16. 10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/33 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected: 
The introductory  sentence  should  read: 
'The  Committee  approves  the aim  of the proposal  for a Directive,  that  is to say  better  pro-
tection  of drivers  against  noise,  but makes  the following  comments:' 
Result  of the vote: 
for: 24 
against:  32 
abstentions:  15. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the disposal  of waste  oils 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 64 of 5 June  1974,  page  5. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 2 April  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committees  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and  18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  request  from  the  Council  of 
the European  Communities,  dated  3 April  1974,  for 
an opinion  on the  proposal  for a Council  Directive 
on the disposal  of waste  oils; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  by its  Bureau  on 
8 April  1974  to entrust  the Section  for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and  Consumer 
Affairs  with  the  preparation  of an opinion  on this 
subject  by virtue  of Article  22  of the  Rules  of 
Procedure; 
Having  regard  to  Article  100  of  the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for  Protection  of the  Environment,  Public 
No C 125/34 Official  Journal  bf the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  at its 11th  meeting  on 
9 July  1974; 
Having  regard  to the  report  presented  by Mr  De 
Grave,  Rapporteur; 
Having  regard  to discussions  at its 122nd  plenary 
session,  held  on 17 and  18 July  1974,  sitting  of 
17 July  1974; 
Whereas  the aim  of this  Directive  is to meet  the need 
both  to safeguard  the  environment  and  to combat 
the waste  of primary  energy  materials; 
Whereas  certain  hindrances  to the free  movement  of 
goods  might  arise  from  the fact  that  the charge  laid 
down  in the Directive  would  be set at different  levels 
in the various  Member  States, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously  with  2 abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the  basic  purpose  of the 
Commission,  but  wishes  to make  the  following 
comments. 
1. The  aim  of the Directive 
1.1. The  Committee  fully  agrees  with  the aim  of the 
Directive,  namely,  to combat  pollution  of  the 
environment  by waste  oils. 
1.2. It considers,  however,  that  the  principle 
propounded  in Article  9 is too  imprecise,  and  may 
therefore  remain  a dead  letter  or give  rise  to very 
different  interpretations  for  want  of more  concrete 
provisions. 
1.3. It considers  that  this  Directive  also  furthers 
another  objective,  namely,  the drive  against  wastage 
of primary  products  in general  and  primary  energy 
products  in particular. 
1.4. The  Committee  considers  that  the objectives  of 
the Directive  cannot  be  achieved  unless  public 
opinion  is made  aware  of the  problem.  It therefore 
suggests  that  the  Commission  should  initiate  an 
information  campaign  to bring  home  the  harmful 
effects  of environmental  pollution  caused  by waste 
oils, and  show  how  they  should  be remedied. 
1.5. It notes,  however,  that  the  problem  of waste 
oil disposal  has  been  resolved  or is being  resolved  in 
Ways  which  vary  considerably  between  the Member States  of the  Community.  In the  list  of examples 
given  in the  explanatory  memorandum  of  the 
Commission,  it would,  furthermore,  be possible  to 
quote  examples  of other  systems,  used  in countries 
which  are not mentioned. 
1.6. The  Committee  notes  that  the system  proposed 
by the Commission  is one  of the  systems  currently 
applied  in the  Community.  Nevertheless  it asks 
whether  it is absolutely  essential  for the aim  of the 
Directive  to be pursued  in a strictly  identical  manner 
in the  various  Member  States  or whether  it is in 
fact possible  to retain  and  promote  the  existing 
systems,  while  making  any  improvements  that  may 
be necessary;  this  approach  would  enable,  at least  in 
the initial  stage,  a comparison  to be made  between 
the respective  merits  of the various  methods  used  in 
the Member  States,  without  in any  way  sacrificing 
the objectives  of the  Directive.  Consequently  the 
Committee  has  considered  how  only  the  Commis-
sion's  proposed  system,  but  also  the  other  system 
could  be improved. 
2. The  piecemeal  approach 
2.1. Waste  oils  are only  one  of many  aspects  of a 
much  broader  issue,  namely,  the  pollution  of the 
environment  by  waste  products  —  waste  oils, 
detergents,  cyanide,  acids,  salts,  radioactive  materials, 
etc. 
2.2. Although  the drive  against  these  various  forms 
of pollution  must  be based  on differing  technical 
solutions,  it is nonetheless  true  that  a comprehensive 
approach  would  have  made  it possible  to avoid  both 
certain  contradictions  in  the  way  the  various 
problems  are  being  treated  and  the  coexistence  of 
a host  of dissimilar  systems. 
3. The  application  of the 'polluter  pays'  principle 
3.1. In the system  proposed  by the Commission  the 
motorist  and  the oil-using  undertaking  are considered 
to be the polluters,  rather  than  any  oil recycler,  or 
undertaking,  which  secretly  or openly  pollutes  the 
environment  with  waste  oil. 
3.2. Although  it is possible  to consider  applying  the 
'polluter  pays'  principle  in  other  ways,  the 
Committee  does  hot  intend  to question  the  appli-
cation  proposed  in the draft  Directive.  It considers, 
however,  that  the  system  proposed  in the  draft 
Directive  should  not  become  a precedent  which 
constitutes  an absolute  criterion. 
3.3. The  Committee  would,  on the  contrary,  draw 
attention  to the  fact  that  if the proposal  is adopted 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/35 
in its present  form,  the bill will  not be footed  by the 
polluter,  but  by the  purchaser  of new  oil.  There  is 
clearly  a difference  between  the two  persons. 
3.4. The  fact  of the  matter  is that  corporate  and 
private  oil users  are  to make  up any  deficit  in the 
system,  by means  of the  charge  and  in proportion 
to the amount  of oil they  buy;  this  applies  whether 
or not  they  are obliged  to eliminate  waste  oil,  and, 
irrespective  of the cost  of any  mandatory  elimination. 
3.5. The  charge  is to be the same  whether  or not the 
user has  made  any  investments  with  a view  to 
reducing  pollution. 
3.6. It is stated  in Article  14,  and  the  comments 
thereon,  that  t;he charge  is to be imposed  at the time 
of delivery  for consumption  of products  which  after 
use are transformed  into  waste  oils,  that  is to say  at 
the moment  when  the products  in question  leave  the 
producing  firm  in order  to be sold  or used,  when  they 
are used  within  such  an establishment,  or when  they 
are imported. 
3.7. This  means,  for  example,  that  an  oil 
manufactured  in country  A and  used  in country  B 
would  carry  a charge  which  would  be paid  to the 
treasury  of the  country  A, whereas  it is country  B 
which  would  have  to bear  any  costs  of disposal. 
3.8. Certain  countries  in the Community  are  major 
importers  or exporters  of oil,  and  this  is bound  to 
bring  about  a lack  of balance  in the working  of the 
system  outlined  in the Commission  proposals. 
3.9. This  can  only  be avoided  if the  charge  is 
brought  under  the  system  applicable  to customs 
duties,  with  control  procedures  being  carried  out  at 
the frontiers.  This,  however,  presents  the drawbacks 
which  are described  below. 
4. The  principle  of the charge 
4.1. The  Directive  prescribes  adoption  of a charge 
to finance  'a non-fiscal  indemnity',  the exact  amount 
of which  it to vary  from  one  country  to another, 
since  it has to cover  deficits  which  vary  according  to 
local  situations.  To this  amount  there  will  be added 
a 'reasonable  profit  margin',  which  is not  further 
specified  and  left  to each  Member  State  to evaluate 
(even  though  non-profit-making  concerns  sometimes 
undertake  collection  of the waste  oils). 
4.2. It will,  therefore,  not be possible  to harmonize 
this charge  at Community  level,  even  though  the 
efforts  of the Commission  are being  directed  towards 
harmonization  of excise  duties  and  VAT  rates,  after 
already  having  achieved  unification  of customs  tariffs. 4.3. In reply  to a recent  parliamentary  question  (*) 
the Commission  has,  furthermore,  indicated  the 
difficulties  created  for  it by 427  cases  of charges 
having  equivalent  effect  to customs  duties;  364  of 
these  have  been  finally  settled  (the  charges  having 
been  abolished  or changed)  24 cases  are the subject 
of proceedings  with  a view  to regularization  and  39 
cases  are still  under  examination. 
4.4. The  introduction  of a new  charge  would  there-
fore run counter  to the Commission's  harmonization 
efforts  in other  fields: 
4.5. If it is to be ensured  that  the  charge  intended 
to finance  waste-oil  elimination  in country  B is not 
paid in country  A, and  if one  bears  in mind  that 
national  charges  will,  of necessity,  be different  and 
exist  for  a long  period,  then  it will  be necessary 
to introduce  a system  akin  to that  of customs  duties. 
4.6. The  Community  and  the  Member  States  will, 
therefore,  have  to adopt  new  legislation  and  regu-
lations,  similar  to those  which  exist  in the  field  of 
customs  duties:  a system  of impositions  and remission 
of impositions  at the  frontiers,  a drive  against 
fraudulent  practices  which  are  of a new  legal  type, 
since  they  are not  fiscal,  a system  of bonded  goods 
and free  zones,  a transit  procedure  for  the 
Community,  inward  and  outward  processing,  rules 
foe. returns,  possibly  a system  for  institutions  and 
persons  exempted,  collection  of  payments  and 
enforcement  of decisions  in other  Member  States, 
duty-free  entry  concessions  at the frontiers,  a special 
procedure  for specimens  and  small  consignments,  etc. 
4.7. The  non-fiscal  nature  of the  charge  will  also 
give rise  to the  problem  of either  creating  new 
departments  for  checks,  collection,  action  against 
fraudulent  practices  (cf.  EAGGF)  or of assigning 
these  powers  to existing  bodies.  The  same  applies  to 
the question  of competent  courts  and  tribunals  and 
rules  for appeals  to administrative  bodies. 
4.8. It will  also  be necessary  to establish  a depart-
ment  with  responsibility  for managing  the funds. 
4.9. The  Committee  points  out that  these  provisions 
also amount  to fixing  uniform  costs  for  each 
Member  State,  since  the  costs  taken  into  consider-
ation  for  a firm  cannot  exceed  the  average  costs 
(Article  13).  In view  of the  fact  that  the  situations 
will vary  greatly  depending  on the  region  and  the 
(*) "Written  Question  No 20/74,  OJ No C 61, 29. 5. 1974. 
No CI 2 5/36 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
type of  oil  collected,  these  average  costs  are 
therefore  very  likely  to be far removed  from  economic 
reality;  and  since  the  charge  is calculated  on the 
basis  of these  costs  it may  only  fairly  remotely 
correspond  with  the  definition  it is given  elsewhere. 
4.10.  The  Committee  finally  points  out  that  the 
national  powers  with  respect  to application  of the 
Directive  are to a large  extent  vested  in the regions  in 
Italy  and  in the  Lander  in Germany.  This  may  lead 
to an even  greater  range  of different  applications. 
5. Scope  of the  directive 
5.1. Contrary  to current  practice  the  Commission 
does  not  include  in an annex  a precise  definition  of 
the products  concerned  and  in particular  what  it 
understands  by 'mineral  oil'.  On  the  other  hand, 
the word  semi-solid  and  the absence  of any  reference 
temperature  may  give  rise  to legal  dispute  (Article  1). 
5.2. It seems  to have  been  the  Commission's  inten-
tion that  its proposal  should  solely,  or in any  event 
mainly,  cover  lubricants.  It does  not,  however,  define 
what  it understands  by  the  term  'mineral  oil'. 
In addition  to the  relatively  rare  case  of coal  oil, 
this term  seems  to embrace,  from  a legal  point  of 
view,  the following  customs  headings: 
27.09  Petroleum  oils 
27.10  Petroleum  oils:  spirit,  white  spirit  and  other 
special  spirits,  kerosene,  gas 
oils, fuel  oils,  lubricating 
oils 
34.03  Lubricating  preparations. 
5.3. On  this  assumption,  the  charge  would  have  to 
be paid  on all of these  products  including  crude  oil. 
5.4. The  Commission  also  fails  to give  a definition 
of the  expressions  'products  which  after  use  are 
transformed  into  waste  oils'  (Article  14)  and 
'processing  of waste  oils  causing  air  pollution' 
(Article  3 (3)). 
5.5. The  Committee  wonders,  for example,  whether 
or not  the  destruction  of these  oils  by combustion 
comes  under  'processing  of waste  oils  causing  air pollution'  and  if so, under  what  conditions.  If there 
is no precise  Community  definition,  then  the  inter-
pretations  made  by the  Member  States  are  clearly 
liable  to vary  considerably. 
5.6. The  Committee  also  wonders  what  system  will 
apply  to liquid  wastes  and  'semi-solids'  containing 
crude  oil or other  derivatives  of crude  oil:  solvents, 
bituminous  materials,  white  spirit,  mineral  tar, 
asphalt,  emulsified  waxes  etc. 
5.7. It also  does  not  appear  appropriate  for  a 
definition  of waste  oils  to include  the residues  of new 
oils or crude  oils  which  are  produced  as a result  of 
flushing  tanks. 
5.8. The  Committee  points  out  here  that  this  defi-
nition  also  seems  to imply  that  crude  oil will  be 
subject  to the charge. 
5.9. Furthermore,  the  Committee  wonders  whether 
the prohibition  on discharge  into  the  environment 
and the  disposal  system  should  not  be extended  to 
cover  new  oils  and  lubricants  (for  example,  those 
bought  in error  or those  which  are  unuseable),  and 
even  certain  vegetable  or animal  oils  which  are 
employed  in industry,  such  as tallow,  linseed  oil. 
5.10.  Finally,  the  Committee  believes  that  the  total 
absence  of any  definition  of 'emulsion'  (2%  in some 
countries,  5%  in others)  may  lead  to legal  dispute 
and varying  application  of the  Directive  in the 
individual  Member  States. 
5.11.  Furthermore,  there  is no guarantee  that  an 
emulsion  with  an oil  content  of 2%  may  not  be 
transformed  into  an emulsion  having  an oil content 
of 1-9%  in order  to evade  the Directive,  nor  is there 
any guarantee  that  large  quantities  of these  emulsions 
may not pollute  the environment  as a result. 
5.12.  In conclusion,  the  Committee  feels  that  the 
oils which  come  within  the  scope  of the  Directive 
ought  to be defined  much  more  precisely,  either  by 
reference  to tariff  headings,  or according  to the 
purpose  which  they  serve  (examples:  oils  for 
turbines,  oils  used  in removal  from  moulds,  oils  for 
greasing  machines,  gear-box  oil,  oil  for  heat 
treatment  of metals,  soluble  and  non-soluble  oil for 
working  metals). 
6. General  conditions  applicable  to collections 
6.1. The  Committee  finds  difficulty  in understand-
ing why  the  Commission  has  not  specified  the 
minimum  quantity  of waste  oil  which  will  be 
collected.  The  party  responsible  for  bearing  the 
costs  of investments  in storage  facilities  should  also 
be determined. 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/37 
6.2. The  Committee  also  thinks  it would  be useful 
if all firms  distributing  oil were  required  to take  back 
waste  oils. 
6.3. The  user  who  pays  for recyclage  in accordance 
with  the  'polluter  pays'  principle  will  be legally 
entitled  to  require  his  supplier  to  undertake 
recyclage  and  disposal  — and  if need  be in respect 
of amounts  equivalent  to the  new  oil this  supplier 
has delivered  to him.  The  supplier  can  turn  to his 
wholesaler  in the  same  way,  and  so on all along 
the line  to the  importer  or producer.  The  producer 
or importer,  like  all the  other  intermediate  parties 
who are  successively  recipients  and  passers-on  of 
responsibilities,  is ultimately  held  accountable  for 
quantities  actually  put  on the  market.  This  producer 
or importer  would,  moverover,  be able  to entrust 
a specialist  organization  (founded  on a non-profit-
making  basis)  with  the  recycling  or destruction  of 
waste  oils.  This  organization  would  have  to be 
authorized  by the  respective  Ministries  of Health  or 
of the  Environment  in each  Member  State;  the 
purpose  of this  authorization  being  verification  that 
recycling  and  destruction  have  no harmful  effects. 
6.4. In this  respect  the  Committee  asks  whether 
there  should  not  be a minimum  harmonization  of the 
authorization  rules  laid  down  in Article  6, if non-
discriminatory  application  of the  Directive  in the 
individual  Member  States,  Lander,  and  Italian 
regions  is to be arrived  at. 
6.5. Finally  the  Committee  considers  that  an active 
contribution  could  be made  to the  protection  of the 
environment  and  the  campaign  against  waste  oil 
pollution  by the  promotion  of research  into  finding 
solutions  to the  problems  of  the  removal  and 
processing  of  emulsified  oils  containing  large 
quantities  of water  and  very  small  quantities  of 
lubricants. 
7. Rough  outline  of an alternative  system 
7.1 The  Committee  has  endeavoured  to work  out 
a system  which  would  achieve  the  aim  of  the 
Commission,  an aim  it basically  shares,  but  applies 
the 'polluter  pays'  principle  more  rigidly  and 
dispenses  with  an  administrative  and  financial 
control  system  which  would  not  only  be cumbersome 
but would  also  cause  new  disparities. 
7.2. The  Commission  says  nothing  about  the 
financial  side  in its proposal.  For  this  reason  there 
is no way  of knowing  what  the  administrative  costs would  be for collection  of the  charge,  allocating  the 
proceeds,  and  carrying  out  the  various  physical  and 
financial  controls  at frontiers  and  in the  various 
firms  (importers,  exporters,  manufacturers,  whole-
salers,  collecting,  disposal  and  regeneration  firms, 
etc.).  It is probable,  however,  that  these  costs  and 
the costs  of all  the  special  arrangements  (transit, 
processing,  etc.)  would  substantially  exceed  the 
revenue  intended  to  finance  the  operations 
mentioned  in Article  4. 
7.3. If buyers  of oil  are  regarded  as polluters,  it 
must  be pointed  out  that  in some  Member  States 
they already  pay,  on the  same  taxable  basis,  excise 
duties  (in  addition  to VAT  and  possibly  customs 
duties)  which  some  people  consider,  and  which  can 
be so considered,  to be a counterpart  to pollution 
costs.  The  Committee  at least  in the  case  examined 
here,  considers  that  taxes  or impositions  of a like 
nature  are  an inadequate  instrument;  it nevertheless 
feels  that  if this  instrument  is to be used  come 
what  may,  then  excise  duties  would  have  the 
advantage  over  'charges'  of both  saving  considerable 
administrative  costs  and  obviating  the need  to intro-
duce  a national  and  Community  'law  on charges'. 
Furthermore,  this  solution  would  not  hamper  tax 
harmonization  or the  procedures  currently  applied 
at frontiers. 
7.4. The  Committee  believes  that  whilst  the 
objectives  and  prohibitions  set out  in Articles  2 to 4, 
the control  mechanisms  provided  for  in Article  6 to 
12 and  the  provisions  set out  in Articles  15 to 20, 
should  be retained,  methods  of financing  should  be 
substantially  modified  on the  lines  of current  rules 
for other  fields,  and  in  particular  the  field  of 
chemical  wastes: 
— prohibition  of discharge  into  the environment; 
— a scheme  of incentives  to encourage  holders  of 
waste  oil to re-utilize  this  material; 
— sale  of wastes  to, or their  free  removal  by,  an 
authorized  firm  when  market  conditions  allow; 
— removal  of wastes  by an authorized  firm  against 
payment  for this  service  when  market  conditions 
require; 
— in the latter  case,  the cost  of removal  is included 
in the cost  of production  and  consequently  in the 
selling  price. 
7.5. This  system  is fully  in line  with  the  'polluter 
pays'  principle,  and  unlike  the Commission  proposal, 
encourages  firms  to dispose  of less  waste  and  have 
No C 125/38 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
wastes  removed  that  are less  polluting  or are suitable 
for being  collected,  transported,  destroyed  or 
processed  in the most  useful  and economical  manner. 
7.6 This  system  is similar  to what  is already  done 
in the  case  of most  other  industrial  wastes:  acids, 
cyanide,  etc. 
7.7. If need  be,  Member  States  could  set  up or 
encourage  the  setting  up  of  non-profit-making organizations  for the collection  of waste  oils.  These 
organizations  would  be required  to accept  the waste 
oils offered. 
Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a second  Council  Directive  on taxes  on manufactured  tobaccos 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 72 of 27 June  1974,  pages  15 and  16. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 8 April  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198 of the Treaty  establishing  the Euro-
pean  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and  18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Council's  letter  of 9 April  1974 
requesting  the Committee's  opinion  on the matter; 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  198  thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  of its President  on 
9 April  1974,  to request  the  Section  for  Economic 
and Financial  Questions  to prepare  an opinion  on 
the Commission  document  to the Council  proposing 
a second  Directive  on Taxes  other  than  turnover 
taxes  which  affect  the consumption  of manufactured 
tobacco; 
Having  regard  to  the  report  prepared  by  Mr 
O'Ceallaigh,  Rapporteur  and  the  Opinion  adopted 
by the Section  at its meeting  on 2 July  1974; Having  regard  to the  proceedings  of its  122nd 
plenary  session,  held  on 17 and  18 July  1974,  sitting 
of 17 July  1974, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  3 against  and  7 abstentions: 
1. General  Remarks 
1.1. The  Committee  sees  the necessity  for Directives 
which  will  lead  to  fiscal  harmonization  for 
manufactured  tobacco  products.  This  will  create 
conditions  favourable  to the  interpenetration  of the 
markets  for  manufactured  tobacco  products  within 
the Community.