9. 5. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 124/13 
4.4.4. The Committee endorses the planned exchange 
of vocational training specialists. The relevant 
Community bodies, particularly the Economic and Social 
Committee, should be informed about the results of this 
exchange. 
5. Summary 
5.1. The Committee welcomes the submission of this 
Commission document, which it largely endorses. 
5.2. The appropriation for the execution and 
evaluation of pilot projects is not in keeping with the 
importance of vocational training and needs to be 
considerably increased. 
5.3. Clear priorities must be fixed in order to prevent 
dissipation of effort. 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1983. 
Opinion on the 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to Article 20 (3) of its Rules of 
Procedure, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
27 October 1982 in connection with the opinion on the 
(') OJ No C 326, 13. 12. 1982, p. 6. 5.4. The Commission should give more precise 
indications as to how the proposed programme is to be 
carried out. The Committee assumes that the 
Commission has such information, since otherwise it 
would not have been possible to specify the projects or 
calculate the costs. 
5.5. The Committee observes in conclusion that, 
while it has every appreciation for the Commission's 
efforts to solve the problems connected with the 
introduction of new technologies, such activities are 
nevertheless liable to leave untouched the central 
problems involved in the increased application of 
technology. One such problem is that the loss of jobs due 
to the application of technology cannot generally be 
prevented in the short or medium term by vocational 
training, as pointed out in the Committee's opinion (*) on 
'Vocational training and new information technologies: 
New Community initiatives during the period 1983 to 
1987'. 
0) OJNoC77, 21. 3. 1983, p. 7. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
1 lth report on competition policy, to draw up an opinion 
on the draft Commission Regulation on the application of 
Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of 
exclusive distribution agreements and the draft 
Commission Regulation on the application of Article 
85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of exclusive 
purchasing agreeements, and to instruct the Section for 
industry, commerce, crafts and services to undertake the 
requisite work, — draft Commission Regulation on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain 
categories of exclusive distribution agreements, and the 
— draft Commission Regulation on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain 
categories of exclusive purchasing agreements 
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
Following the opinion which it issued on 28 October 1982, at the Commission's request, on the 
'1 lth report on competition policy' (*) the Committee issued an additional opinion on the same 
matter at its 206th plenary session of 23 and 24 March 1983, in accordance with Article 20 (3) 
of its Rules of Procedure. 
NoC 124/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 5. 83 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section for 
industry, commerce, crafts and services at its meeting on 
2 March 1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rapporteur, 
Mr Bagliano, 
Having regard to the discussions at the 206th plenary 
session held on 23 and 24 March 1983 (session of 
23 March 1983), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a majority vote, with one dissenting vote against and 
three abstentions: 
INTRODUCTION 
1.1. The Committee is pleased that it has had an 
opportunity to comment on these two draft Regulations. 
Distribution is after all a vital issue and has such a direct 
bearing on the business and manufacturing sectors, 
companies and consumers - in particular in facilitating 
the integration of the common market by encouraging 
trade between Member States, and bringing to the 
consumer the benefits of a wider choice and increased 
competition — that the Commission was quite right to 
decide to extend the period of application of Regulation 
No 67/67/EEC (which has expired) by six months in 
order to consider the many important points raised, for 
instance by the Economic and Social Committee. 
1.2. The Commission is to be commended on its 
decision to adopt such an open-minded, comprehensive 
and thorough approach. It has cooperated closely and 
constructively with the various parties concerned, its aim 
being to apply the provisions of the Treaty to business 
activity within the framework of a consistent and realistic 
competition policy, such as the Economic and Social 
Committee has frequently advocated (J). 
I. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION 
REGULATION APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES 
OF EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS 
2.1.1. The proposed Regulation has come as a 
surprise in some business quarters, since it was felt that 
Regulation No 67/67/EEC had proved satisfactory and 
could accordingly be extended without any 
amendments. 
(') See the ESC's recent opinions on the Community competition 
policy in the light of the current economic and social situation 
(OJ No C 322, 10. 12. 1981) and on the 10th report on 
competition policy (OJ No C 112, 3. 5. 1982). However, the Commission appears to take the view that 
the expiry of a Regulation provides a good opportunity to 
revise it, incorporating any improvements which seem 
warranted in the light of the experience of the 
Commission and the sectors concerned. Account can also 
be taken of the economic climate and any judgements 
which the Court of Justice has made in the intervening 
period, not to mention what the Committee itself, in 
Chapter V of its opinion of April 1981, referred to as: 'the 
primary need to rationalize channels and methods' while 
safeguarding 'the variety of types of marketing and the 
continued existence of the small/medium business 
sector'. 
In this connection, the Committee would urge the 
Commission to give further careful consideration to the 
impact which the implementation of the new Regulation 
will have on smaller firms. 
2.1.2. The Committee's comments are influenced by 
the foregoing general considerations. 
2.2. The distinction which is being drawn between 
exclusive distribution agreements and exclusive 
purchasing agreements seems hard to justify. 
In its opinion on the 11th report on competition policy, 
the Economic and Social Committee questioned the value 
of drawing this distinction since exclusive purchase 
obligations are usually an essential facet of exclusive 
distribution agreements. Nonetheless, after drawing this 
distinction, the draft Regulation lists obligations to 
purchase among the permitted restrictions on 
competition (Article 2 (2b)). 
2.2.1. The Committee's comments on the draft 
Regulation on exclusive supply agreements are set out in 
the second part of the opinion. 
Specific remarks 
3. On the subject of obligations which may be 
imposed upon exclusive distributors: 
3.1. Article 2 (2a) 
The definition of 'goods which compete' requires further 
clarification. 
3.2. Article 2 (2b) 
The Committee does not feel that the obligation to 
purchase from the supplier should be confined to a period 
of not more than three years. 
4. A more precise definition of 'competing goods' is 
also required in Article 3, which specifies cases in which 
the Regulation shall not apply. 
9. 5. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 124/15 
The Committee approves the Commission's intention to 
exclude market sharing arrangements from the benefit of 
the Regulation but fears that the amendment may well 
also deprive of exemption many well-established 
distribution channels where there is no risk of market 
sharing. The Committee therefore believes that unless the 
Commission can find a better way of distinguishing 
between such cases for the purposes of the group 
exemption it is indispensable that a speedier procedure be 
found for dealing with individual applications for the 
benefit of Article 85 (3). 
The aforementioned clauses could be reviewed in 
conjunction with Article 6 with a view to securing greater 
clarity and legal certainty. 
5. The word 'turnover' in Article 4 needs to be 
qualified to make it clear that it refers to turnover 
recorded on the products covered by the agreements. 
6. Article 5 should be revised, in the Ijght of the 
definition which the Commission ultimately decides to 
adopt for 'manufacturers of competing goods' and 'total 
turnover'. 
The word 'group' needs to be more precisely defined, 
having regard to the other definitions of 'group' which are 
to be found in existing and proposed regulations and 
directives. 
7. On the subject of Article 7 concerning the 
transitional period, the Committee would urge the 
Commission to refrain from drawing a distinction 
between long-standing existing agreements, those of 
more recent date, and those which were drawn up before 
the new Regulation was enacted but which were not 
finalized until after it came into force. In any event, it 
would seem fair that the length of the transitional period 
should vary, to take account of the different de facto 
situations. 
Adequate time must be given before the coming into force 
of the new Regulation, first to allow undertakings to 
amend their standard agreements to comply with the 
Regulation; and secondly, to allow the Commission to 
take formal decisions about agreements made before the 
expiry of Regulation No 67/67/EEC and not complying 
with the new Regulation; for this purpose the Regulation 
should provide that each existing agreement complying 
with Regulation No 67/67/EEC and notified to the 
Commission within six months of the adoption of the new 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1983. Regulation should continue to benefit from exemption 
until such time as the Commission has taken a decision to 
the contrary. 
II. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION 
REGULATION APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES 
OF EXCLUSIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENTS 
8. The Committee would again like to stress the 
inadvisability of taking exclusive supply out of the natural 
context of exclusive distribution agreements (in this 
connection, see its recent opinion on the 11th report on 
competition policy). The Commission should 
concentrate on broad principles and should therefore 
confine regulations to general categories of agreement. 
Specific remarks 
9. Article 1 should permit a longer duration, and 
should also make provision for agreements of indefinite 
duration and agreements terminated or renewed before 
their expiry date. Furthermore, the Article should not 
prescribe as a hard and fast rule that agreements involving 
special commercial of financial advantages are to be of 
limited duration. The Committee would further add that 
the phrase 'special commercial or financial advantages' is 
vague and likely to cause difficulties for parties as well as 
national courts; the Commission should explain clearly 
what this phrase means. 
10. Article 2 should be expanded to allow a ban on 
competition and stipulation of minimum quantities. 
Untertakings not to compete made by the distributor or 
the supplier should also be permitted, although these 
should be deemed to be separate matters. 
In the case of Articles 3, 4 and 5, reference should be made 
to the remarks concerning the Regulation applicable to 
exclusive distribution agreements, with regard to 
turnover and the definition of 'group' (sic). The same 
applies in the case of the Articles contained in Title 4. 
11. On the subject of the provisions pertaining to 
specific sectors in Title 2 (beer) and Title 3 (motor spirit 
and lubricants), the Committee would merely like to 
impress upon the Commission the need to lay maximum 
emphasis on consumers' interests, with particular 
reference to Articles 7 and 10. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC