No C 41/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
At the same time, one should not underestimate the 
major impact which these EC decisions could have 
on certain production sectors in the Member States, 
particularly the textiles industry and agriculture. 
The Committee considers that discussion of the 
guidelines for the 1990s should include a serious 
reconsideration of the tendency to abuse the GSP, 
as it was originally conceived and over the years 
implemented, to increase export earnings, promote 
Done at Brussels, 20 November 1990. 
1. Introduction — The Commission proposal 
1.1. The Commission proposal is quite a simple one. 
1.2. The existing Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 lays 
down a procedure whereby, as a result of a complaint 
received or on its own initiative, the Commission shall 
initiate proceedings to terminate any infringement of 
Articles 85(1) or 86 of the Treaty in relation to inter­
national air-transport services between Community air­
ports. One step in this procedure is the consultation of 
(*) OJ No C 155, 26. 6. 1990, p. 7. industrialization, and accelerate economic growth in 
developing countries. Indeed, the Committee regrets 
that it was not consulted by the Council when the 
GSP was first extended to cover countries which are 
not part of the developing countries group. In the 
Committee's view, the new association agreements 
currently under discussion between the Community 
and certain Eastern European countries, are a 
far more appropriate instrument to meet the same 
need. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
an advisory committee on agreements and dominant 
positions in air transport prior to the taking of any 
decision on the matter. Such consultation could take 
up to four, or even six, months. 
1.3. The proposed Council Regulation would 
empower the Commission to dispense with this particu­
lar step in the procedure where it has reason to believe 
that the practices under investigation would threaten 
the viability of an air service or the existence of an air 
carrier. 
1.4. Any measures taken under this modified pro­
cedure would only be interim ones. They could only 
apply for a period of up to six months. If renewal were 
sought, the advisory committee would have to be Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 laying down the 
procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings 
in the air-transport sector (*) 
(91/C 41/15) 
On 26 June 1990 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee for an 
Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for the Committee's 
preparatory work, adopted its Opinion on 14 November 1990. The Rapporteur was Mr 
Whitworth. 
At its 281st plenary session (meeting of 20 November 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
18. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 41/45 
consulted. The other aspects of the procedure laid down 
in Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 would continue to 
apply. These include liaison with the competent autho­
rities of Member States, formal requests for information 
from the Commission to Member States and the rel­
evant undertakings as well as the requirement that the 
Commission should give them the opportunity of being 
heard on the matters to which objection has been taken. 
Any decision of the Commission would be subject to 
review by the Court of Justice. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee notes that the objective of this 
streamlined procedure is to ensure that, with the greater 
freedom to establish fares and gain access to air trans­
port markets in the Community recently proposed by 
the Commission (*) and endorsed by the Committee 
under the conditions expressed in its Opinion on the 
subject (2), the rules of competition are speedily and 
effectively applied to prevent anti-competitive and 
exploitive practices which if unchecked would negate 
the benefits of the more open competition. 
2.2. Nevertheless the Committee is slightly uneasy, 
as a matter of general principle, that procedures built 
into Council Regulations with a view to bringing some 
degree of external influence on Commission decisions 
of a quasi-judicial nature, should be short-circuited or 
dispensed with, leaving the Commission's powers in 
such respects almost totally unfettered. It feels that such 
a course of action should only be contemplated in the 
most compelling circumstances and that the parameters 
in which it might be justified should be very closely 
defined. 
2.3. However, the Committee does recognize that, 
in the more liberal regime for air transport which 
will stem from the Council conclusions of 6 December 
1989 (3), a large established air carrier could institute 
stringent and dramatic measures in relation to schedul-
C1) OJ No C 258, 11. 11. 1989, p.3; OJ No C 248, 29. 9. 1989, 
p. 7. 
(2) OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990, p. 17. 
(3) AER 88/29 (working document on Council conclusions on 
the development of civil aviation in the Community). 
Done at Brussels, 20 November 1990. ing or pricing on a particular route designed to force 
the withdrawal of a smaller competitor and that such 
measures could, if unchecked, have that effect within a 
relatively short period of time. Hence the shortening of 
the period necessary for the Commission to take effec­
tive action under Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 could 
well be crucial to the latter's survival. 
2.4. Accordingly, the Committee would favour the 
Commission's proposal provided that the Regulation 
makes it entirely clear that its use should be contem­
plated only if there is firm evidence that adherence 
to the normal procedure would be likely to result in 
irreparable damage to the service or carrier concerned 
if the normal time scale were adhered to. 
2.5. In this context, the Committee does not consider 
that the examples contained in paragraph 5 of the 
explanatory memorandum (which does not of course 
form part of the draft Regulation) would constitute, as 
they are worded, sufficient justification for invoking 
the modified procedure prescribed by the draft Regu­
lation. In particular: 
— the word 'difficult' in the first indent significantly 
understates the degree of commercial damage which 
would be consistent with the wording of the draft 
Regulation itself, 
— the use of the same word in the third indent is again 
an understatement. The benefits to travel agents 
would need to be of an unusual and extravagant 
nature. 
— the same would apply in the case of benefits to 
air-transport users. These would need to extend 
significantly beyond those comprised in a normal 
frequent flier programme. 
3. Specific comment 
3.1. The wording of paragraph 1.1 of Article 1 of 
the proposed Regulation should be such as to reflect 
the proviso in paragraph 2.4 above. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN