30. 1. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/5 
cussions with each other to divide up total earnings 
in the light of everyone's costs, which obviously 
vary greatly because of the large number of possible 
links. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 2 
The draft recommendation wants each network par­
ticipating in a traffic link to apply a tariff charge 
share which decreases with distance for the journey 
on its own lines. This is already done for certain 
types of international rail traffic (e.g. ECSC goods). 
While approving this principle, the Committee 
admits that it may be impossible to apply it in prac­
tice on very long total journeys, as a network's share 
of the fare may turn out to be lower than its direct 
cost. 
The Committee would point out that although the 
structure of the present international reference tariff 
No 9145 for container transport does not comply with the draft recommendation, it gives overall 
prices with cost declining with distance. For in­
stance, for the three journeys Antwerp-Paris (332 kil­
ometres), Zeebrugge-Bordeaux (855 kilometres) and 
Le Havre-Milan (1 127 kilometres), the prices per 
kilometre (UIC) for 20 tonnes are 7,08, 4,49 and 3,59 
francs respectively. 
2.2. Articles 3 and 4 
The networks have given Intercontainer a free hand, 
within a certain margin, to deviate from the refer­
ence tariff when quoting prices to loaders; Intercon­
tainer only has to consult the networks if the margin 
is not competitive in view of the state of the market 
or of rapid market change. The networks are trying 
to improve their procedures to cut down answering 
times. 
With the piggyback companies, the networks have 
regular joint meetings (more than once a year on 
average) to fix prices for the different piggyback 
links being used. If a new link is opened up, specific 
joint consultations are held. 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending the First Council Directive on 
the establishment of common rules for certain types of carriage of goods by road between 
Member States 
(84/C 23/03) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 200 of 27 July 1983, page 5. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 14 July 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 75 (1) of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
No C 23/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
212th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 November 1983. 
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 75(1) thereof, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Council 
on 14 July 1983, to request it for an opinion on the 
above proposal ('), 
Having regard to the First Council Directive of 23 
July 1962(2), as last amended by Directive 82/50/ 
EEC of 19 January 1982 (3), 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 29 July 1983, to refer the matter to the Section for 
Transport and Communications (Article 22 of the 
Rules of Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the above 
Section at its 153rd meeting, held on 9 November 
1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mrs Bredima (Article 29 of the Rules of 
Procedure), 
Having regard to the discussions during the 212th 
plenary session held on 23 and 24 November 1983 
(meeting of 23 November 1983), 
Whereas 
— Point 1 of Annex I to the abovementioned First 
Council Directive, as amended on 20 February 
1978 (4), states that quota and authorization sys­
tems may not be applied to 'frontier traffic in an 
area extending for a distance of 25 kilometres as 
the crow flies on each side of the frontier, prov­
ided that the total distance covered does not 
exceed 100 kilometres as the crow flies'. Point 1 
of Annex II also exempts from quotas, but not 
(') OJ No C 200, 27. 7. 1983, p. 5. 
(2) OJ No 70, 6. 8. 1962, p. 2005/62. 
(3) OJNoL27,4. 2. 1982, p. 22. 
(<) OJ No L 54, 25. 2. 1978, p. 18. from authorization systems, any 'carriage from a 
Member State into the frontier zone of an adja­
cent Member State and vice versa' extending to 
a depth of 25 kilometres as the crow flies from 
their common frontier. 
— When the Community was first enlarged, the 
above regulations were amended to take 
account of the special case of the island States. 
The Directive was extended to cover carriage 
between coastal regions of the Community 
which are separated solely by an area of sea (5). 
— In its latest proposal, the Commission seeks to 
extend the scope of the Directive, following 
Greek accession, to cover carriage between 
Member States whose territories are separated 
by one or more third countries or by an area of 
sea. 
— This extension would benefit not merely frontier 
zones in Greece, but also frontier zones of other 
Member States whose territories are separated 
by one or more third countries. 
— However, this proposal presents various prob­
lems in its practical interpretation and imple­
mentation. 
— Infringement of the proposed provisions and 
disturbance of the balance of the transport mar­
ket cannot be ruled out, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a unanimous vote: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee broadly endorses the Commis­
sion's initiative for the following reasons. 
(5) OJ No L 291, 28. 12. 1972, p. 155. 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/7 
1.1.1. Extension of the scope of the Annexes to the 
First Council Directive is designed to adapt pre­
vious Community arrangements to Greek accession; 
such adaptation is a necessary step following a 
country's accession to the Community. The Com­
mittee particularly regrets the delay in submitting 
this proposal (about two and a half years after 
Greece's accession). 
1.1.2. The fact that no account shall be taken of 
transit journeys through third countries and areas of 
the sea will mainly benefit frontier zones in Greece, 
and to a certain extent will help to offset Greece's 
geographical isolation from the rest of the Com­
munity. 
1.1.3. Implementation of the proposed provisions 
could also have a positive effect on the develop­
ment of carriage between other areas of the Com­
munity (e.g. frontier zones in the south of West Ger­
many and northern Italy) separated by the territory 
of one or more third countries. 
1.2. Whilst approving the aims of the Commis­
sion's proposal, the Committee feels it must express 
certain reservations. 
1.2.1. To begin with, the Committee feels that the 
scope of the proposed Directive could have been 
more clearly defined. The Commission should have 
explained among others the following points: 
— Which regions of the Community are 'opposite' 
Greece for the purposes of sea transport? Does 
the Directive cover, for example, traffic between 
Greek and foreign ports other than Italian ports 
'opposite' Greece, (e.g. Genoa or Marseilles)? 
— Which areas of Greece are 'opposite' Com­
munity regions for the purposes of sea trans­
port? Are Greek islands 'opposite' and if so 
which of them? 
— Which Member States and which territories of 
them are covered by the Directive for the pur­
poses of road transport? Does the Directive 
apply, for example, to traffic between the fron­
tier zone of West Germany to East Germany 
and to Czechoslovakia on the one side and the 
frontier zone of Denmark to West Germany or 
the frontier zone of Greece to third countries on 
the other side? 1.2.2. The effect of the Commission's proposal on 
the transport market as a whole would probably be 
limited. This is confirmed by the moderate use made 
of related provisions (with a few exceptions, e.g. 
cross-frontier transport between Belgium and the 
Netherlands) and particularly of point 1 of Annex I 
to the First Directive. 
The significance of the proposed provisions is also 
reduced by: 
— the quantitative restrictions which third coun­
tries impose on transit routes; the Committee 
believes that ways must be found to solve this 
problem if the objectives of the Directive are to 
be achieved, 
— according to available information, Italy and 
Greece, under a bilateral agreement, already 
consider each other as adjacent States for the 
purposes of sea transport, 
— Greece's frontier zone (up to 25 kilometres from 
the frontier) with third countries is economically 
underdeveloped; this zone has few facilities for 
the loading and unloading of goods. 
1.2.3. The practical implementation of the Com­
mission proposal also creates various problems. 
These include: 
— charting all points 25 kilometres from borders 
with third countries or from the coast, 
— checking how many kilometres are covered by 
commercial vehicles (i.e. point of departure and 
route taken) before crossing the frontier; the 
distance through third countries or by sea would 
of course not have to be calculated. (This 
applies to paragraph 1 to Annex I to the First 
Directive.) 
1.2.4. The Committee also feels that the proposed 
provisions, particularly those relating to the exten­
sion of Annex II to the First Directive, could disturb 
the present balance in the road transport market 
(quota system and authorizations). Road traffic 
between West Germany and Italy via Switzerland or 
Austria could be affected. 
Infringement of the proposed provisions cannot be 
ruled out either, e.g. through the establishment in a 
Member State (A) of a subsidiary haulage company 
No C 23/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
with its head office in a zone extending 25 kilo­
metres from the frontier of another Member State 
(B), in order to carry out national transport work in 
Member State B. 
1.3. In conclusion, the Committee broadly 
approves the Commission proposal. At the same 
time, however, it is not unaware of the difficulties, 
risks and side-effects which its implementation 
would generate for, in particular, carriage by road 
through third countries. Bearing in mind those prob­
lems, the Committee's view is that the amendments 
to the Annexes I and II to the First Council Direc­
tive of 23 July 1962 should only apply to transport 
between Greece and the other Member States; in 
that case a more precise definition and clarification 
of the carriages to be liberalized is essential. Such a 
solution would cause no undue disturbances of 
existing arrangements between the other Member 
States while, at the same time, it would produce the 
necessary extension of previous Community 
arrangements to Greece, which in the last result is 
the prime objective of the Commission's proposal. 2. Specific comments on individual Articles 
2.1. Article 1, points 1 and 2 
The Committee considers that the sentence '. .. a 
means of sea transport specially constructed and 
equipped for the carriage of commercial vehi­
cles ...' should be replaced by the following: 
'... a means of sea transport specially constructed 
or converted and equipped for the carriage of com­
mercial vehicles 
2.2. Article 2 
Because of the reasons mentioned above, the Com­
mittee suggests that the Member States should take 
the measures necessary to comply with this Direc­
tive not earlier than 31 December 1984. 
2.3. Article 3 
No comments. 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the 
— research action programme on the development of nuclear fission energy (1984 to 
1987) 
— proposal for a Council Decision adopting a research programme on reactor safety 
— proposal for a Council Decision adopting a programme of research on the 
decommissioning of nuclear installations (1984 to 1988) 
(84/C 23/04) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINON 
On 15 June 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee.