13. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 326/9 
6.3. The Committee notes that, following the recent 
judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission is in a 
position to implement the Directive on transparency in financial relations between Member States and public 
undertakings. This is a positive development. 
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1982. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the transport policy of the European Community in the 1980s 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
At its 189th plenary session held on 1-3 July 1981 the Committee, acting on a proposal from the 
Bureau, decided to deliver an opinion on the abovementioned subject on its own initiative. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 201st 
plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 October 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to its decision taken at the 189th plenary 
session of 1-3 July 1981 instructing the Section for 
Transport and Communications, under Article 20 (4) and 
Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure, to draw up an 
own-initiative opinion on the above-mentioned topic, 
Having regard to the communication from the 
Commission to the Council of 24 October 1973 on the 
development of the common transport policy and the 
Committee opinions thereon of 28 March 1974 (J) and 
25 September 1975 (2), with particular attention in the 
latter opinion being given to energy policy, regional 
policy and financial implications, 
Having regard to two further own-initiative opinions of 
the Committee on the following topics: 
— transport problems in relations with eastern bloc 
countries, of 24 November 1977 (3), and 
— problems currently facing Community shipping 
policy, particularly maritime safety, the growing 
importance of new shipping nations, the development 
of flags of convenience and the discrimination against 
certain flags of 4 April 1979 (4), 
0) OJ No C 126, 17. 10. 1974, p. 26. 
(2) OJ No C 286, 15. 12. 1975, p. 2. 
(3) OJ No C 59, 8. 3. 1977, p. 10. 
C) OJ No C 171, 9. 7. 1979, p. 34. Having regard to further opinions adopted by the 
Committee between 1975 and 1982 on road, inland 
waterway, rail, sea and air transport, 
Having regard to the Council resolution of 26 March 
1981 on the work of the Council in the transport sector up 
to the end of 1983 (s), the joint meeting held on 23 April 
1981 between the Committee's Section for Transport and 
Communications and the European Parliament's 
Transport Committee and the critical appraisal of the 
abovementioned resolution in the Committee's 
own-initiative opinion of 30 April 1981 (6), 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rapporteur, 
Mr Loccufier, at the 144th meeting of the Section for 
Transport and Communications held on 14-15 
September 1982, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the 
aforementioned Section on 15 September 1982, in view of 
the urgency of the matter and the end of the Committee's 
four-year term of office on 18 September 1982, to 
recommend to the Committee that a rapporteur-general 
be appointed for this subject, 
Having regard to its decision of 28 October 1982 
appointing Mr Rouzier rapporteur-general under 
Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure, 
(s) OJ No C 171, 11. 7. 1981, p. 1. 
(<=) OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981, p. 35. 
No C 326/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 12. 82 
Having regard to Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, 
Having regard to the oral report made by Mr Rouzier, 
Having regard to the discussions on 28 October 1982 
during the 201st plenary session held on 27 and 
28 October 1982, 
Whereas previous Committee opinions on the common 
transport policy have repeatedly stressed the importance 
of a smoothly operating transport system for the 
achievement of a common market within the European 
Community; 
Whereas the Committee has therefore called for a 
common transport policy on several occasion in the past; 
whereas, after the disappointing Council of Ministers' 
meeting on 26 March 1981, the Committee criticized the 
Council on 30 April 1981 for dragging its feet and called 
on it to be more active; 
Whereas radical and lasting changes in the Community's 
economic situation marked inter alia by (a) stationary or 
declining populations, (b) deficits in Member States' 
balance on current account (particularly as a result of 
their oil and raw-material bills), (c) falling growth rates, 
(d) rising unemployment, (e) heavy public-sector 
borrowing requirements and (f) keener competition from 
third countries, are bound to affect the Community's 
transport policy; 
Whereas such phenomena cannot be tackled without a 
plan; whereas there is therefore an urgent need for the 
Council of Ministers to draw up a blueprint and work out 
a strategy for putting this into action over a period of 
several years; whereas the blueprint for a transport policy 
in the 1980s must therefore be pragmatic although it must 
not lose sight of the underlying objectives, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a unanimous vote, but with one abstention: 
1. General comments 
1.1. One reason why there has so far been little 
progress towards a common transport policy 
undoubtedly lies in the fact that the basic stance of 
individual Member States on transport is largely 
determined by economic and geographical considerations; this is reflected in the considerable 
differences between national transport market 
structures. 
