ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 521 
 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 205 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlement. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. September 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(84) 521 final
Brussels, 26 September 1984
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
concerning
PROPOSALS
- for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Agreement between
the Swiss Confederation and the European Economic Community concerning  
direct insurance other than life assurance ;
- for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the implementation of the Agreement in the  
Member States
COM(84) 521 final

-  1 -
On 2 March 1983, the Commission submitted to the Council proposals  
for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between  
the Swiss Confederation and the European Economic Community concerning  
direct insurance other than life assurance, and for a Council Directive  
on the implementation of the Agreement in the Member States,
The Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament delivered
2 3opinions on these proposals on 27 October 1983 and 13 April 1984  
respectively.
The purpose of this communication is to present to the Council the  
Commission's views on the opinions of Parliament and the Economic and  
Social Committee,
1· The opinion of Parliament
The Commission considers, like Parliament, that the Agreement has to be  
viewed in conjunction with the free trade agreement and the large number  
of technical agreements which the Community has already concluded in the  
context of its economic and trade relations with Switzerland,
Parliament's resolution rightly emphasizes the political significance  
of the proposed Agreement as the first attempt to conclude an agreement  
with a third country on the subject of services. Existing restrictions  
to trade between the Community and a third country are to be removed  
for the first time in an important sector of the services industry,  
namely insurance. As a result of the increasing attention that is  
being paid within both GATT and the OECD to the removal of international  
barriers to trade in services, the Community wishes to take this opportunity
1COM (83) 106 final, 28,2.1983  
20J C 358, 31.12.1983, p. 5.  
"^Council doc. 6584/84 (ASSRE 231).

2
to enforce , in a services sector of the utmost importance economically  
both to Switzerland and to the Community, the principle of equal com­
petition and equal treatment in the establishment of insurance under­
takings« The Community's action is intended as a signal to other  
third countries as well«
The Agreement is also important - and this was stressed in the opinion
4of Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - as a  
suitable means of promoting closer economic links between the Member  
States of the Community and EFTA« The Commission regards the Agreement,  
moreover, as a further step towards the strengthening of formal relations  
between the Community and the member countries of EFTA« It would welcome  
it if the Council would assess the Agreement above all in this light«
With regard to the two points which, in Parliament's view, were not made  
sufficiently clear in the Agreement, the Commission’s position is as  
follows:
The approval of policy conditions and tariffs at the time of granting of  
the authorization of insurance undertakings and during the pursuit of  
business, provided for in Articles 9«2 and 24 of the Agreement, is in  
keeping with the provisions of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973^,  
on which the Agreement is based« That Directive takes account of the  
special nature of insurance supervision in individual Member States of  
the Community insofar as the current state of coordination in this field  
does not prevent Member States from applying provisions requiring general  
and special policy conditions and tariffs to be approved· It is
^Doc« EP 87«953 fin·, p· 11«
50J L 228, 16«8»1973 (Article 8(3) and Article 10(3))«

3 -
understandable that the Agreement must be based on the current state  
of coordination reached within the Community, and in relations with  
Switzerland the situation cannot differ from that which obtains in  
relations between Member States under Directive 73/239/EEC.
The same applies to Exchange of Letters No, 6 annexed to the Agreement,  
which, in Parli am ent'  s views, might have the effect of providing sub­
stantial relaxation for Swiss"insurers operating in the Community, but  
only very minimal relaxation for Community insurers established in  
Switzerland, In the Commission's opinion, this exchange of letters  
contains no special derogation for Switzerland, It simply states,  
as is already apparent from Directive 73/239/EEC, that the minimum  
ilvr-ni.·/ margin and the minimum guarantee fund, which are henceforth  
· :  .|ua · . .  y binding on Swiss and Community undertakings, have no bearing  
'■n t  a „aws regarding the requirements relating to the capital of  
:ier tu k i  ng s,  T n e fact that Swiss undertakings are subject to some­
what stricter requirements as to their capital than are the undertakings  
of several Member States does not mean that Swiss undertakings are  
placed in an advantageous position. On the contrary it could be said  
that Swiss undertakings are at a certain competitive disadvantage com-  
oareci with Community undertakings,
-.!, Tr· . . · opinion of the Economic and Social Committee
Tne Commi ssion welcomes the fundamental point made by the Economic and  
him Committee that the insurance agreement is of considerable  
•ii.o m m in the Community’s relations with a non-member country  
.:.o ;r-at, "at a time when protectionist tendencies are re-emerging",
* ■  i.uv ,/es that "the Community's basic stance is one of openness to  
the "est of the world" (paragraph 1  of the opinion).
Ur, tne other hand, the Commission does not share the Committee's view  
tnat the principle of reciprocity, one of the corner-stones of the

4
Agreement, should be viewed only in the light of prevailing conditions  
on the Swiss and the Community insurance markets, and that the Agreement  
should be considered only if the Swiss market "is of sufficient economic  
importance" for Community insurance undertakings (paragraph 2.2.1).
The Commission would point out that, according to the Council's mandate,  
the Agreement should create a legal framework for freedom of establishment  
for insurance undertakings in both Switzerland and the Community analogous  
to Council Directive 73/239/EEC. The placing of Swiss and Community  
insurance undertakings on an equal competitive footing cannot be made  
dependent on the conditions actually prevailing on the markets of the  
contracting parties»
Nor does the Commission share the Committee's view that the Agreement  
should be more explicit concerning the scope of the non-discrimination  
principle embodied in it (end of paragraph 2,2»1)» The prohibition  
on discrimination contained in Article 4 of the Agreement, to which  
the Commission attaches considerable importance, must by its very nature  
relate to the fields governed by the Agreement, as set out in Council  
Directive 73/239/EEC on freedom of establishment. The Commission  
would point out that the principle contained in the Agreement of non­
discrimination in respect of the establishment of insurance undertakings  
represents a major improvement on the free trade agreement between the  
Community and Switzerland« Nor does the Commission share the Committee's  
fear that the Agreement might induce Community firms to transfer to  
Switzerland the free assets forming their solvency margin (paragraph  
2.2,2). Under the Agreement, an undertaking has to establish the  
requisite solvency margin and the minimum guarantee fund in respect  
of its entire business, including, that is, its agencies and branches  
in the territory of the other contracting party, under the responsibility  
of its head office.

5
The fact that this obligation is imposed on the head
office means that the security previously required in Switzerland of
Community branch offices is henceforth abolished. Since this security
was subject in Switzerland to very strict requirements, its abolition
will, on the contrary, result in Community branches in Switzerland
allowing substantial sums to flow back to the head office in the
Community.
The Committee considers the Agreement to be imbalanced in that, owing  
to the existence of Swiss cantonal fire insurance monopolies, a substantial  
part of the Swiss fire insurance market is taken away from Community  
insurers (paragraph 2.2.3). As far as the exclusion of certain insurance  
institutions enjoying a monopoly is concerned, the Agreement had to be  
based on the same principles as Council Directive 73/239/EEC, in which a  
number of monopolistic institutions existing in the Member States are  
likewise excluded. The Commission is aware that the list of Swiss  
cantonal fire insurance monopolies excluded from the Agreement is  
considerably longer than the Community's list. Nevertheless, approximately  
half of the Swiss fire insurance market remains open to competition from  
private insurers. On the other hand, certain forms of social insurance  
which are a government monopoly in the Member States of the Community  
are written in Switzerland by private undertakings and are therefore  
open to competition from Community insurers. The Commission therefore  
considers the criticism that the Agreement is economically imbalanced  
to be unjustified.
The Committee also criticizes the Agreement for not allowing for develop­
ments in liberalization within the Community, particularly as regards  
freedom to provide services for indemnity insurance undertakings  
(paragraph 2.3). A comprehensive insurance agreement between the  
Community and Switzerland embracing freedom to provide services would

-  Ó  "
certainly be desirable. In the Commission's opinion, however, the  
fact that the state of liberalization of insurance within the Community  
is constantly developing, especially as regards freedom’to provide  
services, is not a reason for rejecting this agreement, which governs  
the important field of the establishment of indemnity insurance under­
takings. The Commission would draw attention, moreover, to the  
important provision in Article 39 of the Agreement (evolution clause),  
which expressly provides for the opening of further negotiations aimed  
at developing the relations established by the Agreement by extending  
them to insurance activities not previously covered thereby.
Lastly, the Commission cannot agree with the Committee that detailed  
rules for collaboration between the Swiss and the Community insurance  
supervisory authorities should have been set out in the Agreement  
(paragraph 2.4). Section 5 of the Agreement (Articles 29 to 32)  
contains a number of fundamental provisions governing collaboration  
between the supervisory authorities of the Member States of the Community  
and those of Switzerland. Drawing up the detailed rules for such  
collaboration is a matter for the supervisory authorities themselves,  
and in particular for the conference of insurance supervisory authorities  
of the Member States of the Community, which will cooperate with the  
Swiss supervisory authorities in matters relating to the implementation  
of the Agreement.
3« Summary
Having examined the objections to individual points of the Agreement  
formulated by the European Parliament and the Economic and Social  
Committee, the Commission does not consider itself obliged to enter  
into fresh negotiations with Switzerland.

-  7
It considers that the Agreement negotiated is entirely in keeping  
with the brief and the guidelines laid down therein^ given to it  
by the Council on 23 July 1974« The Commission would stress the  
importance of this, the first establishment agreement to be concluded  
by the Community with a non-member country in the field of services,  
and requests the Council to assess the Agreement above all in the  
light of its importance to the consolidation of trade relations  
between the Community and a member country of EFTA·
^Council doc« 1/99/74 of 18«7.1974«