NoC223/42 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 31.8.92
Opinionon:
—theproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)ontheStatuteforaEuropeanCooperative
Society,and
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectivecomplementing theStatuteforaEuropeanCooperat­
iveSocietywithregardtotheInvolvementofEmployees(*)
(92/C223/14)
On26March1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticles100Aand54oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,
ontheabovementioned proposals.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon6May1992.TheRapporteur
wasMrRamaekers .
Atits297thPlenarySession(meetingof26May1992)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajority,with9votesagainstand9abstentions .
I.TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalforaregu­
lation,subjecttothefollowingcomments :1.4.Withtheirspecificandoptionalstatute,these
societieswillbeinapositiontomakeamajorcontri­
butiontodevelopinga'Citizen'sEurope':aprecon­
ditionforsocialcohesionandessentialtothesuccess
oftheinternalmarketitself.
1.5.TheCommitteeconsidersitabsolutelyessential
thatthethreeregulationsonthestatutesforaEuropean
association,aEuropeanmutualsocietyandaEuropean
cooperativebeexaminedandadoptedsimultaneously .
1.6.Iturgesmaintenanceofthe'gangways'prin­
ciple,whichitalsoconsidersessential,i.e.thepossibility
ofsettinguponeofthesethreeEuropeanentities
throughanationalassociation,mutualsocietyorcoop­
erative.
1.7.Totakeaccountoftheevolutionarynatureof
themattersdealtwithbytheregulation,theCommittee
wouldlikeittoincludeaflexiblerevisionclause
enabling,forinstance,theexhaustiveannexestobe
modified.
1.8.Moreover,becauseofthefrequentreferralsthe
draftRegulationmakestoMemberStates'legislation,
theCommitteeurgestheCommissiontocontinueits
comparativestudiesintothedifferentnationallaws.1.Introduction
1.1.WiththisproposalforaCouncilRegulationon
theStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety(So­
cietasCooperativeiEuropaea—SCE),theEuropean
Institutionsareworkingalongtwolines:towardsgiv­
ingtangibleformtotheinteresttheyhaveshownin
thissectoroftheeconomyandrecognizingthespecific
needsofcooperativesocieties.
1.2.Afteranumberofresolutionspassedbythe
EuropeanParliament (the1982MihrReport/the1987
AvgerinosReport)andOpinionsissuedrecentlybythe
EconomicandSocialCommittee [Opinionof
28September1989(2)onthecontributionofthecooper­
ativesectortoregionaldevelopment ;Opinionof
28March1990(3)ontheProposedRegulationsetting
outtheStatutefortheEuropeanCooperativeSociety
inwhichtheCommitteehighlightedtheneedtosetup
anoptionaloralternativeEuropeanlegalframework
forcooperatives ;Opinionof19September1990(4)
whichcalledforanumberofpointsregardingthe
StatuteforafutureEuropeanCooperativeSociety],this
Commissiondocumenthashighlightedmostpositively
theimportanceofthecooperativesectorwithinthe
Europeaneconomicmarket.
1.3.Thus,apartfromtheirimportanceinsocial
terms,cooperativeshaveaturnoverwhichamounts
toECU370billionand63millionmembersinthe
Community .2.PositionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
2.1.TheCommittee'spositionontheSCEStatute
wasexplainedindetailinitsOpinionof19September
1990.
2.2.ThisOpinion(adoptedwithnovotesagainst
andthreeabstentions )madesixrecommendations
regardingEuropeancooperatives ;itwouldseemuseful
toreiteratetheserecommendations .(i)OJNoC99,21.4.1992,pp.17-37.
(2)OJNoC298,27.11.1989,p.59.
(3)OJNoC124,21.5.1990,p.34.
(4)OJNoC332,31.12.1990,p.81.

31.8.92 NoC223/43 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
—avoidthedangerofderealization andtherisk
ofcreatingunfaircompetitionbetweenSCEsand
nationalcooperatives ,
—providethemostEuropeansolutionpossible,and
constituteaworkabletransfrontierlegalinstrument.
3.2.2.TheCommission shouldalsolookintothe
extenttowhichthefreedomofmovementforcapital
andservicesachievedtodateallowsallcooperatives
accesstothevarioustypesoffinancingavailableinthe
Community .2.2.1.Establishmentofanoptional,alternativespec­
ificlegalinstrument .Thisinstrumentwillalsotake
accountofthespecificnatureofenterprisesinthe
cooperative/mutual/non-profitsector.
2.2.2.Establishmentoffinancingtechniquesforcon­
solidatingorboostingthecapitalofsuchenterprises .
2.2.3.Compliancewiththe'oneperson,onevote'
principle,adaptableforlegalpersons.
2.2.4.Provisions,intheeventofliquidation,for
thedistributionofassetstobodiespursuingsimilar
objectives.
2.2.5.Accessibilityofthestatutetolegalandnatural
persons.
2.2.6.ThepossibilityofestablishingaEuropean
companyofthistypebymerger,setting-upasubsidiary,
conversionofanationalcompanyorfromscratch.3.3.TheCommittee welcomesthefactthat
Article22(1)maintainstheprincipleof'onepersonone
vote'—thesymbolofcooperativedemocracy .
3.3.1.Asregardstherulesallowingmemberstohave
morethanonevote[Article22(2)],theCommittee
proposesthatthis'may'(not'must')dependonthe
extenttowhichthememberconcernedtakespartin
theSCE'sactivities.
3.4.TheCommitteebelievesthatthedistributionof
netassetsmustbecarriedoutonthebasisofthe
'disinterested'principle,i.e.distributiontootherSCEs,
tonationalcooperativesandtootherorganizations
whoseaimistosupportandpromotecooperative
societies.
3.4.1.However,exceptionstothisprinciplecouldbe
stipulatedintwodistinctcases:1)theconstitution
providesforadifferentkindofdistribution ;2)the
governingbodyproposesadifferenttypeofdistri­
bution,aslongasthisissupportedbyatwo-thirds
majorityvoteinageneralmeeting.3.CommentsmadebytheCommitteeincorporated
intothedraftCouncilRegulation
3.1.Thefirstrecommendation hasquiteclearlybeen
incorporatedinthetextofSCEStatute,moreprecisely
inanumberofrecitals(i.e.2,4,5,12and17).The
Councilrecommendsthatcooperativesbeprovided
withadequatelegalinstrumentscapableoffacilitating
thedevelopmentoftheirtransnationalbusiness.This
optionalinstrumentoftransfrontiercooperationisto
helprespondtothespecificneedsofcooperatives ,
whichthearrangementsforEuropeanEconomicInter­
estGrouping(EEIG)andtheEuropeanCompany(SE)
arenotfullyabletodo.
3.2.Thefollowingthreearticlesdefinehowcapital
ismadeup:
—Article49stipulatesthattheStatutecanprovidefor
shareswhoseholdersaretohavenovotingrights,
butwhomaybegivenspecialadvantages,
—Article50authorizesfounderstowrite'non-user
investormembers'intotheirstatutoryprovisions .
Thisisforcaseswheretherearevotingshares
accessibletopersonswhodonotexpecttouse
theSCE'sservices;therulesmaylaydownspecial
provisionsfortheirbenefitasregardsdistribution
ofsurpluses,
—andfinallyArticle51,regardingwhichtheCom­
mitteewouldliketosubmittwoproposalstothe
Commission :
3.2.1.TheCommissionshouldthinkaboutputting
togetherafundingsystemwhichrespondstothefollow­
ingtworequirements :3.5.WaysofsettingupanSCE
3.5.1.Foranumberofreasons,theCommitteeis
surprisedthatArticle9makesnomentionofnatural
personsbeingfoundingmembersofSCEs:
3.5.1.1.Firstly,theESCpointedoutinitsOpinionof
19September1990(point3.3etseq.)thattheEuropean
companyasalegalinstrumentoftrans-frontiercooper­
ationwasnotsuitableforthethreetypesof'economie
sociale'enterprise.Oneofthereasonsforthiswasthat
theEuropeancompanyisnotaccessibletonatural
persons,whichmeantthattheycouldnotbeorganized
onaCommunity-wide basis,inparticularinfrontier
areas.
Consequently ,theESCrequestedthatfuturestatutes
forcooperatives,mutualassociationsandnon-profit
bodiesbeaccessiblebothtonaturalandlegalpersons.

NoC223/44 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 31.8.92
Statescooperativescanonlycarryouttheiractivity
iftheyarelegallysetupascooperatives ,whilestill
beingauthorizeda)toacquireinterestsinother
typesofcompaniessuchaspublicorprivatelimited
companiesandb)toincludethistypeofcompany
intheirgroups,inotherMemberStates(suchas
Belgium,France,ItalyandLuxembourg )cooperat­
ivescanchoosetheirlegalformwhichdoesnot
necessarilyhavetobeoneofthecooperativesociety.
NotethatinDenmarkthereisnolegalformspecifi­
callyforcooperatives—cooperativescancarryout
theiractivityunderotherlegalformsstipulatedby
companylaw(1).
Intheinsurancesector,nationallegislation (onthe
cooperativeandmutualassociationsectors)allows
companiestobesetupascooperativesandmutual
associations (Belgium,Italy,Luxembourg ,Great
Britain,Spain)oronlyasmutualassociations (Den­
mark,Germany,France,Netherlands ,Greeceand
Portugal).Irishfirmsmustadoptastheirlegalform:
incorporated companieslimitedbysharesor
guaranteeorunlimited.
CompanieswhicharemembersoftheAssociation
ofEuropeanCooperativeInsurershaveadopted
variouslegalforms(cooperativesociety,mutual
association,publiclimitedcompany)varying
accordingtohistorical,economicandsocialcircum­
stances.(TherewasatimeinBelgiumforexample
whenaninsurancecompanycouldnottakethelegal
formofacooperative.)
Thecommonfeatureistheirsupportforcooperative
objectivesandprinciples.
b)Legal:TheexampleoftheEuropeanCompany.
ThustheEuropeancompanycan,atleastbysetting
upajointsubsidiary,beformedbyanycivillawor
commercialcompany,includingcooperativesocieti­
es,andbyotherlegalentitiescomingunderpublic
orprivatelaw.
Inviewoftheideassetoutaboveasregardsthe
foundingmembersofSCEs,theCommitteerec­
ommendsthatbothnaturalpersonsandlegalper­
sonsgovernedbypublicorprivatelawbeableto
setupaEuropeancooperative .3.5.1.2.Secondly,Commissioner CardosoeCunha,
responsiblefor'EconomieSociale',declaredinhisCom­
municationtotheCommissioninSeptember1991that
theaimwastofacilitatecooperatives',mutualassoci­
ations'andthenon-profitbodies'accesstothebenefits
ofthesinglemarketandinaddition,tocontributeto
completionofacitizen'sEuropebyallowingnatural
personstosetupcooperatives,mutualassociationsand
non-profitbodieswithaEuropeanStatute.
3.5.1.3.Thirdly,naturalpersonscouldnolonger
formanSCE,whilethestatutesoftheEuropeanAssoci­
ationdidofferthispossibility (Article3)iftherewere
aminimumof21naturalpersonsfromtwoMember
States.
Itwouldbedesirableifcooperatives ,mutualsandnon­
profitcompaniesweretobetreatedalike,andtheir
treatmentalignedonthemostattractivescheme,i.e.
thatoftheEuropeanAssociation .
3.5.1.4.Fourthly,previousversionsoftheSCEstat­
utesdidprovidenaturalpersonswiththisopportunity .
3.5.2.Thecategoriesoflegalpersonswhomayset
upanSCEarenowstrictlylaiddowninArticle9.
ToformanSCE,legalentitiesmustmeetthefollowing
conditions :
—theremustbeaminimumoftwo,
—theirregisteredofficesandcentraladministration
mustbelocatedintwoormoreMemberStatesof
theCommunity ,
—theymustcomeunderthedescriptionsetoutinthe
annextothisregulation .
3.5.2.1.Onreadingthisannex,onethingisimmedi­
atelyclear:legalentitiesmentionedinArticle9vary
fromMemberStatetoMemberState.Whyisitthat
definitionsvaryfromMemberStatetoMemberState?
3.5.2.2.Whatarethereasonswhichledoneor
anothertypeofcompanybeingaccepted,dependingon
theMemberState?
3.5.2.3.Thesolutionwhichhasbeenadoptedisall
themoresurprisingsincetheprincipleof'gangways'
wasvehementlyadvocatedbyDGXXIIIandCom­
missionerCardosoeCunhasawnolegalobstacleto
thisverysameprinciple.Whatarethese'gangways'?
Theyallowcooperatives ,mutualassociationsandnon­
profitbodiesundifferentiated accesstotheStatuteof
EuropeanCooperativeSociety,EuropeanAssociation
orEuropeanMutualSociety.
3.5.2.4.Thismovewasjustifiedforanumberof
reasons :
a)Practical:activitywithinthecooperativesectoris
notexclusivelylinkedtothelegalnatureofcooper­
ativesocieties.ThusalthoughinsomeMember3.6.TheCommitteerecommendsthatSCEshave
accesstothesamearrangementsfortheirformationas
doSEs(EuropeanCompanies)i.e.byconversion,by
mergerorfromscratch.
3.6.1.WhydepartfromtheSEStatutewhenitis
alreadythebasisofsomanyotherprovisionsinthe
SCEStatute?
(*)ESCGeneralSecretariat,Cooperatives,mutualassociations
andnon-profitbodiesintheEuropeanCommunity,ECPubli­
cationsOffice1986,pp.21-24.

31.8.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC223/45
Article9 3.6.2.HowevertheSCEissetup,theCommittee
wishestoavoidasituationwheretheStatutecouldgive
asylumtofictitiousSCEs;forthisreasontheCommittee
recommendsthatallSCEsbeabletodemonstratetheir
intentiontocarryoutgenuineandeffectivecross-border
activities .
3.6.3.Here,theCommitteewouldreiteratethecon­
ditionssetoutinArticle9(2),intheeventofanSCE
beingestablishedbyconvertinganationalcooperative;
sothatnolegaldoubtremainsastotheexactmeaning
ofthiscondition,theCommitteecallsontheCom­
missiontogiveaprecisedefinitionoftheexpression
'genuineandeffectivecross-borderactivities',assoon
aspossible.
3.6.4.TheCommitteewonderswhethermonitoring
ofthisintentiontocarryoutgenuineandeffective
cross-borderactivitiescouldnotbeincorporatedinto
thesystemlaiddowninArticle5(2)oftheRegulation,
whichdealswithregistrationanddisclosurerequire­
ments.
3.6.5.AsregardstheactualnatureofthefutureSCE,
theRegulationcouldstipulatethatagivenpercentage
ofSCEmembersmustbenationalsofMemberStates
otherthantheoneinwhichtheregisteredofficesare
located.4.3.Giventheargumentsetoutinpoints3.5.1,3.5.2
and3.6.3,theCommitteesuggestsfirstofallthat
Article9(1)berewordedasfollows:
'AnSCEmaybeformedbyfiveormorenatural
personsresidentintwoormoredifferentMember
Statesand/orbyanylegalentityunderpublicor
privatelaw,formedunderthelawofaMember
State,providedatleasttwoofthemhavetheir
registeredofficeandcentraladministration located
indifferentMemberStates.'
TheCommitteethenrecommendsthatthefollowing
beaddedto9(2):
'AnSCEmaybeformedbymergerbetweenanSCN
(NationalCooperativeSociety)and/oranSCEand,
mayingeneral,mergewithotherSCEsorSCNsif
thelegalstatutesofthelegalentitiesinvolvedpermit
suchamerger.'
4.3.1.TopreventfictionalSCEsbeingformed,(cf.
point3.6.2)theCommitteefeelsthatthelastclauseof
thefirstparagraphofArticle9(2)shouldbedeleted
andreplacedwiththefollowing :
'TosecuretheactualnatureoftheSCE,howeverit
istobeformed,foundingmembersmustdemon­
stratetheirintentiontocarryoutgenuineandeffec­
tivecross-border activities.'
Article9a
4.4.TheCommitteeproposesinsertionofthefol­
lowingArticle9a,unlesstheCommissionshowsthat
itoverlapswithArticle5(2)oftheRegulation :
'Article9a(MonitoringFormation)
WhenanSCEisformedanditsstatutesdrawn
up,compliancewiththeprovisionssetoutinthis
presentRegulationandanyapplicablenationallaw
istobemonitoredinaccordancewiththearrange­
mentslaiddownforcooperativesbythelegislation
oftheMemberStateinwhichtheSCE'sregistered
officeislocated.MemberStatesshalltakethe
necessarymeasuresforensuringthatthismonitor­
ingiseffective.'4.Proposalsforamendmentstocertainprovisionsin
thedraftRegulation
ExplanatoryMemorandum onArticle3(paragraphs 1
and2)
4.1.ThewordingherecouldimplythatanSCEwill
bewounduporanewlegalpersonwillbecreatedif
theregisteredofficeistransferredfromoneMember
Statetoanother.ButArticle3(1)isquiteclearinthis
respect:thetransferofaregisteredofficefromone
CommunityMemberStatetoanotherdoesnotentail
thatofficebeingwounduporanewlegalpersonbeing
created.
4.1.1.Consequently ,thispartoftheExplanatory
Memorandum shouldberewordedsoastoavoidany
ambiguity.
Article5
4.2.Woulditnotbevaluabletoaddthefollowing
toArticle5(4)c:
'Disclosuremeasuresmustrevealwhetherpersons
whomaybindtheSCEhavethepowertodoso
individuallyorwhethertheymustactjointly.'
4.2.1.Thisadvantageseemstobeessential,given
thatthefinalpartofArticle42(4)(powerofrepresen­
tation;liabilityoftheSCE)stipulatesmandatorydis­
closureinmattersregardingtheoptionofbindingthe
SCEindividuallyorjointly.Article10
4.5.InthelistofruleswhichtheSCEmustinclude,
theadditionofanindicationofthedurationoftheSCE
couldbeconsidered,unlessthedurationisindetermi­
nate.ThistakesaccountofArticle61(2),firstindent,
whichstatesthatthemanagementoradministrative
boardshallconveneageneralmeetingtotakeadecision
onthewinding-upoftheSCE,wheretheperiodfixed
intheruleshasexpired.

NoC223/46 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 31.8.92
Article11(4)
4.6.ThisArticlecouldpresentseriousrisksforsome
kindsofcooperatives (e.g.thosesellingbymailorder)
insofarasthisprovisioncouldallowcompetitorfirms
togainaccesstoconfidentialinformation (e.g.customer
files).
Article12
4.7.1.Paragraph1:Totakeaccountofthepossibility
ofnaturalpersonsestablishinganSCE,twoothercases
inwhichmembershipshallbelostshouldbeadded:
namelydeathandbankruptcy .
4.7.2.Paragraph2:Shouldthepossibilityofexpel­
lingamemberwhenhe/shehascontravenedthestatute,
regulationsordecisionoftheSCEnotbelimited?
4.7.3.TheCommitteewoulddrawattentiontothe
factthatamemberwhohasresignedorbeenexpelled
cannotbringaboutthesociety'sliquidation .Articles18and20
4.10.Thesetwoprovisionsrefertoaminimumper­
centageofmembers,inthiscase25%,fora)calling
ageneralmeeting(Article18)andb)requestingthe
additionofnewitemstotheagenda(Article20).The
SEStatute[Articles83(1)and85]onlyrequires10%
inthesetwocases.TheExplanatoryMemorandum on
theEuropeanCooperativedoesnotexplainthereasons
forthispercentagebeinghigherfortheSCEs.
Article22
4.11.Inlinewithpoints3.3and3.3.1,theCommittee
proposesthefollowingamendment :Article22(2)third
line:('...thismustdepend...')replace'must'with
'may'.
Article64
4.12.TheCommitteeproposesanamendedversion
ofthisprovision(cf.points3.4to3.4.1):
'Afterthecreditorshavebeenpaidinfull,and
anythingduetodesignatedbeneficiarieshasbeen
paidinfull,thenetassetsshallbedistributed
accordingtothe'disinterest'principle,i.e.toother
SCEsorcooperativesocietiesgovernedbythelaw
ofaMemberStateortooneormorebodieshaving
astheirobjectthesupportandpromotionofcooper­
ativesocieties.
However,thereshallbetwoexceptionstothis
principle:
—anyotherkindofdistributioncanbestipulated
intheconstitution ;
—atthesuggestionofthemanagementboard,
thegeneralmeetingmayvotebyatwo-thirds
majorityforadifferenttypeofdistribution.'
Article66
4.13.ItisnotnormalfortheMemberStatestobe
maderesponsibleforprescribingpenaltiesbyaRegu­
lation,whichisdirectlyapplicableinallMemberStates
oftheCommunity .IftheCommissiondoesnotpre­
scribesuchpenaltiesitself,wewillbefacedwitha
whollyinconsistentscaleofpunishments .Article14
4.8.TocoverSCEsformedbynaturalpersons,the
CommitteeproposesamendingArticle14asfollows:
'ThecapitalofanSCEshallamounttonotlessthan
ECU100000ortheequivalentinnationalcurrency
intheeventofanSCEbeingformedbylegalpersons
underpublicorprivatelaw.
ThecapitalofanSCEshallamounttonotlessthan
ECU15000ortheequivalentinnationalcurrency
intheeventofanSCEbeingformedbynatural
persons.'
Article15
4.9.1.15(4):Intheeventofsharesbeingissued
otherwisethanforcash,itwouldbeappropriateto
mentionthatthesenon-cashcontributions shallbe
assessableinthelightofeconomiccriteria.
4.9.2.15(6):paragraph1:TheCommitteefeelsthat
'successivesubscriptions'shouldbereplacedby'sub­
scriptionofshares',inlinewithpracticeoncapital
variability .
4.9.3.15(6):paragraph4:Tocomplywiththelegal
practiceofcooperatives,theCommitteeproposesthat
thefollowingbeaddedattheendofthelastsentence:
'...attheproposalofadministrativeandgoverning
bodies.'II.TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalforadirec­
tivesubjecttothefollowingcomments :
1.TheESCwelcomestheCommission'sdesireto
takeappropriateaccountoftheroleofemployeeswhfen
supplementing thestatuteforanSCE.Theproposed
directivecoordinatesnationalprovisionsconcerningthe
participationofemployees,theprovisiontothemof

31.8.92 NoC223/47 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
informationandtheirconsultation andconstitutesan
indispensablecomplementtothestatuteforaEuropean
cooperativesociety.
1.1.Thisproposeddirectiveisanimportantcom­
ponentofapolicytopromoteeconomicandsocial
cohesionintheCommunity .
1.2.Throughthisdirective,employeesaretobepro­
videdwithainformationandconsultationprocessand
beinvolvedinthecorporateplanningoftheSCEs.
1.3.TheESCpointsoutthatitisabsolutelyvital
thattheproposedregulationanddirectivebothcome
intoforceatthesametime.
2.InitsOpinionsontheStatuteforaEuropean
Company(SE),theESCrepeatedlyaffirmeditsagree­
mentinprinciplethatworkers'participationwasan
importantpreconditionforthedevelopmentofademo­
craticsocietyandaCitizens'Europe.
2.1.InthisconnectiontheESCnotesonceagainthat
employeesmustbeassuredofjointrepresentation of
theirinterestswithintheenterpriseandbeinvolved
incertaindecisionsoftheenterprise,thoughwithoutimpairingtheresponsibilityorefficiencyofmanage­
ment.TheESChasalreadystatedthisviewinits
Opinionsof25October1972,29May1974and28
March1989ontheEuropeanCompany.
2.2.However,inviewofthepolitical,social,histori­
calandphilosophicalconceptsofthedifferentMember
States,workers'involvementhasneithertakenthesame
formsnorreachedthesamestageinallMemberStates.
3.TheCommitteealsobelievesthat,asinmany
otherfields,itwillinitiallybeimpossibletoachieve
harmonization asregardsSCEs.
3.1.TothisextenttheCommission'ssuggestionof
makingaflexibleofferofasystemwhichtakesaccount
ofactuallegalcircumstances intheMemberStatescan
beaccepted.
3.2.ButtheESCconsidersthatthelevelofworkers'
involvementorco-determination reachedintheMem­
berStatesshouldinnowaybeendangeredorreduced.
3.3.Effortsshouldthereforebemadetoseethatthe
participationoptionsproposedbytheCommissionare
equivalentasregardscontent.
DoneatBrussels,26May1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH