----

----

II Preparatory Acts

European Economic and Social Committee

414th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 February 2005

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the XXXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy — 2003

(SEC(2004) 658 final)

(2005/C 221/01)

On 4 June 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 XXXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy — 2003

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 11 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chiriaco.

At its 414th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 75 votes in favour and one abstention:

1.   Introduction

2.   Application of antitrust rules — Treaty Articles 81 and 82

3.   Competition policy developments at sectoral level

4.   Reform of the merger control system

5.   International cooperation

6.   State aid

7.   General assessment

7.2   Relationship between competition policy and economic growth policy

7.3   State aid and services of general interest

7.4   Liberal professions

7.5   Plurality of information and competition law

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004

(2)OJ C 117 of 30.4.2004

(3)  Council Regulation 139/2004, of 20.1.2004

(4)OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.

(5)OJ C 302 of 7.12.2004

(6)  COM(2004) 83 final of 9.2.2004

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on international rail passengers' rights and obligations

(COM(2004) 143 final — 2004/0049 (COD))

(2005/C 221/02)

On 28 April 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 414th plenary session (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 119 votes to one with four abstentions

1.   Introduction

2.   The Commission proposal

2.1   Liability and compensation

2.2   Availability of information and sale of tickets

2.3   People with reduced mobility

2.4   Service quality standards and complaints procedures

3.   Assessment of the proposal

3.1   Basic observations

3.2   Scope

3.3   Liability and compensation

3.4   Assistance to persons with limited mobility and other passengers

3.5   Information to passengers and on tickets

3.6   Effects of the regulation on employees

4.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22.

(2)  Directive 2001/13/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22.

(3)  Directive 2001/14/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22.

(4)  Directive 2004/51/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 164 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131.

(5)  Directive 2004/49/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131.

(6)  Directive 2004/881/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 1 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131.

(7)  Directive 2004/50/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114 – EESC Opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131.

(8)OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131.

(9)  Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on compensation in cases of non-compliance with contractual quality requirements for rail freight services

(COM(2004) 144 final — 2004/0050 (COD))

(2005/C 221/03)

On 28 April 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 414th plenary session (meeting of 9 February 2005) the Committee adopted the following opinion by 130 votes with 2 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   The Commission proposal

3.   Remarks on the Commission proposal

4.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President of the

European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC – OJ L 75 of 15.3.2001, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209 of 22.7.1999, p. 22

(2)  Directive 2001/13/EC – OJ L 75 of 15.3.2001, p. 26 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209 of 22.7.1999, p. 22

(3)  Directive 2001/14/EC – OJ L 75 of 15.3.2001, p. 29 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209 of 22.7.1999, p. 22

(4)  Directive 2004/51/EC – OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 164 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003, p. 131

(5)  Directive 2004/49/EC – OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 44 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003, p. 131

(6)  Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 – OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003, p. 131

(7)  Directive 2004/50/EC – OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 114 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003, p. 131

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the White Paper on services of general interest

(COM(2004) 374 final)

(2005/C 221/04)

On 13 May 2004, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

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 17 January 2005. (rapporteur: Mr Hencks — co-rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller).

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 131 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   White Paper on services of general interest

2.4   The Commission's approach is based on nine principles:

2.5   Based on these principles the White Paper proposes eight new orientations:

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC opinions on Services of general interest, OJ C 241 of 7.10.2002, and on the Green Paper on Services of General Interest, OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The use of geothermal energy

(2005/C 221/05)

On 1 July 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the use of geothermal energy.

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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February 2005), the Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes, with 2 abstentions:

This opinion supplements earlier Committee opinions on energy and research policy. It describes the development and use of geothermal energy, as an energy source which, given the extent of reserves, meets the criterion of sustainability, does not contribute to global warming through CO2 emissions, and can therefore be considered as a renewable energy source. The opinion includes a brief overview and evaluation, set in the context of the global energy issue, of current development and use of geothermal energy, its potential, and the problems connected with launching it commercially.

Table of contents:

1.   The energy issue

2.   Geothermal energy

3.   Current situation

4.   Future development and recommendations

5.   Summary

Brussels, 9 February 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Energy is not actually consumed, but merely converted and, in the process, used. This happens through conversion processes such as coal combustion, the conversion of wind energy into electricity, and nuclear fission (conservation of energy; E = mc2). However, the terms ‘energy supply’, ‘energy production’ and ‘energy consumption’ are also used.

(2)Promoting renewable energy: Means of action and financing instruments; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market; Draft proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations and Draft proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste; The issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation; Fusion energy.

(3)  Future use of which will have to be increasingly restricted in view of both the limited reserves of such fuels and also the need to reduce CO2 emissions (Kyoto Protocol).

(4)  The overall problem has been foreshadowed by previous oil crises (e.g. in 1973 and 1979), current increases in oil prices, and the current controversy – centred on the trade-off between economy and environment – about the allocation of emissions certificates.

(5)  However, see 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.2.2.

(6)  In future e.g. CO2 could be used.

(7)  Enthalpy, which is a term used in thermodynamics, is useable energy content (internal energy plus expansion energy).

(8)  However, see 2.2.1.1 on sealed geothermal probes and 2.2.1.2 on geothermal heat pumps.

(9)  See 2.2.2.2 on turbine circuits.

(10)  See: Promoting renewable energy: Means of action and financing instruments

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the deployment and commercial operating phases of the European programme of satellite radionavigation

(COM(2004) 477 final — 2004/0156 (COD))

(2005/C 221/06)

On 16 November 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 156 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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Rannocchiari.

At its 414th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 134 votes with 3 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   Current state of play and anticipated developments

3.   The European Commission proposal

4.   General comments

5.   Specific comments

6.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ C 311 17/11/2001 p. 19.

(2)  Galileo Joint Undertaking, set up under Article 171 of the EC Treaty by Council Regulation EC 876/2002 of 21 May 2002. It ensures the implementation of the development phase of the Galileo Programme and provides for the management of the deployment and operative phases. Its headquarters are in Brussels. Its founding members are the European Community, represented by the Commission, and the European Space Agency.

(3)OJ C 48, 21/02/2002 p. 42

(4)  EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Progress report on the GALILEO research programme as at the beginning of 2004. OJ C 302 of 7 December 2004

(5)  Council Regulation on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radionavigation programmes (OJ L 246, of 20 July 2004)

(6)  See OJ L 246, of 20 July 2004

(7)  US GPS: United States Global Positioning System, operated by the military

(8)  GLONASS: GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM.

(9)  EGNOS: European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service: system based on the correction of the GPS signal via a network of ground stations and geostationary stations. It was launched in 1996 and operated as Galileo's precursor. EGNOS is to be integrated with the latter under the terms of the joint concession scheme..

(10)  See Concession for the deployment and operation phases of the Galileo programme 2003/S 200-179789, published on 17 October 2003

(11)  EURELY: Consortium founded by ALCATEL, FINMECCANICA and VINCI

(12)  INAVSAT : founded by EADS Space, Inmarsat Ventures and the Thales Group.

(13)  COM(2004) 636 final adopted 6 October 2004

(14)  IPR: intellectual property rights.

(15)  COSPAS (Russian acronym for ‘Cosmicheskaya Sistyema Poiska Avariynich Sudov,’ or Satellite search system for vessels -SARSAT: Search And Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking: an international satellite search and rescue system with humanitarian objectives. Between 1982 and 2003 the system was responsible for rescuing more than 15,000 people worldwide.

(16)  See EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, Point 3.5. OJ C 48 of 21 February 2002

(17)  See COM(2004) 693 of 25/10/04, a Communication from the Commission that recommends the establishment of the agency in 2005, and proposes that it be entrusted with protecting individuals in matters pertaining to the processing of personal data.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE)

(COM(2004) 516 final — 2004/0175 (COD))

(2005/C 221/07)

On 13 September 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 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 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Retureau.

At its 414th plenary session on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 140 votes with two abstentions:

1.   Summary of the Committee's opinion

2.   The Commission's proposal

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

----

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 — Flood risk management — Flood prevention, protection and mitigation

(COM(2004) 472 final)

(2005/C 221/08)

On 12 July 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 communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was Ms Sanchez Miguel.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes with no votes against and two abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Gist of the Commission's proposal

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p. 72.

(2)  EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution (COM(2003)550 final) – OJ C 112 of 30 April 2004, pp. 40–43.

(3)  European Parliament and Council Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy, COM(2000) 47 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee: Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources, COM(2000) 477 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment, COM(2002) 539 final.

(4)  Source: COM(2004) 472 final

(5)  An interesting example was presented to the EESC's Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment by Mr Sándor Tóth, representative of the Hungarian Department of the Environment and Water Management, on the programme of long-term flood management and regional development in the Tisza valley.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy

(COM(2004) 489 final — 2004/0164 (CNS))

(2005/C 221/09)

On 29 October 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37(2) 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 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Kienle.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 133 votes with 6 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

1 January 2005 saw the launch of the far-reaching agricultural reform. At the heart of this reform is the decoupling of production subsidies and a stronger emphasis on rural development. The financial basis of the Common Agricultural Policy is the October 2002 decision by heads of state or government laying down a ceiling for agricultural expenditure under the first pillar, which is to be capped at actual 2006 levels for the EU-25 expenditure until 2013. This decision on agriculture is an accepted part of the EU's financial perspective for 2007-2013 which covers overall EU funding. Thus, expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy including rural development (for the EU-27) is set to run at EUR 57.18 billion in 2007, and will increase by 1.1 % by 2013 (at 2004 prices).

However, contrary to what the title might suggest, the Commission proposal under review is not so much concerned with the sources and use of funding for the Common Agricultural Policy as with the budgetary implementation of support for agriculture and rural development.

2.   Gist of the Commission document

The proposal under review is intended by the European Commission to serve as a budgetary basis for the Common Agricultural Policy, including the EU's rural development policy, in the period 2007-2013, and to regulate its financing through a single legal act. It should be seen in conjunction with the proposal for a Regulation on support for rural development. The Commission's aim is to simplify and secure greater efficiency. To this end, it proposes a tighter monitoring, assessment and reporting system.

