No C 139/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 6. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 75/106/EEC on the 
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of 
certain prepackaged liquids (!) 
(89/C 139/03) 
On 16 January 1989, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 100A of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services was instructed to prepare the work 
on this topic and adopted its Opinion on 1 March 1989. The rapporteur was Mr Gardner. 
The Economic and Social Committee, at its 264th plenary session, meeting on 30 March 
1989, adopted unanimously with 1 abstention the following Opinion. 
1. General comments 2.2.1. All figures in litres: 
The Directive 75/106/EEC lays down scales giving the 
only volumes at which a number of liquid foods may 
be sold. 
Article 5 deals with wines and has been amended several 
times. The present proposal refers, not to the original 
Directive, but to two of these amendments. The inter­
play of the various amendments is very confusing and 
we suggest that the Commission reissue a complete up­
dated text. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1.1 
This amends the present Article 5(3), under which tem­
porary derogations were permitted to several Member 
States, all of which should have run out by now. 
The Commission now proposes to continue two dero­
gations for Greece and to introduce three further dero­
gations for Spain. These apply to wine in returnable 
bottles only. 
The Committee agrees with these derogations until the 
end of 1992, but the Directive must make clear that 
both apply for marketing and selling in Greece and 
Spain only. 
This safeguard is currently included for Greece, but not 
for Spain. 
2.2. Article 1.2 
This proposal would result in a permitted range of 
volumes as shown below (new proposed values in bold): 0,10 - 0,187 - 0,25 - 0,375 - 0,50 - 0,62 (2) - 0,75 - 1 -
1,5-2-3-4-5-6-8-9-10. 
2.2.2. The Committee does not object to these new 
proposed volumes. 
2.2.3. However, the Committee considers that the 
range should be rationalized by allowing sales at any 
size below 0,25 litres; and at increments of 1 litre from 
2 litres upwards. The reasons are as follows: 
0,25 litres and below are sold for individual con­
sumption. Given that the volume has to be marked 
clearly on the bottle, there seems to be every advan­
tage for these individual consumption bottles to be 
sold at the best size for the market, given varying 
consumer habits, tax-induced selling prices and 
drinking and driving laws. Re the latter, higher 
volumes might well be appropriate for wines with 
lower alcohol content. 
At the higher end of the scale all full litre sizes up 
to 10 litres are permitted except for 7 litres. There 
seems no good reason for this complication. 
2.2.4. The Committee therefore suggests the follow­
ing range of volumes for still wines: 
Any volume up to and including 0,25: 
0,375 - 0,5 - 0,62 (2) - 0,75 - 1 - 1,5 - 2 
above that increments of 1 litre. 
2.3. Further proposals 
When the Commission next amends this Directive, a 
similar rationalization might usefully be applied to 
(!) OJ No C 31, 7. 2. 1989, p. 6. (2) Certain French wines only. 
5. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 139/9 
Section 2(a) of Annex III, which deals with sparkling 
wines. This currently contains the values of 0,125 and 
0,2 litres. 
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989. 
The Committee supports the aims of the Commission's 
proposal for a Council Decision. The Committee does 
not expect the proposed measures to bring about a 
decline in the Community's total electricity consump­
tion, but there should be a reduction in the growth of 
consumption. Assuming that the Commission's figures 
are correct, the Decision could contribute to the 
achievement of the Community's energy-saving objec­
tives. 
The Committee would make the following comments 
on the form and content of the proposal: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The present proposal for a Decision is to be seen 
in the context of the energy objectives for 1995 fixed 
by the Council in September 1986 (2). One of these 
objectives is an improvement of at least 20% in the 
efficiency of final energy demand. 
(!) OJ No C 307, 2. 12. 1988, p. 4. 
(2) Council Resolution of 16 September 1986 (OJ No C 241, 
25. 9. 1986, p. 1). The Commission should also review the other scales 
with a view to transparency and maximum consumer 
choice. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
1.2. The Commission justifies its proposal by the 
existence of major potential for savings in electricity 
consumption, which accounts for some 17% of final 
energy demand in the Community [and for 35% of 
total primary energy consumption, or 367 MTOE(3)]. 
The figure of 20% could be reached by the year 2000. 
1.3. The proposed Community action programme 
has a twofold aim: 
— to influence consumer behaviour, encouraging con­
sumers to choose the most efficient electrical equip­
ment and to use it in the most efficient manner, and 
— to promote further improvement in the efficiency of 
electrical equipment and electricity-based processes 
and more effective marketing of high-efficiency 
equipment. 
1.4. There are four areas of proposed activity, viz.: 
— consumer information, 
— equipment efficiency, 
(3) MTOE = million tonnes oil equivalent. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on a Community action programme for 
improving the efficiency of electricity use (!) 
(89/C 139/04) 
On 11 November 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 3 March 1989. The rapporteur 
was Mr van Dam. 
At its 264th plenary session (meeting of 30 March 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion with no votes against and two abstentions.