17. 9. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 248/39 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC 
and Regulations (EEC) No 804/68, (EEC) No 805/68, (EEC) No 727/70, (EEC) No 
1035/72, (EEC) No 2727/75, (EEC) No 2759/75, (EEC) No 2771/75, (EEC) No 2777/ 
75, (EEC) No 1418/76, (EEC) No 516/77, (EEC) No 337/79 and (EEC) No 1837/80 with 
regard to the fixing of export refunds for certain agricultural products by tendering 
procedure 
(84/C 248/18) 
On 13 April 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Commu­
nity, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's 
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 June 1984, in the light of the report by 
Mr Schnieders. 
At its 218th plenary session (meeting of 5 July 1984) the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion by a large majority, with two votes against: 
The Committee recognizes that the monitoring of 
the volume of exports and reduction in Community 
expenditure may in certain circumstances be as­
sisted through extending the possibility of fixing ex­
port refunds for agricultural products by tendering 
procedure. The Committee is, however, of the opin­
ion that for most market organizations the tendering 
procedure would be an inappropriate method by 
which to set export refunds. Only in very limited 
instances would the tendering procedure lead to 
budgetary savings. In the Committee's view the dan­
gers associated with such a system stem from the fol­
lowing consequential developments: 
1. This Regulation encourages concentration in the 
export trade. The tendering procedure will oust 
small firms from the export market. 
2. Export business is made more difficult, as the 
uncertain level of the export refund makes firm deals impossible. Export activity will be impeded 
and market uncertainty will result. 
3. The savings which the Commission hopes for 
will not be achieved, as the tendering procedure 
will lead to a drop in the number of exporters, 
and a corresponding drop in competition be­
tween individual exporters. They could even lead 
to higher burdens on the Community budget, if 
these exporters make arrangements between 
themselves. 
4. The Regulation is inconsistent with the Commis­
sion's efforts to stimulate the export of products 
with high-added value. 
5. The Regulation will seriously harm the export 
position which European business has painstak­
ingly built up over many years on these third-
country markets. 
Done at Brussels, 5 July 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following amendment, drawn up on the basis of the Section opinion and tabled in accord­
ance with the Rules of Procedure, was defeated by the Committee during the debate: 
No C 248/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 9. 84 
Present text of the opinion to be replaced by the following: 
'The ESC welcomes and supports all efforts by the Community to use budgetary funds ration­
ally and thus avoid waste. This applies particularly to export refunds for agricultural products; 
these refunds enable prices charged to non-EEC trading partners to be reduced below those 
charged to consumers in the Community (third country preference). 
The ESC notes the arguments put forward by the Commission, namely: 
— the extension to several common market organizations of the possibility of fixing refunds 
by tender "will... serve to adjust the level of refunds on individual export consignments to 
actual economic and other requirements", 
— this proposal "necessary to provide the Community with the possibility of monitoring the 
volume of agricultural exports for which refunds are granted at any time this appears neces­
sary in the given sector", 
— "this may well bring not insignificant savings for the Community". 
Basically the ESC endorses the Commission's arguments but would ask it to give further 
thought to inter alia the following points so as to avoid distortions of competition: 
— the danger of further concentration in the export trade if small export firms are adversely 
affected, 
— export business may be made more difficult by the uncertain level of the export refund.' 
Voting: For: 24. Against: 43. Abstentions: 4. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on access to the occupation of carrier of 
goods by waterway in national and international transport and on the mutual recognition 
of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications for this 
occupation (') 
(84/C 248/19) 
On 21 December 1983 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee, under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Communi­
ty, on the aforementioned draft Directive. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 June 1984, in the light 
of the oral report by the rapporteur, Mr Cremer. 
At its 218th plenary session (meeting of 5 July 1984) the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion with no dissenting votes and two abstentions: 
I. General comments 
1. The proposals under consideration supplement 
the existing Directives 74/561/EEC and 74/562/ 
EEC of 12 November 1974, concerning access to the 
occupations of goods haulage and road passenger transport operator, respectively, in national and in­
ternational transport (2) and Council Directive 77/ 
796/EEC of 12 December 1977 on the mutual recog­
nition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence 
of formal qualifications for road passenger transport 
operators (3). 
(') OJ No C 351, 24. 12. 1983, p. 5. (2) OJ No L 308, 19. 11. 1974, pp. 18 to 27. 
(3) OJ No L 334, 24. 12. 1977, p. 37.