30. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 77/5 
into several  categories,  including  one  for  those 
containing  good  fish  populations  and  one  for those 
presently  fishless,  so  that  priorities  could  be 
established.  The  Committee  recommends  that  this 
approach  be pursued  further  by the Commission. 
2.8. Article  6 
2.8.1.  This  Article  refers  to the sampling  frequency 
as the intervals  specified  in the Annex,  at the same 
sampling  point  and  over  a period  of 12 months.  The 
Committee  believes  that,  although  the  problem  is a 
difficult  one  to solve,  the  frequency  of sampling 
should  be much  more  closely  linked  to the  risk  of 
pollution  involved,  rather  than  to a formula  applied 
rigidly.  The  Committee  understands  that  the 
Commission  is currently  studying  this  problem  and 
very much  welcomes  this. 
2.9. Article  9 
2.9.1.  The  Committee  would  emphasize  that  some 
Member  States  have  a special  problem  in relation  to 
their  territories  bordering  on  the  non-member 
countries:  the  Commission  must  take  cognizance  of 
this fact. 2.10.  Article  10 
2.10.1.  As  regards  waivers  from  the Directive,  and 
particularly  the idea  of natural  enrichment  of water 
by certain  substances  without  human  intervention, 
the Committee  would  ask  the  Commission  to 
stipulate  that  this  is not  meant  to cover  substances 
reaching  rivers  as a result  of modern  agricultural 
practices. 
2.11.  Article  12 
2.11.1.  The  Committee  believes  that,  under  present 
circumstances,  two  years  is too short  a period  for the 
Member  States  to  bring  into  force  the  laws, 
to comply  with  this  Directive. 
2.12.  Annex 
2.12.1.  The  Committee  has submitted  a number  of 
detailed  comments  on the Annex,  which  are included 
in the  report.  However,  the general  point  has  been 
made  that  in several  member  countries  there  are 
rivers  that  contain  good  fish  populations  in spite  of 
the water  quality  being  lower  than  that  specified  in 
the Annex.  The  Committee  therefore,  feels  that  the 
values  in the Annex  should  be reconciled  with  reality. 
Done  at Brussels,  23 February  1977. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on toxic  and  dangerous  waste 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 194  of 19 August  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 5 August  1976  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. 
No C 77/6 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 3. 77 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
146th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 23 and  24 February  1977. 
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  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 5 
August  1976, 
Having  regard  to the Decision  taken  by the Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  1 
September  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Protection  of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up an opinion  and  a 
report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  on 8 February  1977, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mr de Grave, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 146th  plenary 
session  on 23 and  24 February  1977  (meeting  of 23 
February), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  no dissenting  votes  and  1 abstention  : 
The Committee  approves  the proposal,  subject  to the 
comments  set out below. 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  welcomes  the submission  by 
the Commission  of this  proposal,  which  covers  a field 
where  Member  States'  laws  differ  or  display 
deficiencies. 
1.2. The  potential  toxicity  of a waste  product 
depends  not  only  on concentration  levels,  solubility 
and receiving  medium,  but  also  on  the  overall 
quantity  of waste.  This  is why  the Committee  prefers 
the solution  proposed  by the Commission  to a system where  maximum  concentrations  are  laid  down,  for 
such  maximum  concentrations  do not  take  account 
of the  quantity  of waste.  A very  large  quantity  of 
waste  containing  traces  of toxic  substances  may  cause 
great  damage. 
1.3. The  proper  application  of  the  Directive 
depends  on the establishment  of suitable  sites  for the 
processing  and  storage  of wastes. 
1.4. The  Committee  regrets  that  it has  still  not 
been  possible  to find  a uniform  solution  to the 
problems  of civil  liability.  It notes  a certain  move  in 
legislation  towards  'strict  liability'  in fields  where 
similar  or less  serious  risks  are  involved.  However, 
the strict-liability  provisions  in the preliminary  draft 
have  been  deleted  from  the  draft  adopted  by the 
Commission,  without  the latter  having  clearly  stated 
the substantive  reasons  for this  deletion. 
1.5. Waste  disposal  processes  should  be selected 
not simply  on the  basis  of their  cost  or economic 
viability,  but in the light  of aggregate  social  costs. 
1.6. The  Committee  takes  note  of  the 
Commission's  announcement  that  the  proposed 
Directive  will  not hamper  the setting-up  by Member 
States  of contributory  funds  for  compensating  the 
victims  of waste  dumped  illicitly  by a person  or 
persons  unknown. 
1.7. The  Committee  notes  that  numerous 
Directives  will  be  necessary  to implement  this 
proposal. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. The  Committee  would  ask the Commission  to 
check  that  the text  is the same  in all languages. 
2.2. Article  2 
2.2.1.  The  beginning  of Article  2 should  read: 
'This  Directive  shall  be without  prejudice  to any 
provisions  governing  the  following  substances 
when  they  constitute  waste  :' 
30. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 77/7 
2.2.2.  Item  (b)  should  be  amended,  since 
'substances  used  in farming'  are  listed  in Annex  1 
(e.g. old and  banned  plant-protection  products). 
2.2.3.  Item  (d) should  read  : 'hospital  and  medical 
waste;'. 2.5. Article  6 
2.5.1.  The  second  indent  should  read: 
'... are appropriately  labelled  and remain  so,.. 
2.5.2.  At  all events,  this  Article  will  require  special 
implementing  provisions  at Community  level. 
2.2.4.  Although  the  Committee  understands  the 
legal  reasons  for the inclusion  of item  (e),  it would 
ask the  Commission  to  re-examine  how  this 
provision  might  interfere  with  other  Directives. 
2.3. Article  3 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  proposes  that  Article  3 be 
amended  to take  account  of (a)  mistakes  in the 
French  translation,  German  translation  (first 
paragraph)  and  Italian  translation  (second 
paragraph),  (b) the need  for a more  precise  wording 
and (c) the desirability,  which  it affirms  yet again,  of 
going  beyond  purely  remedial  action.  A drive  against 
the production  of waste,  which  means  above  all the 
adoption  of non-polluting  or less  polluting  processes 
and products,  must  be found  a place  in environment 
policy.  The  new  text  should  read  : 
'Member  States  shall  take  the necessary  measures 
to encourage  the  prevention,  recycling  and 
processing  of toxic  and  dangerous  waste,  the 
extraction  of raw  materials  and  possibly  of energy 
therefrom  and  any  other  process  for the re-use  of 
these  wastes.  Where  the  production  of toxic  and 
dangerous  waste  is unavoidable,  re-use,  recovery 
or recycling  should  as far as possible  be applied 
as preferred  processes  for  the  treatment  of such 
waste,  with  due  regard  to available  technical 
processes  and  economic  possibilities.' 
2.4. Article  4.1. 
2.4.1.  The  first  indent  should  read: 
'— without  risk  to water,  air,  soil,  subsoil  and 
plants  and  animals;' 
2.4.2.  The  Committee  considers  that  there  are 
practical  difficulties  in finding  suitable  sites  for the 
treating  and  dumping  of toxic  and  dangerous  wastes 
and therefore  feels  that  this  Article's  provisions  must 
be interpreted  in the  light  of the  processes  and 
possibilities  available. 2.6. Article  7 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  thinks  that  Article  7 should 
come  after  Article  12. 
2.6.2.  The  fifth  indent  in Article  7.2 should  read: 
'— disposal  processes,'. 
2.6.3.  A  new  seventh  indent  should  be added 
reading: 
'— measures  to be taken  in case  of accident.'. 
2.7. Article  10 
2.7.1.  There  are  not  many  sites  suitable  for  the 
disposal  of heavy  metals.  The  Committee  therefore 
wonders  whether  densely  populated  countries  could 
allow  their  sites  to be rapidly  filled  with  waste  from 
all sources,  without  running  into  difficulties. 
2.8. Article  11 
2.8.1.  The  end  of Article  11 should  be amended  to 
read: 
'— the  holder  who  has  waste  handled  by an 
installation,  establishment  or  undertaking 
referred  to in Article  7 (1), 
— and/or,  failing  this,  the last  known  holder.' 
2.9. Article  12 
2.9.1.  The  beginning  of Article  12  should  be 
amended  to read: 
'The  competent  authorities  shall  be required  to 
draw  up and  keep  up to date  a general  plan  and 
specific  plans  for  the  disposal  of all toxic  and 
dangerous  waste. 
These  plans  shall  include  a record  of the current 
situation  and  a projection  for  the  future.  They 
shall  cover  in particular: 
— specialized  treatment  centres  and  sites, 
No C 77/8 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 3. 77 
— technical  requirements, 
— the  type  and  quantity  of waste  to be disposed 
of, 
— the  legal  persons  authorized  to dispose  of 
toxic  and  dangerous  waste, 
— the  disposal  processes.' 
2.10.  Article  13 
2.10.1.  Article  13 should  be amended  to read: 
'In case  of emergency  or grave  danger,  the holder 
must  notify  the  competent  authorities  immediately. 
The latter  may,  after  giving  notice  wherever 
possible  to the  holder,  order  that  toxic  and 
dangerous  waste  which  is likely  to constitute  a 
threat  to the  population  or the  environment  be 
transferred  and,  if need  be, treated  at a place  to 
be stipulated  by the said  authorities.' 
2.11.  Article  14 
2.11.1.  The  beginning  of Article  14 should  be 
amended  to read: 
'Any  person  who  produces,  holds  and/or  disposes 
of toxic  and  dangerous  waste  shall: 
— keep  a record  containing  details  of the  type, 
physico-chemical  properties,  quantities,  quali-
ty, origin  and  localization  of such  waste  and 
of the  dates  of its takeover  and  transfer, 
together  with  the  names  and  address  of 
previous  and  subsequent  holders' 
2.12.  Article  19 
2.12.1.  The  Committee  regrets  that  the 
Commission  has  not  yet  created  machinery  for 
involving  all interested  parties  in the discussions  on 
the preliminary  draft  versions  of Directives  and  in the 
adaptation  of these  Directives  to technical  progress. 
Accordingly,  only  certain  parties  were  asked  for their 
views  on the  preliminary  draft  in this  particular instance.  The  Committee  would  urge  the 
Commission  to work  out  a general  solution  to this 
problem,  which  is all the  more  necessary  in the 
present  case  since  numerous  measures  will  have  to be 
taken  to apply  this  Directive. 
2.13.  Article  22 
2.13.1.  Article  22 should  be amended  to read: 
'Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the 
Commission  the  texts  of the  provisions  of 
national  law  which  they  adopt  or propose  to 
adopt  in the field  covered  by this  Directive.' 
2.14.  Annex  1, A 
2.14.1.  The  sixth  and  the fifteenth  and seventeenth 
indents  should  be replaced  by: 
— Chrome  and  its compounds 
— Products,  non-utilized  or non-utilizable  by-pro-
ducts,  residues  and  waste  of  the  biocide, 
phyto-pharmaceutical  and  pharmaceutical  indus-
tries. 
2.14.2.  The  last  indent  should  be  made 
specific. 
2.14.3.  The  inclusion  of certain  substances  falling 
in the following  categories  should  be considered: 
— organosilicons, 
— nickel,  tin and  selenium  derivatives, 
— inorganic  halogen  derivatives, 
— toxins  and  products  for  bacteriological  and 
chemical  warfare, 
— carcinogenic  products. 
2.15.  Annex  1, B 
The Committee  would  ask  that  this  list be enlarged 
to include  numerous  wastes  containing  substances 
listed  in Annex  I A in small  quantities  or in insoluble 
form  (crystal  products,  mining  wastes,  plaster,...). 
The word  'contaminated'  should  be explained. 
Done  at Brussels,  23 February  1977. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
30. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 77/9 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  discussions: 
Add  the following  passage  on Article  9 after  2.6.3: 
'2.6.4.  There  is no need  in this  Directive  for  a provision  on civil  liability.  Such  a 
provision  would  provide  an unsatisfactory  and  incomplete  solution  to the question  of civil 
liability  in the special  field  of waste  dumping.  The  Commission  is working  on general  rules 
on liability:  these  rules  should  not  be prejudged,  and  the results  of these  endeavours  should 
be awaited.  At the  same  time,  this  would  avoid  a fragmentation  of the  laws  on this 
matter.' 
Reasons 
The amendment  is self-explanatory. 
Voting: 
For: 4, against:  large  majority,  abstentions:  10. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the harmonization  of laws  in the 
Member  States  to combat  illegal  migration  and  illegal  employment 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 277  of 23 November  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 15 November  1976  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 
146th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 23 and 24 February  1977. 
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  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 15 
November  1976, Having  regard  to the Decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
29 June  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for  Social 
Questions  to draw  up an opinion  and  a report  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Social  Questions  on 10 February  1977, 
Having  regard  to the  report  drawn  up  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mr Kirschen,