News
BackIn September, the European Commission presented a draft proposal on the categorisation of serious infringements of Union regulations in road transport. These provisions put a large number of labour law standards at risk; apart from that this could let cross-border transport with gigaliners in through the backdoor. This draft was discussed in the Transport Committee of the European Parliament this week.
The draft proposal on the categorisation of serious infringements of Union regulations in road transport contains a list as to how various infringements in the area of passenger and goods transport market have to be categorized in future. The consequences for non-serious or dubious transport companies will be based on the seriousness of the infringement and might even result in the withdrawal of their licence.
Serious offences remain without serious consequences for companies
What is highly problematic is the fact that the seriousness of certain offences is dealt with too leniently to keep the consequences for companies as low as possible. The AK already criticised this approach when the first draft was presented in 2012. Hence, it gives even more cause for concern that the new draft is even more pro-business. For example, in respect of infringements against the driving time and rest periods, about twenty offences were completely omitted for the adherence to which companies would have been responsible. Apart from that, a restructuring of the categories results in the fact that there are hardly any offences left, which come under the most serious category (instead of about 40 now only 10). One of the implications would be that a lower deviation of the weekly resting period of more than 9 hours now only represents a mid-level offence. The same applies to working hours; not one of the offences comes under the most serious category. This pattern is repeated with regard to all other infringements (speed, vocational education and training among other).
Gigaliners through the backdoor?
The regulation in respect of infringements of that Directive, which regulates the maximum dimensions and weights for certain road vehicles, both with regard to domestic and cross-border transport, and which are in the process of being amended (keyword “Gigaliner”) is also questionable. The assessment of exceedances is completely in contradiction to those amendments, which Council and European Parliament have demanded in view of the amendment just taking place.
For example, a weight infringement shall only then be classified as a serious offence, if the maximum overall weight (40 t) is exceeded by 20% (8 t). The question arises whether the reason for the Commission to grant hauliers more tolerance lies in the intention to allow gigaliners (especially long and heavy HGVs) cross-border journeys through the backdoor.
Transport Committee questions draft proposal
This week, the Transport Committee discussed the draft proposal on the categorization of serious infringements of Union regulations in road transport with representatives of the Commission. The AK’s points of criticism were reflected in the questions of numerous MEPs. With regard to the classification of infringements in view of length and weight, Lucy Anderson (S&D) wanted to know, when the Commission would consider taking EU laws on weights and measurements seriously – she did not get an answer. Karima Delli (Greens) and George Bach (EPP) criticised the lack of the social dimension among other. The reply of the Commission gives cause for concern; social legislation (with the exception of driving times, working hours, rest periods, and night-time) was not part of traffic law. Jörg Leichtfried referred specifically to the strong reduction of infringements of social provisions, pointing out that in the end not the entrepreneurs responsible, but the drivers who got caught, were the losers. Replying to the question of Ismail Ertug (S&D) concerning the continuance of infringements of cabotage regulations, the Commission speaker wrongly voiced the opinion that the cabotage provisions were not part of her mandate. The comment, made among other by Gesine Meissner (ALDE) that the formulations were too vague, was also answered with a rather terse reply. It was just not possible to name every single small circumstance; it would be better if all Member States were granted an appropriate scope of discretion. This poses the question why there should be a harmonised list of infringements in the first place.
The members of the Transport Committee have until 18th November to appeal against the acceptation of this measure – from the point of view of the AK, a rejection of the Draft proposal is of the utmost importance.
Further information:
AK Position Paper Gigaliner
Serious offences remain without serious consequences for companies
What is highly problematic is the fact that the seriousness of certain offences is dealt with too leniently to keep the consequences for companies as low as possible. The AK already criticised this approach when the first draft was presented in 2012. Hence, it gives even more cause for concern that the new draft is even more pro-business. For example, in respect of infringements against the driving time and rest periods, about twenty offences were completely omitted for the adherence to which companies would have been responsible. Apart from that, a restructuring of the categories results in the fact that there are hardly any offences left, which come under the most serious category (instead of about 40 now only 10). One of the implications would be that a lower deviation of the weekly resting period of more than 9 hours now only represents a mid-level offence. The same applies to working hours; not one of the offences comes under the most serious category. This pattern is repeated with regard to all other infringements (speed, vocational education and training among other).
Gigaliners through the backdoor?
The regulation in respect of infringements of that Directive, which regulates the maximum dimensions and weights for certain road vehicles, both with regard to domestic and cross-border transport, and which are in the process of being amended (keyword “Gigaliner”) is also questionable. The assessment of exceedances is completely in contradiction to those amendments, which Council and European Parliament have demanded in view of the amendment just taking place.
For example, a weight infringement shall only then be classified as a serious offence, if the maximum overall weight (40 t) is exceeded by 20% (8 t). The question arises whether the reason for the Commission to grant hauliers more tolerance lies in the intention to allow gigaliners (especially long and heavy HGVs) cross-border journeys through the backdoor.
Transport Committee questions draft proposal
This week, the Transport Committee discussed the draft proposal on the categorization of serious infringements of Union regulations in road transport with representatives of the Commission. The AK’s points of criticism were reflected in the questions of numerous MEPs. With regard to the classification of infringements in view of length and weight, Lucy Anderson (S&D) wanted to know, when the Commission would consider taking EU laws on weights and measurements seriously – she did not get an answer. Karima Delli (Greens) and George Bach (EPP) criticised the lack of the social dimension among other. The reply of the Commission gives cause for concern; social legislation (with the exception of driving times, working hours, rest periods, and night-time) was not part of traffic law. Jörg Leichtfried referred specifically to the strong reduction of infringements of social provisions, pointing out that in the end not the entrepreneurs responsible, but the drivers who got caught, were the losers. Replying to the question of Ismail Ertug (S&D) concerning the continuance of infringements of cabotage regulations, the Commission speaker wrongly voiced the opinion that the cabotage provisions were not part of her mandate. The comment, made among other by Gesine Meissner (ALDE) that the formulations were too vague, was also answered with a rather terse reply. It was just not possible to name every single small circumstance; it would be better if all Member States were granted an appropriate scope of discretion. This poses the question why there should be a harmonised list of infringements in the first place.
The members of the Transport Committee have until 18th November to appeal against the acceptation of this measure – from the point of view of the AK, a rejection of the Draft proposal is of the utmost importance.
Further information:
AK Position Paper Gigaliner