Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: Social services of general interest in the European Union COM(2006) 177 final
Date: 2007-03-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU programme, European social policy, amendment, economic and social cohesion, services of general interest, social security, social services

C 161/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: Social services of general interest in
the European Union

COM(2006) 177 final

(2007/C 161/22)

On 26 April 2006, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 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 21 February 2007. The rapporteur
was Mr Hencks.

At its 434th plenary session, held on 14-15 March 2007 (meeting of 15 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 143 votes with 61 votes against and 9 abstentions.

1. Recommendations and evaluation

1.1
Social services of general interest exist to achieve social,
territorial and economic cohesion by providing solidarity in
order to address all situations of social disadvantage that are
likely to threaten people's physical or moral integrity, such as
sickness, old age,
job
security, poverty, social exclusion, substance addiction, family
and housing problems, and problems linked to the integration
of foreigners.

inability to work, disability,

lack of

Another aspect of SSGI
is integration, which goes beyond
simply providing assistance to the most disadvantaged and
working to improve their lot. These services also exist to meet
all needs, facilitating access to all fundamental social services:
they help to ensure the effective exercise of citizenship and of
fundamental rights.

1.2 What is important, therefore, is not to set the economic
dimension against
to promote a
constructive synergy between the two and to find a way of
combining them harmoniously.

the social dimension, but

1.3 With this in mind, the EESC considers that rather than
focusing on a dubious and evolving distinction as to whether a
service of general interest is economic or non-economic, it is
necessary to consider the actual nature of the service, together
with its purpose and objectives, and to determine which services
are covered by the competition and internal market rules and
which services, for reasons of the general interest and in the
in line
interests of social, territorial and economic cohesion,
with the principle of subsidiarity, should be exempted from
these by public authorities at the Community, national, regional
or local level.

1.4
Common benchmarks and standards should therefore be
defined at Community level for all services of general interest
(both economic and non-economic), including social services of
general interest, to be set out in a framework directive, adopted
under the co-decision procedure, whereby a Community frame-
work can be established which reflects their specific characteris-
tics.

In order to ensure that the general

1.5
interest mission is
fulfilled in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner and is
not abused, Member States should explain why these services
are in the general interest and in the interests of social, terri-
torial and economic cohesion in an official legal act of ‘delega-
tion’ or equivalent, and in authorisation rules, setting out the
mission that the competent public authority of a given Member
State entrusts to service providers for providing an SGI and
which lays down their rights and obligations, without prejudice
to the right of initiative conferred on operators by the regula-
tions.

economic and non-economic

1.6 With regard to evaluating social services of general
interest, the EESC wishes to recall, in this context, its proposal
to set up an independent monitoring centre to evaluate services
interest, with a
of general
membership consisting of
the European
Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and representatives of
organised civil society from the European Economic and Social
level, the public
Committee. At national, regional and local
authorities should involve all stakeholders, providers and benefi-
ciaries of social services, the social partners, bodies working in
the social economy and to combat exclusion, etc., in regulating
SSGI.

representatives of

2. Introduction

2.1
Social services of general interest, just like SGI, of which
they are one component, underpin human dignity and guar-
antee the universal right to social justice and to full respect of
fundamental rights, as set out in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and in international commitments such as the revised
European Social Charter and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. They help to ensure the effective exercise of citi-
zenship. They exist to achieve social, territorial and economic
cohesion by providing solidarity in order to address in particular
all situations of social disadvantage that are likely to threaten
people's physical or moral integrity, such as sickness, old age,
inability to work, disability, lack of job security, poverty, social
exclusion, substance addiction, family and housing problems,
and problems linked to the integration of foreigners.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/81

Nevertheless, another aspect of SSGI is integration, which goes
beyond simply providing assistance to the most disadvantaged
and working to improve their lot. These services also exist to
fundamental social
meet all needs,
services.

facilitating access to all

2.2
The specific contribution of social services of general
interest is thus based on a direct link to basic rights, and it is
local, regional, national and European public authorities that are
responsible for ensuring that these rights are fully respected, in
line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
according to which the Commission's actions should not go
beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.

2.3
Since pricing does not always directly reflect the cost of
these services, or the cost determined by the law of supply and
demand, they could not be provided at a price that is accessible
to everyone without funding from public authorities.

2.4
In conjunction with their duty to ensure that SSGI are
properly funded, public authorities have overall responsibility
for ensuring that social services are able to operate and that
they maintain their high quality, whilst respecting the compe-
tences of the stakeholders.

Furthermore, social services of general

like all
2.5
services of general interest, are not only an important factor for
economic and social cohesion, but also make a significant
contribution to the competitiveness of the European economy
and constitute a major source of local employment.

interest,

2.6
The range of social services is enormous and covers,
amongst others, retirement homes, homes for people with
disabilities, shelters for people in distress, homes for children,
battered wives, immigrants and refugees, nursing homes, resi-
dential care homes, organisations providing social housing or
youth protection, social action and educational organisations,
residential schools, day centres, crèches and nurseries, medical
centres, health, rehabilitation and vocational training centres
including those provided in the
and personal care services,
home and family care services.

2.7
In all Member States the status of the operators who
provide these services varies, including a considerable number
of not-for-profit social and cooperative organisations (such as
associations, mutual societies, cooperatives and foundations), of
many different types (public, charitable, philanthropic, religious,
private, etc.). The operation of these services is governed by
regulatory and financial frameworks drawn up by the public
authorities.

3. Commission proposal

3.1
As part of the implementation of the Lisbon Community
programme, on 26 April 2006 the Commission presented a
communication on social services of general interest, following
up its White Paper on services of general interest (COM(2004)
374 final) and the vote in the European Parliament of
16 February 2006 on the services in the internal market direc-
tive.

3.2
The aim of this communication is to interpret the rele-
vant provisions and to provide the necessary legal clarification.

It only covers social services — thus excluding health services
(which will be the subject of a specific initiative in 2007) — and
does not provide for a legislative initiative in the field in the
near future. It will study and decide on the need for and the
legal possibility of a legislative proposal in the light of the open
and ongoing consultation of all stakeholders, of the biannual
reports on social services and of a study currently underway in
preparation for the initial report in 2007.

3.3
This communication should be seen in the context of the
Community's and the Member States' shared responsibility for
services of general economic interest, established by Article 16
of the EC Treaty.

The communication divides SSGI

3.4
into two groups:
(a) statutory and complementary social protection schemes and
(b) other essential services provided directly to the individual,
such as assistance to people in overcoming the challenges and
crises they face in life, full integration into society, the inclusion
of persons with disabilities or health problems, and social
housing.

3.5
All of these social services are underpinned by a number
of common features, such as solidarity, versatility and personali-
sation (adapting to the needs of each recipient of assistance), the
not-for-profit philosophy, voluntary work, charity, cultural sensi-
tivity or an asymmetrical supplier-user relationship.

The Commission considers

that modernising social
3.6
services is one of
the most important issues facing Europe
today. It acknowledges that social services are an integral part of
the European social model and that, whilst they do not form a
distinct legal category within services of general interest, they
nevertheless occupy a specific position as pillars of Europe's
society and economy, because they contribute to the effective
exercise of basic social rights.

this

that

The Commission notes

sector, which is
3.7
expanding rapidly, is in the process of modernising itself so as
to address the tensions that exist between ensuring universal
access, quality and financial sustainability. A growing number of
social services that have to date been managed directly by the
public authorities are now covered by Community rules
governing the internal market and competition.

The Commission recognises that the legal position of
3.8
SSGI vis-à-vis the competition rules is viewed by both public
and private operators in the social sphere as a source of uncer-
tainty. The Commission claims it is striving to reduce or to
clarify the impact of this uncertainty, but appears unable to
dispel it completely.

4. General comments

In its White Paper on services of general

4.1
interest, the
Commission announced that in the course of 2005 it would be
services of general
publishing a communication on social
interest, which would cover, according to the White Paper,
health services,
long-term care, social security, employment
services and social housing.

C 161/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

4.2
In these times of uncertainty about growth and employ-
ment, when the gap between the most disadvantaged strata of
society and the most well-off and between the richest regions in
the Union and the poorest is growing, despite Community or
national programmes to combat exclusion and poverty,
the
need for social services of general interest is increasingly clear
and this holds all the more true because demographic changes
are resulting in new needs.

4.3
The EESC can thus only welcome the publication of the
Commission's communication, which confirms the importance
of social services for the general public, the particular role that
these services play as an integral part of the European social
model and the benefits of developing a systematic approach in
order to identify and recognise the specific characteristics of
these services and to clarify the framework in which they
operate and can be — in the Commission's word — ‘moder-
nised’. Nevertheless, rather than talking about ‘modernisation’,
the EESC would prefer to use the term ‘improving quality and
efficiency’.

4.4 What is important is not to keep up with one particular
trend or another or to adopt the Commission's (1) approach of
linking modernisation to outsourcing public service obligations
to the private sector. Instead, what is needed is to regularly
adapt service provision to the social needs of the public and of
local and regional authorities, as well as to technical and
economic progress and to new requirements arising from the
general interest.

4.5
The EESC regrets that in the communication in question,
the Commission excludes health services, contrary to what it
had previously stated, at a time when there is so much interac-
tion and so many synergies between social services and health
services. The question what is the link between health services and
related services such as social services and long-term care? that the
Commission asks in its consultation document of 26 September
2006 regarding Community action on health services and to
which it would like a response by 31 January 2007, should thus
have been asked before the decision was taken on social services
alone.

4.6
In the absence of any explanatory note, this course of
action appears incomprehensible, particularly because in the list
of what are to be considered social services, the Commission
specifically includes activities to integrate persons with long-
term health or disability problems.

4.7
To date, health services, which are obliged to provide
universal access to high-quality care and which operate on the
basis of the solidarity principle, have always been considered to
be social policy tools, on a par with services providing persona-
lised social care.

(1) COM(2006) 177 final, point 2.1(3).

5. Specific comments

5.1 Description of social services of general interest

5.1.1
In line with the observations made in point 4.5, the
EESC accepts the description of the specific characteristics of
social services of general interest proposed in the communica-
tion. This description is broadly formulated and open-ended,
which leaves sufficient room to take account of future develop-
ments in this sector.

5.1.2
The EESC welcomes the communication's reference to
in exercising
the particular role of services to the individual
fundamental rights, which highlights the importance and the
raison d'être of social services.

The communication's description of

the common
5.1.3
framework's implementing conditions is nevertheless confined
to the most common cases. The EESC would suggest
that
schemes vary from one Member State to another; the list of
categories (total or partial delegation of a social mission, public/
private partnership) does not always take account of these differ-
ences. The EESC therefore welcomes the planned public consul-
tation as an important means of learning more about the activ-
ities of social services and their operating methods.

5.2 The EC internal market and competition rules

5.2.1
The EC Treaty gives Member States the freedom to
define missions of general interest and to establish the organisa-
tional principles for providers entrusted with the task of accom-
plishing them.

5.2.2
However, when exercising this freedom (which must be
done transparently and without misusing the concept of general
interest), the Member States must take account of Community
law and must respect the principle of non-discrimination and
the Community legislation on public contracts and concessions
when organising a public service, including a social service.

5.2.3 Moreover, when it comes to services that are consid-
ered to be of an economic nature, the compatibility of their
organisational arrangements with other areas of Community law
must be ensured (in particular freedom to provide services and
freedom of establishment, and competition law).

5.2.4
According to Community case law, almost all services
provided in the social sphere, with the exception of solidarity-
based social security schemes, can be considered to be economic
activities.

5.2.5
The consequence of the ECJ's broad definition of what
constitutes an economic activity, which has been accepted by
the European institutions (2),
is that Community competition
and internal market rules (such as State aid, the free provision

(2) In its 2000 Communication, the European Commission thus wrote
that ‘according to the case law of the Court of Justice, many activities
functions,
conducted by organisations performing largely social
which are not profit-oriented and which are not meant to engage in
industrial or commercial activity, will normally be excluded from the
Community competition and internal market rules’ (point 30). The
Communication of 26 April 2006, however, states that ‘almost all
services offered in the social field can be considered “economic activ-
ities” within the meaning of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty’.
See also the EESC opinion on ‘Private not-for-profit social services in
the context of services of general interest in Europe’ — OJ C 311,
7.11.2001, p. 33.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/83

of services, the right of establishment and the ‘public procure-
ment’ directive as well as secondary legislation)
increasingly
apply to social services of general
interest, which is creating
growing uncertainty amongst public authorities, service provi-
ders and users. This situation,
if it continues, could alter the
objectives of SSGI, despite them being central to the ‘European
social model’.

