1. 6. 73 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 36/27 
Article 35 
The Economic and Social Committee proposes that 
the freedom in matters of taxation allowed Member States be limited further so that any other taxes 
which might be added to the excise duty (this only 
applies to excise duties on premises selling beverages) 
will only be authorized if they do not cause any 
distortion of competition. 
Done at Brussels, 22 February 1973. 
The Chairman of 
the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons LAPPAS 
CONSULTATION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
on a proposal for a Council Regulation on applying the Status of Joint Undertaking 
to the activities carried out by the hydrocarbons industry 
A. REQUEST FOR AN OPINION 
At its 165th meeting held on 20 September 1971, the Council decided to exercise its 
option of consulting the Economic and Social Committee on the above proposal for a 
Regulation. 
The request for an Opinion was sent by the President of the Council to the Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee on 21 September 1971. 
B. TEXT WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONSULTATION 
The text which was the subject of the consultation was published in the Official 
Journal of the European Communities, No C 106 of 23 October 1971, p. 2. 
C. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 109th Plenary Session held in Brussels on 21 and 22 February 1973, the 
Committee adopted, with 2 dissenting votes and 27 abstentions by the members present 
or represented, its Opinion on the text referred to under B. 
The text of the Opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the provisions of the Treaty 
establishing the EEC, and in particular Articles 198 
and 235 thereof; 
Having regard to the letter of 21 September 1971, 
in which the President of the Council of the European 
Communities requested the Opinion of the Economic 
and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation on applying the status of joint 
undertaking to activities carried out by the 
hydrocarbons industry'; 
Having regard to its Rules of Procedure, and in 
particular Article 22 thereof; 
Having regard to the Decision of its Bureau of 
28 September 1971 requesting the Specialized Section 
for Energy Problems to prepare an Opinion and a 
report on this matter; 
No C 36/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 1.6.73 
Having regard to the Opinion of the specialized 
section for energy problems submitted at its meeting 
on 21 November 1972; 
Having regard to the Report prepared by Mr 
Aschoff, rapporteur; 
Having regard to its discussions at its 109th Plenary 
Session, held on 22 February 1973; 
Whereas the Commission's aims for improving the 
Community's energy supply situation can only be 
approved; 
Whereas the Commission wishes to support, where 
necessary, the implementation of projects whose 
importance is of considerable interest to the 
Community and goes beyond the national framework; 
Whereas the Commission wishes to create 
comparable conditions of competition between 
Community undertakings and those in third 
countries; 
Whereas the Commission proposal for applying the 
joint undertaking arrangements to certain activities 
carried out by the hydrocarbons industry might be 
one of the means likely to contribute towards 
achieving the aims pursued by the Commission; 
Whereas the limited instrument whose establishment 
the Commission is proposing should, in addition, be 
a part of the Community's general policies in the 
energy field and should be supplemented by other 
measures adapted to the different kinds of existing 
needs and to the Commission's aims in the energy 
field; 
Whereas of the aims which should also be pursued 
by the Community, the strengthening of the structure 
and competitivity of Community undertakings in the 
hydrocarbons sector is of particular importance and 
should be taken into account when applying the 
measures proposed by the Commission; 
Whereas in its Opinion delivered on 23 September 
1969 on the 'First Guidelines for a Community 
Energy Policy', the Economic and Social Committee 
had, whilst wishing to be better informed on this 
matter, taken note with interest of the Commission's 
intention to bring together prospecting and 
production activities of European interest within the 
legal framework of the joint undertaking, within the 
meaning of the EAEC Treaty, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION: 
The Economic and Social Committee, whilst 
approving the aims expressed, feels that the proposal gives rise to numerous reservations and it invites the 
Commission to re-examine its proposal in the light 
of the general and special remarks made below. 
I. GENERAL REMARKS 
1. Aims pursued by the Commission 
The Commission feels that the energy supply situation 
in the Community must be improved. In view of this 
general consideration it proposes to confer the joint 
undertaking arrangements on certain projects relating 
to hydrocarbons and to grant advantages to these 
joint undertakings. Consequently, it is pursuing the 
following special aims: 
— improving security of supply; 
— the implementation, where necessary, of projects 
whose importance is of considerable interest to 
the Community and goes beyond the national 
framework; 
— the establishment of comparable conditions of 
competition between Community companies and 
those in third countries; 
The Committee agrees with these guidelines. 
It wishes, however, to point out that the 
establishment of comparable conditions of 
competition by granting advantages should hot 
contribute towards giving rise to new distortions of 
competition between those benefiting from the 
arrangements and those who do not. 
Projects likely to benefit from the advantages inherent 
in the joint undertaking must obtain the same 
advantages if they serve comparable aims. No 
discriminations must be allowed between different 
joint undertakings. 
In so far as the draft Regulation calls for tax 
measures, the Committee feels that the long-term 
aim must remain the harmonization of the fiscal 
legislation of Community countries. Tax benefits 
granted to joint undertakings are only one step along 
the road leading to this general aim. 
2. Legal nature of joint undertaking 
The Committee feels that the legal nature of the 
joint undertaking should be made clearer in the 
1. 6. 73 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 36/29 
Commission proposal. The latter in fact only goes as 
far as to mention that the joint undertaking has 
individual status in Community law (7th recital) and 
that the status of joint undertakings may, on a 
subsidiary basis, be referred to Member States' 
national legislation (Article 4). 
The Committee would also like to point out that the 
terminology used in the proposal for a Regulation 
concerning recognition of joint undertakings gives 
rise to confusion. In fact, the proposal is not aimed 
at establishing special arrangements under 
Community law, but rather its aim is to lend support, 
within the framework of an agreement involving 
both advantages and obligations, and stimulate 
cooperation so that the activities fulfilling the aims 
pursued may be implemented. 
When a project is in line with the guidelines laid 
down, the Council does not, generally speaking, 
establish a new undertaking but simply recognizes 
that the project is worthy of the status of joint 
undertaking, with the legal implication that the 
activities concerned may benefit from certain 
advantages. The Committee would like this idea to be 
expressed more explicitly in the text of the proposal 
and suggests that the expression 'Status' of joint 
undertakings be replaced by 'Arrangements' for joint 
undertakings, since these arrangements would involve 
the granting of certain advantages. 
The Committee notes, moreover, that in the majority 
of cases the joint undertaking will be based on an 
agreement covering certain activities, whose legal 
character and economic aims may to some extent 
be taken from the 'joint venture' arrangements but 
the Commission does not exclude the possibility of 
the joint undertaking becoming a real undertaking in 
the traditional sense of the term, with the possibility 
of it having subsidiary companies and permanent 
establishments. It must therefore be stated that the 
idea of joint undertakings may cover very different 
economic and legal aspects. 
The system proposed by the Commission is 
characterized by its considerable flexibility, since it 
leaves companies and Community bodies considerable 
leeway &§ rtgard§ thoo§ihg the legal character best 
adapted to each particular casg. It fflllst also be 
n6ted that the respective weight di Community law 
6r of national legislation may vary rrOin one case 
fd the next. 
The Committee goes along with the Commission 
when it says that the hydrocarbons sector is faced 
with specific problems which are particularly urgent 
and whiSh may justify the fa6t that a special proposal for this sector concerning the establishment 
of joint undertakings be submitted. Moreover, it 
must not be forgotten that a proposal exists 
concerning the establishment of joint undertakings 
within the general framework of the EEC Treaty, the 
same being the case as regards a proposal for a 
European Company. Even if it is admitted that 
specific aims must be achieved in the hydrocarbons 
sector, which might justify certain facilities, steps 
must however be taken to ensure that the rules 
adopted do not vary too much according to the 
sector in which the joint undertakings carry on their 
activities. 
The Committee requests finally that the undertakings 
have the possibility, throughout all the phases of 
the recognition procedure for joint undertakings and 
up until a final Council Decision is taken, to put 
forward their point of view and to be entitled to drop 
the project. If the initiative stems from governments 
or from the Commission, it is not conceivable that 
one or more companies be forced against their will 
to accept the joint undertaking arrangements. 
3. Usefulness of instruments proposed by the Com­
mission 
The Committee shares in principle the point of view 
of the Commission, ie that the recognition of joint 
undertakings in the hydrocarbons sector may increase 
security of supply in the Community. This is especially 
the case when these undertakings build up supply 
stocks or create additional transport capacities. The 
Committee feels however that the proposal is only 
one part of a vast programme designed to provide 
greater security of supply. This security depends 
without any doubt, in the first place; on the political 
risk to which any given region is exposed where 
extraction work takes place. From this point of view, 
greater security of supply through recognizing joint 
undertakings may only be obtained if prospecting and 
extracting of hydrocarbons is encouraged in regions 
which may be considered as being relatively stable 
politically speaking. In principle, however, and in 
view of the steps currently being undertaken in the 
oil producing countries, the Committee feels that 
security of supply may fibt be achieved by sirfiply 
taking measures of ail industrial fiafUre, but presup­
poses an overall policy being Worked oUt for 
relatione With these countries. 
However, th§ granting of the benefits associated with 
the concept of joint undertakings should not be 
considered simply from the point of view of security 
of supply; the strengthening of Community oil 
companies represents rather an aim not to be 
No C 36/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 1. 6. 73 
neglected. The pooling of their resources and of 
their efforts, together with the tax and financial 
benefits of the joint undertaking, would enable these 
companies to increase their contribution toward 
supplying the Community with oil and allow them 
to ensure that the consumer countries had greater 
independence as regards supplies. The Committee 
therefore believes that of the aims pursued by the 
Commission, special attention should be paid to 
improving the conditions of competition of 
Community companies vis-a-vis major international 
groups of companies. 
It is easy to understand that the Commission does 
not feel it necessary to exclude a priori subsidiaries of 
companies in third countries from using the joint 
undertaking arrangements. 
In the eyes of the Committee, however, it would be 
inadmissible for the measures envisaged, particularly 
the examination case by case, to enable companies 
from third countries to benefit, thanks to the 
advantages inherent in the joint undertaking 
arrangements, from the same facilities as those 
already granted to such companies in their countries 
of origin. If this were the case, the handicaps 
currently suffered by Community companies would 
simply persist and the proposed measures would 
lose one of their main raisons d'etre. 
The Specialized Section wishes to point out, however, 
that the absence of well defined criteria in the 
Commission proposal as regards the granting of the 
benefits associated with the concept of joint 
undertakings may give rise to legal problems and 
create difficulties as regards competition. General 
rules could therefore be drawn up which could be 
automatically taken advantage of by Community 
companies meeting the conditions required by these 
rules and the latter could thereby contribute towards 
achieving the aims pursued by the Commission. 
4. Powers of Community Institutions and rights of 
workers in the joint undertakings 
In view of the comments made as regards the legal 
character of the joint undertaking, the Committee 
wishes to point out that the powers to be given to 
Community Institutions and rights to be granted 
to workers in the joint undertaking must be defined 
in each specific instance bearing in mind in particular 
the national legislation in force in the country where 
the joint undertaking is to have its seat. 
II. SPECIAL REMARKS 
Article 1 
The Committee feels that the wording of this Article 
is inaccurate and would like its drafting to be revised bearing in mind the comments made as a part of 
the general remarks concerning the character of the 
joint undertaking. The Committee feels that at all 
events it is necessary for this Article to state clearly 
whether it is existing undertakings which are meant 
and whether they are considered as such or whether 
it is certain activities of these companies which may 
be recognized as being joint undertakings. 
The Committee feels moreover that it would be 
extremely difficult for the Council to appreciate 
what represents 'primordial importance for the 
Community's supplies of hydrocarbons' and what 
does not; and suggests therefore that less vague 
criteria be applied. These criteria should be sufficiently 
precise for the Community to be able, despite the 
absence of a real energy policy, to follow a coherent 
line of action as regards companies in this sector 
and to give the latter the possibility of having a 
clearer idea of the conditions to be met in order to 
benefit from the joint undertaking arrangements and 
the advantages associated with them. On the other 
hand, these criteria should be flexible enough to 
enable the Council to adapt its decisions to changes 
in the oil situation and in Community policies. 
The following would be some of the criteria which, 
in the view of the Committee, should be used to 
guide Community Institutions in granting the joint 
undertaking arrangements: the geographical 
distribution of supplies, the promoting of relations 
with countries which are traditionally Community 
suppliers, the development of hydrocarbons which 
can be used to replace oil (such as natural gas, for 
example), the rationalization of industrial structures 
and the fight against pollution. 
Article 2 
1. The Committee is of the opinion that although 
the participation of companies active in several 
Member States may, in certain circumstances, 
constitute a positive factor, it should not however 
be adopted as being an indispensable condition. The 
Committee feels that it would be regrettable to 
exclude a priori projects offering definite advantages 
to the Community simply because they are proposed 
by companies active and subject to the legislation of 
only one Member State. 
The Committee understands the Commission's desire 
to avoid any repetition of what happened as regards 
the joint undertakings provided for in the EAEC 
1. 6. 73 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 36/31 
Treaty, where, except in one simple case, these were 
always formed on the basis of companies of the 
same nationality, and it shares the Commission's aim 
of developing European industrial cooperation in the 
hydrocarbons sector. It feels however that the 
retaining of the requirement referred to above could 
impede the achievement of the aims pursued by the 
Commission; hence the reason why it proposed that 
this Article be amended. 
2. On the basis of Article 46 of the Treaty 
establishing the EAEC, the Committee feels that 
paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the proposal should be 
supplemented by the following sentence: 
'With this aim in mind, the Commission shall 
seek the Opinion of the Member States and of any 
public or private body which it feels might be of 
help to it.' 
3. The Committee wishes to stress that the 
detailed Report and the reasoned Opinion must be 
forwarded to the Council whatever their conclusions. 
It requests in this respect that these documents 
clearly make reference to the arguments and opinions 
put forward by undertakings. 
4. As regards the possible repercussions of the 
measures proposed in respect of tax revenue, the 
Committee takes note of the fact that a loss is to be 
expected which will only appear after a certain 
period of time. The Section however regrets that the 
Commission has not examined in a more thorough 
manner the anticipated tax losses. 
Article 3 
In view of the importance represented by the choice 
of where to establish the joint undertaking and of the 
consequences this may involve, especially as regards 
tax laws and workers' rights the Committee requests 
that the site, which would normally be mentioned in 
the statutes referred to in Article 2, be determined by 
the Council voting unanimously. 
Article 4 
The Committee would like the drafting of this Article 
to be revised so as to take into account the general 
remarks made as regards the character of the joint 
undertaking. 
Moreover, the Committee is of the opinion that if 
it were possible to accept reference to Article 92, it would not be necessary to make reference to all the 
articles concerning rules of competition. 
Article 5 
The Committee considers that the Report referred to 
in this Article constitutes one of the obligations 
imposed on undertakings to offset the advantages 
granted. It should make it possible in particular to 
assess correctly the results obtained and to determine 
whether they are in line with the aims set out in 
Article 1. The character and contents of this Report 
should take into account the individual status of each 
joint undertaking. 
The Committee wishes to point out that Article 5 
contains the only provision in which a definite 
obligation is expressly imposed on the joint 
undertaking. In this context, it would like the 
Commission to state clearly the character and scope 
of the other obligations or conditions which might 
be imposed on joint undertakings, particularly 
pursuant to Articles 2 (4C) and 3 (b) and the last 
sentence of page three of the introductory statement. 
III. SPECIAL REMARKS ON THE ANNEX TO THE 
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION 
The Committee considers that in view of the 
technical nature of the measures referred to in the 
Annex, it is not for it to express its views as to 
the exact contents of each fiscal or financial 
provision. 
The Committee wishes however to draw attention to 
the usefulness of redrafting certain of these provisions 
so as to illustrate more clearly the Commission's 
intentions and the scope of the benefits likely to be 
granted. The Committee feels in this respect that the 
granting of fiscal or financial benefits should take 
place bearing in mind the need to put Community 
undertakings in the hydrocarbons sector in a 
competitive position comparable to that enjoyed 
by non-EEC undertakings already in their own 
countries, whilst at the same time avoiding any 
accumulation of benefits. 
The Committee would like the Commission in 
particular to reconsider the drafting of item 1 (a), 
so that it may be clearly understood that the benefits 
No C 36/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 1. 6. 73 
likely to be granted refer only to activities directly 
involving the object of the joint undertaking. 
Done at Brussels, 22 February 1973. 
The text of the Opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the letter of 22 March 1972; in 
which the President of the Council of the European 
Communities requested the Opinion of the Economic 
and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council 
Directive concerning the harmonization of excise 
duties on beer'; 
Having regard to Article 198 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community; 
Having regard to the Decision of the Bureau of the 
Committee of 25 April 1972, requesting, pursuant 
to Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure, the 
Specialized Section for Economic Questions to prepare 
an Opinion and a report on this matter; Generally, the Committee feels that it is essential for 
the Commission to clarify the terminology used in 
various provisions of the proposal for a regulation. 
Having regard to its Opinion on the 'Proposal for a 
Council Directive on excise duties and indirect 
taxation, other than value added tax, levied directly 
or indirectly on the consumption of products' 
(Outline Directive); 
Having regard to the Opinion delivered by the 
Specialized Section for Economic Questions at its 
meeting held on 11 January 1973; 
Having regard to the Report submitted by Mr 
Dahrendorf, rapporteur; 
Having regard to its deliberations at the 109th 
Plenary Session held on 21 and 22 February 1973, 
at the meeting on 22 February; The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons LAPPAS 
CONSULTATION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
on a proposal for a Council Directive concerning the harmonization of excise duties 
on beer 
A. REQUEST FOR AN OPINION 
At its 192nd meeting held on 21 March 1972, the Council decided to exercise its option 
of consulting the Economic and Social Committee on the above proposal for a 
Directive. 
The request for an Opinion was sent by the President of the Council to the Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee on 22 March 1972. 
B. TEXT WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONSULTATION 
The text which was the subject of the consultation was published in the Official 
Journal of the European Communities No C 43 of 29 April 1972, p. 37. 
C. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 109th Plenary Session held in Brussels on 21 and 22 February 1973, the 
Committee adopted unanimously, with 13 abstentions by the members present or 
represented, its Opinion on the text referred to under B.