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-
No C 358/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12.83 
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 75 (1) (c) of the Treaty establish­
ing 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 
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 Article 75 (1) (c) of the EEC 
Treaty, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Council 
on 25 August 1983 asking it for an opinion on the 
abovementioned draft Regulation, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 7 September 1983 instructing the Section for 
Transport and Communications to draw up an opi­
nion on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the above 
Section at its 152nd meeting held on 12 October 
1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Plank (Article 29 of the Rules of Proce­
dure), 
Having regard to the discussions at its 21 lth plenary 
session held on 26 and 27 October 1983 (meeting of 
26 October 1983), 
Having regard to its previous opinions on transport 
infrastructure, and in particular the opinions on the 
proposal for a Council Regulation concerning 
financial support for transport infrastructure pro­
jects of Community interest ('), the memorandum 
on the role of the Community in the development of 
transport infrastructure (2), the report on bottle­
necks (3) and the proposal for a Council Regulation 
on the granting of limited financial support in the 
field of transport infrastructure (4), 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 
3600/82 of 30 Decembre 1982 (5) on the granting of 
limited support in the field of transport infrastruc­
ture, 
(') OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1977, p. 83 and OJ No C 300, 18. 11. 
1980, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No C 138,9. 6. 1981, p. 61. 
O OJ No C 138,9. 6. 1981, p. 61. 
(") OJ No C 296, 12. 11. 1982, p. 5. 
(5) OJ No L 376, 31. 12. 1982, p. 10. Having regard to its preliminary work in this 
field, and in particular its opinion on the communi­
cation from the Commission to the Council on a 
transport infrastructure experimental programme (6), 
Whereas: 
1. For years all the Community institutions, espe­
cially the Council, have repeatedly and forcefully 
stressed the importance of a Community infrastruc­
ture policy; 
2. No Council meeting of Community transport 
ministers passes without this question appearing on 
the agenda. However, the matter is always put to 
one side again and the repeated commissioning of 
Commission studies and reports means that a lot of 
time is taken up which could have been spent more 
usefully; 
3. Thus the expansion and modernization of trans­
port infrastructures will in future be closely depend­
ent on the political will of the Member States and 
the Council to give priority to the provision of funds 
for investment; such a development would be effec­
tively reinforced by the introduction of new financ­
ing structures, and in particular the creation of an 
appropriate Community financial instrument (Infra-
fonds); 
4. The Council has had before it since 1976 a pro­
posal for a Council Regulation concerning financial 
support for transport infrastructure projects of Com­
munity interest (7) which was extended in 1980, by 
means of a supplementary proposal (8), to cover 
infrastructure projects of Community interest in 
non-EC countries. The Committee has issued opi­
nions on both of these draft documents (9); 
(0) Opinion of 28 September 1983 (OJ No C 341, 19. 12. 
1983). 
(7) OJ No C 207, 2. 9. 1976, p. 9. 
(8) OJ No C 89, 10. 4. 1980, p. 4. 
(9) OJ No C 56, 1. 3. 1977, p. 83 and OJ No C 300, 18. 11. 
1980, p. 1. 
31. 12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/9 
5. So far the Council has taken only two concrete 
decisions in this field, namely Decision No 78/ 
174/EEC of 20 February 1978 instituting a consul­
tation procedure and setting up a committee in the 
field of transport infrastructure (•) and Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3600/82 of 30 December 1982 
on the granting of limited support in the field of 
transport infrastructure (2), under which 10 million 
ECU from the 1982 Community budget was set 
aside for transport infrastructure projects for pay­
ment in 1983 (3); 
6. A further 15 million ECU (commitment appro­
priations) have been set aside in the 1983 EC 
budget, 3 million ECU of which is scheduled for 
payment in 1983. The total commitment appropria­
tions for 1982/83 amount to 25 million ECU, wher­
eas the payment appropriations amount to 13 mil­
lion ECU. The budgetary authorities lack the neces­
sary legal instrument at Council level in this respect; 
7. The aim of the present draft Regulation is to 
work out a method, subject to the provisions of the 
1976 proposal (4), of enabling a close link to be 
established between the budgetary process and the 
process for granting financial aid; 
8. The Commission considers that this could be 
achieved by submitting each year for authorization 
to the Council a list of projects suitable for aid, the 
list being proposed by the Commission after con­
sulting the European Parliament. In the Commis­
sion's view the list should be drawn up in accord­
ance with the objectives defined in Article 5 of the 
draft Regulation; 
9. The Commission does not consider it to be feas­
ible to apply the proposed procedure by 1983 and 
1984. Notwithstanding Articles 4 to 8 (in respect of 
the 1983 financial year) and Articles 4 to 7 (1984 
financial year) 'the Community shall grant financial 
support' to a number of concrete projects which 
have already been established, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
(') OJ No L 54, 25. 2. 1978, p. 16. 
(2) OJ No L 376, 31. 12. 1982, p. 10. 
O OJ No L 19, 24. 1. 1983, p. 729 (1983 budget). 
(") OJ No C 207, 2. 9. 1976, p. 9. 1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee considers that the launching 
of a common transport infrastructure policy in the 
Community is overdue. If the Community is to 
operate as a single market and if there is to be a 
common transport market, transport networks must 
be coordinated, they must not restrict natural traffic 
flows and they must not allow bottlenecks to arise. 
To put it in another way, the design of the networks 
from the technical and economic angles, the tran­
shipment capacity and the interchanges must be 
such as to ensure the smooth flow of local and 
long-distance traffic. 
1.2. The Commission's efforts in this direction are 
thus once again emphatically welcomed and sup­
ported by the Committee. The latter is therefore 
wholly of the view that the Community interest in 
the creation of a European transport infrastructure 
which would help to improve transport links within 
the Community — including infrastructure projects 
on important main routes through non-member 
countries such as Austria, Yugoslavia and Switzer­
land — must be reflected in an appropriate financial 
contribution by the Community. 
1.3. The Committee has consequently already 
expressed its support in the past for the establish­
ment of a permanent instrument in the form of 
Infrafonds. Such funds would not, however, operate 
in the same way as the Regional Fund through the 
use of quotas but would be designed to operate in a 
more 'Community-spirited' way. Quota procedures 
and application of the 'fair return' principle should 
therefore play less of a role than solidarity with a 
view to achieving a higher degree of integration. 
1.4. As regards the suitability of projects for Com­
munity aid the Committee recently set out, in its 
opinion on the communication from the Commis­
sion to the Council on a transport infrastructure 
experimental programme (5), a number of guidelines 
comprising 13 main and 23 subcriteria. The Com­
mittee has assessed the significance of the Commis­
sion's draft Regulation on the basis of these criteria 
and against the background of the points made in 
the preamble to the opinion. It would first of all 
(5) Committee opinion of 28 September 1983 (OJ No C 
341, 19. 12. 1983). 
No C 358/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 83 
support the Commission's recommendation to 
retain the 1976 proposal. Following on from this 
hitherto unsuccessful attempt to establish a perma­
nent instrument and the establishment of two more 
successful 'annual instruments' (covering amounts 
of 10 and 15 million ECU), the Commission is now 
endeavouring, with the support of the Committee, to 
steer a middle course by proposing the establish­
ment of a five-year programme making provision for 
commitment appropriations totalling 630 million 
ECU for the period up to the end of 1987. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee welcomes this new initiative 
by the Commission and the proposals which it has 
put forward which, whilst they could undoubtedly 
be improved, may enable an important step to be 
made in the right direction. The Committee is espe­
cially pleased that a medium-term programme is 
being proposed. Only by substituting a longer-term 
solution for short-term measures covering a single 
year can a genuine, lasting contribution be made to 
Europe's transport infrastructure policy. 
In the light of its medium-term experimental pro­
gramme the Commission has concluded that: 
— the objective set out in Article 5 of its proposal 
should be achieved by means of a five-year 
scheme, 
— the objectives to be achieved over this period 
should be accurately defined, 
— a special provision (Article 11) should be 
invoked with regard to the utilization of the 
funds from the 1983 budget, 
— the funds from the 1984 budget should also be 
allocated in accordance with a special proce­
dure. 
2.2. Notwithstanding the 'special procedure', 
which the Committee will deal with in greater detail 
at a later stage, the Commission's draft Regulation 
clearly deserves praise for proposing at the present 
time the establishment of the instrument advocated 
by the Committee, namely an instrument having 
similar funding arrangements to a permanent fund. 
Such a device would finally provide EC transport 
infrastructure policy with an effective instrument. 
2.3. In view of the relatively high level of Com­
munity participation in the overall financing of pro­
jects (up to 40 % and, in the case of projects receiv­
ing aid from other EC sources, total EC aid may not 
exceed 70 % of the cost of the project), the Com­
mittee wonders how the projects to be supported on an annual basis can be selected in such a way as to 
ensure that, even at the proposed maximum 40% 
rate of support, the limited EC funds available 
produce a 'satisfactory' number of EC projects. The 
Committee also considers that a minimum, level of 
EC aid should also be defined so as to make EC aid 
sufficiently attractive. In fixing the actual rate of 
intervention, consideration should be given to the 
extent to which eligibility criteria are met, particu­
larly the 'Community interest' of the project in ques­
tion. The actual possibility of meeting the remaining 
costs from other, e.g. national sources, should also 
be examined. Maximum intervention should not by 
any means be an automatic choice. 
In setting the order of priority the Committee 
believes that account should be taken of the ques­
tionnaire appended to the Committee's opinion on 
the experimental programme. 
3. Specific comments on individual Articles 
3.1. Article! 
3.1.1. The Committee notes first of all that it is not 
completely clear from the Commission proposal 
which projects are generally worth supporting. 
Article 1 itself talks of 'transport infrastructure pro­
jects of Community interest referred to in Article 1 
of Council Decision 78/174/EEC of 20 February 
1978'. 
3.1.2. According to Article 5 of the proposal, pro­
jects must — in order to be eligible — contribute 
'towards the realization of the common transport 
policy, and in particular: 
(a) the elimination of notorious bottlenecks within 
the Community; 
(b) the'improvement of rail transport on routes that 
are important for long-distance traffic, particu­
larly combined transport; 
(c) the improvement of traffic links between the 
outlying member countries and the rest of the 
Community by trunk routes, including those 
which involve transit through a non-member 
country; 
(d) the improvement of transhipment facilities 
between intra-Community modes of transport, 
particularly for those Member States for which 
contacts with the rest of the Community are 
31. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/11 
influenced by the development of sea and air 
transport; 
(e) the modernization of the inland waterway sys­
tem'. 
3.1.3. The Committee cannot yet see how the 'list' 
— which of course is bound to be long if drawn up 
in accordance with the above criteria — can be fur­
ther shortened on the basis of objective criteria to 
the point where it is possible to grant a subsidy of 
up to 40 % for each remaining project. 
3.1.4. The Committee also finds that the criteria 
laid down in Article 5 of the present proposal over­
lap with those laid down in Article 1 of the Decision 
of 20 February 1978. Article 1 of the above Decision 
states among other things that 'a project of Com­
munity interest is defined as any major project 
which is designed to: 
— create new transport links, 
— remove a bottleneck, or 
— appreciably increase the capacity of existing 
transport links, 
and which belongs to one of the following catego­
ries: 
(a) projects concerning cross-frontier routes; 
(b) projects of a Member State having a significant 
effect on traffic between Member States or with 
third countries; 
(c) projects affecting a Community policy and in 
particular the regional policy; 
(d) projects which make use of new transport tech­
nologies which could be used for long-distance 
inter-urban transport'. 
The Commission should clarify this question of 
overlapping. 
3.2. Article 2 
No comments. 
3.3. Article 3 
3.3.1. The Committee is basically in agreement 
with the contents of Article 3 but would refer to the 
comments made under point 2.3 on whether the 
70% and 40% intervention rates should be fully utilized in view of the limited funds of the Com­
munity. 
3.4. Article 4 
3.4.1. The Committee fully supports the new pro­
cedure proposed by the Commission, namely that 
the Commission, Parliament and Council should all 
be involved as budgetary authorities in drawing up 
the list of eligible projects. 
3.4.2. The Committee finds it perfectly normal that 
the Transport Infrastructure Committee established 
by Decision 78/174/EEC will also be 'consulted' 
before the list is drawn up (Article 7). 
3.4.3. The Committee nevertheless trusts that the 
Commission will find a suitable way of involving 
the socio-economic interest groups represented on 
the Committee in the preliminary consultative stage. 
In this connection the Committee would refer to 
point 2.2.4 of its opinion on the 'Experimental Pro­
gramme' of 28 September 1983 which has already 
forcefully made this request. 
3.5. Article 5 
The Committee fully approves the aims listed under 
points (a) to (c). The projects to be given support 
must play a part in achieving these aims. The list 
appears to be carefully balanced bearing in mind 
general transport policy requirements and taking 
into consideration inter-modal coordination and the 
geographical location of the projects at the centre or 
periphery of the Community, including the need to 
cross non-member countries in transit. The list 
should nevertheless be brought in line with the other 
aims of the Commission (see also point 3.1). 
3.6. Article 6 
Article 6 (3) states that 'Member States shall provide 
the Commission with any further information they 
feel is necessary for assessing a project'. The Com­
mittee feels that as part of this procedure the Com­
mission should refer to the list of criteria appended 
to the Committee's opinion on the 'Experimental 
Programme' of 28 September 1983. These criteria 
should, in the last analysis, also play a determining 
role in the selection of projects. 
3.7. Article 7 
No comments. 
No C 358/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12.83 
3.8. Article 8 
Article 8 also leaves the Committee in the dark as to 
which criteria would actually be used by the Com­
mission in 'taking decisions to grant financial sup­
port on the basis of the lists referred to in Article 4'. 
3.9. Articles 9 and 10 
No comments. 
3.10. Article 11 
3.10.1. Article 11(1) provides scope for derogation 
from the normal procedure. The four infrastructure 
projects mentioned are to receive 'financial support' 
from the Community although neither the type of 
support nor the criteria for eligibility are specified. 
The four projects are as follows: 
3.10.1.1. Modernization of the railway junction at 
Mulhouse North; 
3.10.1.2. Wexford by-pass; 
3.10.1.3. Construction of the Potaschbierg section 
of the Luxembourg-Trier motorway up to the Ger­
man border; 
3.10.1.4. Improvement of the road between Axios 
and Gallikos Bridge. 
3.10.2. During the Committee's work additional 
information was provided by the Commission. This 
has enabled it to check that all the projects actually. 
— eliminate obvious bottlenecks, and 
— are of Community interest. 
The selected projects complement or are a logical 
follow-up to the projects which received financial 
support in the 1982 financial year and are generally 
reasonably well balanced with regard to inter-modal 
distribution and geographical location. 
The Committee all the same notes that these consi­
derations undoubtedly hold good for a number of 
other projects which have not been earmarked for 
aid. 
3.10.3. The Committee nevertheless notes that the 
15 million ECU allocated in 1983 is nowhere near 
enough to reach the 40 % maximum subsidy rate for 
the four projects proposed by the Commission-pro­
jects which will cost a total of about 92 million ECU. Hence the method proposed by the Com­
mittee in point 2.3. Steps must nevertheless be taken 
to ensure that the overall financing of the projects 
earmarked for 1983 does not block the funds for 
1984. 
3.10.4. The Committee will therefore only take a 
stand on the projects earmarked for 1984 — and 
even more so subsequent years — on the basis of 
further information. This information should be 
supplied by the Commission immediately and if 
possible on the basis of the questionnaire in its opi­
nion of 28 September 1983 (see point 3.6 above). 
The Committee would like such information to say 
what kind of support, and how much support, 
should be given to individual projects. 
3.10.5. Article 11 (2) provides scope for deroga­
tions in 1984. But whereas in 1983 derogations are 
permitted from Articles 4 to 8, in 1984 they are only 
permitted from Articles 4 to 7. In other words it is 
the Commission that takes decisions on 'financial 
support' in 1984 (see Article 8), whereas it is clearly 
the Council that takes the decisions in 1983. 
3.10.6. The Commission allocates 105 million 
ECU for the 1984 financial year as against 15 mil­
lion ECU for 1983. The list of infrastructure projects 
for 1984 is accordingly more extensive, and parti­
cular attention has been focused once again on pro­
jects in Greece (Article 11 (2) (a)) even though such 
projects have not been linked to the criteria listed in 
Article 5. 
3.10.7. This is not the case with projects listed 
under Article 11 (2) (b) where in every single case 
there is an explicit reference to individual criteria 
laid down in Article 5. As with Article 11 (2) (a), 
Article 11 (2) (c) makes no reference to criteria laid 
down in Article 5. 
3.10.8. In a nutshell, Article 11 tends to suggest — 
no doubt for want of more accurate information — 
that the projects listed under Article 11 (1), Article 
11 (2) (a) and Article 11 (2) (c) have been selected 
primarily on political grounds. 
3.10.9. This does not seem to be the case with 
Article 11 (2) (b) where the reference on each 
occasion to two different criteria from Article 5 at 
least gives the impression that an effort has been 
made to find objective grounds for granting finan­
cial support. 
3.11. Article 12 
No comments. 
31. 12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/13 
3.12. Financial record 
3.12.1. The financial record attached to the propo­
sal shows that the Regulation is necessary because 
the funds for infrastructure projects of Community 
interest are classified as non-obligatory expenditure. 
Because the funds fall into this category 'the imple­
mentation of appropriations entered for significant 
new Community action shall require a basic Regula-
tion'O-
(') OJ No C 194, 28. 7. 1982, p. 3 (Joint declaration by the 
European Parliament, the Council and the Commis­
sion on various measures to improve the budgetary 
procedure. Brussels, 30 June 1982). 
Done at Brussels, 26 October 1983. 
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 5 May 1983 for an 3.12.2. The Commission also expresses the view in 
its financial record that 'the progress in the exami­
nation of the problems linked with the development 
of a communication network of Community interest 
should enable the selection of a range of projects 
which, in the first place, could be eligible for finan­
cial support'. 
4. Conclusions 
In conclusion and subject to the foregoing remarks, 
the Committee is very favourably disposed towards 
the Commission proposal. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
opinion on the communication from the Commis­
sion to the Council entitled 'The new system for 
coking coal and coke for the iron and steel industry 
in the Community ('), 
(') OJ No C 132, 19. 5. 1983. Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council entitled 'The new 
system for coking coal and coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community' 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 132 of 19 May 1983, page 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 May 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 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 
21 lth plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 October 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: