21. 5. 79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 128/41 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr van Campen, 
Having regard to the dicussions at its meeting on 
24 January 1979 (165th plenary session), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee approves the proposed Directive, 
which is a complement to the Directive of 16 June 1975 
on the quality required of surface water intended for the, 
abstraction of drinking water in the Member States. 
This Directive gave no indication as to the methods of 
measurement to be used to determine the quality 
parameters for surface water, neither did it lay down 
how often measurements were to be taken. The 
Committee is therefore pleased that this deficiency has 
been straightened out by the new draft Directive. 
Done at Brussels, 24 January 1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fabrizia BADUEL GLORIOSO 
Opinion on the problems of frontier workers 
The opinion of the Committee is not based on any text. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
At its 152th plenary session held on 26 and 27 October 1977 the Committee, acting on a 
proposal from the Bureau, decided to deliver an opinion on the abovementioned subject on 
its own initiative. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 165th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 24 and 25 January 1979. 1.2. In the Committee's view the proposed Directive 
will not involve any supplementary costs for industry 
because checks on the quality of drinking water are 
already carried out. The only change that will result will 
be an alignment of measurement methods and the 
frequency of sampling. Such alignment is in the interest 
of those whose drinking water is abstracted from 
surface water. 
Specific comments 
Article 5 (2) 
The Committee would like to point out to the 
Commission that preservatives also modify the 
concentration of substances in water. This should be 
taken into account in the text. 
Annex I, No 21 
The Committee feels that hexavalent chromium should 
also be taken into consideration in future. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
No C 128/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 5. 79 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the fourth paragraph of Article 20 of 
its Rules of Procedure, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the plenary 
session on 27 October 1977, to draw up, on the 
proposal of the Bureau an Opinion on the problems of 
frontier workers, 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section for 
Social Questions on 14 December 1978, 
Having regard to the oral report presented by the 
rapporteur, Mr Delourme, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 165th plenary 
session on 24 January 1979, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
INTRODUCTION 
0.1. At its 152nd plenary session held on 26 and 
27 October 1977, the Economic and Social Committee 
instructed the Section for Social Questions to draw up 
an own-initiative opinion — in accordance with the 
fourth paragraph of Article 20 of the Rules of 
Procedure — on the problems of frontier workers. 
0.2. At its 116th meeting held on 12 January 1978, the 
Section for Social Questions set up a 12-member Study 
Group, with Mr Renaud as chairman and Mr Delourme 
as rapporteur, to prepare the work. 
0.3. This decision to undertake work on frontier 
workers followed a request by the chairman of the 
Section for Social Questions, who wished the Com­
mittee to consider 'the substantial number of problems 
raised by this type of migrant worker, with particular 
reference to education and vocational training, the 
labour market in frontier areas, social security, and fluc­
tuating exchange rates; the latter, which call for some 
means of safeguarding frontier workers' purchasing 
power, can lead to instances of discrimination between 
nationals of Member States in breach of Article 48 of 
the EEC Treaty'. 
0.4. The Committee failed to specify whether the 
opinion should only cover the Community's internal 
frontiers or whether the frontiers between the 
Community and non-member countries could also be 
considered. 0.5. At the first Study Group meeting it was decided 
that the external frontiers of the Community would also 
be taken into account provided that (a) there was a 
significant amount of movement across these frontiers; 
(b) statistics were available; and (c) such movements 
were of social and economic import to Community 
countries. 
0.6. It was not the task of the Section for Social 
Questions, which was entrusted with the preparatory 
work, to investigate the problems of frontier areas per 
se, though it was agreed that regional aspects could not 
be ignored insofar as socio-economic patterns in 
frontier areas had an impact on the employment as well 
as on the living and working conditions of frontier 
workers. In addition to questions relating directly to the 
situation of frontier workers, which are examined in 
subsequent chapters, the Committee would therefore 
like to make the following general comments: 
— the regional policies pursued on the two sides of 
each frontier must be rational and compatible with 
each other. But at present there is little 
coordination; 
— the free movement of workers may in some cases be 
hampered by a variety of barriers such as exchange 
rate fluctuations, less job security, differences in 
social security laws, customs and police checks; 
— cross-frontier coordination of town and country 
planning is desirable; 
— infrastructures should be improved through 
additional financing, and by establishing 
cross-frontier associations to operate them with the 
maximum of efficiency; 
— it is necessary to: 
— promote cross-frontier cooperation between 
regional labour exchanges, 
— provide more effective protection of the 
environment in frontier areas; the 'polluter pays' 
principle must be inforced even in frontier 
regions. It is unacceptable that whilst one part 
of a region is able to offer employment and 
draw in revenue from taxation, another part of 
the same region suffers from air and water 
pollution, 
— promote cross-frontier cooperation in the field 
of public health (transport of the sick, first-aid 
for accident victims, hospital facilities), 
— develop cooperation in the cultural and 
educational fields (equivalence of diplomas and 
certificates), 
21. 5. 79 Official Journal of.the European Communities No C 128/43 
— promote the establishment of a legal framework 
for cross-frontier associations (possible 
Community initiatives in this respect), so that a 
wide range of community services and public 
utilities is available for the local population 
(transport facilities, water, gas and electricity 
supplies, hospitals, protection against disasters, 
protection of the environment). 
0.7. Finally, without wishing to use this present 
opinion to express its views on the potential role of the 
European Regional Development Fund, the Committee 
would emphasize the fact that ERDF aid in frontier and 
peripheral areas of the Community would inevitably 
have an effect on the living and working conditions of 
frontier workers. The Committee is therefore most 
anxious to see a coherent regional policy implemented 
on both sides of frontiers. 
1. Employment in frontier areas 
1.1. Definition of the frontier worker 
1.1.1. The frontier worker is defined in Community 
legislation on social security as follows: '"frontier 
worker" means any worker employed in the territory of 
a Member State and residing in the territory of another 
Member State to which he returns as a rule daily or at 
least once a week...' (Definition given in Article 1 of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 
on the application of social security schemes to 
employed persons and their families moving within the 
Community. It should be noted that this definition has 
been altered in the Commission's proposal extending 
the above Regulation to self-employed migrant workers. 
A similar definition is to be found in Article 8 of the 
Council Directive of 15 October 1968 on the abolition 
of restrictions on movement and residence within the 
Community for workers of Member States and their 
families (68/360/EEC). 
1.1.2. As far as non-member countries are concerned, 
some bilateral agreements stipulate that a 'frontier 
worker' is a worker who returns to his country of origin 
'every day' (Franco-Swiss agreement which came into 
force on 1 November 1976). 1.1.3. The term 'frontier areas' is also used in 
connection with certain specific activities of frontier 
workers. These frontier areas, however, vary according 
to the particular activity in question. 
1.1.4. The Committee went into the question of 
whether the EEC definition was not after all too wide 
and whether workers who did not return each day to , 
their country of residence should or should not be 
regarded as frontier workers. Members put forward the 
view that to widen the definition inordinately was likely 
to reduce the possibilities of solving the problems of 
frontier workers. 
1.1.5. One of the questions also asked was whether the 
problems of frontier workers could be discussed in 
isolation from the problems of migrant workers. The 
Committee considers that it is impossible to give a 
general answer since in some fields there are problems 
specific to frontier workers whereas in others (e.g. 
several aspects of social security) frontier and migrant 
workers have similar or identical problems. The overall 
conclusion however, is that the problems of frontier 
workers cannot be treated in the same way as those of 
migrant workers and that in many cases the problems of 
frontier workers call for specific solutions. 
1.1.6. At all events the Committee considers that it is 
essential to avoid creating further discrimination 
between categories of workers in the name of equality 
of treatment; nor must regulations be brought in that 
would give frontier workers the edge over indigenous 
workers. 
1.2. Scale of the problem 
1.2.1. Collecting statistics poses considerable 
problems. Not only are they generally incomplete and 
sometimes even inaccurate; they also vary from one 
government department to another within one and the 
same country. 
1.2.2. For want of accurate, inter-comparable figures, 
the following statistics are designed solely to evince 
general tendencies. 
No C 128/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 5. 79 
Movements of frontier workers in Europe 
Internal frontiers 
Northern Ireland — Republic of Ireland 
Germany — Denmark 
Germany — Netherlands 
Netherlands — Belgium 
France — Belgium 
Germany — Belgium 
Germany — Luxembourg 
France — Luxembourg 
Belgium — Luxembourg 
Germany — France 
France — Italy 
Total — 
750 I1) 
4 862 (*) 
3 750 (2) 
79 (2) 
1 400 (4) 
4 720 (6) 
6 030 (4) 
1 407 (7) 
— 
22 998 — 
21 388 I1) 
23 350 (^ 
15 000 (2) 
4 240 (3) 
100 (s) 
— 
11 
25 530 (6) 
1 100 
90 719 
External frontiers 
France — Switzerland 
Italy — Switzerland 
Germany — Switzerland 
Germany — Austria 
France — Spain 
Italy — Austria 
Italy — Yugoslavia 49 719 (8) 
32 845 (9) 
18 065 (9) 
125 (10) 
— 
— 
— — 
— 
13 316 (10) 
2 076 (") 
— 
— 
—: no figures available at present 
Sources 
t1) Central Office of Statistics (Voorburg). 
P) National Institute for Sickness/Invalidity Insurance (Brussels). 
(3) Ministry of Labour (Brussels). 
(4) National Labour Office and Inspectorate of Social Institutions (Luxembourg) — 1975. 
(5) German Trades Union Congress (DGB) 1972. 
(6) Prefecture of the Ardennes — Directorate for General Administration and Regulations. 
(7) Incomplete figures — Regional Directorate for Social Security (Strasbourg). 
(8) French population census of 1975. 
(9) Federal Bureau for Industry, Engineering and Labour. 
(10) Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs (1972). 
i11) Directorate for Employment and Labour of the Pyrenees-Atlantiques and Pyrenees Orientales. 
See also: 'Frontier workers in Europe — a Summary Report' (Internal documentation on regional policy in the Community, No 4, 
August 1978 — Commission of the European Communities). 
1.2.3. Only approximate figures are possible because 
of the diverse sources and different reference years. 
Nevertheless, certain salient features do stand out. 
1.2.3.1. A few large flows account for the bulk of the 
total movement of frontier workers: 
— from Belgium to France, the Netherlands, Germany 
and Luxembourg, 
— from the Netherlands to Germany, 
— from France to Germany and Switzerland, 
— from Germany to Switzerland, — from Italy to Switzerland, 
— from Austria to Germany. 
1.2.3.2. Some countries stand out as suppliers of 
cross-frontier labour (notably Belgium — though here 
the trend is a downward one — and Italy). 
1.2.3.3. Other countries are both providers and 
recipients of cross-frontier labour (France and the 
Netherlands). 
1.2.3.4. Finally, some countries stand out as recipients 
of cross-frontier labour (Germany, Luxembourg and 
Switzerland, with Switzerland taking more than one 
third of all Community frontier workers). 
21. 5. 79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 128/45 
1.2.3.5. Other countries (Republic of Ireland, the UK 
and Denmark) do not appear to be greatly involved in 
cross-frontier labour movements, the reasons generally 
speaking for themselves. 
1.2.4. Shifts in the pattern of movements also need to 
be considered. 
Examples 
— decline in number of Belgians working in France 
and increase in number of French working in 
Belgium, 
— decline in number of Belgians working in the 
Netherlands, 
— increase in number of Belgians working in 
Luxembourg, 
— no real change in number of Belgians working in 
German, 
— increase in number of French and Italians working 
in Switzerland. 
1.3. Motivation 
1.3.1. The reasons why frontier workers go to work in 
neighbouring countries vary and are hard to pin down. 
A great deal depends on (a) the frontiers in question, 
particularly whether they are internal or external 
frontiers, (b) the time factor, and (c) economic 
circumstances. 
1.3.2. A, distinction would also have to be made 
between reasons based on cyclical, temporary economic 
situations and those relating to structural, permanent 
features. 
1.3.2.1. The labour market 
1.3.2.1.1. The availability of jobs has emerged as the 
single most important reason for cross-frontier 
movements but this assumption needs to be tested in the 
light of statistics on the changing patterns of 
cross-frontier flows. 1.3.2.2. Working conditions 
1.3.2.2.1. Other reasons why frontier workers go to 
work in neighbouring countries are wage levels, social 
security benefits, work organization and labour 
relations. The relative importance of these reasons is 
hard to assess. 
1.3.2.3. Human and historical factors 
1.3.2.3.1. Economic regions and industrial areas do 
not necessarily coincide with political frontiers; the 
latter may have moved over the years. Hence 
cross-frontier labour flows. 
1.3.2.3.2. Cross-frontier labour flows can also be 
explained by human factors such as family traditions 
and a tendency to job continuity. 
1.3.2.4. Living conditions in the country of residence 
1.3.2.4.1. The following are among the factors that 
should be taken into consideration here: 
— housing problems, rent and the cost of land, 
— family circumstances (employment of the spouse, 
schooling of children, etc.). 
1.4. Legislation applicable to frontier workers 
1.4.1. Frontier workers are subject to legal provisions 
deriving from international conventions, Community 
regulations (e.g. in the field of social security and free 
movement), multilateral agreements (Benelux), bilateral 
agreements, regional agreements (on taxation) or 
national legislation. 
1.4.2. With the exception of the 'Social security 
provisions applicable to Community frontier workers 
and which are to be found in Regulation (EEC) No 
1408/71 (the general principles on which these 
provisions are based are equality of treatment, the 
acquisition or retention of the right to benefits and the 
export of benefits), there is a vast range of legislation 
varying not only from one frontier to another but also 
along one and the same frontier. Legislation also differs 
widely in respect of the matters covered. 
No C 128/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 5. 79 
2. The problem of frontier workers 
In view of the fact that situations vary a great deal from 
one frontier to another, the Committee would like to 
confine its comments here to the general aspects. 
Being subject to two sets of laws and administrative 
procedures (i.e. those of the country of residence and 
those of the country of employment) poses difficulties 
for the frontier worker. The fields primarily affected are 
employment and vocational training, taxation, social 
security and labour laws, and difficulties can vary 
considerably from country to country, particularly 
when non-member countries are involved. 
2.1. Jobs and vocational training 
2.1.1. The following problems deserve mention: 
— less job security and tendency in some cases to 
regard frontier workers as just a second-string 
labour force; 
— high incidence in some countries (particularly 
Switzerland) of all sorts of unemployment, 
expecially short-time working; 
— vocational training not adapted to job openings; 
— qualifications being equal, preference given in 
practice to nationals; 
—- failure to recognize the equivalence of certain 
diplomas and certificates and difficulties involved in 
switching from one school system to another; 
— insufficient knowledge of (a) the educational and 
vocational training systems of neighbouring 
countries, (b) qualifications awarded, (c) length of 
studies completed and (d) professional experience 
acquired; 
— the share-out of responsibility for basic vocational 
training, retraining and further training between 
employers and the public authorities of both the 
country of residence and the country of 
employment. 
2.1.2. Participation in internal company procedures 
2.1.2.1. Frontier workers may in some cases (and 
particularly when non-member countries are involved) 
be faced with practical or juridical difficulties if they 
wish to participate in the activities of representative 
workers' bodies (e.g. works, councils, committees on safety and health at work, trade union delegations, etc). 
or obtain relevant information. (In respect of 
Community frontier workers on the territory of a 
Member State we would refer you to Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of 9 February 1976 
amending the provisions relating to the trade union 
rights of workers contained in Regulation (EEC) No 
1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within 
the Community (1)). 
2.1.3. Temporary employment agencies. (See the 
comparative study of the Commission on the legal 
provisions and regulations in force in the Member 
States (Social Policy Series — 1976 No 25.) 
2.1.3.1. A number of temporary employment agencies 
have set up at frontiers so as not to be reached by the 
laws of certain Member States. This can have a 
pernicious effect on the working conditions of frontier 
workers (non-observance of labour laws and flaunting 
of social security and taxation provisions). 
2.2. Social security 
2.2.1. Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 provides a 
satisfactory basis for the application of social security 
schemes to workers who commute across the internal 
frontiers of the Community. Certain practical 
difficulties do continue to raise their heads, however, 
such as delays in dealing with dossiers, problems of 
cooperation between governments, language problems 
and hold-ups in effecting payments. 
2.2.2. Difficulties can also arise as a result of 
disparities between social security schemes in such fields 
as early retirement pensions, the definition of types of 
invalidity (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany) and modes 
of financing. 
2.2.3. In so far as the Community's external frontiers 
are concerned, bilateral agreements may either be 
non-existent or incomplete or else raise problems of 
interpretation and practical application. 
2.3 Labour law 
2.3.1. The Committee notes the disparities in 
legislative provisions protecting workers (a) when 
labour and employment contracts are drawn up, (b) 
when there are individual or mass dismissals, (c) when 
firms close down, and (d) when it is a question of 
maternity leave. These disparities can sometimes pose 
problems for frontier workers — especially when it 
comes to re-employment. 
(*) OJ No L 39, 14. 2. 1976. 
21. 5. 79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 128/47 
2.4. Fluctuation 
2.4.1. Since the EEC has no common economic and 
monetary policy that would ensure greater currency 
stability, fluctuations in exchange rates inevitably have 
varying repercussions on the purchasing power of 
frontier workers and on the calculation and payment of 
social benefits. (See, by way of example, the table 
describing exchange rates in the Annex.) 
2.4.2. Variations in exchange rates can be a source of 
great concern to frontier workers and, judging from the 
way things are shaping up at present, the problem is 
unlikely to be solved in the short term. The problem is 
likely to be a fact of life for frontier workers for a long 
time to come yet. The question of the movement of 
exchange rates has many facets and must be viewed in 
the light of the varying situations prevailing at the 
different frontiers and taking into consideration the 
dynamic nature of the problem. 
2.4.3. It should also be borne in mind that frontier 
workers from a country with a weak currency can be 
persuaded to make do with lower pay because once 
their wages have been converted into the currency of 
their country of residence they rise in value. The only 
danger is that this is likely to put indigenous workers at 
a disadvantage and encourage them to leave the local 
area to look for better-paid jobs elsewhere where they 
do not come off so badly by comparison. 
2.4.4. When fluctuations in exchange rates work 
against the interests of frontier workers, the latter 
sometimes obtain some form of compensation 
(compensatory payments by the country of residence or 
utilization of special exchange rates by employers) in 
order to stop any further fall in their purchasing power. 
2.4.5. With regard to the effects which fluctuations of 
exchange rates have on the calculation and payment of 
social benefits, we would refer the reader to the 
measures taken by certain Member States as well as to 
the action taken by the Council — particularly in 
respect of long-term benefits. In spite of the measures 
taken, however, a number of difficulties still remain to 
be resolved, one example being when payment of a 
benefit is effected through a bank which uses the 
exchange rate of the day rather than the preferential 
rate. 
2.4.6. As far as non-member countries are concerned, 
the social-benefit problems caused by exchange rate 
variations will have to be solved through bilateral agreements. In this connection the Committee would 
remind readers that the Council — in its resolution of 9 
February 1976 on an action programme for migrant 
workers and members of their families — came out in 
favour of examining the 'social problems arising for 
workers (and members of their families) who are 
nationals of the Member States and resident in certain 
third countries'. 
2.5. Taxation 
2.5.1. The Committee is well aware that the taxation 
of frontier workers poses a number of complex, varied 
problems (the relevant provisions being likely to vary 
not only from frontier to frontier in any given country 
but also along one and the same frontier) and that the 
present opinion is really not the place to go into the 
matter in detail. 
2.5.2. The following picture emerges from information 
available to the Committee: 
— with EEC countries there are 11 possible variations 
of bilateral relations: 
— in four cases frontier workers are taxed in the 
country of residence: 
Belgium — Netherlands, 
Belgium — Germany, 
France — Belgium, 
France — Germany, 
— in seven cases frontier workers are taxed in the 
country of employment: 
Belgium — Luxembourg, 
Germany — Luxembourg, 
France — Luxembourg, 
Germany — Netherlands, 
Germany — Denmark, 
France — Italy, 
Ireland — United Kingdom; 
— frontier workers working in Switzerland are taxed 
in the country of residence with the exception of 
those who work in the cantons of Geneva, Tessin 
and Valais. 
2.5.3. In weighing up the pros and cons of taxation in 
the country of employment as against taxation in the 
country of residence, the following factors need to be 
taken into consideration: 
— the specific features of the fiscal systems in the 
individual countries concerned; 
— the aims underlying the levying of taxes on income 
and the use made of the funds acquired thereby; the 
relationship between direct taxation, indirect 
taxation and quasifiscal measures; 
No C 128/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 21.5.79 
— the problems involved in the aggregation of incomes 
subjected to direct taxation; the provisions on 
double taxation; 
— the principles underlying — and practical 
application of — the refund and retrocession 
mechanisms used by national tax authorities in 
their dealings with one another. 
2.5.4. Having examined these various factors it will be 
possible to come out either in favour of taxation in the 
country of employment or in the country of residence. 
2.5.5. In view of the fact that tax harmonization 
progresses but slowly and the situation is unlikely to 
change much in the foreseeable future, the prospects of 
finding a solution to the question of the taxation of 
frontier workers in this general context are dim. 
2.6. Transport 
2.6.1. The living and working conditions of frontier 
workers may be affected by transport difficulties 
(inadequate transport facilities, time spent travelling, 
extra cost, time lost at customs posts, working hours 
and the special problems caused by use of summer time 
in some Member States and not others, etc.). 
2.7. Housing 
2.7.1. Frontier workers who only return to their 
country of residence once a week have housing 
problems. Some of these problems are common to all 
migrant workers and must be solved within this more 
general context, but others are specific to frontier 
workers (two places of residence, which gives rise to 
administrative problems and extra financial burdens). 
3. Conclusions and proposals 
Generally speaking, the Committee considers that all 
people who fulfil the requirements for classification as 
frontier workers should be covered by provisions that 
take due account of their special status and guarantee 
that they will be treated in the same way as other 
workers with respect to jobs and vocational training, 
taxation and social security. 
3.1. Concept of the frontier worker 
i 
3.1.1. The Committee considers that it is illogical for 
one and the same person to be regarded as a frontier worker for the purposes of some provisions but not for 
the purposes of others. Ideally, relevant provisions on 
freedom of establishment, taxation and social security 
would have to be harmonized, but since this is hardly a 
feasible proposition at this stage, the Committee has 
examined the implications involved in drawing up a 
'Statute' for frontier workers. The following 
obervations are of relevance in this connection. 
3.1.2. The Committee at all events approves the 
definition fo the frontier worker given in point 1.1.1 of 
this opinion. 
3.2. Employment and vocational traning 
3.2.1. Like all other workers, frontier workers attach 
great importance to their jobs and have no wish to be 
regarded as a second-string labour force. Equal status 
implies the following: 
— Community rules and bilateral agreements must be 
applied more rigorously: 
— seniority and competence being equal, frontier 
workers must have the same job security as 
nationals; 
— frontier workers should be eligible for company 
training on the same basis as nationals; 
— negotiated pay settlements between labour and 
management must apply equally to frontier 
workers. 
3.2.2. Public authorities (and particularly their 
departments of employment) should cooperate more 
closely as regards access to employment, training and 
retraining; in particular they should exchange more 
information on those matters as should employers' 
associations and trade union organizations concerned at 
regional, national or Community level with the 
problems of frontier workers. Special attention should 
also be paid to the question of equivalence of diplomas 
and certificates and to making it easier to move from 
one school system to another. 
3.2.3. Frontier workers should be able to belong to 
bodies representing company employees in exactly the 
same way — de jure and de facto — as nationals. This 
implies cross-frontier cooperation between employers' 
associations and trade unions. 
3.2.4. The cross-frontier activities of certain temporary 
employment agencies must be supervised and 
infringements of the law punished. This presupposes 
cooperation between departments that monitor 
compliance with labour law on the one hand, and 
regional branches of national departments of labour on 
the other. 
21. 5. 79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 128/49 
3.2.5. The Committee also feels that efforts must be 
made to obtain a more accurate picture of cross-frontier 
work, a sound statistical basis being of particular 
importance in this respect. This requires closer 
cooperation between central government and regional 
authorities, as well as between national and Community 
statistical offices. 
3.3. Social security 
3.3.1. With regard to the social security of Community 
frontier workers, efforts should be directed first and 
foremost to simplifying and speeding up administrative 
procedures through closer cooperation between the 
bodies responsible for examining documens and paying 
out benefits. To this end regular meetings should be 
arranged between central government departments 
responsible for implementing social security provisions, 
as well as between regional bodies responsible for 
processing dossiers. 
3.3.2. Efforts must be made to ensure that bilateral 
agreements provide maximum social security coverage 
for workers who commute across the external frontiers 
of the Community. 
3.4. Fluctuations of exchange rates 
3.4.1. Frontier workers can in no way be held 
responsible for exchange rate fluctuations that 
sometimes work to their disadvantage. The effects of 
such fluctuations on their purchasing power, and on the 
calculation and payment of social benefits (particularly 
longterm benefits), could be offset by compensatory 
measures taken at national, bilateral or Community 
level; the particular measures should be either legal in 
..kind or else form part of collective agreements. The 
measures envisaged in specific cases are special 
weightings, exchange-rate subsidies, compensatory 
allowances, etc. and would either be financed by the 
employers (e.g. the recent agreement between French 
employers and Belgian trade unions on exchange rate 
subsidies — varying from sector to sector — paid by 
French employers to Belgian frontier workers) or by 
public authorities (e.g. allowances paid by the Belgian 
Ministry of Labour to Belgian frontier workers who 
have jobs in France). The Committee would like to see 
the compensatory arrangements adjusted rapidly, i.e. as soon as exchange rates change by a certain amount. 
This is because the losses suffered by workers cannot 
always be made good if adjustments are made only at 
pre-established intervals. 
3.4.2. As far as the problem raised in point 2.4.3 is 
concerned, the Committee is an advocate of collective 
agreements on minimum wages being signed between 
employers' associations and trade unions. 
3.4.3. It goes without saying that a solution to the 
perennial problems of exchange rate fluctuations can 
only come about through a stable and strong economic 
and monetary union — or at least a zone of real 
monetary stability. The European monetary system 
could initiate an improvement in the situation in this 
respect. 
3.5. Taxation 
3.5.1. As far as disparities in fiscal legislation are 
concerned, the aim should be to ensure that frontier 
workers are not discriminated against and are treated 
equitably from the tax pont of view. This can be done 
by removing, or compensating for, anomalies arising 
from taxation or charges having equivalent effect 
(double taxation, and double imposition due to the fact 
that frontier workers may be required, in various forms, 
to pay social security contributions in the country of 
work and taxes in the country of residence). This aim to 
remove fiscal anomalies can be achieved either through 
a Community solution (currently being studies) or 
through bilateral or regional agreements. This implies 
closer cooperation between government departments of 
Member States. 
3.5.2. Generally speaking, the Committee feels that it 
is not possible to recommend a particular system 
whereby the frontier worker is taxed either in his 
country of residence or else in the country of 
employment. Nevertheless, whatever the system 
adopted, the principle of balancing costs/gains must be 
respected and this presupposes the introduction of a 
mechanism for the mutual retrocession of taxes. 
3.6. Transport 
3.6.1. Travelling between places of residence and 
employment would in many cases be made easier and 
speeded up if transport infrastructures in the vicinity of 
frontiers were improved and customs procedures 
simplified. 
No C 128/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 5. 79 
3.7. 'Statute' for the frontier worker 
3.7.1. The Committee wonders whether it would be 
wise to adopt an instrument defining the status of the 
frontier worker. Without denying the social benefits of 
such a move to the frontier worker, the Committee feels 
that the scope of the Statute would be minimized owing 
to the very many disparities between Member States. 
3.7.2. The same aim could be achieved by other means 
such as Community rules and regulations or common 
minimum standards (i.e. a joint European base) which 
would provide a common yardstick for bilateral 
agreements. 
3.7.3. The Committee nevertheless feels that whatever 
the method chosen, the success of the measures taken 
Done at Brussels, 24 January 1979. will to a large extent hinge on close cross-frontier 
cooperation between local and regional authorities, and 
between socio-economic organizations in frontier areas. 
3.7.4. In the meantime it has been suggested that a 
working party be set up in the Advisory Committee on 
the Free Movement of Workers in order to: 
— exchange information on a regular basis, 
— give assistance to government departments, 
— tackle urgent, major issues. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fabrizia BADUEL GLORIOSO