Annexes to COM(2023)183 - 31st report on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport, and report on controls of dimensions and weights for heavy-duty vehicles - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)183 - 31st report on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport, and report on controls of dimensions ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2023)183 |
| date | April 4, 2023 |
Some authorities also reported a need for further clarification of some definitions in Directive 2002/15/EC. In Germany, one Land called for further clarification on how to deal with “waiting times at the ramp”. It was also found that unloading work is often not recorded as ‘other work’, but as rest time. In some cases, businesses also distinguished between actual working time and working time subject to remuneration, so as time was recorded and remunerated at a flat rate, but not as ‘other work’.
Finally, some national authorities reported difficulties in controlling the working time of drivers involved in different types of carriage activities or conducting transport operations for several employers.
In contrast, Bulgaria informed that no significant problems were encountered in the exercise of controls under Directive 2002/15/EC.
In spite of these shared observations, it remains difficult to identify trends and outstanding issues at the EU level due to the significant number of incomplete submissions by Member States and different national practices.
3. Interpretation of Directive 2002/15/EC
A few Member States reported judicial interpretation by national courts interpreting certain provisions of Directive 2002/15/EC in 2019-2020. Sweden reiterated that they were waiting for a court ruling in a case related to the demarcation between the Swedish Transport Agency’s responsibilities and those of social partners when collective agreements were signed derogating from parts of the national legal act transposing Directive 2002/15/EC. Sweden also informed that few other legal disputes concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC had been settled by courts of first instance and that there have been no legal decisions by the supreme court. The same situation was reported by Estonia, which confirmed that, in general, the transposition of Directive 2002/15/EC had created no social problems in 2019-2020 in Estonia.
Spain had a number of court cases related to working time, breaks, periods of availability and collective agreements regarding for example calculation of hours of presence at the disposal of the employer, payments for more than 20 hours of availability, and payments of daily subsistence allowance.
4. Offences against working time rules
Only eleven Member States37 provided quantitative data on the offences detected, even though some of the data was not fully complete. This number is slightly higher compared to the previous reporting period where nine Member States38 provided this information. The insufficient number of contributions does not allow for EU-wide conclusions to be drawn.
Some Member States indicated that a behaviour correction was made possible within a defined period to avoid the imposition of a penalty. The enforcement authorities will only proceed with their sanctions in cases where the deficiency failed to be addressed. In this regard, the Swedish industry reported that the absence of direct sanction was appreciated, as it gives the employers and self-employed a chance to implement new ways of working, using new technologies or changing procedures to improve legal compliance.
5. Stakeholders' views on implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC
As required by Article 13 of Directive 2002/15/EC, ten Member States39 clearly indicated that the two sides of industry had been consulted for the purpose of this reporting exercise. This number is slightly lower compared to the last report40, but still shows that more than a half of Member States do not involve social partners in reporting on the implementation of the working time rules. Austria explained that social partners were not consulted, but that the draft annual report is not only discussed in Parliament (Social Committee) but is also publicly available on the website of the Labour Inspectorate.
In six out of the ten Member States41, the views of social partners were reflected in a separate section or paragraph.
Opinions from social partners cannot be further analysed, as they do not constitute a representative sample.
III. Overview of enforcement activities for Council Directive 96/53/EC
1. Checks
Article 10d(1) of Council Directive 96/53/EC, as amended by Directive EU 2015/719, requires that Member States take specific measures, by 27 May 2021, to automatically identify vehicles or vehicle combinations in circulation that are likely to have exceeded the maximum authorised weight and that should therefore be checked by their competent authorities in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Weights and Dimensions Directive. According to the information provided by the Member States, Ireland and Germany are using automatic weighting system at least since 2019. Article 10d(1) also provides for the possibility to use the automatic systems to directly establish infringements and impose penalties, in which case those systems shall be certified. According to the information provided by the Member States, no Member State have chosen to install certified systems. Therefore, after heavy-duty vehicles in circulation that are likely to have exceeded the maximum authorised weight are identified by means of automatic systems, such vehicles had to be submitted to an additional weight control at the roadside with certified scales to establish the eventual infringements.
In addition, Article 10d(2) requires that Member States carry out in each calendar year an appropriate number of checks on the weight of vehicles or vehicle combinations in circulation, proportionate to the total number of vehicles inspected each year in its territory. However, Council Directive 96/53/EC does not provide for an interpretation of what can be considered “proportionate”, leaving a certain margin of interpretation to the discretion of Member States as to how they implement this rule. On the other hand, Council Directive 96/53/EC does not require Member States to communicate the total number of vehicles inspected each year in their territories, which would be necessary to compare and obtain information about the actual proportion of controls on the maximum weights performed.
1. Roadside checks
In total, around 17 million vehicles and vehicle combinations were checked at the roadside in 2019 and 2020 (11,350,448 vehicles in 2019 and 5,810,609 in 2020) in the territories of the nineteen Member States that have provided total or partial data. The number of controls carried out is very uneven: Ireland performed the highest number of controls (around 12.6 million controls), followed by far by Poland (around 3 million controls) and Italy (almost 600,000 controls). This can be attributed to the exclusive use of automatic weighting systems in Ireland42.
According to the comparable sets of data from sixteen Member States43 the number of controls has increased by 2% in their territories.
2. Offences
More than half million offences for exceeding the maximum weight or the maximum axle weight were detected in nineteen Member States (285,065 offences in 2019 and 287,547 in 2020).
According to the comparable sets of data in sixteen Member States44 for the period 2017-2018 the number of offences detected in their territories has increased by 4% in the period 2019-2020.
Overall, according to the available data 3.3% of the vehicles or vehicle combinations controlled were overloaded. This percentage varies from 4.9% in 2019 to 2.5% in 2020, which could suggest, given the similar amount of controls performed in those two years, that compliance with the weight rules have increased. However, the figures vary greatly among Member States and there are other circumstances, such as the locations, days and times chosen for the roadside controls and the experience/training of the enforcement officers performing the controls that can significantly influence the efficiency of such controls, according to the information provided by the Member States. As an example of the variations among Member States, Estonia reports 2,166 infractions detected out of 2,929 controls carried out (72.2% effectiveness), while Poland reports 7,217 infractions detected out of 3,050,851 controls carried out (0.2% effectiveness).
IV. Conclusions
The general outcome of the analysis on the implementation and enforcement of the EU road transport social rules show that the overall performance as regards enforcement and compliance levels in 2019-2020 remain stable compared to 2017-2018.
However, a direct comparison of the implementation and enforcement of the EU road transport social rules in the two reporting periods, 2017-2018 and 2019-2020, is not possible due to the specific situation related to the Covid-19 crisis and the fact that the United Kingdom is not required anymore to report on their enforcement activities.
The Covid-19 crisis had a negative impact on the number of checks and concerted actions carried out by the Member States. Nevertheless, some trends can be mentioned.
There is still a continuous decrease in the number of working days checked. Compared to the previous reporting periods, both the reported number of vehicles and the reported number of drivers checked at the roadside throughout the EU decreased. The decrease was also observed for the number of transport undertakings checked at the premises. At the same time, the ratio of the working days checked at the roadside and at the premises changed to the advantage of working days checked at the premises (60% at the roadside and 40% at the premises while 73% and 27% respectively in the last report), which is a positive development bringing the ratio of these two types of controls closer to the legal requirements.
Both the number of offences detected at the premises and at the roadside decreased compared to the last report, which can be explained by the reduced number of checks carried out. The detection rate at premises remains higher than the detection rate at the roadside, which confirms that checks at the premises are more efficient than ad hoc roadside controls. However, the detection rate at premises decreased compared to the last reporting period.
Infringement detection rates vary significantly throughout the EU (from 0.12 to 8.39). This fact, combined with the trend of the decreasing number of working days checked and the limited enforcement capacities (human and financial resources, skills and control equipment) across the Member States, indicate that it is imperative to better target checks. The access to data, such as risk rating, at the roadside has high importance notably to better target controls and to reduce unnecessary ‘clean’ checks, i.e. checks where no infringements are detected. The access to the risk rating data by roadside inspectors is made obligatory in line with new requirements introduced by Mobility Package I45. The Commission will adopt an implementing act on the modalities of this access46. Moreover, the Commission will investigate how digitalisation and automation technologies could help to make controls of compliance smarter (more effective, efficient, paperless, based on access to and exchange of digital data).
As regards concerted and joint checks among Member States, it clearly appears that they contribute to knowledge-sharing, and to establishing harmonised approach to the understanding and enforcement of EU rules in force. Therefore, the Commission encourages the Member States to further strengthen their efforts in improving cooperation, through joint inspections and concerted checks, as well as to benefit from the assistance offered by the European Labour Authority.
The shares of the different types of infringements remain similar to the last reporting period. At the premises, offences related to driving time records amount to nearly half of all detected offences indicating difficulties with storing the relevant data appropriately by undertakings. In contrast, offences related to rest periods and driving times amount to almost half of all detected offences at the roadside.
As regards the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC, the lack of detailed quantitative and qualitative data in many national reports makes an in-depth assessment difficult. The Commission would like to stress the importance of this reporting exercise and reminds that a legal action can be launched against Member States failing to comply with the requirement to submit the information as required by Article 13 of Directive 2002/15/EC.
With regard to the implementation of Council Directive 96/53/EC the lack of information from many Member States makes conclusions difficult. With this in mind, the general outcome is that, while the overall enforcement and compliance levels for 2019-2020 have both increased slightly (2% more controls and 4% more infractions detected as compared to 2017-2018), there are significant differences among Member States in the number of controls and infractions detected in a given period.
These differences can also be observed in the efficiency of controls measured as the percentage of infractions detected per control carried out.
Given that weight-in-motions systems have to be implemented in all Member States from 27 May 2021, future data analysis and comparison with the current sets of data will be crucial to draw conclusions on the performance and efficiency of these automatic systems.
No general conclusion can be drawn as regards the appropriateness and proportionality of the controls on maximum weights. This is due, on the one hand, to the lack of an objective uniform criteria to define “proportionality” in the legal text. Contrary to the 3% criteria provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2006/22/EC, Council Directive 96/53/EC leaves a certain margin of discretion to Member States as to how they implement this rule. On the other hand, the Weights and Dimensions Directive does not require Member States to communicate the total number of vehicles inspected each year in their territories either, which hinders the assessment of the proportionality of the weights controls also from the point of view of having a constant ratio, i.e. that the more vehicles that are inspected in the territory of a Member State, the more checks on the weight of vehicles will need to be carried out.
The Commission believes that the overall enforcement and compliance levels following the application of Mobility Package I, will be improved in the future reporting periods. An implementing act adopted by the Commission on a harmonised risk rating formula47 allows enforcers to recognise quickly the profile of the company they intend to check and to know whether a company has a low risk rating (due to low-level of law breaches) or a high risk rating (high-level of law breaches). In addition, a remote early detection of possible manipulation and misuse, will give enforcers a tool to select which vehicles to control. All of this should decrease the number of unnecessary checks and save resources on the side of both enforcers and drivers.
The Commission will continue monitoring the implementation of the social rules in road transport with the assistance of Member States. It calls on Member States to include the views of both sides of industry on the implementation of the working time rules, as required by Directive 2002/15/EC.
The Commission insists on the importance of the submission by Member States of full sets of data on the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and its enforcement as well as on the enforcement of Council Directive 96/53/EC are provided for the next reporting period in order to satisfy the requirements set out in Article 13 of Directive 2002/15/EC, Article 10g of Council Directive 96/53/EC and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.
1 Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 1).
2 Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 35).
3 Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) No 164/2014 and Directive 2002/15/EC as regards social legislation relating to road transport activities, and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35).
4 Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 1).
5 Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorized weights in international traffic (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 59).
6 Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 requires Member States to communicate every two years the necessary information to enable the Commission to draw up a report on the application of that Regulation and the developments in the fields in question. Article 13 of Directive 2002/15/EC provides that Member States should report to the Commission on the implementation of the Directive, indicating the views of the two sides of industry. The reports on Directive 2002/15/EC and Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 can be presented in one single document as both legislative acts cover the same two-year reporting period and establish complementary rules for professional drivers.
7 Article 10g of Council Directive 96/53/EC requires Member States to communicate every two years the necessary information concerning the number of checks carried out on heavy-duty vehicles and the number of overloaded vehicles or vehicle combinations detected. Article 10g of Council Directive 96/53/EC provides that this information may be part of the information submitted under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.
8 C(2017) 1927 final.
9 This is the case for Lithuania who informed that data was not available due to technical error.
10 Latvia did not provide this categorisation for offences at premises.
11 The French authorities informed that the data from the Ministry of Labour, representing about half of the national inspection obligations in enterprises, could not be extracted from the information system, unlike in previous years. Poland informed that no data was available on the number of police officers conducting roadside checks.
12 Directive (EU) 2015/719 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic (OJ L 115, 6.5.2015, p. 1).
13 The Member States that submitted their national data were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
14 This figure is based on the number of working days for two years and the number of registered vehicles in scope of the Regulation during that period for each Member State.
15 The term ‘working days’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘days worked’ by a driver in the relevant legislation: Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, Directive 2006/22/EC and Decision (EU) 2017/1013;
16 The total 125.7 million working days checked in 2017-2018 comprised UK.
17 Malta informed that the decrease in the number of checks was due to Covid-19 circumstances and also a sudden departure of the two employees who at that time were solely responsible for the tachograph inspections. The Maltese authorities recognised the need to address this issue immediately and to proceed to train eight personnel to ensure that such situation does not occur again in the future.
18 Especially in Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Latvia, Portugal and Romania who accounted for 1/3 of working days checked.
19 Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and the Netherlands.
20 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
21 Lithuania did not report data.
22 The figure for 2017-2018 includes data from the UK (i.e.17,461 undertakings). Without data from the UK, the decrease is almost 33%.
23 For example +81% in Denmark and 64% in Luxembourg.
24 Lithuania did not provide this data. Cyprus reported that only national vehicles were checked.
25 Malta did not provide this data.
26 86.643 undertakings checked in 2017-2018 without the UK.
27 Latvia did not provide types of offences at premises checks.
28 Or 3.29 million without the UK.
29 Offences regarding recording equipment relate to the incorrect functioning and misuse or manipulation of the recording equipment.
30 Or about 1.84 million offences without the UK.
31 https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_126035/en/
32 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2020:249:FULL&from=FR
33 Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU) 2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344 (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21).
34 Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia. Hungary and Malta informed that no concerted checks were carried out.
35 Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.
36 Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p.9).
37 Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Spain.
38 Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Poland.
39 Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Sweden.
40 Last report indicated 12 Member States, including the United Kingdom.
41 France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.
42 All controls reported by Ireland are carried out by means of Weigh In Motion (WIM) systems.
43 The Member States that submitted their national data for the full period 2017-2018 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain.
44 The Member States that submitted their national data for the full period 2017-2018 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain.
45
46 In line with Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/1055.
47 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/695 of 2 May 2022 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the common formula for calculating the risk rating of transport undertakings (OJ L 129, 3.5.2022, p. 33).
EN EN