Minimum breaks and rest periods for occasional passenger transport

Background

The European Commission's proposal concerns a revision of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, which sets maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum break periods, and minimum daily and weekly rest periods for drivers in the commercial transport sector.

The revision aims to ensure a more flexible distribution of breaks and rest periods and lay down equal treatment between international and domestic occasional passenger transport operations.

Without introducing any changes to the minimum duration of breaks or rest periods or to maximum driving times, the proposal seeks to guarantee efficient and high-quality occasional-passenger transport services and improve working and driving conditions for drivers.

Key points

The EESC:

• considers it crucial to build a level playing field for all operators in the occasional transport sector, enabling fair competition.
• highlights that the attempts to circumvent existing rules on drivers' working conditions must be firmly tackled by all the competent national and European authorities to make the sector, characterised by significant staff shortages, more attractive to work in.
• proposes that much more attention be paid to the issue of effective implementation and enforcement of existing rules. There are opportunities for this to happen, not least through the use of digital tools to conduct inspections, which could be supported by EU funds.

Additional information

Section: Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society (TEN)

Opinion number: TEN/816

Opinion type: Mandatory

Rapporteur: Mateusz Szymański (Workers - Group II / Poland)

Referral: COM(2023) 256 final 2023/0155 COD

Date of adoption by section: 6 September 2023

Result of the vote: 51 in favour, 17 against, 10 abstentions

Date of adoption in plenary: 20-21 September 2023

Result of the vote: 156 in favour, 96 against, 11 abstentions (Members of the EESC Employers' Group tabled an amendment in the form of a counter opinion which was rejected but received more than a quarter of the votes cast. It is published in the Appendix of the opinion)

Contact