2. 4. 80 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 83/13 
Nevertheless,  maximum  flexibility  must  be main-
tained.  The  documents  available  at the  time  of 
export  may  be very  different,  depending  on the type 
of goods  or the organization  of the exporting  firm. 
In certain  cases  it would  be an administrative  but 
not a customs  document,  e.g.  a certificate  of quality, a dangerous  goods  declaration,  etc.  The  main  thing 
is that  this  document  should  contain  the  informa-
tion needed  to identify  the goods  and  the  consign-
ment.  The  reference  should  therefore  be to 'any 
commercial  or other  document'. 
Done  at Brussels,  12 December  1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Raffaele  VANNI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  amending  for the second  time  Regul-
ation  (EEC)  No 222/77  on Community  transit 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the Euro-
pean  Communities  No  C 241  of 26 September  1979,  page  6. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 24 September  1979  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Eco-
nomic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  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 
174th  plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 12 and  13 December  1979. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows  : 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  Treaty  establishing  the  Euro-
pean  Economic  Treaty,  and  in particular  .Article  198 
thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  made  by the  Council 
of the  European  Communities  on 24 September 
1979  for an opinion, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 25 September  1979  instructing  the  Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to prepare 
an opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  at its 
meeting  held  on 28 November  1979, Having  regard  to the  oral  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr Marvier, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 174th  plenary 
session  held  on 12 and  13 December  1979  (meeting 
of 12 December  1979), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  approves  the  Commission's 
determination  to simplify  the  Community  transit 
system,  since  it constitutes  the mainstay  of Commu-
No C 83/14 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 2. 4. 80 
nity trade.  It follows  that  any  simplification  of the 
system  has  immediate  and  significant  ramifications 
as regards  trade.  What  is more,  the use  of Commun-
ity transit  for trade  between  Member  States  in goods 
in free  circulation  (internal  transit)  means  that  it is 
of particular  importance.  In an economic  union,  for-
malities  in connection  with  internal  trade  should  be 
as straightforward  as possible. 2.4. Article  I (f) 
The Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  that  transit 
advice  notes  are being  done  away  with  for all transit 
traffic  remaining  within  Community  territory.  The 
recitals  are right  in stating  that  these  transit  advice 
notes  have  been  ineffective. 
1.2. This  finding  shows  that  a major  task  remains 
to be accomplished.  It is difficult  to understand  why 
trade  between  Member  States  in goods  in free  circu-
lation  should  be subject  to formalities  which,  in the 
final anlysis,  differ  little  from  those  to which  goods 
from  non-member  countries  are subject.  A sale  from 
one Member  State  to another  of an item  subject  to a 
single  VAT  necessitates,  at the  very  least,  comple-
tion of an export  declaration,  a transit  declaration 
and an import  declaration.  Each  of these  have  to be 
made  out  in several  copies  and  are subject  to mani-
fold checks  and  approvals.  In an economic  union, 
internal  trade  ought  to be unrestricted.  The  Commit-
tee trusts  that  this  will  rapidly  come  about. 
1.3. The  Committee  warmly  welcomes  the  pro-
posed  simplifications  but  observes  that  much  still 
remains  to be done. 2.5. However,  the  Committee  observes  that  the 
legal  situation  which  led  to the  introduction  of 
transit  advice  notes  continues  to exist.  Originally 
they  were  required  because  of the lack  of uniformity 
between  the  national  systems  of criminal  law  and 
national  tax rates.  A Community  transit  operation  is 
subject  to different  legal  systems  as it goes  through 
the Member  States,  systems  which  are  different  in 
point  of control  conditions,  definitions  and  reac-
tions  in respect  of any  infringements.  The  tax  sys-
tem also  varies  from  country  to country.  There  is no 
overall  system  covering  the  whole  of an operation 
which  is carried  out  over  several  countries.  Offen-
ders were  liable  to suffer  the heaviest  taxation  and 
severest  sanctions.  Transit  advice  notes  were  there-
fore brought  in to give  jurisdiction  to the  Member 
State  from  which  it was  impossible  to prove  that  the 
goods  had  been  properly  exported.  But,  in practice, 
they  also  enabled  persons  making  declarations  to 
prove  that  they  had  carried  out  the transit  operation, 
vis-a-vis  any  given  Member  State. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  I fa) 
The effect  of this  provision  is that  goods  necessitat-
ing particular  checks  on export,  for instance  because 
export  creates  entitlement  to refunds,  etc.,  will  come 
under  the  Community  external  transit  procedure 
(form  T I). This  will  be the  case  for  instance  with 
products  coming  under  the  common  agricultural 
policy. 
2.2. The  Committee  agrees  that  this  procedure  will 
enable  administrations  better  to distinguish,  and 
hence  check,  such  consignments  but  regrets  that  the 
very  straightforward  distinction  between  goods  in 
free circulation  (internal  transit)  and  other  goods 
(external  transit)  is being  dropped. 
2.3. The  proposed  measure  should  be coupled 
with  a reduction  in the  formalities  in connection 
with  goods  coming  under  the  common  agricultural 
policy. 2.6. Abolition  of transit  advice  notes  without  har-
monization  of tax  rates  and  sanctions  is liable  to 
result  in principals  being  incapable  of adducing 
such  proof  and  having  to face  proceedings  brought 
by the  Member  State  with  the highest  tax rates  and 
heaviest  sanctions,  as a result  of the  presumptions 
brought  in by Article  1 (k) (see  paragraph  2.7). 
2.7. The  changes  proposed  in Article  1 (k) to Arti-
cle 36 of the Regulation  will  not settle  this  problem. 
They  will  merely  shift  the burden  of proof  onto  the 
principal  and  change  the place  where  the offence  or 
irregularity  is deemed  to have  taken  place.  The 
Regulation  merely  stipulates  that  if the  principal 
cannot  prove  that  the  consignment  was  exported  in 
accordance  with  the  rules  from  the  Member  State 
bringing  proceedings,  the  offence  or irregularity 
shall  be deemed  to have  taken  place  in the Member 
State  of departure,  which  is not necessarily  the place 
where  the  offence  or irregularity  actually  occurred 
or, where  the  principal  can  prove  that  the  consign-
ment  was  exported  properly  from  the Member  State 
of departure,  the first  Member  State  which  the  con-
signment  had  to enter. 
2. 4. 80 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 83/15 
2.8. Therefore  definitions  of infringements  and 
sanctions  remain  purely  national,  although  Commu-
nity rules  should  be matched  by a Community  — 
and above  all by a single  — legal  system.  This 
would  avoid  a given  irregularity  being  defined  and 
published  in very  different  ways  depending  on 
which  Member  State  has  jurisdiction. 2.12.  Article  I (j) 
The Committee  asks  whether  it is rational  to stipu-
late,  in addition  to a one-year  time  limit  relating  to 
non-discharge  of the  T 1 document,  a three-year 
limit  for  the  notification  of amounts  payable  as a 
result  of non-discharge.  In the  Committee's  view, 
the amounts  could  be  notified  within  a shorter 
period. 
2.9. The  Committee  therefore  approves  the simpli-
fication  which  will  ensue  from  the almost  complete 
abolition  of the  transit  advice  note  but  regrets  that 
the underlying  problem  has  not  been  resolved.  It is 
afraid  that  sooner  or later  a user  will  be faced  with  a 
dispute  as to jurisdiction  in which  it will  be difficult 
for him  to submit  his defence  effectively  unless  he 
has sufficient  means. 2.13.  Article  I (k) — 3 (a) 
See Article  1 (f) above. 
It is mainly  the  carriers  which  will  be liable  to face 
additional  difficulties.  The  Committee  suggests  that, 
in order  to obviate  such  difficulties,  carriers  should 
be able  to ask  the  customs  at the  place  of entry  to 
stamp  form  T. This  would  enable  carriers  to prove 
that the  transit  operation  has  been  carried  out  pro-
perly.  But  the  Committee  realizes  that  this  is a pal-
liative  designed  solely  to prevent  users  being  left 
without  any  means  of proof.  It suggests  that  this 
matter  be re-examined. 2.14.  Article  1 fk) — 4 
The Committee  approves  this  provision,  which 
seeks  to avoid  the  guarantor  and/or  the  principal 
having  always  to suffer  whenever  the real  guilty  par-
ties cannot  be  brought  to book.  Once  again,  it 
regrets  that,  since  the 'measures  necessary'  are left  to 
the discretion  of the  Member  States,  this  provision 
is more  of a recommendation  than  an objective  rule. 
2.15.  Article  I (I) 
2.10.  Article  I (g) 
The Committee  approves  this  provision  concerning 
time  limits  on the  ground  that  current  practice  dif-
fers from  Member  State  to Member  State  and  that 
principals  must  be guaranteed  equal  treatment. The Committee  approves  the  proposal  to dispense 
with  a guarantee  for internal  transit.  It trusts  that  the 
list of exceptions  will  be as short  as possible.  It 
points  out  that,  despite  charges  (e.g.  taxes)  varying 
from  one  Member  State  to another,  the list ought  to 
be a single  one  and  not  consist  of enumeration  of 
the requests  of the Member  States.  In this  field,  the 
genuine  Community  risk  should  be assessed. 
2.11.  Article1  (h) 
This  amendment  would  do away  with  the  need  for 
the deposit  of a guarantee  'where  the  risk  of non-
recovery  of duties  or other  charges  which  may  be 
chargeable  is minimal'. 2.16.  Article  / (m) 
The Committee  notes  that  the particulars  which  the 
Member  States  require  to be given  on export  declar-
ations  are often  more  detailed  than  those  required  to 
be given  on a T 1. It presumes  that  in such  cases  the 
user could  merely  fill out form  T 2. 
The Committee  approves  the  aim  of this  proposal 
but points  out  that  assessment  of the degree  of risk 
is left  to the  Member  States'  discretion.  Until  such 
time  as objective  assessment  criteria  are  laid  down 
— as the  Commission  proposes  to do — Member 
States'  administrations  will  always  tend  to cover 
themselves  as much  as possible.  The  concept  of risk 
should  therefore  be spelt  out. 3. Conclusion 
3.1. The  specific  remarks  in this  opinion  show  that 
the proposed  simplifications  although  sound  in 
No C 83/16 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 2. 4. 80 
principle,  are inadequate  to provide  a really  straight-
forward,  clear  system  for Community  trade.  Most  of 
the simplifications  concern  procedures  and  formali-
ties and  do  not  constitute  changes  of substance. 
They  are  therefore  limited  and  could  in some  cases 
create  dangerous  legal  vacuums  for users  which  the 
Commission  should  endeavour  to eliminate  without 
delay. 
3.2 The  real  reform  is therefore  still  to come.  Get-
ting on for  10 years'  operation  of the  Community 
transit  system  has  shown  up the  underlying  prob-
lems.  Genuine  simplification  will  be brought  about by the introduction  of a proper  Community  customs 
code.  If the  simplification  is going  to be effectual, 
the same  customs  systems  must  be used  throughout 
the Community  with  standard  procedures  and  with 
a given  set  of causes  producing  the  same  effects 
throughout  the  EEC.  In other  words,  irregularities 
and sanctions  must  be defined  in the  same  way 
throughout  the Community.  Failing  this,  all the sim-
plifications  proposed  — no matter  how  good  they 
are in principle  — will  be no more  than  palliatives. 
This  is a state  of affairs  which  is unacceptable  to the 
Committee  and  which  should  be remedied  rapidly 
and clearly. 
Done  at Brussels,  12. December  1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Raffaele  VANNI 
Opinion  on 
— the  proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the limit  values  applicable  to discharges  of 
mercury  into  the aquatic  environment  by the chlor-alkali  electrolysis  industry 
— the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the quality  objectives  for the aquatic  environ-
ment  into  which  mercury  is discharged  by the chlor-alkali  electrolysis  industry 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the Euro-
pean  Communities  No  C 169  of 6 July  1979,  pages  2 and  6. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 29 June  1979  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OFTHE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
174th  plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 12 and  13 December  1979. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: