No C 211/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 83 
6. The Committee would like NCI aims and prior­
ities to be reviewed regularly by the ESC and the 
European Parliament, so that account can be taken of economic and social trends. This could be done 
either when the NCI annual report comes out or 
when a new tranche is allocated. 
Done at Brussels, 1 June 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the indication of the origin 
of certain textile products imported from third countries 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 93 of 14 April 1982. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 29 January 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 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 
208th plenary session held in Brussels on 1 and 2 June 1983. 
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 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 29 January 1982 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Regu­
lation concerning the indication of the origin of cer­
tain textile products imported from third countries, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 26 January 1982, instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up 
an opinion and report on the matter, tioh for Industry to make a further study of the mat­
ter, 
Having regard to its opinion on the proposal for a 
Council Directive on the approximation of laws of 
the Member States relating to the indication of the 
origin of certain textile and clothing products ('), 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services 
and 4 May 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr De Bruyn, 
Having regard to the discussions on 2 June 1983, 
during its 208th plenary session held on 1 and 
2 June 1983. 
Having regard to its decision, at its 203rd plenary 
session of 15 and 16 December 1982 asking the Sec- (') OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981. 
8. 8. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 211/47 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 78 votes in favour, with none against and 16 
abstentions: 
1. The proposed Regulation requires origin mark­
ing on certain textiles imported from third countries. 
The Regulation is designed to obviate a danger to 
the proper functioning of the internal market, aris­
ing from the adoption by the UK and France of leg­
islation requiring origin marking. In France such 
legislation (decree of 22 April 1983) is confined to 
non-Community textile and clothing imports whilst 
in the UK it also covers footwear and electrical 
household goods. Since the other Member States 
have not followed the example of France and the 
UK, technical barriers have been created. To restore 
uniformity in this area, the Commission could either 
call on the two Member States to conform to the 
general pattern or encourage the other Member 
States to adopt origin marking. In reality it has done 
both: on the one hand it has attacked France before 
the Court of Justice for not having rescinded a law 
requiring the labelling of all imported textile prod­
ucts including those from the Member States of the 
EEC — and has delivered a reasoned opinion under 
Article 169 of the EEC Treaty in the case of the UK; 
and on the other hand it has proposed this Regula­
tion. 
2. Despite long, detailed discussions the Com­
mittee is still deeply divided and has been unable to 
come out either in favour of or against the Commis­
sion proposal. The main arguments propounded by 
Committee members are set out below though their 
order of presentation is not to be construed as show­
ing a preference for this or that option. 
3. Arguments against the proposal 
3.1. Some members reject the proposal for a Regu­
lation. Though sympathizing with the Commission's 
desire to abolish trade barriers that pose a threat to 
the functioning of the common market, they feel 
that the best way of achieving this aim is to put pres­
sure on the United Kingdom and France to with­
draw their legislation rather than to extend the mea­
sures adopted unilaterally by these two countries to 
the rest of the Community. 
3.2. The same members also fear that, although 
this Regulation appears to be very limited in scope, it may set a dangerous precedent. The UK already 
requires origin marking for various non-textile prod­
ucts. Since the Commission states in the explanatory 
memorandum that the proposal has been introduced 
to avoid barriers to trade caused by unilateral action 
on one type of product (textiles), it can only be a 
matter of time before new pressure is brought to 
bear on the Commission to present similar propo­
sals on other products. If this happened there would 
be serious obstacles to world trade — obstacles 
which the Community can ill afford as the world's 
leading trading power. It is only to be expected that 
once origin marking for certain textiles imported 
from third countries becomes mandatory, there will 
soon be new pressure to mark all textiles, including 
EEC textiles (and indeed other goods), with their 
country of origin. There will then be a danger that 
consumers may discriminate in favour of their own 
country's products against those of other EEC coun­
tries, and this would be a clear threat to the proper 
functioning of the internal market. 
3.3. It is to be feared that the Regulation may 
appear to third countries to be a protectionist mea­
sure against which they might retaliate by taking 
action against exports from EEC countries. 
3.4. Finally, the draft Regulation does not specifi­
cally mention consumer information as one of its 
raisons d'etre even though we have reason to believe 
that the Commission does not want to see consu­
mers badly informed. But the Regulation would 
confuse or even mislead the consumer. For example, 
a suit made from wool produced, spun, woven and 
dyed in non-member countries but tailored in the 
Community would bear no label, because the label 
relates to the last substantial work process (in this 
case the tailoring). So a consumer who wanted to 
help EEC workers and industry might buy the suit, 
not realizing that the raw material and a substantial 
proportion of the work came from outside the Com­
munity. 
3.5. The evidence is that consumers have no great 
interest in the indication of the country of origin. 
Rather they are interested in quality; price; the com­
pulsory indication of the raw material; cleaning 
instructions (which by and large are already given); 
and possibly the trade mark. 
4. A number of other members are unable to 
approve the proposal on the grounds that it is 
incomplete. 
First of all they consider that the Commission is 
only interested in mandatory origin labelling for tex­
tiles from non-EEC countries. 
No C 211/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 83 
Secondly, the proposed Regulation applies only to 
certain types of textile and clothing products. 
Thirdly, the proposed Regulation should be 
extended to cover origin information provided in all 
advertising media, particularly mail-order cata­
logues. 
5. Arguments in favour of the proposal 
5.1. Other members approve the proposal. 
5.2. They consider that disparities in national leg­
islation are liable to disrupt trade in textile products 
within the Community. They believe that, since the 
risk of disruption in the movement of goods within 
the common market is real, action by the Com­
munity to achieve uniformity is justified. 
5.3. These members note that it is compulsory in a 
large number of countries, and particularly the prin­
cipal trading partners of the Community (e.g. the 
USA, Canada and Japan), for the origin of imported 
goods to be indicated. The obligation also exists in a 
number of EFTA countries associated with the 
Community, such as Finland and Austria, as well as 
in some countries that have applied to join the EEC, 
such as Portugal. 
The result is that of all the major textile importing 
countries in the western world, the EEC bloc is still 
one of those without labelling enforcement legisla­
tion. This is highly prejudicial to the Community's 
textile and clothing sector. 
If origin labelling were made compulsory in all the 
countries of the Community, it would be (a) a vital 
deterrent against corrupt practices and deflection of 
trade, and (b) a reliable instrument for informing 
and protecting consumers in a field where there is 
price manipulation between the production or 
import stage and the retail stage. Last but not least, 
compulsory origin labelling could be an indirect 
way of promoting EEC exports. 
5.4. These members therefore cannot see why the 
Community should not provide its citizens with the information which is considered to be necessary for 
the citizens of the abovementioned countries. Total 
freedom of choice for consumers can only be based 
on a full knowledge of the facts. If the Community 
fails to ensure that this information is provided, 
Member States will be able to argue before the 
Court of Justice that they are entitled to fill in the 
gap by national legislation. 
5.5. In the present circumstances it would be 
showing scant regard for Community consumers to 
suppose that they are all disinterested in the origin 
of products put on the market. It is well known that 
origin marking leads the consumer to make assump­
tions about the quality or lack of quality of the 
product in question; this is of help to the consumer 
who is naturally concerned about the quality-price 
relationship. 
5.6. Finally, obligatory origin marking would give 
the authorities of exporting countries an incentive to 
focus more attention on quality. An example of this 
is Japan where the authorities have taken steps to 
control the quality of exports labelled 'Made in 
Japan'. The result has been satisfied customers. 
5.7. The rules now being drawn up might be seen 
as protectionist. If so, the similar rules already 
enforced by the Community's trading partners are 
also protectionistic. In this case it would be quite 
natural for the rules imposed on Community firms 
selling in third countries to be imposed on non-EEC 
firms selling in the Community. Moreover, these 
same members are not aware that the Community 
has ever asked its trading partners to revoke their 
origin marking regulations on the grounds that they 
are protectionistic. 
5.8. It needs to be emphasized here that third 
countries have never taken retaliatory action against 
countries forcing them to adopt origin marking; 
there is therefore no reason why third countries 
should retaliate against the Community, especially 
since the latter guarantees third countries bigger 
export quotas via bilateral agreements. 
5.9. These same members note that the origin of 
textile products is determined by the place in which 
they are actually made up (even though certain pre­
vious operations could have been carried out in 
8. 8. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 211/49 
other countries, e.g. Member States or third coun­
tries). This criterion was adopted in the origin-mark­
ing Regulations (802/1968 and 749/1978) because it 
is the processing which gives finished textile prod­
ucts their particular form and which represents a 
substantial part of the value added. There would be 
nothing to stop these rules being altered if it was 
Done at Brussels on 2 June 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to Article 20, third paragraph, of its 
Rules of Procedure and the decision taken at its 
meeting on 1 June 1983 to draw up an opinion, 
under Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure (urgency 
procedure) on the revision of the European 
Regional Development Fund Regulation, 
Having regard to Article 18 of the Rules of Proce­
dure and its decision of 1 June 1983 nominating Mr 
Milne rapporteur-general, 
Having regard to its opinion of 29 April 1982 on the 
proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regu-thought advisable, but in the meantime they must of 
course be applied. 
6. In view of the comments made about the Com­
mission document in points 3, 4 and 5, the Com­
mittee wonders if the Commission should not take a 
second look at the matter. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fran?ois CEYRAC 
lation (EEC) No 724/75 establishing a European 
Regional Development Fund ('), 
Having regard to the discussions at its 208th Plenary 
Session held on 1 and 2 June 1982 (meeting of 2 
June) on the basis of the oral report made by the 
Rapporteur-General, Mr Milne, 
Whereas the gap between the less prosperous and 
the most developed regions in the Community has 
in general grown wider since the creation of the 
ERDFin 1975, Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 
724/75 establishing a European Regional Development Fund 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 336 of 23 December 1981, page 60. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
As a follow-up to its opinion of 29 April 1982 (') on the abovementioned proposal for 
a Council Regulation, the Economic and Social Committee has delivered an additional 
approach on this subject under the third paragraph of Article 20 (3) of its Rules of 
Procedure. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
208th plenary session held in Brussels on 2 June 1983. 
(') OJNoC 178, 15.7. 1982. (') OJ No C 178, 15.7. 1982.