51998AC1138

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the harmonization of examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterways` () (98/C 407/22)

On 14 April 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the EC Treaty, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 July 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Giesecke.

At its 357th plenary session of 9 and 10 September 1998 (meeting of 9 September), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to one.

1. Introduction

1.1. On 3 June 1996 the Council adopted Directive 96/35/EC on the appointment and the vocational qualifications of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway, the aim being to ensure that the transport of dangerous goods complied with high and uniform safety standards.

1.2. In its desire to secure harmonized implementation of this Directive, the Commission is now proposing a further Directive, this time on the harmonization of examination requirements.

1.3. The certificate awarded on successful completion of the examination must guarantee a high and uniform level of training and be recognized by all Member States.

1.4. The Economic and Social Committee has always come out in favour of the highest safety standards.

2. The main thrust of the Commission proposal

2.1. In the present case as elsewhere, the Commission considers that a Council Directive is the appropriate legal framework for the harmonization of examination requirements. The legal basis for the proposed Council Directive is Article 75(1)(c) of the EC Treaty. The proposed Directive is therefore also relevant to the EEA Treaty.

2.2. Since the EC certificate for safety advisers is valid in all EC and EEA Member States, examination requirements must be of the same high standards everywhere. The Commission proposal serves this end.

2.3. The draft Directive begins by outlining its objective, laying down its scope and defining key concepts.

2.4. Article 3 makes detailed provisions for the examination. Referring back to the parent Directive, it lays down examination requirements, calls for the preparation of a catalogue of questions and deals with the written tests.

2.5. Article 4 covers some strictly defined exceptions for the testing of safety advisers working for undertakings whose activities are concerned solely with certain types of dangerous goods.

2.6. Other articles deal with the procedures for approving examination bodies and the minimum requirements such bodies have to meet. Rules covering the procedures to be followed by the Committee on the transport of dangerous goods are also laid down.

2.7. Directive 96/35/EC stipulates that the undertakings concerned are obliged to appoint one or more safety advisers by 31 December 1999 at the latest.

2.8. According to Article 5(1) of Directive 96/35/EC, safety advisers must be in possession of a Community-type vocational training certificate.

According to Article 5(2) of Directive 96/35/EC, a safety adviser must undergo training and pass an examination before he can obtain a certificate.

3. General comments

3.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal. It furthers the implementation of Directive 96/35/EC and may well contribute to further improvements in the safe transport of dangerous goods.

3.2. Harmonized regulations may also ensure that safety advisers do not shop around between the Member States to take advantage of less stringent examination conditions.

4. Specific comments

4.1. Sufficient time is needed to plan and arrange vocational training and examinations (compilation of a catalogue of questions, appointment of an examination body) on the basis of Article 5(2) of Directive 96/35/EC.

The time allowed should be at least 12 months. The necessary legal provisions should therefore be adopted by the Member States before 1 January 1999. The Economic and Social Committee recommends that this date be accepted by the Commission.

4.2. The Committee proposes that a new paragraph (6) be added to Article 3 covering the following areas:

a) the length of the examination (in terms of time);

b) the number of examination questions required where the certificate is for only one or two modes of transport;

c) the documents which may be consulted during the examination (e.g. international and national legislative texts).

4.3. It is proposed that the beginning of Article 3(5) be replaced by the following:

'Questions shall be focused mainly on the subjects listed in Annex II to Directive 96/35/EC`.

4.4. Article 4(2) should be deleted. The Commission cannot verify all admissible exceptions, especially since the procedure is time-consuming.

4.5. Article 8 is superfluous since all it does is refer to an existing body.

4.6. With regard to Article 9, we would refer to the comments made under point 4.1 on the need for Member States to bring in examination requirements as rapidly as possible.

4.7. Article 9(1) contradicts the provision in Directive 96/35/EC whereby safety advisers must be appointed by 1 January 2000. Since, according to Directive 96/35/EC, safety advisers must first undergo training and pass an examination, the January 2000 deadline for the application of this provision is clearly too late.

4.8. Article 9(3) contains the wrong date because of a printing error.

Brussels, 9 September 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 148, 14.5.1998, p. 21.