28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/1

1.1

The fundamental principles regulating the drawing up and validity of insurance contracts vary in the different legal systems of the EU's Member States, despite the fact that they have common origins and very similar structures.

1.2

Given that this is a key component in the operation of the single market because of the additional security it brings to commercial relations between insurance industry professionals and consumers, the differences in legislation covering essential aspects of insurance contracts in the various national legal systems are likely to create barriers to the completion of the single market and cause additional difficulties for the cross-border marketing of this financial instrument.

1.3

The present own-initiative opinion therefore aims to alert the competent national and Community bodies to the need and advisability of:

1.4

From the start of the preparatory work for this own-initiative opinion, it was deemed essential to secure the cooperation and involvement of members of the ‘Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law’ Group, headed and coordinated by Fritz Reichert-Facilides, Prof. Emeritus of Law at Innsbruck University; this group comprises eminent lawyers and specialists in insurance law from 15 European countries.

1.4.1

Consequently, there was considerable satisfaction at Prof. Reichert-Facilides' immediately acceptance of our invitation to act as expert for the rapporteur. To this end, he immediately put together an initial contribution (Position Paper I).

1.4.2

While Prof. Reichert-Facilides was in the process of drafting this opinion, he unexpectedly passed away.

1.4.3

His life-long interest in and considerable academic work on the subject of insurance, together with his draft ‘Restatement’, amply justify this reference here and a special mention of thanks for his remarkable commitment, in tribute to his memory.

1.4.4

This fully explains and warrants the quotation here of a substantial part of his ‘Position Paper I’; this paper was prepared as an introduction to the work leading up to this opinion, and must have been one of the last pieces he wrote.

1.5

Various meetings have been held in preparation for this opinion, with representatives from the European Commission involved in the insurance sector and completion of the single market, the CEA (The European Federation of National Insurance Associations) and BEUC (the European Consumers' Organisation); this has allowed us to collect ideas, reactions and suggestions regarding the subject in hand.

1.6

It was also decided to put together a questionnaire, to be addressed to a wide range of national and Community bodies — both public and private — representing the principal stakeholders. At the same time a hearing will be held with the main representatives of the interest groups involved (insurers, manufacturing companies and other professionals and consumers), together with legal experts and academics from different backgrounds and legal systems.

1.7

This opinion outlines the main thrust of the replies to the questionnaire, together with the reactions and suggestions from the hearing held on 16 April 2004.

2.1

This is not a new issue for the EESC. The European Economic and Social Committee has already issued an opinion on ‘Consumers in the insurance market’ (1); this drew attention to the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to insurance contracts’ (2), which sought above all to harmonise some of the basic rules and regulations pertaining to insurance contract law; the Committee opinion also deplored that fact that hitherto the Commission had not taken another look at this issue, ‘even though it is the prevailing opinion among both insurance operators and consumer organisations that a whole series of obstacles hampering completion of the single market in this field can be traced back to the absence of Community legislation on insurance contracts (a minimum level of harmonisation of substantive law)’ (3).

2.1.1

Further on in the opinion, the Committee highlighted the first of a number of acknowledged general obstacles to the effective implementation of the single insurance market as being ‘the total lack of harmonisation at the level of substantive law, in other words, a minimum level of regulation on insurance contract law in the European Union’ (4).

2.1.2

Moreover, the Committee drew attention to the fact that ‘there is no legal framework at Community level defining rules for a minimum level of transparency in insurance contracts in general, including non-life insurance or, more specifically, describing unfair general contractual clauses in insurance, or even laying down general principles of good faith or contract balance in the field of insurance’  (5).

2.1.3

It pointed out more specifically that: ‘the different ways in which each Member State has regulated these questions — or, alternatively, the lack of regulation — leaves an entire market, where competition is far from perfect and those acting for one side tend to work together to the detriment of the other, to its own devices. This means that a huge number of different solutions exist to what are identical situations within the single market, particularly with regard to cross-border transactions, which are becoming ever simpler with the arrival of the information society’  (6).

2.1.4

After analysing the areas which it felt could be and ought to be harmonised, the Opinion concluded by alerting the Commission and the Member States to ‘the advisability of re-examining the Commission's 1979 draft Directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to insurance contracts in the light of the principle of subsidiarity’ (7); the Committee urged the Commission to spare no effort in defining Community-level common minimum requirements for insurance contracts (draft directive) (8).

2.2

Moreover, consumer organisations and insurance professionals' associations have long been pointing to the need for further harmonisation of legislation on insurance contracts.

2.2.1

As early as 1986, the European Consumer Law Group was drawing attention to the need for ‘some harmonisation of the laws on insurance contracts in the Community’, and pinpointed the aspects of insurance contractual relations which it felt ought to be harmonised (9).

2.2.2

The BEUC, for its part, has since at least 1994 been pointing out the advisability of setting up a ‘basic legal framework’ to deal with key aspects of insurance contracts which might constitute ‘a common minimum legal basis’.

2.2.3

A similar view was expressed in December 1998 by a variety of organisations representing consumers.

2.2.4

The European Federation of National Insurance Associations (CEA), in its recent comments on the Commission's Communication on a more coherent European contract law, firstly emphasised that the Commission was right to suggest that ‘the diversity of national regulations governing insurance contracts concluded with consumers acts as a brake on the development of cross-border transactions in the insurance sector’, and then pointed out that ‘concerning the so-called “harmonised”acquis communautaire, the number and complexity of provisions contained in the various texts covered by contract law in the insurance sector pose real problems’.

2.2.4.1

After listing a whole series of situations where there was a pointless overlap of identical or unjustifiably different provisions in the various community texts applicable, it concluded by expressing its support for ‘this proposal to improve the acquis communautaire’ provided there was a proper prior cost/benefit analysis and full consultation with interested parties, focusing on barriers to the single market (10).

2.3

For its part, the Commission, in its Communications on ‘European Contract Law’ (11) and ‘A more coherent European Contract Law — An Action Plan’ (12) has highlighted in this connection that, according to several of the bodies consulted, insurance contracts represent one area in the sphere of financial services which raises more problems because of the ‘diversity of national regulations’ in application. For this reason, consideration should be given to the possibility that ‘further convergence of such measures may be needed in order to balance the need for greater uniformity of national rules with the need to maintain product innovation and choice’, and even to making this a priority in ‘a follow-up action to the Better Regulation Action Plan’ (13).

2.4

Lastly, the European Parliament, in its Resolution on the Commission's Communication on the above-mentioned Action Plan, regretting ‘the lack of early action to produce optional instruments in certain sectors, such as consumer transactions and insurance, where substantial benefits could accrue both to assist the good functioning of the internal market and to increase intra-Community transactions and trade,’ considers that ‘in order to facilitate cross-border trade within the internal market, it should be an early priority to proceed with the establishment of an optional instrument in certain sectors, particularly those of consumer contracts and insurance contracts, and therefore calls on the Commission as a matter of priority, whilst having regard to a high level of consumer protection and the integration of the appropriate mandatory provisions, to produce an opt-in instrument in the areas of consumer contracts and contracts of insurance’ (14).

3.1

The questionnaire, which was sent in good time to a number of bodies, elicited a total of 27 replies from both national regulatory authorities in several countries and representatives of insurance companies, industry, trade and consumers.

3.1.1

Replies were received from Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.

3.1.2

The members of the Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law Project Group sent a single joint reply.

3.2

A clear and unequivocal majority felt that:

3.3

The hearing was attended by 46 representatives of 36 institutions from 17 countries.

3.4

The general thrust of the replies to the questionnaire, together with the discussions during the hearing, point to an overall consensus, which may be summarised as follows:

3.4.1

There are striking differences between national legal arrangements where the regulation of insurance contracts is concerned;

3.4.2

There is a significant lack of harmonisation regarding insurance law at EU level, with repercussions for the completion of the internal market in this field;

3.4.3

A degree of harmonisation is desirable/necessary, especially for small and medium-sized insurers (individual consumers and SMEs), in order to avoid inequalities and discrimination (mass risk);

3.4.4

A step-by-step approach should be taken to harmonising insurance contract law and excessive rigidity should be avoided, since harmonisation is not an end in itself but rather a means of achieving the single market and as such, should comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality;

3.4.5

The primary objective of harmonisation must be:

3.4.6

The form of the model contract resulting from harmonisation could be ‘optional’, but all its terms and components must be mandatory for the parties as soon as it is adopted.

3.4.7

The Community instrument employed to adopt the model should be a regulation, in order to ensure complete harmonisation.

3.4.8

The proposals contained in the Commission's 1979-80 directive, as amended to reflect the suggestions of the EP and the EESC, could provide a starting-point for drafting the regulation, but they need to be thoroughly overhauled in the light of intervening developments in insurance law.

3.4.9

Harmonisation, as outlined above, could stimulate cross-border insurance and contribute to the further development of the single market in this field.

3.4.10

Treaty Article 95 could provide the legal basis for such an initiative.

3.5

Some respondents and participants added that:

3.5.1

Harmonisation should be ‘optional’ and limited to the definition of fundamental concepts.

3.5.2

Harmonisation should apply only to cross-border contracts and only to natural persons.

3.5.3

Harmonisation is not a panacea for the underdevelopment of the single market in insurance.

3.5.4

Particular attention must be given to mutual insurance and welfare and social security bodies on account of their specific features.

4.1.1.1

The European internal market comprises an area without internal borders allowing the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital (Art. 14 (2) EC-Treaty). ‘Insurance’ falls within the scope of the freedom to provide services (Art. (49 — 55) EC-Treaty) or the right of establishment depending on the circumstances of the case. Insurers providing their services across borders or establishing themselves in another Member State bring national insurance products into competition with their own policies.

4.1.1.2

As a result, the variety of choices to potential policyholders becomes larger. Ideally, positive selection by customers seeking insurance should be the ‘invisible’ hand steering the internal insurance market.

4.1.1.3

Further freedoms are affected by insurance matters: the free transfer of premiums and insurance proceeds is guaranteed (see Art. 56 EC-Treaty). Furthermore, policyholders making use of their freedom under Article 18 of the EC Treaty should not face adverse effects on their policies when changing their habitual residence from one jurisdiction to another.

4.1.2.1

This wide range of relations between insurance (law) and the freedoms of the EC Treaty have led the EC to harmonise important sectors of insurance law for the (proper) functioning of the internal market. Legislation on insurance supervision is substantially harmonised throughout the EC and the EEA by means of the so called ‘three generations’ of directives in the field of insurance.

4.1.2.2

On the basis of these achievements a system of single licensing and home country control has been introduced — as it was already envisaged by the ECJ in its decision of 4 December 1986 (15). In the field of insurance contract law, harmonisation is more or less restricted to issues of private international and international procedural law (16).

4.1.2.3

Substantive insurance contract law has only been harmonised in specific sectors and within those sectors only on specific issues. There is, for example, a considerable body of harmonised law in the field of motor vehicle liability insurance (17). Common rules are also known in the field of legal expenses insurance (18).

4.1.2.4

However, the vast majority of rules of substantive insurance contract law, i.e. the general part providing for rules applicable to all branches of insurance, is still subject to national legislation. This observation inevitably raises the question of whether or not harmonisation of insurance contract law is required in order to allow a proper functioning of the internal insurance market. The answer must be in the affirmative if divergences in national insurance contract laws form a barrier to the internal market.

4.2.1.1

There is empirical data indicating that the measures taken by the EC so far (19) have substantially enhanced but have not yet completed the functioning of the internal insurance market (20). This holds true for example for the freedom to provide services in the field of mass risk insurance which is guaranteed by Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty and envisaged by the directives on insurance law but — in reality — not substantially used by either the insurance industry or customers.

4.2.2.1

The present situation described above may be explained by looking at its general legal background. A key factor is the fact that insurance is frequently called a ‘legal product’. This means that the product sold by an insurance company is the insurance contract itself shaped by party autonomy and the (mandatory) law applicable to the contract.

4.2.2.2

Certainly there is no need to worry about the proper functioning of the internal market as far as there is party autonomy in the field of insurance contract law allowing parties to shape insurance products in line with their mutual preferences.

4.2.2.3

However, insurance is to a large extent governed by mandatory rules (21). Some of these rules are at the same time internationally mandatory.

4.2.2.4

In effect the product of a particular insurer is to a considerable degree shaped by the law applicable to the insurance contract. This is why differences in national insurance laws may form a barrier to the internal market. The action plan of the Commission on a more coherent European contract law openly acknowledges this fact (22). This will be explained below by looking at the perspective of the insurer (point 4.2.3), the policyholder (point 4.2.4) and the insurance intermediaries (point 4.2.5).

4.2.3.1

Insurers are the producers of insurance coverage. The design of their policies is based on a risk calculation which takes into consideration the legal environment in which a policy is sold. An insurer who is able to sell a product under one and the same legal order throughout the Community may pool risks covered in the EC without distortions stemming from differences in national insurance laws. As a result differences of insurance law would not form a barrier to the freedoms of the insurer.

4.2.3.2

On the contrary, if the law applicable to a policy changes depending on where the policy is sold, the differing legal environment in each Member State will influence the risk calculation and therefore affect the functioning of the ‘law of large numbers’ on which the business of insurance is based.

4.2.3.3

As a result, insurers selling their services across borders would have to submit their policies to different design and calculations depending on the law applicable. This would form a severe barrier to the functioning of the internal market.

4.2.3.4

A short look at the Community's rules on private international law in the insurance sector shows that an insurer is in fact forced to adjust policies to the legal environment of the Member State where they are sold. According to Article 7 (1) (a) and (h) of the Second Non-Life Insurance Directive (23) it is the law of the Member State in which the risk is situated and according to Article 32 (1) (1) of the Directive on Life Assurance (24) the Member State of the commitment which applies to the insurance contract. The place where the risk is situated or the place of the commitment is in most cases determined by the habitual residence of the policyholder (25).

4.2.3.5

The insurer may avoid this result by choosing the law applicable to the insurance contract (most likely the law of its own seat) by way of agreement with the policyholder. However, this option is substantially limited by the rules of private international law in the directives on insurance. In non-life insurance the directives grant free choice of law only for insurance contracts covering large risks (26). Member States — i.e. the Member State where the risk is situated — are granted discretion to expand the scope of party autonomy (27). In all other cases the directives grant party autonomy only to a limited degree (28) and thereby do not avoid the described problems of insurers selling their insurance contracts across borders. In the field of life assurance the Member State of the commitment may grant party autonomy (29). Otherwise parties only enjoy a very limited choice of law (30).

4.2.3.6

These observations on the situation of European international insurance contract law clearly show that in the insurance of mass risks the insurer has to adapt its product in most cases to the legal environment of the habitual residence of the policyholder. (31) This burden is further increased by the fact that the policyholder may change the place of habitual residence after the conclusion of the contract (32).

4.2.3.7

The only exception in European international insurance contract law is the insurance of large risks in non-life insurance. Here insurer and policyholder may choose the law applicable. However, even in cases of large risk insurances a court of the Member State in which the policyholder has its residence (holding jurisdiction under Article 9 1) b) of the Brussels I Regulation (33)) may impose its mandatory rules (34).

4.2.3.8

It follows that insurers will be very hesitant to provide cross border services at least when it comes to the insurance of mass risks. It may be argued that a shift in the private international legal regime could solve the issue. Indeed, it would seem that the above-mentioned barriers would disappear if parties enjoyed free choice of law and — in the absence of such a choice — the law applicable was determined by the place of establishment of the insurer. However, such a shift in private international law would substantially jeopardise basic notions of policyholder and consumer protection in private international law: it would grant free choice of law in the insurance sector even in business-to-consumer situations in which a consumer would be protected by Article 5 of the Rome Convention in other sectors. At the same time it would not fully solve the problem: courts of the Member State in which the policyholder has his or her residence would still apply their own internationally mandatory rules. Above all policyholders would be very hesitant to shop abroad knowing that they would lose the protection of their home law and would be submitted to unknown foreign insurance law (35).

4.2.4.1

Under the current private international legal regime policyholders may be very open to ask for foreign insurance coverage. Knowing that they will (in most cases) be protected by the law of the Member State of their residency, they will be open to cross-border acquisition of insurance. However, policyholders will not be able to acquire foreign products even if they want them: the applicability of their home country's law always changes the acquired policies into contracts more or less determined by the law of their own home country. And if they nevertheless want to buy foreign insurance products they will face foreign insurers that are very hesitant to grant such coverage.

4.2.4.2

As shown this hesitation could probably be avoided by a shift in the rules of international insurance contract law (36). However, such a change in private international law would replace the hesitation of the insurer to grant coverage by an at least equally strong hesitation on the part of the policyholder to seek foreign coverage. Consequently, an internal insurance market cannot be expected to form itself.

4.2.4.3

Another aspect has to be added. Within the internal market a policyholder enjoys free movement (see i.p. Article 18 of the EC Treaty). However, a change of place of habitual residence may have adverse effects on the policyholder's insurance situation. First of all, the courts of the Member State a policyholder moves into may impose new internationally mandatory rules that influence the insurance policy acquired at the former place of residence. Secondly, the laws on mandatory insurance may require a coverage different to the one the policyholder has acquired in the former place of residence. Thirdly, a policyholder may want to have risks situated in different Member States covered under one single insurance policy.

4.2.4.4

The current legal situation does not fully allow such Euro-policies, instead so called ‘umbrella contracts’ are formed which are in effect as many contracts as there are Member States concerned. What is missing therefore is the possibility of a portable policy for what has been described as the ‘Euromobile’ policyholder (37) who lives and works in different parts of the EC during his or her lifetime.

4.2.5.1

Intermediaries play a major role in distributing insurance contracts. They form a key element in the establishment of an internal insurance market. This is particularly true for insurance brokers. By using their freedom to provide services — guaranteed by Articles 49–55 of the EC Treaty and enforced by the Directive on insurance intermediaries (38) — intermediaries substantially contribute to the creation and the functioning of the internal insurance market. In the field of mass risk insurance especially it is more likely to be a broker that will try to place a risk in a foreign insurance market than the customer himself.

4.2.5.2

However, any data on a foreign insurance market and its products is not likely to have significant meaning to a broker lacking knowledge of local law. Since products found in a foreign insurance market are designed with a view to local law the broker may not assume that contents and price of the policy will remain the same in the legal environment of its (foreign) customer. Brokers cannot therefore avail themselves easily of foreign insurance markets for placing mass risks but have to negotiate contracts individually. This is likely to cause prohibitive transaction costs and thereby prevent the functioning of the internal insurance market.

4.2.6.1

It is quite frequently mentioned that insurance by its very nature requires some geographical closeness of the insurer to the customer. In the future this observation may show that cross-border sales will not be as frequent in the insurance sector as in other businesses (e.g. the sale of books via internet etc.). For reasons of customer relations, insurers might prefer to operate in other Member States through branch offices or daughter companies.

4.2.6.2

Representatives of such a view do not argue against harmonisation of insurance contract law in principle. Rather, they try to show that the impact will be limited to a certain share of insurance contracts that will actually be marketed across borders or to customers that are in fact mobile and switch their place of residence between different Member States.

4.2.6.3

The actual impact, however, will be more substantial. If insurance contracts are sold in other Member States through branch offices (‘establishments’) or even a through a daughter company, the same problems for customers, intermediaries, and insurers appear. Insurers have to adapt their products to local conditions including the local legal environment. As a result they have to redesign their products. Therefore, a policy designed in one Member State cannot be sold in another Member State through a branch office without substantial modifications due to a different (legal) environment. Intermediaries and customers face the problem that they will simply not find foreign insurance products in their markets.

4.2.6.4

Harmonisation of insurance contract laws would substantially reduce the costs of product design in the internal market. Insurers establishing themselves in another Member State could restrict themselves to providing the customer with advice through their agents, claims settlement through their competent regional offices etc. Even if insurers operated through daughter companies, insurance groups could share the effort and costs of product design.

4.2.6.5

As a result, customers would effectively profit from the internal market. In an internal market based on harmonised insurance contract law, innovations in the insurance sector could more easily cross borders. European customers would enjoy access to insurance products of foreign design.

4.3.1

On 1 May 2004, 10 new Member States joined the EC, eight of which are countries in transition. Their insurance laws had to be brought in line with the acquis communautaire as a prerequisite for joining the EC (39). As a prerequisite for the functioning of the insurance markets in these countries, modern legislation on insurance contract law is indispensable. While some new countries have enacted modern legislation, others still need to take action.

4.3.2

Harmonisation of insurance contract law would therefore appear to serve the interests of an enlarged internal market for insurance by helping the new Member States to modernise their laws and avoid new disparities between national systems. It would be helpful for the EC Commission to notify the respective countries as soon as possible when it plans to harmonise insurance contract law.

5.1

As mentioned above, the Commission presented an initial proposal for a directive in 1979, aimed at coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to insurance contracts (40). This proposal was drafted in the wake of the General Programme for the elimination of restrictions on the freedom to provide services, which — in matters pertaining to direct insurance — provided for the coordination of legal and administrative instruments governing insurance contracts ‘to the extent that their disparity [resulted] in prejudice to policyholders and third parties’ (41).

5.2

The proposal deemed the coordination required by the Directives in force at that time to be inadequate; it also felt that it was not enough for the Treaty to ban discriminatory treatment regarding the provision of services, if the company concerned was not established in the Member State where the service was provided.

5.2.1

To this end, it felt that it would be suitable to regulate ‘certain general questions relating in particular to the existence of cover depending on the payment of the premium, the duration of the contract, and the position of insured persons who are not policyholders’, as well as the ‘consequences resulting firstly from the conduct of the policyholder at the time of the conclusion and in the course of the contract concerning the declaration of the risk and of the claim, and secondly his attitude with regard to the measures to be taken in the event of a claim’.

5.2.2

The proposal also considered that ‘Member States may be authorised to adopt different solutions only where this is expressly provided for in the text of the Directive’; any other approach would call into question the aims pursued by the proposal. This would thus have been an important step towards full harmonisation in this area (42).

5.3

The Committee, in its unanimously approved opinion on this proposal (43), made the following key points:

5.4

The Committee then carried out a critical analysis of each one of the articles in the proposal; its comments in that connection are still worth taking into consideration in any new initiative in this sphere.

5.5

The European Parliament also issued its views on this proposal (44) at the time. Amongst other things, it considered that ‘harmonisation would guarantee a similar standard of protection to policyholders whatever the choice of law’.

5.5.1

In particular, the Parliament proposed a number of amendments, especially regarding: the scope of the Directive (dispensing with exclusions); the key elements of insurance contracts; obligation on the policyholder to make declarations regarding certain circumstances; the consequences of this for maintaining the insurance contract, in relation to either the initial circumstances or changes while the contract is in force; the proof to be provided by the policyholder should a claim arise; and the conditions under which a contract may be terminated.

5.5.2

The intention behind the Parliament's comments is clearly to stress ‘there should be an equitable balance between the interests of insurer and insured’.

5.6

Following these comments, the Commission had the opportunity to draft a new, amended proposal (45) which took on board the various suggestions and proposals made by the Committee and the Parliament. Here for the first time, it drew attention to the fact that ‘the coordination of laws relating to insurance contracts would facilitate the provision of services in a Member States by those providing them in another Member State’. This was one of the first mentions of the aim of achieving a single market in financial services (46).

5.6.1

This Commission proposal for a directive was set to enter into force on 1 July 1983. However, it was not adopted in the end, due a lack of political will on the part of Member States.

5.7.1

Replies to the questionnaire sent out in this connection and the public hearing held on 16 April 2004 have indicated a general consensus that this proposal, albeit dating from twenty years ago, should be given serious consideration as a still-valid contribution to, and a good starting point for, a new initiative in this area.

5.7.2

Nevertheless, it has also been pointed out that current requirements for harmonising insurance contracts go far beyond the 1980 proposal, and the rules to be proposed must be the result of a debate on an in-depth study of comparative law.

6.1.1

Any attempt to harmonise European insurance contract law should be preceded by preparatory comparative law work. Such work is well under way on an academic level. In fact, a comparative work has already been completed in the area of general contract law with the presentation of the Principles of European Contract Law. In the field of insurance contract law, a substantial body of results from comparative legal research work has been and will be published (47). In 1999 the late Professor Reichert-Facilides founded a Project Group, ‘Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law’. The members of this group are experts in the field of insurance law and represent various legal orders (within and outside the EC).

6.1.2

Guidelines for finding a ‘best solution’ for insurance contract law might be the following: Firstly, due consideration must be given to the essential task of all insurance contract law — to provide a legal framework for effective risk bearing on the part of the insurer and thus to guarantee the proper functioning of insurance business itself. Secondly, it is essential that the conflicting interests of the parties are carefully balanced. With regard to this aspect, due recognition must be given to the modern trend to grant a relatively high degree of protection to the policyholder.

6.1.3

On the basis of these observations efforts to improve the internal insurance market should focus on mandatory rules. These rules are an indispensable framework for the autonomous contracting of the parties and at the same time form a barrier to the internal insurance market as long as they are not harmonised. As a result, regulatory needs in the field of insurance are compatible with the harmonisation requirements of an internal insurance market.

6.2.1

Insurance contract laws — at least their semi-mandatory provisions — aim at protecting the weaker party and may be called consumer laws from a functional point of view. However, traditionally policyholder protection is of broader scope than general consumer law: together with private customers small businesses are protected when taking insurance.

6.2.2

When harmonising European consumer law the EC is bound to afford consumers a high level of protection (see e.g. Article 95 (3) of the EC Treaty). This concept is also applied to legislative acts based on other articles of the EC Treaty granting the EC legislative authority (in the field of insurance law, usually Article 47 (2) in connection with Article 55 of the EC Treaty). As a result, a measure harmonising insurance contract law would provide for a high level of policyholder protection.

6.3.1

The analysis of current problems with the internal insurance market clearly indicates that full harmonisation of insurance contract law is required. Minimum harmonisation would allow Member States to apply a higher standard of protection, as allowed under European law, and thereby create new barriers to the internal insurance market.

6.3.2

Minimum standards would not be a detriment to the functioning of the internal market, if the current regime of private international law was replaced by rules leading to the application of the law of the state in which the insurer is established. In this way, every insurer would produce its product under its own national law (affording at least a European minimum standard of protection) and be able to sell the product on the basis of the application of a law of the ‘home country’ in all other Member States. The policyholder could rely on obtaining minimum standards of protection in spite of being subject to foreign law.

6.3.3

However, such a shift in the private international law regime is neither likely nor desirable. First of all, such a change would deprive consumers of insurance services of the consumer protection provided by Article 5 of the Rome Convention, which protects the ‘passive’ consumer even in areas where substantive consumer law is harmonised. Secondly, mandatory rules of the law of the residence of the policyholder would be imposed by courts; barriers to the functioning of the internal market would therefore always remain. Thirdly, it has to be mentioned that according to the Regulation on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements an insurer can sue its policyholder only in the courts of the policyholder's residence (see Article 12 (1)) with very few exceptions) and a policyholder is very likely to choose the same forum according to Article 9 (1) b) for its own actions.

6.3.4

Therefore, a shift in the private international law regime would create a situation where the courts holding jurisdiction would in most cases have to apply foreign law. This would make litigation in insurance matters more burdensome and costly even if insurance law itself were to be harmonised. Therefore this approach cannot be recommended. The private international law regime should in principle stay as it is and insurance contract law should be fully harmonised. This statement, however, does not deny the possibility of improving the current private international legal regime; e.g. as long as insurance contract law is not harmonised, a ‘Euromobile’ citizen could be allowed to choose between the law of the place of his residence and the law of his nationality.

6.4.1

Insurance contract law is systematically embedded into general contract law. This observation raises the question of whether insurance contract law harmonisation can only achieve its goals if all the law of contracts (or at least its general part) is harmonised or may be achieved independently. The latter appears to be true.

6.4.2

As mentioned above, it is the mandatory rules that form a hindrance to the internal insurance market and should therefore be subject to harmonisation. Contract law in general, however, is by its very nature non-mandatory. Some mandatory rules exist. These rules do not appear to be so fundamentally different within the legal orders of the Member States that non-harmonisation would disturb the functioning of the internal insurance market and neither do they have a predominant influence on the insurance product as such.

6.4.3

Exceptions might be observed. However, such exceptions can be dealt with within the harmonisation of the insurance sector. One example of such rules is in fact already dealt with by the directive on unfair contract terms in consumer contracts (48), which also applies to consumer insurance policies (49). An insurance contract act at a European level would only have to have the scope of its application extended to all mass risks in order to satisfy the internal insurance market.

6.4.4

These arguments do not intend to argue against harmonisation of contract law in general. They leave this question to the sole discretion of the EC institutions. In fact, harmonisation of general contract law would make the task of harmonising insurance contract law easier. The arguments presented only try to demonstrate that harmonisation of insurance contract law can reach its goals on its own.

6.5.1.1

The action plan for a more coherent European Contract Law has highlighted the possibility of introducing an optional instrument instead of harmonisation or unification of national contract laws. The main difference between the two approaches lies in the fact that an optional instrument would leave national contract laws untouched whenever the parties to a contract do not either opt in or opt out of the instrument, depending on whether this instrument used an opt in or opt out approach. In this way parallel legal orders (the European and the national ones) are created and parties are allowed to choose between these regimes.

6.5.1.2

On the contrary, harmonisation or unification of national contract laws would replace traditional concepts of national contract law by a European solution. Parties would not have the choice of opting for their national or the European model.

6.5.2.1

From the perspective of the internal insurance market both solutions share an obvious advantage: they do remove legal barriers to the marketing of policies across Europe and make it possible for a policyholder to move freely within the Community without adverse effects of differences in insurance contract law on his policy. This is why either one of these approaches is preferable to today's situation and the choice between them is ultimately a matter of policy not of principle.

6.5.2.2

Harmonisation of national insurance contract law could prove more burdensome than the enactment of an optional instrument. Since it would lead to a replacement of national ‘traditions’ by a European solution, the national legal elite (practitioners as well as academics) might be hesitant to follow a call for harmonisation.

6.5.2.3

An ambivalent factor is the correlation between the intensity of the interference with national law and the speediness of reaching results for the internal market. Since an optional instrument would not abolish national laws, it may be viewed as a soft approach and therefore appear to be more readily acceptable to the markets. On the other hand there is the fear that an optional instrument could make the actors of the single market (e.g. insurance companies and brokers) reluctant to take the lead, with every actor waiting for the other to go ahead and trying to profit from the (negative) experiences of their competitors. Or would the optional instrument be seen as a window of opportunity everybody wanted to open first, i.e. through Internet insurance selling? Certainly, harmonisation would lead to immediate results because no actor could avoid its application. On the other hand, the intervention might be felt as very, or even too, strong.

6.5.2.4

A technical concern about an optional instrument relates to the fact that it cannot fully replace harmonisation. This can easily be demonstrated by looking at motor vehicle liability insurance. Harmonisation of the law of motor vehicle liability insurance is of major importance to the essential mobility of EC citizens because it affords indispensable protection to victims of accidents. It is obvious that the protection of the victim must not depend on the choice of the parties to an insurance contract in favour of a European instrument. An optional instrument could therefore not replace harmonisation of national motor vehicle liability insurance law.

6.5.2.5

Finally, the question is put forward of whether an optional instrument would achieve efficient results in an area like insurance law which is characterised by an imbalance between the parties. Would parties make an efficient choice or would the choice be made unilaterally by the insurers through opt in and opt out clauses in their general terms of insurance?

6.5.2.6

Whether the goal of a European Insurance Contract Act is achieved through harmonisation of national laws or through the establishment of an optional instrument is not a primary concern. The question does, however, need careful consideration.

6.6.1

Finally it might be asked whether harmonisation of laws may be replaced by the elaboration of EU-wide general terms of insurance. Indeed, the concerns about insurers who have to take into consideration every single law of each Member State would be reduced (though not entirely laid to rest) if this effort was taken collectively and with the support of the EC institutions.

6.6.2

Nevertheless, the approach cannot be welcomed. First of all, EU-wide general terms can take into consideration differences of national law but still require separate risk calculation and may be of disadvantage to a mobile citizen in the EU.

6.6.3

Moreover the approach would lead to the establishment of model terms having adverse effects on competition in insurance markets. It should be remembered that one of the major steps in creating a single insurance market was the abolition of any right of Member States to systematically control the general terms of insurance before they are introduced in the market. (50) Such control leads to a lack of diversity of insurance products, a reduced choice for the customers and thereby reduced competition. The elaboration of EU-wide general terms of insurance structurally bears a similar risk.

7.1

It has been shown above that it is the mandatory rules of insurance contract law which have to be harmonised. A further question is whether all areas of insurance contract law or only particular ones need to be harmonised.

7.2

Insurance law is commonly divided into a general part, containing rules that apply to all insurance contracts, and the law of specific branches of insurance. The question arises of whether the internal insurance market would require harmonisation of the general rules, the specific rules for particular branches or both.

7.3

In theory, both are needed: general rules as well as branch-specific rules of insurance law affect the product and thereby impede the functioning of the internal insurance market, e.g. rules on promissory warranties, which can be found regularly in the general part, are of influence on the ratio of risk and premium as much as specific rules on, e.g., life assurance regulating this specific insurance. Therefore, harmonisation should in principle not distinguish between the two sets of rules.

7.4

Harmonisation might however be achieved in several steps. If so, a list of priorities has to be drawn up. Here it would seem appropriate to harmonise the general part first. Many branches of insurance are not subject to specific and mandatory (51) rules but only to general rules under current national insurance contract law regimes. Therefore, what is most urgent is the harmonisation of the general rules of insurance contract law in as far as they are mandatory. This harmonisation would immediately allow the creation of an internal insurance market in all branches not covered by specific and mandatory legal rules. Once this task has been achieved, however, regulated branches, such as life and health insurance, should also be covered.

7.5

The kind of rules which could be harmonised in this first stage could be as follows:

8.1

Insurance today represents an essential service in trade relations between professionals and between them and consumers.

8.2

Some of the fundamental principles governing the conclusion and validity of insurance contracts in general differ between the national legal systems of the EU Member States.

8.3

This state of affairs constitutes a barrier to the cross-border marketing of this financial instrument and, in consequence, hampers completion of the internal market in this area.

8.4

A degree of harmonisation of the mandatory rules of what is known as the ‘general part’ of insurance law could contribute decisively to removing an entire series of obstacles and difficulties facing insurance companies, insurance intermediaries, insured persons and policyholders, whether professionals or individual customers, in carrying out cross-border insurance transactions.

8.5

This point of view is shared unanimously by all the interested parties who were consulted or who spoke at the hearing on this subject.

8.6

It is felt that a gradual approach to harmonisation should be taken, aiming initially at the possible adoption of an optional model insurance contract all of whose terms and components, however, would be mandatory.

8.7

The preparations must take account of the proposals made in the Commission's 1979-80 directive, in the light of the comments and analyses made by the interested parties, civil society representatives and Member State regulatory bodies, and paying due attention to the changes the sector has undergone in the meantime.

8.8

The Community instrument to be used should be a regulation, taking Treaty Article 95 as the legal basis.

8.9

On the basis of the comments made in the present opinion, the EESC urges the Commission to reopen this dossier and begin examining comparative law and national practices in the area of insurance contracts, in order to confirm that it is necessary, advisable and possible to continue with efforts to harmonise insurance contract law at Community level.

8.10

Such efforts must take account of what has already been achieved by academic researchers in this field.

8.11

The EESC recommends to the Commission that such work be made known and submitted for public discussion by means in particular of a green paper, the essential base for preparing what is considered to be the most appropriate Community instrument.

8.12

The EESC is aware that only with a clear political willingness on the part of the Member States to promote the initiative to harmonise insurance contract law, can this major contribution to the completion of the internal market in financial services be realised.

8.13

The EESC calls upon the European Parliament to join in this initiative and to give it the appropriate degree of priority on its political agenda by restating its support for the objective of harmonising mandatory rules of the general part of insurance contract law.

a)

the formal structure of the insurance policy;

b)

the right to a declaration of guarantee when the contract is concluded, together with the minimum formal requirements pertaining to this;

c)

the language in which the contract is concluded;

d)

the rules covering the insured person's declarations when the contract is concluded, concerning circumstances which may influence the insurer's assessment and acceptance of the risk, and the consequences should the insured person fail to, or deliberately not, do so;

e)

the rules covering the insured person's declarations after the contract has been concluded regarding facts or circumstances which may result in an increase in the risk, together with the consequences of failing to fulfil the obligation to do so;

f)

the rules regarding the burden of proof where there has been failure to fulfil the abovementioned obligations;

g)

the rules governing premiums in the event of a decrease in the risk;

h)

the consequences of failure to pay an insurance premium or a part thereof;

i)

the obligations of the policyholder should a claim arise;

j)

the rules on terminating the insurance contract; and

k)

the possibility of derogation from the provisions of the directive for the parties to the contract, where this would be more favourable to the policyholder, insured person or injured third party.

a)

railway rolling stock;

b)

aircraft;

c)

sea, lake and river and canal vessels;

d)

goods in transit;

e)

liability for aircraft and for sea, lake and river and canal vessels;

f )

credit and suretyship, paying attention to the particular features inherent to these branches of insurance.

a)

exclusion of sickness insurance, as suggested by the Committee;

b)

greater details of the procedures for terminating a contract, attaching too much importance to the possibility of retaining amended contracts, rather than quite simply revoking them; and

c)

better wording of the rules on the burden of proof.

28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/15

1.1

Tourism and sport are two sectors which are going to make an increasingly significant contribution to Europe's economic prosperity and social well-being in the future. Their key role is universally recognised throughout the world.

1.2

States and communities are increasingly viewing them as key channels for disseminating positive values and messages and for developing economies which are socially and environmentally sustainable.

1.3

Sport has always attracted great crowds of people who share a common passion, inducing them to travel constantly in order to watch sporting events, both large and small.

1.4

Today, tourism offers a whole range of sporting attractions which, particularly in recent years, have met with great success, sometimes helping to revive areas which are in partial or sharp decline (1).

1.5

Some sports destinations have thus become tourist destinations and vice versa, with the two becoming increasingly interlinked and each finding in the other new opportunities for providing services and growth.

1.6

This has made individual destinations more attractive not just to young (and not so young) people but also to people with disabilities, who can, at last, derive greater, hitherto-unknown enjoyment from sport-related holidays.

1.7

Four hundred and eleven million people visited Europe in 2002, representing over 5 % of GDP and bringing Europe's share of the world tourism market to approximately 58 %. However, the WTO (World Tourism Organisation) estimates that Europe's share of the world tourism market will fall to 46 % by 2020, despite the fact that the number of tourists will almost double, because of competition from new competitors.

1.8

In the context of this opinion, the EESC supported a public hearing in Rome on Tourism and sport: the future challenges for Europe, which saw the participation of leading Italian and European representatives of the tourism and sports sector and the heads of the tourism and sport units of the European Commission. The dialogue which took place was valuable, yielding many suggestions and points for reflection (2).

1.9

On the basis of the Rome public hearing and in view of the fact that, this year, the WTO World Tourism Day (27 September 2004) has been devoted to the theme of Sport and tourism: two living forces for mutual understanding, culture and the development of society, the EESC has outlined some points for a debate on a future, more integrated policy of analysis and action in both sectors.

1.10

Europe, which has already hosted the European Football Championships in Portugal and the XXVIII Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games in Greece during 2004, is to host a series of world sporting events over the next five years, and the impact of this in terms of tourist and economic flows will be huge, providing all Europe's tourist destinations with a unique opportunity as international visitors travel across the continent.

2.1

In the coming years, therefore, the world's media will be focusing on Europe for long periods at a time. The European Union will be at the centre of media attention on all these occasions (3), on different channels and at different levels. Europe will therefore be discussed, at least in high places, in political and socio-cultural terms, in terms of tourism and, of course, of sport.

2.2

This period of major sporting events must therefore be regarded by European society not just as an economic opportunity but first and foremost as an opportunity for reflection and for dissemination of cultural and social values with a view to growth and sustainable development.

2.3

Clearly, these events provide huge scope for developing and implementing training and education measures for the people of the Member States and the wider world. Particular consideration must be given to young people and to those least integrated into the fabric of society, such as people with disabilities.

2.4

As regards the competitiveness of the tourism sector, the coming years, with this wealth of major world sporting events, could be a great opportunity for Europe, which will thus be able to develop and exploit market choices focusing on high-quality reception facilities and the provision of sustainable services.

2.5

The European Union is now made up of 25 states, with all the benefits that this brings for the 450 million inhabitants of the new Community. There will therefore be a greater number of accessible destinations, people wishing to travel, and athletes and events to incorporate as quickly as possible into Europe's programmes and circuits.

3.1

Tourism is an industry which fosters peace, encouraging integration between peoples and thus facilitating peaceful co-existence characterised by tolerance and mutual respect.

3.2

Tourism has proved that it can help to enhance the standard of living of millions of people throughout the world, encouraging fairer and more inclusive economic development.

3.3

Its impact on employment is considerable. There are over two million businesses operating in the sector in Europe employing over 8 million people, not counting auxiliary staff.

3.4

Indeed, tourism is cross-sectoral in nature and has a greater capacity to generate employment than other kinds of production.

3.5

However, it is also a sector which suffers more from economic downturns, international crises and seasonal factors, which means that its contribution to long-term employment is limited, although it has consistently displayed a certain capacity to resist overall, thanks to the variety of products it offers, whose diversity offsets the effects of structural and contingent problems and allows the sector to absorb them.

3.6

In the coming years, the challenge will be to create and preserve a socially and economically stable framework throughout the 25-member Europe, eliminating all forms of social exclusion. Tourism, sport and culture must be made practically accessible for all to enjoy, with concessions provided for the most disadvantaged social groups.

3.7

The European Commission has already outlined this process in its Communication of November 2001 entitled Working together for the future of European tourism (4), and in the subsequent Communication of November 2003 entitled Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism (5). It is now a question of giving substance to the ideas set out in these documents.

3.8

However, if high-quality tourism is to be achieved, tourism needs to be integrated with other production and/or entertainment sectors of society. Sport, which is characterised by a wealth of values, culture, rules and principles, is an ideal partner for promoting sustainable growth at all levels.

3.9

Sport, like tourism, is now an essential human leisure activity and, at the same time, a driving force for social growth and economic development with great potential.

3.10

The values it promotes which, as is a well-known fact, date back to the first Greek Olympics in the eighth century BC, are very relevant to and find increasing expression in training policies for young people.

3.11

The economic dimension of sport has grown out of all proportion in recent years. Major sporting events have become general large-scale social gatherings which send out messages and promote values to all age groups throughout the world.

3.12

Sporting events have also generated new forms of tourism which combine conventional holidays with the chance to practise a particular sport. In this sense, major events serve as catalysts and spur people into taking up new sports.

3.13

Sport on the one hand takes advantage of tourist infrastructure and services and on the other generates tourism, which benefits considerably from the sporting events which take place in tourist destinations: consider the number of people who travel to watch the World Football Championships or the Olympic Games, and above all the image promotion which a country hosting such events can derive from them.

3.14

This opinion will consider first and foremost, although not exclusively, the major sporting events which, generally speaking, bring European destinations the greatest profits and cultural and social benefits and give them most publicity.

3.15

In purely general terms, ‘major sporting event’ is here taken to mean an event capable of attracting a substantial flow of tourists who stay in the destination overnight and thus boost the destination's tourist economy.

3.16

Major events can be opportunities for highlighting values, forms of behaviour and practices which can then be implemented and developed in the countless events which take place at local level (6).

3.17

However, the complex links between tourism and sport are part of a wider relationship which includes the social, cultural and environmental sectors too. The modern tourist is in search of increasingly comprehensive holidays which can satisfy recreational, cultural and sporting needs in one package.

4.1

In the past, the only legal basis for a Community tourism policy was Article 3(u) of the EC Treaty, which contained a general reference to measures in the sphere of tourism. For a sector with such a strong impact on the economies of many EU countries, this was a heavy constraint on the achievement of a genuine European tourism policy.

4.2

Indeed, tourism is very cross-sectoral in nature: it embraces almost all production sectors and services and requires effective economies of scale both as regards regional management and the underlying decision and policy-making process.

4.3

However, particularly since 1999, the Community institutions have displayed renewed and increasing interest in tourism (7). The EESC has actively monitored this new trend and enthusiastically welcomes the inclusion of an ad hoc provision on tourism in the European Constitution (8).

4.4

This milestone marks the end of a long and, at times, harmful marginalisation of tourism and provides the necessary conditions for the sector to be recognised and officially integrated into the EU's policies.

4.5

The EESC hopes that tourism will henceforth be able to count on genuinely targeted, specific European measures, programmes and initiatives. In this connection it calls for the creation of a single governing body at Community level modelled on the European agencies for specific sectors (9).

4.6

At all events, the EESC welcomes the fact that the European Union is already working on a tourism policy promoting sustainable development of all kinds (10).

4.7

Turning to European policy on sport, this is underpinned by a number of key documents, including the European Sports Charter (1992), the Treaty of Amsterdam, which specified the social significance of sport, and the Declaration annexed to the Treaty of Nice, which gave sport a specific place among areas of Community competence.

4.8

Thanks in part to the impetus it received from the Nice Summit, sport was given its rightful place in the Constitution for Europe adopted in June 2004, where it is the subject of a specific provision (11).

4.9

To highlight the social and educational importance of sport, the Commission has made 2004 the European Year of Education through Sport. This is a way of drawing attention to the sector, as well as funding training, awareness-raising and development projects in schools and educational organisations throughout the Union.

4.10

This initiative has also encouraged student mobility, albeit with limited funding, enabling students to visit places away from home and satisfying both their desire to travel and discover new places and their desire to practise their favourite sport.

4.11

How to integrate tourism, sport and culture is one of the challenges we must address in the years ahead in order to boost the European economy and help to bring about a higher quality of life for all.

4.12

This takes on priority status in the light of the aforementioned Lisbon objectives, which must, in any case, take into account the changing economic situation of the EU countries in order to guarantee lasting, sustainable growth and development.

4.13

Specific workshops could be held in the European Tourism Forum and a European Sport Forum and innovative initiatives promoted as part of the process of drawing up an innovative strategy at European level seeking to integrate the tourism, sport and culture sectors. The innovative initiatives could include student exchanges, awareness-raising campaigns to involve the ‘sporting’ tourist in the cultural and social life of the place where an event is held, or courses designed to develop new skills. From this perspective, it is essential to involve both civil society and the private sector first and foremost.

4.14

The legal recognition of the two sectors — tourism and sport — in the draft Constitutional Treaty is a major step towards the achievement of these objectives, particularly as regards the promotion and development of the competitiveness of European businesses operating in the two sectors.

5.1

As has been mentioned, the coming years will be full of sporting events and millions of people will flock from all over the world to watch them.

5.2

This period of long-distance travelling, of major sporting events and of extensive media coverage raises the urgent question of security. This question must be addressed responsibly, without sparking unnecessary alarmism but putting in place all the preventive and surveillance measures needed to ensure the smooth running of each sporting event.

5.3

Cooperation and prior establishment of joint action strategies are, in this respect, decisive elements in the organisation of major sporting events.

5.4

Security must therefore underpin the organisation of all events in the coming years and it must be based essentially on prevention.

5.5

The United Nations General Assembly of 6 September 2000 adopted a Declaration, point 10 of which states: ‘We urge Member States to observe the Olympic Truce, individually and collectively, now and in the future, and to support the International Olympic Committee in its efforts to promote peace and human understanding through sport and the Olympic Ideal’.

5.6

Both the recent Brussels European Council (12 December 2003) and the European Parliament (1 April 2004) made similar appeals. In particular, the European Parliament welcomed the IOC (International Olympic Committee)'s creation of an International Foundation for the Olympic Truce, an organisation seeking to further promote the ideals of peace and understanding through sport.

5.7

In its contribution to the security debate, the EESC stresses the need to promote the Olympic Truce as a universal message relevant to all world sporting events in the coming years. Indeed, it maintains that sport can contribute to spreading the culture of dialogue and increasing the opportunities for people to meet.

6.1

As has already been mentioned, complex links are generated between tourism and sport which have a social, economic and environmental impact. The relationship is even more complex where large-scale (major) events are concerned.

6.2

All the principles of sustainability — socio-cultural, economic and environmental — must therefore be taken into account in the organisation of events. The guidelines for sustainable tourism adopted by the European Commission in its aforementioned recent Communication on basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism (12) and evaluated in the EESC opinion on socially sustainable tourism for everyone (13) must be applied to sport and sports destinations.

6.3

In social and cultural terms, sporting events should, first and foremost, be occasions for enhancing identities and for cultural exchange. It is therefore proposed that support be given to initiatives and events of a tourist/sporting character involving several regions of different European countries (on the model of the Interreg programme).

6.4

From a social and economic point of view, we would point out that the greatest attention should be paid to the local community in the organisation of an event. All services and infrastructure should be planned with potential future use thereof by the inhabitants in mind. The local community must also be used as the reference for the creation of jobs and the implementation of training relating to events.

6.5

Models have already been developed to measure the capacity of the destinations and related services in terms of environmental sustainability and other criteria. It would be appropriate to promote the dissemination of these models and their application in the field of sporting events too, advocating, as has been said, an integrated approach with three strands: society, economy and environment.

6.6

Planning, management and development models for these events must therefore be identified and promoted in order to maximise the profits and added value generated, especially for the host region and community, which, in any case, suffers detrimental effects from such events and only rarely enjoys any significant gain.

6.7

Large-scale sporting events can be opportunities to develop high-level skills and expertise, which can also be valuable to the sports/tourist destination in the medium and long term as regards developing facilities and meeting visitors' needs. They can also serve to disseminate best practice in the field of the integrated management of tourism and sport.

6.8

The organisation of complex events requires an initial mapping of potential conflicts between local people and short-term visitors, with regard to the use of resources, services and facilities and the quality thereof.

6.9

Close cooperation will be essential between promoters, organisers, local representatives, representatives of end users and representatives of social stakeholders, and between all the parties involved in general.

6.10

Sporting events must be included in the medium- and long-term planning of the host destination and country. In particular, consideration must be given to the impact that they will have on the overall image of the tourist/sports destination.

6.11

It is a well-known fact that the seasonal nature of tourism is often a barrier to its development. Sporting events also help to further a policy of developing tourism and the tourism economy all year round, maximising profits and providing stable, long-term jobs.

6.12

It is worth setting up ongoing monitoring of current and future experiences in order to help define a model of experiences for the planning and management of sporting events which fully takes into account the above-mentioned social, environmental and economic factors. In particular, it would seem worthwhile to monitor the use of facilities and the subsequent use of the structures and services set up for a particular event after it has finished.

6.13

In general terms, the EESC would stress the possibility of adopting the measures, actions and recommendations set out in the multiannual programme for sustainable European tourism by creating an Agenda 21 for sport and for the most popular destinations for organising and hosting sporting events.

6.14

Good practice and positive experiences of planning and managing sporting events with a tourist dimension must be recorded systematically, disseminated and pooled in order to make the organisation of the forthcoming major EU events as successful as possible.

7.1

The EESC would reiterate the need to reinforce at all levels the objective of training and education as part of sport and tourism policies.

7.2

This approach was also called for in the Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport annexed to the conclusions of the December 2000 Nice European Council, which stressed that ‘the Community must … take account of the social, educational and cultural functions inherent in sport … in order that the code of ethics and the solidarity essential to the preservation of its social role may be respected and nurtured’.

7.3

Integrating and promoting positive values common to tourism and sport can be effective ways of bringing about integration at the level of communities, destinations and states.

7.4

The series of events which began in 2004 therefore acquires even greater importance because of the proposed objective of using major events which will receive tremendous media coverage and attention from institutions as vehicles for disseminating training principles and guidelines.

7.5

As the EU expands to include 10 new countries, these opportunities will increase. The use of mass media networks will make it possible to extend and share with the new Member States educational projects to bring about familiarisation with the Union and its peoples and an exchange of values based on sportsmanship, fair play and competitiveness.

7.6

Key values which could be developed and conveyed include tolerance, an open, welcoming attitude and openness to exchange between different peoples and ethnic groups. The exchange of these values within the European Union will require: a) appropriate education in schools and adult education for all those employed in tourism and sport, and b) intensive sharing of experience, which needs to be promoted. When tourists travel, they have expectations with regard to the above-mentioned values.

7.7

There should be particular focus, where sporting and tourist events are concerned, on disseminating the principle of the right for all population groups — and in particular for the weaker groups: young people, the elderly, people with disabilities — to practise different kinds of sports and take part in events in those sports.

7.8

As is stated in the aforementioned Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport annexed to the conclusions of the 2000 Nice European Council, ‘For the physically or mentally disabled, the practice of physical and sporting activities provides a particularly favourable opening for the development of individual talent, rehabilitation, social integration and solidarity …’.

7.9

These measures seeking to benefit the weakest groups of society must be implemented by central governments and local authorities, national federations, sports societies and associations, amateur clubs and schools.

7.10

Schools are the most fertile ground for disseminating positive values and developing mutual understanding, since the complex relationship between sport, tourism and training can be exploited to the full by starting with school-age children.

7.11

It is therefore proposed to continue to facilitate student mobility and exchanges by organising sporting events which include opportunities for familiarisation with local culture and life.

7.12

It is also proposed to increase cooperation between the Member States especially in the field of exchange of information about best practices including the involvement of sports tourists in the cultural and social life of communities hosting sports events, in order both to reduce violence and intolerance of all kinds and to generate opportunities for mutual growth.

7.13

It would also be worthwhile ascertaining whether there is a need for courses developing new skills necessary for organising tourist/sports events, which take into account all the aspects of social growth, integrated sustainability, communication and marketing which are relevant to tourism.

8.1

Tourism and sport can become laboratories for the development, exchange and sharing of positive values, inspired by respect for others and directed towards mutual understanding, tolerance and reciprocal acceptance. These sectors are naturally suited to this task and their role takes on special importance in the context of a society which is increasingly dynamic and marked by profound socio-cultural, geopolitical and technological changes.

8.2

Tourism and sport can also contribute a great deal to achieving the objectives set in the Lisbon strategy. Indeed, their growing economic impact could become a real driving force for the economy of the European Union, especially if all the opportunities for developing and spreading the skills linked to these two sectors were used to the full.

8.3

The inclusion of tourism and sport in the final version of the European Constitution represents a historic turning point for the two sectors. The EESC now hopes for significant activity at Community level in these two areas and suggests using the open method of coordination to guarantee the interchange of skills and knowledge and comparison at European level.

8.4

Sport and tourism are two complex, distinct sectors; it is very difficult to study them together and make economic and social comparisons between them. The EESC therefore proposes that a joint European monitoring agency and a data bank be set up to collect and classify knowledge and best practice and disseminate them in the Member States in order to promote development in the two sectors.

8.5

The EESC also hopes that the European Union will promote studies and research to make possible a comparative analysis at European level of the social, economic and environmental impact of the tourism-sport combination.

8.6

The spread of a culture of access for all to tourism and sport, and the formulation of policies to support that culture, must be a priority for all development measures in the two sectors, considering the needs of weaker population groups — young people, the elderly and the disabled — and of those with not much money to spend. To this end, the EESC would like to see a campaign to promote awareness of the fact that accessibility and sustainability are necessary characteristics which make market players more competitive.

8.7

It is proposed that a European tourism agency be set up with the role of safeguarding the specific characteristics of this sector, analysing its problems, setting out potential lines for development and identifying innovative instruments for sustainable growth to be incorporated into the EU's structural measures.

8.8

Tourism and sport are many-sided, complex phenomena with a high potential for development. This opinion maintains the need for horizontal integration of these sectors at European level, so that this potential can be realised in both the socio-economic and the cultural fields. Moreover, the EESC emphasises the need, when implementing the proposed measures, to give constant attention to their sustainability both in those fields and in environmental terms.

8.9

The EESC named this opinion the Declaration of Rome on tourism and sport so as to give it a higher profile and improve its dissemination at all important tourist and sporting events at European level.

28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/22

1.1

The Committee is conscious of the fact that this opinion deals with a partly new subject, whose vocabulary is little known or at any rate little used. For this reason, it was deemed useful to provide a brief series of definitions and to detail the state of nanotechnology research and applications in the United States and Asia.

1.2

Index

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

2.1

Nano — means one billionth of a whole. In this case, nano is used to mean a billionth of a metre.

2.2

Micro — means one millionth of a whole. In this case, it means one millionth of a metre.

2.3

Nanosciences — The nanosciences are a new approach to traditional science (chemistry, physics, electronic biology, etc.) and deal with the basic structure and behaviour of materials at the level of atoms and molecules. These sciences in fact study the potential of atoms in the various scientific disciplines (1).

2.4

Nanotechnologies — These technologies enable atoms and molecules to be manipulated so as to create new surfaces and objects that, having a different make-up and arrangement of atoms, have properties that can be used in day-to-day life (2). These are technologies that deal with billionths of a metre.

2.5

In addition to the above definition, it is worthwhile going into greater detail from a scientific point of view. The term nanotechnology describes a multidisciplinary approach to the creation of materials, mechanisms and systems, by means of the nanometric scale control of materials.

2.6

Nanomechanics — The dimensions of an object begin to be important in determining its properties when the scale of its dimensions is of one or a few dozen nanometres (objects made of a few dozen or a few thousand atoms). Within this range of dimensions, an object composed of 100 iron atoms has physical and chemical properties that are radically different to one composed of 200 atoms, even if they are both made of the same atoms. Similarly, the mechanical and electromagnetic properties of a solid made up of nanoparticles are radically different to those of a traditional solid of the same chemical composition and are affected by the properties of the individual constituent units.

2.7

This is a fundamental scientific and technological novelty that changes the approach to making and manipulating materials in all fields of science and technology. Nanotechnology is not therefore a new science, joining the ranks of chemistry, physics and biology, but rather a new way of doing chemistry, physics and biology.

2.8

It follows that a nanostructured material or system is made of units of nanometric proportions (the structures made of individual atoms that we are used to are no longer relevant) and therefore possesses certain properties that can be built into complex structures. Clearly, therefore, production models based on the assembly of individual atoms or molecules that are all alike should be changed and replaced with approaches within which dimensions are a fundamental parameter.

2.9

To give an idea of the revolutionary impact of nanotechnology, it is equivalent to discovering a new periodic table of elements that is much bigger and more complicated than the previous one, and to finding that the limitations imposed by phase diagrams (for instance the possibilities of mixing two materials) can be overcome.

2.10

These are therefore bottom-up technologies, that shift the emphasis from individual functions to a set of functions. They have an ever-increasing number of applications, in the following fields to name but a few: health, information technology, materials science, manufacturing, energy, safety, aerospace, optics, acoustics, chemicals, food and the environment.

2.11

Thanks to these applications, some of which are already possible and used by the public (3), it is realistic to state that nanotechnologies could significantly improve quality of life, the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry and sustainable development  (4) .

2.12

Microelectronics — This is a branch of electronics that deals with the development of integrated circuits, built within individual semiconductor regions, with minute dimensions. Microelectronics can currently create individual components with dimensions in the realms of 0.1 micrometre, or 100 nanometres (5).

2.13

Nanoelectronics — This is a science that studies and produces circuits that are made using technologies and materials other than silicon and that work on a substantially different set of principles (6).

2.13.1

Nanoelectronics is set to become a cornerstone of nanotechnology, just as electronics today permeates all scientific sectors and industrial processes (7).

2.13.2

Development in the field of electric and electronic components has been very rapid. In the space of a few decades, valves have given way to semiconductors, chips, microchips and now nanochips, assembled using elements each made of a few 100 atoms. A nanochip can hold as much information as 25 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (8).

2.13.3

Scientists and electronic component producers quickly realised that the smaller the chip, the faster the flow of information (9). Nanoelectronics, therefore, enables information to be managed much more rapidly and contained in extremely small spaces.

2.14

Scanning tunnelling microscope — This instrument, which won its inventors the Nobel Prize, has also been defined as the ‘lens of the 21st century’. It is used to ‘see’ material on an atomic scale. To work, the tip of the microscope moves in parallel over a surface. A tunnel effect causes the surface electrons (not the atoms) to move from the surface to the tip. This creates a current, which intensifies as the distance between the surface and the tip decreases. This current is converted by means of an altitude calculation, and gives the nanometric scale topography of the surface of a material.

2.14.1

Tunnel effect — In traditional mechanics, a particle with a certain amount of energy cannot get out of a hole unless it has enough energy to jump out. In quantum mechanics however, owing to the uncertainty principle, the situation is very different. As the particle is confined to the hole, the degree of uncertainty as to its position is small, and as a result, uncertainty as to its speed is great. Therefore, the particle has a certain probability of having sufficient energy to escape from the hole, despite the fact that its average energy would not be sufficient (10).

2.15

Carbon nanotubes — These are the product of a particular way of assembling carbon atoms. They are among the most resistant and lightest materials currently known. They are six times lighter and one hundred times stronger than steel. They have a diameter of a few nanometres and can be several microns long. (11)

2.16

Self-assembly of macromolecules — This is the procedure used in laboratories to imitate nature: ‘every living thing is self-assembled’. The self-assembly procedure creates interfaces between electronic circuits and biological tissues and makes a connection between informatics and biology. The goal, which scientists believe is not so far off, is to give hearing to the deaf and sight to the blind (12).

2.17

Biomimetics  (13) — This is the science that studies the laws underpinning molecular structures existing in nature. Knowledge of these laws could enable artificial nanomotors to be created, based on the same principles as those existing in nature (14).

3.1

The EESC appreciates the clarity with which the nanotechnology communication has been drafted and shares the Commission's desire to waste no time in making a valid contribution to the debate. It also welcomes the many texts that have been published, including the CD ROMs, aimed at both experts and young people.

3.1.1

The educational CD ROMs in particular are extremely useful cultural vehicles for disseminating the necessary information on nanotechnology to a vast, sometimes uninformed, often young public.

3.2

The EESC takes the view that information on this subject, which may spawn new and fruitful discoveries in many areas of everyday life, should be disseminated using the most universally accessible vocabulary. Furthermore, research on new products must be geared to consumers' needs and demands, never losing sight of sustainable development.

3.2.1

Journalists and mass media operators, particularly from the specialised press, have a special role to play, as they are the first to spread news of success stories as researchers challenge science to obtain real results.

3.2.2

Current progress indicators for nanotechnology focus on four main strands: 1) publications (15); 2) patents; 3) new business start-ups; 4) turnover. The EU is in the lead on publications, with a percentage of 33 %, followed by the USA with 28 %. There are no precise figures for China, but publications are seemingly on the increase there. The USA is in first place on patents, with 42 %, followed by the EU with 36 %. As far as company start-ups are concerned, of every 1,000 genuine nanotech firms, 600 start life in the USA and 250 in the Euro- pean Union. Taken as a whole, data on turnover suggest an increase from the current EUR 50 billion to approximately EUR 350 billion in 2010, reaching EUR 1,000 billion in 2015 (16).

3.3

Not only do nanotechnology and nanoscience constitute a new approach to materials science and engineering, they are, above all, among the most promising and important multidisciplinary tools for coming up with production systems, highly innovative inventions and far-reaching applications, for the various sectors of society.

3.3.1

On nanometric scale, conventional materials acquire different properties to their macroscopic counterparts, thus enabling the creation of systems that work and perform better. The radical novelty of nanotechnology lies in the fact that by reducing the scale of a material, its physical and chemical properties are changed. This makes it possible to achieve production strategies similar to the approach used by nature to make complex systems, with a rational use of energy, minimising the raw material needed and waste products  (17).

3.3.2

The production processes associated with nanotechnology should therefore be marked by a new approach, taking full account of these new properties, in order to ensure that the European economic and social system draws the maximum benefit.

3.4

The nanotechnological approach pervades every production sector. The sectors currently applying nanotechnology to certain productive processes are: electronics (18); chemistry (19); pharmaceuticals (20); mechanics (21); and the automotive, aerospace (22), manufacturing (23) and cosmetics sectors.

3.5

Nanotechnologies could go a long way towards helping the EU to achieve the objectives set by the Lisbon European Council, by developing the knowledge-based society, and to become the most dynamic and competitive force in the world, while protecting the environment, promoting cohesion, and generating new businesses, more skilled jobs and new professional and training profiles.

3.6

According to the Commission, Europe could enjoy pole position in the field of nanotechnologies, but it must first succeed in clinching a real competitive advantage for European industry and society and secure sufficient returns on the necessarily high investment in research.

3.6.1

The real issue is the need to understand the strategic importance of these technologies, which concern broad sectors of the economy and society. Properly joined-up policy is also essential in the field of nanotechnologies and nanosciences and must be given substantial resources and be certain of the support of the private, industrial, financial and training sectors.

4.1

The Commission's communication seeks to launch an institutional-level debate on a coherent initiative to:

4.2

More specifically, the Commission proposes the following:

5.1

In the USA, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a basic and applied research programme launched in 2001, coordinates the activity of a number of American agencies working in the field. It received funding of over a billion dollars for the 2005 financial year, doubling its initial 2001 budget. The main targets for this funding are: basic and applied research, the development of centres of excellence and facilities, and the evaluation and verification of the implications for society, particularly from an ethical, legal and public health and safety point of view, in addition to the development of human resources.

5.1.1

The NNI directly finances 10 federal agencies and coordinates various others. The National Science Foundation (NSF), the Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have all seen significant increases in their budgets, aimed specifically at nanotechnology. The DOE in particular has invested massive sums and has managed to set up five major facilities, i.e. nanoscale science research centres, open to researchers from the entire scientific community. The DoD's nanotechnology programme meanwhile has grown over the years as a result for instance of the services required by the US armed forces.

5.1.2

These major developments were made possible by the passing in December 2003 of basic legislation on American nanotechnology policy with the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Among other things, this law established a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, with the following tasks:

5.1.3

To reinforce the above legislation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has launched a specific programme to develop manufacturing in the nanotechnology sector, centring on: metrology, reliability and qualitative standards, process control, and manufacturing best practice. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership will also enable the results of the programme to be disseminated to SMEs.

5.1.4

The above law also provides for the establishment of an information clearing-house, with the task of:

5.1.5

There are also plans for an American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center, with the task of conducting, coordinating, collecting, and disseminating studies on the ethical, legal, educational, environmental and workforce implications of nanotechnology and anticipating any problems so as to prevent potential negative fall-out.

5.1.6

The organisational framework set up by law is made complete by the establishment of a Center for Nanomaterials Manufacturing, to encourage, conduct and coordinate research into new manufacturing technologies and to collect and disseminate the results, in order to facilitate their transfer to United States industries.

5.1.7

The law also provides for the relevant 2005-2008 financial appropriations for the main agencies and federal departments, such as NSF, DOE, NASA and NIST (24).

5.2

After the announcement of the American NNI, there were significant changes in scientific research and technological development policy in Asia and the Pacific, with decisions designed to enable the region to take up a strong position in nanotechnology development. Nanotechnology became top priority in a number of Asian and Pacific countries, with overall spending in 2003 of over USD 1.4 billion. Of that figure, 70 % refers to Japan, but major investments were also made in China, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore, not to mention Australia and New Zealand.

5.3

Japan has launched a number of five- to ten-year programmes in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology since the mid-1980s. In 2003, the budget for the R&D programme for nanotechnology and materials stood at USD 900 million, but nanotechnology-related themes are also present in life science, environment and information society programmes. This brings the total budget earmarked for the sector in 2003 to nearly USD 1.5 billion, with an increase of approximately 20 % in 2004. The Japanese private sector is also very much present, represented by two major trading houses, Mitsui & Co and the Mitsubishi Corporation. Most of the major Japanese companies, such as NEC, Hitachi, Fujitsu, NTT, Toshiba, Sony, Sumitomo Electric, Fuji Xerox, etc. have invested heavily in nanotechnology.

5.3.1

Under its current five-year plan for 2001 to 2005, China has set aside a budget of approximately USD 300 million for nanotechnology. According to the Chinese minister for science and technology, about 50 universities, 20 institutes and over 100 companies are active in the sector. To secure an adequate platform for commercialising nanotechnology, an engineering centre and a nanotech industry base have been set up between Beijing and Shanghai. Furthermore, the Chinese government has set aside USD 33 million for the establishment of a national research centre on nanoscience and technology, in order to better coordinate scientific and research efforts in the sector.

5.3.2

In 2002, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) founded Casnec (the CAS Nanotechnology Engineering Centre), with an overall budget of USD 6 million, as a platform to accelerate the commercialisation of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In Hong Kong, the two main sources of nanotech financing are the Grant Research Council and the Innovation and Technology Fund, spending an overall budget of USD 20.6 million in the period from 1998 to 2002. For 2003 and 2004, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University have granted their own nanotech centres nearly USD 9 million.

5.3.3

In Australia and New Zealand meanwhile, the Australia Research Council (ARC) has doubled its funding for competitive projects over the last five years, and has plans to set up eight centres of excellence in various locations, with a view to more in-depth research into themes such as quantum computer technology, quantum atom optics, photovoltaics, advanced photonics and advanced optics systems.

5.3.4

In New Zealand, the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology is the national coordinator for advanced research and training in materials science and nanotechnology, working on the basis of close cooperation between universities and various partners, including Industry Research Ltd (IRL) and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (IGNS).

5.3.5

The MacDiarmid Institute is focusing on the following sectors in particular: nanoengineered materials, optoelectronics (25), superconductors, carbon nanotubes, light materials and complex fluids, sensorial and image systems, and lastly, new energy-storing materials.

6.1

The explosion of nanotechnologies around the world, in America, Asia and Oceania alike, is proof that it is high time that Europe took systematic and coordinated action to secure joint Community and national financing for basic and applied research and its speedy transfer to new products, processes and services.

6.2

A joint European strategy should be based on:

6.3

The achievement of a large critical mass and high value added should pave the way for the establishment and development of a joint strategy. Manufacturing and service companies, small ones in particular, should be able to use the results of such a strategy for their innovative and competitive development while also contributing by spawning trans-European networks of excellence together with universities, public and private research centres and financial bodies.

6.4

The development of this strategy must be firmly anchored in that of society. This means that the strategy must be firmly warranted by the major contribution it can make not only to the competitiveness of the European knowledge-based economy but also and above all to the health, environment, safety and quality of life of the European public. This also means working on the demand side of nanotechnologies, to solve the problems faced by the public, businesses and organisations, as these are the areas most in need of practical responses.

6.5

The commitment of society as a whole must be secured. This will require transparency and safety in the nanotechnological process, from basic research all the way to the application of results and their demonstration and development in innovative market products and services. It will also require agreements that are clear and comprehensible for the general public, providing an assurance that the entire life cycle of the products, including disposal, is subject to checks and constant risk assessment.

6.6

A positive relationship must be forged between science and society in this sector in order to avoid the emergence of barriers to or stagnation in nanotechnology development, in contrast to what happened during the growth of other new technologies recently.

6.7

The creation of European facilities and of new multidisciplinary scientific and academic profiles is also essential. This too will mean winning the full trust of the tax-payer and of policy-makers, who need to be fully aware of the positive potential of the nanotechnological revolution.

6.8

The development of nanotechnologies is therefore not only a major challenge intellectually and scientifically, but also and above all a challenge for society as a whole. Phenomena for which the scientific principles are known at macro level are being altered, increased, reduced or eliminated at nano level, with consequences that may have an — at times radical — impact on applications. New manufacturing techniques, new approaches, different types of service and new professions to manage them are developing.

6.8.1

This rapid transformation demands a strategy for the creation and/or reskilling of senior managers to manage the transition, set up a new form of governance for the process, generate new professional profiles and attract the best brains, at world level.

6.9

The Community's financial perspectives for 2007-2013, as recently proposed by the Commission, should be assessed and remoulded in the light of the challenges posed by this new technological revolution. Suffice it to say that the American Congress has approved a nanotechnology budget of over EUR 700 million for the 2004 fiscal year alone. According to the estimates of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), civil investment in the sector by various governmental organisations around the world in 2003 exceeded EUR 2,300 million, broken down as follows:

6.10

As far as the future is concerned, the growth of world industrial output in the sector has been estimated at around EUR 1,000 billion over 10 to 15 years, calling for over two million skilled people to join the sector's workforce.

6.10.1

This confirms the principle that nanotechnology = progress for the employment strategy (28). The development of the knowledge-based society will be measured against its capacity to tap sensitively and intelligently into the new sources of employment and progress.

6.11

For the EU's strategy in this area to be certain of success, therefore, it is essential to build up financial and human resources and coordination at Community level.

6.12

In both Asia and the USA, a joined-up approach to the various policies directly or indirectly concerning the sector's development has proved indispensable, in order to be proactive vis à vis the need for new entrepreneurship, new training, and a new regulatory and technical-legal framework.

6.13

As has been shown by the many studies already carried out (29), nanotechnology enables the production, manipulation and positioning of objects, while also securing a proactive technological approach on a large scale at competitive processing and production costs.

6.14

In the long term, science will be able to provide instruments to assemble nano-objects, so that they can form complex systems able to carry out functions that the individual parts cannot. The time-to-market of this ultimate goal is as yet difficult to estimate, but it must be pursued with the appropriate support instruments.

6.15

Various ‘intelligent’ materials (30) have been made and are already available to consumers:

6.15.1

Many new applications, in addition to those described above, are already in use or are at the fine-tuning stage and will very soon be part of everyday life. They point to progress or even a revolution in ‘domotics’ (33) and will contribute to improving the public's quality of life.

6.16

Thanks to biomimetics, the study of the possibility of interfacing electronic circuits with biological tissues, in the near future it will be possible to restore hearing to hearing-impaired and sight to sight-impaired organisms.

6.16.1

Various types of micromotor (34) are already at the laboratory stage. They are able to reach a predetermined target, such as an infected cell, and destroy it in order to prevent it from contaminating other cells. Currently however, the action taken on unhealthy cells also affects healthy cells, often causing considerable damage to organs.

6.16.2

Scientific applications of the technique are already able to supply a number of practical results that are directly applicable to daily life. Unfortunately, the costs are still too high however. In order for them to become affordable, awareness of these new possibilities must become common knowledge, in order to alter deep-rooted procedures and habits that more often than not obstruct and delay change.

6.17

The traditional textiles/clothing/footwear sector has been in crisis throughout the European Union not least because of competition from products from countries that do not uphold basic labour standards or take into consideration the cost of environmental protection or of health and safety in the workplace.

6.17.1

Intelligent and/or technical fabrics, including those designed with the help of nano powders, are on the increase in many European countries and showing growth of around 30 % a year. Particularly important are fabrics designed to enhance all aspects of safety: from road safety to protection from pollution, chemical agents, allergenic products and atmospheric agents, etc. (35).

6.18

Nanotechnology is also revolutionising medicine, especially regarding the early diagnosis and treatment of serious tumours and neurodegenerative diseases associated with old age. Specifically designed nanoparticles can be used as markers for the highly effective diagnosis of infectious agents or metabolite properties, or as vectors for drugs to be deposited in certain areas or organs affected by highly localised diseases. Systems of this kind are already being used in various experiments.

7.1

The nanotechnological approach to new materials means creating new functions by using nanoscale components. A good example is that of technologies for the production and processing of durable and efficient materials for the automotive and aeronautics sectors, areas in which Europe has the edge over its main competitors. It has been clearly demonstrated that nanostructured systems can significantly reduce friction between two connecting surfaces, and thus reduce wear and tear.

7.1.1

Just one of many examples of nanotechnology's various commercial applications is that of the development of nanostructured materials and surfaces to reduce friction and wear and tear. These systems play a key role in the development of new, highly efficient industrial processes with a low environmental impact. Approximately 25 % of the energy used in the world is lost through friction (36), and losses owing to mechanical parts becoming worn out are estimated at between 1.3 % and 1.6 % of an industrialised country's GDP. The costs associated with problems of friction, wear and tear and lubrication can be estimated at approximately EUR 350 billion a year, broken down between the following sectors: land transport (46.6 %), industrial processes (33 %), energy supply (6.8 %), aeronautics (2.8 %), domestic consumption (0.5 %), other (10.3 %) (37).

7.1.2

New technological platforms must therefore be created on the basis of approaches that take into account the peculiarities of nanotechnologies and, in particular, the fact that functions and dimensions coincide, i.e. control over dimensions coincides with control over functions. For instance, in the case of lubrication: if nanometric particles of the right dimensions are built into a surface, there is no longer any need to lubricate, as that function is carried out by the nanoparticles, by means of their dimensions.

7.1.3

Nanostructured materials and coatings, whose ingredients are of nanometric dimensions, can significantly reduce the above percentages. For instance, a decrease of 20 % in the friction coefficient in a car's gearbox could reduce energy losses by a percentage varying between 0.64 % and 0.80 %, yielding savings of EUR 26 billion a year in the transport sector alone.

7.1.4

Surface testing and engineering is a key technology in terms of sustainable growth. A report from the UK's Department of Trade and Industry describes the state of the surface engineering industry in the 1995-2005 period and in 2010 (38). The report shows that in 1995, the English market for surface modification processes totalled approximately EUR 15 billion, and involved the production of goods for a value of around EUR 150 billion, of which EUR 7 billion was linked to the development of technologies for the protection of surfaces from wear and tear. The prediction for 2005 is that in the UK this sector will be worth approximately EUR 32 billion, involving industrial processes valued at around EUR 215 billion.

7.1.5

Projecting these figures on to the European market gives EUR 240 billion for surface processing, and spin-offs to other production sectors of approximately EUR 1,600 billion.

7.2

In order to benefit from nanotechnology (39), industrial development must be based on the capacity to marry traditional manufacturing processes and technologies (top-down) with innovative processes able to create, manipulate and integrate the new nanometric ingredients, using existing or new platforms.

7.2.1

An approach based on governance is of fundamental importance. In addition to general initiatives taken with consumers in mind, others must be developed and aimed at industry associations, local administrators and non-profit organisations, so as to tie in the warp and weft of the economic, political and social fabric. Competence centres could play an important role here (40), laying the foundations for greater coordination of local and European initiatives and generating a climate that is conducive to nanotechnological innovation. In this context, action must be taken to assess the impact of nanotechnologies on health and the environment, and any EU (top-down) initiatives should dovetail with action determined and promoted locally (bottom-up).

7.3

The EESC wishes to stress the great potential of developing nanoscience and nanotechnology as part of the application of the Lisbon Strategy. Uniting the scientific disciplines around an approach based on nanoscale units of matter will lay new foundations for the integration of knowledge, innovation, technology and development.

7.4

Coordination is still rather fragmented at European level despite efforts made under the sixth framework programme. The focus appears to be on rationalising the use of resources. While there is strong backing for basic research and also for the development of new industrial processes, there is as yet a lack of direction and backing for initiatives to generate real progress in mass production technologies. Support for efforts to develop European governance in the area is more embryonic still.

7.5

In the Member States, genuine coordination is essential but it has thus far been absent, especially when it comes to applying research. In many European countries, businesses, SMEs especially, are encountering the following difficulties:

7.6

The EESC believes it is very important to use research to design useful systems in the field of public health and everyday life, always adhering to the principle of mimesis, i.e. imitating nature.

7.7

The EESC welcomes the birth of the ‘Nanoforum’ network (41) and hopes that the network's publications will be translated and disseminated in all the Member States. As far as possible, the language used in the publications must be simple and accessible to a wide audience. Universities and research centres should be able to use the forum's findings.

7.7.1

The EESC is also convinced that the ‘European nanoelectronics technology platform’, suggested by the high level group (42), will be all the more successful providing it can avoid unnecessary and costly overlaps in research, working in close cooperation with the Commission.

7.8

It is also the EESC's opinion that by 2008 investment in these sectors in the EU will have to rise from the current EUR 3 billion a year, to EUR 8 billion, with periodical checks by the Commission on the following aspects:

8.1

The EESC fully agrees with the conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 24 September 2004 on the important role and potential of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The results achieved to date suggest that it is important to sharpen up the expertise and build the instruments that enable atoms to be worked on, in order to produce new structures and modify the properties of existing ones.

8.2

In this respect, the EESC recommends the immediate launch of a joint, integrated, responsible, European-level strategy, to focus in particular on: the development of joint efforts in RTD and scientific and technological demonstration and training; interaction between industry and the academic world; the accelerated development of industrial and multisectoral applications; and greater European coordination of policies, measures, structures and networks. As part of this strategy, a special effort must be made from the outset at international level too, to safeguard ethical, environmental, health and safety interests throughout the lifecycle of scientific applications and to promote appropriate technical standardisation.

8.3

The EESC would emphasise the need for this strategy to be firmly anchored in the development of society, making a positive contribution not only to the competitiveness of the European economy but also, and above all, to human health, the environment and safety, not to mention quality of life.

8.3.1

On this note, the EESC would stress the importance of securing the responsible and sustainable development of nanotechnology, from the outset, in order to meet the justifiable expectations of civil society with regard to environmental, health, ethical, industrial and economic aspects.

8.3.2

The EESC recommends a substantial increase in the resources earmarked for basic research, as technological and industrial excellence is always based on scientific excellence.

8.3.3

The 3 %  (43) objective decided at Barcelona should be implemented, making a priority of concentrating resources in the field of nanoscience, the development of its applications, and the convergence between nano-, bio- and info- technology and knowledge-based technology.

8.3.4

The Community's financial perspectives for 2007-2013, recently published by the Commission, should be assessed and remoulded in the light of the challenges posed by this new nanotechnology revolution.

8.3.5

The increase in funds hoped for must be reflected in an appropriate financial provision under the forthcoming seventh framework programme. The figures should reflect those earmarked in other countries, such as the USA.

8.4

The EESC is convinced that Europe should launch a high-level action plan with a definite road map and timetable and a joined-up approach, securing the necessary consensus among all civil society players on a shared vision. This vision must be translated into clear and transparent objectives for responding to the requirements of economic and social progress, and improved quality of life, safety and health for all.

8.5

In the Committee's opinion, there is a need to establish technological platforms with a large critical mass and high European value added, bringing together public and private players from the worlds of science, finance and administration who are active in the various specific fields of application.

8.6

The Committee would reiterate the urgent need to set up high-level European facilities and to strengthen the competence centres (CCs). Their location and specialisation would be determined on the basis of close coordination between European and local bodies, so as to pinpoint homogeneous industrial areas for local product specialisation, where a critical mass of R&D may already have taken root.

8.6.1

The CCs should be able to carry out and transfer high-quality research aimed at application and innovation, using nanotechnology, particularly in fields such as nanoelectronics, nanobiotechnology and nanomedicine.

8.7

Researchers must be certain that their intellectual property is protected, particularly in such a sensitive field. The EESC believes that solving the patenting issue in a clear and satisfactory way is a top priority if the success of applied research in the field of nanotechnology is to be secured. No time must be wasted in establishing a European-level Nano-IPR helpdesk, to meet the needs of researchers, companies and research centres.

8.8

The Commission, in conjunction with the Member States, must step up its efforts and promote in-depth studies in universities and research centres, to ensure that the patenting process appears feasible, with straightforward and inexpensive procedures, particularly in such an innovative sector.

8.8.1

As far as international cooperation is concerned, work on safety and the standardisation of measures and processes should be stepped up in conjunction with non-EU countries. Special attention should be given to China, which is investing heavily in the field of nanotechnologies. The USA and Japan, meanwhile, have a very aggressive policy in this area (cf. the agreement between China and the State of California on the development of centres of excellence for biomedical nanotechnologies).

8.8.2

The EESC believes that an additional effort must be made, not least through the European initiative for growth launched in December 2003, to increase the number of nanotech companies in the EU. To this end, the relationship between universities, nanotechnological innovation centres and companies must be constantly promoted and improved.

8.8.3

Measures are needed to target the development of nanotechnology-based industrial processes (from nanotechnology to nanomanufacturing), for companies both large and small. Europe should follow the American example of developing a plan to use federal programmes such as the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program, in order to sustain an all-pervasive spread of nanotechnological development throughout the business fabric, however small the companies involved.

8.8.4

Industry associations can play an important part here both nationally and locally. The Research and Enterprise DGs could jointly promote a number of intensive awareness-raising campaigns, involving all the economic and social players, on the basis of the positive experience developed in Trieste (44).

8.8.5

In the EESC's view, the establishment of a European information clearing-house (45) would be a very important mechanism to facilitate:

8.9

Alongside and in connection with the European forums, there should be a number of worldwide forums, open to UN countries, and able to deal with issues relating to:

8.10

The European Investment Bank (EIB), possibly with the practical support of the European Investment Fund (EIF), should set up credit facilities, to be managed in conjunction with credit institutions, regional financing bodies specialised in company loans, venture capital companies and guarantee cooperatives, in order to facilitate the birth and growth of companies that are centring their production on nanotech products.

8.10.1

The Growth and Environment Programme was a positive experience that yielded excellent results in the past (though mainly in the environmental sector). It could be imitated, in order to encourage growth in new types of nanotechnology-based production (46).

8.11

Research and its spin-offs for products should be geared towards the requirements of the public and sustainable development. In this context, action must be taken to assess the impact of nanotechnologies on health and the environment, and any EU (top-down) initiatives should dovetail with action determined and promoted locally (bottom-up).

8.12

There must be an ongoing and scientifically well-founded dialogue with the public. The new technologies that are growing out of the use of atoms must be transparent and provide the public with an assurance that there are no hidden dangers for health or the environment. History has taught us that, very often, fear and concern regarding new products are born more out of ignorance than reality.

8.12.1

This is one of the reasons why the EESC hopes that there will be an unceasing and direct connection between research results and universally-recognised ethical principles, for which an international dialogue will be necessary.

8.13

As the technology forums (47) are in their formative stage, special attention must be given to the new members of the European Union, ensuring they are fully represented and that they have a direct link with the European centres of excellence.

8.14

The EESC believes that the coordination of research in the vast field of nanoscience should be the responsibility of the Commission — albeit with basic research activity being the responsibility of the future European Research Council ESR. The Commission, in agreement with the Parliament and the Council, can secure the best possible added value for the European public including a wider and more far-reaching and objective use of research results.

8.15

The EESC asks the Commission to provide it with a biennial report on nanotechnological development, in order to check the progress of the action plan adopted and to suggest possible changes and updates.

(a)

National Science Foundation

(b)

Department of Energy

(c)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(d)

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(e)

Environmental Protection Agency

28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/34

1.1

At its meeting on 29 January 2004, the EESC accepted the TEN Section's request to draw up an own-initiative opinion on a European highway code.

1.2

In view of the fact that (a) the free movement of people is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaty (1), (b) the abolition of border controls between the Member States is one of the EU's objectives (2), as consolidated by the Schengen acquis  (3), and (c) transport is one area where the Community has a common policy (4), harmonising road traffic legislation would seem to be an issue of paramount importance, particularly for completing the internal market (5).

1.3

Account should also be taken of the volume of road passenger and freight transport in the Europe of 15, which has grown exponentially in recent years.

The latest statistics indicate in particular that:

1.4

Road passenger and freight transport is governed by many different national regulations, even as far as basic driving rules and principles are concerned.

1.4.1

As well as this, several international conventions are also in force, each with varying scopes and conflicting provisions.

1.4.2

A simple road journey across Europe therefore subjects drivers to varying rules and regulations, exposing them to diverse and sometimes contradictory rules.

1.4.3

This situation has become even more complicated with the recent EU enlargement, and the arrival of new Member States which also have their own particular driving rules.

1.5

The objective of this own-initiative opinion is to urge the Commission to consider the necessity and advisability of legislation to harmonise driving rules across the European Union, albeit with a number of exceptions, conducting an analysis of comparative law to highlight discrepancies in the rules and regulations contained in the highway codes of the various Member States, and proposing possible solutions for European-level harmonisation.

1.6

When drawing up this opinion, it was deemed essential that the main stakeholders' views be taken into account (via representatives of road users, vehicle manufacturers and regulatory bodies). A public hearing was therefore organised in parallel with the second study group meeting on 17 May 2004, and was attended by individuals involved in the sector.

1.6.1

To facilitate discussions, and at the same time collect information, a questionnaire was prepared and submitted to group members for their views.

2.1

The idea of drawing up a universal highway code is not new; indeed, where Europe in particular is concerned, there have already been initiatives in this area, such as the call for codification of existing rules at the VIII International Congress on Traffic (7).

2.2

Also during the 38th Conference of the German Council of Transport Authorities held in January 2000, Working Group IV highlighted the harmonisation of European traffic rules as a key objective (8).

2.3

The Commission has been pursuing various initiatives arising from the same concern and targeting the same objective, but until now it has not fully taken on board the idea of drawing up a European highway code as such (9).

2.4

Particular emphasis must be given to the conclusions of a study recently conducted for the European Commission's DG Energy and Transport, which put forward the arguments for harmonising traffic rules and enforcement practices through future EU legislative initiatives (10).

2.5

The EESC has, in turn, in various opinions, drawn attention to the need ‘to allow more free movement of vehicles within the Union’, placing ‘a responsibility on national authorities to abolish certain kinds of domestic rules and regulations which make it difficult for their own nationals to use vehicles registered in another Member State’  (11) .

3.1

International road traffic rules are enshrined in a number of conventions, the most important ones being the 1926 Paris Convention, the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1968 Vienna Convention.

3.2

The International Convention relative to Motor Traffic was signed by 40 States in Paris on 24 April 1926. The Convention aimed to facilitate international tourism and is currently in force in over 50 countries.

3.2.1

The main objectives of this Convention are:

3.2.2

While this Convention simplified customs procedures, it did not exempt drivers from knowing and observing domestic road traffic laws.

3.2.3

Moreover, the Convention did not enter into force until it had been ratified by each State and the respective ratified convention deposited. As a rule, the Convention is only in force in the main territory of the Contracting State; an explicit declaration is required for it to take effect in other territories under its administration.

3.3

The Convention on Road Traffic was signed by 17 States in Geneva on 19 September 1949. It is currently in force in over 120 countries and replaces the 1926 Convention in relations between the Contracting and Signatory States.

3.3.1

This Convention fleshed out the principles enshrined in the earlier convention, in line with developments in the car industry, and revealed a growing concern for road traffic safety.

3.3.2

While it did not stipulate the use of specific traffic signs, it did require that States adopt a homogeneous system of road signs and signals and only use them where strictly necessary.

3.3.3

This Convention did not lay down very many driving rules or introduce much which was new, other than precautions to take when passing oncoming traffic, rules on priority and the use of lights.

3.3.4

The Convention's entry into force was subject to the same conditions as previously, while moves to introduce harmonisation were tempered by the fact that States were not bound to adopt certain provisions and could also reject amendments to it.

3.4

The Convention on Road Traffic of 8 November 1968 was signed in Vienna by 37 States and is currently in force in around 100. Once ratified and deposited, this Convention replaced the 1926 and 1949 Conventions in relations between the Contracting States.

3.4.1

This Convention is the most comprehensive in terms of road traffic regulations, dedicating a whole 30-article chapter to the rules of the road and laying down rules on the main manoeuvres found in modern-day highway codes. The 1968 Convention went further than the previous — minimalist — conventions, which had just dealt with the passing of oncoming traffic and the associated signs and signals; it not only laid down the principles to be observed by drivers when performing the most dangerous manoeuvres (e.g. overtaking, change of direction, precautions to take vis-à-vis pedestrians, etc.) but also regulated standing and parking, passengers boarding and alighting from vehicles, driving in tunnels — in short, the whole gamut of typical situations that drivers face.

3.4.2

This Convention went further than previous texts requiring the Contracting and Signatory States to bring the substance of their domestic legislation into line with the driving rules laid down in it. The advantage of this for drivers was that they would be familiar with the main driving rules when driving in other Signatory States.

3.4.3

Nonetheless, States were still given the option of rejecting amendments to the Convention.

3.5

As this overview clearly shows, three international conventions are in force in the European Union (which now includes ten new members), although not every Member State has signed up to all three Conventions (12). The EU is therefore still far from having harmonised road traffic rules, particularly if twenty-five constantly evolving domestic bodies of law are added to the conventions mentioned above (13).

3.6

A number of barriers have been — or are in the process of being — overcome, such as the abolition of border controls, conditions for the type-approval of vehicles and their components, and the mutual recognition of — and harmonisation of rules on — driving licences. However, the fundamental aspects of road traffic remain unresolved: driving rules and road signs and signals.

3.7

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, while these conventions facilitate customs procedures and driving within the Community, third-country nationals visiting the EU come across as many different driving rules and regulations as they do States.

4.1

A brief study of comparative law clearly reveals that there are significant differences between the road traffic legislation of the various Member States in a number of key areas. Such discrepancies constitute a genuine barrier to free movement and are likely to jeopardise the safety of people and goods and result in more accidents across Europe.

4.2

The following comments take particular, but not exclusive, account of observations made in the aforementioned study carried out for the Commission, which discusses these aspects in depth (14).

4.3

Below are some (of several) particularly significant and worrying current examples of differences in laws:

Speed limit outside built-up areas on roads where there is a physical barrier separating the two carriageways

Serious offences

Alcohol

Requirement for light vehicles to be equipped with a first aid kit

Red + amber light: prepare to move forward

Requirement to give way to cyclists at a roundabout

Requirement to give way to public transport vehicles pulling out of bus and tram stops

Requirement to use lights during the day outside built-up areas

No-parking sign

Passengers prohibited from alighting on the carriageway

4.4

However, as the aforementioned study demonstrates in detail, similar discrepancies can also be observed in areas such as driving licence requirements, road signs and signals, compulsory safety equipment, pedestrian crossings, rules on priority, the use of lights, the conditions under which passengers may board and alight from a vehicle, the use of special lanes, overtaking, vehicle classification, types of tyre, towing and even the form of traffic signs and lights themselves. The study identifies a total of forty-five discrepancies in basic everyday driving rules.

4.5

Furthermore, although there are significant differences just in the way that basic traffic rules are formulated, even more serious is the fact that these rules are interpreted and applied differently in the various Member States. This is not only because people view failure to comply with these rules differently, but also because the penalties for driving offences vary considerably too.

5.1

Thanks to the quality of the contributions, this public hearing — attended by representatives of i) various private bodies representing the interests of drivers, the car industry, road safety and accident prevention and ii) the boards of the AIT–FIA and TIS-PT, which is the company coordinating the study referred to above (15) — held on 17 May 2004, helped to clarify and explain various points relevant to this opinion, reflecting the viewpoints of the main stakeholders in civil society.

Various bodies also supplemented their statements by sending in responses to the questionnaire which they had received on the subject.

5.2

Taken together, the statements and written contributions show that there is widespread acceptance of the substance and timeliness of the EESC's initiative to introduce a certain degree of Europe-wide harmonisation of road traffic rules. Also, some parties have been open to the possibility and desirability of gradually aligning systems for a vehicle register and vehicle registration.

5.3

In this connection, the following points were highlighted in particular:

5.4

Some parallel and complementary aspects mentioned for any initiative in these areas include:

6.1

Following the hearing referred to above, a clear desire was expressed to move towards the harmonisation of road rules, not however limited to just traffic issues, but also affecting matters such as road infrastructures and road safety.

6.2

Since it was established, the European Union has issued numerous pieces of legislation on road traffic: on driving licences, type-approval of vehicles and their components, rules applying to transport, motor insurance, etc. What is at stake here is the establishment of traffic rules, with a view to harmonising these rules; this could help further other areas of interests, such as road safety which is affected by a driver's certainty and knowledge regarding what course to adopt in different driving circumstances.

6.3

As already mentioned above, the 1968 Vienna Convention contains the most complete text regarding road traffic; it goes into this matter in the greatest of detail, and — being the one international instrument adopted by most European countries — has the particular feature of requiring the signatory states to bring their national laws into line with the Convention's provisions. Given that this is the best known and most widely accepted text amongst the European countries, this convention could serve as a basis for wider discussion on the European Highway Code..

6.4

Thus, the proposal being put forward is to harmonise the traffic rules which form the nucleus of the most modern of the European highway codes — especially, but not exclusively:

6.5

Traffic rules must be supplemented and clarified, and any exceptions made clear, using traffic signs to provide a variety of information likely to increase road traffic safety. Thus, road signs should be standardised in terms of shape, content, location and precedence in relation to the traffic rules, ensuring better management as regards their quantity and visibility.

6.6

Road signs are not the only area targeted here. It would also make sense to harmonise traffic police signals, light signals, drivers' signals and road markings.

6.7

It is an offence not to comply with traffic rules or follow the instructions on road signs; this implies standard rules for monitoring procedures, particularly in detecting speed, blood alcohol levels and psychotropic drug levels. However, prior to this, Member States must agree on what constitutes an offence, so as to avoid a situation where one activity is an offence in one Member State but not in another. Therefore, the definition of offences must be standardised.

6.8

It is consequently important to study and set up simplified mechanisms to promote a uniform interpretation of a European Highway Code, given that procedures relating to traffic offences must be speedy if their standards are to be effective — basically what is needed is a simplified process for questions referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

7.1

Vehicle registration requirements, instruments and procedures also vary considerably across the Member States. The possibility of moving towards a single European vehicle register was also discussed at the hearing, and there was support for this from several quarters.

7.2

In addition, the hearing weighed up the pros and cons of a central European register of vehicle ownership, which could also record other key points relating to the vehicle such as duties, taxes and other associated costs, together with different forms of ownership/use. Highlighted in this connection were the advantages of this kind of solution for intra-Community trade in vehicles, fraud and vehicle theft prevention, and the prosecution of drivers from other Member States who have committed traffic offences.

7.3

The feeling is that conditions are right for moving towards the introduction of a single vehicle register, linked to the vehicles themselves and not the vehicle owners or users. This would make use of experience already acquired with the information system on registration numbers and owner identification for motor insurance (3rd Directive).

7.4

The possibilities would thus be greater for buying, insuring and registering a vehicle in any Member State and this would make a key contribution to boosting cross-border trade in vehicles, people's mobility, tourism and the development of the single market (18).

7.5

Moreover, a single European vehicle registration system seems to be extremely worth-while, in addition to the fact that it would be possible to set up without excessively high costs; it would initially involve enormous advantages from the point of view of: determining the holder of the vehicle's papers (ownership or other legal arrangement); legal certainty in vehicle transactions; theft and fraud prevention; and easier monitoring and penalties for offences committed in any Member State.

8.1

As things stand at present, the EESC feels that the most appropriate legal instrument for launching an initiative of the scale set out here would be a directive for minimum harmonisation..

8.2

The legal basis for adopting such a directive should take into account the impact of the initiative as a means of completing the single market and increasing freedom of movement within the Community for the people in Europe.

9.1

The EESC holds the view that a certain degree of harmonisation of legislation on road traffic rules is not only an effective way of speeding up completion of the single market, but also of ensuring the safer movement of cars on the European market.

9.2

Moreover, the EESC feels that such harmonisation may well make a key contribution to boosting road safety and promoting accident prevention, thus securing more consistent freedom of movement for the people of Europe.

9.3

The EESC believes that the conditions are right for launching preparatory work for a Community legislative initiative with the above-mentioned aims, taking into account the various points of view and difficulties set out in this Opinion.

9.4

It understands that as matters stand at present, the possibility of using a directive for minimum harmonisation should be considered as a first step towards setting up a European Highway Code, using the Vienna Convention as a model, with a definition of basic traffic rules and signals, drivers' qualifications and licences, and the nature of offences and the associated penalties.

9.5

The EESC also thinks that legal certainty in motor vehicle use, because it makes it easier to trace vehicles, will benefit considerably from the creation of a single European-wide vehicle register, linked as it would be to the vehicles themselves.

9.6

The EESC also considers that a binding Community instrument could define the basis for setting up a single system for a European vehicle register, strongly based on experience to date in cooperation between the national bodies responsible.

9.7

Consequently, it urges the Commission to start up the studies necessary for analysing the cost/benefit situation regarding the various areas to be harmonised.

9.8

It suggests that the Commission use a ‘Green Paper’ to launch a public discussion on the issue, with a view to obtaining the views of as many stakeholders as possible.

9.9

In the meantime, it urges the Commission, for its part, to continue with its current studies with a view to ever-greater harmonization of matters related to driving in general and to the increased safety of cars themselves.

9.10

The EESC would draw Member States' attention to the need for and timeliness of adopting increasingly stringent measures for cooperation and coordination in matters pertaining to road traffic rules, accident prevention, first aid/initial steps to take in the event of an accident and damage compensation.

9.11

The EESC hopes that the European Parliament will fully support this initiative and urge the Commission and Council to take steps to carry out its objectives.

28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/42

1.1

In 1996 the European Commission and the Irish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers organised an international conference in Dublin under the title ‘Is the European Union Seafarer an Endangered Species?’ The conference acknowledged that European seafarers were vital to the sustainability of Europe's maritime industry. A number of proposals were made to re-establish, in sufficient numbers, a highly skilled pool of seafarers. That same year the Commission presented an analysis of the situation in its Communication ‘Towards a new maritime strategy’ (1). Those concerns were also reflected in a Resolution of 24 March 1997 on a new strategy to increase the competitiveness of Community shipping (2). The Council of Ministers of the European Union endorsed the Commission's communication and ‘inter-alia’ recognised that positive measures were needed to foster the employment of Community seafarers.

1.2

The Commission has recognised in the Communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers (3) a sharp decline in the supply of well-trained personnel, especially officers in the last two decades. Since the early 1980s both EU fleet and the number of EU seafarers have declined significantly. However, the schedule passenger and ferry industry in the EU is an exception, continuing to be served mainly by EU-flag vessels crewed predominantly by EU nationals. The industry, the Member States and the Commission have addressed the issue of the declining number of EU seafarers, together with the shortage of well-qualified seafarers on a number of occasions; however, measures identified to arrest and reverse the decline have largely been ineffective.

1.3

A number of studies and research projects have sought to identify and address the decline in EU seafarer numbers. This has included:

1.4

The BIMCO/ISF 2000 Manpower Update Report (7), published in April 2000, is probably the most comprehensive study of the global supply and demand for merchant seafarers to date. It estimated a shortfall of 16,000 officers, or 4 % of the workforce. The projections for officers for the year 2010, dependent upon growth, manning skills, wastage and increased training, show, after sensitivity analysis, either an excess of around 11 %, or a deficit of 24 %. It is expected that a further update in 2005 is likely to indicate a deficit. According to the FST/ECSA Joint Study in 1998 (8), the EU is more seriously affected with an estimated shortage of some 13,000 officers in 2001, rising to around 36,000officers in 2006.

1.5

A recent study (9) conducted in the United Kingdom (UK), by the University of Cardiff, commissioned by the Department for Transport, the Chamber of Shipping and the Marine Society have identified a significant shortfall with respect to the number of well qualified seafarers available to fill positions in maritime shore-based employment in the UK.

1.6

The Commission has recognised that Short Sea Shipping is an integral part of the transport system (10). While a number of initiatives have been taken to promote Short Sea Shipping, namely in the frame of the guidelines for state aid to maritime transport, this has not brought about any significant material improvement with respect to the employment of EU seafarers. Registered tonnage has ceased to decline in some Member States and some have seen an increase. However, the number of EU seafarers continues to decline.