----

----

II Preparatory Acts

European Economic and Social Committee

423rd plenary session, held on 18 and 19 January 2006

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the

‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme “Fight against violence (Daphne) and drugs prevention and information” as part of the General programme “Fundamental Rights and Justice”’

‘Proposal for a Council Decision establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme “Fundamental rights and citizenship” as part of the General programme “Fundamental Rights and Justice”’

‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme “Civil justice” as part of the General programme “Fundamental Rights and Justice”’

(COM(2005) 122 final — 2005/0037 (COD) — 2005/0038 (CNS) — 2005/0040 (COD))

(2006/C 69/01)

On 19 July 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 December 2005. The rapporteur was Ms King.

At its 423rd plenary session, held on 18 and 19 January 2006 (meeting of 19 January 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions.

1.   Background

2.   General Comments

3.   Specific Comments on Financials and the Programmes

3.1   Financial Resources

In the text of the Commission proposal there is a lack of consistency with regard to the financials, as illustrated in the table below. The Commission has explained that the figures are correct but have been presented differently. The Committee notes that there is no explanation of this difference in the text. There is however an error on page 38 of the English language text. The EESC believes that there should be consistency and clarity when presenting the financials. These inconsistencies need to be rectified, as accuracy and consistency are as important as simplification and transparency, which are the stated goals of the Commission in its proposal.

3.2   General Programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice

3.3   Fight against Violence and drugs prevention and information

3.4   Fundamental Rights and Citizenship

3.5   Specific Programmes — Criminal Justice and Civil Justice

Brussels, 19 January 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC Opinion 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 (COM(2005) 184 final – Rapporteur: Mr Pariza) (OJ C 28, 3.2.2006).

(2)OJ C 294, 25.11.2005 (Rapporteur: Ms Le Nouail-Marlière).

(3)OJ C 294, 25.11.2005 (Rapporteur: Mr Cabra de Luna).

(4)OJ C 294, 25.11.2005 (Rapporteur: Ms King).

(5)  The IHF report, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in the EU – Developments since September 11 covers developments in eleven EU member states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Sustainable development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and the challenges of climate change’

(2006/C 69/02)

On 10 February 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: Sustainable development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and the challenges of climate change.

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 9 November 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Kallio.

At its 423rd plenary session, held on 18 and 19 January 2006 (meeting of 18 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 96 votes to 14 with 13 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Changes and adaptation needs in EU agriculture in response to the climate change process

3.   Need for adaptation in fisheries as well

4.   Need for long-term strategies in forestry

5.   Conclusions and recommendations

Brussels, 18 January 2006.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the rates of excise duty applied on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (presented pursuant to Article 8 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC on the approximation of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages)’

(COM(2004) 223 final)

(2006/C 69/03)

On 27 May 2004, 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 report.

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 8 November 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Wilkinson.

At its 423rd plenary session of 18 and 19 January 2006 (meeting of 18 January 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes to 33 with 15 abstentions.

1.   Summary of Conclusion and Recommendations

2.   Supporting arguments

3.   General comments

4.   Internal Market

5.   Minimum rates

6.   Wider objectives of the Treaty — health

7.   Possible way forward

Brussels, 18 January 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the rates of excise duty applied on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (presented pursuant to Article 8 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC on the approximation of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages) COM(2004) 223 final.

(2)  Council Directive 92/84/EEC on the approximation of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages: OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(3)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages: OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. Subjects requiring consideration include whether it should continue to be permissible to tax still and sparkling wines at different excise rates, the need to update the codes of the combined nomenclature and the classification of some similar products in different ways.

(4)  The total value to EU 15 GDP in 2001 was over EUR 25 billion; in GDP percentage terms the highest was Finland (0,96 %) and the lowest was Italy (0,06 %).

(5)  Excise duty rates applied to alcoholic beverages vary between highest and lowest taxing MS by 15,9 times for beer and ‘intermediate products’ and 9,2 times for spirit drinks. No such comparison is possible for wines (including sparkling wines) since wines are not taxed at all in 15 of the 25 MS and a minimal tax (of about 2 eurocents) is applied in 2 further MS.

(6)  Excise is tax payable on such goods in the country of purchase.

(7)  Wineand beer have been found to be to some extent substitutable by the ECJ: case C-170/78 and case C-166/98.

(8)  lpa: ‘litre of pure alcohol’; thus based on alcohol content, taking beer, wine and intermediate products at typical retail strengths.

(9)  In each of these cases this has primarily been the result of citizens in the MS concerned exercising their right to buy in other MS in the internal market.

(10)  Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland and Sweden.

(11)  Conclusions of Session 2651 held on 12 April 2005.

(12)  The same ECOFIN Council meeting asked the Commission to make proposals to raise the current minimum rates in line with inflation over the past years. This decision will force a significant number of MS to raise the rates that they apply to some alcoholic drinks. The Commission recognises that some MS will have difficulties in imposing the increases and may need derogations and/or transitional periods.

(13)  European School Survey Project on Alcohol and on Drugs (ESPAD) 2003 report.

(14)  ‘Obesity in Europe – role and responsibilities of civil society partners’ (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C 24, 31.1.2006).

(15)  DG SANCO is working on an alcohol strategy proposal. It is unlikely that this study will be completed for a considerable time.

(16)  CMO: Common Market Organisation.

(17)  Similar exemptions may be applied for beer (Article 6) and other fermented beverages (Article 14) of this directive.

(18)  Small wine producers' is here taken as persons producing an average of less than 100 000 litres of wine per year on average.

(19)  ‘abv’ means alcohol by volume and denotes the percentage of the product in question that is alcohol.

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

Rejected amendments

The following amendments, which were supported by a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate:

Point 7.5

Amend as follows:

‘In particular the consequences on the CMO (1) for wine would need very careful consideration; the EU wine industry is already facing substantial challenges (such as falling consumption in many MS and greater market penetration by imported wine). Other categories of fermented alcoholic drinks can have similar difficulties. In addition, due to the proven link between moderate consumption of these drinks and their health benefits, it would be useful to divide this classification into two categories (fermented and distilled). In each of these categories, the Member States could establish a minimum excise rate based on alcohol content, irrespective of the form in which this alcohol is present.’

Reason

Due to its agricultural origins and use as a food product, and to the health benefits that can come from moderate consumption, we should express support for the entire fermented beverage sector, where consumption patterns for wine, beer and cider are very similar. However, it is not logical to impose a single base rate model without taking into account the type of drink or means of production, and to lay down an exception for one of these drinks — wine — based on circumstances that also apply to other fermented drinks (cider and beer), as set down in the opinion adopted on 19 December 2005.

Voting

For: 46

Against: 50

Abstentions: 23

Point 7.5.1

Amend as follows:

‘Further to the previous point, it should be pointed out that wine represents a significant supplementary activity for farmers, and that small-scale traditional beer or cider production is also a part of European culture. Many winegrowers produce wine for their own family consumption, independently of their production for cooperatives or wholesalers, selling any surplus to a small number of private local individuals. The same applies to small cider or beer producers, whose products are intended for home or local consumption. This would mean that checks on taxation would have to be made, in each of the countries concerned, for hundreds of thousands of small producers: the cost would be unsustainable for the Member States compared to what would certainly be modest revenues, and — more importantly — would represent an additional economic burden for a wine-producing sectors which is already affected by competition from newly-emerging third countries. Wine These beverages should therefore be excluded from the ensuing rationale, retaining enabling a the current“zero-rating” to be applied to all of them.’

Reason

The reasons given in this point are also applicable to the small-scale, traditional production of other products covered by Directives 92/83/EC and 92/84/EC, to which reduced rates may be applied. There do not seem to be sufficient arguments for restricting the exclusion to the wine sector, if this exclusion is not applied to all similar products, avoiding the discriminatory effects of Directive 92/84/EC.

Voting

For: 52

Against: 65

Abstentions: 8

Point 7.11

Amend as follows (new text is underlined):

Voting

For: 35

Against: 75

Abstentions: 12

----

(1)  CMO: Common Market Organisation

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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’

(COM(2005) 438 final — 2005/0182 (COD))

(2006/C 69/04)

On 16 November 2005, 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.

On 27 September 2005, the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure to prepare the Committee's work on the subject. Mr Hernández Bataller was appointed rapporteur.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Hernández Bataller as rapporteur-general at its 423rd plenary session, held on 18 and 19 January 2006 (meeting of 19 January 2006), and adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to 17 with 17 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.   Reasons

2.1   Background

2.2   Commission proposal

2.3   General comments

2.4   Specific comments

Brussels, 19 January 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (OJ L 201 of 31.7.2002).

(3)  Opinion adopted at the plenary session of 24 and 25 January 2001, rapporteur: Mr Lagerholm (OJ C 123 of 25.4.2001).

(4)  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950.

(5)  See the recent decision of the German constitutional court, which declared the so called ‘Euro-warrant’ unconstitutional, even though it is more important than the subject being addressed here in the fight against terrorism and transnational crime.

(6)  ECHR decision in cases: AMANN (2000), KOPP (1998), HALFORD (1997) and MALONE (1984).

(7)  Article 6(1) of the TEU: ‘The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.’

(8)  Article 6(2) of the TEU: ‘The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.’

----

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following proposals for amendment were rejected, but received at least a quarter of the votes cast:

Point 1.5

Delete:

‘The additional costs incurred by operators from the storage and transmission of the data referred to in the proposal should be considered as a charge that ought to be borne by the providers simply as a part of being on the market, rather than by the public purse and thus all citizens.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Point 2.4.11

Amend as follows:

‘It is surprising that Article 10 of the proposal provides for so-called “additional costs” incurred by operators in fulfilling the duties of storing and transmitting data., and that, according tothe The Commission, they proposes that these costs should be reimbursed from public funds because, as stated in Recital 13 of the proposal, “the benefits in terms of public security impact on society in general”.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Point 2.4.12

Replace text as follows:

The Committee completely disagrees with the Commission on this point and believes that this statement is, to say the least, inaccurate. Each Member State is free to establish the amount and formula of compensation for these costs, in line with their own criteria, circumstances and security needs, although as recognised by the Commission (Recital 5), many Member States have not even established any such legislation.

‘The proposal will result in high cost burdens for industry. At present, companies generate, process and store data for billing, commercial and other legitimate purposes. Supplementary requirements (additional types of data; longer retention periods) would create extra costs that have to be covered. As security is clearly a state responsibility — which has to be funded by the state — the Member States would have to bear the cost of data retention by compensating the ITC companies.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Point 2.4.13

Replace text as follows:

‘1.1.1 The Commission's criterion raises the following questions:

The rationale for the proposal is that Europe needs a harmonised approach to data retention as a measure against crime and terrorism. If some European countries foot the bills for crime fighting while others decide to put this quite extensive financial burden on operators, the European telecommunications market will soon suffer from grave distortions of competition. So on this point the Committee fully supports the Commission.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Point 2.4.14

Delete.

‘Therefore, and assuming that the proposal for a Directive is successful, these costs should be considered as a charge that is to be borne by the providers, not by the public purse and thus all citizens, simply as part of being able to operate in the market. The Committee believes that this proposal to reimburse additional costs is inappropriate and should be removed.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Results of votes (for all the amendments)

Votes in favour: 53

Votes against: 54

Abstentions: 15

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’

(COM(2005) 399 final — 2005/0166 (COD))

(2006/C 69/05)

On 18 January 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 Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 November 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Olsson.

At its 423rd plenary session, held on 18-19 January 2006 (meeting of 18 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion nem. con. with 33 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments on some Articles of the proposal

3.1   Article 5 — European Information Network

The European Information Network consists of national focal points which form an interface between the participating countries and the Centre. The focal points would collect and analyse information at national level in accordance with guidelines issued by the Centre. Each focal point would also receive an annual grant from the EU for its work, which would be regulated through a ‘grant agreement for action’.

The Committee recommends that the Centre's guidelines and agreements with Member States should require the focal points to work together with national organisations, including NGOs, which are active in the drugs field.

This should also be made clear in Article 5(2) by amending the third sentence to read as follows: ‘They shall collect and analyse at national level, in cooperation with experts and organisations in the field, all relevant information on drugs and drug addiction, as well as on policies and solutions applied’.

3.2   Article 20 — Cooperation with other national and international organisations and bodies

According to the Regulation, the Centre would actively seek the cooperation of international organisations and other, particularly European, governmental and non-governmental agencies competent in the sector of drugs. Such cooperation would be based on working arrangements concluded with the aforementioned authorities and which are the subject of an opinion by the Commission. In addition, the management board would be able to invite representatives of international organisations to participate as observers.

With a view to ensuring that these organisations participate on a more systematic and regular basis, the Committee proposes that a cooperation body be set up through the addition to Article 20 of the following text: ‘The Centre shall appoint a contact group comprising representatives of organisations competent in the field of drugs in order to examine how cooperation shall be arranged’.

Brussels, 18 January 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, rapporteur-general: Mr Olsson, OJ C 120, 20.5.2005.

(2)  COM(2005) 399 final, Article 9.

(3)  COM (2005)59 final and COM(2002) 718 final.

----