ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

- the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds",

- the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the French overseas departments as regards the structural measures",

- the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products as regards the structural measures",

- the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products as regards the structural measures", and

- the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector"

(2001/C 139/08)

On 18 December 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 February 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Mengozzi.

At its 379th plenary session (meeting of 28 February 2001) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 112 votes in favour, no dissenting votes and one abstention.

1. The Committee approves the Commission proposals.

1.1. The Committee considers that the proposals should be viewed as an initial response to the need to take due account of the special nature of the EU's seven outermost regions, as recognised by Article 299(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty and reiterated by the Cologne and Feira European Councils.

1.2. The proposed measures are limited in scope, as they simply increase the maximum rates of Community aid for investment in SMEs, agriculture, forestry and the fisheries sector, and the initial processing and marketing of agricultural products.

1.3. The Committee is pleased to see that the measures are in keeping with opinions it has expressed on a number of occasions, highlighting the special problems faced by all the EU's outermost regions and calling for specially modulated measures to bring the socio-economic development of these regions into line with that of the rest of the Union.

2. Lastly, the Committee appreciates the Commission's commitment to issue a codified version of the proposed amendments to the agricultural strand of the POSEI regulations(1). This measure, too, meets the Committee's repeatedly voiced call for Community regulations to be simplified and made more accessible to the public.

Brussels, 28 February 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) Programme of specific options for remote island regions.
2.7

The scheme's limited use on third-country markets is due not least to the requirement that the programmes apply solely to generic campaigns. As a result, the member companies of the professional organisations are in many cases reluctant to act and unwilling to become involved in programme funding. Support for brand labels – and thus for individual companies – is out of the question but if the measures are to have any perceptible impact on export markets, the Commission must show some flexibility in campaigns and similar ventures in accepting a balanced number of brand labels as an integral part of the generic campaign. This makes it possible to establish a link between the campaign message and the products on the market endeavouring to combine the generic with the specific to create common synergies. That in itself will not affect the campaign message but it will help ensure that buyers and customers can in practice find the products included in any campaign. More attention is also being paid to product origin across the EU. If, however, a market is already brand-dominated, EU promotion action is of limited added value, as, in such cases, private brands will usually engage in intense competition and use sizeable advertising budgets to boost their market share.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 157/149

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union’

(COM(2004) 592 final — 2004/0202 (COD))

(2005/C 157/27)

On 10 December 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

In view of the urgency of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee decided at its 413th plenary session of 15 and 16 December 2004 to appoint Mr Tóth as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. The Committee approves the Commission's initiative to amend the Regulation (EC) No. 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union.

1.1 The Committee advises the Commission to control country by country the Annex I, Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No. 1059/2003 to ensure the appropriate use of the terminology and language of the Member States regarding the NUTS 1, NUTS 2, NUTS 3 and existing administrative units and smaller administrative units.

2. The Committee believes that this exercise will help to integrate the classification of the territorial units of the new Member States into the statistical classification of the Community.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/29

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 69/169/EEC as regards the temporary quantitative restriction on beer imports into Finland’

(COM(2005) 427 final — 2005/0175 (CNS))

(2006/C 65/05)

On 30 September 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 November 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Byrne.

At its 422nd plenary session, held on 14 and 15 December 2005 (meeting of 14 December 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes to 3 with 14 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1 Finland has requested an extension of the existing restriction on beer imports by travellers from countries other than Member States beyond 1 January 2006. This request is aimed at addressing fiscal, economic, social health and public order problems.

1.2 The proposed amendment authorises Finland to extend the restriction until 31 December 2006. The maximum limit of six litres will however be increased to sixteen which is the actual limit currently being applied by Finland.

1.3 The EESC supports the amendment.

2. Background

2.1 In 2000 Finland was granted a derogation until 31 December 2005 to limit personal imports of beer by individuals from countries other than Member States to a maximum of six litres. In particular, Finland has a border with Russia where alcohol is much cheaper so that if the normal monetary limits applied individuals could import c. 200 litres of beer.

2.2 Because of the large price difference the impact of unrestricted imports on Finnish retailers, government tax revenue and social and health problems would be severe.

2.3 Finland has however already made significant tax reductions in 2004 and has also applied a higher maximum of sixteen litres rather than six. Thus Finland has therefore been seeking to move towards a long-term solution.

3. General comments

3.1 The Committee notes the steps already taken by Finland to address the problem and believes therefore that it is appropriate to grant a further extension of the derogation until 31 December 2006.
3.4.1

Land registry is a key element in determining property ownership rights; furthermore, there is concern that registers do not always reflect the property rights of third parties. For cross-border mortgage credit activity to work properly (including financing), the content and management of land registry must be clearly understood. The Commission has financed a pilot project (EULIS) with the aim of enhancing cooperation between property owners and controllers of land registers; this project could, among other things, be very useful for many of the new Member States. It now wonders whether it should continue to play an active role in this initiative and whether, given the use of such registers by lenders and investors, the latter might be required to contribute to and invest in such initiatives. In the EESC's opinion, the Commission should continue to play its valuable role in promoting this type of cooperation and should, furthermore, produce an annual report on the results obtained. It is however not of the opinion that joint projects should be financed by a single category of user (which is not even the main one) owing to the fact that i) it is in the interest of the state and the community to hold land registers and that ii) currently, both registration and access are subject to payment.
5.2.6

The EESC considers it better initially to establish target values rather than a concentration cap. Otherwise, the Committee fears that the deadlines set by the Commission will be too tight insofar as the legislative procedure did not start until the end of 2005. Thus there would be a likelihood that Member States would have only very little time to comply, especially as some of them do not even meet the existing standards, in part because they have delayed implementing them. The Committee also points out that it is difficult for smaller Member States to comply with concentration caps, as they are at a disadvantage given the smaller area over which air pollution is distributed. The Committee therefore proposes that target values be set rather than concentration caps. The proposed standards would require an enormous effort from Member States and/or local authorities to set up measuring stations, which would take time and necessitate major investment. PM10 are well measured and measurable and, moreover, tend to be deposited quickly. These measurement results should nonetheless be evaluated and assessed to establish whether they can be complied with in the Member States. PM2.5 are extremely difficult to measure and very volatile. Thus they are easily transported in the atmosphere and are transboundary pollutants. In addition, there are natural fine particulates, for example sea salt, which it would be logical not to take into account.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/28

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Decision laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases (codified version)

COM(2006) 315 final — 2006/0104 (CNS)

(2006/C 324/13)

On 11 July 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 24 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2006. The rapporteur, working without a study group, was Mr Coupeau.

In view of the renewal of the Committee's term of office, the Plenary Assembly has decided to vote on this opinion at its October plenary session and has adopted Mr Coupeau as rapporteur-general under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of the Commission proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Decision 90/638/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases. The new Decision will supersede the various acts incorporated in it. It preserves their content and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2. General comments

2.1 Accordingly, the Committee approves the proposed codification, which will give the public easier access to the law and contribute towards better lawmaking.

3. Specific comments

3.1 The issue of whether other simplification procedures could be used without undermining the effectiveness of the current system of monitoring and eradicating animal diseases should also be addressed.

3.2 Increasingly, the pathogens which affect animals tend to come from countries outside the European Union. In the very near future, the European Union and its Member States will need to become more vigilant and to pool their skills in the area of combating animal diseases in order to preserve public health and ensure that citizens can eat meat products safely.
2.2

A similar ban, based on the measures adopted by the EU, has been imposed on a worldwide basis by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) through the new regulation 13G and 13H of Annex I to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships 73/78 (MARPOL). However, under paragraphs 7 of 13G and 5, 6 and 7 of 13H of the said MARPOL regulation administrations may under certain conditions exempt tankers from the ban. This was the compromise which had to be accepted as the price for the adoption of a worldwide provision. Directly afterwards, the Italian presidency of the EU, speaking on behalf of all EU Member States and the European Commission, declared, following the elaboration of the then customary and mutually binding prior coordination agreement, that they would all not invoke the exemption provisions. Following the entry into force of the IMO regulation on 5 April 2005, one Member State notified the IMO, as early as 18 April 2005, of its intention to invoke the exemption provision which is the subject of the Commission proposal under review. In the following months, many Member States notified the IMO, in accordance with the coordination agreement, that they would not invoke the exemption provisions. Four Member States have yet to make an official announcement to this effect but they have announced in COREPER, and therefore to the European Commission and the other Member States, that they will shortly be following the example of the other 19 Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/31

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rear-view mirrors for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)’

COM(2007) 236 final — 2007/0081 (COD)

(2007/C 256/06)

On 29 May 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 437th plenary session of 11 and 12 July 2007 (meeting of 11 July), by 145 votes to two and four abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/12

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version)

COM(2007) 768 final — 2007/0270 (COD)

(2008/C 151/04)

On 19 December 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 441st plenary session of 16 and 17 January 2008 (meeting of 16 January), by 127 votes in favour with one abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 162/41

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Codified version)

COM(2007) 873 final — 2007/0299 (COD)

(2008/C 162/08)

On 8 February 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 442nd plenary session of 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February 2008), by 141 votes to one and one abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/24

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive …/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version)

COM(2008) 23 final — 2008/0019 (COD)

(2008/C 204/05)

On 13 February 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive …/…/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the legal protection of computer programs (codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 443rd plenary session of 12 and 13 March 2008 (meeting of 12 March), by 126 votes with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 224/87

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients (Recast)

COM(2008) 154 — 2008/0060 (COD)

(2008/C 224/20)

On 8 April 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients (Recast).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions: CES 522/84, adopted on 23.5.1984 (1), CES 633/92, adopted on 26.5.1992 (2), CES 230/94, adopted on 23.2.1994 (3), CES 1385/96, adopted on 27.11.1996 (4), CESE 1599/2003, adopted on 10.12.2003 (5), it decided, at its 445th plenary session of 28 and 29 May 2008 (meeting of 29 May 2008), by 85 votes with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

The opinion of the Committee on the regulatory procedure with scrutiny is currently under preparation [COM(2007) 741 final, COM(2007) 822 final, COM(2007) 824 final and COM(2008) 71 final].

Brussels, 29 May 2008 The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) EESC opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients, OJ C 206 of 6.8.1984, p. 7.

(2) EESC opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending for the first time Council Directive 88/344/EEC of 13 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients, OJ C 223 of 31.8.1992, p. 23.

(3) EESC opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time Council Directive 88/344, of 13 June 1988, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients, OJ C 133 of 16.5.1994, p. 21.

(4) EESC opinion on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the third time Council Directive 88/344/CEE on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients', OJ C 66 of 3.3.1997, p. 3.

(5) EESC opinion on the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients, OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/135

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (Recast)

COM(2008) 505 final — 2008/0165 (COD)

2009/C 100/23

On 30 September 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (Recast)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion, adopted on 2 December 1998 (1), it decided, at its 448th plenary session, held on 21, 22 and 23 October 2008 (meeting of 22 October), by 119 votes with 1 abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposal and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 22 October 2008. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ C 40 of 15.2.1999, p. 34).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 77/42

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation (EC) No …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version)’

COM(2008) 369 final — 2008/0126 (COD)

(2009/C 77/11)

On 7 July the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation (EC) No …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 447th plenary session of 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of 17 September 2008), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.