The representatives of the Member States to the European Union (Coreper) approved by a narrow majority on Friday 20 December the provisional agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU on the social and market aspects of the ‘mobility I’ package (posting of lorry drivers, driving and resting time, tachographs, cabotage and market access).
“The rules we endorsed today are clear, fair and enforceable. They will improve working and social conditions for drivers, in a profession that needs to become more attractive”, said Timo Harakka, Finnish Minister of Transport and Communications, after the meeting.
According to information gathered by EUROPE, 17 Member States have expressed support for the agreement, which aims to strike a balance between better working conditions for lorry drivers - in particular by putting an end to ‘letterbox companies’ - and the freedom given to hauliers to provide cross-border services (see EUROPE 12389/7).
The 17 countries are Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia and Greece.
Unsurprisingly, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus, on the other hand, opposed the text. Belgium and Estonia, for which doubts remained, also took a position against the agreement. The United Kingdom abstained.
The green light was therefore obtained by a narrow majority, since 17 Member States representing 68.95% of the population supported the agreement, whereas under the qualified majority rule, which prevails in such cases, a minimum of 16 Member States representing 65% of the EU population was required.
Truck return crystallises tensions. The countries most vehemently opposed to the text, however, had tried to derail it right to the last minute. Thus, a criticism of the agreement, from Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus, was circulated during the Ambassadors' meeting.
In this joint declaration, these countries denounce in particular the obligation for the truck to return to the country of establishment of the company employing the driver at least once every 8 weeks.
They consider that such a measure - aimed at putting an end to ‘letterbox companies’ - will undermine the Union's climate ambitions by leading to “a major increase in the number of empty runs of trucks on the European roads and, subsequently, in a substantial increase of CO2 emissions”.
According to MEP Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France), Chair of Parliament's Transport Committee, this recurring criticism (see EUROPE 12376/13) is based on a false argument.
“The import-export companies can deliver goods to their country origin, as well as they can set up subsidiaries in other Member States while applying their tax and social laws. We also should take advantage of those provisions to foster modal shift, and use rail freight”, Mrs Delli stressed.
The Commission's behaviour worries Member States.
This criticism was nevertheless taken up by the Commission on Tuesday 17 December when, on behalf of the College of Commissioners, Valdis Dombrovskis, Commission Vice-President for Economic Affairs, stated that the compulsory return of the vehicle and the application of cabotage restrictions to combined transport were contrary to the ambitions of the European Green Deal (see EUROPE 12393/19).
Within the EU Council, these statements by the Commission worries certain Member States.
According to a source close to the file, to date they have not received any official document from the institution detailing its reservations.
Moreover, during the decisive negotiation session between Parliament and the EU Council (‘trilogue’) on 12 December (see EUROPE 12389/7), the European Commissioner for Transport, the Romanian Adina-Ioana Vălean, reportedly showed very little willingness to find a compromise.
End of the saga? After a legislative process of more than 2.5 years full of pitfalls, both in the EU Council (see EUROPE 12151/4) and Parliament (see EUROPE 11985/15, 12055/2), (see EUROPE 12123/12, 12223/1) and in trilogue (see EUROPE 12377/16), would this be the end of the saga of the first ‘mobility’ package? Nothing could be less certain.
Indeed, in the light of the Commission's recent statements, it is difficult to predict what will happen next.
Under the classic legislative scheme, the agreement still needs to be endorsed by the Transport Ministers of the Member States. At Parliament level, it still needs to be approved by the Parliament Transport Committee (vote scheduled for 21 January) and then in plenary.
However, if the Commission considers that the co-legislators have distorted its initial proposal during the legislative process, it could decide either to withdraw its proposal or to require unanimity of Member States (which would automatically lead to a rejection of the agreement at the forthcoming meeting of Ministers).
The Commission therefore has the tools at its disposal to derail the text, however, using them would be quite politically perilous. The institution could indeed be held responsible for the last-minute failure of a very politically sensitive issue, which has been under discussion for more than 2.5 years.
In short, the ‘mobility I’ package could still have a few surprises in store for us. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)