No C 108/46 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 5. 75 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on the  European  Cooperation 
Grouping  (ECG) 
The text  referred  to the Committee  was  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities,  No  C 14 of 15 February  1975,  pages  30 to 35. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 21 January  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Econo-
mic and  Social  Committee  under  Article  198  of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 128th  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 26 and  27 February  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  referral  on 22 January  1974 
by the  Council  of the  European  Communities,  of 
the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on the Euro-
pean  Cooperation  Grouping  (ECG); 
Having  regard  to Article  198  of the Treaty  establish-
ing the  European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 29 January  1974,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to prepare 
the Committee's  work  on the  matter; 
Having  regard  to the Opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  at its 
meeting  on 4 December  1974; 
Having  regard  to the report  submitted  by the Rap-
porteur,  Mr  Friedrichs; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 128th  plenary 
session  of 26 and  27 February  1975,  sitting  of 27 
February  1975; 
Whereas  it is particularly  important  for the creation 
of an internal  European  market  that  cross-frontier 
cooperation  be made  possible  between  undertakings 
established  in different  Member  States; Whereas  the  legal  frameworks  for  cooperation 
proposed  so far  by  the  Commission  (European 
Company,  Community  contracts,  joint  undertakings) 
should  be backed  up not  only  by harmonization  of 
national  systems  of company  law  (in  respect  of 
societes  anonymes,  societes  a responsabilite  limitee 
and cooperatives),  but also  by a special  legal  struc-
ture enabling  undertakings  to promote  certain  of 
their  activities  jointly  whilst  preserving  their  legal 
and economic  independence; 
Whereas  the  legal  structure  for  such  limited  co-
operation  must  allow  undertakings  the  requisite 
freedom  to tailor  their  cooperation  arrangements 
to their  own  particular  requirements,  and  whereas 
it is necessary  to have  special  provisions  governing 
the cooperation  grouping  which  take  account  of 
the need  for legal  safeguards  to protect  the interests 
concerned  (member  undertakings,  employees  and 
creditors), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 63 votes  to 15,  and  with  seven  abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the proposal  for a Regu-
lation  subject  to the  following  general  and  specific 
comments: 
15. 5. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 108/47 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  case  for the  proposed  Regulation 
1.1.1.  The  Committee  supports  the Commission's 
proposal  for  a statute  for  a European  cooperation 
grouping  to round  off its various  earlier  proposals 
on legal  structures  for  cross-frontier  business  co-
operation.  It  reaffirms  the  view  expressed  in its 
Opinion  of 25 March  1971  (*) on the memorandum 
on industrial  policy  in the Community,  namely  that 
'it would  be useful  to create  a flexible  statute  fer 
cooperation  between  undertakings  which  would 
enable  the latter  to cooperate  on a particular  project 
without  changing  their  legal  status  and  would  leave 
them  free  to act  independently  in other  fields'. 
1.1.2.  The  Committee  notes  that  a similar  statute 
adopted  and  applied  since  1967  in one  Member 
State  seems  to have  met  at national  level  the  needs 
which  the  proposal  is intended  to meet  at Commu-
nity level. 
1.1.3.  The  Committee  accepts  that  cross-frontier 
cooperation  in the  Community  must  be based  on a 
Community  statute,  since  harmonization  of national 
laws  leaves  undertakings  still  subject  to the  laws  of 
individual  Member  States.  A  Regulation  based 
on Article  235  of the  EEC  Treaty  would  afford 
cooperating  undertakings  the requisite  legal  certainty, 
especially  as regards  identical  application  throughout 
the Community  and  uniform  interpretation  by the 
European  Court  of Justice.  National  law  would, 
of course,  have  to be referred  to for  matters  on 
which  the  Regulation  makes  no provision,  particu-
larly  in the  commercial,  fiscal  and  social  fields 
and as regards  the  structure  of undertakings. 
