Considerations on COM(2023)144 - EU position in the Group of Experts of the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR), in the Working Party on Road Transport of the UNECE and, as appropriate, in relation to the notification by the UN Secretary-General pursuant to Article 21(1) of the AETR - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)144 - EU position in the Group of Experts of the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2023)144 |
| date | May 15, 2023 |
(2) A Group of Experts has been established by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in the framework of the AETR. It is a body empowered to develop and submit proposals for amending the AETR to the Working Party on Road Transport.
(3) The Group of Experts on AETR, during its 31st session on 20 February 2023, is to discuss a proposal by the Governments of Belarus and the Russian Federation to amend Article 4 of the Agreement by introducing a ‘force majeure’ clause, laid out in ECE/TRANS/SC.1/GE.21/2023/2 and in ECE/TRANS/SC.1/GE.21/2023/112.
(4) It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union's behalf in the Group of Experts on the AETR, and possibly in the Working Party on Road Transport, as the amendment to the Agreement which they are called to consider and endorse would be binding under international law in accordance with Article 21(6) of the AETR and is capable of decisively influencing the content of EU legislation, namely Regulations (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) No 165/2014.
(5) In its judgment of 31 March 1971 in Case 22/70 AETR, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognised that the area of the work of crews of vehicles engaged in road transport is an exclusive external competence of the Union. This competence has been exercised since then in numerous legislative acts adopted by the Union co-legislators, including Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council13 and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council14. Since the subject matter of the AETR falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, the power to negotiate and conclude the AETR and its modifications lies exclusively with the Union pursuant to article 3(2) TFEU.
(6) The proposed amendment aims at solving a practical problem that is likely the result of the illegal war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, in which Belarus has a complicit role, which led to the application of EU sanctions against Russia and Belarus. It would allow a Contracting Party to unilaterally notify that it could no longer fulfil one of the main purposes of the AETR, namely the use of a harmonised recording equipment for vehicles engaged in international transport (the digital tachograph), for reasons of ‘force majeure’ which would not be subject to any type of validation or assessment.
(7) The envisaged act would allow, following such a declaration by a Contracting Party to the AETR, not to require the use of digital tachographs and digital tachograph cards for vehicles registered in that Contracting Party when engaged in international road transport operations. It would thus render the enforcement of the drivers’ compliance with driving and rest times as laid out elsewhere in the AETR drastically more difficult, creating a loophole that would likely compromise the entire purpose of the Agreement.
(8) The Union’s position to be taken in the Group of Experts on the AETR and in the Working Party on Road Transport, should be not to support the proposed amendment, in order to prevent a significant weakening of the enforcement of the rules on driving and rest times laid down in the AETR, and ensure the full effect of the EU sanctions regime.
(9) It cannot be excluded that the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus formally submits the proposal to amend the AETR under Article 21(1) of the AETR, disregarding the discussions in UNECE’s bodies. In this case, Member States should object to the proposal under the procedure laid down in paragraph (b) of Article 21(2) of the AETR.
(10) The Union's position is to be expressed by the Member States of the Union that are members of the Group of Experts of the AETR and of the Working Party on Road Transport, acting jointly in the interest of the Union.