In July 2023, the European Commission presented proposal COM(2023) 445 to reform the EU Directive governing truck weights and dimensions. The initiative is part of the Greening Freight Transport Package, aimed at reducing emissions and improving freight transport efficiency. The package pursues four main goals: to promote zero-emission technologies, encourage energy-saving solutions, support intermodal transport, and enable cross-border use of European Modular Systems (EMS) — truck combinations up to 25.25 metres long and 60 tonnes in total weight. These vehicles are currently authorised only within certain member states, and cross-border operations require bilateral agreements. The new proposal seeks to facilitate their movement across borders.
The European Parliament approved the package in its first reading on 12 March 2024, adding an amendment that requires member states to carry out preliminary assessments of EMS impacts on road safety, infrastructure, and modal shift. The file then moved to the Council of the EU, where discussions stalled due to disagreement among national governments. In November 2024, during Hungary’s EU Council presidency, Deputy Transport Minister Nándor Csepreghy stated that “member states are not prepared to reach an agreement by the end of 2024.”
Poland took over the presidency in January 2025 and passed the file largely unchanged to Denmark in July. The Danish presidency has made the revision of the weights and dimensions directive one of its transport priorities, seeking an agreement that would allow cross-border circulation of such vehicles between consenting countries without special permits. This has reignited the debate between supporters and opponents, both at European and national levels.
Positions are clearly divided. Some road transport associations — especially those representing large fleets — are in favour, while rail industry bodies are opposed. On the road transport side are the UETR and IRU. UETR argues that international EMS operations would bring “greater capacity, productivity and help address the growing driver shortage,” while IRU highlights the potential for decarbonisation, as larger truck combinations could reduce the total number of vehicles needed.
Truck manufacturers, represented by their European association ACEA, have also intervened with cautious support for the revision. ACEA stresses that updating weight, axle load and length limits is “essential to ensure that battery-electric and hydrogen-powered trucks can compete on equal terms with conventional diesel models.”
The rail sector, on the other hand, warns that wider use of EMS would have “disastrous” effects on rail freight. CER has warned that it would lead to a shift back to road transport, undermining decades of investment in rail. Together with UIC, UIRR, ERFA and UIP, CER commissioned a study from German consultancy d-fine, which found that authorising EMS could shift 21% of freight from rail to road and cause losses of up to 16% in intermodal transport.
This divide also runs through national governments and is the main reason for the current deadlock in the EU Council. Countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and some Nordic states, which already use EMS domestically, tend to support the proposal, while others, including Italy, remain cautious. France has taken an especially restrictive stance, currently prohibiting such vehicle combinations even within its own territory.
Finding a compromise — if one is possible — will be a major challenge for European policymakers. Whatever the outcome, the consequences will extend far beyond the transport sector, affecting infrastructure investment, European industrial competitiveness, climate targets and road safety. The ongoing delay is already creating uncertainty for investors and could jeopardise the achievement of the EU’s 2030 decarbonisation goals.
