8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/1

1.1

The 2003 annual report highlights changes to the internal organisation of the sector and to the working methods of the Commission, and documents the way the Commission secures coherence within the fabric of European economic governance.

1.2

EU competition policy plays an important role in achieving the competitiveness goals set out in the Lisbon strategy. It encompasses not only antitrust and merger rules, but also the application of an efficient and firm state aid discipline.

1.3

To enable trouble-free accession for the 10 new Member States, the Commission developed a common set of competition rules for all the Member States, to ensure fair application of state aid rules, highlighting the importance of tackling state intervention which distorts competition, with the same commitment as is applied to company law.

1.4

In 2003, 815 new cases of competition law infringements were recorded, and measures included the establishment of the post of consumer liaison officer to ensure a permanent dialogue with European consumers, whose welfare is the prime concern of competition policy, but whose voice is not sufficiently heard when individual cases are handled or policy issues discussed. The role of the consumer liaison officer is not confined to merger control, but also concerns the antitrust field — cartels and abuses of dominant positions — as well as other competition-related policies.

1.5

In October 2003, the European Commission published draft rules and guidelines on technology transfer licensing agreements, on which the EESC has already issued an opinion (1). The proposed reform takes into account developments in this type of agreement in recent years and is aimed at simplifying and broadening the scope of the Community block exemption regulation. The new provisions offer the following advantages:

1.6

The Commission appointed a chief competition economist to take up office on 1 September 2003, while also giving a positive boost to the role of the hearing officer. The chief economist has three main tasks:

1.7

Hearing officers, meanwhile, have been granted greater powers and autonomy in the role of defending the right to be heard in certain competition proceedings. They are directly answerable to the commissioner responsible and do not take instructions from the Competition DG. They may intervene whenever legitimate due process issues are at stake, must organise and conduct oral hearings objectively, and decide whether third parties should be heard and whether fresh documents may be produced. They refer to the relevant Commissioner on all issues.

2.1

In October 2003, the Commission launched the final phase in the process of reforming the enforcement of EU antitrust rules (known as the modernisation package) to facilitate the application of the enforcement powers vested in the competition authorities and to elaborate on the cooperation mechanisms with national competition authorities (NCAs) and national courts provided for by Regulation 1/2003.

2.2

The modernisation package contains a new implementing regulation, addressing the modalities for hearing the parties concerned and a range of other procedural issues, such as access to files and the treatment of confidential information. The six draft notices concern in part mechanisms for cooperation within the network of European competition authorities and between the Commission and national courts, the concept of effect on trade between Member States, the treatment of complaints, and guidance letters to be issued to assist companies in assessing novel or unresolved questions. For comments on the modernisation package as a whole, the reader is referred to the EESC opinion (1).

2.3

In 2003, the Commission issued five decisions against unlawful horizontal agreements, involving: French beef, sorbates, electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products, organic peroxides, and industrial copper tubes. The fines imposed totalled EUR 400 million. The level of fines set should act as a deterrent. Investigations involve company inspections. Full immunity is granted to companies that are first to reveal the existence of an agreement and that provide sufficient evidence to carry out an investigation. The Commission will express a favourable opinion in cases where agreements between companies do not restrict competition on the relevant markets, and where consumers benefit from the cooperation. Also in 2003, the Commission ruled on three cases of violations of Article 82, relating to:

3.1

2003 brought significant, though not entirely satisfactory, progress for the liberalisation process in the energy sector (electricity and gas). In June, a legislative package was passed ensuring that all European consumers will be able to choose their supplier by 1 July 2007. These provisions aim to strike a balance between incentives to build new infrastructure and the completion of the common market.

3.2

Nevertheless, there is still widespread dissatisfaction among consumers and companies in various EU countries regarding the persistently high prices and relative efficiency of these services. In the new Member States in particular, social partners and consumer organisations strongly emphasise the need for national competition authorities and public utility regulators to be guaranteed full independence.

3.2.1

When appropriate and comprehensive competition legislation is in place, it is sometimes the case, in the new Member States in particular, that monitoring and enforcement agencies encounter difficulties in fulfilling their role independently. As a result, competition legislation sometimes fails to promote either consumer interests or market efficiency. The Committee is in favour of a more functional relationship between competition policy and consumer protection policies. A more organised and involved consumer movement could also aid government decision-making, and provide information on markets and anti-competitive practices.

3.3

In the field of postal services, the directive adopted in 2002 is geared towards completion of the internal market, in particular through a progressive reduction of the reserved area and the liberalisation of outgoing cross-border mail. Furthermore, on the basis of an agreement reached by the European Council, the Commission will carry out a study in 2006 to assess the impact of universal services for every Member State. Working from the results of that study, it will adopt a proposal to open up the postal market completely from 2009, including measures to secure the universal nature of the service.

3.4

The deadline for transposing the new regulatory package on electronic communications expired in July 2004. In its report on the subject, the Commission stressed the following principles in particular: markets must be analysed on the basis of the principles of competition; operators can be regulated only if they have a dominant position; all electronic communications services and networks are to be treated in a similar manner (technological neutrality). Development of, and generalised access to, electronic communications are not enough in themselves to secure the relaunch of economic growth. For that it is fundamental to increase the knowledge and skills levels of all those required to use information and communication technologies.

3.5

In the air transport sector, in 2003 the Commission decided to launch a comprehensive and non-case-related dialogue with all the industry stakeholders, in order to prepare transparent guidelines on competition enforcement issues in the field of airline alliances and mergers.

3.5.1

Progress has also been made on defining and implementing common guidelines on the application of antitrust rules in the rail sector for both goods and passenger transport.

3.5.2

In addition, there have been developments in industry dialogue in the maritime transport, motor vehicle distribution and insurance sectors, with a view to adopting or revising block exemption regulations.

3.5.3

This dialogue should also consider comparable forms of tax treatment.

3.6

Media: the Commission believes that media pluralism is fundamental to both the development of the EU and the cultural identity of the Member States, but stresses that responsibility for the control of media concentration rests primarily with the Member States. The application of competition policy instruments is limited to addressing the structure of the underlying market and economic impact of media undertakings' behaviour, and to controlling state aid. They cannot replace national media concentration controls and measures to ensure media pluralism. The function of competition rules is limited to resolving problems raised by the creation or strengthening of dominant positions in the respective markets and the foreclosure of competitors from those markets.

3.6.1

It can be seen that the Commission's approach, though correct in theory, has not been able to prevent or oppose dominant positions and the related anti-competitive practices in certain countries in particular. Different markets are concerned, and the television advertising market, not yet adequately examined, is of increasing importance when it comes to protecting pluralism.

3.6.2

Furthermore, the methods some media groups use to strengthen a dominant position have been overlooked, in particular the use of poison pills and multiple voting rights which permit a minority shareholder to control a company through voting rights in excess of their shareholding.

3.6.3

The Commission will therefore have to be exceptionally vigilant in the application of competition rules and practices.

3.7

Liberal professions: A study carried out for the Commission by the Vienna-based Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) has been made accessible to the public. The study reveals differing levels of regulation of service provision among Member States and among the various professions. The study concludes that in countries with less regulation and more freedom in the professions, more wealth can be created overall.

3.7.1

The conference on the regulation of professional services held in Brussels in October 2003 brought together 260 representatives of the professions to discuss the effects of rules and regulations on business structure and consumer protection.

3.7.2

At the conference, Commissioner Monti announced the Commission's intention to issue a report on competition in professional services in 2004. This report, which contains some important pointers and guidelines, was published on 9 February 2004.

4.1

On 27 November 2003, the Council reached a political agreement on a recast Merger Regulation incorporating most of the reforms proposed by the Commission in December 2002. These reforms involved non-legislative measures designed to streamline the decision-making process, strengthen economic analysis and provide better protection for the rights of defence. In addition, a chief competition economist was appointed and panels set up to ensure the conclusions are totally independent. On the subject of merger evaluation, the reader is referred to the EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border mergers of companies with share capital  (2) .

4.2

Objective: to ensure that the substantive test in the Merger Regulation (dominance test) would cover all anti-competitive mergers effectively while at the same time ensuring continued legal certainty. The substantive test criteria were compared with those of the ‘substantial lessening of competition’ test and the terms of the new test adopted are as follows: ‘a concentration which would significantly impede effective competition, in the common market or in a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, shall be declared incompatible with the common market’.

4.2.1

The new regulation, in stating ‘in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening …’ hints at potential for enlarging the scope of application of the ban, no longer strictly linked to the requirement of a dominant position. Nevertheless, this rule will have to be interpreted in the light of the content of the joint Council and Commission declaration on Article 2 with reference to the 25th recital to the Regulation (3), which states that this concept ‘should be interpreted as extending, beyond the concept of dominance, only to the anti-competitive effects of a concentration resulting from the non-coordinated behaviour of undertakings which would not have a dominant position on the market concerned.’. It follows that the scope will continue to be defined in relation to the concept of dominance.

4.3

Guidelines on assessing horizontal mergers: i.e. mergers between competing, or potentially competing, firms. These mergers will only be unlawful to the extent that they enhance the market power of companies in a manner which is likely to have adverse consequences for consumers, notably in the form of higher prices, poorer quality products, or reduced choice. This is irrespective of whether the anticompetitive effects result from the creation or strengthening of a single dominant market player or from a situation of oligopoly. The impact of a merger will, moreover, be assessed in relation to what would otherwise have occurred in the market. This may mean, for example, that the acquisition of a failing firm would not justify intervention by the Commission.

4.4

New best practices: as part of the 2002 package of reforms, a consultation was held and completed in February 2003. The aim was to provide guidance for interested parties on the day-to-day conduct of EU merger control proceedings.

5.1

The Commission is an active participant in the International Competition Network's Working Group on multi-jurisdictional merger control. The group's activities have been in three sub-groups:

5.1.1

The Commission takes part in the work of all three sub-groups. The basic aim is to improve mutual understanding between different jurisdictions so as to make merger control activities more effective.

5.1.2

More generally, the ICN acts as a virtual network between various national competition authorities, with a view to facilitating international cooperation and making proposals to reduce regulatory costs and encourage procedural harmonisation and real convergence.

5.1.3

The Second ICN Conference held in Merida, Mexico in June 2003 highlighted the need to adopt clear and easily accessible language in the area of competition rules and also stressed the strategic nature of activities promoting competition in the field of regulated sectors, with a view to reducing regulatory costs and overcoming obstacles to a mutual understanding of merger policy between jurisdictions.

6.1

The control of state aid focuses on the effects on competition of aid measures granted by Member States to undertakings. Objective: to ensure that government interventions do not interfere with the smooth functioning of the internal market, to foster competition and competitive markets and to enhance structural reforms. Particular attention is given to ensuring that the beneficial effects of liberalisation are not undermined by state aid measures. Stockholm European Council: Member States are to reduce the general level of state aid and redirect it towards horizontal objectives of Community interest (strengthening of economic and social cohesion, employment, environmental protection, and promotion of SME R&D). The Commission considers the recovery of unlawful aid granted by Member States a priority.

6.1.1

In this context, the failure of a number of Member States to open up their public purchasing to bidders from other Member States is highly regrettable. Public procurement in the EU totals over EUR 1,500 billion annually and certain Member States' practice of favouring ‘national champions’ harms competition and adds to the tax burden on consumers.

6.2

State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty: The relevant guidelines, which expired in October 2004, stated that aid may be regarded as compatible only under certain strict conditions. These guidelines have been reviewed, with a special focus on the following issues:

6.3

Multisectoral Framework for large investment projects: strict rules in sectors with structural difficulties. A list of such sectors was to have been established by the end of 2003. Due to methodological and technical difficulties, the Commission has decided to postpone the adoption of the list and to extend the existing transitional rules for large investment projects in ‘sensitive’ sectors until December 2006.

6.4

R&D aid for SMEs: aid for research and development can contribute to economic growth, strengthening competitiveness and boosting employment. For SMEs, this is particularly important.

6.5

Environmental aid, research and development aid, training aid, fiscal aid In the latter field, special attention has been given to alternative taxation methods, such as the cost-plus method (taxable income calculated on a flat-rate basis as a percentage of the amount of operating expenditure and expenses). In the field of sectoral aid (see in particular the application of the temporary defensive mechanism (TDM)), the following sectors have been addressed: steel, telecommunications, coal, rail transport, combined transport, road transport, maritime transport and air transport.

6.6

Agriculture: on 23 December 2003, the Commission adopted a new regulation introducing a block exemption regime for certain categories of state aid, meaning that Member States no longer need to notify them in advance to the Commission for approval. The new regulation, which will apply until the end of 2006, concerns state aid granted to SMEs in the agricultural sector. In view of the definition of an SME (no more than 250 employees, a turnover of no more than EUR 40 million or a balance-sheet total of no more than EUR 27 million), the provisions cover almost all agricultural sector enterprises. Lastly, the Commission is introducing a new transparency standard: a summary of all exempted state aid measures, by Member State, will be published on the Internet five days before the aid is first paid out, so as to ensure all interested parties have all the necessary information.

7.1

Having summed up and offered some comments on the Commission's XXXIIIrd report on competition policy in 2003, the Committee will now make a number of general observations on the report as a whole and in particular on its most significant, forward-looking aspects.

7.2.1

The introduction of new procedures for applying antitrust rules, the review of the Merger Regulation and the new organisational set-up in the Commission have made the European Union's competition policy more efficient and more open to a positive relationship with companies and consumers.

7.2.2

Competition policy has enabled the EU to make considerable steps forward in the liberalisation process, by restoring entire economic sectors to the logic and dynamic of the market and thus making a practical contribution to the creation of a single European market. Competition policy is therefore essential and must always be allowed full autonomy.

7.2.3

Working alone, it cannot however meet the particularly acute need throughout the EU for an intense upturn in growth and for a sustainable economic development policy based on innovation and social dialogue. Structural changes in production and world trade, starting with those generated by the new technological system, require the Commission to launch and coordinate other economic policy instruments. The goal is to safeguard and revive the competitiveness of the European economy and to bolster economic and social cohesion, employment and environmental protection while also promoting major, weighty research and development programmes. This is the thrust of the Commission's communication on Fostering structural change: an industrial policy for an enlarged Europe and the relevant EESC opinion (4). The Lisbon agenda outlines the way ahead. Its implementation must however be facilitated and speeded up at both general and sectoral levels.

7.2.3.1

At sectoral level, in confirmation of the points it made in its opinion of 30 June 2004 on LeaderSHIP 2015 — Defining the Future of the European Shipbuilding and Repair Industry — Competitiveness through Excellence  (5), the EESC would reiterate the need to push forward with the new fully integrated approach defined by the Competitiveness Council of November 2003 with a view to strengthening industrial competition and encouraging all sectors of research, development and innovation.

7.3.1

The reform process designed to streamline and simplify procedures for the control of state aid has made major progress, following the course set by the Stockholm European Council towards reducing the level of state aid and redirecting it towards horizontal objectives of Community interest, including the cohesion objectives. Examples of this are a number of measures adopted by the Commission, such as extending to a degree the scope of aid to research and development; producing guidelines on technology transfer agreements, on restructuring companies in difficulty, and on aid for training and for environmental protection; and establishing multisectoral rules for major investment projects.

7.3.2

With its judgment on the Altmark case in July 2003, the Court of Justice confirmed that compensation to companies responsible for providing services of general interest will be excluded from the definition of state aid, subject to a few conditions. There are still some unresolved issues, however, relating in particular to establishing an optimal link between state aid and services of general interest (SGI). The nature of the conditions imposed by the Court demands an improvement in legal certainty, particularly in the area of assessing costs, defining financing for services (4) and specifying more clearly the public service obligations eligible for compensation. Meanwhile, the Green Paper on services of general interest (SGI), published in May 2003, had already acknowledged the need to assess whether the principles governing SGI should be further consolidated within a general Community framework, and to define optimal rules for the services and measures, in order to increase legal certainty for all operators.

7.3.3

If they are not correctly defined and financed, universal service obligations could cause the companies responsible to suffer increasing losses, owing to the potential entry of competitors into the most profitable areas of their activity.

7.3.4

The EESC would therefore stress the need, already highlighted in its opinion (1) on the Commission's Green Paper, to adopt a clear legal text on SGI in order to secure effective and fair access for all users to high quality services that meet their requirements. Furthermore, it recommends instigating as broad as possible a dialogue with the social partners and NGOs, particularly regarding the reorganisation and functioning of social services.

7.4.1

The in-depth analyses carried out by the Commission on the regulatory systems for professional services in the Member States have proved very useful, as they have reinforced the message on the need to carefully review the restrictive regulations in this field and to make the major cultural and knowledge-related resources existing in the professional world more productive and competitive. This clearly brings major benefits, not just for the professionals themselves, but also for firms and consumers.

7.4.2

The principle repeated several times by the Court of Justice is now generally accepted, namely, that suppliers of professional services must also respect competition rules. While it is absolutely true that economic criteria cannot be the only parameter by which professional services are assessed, as they are not simply repetitive technical applications but rather services that apply knowledge to a problem, it is also true that they are an economic activity which, when carried out with respect for competition rules, generate greater welfare and can make an important contribution to the Lisbon agenda.

7.4.2.1

The content of the Commission Communication on Competition in Professional Services  (6) is interesting in this respect. This report in fact underscores the important role the professional services can play in improving the competitiveness of the European economy, inasmuch as they are essential inputs for companies and families. At the same time, it uses empirical research to argue the negative effects that excessive or outdated regulations, such as those regarding pricing, advertising, entry requirements, exclusive rights and business structure, can and do have on consumers.

7.4.3

The priority is therefore to implement and accelerate the reform process. To this end, the EESC urges the Commission to stand by its commitment to publish a new report on ‘progress in eliminating restrictive and unjustified rules’ in 2005. In this context, the Commission has also committed itself to looking more closely at the link between the level of regulation, economic results (prices and quality) and consumer satisfaction.

7.4.4

Meanwhile, the EESC would reiterate the importance of the Court of Justice ruling of 9 October 2003 on the Consorzio Industria Fiammiferi case, which allows the national authorities to ‘disapply’ national rules obliging companies to engage in conduct contrary to Article 81.

7.4.5

Lastly, efforts must be made to promote greater and more informed involvement in the reform process on the part of the sectors concerned.

7.5.1

In its XXXIIIrd report on competition policy, the Commission states that maintaining and developing media pluralism and the freedom to provide and receive information are fundamental objectives of the European Union as values crucial to the democratic process. It also states that responsibility for the control of media concentration rests primarily with the Member States. The application of competition policy instruments in the media sector, it adds, is limited to addressing the problems raised by the creation or strengthening of dominant positions in the respective markets and the control of foreclosure of competitors from those markets. In the EESC's opinion, the distinction between the EU's tasks and those of national governments is somewhat vague, and also leaves a number of important issues unresolved:

7.5.2

The new European Constitution will significantly expand the Commission's brief. The EESC is convinced that the new legal framework will inject additional vigour into the Commission's role in guiding and/or intervening directly to defend and develop the freedom and pluralism of information.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/8

1.1

The current proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on international rail passengers' rights and obligations (hereinafter ‘Quality Directive on Passenger Transport’) is part of what is known as the third railway package, which the Commission adopted on 3 March 2004. The other elements are:

and

1.2

The First Railway Package (also known as the Infrastructure Package) entered into force on 15 March 2001 and was required to be transposed into national law by 15 March 2003. It contains the following elements:

1.3

In October 2003, the European Commission took nine Member States to the European Court of Justice for failure to notify the transposition of the First Railway Package into national law. In May 2004, five countries still had yet to prove notification, and two Member States had only partially implemented the provisions in national law.

1.4

The Second Railway Package was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 30 April 2004, and must be transposed into national law by 30 April 2006. It contains the following elements:

1.5

The first and second railway packages created the legal basis for an internal market in rail freight transport. The measures cover market access, licensing and safety certification of rail operators, access to infrastructure and the calculation of access charges, the creation of a legal framework for railway safety, and measures to ensure technical interoperability of the rail system.

1.6

This legal framework, put in place by the first and second packages, requires, as the EESC stated in its opinion on the second railway package (8), a complete restructuring of the sector and the creation of new authorities and competences.

1.7

In the current proposal, the Commission suggests passing legislation to afford similar protection for international rail passengers to that already enjoyed by air travellers, whose rights in the event of overbooking and delays are better protected.

2.1.1

The draft regulation governs liability of rail operators in the event of death or injury of passengers or of loss of, or damage to, their luggage.

2.1.2

Minimum compensation payments are set for delays (Annex III); these payments do not affect the passenger's right to transport.

2.1.3

The draft regulation comprehensively governs the rights of passengers who miss their connections or whose trains are cancelled as well as the handling of customers in the event of delays or missed connections.

2.2.1

Annex I governs the minimum information to be provided by rail operators before, during and after the journey. Annex II sets out the minimum information to be provided on the ticket.

2.2.2

Rail operators must sell tickets and/or through tickets for hub stations and the surrounding areas. Several rail operators must work together for this purpose and sign contracts in order to provide for the sale of through tickets. These tickets must be offered for sale at ticket counters, ticket machines, by telephone or on the Internet. If the ticket counters are closed or the machines are out of order, international tickets must be available on the train. System vendors must be open to all rail operators for the provision of information and the sale of tickets.

2.2.3

Rail operators must inform the public about plans to suspend international services.

2.3.1

The proposed regulation governs assistance for people with reduced mobility at the station and on the train, as well as when embarking, disembarking or changing trains. The need for assistance must be notified 24 hours in advance.

2.4.1

Rail operators are required to set service quality standards (defined in Annex IV) and to put a quality management system in place. Quality performance must be published in the annual report.

2.4.2

A complaints procedure is to be set up, according to which a reply must be sent to the customer in the language in which the complaint was made. The complaint may be submitted in any language of any country through which the international train passes. English, French and German are in any case permissible. This also applies to complaints made in person at ticket counters.

3.1.1

The Commission's proposal deals with two areas at once. The proposals for operators' liability and compensation in the case of delays, cancellations, injury or damage to property, and assistance to persons with limited mobility have broadly the same scope as the Regulation on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (9). This proposal deals with the rights of passengers in a second transport sector, i.e. the railways.

3.1.2

The second area covers a separate range of matters. This requires operators to cooperate to ensure that passengers can obtain information about timetables and fares and buy tickets at a one-stop shop in a competitive system. This covers both connections between hubs, and the stations in the area surrounding the nearest hub station. This proposal is closely connected with the proposal to amend Directive 91/440/EEC and with the liberalisation of international passenger transport.

3.1.3

The standards for timetable and fares information and with a few exemptions (e.g. Thalys, Eurostar) for the issue of tickets are fulfilled under the current system, in which international transport of passengers by rail is carried out under cooperation agreements between rail operators or by international groups. In the frame of a system of competing undertakings these provisions need to be maintained and improved by regulation or legislation.

3.2.1

The proposal applies to the international transport of passengers by rail. However, the provisions also apply to connections from hubs to stations in the surrounding area.

3.2.2

The EESC points out that connecting services may be subject to public service contracts.

3.2.3

However, the scope of the regulation is limited by its definition of ‘railway undertaking’ (Article 2.1). This includes only undertakings whose principal business is to transport passengers. This could be seen to imply that railway undertakings that also carry freight are excluded from the provisions of the regulation. This is not acceptable.

3.3.1

The EESC welcomes the principle of introducing European legislation on compensation of passengers when services are not provided satisfactorily or at all, and on the liability of rail operators.

3.3.2

However, it is important to ensure that binding legislation treats the various competing transport operators equally.

3.3.3

It is conspicuous that compensation for international rail passengers becomes payable earlier than that for air passengers, despite the fact that land-bound rail traffic often involves longer journey times and has more potential for disruption. For example, fare refunds are payable to air passengers only after delays of five hours.

3.3.4

In the event that a train is delayed, free meals and refreshments must be offered to passengers in a reasonable relation to the waiting time. In the case of air transport, the threshold is two hours or more.

3.3.5

In the case of cancelled flights, compensation need not be paid where the cancellation takes place due to ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ This basis for exemption from liability does not exist in the case of transport of passengers by rail.

3.3.6

Similarly, the regulation on air travel does not provide for compensation for consequential damages arising as a result of delays or cancellations, whereas the regulation on rail travel does so. Furthermore, the proposed regulation does not set an upper limit for consequential damages.

3.3.7

The maximum limit for liability is set at different levels for hand luggage and other luggage: EUR 1 800 for hand luggage and EUR 1 300 for other luggage. It appears from the explanatory memorandum that the Commission has drawn on different but comparable agreements (CIV for the rail sector and the Montreal Convention for the air sector). From the passenger's point of view, this difference is incomprehensible.

3.3.8

The proposed regulation contains varying provisions for liability of the operator to the customer depending on whether or not the operator was at fault. Thus, the operator is responsible for loss or damage to a passenger's hand luggage only if the operator is at fault. In other cases, the operator is liable whether or not it is at fault.

3.3.9

The operator is not liable for delays when these were caused by exceptional weather conditions, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism. The operator is liable for delays due to any other cause, whether or not it was at fault.

3.3.10

As a general principle, the EESC is in favour of liability regardless of fault in the event of delay in any transport sector. This is not a matter of compensation for damages in the narrowest sense, but rather compensation for services that were not provided. To the consumer/customer, it does not matter whether the operator is at fault. The proposed limitations are appropriate.

3.3.11

It is not clear from the proposed regulation that a passenger can cancel his journey in the event of a delay and receive a full refund of his fare. Particularly in the case of business trips, a delay can make the journey pointless.

3.4.1

The EESC welcomes the provisions for assistance to people with limited mobility.

3.4.2

Rail operators should provide accessible information to all passengers — including people with reduced mobility as defined in Article 2, paragraph 21; this could be done by locating windows and information stands at an appropriate height and by preparing text in bigger fonts and in an easy-to-read format.

3.5.1

The EESC welcomes the provisions on passenger information before, during and after the journey (Annex I). In particular, lack of information before and during the journey in the event of a delay regularly causes considerable annoyance to customers.

3.5.2

With regard to minimum information on tickets (Annex II), it should be stated whether and when the ticket can be surrendered and the fare refunded. Because of wide variations in reservation systems, this is often unclear to the passenger.

3.5.3

The Regulation provides (Articles 3, 5 and 6):

3.5.4

Fundamentally, the EESC considers it desirable that passengers should be offered one-stop-shop booking and information systems for all rail transport and associated services.

3.5.5

However, it draws attention to the peculiarities of rail travel:

3.5.6

A directly applicable regulation cannot make appropriate provision for the complexity that arises from the connection between international passenger rail services and regional services in a network that includes the integration of competing scheduled operators. The number of railway stations affected (hubs and stations in the area surrounding them) is, for example, considerable.

3.5.7

The Committee underlines that for international rail passenger services, these standards are presently fulfilled to a large extent. In a system of competing undertakings however, these provisions need to be maintained and improved by adequate legislation.

3.6.1

Article 21 of the proposed regulation states that the railway undertaking shall be liable for its staff. Article 22, on the other hand, mentions the possibility of aggregate claims, and includes claims against staff. It must be made absolutely clear that railway staff are not exposed to liability claims by passengers or other third parties but that the employer remains responsible.

3.6.2

High compensation for delays shall not, as a consequence, lead to rail operators to accept higher risks on the safety level in order to avoid compensation claims. Also, it shall be excluded that railway undertakings put excessive pressure on their employees with the risk to neglect working, driving and rest time. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient, well-trained staff are available to fulfil the quality requirements.

3.6.3

Annex IV on minimum service quality standards must therefore cover the skills of the relevant staff. This applies not only to train crews, but also to station staff and staff who process complaints.

4.1

The EESC welcomes the proposal for a Regulation on international rail passengers' rights and obligations. This extends consumer protection provisions that currently apply only to air travel to another mode of transport.

4.2

However, the EESC is against unequal treatment of competing modes of transport. The provisions that apply to the railway sector must not be stricter than those for air travel.

4.3

The EESC sees room for improvement in the regulation with regard to individual provisions for liability for consequential damages, the setting of upper limits for liability, and to exclusions in the event of train cancellations.

4.4

Fundamentally the EESC would be in favour of a refund of fare in the event of a service not being provided or being provided inadequately, whether or not the operator was at fault, as long as this applies to all modes of transport.

4.5

The EESC supports the concept of one-stop-shop information and booking systems that guarantee good service quality for passengers. However, it has reservations about this being dealt with in the same regulation on compensation and liability.

4.6

The EESC points out that establishing one-stop-shop information and booking systems in an interconnected system with network providers in international, national, regional and public service transport, with the added complication of competing scheduled operators, is very complex, particularly if this system is to be available through all sales systems.

4.7

It points out that the presentation of legislation on passenger information and the issue of tickets for the international transport of passengers by rail should be considered in conjunction with the amendment of Directive 91/440/EEC on the liberalisation of international passenger transport by rail.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/13

1.1

The present proposal forms part of the third railway package, which was adopted by the European Commission on 3 March 2004. The other components are:

and

1.2

The first railway package (also called the infrastructure package) came into force on 15 March 2001 and had to be transposed into national legislation by 15 March 2003. It comprises the following components:

1.3

In October 2003 the European Commission took nine Member States to the European Court of Justice for failing to notify the transposition of the first railway package into national law. By May 2004 five countries' notification had still not been received and two Member States had transposed only some of the provisions into national law.

1.4

The second railway package was published in the Official Journal of the European Community on 30 April 2004 and has to be transposed into national law by 30 April 2006. It comprises the following components:

1.5

The first and second railway packages provided the legal basis for establishing a single rail-freight market. The measures encompass market access, the licensing and safety certification of railway undertakings, access to infrastructure and the calculation of charges for its use, the creation of a legal framework for rail safety, and measures for ensuring the technical interoperability of the rail system.

1.6

This proposal adds to the legal framework already in place to open up the market through measures to improve the quality of freight transport.

2.1

The proposal for a regulation on quality in freight transport is intended to improve rail freight transport by means of a contractual agreement on compensation between railway undertakings and freight customers. The Commission considers that the main cause for the modest share of railways in the increase in freight transport levels and its declining market share compared with other modes is the lack of quality and reliability of rail freight transport.

2.2

The Commission expects that the application of the compensation scheme will provide an incentive to railway undertakings to enhance the efficiency of rail freight services. Its premise is that over time competition will exert a strong pressure to improve quality, but, in the Commission's view, a real opening-up of the European rail freight market is not happening quickly enough. New entrant railway undertakings account for only 3 to 4 % of the market, and, in several Member States, there are no competitors.

2.3

The proposed regulation obliges railway undertakings and customers to stipulate quality requirements in the transport contracts and, in the case of non-compliance, to make compensation payments. The contractual parties are obliged to agree on at least the following quality requirements:

2.4

The proposed regulation stipulates maximum and minimum compensation levels in the event of loss, damage, delay, lack of information about delays, and loss of or damage to goods due to delay. In the case of damage, for example, it stipulates an amount of maximum €75 per kilogramme of gross mass damaged. In the case of delays of block trains, compensation is fixed at no less than 5 % and no more than 25 % of the transport price. In the case of lack of information about delays, compensation is at least 5 % of the transport price.

2.5

The contractual parties are obliged to stipulate compensations for a train cancellation by the railway undertaking or the freight customer. They may agree compensation in the case of a declaration of value of the goods transported or in the case of a declaration of interest in delivery.

2.6

Liability is excluded in the case of fault of one of the contractual parties, fault or any other act of a third person, force majeure or circumstances that could not be avoided and whose consequences could not be prevented. If compensation claim arises due to the fault of the infrastructure manager, the railway undertaking pays and claims the payment back from the infrastructure manager.

2.7

If several railway undertakings are involved, all the undertakings are ‘joint and severally liable’ regardless of the undertaking under which the delay or damage occurred.

3.1

In order to promote a sustainable transport system and secure a balance between transport modes, as set out in the White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010, the Community has set itself an objective of increasing the share of freight transport by rail. Improving the quality of service in rail freight transport is one of many approaches to achieving that objective and is in principle to be welcomed.

3.2

The Commission proposes a system of incentives under which the desire to avoid compensation payments is supposed to boost quality and, in particular, improve punctuality. Usually, operators' first reaction to increased financial risk from possible compensation payments is to raise prices.

3.3

The question arises as to whether the Commission's proposed approach is appropriate.

3.4

The scope covers both international and national transport. The Commission itself writes in its explanatory memorandum to the proposed regulation that quality contracts are already in existence mainly in national transport, and less so in international transport. Elsewhere the Commission notes that problems chiefly occur if several railway undertakings are involved, which is the case primarily in international transport.

3.5

The question is whether, given intrusion into the contractual arrangements of commercial partners (this is not a question of consumer protection) a more restricted scope would be more appropriate for international freight transport.

3.6

Consideration should also be given to what positive incentives are available instead of established compensation payments via an EU regulation which would be unique for the railway sector and additional to the already existing international Convention COTIF (CIM). For example, Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC provides for bonuses in infrastructure charges if an undertaking takes steps to help minimise disruption and improve the performance of the system.

3.7

In promoting rail freight transport, it is vital to avoid discriminatory treatment of the different competing transport modes.

3.8

This raises the question of what comparable Community provisions are in place for air freight transport and road freight transport. International agreements on compensation for damage or loss provide for substantially lower rates (the Montreal Convention on air transport for one third of the maximum amount provided for in the regulation, the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road [CMR] for one sixth of the maximum amount).

3.9

The relationship between the quality monitoring system to be agreed upon by the contractual parties and the technical specification for interoperability (TSI) for freight telematic applications remains unclear. Europe-wide real-time electronic monitoring of freight movements by rail is covered in the TSI for freight telematics applications. The harmonised technical specifications and communication conditions are defined in this provision. However, its application and implementation still require substantial investment and will take many years.

3.10

Under the proposal, a railway undertaking can claim a refund of compensation payments from the infrastructure manager if the latter has been the cause of delay.

3.11

Here again, attempts to circumvent this are likely by raising the route price (risk supplements) and incorporating margins for delay in scheduling. Given limited infrastructure capacities, this would not be a desirable response. It has already been seen in the air transport sector since the entry into force of the directive on passenger compensation. The calculation of risk will be considerably complicated for infrastructure managers as they do not know, and cannot influence, the value of the flow of goods and the resultant compensation.

3.12

It should be borne in mind that the infrastructure in the new Member States in central and eastern Europe is in a poorer condition, requiring substantial investment, and that the compensation obligations in the regulation could cause considerable difficulties.

3.13

The proposal involves considerable effort in determining who is responsible for what, and in compensation claims by the railway undertaking against the infrastructure manager. Allocating responsibility will also be onerous if several railway undertakings are involved.

3.14

The perspective of having to pay high compensations shall not, as a consequence, lead the railway undertakings to compromise safety in order to respect delivery terms. Also, it shall be excluded that railway undertakings put excessive pressure on their employees with the risk to neglect working, driving and rest time.

3.15

In its opinion on the second railway package, the EESC has already pointed out that the social conditions in road transport place rail freight transport at a competitive disadvantage. The consequence of that cannot be to bring working conditions in rail transport into line with those of the roads and to encourage railway undertakings to flout the rules and exert pressure on the workforce.

4.1

The EESC welcomes in principle measures to improve the quality of rail freight transport.

4.2

Positive incentives would be preferable to strict compensation arrangements, leading to attempts to circumvent the rules and spawning a complicated refund system. This applies particularly to the role of the infrastructure manager.

4.3

Measures to improve the quality of rail freight transport must not discriminate against other transport modes.

4.4

The EESC asks the Commission to examine the impact of the measures on undertakings and infrastructure managers in the new Member States.

4.5

The EESC insists that measures to improve freight transport quality must not result in undertakings trying to circumvent the rules at the expense of safety and working conditions.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/17

1.1

Services of general interest (SGI) today form an area of society that is closely linked to European integration.

1.2

Services of general economic interest (SGEI) are recognised by the current Treaties as being among the shared values of the Union and contributing to its social and territorial cohesion (Article 16); access to SGEI and the rights relating to the specific components of services of general interest (social security and social assistance, health protection, environmental protection, etc.) are laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Title IV, Articles II-34 to II-36).

1.3

Not only are SGI central to competitiveness and an important element for contributing to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives, they are also fundamental elements of the European social model. They help to guarantee basic human rights, contribute to the knowledge-based economy and to social, economic and territorial cohesion and form elements of sustainable development.

1.4

Although the EESC's request to have promotion of services of general interest included as an objective in Article 3 of the Constitutional Treaty has not been met, a certain step forward was made with regard to SGI in the finalised Constitutional Treaty: under Article III-122 the EU can legislate on services of general economic interest in a horizontal manner concerning the principles and conditions relating to the provision of such services. The Constitutional Treaty also recognises the principle of administrative freedom for local authorities and raises to the level of a constitutional principle the possibility for local authorities to provide services of general economic interest themselves, thereby giving effect to the subsidiarity principle as regards the respective competences of the Union and the Member States in relation to services of general economic interest.

1.5

Nevertheless, in substance secondary legislation continues to be characterised by a general imbalance between, on the one hand, competition law, which is detailed EU legislation and takes direct effect, and, on the other hand, the general interest objectives that fall under exceptions to competition law.

1.6

The European Union still has difficulty in overcoming the contradictions between building a market based solely on competition and the need to ensure a process of public control that economic mechanisms alone will be unable to provide. Services of general interest are not techniques, or instruments, but embody human rights, social links, inclusion and integration.

1.7

Furthermore, we should not ignore the fact that an attitude of incomprehension, criticism and rejection is emerging among Europe's citizens towards policies which seem to aim at achieving a European integration that appears more and more irrelevant to their concerns, that is exacerbating the social divide, endangering social cohesion and jeopardising the social model.

1.8

The European Union must succeed in delivering a balanced combination of market mechanisms and general service missions in areas in which such complementarity is compatible with the objectives of services of general interest and can offer added value to the user or consumer. This means that, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, the effective performance of a general interest task prevails, in cases of tension, over the application of competition rules, in accordance with EU case law.

1.9

Services of general interest call for a political will to control the management of collective interests and to meet needs and fundamental rights in the context of a European model of society, a model which offers appropriate social protection to everyone, whatever their age or social status or the region they live in, and also ensures good-quality, affordable and easy access to essential goods such as food, housing, water, travel, communication, etc. Services of general interest are clearly, therefore, part of the social market economy, which should not be provided simply by the interplay of competitive forces. In the absence of adequate public intervention a two-speed Union will develop that will accentuate disparities in development, inequalities and social exclusion.

1.10

In the near future many Europeans will be called upon to express their opinion in a referendum on the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty. Without public support there will be no political Europe. And there will be no public support if the Union is unable to provide guarantees for the protection and development of the European model of society and the European social model.

1.11

In this context the White Paper on services of general interest, insofar as it establishes a basis for ensuring high-quality, accessible and affordable services of general interest, is one of a number of important steps in promoting Europe to its citizens and preventing a ‘No’ vote from disrupting the momentum of European integration.

1.12

The debate launched by the White Paper and the results of that debate are inextricably linked with the debate over public-private partnerships, the services market, especially social services, state aid, the report being prepared on the water sector, the review of the Lisbon strategy and the assessment reports.

2.1

The White Paper adopted by the European Commission on 12 May 2004 provides an overview of the important European debate following on from the publication of the Green Paper in 2003 and the many contributions it gave rise to, in particular from the European institutions and civil society. It proposes strategic orientations for the years ahead.

2.2

The debate on the Green Paper has revealed differences of views and perspectives. Nevertheless, a consensus has emerged on the need to ensure a harmonious combination between market mechanisms and public service missions.

2.3

While the provision of services of general interest can be organised in cooperation with the private sector or be entrusted to private or public sector commercial or non-commercial firms, the definition of public service obligations and missions remains a task for the public authorities at the appropriate level. The relevant public authorities are also responsible for market regulation and for ensuring that public or private sector operators accomplish the public service missions entrusted to them.

2.4.1

Enabling public authorities to operate close to the citizens: services of general interest should be organised and regulated as closely as possible to the citizens and the principle of subsidiarity must be strictly respected.

2.4.2

Achieving public service objectives within competitive open markets: the Commission remains of the view that the objectives of an open and competitive internal market and of developing high-quality, accessible and affordable services of general interest are compatible. Under the EC Treaty and subject to the conditions set out in Article 86(2), the effective performance of a general interest task prevails, in case of tension, over the application of Treaty rules.

2.4.3

Ensuring cohesion and universal access: the access of all citizens and enterprises to affordable high-quality services of general interest throughout the territory of the Member States is essential for the promotion of social and territorial cohesion in the European Union. In this context, universal service is a key concept the Community has developed in order to ensure effective accessibility of essential services.

2.4.4

Maintaining a high level of quality, security and safety: furthermore, the security of service provision, and in particular the security of supply, constitutes an essential requirement which needs to be reflected when defining public service missions. The conditions under which services are supplied also have to provide operators with sufficient incentives to maintain adequate levels of long-term investment.

2.4.5

Ensuring consumer and user rights: these include in particular the access to services, including to cross-border services, throughout the territory of the Union and for all groups of the population, affordability of services, including special schemes for persons with low incomes, physical safety, security and reliability, continuity, high quality, choice, transparency and access to information from providers and regulators. The implementation of these principles generally requires the existence of independent regulators with clearly defined powers and duties. These include powers of sanction (means to monitor the transposition and enforcement of universal service provisions) and should include provisions for the representation and active participation of consumers and users in the definition and the evaluation of services, the availability of appropriate redress and compensation mechanisms and the existence of an evolutionary clause allowing requirements to be adapted in accordance with changing user and consumer needs and concerns, and with changes in the economic and technological environment.

2.4.6

Monitoring and evaluating performance: in line with the prevailing view expressed in the public consultation, the Commission considers that any evaluation should be multi-dimensional and cover all relevant legal, economic, social and environmental aspects.

2.4.7

Respecting the diversity of services and situations: any Community policy in the area of services of general interest must take due account of the diversity that characterises different services of general interest and the situations in which they are provided. However, this does not mean that it is not necessary to ensure the consistency of the Community's approach across different sectors or that the development of common concepts that can be applied in several sectors cannot be useful.

2.4.8

Increasing transparency: this principle should apply to all aspects of the delivery process and cover the definition of public service missions, the organisation, financing and regulation of services, as well as their production and evaluation, including complaint-handling mechanisms.

2.4.9

Providing legal security: the Commission is aware that the application of Community law to services of general interest might raise complex issues. It will therefore make a continuous effort to improve legal certainty regarding the application of Community law to the provision of services of general interest, without prejudice to the case law of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

2.5.1

Respecting diversity in a coherent framework: the Commission will re-examine the feasibility of and the need for a framework law for services of general interest on the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty; it will launch a review of the situation of services of general interest and submit a report before the end of 2005.

2.5.2

Clarifying and simplifying the legal framework for the compensation of public service obligations: the Commission will adopt a Decision on the application of Article 86 of the Treaty to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest by July 2005; it will adopt a Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation by July 2005; it will adopt an amendment of Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings by July 2005; it will further clarify under which conditions public service compensations may constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) by July 2005.

2.5.3

Providing a clear and transparent framework for the selection of undertakings entrusted with a service of general interest: the Commission will conduct a public consultation on the Green Paper on the procurement aspects of public-private partnerships; where appropriate, it will submit proposals on the basis of the results of the public consultation.

2.5.4

Recognising fully the general interest in social and health services: the Commission will submit a Communication on social and health services of general interest in the course of 2005; it will facilitate cooperation among Member States on health services and medical care in order to contribute to ensuring a high level of health protection throughout the Union.

2.5.5

Assessing the results and evaluating performance: the Commission submitted its first horizontal evaluation on services of general interest on the basis of its evaluation methodology in 2004; it will review its evaluation mechanisms in 2006.

2.5.6

Reviewing sectoral policies: the Commission will encourage the cooperation of national regulatory authorities on the basis of networks of regulators; it will take into account the results of the public consultation on the Green Paper in the reviews already foreseen for the different sectors: the review of the scope of universal service in electronic communications by July 2005; the review of the electronic communications package by July 2006; the review of the postal services directive by the end of 2006; the review of the internal markets for electricity and gas by 1 January 2006; the review of the ‘Television without frontiers’ directive at the beginning of 2005; the assessment of the water sector is ongoing.

2.5.7

Reflecting our internal policies in our international trade policy: the Commission will continue to ensure that the positions taken by the Community in international trade negotiations are fully consistent with the EU's internal regulatory framework regarding services of general interest.

2.5.8

Promoting services of general interest in development cooperation: the Commission will assist developing countries in creating a sound regulatory and institutional framework as a key prerequisite for the promotion of investment in and access to finance for basic services of general interest.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the publication of the White Paper. It notes the nine principles and eight new orientations proposed in the White Paper for reinforcing the existence of services of general interest. It regrets, however, that its repeated requests in recent years (1) for a framework directive or a framework law to guarantee the existence of SGI, the Member States' freedom to define, organise and choose management methods for SGI, the long-term financing and performance evaluation of SGI, consumers' rights etc. have not yet been taken up, even if the Commission has undertaken to produce a report on this matter by the end of 2005.

3.2

The EESC welcomes in particular the fact that the White Paper sets out a precise timetable of proposals and measures which the European Commission intends to take in order to apply these principles and orientations over the coming years.

3.3

The EESC will follow closely the implementation of these commitments and is prepared to contribute towards ensuring their effectiveness.

4.1

The first principle — enabling public authorities to operate close to the citizens — implies that services of general interest are organised and regulated as closely as possible to the citizens and that ‘the principle of subsidiarity must be strictly respected’. However, footnote 30 refers to the draft regulation on local inland transport, which ‘would require Member States to use public service concessions’ and thus systematic invitations to tender. There can be no subsidiarity unless each authority is free to choose how it manages the services of general interest within its responsibility.

4.2

The third principle — ensuring cohesion and universal access — led the Commission to stress, ‘universal service is a key concept the Community has developed in order to ensure effective accessibility of essential services’. This means allowing ‘requirements to be adapted in accordance with changing user and consumer needs and concerns, and with changes in the economic and technological environment’. In line with this thinking and as part of the e-Europe plan, which recommends general broadband use for electronic communications, the EESC would point out that 20 % of the population of the EU of Fifteen are currently denied access to such services. Now, broadband is a service of general interest that improves living conditions by reducing distances and facilitating access to health care, education and public services, both for geographically isolates citizens and for the worst-off. It therefore follows that unless universal telecommunications service at an affordable price is extended to broadband and mobile telephony, the European Union's delay in setting up and using the new information and communication technologies and the technologies of a knowledge society will grow, while the digital divide will become more pronounced, particularly in the new Member States.

4.3

The sixth principle — monitoring and evaluating performance — is also in line with the focus of the EESC, and of many other actors, on developing a progressive evaluation of the performance of services of general interest in order to improve their effectiveness, make access to them more equal and help them adapt to the changing needs of consumers, citizens and society, as well as to changes in rules. The White Paper rightly emphasises that evaluation must be ‘multi-dimensional and cover all relevant legal, economic, social and environmental aspects’; the EESC would like evaluation to include employment issues. The EESC stresses that the role of the European Union is to establish a common methodology and common criteria, in particular with regard to quality, and to stimulate a process of objective and independent evaluation, which must be conducted in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. In the EESC's view, the White Paper's proposals to review sectoral policies (see point 2.5.6) must be accompanied by reports assessing the effects of previous measures. Given that it brings together all the interested parties, the EESC reiterates its proposal to help steer the evaluation. In this context, the EESC will examine the possibility of setting up a permanent study group on SGI.

4.4

The seventh principle — respecting diversity of services and situations — ‘does not mean, however, that it is not necessary to ensure the consistency of the Community's approach across different sectors or that the development of common concepts that can be applied in several sectors cannot be useful’. Under the proposed orientation the Commission will re-examine the feasibility of and the need for a framework law for services of general interest on the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty and submit a report before the end of 2005. The White Paper does not therefore take up the call by the EESC and many other European actors for a framework directive (see the EESC opinion on the Green Paper on Services of General Interest — OJ C 80 of 30 March 2004). However, there is a clear need to consolidate SGI as a whole, including social and health services of general interest, bearing in mind their specific features, as far as they relate to competition law, financing, the implementation of the subsidiarity principle and their role in European integration.

4.5

The ninth principle — providing legal certainty — will lead the Commission to ‘make a continuous effort’, without prejudice to the case law of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. This principle gives rise to two proposed orientations:

4.5.1

‘to clarify and simplify the legal framework for the compensation of public service obligations by July 2005’, which should help to ensure the security of long-term financing both for the investment needed to provide continuity and sustainability of services as well as for compensation of public service or universal service obligations, without infringing the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality; to recognise that this compensation may take very different forms and that these forms must be able to adapt to objectives: public subsidies, internal adjustments enabling costs to be financed from profits on commercial activities, whether or not accompanied by exclusive rights, a compensation fund among operators, tax or other exemptions, public-private partnerships, aid for the provision of services to users, etc.

4.5.2

‘providing a clear and transparent framework for the selection of undertakings entrusted with a service of general interest’, based on a public consultation on the Green Paper on public-private partnerships. For the EESC this means recognising that there needs to be scope for diversity in the way services of general interest are managed and freedom of choice for each authority concerned: either direct operation of the SGI by the public authority itself (as a public service or a public corporation), or the handing-over of management tasks to a public undertaking or a joint undertaking over which the public authority exercises a degree of supervision equivalent to that over its own departments or operating in the non-profit, social, cooperative or associative economy, or delegation to an undertaking for a fixed period (concession with a prior competition), without forgetting the possibility of reversibility from one form of management to another.

5.1

The White Paper on services of general interest marks a step forward in the consideration of these services in the Union. It represents a solid basis on which to develop the conceptual elements of a European policy on services of general interest capable of enabling European enterprises and all of Europe's citizens to benefit from accessible, affordable and effective public services using leading technologies.

5.2

Services of general interest are not only central to economic competitiveness but also a key element in the social and environmental fields. They are a major asset in the three-pronged approach of the Lisbon Strategy (economic, social and environmental aspects) and are vital to making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based society, founded on sustainable economic growth, the provision of more and better jobs, and improved social cohesion. Services of general interest, bearing in mind their specific features, transcend the single market and are an essential prerequisite for the economic and social well-being of individuals and enterprises.

5.3

The task facing the European Union is to achieve a balanced combination of market mechanisms and public service missions in areas in which such complementarity is compatible with the objectives of services of general interest and can offer added value in terms of improvements in the quality of life of Europe's citizens, bearing in mind economic growth, job creation and sustainable well-being.

5.4

‘The rights of citizens to benefit from services of general interest that are accessible, affordable and efficient must be safeguarded and affirmed in the name of solidarity and economic and social cohesion, which are recognised as basic principles of the Treaty. Any liberalisation of services of general interest decided by a Member State must be carried out while respecting the above-mentioned criteria. Consequently, there is a need to establish a body of universal principles for different services that are delivered in different ways from one Member State to another, while fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity.’

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/22

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.1

Usable energy (1) is the mainstay of our contemporary way of life and culture. Its ready availability opened the door to our present-day standard of living. Unprecedented strides have been made in the major and emerging industrialised countries in terms of life expectancy, food supply, overall prosperity and personal freedom. Insufficient energy supply would severely jeopardise these achievements.

1.2

The need for a secure, inexpensive, environmentally sound and sustainable supply of usable energy is at the heart of the Lisbon, Gothenburg and Barcelona European Council decisions. EU energy policy is thus pursuing three closely related and equally important objectives, namely to safeguard and enhance (1) competitiveness, (2) security of supply and (3) the environment — all of them linked by the common thread of sustainable development.

1.3

In several opinions (2), the Committee has noted that supplying and using energy puts a strain on the environment, presents risks, depletes resources and involves the problem of external dependence and imponderables, as in the case of current crude oil prices. The Committee has also pointed out that the most important measure for reducing the risks associated with the security of energy supply, economic crises, and other risks is to ensure the most diverse and balanced possible use of all types and forms of energy, including all efforts to conserve energy and use it rationally.

1.4

In technical terms, however, none of the potential future energy supply options and technologies is perfect. None is wholly free of damaging environmental impacts. None is sufficient to cover all needs, and it is difficult to adequately gauge their long-term potential. Moreover, current trends and the rising costs of both conventional and alternative energy sources clearly indicate that future energy supply costs are unlikely to be as advantageous as current costs of using fossil fuels (3), such as crude oil, coal, and natural gas.

1.5

Nor, therefore, can a forward-looking, responsible European energy policy bank on being able to secure an adequate energy supply along the lines of the objectives set out above by using only a small number of energy sources.

1.6

Thus, no secure, long-term, environmentally sound and economically viable energy supply exists — either in Europe or elsewhere in the world (4). The key to potential solutions can lie only in further intensive research and development, which should include setting up pilot plants and evaluating them from both a technical and an economic perspective, gradually working towards commercial launches of new energy sources.

1.7

The Committee has also made the point that, given the slow pace of change in the energy industry, the fact that climate (greenhouse) gas emissions are a global, not a regional issue, and the expectation that the problem will further worsen, particularly in the second half of the century, the approach to the energy issue should be more global in scale and cover a substantially longer time period.

1.8

The problems of finite resources and emissions are compounded by the forecast two- or even three-fold increase in global energy requirements by 2060 as a result of population growth and the need for less developed countries to catch up. On the basis of current knowledge, increased efficiency and energy savings alone will not be enough to offset these very substantial additional requirements.

1.9

Any strategy (5) and prospects for development must therefore look beyond the timeframe of 2060.

1.10

As the Committee has also noted, public perceptions and open debate in this area reflect a broad range of opinions that veer between over- and underestimating the risks and opportunities involved.

1.11

There is therefore still no sufficiently consistent global energy policy. An additional problem is the fact that the EU needs to compete on a level playing field in the global economy.

1.12

Even within the EU Member States, there are considerable differences of approach to the energy issue. However, both at national and European levels, there is broad consensus as to the need to continue developing all possible energy sources (with the exception, in some Member States, of nuclear energy). To this end, numerous R&D programmes and other support programmes, some of which are funded from multiple sources, have been launched both by individual Member States and at European level.

1.13

One of the EU's main objectives in this field is to achieve a significant medium- to long-term increase in the use of renewable energy sources, which can also help protect the climate. In this context, geothermal energy can make a significant contribution.

2.1

Technologies for tapping into and using thermal energy flows from the earth's interior, which is very hot, to the surface, are referred to as geothermal energy production. Water (in liquid form or as steam) is used as the heat carrier.

2.1.1

However, the density of such thermal energy flows is very low, and temperatures rise only slowly as distance below the earth's surface increases, at an average rate of around 3oC per 100 m. Geological zones in which the temperature gradient is steeper are referred to as geothermal anomalies.

2.1.2

The heat balance of geological layers close to the earth's surface can also be affected by solar radiation; however, in the following paragraphs this energy is included in the category of geothermal energy.

2.2

There are two options for using geothermal energy.

2.2.1

The first of these is using geothermal energy for heating purposes. Currently, about 40 % of the total energy supply in the EU is used for heating purposes; this generally requires relatively low (water) temperatures (e.g. as low as < 100° C).

2.2.1.1

For heating purposes alone, so-called geothermal probes are used among other things. (These involve a coaxial tube, the lower end of which is sealed, and through which water flows down to a depth of 2.5-3 km, then up and out again, thereby absorbing useable heat of up to approximately 500 kWth.

2.2.1.2

One option for tapping energy very close to the earth's surface is to use geothermal pumps (‘reverse cycle chillers’) to heat buildings (from around 2 kWth to 2 MWth); these also require a refrigerant (6). There are several types, tapping energy from depths of as little as 1 metre up to several hundred metres, depending on which technology is used.

2.2.2

The second option is to generate electrical energy. This requires higher (water) temperatures (e.g. > 120° C): usually, there are two boreholes, some distance apart; the water to be heated is fed underground through one borehole and flows out from the other. A greater amount of heat — 5 to 30 MWth — can be achieved in this way.

2.2.2.1

However, even these (water) temperatures are still insufficient to achieve the requisite thermodynamic efficiency (to transform heat energy to electricity), and in view of the temperatures required to reach boiling point within the turbine circuit.

2.2.2.2

For this reason, substances with a lower boiling point than water such as perfluorpentane (C5F12) are used for preference as the working fluid in turbine circuits. Special turbine circuits such as the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC process) or the Kalina process are being developed for that purpose.

2.2.3

One particularly advantageous arrangement is to combine both applications (heat and electricity) and to use the residual heat arising during or in connection with electricity generation for heating purposes, thus providing heat and power at the same time.

2.3

However, in order to supply energy which is technically useable for electricity generation in particular, geothermal reservoirs have to be located sufficiently deep, usually several kilometres below the earth's surface, requiring costly deep drilling.

2.3.1

At the same time, the costs of tapping and using such reservoirs increase significantly with depth, and therefore, depending on how the energy is to be used, a balance must be struck between bore depth, efficiency and heat output.

2.4

For this reason, earlier stages of the search for useable heat reservoirs concentrated on geological areas with geothermal anomalies.

2.4.1

High geothermal gradient anomalies (so-called high-enthalpy (7) reservoirs) are mostly located in areas of intensive volcanic activity (Iceland, Italy, Greece, Turkey). The therapeutic properties of thermal water heated by high-enthalpy reservoirs have been known since ancient times, and they were first used to generate electricity about one hundred years ago (Larderello, Italy, 1904).

2.4.2

By contrast, low geothermal gradient anomalies (so-called low-enthalpy reservoirs), i.e. areas in which the temperature gradient is only slightly higher than usual, are located in areas of intensive tectonic activity (Rhine Graben, Tirennian Sea, Aegean Sea, etc.), and more generally in sedimentary aquifers (Pannonian Basin in Hungary and Romania, North German — Polish Basin).

2.5

Due to the limited number of areas with geothermal anomalies, since the mid-1980s efforts have increasingly concentrated on tapping the heat stored in ‘normal’ geological formations, in order to cope with the rising demand for energy and to be able to match the supply of heat or power more closely to demand in the surrounding areas.

2.5.1

As a result, geothermal reservoirs in areas without geothermal anomalies began being used for energy production in the 1990s, mainly in German-speaking countries. Electricity generation only began in Altheim and Bad Blumau (Austria) and in Neustadt-Glewe (Germany) during the last 4 years.

2.5.2

2.6

Technologies for producing geothermal energy have the following advantages:

2.7

However, they also have the following disadvantages:

3.1

Basically, there are three technologies, with variations, for tapping and using deep geothermal energy; these usually require at least two boreholes (a doublette) (8):

In addition, ground-level technologies (9) are being developed to improve heat exchange and efficiency.

3.2

In the EU, geothermal capacity for generating electricity, most of which is located in Italy, and which generally uses geothermal anomalies, is currently about 1 GWel, or about 2 % of total EU electricity generating capacity. Geothermal capacity for direct heating is about 4 GWth, but is forecast to rise to 8 GWth or more by 2010.

3.3

Therefore, neither form of geothermal energy use has yet made a substantial contribution to EU energy supply, and they represent a negligible proportion even of renewable energy use.

3.4

However, thanks to support from both Member States and the EU, use of geothermal energy has increased substantially over the last few years. Provided the heat output ranges from just a few to several tens of MWth geothermal energy still makes a contribution to decentralised energy supply.

3.5

In the view of the Committee, this development is positive and well worth supporting. In many such cases, pilot plants are needed in which various methods can be tested and developed.

3.6

Comparing the costs per 1 KWel of electricity generated from various renewable sources, geothermal energy (even if heat and power generation can be combined) currently costs about twice as much to use as wind energy, and half as much as solar energy.

3.6.1

However (see above) geothermal energy supplies can be largely matched to demand. This advantage will become increasingly significant as renewable energy takes a larger share of the energy market: using the fluctuating output from wind and solar energy will increasingly require technologies for buffering and regulating energy, and it is likely that energy-consuming and costly storage media such as hydrogen will be needed.

4.1

Provided that it is no longer restricted to geothermically anomalous areas (see also points 2.4 and 2.5), geothermal energy has the potential to make a significant contribution to environmentally sound and sustainable energy supplies (see also point 4.13).

4.2

In order to use and develop this potential for economically viable electricity generation, boreholes need to be sunk to a depth of at least 4 or 5 km, to reach rock layers in which temperatures are at the threshold of about 150° C. In addition, rock at this level needs to be treated (stimulated) so as to enable a sufficient quantity of water to circulate and sufficient heat exchange to take place between the hot rock and the water which is naturally present or pumped through.

4.2.1

However (see also point 2.2.1.1), lesser bore depths of e.g. 2-3 km are sufficient if the energy is to be used solely for heating purposes.

4.3

Appropriate technological solutions are already being developed and tested at several locations in Europe (e.g. Soultz-sous-Forêts, Gross Schönebeck) with varying geological formations. The development of geothermal technologies which are as independent as possible of location and are therefore suitable for export offers the main scope for progress, but this still requires considerable R&D work.

4.4

On the one hand, development of the various technologies which already exist in a rudimentary form needs to continue in order to make them viable, at the same time as checking compliance with the previously mentioned criteria for sustainable use of geothermal energy.

4.4.1

One particularly important question is whether the hydraulic and thermodynamic criteria for adequate sustainability of a stimulated reservoir can actually be met.

4.5

On the other hand, the individual stages of the process need to be gradually improved and made more efficient in order to bring costs down to a competitive level (see below). At the same time, research and development (see point 1.6), as well as work on preparing the market are needed, in order to bring down production-related costs.

4.6

In the medium term, making geothermal energy competitive means enabling it to compete with wind energy in terms of costs. There is a high probability of this happening, given that the disadvantages of wind energy are becoming increasingly apparent: wide fluctuations in output result in major additional costs and emissions from other sources, wind farms can be unsightly, and the noise can disturb people living in the vicinity; in addition, they increasingly require repair and maintenance. The costs borne by consumers or the public purse must also be included in any overall assessment.

4.7

In the long term, given that prices of crude oil and natural gas are likely to continue rising, and reserves may possibly begin running out, general competitiveness will become an issue for geothermal energy. The question to be answered is when, if ever — taking into account external costs of all energy production technologies — geothermal energy will achieve long-term competitiveness, without any form of subsidy or market-distorting preferential treatment.

4.8

In the meantime, the following measures are needed (10):

4.9

The Committee is pleased to note that considerable progress has already been made in this field. It fully endorses the Commission's existing and planned R&D projects, and also its intention to again substantially increase its activity in this area in its next R&D framework programme. It also endorses the relevant R&D programmes of Member States and their efforts, by adopting appropriate support measures, to facilitate and encourage the commercial launch of geothermal energy on a trial basis.

4.10

In this connection, the Committee reiterates its earlier recommendation that the opportunities offered by the European Research Area should be utilised through a comprehensive, transparent and coordinated energy research strategy, supported by all the players involved. This strategy should be made a key element of the seventh R&D framework programme and the Euratom programme.

4.11

This strategy should give appropriate emphasis to the R&D measures which are required to develop geothermal energy, until it becomes possible, in the context of a changing energy market, to provide a more accurate estimate and evaluation of the long-term costs and the achievable potential of such technology.

4.12

The Committee also recommends that all geothermal energy R&D programmes, i.e. including those which until now have been solely supported at a national level, be integrated as far as possible into a European energy research programme, to operate on the basis of open coordination. This would have the benefit of promoting European cooperation in the field.

4.13

In this context, the Committee sees the participation of new Member States in the EU R&D framework programme as an opportunity. Demonstration plants and pilot plants should be set up in these countries also, in the course of the forthcoming renewal of their existing energy systems.

4.14

In addition, the Committee recommends that the Commission sufficiently harmonise the effective measures taken within the EU to promote commercial launches (e.g. legislation on the sale of electricity to the grid) to enable EU-wide competition, at least in regard to actual geothermal technology, to take place on a level playing field.

4.15

Given that geothermal energy lends itself particularly well to combined heat and power generation, the Committee also recommends that the Commission look into suitable heating networks and use of geothermal heat.

5.1

Technologies for tapping into thermal energy flows from the earth's interior, which is very hot, to the surface, are referred to as geothermal energy production.

5.2

This energy is mainly used for heating purposes, but it can also be used to generate electricity, or combined heat and electricity.

5.3

Geothermal energy is already being used in areas with geothermal anomalies, but it still represents an insignificant proportion of overall energy supply.

5.4

Technologies which allow areas without geothermal anomalies to be tapped offer the potential for geothermal energy to make a significant contribution to sustainable energy supply, and to base-load supply in particular. However, they require boreholes to be sunk to depths of about 4–5 kilometres, together with additional ‘stimulation’.

5.5

However, there is also considerable potential for development in the use of heat pumps to tap geothermal energy close to the surface for the purposes of heating and air-conditioning.

5.6

The potential to contribute to baseload capacity distinguishes geothermal energy from sources with fluctuating output (e.g. wind and solar energy), which are becoming increasingly dependent on technologies for regulating, buffering and storing energy and which are meeting public opposition due to the amount of land they require and their aesthetic impact on the countryside.

5.7

The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the opportunities offered by the European Research Area be utilised through a comprehensive energy research strategy.

5.8

This strategy should include R&D measures which are needed to develop geothermal energy, continuing and, as appropriate, building on existing programmes.

5.9

The Committee recommends that all geothermal energy R&D programmes, which until now have been solely supported at a national level, be integrated into such a European energy research programme and the measures which it comprises, to operate on the basis of open coordination.

5.10

The Committee recommends initial, tapered incentives and legislation in all Member States (e.g. a law on the sale of electricity to the grid) for commercial launches and private investment, in order to make the production and sale of temporarily subsidised energy more attractive and thus also to help test, enhance and evaluate the economic potential of this energy form.

5.11

The Committee recommends that such support measures should be sufficiently harmonised within the EU to ensure that EU-wide competition in regard to geothermal technology takes place on a level playing field.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/28

1.1

Recognising its fundamental strategic importance for a competitive European system, the EESC has followed developments in the Galileo programme for satellite radionavigation and positioning infrastructure since its inception. Galileo's significance lies in its innovational impact on associated aspects of the economy, employment and the social dimension, as well as the enhanced quality of life for civil society that Galileo can ensure (1). Furthermore, the EESC has been aware of the need to involve the private sector in the development and use of the system since the very foundation of the Galileo Joint Undertaking (2), thereby ensuring sustained support throughout the development and deployment phases (3).

1.2

In its most recent opinion (4) on the subject, the EESC emphasised that ‘The Galileo programme finally entered the actual starting phase following the agreement on 26 May 2003 in the Council of the European Space Agency (ESA) on the respective financial contributions of the ESA Member States.’ It also reaffirmed that ‘The Galileo programme represents a major challenge for the European Union, its independence, its technological and scientific capacity, its economy and, primarily, its space and telecommunications industries.’

2.1

It should be remembered that the Galileo Programme has four phases:

2.2

At the end of the definition phase in May 2002, the Galileo Joint Undertaking was established for a four-year period ‘to ensure the unity of the administration and financial control of the project for the research, development and demonstration of the Galileo Programme and to this end mobilise the funds assigned to that programme’.

2.3

Furthermore, Council Regulation 1321/2004 (5), which establishes the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) Supervisory Authority and the Council Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP (6), both of 12 July 2004, set up the operational structures of the system to ensure the management of the public interests inherent to the programmes and the security and protection of the Galileo system.

2.4

At international level, the European Union and the United States of America signed an extremely important agreement on Galileo and GPS (7) on 26 June 2004, following negotiations that lasted four years. The agreement concerns the promotion, supply and use of the two satellite navigation and positioning systems' services and the full compatibility and interoperability of related applications. The two systems will operate side by side without signal interference. This will enable Galileo to become the world standard for open signals in the civilian and commercial use of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). GPS is operated by the military. In addition, it will also become accessible and ‘attractive’ to current GPS users through a single receiver.

2.5

Also at international level, a cooperation agreement was signed with Israel on 13 July 2004. This followed an agreement that had been signed with China on 30 October 2003. Negotiations to obtain interoperability with the Russian system GLONASS  (8) have been ongoing for some time. These negotiations have already reached an advanced stage, especially for the acquisition of frequencies and the use of Russian launch vehicles. Whilst cooperation agreements with the Russian Federation itself, Ukraine and India are at an advanced stage of negotiation, contacts with Australia, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea have been initiated. Switzerland, Norway, and Canada are also looking into the possibility of participating financially.

2.6

In the Mediterranean basin, an action plan was launched by the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Ministers in Valencia in April 2002. The action plan included Mediterranean cooperation in satellite radionavigation and positioning. More recently, in Cairo, the Galileo Joint Undertaking launched the Euro-Med GNSS project for demonstration, training and coordination of the GNSS regional plan, to monitor, in cooperation with its Mediterranean partners, the impact of EGNOS  (9), a geostationary satellite and Galileo's precursor.

2.7

Once fully operational, the Galileo system will provide five types of service:

2.8

Given Galileo's operational features, civil management and predominantly commercial and professional applications, the Commission considers that its potential market by 2010, could stand at 3 billion receivers, with an annual return of investment of up to EUR 250 billion and the creation of new businesses and highly-skilled jobs in the hundreds of thousands, including approximately 150 000 in Europe.

2.9

The Galileo Joint Undertaking completed the competitive negotiating phase in September 2004. It received the two final tenders of two consortia that had applied for the concession contract (Eurely (11) and Inavsat (12)). The final selection was based on the following three criteria: business and financial capabilities; technical capabilities; and legal and technical aspects.

2.10

In accordance with its terms of reference, once the Joint Undertaking had presented a report on the tendering process to the Commission and the Commission had adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and the Council (13) on moving to the deployment and operational phase, it will be able to obtain the ‘the necessary political directives on the public funding of the next phases of the programme and the public service tasks, in particular the definition of the services’. As a consequence, it will be able to present a bid for signature by the Supervisory Authority, which is, in fact, the implementing authority under Regulation EC 1321/2004.

2.11

The Committee is concerned that the above-cited procedures could prove too complex, with overlapping and duplicated control measures, which are neither facilitating nor clear.

2.12

Furthermore, the Proposal for a Regulation under consideration provides that the Supervisory Authority, which it defines as a Community agency to manage the public interests of the satellite radionavigation programmes covered by EC Regulation 1321/2004, will not be set up until 2005.

3.1

The proposal under consideration satisfies the need to provide a specific legal instrument to ensure an independent budget line that will permit more efficient management and monitoring of the deployment and operation phases of Galileo, from a financial point of view and also vis-à-vis the concession holder.

3.2

The Proposal for a Regulation under consideration aims to define the modalities of the financial contribution of the Community for the implementation of the deployment and commercial operating phases. It focuses on:

3.2.1

the need for the Community to guarantee a coherent budgetary framework for the funds generated by the Community itself and the concession holder:

3.2.2

An appropriate institutional management and monitoring framework for the Supervisory Authority.

4.1

The EESC believes that immediate steps should be taken to provide greater detail concerning the technical aspects of delivering the various services. This will ensure open standards that will provide access for other service providers and innovative services. Artificial barriers and exorbitant levies would thereby be avoided for newcomers, especially small-scale users.

4.2

With regard to the coherence of the budgetary framework, the EESC hopes that new financial perspectives for the Community budget will be adopted as soon as possible. Furthermore, it supports the Commission's request for a specific budget line of EUR 1 billion for the Galileo programme, which would be independent of other budget lines. The Committee also recommends that the sum should be raised to ensure the development and integration of EGNOS into the Galileo programme. The EESC considers that research activities on GNSS satellite radiopositioning should also be included in, and resourced by, the 7th RTD Framework Programme.

4.3

The EESC also believes that clarification is required as to how any future public funding by third country institutions that have already expressed an interest in contributing financially to Galileo will be included in the financial framework.

4.4

The EESC is aware that the budgetary framework foresees advantages for the concession holder due to its role as service provider and user of licences and free IPRs (14). The EESC is compelled to express its concern that the concession holder may acquire a dominant position or a monopoly, which could distort competition or inhibit the free market.

4.5

With regard to the appropriateness of the institutional framework for the management and control, which has been ‘externalised’ to a European agency (the European Supervisory Authority of the global system for satellite radionavigation), the Committee would emphasise the following points.

4.5.1

The European Space Agency is not represented on the Administrative Board of the European GNSS Authority. However it is a member of the current Administrative Board of the Joint Undertaking.

4.5.2

The managerial and supervisory responsibilities of the Joint Undertaking are to be transferred to the European GNSS Authority, which administers Galileo funds, acts as the contracting authority for the concession contract, monitors compliance with contractual obligations, grants the concession holder the right to use the assets for the duration of the contract, manages the agreement with the EGNOS operator, coordinates the Member States' initiatives regarding the frequencies required to ensure that the system functions, guarantees component certification compliance and enforces compliance with security obligations, including those that derive from Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP.

4.5.3

The EESC cannot conceal its concern regarding the extremely delicate transfer of authority from the Joint Undertaking, due to be dissolved in May 2006, and the new European GNSS Supervisory Authority, which should become operative in mid-2005.

4.5.4

The Committee therefore recommends that the Commission and the Council should follow closely the ‘cohabitation’ and transitional phase from Joint Undertaking to Supervisory Authority.

4.5.5

The provisions of Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP and the Regulation establishing the European GNSS Supervisory authority, which foresees a System Safety and Security Committee, will regulate all matters relating to Galileo's internal security.

The EESC believes that relations between the Galileo system and other existing European initiatives such as Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) and COSPAS-SARSAT (15) search and rescue system, justice and home affairs networks and GRID multimedia networks should be strengthened forthwith.

4.5.6

The EESC reiterates (16) that it is essential that security concerns and privacy and personal data protection issues should be dealt with jointly, through consultation with the European Fundamental Rights Agency  (17) wherever possible, or by setting up an appropriate consultative body. It would not appear sufficient to rely upon the provisions of Regulation EC 45/2001 referred to in Article 19 of the regulation establishing the European GNSS Supervisory Authority. The EESC considers that explicit guarantees for privacy and personal data protection are no less important than security considerations if the success of Galileo is to be secured through the full support of civil society.

4.5.7

Bearing in mind the need to involve civil society, the EESC notes that an initiative as important for Europe as the Galileo Programme remains virtually unknown to most European citizens. For this reason, the EESC hopes that the European institutions, in coordination with national governments, will launch an information and awareness-raising campaign that will not only raise European citizens' awareness and appreciation of this excellent research product of European industry but will also reassure them that their privacy is being safeguarded.

5.1

In view of the foregoing, the EESC recommends that the following points should be added to Recitals in the Proposal for a Regulation:

5.1.1

New Recital 3(a): ‘In view of the impact that the programme may have on the lives of European citizens, the Commission will take steps to ensure that the European Fundamental Rights Agency, or an alternative ad hoc consultative body, be entrusted with privacy and personal data protection in the implementation of Galileo services. This will ensure transparent development, and constant dialogue with potential users and civil society’.

5.1.2

Add to Recital 12: ‘, to secure further Community resources on the same budget line for developing and integrating EGNOS into Galileo, and to provide adequate attention and resources within the 7th RTD Framework programme for satellite radionavigation and its integration with existing networks.’

5.1.3

New Recital 13(a): ‘The Commission and the Council shall ensure that the transition from the Galileo Joint Undertaking to the new European GNSS Supervisory Authority shall be implemented under conditions of absolute transparency to avoid possible duplication, operational delays or, worse still, market restrictions.’

5.1.4

New Recital 14(a): ‘The Commission shall ensure that any financial contributions from third country institutions to the funds of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority reflect mutual interests and existing balances through appropriate agreements to be submitted to the Council and the European Parliament.’

6.1

The EESC reaffirms its full support for the Galileo programme and argues forcefully in favour of accelerating the two final development phases so as to ensure that it is fully operational in all respects by 2008.

6.2

The EESC urges the Commission to undertake an ex ante assessment of the added value for the concession holder, arising from the provision of services and intellectual property rights, and to disseminate clear and precise information based on the assessment's results.

6.3

The EESC considers that vital progress has been made towards setting up global infrastructure, in particular the EU-US cooperation agreement ensuring full compatibility and interoperability between existing global satellite radionavigation and positioning systems.

6.4

The EESC stresses the importance of international cooperation with China and Israel and believes that no effort should be spared in concluding mutual interest agreements with Switzerland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and South Korea. The Committee considers the Mediterranean basin to be a privileged area, in so far as it is already able to benefit from EGNOS services. Furthermore, it is of strategic importance for peace, stability and sustainable development in Europe.

6.5

In this regard, the EESC is convinced that extending accessibility to third countries constitutes a vital contribution to the external dimension of European Union policy.

6.6

The EESC hopes that the European Commission will be provided with a dedicated budget line for an information and awareness-raising campaign that will not only raise European citizens' awareness and appreciation of this excellent research product of European industry but will also reassure them that their privacy is being safeguarded.

6.7

Finally, the EESC hopes that its comments regarding certain recitals will be accepted (protection of privacy, increased financial resources, transitional phase and contribution of third countries) as defined above. The proposals aim to contribute to the clarity and transparency of the initiative and to ensure that it is allocated sufficient resources. Consequently, they are in the interest of the European institutions as well as civil society.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/33

1.1

The Committee considers the proposed establishment of an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE) to be appropriate, desirable and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. This infrastructure will coordinate and make interoperable and accessible all spatial data collected at national level by the Member States in order to document more effectively, on a scientific basis, environment-related decisions and their follow-up, as well as reports required under certain directives. The Committee believes that the legal basis (Art. 175 TEC) is appropriate.

1.2

This initiative is likely to reduce duplication, omission and inefficiency and to make the collection and processing of data more coordinated and targeted. A Community-wide action plan is necessary; this will lead to greater efficiency in the use of data by the administrations and services concerned, and in the use of data by public and private operators in various forms, including value added services (specialist maps or databases, etc.).

1.3

The proposed directive creates the legal and technical framework necessary to realise this aim. It establishes a technical committee and makes it mandatory for Member States to give access to their geographical data. The system will be monitored by the Commission and regular reports are to be submitted.

1.4

The Committee therefore approves the proposal submitted for its opinion, as it unquestionably represents added value for the Community by providing a harmonised framework and promoting vital progress in terms of the quality and nature of the spatial data collected, thereby underpinning environmental policy, and possibly other national and European policies, and assisting in the decision-making process.

1.5

The Committee stresses the need to use open file protocols and formats or universal standards that are readable with free software; it also emphasises the need to ensure that the referenced information available through INSPIRE is placed in the public domain, as this is scientific data which is vital for environmental policy as well as for students and researchers. Lastly, the Committee stresses that the process should be undertaken without breaching the confidentiality of certain data, irrespective of whether they concern personal privacy, general interest or security matters.

2.1

The legal basis is Article 175(1) TEC. This article — by referring to Article 174 — makes it possible to propose measures in the field of the environment and health protection on the basis of technical and scientific data.

2.2

Natural phenomena, similarly to phenomena caused by human activity, have an impact on the quality of the environment and on our health; this justifies a Community-wide information and coordination campaign that will take into account the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, as well as the precautionary principle.

2.3

A framework directive is proposed to allow broad scope for subsidiarity so that the provisions can be tailored to the diversity of the Member States and the regions.

2.4

The metadata will primarily be derived from national public sources, but this does not exclude the possibility of other sources being used. A Community geo-portal will give electronic access to national databases.

2.4.1

It is not mandatory for Member States to collect the data mentioned in the appendices. The INSPIRE initiative complements other initiatives, such as GMES or GALILEO, which can be used to gather specific or additional data.

2.4.2

The horizontal nature of INSPIRE is of key importance; it cuts across a variety of sectors, which makes it possible to identify and cover any omissions.

2.4.3

Environmental legislation stipulates the nature, quality and notification of the data relevant for each of the sector-specific texts (e.g. directive on water quality).

2.4.4

Data sharing, which enables the identification of omissions and difficulties encountered by Member States, should make it possible gradually to find solutions.

2.5

The aim is to collect and coordinate the spatial (geographical) data detailed, for example, in Annexes I, II and III, and to ensure the interoperability of the various national systems for the collection and processing of this data thus making them available to decision-makers, administrative services, research organisations and more generally to interested members of the public.

2.6

The harmonised data are input into networks by the Member States. These easily accessible data and diverse services will serve as a technical and scientific basis for European, national or international policies in a broad range of areas.

2.7

By sharing and combining the information and knowledge acquired from various countries and sectors, it will be possible to avoid duplication and ensure that all Community policies take environmental considerations into account.

2.8

The European Environment Agency must actively contribute to the implementation of the directive. A comitology procedure is planned for the technical management of INSPIRE. The Commission will apply the implementing powers conferred on it by the Council Decision of 22 June 1998.

3.1

The Committee approves and supports the draft directive establishing an infrastructure for geographical data in the Community.

3.2

In synergy with other information sources, INSPIRE will support the decision-making process in environmental and health policies as well as in numerous other areas.

3.3

The Committee believes that the fact that the benefits outweigh the costs is a key advantage of the project; it will make it possible to avoid duplication and fine-tune Community policies, as well as providing information for the public.

3.4

For the Committee, the Community infrastructure and the information and services to which it provides access should be part of the public domain, as they primarily consist of scientific data and knowledge bases, the use of which is in the general interest (prevention of natural or industrial hazards, health, etc.). Too restrictive rights of use for data sets and services must not become an obstacle.

3.5

Nonetheless, public-private partnerships are possible, as is the use of data by private organisations or bodies for the purpose of providing added value services or creating specialised geographical databases for commercial use.

3.6

The interoperability of data sets and services is absolutely essential for the success of the INSPIRE infrastructure; the Committee supports the proposal to draw up rules for its implementation in cooperation with both service providers and users, and with the standardisation bodies.

3.7

The Committee believes that the protocols and formats for files created at national and Community level should be open or freely usable, and that the data should be readable for all internet access software to ensure that everyone has equal access to and use of the data, regardless of the software or equipment used.

3.8

Lastly, the Committee once again voices its concerns regarding the protection of personal data and of privacy. This protection should come on top of the need to protect key national interests and public security imperatives regarding the nature or sensitivity of freely available data.

4.1

The Committee would also like to receive a copy of the periodic reports provided for under the draft directive.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/35

1.1

The adoption of the Water Framework Directive (1) (WFD) can be said to have brought about a significant shift in EU water policy, not only because it introduced a harmonised approach to the various situations facing our continental and marine waters, but also because it established an effective method of assessing the quality of these waters and put in place a centralised organisational system that makes it easier to tackle each river basin in a uniform manner, regardless of the various competences which exist for each stretch of the river basin. Furthermore, the Commission has continued to supplement and develop the WFD by means of legislative (2) and other provisions (3), to ensure that EU water policy works to protect our rivers and seas.

1.2

Incomprehensibly, however, the WFD omitted some aspects that are extremely important for the quality of our river basins, including the issue of flooding. Although there is nothing unnatural about the phenomenon of flooding, its effects are in some cases considerably amplified by human activity. Many of the disastrous effects of flooding could be mitigated by means of an appropriate policy on the use and protection of rivers and riverbanks. In particular, this would require the construction of water-related infrastructure to take real — not just formal — account of the environmental impact in order to avoid changing natural dynamics and to remain in the interests of a sensible use of water resources.

1.3

Flood risks are increasing in the EU for two main reasons: firstly, the effects of climate change, which could lead to more frequent torrential rains and higher sea levels as a consequence of the warming of the atmosphere. The second factor is the impact of human activity, such as construction work in rivers and projects to divert and channel the course of rivers, and the construction of ports without adopting measures to assess and correct their environmental impact. Another human factor is the increased desertification of our continent, which has suffered from the wide-scale felling of trees, fires and other activities that go against nature. In short, flood risks are increasing as a consequence of unsustainable activity. Adopting sustainable models of economic, social and environmental development can therefore minimise these risks.

1.3.1

The flooding of land used for industry, intensive farming and livestock-breeding, and also of built-up areas, results in the spread of substances and products which under normal conditions do not threaten water quality but, as a consequence of flooding, become dangerous contaminants, with potential effects for public health and the ecosystems concerned.

1.4

The EESC would point out that between 1998 and 2002 Europe suffered over 100 major floods including the catastrophic floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in 2002. Since 1998 floods have caused some 700 fatalities, the displacement of about half a million people and some EUR 25 billion in insured economic losses (4).

1.5

The Commission is aware of this state of affairs and presented the Environment Council of July 2004 with a proposal for EU action on flood protection, with a view to ensuring concerted action to improve protection against flood risks. Member States must cooperate on mapping risk areas and on implementing flood risk management plans in every river basin and in coastal areas, with the Commission facilitating the coordination of information between all States and promoting best practice in this area.

1.6

Lastly, it should be added that although this action is to be undertaken in the context of Community water policy, this issue also affects other European policies, such as those on agriculture, environment, civil protection, transport, etc. Furthermore, there is an extremely far-reaching legal problem which affects all of these policies, relating to flood plain management: the demarcation and definition of the public sphere as it applies to the protection of riverbanks and coastlines, so that they are not subject to major modifications by the authorities that are exclusively politically motivated and which affect other competences in water management and in flood risk planning. Demarcating protected areas would make it easier to take flood prevention measures.

2.1

The Communication's content can be divided into three headings, which are:

2.2

The aim of flood risk management is to reduce the likelihood and impact of floods. It is therefore proposed that the flood risk management plans incorporate the following elements:

2.3

In terms of what is already being done and of future initiatives to mitigate the effects of floods, three levels of action are proposed.

2.3.1

At European level, action is geared towards using existing measures and policies for preventing and mitigating floods. In terms of research policy, the aim is to use research projects such as FLOODsite, which helps to improve integrated flood risk analysis and management methodologies. The use of the Structural Funds, in particular the European Regional Development Fund, can help to improve technological research and development in infrastructures (5). The IRMA project (‘INTERREG Rhine-Meuse Activities’) is an example of a cross-border approach to combating floods.

2.3.1.1

At European level too, it is proposed that the CAP should be used to establish flood protection areas through forestry and other agricultural activities as a means of protecting the soil. Similarly, it is intended to bring environmental policy into play under the WFD, by integrating flood risk management into integrated river basin plans. Furthermore, the Solidarity Fund, created in 2002 in the wake of the major floods in Central Europe, is to remain in place for emergencies.

2.3.2

As regards the role of the Member States, it should be pointed out that they have acted to combat the effects of floods by providing official and legal guidelines, in particular in the States that suffer most from such events. There are plans and strategies to protect against floods, and risk maps have even been drawn up in those regions that suffer most frequent flooding.

2.3.3

Thirdly, measures have been put in place for international cooperation on transboundary rivers, in Central Europe in particular, by setting up bodies to ensure a coordinated approach to river basin management.

2.4

The EU's programme for concerted action contains some features that are crucial to establishing measures to prevent and mitigate the effects of flooding. The most noteworthy are: improving coordination between authorities through the river basin and coastal area management plans, flood risk mapping as a tool for planning, and exchange of best practice.

2.4.1

For this programme to succeed, the Member States, the Commission and the other interested parties must cooperate and fulfil their tasks and obligations in the field of flood risk prevention.

2.4.2

The estimated costs of this joint action are hard to quantify, but the qualitative benefits that minimising the effects of flooding will have for the people of Europe, their property and for the people and areas concerned far outweigh any costs.

2.5

An annex sets out guidelines for the development and implementation of flood risk management plans and flood risk maps; this is important for ensuring a uniform approach to achieving the programme's objectives.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's Communication, aimed at improving and harmonising the prevention systems in place in many Member States to mitigate the effects of flooding. Nevertheless, firstly, a more thorough assessment of the problem must be made in order to decide on suitable measures geared, in particular, towards the most effective preventive actions which would prevent much of the damage caused by flooding. Secondly, some basic concepts not mentioned in the proposal must be defined, so that agreement can be reached on the measures proposed for management plans and risk maps, in the most harmonised manner possible.

3.2

Floods are natural phenomena associated with the normal functioning of river and coastal systems and operate on a geological timescale that is far greater than the timescale normally used for example in managing economic planning or land-use planning, etc. The ‘recurrence interval’ therefore means that:

Concepts used in hydrological planning include:

3.3

The seriousness of a flood depends on the occupation and use of flood areas by human beings for activities that affect the normal functioning of these water systems, substantially altering the river and coastal environment. Such activity increases the risk of abnormal conditions that are extremely harmful to human beings and property. The EESC considers that the following factors should be seen as increasing the severity and scale of flooding:

3.4

The increasing flood risk as a consequence of changing natural factors, in particular climate change, requires a great deal of research to determine how these changes can affect river and coastal dynamics and hence flood-prone areas and recurrence intervals, amongst other variables.

3.5

The increasing risk as a consequence of human factors, such as land use in these areas and the number of people located there, can and must be corrected by including active planning policies geared to achieving the SUSTAINABLE use of flood areas and to minimising risks.

4.1

The EESC agrees that flood risk management aims to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of floods, normally through a process involving the aims of prevention, protection, information, etc., as pointed out by the Commission. Nevertheless, it is worth classifying the actions and measures that can be adopted and the criteria for making the right choice in each case. The following preventive measures might be used:

4.2

The EESC suggests to the Commission that management plans be based on the following principles and non-structural measures:

It is in this context that the principle of long-term strategic planning should be brought to bear, i.e. not simply a question of taking account of the forecast changes, as set out in the Commission Communication, but essentially of correcting them, in cases where it is reasonable to assume that the current level of risk will remain the same or increase.

4.3

Appropriate guidelines and criteria should be drawn up for selecting suitable measures to improve flood protection:

4.4

Experience with flood risk management in various parts of the world, in particular since the 1970s, has demonstrated that the main difficulties in implementing preventive measures are not technical and cannot be resolved by risk or danger maps alone. In the USA, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers has produced more than 20 000 risk maps, but very few local authorities make use of them and, when they do, they opt for one type of structural action (such as channelling, dams and dykes) which has frequently failed to adequately control floods and prevent a great deal of avoidable damage because the authorities and the public at large have been lulled into a false sense of security.

4.5

It should be stressed that in the EU, such measures — basically the construction of dams and channels, which are of limited use — are precisely those financed by the Structural Funds, (ERDF and the Cohesion Funds). Preventive measures, structural or otherwise, are generally less well funded. The EESC therefore considers it necessary to assess the need to establish a specific funding line for this Action Programme or, failing this, drawing up guidelines for the inclusion of actions in other Commission-funded programmes.

4.6

At all events, structural measures such as these are not sufficient to prevent floods or to protect flood areas. They only make sense as part of a broader approach in which land-use planning, transport planning (roads, rail, etc.), maintenance of flood drainage channels and the protection of the areas and ecosystems that regulate natural run-off are also taken into account. It would thus be appropriate in future to make the guidelines in the Communication's annex more precise, and to include methodological principles or good practice for drawing up these plans.

4.7

Incorporating flood management plans into the management plans of the Water Framework Directive is crucial to ensuring that the necessary planning is undertaken for action over the entire length of the river basin and that the measures and actions undertaken by the competent authorities at the various levels (local, State, cross-border, etc.) are compatible and properly coordinated. Criteria and formulae must be established to ensure the proper integration of these two planning frameworks, which are compatible but different, by means of a Directive facilitating this. These elements should be dealt with in greater detail in the proposed further development of the appended guidelines.

4.8

Incorporating flood management into the WFD essentially requires:

4.9

The most important aspects of flood risk management linked to WFD-based planning are:

5.1

The EESC is of the view that any action to prevent, protect against or mitigate flooding must incorporate the methodology and instruments created by the WFD, in particular the river basin plan, which makes it possible to regulate all activities relating to the management of inland waterways and the connected coastal areas. To this end, the EESC believes it necessary to incorporate the content of the Communication and the comments made here into a Community Directive that would help bring risk management plans into line with the characteristics of each basin plan, thereby adapting to the particular conditions of our rivers and coastlines.

5.2

To ensure that these aspects are properly incorporated, there must be:

5.3

Risk management plans and risk mapping, as set out in the annexes to the proposed communication, must be extended, so as to establish and clarify a classification of action and measures, taking into account those with the highest priority and that are most appropriate to the financing obtained, as well as the criteria to be met in order to reduce costs and increase the benefits to people and property. The most important aim is to reconcile the natural functioning of inland waterway and coastal systems with human activity, in short, to achieve integrated and sustainable activity in flood areas.

5.4

Lastly, the EESC considers that the most significant aspects of flood risk management, which concern planning under the WFD, are the definitions of risk, warnings and emergencies for times when these phenomena occur. Moreover, it is important not to lose sight of other Community measures for multidisciplinary research and cooperation, aimed specifically at mitigating the damage caused by flooding, for putting in place insurance to cover damage and minimise the economic loss suffered by the victims and, above all, for vigilance and control over the safety of infrastructure projects in the inland waterway and coastal systems.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/40

—

payments must reach final beneficiaries with as few deductions as possible; and

—

abuse should be prevented through effective monitoring.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/44

1.1

The outbreak of such serious infectious diseases as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and Newcastle Disease (ND) among domestic livestock has resulted in repeated crises on the markets for animal products in the EU. When there is an outbreak of such epizootic diseases, among the measures taken are the slaughtering of animals and restrictions on trade, with the aim of preventing the outbreak from spreading further. As a general rule the costs involved in eradicating epizootic diseases are financed by the Veterinary Fund, with 50 % of the funds coming from the Member States.

1.2

In addition, there is a strain on the markets in the products concerned, not least as a result of sales bans and restricted areas being introduced. The rules for the markets in pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat, beef and veal, milk and milk products, and sheepmeat and goatmeat therefore include facilities for introducing measures to support the market in such situations. Before such exceptional measures are applied, it is a precondition that the Member States concerned have introduced the veterinary measures necessary to stamp out epizootic diseases. Moreover, measures to relieve the market situation are only introduced for the time that support for the market concerned is strictly necessary.

1.3

The exceptional measures concerned, which are taken by the Commission using the management committee procedure, were originally implemented with full Community financing, as was the case for CSF at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. In 1992, national co-financing was used for the first time in connection with CSF. Because it was not clear what the rate should be, in 1994 the Commission introduced provisions that clearly specified a figure of 70 % financing by the Community for a maximum number of animals. Later on, the same rate was applied in the beef and veal sector when combating BSE and FMD. Since 2001, the national co-financing rate has been 50 % since the requirement from the European Court of Auditors that there should be parallelism between co-financing under the Veterinary Fund and the co-financing of market measures.

1.4

Following a request from Germany, the Court of Justice ruled in 2003 that Commission had no authority to set a national co-financing rate of 30 % in a case involving the rules on the buying-up of beef in connection with BSE (1). The Commission therefore has no authority to continue the practice hitherto and so it is proposed that in future a national co-financing rate of 50 % should be specified in the market organisations for pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat, beef and veal, milk and for sheepmeat and goatmeat regarding both internal market measures and sales on non-EU markets.

2.1

It is regrettable that since 1992 the Commission and the Member States have not respected the hitherto applicable general principle of full Community financing for measures forming part of the so-called ‘first pillar’ of the Common Agricultural Policy, including measures implemented within the framework of the common market organisations. It is in the nature of things that by adopting the current proposal the Council may deviate from this principle, which it adopted itself. But because of the ruling of the Court of Justice in this matter, the Commission cannot deviate from Council decisions without express authorisation, even if it does so with the co-operation of the Member States in the relevant management committees.

2.2

Depending on the extent and duration of epizootic diseases, the measures taken may result in considerable costs being incurred, which to a very large extent must be covered by public funds. The question of allocating costs between the EU and the Member States is closely linked with that of financial solidarity between the Member States. In cases of national co-financing some Member States might be more willing and able to cover such expenditure than others. Some Member States might pass the costs on directly or indirectly to businesses, which, as became clear during the BSE crisis, may lead to considerable distortions of competition.

2.3

According to the Commission the Member States will make a bigger effort to combat and prevent livestock diseases, if there is national co-financing. Although the EESC can understand this argument, it cannot be ruled out that sometimes demand will delay decisions or make their adoption more difficult, thus hindering the implementation of effective counter-measures.

2.4

The EESC can also understand the Commission's argument that the proposal will imply a continuation of the practice that has been followed since 1992 and ensure parallelism between veterinary fund and market organisation measures.

2.5

However, the EESC feels that expenditure on exceptional measures in connection with the market organisations as originally laid down by the Council is based on joint responsibility and financial solidarity. In the EESC's view, any violation of this principle would create a risk of the Member States adopting different approaches to the fight against epizootic diseases, which, despite effective monitoring and preventive measures, can break out by chance and without warning. The consequences for the market would also affect other Member States. Moreover, there is a risk that national co-financing here will have a knock-on effect on other areas, bringing with it the danger of further re-nationalisation of the Common Agricultural Policy.

2.6

If, despite this, there is still support for the Commission proposal, it would be administratively burdensome — and essentially unjustified — if the financial contribution under this rule was dealt with under the Treaty's provisions regarding state aids. The Commission's proposal for exemption from the notification procedure should therefore have applied from the outset.

3.1

The EESC wishes to maintain the principle of full Community solidarity for exceptional measures under the rules applying to market organisations, and therefore rejects the Commission's proposal for 50 % co-financing by the Member States.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/46

1.1

The 49th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), to be held from 28 February to 11 March 2005, will be concerned with reviewing the application of the Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration, which were approved at the 4th World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995), and of the outcome documents approved at the 23rd Special Session of the General Assembly entitled ‘Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century’ (New York, 2000), which initiated a preliminary evaluation of progress made and obstacles faced in efforts to achieve gender equality.

1.2

At the 23rd Special Session, the General Assembly adopted a resolution of ‘Further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action’ and a political declaration in which the Member States agreed to meet again 10 years after adoption of the platform to assess progress and consider new initiatives.

1.3

As provided for in the CSW multiannual programme, the work of the 49th Session will focus on progress made in the 12 areas defined in the Platform for Action and on identifying current challenges and new strategies for furthering the empowerment of women and children. In order to promote dialogue on this occasion the Assembly will allow broader participation of delegations from the Member States, civil society and international organisations.

1.4

The commitment of the United Nations has been crucial in putting the problem of gender equality on the international agenda. The First World Conference on Women was held in 1975, when the Decade for Women was declared (Mexico City). At the Second Conference (‘Mid-point of the Decade’, held in Copenhagen in 1980), governments (57 initially) began signing the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1979), which is one of the milestones on the long road towards gender equality. The Third Conference (Nairobi, 1985) approved the Plan of Action ‘Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women’, in which governments and international organisations proclaimed the objective of gender equality.

1.5

A further step in the process of recognising women's issues and the role of women was UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security (which recognised that war has a different impact on women and reaffirmed the need to strengthen women's role in decision-making processes relating to conflict prevention and resolution). More generally speaking, the advancement of women has been taken into account for more than ten years in the conclusions of all the major conferences and international meetings sponsored by the United Nations. (1)

1.6

Another important point was the United Nations Millennium Summit, held in September 2000, in which the Member States fixed eight clear and measurable objectives (Millennium Development Goals) to significantly reduce poverty, hunger, disease and environmental degradation by 2015. The Millennium Declaration was also a result of the need to draw up a coherent list of priorities from those identified over the past ten years at the various conferences and summits held at international level. One third of the objectives have to do with promoting gender equality and empowerment of women, and are closely linked to education and training; one fifth concern reproductive health. However, gender issues cut across all eight goals.

2.1

Although the United Nations system has established an important legal framework for achieving gender equality, the practical application of principles within countries, and their trade and development policies, sometimes fall short of intentions on paper. Full achievement of civil, economic, social and political rights for women is in practice often threatened by macroeconomic policies and trade agreements based on neoliberalist principles that do not take any account of gender issues.

2.2

Furthermore, the complex international situation is certainly not a favourable environment for improving the situation of women, and there is a risk that gains made over previous years will be steadily eroded.

2.3

Current conflicts are further weakening and exacerbating the status of women.

2.4

Domestic violence is still a reality throughout the world and affects women of all ages, social classes and religions.

2.5

It is therefore important to reaffirm gender equality and the defence of women's rights as a priority objective and means of achieving equitable development, better wealth redistribution, sustainable economic growth and strengthening of systems to protect the weaker sectors of the population.

3.1

It is important for the Economic and Social Committee to be involved, by drawing up a document of its own, in assessing the progress made by the European Union in relation to gender equality.

3.2

It should be noted here that the Committee has always taken a keen interest in activities aimed at improving women's status, both through its many opinions and by promoting various initiatives itself. With specific reference to the Fourth Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995) and its follow-up (Beijing +5) in particular, the Committee contributed two opinions (EXT/131 and REX/033), in which it highlighted, for example, the importance of a Committee delegation attending United Nations meetings.

3.3

In addition, in the context of cooperation with the European institutions — notably the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission — the Committee has taken on an important role in monitoring the numerous European Union initiatives to ensure gender equality, which represent an attempt over the past few years to meet the challenges and overcome the obstacles identified at Beijing.

3.4

In this sense we believe that — by reviewing progress made and obstacles encountered since the Fourth Conference — the Committee could make a valuable contribution to ensuring that women's issues are systematically taken into account in an ever larger number of spheres of European policy and society.

3.5

Moreover, given that the European Union will have to take on a leading role at international level, with the heavy responsibilities this implies, we intend in this opinion to set out possible EU contributions to improving the living conditions and advancement of women throughout the world on the basis of its cooperation and trade and development policies.

4.1

The issue of gender equality in the European Union, already present in the Treaty, was further codified with the Amsterdam Treaty, in which a ‘two-pronged approach’ was adopted that combined gender mainstreaming in all Community policies with the introduction of specific measures to improve the position of women. However, the question of equal opportunities for men and women had already been incorporated into the Community's economic and social cohesion policy and was a key objective of the Structural Funds as far back as 1994.

4.2

The EU has adopted an integrated approach, distinguishing between legislative and financial instruments and using the open method of coordination in social policies. The most recently adopted instruments for achieving gender equality within the EU include the Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001-2005), together with the annual gender equality work programmes and the Structural Funds.

4.3

The Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001-2005) is designed to coordinate activities and programmes that were first developed on a sectoral basis, reflecting the two-pronged approach of Amsterdam, in order to improve coherence, e.g. by developing reliable indicators and a system for monitoring, evaluating and publicising the results achieved.

4.4

The strategy identifies five broad areas of action/objectives, which are interlinked, for promoting gender equality: the economy (linked to the employment strategy and the Structural Funds, as well as the application of mainstreaming in all policy areas that have an impact on the position of women in the economy); participation and representation (linked to decision-making processes); social rights (linked to living conditions and disparities inherent in social protection systems); civil life (linked to basic human rights and freedoms, with particular emphasis on violence and sexual trafficking); changes in roles and stereotypes (linked to culture and the mass media).

4.5

Gender equality policies have also been stepped up using the Structural Funds. Provisions for the period 2000-2006 are based on a careful and critical analysis of measures to promote equal opportunities and of their weaknesses, and they incorporate the two-pronged approach laid down in the Amsterdam Treaty. In addition, the Structural Funds, and in particular the European Social Fund, have always been regarded as the main instrument of the European Employment Strategy. Under the new Employment Guidelines, adopted in July 2003, gender equality is a horizontal issue spanning all the objectives, and is also the subject of a specific guideline.

4.6

Considerable progress has been made within the European Social Fund, in relation mainly to employment and training policies. Efforts in this area have focused above all on improving women's access to, and their participation and position in, the labour market (Axis E) and on ways of reconciling work and family life. There is already an encouraging track record of successes in this sphere. Thus the ESF has taken on board the quantitative objectives set by the European Council in Lisbon (2000), namely that female employment should increase from 51 % (2000) to 60 % by 2010, and by the Barcelona Council (2002), according to which pre-school education should be available to 90 % of children between the age of three and the mandatory school age and to at least 33 % of children under the age of three.

4.7

However, measures to improve the quality of work and career prospects, encourage women entrepreneurs, narrow the wage gap and promote women's position in the new technology sector are only patchy. As regards the work/life balance some projects exist to improve childcare structures, but very few explicitly in relation to caring for elderly people or family dependants.

4.8

The gender dimension is still very modest in the other funds, especially those relating to agriculture and fisheries, sectors in which women are traditionally underrepresented, even though they play an active role in those sectors' development. Thus there remain profound inequalities in such areas and women's contribution to society is still undervalued, including in relation to improving environmental protection.

4.9

EU policies are backed up by various specific funding programmes and initiatives e.g. NOW (employment) for the labour market, STOP to promote cooperation to combat trafficking in women and children, DAPHNE to improve information and protection for victims of violence, and Women and Science (Research and Development Framework Programme) in the new technologies sector. The Framework Strategy is also intended to strengthen gender mainstreaming in various Community initiatives, such as Equal, Interreg, Urban, Leader as well as Leonardo, Socrates, Youth and Culture in the culture sector.

4.10

The Commission's report on equality between men and women (COM(2004) 115) notes that a fairly sophisticated EU legislative framework already exists in this area (2), backed by extensive case law. A proposal is also being drawn up for a single directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services, which should consolidate and standardise the relevant existing legislation.

4.11

At their recent meeting during the Dutch presidency, the European Ministers for Employment and Social Affairs concurred, noting with respect to drawing up the single directive on equal treatment that the areas in which action was required above all were wage parity, equal access to jobs, equal treatment under social protection systems, training and career possibilities, and burden of proof in cases of gender discrimination.

4.12

The proposal for a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (2003/0265 (CNS)) has also been examined by the EESC (3), which has identified certain major shortcomings that must be rectified without delay.

4.13

In addition, following adoption of the Beijing Platform for Action and in the wake of the Lisbon Council, more statistics on gender have been produced in the last few years, partly owing to the introduction of new indicators (e.g. on decision-making processes, the labour market or domestic violence) that allow problems to be effectively analysed and the impact of policies and measures to be monitored. Thus progress is already evident in relation to statistics even though much remains to be done if there is to be serious monitoring of the various spheres. The exact extent of progress made can only be ascertained if it is possible to examine and analyse quantitatively and qualitatively the phenomena and processes taking place.

4.14

On the other hand, gender budgets — i.e. application of gender mainstreaming to the budget procedure — are still virtually unknown at European level and in the Member States. Introducing the gender dimension at every level of budget planning is an acknowledgement that administrators' decisions are not neutral but have different impacts on men and women; in this sense gender budgeting is also an instrument for evaluating the impact of policies, funding and taxation on men and women.

4.15

Unfortunately, although Community policies to support women have been stepped up, there is still a need for positive action and a supreme effort by the Member States to ensure that objectives are actually achieved, as they hold the chief responsibility for implementing these policies.

4.16

Although the female unemployment rate has fallen to 55.6 % in Europe, the goal set by the Lisbon Council still seems distant in several countries. Women have swelled the ranks of the weakest category of workers, those in precarious employment, who often have no system of social protection. In many countries, wage discrimination between men and women persists or is worsening, and both vertical and horizontal segregation is still a lamentable reality. As already noted, even in relation to the work/life balance, measures appear to be focused exclusively on childcare; virtually nothing is being done to support care for other family members, and only a few countries have introduced measures to encourage parental leave for working fathers.

4.17

Considerable disparities also exist with regard to decision-making. Just consider that at EU level, the college of Commissioners of the European Commission comprises 22 men and seven women (only 24 % of the total), while Parliament has 510 men and 222 women (only 30 % of the total). Nor is the situation improving at national level: the average percentage of women in national parliaments is not even 25 %, whereas in governments it barely exceeds 20 %. (4) Women are also underrepresented in the EESC: of a total of 317 members only 79 (25 %) are women.

5.1

The problem of equal opportunities for men and women has now also been fully taken into account in European Union cooperation and development policies: Commission Communication COM(95) 423 (18 September 1995), followed by the Council Resolution on integrating gender issues in development cooperation (20 December 1995) formed the basis for adopting an initial regulation in 1998 (Council Regulation (EC) No. 2836/98 of 22 December 1998), which has now been renewed for the period 2004-2006. The new text (No. 806/2004) strengthens the objectives — support for mainstreaming and adoption of specific measures to promote equal opportunities as an essential contribution to reducing world poverty — and identifies as priorities the monitoring of resources and services for women, especially with respect to education, employment and participation in decision-making processes. Support for public and private measures to promote gender equality is also emphasised.

5.2

The Programme of Action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in Community Development Cooperation (2001-2006) (5) is intended to help bridge the gap between stated principles and practice on the basis of a concrete strategy and definition of priority areas: support for macro-economic policies to reduce poverty and social development programmes in health and education; food safety and sustainable rural development; transport; institutional capacity building and good governance; trade and development, cooperation and regional integration; support for gender mainstreaming in all projects and programmes, both at regional and national level; and provision of instruments and appropriate training in gender equality issues for European Commission staff.

5.3

The Programming Document for 2005 and 2006 Promoting gender equality in development cooperation identifies the following priority areas for action: promoting positive attitudes and behaviour among adolescents to combat violence against girls and women; and the need for training and methodological support for key stakeholders in partner countries.

5.4

The European Commission supports action and projects to improve gender equality through bilateral and regional cooperation with the western Balkans, eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Mediterranean, Africa, the Caribbean and the countries of the Pacific and Latin America. Other financial support is allocated on a thematic, rather than geographical, basis.

5.5

The Cotonou Agreement, signed on 23 June 2000 with the ACP (African-Caribbean-Pacific) countries, also marks an important point in the development of EU relations with third countries. This agreement — which demonstrates the link existing between politics, trade and development — introduces a social dimension, including by promoting full participation of non-government stakeholders, including civil society, in development strategies. Gender equality is also established as one of the cross-cutting issues of the agreement, and must therefore be systematically taken into account (Articles 8 and 31). A very positive development is that non-government stakeholders will now participate in the different phases of programming national strategic documents and we hope that particular attention will be paid here to including women's organisations.

The agreement also gives the Committee an explicit mandate to advise economic and social interest groups, thus formalising its role of preferred interlocutor.

5.6

Achieving full inclusion and active involvement of women in development policies will certainly be a difficult and long-drawn-out process, but we believe it is important that all the European institutions maintain a high level of interest so that what has been set out on paper is translated into concrete measures.

5.7

From this perspective we think it is important for Community economic and social cohesion policies to be put forward as a model that can be exported to the rest of the world and for the EU to promote and apply the principles of social cohesion at international level through its relations with third countries.

5.8

One useful approach could certainly be to include specific clauses in trade and cooperation agreements, or even to adopt positive actions for those countries that respect women's rights.

5.9

Although trade liberalisation has certainly boosted female employment in developing countries, it is also often consigned women to the category of workers in precarious employment, less-skilled, less well-paid and without any system of social protection. In addition, trade liberalisation is often accompanied by structural reforms proposed or imposed by international organisations, which in the absence of adequate social protection mechanisms place a particularly heavy burden on the weaker sectors of the population — where women are often in the majority.

5.10

These policies, especially trade policy, nevertheless still seem to take little account of gender questions. Given that they are by no means neutral and that, on the contrary, they often have a negative impact on women in particular, and that the economic development of a country cannot neglect the issue of social equality, it would be useful if (1) such policies were negotiated taking gender mainstreaming into consideration, and (2) systems were introduced for monitoring their effects at macro- and micro-economic level.

—

The participation of women in decision-making processes and their representation is still too low, both in the European institutions and in the majority of Member States at national, regional and local level; it should be encouraged in all instances, and a quota system should also be considered.

—

Training measures to promote gender mainstreaming should be introduced both in the institutions and in the Member States, at all levels from decision-making to policy and strategy implementation.

—

Targeted studies and gender assessments, statistics, and specific indicators are essential for identifying issues, improving intervention strategies and policies, and for effectively evaluating their impact; it is necessary to continue producing de-aggregated data and defining new indicators.

—

Resources earmarked for positive action in favour of women in all EU funds and financing instruments, and in the Member States, should be carefully quantified, above all by encouraging and promoting gender budgeting.

—

The most important basic condition is, however, to ensure equal rights of access to education and training for women, as called for in Goal 3 of the Millennium Development Goals.

—

With regard to the Structural Funds, measures to help women in the agricultural (EAGGF) and fisheries (FIFG) sectors should be stepped up and linked to environmental protection, another area in which Community gender-linked policies are rather weak.

—

New impetus should be given to policies to encourage female entrepreneurship and increase the presence of women in the new technologies sector.

—

Training activities in the knowledge-based society sector should be stepped up in order to ensure that this does not become a further area of discrimination and exclusion for women, who in fact have much to contribute towards achieving the Lisbon Strategy objectives.

—

More generally, further measures are needed in the labour market to combat vertical and horizontal segregation and to remove all obstacles preventing the achievement of true equality; Member States must identify specific, quantifiable targets and objectives with the agreement of the social partners. In relation to wage discrimination in particular, the Member States must start applying a multi-faceted approach, as provided for in the Council guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (6), which includes education and training, job classifications and pay systems and cultural stereotypes as basic dimensions of the problem.

—

In measures designed to reconcile work and family life more attention must be paid to providing care for elderly relatives, partly in view of the ageing of the population, without diminishing childcare provision.

—

In order to promote equal opportunities between men and women, investment in public services should be encouraged and improved, especially in school and university education, healthcare and welfare services.

—

Immigration and asylum policies and policies to promote the integration of migrant women, as well as measures to help women who have been victims of conflict, discrimination and violence in their country of origin, should be stepped up, also within the Member States.

—

Efforts should be made to combat the trafficking of women and children.

—

As far as trade and development policies are concerned, it is necessary to build on the policy of involving society in general and the role of women in particular; women's interest groups must be fully involved in framing development policies and drawing up national strategy documents in the countries concerned; it is also particularly important to increase specific funding for women, so as to boost their economic and social position.

—

The effects of trade agreements and development policies must be monitored, including at microeconomic level, by providing for specific analyses of their impact on the living conditions of the weakest social sectors, and taking gender differences into account.

—

The role of the Commission and its delegations must be enhanced so that they can be influential in ensuring respect for human rights and thus also respect for women when their rights have been violated.

—

Delegations should be given a specific responsibility for promoting mainstreaming of gender issues.

—

The European Union should bring all its influence to bear in persuading as many countries as possible to ratify and implement international treaties that have a positive impact on the status of women, especially the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Optional Protocol, and in ensuring that the reservations lodged by signatory countries are withdrawn.

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/52

1.1

The Green Paper on Defence Procurement (COM(2004) 608 final) is one of the measures foreseen in the Communication ‘Towards a European Union defence equipment policy’ which was adopted in March 2003, and on which the Committee commented in September 2003 (1).

1.2

‘European Defence Equipment Market (EDEM)’, is in reality only a part of the internal market covering a specific sector. The Green Paper seeks to contribute towards the creation over time of an internal market for EU defence equipment that is more open and transparent, while respecting the specific nature of the sector. This should lead to a stronger and more competitive defence industry, increased cost effectiveness and support for the development of the military capabilities of the EU in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) field, within the context of the Common Security and Foreign Policy (CSFP).

1.3

On 12 July 2004 the Council agreed the establishment of the European Defence Agency (EDA) which is designed ‘to support the Member States (MS) in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain ESDP as it stands now and develops in the future’. This Agency has now started work. The EDA's functions (2) all relate to improving Europe's defence performance by promoting coherence in place of the current fragmentation.

1.4

‘Defence performance’ involves ensuring the availability of the capabilities needed to match the tasks envisaged, and the doctrine to undertake these tasks, in a cost effective way. This will include ensuring the maximum possible interoperability. At present the 25 MS together spend about €160 billion each year on defence, with about 20 % of this used in the equipment procurement process (including research and development, acquisition and support) (3).

2.1

The matters covered in this Green Paper relate to the way in which improvements may be made to the system of defence equipment procurement in the 25 Member States (MS). Significant progress will only be possible when the other elements of ‘defence performance’ (see paragraph 1.4 above) are clear (4). Of particular concern to industry is the need for very clear guidance, harmonised requirements and continuity. Nonetheless the initiative is welcomed by the Committee as it can be treated as a discrete part of the process of starting to establish a more viable ESDP in a transparent and competitive market.

2.2

The leading role foreseen by the EDA is welcomed. There will be a need for clear agreement on the respective roles of EDA and others at present involved in the defence equipment field (5) and EESC would expect a reduction in their separate roles as progress allows. However, the lessons learnt from the experience of OCCAR (6) (which handles actual project management, including the key question of contract law) should be studied before changes are made.

2.3

We welcome the recognition that the starting points (and the procedures used) for each MS in the defence procurement process are very different and that changes are likely to be made at different speeds. We agree that it will be helpful to establish a more common basis for defence procurement and that this can be done relatively quickly given the agreement and the cooperation of all MS.

2.4

EESC agrees that there is a need to reduce fragmentation of the defence equipment market and to increase its competitiveness and transparency as prerequisites for maintaining and strengthening a viable EU defence industry and for contributing to more cost effectiveness in procuring and managing appropriate defence capabilities.

2.5

The analysis of the specific features of defence equipment markets given in paragraph 2 of the Green Paper is a good basis for consideration of the market and indicates some of the difficulties faced.

2.6

However, EESC would stress that any restructuring of defence industries must primarily be a matter for the industries concerned, taking account of market realities (7). A good reason for this is that most significant companies are trans national, even though their customers are national. Moreover, MS have different industrial strategies, of which the defence industries are only a part.

2.7

Industry (in the defence sector as elsewhere) has to avoid too many regulatory procedures if it is to function efficiently and to provide cost effective and economical results.

3.1

It is necessary to clarify exactly what parts of the defence equipment procurement process are expected to be covered by the rules agreed. As well as the acquisition of such equipment there will be research and development, maintenance, repair, modification and training aspects, which are included in the cost of ‘ownership’, to consider; these are normally far more costly over time than the acquisition.

3.2.1

EESC agrees that exemptions to the EU rules on public procurement granted by virtue of Article 296 of the EU Treaty will continue to be needed to allow MS to derogate on the grounds of protecting their essential security interests.

3.2.2

The Commission should give an indication of the value of the equipments for which this derogation has been used over a period of, 5 years (and show it as a percentage of the total amount spent on defence equipment in the EU). They would then have a benchmark to help in measuring progress.

3.2.3

The problem is that the use of such derogation has, for some MS, become almost the rule rather than the exception and this is clearly not compatible with the single market. EESC supports the Commission's view that this should change. The challenge will be to use Article 296 in conformity with decisions in past cases (8) while retaining its possibility as a derogation from standard rules for public procurement. MS must be prepared to justify (legally if need be) derogations that they do make. The benefits of greater competition and greater transparency should be stressed in the discussion.

3.2.4

The list of products produced in 1958 under Article 296.2 which suggests the scope of Article 296.1 is not working and is likely to remain of no real value as a useful way of ensuring the proper use of the security derogation. Each case must continue to be treated on its merits since even basic equipment (9) will fall within the scope for derogations in some cases. Further, lists are not likely to keep pace with new developments.

3.2.5

There is thus no easy solution to defining which equipments and which services related to them could be covered under Article 296. As a first step there is a need to clarify the EU's existing legal framework through an ‘interpretative communication’ to improve understanding and to facilitate better and more consistent application.

3.2.6

As well as procurement any such communication will have implications for several other aspects; State aid and (possibly) services of general interest are among these and need to be taken into consideration.

3.2.7

We believe that the ‘negociated procedure’ with prior notification should be suitable for the specific needs of defence equipment where the ‘open’ and the ‘restricted’ methods are not suitable. However, this view may need to be reconsidered after experience has been gained of working with the ‘interpretative communication’.

3.2.8

There is a view that a communication can only be an interim measure until a specific directive (or other specific legal instrument) has been drawn up. EESC's view is that after such an ‘interpretative communication’ has been produced and agreed the need for a legislative instrument can be considered in the light of its effect. We would welcome early action to produce the communication.

3.2.9

There is a further possibility, not mentioned in the Green Paper, of establishing a ‘code of conduct’ to be used by participating MS as another means of establishing an EDEM. Since the area is one within the responsibility of MS this could be considered, presumably using EDA as a facilitator. It might be difficult to monitor and enforce such a code and the Internal market aspects would still need to be included.

3.3.1

The need to consider further the system and format for calls for tender is not convincing. If defence equipment is to be treated as just another part of the internal market in principle (although it has greater possibilities for derogations) it will presumably be dealt with in the same way as other tenders. This will entail different systems and problems, such as language, that are found elsewhere. The grounds for a centralised publication system are weak.

3.3.2

The potential problem areas are confidentiality and offset, which are more likely to arise for defence equipment than for other equipments and services, and security of supply, where it will be hard to change suppliers or contractors once a contract has been let. These are all areas where the MS concerned should be responsible, although some general guidance from the Commission may be helpful.

3.4.1

It is often difficult in today's industry to classify companies as being ‘defence equipment manufacturers’. Much equipment is now ‘dual use’ and the percentage is increasing. This is welcome from several points of view; for example, economies of scale can lead to more competitive pricing and security of supply can be easier to guarantee.

3.4.2

Also the efforts put into RTD for such equipment has a value to other (civil) purposes. It is therefore important that resources put into defence RTD is not subject to a regime that is too inflexible.

3.4.3

We remain concerned that there is much to be done to maximise the value of the coordination and focus that are needed in the defence equipment area, as we pointed out in our earlier paper on defence equipment (10).

3.5.1

We welcome the establishment of the EDA and recognise that it can play a leading role in the field of defence equipment. We note that it is still building up the resources required to fulfil its agreed roles.

3.5.2

It will be important for EDA to ensure that EU doctrine and capabilities take NATO's role, doctrine and capabilities fully into account by maximising interoperability and by minimising any differences. It is not yet clear how EDA could add value by becoming directly involved in procurement but its expertise in the field of defence equipment should leave it in a good position to suggest how national rules can be better harmonised.

3.5.3

It will also be valuable in getting agreement to the financial aspects of equipment cooperation where necessary. A significant area of potential difficulty is sharing the costs and benefits of RTD in defence related areas and in separating the defence and the general aspects in so doing.

3.5.4

EDA should also be helpful in moving towards the approximation of national licencing systems when defence equipments are transferred between Member States. At present the national procedures are both varied and burdensome. It could also help in getting agreement to the way in which offset arrangements are handled since these will remain a feature of procurement in the future.

3.5.5

EDA may find it possible to get some agreement on national industrial policies as far as defence equipment is concerned and to define the elements that constitute ‘strategic equipment’ whose provision the EU would wish to be capable of providing to reduce dependence on third countries; this would be most valuable.

3.5.6

EDA may also be able to encourage MS to consider such innovative methods of acquisition as pooling, leasing and specialisation to meet capability needs.

3.5.7

Since ESDP will only become effective if the MS show the necessary strong political will to provide and to maintain the necessary capabilities to meet agreed EU tasks, EDA should also play a role in encouraging MS to do this.

4.1

Defence equipment is only one requirement for a viable ‘defence performance’. For industry to play its part fully it will need clear guidance, harmonised requirements and continuity. It must also have primary responsibility for necessary restructuring. Industry also needs to avoid over burdensome regulatory procedures.

4.2

It must be made very clear what parts of the defence equipment procurement process will be covered by the rules agreed.

4.3

Article 296 of the Treaty will continue to be required. To ensure that progress in avoiding its too frequent use the Commission needs to establish a benchmark though examining current performance. It is not practicable to maintain any list of equipments and procedures to which Article 296 can be applied.

4.4

As a first step the Commission should produce as soon as possible an ‘interpretative communication’ on Article 296. Only after experience has been gained with this communication will it be possible to decide whether a legal instrument is also required.

4.5

‘Dual use’ equipment is increasingly common and this trend is welcome, not least because of the potential for civil use of RTD which applies to military equipment.

4.6

The important role foreseen for the European Defence Agency (EDA) is welcome; it will need to be clear what part all the agencies now involved are to play.

4.7

Among the important roles for EDA in this area are:

8.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/56

1.1

The present proposal forms part of the third railway package, which was adopted by the European Commission on 3 March 2004. The other components are:

and

1.2

The first railway package (also called the infrastructure package) came into force on 15 March 2001 and had to be transposed into national legislation by 15 March 2003. It comprises the following components:

1.3

In October 2003 the European Commission took nine Member States to the European Court of Justice for failing to notify the transposition of the first railway package into national law. By May 2004 five countries' notification had still not been received and two Member States had transposed only some of the provisions into national law.

1.4

The second railway package was published in the Official Journal of the European Community on 30 April 2004 and has to be transposed into national law by 30 April 2006. It comprises the following components:

1.5

The first and second railway packages provided the legal basis for establishing a single rail freight market. The measures encompass market access, the licensing and safety certification of railway undertakings, access to infrastructure and the calculation of charges for its use, the creation of a legal framework for rail safety, and measures for ensuring the technical interoperability of the rail system.

1.6

As the EESC has already pointed out in its Opinion on the second railway package (8), this new legal framework makes it necessary to completely reorganise the sector and establish new authorities and competences.

1.7

In the same opinion the EESC also pointed to the need for European social rules. European social partners in the railway sector, the Community of European Railways and the European Transport Workers' Federation signed two European agreements on 17 January 2004 concerning:

1.8

As part of the third railway package, the Commission is proposing a directive on the certification of train crews, which would come into force in 2010 or 2015.

1.9

In submitting a further amendment to Directive 91/440/ECC, the Commission continues to pursue its aim of a gradual deregulation of the railway sector.

2.1

The Commission proposes to deregulate market access for international passenger services from 1 January 2010 onwards. The proposal also covers cabotage, that is to say the picking up and setting down of passengers at railway stations along the entire route. At the same time the provision on free access to the market for international groupings is to be abolished.

2.2

Each year 6 billion passengers travel by train in the EU 25, with local and regional services taking the lion's share. International passenger services account for only about 10 % of rail travel, based on tickets sold. This includes regional cross-border services, long-distance cross-border services and high-speed (cross-border) services.

2.3

The Commission recognises that opening up international passenger services, including cabotage, to competition could perhaps have a negative impact on the economic balance of public service passenger transport. It proposes to grant exemptions from free market access on routes where public service contracts are already in force under Directive (EEC) No. 1191/69, and where a deregulation of international services could upset the balance. This exemption will only be granted in cases where this is absolutely critical to maintaining the provision of public service transport, and where it has been sanctioned by the regulatory authority under Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC. Judicial review of the decision to grant exemption must also be possible.

2.4

The Commission is required to present a report on the implementation of the provision by 31 December 2012.