2.1   Funds for financing expenditure

2.1.1   Current situation: The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)

The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), which currently finances the Common Agricultural Policy, consists of a Guidance Section and a Guarantee Section. The Guarantee Section is used to finance the common organisation of agricultural markets (direct payments, export refunds, intervention buying-in), certain types of expenditure in the veterinary and phytosanitary sectors, and measures to evaluate and provide information on the Common Agricultural Policy. The Guarantee Section also comprehensively finances certain measures for rural development (agro-environmental measures, compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas, afforestation, early retirement) and investments in regions that do not have Objective 1 status.

The Guidance Section finances other investment expenditure on rural development not covered by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, i.e. measures in regions with Objective 1 status and the Leader+ initiative.

2.1.2   Basic features of the future Common Agricultural Policy funds

The structure of the new funds is to be on the same lines as the EAGGF. They are to be administered by a committee comprising representatives of the Member States and the Commission (Article 41, Committee on the funds). All measures financed by the new funds are to become subject to an accounts clearance procedure, whereas at present this requirement only applies to measures financed by the Guarantee Section. At present, measures financed by the Guidance Section are monitored through the multi-annual support programmes (as per Regulation EC 1260/1999 on the Structural Funds).

2.1.3   The new European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF)

The EAGF resembles the existing Guarantee Section of the Common Agricultural Fund (EAGGF) and is intended to continue financing, inter alia, intervention measures, export refunds, direct payments, information activities, and promotion of agricultural products, as at present. Support measures for rural development will no longer be financed by the EAGF; instead, they would be covered by the EAFRD.

2.1.4   The new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

The new EAFRD is to be used for all future financing of rural development measures, in order to simplify financing of the second pillar. The EAFRD is to combine funds from the EAGGF Guidance Section and funds for rural development from the EAGGF Guarantee Section. Including modulation resources from the first pillar arising from reductions under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, the 2013 budget for rural development will, as the European Commission sees it, amount to a total of EUR 14.2 billion (for the EU 27, at 2004 prices).

2.2   Payment and checking procedures

2.2.1   Paying agencies

According to the Commission's proposal, these procedures are to be dealt with by the paying agencies set up by Member States, as at present. Paying agencies are approved departments or bodies of the Member States with responsibility for checking the eligibility of requests, recording payments made, and preparing the requisite documentation for the Commission.

2.2.2   Payments to Member States and commitment of funds

EAGF payments are to be made monthly, EAFRD payments quarterly. Under the draft regulation, EAFRD funds will be committed separately for each programme over a period of several years, split into annual instalments. After this period, funds will be automatically decommitted, under the N+2 rule, which states that the funds allocated to a programme must be spent by the end of the second year after allocation, where N is the year of allocation.

2.2.3   Communication with the Commission

Member States are to submit declarations of expenditure to the Commission and annual accounts at the end of the budget year, together with a document certifying that the accounts submitted are complete, accurate and true. An additional requirement envisaged under the proposal is for a statement of assurance from the person in charge of the paying agency. For EAFRD expenditure, the Commission proposes that the paying agency should also submit separate annual accounts for each programme, split into annual instalments.

2.2.4   Clearance of accounts, conformity clearance and the financial report

The draft regulation envisages that the Commission will close the accounts of the paying agencies prior to 30 April. The clearance decision will cover the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted. In line with current procedures, the Commission is to assess whether any expenditure should be excluded from Community financing (conformity clearance). One change is that the period for making a financial correction has been extended from 24 months to 36 months. Also, the Commission's financial report on administration of the funds is to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 September (instead of 1 July as at present).

3.   General comments

3.1   The public must be able to accept and readily understand support

The EESC is aware that funding for the Common Agricultural Policy accounts for a significant share of the EU's total budget, albeit that share is, in relative terms, diminishing over time. The EESC feels that it is all the more essential that therefore the public should be able to readily understand and accept support for agriculture and rural development. In the view of the EESC, two conditions must be met for this to happen:

3.2   Innovative approaches for simpler operations

The EESC acknowledges that the draft regulation contains a range of genuinely innovative approaches for better and simpler budgetary operations. The EESC believes that creating two funds with a clear division of tasks is the right way of achieving this objective. The regulation is a significant step forward in terms of simplification. Financing of the Common Agricultural Policy is regulated on a single legal basis, and the two monitoring systems currently operating are replaced by a single system. The various financial management systems for rural development measures are unified, but a second system remains for EAGF measures. The draft regulation on support for rural development replaces the five programming systems with a single system and reduces the number of programmes. The EESC endorses these simplifications, which will particularly benefit the Brussels administration.

3.3   Simplification must have a perceptible impact on beneficiaries

However, the EESC is of the view that simplification must have a perceptible impact at all levels, benefiting the EU, Member States and final beneficiaries. The EESC considers that it is particularly important for simplification of bureaucratic procedures to have an impact at the end of the administrative chain, for farmers. At present European farmers have to deal with a considerable amount of red tape, which is frequently accompanied by late payment of subsidies. SAPARD — the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development — was an extreme example of this, in a case that was also recently criticised by the European Court of Justice. However, there is only a very small risk of not being able to recover payments which have been mistakenly made to farmers. The EESC therefore feels that urgent steps should be taken to ensure that support for final beneficiaries is prompt and as straightforward as possible.

3.4   Red tape can be cut

Although the goal of simplification is being adequately achieved from the Commission's perspective, the same cannot be said for Member States. Some parts of the regulation even run counter to the objective of simplification, and increase the administrative burden. The EESC laments the fact that, because of differing procedures for payment and committing funds, paying agencies still have to run two separate financial management systems. In order to keep the effort involved to a minimum, it is essential that these two systems be as streamlined as possible. In view of this, further changes are needed, not least to the regulation on support for rural development. The requirement for extra documentation is an additional administrative burden for Member States.

3.5   More demands on Member States

In view of the longer period for charging expenditure, tighter deadlines and provisions for the recovery of funds by the Commission, the Commission's proposal would mean more shared financial responsibility for Member States. In principle, the EESC welcomes the fact that the rules on the recovery of funds, do not place liability for disbursed support on the EU alone, but also on the Member States. For funds to be used more efficiently and transparently, there must be scope for recovering funds which have been mistakenly paid out, even after a relatively long period. In view of objections by many Member States to greater shared responsibility, the EESC will be observing very closely whether these Member States lose interest in the programmes, at the expense of potential final beneficiaries. The tighter expiry deadline for payments is also intended to encourage more discipline on the part of Member States. While the EESC agrees that there should be limits to payments, it feels that the deadlines stipulated are excessively tight, and asks the Commission to reconsider them.

3.6   Indirect support should remain the exception

The EESC is concerned that increased technical support will divert resources from the actual purpose of the funds, which is to support agriculture and rural development. This kind of indirect support, i.e. support of institutions and structures which are responsible for providing actual support, should be kept within tight limits, and should only be permitted when strictly necessary. In this context, the EESC is particularly critical of Community support for administrative and monitoring capacity building in Member States, which is undeniably the responsibility of Member States themselves. The EESC suggests that this extension of technical support should only be offered in a few exceptional cases and for a limited period. The EESC feels that a report should be issued by the Commission in these cases, to ensure strict monitoring of such support.

4.   Specific comments

4.1   German names for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

In the German-language version of the regulation on support for rural development, the new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — in German Europäischer Fonds für Landwirtschaft und Landentwicklung (EFLL) — is referred to as the Europäischer Landwirtschaftsfonds für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (ELER). The EESC asks that the regulation texts should avoid any discrepancy and use the same name for the same fund.

4.2   Administrative burden

4.2.1   Extension of the certification procedure (Article 7)

An increased administrative burden would arise from the extension of the certification procedure to monitoring systems (Article 7). Currently, certification bodies examine the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted to the Commission, but under the proposed regulation they would have responsibility for ‘certification of the management, monitoring and control systems’. The EESC would like an explanation of why such certification is necessary. The aim should be for certification bodies to concentrate uniformly on certifying payments made by paying agencies.

4.2.2   Annual accounts (Article 8)

Annual accounts will have to be drawn up for payments from the new EAFRD but the system of financing (commitment of funds, prefinancing payments, intermediate payments, payments of balance) will be based on the total duration of the programme. The EESC is concerned that paying agencies will have to report expenditure both in annual accounts and in financial statements for programmes as a whole, which would result in increased effort. The annual accounts must be accepted in each case.

In addition, paying agencies will have to submit separate annual accounts for expenditure under individual EAFRD programmes. Certification bodies, which until now have submitted reports with annual accounts, will in turn have to prepare separate annual reports for these separate accounts. The EESC regrets that the Commission has not achieved more simplification, but feels that the effort involved is acceptable.

4.2.3   Additional documentation (Article 8)

In addition to the annual accounts, a statement of assurance will have to be submitted by the person in charge of the paying agency. The EESC does not feel that this is necessary. The arrangements for paying agencies and certification bodies already provide for monitoring procedures. In the view of the EESC it would also suffice for the person in charge of the paying agency to confirm the veracity of information.

4.3   Financing

4.3.1   Additional financing of technical assistance (Article 5)

Financing of technical assistance is to be extended to analysis, management, monitoring and implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy, as well as to measures for the development of control systems and technical and administrative assistance. The proposal also introduces financing of executive agencies set up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 58/2003 and financing of measures promoting cooperation and exchanging experience at Community level, undertaken in the context of rural development, including networking of the parties concerned. This expenditure is to be administered in a centralised manner. The EESC is extremely critical of proposals for Community support of the administrative functions of Member States.

However, it is appropriate that the Commission should be responsible for the promotion of networking.

4.3.2   Recovery of payments (Articles 32, 33, 35)

In the case of non-recovery, the proposal envisages that a greater share of the financial consequences should be borne by Member States. The Commission would be able to charge the sums to be recovered to the Member State, if the Member State had not initiated all the appropriate administrative or judicial procedures for recovery purposes (for the EAGF: within one year of the primary administrative or judicial finding). At present, this is not possible. If recovery has not taken place within four years, or within six years where recovery action has been taken in the national courts, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery would be borne by the Member State concerned. At present, all of the financial consequences are borne by the Community budget. The EESC broadly welcomes the fact that responsibility for payments will not be borne by the Commission alone but will be shared with Member States. This could induce Member States to exercise greater care in devising their support and monitoring structures. A greater share in financial responsibility must not be allowed to put Member States off participation in programmes. Given that procedures can last for over four or six years, the EESC proposes reconsidering timeframes and percentage rates for Member State involvement.

4.3.3   Limiting prefinancing payments to 7 % (Article 25)

Article 25 sets the prefinancing amount, paid by the Commission after adoption of a rural development programme to the paying agency designated by the Member State, at 7 % of the EAFRD contribution. In the view of the EESC, this is an acceptable limit, as similar restrictions already apply, and as it would not have any adverse consequences for the liquidity of paying agencies.

4.4   Expiry of payments (Article 16)

Article 16 sets 15 October of the relevant budget year as a cut-off date for late payments by Member States. However, sometimes back payments have to be made (e.g. court judgements). In particular, administrative authorities will need more time to adjust to the new system of (decoupled) production subsidies. The EESC therefore feels that 15 October is not an appropriate cut-off date.

4.5   Period for refusing financing (Article 31)

Article 31 (conformity clearance) allows the Commission to refuse financing under certain circumstances (infringement of Community rules, failure to reach agreement with the relevant Member State). This does not apply to expenditure incurred more than thirty six months before the Commission notified the Member State in writing of its inspection findings. At present, the limitation period is 24 months. This change further helps the Commission to avoid payments that do not conform to Community law. However, the EESC feels that a certain degree of time pressure for checking such conformity — as exists under the current rules — is useful. In addition, prompt intervention by the EU serves a preventive purpose and maintains discipline among Member States.

4.6   Reduction of payments by the Commission (Article 17)

Article 17 gives the Commission the option of reducing or suspending monthly payments. In addition to recovering or refusing payments in the context of clearing accounts, the Commission would also have the option of cutting payments at short notice in the event of clearly improper use of Community funds. The EESC is in favour of laying down a legal basis for such an approach, which is already current practice.

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

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 Council Regulation amending Regulations (EEC) No 2759/75, (EEC) No 2771/75, (EEC) No 2777/75, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1255/1999 and (EC) No 2529/2001 as regards exceptional market support measures

(COM(2004) 712 final — 2004/0254 (CNS))

(2005/C 221/10)

On 3 December 2004 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 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Leif E. Nielsen.

At its 414th plenary session held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 135 votes with 6 abstentions:

1.   Background

2.   General comments

3.   Conclusion

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Judgment of 30.9.2003 in case C-239/01, Collection of Decisions 2003 p. I-10333

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Beijing +10: Review of progress achieved in the field of gender equality in Europe and in developing countries

(2005/C 221/11)

At its plenary session of 16 December 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an own-initiative opinion on Beijing +10: Review of progress achieved in the field of gender equality in Europe and in developing countries.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 January 2005. The rapporteur was Ms Florio.

At its 414th plenary session held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 135 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

3.   Role of the Economic and Social Committee

4.   The European Union

5.   The European Union and third countries: international cooperation and trade for the advancement of women

6.   Conclusions and work proposals

The effective cooperation now built-up by the European institutions has yielded significant results in terms of framing active policies to help women and of specific programmes and projects that have promoted women's participation in the labour market, defence of their rights and improvement of their living conditions. The EESC notes that there remain many areas where action should be taken:

The Committee intends to look more closely into the state of women's rights in the EU's new Member States.

In view of the Committee's role, its brief in relation to civil society, its objectives and the experience gained through ongoing monitoring of issues relevant to gender equality, it would also be useful for it to be represented on the European Commission delegation at the 49th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993), Special Session of the UN General Assembly on HIV/AIDS (New York, 2001), International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994), World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995), World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, 2001), International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, 2002), Second World Assembly on Ageing (Madrid, 2002) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), World Summit on the Information Society (Geneva, 2003 and Tunisia, 2005).

(2)  Directives on equal treatment for men and women with regards to: equal pay (75/117/EEC); access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Council Directive 2002/73/EC amending Directive 76/2007/EEC); social security (79/7/EEC); legal and occupational social security schemes (86/378/EEC), and self-employed workers (86/613/EEC); as well as the Directives on the health and safety at work of pregnant workers and workers who are breastfeeding (92/85/EEC), the organisation of working time (93/104/EC), parental leave (96/34/EC), the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (97/80/EC), and part-time work (97/81/EC).

(3)  See Opinion ...

(4)  European Commission data, Employment and Social Affairs DG, data as at 29/9/2004

(5)  COM(2001) 295 final

(6)  Council Decision of 22 July 2003 on Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ L 197/13)

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper — Defence procurement

(COM(2004) 608 final)

(2005/C 221/12)

On 23 September 2004 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Green paper — Defence procurement.

The European Economic and Social Committee instructed its Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption to prepare its work on this subject.

In view of the urgent nature of the work, the EESC appointed Mr Wilkinson as rapporteur-general at its 414th plenary session (meeting of 9 February 2005). At this same meeting the EESC adopted the following opinion, by 96 votes with 9 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

3.2   Article 296

3.3   Publication of calls for tender

3.4   Dual use

3.5   European Defence Agency (EDA)

4.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  OJEC C10/1 of 14.1.2004

(2)  EDA has four agreed functions; defence capabilities development, armaments cooperation, the European defence technological and industrial base and defence equipment market and research and technology.

(3)  As we commented in our opinion on COM(2003) 113 final, this combined EU spending is about 40 % that of the US, yet only produces about 10 % of the operational capabilities.

(4)  For example, the Committee notes the recent (September 2004) statement by the head of the EDA that EU forces are not well adapted to the modern world and its conflicts and threats; he spoke of the need to acquire more high technology equipment.

(5)  Such as OCCAR, Western European Armemnets group (WEAG) and Letter of Intent (LoI) countries.

(6)  OCCAR is a joint organisation for armaments cooperation to which 5 MS currently belong.

(7)  However, because of the specific nature of defence markets and because of the need to manage payments as part of national financial arrangements, MS will inevitably play a role in facilitating the development of defence equipment.

(8)  The decisions in the ‘Bremen case’ (1999/763/63(OJ L 301/8 of 24 November 1999) and the ‘Koninklijke Schelde Groep’ (OJ L 14/56 of 21 January 2003) are examples of the current lack of clarity.

(9)  We should note that even apparently simple equipment such as clothing can involve advanced technology.

(10)  See paragraph 5 of the opinion refered to at footnote 1.

----

----

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 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways

(COM(2004) 139 final — 2004/0047 (COD))

(2005/C 221/13)

On 28 April 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 414th plenary session (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to 53 with 12 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   The European Commission Proposal

3.   Evaluation of the Proposal

3.1   Prerequisites for revitalising the railway industry

3.2   Ex-post analysis of the deregulation of rail freight services

3.3   Ex-ante analysis of the deregulation of international rail-passenger services

3.4   Effects of deregulation on regional and public services

3.5   Effects on quality of service for customers

3.6   Effect on Employment

3.7   Effects on rail operators in the new Member States

4.   Conclusion

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22

(2)  Directive 2001/13/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22

(3)  Directive 2001/14/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22

(4)  Directive 2004/51/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 164 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(5)  Directive 2004/49/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(6)  Regulation (EC) No. 881/2004 – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(7)  Directive 2004/50/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(8)OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(9)  See footnote 8.

(10)  Article 2(d) of Directive 2004/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways.

(11)  EU Rail Passenger Liberalisation: Extended impact assessment, February 2004 by Steer Davies Gleave, London.

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (in accordance with Rule 54(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

The following proposals for amendments, which won more than a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the discussions.

Point 3.1.4

Delete.

Reason

This point does not have anything to do with the deregulation of the railways. Two sectors are being mixed up in an opinion that deals with the development of the Community's railways. It cannot be said that the monitoring of social legislation in road transport is a serious problem, given the existence of various laws on driving and rest times and the working hours of drivers. All this legislation is monitored by macrograph. Moreover, August 2005 will see the introduction of a new monitoring system, the digital tachograph, which will allow for more accurate monitoring of drivers' working hours.

Results of voting

For: 58

Against: 80

Abstention: 7

Point 3.1.6

Delete the last sentence:

‘This would include introducing European social legislation on the railway industry.’

Reason

Rail safety in the EU has been regulated by Directive 2004/49 EC.

Results of voting

For: 52

Against: 93

Abstention: 5

Point 3.2.3

Replace with the following:

‘In the EESC's view, it would be advisable to analyse the content of this report upon publication in order to ascertain whether the proposal for a directive ought to be amended or modified.’

Reason

In effect, the current wording calls for a halt to the legislative process, which fosters a kind of legal uncertainty that is detrimental to all involved — businesses, employees and customers.

It would seem that a more positive and constructive approach would be to show a clear willingness to take the conclusions on board in order to amend or modify the proposal if necessary.

Thus, a dynamic and open process is maintained throughout.

Results of voting

For: 54

Against: 92

Abstention: 9

Points 3.4.7 and 3.4.8

Replace with the following and number the new point as 3.4.7:

‘When the new proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/69 is submitted to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, the implications of the text in terms of the deregulation of rail passenger services and maintaining the balance of public service transport should be discussed.’

Reason

The current wording refers to a situation that is no longer relevant. A new text has been drawn up by the Commission and may be submitted to the Transport Council in June. It is not possible to predict what sort of reception it will be given by either the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.

The suggested wording is in line with a more constructive approach.

Results of voting

For: 68

Against: 90

Abstention: 8

Point 3.6

Delete.

Reason

It cannot be said that the deregulation of rail transport will lead to job losses and that the new jobs created will be of poorer quality, when the deregulation of all other modes of transport has resulted in an increase in jobs. It must be stressed that rail transport is the only mode that has not been deregulated.

Results of voting

For: 66

Against: 102

Abstention: 6.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the certification of train crews operating locomotives and trains on the Community's rail network

(COM(2004) 142 final — 2004/0048 (COD))

(2005/C 221/14)

On 28 April 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 414th plenary session (meeting of 9 February 2005) the Committee adopted the following opinion by 127 votes to 25 with 26 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   European Commission's proposal

3.   Assessment of the Commission proposal

3.1   Basic comments

3.2   Individual provisions

3.2.1   Scope and introduction of certification

3.2.2   Categories of train drivers

3.2.3   Minimum age and professional experience

3.2.4   Structure of the certification process

3.2.5   Accreditation of examiners and training establishments

3.2.6   Professional qualifications and medical/psychological requirements

3.2.7   Periodic checks

3.2.8   Withdrawal of licences

4.   Proposal for a Directive on the certification of train crews and the European social partners' agreement on the introduction of a European driving licence

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC – OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209 of 22.07.1999, p. 22

(2)  Directive 2001/13/EC – OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 26 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209 of 22.07.1999, p. 22

(3)  Directive 2001/14/EC – OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 29 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209 of 22.07.1999, p. 22

(4)  Directive 2004/51/EC – OJ L 164 of 30.04.2004, p. 164 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.03.2003, p. 131

(5)  Directive 2004/49/EC – OJ L 164 of 30.04.2004, p. 44 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.03.2003, p. 131

(6)  Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 – OJ L 164 of 30.04.2004, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.03.2003, p. 131

(7)  Directive 2004/50/EC – OJ L 164 of 30.04.2004, p. 114 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61 of 14.03.2003, p. 131

(8)OJ C 61 of 14.03.2003, p. 131

(9)  However, it should be stressed that the exchange of train drivers and crews at borders only takes a few minutes (e.g. eight minutes at the Brenner border crossing). Border stops in the freight sector are due more to other factors such as checking paperwork or inspecting rolling stock.

(10)  For example, Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Norway

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (in accordance with Rule 54 (3) of the Rules of Procedure)

The following proposal for amendment, which won more than a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected in the course of the discussions.

Point 3.2.3.3

Delete.

Reason

The proposal for a directive makes provision for a two-part certification process:

The directive also lays down provisions on the amendment and renewal of driving licences and harmonised complementary certificates, and provides for periodic checks to ensure that holders continue to meet the conditions set.

The purpose of the harmonised complementary certificate is to ascertain a driver's skill and familiarity with the line(s) in question.

There is therefore no reason to introduce an additional three-year probationary period for drivers engaged in international traffic, which, as point 3.2.3.3 stands, would be on top of the two years which may be required for drivers to progress from the shunting locomotives category to the national mainline trains categories (passenger and goods trains).

This requirement, which would be tantamount to introducing a five-year probationary period, would reduce the value of the harmonised complementary certificate and conflict with the desire to facilitate cross-border interoperability. Its effect, or purpose, would be to stop the development and improvement of cross-border rail links.

Lastly, there is no need to introduce different requirements for train drivers working on national routes and those working on the international network, since the harmonised complementary certificate is, in any case, a guarantee of skill and familiarity with the network.

For these reasons, there is no basis for point 3.2.3.3 and it should be deleted.

Results of voting

For: 59

Against: 100

Abstention: 11.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences

(COM(2004) 699 final — 2004/0242 (CNS))

(2005/C 221/15)

On 10 November 2004 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 External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   The Commission's proposals

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ L 346 of 31.12.2001

(2)  COM(2004) 461 final

(3)  COM(2004) 699 final

(4)  COM(1994) 212 final

(5)  Op. cit.

(6)  EESC opinion of 25 February 2004– OJ C 110 of 30 April 2004

(7)  Ibid

(8)  CESE 1646/2004 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP - sugar sector reform - COM(2004) 499 final

(9)  CESE 1646/2004 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP - sugar sector reform - COM(2004) 499 final

(10)  Proposal for a Council Regulation COM(2004) 699 final, Article 13

----

APPENDIX 1

Core human and labour rights UN/ILO Conventions

----

APPENDIX 2

Conventions related to environment and governance principles

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure

(COM(2004) 173 final/3 — 2004/0055 COD)

(2005/C 221/16)

On 6 April 2004 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 Pegado Liz as rapporteur-general at its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), and adopted the following opinion with 73 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.   Aim of the proposal

2.   Precedents and parallel initiatives

3.   Legal instrument and basis

4.   General comments

5.   Specific comments

5.1   Article 2 — European order for payment procedure

5.2   Article 4 — Requirements for the delivery of a European order for payment

5.3   Article 5 — Rejection of the application

5.4   Article 6 — European payment notification

5.5   Article 8 — Effects of a statement of defence

5.6   Article 9 — European order for payment

5.7   Article 11 — Opposition to the European order for payment

5.8   Article 12 — Effects of the lodging of a statement of opposition

5.9   Article 13 — Legal representation

5.10   Article 14 — Costs

5.11   Annexes: Forms

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2004) 173 final of 19.03.04.

(2)OJ C 19 of 23.01.99.

(3)  COM(2002) 746 final of 20.12.02, rapporteur: Mr Von Fürstenwerth (OJ C 220 of 16.9.2003).

(4)  See EP resolutions A2-152/86 of 13.3.1987, A3-0212/94 of 22.4.1994 and A-0355/96 of 14.11.1996

(5)  See in particular opinions on the Green Paper on consumer access to justice (rapporteur: Mr Ataíde Ferreira, OJ C 295 of 22.10.1994) and on the single market and consumer protection: oportunities and obstacles (rapporteur: Mr Ceballo Herrero, OJ C 39 of 12.2.1996).

(6)  In this connection, cf the following documents:

(7)  These include:

(8)  COM(2002) 159 final, OJ C 203 of 27.8.2002. EESC rapporteur: Mr Ravoet (OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003).

(9)  See the EESC opinion and information report on household over-indebtedness (rapporteur: Mr Ataíde Ferreira, OJ C 149 of 21.6.2002).

(10)  Translator's note: The Portuguese version of the explanatory memorandum uses the word ‘recurso’ (appeal), while Article 5(2) uses the word ‘impugnação’ (objection). The English version uses the word ‘appeal’ in both cases.

(11)  Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims provides for a debtor to be served without proof of receipt by the debtor but does not consider this admissible if the debtor's address is not known with certainty. Of the various situations provided for, only those described in points c), d) and e) justify the objections raised by the EESC in this opinion and in the opinion on the relevant Green Paper.

(12)  Translator's note: The English version already mentions the statute of limitations.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry

(COM(2004) 341 final — 2004/0117 (COD))

(2005/C 221/17)

On 14 May 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 157 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 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 73 votes to two:

1.   Summary of the proposal for a recommendation

2.   Background to the proposal

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

4.1   Protection of minors

4.2   Protection of human dignity

4.3   Right of reply

5.   Final comments

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Doc. COM(2004) 341 final of 30.4.2004.

(2)  Recommendation 98/560/EC published in OJ L 270 of 7.10.98; on this proposal, the Committee issued opinion CES 626/98 of 29 April 1998 (rapporteur: Mrs Jocelyn Barrow). In turn, the second evaluation report is contained in Doc. COM(2003) 776 final.

(3)  See the Commission Communication on Connecting Europe at high speed: recent developments in the sector of electronic communications (COM(2004) 61 final) and OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, rapporteur: Mr McDonagh; see also the Commission Communication on Mobile Broadband Services (COM(2004) 447 of 30.6.2004).

(4)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, OJ L 298 of 17.10.1989, p. 23.

(5)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 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, OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.

(6)  COM(96) 483 final, on which the EESC delivered an opinion. The rapporteur was Dame Jocelyn Barrow, in OJ L 287 of 22.9.1997, p. 11.

(7)OJ C 70 of 6.3.1997.

(8)  Opinion in OJ C 214 of 10.7.1998. The rapporteur was Dame Jocelyn Barrow.

(9)  The most important of these are:

(10)OJ C 48 of 28.2.2002 The rapporteur was Ms Davison.

(11)OJ C 14 of 16.1.2001. The rapporteurs were Mr Morgan and Mr Carroll.

(12)OJ C 214 of 10.7.1998. The rapporteur was Ms Drifthout-Zweijtzer and Opinion in OJ C 73/2003 of 26.3.2003. The rapporteur was Ms Davison.

(13)  OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005, adopted by the Plenary on 16.12.2004. The rapporteurs were Mr Retureau and Ms Davison.

(14)OJ L 270 of 7.10.1998, p. 48

(15)OJ L 13 of 17.1.2001, p. 35. See also the recent proposal for a Decision on the MEDIA 2007 Programme, COM(2004) 470 final of 14.7.2004 and the EESC opinion being drawn up by the rapporteur for this opinion.

(16)  Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Recommendation concerning the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services (98/C 214/07), OJ C 214 of 10.7.1998, p. 25.

(17)  Paragraph 14 of the European Parliament Resolution on the Commission's Evaluation Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning the protection of minors and human dignity COM(2001) 106.

(18)  European Forum on Harmful and Illegal Cyber Content: Self-Regulation, User Protection and Media Competence, 28 November 2001 (Human Rights Building).

(19)  Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: the Future of European Regulatory Audiovisual Policy COM(2003) 784 final of 15.12.2003; see also the revised Draft Information Report on the current state of co-regulation and self-regulation in the Single Market (INT/2004 of 16.11.2004). The rapporteur was Mr Vever.

(20)  See footnote 13

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Employment policy: the role of the EESC following the enlargement of the EU and from the point of view of the Lisbon Process

(2005/C 221/18)

On 1 July 2004 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Employment policy: the role of the EESC following the enlargement of the EU and from the point of view of the Lisbon Process.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Greif.

At its 414th plenary session on 9 and 10 February (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 138 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   The Lisbon strategy mid-term review: Europe is far from achieving the goal of more and better jobs.

3.   Employment policy must mean more than labour market structural reform

4.   New approaches to employment policy: innovation in business — investment in work — knowledge as a key resource

5.   Change requires a welfare state which is viable in the long-term, an active and preventive labour market policy, and modernisation and improvement of social protection systems

6.   The EESC's policy recommendations

6.1   Dovetailing of content in economic and employment policy coordination

6.2   Better integration of the social partners and enhancing the value of the macro-economic dialogue

6.3   Effective cooperation between the specialised Councils of Ministers

6.4   Macro-policy and structural reforms must complement each other

6.5   Supporting the job-creating role of SMEs

6.6   Optimising implementation in the Member States themselves

6.7   Taking more account of the enlargement aspect

6.8   ‘Lisbonisation’ of the EU budget

6.9   Strengthened dialogue with civil society and role of the EESC

Brussels, 9 February 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC opinion on Improving the implementation of the Lisbon strategy (rapporteur: Mr Vever, co-rapporteurs: Mr Ehnmark and Mr Simpson) (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005).

(2)  On this point, see the EESC opinion of 16.12.2004 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 (rapporteur: Mr Dantin – OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005).

(3)  See the Communication from the Commission on Increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market (COM(2004) 146 final).

(4)  Eurostat data are currently only available to 2003. Given very sluggish employment growth, however, the 2004 figures will at best be only marginally higher than those for 2003.

(5)  On this point, see, among other things, the EESC own-initiative opinion of 26 February 2004 on budgetary policy and type of investment (rapporteur: Ms Florio) (OJ 322, 25.2.2004, ECO/105).

(6)  See inter alia the EESC's opinion of 11.12.2003 on the Broad economic policy guidelines 2003-2005 (rapporteur: Mr Delapina - OJ C 80, 30.3.2004).

(7)  See the EESC opinion of 30.6.2004 on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 2000/819/EC on a multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001-2005) (rapporteur: Mr Dimitriadis – OJ C 302, 7.12.2004); the EESC opinion of 31.3.2004 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Updating and simplifying the Community acquis (rapporteur: Mr Retureau – OJ C 112, 30.4.2003); and the EESC own-initiative opinion of 18.6.2003 on the role of micro and small enterprises in Europe's economic life and productive fabric (rapporteur: Mr Pezzini – OJ C 220, 16.9.2003).

(8)  See also in particular the EESC opinion on the Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe (rapporteur: Mr Butters – OJ C 10, 14.1.2004).

(9)  On this point, see, for instance, the current EESC exploratory opinion of 28.10.2004 on Training and productivity (rapporteur: Mr Koryfidis) (CESE 1435/2004).

(10)  The PISA 2003: OECD Programme for International Assessment (PISA) is of current relevance.

(11)  EESC own-initiative opinion of 26.2.2004 on Employment support measures (rapporteur: Mrs Hornung-Draus, co-rapporteur: Mr Greif) (OJ C 110, 30.4.2004).

(12)  On that point, see the EESC opinion of 15.12.2004 on the Communication from the Commission: Science and technology, the key to Europe's future - Guidelines for future European Union policy to support research (rapporteur: Mr Wolf) (OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005).

(13)  A joint study by Cambridge University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) revealed that about two-thirds of British small and medium-sized enterprises used higher education institutions as sources of knowledge, compared with one-third of the US respondents. However, only 13 % of British SMEs rated close cooperation with academia as important, compared to 30 % of SMEs in the USA (Financial Times, London, Tuesday 30 November 2004).

(14)  See also EESC opinion 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 – Mid-term review of the social policy agenda (SOC 148) – Rapporteur: Mr Jahier (OJ C 80, 30.3.2004), EESC own-initiative opinion of 12.9.2001 on Private not-for-profit social services in the context of services of general interest in Europe (SOC 67) – rapporteur: Mr Bloch-Lainé (OJ C 311, 7.11.2001) and EESC opinion of 2.3.2000 on The Social Economy and the Single Market (INT 29) – Rapporteur: Mr Olsson (OJ C 155, 29.5.2001).

(15)  See the report of the high-level group on the future of social policy in the enlarged European Union (May 2004).

(16)  EESC own-initiative opinion of 26.2.2004 on Employment support measures (rapporteur: Mrs Hornung-Draus, co-rapporteur: Mr Greif) (OJ C 110, 30.4.2004).

(17)  See also: ‘The European Pact for Youth’ introduced at the European Council on 5 November 2004 by France, Germany, Spain and Sweden beside others addressing youth unemployment and social exclusion.

(18)  EESC opinion 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 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños) (OJ C 80, 30.3.2003).

(19)  See: European Policy Centre (2004): Lisbon revisited – Finding a new path to European growth (quoted in the May 2004 report of the high-level group on the future of social policy in an enlarged European Union, p. 53).

(20)  See the report of the high-level group on the future of social policy in the enlarged European Union (May 2004).

(21)  EESC opinion of 1 July 2004 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Modernising social protection for more and better jobs - a comprehensive approach contributing to making work pay (rapporteur: Ms St. Hill) (OJ C 302, 7.12.2004).

(22)  On this point, see the EESC opinion of 16.12.2004 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 (rapporteur: Mr Dantin – OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005).

(23)  On this point, see the 2004 report on social partner actions in Member States to implement employment guidelines, ETUC, UNICE/UEAPME, 2004.

(24)  See the EESC opinions mentioned in footnotes 7 and 8.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Financing Natura 2000

(COM(2004) 431 final)

(2005/C 221/19)

On 15 July 2004, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe.

At its 414th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote:

1.   Preliminary observations

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

The financial situation in the EU and the expected argument over funding

Particular requirements of nature conservation in the EU

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ No. L 206 of 22.7.1992, page 7).

(2)  Overall costs, to be financed by the Member States and the EU.

(3)  See OJ C 221 of 7.8.2001, pages 96-102.

(4)  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘2003 Environment Policy Review’, COM(2003) 745 final of 3.12.2003.

(5)  The three-year deadline (i.e. by 1995) referred to the notification of the sites concerned by the Member States. In some cases this notification has still not been finally concluded.

(6)  Moors and marshlands, for example, act as valuable ‘carbon sinks’.

(7)  These measures may also have a cross-border impact: the Netherlands is a clear beneficiary of such measures, which are often also of a high value in terms of nature conservation.

(8)  See the opinion of the EESC on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Building our common future: Policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013, COM(2004) 101 final – Opinion no. CESE 1204/2004 – which has not yet been published in the Official Journal.

(9)  Large parts of the funding for Natura 2000 would have to come from structural aid.

(10)  A further 13 % of the overall area is made up of marine areas and 4 % comprises coastal areas, in which the main costs involved are monitoring costs.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market

(COM(2004) 2 final — 2004/0001 (COD))

(2005/C 221/20)

On 20 February 2004, 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 11 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Metzler. The co-rapporteur was Mr Ehnmark.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 145 votes to 69, with 9 abstentions:

1.   Preliminary remarks

2.   General comments

3.   The proposal for a Directive point-by-point

3.2   Empirical basis

3.3   Scope: definitions — rules on conflict of laws — distinctions

3.4   Single points of contact (one-stop shopping)

3.5   Country-of-origin principle

3.6   Posting of workers

3.7   Consumer protection through compulsory insurance

3.8   Quality assurance through certification

3.9   Transparency in pricing

3.10   Use of electronic media

3.11   Inter-disciplinary cooperation

3.12   Codes of conduct

3.13   Social security

3.14   The authorisation system

3.15   Taxation

4.   Overview of the Committee's proposals

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ C 48, 21.2.2002

----

APPENDIX I

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

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

Point 2.1.1

Amend as follows:

‘Whilst an effective internal market does require the removal of barriers, it also requires adequate regulation. In order to make Europe more competitive, national and EU-wide rules and consequently harmonised standards are essentialadministrative procedures and formalities for access to services and their provision need to be simplified.’

Voting:

For: 48

Against: 113

Abstentions:6

Point 3.3.3

Delete.

Voting:

For: 52

Against: 130

Abstentions:6

Point 3.5

Delete the entire point and replace as follows:

Voting:

For: 68

Against: 127

Abstentions:5

Delete points 3.5.1, 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 and replace by a new point (3.5.1):

The blanket application of the country-of-origin principle provided for in Article 16, together with the derogations stated in Article 17, form the basis of the draft directive. This is the only way to make a successful start on opening up the market for services, without further delays. Cross-border competition between service providers will benefit consumers and may also create new jobs. However, the Committee feels that application of the country-of-origin principle is only likely to succeed if there is legal clarity and legal certainty as to its scope. The application of the country-of-origin principle should therefore be accompanied by an examination of which services might benefit from further harmonisation of the legal bases. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the freedom to provide services is not detrimental to workers' and consumers' rights or to the protection of the environment. Compared to the rest of the world, the EU is already setting high standards in these areas, and these standards must be safeguarded.

Voting:

For: 83

Against: 122

Abstentions: 5

Point 3.5.1

Delete.

Voting:

For: 73

Against: 141

Abstentions: 7

Point 3.5.2

Amend as follows:

‘The blanket application of the country-of-origin principle provided for in Article 16, together with the derogations listed in Article 17, form the basis of the draft directive. The country-of-origin principle, which currently applies to goods, is being applied across the board to services. However, it is only appropriate for the type of services whichis particularly appropriate where those services lend themselves, like goods, to standardisation or to cases where harmonisation of legislation has progressed sufficiently to leave no scope for conflict. It should be acknowledged that there are areas where standards have not yet been laid down or where indeed it would be impossible to do so (so-called non-specifiable services).’

