Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on summer-time arrangements"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, economic policy, health policy, impact study, industrial policy, summertime

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/37

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and the Council on summer-time arrangements’

(2001/C 116/07)

On 12 July 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Levaux.

At its 377th plenary session of 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November) the Committee
adopted the following opinion with 106 votes in favour and one abstention.

1.

Introduction

— the fourth Sunday in October in Ireland and the United

Kingdom.

1.1.
Taking the time zones as a reference point, the 15 EU
Member States are currently split up into three different zones
which do not necessarily correspond to the zones dictated by
the meridians. Ireland, the United Kingdom and Portugal are
on Greenwich meantime (GMT). Greece and Finland are on
GMT + 2 hours. Lastly Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg,
Denmark, Austria, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium
and Italy are on GMT + 1 hour.

During the 1970s, particularly in the wake of the first
1.2.
oil crisis, most of the Member States introduced arrangements
for summer-time hours.

The fact that there were different national arrange-
1.3.
ments for summer time highlighted the need to deal with this
issue at Community level.

The first directive on summer-time arrangements (1)
1.4.
took effect in 1981; its sole aim was gradually to harmonise
the dates on which summer time began and ended, so as to
remove the barriers to the free movement of goods, services
and persons which could be created by the differing national
summer-time arrangements.

1.5.
This aim was only partially achieved by the first
directive since only the starting date was harmonised in all of
the Member States.

1.6.

The subsequent directives (2) set two finishing dates:

— the last Sunday in September in the continental Member

States, and

1.7.
Full harmonisation of the timetable for summer time
was achieved when the seventh Directive 94/21/EC (3) was
adopted; this provided for common starting and finishing
dates for summer time in all of the Member States without
exception, beginning in 1996.

Finally,

the eighth Directive — 97/44/EC (4) —
1.8.
extended the arrangements under the seventh directive for the
period from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. Under these arrange-
ments summer time begins on the last Sunday in March and
ends on the last Sunday in October throughout the European
Union.

1.9. When the eighth directive was adopted, the Com-
mission committed itself to a thorough examination of the
implications of summer time in the Member States. A wide-
ranging study was carried out by an independent consultant (5),
whose task it was to take account of the various existing
studies and the conclusions reached by reports on the matter
at both Community and national levels and to question experts
in the various areas concerned,
in order to put forward
conclusions and to submit recommendations on the basis of
the analyses and investigations carried out. The study was to
be restricted solely to the effects and implications of summer
time, while its aim was not to examine the composition of or
any changes to the time zones spanning Europe, as these come
under the responsibility of
the Member States (and the
study was certainly not aimed at introducing one time zone
throughout the European Union).

(1) Council Directive 80/737/EEC of 22 July 1980, on summer-time
arrangements (OJ L 205, 7.8.1980, p. 17). ESC Opinion: OJ
C 131, 12.6.1976, p. 12.

(2) Directive 82/399/EEC (OJ L 173, 19.6.1982, p. 17). Directive
84/634/EEC (OJ L 331, 19.12.1984, p. 33). Directive 88/14/EEC
(OJ L 6, 9.1.1988, p. 38). Directive 89/47/EEC (OJ L 17,
21.1.1989, p. 57). Directive 92/20/EEC (OJ L 89, 4.4.1992, p. 28).

(3) Seventh European Parliament and Council Directive 94/21/EC of
30 May 1994, on summer-time arrangements (OJ L 164,
30.6.1994, p. 1). ESC Opinion: OJ C 34, 2.2.1994, p. 21.

(4) Eighth European Parliament and Council Directive 97/44/EC of
22 July 1997, on summer-time arrangements (OJ L 206, 1.8.1997,
p. 62). ESC Opinion: OJ C 30, 30.1.1997, p. 20.

(5) Research for Beleid International (RvB), Leiden, Netherlands, June

1999.

C 116/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

2.

The Commission proposal

3.

The Committee’s comments

The present proposal for a directive, which takes ample
2.1.
account of the conclusions of the study on summer time,
stipulates the introduction of summer-time arrangements for
an unlimited period as of the year 2002. Indeed, according to
the Commission, the proper functioning of certain sectors, not
only transport and communications, but also other sectors of
industry, requires stable, long-term planning.

2.2. Moreover,
for reasons of clarity and accuracy of
information, the Commission proposes fixing and publishing
every five years a timetable setting out the summer-time
arrangements for the following five years.

Lastly, the proposal stipulates that implementation of
2.3.
this directive should be monitored by means of a report to be
submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the
Economic and Social Committee. This report is to examine the
impact of the provisions of this directive in all of the areas
concerned, on the basis of the information made available to
the Commission by the Member States in sufficient time to
enable the report to be presented at the specified time, i.e.
31 December 2007.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The ESC welcomes the fact that the Commission has
3.1.
carried out this in-depth study into the effects of summer time
in all the main economic sectors, such as agriculture, industry,
trade, banking and transport, as well as on the health of certain
groups of people, road safety, tourism and recreation.

3.2.
Although the study did not enable any definitive
conclusions to be drawn as to the negative and positive
economic and social implications of the summer-time arrange-
ments, the Economic and Social Committee, as it has already
stated in its previous opinions on this subject, welcomes the
Commission proposal in that it facilitates the free movement
of goods, services and persons as well as the proper functioning
of the single market.

Lastly,

the Committee welcomes the fact

3.3.
in
Article 5 of the proposed directive the Commission stipulates
that the impact of the provisions of the directive be monitored
by a report (to be submitted by 31 December 2007 at the
latest) and that this report has to be submitted to the Economic
and Social Committee.

that

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste

Electrical and Electronic Equipment’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction

of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment’

(2001/C 116/08)

On 14 September 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under
Articles 95 and 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-mentioned
proposals.

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 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 100 votes to four, with three abstentions.