ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (codified version)"

(COM(2002) 529 final - 2002/0233 (COD))

(2003/C 85/29)

On 28 November 2002, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject. The Committee appointed Mr Bedossa as rapporteur-general.

At its 396th plenary session (meeting of 23 January 2003), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote.

Introduction

EU legislation clearly needs to be reviewed on a regular basis.

With this aim in view, the draft directive's objectives are clear and simple. They are geared, above all, to securing tangible results.

The formal review of the draft directive with a view to codification, even the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP). The document, which focuses not only on the future but also on existing law, is designed to simplify and improve the methods employed.

Specific comments

The EESC endorses the initiative behind the draft directive for the following reasons:

- Whilst the main concern should of course be to remove obsolete provisions, simplification of legislation must also bring benefits by enhancing the clarity and transparency of EU law.

- Regular updating and codification ensures legal certainty at any given moment in respect of the law on a given issue.

- Simplification is important in the context of the single market: failure to harmonise legislative instruments, constitutes a major obstacle which may trigger a large number of disputes in respect of GLP.

- Simplification is being introduced at the right time, namely on the eve of EU enlargement.

- Although the draft directive dealing with GLP is purely a formal provision, it is nonetheless necessary as legislation in this field is essential.

- Finally, the draft directive is a step in the right direction as it speeds up the simplification and codification of existing provisions, whilst enabling the legislation to be reviewed.

The consolidated presentation is also excellent.

Brussels, 23 January 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (codified version)

(COM(2003) 243 final - 2003/0096 (CNS))

(2003/C 234/21)

On 27 May 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 17 June 2003 the Bureau of the European Economic and Social Committee instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

In view of the urgency of the work, at its 401st Plenary Session on 16 and 17 July 2003 (meeting of 16 July 2003) the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Moraleda Quilez as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by 26 votes to one, with one abstention.

1. The purpose of this proposal is to codify Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1). The new Regulation will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; their content is fully preserved, and they are brought together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2. The Committee regards it as very useful to have all the texts integrated into one Regulation. In the context of a People's Europe, the Committee, like the Commission, attaches great importance to simplifying and clarifying Community law so as to make it clearer and more accessible to ordinary citizens, thus giving them new opportunities and the chance to make use of the specific rights it gives them.

It has been ensured that this compilation of provisions contains no changes of substance and serves only the purpose of presenting Community law in a clear and transparent way. The Committee expresses its total support for this objective and, in the light of these guarantees, welcomes the proposal.

Brussels, 16 July 2003.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch

(1) Carried out pursuant to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - codification of the acquis communautaire, COM(2001) 645 final.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco"

(COM(2003) 437 final - 2003/0157 (CNS))

(2004/C 32/14)

On 4 August 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 23 September 2003 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to undertake the preparatory work.

In view of the urgency of the matter, at its plenary session on 29 and 30 October 2003 (meeting of 29 October) the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Chagas as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by 66 votes in favour, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. When the Council adopted its Regulation 2561/2001, which aims to promote the conversion of fishing vessels and fishermen that until 1999 were dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco, it included in the regulation a number of derogations from certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector. It also approved complementary appropriations for structural and socio-economic measures.

1.2. These decisions were justified as an exceptional measure to facilitate the implementation of the conversion plans for Community fleets affected by the non-renewal of the fishing agreement with Morocco, and to provide the resources needed for individual or collective plans enabling fishermen to take early retirement or retrain for work outside the sea fishing sector.

1.3. It is worth noting that, as proposed by fishermen's organisations, a minimum of 32 % of the total amount of aid was to be allocated to socio-economic measures.

2. The Commission proposal

2.1. The Commission proposal introduces a series of amendments to address the exceptional situation that has arisen. The aim is to reach a maximum number of fishermen and treat them on an equal footing by abolishing the rules which currently restrict the grant of individual lump sums exclusively to fishermen whose vessel has permanently stopped its activities.

2.2. At the same time, the Commission proposes to extend by twelve months the period of eligibility for aid and the final date for submitting the request for payment of the balance. The reference date for taking account of the period of unemployment is to be set at 1 January 2002.

3. General comments

3.1. The Committee supports the amendments proposed by the Commission, which are designed to address problems in implementing the exceptional regulation adopted in 2001 and to reach a maximum number of fishermen affected by the breakdown of negotiations for the renewal of the fishing agreement with Morocco.