Voting:

For: 76

Against: 134

Abstentions: 6

Point 3.5.3

Amend as follows:

‘The Committee therefore believes the blanket application of the country-of-origin principle in the cross-border provision of services is premature. This principle assumes a comparable environment — both de facto and in law. The Committee feels that it will only be possible to apply the country-of-origin principle effectively if there is legal certainty and clarity regarding its scope. Applying this principle without an appropriate transition period would therefore give rise to problems, especially in view of the fact that the Committee believes not all the available options for sector-by-sector harmonisation have yet been made use of. It involves the risk of systems competing with one another, weakening employment, environmental, and consumer protection standards, given that differing legal, welfare and healthcare systems continue to exist within the EU. Rather than prematurely introducing measures of a purely horizontal nature, the needs of the single market could be best met by harmonisation on a sector-by-sector basis, particularly in sensitive areas. This process would involve examining — as part of a comprehensive impact assessment, also including social and environmental aspects — the suitability of each sector for introduction of the country-of-origin principle. As harmonisation measures are, together with the country-of-origin principle, complementaryat least as important a means of completing the single market, there should be legislative harmonisation within an appropriate time frame in areas where Member States have responsibilities in respect of health care, welfare and professional activity At an intermediate stage, if the European Commission, Parliament and Council considers them necessary. should assess whether harmonisation in these areas has made sufficient progress. If necessary, and depending on the stage which harmonisation of legislation has reached, an additional transition period could be granted to bring national legislation into line. The Committee feels that this approach, together with an exact definition of services which qualify for special treatment (e.g. those provided by the liberal professions), would enable gradual adjustment in the areas concerned; on completion of the transition period the country-of-origin period could then come into force, enabling completion of the single market. The same applies to co-regulatory and self-regulatory mechanisms.’

Voting:

For: 79

Against: 139

Abstentions: 7

Point 3.5.4

Delete.

Voting:

For: 65

Against: 150

Abstentions: 4

Point 3.6.2

Delete.

Voting:

For: 74

Against: 140

Abstentions: 3

Point 3.9

Delete.

Voting:

For: 73

Against: 134

Abstentions:5

Point 3.15

Delete.

Voting:

For: 90

Against: 135

Abstentions:2

Replace point 4.2.1.:

The Commission's approach in applying the country-of-origin principle across the board, apart from the derogations mentioned in the draft directive, is correct. This is the only way to make a successful start on opening up the market for services, without further delays. Care should also be taken to ensure legal clarity and legal certainty in the application of the country-of-origin principle. The application of the country-of-origin principle should be accompanied by an examination of which services might benefit from further harmonisation of the legal basis. It is important to ensure that the freedom to provide services is not detrimental to workers' and consumers' rights or to the protection of the environment. The new provisions must be as easy to apply and as clearly structured as possible in order to ensure that they are implemented smoothly and without complication. The same applies to co-regulatory and self-regulatory mechanisms.

Voting:

For: 66

Against: 146

Abstentions: 4

Point 4.2.1

Delete and replace as follows:

‘The country-of-origin principle and harmonisation are both key tools for securing the free movement of services. This principle can also be seen as a catalyst for bringing Member States' legislation closer into line, possibly followed at a later stage by harmonisation in the requisite fields. In itself, the country-of-origin principle can help secure much greater transparency for businesses embarking on cross-border service provision, but without establishing themselves in the host country. It will be a key lever for the further development of the single market in services, benefiting both consumers and workers and boosting European competitiveness. It is, however, important to clear up any outstanding legal issues before the country-of-origin principle can be expected to operate effectively.’

Voting:

For: 75

Against: 135

Abstentions:3

Point 4.2.2

Amend as follows:

Issues connected with the social dimension: The draft directive should not lead to any watering down of existing social protection, wage, and safety standards in the workplace, particularly those laid down in the Directive on the posting of workers. National arrangements for collective negotiations and agreements, including the national implementation of the associated Directive on the posting of workers (Directive 96/71/EC), should not be adversely affected.

Voting:

For: 84

Against: 132

Abstentions: 1

Point 4.2.4

Delete and replace as follows:

‘The proposals to simplify procedures and establish a single point of contact for service providers are to be welcomed. Missing from the draft, however, are more specific details about the procedures involved. Particular attention should be paid here to cutting red tape and reducing administrative burdens.’

Voting:

For: 74

Against: 141

Abstentions: 3

Point 4.2.6

Delete.

Voting:

For: 76

Against: 140

Abstentions: 1

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Clearing and Settlement in the European Union — The way forward

(COM(2004) 312 final)

(2005/C 221/21)

On 29 April 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 communication.

On 1 June 2004, 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 Burani as rapporteur-general at its 414th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February), and adopted the following opinion with 99 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Current situation

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

4.1   The obstacles identified by the Giovannini reports

4.2   Absence of a common regulatory/supervisory framework

4.3   Absence of a level playing field

5.   The Commission's objectives

6.   The Commission's initiatives

7.   Conclusions

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  The Giovannini reports and the related documents are available on the Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/financial-markets/index_en.htm#otherdocs.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning

(COM(2004) 474 final — 2004/0153 (COD))

(2005/C 221/22)

On 9 September 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 149(4) 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 20 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Koryfidis.

At its 414th plenary session held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to 2 with no abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   The Commission proposal

3.   General comments

4.   Specific comments

4.2   Articles 1-8:

4.3   Articles 9-14

4.4   Articles 15-46

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  The main stages in this long process are listed in the Appendix.

(2)  OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005.

(3)  It should be noted that considerable momentum has been built up in seeking solutions to the Union's current key problems, such as the Lisbon objectives (employment, knowledge-based economy, sustainable development, etc.). Life-long learning, and the need to put it on an institutional footing, represent a common denominator in all the approaches to resolve such problems. This momentum includes the initiatives taken by the Dutch Presidency, in cooperation with the European Commission, on the links between training and productivity and on strengthening European cooperation on vocational training, together with the Kok Report on the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy in March 2005 ( http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/pdf/2004-1866-EN-complet.pdf).

(4)  COM(2004) 474 final – recital (16).

(5)  COM(2004) 474 final – recital (17).

(6)  COM(2004) 474 final – recital (18).

(7)  These include the objectives of creating a knowledge-based society, sustainable development and its three dimensions and the multifaceted system of global governance.

(8)  These are the objectives set in Lisbon, relating to the knowledge-based economy and sustainable development (Gothenburg), and Barcelona, relating to the qualitative dimension of European education systems.

(9)  See CESE 1435/2004.

(10)  See OJ C 157 of 25.5.1998, point 3.7.1, which states the following: ‘The ESC considers a key issue in the development of the European educational area, and in European education policy generally, to be the consolidation of relevant policies (education, training, youth) and integration of the relevant action programmes. Policies on education, training and youth must be incorporated within a single framework of action and integrated from inception and adoption right through to implementation. This view derives not so much from the fact that initiatives on education still exclude certain areas, but more from the need to adopt a centralised policy approach. It derives from the need at last for there to be a single strategy on education, training and youth, as well as integrated planning of measures.’

(11)  See the definition of lifelong learning in Article 3, point 27 of the Commission proposal.

(12)  COM(2004) 156 final.

(13)  COM(2004) 474 final, point 1.3, first indent.

(14)  The educational subsystems include primary, secondary and higher education; general education and vocational training/education; educational establishments (suppliers of education and/or training); and types of education (conventional and alternative).

(15)  For additional information see CESE 1435/2004, point 9 (an example of best practice).

(16)  OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, point 8.1.1.3.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on How to achieve better integration of regions suffering from permanent natural and structural handicaps

(2005/C 221/23)

On 27 January 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on How to achieve better integration of regions suffering from permanent natural and structural handicaps.

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 19 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Barros Vale.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 80 votes, with no votes against and three abstentions.

1.   Introduction and general comments

1.1   Identification and definition of the concept of regions with permanent natural and structural handicaps

1.2   Problems of European Union island regions

1.3   Problems of upland regions

1.4   Problems faced by areas with a low population density

1.5   Questions linked with transport and transport costs, either in per capita or in absolute terms

1.6   Telecommunications questions

1.7   Infrastructure and access to public services, namely ports, airports, railways, roads, health services, education and training and knowledge policy

1.8   Constraints and possibilities relating to the environment; diversity of ecosystems

1.9   Problems concerning economic activity; concentration of sectoral activities and the lack of alternatives; employment situation

1.10   Opportunities for tourism and recreation

1.11   Capacity to attract investment and generate opportunities to keep the population in a region and to develop its endogenous potential

1.12   Remoteness from the main markets and major decision-making centres; absence of a ‘critical mass’ for the economic sustainability of multiple activities

1.13   Situation of representative economic and social movements of the regions in question

1.14   Community and national policies for minimising permanent structural problems

1.15   Development of these regions over the years, in the light of the public policies which have been applied to them

1.16   The solidarity effort in structural policies

1.17   Objective 1 regions: a sustained and well-adapted effort

1.18   Revising the state aids systems (8)

2.   Conclusions and recommendations

2.5   What should such a policy entail?

2.6   Goals of a policy for regions with permanent handicaps

3.   Final comment

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003, p.113.

(2)  Final report (2000.CE.16.0.AT.118), Analysis of the island regions and outermost regions of the European Union, March 2003.

(3)  The five criteria which Eurostat uses to define islands are as follows: they must have an area of at least one sq. km; they must be at least 1 km from the continent; they must have a permanent resident population of at least 50; they must have no permanent link with the continent; and they must not house an EU capital.

(4)  COM(2004) 492 final, Art. 52, point 1b) i)

(5)  Appendix XIX

(6)Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis of mountain areas in EU Member States, acceding and other European countries, European Commission, January 2004.

(7)OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003, p. 187.

(8)  State aid is considered as direct transfers to enterprises under the form of grants, tax exemptions, equity participation, soft loans, tax deferrals and guarantees calculated so as to harmonise the state aid component data into a common comparable indicator across countries.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Consumer policy post-enlargement

(2005/C 221/24)

On 17 July 2003, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on Consumer policy post enlargement.

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 8 September 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 95 votes with 2 abstentions.

1.   Introduction — Grounds

2.   Method adopted and preparatory work

3.   A definition of ‘representative consumer organisation’ as a basis for the promotion of consumers' interests and consumer participation

4.   Financing consumer organisations and associations

5.   Maximum harmonisation in line with the highest level of consumer protection

6.   The subsidiarity, mutual recognition and precautionary principles — interpretation and application geared to consumer protection

7.   A genuinely horizontal approach to consumer policy

8.   Simplification and codification of consumer law

9.   Consumer information and education

10.   Administrative cooperation on the application of consumer protection laws

11.   Some ideas for effectively and adequately protecting, defending and promoting consumers' interests in the enlarged single market

12.   Conclusions

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  The EESC has had the opportunity to discuss all these issues in a series of opinions, of which the following should be highlighted:

(2)  See point 14 of Council Resolution of 2 December 2002 on Community consumer policy strategy 2002-2006 (OJ C 11 of 17. 1.2003, p. 1) which reads as follows:

‘CALLS UPON THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES:

(3)  See, in particular, Article 7 (2) and (3) of Decision No 20/2004/EC of 8 December 2003 establishing a general framework for financing Community actions in support of consumer policy for the years 2004 to 2007 (OJ L 5 of 9.1.2004, p. 1) which state the following:

‘2.The financial contributions for action 16 may be awarded to European consumer organisations which:

3.The financial contributions for action 17 may be awarded to European consumer organisations which:

(4)  See OJ L 166 p. 51 which reads as follows:

‘Article 3

Entities qualified to bring an action

For the purposes of this Directive, a 'qualified entity` means any body or organisation which, being properly constituted according to the law of a Member State, has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the provisions referred to in Article 1 are complied with, in particular:

Or its current ‘codified version’ which states the following:

‘Article 3

Entities qualified to bring an action

For the purposes of this Directive, a “qualified entity” means any body or organisation which, being properly constituted according to the law of a Member State, has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the provisions referred to in Article 1 are complied with, in particular:

(5)  On the importance of the cooperative sector, see the Commission Communication on the promotion of co-operative societies in Europe - COM(2004) 18 final of 23 February 2004 – which again puts forward the idea of a statute for European cooperative associations (Opinion by Mr Hoffelt).

(6)  The EESC therefore welcomes the Commission's very recent initiative (DG SANCO) to ask BEUC to organise training courses on financial and human resources management, public relations and lobbying, and consumer law in the course of this year.

(7)  Decision of 9 October 2003 on setting up a European Consumer Consultative Group (OJ L 258 of 10.10.2003).

(8)  It was announced in December 2002 that this post would be created with a view to ensuring a permanent dialogue with European consumers; it was filled by Mr Juan Riviere y Marti on his appointment by Commissioner Mario Monti on 9 December 2003 (IP/03/1679 of 9.12.03).

(9)  Of particular importance is the recent Commission Decision setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment (OJ L 66 of 4.3.2004).

(10)  72 % of the respondents to the questionnaire said that consumer associations did receive state support, but deemed this to be inadequate.

(11)  In August 2003, in a particularly timely statement, BEUC called on governments in the new Member States to provide consumer associations with adequate financial support and raised the possibility of using the PHARE programme to this end.

(12)  75 % of the respondents said that consumer protection associations did not benefit from tax relief.

(13)OJ L 5 of 9.1.2004, p. 1, cf. EESC Opinion - Rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller - OJ C 234 of 30.9.2003.

(14)  SEC(2003) 1387 of 27.11.2003.

(15)  See Article 153(1) and (5), the latter of which states that measures which support, supplement and monitor the policy pursued by the Member States, and which have been adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, ‘shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures’, providing such measures are of course compatible with the Treaty, in particular the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.

(16)  The same provision was laid down in Article 129-A as amended by the Maastricht Treaty.

(17)  Cf., for example, Directives 90/314/EEC (package holidays), Article 8; 94/47/EC (timeshare), Article 11; 93/13/EEC (unfair terms), Article 8; 97/7/EC (distance contracts), Article 14; 85/577/EEC (contracts negotiated away from business premises); 84/450/EEC (misleading advertising), Article 7; and 87/102/EEC (consumer credit), Article 15. We should mention here the important study carried out at the Commission's request by the Centre for Consumer Law and coordinated by Monique Goyens. The rapporteur of this opinion had the opportunity to take part in this study, along with eminent legal specialists such as Profs. Klaus Tonner, Lopez-Sanchez, Susanne Storm, Jérome Frank, Alexandros Voutsas, William Fagan, Paolo Martinello, Andrée Colomer, A. Tavassy and Geraint Howells (SPC/02/93/CM, July 1994). The final report quite rightly drew a distinction between the various forms of harmonisation: minimum, complete, partial, full and optional.

(18)  COM(2001) 531 final of 2.10.2001.

(19)  COM(2002) 208 final of 7.5.2002.

(20)  COM(2002) 443 final of 11.9.2002.

(21)  COM(2003) 356 final of 18.6.2003.

(22)  Incorporated into the Treaty when the Single European Act came into force.

(23)  Cf. Article 32 of the draft Constitution.

(24)  Good examples of this include recent regulations on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Reg. (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22.12.2000); on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (Reg. (EC) No. 1348/2000 of 29.5.2000); on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (Reg. (EC) No. 1347/2000 of 29.5.2000); on insolvency proceedings (Reg. (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29.5.2000); concerning sales promotions in the Internal Market (COM(2002) 585 final of 25.10.2002); on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (COM(2003) 443 final of 18.7.2003); on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (COM(2003) 689 final of 17.11.2003).

(25)  See Article 5(II) of the EC Treaty, which states the following:

‘In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, by better achieved by the Community.’

There are, however, a number of differences in the wording of Article 9(3) of the draft Constitution, which ought to be examined in depth.

The draft Constitution reads as follows:

‘Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.’

The most important contributions to the discussion about this principle are as follows:

Subsidiarity: The challenge of change, proceedings of the Jacques Delors Colloquium, published by the European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, 1991 (EIPA 11/04); The principle of subsidiarity, Jean-Louis Clergerie, Ellipses, 1997; the study, thought to be unpublished, by Prof. G. Vandersanden, Considérations sur le principe de subsidiarité, Jan. 1992; Il principio di sussidiarietà nella prospectiva dell'attuazione del Trattato sull' Unione europea by Gian Pietro Orsello, Rome, 1993; and the Mégret Commentary of the Treaty, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., Addendum, Ch. III, pp. 421 et seq.

(26)  It must, therefore, be stated that the Commission's initial interpretation, presented at the Edinburgh European Council of 11 and 12 December 1992 was that the study, in line with the aforementioned principle, would result in the withdrawal of an entire series of proposals in the pipeline and would put the revision of many others on hold.

(27)  This principle was fully integrated into Article 100-b when the Single European Act came into force, definitively incorporating the Cassis de Dijon verdict.

(28)Mutual Recognition in the Single Market – Rapporteur: Mr Lagerholm, OJ C 116 of 20.4.2001

(29)  COM(1999) 299 final of 16.6.1999

(30)OJ C 12 of 15.3.2001.

(31)  This refers in particular to financial products sold through mail order.

(32)  Cf. EESC Opinion on the Use of the precautionary principle - Rapporteur: Mr Bedossa - OJ C 268 of 19.9.2000, p. 6.

(33)  Cf. EEC's Preliminary Programme for a consumer protection and information policy of 14 April 1975, which states: ‘All these [consumers] rights should be given greater substance by action under specific Community policies such as the economic, common agricultural, social, environment, transport and energy policies as well as by the approximation of laws, all of which affect the consumer's position’ (OJ C 92 of 25.4.1975). The idea was subsequently to be developed in the Communication to the Council dated 4 July 1985 and entitled a ‘New impetus’, where, for the first time, it was quite rightly considered that, for the creation of the European Economic Community, the completion of the single market was a means and not an end (COM(85) 314 final). This led to the Council Resolution of 23.6.1986.

The European Parliament also, in its March 1992 Resolution on the consumer protection and public health requirements to be taken into account in the completion of the internal market, called on the Commission to take more and more account of consumer protection requirements in all policy areas (DOC. PE 152150).

However, it fell to the EESC, on the eve of the Amsterdam European Council, in its Opinion on the Single market and consumer protection (CES 1309/95 of 22 November 1995 – Rapporteur: Mr Ceballo Herrero OJ C 39 of 12.2.1996), to set out clearly a whole series of recommendations on the implementation of a horizontal approach to consumer policy and to call for a general reference to this to be enshrined in the revised Treaty.

(34)  Art III-38 and Art-III-5.

(35)  COM(2002) 208 final of 7.5.2002.

(36)  Ibidem page 7.

(37)  EESC Opinion 276/2003 of 26 February 2003 – Rapporteur: Mrs Ann Davison - OJ C 95 of 23.4.2003.

(38)  In Opinion CES 1309/95 referred to previously, the EESC recommended in this connection that:

(39)  Of particular significance since 1992 are its Better lawmaking documents, in particular the one for 2002 (COM(2002) 715 final of 11.12.2002) and its Communications of 5 December 2001 on Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment (COM(2001) 726 final, of 5 June 2002 on European governance: Better lawmaking (COM(2002) 275-278 final) and of 11 February 2003 on Updating and simplifying the Community acquis (COM(2003) 71 final) and, in particular, its recently published legislative and work programme for 2004 (COM(2003) 645 final of 29.10.2003) which makes the simplification and codification of Community legislation a priority for 2004 (Annex 5).

(40)  Cf. the EESC Opinions for which the rapporteurs were Mr Vever (OJ C 14 of 16.1.2001), Mr Walker (OJ C 48 of 21.2.2002 and OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002), Mr Simpson (OJ C 133 of 6.6.2003) and Mr Retureau (INT 187 of 17 March 2004 – CESE 500/2004; OJ C 112 of 30.4.2004).

(41)OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003. Cf. the particularly important EP report of 25.9.2003 (A5-0313/2003) by Monica Frassoni MEP.

(42)  COM(2003) 71 final for which the rapporteur was Mr Retureau (CESE 500/2004; OJ C 112 of 30.4.2004).

(43)  When asked how much progress has been made in transposing the Community acquis, 65 % of the respondents to the questionnaire said that the reform of the legal framework has been fully completed, while 35 % said that the transposition process has not been completed.

(44)  The idea of the ‘codification’ of Community consumer law and the various meanings of the term ‘codification’ were discussed at length at the Colloquium held in Lyon on 12 and 13 December 1997, the minutes of which were published by Bruylant (1998) under the title Vers un Code Européen de la Consommation. These were discussed again at the Colloquium held in Bologne-sur-Mer on 14 and 15 January 2000, the minutes of which were published by Documentation Française (Paris 2002). This subject was also discussed by various authors in the work by Dominique Fenouillet and Françoise Labarthe entitled Faut-il recodifier le droit de la consommation? (ECONOMICA, 2002).

(45)  EESC Opinion 105/2004 for which the rapporteur was Mr Hernández Bataller (OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004).

(46)  In this connection, see in general the EESC's opinions on the ‘Single Market and Consumer Protection’, for which the Rapporteur was Mr Ceballo Herrero (OJ C 39 of 12.2.1996) and on the ‘Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection’ for which the Rapporteur was Ms Davison (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002) and in particular the opinions on proposals for directives on misleading and comparative advertising, doorstep sales, consumer credit, package travel, unfair terms, time share, distance sales of goods in general and services in particular, producer responsibility, guarantees, electronic commerce, product safety and unfair commercial practices.

(47)  EESC Opinion of 26 March 2003, for which the rapporteur was Mr Hernández Bataller (OJ C 133 of 6.6.2003). The Dutch Committee for Consumer Affairs' November 2000 report on this subject is also of interest in this connection.

(48)  As stated by the Council in its Resolution of 9 June 1986 (OJ C 184 of 23.7.1986).

(49)  Opinion, adopted on 28 January 2004 - Rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller (OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004). The Commission had already pointed to the need for better monitoring of the application of Community law in its Communication of 11 December 2002 (COM(2002) 725 final).

(50)  At the Edinburgh Council meeting on 11 and 12 December 1992, it was decided to withdraw a whole series of proposed directives which were in the pipeline in order to apply the subsidiarity principle; this included the text in question. (SN/456/92 Appendix C to the Presidency's conclusions)

(51)  Directive 2001/95/EC, Article 20.

(52)  COM(2003) 313 final of 6.6.2003.

(53)  COM(2004) 2 final of 13.1.2004. See EESC Opinion for which the rapporteurs were Mr Metzler and Mr Ehnmark. See also Council Resolution of 1 December 2003, published in OJ C 299 of 10.12.2003.

(54)  This comment is made without any intention of anticipating the EESC Opinion on this topic (CESE 137/2005).

(55)  Cf. Green paper on Services of General Interest (COM(2003) 270 final of 21.5.2003) and the Commission Communication entitled ‘Services of General Interest in Europe’ (COM(96) 443 final of 11.9.1996).

(56)  Opinion CESE 1607/2003 of 10.12.2003 (OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004) - Rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller and Opinion CES 605/1997 of 29.5.1997 (OJ C 287 22.9.1997) - Rapporteur: Mr Van Dijk. Also see the EESC's sectoral opinions on certain key services, in particular Opinion CES 1269/1996 of 31.10.1996 (OJ C 66 of 3.3.1997) on energy and Opinion CES 229/2001 of 1.3.2001 (OJ C 139 of 11.5.2001) on electronic communications services – Rapporteur in both cases: Mr Hernández Bataller.

(57)  In a recent decision in Portugal, telephone services were surprisingly not included as part of key public services (Law 5/2004 of 10.2.2004)

(58)  This Communication appears in document COM(2004) 374 final of 22/7/2003) (Rome II)

(59)  Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (COM(2003) 427 final of 22.7.2003) (‘Rome II’).

(60)  Opinion CESE 841/2004 – Rapporteur: Mr Von Fürstenwerth (OJ C 241 of 28.9.2004).

(61)  European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000, OJ L 109 of 6.5.2000.

(62)  The directive stipulates that identification of a product's origin is only mandatory when omitting it might mislead consumers; this gives rise to considerable doubt and from the point of view of legal certainty is not clear enough.

(63)  System for the rapid exchange of information.

(64)  Along the same lines: EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on General Product Safety (OJ C 367 of 20.12.2000). When questioned about mechanisms to monitor the market, 65 % of respondents considered them to be adequate while 37 % considered them to be relatively ineffective.

(65)  Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products amended by Directive 99/34/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 10 May 1999, which expanded the scope of the directive to include the electricity market.

(66)  COM(1999) 396 final of 28.7.1999.

(67)  Particular reference is made here to the Lovells Report (MARKT/2001/II/D), Contract No ETD/2001/B5-3001/D/76; the present rapporteur was also involved in the preparation of the afore-mentioned report.

(68)  Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985.

(69)  European Parliament and Council Directive 97/7/EC of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, OJ L 144 of 4.6.1997.

(70)  Ibidem Article 11, para 3a)

(71)  European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/65/EC of 23 September concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial servicesOJ L 271 of 9.10.2002.

(72)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning credit for consumers COM(2002) 443 final of 11.9.2002.

(73)  89 % of respondents said that this right was enshrined in law, but 30 % felt that these mechanisms were not properly applied.

(74)  Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April, OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.

(75)  As far as is known, the CLAB database is no longer being updated and is difficult to access. 52 % of respondents deemed consumer protection against unfair clauses to be adequate, while only 19 % deemed it to be inadequate.

(76)  COM(2000) 248 final of 6.7.2000; Cf. EESC Opinion - Rapporteur: Mr Ataíde Ferreira – OJ C 116 of 20.4.2001.

(77)  Directive 87/102/EEC, OJ L 42 of 12.2.1987 and Directive 98/7/EC, OJ L 101 of 1.4.1998.

(78)  EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning credit for consumers of 17 July 2003 (OJ C 234 of 30.9.2004), where the EESC points out that it does not accept that the proposal should, like Directive 87/102/EEC, maintain that the development of the single market is still the main concern, and that consumer protection is only of importance in so far as it might encourage the free movement of credit supply, not constituting an end in itself but just a means to develop single market.

(79)  To be highlighted in this connection are the still topical EESC Information Report and Own-initiative Opinion on this issue (24.4.2002 - Rapporteur: Mr Ataíde Ferreira, OJ C 149 of 21.6.2002) and the various meetings organised in this connection by the Commission and national organisations.

(80)  Commission Recommendation 87/598/EEC on a European Code of Conduct relating to electronic payment (OJ L 365 of 24.12.1987) is not enough to protect consumers' interests in this area.

(81)  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament concerning a New Legal Framework for Payments in the Internal Market (COM(2003) 718 final); the EESC is to draft an opinion on this subject, for which the Rapporteur will be Mr Ravoet (30 June 2004).

(82)  Cf. COM(2004) 91 final of 12.3.2004 and the EESC Opinion currently in the pipeline, for which the rapporteurs are Mr Retureau and Ms Davison.

(83)  Cf. COM(2004) 341 final and EESC Opinion currently in the pipeline, for which the rapporteur is the same as for the present opinion.

(84)  Cf. Commission Communication on European Contract Law (COM(2001) 398 final of 11.7.2001) and the relevant EESC Opinion – Rapporteur: Mr Retureau – OJ C 241 of 7.1.2002.

(85)  Cf. EESC Own-initiative opinion currently being prepared on the European insurance contract (INT/202) – Rapporteur: the same as for the present opinion.

(86)  Directive 1999/44/EC of 25.5.1999, OJ L 171 of 7.7.1999.

(87)  ESC Opinion 743/94 of 1 June 1994 – Rapporteur: Mr J. Proumens (OJ C 295 of 22.10.1994)

(88)  As provided for in the Commission's excellent Green Paper (COM(1993) 509 final of 15.11.1993); the Directive concerned did not adhere to the spirit of that Green Paper.

(89)  COM(2001) 531 final; cf. EESC Opinion 344/2002 - Rapporteur: Mrs Davison - OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002.

(90)  EESC Opinion of 28.1.2004 – Rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller (OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004).

(91)  In its Opinion (OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002) – Rapporteur: Mr Dimitriadis – on the Commission's proposal for a regulation on this subject (COM(2001) 546 final of 2.10.2001).

(92)  71 % of respondents said there were mechanisms to enable consumers to gain access to justice, while only 29 % said there were no specific mechanisms for doing so; when asked how effective they were, 58 % deemed them to be adequate, while 35 % deemed them to be relatively ineffective.

(93)  Directive 98/27/EC of 19 May 1998 (OJ L 166 of 11.6.1998) now in a codified version (COM(2003) 241 final of 12.5.2003).

(94)  When asked if there were rules exempting consumer associations from legal costs, 73 % of respondents said there were no such rules.

(95)  EESC Opinion on the Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law (COM(2002) 196 of 19.4.2002) – Rapporteur: Mr Malosse - OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003. In follow-up to this, the EESC is awaiting publication of the report on the operation of the EEJ-NET (European Extra-Judicial Network); however it would point out here and now the need to make this more operational.

(96)  78 % of respondents said there were alternative means of dispute resolution, while only 33 % said there were none.

(97)  Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 May 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, OJ L 115 of 17.4.1998 and Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001, OJ L 109 of 19.4.2001.

(98)  Council document 9179/99 and Corr 1-99/00806; the Rapporteur of the EESC Opinion on the subject was Mr Ravoet (OJ C 75 of 15.3.2000); these Council documents have now become Council Regulation (OJ L 160 of 30.6.2000, p. 1).

(99)  Regulation 44/2001/EC (OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001).

(100)  COM(2003) 427 final of 22.7.2003.

(101)  COM(2002) 654 final; the Rapporteur for the EESC Opinion on this subject was the author of the present opinion (Opinion CESE 88/2004 in OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004).

(102)  COM(2001) 705 final of 22.11.2001; the Rapporteur for the EESC Opinion on this subject was Mr Ataíde Ferreira (OJ C 36 of 8.2.2002)

(103)  Opinion ‘Strategy of Consumer Policy 2002-2006’ (26.2.2003, OJ C 95 of 23.4.2003, Rapporteur: Ms Ann Davison); Opinion ‘Financial Framework for Consumer Policy 2004-2007’ (17.7.2003, OJ C 234 of 30.9.2003, Rapporteur: Mr Hernández Bataller)

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion or the European Economic and Social Committee

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

Point 12.5

Add the following to the list of priorities:

Reason

It is currently difficult for consumers to assert their rights in countries of the EU other than their own, due to the language barrier and ignorance of procedural obstacles — for example, if a Latvian consumer has his rights violated in the Netherlands, or vice-versa.

Outcome of the vote:

For: 3

Against: 3

Abstentions: 3.

----