10.11.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC304/1
II
(PreparatoryActs)
ECONOMIC ANDSOCIALCOMMITTEE
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontherightofresidenceforstudents(!)
(93./C304/01)
On30June1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle7(2)oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforSocial,Family,EducationalandCulturalAffairs,whichwasresponsiblefor
preparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon10September1993.
TheRapporteurwasMrvanDijk.
Atits308thPlenarySession(meetingof22September1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.Introduction submitanewDirectivewithadifferentlegalbasisfrom
thatadoptedbytheCouncil.
1.3.MostoftheMemberStateshavealready
implemented thisDirectiveinnationallaw.Only
Belgium,Germany,FranceandtheUnitedKingdom
havenotyetimplementedit.InitsJudgmenttheCourt
ofJusticeruledthattheoldDirectivewouldremainin
forceinthosecountrieswhichhadimplementedituntil
thenewDirectivewasimplemented .
1.4.TheCommissionhassubmittedanewproposal
withalegalbasisinlinewiththeCourtofJustice
ruling.Article1oftheDirectivehasalsobeenamended
andcontainsareferencetothenon-discrimination prin­
ciple.1.1.ThisDirectiveconcernstherightofresidence
forstudentswithintheEC.Itisanewversionof
Directive90/366/EEContherightofresidencefor
students.ThiswasproposedbytheCommissionin
1989,alongwithtwootherDirectivesontherightof
residence.TheEconomicandSocialCommitteeissued
itsOpinionon18October1989(2).TheEuropeanPar­
liamentalsogaveitsviewsonthisDirective(3).This
DirectivewasbasedonTreatyArticles7and128.The
Councildidnotagreewiththisanddecidedtochange
thelegalbasistoArticle235.TheDirectivewasfinally
adoptedonthisbasis(4).TheinfluenceoftheEuropean
Parliamentwasseriouslyrestrictedbythischangeof
legalbasis.
.1.2.TheEuropeanParliamentdisputedthischange
oflegalbasisandinitiatedproceedingsintheCourtof
Justice.Initsrulingof7July1992(5)theCourtof
JusticedeclaredthattheCouncilhadbeenwrongto
changethelegalbasisandthatDirective90/366/EEC
wasthereforeinvalid.TheCommission wouldhaveto2.Generalcomments
2.1.TheESCagreeswiththelegalbasisnowchosen
bytheCommission .
2.2.AsthecontenthasnotchangedandtheESChas
alreadyissuedanOpinionontheoldDirective,the
CommitteewouldmerelyrefertothisOpinion.
2.3.TheCommitteewould,however,drawattention
tocertainissueswhichhaveariseninthoseMember(!)OJNoC166,17.6.1993,P.16.
(2)OJNoC329,30.12.1989,p.25.
(3)OJNoC175,16.7.1990,p.100.
(4)OJNoL180,13.7.1990,p.30.
(5)C295-90.

NoC304/2 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 10.11.93
StateswhichhaveimplementedtheDirective.Manyof
theproblemsofstudyingabroadhavenotbeensolved
bythisDirective,e.g.thenon-transferability ofstudy
financetoanothercountry.2.4.EightMemberStateshavealreadyimplemented
thisDirective.Asadecisionwastakenonthesubject
in1990,theESCassumesthattheDirectivewillvery
soonbeimplementedintheothercountries.Itconsiders
thisimportant.
DoneatBrussels,22September1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveamendingforthefourteenthtimeDirective
76/769/EEContheapproximation ofthelaws,regulationsandadministrative provisionsof
theMemberStatesrelatingtorestrictionsonthemarketinganduseofcertaindangerous
substancesandpreparations (*)
(93/C304/02)
On17May1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,under
Article100AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumerAffairs,which
wasresponsibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
9July1993.TheRapporteurwasMirBeltrami.
Atits308thPlenarySession(meetingof22September1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.TheCommitteeapprovestheproposaltoamend
forthefourteenthtimeAnnexItoDirective76/769/
EEC.4.TheCommitteenoteswithapprovalthatthetest
methodsforcheckingconformitywiththeessential
requirements [beingdrawnupbytheEuropeanCom­
mitteeforStandardisation (CEN)]willbethesubject
ofaEuropeanstandardwhichistobeincorporatedin
anannextotheproposedDirective.Thisshouldensure
thatchecksandevaluationsareuniform.2.TheCommitteeendorsesthepurposeofthe
amendment ,whichistoharmonizerestrictionsonthe
marketinganduseofcertainpersonalitemscontaining
nickel,thusavoidingthecreationofbarrierstotrade
andensuringahighlevelofconsumerprotection.
3.Theaimistoensurethatpeoplewhocomeinto
'directandprolongedcontact'witharticlesofjewellery
andotherpersonalitemscontainingnickeldonot
becomesensitizedtonickelandsufferallergicreactions.5.Sincetestmethodsalreadyexistforpoints1and
2ofAnnexIbutnotforpoint3,theCommittee
recommendsthatMemberStatesshouldnotberequired
toapplytheprovisionsofpoint3untiltheCENhas
devisedanappropriatetestmethod.Thisshouldtake
theformofaEuropeanstandardbasedontheexperi­
enceacquiredincertainMemberStatesandonderma­
tologists'findings. (!)OJNoC116,27.4.1993,p.18.