30. 7. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 189/33 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the harmonization of provisions laid 
down by law, regulation or administrative action concerning the exercise of the right of 
appeal in respect of customs matters 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 10 February 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
188th plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 May 1981. 
•* 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 10 February 1981 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Direc­
tive on the harmonization of provisions laid down 
by law, regulation or administrative action concern­
ing the exercise of the right of appeal in respect of 
customs matters, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 24 February 1981, instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up 
an opinion and report on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section 
for Industry, Commerce Crafts and Services at its 
meeting on 6 May 1981, 
Having regard to the report presented by the rappor­
teur, Mr Marvier, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 188th plenary 
session held on 26 and 27 May 1981 (meeting of 
27 May 1981), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 68 votes to seven with four abstentions: The Committee welcomes the proposal subject to 
the following comments: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee wondered whether the pro­
posed Directive would be effective as it is solely 
concerned with harmonizing the initial stage of the 
appeal procedure and does not encompass criminal 
law matters or measures relating exclusively to the 
administrative body's powers of appreciation which 
can only be challenged via legal proceedings on 
grounds of misuse of authority. 
1.2. As the bulk of disputes are dealt with by 
administrative authorities, the adoption of this 
Directive should go some considerable way towards 
facilitating the solution of disputes between customs 
authorities and traders. 
1.3. The Committee agrees with the first paragraph 
of Article 7 which says that the lodging of an appeal 
shall not cause implementation of the disputed deci­
sion to be suspended. Article 7 thus proclaims a fun­
damental principle which must be applied in all 
cases. 
1.4. The Committee is afraid that in certain cases 
the application of Article 14 gives some customs 
authorities the possibility of avoiding obligations 
imposed by the Directive; the Committee would 
therefore like to see a more precise definition of the 
actual circumstances which can be invoked. 
No C 189/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 7. 81 
1.5. The purpose of the different time limits laid 
down in the second subparagraph of Articles 2 (2) 
and 5(1) and (3) of the proposed Directive is to pro­
vide the fullest protection possible against adminis­
trative inefficiency. They are therefore justified. 
However, in respect of the second subparagraph of 
Article 2 (2), it is advisable that the appellant should 
invariably be notified in writing if the time limit is 
to be exceeded. 
2. Specific comments 
Article 2 
2.1. There will be an obligation on the customs 
authorities to supply both the person concerned and 
the appellant with information in writing. This obli­
gation should be spelt out clearly in Article 2 of the 
proposal. 
Done at Brussels, 27 May 1981. 2.2. The Dutch language version of Article 2 (2) 
could give rise to ambiguity. 
Article 6 
2.3. The Committee recommends that Article 6 be 
amplified to allow an appeal to be lodged with the 
customs authority in the shape of a formal state­
ment. 
Article 10 
2.4. The following passage should be added to the 
second sentence of Article 10(1): 
'. .. if the appellant has been informed of the 
possibility of an unfavourable ruling (together 
with the reasons therefore) and if he has been 
given an opportunity to decide whether or not 
to proceed with his appeal'. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
30. 7.81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 189/35 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected 
during the debate: 
Page 2, paragraph 1.3 
Delete paragraph 1.3. 
Reasons 
Since the fact that an appeal has been lodged generally indicates reasonable doubts about the 
decision concerned — it can have serious financial consequences for the appellant — it is logical 
that an appeal should lead to suspension of the decision. 
Result of the vote 
For: 16, Against: 35, Abstentions: 21. 
Page 2 (1.5) 
Delete 'and Article 5(1) and (3)'. 
Reasons 
It is surely logical that it should be possible to lodge an appeal at any point in time after discov­
ery of a defective decision. 
Result of the vote 
For: 8, Against: 43, Abstentions: 28. 
Page 3 
Insert a new subsection 2.3: 
'Article 5 
2.3. There should be no time limit for the lodging of an appeal.' 
Reasons 
It is surely obvious that it should be possible to appeal at any time, regardless of when the exist­
ence of a defective decision is discovered. 
Result of the vote 
For: 8, Again.st: 43, Abstentions: 28. 
No C 189/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 7. 81 
Page 3 
Insert a new subsection 2.4: 
'Article 7 
2.4. Lodging of an appeal shall suspend the implementation of the decision concerned.' 
Reasons 
Since the fact that an appeal has been lodged generally indicates reasonable doubts about the 
decision concerned — it can have serious financial consequences for the appellant — it is logical 
that an appeal should lead to suspension of the decision. 
Result of the vote 
For: 16, Against: 35, Abstentions: 21.