No C 108/42 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 5. 75 
exchange  of views,  in one  form  or another,  with 
representatives  of the  EEC  Council  of Ministers. 
4.4. The  present  Opinion  is a contribution  to this 
two-way  flow  of information,  which  should  be 
followed  up by regular  contacts.  The  Committee 
is prepared  to organize  its work  accordingly  and  to 
help  in the solution  of the grave  problems  facing  the EEC  by means  of joint  efforts  by all the  economic 
and social  groups. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 February  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Item 2.2.11. 
Amend  the  second  line  to read: 
may make  it possible  to avoid  a recession,  provided  that,  by means  of suitable  agree-
ments,  the  OPEC  countries  pursue  a loans  (rest  unchanged). 
Result  of the vote 
For:  40;  against:  45; abstentions:  11. 
Item 3.3.1. 
Amend  the  penultimate  sentence  to read: 
'They  concern  employment  safeguards,  guaranteed  earnings  and  periods  within  which  wor-
kers may  not  be made  redundant.'  (delete  remainder). 
Result  of the vote 
For:  42;  against:  47;  abstentions:  10. 
Item 3.3.3. 
Delete,  and  replace  by: 
'A more  equitable  distribution  of underemployment  will  not  resolve  the  employment 
issue.  In  order  to tackle  this  issue  and  guarantee  stable  employment  for all workers,  the 
Community  and  the Member  States,  acting  at European  level  and  in each  country,  should 
intervene  more  extensively  in order  to guide  structural  change,  enlarge  the  productive 
basis  of each  country  and  further  overall  development.' 
Result  of the vote 
For:  44;  against:  57;  abstentions:  0. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on the common  definition  of the 
concept  of the  origin  of petroleum  products 
The text  referred  to the Committee  was  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities,  No  C 124  of 15 October  1974,  pages  1 to 3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 22 July  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  under  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the European  Eco-
nomic  Community. 
15. 5. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 108/43 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 128th  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 26 and  27 February  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  referral  on 23 July  1974  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  of the 
proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on the common 
definition  of the concept  of the origin  of petroleum 
products; 
Having  regard  to Article  198  of the Treaty  establish-
ing the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 8 October  1974,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to prepare 
the Committee's  work  on the  matter; 
Having  regard  to the Opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  at its 
meeting  on 5 February  1975; 
Having  regard  to the report  submitted  by the Rap-
porteur,  Mr  Clark; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  of the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  on the proposal  for a Council 
Regulation  on the common  definition  of the concept 
of the  origin  of goods  (*); 
Having  regard  to the Opinion  of the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  on the  Commission's  memoran-
dum  to the Council  on initial  implementation  of the 
guidelines  and  priorities  for  a Community  energy 
policy  and  the  six  proposals  annexed  thereto; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 128th  plenary 
session  of 26  and  27  February  1975,  sitting  of 
27 February  1975, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 51 votes  to 25 and  with  14 abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the proposal  for a Regu-
lation,  subject  to the  following  comments: 
1. The  Committee  welcomes  the  Commission's 
proposal  that  the  scope  of Regulation  (EEC) 
(*) OJ  No  68,  18.  4. 1966,  p. 1009/66. No 802/68  be extended  to petroleum  products, 
since  there  will  then  be uniform  origin  rules  for all 
industrial  goods.  This  measure  would  also  take 
account  of what  has  been  current  practice  in eight 
Member  States  for  several  years. 
With  the exception  of Article  8 of the proposal,  the 
Committee  regards  this  as a genuine  step  forward 
on the way  towards  harmonization  of customs  regu-
lations.  Article  8 should  be deleted,  since  its appli-
cation  will  produce  a wide  range  of difficulties  as 
follows: 
1.1. It  is extremely  difficult  to establish  the origin 
of the crude  oil from  which  refined  petroleum  pro-
ducts  have  been  obtained.  This  becomes  technically 
impossible  and  disproportionately  expensive  as 
more  crude  oils  of different  origins  are used  and  the 
number  of processing  stages  increase. 
1.2. Severe  penalties  may  be incurred  for  giving 
incorrect  information  about  origin,  since  this  Regu-
lation  is automatically  applicable  at national 
level. 
1.3. This  heavy  technical  and  legal  burden  would 
weigh  on all  industrial,  trading  and  craft  firms 
importing  petroleum  products,  however  small  the 
quantities,  and  would  cause  considerable  legal 
uncertainty  in the  Community. 
1.4. This  further  complication  of the  rules  of 
origin,  which  are involved  as it is, would  run counter 
to pressure  for simplification  of EEC  customs  regu-
lations. 