5.2.6
The underlying aims and principles of the Community
framework for services of general economic interest reflect a
rationale that is based essentially on models of economic perfor-
mance. This is not the rationale generally applied to SSGI and is
thus not relevant or applicable in this form to the reality of
social services in the European Union.

As the EESC stated in its opinion on The future of
5.2.7
services of general
interest (CESE 976/2006), the distinction
between economic and non-economic services remains vague
interest, even a
and unclear. Almost any service of general
service provided on a not-for-profit or charitable basis, entails
some economic value, although this does not automatically
bring it within the scope of competition law. Furthermore, a
service can be both economic and non-economic. Similarly, a
service can be economic without the market necessarily being
in a position to provide that service in a manner which is
consistent with the principles governing SGI.

5.2.8
Furthermore, in the case law of the European Court of
Justice, the concept of economic activity is extremely broad,
because it considers an economic activity to be any activity
consisting of supplying goods and services in a given market by
an undertaking, regardless of the legal status of the undertaking
and the way in which it is financed (see the Höfner and Elser
judgment of 1991 and the Pavlov judgment of 2000) and it
considers that this concept applies regardless of whether the
operator intends to make a profit (Ambulanz Glöckner judg-
ment of 2001).

The ECJ

and the European Commission attach
5.2.9
increasing importance to the economic nature of SGI but are
not counterbalancing this by recognising or offering guarantees
for the general interest missions carried out by these services,
which creates a number of legal uncertainties for operators and
interest
beneficiaries. We are therefore moving from general
towards profitable interest, whereas the distinction to be made
is not whether or not a service is ‘economic’ but rather whether
or not it is ‘profitable’.

6. A stable and transparent legal framework

The EESC doubts that the flexibility which the Commis-
6.1
sion claims exists in the application of the Treaty as regards
recognition of the specific characteristics inherent in missions of
general interest, pursuant to Article 86(2) in particular, is suffi-

cient to allay all legal concerns and to guarantee social services
for all. The same applies to the open method of coordination.

interest,

All services of general

6.2
including SSGI, have a
role to play in implementing Community objectives as defined
in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty, in particular to achieve a high
level of social protection, to raise the standard of living and
quality of life, to attain a high level of health protection and to
strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion.

responsible

Consequently,

the Union, which is

6.3
for
achieving these aims, is also responsible for the implementing
instruments which are, where fundamental rights and social
cohesion are concerned, economic or non-economic SGI. The
EU must therefore, with due respect for the principles of subsi-
diarity and proportionality and in conjunction with the Member
States, safeguard and contribute to the existence of SGI that are
accessible, affordable and of high quality for everyone.

6.4
Given the problems of producing an exhaustive defini-
tion of the concept of SGI/SGEI on the one hand and the given
the risk entailed in adopting a restrictive approach on the other,
the distinction between economic and non-economic should be
dropped in order to focus instead on the particular mission of
the services in question and on the requirements (public service
their
obligations)
duties and which should be clearly established.

imposed on them for the performance of

6.5
Furthermore, the great diversity of situations, rules and
national or local practices, and the obligations on managers or
public authorities, mean that the rules to be implemented must
take account of
the specific characteristics of each Member
State.

It

is not,

therefore, a question of deciding what

6.6
is
economic or not, but of deciding which services are covered by
the competition and internal market rules and which services,
for reasons of the general interest and in the interests of social,
territorial and economic cohesion, in line with the principle of
subsidiarity, should be exempted from these rules by Com-
munity (for European SGI), national, regional or local authori-
ties.

As the EESC (3) has been urging for years, common
6.7
benchmarks for services of general
interest must therefore be
defined at Community level, as well as common standards (in
particular for management and financing methods, the princi-
ples and limits of the Community's action, independent perfor-
mance evaluation, consumer and user rights, a minimum level
of public service missions and obligations) that should apply to
all services of general interest, including SSGI, to be set out in a
framework directive adopted under the co-decision procedure,
whereby a Community framework can be established which
reflects their specific characteristics, in order to complement the
services directive.

(3) EESC opinion on ‘Services of general

interest’ — OJ C 241,

7.10.2002, p. 119.
EESC Opinion on the ‘Green Paper on Services of General Interest’
— OJ C 80, 30.3.2004, p. 66.
EESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament,
the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the White
Paper on services of general interest — OJ C 221, 8.9.2005, p. 17.
EESC Opinion on The future of services of general interest — OJ C 309,
16.12.2006, p. 135.

the Council,

C 161/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

In order to ensure that the general

6.8
interest mission is
fulfilled in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner and is
not abused, Member States should explain why these services
are in the general interest and in the interests of social, terri-
torial and economic cohesion in an official legal act of ‘delega-
tion’ or equivalent and in authorisation rules, setting out the
mission that the competent public authority of a given Member
State entrusts to service providers for providing an SGI and
which lays down their rights and obligations, without prejudice
to the right of initiative conferred on operators by the regula-
tions.

This act (in the form of legislation, a contract, agreement,

6.9
decision, etc.), could, in particular, detail:

— the nature of the specific mission of general

interest, the
related requirements and attendant public service obliga-
tions, including pricing, the provisions to ensure continuity
of service and the measures to avoid potential interruptions
in service provision;

— the rules for drawing up and, if necessary, amending the offi-

cial act;

— the authorisation and professional qualifications arrange-

ments;

— the funding methods and the models

for calculating
incurred in accomplishing

compensation for
specific missions;

the costs

— the arrangements for evaluating the implementation of SGI.

6.10
The EESC recommends adopting a specific legal frame-
work that is common to social services and health services of
general interest, as part of an overall approach in the form of a
framework directive for all services of general
interest. This
should help to ensure the appropriate legal stability and trans-
parency for SSGI at Community level, in strict compliance with
the principle of subsidiarity and in particular with the powers of
local and regional authorities to define the missions, manage-
ment and funding of these services. The principles set out in
this legal framework should form the basis for the EU's stance
in international trade negotiations.

Brussels, 15 March 2007.

7. Evaluation

7.1
The White Paper on services of general interest set par-
ticular store by an evaluation of social services of general
interest, by means of a mechanism to be clarified in a future
communication.

7.2
In order to enhance mutual information and exchanges
between European operators and institutions, the Commission
proposes a procedure involving follow-up and dialogue, in the
form of biannual reports.

In this context, the EESC recalls its proposal that an inde-
7.3
pendent monitoring centre be set up to evaluate services of
economic and non-economic general interest, with a member-
ship consisting of representatives of the European Parliament
and the Committee of the Regions and representatives of orga-
nised civil society from the European Economic and Social
Committee.

7.4
At national, regional and local level, the public authori-
ties should involve all stakeholders, providers and beneficiaries
of social services, the social partners, bodies working in the
social economy and to combat exclusion, etc, in regulating SSGI
at all stages,
in other words, in establishing, monitoring, and
implementing quality standards and ensuring their cost-effective-
ness.

7.5
This monitoring centre should comprise a steering
committee, which will define the aims and the terms of refer-
ence of the evaluations, select the bodies entrusted with the task
of carrying out the studies and examine and deliver an opinion
on the reports. The committee will be able to call on the
services of a scientific advisory group, which will study the
methodology used and make recommendations on the matter,
as and when required. The steering committee will ensure that
presentations are given and public discussions held on the
evaluation reports in all Member States, with the involvement of
all stakeholders. The evaluation reports must consequently be
available in all of the Union's working languages.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMTRIADIS

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/85

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the discussion:

Point 1.3

Replace as follows:

With this in mind, the EESC considers that rather than focusing on a dubious and evolving distinction as to whether a service of
general interest is economic or non-economic, it is necessary to consider the actual nature of the service, together with its purpose
and objectives, and to determine which services are covered by the competition and internal market rules and which services, for
reasons of the general interest and in the interests of social, territorial and economic cohesion, in line with the principle of subsi-
diarity, should be exempted from these by public authorities at the Community, national, regional or local level. Services cannot
be simply exempted from competition and internal market rules for reasons of principle. Competition, which is intended to facili-
tate the completion of the single market based on market economy rules and which is regulated by antitrust rules, is a substantive
democratic right; it limits not only state power but also, and above all, abuse of dominant market positions and it protects
consumer rights. Moreover, EU competition and internal market rules allows for the accommodation of the non-commercial
nature of SSGI. It is essential to guarantee the universal right to social services.

Reason

As underlined in many parts of the opinion, notably in paragraph 6.5, social services of general interest are characterised
by different historical traditions, a great diversity of situations, rules and local, regional or national practices. The
Employers' Group, in line with the view expressed by the European Parliament, therefore considers that the most appro-
priate Community intervention would consist in the adoption of recommendations or guidelines which would fully
respect the key principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: an EU binding legislative framework on social services of
general interests would impose a ‘one size fits all approach’ which is simply incompatible with SSGI. A Directive, which
would be certainly based on the lowest common denominator, would not provide any guarantee in terms of quality or
access to services for users, nor would it constitute any progress for the internal market. By contrast, adopting a recom-
mendation would enable to clarify the obligations related to services of general interest that need to be taken into account
in the implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 December
2006.

Result of vote

For: 82

Against: 91

Abstentions: 12

Point 1.4

Amend as follows:

Common benchmarks and standards Common principles and values should therefore be defined at Community level for all services
of general interest (both economic and non-economic), including social services of general interest, to be set out in a framework
directive Community recommendations or guidelines, adopted under the co-decision procedure, whereby a Community framework
can be established which reflects their specific characteristics.

Reason

As underlined in many parts of the opinion, notably in paragraph 6.5, social services of general interest are characterised
by different historical traditions, a great diversity of situations, rules and local, regional or national practices. The
Employers' Group, in line with the view expressed by the European Parliament, therefore considers that the most appro-
priate Community intervention would consist in the adoption of recommendations or guidelines which would fully
respect the key principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: an EU binding legislative framework on social services of
general interests would impose a ‘one size fits all approach’ which is simply incompatible with SSGI. A Directive, which
would be certainly based on the lowest common denominator, would not provide any guarantee in terms of quality or
access to services for users, nor would it constitute any progress for the internal market. By contrast, adopting a recom-
mendation would enable to clarify the obligations related to services of general interest that need to be taken into account
in the implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 December
2006.

C 161/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Result of vote

For: 81

Against: 94

Abstentions: 10

Point 1.6

Amend as follows:

With regard to evaluating social services of general interest, the EESC wishes to recall, in this context, its proposal to set up an
independent monitoring centre to evaluate services of general economic and non-economic interest its commitment to the principle
of evaluation and proposes to back up the proposed procedure by the Commission with the setting up of an informal network,
with a membership consisting of representatives of the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and representatives of
organised civil society from the European Economic and Social Committee. At national, regional and local level, the public autho-
rities should involve all stakeholders, providers and beneficiaries of social services, the social partners, bodies working in the social
economy and to combat exclusion, etc., in regulating SSGI.

Reason

As underlined in many parts of the opinion, notably in paragraph 6.5, social services of general interest are characterised
by different historical traditions, a great diversity of situations, rules and local, regional or national practices. The
Employers' Group, in line with the view expressed by the European Parliament, therefore considers that the most appro-
priate Community intervention would consist in the adoption of recommendations or guidelines which would fully
respect the key principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: an EU binding legislative framework on social services of
general interests would impose a ‘one size fits all approach’ which is simply incompatible with SSGI. A Directive, which
would be certainly based on the lowest common denominator, would not provide any guarantee in terms of quality or
access to services for users, nor would it constitute any progress for the internal market. By contrast, adopting a recom-
mendation would enable to clarify the obligations related to services of general interest that need to be taken into account
in the implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 December
2006.

Result of vote

For: 85

Against: 93

Abstentions: 11

Point 6.7

Amend as follows:

As the EESC has been urging for years, common benchmarks for services of general interest must therefore be defined at Com-
munity level, as well as common standards (in particular for management and financing methods, the principles and limits of the
Community's action, independent performance evaluation, consumer and user rights, a minimum level of public service missions
and obligations) that should apply to all services of general interest, including SSGI, to be set out in a framework directive Com-
munity recommendations or guidelines adopted under the co-decision procedure, whereby a Community framework can be estab-
lished which reflects their specific characteristics, in order to complement the services directive.

Reason

As underlined in many parts of the opinion, notably in paragraph 6.5, social services of general interest are characterised
by different historical traditions, a great diversity of situations, rules and local, regional or national practices. The
Employers' Group, in line with the view expressed by the European Parliament, therefore considers that the most appro-
priate Community intervention would consist in the adoption of recommendations or guidelines which would fully
respect the key principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: an EU binding legislative framework on social services of
general interests would impose a ‘one size fits all approach’ which is simply incompatible with SSGI. A Directive, which
would be certainly based on the lowest common denominator, would not provide any guarantee in terms of quality or
access to services for users, nor would it constitute any progress for the internal market. By contrast, adopting a recom-
mendation would enable to clarify the obligations related to services of general interest that need to be taken into account
in the implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 December
2006.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/87

Result of vote

For: 84

Against: 99

Abstentions: 7

Point 6.10

Amend as follows:

The EESC recommends adopting Community recommendations or guidelines a specific legal framework that is common to social
services and health services of general interest, as part of an overall approach in the form of a framework directive for all services
of general interest. This should help to ensure the appropriate legal stability and transparency for SSGI at Community level, in
strict compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and in particular with the powers of local and regional authorities to define the
missions, management and funding of these services. The principles set out in these recommendations or guidelines in this legal
framework should form the basis for the EU's stance in international trade negotiations.

Reason

As underlined in many parts of the opinion, notably in paragraph 6.5, social services of general interest are characterised
by different historical traditions, a great diversity of situations, rules and local, regional or national practices. The
Employers' Group, in line with the view expressed by the European Parliament, therefore considers that the most appro-
priate Community intervention would consist in the adoption of recommendations or guidelines which would fully
respect the key principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: an EU binding legislative framework on social services of
general interests would impose a ‘one size fits all approach’ which is simply incompatible with SSGI. A Directive, which
would be certainly based on the lowest common denominator, would not provide any guarantee in terms of quality or
access to services for users, nor would it constitute any progress for the internal market. By contrast, adopting a recom-
mendation would enable to clarify the obligations related to services of general interest that need to be taken into account
in the implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 December
2006.

Result of vote

For: 78

Against: 97

Abstentions: 10

Points 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5

Replace as follows:

In this context, the EESC recalls its proposal that an independent monitoring centre be set up to evaluate services of economic and
non-economic general interest, with a membership consisting of representatives of the European Parliament and the Committee of
the Regions and representatives of organised civil society from the European Economic and Social Committee.

At national, regional and local level, the public authorities should involve all stakeholders, providers and beneficiaries of social
services, the social partners, bodies working in the social economy and to combat exclusion, etc, in regulating SSGI at all stages,
in other words, in establishing, monitoring, and implementing quality standards and ensuring their cost-effectiveness.

This monitoring centre should comprise a steering committee, which will define the aims and the terms of reference of the evalua-
tions, select the bodies entrusted with the task of carrying out the studies and examine and deliver an opinion on the reports. The
committee will be able to call on the services of a scientific advisory group, which will study the methodology used and make
recommendations on the matter, as and when required. The steering committee will ensure that presentations are given and public
discussions held on the evaluation reports in all Member States, with the involvement of all stakeholders. The evaluation reports
must consequently be available in all of the Union's working languages.

The EESC proposes to back up the Commission proposed procedure with the setting up of an informal network. The EESC would
actively participate to this network, made of social partners and other civil society organisations. It would promote exchange of
experiences and information on good practices, notably through an internet forum.

C 161/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Reason

The Employer's Group supports the principle of promoting information exchanges and evaluating services of general
interest. However, it is opposed to the present proposal to set up additional cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures in
the form of an independent monitoring centre.

Result of vote

For: 88

Against: 99

Abstentions: 5