NoC41^4 Official]ournal of the European Communities 18291 
Opinion on^ 
— the draft Commission Regulation r^EEC^ on the application of Article 8^^^ of theTreaty 
to certaincategories of agreements,decisionsandconcerted practices concerning joint 
planning and coordination of capacity,consultations on passenger tariffs and cargo rates 
on scheduled air services and slot allocation at airports, 
— the draft Commission Regulation ^EEC^ on the application of Article 8^^^ of theTreaty 
to certain categories of agreements between undertakings relating to computer reservation 
systems for air transport services, and 
— the draft Commission Regulation ^EEC^ on the application of Article 8^^^ of theTreaty 
to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices concernmg ground 
handling services^ 
^C41^ 
Onl8Septemberl990 the bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the 
third paragraph of Article 20 of the Rules of procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on 
the abovementioned draft Commission Regulation. 
The Section forTransportandCommumcations,whichwasresponsible for preparing the 
Committee'swork on the subject, adopted its Opinion onl^November 1990.The Rapporteur 
wasAirAloreland. 
At its 281st plenary session of 20 November 1990 the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction^The Commission proposals 
11 Under Council Regulation ^EEC^ No ^97^8^ 
the Commission can lay down rules as regards the 
application of Article 8eo^ to certain categories of 
agreements, decisions on concerted practices relating 
directly or indirectly to thepracticesof air transport 
services. 
1.2. The proposals cover the application of 
Article 8e^p^ to the areas listed in the titles of the 
proposal. In large part they are intended to extend 
Commissiondecisions made in 1988 but a new area, 
cargorates, ismcludedandslotallocation is covered 
more extensively. 
2. Ceneral comments 
2.1. The Committee welcomes the proposals which 
strengthen existing decisions. Idowever the Committee 
questionsthemclusionof slotallocationsmthepro 
posals which goes beyond the intentions of the Council 
^oi^oemnp^t^^ in its enabling legislation. The Committee accepts that 
the existing system of slot allocation should be revised. 
Nevertheless, the Committee believes that this is a 
difficult and controversial area and should be the sub 
ject of a full consultation with all interested bodies. 
The Committee would emphasise its view that any 
pohcychange — certainly asigmficantpohcychange 
— in the field of transport must beadecision for which 
the Council takes responsibility. Consequently, the 
Committee believes that the Commission should with 
drawArticle^of proposal a^ and should give its atten 
tionto the Code of Conduct on slot allocationwhich 
the Commission has indicated it is going to propose. 
2.2. The Committee understands the concern of the 
Commissionthat there may be discrimination against 
new entrants as regards slots.ldowever,the Committee 
does not believe this in itself should be a reason for 
proceeding with Article^and points out that the com 
petition rules of theTreatyallow in anyevent for the 
Commission to intervene on such cases. 
2.^. As the need for slot allocation is due, primarily, 
to the shortage of airport capacity in relation to mcreas 
ing air traffic,the Commission should, above all,put 
forward suitable proposals astohowe^isting airport 
capacity canbebetterusedandhowitcanbecorreD 
spondingly extended. 
18. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 41/55 
2.4. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
should watch carefully the effects of its proposals on 
joint planning and coordination of capacity on genuine 
competition and, if necessary, should consider prohibit­
ing such joint agreements allowing exception on a case 
by case basis. 
2.5. The Committee notes there are some complaints 
about ground handling services and questions whether 
the proposal on ground handling services is consistent 
with the Commission's — and the Community's — 
usual philosophy on competition. 
2.6. With the exception of the above remarks the 
Committee generally agrees with the proposals. Never­
theless the Committee believes the following specific 
comments will be helpful in refining the proposals. 
2.7. The Committee expresses its concern that the 
proposal — particularly proposal a) — should not be 
discriminatory in effect between EC and non-EC based 
airlines in a manner that could invite damaging retali­
ation by third countries. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Proposal a) — Coordination of capacity, consul­
tation on passenger tariffs and cargo rates, and 
slot allocation 
3.1.1. Article 3 
3.1.1.1. The Committee notes that the draft Regu­
lation uses the expression 'cargo rates' which is consist­
ent with the new enabling exemption. While this exten­
sion is of minor importance compared to passenger 
rates the Regulation should make clear it refers to 
the rates and the conditions pertaining to these rates. 
Further, as regards passenger tariffs, it should be clear 
— as appears to be the Commission's intention — that 
consultation relate only to interlining cases. 
3.1.2. Article 3(l)b 
3.1.2.1. The Article is unclear and should be reword­
ed. Such rewording should include replacing 'its routes' 
by 'the routes concerned'. The Commission should 
clarify whether or not its intention is that the mere 
fact of participating in tariff consultations may oblige 
carriers to interline at a wide variety of taxes and rates. 3.1.3. Article 4 
3.1.3.1. As stated above this should be withdrawn. 
In any event no real judgement can be made on this 
Article until the Commission states what figures should 
in the 'blanks' in paragraph 1(e). 
3.2. Proposal b) — CRS 
3.2.1. The Committee suggests it would be simpler 
to adopt the computer reservation system (CRS) Code 
Regulation by making a cross-reference to them in the 
block exemption rather than a full reproduction. 
3.2.2. Article 2 
3.2.2.1. Definition of CRS: The reference to non-
scheduled carriers is inconsistent with the Council 
decision on the Code of Conduct and should be with­
drawn (possibly to be included in a new code of conduct 
for the display of non-scheduled airline products). 
3.2.3. Article 8(2) 
3.2.3.1. The phrase 'air carriers' is not relevant here. 
3.2.4. Article 12 
3.2.4.1. This paragraph appears to go beyond the 
fifth paragraph of the preamble, i.e. it adds additional 
obligations on joint-venture owned CRS than on single 
owned. 
3.2.4.2. The Committee reminds the Commission of 
paragraph 3.1 of its Opinion on the original block 
exemption (*) which asked the Commission to ensure 
that the two principle joint-venture systems Galileo and 
Amadeus are truly competitive. 
3.3. Proposal c) — Ground handling 
3.3.1. The Committee believes airlines should be able 
to select ground handling services on competitive 
ground and is concerned that at many airports there is 
no way for an airline to assess whether a fair and 
genuinely economic charge is being made for ground 
handling services. Consequently it may be preferable to 
(!) OJ No C 137, 12. 9. 1988, p.ll. 
No C 41/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
withdraw this Regulation and impose upon airport 
authorities a general duty to move towards a fully 
Done at Brussels, 20 November 1990. 
1. Introduction 
The Committee welcomes the proposed regulation. The 
Commission is to be congratulated on its proposals for 
rectifying a number of shortcomings in the arrange­
ments for movement of goods introduced under Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3/84 of 19 December 1983, in 
preparation for completion of the Single Market and 
the abolition of internal Community frontier checks. 
2. Background 
2.1. Regulation (EEC) No 3/84, which entered into 
force on 1 July 1985 for an experimental period ending 
on 30 June 1988, exempted certain goods (listed in an 
Annex), sent from one Member State for the purposes 
(!) OJ No C 204, 15. 8. 1990, p. 15. competitive tendering situation. Alternatively, there 
may be a case for involving Article 90 of the Treaty. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
of temporary use in one or more other Member States, 
from a number of restrictions, prohibitions or con­
straints, on condition that they were covered by a 
Community movement carnet. It was extended for the 
first time, without any alterations, up to 30 June 1989 
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1227/88 of 3 May 
1988. 
2.2. The arrangements were extended for the second 
time by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1292/ 
89 of 3 May 1989, which stated (in the recitals) that 
Regulation (EEC) No 3/84 was considered by many 
private individuals and business people to cover too 
restricted a number of goods and beneficiaries at a time 
when the situation had changed significantly, particu­
larly as regards exemption from Value Added Tax 
(VAT) for temporary imports other than transport 
vehicles under the 17th VAT Directive No 85/382/EEC 
of 16 July 1985. Consequently, Regulation (EEC) No 
1292/89, in taking account of the views of private 
individuals and business people and seeking to align 
tha arrangements governing temporary movement Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 3/84 introducing arrangements for movement within the Community of goods sent from 
one Member State for temporary use in one or more other Member States (*) 
(91/C 41/19) 
On 16 August 1990, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 100A of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, was instructed to prepare the 
Committee's work on the subject. In the course of its work, Mr Giacomelli was appointed 
Rapporteur-General by the Plenary Committee. 
At its 281st plenary session (meeting of 20 November 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.