News
BackThe latest attempt of EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas, to allow Monster HGVs in the European Union by sledgehammer method is simply unbelievable. For years now, the Commission has made every effort to introduce HGVs with a weight of up to 60 tons and 25.25 metre lengths throughout the EU. However, until now the resistance of many EU Member States, trade unions and civil society representatives was too great. Now EU Transport Commissioner Kallas had his officials draw up a legal opinion on the respective existing EU Regulation. “Surprise” result: monster HGVs may now even operate across borders under existing law is the generous interpretation of the Commission representative.
Nevertheless, the reasons cited by the opponents of these oversized vehicles were serious: many Member States do not even have the infrastructure to let monster HGVs drive on their roads - in particular carriageways and tunnels would have to be adapted, and running maintenance costs would increase, which would mean that Member States would have to spend billions. Apart from that, in particular this sector is characterised by wage and social dumping, which means in order to generate a sufficient income, HGV drivers are often much longer on the road than actually permitted by law. Hence, overtiredness associated with this presents a risk for road safety. What is already a bad accident with “normal HGVs” can turn into a disaster if an oversized monster HGV is involved. Goods, which due to their features could so far only be transported by rail or by sea, could thanks to these oversized HGV also be transported by road - with negative consequences for traffic volume and environmental balance.
The European Parliament wasted no time to react to the solo trip of EU Commissioner Kallas: according to the Head of the Transport Committee, Brian Simpson, the legal department of the European Parliament had been asked to examine the interpretation of the Commission. After a phone call between Simpson and Kallas, the Commissioner had promised that there would be no communication on the monster HGVs with respect to extending their use to cross-border transport before he had explained himself before the Transport Committee in the European Parliament. However, no date has been set for the debate with Kallas in the Committee.
Whilst the Dutch MEP Peter van Dalen (European Conservatives) supported the cross-border use of monster HGVs, MEP Jörg Leichtfried of the Social Democrats voiced serious criticism. Leichtfried regards this as a clear breach of European law. It was nice of Kallas to come to the Committee to explain why he was breaching the law, but he was not interested in this. The law was there to be complied with. One had to act to prevent it from being breached, stated Leichtfried. Simpson supported Leichtfried by stating "law is law". He was also concerned with the rights of the European Parliament. He had told Kallas that he was not happy with the way he had acted.
Now one has to wait for the expert opinion of the European Parliament. So far, the Commission has not explained why it has been negotiating the amendment of the relevant Directive for years and why it suddenly realises that it is not necessary to revise the legislative act after all.
The European Parliament wasted no time to react to the solo trip of EU Commissioner Kallas: according to the Head of the Transport Committee, Brian Simpson, the legal department of the European Parliament had been asked to examine the interpretation of the Commission. After a phone call between Simpson and Kallas, the Commissioner had promised that there would be no communication on the monster HGVs with respect to extending their use to cross-border transport before he had explained himself before the Transport Committee in the European Parliament. However, no date has been set for the debate with Kallas in the Committee.
Whilst the Dutch MEP Peter van Dalen (European Conservatives) supported the cross-border use of monster HGVs, MEP Jörg Leichtfried of the Social Democrats voiced serious criticism. Leichtfried regards this as a clear breach of European law. It was nice of Kallas to come to the Committee to explain why he was breaching the law, but he was not interested in this. The law was there to be complied with. One had to act to prevent it from being breached, stated Leichtfried. Simpson supported Leichtfried by stating "law is law". He was also concerned with the rights of the European Parliament. He had told Kallas that he was not happy with the way he had acted.
Now one has to wait for the expert opinion of the European Parliament. So far, the Commission has not explained why it has been negotiating the amendment of the relevant Directive for years and why it suddenly realises that it is not necessary to revise the legislative act after all.