1.5. Furthermore,  Article  8 would  force  firms 
both  inside  and  outside  the Community,  to disclose 
information  on internal  business  matters,  e.g.  their 
sources  of supply,  to their  customers  as well  as to 
competitors. 
2. Further,  the Committee  is of the  opinion  that 
the deletion  of Article  8 would  neither  endanger  the 
Community's  supplies  of hydrocarbons,  particularly 
crude  oil and  natural  gas,  nor  undermine  the com-
mon  energy  policy. 
3. The  Committee  wholeheartedly  supports  the 
Commission's  efforts  to achieve  a common  energy 
policy  and  security  of energy  supplies,  as is clear 
from  its Opinion  on the  communication  of the 
No C 108/44 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 5. 75 
Commission  entitled  'Towards  a new  energy  policy 
strategy  for  the  European  Community'. 
3.1. The  Committee  notes  that  the  requirements 
of security  of supplies  and  a common  energy  policy 
are already  satisfied  for  crude  oil and  natural  gas 
by Regulation  (EEC)  No  1055/72  and  that  this 
Regulation  has  been  extended  to refined  products 
by Regulation  (EEC)  No  3254/74. 
3.2. The  Committee  considers  that  such  exten-
sion  is the  appropriate  way  to pursue  this  problem. 
This  makes  the  provision  of Article  8 unnecessary 
and avoids  the  conflicts  between  customs  policy 
and energy  policy. 
4. Certificates  of origin  are  unsuitable  as a tool 
in supply  policy,  since  they  only  certify  the  origin 
of the  goods  without  giving  the  quantity,  and  there-
fore  cannot  form  a basis  for  energy  statistics. 4.1. Furthermore,  the  certificate  of origin  is an 
internationally  standardized  form,  and  one  cannot 
unilaterally  ask  users  to give  details  over  and  above 
those  required  under  established  world  practice. 
This  would  constitute  a new  trade  barrier,  which 
would  give  rise  to compensation  claims  against 
the EEC  in the  GATT  negotiations. 
5. The  Committee  would  appeal  to the  Commis-
sion  to keep  in mind  the  need  for  simple  origin 
rules  and  to remember  that  complicated  procedures 
place  a burden  on the Community's  trading  partners, 
and especially  the  developing  countries. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 February  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  C \NONGE 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Replace  the text  of the  Opinion  by the following: 
'The  Committee  approves  the  Commission's  proposal.  It emphasizes  that  in the  area 
of petroleum  product  supplies  it is more  important  than  ever  that  data  of the utmost  relia-
bility  should  be compiled.  This  information  should  be obtained  from  those  in the  best 
position  to provide  it, without  an excessive  burden  being  imposed  on too large  a number  of 
firms'. 
Reasons 
The above  text  reintroduces,  for the reasons  set out  below,  the alternative  rejected  by the 
Section. 
1. The  statement  made  in item  1.1 is inaccurate.  Establishing  the origin  of the crude  oil 
is not  'technically  impossible'  since  in one  Member  State  the  relevant  information  is pro-
vided  by the oil companies.  The  fact  that  sources  of supply  are less  diversified  in this  particular 
country  cannot  be regarded  as a valid  objection. 
2. The  line  taken  by the  majority  of the  section  abounds  with  contradictions.  It has  it, 
for example  that  establishing  the origin  of the crude  oil is 'technically  impossible'  (item  1.1); 
and that  this  information  must  be provided  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1055/72,  which 
has been  extended  to refined  products  by Regulation  (EEC)  No  3254/74,  in other  words 
the information  is to be supplied  in declarations  by purchasers  (items  3.1 and  3.2);  whereas 
in item  1.5,  the purchaser  is denied  the  right  to have  access  to this  information,  which  he 
will have  to supply  somehow. 
Furthermore,  it is stated  that  a 'heavy  technical  and  legal  burden  would  weigh  on all indus-
trial,  trading  and  craft  firms  importing  petroleum  products,  however  small  the  quantities, 
and would  cause  considerable  legal  uncertainty  in the Community'  (item  1.3);  also  this  'fur-
ther complication  of the  rules  on origin,  which  are  involved  as it is, would  run  counter  to 
pressure  for  simplification  of EEC  customs  regulations'  (item  1.4). 
But the Opinion  of the  section  in fact  imposes  the burden  of establishing  the origin  — and 
consequently  the legal  uncertainty  which  it condemns  — on Community  firms  importing  pro-
ducts  derived  from  petroleum  (items  3.1 and  3.2)  while  at the same  time  depriving  them  of 
15. 5. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 108/45 
the means  of providing  this  information  (last  sentence,  item  3.2),  thus  putting  them  in an 
impossible  situation. 
All these  firms  are to be required  to make  a second  declaration  thus  'further  complicating 
the rules  on origin,  which  are involved  as it is' and  'running  counter  to pressure  for simpli-
fication  of EEC  customs  regulations',  as stated  in item  1.4. 
Similary,  (in item  5) the section  calls  for simple  rules  on the establishment  of origin  (which 
is incidentally  considered  to be impossible);  yet the proposed  system  is rejected  on the grounds 
that it is over-simplified  and  does  not provide  quantitative  data  (item  4). Instead  a compli-
cated  system  is envisaged  viz.  a double  declaration  for all firms,  while  rejecting  the idea  of 
a single  formality  (item  3.2)  with  additional  information  (to be entered  on an existing  docu-
ment)  in the case  of the few  firms  that  import  products  under  special  supervision. 
Moreover  it is stated  that  there  is 'wholehearted  support'  for  the Commission's  efforts  to 
achieve  a common  energy  policy  and  security  of energy  supplies,  as is clear  from  the Opinion 
of the Committee  on the communication  of the Commission  entitled  'Towards  a new  energy 
policy  strategy  for the European  Community',  but  it is denied  information  whose  purpose 
is 'to provide  the statistics  necessary  for a Community  energy  policy'.  The  abovementioned 
Opinion  of the Committee  is even  contradicted,  especially  the statements  made  by certain 
members,  to the effect  that: 
'This  policy  must  be based  on the following  principles: 
the market  must  exhibit  the requisite  transparency  to enable  the national  and  Community 
authorities  to satisfy  themselves  that  it functions  in accordance  with  the foregoing  principles 
and with  the more  general  aims  of the energy  policy'. 
The Opinion  calls  for the deletion  of Article  8 and prefers  the extension  of Regulation  (EEC) 
No 1055/72.  Yet  these  are completely  different  provisions:  on the one  hand,  collection  of 
information  on imports,  on the other,  communication  of this  information  by the Member 
States  to the Commission.  However,  information  cannot  be communicated  if it is not collec-
ted in the first  place. 
In its Opinion  the  section  declares  its approval  of the proposal;  whereas  the report  states 
that 'Article  8 of the proposal  for a Regulation  is of such  importance  that  the decision  whether 
or not  to approve  the Regulation  hinges  on it'. 
3. Under  the cover  of technical  considerations,  the primary  objective  is to prevent  the 
Commission  and  the Member  States  from  forming  a clear  picture  as regards  petroleum  pro-
duct supplies  and  price  determination. 
4. The  Commission,  the European  Parliament  and  experts  from  all the Member  States 
reached  agreement  on this  proposal,  which  would  finally  open  the way  for the free  movement 
of petroleum  products.  One  and  all refrained  from  raising  major  objections  and thus  jeopar-
dizing  this hard-won  compromise,  alone  capable  of achieving  free  movement  of these  products. 
5. In  contrast  to the views  held  by the Commission  and  the national  experts  the basic  line 
taken  in the Opinion  adopted  by the majority  of the section  amounts  to a desparate  attempt 
to prevent  the supply  of the information  needed  for the energy  policy  by rejecting  the step 
of requesting  this  information  from  the refineries,  the sole  undertakings  capable  of provi-
ding it. 
The section  must  be aware  of the pointlessness  of imposing  extra  formalities  on all (importing) 
firms  of the Community;  it is obvious  that  a Community  importer  of petrol,  wax,  plastics 
or oil will  be badly  informed  — if at all — about  the crude  oil mixing  operations  carried  out 
by the refineries  of third  countries.  This  will  make  it all the more  difficult  for the importer 
to assume  the burden  of establishing  origin. 
To expect  this  information  from  the importer  and  at the same  time  delete  Article  8, which 
makes  it possible  for the necessary  information  to be obtained,  is unrealistic. 
6. If  it is the intention  to approve  the Commission  proposal  which  is what  the present  text 
purports  to do, then  the Opinion  must  be stripped  of all that  has been  added  for the purpose 
of thwarting  the Commission's  intentions.  The  Opinion  would  have  been,  much  clearer 
if the section's  position  had  been  expressed  in the original  wording,  along  the lines  of 'the 
section  rejects  the proposal  for a Regulation'. 
Result  of the vote 
For: 29; against:  44; abstentions:  17.