8. 7. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 169/9 
2.6. Article 2, paragraph 4, second subparagraph 2.7. Article 3, paragraph 4, second subparagraph 
This subparagraph should be amended. In both cases 
referred to here the Commission should see to it that the other 
Member States are informed. The words 'in agreement with the CCR' should be inserted 
after 'lay down'. 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending for the third time Regulation (EEC) 
No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (*) 
(85/C 169/05) 
On 22 January 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 April 1985 in the light of the report by 
Mr Broicher. 
At its 226th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1985) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously, apart from two absentions: 
1. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal 
that duties may be repaid or remitted even in the event of 
failure to comply with the procedural requirements. 
2. At the same time, the insertion of new Articles into the 
basic Regulation would transfer to the Member States the 
responsibility for deciding on the repayment or remission of 
duties - a responsibility hitherto borne by the 
Commission. 
2.1. It is rational to decentralize in this way. The 
decision-making process is thereby expedited, to the 
advantage of administration and the economy. 
3. The Committee endorses the view that the right to 
repayment or remission should be forfeited in cases where 
non-compliance with the procedural requirements is due to 
serious negligence or deception on the part of the person 
concerned. It would however draw attention to an error in 
the German language version of the Commission document, 
which implies that even slight negligence would cause the 
right to be forfeited. 
4. The Committee recommends the deletion of the third 
paragraphs of the new Articles 4 (a), 6 (a) and 11 (a) to be 
H OJ No C 22, 24. 1. 1985, p. 10. added to the basic Regulation. These paragraphs provide for 
a reduction of the amount of duties repaid or remitted by 
10%, up to a maximum of 1 000 ECU. There is no 
justification for this measure, which would in any case lead to 
differing legal treatment for comparable circumstances. 
4.1. In view of the fact that the person concerned has sole 
responsibility for submitting proof that the conditions of the 
claim are met, the checking work of the customs authority 
can be confined to accepting or rejecting the sufficiency of 
this proof. It is not required to carry out its own investigatory 
work. The reduction cannot therefore be justified as a charge 
to cover an increased administrative cost. 
Since the Commission states that the reduction 'retains the 
character of the Community's own resources', the 
Committee regards it as unjustifiable to levy a charge for a 
service provided not by the Community but by the Member 
States. It would be logical for the administrative charge to be 
paid to the Member States, as is usually the case. 
4.2. Nor can the reduction be justified as a kind of 
educational charge aimed at 'encouraging the persons 
concerned to comply with the procedural requirements'. If 
NoC 169/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 8.7. 85 
this measure were not to appear arbitrary, the Commission 
would have to threaten fines in all other instances where the 
person concerned fails to comply with procedural 
requirements; but this is not the case. 
4.3. However the reduction may be regarded, the 
unequal treatment of comparable circumstances becomes 
obvious particularly in view of Article 9, paragraph 2 (a) of 
Council Directive 79 / 623 / EEC of 25 June 1979 on customs 
obligations, which harmonizes the cancellation of 
obligations arising from customs procedures. A customs 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1985. 
1. Article 3 (c) of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community provides for the abolition, as between 
Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for 
persons, services and capital. 
2. The difficulties encountered since the signing of the 
Treaty have however been such that it has not been possible 
to achieve this objective which, when realized, will heighten 
ordinary people's sense of belonging to the Community. 
Meeting on 25 and 26 June 1984, the Heads of State and 
Government also emphasized their determination to speed 
up the process of creating a 'people's Europe', declaring that 
they would work to this end by abolishing police and customs 
controls as rapidly as possible. 
3. The Committee welcomes this expression of political 
will. It denotes a turning point in the Community's history 
and will lead to a standardization of regulations at the 
OJ No C 47, 19. 2. 1985, p. 5. obligation exists when goods to be exported have not been 
presented, and this obligation is cancelled if the goods are 
proved to have been exported. Thus in this case repayment or 
remission of duties occurs without reduction although 
procedural requirements have not been met, the goods are 
subject to customs control and the administrative cost of 
identifying the goods is the same. 
The Committee regards such unequal treatment in legal 
terms as unjustifiable. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Community's internal borders, including a further 
improvement in the most advanced positions reached under 
bilateral Treaties (Benelux-France/Germany). Reference 
should be made to the need for improvements at a number of 
Community airports, as well as at internal road and rail 
frontier crossing-points, to facilitate the movement of EEC 
nationals. 
In particular, the Committee deplores the habitual delays at 
Brussels Zaventem airport and would call on the 
Commission to request that the Belgian authorities take 
prompt action to eliminate these delays (e.g. by setting up 
separate passport control desks for EEC nationals). 
4. Under these circumstances the draft Council Directive, 
which will considerably facilitate the movement of nationals, 
deserves the most sympathetic consideration. The following 
comments and suggestions relate to back-up measures 
calculated to speed up the harmonization of regulations Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the easing of controls and formalities applicable to 
nationals of the Member States when crossing intra-Community borders (x) 
(85/C 169/06) 
On 4 February 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 April 1985 in the light of the report by 
Mr Mourgues. 
At its 226th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1985) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously: