No C 307/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
Opinion on the amended proposal for a Council Decision on the Communities' system of own 
resources 
(84/C 307/09) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 17 July 1984 the Council, acting under Article 149 of the EEC Treaty, decided to consult 
the Economic and Social Committee on the abovementioned proposal. 
Procedure 
The Section for Economic and Financial Questions, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, appointed Mr van der Mensbrugghe as rapporteur. The 
Section adopted its opinion on 18 September 1984. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 219th plenary session (meeting of 27 September 1984) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes to 11, with seven abstentions. 
I. Introduction II. General comments 
1.1. A year ago the Commission proposed 
arrangements for the future financing of the Community. 
The Commission has now radically altered these 
proposals in the light of developments over the last few 
months. 
1.2. In so doing, the Commission is fleshing out the 
decisions taken by the European Council in 
Fontainebleau on 26 June 1984. The Committee notes 
that it is being consulted after the decisions have already 
been taken at the highest political level. The Committee, 
which has been unable to hold an in-depth discussion on 
the whole question, is concerned about the way in which 
the decision-making process is operating in the 
Community. It therefore calls upon the leaders of the 
Community and the Member States to find enough 
political will, within the framework of the institutions, to 
enable the Community to tackle its real internal and 
external problems. 
1.3. The Committee would refer to its opinion of 26 
October 1983 on the first Commission proposal. It 
reiterates the major policy guidelines regarding financial 
solidarity, the rejection of the 'fair return' principle, the 
control of expenditure and the increase in own resources, 
etc. set out in this opinion and reaffirms its comments on 
(a) the inclusion of ECSC customs duties in the 
Community's own resources, and (b) the reimbursement 
of collection costs. 
1.4. The representatives of the economic and social 
groupings on the Committee reaffirm their conviction 
that there can be no alternative to European integration 
unless one is willing to accept a decline in the fortunes of 
the peoples of the Community. 2.1. The Committee underlines the importance of the 
penultimate 'whereas' of the new proposal, which states 
that 'any Member State bearing an excessive budgetary 
burden in relation to its relative prosperity should benefit 
at the appropriate time from a correction'. 
2.2. In its earlier opinion of October 1983, the 
Committee did not rule out the possibility of such a 
correction but saw it as a temporary measure until such 
time as appropriate common policies had been developed 
that would put right any inequitable apportionment of 
the costs and disadvantages. 
2.3. This principle of a correction - which has been 
taken over by the Commission from the conclusions of the 
Fontainebleau Summit - has been expressed in terms 
which permit numerous interpretations. What is, for 
example, the 'relative prosperity' of a Member State? 
Even if the principle is only set out in a recital and even if 
the application of a correction for another Member State 
will require a new Council decision, the principle is liable 
to be invoked frequently in the future. 
2.4. In implementing this principle of a correction 
(which should remain an exception), Europe's leaders 
will at all events need to display a very high level of 
political wisdom in order to prevent financial instability, 
which would be detrimental to the development of the 
Community. 
2.5. The corrective mechanism is a temporary 
arrangement. The Committee would refer to the point of 
view expressed in its previous opinion concerning 
19. 11. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 307/25 
possible use of indicators such as per capita GDP and the 
share of each Member States in the Community's net 
operating surplus. The Committee considers that any 
future solution should be based on financial, economic 
and social solidarity as well as an equitable 
apportionment of budgetary burdens and benefits. At all 
events, the real solution lies in the evenly balanced 
development of common policies, some of which have so 
far only been sketched out in rough. The Committee 
would again emphasize that membership of the 
Community should not be viewed in purely financial or 
budgetary terms. Some of the advantages of membership 
- even in the economic sphere - cannot be expressed in 
figures at all. 
HI. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 3 is the result of a political compromise. It 
is, however, so complicated that it will be difficult to 
interpret and apply. 
3.2. It should be noted that the proposed corrective 
mechanism will affect the budgetary receipts. The only 
Member States that will not reach the ceiling of 1,4 % will 
be those receiving a rebate. As soon as a Member State 
reaches this ceiling, which applies to each Member State, 
the system will have to be reviewed. The solution is thus 
temporary and in the relatively short term the 1,4% 
ceiling could prove to be inadequate. 
3.3. The accession of Spain and Portugal will of 
course have budgetary repercussions, but the 
Commission's proposal seems to have taken account of 
this, at least for the near future. 
3.4. To sum up, the Committee considers that the 
proposed solution undoubtedly safeguards the key 
features of the own resources arrangements, and provides for an increase in own resources as it has advocated. It is, 
however, worried about certain consequences connected 
with the complexity of the system, its transient nature and 
the circumstances in which a correction might be made in 
the future. It hopes that, in the light of experience, the 
next review will be able to alleviate these negative 
aspects. 
4.1. The 1970 decision provided for the financing of 
Euratom research progammes by financial contributions 
of the Member States, or of certain Member States. This 
possibility is now extended to cover all research 
programmes (Article 4, paragraph 2). 
4.2. Given the number and heterogeneous nature of 
the Member States (not all of whom have an interest in 
certain programmes) the extension of this possibility to 
cover all research programmes is justifiable. It even offers 
an advantage in that certain programmes might not 
otherwise be undertaken. Furthermore, it could be 
conducive to good coordination between Community 
and Member State research programmes, including those 
of industry. Steps must, however, be taken to ensure that 
the extension in question does not lead - in this vital area 
of scientific research - to fragmentation of the research 
effort, which would be to the detriment of the 
Community as a whole. Nor must the new provision be 
seen as a precedent applicable to other fields, if this would 
impede the creation of a single market. At all events, the 
Community approach must remain a priority. 
5.1. With regard to Article 8, the Committee 
understands the Commission's desire to have the increase 
in own resources for the whole of 1985 - assuming of 
course that all the national parliaments will have given 
their consent by 1 October 1985. 
5.2. The Committee would like the national 
parliaments and, subsequently, the competent 
Community authorities to ensure that the Community 
has the necessary resources at its disposal. 
Done at Brussels, 27 September 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
(Rejected amendments) 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected by the 
Committee during plenary session discussions: 
No C 307/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
Page 4, point 3.1: 
Replace point 3.1 by the following: 
'Article 3 is the result of a political compromise. The Committee cannot help but note that the method 
chosen is at odds with the spirit and provisions of the Treaty. The Article is also so complicated that it will 
be difficult to interpret and apply.' 
Reasons 
Self-explanatory. 
Result of the vote: 
Votes for: 5. Votes against: 75. Abstentions: 10. 
Page 6, point 5.2: 
Replace point 5.2 by the following: 
'The Committee would like to see national parliaments and the competent Community authorities give the 
Community the own resources it needs and make it possible for the European Parliament to carry out the 
budgetary functions assigned to it.' 
Result of the vote: 
Votes for: 28. Votes against: 65. Abstentions: 13. 
Opinion on the relations between the European Community and Yugoslavia 
(84/C 307/10) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 October 1983 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph 
of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the relations between 
the European Community and Yugoslavia. 
Procedure 
The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work 
on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 September 1984, in the light of the report by 
Mr Stahlmann. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 219th plenary session held on 26 and 27 September 1984 (meeting of 27 September) the 
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with no dissenting votes but 
with three abstentions. 
1. The Committee takes the view that the economic situation of Yugoslavia - a 
Mediterranean country and an important non-aligned State - must be strengthened. 
Moreover, Yugoslavia is of special significance as a link between Greece and the other Member 
States of the Community. There are also many Yugoslav citizens employed in the Member 
States. Finally, Yugoslavia is a major outlet for Community exports.