# C_2007175EN.01003701.xml

| 27.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/37

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs’

COM(2007) 90 final — 2007/0037 (COD)

(2007/C 175/09)

On 11 May 2007 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 Committee Bureau instructed the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Gkofas as rapporteur-general at its 436th plenary session, held on 30 and 31 May 2007 (meeting of 30 May), and adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1 | The proposal submitted to the EESC entails the amendment of two regulations: they are Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

The proposal submitted to the EESC entails the amendment of two regulations: they are Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs.

| 1.2 | With regard to Community policies for better regulation, the European Economic and Social Committee considers reducing the administrative burden placed on businesses by existing legislation to be a necessary and crucial factor in boosting competitiveness and achieving the goals of the Lisbon agenda. The Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union, and the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union certainly contribute to this purpose. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

With regard to Community policies for better regulation, the European Economic and Social Committee considers reducing the administrative burden placed on businesses by existing legislation to be a necessary and crucial factor in boosting competitiveness and achieving the goals of the Lisbon agenda. The Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union, and the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union certainly contribute to this purpose.

A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union

Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union

| 1.3 | The first amendment regards Regulation No 11, which of course dates back a very long way, concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. The EESC agrees on abolishing the obligation to provide information on routes, distances, rates and other transport conditions, and allowing the use of consignment notes to provide information on the remaining requirements related to the current transport document, because it provides for a reduction of unnecessary administrative burdens while the same level of essential information continues to be available. |
| --- | --- |

1.3

The first amendment regards Regulation No 11, which of course dates back a very long way, concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. The EESC agrees on abolishing the obligation to provide information on routes, distances, rates and other transport conditions, and allowing the use of consignment notes to provide information on the remaining requirements related to the current transport document, because it provides for a reduction of unnecessary administrative burdens while the same level of essential information continues to be available.

| 1.4 | The EESC therefore agrees with the amendment to Regulation No 11, and more specifically with the deletion of Article 5 and the amendment of Article 6 deleting the fifth and sixth indents of paragraph 1. It also agrees with the amendment to Article 6 deleting the third sentence of paragraph 2, and replacing paragraph 3 with the following text: ‘Where existing documents such as consignment notes or any other transport document give all the details specified in paragraph 1 and, in conjunction with carriers' recording and accounting systems, enable a full check to be made of transport rates and conditions, so that the forms of discrimination referred to in Article 75(1) of the Treaty may be thereby abolished or avoided, carriers shall not be required to introduce new documents’. |
| --- | --- |

1.4

The EESC therefore agrees with the amendment to Regulation No 11, and more specifically with the deletion of Article 5 and the amendment of Article 6 deleting the fifth and sixth indents of paragraph 1. It also agrees with the amendment to Article 6 deleting the third sentence of paragraph 2, and replacing paragraph 3 with the following text: ‘Where existing documents such as consignment notes or any other transport document give all the details specified in paragraph 1 and, in conjunction with carriers' recording and accounting systems, enable a full check to be made of transport rates and conditions, so that the forms of discrimination referred to in Article 75(1) of the Treaty may be thereby abolished or avoided, carriers shall not be required to introduce new documents’.

| 1.5 | The EESC agrees with the amendment of Regulation 852/2004, intended to provide for the exemption of the relevant businesses from the requirements of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, since operators must comply with all the regulation's other requirements. Under Article 5(1) of the Regulation, all food businesses which are micro-enterprises predominantly selling their products directly to the final consumer, such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, and which are micro-enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, must put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure or procedures based on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles. |
| --- | --- |

1.5

The EESC agrees with the amendment of Regulation 852/2004, intended to provide for the exemption of the relevant businesses from the requirements of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, since operators must comply with all the regulation's other requirements. Under Article 5(1) of the Regulation, all food businesses which are micro-enterprises predominantly selling their products directly to the final consumer, such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, and which are micro-enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, must put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure or procedures based on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles.

| 1.6 | However, the EESC considers that the exemption of the above-mentioned businesses who sell their products directly to the final consumer, such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, restaurants or bars should also be extended to small enterprises, as defined by Recommendation 2003/361/EC concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

1.6

However, the EESC considers that the exemption of the above-mentioned businesses who sell their products directly to the final consumer, such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, restaurants or bars should also be extended to small enterprises, as defined by Recommendation 2003/361/EC concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

| 1.7 | Extending the exemption in this way will probably mean incorporating two requirements in the amendment of Article 5 of Regulation 852. The provision would include small enterprises — defined of course as having no more than 50 employees, a number too high for exemption from HACCP — and with their inclusion a specific reference and restrictions for catering businesses would be introduced. |
| --- | --- |

1.7

Extending the exemption in this way will probably mean incorporating two requirements in the amendment of Article 5 of Regulation 852. The provision would include small enterprises — defined of course as having no more than 50 employees, a number too high for exemption from HACCP — and with their inclusion a specific reference and restrictions for catering businesses would be introduced.

| 1.8 | The first requirement could be strict compliance with the hygiene guides and specific hygiene requirements set out in Article 4 of Regulation 852/2004 which, together with staff training, would be sufficient to ensure food product hygiene, while at the same time making it easier for businesses to meet their legal obligations. |
| --- | --- |

1.8

The first requirement could be strict compliance with the hygiene guides and specific hygiene requirements set out in Article 4 of Regulation 852/2004 which, together with staff training, would be sufficient to ensure food product hygiene, while at the same time making it easier for businesses to meet their legal obligations.

| 1.9 | The second requirement — with the same aim of exempting small catering enterprises, which by definition have fewer than 50 employees — could be that, in the specific case of these businesses, there could be no more than 10 persons per shift working on product preparation (production unit-kitchen). The enterprise would be required to provide, in advance, a list of those workers engaged in preparation. |
| --- | --- |

1.9

The second requirement — with the same aim of exempting small catering enterprises, which by definition have fewer than 50 employees — could be that, in the specific case of these businesses, there could be no more than 10 persons per shift working on product preparation (production unit-kitchen). The enterprise would be required to provide, in advance, a list of those workers engaged in preparation.

| 1.10 | The introduction of these distinctions and clarifications complies with the provisions of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, while laying down production and shift restrictions specifically for catering businesses such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, restaurants and bars so as also to satisfy the conditions necessary to protect and safeguard public health. |
| --- | --- |

1.10

The introduction of these distinctions and clarifications complies with the provisions of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, while laying down production and shift restrictions specifically for catering businesses such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, restaurants and bars so as also to satisfy the conditions necessary to protect and safeguard public health.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1 | The Commission has asked the EESC to draw up an opinion on the amendment of two regulations: Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. |
| --- | --- |

2.1

The Commission has asked the EESC to draw up an opinion on the amendment of two regulations: Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs.

| 2.2 | Regarding Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, considers the possibility of deleting outdated requirements and modifying certain requirements in order to minimise the administrative burdens on businesses. Article 5 notably requested transport undertakings (as well as Member States' governments) to provide information on transport tariffs, rates and conditions before 1 July 1961. Article 6(1) of the Regulation requires a transport document containing several information elements concerning the consignor, the nature of the goods carried, the place of origin and destination of the goods as well as the route to be taken or distance to be travelled, including frontier crossing points where appropriate. Since these latter elements are no longer indispensable to achieve the objectives of the Regulation, they can be deleted. The third sentence of Article 6(2) of the Regulation requires the carrier to retain a copy showing the full and final transport charges and any other charges and any rebates or other factors affecting the transport rates and conditions. This sentence can be deleted, as nowadays this information is available in the accounting systems. Article 6(3) is to contain an explicit reference to consignment notes, which are very well-known and often used in the inland transport sector. This reference improves legal certainty for transport undertakings as it clarifies that these consignment notes, if containing all details required by paragraph 1 of Article 6, suffice. |
| --- | --- |

2.2

Regarding Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, considers the possibility of deleting outdated requirements and modifying certain requirements in order to minimise the administrative burdens on businesses. Article 5 notably requested transport undertakings (as well as Member States' governments) to provide information on transport tariffs, rates and conditions before 1 July 1961. Article 6(1) of the Regulation requires a transport document containing several information elements concerning the consignor, the nature of the goods carried, the place of origin and destination of the goods as well as the route to be taken or distance to be travelled, including frontier crossing points where appropriate. Since these latter elements are no longer indispensable to achieve the objectives of the Regulation, they can be deleted. The third sentence of Article 6(2) of the Regulation requires the carrier to retain a copy showing the full and final transport charges and any other charges and any rebates or other factors affecting the transport rates and conditions. This sentence can be deleted, as nowadays this information is available in the accounting systems. Article 6(3) is to contain an explicit reference to consignment notes, which are very well-known and often used in the inland transport sector. This reference improves legal certainty for transport undertakings as it clarifies that these consignment notes, if containing all details required by paragraph 1 of Article 6, suffice.

