We can't get over the Mobility Package. A second package of measures entered into force in February. The new rules relate in particular to posting, the use of the tachograph, cabotage and establishment requirements, including the obligation to return the vehicle. The latter in particular is currently the subject of much controversy.
‍

The debate over the return obligation began fairly soon after the measure was passed. For example, the duty was going to lead to nearly 3 million tons of additional CO2 emissions. There is also the side effect that the measure, which aims to improve competitive conditions in the European transport market, actually creates obstacles in Europe characterized by the free movement of goods, services and people that are diametrically opposed to this. After all, for companies that establish themselves in Eastern Europe but operate mainly in the West, the extra (empty) miles mean that they have to incur substantially higher costs. How fair is that?
‍

It is not for nothing that Eastern European countries have urged Brussels to take the return requirement out of the package because it would be unjust and discriminatory. And quite frankly, in that they have a point. Don't get me wrong: that the working conditions of international truck drivers need to be improved is obvious. But it is partly for this reason that the posting rules for drivers are designed to reward them according to the standards of the country where they work. That measure will then also ensure that competition in the transport market will improve. So why then this return obligation?
‍

We must look for the answer in the primary purpose of the obligation of return and that is to prevent letterbox firms. In fact, the obligation to return is one of the (many) criteria for meeting the establishment requirements to obtain the Euro permit. Freely translated: the company must be able to be an independently operating transport company. The return obligation is an unnecessary requirement, if you ask me. In my view, the other criteria are more than sufficient to ensure the establishment requirement.
‍

The disadvantage of the additional CO2 emissions and the restriction of the free movement of goods, services and people: none of it outweighs the supposed benefits. The injustice and discriminatory that Eastern European countries see in it is compounded by the way this measure is enforced. For there are no uniform enforcement measures. Although I have not yet seen checks passed where fines have been imposed for failure to comply with the return obligation, I consider it unlikely that every member state will take equal action against failure to comply with the return obligation. In addition, there are member states where enforcement of establishment requirements for non-residents is not a priority. EU countries also lack the ability to impose the ultimate sanction for failure to meet the establishment requirement: withdrawal of the Euro permit. After all, that is reserved for the member state where the company in question is established.
‍

In short, the return obligation seems to be a wash for several reasons. It is an unnecessary measure to improve drivers' working conditions and competitiveness. Rather, it will promote legal inequality and discrimination. My motto: abolish that measure.

‍