21. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 77/13 
2.7. The present proposal lays down that the 
European Parliament should be consulted about the 
amount and purpose of each allocation for which loans 
can be contracted. The 3 000 million ECU will be 
borrowed in several instalments in the light of the NCI's 
operating requirements. Before each instalment is 
allocated, the Commission intends to consult the 
European Parliament on the allocation of that instalment 
and on the specific guidelines for the sum's destination. 
However, no mention is made in this proposal of 
consultation of the Economic and Social Committee at 
that stage. As the spokesman for all major Community 
economic and social groupings that are directly affected 
by Community lending and borrowing, the Committee 
should be consulted in the same way as the 
Parliament. 
2.8. On operational arrangements, it is proposed that 
loan applications should be transmitted simultaneously 
to the Commission and the EIB, so as to enable closer 
cooperation between the two institutions. Such closer 
cooperation is commendable as it should lead to better 
Done at Brussels, 26 January 1983. 
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 Articles 84 
and 87 thereof, coordination of the Community's financial instruments. 
The proposed operational arrangements will establish a 
complementary relationship - thereby avoiding any 
duplication or bureaucratic delay - between the political 
role of the Commission, which retains ultimate 
responsibility for lending decisions, and the professional 
expertise of the European Investment Bank. 
3. In conclusion, the Committee considers that the 
proposed Decision extending the NCI's brief would, if 
adopted, be consistent with the aims set out in the 
conclusions of the President of the European Council on 
the proceedings of 3 and 4 December 1982, which 
propounded the need for a comprehensive strategy for 
achieving a marked improvement in the employment 
situation through the creation of durable new jobs, 
re-establishing economic stability and encouraging 
productivity. 
The Committee also supports the European Council's 
wish that the Council of Ministers adopt the proposed 
Decision rapidly. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Having regard to the request made by the Council on 
3 November 1981 for an opinion on the aforementioned 
proposal (*), 
(') OJ No C 282, 5. 11. 1981, p. 4. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down detailed rules for the 
application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, to maritime transport 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official journal of the European 
Communities No C 282 of 5 November 1981, page 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 3 November 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Articles 84 and 87 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 
204th plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 January 1983. 
No C 77/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 3. 83 
Having regard to Council Regulations No 17 of 
6 February 1962 (1), No 141 of 26 November 1962 (2) 
and (EEC) No 1017/68 of 19 July 1968 (3), 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 954/79 
of 15 May 1979 (4) concerning the ratification by 
Member States of, or their accession to, the United 
Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner 
Conferences, and to the ESC opinion of 31 May 1978 (s) 
on the relevant Commission proposal of 15 December 
1977 (6), 
Having regard to its opinions on shipping and in 
particular its own-initiative opinion of 4 April 1979 (7) 
on Community shipping policy (flags of convenience -
flag discrimination - role of the new shipping 
countries), 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
12 November 1981 instructing the Section for Transport 
and Communications to draw up an opinion on this 
matter (Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section at its 
146th meeting held on 10 November 1982, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rapporteur, 
Mr Bonety, and the co-rapporteur, Mrs Bredima, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 204th plenary 
session held on 26 and 27 January 1983 (meeting of 27 
January), 
Whereas the competition provisions of the Treaty 
(Articles 85 and 86) are, in the Commission's view, also 
applicable to shipping; 
Whereas the competition rules must be applied flexibly in 
this sector in view of its special features (as borne out by 
Article 84 of the Treaty) and the international context, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 89 votes to four, with seven abstentions: 
The Committee approves the Commission's proposal 
subject to the following general and specific 
comments: 
'}) OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62. 
;2) OJ No 124, 28. 11. 1962, p. 2751/62. 
;3) OJ No L 175, 23. 7. 1968, p. 1. 
4) OJ No L 121, 17. 5. 1979, p. 1. 
s) OJ No C 269, 13. 11. 1978, p. 46. 
6) OJ No C 35, 11. 2. 1978, p. 3. 
7) OJ No C 171, 9. 7. 1979, p. 34. 1. General comments 
1.1. Legal basis 
1.1.1. The Committee examined the scope of Council 
Regulations No 17 of 6 February 1962, No 141 of 
26 November 1962 and (EEC) No 1017/68 of 19 July 
1968 and noted that, pursuant to the abovementioned 
Regulations No 141 and(EEC)No 1017/68, Regulation 
No 17 (the first Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 
86) does not apply to air and sea transport. 
1.1.2. According to the Court of Justice rulings of 
4 April 1974 and 12 October 1978 in Cases 167/73 and 
156/77, air and sea transport are subject to the 
provisions of Articles 85 and 86, although under 
Article 84 (2) they are not covered by the provisions of 
Title IV relating to the common transport policy until 
such time as the Council decides to include them. In the 
light of this interpretation the Commission bases its 
proposals for applying Treaty Articles 85 and 86 to 
maritime transport solely on Article 87 which states, inter 
alia, that such provisions shall be 'laid down by the 
Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal 
from the Commission'. 
1.1.3. Without going into all the details and legal 
nuances, the Committee considers that the Council 
should adopt a dual legal basis for its proposal, namely 
Articles 84 (2) and 87, in view of the fact that the rules for 
applying Articles 85 and 86 to sea transport are 
important for this sector. 
1.1.4. To back up this view, the Committee recalls 
that since the publication of the memorandum on air 
transport in 1979 the Commission has submitted to the 
Council a series of proposals on air and sea transport, 
some of which have been adopted. All of these Council 
decisions were based on Article 84 (2). The Committee 
therefore wonders why the Commission, in an area so 
important as competition in sea and air transport -
which ipso facto has repercussions beyond the 
Community - has not adopted the same approach as in 
the past. 
1.2. Scope of the Regulation 
1.2.1. The Committee approves the exclusion of bulk 
transport from the field of application of the Regulation 
since this sector already operates for the most part on the 
principle of free competition. It notes, however, that the 
text of the proposed Regulation, dated 13 October 1981, 
does not contain a precise definition of bulk transport (8). 
Although this problem is not the immediate concern of 
(8) At the present stage of its work on this subject the 
Commission is considering proposing the following 
definition of bulk transport to the Council Study Group: the 
transport of bulk goods on non-scheduled sailings, bulk 
being defined as a cargo which has not been counted or 
marked. 
21. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 77/15 
the proposed Regulation, the Committee feels it must 
draw the Commission's attention to the unfair 
competition emanating from flags of convenience. It 
thinks that this whole problem should be the subject of 
practical proposals by the Commission (as it has already 
urged in its opinion of April 1979), notwithstanding the 
study currently being made by the OECD. 
1.3. Advisability of rules on maritime competition 
1.3.1. International maritime transport is a very 
complex field, but for the sake of simplicity it can be 
divided roughly into two distinct sectors: bulk transport 
and regular liner services, the latter generally being 
organized by a system of'liner conferences', which may be 
regarded as tariff cartels, without being monopolies. 
1.3.2. Competition is, in principle, the rule in a 
market economy. It is, however, necessary to assess as 
accurately as possible not only its economic effects but 
also its social consequences. 
1.3.3. Where transport is concerned, competition 
must be organized in such a way as to take account of the 
specific features of this sector and of current trends in 
the international law on competition in a number of 
non-member countries, such as the USA. 
1.3.4. As far as regular liner services operating within 
the conference system are concerned, the Committee 
considers that this system is at the present time the best 
instrument for organizing the international maritime 
transport of general cargo goods. This system is 
recognized by the United Nations Code of Conduct and 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 954/79. 
1.3.5. The Committee is not opposed to the principle 
of free competition, but if the Commission feels that it 
must introduce further rules on competition in this sector 
it should take more account than it does in its present 
proposal of the specific nature of international maritime 
shipping, in particular the benefits of these 
conferences. 
1.3.6. The main criticism levelled by the Committee 
against the Commission's proposal is that while it 
exempts the liner conferences from the provisions of 
Article 85 of the Treaty, this exemption is subject to 
certain conditions. If these conditions are not satisfied, 
exemption is automatically withdrawn, i.e. the liner 
conferences would not be able to operate as such. 
Furthermore, the conditions attaching to the exemption 
are vague and questionable. 1.3.7. The Committee would also draw attention to 
the repercussions of the Commission's proposals on 
non-member countries; it fears that the countries 
concerned could take discriminatory or punitive 
measures vis-a-vis shipowners in the Member States. If 
the Commission proposal is imposed unilaterally it could 
therefore have major economic and social effects on 
Community shipping. 
1.3.8. The Committee would emphasize that users' 
interests are accorded far more favourable treatment 
under the UN Code of Conduct, which stipulates that 
there should be discussion between shippers and 
conferences and, failing this, provides for conciliation 
procedures. The Code of Conduct therefore implies that 
conferences and shippers will reach agreement. 
Accordingly the Committee urges that the proposed 
Regulation should be no less favourable. 
2. Specific comments on the Articles 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. The Committee takes the view that bulk 
transport, which is governed by a charter-party, has not 
instituted restrictive practices or monopolies on a 
worldwide scale. In the bulk transport sector, as 
contrasted to the conferences which are cartels, there are 
neither agreements distorting free competition nor 
cartellization within the Community, because the 
functioning of the law of supply and demand is 
unimpeded. Consequently, the Committee approves the 
exclusion of bulk transport from the Regulation's 
scope. 
2.1.2. This exclusion must, however, be spelt out 
more clearly in the Article, which could read as 
follows: 
'1. This Regulation lays down detailed rules for the 
application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to 
international maritime transport from or to one or 
more Community ports. 
2. Bulk transport does not come within the scope 
of this Regulation.' 
2.1.3. The Committee considers that the Commission 
must give a more precise definition of'bulk transport' in a 
third paragraph to Article 1. The definition must be 
based on the nature of this type of transport, i.e. the way 
in which a bulk transport ship operates by contrast with a 
conference ship. This is because it is the way the ship 
operates its business - under the conditions of free 
competition - which justifies the exemption of bulk 
No C 77/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 3. 83 
transport from the draft Regulation. The yardsticks could 
be the following: 
(a) no fixed routes; 
(b) cargoes taken on anywhere in the world (not 
marked, not counted, whatever the packaging); 
(c) rates not predetermined but set ad hoc through free 
negotiation according to supply and demand, under 
conditions of quasi-perfect competition. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. Under (c) it would be important to retain the 
notion of 'combined transport' or 'intermodal 
transport'. 
2.2.2. The Committee would also point out that the 
wording of Article 2 is different from that of the proposed 
Regulation on competition in the air transport sector, and 
that the present wording will have to be revised in all 
languages. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. The conference system is universally 
acknowledged as a cartel-type of organization for liner 
operators, which has traditionally had advantages and 
disadvantages both for shipowners wishing to participate 
in them and for users of these conferences. 
2.3.2. The Committee looks favourably on the 
conferences, but thinks that the main thing is for any 
national shipping company which applies to be able to 
join the conferences on the same conditions as existing 
members. In this connection it considers that foreign 
trade trends should be one criterion. 
2.3.3. The Committee believes that the exemption 
granted to the conferences under Article 3 will only be 
part of the Community's transport policy if the 
Community defines the structure of these conferences and 
guarantees the unimpeded operation of non-members 
competing with them on a normal commercial footing. 
2.4. Article 4 
2.4.1. The Committee has objections to the wording 
of Article 4 of the Commission's proposal which lays 
down the conditions subject to which the exemption 
provided for in Article 3 is granted to liner 
conferences. 2.4.2. Since the exemption is subject to conditions 
such as obviously being withdrawable on a decision by 
the Commission, a veritable sword of Damocles hangs 
over the conferences, even when they have been 
approved. 
2.4.3. The Committee wonders whether it would not 
be possible to give approval prior to the implementation 
of the agreements, decisions and practices planned by a 
particular conference. This would enable consultations to 
take place along the same lines as the Unctad Code of 
Conduct for Liner Conferences. 
2.4.4. These consultations should clearly involve all 
the interested parties, shipowners, users, workers' 
representatives. 
2.4.5. According to the Committee, the rules in the 
draft Regulation which set out the conditions for group 
exemption should be shortened, their wording tightened 
up and be included only among the obligations listed in 
Article 5. The threat of legal action provided for in 
Article 4 in the form of a withdrawal of the exemption is 
in practice neither tolerable nor appropriate. 
2.4.6. Nor do 'ports' fall within the protective ambit 
of the competition rules under consideration here. 
Furthermore, it is not yet against cartel law merely to 
impose different rates and conditions of carriage. 
Different rates may be objectively justifiable; there must 
be discrimination too. This is not spelt out in the 
Commission proposal. 
2.4.7. In its present form point 2 is not compatible 
with the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. The 
Code leaves it up to the shippers and shipowners to agree 
on the terms of loyalty agreements. This paragraph 
should therefore be deleted from the draft Regulation, or 
at most drastically shortened and included among the 
obligations in Article 5. There is no apparent reason why 
the granting of time rebates should be prohibited as the 
only option. 
2.4.8. Point 3 provides for the freedom of choice of 
the 'shipper' as to inland transport operations and 
quayside services. This freedom of choice also covers 
inland transport operations and quayside services in 
non-Community countries, giving rise to the question just 
who is the Community's competition law meant to be 
protecting in this instance. At this point it again becomes 
abundantly clear that to annul the group exemption for 
an infringement of this provision would be a massive 
overreaction. 
2.4.9. The conditions set out in point 1 contain 
several imprecise concepts which in this form are 
unworkable ('over the same transport link', 'providers of 
services ancillary to transport' instead of 'freight 
forwarders'). 
21. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 77/17 
2.5. Article 5 
2.5.1. Point 1 of the Commission draft should be 
aligned on the wording of the UN Code of Conduct. 
2.5.2. The Committee is in favour of deleting point 2 
as it is not clear which of its responsibilities the 
Commission intends to exercise, or for what purpose, 
through the notification of arbitration awards. 
2.6. Article 6 
Article 6 is vague and needs further clarification of its 
content, i.e. to which categories of agreements it 
refers. 
2.7. Article 7 
2.7.1. The Committee has very considerable 
misgivings about the fact that decisions qualifying for 
exemption under Article 3 may nevertheless infringe 
Article 85 (3). This recourse to Article 85 (3) creates an 
area of deep uncertainty for the sea transport sector. In 
particular the so-called 'indispensability clause' of 
Article 85 (3) is not practicable for international 
maritime transport. The same holds true of the 
requirement of Article 85 (3) that consumers be allowed 
'a fair share of the resulting benefit'. The definitions used 
in this instance by the Community's cartel law for the 
internal market are not applicable to the international 
maritime transport market. Here it is necessary to fall 
back on Article 84 (2) of the Treaty and to formulate a 
waiver from the provisions of Article 85 (3) which can be 
applied to international shipping. 
2.7.2. Contrary to the assumption in the text cited 
above, sea transport prices depend not only on the length 
of the route but also on quite different criteria. Nor is it 
pertinent to cartel law whether a price is raised excessively 
or there is effective competition from other transport 
services. If these criteria could be assessed from the point 
of view of cartel law, the Commission would become the 
sole arbiter of prices - a role to which it does not 
aspire. 
2.8. Article 8 
2.8.1. This Article deals with conflicts with the cartel 
laws of other countries, i.e. a key problem for 
international shipping. Merely by instructing the 
Commission to undertake consultations this Article does 
not do justice to this fact. Either the Regulation itself must demarcate the areas oi legal competence (possibly 
according to incoming or outgoing traffic) or the 
Commission must be given a negotiating mandate 
allowing it to adjust Community law to the legal situation 
in other countries in bilateral agreements. This 
adjustment is all the more necessary as Community 
members of international liner conferences must not be 
placed at a disadvantage by EEC competition law. 
2.9. Article 9 
2.9.1. Section II of the draft (the Rules of Procedure) 
grants extensive powers to the EEC Commission for 
investigations and sanctions in the event of infringement 
of the Regulation. These rules - identical to those of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 for transport by rail, 
road and inland waterways - establish a complicated 
and time-consuming procedure which does not take into 
consideration the specific character and special 
conditions of operation of shipping companies. To apply 
these rules in the maritime sector might prove to be a bad 
precedent for further action in the future. It must be 
ensured that these rules of procedure do not end up by 
impeding the operations of shipping companies, given the 
special nature of these operations. 
2.10. Article 12 
2.10.1. In view of the above, the words 'retroactive 
effect' should be deleted from Article 12 (3), i.e. the 
decision applying Article 85 (3) EEC should not be 
revoked retroactively but solely for the future. 
2.11. Article 14 
2.11.1. The Committee points out that the Advisory 
Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies 
consists entirely of officials (two from each Member 
State) appointed by reason of their competence in sea 
transport matters. 
2.11.2. Certain criticisms have already been advanced 
regarding the general aspects of existing competition 
policy procedures (see earlier ESC reports on the subject 
and the report presented to the European Parliament on 
16 November 1981 on the 10th Commission Report on 
Competition Policy). 
2.11.3. The Committee is unhappy that the 
Commission combines the roles of investigator, 
prosecutor and judge. It feels that consideration should be 
No C 77/18 . Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 3. 83 
given to setting up a technical body on which shipowners, 
users and trade unions are represented along with the 
Member States. 
2.12. Article 19 
2.12.1. This Article is considered by the Committee to 
be unacceptable because it establishes an investigation 
procedure which is inapplicable in maritime practice and 
does not take into consideration the special conditions of 
maritime transport. How could the officials authorized 
by the Commission request the various documents in one 
place and carry out the duties assigned under Article 19 
(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d), when it is well known that the 
documents concerning shipping companies are scattered 
throughout various countries? 
2.12.2. Moreover, unrestricted investigations of 
various documents may cause an adverse situation which 
will threaten the very existence of the shipping company. 
In this connection, the general wording of Article 19 
could possibly lead to abusive practices. It is therefore 
proposed that Article 19(1) be reworded to read as 
follows: 
'In carrying out the duties assigned to it by this 
Regulation, the Commission may undertake all 
necessary investigations into undertakings or 
associations of undertakings. The execution of the 
above investigation should not unjustifiably expose 
the interests of the shipping enterprise.' 
2.12.3. As regards Article 19 (2), the mere production 
of an authorization in writing by the officials of the 
Commission entitled to investigate is not adequate for 
their legalization. Under the national legislation of certain 
Member States, such investigations are either not 
permitted or subject to detailed provisions. 
2.12.4. A provision should therefore be added in 
Article 19 (2) as follows: 
Done at Brussels, 27 January 1983. 'The authorized officials of the Commission shall be 
legalized following a detailed examination of the 
written authorization by the competent national 
authorities of the Member State in which the 
investigation takes place, taking into account possible 
legal obligations of the Member State with 
undertakings of third countries.' 
2.12.5. Furthermore, the Committee considers that 
the Commission's draft Regulation should include 
provisions setting out the legal rights of sea-going 
personnel subject to the investigations on board ship 
provided for in Article 19, thereby safeguarding the 
interests of such personnel in the event that they are not 
identical with those of their employer or the owner of the 
vessel. 
2.13. Article 20 
2.13.1. Due to the nature of shipping operations, 
shipping companies frequently do not even cover their 
operational costs and sometimes operate at a loss. The 
fines imposed are therefore tantamount to confiscation 
and should be reduced. In addition a clear distinction 
should be drawn between intent and negligence. The text 
should therefore be re-worded as follows: 
'. . . fines of from 100 to 5 000 units of account where 
intentionally and no more than 1 000 units of account 
where negligently'. 
Article 20 (2) should be amended to read as follows: 
'fines of from 1 000 to 200 000 units of account where 
intentionally and 1 000 to 50 000 units of account 
where negligently'. 
2.13.2. It is also proposed that the following passage 
be deleted from Article 20 (2): 
'or a sum in excess thereof but not exceeding 10 % of 
the turnover in the preceding business year of each of 
the undertakings participating in the infringement.' 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
21. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 77/19 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
1. Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected by the 
Committee during the plenary session discussions. 
Page 2, first paragraph 
Replace 'The Section approves . . . and specific comments' by the following: 
'The Committee has been informed that in the intervening period the Council has also carried out a 
preliminary examination of the Commission document, subsequent to which one Member State has 
drawn up a counter-proposal based on Articles 84 (2) and 87 of the EEC Treaty. This 
counter-proposal is now being considered by the Commission. 
The Committee, however, has not as yet been able to see this counter-proposal and its views 
therefore remain critical of the Commission proposal. Nevertheless, it assumes that it will be asked 
for a new opinion in the event that major changes are made to the Commission proposal.' 
Reasons 
See above. 
Voting 
For: 1, Against: large majority, Abstentions: 12. 
Page 3, point 1.1.3 
Replace 'Article 84 (2)' in point 1.1.3 by 'Article 87'. 
Reasons 
The Court of Justice of the Community has stipulated that air and maritime transport fall under Articles 
85 and 86 of the Treaty. 
Voting 
For: 16, Against: 84, Abstentions: 9. 
Page 8, Article 3, 2.3.2 
The second sentence should be replaced by the following text: 
'In this connection, the Economic and Social Committee considers that the Regulation should 
include a specific provision guaranteeing new members fair conditions of access to the conferences. 
Membership should be regardless of nationality as determined by the ship's flag or the origin of her 
cargo.' 
Reasons 
The Committee believes that the system of shipping conferences is indispensable. However, these 
conferences are in effect cartels and therefore conflict with the basic philosophy of the EEC Treaty, 
namely free and fair competition. For this reason, the exemption granted to the conferences under 
Article 3 should be accompanied by provisions to tone down the concept of a cartel as far as possible. 
This would be feasible if the Regulation ensured (a) that non-members can operate outside the 
No C 77/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 3. 83 
conferences, competing with them on a normal commercial footing and, (b) that new members could 
join the conferences on the same terms as existing members, i.e. the cargoes they are allocated enable 
them to operate viably. Conditions of entry for new members should obviously be compatible with the 
general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in the EEC Treaty, and 
should therefore not be based on any criteria which might be considered discriminatory within the 
Community, e.g. the ship's flag or the origin of her cargo. 
Voting 
For: 25, Against: 52, Abstentions: 16. 
2. The following parts of the Section's opinion were deleted in the discussion: 
Page 3, point 1.1.3 
'As regards the proposed legal basis for the rules applying Articles 85 and 86 to sea transport, the 
Section considers that the proposed Regulation should be based solely on Article 84 (2) in view of its 
importance for this sector.' 
Voting 
For: 16, Against: 84, Abstentions: 9. 
Page 8, Article 3, end of point 2.3.3 
'. . . the structure of these conferences is defined, including fair conditions of admission for 
non-member shipping companies'. 
Voting 
Rejected unanimously. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation applying Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty 
(rules on competition applying to undertakings) to air transport 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 291 of 12 November 1981, page 4, and No C 317 of 3 December 1981, 
page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 27 August 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Articles 4 and 87 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 
204th plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 January 1983. 
The full text.of the opinion is as follows: