31.8.92 NoC223/48 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
Opinionon:
—theproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)ontheStatuteforaEuropeanMutual
Society,and
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectivesupplementing theStatuteforaEuropeanMutual
SocietywithregardtotheInvolvementofEmployees(x)
(92/C223/15)
TheCouncildecidedon26March1992,inaccordancewithArticles54and100AoftheEEC
Treaty,toasktheEconomicandSocialCommitteeforanOpinionontheabovementioned
proposals.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforthe
preparatorywork,adopteditsOpinionon6May1992.TheRapporteurwasMrRamaekers
andtheCo-Rapporteur MrFlum.
Atits297thPlenarySession(meetingof26May1992)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajority,with8votesagainstand15abstentions .
I.TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalforaregu­
lationsubjecttothefollowingcomments :
1.Introductionbutessurplusesorpayspeopletocanvassforbusiness.
Asregardsdifferences,thetwotypesaregenerally
handledbydifferentministries (socialaffairsforMPs
andeconomicaffairsforMAs),coverdifferentrisks
(personalinjuryforMPsandallrisks,suchasdamage
ordeath,forMAs)andaresubjecttodifferentrules.
ThenationallawscoveringMAsarefairlysimilarbut
thosegoverningMPshavedevelopeddifferentlyineach
countryaccordingtolocalsocialsecurityschemes:
somecovercompulsorysicknessinsurancewhileothers
arecomplementary tooralternativesforcompulsory
schemes.1.1.TheCommitteeispleasedattheinterestinthe
mutualsectorshownbytheEuropeaninstitutions,as
evidencedbytheCommission'sproposalforaregu­
lation.
1.5.TheCommitteeconsidersitabsolutelyessential
thatthethreeregulationsonthestatutesforaEuropean
association,aEuropeanmutualsocietyandaEuropean
co-operativebeexaminedandadoptedsimultaneously .1.2.AfterthevariousresolutionsoftheEuropean
Parliament (1982MihrReport,1987AvgerinosReport)
andtheESCOpinionof19September1990(which
stressedtheimportanceofcooperatives ,mutualsocieti­
esandassociationsandadvocatedagreaterawareness
oftheparticularproblemsfacingsuchenterprisesdur­
ingtheconstructionofEurope),thetextproposed
bytheCommissionisanadditionalanddecisivestep
towardsobtainingCommunity-level recognitionofthe
sector'sspecificnature.
1.3.TheproposedstatuteforaEuropeanmutual
society(ME)coversbothprovidentsocieties(MPs)and
insuranceenterprises (MAs);thetwotypeshavesome
featuresincommonandotherswhichsetthemapart.1.6.TheCommitteeurgesmaintenanceofthe'link­
age'principle,whichitalsoconsidersessential,i.e.the
possibilityofsettinguponeofthesethreeEuropean
entitiesthroughanationalassociation,mutualsociety
orco-operative .
1.4.Bothtypesfollowtheprinciplesofmutual
democracy (managementbytheinsureesthemselves)
andsolidarity(non-selectionofrisks);neitherdistri­
1.7.Totakeaccountoftheevolutionarynatureof
themattersdealtwithbytheregulation,theCommittee
wouldlikeittoincludeaflexiblerevisionclause
enabling,forinstance,theexhaustiveannexestobe
modified.(!)OJNoC99,21.4.1992,p.40-57.

31.8.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC223/49
1.8.Moreover,becauseofthefrequentreferralsthe
draftregulationmakestoMemberStates'legislation,
theCommitteeurgestheCommissiontocontinueits
comparativestudiesintothedifferentnationallaws.3.2.3.Whilstthiswouldobviouslyentailbothpracti­
caldifficultiesandtheriskofdistortionsofcompetition
betweenMEsandnationalmutualsocieties,itshould
notbeforgottenthatoneoftheobjectivesofthisstatute
istoenableMEstoengageintransnationalactivities
onanequalfootingwithjointstockcompanies .If,
however,thisproposalisnotviable,couldnotMEsat
leastbegivenaccessbothtotheformsoffinancing
availableinthecountryinwhichtheyhavetheirregis­
teredofficeandtothefinancialinstrumentsofthe
countriesinwhichtheyhaveestablishments ?2.TheESC'sPosition
3.2.4.TheCommitteeurgestheCommissiontocon­
tinueitsworksothataEuropeansolutionmightbe
foundtotheproblemoffinancing,bearinginmindthe
majordifficultythatmutualshaveindevelopingtheir
ownfunds.2.1.TheESC'spositionontheMEStatutewasset
outindetailinanOpinionadoptedon19September
1990;itmaybesummedupbythefollowingsixpro­
posals:
2.1.1.Establishmentofanoptional,alternativespec­
ificlegalinstrument .Thisinstrumentwillalsotake
accountofthespecificnatureofmutualsocieties.
2.1.2.Clarificationoffinancingtechniquesforcon­
solidatingorboostingownfunds.
2.1.3.Compliancewiththe'oneperson,onevote'
principle,adaptableforlegalpersons.
2.1.4.Provisions,intheeventofliquidation,for
thedistributionofassetstobodiespursuingsimilar
objectives.
2.1.5.AccessibilityoftheStatutetobothlegaland
naturalpersons.
2.1.6.ThepossibilityofestablishingaEuropean
companyofthistypebymerger,setting-upasubsidiary,
conversionofanationalcompanyorfromscratch.3.3.Article20entitleseachmemberofanMEto
onevote.TheCommitteeproposesthatthearticlebe
amplifiedbyintroducingmultiplevotesformembers
whoarelegalpersons,inproportion,forexample,to
theiractualmembership .However,thereshouldbea
singlelimitonthislaiddownbystatutetopreventany
onememberfromholdinganabsolutemajority.
3.4.Article52statesthattheassetsofanMEareto
bedistributedeithertootherMEsormutualsocieties,
exceptwhereotherwisestatedintherules.
3.TheResponsesContainedintheProposalfora
CouncilRegulation
3.1.Theresponsetothisrecommendation ispro­
videdbythedraftregulationasawholeand,more
specifically,bycertainrecitalsprecedingtheactual
statute.3.4.1.Theexplanatorymemorandum justifiesthis
derogationbytheneedtotakeaccountofcertain
nationallegalsystemswhichdonotrecognizetheprin­
cipleofdisinteresteddevolution .Ifthisisthereason,
whyshoulditnotbepossibletoprovidethatassets
shouldbedistributedinaccordancewiththeprinciple
ofdisinterested devolutionintheMemberStateswhere
thatprincipleisrecognized,and,asanexception,in
accordancewithnationallegislationinthecaseofMEs
establishedinMemberStateswhereadifferentprinciple
isrecognized ?Suchanarrangementwouldhavethe
advantageofremovingthisstatutoryexceptionin
MemberStateswhichapplytheprincipleofdisin­
teresteddevolutionorwherethelawissilent.3.2.ThefinancingofMEsiscoveredbyArticle44,
whichstatesthatanMEmaymakeuseofallformsof
financinginthestateinwhichithasitsregisteredoffice
underthesameconditionsasthoseapplyingtothelegal
entitieswhichfoundedit.
3.2.1.TheCommitteefeelsthatasaresultofthis
provision,discrimination couldoccurinconnection
withanME'sfuturelocation.
3.2.2.InsuchaCommunitycontext,the—possibly
Utopian—idealwouldbetoguaranteeanyME,regard­
lessofthelocationofitsregisteredoffice,accesstothe
formsoffinancingprovidedforbyoneofthenational
legislations .3.5.Itseemsastonishingthatthedraftregulation
(Article2)doesnotprovidefortheformationofMEs
bynaturalpersons.TheMEis,infact,definedasa
groupofpersons.(Explanatory memorandum :
Article1andrecital7.)
Otherargumentshavebeenputforwardinsupportof
thisrecommendation :

NoC223/50 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 31.8.92
3.5.1.FirstlytheESCpointedoutinitsOpinionof
19September1990(point3.3etseq.)thattheEuropean
companyasalegalinstrumentoftrans-frontiercooper­
ationwasnotsuitableforthethreetypesofcompanies
inthecooperative/mutual/non-profitsector.Oneofthe
reasonsforthiswasthattheEuropeancompanyisnot
accessibletonaturalpersons,whichmeantthatthey
couldnotbeorganizedonaCommunity-wide basis,
particularlyinfrontierareas.Consequently ,theESC
requestedthatfuturestatutesforcooperatives ,mutual
associationsandnon-profitbodiesbeaccessibleboth
tonaturalandlegalpersons.4.ProposedChangestoOtherProvisionsinthePro­
posalforaRegulation
4.1.Article1(2),secondindent
Thisprovidesforderogationfromtheprincipleof
non-remuneration ofnon-professional managersand
administrators ,whichiscompletelycontrarytothe
basicprinciplesofthecooperatives/mutual/non-profit
sector.TheCommitteeproposesthatallformsofdirect
remuneration beprohibited,whilstatthesametime
providingforreimbursement ofadministrators '
expenses(transport,subsistence,etc.).
4.2.Article2(2),firstindent
TheCommitteewouldliketheCommissiontosay
exactlywhatitmeansby'carryingongenuineand
effectivecross-border activities'whenanMEiscreated
byconversion .
4.3.Article7(4),secondindent
TheCommitteeproposesthatre-insuranceshouldbe
addedtotheactivitiesofcreditorinsurance.
4.4.Annexes
4.4.1.TheCommitteeconsidersthatthetwofollow­
ingtypesofGermanmutualsociety,whichshould
beeligibleforthestatute,shouldbeincludedinthe
Annexes :3.5.2.Secondly,Commissioner CardosoeCunha,
responsibleforthecooperative/mutual/non-profitsec­
tor,declaredinhisCommunication totheCommission
inSeptember1991thattheaimofthismovewasto
facilitatecooperatives',mutualassociations',andthe
non-profitbodies',accesstotheSingleMarketand,in
addition,tocontributetocompletionoftheCitizens'
Europebyallowingnaturalpersonstosetupcooperat­
ives,mutualassociationsandnon-profitbodieswitha
EuropeanStatute.
3.5.3.Thirdly,naturalpersonscouldnolongerform
anSCE,whilethestatutesoftheEuropeanAssociation
didofferthispossibility (Article3)iftherewerea
minimumof21naturalpersonsfromtwoMember
StatesandiftheSCE(accordingtotheCommission's
interpretation )weremadeaccessibletonaturalpersons
afteritsformation .Itwouldbedesirableifthethree
kindsofcompaniesinthecooperative/mutual/non-pro­
fitsectorweretobenefitfromthesameapproachand
bealignedonthemostattractivescheme,i.e.thatof
theEuropeanAssociation .—diegesetzlichenKrankenkassen gemäßdemSozial­
gesetzbuch (SGBV),
—diegewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften gemäß
Art.545und762derReichsversicherungsordnung
(RVO).However,astherearetwotypesofmutual(theMP
andtheMA),theCommitteeproposesatwo-speed
approachasregardsaccessfornaturalpersons:4.4.2.AsregardsSpain,thefollowingshouldbe
addedtoAnnexI:
—MutuasdeAccidentesdeTrabajo,reguladasporla
LeydeSegurosPrivados,de2deagostode1989.—ontheonehand,naturalpersonsshouldbeadmitted
asfounder-members ofanMA(Annex1)assoon
astheStatutecomesintoforce,and
—ontheotherhand,thereshouldbeatransitional
periodof,forexample,5yearsasregardsthesetting­
upofanMP(Annex2)bynaturalpersons,with
thepossibilityofre-examiningtheconditionsof
accessattheendofthisperiod.II.TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalforadirec­
tive,subjecttothefollowingcomments :
1.TheESCwelcomestheCommission'sdesireto
takeappropriateaccountoftheroleofemployeeswhen
supplementing theStatuteforaEuropeanmutual
society.
Theproposeddirectiveco-ordinatesnationalprovisions
concerningtheparticipationofemployees,thepro­
visiontothemofinformationandtheirconsultation
andconstitutesanindispensablecomplementtothe
StatuteforaEuropeanassociation .3.6.FirstofalltheCommitteewouldlikeArticle2
toincludethecreationfromscratchofanMEbynatural
persons(bearinginmindthecommentintheprevious
point).

31.8.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC223/51
1.1.Thisdirectiveisanimportantcomponentofa
policytopromoteeconomicandsocialcohesioninthe
Community .
1.2.Throughthisdirectiveemployeesshouldbepro­
videdwithainformationandconsultationprocessand
beinvolvedinthecorporateplanningoftheEuropean
mutualsociety.
1.3.TheESCconsidersitabsolutelyvitalthatthe
proposedregulationanddirectivebothcomeintoforce
atthesametime.
2.EveninitsOpinionsonthestatuteforaEuropean
CompanytheESCrepeatedlyaffirmeditsagreementin
principleandstressedthattheinvolvementof
employeeswasanimportantpreconditionforthedevel­
opmentofademocraticsocietyandaCitizens'Europe.
2.1.InthisconnectiontheESCaffirmsonceagain
thatemployeesmustbeassuredofjointrepresentation
oftheirinterestswithintheenterpriseandbeinvolved
incertainbusinessdecisions,thoughwithoutinfluen­
cingtheresponsibilityorefficiencyofmanagement .
TheESChasalreadystatedthisviewinitsOpinionsof25October1972,29May1974and28March1989
ontheEuropeanCompany.
2.2.However,inviewofthepolitical,social,histori­
calandphilosophicalconceptsofthedifferentMember
States,employeeinvolvementhasneithertakenthe
sameformsnorreachedthesamestageinallMember
States.
3.TheCommitteealsobelievesthat,asinmany
otherfields,itwillinitiallybeimpossibletoachieve
uniformityasregardsEuropeanmutualsocieties.
3.1.TothisextenttheCommission'ssuggestionof
makingaflexibleofferwhichtakesaccountofactual
legalcircumstances intheMemberStatescanbe
accepted.
3.2.ButtheESCconsidersthatthelevelofemployee
involvementorco-determination reachedintheMem­
berStatesshouldinnowaybeendangeredorunder­
mined.
3.3.Effortsshouldthereforebemadetoseethatthe
co-determination optionsproposedbytheCommission
areequivalentasregardscontent.
DoneatBrussels,26May1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH
APPENDIX
totheOpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
Thefollowingamendment,whichreceivedatleastonequarterofthevotescast,wasrejectedduringthe
proceedings :
PartII,point1
Addthefollowingtothefirstsentence:
'...althoughitwouldstressthatinthecontextoftheemphasisonsubsidiaritythiswouldprimarilybea
matterforagreementbetweentheemployersandemployeesoftheindividualorganisations.'
Voting
For:20,against:65,abstentions :9.