26.4.  78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 101/35 
If the propellant  gases  are not  specified  on the  labelling,  the tendency  for aerosols  in 
general  to fall into  disrepute  might  be reinforced.' 
Reasons 
1. As the documents  were  sent  to Section  members  at a very  lace  stage,  it was  not possible  for 
the Section  to discuss  amendments  on the points  raised  above. 
2. The  Section  opinion  tends  to associate  fluorocarbons  with  aerosols  a little  too  readily, 
whereas  substitute  products  exist  in the majority  of cases. 
3. The  effects  on the environment  should  be more  clearly  defined. 
4. Account  should  be taken  of the employment  factor  and the competitiveness  of firms. 
5. The  legal  form  is unsatisfactory. 
Voting 
For: 21, against:  36. 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Directive  on the  protection  of participants  in home 
study  courses 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 208  of 31 August  1977,  page  12. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 23 August  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  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 
156th  plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 1 and 2 March  1978. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 23 August  1977  for an 
opinion, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its chairman 
on 5 September  1977  instructing  the  Section  for 
Protection  of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up  an opinion  and  a 
report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  at its meeting  on 14 February  1978, 
No C 101/36 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 26. 4. 78 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
rapporteur,  by Miss  Roberts, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 156th  plenary 
session  held  on 1 and  2 March  1978  (meeting  of 
2 March  1978), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 38 votes  to one: 
The Committee  welcomes  this  Directive  for  two 
reasons: 
Firstly,  an increase  in the number  of students  taking 
correspondence  courses  is to be expected  in many 
countries.  And  since  most  students  take  such  courses 
because  of some  lack  in their  existing  education,  they 
are, to that  extent,  vulnerable,  and  in need  of 
protection.  The  Community's  programme  for  the 
protection  and  information  of the consumer  pledges 
furtherance  of the information  and  education  of the 
consumer  and  protection  of his economic  and  legal 
interests.  The  European  Parliament  has  asked  for a 
Directive  to apply  these  principles  to home  study 
courses.  And  five  Member  States  already  have  laws 
which,  to a differing  extent,  look  after  the students' 
interest. 
Secondly,  in the  view  of the  Committee,  there  is 
bound  to be an important  intra-Community  trade  in 
these  courses  and  the  difference  in the  laws 
concerning  them  in the different  Member  States  is a 
hindrance  to free  competition.  So  a Directive 
harmonizing  those  laws  is desirable. 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee,  while  approving  the Directive 
as a whole,  would  make  two  general  comments. 
1.2. First,  it seems  a pity  that,  while  requiring  that 
each  Member  State  shall  have  an accreditation  body 
for organizers  of home  study  courses,  the Directive 
does  not  require  that  all such  organizers  shall  be 
accredited.  We  understand  that  educational 
provisions  under  the  constitution  of some  Member 
States  (notably  the  Netherlands)  make  this 
impossible,  but  the  Committee  believes  that  the 
omission  is in the interests  neither  of students  nor  of 
the good  course  organizers.  In the Member  States  no great  harm  may  be done  since  any Member  State  may 
refuse  to allow  a course  from  a non-accredited 
organizer.  But  students  from  outside  the  EEC 
(notably  in the  Third  World)  may  be misled  by 
non-accredited  course  organizers. 
1.3. The  Committee  also  feels  that  while  the 
Directive  stresses  heavily  the student's  legal  rights  if 
things  go wrong,  it does  not  emphasize  sufficiently 
the accreditation  body's  responsibility  for seeing  that 
the contents  of the  courses,  and  the  academic  and 
teaching  qualifications  of the staff  are satisfactory. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  2.1 
2.1.1.  The  general  comment  made  in 1.2  applies 
specifically  to this  Article. 
2.1.2.  So  the Committee  believes  that  derogation 
expressed  in (b) should  be limited  to countries  whose 
legislation  forbids  any restriction  on education. 
2.1.3.  The  Committee  further  considers  that 
paragraph  (a) of this  Article  should  be amended  as 
follows: 
'(a) must  be accredited  for  all courses  or for 
certain  courses.' 
2.2. 
2.2.1.  The  general  comment  made  in 1.3  applies 
specifically  to this  Article. 
2.2.2.  The  Committee  considers  it particularly 
important  that  the  accrediting  body  should  not 
accredit  any  course  organizer  unless  it is satisfied 
with  the quality  of the course  material:  the teaching 
and correcting  methods  used,  and  the  arrangements 
made  for updating  the material. 
2.2.3.  The  Committee  considers  it desirable  that 
the accreditation  body  should  be independent  of the 
organizers. 
2.3. Article  3 (1) (b) 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  this  paragraph 
should  be amended  as follows: 
'(b) the  accreditation  shall  be  given  for  a 
renewable  period  of three  years  or a system 
of continuous  supervision  set up,  according 
to the decisions  of the national  governments.' 
26. 4. 78 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 101/37 
2.4. Article  3 (1) (d) 
2.4.1.  The  responsible  body  must  also  set up a 
conciliation  procedure  between  the  organizers  and 
students  to be  used  where  differences  between 
organizer  and  student  have  not  been  satisfactorily 
resolved. 
2.3. ArWe3(2j 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  approves  the provision  that 
Member  States  may  forbid  or restrict  the activity  of a 
course-organizer  who  has not been  accredited,  within 
their  territory,  as a necessary  consequence  of the 
harmonization  provided  for in the Directive. 
2.6. Article  4 (2) 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  word 
'immediately'  should  be added  after  'inform'. 
2.7. Article  5 
2.7.1.  The  Committee  notes  that  the  purpose  of 
this Article  is the same  as the provision  in the draft 
Directive  on doorstep  selling  which  aims  to protect 
the unprepared  customer  from  an  unsolicited 
salesman. 
2.7.2.  In  this  context,  the Committee  suggests  that 
the 'or'  in the  last  line  but  one  of the  English 
translation  should  be 'and'  since  it is essential  that 
the student  shall  have  requested  the salesman's  visit  in 
writing. 
2.8. Article  7 (2) 
2.8.1.  Since  comprehensive  advertisements  cannot 
be expected  to include  certain  minor  details,  the 
Committee  suggests  that  the  phrase  'publicity 
material'  should  be  amended  to 'the  publicity 
material  concerning  specific  courses  and  requested  by 
the person  in question'. 
2.9. Article  7 (2) (a) 
2.9.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  last 
phrase  of Article  7 (2) (a) should  read  'the  principal 
openings  to which  they  may  lead'.  No  course  can 
promise  openings  to any  student:  it can only  prepare 
him for possible  openings. 
2.10.  ArWf  7 (%) fcj 
2.10.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  this  should 
be amended  to read:  'the  course(s)  proposed  with information  on the most  recent  updating'  or, where  a 
course  has  not  been  updated,  the date  when  it was 
produced. 
2.11.  ArkWe  7 k) 
2.11.1.  The  Committee  would  like  to see the last 
phrase  of this  amended  as follows:  'the  number  and 
teaching  and  academic  or professional  qualifications 
01 its staff'.  The  reason  for this  suggestion  is that  it is 
not only  the  teaching,  but  also  the  academic  or 
professional  qualifications  of the  staff  which  are 
important  to the value  of the courses. 
2.11.2.  The  Committee  considers  that  an 
additional  paragraph  2 (f) of Article  7 should  state 
that,  where  there  is an accrediting  body  and  the 
course  organizer  is not accredited,  the fact  should  be 
stated  in the publicity  material. 
2.12.  ArWe  8 ^ 
2.12.1.  The  length  of a course  often  depends  on 
the ability  of, or time  available  to, the  student.  So 
there  is really  no such  thing  as a 'normal'  length  of a 
course.  The  Committee  therefore  suggests  that 
'normal'  here  should  be changed  to 'agreed'. 
2.13.  ArWe  8 (2j fdj 
2.13.1.  The  Committee  points  out that  it would  be 
difficult  to give  precise  costs  for books,  since  many 
are optional,  and  that  some  essential  extras,  such  as 
compulsory  seminars,  should  be  included.  It is 
therefore  suggested  that  the  first  sentence  of this 
provision  should  be rephrased  as follows: 
'(d) the  total  cost  of the  course,  the  estimated 
costs  of books,  equipment  or material  and 
other  essential  extras  being  shown 
separately.' 
2.14.  Article  8 (2) (g) 
2 14.1.  To  this  list should  be added  Article  7 (2) 
(a). If the student  were  sent  the publicity  material,  he 
would  get the information  in Article  7 (2) (a).  But  he 
might  not get it, and  in any  case,  it is easier  and  fairer 
for the  student  if all the  necessary  information  is 
supplied  with  the contract. 
2.14.2.  To  this  list should  also  be added  Article  7 
(2)(f). 
2.14.3.  Also,  to this  list of required  information, 
there  should  be added  an extra  item  (h) 'Details  of 
No C 101/38 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 26. 4. 78 
the conciliation  procedures  which  the  accrediting 
body  has instituted'. 
2.15.  Article  8 (4) 
2.15.1.  The  Committee  points  out  that  all the 
provisions  of Article  8 (not  merely  Article  8 (1)) 
would  have  to be observed  if the contract  were  to be 
valid,  so the '(1)'  after  '8' in Article  8 (4) should  be 
deleted. 
2.16.  Article  9 
2.16.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the 
prohibition  on the course  organizers  to ask for a sum 
greater  than  25 % of the  total  cost  of the course  is 
unfair  to those  offering  short  courses  (say  of three 
months).  It is therefore  suggested  that  the last  phrase 
of the Article  'which  sum  shall,  however,  not  exceed 
25 % of the  total  cost  of the  course'  should  be 
deleted. 2.17.  Article  10(3) 
2.17.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  if the 
student  terminates  the contract  before  the seven-day 
trial period  is up,  the  course  organizer  should  be 
allowed  to make  a small  administrative  charge. 
2.18.  Article  11 
2.18.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  in Article  11 
(1) the  examples  given,  such  as 'serious  illness  or 
unemployment',  should  be deleted.  The  business  of 
deciding  what  'special  circumstances'  are  should  be 
left, in the first  instance,  to the conciliation  procedure 
referred  to in point  2.15.3  of this  opinion. 
2.19.  Article  13 
2.19.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  the  student 
may cancel  the  contract  if the  course  organizer 
assigns  the student's  rights  to a third  person  without 
his consent. 
Done  at Brussels,  2 March  1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
I 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  in the course  of the  discussions. 
Replace  the first  two  paragraphs  of the  opinion  with  the following  paragraph: 
'The  Section,  while  welcoming  the  broad  aims  of the  Commission's  proposal,  considers 
that a Directive  is inappropriate  since  by its rigidity  it would  fail  to allow  for  the  varying 
circumstances  in individual  Member  States  and  would  be liable  to increase  unnecessarily 
the cost  of courses  to the  student.  It therefore  feels  that  the  proposals  should  be put 
forward  as a recommendation.' 
Reasons 
Most  Member  States  already  have  adequate  and  effective  laws  for  the  protection  of home 
study  students  and  these  have  been  adapted  to the  needs  of the  particular  country.  To  add 
mandatory  regulations  to existing  satisfactory  arrangements  would  inevitably  add  to the  costs 
and imperil  the educational  standard  of the  courses.  Member  States  should  be allowed  to apply 
such  parts  of the proposals  as are appropriate  to their  circumstances. 
26. 4. 78 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 101/39 
Voting 
For: 10, against:  32, abstentions:  4. 
Paragraph  2.17.1 
Delete. 
Reasons 
Students  on short  courses  (say  three  months)  should  be given  effective  protection  as regards 
the maximum  percentage  payable  on account.  It would  be unfair  for students  on short  courses 
to have  to pay  a very  high  percentage  of the  total  cost  on account.  This  amendment  is con-
sonant  with  the Commission's  proposal. 
Voting 
For: 6, against:  21, abstentions  10. 
II 
The following  part  of the  Section  opinion  was  changed  following  an amendment  accepted  in 
the course  of the discussions. 
Paragraph  2.3.1 
'2.3.1.  The  Section  suggests  that  this  part  of Article  3 should  be deleted  and  that 
Article  4 (1) should  therefore  be strengthened  (see  Article  4 (1) below).' 
III 
The following  part  of the  Section  opinion  was  deleted  following  an amendment  accepted  in 
the course  of the discussions. 
2.6. Article  4 (1) 
2.6.1.  The  Section  suggests  this  new  draft: 
'Each  Member  State  shall  empower  the  responsible  body  referred  to in Article  2 (2) to 
institute  a system  of continuous  control  and  to withdraw  the  accreditation  when  the 
conditions  laid  down  for accreditation  are either  not fulfilled  or are so no longer.'