No C 72/8 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24. 3. 80 
Opinion  on the problems  of trade  barriers  and the alignment  of laws  in this area 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
At its 166th  plenary  session  held  on 21 February  1979  the Committee,  acting  on a 
proposal  from  the Bureau,  decided  to deliver  an opinion  on the abovementioned  subject 
on its own  initiative. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
173rd  plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 21 November  1979. 
The full text of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Article  20 (4) of the Committee's 
Rules  of Procedure, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  at the Plenary 
Session  on 21 February  1979,  following  a proposal  by 
its Bureau,  to issue  an own-initiative  opinion  on the 
problems  of trade  barriers  and the alignment  of laws 
in this area,  and to request  the Section  for Industry, 
Commerce,  Crafts  and Services  to prepare  the work 
on the subject, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and Services  on 31 
October  1979, 
Having  regard  to the oral  report  by Mr Evain,  the 
Rapporteur, 
Having  regard  to the Committee's  opinion  on the 
proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the approxima-
tion of the laws,  regulations  and administrative  pro-
visions  of the Member  States  relating  to construction 
products, 
Having  regard  to the proposal  for a Council  resolu-
tion laying  down  a list of priority  products  to be cov-
ered by Directives  implementing  Council  Directive 
./EEC  on the approximation  of the laws,  regu-
lations  and administrative  provisions  of the Member 
States  relating  to construction  products  ('), 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 173rd  Plenary 
Session  on 21 November  1979, Having  regard  to the proposed  amendments  to the 
abovementioned  proposals  for a Directive  and a re-
solution  (2), 
Whereas  there  are very  many  aspects  to the problem 
of barriers  to trade  and the harmonization  of legisla-
tion in this field  ; special  attention  must  be focused  on 
the problems  raised  by barriers  which  result  from 
technical  specifications, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION, 
unanimously: 
I. Objectives  of alignment 
1.1. The  elimination  of technical  barriers  to trade 
('technical  barriers  to trade'  usually  means  obstacles 
created  by disparities  in the various  specifications 
and standards,  monitoring  and  testing  procedures 
which  are recommended  or even  required  in the dif-
ferent  Member  States.  These  specifications  relating 
to the composition,  performance,  safety  levels  and 
packaging  oblige  producers  to adapt  their  manufac-
turers  to the Member  States'  markets  and hamper  the 
free movement  of goods  in the Communitys)  is one of 
the pricipal  methods  of achieving  a true  common 
market.  It benefits  both  companies  and consumers: 
— from  the standpoint  of business,  the introduction 
of common  specifications  for industrial  products 
(1) OJ No C 247,  1. 10. 1979,  p. 7. (2) OJ No C 245,  29. 9. 1979,  pp. 3, 5 and  7. 
24. 3. 80 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 72/9 
reduces  formalities,  makes  it unnecessary  to have 
so many  production  lines  and facilitates  storage, 
distribution,  after-sales  service  and even  subcon-
tracting.  It is thus  an essential  part  of any  Com-
munity  industrial  policy; 
— from  the consumer  standpoint,  the alignment  of 
potential  technical  barriers  to trade  should  help 
make  products  cheaper  by stepping  up competi-
tion ; it should  also  ensure  that products  are better 
adapted  to the needs  of users  and  consumers. 
1.2. Lastly,  such  alignment  must  take  into  account 
the protection  of workers  and  the environment.  In 
this respect,  it is an essential  part  of an economic  pol-
icy which  has social  objectives. 
II. Disadvantages  of the present  procedure 
2.1. The  stages  of the procedure  and  the delays  they 
entail 
2.1.1.  This  procedure,  based  on Article  100  of the 
Treaty,  consists  of the following  stages: 
— drawing  up of proposals  by the Commission; 
— consultation  with  the Parliament  and  the Eco-
nomic  and  Social  Committee; 
— final  adoption  by the Council,  which  must  be 
unanimous. 
2.1.2.  In  fact,  during  its production  of draft  instru-
ments,  the Commission: 
— works  within  the framework  of the general  pro-
gramme  adopted  in 1969  and reviewed  in 1973; 
— initiates  measures  at the request  of the interest 
groups  concerned  or the national  governments 
and with  their  agreement; 
— consults  the experts  put forward  by the national 
governments,  and  when  appropriate  the  eco-
nomic  and  social  interest  groups  concerned,  the 
standards  bodies  and  the consumers'  organiza-
tions. 
2.1.3.  But  experience  has shown  that  this procedure 
has the following  disadvantages: 
— the experts  consulted  prior  to the Council's  deci-
sion,  following  the opinions  of the European  Par-
liament  and the Economic  and Social  Committee, 
may be different  from  those  consulted  during  the 
preparatory  work  by the Commission  and  the 
Council,  resulting  in a double  technical  discus-
sion among  specialists  who  may  have  differing 
responsibilities  and  ideas; — because  of the requirement  of Council  unanimity, 
decisions  may  be blocked  because  Member  States 
do not attach  the same  importance  to particular 
products. 
2.1.4.  The  process  of drafting,  discussing  and 
adopting  Directives  is thus  taking  longer  and longer. 
For the stage  of Council  discussion  and decision-tak-
ing alone,  the average  period  between  the publication 
of a proposal  in the Community's  Official  Journal 
and its final  adoption  is more  than  three  years. 
2.1.5.  The  Commission  points  out that  this  proce-
dure  involves  a large  number  of officials,  who  no lon-
ger have  enough  time  to prepare  new  instruments  and 
monitor  the implementation  of those  in force. 
2.1.6.  It must  also  be noted  that  the legal  basis  for 
alignment  varies  according  to the products  and  ob-
jectives  involved: 
— Article  100 presupposes  the existence  of laws,  reg-
ulations  and administrative  provisions  in at least 
one Member  State  or the threat  that  a draft  provi-
sion is likely  to result  in a barrier.  The Communi-
ty authorities  are thus  limited  in their  ability  to 
prevent  the proliferation  of divergent  national 
measures  and to eliminate  barriers  resulting  from 
de facto  technical  specifications  which  are not le-
gally  binding; 
— Article  101,  which  enables  the Council  to adopt 
Directives  by a qualified  majority,  applies  solely 
to distortions  of competition; 
— Although  Article  100  is not restricted  to indiv-
idual  products,  in many  cases  the Treaty  provides 
for specific  measures  to ensure  the free  movement 
of food  products,  under  the common  agricultural 
policy. 
2.2. Monitoring  the implementation  of Directives 
2.2.1.  As  new  Directives  are adopted,  the Commis-
sion's  problems  increase,  since  it is then  faced  with 
the job of monitoring  their  implementation. 
2.2.2.  The  job of monitoring  involves  the transposi-
tion of Community  Directives  into  national  legisla-
tion and  their  actual  implementation. 
2.2.3.  There  are at present  some  200 infringements 
as a result  of Member  States'  failure  to transpose  Di-
rectives  into  national  legislation  after  their  entry  into 
force.  This  situation  must  be corrected,  particularly 
as it sometimes  goes  hand-in-hand  with  import  re-
No C 72/10 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24. 3. 80 
strictions.  Moreover,  the Commission  is not always 
aware  of these  restrictions,  since  companies  or indi-
viduals  affected  may  prefer  not to lodge  a com-
plaint. 
2.2.4.  Monitoring,  which  requires  highly  qualified 
staff,  is made  even  more  difficult  by the fact  that the 
instrument  concerned  is most  often  a Directive, 
whose  application  — unlike  Regulations  or Deci-
sions,  which  are directly  applicable  — may  vary 
among  the different  Member  States. question  of implementing  the formal  provisions  of 
the Treaty;  trade-barrier  alignment  is increasingly 
becoming  a part  of the EEC's  industrial,  social,  envi-
ronmental,  consumer  affairs  and commercial  poli-
cies. 
3.3. Moreover,  it is neither  possible  nor desirable  to 
align  all technical  specifications.  Priority  should 
therefore  be given  to those  products  and  sectors 
where  there  is the most  pressing  need  for alignment. 
For this reason,  the Commission  should  continue  to 
review  and update  regularly  the guidelines  to be fol-
lowed. 
2.3. Adaptation  to technical  progress 
2.3.1.  The  increase  in the number  of basic  Direc-
tives  (about  180 for industrial  and food  products)  will 
inevitably  add to the number  of amending  Directives 
concerning  adaptation  to technical  progress. 
2.3.2.  Several  Directives  have  been  adopted  estab-
lishing  a Committee  for adaptation  to technical  prog-
ress. This  procedure  would  appear  to be appropri-
ate, provided  the adaptation  in question  does  not 
change  the substance  of the Directive  or impose  new 
requirements  on the persons  concerned. 
2.3.3.  The  growing  importance  of adaptation  to 
technical  progress  makes  the Commission's  work-
load even  greater.  Some  Directives  have  already  had 
to be adapted  several  times  (e.g.  gas meters),  and this 
year,  for the first  time,  there  have  been  more  adapta-
tion Directives  than  new  basic  Directives  submitted 
by the Commission.  If a Directive  must  be adapted 
every  five years  and there  are some  100 Directives  in 
effect,  there  will  have  to be 20 amendments  every 
year.  The  Commission  would  become  more  directly 
responsible  for this procedure. 
III. More  general  problems 
3.1. The  Treaty  states  that the purpose  of the align-
ment  of technical  specifications  is to eliminate  bar-
riers to trade  and establish  a real common  market,  so 
as to ensure  the free  movement  of goods  within  the 
Community.  This  aim remains  essential. 
3.2. However,  the alignment  of technical  specifica-
tions  cannot  henceforth  be considered  separately 
from  overall  Community  policy.  It is not simply  a 3.4. These  guidelines  could  be submitted  by the 
Commission  together  with  its annual  report,  which 
should  include  a progress  report.  They  would  be a 
useful  source  of information  for the economic  and 
social  interest  groups  concerned.  They  would  also 
make  it possible  to determine,  in consultation  with 
these  groups,  the priorities  for Community  work  in 
this area. 
3.5. These  priorities  should  include  the safety  of 
people  and  goods,  and  in particular,  protection  for 
workers  using  the  products  concerned,  and  the 
economic  importance  of the market  and products  in 
question.  These  criteria  in turn  should  be considered 
in the light  of the distortions  of competition  which  af-
fect the products.  Thus,  for  example,  alignment 
would  not necessarily  have  much  impact  on products 
which  are not heavily  traded  between  the Member 
States,  such  as those  manufactured  locally  by small 
companies. 
3.6. Since  the elimination  of technical  barriers  to 
trade  is a part  of Community  industrial  policy  as re-
gards  industrial  products,  it should  be consistent  with 
the aims  of that  policy  and its priorities  should  take 
account  of the characteristics  of each  sector.  This 
would  help  growth  sectors  and preclude  the possibili-
ty of a return  to national  standards  in periods  of re-
cession. 
3.7. It would  also  seem  necessary  to define  the rela-
tionship  between  alignment  and  environmental  and 
consumer  protection,  since  uncoordinated  develop-
ment  in this area  could  pave  the way  for further  bar-
riers. 
3.8. Steps  must  also  be taken  to ensure  that national 
energy-saving  measures,  which  are becoming  more 
and more  vital,  do not create  new  trade  barriers. 
24. 3. 80 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 72/11 
3.9. Lastly,  the elimination  of technical  barriers 
may have  a direct  effect  on commercial  policy.  It is 
well known  that  the reservations  on the part  of some 
industries  and countries  over  any extension  of Com-
munity  type-approval  stem  from  the fear  that  this 
would  make  it easier  for their  competitors  from  non-
member  countries  to penetrate  their  markets  (the  au-
tomobile  industry,  for example).  There  is no doubt 
that, in many  cases,  the Community-wide  alignment 
of standards  has  made  it easier  for non-member 
countries  to export  to the Community.  We should  not 
conclude  from  this that the process  of alignment  must 
be slowed  down;  instead,  we should  make  a much 
greater  effort  to obtain  real reciprocity  from  the non-
member  countries  which  still  have  import  barriers 
that are prejudicial  to Community  exporters. 
3.10.  The  recently  drafted  GATT  code  of standards 
could  be a real step  forward  in this respect.  However, 
the Committee  has to support  the Community's  de-
claration  at Geneva  last April  that the aim of the code 
is to be considered  as that  of procuring  mutual 
economic  advantage  for the contracting  parties  to 
GATT,  which  presupposes  a just balance  between  the 
rights  and obligations  arising  from  this.  This  partic-
ularly  applies  to access  to certification,  on which  the 
Community  has declared  that  it reserves  the right  to 
make  the contacts  necessary  to ensuring  that  Com-
munity  products  will  have  access  to the territory  of 
other  GATT  contracting  parties  under  conditions  of 
total reciprocity. 
IV. Possible  solutions 
4.1. The  procedure 
4.1.1.  As  the Commission  pointed  out in its 1970 
memorandum  on Community  industrial  policy,  the 
solution  probably  lies in the sharing  of responsibil-
ities between  the Community  and  national  authori-
ties on the one hand,  and industry  on the other.  Thus, 
new proposals  going  far beyond  the earlier  guidelines 
of the Committee  and the Commission  are required  if 
the existing  procedures  are to be improved. 
4.1.2.  In its recent  draft  outline  Directive  on con-
struction  materials,  the Commission  proposes  an ex-
tension  of its powers.  This  proposal  is based  on Arti-
cle 155,  under  which  the Council  can give  it the ne-
cessary  authority  to issue  implementing  Directives  on 
the basis  of an outline  Directive  adopted  under  the 
present  procedure  (Article  100).  This  would  make  the 
procedure  shorter.  However,  there  are likely  to be 
some  reservations  on the part  of the Member  States 
on this extension  of the Commission's  powers. 4.1.3.  The  Committee  feels  that the implementation 
of this procedure  would  be a real  step  forward.  It is 
pleased  to note  that,  in its proposed  amendments  to 
the proposals  for a Directive  and a resolution  on con-
struction  products  of 6 September  1979,  the Commis-
sion expressly  provided  for the Economic  and Social 
Committee  to be consulted  on the implementing  Di-
rectives  in this  sector.  It believes  such  consultation 
should  be the norm  for any proposal  drafted  by the 
Commission  under  the proposed  new  procedure. 
4.1.4.  It is essential  to keep  up the process  of consul-
tation  between  the Commision,  the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and the various  economic  and so-
cial interest  groups  if the action  undertaken  is to be 
effective.  It would  certainly  take  longer  and be more 
difficult  to make  the trade  interests  concerned  in all 
the Member  States  apply  satisfactorily  measures  with 
which  they  had  not been  associated  at the drafting 
stage. 
4.1.5.  Thus,  whatever  procedure  is adopted  to speed 
up the drafting  of Community  Directives,  the follow-
ing requirements  already  referred  to in a recent  Com-
mittee  opinion  on construction  materials,  Doc.  CES 
852/79  must  be met: 
— when  the Commission  is drafting  its proposals,  it 
must  continue  to consult  the economic  and social 
interest  groups  concerned,  the advisory  commit-
tee on safety,  hygiene  and  health  protection  at 
work  and the scientific  bodies  which  are compe-
tent to deal  with  the products  in question, 
— the Committee  must  be consulted,  not only  on 
draft  outline  Directives  but also  on draft  imple-
menting  Directives, 
— the terms  of the outline  Directive  must  be precise 
enough  to define  clearly  the Commission's  pow-
ers. 
4.2. Methods  of alignment  and  conformity  control 
4.2.1.  The  'total  alignment'  method,  which  obliges 
the Member  States  to accept  only  those  products  that 
comply  with  Community  provisions  — even  where 
there  is no specification  for them  — must  be used 
wherever  necessary,  for safety  or health  reasons,  for 
example. 
4.2.2.  But  the 'optional  method'  should  not be ruled 
out a priori,  as it can speed  up the adoption  of Direc-
tives  by overcoming  certain  objections.  It allows 
manufacturers  to retain  products  which  do not 
No C 72/12 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24. 3. 80 
comply  with  Community  provisions  on the local 
market,  at least  provisionally,  while  guaranteeing 
freedom  of movement  on the Community  market  to 
products  which  do comply  with  the provisions.  This 
would  avoid  the need  to impose  an excessive  number 
of specifications  on all producers,  without  a transi-
tional  period,  and  would  make  it easier  for busi-
nesses,  particularly  small  and  medium-sized  com-
panies,  to adapt  to international  competition  and 
new techniques.  It would  also  enable  the new  stan-
dards  to be incorporated  in basic  and  advanced 
training  programmes. 
4.2.3.  But,  in general,  there  should  be a time  limit  to 
the optional  nature  of Directives.  This  method 
should  be regarded  as a first step towards  total  align-
ment,  allowing  certain  producers  and Member  States 
time to make  the necessary  adjustments. 
4.2.4.  To  ensure  product  conformity  several 
methods  are used:  type  examination,  EEC  type-ap-
proval,  mutual  recognition  of tests,  self-certification. 
In this connection  the 'self-certification'  of producers 
would  dispense  with  some  of the difficulties  of appli-
cation  and avoid  the long  delays  involved  in, for ex-
ample,  the mutual  recognition  of monitoring  pro-
cedures. 
It is desirable  that this method  be used  in areas  not in-
volving  safety  or health  and insofar  as adequate  test-
ing and checking  facilities  are available. 
4.3. Cooperation  with  the standards  bodies 
4.3.1.  There  would  be a better  distribution  of work 
between  the standards  bodies  and the Commission  if 
a distinction  were  made  between  the  technical 
specifications  laid down  in the laws  and regulations 
of the Member  States  and those  laid down  in the vol-
untary  standards  established  by the standards  bod-
ies. In any event,  active  cooperation  is required  be-
tween  the Commission  and the standards  bodies: 
— this  would  limit  the range  of regulatory  functions 
the Commission  must  perform, 
— greater  reference  to such  standards  in the Com-
mission's  Directives  could  help  speed  up the work 
of the standards  bodies. 4.3.2.  These  bodies  are actively  trying  to improve 
their working  methods  but are encountering  difficul-
ties in doing  so. Various  Community  groups  have  al-
ready  come  together  to secure  cooperation  between 
the national  standards  bodies.  But these  groups  are 
not always  successful  in aligning  the standards  used 
by their  members.  They  allow  a number  of national 
exceptions  which  reflect,  for instance,  the technical 
progress  made  by each  country.  Moreover,  the prob-
lem of giving  the economic  and  social  interest 
groups,  particularly  the workers'  and consumers'  or-
ganizations,  a greater  say in the process  of drawing 
up standards  has still not been  solved  in all the areas 
that concern  them. 
4.3.3.  There  is also the danger  of the proliferation  of 
standards  established  by the national  bodies,  which 
could  lead  to a further  compartmentalization  of the 
market. 
4.3.4.  At  the present  stage  of development  of the 
common  market,  there  is thus  scope  for further  pro-
gress  in such  Community  cooperation.  In its memo-
randum  on industrial  policy,  the Commission  went 
so far as to suggest  that a Community  reference  bu-
reau be set up. The authors  had in mind  a Commun-
ity body  which  would  keep  progress  under  review 
and stimulate  the alignment  work  of the standards 
bodies. 
4.3.5.  The  principle  and  details  of implementing 
such a proposal  would  raise  a number  of problems. 
Nevertheless,  more  frequent  consultations  between 
the Commission  and the European  standards  bodies 
is desirable.  This  would  help  considerably  to speed 
up the elimination  of technical  barriers  in the Com-
munity  and would  lay the foundations  for applying 
common  standards  in EFTA  and EC countries,  and 
perhaps  over  an even  wider  area. 
4.3.6.  These  bodies  could  be asked  to draw  up com-
mon standards  to which  the Commission's  Direc-
tives could  refer  or which  they  could  incorporate. 
4.4. Need  for  a new  concept  of Community 
action 
Although  the Committee  has limited  itself  in this 
opinion  to a consideration  of the 'technical  barriers' 
aspect  of the problem  of harmonization,  it realizes 
that this problem  should  also  be looked  at in a wider 
context. 
24. 3. 80 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 72/13 
At present  the harmonization  of Member  States'  laws 
and regulations  is still,  in accordance  with  the Treaty 
of Rome,  closely  linked  with  the abolition  of barriers 
to trade.  The fundamental  objective  is the free  move-
ment  of goods  within  the common  market. 
It may  be wondered  whether,  in view  of the present 
state of the Community  and  the prospect  of its en-largement,  the time  has not come  to adopt  a new  ap-
proach,  one  which  would  facilitate  the gradual  im-
plementation  of truly  Community  regulations  and 
even  laws. 
It would  in fact  seem  increasingly  necessary  to give 
the Community  institutions  the opportunity  to take 
initiatives  in this field  which  met the real future  needs 
of the Community. 
Done  at Brussels,  21 November  1979 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Raffaele  VANNI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Decision  initiating  a consultation  procedure 
concerning  international  action  in the field  of air transport  * 
The text referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No C 193 of 31 July  1979  page  9. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 23 July  1979  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  84 (a) 2 of the Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
173rd  plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 21 November  1979. 
The full text of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the Euro-
pean  Economic  Community  and,  in particular,  Arti-
cle 84 (2) thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 23 July  1979  for an 
opinion, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by the Commit-
tee Chairman  on 20 August  1979,  instructing  the Sec-
tion for Transport  and Communications  to draw  up 
an opinion  on the matter  (Articles  22, 46 and 47 of 
the Rules  of Procedure), 
Having  regard  to the Section's  opinion  adopted  at its 
128th  meeting  on 14 November  1979,