COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector PART 2/2

1.

Kerngegevens

Document date 01-06-2017
Publication date 02-06-2017
Reference 9670/17 ADD 3
From Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
External link original article
Original document in PDF

2.

Text

Council of the European Union

Brussels, 1 June 2017 (OR. en)

9670/17

Interinstitutional File: ADD 3

2017/0122 (COD) i

TRANS 214 SOC 440 CODEC 925 IA 98

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 1 June 2017

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2017) 186 final PART 2/2

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 561/2006 i as

regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) 165/2014 i as regards positioning by means of tachographs and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC i as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC i and Directive 2014/67 i/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector

 PART 2/2

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2017) 186 final PART 2/2.

Encl.: SWD(2017) 186 final PART 2/2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 31.5.2017 SWD(2017) 186 final

PART 2/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending

Regulation (EC) 561/2006 i as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and

weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and

Regulation (EU) 165/2014 i as regards positioning by means of tachographs

and

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC i as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC i and Directive 2014/67 i/EU for posting drivers in

the road transport sector

{COM(2017) 277 final i} {COM(2017) 278 final i} {SWD(2017) 184 final} {SWD(2017) 185 final} {SWD(2017) 187 final}

A NNEX 1:

P ROCEDURAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROCESS TO PREPARE THE

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THE RELATED INITIATIVE

  • 1. 
    O RGANISATION AND T IMING

The Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is the lead service for the preparation of the initiative and the work on the impact assessment. The evaluation was validated in the Agenda Planning under references 2016/MOVE/005, 2016/MOVE/018 and 2016/MOVE/019.

The initiative was validated in March 2016 and the impact assessment work started immediately afterwards. It lasted until April 2017.

An inter-service steering group (ISG), chaired by the Secretariat-General (SG), was set up in 19.07.2016 with the participation of the following Commission Directorates-Generals: Legal Service (LS), Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW), Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL).

Invitations were also sent to the following Commission Directorates-Generals: Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), Climate Action (DG CLIMA), Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), Competition (DG COMP), Informatics (DG DIGIT), Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC), Energy (DG ENER), Eurostat (DG ESTAT), Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (DG FISMA), Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME), Joint Research Centre (DG JRC), Justice and Consumers (DG JUST), Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE), Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD), Trade (DG TRADE).

Three Inter-service Steering Group were held on 19 July 2016, 10 th January 2017 and 1 st

March 2017.

 2. C ONSULTATION OF THE R EGULATORY S CRUTINY B OARD

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board received the draft version of the present impact assessment report on 8 March 2017 and following the Board meeting on 5 April 2017 issued a negative

opinion on 7 th April 2017. The Board made several recommendations. Those were addressed

in the revised IA report as follows:

RSB recommendations Modification of the IA report

Main considerations

  • 1. 
    The report does not describe the policy More explanation on the relevant parallel

context clearly and does not take into account processes has been provided in section 2.1 on

relevant parallel processes such as the 2016 policy context. In particular the interlinkages

Posting of Workers Directive proposal, the with the parallel review of the legislation on

ongoing social dialogues and pending ECJ cases. access to the market and the complementarity with the pending Commission proposal on PWD

was better explained, as well as the pending infringement cases and the on-going social dialogue .

  • 2. 
    The challenges and objectives that this This has been addressed in section 1.2 in initiative addresses are unclear, incomplete, and particular in table 1. The explanations for do not fully match the findings of the evaluation discarding certain policy measures have been

    also more elaborated in Annex 6.

  • 3. 
    The baseline is based on unclear assumptions It is addressed in section 2.5 on baseline. and does not take sufficient account of relevant

ongoing processes (see above), market trends The assumptions in the baseline are now clearly

and potential future technology developments outlined (such as market developments, legislative and judicial processes, technological

developments and enforcement issues).

  • 4. 
    The report does not sufficiently describe likely Section 6 on impact, in particular section 6.1.1 impacts, including with regard to costs (REFIT takes into account the risks of circumventing the dimension). It does not examine risks of nonrules. compliance and illicit practices. This makes

options much harder to compare. REFIT has been addressed in section 1.3 and in the impact in section 6, also in table 13.

Further considerations and adjustment requirements

• The policy context should better justify the This has been better explained in section 2.1. need for acting now.

• Parallel and ongoing processes, which relate to This has been addressed in section 2.1. Please the current initiative, should be better described. see above.

This concerns notably the Posting of Workers

Directive proposal of 8 March 2016, the ongoing social dialogues and the pending ECJ cases.

• The link with parallel initiatives on access to The links with the market initiative has been market and to the profession should be clarified. better explained in section 2.1 on policy context This should show how circumventions of other and 2.2 on market context. Please see above. than social standards requirements (i.e. letter box companies, illicit employment contracts, etc.) add to the problem and how these are addressed.

• The report should better justify the reasons for This has been addressed in section 1.2, in discarding upfront issues identified by the ex particular in table 1. The explanations for post evaluation and by stakeholders, as these discarding certain policy measures have been could potentially affect compliance and also more elaborated in Annex 6. enforcement (such as co-liability for infringement).

  • 2. 
    Intervention logic

• The intervention logic should better The Problem definition has been considerably distinguish between the 'real problems on the revised, indicating problems on the ground and ground' and the legal issues (legislative underlying legal issues. problems, implementation and enforcement).

The problems and policy goals should preferably New problem tree has been drafted, please see refer to issues on the ground […] figure 3 .

• The problem definition and problem tree This has been in particular addressed in sections do not cover the problem perceived by many 2.1 policy context and 2.2 market context and EU15 drivers, namely that their jobs and wages 2.3 on the size of the problems. The risk to EU-15 are threatened by 'unfair' competition from EU drivers due to "unfair" competition is addressed 13 drivers […] in the new problem definition.

• The intervention logic should be New problem tree has been drafted, please see simplified […] figure 3 .

  • 3. 
    The baseline

• The baseline needs to be based on This has been addressed in section 2.5 on assumptions of how the regulatory environment baseline. is likely to develop in the absence of the current initiative […]

• The report expects new national This is more explained in section 2.5, in measures to be taken, which could lead to particular in 2.5.1.2 on High regulatory costs for further regulatory burdens and increasing operators and national authorities Decreasing fragmentation of the internal market. It assumes enforcement capacity is one of the assumptions that efficiency of the enforcement efforts will in the baseline. The issue has been taken into increase. However, the report does not take into account in the analysis of the impact on account possible resource limitations of Member enhancement on enforcement.

States to enforce measures and control their application […]

• The EUR 2 bn cost baseline should be The clear definition between the various costs better explained. The report should be more (enforcement, administrative, compliance) has specific about the types of costs involved and been made and cost for baseline scenario was clarify whether they relate to national or to EU revised. Cost estimate has been updated. measures. The baseline should also be more

specific about the consequences for the internal This has been addressed in the baseline section market of the increased fragmentation of the 2.5 and in Annex 4 on the calculation of the road transport market. administrative costs in the baseline.

• The baseline should give a clearer This has been addressed in the baseline section

picture of the trends in the sector, in particular 2.5. on the issues highlighted in the evaluation as key factors: shortage of drivers; greater concentration in the sector; breakdown of international trips by Member State […]

• The future technology perspectives for Future technology perspectives are mentioned in road transport could be referred to annex 9, Section 2.5 on the baseline. since this may apply to the whole road package.

This could include the implications of new technologies such as digital tachographs, satellite/GPS surveillance and driverless trucks

  • 4. 
    Impacts

• The costs of the various options should Section 6.2 has assessed these costs.

be clarified, singling out the different types of costs, their relative importance and their

measurement; compliance/administrative costs, Please note that no such option of a common EU cost imposed by the EU framework or by notification system exist.

national measures; which ones will only disappear once Member States decide to repeal their national measures. What will be the costs of a common EU notification system for EU road transport and for improving enforcement and controls?

• The impact section should look at likely The analysis of the impact of each policy option market reactions to the proposed measures. The is accompanied with information on opinions of impacts of the policy packages on compliance the main stakeholders. and enforcement should be substantiated and it

should be better explained how the envisaged The detailed views on the stakeholders is actions can reduce strong incentives for national provided in Annex 2.

measures and circumvention by operators. The impact analysis should include a presentation of the support of stakeholders and Member States to the different policy packages […]

• The ability to prove a 'free choice' as to The impact of the measures on improving a whether drivers spend their regular weekly rest driver's working condition and fatigue was in the vehicle is not clearly argued. The report further elaborated in the section on social does not demonstrate how options on weekly impacts (section 6.1)

(reduced) rest time, driving time, the split of breaks, as well as the issue of minimum pay would improve the situation of drivers and the road safety.

• The comparison of options should be The comparison of options is based on thorough adapted to reflect an improved intervention analysis of the trade-offs and positive and logic and more balanced impact and risk negative impacts of different measures of the assessments. A clearer overview of the various same package. options, their potential impacts on the

assessment criteria and on costs is required to The overview of it is provided in table 12 on the bring out the main trade-offs between these comparison of options.

options.

• The report should provide an overview The impact of the policy options has been of the different options and their impacts on provided in Annex 3. main stakeholder groups

• The preferred option should be put in An overview of costs of the Road initiatives and context of the overall road package, and the interlinkages with cabotage is provided in potential synergies should be set out. This new Annex 7 .

should include interlinkages with cabotage.

Annex 9 on the overall package should contain an overview of the cumulative cost of the whole package.

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board received the revised version of the impact assessment report on 24 April 2017 and issued in written procedure a positive opinion with recommendations on 28 April 2017. The Board made further recommendations which were addressed in the revised IA report as follows:

RSB recommendations Modification to the Impact Assessment

  • 1. 
    the baseline

The baseline should address the risks linked to a These aspects have been addressed in section certain number of uncertainties and be 2.5 in the baseline (the adaptations are made in more cautious in the way to formulate the particular in sections: 2.5.1; 2.5.1.2; 2.5.1.3 and assumptions. The baseline should clarify the 2.5.1.4.) expected differences in the scenario with and without the proposed directive on the posting of workers (PWD), […]

  • 2. 
    Policy options

The report and the related annex should provide This has been addressed in section 5.2. for a clearer and balanced analysis of the feasibility of the option aiming at modifying the posting of worker directive. It should reflect the possibility for the European sectoral social partners to address the issue or develop why this option has not been taken into account.

  • 3. 
    Assessment of impacts

The report should better demonstrate the Section 6.1.2, 6.22 and 7.2. impacts on drivers' health and working conditions of weekly rest under revised rules:

• the report should clarify the impact

(effectiveness) of PP2 and PP4a to

 Reference to stakeholder's views still needs a

more cautious use […] 4. Presentation

The executive summary suggests a trade-off The executive summary has been revised between protection of workers and facilitating accordingly. cross-border service provision. By contrast, the main report suggests these two goals can be pursued in parallel.

  • 3. 
    D ATA USED IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND EXTERNAL EXPERTISE

The impact assessment relied mainly on the support study carried out by an external

consultant 1 . This study itself followed up from the support study for the ex post evaluation of the social rules carried out by the same consultant 2 . In the course of the support study, a wide

range of stakeholders were consulted to confirm the scope and the magnitude of the problems and to provide their views on the potential solutions to these problems.

In parallel to the external studies, the Commission services sought further expertise and input from stakeholders by means of several dedicated meetings throughout the impact assessment.

Other sources of data used included:

  • - 
    Conferences organised by the Commission in 2015 and April 2016 on the planned Road initiative
  • ETF working group meetings – 13 January 2016
  • Sectorial dialogue committee in road transport – 19 January 2016
  • Sectorial dialogue committee in road transport – 15 June 2016
  • Florence Road Transport Forum on 15 July 2016 and 23 January 2017
  • Several bilateral meetings with all main stakeholders throughout 2016 and 2017
  • Sectorial dialogue committee in road transport – 16 November 2016
  • Meeting between Commission and ETF – 24 January 2017
  • support Study of ex-post evaluation on the social rules

1 Support study for an impact assessment for the revision of the social legislation in road transport (Ricardo 2017)

2 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-eval-road-transport

href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2016-ex-post-eval-road-transport-social-legislation-final-report.pdf">social-legislation-final-report.pdf This study was the main basis for the Commission's ex post evaluation of the Regulations: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/swd20160350.pdf

A NNEX 2

S TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

  • 1. 
    P ROCESS AND QUANTITATIVE RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

A variety of consultation activities with stakeholders have been carried out in the period between June 2015 and December 2016. The Commission organised an open public consultation, a SME panel survey and targeted stakeholder consultations through a consultant.

The objectives of these consultation activities were two-fold:

 To provide to the wide public and stakeholders an opportunity to express their

views on all elements relevant for the assessment of the functioning of the social rules in road transport, as well as to express their positions on the

possible/desirable changes to the regulatory framework.

 To gather specialised input (data and factual information, expert views) on

specific aspects of the legislation (e.g. working and business conditions, enforcement methods and tools, etc.) from the enforcement community and from

the industry.

1.2. O PEN P UBLIC C ONSULTATION (OPC)

The European Commission organised an open public consultation from 5 September to 11 December 2016, i.e. 14 weeks. The OPC aimed to support the back-to-back ex-post evaluation and impact assessment processes; hence it addressed the issues relevant for both processes: the verification of the problems faced by the sector as well as the identification of potential solutions to address those problems. The anonymised replies and a summary of OPC findings are available online:

 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/consultations/2016-social-legislation-road_en.

The main objectives of the OPC were: 1) to confirm the preliminary results identified during the ex-post evaluation support study, 2) to seek the opinion of stakeholders on possible policy measures; and 3) to assess the expected impacts of the possible policy measures.

Stakeholders were given the opportunity to send spontaneously their contributions to the expost evaluation and impact assessment exercises. The invitation to do so was published on the consultation web page, as well as announced at conferences, events, and meetings and correspondence with the Commission etc.

Questionnaires were drafted by the Commission services based on the findings of the study on ex-post evaluation. To better tailor the questions to the stakeholder groups the consultation was composed of two questionnaires: 1) non-specialised questionnaire addressed to drivers, operators, shippers, forwarders, citizens who submitted in total 1209 responses and 2) specialised questionnaire addressed to national authorities, enforcement bodies, workers' organisations and industry associations from whom 169 responses were received.

In total 1378 responses were received by the OPC. 1209 replies were received to the nonspecialised questionnaire which provided a good representation of key stakeholders: drivers/other road transport workers (31%), road hauliers (22%), passenger transport companies (17%). See below for more information.

Table 1-1: Analysis of responses by type of operation and geography in the non-specialised questionnaire

Stakeholder category Region of operation (as No. of % of % of indicated by respondent) responses responses total

Driver or other road transport EU-wide 173 47%

worker (employee) National 170 46%

Non-EU/Other 26 7%

None/No response 3 1% Total 372 100% 31%

Road haulier EU-wide 143 53%

National 83 31% Non-EU/Other 38 14% None/No response 5 2% Total 269 100% 22%

Passenger transport company EU-wide 117 55%

National 73 35% Non-EU/Other 20 9% None/No response 1 0% Total 211 100% 17%

Self-employed driver National 136 66%

EU-wide 64 31% Non-EU/Other 4 2% None/No response 2 1% Total 206 100% 17%

Other company in the EU-wide 25 56%

transport chain (shipper, National 13 29%

forwarder) Non-EU/Other 5 11%

None/No response 2 4% Total 45 100% 4%

Private individual National 16 42%

Non-EU/Other 12 32% EU-wide 7 18% None/No response 3 8% Total 38 100% 3%

Other National 30 44%

EU-wide 18 26% Stakeholder category Region of operation (as No. of % of % of

indicated by respondent) responses responses total

Non-EU/Other 7 10% Non-EU/Other 13 19% Total 68 100% 6%

Grand Total 1209 100% 100%

A total of 23 countries were represented by the respondents, with the majority (75%) from EU-15 countries, and a further 24% of the responses were from EU-13 countries. 8 responses (1%) were from non-EU countries.

512 out of 1209 (42%) respondents were from Sweden, which was by far the most represented country. Given that a significant share of all respondents were from Sweden, key questions were analysed disaggregating respondents from Sweden from respondents from other countries. If the views of respondents from Sweden diverged from the overall trend this would have been specifically indicated in the text. Otherwise, they followed the same patterns giving priority to the same issues with largely similar percentages. "Don't know" answers were not considered. Respondents from Czech Republic and Germany were the next most represented countries, with 164 (14%) and 163 (13%) responses.

Table 1-2: Analysis of stakeholder responses by country of residence/establishment

Country of residence/establishment No. of responses % of responses

Sweden 512 42%

Czech Republic 164 14%

Germany 163 13%

Austria 83 7%

Poland 64 5%

Spain 58 5%

Lithuania 58 5%

France 32 3%

Italy 9 1%

Belgium 8 1%

Portugal 8 1%

Slovak Republic 6 0%

Romania 6 0%

United Kingdom 5 0%

Finland 5 0%

Ireland 4 0%

Netherlands 3 0%

Denmark 3 0%

Luxembourg 3 0%

Slovenia 2 0%

Greece 2 0%

Country of residence/establishment No. of responses % of responses

Latvia 2 0%

Bulgaria 1 0%

Other 8 1%

Grand Total 1209 100%

A total of 126 coordinated responses could be identified, split into 8 groups (see table 2-3). The coordinated responses were identified through a screening of responses to open-ended questions that were then also checked against responses to closed questions.

Most of the groups represented respondents from a specific country, and some a specific stakeholder category. The largest coordinated group was from Czech Republic road hauliers and drivers who accounted for 47 coordinated responses. Two of the coordinated response groups from Lithuania had the same responses for closed questions, but only one of the groups had matching open-ended responses and so were identified as a separate group.

Table 1-3: Analysis of coordinated responses

Coordinated Country Stakeholder category No. of responses response No.

1 Austria, Germany Passenger transport companies 6

2 France Passenger transport companies 2

3 Lithuania Road hauliers 11

4 Czech Republic Road hauliers and drivers 47

5 Austria Drivers, passenger transport

companies, road hauliers 24

6 Sweden Passenger transport company, driver 3

and self-employed driver 7 Lithuania Other companies in the transport

chain (shipper, forwarder) 14

8 3 Lithuania Road hauliers, drivers, private

individuals 19

Grand Total 126

As regards the specialised questionnaire, 169 responses were received; the majority of the replies were from industry associations (54%) and workers’ organisations (13%). The remaining stakeholders represented national authorities (national enforcement authorities, regulatory authorities, enforcement authority organisations) and others (academic bodies, EU governmental authorities, intergovernmental organisations). 78% of the respondents were based in EU-15 countries, and 19% were from EU-13 countries. The remaining 3% were from non-EU countries. Please see table 2-4 for an overview.

3 Coordinated responses 3 and 8 have different written responses but the same closed responses.

Table 1-4: Analysis of responses by type of operation and geography in the specialised questionnaire

Stakeholder Region of operation (as No. of % of responses % of total category indicated by respondent) responses within group

Industry association National 34 37%

EU-wide 55 60% Non-EU/Other 3 3% None/No response 0 0% Total 92 100% 54% Workers' National 11 50%

organisation (e.g. Non-EU/Other 0 0%

trade union) EU-wide 11 50%

None/No response 0 0% Total 22 100% 13%

National EU-wide 1 14%

enforcement National 6 86%

authority Non-EU/Other 0 0%

None/No response 0 0% Total 7 100% 4%

Regulatory EU-wide 2 33%

authority (e.g. National 1 17%

national transport

regulator, national Non-EU/Other 0 0%

competition None/No response 3 50%

authority) Total 6 100% 4%

EU governmental National 1 25%

authority EU-wide 2 50%

Non-EU/Other 0 0% None/No response 1 25% Total 4 100% 2% Academic body (e.g. EU-wide 1 33%

research institute, National 2 67%

training

organisation) Non-EU/Other 0 0% None/No response 0 0%

Total 3 100% 2% Enforcement EU-wide 1 100%

authorities' National 0 0%

organisation Non-EU/Other 0 0%

None/No response 0 0% Total 1 100% 1%

Intergovernmental EU-wide 0 0%

organisation National 1 100%

Non-EU/Other 0 0%

None/No response 0 0%

Total 1 100% 1%

Other National 11 34%

EU-wide 17 53%

Non-EU/Other 2 6%

None/No response 2 0%

Total 32 100% 19%

Stakeholder Region of operation (as No. of % of responses % of total

category indicated by respondent) responses within group

Grand total 168 100%

1.3. SME P ANEL S URVEY

SME in the transport sector received questionnaires through the SME panel survey 4 organised by the Commission from 4 th November 2016 to 4 th January 2017, i.e. 9 weeks. The survey

was divided into two sub-questionnaires: one, on the application of the posting of workers provisions in the road transport sector, and the second one on driving times, working times and rest periods in road transport. Respondents had the option to answer to one or both questionnaires.

Overall, 109 responses were received to the SME panel survey. Of the 109 responses, 35 were to the questionnaire on posting of workers in road transport sector, 42 were to the questionnaire on driving times, working times and rest periods in road transport, and 24 responded to both questionnaires. The remaining 8 responses did not complete either questionnaire, and were therefore not counted in either of the analyses.

On the questionnaire on driving and working times and rest periods of drivers in road transport, a total of 66 responses were received of which road haulage operators represented 22 (33%) responses, with self-employed drivers representing a further 16 (24%) respondents, and drivers and other road transport workers representing 13 (20%) respondents. Passenger transport operators only accounted for 7 (11%) respondents, while 8 (12%) respondents marked themselves as ‘other’. 36 out of 66 (55%) of the respondents operated domestically only, compared to the first questionnaire which had a majority of respondents operate both domestically and internationally. A total of 14 countries were represented with Poland being the most represented country (22 out of 66 (27%) respondents).

As regards the posting of workers questionnaire (see table 2-5 and table 2-6), a total of 59 responses were received, whereas Road haulage operators represented 17 (29%) responses, passenger transport operators counted 14 (24%) replies, and drivers and other road transport workers representing 13 (22%) respondents. Self-employed drivers only accounted for 6 (10%), while 7 (12%) respondents indicated themselves as ‘other’. Two respondents did not indicate what type of stakeholder they were. At least 15 countries were represented, of which Romania, Poland and Germany were most represented.

4 Stakeholder consultation tool managed by DG GROW. This tool enables services to reach SMEs in a targeted

way, as network partners in Member States are well placed in their regions to identify companies that will be most affected by the subject of consultation.

Table 2-1: Analysis of responses on social rules by type of operation and geography

Stakeholder category Region of operation No. of % of category % of (as indicated by responses total respondent)

Road haulage operator Domestic and

international 13 59%

Domestic only 9 41%

International only 0 0%

Other 1 0%

Total 22 100% 33%

Self-employed driver Domestic and

international 0 0%

Domestic only 15 94%

International only 1 6%

Other 0 0%

Total 16 100% 24% Driver or other road Domestic and

transport worker international 5 38%

(employee) Domestic only 6 46%

International only 1 8% Other 1 8%

Total 13 100% 20%

Passenger transport Domestic and

operator international 2 29%

Domestic only 5 71%

International only 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 7 100% 11%

Other Domestic and

international 6 75%

Domestic only 1 13%

International only 1 13% Other 0 0%

Total 8 100% 12%

Grand Total 66 100% 100%

Table 2-2: Analysis of stakeholder responses on social rules by country of residence/establishment

Country of residence/establishment No. of responses % of responses

Poland 22 37%

Czech Republic 7 12%

Romania 7 12%

Germany 6 10%

Finland 6 10%

Estonia 5 8%

Italy 4 7%

Slovak Republic 3 5%

Spain 1 2%

Belgium 1 2%

Luxembourg 1 2%

United Kingdom 1 2%

Cyprus 1 2%

Portugal 1 2%

France 0 0%

Grand Total 66 100%

Table 2-3: SME Panel Survey – Analysis of responses on posting of workers by type of operation and geography

Stakeholder category Region of operation No. of % in % of

(as indicated by respondent) responses category total

Road haulage operator Domestic and international 12 71%

Domestic only 5 29%

International only 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 17 100% 29%

Passenger transport Domestic and international 8 57%

operator Domestic only 4 29%

International only 2 14% Other 0 0%

Total 14 100% 24%

Driver or other road Domestic and international 5 38%

transport worker Domestic only 8 62%

(employee) International only 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 13 100% 22%

Self-employed driver Domestic and international 1 17%

Domestic only 5 83% Stakeholder category Region of operation No. of % in % of

(as indicated by respondent) responses category total

International only 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 6 100% 10%

Other Domestic and international 6 86%

Domestic only 0 0% International only 1 14%

Other 0 0%

Total 7 100% 12%

No response Total 2 100% 3%

Grand Total 59 100% 100%

Table 2-4: SME Panel Survey - Analysis of stakeholder responses on posting of workers by country of residence/establishment

Country of residence/establishment No. of responses % of responses

Romania 14 24%

Poland 11 19%

Germany 8 14%

Czech Republic 6 10%

Estonia 5 8%

Finland 4 7%

France 4 7%

Italy 3 5%

Spain 1 2%

Belgium 1 2%

Portugal 1 2%

Luxembourg 1 2%

United Kingdom 0 0%

Cyprus 0 0%

Slovak Republic 0 0%

Grand Total 59 100%

1.4. T ARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

Through a consultant, the Commission carried out several targeted consultations of stakeholders during January to February 2017. Promoted through several driver forums as well as through the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the consultant sent tailored surveys to drivers inviting them to provide their input. Furthermore, tailored surveys were sent to national authorities, including ministries and enforcement agencies of all Member States. In addition to the survey, several targeted interviews were organised with identified national enforcement authorities, individual road transport undertakings, national industry associations, national trade unions and the ETF.

Stakeholders' surveys

Two surveys were carried out: one of national transport ministries and national enforcers and

one of drivers. The former was open for a total period of 5 weeks (deadline of 26 th February 2017), while the survey of drivers was kept open for a longer period until the 10 th March

2017. Late responses to the survey of MS authorities were still accepted.

1.4.1 Survey of Drivers

An online survey of drivers was developed and has been promoted via a number of driver forums in 6 Member States (BG, DE, UK, FR, PL and RO). The survey was available in 6 languages: English, French, German, Polish, Bulgarian and Romanian.

In addition to the drivers’ forums supported was requested through European Transport Workers Federation (ETF) and national trade unions. Moreover, drivers who participated to the OPC and who agreed to be contacted for other consultation activities were contacted.

In total 345 responses have been received, however, 140 from the Netherlands and 127 from the UK. The survey received a low participation of drivers from most other Member States.

Table 3-1: Responses to drivers’ survey

Member State Number of responses Percentage

Total 345 100%

EU13 22 6%

Poland 8 36%

Bulgaria 5 23%

Romania 5 23%

Czech Republic 2 9%

Lithuania 1 5%

Slovenia 1 5%

EU15 317 92%

Netherlands 140 44%

United Kingdom 127 40%

France 28 9%

Germany 11 3%

Sweden 4 1%

Spain 2 1%

Ireland 2 1%

Belgium 2 1%

Luxembourg 1 1%

Other 6 2%

1.4.2 Survey of National Authorities

The survey directed at national authorities (implementing and enforcement authorities) was

launched on the 19 th of January 2017. Respondents’ feedback was requested on several

proposed policy measures and the impact they are likely to have on the legislation, enforcement, compliance, costs and social and working conditions of drivers.

In total, 41 responses were received from EU28 Member States (except Poland) plus Norway and Switzerland. In a number of cases separate responses were received by different ministries (e.g. ministry of transport or labour) or agencies in charge of the enforcement of the social rules.

1.4.3 Direct information requests (hauliers' survey)

Direct information was also obtained from transport operators on specific aspects affected by the proposed measures and cost estimates. The information requests were useful to develop the baseline. In particular they were used to assess costs to business from the current legislation and assessing the impacts. Information request forms were distributed to transport operators that responded to the public consultation and the SME panel.

In total 73 responses to data requests were received, 58 of these were from Hungary, however 41 responses were coordinated.

Table 3-2: Response to hauliers’ data request

Member State Number of responses Percentage of total

Total 73 100%

EU13 67 92%

Hungary 58 5 79%

Czech Republic 4 5%

Bulgaria 3 4%

Romania 1 1%

Poland 1 1%

EU15 6 8%

Austria 1 1%

Denmark 1 1%

France 1 1%

Ireland 1 1%

Spain 1 1%

Sweden 1 1%

5 41 responses from Hungary were part of Coordinated Group 1, as well as 1 Polish response.

42 of the responses from Hungary were coordinated, including one response from Poland.

Table 3-3: overview of responses by coordinated and un-coordinated responses

Hungary

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Romania

Spain

France Coordinated group 1

Poland Not coordinated

Sweden

Denmark

Ireland

Austria

(blank)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

The majority of drivers participating employ around 50-100 and 100-250 employees. This means that they represent above the average size of companies in the market (90% of enterprises in the sector have fewer than 10 employees).

Figure 3-1:

EU-15 (n=6) 1 2 1 1 1

EU-13 (n=67) 9 7 14 24 8 5

Hungary (n=58) 8 2 12 23 8 5

All (n=73) 1 11 8 15 24 9 5

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% I am self employed <10 10-20

20-50 50-100 100-250

250-1000 1000+ Do not know

The majority (65 out of 87) of the hauliers are operational in internal freight.

Figure 3-2:

EU-15 (n=9) 5 3 1

EU-13 (n=78) 12 2 62 2

Hungary (n=65) 8 2 53 2

All (n=87) 17 2 65 2 1

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Domestic freight transport (within your country of registration)

Domestic passenger transport (within your country of registration) International (cross border) freight International (cross border) passenger transport

1.4.4 Interviews

Exploratory interviews

Interviews were held with five European stakeholders (CORTE, DVSA, EPTO, ETF and IRU) in order to refine the problem definition as well as identifying the most relevant policy options. Their views have been taken into account to produce a long-list of policy options, and design the main interview programme and respective interview guides .

1.4.5 Stakeholder interviews

In total, 56 stakeholders were invited to interview and 35 interviews were conducted while respecting the balance between EU13 and EU 15 countries.

Table 3-4: Overview of interviews

Interviews Type of Stakeholder

Carried out

Transport Company (BG, CZ, DE, HU, PL, SK, EU-wide) 7

National Industry Associations (AT, BG, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FR, PL, RO) 9

National Authorities (Transport Ministries and Enforcement Authorities) (AT, BE, BG,

NL, DE, LV, RO, SE) 9

National workers’ unions (BE, IT, NL, SI) 4

Other (International Association of Transport Companies) (ETF, UETR, NLA,

UEAPME, EEA, CORTE, ECR) 6

EU-15 15

EU-13 14

EU-Wide 6

Total 35

1.4.6 Study visits

Within the study visits the practical aspects (e.g. time required to enforce the suggested measures) and economic impacts (e.g. costs of introducing the proposed measures) relating to the policy measures were discussed in more detail.

With regard to individual transport undertakings, interviews were arranged with a transport manager or a person responsible for the management/organisation of the operations able to provide the relevant information. For the study visit with enforcers, stakeholders with experience in carrying out both roadside and premises checks as well as having a good understanding of the costs of carrying out enforcement activities were met. The consultant met with enforcement authorities and undertakings in the Netherlands, Belgium and France.

Two study visits have been completed, one with the enforcement authorities in the Netherlands and one with an undertaking in France.

  • 2. 
    R ESULTS OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

2.1. The Open Public Consultation

What should be the main objectives of a revision of current EU legislation?

The respondents of the non-specialised questionnaire considered all of the main objectives listed in figure 2.1 important for a revision of the current EU legislation. The objective to clarify and simplify the existing rules was considered important by 1017 out of 1147 (89%) respondents, which follows the results where clarity was considered the worst problem with existing rules. This was closely followed by the objective to ensure uniform application and enforcement of the social rules in Member States which was considered important by 997 out of 1140 (87%) of the respondents. All of the other main objectives were considered important by 73-76% of the respondents.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, little variation was seen. Fewer private individual respondents considered the objectives important, with only about 50% of respondents indicating as such. When split by geographical location, EU-13 based respondents considered all of the objectives less important than the overall trend.

In the specialised questionnaire, all of the objectives listed in figure 2.2 were considered important by at least 97 out of 150 (65%) of respondents. The objectives to clarify and simplify existing rules and to ensure uniform application and enforcement of the social rules in Member States had the most respondents indicate that they were important, with 138 out of 154 (90%) respondents and 132 out of 151 (87%) respondents respectively.

There was very little difference when disaggregated by stakeholder group, but when split by geographical location EU-13 based respondents had a higher share of respondents indicate that the objectives were not important, compared to EU-15 based respondents.

Which specific measures that can contribute to improving the function of the social rules?

In the non-specialised questionnaire, diverse views were received on the level of contribution that the specific measures listed in figure 4.3 would have on improving the functioning of the social rules in transport. The measure of allowing for flexible distribution of minimum breaks and resting to adapt to specific transport services was considered to be a major contribution by 606 out of 1146 (53%) respondents, a further 321 (28%) indicated either a moderate or minor contribution. Only two of the specific measures had less than 50% of the respondents indicate they would contribute to some degree. These were the measures to exclude selfemployed drivers from the working time rules (467 out of 1139 (41%)) and explicitly exclude occasional non-professional drivers from the working time rules (470 out of 1133 (41%)).

Figure: 4-1: Non-specialised questionnaire - Importance of main objectives of a revision of current EU legislation

To clarify and simplify existing rules

(n=1147) 1017 71 59

To ensure uniform application and enforcement of the social rules in 997 74 69 Member States (n=1140)

To further harmonise working

conditions in the sector (n=1129) 863 133 133

To enhance cooperation between MS in order to allow more effective cross 850 154 125 border enforcement (n=1129)

To further harmonize conditions of competition between operators 849 144 141 (n=1134)

To ensure balance between the freedom to provide cross-border

services and social protection rights of 822 175 129

road transport workers (n=1126)

Other (n=508) 115 384 9

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Important No opinion Not important Figure: 4-2: Specialised questionnaire - Importance of main objectives of a revision of current EU legislation

 To clarify and simplify existing rules (n=154) 138 1 15

 To ensure uniform application and

enforcement of the social rules in Member 132 8 11

States (n=151)

 To enhance cooperation between Member

States in order to allow more effective 108 27 14

cross-border enforcement (n=149)

 To further harmonize conditions of

competition between operators (n=150) 106 23 21

 To ensure balance between the freedom to provide cross-border services and social

protection rights of road transport workers 103 26 13

(n=142)

 To further harmonise working conditions in

the sector (n=150) 97 20 33

 Other (n=62) 33 29

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Important No opinion Not important

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, a range of differences were identified. Shippers and forwarders generally expressed quite different views from other stakeholders, but this may be in part due to the lower sample size of this group. Employees expressed a contribution above the average trend regarding forbidding performance-based pay, and forbidding weekly rest in the vehicles. Passenger transport company respondents differed from the trend regarding distribution of breaks, more indicating a major contribution, and establishing a maximum period away from home/base, more indicating no contribution.

When split by geographical location, EU-15 based respondents considered flexible distribution of minimum breaks, forbid performance-based pay, and forbid weekly rest in vehicle, to be a more major contribution to improving the functioning of the social rules, compared to EU-13 based respondents. EU-13 based respondents instead indicated a more major contribution from adapting administrative formalities for posted workers, and both measures allowing drivers to spend weekly rest in the vehicle.

Looking specifically at the exclusion of self-employed drivers from the working time rules (see figure 4.5), there was little difference when disaggregated by geographical location. 182 out of 850 (21%) EU-15 based respondents identified this measure as a major contribution to improving the functioning of the social legislation, while 361 (42%) indicated no contribution at all. Comparatively, 36 out of 281 (13%) EU-13 based respondents indicated a major contribution, while 117 (42%) respondents indicated no contribution at all.

As for the specialised questionnaire, a wide range of opinions was also present. The measures to establish criteria for posting situation in road transport (89 out of 144 (62%)), allow for flexible distribution of minimum breaks and resting to adapt to specific transport services (88 out of 147 (59%)), integrate the working time provisions with the provisions on driving and resting times (55%) and adapt the administrative formalities for posted workers to the specificities of road transport (55%) had the highest number of respondents consider them a major contribution. However, the measures to exclude self-employed drivers from the scope of the working time directive (60 out of 148 (41%)), explicitly forbid spending a regular weekly rest in a vehicle (52 out of 149 (35%)), establish maximum periods away from home/base (48 out of 148 (32%)) and allow for taking every second regular weekly rest in a vehicle (38 out of 145 (26%)), all had most respondents indicate no contribution at all. For more details see figure 4.4.

Figure 4-3: Non-specialised questionnaire: Contribution of specific measures to improving the functioning of the social rules in road transport

Allow for flexible distribution of minimum breaks and resting to adapt to specific 606 226 95 112 107 transport services (n=1146)

Forbid performance-based pay for drivers

(n=1133) 505 136 161 210 121

Adapt the administrative formalities for posted workers to the specificities of road 429 227 114 72 275

transport (n=1117)

Make the driving and working time rules also cover drivers of vehicles below 3.5 399 215 134 249 149 tonnes (n=1146)

Establish criteria for posting situation in

road transport (n=1133) 382 239 111 121 280

Establish maximum periods away from

home/base (n=1142) 366 179 124 336 137

Explicitly forbid spending a regular weekly

rest in a vehicle (n=1140) 366 133 124 371 146

Allow for spending a regular weekly rest in a vehicle provided that it is free choice of a 316 160 141 355 165 driver (n=1137)

Clarify the requirement of recording mixed activities (driving in scope and out of scope 314 318 149 98 249

of the legislation) (n=1128)

Exclude self-employed drivers from the

working time rules (n=1139) 219 107 141 485 187

Allow for taking every second regular

weekly rest in a vehicle (n=1125) 201 215 176 333 200

Explicitly exclude occasional nonprofessional drivers from the rules 171 144 155 467 196 (n=1133)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution

No contribution at all No opinion

Figure 4-4: Specialised questionnaire: Significance of policy options for improving the functioning of the

social rules 6

Establish criteria for posting situation in

road transport (n=144) 89 11 11 6 27

Allow for flexible distribution of minimum breaks and resting to adapt to specific 88 15 3 28 13 transport services (n=147)

Integrate the working time provisions with the provisions on driving and resting times 81 17 9 18 21 (n=146)

Adapt the administrative formalities for

posted workers to the specificities of road 79 25 8 2 28

transport (n=142) Replace guidelines on common approach to

implementation of the rules by legally 70 32 17 9 21 binding rules (n=149)

Forbid performance-based remuneration of

drivers (n=148) 66 12 22 25 23

Include drivers of vehicles below 3.5 tonnes in the scope of the driving and working 62 11 30 52 11 time legislation (n=166)

Establish national contact points to provide

guidance on the application of the social 58 45 13 14 15

rules applicable to transport (n=145) Clarify the requirement of recording mixed activities (driving in scope and out of scope 57 40 13 8 29

of the legislation) (n=147) Allow for spending a regular weekly rest in a vehicle provided that it is free choice of a 55 13 18 31 31

driver (n=148) Clarify the scope of EU legislation by explicitly excluding occasional non 50 21 20 48 12

professional drivers (n=151)

Exclude self-employed drivers from the

scope of the working time directive (n=148) 41 7 19 60 21

Explicitly forbid spending a regular weekly

rest in a vehicle (n=149) 41 16 11 52 29

Establish maximum periods away from

home/base (n=148) 35 16 28 48 21

Allow for taking every second regular

weekly rest in a vehicle (n=145) 32 32 12 38 31

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution

No contribution at all No opinion

6 Full text - Integrate the working time provisions with the provisions on driving and resting times (i.e. repeal

the working time directive)

Figure 4-5: Non-specialised questionnaire: Contribution of excluding self-employed drivers from the working time rules to improving the functioning of the social rules in road transport, split by geographical location

EU-15 Exclude self-employed drivers from the working time rules 182 95 99 361 113

(n=849)

EU-13 Exclude self-employed drivers from the working time rules 36 12 42 117 74

(n=283)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution

No contribution at all No opinion

Figure 4-6: Specialised questionnaire: Contribution of excluding self-employed drivers from the working time rules to improving the functioning of the social rules in road transport, split by geographical location

EU-15 Exclude self-employed drivers from the scope of the 30 4 14 46 16

working time directive (n=110)

EU-13 Exclude self-employed drivers from the scope of the 7 3 5 12 5 working time directive (n=32)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution No contribution at all No opinion

When disaggregating the specialised questionnaire by stakeholders, respondents from workers’ organisations generally considered all measures to have a greater contribution than the overall trend. Respondents from national authorities indicated slightly less contribution from the measures, while respondents from industry associations were closest to the overall trend. When split by geographical location, a larger share of EU-13 based respondents considered the measures allowing weekly rest in the vehicle to be a major contribution compared to EU-15 based respondents. On other measures, both groups expressed similar views.

When looking specifically at the measure to exclude self-employed drivers from the scope of the working time directive, EU-15 and EU-13 based respondents expressed a similar response profile. EU-15 based respondents were slightly more likely to indicate no contribution at all (46 out of 110 (42%)), but also more likely to indicate a major contribution (30 out of 110 (27%)). Comparatively, 12 out of 32 (38%) EU-13 based respondents indicated no contribution at all, and 7 (22%) indicated a major contribution (see figure 4-6) Contribution of the specific measures to improving enforcement of the social legislation

As regards the non-specialised questionnaire, the measure to clarify the liabilities of all actors in the transport chain in the case of infringements of the social rules was considered as a major contribution to improving enforcement by 619 out of 1137 (54%) respondents. This follows the theme that issues relating to clarity are considered most important by the respondents. The measure to promote the use of GNSS digital tachograph systems was also considered a major contribution by 523 out of 1140 (46%) respondents. The remaining three measures still had at least 50% of the respondents indicate that they would contribute to improving enforcement, however to a lesser degree. The measure to oblige drivers to register the country code in a tachograph when crossing borders was considered to contribute the least with 444 out of 1140 (39%) respondents saying it would not contribute at all. More information is in figure 4-7.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, employees, self-employed drivers and private individuals had more respondents indicate a major contribution from these measures, while passenger transport companies considered the measures to have less contribution than the overall trend. EU-13 and EU-15 based respondents had a similar response profile, with a small amount of variation in the relative contribution of discontinuing the form for attesting driver’s activities when away from vehicle.

Figure 4-7: Non-specialised questionnaire: Contribution of the specific measures to improving

enforcement of the social legislation 7

Clarify the liabilities of all actors in 40 transport chain in case of infringements of 619 256 148 74

the social rules (n=1137)

Promote the use of the GNSS digital

tachograph system (n=1140) 523 268 104 102 143

Increase the number and scope of checks at premises of transport companies 325 237 247 257 81 (n=1147)

Discontinue the form for attesting driver's activities when away from the vehicle 312 237 202 203 151 (n=1105)

Oblige drivers to register the country code in a tachograph when crossing borders 228 177 166 444 125 (n=1140)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution

No contribution No opinion

7 Full text ‘Promote the use of GNSS digital tachograph system, to make it easier to target non-compliant

companies and reduce the burden for those that follow the rules’

Figure 4-8: Specialised questionnaire: Significance of policy options to improve enforcement of the social legislation

Establish common initial and continuous training of

enforcers (n=148) 80 34 14 3 17

Clarify the liabilities of all actors in the transport chain

as regards infringements of the social rules (n=148) 76 28 23 10 11

Harmonize tools used by enforcers for control

purposes (n=149) 74 24 20 7 24

Increase the number of joint cross-border checks

(n=147) 73 32 12 6 24

Issue legally binding rules for enforcers (n=146) 71 32 7 1 35

Use (existing or new) enforcement networks or

bodies (n=147) 69 25 10 13 30

Harmonize national risk rating systems to allow for

comparability and data exchange between Member 67 31 16 4 29

States (n=147)

Establish minimum requirements for regular

exchange of data and information (n=151) 66 32 13 10 30

Promote the use of the GNSS digital tachograph

system (n=140) 64 38 11 7 20

Establish uniform minimum requirements for

checking compliance with the working time 64 31 18 17 18

provisions (n=148)

Establish uniform minimum requirements for types

and levels of penalties (n=148) 61 27 30 10 20

Further expand a common classification of serious

infringements of the social rules (n=146) 58 21 28 17 22

Allow access of controllers to data in national risk

rating system (n=145) 58 21 22 5 39

Increase number and scope of checks at premises of

undertakings (n=147) 48 33 25 27 14

Reduce the scope of roadside checks (n=147) 48 20 11 52 16

Discontinue the form for attesting driver's activities

when away from the vehicle (n=148) 44 32 11 28 33

Oblige drivers to register the country code in a

tachograph when crossing borders (n=147) 37 15 20 53 22

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution No contribution No opinion

As regards the specialised questionnaire, figure 4.8 shows that all of the measures were considered to add a major contribution by at least 35 out of 147 (25%) respondents. Over half of respondents viewed the policy options of establishing common initial and continuous training of enforcers (80 out of 148 (54%)) and clarify the liabilities of all actors in the transport chain as regards infringements of the social rules (76 out of 148 (51%)) as providing a major contribution. The measures of obliging drivers to register the country code in a tachograph when crossing borders was considered to have no contribution at all by 52 out of 147 (36%) respondents.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, respondents from national authorities were slightly more likely to indicate the measures had a major contribution, while respondents from workers’ organisations and other stakeholders were slightly less likely to do so. When split by geographical location, EU-13 based respondents were noticeably less likely to consider the measures a major contribution, compared to EU-15 based respondents.

Can the specific measure contribute to improving the EU legislation and its enforcement result in the following impacts?

In the non-specialised questionnaire, the respondents considered the measures suggested in figure 4.7 to contribute to all of the impacts in figure 4.9 to some degree. All of the impacts had more than 70% of respondents indicate some level of contribution, except for the impact of fairer competition with transport services using small vehicles which only had 748 out of 1127 (66%) respondents indicate similarly. However, the level of contribution varied significantly. 461 out of 1129 (41%) respondents considering the measures to be a major contribution to improved road safety, while only 267 out of 1126 (24%) of respondents thought measures would lead to a major contribution on the impact of reduced compliance cost for companies.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, employees and self-employed drivers had more respondents indicate a major contribution, compared to other stakeholder groups, although the order of the impacts was largely the same. Hauliers and passenger transport companies, however, had fewer respondents indicate a major contribution, and also expressed equal contribution to all impacts. When split by geographical location, EU-13 based respondents gave more polarised responses, with more respondents indicating major contribution and no contribution, compared to EU-15 based respondents who had a higher share of respondents indicate a moderate contribution.

The specialised questionnaire showed that respondents responded similarly for each impact that was proposed, with more than half of respondents considering there to be a contribution of some magnitude from the enforcement measures. Better working conditions/work lifebalance (63 out of 147 (43%)), improved health and safety for drivers (59 out of 146 (40%)), improved road safety (60 out of 148 (40%)) were considered to add a major contribution by a majority of respondents. Fairer competition with transport services using small vehicles was a disputed measure, with 64 out of 164 (39%) respondents identifying it as a major contribution, while 54 out of 164 (33%) identified it as no contribution. More information in figure 4-8

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, respondents from workers’ organisations were much more likely to consider the measures a major contribution. Respondents from industry associations and national authorities had a similar response profile to the overall trend, while other stakeholders had less respondents indicate a major contribution, but more indicate a moderate contribution.

Figure 4-9: Non-specialised questionnaire: Contribution of the specific measures listed in figure 4-8 to the following impacts

Improved road safety (n=1129) 461 302 145 122 99

Better working conditions/work lifebalance

for drivers (n=1129) 443 298 143 131 114

Fairer competition with transport

services using small vehicles (n=1127) 389 226 133 147 232

Lower burden on small companies and

self-employed drivers (n=1128) 347 295 159 133 194

Improved job attractiveness (n=1137) 338 393 185 101 120

Growth and job creation in the sector

(n=1128) 311 387 185 114 131

Reduced operating costs for companies

(n=1126) 285 321 213 156 151

Reduced compliance costs for

companies (n=1126) 267 335 214 128 182

6 Others (please specify) (n=442) 26 389

9

0% 12 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution

No contribution No opinion Figure 4-10: Specialised questionnaire: Significance of the impact from enforcement measures 8

Better working conditions/work lifebalance

(n=147) 63 34 17 24 9

Improved health and safety for drivers

(n=146) 59 47 16 15 9

Improved road safety (n=148) 60 47 22 12 7

Fairer competition with transport services

using small vehicles (n=164) 64 14 10 54 22

Lower burden on small operators and selfemployed

drivers (n=145) 52 29 29 24 11

Improved job attractiveness (n=151) 49 45 29 15 13

Growth and job creation in the sector

(n=151) 43 56 23 16 13

Reduced compliance costs (n=146) 37 43 37 19 10

Reduced operating costs (n=148) 27 51 33 25 12

Others (please specify) (n=44) 12 0 1 3 28

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major contribution Moderate contribution Minor contribution No contribution No opinion

How can the following objectives be most effectively achieved in the EU road transport sector?

Overall, in the non-specialised questionnaire, a majority of the respondents considered EU legislation to be the most effective way to achieve the objectives, as shown in figure 4.11. Fair competition between companies was considered the objective most effectively addressed by EU legislation, with 809 out of 1147 (71%) respondents indicating as such. While the other objectives were supported at EU legislation level by fewer respondents, they all supported more at EU level than national level.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, private individuals and self-employed drivers still considered the objectives to be best achieved by EU legislation, but only slightly moreso than at national level. Shippers and forwarders, and passenger transport companies expressed an even stronger positive view towards EU legislation than the overall trend. When split by geographical location, a larger share of EU-13 based respondents considered fair competition and freedom to provide transport services as best achieved by EU legislation than the overall trend. EU-15 based respondents were closely followed the overall trend, except regarding social protection rights that had more respondents consider it to be best achieved through EU legislation.

8 Full text - Fairer competition with transport services using small vehicles (less than 3.5 tonnes)

Figure 4-11: Non-specialised questionnaire: EU legislation to be the most effective way to achieve the objectives

Fair competition between companies 809 264 74 62

(n=1147)

Freedom to provide transport services 722 295 124 68 (n=1141)

Social protection rights of road transport 681 386 79 63 workers (n=1146)

Improved road safety

(n=1139) 646 377 116 70

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Primarily by EU legislation Primarily by national legislation No opinion No response

In the specialised questionnaire, the majority of respondents agreed that EU legislation was most effective to achieve the objectives listed in figure Error! Reference source not found.4-12. 121 out of 151 (80%) of the respondents considered fair competition between operators was most effectively achieved primarily by EU legislation, while 117 out of 150 (78%) agreed freedom to provide transport services was best achieved primarily by EU legislation. Social protection rights of road transport workers and improved road safety level were also considered to be effectively achieved primarily by EU legislation, but to a lesser degree.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, respondents from national authorities were even more likely to consider the objectives best achieved primarily by EU legislation. The other stakeholder groups had similar response profiles to the overall trend. EU-13 based respondents were more likely to consider social protection rights of road transport workers to be primarily achieved by national legislation, with 17 out of 31 indicating as such. EU-15 based respondents had a similar response profile to the overall trend.

Figure 4-12: Specialised questionnaire: Appropriate competency level for effectively achieving EU road transport objectives

Fair competition between operators 121 17 13

(n=151)

Freedom to provide transport services 117 16 17 (n=150)

Social protection rights of road transport 101 34 14 workers (n=149)

Improved road safety

levels (n=151) 97 40 14

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Primarily by EU legislation Primarily by national legislation No opinion

Figure 2-13: Additional value of EU intervention

Legal certainty (n=160) 96 22 26 4 12

Consistent enforcement

(n=158) 93 30 23 6 6

Greater effectiveness in solving

identified problems (n=159) 85 35 22 9 8

Greater efficiency in solving

identified problems (n=157) 72 43 27 7 8

Administrative cooperation

(n=158) 70 48 26 7 7

Lesser regulatory costs (n=149) 32 31 50 16 20

Other (please specify) (n=47) 14 2 8 2 21

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major added value Moderate added value Minor added value

No added value Don't know

What would be the additional value resulting from the EU intervention compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national levels?

In the specialised questionnaire, of the range of issues listed in figure 4-13, legal certainty and consistent enforcement had the largest number of respondents indicate major added value from EU intervention, with 96 out of 160 (60%) and 93 out of 158 (59%) respondents respectively indicating as such. Lesser regulatory costs had the least respondents indicate that it would add major value for this issue. Overall, all issues were mostly considered to add some degree of value.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, respondents from workers’ organisations were far more likely to consider EU intervention to add major value. The other stakeholder groups had a response profile closer to the overall trend, with respondents from national authorities more likely to indicate moderate added value, and other stakeholders more likely to indicate minor added value. EU-13 based respondents were less likely to indicate major added value, instead indicating moderate or minor added value. EU-15 based respondents had a response profile largely similar to the overall trend.

Consequences of no EU intervention

The specialised questionnaire addressed an additional question as regards the possible consequences if no EU intervention is taken.

All of the consequences listed in figure 4-14 were considered very likely as a result of the EU not taking any intervention by the majority of respondents. Each consequence received at least 106 out of 160 (66%) respondents indicating either very likely or rather likely. Of the consequences listed, three received a high number of respondents who stated these were very likely without EU intervention. These included; development of diverging national measures (113 out of 160 (71%)), distortions of competition (111 out of 159 (70%)) and unequal treatment of drivers and operators as regards checks (108 out of 159 (68%)). Deteriorating working conditions had the least number of respondents indicate that it was very likely, with only 72 out of 160 (45%) respondents indicating as such.

When disaggregated by stakeholder group, respondents from workers’ organisations were far more likely to indicate that the consequences were very likely than other stakeholder groups, with some consequences having 21 out of 22 respondents indicate as such. Respondents from national authorities also responded strongly, with some consequences having all of the respondents indicate either very likely or rather likely. A significant number of respondents from the other stakeholders group indicated that the consequences were rather or very unlikely. Industry association respondents showed a similar response profile to the overall trend. When split by geographical location, EU-15 based respondents were slightly more likely to indicate rather or very unlikely, compared to EU-13 based respondents who mostly indicated very or rather likely

Figure 4-14: Perceived consequences of not taking EU intervention

Development of diverging national

measures (n=160) 113 24 18 3 2

Distortions of competition (n=159) 111 17 19 6 6

Unequal treatment of drivers and

operators as regards checks (n=159) 108 23 18 5 5

Fragmentation of the single road

transport market (n=159) 93 29 22 4 11

High regulatory burdens (n=158) 85 25 23 6 19

Deteriorating working conditions

(n=160) 72 34 36 8 10

Other (n=45) 16 0 6 3 20

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Very likely Rather likely Rather unlikely Very unlikely Don't know

2.2. SME P ANEL SURVEY

On the question concerning posting of workers

"Question 1: Does the application of EU rules on posting of workers 9 offer the following

benefits to road transport operators and drivers?”

The respondents mostly indicated that they agreed to some extent with the benefits to road transport operators and drivers from the application of EU rules on posting of workers, shown in figure 4-15. This view was most strongly expressed regarding the benefit of better social protection of drivers, where 41 out of 56 (73%) respondents fully or somewhat agreed with this benefit. The benefit that fair competition between operators in the EU is ensured was still strongly agreed with, but had the highest number of respondents (15 out of 57 (26%) indicating that they don’t agree.

When split by geographical location, EU-13 based respondents were more likely to somewhat or fully agree with the proposed benefits of posting of workers than EU-15 based respondents. At least 21 out of 35 (60%) EU-13 based respondents indicated that they somewhat or fully agreed with all the benefits. Comparatively, 18 out of 22 (82%) of EU-15 based respondents indicated similarly for the benefit of better social protection of drivers. However, only 10 out of 22 (45%) indicated similarly to ensuring fair competition between

9 (1) these EU rules establish that the 'posted worker' (worker providing services temporarily in Member State

other than the place of his employment) should be covered by national terms and conditions of employment, including minimum rates of pay, of the 'host' Member State where he temporarily works

operators in the EU, 11 (50%) to reduction of illicit employment practices, and 10 (48%) to better remuneration for international drivers working in “host” Member States with higher rates of pay. For these three benefits, half of EU-15 based respondents indicated that they somewhat or fully disagreed that the posting of workers offers the proposed benefit.

“Question 2: What are the challenges/problems faced by road transport companies/drivers as regards the application of the EU rules on posting of workers?”

All of the challenges presented in figure 4-16 were considered as major or moderate problems by most of the respondents. The challenge that freedom of providing cross-border services is restricted was considered to be a major problem by 19 out of 57 (33%) respondents, and a moderate problem by a further 18 (32%) respondents. None of the challenges had a significant number of respondents (6 or less out of 57 (11%)) indicating that they were not a problem. In relative terms, application of the national minimum wage legislation of the ‘host’ Member State was considered a smaller challenge with 32 out of 56 (57%) indicating that this was a major or moderate problem.

When split by geographical location, EU-15 based respondents were much more likely to consider burdensome administrative requirements (13 out of 22 (59%)), the lack of adaption of posting provisions to the specificities of road transport (12 out of 22 (55%)), and the lack of awareness about the provisions on posting of workers (12 out of 22 (55%)), to be major problems resulting from the application of EU rules on positing of workers, compared to EU- 13 based respondents. However, EU-13 based respondents were more likely to consider the restricting of freedom of providing cross-border services (13 out of 35 (37%)) and the application of national minimum wage legislation of the ‘host’ Member State (12 out of 35 (34%)) to be major problems, compared to EU-15 respondents.

Figure 4-16: Agreement with the benefits to road transport operators and drivers from the application of EU rules on posting of workers

Better social protection of drivers

(n=56) 16 25 7 5 3

Better remuneration for international drivers carrying out certain amount of work in 'host' 15 21 9 9 2 Member States with higher rates of

pay (n=56)

Reduction of illicit employment

practices (n=57) 10 23 13 10 1

Fair competition between operators

in the EU is ensured (n=57) 11 20 9 15 2

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Fully agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Don't agree Don't know

Figure 4-16: Scale of challenges/problems faced by road transport companies and drivers regarding the application of the EU rules on posting of workers

Freedom of providing cross-border

services is restricted (n=57) 19 18 8 6 6

Administrative requirements are

burdensome (n=57) 19 19 10 6 3

Provisions on posting are not adapted to the specificities of road 19 20 11 3 3

transport sector (n=56)

Application of the national minimum wage legislation of the 17 15 11 4 9

'host' Member State (n=56)

Lack of awareness about the provisions on posting of workers 14 24 15 2 2

(n=57)

Other (please specify) (n=25) 3 2 1 19

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major Problem Moderate problem Minor problem Not a problem Don't know

“Question 3: Please indicate different types of costs related to compliance with the posting provisions (i.e.: with application of the minimum wage legislation of different Member States, including administrative and control requirements).”

Most respondents indicated that the costs related to compliance with the posting provisions had increased to some extent, shown in figure 4-17. All three cost types had similar response profiles. The cost of other Member State minimum wage application was identified by most respondents as a major driver of increases of costs of compliance with the posting of workers, with 19 out of 56 (34%) respondents indicating a big increase in costs, and 15 (27%) indicating a small increase. The costs of administrate requirements and control requirements had very similar responses.

When split by geographical location, significant differences were observed. 9 out of 22 (41%) EU-15 based respondents indicated a big increase in costs as a result of administrative requirements and control requirements, but only 2 out of 22 (9%) indicated similarly for the application of other Member States minimum wage application. Comparatively, 17 out of 34 (50%) EU-13 based respondents indicated a big increase in costs for application of other Member States minimum wage, while only 4 (12%) and 3 (9%) indicated similarly for administrative and control requirements respectively.

Figure 4-17: Change in costs related to compliance with the posting provisions

Other MS minimum wage

application (n=56) 19 15 11 1 10

Administrative requirements

(n=56) 13 20 12 2 9

Control requirements (n=56) 12 21 9 3 11

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Big increase Small increase No change small decrease Big decrease Do not know

“Question 4: Do you think that benefits linked to the application of EU provisions on posting of workers to road transport operators and drivers, referred to in Question 10 would outweigh challenges/problems mentioned in question 11?”

Most respondents (20 out of 50 (40%)) indicated that they did not think that the benefits linked to the application of EU provisions on posting of workers to road transport operators and drivers outweigh the challenges/problems as regards the application of the rules with a further 18 out of 50 (36%) indicating that they did not know. Only 12 out of 50 (24%) respondents indicated that they did think the benefits would outweigh the challenges/problems. When split by geographical location, a similar number of both EU-15 and EU-13 based respondents indicated that the benefits did outweigh the challenges/problems, while slightly more EU-15 based respondents indicated that they did not think this, compared to EU-13 based respondents. Please see figure 4-18 for details.

Figure 4-18: Agreement on whether the benefits outweigh the challenges/problems, split by geographical location

EU-15 (n=21) 5 10 6

EU-13 (n=29) 7 10 12

Total (n=50) 12 20 18

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Yes No Don't know

“Question 5: What would be the impacts of the introduction of the following measures to adapt the posting conditions to the specificities of road transport sector?”

All of the proposed impacts were indicated to some degree for each measure by the respondents, as shown in figure 4-19 The measure to reduce administrative formalities for posted workers was considered by 20 out of 55 (36%) respondents to have the impact of reduced administrative burden, with a further 11 out of 50 (20%) indicating reduced operating costs. The measure to establish criteria for posting in road transport determining when the posting rules should or should not apply was considered to provide better legal clarity by 27 out of 56 (48%) of respondents. A further 10 out of 56 (18%) felt that this measure would reduce unfair competition. The measure to exclude entirely road transport from the provisions on posting had a more mixed response, with 14 out of 54 (26%) respondents indicating reduced administrative burden, 11 (20%) respondents indicating reduced operating costs, and 9 (17%) indicating better legal clarity.

When split by geographical location, both EU-13 and EU-15 based respondents had similar views on the impacts from establishing criteria for the posting in road transport determining when posting rules should or should not apply, with the majority indicating that better legal clarity would be the main impact. However, when looking at the impacts from reduced administrative formalities for posted workers, 8 out of 21 (38%) EU-15 based respondents indicated that the impact would be reduced operating costs, and a further 6 out of 21 (29%) indicated the impact of reduced administrative burden. Comparatively, only 3 out of 34 (9%) of EU-13 based respondents indicated reduced operating costs, while 14 (41%) indicated reduced administrative burden, and 8 (24%) indicated better legal clarity. When looking at excluding road transport entirely from the provisions on posting, 9 out of 20 (45%) of EU-15 respondents indicated that the impact would be reduced administrative burden, while only 5 out of 34 (15%) EU-13 respondents indicated similarly.

Figure 4-19: Impacts following the introduction of certain measures to adapt posting conditions to the specificities of road transport

Reduce administrative formalities

for posted workers (n=55) 11 20 9 2 2 5 6

Establish criteria for posting in road transport determining when

posting rules should/should not 5 4 27 10 1 3 6

apply (n=56)

Exclude entirely road transport from the provisions on posting 11 14 9 5 4 5 6 (n=54)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Reduced operating costs Reduced administrative burden Better legal clarity Reduced unfair competition Better social protection of drivers Ensured freedom to provide services Do not know

“Question 6: What would be your preferable criteria to establish when the posting provisions, in particular minimum wage of host country, should apply to drivers in crossborder transport operations?”

All four suggested criteria were considered preferable by a number of respondents, as indicated in figure 2.20. Overall, 19 out of 55 (35%) respondents preferred the criteria of a minimum number of days of driver’s presence per month in a host country, while 16 out of 54 (30%) preferred the criteria of a total accumulated minimum number of kilometres driven during one month by a driver in a host country. This trend was also seen when respondents were split by geographical location. EU-15 based respondents reversed the two highest criteria, while EU-13 based respondents indicated similarly to the overall trend.

Figure 4-20: Criteria to establish when posting provisions, in particular minimum wage of host country, should apply to drivers in cross-border transport operations

EU-15 (n=21) 6 4 7 3 1

EU-13 (n=34) 13 7 9 4 1

Total (n=55) 19 11 16 7 2

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Minimum number of days of driver's presence per month in a host country

Minimum number of all transport operations carried out per month by a driver in a host country Total accumulated minimum number of km driven during one month by a driver in a host country Minimum number of km of every individual transport operation performed in a host country Other criteria

To summarise, overall, most respondents agreed with the suggested benefits from the application of the rules on posting of workers, especially the benefit of better social protection for workers. The respondents also agreed with all of the problems suggested, but to different degrees based on geographical location. The respondents also agreed that complying with the posting provisions resulted in an increase in costs. Slightly more respondents indicated that the benefits did not outweigh the costs, although nearly as many indicated that they didn’t know. There was little agreement between respondents in the perceived impacts

of the proposed measures 10 , and the criteria that should be used to establish when posting

provisions should apply.

On the questionnaire on driving times, working times and rest period in road transport

Driving, working and rest times

Most of the respondents agreed that the EU requirements on driving, working and resting times should cover and be the same for all companies and all drivers. However, many respondents did not know, or were not in agreement with what the benefits would be of the

measures and changes 11 suggested in the questionnaire, or what the disadvantages would be.

Most respondents agreed that the measures and changes would result in an increase in costs, and the respondents were evenly split (between yes, no and do not know) on whether the benefits/advantages would outweigh the costs/disadvantages.

“Question 1: Do you think that the scope of EU requirements on driving, working and resting times should cover all companies and all drivers engaged in commercial road transport operations, including those listed below?”

The majority of respondents agreed that the scope of EU requirements on driving, working and resting times should be the same and cover all companies and all drivers engaged in commercial road transport operations, as shown in figure 4-21, 42 out of 66 (64%) respondents indicated that self-employed drivers should be included and have the same requirements, compared to only 10 who felt that only national rules should apply, and 8 who thought that no such requirements should apply. A similar distribution was seen with the other groupings, however with a slightly smaller share of respondents indicating that the same requirements should apply for all. This was most evident regarding occasional nonprofessional drivers, where 13 out of 62 (21%) respondents indicated that no such requirements should apply.

When split by geographical location, EU-15 based respondents were more likely to agree that the scope should cover all companies and drivers and that the same requirements should apply for all, compared to EU-13 based respondents. In particular, 18 out of 21 (86%) EU-15 respondents indicated that self-employed drivers should have the same requirements, and 15 out of 21 (71%) indicated similarly regarding occasional non-professional drivers. Comparatively, only 24 out of 45 (53%) and 17 out of 41 (41%) EU-13 respondents indicated similarly. EU-13 respondents were more likely to indicate that only national rules should apply in the case of all driver categories in question

10 Proposed measures were: Reduce administrative formalities for posted workers, establish criteria for

posting in road transport determining when posting rules should or should not apply, and exclude entirely road transport from the provisions on posting.

11 Measures discussed were: Establish maximum periods away from home/based for drivers, forbid

performance-based remuneration for drivers, forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a vehicle, exclude occasional non-professional drivers from the rules, exclude self-employed drivers from working time rules only, include passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope of the rules, and include goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules.

Figure 4-21: Agreement on the scope of EU requirements on driving, working and resting times

Self-employed drivers (n=66) 42 3 10 8 3

Carriage of goods by vehicles

below 3.5t (n=64) 38 7 8 5 6

Carriage of passengers by vehicles

with less than 9 seats (n=60) 34 5 11 3 7

Occasional non-professional

drivers (n=62) 32 1 8 13 8

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Yes, the same requirements should apply for all Yes, but there should be no obligation to install & use tachograph Only national rules should apply No such requirements should apply Do not know

“Question 2: What would be positive impacts (benefits) of introducing the following measures/changes in the current legislation?”

For many of the measures, most of the respondents did not know what the benefits of introduction of the proposed measures would be, as shown in figure 4-22. At least 29% (17 out of 59) of respondents indicated that they did not know what the benefits would be to each measure, with the exception of the measure to include goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules (11 out of 61 (18%)). The measures to establish maximum periods away from home/base for drivers (18 out of 59 (31%)), to forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a vehicle (17 out of 62 (27%)), and to include goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules (16 out of 61 (26%)) all had a large number of respondents indicating that these measures would improve working conditions of drivers. The measures to forbid performance-based remuneration for drivers (14 out of 63 (22%)), to include passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope of the rules (22 out of 61 (36%)), and to include goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules (22 out of 61 (36%)) were all largely considered to improve road safety. For the remaining measures, respondents expressed a range of views selecting across the remaining benefits.

When split by geographical location, both EU-15 and EU-13 based respondents largely indicated that they do not know what the impacts of the measures would be. A larger share of EU-13 based respondents indicated that the measures would improve working conditions of drivers, particularly the measure establishing maximum periods away from home/base for drivers, while a larger share of EU-15 respondents indicated that the measures would improve road safety.

Figure 4-22: Benefits of introducing the following measures/changes in the current legislation

Establish maximum periods away

from home/base for drivers (n=59) 18 5 8 9 2 17

Forbid performance-based

remuneration for drivers (n=63) 8 5 14 7 5 24

Forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a vehicle 17 5 11 2 3 24 (n=62)

Exclude occasional nonprofessional drivers from the rules 3 8 7 6 6 30

(n=60)

Exclude self-employed drivers from

working time rules only (n=62) 6 9 12 4 8 23

Include passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope of 6 10 22 1 1 21 the rules (n=61)

Include goods vehicles below 3,5t

in the scope of the rules (n=61) 16 12 22 11

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Improve working conditions of drivers Reduce distortions of competition between operators Improve road safety Improve job attractiveness Costs reductions (staff, operating, administrative) Do not know

“Question 3: What would be the negative impacts (disadvantages) of introducing the following measures/changes in the current legislation?”

A wide range of perspectives were given regarding the disadvantages of introducing the measures listed in figure 4-23. Almost all of the measures had at least 1 respondent indicate each of the possible negative impacts. However, a number of stakeholders considered an increase in price of transport services to customers as a disadvantage to the introduction of measures to include goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules (27 respondents), include passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope of the rules (22 respondents), establish maximum periods away from home/base (15 respondents) and forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a vehicle (13 respondents). The same measures also saw a number of respondents indicating an increase of staff costs as a disadvantage. The measures to exclude occasional non-professional drivers from the rules (12 respondents) and to exclude self-employed drivers from working time rules only (15 respondents) were considered to disturb fair competition.

When split by geographical location, more EU-13 based respondents indicated that increase in staff costs would be a disadvantage from introducing the measures, compared to EU-15 based respondents. In particular, the measures to establish maximum periods away from home/base, forbid performance-based remuneration and forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a vehicle were all considered to increase staff costs by EU-13 based respondents. EU-15 based respondents were more aware of an increase of price of transports services to customers from introducing the measures. In particular, including goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope, including passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope, and forbidding performance-based remuneration for drivers were considered to increase the price of transport services to customers by EU-15 based respondents.

Figure 4-23: Disadvantages of introducing the following measures/changes in the current legislation?

 Establish maximum periods away

from home/base (n=60) 13 10 15 3 6 2 11

 Forbid performance-based

remuneration for drivers (n=54) 5 8 9 10 7 2 13

 Forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a 13 11 13 7 7 5 6

vehicle (n=62) Exclude occasional nonprofessional drivers from the rules 6 2 3 2 12 7 16

(n=48) Exclude self-employed drivers from working time rules only 7 2 6 3 15 7 16

(n=56) Include passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope of 15 10 22 5 4 2 8

the rules (n=66)

 Include goods vehicles below 3,5t

in the scope of the rules (n=73) 18 12 27 3 5 2 6

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Increase of staff costs

Increase of administrative expenses

Increase of price of transport service to customers

Worsen working conditions of drivers

Disturb fair competition

Increase risks to road safety

Do not know

“Question 4: Please indicate different types of costs expected to increase/decrease as a result of introduction of the above mentioned measures (e.g.: administrative costs, costs of recording equipment and software, staff costs, etc.)”

Most of the respondents indicated that they expected to some degree an increase for all three cost types, as shown in figure 4-24 Error! Reference source not found.. Administrative costs had the most respondents (49 out of 63 (78%)) indicating a small or big increase in costs, while the other two cost types had only slightly fewer number of respondents indicating similarly. No respondents indicated a decrease in costs for any of the cost types.

When split by geographical location, a larger share of EU-15 based respondents indicated that costs would increase, compared to EU-13 based respondents. Most significantly, 19 out of 20 (95%) of EU-15 based respondents indicated either a small or big increase in costs as a result of including goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules, compared to only 30 out of 45 (70%) EU-13 based respondents. Similar differences were seen between EU-15 and EU- 13 based respondents for the other two measures.

Figure 4-24: Change in costs as a result of measures listed in figure 4-22

Staff costs (n=63) 22 23 8 10

Costs of recording equipment and

software (n=63) 21 22 9 11

Administrative costs (n=63) 23 26 6 8

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Big increase Small increase No change Small decrease Big decrease Do not know

“Question 5: Do you think that benefits/advantages linked to the introduction of the above mentioned changes in the current legislation would outweigh costs/disadvantages brought to you /your company?”

The respondents were evenly split on their views as to whether the benefits would outweigh the costs mentioned above (as shown in figure 4-25). 20 out of 59 (34%) respondents thought the benefits would outweigh the costs, while 19 (32%) thought the opposite, and a final 20 (34%) did not know. When split by geographical location, EU-15 based respondents were less uncertain, with fewer respondents indicating that they did not know, compared to a large number of EU-13 based respondents who did not know.

To sum up, most of the respondents agreed that the EU requirements on driving, working and resting times should cover and be the same for all companies and all drivers. However, many respondents did not know, or were not in agreement with what the benefits would be of the

measures and changes 12 suggested in the questionnaire, or what the disadvantages would be.

Most respondents agreed that the measures and changes would result in an increase in costs, and the respondents were evenly split (between yes, no and do not know) on whether the benefits/advantages would outweigh the costs/disadvantages.

Figure 4-25: Agreement that benefits/advantages of the above mentioned changes outweigh costs/disadvantages to the respondent

EU-15 9 8 3

EU-13 11 11 17

Total 20 19 20

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Yes No Don't know

12 Measures discussed were: Establish maximum periods away from home/based for drivers, forbid

performance-based remuneration for drivers, forbid explicitly spending a regular weekly rest of 45 hours in a vehicle, exclude occasional non-professional drivers from the rules, exclude self-employed drivers from working time rules only, include passenger vehicles with less than 9 seats in the scope of the rules, and include goods vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the rules.

2.2 Enforcement authority survey

In total, all Member States, except Poland responded to the questionnaire as well as Norway and Switzerland. 42 enforcement authorities (usually the relevant Ministries in charge of transport, labour and national agencies dealing with the enforcement) participated in total, 40 from the EU, from which 23 from EU-15 and 17 from EU-13.

Table 5-1

Count of Name of Row Labels organisation Sum of EU-15 Sum of EU-13 AT 3 3 0 BE 3 3 0 BG 2 0 2 CH 1 0 0 CY 1 0 1 CZ 2 0 2 DE 2 2 0 EE 2 0 2 ES 1 1 0 FI 2 2 0 FR 1 1 0 GR 3 3 0 HR 1 0 1 HU 2 0 2 IE 1 1 0 IT 1 1 0 LT 1 0 1 LU 1 1 0 LV 2 0 2 MT 1 0 1 NL 1 1 0 NO 1 0 0 PT 1 1 0 RO 1 0 1 SE 2 2 0 SI 1 0 1 SK 1 0 1 UK 1 1 0 Grand

Total 42 24 17

  • 1. 
    Measures on the weekly rest 13

1a) Do you expect the measures above to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Regulation?

12 14 enforcement authorities (out of 33) expect that the measure to have no impact on the effectiveness of enforcement, whereas 10 15 consider that it would lead to more effective

enforcement. Looking at EU-13, the majority (7 out of 13) expect no impact on effectiveness, whereas EU-15 had diverging views on this question (see figure 5-1).

Figure: 5-1: measures on weekly rest – impact on effectiveness of enforcement

1b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measure?

Half of the enforcement authorities who responded to this question (16 16 out of 32) consider

there is no problem as regards the possible increase of time taken to conduct checks. Also on

the increase of possible fraud/evasion the majority (18 17 out of 32) did not expect any problem. 19 18 (out of 33) consider that the need for new equipment/software would pose a small problem. 15 19 out of 32 do not see any problem to enforce this measure effectively, whereas 10 see it as a small problem and 7 20 as a major problem.

13 1) Standard minimum weekly rest periods: a minimum of 45 h regular weekly rest is to be taken, which is calculated as a minimum

average weekly resting time over a reference period of rolling 4 weeks. 2) Definition of Compensation for reduced weekly rest: a reduced weekly rest period of less than 45 h in any week should not be less than 24 h and any reduction should be compensated by an equivalent period taken en bloc and attached to another weekly rest period. 3) Maximum period during which compensation should be taken: Within the reference period of 4 weeks

14 AT, GR, CZ, EE, HU, LU, LV, RO, SI, SK, UK, NO.

15 AT, CZ, FI, HR, LT, PT, SE, EE, BE.

16 3 AT, CY, 2 CZ, EE, FI, HR, HU, LT, RO, SE, UK, BE, NO,

17 AT, GR, CH, CY, 2 CZ, EE, HR, HU, LT, LV, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK, BE, NO,

18 2 AT, BG, CH, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, RO, SE, UK, BE, NO,

19 3 AT, CZ, CZ, EE, FI, HR, HU, LV, RO, SI, UK, BE, NO,

20 EE, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, NL,

Figure 5-2: measures on weekly rest – possible practical enforcement problems

1c) Do you expect the adoption of the above measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

13 enforcement authorities (out of 33) could not tell if enforcement costs would change after

the adoption of the proposed measures. 8 21 authorities indicated that they would expect an

increase.

Figure 5-3: measures on weekly rest - possible change in enforcement costs

21 CY, HU, LT, LU, NL, ES, FR, PT

1d) In your view, what would be the most appropriate definition of “adequate accommodation” in order to ensure clarity and enforceability of the rules, as well as access to decent accommodation for drivers?

These are samples of definitions which were proposed:

  • an accommodation that allows full recreation of the driver’s abilities
  • The driver should have at his/her disposal an own room as well as meal and bathing facilities. The space must be suitable also for overnight stays keeping safety in mind as well. In Finland the collective agreement uses the definition of “hostel-standard accommodation”.
  • the place of rest must not be an accommodation in industrial premises, must not have an area not less than 6 m² and 15 m3 per person (parts less than 1.90 m are not accounted for), must count the existence of ventilation, windows, free access to housing, heating equipment. A room for couples and access to water points, shower and toilets etc.
  • a decent and secure hotel accommodation with standard comfort good hygiene restaurant and modern multimedia facilities.
  • a definition of adequate accommodation" mentioned in ILO Recommendation R115 be adopted with the proper adaptations.
  • It was also suggested to have a "negative" definition and thus stipulating and listing where the normal weekly rest cannot be taken (e.g. parking lot).

1e) How do you expect the proposed measures affect the clarity of the current rules as to where the driver is allowed to spend their weekly rest?

15 22 (out of 32) enforcement authorities are expecting positive effects as regards forbidding

the regular weekly rest in the vehicle. Allowing the regular weekly rest in the vehicle if it is

the choice of the driver, the majority (14 23 out of 32) considers as having a negative effect on

the clarity of the current rules. The same applies to the measure to allow up to every second

regular weekly rest in the vehicle where the majority 18 24 (out of 32) also expects a worsening of the clarity of the rules, whereas 7 25 would see a positive effect

22 3 AT, 2 CZ, EE, FI, HR, HU, PT, GR, DE, SE, SK, CH

23 3 AT, CZ, FI, SE, GR, DE, EE, FR, NL, BE, NO, CH

24 3 AT, GR, EE, FI, GR, SI, CZ, DE, EE, FR, IE, NL, PT, BE, NO, CH

25 CZ, HR, HU, LV, RO, SE, LU

Figure 5-4: weekly rest: impact on the clarity of the current rules

1e) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

19 26 and 14 enforcement authorities consider that allowing up to every two weeks or leaving

the choice to the driver, respectively, was the measure among the three which would bring

the biggest problem as regards practical enforcement. 15 27 (out of 32) enforcement

authorities are expecting major problem as regards forbidding the regular weekly rest in the

vehicle. While 6 28 see it as a small problem and 10 29 others do not consider it as problematic

to enforce it

26 AT, GR, CZ, DE, 2 EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IT, NL, SE, SI, SK, BE, NO, CH

27 BG, CZ, 2 EE, FR, GR, IE, IT, LT, NL, RO, SE, SI, BE, NO

28 DE, FI, HU, LU, LV, SK,

29 3 AT, GR, CY, CZ, ES, FI, HR, UK, CH

Figure 5-5: Weekly rest – practical enforcement problems

Allow for spending (up to) every second regular weekly

rest in the vehicle (n=31) 19 5 7

Forbid spending the regular weekly rest periods of more than 45 h in the vehicle. It should be taken either at

adequate accommodation provided/paid by the employer, 15 6 11 or at the home base or at another private place of rest

Include a definition of ‘adequate

Allow for spending a regular weekly rest in the vehicle, provided that it is the free choice of a driver or it is

justified by the circumstances, such as lack of resting 14 8 10

facilities (n=32)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major problem Small Problem No problem

1f) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

In general, enforcement authorities do not expect any big changes in the costs of enforcement due to the proposed measures.

Figure 5-6: weekly rest – enforcement costs

  • 2. 
    Increasing flexibility of transport operations 30

Changes to breaks

2a) Do you expect the proposed measure to impact on the effectiveness of enforcement of the Regulation ?

In total, 15 31 (out of 32) enforcement authorities do not see the proposed measure to have much impact on the effectiveness of enforcement, while 10 32 others would expect more

effective enforcement Authorities from EU15 tend to be more optimistic on the effectiveness of the measure.

Figure 5-6: changes to breaks – impact on effectiveness of enforcement

30 Changes to breaks - For all drivers - a break of minimum 45 minutes may be split into maximum 3 periods of

at least 15 minutes each. Basic provision on breaks remains unchanged.

Changes to derogations for passenger transport by coach – 1) Abolish compensation for reduced rest after 12- day derogation. 2) Extend 12-day derogation to domestic occasional transport by coach. 3) 8-day derogation for domestic occasional transport by coach. Changes to multimanning - Allow one driver for the first two hours or the last one hour of the journey

31 3 AT, GR, CZ, EE, FI, HU, LU, LV, SI, SK, UK, BE, NO.

32 BG, CH, CY, FI, GR, HR, IE, LT, PT, RO.

2b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measure?

The vast majority (23 33 out of 34) did not expect any practical problems, while 7 34 consider

that the measure would lead to major problem in enforcement.

Figure 5-7: changes to breaks – practical enforcement problems

2c) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

16 35 out of 32 enforcement authorities did not expect any changes in the enforcement costs. ,

10 authorities did not expect any changes to enforcement costs.

Figure 5-8: changes to breaks – change in enforcement costs

33 3 AT, 2 GR, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, FI HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, RO, SI, SK, BE, NO,

34 CZ, DE, EE, FR, NL, PT, SE.

35 2 CZ, EE, FI, FI, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, RO, SE, SK, BE, NO, CH.

Derogations for passenger transport by coach

3 possible measures were envisaged: 1) Abolish compensation for reduced rest after 12-day derogation. 2) Extend 12-day derogation to domestic occasional transport by coach. 3) 8-day derogation for domestic occasional transport by coach.

2a) Do you expect the proposed measures to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Regulation?

15 36 (out of 35) enforcement authorities would expect a more effective enforcement as a result of abolishing the compensation for a reduced rest after a 12- day derogation. 10 37 (out

of 32) would see no impact on effectiveness of enforcement with the extension of the 12- day

derogation to domestic occasional transport of passengers by coach, whereas 9 38 see less effectiveness. 14 39 (out of 32) enforcement authorities would consider the 8 day derogation as

less effective.

Figure 5-9: derogations for passenger transport - impact on effectiveness

2b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

Most enforcement authorities that responded to this question consider the three measures as problematic as regards enforcement, in particular the third measure, namely the 8- day

derogation (10 40 out of 12).

36 BE, BG, LV, 2 CZ, ES, HR, IE, LT, PT, RO, SE, SK, BE, NO,

37 AT, BG, CY, EE, FI, LT, LU, SI, BE, NO,

38 2 AT, ES, FI, HU, RO, CZ, NL, CH.

39 2 AT, CZ, NL, EE, ES, IE, LT, LV, RO, SE, BE, NO, CH.

40 HU, IE, PT, RO, DE, FR, IT, NL, SE, SI.

Figure 5-10: derogations for passenger transport - practical enforcement problems

2c) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

Many enforcement authorities (11 41 out of 32) did not know whether the measures would

change enforcement costs or they expected it to remain the same, see figures below for more details.

Figure 5-11: derogations for passenger transport - enforcement costs

41

 2 AT, BG, FI, GR, HR, IE, IT, LU, SI, UK (for all 3 proposed measures)

  • 3. 
    Forbidding all performance-based pay 42

3a) Do you expect the proposed measure to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Regulation?

14 43 (out of 31) enforcement authorities expect a more effective enforcement, whereas 13 44 expect no impact. Only 2 45 authorities expect a worsening of the effectiveness of

enforcement.

Figure 5-12: performance-based pay – effectiveness of enforcement

Figure 5-13: performance-based pay – practical enforcement problems

EU-13 (n=12) 6 4 2

EU-15 (n=17) 12 1 4

ALL (n=31) 19 5 7

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

No problem Small Problem Major problem

42 Forbid all performance based payment (strict prohibition of payments based on distances travelled/amount

of goods carried)

43 BG, EE, FI, FI, RO, SE, 2 GR, EE, FR HR, IT, PT, BE.

44 2 AT, CH, CY, DE, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, SI, UK.

45 CZ, NO.

3b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

The majority of national authorities who responded (19 46 out of 31) do not expect any

problem of practical enforcement.

3c) Do you expect the proposed measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

13 47 (out of 33) authorities do not expect any change in enforcement costs due to this measure. 11 48 authorities did not know an answer to this question.

Figure 5-13: performance-based pay

Define occasional driver and operations for private purposes to be excluded from Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i

4a) Do you expect the proposed measure to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the regulation?

14 49 (out of 34) enforcement authorities consider that the measure would lead to less effective enforcement. Whereas 10 50 expect the measure to have a positive impact on the effectiveness

46 2 AT, 2 GR, BG, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK, BE, CH

47 , CY, CZ, EE, EE, FI, FI, FR, HU, NL, SE, SI, BE, CH

48 2 AT, 2 GR, BG, CZ, HR, IE, IT, SK, UK,

49 2 GR, CY, EE, 2 FI, IE, LT, RO, CZ NL, SE, NO, CH

50 AT, BG, ES, HR, LV, CZ, EE, HU, PT, SK.

of enforcement. 6 51 authorities could not tell if there would be any changes. Austrian

authorities had some divergent views on this question.

Figure 5-14: clarification and scope – effectiveness of enforcement

4b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measure?

14 52 out of 32 authorities would see it as significantly problematic to exclude occasional drivers from the Regulation. 11 53 would consider it as leading to small problems as regards enforcement. Whereas 7 54 authorities would not see any problems in enforcing the measure

(see figure 5-15). They consider that it depends on how clear the definition is and that in general it would make enforcement more difficult. There is some concern that driving this mode of transport would require certain training to ensure road safety. Some pointed out that the definition needs to be narrowed and that rules should apply on the use of commercial

vehicles and secondly on drivers of these vehicles. Most of enforcers (12 55 out of 32) do not

know whether enforcement costs would change (see figure 5-16).

Figure 5-15: Clarification and scope – practical enforcement problems

51 2 AT, CY, FR, IT, BE,

52 2 GR, CZ, DE, IE, IT, LT, NL, RO, SE, SI, UK, NO, CH

53 2 AT, CY, CZ, 2 EE, 2 FI, HU, LV, BE

54 BG, ES, FR, HR, LU, PT, SK

55 2 AT, GR, BG, FI, FR, GR, HR, IE, IT, LU, UK

Figure 5-16: Clarification and scope – change in enforcement costs

  • 5. 
    Enhancing enforcement 56

5 a) Do you expect the proposed measures to impact the effectiveness of enforcement?

23 57 out of 32 enforcers agree that access to the RRS would increase the effectiveness of enforcement. 23 58 out of 33 enforcers would see the establishment of a uniform EU formula

for calculating risk rating as improving effectiveness of enforcement. Authorities would welcome the introduction of measure introducing a deadline for responding to urgent and non-urgent request among Member States' authorities. The deadline of 2 working days for

urgent cases was found by 19 59 or 32 authorities as improving the effectiveness of

enforcement. Whereas

Whereas 22 60 out of 33 approve of the 25 working days deadline for non-urgen cases.

Figure 5-17: Enhancing enforcement: impact on effectiveness of enforcement

56 Risk rating systems and cooperation between MS

Allow controllers access to risk rating system in real-time for roadside and premise checks.

Establish uniform EU-level formula for calculating risk ratings.

Enhance admin cooperation of national control authorities by requiring 2 working day response times for urgent cases, and 25 working day response times for non-urgent cases.

57 GR, CY, 2CZ, EE, 2 FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LV, LV, RO, SI, SK, UK, HU, LU, NL, PT, BE, NO,

58 2 GR, 2 CZ, 2FI, HR, IE, LT, 2LV, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK, 2 EE, HU, LU, PT, BE, NO,

59 GR, 2 CZ, EE, FI, HR, IE, 2 LV, RO, SE, SI DE, HU, LU, NL, PT, NO, CH

Figure 5-18: Enhancing enforcement: practical enforcement problems?

5c) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

Most enforcers (14 61 out of 35) expect that access to RSS would lead to higher enforcement

costs. But mostly (13 to 14 out 34 and 35), authorities did not know whether costs would increase for all the 4 measures proposed.

Figure 5-19: Enhancing enforcement: change in enforcement costs

  • 6. 
    Clarification and simplification of the rules 62

6a) Do you expect the proposed measures to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Directive?

Enforcement authorities (10 63 out of 31) see more effective enforcement for applying Article

14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i which deals with temporary exception that Member

States may grant, also to Directive 2002/15/EC i. Whereas only 6 64 would see more effective enforcement and 7 65 even consider it to decrease effectiveness in not applying the Article to the Directive. The majority (18 66 out of 34) would see removing the attestation form better

for enforcement. Also the harmonisation of criteria as regards penalty system would in their

opinion increase effectiveness of enforcement (22 67 out of 33).

Figure 5-20: Clarification and simplification – effectiveness of enforcement

6b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

The majority does not see any problem of practical enforcement as regards removing the attestation form. 17 out of 23 of the authorities consider that applying Article 14(2) of

Regulation 561/2006 i to Directive 2002/15/EC i would be beneficial to enforcement. 10 68 out

of 30 enforcement authorities consider the measure proposing to establish a national penalty system to ensure proportionate penalties to the level of seriousness of infringements to be a

major problem as regards practical enforcement and 8 69 consider it as a small problem.

62 Establishing national penalty systems to ensure proportionate penalties to the level of seriousness of

infringements.

Remove requirement for attestation forms.

Explicitly state that article 14.2 (derogation from driving and resting time rules in exceptional circumstances) does or does not apply to Dir. 2002/15/EC.

63 3 GR, HR, IE, RO, SE, HU, PT NO,

64 2 FI, GR, HR, RO, CH

65 2 GR, BG, EE, SE, HU, NO

66 GR, FI, HR, IE, LU, 2 LV, NL, SE, SI, SK, CZ, HU, LT, PT, RO, NO, CH

67 2 GR, EE, 2 FI, HR, IE, LT, NL, RO, SE, SI, CZ, ES, HU, IT,2 LV, PT, SK, BE, NO,

68 DE, FR, IE, LU, 2LV, SE, UK, BE, CH

69 CY, EE, IT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK,

Figure 5-21: Clarification and simplification-practical enforcement problems

6c) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

The majority of enforcement authorities did not know whether there will be any changes in enforcement costs. Please see figure 5-21.

Figure 5-22: Clarification and simplification – enforcement costs

  • 7. 
    Enforceability of the Working Time Directive 70

7a) Do you expect the proposed measures to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Directive?

Most enforcement authorities (19 71 out of 31) expect that effectiveness of enforcement would increase when introducing the minimum threshold for the working time provision. 22 72 out of

32 see an improvement in enforcement when reducing the reference period for calculating the

maximum average weekly working time. 12 73 out of 31 authorities consider that establishing

70 1) Reduce reference period for calculations of average weekly working time (48hrs) from 4 or 6 months, to 4 weeks. 2) Establish

minimum thresholds for controlling compliance with working time provisions through roadside and premise checks. 3) Establish reporting template for biennial national reports.

71 DE, PT, AT, 2 BE,2 BG, EE, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, RO, SE, SK, NO,

72 2 BE, 2 BG, CH, CY, 2 EE, FI, HR, IE, LT, LV, NL, RO, SK, AT, GR, IT, PT, SE, NO,

73 2BE, 2 BG, FI, HR, LU, RO, SE, SI, PT, NO, reporting template for the Directive would lead to more effective enforcement, whereas other

12 74 would not expect any impact.

Figure 5-23: Working time Directive – effectiveness of enforcement

7b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

18 75 out of 30 enforcement authorities see a problem for practical enforcement as regards the

minimum threshold for controlling the working time provision. Concerns from were more linked to the fact that working time provisions differ among the Member States. Therefore harmonisation of the contents for the monitoring of the directive can be a difficult task. Concerns in relation to the necessary required resource were also mentioned. Others also raised the concern that the quality may suffer with keeping the minimum threshold. As regards the other measures there were no particular concern. Please see figure 5-23

Figure 5-24: Working time Directive – practical enforcement problems

74 AT, CY, DE, EE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, SK, CH

75 AT, CZ, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, SE, DE, FI, GR, 2 HU, IE, IT, RO, UK, CH

7c) Do you expect the measures to improve working conditions of drivers by reducing accumulated fatigue?

12 76 out of 29 authorities consider that the reduced reference period and the minimum threshold (18 out of 29) would contribute considerably to reduce accumulated fatigue 13 77

would consider it to make a small contribution.

Figure 5-25: Working time Directive –impact on working conditions of driver's fatigue

7d) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

Most of the enforcers did not know whether enforcement costs will change.

Figure 5-26: Working time Directive - enforcement costs

76 AT, CH, DE, EE, FR, GR, HR, HU, IT, PT, RO, SE,

77 2 BE, BG, CY, EE, FI, FI, IE, LT, LV, SI, SK, UK,

  • 8. 
    Make training for new enforcers’ compulsory and according to common curriculum and establishing a European Road Transport Agency

8 a) Do you expect the proposed measures to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Directive?

24 78 out of 33 authorities consider that introducing a compulsory training for enforcers based on a common curriculum more effective. 4 79 consider that it would have no impact.

9 80 out of 35 consider that the creation of a European Road Transport Agency would improve enforcement significantly, 6 81 expect that it would improve it. 5 82 claimed that it was not relevant, whereas 4 83 would expect no impact on the effectiveness of enforcement.

Figure 5-27: Training for enforcers and European Road Transport Agency – effectiveness of enforcement

8b) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation?

20 84 out of 33 authorities did have not know whether enforcement costs compared to the current situation would change if a European Road Transport Agency were established. 8 85

expect an increase in enforcement cost. As regards the training of enforcers common

curriculum 14 86 out of 34 authorities did not know whether to expect a change in enforcement

costs.

78 2 CZ, 2EE, 2 FI, 2 GR, HR, HU, IE, 2LV, PT, SI, SK, BE, ES, FR, LT, NL, RO, SE, NO,

79 CY, DE, LU, CH

80 EE, FR, GR, HR, LV, LV, PT, SK, BE

81 CZ, EE, ES, HU, LT, RO

82 2AT, DE, FI, SI,

83 GR, CH, CY, FI,

84 2 AT, GR, BG, CY, 2CZ, EE, FI, FI, HR, IE, IT, LT, 2 LV, SE, SI, SK, UK,

85 GR, ES, NL, PT, RO, BE, NO, CH

86 2 AT, GR, BG, 2 CZ, EE, HR, IE, IT, LU, 2 LV, UK,

Figure 5-28: Training for enforcers and European Road Transport Agency – enforcement cost

  • 9. 
    Posting of Workers 87

9a) Do you expect the proposed definitions to increase the clarity of the Directive?

11 88 out of 23 authorities expect a positive impact on the clarity of the Directive of having one month as a reference period for the posting of workers. 4 89 expect a negative impact on the clarify.12 90 out of 18 authorities consider that if the majority of the driver's time has been spent in one Member State it should be considered as one full day. 10 91 out of 23 authorities think that the time spent during the daily and weekly rest period should accounted for, 5 92 did not know and other 5 93 authorities saw a negative impact. 12 94 out of 24 authorities consider

that the driving time, other work and period of availability should be included into the

calculation. 11 95 out of 22 authorities consider a calendar month as an appropriate reference

period.

87 Definition of time spent in a Member State - Proposed definitions of day/time spent in MS are:

  • 1. 
    The amount of time (constituting the reference period) spent in a host Member State should include driving times, other work, periods of availability and breaks).
  • 2. 
    Time spent during daily and weekly rest periods should also be accounted for, since during this time the driver is exposed to the cost of living of the host Member State.
  • 3. 
    If a driver has spent the majority of his time during one day in a Member State, this should be accounted as a "full day" for the purpose of application of the PWD
  • 4. 
    A calendar month should constitute the appropriate reference period, as it is the usual time period for establishing a driver’s salary.

88 AT, BE, BG, EE, FI, HR, IT, LU, SK, BG, CZ, NL,

89 CZ, GR, HU, MT

90 AT, BE, 2BG, FI, HR, IT, MT, NL, SK, EE, LU,

91 AT, BE, 2 BG, EE, FI, HR, IT, LU, NL,

92 CZ, HU, IE, SE, SI,

93 CZ, GR, HU, LV, MT

94 AT, BE, 2 BG, EE, FI, HR, IT, LU, SK, CZ, NL,

95 AT, BE, 2 BG, EE, HR, IT, LV, MT, LU, NL,

Figure 5-29: Posting of Workers – clarity of the Directive

9b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

6 96 (out of 16) enforcement authorities do not see any problem that a calendar month should constitute the appropriate reference period, whereas 5 97 see it as major problem and 5 98 others

as a smaller problem.

8 99 (out of 18) consider it as major problem for practical enforcement with the proposed

measure that if a driver has spent the majority of his time during one day in a Member State, a "full day" for the purpose of application of the PWD should be accounted for.

9 100 (out of 19) of enforcement authorities see it as a major problem enforcement wise and 6 101 expect no problem that the time spent during daily and weekly rest periods should also be

accounted for.

7 102 out of (17) consider it a major problem, 6 103 expect no problem and 4 104 see it as a minor

problem that the amount of time spent in a host Member State should include driving times, other work, periods of availability and breaks.

Enforcement authorities are quite divided in their opinion on this topic. Some concerns mentioned by the authorities relate to the fact that the PWD should not apply at all to the road transport sector. Others indicate that it should see problems for enforcement that whether the application of posting applies can only be known at the end of a month and not beforehand. Others see the reference period of a month as two short as they consider that an employer should not be present repeatedly in a host Member State's territory.

96 AT, BE, BE, HR, LU, SK,

97 CZ, DE, HU, LV, NL,

98 BG, EE, FI, IT, MT,

99 2 BE, CZ, DE, EE, GR, HU, LV,

100 BE, BE, CZ, DE, GR, HU, IT, LV, MT,

101 AT, BG, DE, FI, HR, SK,

102 BE, BE, CZ, DE, GR, HU, MT,

103 AT, BG, FI, HR, LU, LV,

104 BG, EE, NL, SK,

Figure 5-30: Posting of Workers – practical enforcement problems

  • 10. 
    Posting of workers – Threshold of 5, 7, 9 days per month

10a) What is the most appropriate minimum period (5,7 or 9 per month) during which posting of workers rules should apply?

Since only 6 Member States chose one of the three options the results will be given by Member States. 3 Member States (BE, ES, LU) out of 6 were in favour of the 5 days threshold, one MS (BG) is in favour of 7 days, whereas 2 MS (HR and SK) would consider 9 days as appropriate. 3 Member States (AT, BG and FR) are in favour that the Posting of Workers Directive applies from the first hour, whereas 1 MS (IT) suggested a threshold of 3 days. 3 Member States (CZ, SI, HU) consider that the Posting of Workers Directive should not be applied at all. 1 Member States (LV) suggested a higher threshold than 9 days.

Figure 5-31: Posting of workers – threshold of 5,7 and 9 days/month

10b) Do you expect the proposed measure (application of PWD on the basis of a certain number of days per month) to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the Directive?

Enforcement authorities were divided in their opinion, whereas 7 105 out of (19) (representing 7 Member States) expect that enforcement will be less effective, 7 106 (representing 6 Member

States) also consider that it would make enforcement more effective.

Figure 5-32: Posting of workers – effectiveness of enforcement

9c) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

11 107 enforcement authorities (out of 15) see a small problem with the reporting of costs and 6 108 see a major problem and another 6 109 a minor problem with the reporting of activities..

However some pointed out that the two concepts were not really clear as it was not explained in the survey what it was referring to.

105 CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU, BE, LV,

106 BE, 2 BG, EE, HR, IT, SK,

107 AT, BE, BG, DE, EE, FI, GR, IT, LU, NL, SK,

108 CZ, DE, EE, HU, LV, NL,

109 AT, BE, BG, FI, GR, SK,

Figure 5-33: Posting of workers – practical enforcement problems

  • 11. 
    Enforceability of posting of workers provisions 110

11a) Do you expect the proposed measures to impact the effectiveness of enforcement of the posting provisions?

7 111 out of 19 would see a more effective enforcement establishing a two-step enforcement (roadside and premises). 9 112 out of 19 envisage that establishing frequency of presence of a

driver at a roadside check as contributing to more effective enforcement. Different views were more spread as regards whether requiring verification leads to more effectiveness.

Figure 5-34: Posting of workers – effectiveness

110 In order to improve the enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive for transport, measures on making a better use of existing

control and communication tools (e.g. tachograph, risk rating system, ERRU – European Register of Road Transport Undertakings) while minimising relevant administrative burden are being considered. More specifically: 1) Two-step enforcement approach (similar to reg. 561 on driving times), with a roadside check followed by a premises check. 2) Obliging drivers to record in the tachograph the country code of the country where they are each time they stop a vehicle and not only at the start and the end of the daily working period.

  • 3) 
    Enable premise checks at control authorities in MS of establishment of employers.

111 2 BE, BG, HR, IT, SK, FI,

112 2 BE, BG, EE, FI, HR, IT, NL, SK,

11b) Do you foresee any possible problems with the practical enforcement of the suggested measures?

Enforcers see some problem as regards practical enforcement to require verification of

operator's compliance (7 113 out of 15) as regards the verification on operators compliance,

whereas there was no clear views on whether the establishing frequency of presence the

driver was problematic. 7 114 out of 14 do not expect any problem as regards the two-step

enforcement.

Figure 5-35: Posting of workers – practical enforcement problems

11c) Do you expect the measures to change enforcement costs compared to the current situation ?

The majority of enforcers did not know whether enforcement costs will change with the proposed measures.

Figure 5-36: Posting of workers – enforcement costs

113 BE, BG, EE, FI, HR, IT, NL, SK,

114

2.3 D RIVERS S URVEY

Drivers responded the following in the survey which was grouped by theme. The nationality of drivers participating in the survey is not well distributed as 40% of them were Dutch and 36% were British.

  • 1. 
    Regular weekly rest

1a) Most often, where do you take your regular weekly rest?

245 drivers (out of 330) responded that they spent their 50-75 % of their regular weekly rest at home. 194 drivers (out of 245) indicated that the spent it in accommodation paid by them whereas 167 (out of 265 drivers) responded that they take it on board of the vehicle.

Figure 6-1: place of regular weekly rest

1b) Do you think that employers should be obliged to provide (or pay for) adequate accommodation when drivers cannot take their regular weekly rest at home or at another private place of rest?

The majority of drivers (295 out of 339) participating in the survey consider that employers should be obliged to pay/provide for adequate accommodation (see figure 6-1)..

Figure 6-1: regular weekly rest – adequate accommodation to be provided by employer?

1c) How do you expect to be affected in the case that new rules forbid spending weekly rest in the vehicle and the employer is required to provide (or pay for) adequate accommodation?

166 drivers (out of 319) expect no change in their montly pay. Looking at EU-13, 10 out of 23 drivers expect a decrease in pay, whereas 9 expect no change. 136 (out of 320) expect a slight to significant increase in their overall working conditions. Whereas 104 expect no change in the overall working conditions.

Figure 6-2: impact of regular weekly rest provision

  • 2. 
    Adaptation of breaks (to be able to split a break into at least 15 minutes each)

What do you expect to be the impact of the proposed change to the following?

148 drivers (out of 326) considered that the proposed measure would lead to a decrease in overall working conditions. 156 (out of 328) believed that it would impact on safety conditions, including road safety. 161 (out of 331) believed that it would decrease their ability to avoid fatigue and getting adequate rest. At the same time, 199 (out of 326) drivers recognised that the measure would give them the flexibility to deal with unexpected circumstances.

Figure 6-3: adaptations of breaks - impact

  • 3. 
    Posting of Working Directive

3a) What is the typical amount of time (days per month) that you spend in a country other than your home country when you are engaged in international transport operations?

65 out of 279 drivers responded that they often (at least 50% of the time) are spending 5 days per month abroad. 45 out of 262 drivers indicated that they spend 5-7 days/month, whereas 84 (out of 256) are never spending 7-9 days/month abroad.

Figure 6-3: Posting of workers Directive – usual period away from home

3b) How do you expect the introduction of such rules on payments (minimum salary of host Member State when threshold for posting is reached) will affect the following aspects?

111 drivers (out of 316) expect that there will be no changes in their monthly pay. Whereas 108 believe that their monthly pay would decrease. Looking at EU-13 Member States, 13 out of 23 drivers expect an increase in pay. 100 out of 316 drivers expect no change, whereas 98 expect that overall conditions would slightly decrease. 126 out of 320 expect no change as regards their ability to spend their weekly rest at home.

Figure 6-4: Posting of Workers Directive – impact of minimum salary of host Member States

3c) What do you consider as the most appropriate period which, when exceeded, posting of workers rules should apply? (i.e. employers will be obliged to pay drivers according to the rules of the Member State of work (and not of the Member State of establishment of the employer)

The majority of drivers were in favour that posting should apply when the threshold of 5 days/month is reached.

Figure 6-5: Posting of Workers Directive – Time threshold

  • 4. 
    Performance-based pay

How do you expect the introduction of a ban on performance based payments will affect your monthly pay?

128 out of 315 drivers responded that they expect that no changes would occur.

Figure 6-6: Performance-based pay

  • 5. 
    Multimanning (to allow the presence of only one driver for the first two hours or the last one hour of the journey)

What do you expect to be the impact of the proposed change to the following?

81 (out of 306) responded that they expect a significant decrease in their overall working conditions. Whereas 89 (out of 311) would expect a significant decrease of safety conditions, and 85 do not expect any change. 78 (out of 308) expect a decrease to avoid fatigue whereas 115 (out of 308) expect an increase in flexibility.

Figure 6-7: Impact of Multimanning

Overall working conditions (n=306) 81 32 72 36 25 60

Safety conditions (including road

safety) (n=311) 89 28 85 28 23 58

Ability to avoid fatigue and get

adequate rest (n=308) 78 32 72 39 28 59

Flexibility in organising multi-manning

operations (n=308) 41 26 55 76 39 71

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Significantly decreased Slightly decreased No change Slightly increased Significantly increased No opinion / Don’t know

2.5 D IRECT INFORMATION REQUEST ( HAULIER ' S SURVEY )

  • 1. 
    Calculation of weekly rest

1a) What changes do you expect to make in order to maintain the same level of turnover if the proposed changes are adopted?

32 haulier operators (out of 69) responded that they would use 15% more vehicles, whereas 44 (out of 70) indicated that they will employ more than 15% drivers . 41 (out of 69) consider to increase the total number of trip by more than 15%.

Figure 7-1: Weekly rest

1b) Do you expect any other costs to adapt to the proposed measures?

The majority (64 out of 122) expect that costs for training staff will be increased following the proposed measure.

Figure 7-2: Weekly rest – other costs to adapt

1c) What will be the impact on annual operating costs for your organisation as a result of the proposed measures (compared to current costs)?

49 (out of 70) hauliers indicated that the annual operating costs would increase by more than 15%.

Figure 7-3: weekly rest – impact on annual operating costs

  • 2. 
    Weekly rest in the vehicle

2a) In the case that spending the regular weekly rest periods of more than 45 h in the vehicle is forbidden, which resting places do you expect to give preference to?

48 out of 68 hauliers responded that they would prefer that the driver return to the home base. 35 out of 69 indicated a preference for accommodation provided by the company. 30 out of 50 would choose other approaches.

Figure 7-4: weekly rest in the vehicle – preferred place of private rest

2b) Would the proposed measure have an impact on any of the parameters indicated below?

46 out of 69 haulier indicated that the measure would have an impact on the numbers of drivers employed, secondly on the total number of trips (42 out of 68 hauliers) and lastly on the number of vehicles used (35 out of 69 hauliers).

Figure 7-5: weekly rest in the vehicle - impact

  • 3. 
    Posting of Workers

What changes do you expect to make in order to maintain the same level of turnover if the proposed changes are adopted?

Most hauliers indicated that no changes would be made to maintain the same level of turnover.

Figure 7-6: Posting of Workers

  • 4. 
    Attestation form

4a) Approximately, how many attestation forms do you submit per year?

The majority of hauliers (42 out of 69) indicated that they submit no attestation of forms. 11 out of 69 responded that they submit less than 50 per year.

Figure 7-7: Attestation form

4b) What do you expect to be the impact of the proposed measure on the annual operating costs for your organisation (in relation to the current costs)?

Most hauliers (41 out of 69) do not see any relevance of the attestation form with the annual operating costs.

Figure 7-8: Attestation form – impact on annual operating costs

  • 5. 
    Derogation for coaches

5 a) How do you expect the proposed change to contribute to the flexibility in planning work for passenger passport drivers?

There was no clear answer to this question as only 5 answers were received.

Figure 7-9: derogation for coaches - flexibility

5b) What will be the impact on annual operating costs for your organisation (compared to current costs) from the proposed derogations?

Only 5 hauliers responded to this survey and no clear answer could be found on this question.

Figure 7-10: derogation for coaches – impact on annual operating costs

A NNEX 3

W HO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW ?

Stakeholders affected in case of adoption of the preferred option

The preferred policy package 2 intends to clarify the legal framework and strengthens enforcement as well as changes the obligation. The horizontal policy package 4b, addresses issues linked to the application of PWD.

Table 8-1

Type of stakeholder Practical implications of the preferred policy option

Drivers Working conditions :

The prohibition of the weekly rest in the vehicle, the requirement of the employer to provide for adequate accommodation and the new system of calculation of the weekly rest would improve drivers' working conditions by decreasing accumulated fatigue, by ensuring adequate resting facilities during their regular weekly rest and by reducing their long periods away from home (the latter should impact more drivers from Member States with low wages who tend to have longer periods away from home). This should have positive effects on their health and safety.

Equal treatment

Drivers will be treated equally throughout the EU as rules will be clarified. More effective enforcement will also ensure a more level playing field.

Drivers from Member States with high wages would face less downward pressure.

Drivers from Member States with lower wages would get the relevant minimum wage of the Host Member States extended to the whole EU after the specific time threshold has been passed.

Administrative burden

The lighter administrative requirements in relation to the PWD would also reduce stress and administrative burden for the drivers.

Transport Planning of transport operations operators

Slight increase of costs can be expected from side of the operators as they need to ensure the provision of adequate accommodation to their drivers. However, this can be possibly offset by more effective planning of long distance transport operations. Operators would gain more flexibility from the adaptation of the break, on the one hand, but would lose some flexibility due to the reduction of the reference period of the average working time of their employees on the other hand.

Equal treatment

More effective enforcement will also ensure a more level playing field.

Administrative burden

The measures in relation to the Posting of Workers Directive would allow operators to avoid burdensome pre-notification and the full administrative requirements which would lead to significant cost savings. Less diverging national enforcement will also reduce unnecessary administrative burden and costs.

National authorities National administrations would operate on clearly established cooperation conditions, would gain a better overview of genuine posting situations and would benefit from regular exchange of information on compliance of

operators with the minimum wage legislation and other applicable road transport rules.

Enforcement authorities would improve the effectiveness of enforcement due

to the access to the risk rating system and the introduction of the time to

respond between national administrations.

Others road users Road safety

The increase of compliance level of the social rules and the reduction of fatigue level of drivers would contribute to improve road safety in general.

A NNEX 4:

A NALYTICAL MODEL USED OR CONSIDERED IN PREPARING THE IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

  • 1. 
    Levels of compliance

Analysis of monitoring data

In an effort to quantitatively define what the baseline development of levels of compliance would be, the newly available reporting data from the latest 2013/14 period were analysed. As for the support study to the Ex-post Evaluation, the reported infringement detection rates are used as a proxy to understand the trends in compliance since they represent the bestavailable indicator. However, there are some important limitations – especially in the context of the social legislation – such as differences in enforcement practices.

Each type of check (roadside and premises) is a distinctly different enforcement activity - checks at the roadside involve a single vehicle at a time, whilst checks at the premises will typically encompass multiple vehicles in a transport operator’s fleet. To account for this the analysis of infringement rates is structured separately.

Trends in infringements rates

The absolute infringement rate for checks across each Member State varies significantly, as illustrated in figure 9.1. The main things to note are the large discrepancies in the infringement rates seen. For example, Austria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia and Slovakia have relatively high infringement rates in at least two of the three reporting periods for checks at the roadside – of around 4 offences per 100 working days checked or more - whilst Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France and Romania all demonstrated generally very low infringement rates (at less than 1). Checks at the premises have a far greater range compared to roadside checks – up to 34 offences per 100 working days checked in Germany in 2009/10. Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Portugal and Romania and Spain have very low infringement rates of less than 1 across all three periods.

Figure 9-1: Infringement rates per 100 working days checked (WDC)

Source: Invalid source specified. Invalid source specified.Invalid source specified.

Notes:

*No data available for 2013/14 period ** No Data available for 2009/10 period

Trends over time are often not consistent and show very large fluctuations, pointing to

possible reporting issues. Figure 9.2 shows the percentage change between infringement rates

between the latest reporting period (2013/14) and the previous two reporting periods. Large

fluctuations of more than 50% are seen in 11 out of 27 Member States between 2011/12 and

2013/14 for roadside checks. The longer term view - percentage change between 2009/10 and

2013/14 shows similar issues, where 13 countries have a change greater than 50%. For

checks at the premises, again there is even higher variation - with 11 countries exceeding a

50% change and extreme changes observed in CY (1190%). The longer-term trend between

2009/10 to 2013/14 also indicates considerable variability, 16 countries have infringement

rates that vary greater than 50%, whilst Malta increased by 717%.

Figure 9-2: Percentage change between 2013/14 reporting period vs 2009/10 and 2011/12 – checks at the

roadside

Regression analysis

The variability in the data, discussed above, suggests that the quality of the time series data is

insufficient to develop any robust statistical relationships for the baseline. As such, we did

not consider it appropriate to attempt to use the historical data on year-by-year changes to

inform the analysis.

Instead, a cross section of the 2013/14 data was tried – hypothesising that the reporting

quality may have improved over time, and hence the latest reporting data could be the best /

most accurate representation of the true situation. This could be the case due to improvements

in the reporting template, consistency checks carried out internally / by the EC, as well as

general experience gained after several years of meeting the reporting requirements. As such,

we decided to apply some cross-sectional analysis to see if there were any steady-state trends that could be discerned from the 2013/14 data.

A wide range of variables were tested for the 2013/14 cross section for checks including:

 Infringement rates – separately for checks at roadside and at the premises;

 % of the minimum threshold for checks that was met – separately for checks at

roadside and at the premises (as an indicator of the “intensity” of enforcement in each country - the higher this ratio, the higher the enforcement effort of the country);

 Dummy variables to indicate whether a country is EU-15 or EU-13;

 Total haulier operating costs;

 Driver salary;

 % of driver salary that is variable payment;

 Maximum fines for infringement of the social legislation, in Euros and PPP adjusted;

 Maximum fines for infringement of the social legislation, as a % of haulier costs;

 Number / share of enforcers equipped with digital tachograph-reading equipment.

Simple and multiple-regressions was employed to establish whether there were any relationships between the variables tested. Both linear and logarithmic models to determine whether there were unit- or percentage-type relationships between any of the variables were tested. However, it seems that the vast majority of the models lacked significance, even at the 10% level. For those models that did return some level of significance, it was typically weak (i.e. max 10%, and only for some parameters), and the lack of results using other tests suggests that the model was unlikely to be robust.

Even where relationships intuitively make a great deal of sense – both logically and backed up in economic literature – we could not detect any statistical relationship. For example, there should theoretically be a link between detected infringement rates and enforcement intensity, but the models returned only weak relationships, as shown by the illustrative results of Model 1 below. This shows that the coefficient of the relationship between the (log) infringement rates and (log) of the enforcement effort is not even significant at the 10% level, which is the minimum we would accept to use the model further.

Model 1: OLS, using observations 1-27 (n = 26)

Dependent variable: LOG_INFRINGEMENT_RATE_ROAD

Coefficient std. error t-ratio p-value const 0.463901 0.385237 1.204 0.2403 LOG (% Quota of roadside −0.428997 0.278542 −1.540 0.1366 checks met)

Mean dependent var −0.008174 S.D. dependent var 1.222136

Sum squared resid 33.98178 S.E. of regression 1.189919

R-squared 0.089946 Adjusted R-squared 0.052027

F(1, 24) 2.372065 P-value(F) 0.136606

Multiple regressions can sometimes tease out more complicated relationships between variables, by controlling for the influence of several factors on the dependent variable. However, this approach did not return any usable results either, despite systematic checking of combinations of variables and linear/log models.

The lack of statistical results is very likely due to the large noise in the reporting data (due to reporting inconsistencies) that obscures any true relationships that might exist. In order to test this assumption, the infringement rate averaged across the two latest reporting periods were also tested– with the aim of dampening any variation over time. However, this still did not lead to any robust relationships to include within the baseline.

As explained above, significant effort into trying to come up with a quantitative approach was made to understand developments in infringement rates in the baseline. However, no relationships between the data that could be exploited for this purpose was found. As such, we propose to revert to a qualitative description of the expected trends in compliance, which will need to be fairly high level in the absence of concrete data.

The analysis of trends in compliance will draw from the assumed evolution of the drivers/problems described above, i.e.:

 Unintentional infringements:

o Will decrease over time, as drivers/operators become more used to the rules and IT software solutions to ensure driver compliance penetrate the fleet more.

o However, they will not be completely eliminated due to persisting problems of different interpretations/enforcement of the rules (Root cause A, B; Driver D, E)

 Intentional infringements will be affected by the following factors:

o Gradual improvements over time due to:

 Continued sharing of best practices in cross-border concerted checks and via voluntary membership in organisations such as ECR and slight improvements in connection via ERRU/TACHONET (Driver F).

 Release Uptake of TRACE and CLOSER training curriculum.  Increasing penetration of digital tachographs into the fleet (external variable).

o However, there will continue to be a level of intentional non-compliance, due to :

 Continued insufficient administrative cooperation in cross-border

enforcement specific to social rules (Root cause C).

 Continued inconsistent enforcement of current rules (Driver F).

 Continued problems of unfit rules for the sector (Root cause B).

  • 2. 
    Methodology

Level of drivers' stress and fatigue – baseline

The main factor contributing directly to drivers' fatigue levels are working patterns. To calculate the extent of driver fatigue, the tool developed by the UK Health and Safety

Executive (HSE) 115 was used. The tool provides two outputs: the fatigue index, expressed by

an average probability multiplied by a high score value of 100, giving a value between 0 and 100; and the risk index expressed by the relative risk of an incident occurring on a particular shift. A baseline index of 1 represents the average risk. The two indices provide slightly different, complementary indicators of the impacts on fatigue and it is desirable to keep both as low as possible.

The tool calculates the fatigue index and risk index based on work schedules. For the purposes of this study a basis against which the policy measures can be compared is needed. Since there are a lot of possible variations in the way in which a driving schedule can be organised, it is not appropriate to have a single baseline; at the same time, given the flexibly in the rules it would not be constructive to attempt to compare every possible schedule.

In order to provide the best basis for comparison, a schedule was designed that met the maximum working and driving times allowed under the current rules. This represents the maximum possible levels of fatigue and risk that could be expected under the current rules. In practice, many drivers will have shorter working/driving times; however, the maximum levels were intended to provide a certain level of protection against excessive fatigue, and therefore this is the factor that is of most relevance for the policy comparison. That is, the maximum levels of fatigue and risk that can be achieved in the baseline vs the policy measures indicates the level of protection offered to drivers under the social rules.

In the analysis, two theoretical scenarios were used: Scenario 1 applies maximum legal values for working and driving times, and minimum values for daily and weekly rest, filling the remaining time with periods of availability. Scenario 2 has no extended driving times, reduced daily rest, but the same number of working hours. For both scenarios, a maximum of 60 hours working time is achieved for every week over the time span of 4 weeks. Both scenarios account for practices which are currently allowed under the legal framework.

The baseline schedule was designed to respect the framework of the EU road social rules, as shown in Table 9-1.

115 The detailed explanation on the methodology and HSE tool used is in Annex 4

Table 9-1: Rules for driving, working, and rest times used for creating driving schedules

Variables Rules Daily driving time 10 hrs a day with 1.5 hr break, 2 times a week (extended driving

time) 9 hrs a day with a 45-min break, all other times

Weekly driving time Maximum 56 driving hrs a week, maximum 90 driving hrs biweekly

Weekly working time Maximum 60 working hrs a week (for all 4 weeks)

Regular daily rest Reduced 9 hrs daily rest, 3 times a week

11 hrs regular daily rest all other times

Regular weekly rest Reduced weekly rest of 24 hrs, compensated by 21 hrs taken within 3 weeks and attached to any rest of 9 hrs

Along with the parameters above, the model requires information on job type, attention required, commuting time, and breaks. These were defined as follows (constant for all schedules):

 Commuting time – 1 hour  Breaks:

o Taken typically every 2.5 hours, with an average length of 30 minutes o The longest period of work before a break – 4.5 hours, with a longest break of 45 minutes.

 Workload parameters

o Driving time – Extremely demanding workload, and no spare capacity (maximum setting)

o Other work – Moderately demanding workload and little spare capacity

 Attention required

o Driving time – Attention required all or nearly all the time (maximum setting) o Other work – Attention required most of the time

Even when consistently applying the maximum driving times and working times, there are still multiple possible configurations for taking weekly rest within the current rules (due to the possibility of taking reduced weekly rest that will be compensated later on).

Figure Figure 9.3: Fatigue index of 4-week shift pattern for the baseline scenarios 9.3 shows the fatigue index of the two scenarios. The points given for each day reflect the fatigue index for the driving time duty period. Although fatigue indexes were also derived for other work and periods of availability, they tend to be lower than for driving time since the attention required for these periods is lower. It can be seen that Scenario 1 has a consistently higher fatigue index, due to the high periods of availability assumed in the schedule. Scenario 2 shows a significantly lower fatigue index of the 4-week reference period, as a result of longer daily and weekly rest periods, and no extended daily driving hours.

This fatigue index serves as a useful reference to analysing the changes in fatigue that could arise from the adoption of specific policy measures. Nevertheless, as a rough benchmark, a maximum daytime fatigue index of 35 is considered good practice, and of 45 for night work (or combinations of day and night work) in order to mitigate risks of causing employee fatigue.

Figure 9.3: Fatigue index of 4-week shift pattern for the baseline scenarios

50 45 40 35

dex 30

e in 25 ti gu 20

Fa 15

10 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 29 Day

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Source: HSE tool and author calculations

Figure 9.4 shows the risk index for driving times for the scenarios. Again, the results indicate significantly higher risk for scenario 1 compared to scenarios 2. The baseline scenarios therefore represent very high levels of risk at peak levels.

Figure 9.4:Risk index over 4-week shift pattern for baseline scenarios

25

20

x

d e 15

In

R is

k 10

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 29 Day

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Source: HSE tool and author calculations

In the baseline scenario, it is assumed that there are no major changes to driver schedules in future, since there are no changes to the framework of the social legislation – hence, the fatigue and risk indices will remain as calculated above.

Impacts on level of drivers' stress and fatigue

The analysis of changes in fatigue index and risk index have been performed against the baseline scenario in the context of policy measure (1) - on calculating average minimum regular weekly rest of 45 h and on adequate accommodation) and policy measure (19) – on a 4-week reference period for calculating average maximum weekly working time of 48 h. Figure 9-6 shows that measure 1 could result in positive changes (reductions) in fatigue levels due to a higher average weekly rest length than the baseline options.

Figure 9-6 – Evolution of fatigue index under baseline and policy scenarios

Notes: Options refer to different configurations of taking weekly rest within the current rules. Option 1 (21h to be compensated within 3 weeks, from week 1 to week 3); option 2 (21h added to daily rest of 9h); option 3 (21h to be compensated within 3 weeks, from week 2 to week 5, where week 5 is outside of the assessment period). See Annex B for full details. Source: author calculations, HSE tool (HSE, 2006)

The difference between the policy and baseline fatigue indexes varies in magnitude at specific points as a result of the different schedules, and it can be seen that fatigue levels are elevated compared to the baseline at some points for both options 2 and 3. However, it is the change in average fatigue that is the more important result, rather than differences at single points in time. The average fatigue index is improved (reduced) in options 1 and 2 compared to the baseline (by 17% and 16% respectively). Conversely, option 3 results in a slight increase compared to the baseline (6%). Over all three options, the schedules under the policy measure resulted in a decrease in the average fatigue index by 1.1, or 10%, suggesting that the measure is likely to have a net positive impact on driver fatigue.

Figure 9-7 presents the results of the analysis of the impact on the fatigue index from the changes to the calculation of working time (measure 13). Both day and night scenarios show a significantly lower average fatigue index under the policy measure. The day scenario baseline has an average fatigue index of 10.9, compared to 8.7 for the policy, giving a reduction of 2.2 (-21%). For the night scenario, an even bigger difference is seen, with a baseline average fatigue index of 18.1, compared to 12.6 for the policy, giving a reduction of 5.5 (-30%). The average over the two scenarios is a reduction of 3.9 (25%).

Figure 9-7 : Evolution of fatigue index for changes to the calculation of working time

Difference Baseline Policy

Day scenario Night scenario

30

e x 20 n d

10

g u e I

ti 0

F a

-10

-20

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 1 3 5 8 10 12 16 18 20 23 25

Day

Error! Reference source not found.

Measure (2) on the requirements of adequate accommodation (provided/paid for by the

employer) for drivers, is positively assessed by drivers participating in drivers’ survey. 127 of

the 320 respondents (around 40%, with no significant differences in this proportion between respondents from different countries) felt that this measure would increase their ability to avoid fatigue and get adequate rest.

Postponing the weekly rest in domestic passenger operations (measures 7a and 7b) are expected to have negative implications for fatigue, increasing its level for affected drivers by 33% in case of measure 7a, and by 20% in case of measure 7b. Also the measure abolishing the compensation after the use of 12-day derogation in international passenger journeys (measure 6) is expected to bring a 8% increase in fatigue for affected drivers.

Impacts on road safety and occupational health

To the extent that fatigue is reduced the risk of road accidents should also decrease.

Figure 9-8 presents the results of the analysis of the impact on the risk index from the changes to the calculation of working time (measure 13). The reduced shift length on days 8 to 12 and 22 to 25 result in lower risk indexes under the policy schedules. For the night scenario, the change is significantly larger as a result of the increased risk of night work, which amplifies the difference of longer shifts. Overall, the index under the policy measure remains lower than the baseline index at all times for both scenarios. Therefore it can be concluded that the measure on working time will contribute to reducing risks to road safety.

Figure 9-8 : Evolution of risk index for changes to the calculation of working time

Difference Baseline Policy

20 Day scenario Night scenario

15 10

d e

x

5

In 0 k

-5

R is

-10 -15

-20

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 1 3 5 8 10 12 16 18 20 23 25

Day

Changes to calculation of working times as well as strengthened control measures and more efficient and regular use of control tools such as risk rating system is expected to bring significant impacts on improving road safety levels as well as health and safety of drivers, mainly due to. It is expected that effective and dissuasive controls will contribute greater to reducing the road safety risks. In addition, the measures contributing to reducing periods away from home/base (i.e. measures on weekly rest gives incentives to spend the regular weekly rest and compensation at home) are also expected to contribute to better occupational health and lesser risk to road safety. The reduced periods spent in a vehicle means the reduction of exposure to diesel exhaust emission and reduced time in sitting (tiring or painful) postures, and hence reduction of risks of occupational diseases. In addition, measure 5 allowing to split obligatory breaks into maximum three parts of minimum 15 minutes each may bring a small reduction of 5.7% on average in the risk index. Under the proposed policy,

shorter, more regular breaks result in shorter periods between breaks, and therefore a lower risk index.

Measure (17) forbidding performance based payment, which is seen as the main incentive for breaching driving and resting time limits (also speeding and those on maximum weights) may also contribute to improving road safety in freight. In passenger transport, the measures 6 and 7 on derogations from weekly rest requirements in international and domestic transport of passengers may result in increase in risk of 4% for international coach drivers and 4-5% for domestic coach drivers subject to the derogations.

Baseline – Administrative costs

Comparable data on administrative costs were very sparse. The most complete data for quantifying the administrative costs was provided by industry representatives from the Czech Republic (summarised in Table 9-3), who estimated administrative costs for Czech drivers operating under the German and French minimum wage laws. This includes the following administrative tasks:

 Maintaining extra records of working time,

 Gathering and collating information on transport contracts, breaking down

journeys into outward, return and transit,

 Creating special payslips with separate remuneration for every country,

 Gathering and archiving the payment orders used to pay wages,

 Documentation of deductions from pay, such as amounts claimed back, which

results in a second payroll with the addition of extra items to cater for the specific features and requirements of Germany and France.

Table 9-9: Data on administrative costs for drivers from the Czech Republic based on CZ association data only

ID Parameter Host country Calculation Source

DE FR

Admin costs (paperwork etc.)

a Admin staff per 0.1 0.1 - CZ association estimate driver

b Cost of 1 admin 40,000 40,000 - CZ association estimate staff per month

(CZK) c Exchange rate 0.037 0.037 - www.xr.com

(CZK/EUR) d Cost of 1 admin 1,480 1,480 = b * c Calculation

staff per month (EUR)

e Admin cost per 148 148 = d * a Calculation driver and month

(EUR) f Average number of 7.55 assumed - Calculations based on

international + to be the (DTU, 2017). Data only cabotage trips per same as available for DE truck and month, for DE Median

ID Parameter Host country Calculation Source

DE FR

g Number of 1 1 - 2013/14 social legislation

drivers/truck official monitoring data 116

h Admin cost/trip 19.6 19.6 = (e/f)g

Local representative cost (FR only)

i Cost per n/a 4,200 - CZ association estimate driver/month (CZK)

j Cost per n/a 155.4 = i*e Calculation driver/month (EUR)

k Local rep cost/trip n/a 20.6 = (j/f)*g

(EUR) Total admin + local rep 19.6 40.2 = h + k cost (EUR)

Input from other industry associations suggests that the values provided by the Czech associations are at the higher end of the spectrum and might overestimate the administrative costs. The only other data that we received, which is exactly comparable to the Czech values is information received from an Austrian industry association, who estimate the administrative costs connected to the minimum wage laws as €7.00. We used this data to adjust the Czech values downwards to a potentially more realistic value. To be able to calculate an average value for CZ and AT data, we adjusted the Czech estimates using data on the total labour costs for administrative and support service activities from Eurostat (Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity [lc_lci_lev]). The calculations are outlined below:

Table 9-10: Administrative costs per trip based on CZ and AT data

DE FR

CZ Admin cost/trip [€] 19.60 19.60

CZ Local rep cost/trip [€] - 20.58

AT Admin cost/trip [€] 7.00 -

AT Admin cost/trip --> converted to CZ wage level [€] 1.85 -

CZ-AT average cost/trip [€] 10.72 10.72

Adjusted value versus original CZ value [%] 55% -

Adjusted local rep value based on admin cost ratio [€] - 11.26

These adjusted values for admin costs for Czech operators connected to minimum wage laws were then adjusted for differences in the level of labour costs in the different countries, we have indexed the relevant part of the Czech estimates using data on the total labour costs for administrative and support service activities from Eurostat (Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity [lc_lci_lev]).

A further assumption is that the administrative costs are the same regardless of whether the posted driver already complies with the minimum wage law in the host country, since the company would still need to carry out the required administrative tasks such as notification, providing appropriate evidence etc.

116 The 2013-2014 monitoring data (European Commission, 2016b) provides the number of checks in each

country in terms of both the number of drivers and number of vehicles. This shows that the median across all EU Member States is 1 driver per truck.

Table 9-11 provides the administrative costs by posting country for different host countries applying minimum wages.

To calculate the annual administrative costs per sending Member State due to minimum wage laws, we used data on trips by posting country and host country combination, from (DTU, 2017). In order to take into account the evolution in the number of trips in future years, the number of trips were adjusted by indexing to the EU Reference Scenario 2016 data on freight transport activity (Gtkm)

By multiplying the annual number of trips for both cabotage and international transport with the administrative costs per trip, we obtain the annual administrative costs for Member States that have minimum wages laws in place in the baseline. The DTU dataset does not provide information for Denmark, Italy and Luxembourg.

Table 9-11: Administrative costs [€/trip]

Host country Sending country DE = AT = IT = BE = LU = FR (includes local

SE = DK representative)

Austria 41 83 Belgium 55 112 Bulgaria 5 9 Croatia 10 20 Cyprus** 18 36 Czech Republic 11 22 Denmark 59 120 Estonia 15 31 Finland 38 79 France 44 91 Germany 34 70 Greece* 17 35 Hungary 11 22 Ireland 36 75 Italy 32 65 Latvia 10 21 Lithuania 10 20 Luxembourg 35 72 Malta 18 37 Netherlands* 39 79 Poland 11 22 Portugal** 14 29 Romania 6 13 Slovakia 12 24 Slovenia 19 38 Spain 25 52 Sweden 53 108 United Kingdom 37 77

Notes: The additional costs for a local representative are assumed to apply only in France.

Source: Calculations based on Eurostat 2015 data on labour costs for administrative and support service activities from Eurostat (Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity [lc_lci_lev])

*based on 2014 value

** based on 2012 value

A NNEX 5

I SSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Drivers of Light Goods Vehicles

Since the social rules apply to vehicles above 3.5t, there is no European legislation regulating the driving hours and resting time of drivers of vehicles below 3.5t, which are also referred to as Light Goods Vehicles (LGV). Since the adoption of the social rules in 2016 a higher number of vans on the roads were registered (ETSC, 2014). In the UK and Austria, for example, the use of such vehicles between 2006-2014 increased by 19% and 25% respectively, while the use of HGVs decreased by 11% and 5 % accordingly.

Recent studies 117 have shown that there is a growing concern in how far the increased use of

LGV is affecting, working conditions, road safety and fair competition since drivers of LGV are also not covered by the same rules as HGV like the social rules but also as on access to occupation and to the international haulage market. However, only 9.5 % (97 out of 1026) of respondents to the non-specialised survey and 25% (40 out of 162) of the specialised survey consider that it is as the most important challenge in road transport.

However, the trend towards increased use of LGV is not applying to all Member States and

tends to concentrate only in a few. In 2015 for example, four countries 118 accounted for 70%

of total EU LGV activity in Gt-km. In most other countries the absolute level of LGV activity

is fairly minor, as 15 countries 119 were estimated to have less than 1Gt-km of LGV activity in

2015. There is also no economic incentive for 'switching' from HGVs to LGVs and the risk of distortions of competition as the cost of transport per ton by HGV is estimated to be around 16% of the cost to transport a ton by LGV. The study concludes that the increase of the use of LGVs is linked mainly with the rise in e-commerce activities and home delivery sector and 'last mile' deliveries, especially in urban areas, for which HGVs are not suitable. Therefore,

the trend is more likely due to the nature of the business demand 120 , rather than an explicit

motivation to avoid the legislation.

As regards the concern on fatigue and risks to road safety, there is mixed evidence as to the extent to which fatigue is a problem for LGVs drivers in Europe. An investigation in the UK for example found that van drivers are 23% more likely to be fatigued in crashes compared to other road users. Data for Germany shows that fatigue is a contributory factor to van collisions in 4% of cases on motorways (compared to 6% for cars) and in 1% of cases on rural roads (the same proportion as cars) (VDA, 2010).

117 Ricardo et al, 2015, Support study for an evaluation of Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 i and No 1072/2009;

Ricardo et al, 2016, Support study for an evaluation of the social legislation in road transport and its enforcement.

118 FR, IT, DE and the UK

119 RO, DK, IE, SK, PT, FI, HU, BG, SI, LU, LT, EE, LV, CY and MT.

120 due to the rise in home deliveries and developments in urban freight logistics (ETSC, 2014)

Some countries decided to regulate this matter at their national territories. For instance Germany applies the national rules on driving and resting times, also to vehicles between 2,8 and 3,5 tonnes. Austria applies even more stringent requirements regarding driving times to van drivers than HGV, namely maximum 8 hours per day instead of 9 hours. In fact, levels of fatigue as a whole are similar for LGV and HGV drivers, despite the fact that EU drivers’ hours rules apply to HGVs and are enforced by tachographs whereas only domestic hours rules apply to vans with less stringent enforcement (due to the absence of tachographs on vans). The data also suggests that for drivers of vans it is common for the fatigue to have

occurred without exceeding the regulated hours limits 121 – meaning that it is not necessarily

excessive driving and working times that are the most important underlying causes of fatigue. Rather, the more important root cause of the fatigue of van drivers seems more clearly linked with the demands of the job such as the pressures of keeping to schedules, increasing traffic,

and a higher proportion of drivers’ working time taken up by non-driving activities. 122

Furthermore, a possible measure would require the purchase and installation of tachographs, tachographs cards, relevant software, workshop card and would represent an excessive regulatory cost to small enterprises, which constitute 90% of the road transport sector. In addition there would be also administrative and compliance costs for such operators. The imposition of such costs to microenterprises would be against the REFIT objectives.

There also does not seem to be much support from side of the Member States. Based on the position papers received by the Commission in 2015 on the Road initiatives, only 4 Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany) were in favour of including LGV into the scope, whereas 12 Member States (UK, ES, HR, EE, FI, NL, IE, RO, PL, HU, SK, CZ) raised concerns on including these vehicles.

It should also be noted that the issue of LGV is already addressed in the access to market

initiative 123 in measures 30 and 31 which envisage extending the criteria on access to the

profession as stipulated in Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i and the requirement for a Community licence and driver attestation and the cabotage restrictions to LGV. The market initiative also proposes the collection of data, among other issues, on the prevalence of LGV in national and international transport, which would allow the Commission to get a better idea on whether to reconsider the scope of the Regulation or not. This impact assessment will therefore not assess the possible inclusion of LGV.

Self-employed drivers

Directive 2002/15/EC i on working time for persons performing mobile road transport activities also includes self-employed drivers. The Directive obliged the Commission to present a report to the Council and the European Parliament which would analyse the consequences of the exclusion of the self-employed drivers from the scope of the Directive in

121 Danklefsen, 2009

122 ETSC, 2014

123 Revision of Reg. 1071/2009 on access to the occupation of road transport operator and of Reg. 1072/2009

on access to the international road transport market

respect to road safety, conditions of competition, the structure of the profession as well as

social aspects. The study 124 concluded that it would be advantageous to exclude selfemployed

drivers from the scope of the Directive. The Commission has tabled a proposal in

2008 125 and which found endorsement in the Council but was rejected twice by the European

Parliament.

In the meantime, several Member States raised concerns as regards the inclusion of selfemployed

 drivers in the scope of the rules 126 because it creates unnecessary administrative

burden and since Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i provides already adequate rules for selfemployed drivers and it is difficult to enforce. In some countries, like Finland for example, controlling self-employed drivers at their premises, which are at their private homes, is against the constitution (sanctity of home) or other measures on protection of fundamental rights of citizens. Belgium stated that in practice it is nearly impossible to control the application of the rules as it is undesirable to disturb the rest of the self-employed drivers with the controls. Additional difficulties when inspecting self-employed drivers were indicated by Bulgaria, which referred to an issue of selecting drivers for a control as there is no official list indicating the number or location of self-employed drivers. According to Bulgarian law self-employed drivers are not falling within the scope of the obligation to keep record of working times and working arrangements available for inspection at their business premises and to designate the person who is given the task of presenting these records on demand by the Labour Inspectorate. In addition, binding instructions cannot be issued by the Bulgarian Labour Inspectorate to the self-employed-drivers.

Nevertheless, since the proposal to exclude self-employed drivers was rejected twice by the European Parliament, the Commission will not look into this issue in this impact assessment.

Whereas the majority of SMEs consulted within SME Panel Review – 64% (42 out of 66) indicated that self-employed drivers should be included and have the same requirements, compared to only 8 who thought that such requirements should not apply.

In contrast, there does not seem to be too much support in the OPC. 19 % (219 out of 1139) of the respondent to the non-specialised questionnaire consider that exclusion of selfemployed drivers from the working time Directive would be significant in improving the functioning of the social rules, whereas 43% (485 out of 1139) would see no contribution at all. Similar results could be seen in the specialised questionnaire, with 28% (41 out of 148) consider it to be a major contribution, whereas 41% (60 respondents) would not expect any

contribution. 127

124 COM (2007) 266 final i of 23.05.2007

125 COM(2008) 650 final i

126 Commission report 2013-2014

127 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-social-legislation-road-specialised-summary.pdf Establishment of a European Road Agency

A European Road Agency would need to be established by a Regulation under co-decision. It would need to be preceded by a full-fledged impact assessment detailing which tasks such an agency would undertake and which added value it would have. Moreover, this would need to be supported by a calculation of costs due to the financial implications on the EU budget. Given that such an assessment would go beyond the current revision of the existing road transport legislation, it is excluded from the assessment in the Road Initiatives.

The Road Initiatives have a strong focus on enforcement, which has been identified as one of the main issues by stakeholders. As described in the present Impact Assessment, it is envisaged to better exploit existing enforcement tools and data systems such as tachograph, ERRU, Risk Rating System, and to improve cooperation between host and home Member States in terms of exchange of information. Better cooperation between Member States can also be achieved via participation of Member States in already existing enforcement network organisations, i.e. Euro Contrôle Route (ECR) – the network of European Transport Inspection Services – and the Confederation of Organisations in Road Transport Enforcement (CORTE).

The focus of the Road Initiatives on improving existing enforcement measures is expected to bring benefit in short and mid-term, which would not be the case for a European Road Agency, which – following a separate Impact Assessment and legislative procedure – would need to obtain funding and to recruit staff. As such, the process of establishing a European Road Agency would require a relatively longer period, and would therefore not be able to address the acute problems faced by the road transport sector.

The Commission will closely monitor the effects of the proposed enforcement measures stemming from the Impact Assessment. Should these measures not achieve the expected results in terms of uniform application of the EU rules throughout EU and improved effectiveness and consistency of cross-border enforcement, the Commission may decide to launch a new legislative initiative, which could lead to the establishment of a European Road Agency.

Diverging national penalty systems

The national penalty systems is not harmonised by the social rules which means that they significantly differ between Member States in terms of types and levels of penalties imposed for the same infringements. For example, the level of fine for exceeding the maximum 6-day

or fortnightly driving time limits by 25% 128 (one of the most serious infringements), can cost

1400 € in Latvia or 30 000 € in France. In general, one can say that for most serious infringements, the range of national sanctions from 400€ and immobilisation of a vehicle (in Sweden) to a 30 000 € fine and one year imprisonment (in France). For very serious

128 A most serious infringement (according to classification of serious infringement established by Regulation

(EU) 2016/403), which triggers an administrative procedure by the competent authorities of the Member States in order to determine whether the undertaking should lose its good repute.

infringements, it can costs 210 € in Latvia, whereas it is 18 000 € in the Czech Republic. For serious infringements, drivers can get a warning in Romania or fine of 32 € in Hungary and or 2 000 € in Slovenia or 3 500 € in UK. These discrepancies are not necessarily justified by socioeconomic differences between the Member States. These differences in the types and levels of the sanctions lead to higher administrative burden for operators as they have to deal with different national requirements of the penalty systems. Furthermore, it also disadvantages those, who operate mainly in markets where penalties are higher or where different interpretation of what constitutes an infringement is applied.

The OPC also showed that only 42% of the respondents (63 out of 150) in the specialised survey consider that the different levels and types of penalties for infringements constitute one of the biggest obstacles for the effectiveness of the social legislation.

The Commission has established a common classification of seriousness of infringements in 2009, enhanced in 2016 and which will be further extended through the revision of the Regulation on access to occupation. This aims at indirectly aligning to certain extent the level

of sanctions, which must be proportionate to the seriousness of infringement. A study 129 on

harmonisation of sanctions clearly illustrated that there is a lack of common denominator in order to create a common level of penalty system. The harmonisation of the different system would require burdensome intervention in the national penalty systems. In addition, harmonising penalty systems would also risk the jeopardizing the subsidiarity principle. This impact assessment will therefore not assess the objective to harmonise the penalty system.

Difficulties to control co-liability for infringements

The principle of co-liability for infringements against the provisions of the Regulation is stipulated in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i and applies, in theory, to all actors in a transport operation chain (consignors, freight forwarders, tour operators, principal contractors and subcontractors, employment agencies) and not only to drivers and operators. The provision is, however, not sufficiently enforced or difficult to apply according to the

survey of enforcement authorities (9 130 out of 22) and trade unions (11 out of 14) and in line

with the opinion of 36 % (49 out of 138) of institutional respondents to the open public

consultation 131 (national authorities, enforcement bodies, industry associations and trade

unions).

The variation in implementation of this principle by Member States leads to situations where the same facts could make different parties being held liable depending on the Member State. Difficulties in enforcement are typically due to the challenges of identifying who is really responsible for any infringements detected, especially in cases of extensive subcontracting chains. In effect, it is typically a driver who is penalised. According to the results of the ex

129 Study on sanctions in the field of commercial road transport, February 2013,

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/studies/road_en

130 Enforcers from NL, DE, FI, FR, BE

131 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-social-legislation-road-specialised-summary.pdf post evaluation, other parties in the transport chain are never held liable in the Netherlands, Cyprus, Croatia, the UK, Sweden, Belgium or very rarely (less than 1%) in Finland and Poland. At the same time, the fact that parties in the transport chain are not held sufficiently liable for infringements has been identified by enforcers as being one of the three major factors contributing to non-compliance with the social legislation.

The transport undertakings survey confirmed these different implementations on the ground. About 50% of responding undertakings (599 of 1198) stated that they have never been held liable for an infringement that was detected during a roadside check; 35% (419 of 1198) that they have been sometimes held responsible for such infringements. In Sweden, 70% (403 of 577) stated that they have never been held responsible; in Italy this percentage drops to 35% (3 of 7). Looking at transport undertakings that solely engage in international transport (104 respondents), approximately an equal amount responded that they have either never been held responsible or sometimes. Less than 5% (5 out of 104) state they have always been held responsible for such infringements.

The solution to this problem would be to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of coliable parties (drivers, operators, consignors, freight forwarders, tour operators, subcontractors, employments agencies). However, translating such an objective into clear and enforceable legal obligations might prove difficult. As a basic principle of law, the legal responsibility of a person or a company cannot be presumed, it must be based on evidence.

Furthermore, enforcement capacity tends also to decrease in Member States, therefore adding this issue to the lists of aspects to be investigated would increase enforcement costs which would go against the REFIT objectives.

 This impact assessment is therefore not looking at this issue.

Insufficient/inconsistent training for control officers

The inconsistent or ineffective enforcement of the current rules is also linked with diverging or insufficient initial and continuous training for control officers. Poor cooperation between Member States with regard to joint training programmes and exchange of good practices in

enforcement is also a factor. The common training curriculum established within TRACE 132

project has not been taken up by all Member States. Responses to the survey carried out within ex-post evaluation study showed that out of 25 responding national enforcement

authorities, eight authorities 133 had partially taken up TRACE training curriculum, eight 134 had completely taken up TRACE, three 135 did not take it up and six 136 respondents did not

know.

132 TRACE stands for Transport Regulators Align Control Enforcement – project co-funded by the Commission;

developed a harmonised training format for enforcers.

133 National enforcement authorities from BE, CY, DE, GR, HU, PL, SE, SI

134 National enforcement authorities from CZ, LT, LU, LV, NL, NO, RO, SI

135 National enforcement authorities from BE, CH, HU

136 From national enforcement authorities from CR, EE, FI, LU, SI, SK

Article 39 (3) of the Tachograph Regulation already requires the Commission to adopt an implementing Act on the content of training for enforcers and guidelines for application of the Regulation (No) 561/2006 i and Regulation (No) 165/2014 i. The Commission will therefore adopt measures which establish content for initial and continuous training for control officers. This impact assessment is therefore not going to look into this issue.

Annex 6

S CREENING OF DISCARDED POLICY MEASURES

A number of policy measures were proposed by some stakeholders, yet contested by other stakeholders and in some cases contradicted by evidence provided. Some others were beyond the remit of the legislative acts subject to this revision or even beyond the mandate of the Commission. They were therefore excluded from further assessment. These measures include the following:

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality feasibility efficiency feasibility

  • 1. 
    Performance Clarify rules / test procedures for Not clear how the No clear how such No clear how further No problem No problem based pay performance-based payment that current definition of test procedures clarification of such foreseen foreseen

    would endanger road safety, i.e. such payment would be payment systems that specify what constitutes a systems can be implemented endanger road safety performance-based remuneration that clarified further. can benefit the current endangers road safety social legislation.

  • 2. 
    Enforcement increasing the minimum number of no specific problem lack of resources Considered too costly possibly not no specific concerted checks from 6 to 10 per foreseen may make it very for authorities since supported problem

    year difficult to they consistently do by many foreseen implement not meet current Member

    thresholds States in view of the fact that available resources are limited

  • 3. 
    Enforcement Exclude self-employed and define Possibly improve No problem No major impact Politically No problem better the mobile worker, selfenforcement of foreseen expected on the not feasible foreseen

    employed and false self-employed Working Time improved effectiveness in a context driver Directive of the social with socia legislation. rules high in the agenda. Already rejected twice in the past. Please see Annex 6 for more details.

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality feasibility efficiency feasibility

  • 4. 
    Enforcement Establish mandatory initial training of Possibly in conflict No scope for No problem foreseen No problem No problem enforcers based on TRACE with regulation (EU) social rules to foreseen foreseen

    No 165/2014 regulate training of enforcers when it is already

    addressed by tachograph rules.

  • 5. 
    Enforcement Standardising the format of Possible conflict with No need to No problem foreseen No problem No problem information exchange regarding standardisation introduce an foreseen foreseen

    detected infringements filed against system implemented additional an undertaking of another Member by ERRU. standardisation State system already regulated by ERRU

  • 6. 
    Enforcement Increase the number of joint trainings Out of scope of this Possible issues of No problem foreseen No problem No problem (if there is no mandatory harmonised legal revision. practical foreseen foreseen

    training) to 2 or 4 per year Training of enforcers implementation is already addressed

    by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 i

  • 7. 
    Clarification Incorporate most relevant provisions Issues of coherence Would require a Possibly help simplify No problem Could be seen of the Working Time Directive between Regulation very broad and clarify rules - foreseen as

2002/15/EC into Regulation 561/2006 i and revision and may However no significant disproportionate

561/2006/EC Directive 2002/15/EC i be complicated impact since it will

may arise require a broad

revision

  • 8. 
    Clarification Retain separate legislation, but ensure No problem foreseen No problem No considered having No problem Could be seen

coherence by clarifying the scope and foreseen a significant impact foreseen as

legal terms to be consistent and would require disproportionate

significant change to since it will

legal framework and require a broad

costs revision

  • 9. 
    Clarification Merge Article 3 and 13 of Reg. Not feasible as the No problem No expected impact on No problem Could be seen

561/2006 to make it easier to identify revision of foreseen the effectiveness of foreseen as

exemptions to the Regulation derogation/exceptions the social rules; disproportionate

applicable in different MS is out of scope of the significant costs for since it will

revision of social any changes for limited require a broad

rules. impact revision

  • 10. 
    Posting of Exempt road transport from the PWD. Possibly against No problem against the objectives No support No problem

Workers treaty obligations foreseen of the initiative of from a foreseen

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

combating unfair number of

business and Member

employment practices States

MS will still be able to

introduce own

requirements on

minimum wage unless

explicitly forbidden

  • 11. 
    Tachograph earlier introduction of smart No in scope of this No problem No problem foreseen May not be No problem

tachographs Regulation and as is foreseen supported foreseen

addressed in the by all

Tachograph Member

Reguulation. States, but

demanded

by several

stakeholders

and some

Member

States.

Commission

would need

to assess

the impact

and costs

first in a

dedicated

study.

  • 12. 
    Sanctions Adoption of common classification of No problem foreseen No problem No added value since No problem No problem

infringements not related to safety foreseen it will be to be done via foreseen foreseen

revision of Regulation

1071

  • 13. 
    Sanctions Adoption of common level of penalties May require No problems More certainty for Some May be

significant changes to foreseen hauliers and more opposition considered

national legislation consistent framework could be disproportionate

to dissuade expected and infringe

infringement of the from MS subsidiarity

rules that wish to

retain their

existing

classification

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

  • 14. 
    Scope LCVs fully/partly covered or excluded No problems Possible issues of Possible rise in No support Too little

from legislation foreseen practical compliance costs from a evidence to

implementation which may not be number of justify a scope

beneficial for Member in te social

operators. States legislation for

LGVs see more

in Annex 6

  • 15. 
    Clarification clarifications of applying existing rules No problem foreseen No problem No need for legal No problem Action at EU

in certain situations foreseen action for such aspects foreseen may be

  • 1. 
    Creation of an online platform - Costs of revision considered

where Member States can post disproportionate to disproportionate

information relating to applicable benefits

national rules, legal interpretations,

national enforcement practices,

documentation and any other

requirements.

  • 2. 
    Clarification of the following

concepts: - digital tachograph rules, -

weekly rest in the cabin, - recording

other work, - recording periods away

from vehicle, - availability periods, -

ferry rule.

  • 3. 
    The calculation of frequent breaks,
  • extended daily driving times (and the

question if an extended daily driving

falls in two weeks, for which week this

extended daily driving should be

accounted), - situation in the first hour

of driving in the case of multi-manning,

  • the definition of journey.
  • 4. 
    Clearer differentiation of

infringements.

  • 16. 
    Suitable Allow drivers to inform enforcement No legal certainty Possible issues of Does not address an No problem No problem

stopping space officers orally at the beginning of a practical important issue - foreseen foreseen

roadside check in case they are implementation overall effectiveness is

currently ‘in search’ for a suitable expected to be limited

stopping place and could not make

any indications on the print out/ record

sheet yet.

  • 17. 
    Weekly rest A driver engaged in international No problem foreseen Expected to be Negative in terms of No problem No problem

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

goods transport operation could complex to protecting working foreseen foreseen

postpone his weekly rest period up to implement/monitor conditions and road

nine periods of 24 hours after the end safety

of the previous weekly rest period,

provided that:

 International transport

operations should include at least 24

consecutive hours in a Member State

that is not the country where the

undertaking is established.   Once the exception

granted, the driver should take a regular weekly rest period within the Member State where the undertaking is established.  c) The regular weekly rest period provided in paragraph b) should be increased by one hour for each period of three hours (or fraction) exceeded by the driver in the six 24hour period after the end of the previous weekly rest period.

  • 18. 
    Weekly rest A driver engaged in an occasional Out of scope of the Difficult to check Limited impact on No problem No problem service of carriage of passengers revision of the social on the road since improving foreseen foreseen

    may postpone the weekly rest period rules it includes effectiveness of social for up to 12 consecutive 24-hour reference period rules. periods following a previous regular of over 4 weeks weekly rest period, provided that:  the driver takes after the use of the derogation at least one regular weekly rest period. However, the reduction shall be compensated by an equivalent period of rest taken en bloc before the end of the thirteenth week following the end of the derogation period;   the vehicle is equipped with

    recording equipment in accordance with the requirements of Annex IC to Regulation (EEC) No 165/2014 i ;

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality feasibility efficiency feasibility

The first hour of the first day and the last hour of the last day in the journey it is allowed that only one driver is on board. This shall be understood as a double manned transport anyhow.

  • 19. 
    Weekly rest A driver engaged in an occasional Out of scope of the Difficult to check Limited impact on No problem No problem service of carriage of passengers revision of the social on the road since improving foreseen foreseen

    (or occasional coach tour service) rules it includes effectiveness of social may derogate from the weekly rest reference period rules. provision in the case of the 12 day of over 4 weeks derogation provided that s/he does not work for more than 12 consecutive daily driving periods between weekly rests and takes a full weekly rest immediately before and after making use of the 12-day derogation. The 12- day derogation is extended to domestic coach tour services with a duration of more than six days. This extension is accompanied by the abolition of the single trip limitation.

  • 20. 
    Weekly rest Driver engaged in a single No problem foreseen Difficult to check Limited impact on No problem No problem occasional service of international at roadside improving foreseen foreseen

    carriage of passengers may effectiveness of social postpone the weekly rest period for up rules. to 12 consecutive days following a previous regular weekly rest period, provided that: (a) a single occasional service of transport is provided; (b) after the single service, the driver takes one calendar day off; (c) after 60 calendar days, the driver shall take a rest of at least 7 calendar days. The driver shall take this rest at the address of normal residence.

  • 21. 
    Daily rest / By way of derogation, in case of a No problem foreseen No problem Reducing daily rest to Probably not No problem driving times driver engaged in an occasional foreseen 8 hours would not acceptable foreseen

    service of carriage of passengers improve the overall from some reduced daily rest period means any effectiveness of the stakeholders

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality feasibility efficiency feasibility

period of rest of at least 8 hours but social rules less than 11 hours

  • 22. 
    Daily rest / Allow greater flexibility of the rest No problem foreseen Difficult to enforce Alternative proposal for No problem No problem driving times period, including taking the bigger more flexibility in foreseen foreseen

    break first, or three smaller breaks. taking breaks considered more effective (e.g. a break of minimum 45 min may be split into utmost 3 parts, each of minimum 15 minutes)

  • 23. 
    Daily rest / Clarify that after a daily rest a new Out of scope of the No problem No problem foreseen No problem No problem driving times daily driving time starts, even if the revision of the social foreseen foreseen foreseen

    period of 24 hours hasn’t been rules - already reached. (For example: when you addressed by have reached your daily rest after 20 guidelines hours, you can start a new driving time).

  • 24. 
    Breaks / driving For passenger transport: Define total No problem foreseen No problem Not effective in terms Probably not Potentially time period for considering driving/break foreseen of protecting road acceptable disproportionate time on an annual basis to allow to safety/driver's fatigue from some - providing too balance periods of high demand with which is a daily stakeholders much flexibility low demand concern and cannot be for the issue averaged over the under

    period of 1 year. consideration 25. Breaks / driving Single definition of daily driving time to No problem foreseen No problem Possibly help simplify Probably not No problem

time 10 hours (without exceptions) foreseen rules - However acceptable foreseen

against safety/working from some

condition objectives stakeholders

  • 26. 
    Multi-manning 3 hours available at either end of the No problem foreseen No problem Endangers road safety Probably not No problem

journey where multi-manning is not foreseen too much at the end of acceptable foreseen

compulsory. the trip from some

stakeholders

  • 27. 
    Multi-manning 2 hours available at either end of the No problem foreseen No problem Endangers road safety Probably not No problem

journey where multi-manning is not foreseen too much at the end of acceptable foreseen

compulsory. the trip from some

stakeholders

  • 28. 
    Clarification Codification of issues dealt with by the No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

EC guidance and clarification notes in foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

legislation

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

  • 29. 
    Enforcement / With regard to the provisions No problem foreseen No problem No problem foreseen Probably not No problem

Clarification concerning checks of 28 days and the foreseen acceptable foreseen

current day, a clarification could be to from some

make it clear in 2006/22 that the stakeholders

enforcement officer has to check that

the driver has all the data with them,

but can decide themselves how many

of these days are to be checked at

each check.

  • 30. 
    Scope / Daily and weekly rest No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

Derogation exemptions/derogations for delivery of foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

domestic heating fuel

  • 31. 
    Enforcement Mandatory training on social Not in scope of No problem Covered in other Support is No problem

legislation for drivers, intermediaries legislation foreseen legislation - limited unclear foreseen

and transport managers contribution - possibly

costly

  • 32. 
    Enforcement Bring forward GNSS by making it Possible conflict with No problem Significant additional Already Could be seen

mandatory tachograph regulation foreseen costs to hauliers discarded in as

the disproportionate

tachograph

regulation IA

  • 33. 
    Rest/Breaks / Greater flexibility for combined No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Maybe costly to May not be No problem

Derogation transport specifically enforce enforce separately supported foreseen

by some

stakeholders

  • 34. 
    PwD Criteria for posting situation in road No problem foreseen Possible May reduce Not No problem

transport has to separate international difficulties to effectiveness of acceptable foreseen

transportation (going to deliver/take separate activities measure to exclude

cargo) from posting a driver to work as certain types

a driver to another company of

established in another Member State. international

transport

  • 35. 
    Enforcement Introduction of training provisions for No problem foreseen No problem Covered in other No problem No problem

enforcement officers, similar to those foreseen measure related to foreseen foreseen

in Regulation (EC) No 165/2014 i training

  • 36. 
    Enforcement Whistle blower report system No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

  • 37. 
    Enforcement Increase number of checks on No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

premises (but don’t reduce number of foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

roadside checks);

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

Ensure increased enforcement at

premises (also for scheduled / line bus

trips)

  • 38. 
    Enforcement Company visits must be made through No problem foreseen No problem too costly National Probably

physical visits to at least 25% of all foreseen authorities excessive - it is

businesses controls will probably up to authorities

not support to establish

it appropriate

level

  • 39. 
    Enforcement Adapt list of most serious No problem foreseen No problem Covered in other No problem No problem

infringements to include infringements foreseen legislation foreseen foreseen

to payment regimes

  • 40. 
    Enforcement / Make Clarification note 7 (on forms of No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

Attestations attestations) binding foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

  • 41. 
    Enforcement / Abolish the form of attestation for No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

Attestations occasional international traffic foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

  • 42. 
    Attestation Abolish attestation forms only when/if No problem foreseen No problem Limited effectiveness No problem No problem

forms all LCVs are required to be equipped foreseen since it is only relevant foreseen foreseen

with a digital tachograph for Germany

  • 43. 
    Recording of Allow for ‘break room’ tacho to No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

activities facilitate/avoid retrospective recording foreseen other measure foreseen foreseen

of activities and/or make driver card (abolishing attestation

compatible with other working time forms)

systems

  • 44. 
    Recording of Simplify recording activities for No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

activities companies that only rarely fall into the foreseen other measure foreseen foreseen

scope of the Regulation --> e.g. (abolishing attestation

drivers that only carry out in-scope forms)

activities for 10-20 times a year could

register those on an official form that

the company has obtained beforehand

and that is valid for a certain number

of trips

  • 45. 
    Recording of Reduce requirements on retrospective No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

activities recording foreseen other measure foreseen foreseen

(abolishing attestation

forms)

  • 46. 
    PoA / Abolish the term availability as it is No problem foreseen Practical issues Limited effectiveness May not be Disproportionate

Recording of now obsolete.; Don't make a since availability since problem limited support by since problem is

activities distinction between 'other work' and periods are to few Member States trade unions not EU wide

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

'periods of availability' to ease remunerated

retrospective recording different in

different MS

  • 47. 
    Breaks Allow the split of breaks into 3x15min No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

from the second block of driving foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

time in a 24h period onwards;

  • 48. 
    Daily rest Change the rest time to 10 hours with No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Possible negative Probably not No problem

two breaks of 30 minutes that we can control impact on road safety acceptable foreseen

put where we want within the 10 hours from some

so we can adapt to the customer's stakeholders

needs without limiting rest time

  • 49. 
    Scope / Change the definition of scheduled No problem foreseen No problem Limited effectiveness not Disproportionate

Derogations bus services to a radius of 100km foreseen since problem limited expected to since problem is

to few Member States be not EU wide

supported

  • 50. 
    Scope / Derogation/Exemption for national No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Limited effectiveness not Disproportionate

Derogations occasional transport for 50km radius control since problem limited expected to since problem is

around base to few Member States be not EU wide

supported

  • 51. 
    Scope / Exclusion of transport of concrete over No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Limited effectiveness not Disproportionate

Derogations small distances control since problem limited expected to since problem is

to few Member States be not EU wide

supported

  • 52. 
    Scope / Exclude craftsmen from scope of Legal since Possibly difficult to Costly to implement not No problem

Derogations legislation Regulation's scope is implement/control with limited impact expected to foreseen

on the basis of the be

vehicle not the driver supported

  • 53. 
    Scope / Introduce a derogation for those who No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Costly to implement not No problem

Derogation move vehicles within a radius of 50 km control with limited impact expected to foreseen

for the purposes of repair, be

maintenance, inspection, etc. when supported

the driver's main job is not performing

road transport operations.

  • 54. 
    Scope / Increase radius for No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Costly to implement not No problem

Derogations derogations/exceptions from 100 to control with limited impact expected to foreseen

150km; be

supported

  • 55. 
    Coherence Avoid/Don’t allow for any national No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Already covered in not No problem

across MS level differences/specifications of the control other measures expected to foreseen

rules be

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

supported

  • 56. 
    Weekly rest / Fix a maximum period spent outside No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

away from the home foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

home

  • 57. 
    Weekly rest / Abolish the 24h requirement of being No problem foreseen No problem Already covered in No problem No problem

12 day abroad for the 12-day rule; foreseen other measures foreseen foreseen

derogation Apply 12-day rule to domestic

operations

  • 58. 
    Weekly rest / Abolish compensation for reduced Extension of 12 days No problem Limited impact on No problem No problem

12 day weekly rest periods and review the derogation to fraight foreseen improving foreseen foreseen

derogation possibility of introducing the 12-day transport is out of effectiveness of social

rule domestically and also for the scope of the revision rules.

carriage of goods of the social

legislation

  • 59. 
    Weekly rest Weekly rest in bus no problem No problem foreseen No problem Introducing different Probably not No problem

foreseen rest requirement will acceptable foreseen

not increase from some

effectiveness/efficiency stakeholders

  • 60. 
    Weekly rest Ensure that there are sufficient/high Not in scope of social No problem No problem foreseen No problem No problem

quality rest places and trucks are leg. foreseen foreseen foreseen

sufficiently equipped to spend night in

the vehicle

  • 61. 
    Liability Hold organisers of trips liable, not only Requires changes to No problem No problem foreseen Interference Interferes with

drivers and the undertakings; internal market foreseen with MS- national

legislation level competence

competence

Extend the access to profession Not in scope of social No problem No problem foreseen Interference No problem

criteria to all actors in the supply chain leg. foreseen with MS- foreseen

would improve the co-liability with level

regard to infringements of rules. competence

Shippers and freight forwarders' roles

should be included.

  • 62. 
    Software Harmonise software - i.e. certify Not in scope of social Possibly Possible impact on No problem No problem

companies that supply leg. complicated increase of foreseen foreseen

equipment/software (replacing enforcement cost

equipment at company/enforcement

level would be too costly now)

  • 63. 
    Other Allow self-employment also in No problem foreseen No problem Limited effectiveness No problem May be

passenger transport segment foreseen since it is not EU wide foreseen considered

problem disproportionate

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

given that it not

EU wide issue

  • 64. 
    Scope / Extend the scope of the existing No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to No problem foreseen not No problem

derogations Article 13.1(d): control expected to foreseen

all delivery operators shall be be

considered exempted from Regulation supported

561/2006/EC if they operate vehicles

below 7.5t, stay within a 100 km

radius with their vehicle and the

driver’s main activity does not

constitute driving.

  • 65. 
    Scope / Individual exceptions for member No problem foreseen No problem Limited effectiveness not Disproportionate

derogations states according to Art. 13 Reg.(EC) foreseen since it is not EU wide expected to since problem is

561/2006 should be limited to problem be not EU wide

exceptional circumstances only. supported

  • 66. 
    Enforcement There should be a general tolerance No problem foreseen Possibly difficult to Danger that tolerance No problem No problem

for all time limits of 15 min. control limits will become a foreseen foreseen

rule

  • 67. 
    Breaks Driving breaks (Art. 7 Reg.(EC) No problem foreseen No problem No effectiveness as No problem No problem

561/2006): even more flexibility foreseen already covered foreseen foreseen

needed (e.g. splitting into parts of at

least 10 minutes; it should be allowed

that breaks may be executed within a

period of 9 hours instead of 4.5 hours)

  • 68. 
    Suitable Suitable stopping place (Art 12 Not in line with social No problem Possibly against road No problem No problem

stopping place Reg.(EC) 561/2006): clarification that rules regarding road foreseen safety objectives foreseen foreseen

for passenger transports at the end of safety

each day the suitable stopping place

is the final destination of that day.

  • 69. 
    Weekly rest Weekend breaks (Art. 4 lit. h Reg.(EC) No problem foreseen No problem No effectiveness as No problem No problem

561/2006): clarification that the foreseen already covered in foreseen foreseen

reduced weekly rest period may be weekly rest proposal

compensated within 4 weeks.

  • 70. 
    Enforcement / No penalty shall be meted out for potential conflict with Possibly No problem foreseen Interference May be

Penalties / infringements that have taken place as national legislation complicated with MS- considered

Tolerance a consequence of unexpected level disproportionate

occurrences that resulted in competence and infringe

disruptions and delays. It is not subsidiarity

reasonable to apply penalty if the

company can provide a reasonable

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

explanation for the infringement.

  • 71. 
    Enforcement / No penalty shall be made for short potential conflict with Possibly No problem foreseen Interference May be

Penalties / movements of buses without a card national legislation complicated with MS- considered

Tolerance inserted in the tachograph, e.g. in level disproportionate

connection with washing and cleaning competence and infringe

or marshalling of the vehicles. subsidiarity

  • 72. 
    Enforcement / The penalty for omission on the part of potential conflict with Possibly No problem foreseen Interference May be

Penalties / the driver to register the start and national legislation complicated with MS- considered

Tolerance destination country should be made level disproportionate

less severe. competence and infringe

subsidiarity

  • 73. 
    Weekly rest Prolong reference periods for the No problem foreseen No problem No effectiveness as No problem No problem

compensation of weekly rest period foreseen already covered foreseen foreseen

  • 74. 
    Clarification Provide clarification that duplicate No problem foreseen No problem No effectiveness as No problem No problem

punishment for one and the same foreseen already covered foreseen foreseen

violation is forbidden

  • 75. 
    Clarification Clarification as to what applies when a No problem foreseen No problem No problem foreseen No problem Not considered

vehicle is moved by car ferry or foreseen foreseen significant issue

stevedore personnel within a harbour to require

area (i.e. not by the driver, but by regulatory

other personnel  the tachograph still intervention

registers these movements)

  • 76. 
    Enforcement Require a national inspection authority potential conflict with Possibly No problem foreseen Interference May be

to conduct a survey before a penalty is national legislation complicated with MS- considered

imposed (a ‘priority 1 measure’ for level disproportionate

them) competence and infringe

subsidiarity

  • 77. 
    Enforcement EC Regulations should be developed No problem foreseen No problem No effectiveness as No problem No problem

and clarified with respect to foreseen already covered foreseen foreseen

proportionality of fines, to avoid nonproportionate

sanctioning

  • 78. 
    WTD Working time rules that are not in No problem foreseen No problem No effectiveness as No support No problem

contradiction with driving time's breaks foreseen already covered for such foreseen

and rest periods should be integrated measures in

into Regulation (EC) n°561/2006; earlier

those in contradiction and that are not rounds

useful should not be kept.

  • 79. 
    Multi-manning / The definition of availability should be No problem foreseen Practical issues Covered by another May not be No problem

breaks / changed to indicate that the concept since availability measure support by foreseen

availability only exists in relation to a second periods are trade unions

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

driver (multi-manning). In case of remunerated

multi-manning, availability would then different in

be considered as a break. different MS

  • 80. 
    Recording of Article 34 (5. point (iv) of Regulation Not in scope of the Possibly Expected to be more No problem Not considered

activities (EC) 165/2016, the reference to revision of the social complicated cost-effectively foreseen significant issue

(retrospectively) “breaks or rests” should be changed to legislation as addressed through to require

  • form of "breaks or daily rests' because the addressed already by guidelines regulatory

attestation tachograph should only be used for guidelines. intervention

days when driving is performed. This

would be in line with Article 15 point 3

(d) of Regulation (EC) 3821: 'breaks

and daily rest'.

  • 81. 
    Other Work Delete reference to the Working Time The proposed

Directive in the definition of other work measure remains

of Regulation (EC) 561/2006 i and unclear to the

include a reference to situations in Commission.

which the driver is engaged for the

purpose of being able to operate as a

driver (such as a training - i.e. on the

request of the driver's employer or

not).

  • 82. 
    Multi manning Availability in multi-manning should be It would not reflect the It may be difficult It would not reflect the May not be No problem

considered as a break social rules provisions to enforce social rules provisions seen foreseen

on occupational on occupational health acceptable

health and safety and safety by trade

unions

  • 83. 
    Ferry crossings Everything under one hour on board a Out of scope of the No problem Limited impact on No problem Not consider

ferry should be considered part of a revision of the social foreseen improving the foreseen. significant issue

break. legislation effectiveness of social to require

Anything over one hour on board a rules regulatory

ferry can be a part of an interrupted intervention

daily rest.

  • 84. 
    Unforeseen Further flexibility should also be No problem foreseen It may be difficult Limited effectiveness No problem No problem

circumstances provided in situations of unforeseen to enforce since already covered foreseen foreseen

delays, as long as this did not in Article 12 / Rather to

compromise safety. Greater flexibility include in enforcement

to ensure drivers can complete the guidelines

journey, by diminishing limits, such as

the ability to drive for no more than 15

further miles or 30 further minutes

No Theme Proposed measure Legal feasibility Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality

feasibility efficiency feasibility

where it can be demonstrated that an

unforeseen event had caused the

driver to “run out of hours”.

  • 85. 
    Unforeseen Improve article 14, by clarifying what No problem foreseen No problem Limited effectiveness No problem Not considered

circumstances the term ‘unforeseeable foreseen since already covered foreseen significant issue

circumstances’ means and can in Article 12 / Rather to to require

include. By clarifying the current include in enforcement regulatory

Regulation, drivers that, for example guidelines intervention at

are stuck in traffic, could claim the EU level

time spent in traffic as ‘break’ or

‘emergency’, and therefore allow for

some flexibility on their working

schedule.

  • 86. 
    Precision to <3.5 tonnes vehicles should be It is out of scope of It may be difficult Limited impact on No problem No problem

possible included but should not have to the revision of the to enforce improving the foreseen foreseen

expansion to comply to the same rules as bigger social legislation effectiveness of social

LCVs vehicles. For example, instead of rules according to

asking all <3.5 vehicles to install and OPC results it is not a

use a tachograph, which would be major issues across

quite demanding, especially for small MS

operators (SMEs), these vehicles

could for example use the log book.

  • 87. 
    Enforcement Set concrete minimum requirements No problem foreseen No problem Limited effectiveness No problem No problem

and specific thresholds for the MSs to foreseen since already covered foreseen foreseen

follow and cooperate. For example, in another policy

more specific requirements should be measure.

introduced on the use of ERRU

among the MSs states to improve

cooperation and exchange of

information.

ANNEX 7

T HE R OAD I NITIATIVES T HE B IG P ICTURE

INTRODUCTION

The Road Initiatives, which are all REFIT Initiatives, are fully inscribed in the overall priorities of the Juncker Commission notably under the 'A deeper and fairer Internal Market' and the 'Climate and Energy Union'.

The Communications from the Commission on 'Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business' and on 'A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy

Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy' explicitly refer to the Road Initiatives.

The table below presents the link between the Juncker priorities, the Impact Assessments prepared for the Road Initiatives and the related legislative acts.

Priorities IAs Legislation

A deeper and Hired vehicles Directive 2006/1 i fairer Internal

Market Access to the haulage market Regulation 1071/2009 i & 1072/2009 and to the Profession

Social aspects: Driving/rest time, Regulation 561/2006 i and Regulation working time and enforcement 165/2014 measures (tachograph), Posting

of workers and enforcement Directive 96/71 i, Directive 2014/67 i, measures Directive 2002/15 i and Directive

2006/22

Access to the market of buses Regulation 1073/2009 i and coaches

Climate and Energy Union Eurovignette Directive 1999/62 i

European Electronic Toll Directive 2004/52 i Service (EETS) Commission decision 2009/750 i

Moreover, the transport strategy of the Commission as laid down in the White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system" adopted on 28 March 2011, included references to the road

initiatives 137 .

THE EU ROAD TRANSPORT MARKET

Road transport is the most prominent mode of transport. In 2014, almost three quarters (72%) of all inland freight transport activities in the EU were by road. On the passenger side, the relative importance of road as mode of transport is even greater: on land, road accounts for more than 90% of all passenger-kilometres: 83% for passenger cars and almost 9% for buses and coaches.

Almost half of the 10.6 million people employed in the transport and storage sector in the EU are active in carrying goods or passengers by road. Road freight transport services for hire and reward employs around 3 million people, while the road passenger transport sector

(buses, coaches and taxis) adds another 2 million employed persons (a third of which are taxi drivers). This corresponds to more than 2.2% of total employment in the economy and does not include own account transport which in road freight transport alone provides employment for 500,000 to 1 million additional people.

There are about 600,000 companies in the EU whose main business is the provision of road freight transport services for hire and reward. Every year, they generate a total turnover of roughly €300 billion, around a third of which is value added by the sector (the rest being spent on goods and services from other sectors of the economy). The provision of road freight transport services for hire and reward is hence an important economic sector in its own right, generating almost 1% of GDP.

In road passenger transport, there are about 50,000 (mostly) bus and coach operators (of which 12,000 provide urban and suburban services, (some including tram and underground)) and around 290,000 taxi companies in the EU. Together, they generate a turnover of €110 billion. Without taxis, total turnover of the sector is around €90 billion per year, of which some €50 billion is value added.

WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR ACTION?

Road transport is for a large part international (around 34% 138 ) and this share is increasing,

which explains the need for a common EU legal framework to ensure efficient, fair and sustainable road transport. The framework covers the following aspects:

Internal market rules governing access for operators to the markets of freight and passengers

Social rules on driving/rest time and working time to ensure road safety and respect of working conditions and fair competition

137 More specifically in the Annex under points 6, 11 and 39

138 Statistical Pocketbook 2016, EU Transport in figures

Rules implementing the user and polluter pays principles in the context of road charging

Digital technologies to enable interoperable tolling services in the EU and to enforcement EU rules (e.g. the tachograph)

It is clear that current rules are no longer fit for purpose. Member States are increasingly adopting own national rules to fight "social dumping" while acknowledging that their actions have adverse effects on the internal market. Moreover, public consultations have shown a strong support for EU action to solve current issues in road transport. For example:

Severe competition in the road transport sector has led many operators to establish in lowwage countries without necessarily having any business activity in these countries. There is a lack a clear criteria and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that such establishment practises are genuine, and that there is a level playing for operators.

Measures on Posting of Workers implemented in 4 Member States (DE, FR, AT and IT) are all different and obviously from other Member States which have not implemented any measure to implement the minimum wage to road transport on their territory. Stakeholders ask for a common set of (simplified) enforcement rules.

CO2 emissions from road transport represent a large share of total emission and the share is set to rise in the absence of common action (at EU 28 level), which is needed to contribute substantially to the commitment under the Paris Agreement and to the 2030 goals.

Due to the increasingly more and more hyper-mobile nature of the sector, there is a need for common and enforceable rules for workers. All workers should benefit from the same level of protection in all Member States to avoid social dumping and unfair competition between hauliers. This is currently not the case.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN PROBLEMS?

The Internal market for road transport is not complete. It is our assessment that the current situation does not allow to exploit the full potential of transport services

 e.g. current rules on bus/coach services or the rules on hired vehicles are still very

restrictive. Some Member States have decided to unilaterally open their market, which has led to a fragmentation of the EU internal market.

Many rules are unclear, therefore leading to different level of implementation by Member States and problems of enforcement:

 e.g. on cabotage where all stakeholders agree that current rules are unenforceable

There are allegations of 'social dumping' and unfair competition in the road transport sector. This has led to a division between East and West in Europe. As a consequence, several

Member States have decided to take national measures, which might jeopardize the unity of the EU market for road transport:

 E.g. minimum wage rules in DE, FR, IT and AT coupled with disproportionate

administrative requirements ; prohibition of drivers taking the weekly rest in the cabin of vehicles in FR and BE

Environmentally, we have made good progress on reducing pollutants from Heavy Good Vehicles but our legal framework currently does not address the issue of climate change

(CO2). At the same time, the infrastructure quality is degrading in the EU despite that fact that user charges and tolls are levied on most TEN-T and motorways.

Electronic tolling systems in the EU are, despite the primary objective of the EU legislation of "one contract/one on-board unit/one invoice" for the users, far being interoperable. More generally, the benefits of digitalisation are still under-exploited in road transport, in particular to improve control of EU legislation (e.g. many Member States do not currently the use of electronic waybills).

OPTIONS AND MAIN IMPACTS

To achieve these objectives, all IAs will consider a range of different options, which ultimately should improve the efficiency, fairness and sustainability of road transport.

The IA on Hired Vehicles will assess options aiming at removing outdated restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles and thus at opening up new possibilities for operators and leasing/hiring companies alike. More flexibility for the hiring of vehicles should lead to more efficient operations, higher productivity and less negative environmental impacts as fleet renewal will be promoted.

The IA on Access to the haulage market and to the Profession will study various options to ensure effective and consistent monitoring and enforcement of the existing rules in Member

States and to ensure coherent interpretation and application of the rules. Three broad groups of potential measures will be assessed, namely measures liable to improve enforcement, measures ensuring simplification and clarification of current rules and measures reinforcing the cooperation between Member States.

The IA on Access to the market of buses and coaches will assess options aiming at improving the performance of coach and bus services vis-a-vis other transport modes, especially private car and further developing the internal market for coach and bus services. This should lead to a reduction of the adverse environmental and climate effects connected with mobility.

Various policy options will be considered for creating more uniform business conditions and also a level playing field for access to terminals.

The IA on Social aspects of road transport will study options aiming at ensuring the effectiveness of the original system put in place and therefore contributing to the original policy objectives, i.e.: (1) to ensure a level playing field for drivers and operators, (2) to improve and harmonise working conditions and (3) to improve the road safety level. An additional objective, in the context of the implementation and enforcement of the provisions on posting of workers, is to ensure the right balance between the freedom to provide crossborder transport services and the protection of the rights of highly mobile road transport workers. In this perspective, three broad groups of measures will be analysed: 1.

Simplification, update and clarification of existing rules, 2. More efficient enforcement and cooperation between Member States and 3. Improved working conditions of drivers and fair competition between operators.

The IA on the Eurovignette will assess options to promote financially and environmentally sustainable and socially equitable (road) transport through wider application of the 'user pays' and 'polluter pays' principles. A number of different measures and their variants aiming at correcting price signals in freight and passenger transport will be considered in order to address the issues identified. The policy options range from minimum adjustments to the

Directive required for improving its coherence and addressing all policy objectives, through the promotion of low carbon (fuel efficient) vehicles and the phasing out of time-based charging schemes (vignettes) for trucks to the optimisation of tolls for all vehicles.

The IA on EETS (European Electronic Tolling Service) will study options aiming at reducing the cost and the burden linked to the collection of the electronic tolls in the EU – for the users and for the society at large. It will equally seek to improve the framework conditions for the faster and more widely provision of an interoperable European Electronic Toll Service.

Different policy options will be considered, including a non-legislative approach (facilitating exchange of best practice, co-financing EETS-related projects) and a legislative review.

These policy options and their impacts will be presented and assessed in detail in the respective IAs.

EXPECTED SYNERGIES OF THE PACKAGE

The different initiatives constitute a coherent set of measures which will jointly contribute to an efficient, environmentally and socially sustainable road transport sector. It is expected that the impacts will be more than the addition of the impacts of each initiative, meaning that the initiatives are complementary. Some examples of such synergies are provided below.

Current restrictions on cabotage are unclear and therefore lead to illegal cabotage. These illegal activities are closely linked with the fact that transport operators established in lowwage countries exert unfair competition via 'social dumping' and not respecting the rights of workers, who often are staying in their trucks abroad for longer periods. This illustrates the clear link connection between compliance of internal market rules and social/fair competition aspects of road transport, which are all addressed by the road initiatives and which cannot be dealt with separately.

When assessing the laws applying a national minimum wage to road transport, Member States explained the Commission that one of the reasons for adopting these national measures is to fight the phenomenon of fake establishments and “letter box” companies in low-wage countries. Tackling the issue of posting of workers in road transport goes therefore hand in hand with the issue establishment of road hauliers transport operators, which again illustrates the link connection between internal market and social aspects of road transport.

Promoting interoperability of electronic tolls systems will lead to lowering the implementation costs of such systems by Member States. We can expect that this will incentivise Member States to put in place distance-based tolls, which better reflect the user and polluter pays principles use of infrastructure. This shows the close link between the

Eurovignette and EETS initiatives.

Seeking to improve the performance of coach and bus services vis-a-vis other transport modes will inevitably lead discussion on a level playing between road and rail services.

Current EU legislation provides that rail users shall pay for the use of infrastructure, while it is not currently the case for buses and coaches which are outside the scope of the

Eurovignette directive. The inclusion of buses and coaches in the Eurovignette initiative to ensure that they pay a fair price for using the road infrastructure is therefore essential and will ensure endure overall coherence.

The initiatives on hired vehicles is in particular related to the initiatives on the access to the market and to the profession, all having the aim of establishing clear and common rules for a well-functioning and efficient Internal Market for road haulage : some of them by ensuring a good functioning of the market of transport services, others by ensuring the best use of the fleet of vehicles.

OVERALL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE ROAD INITIATIVES

The Road Initiatives are, despite the important synergy effects described in this Annex, dealing with very different topics, ranging from Internal market rules, to road charging

(Eurovignette and EETS) and to social rules. For that reason, the costs and benefits, which have been calculated in the relevant impact assessments, are addressing various different impacts (economic, environmental and social) for different entities (e.g. the general public, drivers, hauliers, toll service providers and toll chargers, enforcement authorities and Member

States). In other words, the resulting costs and benefits and highly context depended.

For instance, the preferred option with respect to the internal market rules would lead to savings for operators (due to for example e-docs, which could amount between €5,195 to

€6,940 million (2020-2035 ) but also additional enforcement costs to authorities having to control compliance (€65,2 million to €165,6 million (2020-2035 )) with notably rules on establishment of companies. Operators will, in turn, benefit from a more level playing stemming from rules on establishment being applied equally across the EU.

The preferred options in the initiative on road charging, would lead to important environmental benefits (€9,7 million in savings (2016-2030)), but accordingly additional costs to users, who will increasingly be paying according to the user and polluter pays principles. These additional costs users will represent higher tolls revenues for toll chargers and eventually Member States (€ 40,5 billion (2016-2030)).

The preferred option on the social rules, will lead to important social benefits for drivers (such as reduce period away from home, reduced stress and fatigue, equal treatment) , who will be guaranteed a minimum wage when being abroad for longer periods. Operators, who will be liable to pay higher wages to drivers, will on the one hand face higher costs, but at the same time benefit from a more level playing field. Alone the measures on the posting of workers, operators will have significant saving in compliance costs (€ 288-374 million/year) and savings in administrative costs (around € 691 million/year). To ensure that drivers are receiving the required minimum wages, enforcement authorities will face higher enforcement costs.

The examples provided above from the impact assessments of the Road Initiatives, providing different costs and benefits for various entities, shows that it would not be rational to cumulate these for all the Road Initiatives. This is reinforced by the fact that other costs and benefits, such as the benefits of a level playing field, are very difficult – if not impossible - to quantify.

ANNEX 8

A NALYSIS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HAULAGE MEASURES ( REVISION OF R EGULATION N O 1071/2009 AND 1072/2009)

WITH SOCIAL RULES

Haulage IA measures Interaction with proposed Design interactions Effectiveness / benefit Cost interactions social IA measures? interactions

Introduce cross-border joints controls Increase the number of Preferable to require the N/A Not significant. (voluntary/mandatory) concerted checks same number of joint controls Social IA indicated that cost to

for both legislative areas in organise joint controls was order to be proportionate and minor, so synergies here (if any)

consistent. will have a minor effect

Introduce a minimum number of checks N/A Could be based on the N/A N/A of compliance with the cabotage existing requirements for provisions minimum checks of social

legislation.

Changes to the level of minimum checks under social legislation are not foreseen

Opening up of the national risk-rating Harmonise the control tools and Requirements / timeframes Yes. Risk targeting can Yes. Fixed costs for any systems to other Member States to systems used by enforcers, in should be similar for both take into account more changes to the system should promote exchange of information on particular national risk rating pieces of legislation. data. be incurred once and so there high-risk companies and to target systems (RRS) to enable should be synergies if multiple checks comparability of data and their changes are made at the same

exchange between Member time. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card

Facilitate cross-border checks on Enhance the level and Requirements / escalation Not significant. Not significant establishment provisions, by introducing effectiveness of administrative procedure should be similar Potential for minor a maximum time period for replies to cooperation within and between for both pieces of legislation. improvements (e.g. better questions regarding establishment Member States by improving compliance with required

(along with a procedure for escalation it the exchange of information on response times) due to infringements, checks and increased familiarity with

Haulage IA measures Interaction with proposed Design interactions Effectiveness / benefit Cost interactions social IA measures? interactions

these timescales are not met). investigations, requirements across multiple legislative areas

Adopt common classification of Harmonise the control tools and Requirements / timeframes Yes. Yes. undertakings (green amber, red label systems used by enforcers, in should be similar for both Risk targeting can take into Fixed costs for any changes to used to indicate increasing level of risk particular national risk rating pieces of legislation. account more data. the system should be incurred of non-compliance and be linked to systems (RRS) to enable once and so there should be more/less frequent inspections) comparability of data and their synergies if multiple changes

exchange between Member are made at the same time. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card

Identify minimum common Harmonise the control tools and Requirements / timeframes Yes. Yes. data/information to be included in risk systems used by enforcers, in should be similar for both Risk targeting can take into Fixed costs for any changes to rating systems particular national risk rating pieces of legislation. account more data. the system should be incurred

systems (RRS) to enable once and so there should be comparability of data and their synergies if multiple changes

exchange between Member are made at the same time. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card

Use of GNSS digital tachograph for Promote use of GNSS digital Requirements / timeframes Yes. Yes. enforcement after a certain date tachograph. The digital should be compatible with More available data to Additional costs of training /

tachograph equipped with a both pieces of legislation enforcers at the time of the equipment for enforcers can be GNSS function will be available check shared between the two pieces from 2016-2017 and thanks to its of legislation to some extent new satellite positioning function, (although not completely – e.g. will allow enforcers to check at some training would need to be

the roadside the movements of specific). a vehicle.

Extend access to ERRU to road side Enable access of controllers to Requirements / timeframes Yes. Yes. check officers and make mandatory the RRS to help them check in should be similar for both More available data to Possible synergies if roadside fields in ERRU relative to vehicle real time whether a company is pieces of legislation. enforcers at the time of the officers need additional registration plates. Currently ERRU is registered and to identify highcheck equipment to access both only accessible to enforcement risk companies systems (unknown, to be authorities through an administrative checked with stakeholders what

Haulage IA measures Interaction with proposed Design interactions Effectiveness / benefit Cost interactions social IA measures? interactions

request. is needed)

Automatically detect data conflicts and Harmonize the control tools and Requirements / timeframes Yes. Yes registering them in the NERs, ERRU systems used by enforcers, in should be compatible with More available data to Increased costs to adapt the and the risk rating systems, as part of particular national risk rating both pieces of legislation enforcers at the time of the systems will be incurred and the operator’s compliance record systems (RRS) to enable check may be assigned to the 1071

comparability of data and their revision, but would benefit exchange between Member enforcement in general. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card.

Extend scope of Regulation (EC) No Clarify and adapt, where Requirements / timeframes Not clear Not clear 1071/2009 to cover vehicles below 3.5 t necessary, the scope of the should be compatible with Only relevant to the extent that fully. legislation with regard to driver both pieces of legislation enforcement is carried out at the

(professional, private, same time / by the same occasional driver, selforganisations, which is not employed), to vehicle (e.g. always the case vehicles below 3,5 tonnes),

Extend scope of Regulation (EC) No Clarify and adapt, where Requirements / timeframes Not clear Not clear 1071/2009 to cover vehicles below 3.5 t necessary, the scope of the should be compatible with Only relevant to the extent that partially legislation with regard to driver both pieces of legislation enforcement is carried out at the

(professional, private, same time / by the same occasional driver, selforganisations, which is not employed), to vehicle (e.g. always the case vehicles below 3,5 tonnes),

Extend scope of Regulation (EC) No Clarify and adapt, where Requirements / timeframes Not clear Not clear 1072/2009 to cover vehicles below 3.5 t necessary, the scope of the should be compatible with Only relevant to the extent that fully legislation with regard to driver both pieces of legislation enforcement is carried out at the

(professional, private, same time / by the same occasional driver, selforganisations, which is not employed), to vehicle (e.g. always the case vehicles below 3,5 tonnes),

Extend scope of Regulation (EC) No Clarify and adapt, where Requirements / timeframes Not clear Not clear 1072/2009 to cover vehicles below 3.5 t necessary, the scope of the should be compatible with Only relevant to the extent that partially legislation with regard to driver both pieces of legislation enforcement is carried out at the

(professional, private, same time / by the same Haulage IA measures Interaction with proposed Design interactions Effectiveness / benefit Cost interactions

social IA measures? interactions

occasional driver, selforganisations, which is not

employed), to vehicle (e.g. always the case

vehicles below 3,5 tonnes),

Introduce penalties for shippers and Introduce penalties for shippers, Intervention should be Not significant Not significant freight forwarders, in case they freight forwarders and other consistent between both knowingly commission transport actors in subcontracting chain, in pieces of legislation services involving infringements of the case they knowingly

Regulations (e.g. illegal cabotage commission transport services operations). involving infringements of the

legislation. Such penalties would incentivise them to resort to transport operations carried out in a lawful way.

Extend the empowerment for the Establish minimum requirements Intervention should be Not significant Not significant

Commission to come forward with a to determine appropriate types consistent between both May be some mutual classification of infringements which are and levels of sanctions that are pieces of legislation reinforcement of not related to safety and revise annex IV proportionate to the seriousness compliance with rules of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i on the of infringements as established overall where operators most serious infringements. by the EU legislation (e.g.: offend in multiple areas

Regulation (EC) No 2016/403).

A NNEX 9

P RELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF DELIVERY INSTRUMENTS FOR P OLICY PACKAGE 4

Legal delivery instruments of Policy package 4:

Policy Package 4 implies the adoption of legislative measures specifying the conditions of application of the posting of workers rules to road transport (scope of the rights for the workers and the enforcement measures to be complied with by the employers).

Option 1 : Revision of existing posting of workers rules through a proposal for a Directive amending Directive 96/71/EC i and Directive 2014/67 i/EU

The revision of existing legislation as a delivery instrument has the benefit of allowing targeted modifications of the relevant provisions, in view of adapting them to the specificities of road transport. This approach requires a minimum level of legislative intervention.

Furthermore, such targeted revision provides an efficient mechanism to clarify existing provisions and to remove uncertainty and inconsistency.

Based on the policy measures in option 4, the legislative proposal would provide for : (1) a threshold above which the minimum wage of the host Member State shall be paid to the driver and (2) some enforcement measures specific for road transport, leaving unchanged most of the provisions of Directive 2014/67 i/EU for example the mechanism of exchange of information between the Member States.

The overall legal integrity of the EU framework on posting of workers is maintained (no duplication of legal texts as the sector-specific rules for road transport will be "inside"

Directive 96/71/EC i and Directive 2014/67 i/EU).

Option 2 : Adoption of a separate legal instrument (Directive) for road transport

Directives 96/71/EC i and 2014/67/EU remain untouched. The specific rules applicable to road transport would be part of a separate legal instrument "outside" the two existing directives on the posting of workers. Two sub-options are possible :

Option 2 (a) : Legislative framework regulating all aspects of posting of workers in road transport.

Directive 96/71/EC i and Directive 2014/67 i/EU would no longer regulate road transport. Road transport would be (fully) regulated in a sector-specific framework.

This would provide a holistic approach which is tailored to the particular needs of the sector. However, this approach represents a significant legislative initiative as it requires the specification and negotiation with the European Parliament and the Council of all rules of posting of workers which are already regulated in Directive 96/71/EC i and Directive

2014/67/EU. Compared to a revision of the two existing Directives, the development and adoption of entirely new legislation would be considerably more time and resource consuming. It would also create additional administrative and financial burdens for the

Union, the Member States as well as undertakings, as it would require the transposition, monitoring of transposition and practical application of a large volume of new rules.

Option 2 (b) : Legislative framework regulating only the specific aspects for road transport

The new framework would include only the rules which are specific for road transport. Directives 96/71/EC i and 2014/67/EU continue to apply subject to the specific road transport rules.

Similar to the first delivery instrument, this would represent an efficient and targeted delivery instrument for addressing transport related posting issues. Although targeted and efficient, this option does not however guarantee the integrity of the EU legal framework and ensures a lower level of legal clarity. Application of the EU posting of workers rules in road transport would require a combined reading of the existing provisions (Directive 96/71/EC i and

Directive 2014/67 i/EU) and the new specific provisions for road transport derogating to existing legislation.

Clarification of existing legislation on posting of workers through guidelines or interpretative communication (non-legislative instruments)

An interpretative communication or guidelines issued by the Commission, attempting to clarify the application of the posting of workers legal framework to road transport, in particular the application of the rules on minimum paid annual holidays and minimum rates of pay as well as the administrative requirements stipulated by the enforcement Directive, would in principle represent a resource-efficient and minimum level of intervention. This would ensure stability to the current legal framework, as no new rules would have to be negotiated with the European Parliament and the Council.

However it is expected that this approach will result in no change, at least in the short/medium term, compared to the baseline scenario.

The Commission launched infringement procedures against DE (supplementary letter of formal issued in June 2016) and FR (letter of formal notice in June 2016). The Commission has considered that the application of the minimum wage to international transport operations having only a marginal link to the territory of the host Member State cannot be justified, as it creates disproportionate administrative barriers, which prevent the internal market from functioning properly. The Commission has also considered that more proportionate measures should be taken to safeguard the social protection of workers and to ensure undistorted competition, whilst allowing for free movement of services and goods.

An interpretative communication or guidelines would merely reproduce the reasoning developed by the Commission in the infringement procedures against FR and DE. It make little sense to issue guidelines now, before the completion of the infringement proceedings, i.e. before a judgment of the Court of justice in at least one of the pending cases.

 The Member States concerned will likely not amend their legislation/practice before a

judgment of the Court of justice. The infringement procedures launched against FR and DE had so far not effect. In their reply to the infringement procedures, FR and DE argue that their national rules implementing the rules on posting of workers to road transport are fully compatible with Directives 96/71/EC i and 2014/67/EU and with the Treaty principles . It can therefore be expected that the Member States concerned would disagree and not follow the interpretation of the Commission in non-binding

guidelines.

 Substance-wise, it would not be useful to formulate guidelines without the guidance

of the Court.

This would mean that guidelines or an interpretative communication could be issued at the earliest around two years from now.

On the other hand, it remains very uncertain to what extent the judgement(s) of the Court of justice could help the Commission in clarifying how posting of workers rules shall apply to road transport. Where the Court finds that an infringement exists, it formalises this finding through a corresponding judgment. However, the judgment does not pronounce itself on the appropriate remedies to be adopted for putting an end to the infringement. Hence, even though the judgment may contain some indication to this effect, a high uncertainty remains about the scope and practical value of such indications for the purposes of possible

Commission guidelines. Hence, a judgment may not contain what is needed, i.e. elements simply to be converted into Guidelines and thereby ending contestation and differences between Member States.

Following the judgment of the Court, the Member States concerned would have to reassess and adapt their national legislation. They would probably do this in an uncoordinated manner, which means that the new national rules applying the rules of posting to road transport would probably, as is the case today, be different from one Member State to the other. This would not solve the issue of fragmented approach of this issue, which has led to a fragmentation of the internal market. Road industry would continue to be confronted with diverse national rules applying the principles of posting of workers to road transport.

Similar considerations apply insofar as it may happen that the Court be seized with a request for a preliminary ruling. In addition, the submission of such request depends on the willingness of operators to go to national Courts and is not in the Commission's hands. So far, no request of the kind is known to the Commission.

We can also expect that other Member States will implement the rules of posting to road transport (IT is already applying the minimum wage to cabotage and is waiting for legal clarity at EU level before implementing it to international transport). In the absence of clear rules at EU level, we might therefore see a multiplication of non-coordinated national systems incompatible with EU law and EU Treaty.

In summary, guidelines or interpretative communication could not deliver what is needed, namely legal certainty and uniformity within the internal market, within a reasonable time frame.

A NNEX 10

O VERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT CURRENT MAIN PROVISIONS

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i:

 Scope: applies to carriage by road of goods exceeding 3.5t or of passengers for more

than 9 persons

 Daily driving time: max. 9 hours (or 10 hours twice a week)

 Weekly driving time: max. 56 hours (max. 96 hours during two consecutive weeks)

 Break: at least 45 minutes within or after 4.5 hrs of driving. This break can be

replaced by a break of at least 15 minutes followed by at least 30 min.

 Daily rest: regular daily rest is more than 11 hrs; reduced daily rest is between 9-11

hrs.

 Weekly rest: regular weekly rest is 45 hrs; a reduced weekly rest is of at least 24

hours.

 Co-liability: A transport undertaking shall not give drivers it employs 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 or encourages infringement of the Regulation. A transport undertaking shall be

liable for infringements committed by drivers of the undertaking.

Directive 2002/15/EC i:

 Average weekly working time: max. 48 hrs (it may be extended to 60 hrs if over four

months the average of 48 hrs/week is not exceeded).

 Reference period to calculate the working time is 4 months.

 Break: a break of at least 30 minutes if 6-9 hrs of working time. Otherwise, at least 45

minutes if working time is exceeding 9 hrs. Breaks may be subdivided into periods of

at least 15 minutes each.

 Records shall be kept for at least two years after the end of the period covered.

Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 i

 Regulates the rules around the recording device (tachograph) in order to verify the

compliance with Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i and Directive 2002/15/EC i.

 Sets the data the tachograph is recording (distance travelled, speed, time

measurement, position points, identity of driver, activity of driver, data in relation to

control and calibration, event and faults)

 The tachograph records the position of the vehicle at the starting and end place of a

daily working period, every three hours accumulated driving time

Directive 2006/22/EC i

 Minimum conditions for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 i and

Council Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 i

 Establishment of intracommunity liaison bodies as contact points for the Commission

and other Member States.

 Exchange of information at least every 6 months and upon specific request by a

Member State in individual cases

 Legal basis to introduce risk rating system for undertakings based on the relative

number and severity of infringements

 Establishes the form of availability

 Stipulates the data to be checked on the roadside and at the premises of undertakings

and the statistics to be collected and provided to the Commission biennially.

Directive 96/71/EC i

 Stipulates the minimum requirements for posted workers providing services

 Undertakings that post workers to another Member State shall ensure that they apply:

 the maximum work periods and minimum rest periods,

 minimum paid annual holidays,

 minimum rates of pay, including overtime,

 conditions of hiring-out workers,

 health, safety and hygiene at work,

 protective measures,  equality of treatment, provisions of non-discrimination

 The reference period of posting is 1 year

 Member States are required to establish liaison offices

Directive 2014/67 i/EU

 Sets details of enforcement for Directive 96/71/EC i

 Establishes the exchange of information via IMI between national authorities.

Timelines for urgent cases requiring the consultation of registers is 2 working days.

All other request are maximum of 25 working days.

 Member States can impose administrative requirements and control measure

necessary to ensure effective compliance of the Directive:

 declaration of service provider (identify of service providers, number of posted workers, duration of posting, start and end date, address of work place, justification of posting),

 copies of employment contracts or other documents (payslips, time-sheets, proof of payment of wages etc.). To provide translation of the latter documents in one of the official languages of host Member State or another language accepted by host Member State,

 designate liaison person to liaise with competent authorities in host Member State.


3.

Referenced document

1 Jun
'17
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards on minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs
PROPOSAL
Secretary-General of the European Commission
9670/17
 
 
 

4.

More information

 

5.

EU Monitor

The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.