1.2. The  purpose  of the  cooperation  grouping 
1.2.1.  In  the  Committee's  view,  the  Commission 
proposal  is answering  the  practical  needs  of under-
takings  by not  limiting  cooperation  groupings  to 
the execution  of a particular  project,  but  allowing 
undertakings  to combine  certain  sectors  of their 
activities.  The  Committee  would  point  out,  how-
ever,  that  for more  permanent  and  closer  cooperation 
other  legal  structures  are available,  or must  be made 
available,  since  cooperation  groupings  are  only 
intended  to be formed  for  a fixed  term,  as stated 
in Article  1. 
i1) OJ No C 59, 11. 6. 1971,  p. 13. 1.2.2.  Since  the  duration  and  the  scope  of the 
cooperation  are  limited,  it is appropriate  that  a 
cooperation  grouping  must  not  take  the  place  of 
its members.  The  purpose  of a cooperation  group-
ing is simply  to be a vehicle  for assisting  and  deve-
loping  the business  of its members.  Its  object  cannot 
be to so concentrate  the  members'  activities  that 
management  powers  are taken  over;  the cooperation 
grouping  may,  however,  act  independently  within 
the above  limits.  The  Committee  would  therefore 
stress  the  importance  of the  provisions  in the  pro-
posed  Regulation  which  are  designed  to ensure 
this limitation  of purpose,  particularly  the provisions 
that cooperation  groupings  must  not  have  risk 
capital  or seek  to make  a profit  for themselves,  that 
the services  performed  by them  are  to be exclu-
sively  for  the  benefit  of their  members  and  that  a 
grouping  must  not  have  more  than  250  employees. 
1.2.3.  The  Committee  regards  such  restrictions  as 
necessary,  but  wonders  how  they  can  be enforced. 
Consideration  should  be given  to additional  means 
of supervision  to back  up  the  existing  provision 
whereby  the  court  can  order  the  winding-up  of the 
grouping  on  application  by  a person  proving  a 
legitimate  interest. 
1.3. Availability  of  the  cooperation  grouping 
1.3.1.  This  legal  structure,  which  is designed  to 
facilitate  operations  on  a certain  scale  but  with 
a limited  object,  has  clearly  been  created  for small-
and medium-sized  undertakings,  which  will  thus 
be able  to associate  within  a flexible  framework 
for a specific  purpose  without  losing  any  of their 
legal  and  economic  independence  or directly  jeo-
pardizing  it. 
1.3.2.  However,  this  structure  must  not  be con-
fined  to these  undertakings,  for  that  would  be 
discrimination  at variance  with  the general  interests 
of the  Community  and  its consumers. 
1.3.3.  It  would  indeed  seem  to be economically 
wrong  not  to allow  large  undertakings  to use  this 
legal  structure  for  activities  which  are  naturally 
limited  in time  by their  purpose,  or are not  pursued 
by some  of the  participating  undertakings  or are 
limited  to research,  etc.  This  structure  would  be 
particularly  useful  to small-  and medium-sized  under-
takings  for  forming  limited  associations  with  large 
undertakings. 
No C 108/48 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 5. 75 
1.3.4.  Such  wider  availability  of the  cooperation 
grouping  would  also  be in the interests  of consumers, 
for this  flexible  structure  could  be used  for specific, 
limited  associations  which  would  not  involve  any 
administrative,  commercial  or financial  back-up 
and hence  would  not  entail  any  costs  which  would 
push  up prices. 
1.3.5.  The  Committee  is, however,  unanimous  in 
the view  that  the  creation  of a legal  structure  for 
inter-company  cooperation  of limited  duration  and 
scope  in accordance  with  the  needs  of small-  and 
medium-sized  undertakings  must  not  provide  a 
loophole  for avoiding  more  rigorous  structures  under 
European  and  national  company  law. 
1.3.6.  The  Committee  approves  the Commission's 
aim to limit  use  of the  cooperation  grouping  to 
natural  persons  and  companies  carrying  on business 
in the Community,  thus  underlining  the fact  that  the 
grouping  is a legal  instrument  for the furtherance  of 
European  industrial  policy.  Corresponding  arran-
gements  must  be made  for  cross-frontier  coopera-
tion between  members  of the professions  as part  of 
the action  to implement  freedom  of establishment. 
1.4. Protection  of interested  parties 
1.4.1.  Although  flexibility  is desirable,  the  pro-
posal  for a regulation  on the European  cooperation 
grouping  must  embody  certain  safeguards  for  the 
various  interested  parties: 
(a) In the  interests  of the  members  guarantees 
should  be given  in respect  of the rights  of mino-
rity groups. 
(b) In the  interests  of the  employees  it must  be 
pointed  out  that  until  the desirable  Community 
rules  have  been  laid  down,  the  European 
cooperation  grouping  will  be subject  to the 
legislation  of the  Member  States  in which  it 
has its  head  office  and  establishments.  In 
addition,  the grouping  will,  of course,  be bound 
by the  collective  wage  agreements  which  are 
applicable  to other  undertakings  in the  same 
country. 
(c) In the  interests  of creditors  suitable  stringent 
liability  requirements  should  be imposed,  since 
the cooperation  grouping  will  operate  as an 
instrument  of its members. 
Some  of these  points  are  gone  into  in the  specific 
comments  on the individual  articles  of the proposal. 
1.5. Safeguarding  effective  competition 
1.5.1.  It  is essential,  in the  public  interest,  that 
application  of the  Community's  rules  on competi-
tion should  be fully  guaranteed. 1.5.2.  The  Committee  therefore  considers  it very 
important  to establish  that  the  European  coopera-
tion grouping  will  be fully  subject  to the supervision 
provided  for  under  the  laws  on competition,  in 
order  to ensure  that  this  Community  legal  instrument 
cannot  be misused  to bypass  national  and  Com-
munity  anti-cartel  laws. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Title 
The Committee  would  draw  the  Commission's 
attention  to the  fact  that  the  present  title  might 
lead to the grouping  being  confused  with  traditional 
forms  of cooperation  in cooperatives. 
2.2. Article  1 
2.2.1.  Article  1 (1) stipulates  that  the cooperation 
grouping  is to be formed  for  a fixed  term,  the 
Commission  intending  this to be one of the restrictions 
referred  to in point  1.2  of 'General  comments'. 
Although,  for understandable  reasons,  no maximum 
term  is laid  down  in the proposal  for a Regulation 
and under  Article  6 (3),  second  subparagraph, 
members  are  even  free  to extend  the  initially-
agreed  term,  this  restriction  on the  duration  of 
groupings  does  have  a fundamental  significance  in 
that every  member  can  decide  on expiry  of the agreed 
term  whether  or not  to enter  into  a new  contract. 
The Committee  would,  however,  suggest  that  con-
sideration  be given  to amending  Article  1 (1) so as 
to preclude  the formation  of a cooperation  grouping 
for an unduly  long  term. 
2.3. Article  2 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  would  draw  attention  to 
the fact  that  the fields  of activity  specified  in Article  2 
(2) limit  the  objects  of cooperation  groupings  and 
hence  the possibilities  of cooperation.  Article  2 (3), 
which  prohibits  groupings  from  exercising  manage-
ment  functions  in respect  of their  members,  is also 
to be viewed  in this  light.  The  same  applies  to the 
ceiling  placed  on  the  number  of employees  in 
Article  2 (4).  The  aim  is to preclude  the concentra-
tion of large  production  units  and  group  influence 
on the  business  activity  of the  cooperating  under-
takings. 
2.3.2.  In  the  Committee's  opinion,  Article  2 (2) 
should  indicate  that  the  cooperation  grouping  may 
neither  own  shares  nor  participate  in other  under-
takings.  In  addition,  it should  be made  clear  that 
the members  may  not  transfer  all or a major  part 
of their  production  activities  to the  grouping. 
15. 5. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 108/49 
2.4. Article  4 
2.4.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  indent  2) of 
Article  4 (1) in the  German  version  be worded  as 
follows: 
'die Tatigkeit,  die Gegenstand  der  Zusammenar-
beit ist.'  (=  the  activity  which  is the  object  of 
the cooperation). 
2.4.2.  The  Committee  recommends  that  the 
phrase  'in accordance  with  the  legislation  of the 
Member  State  where  the head  office  is situated'  be 
added  to the  second  sentence  of Article  4 (2) of 
the draft  regulation. 
2.4.3.  The  Committee  thinks  that  in conjunction 
with  the  introduction  of the  European  cooperation 
grouping  a European  publication  system  should 
be brought  into  operation  to simplify  matters  for 
any parties  seeking  information.  It recommends 
that summary  notice  be given  in the Official  Journal 
of the European  Communities  with  reference  to the 
publication  in the  country  in which  the  grouping 
has its head  office.  The  draft  Regulation  should  be 
expanded  to cover  this  point. 
2.5. Article  6 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  the  words 
'oder  die Erweiterung  der  Kooperationsvereinigung 
errichtet  worden  ist'  (=  'or  for  the  extension  of 
the term  of the  grouping'). 
2.5.2.  The  Committee  would  also  draw  attention 
to an apparent  contradiction  between  this  provision 
and the  Commission's  explanatory  comments  on 
it. According  to the  latter,  each  member  has  the 
right  of veto  in respect  of amendments  to the con-
tract,  early  winding-up  of the grouping  or extension 
of the term  of the grouping.  The  Committee  there-
fore asks  the  Commission  to examine  whether  it 
would  not  be advisable  in the interests  of the mem-
bers,  bearing  in mind  the  observation  made  in 
point  1.4.1(b)  of 'General  comments',  to preclude 
the possibility  of a contract  dispensing  with  the 
right  of veto. 
2.5.3.  It  would  make  for better  legal  protection  of 
members,  in the Committee's  view,  if each  member 
were  able  to demand  the holding  of a general  meet-
ing of members.  The  Committee  therefore  recom-
mends  deletion  of the  provision  of Article  6 (5) 
that requests  for the convening  of a general  meeting 
must  be supported  by at least  one-quarter  of the 
members. 
2.6. Article  7 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  asks  the  Commission  to 
examine  whether,  contrary  to Article  7 (1),  the 
management  of groupings  could  also  be entrusted 
to legal  persons.  This  would  enable  certain  co-operation  groupings  to save  themselves  the expense 
of appointing  a professional  manager.  The  publicity 
rules  for the protection  of the  grouping's  creditors 
and of third  parties  carrying  on business  with  the 
grouping  would  then,  however,  have  to be expanded 
so as to make  the  natural  persons  empowered  to 
represent  the legal  persons  also  subject  to the publi-
city rules. 
2.6.2.  According  to the first  sentence  of Article  7 
(2), it would  seem  that  the  grouping  is responsible 
for all the acts  of a manager  no matter  what  they 
may be.  The  text  should,  therefore,  be expanded 
to read: 
'The  acts  of a manager  on behalf  of the grouping 
shall  be binding  on the latter...'  (rest  unchanged). 
2.7. Article  8 
2.7.1.  The  Commission  does  not  lay  down  any 
rules  on the drawing  up and  auditing  of the annual 
accounts  of cooperation  groupings  or impose  any 
special  requirements  as to the publication  of results. 
In pursuance  of Article  1 (2) of the proposal,  group-
ings will  in both  these  areas  be governed  by the law 
of the  Member  State  in which  the  head  office  as 
specified  by the  contract  is situated.  This  means 
that as a rule  only  cooperation  groupings  which 
have  trader  status  under  commercial  law  will  be sub-
ject to the obligation  to render  and  publish  accounts. 
2.7.2.  The  Committee  concurs  with  this,  since  it 
considers  that  the  joint  and  several  liability  of the 
members  and  the  limitations  which  the  statute 
imposes  on the  activities  of cooperation  groupings 
make  it possible  to dispense  with  detailed  rules  on 
the rendering  of accounts. 
2.8. Article  9 
2.8.1.  The  Committee  would  stress  the  cardinal 
importance  of the  provision  that  the  members  are 
to be jointly  and  severally  liable  for the debts  of the 
grouping.  This  provision  compensates  for the fact 
that the  obligations  normally  imposed  under  com-
pany  have  law  been  reduced  in the  interests  of 
flexibility. 
2.8.2.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  detailed 
arrangements  concerning  liability  could  be  laid 
down  in each  specific  case  by the  contract  or by 
individual  internal  agreements  between  members, 
so as to allow  a formula  for apportioning  liability 
among  the members  according  to their  financial  or 
technical  involvement  in particular  activities  of the 
No C 108/50 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 5. 75 
grouping.  It  should  not,  however,  be possible  to 
rely on such  arrangements  against  third  parties. 
2.8.3.  As  regards  debts  to employees  of the cooper-
ation  grouping  and  to staff  placed  at the  disposal 
of the  grouping  by its members,  the  reference  to 
national  law  ensures  that  these  persons  will  be 
treated  as preferential  creditors. 
2.9. Article  11 
2.9.1.  On  the  question  whether  a limitation  of 
the liability  of new  members  for  debts  incurred 
prior  to their  admission  can  be relied  upon  against 
third  parties,  the  Committee  would  refer  to its 
comments  on Article  9, as similar  arguments  apply 
here  in favour  of the  Commission's  proposal. 
2.10.  Article  20 
2.10.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  taxa-
tion arrangements  for  the  cooperation  grouping 
should  meet  the criteria  of clarity  and  avoidance  of 
double  taxation.  The  Commission's  proposal  that 
any profits  made  by  the  cooperation  grouping should  be taxed  in the hands  of its members  would 
only  meet  these  criteria  if there  were  a tight  net-
work  of double  taxation  conventions  between  all 
the Member  States  and  if profits  and  losses  were 
apportioned  among  members  in accordance  with 
a formula  that  took  account  of tax  law.  The  crite-
rion of clarity  should  also  apply  to any  property 
tax which  might  have  to be paid. 
2.10.2.  The  Committee  therefore  suggests  that 
the Commission  examine  whether  the  contractual 
and statutory  formulae  for  contributions  and  pay-
ments  to cover  losses  provided  for  in Article  8 (1) 
could  also  be used  for the tax  assessment  of profits 
or losses  at member  level. 
2.10.3.  The  Committee  would  also  raise  the 
question  whether  a capital  contribution  tax  is 
payable  on the  contributions  made  by the members 
of the  cooperation  grouping. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 February  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Hen:i  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  the discussion: 
1. Replace  item  1.3 (availability  of the cooperation  grouping)  by the following  text: 
'1.3. Availability  of  the  cooperation  grouping 
1.3.1.  According  to the  Commission's  explanatory  memorandum  on the  proposal, 
the legal  structure  of the cooperation  grouping  is to be made  available  to small-  and me-
dium-sized  undertakings  in particular,  although  large  undertakings  are not to be excluded. 
The needs  of small-  and  medium-sized  undertakings  could  make  it desirable  for less 
definite  commitments  to be involved  in a European  cooperation  grouping.  The  flexi-
bility  of the cooperation  statute,  which  is therefore  necessary  in the interests  of small-
and medium-sized  undertakings,  gives  rise  to certain  reservations  about  the fact  that 
legal  structure  of the grouping  is to be generally  available,  and thus  to large  undertakings 
as well. 
1.3.2.  Under  the planned  statute  for a European  company,  large  undertakings  will 
be able  to engage  in cross-frontier  cooperation  through  joint  subsidiaries  subject  to pre-
cise commitments  and  obligations  in the field  of company  law.  It would  be undesirable 
if such  undertaking  were  to make  large-scale  use of the cooperation  grouping  and  thus 
escape  the obligations  of the European  company  statute. 
1.3.3.  Furthermore,  unduly  wide  availability  would  make  additional  provisions  on 
the cooperation  grouping's  internal-structure  necessary  and  would  therefore  be at 
variance  with  the small-  and  medium-sized  undertakings'  need  for a flexible  legal  form. 
1.3.4.  Use  of the cooperation  grouping  by large  undertakings  would  clearly  raise  more 
difficult  problems  from  the point  of view  of safeguarding  competition  than  would  its 
use by small-  and  medium-sized  undertakings. 
