No C 328/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the conditions under which 
non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway within a Member 
State 
(86/C 328/13) 
On 18 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion at its 170th meeting on 16 July 1986, 
in the light of the report by Mr Fortuyn, the rapporteur. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 July 1986. 
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 18 September 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by 91 votes to 10, with three abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. As the Commission's explanatory memorandum 
points out, this proposal must be seen against the 
background of the Judgement of the European Court 
of Justice of 22 May 1985 in case 13/83, European 
Parliament versus the Council of Ministers, and in the 
light of the Commission's White Paper on completing 
the internal market which was submitted to the Council 
in June 1985 and met with its approval. 
1.2. The Court of Justice's Judgement — the 'failure 
to act' decision — clearly states that, pursuant to the 
principles, objectives and mandatory provisions of the 
Treaty, the freedom to provide transport services, hence 
also inland shipping services, is a part of the common 
transport policy and must be introduced. This means 
that carriers must be allowed to offer and perform 
inland transport services in Member States in which 
they are not established. The White Paper (paragraphs 
108 to 112, 'Transport') states that the necessary meas­
ures should come into effect by 1989. 
1.3. The proposed Regulation is particularly impor­
tant for inland shipping in five Member States: Ger­
many, France and the three Benelux countries. Thanks 
to the extensive network of rivers and canals in this 
region, a substantial proportion of both domestic and 
international transport is carried out by water. Because 
the waterways in this region link up with each other, 
vessels can sail directly from one Member State to 
another and therefore offer their services in countries 
where their owners are not established. 
1.4. The freedom to provide inland shipping services 
has been a reality for some considerable time already 
(!) OJ No C 331, 20. 12. 1985, p. 2. in part of this region, on the Rhine and its tributaries 
in particular, under the Mannheim Convention. In some 
cases, however, national provisions still limit free access 
to the market. 
1.5. The Committee acknowledges that the freedom 
to provide inland shipping services is a part of the 
common transport policy and that, with a view to 
the completion of the internal market, the remaining 
restrictions must be lifted. Hence the Committee 
approves the main points of the Commission draft 
Regulation which lays down the conditions under 
which carriers may transport goods and passengers by 
inland waterway in Member States in which they are 
not established, but is of the view that the proposal 
is unsatisfactory in a number of respects and would 
therefore draw the attention of the Commission and 
Council to the following comments. 
1.6. The Committee notes that in the explanatory 
memorandum to its proposal the Commission does 
not consider vital for inland shipping the question of 
structural overcapacity in shipping tonnage. The resol­
ution of this question could contribute towards healthy 
market conditions with a minimum of government 
intervention. The Committee therefore urges the Com­
mission and Member States to work vigorously together 
to remove this excess capacity by means of properly 
coordinated schemes for scrapping vessels and social 
back-up measures. 
1.7. Article 3 of the draft Regulation states that 
the carrying out by a non-resident carrier of national 
transport operations is subject to the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions in force in the Member 
State in which the transport operations are carried 
out. This gives the impression that the continued co­
existence of separate markets governed by varying 
national provisions is acceptable. 
1.8. The Committee regrets that the Commission 
provides only a brief explanatory note to this Article 
and does not analyse and compare the different national 
provisions, thereby broaching the question of how 
22.12.^ C^fficialjournal of the European Communities l^oC^^ 
desirable it would be to promote harmonization of 
these provisions as part ofthe common transport police. 
Idereadistinction must be made between different t^pes 
of provisions. 
1.^. ^ith reference to Article 1 of the proposed 
Re^ulation^theCommitteeisof theopinionthatthe 
carrier is subject solelv to the laws^ regulations and 
administrative provisions of thecountrv in which he 
is established as regards establishments access to the 
occupations profits ta^ technical regulations and re^is^ 
tration dues for the firm's vessels^ social provisions 
covering the firm'semplo^ees^ and the master'squalifi 
cations. Therefore the Committee recommends that the 
harmonization of national provisions be studied. Idere 
it should be noted that the relevant national provisions 
^overnin^ Rhine shipping have alreadv been aliened 
through the cooperation of the member states con 
cerned on the Central Commission for the l^avi^ation 
ofthe Rhine. Aientionma^ also be made ofthe directive 
submitted in 1^^ but not vet adopted on access to the 
occupation of carrier of ^oodsb^ waterway in national 
andinternationaltransportandonthemutualreco^ 
nitionof diplomas^certificatesandotherevidenceof 
formal qualifications for this occupation ^CO]l^oC^eol^ 
2^. 12.1^^. The Committee ur^es that this proposal 
be dealt with speedilv. 
l.lt^. A second cate^orv of provisions comprises 
those which regulate various aspects of national or 
re^ionalmarl^ets^e.^. those concerning tariffs^ access 
toaparticular market sector ^not to be confused with 
the general provisions on access to the occupations 
frei^htofficesandrotations^stems^and indirect ta^ 
ation such as VAT. Por this cate^or^ of provisions 
carriers^ irrespective of their nationalitv^are subject to 
the provisionsin force intheAiember^tate in which 
the transport servicesareofferedandperformed. for 
this tvpe of provision too^ the Committee considers 
it important to studvtheharmonizationofdiver^ent 
regulations sothatcarrierscanoffer their services on 
comparable terms on the national markets of Aiember 
states in which thev are not established^ in the Pederal 
Republic of Cerman^ for instances carriers can^ subject 
to theprovisionson freight rates^concludetransport 
contracts directlv with the charterer^while in Bel^ium^ 
Prance and the Netherlands freight is ^enerallvdistrib 
uted proportionally ^rotation s^stem^b^ freight offices. 
1.11. without aiming for completeness^athirdcate 
^or^of provisions ma^ be mentioned^ ^^mel^ traffic 
regulations to promote safe navigation and the proper maintenance of waterwavs ^e.^. draught and speed 
restrictions^ the lev^in^ of canals loc^ bridge and 
mooring tolls, ^uch provisions are determined b^ local 
circumstances and should of course be observed b^ all 
waterway users^ irrespective of their nanonalit^. 
1.12. Although there is no indication that the abol 
itionof theremainin^restrictionson thefreedom to 
provide services will brin^ about major changes on the 
inland shipping mar^et^developmentsonthismarl^et 
should be followed closeiv so that social backup 
measures can betaken. 
2. specific comments on the Articles 
2.1. Arr^^ 
2.1.1. ^ith reference to the general comments in 
point 2.^the Committee would point out that at the 
moment there are no general provisions ^overnin^ 
access to the occupation of carrier bv inland waterwav 
and therefore no distinction is made between authorize 
ation for national and international transport oper^ 
ations. Consequently until thePOirectiveproposedin 
1^^ is introduced^ authorization to carr^ out inter 
national operations will have to be based on the authors 
ization granted b^ the Aiember^tates^ preferable alon^ 
similar lines to the Rhine shipping arrangements. 
2.1.2. In the Committee'sview the provision thata 
carrier mav pursue his activities onlv temporarily ina 
Aiember^tate in which he is not established is not clear 
enough and is open to different interpretations. 
COn those transport markets where cabotage is now 
permitted there are no time limits. 
2.2. Arr^2 
2.2.1. The aim of this Article is to provide protection 
against possible dmfaiP competition from non^ 
Community firms which^ although formally established 
inaAiember^tate^donothavea^enuinelinl^ with 
aAiember^tate. 
2.2.2. In the Committee'sopinion the inclusion of 
suchaprovision in this Regulation will ^oonlvaverv 
small wav towards achieving this aim^viz.onlv where 
such firms avail themselves of the ri^ht to carr^ out 
cabotage operations^ thevcan still participate without 
restrictions in transport operations in the Alember 
states where the^areestablishedandininternational 
operations. 
No C 328/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86 
2.2.3. Hence the Committee recommends not only 
that such a provision be included in the proposed cabo­
tage Regulation, but also that a general regulation be 
drawn up to protect the whole Community inland 
shipping sector against 'unfair' competition. Such a 
general regulation would, however, have to be applied 
with the necessary restraint so as not to hinder 
unnecessarily the free movement of capital with 
countries which have a similar economic system to the 
Community. 
2.2.4. A similar regulation has already been in­
troduced for Rhine shipping (see OJ No L 280, 
22. 10. 1985, p. 4: Protocol of Signature of Additional 
Protocol 2 to the Revised Convention for Rhine Navi­
gation and the Implementing Regulation thereto). 
2.2.5. The Committee is pleased to note that the 
provision now proposed by the Commission is modelled 
on similar lines so that the two regulations tie in well 
with each other. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. With reference to the general comments con­
tained in points 1.7 to 1.12, the Committee notes that 
it would be useful for all those involved in inland 
shipping if a summary but clear list were provided of 
those national provisions which have to be complied 
Done at Brussels, 18 September 1986. with if use is made of the right to carry out cabotage 
operations; the aim being (a) to prevent—without 
prejudice to the carrier's own liability—misunderstan­
dings and errors caused by ignorance and (b) to make 
it possible to assess to what extent national provisions 
should be harmonized, thereby bringing a European 
market regime for inland shipping that much closer. 
2.3.2. Date of entry into force 
In the light of the above comments, and since the 
Member States have to adopt the measures necessary to 
implement the Regulation (cf. Article 4), the Committee 
considers that the deadline of 1 January 1988 mentioned 
in Article 1 for its entry into force is too short. The 
Commission's White Paper on completing the internal 
market gives 1989 as the date for the introduction 
of the freedom to provide services, while the general 
completion of the internal market is scheduled for 1992. 
Consequently, the Committee recommends that more 
time be allowed for the entry into force of the 
Regulation. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
26. 5. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/37 
APPENDIX 
The following amendment was defeated by the Committee in the debate: 
Paragraph 2.2. 
'The Committee wishes to draw attention to ongoing discussions in the Council with regard to freedom to 
provide services in maritime transport, aimed at considering 'vessels flying the flag of an EEC Member State' 
as an alternative criterion for application of the above freedom. The Committee would refer here to its 
opinion on a common maritime transport policy, unanimously adopted on 27 November 1985 (J). 
Reasons 
The above amendment was tabled for two reasons: 
1. First, as a logical follow-on from the ESC opinion on a common maritime transport policy, which 
added the alternative criterion of ships flying the flag of a Member State to Appendices II-l, II-2 and II-6. 
2. Secondly, in addition to the nationality of physical persons, the nationality of ships is an established 
principle in international law, i.e. ships have the nationality of the country whose flag they fly. This is 
explicitly mentioned in the following international conventions (amongst others): 
(a) UN Convention on High Seas, 1958 (Article 6); 
(b) UN Convention on Law of the Sea, 1984 (Article 92); 
(c) UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of ships, 1986 [Article 4 (2)]. 
Result of the voting 
For: 29, Against: 29, Abstentions: 48. 
(!) OJ No C 344, 31. 12. 1985, p. 31. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulations (EEC) No 
797/85, (EEC) No 270/79, (EEC) No 1360/78 and (EEC) No 355/77 as regards agriculture 
structures, the adjustment of agriculture to the new market situation and the preservation 
of the countryside 
(86/C 328/14) 
On 7 May 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on 
the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 July 1986, in the light of the oral report by Mr Zinkin. 
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 18 September 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
1. Introduction socio-structural policy (opinion on the proposal for a 
Regulation on improving the efficiency of agricultural 
1.1. The Committee has given several opinions in structures; opinion on the perspectives for the common 
which comments have been made on various aspects of agricultural policy (CAP); opinion on the fixing of