26. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/13 
Article 14(3) should be amended accordingly; an inven­
tor who is not a breeder may exploit his invention 
commercially if such exploitation is only possible in the 
form of a variety using a licensing arrangement. 
3.7. Article 15(3) b)(ii) 
Add: 
'And the right to exploit patented inventions with a 
view to obtaining an adequate offer in the marketplace 
on reasonable terms.' 
3.8. Article 17 
The Committee is not convinced of the need to derogate 
from ordinary law by reversing the burden of proof. 
The reversal of the burden of proof, besides changing 
the legal practice of many Member States, could place 
the breeder of a variety incorporating a biotechnologi-
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1989. 
I. GENERAL COMMENTS 
1. The Economic and Social Committee is fully awa-
(*) OJN0C6O, 9. 3. 1989, p. 11. cal invention in a difficult position, especially in view 
of the extension of patentability provided for elsewhere 
in the Directive. 
Looking at the Commission's position on the court of 
jurisdiction provided for in Article 14(4), there would 
seem to be a desire to treat breeders' rights less favour­
ably than patents. 
Moreover, the fact that national courts are to be 
entrusted with the task of resolving disputes between 
patentees and holders of breeders' rights on such ques­
tions as the significance of the technical progress or the 
amount of the royalties, inexplicably introduces the 
possibility of a distortion of competition. 
3.9. Article 19 a) 
The farming industry has reservations about edible 
fungi, cells and algae in view of the implications for 
plant breeders' rights. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
re of the scale and complexity of the phenomenon of 
poverty in the Community. In the information report 
drawn up by the Section for Social, Family, Educational 
and Cultural Affairs, the Committee set out the harsh Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a medium-term Community 
action programme to foster the economic and social integration of the least 
privileged groups (*) 
(89/C 159/06) 
On 16 January 1989 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 Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 13 April 1989. The 
rapporteur was Mr Burnel. 
At its 265th plenary session (meeting of 26 April 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, with 1 abstention. 
No C 159/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 6. 89 
facts and, for pragmatic reasons, confined its comments 
and proposals to three major themes: 
— the right to education and training, 
— the right to information and communication, 
— a minimum guaranteed income with a view to 
reintegration in society and working life. 
The information report on poverty also pointed out 
that it was crucial to take decisive action against the 
causes and hence the effects of poverty, in particular 
by giving priority to a major assault on unemployment. 
Measures would also have to be taken in the field of 
housing and to tackle illiteracy. 
Besides general measures, action was needed at grass 
roots level to help the most vulnerable groups, such as 
the disabled (!). 
The Committee has always attached importance to the 
health and social protection of individuals and families, 
primarily through a social security system based on 
solidarity. 
For this, political action is needed by the Member States 
and the Community. The programme submitted by the 
Commission should be seen as complementary to the 
measures to be taken at national, regional and local 
level. 
2. The Committee has already stated that substantial 
resources will be needed to have a significant impact in 
combatting this evil eating away at society. 
3. Although the present proposal for a medium-term 
Community action programme to foster the economic 
and social integration of the least privileged groups is 
markedly better funded than its predecessors, it is still 
inadequate when one considers the scale and urgency 
of the problems to be tackled. This programme is 
experimental in that it is basically limited to 30 'proto­
type' schemes. These are to serve as models for measur­
es by the Member States and the Community insti­
tutions. 
4. Bearing in mind the limited nature of the pro­
gramme, but also the potential benefits to be reaped 
from comparing notes, it is therefore necessary to evalu­
ate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. 
5. Firstly, the Committee regrets that the proposal 
does not draw more on the lessons of the previous 
programmes when defining the prototype schemes 
which it proposes assisting. It would have been less like 
(!) Cf. ESC Opinions on the disabled (OJ No C 347, 22. 12. 1987 
andOJ NoC 189,28.7. 1986). a simple request for funds if it had been possible to 
classify the measures in a few broad categories, such as 
translation of successful schemes from one Member 
State and social context to another, evaluation of fail­
ures of a previous programme, schemes launched on a 
new basis, etc. 
5.1. The Committee stresses that the prototype 
schemes adopted should serve as models from which 
all those concerned at national, regional and local level 
can draw lessons in their fight against poverty. This is 
the only way of avoiding a race in the twelve Member 
States to obtain Community funds. 
5.2. Since the draft Community programme provides 
for finance for only 30 prototype schemes and assistance 
for barely 100 000 poor people, it is essential that 
schemes be selected because they are exemplary and 
not in an attempt to spread the funds evenly or on a 
first-come-first-served basis. 
5.3. The Committee has repeatedly stressed the vital 
importance of preventive measures in the fight against 
poverty and of measures to tackle the underlying causes 
(social and structural). Hence it would like to see the 
prototype schemes concentrate on the prevention of 
poverty in declining areas or underdeveloped areas, and 
areas adversely affected by the completion of the single 
internal market. 
5.4. The combined effect of the action programme 
to combat poverty and the use of the structural funds 
should lend sufficient weight to the Community meas­
ures to persuade the governments of the Member States 
and the regional and local authorities to participate 
financially in ambitious schemes. It is also important 
that the Commission ensures that government and 
regional and local authorities work together on the spot 
in accordance with the Council Decision on the use of 
the structural funds and its implementing provisions. 
5.5. As far as the implementation of the programme 
is concerned, the Committee suggests that an integrated 
economic and social strategy be developed to combat 
poverty in all its aspects. 
6. The second general comment concerns the excess­
ive proportion of the proposed budget (9 million ECU 
26. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/15 
out of a total of 70 million) allocated to technical 
assistance and back-up for the programme. While it 
fully appreciates the value of the exchange of infor­
mation provided for in the action programme and the 
importance of the technical assistance, the Committee 
wonders whether it would not be possible to devise a 
less expensive but equally effective back-up procedure. 
It is suggested that the Commission be provided with 
the means to carry out these tasks itself without, how­
ever, forgoing essential outside expertise. 
7. The third general comment concerns the in-depth 
study of poverty. The Committee cannot but approve 
the principle of a more rigorous definition of poverty 
thresholds and the introduction of a programme where­
by comparisons can be made between the Member 
States. The Committee itself felt this lack of reliable 
information when it drew up the aforementioned infor­
mation report. 
7.1. The Committee considers that the task of 
improving our factual knowledge should fall first to 
the Statistical Office of the European Communities 
and the national statistical offices and be allowed for 
in their budgets. The Committee recognizes, however, 
that some encouragement is needed and agrees that 
some of the funds from this Community action pro­
gramme should go to improving our understanding of 
poverty. 
7.2. It is also essential that the progress reports be 
drawn up more frequently and be submitted to the ESC. 
8. The Committee would stress the need to improve 
cooperation with international institutions such as the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1989. Organization (UNESCO) and the International Labour 
Organization (ILO) and with the major non-govern­
mental organizations responsible for dealing with prob­
lems connected with poverty. 
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 
Article 2 
The Committee would reiterate the comments made in 
its information report regarding the difficulty of giving 
a single definition valid for every type and form of 
poverty, every age and every geographical area. Further­
more, the term 'least privileged' is not the most apt. 
Article 3 
In the Committee's view priorities should be laid down, 
drawing in particular on the lessons of previous 
schemes. 
Article 5 
The role of the Commission and of the team of consult­
ants should be stated precisely. 
Article 9 
The Advisory Committee should be enlarged to include 
non-governmental experts who have worked for a long 
time in combatting poverty in all its forms. 
Article 12 
The reports on the implementation and results of the 
programme must be presented to the Committee too. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE