No C 8/10 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 31. 1. 74 
The Committee  notes  that  the  proposed  Directive 
under  discussion  links  up with  the 5th  proposal  for 
a Directive,  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 54 of 28 April  1969, 
on the  coordination  of the  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  concerning  the  retail  sale 
of medicinal  products  by self-employed  persons. 
The latter  proposal  for a Directive  stipulates  that  a 
person  who  wishes  to take  up  and  pursue  the 
activities  of a dispensing  chemist  as a self-employed 
person  must  previously  acquire  an authorization,  the 
granting  of which  is dependent  inter  alia  on his 
possessing  the  appropriate  diploma.  These 
provisions  are therefore  inapplicable  to legal  entities. 
The Committee  therefore  questions  the statement  in 
the sixth  recital  that  the two  proposed  Directives  on 
coordination  bring  about  the  coordination  of the 
conditions  for  the  exercise  of the  pharmaceutical 
professions  provided  for  in Article  57 (3) of the 
Treaty  of Rome. 
The Committee  suggests  that  the  Member  States  in 
which  dispensaries  operate  under  several  legal  forms 
should  specify  the natural  person  or types  of legal 
entities  who  may  request  authorization  if they  have 
a chemist  authorized  to exercise  this  profession. 
4. The  non-transferability  of authorizations 
According  to the  Commission,  if a country  adopts 
provisions  on the  distribution  of dispensaries,  the 
Done  at Brussels,  24 October  1973. result  is a change  in the rules  of competition.  In this 
respect,  a system  should  be adopted  which,  while 
guaranteeing  the  fair  economic  interest  of the 
professional  person,  prevents  him  from  deriving 
undue  profit  from  a situation  created  with  the 
intention  of protecting  health. 
The solution  proposed  by the  Commission  consists 
of requiring  non-transferability  of authorizations. 
The Committee  points  out  that  this  measure  is 
injurious  not  only  to the  interests  of chemists 
established  in states  where  freedom  of establishment 
exists,  and  where  as a result  the rules  of competition 
have  not  been  changed,  but also  to the interests  of 
those  chemists  established,  in a state  where  the 
distribution  of dispensaries  is regulated,  if this  non-
transferability  were  accepted. 
Thus,  the  Committee  proposes  the  following 
solution:  that  an authorization  to open  a dispensary 
should  not  be transferable  — except  in case  of force 
majeure  — till at least  five  years  after  it is granted. 
The Committee  stresses  that  this  authorization 
cannot  be sold  on its own  and  cannot  be separated 
from  the intangible  assets  of the dispensary  to which 
it relates. 
It also  draws  attention  to the  discrimination  which 
non-transferability  would  cause  to be made  between 
legal  and  natural  persons. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
CONSULTATION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
— on a draft  Council  Decision  setting  up a Committee  for Regional  Policy, 
— on a proposal  for  a Financial  Regulation  on special  provisions  applicable  to the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund, 
— on a proposal  for a Council  Regulation  establishing  a European  Regional  Develop-
ment  Fund. 
A. REQUEST  FOR  AN  OPINION 
The Council  decided  on 9 August  1973,  to exercise  its option  of consulting  the Economic 
and Social  Committee  on the above  three  texts. 
The request  for an Opinion  was  sent  by the President  of the Council  to the Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 9 August  1973. 
31. 1.74 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 8/11 
B. TEXTS  WHICH  WERE  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  CONSULTATION 
The texts  which  were  the  subject  of the  consultation  were  published  in the  Official 
Journal  of the European  Communities  No  C 86 of 16 October  1973,  pages  7 to 14. 
C. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
At its 114th  Plenary  Session  held  in Brussels  on 24 and  25 October  1973,  the Committee 
unanimously  adopted  its Opinion  on the texts  referred  to under  B, with  2 abstentions 
out of the 69 members  present  or represented. 
The text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  request  from  the  Council  on 
9 August  1973  for an Opinion: 
— on a draft  Council  Decision  setting  up  a 
Committee  for Regional  Policy, 
— on a proposal  for  a Council  Regulation 
establishing  a Regional  Development  Fund, 
— on a proposal  for  a Financial  Regulation  on 
special  provisions  applicable  to the  European 
Regional  Development  Fund; 
Having  regard  to  Article  198  of  the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  of its Chairman  in 
accordance  with  Article  22  of  the  Rules  of 
Procedure,  to entrust  the  Section  for  Regional 
Development  with  the preparation  of an Opinion  on 
the matter; 
Having  regard  to the  report  presented  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Ventejol; 
Having  regard  to die  Opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for Regional  Development  at its meeting  of 
12 October  1973; 
Having  regard  to its discussions  at its 114th  Plenary 
Session,  held  on 24 and  25 October  1973,  the sitting 
of 25 October, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION: 
The Committee  approves  the  three  proposals, 
subject  to the following  comments: 1. PREAMBLE 
1.1. On  25 July  1973,  the  Commission  of the 
European  Communities  submitted  to the  Council  a 
Proposed  Regulation  for  the  establishment  of a 
European  regional  development  fund,  a proposed 
financial  Regulation  for  this  Fund,  and  a draft 
decision  setting  up  a Committee  for  regional 
policy. 
1.2. These  proposals  follow  on  from  other 
excessively  limited  and  fragmentary  proposals  from 
the Commission  which  in some  cases  have  not  been 
acted  on.  They  are  part  of  the  framework 
established  at the  meeting  of Heads  of State  or of 
Government  held  in Paris  from  19 to 21 October 
1972. 
1.3. The  Paris  Summit  Conference  recognized  the 
importance  of Community  regional  development  and 
agreed  that  the high  priority  should  be attributed  to 
the aim  of correcting  the  structural  and  regional 
imbalances  which  might  affect  the  realization  of 
Economic  and  Monetary  Union. 
1.4. In  its Opinions,  reports  and  studies  of recent 
years  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  has 
emphasized  the  urgent  need  for  a Community 
regional  policy  and  specified  how  to  remedy 
regional  imbalances  which  are  bound  to increase 
without  Community  action. 
2. THE  IDEAS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  INSTRU-
MENTS  PROPOSED  FOR  COMMUNITY 
REGIONAL  DEVELOPMENT 
2.1. In  its information  reports  and  studies  on: 
— the  proposal  for  a Council  Decision  on  the 
organization  of forms  of Community  regional 
development  activity  (April  1970), 
No C 8/12 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 31. 1. 74 
— the  financial  means  for  regional  development 
(September  1971), 
— the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on the 
European  fund  for  interest  rebates  for  regional 
development  (October  1971), 
— the  implementation  of a common  regional  policy 
(October  1973), 
the Committee  has  formulated  guiding  principles 
and observations  of a general  nature  both  on the 
establishment  of a regional  fund  and  of a committee 
for regional  development. 
3. THE  REGIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  FUND 
3.1.1.  Like  the  Committee,  the  Commission 
considers  that  action  taken  so  far  has  been 
insufficient  to offset  to the  desired  extent  the 
tendency  for  companies  to set  up  in developed 
regions,  all the more  so since  the achievement  of the 
Common  Market  is in itself  likely  to strengthen  this 
tendency. 
3.1.2.  In  addition  to the  absence  of a genuine 
Community  regional  policy,  the  financial  action 
taken  by  the  various  Community  funds  is not 
systematically  coordinated,  and,  in view  of the acute 
problems  posed  by regional  imbalances,  resources 
are far from  adequate  to meet  requirements. 
3.1.3.  Accordingly,  the  Commission  has  now 
proposed  establishing  a regional  development  fund 
in a text  replacing  the  proposal  for  a decision 
concerning  the organization  of forms  of Community 
regional  development  activity  and  the proposal  for a 
Council  regulation  on  the  European  fund  for 
interest  rebates. 
3.1.4.  As  far as the  Committee  is concerned,  the 
major  obstacles  which  have  obstructed  the  regional 
development  of the Community,  and  continue  to do 
so, are: 
— uncontrolled  trends  towards  concentration  of 
economic  activities, 
— lack  of political  will, 
— lack  of a Community  programme, 
— lack  of financial  means, 
— lack  of priorities, 
— lack  of coordination  between  existing  funds  and 
between  national  and  regional  European 
institutions. 3.2. The  need  to work  out  a regional  policy  at three 
levels 
3.2.1.  The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  has 
repeatedly  stressed  the  need  for  a regional  policy 
worked  out  in stages. 
3.2.1.1.  Under  the  first  section  of the  policy 
Community  aid  should  in fact  be channelled  to 
regions  where  the  problems  of underdevelopment 
are the most  serious.  Reference  should  be made  to 
the existence  of  protocols  (Protocol  on  Italy, 
Protocol  No  30 on Ireland)  dealing  with  regional 
problems,  although  this  does  not  mean  that  all the 
Community  regions  and  areas  to receive  aid  as a 
matter  of priority  should  be located  in Italy  or 
Ireland.  The  aim  must  thus  be to increase  financial 
help in Community  regions  with  a standard  of living 
and a way  of life  well  below  the  Community 
average,  furthering  their  economic  development 
mainly  by: 
— creating  jobs  by diversifying  economic  activities, 
— developing  infrastructures  and  reception 
structures. 
3.2.1.2.  This  necessary  intensity  of aid  therefore 
entails  a search  for European  criteria  which  make  it 
possible  to select  priority  regions. 
3.2.1.3.  This  increased  Community  aid  must 
complement  the action  of the Member  States  and  be 
designed  to speed  the pace  of economic  development 
in priority  regions  and  areas. 
3.2.1.4.  But  such  complementarity,  which  is of 
course  desirable  in itself,  in no  way  means  a 
centralization  of national  regional  policies  within  the 
Community.  Each  Member  State  must  fall  in line 
with  the Community  objectives  and  with  the criteria 
that have  been  chosen  jointly. 
3.2.2.1.  Under  the  second  section  of the  policy, 
the Community  will  have  to ensure  the coordination 
of national  programmes.  This  presupposes  that 
Community  objectives,  which  for  the  moment  do 
not exist,  are  evolved  within  the  framework  of 
regional  planning.  It is necessary  to fix  these 
objectives  if the  various  Community  instruments, 
more  specifically  the  Fund  for  Regional 
Development,  are  to  have  appropriations 
commensurate  with  their  needs.  If Community  aid 
to Member  States  is to be fully  effective  it must  fit 
in with  these  objectives;  if aid  is  merely 
complementary  and  additional  to national  aid,  it 
will not allow  pursuit  of a European  policy  obeying 
31. 1. 74 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 8/13 
objective  criteria;  in no time  there  would  be a 
dilution  of Community  aid,  in other  words  wastage 
and inefficiency. 
3.2.3.1.  Under  a third  section  of the  policy,  the 
Community  will  have  to carry  out  large-scale 
common  projects,  Community  transport, 
infrastructure  or pilot  projects  for  instance  — so 
that the  stages  of complementary  aid  and  national 
policy  coordination  could  be  left  behind  and 
expression  given  to a concrete  desire  for  whole-
hearted  European  action. 
3.2.3.2.  Even  if they  do not  form  part  of priority 
area and  regional  development,  these  Community 
projects  are no less  vital  for: 
— developing  regions  which  are  not  currently 
attributed  priority  but  which  have  regional 
problems  and  whose  economic  advance  could  be 
of direct  or indirect  benefit  to priority  regions, 
— equipping  the  Community  territory  by creating 
public  and  social  infrastructures, 
— affirming  the strengthening  of the European  will. 
3.2.3.3.  While  it is true  that  it is the duty  of the 
Community  to discipline,  concentrate  and  control 
aid, the  Community  must  also  have  concrete, 
Community-financed  projects  which  underline  its 
determination  to  pursue  a regional  policy,  by 
associating  with  it the countries  involved. 
4. THE  COMMITTEE  FOR  REGIONAL 
POLICY 
4.1. To  assist  the  Community  in implementing  a 
regional  policy  the  Commission  has  moreover 
proposed  that  a new  body,  'the  Committee  for 
Regional  Policy'  be set up. 
4.2. This  Committee's  role  is to help  carry  out 
tasks  and  functions  assigned  to the Commission  and 
the Council. 
4.3. In  particular,  it should  take  care  that  the 
states  make  regional  programmes  consistent  with  the 
aims  of the  Community  and  ensure  that  they  are 
coordinated  under  Community  supervision. 
5. THE  COMMITTEE'S  VIEW  OF  CONSUL-
TATION 
5.1. Consultation  of the regions 
The regions  must  be able  to participate  in drawing 
up regional  policy  by  involving  all  socio-professional  organizations  which  are  representative 
at regional  level. 
5.1.1.  In  its study  of September  1973  on  the 
implementation  of a common  regional  policy,  the 
Committee  stated  that: 
'They  (the  regions)  must  be the  first  to be 
involved  in drafting.  The  desired  democratic 
discussion  must  make  it possible  to evaluate 
regional  situations,  the  risks  or possibilities  of 
spontaneous  development  and  the  instruments 
proposed  for  reversing  the  trend  towards 
increased  poverty  in some  regions. 
Such  a procedure  must  not  only  demand  from 
the States  and  the  Community  the  means  for 
economic  expansion  and  social  progress  but 
also create  in the  regions  awareness  and  a 
desire  to take  action  on their  own  factors,  for 
example,  localized  infrastructures,  development 
of productivity,  training  measures,  organizing  of 
social  life,  information  etc. 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  will,  at a 
later  date,  have  to examine  the procedure  to be 
implemented,  so  as  to enable  the  regions 
themselves  to participate,  on  a consultative 
basis,  in submitting  the  agreed  schemes  to the 
Community  authorities. 
By bringing  the regions  into  the process  in this 
way,  the  Community  has  a second  way  of 
democratizing  and  decentralizing  so that  its 
objectives  will  appear  clearly  to  the 
communities  directly  concerned.' 
5.2. Consultation  of socio-professional  organizations 
5.2.1.  DIRECT  CONSULTATION 
For this  policy  as for any  other,  socio-professional 
organizations  must  retain  an absolute  right  to direct 
consultation. 
5.2.2.  CONSULTATION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
Socio-professional  organizations  represented  on the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  itself  and  on its 
Section  for  Regional  Development  must  also  be 
consulted  on the  formulation  of major  guidelines, 
principles,  the search  for instruments  and  control. 
No C 8/14 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 31.1.  74 
5.2.3.  CONSULTATION  ON  TECHNIQUES  AND 
MEASURES  OF  IMPLEMENTATION 
Concrete  implementation  of a regional  development 
policy,  and  in particular  its practical  effects  on the 
inhabitants  of  the  regions  and  areas  selected, 
requires  that  socio-professional  organizations  be 
involved  also,  in this  case,  in the  work  of the 
Regional  Development  Fund  and  the  Committee  for 
Regional  Development  within  these  new  bodies. 
6. THE  COMMISSION'S  PROPOSALS  AND  THE 
COMMENTS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 
REGIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  FUND 
6.1. Basic  requirements  (explanatory  memorandum) 
6.1.1.  THE  COMMISSION'S  PROPOSALS 
The Commission  stresses  that  there  are  three  basic 
requirements  of  paramount  importance  in  the 
establishment  of the  planned  regional  development 
fund: 
(a) it should  complement  national  regional  policies, 
(b) it should  be flexibly  managed, 
(c) investments  should  conform  to  European 
regional  development  objectives. 
6.1.1.1.  Complementing  national  regional  policies 
— The  Community  must  make  a contribution 
which  is additional  to what  the  Member  States 
can do alone,  taking  into  account  the  discipline 
which  Economic  and  Monetary  Union  will 
impose  on the use of their  own  resources. 
— In order  to allow  the  full  development  of those 
regions  which  have  not  kept  up in spite  of their 
considerable  development  potential,  the 
Community  must  add  its own  effort  to that  of 
Member  States.  The  Community  as a whole  will 
benefit  from  this  development,  both  in  its 
growth  rate,  and  its competitiveness. 
— Should  the  achievement  of  Economic  and 
Monetary  Union  entail  particular  difficulties  for 
certain  regions,  the  Commission  will  make 
proposals  or recommendations  so that  use  may 
be made  of Community  means  of action  in order 
to contribute  to resolving  these  difficulties. 
6.1.1.2.  Flexibility 
6.1.1.2.1.  Choice  of investments 
Aid will  be directed  towards: — areas  of agricultural  and  industrial  imbalance, 
— it will  be adapted  to priority  requirements: 
— industrialization, 
— creation  of service  activities, 
— infrastructure  required  for  the  economic 
development 
as far  as  infrastructure  is  concerned, 
coordination  must  take  place  with  other 
common  policies,  in particular,  transport  and 
energy, 
— equitable  allocation  between  the  various  regions 
of the  Community  according  to  Community 
criteria.  An  implementation  regulation  will  be 
proposed  for the identification  of regions. 
6.1.1.2.2.  Speed  of the procedures 
— Before  taking  their  decision,  companies  to be 
informed  of what  benefits  they  have  a right  to 
expect, 
— In order  not  to delay  Member  States'  decisions, 
it is proposed  that  it should  be  possible  to 
reimburse  to Member  States  a proportion  of the 
sums  which  they  have  already  committed. 
6.1.1.2.3.  Level  of assistance 
The level  of assistance  will  be calculated  according 
to the  interest  of the  relevant  productive  investment 
or infrastructure  project. 
6.1.1.3.  Conformity  with  European  regional 
development  objectives 
— Investments  are  only  eligible  if they  conform  to 
programmes  already  examined  by the  Committee 
for regional  policy, 
— Comparison  and  coordination  of  national 
policies  in order  to allow  the  most  sensitive 
regional  problems  to  be  identified  and  to 
devote  most  of the Fund  to them. 
6.1.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
6.1.2.1.  While  the  Fund  has  to satisfy  the  basic 
requirement  of complementing  national  aids,  its 
contribution  must  not  be  exclusively  limited  to 
activities  undertaken  by  Member  States  but  must 
also permit  the  achievement  of major  Community 
projects  and  pilot  projects  which  the  Community 
must  set  up.  Care  should,  however,  be taken  to 
ensure  that  these  projects  answer  to the  real  needs 
of the inhabitants  of underdeveloped  regions. 
31. 1.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 8/15 
6.1.2.2.  Care  should  also  be taken  that  priority 
regions  and  areas  are  not  sacrificed  for reasons  of 
short-term  economic  difficulties  or because  of any 
'discipline'  which  Economic  and  Monetary  Union 
may impose  on Member  States.  All  too  often,  in 
fact,  Member  States  curb  progress  in social  facilities 
and infrastructures  for  reasons  of  budgetary 
economy  and  as part  of anti-inflation  policies.  Such 
cutbacks  conflict  with  the  aims  of  area 
redevelopment. 
6.1.2.3.  On  the  other  hand,  care  should  be taken 
that Fund  contributions  do  not  become  a 
generalized  subsidy  system  for  industry.  "While  it is 
necessary  to ensure  speedy  procedures,  it appears 
that every  undertaking,  which  will  have  to be 
informed,  in advance,  of possible  Community  aids, 
will include  these  in their  investment  plans,  being 
sure that  they  will  obtain  them. 
6.1.2.4.  Equitable  allocation  between  the  various 
regions  of the Community  according  to Community 
criteria  should  be carried  out  above  all for  the 
benefit  of regions  which  have  serious  imbalances 
and which  consequently  curb  the  economic  and 
social  progress  of the  countries  of which  they  are a 
part and  hamper  the  very  development  of the 
Community. 
6.1.2.5.  Other  questions  can  be raised  with  regard 
to the procedures: 
— How  can  a company  take  aids  into  account  in 
planning  when  it will  only  know  definitely  after 
and not before  it takes  its decision? 
— How  will  a company  react  if the aid expected  is 
not granted  or refused  due  to lack  of sufficient 
Community  resources? 
6.1.2.6.  Faced  with  these  questions,  the  Committee 
considers  that,  as the distribution  of aids  cannot  and 
should  not  be completely  automatic,  the  time  lag 
between  notification  (which  should  be as detailed  as 
possible)  and  decision  by the Community  should  be 
as short  as possible. 
6.1.2.7.  Finally,  the  Committee  hopes  that  more 
stress  will  be  put  on  establishing  an  order  of 
priorities  for  the  aids  which  the  Regional 
Development  Fund  will  be able  to grant.  In fact, 
priority  should  be given  to: 
— assistance  to companies  creating  work  in priority 
areas  and  regions, 
— assistance  for  cases  where  industrial  investment 
is to be carried  out  concomitantly  with  other 
investments  or infrastructure  schemes. 6.2. Choice  of regions  — regional  imbalance  and 
criteria  (Article  3) 
6.2.1  THE  PROPOSALS  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
The regions  and  areas  must  be chosen  from  among 
those  which  benefit  from  a system  of regional  aids. 
In addition,  their  gross  national  product  per  head 
must  be below  the Community  average. 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  considers  that 
regional  imbalances  are those  'particularly'  resulting 
from: 
— the  predominance  of agriculture, 
— industrial  change, 
— structural  underemployment. 
The criteria  to  be  'particularly'  taken  into 
consideration  are: 
— heavy  dependence  on agricultural  employment, 
— heavy  dependence  on employment  in declining 
industries, 
— a persistently  high  rate  of unemployment  or a 
high rate  of net outward  migration. 
6.2.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
6.2.2.1.  The  Committee  hopes  that  the  Commission 
will rapidly  evaluate  the  results  which  could  be 
obtained  by  applying  these  criteria  in  the 
Community  regions.  A wide  dispersion  must  be 
avoided  at all costs  as this  would  endanger  the key 
aim, that  is to say,  the intensification  of aids. 
6.2.2.2.  It is unfortunate  that  the Committee  cannot 
be consulted  on the list of regions  and  areas  which, 
as a result  of the  application  of these  criteria  and 
the size  of their  imbalances,  will  be given  priority.  It 
appears  that  the  implementing  regulation  laying 
down  the  list  of these  regions  and  areas  will  be 
drawn  up  before  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  has had  its discussions. 
6.2.2.3.  Despite  this  situation,  the  Committee 
considers  it essential  to  make  the  following 
comments: 
6.2.2.4.  Firstly,  it is to be feared  that  the choice  of 
priority  regions  and  areas  on the  basis  of their 
having  a GNP  per head  lower  than  the Community 
average  — as laid  down  in Article  3 — may  lead  in 
No C 8/16 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 31. 1.74 
practice  to the  aid  intensity  aspect  being  disregarded 
and thus  impair  the  effectiveness  of the  new 
proposals,  despite  the  fact  that  these  regions  and 
areas  must  be  chosen  from  among  those  which 
benefit  from  a system  of regional  aids. 
6.2.2.5.  This  being  so, effort,  and  thus  effectiveness, 
should  be concentrated  by  changing  the  'average' 
criterion  to that  of a level  which  is substantially 
below  average;  this,  however,  would  necessitate  a 
special  solution  for  long-industrialized,  declining 
regions  since  the  gross  domestic  product  of such 
regions  remains  at a relatively  high  level  over  a long 
period,  in the course  of which  other  signs  of decline 
are already  clearly  apparent. 
6.2.2.6.  In addition,  the  Commission  uses  imprecise 
terms,  such  as 'particularly',  in respect  of imbalances 
and criteria.  This  appears  to indicate  that  the  list 
given  is not  exhaustive. 
6.2.2.7.  This  is why  the  Committee  proposes  to 
remove  this  term-,  for  if it were  kept,  it could  be 
considered  as opening  the  door  to over-generalized 
aids.  This  would  lead  to following  the  principle  of 
'a fair  return',  which  the  Committee  cannot 
countenance.  This  concern  appears  all  the  more 
justified  because  the  regions  and  areas  have  to be 
unanimously  chosen  by the Council. 
6.2.2.8.  With  more  particular  regard  to regional 
imbalances  the  Committee  makes  the  following 
remarks: 
— Firstly,  a preponderance  of agricultural  activity 
in a region  is not  necessarily  a factor  of regional 
imbalance,  but,  on the  contrary,  may  reflect  the 
existence  of a developing  agricultural  activity 
which  should  not  be  eligible  for  Community 
aids, 
— Secondly,  the  distinction  between  imbalances 
arising  from  a preponderance  of agriculture  and 
those  resulting  from  structural  underemployment 
is hard  to understand.  In some  regions,  the 
preponderance  of  agriculture  causes  the 
structural  underemployment. 
6.2.2.9.  As  far  as the  criteria  are  concerned,  the 
Committee  points  out  that  in certain  areas  and 
regions  of the  Community,  there  is no longer  a net 
outward  migration  though  there  used  to  be 
emigration  during  a period  of heavy  unemployment, 
but there  is nevertheless  economic  underdevelop-
ment  and  the  standard  of living  and  life-style  which 
are very  much  below  the  Community  mean,  so that 
they  are  to be counted  among  the  regions  and  areas 
qualifying  for aid priority. 6.3. Framework  for  assistance  by  the  Regional 
Development  Fund  (Article  6) 
6.3.1.  THE  COMMISSION'S  PROPOSALS 
Community  actions  will  have  to  be  part  of 
Community  programmes.  In fact,  as far  as the 
Commission  is concerned,  the  only  investments 
eligible  for the Fund's  assistance  will  be those  which 
form  part  of a regional  development  programme 
whose  implementation  may  contribute  to correcting 
the structural  and  regional  imbalances  which  may 
effect  the  realization  of Economic  and  Monetary 
Union. 
These  programmes,  communicated  to  the 
Commission  by  the  Member  States,  will  be  the 
subject  of a first  communication  before  1 October 
1974.  In addition,  the  proposal  states  that  in the 
absence  of  such  a programme  and  until  31 
December  1975,  investments  eligible  for  the  Fund's 
assistance  must  meet  specific  region  ail development 
aims. 
6.3.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
6.3.2.1.  Thus  it appears  that  two  stages  are 
foreseen:  in the  first,  from  1 January  1974  to 31 
December  1975,  the  necessary  aid  intensity  will  be 
ensured  by selective  contributions  — but  only  to 
investments  which  meet  specific  regional  objectives; 
the second,  starting  on  1 January  1976,  will  be 
carried  out  in the  framework  of coordination  of 
development  programmes. 
6.3.2.2.  The  Committee  emphasises,  however,  that 
although  these  regional  development  programmes 
have  to conform  to Community  objectives  (Article  6, 
paragraph  4), the latter  have  never  been  defined. 
6.4. Decisions,  participation  (Article  5) 
6.4.1.  PROPOSALS  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
6.4.1.1.  The  Fund's  assistance  is to be decided  by 
the Commission  taking  account  of the  following 
consideration: 
(a) the  consistency  of  the  investment  with  the 
development  programmes  and  objectives  referred 
to in Article  6, 
(b) the  investment's  contribution  to the  economic 
development  of the  region, 
31. 1.74 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 8/17 
(c) the  consistency  of the  investment  with  the 
Community's  programmes  or  objectives, 
particularly  those  adopted  as part  of sectoral 
policies, 
(d) the  investment's  effect  on  the  environment, 
particularly  as  regards  living  and  working 
conditions, 
(e) the  trans-national  character  of the  investment, 
that is to say,  the  fact  that  it comes  from 
another  Member  State, 
(f) the  trans-border  character  of the  investments, 
that is, concerning  adjacent  regions  in different 
Member  States. 
6.4.1.2.  Account  is also  to be  taken  of other 
assistance  provided  by Community  institutions  or by 
the European  Investment  Bank  (Article  130  of the 
Treaty). 
6.4.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
6.4.2.1.  The  coordination  of  financial  instruments 
The last  paragraph  raises  once  more  the problem  of 
the coordination  of the  Regional  Development  Fund 
with  the other  Community  funds  (EIB,  EAGGF,  the 
European  Social  Fund,  ECSC).  In view  of the 
structure  of  the  Commission  departments 
responsible  for  administering  the  various  funds  and 
that of other  Community  bodies  having  similar 
tasks,  the Committee  urges  the Commission  to take 
the necessary  measures  to  ensure  a complete 
transparency  of all  the  activities  of the  Regional 
Development  Fund  and  the other  financial  bodies  of 
the Community  having  responsibilities  in the  same 
field.  This  transparency  should  be  such  that 
maximum  coordination  can  be achieved. 
6.4.2.2.  Non-discrimination 
As regards  point  (e) 'the  trans-national  character  of 
the investment,  that  is the  fact  that  it comes  from 
another  Member  State',  the  Committee  points  out 
that the  position  of this  subparagraph  in the  text 
might  make  it appear  that  the  Commission  intends 
to decide  on taking  positive  discriminatory  measures 
in favour  of investments  coming  from  another 
Member  State.  The  Committee  awaits  the  requisite 
clarification  from  the  Commission  and  in any  case 
cannot  endorse  the  very  idea  of discrimination  if it 
is to exist.  This  being  so,  all the  undertakings  of 
Member  States  must  be  treated  without 
discrimination;  the  essential  thing  is that  they 
establish  themselves  in priority  regions  and  zones 
and preferably  come  from  regions  of  heavy 
concentration. Equally,  it should  be established  that  point  (e) does 
not imply  any  discrimination  against  inward 
investments  from  countries  outside  the EEC,  but  this 
non-discrimination  must  comply  with  the  general 
economic  and  social  rules  vis-a-vis  third  countries 
decided  on by the Commission. 
6.5. Choice  of investments  (Article  4) 
6.5.1.  PROPOSALS  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
The Fund  may  contribute  to the  financing  of 
investments  in industrial  or service  activities  which 
benefit  from  a national  system  of regional  aids 
provided  the  amount  of these  investments  exceeds 
50 000  units  of account  and  on condition  that  they 
help to create  or keep  jobs. 
6.5.1.1.  Community  aid  to industrial  or  service 
activities  which  benefit  from  a national  system  of 
regional  aids  will  be: 
— at most  15  °/o of the  cost  of the  relevant 
investment, 
— at most  50°/o  of the  aid  accorded  by national 
public  authorities. 
The assistance  decided  on by the  Commission  may 
take the  form  of  interest  rebates  or  grants 
determined  either  as a percentage  of the  investment 
or according  to the number  of jobs  created. 
6.5.1.2.  Infrastructures  which  are  required  for  the 
development  of industrial  or service  activities,  and 
are totally  or  partially  financed  by  public 
authorities: 
— at most  30 °/o of the  expenditure  incurred  by 
national  public  authorities. 
The Fund's  assistance  may  be in the  form  of rebate 
of three  percentage  points  on loans  made  by the 
European  Investment  Bank  (Article  130  (a) and  (b) 
of the Treaty). 
For infrastructures  costing  more  than  20  million 
units  of account,  the  Commission  will  consult,  in 
the following  order: 
— the  Committee  for Regional  Policy; 
— the  Fund  Committee. 
6.5.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
6.5.2.1.  The  Committee  approves  these  proposals 
while  pointing  out  that  it can  only  accept  a limit  of 
50 000  units  of account  in so far as Member  States 
do not  lose  interest  in investments  below  this  limit 
No C 8/18 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 31. 1.74 
and continue  to consider  the  general  aids  for such 
investments  to be their  responsibility. 
6.5.2.2.  In  order  to guarantee  that  the  maximum 
intensity  desired  by the Commission  is achieved,  the 
Committee  considers  it  desirable  for  the 
Community's  aid  to be  allowed  to exceed  the 
specified  percentages  so that  the bulk  of Community 
assistance  can  be directed  to the  most  underprivi-
leged  priority  regions  and  areas.  A grading  of priority 
regions  and  areas  should  make  it possible  to 
eliminate  imbalances  in a shorter  time. 
6.6. Financing  the  Regional  Development  Fund 
(Explanatory  memorandum) 
6.6.1.  PROPOSALS  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
It is proposed  that  the following  sums  be inscribed 
in the budget  of the European  Communities: 
— 500  million  units  of account  in 1974, 
— 750  million  units  of account  in 1975, 
— 1 000 million  units  of account  in 1976. 
These  provisions  replace  the  Commission's 
proposals  to the  Council  of 17 October  1969  and 
the interest  rebates  fund. 
The financial  regulation  will  lay  down  the 
procedures  for  authorizing  expenditure  (Article  208 
of the Treaty). 
6.6.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
With  respect  to the  sums  inscribed  for  1974,  1975 
and 1976  in the Community  budget,  the Committee 
would  have  liked  a comparison  to be made  between 
the sums  already  committed  in existing  funds  and  in 
the countries  of the Community. 
It should  also  be  stated  that  sums  remaining 
unused  in one  year  will  be carried  forward  in their 
entirety  to the  following  year.  However,  it seems 
unlikely  that  this  contingency  will  materialize  in view 
of the sums  involved. 
6.7. Annual  report 
6.7.1.  PROPOSALS  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
An annual  report  will  be drawn  up on 11 July  of 
each  year  for  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council. 6.7.2.  COMMENTS  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND 
SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
One question  arises:  How  can  the  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  be  consulted  and  discuss  the 
matter? 
The report  should  explain  the activities  of the Fund 
in the  previous  year,  but  it should  also  set out  the 
objectives  which  the  Fund  intends  to pursue. 
7. COMMITTEE  FOR  REGIONAL  POLICY 
7.1. Proposals  of the Commission 
7.1.1.  TASKS  (Article  2) 
The Committee's  task  is to examine,  at the request 
of the Council  or of the Commission,  or on its own 
initiative,  problems  relating  to regional  development. 
Without  prejudice  to the  provisions  of the  Treaties, 
it is to study  in particular: 
(a) the aims,  means,  methods  and  experience  of the 
Member  States  in the  field  of regional  policy, 
taking  account  of  the  Community's  other 
policies, 
(b) on a continuous  basis,  economic  and  social 
trends  in the various  regions  of the Community, 
(c) the  development  programmes  or  specific 
development  objectives  presented  by  Member 
States,  particularly  in respect  of the  regions 
referred  to in Article  3 of Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  creating  a European  Regional 
Development  Fund, 
(d) the  financial  resources  which  Member  States  and 
the Community  propose  to provide  for regional 
development  over  a period  of years, 
(e) impact  of Community  financial  instruments  in 
regional  terms, 
(f) the coordinated  implementation  of Community 
measures,  together  with  measures  by Member 
States,  with  a  view  to  facilitating  the 
implementation  of  programmes  or  the 
achievement  of specific  objectives, 
(g) systems  of aid  which  are  regional  in their 
purpose  or incidence, 
(h) disincentive  measures  in  regions  of  heavy 
concentration, 
(i) the  promotion  of better  information  services  for 
both  public  and  private  investors  in the field  of 
regional  development. 
7.1.2.  COMPOSITION  (Articles  3 and  4) 
Its composition  has  been  fixed  in the  same  way  as 
that of the: 
31.1.74 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 8/19 
— Monetary  Committee, 
— Short-term  and 
— Medium-term  Economic  Policy  Committee. 
The Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  be 
invited  to  nominate  two  members  each,  plus 
alternates. 
Members  and  alternates  will  be  senior  officials 
responsible  for regional  policy. 
The European  Investment  Bank  will  appoint  an 
observer. 
The chair  will  be taken  by a representative  of the 
Member  States. 
The Secretariat  will  be provided  by the Commission. 
7.2. Comments  of  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee 
7.2.1.  TASKS 
In view  of the  importance  and  complexity  of the 
linked  problems  of  incentives  and  disincentives 
(point  (h)),  the Committee  has  not  had  time  to take 
a stand  on them  in this  Opinion;  seeing,  however, 
that these  tasks  will  fall  within  the  terms  of 
reference  of the  Committee  for Regional  Policy,  the 
Done  at Brussels,  25 October  1973. Committee  asks  to be consulted  at the  appropriate 
time. 
7.2.2.  COMPOSITION  AND  CONSULTATION 
Attention  is drawn  to what  has  been  said  earlier. 
Furthermore,  it seems  that  the  Committee  should 
ascertain  the  views  of the  regions  and  socio-
professional  organizations. 
7.2.3.  THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 
FOR  REGIONAL  POLICY  WITH  OTHER 
BODIES 
The draft  Regulation  is vague  about  relations 
between  the  Committee  for Regional  Policy  and  the 
Commission,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Regional  Development  Fund. 
The Committee  stresses  the  relevance  of relations 
between  the  various  Community  bodies  to avoiding 
a dispersion  of effort  and  ensuring  that  energies  are 
coordinated. 
8. THE  FINANCIAL  REGULATION 
8.1. The  Committee  has  no comments  to make  on 
the proposal  for  a financial  regulation  embodying 
special  provisions  to be applied  to the  European 
Regional  Development  Fund. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPP  AS 
CONSULTATION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
on three  proposals  for Council  Directives  amending  certain  Directives  on the marketing 
of plants,  certain  agricultural  seeds  and  plants,  of propagation  material  for the vine  and 
of forest  reproductive  material 
A. REQUEST  FOR  AN  OPINION 
At its 247th  meeting  held  on 18 June  1973,  the Council  decided  to consult  the Economic 
and Social  Committee  on three  proposals  for a Council  Directive,  namely: 
— 'Proposal  for a Council  Directive  amending  the Directives  of 14 June  1966  on the 
marketing  of beet  seed',  fodder  plant  seed,  cereal  seed,  seed  potatoes,  the  Directive 
of 30 June  1969  on the marketing  of seed  of oil and  fibre  plants  and  the Directives 
of 29 September  1970  on the marketing  of vegetable  seed  and  the common  catalogue 
of varieties  of agricultural  plant  species',