Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2003)628 - Minimum conditions for the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2003)628 - Minimum conditions for the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2003)628  |
| date | 21-10-2003 |
1. This proposal abrogates Directive 88/599/EC i and replaces it with a new set of rules. It follows on from the Commission's White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide i, in which the Commission indicated that it would tighten up on checks and penalties. The Commission White Paper specified four measures to be taken - promotion of efficient, uniform interpretation, implementation and monitoring of Community road transport legislation; harmonisation of penalties and conditions for immobilising vehicles; increased checks; furthering systematic exchanges of information. The first element was addressed in the Commission's proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 i; the remaining measures are dealt with in this proposal.
2. The proposal also responds to the generally perceived view - expressed consistently by the European Parliament i, in Transport Council Resolutions i and through statements from road transport social partners meeting at European level - that an improvement in enforcement of Community law concerning road transport operations within the Union is imperative.
3. Much has changed for road transport within the Union since the current 1988 Directive was introduced. First, there has been the creation of the single market and the consequent liberalisation of the road transport sector. Secondly there has been the liberalisation of cabotage within the Union with effect from July 1998. Thirdly there has been a significant increase in trade with Central and Eastern European countries as a result of the Union's pre-accession strategy. These factors have led to a considerable increase in intra-Community transport and a sharpening of competition between Community hauliers as well as between Community and third country hauliers. The temptation for some operators to gain a competitive advantage by not observing the rules on driving times, breaks or rest periods, as set out in Regulation (EEC) 3820/85, has become stronger.
4. At the same time over the past decade, the Community biennial reports i on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 i have recorded a rise in enforcement activity as well as a considerable increase in the number of offences detected. In terms of roadside checks, it has been calculated that at least 50% of all infringements thus detected concern these social rules.
5. The road safety implications of professional driver fatigue as a result of excessive working or driving time and minimal rest periods have been well documented in research i. A Commission-financed study i into professional drivers, both long-haul and short distance, passenger and goods, in Austria, Germany, France and Italy found, for example, that 23% of all drivers admitted to falling asleep at the wheel in the course of their work, if they worked between 40 and 50 hours; this figure doubled to 45%, if the driver worked 50-60 hours i. With the increasing night-time use of roads to avoid daytime congestion, the study found through interviews with drivers that 74% of those who drove for four nights or more admitted to having fallen asleep at the wheel over six times in the previous year i. Moreover it is a fact that most accidents happen in the early hours of the morning. These disturbing statistics underline the need for the Community to address the issue of enforcement seriously, and for Member States to fulfil their responsibilities to their citizens. While new technologies are emerging to help the driver to regulate his driving activities safely, in the meantime further action on enforcement is needed.
6. By Regulation (EC) 2135/98 i, the Council agreed to the introduction of a digital tachograph to render more secure and more accurate the recording and storage of data on driving times, breaks, rest periods and other work. The Committee for the adaptation of the tachograph to technical progress agreed on the technical specifications in March 2000. The Commission finally adopted the specifications in Regulation (EC) 1360/2002 i, which was published on 5 August 2002. 24 months after this date of publication the digital tachograph will become obligatory in all new commercial vehicles to which Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 applies. The new tachograph will allow a faster, more accurate sifting of data and will minimise the possibility of fraud. This proposal seeks to provide a framework for the rules governing the checks using this instrument, encouraging a common approach while allowing sufficient discretion for national enforcement agencies to adapt it to their particular circumstances.
7. Both the European Parliament and the Council have advocated a strengthening of enforcement in the road transport sector. As regards the Council, as far back as 1985 when the initial social Regulations were being introduced, it stipulated clearly and in detail in a resolution the type of enforcement it required i. While some of the declarations issued by the Council were taken up in Directive 88/599/EC, other laudable actions were left to the initiative of individual Member States. The Commission has decided to take up some of these declarations within the new proposal to improve the common Community framework for such enforcement operations. In another Resolution i the Council emphasised the need for a consistent and uniform application and enforcement of all the regulations in the road haulage sector. It encouraged the Commission to examine ways of improving co-operation amongst administrations, which are appropriate for effectively identifying and prosecuting infringements of the social regulations. Finally, it called upon Member States to use state of the art technology to prevent infringement of road freight transport regulations. The Commission intends by this proposal to address the Council's concerns.
8. Discussions in the Council and European Parliament of the Commission proposal, which led to the sectoral working time Directive 2002/15/EC, i emphasised the need for effective enforcement of the rules. For this reason, and given the close link between the Community legal instruments on working time and driving time, it was decided to provide a more comprehensive approach to enforcement in this area by including enforcement of working time rules within this proposal.
9. The European Parliament has also often called for better enforcement of the current social rules, particularly during debates on the biennial Commission report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 i. Indeed the own-initiative report by Mr Grosch MEP on transport policy and the harmonisation of social legislation, which incorporated Parliament's comments on the biennial report, called upon the Commission to ensure that in this field thorough controls are put in place together with effective sanctions. i The numerous Parliamentary Committee amendments put forward during 2002 to the Commission proposal to replace the current Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 i, the stance of the rapporteur, Mr Markov i, and the debate particularly in the Regional Affairs, Transport and Tourism Committee underlined a general concern to enhance the quantity and quality of checks in the road transport sector. Indeed the Parliament at first reading on 14 January put forward some amendments to the Commission proposal on the Regulation, which the Commission accepted while indicating that it would address them through a separate proposal. The Commission will seek to meet all these concerns through this proposal.
10. Within the road transport sector the social partners, organised in the form of a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee established by Commission Decision 98/500/EC i at Community level, have long called for better enforcement of the rules to promote a level playing field within the single market and ensure that the driver's working conditions provided for in the legislation are respected. The Commission will seek to take account of their concerns for effective and responsible enforcement in its proposal.
11. The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) has also consistently and over many years advocated better enforcement practice. For example, in its Resolution No 93/4 i, the Ministers endorse the conclusions of the report on Lorries and road traffic safety i, which advocates the following: a greater number of checks on the road and especially at the premises of undertakings; co-liability of shipper/employer; diversification of checks; inclusion of spot fines; enhanced co-operation between Member States; harmonisation of checks and sanctions of Heavy Goods Vehicles. More recently the ECMT has endorsed a policy of linking the issuing of further multilateral quotas of transport licences to better enforcement by ECMT countries of social legislation i. The Commission has taken note of these recommendations.
12. The proposal will therefore address a commonly held call for better, more effective enforcement of Community rules.
13. The Commission has also undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the new provisions to be introduced. A variety of scenarios were investigated, and the most beneficial percentage increases for overall checks and minimum percentage breakdown of roadside and premises inspections highlighted. The report concerned drew on experience and statistics not only from Member States but also from similar enforcement operations in the United States of America as well as from considerable research databases i.
14. The Commission has sought over the years to identify those areas within which enforcement could be improved. In October 1998, it issued a comprehensive questionnaire to Member States asking for details on how Member States considered that enforcement in the social field could be improved. Most Member States replied and the Commission has taken up some of the ideas set out in the responses received. The need for better co-operation between Member State enforcement agencies was a recurring theme and has been addressed in this proposal.
15. Currently, the Commission is funding a project involving enforcement officers from all Member States and led by the Swedish National Road Administration i. The broad aim is to improve the enforcement of, and compliance with, the social legislation through an efficient implementation of the digital tachograph and an improvement and harmonisation of checking methods and practices. While the details of how to introduce the digital tachograph system throughout the Union are being discussed and enforcement practice revised, this proposal provides a general framework of rules. This framework reflects the initial discussion topics of this group.
16. The Commission has also consulted Euro Control Route (ECR), an international organisation of enforcement officers originally comprising participants from the Benelux enforcement agencies. Since the formal administrative agreement in 1999 between Benelux and France, a total of eight Member States have now acceded to the organisation, namely Benelux, France, Germany, Ireland, United Kingdom and Spain. ECR provides a forum to exchange ideas on best practice, and has three aims: to facilitate an exchange of intelligence; to organise joint enforcement operations; and to promote cross-border practical training. Several members of ECR have commented on the Commission's intentions and account has been taken of most of their comments in the proposal.
17. The Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on road transport was invited to comment on a pre-draft text but so far it has not officially replied.
18. In its opinion at first reading delivered on 14 January 2003 i, the European Parliament has already endorsed the introduction of various measures contained in this proposal to strengthen enforcement practice throughout the Union, following discussions on the Commission's proposal to amend the main Regulation concerning driving times and rest periods i.
19. The legal base is Article 71 of the EC Treaty (co-decision procedure).
20. The proposal aims to update and enhance the quantity and quality of enforcement operations. From the statistics provided for the Commission's biennial reports, it appears that some Member States have already reached or exceeded the proposed increase in checks on a regular basis. The introduction of the digital tachograph without retro-fitting will initially cause difficulties in enforcement given the need to check a mixture of old tachograph discs and the new electronic data to obtain a coherent picture. Hence it is proposed that the rise in quantity of checks is introduced in stages, reflecting the gradual replacement of vehicle fleets and the consequent predominance of the new tachograph. Deterrence is not only the potential fine imposed, it is also the likelihood of being detected. An increase in the number of checks can therefore encourage greater compliance.
21. To enhance the quality of checks, it is essential that enforcement officers from all the relevant competent authorities be given sufficient training and equipment. Whereas it is in the first place up to Member States themselves to ensure that officers receive the necessary training in a national context, the proposal places a requirement on Member States to establish joint training programmes and exchanges with other Member States and to provide officers with a standard set of equipment. Only when enforcement officers have the means to address the increasing problem of offences against Community rules, can the Community rightly expect results. The list of equipment may be updated by the Commission acting on advice from the committee of national representatives.
22. It is often the case that a number of competent authorities within a Member State are responsible for enforcing European road transport social legislation. This leads to a lack of coordination of checks within the Member State as well as difficulties for the enforcement authorities of neighbouring Member States to identify correctly the competent authority with which they should be maintaining dialogue. It can also mean that differing priorities are assigned to checks and that liaison between those checking at the premises and at the roadside is variable. Instead of a coherent enforcement strategy in road transport, separate agencies may pursue their own activities to enforce compliance, perhaps to the detriment of an effective and efficient use of the overall resources. The Commission's related proposal on enforcement in the field of road safety also recognises this as a problem and in both instances a common approach is proposed, namely via the designation by the Member States of an enforcement co-ordination point as explained below.
23. The Commission proposal requires Member States to designate an enforcement coordination point and places upon the relevant competent authority the requirement to co-ordinate not only statistical returns but also the development and implementation, in consultation with other internal competent authorities, of a coherent enforcement strategy, to be communicated regularly to the Commission and other Member States.
24. The Commission is aware that dialogue between enforcement agencies in different Member States is currently variable and recognises that a system should be put in place for a regular exchange of information and best practice between Member States. To that end it proposes four measures:
(a) the promotion of electronic data exchange systems between enforcement coordinating points; and in any case the revision of the current Community common format data exchange document as set out in Commission Decision 93/172/EEC i;
(b) an increase in the minimum number of concerted checks by Member State competent authorities;
(c) the setting up of a standing committee comprising representatives of enforcement agencies from all Member States to exchange experience, information and best practice and to address jointly any enforcement issues arising at a European level; and
(d) encouragement of joint training initiatives between enforcement authorities, such as that currently undertaken by Euro Control Route i.
25. The Commission proposal also addresses the issue of sanctions. While the harmonisation of sanctions remains a subject which Member States are reluctant to pursue, the Commission considers that excessive variations in Member States' treatment of offences against Community legislation do not offer the industry a coherent message on the importance of adhering to the rules. To promote clarity in this delicate but important aspect of enforcement, the Commission proposal invites Member States to agree on a list of offences which would be commonly recognised as serious. In this way a common view on enforcement priorities could be introduced throughout the Union.
26. General findings of the cost-benefit study mentioned before are that there is a net benefit-cost ratio of full implementation of all the proposed measures of 4.18 to 1 for the EU as a whole. These figures do not take into account up-front costs of introducing the new measures and the lag between incurring the costs and realising the benefits. An analysis of the benefit-cost ratio of full implementation over ten years gives a ratio of 3.54 to 1 for the EU as a whole i. Moreover, the study estimates that implementation of the proposed measures will result in a maximum cost reduction of EUR 4 billion (or 0.047% in terms of percentage of GNP) i. Implementing the proposed measures would moreover result in a reduction of 951 fatalities and 59 529 injuries annually in the EU i.
27. The Commission is keen to ensure that uniform and effective enforcement of Community social rules is facilitated, that developments in this field are adequately monitored and that good practice is encouraged. To that end it advocates a standing committee through which common views and decisions on the current application and enforcement of the rules can be reached swiftly and decisively. This Committee mirrors the Committee put forward in Commission proposal COM(2001) 573 final and would be subsumed into that proposed Committee were the above proposal adopted. The Commission envisages a clear link between the Committee and the Joint Committee of social partners meeting at European level through the new Committee's rules of procedure.
28. The provisions of the proposed Directive are explained in the following paragraphs (a comparative table showing the text of the current Directive 88/599/EEC and the provisions of the proposal is also attached).
29. Article 1 sets out the purpose of the Directive and the legislation to which the following provisions on enforcement are applicable. The new sectoral working time legislation, Directive 2002/15/EC, is now included. If there is to be respect for the legislation, then coherent enforcement of the provisions of this Directive and those for driving time and rest periods is vital. Moreover, problems identified can be raised and addressed in the Committee forum, where, in liaison with the social partners committee, they can be more easily resolved.
30. Article 2 sets out the checking system to be implemented in the Member States. The requirement for a representative sample in checking is maintained in the proposal but also made more detailed in terms of statistical breakdown. Both Article 2 i and the new Article 3 stipulate that the statistics provided by Member States should be broken down in greater detail. Not only will this facilitate a more targeted approach in terms of road network and particular road transport sectors within any future enforcement strategy, it will also allow an overview of developments across the Union, and will highlight common problems. These potential problem areas can be discussed in the Committee set up in Article 13 and also can be highlighted in any future Commission reports.
31. Article 2 i raises the minimum overall percentage of checks from 1% to 3%. Several Member States already achieve this higher standard and as most Member States comfortably reach the current 1% of days worked by drivers of vehicles falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) Nos 3820/85, 3821/85 and Directive 2002/15/EC, it is time to raise the standard to one that is both challenging and achievable. In so doing, the Commission is also taking account of Amendments 60, 63, 70(c) and an element of Amendment 11 in the European Parliament's opinion at first reading on the Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 i, all of which advocate an increase in the minimum percentage of checks.
32. Article 2 i second paragraph allows the Committee established under Article 13 to agree on an increase of the percentage of checks above the proposed 3%. This is in recognition of the fact that once the digital tachograph is introduced, inspectors will have to deal with a system where both the old and new tachographs will be in use and have to check a driver's hours: paper discs, vehicle unit and driver card data plus any printouts. However, as fleets are renewed and the digital tachograph becomes the predominant instrument, it represents a means of identifying any infringements more quickly and accurately. Consequently, it will become feasible to raise the quantity of checks. The impact assessment study has found that raising the number of checks beyond 10% of days worked is unlikely to be cost beneficial i.
33. Article 2 i third paragraph raises the minimum proportion of checks to be carried out at the roadside or on the premises. Instead of at least 15% roadside checks and at least 25% premises checks in the current provision, the proposal provides for at least 30% roadside and at least 50% premises checks. The impact assessment study mentioned before has found that checks at the premises of transport firms are more effective than roadside checks and more generally that encouraging transport firms to maintain good safety management practices is highly effective in reducing lorry and bus related accidents i.
34. Article 3 deals specifically with the statistics which Member States are to collect and forward to the Commission. The breakdown into various subcategories is a new element within this Directive. It will allow Member States and the Commission to analyse in more depth any difficulties with the current rules experienced by the sector - see also paragraph 30 above.
35. Article 4 i reiterates the requirement in the current Directive to ensure sufficient coverage of the road network by roadside checks. However, the Commission is aware from enforcement officers as well as the road transport industry that the number of lay-bys and service stations on the road and motorway network is insufficient not only to allow drivers to take a break and comply with the legislation but also for enforcement officers to carry out checks without holding up traffic. For this reason Member States are obliged under Article 4(2)(a) to make sufficient provision for lay-bys in road infrastructure plans, particularly along motorways, and to ensure that service stations along motorways can function as checkpoints. There is little point in requiring more roadside checks if there are not enough places to carry out such checks.
36. While roadside checks can be targeted or structured, maintaining an element of random checks ensures that for the driver the likelihood of checks is still present over the whole road network. The provisions of Article 4(2)(b) should counteract any complacency on the part of the driver or indeed of the enforcement authority.
37. The current Directive mentions that roadside checks should be carried out without discrimination. To avoid any uncertainty as to the nature of discrimination, Article 4 i spells out the types of discrimination to be avoided, so that enforcement is carried out without regard to nationality. It is up to Member States to ensure through the guidelines they supply to enforcement officers that this provision is always respected in practice.
38. The current Directive sets out a list of elements, which should form the basis of a roadside check. The proposal in Article 4 i puts these elements in an Annex (Part A) and adds two new elements in terms of working time: maximum weekly working time and night-time working time. These two elements could also be checked at the roadside. In so doing, the Commission addresses elements of Amendments 10, Amendments 11 and 70(b) in the European Parliament's opinion at first reading on the Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 i.
39. The current Directive stipulates that an authorised officer should be provided with a list of principle points to be checked plus a language chart. What would be more useful than a language chart is the provision of certain standard checking equipment, as set out in the new Article 4(5)(b). It should be possible to update the description of this equipment in the Annex II, as new and proven equipment becomes available on the market. Hence, the possibility of amending this Annex through the Committee is included in Article 15, as Committee representatives should know and could agree on what would be most appropriate and widely acceptable. An example might be the development of suitable enforcement software with relevant terminology in different languages. In any case, to ensure effective enforcement, Member States will need to invest in appropriate equipment for their staff.
40. Article 4 i reiterates the current provision by which possible infringements by a driver of a vehicle registered in another Member State can be dealt with in consultation with the Member State competent authorities concerned. This paragraph is specifically linked with Article 7(1)(d) which seeks to facilitate this form of dialogue between enforcement authorities.
41. Article 5 concerns concerted checks. The minimum number of concerted checks has been raised from two to six per year. From the biennial report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, it is evident that a number of Member States already exceed this new proposed limit. A larger number of such checks will encourage a more practical and coherent dialogue between Member State enforcement authorities, as well as concentrate activity on long distance operations where driving times and rest period rules can frequently be breached.
42. Article 6 deals with checks at the premises of undertakings. Enforcement authorities are obliged to take into account all elements of their past experience when drawing up their checking schedules. Serious breaches of driving time and working time rules identified in roadside checks will now entail additional checks at the premises. Indeed, checking the sectoral working time rules should also form part of the normal enforcement regime. The tachograph records will allow a more thorough check to be made of adherence to these rules.
43. Annex I (Part B), to which Article 6 i makes reference, sets out the additional checks to be made. Unlike checks at the roadside there is no discretion here to concentrate on certain elements of the list to facilitate a quick and focused check. It is considered that checks at the premises should always be a thorough affair. However the option in Article 6 i for authorities to ask certain low-risk firms to forward the relevant documents for them to check is maintained, with a slight adjustment to recognise the need to accommodate digital tachograph data.
44. As enforcement officers who check premises are not always from the same administrative competent enforcement authority as those performing checks on the roadside, it is necessary to ensure that they too are adequately equipped for the task, hence reference to equipment set out in Annex II in Article 6(3)(b).
45. Article 6 i obliges enforcement authorities of one Member State to take account of any information received from the primary enforcement body of another Member State concerning particular transport activities. This will encourage a greater coherence between competent authorities and a greater confidence that information passed on will be acted on by other enforcement bodies.
46. Article 7 introduces the concept of a coordinating enforcement body. Certain duties are ascribed to this authority: statistical coordination and returns, drawing up a national enforcement strategy (which will necessarily need to involve all enforcement authorities concerned), and representing the Member State to other Member State enforcement bodies as well as being on the proposed Committee. Member States are obliged to inform the Commission, and thus the other Member States, of any change in this arrangement. An obligation is placed on this coordinating enforcement body under Article 7 i to actively promote collaboration between the other national enforcement agencies concerned, which places this authority in a key position to develop an enforcement strategy. Moreover, Article 7 i requires that the forum, to be instituted by the Committee under Article 13, will not only facilitate an exchange of data, intelligence and experience but also provide a measure of peer review of these national enforcement strategies. The way is also left open for the exchange of information to take place through an alternative forum if the Committee so decides. This could be the Euro Control Route group, which has expanded its membership to 8 Member States.
47. Article 8 deals specifically with the exchange of information between Member States concerning enforcement of the Community road transport social rules. In view of the widespread introduction of electronic data exchange systems within Member States, it is logical, if Member States are serious about cross-border enforcement, to require them to establish such a system across the Union. It is recognised that the current standard reporting form set out in Commission Decision 93/172/EEC is rarely if ever used in practice. An alternative system may be used or, if Member States so wish, an updated standard form may be introduced.
48. Article 9 deals with offences. To encourage a more effective and targeted enforcement effort and a more appropriate application of sanctions, Member States will have to establish a common risk rating system for companies (paragraph 1). Under such a system, companies that adhere to the rules would be checked less and companies with a poor track record would be checked more intensively. This could facilitate a more efficient use of enforcement staff time and resources. Such a system is already in practice in some Member States such as the Netherlands, and also throughout the United States, and has proved an effective deterrent and method of resource management. It could now be an expression of best practice in enforcement within the Union.
49. The criteria and modalities for such a risk assessment system should be determined on a common basis to prevent distortion in enforcement effort throughout the Union. The new Committee should determine the criteria for this purely operational matter with input from the social partners.
50. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 9 ensure that the full range of sanctions is available to enforcement authorities. Special mention is made in paragraph 3 of proportionate financial sanctions for those operators or indeed those along the transport chain who have aided or abetted an infringement that has resulted in considerable financial gain.
51. Paragraph 4 sets out a number of infringements which can be commonly regarded as serious throughout the Union and be treated appropriately. Under paragraph 5, individual Member State sanctions for such infringements will be circulated to all other Member States to indicate the different approaches adopted.
52. Article 10 lays down the standard paragraph on penalties.
53. As a result of information received from Member States under Articles 9 and 10, under Article 11 the Commission will draw up a report comparing and contrasting the relevant infringements and level of sanctions within the Union. On this basis, the Commission could conclude to what extent any further harmonisation in this area may be feasible.
54. Article 12 i indicates that one of the tasks of the Commission acting through the proposed Committee under Article 13 is to establish guidelines for best practice in enforcement. This information could be disseminated through the Commission's biennial report on the implementation of social legislation in road transport.
55. Through Article 12 i the Commission seeks to address the issue of training. As training of enforcement staff on this complex legislation is vital, but an awareness of how other Member States' enforcement bodies perceive the legislation is also very important, Member States should establish joint training programmes and exchanges with other Member States, at least once a year. Joint training programmes between Member States are already undertaken several times a year under the auspices of Euro Control Route. All Member States could easily organise a bilateral or multilateral training programme on a reciprocal basis at least once a year. This is all the more necessary with the introduction of the new digital tachograph system. A coordinated approach to the data generated by this device is essential.
56. Article 12 i addresses an issue that has already become established practice in certain Member States: the question of what to accept when there is a break in the timeline of charts for the past week and the last driving day of the previous week. A holiday note or sick note signed by the company is accepted by some authorities as a valid note covering any unaccounted periods. However, this practice is not based on any legislative provision at European level. To ensure there is a commonly understood and accepted practice amongst enforcement officers and the industry, a common line should be agreed within the Committee. This is all the more necessary if the extraterritoriality provisions for enforcement in Article 10 of the Commission Proposal COM(2001) 573 final i to revise Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 come into effect. This provision also addresses an element of Amendment 10 in the European Parliament's opinion at first reading on the Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 i.
57. Articles 13 to 15 establish the Committee to provide a forum for national representatives to discuss developments in enforcement in general and to examine specific issues: roadside checklist, standard checking equipment, a common undertaking risk assessment system, best practice and a common holiday/sick leave form. The forum will also facilitate a common and coherent approach to an understanding of the Directive as well as fostering a dialogue with the industry. The current Committee constituted under Article 18 i of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 may also be called upon to tackle these issues and will thus provide a measure of coherence in discussions on enforcement of Community road transport social legislation.
58. Articles 16 to 18 insert the standard final provisions relating to transposition into national law, communication of legal texts and concordance to the Commission and repeal of the current legislative instrument.