Giraud, P.

Archive of European Integration

16 November 1977 I _,:) I l •• English Edition European Communities EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Working Documents 1977 - 1978 DOCUMENT 380/77 Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport on the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council (Doc. 283/77) for a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3164/76 on th~,Community quota for the carriage of goods by road between Member States Rapporteur: Mr P. GIRAUD PE so.t 78/fin. By letter of 13 September 1977, the President of the Council of the European Communities requested the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 75 of the EEC Treaty, to deliver an opinion on the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council for a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3164/76 on the Community quota for the carriage of goods by road betwef.n Member States. The Pres~dent of the European Parliament referred this proposal to the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport as the committee responsible and to the Committee on Budgets for its opinion. On 27 September 1977, the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport appointed Mr Giraud rapporteur. It considered the proposal and unanimously adopted the motion for a resolution and explanatory statement at its meeting of 27 September 1977. Present: Mr Evans, chairman; Mr Giraud, rapporteur; Mr Brown (deputizing fo~ Mr Kavanagh), Mr Ellis, Mr Fuchs, Mr Hamilton, Mrs Kellett-Bowman, .Mr Lezzi (deputizing for Mr Zagari), Mr Muller-Hermann (deputizing for Mr Hcase), Mr Pistillo and Mr Seefeld. The opinion of the Committee on Budgets is attached. - 3 - PE 50.178/fin. CONTENTS A. MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION 5 B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 6 Opinion of the Committee on Budgets 10 - 4 - PE 50.178/fin. A The com111i':tee on Regional l'ol1L'Y, Req1onc1l Plonn1n,1 ,111d '\'r.111:,pl,rt hereby submit~ to the European Parhament the following motion foi: a resolution toguther with explanatory statement: MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposal from the Commission o:E the Eur0pean Communities to the Council for a regulation amending Regulat~on (EEC) No. 3164/76 on the Community quota for the carriage of gcods by road between Member States the European P;rliament - having re'Jara tcr the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities . 1 to the Council - having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 75 of the EEC Treaty (Doc. 283/77), - having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Polic:,i Regional Planning and Transport and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (Doc. 380/77), 1 D 1 h f t th ,__ t . 2 h ·1 h t k . ep ores t, ac at on wo previous occasions t e Counci as a en no account 2t all of the proposal submitted by the Commission in 1975 3 , which pre,vided for the Community quota to be doubled and which Parliament 4 had approved 2. Cannot understand the attitude of the Council which completely Jisr(•q:1rds its opinion in the matter; 3. Welcomes the fact that the Co~~ission again proposes that the number of Community ·::ransport authorizations should be doubled to meet the substantial demand for ransport resulting from the increase in intra-Community trade; 4. Considerc that increasing the Community quota in this way is a step towards the final stage of free competition in the carriage of goods by road between the Member States; 5. Urges the Commission nevertheless to keep a very careful check on the use made of Community transport authorizations and on the trend in supply and demand on the transport market; 6. Agrees with the proposed simplification of the record sheets for transport operations effected under the system of Community authorizations; 7. Approv~s the Commission's proposal. 1 OJ No. C 220, 15.9.1977, p. 3 2 3 OJ No. L 329, 23.12.1975, p.9 and OJ No. L 357, 29.12.1976, p.l OJ No. C , 5.1.1976, p.28 4 J.' OJ No. C 280, 8.12.1975, p.47 - 5 -PE 50.178/fin. B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 1. Before considering more closely the details of this proposal for a regulation, your rapporteur wishes to express his dissatisfaction at the way the Council has treated the matter of Community quotas. Not only have almost ten years elapsed since the Community quota system was i.:i.troduced 'for a three-year trial pee i,,d' , vTJ.thout any p;-ospect of a definitive system - which the European Parlianent has repeatedly advocated 1 - but in 1975 and 1976 the Council -c:cok n,Y. the slightest account of the Commission's proposal and the European Par liarnen t' s opiniot1 on this rra t·ter. 2. In October 1975 the Commission submitted to t::e Council a proposal for a regulution (Doc. 324/75/II) for doubling the number of Community authorizations in 1976. Despite the favourable opinio;--1 .axptessed by the European Parliament in its Resolution of 13 November 1975 on the basis of Mr GIRAUD's report (Doc. 350/75) , the Council c.ecided, J:.,~ adopt:rng the Regulation of 18 December 1975 2 , to e.{tenr\ the validity of the 1972 regulation without any changes. This was publi~ 1ed one year later as Regulatj_o11 (EEC) No. 3164/76 3 . Your ra.i,)porteur considers this attitude totally unacceptable. The fact that the Council 'agreed in principle' with the Commissioi:'s proposal, described the system as 'permanent' and 'instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to finalize the text of the Regulation so that it might act on it as soon as possible', as it stated in the press release issued after the Council 4 meeting of 4 November 1976 ,means very little if this declaration of intent consists of not},ing more than pious hopes. 3. The Commun,-c:y quota for the carriage of goods by road between the Member States was in1:.rc..'duced by a regulat.J.on in 1968 with a view to maintaining a permanent check on the increase in ·cransport capacity so that this could be adjusted to trends in demand. On 19 July 1968 the Council decided to grant 1,200 Commu1nity transport authorizations for a trial period of three years starting on l January 1969 to supplement the bilateral authorizations which they were to replace at a later date. 1see reports by Mr Bech (43/64), Mr Riedel (69/69) and Mr Giraud (156/72, 220/72, 81/73, 157/74, 350/75) 2Regulation (EEC) No. 3331/75, OJ No. L 329, 23.12.1975, p.9 3Regulatio~ tEEC) No. 3164/76, OJ No. L 357, 29.12.1976, p. 1 4 PE 46.661, p. 7 .i?E 50.178 /fin. - s -There is little point in recounting the long and unfortunate history of the Community quota, it being sufficien': to note that hitherto the Community quota has covered only 3. 8"/o of a U goods transported by road between the Member States of the Community. 4. The trend in the number of Community transport authorizations granted since the intLoduction of a Community quota has been as follows: Member State 1969-1972 1973 1974 1975-1977 Belgium 161 191 221 265 Denmark 68 141 169 Germany 286 321 356 427 France 286 313 341 409 Ireland 23 42 50 Italy 194 230 266 319 Luxembourg 33 45 58 70 Netherlands 240 279 318 382 United Kingdon 114 227 272 Community quota 1,200 1,584 1,970 2,363 5. In its proposal of October 1975, referred to in point 2 above, the Commission provided for the number of Community transport authorizations to be doubled. It now proposes the same increase in the Community quota for the next caler.dar year: i.e. from 2,363 to 4,726 authorizations. However, these authorizations will be allocated differently among the Member States, as the following table shows: Member State Proposal Proposal Difference 1977 Difference 1978 1976 1978-1977 Belgium 515 496 +19 265 +250 Denmark 372 298 +74 169 +203 Germany 880 994 -114 427 +453 France 772 826 -54 409 +363 Ireland 85 79 +6 50 +35 Italy 710 615 +95 319 +391 Luxembourg 126 142 -16 70 +56 Netherlands 766 835 -69 382 +384 United Kingdom 500 441 +59 272 +228 Total 4,726 4,726 0 2,363 2,363 - 7 - PE 50.178/fin. 6. These differences are the logical outcc-ne o:;: the crii:erJa drawn ~p by the Commission for the calculation of the number of Community transport ;;,uthorizations to be granted. In fact the Commission has retained the pragmatic solution it advocated in 1975: half the quota increase is based on the use actually made of Community authorizations, the remaining 50% being distributed on a linear basis with reference to the quotas fixed in the Regulation of 16 December 1976. 7. Doubling ;he number of Community transport authorizations granted complies with the reque3ts made by the Committee of the European Parliament responsible for transport r,1atters since this increase is a step towards the solution it advocates. 1n the last report he drew up on behalf of the the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport (Doc. 50/75) your rapporteur described the solution proposed by this committee on previous occasions as follows: '(it)' involves two stages: a transitional period in which a systematic increase in the Community quota will go hand in hand with the reduction in bilateral quotas, and a final stage involving the complete elimination of bilateral and Community quotas, strict supervision of transport capacity and t11e adoption of intervention measures only in the event of serious market disturbances. In practical terms, this solution would entail increasing the Community quota to a point where the total number of euthorizati exceeded demand, which means that the Community would, ipso facto, create a situation of free