1.2. In the past, some Member States of the 
Community have striven primarily for more liberalization 
in the transport sector whilst others have by and large 
given greater priority to harmonization of the terms of 
competition. In both cases, guidance has been 
necessary. 
1.3. Contrary to the view - derived from free market 
economy principles - that without State intervention 
market mechanisms will lead to an optimum allocation of 
resources (including the allocation of resources between 
regions), it has become clear that regional and economic 
disparities are exacerbated rather than evened out by 
industrialization. This is especially true in times of serious 
economic recession, which is why measures are needed 
particularly urgently in the transport sector. 
1.4. Continuing differences in development between 
areas of the Community as well as within individual 
Member States are inconsistent with the aim of creating 
equal opportunities in all regions in the interests of social 
justice. The elimination of regional disparities has only 
been partly successful so far but can be achieved gradually 
through selective non-private-sector measures in the area 
of transport policy and physical planning. A market 
economy does not mean that market forces must be given 
a totally free rein and be expected to solve all problems on 
their own. 
1.5. Production conditions in transport are in many 
ways different from those in the rest of industry. The 
basic conditions governing competition between and 
within the different modes of transport at both national 
and international level are also extremely varied. This is 
true of the requirements to be met by commercial carriers, 
the degree to which infrastructure costs are covered, the 
participation of the public authorities in covering loss 
risks, the conditions governing transit and third-country 
traffic, and the different labour provisions in force - to 
mention but a few important problems. 
1.6. In an economic Community of 10 States which 
trade heavily with each other and with other countries, 
efforts to secure an optimum organization of the 
Community's transport system take on a European 
dimension and are therefore a matter of Community 
interest. The Inter-relationships between the transport 
sector and other Community policies are also such that 
unresolved transport problems may clearly have a 
negative or even harmful impact on the Community. 
1.7. Because of the connection between 
macro-economic and sectoral policies, the Community 
must assign an important place to investment in its 
13. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 326/11 
strategy for social and economic revival. This has already 
been stressed on several occasions by the Committee. 
There are ample projects for investment in transport and 
infrastructure so that the challenges to the common 
transport policy and socio-economic structural policy in 
the 1980s can be taken up in parallel. 
2. Basic framework 
2.1. The lack of optimum basic conditions for 
transport leads to an uneconomic use of capital and 
labour. It is accordingly necessary to develop a 
Community transport policy that will help to ensure that 
demand for passenger and goods transport can be met 
continuously, quickly and efficiently with appropriate 
transport facilities. Such a policy should, on the one 
hand, be designed to create and promote conditions 
which are conducive to the formation and operation of 
financially-sound, commercially and socially 
well-equipped, and expertly managed undertakings. On 
the other hand, the policy should also ensure that the 
public authorities provide such undertakings with an 
optimum transport infrastructure. As soon as cost-benefit 
analyses have been carried out, public and, if necessary, 
Community funds should be made available for this 
purpose. 
2.2. The fact that a country's entire social and 
economic system cannot function without transport, 
coupled with the fact that Member States have different 
concepts of the role of transport, has meant that the 
transport market frequently does not operate as well as it 
might and that, in the absence of European solutions, the 
ensuing transport regulations have inevitably been based 
on national considerations and accordingly vary 
considerably. In particular, national regulations cannot 
cope with situations where there is a high degree of 
interdependence between countries, as is the case in the 
EEC. This is yet another reason why a Community 
transport policy is needed. 
2.3. The present conditions in the transport market 
can lead to unacceptable distortions. Of course it is true 
that these specific factors (which result in surplus capacity 
and cut-throat competition) are found in other sectors as 
well, but not to the same degree nor at one and the same 
time. 
2.4. This generates such a downward pressure on 
prices that the continuity of services is jeopardized. There 
is, accordingly, no alternative but to impose certain 
restrictions on competition in the interests of a healthy 
development of the transport sector, for it is obvious that 
cut-throat competition also has an adverse effect on social conditions in transport undertakings and on the 
longer-term interests of transport users. 
2.5. Another typical feature of the present transport 
market is the wide variety of 'public service' obligations 
imposed on carriers by the State. These obligations place 
a burden on national transport budgets. The task of a 
common transport policy would be to ensure that the 
carriers in question are compensated for the costs or 
deficits incurred, such compensation being charged to 
sections of national budgets to be determined in the light 
of the categories of beneficiaries. 
2.6. Furthermore, it is impossible to create an EEC 
transport market based on market economy principles, 
unless the starting conditions as regards competition 
within and between different modes of transport are the 
same. 
2.7. Supplementary measures may also be necessary. 
These could, for example, be concerned with technical 
competence and technical regulations. Neither general 
transport policy measures nor possible supplementary 
measures should, however, work to the advantage or 
disadvantage of one of the modes of transport, or 
arbitrarily infringe the principle of freedom of choice for 
the user. All measures in the field of transport rates and 
conditions must also take into consideration the 
economic situation of carriers. 
2.8. As the Treaty provides not merely for the 
establishment of a common market but also for a 
common policy vis-a-vis non-member States, it would be 
appropriate, when defining the general objectives, to 
make a distinction between transport within the 
Community and transport between the Community and 
non-member States. As regards the latter, reference can 
be made to the objectives set out in Part 3, Title II, 
Chapter 3 of the EEC Treaty (Community commercial 
policy), which permits protective measures in the event of 
dumping or subsidies while specifying that, in the 
selection of such measures, preference will be given to 
'those which cause the least disturbance to the functioning 
of the common market'. 
3. Redefinition of the common transport policy in the 
1980s 
3.1. The common transport policy's task, as derived 
from the Treaty, can be described as follows: 
'The task of transport policy is to create a framework 
for the different modes of transport so that passengers 
and goods can be carried between and within the 
various regions of the Community with optimum 
No C 326/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 13.12.82 
efficiency. Optimum efficiency is achieved when the 
transport sector contributes as much as possible to the 
common good and to the achievement of other 
policies (which may in turn have an impact on the 
transport sector and transport users) bearing in mind 
the overall costs of transport, and especially the cost of 
infrastructure, damage to the environment, accident 
risks, and the cost of social security.' 
3.2. If a common transport policy is to be successful in 
the 1980s, however, it must adopt a pragmatic approach 
within the framework of an overall blueprint that the 
Council should approve in the reasonably near future. 
3.3. The pragmatic approach should be based on the 
following three guidelines: 
3.3.1. The common transport policy must allow as 
much free competition as possible, though in specific 
cases, and when necessary, this must be limited if the 
overriding interests of the general public are at stake. The 
basic factors setting limits to the liberalization of 
transport are (a) the differences in conditions of 
production and competition, (b) the importance of 
transport in regional planning, (c) the environment and 
energy conservation, and (d) the scarcity of land, raw 
materials and funds. 
3.3.2. If it is to have any chance of success in practice, 
the common transport policy must concentrate on 
problems that are of Community-wide significance and 
can only be solved through joint efforts. This would pave 
the way for measures that do not necessarily involve all 
Member States, as long as similar solutions are found for 
similar problems in individual Member States. 
Community measures could be supplemented or 
amended by multilateral, bilateral or national solutions 
where this seems appropriate in the light of actual 
circumstances. 
3.3.3. In formulating a Community transport policy it 
will be necessary to set out from the premise that the same 
measures do not have to be adopted for all transport 
modes, given, among other things, the considerable 
differences in the structure of transport enterprises and in 
the infrastructure they use. It is much more important to 
pay extra attention to the specific characteristics of each 
individual transport mode. Blanket measures would have 
disruptive effects and would artificially eliminate the 
natural advantages peculiar to each transport mode. 
