23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities l^oC1^27 
Because of its zoonotic significance, some mention should 
he made of filovirus and other transmissible conditions. 
tOelete the heading 5Monl^eys^ and insert ^non human 
^nmates^alsoinM,t(a)and ll,l(b). The certificate in 
some cases could not be honestly signed by anyone 
unacquainted with the definition of monkeys in this 
legislation. Since the animal health regulations depend toa 
great extent on mutual trust, there is responsibility not only 
on the signatory but on the issuing authority to avoid 
ambiguity (se EorSuidaeitisimportant that provisions aremadefor 
controls in respect of Au^es^y^sdisease, whilst for some 
ruminants (for example deer and camehds) the proposed 
testing^isolation regime for tuberculosis has been shown in 
practice to be totally inadequate to prevent the introduce 
tion of tuberculosis in imported deer or other species. 
It has been found that at least 120 days pre^e^port isolation 
is needed during which period the deer must react 
negatively to 3TB tests, followed by a penodof post 
import isolationdunngwhichtimethedeermustreact 
negatively to yet anotherTB test. 
Certificate 9, Insert identification of animal if l^nown 
(might include finger prints or through Lo^A prints). Attention should be drawn to the reported occurrence of 
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in ^oo Bovids and 
Cervids, 
The certificate should be signed by an official veterinarian 
(as in Appendix E), 
A^^^ 
A^^^^^ — o^^M^ It is accepted that the treatment is primarily aimed at 
destroying the foot and mouth virus. The term of this 
Anne^ should agree with the Aiill^lOirective and proposed 
Regulation ^doc,CC0M(^9) ^72 finalp 
Although the controls proposed here provide certain 
safeguards by requiring that the holding of origin is 
situated in the centre of an epizootic free area and has been 
free for specific periods from all notifiable diseases to 
which ungulates are susceptible,the Committee is of the 
opinion that this does not go far enough. 
(!) The scientific term Pnmata includes prosimians, such as 
bushbabies, as well as simians (apes and true monkeys). Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the Application of Article 85(3) of the 
Treaty to Certain Categories of Agreements, Decisions and Concerted Practices in 
the Insurance Sector (*) 
(90/C 182/10) 
On 15 January 1990 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee for an opinion on 
the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services was made responsible for the preparatory 
work, in the course of which Mr Mourgues was appointed rapporteur-general. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following opinion : 
(!) OJ No C 16, 23 1 1990, p 13 
No C 182/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
1. Introduction These are : 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the present proposal 
which authorizes the Commission to issue group exemp­
tions in certain areas of insurance (Article 1). 
1.2. However, it feels it would be useful if it made three 
things clear: compliance with the conditions laid down by 
Article 85(3) of the EEC Treaty as regards cartels, 
the unavoidable provisions of Article 86 of the EEC 
Treaty concerning the risk of abuse of a dominant 
position, and 
the motives behind the proposed regulation and the 
procedure that will be followed within the Commission, 
its position on the categories of agreements, decisions 
and concerted practice for which exemption is en­
visaged, and 
its feelings on the place of the proposed regulation 
within the larger framework of relations between 
insurers and policy-holders. the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on 
merger control (OJ No L 395 of 30 December 1989). 
2.5. The present proposal therefore expressly lays down 
categories of agreements, business association decisions 
and concerted practices for which the Commission will 
have the power to exempt insurance companies from the 
requirement to comply with Article 85(1) of the EEC 
Treaty, and this without prejudice to the application of 
Regulation No 17 of 1962. 
2.6. The regulation enacted pursuant to the granting of 
such a power will be the subject of a draft submitted for 
comment to the Member States and the persons and 
organizations concerned. The Committee trusts that this 
draft will be submitted to it for an opinion before the 
establishment of the Single Market. 
2. Motives and procedure 
2.1. The large number of notifications received is an 
argument for a measure of simplification, which is all the 
more justified because the implementation of the Single 
Market will accentuate the importance of such simplifi­
cation. 
2.2. In proposing to adopt group exemption, the 
Commission is choosing a legal formula where it is now in 
control of the data and can monitor application. 
2.3. By doing this the Commission is removing the 
inconveniences of administrative checks which could prove 
to be a burden and whose costs of implementation might be 
out of all proportion to the desired objective. 
However the Commission reserves the right to cancel or 
modify block exemption regulations when circumstances 
have changed (Article 2) or to withdraw them in a specific 
case if it finds that incompatible effects have resulted 
(Article 7). These particular guarantees are endorsed by the 
Committee. 
2.4. The fact remains that it is no less useful to refer to 
the provisions capable of removing the risk of cartels and 
dominant positions which may bring about the failure of 
the competition policy. Proposals concerning the different categories of 
agreements concerned 
3.1. It must be possible for an independent insurer and 
an independent policy-holder to negotiate the amount of a 
premium. But the assessment of the cost of the premium is 
the responsibility of the insurer. Some of the factors of this 
cost will be covered by the exemption provided for in 
Article 85(1), others will not. The Committee considers 
that implementing the regulation will make it easier to 
define the constituent elements of premiums. 
3.2. Agreements between insurance companies con­
cluded within Member States will still be subject to 
national laws (See Regulation No 17, Article 4, para­
graph 2.1). In a Single Market it is self-evident that certain 
distortions will be avoided if the Member States' rules 
governing competition and those of the EEC are adapted. 
3.3. Cooperation in the fields of co-insurance and re­
insurance in the form of groupings or pools must be in the 
policy-holder's interest. It is obviously useful in the case of 
such major risks as 'environmental' accidents or disasters. 
The Committee trusts that the Commission will pay 
particular attention to this matter when drawing up the 
implementing regulation. 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/29 
3.4. Cooperation in respect of the checking and 
acceptance of security devices must take account of the 
legal provisions laid down by the public authorities and 
never lay behind such provisions. 
3.5. Finally, agreements between insurance companies 
on the drawing-up of model contracts must not, under any 
circumstances, impose conditions to which policy-holders 
have not consented in writing, especially when additions or 
modifications to contracts are involved. Steps should be taken to see that the rules governing 
competition in the insurance sector are applied to 
companies from non-EEC countries and that, when 
Community texts are applied, there is no distortion of 
competition between insurance firms to the detriment of 
EEC companies. 
4.4. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
examine the problems connected with insurance contracts 
which guarantee loans. 
4. Other aspects of relations between insurers and policy­
holders 4.5. Consumers are sometimes the victims of improper 
clauses drafted by certain insurers. Such cases often arise 
because the wording of policies is obscure and draws 
attention to other provisions which are attractive from the 
point of view of competition. The Committee therefore 
calls upon the Commission and the public authorities of the 
Member States to be constantly on the alert. 
4.1. The Committee thinks it would be useful to extend 
its reflections beyond the present proposal, as it feels that 
the latter has among its aims that of obliging insurers to 
supply the market with goods and services on the best 
terms, in the interests of the economy and consumers. 4.6. Finally, the Committee notes that insurance 
companies sometimes refuse, for various reasons, to insure 
certain risks, even with higher premiums. Such an attitude 
is the result of a legal uncertainty in cases where insurance 
is compulsory by law. Any refusal by an insurer should, at 
the very least, be justified in writing. 
4.2. Cooperation in respect of claims settlement 
procedures must lead to claims being settled more rapidly. 
A suggestion may be made here that such cooperation take 
the form of clearing or compensation agreements. 
4.3. Insurance is an activity which is open to inter­
national competition, especially as regards marine insur­
ance, the insurance of large risks and re-insurance. Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending, with a view to fixing certain maximum 
authorized dimensions for road trains, Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain 
other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles (!) 
(90/C 182/11) 
On 7 December 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 May 1990. The rapporteur was 
Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion by 104 votes to 31, with 8 abstentions. 
(!) OJ No C 316, 16. 12. 1989, p. 5.