Brussels, 29 October 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/57

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security’

(COM(2003) 566 final - 2003/0222 (COD))

(2004/C 108/10)

On 8 October 2003 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 80 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 8 January 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Simons.

At its 405th plenary session (meeting of 28 and 29 January 2004), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. The EESC considers it appropriate to permit the application of equivalent levels of security than those explicitly prescribed in the legislation at airports used only by small aircraft, general aviation or airports used infrequently, on the grounds that investment in expensive security equipment would be inappropriate. The proposal also corrects some minor errors of little substantial importance. The EESC therefore supports the proposal.

2. Furthermore, it would underline the importance of Article 4, new paragraph 3a) stating that: ‘Each flight originating from a demarcated area of an airport shall indicate this fact to the destination airport in advance of the arrival of the flight’. This information is essential for ensuring appropriate security measures can be taken to receive air passengers and baggage from ‘demarcated’ areas of ‘origin’ airports who are transferring flights or entering a terminal building where there is no physical separation of arriving and departing passengers. The aircraft operator is best placed to provide this information.

3. Finally, the Committee underlines that the national security measures (as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3 of Regulation 2320/2002) must be applied to ‘demarcated areas’ and not to individual general aviation flights or individual small aircraft (with less than 10 tonnes of Maximum Take Off Weight or less than 20 seats) which arrive at a destination airport where no ‘demarcated area’ exists.
3.8

The EESC notes that the Directive does not create new obligations in areas already covered by Regulation (EC) 725/2004 (10), or indeed in the expanded port areas. However, it takes the opportunity to reiterate the basic principle that port security measures should be balanced in relation to the objectives they pursue, their costs and impact on traffic and trade flows. Hence, it is necessary to consider carefully their need and assess whether they are realistic and practically feasible. The measures should respect the fundamental rights and observe the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union so as not to restrain the personal human rights of the citizens nor the constitutional order, thus serving the purpose of terrorists. Therefore, care should be exercised to avoid: — deflection of traffic in favour of some ports (because of increased security measures) to the detriment of other ports. Small ports may particularly get hit by such port diversion. Security measures should not become an issue of competition between ports; — imposing disproportionate bureaucracy or costs; — any imbalance between vessel security and port security that may result in forcing upon vessels and their operators the obligation to provide additional quay security to redress the imbalance. Ports should not be unduly burdened by the cost of compliance to the benefit of other modes of transport; — disproportionate technical infrastructure which can be seen as promoting certain commercial interests.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 28/82

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in hops’

(COM (2005) 386 final — 2005/0162 (CNS))

(2006/C 28/16)

On 21 September 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 36 and the second and third paragraphs of Article 37, of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

On 27 September 2005, the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

In view of the urgency of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Kienle as rapporteur-general at its 421st plenary session, held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 27 October 2005), and adopted the following opinion with 63 votes in favour, and 3 abstentions.

1. Overview of the EESC's position

1.1 The EESC supports the European Commission's proposal to replace the various regulations on the common organisation of the market in hops with a single new regulation.

2. Comments

2.1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 of 26 July 1971 on the common organisation of the market in hops has undergone many extensive changes since it was introduced. It helps to make Community rules clearer and more accessible if regulations that are no longer relevant are repealed and replaced by a new regulation based on a consolidated version of the old regulations.

2.2 Lately, the EESC has issued several opinions on the organisation of the hops market (1). In its most recent opinion on this matter, of 26 February 2004, the Committee was of the view that it was ‘consistent’ and made ‘sense’ following the CAP reform (Luxembourg decisions) of 2003 for direct payments for hops to also be integrated into the general regulation for direct payments.

2.3 The EESC would also like to point out in this opinion that hops (humulus lupulus) are an essential raw material in beer production and are produced in eight EU Member States mainly by small specialised family farms with an average of less than eight hectares. European hop producers have managed to consolidate their position as world market leaders. The common organisation of the market in hops has successfully dealt with the major market adjustments of recent years. It has accepted and promoted the comprehensive system of quality control and contracts which is indispensable for successful production and marketing. The system is the responsibility of producer groups, which are the ‘heart and soul’ of the organisation of the market in hops. These principles should be retained in the new organisation of the market as well.

2.4 The EESC would like to point out that expenditure on the hop sector has remained stable for years at around EUR 13 million.

Brussels, 27 October 2005 The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) OJ C 110, 30.4.2004, pp. 116-124.

OJ C 80, 30.3.2004, p. 46.

OJ C 193, 10.7.2001, pp. 38-39.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/19

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries (codified version)

(COM(2006) 12 final — 2006/0007 (CNS))

(2006/C 195/05)

On 14 February 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 93 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 25 April 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Danusēvičs.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 17 May), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.

1. The purpose of the proposal is to codify Council Directive 78/1035/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries. The new directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; it fully preserves the contents of the acts and does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2. The Committee can only endorse the general codification of Community provisions undertaken by the Commission on the basis of the decision adopted on 1 April 1987 and confirmed in the conclusions of the Edinburgh summit. It therefore approves the proposed directive, as it has already done for similar initiatives on other occasions.

3. The Committee notes that, in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, no changes of substance may be made in the codification. The Commission guarantees to respect this condition in the text of the proposed directive.

4. The consultative role of the EESC and its sense of responsible mean that it must check the amendments before approving the document. The rapporteur has done this and finds no grounds for criticism or specific comment.

5. The Committee supports the proposed codification which is part of the simplification and clarification of European law.
2.5

The Committee pointed out a year ago that this may lead to a further watering-down of the binding nature of national implementation of priorities agreed at European level in that Member States' employment policy measures can no longer be judged against specific and quantifiable European targets to the same extent as before. One year on, this concern — especially about the trend towards dismantling binding targets — has largely been borne out, as an initial look at the employment sections of the national reform programmes put forward by the Member States shows. As a number of sources have already reported, many of the national reform programmes sent to the Commission are somewhat lacking in ambition as regards employment policy, which respects workers' rights and obligations: — firstly, as has been the case in previous years, they often present ongoing measures that were on the national government agenda anyway; — secondly, many national reform programmes lack specific information as to when, how and by whom they are to be implemented, and using what resources. In the light of the differing labour market structures and problems in the Member States, it makes basic sense to have a degree of flexibility in implementing the guidelines. As long as the conditions set out in point 2.4 continue to be met, it is essential to avoid watering down the goals of the new Lisbon strategy by not making them specific enough.
4.3.3.1

In its recent opinion on the Green Paper of July 2005, the EESC has shown the usefulness of action in the area of UCITS (5). ‘Investment funds compete against financial products such as unit-linked policies, perceived as comparable by investors, despite the fact that they are governed by a very different legal framework. This can distort investors' choices with negative repercussions on cost and risk levels in the investments concerned. The EESC believes that this problem cannot be addressed with reduced competition or by easing the restrictions and guarantees imposed on investment funds. We would call instead for an upward adjustment of standards so that financial products that are perceived as being a direct alternative to investment funds are subject to regulatory requirements that are comparable to those pertaining to such funds.’ The imbalance in the requirements of funds and unit-linked policies, the incomplete development of the European Passport due to the obstacles that certain supervisory authorities continue to create, the lack of transparency of costs, especially exit costs, and market fragmentation with the associated high costs are some of the problems outlined. Nevertheless, the EESC expresses concern at the development, in some Member States, of guaranteed capital funds without the need for the management company to have sufficient own funds, with the result that, in the event of particularly disadvantageous market trends, consumers could be inadequately protected. The EESC calls on the Commission to remedy this shortcoming, by establishing appropriate corporate responsibility obligations for companies issuing guaranteed capital funds and by setting a precise and adequate level of monitoring. The EESC is particularly aware of the pressure to achieve more efficient UCITS, not least due to the fact that, being a significant component of pension fund schemes, they can make a substantial contribution to resolving a problem that was rightly pointed out at the beginning of the White Paper, i.e. the financing of the considerable pensions deficit which affects most European economies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/10

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning misleading and comparative advertising

COM(2006) 222 final — 2006/0070 (COD)

(2006/C 324/04)

On 6 June 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 September 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Westendorp.

In view of the renewal of the Committee's term of office, the plenary assembly decided to vote on this opinion at its October plenary session and appointed Mr Westendorp as rapporteur-general under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure. In the absence of Mr Westendorp, the opinion was presented by Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 86 votes in favour, with one abstention.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 In a ‘people's Europe’, it is important that Community law should be both understandable and transparent. The European Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore also highlighted the need to codify legislative acts that have been frequently amended, and have agreed by interinstitutional agreement that an accelerated procedure may be used. Codification may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in question.

1.2 The Commission proposal under discussion here is fully consonant with the objective of codification and with the rules involved. The EESC therefore endorses it.