Article 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time\narrangements provides that the Commission must submit a report on\nthe impact of the Directive's provisions on the sectors concerned\nto the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic\nand Social Committee. It also provides that the report is to be\ndrawn up on the basis of the information made available to the\nCommission by each Member State by 30 April 2007. In\npresenting this report the Commission is fulfilling its obligations\nin accordance with Article 5.
\nThe implications of summer time - summary of the\ninformation provided by the Member States:
\nTwenty-five Member States sent the Commission their\ncomments on the impact of the summer-time arrangements in their\ncountry. In summary, and based on the information forwarded to it,\nthe Commission makes the following findings :
\nNew studies:
\nA few Member States sent in information on recent\nquantitative studies, relating to the impact of summer time on\nenergy consumption, road safetyandhealth. They are as\nfollows :
\nEnergy: Summer time\nhelps to save energy since less electricity is used for lighting in\nthe evening due to the fact that it is lighter. However, the\nincreased energy consumption for heating during the morning when\nthe time is adjusted and the higher fuel consumption caused by a\npotential increase in traffic in the evenings when it is lighter\nhave to be deducted from these savings. Also, the savings actually\nachieved are difficult to gauge and in any event are relatively\nsmall. This is based largely on studies conducted in Bulgaria,\nLatvia, France, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus.
\nRoad Safety: As regards\nroad safety, the main question that needs to be addresses is\nwhether darker mornings, in particular in spring and autumn, and\nlighter evenings have an impact on the number of traffic accidents.\nThe lack of sufficient data and the interaction of other factors\nsuch as weather conditions do not enable a definite causal link\nbetween summer time and the number of accidents to be established.\nTwo countries did conduct some studies into this question. In\nEstonia, a comparativestudy of the number of accidents\ninvolving fatalities and casualties 30 days before and after the\ntime adjustments in 2004 to 2006 did not show any significant\nstatistical variations of the annual number of accidents. Research\nby Estradas de Portugal did not reveal any direct link\nbetween summer time and road safety. This view has been confirmed\nby several transport experts.
\nHealth: In 2003 and 2004\ntwo Finnish studies looked into the impact on the body of changing\nthe time in March, based on a sample of 10 people. The studies\nfound some impact on sleep and biorhythm in the four days following\nthe time change. However, the authors stress that the studies do\nnot allow any conclusions to be drawn for the population as a whole\nbecause of the small size of the sample.
\nPublic opinion:
\nEstonia, Latvia, Lithuania\nand France sent in the results of recent opinion polls or public\nconsultation exercises (over the internet) on summer time. However,\nthe very small number of recent surveys on this subject do not\nenable valid conclusions to be drawn, especially since the degree\nof representation and the results of the surveys vary from one\ncountry to the next.
\nEurobarometer: A 1990\nEurobarometer survey found a satisfaction index of about 57.4% for\nthe summer time in the European Community as a whole. A 1993 Euro\nbarometer survey, taken on the date on which summer time ended,\nshowed that a majority of citizens in the then EU-12 were for in\nfavour of summertime ending on the last day of October (54.5%) as\nopposed to the end of September (38.4%).
\nContacts with associations and citizens:\nThe Commission has been contacted regularly by\nACHED, a French association opposed to summer time in France and\nEurope. No other associations, including associations in the\nvarious sectors concerned, made their opinion known to the\nCommission. However, the Commission occasionally receives\ncorrespondence from ordinary citizens calling for a change to the\ncurrent arrangements (e.g. the abolition of summer time or the\nintroduction of summer time all year round).
\nConclusions:
\nThe Commission concludes its report by stating that\nthe main objective of the Directive remains valid. Current\narrangements offer a wide range of evening leisure activities and\nsome energy savings, whilst having little or no impact on overall\neconomic activity. Against this background, the Commission\ntakes the view that the summer-time arrangements, as introduced by\nthe Directive, continue to be appropriate. No Member State has\nexpressed a wish to abandon summer time or change the provisions of\nthe current Directive. On the contrary, it is important to maintain\nthe harmonised timetable to ensure the proper functioning of the\ninternal market, which is the main objective of the\nDirective.
\nArticle 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time\narrangements provides that the Commission must submit a report on\nthe impact of the Directive's provisions on the sectors concerned\nto the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic\nand Social Committee. It also provides that the report is to be\ndrawn up on the basis of the information made available to the\nCommission by each Member State by 30 April 2007. In\npresenting this report the Commission is fulfilling its obligations\nin accordance with Article 5.
\nThe implications of summer time - summary of the\ninformation provided by the Member States:
\nTwenty-five Member States sent the Commission their\ncomments on the impact of the summer-time arrangements in their\ncountry. In summary, and based on the information forwarded to it,\nthe Commission makes the following findings :
\nNew studies:
\nA few Member States sent in information on recent\nquantitative studies, relating to the impact of summer time on\nenergy consumption, road safetyandhealth. They are as\nfollows :
\nEnergy: Summer time\nhelps to save energy since less electricity is used for lighting in\nthe evening due to the fact that it is lighter. However, the\nincreased energy consumption for heating during the morning when\nthe time is adjusted and the higher fuel consumption caused by a\npotential increase in traffic in the evenings when it is lighter\nhave to be deducted from these savings. Also, the savings actually\nachieved are difficult to gauge and in any event are relatively\nsmall. This is based largely on studies conducted in Bulgaria,\nLatvia, France, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus.
\nRoad Safety: As regards\nroad safety, the main question that needs to be addresses is\nwhether darker mornings, in particular in spring and autumn, and\nlighter evenings have an impact on the number of traffic accidents.\nThe lack of sufficient data and the interaction of other factors\nsuch as weather conditions do not enable a definite causal link\nbetween summer time and the number of accidents to be established.\nTwo countries did conduct some studies into this question. In\nEstonia, a comparativestudy of the number of accidents\ninvolving fatalities and casualties 30 days before and after the\ntime adjustments in 2004 to 2006 did not show any significant\nstatistical variations of the annual number of accidents. Research\nby Estradas de Portugal did not reveal any direct link\nbetween summer time and road safety. This view has been confirmed\nby several transport experts.
\nHealth: In 2003 and 2004\ntwo Finnish studies looked into the impact on the body of changing\nthe time in March, based on a sample of 10 people. The studies\nfound some impact on sleep and biorhythm in the four days following\nthe time change. However, the authors stress that the studies do\nnot allow any conclusions to be drawn for the population as a whole\nbecause of the small size of the sample.
\nPublic opinion:
\nEstonia, Latvia, Lithuania\nand France sent in the results of recent opinion polls or public\nconsultation exercises (over the internet) on summer time. However,\nthe very small number of recent surveys on this subject do not\nenable valid conclusions to be drawn, especially since the degree\nof representation and the results of the surveys vary from one\ncountry to the next.
\nEurobarometer: A 1990\nEurobarometer survey found a satisfaction index of about 57.4% for\nthe summer time in the European Community as a whole. A 1993 Euro\nbarometer survey, taken on the date on which summer time ended,\nshowed that a majority of citizens in the then EU-12 were for in\nfavour of summertime ending on the last day of October (54.5%) as\nopposed to the end of September (38.4%).
\nContacts with associations and citizens:\nThe Commission has been contacted regularly by\nACHED, a French association opposed to summer time in France and\nEurope. No other associations, including associations in the\nvarious sectors concerned, made their opinion known to the\nCommission. However, the Commission occasionally receives\ncorrespondence from ordinary citizens calling for a change to the\ncurrent arrangements (e.g. the abolition of summer time or the\nintroduction of summer time all year round).
\nConclusions:
\nThe Commission concludes its report by stating that\nthe main objective of the Directive remains valid. Current\narrangements offer a wide range of evening leisure activities and\nsome energy savings, whilst having little or no impact on overall\neconomic activity. Against this background, the Commission\ntakes the view that the summer-time arrangements, as introduced by\nthe Directive, continue to be appropriate. No Member State has\nexpressed a wish to abandon summer time or change the provisions of\nthe current Directive. On the contrary, it is important to maintain\nthe harmonised timetable to ensure the proper functioning of the\ninternal market, which is the main objective of the\nDirective.
\n