No C 263/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 10. 86 
2.2. Without wishing to restrict the scope of this 
proposed Directive, the Committee would like the 
Council to reflect, before deciding, on whether public 
investment trusts should fall within the scope of the 
Directive. 
2.3. The Committee is of the view that the Member 
States must inform the Commission of the reasons 
and anticipated deadlines for the application of the 
additional requirements to which they may subject 
persons and companies under Article 2. 
2.4. The Committee would like to see a reduction in 
the number of thresholds stipulated in Article 3. 
2.5. In the Committee's view Article 4, on the prob­
lem of shares held by an intermediary, should be further 
clarified as major legal problems could arise. 2.6. Article 8 provides for a period of seven calendar 
days during which a company having received a declar­
ation indicating a change in the percentage of capital 
(acquisition or disposal) must inform the public. The 
Committee thinks that this information should be circu­
lated very quickly, but would point out that a period 
of seven days could prove too short in some Member 
States. 
2.7. The Committee would add 'and known by the 
company' after the words 'by that person' in line 3 of 
Article 8 (2). 
2.8. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Con­
tact Committee set up by Directive 79/279/EEC(1) will 
closely monitor the implementation of this Directive 
and will advise the Commission on any amendments 
regarded as necessary if the Directive is to help to 
establish a true European capital market. 
t1) OJ No L 66, 16. 3. 1979. 
Done at Brussels, 2 July 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 
1365/75 on the creation of a European Foundation for the improvement of living and working 
conditions 
(86/C 263/02) 
On 11 February 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 
3 June 1986, in the light of the report by Mr Meraviglia. 
At its 238th plenary session (meeting of 2 July 1986), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by a majority, with 11 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee notes that although the draft 
Regulation does not call into question the tasks or 
original objectives and purpose of the Foundation, it 
does contain significant and harmful policy implications 
in that it would bring sweeping changes to the long­standing and crucial role played by the social partners 
in working towards the Foundation's objectives. 
1.2. Even if there have been some difficulties in the 
running of the Foundation in the past, in the Com­
mittee's view they do not justify a substantial change 
in the organizational structure such as to alter the role 
20. 10. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 263/3 
and membership of the various constituent bodies of 
the Foundation. This view is backed up by the fact that 
the Foundation's new administration appears to be 
fulfilling the need for dynamic and efficient manage­
ment. 
1.3. What is more, contrary to the Commission's 
claims, the proposal could pose a serious threat to the 
democratic basis on which the Foundation operates, to 
its autonomous status and to the effectiveness and 
coherence of its work. 
1.4. The Committee therefore regrets that it is unable 
to go along with the Commission's proposals, particu­
larly since it feels that the Commission should continue 
to play its proper role within the Foundation. 
1.5. As environmental protection, public health 
issues and the protection and promotion of consumers' 
interests are at present very much a matter of public 
concern, the Committee feels that it is high time we 
tackled these questions in a way that lives up to the 
expectations of the people of Europe. 
1.6. The answer could lie in setting up another Com­
munity Foundation where priority would be given to 
studying environmental, health-related and consumer 
issues. 
1.7. The Committee takes the view that the Com­
mission should give careful consideration to this pro­
posal and regard it as a contribution to the search 
for alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the 
present proposal and of meeting the recommendations 
put forward by the European Parliament. 
2. Detailed comments 
The Committee feels that attention should, in particu­
lar, be focused on the following: 
— composition and role of the Administrative Board, 
— composition and role of the Bureau, 
— nomination of the Director and Deputy Director, 
— drawing up and approval of the Work Programme, 
— distribution of research funds between living con­
ditions and working conditions. 
2.1. Administrative Board 
2.1.1. The Administrative Board at present consists 
of 12 representatives each of governments, employers' 
organizations and employees' organizations, plus three 
Commission representatives. It meets three times a year 
and has the power to take decisions on all aspects of 
the Foundation's activities (programme, budget, etc.). 2.1.2. The Commission's proposal is to turn the 
Administrative Board into a purely consultative body, 
meeting only once a year. A further 12 representatives 
would be appointed to the Administrative Board 'to 
represent living conditions interests, three each to be 
nominated by governments, employers, employees and 
environmental organizations'. This would mean an 
increase in membership from 39 to 51. 
2.1.3. In the Committee's view, the Commission pro­
posal would result in the following: 
(a) the Administrative Board would be stripped of its 
decision-making powers, contrary to what the 
Council of Ministers originally had in mind when 
the Foundation was set up: it was intended that it 
provide a. forum where the social partners could 
discuss living and working conditions in detail and 
keep abreast of events in the various Member States; 
(b) the representatives of the social partners of the 
Administrative Board would inevitably be less 
motivated than at present. In all probability many 
of them will no longer agree to attend meetings in 
Dublin merely for the sake of appearances; 
(c) employers' and employees' representatives, who at 
present (rightly) have a majority of 24 out of the 
total 39 members, would lose their position of 
strength in an Administrative Board of 51. From a 
majority with a decision-making role, they would 
be reduced to a minority with a consultative role. 
Again, this conflicts with the original vision and 
political resolve which led to the Foundation's 
creation; it would remove all trace of democracy 
from the Foundation's activities and turn it into a 
merely consultative body; 
(d) even greater confusion will reign as regards environ­
mental problems which, as we have already said, 
are a complex, widespread and worrying aspect of 
present and future social trends. The three seats 
offered to representatives of environmental organiz­
ations (which have issued warnings of their own) 
will do little to help solve problems of this 
magnitude. 
2.1.4. The Committee therefore is unhappy with the 
proposed changes to the Administrative Board. 
2.2. Bureau 
2.2.1. At present the Rules of Procedure adopted by 
the Administrative Board provide for the setting up of 
a Bureau composed of the Chairman and the three Vice-
Chairmen. The Bureau, which meets roughly twice 
every quarter, deals with administrative matters on 
No C 263/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 10. 86 
behalf of the Board, prepares management decisions 
for the Board, and reports on activities it has carried 
out on the Board's instructions. Thus the Board can 
concentrate on policy tasks, namely drawing up the 
Work Programmes, supervising their implementation, 
and making the budgetary proposals needed for the 
Foundation's operation. 
2.2.2. Under the Commission's proposal, the Bureau 
would be the Foundation's real decision-making body, 
with responsibility for management, drawing up the 
Work Programme and adopting the budget. It would 
be composed of one representative from each of the 
following: the Commission, national governments, 
workers' organizations, employers' organizations and 
environmental pressure groups. It would be chaired by 
the Commission representative and decisions would be 
taken on an absolute majority basis. 
2.2.3. Once again, the Committee is unable to go 
along with the Commission's proposals, for the follow­
ing main reasons: 
(a) The impact of decisions on the Foundation could 
be weakened by the fact that each group's views 
would be voiced by only one representative; this 
would make it impossible to draw on the full range 
of experience and ideas available, as these can only 
emerge in the course of detailed discussions between 
the members of these groups and other interested 
parties. Once again, the Commission proposal is a 
patent contradiction of the political motivation and 
ideals which gave birth to the Foundation; 
(b) To appoint one person to represent all the national 
governments would be unrealistic, as a single Mem­
ber State would be then assigned the task, for the 
full term, of demonstrating the collective political 
resolve of all the Member States, whereas in actual 
fact their views will not always be unanimous and 
homogeneous; 
(c) The obligatory appointment of a Commission 
official as Chairman of the Bureau (let alone the 
Administrative Board) would destroy any guarantee 
of independence, as the Commission representative 
would be answerable not to the members of the 
Administrative Board but to the Commission only. 
2.3. Appointment of the Director and Deputy Director 
2.3.1. As things stand, the Administrative Board 
alone is authorized to nominate candidates for the posts 
of Director and Deputy Director. It is proposed that 
this right be transferred to the Commission. 2.3.2. The Committee would point out that if this 
were to happen, the Director and Deputy Director 
would probably be regarded as, and indeed regard 
themselves as, Commission officials as opposed to 
executive members of the Foundation enjoying the full 
confidence of the social partners. The Committee would 
therefore recommend that these nominations be based 
on a consensus between the social partners, so as to 
conserve the independence and freedom of action 
necessary in order to perform these tasks. 
2.4. Work Programme 
2.4.1. The Administrative Board at present has entire 
responsibility for formulating the Work Programme. 
Under the proposed Commission amendment, the 
Director would assume responsibility for drawing up 
the programme, after consulting the European Parlia­
ment, the Economic and Social Committee and the 
other Community institutions. 
2.4.2. The Committee believes that — particularly 
at a time of recession, restructuring and widespread 
introduction of new technologies into industry — the 
social partners in accord with governmental and Com­
mission representatives, and, by extension, the Admin­
istrative Board in its existing form, should be primarily 
responsible for drawing up the Work Programme. 
2.5. Budget 
2.5.1. Under present arrangements, once the Work 
Programme has been decided upon, the Administrative 
Board fixes its budget requirements. So far, resources 
have always been divided fairly evenly between living 
and working conditions. 
2.5.2. According to the Commission proposal, the 
Bureau would be responsible for drawing up a balanced 
budget and for submitting an annual draft estimate to 
the Commission. The Commission proposal imposes a 
rigid and arbitrary division of resources between living 
conditions (40%), working conditions (40%) and other 
priority research (20 %). 
2.5.3. The Committee does not fully understand the 
Commission's motives for making this proposal, as the 
present system has always worked perfectly satisfac­
torily. The arbitrary and inflexible arrangement pro­
posed by the Commission would impede the planning 
of a serious research policy. 
2.6. Committee of Experts 
2.6.1. The Committee of Experts has, in the past, 
made a substantial contribution to the smooth running 
of the Foundation and to the formulation of research 
programmes which are not only relevant to studies 
conducted on a European and international scale, but 
also on a par with them. 
20. 10. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 263/5 
2.6.2. The Economic and Social Committee therefore 
does not lend its support to the proposed abolition of 
the Committee of Experts; however, it feels that the 
membership and powers of this Committee could be re­
examined with a view to using it to greater advantage. 3. Conclusion 
3.1. For the reasons set out above, the Committee 
rejects the proposals as tabled by the Commission: they 
would destroy the concept and spirit which motivated 
the setting-up of the European Foundation, and they 
are operatively unsuitable. 
Done at Brussels, 2 June 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIX 
to the Economic and Social Committee opinion 
The following amendment was rejected during discussions: 
New paragraph (e) to be added after 2.1.3. (d): 
'(e) only a quarter of the 12 official representatives for living conditions could be nominated by environmental 
associations, the other three-quarters being nominated by governments and employers' and workers' 
organizations (proposal for Article 6 (1) (d)). This would not only be completely unacceptable for the 
economic and social groups concerned, but would also be totally impracticable as regards the allocation 
of the seats amongst the 12 Member States. These nominations, too, should be submitted to the Council 
of Ministers by the relevant organizations (e.g. environmental associations, consumer representatives, 
agricultural representatives, etc.)'. 
Reasons 
Whereas it is difficult to imagine that European environmental, consumer and agricultural organizations, 
etc., could agree on the choice of their representatives from 12 countries on the Administrative Board, the 
proposal that the three groupings represented so far on the Administrative Board should be given this right 
is completely unrealistic. 
Result of vote 
In favour: 19, 
Against: 36, 
Abstentions: 13.