No C 347/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 87 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on a system for health control of imports 
from third countries at frontier inspection posts (SHIFT project) (!) 
(87/C 347/02) 
On 11 June 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
proposal for a Council Decision on a system for health control of imports from third countries 
at frontier inspection posts (SHIFT project). 
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparating the Committee's work 
on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 1 October 1987 in the light of the oral report by 
Mr Storie-Pugh. 
At its 249th plenary session (meeting of 21 October 1987) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously: 
The Committee approves the proposal of the Commission subject to the following comments: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Commission document proposes a feasi­
bility study on the harmonized computerization of fron­
tier inspection, designed to ensure efficient management 
of veterinary and public health information. While the 
term feasibility study is used in the explanatory note, 
it does not appear in the articles. For the sake of clarity 
it should. 
1.2. Furthermore it would be clearer if the words 
'veterinary and public' were inserted before 'health 
control' in the title. 
1.3. It is hoped that the proposed feasibility study 
will result in a proposal for a Directive (given that the 
proposal relates to the harmonization of animal health 
and public health requirements) and that such a Direc­
tive will be based not only on Article 43 but also on 
Article 100A should also be cited. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The ultimate objective of the computerized sys­
tem envisaged by the SHIFT Project would be to 
improve the quality of frontier post inspection (includ­
ing the effectiveness of the prevention of fraud) without 
slowing down the shipment of live animals and perish­
able animal products. The cost of such a system (to be 
determined as part of the SHIFT Project) would be 
small in comparison to the savings in the administrative 
costs of handling manually large volumes of data, so 
that the result would be improved consumer protection 
at a lower cost to the consumer and producer. 
2.2. It should be emphasized that the Commission's 
proposal does not alter existing animal and public 
health legislation, but rather addresses itself to the 
efficient implementation of existing legislation as well 
as future legislation which may be adopted in the sector. 
(!) OJ No C 153, 11. 6. 1987, p. 6. 2.3. Despite the fact that not all of the enabling 
legislation regarding the operation of frontier posts is 
yet in place, it is nonetheless clear that the problems 
arising from the specialized requirements for the protec­
tion of consumer health and animal health will require 
an information system dedicated to the handling of 
these specific problems. The nature of the data required 
for veterinary and public health purposes is to a large 
extent different from the information required for cus­
toms purposes per se, and hence the need for a system 
more specialized than that envisaged by the CADDIA 
programme as it exists. 
2.4. It is appreciated that there are problems of a 
broader nature, such as the structuring of data net­
works, the maintenance of data confidentiality, and the 
elimination of linguistic barriers. It is felt, nevertheless, 
that progress can be made in a specific field. 
2.5. By creating an interface between existing 
national systems and the Commission system, the 
SHIFT project should increase the uniformity of ana­
lytical methodology and of stringency in inspection 
procedures in different Member States, which would 
in turn avoid distorsion of competition. 
2.6. It is noted that the SHIFT feasibility study would 
be paid for by the transfer within the Commission of 
funds already allocated within the agriculture sector 
(CADDIA). Bearing in mind the need for any proposed 
scheme to be implemented simultaneously in all Mem­
ber States, special attention should be paid in the feasi­
bility study to the increased cost burden which could 
fall upon certain Member States which already face 
financial difficulties in complying with existing animal 
and public health legislation (e.g. 85/649/EEC and 86/ 
469/EEC) . 
22. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 347/5 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 4 (2): rewrite ad follows: 'In requesting 
the opinion of the committees mentioned in 
paragraph 1, the Commission may fix a time limit 
within which this opinion shall be delivered. The opin­ions of these committees shall be determined by a vote. 
Each member of the committees may demand that his 
opinion be recorded in the minutes.' 
A vote is necessary to make clear the view of the 
Committee. 
Done at Brussels, 21 October 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the Communication of the Commission on speed limits in the Community 
(87/C 347/03) 
On 6 March 1987 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
on the abovementioned Communication. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 15 July 1987 in the light of the 
report by Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 249th Plenary Session (meeting of 21 October 1987), the Committee adopted the 
following Opinion by 110 votes to 9, with 21 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. Background 
1.1. The Committee recently decided it should draw 
up an own-initiative Opinion on the harmonization of 
road traffic rules in the Community. 
1.2. In the meantime the Commission issued a Com­
munication on speed limits in the Community. 
1.3. The Committee feels that this 'referral' should 
be used as an opportunity to give its views on the 
broader subject of the regulation of motor traffic on 
the Community's roads. the proposed draft Directive, its aim should be to stimu­
late constructive proposals from the relevant economic 
and social groups. 
2.2. The Committee considers that a suitable Direc­
tive is needed to ensure that the rules on speed limits in 
the EEC are as harmonized and generalized as possible. 
2.3. However, while appreciating the Commission's 
intentions, the Committee feels that the Communi­
cation is inadequate and cannot provide a sufficiently 
constructive base for a draft Directive on the subject. 
2. The Commission document 
2.1. Although the Commission document is present­
ed as a Communication and its contents seem to bear 
out this formal character, the Committee hopes that it 
will be seen more as an explanatory paper and sound­
ing-board. Rather than providing the groundwork for 2.4. In the light of this situation, the Committee has 
deemed it best not to use the traditional method of 
going through the Commission proposal giving criti­
cisms and suggestions; instead, it prefers to conduct its 
own analysis of this delicate and complex subject, and 
then to draw its conclusions and make appropriate 
proposals.