ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/80

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1673/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp grown for fibre’

(COM(2003) 701 final - 2003/0275 CNS)

(2004/C 108/16)

On 1 December 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 9 December 2003 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

In view of the urgency of the matter, at its 405th plenary session (meeting of 28 January 2004) the European Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mrs Santiago as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion with 31 votes in favour and one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1 On 27 July 2000 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1673/2000 amending the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp grown for fibre. The regulation entered into force on 1 July 2001.

1.2 Article 15(1) of the regulation stipulated that not later than 31 December 2003 the Commission was to submit a report on production trends in the sector in the various Member States and the impact of the reform on the sector's outlets and economic viability. The report was also to examine the maximum content of impurities and shives applicable to short flax fibre and hemp fibre.

1.3 The Commission considers that although the information gathered indicates that the arrangements have had clear positive effects on the sector, the data currently available do not allow for a detailed analysis of the production trends in the Member States or of whether or not the NGQs have been set at the correct level.

1.4 In these circumstances, the Commission thinks that the existing system of aid should not be modified until a more complete analysis of trends in the sector is available. This analysis will be carried out for the report planned for 2005.

1.5 The Commission therefore proposes that the possibility for Member States to derogate from the 7.5 % limit on impurities and shives should be extended until the 2005/06 marketing year, allowing aid to be granted for short flax fibre and hemp fibre containing a percentage of impurities and shives of less than 15 % and 25 % respectively.

1.6 The Commission considers that retaining the current aid system and prolonging the derogation for a further two years should consolidate the positive development the sector is experiencing.

1.7 As the accession countries are also producers of flax and hemp fibre, the proposal will help them adapt to the changes in the sector.

2. Comments

2.1 The Committee endorses the proposal and is pleased that the Commission has recognised that a sudden move to the new system of a single payment per farm would slow down the positive trends in the sector. This position is in keeping with the views expressed by the Committee in previous opinions.
3.5

The proposal also highlights some general difficulties in understanding and following existing EU law with respect to so-called ‘substances’. Many of the ‘substances’ listed here and contained within the original EINECS inventory of ‘existing substances’, are properly classified as ‘UVCB substances’ i.e. complex mixtures of known or unknown composition as defined in an academic paper published in 1999 and subsequently referred to in a footnote on page 18 of the ‘Manual of Decisions for Implementation of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to Directive 67/548/EEC’ published by the European Chemicals Bureau in 2002. Certainly they are not simple substances as generally understood, and in addition, in this particular case, few are currently marketed. This supports the view of the Commission when the EINECS list was first published that ‘EINECS overstated the number of commercially significant substances by a factor of four’, i.e. there were then around 25 000‘substances’ actually on the market in significant quantities. Presumably some of these have now been replaced by the 5 000 or so ‘new substances’ listed in ELINCS — with similar problems of definition and identification — to give a round total of 30,000 substances actually on the market in 2005. This is more containable that the 100 000 number often quoted but still raises questions of public and professional access to the data already collected (but not regularly updated) on at least half of these and to the problems for the competent authorities in Member States in defining whether or not a substance is ‘existing’ or ‘new’ and if so which regulatory procedure should be followed.
2.1.2

In particular, in its Opinion CES 842/2002 of 17 and 18 July 2002 on the proposal for a Regulation on Marco Polo I, the Committee did not believe that this programme would, by itself, make it possible to achieve the modal shift targets set by the Commission, and suggested complementing it with ten specific incentive measures, set out again here: — tighter inspections and more severe penalties in the event of labour law infringements; — public financing of modal transport infrastructure, such as terminals and access facilities; — requiring operators to pledge to provide new ongoing services of general interest in order to secure modal shifts; failure to do this will mean that customers will not change their habits; — procedures should be set out forthwith for extending the Marco Polo programme by two or three years in order to ensure that it continues to operate up to 2010 (there is a need to avoid the hiatus which occurred between the PACT and the Marco Polo programmes); — the greatest possible benefit should be drawn from the experience gained from the PACT programme by concluding the external evaluation of the programme; the positive effects of the PACT programme have not so far been fully evaluated; — a timetable should be established for the measures implementing the actions set out in the Marco Polo programme; — a management committee should be given the task of monitoring actions on an on-going basis with a view to making the necessary mid-term adjustments to the Marco Polo programme; — provision should be made for including in the projects eligible for support under the Marco Polo programme actions involving air and pipeline transport in a secondary capacity, provided that other modes are also involved; — financial aid should be approved for projects involving actions taking place in just one Member State, provided that the impact of such projects will benefit all users of international shipments passing through the Member State in question; and — a ‘European Guide’, covering all multimodal platforms in the EU, describing their respective characteristics and laying down minimum standards, should be drawn up for the benefit of all users.
3.3

The Committee is also concerned about the grounds for exclusion (Article 93), which include (in Article 93(1)(a)) judgments having the force of res judicata . This provision was drafted in accordance with laws and principles enshrined in the constitutions of the majority of Member States, and as such it is irreproachable; however, the EESC notes that in some Member States appeals procedures against a judgment delivered by a court of first instance may have to pass through two other levels of the judicial system (appeals court and cassation court), and that a judgment is not considered final until all the possibilities of appeal have been exhausted. There can be long time lapses between one judicial level and another, during which a first- or second-instance judgment, even if clearly well founded, cannot be considered legally valid grounds for exclusion. At a practical level, it will be up to those responsible to exercise the utmost caution when awarding contracts, but it will not always be easy — especially in certain cases — to take decisions that comply with the law and are at the same time duly prudent.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/2

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 2002/38/EC as regards the period of application of the value added tax arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services

COM(2006) 739 final — 2006/0245 (CNS)

(2006/C 325/02)

On 30 November 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Burani as rapporteur-general at its 431st plenary session, held on 13-14 December 2006 (meeting of 13 December), and adopted the following opinion with 102 votes in favour, nem. con. and four abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1 On 7 May 2002 the Council adopted Directive 2002/38/EC amending the existing Directive 77/388/EEC which set up the VAT arrangements. The directive amends the VAT arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services; it contains a number of provisions which were due to expire on 30 June 2006 unless extended.

1.2 When the directive was enacted, the Council intended to review the provisions covering the place of supply of these services and certain facilitation measures for non-EU businesses within three years, i.e. before the directive expired. On 25 May 2006, the Commission issued a report stressing the effectiveness of the measures adopted and proposing that they be extended to 31 December 2008. However, the Council decided on an extension which runs only until 31 December 2006.

1.3 The Commission points out that the expiry of the measures laid down by the directive would have undesirable effects: in other words, in the absence of new proposals there would be a gap in the legislation on the matter. Moreover, in the Commission's view, the slow rate of legislative progress in the area of taxation would mean that new, replacement measures would not be in place by the end of 2006, and it therefore reiterates its original proposal that the directive be extended to 31 December 2008.

2. The Committee's comments

2.1 The Committee takes note of the rationale behind the Commission's proposal, and considers that for the moment it is not appropriate to go into the merits of the directive's provisions. Given the urgent need for legislation applicable to the sector to be in place, and confident that the Commission's assertions regarding the effectiveness of the directive are well-founded, the Committee endorses the proposal to extend it. Furthermore, in view of the lengthy nature of legislative procedures in the area of taxation, the Committee feels that a period of two years — i.e. until 31 December 2008 — is the strict minimum and may even be too short for new proposals to be drawn up on the matter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures

COM(2006) 605 final — 2006/0192 (CNS)

(2007/C 93/03)

On 10 November 2006, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 December 2006.

At its 432nd plenary session, held on 17 January 2007, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 156 votes to none and with four abstentions.

1. The Commission has presented a proposal for the codification of the directive in question in order to comply with the decision taken by the Council on 1 April 1987 on the clear formulation of Community legislation (1).

2. Most of the proposal's 26 articles are the result of the adaptation of the original 1976 text to the many modifications introduced by subsequent legislation. This will have been a lengthy and painstaking task, carried out with the appropriate resources.

3. For the EESC to check the exact correspondence of the Commission's work would mean repeating the complex work already done without the necessary resources and with a very short deadline: clearly an impossible task. In any event, the Commission is well known for its professional expertise and this offers assurance that on this occasion as in previous cases of codification, the result will be faultless.

4. In view of the above, the EESC approves the text of the proposal.

Brussels, 17 January 2007. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) COM(87) 868 PV.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/35

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the field of vision and windscreen wipers for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

COM(2006) 651 final — 2006/0216 (COD)

(2007/C 161/07)

On 22 November 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 February 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Burns.

At its 434th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 146 votes with 7 abstentions.

1. The purpose of the proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 74/347/EEC of 25 June 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the field of vision and windscreen wipers for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

2. The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.
2.2

Regarding Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, considers the possibility of deleting outdated requirements and modifying certain requirements in order to minimise the administrative burdens on businesses. Article 5 notably requested transport undertakings (as well as Member States' governments) to provide information on transport tariffs, rates and conditions before 1 July 1961. Article 6(1) of the Regulation requires a transport document containing several information elements concerning the consignor, the nature of the goods carried, the place of origin and destination of the goods as well as the route to be taken or distance to be travelled, including frontier crossing points where appropriate. Since these latter elements are no longer indispensable to achieve the objectives of the Regulation, they can be deleted. The third sentence of Article 6(2) of the Regulation requires the carrier to retain a copy showing the full and final transport charges and any other charges and any rebates or other factors affecting the transport rates and conditions. This sentence can be deleted, as nowadays this information is available in the accounting systems. Article 6(3) is to contain an explicit reference to consignment notes, which are very well-known and often used in the inland transport sector. This reference improves legal certainty for transport undertakings as it clarifies that these consignment notes, if containing all details required by paragraph 1 of Article 6, suffice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors’ (Codified version)

COM(2007) 588 final — 2007/0205 (COD)

(2008/C 120/03)

On 24 October 2007, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 440th plenary session of 12 and 13 December 2007 (meeting of 12 December), by 135 votes with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
5.10

Whatever the definitions are, they should be included in full in this proposal, not merely taken from the GHS or requiring reference to other documents. This would be a useful opportunity to define ‘chemical’ for the first time — both as a noun and as an adjective. If it is equivalent to ‘substance’, which presumably is the case, this should be made clear. This would also make more clear the scope of this and other directives and regulations which apply far more widely than to the products of the, more precisely defined ‘chemical’ industry. It would also make clear that the translation of the word ‘chemical’ as a noun into ‘chemical substance’ in languages lacking a single equivalent word does not imply the existence of alternative (and presumably non-toxic?) ‘non-chemical substances’. This might also hopefully diminish the use of well meaning but meaningless statements such as ‘most articles include chemicals’ (1) (what do the rest contain?) or ‘chemicals are used in almost every work place’ (2) (whatever do they use in the other work places?). The EESC of course understands that any definitions used must be consistent across all legislation. However the EESC does not accept that any one piece of legislation is any more ‘fundamental’ than any other (or if it is, then this proposal clearly qualifies) and certainly does not accept that all the related legislation should be read in its entirety by all those involved, merely to determine what a word does or does not mean. This becomes important as translation into different languages creates differences that did not exist in the original — or obliterates distinctions which were vital. For example, the word ‘product’ is used here in a neutral sense for any goods likely to be purchased or used in the workplace or by a consumer. It absolutely is not intended to be synonymous with the word ‘article’ which has a special meaning under EU and other legislation. This is clear enough in English but may be less clear in other languages. Whatever the situation, the distinction must be maintained. Other linguistic and cultural confusions should also be identified and avoided. For instance, a ‘substance-free environment’ in Europe would be taken to refer, perhaps, to outer space. In the US it means a school where drinking and smoking are not permitted. In the popular press in many cultures, anyone found with traces of ‘chemicals’ on their hands or clothing is assumed to be a terrorist.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 162/40

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the component type-approval of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

COM(2007) 840 final — 2007/0284 (COD)

(2008/C 162/06)

On 25 January 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the component type-approval of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 442nd plenary session of 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February), by 147 votes to one, with seven abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/41

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to simple pressure vessels (codified version)’

COM(2008) 202 final — 2008/0076 (COD)

(2009/C 27/09)

On 26 May 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to simple pressure vessels (Codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 446th plenary session of 9 and 10 July 2008 (meeting of 9 July), by 142 votes to none with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/75

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market as regards the extension of certain time periods’

COM(2008) 618 final — 2008/0188 (COD)

(2009/C 182/16)

On 5 December 2008, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market as regards the extension of certain time periods

COM(2008) 618 final — 2008/0188 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 450th plenary session of 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), by 192 votes with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.