COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(94) 115 final 
Brussels, 06.04.1994 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
television camera systems originating in Japan. 
(presented by the Commission) 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No.3029/93 of 29 October 1993, 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of television 
camera systems originating in Japan. 
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No.301/94 of 7 February 1994, 
extended this provisional anti-dumping duty by a further period not 
exceeding two months. 
After the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty 
interested parties commented on the Commission's provisional 
findings. The Commission also heard a number of users of television 
camera systems in the Community. The Commission subsequently took 
account, where warranted, of the comments made by the various 
parties and informed them of the essential facts and considerations 
on the basis of which it was intended to propose the imposition of 
definitive anti-dumping duties. 
Three exporters have offered price undertakings which the 
Commission decided not to accept. The Commission, in accordance 
with Article 12 of the Basic Regulation1^ and after consultation 
of the Advisory Committee, is now proposing to impose definitive 
anti-dumping duties on the imports of television camera systems 
originating in Japan. 
1) Regulation (EEC) No.2423/88 of 11 July 1988 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION ( EC) No / 
Of 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
television camera systems originating in Japan. 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not 
members of the European Economic Community1 ) thereinafter referred to as 
"the Basic Regulation", and in particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission submitted after 
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the 
above-mentioned Regulation, 
Whereas : 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 3029/932) (hereinafter 
referred to as "the provisional duty Regulation") imposed a 
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of 
television camera systems (hereinafter referred to as "television 
cameras"), originating in Japan. 
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 301/943), extended this duty 
for a period not exceeding two months. 
1) OJ No L 209, 02.08.1988, p. 1 
2) OJ No L 271, 30.10.1993, p. 1 
3) OJ No L 40, 11.02.1993, p. 23 
S*-~ 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, a 
number of interested parties made submissions to the Commission 
making known their views on the findings. Those who so requested 
were also granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. A 
number of users of television cameras also contacted the Commission 
and made their points of view known in writing as well as orally. 
(3) Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on 
the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of 
definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collection of 
amounts secured by way of provisional duty. They were also granted 
a period within which to make representations subsequent to the 
disclosure. 
(4) The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were 
considered and, where appropriate, the Commission's findings were 
modified to take account of them. 
(5) The investigation overran the normal duration of one year provided 
for in Article 7 (9) (a) of the Basic Regulation due to the 
complexity of the product and the investigation. 
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 
(6) The main characteristics of the product under consideration were 
described in detail in recitals 7 to 10 of the provisional duty 
Regulation. The division of the market of electronic cameras using 
three CCDs (Charge-Coupled Device) into three segments, i.e. 
consumer cameras, professional cameras and television cameras has 
not been disputed by the parties concerned. 
(7) Several exporters, however, argued that the scope of the proceeding 
had been broadened by including so-called professional cameras. The 
Community industry, from its side, argued that the duty should also 
apply to professional cameras because these professional cameras 
would be competing with television cameras and would be used by 
broadcast companies. 
(8) As outlined in the provisional duty Regulation, it was necessary to 
determine whether the so-called professional cameras which reached 
the technical specifications of the notice of initiation could be 
used for broadcast purposes by comparing in more detail the 
technical specifications and use of these cameras. Account has been 
taken of the following criteria: technical description of the 
camera; type of transmission system for the signals; the interface 
for recording facilities; the type and size of CCD ; the type of 
lens; the lifetime of the components; the control possibilities; 
the ease of operation and the possibilities for the users to carry 
out their own maintenance and the use and marketing of these 
cameras. No one or several of these criteria necessarily gave 
decisive guidance. This investigation revealed that only those so-
called professional cameras which could be used as forming part of 
a television camera system including most, but not necessarily all, 
of the components indicated in recital 7 of the provisional duty 
Regulation can effectively be qualified as broadcast cameras and 
should, therefore, be within the scope of any measures. As a result 
of this, a list of professional cameras was drawn up, which are not 
qualified as broadcast cameras and can therefore be exempted from 
the measures. This list is attached to this Regulation as Annex I. 
- 3 -
D. DUMPING 
(9) No exporter contested the method of calculation of dumping as set 
out in recitals 11 to 17 of the provisional duty Regulation, apart 
from a number of mathematical discrepancies in the after-sales 
discounts, ordinary discounts, selling costs and advertising 
expenses, which have been corrected. 
(10) The dumping margins, as finally established and after making the 
adjustments mentioned in recital 9, are as follows: 
Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd 82.9% 
Sony Corporation 62.6% 
Hitachi Denshi 52.7% 
(11) For the producers which refused to reply to the Commission's 
questionnaires or filed incomplete replies to the questionnaires, 
the margin of dumping was established on the basis of the facts 
available, in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of the basic 
Regulation. Since there was no reason to believe that the producers 
would have sold to the Community at levels higher than the company 
with the highest dumping margin, the calculation of dumping was 
consequently based on the weighted average margin of a camera head 
with its portable companion camera and a CCU, an OCP, a MSU or MCP 
sold by this company and considered comparable to products sold by 
non-cooperating exporters. The result of this calculation is a 
margin of dumping of 96.8% which should apply to all 
non-cooperating exporters. 
- 4 -
E. INJURY 
(12) In the provisional duty Regulation the Commission had concluded 
that the Community television camera industry suffered material 
injury in particular through losses of sales, price erosion and 
resulting financial losses with all relevant economic indicators of 
the Community industry being clearly negative. 
(13) One exporter disputed the findings on price undercutting. The 
exporter claimed that the calculation should not have been based on 
the sales of camera heads only, but should also have included other 
parts of the television camera system, such as the Operational 
Control Panel (OCP), the Camera Control Unit (CCU), the Master Set­
up Unit (MSU) or the Master Control Panel (MCP). 
(14) This argument was accepted and new calculations of undercutting 
were made which now include, apart from the camera head, all of the 
parts mentioned in the previous recital. 
(15) Another exporter argued that, for the purpose of calculating price 
undercutting, too many of the models sold by one of the 
complainants (Thomson Broadcast) were used and that more models of 
the other Community producer (BTS) which, according to this 
exporter has the largest market share in the Community, should be 
included. 
(16) This argument was accepted and sufficient models of both Community 
producers have now been included in the calculation which are 
considered to be more representative. 
5 -
(17) The exporter also claimed that FT (Frame Transfer) cameras should 
not be compared with IT (Interline Transfer) and FIT (Frame 
Interline Transfer) cameras on the grounds that the technology and 
consumer perception would be different. 
(18) This claim was not accepted. FT technology is indeed technically 
different from both IT or FIT technology because the organisation 
of the. transfer of the signal is different. This difference 
however, taken in isolation, is not a reason for concluding that 
the products are not comparable. Amongst the transfer of the signal 
the consumer considers a wide range of characteristics and features 
given the specific application he has in mind for his television 
camera. Different users will rate the features of a television 
camera in a different way in relation to their specific use and 
requirements. It is consequently not possible to limit comparisons 
to the type of transfer of the signal as requested by the exporter. 
(19) All of the above mentioned changes in methodology have affected the 
Commission's provisional findings on price undercutting. The margin 
of undercutting as finally established varied between 21% and 60% 
depending on the exporter concerned. 
(20) All other findings on injury set out in recitals 18 to 32 of the 
provisional duty Regulation are confirmed, except for the results 
of the calculation of price undercutting (recital 21 of the 
provisional duty Regulation) which are replaced by the findings set 
out in recital 19 of this Regulation. 
- 6 
F. CAUSATION OF INJURY BY DUMPING 
I. Effect of dumped imports 
(21) In recital 33 of the provisional duty Regulation the Commission 
concluded that the dumped imports were responsible for the injury 
as shown by the fact that the Community producers lost 18% of the 
Community market between 1989 and the investigation period while 
the Japanese suppliers gained 18% of the market in the same period. 
There is consequently a clear cut coincidence between the dumping 
and the injury as already explained in recital 33 of the 
provisional duty Regulation. 
II. Effect of other factors 
(22) A number of users of television cameras wrote to the Commission 
after the provisional duty was imposed and claimed that the 
television cameras sold by the Community industry were of a lower 
quality. The users, however, provided no evidence in support of 
their allegations. 
(23) Although it was found that certain camera systems from certain 
producers suited the needs of a particular user better than the 
camera systems from other producers, it did not find a significant 
overall technical superiority of television cameras of any of the 
producers. Further contacts with the users of television camera 
systems confirmed the Commission's provisional findings that the 
products of the Community industry were of a comparable quality, 
were similar in performance and were competing directly with the 
products sold by Japanese producers. 
- 7 -
(24) Consequently no other factors were found, other than the dumped 
imports, which would have been responsible for the injury caused to 
the Community industry. It is therefore concluded that the dumped 
exports taken in isolation have caused material injury to the 
Community industry. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(25) In its provisional findings, the Commission considered the 
interests of the Community industry as well as those of end users 
(see recitals 38 to 40 of the provisional duty Regulation) and 
concluded that it was in the interest of the Community to impose a 
provisional anti-dumping duty to counteract the effect of the 
unfair pricing behaviour on the Community industry during the 
investigation. 
(26) After the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, 
representations from a number of users of television camera systems 
were received which alleged that the measures would not be in their 
interest because the high level of the duty would increase 
drastically the prices of the imported cameras. Some users, which 
had already previously decided to buy Japanese cameras, also 
pointed out that it would be almost impossible for them to switch 
immediately from a Japanese supplier to a Community supplier 
because of the incompatibility of the television camera systems 
from the various suppliers. 
- 8 
(27) It is entirely matter for the users to decide whether or not to 
switch from imported to Community products. If this happens it will 
merely be a consequence of users fully choosing the Community 
product once the imported product loses its unfair competitive 
advantage. In any case, there are already a large number of users 
which use television cameras from various suppliers, despite 
compatibility limitations. Moreover, the purpose of anti-dumping 
measures is not necessarily to cause users to switch from a 
Japanese supplier to a Community supplier but merely to eliminate 
unfair trade practices. 
(28) It should be borne in mind that the purpose of anti-dumping 
measures is to remedy the injurious effect of unfair trading 
practices and to re-establish a fair competitive situation which, 
as such, is in the general interest of the Community. It should 
also be pointed out that the users have no right to continue to 
take advantage of the effect of unfair trade practices in the form 
of very low prices. 
(29) As outlined in recital 40 of the provisional duty Regulation, the 
investigation revealed that prices of television cameras in the 
Community had declined over the last four years to such an extent 
that all Japanese as well as Community suppliers were selling at a 
loss. If this situation is not halted and if profitable price 
levels are not restored, the situation of the Community television 
camera industry will further deteriorate with a strong possibility 
of shutdown with the consequent loss of a high-tech industry and 
the disadvantageous effects for users of a reduced number of 
competitors. 
(30) It is consequently concluded that it is in the Community interest 
to adopt definitive anti-dumping measures to eliminate the 
injurious effects of the dumped imports. 
- 9 
H. UNDERTAKINGS 
(31) The following three exporters have offered price undertakings in 
accordance with Article 10 (3) of the Basic Regulation: 
Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd 
Sony Corporation 
Hitachi Denshi 
(32) The Commission, after consultation, considered that the 
undertakings were not acceptable in particular because of the 
possibilities to circumvent the minimum prices of the undertaking 
by means which would be particularly difficult to detect in this 
case given the peculiarities of the product and the market. 
I. DUTY 
(33) The measures should consequently take the form of a definitive 
anti-dumping duty. 
(34) As regards the level of duty provisionally imposed, the Commission 
determined, that the increase to the export prices of each 
individual exporter, which would be required to permit the 
Community industry a reasonable return on sales of its television 
cameras exceeded the dumping margins as established. Consequently, 
the provisional anti-dumping duty corresponded to the individual 
dumping margins of each exporter as established in recital 16 and 
17 of the provisional duty Regulation in accordance with Article 13 
(3) of the Basic Regulation. 
10 -
(35) Some exporters argued that the Commission should not have 
restricted its calculation of the level of injury to the camera 
heads only but should also have included other components of the 
television camera system. 
(36) This argument has already been accepted in recitals 13 to 19 of 
this Regulation for the purpose of the calculation of price 
undercutting and is therefore also accepted for the calculation of 
the price increase required to allow the Community industry to make 
a reasonable profit. Thus included in the calculation were not only 
the camera heads but also the CCU's, the OCP's, the MSU's or the 
MCP's. This new calculation revealed the following price increases 
necessary to remove the injury caused by dumping, expressed as a 
percentage of the CIF import prices of the Japanese television 
cameras : 
Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd.: 98.9% 
Sony Corporation: 81.3% 
Hitachi Denshi Ltd: 89.2% 
(37) For the producers which refused to reply to the Commission's 
questionnaires or filed incomplete replies to the questionnaires 
the level of price increase necessary to eliminate the injury was 
established on the basis of the facts available, in accordance with 
Article 7 (7) (b) of the Basic Regulation. Since there was no 
reason to believe that the producers would have sold to the 
Community at levels higher than the company with the highest 
dumping margin the Commission consequently based its calculation of 
the level of injury on the weighted average margin of a comparable 
camera head with its portable companion camera and a CCU, an OCP, a 
MSU or MCP sold by this company. This margin amounted to 108.3%. 
11 
(38) Since the level of injury thus established exceeds the margins of 
dumping as finally established the duties are based on the margins 
of dumping. 
(39) Representations from Member States and from the Community industry 
indicatd that, given the particular conditions of the television 
camera market, the risk that the anti-dumping duty on television 
camera systems might be evaded and thus rendered ineffective, could 
be high. 
(40) The Council is of the opinion that such a possibility in this 
particular case requires special attention. It is noted that the 
Commission will keep the situation of the market under close 
examination with a view to prevent any undermining of the remedial 
effect of this anti-dumping duty. 
J. RETROACTIVE DUTIES 
(41) The Community producers requested the imposition of retroactive 
anti-dumping duties on the grounds that importers were aware that 
the exporters were practising dumping and that there would be 
material injury caused by sporadic dumping in the form of massive 
imports of television cameras in a relatively short period prior to 
the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty. 
(42) In the absence of sporadic dumping, as defined in Article 13 (4) of 
the Basic Regulation there were no grounds to impose retroactive 
anti-dumping duties in this case. The Council consequently decided 
not to impose retroactive anti-dumping duties on television camera 
systems originating in Japan. 
12 
K. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(43) In the view of the importance of the dumping margins found and the 
seriousness of the injury caused to the Community producers, the 
Council considers it necessary that the amounts secured by way of 
provisional anti-dumping duties should be collected, either in full 
or to a maximum of the duty definitively imposed in those cases 
where the definitive duty is less than the provisional duty. The 
duty should be definitively collected for all models of television 
camera systems originating in Japan not included in the listing 
attached to this Regulation as Annex I. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 
television camera systems falling within CN codes 8525 30 99 (Taric 
Code: 8525 30 99*10), 8537 10 91 (Taric Code: 8537 10 91*91), 
8537 10 99 (Taric Code: 8537 10 99*91), 8529 90 98 (Taric Code: 
8529 90 98*98), 8543 80 80 (Taric Code: 8543 80 80*97), 8528 10 31 
(Taric Code: 8528 10 31*10), 8528 10 41 (Taric Code: 8528 10 41*10) 
and 8528 10 49 (Taric Code: 8528 10 49*10) originating in Japan. 
2. Television camera systems may consist of a combination of the 
following parts, imported either together or separately: 
(a) a camera head with three sensors (12 mm or more charge-
coupled device pick-up devices) with more than 400 000 pixels 
each, which can be connected to a rear adapter, and having a 
specification of the signal-to-noise ratio of 55 dB or more 
at normal gain; either in one piece, with the camera head and 
the adapter in one housing, or separate,-
- 13 
(b) a view finder (diagonal, of 38 mm or more); 
(c) a base station or camera control unit (CCU) connected to the 
camera by a cable; 
d) an operational control panel (OCP) for camera control (i.e. 
for colour adjustment, lens opening or iris) of single 
cameras ; 
e) a master control panel (MCP) or master set-up unit (MSU) with 
selected camera indication, for the overview and for 
adjustment of several remote cameras. 
The duty does not apply to: 
a) lenses; 
b) video tape recorders; 
(c) camera-heads with the recording unit in the same, 
inseparable, housing; 
d) professional cameras which cannot be used for broadcast 
purposes. 
(e) professional cameras listed in Annex I. 
(Taric additional code: 8786). 
When the television camera system is imported with the lens the 
free-at-Community-frontier value used in applying the anti-dumping 
duty shall be that of the television camera systems without the 
lens. If this value is not specified on the invoice the importer 
shall declare the value of the lens at the time of release for free 
circulation and shall submit appropriate evidence and information 
on that occasion. 
- 14 
5. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be 96.8% of the 
net, free-at-Community frontier price, before duty (Taric 
additional code : 8744) except for the following companies for 
which the rate shall be as follows: 
Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd.: 82.9% Taric additional code: 8741 
Sony Corporation : 62.6% Taric additional code: 8742 
Hitachi Denshi Ltd. : 52.7% Taric additional code: 8743 
6. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3029/93 on the products not listed in 
Annex I attached to this Regulation shall be definitively collected at 
the rates of the duty definitively imposed, except for Hitachi Denshi Ltd 
for which the provisional anti-dumping duty of 49.9% shall be collected. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable 
in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
- 15 
ANNEX I 
LIST OF PROFESSIONAL CAMERA SYSTEMS NOT QUALIFIED AS BROADCAST CAMERA SYSTEMS WHICH 
ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MEASURES 
COMPANY 
NAME CAMERA 
HEADS VIEWFINDER CAMERA 
CONTROL UNIT OPERATIONAL 
CONTROL UNIT MASTER 
CONTROL UNIT* CAMERA 
ADAPTORS 
SONY 
IKEGAMI 
HITACHI DXC-M7PK 
DXC-M7P 
DXC-M7PH 
DXC-M7PK/1 
DXC-M7P/1 
DXC-M7PH/1 
DXC-327PK 
DXC-327PL 
DXC-327PH 
DXC-327APK 
DXC-327APL 
DXC-327AH 
DXC-537PK 
DXC-537PL 
DXC-537PH 
DXC-537APK 
DXC-537APL 
DXC-537APH 
EVW-537PK 
EVW-327PK 
HC-340 
HC-300 
HC-230 
HC-240 
HC-210 
SK-H5 
SK-H501 
DK-7700 
DK-7700SX 
HV-C10 
HV-C11 
HV-C10F 
Z-ONE (L) 
Z-ONE (H) 
Z-ONE 
Z-ONE A (L) 
Z-ONE A (H) 
Z-ONE A (F) 
Z-ONE A 
Z-ONE B (L) 
Z-ONE B (H) 
Z-ONE B (F) 
Z-ONE B 
Z-ONE B (M) 
Z-ONE B (R) 
FP-C10 (B) 
FP-C10 (C) 
FP-C10 (D) 
FP-C10 (G) 
FP-C10 (L) 
FP-C10 (R) DXF-3000CE 
DXF-325CE 
DXF-501CE 
DXF-M3CE 
DXF-M7CE 
DXF-40CE 
DXF-40ACE 
DXF-50CE 
VF1 5-21/22 
VF-4523 
GM-5 (A) 
GM-5-R2 (A) 
GM-5-R2 
GM-50 CCU-M3P 
CCU-M5P 
CCU-M7P 
MA-200/230 
RU--C1 (B) 
RU-C1 (D) 
RU-C1 
RU-C1-S5 
RU-C10 (B) 
RU-C10 (C) 
RC-C1 
RC-C10 
RU-C10 
RU-Z1 (B) 
RU-Z1 (C) 
RU-Z1 
RC-C11 RM-M7G 
RCU-240 /.. CA-325P 
CA-325AP 
CA-325B 
CA-327P 
CA-537P 
CA-511 
CA-512P 
CA-51 3 
CA-340 
CA-300 
CA-230 
i also called Master Setup Unit (MSU) or. Master Control Panel (MCP) 
-1^ 
ANNEX I 
LIST OF PROFESSIONAL CAMERA SYSTEMS NOT QUALIFIED AS BROADCAST CAMERA SYSTEMS WHICH 
ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MEASURES 
1 COMPANY 
1 NAME CAMERA 
HEADS VIEWFINDER CAMERA 
CONTROL UNIT OPERATIONAL 
CONTROL UNIT MASTER 
CONTROL UNIT* CAMERA 
ADAPTORS 
ÎHITACHI FP-C10 (S) 
FP-C10 (V) 
FP-C 10(F) 
FP-C10 
FP-C 10 A 
FP-C10 A (A) 
FP-C10 A (B) 
FP-C10 A (C) 
FP-C10 A (D) 
FP-C10 A (F) 
FP-C10 A (G) 
FP-C10 A (H) 
FP-C 10 A (L) 
FP-C10 A (R) 
FP-C 10 A (S) 
FP-C 10 A (T) 
FP-C10 A (V) 
FP-C 10 A (W) 
Z-ONE C (M) 
Z-ONE C (R) 
Z-ONE C (F) 
Z-ONE C 
WIATSUSHITA WV-F700 
WV-F700A 
WV-F700SHE 
WV-F700ASHE 
WV-F700BHE 
WV-F700ABHE 
WV-F700MHE 
WV-F350 
WV-F350HE 
WV-F350E 
WV-F350AE 
WV-F350DE 
WV-F350ADE 
WV-F500HE* WV-VF65BE 
WV-VF40E 
WV-VF65BE 
WV-VF39E 
WV-VF65BE 
WV-VF40E 
WV-VF65BE1 
WV-VF40E* WV-RC700/B 
WV-RC700/G 
WV-RC700A/B 
WV-RC700A/G 
WV-RC36/B 
WV-RC36/G 
WV-RC37/B 
WV-RC37/G 
WV-CB700E 
WV-CB700AE 
WV-CB700E* 
WV-CB700AE* 
WV-RC700/B* 
WV-RC700/G* 
WV-RC700A/B* 
WV-RC700A/G 
VJVC KY-35E 
KY-27ECH 
KY-19ECH 
KY-17FITECH 
KY-17BECH 
KY-F30FITE 
KY-F30BE VF-P315E 
VF-P550E 
VF-P10E 
VP-P115E 
VF-P400E 
VP-P550BE RM-P350EG 
RM-P200EG 
RM-P300EG 
RM-LP80E 
RM-LP821E 
RM-LP35U 
RM-LP37U WV-AD700SE 
WV-AD700ASE 
WV-AD700ME 
WV-AD250E 
WV-AD500E* 
KA-35E 
KA-B35U 
KA-M35U 
KA-P35U 
KA-27E 
KA-20E 
KA-P27U 
KA-P20U 
KA-B27E 
KA-B20E 
KA-M20E 
KA-M27E 
*) also called Master Setup Unit (MSU) or Master Control Panel (MCP) -*r 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (94) 115 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN il 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-121-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-67045-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
1^2985 Luxembourg 
n