No C 90/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 4. 83 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the facilitation of formalities and 
inspections in respect of the carriage of goods between Member States 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 127 of 18 May 1982, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 4 May 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Articles 43, 75, 84 and 100 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 205th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 February 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Articles 43, 
75, 84 and 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the decision of the Council on 4 May 
1982 to ask it for an opinion on the present 
proposal (*), 
Having regard to the decision of its chairman on 
24 May 1982 to entrust the Section for Transport and 
Communications with the preparation of this opinion 
(Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by that Section at 
its 148th meeting on 9 February 1983, 
Having regard to the report presented by the 
rapporteur, Mr Morselli, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting on 
24 February 1983 (205th plenary session of 23 and 
24 February 1983), 
Whereas : 
1. International trade is still subject to considerable 
difficulties at both the Community's internal and 
{») OJ No C 127, 18. 5. 1982, p. 6. external frontiers. Despite some progress towards a 
customs union the Treaties' aim of creating a single 
Community market has unfortunately not yet been 
attained; there has, however, been some 
simplification of Community transit procedures and 
alignment of tax provisions, e.g. in the case of VAT. 
On the other hand non-tariff trade barriers have 
been gaining ground and have undermined unity; 
2. In addition, there is an increasing tendency in some 
European countries not in the EEC to place 
restrictions on transit traffic, which often causes 
considerable disruption of goods traffic in the 
Community: limits on the issue of transit permits in 
Yugoslavia, a road traffic charge in Austria and the 
heavy goods transport levy planned by Switzerland 
are just a few examples of this; 
3. However, these phenomena also result from a lack 
of coordination in international and above all 
Community transport policy, especially in 
infrastructure and charges policy. Non-tariff type 
barriers, in the ever-present form of administrative 
obstacles or transport regulations, mean that in 
practice Community trade and industry are 
hampered by substantial unnecessary costs and 
delays and that these circumstances make it more 
difficult for international competition to make 
headway; 
5.4.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 90/23 
4. The resultant costs for trade and industry in the 
Community run into the thousands of millions and 
according to the experts represent approximately 
5 to 7 % of the value of international goods trade. 
For intra-Community trade alone this would mean 
costs of between 12 and 17 thousand million ECU. 
It is clear that, with ever diminishing profit margins 
and mounting competition from firms from third 
countries, the USA and Japan in particular, the 
Community economy is fast running out of room 
for manoeuvre, which must inevitably lead to a loss 
of jobs; 
5. These circumstances necessitate rapid progress 
towards the integration of the Community if more 
serious damage is to be avoided and the 
competitiveness of European industry preserved; 
6. The Commission has recognized this for some time 
and consequently submitted a series of measures to 
the Council in the second half of 1982: 
— communication from the Commission to the 
Council on the strengthening of the internal 
market (a), 
— easing of the formalities relating to checks on 
citizens of Member States at the Community's 
internal frontiers (2), 
— simplification of customs formalities in trade 
within the Community (3), 
— introduction of a Community export declaration 
form (3), 
— Community transit (3), 
— deferred payment of the tax payable on 
importation by taxable persons (3), and 
— facilitation of formalities and inspections in 
respect of the carriage of goods between 
Member States (x); 
7. The European Council discussed these problems at 
its meeting in Copenhagen on 3 and 4 December 
1982 and called on the Council of Ministers to take 
decisions before the end of March 1983 on priority 
measures to reinforce the internal market. In this 
area the Council should show a real political will to 
reduce, and ultimately abolish, the inspections and 
barriers in question so as to bring about true 
freedom of movement for goods and persons within 
the Community, 
H OJ No C 127, 18. 5. 1982, p. 6. 
(2) OJ No C 197, 31. 7. 1982, p. 6. 
(3) OJ No C 203, 6. 8. 1982, pp. 5 and 11. HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 72 votes to 0, with 1 abstention: 
1. The Committee notes the comprehensive initiative 
taken by the Commission to strenghten and develop the 
internal market. It endorses the substance of the 
Commission document under consideration here and its 
aim of making a start on the facilitation of border 
crossings. 
2. The draft Directive on border formalities is, 
however, conspicuous for the very cautious language in 
which the Commission couches its proposals. Even a 
Directive laying down binding Community law cannot 
serve as an effective instrument for bringing about a 
genuine internal market while it still contains phrases 
such as 'as far as possible', 'if possible', etc. Even if this 
is intended only as a preliminary measure which, to the 
Committee's regret, and despite the fact that the 
Community has been in existence 25 years, still does 
not abolish border checks (which is scheduled for later), 
it should nevertheless be worded more clearly and 
unambiguously. 
3. The Committee thinks that the Community's next 
steps towards the abolition of border checks in goods 
transport, and in passenger transport, should be set out 
in a Commission proposal, together with a timetable. In 
addition, the present draft Directive should state clearly 
and unambiguously the Member States' obligation not 
to introduce any new obstacles to cross-frontier traffic. 
I. General comments 
1. The first obstacles to trade which should be 
mentioned is protective and surveillance measures. 
Another primary obstacle is the increasing requirement 
to produce certificates of origin, which — except where 
they are requested on valid grounds by Member States 
for goods produced in third countries covered by 
protective measures authorized by the Commission — is 
contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the EEC 
Treaty. 
For the businessman this means substantial additional 
costs, planning difficulties and delays. 
2. It cannot be denied that Commission Decision 
80/47/EEC on the conditions of applicability of 
No C 90/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 5.4. 83 
Article 115 of the EEC Treaty contains stipulations 
regarding 'proof of origin'. However, the Decision also 
lays down, with the explicit intention of preventing 
checks on origin from hampering intra-Community 
trade, a number of clearly-defined conditions and limits, 
expressed as follows in the final recital: 
'It should be provided that the Member States, as a 
general rule, should request from the importer, as 
part of the completion of formalities connected with 
the importation of a product from another Member 
State, only a simple statement of the origin of 
the product as he can be reasonably expected to 
know it.' 
Additional proof, particularly the certificate of origin, 
may only be requested in cases where serious and 
well-founded doubts make such proof essential. 
3. High on the list of obstacles to trade are difficulties 
in customs clearance. The experts' report of the 
Advisory Committee on Transport (Article 83 of the 
EEC Treaty) drawn up in April 1982 provides 
individual analyses of the difficulties of cross-border 
goods transport by road, rail and inland waterway. 
There are still major delays in trans-frontier trade 
caused by infrastructure and organizational difficulties, 
as well as difficulties peculiar to individual carriers, the 
railways in particular. 
3.1. However, the problems arise not only with the 
clearance facilities themselves, but also on account of an 
inadequate clearance capacity. 
3.2. Further problems arise because the opening hours 
of customs posts at frontiers and within Member States 
are not generally synchronized or are often simply not 
geared to the actual volume of traffic. 
3.3. This applies also to the staff complement of 
individual customs posts, a particular problem being 
clearance following public holidays and bans on 
lorry-driving on Sundays when rules are different on 
opposite sides of the frontier (e.g. days which are a 
public holiday in Belgium but not in Germany). 
3.4. Another obstacle to clearance is the difference in 
the powers of customs officials, especially where 
veterinary and plant-health inspections are necessary. A 
considerable improvement could be brought about 
simply by clarifying the situation as regards opening 
hours and clearance powers. 3.5. Frontier crossing is frequently delayed 
unnecessarily by a repitition of checks; this is because 
Member States do not automatically recognize the 
findings of each other's checks. Thus, for instance, the 
weight and axle load of a commercial vehicle may be 
checked several times during the course of an 
international transport operation, or several technical 
inspections carried out on railway wagons. The 
Committee finds it deplorable that in the Council of 
Ministers the Member States are obviously not all ready 
to recognize each other's inspections. 
A particular problem is health, plant-health and quality 
inspections which have already been carried out by one 
Member State and are then repeated in another. The 
repetition of these procedures is in some respects 
contrary to the decision of the European Court of 
Justice (in Case 120/78, Cassis de Dijon) that clearance 
for free circulation in one Member State must generally 
be valid for the whole territory of the Community. 
3.6. Delays are also caused by the maintenance of 
inspection measures which could be dropped as of now. 
This covers, to mention only one example, checks on 
the fuel in fuel tanks. 
3.7. Matters could often be speeded up considerably if 
analyses of particular weak spots were carried out at 
local level and organizational improvements made, 
which often entail no great financial outlay. 
3.8. Current clearance practices have also subjected 
industry to a real plethora of documents. In the case of 
intra-Community trade for instance, up to 70 pro­
cedures must be gone through on occasion because of 
transport, foreign trade and tax requirements; and this 
despite the fact that it is the aim of the Treaty to allow 
trade to operate as unbureaucratically as possible in a 
customs union. Not infrequently more documents are 
required for intra-Community trade than for a shipment 
to a third country. 
3.9. These delays in trans-border transport place a 
burden on firms not only indirecdy, since they must bear 
the additional costs incurred by forwarders and hauliers 
in the course of a transport operation, but also directly 
in so far as they transport on their own account. 
3.10. Besides the European Parliament, which has 
given its views on these problems in 1972 (x), 1979 (2) 
and 1982 (3), the Committee has also repeatedly 
H Report by Mr Bos of 31 August 1972. 
(2) Report by Mr Schyns of 12 March 1979. 
(3) Report by Mr Wogau of 15 December 1982; 
Report by Mr Carossino of 15 February 1982. 
5. 4. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 90/25 
advocated the simplification of frontier formalities — 
e.g. in 1978 in its opinion on the state of the customs 
union (*) — and in its 1982 opinion on the transport 
policy of the European Community in the 1980s (*). 
The Committee was also pleased to note that in its 
resolution of 26 March 1981 the Council placed the 
facilitation of frontier formalities on a list of priority 
objectives to be achieved before the end of 1983. 
II. Specific comments 
1. First, the Committee notes that since the 
Commission proposal takes the form of a Directive, the 
Member States have been given something of a free 
hand in deciding how to implement it. This has been 
done because of differences in national legislation and 
has both advantages and disadvantages as far as the 
Committee can judge. The main disadvantage is that the 
uniformity being sought might not be achieved. 
2. The Committee is also pleased to note that the 
Commission considers its proposal to be an initial step. 
It is not the aim of the proposal to abolish inspections 
— which are merely to be 'facilitated' or 'simplified' 
— but there are indications that this will not be the last 
initiative in this area. If a genuine internal market is to 
be set up, the ultimate target must naturally be the 
abolition of border inspections. 
3. Even though the Commission document is therefore 
limited in scope, it must be endorsed because it is 
necessary in times of economic recession to welcome all 
steps which by improving the cross-frontier clearance of 
traffic also improve the profitability of carriers and 
business in general. Long hold-ups at borders are borne 
out in transport rates and thus in the prices charged for 
the transported goods. Extra costs totalling some 5 to 
7 % of the value of the goods are bound to do serious 
damage to the Community economy, especially in times 
of economic crisis. This is a point which has been 
underlined in the experts' report referred to above. 
4. The Commission document should also be approved 
on social grounds. The working conditions of transport 
(') OJ No C 181, 31. 7. 1968, p. 31. 
(2) OJ No C 236, 13. 12. 1982, p. 9. workers are seriously disrupted by the difficulties 
encountered in crossing borders. The hours which 
transport workers may be forced to work by 
unpredictable border stops are unsocial and inhuman. 
5. The clearance of goods inside countries instead of at 
their borders is also to be welcomed, though these 
customs posts must be equipped with the requisite 
facilities and powers. At the moment customers must 
have the freedom to choose between both possibilities. 
6. The construction of express lanes is also to be 
welcomed, especially if this is not to be decided 
arbitrarily. More clarity could be achieved here by 
improving the wording of the Commission text. 
7. The Commission document illustrates the fact that 
no progress will be made in getting border formalities 
reduced unless action is taken in the field of the 
common transport policy. The fact that the common 
transport policy has hardly got off the ground means 
that a good deal of extra paperwork has to be dealt 
with. Action in the following areas should therefore be 
considered next: 
— abolition of fuel checks at borders, 
—: harmonization of commercial vehicles' weights and 
axle loads, 
— phasing-out of bilateral road haulage licences in 
favour of multilateral licences, 
— progress with regard to charges and infrastructure 
policy. 
III. Specific comments on the individual articles 
1. Article 2 
1.1. The Committee would like those inspections 
which for the time being are still thought necessary to 
be carried out simultaneously in one place, preferably 
the place of departure or destination of the goods. The 
No C 90/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 4. 83 
choice should be left to the parties involved in the 
haulage operation. If necessary, inspections should be 
carried out on a spot check basis. 
1.2. The Committee realizes that it is not possible at 
the moment to centralize all inspections. However, the 
phrasing 'as far as possible' and 'preferably the place of 
departure or destination' to be found in the 
Commission text certainly does nor guarantee that the 
Member States will make a serious effort to carry out 
uniform inspections. This could result in a distortion of 
competition, as efficient inspections will exist 
side-by-side with time-consuming inspections, 
depending on the frontier involved. 
2. Article 3 
2.1. In the Committee's view Article 3 should be 
worded positively, i.e. Member States should carry out 
spot checks instead of regular inspections. At all events 
the words 'as far as possible' should be deleted. An 
amendment to this effect would be in line with the 
principle expounded by the European Court of Justice, 
namely that administrative checks, in so far as they go 
beyond the strictly necessary, should be seen as contrary 
to the Treaty and on a par with quantitative restric­
tions. 
3. Article 4 
3.1. The Committee expressly welcomes the clearly 
formulated binding rule in paragraph 1. It believes that 
the mutual recognition of the different certificates of 
other countries will contribute to a major simplification 
of the internal market. It therefore regrets that three 
Member States obviously have reservations about 
mutual recognition. 
3.2. Regarding paragraph 2, the Committee would urge 
the Commission to concentrate its efforts on abolishing 
superfluous national inspection documents and 
simplifying or standardizing the rest. 
4. Article 5 
4.1. The Committee agrees that inspection 
departments on either side of common frontiers should 
be of uniform design throughout the Community where 
this is technically possible or where new premises are to 
be built. 5. Article 7 
5.1. Attention should be paid to the qualifications of 
inspection staff, and not only to their numbers. In 
particular, the Member States should endeavour to 
employ specialized staff where necessary (e.g. for 
carrying out health checks), in order to avoid 
unnecessary delays at borders. 
6. Article 8 
6.1. Article 8 should be reworded to the effect that the 
Member States shall undertake, and not merely 
endeavour, to establish, where necessary, express lanes 
at frontier posts for urgent traffic, such as perishable 
foodstuffs. 
6.2. The present wording of Article 8 clearly illustrates 
that the Commission is working on the assumption that 
a binding text would not be approved by the Council 
because of the cost involved. 
7. Article 9 
7.1. It is the Committee's view that the joint 
committees (paragraphs 1 and 2] should also include 
interested workers' representatives. 
7.2. The Commission representative should play a 
more active role on these committees and regularly 
attend their meetings. One of his most important tasks 
should be to keep national customs officials posted 
about new Community provisions which have a direct 
or indirect bearing on cross-frontier traffic. 
8. Article 10 
8.1. The Committee thinks that Article 10 should read 
as follows: 
'Member States shall ensure that the measures taken 
to facilitate the crossing of frontiers are as uniform 
as possible, do not wreck measures already taken to 
this effect and are not rendered inoperative through 
the introduction of new inspections or formalities.' 
5. 4. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 90/27 
9. Article 11 
9.1. In addition to the European Parliament, the 
Done at Brussels, 24 February 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council on 
28 September 1982 for an opinion on the proposal for a 
Directive on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Bureau of 
the Economic and Social Committee on 13 October 
1982 instructing the Section for the Protection of the 
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs to 
draw up an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the discussions at the abovementioned 
Section's 72nd meeting held on 1 February 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Kolble, Economic and Social Committee should also be infor­
med every two years about progress on the implemen­
tation of the Directive. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Having regard to the discussions on 24 February 1983 
during the 205th plenary session held on 23 and 
24 February 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. This proposal is welcomed by the Committee. It is 
designed to harmonize provisions on the agricultural 
use of sewage sludge, which is desirable both for waste 
disposal and ecological reasons. The Commission 
intends that the harmonization should give due 
consideration to the legitimate interests of agriculture, 
and to public health, consumers and the environment. Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 264 of 8 October 1982, page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 28 September 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 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 205 th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 February 1983.