| 2.3 | Another ‘fast track action’ relates to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. The purpose is to exempt micro food businesses able to control food hygiene simply by implementing the other requirements of Regulation (EC) 852/2004 from the requirement to put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure or procedures based on the hazard analysis and critical control points (‘HACCP’) principles. This exemption applies to micro-enterprises that are predominantly selling food directly to the final consumer. |
| --- | --- |

2.3

Another ‘fast track action’ relates to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. The purpose is to exempt micro food businesses able to control food hygiene simply by implementing the other requirements of Regulation (EC) 852/2004 from the requirement to put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure or procedures based on the hazard analysis and critical control points (‘HACCP’) principles. This exemption applies to micro-enterprises that are predominantly selling food directly to the final consumer.

3.   General comments

| 3.1 | The EESC welcomes the amendment to Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, envisaging the deletion of outdated requirements and the modification of certain requirements in order to minimise the administrative burdens on businesses. |
| --- | --- |

3.1

The EESC welcomes the amendment to Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, envisaging the deletion of outdated requirements and the modification of certain requirements in order to minimise the administrative burdens on businesses.

| 3.2 | With regard to the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, the EESC considers that small enterprises should also be taken into account, in keeping with Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. A degree of flexibility is needed for these businesses, as has been shown in practice. |
| --- | --- |

3.2

With regard to the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, the EESC considers that small enterprises should also be taken into account, in keeping with Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. A degree of flexibility is needed for these businesses, as has been shown in practice.

| 3.3 | It must be recognised that, as in the case of micro-enterprises, it is not possible for some small enterprises to establish HACCP criteria, but only critical control points. This is specifically on account of the difficulty in storing documents, which would place an excessive burden on these businesses. |
| --- | --- |

3.3

It must be recognised that, as in the case of micro-enterprises, it is not possible for some small enterprises to establish HACCP criteria, but only critical control points. This is specifically on account of the difficulty in storing documents, which would place an excessive burden on these businesses.

| 3.4 | Recommendation 2003/361/EC defined micro-enterprises as those employing a total of fewer than 10 persons and with a turnover of less than EUR 2 million. This definition may well be appropriate regarding the number of employees for enterprises in some Member States; however, in proportion to this number of employees and in these Member States, the EUR 2 million turnover is excessive. |
| --- | --- |

3.4

Recommendation 2003/361/EC defined micro-enterprises as those employing a total of fewer than 10 persons and with a turnover of less than EUR 2 million. This definition may well be appropriate regarding the number of employees for enterprises in some Member States; however, in proportion to this number of employees and in these Member States, the EUR 2 million turnover is excessive.

| 3.5 | Moreover, the definition given in Recommendation 2003/361/EC makes no distinction between catering or commercial enterprises, at least with regard to the number of employees, The EUR 2 million criterion was added specifically for commercial enterprises, because with only three employees they can — in some Member States, at least — generate a turnover of more than EUR 1.5 million. This unacceptable anomaly has been corrected only for a specific type of enterprise. It is therefore reasonable, at least for the present opinion, to consider that catering businesses operating in various Member States cannot be argued to be micro-enterprises only when they have fewer than ten employees and turnover of less than EUR 2 million. In some Member States, catering businesses operate two shifts and consequently employ considerably more than ten persons, while their turnover is naturally well below EUR 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

3.5

Moreover, the definition given in Recommendation 2003/361/EC makes no distinction between catering or commercial enterprises, at least with regard to the number of employees, The EUR 2 million criterion was added specifically for commercial enterprises, because with only three employees they can — in some Member States, at least — generate a turnover of more than EUR 1.5 million. This unacceptable anomaly has been corrected only for a specific type of enterprise. It is therefore reasonable, at least for the present opinion, to consider that catering businesses operating in various Member States cannot be argued to be micro-enterprises only when they have fewer than ten employees and turnover of less than EUR 2 million. In some Member States, catering businesses operate two shifts and consequently employ considerably more than ten persons, while their turnover is naturally well below EUR 500 000.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1 | The EESC considers that the reference to Recommendation 2003/361/EC made in the text under consideration in the present opinion, concerning the definition of enterprises, and specifically to applying HACCP, should take a different approach. |
| --- | --- |

4.1

The EESC considers that the reference to Recommendation 2003/361/EC made in the text under consideration in the present opinion, concerning the definition of enterprises, and specifically to applying HACCP, should take a different approach.

| 4.2 | Extending the exemption in this way will probably mean incorporating two requirements in the amendment of Article 5 of Regulation 852. The provision would include small enterprises — defined of course as having no more than 50 employees, a number too high for exemption from HACCP — and with their inclusion a specific reference and restrictions for catering businesses would be introduced. |
| --- | --- |

4.2

Extending the exemption in this way will probably mean incorporating two requirements in the amendment of Article 5 of Regulation 852. The provision would include small enterprises — defined of course as having no more than 50 employees, a number too high for exemption from HACCP — and with their inclusion a specific reference and restrictions for catering businesses would be introduced.

| 4.3 | The first requirement could be strict compliance with the hygiene guides and specific hygiene requirements set out in Article 4 of Regulation 852/2004 which, together with staff training, would be sufficient to ensure food product hygiene, while at the same time making it easier for businesses to meet their legal obligations. |
| --- | --- |

4.3

The first requirement could be strict compliance with the hygiene guides and specific hygiene requirements set out in Article 4 of Regulation 852/2004 which, together with staff training, would be sufficient to ensure food product hygiene, while at the same time making it easier for businesses to meet their legal obligations.

| 4.4 | The second requirement — with the same aim of exempting small catering enterprises, which by definition have fewer than 50 employees — could be that, in the specific case of these businesses, such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, there could be no more than 10 persons per shift working on product preparation. The enterprise would be required to provide, in advance, a list of those workers engaged in preparation. |
| --- | --- |

4.4

The second requirement — with the same aim of exempting small catering enterprises, which by definition have fewer than 50 employees — could be that, in the specific case of these businesses, such as bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, there could be no more than 10 persons per shift working on product preparation. The enterprise would be required to provide, in advance, a list of those workers engaged in preparation.

| 4.5 | The introduction of these distinctions and clarifications complies with the provisions of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, while laying down production and shift restrictions specifically for catering businesses so as also to satisfy the conditions necessary to protect and safeguard public health. |
| --- | --- |

4.5

The introduction of these distinctions and clarifications complies with the provisions of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, while laying down production and shift restrictions specifically for catering businesses so as also to satisfy the conditions necessary to protect and safeguard public health.

| 4.6 | In particular, the EESC considers that the following sentence should be added to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004: |
| --- | --- |

4.6

In particular, the EESC considers that the following sentence should be added to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004:

| 4.6.1 | ‘Without prejudice to the other requirements of this Regulation, paragraph 1 may be amended so that small catering enterprises, bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, as defined and clarified in Recommendation 2003/361/EC, are also exempted from the application of HACCP, on condition of strict compliance with the hygiene guides, the specific hygiene requirements set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, which, together with staff training, would be sufficient to ensure food product hygiene, while at the same time making it easier for businesses to meet their legal obligations. The protection of public health is the key prerequisite’. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.1

‘Without prejudice to the other requirements of this Regulation, paragraph 1 may be amended so that small catering enterprises, bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, as defined and clarified in Recommendation 2003/361/EC, are also exempted from the application of HACCP, on condition of strict compliance with the hygiene guides, the specific hygiene requirements set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, which, together with staff training, would be sufficient to ensure food product hygiene, while at the same time making it easier for businesses to meet their legal obligations. The protection of public health is the key prerequisite’.

| 4.6.2 | ‘Similarly, for small catering enterprises, bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, which of course by definition have less than 50 employees, the additional and specific condition must be met that no more than 10 persons per shift may work on product preparation (production unit-kitchen)’. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.2

‘Similarly, for small catering enterprises, bakeries, butchers, grocery shops, market stalls, restaurants and bars, which of course by definition have less than 50 employees, the additional and specific condition must be met that no more than 10 persons per shift may work on product preparation (production unit-kitchen)’.

Brussels, 30 May 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---