competition; in a crisis situation, however, it would be possible to reduce the overall number of community authorizations and so effectively to counteract cut-throat competition without the need for unilateral or bilateral measures• 1 . B. If the so~ution set out above should be rejected, some Member Stated might well res 1>rt to protectionist measures either by issuing discriminatory government pro,,isions or by concluding bilateral agreements. Both- unilateral measures and bilateral agreements create administrative hindrances to international road transport and also run counter to the spirit of the EEC Treaty, as Mr Nyborg rightly points out in his report on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the free movement of gooas 2 • There is also the distinct possibility that protectionist measures taken in one country might be followed by restrictive measures in another, which would jeopardi?e the few successes achieved by the Communit:y transport policy. 1Doc. 350/75, ~- 7, point 3 2 Nyborg raport, Doc. 132/77, p. 5 para. 2 - 8 -PE 50 .178/f in. 9. The CoI1U11itt"-c: :: .. P.,::--,ional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport welcomes the C'.)mr,,ic-"'"'·"~' s dei'ence of the same policy option. In its answer to a Written Q·wst: r- ·1 01 Mr Albers, it states its view that the present system of licences, grant..;,_, fo:· 2. certain period of time or number of journeys under bilateral quota arrangements, neither meets trading requirements, nor fulfils the spirit of the 8,::...:: Treaty and that any form of quota arrangement implies the imposition of ar:.1ficial restrictions and tends to produce an authoritarian 1 distribution of trafiic-. It adds that it intends to present to the Council a number of proposais designed tu lead gradually to freedom to provide services and the abolition of oiscrimination on the :Oasis of the nationality of the transport or:,er.:i:co.c a:c. regards access to the market, subject to any corrective measures whic~ mighc ne required should serious disturbances arise on the market. 10. Your rapporteur urges the Commission once more to keep a careful check on the use made of Co,arr.unity authorizations and on the general trend in supply and demand on the goods transport market. 11. The Commission also proposes simplifying the recorj sheets in which transport operators must enter details of operations effected under the Community auth Hiza.tion system. Since, according to the Commission, this simplificatio.1 will facilitate and accelerate the collection and analysis of statisti~al info.cma.Lion, your committee agrees with the Commission's proposal. l OJ No. C 294, 13.:~.i976, p. 41 - 9 - PE 50.178 /fin. 01<:'KION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS Letter from the acting chairman to Mr EVANS, chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, Regionai Planning and Transport Luxembourg, 8 November 1977 Subject: Opinjon of the Committee on Budgets on the proposal from the Cornro.1.ssion of the European Communities to the Council for a reguiation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3164/76 on the Community quota for the carriage of goods by road between Member States (Doc. 283/77) Dear Mr Chairman, The Committee on Budgets examined the above proposal at its meeting of 2/3 November 1977. According to the financial statement, the only expenditure \vhjch this proposal entails is that required to cover the cost of statisticaJ surveys. The relatively small amount of 157,518 EUA is to be met, as far as the 1978 budget is concerned, from the contingency reserve set up under Chapter 101. The Committee on Budgets approves the above proposal since it considers statistical surveys indispensable for the implementation and development of the measures envisaged. However, the Committee on Budgets wishes to remind the Commission of the need to implement the changes proposed by it to the existing regulations in order to adapt them to new circumstances and make them easier to understand. Yours sincerely, H. AIGNER (acting chairman) Present: Mr Aigner, ac cing chairman; Lord Bessborough, Mr Calewaert (deputizir.g fur Gord Bruce of Donington), Mrs Dahlerup, Mr Dalyell, Mr Dankert, tfJ.r H. -w. Muller, Mr Schreiber, Mr Shaw, Mr Terrenoire and Mr Wllrtz. - 10 - PE 50.178/fin. 

Report
drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and
Transport
on the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities to the
Council (Doc. 283/77) for a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3164/76
on the Community quota for the carriage of goods by road between Member
States. EP Working Documents 1977-1978, Document 380/77. 16 November 1977

http://aei.pitt.edu/96369/1/1977%2D78.77.380.pdf

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration