6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time Directive 
76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic 
products 
(89/C 56/01) 
On 1 July 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
29 November 1988. The Rapporteur was Mr Proumens. 
At its 261st plenary session (meeting of 14 December 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
The Committee has taken note of this proposal and 
considers that it is inappropriate and inadequate and 
should be amended. 
1. General considerations 
1.1. The cosmetics industry is complex and highly 
technical. The previous Directive 76/768/EEC and its 
four amendments set a framework for this industry to 
enable the Council to meet its obligations under the 
Single European Act. 
1.2. The present situation is that, in accordance with 
Article 9 of Directive 76/768/EEC, a Committee on 
adaptation to technical progress functions to the satis­
faction of both the Member States and industry. 
1.3. This is a regulatory committee composed of 
representatives of the Member States voting by a quali­
fied majority. 
If they are in favour of the measures proposed by the 
Commission, the latter must adopt them. 
If the Committee on adaptation if of a different opinion, 
the Commission must refer the decision to the Council of Ministers which will then adopt the measures by a 
qualified majority. 
In both cases it is therefore the Member States which, 
in the final analysis, take the decisions. 
1.4. The present proposal abolishes this Committee 
on adaptation to technical progress and replaces it by 
an advisory committee whose working procedure is 
set out in Article 1(3) of the proposal, amending 
Article 10. 
1.5. As a result, a committee which operates on the 
basis of consultation and dialogue is to be replaced 
by a purely advisory committee which will, all things 
considered, allow the Commission a great deal of lati­
tude. 
1.6. The Committee believes that the interests of the 
industry, its employees, as well as of consumers should 
remain in the hands of the nominees of Member States 
with the supporting powers granted under Pro­
cedure III. Besides which, the present system with the 
Committee on adaptation to technical progress provides 
for a preliminary stage involving an ad hoc working 
party on which the various interests (i.e. Member State 
authorities, consumers and producers) are represented. 
No C 56/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 3. 89 
2. Legal consideration 
2.1. The Commission refers to Council Decision 87/ 
373/EEC of 13 July 1987 (l) and takes Article 100 A of 
the Treaty as its basis. 
2.2. The Commission does not, however, take 
account of the third clause of the preamble to this 
Decision which states that the Decision must not affect 
procedures for implementing Commission powers con­
tained in acts which predate its entry into force. 
2.3. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Council 
has refused to convert the procedures for the exercise 
of implementing powers conferred on the Commission 
into binding legal provisions. 
2.4. It is significant that the European Parliament 
has also expressed its opposition to this Decision of 
13 July 1987. 
(!) OJ No L 197, 18. 7. 1987. 
Done at Brussels, 14 December 1988. 
Opinion on: 
I. GENERAL COMMENTS 
The situation with regard to the disposal of waste —and 
especially hazardous waste—gives cause for concern, 
(!) OJ No C 295, 19. 11. 1988, p. 8. This opposition has, moreover, culminated in the 
initiation of proceedings in the Court of Justice under 
Treaty Article 173 for its annulment. 
3. Specific considerations 
3.1. The impact statement is ambiguous in that it 
states that the industry would like to see the procedures 
speeded up and implies that an advisory committee will 
be the solution to this. 
Although the industry undoubtedly wants to see the 
procedures speeded up, it is not at all convinced that 
an advisory committee will be a satisfactory means of 
achieving this. 
3.2. Finally, the Committee wonders why the Com­
mission has not examined the variants set out in the 
Council Decision of 13 July 1987 to which it refers. It 
could propose, for example, procedure III, variant a), 
which might be acceptable. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
within the Community and elsewhere. As the Com­
mission states in its Explanatory Memorandum, the 
facilities available in the Community at the moment 
can safely dispose of only 50 % of the waste produced. 
Hence, for example, the growing problems associated 
with the uncontrolled exporting of waste to Third — the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, and 
— the proposal for a Council Directive on hazardous waste (!) 
(89/C 56/02) 
On 26 September 1988 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, on the abovementioned proposals. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
29 November 1988. The Rapporteur was Mr Boisseree. 
At its 261st plenary session (meeting of 14 December 1988), the Committee unanimously 
adopted the following Opinion.