13.9.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC249/25
APPENDIX
totheOpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
v
Thefollowingamendment,whichreceivedatleastaquarterofthevotescast,wasrejectedinthecourseof
thedebate:
'Addthefollowingnewpointsafterpoint3.13:
3.14.Indealingwiththesubjectinitsworkingpaper,theCommissionconfineditselftothepayment
periodsincommercialtransactionsbetweenenterprises.
3.15.However,theCommitteewouldpointoutthatsuchproblemsalsoariseforconsumers,particularly
whenbuyingconsumerdurables.Fortheseapracticehasdevelopedofpriorpaymentfromthreetosix
monthsbeforedelivery,involvinginanumberofcasesseriousrisksiftheenterpriseconcernedshouldgo
bankruptintheinterim.'
Reason
Theconsumerisamarketpartnerinthepurchaseofgoodsandservices,andhencealsoaparticipantin
commercialtransactions .Inastudyoftheproblemsofpaymentperiods,theconsumers'positionmust,in
ourview,betakenintoaccount.NowthattheCommissionseekstostimulatewide-rangingdiscussion
throughaGreenPaper,itisimportanttodrawattentiontopossiblegapsintheanalysis.
vottng
For:40,against:52,abstentions :8.
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)providingforanofferofcompen­
sationtocertainproducersofmilkormilkproductstemporarilypreventedfromcarrying
ontheirtrade(*)
(93/C249/10)
On11June1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheEconomicandSocialCommitteedecidedtoappointMrPricoloasRapporteur-General
foritsOpinion.
Atits307thPlenarySessionon30June1993,theEconomicandSocialCommitteeunani­
mouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.Introduction
1.1.CouncilRegulation856/84/EECof31March
1984establishedaquotasystemformilkproduction .
Whentheoverallnationalmilkquotaslaiddowninthe
Regulationweresharedoutamongindividualpro­
ducersanddairies,the'referencequantity'didnotapply
toproducerswhohadundertaken—underthetermsoftheearlierCouncilRegulation1078/77/EECof17May
1977—eithernottomarketmilkortoconverttomeat
productionforaperiodoffiveandfouryearsrespect­
ively.
1.2.Becausetheyhadnotsoldmilkinthe'reference
year'(i.e.theyear—generally1981—usedforcalculat­
ingtheproductiontowhichthequotaswouldapply),
these'SLOM'producerswereconsideredasnotbeing
presentonthemarketandthusnoteligibleforindivid­ HOJNoC157,9.6.1993,p.11.

NoC249/26 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 13.9.93
ualquotas;afurtherproblemwasthattheMarch1984
legislation(Regulations856/84/EECand857/84/EEC)
totallyignoredtheirspecialsituation.titythatwillbecomedefinitiveon1July1993pro­
videdtheyhavemetthenecessaryobligationsduring
thetrialperiod.
1.3.Someoftheseproducersthenappealedagainst
theirexclusiontotheCourtofJusticewhichtwice—in
April1988andDecember1990—ruledtheCommunity
legislationasinvalidonthegroundsthatitinfringed
thelegitimateexpectationsoftheproducersconcerned
bynotprovidingfortheallocationofreferencequanti­
tiestothem.2.3.Ingrantingthedefinitiveorprovisionalallo­
cation,thecompetentauthorityrecognizedthatthe
producerhadinthepastbeeninreceiptofthenon­
marketingpremiumortheconversionpremiumand
hadthereforenotbeenallocatedareferencequantity
eitherwhenproductionquotaswereintroduced (i.e.in
1984)orattheendofthenon-marketing orconversion
period.
1.4.Asaresultofthesejudgmentsandtheamend­
mentsmadetoCouncilRegulation857/84/EECas
regardstheapplicationoftheadditionallevy,firstin
March1989andagaininJune1991,specialreference
quantitieswereallocatedtotheSLOMproducers.2.4.ThemistakemadeintheCommunitylegislation
ofthetimewastotreatSLOMproducersasiftheyhad
abandonedmilkproductiondefinitively,wheninfact
theyhadonlysuspendedsalesforalimitedperiod.
2.5.Twoquestionsarise:howtodetermine(a)the
lengthoftheperiodandannualquantityofmilkfor
whichcompensationshouldbegrantedand(b)thesize
ofthecompensation .1.5.Inthemeantime,someproducershadaskedthe
CourtofJustice,underArticle215oftheEECTreaty,
toobligetheCommunitytomakegoodthedamage
theyhadsufferedasaresultoftheirexclusionfromthe
referencequantity.On19May1992theCourtordered
theCommissionandCounciltomakegoodthedamage.
Asaround12000producersarepotentiallyeligiblefor
compensation ,theCommissionhasrightlydecidedto
proposeaRegulationofferinganoverallcompromise
settlementtoallaffectedproducers—notonlythose
whohaveappliedtotheCourtofJustice—basedon
aflat-ratecalculationofthedamage,sinceanexpost
analysisofalltheindividualsituationsisclearlynot
feasible.2.6.Thefirstquestion(lengthofperiod,annual
quantity)hasalreadybeenresolvedbytheCourt.The
periodiscalculatedasrunningfromtheexpirydateof
theundertakingnottodelivermilkortoconvertdairy
herds(theearliestpossibledatebeing2April1984,the
dateonwhichmilkquotaswereintroduced)untilthe
datethattheSLOMproducerwasallocatedareference
quantity.Theannualquantityistobebasedonthe
quantityusedtocalculatethenon-marketing premium
ortheconversionpremium.2.Generalcomments
2.1.Theprinciplethatthedamageshouldbecom­
pensatedisnotunderdiscussion,sincetheCourthas
alreadyruledonthematterandprovidedamplejustifi­
cation.
2.2.Itisalsoclearthatcompensation shouldonly
beopentoproducerswhoactuallyresumedmilkpro­
duction.2.7.However,theCourthassaidthatitcannot
determinetheamountofcompensation duetoeach
applicant.Ithasconfineditselftoaskingthepartiesto
reachagreementonthis,andhassuggestedasapossible
criterionthelossofincomerepresentedbythediffer­
encebetweentheincometheproducerwouldhave
earnedfrommilksalesduringtheexclusionperiodand
theincomewhichheactuallyearnedduringthatperiod
frommilksalesoutsidethereferencequantityandfrom
anyalternativeactivities.Theseare:
a)the'firstseries'ofSLOMproducers,whoreceived
'definitiveallocation'ofareferencequantityon
29March1991,ithavingbeenascertainedthat
duringthe'trialproductionperiod'theyhadmet
certainobligations (e.g.nottoparticipateinapro­
grammeofcessationofmilkproduction;nottouse
thequotaallocationforpurposesofspeculation);2.8.TheCommitteewarmlywelcomestheCom­
mission'smovetoendtheblatantinjusticesufferedby
largenumbersofmilkproducersfollowingalegislative
oversight.TheRegulationshouldbeapprovedasa
matterofurgencysothattheinjuredpartiescanreceive
compensation .b)the'secondseries'ofSLOMproducers,who
received'provisionalallocation'ofareferencequan­
*

13.9.93N
OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC249/27
3.Specificcomments
3.1.TheCommitteeendorsestheCommissionpro­
posaltosettlethepositionnotonlyofthoseproducers
whohaveappliedtotheCourtofJusticebutalsoof
allotherproducerswhohavesufferedasaresultof
unsatisfactoryandincompleteCommunitylegislation.
3.2.TheCommitteeagreesthat,giventhelargenum­
berofproducersinvolved,itisnotmateriallypossible
toassessthedamageonacase-by-casebasis.The
answerisafair,flat-ratecompromisesettlementwhich
canbemadequicklyandeasily.compensation amountssufficientlyquickly,asitsets
outthesumdueforeach100kgofmilkforeach
marketingyearandfarmsize(farmsproducingless
than50000kg;thoseproducingbetween50000and
120000kg;andthoseproducingover120000kg).
3.5.Inshort,theCommitteeapprovestheCom­
missionproposal.
3.6.However,itwouldpointoutthatthedeadlines
of31Julyand31August1993forthesubmission
ofapplicationsforcompensation [Article10(2)]are
unrealisticgiventhetimeitwilltaketoadoptthe
Regulationandtheneedforallinterestedpartiestobe
informedofthenewrules.Itwouldthereforebebetter
tosetadeadlineofatleasttwomonthsafterthe
RegulationispublishedintheECOfficialJournal.This
meansthatthedateof30September1993,citedin
Article16asthedeadlinebywhichMemberStatesmust
notifytheCommissionofpaymentsmadetoSLOM
producers,shouldalsobeputbacktosixmonthsafter
thepublicationoftheRegulationintheOfficial
Journal.3.3.TheCommitteealsoacceptstheCommission's
proposedmethodforcalculatingthedamage,usingthe
criteriaoffarmsizeandtheweightedaveragepro­
ductionofeachMemberState.
3.4.Atableofthefiguresyieldedbythesecalcu­
lationsisappendedtothedraftRegulation.Thiswill
enabletheMemberStatesconcernedtodeterminethe
DoneatBrussels,30June1993
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN