REPORT on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport
(COM(2001) 573 – C5‑0485/2001 – 2001/0241(COD))

12 November 2002 - ***I

Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Helmuth Markov
Draftsman (*): Jan Andersson, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
(*) Hughes Procedure

Procedure : 2001/0241(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected :  
A5-0388/2002
Texts tabled :
A5-0388/2002
Debates :
Votes :
Texts adopted :

PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of 12 October 2001 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Article 251(2) and Article 71 of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (COM(2001) 573–2001/0241(COD)).

At the sitting of 22 October 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred this proposal to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for their opinions (C5‑0485/2001).

At the sitting of 15 November 2001 the President of Parliament announced that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which had been asked for its opinion, would be involved in drawing up the report under the Enhanced Hughes Procedure. By letter of 6 February 2002, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs informed the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism that it agreed on drafting an opinion in accordance with the Hughes Procedure.

The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism appointed Helmuth Markov rapporteur at its meeting of 20 November 2001.

It considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 21 March 2002, 17 June 2002, 11 September 2002 and 5 November 2002.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 32 votes to 14, with 3 abstentions.

The following were present for the vote: Luciano Caveri, chairman; Rijk van Dam, Gilles Savary, vice-chairmen, and Helmuth Markov, vice-chairman and rapporteur; Sylviane H. Ainardi, Emmanouil Bakopoulos, Philip Charles Bradbourn, Felipe Camisón Asensio, Nicholas Clegg (for Isidoro Sánchez García), Luigi Cocilovo, Jean-Maurice Dehousse (for Danielle Darras), Nirj Deva (for Dana Rosemary Scallon), Jan Dhaene, Den Dover (for Reinhard Rack), Garrelt Duin, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Markus Ferber (for Dieter-Lebrecht Koch), Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Roger Helmer (for Christine De Veyrac), Georg Jarzembowski, Brigitte Langenhagen (for Renate Sommer), Giorgio Lisi, Emmanouil Mastorakis, Erik Meijer, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Francesco Musotto, James Nicholson, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Wilhelm Ernst Piecyk, Samuli Pohjamo, Bernard Poignant, José Javier Pomés Ruiz, Alonso José Puerta, Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya, Elisabeth Schroedter (for Nelly Maes), Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Margie Sudre, Joaquim Vairinhos, Geoffrey Van Orden (for Rolf Berend), Ari Vatanen, Herman Vermeer, Ralf Walter (for John Hume), Mark Francis Watts and Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (for Sérgio Marques).

The opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is attached; the Committee on Budgets decided on 21 November 2001 not to deliver an opinion.

The report was tabled on 12 November 2002.

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (COM(2001) 573 – C5‑0485/2001 – 2001/0241(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2001) 573[1]),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0485/2001),

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A5‑0388/2002),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.   Asks to be consulted again should the Commission intend to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendments by Parliament
Amendment 1
Whole text
 

Replace ‘flexible week’ with ‘week’ throughout text.

Justification

In order to avoid problems of interpretation it is desirable that the definition of ‘week’ should coincide with that used in Directive 2002/15/EC concerning the organisation of working time. This amendment should be read in conjunction with Amendment 33 (definition of ‘week’).

Amendment 2
Recital 3

(3)   Difficulties have been experienced in interpreting, applying and enforcing certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on driving time, break and rest period rules for drivers engaged in national and international road transport within the Community in a uniform manner in all Member States, because of the broad terms in which they are drafted.

(3)   Difficulties have been experienced in interpreting, applying, enforcing, and monitoring certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on driving time, break and rest period rules for drivers engaged in national and international road transport within the Community in a uniform manner in all Member States, because of the broad terms in which they are drafted.

Justification

If the regulation is to be implemented effectively, supervision is indispensable, but this is precisely the area in which serious weaknesses have been found to exist in the past.

Amendment 3
Recital 8

(8)   The provisions of the European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in International Road Transport of 1 July 1970 (AETR), as amended, should continue to apply to the carriage by road of goods and passengers by vehicles registered in any Member State or any country which is a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey where that journey is between the Community and a country which is a contracting party or through such a country;

(8)   The provisions of the European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in International Road Transport of 1 July 1970 (AETR), as amended, should continue to apply to the carriage by road of goods and passengers by vehicles registered in any Member State or any country which is a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey where that journey is between the Community and a country which is a contracting party or through such a country.. The Community and the signatory states to the AETR agreement should amend it as soon as possible so as to bring it into line with the provisions of this Regulation.

Justification

The purpose of the amendment is greater clarity. Not only must fair competition be ensured, but it is also necessary to bring the AETR agreement into line with the regulation, if possible before the latter enters into force, so as to provide for uniform controls. Otherwise, the work of inspectors would be seriously hampered by their having to apply different rules to different types of transport.

Amendment 4
Recital 9

(9)   In the case of vehicles registered in a state which is not a contracting party to AETR, those provisions will only apply to that part of the journey effected within the Community.

(9)   In the case of carriage using vehicles registered in a third country which is not a contracting party to the AETR, the provisions of this Regulation should apply to that part of the journey effected within the Community.

Amendment 5
Recital 13

(13)   The basic rules on driving time need to be clarified and simplified to allow effective and uniform enforcement by means of the digital tachograph as set out in Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport as amended by Regulation (EEC) 2135/98.

(13)   The basic rules on driving time need to be clarified and simplified to allow effective and uniform enforcement. In addition, efforts should be made to ensure uniform interpretation and application of this Regulation by national supervisory authorities.

Justification

Even without the introduction of the digital tachograph, enforcement of the basic rules concerning driving and rest periods and monitoring of compliance with them must be improved. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether it is right for the introduction of a new means of enforcement to be taken as an occasion to render existing legislation more rigid. At the same time, uniform interpretation and application of the regulation is important in order to prevent discrimination in implementation.

Amendment 6
Recital 13 a (new)
 

(13a)   To guarantee effective supervision, it is essential that the appropriate authorities, when carrying out roadside checks, should ascertain that driving times and rest periods have been properly observed on the check day and the preceding 27 days.

Justification

Driving times measured on a fortnightly basis are a cornerstone of the social provisions, and compliance should accordingly be ascertainable. This cannot happen unless the information available to the authorities carrying out a roadside check allows them to examine a longer period than has been the case hitherto.

Amendment 7
Recital 17

(17)   In view of the increase in cross-border carriage of goods and passengers, it is desirable in the interests of road safety and enhanced enforcement for roadside checks to cover driving times and rest periods undertaken within other Member States or third countries.

(17)   In view of the increase in cross-border carriage of goods and passengers, it is desirable in the interests of road safety and enhanced enforcement for roadside checks to cover driving times and rest periods undertaken within other Member States or third countries and determine whether they have been fully and properly observed.

Amendment 8
Recital 23 a (new)
 

(23a)   The introduction of the digital checking device under Regulation (EC) No 2135/98, enabling the activities of a driver over a 28-day period to be recorded electronically on his driver card and electronic records of vehicle operations to cover a 365-day period, will in future make for more rapid and comprehensive roadside checks. The transitional period in which two different tachograph systems (conventional recording equipment and the new digital tachograph) will be in use at the same time should be restricted to the minimum so as to enable checks to be conducted efficiently.

 

The use of the better checking device in all vehicles should therefore be made mandatory as quickly as possible. Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2135/98, should accordingly be amended to the effect that all vehicles would have to be fitted with the above device by a specified date.

Justification

When the digital tachograph is introduced for vehicles put newly into service, two different checking devices will be in use during a transitional period. For those who will be driving vehicles fitted with the new device as well as conventionally equipped vehicles, checks on driving times and rest periods will be made considerably more complicated, if not impossible. These drivers will have to produce both the driver card and the traditional discs to cover different periods. The most likely consequence is that checks will be reduced. The same problem applies to checks on undertakings with mixed vehicle fleets. It is estimated that a transitional period of up to ten years will be required until all vehicles have been fitted with a digital tachograph. Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2135/98, should therefore be altered to the effect that all vehicles would have to be fitted with a digital tachograph by a specified date.

Amendment 9
Recital 23 b (new)
 

(23b)   Experience has shown that compliance with the provisions of this Regulation, in particular the specified maximum driving time over a two-week period, cannot be enforced unless proper and effective supervision is brought to bear in roadside checks on the whole of that period and not just the maximum of eight days laid down in Directive 88/599/EEC in conjunction with Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (both as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2135/98). The two acts should therefore be adjusted in order to impose a requirement to check driving times in the preceding 28 days at the roadside, whether a vehicle is fitted with conventional recording equipment or the new digital recording device.

Justification

Data covering 28 driving days can be recorded on the driver card, thus making it possible to ascertain that compensation has been provided in every case where rest periods might have been shortened or driving times lengthened.

In particular, roadside checks can consequently establish that the upper limits applying to driving time in any one fortnight have not been exceeded. Since it is not clear what data storage arrangements for the new electronic system will be made at company level and data relating to longer periods are retrievable only from a vehicle memory, checks on undertakings will be virtually impossible when the new system is in use. As a result, driving times measured on a fortnightly basis, a cornerstone of the social provisions, will be impossible to check in the proper way.

Amendment 10
Recital 23 c (new)
 

(23c)   Under Directive 88/599/EEC roadside checks are confined to daily driving time, daily rest periods, and breaks. When digital recording equipment is introduced, driver and vehicle data will be stored electronically, and data can be evaluated electronically on the spot. This should also enable simple checks to be carried out on weekly rest periods and compensatory rest periods for reduced daily and weekly rest periods. Roadside checks should likewise ascertain compliance with the maximum working time of 60 hours in any one week, in accordance with the specific Working Time Directive, Directive 2002/15/EC. To that end drivers could carry a certificate issued by their employer, as they already do in order to furnish evidence of weekly rest periods, for as long as there was no binding requirement to enter data manually in the digital recording device. Given the reference period, supervision of the 48- hour average working week should continue to be exercised in checks on undertakings.

Justification

Weekly rest periods (or at any rate the last two) need to be checked in order to determine whether a driver’s rest periods have been increased to make up for any reduced weekly rest periods. Since the entry into force of Directive 2002/15/EC on the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, employers have been obliged to record the time worked by such staff and to keep those records.

It would consequently not be too much to ask of an employer if, before the start of the first journey at the beginning of a new week, he had to issue his drivers with certificates specifying the total time worked in the preceding week. Such certificates could, moreover, be handed out together with the proof of the last weekly rest period.

In addition, in the light of the ruling of the Court of Justice (Case C-297/99), certificates of time worked should be regarded as an aid to the personnel carrying out checks. The judgment states that time spent driving vehicles without a checking device must be recorded as other working time and factored in when calculating driving time on a fortnightly basis. However, to take full advantage of the technical potential of the digital tachograph, a requirement should be laid down to enter rest periods and other working time manually so as to cover the time when the driver card is not inserted in the on-board checking device.

Amendment 11
Recital 23 d (new)
 

(23d)   Article 1 2 of Directive 88/599/EEC stipulates that at least 1% of working days must be checked every year, of which not less than 15% are to be checked at the roadside and not less than 25% at the premises of undertakings. In view of the numerous infringements of the law, the percentage of days checked should be raised to at least 2%. At least 1% of working days should be checked at the premises of undertakings. Checks on undertakings are the only means of ascertaining a driver’s overall working pattern. In addition, Directive 88/599/EEC should be adjusted so as to enable the provisions of Directive 2002/15/EC (the Working Time Directive) likewise to be monitored.

Justification

The digital tachograph enables more and better checks to be carried out at the roadside. It should also be possible to check the requisite data more thoroughly than has been the case hitherto. That said, there is a danger that checks on undertakings might be reduced. A trend in that direction is already observable today. However, it is only through checks on undertakings that scrutiny can be brought to bear on all the individual elements of the rules, whether deriving from the proposed regulation or from Directive 2002/15/EC on working time, and on the overall workload falling to drivers. This applies especially to enforcement of the 48-hour average working week. That is why the specified minimum number of checks at the premises of undertakings needs to be raised substantially.

Amendment 12
Article 1

This Regulation lays down rules on driving time, breaks and rest periods for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers by road in order to harmonise the conditions of competition between methods of inland transport, especially with regard to the road sector and to improve working conditions and road safety.

This Regulation lays down rules on driving time, breaks and rest periods for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers by road with the primary intention to clarify and simplify and update what is already contained in the current Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and also in order to harmonise the conditions of competition, to improve monitoring and enforcement, to promote safe working practices and to improve working conditions and road safety.

Justification

The extra comments use the Commission’s own words from the introductory paragraphs, and are inserted here to reinforce the full purpose of the directive. An important part of the reason for revising this regulation lies in the problems which have arisen in monitoring compliance with it and enforcing it. This problem should be reduced by amending the regulation. Accordingly, this purpose should be explicitly mentioned.

Amendment 13
Article 1 a (new)
 

Article 1a

 

The minimum standards laid down in the first and second sentences of Article 4, first paragraph, subparagraph (a), of Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities shall form part of this Regulation.

Justification

The proposed regulation is closely related to the Working Time Directive, Directive 2002/15/EC. The scope of the directive is thus determined by the scope of the regulation, and rest periods for the drivers concerned will likewise be governed by the regulation and not by the directive. It must be ensured that the provisions of Directive 2002/15/EC, especially regarding the working week, are not undermined by the regulation.

Amendment 14
Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1, point (a)

(a)   of goods where the permissible maximum weight of the vehicles, including any trailer, or semi-trailer, exceeds 3.5 tonnes, or

(a)   of goods where the permissible maximum weight of the vehicles, including any trailer, or semi-trailer, exceeds 3.5 tonnes, and to all vehicles used by courier and express delivery services, or

Justification

Irrespective of the weight of the vehicles used, courier and express delivery services need to be included in the regulation because accidents involving vehicles in this transport sector, especially those under 3.5 tonnes, are increasing sharply.

Amendment 15
Article 2, paragraph 2, point (b)

(b)   by vehicles registered in a third country which is not a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey made within the Community.

deleted

Justification

The AETR Agreement also applies to journeys with vehicles from third countries. Measures must be taken to prevent such vehicles enjoying a clear competitive advantage if they do not have to comply with the strict rules concerning driving and rest periods in this regulation.

Amendment 16
Article 2, paragraph 2 a (new)
 

2a.   This Regulation shall apply to carriage by road undertaken by vehicles registered in a third country which is not a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey made within the Community.

Justification

As regards vehicles from third countries not subject to any rules, the law applicable on Community territory should be the regulation and not the AETR. This is a particularly important point because vehicles with an ECMT licence may operate in the Community while the licence is valid. For checking purposes, a logbook, in which the text of the regulation and explanatory notes should also be reproduced, should be issued to drivers at the border.

Amendment 17
Article 3, paragraph 2 a (new)
 

2a.   Vintage vehicles not used for industrial or commercial purposes, meaning all mechanically self-propelled vehicles more than 25 years old, plus vehicles less than 25 years old if they form part of a collection of historic vehicles;

Justification

If such vehicles were not excluded from the scope of this regulation, they would have to be fitted with tachographs, which would make it pointless to maintain vintage vehicles. It is also necessary to define what vehicles are covered.

Amendment 18
Article 3, paragraph 3

3.   vehicles owned or hired in without a driver by the armed services, civil defence, fire services, and forces responsible for maintaining public order;

3.   vehicles owned or hired without a driver by the civil defence, fire services, and forces responsible for maintaining public order, when the carriage is undertaken as a consequence of the tasks assigned to these services and is under their control; vehicles owned or hired without a driver by the armed forces in times of crisis or in the event of war;

Justification

It is important to maintain the autonomy of the armed forces in times of crisis and in the event of war. However, drivers should also be covered by this regulation during their remaining period of service, since columns of vehicles during transfers can cause substantial problems.

Amendment 19
Article 3, paragraph 4

4.   vehicles used in emergencies or rescue operations;

4.   vehicles used in emergencies, for transporting humanitarian aid or in rescue operations;

Justification

The transport of humanitarian aid is an exceptional case of solidarity and needs to be swift. It should therefore be excluded from the provisions of this regulation.

Amendment 20
Article 3, paragraph 5

5.   specialised vehicles which are owned or hired in without a driver by the State and used for medical purposes;

5.   specialised vehicles for medical purposes;

Justification

Exceptions are to be justified by the content of the activities, not conditions of ownership. A patient in need must be able to count on rapid medical care, regardless of whether the vehicles in question are publicly or privately owned.

Amendment 21
Article 3, paragraph 7

7.   specialised breakdown vehicles operating within a 50 km radius of their base;

7.   specialised breakdown vehicles operating within a 100 km radius of their base;

Justification

The removal of obstacles from roads should not depend on whether a driver still has a driving period available. Moreover, a 50 km radius is too small in less densely populated areas.

Amendment 22
Article 3, paragraph 9

9.   vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 7 500 kg used for non-commercial carriage of goods.

9.   vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 3 500 kg used for non-commercial carriage of goods.

Justification

The 3.5 tonne limit should likewise be imposed for non-commercial carriage so as to be consistent with Article 2(1)(a), bearing in mind also that the safety aspect is not confined to the commercial sector.

Amendment 23
Article 3, paragraph 9 a (new)
 

9a.   vehicles for the collection of milk from farms and the return to farms of milk churns or dairy products for feeding to livestock.

Justification

As many peripheral areas are predominantly agricultural and long distances have to be travelled in them, it is necessary to provide for a derogation for such transport in order for commercial operations to remain viable. The existing derogation should therefore continue.

Amendment 24
Article 3, paragraph 9 b (new)
 

9b.   vehicles used by the authorities responsible for sewerage, flood protection, water, gas, and electricity services, highway maintenance and control, refuse collection and disposal, telegraph and telephone services, radio and television broadcasting, or detection of radio or television transmitters or receivers.

Justification

The universal postal service requires specific expenditure. To retain the exceptional arrangement will facilitate the service and enable it to continue in operation.

Amendment 25
Article 4, paragraph 1

1.   “carriage by road” means any journey made on roads by a vehicle, whether laden or not, used for the carriage of passengers or goods;

1.   “carriage by road” means any journey made on roads open to the public by a vehicle, whether laden or not, used for the carriage of passengers or goods;

Justification

This excludes from the scope of the regulation transport which is confined to private land. The advantage is that transport which takes place exclusively on private land will not suffer from administrative burdens and costs on account of the installation and calibration of tachographs. Road safety will not be impaired because drivers will not drive on the public highway and will drive for only a minimal number of hours per day.

Amendment 26
Article 4, paragraph 2, indent 1

-   “motor vehicle”: any mechanically self-propelled vehicle circulating on the road, other than a vehicle permanently running on rails, and normally used for carrying passengers or goods;

-   “motor vehicle”: any self-propelled vehicle circulating on the road, other than a vehicle permanently running on rails, and normally used for carrying passengers or goods;

Justification

It seems redundant to restrict the scope of these provisions to ‘mechanically’ self-propelled vehicles, since, owing to technical innovations and developments, other forms of propulsion such as electric and solar forms etc. may be used.

Amendment 27
Article 4, paragraph 2, indent 2

-   “tractor”: any mechanically self-propelled vehicle circulating on the road, other than a vehicle permanently running on rails, and specially designed to pull, push or move trailers, semi-trailers, implements or machines;

-   “tractor”: any self-propelled vehicle circulating on the road, other than a vehicle permanently running on rails, and specially designed to pull, push or move trailers, semi-trailers, implements or machines;

Justification

See justification for previous amendment.

Amendment 28
Article 4, paragraph 3

3.   “driver” means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in a vehicle in order to be available for driving if necessary;

3.   “driver” means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in the same vehicle for the purpose of driving it;

Justification

With the formulation as it stands, even a driver who was being given a lift to his own vehicle could be defined as a driver of the vehicle in which he was travelling. It should therefore be made clear that only drivers who are actually intended to drive the vehicle should be regarded as such.

Amendment 29
Article 4, paragraph 3 a (new)
 

3a.   “driving time” means the duration of the activity in which the driver controls the vehicle and is an active road user, including the time needed for the driver to make his way to the place of assignment or the vehicle, if that journey is made in a vehicle driven by the driver himself, but excluding the journey from his place of residence to his place of work;

Amendment 30
Article 4, paragraph 4

4.   “break” means any period during which a driver may not carry out any other work.

4.   “break” means any period during which a driver may not carry out any other work and which is exclusively intended for recuperation.

Justification

This amendment makes it clear that the break is solely intended to enable the driver to recuperate.

Amendment 31
Article 4, paragraph 7, indent 1

-   “regular daily rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 12 hours.

-   “regular daily rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 12 hours;

 

The normal daily rest may be taken in two periods, the first of which must be an uninterrupted period of at least 3 hours and the second an uninterrupted period of at least 9 hours.

Justification

The change proposed increases the daily rest period from 11 to 12 hours, which must be taken in an uninterrupted period. We are not opposed to this one-hour increase, but to the idea that there can be no scope for flexibility.

It is therefore proposed that the rest be split into two periods, the first of at least three hours and the second of at least nine hours (always in that order) to prevent the kind of situations which the legislator is seeking to avoid.

Amendment 32
Article 4, paragraph 8, subparagraph 1

8.   “weekly rest period” means the weekly period during which the driver may freely dispose of his time and covers a “regular weekly rest period” or a “reduced weekly rest period”.

8.   “weekly rest period” means a period during which the driver may freely dispose of his time and covers a “regular weekly rest period” or a “reduced weekly rest period”.

Justification

This is one of four amendments which reinstate the fixed week as the basis for determining when weekly rest is due and increase the flexibility over the timing of weekly rest. The calendar week is an easier concept for drivers and planners to use when checking the number of hours available for driving and required for rest. The change will avoid needless inflexibility, for example the ‘fixing’ of days off on midweek days for some drivers and at weekends for others. It will also make it possible to time weekly rest to coincide with drivers’ domestic commitments and, for touring coaches, days when the party can sensibly take a day at leisure. Companies making coaches available for hire on a daily or hourly basis experience peaks and troughs in demand, for example in conjunction with major sporting events, and flexibility over the timing of weekly rest is important for matching up working days for drivers with days when work is available. Applying more flexible rules to weekly rest taken away from base creates perverse incentives to send drivers away from home, which have been removed by these amendments.

Amendment 33
Article 4, paragraph 9

9.   A “flexible week" means the period of time between the end of one weekly rest period and the beginning of the next weekly rest period.

9.   A “week" means the period of time between 00.00 on Monday and 24.00 on Sunday.

Justification

This amendment is necessary in order to introduce a standard definition at Community level, since both the existing Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and the regulation on working time (adopted by Parliament in January 2002 after the conclusion of the conciliation procedure – C5‑0688/2001) are based on the calendar week. It is more practical to use the calendar week, since compliance with the rules can be better monitored and it helps protect employees from weekend work.

Amendment 34
Article 4, paragraph 14

14.   “multi-manning” - a driver is engaged in multi-manning a vehicle if there is, during all periods of driving between any two consecutive daily rest periods, or between a daily rest period and a weekly rest period, at least one other driver on the vehicle.

14.   “multi-manning” - a driver is engaged in multi-manning a vehicle if there is, during periods of driving between any two consecutive daily rest periods, or between a daily rest period and a weekly rest period, at least one other driver on the vehicle doing the driving. For the first hour of multi-manning the presence of another driver or drivers is optional but for the remainder of the period it is compulsory.

Justification

This amendment allows a driver to work alone for the first hour of a period of ‘multi-manning’. There are no safety concerns from this slight relaxation, which will allow better care of passengers because one of a pair of drivers will be able to organise a group or complete journey documents while the other fetches the coach.

Amendment 35
Article 5, paragraphs -1, -1 a, and –1 b (new)
 

-   1. The minimum age of drivers engaged in the carriage of goods shall be as follows:

 

(a)   for vehicles, including, where applicable, trailers or semi-trailers, having a permissible maximum weight not more than 7.5 tonnes, 18 years;

 

(b)   for other vehicles:

 

   21 years, or

 

   18 years, provided that the driver holds a certificate of professional competence recognised by one of the Member States confirming that he has completed a training course for drivers of vehicles intended for the carriage of goods by road, in conformity with Community rules on the minimum level of training for road transport drivers.

 

-   1a. Drivers engaged in the carriage of passengers shall be aged at least 21 years.

 

Any driver engaged in the carriage of passengers on journeys beyond a 50 kilometre radius from the place where the vehicle is based must also fulfil one of the following conditions:

 

(a)   he must have worked for at least one year in the carriage of goods as a driver of vehicles with a permissible maximum weight exceeding 3.5 tonnes; or

 

(b)   he must have worked for at least one year as a driver of vehicles used to provide passenger services on journeys within a 50 kilometre radius from the place where the vehicle is based, or other types of passenger services not subject to this Regulation, provided that the competent authority considers that he has by so doing acquired the necessary experience; or

 

(c)   he must hold a certificate of professional competence recognised by one of the Member States confirming that he has completed a training course for drivers of vehicles intended for the carriage of passengers by road, in conformity with Community rules on the minimum level of training for road transport drivers.

 

-   1c. A driver engaged in the carriage of passengers shall not be subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2, second subparagraph, (a), (b), and (c) if he has carried on that occupation for at least one year prior to 1 October 1970.

Justification

To avoid the legal vacuum that might arise between the time when the regulation is adopted and adoption of the directive on the training of professional drivers for the carriage of goods or passengers by road (COM(2001) 56), the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3280/85, as set out above, should remain in force until the directive has been adopted and transposed.

Amendment 36
Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2

However, the daily driving time may be extended to at most 10 hours not more than twice during the flexible week.

However, the daily driving time may be extended to at most 10 hours not more than twice during the week.

Justification

This amendment is based on the use of the calendar week instead of the flexible week.

Amendment 37
Article 6, paragraph 2

2.   The flexible week shall not exceed 144 hours.

deleted

Justification

This follows on logically from the change from a flexible to a calendar week.

Amendment 38
Article 6, paragraph 4

4.   The total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive flexible weeks shall not exceed 90 hours.

4.   The total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive weeks shall not exceed 90 hours.

Justification

A consequence of the reversion to a fixed week.

Amendment 39
Article 6, paragraph 6

6.   A driver of a vehicle within the scope of this Regulation who also drives between two daily rest periods or between a daily and weekly rest period a vehicle coming within the exemptions set out in Article 3 or derogations provided for in Articles 13 and 14 shall record the total daily driving time.

6.   A driver of a vehicle within the scope of this Regulation who also drives between two daily rest periods or between a daily and weekly rest period a vehicle coming within the exemption set out in Article 3(1) shall record the total daily driving time.

Justification

As a result of the amendment, the requirement to record the driving time manually on intervening days will apply only to scheduled passenger transport services. The other categories will be exempt for specific reasons, such as urgent assistance, transport in a limited area or private transport, these being cases where there is no danger of excesses. The requirement to keep manual records of driving time would result in disproportionate administrative burdens in the case of these categories while doing nothing to improve road safety. In addition, it would impede the provision of assistance in emergencies.

Amendment 40
Article 7

1.   After at most three hours of driving a driver shall observe a break of at least 30 minutes unless he begins a rest.

1.   After at most three hours of driving a driver shall observe a break of at least 30 minutes unless he begins a rest.

2.   However, this break may be observed after at most four-and-a-half hours of driving if the break is prolonged to at least 45 minutes unless the driver begins a rest.

2.   However, this break may be observed after at most four-and-a-half hours of driving if the break is prolonged to at least 60 minutes unless the driver begins a rest.

 

2a.   The second break of not less than 30 minutes after a further three hours’ driving time, as required by virtue of paragraph 1, may be replaced by breaks of not less than 15 minutes each, to be scheduled during or immediately after the driving time. The same shall apply to the one-hour break after four and a half hours of driving so that after a break of not less than 30 minutes, the remaining 30 minutes may likewise be replaced by breaks of not less than 15 minutes each.

Amendment 41
Article 8, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1

2.   A driver shall complete a new daily rest period not later than 24 hours after the end of the previous daily rest period or weekly rest period.

2.   A driver must have taken a new daily rest period not later than 24 hours after the end of the previous daily rest period or weekly rest period.

Justification

This is a stylistic improvement.

Amendment 42
Article 8, paragraph 3

3.   A driver may have at most three reduced daily rest periods during a flexible week.

3.   Within every 24-hour period, a driver shall take a daily rest period of at least 12 consecutive hours, which not more than three times a week may be shortened to not less than 9 consecutive hours.

 

On days when it is not shortened in accordance with the first subparagraph, the rest period may be taken in two portions within the 24-hour period, one of which must amount to not less than 9 consecutive hours. In that event the minimum rest period shall be raised to 12 hours.

Justification

A driver’s need to recuperate can be met more effectively if he is allowed to sleep for an hour or two when he feels tired. By taking rest periods in separate portions, he can divide up his working day in such a way that he always takes his main rest at night-time, which would not be possible unless rest periods could be split. The fact that, in such cases, the total rest period in any 24-hour period would amount to 12 hours would help to guarantee road safety and protect drivers’ health. Flexible organisation of rest periods serves the interests of drivers and undertakings alike (see the fourth amendment to Article 4(7), first indent). Two-member vehicle crews, which benefit road safety but are costly for employers, would also remain a worthwhile option.

Amendment 43
Article 8, paragraph 4

4.   By way of derogation from paragraph 2, within 30 hours after the end of a daily rest period, a driver engaged in multi-manning shall complete a new daily rest period.

4.   By way of derogation from paragraph 2, within 30 hours after the end of a daily rest period, a driver engaged in multi-manning shall take a new daily rest period.

Justification

This is a stylistic improvement.

Amendment 44
Article 8, paragraph 6 b (new)
 

6b.   A weekly rest period that falls in two weeks may be counted in either week, but not in both.

Justification

This is one of the amendments which reinstate the fixed week as the basis for determining when weekly rest is due and increase the flexibility over the timing of weekly rest. The calendar week is an easier concept for drivers and planners to use when checking the number of hours available for driving and required for rest. The change will avoid needless inflexibility, for example the ‘fixing’ of days off on midweek days for some drivers and at weekends for others. It will also make it possible to time weekly rest to coincide with drivers’ domestic commitments and, for touring coaches, days when the party can sensibly take a day at leisure. Companies making coaches available for hire on a daily or hourly basis experience peaks and troughs in demand, for example in conjunction with major sporting events, and flexibility over the timing of weekly rest is important for matching up working days for drivers with days when work is available. Applying more flexible rules to weekly rest taken away from base creates perverse incentives to send drivers away from home, which have been removed by these amendments.

Amendment 45
Article 8, paragraph 6 c (new)
 

6c.   A driver taking a reduced weekly rest period shall take an additional period of rest of the difference between 45 hours and the length of the reduced weekly rest taken. This additional period of rest:

 

-   shall be taken en bloc.

 

-   shall be taken by the end of the week following the week in which the reduced weekly rest commenced.

 

-   shall be attached to either a weekly rest period or to a daily rest period.

Justification

This is one of the amendments which reinstate the fixed week as the basis for determining when weekly rest is due and increase the flexibility over the timing of weekly rest. The calendar week is an easier concept for drivers and planners to use when checking the number of hours available for driving and required for rest. The change will avoid needless inflexibility, for example the ‘fixing’ of days off on midweek days for some drivers and at weekends for others. It will also make it possible to time weekly rest to coincide with drivers’ domestic commitments and, for touring coaches, days when the party can sensibly take a day at leisure. Companies making coaches available for hire on a daily or hourly basis experience peaks and troughs in demand, for example in conjunction with major sporting events, and flexibility over the timing of weekly rest is important for matching up working days for drivers with days when work is available. Applying more flexible rules to weekly rest taken away from base creates perverse incentives to send drivers away from home, which have been removed by these amendments.

Amendment 46
Article 9, paragraph 1

1.   By way of derogation from Article 8, where a driver accompanies a vehicle which is transported by ferry or train, and takes a regular daily rest period, that period may be interrupted not more than once by other activities not exceeding one hour in total.

1.   Notwithstanding Article 8, a regular daily rest period may, where necessary, be interrupted not more than twice, provided that the intervals between two portions of a rest period are as short as possible and under no circumstances exceed one hour.

Justification

Ferries and trains are not the only reason why a rest period might have to be briefly interrupted. If a train or ferry were to be the reason, a driver could certainly be asked to embark and disembark during the same rest period.

Amendment 47
Article 9, paragraph 1

1.   By way of derogation from Article 8, where a driver accompanies a vehicle which is transported by ferry or train, and takes a regular daily rest period, that period may be interrupted not more than once by other activities not exceeding one hour in total.

1.   By way of derogation from Article 8, where a driver accompanies a vehicle which is transported by ferry or train, and takes a regular daily rest period, that period may be interrupted not more than twice by other activities not exceeding one hour in total.

Justification

This amendment is intended to enable certain activities necessitated by external factors to be carried out during a daily or weekly rest period, one example being parking a vehicle on and driving it off the means of transport carrying it.

Amendment 48
Article 10, paragraph 3 a (new)
 

3a.   Member States shall take care that consignors, freight forwarders, prime contractors, subcontractors and enterprises which employ mobile workers comply with the relevant provisions of this Regulation.

(See Article 14, paragraph 3, of ‘Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee’ of 16 January 2002 (C5-0688/2001 – 1998/0319(COD))

Justification

This amendment reproduces Article 14, paragraph 3, of the final provisions of the Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road-transport activities.

Amendment 49
Article 10, paragraph 5

5.   A transport undertaking shall not be liable under paragraph 4 if it proves that -

5.   In accordance with Article 9(b) of Directive 2002/15/EC, a transport undertaking shall be obliged to keep records of the driving and working time of drivers and take the steps required to acquaint itself with the total time worked, even where drivers are employed by several employers or temporarily put at the disposal of the undertaking.

(a)   the infringement was due to the fact that the driver had failed to comply with the instructions given to him by that transport undertaking; or

 

(b)   it was not aware and could not reasonably become aware that the driver had been employed or was at the disposal of several employers and was thereby subject to several sets of instructions which would cause him to breach the rules set out in Chapter II.

 

Justification

The Commission proposal that transport undertakings should be made responsible for observance of driving times and rest periods, and hence liable to prosecution in the event of non-compliance, is greatly to be welcomed and urgently necessary. On the other hand, paragraph 5 could in practice render the provision inoperative, because an employer could always invoke the circumstances described. Instead, undertakings should be obliged to keep records and make proper efforts to obtain information, as is called for, moreover, by the Working Time Directive (Directive 2002/15/EC).

Amendment 50
Article 10 a (new)
 

Article 10a

 

10a.   Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that relations between shippers, forwarding agents, main customers and subcontractors are regulated by the adoption of binding contracts which enable compliance with this Regulation to be monitored.

Justification

The purpose of this amendment is to introduce all possible mechanisms and instruments in contractual relations in the transport chain in order to ensure that the regulation is appropriately implemented.

Amendment 51
Article 11

A Member State may apply higher minimum breaks and rest periods or lower maximum driving times than those laid down in Articles 6 to 9 inclusive to carriage by road undertaken wholly within its territory by vehicles registered in that Member State.

Without prejudice to the implementation of collective or other agreements concluded between the two sides of industry and already in force, a Member State may apply higher minimum breaks and rest periods or lower maximum driving times than those laid down in Articles 6 to 9 inclusive to carriage by road undertaken wholly within its territory.

Justification

This regulation seeks only to set minimum standards concerning road safety and improvements in working conditions and the conditions of competition. More far-reaching national rules do not stand in the way of this objective. These national rules should also apply to vehicles registered in other Member States. This establishes equality between vehicles registered in a given Member State and in other Member States. Nothing should be done to undermine the enforcement of existing provisions that protect the safety and health of workers more effectively.

Amendment 52
Article 12

Provided that road safety is not thereby jeopardised and to enable the vehicle to reach a suitable stopping place, the driver may depart from the provisions of Articles 6 – 9 to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle or its load. The driver shall indicate the nature of the reason for such departure from the provisions on the record sheet of the recording equipment or in the duty roster.

Provided that road safety is not thereby jeopardised and to enable the vehicle to reach a suitable stopping place, the driver may depart from the provisions of Articles 6 – 9 to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle or its load. The driver shall indicate the nature of the reason for such departure from the provisions on the record sheet of the recording equipment or in the duty roster at the latest on arrival at the suitable stopping place.

Justification

This amendment allows a driver to record the reason for his departure from the provisions, i.e. the fact that he could not find a suitable stopping place, after the event, in other words when he has stopped at a suitable place. The regulation will thus be easier to implement, since the driver will not be breaking the law even if he has overrun his driving time because there was no place to stop. If he is checked, he will accordingly be able to show why he did not record the reason for non-compliance with the driving time immediately, that is to say during the journey.

Given the difficulties that might arise in checks, the restriction being proposed by the rapporteur, whereby a driver would not be permitted to depart from the provisions more than twice in any one week, should be rejected.

Amendment 53
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (b)

(b)   vehicles used by agriculture, horticulture, forestry, farming or fishery undertakings for carrying goods within a 50 kilometre radius of the base of the undertaking;

(b)   vehicles used by agriculture, horticulture, forestry, farming or fishery undertakings for carrying goods as part of their own entrepreneurial activity within a 50 kilometre radius of the base of the undertaking;

Justification

This amendment makes clear that derogations are only admissible in the case of entrepreneurial activities by these privileged branches.

Amendment 54
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (c)

(c)   vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 7 500 kg carrying material or equipment for the driver’s use in the course of his work within a 50 kilometre radius of the base of the undertaking, provided that driving the vehicle does not constitute the driver’s main activity;

(c)   vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 7 500 kg when used to deliver postal items as part of the universal service or carrying material or equipment for the driver’s use in the course of his work within a 50 kilometre radius of the base of the undertaking, provided that driving the vehicle does not constitute the driver’s main activity;

Amendment 55
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (g)

(g)   vehicles used in connection with the sewerage, flood protection or water services, highway maintenance and control, or refuse collection or disposal services;

(g)   vehicles used in connection with the sewerage, flood protection, water, gas and electricity services, highway maintenance and control, refuse collection and disposal, telegraph and telephone services, radio and television broadcasting and detection of radio or television transmitters or receivers;

Justification

The amendment is necessary to reinstate the exemption for essential services such as gas and electricity in cases where EU drivers’ hours rules would prevent an emergency response to restore the supply of essential services to the general public where this ban has been disrupted by unforeseen circumstances.

Amendment 56
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (g a) (new)
 

(ga)   vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 7 500 kg used to deliver postal items within a radius of 50 km.

Justification

Driving is not the main activity involved in the delivery of parcels. The average driving time in this case is 2½ hours a day. Parcel delivery can be equated with carriage of material or equipment for other purposes (see Article 13(1)(c)).

Amendment 57
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (g b) (new)
 

(gb)   vehicles for use as shops at local markets, for house-to-house sales, for mobile operations by banks, bureaux de change or savings banks, for religious services, for the lending of books, discs or cassettes or for cultural events or exhibitions and which are specially equipped for such use;

Justification

Member States must guarantee an adequate level of public services. They must therefore be permitted to make exceptions for the services listed if this is necessary in order to provide them. The existing rules should therefore be retained.

Amendment 58
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (g c) (new)
 

(gc)   vehicles for the carriage of slaughtered animals or slaughter waste not intended for human consumption;

Justification

National derogations must take account not only of developments in the road transport sector but unquestionably also of the social and economic situation. In addition, it is more important to consider the purpose for which certain transport operations are performed than whether a particular subsector is subject to competitive pressure.

Amendment 59
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (g d) (new)
 

(gd)   vehicles for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses;

Justification

National derogations must take account not only of developments in the road transport sector but unquestionably also of the social and economic situation. In addition, it is more important to consider the purpose for which certain transport operations are performed than whether a particular subsector is subject to competitive pressure.

Amendment 60
Article 16, paragraph -1 (new)
 

-   1. The minimum number of checks to be carried out in the Member States shall be set at at least 2% of the total number of days worked.

Justification

The average number at Community level is so far approximately 2%. Since checks in some Member States fall far below this average – according to the relevant Commission reports – (for instance, in one case only 0.3% of the days worked were monitored), a minimum number must be introduced.

Amendment 61
Article 16, paragraph 1

1.   Where no recording equipment has been fitted to the vehicle in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85, the provisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply until 31 December 2006 to:

1.   Where no recording equipment has been fitted to the vehicle in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85, the provisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply until the compulsory introduction of digital recording equipment in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85:

Justification

Instead of a specific date until when the provisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 16 shall apply, a more coherent approach is needed by fixing a deadline in relation to the compulsory introduction of the digital recording equipment.

Amendment 62
Article 16, paragraph 3 a (new)
 

3a.   The transport undertaking shall be obliged to keep or, by means of a storage device, retain all data and information relating to the driving times and rest periods of its drivers for a period of one year at its head office.

Justification

This addition is intended to ensure that undertakings will keep electronic tachograph data just as they have been keeping old-style tachograph records.

Amendment 63
Article 18

Member States shall adopt such measures as may be necessary for the implementation of this Regulation.

As effective joint implementation is more important than any individual provisions, Member States shall not only adopt such measures as may be necessary for the implementation of this Regulation but also increase the rate of inspection. They shall produce regular reports on this efficiency increase and forward them to the Commission.

Justification

The moaning about the old regulation was mainly because it did not lead to effective and uniform implementation. So the Member States must not only increase their implementing measures but also report on it as part of their mutual information process and Commission inspection.

Amendment 64
Article 19, paragraph 1

Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. These penalties may be civil, administrative or criminal in nature.

Member States shall, on a proposal from the Commission, lay down rules on a common range of categories of penalties depending on the gravity of the infringements, applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. These penalties may be civil, administrative or criminal in nature, but shall always comply with the principle of non-discrimination (equality before the law) in relations with persons or undertakings that do not belong to the Member State concerned.

Justification

‘Impoundment’ is a concept from criminal law and is used when the relevant authority impounds an object as evidence. This is not the case here. The intention here is to allow the authorities to ‘seize’ a vehicle in order to avert a danger (in this case the risk of drivers exceeding driving times), without, however, altering the ownership status of the vehicle. In order to achieve harmonisation at Community level, Member States must be obliged to lay down rules on a common range of penalties which also reflect the gravity of the infringement committed. The purpose of the penalties is to improve implementation of this regulation, with all its social objectives, and also road safety. Completion of the internal market should, in the field of road transport as elsewhere, strictly comply with the principle of non-discrimination against those who do not belong to the Member State concerned.

Amendment 65
Article 19, paragraph 2

The penalties shall include the possibility of impoundment of the vehicle for serious infringements.

The penalties shall include the possibility of taking the vehicle into safe keeping for serious infringements until such time as the cause of the infringement has been rectified.

Amendment 66
Article 20, paragraph 2

2.   The competent authorities of the Member States shall regularly send one another all available information concerning:

2.   The competent authorities of the Member States shall regularly send one another all available information concerning:

(a)   breaches of the rules set out in Chapter II committed by non-residents and any penalties imposed for such breaches;

(a)   national interpretation and application of the provisions of this Regulation;

(b)   penalties imposed by a Member State on its residents for such breaches committed in other Member States.

(b)   breaches of the rules set out in Chapter II committed by non-residents and any penalties imposed for such breaches;

 

(c)   penalties imposed by a Member State on its residents for such breaches committed in other Member States.

Justification

In practice, the existing regulation is not interpreted and applied uniformly. This is creating legal uncertainty and unequal treatment. An effort should be made to attain (1) mutual knowledge concerning the interpretation and application of the regulation and (2) harmonisation of the implementing provisions.

Amendment 67
Article 22, paragraph 2 b (new)
 

2b.   The European social partners shall participate in the committee’s deliberations as observers and shall in particular be consulted on questions under Article 23.

Justification

The European social dialogue was set up with the aim of addressing social problems arising at European level in close conjunction with all the social partners.

Amendment 68
Article 23, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 a (new)
 

The Commission shall facilitate the dialogue between Member States concerning national interpretation and application of the provisions of this Regulation. By 31 December 2006 at the latest, the Commission shall submit a proposal containing uniform rules on interpretation and application, for the benefit of national supervisory authorities.

Justification

In practice, the existing regulation is not interpreted and applied uniformly. This is creating legal uncertainty and unequal treatment. An effort should be made to attain (1) mutual knowledge concerning the interpretation and application of the regulation and (2) harmonisation of the implementing provisions.

Amendment 69
Article 23, paragraph 2

2.   At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative the Commission shall:

2.   At the request of a Member State or the European Parliament or on its own initiative, the Commission shall:

Justification

The Commission already has a general right of initiative. Parliament should also be allowed to contribute in such an important area.

Amendment 70
Article 24 a (new)
 

Article 24a

 

Not later than six months after publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal, the Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council with a view to adjusting Directive 88/559/EEC and Regulation (EEC) No 3281/85 (both as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2135/98). That proposal shall at least:

 

(a)   extend roadside checks on driving times to cover the check day and the preceding 27 days, whether vehicles are fitted with conventional recording equipment or a digital recording device (Annex I(B) to Regulation (EC) No 2135/98);

 

(b)   lay down a requirement for roadside checks to cover not only daily driving times, rest periods, and breaks, but also weekly rest periods in accordance with this Regulation and the maximum working time of 60 hours a week, as referred to in Directive 2002/15/EC;

 

(c)   raise the number of checks on the days worked by drivers falling within the scope of this Regulation to at least 2%, on the understanding that not less than 1% of working days shall be checked at the premises of the undertaking;

 

(d)   lay down a requirement to fit vehicles falling within the scope of this Regulation with a recording device conforming to Annex I(B) to Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 not later than 36 months after entry into force of that Regulation by virtue of publication of Annex I(B) in the Official Journal of the European Communities;

 

(e)   lay down a requirement for data relating to breaks, rest periods, other work, and driving times falling outside the scope of this Regulation, where these have not been recorded on the driver card, to be entered manually in order to facilitate roadside checks on weekly rest periods, the maximum weekly working time, and compensatory rest periods.

Justification

When the digital tachograph is introduced for vehicles put newly into service, two different checking devices will be in use during a transitional period. For those who will be driving vehicles fitted with the new device as well as conventionally equipped vehicles, checks on driving times and rest periods will be made considerably more complicated, if not impossible. These drivers will have to produce both the driver card and the traditional discs to cover different periods. The most likely consequence is that checks will be reduced. The same problem applies to checks on undertakings with mixed vehicle fleets. It is estimated that a transitional period of up to ten years will be required until all vehicles have been fitted with a digital tachograph. Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2135/98, should therefore be altered to the effect that all vehicles would have to be fitted with a digital tachograph by a specified date.

An upgrading requirement should be laid down and coupled with as short a transitional period as possible. If there were to be two completely different systems operating in parallel over a relatively lengthy period, a number of disadvantages would arise for all concerned, and implementation and enforcement of the social provisions would in the end be needlessly jeopardised.

Data covering 28 driving days can be recorded on the driver card, thus making it possible to ascertain that compensation has been provided in every case where rest periods might have been shortened or driving times lengthened.

In particular, roadside checks can consequently establish that the upper limits applying to driving time in any one fortnight have not been exceeded. Since it is not clear what data storage arrangements for the new electronic system will be made at company level and data relating to longer periods are retrievable only from a vehicle memory, checks on undertakings will be virtually impossible when the new system is in use. As a result, driving times measured on a fortnightly basis, a cornerstone of the social provisions, will be impossible to check in the proper way.

The proposed regulation will thus be impossible to enforce or monitor unless the necessary amendments are likewise made to the acts applying in conjunction with it.

  • [1] OJ C 51, 26.2.2002, p. 234.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I.   General situation

The major process of liberalisation which has been taking place within the transport sector in the Community over the past decade was required to be accompanied by appropriate social measures to harmonise rules on social aspects. The European Parliament resolution of 18 January 1994 on the future development of the common transport policy, which called for the liberalisation of service provision to be accompanied by measures to harmonise national legislation, placing particular emphasis on social and safety aspects, should be mentioned in this connection.

In the Grosch report on transport policy and the harmonisation of social legislation (PE 228.428/fin), Parliament expressed its support for the Commission’s initiative on reform of the rules on working time and rest periods, and urged the Member States to make efforts to achieve harmonisation with regard to checks on driving time. Parliament also stressed that such controls should go hand in hand with effective penalties, and that there should be comprehensive reporting of the application of measures by Member States within a specified time limit, in order to provide a full overview of social aspects within the road transport sector.

Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 currently lays down a common set of Community rules for maximum daily and fortnightly driving times as well as daily and weekly minimum rest periods for all drivers of road haulage and passenger transport vehicles, subject to specified exemptions and derogations. The scope of operations regulated is tremendously diverse – it includes passenger transport and road haulage operations, both international and national, long distance and short distance, drivers for own account and for hire and reward, employees and self-employed.

II.   The Commission proposal

1)   Objective

This proposal abrogates Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and replaces it with a new regulation. The Commission’s aim is to clarify, simplify and update the rules contained in the current regulation. The Commission is seeking to define the scope of the provisions more clearly, firstly by setting out more comprehensively when the AETR (European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in International Road Transport) and when the regulation should apply, and secondly by setting out the categories of goods and passenger vehicles affected (goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and passenger vehicles suitable for carrying over 9 persons). The number of current exceptions is also reduced in order to reflect changes in the road transport sector.

In addition, whilst flexibility concerning driving time, rest periods and breaks is retained, it is now, in the view of the Commission, provided within more comprehensible and simple boundaries, and the arrangements are more able to be computed and enforced. Controls have been improved and a number of previously applicable derogations abolished.

Definitive definitions are given in the proposal for all of the concepts used in the existing regulation, in order to avoid different individual interpretations, which in the past have led to legal action. In addition, the obligations of employees and employers have been laid down more clearly, with the primary aim of ensuring that they are able to be enforced more effectively.

A new and important element introduced by this proposal is the possibility of applying the regulation extraterritorially. Member States will be able to impose penalties for infringements of the provisions of the regulation committed by drivers in another Member State.

2)   Key individual provisions

-   Daily rest periods are increased by an hour, to 12 hours (Article 4(7)). However, driving time and rest is essentially unchanged (Article 6(1)).

-   The possibility of splitting breaks has been abolished (Article 7).

-   The possibility of splitting the way in which daily rest periods are taken has been abolished (Article 8).

-   The number of exemptions has been reduced, particularly in areas in which services are now being carried out by the private sector, taking account of the competition occurring in those areas. Vehicles used, for example, for the collection of milk from farms are no longer excluded from the scope of the regulation (Article 4(3), Regulation 3820/85).

-   Exemptions have been modified in order to restrict their scope to activities carried out using specialised vehicles over a limited distance and to take account of the marked trend towards the carrying-out of such services by the private sector (Article 3).

-   Provisions on minimum ages for drivers have been deleted (Article 5). The Commission takes the view that they are an anomaly within the regulation, and observes that the matter is addressed in the current proposal for a directive on the training of drivers.

-   Penalties also apply to infringements of the provisions of the regulation committed abroad (Article 10(3)). Undertakings employing the drivers concerned are also liable for such infringements (Article 10(4)).

-   Member States are required to lay down a system of penalties to be imposed in cases of infringement of this regulation. The penalties are to include the possibility of impoundment of the vehicle for serious infringements (Article 19).

III.   Conclusions

The Commission draft is essentially to be welcomed. In particular, the approach adopted by the Commission of repealing the current Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and replacing it with a new regulation will contribute to making Community legislation more clearly comprehensible. Should the Commission have succeeded in its intention to clarify, simplify and update the rules laid down in the current regulation, this would also be an aspect to be welcomed.

One of the grounds given by the Commission for its proposals is the forthcoming introduction of the digital tachograph. In the view of the Commission, this makes it necessary to lay down rules that can be properly checked using this new system and applied uniformly, without differences in interpretation, throughout the Union. It is therefore proposing an arrangement that is based on the current system but excludes elements that made the correct calculation of hours driven, rest periods and breaks a complex and difficult business. The Commission has therefore put forward a proposal which is in accordance with the requirements of the digital tachograph to be introduced. However, it could take a different approach, and, instead of adapting the provisions of the regulation in line with the technology, adapt the technology in line with the rules laid down in the regulation.

It should be pointed out that the conciliation procedure on the directive on the organisation of working time for long-distance drivers has only recently been concluded. This important piece of legislation contains a number of points which overlap with aspects of the draft regulation. For example, the ‘week’ is defined differently in the two texts, whilst there are also significant differences in the definitions of weekly working time, driving time and breaks.

Your rapporteur takes the view that it is essential to harmonise the two legal texts, and intends to table amendments to that effect. It needs to be borne in mind that the provisions of the regulation should take precedence over those of the directive.

If we basically believe that the goal of harmonisation of social provisions is to improve road safety, we must unfortunately conclude that the proposal does not go far enough. There remain a series of exemptions from application of the provisions concerning driving times, rest times and breaks, as a consequence of which greater road safety cannot be guaranteed.

If, furthermore, a primary objective of harmonisation is to increase competition in the haulage and passenger transport sectors, it must be observed that maintaining such a large number of exceptions at Community as well as at national level and not introducing harmonised penalties for infringements of the provisions of the regulation means failing to ensure fair competition within the Community.

The answer to this problem is a simple one, and has been highlighted by Parliament. Liberalisation of service provision should be accompanied by measures to harmonise national legislation which mainly emphasise safety and social aspects. Your rapporteur intends to follow this principle in amending the Commission proposal.

To that end, it is necessary:

-   to draw up new or amended definitions in order to create greater legal certainty for all concerned (for example, a definition of ‘driving time’), as many concepts in the regulation are either not defined, or not adequately defined;

-   to reduce the number of exceptions provided for, both at Community and at national level, in order to meet the requirements of fair competition and road safety;

-   to abolish the concept of the flexible week, in order to be consistent with the directive on working time;

-   to make driving time of 45 hours a week the rule, and not the exception;

-   to reintroduce the provisions contained in the current regulation on minimum ages for long‑distance drivers. The Commission’s observation that this matter is addressed in the proposal for a directive on the training of drivers is not relevant, as this directive does not yet exist.

-   to propose a system of harmonised penalties against those infringing the provisions of the regulation so as to prevent distortion of competition. Penalties could, for example, be divided into different categories according to the severity of the infringement.

Finally, it should again be emphasised that the Commission’s proposals deserve to be supported by Parliament. Your rapporteur’s proposed amendments are intended to improve the draft legislative text so as to ensure that the requirements of road safety, protection of the interests of employees and fair competition are fulfilled.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

29 May 2002

for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism

on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport

(COM(2001) 573 – C5‑0485/2001 – 2001/0241(COD))

Draftsman (*): Jan Andersson

(*) Hughes Procedure

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs appointed Jan Andersson draftsman at its meeting of 23 October 2001.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 19 March, 22 April and 27/28 May 2002.

At the last meeting it adopted the following amendments unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Theodorus J.J. Bouwman, chairman; Marie-Hélène Gillig, vice-chairperson; Winfried Menrad, vice-chairman; Marie-Thérèse Hermange, vice-chairperson; Jan Andersson, draftsman; Elspeth Attwooll, María Antonia Avilés Perea (for Carlo Fatuzzo), Regina Bastos, André Brie (for Sylviane H. Ainardi), Philip Bushill-Matthews, Alejandro Cercas, Luigi Cocilovo, Proinsias De Rossa, Jillian Evans, Ilda Figueiredo, Fiorella Ghilardotti (for Enrico Boselli), Anne-Karin Glase, Stephen Hughes, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (for Enrico Ferri), Ioannis Koukiadis (for Elisa Maria Damião), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Jean Lambert, Elizabeth Lynne, Mario Mantovani, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (for Roger Helmer), Manuel Pérez Álvarez, Bartho Pronk, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Claude Turmes (for Hélène Flautre), Ieke van den Burg, Anne E.M. Van Lancker, Barbara Weiler and Sabine Zissener.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The current Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 includes a set of common rules on maximum daily and fortnightly driving times, as well as daily and weekly minimum rest periods for all drivers of road haulage and passenger transport vehicles. The rules pertain to international as well as national operations, long-distance and short-distance, and to employees as well as to the self-employed.

Several factors underlie the Commission’s proposal to replace Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 with a new regulation. Firstly, the road transport sector has undergone significant change since the current regulation was introduced, such as the privatisation of certain transport operations previously run by public authorities. Secondly, the forthcoming introduction of the digital tachograph (Reg. 3821) requires rules that can be properly checked through the new system. Thirdly, it has become clear that the interpretation of the current regulation has been less than uniform across the Member States, and that the monitoring and enforcement have been far from satisfactory.

The Commission proposal does not set out to fundamentally change the provisions of the current regulation. Rather, its primary intention is to clarify, simplify and update what is already contained in the current 3820/85, in order to provide for easier monitoring and better enforcement of the rules. It does, however, introduce a number of substantial changes, most importantly regarding the current exemptions and derogations.

The draftsman’s opinion

The draftsman very much welcomes the proposal from the Commission. The present situation shows, without any doubt, that measures have to be taken in this field, not only as regards the rules as such, but as regards the application and enforcement of the rules as well. The draftsman thus fully agrees with the objectives of the proposal to simplify and clarify the rules in order to effectively harmonise the conditions of competition and to improve working conditions and road safety. It is clear that the drivers’ working conditions and road safety are two sides of the same coin, and the current situation on the roads suggests that better application, monitoring and enforcement of the rules have a key role in attaining these objectives. The new 3820 must, along with the forthcoming Regulation 3821 on the digital tachograph, make this possible.

The relation between Regulation (EEC) 3820 and the sectorial Working Time Directive

The draftsman agrees with the Commission that there is no need to ‘harmonise’ these two legal instruments. They can undoubtedly coexist, one within the framework of the other, and it would be a redundant exercise to have the definitions in the directive interfere with the revision of the definitions in the regulation. Of course, the ideal would be to regulate driving time and working time in one single instrument (as long advocated by the European Parliament) but this has remained unacceptable to the Council.

The social aspects

From the perspective of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the draftsman has naturally focused on the objective of improving working conditions, i. e. the social aspects of the proposal. To that end, the draftsman has made several proposals to extend the minimum rest periods and to shorten the maximum driving times. The draftsman does agree, however, with the proposed definition of the concept of a flexible working week, rather than the current confusion caused by using a calendar week base combined with a flexible application in practice. As stated above, the fact that the sectorial Working Time Directive uses a calendar week base does not in any way presume that the same system should be used in the regulation.

The scope of the regulation

The social perspective does not, however, exclude issues of the various exemptions of types of vehicle and transport operation. Since this directly defines the scope of the regulation, it necessarily impacts the social aspects. Additionally, the scope of the sectorial Working Time Directive is defined by reference to Regulation 3820, which makes the question of exemptions even more important. It is the view of the draftsman that the scope should be as large as possible and the proposal includes too many exemptions. The draftsman therefore proposes, for example, that the exemption of transport operations using vehicles weighing less than 3.5 tonnes be deleted, as well as those exemptions that exclude vehicles that are constructed to carry less than 10 passengers and vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered does not exceed 50 kilometres (e. g. city buses).

Liability and penalties

Securing adequate monitoring and enforcement of the rules is paramount. The draftsman therefore welcomes the Commission’s proposals in the area of the liability of the undertaking, where the burden of proof is put on the undertaking when it claims that a breach of the rules was due to the action or inaction of the driver. Equally welcome is the proposal to enable enforcing authorities in Member States to identify an take action against a breach of the rules, even though the actual breach was made outside the territory of the particular Member State. To further strengthen enforcement, the draftsman proposes to introduce (by analogy with the sectorial Working Time Directive) an article obliging the Member States to see to it that other actors in the chain of operation, such as subcontractors, are ALSO made to follow the rules set down in the regulation. These proposals, along with the introduction of options for introducing tougher sanctions and the forthcoming revision of Directive 88/599 regulating the minimum amount of checks to be undertaken by the Member States, will provide for a better regulatory environment.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1
Article 1

This Regulation lays down rules on driving time, breaks and rest periods for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers by road in order to harmonise the conditions of competition between methods of inland transport, especially with regard to the road sector and to improve working conditions and road safety.

This Regulation lays down rules on driving time, breaks and rest periods for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers by road with the primary intention to clarify and simplify and update what is already contained in the current 3820/85 and also in order to harmonise the conditions of competition between methods of inland transport, especially with regard to the road sector for road safety reasons and to promote safe working practices and to improve working conditions.

Justification

The extra comments use the Commission’s own words from the introductory paragraphs, and are inserted here to reinforce the full purpose of the directive.

Amendment 2
Article 2, paragraph 1

1.   This Regulation shall apply to carriage by road:

1.   This Regulation shall apply to carriage by road:

(a)   of goods where the permissible maximum weight of the vehicles, including any trailer, or semi-trailer, exceeds 3.5 tonnes, or

(a)   of goods or

(b)   of passengers by vehicles which are constructed or permanently adapted for carrying more than nine persons including the driver, and are intended for that purpose.

(b)   of passengers by vehicles which are constructed or permanently adapted for carrying more than nine persons including the driver, and are intended for that purpose.

Justification

The current regulation shall apply to the carriage by road of both goods and passengers. The entire taxi sector and small buses should be excluded as it is in the Commission’s proposal.

Amendment 3
Article 2, paragraph 2

2.   The AETR shall apply where carriage by road is undertaken:

2.   The AETR shall apply where carriage by road is undertaken:

(a)   by vehicles registered in any Member State or any country which is a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey where that journey is between the Community and a country which is a contracting party, or through such a country; or

by vehicles registered in any Member State or any country which is a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey where that journey is between the Community and a country which is a contracting party, or through such a country;

(b)   by vehicles registered in a third country which is not a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey made within the Community.

 

Justification

The EEC regulation should apply, instead of the AETR rules, to ensure equal treatment of vehicles registered in the EU and vehicles from third countries.

Amendment 4
Article 2, paragraph 2 a (new)
 

2a.   This Regulation shall apply where carriage by road is undertaken:

 

By vehicles registered in a third country which is not a contracting party to the AETR, for the whole of the journey made within the Community.

(See Article 2, paragraph 2, introduction and point (b))

Justification

In order to guarantee the equal treatment of vehicles this regulation shall apply also to those vehicles registered in third countries which are not contracting parties to the AETR for the whole of the journey made within the Community.

Amendment 5
Article 3, paragraph 1

1.   vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered by the service in question does not exceed 50 kilometres;

deleted

Justification

A restriction of 50 km is unsuitable when drivers are used in regular passenger services on short as well as long routes. The increasing number of regional transport alliances in regular passenger services provision leads to an increasing amount of mixed activity for drivers.

Amendment 6
Article 3, paragraph 6

6.   specialised vehicles transporting circus and fun-fair equipment;

deleted

Justification

Specialised vehicles transporting circus and fun-fair equipment should also be subject to the safety rules of the regulation. The scope of the regulation should be as comprehensive as possible without unduly limiting itself or making too many exemptions.

Amendment 7
Article 3, paragraph 9

9.   vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 7 500 kg used for non-commercial carriage of goods.

9.   vehicles used for non-commercial carriage of goods for personal use.

Justification

It should be made clearer that only occasional transport for personal use should be excluded from the Regulation.

Amendment 8
Article 4, paragraph 7, indent 2

–   “reduced daily rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 9 hours but less than 12 hours.

–   “reduced daily rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 10 hours but less than 12 hours.

Justification

The EEC regulation should define appropriate driving times and rest periods as demanded by road safety and humane social conditions.

Amendment 9
Article 4, paragraph 8, indent 1

“regular weekly rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 45 hours.

“regular weekly rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 48 hours.

Justification

The proposed period of 45 hours of regular weekly rest is not sufficient to assure the objective of improving working conditions.

Amendment 10
Article 4, paragraph 8, indent 2

“reduced weekly rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 24 hours but less then 45 hours, which is taken other than at the place where the vehicle is normally based or where the driver is based.

“reduced weekly rest period” means any uninterrupted period of rest of at least 24 hours but less then 48 hours, which is taken other than at the place where the vehicle is normally based or where the driver is based.

Justification

The proposed period of 45 hours of regular weekly rest is not sufficient to assure the objective of improving working conditions.

Amendment 11
Article 4, paragraph 9

9.   A “flexible week” means the period of time between the end of one weekly rest period and the beginning of the next weekly rest period.

9.   A “week” means the period of time beginning on Monday at 00.00 and ending on Sunday at 24.00.

 

As soon as the revised Regulation 3821 (on the digital tachograph) is effectively and generally implemented in Member States, and Directive 88/599 is revised in order to improve controls a “working week” will mean the period of time between the end of one weekly rest period and the beginning of the next weekly rest period.

Justification

The introduction of the two definitions of ‘week’ and ‘working week’ aims to take into consideration the period before the revised Regulation 3821 is effectively and generally implemented in Member States. For security reasons the first definition is conformed to the directive on working time for mobile employees in road transport. The second definition, which corresponds more closely to practice, will be used as soon as Regulation 3821 is effectively and generally implemented.

Amendment 12
Article 6, paragraph 1

1.   The daily driving time shall not exceed nine hours.

1.   The daily driving time shall not exceed nine hours.

However, the daily driving time may be extended to at most 10 hours not more than twice during the flexible week.

 

Justification

In the interests of road safety, shorter driving times are required from the Commission’s proposal. A driving time of 9 hours per day should be considered as the absolute maximum and, consequently, the second part of the article must be deleted.

Amendment 13
Article 6, paragraph 2

2.   The flexible week shall not exceed 144 hours.

2.   The working week shall not exceed 144 hours.

Justification

See justification on Amendment 11 to Article 4, paragraph 9.

Amendment 14
Article 6, paragraph 3

3.   The weekly driving time shall not exceed 56 hours.

3.   The weekly driving time shall not exceed 45 hours.

Justification

Goes together with the draftsman’s amendment to Article 6(4), aiming to improve consistency with the directive on working and rest times in road transport. A maximum weekly driving time of 56 hours must not be combined with the maximum working time of 60 hours a week laid down in the directive, especially as this covers not only driving times but also loading, unloading and waiting times.

Amendment 15
Article 6, paragraph 4

4.   The total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive flexible weeks shall not exceed 90 hours.

4.   The total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive working weeks shall not exceed 80 hours.

Justification

The proposed 90 hours of total accumulated driving time in any two consecutive working weeks is also considered too long in relation to the objective of improving working conditions. The term ‘working week’ aims to make the wording of the regulation correspond more closely to the practice.

Amendment 16
Article 7, paragraph 2

2.   However, this break may be observed after at most four-and-a-half hours of driving if the break is prolonged to at least 45 minutes unless the driver begins a rest.

deleted

Justification

This point does not correspond to an appropriate division of breaks and driving time. It is necessary to have a break after three hours of driving and this break must amount to at least 30 minutes spent in relaxation. Any shorter time period would be too short for meaningful relaxation and a driving time of 4 ½ hours without a break is considered too long.

Amendment 17
Article 7, paragraph 2 a (new)
 

2a.   During these breaks, the driver may not carry out any other work. For the purposes of this Article, the waiting time and time not devoted to driving spent in a vehicle in motion, a ferry, or a train shall not be regarded as “other work”.

(See Annex of COM(2001) 573 regarding Article 7, paragraph 4, of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85)

Justification

A break must clearly be intended for relaxation, so it is important to stress that the driver may not carry out any other work during this time.

Amendment 18
Article 8, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2

If the portion of the daily rest period which is contained in the 24 hour period is at least 9 hours but less than 12 hours, then the daily rest period in question shall be regarded as a reduced daily rest period.

If the portion of the daily rest period which is contained in the 24 hour period is at least 10 hours but less than 12 hours, then the daily rest period in question shall be regarded as a reduced daily rest period.

Justification

Further simplifications concerning the provisions on rest periods and the reduction of rest periods are still needed. The reduced daily rest period must amount to not less than 10 hours.

Amendment 19
Article 8, paragraph 3

3.   A driver may have at most three reduced daily rest periods during a flexible week.

3.   A driver may have at most two reduced daily rest periods during a working week.

Justification

As to the previous amendment, the need for further simplifications justifies allowing only two reduced daily rest periods in a working week.

Amendment 20
Article 8, paragraph 3 a (new)
 

3a.   Any reduced daily and/or weekly rest period shall be conditioned by an equivalent period of rest as compensation before the end of the following working week.

Justification

Further simplifications concerning the provisions on rest periods and the reduction of rest periods are still needed. The reduced daily rest period must amount to not less than 10 hours, and is to be compensated for by an equivalent increase in the following rest period.

Amendment 21
Article 8, paragraph 5

5.   A driver shall commence a new regular weekly rest period not later than 13 consecutive periods of 24 hours after the end of the previous regular weekly rest period.

5.   A driver shall commence a new regular weekly rest period not later than 12 consecutive periods of 24 hours after the end of the previous regular weekly rest period.

Justification

A new regular weekly rest period should already be granted after 12 days.

Amendment 22
Article 8, point 6

6.   Daily and weekly rest periods may be taken in a vehicle, as long as it has suitable sleeping facilities for each driver and the vehicle is stationary.

6.   Daily rest periods may be taken in a vehicle, as long as it has suitable sleeping facilities for each driver and the vehicle is stationary.

Justification

Daily rest periods, but not weekly rest periods, may be spent in a stationary vehicle. To allow weekly rest periods to be so spent would represent a deterioration compared to the current regulation and would be inadequate regarding drivers’ hygiene and well-being.

Amendment 23
Article 8, paragraph 6 a (new)
 

6a.   Any rest taken as a compensation for the reduction of the daily and/or weekly rest periods must be attached to another daily or weekly rest period and shall be granted, at the request of the person concerned, at the vehicle’s parking place or driver’s base.

Justification

Any rest taken as a compensation for the reduction of the daily and/or weekly rest periods should be regulated and granted appropriately by pooling it with another rest period, creating a total rest time sufficient to assure the objective of improving road safety and humane social conditions.

Amendment 24
Article 8, paragraph 6 b (new)
 

6b.   A reduced daily and weekly rest period shall be granted only if the driver has to take his rest period away from home.

Justification

To prevent abuse, any derogations must be restricted. The restriction aims to give drivers who are away from home for long periods more opportunities for taking their normal rest periods at home as far as possible.

Amendment 25
Article 10, paragraph 1

1.   A transport undertaking shall not give drivers employed or put at its disposal any payment, even in the form of a bonus or wage supplement, related to distances travelled and/or the amount of goods carried if that payment is of such a kind as to endanger road safety.

1.   A transport undertaking shall not give drivers employed or put at its disposal any payment, even in the form of a bonus or wage supplement, related to distances travelled and/or the amount of goods carried.

Justification

Paying bonuses on the basis of the distance travelled or amount of goods carried can always encourage irresponsible driving and excessive working hours and must therefore be avoided in all cases.

Amendment 26
Article 10, paragraph 3 a (new)
 

3a.   Member States shall take care that consignors, freight forwarders, prime contractors, subcontractors and enterprises which employ mobile workers comply with the relevant provisions of this Regulation.

(See Article 14, paragraph 3, of ‘Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee’ of 16 January 2002 (C5-0688/2001 – 1998/0319(COD))

Justification

This amendment reproduces Article 14, paragraph 3, of the final provisions of the Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road-transport activities.

Amendment 27
Article 11

A Member State may apply higher minimum breaks and rest periods or lower maximum driving times than those laid down in Articles 6 to 9 inclusive to carriage by road undertaken wholly within its territory by vehicles registered in that Member State.

A Member State may apply higher minimum breaks and rest periods or lower maximum driving times than those laid down in Articles 6 to 9 inclusive to carriage by road undertaken wholly within its territory.

Justification

As a result of the opportunities for cabotage in the road transport sector, there is an increasing relocation of vehicles and personnel into other countries. This clause will not have any effect if it only covers vehicles registered in the respective Member State.

Amendment 28
Article 13, paragraph 1, point (d)

(d)    vehicles operating exclusively on islands not exceeding 2300 square kilometres in area which are not linked to the rest of the national territory by a bridge, ford or tunnel open for use by motor vehicles;

Deleted

Justification

The safety provisions in the regulation on driving times and rest periods must also apply on islands. The scope of Regulation 3820 should be as large as possible while the Commission’s proposal makes too many exemptions.

Amendment 29
Article 14, paragraph 2

In urgent cases they may grant a temporary exception for a period not exceeding 30 days, which shall be notified immediately to the Commission.

In urgent cases they may grant a temporary exception for a period not exceeding 15 days, which shall be notified immediately to the Commission.

Justification

As mentioned in the previous justification, Regulation 3820 must be as comprehensive as possible and only in urgent cases grant a short-term temporary exemption. Allowing for as long a period as 30 days, as in the Commission proposal, would go against the principle of allowing exemptions in urgent cases only.

Amendment 30
Article 16, paragraph 1

1.   Where no recording equipment has been fitted to the vehicle in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85, the provisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply until 31 December 2006 to:

1.   Where no recording equipment has been fitted to the vehicle in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85, the provisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply until the compulsory introduction of digital recording equipment in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85:

Justification

Instead of a specific date until when the provisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 16 shall apply, a more coherent approach is needed by fixing a deadline in relation to the compulsory introduction of the digital recording equipment.

Amendment 31
Article 17

Member States, using the standard form set out in Commission Decision 93/173/EEC, shall communicate the necessary information to the Commission to enable it to draw up every two years a report on the application of this Regulation and Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 and developments in the fields in question.

Member States, using the standard form set out in Commission Decision 93/173/EEC, shall communicate the necessary information to the Commission to enable it to draw up every two years a report on the application of this Regulation and Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 and developments in the fields in question.

 

When drawing up its report the Commission shall consult the European social partners through the Sectoral Dialogue Committee on Road Transport set up under Commission Decision 98/500/EC (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 27).

This information must reach the Commission not later than 30 September of the year following the end of the two year period concerned.

This information must reach the Commission not later than 30 September of the year following the end of the two year period concerned.

The Commission shall forward the report to the European Parliament and to the Council within 13 months of the end of the two-year period concerned.

The Commission shall forward the report to the European Parliament and to the Council within 13 months of the end of the two-year period concerned.

Justification

The European social dialogue was set up with the aim of addressing social problems arising at European level in close conjunction with all the social partners.

Amendment 32
Article 18

Member States shall adopt such measures as may be necessary for the implementation of this Regulation.

As effective joint implementation is more important than any individual provisions, Member States shall not only adopt such measures as may be necessary for the implementation of this Regulation but also increase the rate of inspection. They shall produce regular reports on this efficiency increase and forward them to the Commission.

Justification

The moaning about the old regulation was mainly because it did not lead to effective and uniform implementation. So the Member States must not only increase their implementing measures but also report on it as part of their mutual information process and Commission inspection.

Amendment 33
Article 19, paragraph 1

Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. These penalties may be civil, administrative or criminal in nature.

Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. These penalties may be civil, administrative or criminal in nature, but shall always comply with the principle of non-discrimination (equality before the law) in relations with persons or undertakings that do not belong to the Member State concerned.

Justification

The purpose of the penalties is to improve implementation of this regulation, with all its social objectives, and also road safety. Completion of the internal market should, in the field of road transport as elsewhere, strictly comply with the principle of non-discrimination against those who do not belong to the Member State concerned.

Amendment 34
Article 19, paragraph 2

The penalties shall include the possibility of impoundment of the vehicle for serious infringements.

The penalties shall include the possibility, for serious infringements, of temporary withdrawal of the vehicle registration or impoundment of the vehicle.

Justification

It is necessary that effective and harmonised sanctions are enforced throughout Europe. These should not only include impounding the vehicle but also temporarily withdrawing its registration.

Amendment 35
Article 22, paragraph 2 b (new)
 

2b.   The European social partners shall participate in the committee’s deliberations as observers and shall in particular be consulted on questions under Article 23.

Justification

The European social dialogue was set up with the aim of addressing social problems arising at European level in close conjunction with all the social partners.

Amendment 36
Article 23, paragraph 2

2.   At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative the Commission shall:

2.   At the request of a Member State or the European Parliament or on its own initiative, the Commission shall:

Justification

The Commission already has a general right of initiative. Parliament should also be allowed to contribute in such an important area.

  • [1] OJ C not yet published.