No C 326/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 12. 82 
Opinion on the 11th report on competition policy issued by the Commission of the European 
Communities 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 12 May 1982 the Commission referred the abovementioned Report to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 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 201st 
plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 October 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 198 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Commission of 
the European Communities on 12 May 1982 for an 
opinion on the 11th report on competition policy, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
26 January 1982 instructing the Section for Industry, 
Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up an opinion on 
the matter, 
Having regard to its discussions of the Industry Section at 
its 85th meeting, held on 8 September 1982, 
Having regard to its own-initiative opinion on the 
Community's competition policy in the light of the 
present economic and social situation, dated 30 April 
1981 (1), 
Having regard to its opinion on the 10th report on 
competition policy, dated 24 February 1982 (2), 
Having regard to its decision of 28 October 1982 
appointing Mr Evain as rapporteur-general in accordance 
with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure, 
Having regard to Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, 
Having regard to the oral report made by Mr Evain, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 201st plenary 
session, held on 27 and 28 October 1982 (meeting of 
28 October 1982), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, 
following the introduction of the new arrangements 
(>) OJ No C 322, 10. 12. 1981, p. 3. 
(2) OJ No C 112, 3. 5. 1982, p. 23. whereby it is to be consulted each year, its opinions are 
taken into account in the Commission's report. It also 
welcomes the fact that the Commission has explicitly 
recognized that the Committee is an ideal forum for 
passing on information to, and arranging consultations 
with, all the various socio-economic groups. In so doing, 
the Commission has followed the recommendations 
set out in the Committee's own-initiative opinion of 
30 April 1981 on competition policy and its opinion, of 
24 February 1982 on the 10th report on competition 
policy. 
1.2. In its initiative opinion of 30 April 1981 the ESC 
emphasized that economic and social issues, including 
regional factors, took priority under the Treaty of Rome, 
and that consequently the competition policy should 
conform by taking due account of the economic and 
social situation. 
In the introduction to the 11th report on competition 
policy the Commission admits that the present recession 
and economic difficulties show every sign of continuing 
and that the Community is very sensitive to the effects of 
the crisis. 
This statement illustrates the relevance of the comments 
made in the opinion of 30 April. 
1.3. While avoiding competition distortion within the 
common market and preventing any unfair practices, the 
Commission should accordingly make every effort to 
foster cooperation between Community businesses by 
making appropriate use of Articles 85(1) and 85(3) of the 
EEC Treaty. 
2. Procedures for implementing competition rules 
2.1. The Commission should be given credit for its 
efforts to improve the situation in this field. An important 
section of the 11th report is devoted to the issue. 
2.2. The Committee has always called for the existing 
procedures to be simplified and speeded up. The 
13. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 326/7 
own-initiative opinion mentioned above emphasized the 
importance of the procedures for implementing the 
competition rules. These procedures have a direct impact 
on business costs since they may cause delays which 
adversely affect the operation of firms, thus indirectly 
affecting final users and consumers. 
2.3. After discussing the various improvements, either 
already made, underway, or planned, the Committee 
trusts that the Commission will pursue and /or further its 
studies so as to: 
— improve transparency and the legal security of 
economic operators. Here the Committee notes with 
interest the continuation (provided that it does not 
entail harmful delays) of the Commission's practice of 
closing certains cases by means of comfort letters. 
Prior notification of the Commission's intentions 
gives interested parties a chance to put their case, 
— speed up as much as possible the decision-making 
process, 
— encourage objectivity in the preliminary examination 
of competition files by its departments. 
In the light of these general objectives the Committee: 
— would encourage the Commission to appoint officials 
or other representatives duly authorized to preside 
over hearings and vested with genuine autonomy and 
the right of direct access to the responsible members 
of the Commission, 
— reserves the right to give an opinion at a later date on 
the scenarios currently being discussed by the 
Commission to: 
— introduce a two-tier system of judicial review 
comprising a court of first instance which would 
pronounce on questions of fact and of law and a 
court of second instance, namely the Court of 
Justice of the European Communities, whose role 
would be confined to re-examining questions of 
law, 
— introduce into the procedure an independent 
person who would play a key role from the 
commencement of proceedings right up to the 
moment when the final decision is taken. 
2.4. Nevertheless the Committee notes that, although 
some of the above procedures increase safeguards for the 
firms concerned, they are not always adequate to dispel 
the feeling of uncertainty as to the legitimacy, in terms of 
competition, of these firms' plans. There is therefore a 
need for regular Commission notification of its line on the 
subject and the conclusions it proposes to draw from Court of Justice judgments in respect of recent 
developments on the industrial front in the 
Community. 
2.5. It should be remembered that competition policy 
is not solely designed to penalize infringements or grant 
exemptions. It also has a positive role, i.e. to provide 
firms with recommendations and guidelines which 
obviously cannot be regarded as irrevocable 
requirements. The situation in this field is permanently in 
the process of development. Thus the Commission could 
regularly (e.g. every six months and/or in the annual 
report) express its views on the basis of the most recent 
developments. 
This would also foster dialogue between the 
socio-economic interest groups. 
2.6. The Committee is concerned that the 
Commission, which has exclusive responsibility for 
granting exemptions under Article 85 (3), currently has 
before it 4 000 pending cases, with 200 new applications 
being received annually (cf. page 51 of the 11th 
report). 
There is no doubt that the majority of these cases must fall 
under the block exemption regulations which are being 
prepared. New case law and the adoption of new 
regulations would, however, make it possible to deal 
more quickly with the backlog. A certain number of cases 
must, however, be dealt with on an individual basis. 
The Committee therefore hopes that the authorization 
procedures will be reviewed with a view to their being 
speeded up considerably, (a) so as to benefit the economic 
operators, who will thus have all the facts at their 
fingertips when making decisions, especially as regards 
investments, and (b) to benefit the consumer. 
3. Extra-territorial applications 
3.1. The Committee is pleased to note that the 
introduction to the report stresses that the competition 
policy must take account of the Community's open stance 
towards other countries and its degree of commercial and 
economic interdependence vis-h-vis other areas of the 
world. 
3.2. The Commission has so far been able to apply the 
Community's competition rules to non-EC enterprises 
without any particular difficulties. This has been the case 
with regard to the notification of procedural steps, the 
fixing of prices by firms located outside the EC and the 
payment of fines. 
No C 326/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 12. 82 
3.3. These results have been achieved in respect not 
only of non-EC companies with branches or places of 
business in the Community but also of companies not 
having branches in the Community (a non-Community 
company has paid a fine following a judgment against it in 
a case on colouring agents). 
3.4. However, when new cases occur, which may 
have repercussions on all the activities of a particular 
business, it would be desirable for the Commission to 
reappraise the measures at its disposal and to bring them 
into line, on the basis of reciprocal consultations and 
concerted action, with those in force in other industrial 
countries, especially the USA. 
3.5. In this respect the Committee would refer to the 
abovementioned opinion of 30 April 1981 in which it 
called for steps to be taken, on the basis of concerted 
action between States, to prevent anti-trust rules from 
themselves providing the opportunity to distort 
competition. 
4. Application to small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs) 
4.1. In its opinion of 30 April 1981 the Committee 
underlined the important role played by SMEs in helping 
to maintain effective competition in the Community. 
4.2. The Committee is pleased to note that the 
Commission is endeavouring to create a legal and 
economic climate in which SMEs can compete, if not on 
an equal footing, then at least with the best possible 
chances of success, with large private or public, national 
or multinational companies operating on the same 
market. It also notes that the Commission is trying to 
prevent excessive strucutural changes from taking place 
quickly in some sectors at the expense of SMEs. 
4.3. Finally, the Committee welcomes the fact that the 
Commission has considered with a favourable eye the 
measures taken by the Member States to overcome the 
specific handicaps facing SMEs in the fields of finance, 
research, innovation, management and marketing. 
Special attention should be paid to SMEs operating in the 
underprivileged regions of the Community (cf. ESC 
opinion on the promotion of the small and medium-sized 
enterprises sector in the European Community (*). 
5. Distribution agreements 
5.1. In its opinion on the 10th report the Committee 
drew attention to the need for greater legal transparency in respect of the conditions to be met in order to enable 
distribution agreements to comply with the rules on 
competition. 
5.2. As regards the renewal and the amendment of 
Regulation No 67/67/EEC, the Committee wonders to 
what extent the distinction introduced between exclusive 
distribution and exclusive supply is justified, and believes 
that the matter needs to be investigated further. Whilst it 
is true that a special Regulation on exclusive supply could 
be introduced, distribution agreements cannot be dealt 
with in isolation from purchasing obligations which may 
be the quid pro quo for the exclusive sales rights granted 
by the manufacturer. 
5.3. Turning to the question of parallel imports, the 
Committee shares the Commission's view that, by 
stepping up competition, they protect the consumer. It 
should, however, be remembered that a surfeit of imports 
for some sectors and/or products can work against the 
consumer as they are not always backed up by after-sales 
service and guarantees. 
5.4. As regards the draft Regulation on the 
application of Article 85 (3) to distribution agreements 
covering motor vehicles, the Committee would draw 
attention to the recommendation in its opinion on the 
10th report that the Commission should exercise caution 
in the use of specific Regulations applying to particular 
economic sectors. It may be held that Regulations should 
be used only in the case of categories of agreements. 
6. State aid 
6.1. The Committee would refer to its opinion on the 
10th report on competition policy (*), which sets out in 
detail its views on the matter. It shares the Commission's 
concern over the increased use of such aid. 
6.2. The Committee would therefore call on the 
Commission to pay special attention to ways and means 
of strengthening the enforcement of the competition 
policy rules in this field. It welcomes the fact that the 
Commission has already showed its willingness to take 
action on this issue, as testified by the considerable 
increase in the number of proceedings an rejections in 
1981 compared with preceding years. More than ever, 
measures must be taken to stem the proliferation of 
national measures which serve to foist one Member 
State's economic and unemployment problems onto 
another. 
0) OJ No C 205, 9. 8. 1982, p. 16. (i) OJ No C 112, 3. 5. 1982, p. 23. 
13. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 326/9 
6.3. The Committee notes that, following the recent 
judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission is in a 
position to implement the Directive on transparency in financial relations between Member States and public 
undertakings. This is a positive development. 
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1982. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the transport policy of the European Community in the 1980s 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
At its 189th plenary session held on 1-3 July 1981 the Committee, acting on a proposal from the 
Bureau, decided to deliver an opinion on the abovementioned subject on its own initiative. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 201st 
plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 October 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to its decision taken at the 189th plenary 
session of 1-3 July 1981 instructing the Section for 
Transport and Communications, under Article 20 (4) and 
Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure, to draw up an 
own-initiative opinion on the above-mentioned topic, 
Having regard to the communication from the 
Commission to the Council of 24 October 1973 on the 
development of the common transport policy and the 
Committee opinions thereon of 28 March 1974 (J) and 
25 September 1975 (2), with particular attention in the 
latter opinion being given to energy policy, regional 
policy and financial implications, 
Having regard to two further own-initiative opinions of 
the Committee on the following topics: 
— transport problems in relations with eastern bloc 
countries, of 24 November 1977 (3), and 
— problems currently facing Community shipping 
policy, particularly maritime safety, the growing 
importance of new shipping nations, the development 
of flags of convenience and the discrimination against 
certain flags of 4 April 1979 (4), 
0) OJ No C 126, 17. 10. 1974, p. 26. 
(2) OJ No C 286, 15. 12. 1975, p. 2. 
(3) OJ No C 59, 8. 3. 1977, p. 10. 
C) OJ No C 171, 9. 7. 1979, p. 34. Having regard to further opinions adopted by the 
Committee between 1975 and 1982 on road, inland 
waterway, rail, sea and air transport, 
Having regard to the Council resolution of 26 March 
1981 on the work of the Council in the transport sector up 
to the end of 1983 (s), the joint meeting held on 23 April 
1981 between the Committee's Section for Transport and 
Communications and the European Parliament's 
Transport Committee and the critical appraisal of the 
abovementioned resolution in the Committee's 
own-initiative opinion of 30 April 1981 (6), 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rapporteur, 
Mr Loccufier, at the 144th meeting of the Section for 
Transport and Communications held on 14-15 
September 1982, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the 
aforementioned Section on 15 September 1982, in view of 
the urgency of the matter and the end of the Committee's 
four-year term of office on 18 September 1982, to 
recommend to the Committee that a rapporteur-general 
be appointed for this subject, 
Having regard to its decision of 28 October 1982 
appointing Mr Rouzier rapporteur-general under 
Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure, 
(s) OJ No C 171, 11. 7. 1981, p. 1. 
(<=) OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981, p. 35.