  read  the  specific  privacy  statement  attached  to  this  consultation  for 
information on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with. 

The  Commission  stores  personal  data  securely  and  does  not  share  it  with  other 
parties.  It  will  be  entered  in  a  list  of  contact  details  shared  internally  among 
Commission staff for the purpose of contacting you in the context of the Commission’s 
activities in the future. If you do not agree to this, please send an explicit objection to 
the Controller using the contact information included in the privacy statement. 

Reference documents 

  Regulation (EC) 2679/98 

  Roadmap of Regulation (EC) 2679/98 

Results of consultation and next steps 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  will  be  taken  into  consideration  for  the 
preparation of the Commission report. Explanations about how the contributions have 
been taken into account will be provided. 

Contact details 

Responsible service: 

European Commission  
DG for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Unit B1 - Single Market Policy, Mutual Recognition and Surveillance 
E-mail: GROW-B1@ec.europa.eu 
Post address:  

60 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

European Commission  
DG for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Unit B1 - Single Market Policy, Mutual Recognition and Surveillance 
Rue Nerviens 105, B-1040 
Belgium  

1.  Public consultation  

Introduction  

The  objective  of  this  open  consultation  is  to  ensure  that,  in  addition  to  the 
organisations  directly  involved  in  or  benefitting  from  the  activities  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No  2679/98,  wider  stakeholder  groups  and  the  general  public  are  provided  with 
possibility  to  express  their  opinions  about  the  need  and  relevance  of  the  1998 
Regulation that obliges Member States to report an event or risk of an obstacle to free 
movement  of  goods,  to  take  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of 
goods and allows the EC to urge Member States to take action in case of obstacles. 

The  1998  Regulation  ensures  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States 
and  the  Commission  in  order  to  deal  with  occasions  where  the  free  movement  of 
goods is or may be seriously compromised either by action by Member States or their 
inaction when demonstrations by private individuals occur. 

About you  

Question 1 (*): 

You are replying  

o  As an individual in your personal capacity 

o 

In your professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation 

o  National contact point 

o  Government 

institution. 

  Please 

specify  

o  Local authority.  

o  Transport company or a federation/association of transport companies 

Question 2 (*):   

First name 

Question 3 (*): 

Last name 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Name 
of 
applicable)  

organisation 

(if 

E-mail address.  

Question 4(*):   

Question 5 (*):  

Question 6 (*): 

Country of residence 

o  Austria 

o  Belgium 

o  Bulgaria 

o  Croatia 

o  Cyprus 

o  Czech Republic 

o  Denmark 

o  Estonia 

o  Finland 

o  France 

o  Germany 

o  Greece 

o  Hungary 

o 

Ireland 

o 

Italy 

o  Latvia 

o  Lithuania 

o  Luxembourg 

o  Malta 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

o  Netherlands 

o  Poland 

o  Portugal 

o  Romania 

o  Slovak Republic 

o  Slovenia 

o  Spain 

o  Sweden 

o  United Kingdom 

o  Other 

Question 7 (*): 

If "Other" specify: 

Question 8 (*): 

Your contribution, 

o  Can  be  published  with  your  personal  information  (I  consent  to  the  publication 
of all information in my  contribution in whole or in part including my name or 
my  organisation's  name,  and  I  declare  that  nothing  within  my  response  is 
unlawful or would infringe upon the rights of any third party in a manner that 
would prevent publication) 

o  Can  be  published  provided  that  you  remain  anonymous  (I  consent  to  the 
publication  of  any  information  in  my  contribution  in  whole  or  in  part  (which 
may  include  quotes  or  opinions  I  express)  provided  that  it  is  done 
anonymously.  I  declare  that  nothing  within  my  response  is  unlawful  or  would 
infringe  the  rights  of  any  third  party  in  a  manner  that  would  prevent  the 
publication. 

About the 1998 Regulation 

Question 9: 

What is your level of awareness and experience regarding the 1998 Regulation?  

o  Substantial. Please explain with one sentence. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

o  Limited  

o  None 

Disruptions at EU Internal Borders  

Question 10: 

Overall,  do  you  think  that  the  1998  Regulation  has  contributed  to  the  prevention  or 
reduction  of  serious  disruption  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  occurring  at  the  EU 
internal borders by preventing and dealing effectively with cases of obstacles?  

o  Yes, substantially. Please explain.  

o  Yes, to a limited extent 

o  No 

o 

I don’t know 

Question 11: 

In  your  opinion,  how  effective  has  the  Regulation  been  to  achieve  the  following 
objectives:   

Neutral 

Effective 

Very 
effective 

so 

Not 
effective 
(or 
effective) 

little 

Not 
effective 
at all 

To 
the 
ensure 
adequate  and  rapid 
exchange 
of 
information  between 
the  Member  States 
and the Commission  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

To 
obstacles/disruptions   

prevent 

To  oblige  Member 
States  to  take  the 
necessary 
and 
proportionate 
measures  to  ensure 
the  free  movement 
of goods 

To  communicate  to 
economic actors in a 
timely manner about 
obstacles  to  the  free 
movement of goods   

Question 12: 

Are  you  aware  of  any  specific  case(s)  in  which  the  free  movement  of  goods  was 
obstructed and if yes do you have an idea of how much were the costs incurred in this 
event? Yes. Could you please explain and provide the estimates you are aware of? 

Max 700 characters 

o  No. 

Question 13: 

After the introduction of the 1998 Regulation, there was a reduction of cases occurring 
on an annual basis.   

In your opinion, how important is the preventive influence of the Regulation 2679/98?  

o  Very important. 

o 

Important. 

o  Somewhat important 

o  Not important 

o  No opinion  

Question 14: 

To what extent has the Regulation improved the management of obstacles at Member 
State borders?  

o  Yes, substantially  

o  Yes, to a limited extent 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

o  No 

o 

I don’t know 

Question 15: 

Are  there  any  alternative  (early)  warning  mechanisms  in  place  at  national  level  to 
prevent serious disruption to the free movement of goods?  

o  Yes. Which is/are this/these mechanism(s)?  

Max 700 characters 

o  No. 

o 

I don’t know. 

Question 16: 

Are  you  aware  of  measures  in  your  Member  State  to  prevent,  limit  ‘obstacles’  to  the 
free movement of goods or to repair the consequences thereof?  

o  Yes. Which ones? 

o  Authorisation required for demonstrations of any kind 

o  Restriction on or prohibition of demonstrations of any kind 

o  Presence of police to monitor demonstrations of any kind 

o  Time limit on demonstrations 

o  Redirection of traffic 

o  Redirection of demonstrations 

o 

Installation of barriers 

o  Other  

o  No. 

o  No opinion. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free 
movement of goods among the Member States 

Question 17: 

Are there any other needs with regards to the free movement of goods which are not 
covered by the Regulation? 

o  No 
o  Yes. Please specify. 

Question 18: 

What would be your recommendations for the improvement of Regulation  2679/98 of 
7  December  1998  to  make  it  more  effective  and  to  bring  it in line  with  technological 
developments? 

Not useful 
at all 

Neutral 

Little 
useful 

Very 
useful 

A  more  detailed  definition  of 
measures on how Member States 
from 
prevent/solve 
obstructing the free movement of 
goods 

incidents 

binding 

decisions 

Give  more  power  to  the  EC  to 
take 
and 
guarantee  their  implementation 
as well as to impose sanctions on 
Member  States  which  were  in 
breach of their obligations 

Creation  of  a 
compensation 
mechanism  funded  by  the  EU 
budget 
for  private  companies 
that incurred damages due to the 
obstruction to the free movement 
of goods 

with 

Introduction  of  a  unified  digital 
time 
solution 
is 
information 
accessible 
to  businesses  and 
national associations  

and  which 

real 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

13. Annex  4:  France/Spain  Case  study  -  French  farmers  strike 

against imported goods 

13.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem 

Since  the  early  1990s,  the  free  movement  of  Spanish  agricultural  products  (mainly 
summer fruits and vegetables) has been obstructed by different kinds of events79 taking 
place  at  French  borders  and  in  the  French  territory.  It  was  due  to  the  continuous 
obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  affecting  Spanish  imports  to  France  that 
the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the 
internal  market  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  among  the  Member  States, 
known as the ‘Strawberry Regulation’, was adopted. 

Since  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  80,81,  there  has  been  a 
decrease  in  the  number  of  incidents  that  hindered  the  free  movement  of  Spanish 
agricultural  products  into  France  and  other  European  markets.  From  2008  to  2016,  the 
average  number  of  incidents  reported  under  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  regarding 
Spanish  imports  was  one  per  year  (in  2014,  two  incidents  were  reported  while  no 
incidents  were  reported  in  2013).82  However,  incidents  against  Spanish  products 
continue  to  take  place,  with  a  particular  focus  on  meat  and  wine  products  in  recent 
years (see Table 6). This case study will focus on incidents that happened in the last 
three years (2015, 2016 and 2017).  

Incidents  include  events  of  different  types  such  as  farmers’  strikes,  commercial 
protests  in  front  of  embassies  and  consulates,  direct  attacks  to  parked  trucks  and 
obstacles  at  the  tolls  for  product  inspection  or  destruction.  Figures  below  show  two 
different incidents. Figure 5 shows French farmers, in July 2017, overturning about two 
tons  of  peaches  in  front  of  the  Spanish  consulate  in  the  city  of  Perpignan  to  protest 
against the competition from the Spanish producers which they considered to be unfair. 

In  Figure  6  French  winegrowers  empty  a  Spanish  tank  truck  carrying  wine.  Many  wine 
makers  feel  that  French  wine  does  not  receive  enough  protection  on  the  home  market, 
and are angry about what they see as a suspicious spike in imports from Spain and Italy, 
where  lower  social  charges  and  less  red  tape  enable  producers  to  sell  their  goods  in  a 
cheaper way.83 

79   Farmers  strikes,  commercial  protests  in  front  of  embassies  and  consulates,  direct  attack  to  trucks  when 

80  

parked and obstacles at the tolls for product inspection or destruction.  
Interview with FEPEX, conducted on 06.11.2017. 
81   List of cases notified under the Strawberries Regulation 
82   List of cases notified under the Strawberries Regulation 
83   https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/dinero/litros-vino-espanol-tierras-francesas_0_2762123763.html

68 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

Figure 5: French farmers overturned two tons of peaches in front of the Spanish 
consulate in the city of Perpignan  

Source: El Comercio, 2017.  

Figure 6: French winegrowers empty Spanish tank truck 

Source: El Confidencial, 2016.  

In  most  incidents,  the  parties  involved  are  on  one  side  French  trade  unions 
representing farmers and other stakeholders of the agricultural sector and on the other 
side  transport  companies  hired  to  transport  the  products  or  truck  drivers  working  for 
agricultural  cooperatives/companies  -  transport  operators.  The  incidents  tend  to 
last only one day, but there are some cases where they have been observed to go on 
for three days or more.  

While  in  the  1990s  and  2000s,  summer  fruits  and  vegetables  were  the  primary  target 
import  goods  that  French  farmers  would  demonstrate  against,  in  recent  years  (2015, 
2016  and  2017)  wine  imports  are  the  most  targeted  ones.  Nevertheless,  summer 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

fruits  and  vegetables  continue  to  be  targeted  by  French  farmers  particularly  during 
harvest seasons (July and August). According to the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries,  Food  and  Environment  (MAPAMA),  peaches  are  the  fruit  that  causes  the 
greatest conflicts between French farmers and stakeholders of the Spanish agricultural 
sector.84  

The  main  reason  why  French  farmers  and  winegrowers  protested  and  continue  to 
protest  against  Spanish  agricultural  imports  is  the  very  competitive  prices  of 
Spanish  products.  Spanish  imported  products  are  cheaper  than  national  products. 
Thus, French farmers and winegrowers complain that they cannot compete with the price 
of  foreign  products.  In  2015,  French  authorities  estimated  that  about  10%  of  farms  in 
France  –  approximately  22,000  operations  –  were  on  the  brink  of  bankruptcy  with  a 
combined debt of EUR 1 billion.85 

Local,  regional  and  national  products  are  being  promoted  by  the  national 
government in France and this has helped to decrease the number of attacks on trucks 
carrying  fruits  and  vegetables.86  However,  several  incidents  targeting  Spanish  tank 
trucks carrying wine occurred in 2016 and 2017.87,88 The increase in attacks is correlated 
to the increase in wine exports in the last three years (2015, 2016 and 2017) compared 
to the previous three years (2012, 2013 and 2014), during which Spanish wine exports 
to France increased by 41%.89  

According  to  the  interviewees,  there  are  not  many  alternative  routes  that  trucks 
could  take  to  cross  the  border  or  avoid  unexpected  attacks  when  already  in  France. 90 
Transport  operators  might  avoid  crossing  the  border  during  the  days  that  a  strike  is 
announced  by  trade  unions.  However,  if  strikes  take  place  over  several  days,  transport 
operators  might  still  make  the  decision  to  try  to  deliver  the  perishable  products  (fruits 
and vegetables) before  they  expire  or are not  good  enough to sell to end consumers.91 
Due to the lack of alternative routes, truckers are looking for their own strategies.92 
One  of  them  is  the  modification  of  their  schedules,  so  that  drivers  avoid  resting  or 
stopping in the areas where attacks  occur the most frequently, mainly the southeast of 
France. 

The incidents that occurred in 2015, 2016 and 2017 are well covered by the Spanish 
and French media (see list of references), particularly the incidents related to the wine 
spills that have occurred repetitively since 2016.    

A list of incidents over the last three years (2015, 2016 and 2017) is provided in the 
table  below.93  The  20  incidents  recorded  in  this  list  come  from  claims  reported  by 
transport  companies  at  the  Spanish  consulates  in  France.  The  last  column  of  this  table 
indicates  which  incidents  were  reported  under  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.  Only  one 
out of the 20 incidents was included in the list of notifications under Regulation (EC) No. 
2679/98. 

84  

Interview with MAPAMA, conducted on 16.11.2017. 

85  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/french-farmers-block-spanish-and-german-borders-in-

86  

foreign-food-protest 
Interview with FEPEX, conducted on 06.11.2017. 

87   https://economia.elpais.com/economia/2017/01/18/actualidad/1484737731_682802.html 
88  https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/economia/espana-presenta-una-dura-queja-a-francia-por-ataques-

89  

camiones-espanoles/10003-3152088 
Interview with MAPAMA, conducted on 16.11.2017. 

90   All interviewees 
91  

Interview with MAPAMA, conducted on 16.11.2017. 

92  https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/dinero/Dieciocho-Imagenes-camiones-espanoles-

Francia_0_2654134574.html 

93   List provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, conducted on 31.10.2017.

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

Table 6: List of incidents between Spain and France 

2015 

Date 

Company  

Transport 
company  

Place of 
incidents  

Origin 

Destination  

Type of 
product 

Reported under 
Regulation  

08.03.15 

21.07.15 

Carnes 
Selectas 
Campofrio 

Carniques 
d’Osona 

Transportes 
frigoríficos Revilla 

Landivisiau 

Burgos 

Transfrise 

La Gravelle 

Vic (Barcelona) 

Lampaul 
Guimiliau 
(France) 

Lampaul 
Guillimau 
(France) 

Porcine 
meat 

No 

Meat 

No 

22.07.15 

Grupo Jorge 

Sesé 

Saint-  Nicolas 
de Bliquetuit 

Zuera (Zaragoza)  Cany  Barville 

(France) 

22.07.15 

Grupo Jorge 

El Mosca 

Poitiers (E-62)  Santa  Eugenia  de 
Berga (Barcelona) 

Dorset (UK) 

24.07.15 

Càrniques 
Juià 

SREM  Frigorifique 
Chereau 

Plouay 

La Lampaulaise 

France 

Porcine 
meat 

Porcine 
meat 

Porcine 
meat 

24.07.15 

Campofrío 

Transportes 
Revilla 

N 164 close to 
Chateaulin  – 
Rond  Point  du 
Pouillot 

Chateaulin 

France  

Meat 

No 

No 

No 

No 

04.08.15 

Campofrío 

Transportes 
Revilla  

Auch  (70  km 
from 

Carnes  Selectas 
Campofrío 

Albi (France)  Meat 

No 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

05.08.15 

Not reported   Transportes  CID 

Pontevedra 

Peaje 
Sames (A64) 

de 

Galicia 

Sète (France) 

Fish 

No 

Toulouse) 

05.08.15 

Lacteas 
Ortegal 
S.L.V. 

Transportes 
Vázques  Portela 
S.L. 

A63 
Breton 

Cap 

Monforte 
Lemos (Lugo) 

de 

Clermont 
Ferrand 
(France) 

Pasteurized 
cream 

No 

Date 

Company  

Transport 
company  

Place of 
incidents  

Origin 

Destination  

Type of 
product 

Reported under 
Regulation  

2016 

03.02.16 

Not reported  Transportes  Ruiz 

Arles 

Valencia y Murcia  Viena 

y Valero 

(Austria) 

Citrus  fruits, 
melons  and 
salads 

No 

04.04.16 

Ntra  Sra  del 
Carmen  SC 
COOP CLM 

Transportes  Félix 
SL 

Le Boulou (toll 
on the border) 

Toledo 

Switzerland   Wine  

No 

04.04.16 

Finca  Venta 
Don Quijote 

Transportes  Felix 
SL 

Le Boulou (toll 
on the border) 

Toledo 

04.04.16 

Not reported  Tank Hurt 

Le Boulou (toll 
on the border) 

Not reported 

Beaucaire 
(30302) 
France 

Wine 

Yes 

Wine 

No 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

04.04.16 

Not reported  Transportes  Lara 
Cea 

Le Boulou (toll 
on the border) 

Not reported 

Wine 

No 

30.06.16 

Not reported 

Transportes 
Moisés 

Not reported 

Not reported 

Not reported  Wine 

No 

2017 

Date 

Company  

Transport 
company  

Place of 
incidents  

Origin 

Destination  

Type of 
product 

Reported under 
Regulation  

16.01.17 

Company 
from 
Valencia  

Translleralva S.L. 

(Badajoz) 

Narbonne 
(parking 
the 
Grand 
Picard) 

of 
store 
Frais 

Valencia 

Lyon (France)  Wine  

No 

17.01.17 

Not reported  French  transport 

Montpellier  

Not reported 

Not reported  Wine 

No 

17.01.17 

Not reported  Not reported 

company  

27.04.17 

Bodegas 
Periguer 
(Huesca) 

Sociedad Moisés 

(Tomelloso 
Ciudad Real) 

– 

23.05.17 

Not reported  Hurtrans 

Source: MAEC  

Toll 
Gallargues 
(A9) 

Sallelès 
d’Aude 
(Narbonne) 

Aude.  Exit  A9 
around 
Leucate 

of 

Not reported 

Not reported 

Fruit juice  

No 

Huesca 

Wine 

No 

Louis 
Distribution 
SAS 
France) 

(Aude, 

Not reported 

Not reported  Wine  

No 

73 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

13.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents.  

The Spanish Ministry of Exterior (MAEC) and the French General Secretariat for European 
Affairs  stated  that  the  Regulation  has  not  played  the  role  of  an  early  warning 
mechanism.94 Indeed, most of the obstacles have not been reported to the Commission 
under  the  Regulation  (see  table  above),  and  the  reported  events  usually  took  place  on 
French  territory  but  were  reported  by  Spanish  authorities  or  stakeholders.  Transport 
companies,  farmers  and  other  stakeholders  become  aware  of  obstacles  though  other 
channels (e.g. national road website, radio, road travel apps etc.). The only instances in 
which  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  has  a  preventive  character  is  when  strikes  are 
officially  communicated  in  advance.  National  contact  points  (NCPs)  know  that  strikes 
incite  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods,  thus  NCPs  inform  the  EC  and  national 
authorities  beforehand.  Moreover,  the  MAEC  noted  that  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98 
seems to have a deterrent effect as when an obstacle occurs and Regulation (EC) No. 
2679/98 is triggered on time, this puts pressure on Member States to act and the parties 
obstructing the free movement will stop the obstruction quicker than without  Regulation 
(EC) No. 2679/98.  

The  process  for  communicating  the  event  of  an  obstacle  or  the  risk  of  an 
obstacle  by  the  Spanish  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  Cooperation  (MAEC)  to  the 
European  Commission  is  illustrated  in  Figure  7.  Spain  and  France  have  a  long-lasting 
trade  relationship;  thus,  the  Spanish  ministries  (MAEC  and  MAPAMA)  have  meetings  to 
evaluate reported claims and avoid any damages to commercial relations with France.95  

Figure 7: Communication process to notify obstacles under Regulation (EC) No. 
2679/98 in Spain 

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MAEC)  

13.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

The Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 does not  resolve or prevent obstacles to the free 
movement of goods.96 Events or future events that hinder the free  movement of goods 
are communicated by e-mail to the EC. Many of these communications might not be read 
in time to prevent or resolve an obstacle before it is prevented/resolved by other parties. 
Many  of  the  events  involving  the  transport  of  fruits  and  vegetables  take  place  during 
harvest  season  (July  and  August),  which  is  also  a  holiday  period.  Many  e-mails  are 
missed or not addressed in time.97  
According  to  interviewees,  the  reduction  of  incidents  in  the  transport  of  fruits  and 
vegetables  could  be  related  to  the  increased  market  segmentation  over  the  last 

94  

95  

Interview with MAEC and the French General Secretariat for European Affairs 
Interview with MAEC, conducted on 31.10.2017. 

96   All interviewees 
97  

Interview with MAEC, conducted on 31.10.2017.

74 

 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

decade.98  Nowadays,  European  countries  are  promoting  local  consumption  and 
marketing  their  local,  regional  and  national  products  through  labels  and  marketing 
campaigns. The advocacy of local, regional and national products by European countries 
has prompted increased consumption of local, regional and national products and made 
farmers  less  reluctant  towards  imported  agricultural  goods.  Additionally,  the  European 
institutions  are  also  promoting  local  agriculture  and  short  food  supply  chains  that  have 
economic,  social  and  cultural  benefits  for  farmers,  consumers  and  rural  areas  in 
general.99 The marketing of local and regional consumption could be one of the reasons 
for the decrease in obstacles against the free movement of fruits and vegetables taking 
place in France.100 

13.4.  Damages 

The  Spanish  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  Cooperation  (MAEC)  has  a  list  of  claims 
(Table 3) presented by  transport  operators at the Spanish consulates in France.  In this 
list  of  claims,  transport  operators  mentioned  some  of  the  direct  costs  that  were 
incurred  during  these  obstacles.  Costs  may  also  arise  for  citizens,  businesses  and 
public-sector  stakeholders  that  are  only  indirectly  affected  by  the  obstacles  –  e.g.  by 
increases  in  price  levels,  financial  weakening  of  business  partners  and  tax  revenues 
foregone.  However,  their  assessment  would  require  macro-economic  or  econometric 
analyses reliant on detailed data on the cases of ‘obstacles’  – information that is clearly 
not available – thus it is outside the scope of this case study.   
To  provide  an  estimation  of  the  total  direct  costs  per  obstacle  in  Table  8,  the 
average prices of Table 7 have been used. The average total direct cost per incident 
is  39,200  EUR.101  Table  7  provides  the  price  used  to  estimate  the  total  direct  costs  of 
each  obstacle  reported  in  Table  8  and  sources  from  which  price  information  was  been 
taking from.  

Table 7: Prices 

Product/Time/Vehicle 

Price  

Source 

Pork meat  
Meat (beef) 
Wine  
One hour waiting time (truck) 

Inability to use truck 

EUR 1,12 per Kg 
EUR 9,18 per Kg 
EUR 1,2 per Hl 
EUR  55  per  hour 
per driver 
EUR 800 per day 

Eurostat (2016) 
Statista (2016) 
Interview with MAPAMA 
Interview with IRU102  

Interview with IRU 

In  order  to  calculate  the  costs  of  each  incident103  the  following  assumptions  were 
made:  

  Waiting time is calculated only for one driver per incident;  
  Export price for beef meat was used for the calculation of incidents were the type 

of meat was not specified; 

  Damages  of  vehicles  are  calculated  from  the  average  price  of  having  one  truck 

stopped because of repair per day (EUR 800); 

  Five days was taking as average time to repair a truck. 

98  

Interview with FEPEX, conducted on 06.11.2017; interview with MAPAMA, conducted on 16.11.2017. 

99   https://epthinktank.eu/2013/10/14/local-agriculture-and-short-food-supply-chains/ 
100   Interview with FEPEX, conducted on 06.11.2017; ; interview with MAPAMA, conducted on 16.11.2017. 
101   Average of the total direct costs per incident calculate from total direct costs that could be estimated (see 

Table 8) 

102   World Road Transport Organisation (IRU) 
103   There was not enough information to calculate the costs of each incident  

75 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

Table 8: Estimation of costs per obstacle reported 

2015 

Date 

Company  

Transport 
company  

Products 
transported  

Products 
damaged  

Waiting time  

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

(4 hours) 

(8 hours) 

Damage to 
the vehicle 

Total 
costs 
incurred 
scenario 1 

Total 
costs 
incurred 
scenario 2 

08.03.15  Carnes 

Selectas 
Campofrio 

Transportes 
frigoríficos 
Revilla 

Porcine meat 

20,620 kg 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

23,314  

No 
provided  

total 

21.07.15  Carniques 

Transfrise 

Meat 

d’Osona 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data  

EUR 
23,534  

Not enough 
data 

22.07.15  Grupo 
Jorge 

22.07.15  Grupo 
Jorge 

Sesé 

Porcine meat 

2,500 Kg 

EUR 220  

EUR 440 

Not reported  EUR 3,020   EUR 3,240  

El Mosca 

Porcine meat 

22,000 Kg 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

24,860  

24.07.15  Càrniques 

Juià 

SREM 
Frigorifique 
Chereau 

Porcine meat 

20,000 Kg 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

22,620  

24.07.15  Campofrío 

Transportes 
Revilla 

Meat 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data 

76 

EUR 
25,080  

EUR 
22,840  

Not enough 
data 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

04.08.15  Campofrío 

Transportes 
Revilla  

Meat 

18,865 Kg 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

173,401  

05.08.15 

Not 
reported  

Transportes 
CID 
Pontevedra 

Fish 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data 

05.08.15  Lacteas 
Ortegal 
S.L.V. 

Transportes 
Vázques 
Portela S.L. 

Pasteurized 
cream 

23,000104 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

33,970  

EUR 
173,621  

Not enough 
data 

EUR 
34,190  

Date 

Company  

Transport 
company  

Products 
transported  

Products 
damaged  

Waiting time  

2016 

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

(4 hours) 

(8 hours) 

Damage to 
the vehicle 

Total 
costs 
incurred 
scenario 1 

Total 
costs 
incurred 
scenario 2 

03.02.16  Not 

reported 

Transportes 
Ruiz y Valero 

Citrus 
melons 
salads 

fruits, 
and 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data 

04.04.16 

Transportes 
Félix SL 

Ntra 
Sra 
del  Carmen 
SC  COOP 
CLM 

Wine  

25,000 Hl 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

30,220  

Not enough 
data 

EUR 
30,440  

04.04.16  Finca Venta 

Transportes 

Wine 

17,000 Hl 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

EUR 

Don 

104   Value already provided in the list 33.749,7 EUR 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

Quijote 

Felix SL 

20,620  

20,840  

04.04.16 

Not 
reported 

Tank Hurt 

Wine 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data 

04.04.16 

Not 
reported 

Transportes 
Lara Cea 

Wine 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data 

30.06.16  Not 

reported 

Transportes 
Moisés 

Wine 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

data 

Not enough 
data 

Not enough 
data 

Not enough 
data 

Date 

Company  

Transport 
company  

Products 
transported  

Products 
damaged  

2017 

Waiting time  

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

(4 hours) 

(8 hours) 

16.01.17  Company 

from 
Valencia  

Translleralva 
S.L. 

(Badajoz) 

Wine  

25,400 Hl 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Damage to 
the vehicle 

Total 
costs 
incurred 
scenario 1 

Total 
costs 
incurred 
scenario 2 

EUR 
34,700  

EUR 
34,920  

Yes 
(does 
not  provide 
exact time of 
repair) 
Assumption 
5  days 
repair  

to 

17.01.17  Not 

reported 

French 
transport 
company  

Wine 

25,000 Hl 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  EUR 

30,220  

EUR 
30,440 

17.01.17  Not 

Not reported 

Fruit juice  

reported 

Not 
reported 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Yes  (broken 
seal, 
does 
not  provide 
exact time of 

Not enough 
data 

Not enough 
data 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

27.04.17  Bodegas 
Periguer 
(Huesca) 

Sociedad 
Moisés 

(Tomelloso  – 
Ciudad Real) 

Wine 

23,800 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

repair) 
Assumption 
5  days 
repair 

to 

Yes  (broken 
seal, 
does 
not  provide 
exact time of 
repair) 
Assumption 
5  days 
repair 

to 

EUR 
32,780  

EUR 
33,000  

23.05.17  Not 

Hurtrans 

Wine 

20,000 

EUR 220  

EUR 440  

Not reported  Not enough 

reported 

data 

Not enough 
data 

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MAEC) 

79 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

13.5.  Recommendations 

The  Spanish  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  Cooperation  (MAEC)  and  Ministry  of 
Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  Food  and  Environment  (MAPAMA) 
indicated  five 
recommendations for enhancing the usefulness of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98: 

1.  Bring  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  in  line  with  technological  advancements 
that  allow  all  parties  to  receive  notifications  of  obstacles  in  real  time  (e.g. 
online platform with two types of access: one for bilateral communications and 
another one for the whole network); 

2.  Improve the list of obstacles that should be reported under Regulation (EC) No. 

2679/98;  

3.  Include  a  clear  definition  the  circumstances  in  which  Regulation  (EC)  No. 

2679/98 should be applied, maybe through a list of potential obstacles; 

4.  Include a harmonised compensation system for all involved parties in cases of 

damages;  

5.  Improve the communication tools that are mentioned in Article 5 of Regulation 
(EC)  No.  2679/98.  The  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities  is  not 
used enough, and it is a good tool to raise awareness in the EU Member States.  
Additionally, interviewees mentioned that the European Commission should have a 
more  hands-on  role.  Firstly,  the  European  Commission  should  sanction  Member 
States, for instance under infringement proceedings (Article 258 of TFEU), if they do 
not take preventive measures to avoid the disruption to the free movement of goods. 
By  preventive  measures,  it  is  meant  that  Member  States  should  provide  information 
on safe routes that the transport operators  can use in case of strike  (safe  corridors). 
At  the  moment,  transport  operators  often  prefer  to  wait  until  after  the  strike  takes 
place  to  transport  products  to  avoid  any  act  of  violence  that  may  happen  during  the 
strike. Secondly, the European Commission  should  follow up after  obstacles have 
occurred  and  provide  all  NCPs  with  information  received  from  other  NCPs.  This 
communication could be sent via e-mail or through an online platform.  

13.6.  References  

-  Agencia  EFE  (2017)  España  presenta  una  dura  queja  a  Francia  por  ataques  a 
at: 

camiones 
https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/economia/espana-presenta-una-dura-queja-
a-francia-por-ataques-camiones-espanoles/10003-3152088 

españoles. 

Available 

-  Agronegocios  (2016)  El  sector  productor  condena  el  ataque  de  viticultores 
at: 
y 

franceses 
http://www.agronegocios.es/el-sector-productor-condena-el-ataque-de-
viticultores-franceses-al-vino-espanol-y-pide-sanciones/ 

sanciones. 

Available 

español 

pide 

vino 

al 

-  EFEAGRO  (2016)  Indignación  por  el  ataque  a  un  camión  en  Francia.  Available 
http://www.efeagro.com/noticia/indignacion-por-el-ataque-a-un-camion-

at: 
en-francia/ 

-  El  comercio  (2017).  Agricultores 

frente 

melocotones 
Available 
consulado 
http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/agricultores-francia-melocotones-
consulado-espana.html 

de 

al 

franceses  vierten  dos  toneladas  de 
at: 

España. 

-  El  confidencial  (2016)  Ataque  a  cinco  camiones  de  vino  español  en  Francia. 
Available  at:  https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/dinero/litros-vino-espanol-
tierras-francesas_0_2762123763.html 

-  El  confidencial  (2016)  Dieciocho  mil  kilos  de  fruta  ardiendo.  Imágenes  del 
Francia.  Available  at: 

camiones  españoles  en 

último  ataque  a 

80 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/dinero/Dieciocho-Imagenes-camiones-
espanoles-Francia_0_2654134574.html 

-  El  Pais  (2017)  España  se  queja  a  Francia  tras  varios  ataques  a  camiones  con 
at: 

fruta 
https://elpais.com/economia/2017/01/18/actualidad/1484737731_682802.htm
l 

Available 

vino. 

y 

-  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  Blog  (2013)  Local  Agriculture  and 
at: 

Short 
https://epthinktank.eu/2013/10/14/local-agriculture-and-short-food-supply-
chains/  

Available 

Chains. 

Supply 

Food 

-  Hortoinfo  (2016)  Nuevo  ataque  en  Francia  a  un  camión  español  con  frutas  y 
http://www.hortoinfo.es/index.php/plagas/99-

at: 

hortalizas. 
Available 
catqueponemos/2165-pim-turq-25-10 
Interview with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. Interview conducted 
on 31.10.2017. 
Interview with Spanish federation of associations of producers and exporters of 
fruits,  vegetables,  flowers  and  live  plants  (FEPEX).  Interview  conducted  on 
06.11.2017. 
Interview  with  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  Food  and  Environment 
(MAPAMA). Interview conducted on 16.11.2017. 
Interview with General Secretariat for European Affairs /Secrétariat général des 
affaires  européennes  (SGAE)  -  Secteur  TREG  -Transports,  recherche,  espace, 
politique régionale, outre-mer.  
La  opinion  (2016)  España  protesta  ante  Francia  por  el  último  ataque  a  un 
at: 
camión 
http://www.laopiniondezamora.es/agroalimentacion/2016/02/08/espana-
protesta-francia-ultimo-ataque/903294.html 

Available 

español. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-  The  Guardian  (2015)  French  farmers  block  Spanish  and  German  borders  in 
at: 

foreign 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/french-farmers-block-
spanish-and-german-borders-in-foreign-food-protest 

Available 

protest. 

food 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

14. Annex  5:  Calais  port  Case  study  -  The  blockade  of  the 
freight  port  of  Calais  /  strike  of  part  of  the  staff  (Oct. 
2015) 

14.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem 

The Port of Calais, the leading French port for passengers and the fourth port in terms 
of  freight,  and  the  Port  of  Boulogne-Sur-Mer,  the  leading  French  fishing  port,  are 
located  in  the  Hauts-de-France  Region.  On  22  July  2015,  Port  Boulogne  was 
incorporated into the Calais Port operations as part of a new public service concession 
granted by the Region. 

The  SEPD  (Detroit  Port  Operations  Corporation)  holds  this  concession.  In  addition  to 
operating the two entities, SEPD has undertaken to extend the Port of Calais through 
the Calais Port 2015 project. SEPD now employs 724 people: 655 in Calais and 69 in 
Boulogne-sur-Mer. 

In  2016,  the  Port  of  Calais  was  transited  by  9,090,694  passengers,  1,498,571  cars 
and 80,448 buses, compared to 9,786,252 passengers, 1,610,623 passenger cars and 
87,717  buses  in  2015.  In  terms  of  freight,  the  Port  of  Calais  was  transited  by 
1,909,011 units in 2016, against 1,846,512 in 2015, with an increase of 3.38%. The 
commercial activity of the Port  of Calais increased by 314%, from 297,555 tonnes in 
2015  to  1,224,978  tonnes  in  2016.  This  result  can  be  explained  exclusively  by  the 
shipments of riprap105 by sea as part of the port extension project, which began in late 
summer (although the majority of the riprap is from the Carrières du Boulonnais). The 
rest of the port freight traffic is mainly composed of petroleum coke, sugar, limestone 
and  submarine  cables.  Finally,  for  its  cruise  activity,  the  Port  of  Calais  welcomed 
53,710 passengers in 2016. 

Table  9:  Evolution  of  the  activities  of  the  Port  of  Calais  between  2015  and 
2016 

2015 

2016 

Difference 
between 2015 
and 2016 

Passengers 

9,786,252 

9,090,694 

-7.10 % 

Cars 

Buses 

1,610,623 

1,498,571 

- 6.95 % 

87,717 

80,448 

- 8.28 % 

Freight unit 

1,846,512 

1,909,011 

+ 3.38 % 

Freight tonnes 

297,555 

1,224,978 

+ 314 % 

Source : La Voix du Nord (13 January 2017) 

Concerning  freight,  the  number  of  trucks  carrying  imports  increased  by  10%,  rising 
from 900,000 trucks in 2015 to 1 million trucks in 2016. For exports, the port of Calais 
is at the same level as in 2015, with 900,000 trucks. The balance is therefore slightly 

105   Rock  or  other  material  used  to  armour  shorelines,  streambeds,  bridge  abutments,  pilings  and  other 

shoreline structures 

82 

 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

positive for imports. Regarding exports, “the market on the Channel (ports of Dunkirk 
and Calais, Eurotunnel) has increased by 6%, we are the only ones not having taken 
more  advantage  of  this,  noted  Jean-Marc  Puissesseau,  president  of  the  SEPD.  To 
return to France, carriers pass by Calais. However, due to the troubles on the bypass, 
they preferred Dunkirk or the Channel Tunnel to go to Great Britain". (Source: La voix 
du Nord 13 January 2017). 

Figure 8: Aerial view of the port of Calais – 2015 

Source: RTL Denis Charlet 

The security guards at the Port of Calais (Pas-de-Calais) were on strike from 12 to 15 
October  2015.  Normally,  five  security  teams  of  about  twenty  people  each  are 
supposed  to  take  turns  at  the  port;  however,  each  of  these  teams  declared  a  strike 
from  Monday  12  October  2015  in  the  evening  (21:45).  They  essentially  blocked 
access to the port for freight trucks, demanding an increase in the workforce due 
to the work overload associated with migrants’ intrusion into the port area. 

During this strike, the truck control counters were partially or totally closed. This 
movement  caused  a  congestion  of  trucks  at  the  Port  of  Calais.  At  the  peak  of  the 
crisis, about 700 trucks were waiting for control in the port area. The teams in charge 
of  these  control  operations  were  completely  absent.  “Subsequently,  one  of  the  five 
checkpoints  was  opened  by  non-strike  staff  allowing  freight  trucks  to  pass  little  by 
little”, said Aurélien Delcloy, the General Labour Confederation’s staff representative in 
the port (Confédération Générale du travail – CGT).106 

In  addition,  the  trade  union  called  for  a  meeting  for  a  "better  distribution  of  the 
workforce", according to the General Labour Confederation’s staff representative in the 
port.  A  meeting  was  held  on  Wednesday,  14  October  2015,  between  the  striking 
employees  and  the  Human  Resources  Director  of  the  port,  Pascal  Joly.  Five  teams  of 

106   https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/hauts-de-france/nord-pas-calais/pas-calais/calais/calais-acces-

au-port-fret-bloque-greve-salaries-denoncant-surcharge-liee-aux-migrants-828843.html 

83 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

about  twenty  people  took  turns  in  the  port  of  Calais  24  hours  a  day,  but  the  teams 
were in fact unbalanced, and some had only 19 people, whereas normally they should 
have 23 people. The negotiation with the management for a rebalancing of the teams 
then  made  progress.    "The  strike  was  then  over,  but  the  strike  would  have  been 
renewed if the dialogue was interrupted", said Mr Decloy. He also said that the union 
was aware of the financial situation of the port with the MyFerryLink conflict during the 
summer  of  2015.  The  port  was  then  regularly  blocked  by  SeaFrance  Scop  sailors 
causing significant financial losses. 

The five port checkpoints were then reopened. However, some 1,000 trucks were still 
waiting  for  boarding  on  14  October  2015  at  18:00.  Moreover,  because  of  this  strike, 
hundreds  of  trucks  went  to  the  tunnel  under  the  Channel,  leading  to  several 
kilometres  of  traffic  jam.  Many  migrants  then  took  advantage  of  these  slowdowns  to 
board the vehicles. 

All  national  and  local  media,  both  in  France  and  in  other  countries,  covered  the 
blockage:  Le  Monde,  Challenges,  RTL,  L’Antenne,  La  Voix  du  Nord,  France  3  Région, 
Paris Normandie. 107 

Figure 9: Access to the port of Calais is blocked by security officers on strike - 
Oct. 2015 

Source: MAXPPP 

107 

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2015/10/13/calais-des-salaries-bloquent-l-acces-au-port-de-

fret_4788494_3214.html 
https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/calais-l-acces-au-port-fret-bloque-par-une-greve-des-salaries-
denoncant-la-surchage-liee-aux-migrants_59805 
http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/102713/article/2017-01-13/une-tres-mauvaise-annee-2016-pour-le-trafic-
du-port-de-calais 
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/hauts-de-france/nord-pas-calais/pas-calais/calais/calais-acces-
au-port-fret-bloque-greve-salaries-denoncant-surcharge-liee-aux-migrants-828843.html 
http://www.paris-normandie.fr/breves/l-essentiel/calais-l-acces-au-port-fret-bloque-par-une-greve-
des-salaries-denoncant-la-surchage-liee-aux-migrants-XD4225918 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

14.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents.  

The General Secretariat for European Affairs, who is the French National Contact Point, 
was  interviewed.  Unfortunately,  she  was  not  in  this  current  position  in  2015. 
Moreover,  no  communication  archives  between  the  French  State  and  the  European 
Commission could be found. 

Regarding  her  perception  of  the  functioning  of  the  early  information  mechanism,  she 
stated that the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 did not play the role of an early warning 
mechanism. It made no additional contribution to the national procedure for mobilising 
and  informing  all  national  actors  (Stakeholders,  Prefecture  and  Sous-prefecture, 
Gendarmerie...).108 

As  it  is  organised  today,  this  early  warning  mechanism  based  on  an  exchange  of  e-
mails, represents an additional administrative constraint. 
National and local media covered the blockade, thus informing the general public.  

14.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

According  to  the  research  conducted,  it  seems  that  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98 
had no added value in resolving this obstacle to the free movement of goods at 
the Port of Calais. 

The  resolution  of  this  conflict  was  made  possible  thanks  to  social  consultations 
between the various parties concerned: the Société d'exploitation des ports du Detroit 
(SEPD),  the  Port  of  Calais,  the  security  officers  of  the  Port  of  Calais,  and  the  staff 
representatives. 

14.4.  Damages 

Media  outlets  reported  that  between  700  and  1000  trucks  were  blocked  at  the 
height  of  the  crisis  during  the  strike  in  October  2015.109  According  to  a  report  by 
Charlie  Elphike  (Member  of  the  UK  parliament),  the  strikes  at  Calais  cost  Britain’s 
economy EUR 1.12 billion in 2015.110 

As no additional information on costs could be found, an estimation of the direct costs 
during  the  disruption  at  Calais  port  in  October  2015  has  been  calculated  using  the 
following  formula111:  an  hour  waiting  time  costs  EUR  55  per  driver  multiplied  by  the 
total  number  of  trucks.  If  the  average  waiting  time  was  around  five  hours  and  there 
were one or two driver/s per truck, the  total direct cost of the strike at Calais in 
October 2015 would range between EUR 192,500 and EUR 550,000.  

108   Interview  with  General  Secretariat  for  European  Affairs  /Secrétariat  général  des  affaires  européennes 

(SGAE) - Secteur TREG -Transports, recherche, espace, politique régionale, outre-mer. 

109  https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/calais-l-acces-au-port-fret-bloque-par-une-greve-des-salaries-

denoncant-la-surchage-liee-aux-migrants_59805 

110  http://elphicke.com/downloads/ready-on-day-one--meeting-the-brexit-borders-challenge.pdf 
111  Interview with IRU (World Road Transport Organisation)

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

14.5.  Recommendations 

It  was  found  that  the  application  of  this  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  through  a 
communication  system  based  on  the  sending  of  e-mail  is  too  bureaucratic,  while  the 
approach needs to be more useful and pragmatic. 

The system could be more effective if it were based on digital information exchanges 
through  a  digital  interface  including  different  levels  of  accessibility  to  information 
(declarative  or  receptive)  depending  on  the  type  of  actors  involved  (transporters, 
state, police...). 

14.6.  References  

First of all, it should be pointed out that we were unable to identify local players in the 
Hauts-de-France  region  who  are  still  working  in  the  same  positions  today  and  who 
could have provided us with information on this case.  

Then we contacted the French National Contact Point (NCP); however, this person was 
also not in the current position in 2015. 

As  the  early  information  mechanism  operates  via  an  e-mail  transmission  system,  no 
electronic archives could be identified. So, the NCP searched in the paper archives of 
the  General  Secretariat  for  European  Affairs.  Different  information  on  the  other 
disturbances  that  had  occurred  at  the  port  of  Calais  in  2015  could  be  identified. 
However, no elements relating to the October 2015 case study could be identified. 

However,  an  interview  on  the  overall  perception  of  the  functioning  of  the  early 
information mechanism has been organised. 

Moreover, the following sources were identified: 

- 

Interview with General Secretariat for European Affairs /Secrétariat général des 
affaires  européennes  (SGAE)  -  Secteur  TREG  -Transports,  recherche,  espace, 
politique régionale, outre-mer.  

la 

liée 

Available 

surcharge 

aux  migrants. 

-  Challenges (2015) Calais: l'accès au port fret bloqué par une grève des salariés 
at: 

dénonçant 
https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/calais-l-acces-au-port-fret-bloque-par-
une-greve-des-salaries-denoncant-la-surchage-liee-aux-migrants_59805 
France TV (2015) Calais: l'accès au port fret bloqué par une grève des salariés 
dénonçant  la  surcharge  liée  aux  migrants.  Available  at:  https://france3-
regions.francetvinfo.fr/hauts-de-france/nord-pas-calais/pas-calais/calais/calais-
acces-au-port-fret-bloque-greve-salaries-denoncant-surcharge-liee-aux-
migrants-828843.html 
La Voix du Nord (2017) Une très mauvaise année 2016 pour le trafic du port de 
Calais.  Available  at:  http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/102713/article/2017-01-
13/une-tres-mauvaise-annee-2016-pour-le-trafic-du-port-de-calais 
Le Monde (2015) Calais: des salariés bloquent l’accès au port de fret. Available 
at: 
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2015/10/13/calais-des-salaries-
bloquent-l-acces-au-port-de-fret_4788494_3214.html 

- 

- 

- 

-  Paris  Normandie  (2015)  Calais.  L’accès  au  port  fret  bloqué  par  une  grève  des 
liée  aux  migrants.  Available  at: 

salariés  dénonçant 
http://www.paris-normandie.fr/breves/l-essentiel/calais-l-acces-au-port-fret-
bloque-par-une-greve-des-salaries-denoncant-la-surchage-liee-aux-migrants-
XD4225918 

surcharge 

la 

86 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

15.  Annex 6: Bulgaria Greece Case study – seasonal blocking 

of Bulgaria border by Greek farmers 

15.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem 

The  Bulgarian-Greek  border  has  been  blocked  on  numerous  occasions.  When 
examining  the  chronology  of  obstruction  of  the  transport  of  goods,  one  may  identify 
an emerging pattern. Historically, the problem has evolved from the very beginning of 
the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union (EU)  – 01.01.2007. The focus of this 
case study undoubtedly falls on the blockades organised by the Greek farmers, always 
in winter months (the beginning of the calendar year).  

These actions have incorporated the protest  element, as they are correlated with the 
actions of political pressure on the Greek government by farmers. In order to push the 
authorities  in  Athens  to  comply  with  particular  demands,  the  farmers  frequently 
used blockades to make a statement. Very often, these demands were related to 
tax policy and financial initiatives of the Greek government that have direct impact on 
agricultural businesses.  

The blockades usually happened internally112, as well as at the borders with Bulgaria, 
Turkey113  and  Macedonia.114  So  far,  the  following  blockades  of  the  Bulgarian-
Greek border have been reported:  

  24.01.2007 – a blockade with a duration of two weeks;  
  26.01.2009 – a blockade with a duration of three weeks; 
  20.01.2013 – a blockade with a duration of 18 days; 
  16.01.2016 – a blockade with a duration of 40 days.115   

Each  of  the  blockades  was  usually  accompanied  by  reactions  from  the  Bulgarian 
government.  For  example,  during  the  blockades  on  24.01.2007,  26.01.2009  and 
16.01.2016, the Bulgarian government promptly notified the European Commission of 
the  situation.  The  Commission  chose  not  to  intervene,  stating  that  the  conflict  could 
be better resolved at the local level. The Bulgarian authorities claimed that each of the 
blockades from 2007, 2009 and 2013 caused  damages to the  Bulgarian economy 
amounting  to  EUR  10  million.116  The  conflicts  were  not  in  any  way  related  to 
preceding  trade  disputes  between  Bulgaria  and  Greece,  although  each  blockade 
substantially obstructed the trade flows between both Member States.  

The  current  study  will  focus  on  the  most  recent  blockade  (January/February 
2016)  due  to  its  longest  duration  and  most  severe  economic  impact.  Similar  to 
previous actions of the farmers, the reason behind this blockade was a protest against 
the rapid increase of the taxes levied on the agricultural producers. The Greek farmers 
threatened  the  Greek  Members  of  Parliament  (MP),  saying  that  they  would  not  be 
allowed  to  enter  the  electoral  regions  if  they  supported  the  changes.  The  blockade 
followed  the  farmers’  usual  practice  of  closing  the  roads  by  surprise.  Hundreds  of 

112  http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/02/02/448436/Greece-Athens-Thessaloniki 

and 

https://www.thenationalherald.com/148293/protesting-farmers-block-roads-around-greece/  
113  http://www.ekathimerini.com/214299/article/ekathimerini/news/farmers-block-border-in-northern-

greece  

114   http://greece.greekreporter.com/2017/01/31/border-post-at-evzoni-blocked-by-protesting-farmers/  
115  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

116  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html

87 

 
 
                                                 
  
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

Greek  farmers  blocked  the  Kulata  -  Promahon  border  crossing  with  tractors  and 
agricultural  machinery.  This  action  caused  Bulgarian  and  Greek  policemen  to  appear 
on the site, supported by specialists properly equipped to disperse the protesters.117  

Unlike previous blockades, this one  lasted more than 40 days and was extensively 
covered by the media. Media coverage on the Bulgarian side of the border focused on 
damages  incurred  by  Bulgarian  transport  companies  and  by  the  inappropriateness  of 
the blockade as a means to solve internal Greek issues. The overall impression of the 
Bulgarian  interviewees  was  that  the  Greek  government  did  not  do  all  they  could  to 
prevent or shorten the incidents prior to 2017.  

At first, the blockade was expected to last only 48 hours118 but then it was prolonged. 
One  particularity  of  the  Kulata  border  crossing  is  that  the  alternative  routes  (Ilinden 
and Makaza border crossings) are through the mountains and they do not represent a 
viable  alternative,  especially  in  winter  time  when  the  incidents  tend  to  happen.119 
Additionally,  once  a  truck  gets  into  the  line  of  waiting  trucks  it is  impossible  for  it  to 
make  a  U-turn  (see  picture).  Several  times  the  blockade  spread  to  these  alternative 
checkpoints120  and  at  a  certain  point  even  affected  four  out  of  six  border  crossings 
from Bulgaria to Greece (Kulata, Ilinden, Makaza and Kapitan Petko Voyvoda).121 This 
was often accompanied by acts of physical violence122 and individual attempts to break 
the blockade.123  

Throughout  the  duration  of  the  blockade,  negotiations  were  conducted  between 
the  Bulgarian  authorities  and  the  protesters,  the  Bulgarian  government  and 
the  Greek  government  and  there  was  regular  correspondence  as  well 
between the Bulgarian government and the European Commission. During the 
blockade the following political actions were undertaken: 

  The  blockade  started  on  16.01.2016.  The  Greek  consulate  and  the  Greek 

ambassador were notified124; 

  On  21.01.2016  the  Bulgarian  Prime  Minister  initiated  communication  with  the 

Greek Prime Minister on the matter125; 

  Until 01.02.2015 the blockade was maintained with regular warnings and with 
intervals  of  actual  blocking  of  no  more  than  1-2  hours.  After  this  date,  it 
continued  without  interruption  without  any  warning  from  the  side  of  the 
protesters.  Another  meeting  with  the  Greek  ambassador  was  conducted  on 
02.02.2016.126  On  the  same  date  the  Bulgarian  ambassador  in  Athens 
conducted meetings with the Greek authorities, searching for possible solutions 
and  improvement  of  the  situation,  all  the  while  receiving  assurance  of 

117   http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/svetut/masovi-protesti.html  
118   http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/protesti-na-gracki-fermeri-blokiraha-gkpp-kulata-i-ilinden.html 
119   Interview with the Ministry of the Economy, conducted on 11.05.2017.  
120  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/grackite-fermeri-blokiraha-tri-granichni-punkta.html, 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/dvizhenieto-na-kulata-otnovo-e-blokirano.html 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/granichnite-punktove-kulata-i-ilinden-sa-zatvoreni-za-tirove.html 

and 

121   http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/4-ot-6-te-ni-punkta-s-garcija-sa-pod-blokada.html  
122   http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/situatsiyata-na-kulata-izliza-izvan-kontrol-

snimki-i-video.html  

123  http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/kontrablokada-na-kulata-balgarskite-tiradzhii-

ne-puskat-garci-u-nas.html  

124  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

125  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

126  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

88 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

cooperation.127  In  the  meantime,  the  Bulgarian  Prime  Minister  conducted  a 
telephone  conversation  with  his  Greek  counterpart  pointing  out  that  nearly 
1,800 trucks were waiting on both sides of the border, resulting in huge losses 
and penalties128; 

  A meeting between the two countries’ Prime Ministers took place in London on 

03.02.2016 in order to discuss the ongoing border problems129; 

  On  05.02.2016  the  Bulgarian  Minister  of  Transport  conducted  a  meeting  with 

the responsible regional governor130; 

  On  08.02.2016  the  Bulgarian  MEP  Angel  Dzhambaski  sent  a  request  to  the 
European Commission, urging it to intervene and seeking compensation for the 
damages incurred during the blockade131; 

  On  09.02.2016  Angel  Dzhambaski  joined  the  negotiations  with  the  Greek 
farmers.  A  couple  of  ministers  were  also  involved  in  putting  political  pressure 
on  the  Greek  government.132  On  the  same  date  a  letter  was  sent  to  the 
Commissioner  for  Mobility  and  Transport  and  the  Commissioner  for  Internal 
Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs,  notifying  them  officially  of  the 
ongoing blockade133; 

  On  17.02.2016  the  Bulgarian  Minister  of  Transport  continued  negotiation  with 

the Greek authorities134; 

  On  19.02.2016,  with  a  full  majority,  the  Bulgarian  National  Assembly 
(parliament)  voted  a  declaration  against  the  blockade.  They  invited  the  Greek 
authorities  to  take  measures  to  end  this  crisis  and  also  urged  the  European 
Commission  to  make  a  statement  on  the  matter  and  to  start  an  infringement 
procedure  against  Greece.  The  Bulgarian  transport  Minister  invited  all  of  the 
MPs to support the declaration, underlining that the free movement of persons 
and  goods  has  been  obstructed  with  around  5000  trucks  blocked  at  the 
border.135 

127  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/mitov-za-blokadata-na-granitsata-s-gartsiya-tryabva-da-

se-nameri-reshenie.html

128  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/borisov-iska-merki-ot-tsipras-za-blokadata-po-granitsata-

ni.html  

129  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

130  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

131  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2016-

001117+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=en  

132  http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/kontrablokada-na-kulata-balgarskite-tiradzhii-

ne-puskat-garci-u-nas.html 

133  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

134  http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/situatsiyata-na-kulata-izliza-izvan-kontrol-

snimki-i-video.html  

135  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/parlamentat-skochi-s-deklaracija-sreshtu-grackata-

blokada.html

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

Figure 10: Blockade at the Bulgarian-Greek border 

Source: BGNES   

During the process of negotiation, the blockade was completely lifted multiple times136 
but  then  resumed.137  A  strict  schedule  was  agreed  upon  several  times138  and  then 
violated.139  As  a  response,  there  was  a  counter-blockade  organised  by  the  Bulgarian 
drivers,  obstructing  the  movement  of  Greek  vehicles,  which  was  also  lifted  and 
resumed several times.140 The blockade continued with increased dynamics until 
it disbanded on 29.02.2016.141 

15.2.  Mechanism(s) for communicating the incidents  

Both the Bulgarian and the Greek sides used the early warning mechanism to 
communicate the incidents, but this did not decrease their intensity. However, 
Bulgarian interviewees drew attention to the fact that the information from the Greek 
side came on the very day of the incident and therefore the early warning mechanism 
did  not  play  its  intended  role  and  there  was  no  alternative  response.  An  interviewee 
from  the  Bulgarian  Ministry  of  Economy  considered  that  it  would  have  been  better  if 
the  government  had  been  warned  of  the  upcoming  incidents  several  days  in 
advance.142 

The  transportation  companies  were  informed  very  early  about  the  incidents,  not 
through  the  mechanisms  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98,  but  through  the  Info 
points.143  

136  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/blokadata-na-kulata-padna.html 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/vdignaha-blokadata-na-gkpp-kulata.html  

137  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/garcite-pak-blokiraha-granicata-na-kulata.html 

and 

and 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/prodalzhava-blokadata-po-granicata-s-garcija.html 

138   http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/padna-blokadata-na-kulata.html  
139  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/grackite-fermeri-ne-spaziha-obeshtanieto-za-koridor-

na-gkpp-kulata-promahon.html  

140  http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/kontrablokada-na-kulata-balgarskite-tiradzhii-

ne-puskat-garci-u-nas.html  and  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/grackite-fermeri-ne-
spaziha-obeshtanieto-za-koridor-na-gkpp-kulata-promahon.html  

141   http://news.bnt.bg/bg/a/grtskite-fermeri-pribrakha-traktorite-si-ot-gkpp-kulata  
142   Interview with the Bulgarian Ministry of Economy, conducted on 11.05.2017. 
143   Idem

90 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

The  fact  that  countries  warn  each  other  (through  an  intermediary  mechanism  of  the 
Commission) is useful, but the transportation companies around the EU learn about it 
much earlier through existing information technologies (e.g. GPS).144 

In  addition,  very  quickly,  unions  and  associations  of  transport  companies 
organised information campaigns to inform their members of the impending incidents 
and were able to steer trucks away from the border crossing.145  

It  was  not  possible  to  verify  whether  the  early  warning  mechanism  played  a  role  in 
helping truckers from countries other than Greece and Bulgaria, but we can conclude 
that its value added was minimal in such a long incident. 

15.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

The incidents were very difficult to resolve, and their resolution took a long time. The 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  did  not  play  a  role  in  this  in  2016  or  before. 
During  the  winter  of  2016/2017  the  incident  was  stopped  thanks  to  the  diplomatic 
efforts of the Bulgarian government and the associations of transportation companies, 
although  some  consider  that  a  more  active  involvement  of  the  Bulgarian  Ministry  of 
Foreign  Affairs  was  necessary  (e.g.  earlier  notification  of  the  European  Commission, 
filing  a  claim  for  infringement  procedure  against  Greece).146  The  idea  of  filing  an 
infringement  procedure  against  Greece  was  also  supported  by  the  Minister  of 
Transport.147  

The  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  was  used  as  an  instrument  for  additional 
pressure  and  the  Greek  authorities  took  measures  as  it  was  a  question  of  political 
will.  Hence,  we  can  say  that  in  2017  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  has  played  a 
preventive  role.  If  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  were  suspended,  then  a  part  of 
the reasoning for applying political pressure would be lost.148 

This year, similar incidents with Greece have been prevented thanks to the efforts of 
all institutions, including the Greek Minister of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks 
Christos  Spirtzis  following  the  request  of  the  Bulgarian  Minister  of  Transport  at  that 
time, Hristo Aleksiev, and the interim Minister of Transport.149  

The  Bulgarian  side  intervened  as  early  as  December  2016  in  order  to  prevent  the 
recurrence  of  such  incidents.  It  used  the  consular  channels  and  the  police.  In  the 
officially  exchanged  documents  where  they  highlighted  the  existence  of  Regulation 
(EC)  No.  2679/98  as  an  additional  argument.150  In  addition,  the  Union  of 
Transportation Companies contacted the chief prosecutor of Greece151 and the Head of 
the  National  Police,  threatening  that  reciprocal  measures  would  be  taken  in  case  of 

144   Idem 
145   Interview with Union of International Transportation Companies, Bulgaria 
146  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/miroslav-naidenov-ima-mehanizmi-s-koito-da-sprem-

blokadata-po-granitsata-s-gartsiya.html  

147   http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/situatsiyata-na-kulata-izliza-izvan-kontrol-

snimki-i-video.html  

148   Interview with the Bulgarian Ministry of Economy, conducted on 11.05.2017. 
149   Interview with Ministry of Transport, Information and Communication, conducted on 09.06.2017. 
150   Interview with the Bulgarian Ministry of Economy, conducted on 11.05.2017. 
151   According to the prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Greece, the blockade represents an impediment to 
the  free  movement  of  persons  and  goods,  which  should  be  considered  a  crime.  Source: 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/svetut/gracki-prokuror-naredi-da-se-vzemat-merki-sreshtu-fermerskite-
blokadi.html  

91 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

incidents blocking Greek agricultural imports into Bulgaria. They also contacted Greek 
media.152  

None  of  the  interviewees  could  compare  the  situation  with  the  period  before  2007 
when  Bulgaria  became  a  member  of  the  European  Union.  The  overall  opinion  is  that 
Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is important and that it should not be repealed, but that 
it should be improved and made more concrete.  

Finally,  the  Greek  National  Contact  Point  (NCP)  attributed  a  more  prominent  role  to 
the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  in  preventing  2017  incidents  and  in  raising 
awareness. Moreover, he  considers that the Regulation played a role in resolving the 
disruptions,  especially  during  the  past  winter  when  everything  possible  was  done  to 
prevent  the  disruption.  As  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  during  the 
disruptions, the situation is more difficult to assess as the Regulation clashes with the 
right  to  strike.  However,  it  was  useful  in  setting  up  alternative  pathways  and  raising 
awareness. In addition, the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 spurred relevant authorities 
to take action which they might not have taken without the Regulation.153 

15.4.  Damages  

The  ex-Minister  of  Agriculture  and  current  chairman  of  the  Alliance  for  Economic 
Initiative,  Miroslav  Naydenov,  listed  the  main  types  of  damages  and  expenses 
incurred: government losses from taxes and excise duties, financial damages incurred 
by  the  transport  companies  and  also  substantial  humanitarian  problems  (e.g.  people 
trapped  for  days  without  supplies).154  The  damages  for  Bulgarian  agriculture  have 
been  estimated  as more  than  EUR  3.5 million.  In  terms  of  damages  for  tourism, 
there  were  hundreds  of  cancelled  reservations  of  Greek  tourists  in  Bulgarian  winter 
resorts  (e.g.  Bansko  mountain  resort)  up  to  21.02.2016.  Although  the  tourist 
companies  organised  alternatives  for  travelling  (e.g.  buses  from  the  border)155,  50% 
of  reservations  for the  upcoming days were  cancelled.156  It  should also be taken into 
account that the blockade of the Bulgarian-Greek border also hindered the transport of 
mail and packages from Greece.157 

The  Ministry  of  Transport,  Information  and  Communication  has  not  analysed 
transportation damages and is only aware through the press that damages amount to 
BGN  15  million  (EUR  7.69  million).158  The  Bulgarian  Minister  of  Transport  highlighted 
in  the  media  that  previous  blockades  of  the  Bulgarian-Greek  border  costed  around 
the  obstacle  of 
EUR  10  million  each 
January/February 2016 cost even more due its long duration.159  

the  Bulgarian  government,  but 

to 

Additional  estimations  have  been  made  by  the  Union  of  Bulgarian  international 
transportation  companies  and  the  Union  of  International  Transportation  Companies. 
The  damages  are  estimated  at  around  EUR  10  million  and  include  direct  and 
indirect damages. The  direct damages are due to delays and daily allowances for the 

152   Interview with Union of International Transportation Companies, Bulgaria
153   Interview with Greek Ministry of Finance, National Contact Point, conducted 19.07.2017. 
154  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/miroslav-naidenov-ima-mehanizmi-s-koito-da-sprem-

blokadata-po-granitsata-s-gartsiya.html  

155  http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/situatsiyata-na-kulata-izliza-izvan-kontrol-

snimki-i-video.html  

156  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-prizova-shofiorite-da-vdignat-

kontrablokadata.html 

157  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/pratkite-ot-garcija-ne-mogat-da-minat-prez-

blokiranata-granica.html  

158   Interview  with  Bulgarian  Ministry  of  Transport,  Information  and  Communication,  conducted  on 

09.06.2017. 

159  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-blokirat-nezakonno-

granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html 

92 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

drivers.  The  indirect  damages  are  due  to  spoiled  goods,  extra  fuel  (some  standing 
trucks  had  to  run  their  motors  because  of  refrigeration)  and  opportunity  costs.  The 
precise number of trucks was not known but the line was 40 km long and one truck is 
around 22m long, so there were slightly fewer than 2,000 trucks.160 

The  Alliance  of  International  Carriers  estimated  the  damages  at  approximatively 
EUR  12-15  million161.  The  organisation  indicated  that  it  filed  documents  to  the 
European  Commission  to  initiate  an  infringement  procedure  against  Greece.  It  also 
prepared  a  collective  claim162  based  on  accounting  references  for  the  damages 
incurred sent by the carriers.163 The Alliance stated that the collective claim as well as 
the individual claims prepared by the companies could be filed before Bulgarian courts 
in  order  to  obtain  compensation,  according  to  CJEU  case  law.164  According  to  other 
opinions, the Bulgarian carriers could be granted compensation only if they filed claims 
against the Greek State before a Greek court165 or claim compensation from the “force 
majeure” funds of the European Commission.166 

After  a  request  was  submitted  by  a  Bulgarian  MEP,  the  European  Commission 
responded  that,  although  following  the  issue  of  the  blockade  at  the  Bulgarian-Greek 
border closely, it is not competent to grant compensation for the damages incurred.167 

The  Greek  NCP  did  not  have  any  estimations  of  the  damages  incurred  by  transport 
companies  and  could  not  provide  advice  on  which  national  associations  might  have 
estimates.168 

15.5.  Recommendations 

The  analysis  of  the  Ministry  of  Transport,  Information  and  Communication  has 
demonstrated  that  the  aim  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  not  clear  and  that 
there is a lack of ongoing cooperation between countries. Notifications were received, 
but not in time. Damages were considered significant, but were not indemnified in any 
way, as confirmed by the Union of International Transportation Companies. 

The concrete suggestions of the Bulgarian Ministry of Transport are: 

  Give  more  power  to  the  European  Commission  to  make  binding  decisions  and 
guarantee  their  implementation  as  well  as  to  impose  sanctions  on  Member 
States which were in breach of their obligations; 

  Formulate  concrete  legal  obligations  for  Member  States  to  prevent  incidents. 
The precise way to prevent incidents is yet to be analysed given that this might 
be in conflict with the right to strike; 

  Adopt  efficient  sanctions  on  Member  States  which  do  not  comply  with  the 
legally  binding  obligations  of  countries  to  prevent  incidents  (for  example:  if 

160   Interview with Union of International Transportation Companies, Bulgaria 
161  http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-

sadilishta  

162  http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-

sadilishta  

163   http://news.bnt.bg/bg/a/grtskite-fermeri-pribrakha-traktorite-si-ot-gkpp-kulata  
164  http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-

sadilishta  

165  http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/kontrablokada-na-kulata-balgarskite-tiradzhii-

ne-puskat-garci-u-nas.html  

166  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/miroslav-naidenov-ima-mehanizmi-s-koito-da-sprem-

blokadata-po-granitsata-s-gartsiya.html  

167   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-001117&language=EN  
168   Interview with Greek Ministry of Finance, National Contact Point, conducted 19.07.2017.

93 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

Greece  or  any  other  country  fails  to  prevent  the  incidents  on  its  territory,  it 
should be sanctioned); 

  Create  a  compensation  mechanism  funded  by  the  EU  budget  for  private 
companies  which  incurred  damages  due  to  the  obstruction  to  the  free 
movement of goods. 

To conclude, it was found  that the Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 has  been useful and 
appropriate, although its effectiveness could be increased if the above suggestions are 
taken into consideration. In addition, Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 might benefit from 
technology  adaptation,  although  the  interviewee  did  not  completely  appreciate  the 
idea of a pan-European platform.   

The Greek NCP considers that modern communication tools could be used to make the 
Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 more effective. He proposed to use the already existing 
Internal  Market  Information  System,  thinking it  would  be  more  effective  than  setting 
up a new platform. In fact, a new platform would involve new procedures and create 
additional administrative burden.  

Finally, the Greek NCP was also against the setting up of a compensation mechanism 
as  it  would  be  extremely  difficult  to  enforce.  Moreover,  he  did  not  appreciate  the 
suggestion  of  the  Bulgarian  authorities  to  impose  penalties  on  Member  States  which 
do  not  undertake  appropriate  actions  to  prevent  or  solve  disruptions.  The  main 
argument was that many of the disruptions were not under the government’s control 
and that such an approach would also endanger the right to strike.  

15.6.  References  

-  BTV  (2016).  Moskovski:  Greek  farmers  have  illegally  blocked  our  border 
at: 

several 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-grackite-fermeri-
blokirat-nezakonno-granicata-ni-na-njakolko-pati-ot-2007-g-nasam.html  

Available 

2007. 

times 

since 

-  BTV (2016). Hundreds  of  Greek farmers blocked Kulata  - Promahon.  Available 

at: http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/svetut/masovi-protesti.html  

-  BTV (2016). Blockade at the border crossing at Kulata is expected for 48 hours. 
Available  at:  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/protesti-na-gracki-fermeri-
blokiraha-gkpp-kulata-i-ilinden.html  

-  BTV  (2016).  Third  day  of  complete  blockade  of  Kulata.  Available  at: 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/grackite-fermeri-blokiraha-tri-granichni-
punkta.html 

-  BTV 

(2016).  Kilometers 

long 

lines  again  at  Kulata.  Available  at: 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/dvizhenieto-na-kulata-otnovo-e-
blokirano.html   

-  BTV (2016). The checkpoints Kulata and Ilinden are closed for trucks. Available 
at:  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/granichnite-punktove-kulata-i-ilinden-
sa-zatvoreni-za-tirove.html 

-  BTV  (2016).  Four  out  of  six  checkpoints  at  the  Greek  border  are  closed. 
Available  at:  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/4-ot-6-te-ni-
punkta-s-garcija-sa-pod-blokada.html  

-  BTV  (2016).  The  situation  at  Kulata  is  out  of  control.  Available  at: 
http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-novini/situatsiyata-na-kulata-
izliza-izvan-kontrol-snimki-i-video.html  
94 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

-  BTV (2016). Protest and contra-protest blocked completely Kulata - Promahon. 
http://btvnovinite.bg/gallery/bulgaria/regionalni-

Available 
novini/kontrablokada-na-kulata-balgarskite-tiradzhii-ne-puskat-garci-u-
nas.html  

at: 

-  BTV  (2016).  Mitov  on  the  blockade  with  Greece:  A  solution  must  be  found. 
Available  at: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/mitov-za-blokadata-
na-granitsata-s-gartsiya-tryabva-da-se-nameri-reshenie.html  

-  BTV (2016). Borisov requires from Tsipras to implement measures against the 
at: 

blockade 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/borisov-iska-merki-ot-tsipras-za-
blokadata-po-granitsata-ni.html  

Available 

border. 

our 

at 

-  European  Parliament  (2016).  Question  for  written  answer  to  the  Commission. 
Angel  Dzhambazki  (ECR)  (E-001117/2016).  Blockading  of  the  Bulgaria-Greece 
border. 
at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-
2016-001117+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=en  

Available 

-  BTV  (2016).  The  packages  from  Greece  cannot  pass  the  blocked  border. 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/pratkite-ot-

Available 
garcija-ne-mogat-da-minat-prez-blokiranata-granica.html  

at: 

-  BTV (2016). The blockade of the Bulgarian-Greek border is lifted. Available at: 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/blokadata-na-kulata-padna.html  

-  BTV 

(2016).  They 

lifted 

the  blockade  of  Kulata.  Available  at: 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/vdignaha-blokadata-na-gkpp-
kulata.html  

-  BTV  (2016).  The  Greeks  again  blocked  the  border  at  Kulata.  Available  at: 

http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/garcite-pak-blokiraha-granicata-na-
kulata.html 

-  BTV  (2016).  The  blockade  at  Greece  border  continues.  Available  at: 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/prodalzhava-blokadata-po-
granicata-s-garcija.html  

-  BTV (2016). The Greek farmers did not keep their promise for corridor Kulata – 
at: 

Promachon. 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/obshtestvo/grackite-fermeri-ne-spaziha-
obeshtanieto-za-koridor-na-gkpp-kulata-promahon.html  

Available 

-  BNT  (2016).  End  of  blockade  of  the  Bulgarian-Greek  border.  Available  at: 
http://news.bnt.bg/bg/a/grtskite-fermeri-pribrakha-traktorite-si-ot-gkpp-kulata  

-  BTV (2016). Miroslav Naydenov: There are mechanisms to stop the blockade at 
at: 

the 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/miroslav-naidenov-ima-
mehanizmi-s-koito-da-sprem-blokadata-po-granitsata-s-gartsiya.html  

Available 

border. 

Greece 

-  BTV  (2016).  Greek  prosecutor  ordered  that  measures  be  taken  against  the 
farmers’  blockade.  Available  at:  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/svetut/gracki-
prokuror-naredi-da-se-vzemat-merki-sreshtu-fermerskite-blokadi.html  

-  BTV 

(2016). 

contra-blockade  was 
http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/moskovski-prizova-shofiorite-da-
vdignat-kontrablokadata.html  

Available 

lifted. 

The 

at: 

95 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

-  BTV (2016). The Parliament adopted a declaration against the Greek blockade. 
Available  at:  http://btvnovinite.bg/article/bulgaria/politika/parlamentat-skochi-
s-deklaracija-sreshtu-grackata-blokada.html 

-  BNR (2016). The carriers file claims against the Greek farmers in the Bulgarian 
courts.  Available  at:  http://bnr.bg/post/100664286/prevozvachite-vnasat-
iskove-sreshtu-grackite-fermeri-v-balgarski-sadilishta  

-  Ekathimerini  (2016).  Farmers  block  border  in  northern  Greece.  Available  at: 

http://www.ekathimerini.com/214299/article/ekathimerini/news/farmers-
block-border-in-northern-greece  

-  European Parliament (2016). Answer given by Ms Bieńkowska on behalf of the 
at: 

Commission 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-
001117&language=EN  

(E-001117/2016). 

Available 

-  Greek  Reporter  (2017).  Border  Post  at  Evzoni  Blocked  by  Protesting  Farmers. 
at:  http://greece.greekreporter.com/2017/01/31/border-post-at-

Available 
evzoni-blocked-by-protesting-farmers/  

- 

- 

- 

‘Technical 
Interview  with 
Harmonisation  and  Logistics  for  Consumers’  National  Focal  Point  for  Bulgaria. 
Interview conducted on 11.05.2017. 

the  Economy,  Directorate 

the  Ministry  of 

Interview  with  Ministry  of  Transport,  Information  and  Communication  of 
Bulgaria,  Directorate  European  Coordination  and  international  cooperation. 
Interview conducted on 09.06.2017. 

Interview  with  three  representatives  of  the  Ministry  of  Finance  of  Greece, 
conducted on 19.07.2017. 

- 

Interview with Union of International Transportation Companies, Bulgaria. 

-  Press  TV  (2016).  Angry  farmers  block  highway  in  Greece  over  tax  hike. 
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/02/02/448436/Greece-
https://www.thenationalherald.com/148293/protesting-

Available 
Athens-Thessaloniki 
farmers-block-roads-around-greece/ 

at: 

96 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

16.  Annex  7:  Slovakia  Case  study  –  Road  I/11  in  Kysuce 

Region   

16.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem 

The  30  kilometres  long  I/11  road  between  the  towns  Žilina  and  Čadca  in  Slovakia  is 
located in one of the most dynamic regions in terms of development in the EU. The so-
called  Kysuce  Region  used  to  be  the  ‘hunger  valley’  of  Slovakia  after  the  fall  of 
communism, with 24% unemployment in 1993 and low levels of university education 
among  the  population.169  However,  the  region  carried  a  huge  potential  for  investors, 
as  most  of  its  inhabitants  possessed  technical  skills  necessary  for  some  industries. 
Due  to  this  reason  it  was  relatively  easy  for  the  new  Slovak  government  of  1998  to 
attract  foreign  investments  to  the  region.  The  first  car  production-related  factories 
were built in 1999 (INA and Schaeffler – in 2016 employing almost 10 000 people)170, 
followed by KIA in 2010. Additionally, more factories were built in the Czech Republic 
(Hyundai) and Poland (Fiat) close to the borders with Slovakia, creating an industrial 
triangle.  The  unemployment  levels  in  the  region  have  gradually  decreased  to  current 
5%171, increasing the purchasing power parity of its population.  

Nonetheless,  the  economic  boosts  and  developments  were  not  followed  by 
investments  in  infrastructure.  Although  the  cornerstone  for  the  construction  of  a 
motorway was set in 1996 in Kysuce172, its construction has not progressed much 21 
years  later,  as  the  same  government  which  attracted  high  investments  in  the  region 
stopped  its  construction.173  A  combination  of  lower  unemployment  levels  leading  to 
growing  purchasing  power  parity  and  car  ownership  of  the  population,  increased 
imports of goods, continuous investments in the region as well as increased exports of 
the  nearby  factories  increased  the  use  of  the  region’s  infrastructure.  Moreover,  the 
road  I/11  leading  to  two  borders  connects  to  two  motorways  from  both  ends: 
motorway  coming  from  Poland,  connecting  to  the  road  I/11  in  Čadca,  leading  all  the 
way  to  the  Baltic  Sea  and  the  motorway  connecting  to  the  road  in  Žilina,  leading  all 
the  way  to  the  Adriatic  Sea  in  Italy.  Hence  an  approximately  1430-kilometre-long 
combination of motorways and fast roads stretching all the way from Gdansk in Poland 
to  Trieste  in  Italy  is  interrupted  by  a  30-kilometre-long  segment  of  an  ordinary  road 
passing  through  towns  and  villages.  This  creates  constant  traffic  jams,  delays  and 
accidents.174  

To highlight this problem, local authorities and the Association of Businesses in Kysuce 
launched  a  ‘D3forKysuce’  campaign  and  petition.  This  initiative  aims  to  inform  the 
wider  public  about  the  goings-on  in  the  region  and  to  pressure  the  government  of 
Slovakia to build the promised motorway. The figures below present the maps used by 
the  campaign  illustrating  the  30km  long  segment  of  the  1430km  route  between 
Gdansk and Trieste. Figure 12 shows the economic activity on the road, which is used 
by nearby factories (KIA in Slovakia, Hyundai in the Czech Republic and Fiat in Poland) 

169   Interview  with  the  chairman  of  the  towns  and  villages  in  the  Kysuce  Region  and  the  member  of 

D3preKysuce conducted on 20.11.2017. 

170  https://www.etrend.sk/trend-archiv/rok-2016/cislo-42/schaeffler-slovensko-slovensko-je-spravnym-

miestom-na-investicie.html 

171   Interview with the chairman of the Association of Kysuce Businesses and the member of D3preKysuce, 

conducted on 20.11.2017. 

172   Interview  with  the  chairman  of  the  towns  and  villages  in  the  Kysuce  Region  and  the  member  of 

D3preKysuce conducted on 20.11.2017. 

173   According  to  the  chairman  of  the  Association  of  Kysuce  Businesses  and  the  member  of  D3preKysuce, 
construction  of  the  motorway  in  this  segment  is  very  costly  –  the  region  is  very  hilly  and  the 
construction would require a lot of tunnels  – the most costly part of motorways. This is not profitable 
for politicians as for the price of 30 km motorway it is possible to build hundred kilometres elsewhere.  

174   Based on interviews 

97 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

to  transport  goods.  Particularly  active  is  the  route  between  Hyundai  and  KIA.  At  full 
production,  there  are  around  500  trucks  operating  on  the  road  between  the  two 
companies daily.175     

Figure  11:  ‘Chýba  nám  už  len  kúsok’  meaning  ‘We  are  missing  only  a  little 
piece’  is  a  map  used  by  local  authorities  showing  the  30km  long  passage  of 
I/11 connected to motorways. 

Source: D3preKysuce 

Figure  12:  ‘Chýba  nám  už  len  kúsok’  the  map  used  by  the  ‘D3preKysuce’ 
construction 
campaign  organising  protests  against 
postponement. The map also indicates economic activities in the region.  

the  motorway 

Source: D3preKysuce 

175   https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/4292827/kysuce-zahltia-stovky-kamionov.html 

98 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

According to the local authorities, there are between 28,000 – 30,000 vehicles passing 
the  road  daily,  making  it  the  busiest  road  in  Slovakia.176  The  traffic  consists  of 
regional transit (local traffic), medium transit (transit between Kysuce and nearby 
regions also in the Czech Republic and Poland) and long transit (vehicles transporting 
goods  on  the  Gdansk-Trieste  route).177  The  share  of  trucks  to  cars  and  mid-sized 
vehicles including regional transport are respectively 42% and 58%178, which presents 
an additional burden on the infrastructure as the road was not  constructed to handle 
such a load and hence often gets damaged. Thus, taking into consideration all of the 
above-mentioned  circumstances,  very  little  is  needed  for  any  disruptions  to 
happen, preventing the vehicles from accessing the two borders. There are two 
main types of disruptions preventing the freedom of movement of goods on I/11 that 
fall within the scope of this study: 

  demonstrations; 
  severe weather conditions. 

Demonstrations occurring on this road are organised by local authorities and business 
associations, intending to highlight the problem and the need to finish the construction 
of  the  motorway.  The  three  most  recent  ones  were  organised  by  the  D3preKysuce 
campaign on the following dates: 

  16 February 2017, lasting 15 minutes causing two hours of disruptions179; 
  14 March 2017, lasting 30 minutes, causing two hours of disruptions180; 
  4 April 2017, lasting 30 minutes, causing two hours of disruptions.181 

Parties  involved  in  these  demonstrations  are  local  authorities,  citizens  and  the  road 
users. However, it is mostly trucks that must wait the longest during the disruptions. 
The  demonstrators  target  neither  any  specific  vehicle  type  nor  the  goods  that  are 
being  transported.  In  all  cases  there  were  no  physical  damages  to  the  road  users 
reported.182 Similar demonstrations also occurred in the past,  for example in October 
2010 when the inhabitants blocked the road for half an hour causing a two-hour-long 
halt of traffic.183 

176   Based on interviews 

177 Interview with member of the regional Council and the member of D3preKysuce, conducted on the 
20.11.2017. 

178   Interview  with  the  chairman  of  the  towns  and  villages  in  the  Kysuce  Region  and  the  member  of 

D3preKysuce conducted on 20.11.2017. 

179   https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/20461172/blokada-sposobila-dopravny-kolaps-foto.html  
180   https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/20483293/kysucania-opat-protestom-zablokovali-dopravu.html 
181  https://www.zilinak.sk/prispevky/6168/aktualne-v-budatinskej-lehote-zacala-tretia-blokada-cesty-

medzi-zilinou-a-cadcou 

182   Based on interviews 
183  https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/168230-na-kysuciach-ludia-blokovali-cestu-domahali-sa-

vystavby-dialnice/ 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

Figure  13:  Inhabitants  of  Kysuce  Region  attending  one  of  the  2017 
demonstrations, repeatedly crossing the road for half an hour to prevent any 
vehicles from passing 

Source: Pravda, 2017 

According  to  the  local  authorities,  severe  weather  conditions  that  disrupt  traffic  and 
cause  trucks  to  be  trapped  for  up  to  one  day  happen  at  least  one  or  two  times  per 
year. Although there is no list or record of such incidents184, desk research was carried 
out  and  three  disruptions  related  to  severe  weather  conditions  in  the  region  were 
found: 

 

 

 

In  February  2012  a  snow  storm  caused  a  halt  in  traffic  and  trucks  were 
blocked185; 
In  March  2013  trucks  were  unable  to  cross  the  border  to  the  Czech  Republic 
due to snow storms186; 
In January 2015 the closure of the border to Czech Republic in Svrcinovec was 
observed due to snow storms.187 

Likewise,  the  parties  involved  in  or  affected  by  severe  weather  conditions  are  mostly 
truckers  as  well  as  other  road  users.  However,  as  police  and  the  road  administration 
have  to  deal  with  the  local  situation,  they  usually  make  the  way  available  to  private 
vehicles  and  ambulances  first,  before  letting  the  trucks  pass.  This  causes  higher 
damages to companies transporting goods.188  

Other  incidents  that  also  present  obstacles  to  the  freedom  of  movement  of  goods  in 
the  region  and  which  are  not  included  within  the  scope  of  the  study  are  accidents 
(causing  up  to  5-hour  delays),  spontaneous  traffic  jams  occurring  during  peak  hours 
(20-minute  delays)  and  normal  road  signals  such  as  traffic  lights  (30-minute  delays) 
and road repairs (delays depend on the nature of the repair).189 

184   Based on interviews 
185  https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/173360-kysuce-zavalil-sneh-kamionistom-dochadzali-v-

kolonach-zasoby/ 

186   https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/6734643/cez-svrcinovec-uz-premavaju-kamiony-v-obidvoch-smeroch.html 
187   http://nasenovinky.sk/article/24307/zacina-boj-so-snehom-aka-je-aktualna-situacia 
188   Based on interviews 
189   Based on interviews 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

Figure 14: Trucks affected by the February 2012 severe weather conditions in 
Kysuce  

Source: Pravda, 2012 

Figure  15:  Trucks  affected  by  the  March  2013  severe  weather  conditions  in 
Kysuce 

Source: Pravda, 2013 

According  to  the  interviewees,  the  situation  is  bound  to  worsen  in  the  coming 
years if no measures are taken by the government. In 2010 there were already 
20,000  vehicles  using  the  road  daily  and  this  number  has  increased  by  one-third  in 
seven  years.  However,  the  motorway  construction  is  not  expected  to  improve  the 
situation – there are no additional roads to divert the traffic to during construction and 

101 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

the authorities predict more traffic jams, accidents and other major disruptions in the 
future, particularly when the construction of the motorway commences.190   

16.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents.  

According to the list of the cases notified under Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 that was 
provided  by  the  Commission,  Slovakia  has  reported  only  one  disruption  since 
2006.  This  disruption  concerned  numerous  road  obstacles  taking  place  in  2009.  As 
confirmed by the regional authorities of Kysuce, these disruptions did not concern the 
situation on the road I/11.191 The Regulation has therefore not played the role of 
an early warning mechanism in any of the disruptions in this particular case, 
despite  the  fact  that  two  of  the  mentioned  demonstrations  were  communicated  in 
advance to the police.192 Moreover, local authorities had no previous knowledge of this 
Regulation and neither did they know how to report an obstacle or disruption.193  

The authorities who deal with the disruptions are usually either the local police or the 
Slovak  Road  Administration,  depending  on  the  nature  of  incidents.  So  far,  the 
government  has  not  been  notified  about  any  of  the  disruptions.  Considering  the 
geographical nature of the region (valley surrounded by hills), there are no alternative 
routes  available.  Although  there  is  an  additional  road  from  Čadca  to  Bytča,  a  town 
near Žilina, this route takes twice as much time and the drivers still prefer to use the 
I/11  road.  In  case  of  severe  weather  conditions,  which  are  often  unpredictable,  the 
vehicles get stuck on the road, being unable to move any further, and cannot use any 
alternative route.194  

As stated by the National Contact Point, these disruptions were not communicated by 
the  involved  actors  or  the  Slovak  Road  Administration,  otherwise  the  Early  Warning 
Mechanism  would  have  been  used.  This  should  be  done  first  by  the  local  authorities, 
which  should  report  the  situation  to  the  National  Contact  Point  (NCP)  by  filling  out  a 
short questionnaire and sending any relevant documents confirming the situation. The 
NCP then distributes this information to the Commission and other relevant entities at 
the  national  and  regional  levels.  The  NCP  also  communicates  these  incidents  to  the 
Slovak Radio.195 

Media  coverage  of  the  disruptions  is  relatively  high  in  local  and  national 
press,  TV  stations  and  radio  as  revealed  by  the  desk  research.  In  case  of  the 
demonstrations that were communicated beforehand, these were also covered in press 
one  or  two  days  before  they  took  place.  According  to  the  organisers  of  the 
demonstrations,  in  total  51  minutes  of  prime-time  broadcasting  was  devoted  to  the 
strikes  before,  during  and  after  their  occurrence.  The  mediatisation  of  the  incidents 
helps the public and the drivers to be informed about the happenings on the road, and 
as stated by the local authorities, so far it is the only means by which these incidents 
are being communicated.196  

190   Based on interviews 
191   Based on interviews 
192   Interview with the chairman of the Association of Kysuce Businesses and the member of D3preKysuce, 

conducted on 20.11.2017. 

193   Based on interviews 
194   Based on interviews 
195   Interview with the Slovak National Contact Point 
196   Based on interviews 

102 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

16.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

The  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  did  not  resolve  or  prevent  obstacles  to  the 
free  movement  of  goods  in  Slovakia.197  In  general  there  is  a  very  little  or  no 
knowledge about this Regulation in Slovakia as shown in previous interviews. 

However,  following  the  mediatisation  of  the  strikes,  a  higher  number  of  drivers  has 
become  aware  of  the  critical  situation  and  some  companies  try  today  to  avoid  the 
critical  hours  (from  6am-8am,  2pm  and  6pm-8pm)  by  planning  the  timing  of  their 
transit  differently.198  Other  measures  taken  by  the  authorities  during  disruptions 
involve  only  waiting  for  the  situation  to  pass,  as  there  are  no  options  of  alternative 
routes. 

In comparison with the pre-accession period of Slovakia to the EU (before 2004), the 
situation  has  gotten  worse  even  though  opening  the  borders  has  resolved  the  long 
waiting hours to get to the Czech Republic and Poland. Yet, the authorities claim that 
EU  accession  is  not  to  be  blamed  for  this  situation,  but  it  is  the  failure  of  the 
government  to  handle  the  situation  and to  predict  that  economic  growth  would  bring 
more transit into the region.199 

16.4.  Damages 

No direct costs caused by these incidents have been calculated. The director of 
the Association of Kysuce Businesses explained that even if calculated, there is no one 
liable for these damages and the companies have no one from which to claim the cost 
of the damages. Moreover, it is practically impossible to separate the costs incurred by 
individual incidents  from  the  costs  incurred  by  the  general  situation since  disruptions 
tend to happen on a daily basis. Since 2010, the situation has worsened so much so 
that, what was back then considered a major disruption during the protest in October 
2010, is now a daily situation in the region.200   

The only costs that were found for the purposes of this case study were the ones that 
the  companies  in  the  region  spend  to  adapt  to  the  situation,  such  as  changing  the 
schedule, so people do not have to commute to work during the peak hours. As stated 
by  Janoska,  a  company  with  a  EUR  5  million  turnover,  it  would  have  to  spend  EUR 
30,000  per  year  extra  on  such  administrative  tasks  engendered  by  the  situation.201 
Nonetheless,  these  costs  are  not  caused  by  individual  incidents  and  therefore  do  not 
fall within the scope of this study.  

16.5.  Recommendations 

Town mayors in Kysuce Region and the Association of Businesses in Kysuce suggested 
several recommendations to enhance the usefulness of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98: 

 
 

Improve the awareness about the existence and purpose of the Regulation; 
Impose sanctions for repeated unresolved disruptions; 

197   All interviewees 
198   Based on interviews 
199   Interview  with  the  chairman  of  the  towns  and  villages  in  the  Kysuce  Region  and  the  member  of 

D3preKysuce conducted on 20.11.2017. 

200   Based on interviews 
201   Interview  with the chairman of the Association of Kysuce Businesses and the member of D3preKysuce, 

conducted on 20.11.2017. 

103 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

 

Improve  the  awareness  about  the  Early  Warning  Mechanism  and  inform  local 
authorities about its functioning (whom to report the incidents to); 
  Make sure that the national and local authorities follow the Regulation; 
 

Improve the definition of obstacles as it is not clear which obstacles actually fall 
within the scope of the Regulation202; 

  Make the responsible parties liable for the damages; 
  Follow up on the situation in case of repeated disruptions. 

16.6.  References  

-  Frantisek  Ujhazi  (2017)  Blokáda  spôsobila  dopravný  kolaps.  Available  at: 
https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/20461172/blokada-sposobila-dopravny-kolaps-
foto.html  

-  Frantisek  Ujhazi  (2017)  Kysučania  opäť  protestom  zablokovali  dopravu. 
Available at: https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/20483293/kysucania-opat-protestom-
zablokovali-dopravu.html 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Interview  with  the    chairman  of  the  towns  and  villages  in  the  Kysuce  Region 
and the member of D3preKysuce. Interview conducted on the 20.11.2017. 

Interview  with  the    chairman  of  the  Association  of  Kysuce  Businesses  and  the 
member of D3preKysuce. Interview conducted on the 20.11.2017. 

Interview  with  member  of  the  regional  Council  and  the  member  of 
D3preKysuce. Interview conducted on the 20.11.2017. 

Interview  with  a  representative  for  KIA  Slovakia.  Interview  conducted  on 
31.10.2017 

Interview with the National Contact Point, conducted on 04.12.2017 

Iveta  Hazikova  (2013)  Cez  Svrčinovec  už  premávajú  kamióny  v  obidvoch 
smeroch. Available at: https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/6734643/cez-svrcinovec-uz-
premavaju-kamiony-v-obidvoch-smeroch.html 

-  Lukas  Kvasnak  (2016)  Schaeffler:  Slovensko  je  spravnym  miestom  na 
investicie.  Available  at:  https://www.etrend.sk/trend-archiv/rok-2016/cislo-
42/schaeffler-slovensko-slovensko-je-spravnym-miestom-na-investicie.html 

-  Michal  Trsko  (2009)  Kysuce  zahltia  stovky  kamiónov  Available  at: 
https://mykysuce.sme.sk/c/4292827/kysuce-zahltia-stovky-kamionov.html 

-  Nase novinky (2015) KALAMITA NA SLOVENSKU: V Trenčíne požiadali o pomoc 
vojakov!  Available  at:  http://nasenovinky.sk/article/24307/zacina-boj-so-
snehom-aka-je-aktualna-situacia  

-  Pravda (2012) Kysuce zavalil sneh, kamiónistom dochádzali v kolónach zásoby. 
Available  at:  https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/173360-kysuce-zavalil-
sneh-kamionistom-dochadzali-v-kolonach-zasoby/ 

202   For  instance,  the  Slovak  National  Contact  Point  found out only  quite  recently  that  demonstrations  are 

also to be reported via the Early Warning Mechanism 

104 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

-  Renata  Jaloviarova  (2010)  Na  Kysuciach  ľudia  blokovali  cestu,  domáhali  sa 
at: 

výstavby 
https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/168230-na-kysuciach-ludia-blokovali-
cestu-domahali-sa-vystavby-dialnice/ 

Available 

diaľnice. 

-  Zilinak (2017) V Budatínskej Lehote začala tretia blokáda cesty medzi Žilinou a 
Čadcou.  Available  at:  https://www.zilinak.sk/prispevky/6168/aktualne-v-
budatinskej-lehote-zacala-tretia-blokada-cesty-medzi-zilinou-a-cadcou 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

17. Annex  8:  Austria  Case  study  –  Citizens’  protests  against 

transit traffic over the Brenner Pass   

17.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem 

The  Brenner  Pass  is  a mountain  pass  on  the border  between  the  Austrian  Land  Tyrol 
and  the  Italian  autonomous  province  Bolzano  –  South  Tyrol.  At  a  comparatively  low 
elevation of 1,370 m, the Brenner Pass has been one of the major trans-Alpine routes 
in Europe since antiquity. Today 40% of the total trans-Alpine transport volume 
goes over the Brenner.203  

Infrastructure  on  the  pass  consists  of  the  Brenner  Railway  for  rail  transport,  and  the 
Brenner State Road and the Brenner Motorway for  road transport. While  the Brenner 
State  Road  is  prohibited  for  trucks  over  3.5  tons204,  the  Brenner  Railway  has  only  a 
limited  capacity  due  to  its  tight  bends  and  high  gradients.  A  railway  tunnel,  the 
Brenner Base Tunnel, is currently under construction, but it will not open before 2026. 
Thus,  the  Brenner  Motorway  copes  with  over  two-thirds  of  the  freight 
transport  volume  passing  the  Brenner205,  making  it  by  far  the  most  important 
route in the region.  

The Brenner Motorway is in total 349 km long and connects Innsbruck in Austria  with 
Modena in Italy. The section on the Austrian side is the Brenner Autobahn (A13), while 
the section on the Italian side is the Autostrada del Brennero (A22). Near  Innsbruck, 
the  Brenner  Autobahn  connects  to  the  Inntal  Autobahn  (A12),  which  leads  to  the 
German border, and is continued on the German side by the Bundesautobahn A93 up 
to  Rosenheim  in  Southern  Bavaria.  The  Brenner  Motorway  forms  the  trans-Alpine 
section  of  the  European  route  E45,  which  follows  the  Scandinavian-Mediterranean 
corridor set out in the context of the TEN-T networks. 

Figure 16: Location of the Brenner Motorway on the map   

Source : https://www.scribblemaps.com/create 

203   https://www.bbt-se.com/fileadmin/broschueren/2015/en/files/assets/basic-html/page-5.html, p. 5. 
204   https://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/buergerservice/bote/downloads/bote092000.pdf, p. 122. 
205   https://www.bbt-se.com/fileadmin/broschueren/2015/en/files/assets/basic-html/page-5.html, p. 5. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

The  Brenner  Motorway  is  taken  by  between  5,800206  and  6,500207  trucks  a  day,  or 
8,900  heavy  vehicles  in  total  (including  light  duty  vehicles  and  coaches).208  Civil 
resistance  against  the  high  volume  of  traffic  originated  in  the  1980s.  One  of  the 
movement’s  most  prominent  stakeholders  is  the  Transitforum  Austria-Tirol, 
founded  in  1994  just  shortly  after  Austria  joined  the  European  Union.209  Since  its 
inception, the Transitforum is led by local activist and politician Fritz Gurgiser who has 
been  involved  in  the  fight  against  Brenner  transit  since  1987.210  The  Transitforum  is 
organised  in  the  form  of  an  association  and  is  open  to  private  individuals  as  well  as 
other associations and local authorities. In addition, they cooperate with other civil or 
environmental associations in Austria and the neighbouring countries (e.g. the Alpine 
associations  from  Tyrol,  South  Tyrol  and  Bavaria),  with  doctors’  organisations211,  or 
anti-transit initiatives in other regions of Austria.212 

Their  protest  is  based  on  the  claim  that  the  vehicles’  exhaust  gas  and  noise 
emissions  pollute  the  environment  and  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
population’s  health,  especially  with  regard  to  particulate  pollution  and  respiratory 
disorders  and  diseases.213  According  to  the  Transitforum,  the  legal limits  for  nitrogen 
dioxides along the Brenner Motorway are exceeded by between 70% and 120%.214 

The Transitforum’s principal demand is to limit the number of trucks that cross 
the  Brenner  every  year  to  1,000,000  (i.e.  2,800  a  day),  which  is  about  50%  of  the 
current  traffic  volume.215  In  addition,  they  criticise  the  lack  of  cross-border 
cooperation.  For  instance,  trucks  are  prohibited  on  motorways  in  Austria  during  the 
night, which is not the case on the Italian section of the Brenner Motorway. Road tolls 
are  also  much  lower  on  the  Italian  side.  That  way,  according  to  the  Transitforum, 
attempts to reduce the transit that are implemented in Tyrol are often thwarted on the 
other side of the border.216    

The  sectoral  ban  of  trucks  transporting  non-perishable  goods  is  another  long-time 
demand of the Transitforum.217 This prohibits road transport of goods like waste, wood 
or metal. Austria has tried twice to implement a sectoral ban of this type (in 2003 and 
2007), but each time the respective laws have been overruled by the Court of Justice 
of  the  European  Union.  A  third  attempt  is  in  force  since  December  2016.218  The 
Transitforum criticises the Austrian government’s inability to adopt a sectoral ban that 
complies with European law.  

Other  demands  of  the  Transitforum  include  the  increase  of  current  road  tolls,  the 
introduction  of  stricter  speed  limits  (not  only  for  trucks,  but  also  for  passenger 
cars)219, and generally tighter controls of heavy vehicles. 

206   http://www.tt.com/politik/landespolitik/12473322-91/sektorales-fahrverbot-zeigt-am-brenner-keine-

wirkung.csp. 

207   https://www.wko.at/branchen/transport-verkehr/die-oesterreichische-verkehrswirtschaft-2017.pdf, 

p. 58. 

208   http://www.imonitraf.org/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=nb41gbP9A0o=, p. 18. 
209  https://books.google.be/books?id=RPTcDSMt8iIC&pg=PA351&dq=fritz+gurgiser&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUK 

EwiO-93p2bvXAhVRpqQKHdjTAecQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=fritz%20gurgiser&f=false, p. 351. 

210   Ibid. 
211   http://vero-online.info/news.php?m=single&id=110. 
212   https://www.go-lienz-osttirol.net/e66/buergerversammlung-s7-2006.htm. 
213   http://vero-online.info/news.php?m=single&id=110. 
214   http://tirv1.orf.at/stories/111572. 
215   http://vero-online.info/news.php?m=single&id=110. 
216   http://tirv1.orf.at/stories/111572. 
217   Ibid.  
218   https://www.transport-online.de/Transport-News/International/15864/Oesterreich-Sektorales-Lkw-

Fahrverbot-zum-Dritten.

219   http://www.forum-bruneck.com/?p=10372.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
  
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

As a principal form of protest, the Transitforum has regularly organised so-called 
citizens’  meetings,  either  on  the  Brenner  Autobahn  (A13)  or  the  Inntal  Autobahn 
(A12).  These  meetings  have  typically  lasted  between  12  and  24  hours  during 
which  all  lanes  of  the  motorway  were  completely  blocked  by  between  500  and 
1,500  participants.220  All  the  citizens’  meetings  were  registered  demonstrations  that 
had  been  authorised  by  the  local  authorities  in  advance.  Since  the  Transitforum  was 
established, in total the following nine citizens’ meetings have taken place: 

  12/06/1998: Brenner Autobahn (A13) near Schönberg; 
  23/03/2000: Brenner Autobahn (A13); 
  23/06/2000: Brenner Autobahn (A13); 
  25/10/2002: Inntal Autobahn (A12) near Vomp; 
  05/04/2004: Inntal Autobahn (A12) near Wiesing; 
  07/04/2004: Inntal Autobahn (A12) near Vomperbach; 
  27/05/2005: Inntal Autobahn (A12) near Vomp; 
  26/05/2006: Brenner Autobahn (A13); 
  28/09/2012: Inntal Autobahn (A12) near Vomp. 

Figure  17:  Citizens'  meeting  on  28/09/2012,  Inntal  Autobahn  (A12)  near 
Vomp  

Source : https://schuetzen.com/2012/09/28/buergerversammlung-des-transitforums-tirol/ 

Following  the  first  citizens’  meeting  and  consequent  blockade  in  1998,  a  German 
transport  company  brought  an  action  against  the  Republic  of  Austria.  The  company 
claimed  that  the  citizens’  meeting  had  been  an  unlawful  obstacle  to  the  free 
movement  of  goods  that  would have  required  the  Austrian  authorities  to  prohibit  the 
meeting. After being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a  preliminary  ruling,  the  Court  however  ruled  against  the  plaintiff’s  claim,  stating 
that in the case in question the fundamental rights of the organisers, notably the 

220   http://www.tt.com/home/5479681-91/protest-gegen-dicke-luft-transitgegner-blockierten-stundenlang-

die-a12.csp.  

108 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

freedom  of  speech  and  the  freedom  of  assembly,  outbalanced  the  fundamental 
freedom of movement of goods.221 

The  incidents  have  been  widely  covered  by  the  media.  As  the  Brenner  Autobahn 
(A13)  and  Inntal  Autobahn  (A12)  form  the  most  important  north-south  axis in  Tyrol, 
the  target  group  of  people  interested  in  learning  about  the  motorway  blockades  is 
potentially large. Moreover, as people travelling from Germany  or  Italy to  or through 
Austria  are  also  affected,  media  from  the  neighbouring  regions  have  also 
reported  on  the  incidents.  In  general,  the  focus  of  the  media  coverage  lies  on 
informing  about  the  citizens’  meeting  and  its  impact  on  traffic.  Most  articles  present 
the Transitsforum’s motivation, sometimes including interviews with the organisation’s 
leader  Fritz  Gurgiser.  In  addition,  opinions  of  other  stakeholders  like  the  Land  Tyrol, 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  environmental  organisations  or  authorities  from  the 
neighbouring regions can occasionally be found. The 2012 citizens’ meeting was even 
covered by a regional newspaper in a live update.222 

17.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents  

The  incidents  described  in  this  case  study  were  registered  demonstrations  that 
had  been  authorised  by  the  local  authorities  and  communicated  to  the  media  and 
other  stakeholders’  weeks  in  advance.  The  Federal  Ministry  of  Science,  Research  and 
the Economy, which is the National Contact Point for Austria, does not monitor the 
traffic  itself.  It  therefore  depends  entirely  on  the  authorities  on-site  to  receive 
information about possible obstacles to the free movement of goods.223 As soon as a 
citizens’  meeting  has  been  authorised,  the  Land  Tyrol  informs  the  National  Contact 
Point  about  the  expected  obstruction  on  their  territory.  The  National  Contact  Point 
translates the information and sends it to the European Commission in the framework 
of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98.  The  Commission  then  transmits  the  information  to 
the  other  Member  States.  There  is  no  direct  communication  between  the 
National Contact Points of the different Member States.224 

The  National  Contact  Point  does  not  coordinate  the  management  of  the  incidents, 
which is the responsibility of the local and regional authorities. Thus, the majority of 
communication  takes  places  on  the  local  and  regional  levels,  with  many 
stakeholders  involved  in  the  flow  of  information.  The  police  are  coordinated  on  the 
regional  level  to  ensure  a  smooth  operation  on  the  day  of  the  blockade.  The 
neighbouring regional authorities in Italy and Germany are informed about the 
expected  obstacles.  This  communication  does  not  follow  an  official  procedure,  but  is 
rather  organised  through 
industry 
associations  are  informed  through  the  Tyrol  Chamber  of  Commerce,  while  the  media 
are  informed  through  the  press  department  of  the  Land  Tyrol.  All  these 
communication processes run in parallel to the procedure of  Regulation (EC) 
No. 2679/98.225 

informal  channels.  In  addition,  transport 

The general public is informed about the incidents in advance through many different 
channels.  First  of  all,  media  reports  on  the  expected  blockades  are  accessible  to 
anyone.  Logistics  companies  and  other  economic  actors  are  notified  by  transport 
industry  associations.  Private  individuals  who  are  members  of  an  automobile  club 
receive  announcements  from  these  organisations.  Lastly,  the  national  motorway 

221   Case C-112/00. Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003. Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale 

Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich.  

222   http://www.tt.com/home/5479681-91/protest-gegen-dicke-luft-transitgegner-blockierten-stundenlang-

die-a12.csp.  

223   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 05.05.2017. 
224   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 09.11.2017. 
225   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 09.11.2017.

109 

 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

operator  ASFINAG  announces  any  blockades  on  motorways  on  their  website  and  in 
their live traffic information app, suggesting alternative routes.226 

17.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

As the Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed227, the citizens’ meetings 
were an exercise of the organisers’ fundamental rights, meaning that even if the local 
authorities had wanted to prohibit the meetings there would have been little room for 
manoeuvre.  Thus,  the  resulting  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods  could 
not  actually  be  prevented  nor  resolved.  Instead,  the  measures  taken  by  the 
stakeholders involved focus on managing the expected blockade as well as possible by 
informing the public and providing alternative routes. 

The  local  authorities  worked  closely  together  with  the  motorway  operator 
ASFINAG  to  secure  the  motorway  on  the  site  where  the  citizens’  meetings  were 
taking place. An important measure was  organising  parking  spots  for  trucks that 
waited  until  the  end  of  the  blockade,  and  rerouting  traffic  of  passenger  cars  and 
other  small  vehicles  that  are  allowed  to  take  state  roads  and  local  roads.  During  the 
2012  incident,  the  local  authorities  deployed  about  100  police  officers,  half  of  whom 
were  mobilised  to  organise  the  parking  of  trucks  and  the  other  half  to  direct  traffic 
along  the  alternative  routes.228  The  national  motorway  operator  ASFINAG  provided 
about  20  additional  motorway  maintenance  staff  members  as  well  as  equipment  to 
secure the site.229  

While  passenger  cars  can  take  the  local  alternative  routes  (even  if  they  usually  face 
traffic jams), trucks that cannot or do not want to  wait until the end of the blockade 
can only take other motorways. The alternative routes suggested by the ASFINAG 
were the Tauern Autobahn (A10) or the Pyhrn Autobahn (A9) in central Austria. These 
alternative  routes  imply  a  long  detour  for  vehicles.  For  instance,  while  the  distance 
between  Munich  and  Verona  is  430 km  when  taking  the  Brenner  Motorway,  it  is 
660 km  when  taking  the  Tauern  Autobahn  (A10).  Nevertheless,  it  appears  that  most 
logistics companies preferred to take the detour over having their vehicles wait for 12 
to 24 hours.230    

In addition to taking alternative roads, vehicles also had the possibility to make use of 
the  so-called  rolling  road,  i.e.  transporting  trucks  and/or  passenger  cars  via 
railway. As this solution requires further organisation by the logistics companies, it is 
crucial that the motorway blockades are communicated enough in advance to provide 
sufficient  preparation  time.  During  the  incidents  in  question,  additional  railway 
transport  was  usually  arranged  in  Tyrol  to  compensate  part  of  the  Brenner  transit 
blocked on the motorway.231 

Due  to  the  particular  circumstances  of  the  blockades  being  caused  by  authorised 
demonstrations,  the  added  value  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  in  resolving 
the  incidents  or  reducing  their  duration  was limited.  Triggering the  information 
mechanism nevertheless contributed to identifying the incidents  as major disruptions, 

226   https://www.asfinag.at/.  
227   Case C-112/00. Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003. Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale 

Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich.  

228   http://www.tt.com/home/5479681-91/protest-gegen-dicke-luft-transitgegner-blockierten-stundenlang-

die-a12.csp. 

229   https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20120926_OTS0126/asfinag-sperre-der-a-12-wegen-

buergerversammlung-grossraeumiges-ausweichen-fuer-lkw-verkehr-empfohlen.  

230   http://www.tt.com/home/5479681-91/protest-gegen-dicke-luft-transitgegner-blockierten-stundenlang-

die-a12.csp. 

231   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 09.11.2017.  

110 

 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

thus  raising  awareness  among  the  stakeholders  involved  which  were  able  to  manage 
the  incidents  well,  in  order  to  allow  economic  actors  to  operate  their  businesses  in  a 
manner as undisturbed as possible, was of high priority.232 

17.4.  Damages 

Logistics  companies  transporting  goods  over  the  Brenner  are  affected  the  most  by 
blockades  of  the  motorway.  In  addition,  the  national  motorway  operator  ASFINAG 
cannot  generate  revenues  from  road  tolls  while  the  road  is  blocked.  Neither  the 
National  Contact  Point  nor  the  regional  authorities  have  however  collected 
any  data  on  the  damages  caused  by  the  blockades  of  the  Brenner  Pass.  Therefore, 
the costs and damages can only be estimated. 

An indication of the  damages suffered by  logistics companies transporting goods 
over  the  Brenner  can  be  drawn  from  the  case  that  was  brought  before  the  Court  of 
Justice  of  the  European  Union  against  the  first  citizens’  meeting  of  1998.233  The 
plaintiff,  a  company  from  Germany  specialised  in  trans-Alpine  transport,  claimed  a 
total of 140,000 Austrian schillings in damages for the standing time of six trucks, the 
fixed costs for the drivers, compensations for late deliveries, and lost profits. Projected 
using the total number of 6,500  trucks crossing the Brenner every day, these figures 
sum up to EUR 15.2 million234 (adjusted for inflation235) of total damages suffered by 
logistics companies during a 24-hour blockade. 

With  regard  to  road  toll,  the  ASFINAG  generated  EUR  97.8  million  from  truck  tolls 
and  EUR  57.6  million  from  passenger  car  tolls  on  the  Brenner  Autobahn  (A13)  in 
2016.236  A  24-hour  blockade  thus  corresponds  to  lost  revenues  of  EUR  426,000. 
However,  as  a  blockage  of  the  Brenner  Autobahn  (A13)  implies  that  the  Inntal 
Autobahn  (A12)  cannot  be  used  for  transit  traffic  either,  the  amount  would  be  even 
higher  when  taking  into  account  the  lost  revenues  from  tolls  on  the  Inntal  Autobahn 
(A12).  

17.5.  Recommendations 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  National  Contact  Point,  the  communication  mechanism 
established in Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is generally an adequate approach. 
As the incidents in question were authorised demonstrations, the Regulation could not 
provide  any  added  value  in  terms  of  preventing  the  obstacles  or  reducing  their 
duration.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  helpful  tool  for  pointing  out  the  importance  of 
guaranteeing the free movement of goods.237  

The  National  Contact  Point  suggested  several  recommendations  to  enhance  the 
usefulness of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. 

  To  make  use  of  the  latest  communication  technologies,  the  current  e-mail-
based  system  should  be  replaced  by  a  more  elaborate  electronic  system  that 
would  be  able  to  provide  real-time  information  to  the  stakeholders 
concerned.  

232   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 05.05.2017. 
233   Case C-112/00. Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003. Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale 

Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich.  

234   https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/index.en.html.  
235   https://www.statbureau.org/en/eurozone/inflation-calculators?dateBack=1998-6-1&dateTo=2017-9-

1&amount=11021833.33.  

236   https://www.wko.at/branchen/transport-verkehr/die-oesterreichische-verkehrswirtschaft-2017.pdf, 

p. 58. 

237   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 09.11.2017.

111 

 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

  The  flow  of  communication  in  the  current  system  is  rather  slow,  as 
everything  goes  through  the  National  Contact  Points  and  the  European 
Commission  first.  Establishing  direct  contacts  between  the  National  Contact 
Points  would  be  a  good  first  step  to  transform  the  current  vertical 
communication  flow  into  a  more  horizontal  one.  However,  obstacles  to 
the free movement of goods can often be better resolved at the local level. The 
close  cooperation  between  the  stakeholders  at  the  local  and  regional 
levels has proven to be quite efficient in the management of the blockades on 
the Brenner route.  

  The new communication system should thus serve as a tool for formalising and 
facilitating  this  communication  which  currently  goes  mostly  through  informal 
channels.238  

  To  open  the  system  so  that  all  stakeholders  involved  would  be  able  to 
enter  information  on  possible  obstacles.  Moreover,  the  system  should  go 
beyond  national  languages,  allowing  for  cross-border  cooperation  between 
stakeholders.  The  goal  should  be  to  provide  a  user-oriented  real-time 
information  exchange  on  blockages  and  the  traffic  situation  based  on  the 
“crowd collaboration” between the stakeholders on-site.239 

The Verkehrsauskunft Österreich (VAÖ)240 traffic information online platform could be 
taken  as  a  positive  example.  This  platform  is  a  joint  initiative  of  all  local  public 
transport  providers,  regional  and  national  Ministries,  the  national  motorway  operator 
and many other stakeholders in Austria in order to provide a coherent data exchange 
and information system. Several traffic information apps have been developed on the 
basis of the data available in this system. 

Such  a  decentralised  system  based  on  the  cooperation  of  many  stakeholders  would 
also  reduce  the  role  of  the  national  Ministries,  which  should  have  a  monitoring 
function with the power to intervene only if there are no other possibilities. In the view 
of  the  National  Contact  Point,  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  should  definitely  not  be 
used to hold national Ministries responsible for obstacles against the free movement of 
goods. As the examples of the citizens’ meetings on the Brenner route showed, these 
obstructions involve many different actors on different levels, making it impossible to 
single out one responsible entity. In any case, most obstacles to the free movement of 
goods are either the result of force majeure or of the exercise of fundamental rights. 
The National Contact Point emphasises that the Austrian authorities safeguard the free 
movement  of goods and always try to  resolve  any obstacles as quickly and smoothly 
as possible.241  

17.6.  References  

-  APA-OTS  (2012)  ASFINAG:  Sperre  der  A  12  wegen  Bürgerversammlung  – 
Available 

großräumiges 
at:https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20120926_OTS0126/asfinag-
sperre-der-a-12-wegen-buergerversammlung-grossraeumiges-ausweichen-
fuer-lkw-verkehr-empfohlen. 

Lkw-Verkehr 

Ausweichen 

empfohlen. 

für 

-  ASFINAG. Available at: https://www.asfinag.at/. 

-  Bote für Tirol (2000) Amtsblatt der Behörden, Ämter und Gerichte Tirols. Stück 
Available 

Jahrgang. 

81. 

9, 

238   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 05.05.2017. 
239   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 05.05.2017.  
240   http://www.verkehrsauskunft.at/.  
241   Interview with the National Contact Point for Austria, conducted on 09.11.2017. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

at:https://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/buergerservice/bote/downloads/bote0920
00.pdf. 

-  Brenner Basistunnel BBT SE. The Brenner Base Tunnel – a new link through the 
https://www.bbt-
at: 
Alps. 
se.com/fileadmin/broschueren/2015/en/files/assets/basic-html/page-5.html. 

Available 

-  Case C-112/00. Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003. Eugen Schmidberger, 

Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich. 

-  European 

Euro. 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/index.en.html. 

Central 

Bank. 

Use 

the 

of 

Available 

at: 

-  Forum  Bruneck  (2012)  Bürgerversammlung  Inntalautobahn,  Fr  28.09.2012. 

Available at: http://www.forum-bruneck.com/?p=10372. 

-  Gegenverkehr  Lienz  (2006)  Bürgerversammlung  auf  der  Südautobahn  A  2  am 
geplanten  Knoten  mit  der  Fürstenfelder  Schnellstraße  S  7.  Available 
at:https://www.go-lienz-osttirol.net/e66/buergerversammlung-s7-2006.htm. 

- 

- 

- 

iMONITRAF!  (2017)  Annual  Report  2016  –  Political  support  for  Toll  Plus  & 
at: 
agenda 
http://www.imonitraf.org/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=
nb41gbP9A0o=. 

Available 

setting 

phase. 

new 

for 

a 

Interview  with  Federal  Ministry  of  Science,  Research  and  the  Economy. 
Department  C1/2  –  Location  Policy  and  European  Single  Market.  National 
Contact Point for Austria. Interview conducted on 5 May 2017. 

Interview  with  Federal  Ministry  of  Science,  Research  and  the  Economy. 
Department  C1/2  –  Location  Policy  and  European  Single  Market.  National 
Contact Point for Austria. Interview conducted on 9 November 2017. 

-  ORF  (2006)  1.500  bei  Bürgerversammlung  am  Brenner.  Available  at: 

http://tirv1.orf.at/stories/111572. 

-  Ritterband,  Charles  E.  (2009)  Dem  Österreichischen  auf  der  Spur  – 
Expeditionen  eines  NZZ-Korrespondenten.  Böhlau:  Wien.  Available  at: 
https://books.google.be/books?id=RPTcDSMt8iIC&pg=PA351&dq=fritz+gurgise
r&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO-
93p2bvXAhVRpqQKHdjTAecQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=fritz%20gurgiser&f=fa
lse. 

-  StatBureau. Eurozone Inflation Calculators. Available at:  

https://www.statbureau.org/en/eurozone/inflation-calculators?dateBack=1998-
6-1&dateTo=2017-9-1&amount=11021833.33. 

-  Tiroler  Tageszeitung  Online  (2012)  Protest  gegen  dicke  Luft:  Transitgegner 
Available 

blockierten 
at:http://www.tt.com/home/5479681-91/protest-gegen-dicke-luft-
transitgegner-blockierten-stundenlang-die-a12.csp.  

stundenlang 

A12. 

die 

-  Tiroler  Tageszeitung  Online  (2017)  Sektorales  Fahrverbot  zeigt  am  Brenner 
keine Wirkung. Available at: http://www.tt.com/politik/landespolitik/12473322-
91/sektorales-fahrverbot-zeigt-am-brenner-keine-wirkung.csp.  

-  Transport  Online  (2016)  Österreich:  Sektorales  Lkw-Fahrverbot  zum  Dritten. 
https://www.transport-online.de/Transport-

Available 

at: 

113 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

News/International/15864/Oesterreich-Sektorales-Lkw-Fahrverbot-zum-
Dritten. 

-  Verkehrsauskunft Österreich. Available at:http://www.verkehrsauskunft.at/.  

-  Vero  Online  (2006)  Länderübergreifender  Protest  gegen  den  Transit  am 
Brenner. Available at: http://vero-online.info/news.php?m=single&id=110. 

-  Wirtschaftskammer  Österreich  (2017)  Die  österreichische  Verkehrswirtschaft  – 
Daten  und  Fakten.  Available  at:  https://www.wko.at/branchen/transport-
verkehr/die-oesterreichische-verkehrswirtschaft-2017.pdf. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

18. Annex  9:  Belgium  Case  study  –  Social  movements 
impacting the free movement of goods in 2014 and 2016   

18.1.  Description of the case and history of the problem 

Several  national  strikes  in  Belgium  have  brought  air,  rail  and  road  transport  to  a 
standstill and affected the free movement of goods in 2014 and 2016. Information on 
the blockades and on alternative routes was however provided in advance and in real 
time  by  media,  transport  companies  and  traffic  websites  in  order  to  mitigate  the 
impact  of  these  disruptions.  While  the  general  strike  of  December  2014  blocked  the 
whole  country  and  affected  transport  by  rail,  air  and  boat,  the  strike  of  March-April 
2016  was  more  local  and  mainly  affected  road  transport.  Finally,  the  strike  of  May-
June 2016 had little consequences on cross-border movement of goods. 

A short description of the three strikes is provided below. 

General strike of December 2014 

On 15 December 2014, hundreds of flights to and from Belgium as well as Eurostar 
services to Brussels were cancelled due to the widespread industrial strikes protesting 
against  the  austerity  policies  of  the  new  centre-right  coalition  to  save  EUR  11  billion 
over  the  next  five  years.  The  24-hour  strike  was  the  largest  to  have  taken  place  in 
Belgium  for  many  years  and  was  organised  by  the  three  main  national  trade 
unions  (CSC,  FGTB,  CGSLB),  following  other  social  movements  in  the  past  months 
(demonstration  on  6  November  and  rotating  regional  strikes).  The  unions  were 
opposed  to  the  government’s  decision  to  scrap  a  cost-of-living  wage  rise  in 
2015,  as  Belgian  law  mandates  that  wages  rise  at  the  same  pace  as  inflation.  They 
were  also  protesting  against  public  sector  cutbacks  and  plans to  increase  the 
retirement age.242 All activities at the Antwerp harbour were stopped, and access to 
the Antwerp and Ghent ports was difficult. No trains, buses or metros were circulating. 
All  airports  were  closed,  and  the  Belgian  airspace  was  closed.243  The  media  were 
indicating  the  locations  of  blockades  at  different  times  of  the  day  and 
advising  the  public  to  check  the  regional  road  traffic  websites  of  Wallonia 
(Trafiroutes244) and Flanders (Vlaams Verkeercentrum245). 

Trucks blockades of March-April 2016 

During March-April 2016, Belgian truck drivers blocked several roads  and distribution 
accesses to protest against the new kilometre tax for trucks (3.5 tons and more) 
entering  into  force  on  1  April.  The  protestors  argued  that  the  geo-tracking  system  in 
the electronic box to monitor the trucks was still dysfunctional and that this tax would 
increase  transport  costs  by  12%,  which  would  affect  the  competitiveness  of  Belgian 
transporters and increase the costs of goods transported.246 On Thursday, 31 March 
2016,  they  blocked  several  distribution  centres  of  large  retailers  (Intermarché,  Aldi, 

242  BBC 

(2014) 

Strikes 

across 

Belgium 

cause 

transport 

chaos. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30475230 

243   Sud  Info  (2014)  Grève  générale  de  ce  lundi  15  décembre:  voici  tout  ce  qui  est  bloqué,  région  par 
région,  secteur  par  secteur.  Available  at:  http://www.sudinfo.be/1170197/article/2014-12-14/greve-
generale-de-ce-lundi-15-decembre-voici-tout-ce-qui-est-bloque-region-par-r 

244   Trafiroutes.wallonia. Available at: http://trafiroutes.wallonie.be/trafiroutes/maptempsreel/ 
245   Vlaams Verkeercentrum. Available at: http://www.verkeerscentrum.be/verkeersinfo/nieuws 
246   RTL  Info  (2016)  Taxe  kilométrique:  "Face  au  mur",  Fabrice,  un  petit  patron  de  transport  belge 
at:  http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/fabrice-patron-d-une-societe-de-

témoigne.  Available 
transport-806617.aspx

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

Lidl), access to petrol stations, and the border access between France and Belgium in 
several places, including Tournai and Hensies.247  

The  action  was  not  organised  by  trade  unions  but  by  small  truck  transport 
companies.  Four  truck  drivers  met  with  the  head  of  cabinet  of  the  Walloon  Budget 
Minister  Christophe  Lacroix  on  1  April.  On  Monday,  4  April,  truck  drivers,  joined  by 
some  farmers  also  affected  by  the  tax,  resumed  the  demonstration  and  decided  to 
prevent  foreign  trucks  from  entering  Belgium,  blocking  highways  and  access  to  the 
French and Luxembourg borders.248 They met again with the Walloon Budget Minister 
on  that  day  to  complain  about  the  bugs  experienced  with  the  tax  electronic  box,  the 
unfairness  of  the  tax  for  small  transport  companies,  and  also  asked  to  remove  the 
national roads from the toll road  network. The Minister said he would reflect  on their 
complaints  and  on  potential  economic  aid.  He  called  on  the  truck  drivers  to  lift  the 
blockages.249  

On  6  April,  the  Belgian  Minister  of  Home  Affairs  Jan  Jambon  announced  a 
police operation to lift the blockades. The blockades had an impact on the cross-
border  transport  of  goods,  in  particular  in  the  Ardennes  area  between  France  and 
Belgium: French trucks had to make big detours to avoid the blockades, or could not 
deliver  their  goods,  causing  supply  issues  in  Belgium.  However,  the  Belgian  and 
French media informed about the evolution of blockades and were advising the public 
on alternative routes for drivers.250 

Train strike of May-June 2016 

In  May  2016,  large  parts  of  Belgium  were  at  a  standstill  as  transport  strikes  caused 
serious disruptions in Brussels and Wallonia region. Train drivers were on strike for six 
consecutive  days  starting  on  28  May,  bringing  to  a  halt  most  services  in  Wallonia 
and  delaying  journeys  in  Brussels  and  Flanders.  Some  trains  to  Paris  and  German 
cities  were  also  delayed  or  cancelled.  While  train  travel  came  to  a  halt  in  the 
Francophone parts of the country (Wallonia and Brussels) because of a dispute over a 
reduction  in  overtime  pay,  50-65%  of  trains  were  running  in  Flanders,  exposing  the 
differences between the two regions.  

The  strikes  were  organised  by  the  national  trade  union  of  public  service  CGSP 
in  Wallonia  and  Brussels,  and  were  supported  by  the  trade  unions  of  CSC 
Public  Service  and  SLFP  in  Brussels.  The  strikes  were  aimed  to  protest  against 
cuts  to  public  services  and  labour-market  flexibility  of  the  centre-right/liberal 
coalition  government.251  The  media  and  transportation  companies  provided 
information  on  the  disruptions  on their websites and social networks, advising on 
alternative routes or suggesting other transport times. In addition, the national road 

247   RTL Info (2016) Taxe kilométrique des camions: les premiers blocages ont commencé, tous les détails. 
Available  at:    http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/economie/taxe-kilometrique-des-camions-les-premiers-
blocages-ont-commence-tous-les-details-806611.aspx 

248   Interview with owner of a truck company about the truck blockades of March-April 2016, conducted on 

16.10.2017. 

249   RTL Info (2016) Routiers et agriculteurs face à la taxe kilométrique : des barrages sont levés, d'autres 
vont  au  finish.  Available  at:  http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/les-agriculteurs-rejoignent-les-
camionneurs-objectif-bloquer-les-frontieres-des-ce-soir-807340.aspx 

250   France  Bleu  Champagne  Ardennes  (2016)  Blocages  routiers  en  Belgique  :  les  conséquences  à  la 
frontière. Available at:  https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/economie-social/blocages-routiers-en-belgique-
les-consequences-la-frontiere-1459956542 

251   The  Guardian  (2016)  Belgium  disrupted  by  widespread  transport  and  public-sector  strikes.    Available 
at:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/belgium-transport-public-sector-strikes-trains-
french-wallonia

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

traffic  website  Touring  Mobilis252  also  informed  the  public  on  the  traffic  situation  in 
real time.253 

18.2.  Mechanism(s) for communication of the incidents.  

The European Commission only received a notification under Regulation (EC) 
No.  2679/98  for  the  April  2016  road  blockades  in  Belgium.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  no  notification  was  received  for  the  general  strike  of  December  2014  when 
access to and from the country was completely cut off.    

However, information on the location of blockades and on the access routes being shut 
down was provided by the Belgian media, and when impacting cross-border transport, 
by  the  French  regional  media.  The  media  provided  information  in  advance 
according to indications presented by the trade unions or protestors254, or in real time, 
based  for  instance  on  notifications  from  individuals.  The  media  operator  RTL  Info  for 
example  mentioned  that  individuals  were  reporting  the  places  of  blockade255  via  a 
notification form by Internet or SMS (“Alertez nous”).256 The Belgian and French media 
were  also  indicating  alternative  routes  and  were  advising  to  check  the  transport 
companies  and  traffic  websites.257  Disruptions  affecting  public  transport  were 
reported  by  the  respective  transport  companies  (SNCB,  Thalys,  etc.).  In 
addition,  the  road  traffic  websites  presented  information  in  real  time  on 
disruptions  of  road  traffic  at  the  national  level  (Touring  Mobilis258)  or  regional  level 
(Trafiroutes259  in  Wallonia  and  Vlaams  Verkeercentrum260  in  Flanders).  If  not  by  the 
media or by traffic websites, truck drivers were also informed about traffic disruptions 
by  their  respective  federations,  which  were  warned  by  other  national  federations,  by 
individuals noticing traffic issues, or by the local authorities (“prefecture” in France).261  

In  the  three  cases,  the  companies  transporting  goods  were  informed  of  the 
disruptions  by  the  media  or  the  traffic  websites  and  did  not  rely  on  the 
notification system of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. Interviews with the National 
Contact Points (NCP) of the neighbouring countries confirmed the fact that companies 
are  usually  informed  about  incidents  before  or  without  the  activation  of  the  early 
warning mechanism of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. The French NCP mentioned that 
the added value of Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 is the early warning mechanism, but 
in practice it does not protect the free movement of goods since truck drivers do not 
have  this  information  in  real  time,  and  prefer  to  rely  on  the  media  or  traffic 
websites.262  The  German  NCP  also  explained  that  there  were  several  levels  of 
exchanges before the information from the federal level reaches stakeholders and that 
the  early  warning  mechanism  was  not  effective  because  companies  need  quicker 
information.263  The  Luxemburgish  NCP  stated  that  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  was 

252   Touring Mobilis. Available at: http://www.touringmobilis.be/fr/index 
253   Le  Vif  (2016)  Grève  des  services  publics  ce  31  mai:  à  quoi  faut-il  s'attendre?  Available  at: 

http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/greve-des-services-publics-ce-31-mai-a-quoi-faut-il-s-
attendre/article-normal-506141.html 

254   Interview with owner of a truck company about the truck blockades of March-April 2016, conducted on 

16.10.2017; Interview with the trade union CGSLB conducted on 27.11.2017 

255   RTL Info (2016) Routiers et agriculteurs face à la taxe kilométrique : des barrages sont levés, d'autres 
vont  au  finish.  Available  at:  http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/les-agriculteurs-rejoignent-les-
camionneurs-objectif-bloquer-les-frontieres-des-ce-soir-807340.aspx 

256   RTL Info, Alertez-nous. Available at: http://www.rtl.be/info/page/alertez-nous/561.aspx 
257   France  Bleu  Champagne  Ardennes  (2016)  Blocages  routiers  en  Belgique  :  les  conséquences  à  la 
frontière. Available at:  https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/economie-social/blocages-routiers-en-belgique-
les-consequences-la-frontiere-1459956542 

258   Touring Mobilis. Available at: http://www.touringmobilis.be/fr/index 
259   Trafiroutes.wallonia. Available at: http://trafiroutes.wallonie.be/trafiroutes/maptempsreel/ 
260   Vlaams Verkeercentrum. Available at: http://www.verkeerscentrum.be/verkeersinfo/nieuws 
261   Interview with the French National Federation of Road Transport on 15.11.2017. 
262   Interview with the French NCP conducted on 10.05.2017. 
263   Interview with the Germany NCP conducted on 07.06.2017.

117 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

not used in the country but that companies relied on the traffic website CITA264 which 
includes  an  online  warning  mechanism  on  road  traffic  disruptions  including  live 
streaming cameras.265 

18.3.  Resolution/prevention  of  the  incidents  and  value  added  of  the 

Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 

The  European  Commission  only  received  a  notification  under  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
2679/98 in April 2016 regarding “Belgian roads affected by blockades” but not for the 
other two events. In all three events, it appears that the incident was resolved 
via  negotiations  or  on  request  of  public  authorities  but  not  directly  through 
Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. 

General strike of December 2014 

The  general  strike  of  15  December  2014  was  the  culmination  of  a  series  of  social 
actions  (demonstration  of  6  November  2014,  rotating  regional  strikes)  and  occurred 
between  two  meetings  of  the  Federal  “Group  of  10”,  composed  of  representatives  of 
the  employee  federations  and  employer  trade  unions.266  Following  the  general  strike, 
the trade unions decided to wait a few weeks to see the impact of the social actions, 
continue  the  concertation  between  employees  and  employers  representatives  and 
assess the adjustments of the government, if any.267 The Group of 10 eventually came 
to  an  agreement  and  there  has  not  been  such  large  general  strikes  since  then268, 
although some actions against the centre-right government have continued in the last 
few years.269  

Truck blockades of March-April 2016 

Consultative  meetings  took  place  between  representatives  of  the  truck  drivers’ 
movement and the cabinet of the Walloon Budget Minister Christophe Lacroix on 1 and 
4  April  2016.  Given  the  escalation  of  the  movement  and  the  blockades  of  national 
roads impacting cross-border traffic, the Belgian Minister of Home Affairs Jan Jambon 
decided, after a meeting with the Walloon provinces’ governors at the Crisis Centre, to 
launch a police operation on 6 April 2016 to lift the blockades, which put an end to the 
movement.270  This  decision  was  also  taken  under  the  pressure  of  different  employer 
federations  complaining  about  the  losses  due  to  the  movement.271  It  is  unclear 
whether  this  decision  by  the  Minister  was  linked  to  the  notification  under  Regulation 
(EC)  No.  2679/98.272  To  follow  up  with  the  truck  drivers’  movement,  the  Walloon 
Budget  Minister  Lacroix  set  up  a  steering  committee  to  support  small  trucking 
companies  financially  and  technically  with  the  implementation  of  the  kilometric  tax, 

264   CITA. Available at: http://www.cita.lu/  
265   Interview with the Luxemburgish NCP conducted on 31.05.2017. 
266   DH.be (2014) Grève nationale: les derniers piquets levés en soirée, satisfaction des syndicats. Available 
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/greve-nationale-les-derniers-piquets-leves-en-soiree-

at: 
satisfaction-des-syndicats-5489f3703570a0fe4ce9e053 

at: 

267   DH.be  (2014)  Grève  nationale:  Jambon  veut  une  concertation  "autour  d'une  table,  pas  dans  la  rue". 
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/greve-nationale-jambon-veut-une-concertation-

Available 
autour-d-une-table-pas-dans-la-rue-548eff403570e99724db2b24 
268   Interview with the trade union CGSLB, conducted on 27.11.2017. 
269   Interview with the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB), conducted on 04.12.2017. 
270   France  Bleu  Champagne  Ardennes  (2016)  Blocages  routiers  en  Belgique  :  les  conséquences  à  la 
frontière. Available at:  https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/economie-social/blocages-routiers-en-belgique-
les-consequences-la-frontiere-1459956542 

271  PTB  (2016)  Taxe  kilométrique  :  retour  sur  le  mouvement  des  camionneurs.  Available  at: 

http://ptb.be/articles/taxe-kilometrique-retour-sur-le-mouvement-des-camionneurs 

272   The Belgian National Contact Point did not answer our interview request. 

118 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

and  the  initiators  of  the  truck  drivers’  movement  deemed  this  initiative  to  be  very 
useful.273 
Train strike of May-June 2016 

The  rail  traffic  strike  ended  on  3  June  2016  and  several  consultative  meetings  took 
place  between  the  trade  unions  and  the  management  of  the  national  train  company 
SNCB in order to discuss the issues at stake, including extra working hours/days and 
the  increase  of  productivity.274  The  trade  unions  decided  to  end  the  strike,  even 
without  getting  everything  they  wanted,  because  of  social  discontent  from  the 
population as it was the exam period for students, pressure of the Flemish branch of 
the  trade  unions  on  the  Walloon  branch,  and  fear  of  the  strikers  that  they  would  be 
penalised by their employers.275  

Interviews with the NCPs of the neighbouring countries confirmed  that such incidents 
were often resolved without using Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98. The French, German 
and Luxemburgish NCPs explained that Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 was not effective 
to  prevent  disruptions  from  happening,  as  companies  need  quicker  information  and 
rely  on  media  and  traffic  websites.  The  French  NCP  mentioned  that  in  case  of 
disruptions,  the  prefectures  of  departments  intervene  immediately  and  communicate 
extensively  with  neighbouring  countries.276  In  addition,  the  Federal  Government  of 
Belgium  has  established  rules  detailing  the  roles  of  the  police,  mayors  and  regional 
governors  in  case  of  blockades.  Among  these  rules  are  those  mandating  that  the 
police  have  to  be  present  to  clear  the  way  for  vehicles,  and  independent  businesses 
should not be blocked.277  

Overall,  when  incidents  occur,  the  mechanism  under  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is 
usually not used as the disruptions can be solved by consultations and negotiations. In 
the  three  Belgian  cases  described,  the  incidents  were  more  of  national  nature  and 
were  resolved  by  negotiations  between  national  stakeholders  (general  strike  of 
December 2014 and train strikes of May-June 2016) or on request of public authorities 
(truck blockades of March-April 2016).  

18.4.  Damages 

Estimations  of  the  damages  are  usually  provided  by  the  Belgian  employer 
federations.  However,  trade  unions  tend  to  contest  these  estimations  as  the 
methodology for these impacts is not always explicitly mentioned.278 

General strike of December 2014 

According  to  the  Federation  of  Belgian  Enterprises  (FEB),  the  general  strike  of  15 
December 2014 mainly involved the public sector and had less impact on the private 
sector.  Only  6%  of  SMEs  had  employees  on  strike,  according  to  the  Neutral  Trade 
Union for Independents (SNI) and to the Union of Independent Entrepreneurs (Unizo). 
Retailers were affected  as the distribution centres of Colruyt in Ath and Malines were 
blocked, and half of the Lidl stores did not open. In Belgium, 620 of the 748 Carrefour 
stores  were  inaccessible,  and  88  of  138  Delhaize  self-managed  stores  were  closed. 

273   Interview with owner of a truck company about the truck blockades of March-April 2016, conducted on 

16.10.2017.

274   RTBE  (2016)  SNCB:  pas  d'appel  à  la  grève,  syndicats  et  direction  se  revoient  lundi.  Available  at: 
https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_greve-des-trains-a-partir-dimanche-soir-la-decision-tombe-ce-
matin?id=9321890 

275   Interview with the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB), conducted on 04.12.2017. 
276   Interview with the French NCP conducted on 10.05.2017. 
277   Interview with the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB), conducted on 04.12.2017. 
278   Interview with owner of a truck company about the truck blockades of March-April 2016, conducted on 

16.10.2017; Interview with the trade union CGSLB conducted on 27.11.2017

119 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

The  Flemish  employer  organisation  (Voka)  estimated  that  the  economic  costs  of  the 
general  strike  and  three  previous  strikes  in  that  same  period  amounted  to  EUR  600 
million. Voka also considered that these strikes had a negative effect on the image of 
Belgium  in  attracting  companies,  clients  and  investments.  According  to  Unizo  the 
general  strike  of  15  December  2014  had  an  economic  impact  of  EUR  264.8 
million  on  the  private  sector,  and  EUR  480  million  when  also  taking  into 
account  the  impact  on  the  public  sector.279 Overall,  according  to  an interviewee, 
Wallonia has been more affected, with the blockade of several industrial zones and of 
the  freight  airport  of  Liège,  while  in  Flanders,  the  industrial  zones  were  not  blocked 
and the Antwerp harbour was opened on the Saturday before the strike to ensure the 
delivery of goods.280   

Truck blockades of March-April 2016 

The  truck  drivers’  movement  in  April  2016  affected  mostly  the  Walloon  Region  of 
Belgium and to some  extent the access to the borders with France and Luxembourg. 
The  Belgian  truck  drivers’  strike  blocked  French  trucks  and  hampered  the  delivery  of 
goods at the border with the French departments of Nord and Ardennes, although the 
protestors  let  the  trucks  carrying  perishable  goods  or  animals  pass  through.  The 
blockages  have  impacted  the  cross-border  transport  of  goods,  in  particular  in  the 
Ardennes area between France and Belgium: French trucks had to make large detours 
to  avoid  the  blockages,  or  could  not  deliver  their  goods,  causing  supply  issues  in 
Belgium.  Moreover,  during  peak  times,  4000  to  5000  trucks  were  blocked  on  the 
highway A411 between Brussels and Luxembourg.281  

Finally,  petrol  stations  in  Belgium  also  ran  out  of  supplies.282  In  this  context,  the 
Walloon  Construction  Confederation  mentioned  that  the  sector  was  losing  millions  of 
euros  of  turnover  per  day  because  materials  were  not  delivered.  Large  retailers 
managed  to  find  alternative  solutions  or  had  enough  stocks,  but  the  Employer 
Organisation of Retailers Comeos stated that the movement had caused several tens 
of EUR million worth of losses283 with hundreds of tons of fresh food perishing and 
no  longer  edible.284  The  Belgian  Federation  of  Food  Industry  stated  that,  based  on  a 
survey  with  their  member  companies,  70%  of  food  companies  had  been  affected  by 
the truck blockades, with an average impact of EUR 18,000 per day per company.285   

Train strike of May-June 2016 

The incident mainly affected the public sector and citizens, but not the private sector. 
According  to  Voka  (Flemish  employer  organisation),  the  impact  of  this  strike  on 
companies  was  limited  and  the  few  enterprises  in  Brussels  and  around  the  city  that 

279   DH.be (2014) Grève nationale: les derniers piquets levés en soirée, satisfaction des syndicats. Available 
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/greve-nationale-les-derniers-piquets-leves-en-soiree-

at: 
satisfaction-des-syndicats-5489f3703570a0fe4ce9e053 

280   Interview with the business association SECOP/ISTRE, conducted on 05.11.2017. 
281   Interview with owner of a truck company about the truck blockades of March-April 2016, conducted on 

16.10.2017. 

282   France  Bleu  Champagne  Ardennes  (2016)  Blocages  routiers  en  Belgique  :  les  conséquences  à  la 
frontière. Available at:  https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/economie-social/blocages-routiers-en-belgique-
les-consequences-la-frontiere-1459956542 

283   PTB  (2016)  Taxe  kilométrique  :  retour  sur  le  mouvement  des  camionneurs.  Available  at: 

http://ptb.be/articles/taxe-kilometrique-retour-sur-le-mouvement-des-camionneurs 

284   RTBF  Info  (2016)  Taxe  kilométrique:  les  barrages  routiers  levés  par  la  police  sur  ordre  du 
gouvernement.  Available  at:  https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_routiers-en-colere-la-police-va-
faire-lever-les-barrages-annonce-jambon?id=9262045 

285   FEVIA, 07/04/2016, Blocages routiers: La moutarde monte au nez de l’industrie alimentaire. Available 
https://www.fevia.be/fr/presse/blocages-routiers-la-moutarde-monte-au-nez-de-lindustrie-

at: 
alimentaire 

120 

 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

have  been  impacted  were  actually  prepared.286  However,  the  railway  freight 
operator  Lineas,  which  represents  65-70%  of  freight  transport  in  Belgium, 
has estimated that the May-June 2016 train strike had cost EUR 5 million (due 
to  the  impossibility  to  use  trains  for  freight  and  the  costs  of  alternative  transport). 
During  the  strike  60-80%  of  the  railway  lines  (“sillons”)  were  not  accessible.287 
Overall, the train company SNCB lost EUR 14.7 million due to all strikes in 2016, and 
EUR 30 million over the last three years.288 

To  conclude,  the  three  events  have  essentially  caused  damages  in  Belgium  rather 
than  in  the  neighbouring  countries,  and  on  the  public  sector  rather  than  on 
the private sector, with the exception of the truck drivers’ strike of March-April 2016 
which  had  greater  impact  on  the  private  sector  (retail,  construction,  petrol  stations) 
and  also  affected  French  transporters.  However,  the  French  Federation  of  Road 
Transport  of  Champagne  Ardennes289  did  not  receive  complaints  from  its  members 
regarding  the  three  events  under  study,  and  the  French  authorities  in  the  region 
(Préfecture  du  Nord290,  DIRECCTE  Hauts  de  France291)  did  not  report  issues  linked  to 
these incidents, or any change in the levels of import/export between the region and 
Belgium at these periods.  

18.5.  Recommendations 

The  NCPs  of  Belgium’s  neighbouring  countries  considered  that  in  theory,  the  early 
warning  mechanism  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2679/98  is  useful  in  preventing 
or  resolving  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  goods,  but  that  in  practice, 
the information takes too long to reach companies. Therefore, transporters rely 
more  on  information  from  the  media  and  traffic  websites in  order  to  avoid  obstacles, 
and  strikes  are  generally  resolved  by  dialogue  with  trade  unions  and  authorities. 
Interviews  with  trade  associations  confirmed  that  they  were  not  aware  of  Regulation 
(EC) No. 2679/98 and its implementation, but relied on real-time media and Internet 
information  in  case  of  blockades.292  An  interviewee  from  the  food  and  drinks  sector 
considered that Regulation (EC) No. 2679/98 should foresee compensations to parties 
when  those  distortions  persist,  because  delays  have  important  consequences  for  the 
delivery  of  fresh  products.293  In  addition,  an  interviewee  from  the  French  National 
Federation  of  Road  Transport294  considered  that  it  would  be  more  useful  for  good 
transporters  and  their  clients  to  have  a  European  platform  indicating  the  traffic 
restrictions,  including  also  information  about  bank  holidays  in  other  countries.  This 
information in real time would be more beneficial to guarantee the free movement and 
goods.  Creating  such  a  platform  appears  feasible  given  the  current  technology, 
however  it  would  raise  the  questions  regarding  which  organisations  would  be  the 
information providers and their reliability.  

286   La  Libre  (2016)  Le  Voka  à  propos  de  la  manifestation:  "C'est  une  manifestation  contre  le  citoyen". 
Available  at:  http://www.lalibre.be/actu/politique-belge/le-voka-a-propos-de-la-manifestation-c-est-
une-manifestation-contre-le-citoyen-5743f6c835708ea2d5ca1624 

287   Interview with the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB), conducted on 04.12.2017. 
288  La 

explose. 

Capitale 

(2017) 

grèves 

SNCB: 

coût 

des 

le 

Available 

at: 

http://www.lacapitale.be/122359/article/2017-09-06/sncb-le-cout-des-greves-explose?bot=1 

289   Interview  with  the  French  Federation  of  Road  Transport  of  Champagne  Ardennes  conducted  on 

15.11.2017 

290   Exchange of emails with the Préfecture du Nord 
291   Interview with the DIRECCTE Hauts de France conducted on 20.11.2017. 
292   Interview with the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB), conducted on 04.12.2017. 
293   Interview with the Belgian Agriculture and Food Association conducted on 04.07.2017. 
294   Interview  with  the  French  Federation  of  Road  Transport  of  Champagne  Ardennes  conducted  on 

15.11.2017

121 

 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

18.6.  References  

-  BBC  (2014)  Strikes  across  Belgium  cause  transport  chaos.  Available  at: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30475230  

-  DH.be (December 2014) Grève nationale: les  derniers piquets levés en soirée, 
satisfaction 
at: 
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/greve-nationale-les-derniers-piquets-leves-
en-soiree-satisfaction-des-syndicats-5489f3703570a0fe4ce9e053 

syndicats. 

Available 

des 

-  DH.be  (December  2014)  Grève  nationale:  Jambon  veut  une  concertation 
at: 

"autour 
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/greve-nationale-jambon-veut-une-
concertation-autour-d-une-table-pas-dans-la-rue-548eff403570e99724db2b24 
-  Exchange of e-mails with Jeanne Tor-de Tarlé, Préfecture du Nord (France). E-

Available 

table, 

d'une 

rue". 

dans 

pas 

la 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

à 

la 

frontière. 

conséquences 

mail received on 16.11.2017. 
FEVIA, (April 2016) Blocages routiers: La moutarde monte au nez de l’industrie 
alimentaire.  Available  at:  https://www.fevia.be/fr/presse/blocages-routiers-la-
moutarde-monte-au-nez-de-lindustrie-alimentaire 
France Bleu Champagne Ardennes (April 2016) Blocages routiers en Belgique : 
les 
at:  
Available 
https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/economie-social/blocages-routiers-en-
belgique-les-consequences-la-frontiere-1459956542 
Interview  with  Ministry  of  Economy  and  External  Trade  of  Luxembourg, 
National Contact Point. Interview conducted on 31.05.2017. 
Interview with Secretariat General of European Affairs under the Prime Minister 
of France, National Contact Points. Interview conducted on 10.05.2017. 
Interview with Division EB2 - Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy 
of Germany, National Contact Point. Interview conducted on 07.05.2017. 
Interview  with  DIRECCTE  Hauts  de  France,  International  adviser.  Interview 
conducted on 20.11.2017. 
Interview with National Federation of Road  Transport  of Champagne Ardennes 
(France). Interview conducted on 15.11.2017. 
Interview  with  owner  of  the  Ausloos  truck  company  (Belgium).  Interview 
conducted on 16.10.2017. 
Interview  with  business  association  SECOP/ISTRE  (Belgium),  conducted  on 
05.11.2017. 
Interview  with  trade  union  CGSLB  (Belgium),  national  secretary.  Interview 
conducted on 27.11.2017. 
Interview  with  the  Federation  of  Belgian  Enterprises  (FEB),  conducted  on 
04.12.2017. 
La Capitale (September 2017) SNCB: le coût des grèves explose.  Available at: 
http://www.lacapitale.be/122359/article/2017-09-06/sncb-le-cout-des-greves-
explose?bot=1 
La  Libre  (May  2016)  Le  Voka  à  propos  de  la  manifestation:  "C'est  une 
manifestation 
at: 
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/politique-belge/le-voka-a-propos-de-la-
manifestation-c-est-une-manifestation-contre-le-citoyen-
5743f6c835708ea2d5ca1624 
Le  Vif  (May  2016)  Grève  des  services  publics  ce  31  mai:  à  quoi  faut-il 
s'attendre?  Available  at :  http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/greve-des-
services-publics-ce-31-mai-a-quoi-faut-il-s-attendre/article-normal-
506141.html 
PTB  (April  2016)  Taxe  kilométrique  :  retour  sur  le  mouvement  des 
camionneurs.  Available  at:  http://ptb.be/articles/taxe-kilometrique-retour-sur-
le-mouvement-des-camionneurs 

Available 

citoyen". 

contre 

le 

-  RTBE  (June  2016)  SNCB:  pas  d'appel  à  la  grève,  syndicats  et  direction  se 
revoient  lundi.  Available  at:  https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_greve-
des-trains-a-partir-dimanche-soir-la-decision-tombe-ce-matin?id=9321890 

122 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

-  RTBF  Info  (April  2016)  Taxe  kilométrique:  les  barrages  routiers  levés  par  la 
at: 

police 
https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_routiers-en-colere-la-police-va-faire-
lever-les-barrages-annonce-jambon?id=9262045 

gouvernement. 

Available 

ordre 

sur 

du 

tous 

commencé, 

-  RTL  Info  (March  2016)  Taxe  kilométrique  des  camions:  les  premiers  blocages 
at:  

ont 
http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/economie/taxe-kilometrique-des-camions-les-
premiers-blocages-ont-commence-tous-les-details-806611.aspx 
 RTL Info (April 2016) Routiers et agriculteurs face à la taxe kilométrique : des 
barrages 
at: 
http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/les-agriculteurs-rejoignent-les-
camionneurs-objectif-bloquer-les-frontieres-des-ce-soir-807340.aspx  

Available 

Available 

d'autres 

détails. 

finish. 

levés, 

vont 

sont 

les 

au 

- 

-  RTL  Info  (March  2016)  Taxe  kilométrique:  "Face  au  mur",  Fabrice,  un  petit 
at: 
belge 

patron 
http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/fabrice-patron-d-une-societe-de-
transport-806617.aspx  

témoigne. 

transport 

Available 

de 

-  Sud Info (December 2014) Grève générale de ce lundi 15 décembre: voici tout 
ce  qui  est  bloqué,  région  par  région,  secteur  par  secteur.  Available  at: 
http://www.sudinfo.be/1170197/article/2014-12-14/greve-generale-de-ce-
lundi-15-decembre-voici-tout-ce-qui-est-bloque-region-par-r 

-  The  Guardian  (May  2016)  Belgium  disrupted  by  widespread  transport  and 
at: 

public-sector 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/belgium-transport-public-
sector-strikes-trains-french-wallonia 

Available 

strikes. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

19. Annex 10: List of literature 

Table 10: List of literature  

List of literature  

A propos des transporteurs : les entraves graves a la circulation de 
marchandises  
Alpine transport restrictions reconsidered: Commission versus Austria  
Austria Case study – Citizens’ protests against transit traffic over the 
Brenner Pass 
Belgium case study - Social movements impacting the free movement of 
goods in 2014 and 2016   
Bulgaria Greece Case study – seasonal blocking of Bulgaria border by 
Greek farmers 
Calais port Case study – The blockade of the freight port of Calais / 
strike of part of the staff 
Case C-112/00. Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003. Eugen 
Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik 
Österreich 
Case C 28/09, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 
2011, European Commission v Republic of Austria, Failure of a Member 
State to fulfil obligations.  
Comment pallier les manquements du recours en manquement ? 
Das neu “Frühwarnsystem” für den freien Warenverkehr in der EG 
Decision No 357/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 22 April 2009 on a procedure for prior examination and consultation 
in respect of certain laws, regulations and administrative provisions 
concerning transport proposed in Member States 
DH.be (2014) Grève nationale: les derniers piquets levés en soirée, 
satisfaction des syndicats 
Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 9 September 2015 
EL difícil equilibrio entre la libre circulación de mercancías a los derechos 
fundamentales en materia de libertad de expresión y de reunión: la 
sentencia “Schidberger” 
El reglamento (CE) n. 2679/98 para situaciones de emergencia: ¿un 
instrumento útil a fin de asegurar la libre circulación de mercancías?  
El reglamento n 2679/98 relativo a los obstáculos graves a la libre 
circulación de mercancías: aplicación y perspectiva de desarrollo   
Evaluation of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 2679/1998 - 2007 
Evaluation of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 2679/1998 - 2001 
FEVIA, 07/04/2016, Blocages routiers: La moutarde monte au nez de 
l’industrie alimentaire. 
France/Spain Case study – French farmers strike against imported goods 
Internal border controls in the Schengen area: is Schengen Crisis proof?  
IRU response to the EC transport white paper, IRU, 2011 
La prévention des perturbations graves a la libre circulation des 
marchandises : deux ans d’application du règlement n.2879/1998  
La réponse communautaire aux blocages des réseaux de transport : 
application et perspectives d’avenir du règlement n 2679/98 en vue 

124 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement 
of goods among the Member States 

List of literature  

Libcom.org, 24.07.2016, Strike in the port of Koper 
Minutes of the workshop on Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 – The 
Strawberry Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 held in Brussels on the 10th 
2016 
Opinion about the revision of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 on the 
functioning of the internal market in the context of the free movement of 
goods between Member States, BLG Germany, 2017 
Preliminary evaluation of the economic consequences derived from the 
2010 frontier blockages between Greece and Bulgaria  
Preliminary evaluation of the economic consequences derived from the 
2010 frontier blockages between Greece and Bulgaria 
Regulation (EC) No 2679/1998 roadmap  
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 9 July 2008 
Regulation No 2679/1998 
Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 
Resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the governments 
of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 7 December 1998 
on the free movement of goods 
Slovakia Case study – Road I/11 in Kysuce Region   
The Economic costs of non-Schengen 

125 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

20.  Annex 11: Evaluation matrix 

20.1.  Intervention logic 

126 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

20.2.  Effectiveness  

Criteria 1 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation question 

What results (impacts) have actually been obtained? How far have they contributed to achieving the free movement of goods in the face of serious 
disruption? To what extent is it linked to the Regulation? How successful EU action has been in achieving or processing towards its objectives. To 
what  extent  have  these  results  (impacts)  contributed  to  fulfilling  the  needs  and/or  solving  the  problems,  which  lead  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation? 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Analytical approach 

Indicators and descriptors 

Sources 

  How  is  the  Regulation  applied  in  Member 

 

 

States? 
To what extent have Member States actually 
complied  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Regulation  and  the  need  to  safeguard  the 
free movement of goods, within the principle 
of proportionality? 

Existence  and  use  of 
mechanisms 
specific 
the  Regulation 
fulfilling 
objectives 
at  Member 
State  level  e.g.  National 
early 
Contact 
warning 
system 
mechanism  

Points, 

  Desk-based research 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews  with  national 
authorities,  associations, 
chamber of commerce and 
businesses 

 

Case studies  

 

 

with 

Share  of  Member  States 
complying 
the 
Regulation 
Range  of  mechanisms 
existing  across  Member 
the 
States 
to  ensure 
implementation  of 
the 
Regulation 

improved  the 

  Has  the  Regulation 

free 
movement  of  goods  within  the  internal 
market in the face of serious disruption? 
  How  much  has  the  existence  and/or  use  of 
the  Regulation  made  it  possible  to  change 
behaviour  and  to  actually  ensure  the  free 
movement  of  goods  in  the  face  of  serious 
disruption? 

  Differences  in  the  number 
of notifications received by 
the  EC  since  the  adoption 
of the Regulation  

  Differences  observed 

in 
Member 
States’ 
behaviours with regards to 
the  management 
of 
obstacles 

  Desk-based research 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews  with  national 
authorities,  associations, 
chamber of commerce and 
businesses 

 

Case studies 

 

  Obstacles 

by 

railroad, 

type 
(immobilisation of goods / 
destruction  of  goods)  and 
transport 
by  mode  of 
(water, 
road, 
airport,  at  storage  or 
multiple mode) 
Average 
time  elapsed 
between  the  occurrence 
of  an  incident  and  its 
resolution 

 

 

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
Commission 
by 
national  or  regional 
authorities  

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
Commission 
by 
national  or  regional 
authorities 

  Other 

stakeholders 

(associations, 
chambers 
commerce 
businesses)  

of 
and 

  Differences  observed 

in 
transport 

freight 

the 
statistics  

  Have any provisions of the Regulation 

provided particularly good results regarding 
obstacles hindering the free movement of 
goods? Have any provisions of the 
Regulation provided been particularly 
ineffective? are there any lessons to be 
learnt from them? 

  Differences  observed 

in 
the  implementation  of  a 
Regulation 
specific 
provision 
to 
another. 

compared 

  Desk-based research 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews  with  national 
authorities,  associations, 
chamber of commerce and 
businesses 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Cases of serious 
disruptions and 
mechanisms to resolve 
them 

Effective and non-
effective mechanisms 
used to address cases of 
serious disruption, and 
provisions of the 

 

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
Commission 
by 
National  or  regional 
authorities 

  Other 

stakeholders 

(associations, 
chambers 

of 

127 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

Criteria 1 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation question 

What results (impacts) have actually been obtained? How far have they contributed to achieving the free movement of goods in the face of serious 
disruption? To what extent is it linked to the Regulation? How successful EU action has been in achieving or processing towards its objectives. To 
what  extent  have  these  results  (impacts)  contributed  to  fulfilling  the  needs  and/or  solving  the  problems,  which  lead  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation? 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Analytical approach 

Indicators and descriptors 

Sources 

Regulation linked to such 
mechanisms   

commerce 
businesses) 

and 

 

 

 

 

To  what  extent  are 
interested  parties 
informed  of  the  existence  of  the  Regulation 
and the possibilities it provides?  
Is  the  information  exchange  procedure  set 
up  by  the  Regulation  effective,  particularly 
in  light  of  rapid  technological  change  with 
regard to the availability of information? 

 

 

Level  of  awareness  of 
(notably 
stakeholders 
the 
enterprises) 
Regulation  

in 

Length  of  time  observed 
between an event and the 
dissemination 
of 
information to final parties 
(enterprises)  before  and 
after  the  implementation 
of the Regulation 

  Desk-based research 

 

 

 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews  with  national 
authorities,  associations, 
chamber of commerce and 
businesses 

Case studies 

Public consultation  

To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation  been 
useful  in  facilitating  the  free  movement  of 
goods in the face of serious disruption?  
Should 
alternative 
measures be taken to improve the situation? 

additional 

and/or 

 

 

Evolution  in  the  duration 
of obstacles 

Capacity 
obstacles 

for  preventing 

  Desk-based research 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews  with  national 
authorities,  associations, 
chamber of commerce and 
businesses 

 

Case studies 

128 

Share of respondents to 
the public consultation 
and of interviews 
informed with the 
Regulation possibilities 

Length of time between 
an event and the 
dissemination of 
information to final 
parties 

Information 
exchange 
procedure  applied  in  the 
and 
Member 
(notably 
evolution 
towards 
digital 
procedure) 

States 

a 

Length of time observed 
between an event and 
resolution of the event. 

Timing for notification 
(before, during or after 
the obstacle) 

Best practice mechanisms 
to solve serious 
disruptions 

 

National  or  regional 
authorities  

  Other 

stakeholders 

(associations, 
chambers 
commerce 
businesses)  

of 
and 

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
Commission 
by 
national  or  regional 
authorities 

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
Commission 
by 
national  or  regional 
authorities 

 

 

  Other 

stakeholders 

(associations, 
chambers 
commerce 

of 
and 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

Criteria 1 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation question 

What results (impacts) have actually been obtained? How far have they contributed to achieving the free movement of goods in the face of serious 
disruption? To what extent is it linked to the Regulation? How successful EU action has been in achieving or processing towards its objectives. To 
what  extent  have  these  results  (impacts)  contributed  to  fulfilling  the  needs  and/or  solving  the  problems,  which  lead  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation? 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Analytical approach 

Indicators and descriptors 

Sources 

businesses) 

 

To  what  extent  did  different 
factors 
influence  the  progress  and  achievements 
observed? 

 

Level  of 
external 
factors 
and 
observed. 

and 

influence  of 
internal 
in  the  progress 
achievements 

  Desk-based research 

 

 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews  with  national 
authorities,  associations, 
chamber of commerce and 
businesses 

Case studies 

Public consultation 

 

 

Internal factors 
influencing the 
achievements observed  

External factors 
influencing the progress 
and achievements 
observed 

 

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
by 
Commission 
national  or  regional 
authorities 

  Other 

stakeholders 

(associations, 
chambers 
commerce 
businesses) 

of 
and 

20.3.  Efficiency  

 

 

Criteria 2 

Evaluation question 

 

 

Efficiency 

Are  the  costs  induced  by  the  Regulation  worth  the  investments?  Are  the  savings  made  by  interested  parties  through  quicker  resolution  of 
obstacles  higher  than  the  costs  of  implementation  of  the  Regulation?  If  this  is  not  the  case,  is  the  better  functioning  of  the  free  market  a 
sufficient reason which justifies the existence of the Regulation? 

 

Sub-questions 

 

Judgement criteria 

 

Analytical approach 

 

Indicators and descriptors 

 

Sources 

129 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

 

 

To what extent are the costs 
proportional to the benefits 
achieved? 

To what extent has the 
application of the Regulation 
been cost effective? 

  What 

factors 

efficiency 
implementation 
Regulation? 

influenced  the 
the 
the 

of 

of 

  Overall level of costs 

  Data analysis 

incurred by the Regulation 
compared to benefits to 
enterprises 

  Desk-based research and 

analysis 

 

 

 

Semi-structured interviews 
with national authorities, 
associations, chambers of 
commerce and businesses 

Case studies 

Public consultation  

 

affecting 

Factors 
the 
achievements  positively  or 
negatively  

  Data analysis 

  Desk-based research and 

analysis 

  Differences  in  the  obstacles 
observed  since  the  adoption 
of the Regulation  

 

Semi-structured interviews 
with national authorities, 
associations, chambers of 
commerce and businesses 

 

Case studies 

  How justifiable were the costs 

borne by different 
stakeholders’ groups, given the 
benefits they received? 

  Distribution  of  costs  among 
the  different  stakeholders’ 
groups  

  Data analysis 

 

Case studies 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Costs incurred by the 
implementation of the 
Regulation on Member 
States 

Costs incurred by the 
implementation of the 
Regulation on the EU 

 

Cases  reported  and  notified 
the  Commission  by 
to 
national 
regional 
authorities 

or 

  Other stakeholders 

(associations, chambers of 
commerce and businesses) 

Costs incurred by the events 
/ obstacles on the 
enterprises  

factors 

(e.g. 
Influencing 
development, 
technology 
cultural 
with 
regards  to  social  conflicts, 
etc.) 

approach 

Number 
reported  

of 

obstacles 

Stakeholder costs 

Stakeholders benefits 

 

Factors explaining the 
distribution of costs (and 
benefits) between Member 
States. 

 

National 
authorities  

or 

regional 

  Other 

stakeholders 
(associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses) 

 

National 
authorities  

or 

regional 

  Other  stakeholders  (client 
groups, transport operators) 

 

National or regional 
authorities  

  Other stakeholders 

(associations, chambers of 
commerce and businesses) 

 

Are there significant 
differences in costs (or 
benefits) between Member 
States, what is causing them? 

 

Comparison 
between 
Member States 

the 

of 

costs 
different 

  Desk-based 
analysis 

  Data analysis 

  Member States costs 

research  and 

  Member States benefits 

 

Semi-structured 
interviews 
with  national  authorities, 
associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses 

 

Case studies 

130 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

20.4.  Relevance  

Criteria 3 

Relevance 

Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

To  what  extent  does  the  actual  Regulation  address  the  needs  and  problems  in  the  area  of  free  movement  of  goods?  Is  there  a  mismatch  between  the 
objectives of the Regulation and the current needs and problems in the area?  

Judgement criteria 

Analytical approach 

Indicators 
descriptors 
Features 
 
evolution 
events 
obstacles  

and 

Sources 

 

and 
of 
/ 

Cases  reported  and  notified 
the  Commission  by 
to 
national 
regional 
authorities 

or 

  Other 

stakeholders 
(associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses 

 

 

Losses  due 
obstacles 

to 

Extent  to  which 
the  provisions  of 
the 
Regulation 
have  reduced  the 
and 
frequency 
impact 
of 
disruptions 

 

 

To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  still 
relevant? 

To  what  extent  have  the  original  objectives 
proven  to  have  been  appropriate  for  the 
the  original 
Regulation?  How  well  do 
objectives  still  correspond  to  the  needs 
within the EU? 

  How  well  adapted  is  the  Regulation  to 

subsequent technological advances?  

 

 

 

 

 

  How  relevant  is  the  Regulation  to  EU 
citizens?  Are  there  areas  of  specific  needs 
for  free  movement  of  goods  that  remain  to 
be unaddressed? 

Remaining occurrence of incidents/ 
events  

  Desk 

research 

analysis 

Change in the nature of incidents 

 

Change in the duration of incidents 

Existence  of  alternative  warning 
mechanisms  

Existence 
stakeholders’ needs  

of 

additional 

Semi-structured 
interviews 
with 
national  authorities, 
associations, 
chambers 
commerce 
businesses 

of 
and 

 

 

Case studies 

Public consultation  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

20.5.  Coherence 

Criteria 4 

Coherence 

Evaluation question 

Is there a coherent relationship between the needs and problems in society and the objectives of the Regulation? 

 

 

 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Analytical approach (tools) 

To what extent is the Regulation coherent with 
wider EU policy (transport and environmental 
policy in particular)?  
Are there overlaps or complementarities 
between the measure and any other EU action 
which have similar objectives? 

 

Complementarity 
or 
redundancy  with  other  EU 
pieces of legislation 

  Desk research analysis 

 

Semi-structured  interviews 
with  national  authorities, 
associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses 

Indicators and 
descriptors 
Other EU pieces of 
legislation linked to 
the Regulation 

Sources   

 

reported 

and 
Cases 
the 
notified 
Commission  by  national 
or regional authorities 

to 

  Other 

stakeholders 
chambers 
and 

(associations, 
of 
businesses 

commerce 

Is there any issue of internal coherence of the 
measure (i.e. between various components of 
the measure) 

 

Complementarity 
or 
redundancy  between  the 
various components of the 
measure 

  Desk research analysis 

 

 

Semi-structured  interviews 
with  national  authorities, 
associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses 

Provisions of the 
Regulation 

 

  Measures linked 

to the Regulation 
and their 
components 

reported 

and 
Cases 
notified 
the 
Commission  by  national 
or regional authorities 

to 

  Other 

stakeholders 
chambers 
and 

(associations, 
of 
businesses 

commerce 

20.6.  EU added value 

Criteria 5 

EU Added value 

Evaluation question 

To what extent can the changes observed reasonably be attributed to EU intervention rather than any other factors?  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Analytical approach 

and 

Sources 

  What is the additional value resulting from 

 

the application of the Regulation, 
compared to what could be achieved by 
Member States at national and/or regional 
levels? 

of 

costs 

and 
Comparison 
benefits 
Regulation 
implementation  at  EU  level  and 
at national level 

of 

 

Non-financial  benefits  from  the 
improvement  of  free  movement 

  Data analysis 

 

Semi-structured  interviews 
with  national  authorities, 
associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses 

 

Case studies 

132 

Indicators 
descriptors 
 

Cost of the 
implementation of 
the Regulation at 
national and EU 
levels 

 

Benefits from the 
application of the 

 

Regulation 
costs 
management 
(human 
resources, 
operational  costs  etc.) 
National  or  regional 
authorities 

 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States 

of goods 

Comparison  between  national 
measures 
in  place  and  the 
Regulation  

 

Case studies 

  Data analysis 

  Distribution of cases 

 

Regulation at EU 
level  

 

To what extent do the issues addressed by 
the Regulation continue to require action 
at EU level? 

  What would be the most likely 

consequences of stopping or withdrawing 
the application of the mechanism 
introduced by the Regulation? 

 

 

to 

Cases  reported  and 
the 
notified 
by 
Commission 
national  or  regional 
authorities 

 

Synthesis 
investigations 

of 

by source of 
information  

 

Relative share of EU 
and Member States 
as sources of 
information on cases 

  Mechanisms put in 
place to implement 
the Regulation 

 

Impact of these 
mechanisms on 
resolution of serious 
disruption and on 
ensuring the free 
movement of goods 

Existence  of  effective  warning 
mechanisms  and  mechanism 
ensuring the free movements of 
good at national level 

  Desk based research  

 

Semi-structured  interviews 
with  national  authorities, 
associations,  chambers  of 
commerce and businesses 

 

Case studies 

133 

 
 
21. Annex  12:  List  of  obstacles  reported  to  the  Commission  in 

the period 2007-2017  

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2007:  

o  Lithuanian-Latvian border, restrictions on freight traffic (since December 

2006). – information transmitted by stakeholders. 

o  Problems in the Russia/Belarus border affecting goods traffic into the EU 

(2006-2007). - this is a specific, isolated, and fully sui generis case, where 
the Commission took interest in a problem taking place outside the EU, but 
whose effects were felt by the intra-EU trade in goods. 
  Notifications received by the Commission during 2008:  

o  Romania, Government Decision 1777/21.10.2004 (consolidated version) 
laying down restrictions for traffic on certain sectors of freeways and 
national express European roads (E) for road motor vehicles, other than 
those exclusively destined for transport of passengers, on Fridays, 
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays (communicated on December 
2008). 

o  Romania, temporary closure of the “Bucharest Baneasa – Aurel Vlaicu 

International Airport” (September-October). 

o  Slovenia, blockade of the Italian/Sovenian border on 28 July. 
o  Spain/France, Spanish trucks attacked in the French frontier (June). – 

information transmitted by stakeholders. 
o  Spain, blockades by demonstrators (June). 
o  Portugal, blockades at the frontier by demonstrators (June) 
o  France, blockades of the Channel ports by French fishermen/seamen 

(May). 

o  Estonia, road traffic restrictions (April). 
o  Romania, strike affecting most of the goods and passengers rail transport 

system (March).  

o  Romania, temporary closure of the “Cluj Napoca International Airport” 

o 

(February). 
Ireland, notification on a possible strike by Air Traffic Controllers on 28 
February. 

o  Romania, possible road blockades due to strikes (February). 
o  France, obstacles faced by Spanish trucks in Montpellier (February). – 

information transmitted by stakeholders. 
o  Austria, sectoral driving ban (December). 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2009:  

o  Austria, driving ban for heavy vehicles as of 1 January 2010 on B 179 

Fernpass-Straße/Tyrol (communicated on November 2009). 

o  Romania, Common Order no. 859/200/2009 of the minister of transports 
and infrastructure and the vice-minister, minister of administration and 
interior for amending the Annex no. 1 of the Government Decision no. 
1777/2004 laying down restrictions for traffic on certain sectors of 
freeways and national express European roads (E) for road motor vehicles, 
other than those exclusively destined for transport of passengers, on 
Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. (Published in Romanian 
Official Journal, Part I, no. 608 on September 3, 2009). 
o  Slovakia, several road obstacles taking place (July-August). 
o  Belgium, blockades at the Franco-Belgian border (July). – information 

transmitted by stakeholders. 
o 
 Liechtenstein, several road obstacles taking place (July-August). 
o  Greece, road blockades in the Bulgarian/Greek border (January). – 

information transmitted by stakeholders. 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2010:  
o  Slovenia, general strike on Slovenia on 29 September. 
o  Poland, two-day limitation of air traffic at the Warsaw Chopin airport 

(July). 

o  Greece, road blockades in the Bulgarian/Greek border (January). – 

information transmitted by stakeholders. 

134 

 
 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2011:  

o  Greece, road blockades in the Bulgarian/Greek border (January). – 

information transmitted by stakeholders. 

o  Austrian-Italian border, 1 day driving ban for trucks (March). 
o  Latvian roads, restrictions in some roads due to works (May). 
o  Romania, bridge closed due to works (June). 
o  Latvian roads, restrictions in some roads due to works (June). 
o  Announcement of controls in France to (mainly Spanish) trucks near the 

o 

French/Spanish border (July). – information transmitted by stakeholders. 
Incidents in the French /Spanish border (July-August). – information 
transmitted by stakeholders. 

o  Partial closing of the Austrian/Slovenian border (August). 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2012:  

Italy, road blockades throughout the country (January). 

o 
o  Austria, road blockades due to works (June). 
o  Lithuania-Latvia, blockade at Liepaja port (June). – information transmitted 

by stakeholders. 

o  Romania, traffic restrictions due to heat wave (July) 
o  Liechtenstein, traffic restrictions due to works (July) 
o  Romania, traffic restrictions due to heat wave (July) 
o  Romania, traffic restrictions due to works (July) 
o  Romania, traffic restrictions due to works (August) 
o  Austria, traffic restrictions due to citizens' meeting (September) 
o  Romania, Delta Dunării airport closed due to technical reasons 

(September) 

o  Romania, Baia Mare airport closed due to festival (October) 
o  Germany, traffic restrictions due to works (December) 
  Notifications received by the Commission during 2013:  

o  Greece, blockades in commercial ports (February). 
o 
o  Belgium, blockades at Visé (March) – information transmitted by 

Italy, obstacles in the Austrian-Italian border due to snow (February) 

stakeholders. 

o  Hungary, delays in the borders due to a new toll system (July) 
o  Romania, Timisoara airport closed due to works (July) (?) 
o  Croatia, some roads closed due to protests (August) 
o  Germany, strike by lock keepers (August) 
o  Romania, closure of Baia Mare International Airport LRBM due to technical 

reasons (September) 

o  Austria, closure of the A13 motorway (Brenner Autobahn) due to 

renovation works (September) 

o  Romania, runway 16/34 of Regia Autonomă Aeroportul „Delta Dunării” 

Tulcea, closed due technical reasons (September) 

o  Romania, runway 16/34 of Regia Autonomă Aeroportul „Delta Dunării” 

Tulcea, closed due technical reasons (October) 

o  Romania, runway 16/34 of Regia Autonomă Aeroportul „Delta Dunării” 

Tulcea, closed due technical reasons (October) – Extension of notification 

o  Romania, runway 16/34 of Regia Autonomă Aeroportul „Delta Dunării” 

Tulcea, closed due technical reasons (October) – Extension of notification 
(2) 

o  Greece, E75 National road closed for maintenance (November) 
o  Croatia, Zagreb airport closed by strike (November) 
o 
Italy, problems due to a hauliers' strike (December) 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2014:  
o  Austria, works in the Arlberg tunnel (February) 
o  Romania, adoption of an Order establishing traffic restrictions on holidays 

(February) 

o  Greece, seamen strike (April) 
o  Austria, closure of the B179 Fernpassbundesstraße in Tyrol due to works 

(May) 

o  Germany, closure of the A1 for heavy vehicles due to works (June) 

135 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

o  Romania, closure of one airport due to works (July) 
o  Romania, extended closure of one airport due to works (July) 
o  France, actions menées à Perpignan contre les transporteurs de fruits 
espagnols (July-August) – information transmitted by stakeholders. 

o  Romania, closure of one airport due to works (September) 
o  Romania, closure of one airport due to works (September) 
o  France, blockade at Fos sur Mer (November) – information transmitted by 

stakeholders. 

o  Germany, closing of a highway for works (December) 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2015:  

o  UK/France, traffic problems in the Eurotunnel (January) – information 

transmitted by stakeholders. 
o 
Italy, traffic problems due to bad weather (February) 
o  Slovenia, traffic problems due to bad weather (February) 
o  Austria, works in Brenner highway (February) 
o  Germany, traffic restrictions at the A 40 motorway (March) 
o 
Italy, closing of Fiumicino's airport and nearby roads (May) 
o  Romania, Bucharest airport closed (June) 
o  Latvia, state road closed due to works (June) 
o  Greece, strike affecting ferry schedules (June) 
o  France, strike affecting Calais and the Channel (July) – information 

transmitted by stakeholders. 

o  Romania, Satu Mare airport closed due to works (August) 
o  Romania, Delta Dunarii airport closed due to works (September) 
o  France, possible blockades in Paris due to farmers' demonstration 

(September) 

o  Hungary, closing of border posts in the Serbian frontier (September) 
o  Romania, Targu Mures Airport runway closed due to work in progress 

(September) 

o  Slovenia, border crossing with HR closed due to large number of refugees 

(September) 

o  Slovenia, border crossing with HR re-opened, but problems to be expected 

(September) 

o  Greece, ferry schedules disrupted due to strike (November) 
o  Hungary, closure of three train checkpoints in the HU/HR border 

(December) 

  Notifications received by the Commission during 2016:  

o  Greece, strike of seamen (January) 
o  Greece, strike of farmers (January-February) – information transmitted by 

stakeholders. 

o  Greece, further strikes of seamen (February) 
o  Hungary, several railway border points in the HU/HR border closed 

(February) 

o  Bulgaria, retaliatory measures against EL blockades (February) 
o  Romania, roadway closed due to works (February-April) 
o  French-Spanish border (April) 
o  Belgian roads affected by blockades (April) 
o  Latvia, traffic restrictions on A10 road due to celebrations (July) 
o  Austria, Klagenfurt airport closed due to works (September-October) 
o  Liechtenstein, road closed due to works (July) 
o  Slovenia, strike in Koper port (July) 
o  Slovenia, road closed due to State visit (July) 
o  Greece, ferries disrupted by strike (September) 
o  Romania, closure of Targu Mures Airport due to works (October) 
o  Greece, ferries disrupted by strike (November) 
  Notifications received by the Commission during 2017:  

o 

Italy, traffic restrictions for heavy vehicles in Puglia and Basilicata due to 
weather conditions (January) 

o  Greece, road blockades by farmers (January) 
o 

Italy, road restrictions due to works (February) 

136 

 
Evaluation of Regulation 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of 
goods among the Member States 

Italy, road restrictions due to works (April) 

o 
o  Greece, ferry services interrupted due to a 1-day strike (May) 
o  Liechtenstein, bridge closed due to works (May) 
o  Greece, ferry services interrupted due to a 1-day strike (May) 
o  Greece, ferry services interrupted due to a 2-day strike (May) 
o 
Italy, restrictions to traffic in Taormina (May) 
o  Romania, closing of the Bucharest airport (July) 
o 
o 
o  Romania, Transylvania Tg. Mures Airport closed due to maintenance 

Italy, restrictions to traffic due to sports competition (September) 
Italy, San Bernardo tunnel closed due to technical problems (September) 

(October) 

o  Greece, strike of ferry operators (October) 
o 
Italy, maintenance works in several roads (October) 
o  Greece, 48 hour strike affecting ferries (November) 
o 
Italy, restrictions due to festivities (November) 
o 
Italy, restrictions due to works (November) 
o  Romania, airport under maintenance works (December) 
o 
o  Greece, strike affecting ferries (December) 

Italy, northern roads under severe weather conditions (December) 

137 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
1
-
1
9
-
4
9
4
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi: 10.2873/29292