Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on certain Community measures to combat discrimination', the 'Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation', the 'Proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin', and the 'Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community Action Programme to combat discrimination 2001-2006'
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, anti-discriminatory measure, equal treatment, job access, racial discrimination

C 204/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

11.7.6.
School and university courses must be made more
comparable and brought closer together as a prerequisite for
scientific integration in Europe and improved mobility of
people working in science.

11.7.7.
There should be assessment of the pros and cons of
setting up a virtual European university — as another instru-

ment and symbol of European scientific integration — in
which the centres of excellence in particular could participate.

The principal Commission officials dealing with
11.7.8.
research and development matters should in future also
increasingly be successful and highly qualified scientists,
and European research organisations should contribute their
experience to these appointments.

Brussels, 24 May 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on certain Community
measures to combat discrimination’,

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in

employment and occupation’,

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between

persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community Action Programme to combat

discrimination 2001-2006’

(2000/C 204/17)

On 19 January and 4 February 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
communication and proposals.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs, and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 May 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Sharma.

At its 373rd plenary session of 24 and 25 May 2000 (meeting of 25 May 2000), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes in favour and 6 votes against, with 6 abstentions.

1. Legal basis, content and scope of the proposal

the Community with specific powers to take action to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

1.1.
The Commission in its communication on certain
Community measures to combat discrimination is proposing
two new equal treatment Directives together with a Com-
munity Action Programme to support these initiatives.

1.2.
The legal basis for this initiative derives from Article 13
of the Treaty of Amsterdam which for the first time provides

1.3.
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality as set out in the Protocol on the Treaty, require
‘produce clear benefits by
that action at Community level
reason of its scale or effect compared to action at the level of
the Member States’.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/83

1.4.
The Commission has researched the existing situation
as regards anti discrimination measures in individual Member
States. It concludes that the scope, contents and enforceability
of these measures vary significantly and that this fact warrants
action at a Community level to reinforce the fundamental
values upon which the Union is founded, these being liberty,
democracy, the respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms and the rule of law. It will also help strengthen the
economic and social cohesion by ensuring that people in all
member States enjoy a minimum level of protection against
discrimination, with appropriate rights of redress.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee welcomes the proposal for two new
equal treatment Directives as important legal measures to
combat the various forms of discrimination across the Euro-
pean Union. The Committee welcomes the wording ‘equal
treatment’ rather than anti discrimination measures, as this
wording conveys a positive rather than defensive message and
also follows the 1976 Directive on Equal Treatment and 1977
Directive on Burden of Proof (1).

1.5.

The Commission is proposing two separate Directives:

— A Directive aimed at implementing the principle of equal
treatment between people of different racial or ethnic
origins in all areas of every day life, e.g. employment,
education and access to goods and services. (Directive
against discrimination on racial or ethnic origin grounds).

The Committee has played an important role in the
2.2.
development of this package of Commission proposals to deal
with discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Some
examples of ESC’s previous opinions on racism and xeno-
phobia, disability, social exclusion and age are set out in the
footnote below (2).

— A framework Directive aimed at implementing the prin-
ciple of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or
sexual orientation. This Directive is confined to the area
of employment and occupation. (Employment Directive)
Discrimination on the ground of sex is excluded as existing
Directives 76/207/EEC and 86/613/EEC, both of which
relate to employment and occupation, already cover this.

1.6.
The Community Action Programme proposes three
types of action to support the initiative for which limited funds
will be available:

— An analysis of factors related to discrimination and an
evaluation of anti-discrimination legislation and practice,
with a view to assessing its effectiveness and impact.

— The promotion of trans-national co-operation and net-
working between organisations, including social partners,
active in the fight against discrimination.

— Awareness raising of the European dimension of the fight
against racism through communications, publications,
campaigns and events.

1.7.
The objective of this package of proposals is primarily
to ensure a common set of minimum standards across the
Union and will constitute an unequivocal statement of public
policy, leaving no doubts as to the stance which European
society has adopted towards discriminatory practices.

2.3.
The Committee recognises and supports the pragmatic
approach taken by the Commission in its decision to propose
a comprehensive Directive prohibiting racial discrimination in
many areas of daily life and a separate Directive prohibiting
discrimination on grounds of religion, disability, age or sexual
orientation limited to the field of employment. The Committee
recognises the political momentum that exists and is support-
ive of specific legislation to protect racial and ethnic minorities
within the Union. However the Committee requests that the
Commission consider enacting future legislation to protect all

(1) Directive 76/207/EEC of 9.2.1976 — Equal Treatment directive,

Directive 97/80/EC of 15.12.1997 — Burden of Proof.

(2) 1992 opinion on ‘Citizens Europe’ which called for Treaty
provision banning discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour,
race, opinion and beliefs (OJ C 313, 30.11.1992); The Communi-
cation ‘An action plan against racism’ (OJ C 407, 28.12.1998);
The proposal for a Regulation establishing a European monitoring
centre for racism and xenophobia (OJ C 158, 26.5.1997); The
Communication on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and
the proposal for a Council Decision designating 1997 as European
Year against Racism (OJ C 204, 15.7.1996); The Communication
and Draft Resolution on equality of opportunity for people with
disabilities (OJ C 66, 3.3.1997); The Draft Council Recommen-
(OJ C 174,
dation on parking card for disabled persons
17.6.1996); The Communication: A Concerted Strategy for Mod-
ernising Social Protection (OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 3); The
Communication concerning the social action programme 1998-
2000, Rapporteurs Mr Meriano, Mrs Engelen-Kefer (OJ C 407,
28.12.1998); The Communication on modernising and improving
social protection in the European Union (OJ C 73, 9.3.1998); The
proposal for a Council Decision on Community Support for
Actions in favour of Older People (OJ C 236, 11.9.1995);
Youth Unemployment (OJ C 18, 22.1.1996); Implementation of
Employment Guidelines 1999 (OJ C 209, 22.7.1999); Proposals
for Guidelines for member states Employment policies 2000 (OJ
C 368, 20.12.1999).

C 204/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

groups vulnerable to discrimination on the grounds of religion
or belief, disability, sexual orientation or age, modelled on the
principles proposed in the Directive against discrimination on
racial or ethnic grounds. Furthermore the Committee requests
that the Community Directive on equal treatment between
men and women be reviewed in the light of these Directives.

2.4.
The Directives have been drafted to stand alone. If one
is adopted before the other, then the remaining proposal can
be amended accordingly. Should both Directives be adopted
simultaneously serious problems of overlap would occur and
amendment of the texts would be necessary.

2.5.
In the light of the resolutions of the Council of
Ministers on 20 December 1996 and 17 June 1999 (1) the
Committee believes that urgent consideration should be given
to extending the legislation to protect disabled people in areas
other than employment and particularly in the areas of access
to services, education and transport. It is pointed out that that
there are an estimated 36 million disabled persons in the
European Union (10 % of the population).

2.6.
In the opinion of the Committee it is essential that all
residents of Member States can enjoy a minimum level of
protection and rights of legal redress against discrimination
and that these initiatives will indeed strengthen economic and
social cohesion within the Union. It should be made clear that
the Employment Directive applies to third country nationals
present in the territory of the European Union. The Committee
the Directives do not prohibit differences of
notes that
treatment based on nationality, which are dealt with by
separate Articles of the Treaty (Articles 12 and 39), and by
existing secondary legislation.

2.7.
The Committee welcomes the emphasis put in the
proposals, on establishing minimum tandards across the Union
and the prohibition of any reduction in existing protection in
Member States in response to the implementation of these
Directives.

2.8.
The Committee welcomes the reference to Article 137
that deals with social exclusion in general. The equal treatment
Directives will in our view promote social inclusion, as well as
social cohesion, and will ultimately reduce the high social costs
of exclusion.

2.9.
The Committee would have liked the Directive on
racial or ethnic origin to include provisions on racial violence
and incitement to racial hatred. The exclusion of these very
important issues is in our view a missed opportunity, as this is
an area which crucially effects the human rights of people
from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Committee also knows
that the political commitment and practical measures taken to
deal with this increasing phenomenon vary dramatically from
Member State to Member State. The Committee is of the
opinion that the 1996 joint action on racism is not enough to
deal with the problem and that the Commission should find
the appropriate legal means to cover this important area.

2.10.
Only brief reference is made to the benefits to
business of equality of opportunity, in that they are able to
make the best use of human resources available to them (the
business case). The Committee would like to see more effort
put into researching and developing this argument based upon
the many examples of good business practice which clearly
exist in companies operating within and outside the Union.
Notwithstanding the impact assessment made by the Com-
mission of the implementation costs for small and medium-
sized businesses, it is recognised that there may be additional
costs incurred by such businesses in adjusting to the new
Directives.

2.11.
The implications of an unequivocal Community
statement of public policy towards race discrimination con-
tinue even today to be timely and critical.

2.12.
In the same spirit, and outside the context of these
specific Directives, the Committee reiterates its earlier proposal
for integrated Community measures to prevent discrimination,
racism and xenophobia. It therefore calls upon the Com-
mission to consider and develop such measures, especially in
the sphere of education, using the modern tools of the
information society.

(1) Resolution of the Council and representatives of the Governments
of Member States meeting within the Council of 20.12.1996 on
equality of opportunity for people with disabilities (OJ C 12,
13.1.1997) and Council Resolution of 17.6.1999 on equal
employment opportunities for people with disabilities (OJ C 186,
2.7.1999).

The Committee believes that an increased dialogue
2.13.
between business, trade unions and other social and economic
actors, based on good practice, could show that equal treat-
ment
in employment and occupation can improve both
economic performance and social inclusion. The Committee is
well placed to help promote such a dialogue and intends to
organise a hearing on the subject.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/85

Specific comments on the Directives

3. Directive on Racial or Ethnic Origin

Introduction

3.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s move to
ban discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin in
In the light of experience with this
all areas of society.
Directive, the Commission should lose no time in determining
whether similar arrangements should be proposed for the
other types of discrimination mentioned in Article 13 of the
EC Treaty.

3.2.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the Directive
applies to third country nationals present in the territory of
the European Union.

Specific comments

4. The Directive on Racial or Ethnic Origin

4.1. Article 1 — Purpose

in the text of

The Committee welcomes the introduction of the definition of
harassment
the Directive. The Committee
however, is concerned to ensure that the liability of employers
for harassment
is limited to situations clearly under the
employer’s control and to situations where the employer has
knowledge of the harassment and has tolerated its continuance.

The Committee regret that there is no mention of discriminat-
ory instructions or pressure to discriminate on grounds of
racial or ethnic origin, in the Directive.

4.3. Article 3 — Material scope

The Committee notes that there is no specific reference to the
provision of services by public bodies included in the scope of
the Directive. An explicit reference should be made in the
Directive to ensure that this area is covered.

4.4. Article 4 — Genuine Occupational Qualifications

The Committee supports the limited nature of the Genuine
Occupational Qualification exemption to the discrimination
provisions. This exemption should be periodically assessed by
the Member States and by independent bodies, (as defined by
Article 12 of the Directive), to justify its maintenance or
exclusion.

The purpose of the Directive is expressed as applying the
principle of equal treatment between individuals irrespective
of racial or ethnic origins. This should be amended to all
persons. This formulation is used in the Employment Directive
and should be the same in the racial or ethnic origin Directive.

4.5. Article 5 — Positive action

The Committee welcomes this formulation.

4.2. Article 2 — Concept of discrimination

The Committee welcomes the introduction of definitions of
direct and indirect discrimination in the text of the Directive.
Concerning the definition of direct discrimination, for reasons
of clarity, it should be specified that a person who regards him
or herself as a victim of discrimination should be compared to
a person in a comparable situation. Therefore the Committee
proposes the following amendment to Article 2 (2a): Direct
discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is
treated less favourably than another is in a comparable
situation.

It is particularly helpful that the definition of indirect race
discrimination does not necessarily have to rely upon statistical
proof, but allows for other forms of evidence to demonstrate
discrimination in keeping with the European Court of Justice
ruling in cases involving the free movement of workers (1).
However, interpretation of indirect discrimination by adminis-
trative authorities could create problems in some countries.

(1) O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer case C-237/94 Judgement 23.5.96.

4.6. Article 6 — Minimum requirements

The Committee welcomes these provisions.

4.7. Article 7 — Defence of rights

Articles 7.1 and 7.2 are welcomed. The Committee under-
stands the proposal in Article 7.2 to mean that a relevant
organisation concerned with the defence of human rights or
combating racism and xenophobia and promoting equality,
can pursue a case on behalf of an individual complainant only
with her or his approval. It should, however also be possible
for a relevant organisation, with a mandate, to pursue an
action on behalf of a group of persons, Member State
legislation permitting.

Appropriate conciliation procedures should be made available
which are capable of resolving difficulties between individuals.
Such conciliation procedures shall not be mandatory and shall
be without prejudice to the right of the complainant to receive
recourse to judicial remedies.

C 204/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

4.8. Article 8 — Burden of Proof

4.12. Article 12 — Independent bodies

The Committee fully supports the formulation of the burden
of proof to be applied in the area of race discrimination. It
should be made clear that the proposal is advocating a shift of
the burden of proof and not a reversal, which brings it into
line with the 97/80/EC Directive on burden of proof in sex
discrimination cases. The Committee opinion on the Burden
of Proof (1) broadly supported this approach (there may be
additional costs for SMEs, see paragraph 2.10).

4.9. Article 9 — Victimisation

The Committee welcomes the inclusion of protection from
victimisation. It should be made clear that protection also
extends to any person who suffers a detriment as a result of
being involved in, or suspected of being involved in, making a
complaint or assisting a complaint alleging racial discrimi-
nation, provided that the allegation was not false and was
made in good faith.

4.10. Article 10 — Dissemination of information

In addition to the requirement
for the dissemination of
information on the provisions of the Directive there should
also be provision for training particularly for public authorities
and all institutions and concerned organisations. Training is
important in the context of dissemination of information,
particularly in countries not
familiar with fighting racial
discrimination. There should be a similar requirement on
Member States to publicise information on how to prevent
discrimination from occurring and to identify and disseminate
best practice in this area.

4.11. Article 11 — Social Dialogue

4.11.1.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the social
partners, whose independence and autonomy is respected, are
going to be involved in fostering the principle of equal
treatment through monitoring of workplace practices, collec-
tive agreements, Codes of Practice, research, exchange of
experience and good practice. The social partners should be
required to provide training for their representatives on the
provisions of the Directive.

The Committee welcomes the creation of independent bodies
in all the Member States. The Committee proposes that these
bodies,
in addition to the power to receive and pursue
complaints about discrimination on behalf of individuals,
should also have the power to pursue complaints on behalf of
organisations.

4.13. Article 13 — Compliance with the Directive

The Committee fully supports the compliance measures set
out in the Directive.

4.14. Article 14 — Sanctions

The Committee welcomes the proposal that sanctions must be
proportionate, effective and dissuasive.

4.15. Article 15 — Implementation

Consideration should be given as to whether the European
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and Anti-
Semitism based in Vienna can be given powers to monitor the
impact of national legislation in combating discrimination,
or whether these powers could also be given to national
’independent bodies’ in Member States who in turn could
report to the Monitoring Centre.

5. The Employment Directive

5.1. Article 1 — Purpose

The purpose of the Employment Directive is to put into
effect in Member States the principle of equal treatment in
employment, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

4.11.2. R o l e o f N G O s

5.2. Article 2 — Concept of discrimination

The Committee strongly recommends that an additional
Article be inserted in the Directive which stresses the key role
non governmental organisations concerned with human rights,
discrimination and equality issues play in the implementation
and monitoring of the Directive without prejudice to the
prerogatives of social partners.

(1) Economic and Social Committee Opinion on the Directive on the

Burden of Proof, OJ C 133, 28.4.1997 — op. cit.

The Committee welcomes the introduction of definitions of
direct and indirect discrimination in the text of the Directive.
Concerning the definition of direct discrimination, for reasons
of clarity, it should be specified that a person who regards him
or herself as a victim of discrimination should be compared to
a person in a comparable situation. Therefore the Committee
proposes the following amendment to Article 2 (2a): Direct
discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is
treated less favourably than another is or would be in a
comparable situation.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/87

It is particularly helpful that the definition of indirect race
discrimination does not necessarily have to rely upon statistical
proof, but allows for other forms of evidence to demonstrate
discrimination in keeping with the European Court of Justice
ruling in cases involving the free movement of workers. (1)
However, interpretation of indirect discrimination by adminis-
trative authorities could create problems in some countries.

in the text of

The Committee welcomes the introduction of the definition of
harassment
the Directive. The Committee
however, is concerned to ensure that the liability of employers
is limited to situations clearly under the
for harassment
employer’s control and to situations where the employer has
knowledge of the harassment and has tolerated its continuance.

The Committee regrets that there is no mention of discriminat-
ory instructions or pressure to discriminate on racial or ethnic
origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in
the Directive.

Article 2.4 deals more specifically with the disabled. The
Committee welcomes the drafting of the article that limits the
burden for small and medium enterprises by only requiring
’reasonable accommodation’ for disabled persons unless this
requirement creates undue hardship. Committee welcomes the
concepts of ’reasonableness’ and ’undue hardship’ that limit
the impact on small enterprises.

is concerned that Article 5f could be interpreted as legitimising
wide ranging age discrimination on labour market grounds.
On the other hand, the common message in Clauses a-f is that
differences in treatment can be objectively and reasonably
justified by a legitimate aim, and if they are appropriate and
necessary to the achievement of that aim. The Member States’
national
legislation also contain a number of examples of
protective legislation and collective agreements based on age.
Against this background the Committee is prepared to accept
Article 5f. In the last resort, the courts will have the task of
assessing general considerations regarding reasonable justifi-
cation.

5.6. Article 6 — Positive action

The Committee welcomes this formulation. However the
Committee would like to point out that an interpretation of
positive action measures in the light of current case law (2) on
sex discrimination could cause legal uncertainties with regard
to some, of the non discrimination grounds (religion and
sexual orientation) covered by this Directive.

5.7. Article 7 — Minimum requirements

5.3. Article 3 — Material scope

Committee supports the provisions in Article 3 of the Direc-
tive.

The Committee welcomes the introduction of
this non
regression clause as being necessary to ensure that common
standards in the employment field in the 15 Member States as
a result of the implementation of the Directive.

5.4. Article 4 — Genuine occupational qualifications

5.8. Article 8 — Defence of rights

The Committee supports the limited nature of the Genuine
Occupational Qualification exemption to the discrimination
provisions. This exemption should be periodically assessed by
the Member States and by independent bodies, to justify its
maintenance or exclusion.

5.5. Article 5 — Justification of differences of treatment on grounds

of age

The Committee notes the non-exhaustive status of the list of
differences in treatment, which are not considered to be
direct discrimination provided that they are objectively and
reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and are appropriate
and necessary to the achievement of that aim. The Committee

The Committee understands the proposal in Article 7.2 to
mean that a relevant organisation concerned with the defence
of human rights and promoting equality can pursue a case on
behalf of an individual complainant only with her or his
approval. It should, however also be possible for a relevant
organisation, with a mandate, to pursue an action on behalf of
a group of persons, Member State legislation permitting.

Appropriate conciliation procedures should be made available
which are capable of resolving difficulties between individuals;
or social partners. Such conciliation procedures shall not be
mandatory and shall be without prejudice to the right of the
complainant to receive recourse to judicial remedies.

(1) O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer case C-237/94 Judgement

(2) Kalanke & Marshall cases Case C-450/93, ECR 1995, p. 3051,

23.5.1996.

Case 409/95 ECR 1997, p. 6363.

C 204/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

5.9. Article 9 — Burden of proof

5.14. Article 14 — Sanctions

The Committee fully support the formulation of the burden of
proof. The Committee opinion on the Burden of Proof (1)
broadly supported this approach. It should be made clear that
the proposal is advocating a shift of the burden of proof and
not a reversal, which brings it into line with the 97/80/EC
Directive on burden of proof in sex discrimination cases
(there may be additional costs for in particular SMEs, see
paragraph 2.10).

5.10. Article 10 — Victimisation

The Committee welcomes the inclusion of protection from
victimisation. It should be made clear that protection also
extends to any person who suffers a detriment as a result of
being involved in, or suspected of being involved in, making a
complaint or assisting a complaint alleging racial discrimi-
nation, provided that the allegation was not false and was
made in good faith.

5.11. Article 11 — Dissemination of information

In addition to the requirement
for the dissemination of
information on the provisions of the Directive there should
also be provision for training particularly for public authorities
and all institutions and concerned organisations. Training is
important in the context of dissemination of information,
particularly in countries not familiar with anti-discrimination
legislation. There should be a similar requirement on Member
States to publicise information on how to prevent discrimi-
nation from occurring and to identify and disseminate best
practice in this area.

5.12. Article 12 — Social dialogue

The Committee welcomes the fact that social dialogue will be
reinforced. Social partners must play a fundamental role and
can make a valuable contribution via the monitoring of
procedures and practices. This power is not about ‘control’ but
the difference between these concepts
about monitoring,
should be underlined. (In some of the translations the word
‘control’ has been used.) The Committee also welcomes the
recommendation that social partners implement the directive
into collective agreements thus demonstrating the compati-
bility between collective and individual rights.

5.13. Article 13 — Compliance

The Committee welcomes this article.

(1) Economic and Social Committee Opinion on the Directive on the

Burden of Proof, OJ C 133, 28.4.1997 — op. cit.

The Committee welcomes the proposal that sanctions must be
proportionate, effective and dissuasive.

5.15. Articles 15 — Implementation and Report

The Committee welcomes this Article.

6. Action programme to combat discrimination: 2001-

2006

6.1.
The aim of the action programme is to promote
measures to combat discrimination by supporting trans-
national co-operation between a number of actors on a series
of key themes.

6.2.
The Committee fully supports the proposal for an
action programme. The three principal objectives and
accompanying strands of action, namely, analysis of the extent
and nature of discrimination, capacity building of actors active
in the fight against discrimination and dissemination of values
and practices underlying the fight against discrimination,
provide a well balanced programme with maximum possibiliti-
es for exchange and co-operation.

6.3.
The action programme assumes that the experiences
of people subject to discrimination will be taken into account
during the planning, implementation and follow-up processes
for the activities of the action programme. The Committee is
concerned, however, that there is no mention made of the way
in which the experiences of victims will be taken into account.
The Committee feels that these experiences should serve as a
starting point.

6.4.
The programme aims to support trans-national pro-
jects. This means that in practice a whole range of organisations
will be excluded, as they do not have the human or financial
resources or the infrastructure necessary to take part in such
projects. Given that these organisations have the advantage of
in depth practical knowledge of the issues and are well placed
to express the point of view of victims of discrimination, the
action programme should provide an appropriate means for
their inclusion.

The Committee welcomes the broad scope of the
6.5.
action programme and the fact
it extends beyond
employment and the labour market into the areas of access to
goods and services.

that

6.6.
The Committee believes that the action programme
should have a strong focus on the issue of discrimination on
the grounds of age given the fact that the Directive on
employment singles out age discrimination and specifies
circumstances when it can be justified and is therefore legally
permissible. The action programme should therefore put a

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/89

special emphasis on investigating the feasibility of measures
and initiatives in the field of age discrimination. The action
programme could provide a means of testing the political will
of Member States on this issue and of exploring the potential
for effective and enforceable age discrimination legislation.

The Commission proposes an end of programme
6.7.
evaluation report by 31 December 2005. The Committee
suggests that, in addition, it would be appropriate to submit a

mid term evaluation report given that this is a new area of
action and the aims and themes of action may need to be
adapted in the course of the programme.

6.8.
The Committee feels that the prevention of discrimi-
nation and promotion of equality of opportunity are an
important part of the overall strategy to underpin the anti
discrimination Directives. To this end the Commission should
consider a high profile media and advertising campaign as part
of the action programme.

Brussels, 25 May 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which obtained more than one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the
discussions.

Point 4.2

In the last sentence of the first paragraph, add following words:

‘... than another is or would be in a comparable situation.’

Reason

Direct discrimination arises when persons in comparable situations are not treated equally. The different treatment
can be shown in one of two ways. Either by a direct comparison with the treatment afforded to another, or a
situation where one person is treated less favourably than another would be so treated.

The Commission proposal allows for the comparator to be found in either situation and not just the one. The
amendment is therefore for completeness.

Result of the vote

For: 41, against: 47, abstentions: 8

Point 4.8

Add following wording in last sentence:

‘…(there may be additional costs for companies and in particular SMEs, see paragraph 2.10).’

C 204/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

Reason

It is recognised that a shift of burden of proof will create heavy burden and additional costs for companies, in
particular SMEs, as employers will have to retain documents relating to each decision concerning human resource
management, in order to have elements of proof in the event that action is taken against them.

Result of the vote

For: 54, against: 63, abstentions: 3.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending for the nineteenth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC
relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(azocolourants)’

(2000/C 204/18)

On 10 April 2000, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentionned 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 5 April 2000. The rapporteur was
Mrs Williams.

At its 373rd plenary session (meeting of 25 May 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 73 votes to none, with 1 abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This proposal from the Commission on the marketing
and use of certain dangerous products concerns the health and
safety of both consumers and workers.
Its motivation is
essentially to protect human health by prohibiting the use of
dangerous azo dyes so that those textiles and leather goods
which are coloured by them are no longer placed on the
market. Some of these products, such as toys, clothes and
shoes can affect the most vulnerable of consumers, in particular
pregnant women and small children.

co-ordinated, common action to create EU legislation which
will ensure harmonisation which will also apply to candidate
countries.

1.4.
The proposal must also be seen in the context of
the World Trade Organisation’s requirements, so that any
limitations on the use of azo dyes must be supported by well-
identified risks to consumers.

1.2.
The proposal is yet another safety amendment to the
existing Directive on dangerous substances (1), with its text
supplemented by technical annexes.

2. Background information

1.3.
The proposal also underlines the importance of har-
monisation in the Internal Market. Since some Member States
have already enacted restrictions of marketing and use of
certain carcinogenic azo dyes, there is a compelling need for

(1) 76/769/EEC, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.

2.1.
Azo colourants (both dyes and pigments) are the most
widely used organic colouring materials. They all contain at
least one azo link. This azo link can be reduced in the body to
form the corresponding aromatic amine. The Proposal there-
fore is not to restrict all azo colours but only those soluble azo
dyes which would break down or cleave to form any of the
21 listed amines which are carcinogens. Most azo pigments
are not affected since they are virtually insoluble and therefore
do not cleave under normal conditions.