No C 185/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 81 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of laws of the 
Member States relating to the indication of the origin of certain textile and clothing 
products 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 294 of 13 November 1980, page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 16 October 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 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 
187th plenary session held in Brussels on 29 and 30 April 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follow: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 1. General comments 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 16 October 1980 for 
an opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 
on the approximation of laws of the Member States 
relating to the indication of the origin of certain 
textile and clothing products, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 28 October 1980, instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up 
an opinion and a report on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section 
for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services at its 
meeting on 8 April 1981, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the 
rapporteur, Mrs Clark, 
Having regard to the discussion at its 187th plenary 
session, held on 29 and 30 April 1981 (session of 
29 April 1981), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 1.1. The Committee cannot support the proposals 
set out in the Directive for the reasons set out 
below. 
1.2. The Committee believes that it is essential that 
consumers be given adequate information in order to 
make sensible buying decisions. 
1.3. It considers, however, that indicating the 
country of origin of a product does not fill a genuine 
need on the part of consumers: other information, 
such as price, composition, grade, quality and 
instructions for use are more important. 
1.4. The concept of origin marking of a product in 
accordance with customs regulations could be 
unhelpful and even misleading to consumers, 
because it does not refer to the country where the raw 
material originates, or to the country where the 
spinning, weaving or making up has taken place. 
Instead it refers solely to the country where the last 
processing operation has been carried out. 
1.5. Such objections to the concept of origin 
marking based on customs regulations, and the 
apparent impossibility of adopting any alternative 
approach underline the Committee's objections, in 
principle, to this draft Directive. 
27.7.81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 185/33 
1.6. The Committee considers that if such a 
measure based on the arguments presented by the 
Commission in its explanatory memoradum were to 
be adopted in respect of textiles this could well be 
used as a precedent for measures on a variety of other 
products, thereby creating barriers to trade and 
negating the fundamental principles of the Treaty of 
Rome. 
1.7. The Committee notes that the purpose of this 
Directive is to resolve the legal difficulties stemming 
from initiatives taken by a number of Member States 
who feel it necessary to enforce origin marking. 
1.8. The Committee notes that measures already 
taken by some Member States risk being either in 
themselves, or by the differences between them, a 
barrier to the free circulation of goods within the 
Community. The proposed Directive may appear to 
endorse such an approach and might even lead to 
wider adoption of such measures. In the 
circumstances the Committee asks why suitable 
action has not been taken to remove this risk by 
action under Articles 30 or 169 of the Treaty. 
1.9. The Committe also notes that the Directive has 
not made provision for goods which are processed to 
certain stages within the EEC, exported and then re-
imported in their final state. (Outward processing). 
2. Specific Comments 
2.1. Despite the fact that the Committee, in 
principle, rejects the draft Directive, it makes the 
following specific comments on the individual 
Articles. 
Article 2 
2.2. The Committee feels that retailers would suffer 
a considerable burden if the indication of origin were 
to be imposed at the stage of offer for sale to the 
ultimate consumer. The work and cost involved for 
the retailer would be disproportionate to any possible 
benefit' to consumers. As the consumer would 
ultimately have to bear the cost of this labelling, he 
should only do so if there was a clear benefit, which is 
not the case. 2.3. The Committee realizes that the retailer would 
be relieved of this burden where (as would be an 
option) commercial operators acting at a prior stage 
carry out the labelling. Where, however, there is an 
imbalance of power between the parties, the weaker 
party would have no choice in the matter, and would 
be forced to carry the burden of the work and cost 
involved. 
2.4. This Article would provide that the commercial 
operator acting at a prior stage who did not affix the 
indication would be responsible for supplying that 
information in writing to the seller. In such cases, 
there could be difficulty in apportioning blame in the 
case of a mis-description. The seller would be 
responsible for an indication which he himself had 
not affixed, and presumbly would have a defence in 
law against any legal action. This Article for practical 
purposes would appear to be unenforceable. 
2.5. The Committee notes that the list of products 
intended to be covered by the Annex of the draft 
Directive includes knitwear, clothes and clothing 
accessories of textile fabric, blankets, bed linen, table 
linen, toilet linen, office and kitchen linen, curtains, 
net curtain and other furnishing articles. The 
Committee fails to understand why knitted or 
crocheted fabric (CCT heading No 60.01 and 
subheading 60.06 A) should be labelled, but not other 
fabric. 
2.6. The Committee emphasizes that many articles 
covered by the draft Directive are made by a series of 
manufacturing processes. It would seem, therefore, 
that the means proposed to determine at what stage 
goods are considered 'made' would be of little or no 
value to the consumer in such cases. This question is 
of particular importance where the goods pass 
through these processes in different countries. 
Article 3 
2.7. The Committee particularly question the 
motivation behind this Article, which could be seen 
by some as being purely nationalistic, in particular 
where there is no regional reason for indicating the 
country of origin of the product. In addition, it is 
doubtful whether the alternative wording 'Made in 
the EEC is a piece of essential, or even useful, 
consumer information. 
2.8. The Committee, in any case, doubts that the 
Directive is intended primarily to inform consumers, 
since in a common market which already has seven 
No C 185/34 Official Journal of the 
languages and two alphabets the Commission has 
merely called for any sort of a label, be it in a 
language and alphabet totally alien to consumers. 
Article 4 
2.9. The Committee notes that there are several 
ways in which the proposed indication of the country 
of origin could be carried out, the choice being left to 
the economic operators. It agrees — as does the 
Commission — that the requirement actually to affix 
a separate label on every single item may be too 
onerous, and feels that in such cases an indication 
displayed with the product, or near the product, 
would be quite sufficient to ensure that any 
information is given. 
2.10. The Committee points out that the option of 
an indication of order in a mail order house 
catalogue is not feasible. It is quite possible for 
advertised products of the same type to be made in 
different countries, and when stocks are exhausted 
fresh supplies may be ordered from another country. 
The problem is particularly acute with regard to mail 
order house catalogue excerpts which appear in 
newspaper. 
Article 5 
2.11. The Committee does not see why indications 
which might cause confusion should be clearly 
Done at Brussels on 29 April 1981. :an Communities 27. 7. 81 
separated from other references. It considers that any 
indication which would give rise to confusion should 
simply be banned. 
Article 6 
2.12. The Committee notes that the Directive is 
optional, yet this Article provides that producers in 
Member States which choose not to implement the 
Directive will nevertheless be subject to a number of 
constraints when selling goods into those countries 
which do adopt it. The Directive will therefore have 
the effect of harmonization on an area where some 
Member States are in opposition to its purpose. 
Article 7 
2.13. The Committee's opposition to this draft 
Directive is reinforced by the fact that the sanctions 
for non-observance of the Directive differ widely 
between Member States, so that some sellers of goods 
covered by the Directive would be treated in some 
cases as criminals should they contravene its 
provisions. Moreover, the costs of enforcement, in 
terms of time and money would be disproportionate 
to any benefits accruing to consumers. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE