ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (80)103
V ol.1980/9006

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic des archives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JO L43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telque modifié parlerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JO L243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of 1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community and theEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJ L43, 15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJ L243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 des Rates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243 vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

/
COMMISSION
DES
COMMUNAUTES EUROPEENNES
SecrétariatgénéralCOM(80)103 final
Bruxelles,le12thMarch1980
S
&φé*
NEGOTIATIONS ONTHEACCESSION OFPORTUGALTOTHECOMMUNITY
PROPOSALSCONCERNINGTHESOCIALAFFAIRSCHAPTER
presentedbytheCommissiontotheCouncil)
C0M(80)103final

UrTRODUCTION
1.Sinoe thefirst meeting ofthe Conference atDeputy Level onthe
negotiations onthe acoession ofPortugal tothe Community ,held inBrussels
on 1December 1978 *"thenegotiations have reached thestage devoted to
arriving atanoverall picture ofthestate ofthenegotiations soastohe
able ,inasecond stage ,tobegin detailed ,substantive negotiations onthe
various sectors *Itisexpected that thefirst stage will becompleted
<before the end ofthe second half of19o0 «
2*Atthesixth meeting oftheConference atDeputy Level on7^gpember 1979)Portugal presented itsfirst statement onthesocial affairs qS§t)ster ofthe
accession negotiations *Itdeals mainly with freedom ofmo^tnent forworkers ,
social security for migrant workers ,Portugal 'sparticipation intheEuropean
Social Fiuid and acceptance ofthe "acquis communautaire "infields other than
Community social policy *
3*Vith respect tofreedom ofmovement for workers ,the statement emphasizes
that "itisinboth the Community 'sand Portugal 'sinterest for theprovisions
ofthechapter oftheTreaty of^paeonthefreedom ofmovement forworkers
andthe"acquis communautaire^Jh thisarea,specifically Council Begulation
(EEC)NO1612/68of15OCTOSJM' 1968 onthefreedom ofmovement forworkers
within the Community ,tobefully applied toPortuguese workers immediately
upon Portugal 'saccession "*
4*With r^speot tosocial security formigrant workers ,Portugal considers
that "itwould beunacceptable anddifficult toexplain –both inhuman and
political terms -that Portuguese workers employed inthe Member States of
t^Communities ,ofwhich Portugal would already formpart,should still have
suffer after accession ,even iftransit ionally ,from the shortcomings ,
vinadequacies andrestrictions resulting from bilateral agreements orthat
there should beanyfailure toeliminate alldiscrimination asregards social
• •
security inrelation tothenationals ofthe Member States inwhich these
workers are employed "*

%%Further ,thePortuguese Delegation "Considers that,tiponPortugal 's
access ion,theprovisions oftheTreaty andthe "acquis communautaire "as
regards social security ,andinparticular Council Begulation (EEC)Ho1408/71
of21March 1972 andthe instruments attending and supplement ing them must
heapplied toPortuguese workers andtheir families "*
5«x£fith reference totheapplication oftheprovisions oftheEuropean
Social Fund toPortugal ,thePortuguese Delegation "Expects theentire
country toheregarded asoneofthe regions qualifying forthehigher
rateofcontribution fromtheFundinaccordance withArticle 8of
Council De.cisid<^l /66/l3ECof1February 1971onthereform ofthe
European Social FraJL asamended toyCouncil Deoision 77/801yteBC
of'20December 1977 n*
6*Inthatstatement ,thePo&^uese Delegation again expressed itsviewthat "Portugal should beassist e^iy theCommunity inpreparing for
•ν/accession asregards thesocial sector "*
7*Portugal hasmotapplied foranytrans iti&pal measures apart from those
already requested inits statement onthe EAEC coapter concerning basic
safety standards forthehealth protection ofthe°g^eral public andworkersagainst thedangers ofionising radiation * ^
8*Bearing inmindontheonehandtheimportance Portugal a&^bes tothis
chapter ofthenegotiations andontheother the"acquis comnrenW&^re "and
the eoonomio and social context inwhich itapplies the Commission the
opinion that the social aspect isone ofthe main components ofthe overall
picture and ofthenegotiations ingeneral *
Therefore ,inconnection with thework ofpreparing this overall picture ,
the Commission thought itopportune ,inthis Communication totheCouncil ,
toset outits views onthe main problems associated with :the social affairs
chapter oftheaccession negotiations with Portugal andpresent itsproposals
regarding ajoint position atthepresent stage ofthenegotiations *

9*These proposals relate tothe main aspects ofCommunity social policy ,
inparticular thefree movement ofworkers *With respeot tothe
application ofthelatter ,the Commission recommends that transitional
measures should beadopted toensure that theintegration ofPortugal
takes place without causing serious disruption inthe Community *
The Commission proposals are based onthe "general consideration *
(Doc.C0M(78)120 ),onitsopinion totheCouneil concerning Portug^s
application foraooession (Doc*C0M(78)220 fin*)andonanin-d^i&&
analysis ofthesocial situation anditsprobable trends in^5§*bugal andtheCommunity * ^
Informulating itsproposals ,theCommission bo£^c£n mindtheprospect
thattheCommunity willbeenlarged totwelv^jfrimber countries ,including
Greece ,Portugal andSpain * .c^
10*InthisCommunication ,t^&ommission dealsinturnwiththefollowing
pointsf
–general considerations (seepoint I)
–freedom ofmovement forworkers (seepoint II)
–social secur^j ^formigrant workers (seepointIII)
–theEurorafck Sooial Fund (seepoint IV)
–other fS&lds coming within thescope ofsooial affairs (seepoint V)*

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
11*This Communication covers themain aspects ofthesocial chapter of
theaccession negotiations between Portugal andtheCommunity *The
Commission reserves the rigfct ,ifnecessary ,toreconsider these aspects
>.andadopt aposition onanyother problems which mayemerge orberaised
Portugal inthecourse ofnegotiations inthe sooial area *V
12*TheCommission emphasizes that full application ofthe "acquis
communautai ^nconstitutes thepoint ofdeparture fornegotiations inthe
socialas.in^^er areas ,except insofarastransitional measures and
temporary derog^^ns provenecessary toensure thattheintegration of
Portugal with theCommunity takes place without disruption *
This iswithout prejudice fjjj^pny measures that "beCommunity maytakebetween
nowandaccession inthearea^J^sooial affairs andwhichjtherefore becoming
partofthe"acquis oommunautair ^,mustbeapplied byPortugal fromthetime
ofaccession ,subject tothesane reservation asregards transitional measures
ortemporary derogations *
%
13*The1972Agreement andtheadditional Pr<wjppol of20September 1976
formpartofthe"acquis cosmonaut aire"andoover^^e relations already
established between theCommunity andPortugal )since they contain asection
oncooperation inthesooial field providing forequal treatment for
Portuguese workers employed in-beMember States inrelation^o national
workers * %
Theadditional Protocol provides that thetreatment aooorded byeach
Member State oftheCommunity toworkers ofPortuguese nationality employed
initsterritory shall befree from anydiscrimination based onnationality *^%
With respect tosocial security ,theProtocol speoifies that Portuguese
workers andanymembers oftheir families living with them shall enjoy
treatment free ofanydiscrimination ,that allperiods ofinsurance ,

employment orresidenoe completed bysuch workers inthe Member States shall
headded together tandthat they shall receive family allowance sfor members
oftheir families who areresident inthe Community *Such workers shall also ,
subject tocertain conditions ,heable totransfer freely toPortugal any
pensions orannuities received under thesocial security system * .<
Ontheother hand ,theProtocol contains noprovisions regarding freedom
ofmovement forworkers . ^
/
14*Atthis juncture the Commission does notbelieve itisnecessary to
fixaprecise duration fortheapplication ofanytransitional measures
found necessary under this chapter * ^5^
13*The Commission would stress that itspresent position with regard to
this chapter iswithout prejudice totheposition itmay adopt with respect
toother chapters ofthenegotiators ,inparticular theperiod ofapplication
fortransitional measures andi^tporary derogations *
16*The Commission also emphasizes that the accession negotiations must
beconsidered as^whole andthatagreements reached inthecourse of
negotiations <^^hapters tobeBtudied inturncannot beconsidered
definitive agreement has been reached onthe whole *
?

I. FREEDOM OP MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS
A.Introduction
17*Inits general considerations onthe problems ofenlargement ,the
^Commission recalled that freedom ofmovement for workers isafundamental
ευχ^ΕΑΟΗ
W 2μα 1^–Ί V– 4.Χ »Λ. – 1,tt>rIg^it ofallCommunity nationals .Itfurther stressed that experience
hac^p^own that freedom ofmovement alone didnotresult insignificant
migra^ry flows duetothepreponderant roleplayed "bythedemand forlabour
The Commission ,however ,added that account should betaken ofthe current
tensions onth^j^bour markets which werelikely tocontinue ,andasa
consequence full^j^cise oftherighttofreedom ofmovement bynationalsofthe/newMember St^^s should notcomeintoeffect until after an
appropriate transitional period toobviate serious conflicts .
18.Withthisinmind,inits^j^nion concerning Portugal *sapplication for
accession ,the Commission held
-immediate andfullapplication ofC&nmunity Lawmight "encourage the
tendency toemigrate ,which would belikely tocreate additional
difficulties inthepresent Member States "^;
–"theselection ofthetransitional measures wil%5he ofparticular
importance "^;
,%
-"they will have tobeorganized astopace and procedure inthelight
ofadjustment problems which can beproperly pinpointed only inthe
«4sector -by-sector negotiations •
Community provisions regarding theterritory towhich freedom ofmoveirf§^forworkers applies arelaid downinCommunity instruments ,inparticula ^
Article 227ofthe EECTreaty ,asamended byArtiole 26ofthe Act of
Accession of22January 1972 andArticle 20ofthe Aot ofAccession
/\Λ
of28May 1979 (in "thecourse ofratification ). -r
Documents C0M(78)120 final .190final and 200final *
2"Ifthere are noconcrete prospects ofemployment inthecountries ofimmigration ,
these movements aregreatly reduced inamplitude "(C0M(78)200 final ,point X.2.1 )•
C0M(78)220 final ,point 40»
^C0M(78)200 final ,point 21.

-7-
B. Considerations regarding Portligue seemigration
19*Inaddition tothe considerations and information inthe Commission
Opinion ontheapplication foraccession byPortugal ,some data on
Portuguese emigration ingeneral and towards the Community inparticular
will behelpful . ^/
20*First |such emigration occurs onalarge scale *Ithasbeen estimated^o ^
that between 1900 and1950 some 1300000Portuguese were involved ^*This
flow accelerated between 1950 and 1960 (netemigration of680000)coming to
apeak between i960 and1970 (953000),then declining from 1970 t^s*1975
(211000)^* OECD^statistics giveevenhigher figures fornet^j&tuguese
emigrat ion!nearly 2million between 1950 and1973 * *5^
These figures show that since the beginning ofthe century over one-third
ofthePortuguese population hasemigrated ,i.e.,^norethan 3million out
ofapopulation of8762000living inPortuga^c !^1975^*
21.Until the1960s themain flow ofPoz^Uguese emigrants wastowards the
countries ofAfrica and Latin America ,duetothe special links between
Portugal andthese countries *For example ,inarecent study itwas
estimated thatbetween 1837an<^$^68 ,nearly 1800000Portuguese emigrated
toBrazil ***
Since thebeginning ofthe 1960s ,however ,astrong migratory flow has
developed toward^theEuropean countries .Atpresent ,there areover
1million Portrig^iese immigrants intheCommunity ,aspointed outinthe
Portuguese ^Stement of7December 1979onthesocial -chapter oftheaccession Negotiations .
1 * _____Source :"Lesconséquences de^élargissement delaCEEsurlesproblèmes
del'emploi ",study carried out onbehalf ofthe Commission bythe SEMAX^fchstitute *
Source :UN–Labour supply and migration inEurope –Démographie dimensions
1950-1975 and prospects .^ 3_ ., -Source :0ECD –Labour force statistics *
^Source :SOEC–Basic statistics *This figure takes noaccount ofreturning
migrants ,whoconstituted anexceptional population influx under thepressure
ofpolitical events *Ifthis phenomenon istaken into account ,thetotal
Portuguese population in1975 would be9448 000 *(Source :OECD Basic
Statistics -International comparisons ).
A*Sebastião Conçalves ,Brasil mundo emconstrução ,ed.Publicações
Europar-America *

-8-
22.In1978 jPortuguese workers were insecond place among workers from
non-member countries employed inthe Community with 479 000,after Turkish
workers with 626000.According totheabovementioned Portuguese statement ,
however ,thefigure forPortuguese workers W&Beven hi^ier (570 000).
>The percentage share ofPortuguese workers inthetotal labour force from
^^pn-member countries hasdeveloped asfollows :
%Tear^
» C&Workers from
non–member
countriesPortuguese workersAs%ofall
workers from
non-member
countries
1969 .(EEO-6 )
I973 (EEC–9)
1977 (EEC-9)
1978 (EEC-9 )'2300 000
φ4851000^400,000
4%% >ooo :205,000
588 ,000
566 ,000 ; *
479 0008.9
12.1
12.9
11.3
23sThese data show that the number ofPortuguese workers declined by18.5%
(109000 on588000)between 1973 and 1973^Itisofinterest tonote that
theflow ofpermanent Portuguese workers toS^e Member States hadalready
begun toshowadistinct decline fromthebegi^fing ofthe1970s *
\
%
%
YearEntries ofworkers from
non-member countries Prom Portugal
%1965 1(EEC–6)
1969 v(EEC-6 )
1973 (EEO-9 )
1978 ^(EEC-9 )452 000
693 000
510 000
7200060:400
96500
>66.800
2400

24*These data ,however ,donottake account ofclandestine Portuguese
emigration *This would seem tobefairly considerable inview ofthe
1SOPEMI estimate that in1977 there were 11763clandestine emigrants
toFrance and5000toVenezuela ,almost equal tototal official emigration
(16995)toEurope andother continents# According tothesame source ,
in1976 Portuguese clandestine emigration toFrance alone amounted
to15755»compared with 17458official emigrants toalldestinations .
25«Ofthetotal Portuguese population ofover 1million intheCommunity
in1976 ,over 800000were resident inPrance .In1978 ,80.4$ ofimmigrant
Portuguese workers intheCommunity wereemployed inFrance (385OO^ptrt
of479000).Inthesameyear,12.3$ (58771outof479000)we^^mployed
inGermany .
However ,inview oftheprospective accession ofSpain totheenlarged
Community ,itshould beremembered thatthiscountry alsoreceives afair
number ofPortuguese immigrants .In1976there about 30000^:but
this number isbelieved tohave increased sinrt&then .,3*
.cV
26.Ofthemost significant repercussions forPortugal ofthese massive
migratory flows ,attention should bedrawn toatleast two :their effect
ondemographic trends andonthe .fe&iance ofpayments .
Thescale ofPortuguese mig^tion hasprofoundly influenced thedemographic
trend andthe structure andregional distribution ofthepopulation in
Portugal .Between i960 and1970 ,theresident population declined from
8889392to8^^267.During thatdecade ,somedistricts suffered anet
population lo^t^anging from18$to25$:EvoraandVilaReal-18%;
Portoalegr3^j^21$ ;Guarda -22$;Braganga -23$;Beja-25$.
Since 1974»itshould benoted that over 500000Portuguese nationals -
pt&Kg ex-servicemen andformer colonials -havereturned tothecountry .
^S&lthough this large-scale influx represented valuable potential intheform#
S0EEMI –Système d'observation permanente desmigrations –1978 Report .
Source :Instituto Nacional deEstadistica .

-10-
%%%ofenergy andabilities that could bedirected todevelopment ,ontheother
hand italso brou^it additional social problems and contributed tomigratory
pressure owing tothelack ofopportunity onthe labour market inPortugal ,
where the unemployment rate hasbeen running atover 15%oftheworking
population forthelast 2years#
The inflow offoreign exchange remitted bythe large number ofworkers
^abroad hasmadeavaluable contribution tothebudgets ofthese workers'families andtothecountry 'sbalance ofpayments *Thefollowing table ^
shows how the volume ofworkers' remittances compares with export earnings
since 1925 *
– ^– -
YearEmigrants' remittances
(Escmillion )Total export earnings
(Escmillion )
1976 <
1977
1978
1979 (half year )fefc, 27623
44972^ 74120
4952254095
76718
106 233
79223
27# Itshould bepointed outthat this snj^tantial presence ofPortuguese
workers doesnotresult fromrules onfreedo^jjf movement butfromimmigrationauthorized fromthehostcountries * fyo
2Thebilateral agreements concluded with several Member States ,most ofwhich
datefromtheperiod ofstrong economic growth ,donotii^^pneral derogate
fromnational rules andregulations concerning theaccess o^gpreigners to
paidemployment ,their mainobjective beingtolaydownproced^^and
material conditions governing movements oflabour (selection ,recruitment ,
Source :Bank ofPortugal –Quarterly bulletin *
p . _ APortugal -Belgium 29*11*78 Portugal -Luxembourg 25*05*70
(protocol ) 06.01*77
Portugal -Germany 17»05*64 , .
Portugal -Netherlands 22*11*63
Portugal -France 11*01*77

channelling ,administrative cooperation ).Under certain agreements ,however ,
new and more restrictive regulations concerning ,for example ,the access to
employment offamily members were notapplied toPortuguese nationals *
Itwill further berecalled that the agreements sometimes contained provisions
concerning the socio-occupational integration ofmigrant workers andtheir .<
families (social andcultural aspects ,training andschooling ,reunifying
thefamily ).Therecent Franco-Portuguese andBelgo-Portuguese agreements
are the most complete inthis respect .
C.Phasing-in freedom ofmovement between theCommunity and^grtugal
28*Ascan beseen from the above ,the Member States arealready bound to
Portugal byagreements regarding migrant workers .Itis,however ,a
characteristic ofthelatter thatthey leave ade^^e ofscope for
regulating immigration inperiods whenthelabo^Q^market situation is
difficult .Itshould beremembered inthis^$&iection thatthere arecurrently somesixmillion unemployed inti^Community andthatthenumber
offoreign workers isalready roughly equal tothis figure .Furthermore ,
the forecasts regarding employment trends inthe Community suggest that
these tensions onthelabour markj^areunlikely toease inthenear future .
The accession ofPortugal ^JXltherefore represent asubstantial qualitative
change inrelations between this country and the present Member States inthe
social field :transition from the stage ofmanpower agreements tofreedom
ofmovement withirt&he Community .
29*This "trStosition must ,however ,beeffected without causing serious
disruption .Migratory pressures from Portugal and theuncertainties regarding
future labour market trends inthe Community are such that itwould beunwise
n^jyto takeappropriate precautions ,intheinterest oflabour markets inboth
^jl&eCommunity andPortugal itself ,before fully liberalizing access to
employment inthe enlarged Community .

-12-
30.Inthelight ofthese considerations ,the Commission proposes that
freedom ofmovement for workers "between the Community and Spain should
heintroduced gradually .Transitional arrangements will need tobedevised
tothis end and the Commission suggests that full freedom ofmovement
should bepreceded byathree –stage transitional period .%
Inbringing freedom ofmovement about bystages ,such asolution would
beinline with the principle laid down inArticle 49ofthe Treaty
establi^foig the EEC.3>
31.The following points need tobeborne mmind when determining both
the duration ofthetransitional period asawhole and thedetails ofthe
three stages (length ar^^rules applicable ):%%-the solution adopted for uf&ece ;
-the Commission 'scomments inits Opinion onthe Portuguese application ,
particularly asregards theneed tosupport thedevelopment ofindustry
andagriculture inPortugal ; ^
–theneedtoadopt identical arrangements fori^ain andPortugal even
though the economic and social situations ofthe two applicant countries
are different .
%m
Thisisnecessary forthefollowing reasons .Firstly ,theirrigationsarethatthepotential volume ofmigration fromPortugal tothe^^mmunity
over the next ten years will beatleast aslarge inabsolute terms
asthe volume ofmigration from Spain and may well belarger ,ashas
been the case since 1967 .Secondly ,theprinciple ofnon-discrimination //>
demands that thetransitional arrangements regarding freedom ofmovement
for persons should only differ tothe extent objectively necessary to
take account ofparticular aspects ofthesituation inPortugal and/or
the Community .Finally ,itisintheinterests ofefficiency tosimplify
procedures byensuring that disparities intherules applicable during
the transitional period are held toaminimum .

32.Inview ofthe above ,the Commission feels that the duration of
thetransitional period should lie somewhere between seven years -
which corresponds tothetransitional period for Greece asregards
freedom ofmovement -andten years ,i.e. ,the maximum duration
envisaged bythe Commission inits general considerations regarding
the transitional period . s bllC vi CUlDii UXWiiOJ . XVU • V
D. DETAILS OF TRANSI TIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
33.During thefirst stage ,Portuguese migrant workers should^jgmain
subject tonational provisions regarding immigration andacq^&£ to
employment for foreign workers .
Any Portuguese worker occupying apermanent job byvirtue ofthe
appropriate permit inaMember State either atthe time ofaccession
orthereafter would ,however ,beentitled to^nefit within thecountry
concerned fromthefullrange ofprovisiorj^§Jh freedom ofmovement ,
including theright ofentryfordepend^^s ,though hewould nothave
free access toemployment inother Mefi&er States .
Members ofaPortuguese worker 'sfamily living with him onaregular
basis should alsobeentitl^Ho benefit fromthese provisions subject
toaminimum residence r^j^rement ofthree years .
For the workers concerned andtheir families ,this would mean firstly
the abolition ofany discrimination based onnationality asregards
employment ,^hiuneration andother living andworking conditions ;
secondly^&ey would beentitled tobenefit fromtheprovisions of
Commis,^^n Regulation (EEC)No1251/70of29June 1970 asregards the1right toremain inaMember State after having been employed there .
The workers and their children would also benefit from measures taken
pursuant toCouncil Directive 77/486/EECof25July 1977 on "theeducation
ofthechildren ofmigrant worker^.
COM(78 )190final ,para .7•
^0JNoL142,30.6.1970 .i*0JNoL199,6.8.1977 .

-14-
34.Additionally ,inline with the arrangements adopted for Greece ,
the present Member States should ,asfrom the moment ofaccession *
grant Portuguese nationals the same priority with regard toemployment
asnationals ofthe other Member States when they have recourse to
workers from non-member countries who donot form part oftheir normal
1r//A labour market -%\labour market .
Community priority should begranted under the terms ofthe Declaration
ofthe European Economic Community tonationals ofall Member States
withoirt distinction .Moreover ,both thedesirability ofavoiding the
unnece^^ry administrative complications which might result fromthe
adoption t^j^differing arrangements foreachofthenewMember States ,
andthefact^fcf theadjacence ofPortugal ,Spain andFrance ,arearguments
infavour ofasimple ,uniform solution .
%
35•During thesecond sf«^ofthetransitional period ,nationals
ofthecountry concerned shcri^Ed continue toenjoy priority over
Portuguese workers entering the present Member States asregards access
toemployment ,but therestrictions should berelaxed invarious ways
byanalogy withthearrangements adopts ,bytheoriginal Community ofsixforthefirst stage intheintroduc^jfaa offreedom ofmovement for
2 V oworkers . ujy%
During this second stage ,free access toemployment for members ofthe
family ofaPortuguese worker employed inoneofthepresent Member States ^
would remain subject toaresidence requirement ofeig&foen months .
%
36.IntheCommission 'sview,thetotal duration ofthefird^^wostages should under nocircumstances exceed seven years andthe^precise
length ofthefirst stage should bedetermined atalater stage inthe
light of:
-the date ofPortugal 'saccession ;%-the principle that the arrangements for Portuguese nationals must at '
notime bemore favourable than those enjoyed bynationals ofany
other Member State .
Cf. Declaration ofthe EEC onGreek .workers taking uppaid employment
inth»-present Member States (annexed totheFinal Act)-OJNoL291,
19.11.1979 ,p.190.
2cf.Regulation No15/61.

