31. 12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/5 
tors which cannot be adjusted beyond a certain 
point without fundamentally changing the vehicle. 
2.1. These considerations become even more com­
pelling if we remember the burden which is placed 
on industry every time it has to modify its entire 
range in a short period of time; this must be borne 
in mind in the overall approach referred to in 
point 1 above. 
3. The Committee therefore feels that the sched­
uled implementation dates have more serious 
economic and social implications than the introduc­
tion to the proposal suggests. Suffice it to mention 
the many variants which the market requires for 
each motor vehicle model, and which would have to 
be designed to meet the proposed noise levels. 3.1. The Committee thus feels that rather than giv­
ing precise dates for (a) application of the regu­
lations laid for the new type-approvals, and (b) entry 
into service, it would be better to fix suitable inter­
vals (e.g. five and eight years) from the adoption 
date of the Directive. 
4. Lastly, the Committee feels that acceptance of 
this proposal is not enough to allow certain types of 
vehicle for special uses to respect the proposed 
noise levels without losing their distinguishing charac­
teristics, which are required by specific categories 
of user (high performance vehicles, cross-country 
vehicles, vehicles used on works sites), or are under 
development (vehicles with direct-injection diesel 
engines). 
5. The Committee therefore invites the Com­
mission to seek appropriate ways to achieve the 
best solution of the abovementioned problems. 
Done at Brussels, 26 October 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinions on the 
I. proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the 
Swiss Confederation and the European Economic Community concerning direct 
insurance other than life assurance 
II. proposal for a Council Directive on the implementation of the Agreement between 
the Swiss Confederation and the European Economic Community concerning direct 
insurance other than life assurance 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 154 of 13 June 1983, page 33. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 14 March 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposals to the Econ­
omic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
No C 358/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 83 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
21 lth plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 October 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 14 March 1983 for 
an opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision 
on the conclusion of the Agreement between the 
Swiss Confederation and the European Economic 
Community concerning direct insurance other than 
life assurance, and the proposal for a Council Direc­
tive on the implementation of the Agreement 
between the Swiss Confederation and the European 
Economic Community concerning direct insurance 
other than life assurance, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the ESC 
Bureau on 22 March 1983 instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up 
an opinion and a report on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the said 
Section at its 95th meeting held on 5 October 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr De Bruyn, 
Having regard to the discussions on 26 October 1983 
during the 211th plenary session, held on 26 and 
27 October 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. The draft Agreement between the EEC and the 
Swiss Confederation is of considerable importance 
and constitutes a 'first' in the Community's relations 
with a non-member country as regards the right of 
establishment. At a time when protectionist tenden­cies are re-emerging, the agreement proves that the 
Community's basic stance is one of openness to the 
rest of the world. It highlights the international charac­
ter of the insurance business and underlines the 
interest of the contracting parties in improving their 
relations with each other, and thereby contributing 
towards economic coordination. For this reason, the 
Committee is favourably predisposed towards the 
principle of such agreements with third countries. 
2. However, stress must be laid on the need to res­
pect a certain number of basic objectives so as to 
ensure a balance between the commitments on both 
sides, particularly since the agreement will form an 
example to be followed (it could serve as a model 
for agreements of the same kind with other non-
member countries). 
2.1. It seems clear that the basic objectives taken 
into account include: (i) equal conditions of compe­
tition for insurance firms, and (ii) the necessary pro­
tection of insured persons and third-party benefi­
ciaries. But when one analyzes the specific provi­
sions of the draft agreement and evaluates the 
economic and social effects it will have, one finds 
that there are a certain number of basic problems 
which make it impossible to adopt a favourable 
view. Only if a satisfactory solution is found for all 
these problems can the Committee approve ratifica­
tion of the Agreement with the Swiss Confederation. 
2.2. These basic problems can be summed up as 
follows: 
2.2.1. Any agreement of this nature, whatever its 
foundations, must be based on reciprocity and non­
discrimination; the latter is, moreover, one of the 
basic principles of the Treaty of Rome. 
Such an agreement with a non-EEC country can 
only be considered if (i) the latter's market is open 
to EEC insurance firms, and (ii) this market is of 
sufficient economic importance for Community 
firms. 
As regards non-discrimination, the agreement must 
be more explicit concerning the scope of this princi­
ple and lay down that agencies and branches of 
31. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/7 
EEC insurance firms must enjoy the same rights as 
Swiss firms; this must apply also to activities con­
nected with insurance such as investments and 
equal treatment in the tax sphere, etc. (see Article 4 
of the agreement). 
2.2.2. In view of the financial security afforded by 
Switzerland, not only Swiss firms but above all 
Community firms could be induced to keep a large 
proportion of their assets (particularly the free assets 
forming the solvency margin) in Switzerland, 
thereby depriving the Member States of financial 
resources which at present benefit their national 
economies. 
Furthermore, application of the agreement as pro­
posed might have certain unfavourable effects on 
the levels of employment in the Community. 
2.2.3. In addition, there is no doubt that the exist­
ence of cantonal monopolies which take away a 
substantial part of the fire insurance market from 
insurers poses a delicate problem in that Com­
munity firms are placed at a disadvantage. These 
monopolies, which cover almost the whole of Switz­
erland, thus create an imbalance which cannot be 
offset at the present time. Under the Swiss constitu­
tion these cantonal monopolies do not fall within 
the sphere of competence of the federal State, and it 
is inconceivable that the Community could secure 
an amendment of the Swiss constitution. 2.3. It must not be forgotten that Community 
Directives are subject to change. Any amendments 
and additions made in the future will directly affect 
agreements concluded with non-member countries. 
Any agreement must, therefore, contain adequate 
provisions for revision to take account of a new situ­
ation. Although a revision procedure is provided for 
in the present draft agreement (Article 38), a major 
problem still remains, particularly as regards the 
proposed second Directive on direct insurance other 
than life assurance, which amends the Directive of 
1973 and regulates the freedom to provide services, 
but has still not been adopted by the Council. By 
way of example, one can mention the present sys­
tem for checking the general and special terms of 
policies and rates. 
2.4. If such an agreement is to operate satisfac­
torily for the contracting parties, it must be supported 
by effective collaboration between the supervisory 
authorities in the contracting countries. 
Detailed rules for such collaboration should be set 
out in the agreement itself if the agreement is to be 
implemented properly and operate smoothly. 
3. The Committee considers that until such time as 
a satisfactory solution is found for all these basic 
problems, ratification of the agreement would be 
premature. 
Done at Brussels, 26 October 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on financial support for a multiannual 
transport infrastructure programme 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 August 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo-