No C 47/40 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 27. 2. 75 
1.6. The  Commission's  proposed  plan  of action 
does  not  attach  sufficient  importance  to economic 
and social  information.  This  shortcoming  should  be 
remedied. 
1.7. Since  no information  at all has  been  provided 
to explain  the  initial  budget  proposed  by the  CIDST 
or the  cuts  in it made  by the  CREST,  the  Committee 
feels  unable  to comment  on the  size  and  distribution 
of these  cuts. 
1.8. If  it were  necessary  for  any  reason  to cut 
down  on expenditure,  this  should  be done  primarily 
by spreading  projects  over  a longer  period.  If this 
proved  inadequate,  priorities  should  be fixed  so that 
resources  could  be  concentrated  on  the  most 
important  problems  in setting  up the network. 
2. SPECIFIC  COMMENTS 
2.1. IDST  systems 
(No comments) 
2.2. The  information  network 
2.2.1. 
2.1. Preparatory  studies  for  Euronet  —  market 
studies 
The Committee  considers  that  the  list  of three  types 
of market  study  should  be supplemented  by a fourth 
type  as follows: 
'an appraisal  of the  extent  to which  the  needs 
identified  are  being  satisfied  or could  be satisfied 
by existing  data  bases  and  information  services.' 
2.2.2. 
2.1. Preparatory  studies  for  Euronet  —  economic 
evaluation 
The Committee  proposes  adding  the  following  after 
'system  operators'  (second  sentence  of  last 
paragraph): 'including  operators  of commercial  information 
sources.' 
2.3. Information  methodology  and  technology 
2.3.1. 
3.1. Study  and  development  of  appropriate 
multilingual  tools 
In order  to meet  the  need  for  a less  sophisticated 
automatic  indexing  system  to facilitate  classification 
work,  it is proposed  that  the  following  indent  be 
added  at the end  of (d): 
'the development  of less  sophisticated  systems, 
techniques  and  programmes  designed  to facilitate 
the document  classification  tasks  of information 
scientists.' 
2.3.2. 
3.5. Development  of  information  technology 
It would  also  be worth  studying  retrieval  techniques. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  paragraph 
(a) be amended  to read: 
'study  of  cost  and  efficiency  of various  file 
structures  and  retrieval  techniques  in a network 
environment,  including  direct  and  inverted  files, 
clustering  techniques,  dynamic  file  arrangements 
and content-addressable  storage  devices.' 
Done  at Brussels,  19 December  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  liberalization  of co-insurance 
operations  and  the  coordination  of laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
relating  to co-insurance 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  was  published  in Official  Journal  of the  European 
Communities  No  C 72 of 27 June  1974,  pages  26 and  27. 
27. 2. 75 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 47/41 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 30 May  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  under  Article  63 of the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 126th  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 19 December  1974. 
The Opinion  is published  below: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  referral  on 31 May  1974,  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities,  of the 
proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the liberalization 
of co-insurance  operations  and  the  coordination  of 
laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
relating  to co-insurance; 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  57 (2),  the  second  paragraph  of Article  59, 
rticle  63 (2) and  Article  66 thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  decision  of its Bureau  of 28 
May  1974  instructing  the  Section  for  Industry, 
Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to draw  up  an 
Opinion  and  a report  on the matter; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  adopted  by  the 
Section  for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services 
at its meeting  on 6 November  1974; 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr De Bruyn; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 126th  plenary 
session,  held  on 19 December  1974, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a majority,  with  one  dissenting  vote  and  one 
abstention: 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  approves  the 
proposal  for  a Directive,  but  makes  the  following 
general  and  specific  comments: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  that 
the proposal  for  a Directive  constitutes  a step 
towards  liberalizing  the provision  of direct  insurance services  other  than  life  assurance.  Pending  full 
achievement  of such  liberalization,  which  requires  a 
certain  coordination,  adoption  of this  proposal  will 
constitute  a significant  advance  in Member  States 
where  there  are restrictions  on the  insurance  abroad 
of risks  located  in the  national  territory.  The 
Committee  stresses  that  the limitations  still  permitted 
by the  draft  Directive  to  freedom  to provide 
insurance  services  should  not  be applied  in Member 
States  where  freedom  to supply  such  services  already 
exists. 
1.2. The  Committee  trusts  that  the  Commission 
will speed  up its work  in the  field  of freedom  to 
provide  services. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  1 
2.1.1.  The  Committee  endorses  this  Article,  which 
lays down,  in  general  terms,  the  scope  of 
Community  rules  on  co-insurance,  the  sole  item 
excluded  being  motor  vehicle  liability. 
2.1.2.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  proposal 
for a Directive  would  fall  short  of its objective  if 
further  items  were  excluded  from  its scope.  It should 
also be noted  that  Community  co-insurance  will  only 
be used  in practice  for sizeable  risks  and  there  is no 
reason  to fear  abuses  in this  area,  given  that  Article 
10 stipulates  collaboration  between  supervisory 
authorities. 
2.2. Article  2 
2.2.1.  The  Committee  agrees  with  the  principle 
laid down  in this  Article,  but  points  out  that  the 
definition  of  'co-insurance'  is  not  completely 
satisfactory,  this  being  especially  true  of the  phrase 
'acting  at the  instigation  of one  of them,  called  the 
leading  insurer,  and  in agreement  with  each  other' 
(this  is not  always  the  case).  Consequently,  the 
Committee  requests  that  the  first  paragraph  of this 
Article  be amended  to read: 
No C 47/42  Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 
'For the  purpose  of this  Directive,  co-insurance 
means:  the  insuring  by two  or more  insurance 
undertakings,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  'co-
insurers',  of which  one  is called  the  'leading 
insurer',  each  for  his own  part,  of a risk  under  a 
single  contract  at an overall  premium  and  for  the 
same  period,  which  contract  is performed  under 
the aegis  of the leading  insurer.' 
2.2.2.  The  English  version  of this  Article  is not  in 
line with  the  French  one.  At the  end  of the  first 
paragraph,  the  phrase  'without  joint  and  several 
liability,  of a single  risk  under  a single  contract  at a 
single  premium  and  for  a single  period'  does  not 
translate  correctly  the  French  'sans  qu'il  y ait  de 
solidarite  entre  elles,  d'un  risque  par  un  contrat 
unique  moyennant  une  prime  globale  et pour  une 
meme  duree'. 
2.2.3.  This  is why  the  Committee  also  asks  that 
the English  version  be amended  to read:  'each  for 
his own  part,  of a risk  under  a single  contract  at an 
overall  premium  and  for the same  period'. 
2.2.4.  Finally,  there  is  the  problem  of  the 
construction  to be put  on Article  2 in the  case  of 
'layer  insurance',  which  is frequently  met  in the 
field  of public  liability  insurance.  In such  instances, 
an undertaking's  public  liability  is covered  up to a 
certain  maximum  amount  by one  policy  (which  may 
or may  not  be a co-insurance  policy)  and  then  by 
successive  policies  for each  additional  amount. 
2.2.5.  It  would  appear  that  where  a given  risk  is 
covered  by  a group  of layer  contracts,  the  draft 
Directive  does  not  apply  to that  group  as a whole, 
but specifically  to each  individual  contract.  The 
Committee  asks  the  Commission  to confirm  this  to 
the Member  States. 
2.3. Article  5 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  is mindful  that  it would  be 
desirable  if an industrial  or commercial  undertaking 
operating  in two  or more  Member  States  could  take 
out a single  co-insurance  policy  covering  all its assets 
and liabilities  in those  States. 27. 2. 75 
2.3.2.  The  Committee  agrees  that  this  is one  of the 
goals  of the  common  market,  but  considers  that  it 
can be attained  only  by liberalizing  the  provision  of 
direct  insurance  services.  In turn,  this  liberalization 
can be achieved  only  by a certain  coordination  of 
national  laws.  Consequently,  the  Committee  urges 
the Commission  to speed  up  preparation  of the 
Directives  required  for this  purpose. 
2.4. Article  6 
2.4.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  Article  6 
should  be reworded  to provide,  first,  that  Member 
States  which  have  introduced  such  a requirement 
must  limit  it to a maximum  of 25 °/o and,  secondly, 
that Member  States  without  such  a requirement  may 
not introduce  one  in the future. 
2.4.2.  Therefore,  the  Committee  proposes  the 
following  new  text: 
'Any  Member  State  whose  law  requires  all  or 
part  of the  risk  to be underwritten  by the  leading 
insurer  and  other  co-insurers  established  in the 
country  of the  leading  insurer  shall  limit  this 
requirement  to a maximum  of 25 % of the risk.' 
2.5. Article  7, second  sentence 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  matters 
concerning  intermediaries  and  commission  are  not 
directly  connected  with  co-insurance  contracts  and 
should  not  be  dealt  with  in  the  present  draft 
Directive.  Consequently,  it asks  that  this  sentence  be 
deleted. 
Done  at Brussels,  19 December  1974 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
27. 2. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 47/43 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment,  tabled  in accordance  with  the  Rules  of Procedure,  was  rejected 
during  the discussion: 
Page  4, point  2.3,  Article  5 
2.3.1: 
Add the following  sentence: 
'In this  respect  the  Commission  proposal  does  not  bring  any  improvement  to the  existing 
situation.' 
2.3.2: 
Substitute  the following  for the existing  text: 
'The  Committee  considers  that  the  co-insurance  of risks  situated  in different  countries 
should  be liberalized  in the  present  Directive.  It therefore  proposes  that  the  following 
sentence  be added  to Article  5: 
... If the  risk  is situated  in two  or more  countries  and  the  conflict  of laws  cannot  be 
resolved  by the foregoing  provision,  the law  applicable  shall  be that  of the country  in which 
the policy-holder  is established.' 
Reason 
As Article  5 is worded  now,  co-insurance  of risks  situated  in different  Member  States  falls 
outside  the scope  of the  Directive  if national  laws  contain  provisions  concerning  the place  of 
establishment  of the  leading  insurer  and  such  provisions  give  rise  to conflicts  of laws.  Article  5 
resolves  only  the  rare  conflicts  of laws  which  arise  when  the  risk  is situated  in one  country. 
In order  to extend  the scope  of the  Directive  to cover  cases  where  the risks  to be insured  are 
situated  in two  or more  countries,  a sentence  should  be added  to Article  5 providing  a solution 
to the conflicts  of laws  which  can  arise  in such  cases.  It should  be laid  down  that  if the present 
provisions  of Article  5 cannot  solve  a conflict  of laws,  the  law  applicable  should  be that  of 
the country  in which  the policy-holder  is established. 
This  extension  of the scope  of the Directive  would  enable  firms,  particularly  medium-sized  ones, 
which  do not  have  their  own  insurance  expert,  to lump  together  their  risks  in different  countries 
under  a single  co-insurance  policy.  Transport  risks,  which  in the case  of international  traffic  are 
necessarily  situated  in different  countries,  could  also  be covered  by the directive. 
Result  of the vote: 
For: 21, Against:  40, Abstentions:  12. 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  approximation  of the  laws 
of Member  States  relating  to the  installation  of lighting  and  light-signalling  devices  on 
wheeled  agricultural  or forestry  tractors 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  was  published  in Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Communities  No  C 104  of 13 September  1974,  pages  30 to 59. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 8 July  1974,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  under  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Economic  Community.