16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/53
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheharmonization ofthelawsofthe
MemberStatesrelatingtoturnovertaxes—Abolitionofcertainderogationsprovidedfor
inArticle28(3)ofDirective77/388/EECandinthesecondsubparagraphofArticle1(1)of
Directive89/465/EEC(*)
92/C332/17)
On10August1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheEECTreaty,ontheabovementioned proposal.
TheCommitteeinstructedtheSectionforEconomic,FinancialandMonetaryQuestionsto
prepareitsworkonthesubject.InthecourseofthisworkitappointedMrGiacomellito
actasRapporteur-General .
Atits300thPlenarySession(meetingof22October1992)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adopted,byamajoritywith2abstentions,thefollowingOpinion.
1.Introductoryremarks
1.1.AspointedoutinitsOpinionof31January
1974(OJNoC119,p.15)ontheproposalfortheSixth
VATDirective,theCommitteerecognizestheneedto
harmonizethebasisforVATassessment .
1.2.Thisnewproposalforadirectiveisintendedto
formpartandparcelofthisharmonization drivesince
theSixthDirective,nodoubtforfullyvalidreasons,
hasnotprovedsufficient.Whilstthegeneralprinciple
ofharmonization isnotcontested,somedoubtscanbe
feltastotheexpediencyandjustificationofthepro­
posedmeasures.Distortionofcompetition ,theargu­
mentmostfrequentlyinvoked,isoftennotevident,or
atanyratenotofgreatsignificance .
2.ExplanationsandGeneralComments
2.1.Theproposeddirectivefollowsonthereportof
2July1992fromtheCommissiontotheCouncilon
thetransitionalprovisionsresultingfromArticle28(3)
oftheSixthVATDirective77/388/EECandArticle
1(1)oftheEighteenthVATDirective89/465/EEC.The
lastrecitaloftheEighteenthDirectivehadstipulated
thatthisreportshouldhavebeenpresentedbythe
CommissionandexaminedbytheCouncilby1January
1991.TheCouncilwastoreviewthesituationregarding
theremainingderogationsfromArticle28(3)ofthe
SixthDirectiveasaresultoftheEighteenthDirective,
includingthederogationprovidedforinthesecond
subparagraph ofArticle1(1)ofthatDirective,and
decide,ontheCommission'sproposal,ontheabolition
ofthesederogations'havingregardtoanydistortions
ofcompetitionwhichhaveresultedfromtheirhaving
beenappliedorwhichmightarisefrommeasuresto
completetheinternalmarket'.Itisassumedthatall
proposeddeletionsoramendmentsofderogationsfrom
theSixthandEighteenthDirectiveswilltakeeffecton
1January1993,whentheCommunity-wide internal
marketcomesintobeing.2.2.Thereportof2July1992alsorecallsthatthe
derogationswereintroducedtogivethebeneficiary
MemberStatesandsectorstimetomaketherequisite
adjustments ,withimplicitreferencetothe17thand
19threcitalsoftheSixthDirective.
2.3.Lastly,itobservesthattheabolitionofsome,
nottosayall,theremainingderogationsisdesirable
withaviewto:
—improvingthefunctioningoftheVATsystem,
—achieving'complete'VATharmonization atCom­
munitylevel,
—avoidingdistortionofcompetitionamongtheMem­
berStates,
—alleviatingthederogations'significantimpactonthe
methodofcalculatingownresourcesandfacilitating
control,
—ensuringequaltaxtreatmentamongtheMember
StatesinaccordancewiththeEECTreaty.
2.4.Generally,allthevariousmeasuresencompassed
bythepresentproposalareintendedtosupplement,
wherethishasnotalreadybeendonebythedeletion
ofcertainderogationsarisingoutofthe18thDirective,
theuniformbasisofassessmentwhichinprincipleis
tounderpinthecommonsystemofVATatCommunity
level..
2.5.Initsanalysis,theCommissionreportof2July
1992pinpointstheremainingderogationswhichrequire
specificproposalsfordirectives[Art.28(3)(a)and(b);
SixthDirective]:
—travelagents'services;traveloutsidetheEEC[Art.
28(3)(g)],
(!)OJNoC205,13.8.1992,p.6. —transactionsofhospitals(privateclinics),

NoC332/54 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
maintaintaxationoftransactionstobeexemptedunder
thedefinitivesystem[Art.28(3)(a)andAnnexEofthe
SixthDirective]whiletheothersmaintainexemption
ofnormallytaxabletransactions [Art.28(3)(b)and
AnnexFoftheSixthDirective].Thedeletionofthe
remainingderogations,inprincipleregardedastran­
sitional,canbeexpectedtoresultinlossofrevenuein
thefirstcaseand,inthesecondcase,anincreaseintax
revenuebenefitingallMemberStatesconcernedbytheir
abolition.
2.8.Inviewoftheirtransitionalnature,derogations
mustinprincipleberemovedtofacilitateharmoniza­
tionofthelawsoftheMemberStatesrelatingto
turnovertaxes.However,astheCounciladvocatedand
inaccordancewithArticle28(4)oftheSixthDirective,
theCommissionclaimsthatitseekstoabolishonly
thosederogationswhoseretentionwoulddistortequal
taxtreatmentamongtheMemberStates.
2.9.Lastly,theCommissionproposesthat,asarule
ofthumbandtoalleviatepotentialbudgetaryreper­
cussionsorprobableinflationaryeffects,theMember
Statescouldbegrantedarightofoptioninreplacement
forsomeofthederogationswhoseabolitionisstill
recommended eventhoughnorealdistortionofcompe­
titionresultsfromtheirapplication .Themainadvan­
tageofsuchaprovisionwouldbetoallowallMember
States,inparticularthosewhichdonotatpresent
benefitfromanyderogations ,toadapttheirlawspro­
videdthatthisdoesnotcompromisethefundamental
principlesoftheSixthDirectiveorcreatefreshdistor­
tionsofcompetition .—passengertransportandtransferofgoods
accompanying passengertransport,
—transactionsconcerninggoldotherthanforindus­
trialuse(AnnexF26;SixthDirective),
—travelagents'services(travelwithintheEC),orthe
derogationunderArt.28(3)(g)oftheSixthDirec­
tive,withthepossibilityofexemptingservicespro­
videdbytravelagentswithouttherighttodeduct
inputtaxes.
2.6.AgainwithreferencetotheCommission'sreport
of2July1992,thepresentproposalprovidesfor
—abolitionofmostofthederogationsunderArt.28(3)
oftheSixthDirective,apartfromthosereferredto
inpoint2.5above,
—abolitionofthederogationcontainedinthesecond
subparagraph ofArt.1(1)oftheEighteenthDirec­
tive,
—thepossibility,underaclausetobeaddedatthe
endofArticle13CoftheSixthDirective,tooptfor
exemptionof
*admissionfeestoallorsomesportingevents,
*servicesprovidedbyundertakersandcremation
services,togetherwiththegoodsrelatedthereto,
*transactionscarriedoutbyblindpersonsorwork­
shopsfortheblindprovidedtheseexemptionsdo
notgiverisetosignificantdistortionofcompe­
tition,
*thesupplyofgoodsandservicestoofficialbodies
responsiblefortheconstruction ,settingoutand
maintenanceofcemeteries,gravesandmonu­
mentscommemorating wardead,
—abolitionoftheexemptionofactivitiesofpublic
radioandtelevisionservicesotherthanofacom­
mercialnature;however,anadditionalclausein
Article28allowsMemberStateswhichatpresent
exemptthenon-commercial transactionsofpublic
radioandtelevisionbodiestomaintainthisexemp­
tion.
2.7.Itwouldbeoutofplaceheretogointothe
motivesandimplicationsofthemeasuresenvisaged.
2.7.1.TheCommissionreportof2July1992men­
tionsthattheeffectoftheEighteenthDirectivehasbeen
toreducethenumberofderogationsfrom13to4in
thecaseofAnnexEtotheSixthVATDirective[Art.
28(3)]andfrom27to14inthecaseofAnnexFthereto.
2.7.2.Asregardstheremainingderogations [Art.
28(3)totheSixthDirectiveandthesecondsubpara­
graphofArt.1(1)oftheEighteenthDirective],some2.9.1.Hereitisstressedthattheabolitionofadero­
gation,whetherornotoffsetbyarightofoption
availabletoallMemberStates,shouldtakeeffectat
thelatestby1January1993,whenthetransitionalVAT
arrangementprovidedforinDirective91/690/EECof
16December1991entersintoforce.
2.10.AttentionisdrawntotheCommissionreport's
commentsthat'insomecases,distortionsofcompe­
titiondueexclusivelytothemaintenanceofonedero­
gationoranotherarenecessarilylimited.Thisis
becausesomederogationsareappliedbyaverysmall
numberofMemberStates.Inaddition,variousfactors,
suchasdistance,convenience ,service,etc.,directly
influenceapurchaser'schoiceandthereforesometimes
makethedistortionpurelytheoretical.'
2.11.Itwaspointedoutin1.2abovethatthepro­
poseddirective,whichisoneofthemeasuresdesigned
toharmonizetheMemberStates'lawsrelatingtoturn­
overtaxes,aimstocompletetheuniformbasisofassess­
mentforthecommonVATsystem.Thisharmonization

16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/55
3.2.4threcital drivecannot,however,berealizedwithoutagradual
alignmentaimingatuniformratesthroughouttheCom­
munity.Differencesinnationalratesarethesourceof
mostdistortions,inanyeventoncethe'transitional'
systemoftaxationinthecountryofdestinationis
replacedbythe'definitive'systemoftaxationinthe
countryoforigin,atadatestilltobeformallydeter­
mined.Thedistortionofcompetitionargument
advancedinfavourofabolishingmostderogationsand
establishingauniformbasisofassessmentforthecom­
monVATsystemwillthereforebeconditionedby
futuredevelopments asregardsratesandregulations .3.2.1.Thoughthederogations—someofwhichare
nonethelessretained—maynotbetotallyconsistent
withtheaimofestablishingacommonbasisofassess­
ment,itwouldseemover-hasty,atthecurrentstagein
theactiontoapproximaterates,toconcludethatthey
areapotentialsourceofsubstantialdistortionofcom­
petition.Risksofdistortionareduelesstothenon­
adjustmentofcertaincomponentsofthetaxbasethan
totheexistenceofdifferingrates,thoughtheimpactof
thelatterseemslargelytobeneutralizedbymaintaining
thearrangementoftaxationinthecountryofdesti­
nationunderthetransitionalVATsystem.
2.12.Thoughharmonization ofthecommonbasis
ofassessmentshouldlogicallyprecedeharmonization
oftherates—ataskwhichwasrecognizedtobefar
fromeasyasearlyas1974—theproposeddirective,
relatingtothebasisofVATassessment,providesfor
measureswhicharenotofimmediateurgencysince
thederogationsconcernedareessentaillyofsecondary
importance (atCommunitylevel,thoughnottocertain
MemberStates)andtheirretentionishardlylikelyto
impedetheoperationoftheinternalmarketafter1
January1993.3.2.2.Asregardsservices,whichalreadyincertain
cases[Article9(1)oftheSixthDirective]aretaxedin
thecountrywherethesupplieroftheservicesisstabli­
shed,theparticularservicesaffectedbytheproposed
directivedonotseemlikelytohaveasignificantinflu­
enceoncompetitionwithintheSingleMarket.
3.3.Article1(1)
3.SpecificComments
3.3.1.Theabolitionofderogationstotheexemp­
tionsprovidedforcertainactivitiesinthepublicinterest
specifiedinArticle13oftheSixthDirective[points2
and11ofAnnexEtotheSixthDirectiveinrespectof
Article28(3)(A)]canbeapproved,thoughdistortion
ofcompetitiondoesnotseemtohaveresultedfrom
derogationsE2andEll.3.1.Thirdrecital
3.1.1.Theproposeddirectivejustifiesitsprovisions
onthegroundsthat'many'ofthederogationsprovided
forinArticle28(3)oftheSixthDirective—derogations
whichhavebeenmaintaineddespitethelargenumber
abolishedbythe18thDirective—giverise,underthe
Community'sownresourcessystemtodifficultiesin
calculatingthecompensationprovidedforinCouncil
Regulation (EEC,Euratom)No1553/89of29May
1989onthedefinitiveuniformarrangements forthe
collectionofown-resources accruingfromVAT;in
ordertoensurethatthesystemoperatesmore
efficiently,theseremainingderogationsshouldbeaboli­
shed.3.3.2.TheabolitionofderogationE7(exemptionof
theactivitiesofpublicradioandtelevisionbodiesother
thanthoseofacommercialnature)goeshandinhand
withthedeletionofthecorresponding provisionin
Article13A(q)—listofexceptionswithinacountry
forcertainactivitiesinthepublicinterest.Thisdeletion
followsfromArticle4oftheproposal.Concurrently ,
Article5amendspoint13ofannexDtotheSixth
Directivetoread'theactivitiesofradioandtelevision
bodies'withoutmakinganydistinction .Consequently ,
allpublicandprivateradioandtelevisionbodiesare
treatedequallyfortaxpurposesandalltheirtrans­
actionsbecomeliabletotax.
3.1.2.Thisargumentissomewhatspecioussincethe
numberofremainingderogationshasbeensubstantially
reducedbyheavycutsinAnnexesEandFlisting
thederogationsaffectedbyArticle28(3)oftheSixth
Directive.Itshouldbeaskedwhetherthosethatremain
haveassignificantanimpactontheabovesystemasis
claimed.Inaddition,inviewofitstechnicalnature,
thisargumentshouldtakesecondplacewheneconomic
andsocialconsiderations militatefortheretentionof
derogations .3.3.3.Whiletheremovaloftaxdiscrimination
againstprivatebodiesistobewelcomed,theCommittee
cannotapprovetheretentionofexemptionfornon­
commercialtransactionsbypublicradioandtelevision
bodiesbythoseMemberStateswhichcurrentlyexempt
suchtransactions .TheCommitteethereforerec­
ommendsthedeletionofArticle6whichseekstoampli­
fyArticle28oftheSixthDirectivetothiseffectsince
similartransactions (non-profitmakingsocialandcul­

NoC332/56 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
turalprogrammes )byprivatebodies,whichhaveto3.5.Article1(3)
contendwithmarketforceswithoutanypublicsubsidy
areunabletobenefitfromthisexemption.
3.5.1.Thisprovisionabolishesthederogationspro­
videdforinArticle28(3)(c),(e)and(f)oftheSixth
3.4.Article1(2) Directive.
3.4.1.IncontrasttoArticle1(1),Article1(2)abolish­
estheexemptionswhichtheMemberStateswerestill
allowedtoapplyunderArticle28(3)(b)oftheSixth
Directiverelatingtotransactionscoveredbypoints1,
5,6,7,8,12,23and25ofAnnexFthereto.3.5.2.Article28(3)(c)enablestaxablepersons,dur­
ingatransitionperiod(initiallysetatfiveyearsfrom
1January1978),tooptfortaxation,withtherightto
deductinputtaxes,oftransactionsexemptunderthe
conditionssetoutinAnnexGtotheSixthDirective.
ThederogationsconcernedrelatetoAnnexEand
AnnexF(servicessuppliedbytravelagentscoveredby
Article26(ListE),servicessuppliedbyauthors,artists,
performers,medicalandparamedicalprofessions—see
point3.4.4aboveasregardsabolitionofthederogation
forlawyersandotherliberalprofessions—transactions
ofhospitalsoutsidethescopeofArticle13A(l)(b),
suppliesoflandandbuildingsreferredtoinArticle
4(3),passengertransportandservicesrelatedthereto,
transactionsrelatingtogoldotherthanindustrialgold
andtravelagents'services(ListF).3.4.2.OnpointsF1,6,7and8(sportingevents,
undertakersandcremationservices,transactionscar­
riedoutbyblindpersonsorworkshopsfortheblind,
bodiesresponsiblefortheconstruction ,settingoutand
maintenanceofcemeteries,gravesandmonuments
commemorating wardead)—allcaseswherefulland
definitivetaxabilitywouldhavearousedastonishment
nottosayoutrage,theCommitteeispleasedtonote
thatArticle3grantsMemberStatestherighttooptfor
exemptionoftheabovetransactionsbyaddingaclause
inArticle13(C)oftheSixthDirective.
3.4.3.Theabolitionofentitlementtoexemptionfor
transactionscoveredbyF23(relatingtoaircraftused
byStateinstitutions )andF25(varioustransactions
relatingtowarships)wouldnot,inprinciple,seemto
givegroundsforanyobjections .3.5.2.1.Thespecificproposalsannouncedbythe
Commissiononpage4oftheexplanatorymemor­
andumrelatetotravelagents,transactionsofhospitals,
passengertransportandtransactionsconcerninggold,
i.e.transactionslistedinAnnexesEandFandcovered
byArticle28(3)(c).Theimplicationsofthesespecific
proposalsshouldthereforebeweighedupbeforerec­
ommendinginadvancetheoutrightdeletionofthe
derogationsprovidedforintheaboveprovision.Conse­
quentlydeletionseemsprematureatthisstage. 3.4.4.Theabolitionofthederogationregarding
exemptionofservicessuppliedbylawyersandother
membersoftheliberalprofessions,withtheexception
ofthemedicalandparamedicalprofessions,whichare
listedunderpointF2oftheAnnextotheSixthDirec­
tive,shouldalsobeoffsetbygrantingtherightofoption
toallMemberStates.Inthisspheretherewouldseem
tobenogreatriskofsignificantdistortionofcompe­
tition,andsixMemberStatesapplythisderogation
anyway.3.5.3.Article28(3)(e)dealswiththerightofMember
Statestocontinuetoapplyprovisionsderogatingfrom
Articles5(4)(c)and6(4)oftheSixthDirectivewhereby
anintermediaryactinginhisownnameshallbetreated
asmerelyasupplierofservicesandnotasataxable
personwhohimselfcarriesoutpurchases/resaletrans­
actionswhereheisactingunderthetermsofacontract
underwhichcommissionispayable.
3.4.5.Lastly,pointsF5(telecommunications services
andsuppliesofgoodsincidentalthereto)andF12
(supplyofwaterbypublicauthorities),wheretaxability
remainsneutralinthecaseofbodiesabletodeduct
inputtaxes,couldeasilyhavebeenretainedinAnnex
Foratanyratehavebeencoveredbyanoptionarrange­
mentsincetheyarehighlyunlikelytodistortcompe­
tition.Thesekeyservices,alsoforprivateconsumers,
placeaheavystrainonthebudgetoflowincome
householdsandtopushpricesupviataxationwill
inevitablyraisethequestionofcompensation through
indexedwageincreasesorinconnectionwithcollective
paynegotiations .Inbothcases,theeconomywould
ultimatelybearthebrunt.3.5.3.1.Theproposeddirectiveadvocatesthe
deletionofthisprovisiononthegroundsthatitsmain­
tenancecouldcausedistortionofcompetitionunderthe
definitiveVATsystem.Inviewofthetransitionalsys­
temtobeintroducedfrom1January1993underDirec­
tive91/680/EEC,whichwillinprincipleexpireon31
December1996butwillbeautomaticallyextendeduntil
theCouncildecidesontheintroduction ofthedefinitive
system,andsincethedifficultiesofsecuringaunani­
mousCouncilvoteintaxmattersarewell-known,the
proposedabolitionshouldpreferablybepostponed

16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/57
untilsuchtimeasthedateofentryintoforceofthe
definitivesystemisformallydecided.3.7.Article3
Seepoint3.4.2aboveinfine.
3.5.4.Article28(3)(e)oftheSixthDirectivealso
providesforaderogationfromArticle11A(3)(c).In
thelightoftheexplanationsgivenintheexplanatory
memorandum ,theabolitionofthisderogation,where­
bytheexpensesincurredbyataxablepersoninthe
nameandfortheaccountofhispurchaserorcustomer
maybeincludedinthetaxableamountforVATrepay­
ments,canbeapproved.3.8.Articles4and5
Seepoint3.3.2above.
3.9.Article6
Articletobedeleted.Seepoint3.3.3above. 3.5.5.ThederogationunderArticle28(3)(f)pro­
vides,inthecaseofcertainsuppliesofbuildingsand
buildinglandpurchasedwithaviewtoresalebya
taxablepersonwhowasnotentitledtodeductionat
thedateofpurchase,thatthetaxableamountshall
consistofthedifferencebetweenthesellingpriceand
thepurchaseprice.
3.5.5.1.Astheexplanatorymemorandumpointsout,
mostMemberStatesdonotapplythisderogation .In
sofarasthepurchaseofthegoodsinquestionisa
componentofthecostpricefortheenterprisesbuying
them,enterprisesinMemberStateswhichdonotapply
thederogationthereforebearaheavierburdenthan
theircompetitorsinotherMemberStates.3.10.Article7(1)
3.10.1.TheMemberStatesaregivenuntil31
December1992tocomplyfrom1January1993with
theprovisionsofthedirective,whichstillhasnoteven
reachedtheproposalstage.Duringtheshorttimeleft
itwillthereforebenecessaryfor(a)theEuropean
ParliamentandtheEconomicandSocialCommitteeto
delivertheirrespectiveOpinions,(b)theCouncilto
reachaunanimousdecisionregardingadoption,(c)the
finaltext,supposingthatnoamendmentismade,tobe
speedilypublishedintheOfficialJournaland(d)the
MemberStatestomanagetoconcludetheprocedure
oftranslatingtheseprovisionsintonationallaw.Since
adirectiveisinvolved,nationallegislativemachinery
willhavetobesetinmotion.
3.10.2.Itthereforeseemsreasonabletoquestion
whetherthedeadlinesetfortheMemberStatesisnot
fartoosoon.Woulditnotbeadvisabletodelaythe
dateofentryintoforcesincetheaimofcompletingthe
commonbasisofassessmentisnotofabsoluteurgency
andespeciallyasderogationsandoptionscontinueto
exist.Asthekeyprovisions (transitionalsystem,
approximation ofVATandexciserates,applicationof
theIntrastatsystem)aretobecomeoperationalby1
January1993,theoperationoftheSingleMarketis
hardlylikelytobecompromised bydelayingthedate
ofapplicationoftheproposeddirective.3.5.5.2.Consequently abolitionofthederogation
wouldleadtogeneralapplicationofthishighercharge.
Inordertokeepthecostpricedown,itispreferableto
retainthisderogationandincorporateitinthedefinitive
systemasaderogationapplicableinallMemberStates,
hencetakingapositivesteptowardseliminatingthe
sourceofdistortionofcompetitionwhichisquotedas
justificationforabolition.
3.6.Article2
Article2oftheproposeddirective,relatingtothe
secondsub-paragraph ofArticle1(1)oftheEighteenth
VATDirective,endsthederogationallowingtheUnited
Kingdomtocontinuetotaxcertaintransactionsnor­
mallyexemptedasactivitiesinthepublicinterest.The
servicesconcernedarecloselylinkedtosportorphysical
educationandsuppliedbynon-profitmakingorganiza­
tionstopersonspractisingtheseactivities,aswellas
certainculturalservicesandgoodscloselylinkedthereto
whicharesuppliedbybodiesgovernedbypubliclaw
orbyotherculturalbodiesrecognizedbytheMember
Stateconcerned .4.Conclusion
4.1.TheCommitteereiteratesitssupportforthe
principleofauniformbasisofVATassessment,tobe
applicableinduetimeatCommunitylevel.
4.2.However,itwouldreferbacktothegeneral
commentssetoutattheendofChapter2ofthis
Opinion.Harmonization ofthebasisofVATassess­
mentwillcontinuetomakeonlyalimitedimpact
whilethetransitionalarrangementanddifferingrates
continuetoapply.
4.3.Lastly,intheinterestsofbusinesses,workers
andconsumers,theCommitteecallsforareviewoftheInviewofthenatureofthetransactionsconcerned,
abolitionofthisprovisioninprincipleraisesnoobjec­
tion.

NoC332/58 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
proposaltoascertaintherelevanceofthedistortionof
competitionargumentinvokedinfavourofabolishing
variousderogations .Thisreviewisparticularly
importantincaseswheretheresultwouldbetopush
upthecostofaproduct,itemofgoodsorserviceby
introducingtaxeswhichpreviouslydidnotexist,there­
byunderminingtheconsumer'spurchasingpowerandthegeneralcompetitiveness oftheeconomy.Inthis
case,itwouldbebettertogiveageneralexemptionor
atanyrategranttheMemberStatesarightofoption
sothattheycanretainorabolishderogationsinthe
lightoftheirsocialorspecificbudgetarycircumstances ,
insomecasestaxingexemptedtransactionsandin
others,exemptingtaxabletransactions .
DoneatBrussels,22October1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
OpinionontheEconomicSituationintheCommunityinmid-1992
(92/C332/18)
On28April1992theEconomicandSocialCommittee,actingunderthethirdparagraphof
Article20oftheRulesofProcedure,decidedtodrawupanOpinionontheEconomic
SituationintheCommunityinmid-1992.
TheSectionforEconomic,FinancialandMonetaryQuestions,whichwasresponsiblefor
preparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon8October1992.
TheRapporteurwasMrAbejonResa.
Atits300thPlenarySession(meetingof22October1992),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
0.ObjectivesoftheOpinion
0.1.ThisOwn-initiative Opinionisbeingdrawnup
atatimeofcrucialimportanceforthefuturedevelop­
mentoftheCommunity .TheCommitteetherefore
thinksthatitshouldpursuethreetypesofobjective:
0.2.Firstly,itmustbrieflyanalyzetheeconomic
situationbothwithinandoutsidetheCommunity ;this
willserveasabasisforadiscussionofthepresentstate
oftheeconomyanditsprospects .0.4.Thirdly,theCommitteeconsidereditadvisableto
analyzeaspecifictopicthisyear,ofparticularconcern
toeveryone,namelytheemploymentsituationinthe
Community .
1.Economicsituationandprospects
1.0.1.Theinternationaleconomyisgoingthrougha
veryuncertainphase.AccordingtotheCommission's
forecasts,1992wasgoingtobeaslightimprovement
on1991.Thishasnothappened,however,andthe
latesttrendsindicatethatitwillprobablynothappen
in1993either.
1.0.2.Consequently ,thedataandarguments
advancedinthisOpinionarebasedonCommission
forecastswhich,eveniftheyhavenotyetbeenofficially
amended,willhavetobereviseddownwardsaccording
tomostexpertsandtheCommissionitself.Hencethe
situationwhichistakingshapeisworsethanthat
reflectedintheofficialdatausedtodrawupthe
Opinion.0.3.Secondly,itisclearthatthisOpinionwillbe
stronglyinfluencedbytheresultsoftheMaastricht
SummitandmorespecificallybytheEMUcriteria.
Withthisinmind,afurtherobjectiveoftheOpinionis
toevaluatethepresentsituationinthelightofnominal
convergenceandofothereconomicconvergenceindi­
cators.