OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Transport en Logistiek Nederland

TLN

Transport en Logistiek Nederland is the leading trade association for the Dutch transport sector.

Lobbying Activity

Dutch logistics group urges clear rules for military transport

7 Oct 2025
Topic — A proposal to create a regulatory framework for harmonising military movements across Europe.
Message — TLN recommends establishing specific escalation levels to trigger commercial logistics support for defence. They advocate for fast-tracked permits, suspending cabotage restrictions, and creating digital certificates for identification.123
Why — This framework would eliminate bureaucratic red tape and provide legal certainty for firms during geopolitical crises.45
Impact — Consumers and businesses lose if military mobility disrupts the flow of essential food and medicine.67
Read full response

TLN Urges Infrastructure Readiness Before Mandating Clean Corporate Fleets

5 Sept 2025
Topic — The consultation explores setting minimum zero-emission vehicle requirements for corporate fleet registrations.
Message — TLN argues that mandates are ineffective without adequate charging infrastructure, grid capacity, and financial support. They call for accelerated permitting and EU-level subsidies to align business costs with green technology.12
Why — This approach would reduce financial risks and align the cost of zero-emission vehicles with diesel models.3
Impact — Smaller subcontractors could be forced to absorb compliance costs they cannot afford.4
Read full response

TLN urges competitiveness test to protect European ports

23 Jul 2025
Topic — The EU Ports Strategy covers security, competitiveness, and the green transition for maritime trade.
Message — TLN calls for a mandatory competitiveness test to prevent cargo shifting to non-EU ports. They want unified digital systems and real-time data to replace paper documentation. They propose moving customs inspections inland to speed up coastal terminal flows.123
Why — This would prevent costly delays and ensure Dutch transporters maintain their business volumes.45
Impact — Non-EU ports would lose the cargo traffic they currently attract due to lower standards.6
Read full response

Meeting with Ton Diepeveen (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Apr 2025 · Discussies rondom de herziening van de veetransportverordening

Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Apr 2025 · Veetransport

Dutch transport lobby urges harmonized rules to unblock Single Market

30 Jan 2025
Topic — The consultation aims to remove regulatory barriers hindering cross-border movement of goods.
Message — TLN requests simplified driver posting rules and harmonized truck driving bans across Europe. They advocate for mutual recognition of environmental stickers and a central digital portal. The group proposes a European Infrastructure Entity to standardize cross-border rail operations.12
Why — These changes would lower administrative costs and prevent operational delays for transport companies.3
Impact — National railway incumbents and local governments may lose control over their specific regulations.4
Read full response

Meeting with Liesbet Sommen (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Jan 2025 · Vrouwen in de Transportsector

Dutch Logistics Group Urges Simplified CBAM Rules for Trusted Traders

27 Nov 2024
Topic — The Commission is setting authorization procedures for Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism declarants.
Message — Fenex requests automatic or simplified approval for trusted traders and clarity for indirect customs representatives. They argue current proposals create uncertainty for agents managing multiple importers across several Member States.12
Why — This would reduce regulatory duplication and lower compliance costs for established logistics firms.3
Impact — Small businesses may lose access to affordable customs representation if requirements remain complex.4
Read full response

Meeting with Jeannette Baljeu (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2024 · Wegvervoer

Meeting with Sebastian Kruis (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2024 · Issues in the transport sector

Meeting with Rachel Blom (Member of the European Parliament) and UAP Coalitie Nederland

15 Oct 2024 · Introductory meeting

Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament) and Publyon

25 Sept 2024 · Introductory meeting

Response to Manual entries into driver cards of periods away from the vehicle

8 May 2024

Transport en Logistiek Nederland welcomes and supports the aim of the proposal to alleviate the burden for drivers to register long periods away from the vehicle manually. This is very much needed indeed for occasional drivers, occasional in-scope drivers and for drivers who face technical issues in registering long periods of rest or leave. We also support the idea of the concept to let occasional drivers only register the last week before they start the in-scope driving activity. But we notice that the text leaves to many interpretations open. This will again lead to different approaches from enforcers and uncertainty about the correct way to handle the manual input, and unnecessary fines. To prevent that, we strongly advise te EC to clarify on the following points: 1. Make the following definitions specific for this implementing regulation.: - the vehicle/ that vehicle = any vehicle that performs activities in scope of regulations 165/2014 and 561/2006 Motivation: to clarify it means any vehicle, not just the last one the driver drove. - week = a period of 7 x 24 hours Motivation: week in 561/2006 has the definition the period of time between 00.00 on Monday and 24.00 on Sunday., so a fixed week. We do not believe that definition is usable in the context of this Implementing Regulation. Because it would mean that if someone was away from Tuesday in week 1 en starts driving on Tuesday in week 2, this rule would not apply. - from the start of the last weekly rest period Also here it is useful to clarify what is meant by weekly rest period. Probably this refers to the weekly rest period as defined in art. 4 h of 561/2006 so either a regular weekly rest period of at least 45 hours or a reduced weekly rest period of rest of at least 24 hours. It needs to be clear if when the last period was actually a rest of 3 weeks, the start of the registration is not the start of the last 45 hours but the start of the beginning of those 3 weeks, or not? This is not clear right now. Also there are occasional drivers who do not fall within any working time regulation when they are not driving because they are selfemployed in another business. What is their latest weekly rest? 2. Change the wording of at the latest at the start of the following driving activity into at the moment the driving card is inserted into the tachograph for the first time after this period and at the latest before the start of the following driving activity, Motivation: As soon as the driver card is inserted, it will ask for any activities since the last insertion so this is the moment it should be done. However, some drivers may not have taken the drivercard out of the tachograph (fe when they are selfemployed and been on a holiday), so then they need to do it right before the driving starts.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Union Customs Code

6 Nov 2023

See the document below for our feedback. Topics discussed are: Importers/exporters and Trust & Check (T&C) Trader status, Involvement of customs representatives, The shift of the place of importation, Non fiscal legislation/obligations, Temporary storage.
Read full response

Dutch logistics group urges earlier toll discounts for trailers

29 Jun 2023
Topic — The consultation addresses the introduction of CO2 emission classes for heavy-duty vehicle trailers.
Message — TLN requests an earlier start date for toll discounts by March 2025. They also want certificates to be accepted across borders and a single online registration system.123
Why — This would lower fuel costs and reduce toll expenses for transport companies.45
Impact — Manufacturers of new efficient trailers could lose sales if existing units are retrofitted instead.6
Read full response

Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament)

25 May 2023 · Heavy duty vehicles emission standards

Meeting with Caroline Nagtegaal (Member of the European Parliament)

23 May 2023 · Ensuring transport works for women

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

4 Apr 2023 · Transport

Response to Transitional measures for smart tachograph 2 regarding its use of OSNMA

7 Mar 2023

TLN is content that the EC has found a solution to allow the introduction of the SMT2 and all his functions at the foreseen date, so that there is no delay in the possibility to have a tachograph that records the border crossings automatically. The manual input of border crossings is a very costly activity, both in time, fuel and CO2-emissions and should end as soon as possible. Nevertheless we strongly oppose to the mandatory update of the transitional tachographs. This brings almost no benefits but does bring a lot of extra costs for the transport operators and puts more pressure on the already strained capacity of the workshops due to the mandatory retrofits. The OSNMA authentication is not essential for the correct functioning of the tachograph, it is only to prevent the signal from being jammed or spoofed. There is no evidence that this is happening at a scale to justify the extra costs for the sector. There is no evidence either that the authentication will prevent all manipulation either. The transitional tachograph will deliver the necessary, reliable data that is needed for enforcement of the Mobility Package 1. So neither industry nor enforcers will benefit from the OSNMA update. Enforcers cannot easily notice if the tachograph is updated or not, but have to check the JRC website to compare the software version of the update. Needless to say this will take time and effort and there are many other issues they have to control. Furthermore, they will not miss any data needed for checks on the rules of the Mobility Package. Reminded needs to be also that OSNMA authentication was not a part of the texts in the Regulation, but was part of the development of the specifications of the SMT2 in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1228. The fact that EUSPA has not been able to be ready in time for the deadline of the SMT2 should not be a burden for the other stakeholders in the industry. In the attachment you can find a more detailed elaboration of the expected unnecessary costs and suggestions for amendment of the annex.
Read full response

Response to Amendment of the ERRU system

5 Dec 2022

We welcome amendments to the ERRU system that are made to facilitate enforcers to target those companies in their control efforts that have the highest risks on infringements. Especially when this means that compliant companies will have less needless controls. But we have the following objections and strong worries about the way this is designed now: Transparency and a right to correct First of all, in this day and age, it is astonishing that such a system comes without transparency and appeal procedures for the companies. They should have the right to know what information is put in the system about them, and have the right to correct data if they are incorrect. And in order to get the correct information on clean checks in the system, this should be accompanied by an obligation for enforcers to produce evidence for the company/driver that the result was clean and the possibility to check if this is in the system. This weighs even heavier if the information that is put in the ERRU system is not, as it is now, about infringements that are definite (no possibility to object anymore). See also the next issue. Different goals, one set of data? The ERRU system that we currently have for good repute is based on final penalties, against which is no appeal or objection is possible. This makes sense as it is not very efficient, logical or fair to start a national procedure to investigate good repute if an infringement is still under judgement in Court. Risk rating on the other hand is usually based on detected infringements, penalised or not. But in the proposed Annex there has been made no distinction between the two, as the INF is replaced by the NCR. So it needs to be made clear somehow that either there are two sets of data for different purposes or, if it remains one functionality, it should be clear that this is only meant for definitive sanctions. Obligations to put the information in the system It should be obligated in stead of allowed for Member States to inform the MS of establishment of the check results. The RR formula will only work properly and be trusted by enforcers if all MS put their data in it. Missing a functionality for registration of SMT2 in the vehicle There is no functionality for information about the use of the SMT2 tachograph. But this is important information in the Risk Rating (RR) formula, so the functionality should have an option to include this information. That is also prescribed by art 9 of Directive 2006/22 as amended by the Mobility Package. Ability of the MS to integrate all the infringements in the RR Has the EC investigated if all MS have the ability to integrate the information of all these infringements into the ERRU system? The RR was limited to the driving times and tachograph rules but is now broadened to subjects that are under control of other authorities (which have no link yet to ERRU), such as the labour inspectorate. We have severe doubts that this can all be linked that easily in such a short timeframe.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Consortia Block Exemption Regulation

3 Oct 2022

We, Fenex the Dutch association for freight forwarding and logistics, support the joint letter that has been sent by CLECAT, GSF, ESC, FIATA etc. regarding the Consortia Block Exemption Regulation (afterwards: CBER). We are thus calling for: A change of the legislative framework in which the container shipping lines are able to cooperate and therefore not for an (unaltered) extension of the de Consortia Block Exemption Regulation. Fenex calls on the European Commission not to renew the CBER and to signal the ending of these special privileges and an eventual return to normal conditions of competition for the liner shipping industry. The CBER should be replaced by sector-specific guidelines to ensure that all stakeholders have legal clarity on the parameters of the future regime. The CBER is no longer fit-for-purpose due to market developments such as an increase of rates, a poor level of services, consolidation of carriers, vertical integration and the amounts of data being shared without supervision. This leads to the conclusion that the CBER is no longer effective, efficient, coherent or relevant nor it brings EU added value. In the attachment a more extensive version of our submission is found. Next to this, the submission of CLECAT is fully supported by Fenex.
Read full response

Meeting with Bas Eickhout (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

29 Sept 2022 · F-gas Regulation

Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Sept 2022 · TEN-T / CO2-standards trucks / AFIR / Weights and measures

Dutch transport group urges higher state aid for green transition

15 Jul 2022
Topic — The European Commission is reviewing rules for exempting small state aid from competition control.
Message — The group requests raising the aid ceiling for transport companies above the current 100,000 euro limit. They argue higher limits are necessary to help businesses afford expensive zero-emission trucks and meet climate goals.12
Why — This would enable governments to provide more funding to lower vehicle purchase costs.3
Read full response

Response to Evaluation and revision of the Weights and Dimensions Directive

17 Feb 2022

Veel van de zaken die voor Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) van belang zijn en die onderdeel zouden moeten zijn van de herziening worden als zodanig ook benoemd en dat beoordeelt TLN positief. Er zijn een aantal specifieke punten die TLN zou willen benoemen: 1. De EU-richtlijn kent 40 ton als maximum toegestaan gewicht (GVW) voor het grensoverschrijdende vervoer binnen de EU. Voor intermodaal vervoer geldt een maximum van 44 ton. De richtlijn biedt landen de mogelijkheid voor nationaal vervoer een hoger gewicht toe te staan. Veel landen maken daar gebruik van en hebben inmiddels een GVW van 44 ton voor het nationaal vervoer. Bij grensoverschrijdend vervoer naar of vanuit dat land geldt vervolgens weer de waarde van 40 ton. Dit zorgt voor veel onduidelijkheid en het leidt veelal tot oneerlijke concurrentie. Ook heeft het een negatief effect op de transportefficiency en het milieu. Wij zouden graag zien dat de huidige waarde van 40 ton voor grensoverschrijdend vervoer wordt verhoogd naar 44 ton. Technisch is dat geen enkel probleem. Als dat voor de hele EU niet haalbaar is, zou het hogere gewicht mogen worden toegestaan tussen twee landen die op hun eigen grondgebied al een hoger GVW hanteren en die daar beiden mee instemmen. 2. LZV’s hebben in de afgelopen jaren aangetoond op vele gebieden grote voordelen te hebben ten opzichte van reguliere combinaties. In steeds meer landen zijn deze modulaire combinaties inmiddels toegestaan. Een belangrijke volgende stap is dat de nieuwe richtlijn erin voorziet om LZV’s ook makkelijker in het grensoverschrijdende vervoer te kunnen inzetten. Daar is veel milieuwinst mee te halen. Met het oog hierop is het ook wenselijk dat er vanuit de richtlijn meer uniforme voorschriften voor LZV’s komen. 3. De voorschriften voor de afmetingen van autotransporters verschillen van land tot land. Dat zorgt vooral bij het internationale vervoer voor de nodige problemen. Er is meer EU-wetgeving nodig om de verschillende voorschriften beter op elkaar af te stemmen. 4. Het vervoer van exceptioneel vervoer valt buiten de scope van de richtlijn. Er is wel een zogenaamde ‘Best practice guidelines for abnormal roadtransport’ maar daar wordt in de praktijk niets mee gedaan. Het gevolg is dat ieder land zijn eigen regels heeft. Dat betreft zaken als de voertuigmarkering, zwaailampen, breedteborden, waarschuwingsborden, toegestane afmetingen en uitsteek, aanwezigheid begeleiding, rijtijden, ontheffingen, benodigde voertuigdocumenten etc. Voor het internationale vervoer is het veel werk om aan de betreffende voorwaarden te voldoen. Vaak moeten er bij de landsgrenzen allerlei aanpassingen aan het voertuig worden doorgevoerd om verder te kunnen rijden. Het zou wenselijk zijn als er in de nieuwe richtlijn meer aandacht is voor het exceptionele vervoer en dat er een aanzet komt voor meer harmonisatie van de wet- en regelgeving.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

10 Jun 2021 · Decarbonisation of road freight

Response to Proposal for a Regulation - Regional and urban Policy

8 Apr 2021

TLN welcomes the Brexit Adjustment Reserve. The Netherlands is one of the countries most affected by Brexit. The transport & logistics sector has made huge efforts and costs to prepare themselves in the best possible way. Upon urgent and repeated requests from Dutch government but also European Commission and Brexit negotiators towards companies to prepare themselves as soon as possible for Brexit, many companies started preparing already 2018 and 2019, since Brexit date was fixed at 29-03-2019. TLN is surprised that the time frame of the BAR starts only from 1 july 2020. This date does not do justice to companies that have started preparations early, notably at the request of governments, but rewards those who have not prepared at all. This is a wrong signal. TLN would like to see this starting date altered to mid 2019, because only then does the BAR do justice to companies that have started preparing in time.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

12 Nov 2020 · Interview on sustainable logistics

Dutch livestock transporters seek clearer rules on responsibility and disinfection

23 Jul 2019
Topic — The consultation concerns updated EU rules for the movement of terrestrial animals between countries.
Message — TLN wants the term 'supply chain' defined and disinfection requirements limited to days when transport actually occurs. They also ask that transporters not be held responsible for animal residency history they cannot access.123
Why — This would prevent transporters from being legally liable for animal health data they do not possess.4
Impact — Owners and keepers of livestock would bear sole responsibility for ensuring movement requirements are met.5
Read full response

Meeting with Robert Schröder (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)

7 Feb 2019 · R&I in mobility

Meeting with Desiree Oen (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

4 Mar 2015 · Logistics

Meeting with Desiree Oen (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

9 Feb 2015 · Platooning