37*Asregards thethird stage ,the Commission proposes that the
fundamental principle should bethe same asthat applied during the
second stage inthe introduction offreedom ofmovement within the
original Community ^,i.e. ,free access totheterritory ofanother
Member State forthe purpose oftaking upajob vacancy registered
with the relevant employment office inthat Member State ,unless the
Member State concerned hasannounced ,either atthebeginning of,^
orexceptionally during ,therelevant half-year that itissuspending
this right for regions oroccupations suffering from alabour surplus
orforregions where thesocial infrastructure would beinadequate for
theassimilation ofimmigrants .Theduration ofthis stage^jt^tild
under *nocircumstances exceed 3years .
38.Itgoes without saying that thePortuguese authorities will introduce
analogous arrangements forworkers from other Member States andmembers
oftheir families -
39.Finally ,immediately onaccessionxigSe present Member States and
Portugal must takethenecessary step^*withtheassistance ofthe
Commission toensure thesatisfactory operation oftherules adopted
forthetransitional period ,jiotably asregards priority ofaccess
toemployment .Inparticu^s ^Portugal mustbebrought intothe
Community system forcl<^j§ing vacancies andapplications foremployment
(SEDOC )assoonaspo^ble andatthelatest bythebeginning ofthe
second stage .
y
CfmRegulation No38/64/EEC,OJNo62,17*4*1964 *

-16-
E. OTHER MEASURES
<3? 40.Allowance must also "bemade forthepossibility ofsocial problems
arising inone ormore Member States from the application ofthe
/provisions onfreedom ofmovement .Tothis end,itissuggested that
the joint declaration onthe free movement ofworkers which was annexed
to "boththePinal Actconcerning theaccession ofGreece on28May1979^
2andthefjinal ActofAccession of22January 1972 should beadopted
onceagai^^ji connection withtheaccession ofPortugal .
41*Asregards^fche problem ofexisting agreements with Latin American
countries orformer colonies which bind Portugal togrant adegree of
freedom ofmovement for individuals ,asolution would ,inthe Commission 's
view,lieintheapplic^^n ofArticle 42(3)ofRegulation (EEC)1612/68^,
whichstipulates thatthe^^isions on,freedom ofmovement shall not
affect theobligations ofMemtj^States arising outofspecial relations
oragreements with certain non-European countries ,based onexisting or
past institutional ties .Itfurther believes that the Council 'sconclusions
regarding consultation onmigration policies vis-a-vis non-member countries4
constitute asuitable framework for resolwjfog such problems .
%
%
OJNoL291,I9.ll.i979,p.186. %•.' - «"■-« ·? *Γ" –- /2 Φ'-Λ » «τ -Τ _ ο _ _ ΛOJNoL73,27.3.1972 ,p.196. T
30JNoL257,19.10.1968 .
Adopted atitsmeeting on22November 1979 onthebasis oftheCommunication
from theCommission (CQM(79)ll5 final of23March 1979 ).

42.Asregards "thequestion oftransitional arrangements "between
Portugal and Spain during the period following their accession to
the Community ,the Commission feels that this should betackled
later inthe light ofsuch wishes asmay bythen have been expressed
byone orother ofthe countries concerned .
43.Finally ,fordiscussion ofquestions concerning thesocial
aspects ofCommunity provisions inthefield ofcooperation ,pl^se
seethesection onexternal relations (application ofthepx^^Tiple
ofthe -"acquis communautaire "). X&
P. CONCLUSION
44*Inthe Commission 'sview ,theproposa^p outlined above constitute
together abalanced solution whichsatyj^es theneedfortransitional
arrangements following broadly thesai§^lines asthose adopted for
Greece .
 

-18-
nr.SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS
Cftleneral considerations
45.Ar^ftcle 51ofthe EEC Treaty should beimplemented byPortugal from thedate
ofaccession andall the regulations deriving from itshould apply to
Portuguese law.territory and nationals .
Ithasnotyet^pen possible todraw upadefinitive listofthenumeroustechnical adjust^^ts thatwillhavetobemadetocertain provisions and
totlieannexes tottieCouncil Regulations ontheapplication ofsocial ^
security schemes toemployed persons andtheir families moving within the
Community (Basic Regulation^JTo 1408/71of14June 1971andimplementing
Regulation No574/72of21fja^Srjh 1972,last amended byRegulation (EEC)
No1517/79of16July 1979).
The necessary adjustments cannot bedetermined until the Portuguese
Delegation has forwarded the appropriate information and technical data .
TheDelegation hasnotyetbeenable-sinc^j^ie examination ofsecondary
legislation inthesocial field thattookplac^£j?om 17to21December 1979-
tosupply all the necessary information .
46.TheCommission willtherefore havetodelay anystatement ofposition onthese £
technical matters .\
However ,asfarastheprinciple isconcerned ,there doesnotsec^^to beany
need for atransitional period .-Sp­
infact ,thelevel ofdevelopment achieved bythe Portuguese social security
system andthenature ofthebilateral agreements between Portugal andthe yf.
Member States ofthe Community make itpossible toimplement Article 51of
theTreaty ofRome and Community legislation deriving from this Article
from the date ofaccession .

-19-
47•The problem offamily benefits
Asmost ofthe Portuguese migrant workers inthe Community are employed in
Prance ,application ofthe "acquis communautaire "would mean that Portuguese
workers would begranted smaller benefits than those they currently receive .
Community rules differ according towhether aworker isemployed inPrance ^orinanother Member States ^
-ifaworker isemployed inFrance ,members ofhis family receive the
family allowances paid bythecountry inwhich they reside ; A.
-ifaworker isemployed inone ofthe other Member States ,hsNreceivesq th^family allowances ofthecountry inwhich heisemplo^^formembers
ofhis family who reside inanother Member State .
Inorder toremedy thisunsatisfactory situation ,^£eCommission proposedin1975thattheCouncil adopt auniform systeiq^tat would entitle the
worker toreceive thefamily benefits ofthex&untry inwhich hewasemployed ,
asolution that hadalready been adopted l^?eight oftheMember States .
This proposal has notyet been adopted bythe Council owing tolack of
unanimity .
48.Thelevel offamily benef i-WfcSln Portugal (thecountry inwhich the members
•ofthefamily reside )isconsiderably lower than thebenefits paid inPrance
0 (thecountry inwhich theworker isemployed ).
Under abilatei^^agreement Portuguese workers arecurrently entitled to
flat-rate b^f^its whichliesomewhere between theamount paidinPrance
andthat pe^tci .inPortugal .
Itwould beanunacceptable situation ifthese workers were tofind themselves
i^pe offfromasocial point ofviewasaresult oftheir country 'saccession^^0 theCommunity .TheCommission therefore suggests that,pending the
adoption ofitsproposal introducing the "country ofemployment "system inνPrance ,thebilateral agreement concluded between Prance and Portugal should
beallowed toremain inforce .
This solution does notconstitute anexception totheprinciple ofaccepting
the "acquis communautaire "asprovisions inthebilateral agreements that are
aor.advantageous toworker *mayremain inforce pursuant toAnne*IIof
Regulation No1408/71.

-20-
IV. EUROPEM SOCIAL FUND (ESF)
49.Intaking note ofthe Portuguese Delegation 'sacceptance ofthe
^ "acquis communautaire ",which itconfirmed without reservation asregards^^theESPinitsdeclaration of7December 1979on"freemovement ofworkers
theBocial policy "\theCommission wishes topoint outthat Council
Decision (EEC)7*1/66of1February 1971 on "thereform oftheESPas
amended "byCouncil Decision (EEC)77/801of20December 1977 states (in
Article 11)that thefund must bereviewed bytheCouncil notlater
them 31Dec^fcer 1982.\%
250.Inthe abovementioned declaration ,the Portuguese Delegation requested
that Portuguese territory whole should benefit from the higher rate of
intervention provided forin&BM.cle 8(3)ofCouncil Decision (EEC)77/801
of20December 1977amending Couf^l Decision (EEC)71/66of1February 1971
onthe reform of -feeESP "when operations are carried out inregions where
there isanespecially serious and prolonged imbalance inemployment "•
%>
Atthepresent stage ,the Commission must confine ffvelf toscrutinizing
more closely theanalysis forwarded bythe Portuguese Delegation inthe
annex toitsdeclaration of19October 1979 onregional policy .The
Community indicated itsintention todothis initsstatemenfc*of position
. . . .. 1 .of7December 1979onregional policy ^atthesixth meeting of^^e Conference
atDeputy level# w.
Atthesixth meeting ofthe Conference atDeputy level ,see
document COMF-P /34/79-paragraph 15# /Co
2Ibid,paragraph 16. sfo
Seedocument CONF-P /33/79of17December 1979 *

-21-
51.However ,there isageneral problem which goes beyond the scope ofthe
negotiations onsocial matters *Itstems from the cumulative effect that
the accession ofthree new members will have onESP assistance *These
three states have certain characteristics incommon ,although there are
considerable differences between them *Anew balance inthe distribution
X
ofESF resources will have tobefound so
that the needs ofthe present Member States ,which arejust asreal and
acute asthose ofthe applicant countries ,axe not neglected *
Itwould therefore bepremature ,especially inview ofthegeneral ^febate
taking place ontheCommunity 'sbudget andtheoverall levelof^^s
resources ,topropose guidelines andsetspecific limits for^s^e ESFat
this stage * ^<?>
Asregards thewayinwhich theESFoperates ,it^»uldbenoted that
within thescope oftheESF'soverall approprij^S&n ,which isbroken down
bychapter andarticle acoording toareaso^^htervention andadopted by
thebudgetary authorities ,theCommission Approves projects that comply
with thepriorities set out inits own guidelines and published inthe
Official Journal ofthe European Communities *These guidelines wshall be
geared totheeconomic andsoci^^&ituation intheCommunity *Theyshall
takeaccount ,withaviewtq^hteuring theharmonious development ofthe
Community ,oftheextent ^&heimbalances inthelabour market andthe
economio capacity available forcorrecting them "(Article 3aofRegulation
(JSEC)No2396/71implementing theCouncil decision of 1February 1971 onthe
reform oftheEu^pean Social Fund,inserted byvirtue ofArticle 1(5)of
Council Regula^fcn (EEC)No2893/77of20December 1977)1.
10JNoL337,27.12.1977 ,p.

-22-
52.Consequently ,whatever theoverall level oftheESPresources ,the
extent ofESPassistance granted toPortugal will depend firstly onthe
country 'sneeds ,itscapacity toabsorb funds anditsability tomeet
part ofthecosts ,andsecondly onthenature oftheprojects undertaken ,
the extent towhich they comply with Community rules andtheguidelines
forthemanagement oftheFund inforce when Portugal becomes amember of
'J^he Community .
Nevertheless work will beundertaken onestimates ofthepossible effects of
Portuguese accession including theeffects inrelation tothe ESF,forthe
triennial forecasts which will bepublished later this year .This work must
not,however^be allowed toprejudge theresults oftheaccessions negotiations
53.however ,even vdrere theconditions ofadmissibility andeligibility
were fulfilled andthenecessary funds available ,thecountry 'scapacity
toabsorb these funds –implying theexistence ofatraining infrastructure
withadequate staff-isso^j^ited thatitisdoubtful whether itwould
beable tobenefit effectively ESPassistance .&The creation ofadditional training ^capacity would therefore seem tobea
precondition ifESPassistance istobeofanyuse .This probably explains
whyexpenditure onequipment andteacher training accounts forthemajor
partofoverall expenditure onvocational trlt^Ang inthetwooutline
programees relating tothepre-accession stage thePortuguese Delegation
referred toinitsdeclaration .Although thefir^^pf these isageneral
programme todevelop small andmedium-sized industrial enterprises ,about
25$ofthetotal involved isdevoted tovocational training ,inwhich
expenditure onequipment andtraining ofteaching staff accour^s fora
substantial share . *%>>>%
Thesecond programme ,which relates solely tovocational training s^St^mes ,
allocates 80%ofitsexpenditure toequipping training centres .Mos-f^
ofthebalance hasbeen allocated tothetraining ofteaching staff .The
Commission hasalready presented aproposal foradecision introducing
special aidforsmall andmedium-sized firms inPortugal totheCouncil ^.
Asregards theexamination ofthesecond programme bytheCommission ,it
should bestressed that intheabsence ofadjustments tothevocational
training structures ,which would entail creating thenecessary training
capacity before accession ,problems would certainly arise onaccession as
regards Portugal 'sability tobenefit from ESPassistance under thecurrent
rules .
COM(79)442 final of13September 1979 .

V . OTHER ASPECTS OP THE COMMUNITY 'SSOCIAL POLICY
VOCATIONAL TRAINING
54*The Commission notes that the Portuguese Delegation has confirmed its
acceptance ofthe"acquis communautaire "asfarasvocational tracing
isconcerned .Italsonotes withinterest theinformation s^^lied by
thePortuguese Delegation ontheadministrative restructur ^^taking
place withaviewtoensuring theimplementation ofCouncil decision (EEC)
No63/266of2April 1963 (seeparagraph 20oftheabovementioned
declaration )./ 
ê

-24-
APPROXIMATION OFLAWS IN THE SOCIAL FIELD
55*Initsdeclaration of7December 1979 »"thePortuguese Delegation confirmed
itsacceptance without reservation ofthe "acquis communautaire "asfar^Xasthefollowing three Directives areconcerned :
(a)TheCouncil Directive of10February 1975 (75/117/EEX3)onthe
approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating tothe
applanation oftheprinciple ofequal payformenandwomen ;
(b)TheCou^^.Directive of9February 1976(76/207/EEC)onthe
implement a^fen oftheprinciple ofequal treatment formenand
women asregards access toemployment ,vocational training and
promotion ,and working conditions ;
(c)TheCouncil Directiv^^f 14February 1977 (77/l87/EEC)onthe
approximation ofthela^f^f theMember States relating tothe
safeguarding ofemployees *Rights intheevent oftransfers of
undertakings ,businesses orparts ofbusinesses .
56.AsfortheCouncil Directive of17Febru^jy 1975 (75/129/EBC)onthe
approximation ofthelawsoftheMember Sti$j^relating tocollective
redundancies ,theCommission would liketodr^jrat tentiontothe
Portuguese Delegation *sstatement that thedifficulties arising from
the application ofthe Directive toagricultural workers andthe existing
consultation machinery used byworkers *andemployers *representatives ®
will beresolved before accession .
%
57*AsfortheCouncil Directive of25July 1977 (77/576/EEC)onth<^//.
1approximation ofthe laws ,regulations andadministrative provisions of
the Member States relating tothe provision ofsafety signs atplaces
ofwork,supplemented bytheCommission Directive of21June 1979 (79/640/]£EC),
theCommission hastaken note ofthedeclaration bythePortuguese Delegatio^X
according towhich the necessary adjustments toPortuguese legislation
will becarried out before accession .

The necessary technical adjustments will beidentified and made inthe
context ofthe procedure for examining secondary legislation ,which was
set inmotion atthefirst meeting onthe social aspects ofthe
negotiations ,held on17-21 December 1979 *
58.TheCommission hastaken noteofthePortuguese Delegation 'sii^gfttion ,
reiterated onseveral occasions (seepoint 23ofitsdeclar^^Sn ),andalready affirmed inconnection withmatters relating totheSsAEC Treaty ,
toaskfor atransitional period asregards the Council Directive of
1June 1976 (76/579/Euratom )laying down thebasic safety standards for
thehealth protection ofthegeneral public andjokers against the
dangers ofionizing radiation ,amended bythe^^uncil Directive of
27March 1979 (79/343/Euratom ).
S
4?

-26-
<So, BODIES AND INSTITUTIONS INTHE SOCIAL FIELDV
5^^Che Commission notes withinterest thePortuguese Delegations statement ^
^hatithasconducted information campaigns tomake management andunions
inPortugal aware ofthe importance ofparticipating inthe work of
bodies and institutions inthe social field .
%%
iRRi nri AftTl^e Commission 76concerned that thetripartite consultation mechanisms
which exist inthe Community onboth sectoral and global levels ,particularly
the Standing Committee onEmployment ,should beoperational from accession .
<£>
%
%%
Declaration of7December 1979 ;seeCOMF-p/34/79.

Foreign workers fn^^oyment IntheMember States,bynationality
-1978 -Annex I
COMMUNITY
Cougtry of^^ employment
Country
oforigin
(nationality )BELGIUM 1,2
end 1978DENMARK 1
1.1.1979GERMANY 1
30.6.1978 2FRANCE 1,2 IRELAND 1,2
1978%
12ITALY 1'LUXEMBOURG
1.10.1978 .
VlETHERLAND ^
5.12.1978
>«T
UNITED
KINGDOM !GRAND
TOTAL #■
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
France
1reland
1taly
Luxembourg
Netherlands ^
United Kingdom700
10 OCO
39000
600
s?ico
2033
17500
10000176
S233
953
(Si
1C74
4
1030
54779290
3122
43972
1321
Zìi 6*8
1278
39938
2785621200
700
24400
900
175 ÎOO
13CO
S300
12400•·
•·
··
··
ν#771
360
8955
5763
177
Ρ«
1543
6305-If
^4300
8000
0
10700
700
30017«COb)
180 b)
12S3Sb)
c)
2CCO b)
2eoo b)
12«00b)
60b)
ioeoo7500 r
2000 a
71000 r;
16500
452 000 r;
72 CCO r]
500
1050063500
7ΓΟΟ
137 CCO
116 200
457 030
653 c:a
5200
76600
72300
TOTAL EC 169 SOO H(01 415 425 242 000•m 23915 31700 56000 b) 632 000 r 1585 000
Spain
Greece
Portugal
Turkey
Yugoslavia
Algeria
Morocco
Tunisia
Other non-member countries29250
9650
S600
19 COO
2eoo
J000 .
31200
4200
36000
c695
379
166
7232
4645
190
105192586
146 792
58771^2
514
36^06
t463
15323
10000 a)
245 734^84500
£>$?4000
385 000
36300
43100
3SÎ COO
181 400
73700
131 80039
9
«
11
S
"9
0
0
21592286
983
1493
3!4
4354
··
··
•·
256232200
•·
13100
•·
600
··
··
•·
220017588
1993
S400
45141
I118
•·
31049
1150
2299237000 r
10000 r
10000 a
3OSO a
4000 -a
600 a
2000 a
200 a
966 205 r
b366 000
174 000
479 000
626 c:o
437 COO
366 009
262 000
S9OCO
1447 OOO
TOTAL non-member countries140^929476 1453 869 1400 800 2235 35123 18100 131 431 1033 005 4246 000
GRAND TOTAL310 000 43877 1869 294 1642 800 2235 59038 49830 13V 000 1665 005 S831 000
(continued

Table conta ..
COMMUNITY
Notes :
Bel fidurn:
A Denmaxk :%;–r■corrected figure
iNot including frontier workers
1'Including the unemployed anddisabled ;estimates by
theMinistry ofLabour and Employment •
'Notincluding frontier workers andworkers from
Scandinavian countries .
ermany :
Prance :
Ireland :
Italy :
Luxembourg :
Netherlands :
United Kingdoms
COMMUNITY :^Including frontier workers .Break intheseries :thefigures inthe newseries ofFederal
Labour Office .statistics onemployed workers covered :bysocial
security (30June 1974 onwards )arenotentirely comparable ,tothose published uptoreference date endDecember 19(2 .
(a)Commission estimates .
p ^Including frontier workers ,seasonal workers (except those
employed inagriculture )andthe unemployed .^Q?Estimates oftheposition inOctober 1976,
ofLabour andIndustrial Democracy onthebasis ofthe survey
onforeign workers ;more recent data notavailable .
^Following theabolition ofwork permits ,nofigures are
yet available for Community workers .
^Refers taihe number ofwork permits issued in1978 *
1„..,^'Not including .frontier workers .
Annual averagé>,1975 »more recent data notavallable .
1'Including frontier workers .
^Including Belgian and German frontier workers ,
fa)Frontier workers at
(b)Commission estimate of'jfhesituation atthe endof1978 *
(c)Including 985German frontier workers at 1June 1978 .(d)Refers tothenumber ofvalid ,work permits andincludes
34699 forworkers employed less than 5years .
11W 1J_. 1 •• • 14 »• '9
■Estimates relating totheactiv®'foreign population born
out ofthe country ,made bythe Department ofEnployment
during the 1971 census ;more recent data notavailable ,
fa)Commission estimates .
(b)Including 631000workers born inCommonwealth countries .
(*)Commission estimates . &/s.XX
%%%

,1PLACINGS
offoreign workers during 1978
newarrivals andworkers already inthecountry onfirst employment
byprincipal nationalitiesCOMMUNITY
COUNTRY COUNTRY OFORIGIN OFTHE WORKERS^
OF
EMPLOYMENT GRAND TOTAL EC ITALYNON-MEMBER .
COUNTRIES 6SPAIN GREECE PORTUGAL TURKEY YUGOSU WIA NORTH AFRICA 2
1978 19/7 1973 197? 1573 ls77 1,7c 1977 li;78 197/ 19* 1*7/ 1-78 J978 b7? 1'Λ 1977 1970 1977
leigium38öl 47)6 (a) («) (a) («) j¿51 4716 117 169 83 103 ^130 749 12:7 93 7o ¡*/0 1451
lenmark (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) ι.) (.) (.) υ í.)#(.) (.) {.) (.) (.) (J (.)
îermany (b) 90000 y0000 730004ωcoo 50030 tj44000$19521V29TOC» 275 446 789 1100 5β 135 1430 3317 2eoo 2845 222 216
:rance (c)
(d)19355
1uox22756
1ÌΛ **ftic rio9335
21ì8507
JJí3376
3*34J2
571C021
(22Jbl14249
111 7ôs237
102ôîõ701
943i023
i.)2b
í.)38B
&47S2217
35OÍ108
i173
L£4
ilO1£7
270::7
13CUiir
124¿7
reland ^ 1*17 1809 U) (50 («) 153 1417 12b9 23 1b A!
1£ 6 7 7 10 4 b m (.) (.)
taly4'5 8402 5*893 113 1)3 8289 5780 198 177 158 754 163 40 41 1003 1127 υ U
,uxembourg4 i0ü9 i355r*C¿ÜWηfJJX 4Sfr 54J 78J 1152 io 5oaJtvα*η .orJ%
CΛ.V ?» 42 ι.J U)
'etherlands ^ 1572a 154C9 7370e ,7476« tao· 629· 8358 7933 191 252 s 95 251 250 19832193 270 407 709 503
Inited
!inadom3.8 2„<479 219:5 43JO 3552 14*5 12^5 IS149 18414 411 492 Ibi 2J2 263 17 186 100 134 47 (.) (.)
(c) 1c*OCOf 1£6kct92QCiûî ,830U>ttoûû3fbOÛÙCfη¿¡COf83TôtτI462
Ä1869 1Zoo 172» 23c1 40d2iίώ 7Cil 4418 4711 2ÍJi j024
.RAND TOTAL^12?6S3 112116 277 3bl 34 -57 .122 3B1 11765 94330 U (.) 5478 3802 6 2 276 270 13CU 12497
Notincluding frontier workers except for Luxembourg .
InBelgium and Germany ;Algerians ,Moroccans andTunisians ;
France andthe Netherlands :Moroccans andTunisians ;
United Kingdom :Moroccans .
Ireland ;notincluding United Kingdom nationals . jw
United Kingdom :notincluding Irish nationals .
Italy,Luxembourg andtheNetherlands :including season^t^brkers .
Italy:Thefigures relating toCommunity workers dom(^Wlude
nationals ofthethree new Member States . v
Workers from non-member countries having received afirst work permit .
Netherlands :including workers from non-member countries already in
thecountry onfirst employment .
1ll_!J._J 1/• J . 1 >. .UnitedKingdom :including workers frbjff non-la)BelgiumandIreland :Following theabolition ofworkpermits these countries arenotyet
inaposition torecord newentries ofCommunity workers .
(b)Germany :Starting from January 1973,dataconcerning placings ofCommunity workers is
nolonger available following changes inthesystem ofrecording information
tobetransmitted tothesocial security services andtheFederal Labour Office .
Figures given incolumns "EC"and "Italy "areCommission estimates based on
surveys onentries offoreign workers published bytheFederal Statistical Office in
"Fachserie 1-Bevb'lkerung undErwerbstStickei t-Reihe 1.4".
(x)Germany :Nationals ofnon-member countries whoentered forthefirst timeduring the
6months before issue ofthework permit orreturned totheFederal Republicafter aninterruption ofmore than 3months .
(c)Permanent workers .
(d)Seasonal workers .
(e)Source :Maandstatistiek voor bevolking envolksgezondheid -March 1978 and1979.
(f)Incomplete figure ;seenotes (a),(b)andsymbol (.).
already inthesrry.non-member countries