----

----

II Preparatory Acts

European Economic and Social Committee

429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Sustainable development as a driving force for industrial change

(2006/C 318/01)

On 14 July 2005 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Sustainable development as a driving force for industrial change.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 August 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Siecker and the co-rapporteur was Mr Činčera.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 98 votes to 11 with 11 abstentions.

Part 1: Summary of the EESC's conclusions and recommendations

Part 2: Arguments to support the opinion

1.   Overview

2.   Renewable energy sources

2.1   Introduction

2.2   Biomass

2.3   Wind energy

2.4   Solar energy

2.5   Geothermal energy

3.   Raw material efficiency

3.6   Combined heat and power (CHP)

4.   Implications of sustainability for a range of sectors

The growth of sectors engaged in research and development in the field of renewable energy technologies shows that there are considerable economic opportunities in sustainable development. These opportunities do not only exist in those sectors where sustainability technologies are being directly developed but also in those in which new technologies have to be implemented.

4.1   Transport

4.2   Construction

4.3   Industry

5.   Social aspects

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2005) 658 final, 13.12.2005.

(2)  Energy triad — an approach to energy sustainability developed by Delft University of Technology.

(3)  Source: Energie Centrum Nederland, www.ecn.nl.

(4)  COM(2006) 105 final, 8.3.2006.

(5)  Eurobarometer issues 227 (on nuclear energy and waste, June 2005) and 247 (Attitudes towards Energy, January 2006.

(6)  Source: Energie Centrum Nederland, www.ecn.nl.

(7)www.worldwatch.org.

(8)  Biomass Action Plan, Communication from the Commission (SEC(2005) 1573).

(9)  Source: Energie Centrum Nederland, www.ecn.nl.

(10)  Sources: www.ewea.org and www.wind-energie.de.

(11)  Source: Energie Centrum Nederland, www.ecn.nl.

(12)  See Appendix I.

(13)  See Appendix II.

(14)  Source: Informatiecentrum Duurzame Energie.

(15)  See EESC opinion entitled Risks and problems associated with the supply of raw materials to European industry.

(16)  Review of the European Sustainable Development Strategy.

(17)  CARS 21 High Level Group: Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 2st century.

(18)  Source: COM(2001) 547, Directive 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport, ALTERNATIVE FUELS REPORT OF THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS CONTACT GROUP DECEMBER 2003.

(19)  COM(2005) 474 final, point 4.1.

(20)  See Electricity for more efficiency — Electric technologies and their energy savings potential (July 2004):

http://www.uie.org/library/REPORT_FINAL_July_2004.pdf.

(21)‘Zertifikatehandel für CO2-Emissionen auf dem Prüfstand’, 2002, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Energie- und Systemplanung (AGEP)/Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).

(22)‘Gesamtwirtschaftliche, sektorale und ökologische Auswirkungen des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG)’, 2004, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universität zu Köln (EWI, Köln), Institut für Energetik und Umwelt (IE, Leipzig), Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI, Essen).

(23)‘Das Kyoto-Protokoll und die Folgen für Deutschland 2005’, Institut für politische Analysen und Strategie (ipas) in cooperation with the International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF).

(24)  German Environment Ministry press release No 179/06 of 10.7.2006.

(25)  German Environment Ministry press release No 81/06 of 20.4.2006.

(26)  www.emcc.eurofound.eu.int/erm/.

(27)  Hintergrundpapier ‘Umweltschutz und Beschäftigung’ Umweltbundesamt, April 2004.

(28)  www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/39/35042829.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The territorial governance of industrial change: the role of the social partners and the contribution of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme

(2006/C 318/02)

At its plenary session of 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on The territorial governance of industrial change: the role of the social partners and the contribution of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 August 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini and the co-rapporteur was Mr Gibellieri.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 181 votes to two with eight abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Definitions

The opinion refers to a number of concepts whose definitions are provided below.

2.2   Socially responsible area (6)

An area can be defined as being socially responsible when it gears its development towards sustainability, thus tying in the economic, social and environmental dimensions. An area can define itself as socially responsible if it succeeds in:

In order to plan for a socially responsible area, it is necessary to:

2.3   The social capital of an area

Social capital can take many forms: cooperative or competitive cultures; a shared sense of community, or polarised interest groups; differing modes of learning. Cultural traditions and types of organisation can have a considerable impact on the obstacles that might obstruct the creation of a socially responsible area. A more in-depth study of the social resources available in an area (social capital) calls for a distinction to be drawn between: institutional capital, cultural capital, symbolic capital, psychosocial capital and cognitive capital.

2.4   Foresight (9): the future as a social construct

The future has to be built. It is people who build it, through their actions and the sometimes unexpected consequences of them. It is not simply a matter of telling the future but of building it socially. The systematic consideration of probable or possible events can contribute to this process. The systematic study of the future is an area of research that seeks to shape a future that reflects our hopes more closely. The aim of foresight is not therefore to tell the future, but to imagine a future that is different from the present, made possible by factors such as changes in technology, lifestyle, working habits, regulations, world geopolitics, etc.

2.5   Grassroots democracy

3.   Reasons

4.   The integrated territorial approach (ITA) and foresight systems for local and regional research and innovation

4.1   ITA and local human resources

4.2   ITA and the development of a new, stronger form of entrepreneurship

4.3   ITA, CIP and the seventh framework programme — Consistency with other Community policies

In 2005, the Heads of State or Government gave further political impetus to the relaunched Lisbon strategy, in particular by emphasising the way in which European values can underpin modernisation of the economy and society in a globalised world.

4.7   ITA, participatory governance, the social partners and civil society

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  See Presidency conclusions of the European Council meeting of 23-24 March 2006, paragraph 4.

(2)  See: Pacte Industrial de la Regio Metropolitana de Barcelona ( http://www.pacteind.org/eng/activities/) which states that ‘The territory's competitiveness lies in the quality of the companies and their workers, ...’.

(3)  See European Commission guidelines on cohesion policy: An active horizontal partnership (Social partners, organised civil society, administrators); An effective vertical partnership (European Commission, national governments, local and regional governments). See Regulation EC/1260/1999 of 21.6.1999 and COM(2002) 598 of 7.11.2002.

(4)  See ‘Grassroots democracy’.

(5)  P. Cooke et al, 1998, Regional Innovation Systems — The role of governance in a globalised world.

(6)  This concept underpins the new JESSICA programme, launched by DG Regio, financed by the EIB and aimed at particularly run-down city areas.

(7)  In anthropological terms, culture consists of forms of behaviour that are acquired and transferred through symbols, actions, signs and the fruit of intellect (Alberoni, Consumi e società).

(8)  F.Alburquerque et al, Learning to innovate, OECD seminar 30.9 — 1.10.1999 Malaga, Spain.

(9)  Definition of foresight: Systematic, participatory process that involves the gathering of information and the development of visions for the future, in the medium and long term, designed to direct decision-making and mobilise means for joint action.

(10)  COM(2002) 565 final of 16/10/2002.

(11)  http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/foresight/main.htm.

http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/foresight/main.htm.

http://www.regional-foresight.de/.

http://prospectiva2002.jrc.es/.

(12)  Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. This is one of the seven institutes that fall under the JRC (Joint Research Centre).

(13)  ‘Creating an innovative Europe’, report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation, chaired by Esko Aho, January 2006.

(14)  People with social and technological experience who, with the help of technological poles, are able to help micro and small companies with innovation processes.

(15)  See European Council Conclusions of 15 and 16 June 2006.

(16)  See ‘European logistics policy’.

(17)  SWOT: Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis.

(18)  See ETUC document: ‘Restructuring and employment — Anticipating and accompanying restructuring in order to develop employment: the role of the European Union’ (ETUC Executive Committee, Brussels, 14 and 15 June 2005).

(19)  Flexicurity: the case of Denmark, ECO/167 — Rapporteur: Ms Vium.

(20)  The GEANT project grew out of collaboration between 26 National Research and Education Networks representing 30 countries across Europe, the European Commission, and DANTE (Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe). Its principal purpose was to develop the GÉANT network — a multi-gigabit pan-European data communications network, reserved specifically for research and education use.

(21)  GRID: a system that integrates and coordinates resources and users that live within different control domains for example, the user's desktop vs. central computing, different administrative units of the same company, or different companies, and addresses the issues of security policy, payment, membership, and so forth that arise in these settings.

(22)  See, for instance, the ‘youth pact’ established by the French Government.

(23)  See Pacte Industrial de la Regio Metropolitana de Barcelona ( http://www.pacteind.org/eng/activities/) which states that ‘The territory's competitiveness lies in the quality of the companies and their workers, ...’.

(24)  See The road to the European knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy (exploratory opinion) — Rapporteurs: Mr Olsson, Ms Belabed and Mr van Iersel.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The contribution of IT-supported lifelong learning to European competitiveness, industrial change and social capital development

(2006/C 318/03)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: The contribution of IT-supported lifelong learning to European competitiveness, industrial change and social capital development.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 August 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Marian Krzaklewski. The co-rapporteur was Mr András Szücs.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 181 votes to six with eleven abstentions.

1.   Proposals and recommendations

2.   Introduction and reason for opinion

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

The contribution of IT-supported lifelong learning to European competitiveness and productivity

The contribution of IT-assisted lifelong learning to the development of social capital

The contribution of IT–assisted lifelong learning to industrial change, with particular reference to investment in employee skills, the development of human resources and tackling unemployment.

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)e-Learning — The use of new multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services as well as remote exchanges and collaboration.

(2)Lifelong learning (LL) — An expression used to indicate that acquiring new knowledge is now considered a continuous process which does not end when one leaves school or university, but continues uninterrupted throughout one's professional life and even after retirement, spreading to embrace all stages of life and all social groups thanks, to a large extent, to the possibilities offered by e-learning (source: www.elearningeuropa.info).

(3)Broadband Internet access — Communications channel with high capacity, enabling quick, easy access to information and e-learning systems (source: www.elearningeuropa.info).

(4)Knowledge-based society — A society whose processes and practices are based on the production, distribution, and use of knowledge for the continued improvement of skills and full involvement in family and professional life and in society, COM(2001) 678 final.

(5)An integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning, COM(2004) 474 final, 14.7.2004.

(6)  Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, No 2318/2003/EC on the eLearning Programme of 5 December 2003.

(7)  Non-formal learning takes place alongside the mainstream systems of education and training and does not typically lead to formalised certificates. Non-formal learning may be provided in the workplace and through the activities of civil society organisations and groups (such as in youth organisations, trades unions and political parties). It can also be provided through organisations or services that have been set up to complement formal systems. EU Commission, SEC(2000) 1832.

(8)Informal learning — Learning based on everyday situations at work, in the family and during leisure time. It is neither organised nor formal (in terms of set goals, duration or resources). For the learner, non-formal learning often takes place unwittingly and does not usually lead to a certificate.

EU Commission, SEC(2000) 1832.

(9)Improving the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy.

(10)  Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe, COM(2005) 549 final 30.11.2005.

(11)  Conclusions of the Council on education, youth and culture of 21.2.2005.

(12)  COM(2005) 229 final.

(13)  Ministerial Conference ‘ICT for an inclusive society’, Riga, 11.6.2006.

(14)  eAccessibility.

(15)  e-exclusion — exclusion from participation in electronic communication.

(16)  Digital literacy — one of the basic skills required to actively participate in the information society and the new media culture. It focuses on the acquisition of skills and abilities linked to new technologies, increasingly essential in everyday life. E-Learning Programme, 5 December 2003.

(17)  Opinion — Key competences for lifelong learning, May 2006.

(18)  Report — RAND Europe, ‘The Supply and Demand of E-skills in Europe’, IX 2005.

(19)  E-competences — competences in the field of ICT and skills and attitudes relating to ICT usage, which make it possible to carry out professional tasks at the appropriate level.

(20)  Communication of the European Commission: Bridging the Broadband Gap of 21.3.2006.

(21)  COM(2002) 262 final.

(22)  Commission communication: Investing efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe COM(2002) 779 of 10 January 2003 (5269/03).

(23)  De la Fuente and Ciccone: Human capital in a global and knowledge-based economy. Final report for the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs, European Commission, 2002.

(24)  Conclusions of the Presidency, European Council 23-24 March 2006 (7775/06).

(25)  Opinion: i2010 — A European Information Society for Growth and Employment.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Services and European manufacturing industries: Interactions and impacts on employment, competitiveness and productivity

(2006/C 318/04)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the Services and European manufacturing industries: Interactions and impacts on employment, competitiveness and productivity.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 August 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Calleja. The co-rapporteur was Mr Rohde.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 183 votes to three with four abstentions.

Conclusions and recommendations

This opinion advocates:

Overall statement

The importance of business services for the growth, competitiveness and employment levels of European manufacturing and service industries needs to be recognised. The use of competitive business services should be promoted through a set of coherent policy actions at European level. The 2005 draft action plan of the EU Business-Related Service Forum (BRSF) provides a good platform for further discussion.

Policy objectives and follow-up

The positive role of business services in the development of public and private manufacturing and service industries should be supported. This may be achieved by a variety of means. At EU level, the following actions are strongly recommended by the EESC:

More generally, other measures need to be taken at market level and encouraged by public administrations, such as:

R&D, innovation and digital delivery

Service engineering and standards

Improving knowledge and employment in European business services

Reasons

1.   Introduction

2.   Challenges for European industry: a challenge for business services

The EESC advocates more rapid progress in concrete achievements of the EU Industrial Policy and the inclusion of business services within its framework.

3.   The importance of business services and their interaction with industry

3.1   Definition of business services

Business services are traditionally defined as a sub-group (NACE 70-74) within the business-related services (i.e. business services plus transport services, communications, distributive trade and financial services) (11). The criterion for the definition of both concepts is the clientele to which the services are directed. They are not services mainly addressed to final consumers, but rather to enterprises. They are real activities that influence first the competitiveness of companies (they are not incompatible with the service provision to consumers) through their use as intermediary inputs in the value chain and also through the quality and innovation gains resulting from the interaction between supplier and client and service. Business services have the particular characteristics that most of them can be performed in-house or be contracted out (outsourced) to an external specialised firm.

3.3   The place of business services in the economy

Business services are an important element of the European market economy. However, the most important feature of business services is that they are present in, and integrated into, every stage of the value chain. Growth of business services is usually explained by the migration of employment from manufacturing industry to services due to the outsourcing of the services functions. But the reasons for growth are multiple. Changes in production systems, more flexibility, stronger competition on international markets, the increasing role of ICT and knowledge and the emergence of new types of services are other important factors. ‘According to Structural Business Statistics, the business-related services sector (excluding the financial services) constitute[d] 53 % of total employment in the EU market economy in 2001, while manufacturing ha[d] a share of 29 % (or around 29 million persons employed) [...]. Total value added by business-related services constitute[d] 54 % in 2001 compared to 34 % for manufacturing’ (13).

4.   How business services improve industrial competitiveness (16)

5.   The EU knowledge creation system

6.   The role of ‘service engineering’

7.   The importance of digital delivery of services

8.   The employment potential in business services

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  WTO Trade Statistics, 2004.

(2)  Business Services in European Industry, Luis Rubalcaba-Bermejo — EU Commission, 1999.

(3)  Summary of final report: ‘The significance of competitive manufacturing industries for the development of the services sectors’, Kalmbach et al., University of Bremen, December 2003.

(4)  See the EESC Opinion on ‘European business competitiveness’, that highlights the importance of guaranteeing appropriate social conditions while seeking to increase productivity and competitiveness. See, in particular, §§ 2.5 to 2.5.3; in § 2.5.2, for instance, the EESC states that it is ‘urgent for Europe to be made more competitive under conditions ensuring its economic and social development, its cohesion, its jobs and its environment’.

(5)  Eurostat News Release 17/2006, 13.2.2006.

(6)  COM(2004) 274 final. EESC Opinion adopted on 15.12.2004 (rapporteur: Mr van Iersel, corapporteur: Mr Legelius), OJ C 157, 28.6.2005, p. 75 onwards.

(7)  COM(2005) 474 final. EESC Opinion adopted on 20.4.2006 (rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark), OJ C 185, 8.8.2006, p. 80 onwards. See also the CCMI Complementary Opinion (rapporteur: Mr Pezzini).

(8)  EITO 2005, p. 263.

(9)  E-Business Report, 2005.

(10)  COM(2002) 441 final, 30 July 2002.

(11)  See the European Commission Communication entitled ‘The competitiveness of business-related services and their contribution to the performance of European enterprises’ (COM(2003) 747 final, 4 December 2003), which may be accessed at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0747en01.pdf (see, in particular, § I.2 and box 1).

(12)  Source: The competitiveness of business-related services and their contribution to the performance of European enterprises (COM(2003) 747 final), Annex I (‘Classifications of services and additional figures’), which may be accessed at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0747en01.pdf.

(13)  COM(2003) 747 final, § II.2, p. 11.

(14)  See ‘A sectoral survey of relocation: a factual background’ (in particular pages 107 and 177-179), commissioned by the CCMI and used as a basis for its Information Report entitled ‘A sectoral survey of relocation’ (rapporteur: Mr van Iersel, co-rapporteur: Mr Calvet Chambon).

(15)  Report of the EU Business-Related Service Forum, June 2005.

(16)  See COM(1998) 534 final and COM(2003) 747 final.

(17)  Stern, Furman, Porter, 2002.

(18)  See the EESC Opinion on FP7: In keeping with the Lisbon strategy, ‘the spring 2002 European Council in Barcelona [defined] quantitative objectives for the support of research activities, with total research expenditure in the EU set to rise to 3 % of GDP by 2010, with two-thirds of funding coming from the private sector (the 3 % objective). The Committee would point out, however, that, in the light of the global investment race, this objective is a “moving target”. Those who fail to reach it in time fall even further behind’ (§ 2.5).

(19)  COM(2006) 77 final.

(20)  Extracted from the publication entitled The Contribution of Business Services to European Employment, Innovation and Productivity, by Luis Rubalcaba and Henk Kox, forthcoming by Palgrave-Macmillan.

(21)Service engineering — methodical development of new service products, by Hans-Jorg Bullinger, Klaus-Peter Fahnrich, Thomas Meiren.

(22)  Thomas Meiren, Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering, Stuttgart, Germany.

(23)  European Forum on Business Related Services, 2005 Report.

(24)  ‘The Contribution of Business Services to European Employment, Innovation and Productivity’ by Luis Rubalcaba and Henk Kox (to be published in 2006 by Palgrave-Macmillan).

(25)  Rubalcaba, Kox, 2006, p. 42.

(26)  Source: Rubalcaba and Kox (2006), based on Eurostat data, Labour force Survey, 2004.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund

COM(2006) 91 final — 2006/0033 (COD)

(2006/C 318/05)

On 27 March 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 159 § 3 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 August 2006. The rapporteur was Mr van Iersel and the co-rapporteur was Mr Gibellieri.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 170 votes to ten with fifteen abstentions.

1.   Executive summary

2.   The Commission's proposal

3.   Background to the EGF

4.   General comments

4.4   Intervention criteria

4.5   The definition of eligible actions

5.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund, March 2006, COM(2006) 91 final, 2006/0033 (COD).

(2)  Impact assessment regarding above-mentioned regulation, SEC(2006) 274/2.

(3)  EU Competitiveness and Industrial Location, Bureau of European Policy Advisors to the Commission, BEPA (2005), 26 October 2005.

(4)  SEC(2006) 274.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC

COM(2005) 685 final — 2005/0265 (COD)

(2006/C 318/06)

On 31 January 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Cassidy.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 83 votes to 9 with 18 abstentions.

1.   EESC conclusions and recommendations

2.   The Commission's proposal

It deals with obstacles to cross-border voting for shareholders.

3.   Options

4.   Costs and benefits

4.1   Benefits

4.2   Costs

5.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2003) 284 final ‘Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union — A Plan to Move Forward’.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules for the provision of basic information on Purchasing Power Parities and for their calculation and dissemination

COM(2006) 135 final — 2006/0042 (COD)

(2006/C 318/07)

On 20 July 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Santillán.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 182 votes to 3 with 12 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs)

3.   PPPs and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

4.   Uses for PPPs

5.   Proposal for a Regulation

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  There are 254 NUTS 2 regions. Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003, annex 1.

(2)  Annex I, Methodology, 2.1.

(3)  The prices in question are ‘prices of consumer goods and services and related representativity indicators’, ‘prices of equipment goods’ and ‘prices of construction projects’.

(4)  Nevertheless, the origins of international price and volume comparisons of GDP can be traced back to the experimental comparisons carried out by the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) in the 1950s.

(5)  System used by international bodies (United Nations, IMF etc.).

(6)  According to Council Regulation 1260/1999, the Structural Funds apply to those regions whose per capita GDP, measured in PPPs, is less than 75 % of the Community average. This is also the case for those countries that have subsequently joined the EU (Annex II of the 2003 Act of Accession).

(7)  With regard to the Cohesion Fund, Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1164/1994 of 25 May 1994 states that the Fund applies to ‘Member States with a per capita gross national product, measured in purchasing power parities, of less than 90 % of the Community average’.

(8)  Article 3 includes the following definition: ‘“Purchasing Power Parities” or “PPPs” means spatial deflators and currency converters, which eliminate the effects of the differences in price levels between countries, thus allowing volume comparisons of GDP components and comparisons of price levels’.

(9)  The Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities, Annex XI, Art.1 (‘The economic parities shall be calculated in such a way that each basic component can be (...) checked by a direct survey at least once every five years’.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a paperless environment for customs and trade

COM(2005) 609 final — 2005/0247 (COD)

(2006/C 318/08)

On 17 January 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Burani.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 190 votes with three abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2005) 608 final.

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2003) 567 of 26.9.2003.

(3)  COM(2003) 452 of 24.7.2003, quoted in the EESC opinion on the Customs Code.

(4)  COM(2002) 26 of 21.3.2002, subject of EESC opinion in OJ C 241 of 7.10.2002.

(5)  COM(2003) 452 of 4.8.2003, subject of EESC opinion in OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004.

(6)  COM(2004) 401 final.

(7)  COM(2005) 184 final.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC

COM(2005) 603 final — 2005/0245 (COD)

(2006/C 318/09)

On 18 January 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 47(2) and Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Frank von Fürstenwerth.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 191 votes to one, with three abstentions:

1.   Summary

2.   Content of the draft directive

The main provisions of the proposed directive are as follows:

2.2   Right to provide payment services to the public (Title II)

2.3   Transparency and information requirements (Title III)

2.4   Rights and obligations of users and providers of payment services (Title IV)

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

4.2   Article 2(1) — Third-country transactions should not be included

4.3   Articles 5 et seq. — A uniform level of prudential supervision is an essential element of fair competition

4.4   Articles 30 et seq. — Information requirements must not be too formalised

4.5   Article 41, second sentence — All kinds of authorisation must be permitted

4.6   Article 48(2) and (3) — The burden of proof in cases of disputed payment transactions is not properly balance

4.7   Article 49 — Legal certainty must be established in the case of unauthorised payment transactions by introducing uniform cut-off periods for refunds

4.8   Articles 49 and 50 — Liability allocation requires further consideration

4.9   Article 53 — The refund period must be clearly fixed

4.10   Articles 60, 61 and 67 — A clear distinction must be made between the obligations of the payment service providers involved in executing the payment

4.11   Articles 60, 61 and 67 — The execution periods must be practicable

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)

COM(2005) 650 final — 2005/0261 (COD)

(2006/C 318/10)

On 24 February 2006 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Frank von Fürstenwerth.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13/14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 191 votes to one, with five abstentions:

1.   Summary of EESC conclusions and recommendations

2.   General comments

2.1   Grounds for the initiative

2.2   The legislative background

2.3   Legal base/Subsidiarity/Proportionality/legal status

3.   Specific comments

3.1   Material scope, application of third-country law (Articles 1, 2)

3.2   General rules on applicable law (Articles 3, 4)

3.3   Specific rules on applicable law (Articles 5-17)

3.4   Other provisions/final provisions (Articles 18 — 24)

3.5   Annex I

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, 19 June 1980. Current version: OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 36.

(2)  COM(2006) 83 final, 2003/0168 (COD).

(3)  COM (2002) 654 final.

(4)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation. INT/176, 29.01.2004.

(5)  European Parliament Resolution on the prospects for approximating civil procedural law in the European Union (COM(2002) 654 — COM(2002) 746 — C5-0201/2003 — 2003/2087(INI)), A5-0041/2004.

(6)  The following examples should be mentioned:

(7)  Cf. the various Hague Conventions, for example the Convention relating to the settlement of the conflict of the laws concerning marriage of 12.6.1902, the Convention on the law applicable to maintenance obligations towards children of 24.10.1956, the Convention on the law applicable to maintenance obligations of 2.10.1973, etc.

(8)  The Geneva Convention providing a uniform law for bills of exchange and promissory notes of 7 June 1930 and the Geneva Convention providing a uniform law for cheques of 19 March 1931.

(9)  If an optional instrument/26th regime ever comes into being, this would then claim to be the best of all possible systems of civil law. If it were agreed to apply this instrument rather than a national system of law, there would logically no longer be any need to align it with national laws or allow interference on the grounds of national mandatory rules (or even public policy considerations — Article 20). Instead, choice of the optional instrument would lead to a fully unrestricted application of this set of rules, as it would represent the generally acknowledged standard in the EU. As Article 3(2) already allows in principle for the choice of such an instrument, this would also be the logical place to create the conditions enabling the benefits of the optional instrument to be put into practice. It should be explicitly stated that Article 8 is without effect if it is agreed to apply a supranational system of law (the same applies to public policy — Article 20).

(10)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ. L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1).

(11)  Cases C-369/96 and C-374/96 of 23.11.1999.

(12)  Note: this is only clear from the French language version of the proposal; incomprehensibly, in the German language version it has not been translated, as German law lacks an equivalent legal instrument. However, for the sake of completeness it should at least be paraphrased.

(13)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, OJ. L 345, 19.12.2002, 1.

(14)  In distinction to re-insurance contracts.

(15)  At present, the situation is as follows: according to Article 1(3) of the Rome Convention, insurance contracts are excluded from the scope of the Convention, provided that they are direct insurance contracts, but only if the risk is located in the EU. When this happens cannot be deduced from the Rome Convention itself, but from the insurance directives. However, the Rome Convention applies to re-insurance contracts and to risks located outside the EU.

(16)Giuliano/Lagarde, Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, OJ C 282, 31.10.1980, p. 13.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions and on access to vehicle repair information, amending Directive 72/306/EEC and Directive .../.../EC

[COM(2005) 683 final — 2005/0282 (COD)]

(2006/C 318/11)

On 31 January 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 180 votes to three, with 11 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Reasons and legislative context

3.   Content of the proposal

4.   General comments

5.   Specific comments

6.   Comments and specific recommendations

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Category N vehicles are goods vehicles with at least four wheels. They are divided into three classes: N1, N2 and N3, on the basis of maximum weight: N1< 3 500kg; N2< 12 000kg; N3>12 000kg. The N1 class is also subdivided into 3 subclasses: NI, NII and NIII, also on the basis of weight.

(2)  Category M covers passenger vehicles with at least four wheels. They are divided into three classes (M1, M2, M3) based on the number of seats and their maximum weight: M1< 9 seats; M2> 9 seats and < 5 000kg; M2> 9 seats and < 5 000kg.

(3)OJ L 350 of 28.12.1998, Directive 1998/69/EC.

(4)  OASIS, Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards.

(5)  CAFE — Clean Air for Europe. This programme was launched by Communication COM(2001)245. It is designed to develop an analytical strategy for assessing directives on air quality, the effectiveness of programmes running in the Member States, ongoing monitoring of air quality and the dissemination of information to the public, the revision and updating of emissions limits and the development of new monitoring and modelling systems.

(6)  CARS 21 — Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st Century. This is a group of experts made up of representatives of the Commission, the European Parliament, the Member States, industry, trade unions, NGOs and consumers. Its task is to make recommendations for improving the competitiveness of the European automobile industry, while giving consideration to the relevant socio-environmental aspects.

(7)  At the meeting of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Group (December 2005), DG Enterprise handed out the document produced by the group of independent experts, which set out the results of the analysis carried out on the technology/cost ratio for vehicles falling within Euro 5.

(8)  SEC(2005) 1745, Impact Assessment for the present draft regulation, §6.2. Scenarios of the Regulatory Approach, Table 1 — Scenario G, p. 13.

(9)  SEC(2005) 43, Commission Staff Working Paper, Fiscal incentives for motor vehicles in advance of Euro 5.

(10)  COM(2005) 446 final.

(11)  Information available on the IISA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, website.

(12)  COM(2001) 547 final, whose objective for replacing traditional fuels with natural gas was set at 5 % by 2015 and 10 % by 2020.

(13)  This table identifies the tests to be carried out by vehicle type.

(14)  The term retrofit means the installation of a mechanism on a vehicle that is already in use in order to further restrict emissions.

(15)  Directive 70/220/EEC, Directive 80/1268/EEC, Directive 89/458/EEC, Directive 91/441/EEC, Directive 93/59/EEC, Directive 94/12/EC, Directive 96/69/EC and Directive 2004/3/EC.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Social tourism in Europe

(2006/C 318/12)

On 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: Social tourism in Europe.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Mendoza Castro.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 138 votes to two, with four abstentions.

A.   PART ONE: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SITUATION

1.   Introduction

2.   The concept of social tourism

3.   Social tourism players and their roles

4.   The reality of social tourism in Europe today

B.   PART TWO: PROPOSALS

5.   Towards a European social tourism platform

6.   Effects and results of a European social tourism platform

7.   Contribution of tourism, particularly social tourism, to the construction of a European identity and dimension

C.   PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.   Conclusions

9.   Recommendations

D.   PART FOUR: TECHNICAL AND DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  The different concepts of social tourism: the evolution of supply and demand, Directorate-General XXIII, Tourism Unit, 1993.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning structural business statistics

COM(2006) 66 final — 2006/0020 (COD)

(2006/C 318/13)

On 27 March 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 285(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 July 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Florio.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 130 votes, with seven abstentions.

1.   Background

2.   General comments

3.   The proposal for a regulation on structural business statistics

4.   Specific comments

5.   Conclusions and recommendations

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Decision 2000/819/EC.

(2)  COM(2003) 27 final, 21.1.2003.

(3)  COM(2004) 70 final, 11.2.2004.

(4)  COM(2005) 121 final, 6.4.2005.

(5)  COM(2005) 330 final, 20.7.2005.

(6)  NACE: Nomenclature générale des Activités économiques dans les Communautés Européennes (General Industrial Classification of Economic Activities in the European Communities).

(7)  See footnote 4.

(8)  COM(2006) 105 final, 8.3.2006.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

COM(2006) 93 final — 2006/0031 (COD)

(2006/C 318/14)

On 7 July 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 429th plenary session of 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 186 votes to seven, with 12 abstentions.

1.   Gist of the Commission proposal

2.   The political and social framework for the measure in the current international setting

3.   General comments

3.1   Legal base

3.2   Gist of the proposal

4.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 July 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (OJ L 256 of 13.9.1991, p. 51). EESC Opinion: Through what was then called the Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs and with Mr Van Dam as rapporteur, the EESC delivered its opinion on 17.12.1987 (OJ C 35, 8.2.1988, p.5), which was highly critical of the scope of the excessively limited measures adopted for controlling the movement of weapons from one Member State to another.

(2)  Council Decision of 16 October 2001 (OJ L 280, 24.10.2001).

(3)  In other words, as part of common external and security policy.

(4)  The issue of the traceability of ammunition, whilst not falling within the specific scope of the Commission proposal, has already been partially addressed, in conjunction with the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, in Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 (OJ L 121, 15.05.1993, p.20, EESC Opinion — OJ C 313, 30.11.1992, p.13), amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p.1, EESC Opinion — OJ C 241, 07.10.2002, p.128), in Directive 2004/57/EC of 23 April 2004 (OJ L 127, 29.04.2004, p.73), in Commission Decision 2004/388/EC of 15 April 2004 (OJ L 120, 24.04.2004, p.43) and in the programme set out in the Commission Communication of 15 July 2005, on measures to ensure greater security in explosives, detonators, bomb-making equipment and fire-arms.

(5)  Later included in the EU's June 1997 programme on the illicit trafficking of conventional weapons.

(6)  For the years 2001 to 2003 see: OJ C 216, of 1.8.2001, p.1, OJ C 330, of 31.12.2002, p.1; and OJ C 312, of 22.12.2003, p.1.

(7)  Under UN General Assembly Resolution 53/111, of 9 December 1998.

(8)  Under Resolution 55.25 of 15 November 2000.

(9)  A detailed discussion is warranted, however, of the grounds on which the Commission considers itself entitled to regulate matters of criminal law in its proposed amendment to Article 16 of Directive 91/477/EEC.

(10)  Including in particular written questions: P-4193/97 by Maria Berger, MEP (OJ C 223/70, 17.7.1998); E-1135/01 by Christopher Huhne, MEP (OJ C 350 E/78, 11.12.2001); and E-1359/02 by Gerhard Schmid, MEP (OJ C 229 E/209, 26.9.2002.

(11)  See Council Decision of 15 November 1999 on Cambodia, OJ L 294, 16.11.1999, p.5.

(12)  Framework Decision on the fight against terrorism (COM(2001) 521 final, 19.9.2001) and EESC Opinion CESE 1171/2006.

(13)  Framework Decision of 6 July 2001, OJ L 182, 5.7.2001.

(14)  Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993, OJ L 121, 15.5.93, amended by Regulation (EC) 1882/2003 of 29.9.2003, OJ L 284, 31.10.2003.

(15)  In Portugal, for example, the recent Law no 5/2006, of 23 February, already incorporates all the measures now being proposed.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment

COM(2005) 718 final — {SEC(2006) 16}

(2006/C 318/15)

On 11 January 2006, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 194 votes to two with six abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Reasons

2.2   The Commission proposal

2.3   General comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  OJ C 65/02/2006, point 5.2.2 (rapporteur: Heinisch) and OJ C 65, 2006 (rapporteurs: Wolf and Pezzini).

(2)  Article 37: Environmental Protection — ‘A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development’.

(3)  ‘So let us choose to unite the power of markets with the authority of universal ideals. Let us choose to reconcile the creative forces of private entrepreneurship with the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations.’ — The Secretary General of the United Nation, Kofi Annan, announced the Global Compact in a statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 1999 and formally presented it at the UN in July 2000. The Global Compact calls on businesses to adopt nine universal principles of human rights and labour and environmental standards.

(4)  The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were published in June 2000 and target international corporations.

(5)  Charter of Corporate Values drawn up by the IBS — (see Appendix II).

(6)  With a population of over 50 000 inhabitants.

(7)  Asterisks denote that the area has already been covered by a Directive.

(8)  COM(2005) 446 final.

(9)  COM(2005) 505 final.

(10)  COM(2005) 667 final.

(11)  COM(2005) 670 final.

(12)  Directive 2002/49/EC.

(13)  COM(2005) 634 final.

(14)  Global Monitoring for Environment and Security.

(15)  COM(2004) 60: Towards a thematic strategy on the urban environment.

(16)  www.aalborgplus10.dk.

(17)  The Bristol Accord, December 2005, www.odpm.gov.uk, Product code 05 EUPMI 03584. The Bristol Accord identifies 8 basic characteristics for a sustainable community 1) Active, inclusive and safe; 2) Well run; 3) Well connected; 4) Well served; 5) Environmentally sensitive; 6) Thriving; 7) Well designed and built; 8) Fair for everyone.

(18)  EP(2005)0272, 21 September 2005.

(19)  The European Social Fund (COM(2004) 493) could be used to support public administration training at various levels. The new Life+ programme could also play an important role.

(20)  COM(2004) 494 and 495.

(21)  COM(2005) 1.

(22)  See footnote 18.

(23)  The contribution of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in this field is substantial.

(24)  See Annex F of the Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2006) 16.

(25)  See the Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (Council document 10117/06, 09.06.06, paragraphs 29 and 30).

(26)  JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Development in City Areas: Community support for sustainable investments in urban areas) aims to provide solutions to financing problems for urban restructuring and development projects and social housing projects through a combination of subsidies and loans.

(27)  With electric motors.

(28)  The study group chaired by Mr Mendoza Castro was able to verify on site, at the invitation from the city's Deputy Mayor, Mr Buffetaut, the concept, structure and development of the local urban development plan for Versailles in the context of Agenda 21, which was decided by the city's municipal council in 2003 (See appendix 3).

(29)  EMAS, Regulation 1836/93, amended by Regulation 761/2001.

(30)  The new ISO 14064 standard on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Directive 2003/87/EC.

(31)  ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network).

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The future outlook for agriculture in areas with specific natural handicaps (upland, island and outermost areas)

(2006/C 318/16)

On 19 January 2005 the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on The future outlook for agriculture in areas with specific natural handicaps (upland, island and outermost areas).

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The co-rapporteurs were Mr Bros and Mr Caball i Subirana.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 173 votes to six with 16 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Justification

3.   Common section: areas with permanent natural handicaps

4.   Upland regions

4.2   The need for a harmonised EU definition

A reminder of the position set out in the EESC opinion on The future of upland areas in the EU (8):

There are thus significant discrepancies [in the classification of upland areas] between Member States. Whilst a certain amount of subsidiarity should be retained in the final designation of the areas concerned, it would therefore be advisable to standardise the concept of an upland area by adapting the current EU definition and specifying a range for each of the three criteria (slope, altitude and climate).

4.3   The European Union must have a specific policy for upland areas

4.4   Attaching priority to upland areas when allocating appropriations under the second pillar

4.5   Consolidating compensation measures for upland farmers is crucial

4.6   Other measures supporting upland farming must be pursued and built on

4.6.1   Extensive grassland farming policy

4.6.2   Support for investment

4.6.3   Getting young people into farming and subsidised loans

4.6.4   Compensation for the higher costs of services

4.6.5   Support for the agri-food industry

4.6.6   Support for investment in agri-tourism

4.6.7   Support for the European Charter for Quality Food Products

4.7   Integration of agricultural and regional policies to ensure they have a greater impact on upland areas

4.8   Other points to be considered

4.8.1   There must be a concerted approach to dealing with large predators.

4.8.2   Forestry is an essential complement.

5.   Islands

5.1   Definition

5.2   General comments

5.3   Specific comments

One feature of these regions is that they have permanent handicaps which clearly distinguish them from mainland regions and which include:

6.   Outermost regions

6.1   Definition

6.2   General comments

6.3   Specific comments

6.4   Agricultural handicaps

7.   Proposals for the island and outermost regions

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  OJ C 302 of 14.3.2003, rapporteur Mr Jean-Paul Bastian.

(2)  OJ C 302 of 7.12.2004 and CES 251/2005, OJ C 234 of 22.9.2005, rapporteur Mr Gilbert Bros.

(3)  INI2000/2222, OJ C 072 of 21.3.2001.

(4)OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002, rapporteur Mr Philippe Levaux .

(5)OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006, rapporteur Ms Margarita López Almendáriz.

(6)OJ C 30 of 30.1.1997, rapporteur Mr Leopoldo Quevedo Rojo.

(7)OJ C 74 of 23.3.2005.

(8)  Ibid 1.

(9)  More information on this cheese: http://www.artisoudemargeride.com.

(10)  See the Internet site http://www.mountainproducts-europe.org/sites/euromontana.

(11)  Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union.

(12)  The POSEIDOM programme for the French outermost regions, POSEICAN for the Canary Islands and POSEIMA for the Azores and Madeira.

(13)  Regulation No. 1260/1999.

(14)  COM(2004) 492 final.

(15)OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006, rapporteur Mr Antonello Pezzini.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Meeting the challenges of climate change — The role of civil society

(2006/C 318/17)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Meeting the challenges of climate change — The role of civil society.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Ehnmark.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 59 votes to one with two abstentions.

A.   Conclusions

1.   Introduction

2.   The scope of the challenges of climate change

3.   Ten sectors for civil society involvement

4.   Adaptation and mitigation — but how and by whom?

5.   Instruments for promoting awareness and support

6.   A challenge for civil society

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  cf. statement by Mr Rocard at the EESC stakeholder forum in April 2001.

(2)  COM(2005) 35 final, p. 8.

(3)  e.g. the house-building project in Freiburg.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Disposal of animal carcasses and the use of animal by-products

(2006/C 318/18)

On 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up on the Disposal of animal carcasses and the use of animal by-products.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Santiago.

At its 429 plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes to 32 with 16 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions

2.   Introduction

3.   General comments

3.1   Legal aspects and technical and scientific contradictions relating to the disposal of pig carcasses

3.2   Legal aspects and technical and scientific contradictions relating to the use of meat meal

3.3   Analysis of the problems and the possibility of processing by-products on farms

4.   Specific comments

4.2   Economic consequences of eliminating animal carcasses and waste

4.3   Economic impact on the use of animal by-products

Banning the use of animal protein in feedingstuffs for pigs, poultry and fish has led to significantly higher production costs in Europe and has consequently caused further problems of distortion of competition vis-à-vis other countries such as Brazil, Argentina and the USA, for example, where the use of animal protein is authorised. These higher costs have had consequences at various levels, with slaughterhouse by-products no longer being a benefit, because they now entail destruction costs, and with increased demand for vegetable protein leading to higher prices and consequently higher feed prices (8).

4.4   Issues to take into account when considering the possibility of lifting the ban on the use of meat meal from non-ruminants in pig and poultry feed

4.5   The final obstacle to reincorporating non-ruminant meat meal into feed for pigs and poultry

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  (D. Matthews and B. C. Cooke, Rev. Sci. Tecl. Int. Eprit. 2003, 22(1), 283 — 296). Another key study is: Poultry, pig and the risk of BSE following the feed ban in France — a spatial analysis. Abrial D, Calavas D, Jarrige N, Ducrot C; Vet. Res. 36 (2005) pp. 615-628.

(2)  Table 1 — List of zootechnical waste (EU15) — Source EUROSTAT/MAPYA 2003.

(3)  Table 2 — Quantifying waste and by-products from farm animals (Source EUROSTAT/MAPYA).

(4)

(5)  Studies in this field:

(6)  Calculations have been made suggesting an increase in production costs of between EUR 0.36 and EUR 0.96 per animal produced, depending on the location and size of the farm, although it is certain that the smallest farms will always be the most heavily penalised.

(7)  The product consequently entails an additional cost varying between EUR 0.3 and EUR 0.5 per animal produced.

(8)  Studies carried out by the University of Múrcia working group, led by Prof. Dr. António Muñoz Luna, DMV, PhD, MBA.

(9)  Source: National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA).

(10)  Calculated on the basis of the average price of raw materials before and after the ban, on an average diet for a fattening pig.

(11)  Idem 10.

(12)  Production costs for a farm of 1200 pigs in a closed cycle with a productivity of 20.3 suckling pigs per sow per year in the state of Paraná.

(13)  A farm with 500 pigs in closed cycle with a productivity of 23 suckling pigs per sow per year in Portugal.

(14)  Other studies addressing this matter:

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing

(Codifed version)

COM(2006) 4 final — 2006/0003 (CNS)

(2006/C 318/19)

On 8 February 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Le Nouail.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 168 votes to 7 with 17 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Including the EESC's 2005 exploratory opinion on Better Lawmaking (rapporteur: Daniel Retureau) INT/265 — OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006, p. 39.

(2)  Eggs of the silk moth, Bombyx mori.

(3)  Half of all Europe's production comes from the Canary Islands.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury

COM(2006) 69 final — 2006/0018 (COD)

(2006/C 318/20)

On 8 March 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Cassina.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 181 votes to 5 with 8 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions

2.   Introduction and gist of the proposal

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2005) 20 final.

(2)  The addition of a specific point 19 a) in Annex I of Directive 76/769/EEC.

(3)  On the basis of the information available from the Commission.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry

COM(2006) 103 final

(2006/C 318/21)

On 9 March 2006, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Sarró Iparraguirre.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 120 votes to 16 and nine abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Explanatory statement

3.   Background

4.   General comments

4.1.1   Short-term rescue and restructuring

4.1.2   Longer-term measures and initiatives

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Gross Domestic Product.

(2)  COM(2006) 103 final, 09.03.2006.

(3)  Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance/European Fisheries Fund.

(4)  Research, technology, development and innovation.

(5)  Facts and figures on the CFP — basic data on the Common Fisheries Policy. 2006 edition, European Commission.

(6)OJ C 244 of 01.10.2004.

(7)OJ C 229 of 14.09.2004.

(8)  Council Regulation (EC) No. 1263/1999 of 12.06.1999.

(9)  Council Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 of 17.12.1999.

(10)OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on glucose and lactose (codified version)

COM(2006) 116 final — 2006/0038 CNS

(2006/C 318/22)

On 2 May 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Donnelly.

At its 429th plenary session held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 187 votes to one and seven abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Belarus Civil Society

(2006/C 318/23)

On 14 July 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Belarus Civil Society.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Stulík.

At its 429th plenary session held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 146 votes to two with five abstentions.

1.   Gist of the Opinion

2.   General introduction

3.   The situation of civil society in Belarus

4.   General recommendations on the EU's strategy on Belarus

5.   Specific problem areas of Belarus civil society and proposed practical measures

Brussels, 14 September 2006

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie Sigmund

----

(1)  In a speech delivered on 26 May 2006, President Lukashenko called for Belarus to build its own model of civil society.

(2)  European Commission: Country Strategy Paper, National Indicative Programme, p. 22. Of this figure, around 10 % are purely political in character.

(3)  Belaplan agency, 30 May 2006.

(4)  The EU's pre-accession strategy enabled Slovakia to ‘catch up’ very quickly with its neighbours, despite its being some years behind.

(5)  According to a recent public opinion survey, only 1.1 % of Belarus citizens associate a better future with the European Union and 77.7 % with President Lukashenko.

(6)  For example, the EU special representative for Moldavia, Sudan and the Southern Caucasus. For more information on the role and importance of EU special representatives, see:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showpage.asp?id=263&lang=en&mode=g

(7)  A detailed account of these practices and the humiliating procedures of EU Member State delegations faced by Belarus visa applicants (verbatim quotes from applicants and accounts of their experiences) is to be found in the Batory Foundation report ‘Visa Policies of European Union Member States. Monitoring Report’, Warsaw, June 2006, at http://www.batory.org.pl/english/intl/pub.htm.

An extract by way of illustration: ‘Almost all Consulates did nothing to ensure suitable conditions for those waiting outside the Consulate, that is, shelter from rain or snow [...] or even a place to sit. This seemingly minor problem gains in importance when we realise that the waiting time outside the building can last all night long (the case of the Consulates of France in Belarus).’ (Page 22).

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Immigration in the EU and integration policies: cooperation between regional and local governments and civil society organisations

(2006/C 318/24)

On 14 July 2005 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Immigration in the EU and integration policies: cooperation between regional and local governments and civil society organisations.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Pariza Castaños.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 181 votes to 7 with 8 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   The Common Agenda for Integration

3.   Integration policies

4.   Regional and local integration programmes

5.   Instruments, budgets and evaluation

6.   Objectives

7.   New strategies for local and regional authorities (some conclusions from the Barcelona hearing)

7.1   The need for networking and coordination between different institutions

7.2   Integration plans and civil society participation

7.3   European Fund for Integration

7.4   Specialist services must not generate segregation

7.5   Integration objectives

8.   New challenges for employment integration (some of the conclusions of the Dublin hearing)

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie Sigmund

----

(1)OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños; co-rapporteur: Mr Melícias).

(2)  See the conference General Conclusions.

(3)  COM(2004) 508 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 336 final.

(5)OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).

(6)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration/doc/handbook_en.pdf.

(7)  COM(2005) 389 final.

(8)  See COM(2005) 389 final, point 2.

(9)  Appendix 1.

(10)  See COM(2005) 123 final.

(11)  See EESC opinion on management of migration flows, OJ C 88 of 11.4.2006 (rapporteur: Ms Le Nouail-Marlière).

(12)  See COM(2005) 389 final, point 3.

(13)  COM(2001) 387 final.

(14)OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002 (rapporteur: Ms zu Eulenburg).

(15)  Directives 2003/109/EC and 2003/86/EC.

(16)  Opinion on the Green Paper on an EU approach to managing economic migration (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños), OJ C 286 of 17.11.2005.

(17)  See COM(2005) 389 final, point 3.2.

(18)OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004, point 1.10 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).

(19)OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, point 1.4 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).

(20)  Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. See

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=11281&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html .

(21)  See Directive 2003/86/EC and the EESC opinions in OJ C 204 of 18.7.2000 (rapporteur: Ms Cassina) and OJ C 241 of 7.10.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Mengozzi).

(22)  Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC.

(23)  Cf the positive work of the social partners in Ireland, as referred to in Appendix 3.

(24)  See Directive 2003/86/EC and the EESC opinions in OJ C 204 of 18.7.2000 (rapporteur: Ms Cassina) and OJ C 241 of 7.10.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Mengozzi).

(25)  See EESC opinion on Access to European Union citizenship, OJ C 208 of 3.9.2003 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).

(26)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration/doc/handbook_en.pdf.

(27)  COM(2004) 508 final.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on European Works Councils: a new role in promoting European integration

(2006/C 318/25)

On 12 July 2005 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on European Works Councils: a new role in promoting European integration.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 September 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Iozia.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 144 votes to 76 with 15 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   The socio-economic and legislative context in which European Works Councils operate

3.   The procedure for reviewing Directive 94/45

4.   The EWC experience. A question of method: highlighting positive aspects and thinking about negative results

5.   The role of Directive 94/45 in the evolution of European industrial relations

6.   Informing and consulting employees, an essential component of the European social model

7.   Why the directive should be re-examined before negotiations begin on its revision

8.   The work of EWCs in a larger Union: their contribution to boosting European social cohesion

9.   The social dimension of companies in the European Union and the new role of the EWCs — corporate social responsibility in a global economy

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2006) 136 final.

(2)  EESC opinion on the Practical application of the European Works Council Directive (94/45/EC) and on any aspects of the directive that might need to be revised (rapporteur: Mr Piette), OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004, p. 11.

(3)  EP document (A5-0282/2001).

(4)  European Parliament Report A5-0282/2001 FINAL of 17 July 2001 on the Commission report on the application of Directive 94/45/EC, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

(5)  Cf. footnote 2.

(6)  See document of 1.6.2004.

(7)  See CEEP document of 18.6.2004: CEEP answer to the first-stage consultation of the European Social Partners on the review of the European Work Councils Directive.

(8)  See document of 1.6.2004.

(9)  Trade Union Memorandum to the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union — ETUC, March 2005.

(10)  EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission on the Social Agenda (rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer), OJ C 294 of 25.11.2005, p. 14.

(11)  Idem.

(12)  Jeremy Waddington, University of Manchester: The views of EWC representatives, for ETUI, November 2005.

(13)  Mark Carley, Bargaining at European level, Joint texts negotiated by EWC, Dublin 2001.

(14)  Kerckhofs and Pas EWC Database ETUI (December 2004).

(15)  COM(2005) 120 final.

(16)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue and employee participation, essential for anticipating and managing industrial change, 29 September 2005 (CESE 1073/2005), rapporteur: Mr Zöhrer. OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006, p. 90.

(17)  EESC opinion on The scope and effects of company relocations (rapporteur: Mr Rodríguez García-Caro), OJ C 294 of 25.11.2005, p. 9, point 4.5.10.

(18)  See Article 137 of the TEC, now Article III-210 of the new Treaty of Rome.

(19)  Including those on protecting workers in the event of collective redundancies or transfers of undertakings (Directives 98/59 and 2001/23), safety and health at work (Directive 89/391 and specific directives), the involvement of employees in general (Directive 2002/14) and in specific company matters (Directives 2001/86 on the involvement of employees in the European company (SE) and 2003/72 on the involvement of employees in the European cooperative society (SCE)).

(20)  Article II-87, Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking, which enshrines the substance of Article 21 of the Council of Europe's European Social Charter, as amended in 1996, together with points 17 and 18 of the 1989 Community Charter.

(21)  (Court of Justice, Judgment of 29 March 2001 in case C-62/99, Bofrost, and the Judgment of 11 July 2002 in case C-440/00, Kühne).

(22)  C.f. the seventh recital of the preamble of Directive 2002/14.

(23)  C.f. the ninth recital of the same directive.

(24)  See Directive 2001/86, and also Directive 2003/72, Part 2 of the Standard Rules.

(25)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue and employee participation, essential for anticipating and managing industrial change, 29 September 2005 (rapporteur: Mr Zöhrer). OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006, p. 90.

(26)  Lessons learned on European Works Councils, 7 April 2005, ETUC, UNICE, UEAPME and CEEP.

(27)  Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of collective redundancies or transfers of undertakings, and Directive 2002/14.

(28)  The April 2004 Infopoint study of agreements revealed that only 51 % of EWCs had such a steering committee. This could constitute a problem, since most EWCs — some 70 % — meet only once a year. The lack of a small steering committee which can provide continuity in contacts between employees' representatives in individual establishments and countries and company management and European federations, could be a major handicap to the functioning and efficacy of EWCs.

(29)  NSZZ Solidarnosc research, A. Matla, 2004.

(30)  EESC opinion on Information and measurement instruments for corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a globalised economy, OJ C 286 of 17.11.2005, p. 12.

(31)  COM(2001) 264 final.

(32)  COM(2006) 136 final.

(33)  EESC opinion on Corporate social responsibility (rapporteur: Ms Hornung-Draus), OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Civil society participation in the fight against organised crime and terrorism

(2006/C 318/26)

On 28 October 2005, the European Commission asked the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an exploratory opinion on Civil society participation in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006. The rapporteurs were Mr Rodríguez García-Caro, Mr Pariza Castaños and Mr Cabra de Luna.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 182 votes to six, with 11 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Conclusions

3.   The values and principles of the European Union

4.   Terrorism and organised crime are attacks on the rule of law

5.   Civil society's response to terrorism and organised crime

6.   Europe: an area of freedom, security and justice

7.   The role of civil society in the prevention of violent radicalisation

7.4   The EESC wishes to highlight the key points.

8.   Consideration for the victims

9.   Financing of terrorism and organised crime

10.   Internet and mobile telephony

11.   The media

12.   Critical infrastructures

13.   The European platform for public and private partnership

13.3   Conditions for civil society participation

13.4   Public-private partnerships in the fight against terrorism and organised crime

13.5   Partnership systems

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC Opinion of 15.12.2005 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza (OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006)).

(2)  EESC Opinion of 14.12.2005 on the Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the specific Programme ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism’, for the Period 2007-2013. General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ (Rapporteur: Mr Cabra de Luna (OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006)).

(3)  COM(2005) 313 final, 21.09.05.

(4)  See COM(2005) 313 final, footnote 1, which states that ‘each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to nine expressly specified offences, as defined under national law, which given their nature and context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation, shall be deemed terrorist offences.’

(5)  These operate in illegal arms dealing and drug trafficking, trafficking of human beings, robbery, prostitution, illegal gambling, commercial piracy, etc.

(6)  United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. See:

http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final_documents_2/convention_eng.pdf

(7)  EESC Opinion of 15.12.2005 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza (OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006)).

(8)  European Parliament resolution on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice. P6_TA(2005)0227, 8 June 2005.

(9)  See, in particular, the EESC opinion of 27.10.2004 on the Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision No 2002/463/EC adopting an action programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO programme) (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2006)).

(10)  On 12 October 2005, the European Commission submitted a Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability, COM(2005) 490 final, 12.10.2005.

(11)  EESC Opinion of 14.12.2005 on the Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the specific Programme ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism’, for the Period 2007-2013. General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ (Rapporteur: Mr Cabra de Luna (OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006)).

(12)  Ireland and the Netherlands are the only States not to have ratified it.

(13)  EESC Opinion of 15.12.2005 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza (OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006)).

(14)  COM(2005) 313 final.

(15)  See the EESC opinions of 21.3.2002 on Immigration, integration and the role of civil society organisations in OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002 (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños), of 10.12.2003 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employment, in OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004 (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños), and of 13.9.2006 on Immigration and integration: cooperation between regional and local governments and civil society organisations (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).

(16)  EESC Opinion of 20.3.2002 on the Green Paper on Compensation to crime victims. (Rapporteur: Mr Melicias (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002)).

EESC Opinion of 26.02.2003 on the Proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims. (Rapporteur: Mr Koryfídis (OJ C 95 of 23.4.2003)).

(17)  For example, see EESC opinion of 11.5.2005 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, including terrorist financing (Rapporteur: Mr Simpson (OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005)).

(18)  EESC Opinion of 21.4.2006 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (Rapporteur: Mr Burani (OJ C 185 of 8.8.2006)).

EESC opinion of 11.5.2005 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, including terrorist financing (Rapporteur: Mr Simpson (OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005)).

(19)  Group set up by the G-8 nations.

(20)  See Plan adopted by the Council on 13.2.2006.

(21)  See EESC opinion of 19.1.2006 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (Rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller (OJ C 69 of 21.3.2006)).

(22)  See EP report A6(2005) 365 of 28.11.2005.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Quality of working life, productivity and employment in the context of globalisation and demographic challenges

(2006/C 318/27)

On 17 November 2005 the Finnish Presidency decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on Quality of working life, productivity and employment in the context of globalisation and demographic challenges

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Engelen-Kefer.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to three with eight abstentions:

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Arguments and comments

2.1   Background to the opinion

2.2   Introduction

2.3   Growth, productivity and employment

2.4   Investment in people as a prerequisite for a knowledge-based innovative economy

2.5   Improving the quality of working life in order to strengthen innovation skills and better integration of older workers

2.5.1   Quality of working life and productivity

2.5.2   Organising work in ways that meet age-related needs

Brussels, 13 September2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Council Conclusions, 1-2 June 2006, p. 17 English version. URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_applications/Applications/newsRoom/LoadDocument.asp?directory=en/lsa/&filename=89830.pdf.

(2)  Flexicurity: Joint Contribution of the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee for the Employment and Social Policy Council on 1-2 June 2006. URL: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st09/st09633.en06.pdf.

(3)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘European values in the globalised world — contribution of the Commission to the October Meeting of Heads of State and Government’ COM(2005) 525 final/2 of 3.11.2005), p. 5.

(4)  See EESC opinion adopted on 6 July 2006 on Social cohesion: fleshing out a European social model, rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark. URL: http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/viewdoc.aspx?doc=//esppub1/esp_public/ces/soc/soc237/en/ces973-2006_ac_en.doc.

(5)  See the following EESC opinions:

on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market (OJ C 157, 28.6.2005, pp 120-129; rapporteur: Mr Dantin).

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:157:0120:0129:EN:PDF

on the Communication from the European Commission on Productivity: the Key to Competitiveness of European Economies and Enterprises, rapporteurs: Mr Morgan/Ms Sirkeinen; co-rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark (OJ C 85, 8.4.2003, pp. 95-100)

http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/c_085/c_08520030408en00950100.pdf.

(6)  Council Recommendation of 12 July 2005 on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Community (2005 to 2008) (OJ L 205 of 6.8.2005 — pp. 28-37).

URL: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_205/l_20520050806en00280037.pdf.

(7)  ‘Facing the challenge — The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment’. Report from the High-Level Group chaired by Wim Kok, November 2004 (Kok report), p. 16.

URL: http://europa.eu/growthandjobs/pdf/kok_report_en.pdf.

(8)  Idem.

(9)  See EESC opinion of 15.9.2004 entitled Towards the seventh Framework Programme for Research: Research needs in the area of demographic change — quality of life of elderly persons and technological requirements, rapporteur: Ms Heinisch (OJ C 74, 2.3.2005, pp. 44-54).

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/c_074/c_07420050323en00440054.pdf.

(10)  Communication from the Commission for the Spring European Council ‘Time To Move Up A Gear — The new partnership for growth and jobs’ (COM(2006) 30 final — PART 1 of 25.1.2006), p. 19.

(11)  European Council (Brussels), 23-24 March 2006 — Presidency Conclusions, points 18 et seq.

URL: http://consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/89013.pdf.

(12)  Presidency conclusions, points 20 and 21.

URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/90111.pdf.

(13)  ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs — Creating more employment in Europe’ — report of the Employment Taskforce chaired by Wim Kok, November 2003, p. 49.

URL: http://europa.eu/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/pdf/etf_en.pdf.

(14)  Idem, page 51.

(15)  Report of the High-Level Group on the future of social policy in the enlarged European Union, May 2004.

URL: http://europa.eu/comm/employment_social/publications/2005/ke6104202_en.pdf.

(16)  European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Quality of the Working Environment and Productivity — Working Paper (2004).

URL: http://osha.eu.int/publications/reports/211/quality_productivity_en.pdf (English only).

(17)  ‘Was ist gute Arbeit? Anforderungen aus Sicht von Erwerbstätigen’ (What is good work? Employees' expectations)– Summary. INIFES, November 2005.

URL: http://www.inqa.de/Inqa/Redaktion/Projekte/Was-ist-gute-Arbeit/gute-arbeit-endfassung,property=pdf,bereich=inqa, sprache= de,rwb=truepdf (German only).

(18)  Report of the High-Level Group on the future of social policy in the enlarged European Union, May 2004, page 35.

URL: http://europa.eu/comm/employment_social/publications/2005/ke6104202_en.pdf.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Making European citizenship visible and effective

(2006/C 318/28)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up opinion on Making European citizenship visible and effective.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the EESC's work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006 (rapporteur: Mr Vever).

At its 429th plenary session of 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted this opinion by 111 votes for, 22 votes against and 13 abstentions.

1.   Summary

2.   Introduction

3.   Lack of appreciation of European citizenship

4.   Putting right particularly unjustified inadequacies in Europe

5.   Developing a more citizen-based governance for the Union

6.   Promoting joint initiatives with a strong identity content

7.   Conclusions

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC opinion: Contribution to the European Council of 15 and 16 June 2006 — Period of reflection (rapporteur: Mr Malosse).

(2)  EESC opinion of 26.10.2005 on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme ‘Citizens for Europe’ to promote active European citizenship, rapporteur: Mr Le Scornet (OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006).

(3)  EESC opinion of 21 March 2002 on a European Company Statute for SMEs, rapporteur: Mr Malosse (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, p. 100).

(4)  EESC opinion of 20.4.2006 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights, rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer.

(5)  See the information report on the Current state of co-regulation and self-regulation in the Single Market adopted on 11 January 2005 by the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, rapporteur: Mr Vever.

(6)  EESC opinion of 26.10.2005 on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme ‘Citizens for Europe’ to promote active European citizenship, rapporteur: Mr Le Scornet (OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006).

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010

COM(2006) 92 final

(2006/C 318/29)

On 1 March 2006 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006. The rapporteur was Grace Attard.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13-14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 175 votes to 11 with nine abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.2   The EESC:

2.   Reasons

2.1   Gist of the Commission Communication

2.2   General comments

2.3   Specific comments to Part I: Priority Areas of Action for Gender Equality

2.3.3   Achieving Equal Economic Independence for Women and Men

2.3.3.1   Reaching the Lisbon employment targets

2.3.3.2   Eliminating the gender pay gap

2.3.3.3   Women entrepreneurs

2.3.3.4   Gender Equality in social protection and the fight against poverty

2.3.3.5   Recognising the gender dimension in health

2.3.3.6   Combating multiple discrimination, in particular against immigrant and ethnic minority women

2.3.3.7   The key actions set out by the Commission in this area

2.3.4   Enhancing Reconciliation of Work, Private and Family Life

2.3.5   Promoting Equal Participation of Women and Men in Decision-Making

2.3.6   Eradicating Gender-based Violence and Trafficking

2.3.7   Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in Society

2.3.8   Promoting Gender Equality outside the EU

2.4   Part II: Improving Governance for Gender Equality

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (COM(2005) 646 final).

URL: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/docs/reg/modernisation/proposal_2005/com2005-646-final-en.pdf.

(2)  EESC opinion of 28.9.2005 on the ‘Creation of a European Institute for Gender Equality’, rapporteur: Ms Štechová (OJ C 24, 31.1.2006, pp. 29-33).

URL:. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?textfield2=24&year=2006&Submit=Search&serie=C.

(3)  Unadjusted gap.

(4)  EESC opinion of 29.9.2005 on ‘Poverty among women in Europe’, rapporteur: Ms King (OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006, pp. 95-101).

URL:. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?textfield2=24&year=2006&Submit=Search&serie=C.

(5)  Please see point 5.2.2 of the EESC opinion of 20 April 2006 on the Strategy for open coordination on social protection; rapporteur: Mr Olsson (OJ C 185 of 8.8.2006, p. 87).

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2006&serie=C&textfield2=185&Submit=Search.

(6)  Resolution of the Council and of the ministers for employment and social policy of 29 June 2000 on the balanced participation of women and men in family and working life (2000/C 218/02).

URL: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/c_218/c_21820000731en00050007.pdf.

(7)  See: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/statut/tocen100.pdf.

(8)  EESC opinion of 16.3.2006 on ‘Domestic violence against women’, rapporteur: Ms Heinisch (OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006, p. 89).

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2006&serie=C&textfield2=110&Submit=Search.

(9)  See http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_hague_priorities/index_en.htm.

(10)  See http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_convention.html.

(11)  EESC opinion of 15.12.2005 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — the Partnership for renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice’, rapporteur: Mr Pariza-Castaños(OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006, pp. 120-130).

URL:. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2006&serie=C&textfield2=65&Submit=Search.

(12)  COM(2005) 646 final. See footnote 2.

(13)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — The Commission's contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate (COM(2005) 494 final).

URL: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0494en01.pdf.

(14)  See http://www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/1325.html (adopted on 31 October 2000).

(15)  Annex III to the Communication.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Pan-European transport corridors 2004-2006

(2006/C 318/30)

On 16 December 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Pan-European transport corridors 2004-2006.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Alleweldt.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13/14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 192 votes to four with ten abstentions:

1.   Aims of the permanent study group

2.   Conclusions

3.   A new context for pan-European transport policy

4.   Organising the work of the permanent study group — activities

5.   Main outcomes of work in the 2004-2006 period

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC: Ten years of pan-European transport policy, 2003.

(2)  Committee opinion on The Pan-European Transport Corridors, OJ No. C 120 of 20.5.2005, p.17.

(3)  The report on the conference can be found in Appendix I.

(4)  Based on the expert group headed by Karel van Miert, which submitted its report in June 2003.

(5)  For reasons to do with policy coherence, Western Balkans is occasionally dealt with as part of South East Europe, which practically include — apart from the former Yugoslavia — Romania, Bulgaria and even more occasionally Turkey and Republic of Moldova.

(6)  (Regional Balkans Infrastructure Study — Transport).

(7)  The routes are as follows:

(8)

(9)  Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004, OJ 30.4.2004 and 7.7.2004.

(10)  Letter to E. Thielmann, DG TREN of 15.12.2004.

(11)  Letter from E. Thielmann of 21 January 2005.

(12)  Evaluation presented at the coordination meeting on 21 April 2005 in Brussels.

(13)  EESC opinion on The role of railway stations in the cities/towns of the enlarged Europe, OJ No. C 88 of 11.4.2006, p. 9.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The energy supply of the EU: a strategy for an optimal energy mix

(2006/C 318/31)

In a letter dated 29 August 2005, the European Commission asked the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on: The energy supply of the EU: a strategy for an optimal energy mix.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 May 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Sirkeinen.

At its 429th plenary session of 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September 2006) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 162 votes to 27, with 15 abstentions:

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Introduction

3.   Global energy market and carbon dioxide emission developments

4.   Energy market and carbon dioxide emission developments in the EU

5.   Policy challenges

5.1   Price developments

5.2   Security of supply

5.3   Climate change

6.   Future options

6.1   Long-term vision

6.2   Energy efficiency

6.3   Options in fields of use

In order to analyse energy mix options in relation to the above-mentioned policy challenges, it is helpful to look at the different sectors of primary energy use — transport, heating and electricity separately. They are only marginally interdependent.

6.3.1   Transport

6.3.2   Heating and cooling

6.3.3   Electricity

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Dir. 2003/30/EC, OJ L 123 of 17.05.2003.

(2)  ‘Towards a European Strategy for Energy Supply Security’, OJ C 221 of 07.08.2001.

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following proposal for amendment was rejected, but received at least a quarter of the votes cast.

New point, 2.2.1

‘The EESC would point out that the forecasts on which this opinion is based could prove to be wrong or out-dated in the light of current developments on the energy markets, in particular the trend in the price of oil. In the case of all forecasts, a factor of decisive importance is the general terms of reference used and over the last few months the data in question has changed to a crucial degree. To illustrate this point, a study (1)drawn up on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs in Germany came to the conclusion that, on the basis of a future price of oil of USD 60 per barrel — the price level which is now expected — energy consumption is set to decline by 17 % by 2030 and there will be an increase in the use of coal and renewable sources of energy. Hitherto, it was assumed, on the basis an expected future price of oil of USD 37 a barrel, that energy consumption would increase.’

Reason

Clearly, any assertions we make have to be based on particular forecasts and the rapporteur rightly quotes scenarios advanced by the International Energy Agency and the European Commission. The EESC should, however, at least incorporate the latest developments into its opinion, without having to change its conclusions as a result.

Outcome of the vote:

For: 69

Against: 85

Abstentions: 19

Point 2.3

Amend as follows:

‘Choices of energy sources and technologies are made by investors and can be influenced by political decisions. The EU does not have direct power over Member States' choices of sources, but influences indirectly through its environmental mandate. Member States should facilitate the use of their domestic resources as far as possible. The choices Member States make influence one another. Also, energy users in Member States without, for instance, nuclear or coal power production are part of an electricity market where nuclear and coal are used.’

Reason

This statement is incorrect as currently formulated. Countries which do without, or intend to do without, nuclear energy often have sufficient alternative generating capacity. The fact that, for example, nuclear power is imported into Germany from France or the Czech Republic has to do with the European internal market and the fact that surplus capacity has been deliberately generated in certain countries. It is not because an alleged energy shortfall can only be covered by foreign nuclear power stations.

Outcome of the vote:

For: 60

Against: 115

Abstentions: 13

Point 5.2.6

Amend as follows:

‘Uranium is to 95 % imported to the EU from various sources. According to the IAEA and the OECD–Nuclear Energy Agency present known economic uranium sources should satisfy world demand at its present level for 50 years. Potential deposits based on geological readings defer the exhaustion prospect to 280 years. This period is likely to be radically shortened, however, if certain countries' nuclear power plant construction plans come to fruition. Thus, for example, India is planning to increase its nuclear power generation capacity from 3,000 MW at present to 300,000 MW, which would clearly have a serious impact on the global availability of uranium. Later on new technologies may provide further fuel supply options, but such technologies are not yet proven or actually available.’

Reason

Clarification.

Outcome of the vote:

For: 62

Against: 124

Abstentions: 6

Point 6.3.3.2

Amend as follows:

‘The majority of power plants in Europe are coming up for replacement in the near future. This is the case for the major kind of plants, based on fossil fuels, as well as for nuclear. This gives a unique possibility for a major move towards non-carbon energy sources less environmentally damaging energy generation systems (district heating plants and clean coal technology) and at the same time a decrease in external dependency as well as an improvement of efficiency in electricity generation.’

Reason

Self-explanatory. See also the observations on clean coal technologies set out in points 1.17 and 1.18 of the opinion.

Outcome of the vote:

For: 62

Against: 121

Abstentions: 12

----

(1)  Study drawn up by the Prognos Institut of Basel and the Energy Industry Institute (Energiewirtschaftliches Institut) of the University of Cologne.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with flag State requirements

COM(2005) 586 final — 2005/0236 (COD)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

COM(2005) 587 final — 2005/0237 (COD)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control

COM(2005) 588 final — 2005/0238 (COD)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system

COM(2005) 589 final — 2005/0239 (COD)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC

COM(2005) 590 final — 2005/0240 (COD)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterway in the event of accidents

COM(2005) 592 final — 2005/0241 (COD)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners

COM(2005) 593 final — 2005/0242 (COD)

(2006/C 318/32)

On 25 January (TEN/236), 8 February (TEN/235), 14 February (TEN/234 and 239), 28 February (TEN/237) and 15 March 2006 (TEN/233 and 238), the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 71(1) and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Retureau; the co-rapporteur was Dr Bredima-Savopoulou.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 198 votes to 2 with 5 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Introduction

3.   The Commission's proposals

3.3   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with flag State requirements

3.4   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

3.5   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control

3.6   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system

3.7   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC

3.8   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterway in the event of accidents

3.9   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the civil liability and financial securities of shipowners

4.   General comments

4.1   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with flag State requirements

4.2   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

4.3   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control

4.4   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system

4.5   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC

4.6   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterway in the event of accidents

4.7   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the civil liability and financial securities of shipowners

5.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port state control).

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers (EESC Opinion: OJ C 14 of 16.1.2001).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic.

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage in European waters and related measures.

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency. (EESC Opinion: OJ C 221 of 7.8.2001).

(3)  The best practices of the UK SOSREP system are a major source of inspiration in this field.

(4)  The European Fisheries Fund, which was established by the Council on 16 June 2006, introduces the possibility of funding up to 40 % of the cost of safety equipment; complementary measures at Member State level could also be considered.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities

COM(2005) 646 final — 2005/0260 (COD)

(2006/C 318/33)

On 7 February 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 47(2) and 55 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Hernández Bataller.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 53 votes to seven, with ten abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Commission proposal

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 89/552/EEC — OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

(2)  Directive 97/36/EC — OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

(3)  COM (2006) 160 final.

(4)  See IP/05/643.

(5)  Liverpool Audiovisual Conference on the Television without Frontiers Directive, organised by the Commission.

(6)  See the definition of these services in Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty.

(7)  See the definition of these networks in Article 2(a) of Framework Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.

(8)OJ C 364 of 2000.

(9)  Judgment of 30 April 1974 in case C-15/73, ECR 203 et seq. Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 1991 in case T-69/89, ECR II-525. Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2001 in case T-112/99, ECR II-2549 et seq.

(10)OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005, p. 17 (Rapporteur: Mr Pegado Liz).

(11)  Information report on the Current state of co-regulation and self-regulation in the Single Market (Rapporteur: Mr Vever).

----

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments were rejected but received at least a quarter of the votes cast:

Point 4.1

Amend as follows:

‘4.1 The EESC believes that the definition of “audiovisual commercial communication” proposed by the Commission is too restrictive unclear, mechanically reproducing the definition of “audiovisual media services”. It seems logical to define them as services identical in nature to scheduled broadcast television.“moving images with or without sound”, making moving images a sine qua none for these audiovisual media services, and leaving the Internet-based press and radio broadcasting outside the scope of the directive. However, as As the scope has been defined, audiovisual commercial communications linked to audiovisual media services can use static images (e.g. logos or advertising posters) or sounds on their own, without images (e.g. a spoken reference to a brand or an advertising jingle). It would be preferable to define audiovisual commercial communication as “images and/or sounds accompanying audiovisual media services designed to promote, whether directly or indirectly, the goods, services or image of a physical or legal person for economic purposes”’

Reason

In this area it is difficult to draw clear lines. The definitions proposed in 4.1. are even wider than those of the draft Directive, and therefore add to the difficulty of clear implementation. In order not to hamper the development of the services in question, the definitions should be as clear as possible, while serving the objectives of protecting minors and human dignity, clearly identifying commercial communications, provide a right of reply and providing basic identification requirements.

Voting:

For: 32

Against: 40

Abstentions: 3

Point 4.2.1

To be deleted:

‘4.2.1 If the proposed criterion is maintained, the directive should allow Member States to empower courts (in the event of civil or administrative proceedings) to demand that broadcasters prove that no payment has been received for audiovisual communication, as indicated in Directive 84/850/EEC. Otherwise, this communication would be presumed to be commercial in nature.’

Reason

The proposal that courts could demand the broadcaster to produce evidence that no payment has been received for audiovisual communication would open up for an easy possibility of abuse. It is furthermore practically impossible for a broadcaster to present proof of not having received payment.

Voting:

For: 35

Against: 40

Abstentions: 1

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the GALILEO programme: successful establishment of the European supervisory authority

(2006/C 318/34)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the GALILEO programme: successful establishment of the European supervisory authority.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Buffetaut.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 200 votes to four with two abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

The European Economic and Social Committee attaches great importance to the success of the Galileo programme, and accordingly emphasises the need for the hand-over period between the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU) and the Galileo Supervisory Authority (GSA) to be effected smoothly. To this end, it recommends:

2.   Introduction

3.   General comments

3.1   Summary description of the Galileo programme

3.2   The Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU)

3.3   The Galileo Supervisory Authority (GSA)

3.4   Legal, technical and financial questions and risks involved in the GJU-GSA transfer

3.4.1   Implementing the GJU-GSA transition

The arrangements for the transition and transfer of activities from the GJU to the GSA have not been clearly defined by the Commission. A non-paper from the Commission's Transport and Energy DG (1) has however suggested that an exchange of letters or a Memorandum of Understanding might take place between the two bodies in order to lay down the cooperation arrangements, ensuring complementarity of activities and preventing duplication.

3.5   Ensuring legal certainty in the transfer of assets from the GJU to the GSA by drawing up a practical transfer of activities plan

3.6   Plan for transfer of activities from GJU third countries to the GSA

Negotiations for the transfer of activities carried out by third country entities, by means of additional transfer clauses between the GSA, the GJU and the bodies concerned, must get under way rapidly. Contact must be made with these bodies to sound out their positions regarding the closure of the GJU and their future place and role within the GSA. The provisions of the regulation establishing the GSA stipulate that it should be possible for third countries, particularly those which have been involved in the programme's previous phases, to participate in the GSA provided they have concluded an agreement with the Community. Such agreements must specify, in particular, the nature, extent and manner in which these countries are to participate in the work of the Authority, including provisions relating to participation in the initiatives undertaken by the Authority, financial contributions and staff. It would seem that the reaction of third-country entities to the decision to wind up the GJU before the end of the IOV (in-orbit validation) phase might depend on the place accorded to them in the GSA. The NRSCC and MATIMOP could, for example, demand repayment of a part of their contributions as a result of GJU closure. The question of third party participation on the GSA Administrative Board will inevitably arise during the negotiations. Initial contacts on this question with the Community bodies seem to indicate differing views between the Member States: some do not wish to grant voting rights to third countries, while others point to the danger of compromising system security if it is opened up too widely to third countries. All, however, appear to agree that third party involvement in the GSA's Administrative Board must under no circumstances jeopardise EU control over the system. A special position might be granted, under certain conditions, to non-EU European countries (Norway and Switzerland). One solution might be to group third countries together within a dedicated structure to allow them to state their positions regarding decisions taken by the GSA.

3.7   Limiting overlap of responsibilities

3.8   Financial and budgetary aspects

3.9   Negotiation of the concession contract and finalisation of technical activities

4.   Further points for consideration: International liability of launching States for Galileo constellation satellites

Reference documents

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Setting up of the Galileo Supervisory Authority, Document for discussion at the executive Committee of 24 June 2004, TREN E/4/OO/bp D 11090 (2004) of 24 June 2004, p. 1.

(2)  It is recalled that the initial date for the end of GJU activity was 28 May 2006 (see above — duration of the GJU).

(3)  The involvement of non-EU third countries in the Galileo programme is covered by international agreements negotiated and concluded by the EU on behalf of the Member States, following negotiation of the provisions of the Agreement by the European Commission acting on the instructions of the Council. The first agreement was signed with China in October 2003, and is in the process of being ratified by the Member States. These agreements call on third countries to appoint an entity to participate in the Joint Undertaking (see above — International cooperation).

(4)  Two information memos have been drawn up by the Commission on this question for the members of the GJU Administrative Board: ‘Changes to the GJU Statutes and GJU/GSA transfer’, TREN B5 D(2006) of 18 January 2006; ‘Envisaged changes to the GSA Regulation and GJU/GSA transfer’, TREN B5 D(2006) of 19 January 2006.

(5)  Recital No 12 of the GSA regulation.

(6)  Article 2(2) of the GSA regulation.

(7)  The Belgian law on the launch, flight operations or guidance of space objects of 17 September 2005, published in the Moniteur of 16 November 2005, No 348. Article 2(1) of the law states that it covers the launch, flight operations or guidance of space objects performed by natural or legal persons in areas under the jurisdiction or control of the Belgian state or by means of mobile or fixed installations which belong to the Belgian state or are under its jurisdiction or control.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission on the promotion of Inland Waterway Transport ‘NAIADES’ — An Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport

COM(2006) 6 final

(2006/C 318/35)

On 3 February 2006 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Simons.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 64 votes to two, with two abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Introduction

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

4.1   Markets

4.2   Fleet

4.3   Jobs and skills

4.4   Image

4.5   Infrastructure

4.6   Modernisation of the organisational structure

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  See OJ No C 24 of 31.1.2006.

(2)  Strasbourg Convention on the Limitation of Liability in Inland Navigation (CLNI).

(3)OJ C 80 of 3.4.2002 and OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004.

(4)OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006.

(5)OJ C 185 of 8.8.2006.

(6)  In this opinion, the term ‘the business community’ is deemed to include, amongst others, employers, self-employed persons and employees working in this sector.

(7)  Attention is drawn to the call made by the EESC in its own-initiative opinion on social policy for adequate consultations, including by the River Commissions.

(8)  Strasbourg Convention on the Limitation of Liability in Inland Navigation (CLNI).

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Bridging the Broadband Gap

COM(2006) 129 final

(2006/C 318/36)

On 5 April 2006, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2006. The rapporteur was Mr McDonogh.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 193 votes to one, with four abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Recommendations

3.   Background

4.   Comments

4.1   Specific comments

4.2   Technology barriers to broadband connectivity

4.3   Problems with the supply of broadband

4.4   Problems with the demand for broadband

4.5   Broadband vision for a connected Europe

4.6   The need for government planning and action

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie Sigmund

----

(1)  Digital Divide Forum Report: Broadband Access and Public Support in Under-served areas, Brussels 15 July 2005.

(2)  Ministerial Declaration, Riga 11 June 2006, IP/06/769.

(3)  COM(2005) 203, and EP and Council Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and user's rights relating to electronic communications networks and services.

(4)  Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework; Directive 2002/19/EC on access and interconnection; and Directive 2002/77/EC on competition in the markets for electronic communications services.

(5)  ‘Telecommunications companies’ includes every company that offers two-way telecommunications services, including fixed-line and mobile phone companies, and cable television companies providing such services.

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2006 of 4 July 2006 implementing Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on the information society.

(7)  COM(2005) 229 ‘i2010 — A European Information Society for Growth and Employment’.

(8)  COM(2004) 369 ‘Connecting Europe at High Speed: National Broadband Strategies’, COM(2004) 369.

(9)  COM(2002) 263 ‘Europe 2005: An Information Society for All’.

(10)  The new broadband plan (September 2004) from Comité Interministériel pour l'Aménagement Du Territoire (CIADT), France, is a good example of a comprehensive strategy.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94

COM(2006) 111 final — 2006/0046 (COD)

(2006/C 318/37)

On 25 April 2006, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 80.2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Simons.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 187 votes to four with eight abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Introduction

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 54.

(2)  SOLAS: Safety of Life at Sea Convention.

(3)  IMO document MEPC 49/16/1.

----