Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia` (97/C 158/03)

On 14 February 1997, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 March 1997. The rapporteur was Mrs zu Eulenburg.

At its 344th plenary session (meeting of 19 March 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 95 votes to five, with eight abstentions.

1. General comments

1.1. The Commission's proposal for a regulation has in essence already been approved at a number of meetings of the European Council. The conclusions of the presidency of the last European Council meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996 state:

'The European Council welcomes the progress made since its meeting in Florence and calls on the Council to complete its work with a view to the speedy establishment of a European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia which will have to work in close cooperation with the Council of Europe`.

1.2. The Economic and Social Committee has also issued an opinion on the Communication from the Commission on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and the Proposal for a Council Decision designating 1997 as European year against racism (), in which the Commission had already called for the establishment of a monitoring centre. Point 5.2 of this opinion states: 'The ESC supports the immediate establishment of the European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia`.

1.3. The Committee expressly welcomes all the tasks assigned to the monitoring centre under Article 2 of the proposal.

2. Specific comments

2.1. A new point 7a should be added to the explanatory memorandum referring to the approval expressed by the European Council in Dublin. The same should be done in the financial statement attached to the proposal (part 9 - elements of cost-effectiveness analysis).

2.2. A word needs to be said about the use of Article 235 as the legal basis - which the Committee agrees with the Commission is the only possible option for this regulation - even though the Council has already given its political backing. The reference to Article 235, and the procedure to be followed as a result, make it possible to clearly establish the remit of the European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia.

2.3. There may be some degree of confusion over certain aspects of the Commission proposal (Article 2(e), point 20 of the explanatory memorandum and point 4.1 of the financial statement) since the English and German versions differ from the authentic French text.

The Committee feels there should be no room for doubt in this sphere and thus proposes that Article 2(e) be reworded as follows: 'formulate conclusions which shall be made public and submitted to the competent Community and national authorities`.

This new wording is aimed at guaranteeing that the monitoring centre will remain both influential and independent by allowing it to make public such conclusions as it deems necessary from its consideration of certain phenomena within its sphere of competence; however, the wording does not formally authorize it to encroach on the remits of the Community institutions and/or the Member States by drawing up recommendations, opinions or proposals.

2.3.1. The ESC stresses that this proposal has nothing to do with the question of whether any extension of the Community's powers is not in fact desirable in this particular case. The ESC broadly backed such a move in its opinion on the communication on racism mentioned above, in which it called for the inclusion of a non-discrimination clause in the Treaties; point 5.1 of the opinion expressly states that 'the ESC... associates itself with all anti-racist positions adopted by the Community bodies`. For legal reasons, however, the ESC feels bound to make it clear that Article 235 should not be used to expand Community powers by the back door.

2.3.2. However, in line with this procedure and the respective remits of the Community institutions and the Member States, the reports, deliberations and conclusions of the monitoring centre will be able to contribute to the formulation of proposals and the adoption of measures at both Community and national level.

2.4. The ESC also proposes expanding Article 2(1) to read:

'The prime objective of the Centre shall be to provide the Community and its Member States, more especially within the fields referred to in Article 3(3), with objective, reliable and comparable data at European level on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in order to help them when they take additional measures within their respective spheres of competence. This shall also include evaluating the impact on racism and xenophobia of measures and actions implemented by the Community and the Member States for whatever reason with regard, in particular, to the groups affected by these phenomena.`

The Committee's intention here is to highlight the fact that racism and xenophobia can often be encouraged, even provoked, by measures taken in the public arena. The cause and effect of racism and xenophobia may arise in private relationships and in the public arena. This being so, the monitoring centre's remit must also be expanded to reflect this.

2.4.1. Point 5.4.4.2 of the ESC opinion on the communication on racism mentioned above called for the sixth recital on page 23 of the Commission document ('Whereas racist and xenophobic attitudes can constitute an obstacle to the effective exercise of the rights of free movement`) to be replaced by: 'Whereas restriction of the rights of free movement of third country nationals living in the EU contributes to racist and xenophobic attitudes`.

2.5. The ESC also believes that the areas of activity listed in Article 3 of the proposal are correct and comprehensive. However, it does not consider the list given in Article 3(3) to be final. Thus, the centre's remit is to monitor and address all phenomena relating to racism, especially racism in everyday life.

2.6. The ESC is pleased that cooperation with non-governmental organizations is given adequate attention in the regulation (cf. point 21 of the explanatory memorandum and Article 7(1) of the proposal), except that the monitoring centre only 'may` cooperate with such organizations. The word 'may` must be changed to 'shall`. The Committee thinks that a provision about cooperation with the social partners must be added to Article 7.

2.7. Why does Article 8 - management board - make no provision for an ESC representative? The Committee recalls its opinion on the proposal for a Council decision designating 1997 as European year against racism (CES 533/96 of 24-25 April 1996), particularly point 5.4.5, which recognizes how important it is to deal with this problem in the workplace. It also subscribed to the joint declaration of the social partners issued in Florence in October 1995 on the prevention of racial discrimination and xenophobia and the promotion of equal rights in the workplace. No further proof is thus required of the Committee's commitment to the struggle against racism and xenophobia. The economic and social interest groups represented at the ESC, which differ so greatly from one country to another, are particularly well placed to contribute to the permanent mobilization of society against racism and xenophobia. The ESC therefore asks to be represented on the management board.

Brussels, 19 March 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ No C 204, 15. 7. 1996, p. 23.