8.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/38

Rapporteurs:

Stefan BACK and Pasi MOISIO

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

The EESC also supports the improved rules on infringement procedures and on the assessment of sanctions involving the risk of loss of good repute, both of which improve legal certainty. The EESC underlines the importance of harmonised application of the threshold requirements set out in Article 6 paragraph 1, third subparagraph (a) and (b), for infringements to have an effect on good repute.

With respect to letterbox companies, the EESC concludes that efficient enforcement will remain dependent on the efficiency of national authorities, efficient cross-border cooperation and uniform interpretation of establishment criteria. Account should also be taken of progress in the digital domain.

The EESC welcomes the improvement of information available in national registers and the introduction of time limits for answering requests for information. The EESC would welcome real time access for control authorities to electronically available information in national registers.

The EESC considers that the data to be entered in national electronic registers should also include information regarding the drivers employed by an undertaking, which is relevant in determining the level of compliance with social and labour laws, and asks the Commission to consider such a measure.

1.5.

1.6.

However, the EESC strongly stresses that the proposed amendments regarding cabotage can only be successfully and fairly introduced if provisions are introduced to make clear when provision of cabotage services ceases to be temporary and an obligation of establishment arises, and if the complete set of posting of workers rules applies to every cabotage operation without any exemptions.

1.7.

1.8.

1.9.

2.1.

2.2.

to create conditions for competitive and fair mobility, eliminate letterbox companies, simplify and clarify cabotage rules, and enable efficient monitoring through improved cooperation between authorities, including through the European Register of Road Undertakings (ERRU).

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

4.1.

4.2.

The EESC considers that such exemptions would send a very unfortunate signal. The EESC recommends including LCVs fully in both Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, albeit possibly in an alleviated form. Only this would ensure the common level of professionalisation of the sector and a level playing field.

The EESC underscores that adequate resources must be provided to deal with the increased work volumes needed to ensure compliance with the widened scope of Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and (EC) No 1072/2009.

The EESC also questions the possibility given to Member States to apply, entirely or in part, the provisions on good repute, professional competence and transport manager to LCVs. This option threatens to disturb the coherence of the internal market. It is furthermore not coherent with the proposal to delete the option under the current Article 3.2 allowing Member States to add further requirements for admission to the profession.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

4.8.

The EESC supports the addition of ‘tax law’ as grounds for doubting good repute proposed in the same paragraph third subparagraph (a) which reflects the increasing importance attached to tax law compliance, as well as the importance attached to compliance with the rules on the posting of workers, reflected in Article 6 paragraph 1 third subparagraph (b) xi.

In both cases, legal certainty is ensured by thresholds providing that only acts that have resulted in convictions or penalties for serious breach of national or EU rules are to be taken into account.

4.9.

4.10.

4.11.

4.11.1.

4.12.

The EESC is also of the opinion that the data to be entered in national electronic registers should also include information regarding the drivers employed by an undertaking, which is relevant in determining the level of compliance with social and labour laws. This would have a particular impact in reducing the fraudulent practices referred to in point 3.3. The EESC asks the Commission to consider such a measure (see the European Parliament’s Resolution of 18 May 2017 on road transport in the European Union (2017/2545 (RSP)), para. 33).

4.13.

In paragraph 3, the EESC suggests that checks should always be carried out when requested by competent authorities of other Member States. It is further suggested that the credibility requirement in the last sentence of paragraph 3 should be taken out as the issue of substantiation of the request for information is adequately addressed in paragraph 4.

The EESC considers that the time limit in paragraph 5 for informing a requesting Member State about problems in obtaining information should be shortened to five days.

4.14.

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

The EESC approves the proposal to eliminate the limitation to three operations and to reduce the time available for cabotage operations from seven to five days provided that:

Otherwise, the EESC prefers keeping the current rules on cabotage because the proposal made by the Commission without compliance with the above conditions would in practice mean almost full market opening which might cause unpredictable effects on the market.

The EESC also welcomes the limitation of cabotage operations allowed in Member States other than the one which is the destination of the international journey (the host Member State), to Member States contiguous to that Member State which facilitates compliance control. However, the Proposal should be amended to make it clear that new cabotage rights following a new international transport operation to a contiguous Member State will extinguish existing cabotage rights in order to prevent cumulation of such rights (‘chain cabotage’). This question of legal foreseeability is very important.

5.5.

5.6.

The EESC welcomes those clarifications but regrets that some other pertinent questions addressed in the Commission’s interpretative document have not been addressed in the Proposal. This is the case regarding the question of whether all international cargo must be delivered before cabotage can start and how the seven-day cabotage period stipulated in Article 8 paragraph 2, as it now stands, is to be calculated.

The EESC also regrets that the opportunity was not used to make it clear whether tachograph data may also be used for checking compliance with cabotage provisions. The Commission’s 2011 interpretative document makes it clear that the view of the Commission is that this is the case. The EESC considers that the opportunity should have been used to make this crystal clear in the text of the Regulation.

The EESC in any case points to the importance of full availability of the digital tachograph as a means of compliance control and would like to see a substantial reduction in the time limit for retrofitting existing vehicles with this type of tachograph.

5.7.