15. 5. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 108/51 
1.3.5.  The  Committee  recognizes  that  the  proposed  limitation  of the  purpose  of co-
operation  groupings  and  the  ceiling  on the  number  of employees  makes  the grouping 
statute  better  suited  to the  needs  and  circumstances  of small-  and  medium-sized  under-
takings.  However,  opinions  within  the Committee  are divided  as to whether  these  indi-
rect restrictions  proposed  by the  Commission  are  sufficient  to dispel  the  reservations 
mentioned  above  or whether,  in addition,  large  undertakings  with  more  than  a certain 
number  of employees  should  be expressly  barred  from  forming  cooperation  groupings. 
1.3.6.  The  Committee  is, however,  unanimous  in the view  that  the creation  of a legal 
structure  for  intercompany  cooperation  of limited  duration  and  scope  in accordance 
with  the  needs  of small-  and  medium-sized  undertakings  must  not  provide  a loophole 
for avoiding  more  rigorous  structures  under  European  and  national  company  law. 
1.3.7.  The  Committee  approves  the Commission's  aim  to limit  use  of the cooperation 
grouping  to natural  persons  and  companies  carrying  on business  in the  Community, 
thus  underlining  the  fact  that  the  grouping  is a legal  instrument  for  the  furtherance  of 
European  industrial  policy.  Corresponding  arrangements  must  be made  for  cross-
frontier  cooperation  between  the  members  of the  professions  as part  of the  action  to 
implement  freedom  of establishment.' 
Reasons 
In the Commission's  explanatory  memorandum  on the  Draft  Regulation  it is pointed  out 
that the  legal  instrument  of a European  cooperation  grouping  should  be made  available 
for small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises  in particular.  It thus  cannot  be in the  interests 
of the  Commission  to approve  such  a flexible  legal  instrument  for  large  undertakings  as 
well,  without  any  restriction  whatsoever. 
Whilst  the statute  of a European  company  is obviously  intended  as an instrument  of cross-
frontier  cooperation  for large  undertakings,  the European  cooperation  grouping  is intended 
as an instrument  for small-  and  medium-sized  undertakings  which  can  be used  as flexibly 
as possible  to their  advantage  and  to suit  their  needs. 
It does  not  suffice  simply  to state  that  the  European  cooperation  grouping  must  not  pro-
vide  a loophole  for avoiding  more  rigorous  structures  under  European  and  national  com-
pany  law;  it must  be guaranteed  that  a development  of this  nature  is precluded  right  from 
the outset. 
Besides,  there  is in principle  no reason  to introduce  less  rigorous  standards  under  com-
pany  law  for  cross-frontier  inter-company  cooperation  than  already  exist  in the  national 
company  law;  and  this  applies  to large  undertakings  in particular. 
Although  no definite  limit  has  been  laid  down  to define  small-  and  medium-sized  under-
takings  on the  one  hand  and  large  undertakings  on the  other,  it can  be assumed  that  this 
limit  can  be set at about  500  employees.  This  is of course  an arbitrary  limit,  as is often 
the case,  and  can  merely  be used  as an aid in legislation. 
2. Delete  item  1.4  (protection  of interested  parties)  on page  6 and  replace  by the  following 
text: 
'1.4.  Protection  of  interested  parties 
1.4.1.  ... 
(a) In the interests  of the members  ... 
(b) In the  interests  of the  employees  of cooperation  groupings  rights  of representation 
vis-a-vis  the  management  organs  should  be guaranteed. 
(c) In the  interests  of creditors  ...' 
Reasons 
The protection  of employees  is inadequately  provided  for  in item  1.4.1  (b).  Just  as it is 
in the  interests  of undertakings  to acquire  a Community  instrument  for  cooperation,  it 
must  be recognized  that  in this  supranational  form  of inter-company  cooperation  the 
employees'  rights  of representation  are  no longer  governed  exclusively  by national  provi-
sions,  but  are  subject  to Community  rules. 
Result  of the  vote 
For:  27;  against:  37; abstentions:  5.