30. 12. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 329/29 
jects concerned with the work requirements of large 
groups of employees and workers at different company 
levels. The basic transferability of projects must also 
be borne in mind as a criterion. ogies at the workplace, but also to training measures 
which are primarily concerned with the impact of these 
new technologies on work organization, and more gen­
erally with the consequent changes in work require­
ments. 
2.6. In deciding which demonstration projects to sel­
ect, attention should be paid not only to projects which 
deal with the application of new information technol-2.7. The interim and final reports on EUROTEC-
NET II (referred to in Article 9) must also be submitted 
to the ESC. 
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONF 
Opinion on the revised proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 87/327/EEC of 
15 June 1987 adopting the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university 
students (ERASMUS) (]) 
(89/C 329/12) 
On 25 September 1989 the Council, acting in pursuance of Article 198 of the EEC Treaty, 
asked the Economic and Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned revised 
proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs 
to prepare its Opinion. The Section adopted its Opinion on 12 October 1989. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Nierhaus. 
The Committee adopted unanimously the Opinion set out below at its 270th plenary session 
(meeting of 18 October). 
1. General comments 
1.1. The ERASMUS programme is of prime import­
ance for a variety of reasons, namely it: 
— promotes the development of students' personalities 
by bringing them into contact with people in the 
EC Member States and their respective living con­
ditions, 
— promotes among students the necessary understand­
ing of the economic, cultural and social environment 
(') OJ No C 150, 17. 6. 1989, p. 10 and OJ No C 232, 9. 9. 1989, 
p. 63. and of the specific characteristics of the various 
Member States and regions of the Community, 
— strengthens cooperation between the people of the 
various Member States with the aim of consolidat­
ing the concept of a People's Europe, 
— ties in directly and recognizably, via measures to 
promote mobility, with the interests and needs of 
individual young people for improving their future 
vocational prospects; these measures are to be seen 
against the background of the need for EC activity 
to be directly relevant to Community citizens, an 
aspect not always recognized by many of its people, 
— boosts the Community's worldwide competitiveness 
by enhancing its intellectual potential by virtue of 
No C 329/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 12. 89 
the fact that more graduates will have an initial 
experience of living and working in other EC States. 
1.2. In the run-up to the internal market, there is, in 
the Committee's view, an urgent need to produce yet 
more graduates who have had direct experience of 
working in other EC Member States, in order to secure 
progress in vital economic and social cooperation 
within the Community. 
1.3. The Committee already endorsed the action pro­
gramme in principle when it approved the Commission 
proposal of December 1985(1). The Committee likewise 
broadly endorses the proposal to amend the parent 
Decision by the current draft Council Decision. 
1.4. As a result of the EC Court of Justice's judge­
ment, the Commission has made it clear in a revised 
version of its proposal that the ERASMUS programme 
does not cover activities in the field of research and 
technological development. 
The Committee wishes to point out that this does not 
refer to research activities which form part of university 
courses. Research work—especially towards the end of 
a university course—is often vital for a good grade and 
should therefore not prejudice participation in 
ERASMUS. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee firmly reiterates its support for 
the Community's general objectives with regard to 
increased mobility for students, namely its desire to 
increase to some 10% the proportion of students who 
spend time studying in another Member State. Since 
numbers still fall far short of this figure, the scale of 
the efforts needed to achieve the objective becomes 
clear. The ERASMUS programme may further the 
objective but the Member States will have to make 
considerable efforts through their national exchange 
programmes if they are to get anywhere near the target 
percentage by 1992. 
In order to secure the most effective use of the ERAS­
MUS programme funds, the Committee proposes that 
an inventory—which should be updated from time to 
time—be made of all the exchange schemes and com­
parable study arrangements currently available in indi­
vidual Member States, at EC level and on a bilateral 
basis (e.g. the schemes involving the European College, 
the European University Institute, cultural agreements 
(*) COM(85) final. For the ESC Opinions see OJ No C 73, 2. 4. 
1986, OJ No C 189, 28. 7. 1986, and OJ No C 83, 30. 3. 
1987. and university twinning arrangements). The European 
foundation for the improvement of living and working 
conditions is also, to a certain extent, involved in this 
type of interchange. Such an inventory is a sine qua 
non for determining the extent to which the 10% target 
has been achieved. It may also provide a better means 
of ensuring that the implementation of the ERASMUS 
programme does not jeopardize the continuation and 
effectiveness of current exchange measures. It could be 
carried out under action 4 of the programme. 
In this connection, the Committee urges the Member 
States also to pursue or expand their current national 
student exchange programmes and to seek additional 
sources of funding at Community level. The Com­
mission has made proposals to this effect. Efforts must 
also be made to ensure that national authorities do not 
curtail the broad approach of the ERASMUS concept 
by over-concentration on particular types of higher 
education establishments. 
2.2. It is, in the Committee's view, absolutely necess­
ary to secure reciprocal recognition of diplomas and 
study periods in the context of the continuation of 
university studies in another Member State, over and 
above the statutory recognition of the study period at 
the host university stipulated in the ERASMUS pro­
gramme. This is, however, only one of the ERASMUS 
programme's objectives. 
2.3. Experience has shown that the available 
resources are totally inadequate to promote all pro­
grammes which are deemed appropriate. The Commit­
tee therefore welcomes the proposal to increase the 
funding to 192 millions ECU for a three-year period. 
The Committee recommends that in future, in addition 
to such relatively short-term budgeting, the Com­
mission also keeps in mind a longer-term view of further 
funding for the ERASMUS programme. 
In the light of the programme's demonstrable success 
to date, the Committee warns against any cuts in fun­
ding—which is anyway not excessive—such as those 
regrettably imposed by the Council in 1987 during the 
programme's first phase. 
2.4. The Committee stresses the connection, also 
recognized by the Commission, with other Community 
activities in the field of education. If therefore endorses 
the proposal to coordinate the implementation of 
ERASMUS with LINGUA and to take account of the 
SCIENCE, SPES and COMETT programmes. 
2.5. Linguistic and socio-cultural preparation of 
exchange students is crucial to the programme's success. 
The Committee therefore emphatically supports the 
inclusion of intensive language courses in the back-up 
programme. Where necessary, such language courses 
must also be provided and if necessary promoted by 
the host universities, in order to motivate students to 
master the language of the host country. The introduc­
tion of such courses does not, however, make it any 
30. 12. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 329/31 
less necessary to provide intensive foreign language 
tuition at all previous stages of the education system. 
In this context the special language requirements—in­
cluding specific technological terminology—for par­
ticular subjects should be determined in order to enable 
suitable curricula and teaching material to be developed 
and, where appropriate, exchanged. In this way it will 
be possible to improve and encourage the teaching of 
certain subjects in a foreign language, thereby making 
it easier for students to be introduced to foreign langu­
ages via their specialist interests. 
The socio-cultural preparation of exchange students 
must also include guidance on the composition of study 
courses and on dealing with bureaucracy in the host 
country. In addition to linguistic back-up, preparation 
should comprise specialist advice and should take 
account of experience gained by other exchange stu­
dents. 
2.6. The Committee firmly supports the Com­
mission's view that a relatively long period of study in 
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1989. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. A wide variety of factors make it necessary to 
achieve a standardized Community system for setting 
road haulage rates. 
(') OJ NoC 152,20. 6. 1989, p. 8. another Member State, such as one academic year, 
should be aimed for. Shorter study periods (where 
appropriate in individual cases) should however, remain 
eligible for support. 
2.7. The Committee urges that, like the Council and 
the European Parliament, it too be kept informed of 
ERASMUS'S progress. 
3. Concluding remarks 
3.1. All universities in the Community must step 
up their capacity for student exchanges beyond the 
numbers of exchanges involved in the ERASMUS 
scheme. 
3.2. Finally, the Committee would draw attention to 
the need for a substantial improvement in the Com­
mission's involvement in the field of exchanges, not 
only as regards universities but also as regards school-
pupils, trainees, employees and executive staff in the 
economic and social fields. 
Clearly there is the institutional and political aspect, 
linked with the creation of a Single Market i.e. the need 
to dismantle obstacles and barriers of all kinds to the 
Community economic integration process. The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the fixing of rates for the 
carriage of goods by road between Member States (!) 
(89/C 329/13) 
On 5 June 1989 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 the preparatory 
work, adopted its Opinion on 11 October 1989. The Rapporteur was Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 270th plenary session (meeting of 19 October 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 76 votes to 44, with 5 abstentions.