However, if measures particular to an individual mode 
are adopted, actual transport operations should not 
suffer as a result. 4. Sectoral demands made on the common transport 
policy 
4.1. Social policy 
4.1.1. A common transport policy must be socially 
beneficial by catering for transport needs from an overall 
economic point of view and by helping to improve the 
living and working conditions of the people employed in 
transport. 
4.1.2. This quite naturally involves first and foremost 
the effective implementation of Community measures 
which have already been adopted, e.g. Regulation (EEC) 
No 543/69 on the harmonization of certain social 
provisions in road transport. As a result of its not being 
applied uniformly in the Member States, this Regulation 
is conducive to those very distortions of competition 
which it is itself intended to eliminate. 
4.1.3. Furthermore, Community action in this field 
requires the implementation of provisions envisaged in 
Council Decision 65/271/EEC of 13 May 1965 as well 
as the updating of existing measures. 
Finally, Community action urgently requires cooperation 
between management and labour so that the package of 
social measures lying on the Council's table at the present 
time can finally be adopted as well. In this context, the 
Commission should be asked by the Council to strengthen 
contacts with the two sides of industry. 
4.2. Energy policy 
The rational use of energy (particularly oil) as well as 
utmost thrift in the use of public funds are necessary and 
must be reflected in all sectoral policies, including 
transport policy. Utmost thrift in the use of public funds 
does not mean so much restricting appropriations as 
directing funds to those uses which will bring about the 
greatest possible improvement in the conditions of 
production. The demands made by energy policy on a 
common transport policy will be fulfilled in the 
main if: 
— infrastructure investments are scrutinized with a view 
to promoting means of transport which are more 
efficient and thus generally more economical in their 
consumption of energy, 
— research is promoted into the development of (a) 
systems for transforming primary energy into tractive 
power, and (b) energy-efficient designs and 
configurations, 
— the development and use of transport modes using 
power from a variety of sources is encouraged to 
reduce dependence on oil. 
13. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 326/13 
4.3. Infrastructure problems 
4.3.1. The most effective way of conducting transport 
policy and obtaining lasting results is through 
infrastructure investments made almost exclusively by the 
public authorities or at least significantly influenced by 
them. What needs to be done in the present situation is to 
examine all new plans to see whether they are 
commensurate with the most economical use of funds 
and, in particular, the saving of energy. The appropriate 
conclusions should be drawn regarding construction or 
expansion projects which do not fulfil these criteria. 
4.3.2. Nor should one lose sight of the fact that for 
technical and qualitative reasons a large number of 
transport operations still have to be carried out by specific 
modes. 
4.3.3. There is an urgent need to coordinate 
investment in this area with the active assistance of the 
Advisory Committee on Infrastructure in order to avoid 
needless and costly duplication. If existing infrastructure . 
is to be utilized to optimum effect and developed 
properly, the main criteria to be applied, apart from the 
quality and level of the services offered, should be: 
regional development environmental damage and energy 
requirements. 
4.3.4. Major European infrastructure projects 
(Channel tunnel, removal of bottlenecks facing traffic to 
and from Italy and Greece, infrastructure projects in third 
countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia 
which play a significant role as regards transport links 
between Member States) must also be studied carefully 
because of their importance to the Community. Particular 
consideration should be given to the role such 
infrastructure projects can play in helping to boost the 
economy and improve the employment situation. 
4.3.5. Urgent consideration should therefore be given 
to examining how the 10 million EUA earmarked for 
such projects in the Community's supplementary budget 
for 1982 can be used. In the view of the Committee, 
infrastructure measures cannot be effective unless the 
necessary resources are also provided for in subsequent 
budgets or an infrastructure fund is finally approved by 
the Council. 
4.3.6. Greek accession and the impending expansion 
of the Community southwards also make it necessary to 
give more importance to transport in the Mediterranean 
area. This calls not only for an appropriate Community 
infrastructure policy but also for a policy on ports. These 
two policies could usefully complement each other in this 
part of Europe, as the Section for Transport and 
Communications was able to establish in the case of 
transport between Greece and the rest of the Community at an on-the-spot meeting held by the Section in Trieste on 
15 and 16 July 1982. 
4.4. Charging of infrastructure costs 
Given the basic view that a pragmatic approach should be 
adopted towards a common transport policy, principles 
for the charging of infrastructure costs should be defined. 
These principles should therefore not only be defensible 
from a theoretical point of view, but should also be 
practicable. The Commission should thus be called upon 
by the Council to work out practical solutions and present 
them in the foreseeable future. 
The Commission's proposals should, among other 
things, take account of the need to align infrastructure 
charges with external costs, including costs connected 
with deterioration of the environment, and to promote 
the more rational use of energy in transport. 
4.5. Regional policy 
In working out a European transport policy, account 
should also be taken of the need for a suitable regional 
policy which would have adequate regard for the 
requirements of underdeveloped regions and the 
problems of economically disadvantaged areas. The 
modernization of transport networks should in large 
measure be aimed at eliminating the risks of excessive 
concentration. Plans to modernize transport networks 
must be so devised as to avoid the risk of stimulating the 
growth of urban agglomerations in the industrial 
heartland of Europe at the expense of the peripheral 
regions. 
One approach would be to improve short-distance 
passenger transport, particularly in densely populated 
regions and the large conurbations. These measures must 
not, however, lead to an increase in concentration at the 
expense of the peripheral regions. 
4.6. Environmental policy 
Heavy industrialization in certain regions of the 
Community has led to the special problems of 
conurbations (urban sprawl, the despoilment of nature, 
bad communications for workers travelling to and from 
work, the impact of modern industrial and housing 
policies on the cohesiveness of the local community, the 
sharp increase in private transport). A transport policy 
for the future therefore presupposes a sensible, 
environmentally-oriented physical planning policy. 
Responsibility in this area rests of course with the 
national authorities, though this does not mean that the 
Community should close its eyes to such problem -
especially since they occur in regions on both sides of 
national borders. The problems thus also have a 
Community dimension. 
No C 326/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 12. 82 
Environmental problems falling within the jurisdiction of 
the Community - shipping accidents, air and sea 
pollution, noise abatement, etc. - also call for 
appropriate 'European' solutions within the framework 
of transport and other Community policies. 
The Committee reserves the right to take up these matters 
in more detail at a later date. 
4.7. Industrial policy and technology 
The improvement of traditional technology, the 
development of new transport technologies and the 
promotion of joint research projects, all spring to mind in 
this connection. They are also worthy of consideration 
from the employment angle. The Community should aim 
to secure the effective coordination of these activities and 
should examine the possibility of providing financial aid, 
for example via specific R&D projects. 
One specific branch of industrial policy is the abolition of 
certain technical barriers, inter alia the still unresolved 
problem of the weights and dimensions of commercial 
vehicles, which has held up the planning and rational 
operation of industrial production for years. This 
problem is an example of irrational production methods 
and unnecessary costs due to the lack of political 
decision-making, even though all the parties concerned 
reached agreement on the matter some considerable time 
ago. The Committee in fact delivered a separate opinion 
on the matter on 31 January 1980 (*), and the European 
Parliament and the Commission subsequently adopted 
positions very much in line with the Committee's 
views. 
4.8. The Community's external relations 
The Commission needs to give an impetus to the 
Community's external relations in the field of transport 
policy. Since the Community is heavily involved in 
external trade, it will also have to find common solutions 
to its transport problems with non-member States 
(east-west relations, inland waterway transport on the 
Rhine and Danube, flags of convenience, sea transport 
via the Mediterranean ports of the Community, transit 
through Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, relations 
with international and supranational organizations). 
A common approach to external relations — particularly 
in sea and air transport - is particularly important for the 
cohesion of the Community so that EEC industries can 
improve or maintain their competitiveness on foreign 
markets. 
C1) OJ No C 113, 7. 5. 1980, p. 14. 5. Conclusions 
The foregoing enables us to draw the following 
conclusions regarding a redefined common transport 
policy: 
5.1. The Council must at long last make a serious 
attempt to meet its Treaty commitments regarding the 
achievement of a Community transport policy. To this 
end, it should urge the Commission to submit a realistic 
blueprint for transport policy in the 1980s as quickly as 
possible, and by the end of this year at the latest. The 
blueprint should be accompanied by a programme of 
concrete proposals, perhaps including amendments to the 
proposals already before the Council. The present 
opinion should be taken into account in the drawing up of 
the blueprint. The Commission's blueprint must then be 
forwarded to the Parliament and Economic and Social 
Committee for their opinions, and the Council must then 
formally undertake to use it as a guide for action in the 
coming years. 
5.2. Pragmatism does not mean acting without a plan. 
Adoption by the Council of Ministers of a blueprint and 
programme for transport will have the advantage of 
enabling individual measures - which might be, adopted 
in stages - to be fitted into the blueprint and their relative 
importance to be properly assessed. The 160 or so 
transport measures adopted by the Council so far bear 
witness to a certain amount of activity on the part of the 
Council but certainly do not deserve the title of'European 
Transport Policy'. 
5.3. In drafting this new blueprint, the Council and 
Commission should as far as possible be guided by the 
following additional considerations: 
5.3.1. Inter-modal cooperation in long-distance 
transport within the Community should be encouraged so 
that the technical and economic advantages of each mode 
can complement each other and the cost to the economy 
as a whole can be reduced. 
5.3.2. Investment projects of Community significance 
in the fields of infrastructure and means of transport 
should be coordinated to that cross-frontier traffic can 
flow unimpeded. 
5.3.3. National frontiers should not obstruct the 
balanced geographical distribution of transport, which is 
desirable for regional policy reasons. 
5.3.4. Greater political importance should be 
attached to social developments than before. Advances in 
the social field are a priority aim. 
5.3.5. National measures have created distortions of 
competition in long-distance and especially cross-frontier 
transport in various Member States. In so far as 
harmonization of the conditions of competition in the 
13. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 326/15 
interests of the Community seems possible only in the 
long term, temporary measures will have to be taken at 
national level with regard to rates, taxes and licensing 
procedures in order to balance out the differences. 
5.3.6. The same applies to the differences in 
rate-fixing procedures for long-distance and, in 
particular, cross-frontier transport, in so far as these 
differences are due to national measures. 
5.3.7. Financial equilibrium in the railways should be 
a priority goal, though we should not forget that this can 
only be achieved gradually, and in parallel with 
harmonization of the conditions of competition. 
5.3.8. All measures and developments designed to 
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1982. 
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 198 
thereof, ensure the rational use of energy in transport should be 
encouraged and supported. 
5.4. Commission proposals which have obtained the 
endorsement of advisory bodies and the two sides of 
industry, or which have been amended by the 
Commission (e.g. weights and dimensions), should 
finally be adopted so that Europe's citizens can actually 
see that progress has been made. 
5.5. Translating the aforementioned principles into 
practice in a blueprint with a timetable for the gradual 
harmonization of the terms of competition (which will 
dispense with the need for the national compensatory 
measures mentioned above) must form the kernel of (and 
first major step under) a common transport policy for the 
1980s. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the 
granting of financial support fo demonstration projects 
relating to the exploitation of alternative energy sources, 
energy-saving and the substitution of hydrocarbons (x), 
and on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the 
granting of financial support for pilot industrial projects Opinion on the 
— proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting of financial support for demonstration 
projects relating to the exploitation of alternative energy sources, energy-saving and the 
substitution of hydrocarbons 
— proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting of financial support for pilot industrial 
projects and demonstration projects relating to the liquefaction and gasification of solid 
fuels 
The texts referred to the Committee have been published in Official Journals of the European 
Communities No C 227 of 1 September 1982, page 2 and No C 261 of 6 October 1982, page 3, 
respectively. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 18 August 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 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 201st 
plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 October 1982. 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of the 
European Communities on 18 August 1982 for an (0 OJ No C 227, 1. 9. 1982, p. 2.