16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/5 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting of financial support to transport 
infrastructure projects (J) 
(87/C 68/05) 
At its 10 and 11 November 1986 meeting, the Council took note of the Commission's intention to 
submit a proposal for a Council Regulation which would commit the appropriations still remaining 
from Chapter 58, Article 581 of the 1985 budget before the end of 1986. It decided at the same time to 
consult the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting 
of financial support to transport infrastructure projects. 
The Committee was consulted by a letter of 18 November 1986 to which the proposal was appended 
in three languages (English, French and German). Since the Council has to take a decision on this 
proposal at its next meeting of Transport Ministers on 15 and 16 December, it stated in its letter that it 
would like the Committee to deliver its opinion at its November session. 
The Section for Transport and Communications was instructed by the Committee Chairman, on 
19 November 1986, to prepare the Committee's work on the matter (Articles 22, 46 and 47 of the 
rules of procedure), and at its meeting the same day it set up a drafting group consisting of Mr Rouzier 
(rapporteur) and Mr Haas and Mr Masprone (co-rapporteurs). 
The Commission proposal is based on Articles 75 and 84 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, under Article 75 consultation of the Committee is mandatory. 
The Section for Transport and Communications adopted its opinion at its 174th meeting on 
10 December 1986, on the basis of Mr Rouzier's report. 
On 16 December 1986 at its 242nd plenary session the Economic and Social Committee unanimously 
adopted the following opinion: 
0. Preliminary comments 
0.1. The Committee acknowledges, by way of an 
introductory remark, that the Council may lay down a 
deadline for the delivery of a Committee opinion; however, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty, this deadline may not be less 
than 10 days. Since the letter asking the Committee for its 
opinion did not reach the Committee Chairman until 19 
November, the 26—27 November Plenary Session deadline 
was too short. 
0.2. In addition, the requisite documents were not 
provided in due course in all languages. The Committee 
wishes to protest to the Council about this, especially as it has 
happened on several occasions. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee notes from the press release for 
the 10—11 November Council meeting that the Council 
examined the draft Regulation on financial support in the 
framework of a medium-term programme for transport 
infrastructure of 27 June 1986. At the end of the debate, the Council instructed the Permanent Representatives 
Committee to continue examination of the draft Regulation, 
in the light of the opinions of the European Parliament and of 
the Economic and Social Committee, and in particular of the 
method of Community support for projects meeting certain 
criteria. 
1.2. In its opinion on this matter of 18 September 1986, 
as in several previous opinions, the Committee came out 'in 
favour of a coherent Community policy based on clearly 
defined aims and criteria' (2). In another opinion of 25 
September 1985 (3), the Committee pointed out that the 
development of transport infrastructure in the European 
Community had to satisfy three aims, viz: 
— reduction of the economic, social and environmental 
costs of transport and improvement in the productivity of 
transport firms, 
— maintenance and improvement of EEC firms' 
international competitiveness with the aid of an 
international high-speed transport network, 
H OJ No C 323, 16. 12. 1986, p. 4. (2) OJ No C 328, 26. 12. 1986, point 1. 5. 
(3) OJNoC 303,25. 11. 1985. 
No C 68/6 Official Journal of the 
— alignment of living conditions in the Community's 
less-developed and highly developed areas (*). 
1.3. In the aforementioned opinion of 18 September 
1986, the Committee regretted, however, that the Council 
lacked the political will to adopt a longer-term coherent 
Community policy which would cut out the yearly round of 
haggling over each individual project and piecemeal 
spending. 
1.4. The Committee notes that unfortunately its fears are 
doubly justified: firstly, because the Council has not been 
able to agree on the Commission's proposal of June 1986 
for a medium-term transport infrastructure policy; and 
secondly, because the Commission for its part is now 
proposing to spread the 90 million ECU from the 1985 
budget over fifteen projects situated in all the Member States 
apart from Luxembourg. 
1.5. The Committee would point out in this context that 
since 1982 a total of 260 million ECU has been provided 
under budget line 581 (10 million ECU in 1982; 15 million 
ECU in 1983; 80 million ECU in 1984; 90 million ECU in 
1985; 65 million ECU in 1986). 
1.6. The funds for 1982—1984, totalling some 105 
million ECU, have been spent. The 90 million ECU set aside 
in the 1985 budget represent an 85,7% increase in 
expenditure. Even though the general shortage of 
appropriations is outside the Committee's sphere of influence 
and is an inhibiting factor from the very start, the Committee 
would once again stress that budget appropriations must be 
used for their original purpose. 
1.7. This is why the Committee endorses the 
Commission's proposal as being the legal instrument which is 
required for the release of the available budget funds. 
(>) OJNoC303,25. 11. 1985. 
Done at Brussels on 16 December 1986. uropean Communities 16. 3. 87 
1.8. The Committee would urge the Council to ensure 
that if Community assistance is provided, the Member States 
do not reduce their original allocations of funds. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee, without wanting to go into the 
details of the projects selected by the Commission with the 
aid of the Infrastructure Committee, is pleased to note that 
the Commission has tried to share out .the appropriations 
evenly between road [55%) and rail (45%). 
2.2. The Committee also notes that the appropriations 
have been shared out satisfactorily between four categories of 
projects: 
2.2.1. Works to better integrate areas situated 
geographically on the periphery of the Community: 40 %. 
2.2.2. Transit routes: 34%. 
2.2.3. Works in major corridors: 24%. 
2.2.4. Other projects: 2%. 
2.3. The Committee considers that all in all this 
allocation represents a compromise which must be accepted 
by the Council as soon as possible, and at any event by the 
end of the year; it would also urgently request the Council to 
adopt, in keeping with its decision of 10—11 November, the 
Regulation for a medium-term infrastructure programme at 
the start of 1987, making it possible to implement a plan for 
transport infrastructure which covers more than one 
budgetary year. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT