Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on consultation and information procedures in matters of credit insurance, credit guarantees and financial credits’ (COM(2004) 159 final — 2004/0056 (CNS))
Date: 2004-06-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: codification of EU law, consultation procedure, credit, credit guarantee, credit insurance

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/19

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
on consultation and information procedures in matters of credit insurance, credit guarantees and
financial credits’

(COM(2004) 159 final — 2004/0056 (CNS))

(2004/C 302/04)

On 13 May 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the abovementioned proposal.

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 9 June 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Frank von
Fürstenwerth.

At its 410th plenary session of 30 June and 1 July 2004 (meeting of 30 June) the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 133 votes, with one vote against and four abstentions:

1. Contents

2.2
To date the provisions in question have been scattered
across various legislative instruments. This has made costly
searches and lengthy comparisons between the many different
instruments necessary in order to ascertain what provisions
apply.

entails

The proposal

1.1
codifying Council Decision
73/391/EEC of 3 December 1973 on consultation and informa-
tion procedures in matters of credit insurance, credit guarantees
and financial credits. This Decision has since been modified by
Council Decision 76/641/EEC and by the acts of accession of
Spain and Portugal, as well as those of Austria, Finland and
Sweden.

1.2
These Decisions exclusively concern matters pertaining
to state export credit guarantees. In particular, they lay down
the conditions under which Member States must enter into a
consultation procedure with other Member States and the
Commission about granting or guaranteeing foreign credits
which are being considered. The Decision has no bearing on
the private export credit insurance market.

The proposal would replace the various

1.3
instruments covered by the codification.

legislative

1.4
The proposal would not alter the substance of the legis-
lative instruments being codified. It does no more than bring
them together with only such formal amendments as are
required by the codification exercise itself.

2. Assessment

2.1
The proposal comes in response to the Commission's
concern to codify legislation, which has been frequently
amended, in the interests of clarity and rationality.

The proposal

is confined to bringing together

2.3
the
different instruments into one single instrument whilst fully
preserving their substance. There is no need to take any action
as regards content.

The proposal is to be welcomed in that it boosts trans-

2.4
parency and makes EU legislation more comprehensible (1).

Nonetheless the Commission should take the following

2.5
points into consideration in the codification process:

— Whereas

(2) of

the Council Decision of 03.12.1973
(‘Whereas by a Decision of 26 January 1965 (2) the Council
set up a consultation procedure in matters of credit insur-
ance, credit guarantees and financial credits.’) is no longer
contained in the proposal and should still be included to
ensure it is complete.

(1) In Portuguese, for example, the following amendments should be

made:
a) In Article 4 (e) ii) and iv) ‘credit starting point’ should be trans-
lated as ‘ponto de partida do credito’ rather than as ‘inícui dó
crédito’, the two dates not being necessarily the same;

b) In Article 4 (e) iv) the expression ‘where repayment is not to be
effected by equal instalments at regular intervals’ should better
be translated by ‘escalonadas em prestações iguais e espaçadas de
modo regular’ rather than ‘escalonadas por parcelas de igual
montante de modo regular’;

c) Identically, the expression ‘aid credit’ (e.g. in Articles 4 (f) i) and
5 (e) i)) should be translated by ‘crédito de ajuda’ and not as
‘crédito de auxílio’ which has a completely different sense in the
EU legislation concerning ‘State aid’;

d) Finally, several orthographic mistakes have been found at least in
Article 3.2 (first and third lines) ‘ntureza’ and ‘peirem’, Article
10.1 (c): (‘desdadoravel’), and in the Annex I B) d) (‘antianta-
mentos’).

C 302/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

— Article 20 of

the proposal

repeals Council Decision
73/391/EEC. Annex III
to the proposal, however, also
mentions Council Decision 76/641/EEC under the title
‘Repealed Decision with its amendment’. Hence, in order to
be consistent, the amendment introduced by Decision 76/
641/EEC should also be repealed in Article 20.

2.6 Moreover, particular attention needs to be paid to
ensuring that the translations are correct since inaccuracies
could lead to legal uncertainty and to the legislation being
wrongly applied.

Brussels, 30 June 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the International Safety
Management Code within the Community’

(COM(2003) 767 final — 2003/0291 (COD))

(2004/C 302/05)

On 13 January 2004, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and
Social Committee, under Article 80(2) 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 10 May 2004. The rapporteur was
Dr Bredima Savopoulou.

At its 410th plenary session of 30 June and 1 July 2004 (meeting of 30 June), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 155 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions:

1. Introduction

1.1
The International Management Code for the Safe Opera-
tion of Ships and Pollution Prevention (ISM Code) was adopted
by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 1979 as a
tool to promote the development of a safety culture and envir-
onmental conscience in shipping. In 1994 the IMO decided to
make the Code mandatory through the adoption of a new
Chapter IX ‘Management for the Safe Operation of Ships’, in
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) 1974.

1.2
The mandatory application of the Code was effected in
two phases. On 1 July 1998 it became mandatory for compa-
nies operating passenger ships, oil tankers, chemical tankers,
gas carriers and bulk carriers of 500 gross tons and over,
engaged on international voyages. On 1 July 2002 the Code
became mandatory for companies operating other cargo ships
of 500 gross tons and over, engaged on international sea
voyages.

In response to the Estonia tragedy the EU decided to
1.3
take action for the early implementation of the ISM Code for
ro-ro passenger ferries engaged on international and domestic
voyages within the Community by 1/7/1996 under Regulation
(EC) 3051/95 (8/12/1995) (1). The EESC in its relevant opinion
welcomed the proposed action and supported the Commis-
sion's initiative. (2)

1.4
The Regulation has been amended twice: a) by Regu-
lation 179/1998 (3) concerning the uniform implementation of
the ISM Code documents / certificates for ferries operating in
Europe and b) by the Regulation 1970/2002 (4) taking account
of subsequent amendments to the ISM Code adopted by IMO.
The Regulation entered into force on 26 November 2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 of 8 December 1995 on the
(ro-ro

roll-on/roll-off passenger

ferries

safety management of
ferries), OJ L 320, 30.12.1995, p. 14.

(2) OJ C 236 of 11.9.1995, p. 42.
(3) OJ L 19 of 24.01.1998, p. 35.
(4) OJ L 302 of 6.12.2002, p. 3.