Transport manager

The objectives of the European
Register of Road transport
Undertakings (ERRU)
Setting the scene and working towards a common
interpretation of the Regulation on access to the profession
I. Considerations
II. The establishment of the ERRU
III. The study on sanctions in commercial
road transport
Regulation 1071/2009 on the access to the profession
The Regulation has established the requirements for engagement
in the occupation of road transport operator (Article 3) :
• Effective and stable establishment in a Member State
• Good repute
• Appropriate financial standing
• Requisite professional competence
• Additional conditions can be imposed by Member States
The ERRU is linked to the control of the requirement of
Conditions relating to the good repute
The conditions must be met by both transport
undertakings and transport managers, their conduct
shall be determined by reference to convictions,
penalties or infringements of road transport legislation
committed by :
1. Transport undertakings
2. Transport managers
3. Any other relevant person (including drivers)
The good repute of transport managers is conditional on
not having been convicted of a serious criminal offence or
not having incurred a penalty for a serious infringement
A conviction for the most serious infringements should
result in the loss of good repute
The most serious infringements (Annex IV to
Regulation 1071/2009)
1.Driving times and rest periods
2.Tachograph and speed limiter
3.Driving without a valid roadworthiness certificate
4.Dangerous goods
5.Driving licence and Community licence
6.Driver card
7.Maximum permissible laden mass
The interconnection of national registers
on road transport undertakings
Member States have to establish national electronic
• Minimum content (Article 16 (2) a) to e))
• Public access
• Separation between publicly accessible data and data
concerning infringements and unfit managers
Member States have to exchange certain information
• Infringements (number, category and type)
• Transport manager
Benefits of the ERRU
Better cooperation between Member States
Effective national risk rating systems
Reducing administrative burden for authorities
and for complying road transport undertakings
Legal timetable
31.12.09: Decision on minimum requirements for register
(Commission decision 2009/992/EU)
31.12.10: Adoption of rules on interoperability
(Commission Regulation (EU) No 1213/2010)
31.12.12: Interconnection of registers + assessing fitness
of managers (the Commission will be strict to see this
deadline respected)
31.12.15: All most serious infringements in register
The ERRU Working Group
Created by the responsible Committee
Commission and Member States representatives
7 meetings since July 2009, last meeting in March 2012,
next meeting foreseen for 15 November 2012
Great technical knowledge of participants
Prepared the relevant implementing acts
European Data Protection Supervisor has been consulted
before adopting the implementing acts
ERRU architecture
Peer to peer
Central hub
Member State
Member State
Member State
Member State
Central hub
Member State
Member State
Member State
Member State
Member State
ERRU messages
Exchange and record in the national database of
infringements committed in host Member States
» Host Member State to Member State of
» Reply from Member State of establishment
Verification of fitness of transport managers
» Message from Member State of establishment to all
other Member States
» Replies from other Member States
Infringements leading to loss of good repute
in addition to Annex IV
Required by Article 6 (2) of Regulation 1071/2009
The Commission has already launched the work on
categorisation of infringements
The overall objective is also to harmonize and enhance
enforcement practices
This initiative concerning infringements implies a reflection
on sanctions
Study on sanctions in the field of
commercial road transport
Background information
Grimaldi e Associati (GeA) was awarded in December 2011 a contract
having as object a "Study on sanctions in the field of commercial road
The Study should be finalized by December 2012. The draft final report
has been submitted in October 2012
Objectives of the Study
Comparative analysis of sanctioning systems in the 27 Member States
of the EU
Analysis of the legal scope for harmonization of sanctions at EU level in
respect of infringements against the road transport legislation
 Legal analysis
 Survey
Stakeholders contacted:
 Euro Contrôle Route (ECR), TISPOL, IRU, CORTE, UETR,
 National authorities
 National organizations
 Experts of EU criminal law
Conclusions on the effectiveness of
sanctioning systems of Member States
 Only few Member States’ systems have been found possibly effective
 Big differences exist in the typology and level of sanctions applied in
respect of infringements against the road transport legislation
 Differences are only to a minor extent related to socio-economic
differences; e.g. very significant differences exist between MS such as
Germany and Sweden
 Data show that a very important amount of infringements is detected
in each Member State, with the infringements of social rules being the
most frequent
 The sanctioning system is not always consistent with the seriousness
of infringements
Legal scope for harmonisation /approximation
/establishing minimum levels of sanctions
EU could legitimately adopt an EU-wide harmonization of
criminal sanctions in the field of commercial road transport
to the extent that it would cover only serious breaches of law
(Article 83, Par. 2 of the TFEU)
Such approximation could cover also aspects such as the
definition of the conducts incriminated, and the identification
of categories and levels of penalties applicable
Policy option 1: no action or soft law
 Main risks
Discrimination across transport operators
Incentive for transport operators to develop business
models according to the level of fines or other sanctions
in Member States
Inappropriate implementation of
EU rules and nonachievement of its objectives (road safety/safeguarding
the working conditions of the drivers )
Policy option 2: approximation
 Pros
• Level playing field
• Consistent message sent to operators
concerning the different degree of gravity of
different infringements
• Lengthy adaptation processes
(e.g. issue of change of competences of
national authorities and bodies)
Thank you for your attention!