ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
NoC313/74 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 30.11.92
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDecisionamendingDecision89/631/EECona
CommunityfinancialcontributiontowardsexpenditureincurredbyMemberStatesforthe
purposeofensuringcompliancewiththeCommunitysystemfortheconservationand
managementoffisheryresources(!)
(92/C313/20)
On18May1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheEconomicandSocialCommitteedecidedtoappointMrSilvaasRapporteur-General
foritsOpinion.
Atits299thPlenarySession(meetingof24September1992),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeunanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.Introduction
1.1.TheproposalseekstoamendCouncilDecision
89/631/EEC(2).ThisDecisiongavetheCommunitythe
power,until31December1991,tocontributetowards
expenditureincurredbyMemberStatesinenforcing
fisheryconservationmeasuresintheMediterranean
pendingtheadoptionofECrulesapplicabletothat
area.
1.2.SincecommonrulesforMediterranean waters
havestillnotbeenadopted,thepresentproposalseeks
toallowtheCommunitytocontinuetocontribute
financiallytowardsMemberStates'conservationpro­
grammes,untilsuchrulesareadopted.2.Generalcomments
2.1.TheCommitteeapprovestheDecision.
2.2.However,whilstappreciatingthecomplexand
diversecircumstances involved,theCommitteeregrets
thatithasnotyetprovedpossibletoestablishacom­
monlegalframeworkallowingbalanced,rational
exploitationofthefisheryresourcesoftheMediter­
ranean.
2.3.TheCommittee (3)reiteratestheneedforan
appropriatepolicyfortheconservationandmanage­
mentoffisheryresources.ThiskeyplankoftheCom­
monFisheriesPolicyisessentialforthesurvivalofthe
fisheriessectorandthecommunitieswhichdepend
onit,andthusofthesocio-economic fabricofthe
Community'scoastalregions.
(!)OJNoC138,28.5.1992,p.10.
(2)OJNoL364,14.12.1989,p.64 (3)OJNoC339,31.12.1991;OJNoC223,31.8.1992.
DoneatBrussels,24September1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH
NoC313/18 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 30.11.92
Opinionon:
—theagreementintheformofanExchangeofLettersamendingtheExchangeofLetters
betweentheEuropeanEconomicCommunity('theCommunity')andHungaryconcerning
transitsignedinBrusselson16December1991,
—theagreementsintheformofanExchangeofLettersreplacingtheExchangeofLetters
betweentheEuropeanEconomicCommunity('theCommunity')andHungaryonland
transportinfrastructuresignedinBrusselson16December1991,
—theagreementintheformofanExchangeofLettersamendingtheExchangesofLetters
betweentheCommunityandCzechoslovakia concerningtransitsignedinBrusselson
16December1991,and
—theagreementsintheformofanExchangeofLettersamendingtheExchangesofLetters
betweentheCommunityandCzechoslovakia onland-transport infrastructuresignedin
Brusselson16December1991
(92/C313/08
On3July1992theCouncildecidedunderArticle15oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropean
EconomicCommunitytoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommitteeontheabovementioned
Agreements .
TheSectionforTransportandCommunications ,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingthe
Committee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon9September1992.TheRapporteur
wasMrEulen.
Atits299thPlenarySession(meetingof23September1992),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeunanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.TheAgreementonlandtransitinfrastructure in
theformofanexchangeoflettersbetweenthe
EuropeanCommunityontheonehandandtheCSFR
andHungaryontheother,wassignedon16December
1991,togetherwithanotherEuropeanAgreement
betweentheEuropeanCommunityandtheabove
States.iesforfundingimprovements intheirlandtransport
infrastructure .
1.2.Newagreementsintheformofexchangesof
lettersweresignedon1and3July1992totakeaccount
ofthissituation.
2.Consequently ,aswasthecasewiththeAgreement
betweentheCommunityandYugoslavia,theCom­
mitteeOpinionisapureformality,sinceamendments
couldnotbetakenintoaccount.
3.TheCommitteedeploresthisstateofaffairs;in
suchcircumstances itcanonlypointoutthattheAgree­
mentshavepermittedareductioninthetransitlicense
feesintheCSFRandHungary,giventheclearundertak­
ingfromtheCommunitytoexplorewithbothHungary
andtheCSFRfundingpossibilitiesfortheimprovement
oflandtransportinfrastructures ,mentionedabove.1.1.Followingthesignatureoftheexchangesof
letters,theCSFRincreasedthefeesfortaxabletransit
permitsandHungaryintroducedlegislationonvehicle
taxes.Theensuingdiscussionsbetweenthemandthe
ECresultedinamutuallyacceptablereductioninthe
transitfeesandaclearerundertakingbytheCommunity
toexplore,withbothHungaryandtheCSFR,possibilit­
DoneatBrussels,23September1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH
NoC73/78 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 15.3.93
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)amendingRegulation (EEC)
No1035/72onthecommonorganizationofthemarketinfruitandvegetables
(93/C73/14)
On11November1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheEconomicandSocialCommitteedecidedtoappointMrHans-JiirgenWickasRapport­
eur-GeneralforitsOpinion.
Atits302ndPlenarySession(meetingof28January1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionbyalargemajority,withonedissentingvoteand
oneabstention .
1.TheCommitteeapprovestheCommissionpro­
posal,includingitsaddendum,subjecttothecomments
whichfollow.GuaranteeSectionoftheEuropeanAgriculturalGuid­
anceandGuaranteeFund(EAGGF).TheCommittee
hasdoubtsaboutthis,andtruststhatthefunding
requirements—suchasaidforsettingupproducers'
organizationsforthefruitsconcerned—willnotmean
acutinthefundinggoingtoexistingproducts.If
necessary,fundingshouldbeincreased.
2.4.1.Moreover,theCommitteeassumesthatthe
'Erzeugergemeinschaften 'mentionedintheGerman
textarethe'Erzeugerorganisationen 'referredtoinTitle
II,Article13ofRegulation (EEC)No1035/72.The
otherlanguageversionsshouldalsobechecked.
2.5.TheCommitteewelcomesthepossibilityof
establishinganimportlicensingsystemfortheproducts
referredtointhetableinArticle1(2)ofRegulation
(EEC)No1035/72.Thisshouldimprovemarkettrans­
parency.
2.5.1.TheCommitteetruststhattheCommission
willactimmediatelytoextendthispossibilityofevalu­
atingmarketprogresstoparticularlysensitivemarkets
(e.g.apples,pears,berries,morellocherries,mush­
rooms).
2.5.2.TheCommitteetruststhatthelistofproducts
forwhichanimportlicenceisrequiredwillbedrawn
upassoonaspossible.2.Comments
2.1.TheCommissionaddendumsupplementsthe
proposalunderconsideration .Itconcernsanamend­
menttoRegulation (EEC)No827/68andfollowslogi­
callyfromtheproposedamendmentofRegulation
(EEC)No1035/72.
2.2.TheCommitteenoteswithapprovalthatthe
Commissionfeelsthattheriseinproductionofand
tradeinpineapples,avocados,mangoesandguavas
makesitnecessarytobringthemunderthescopeof
Regulation (EEC)No1035/72.
2.3.TheCommitteenotesthatplantainbananasare
alsotobebroughtunderRegulation(EEC)No1035/72,
sincetheytoomustbecoveredbyamarketorganization
from1January1993,havingbeenexcludedfromthe
commonmarketinbananasbecauseoftheirdistinctive
features.
2.4.TheCommission statesthattheinclusionof
additionalproductsinRegulation (EEC)No1035/72
willnotentailanyfinancialconsequencesforthe
DoneatBrussels,28January1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
10.5.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC129/9
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)settingupspecificmeasuresin
favourofcephalopodsproducerspermanentlybasedintheCanaryIslands(!)
(93/C129/06)
On3February1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforAgricultureandFisheries,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingtheCom­
mittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon4March1993.TheRapporteurwas
MrMayayoBello.
Atits304thPlenarySession(meetingof24March1993),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
certainregions,suchastheCanariesArchipelago . 1.Thepurposeofthisproposalissimplyto
implementtheprovisionsoftheProgrammeofOptions
SpecifictotheRemoteandInsularNatureoftheCanary
Islands(Poseican),approvedbyCouncilDecisionof
26June1991(91/314/EEC),inordertomaintainthe
competitiveness ofthecephalopodfisheriesinthe
Canaries.
2.TheCommitteewouldonceagainstressthe
importanceoffishingandallitsalliedactivitiesfor3.Theoriginalreasonsforincludingsupport
measuresforcephalopodsproducersinthePoseican
Programmearestillentirelyvalidandthereforedonot
needtoberehearsedhere.Furthermore,thedelayin
organizingandimplementingthesesupportmeasures
in1992isdoingconsiderableharmtothesector.Hence
theCommitteewouldliketoseetheminplaceassoon
aspossibleandwelcomestheCommission'sinitiative. (J)OJNoC17,22.1.1993,p.11.
DoneatBrussels,24March1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
NoC352/8 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 30.12.93
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDecisionaccepting,onbehalfoftheEuropean
EconomicCommunity,theConventionontheelaborationofaEuropeanPharmacopoeia
93/C352/03)
On14June1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,under
Articles100aand113oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumerAffairs,which
wasresponsibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
7October1993,TheRapporteurwasMrColombo.
Atits309thPlenarySession(meetingof20October1993)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.TheCommitteeendorsestheproposalthatthe
CommunityaccedetotheConventionontheelabor­
ationofaEuropeanPharmacopoeia ,asputforwardby
theCouncilon14June1993.Theproposalinvolvesan
alterationofthelegalbasis(additionofArticle100a),
improvedwordingoftherecitalsinthepreamble,and
theadditionofanewArticle2,whichclearlydefines
decision-making procedures .
2.EuropeanPharmacopoeia monographsinfact
alreadyrepresentacompulsorybasisofreferenceforall
medicinalproductscoveredbyCommunitylegislation,
facilitatingthefreecirculationofsuchproductsnot
onlywithintheCommunity,butbetweenitandthird
countries.CompletionoftheEuropeanPharmacopoeia
canonlystrengthentheEuropeanindustry'scompeti­
tivenessontheworldmarket,improvingitsnegotiating
positionvis-a-vistheUSandJapanesepharmacopoeia .
3.TheCommunityanditsMemberStateshave
activelycontributedtodrawinguptheConvention .The
Protocolapprovedon7March1988laysdownrules
fortheCommunity'saccessionasacontractingparty,
therebystrengthening theexistingcoordination
betweenMemberStates.Inparticular,theprotocol
regulatesthedecision-making proceduresofthetwo
bodiesresponsibleforoperatingtheEuropeanPharma­copoeia(thePublicHealthCommitteeandtheEuro­
peanPharmacopoeia Commission).
4.Article2oftheproposalforaCouncilDecision
providesadetaileddefinitionoftheprocedurestobe
followed,specifyingmattersofCommunitycom­
petence,subjecttoconsultationwiththeMember
States,andlayingdownthequalifiedmajoritypro­
cedurefortheadoptionofpositionsonquestionsof
majorimportance,orwhenseriousdivergencesofview
emerge.
5.TheCommitteeconsiderstheseprocedurescapa­
bleofsecuringmaximumconsensus,withoutunnecess­
arilyhinderingtechnicaldecisions,whicharetheprov­
inceofexperts.Itisessentialthatbothrapidityand
scientificrigourbeensuredindrawinguptheEuropean
Pharmacopoeia ,withaviewtoharmonizingstandards
onaEuropeanandworldlevel.
6.Lastly,theCommitteewoulddrawattentionto
thepotentialbenefittotheCommunityderivingfrom
participationinahighlyspecializedcoordinationstruc­
tureofEuropeanscientificexperts:astructurewhich
figuresamongtheobjectivesoftheWhitePaperonthe
CompletionoftheInternalMarket,andwhichmay
usefullyinteractwiththefutureEuropeanAgencyfor
MedicinalProducts.
DoneatBrussels,20October1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
NoC52/34 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.2.94
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)establishingaCommunitysystem
offishinglicences
(94/C52/11)
On23November1993theCommitteeBureau,actingunderthethirdparagraphofArticle
20oftheRulesofProcedure,decidedthattheCommitteeshoulddrawupanAdditional
Opinionontheabovementioned proposal.
Atits311thPlenarySession(meetingof21December1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingAdditionalOpinionbyalargemajority(oneabstention).
TheRapporteur-General wasMrMcGarry.
1.Introduction
1.1.TheCommitteedrawsattentiontotherec­
ommendations initsOpinionof24November1993(*)
preparedunderthe'UrgencyProcedure'.
1.2.Despitethetimeconstraints,theOpinionwas
basedonathoroughevaluationoftheCommission
proposalandreflectspreviousCommitteeOpinions
whichemphasizetheimportanceofcontrol.BrieflytheCommissionproposesacentralizedCom­
munityregisterof:
(i)Technicalinformationregardingeachvesselinthe
fleet,referredtoasasystemoflicences,wheresuch
informationisprovidedbytheMemberState.
(ii)Authorizations toengageinparticularCommission
administrated schemes,referredtoasfishingper­
mits.
2.2.TheCommittee'sOpinionsupportedthegeneral
tidyingupproposedbytheCommissionandmadea
numberofrecommendations butrejectedtheuseofthe
word'permit',whichisnotspecifiedunderArticle5of
Regulation (EEC)No3760/92andwhichmighthave
widerimplications ,andaskedthatitbereplacedbya
moreappropriatetermsuchas'specificlicence'.
2.3.TheEuropeanCouncilhasnowproposedan
amendmenttotheCommissionproposalwhichseeks
tohavethosepartsoftheproposalreferredtoas
'permits'deferredtotheendof1994.2.Generalremarks
2.1.Article5ofRegulation (EEC),No3760/92
requirestheadoptionofaCommunitysystemoffishing
licences.
(')CES1175/93.
DoneatBrussels,21December1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat () (94/C 397/08)

On 13 September 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Jaschick as Rapporteur-General responsible for preparing its work on the subject.

At its 320th Plenary Session (meeting of 23 November 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority, with two abstentions.

INTRODUCTION

()The Commission's proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat [COM(94) 315 final] is intended to simplify the provisions for low-capacity establishments.

This objective requires:

- new provisions in accompanying documents;

- the raising of processing ceilings;

- an extension of the marketing radius;

- consideration of seasonal and regional factors.

1. General comments

1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission proposal, subject to the considerations set out below. The proposal is calculated to further the intended aim of maintaining regional operating structures. The Committee stresses that consumer health protection must not be impaired by the planned measures.

2. Specific comments

2.1.

Article 3 (1) A (f) (ii) of the original Directive

In the Committee's view the wording 'accompanying commercial document the format of which has been authorized by the official veterinarian' is unclear, and should be replaced with the following:

'accompanying commercial document containing all the information required by the official veterinarian.'

2.2.

Article 4, point A

With a view to the maintenance of regional operating structures, the Committee endorses the raising of the slaughtering ceiling from 12 to 20 per week or 600 to 1 000 per year.

2.3.

Article 4 A (3)

The Committee points out that if the former paragraph (3) is replaced and it becomes possible to grant derogations, the standard of hygiene must be maintained.

2.4.

Article 4 A (4)

The Committee endorses the removal of the restriction to local marketing.

2.4.1. In the interests of consumer health protection, meat must be transported in accordance with Annex I, Chapter XV (hygiene conditions); the word 'satisfactory' should be deleted.

2.5.

Article 4 A (5)

The Committee expressly endorses the new possibility of seasonally raising processing ceilings; in line with the subsidiarity principle, the Commission takes account of regional practices through a specific rule of this kind.

2.6.

Annex I, Chapter II, point 14(c)(i)

The Committee points out that the authorization of the supervisory authority is required for this purpose.

Done at Brussels, 23 November 1994.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 224, 12. 8. 1994, p. 15.
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers

(96/C 39/03)

On 26 October 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 November 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Donovan.

At its 330th Plenary Session (meeting of 22 November 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. Council Directive 77/143/EEC (), as last amended by Commission Directive 94/23/EC (), covers roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (buses, coaches, heavy goods vehicles, trailers, semi-trailers, taxis, ambulances, light commercial vehicles and private cars). It lays down the intervals at which the tests must be carried out and lists the items that have to be checked.

1.2. The installation in certain categories of vehicles, and use in the Community, of speed limitation devices was made mandatory by Council Directive 92/6/EEC ().

1.3. Essentially, the current proposal is an instrument of consolidation to simplify and make more transparent Council Directive 77/143/EEC, together with the six amendments in Council Directives 88/449/EEC, 91/225/EEC, 91/328/EEC, 92/54/EEC, 91/55/EEC and Commission Directive 94/23/EC, but its scope has also been extended.

1.4. The substance of the original Directive and the six amendments remain, the text changes arise mainly in the consolidation process.

1.4.1. Article 4, paragrah 3 has been amended to enable Member States to establish testing standards regarding vehicles of historic importance.

1.4.2. Annex II in paragrahs 7.9 and 7.10 provides for the testing of the speed limitation device in vehicles fitted with the tachograph.

1.4.3. Annex II also transfers category 4 (taxis and ambulances) from the left to the right column, as their testing and roadworthiness standards are more in conformity with those of private cars.

1.4.4. Article 11 sets 1 January 1996 as the latest date for bringing the new laws, regulations and administrative provisions of this Directive into force.

2. Conclusions

2.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal for consolidating, in the interest of clarity, the various Directives relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.

2.2. It is also supportive of the further amendments and in particular the proposal for the testing of speed limitation devices in all vehicles with the tachograph. This latter provision should greatly enhance safety on our roads.

Done at Brussels, 22 November 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No L 47, 18. 2. 1977, p. 47.

() OJ No L 147, 14. 6. 1994, p. 6.

() OJ No L 57, 2. 3. 1992, p. 27.
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean` ()

(96/C 174/11)

On 29 January 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 March 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Muñiz Guardado.

At its 334th Plenary Session (meeting of 27 March 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 63 votes to 6 with 7 abstentions.

The Committee approves the Commission proposal which it believes will promote a rational fisheries policy in keeping with resources.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 1996.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 41, 13. 2. 1996, p. 17.

APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, drawn up on the basis of the Section Opinion, was rejected in the debate:

'Add a new point reading as follows:

' However, the Committee recommends that the start of the ban be moved back by 15 days, and that it cover three months from 15 June to 15 September, as it should cover the growth stage of the juveniles in line with other Community Regulations and in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94.`

Reasons

All technical measures for the conservation of fish species in relation to mortality caused by fishing regard the protection of juveniles in the growth stage as being of fundamental importance. This is achieved either by an out-and-out ban on fishing during specific periods (e.g. for lobster or clam) or through the imposition of minimum acceptable sizes for juvenile catches (cf. inter alia Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94).

The start of the ban should therefore be put back until at least 15 June and it should be extended until 15 September. This would cover at least the first month of growth of the newly born fish.

Voting

For: 30, against: 31, abstentions: 10.