8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/5 
4. Detailed comments 
4.1. Article 1 should be changed to: 
'(d) to small individual portions of ice-cream and 
confectionery, provided that the lot is indicated on 
the combined packages.' 4.2. Article 2 (new): 
'This exemption is limited to four years from the 
date of publication of this Directive.' 
Done at Brussels, 18 December 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on: 
— the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) establishing a Community Customs Code, 
and 
— the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) determining the cases and the special 
conditions under which the temporary importation arrangements may be used with total 
relief from import duties (*) 
(91/C 60/03) 
On 2 April 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 28, 100A and 113 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on 
the abovementioned proposals. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 December 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Petersen. 
At its 282nd plenary session (meeting of 18 December 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. General comments 
1.1. In past years the Economic and social Commit­
tee has repeatedly and insistently called upon the Com­
mission to introduce uniform customs legislation in 
the Community. The present proposal establishing a 
Community Customs Code meets this request. Com­
munity customs legislation ousts and largerly nullifies 
national customs legislation. Consolidation could also 
be used as a'model for areas other than customs law. 
(J) OJ No C 128 , 23. 5. 1990, p. 1. 1.2. The consolidation in one single text of pro­
visions from many different legal acts, the revision of 
the underlying concepts and content of such provisions, 
and the harminization of legislation not yet enacted at 
Community level, make the Code a legal cornerstone 
of the Customs Union. The Code also demonstrates the 
importance of the Customs Union for the Community's 
foreign trade within the context of the Single European 
Market. 
1.3. We should not, however, forget that the creation 
of such a comprehensive and unique body of laws is 
fraught with difficulties. The comprehensibility of the 
document's language and the clear, methodical expo­
sition of the concepts used are therefore to be wel-
No C 60/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
corned. Because of this, the Code makes a major contri­
bution to the necessary understanding of the law and 
clears the way for greater observance of individual 
provisions. In many cases, however, a conclusive evalu­
ation of the effects of the Code's provisions will only 
be possible after scrutiny of the implementing pro­
visions. The latter should therefore be presented as 
soon as possible. 
1.4. The analysis of such a complex, innovative 
legal instrument requires the time-consuming study of 
all customs regulations, which in turn presupposes a 
high degree of legal knowledge. Because of their wide 
scope, the general provisions set out in Title I call for 
a particularly critical analysis. This naturally does not 
preclude the need to carefully examine the content of 
the other Titles. The first thing to note is that some 
legal provisions have been incorporated in the Code in 
considerable detail, which is not really the function of 
a Code, whereas other provisions are skeletal and in 
need of interpretation. Translation shortcomings in 
some languages also make the task of understanding 
more difficult. 
1.4.1. Some of the existing provisions on specific 
customs procedures tend to be identical in content so 
the Commission now wishes to consolidate them in a 
general chapter. This is a laudable goal but the general 
application of the consolidated provisions may have a 
greater impact on procedures and decisions than has 
hitherto been the case. 
1.4.2. This extension of Community customs legis­
lation increases the danger of a possible encroachment 
on the general administrative law and rules of the courts 
of individual Member States since decisions of customs 
authorities pertain not only to rules on customs duties, 
but also to administrative law proper. As such, customs 
decisions are part and parcel of the body of general 
administrative law. The same is true of legal action in 
the event of customs litigation, such action being an 
integral part of a uniform national appeals system. This 
inevitably means breaking new legal ground— 
something which should be remembered when setting 
deadlines for the lodging of appeals. 
There is no doubt that uniform procedures are needed 
to implement Community law and that uniform rules 
should apply in the case of customs litigation. There 
are nevertheless question marks regarding: 
— the powers of the EC to harmonize legal provisions 
in areas not expressly covered by the EC Treaty, 
— the advisability, from the point of view of economic 
operators, of any fragmentation of what was pre­
viously a uniform national legal system. 1.4.3. The crucial importance of the provisions on 
the Customs Code Committee (Articles 253 to 255) 
warrants the following comments even at this stage: 
the provisions in question no longer give Member States 
a active say in the adoption of implementing provisions 
but merely concede the right of consultation. But since 
implementing provisions also frequently impinge on 
administrative and organizational systems still regu­
lated at national level, Member States should not be 
refused a proper say. Less power to the Member States 
inevitably means more power to the Commission, and 
the latter's actions are unlikely to be subject to any 
control by either the Council or European Parliament. 
There remains of course the possibility of an appeal to 
the European Court of Justice but this is an extremely 
ponderous and time-consuming alternative since the 
Court's procedures are generally protracted. 
2. Specific comments 
Recitals 
2.1. The reference to 'the right of traders to be 
treated fairly' (seventh whereas) should be spelt out in 
some detail since all measures adopted by customs 
authorities must adhere to the principle of reasonable 
balance. 
2.1.1. It should also be made clear in the recitals 
that modern communication technologies must not be 
hindered by legislation on customs procedures. 
Article 1(1) — Second paragraph 
This exception applies in particular to legislation on 
customs fines and penalties, an area which has not yet 
been harmonized. 
Article 2 (1) 
2.2. The Committee would ask the Commission for 
information about cases where 'customary practices' 
have so far been applicable. The reference might per­
haps be deleted. 
2.2.1. Consideration should also be given to putting 
a time limit on 'autonomous Community measures' to 
ensure that there is no undermining of the Community 
Customs Code. 
Article 4 
2.3. Because of recent developments this provision 
needs to be deleted. 
8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/7 
Article 5 (16) Articles 9 to 11 
2.4. The 'import of goods for release under certain 
conditions' is not explicitly mentioned here. Since this 
legal term generally means a limitation, under customs 
control, on the use of goods in free circulation, it should 
be added to the list of customs procedures. Customs 
procedures for aircraft/ship supplies also remain open. 
After Article 5 (new Article) 
2.5. The Committee recommends the insertion of a 
new Article reading as follows: 
'In specific cases conventions may be concluded 
with economic operators in order to simplify cus­
toms procedures. Simplified procedures are only 
admissible if the total revenue from duties and levies 
is not altered and if competition is not impaired.' 
Article 6 
2.6. The provision that 'any person may appoint a 
representative in his dealings with the customs authori­
ties to perform the acts and formalities laid down by 
customs legislation' is approved. Representation never­
theless has legal implications regarding customs duties 
and taxes which need to be clarified. 
Article 6(1) 2.10. In the interests of uniform application of the 
law, a set of provisions binding on all Member States 
should be adopted on the nullity, annulment and revo­
cation of customs decisions. The Communittee would 
nevertheless point out that such provisions would 
encroach on the tax and administrative laws of the 
Member States even more than Regulation No 1430/79 
(repayment or remission of import or export duties) 
and Regulation No 1697/79 (post-clearance recovery of 
import or export duties) and would fragment hitherto 
uniform national legal systems. Looked at from the 
point of view of an economic operator, any general 
regulation of the legal effects of customs adminis­
trations' acts might well complicate rather than simplify 
the legal situation. 
Article 10(l)(b) 
2.11. No distinction is made between the 'technical' 
and 'local' competence of a customs authority. Since 
we can assume that Article 10 is concerned with local 
competence whereas Article 9 is concerned with techni­
cal competence, the word 'local' should be inserted 
before the word 'competence' in this Article. 
Article 11(3) 
2.12. This paragraph should be deleted. It cannot be 
left to a customs authority to judge whether or not a 
decision is still economically justified. Economic justifi­
cation is primarily a matter for the business sector. 
2.7. The Economic and Social Committee considers 
that the proviso regarding Title VII, Chapter 3, requires 
an explanation. It would help if an explicit reference 
were made to Article 249. 
Article 7(2) — First sentence Article 12(1) — Second paragraph 
2.13. Before a request can be refused, consultation 
should be held with the customs authorities. Here it is 
vitally important for the concept of 'a commercial 
transation actually envisaged' to be interpreted widely. 
2.8. The phrase 'and communicated to the applicant' 
should be inserted after the words 'Such decision shall 
be taken'. What matters for the applicant is not only 
knowing that the decision has been taken but also being 
notified of it. 
Article 7(2) — Second sentence Article 12(2) — Second sentence 
2.13.1. The costs to be charged to the applicant 
should be spelt out in detail and should be limited 
to the costs of analyses, expert advice and the like. 
Otherwise the discretionary powers of customs authori­
ties would be virtually limitless. 
2.9. To avoid a situation whereby a written request 
results in no more than an oral decision—possibly 
without any information about the appeals procedure 
—the Committee proposes that the following phrase 
be added on at the end of the sentence: 'and communi­
cated in writing to the applicant'. Article 13(3) 
2.14. These provisions could contradict the general 
principles of nullity set out in Article 9 under which 
binding tariff information supplied on the basis of 
No C 60/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
inaccurate or incomplete information cannot be void. 
Under Article 10 the information can only be annulled. 
Annulment takes effect on the date on which the 
annulled decision was taken. 
2.14.1. The Commission is right to assume in its 
proposal that a decision is void and consequently with­
out legal force only if, as a result of special circum­
stances, it becomes clear tha the authority in question 
was not empowered to take the decision. The provision 
of binding tariff information on the basis of inaccurate 
or incomplete information cannot however be regarded 
as such a circumstance, as the economic operator con­
cerned need not always to be aware of the inaccuracy 
or incompleteness of the information supplied. The 
economic operator can therefore initially proceed on 
the assumption that the binding information has legal 
force. 
Article 13(5) — Second paragraph 
2.15. This passage should be deleted. Otherwise con­
siderable legal uncertainty could arise with regard to 
the six month period during which commitments 
entered into in good faith are protected. The third 
paragraph should be amended accordingly. 
Article 14 — First paragraph 
2.16. Whether or not controls are needed should be 
decided on the basis of objective criteria and not left 
to the subjective judgement of the customs authorities. 
It should therefore be enough to refer solely to carrying 
out 'all the necessary controls'. The phrase 'they deem 
necessary to ensure that customs legislation is correctly 
applied' should accordingly be deleted. 
Article 17 
2.17. The stipulation of a minimum uniform period 
for the keeping of documents is warmly welcomed. 
Articles 22 to 27 — Origin of goods 
2.18. The provisions contained in these Articles can 
in principle be approved subject to the following com­
ments. 
Articles 23 and 24 
2.19. Structurally it does not make much sense to 
deal with the concept of goods wholly obtained or 
produced in a country in two separate Articles, when hitherto the problem has been encapsulated in one 
single Article (Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 
802/68). Article 24 should therefore become 
Article 23(2), and the current text of Article 23(2) 
should become Article 24. 
Article 24(1 )(i) 
2.20. The establishment of a Code should not in 
principle be seen as an opportunity to make substantive 
changes. However, it would be a good idea to bring 
the procedure for determining the origin of used articles 
more into line with actual reality. At present the origin 
of used articles is recognized solely if such articles are 
used 'for the recovery of raw materials'. This means 
that it is not really possible in practice to determine the 
origin of car tyres destined for retreading or scrap car 
components intended for use as spare parts. It would 
therefore be a good idea to delete the final clause in the 
paragraph, or at least the word 'only'. 
Article 27 — Second paragraph, sub-paragraph (b) 
2.21. Establishing rules of origin for goods benefit­
ting from autonomously granted preferences under the 
Committee procedure is not appropriate, as these rules 
are governed by trade policy. As the Commission 
intends the Customs Code Committee to have only 
an advisory role in future, this would mean that the 
Commission could formulate trade policy without the 
involvement of any politically accountable Community 
body. The Community's rules of preference must be 
implemented by corresponding Council Regulations; 
logically, this should also apply to the related rules of 
origin. 
Articles 28 to 36 — Value of goods for customs purposes 
2.22. The rules governing the value of goods for 
customs purposes incorporate the provisions of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 (Customs Valuation 
Regulation). The content is in parts identical, although 
the provisions are redrafted, more rationally structured, 
clearer and more concise. In the meantime the Com­
mission has restricted itself to the general valuation 
rules; specific rules will apparently be dealt with in 
an implementing regulation. This approach is to be 
welcomed since the wholesale adoption of the existing 
Customs Valuation Regulation would have compro­
mised the clarity of the Customs Code. It should be 
pointed out however that in 1980 the members of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 
insisted on verbatim use of the GATT Customs Valu-
8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/9 
ation Code in order to prevent discrepancies arising 
from amended national texts. 
Article 29 
2.23. This Article corresponds to the old Article 3 of 
the Customs Valuation Regulation. In paragraphs 2a) 
and 2b) the word 'importer' has been replaced by the 
word 'declarant'. This definition is clearer and defines 
more closely the legal status of this person. 
Article 30 
2.24. Amalgamating Articles 2 to 7 of the Customs 
Valuation Regulation has made for a clearer legal text. 
Article 6 of the Regulation has been substantially 
abridged; it will only be possible to make a final judge­
ment on the advisability of this when the implementing 
provisions have been drawn up. 
Article 31(1) — First indent 
2.25. The reference to the principle set out in Article 
VII of GATT is warmly welcomed. 
Article 33 
2.26. Costs not included in customs value, hitherto 
covered by the existing Articles 3, 8 and 15, are dealt 
with in this single Article. This makes for greater trans­
parency and clarity. 
The Committee feels that the following should be 
added: Place of introduction. 
2.27. There is no definition corresponding to that 
contained in Article 14 of the Customs Valuation Regu­
lation. This is needed, however, as under the GATT 
Customs Valuation Code it is left to contracting part­
ners to decide whether and to what extent delivery 
costs are included in customs value. As the European 
Community is autonomous, a legal definition is needed. 
Article 43 — First paragraph 
2.28. The following sentence should be added to the 
first paragraph: 
'An internationally recognized trade document can 
be used for this purpose.' 
Article 43 — Second paragraph 
2.29. It is not all necessary for the 'list of goods to 
be presented to customs' to contain the particulars necessary for precise identification of the nature of the 
goods. It is sufficient if goods can simply be identified 
on the basis of the list. (Does not affect the English 
version.) 
Article 60 
2.30. The Committee proposes that a third para­
graph be added reading as follows: 
'The declaration in writing can only be filled in and 
handed over by the declarant or his representative. 
It cannot be filled in or completed by the customs 
authorities.' 
Article 63 — First paragraph 
2.31. It seems unnecessary to make the amendment 
of a declaration, subject to authorization by the customs 
authority since possible grounds for refusal are already 
listed in the second paragraph. The first part of the 
sentence should therefore be reworded as follows: 'The 
declarant shall, at his request, be authorized ...'. 
Article 68(1) 
2.32. The Committee suggests that the following 
sentence be added: 'The results of the customs inspec­
tion shall be set out in a written report.' This would 
be in the interests of legal certainty as only a written 
document could be used by the parties 
involved—customs authority and economic operator 
—for the purposes of subsequent verification or, if 
necessary, proof. 
Article 85 — Second indent 
2.33. The second indent should be deleted and 
replaced by the phrase 'where an economic requirement 
is involved'. 
2.33.1. As it stands at present, the text solely takes 
into account the interests of the customs authorities. In 
the interests of both sides, a version should be agreed 
on which makes authorization depend exclusively on 
economic requirements. The new version would still 
allow the customs authority to exercise full control. 
Articles 90 to 94 — External Community transit pro­
cedure 
2.34. The Customs Code rightly deals only with the 
most elementary principles of transit law; there are 
therefore no fundamental changes to existing arrange­
ments. 
No C 60/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
Article 90(3) Article 137 — First paragraph 
2.35. In the interests of clarity this paragraph should 
state explicitly that the other procedures referred to are 
those listed in Article 83(1), second to fifth indents. The 
following sentence could possibly be added to this 
paragraph: 'In certain cases goods may alternatively be 
transported under the transit procedure.' 
Article 91 2.41. The phrase '... where they consider it 
impossible ...' should be amended to read ' ...where it 
is impossible ...'. The concept of impossibility should 
be based on more objective criteria. Moreover it is 
doubtful whether in practice there are ever cases where 
it is impossible to identify goods. Even in difficult cases 
the identity of goods can be determined by means of 
detailed descriptions, photographs, etc. 
2.36. The text of the Italian version should 
brought into line with the other languages. be Article 163 — Internal transit 
Article 92(1) 
2.37. In certain circumstances the obligation to pro­
vide a security should be waived. The wording of the 
paragraph should therefore be brought into line with 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 
1990 on Community transit arrangements, due to come 
into force on 1 January 1993. 2.42. The form taken by the internal transit pro­
cedure depends crucially on the extent to which the 
internal market is completed when the Code enters 
into force. On the basis of available information, the 
possibility cannot be ruled out that a procedure similar 
to the existing T2 procedure will continue to be needed 
for intra-Community trade. Only when this has been 
decided will it be possible to determine the role and 
importance of an internal transit procedure in the Cus­
toms Code. 
Articles 111 to 160 — Processing and importation 
2.38. In line with the nature of a Code, only the 
basic principles of these customs procedures are dealt 
with. There appears to be no substantial changes to 
existing provisions. The form in which the implement­
ing provisions are drafted is naturally of great import­
ance for the application of this law. In the meantime 
the following comments can be made: 
Article 117(1) Article 163(1) 
2.43. To allow for the particular conditions obtain­
ing in sea transport (controls on a lesser scale than 
usual), an extra provision should be included in the 
text to the effect that goods being transported by sea 
between ports in the customs territory of the Com­
munity should be treated as non-Community goods, 
except in cases where their Community character is 
proved. 
2.39. The wording of this provision could give rise 
to the mistaken view that there are no exceptions to the 
rule that 'goods in the unaltered state and compensating 
products' must be re-exported. In order to nip this 
misunderstanding in the bud the Code should explicitly 
state that goods can be released for free circulation 
without special authorization of the customs authority, 
provided customs duties and levies are applied and 
provided compensatory interest is paid on the deferred 
customs debt. 
Article 117(3) 
2.40. Decisions on 'the cases in which and the con­
ditions under wich goods in the unaltered state or 
compensatory products shall be deemed to have been 
released for free circulation' should not be taken under 
the procedure of the Customs Code Committee, but 
should be regulated in the Code itself. Article 164 
2.44. By analogy with existing Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2504/88 on free zones and free warehouses, 
Article 164(a) should be worded as follows: 
'... non-Community goods placed in them are con­
sidered, for purposes of the application of import 
duties and commercial policy import measures, as 
not being within the customs territory of the Com­
munity provided they are not released for free circu­
lation or entered under another customs procedure 
under the conditions laid down in this Section'; 
An additional paragraph should be included to make it 
clear that in a free zone or free warehouse no customs 
formalities or controls shall apply to the entry, holding 
or removal of goods, other than as provided for in this 
Section. 
8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/11 
Articles 186 to 197 — Security to cover customs debt 
2.45. The question of security is not sufficiently 
important to warrant the comprehensive proposals con­
tained in the Code. The possibility could be considered 
of transferring the majority of them to the implementing 
provisions. 
Article 192 — Third paragraph 
2.46. Customs authorities should not be able to ref­
use to approve the proposed guarantor when the latter 
is a credit institution or insurance undertaking. 
Article 193 — Second paragraph 
2.47. By analogy with the above comments on Article 
192, customs authorities should not be able to refuse 
to accept the type of security proposed in the case of a 
credit institution or insurance undertaking. 
Articles 214 to 218 — Entry in the accounts of the 
amount of duty 
2.48. The rules are essentially in line with existing 
law and to this extent their content is unexceptionable. 
Practical experience has shown however that the exist­
ing time limits which have been incorporated into the 
Code are often insufficient (e.g. in the case of periodic 
settlements) for the submission of accurate and com­
plete declarations to the customs office and their 
checking. 
2.48.1. Increased use of periodic or combined declar­
ations can be expected in future. The Committee there­
fore suggests that the practicability of the time limits 
be looked into. 
Articles 233 to 239 — Repayment and remission of duty 
2.49. The provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 
1430/79 of 2 July 1979, currently in force, have been 
incorporated into the Code in an abridged and clearer 
form. It must be ensured however that the global refer­
ence to grounds for repayment in Article 237(1) also 
covers the grounds listed individually in the current 
Regulation (particularly in Articles 10 to 12). 
Articles 241 to 252 — Right of appeal 
2.50. Whilst the proposal for a Regulation establish­
ing a Customs Code otherwise contains only provisions 
which have already been harmonized, Articles 241 to 
252 cover an area of the law which is being harmonized 
for the first time under this process of codification. 
What makes harmonization of rights of appeal special however is not only the differences between national 
procedures, which are in some cases considerable, but 
also the fact that they often apply uniformly to the 
whole field of national administrative and tax law so 
that the harmonization of rights of appeal for the 
purposes of customs law only will fragment hitherto 
uniform national appeals procedures. The time limits 
for the lodging of appeals should allow for the size of 
the Community and the variety of languages spoken 
therein. 
Article 242(3) 
2.51. Here the question arises as to whether there is 
any point in fixing deadlines for the lodging of appeals 
in respect of decisions which have not been published 
or communicated to the person concerned. A decision 
has to be published or communicated before an appeal 
can be lodged. The time limit for the lodging of an 
appeal should therefore also be based on fulfilment of 
this precondition. The Committee therefore feels that 
deletion of paragraph 3 should be envisaged. 
Article 243 — Second paragraph 
2.52. This optional provision (German version has 
'Die Zollbehorden konnen ...' but English The customs 
authorities shall ...') should be made a requirement. It 
would also be a good idea to make provision for defer­
ment in cases where undue hardship would otherwise 
result and where no overriding public interests are 
involved. 
Articles 250 to 252 — Other provisions relating to the 
right of appeal 
2.53. Provision needs to be made for the continued 
validity of national law, subject to observance of Arti­
cles 241 to 249. In the absence of such a provision 
the restrictions set out in the second paragraph of 
Article 1(1) would mean that national law could no 
longer be applied. 
Articles 253 to 255 — Customs Code Committee 
2.54. Because of its crucial importance, this pro­
vision has already been commented on under point 
1.4.3 of the general comments. 
Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) determining 
the cases and the special conditions under which the 
temporary importation arrangements may he used with 
total relief from import duties 
No C 60/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
The essential provisions of the Regulations currently in 
force have in large measure been taken over here in an 
abridged form. The Committee wonders however why 
Done at Brussels, 18 December 1990. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the draft Regulation 
as one of the measures designed to ensure the free 
movement of products and goods—which in this case, 
is directly linked to the free movement of individuals-
—within the frontier-free Single Market, which is to be 
completed by 31 December 1992 in accordance with 
Article 8A of the EEC Treaty as amended by the Single 
Act. 
In principle, there should be no differences (in con­
ditions, etc.) between journeys undertaken within the 
single market and journeys made in a Member State. 
In the context of contacts and efforts aimed at the 
creation of a large European economic area, the Com­
munity even ought to negotiate similar arrangements 
with the countries of the European Free Trade Associ­
ation (EFTA), thereby sparing the majority of Europe's 
citizens the pettiness, which in some cases is these rules, which are in some cases very detailed, need 
to be part of a Council Regulation when they are closer 
in character to implementing provisions. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
quite arbitrary, frequently experienced when baggage 
is checked. Extension of the elimination of controls to 
these countries would be all the more logical in that 
relatively short journeys in Europe generally make it 
necessary to take flights or crossings which start, ter­
minate or stopover at non-Community airports or 
ports. 
1.2. This proposal is particularly welcome in that it 
is more likely than anything else to awaken Community 
citizens to the advantages of a large frontier-free 
market. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Even within the internal market, however, air­
ports and seaports stand apart as either may constitute, Opinion on die proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) concerning the elimination of 
controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and checked baggage of passengers taking 
an intra-Community flight and the baggage of passengers malting an intra-Community sea 
crossing 
(91/C 60/04) 
On 6 September 1990, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 December 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Giacomelli. 
At its 282nd plenary session (meeting of 18 December 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.