Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Green Paper on services of general interest"
Date: 2003-11-20
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU regional policy, competition law, economic and social cohesion, provision of services, services of general interest

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/7

recommends that the CARDS programme supports
2.15.
the development of local partnerships in the framework of the
Local Democracy Agency programme (LDA); this project,
initiated by the Council of Europe, has since 1993 been
implementing concrete projects in the field of local democracy,

intercultural dialogue and cross-border cooperation, based on
established cooperation between local and regional authorities,
notably of the EU countries and ten cities in the Western
Balkans.

Brussels, 19 November 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Green Paper on services of general interest’

(2004/C 73/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Green Paper on services of general interest (COM(2003) 270 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 May 2003 to consult it on this subject,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its President of 23 January 2003 to instruct its Commission for Economic
and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to Article 36 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning access to services
of general economic interest;

having regard to Article 16 of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning services of
general economic interest, as well as Articles 2, 5, 73, 81, 86, 87, 88 and 295 of the same Treaty;

having regard to Article III-6 of the draft European Constitution;

having regard to its opinion on the Commission’s Communication on Services of General Interest in
Europe (CdR 470/2000 fin) (1);

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 149/2003 rev.) adopted on 22 September 2003 by the
Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Tove Larsen, Mayor of Rødekro (DK/PES)),

adopted the following opinion at its 52nd plenary session on 19 and 20 November 2003 (session of
20 November).

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2002, p. 8.

C 73/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

1. The Committee of the Regions’ comments

2. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

1.1.
welcomes the Commission Green Paper on services of
general interest. The Green Paper is important because it helps
to underline the importance of SGIs for welfare and social
development in the EU. Like the Commission, the CoR is
concerned with how the EU can best contribute to ensuring
that citizens enjoy high-quality services at low cost;

1.2.
sees the drafting of a new European constitution as a
good opportunity to highlight the vital importance of SGIs for
a modern European society. The publication of the Green
Paper on services of general interest gives the Commission and
other institutions pause to consider the necessity and options
for taking greater account of the public interest when organis-
ing SGIs. For the CoR, it is an opportunity to emphasise the
importance of recognising the specific nature of SGIs in
discussions on the subject;

1.3.
notes that the Commission has chosen to adopt an
interrogative approach, which aptly demonstrates how wide-
ranging and complex a field this is. The Green Paper raises
many relevant questions which help to broaden the scope of
the debate, but unfortunately the Green Paper only comes up
with a limited number of informed answers or proposed
solutions. The overriding impression is that the Commission
is using the opportunity to collect data which could have been
gathered in the process of drawing up the Green Paper;

1.4.
feels there is a lack of clarity in the Commission’s
positions and outlook on this subject. The CoR would like to
have seen some clearer expressions of the Commission’s stance
as a contribution to the debate on the future of SGIs, inter alia
whether SGIs should be given greater prominence in the
Treaty;

1.5.
since the final outcome of the Convention’s work and
of the intergovernmental conference is not yet known, feels
that it is questionable whether there is any point in responding
to the Green Paper before the legal basis for SGIs has been
decided upon. The absence of a legal basis makes it difficult
and in some cases impossible to answer the questions in any
meaningful way.

2.1. What kind of subsidiarity?

The Committee of the Regions

2.1.1.
is pleased to note that the Commission recognises
the central role of local and regional authorities in defining,
organising, financing and monitoring SGIs;

2.1.2.
considers that local or regional authorities, which are
closest to the citizens concerned, are best placed to judge the
type, method and quality of SGIs to be implemented taking
account of the particular characteristics of the population
groups concerned;

2.1.3.
regards it as very important that the public authority
which is responsible for SGIs is free to decide whether to
provide the service itself, in conjunction with other authorities
or to choose other solutions, including private-sector options.
The subsidiarity principle — both horizontal and vertical —
should be recognised fully such that
local and regional
authorities are as a matter of principle free to decide how to
provide such services. Basing that decision on local circum-
stances ensures the best possible solution for the citizens and
the community;

2.1.4.
however, the scope and substance of vertical and
horizontal subsidiarity depends on the legislative framework
governing SGIs;

2.1.5.
the function and value of public service for the
European social model do not have a particularly prominent
place in the Treaty. Treaty Article 16 does recognise the role
and value of services of general economic interest, but it defers
to Articles 73, 86 and 87, i.e. the rules on free competition
and state aid,
for the principles and conditions of their
operation. However, the Committee of the Regions feels that
some activities pertaining to services of general interest cannot
be covered solely by competition law and market rules;

2.1.6.
the final position and status of SGIs in the new
constitutional treaty is not yet known. The CoR opinion is
therefore based on two different scenarios — with and without
a change in the primary-law basis for SGIs in the Treaty.

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/9

2.2.

Scenario 1: Change in the primary-law basis for services of
general interest in the Treaty

The Committee of the Regions

2.2.1.
the Committee of the Regions recommends that
interest provisions be enshrined in the Treaty to
general
provide a basis for regulating the SGI sector in the EU, while
at the same time clearly stating that it is the task of the Member
States and their subnational authorities to lay down the actual
principles and conditions for the provision of SGIs;

2.2.2.
believes that the mission of SGIs should be included
among the EU’s basic objectives on an equal footing with the
implementation of the internal market and observance of the
subsidiarity principle. Thus, implementing the internal market
and safeguarding the public interest will be two objectives
which supplement joint European efforts to reinforce the EU’s
economic, social and territorial cohesion;

2.2.3.
recommends maintaining legal recognition of SGIs
in the Treaty, subject to the clarification made in point 2.2.1,
thus recognising that the mission of SGIs is to be defined
primarily by the Member States;

2.2.4.
feels that a number of provisions, which are common
to all sectors, can be incorporated into the Treaty as an
overarching legal framework. This will create the basis for a
better balance between competition provisions, general social
provisions and those concerning individual citizens. Accord-
ingly, the CoR would like to see the following provisions
incorporated into Treaty Article 16:

— All citizens shall have equal access to services, insofar as

this is economically viable.

— There shall be a high degree of security of supply, if it is

economically viable

— Market suppliers shall ensure adequate capacity in the

case of market deficiency

— Services shall be of a high standard

— The subsidiarity principle has an essential role to play in
this area, inter alia with regard to which services are
classed as SGIs, who is to provide them and how they are
to be organised and funded;

2.2.5.
believes that, as a matter of principle, all citizens
should have equal access to SGIs insofar as this is economically

viable. Failure to provide citizens with essential SGIs may, for
instance, have serious health implications and remains one of
the principal reasons why families, especially young families,
move elsewhere. Access to such services should, in principle,
be the same for everyone, but with some variation depending
on regional or local conditions and the physical framework
(the distances involved, population density etc.) may affect the
actual content and format of the service. Providing equal,
across-the-board access to services also implies that
the
authorities must be in a position to set the price, based on a
uniform principle of solidarity under which no-one, or the
fewest people possible, are deprived of such services for
economic reasons. Likewise, the authorities should be able to
even out costs within the individual sectors, thereby making
for enhanced regional or social cohesion. When services are
managed by other bodies, the authorities must use notices of
tender and contracts to ensure equality of access, security of
provision and complete territorial cover;

2.2.6.
feels there should be a high level of security of
supply. Security of supply may be defined as the obligation on
service suppliers to ensure continued, uninterrupted service
provision. People’s perception of quality is closely tied to
reliable, uninterrupted service provision. Citizens/users would,
for instance, be inconvenienced by water, gas or power cuts,
and disruption to services such as sewage disposal or refuse
collection. The concept of security should include the key
consideration of risk prevention, and in particular of reducing
the risk of high-impact, although rare, events (such as the
recent power cut in North America and the abnormally high
mortality rate among the elderly as a result of inadequate care
provision during the very high summer temperatures);

2.2.7.
believes that it is primarily the responsibility of
service providers to guarantee adequate capacity in cases of
market deficiency. When the market does not provide the
required services for citizens, it may be necessary for the public
authorities themselves to provide adequate capacity. The
market
is only keen to build capacity where economic
considerations make it attractive to do so. Many of the
installations required to provide the public and industry with
SGIs need considerable investment with long depreciation
periods (of up to 30 years). Examples include waste inciner-
ation and sewage treatment. Such an investment profile is only
rarely attractive to private investors. Lack of adequate capacity
may lead to service cuts and higher prices;

C 73/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

feels that services must be of a high standard. In fact,
2.2.8.
to warrant its remit, the public sector must be in a position to
provide a high standard of public services. In that connection,
it must be stressed that the idea of quality also covers general
social considerations, including, for instance, environmental
performance, occupational health and safety and consumer
protection. Narrow microeconomic considerations will not
always be able to ensure that these issues are adequately
addressed. Within an overall
the authorities
responsible for service delivery must be able to take action in
the field of service quality. Everyday service providers generate
the ideas for improving the way in which the various functions
are discharged. Under the quality approach, each public service
needs to adopt a charter, code or regulation defining users’
entitlements in terms of the services to be provided, the
amount and quality of service, quality controls, complaints,
information etc. Users must be actively involved in defining
optimum service quality; using instruments for measuring
customer satisfaction can contribute to this;

framework,

believes that the organisational structure should, in
2.2.9.
principle, be decided freely.
In matters pertaining to the
delivery of SGIs, public authorities should be free to choose —
and experiment with — appropriate operational models. It is
local and
crucial that,
regional authorities are able to gain some insight into possible
supply bottlenecks, difficulties in relation to price-setting and
environmental problems, and can decide on the action needed
to rise to these local challenges;

in consultation with citizens/users,

2.2.10.
with an amendment to the Treaty, general social
provisions will be given maximum ‘legal weight’ as far as the
EU Court of Justice is concerned. By amending the Treaty, the
courts — and the Commission, when it draws up proposals
for the new rules — will strike a better balance between
competition provisions, general social provisions and those
concerning individual citizens.

notes that, in point 41, the Commission indicates a
2.3.2.
number of ways of consolidating common objectives and
principles for SGIs. These could either be set out in a legislative
instrument (i.e. a directive or a regulation) or in a non-binding
(e.g. a recommendation, communi-
legislative instrument
cation, guidelines or inter-institutional agreement);

2.3.3.
the main interest, as well as the debate, has focused
on the possibility of a framework directive. Below, the CoR
gives some thoughts on the possibilities and limitations of a
framework directive, as well as ideas on what the content of a
possible framework directive should and should not be;

2.3.4.
point 40 of the Green Paper considers the legal basis
for a possible framework directive. From this it emerges that
Article 16 does not provide a legal base for the adoption of a
specific instrument, including a framework directive. Treaty
Article 95 on harmonisation for the internal market could be
used, but a framework instrument based on this provision
would have to be limited to services of general economic
interest having an effect on intra-Community trade. It could
not be used to regulate services of a non-economic nature or
economic services with a limited effect on trade (e.g. water,
waste water and heating);

feels, however,

2.3.5.
the provisions of Treaty
that
Article 95 are in any case unsuitable as a basis for regulation
of SGIs. This is because directives pursuant to these provisions
must necessarily have as their overarching objective to increase
cross-border trade, to create an internal market. But compe-
tition (including across borders) cannot be an end in itself as
far as SGIs are concerned. Insofar as competition leads to one
or more of the prime considerations outlined above being
undermined,
it results in the task being performed less
effectively.

2.3.

Scenario 2: The provisions on services of general interest in
the Treaty remain unchanged

The Committee of the Regions

the regulation on the freedom to provide services
2.3.6.
within maritime transport (concerning inter alia putting ferry
routes out to tender) and the electricity liberalisation directive
illustrate the difficulties associated with applying internal
market rules to SGIs;

believes it is possible that provisions on services of
2.3.1.
general
interest may be only partly incorporated into the
Treaty, or indeed not at all. If this were to be the case, there
would be a need for other ways of balancing out
the
competition provisions;

the requirement imposed by the EU to put all ferry
2.3.7.
routes out to tender, regardless of their size, has had negative
economic and administrative consequences for local and
regional authorities. As a result of the EU requirement, small
publicly supported ferry routes were put out to tender. Serving

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/11

small islands and outlying areas is inherently uneconomical,
and such services are often set up and run with public funding
support. In most cases, the invitations to tender produced only
one bidder, namely the company that had operated the route
before. In cases where a competitor did come forward, the bid
was typically more expensive. The invitation to tender did not
result in better services — rather, local and regional authorities
were obliged to employ considerable economic and adminis-
trative resources to carry out the procurement process, includ-
ing drawing up tender details etc;

2.3.8.
the other example is liberalisation of the electricity
market, which has not so far resulted in generally lower prices.
On the contrary, it has led to greater price fluctuations. When
liberalisation is completed throughout the EU by 2007 at the
latest, it will bring individual citizens considerable uncertainty
about the ‘going rate’ for electricity, which cannot be in the
citizens’ interest;

although Treaty Article 95 requires the Commission’s
2.3.9.
proposals concerning health, safety, environmental protection
and consumer protection to take as a base a high level of
protection, this does not alter the fact that it is unsuitable as a
basis for regulating SGIs.

2.4. Good governance

The Committee of the Regions

notes section 4 of the Green Paper entitled ‘Good
2.4.1.
governance: organisation, financing and evaluation’. The sec-
tion immediately seems spurious, in that everyone agrees on
the need for good governance. The question is merely who
should define what ‘good governance’ is? Should that be done
at EU, national or regional/local level?;

the Member States and regional and local authorities
2.4.2.
currently enjoy considerable degrees of freedom to organise
and administer SGIs. If a framework directive on SGIs is drawn
up, the CoR does not think that it should lay down new
principles or guidelines for good governance;

— extend the field of entitlement to competition to the

detriment of general-interest remits;

— educe the freedom of choice of the Member States and of
their local authorities in the way they manage SGIs.

The CoR is opposed to any arrangements or measures by the
EU which curtail regional and local self-government and
exercise the power to define services of general interest. On
the contrary, it is important that any framework directive gives
the Member States the necessary flexibility on the matter. In
particular, it must be ensured that they retain the freedom to
decide themselves whether a service of general interest is to be
provided by state-owned companies or institutions or by
private, third-party operators;

whether such a framework directive covers all SGIs
2.4.4.
(requiring an amendment to the Treaty) or tries to limit itself
to services of general economic interest, it will have to be very
general to cater for the different characteristics of a wide range
of sectors, as pointed out in point 40 of the Green Paper. There
are big differences between the organisation and operation of,
for example,
telecommunications, water supply or waste
management. The CoR therefore feels that a framework
directive will not go any appreciable way towards creating
legal clarity on the relation between SGIs and competition and
state aid rules. Legal clarity would anyway be ensured by
means of sector-specific legislation or adjustments to the rules
on state aid. If the EU insists on trying to create greater legal
clarity by means of a framework directive, it risks introducing
more detailed regulations, which may have unintended conse-
quences for some sectors. The consequences may be far greater
standardisation both within sectors and between sectors.
The framework directive may therefore have far greater
consequences and cause far greater problems than sector-
specific regulation;

2.4.5.
considers that sector-specific access to organisation,
financing and evaluation is a better guarantee that Community
legislation only deals with services which, as a result of their
scale and structural interconnection, are of Community-wide
importance, but not those which are only of local or regional
interest.

2.4.3.
considers that a framework directive which contains
principles and guidelines on the organisation, financing and
evaluation of SGIs must not seek to:

2.5. Clarification of definitions and non-economic services

— extend the EU’s powers to the detriment of the Member

States or local authorities;

2.5.1.
Paper,

as the Commission itself points out in the Green
it is difficult to distinguish between services of an

C 73/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

economic nature and those of a non-economic nature. A
number of services can easily be classified as economic, e.g.
electricity, gas and heating provision. Others can clearly
be categorised as non-economic, e.g. education and social
services;

authorities in the general public interest, and mainly for social
or environmental purposes rather than commercial purposes,
are not considered to be Services of General Economic Interest;

2.5.2.
however, there is general agreement that a distinction
between services of an economic nature and those of a non-
to draw, partly because of
economic nature is difficult
the constantly evolving nature of services and the inherent
flexibility the term has, and partly because it can always be
argued that all services are in some way economic in nature.
Whether a service is subject to the EU’s competition rules
cannot, in the CoR’s view, be determined merely on the basis
of its economic or non-economic nature, but must also be
judged on the basis of the political objectives involved. For
example, the guiding principle for public hospitals is not the
market, but meeting citizens’ need for health services in line
with national, regional and local health policy;

the CoR agrees with the Commission that

2.5.3.
the
categories involved are not static and may evolve over time.
There will also be services which are perceived as economic in
one country and as non-economic in another;

there are two alternatives to the lack of clarity arising
2.5.4.
from the impossibility of making an exhaustive categorisation.
One is to draw up positive lists of individual categories. This
could mean a static legal situation with no scope for change in
particular areas, the emergence of new areas (e.g. in the IT
infrastructure field) or areas which can be both non-economic
and economic depending on the given situation;

2.5.6.
the principle of vertical and horizontal subsidiarity is
particularly relevant in these areas, where it is a question of
delivering core services of great importance to EU citizens and
where the degrees of freedom with regard to how that is
achieved from country to county and within countries — at
the level of individual local and regional authorities — should
be as large as possible;

2.5.7.
the CoR therefore feels that the lack of legal clarity
surrounding the definitions cannot be resolved with positive
lists or by abandoning the distinction between economic and
non-economic SGIs. Resolving the lack of legal clarity through
regulation presupposes that there are simple answers to the
questions raised, which is not the case in this very complex
field. New rulings on definitions will just raise new questions.
The Committee believes, however, that, where the proceeds of
goods or services sold in the general interest on the relevant
market are merely sufficient to help cover cost, it may certainly
be concluded that the activity in question is non-economic;

2.5.8.
in point 45 of its Green Paper, the Commission
rightly highlights the difficulty of drawing up an a priori list of
services that are to be considered to be ‘non-economic’. In
the European courts and decisions of
judgments of
the
Commission,
‘typical’ non-economic activities (such as the
activities of state schools, compulsory social insurance schemes
and organisations which perform social functions but which
are not meant to engage in industrial or commercial activity)
have however been recognised as non-economic activities. The
provision of such a list, by way of providing assistance, is
feasible; this measure would make a considerable contribution
towards establishing legal certainty;

the CoR therefore feels that there should be no
2.5.9.
move away from the arrangement whereby more detailed
categorisation is left to the Member States in accordance with
the subsidiarity principle, as outlined in the Commission’s
original communication on the subject.

the other alternative is to abandon the distinction
2.5.5.
between the two categories. However, this is not a viable
route as the distinction has major implications for how the
provisions of the Treaty are applied. Non-economic services
are not covered by the Treaty’s internal market rules, compe-
tition rules or state-aid rules, and can therefore be said to have
a kind of special status. Common rules for all SGIs would
entail greater regulation of these areas than at present. In any
case, the Commission should clearly set that services provided
directly or through an external entity by local and regional

2.6.

Exchange of best practice and benchmarking

2.6.1.
should there be a better procedure for exchanging
best practice and benchmarking on questions of organising
SGIs across the EU? Who should be involved and which
sectors covered?;

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/13

as the Commission itself acknowledges in the Green
2.6.2.
Paper, the characteristics of SGIs differ considerably across the
EU. But this should not deter the Commission, the Member
States and regional and local authorities from looking into
how the exchange of best practice and benchmarking in areas
regulated by the Community can help to achieve systematic
improvements in quality. It is important that benchmarking is
used correctly to provide inspiration and the opportunity to
learn from the best;

with regard to who should be involved in the
2.6.3.
consultation procedure on exchanging and benchmarking best
practice, the CoR would refer the Commission to the guidelines
which appeared in the White Paper on the guidelines for new
forms of governance in the EU. These state that the Com-
mission recognises that local and regional authorities have a
key role to play with regard to the consultation procedure so
as to ensure more effective interaction between local and
regional authorities and the EU. In addition, assessment should
be carried on many levels. Services of general economic
interest involve a wide range of actors with differing interests
who exchange information with each other in varying degrees.
Assessment bodies must therefore be pluralist, specialised and
act independently from the decision-making and implementing
institutions. They must be open to all actors and address their
expectations, aspirations and interests.

2.7.

Financing services of general interest, including state aid

2.7.1.
the use of different forms of financing in different
sectors illustrates very well why it is difficult to introduce
common legislation on a particular method of financing across
all sectors. However, the CoR considers that secure long-term
financing of public service obligations must be guaranteed: the
public authorities must take responsibility for the resultant
constraints for service operators compared with a situation
where they act on purely commercial grounds; such compen-
sation may take various forms and must enable operators to
adapt to the objectives defined;

the CoR welcomes the recent Altmark Trans judge-
2.7.2.
ment of
Justice dated 24 July 2003 (case
the Court of
C-280/00). In this judgement the court stipulates that State
intervention is not deemed to be State aid within the meaning
of the EC Treaty where the public subsidy represents compen-
sation for the discharge of public service obligations by the
recipient undertaking. The Court nevertheless subjects this
exemption from the provisions on State aid to four technical
conditions;

the liberalisation of sectors such as water, waste
2.7.3.
water, refuse and heating is also under discussion. However
these sectors do not operate in the same way as the energy
sector and are not submitted to the same specifications. They
do not only differ from the energy sector in terms of
environmental prerequisites but also in terms of infrastructure.
For example, electricity can be transported over long distances/
national borders, while heating and water are not conveyed in
large-scale national/international networks. This constitutes a
natural limitation on selling heating and water to a wider
market. It follows that, in many countries, these services are
organised and operated by local and regional authorities with
a high level, or 100 %, user funding and some form of
mutually supportive pricing so that all citizens get the same
service, wherever they live (town/country). These are some
arguments why the Committee of the Regions opposes sector
specific internal market directives as regards water and refuse
services, where local and regional authorities have a central
role to play. The EU is however competent to harmonize
quality standards and economic principles according to
environmental
law and aiming at economic and social
efficiency;

2.7.4.
transport is an example of a sector where public
subsidies are provided for large-scale infrastructure investment
such as roads, bridges, etc. Operating subsidies are also given
to public transport where it would be impossible to break even
without them. It is characteristic of the transport sector that
investment and operating expenses are so high that user
funding is insufficient. Subsidies are needed to keep transport
prices affordable;

in the light of these examples, it is the CoR’s view
2.7.5.
that each sector is so different in terms of a series of key
parameters (organisation, ownership, the geographic depen-
dence of the commodity, decision-making structure of the
sector) that common EU rules on financing across sectors
would be difficult to draw.

2.8. Concluding remarks

2.8.1.
the CoR feels that the debate on the future of SGIs is
of key importance for welfare and social development in the
EU. With this opinion the CoR has sought to highlight the
need for an amendment to the Treaty to ensure a more
even balance between competition provisions, general social
provisions and those concerning the individual citizen;

2.8.2.
the CoR has also sought to point out some of the
options and limitations which the present Treaty offers for
drawing up a framework directive on SGIs. Against this

C 73/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

the CoR feels it

the
background,
forthcoming constitutional treaty before taking a final position
on the question of a framework directive;

is necessary to await

in conclusion, the CoR would urge the Commission
2.8.3.
to enter into an in-depth and systematic dialogue with the CoR

Brussels, 20 November 2003.

and associations representing local and regional authorities in
the EU on these authorities’ experience of organising and
operating SGIs. Drawing on accumulated experience is an
important prerequisite for a sophisticated and balanced debate
on how the task of delivering SGIs can be discharged in the
best possible way.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy:
Streamlining open coordination in the field of social protection’

(2004/C 73/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon
strategy: Streamlining open coordination in the field of social protection (COM(2003) 261 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 May 2003 to consult it on this subject,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its President of 19 June 2003 to instruct its Commission for Economic
and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, etc.: Review at the halfway
stage of the socio-political agenda (COM(2003) 312 final);

having regard to the European Council
conclusions;

in Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000: The chairmanship’s

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 224/2003 rev.) adopted on 22 September 2003 by the
Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Lena Celion, Municipal Commissioner,
Gotland Municipality, (SE/EPP),

adopted the following opinion at its 52nd plenary session, held on 19 and 20 November 2003 (meeting
of 19 November).