13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/1

1.1

The present exploratory EESC opinion comes in response to a letter from the Vice-President of the European Commission, Ms Margot Wallström, but it also takes account of opinions presented over the last few years embodying the thoughts, analyses and proposals which the Committee has drawn up on these questions.

1.2

The EESC believes that the Lisbon objectives regarding demographic policies should be pursued. On account of the rapid demographic changes on the labour market, measures are urgently needed to tackle the ensuing issues:

1.3

The removal of older workers from their jobs must be discouraged — indeed, greater attention should be given to employing older workers in the productive cycle.

1.4

Jobs should match each individual's training and vocational experience, with no age discrimination. The EESC therefore calls upon all the Member States to transpose and apply the directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation (2000/78/EC).

1.5

Better organisation of work requires an assessment of the type of work carried out (hazardous, strenuous or repetitive work).

1.6

Lifelong learning programmes are the key to making more effective use of over-50 workers both within and outside companies. Instances of best practice should therefore be disseminated and monitored, as envisaged in the annual monitoring reports presented by the European social partners.

1.7

A policy supporting high-quality employment would guide and train generations of citizens throughout their working lives. This entails a proactive role for the social partners and all the relevant economic and social players at local, national and European levels.

1.8

Research and innovation are a key investment for both future generations and today's Europeans. Consequently, young people must be encouraged to take up science courses at university, and conditions conducive to employment in the technological and research fields must be created.

The European Union must catch up with other countries, such as China and India, which have made huge strides forward in these sectors in recent years.

1.9

Investing in disadvantaged areas helps young people not to move away, and to become an instrument for developing and regenerating local areas.

1.10

2007 — the Year of Equal Opportunities — should concentrate on determining how to strike a proper work-life balance, so that decisions on parenthood are not determined by unstable or difficult circumstances, or by families having to face alone the costs — which are not purely economic — of bringing up children.

1.11

The EESC believes that the use of important directives, for example on parental leave, should be encouraged, and childcare and care services for the elderly should be guaranteed; the pay gap between men and women should be rapidly closed, and unstable and short-term employment should be combated, as these are the causes of poverty among many women in Europe. Incentives should also be devised that encourage men to assume a greater share of family responsibilities. For women, having children and working should not be seen as opposites, and every measure should therefore be taken to ensure that mothers can successfully combine childcare with their working lives.

1.12

In business too, measures must be adopted ensuring that women enjoy access to managerial posts.

1.13

Immigration is one of the necessary responses to the challenge of an ageing population. Holistic integration and employment policies can serve as motors for growth and development. Immigrants' skills, vocational experience and educational qualifications should be harnessed.

1.14

The sustainability of the welfare system needs to be guaranteed with a series of measures which do not penalise its final objective, as defined in the EU treaties (Article 2). It is therefore necessary, firstly, to ensure its sustainability and, secondly, to pursue the objectives of universality and fairness which underpin the European social model.

1.15

Social services of general interest should be guaranteed and upheld on account of their function, as should social economy actors. Voluntary associations in which the elderly are active perform an important social function and should be supported and put to effective use.

1.16

The aim of the European Union and the Member States ought to be to ensure an anxiety-free and decent old age, and consequently proper pension systems, for future generations. Supplementary pensions, if required, must be reliable, secure and shielded from unforeseeable fluctuations on the financial markets.

1.17

Combating insecure employment means assuring young workers of a decent pension, and necessarily entails reducing late entry into employment.

1.18

The sustainability of pension schemes must be analysed bearing in mind a series of complex factors which cannot be reduced to population ageing alone.

1.19

In some EU countries, strict measures against evasion of tax and social security contributions must be one of the key objectives in ensuring the sustainability of pension schemes.

1.20

In the health field, an ageing population will principally mean investment in prevention the quality of care, and research, especially into the diseases most frequently affecting the elderly: efforts and study will need to focus on this aspect.

1.21

In the light of population ageing, occupational health and safety issues will also assume different dimensions and will undergo changes which should be analysed and assessed carefully.

1.22

The EESC is of the view that the EU Member States should, in consultation with the social partners, implement joint programmes to prevent accidents and occupational illness, particularly when age-related. Monitoring and information exchange are important tools.

1.23

Older workers must be allowed to choose freely whether to continue working, in the light of the type of work and with an assessment of how much risk, repetitiveness and strenuous labour is involved.

1.24

The EESC undertakes to continue analysing, assessing and making proposals with regard to demographic changes, aware of the complexity of this issue which will, in the coming years, demand the participation of all institutional, economic and social actors if the challenge is to be met. In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Committee undertakes to follow up on the questions addressed in the present opinion.

2.1

Ms Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission, has asked the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion on the report that the Commission, together with the EU Economic Policy Committee, has recently published on the economic and budgetary impact of ageing populations for all EU Member States.

2.2

Given the broad scope of this issue and the policies involved, in her request Ms Wallström asked the EESC to concentrate on areas directly or indirectly connected with employment and a number of related aspects, such as health, pension systems and lifelong learning.

2.3

The Dublin Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions has carried out many studies addressing the population ageing issue and analysing the impact on European citizens and workers.

2.4

A range of factors contribute to an ageing population: falling birth rates and increasing life expectancy, together with the progressive withdrawal from economic activity of the post-war generation and, in the future, of the baby-boom generation of the 1960s (1). This latter factor is having, and will continue to have, a direct impact on the population of working age.

2.5

According to Eurostat projections, the population of over-65s in EU25 is set to rise from 75 million in 2005 to about 135 million in 2050. Their percentage of the overall EU25 population is expected to reach 30 %, with peaks in Spain (36 %), Italy (35 %), the lowest rates being in Luxembourg (22 %) and the Netherlands (23 %).

2.6

Ageing populations have important social and economic consequences for the Member States, making modernisation of budget and welfare policies a necessity.

2.7

The entire economy of a country is affected by ageing: the labour market, productivity, technological innovation and economic growth, since the population's needs and potential inevitably change.

3.1

The Lisbon strategy addresses the employment rate of older workers, with an initial goal — still unattained — of a minimum of 50 %.

3.2

Ageing is reflected firstly in an increase in average age, and secondly in a reduction in the overall number of citizens of working age, as the older generations are not replaced by sufficient numbers of young people. Young people are, moreover, entering the labour market at an ever later stage (2).

3.3

The labour market is particularly susceptible to the influence of population ageing. The implications are such that measures are urgently needed to deal with issues including:

3.4

The effects of population ageing affect not only workers, but also entrepreneurs. As one generation replaces another, means must be provided to facilitate the hand-over of businesses, especially in the SME field. A progressive rise in the average age of entrepreneurs has also been noted, with direct and indirect implications for innovation, the capital market and, more broadly, on the entire industrial fabric of Europe. An older population of entrepreneurs means that many have already retired or are on the point of doing so, without fresh generations of younger entrepreneurs to replace them. A shrinking number of entrepreneurs means a shrinking number of businesses and, consequently, a smaller number of jobs.

3.5

The removal of older workers, not only from industry but also from the tertiary sector, is ever more worrying. The difficulty of fitting into a new work environment, the handicap of having vocational experience from perhaps one or only a small number of jobs, and the discrimination from which older workers unquestionably suffer when seeking new employment, are factors which affect all European workers.

3.6

Greater attention should be given to employing older workers in the productive cycle: in some sectors, their experience generates qualitatively higher productivity. In the business sector too, purely age-related assessments should be abandoned in favour of an appreciation of actual skills. The European directives banning any form of discrimination (2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC) should be brought to in this area and monitored.

3.7

All workers should have jobs which match their training and skills as closely as possible: this would pave the way for higher productivity which would, at least in part, offset the negative effects of an ageing population (3).

3.8

Active policies to support the employment of older workers must, in any case, take account of the type of work carried out: hazardous, strenuous or repetitive areas of work require targeted analysis and must involve a greater degree of personal choice on the part of workers (4).

4.1

One of the specific objectives set in order to increase the employment rate of older workers is to implement efficient and effective lifelong learning programmes, through exchanges of best practice between the 27 EU Member States and a permanent dialogue with the social partners, as called for by numerous European institutions (5).

4.2

Guidelines on lifelong learning have been laid down year after year since the Luxembourg summit (1997), in the form of the European Employment Strategy (EES). On each occasion, emphasis has been laid on the importance of the employability of older workers — and, consequently, of their further vocational training — in tackling the problems raised by an ageing population.

4.3

The expression lifelong learning is used for all significant learning activity aimed at enhancing capacities, knowledge and skills. Such activities should therefore be seen as being relevant to the entire working life, since the loss of occupational skills and updating has the most serious effects precisely on older workers.

4.4

The EESC, for its part, has highlighted the intergenerational imbalances in terms of technological knowledge and acquisition of various skills (6).

4.5

In-house training is an effective instrument in boosting worker adaptability. Some Member States (United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Austria) have, to varying degrees, encouraged in-house training and refresher courses by means of tax incentives and exemptions.

4.6

As part of the Lisbon strategy, importance has been attached to efficient training methods and systems which effectively meet labour market requirements as a key component in a knowledge-based economy, which was one of the objectives of the summit in Portugal.

4.7

Removing obstacles to the employment of older workers means anticipating the effects of demographic change.

5.1

In 2004, the EESC strongly advocated supporting a pact between the generations in order to provide European citizens with sufficient renewal of the generations on the labour market, a welfare state adjusted to reflect the new demographic conditions in Europe, and European legislation promoting employment policies, vocational retraining and closer links between the education system and business (7).

5.2

Policies in support of ‘good’ employment must in any case also be geared to helping young people to enter the job market, by accompanying them throughout their working lives (8), without creating a ‘digital gap’ between young workers and their older colleagues who intend to remain at work.

5.3

In its opinion, the EESC identified the challenge of ‘facilitating the development in the future of more consultation on a major issue, where coordinated, ongoing action from a wide range of players and the continuity of a constructive plan are necessary and short-term interests must not be allowed to prevail. A new pact between the generations needs to take shape step by step across the EU’.

5.4

Research and innovation are fields in which investment is inevitably required if future generations of Europeans are to be assured future well-being and a satisfactory, sustainable quality of life. It is therefore also important to take account of the average age of European researchers and scientists, and of the need to bring young people into these key sectors.

5.5

The lack of adequate investment in research throughout Europe — which is still lagging far behind the Lisbon strategy targets — prevents young researchers, who are often compelled to work on an extremely insecure basis, from building a future and a career in the field of scientific and technological research. The higher average age of scientists in Europe compared to other world powers points to future danger. In India and China, for example, the number of graduates in scientific subjects is increasing, to such an extent that 60 % of researchers and scientists in the USA come from these two countries. In many European countries, in contrast, university science departments have witnessed a definite fall in the number of new students over recent years.

5.6

Population ageing also has a direct impact on regional cohesion: young people tend to leave certain areas to seek work in others which can offer better living and working conditions. This widens the gap between regions with a more developed economy and those where impoverishment and ageing are accelerating.

5.7

The work-life balance is a pillar of the European social model. The rising average age of the European population poses the problem of how to boost the birth rate. This is to be understood purely in terms of offering all couples the opportunity to have children, without necessarily having to give up work or drastically cut the family's standard of living — which can, all too often, fall to levels close to the poverty line. Young people today are typically affected by unstable employment conditions incapable of providing them with any security for their futures: consequently, they are tending to have fewer children or none at all.

5.8

In order to achieve the aim of a progressive rise in the birth rate, all social, health and education services (pre-school, medical assistance, preventive health care, financial support, etc.) should be reinforced, improved and brought into line with current demographic conditions in the EU countries.

6.1

In 2005, the female employment rate in the EU25 stood at 56.3 %. The problem is less acute in the northern European countries, but more pressing in the Mediterranean countries. But even women who do work find it difficult to shape a career enabling them to build up significant welfare contributions. Women at work are effectively confronted with a series of difficulties:

6.2

The Commission rightly considers that the decline in the size of the working-age population may be partly offset by a series of measures including, in the short term, rising female participation in the labour market. The cultural changes which, over recent decades, have made it possible for women to work and become independent, are reflected in inter-generational differences in female employment rates. In Europe, young women have a greater presence in working life than do middle-aged women.

6.3

Increasing female participation in the labour market is unquestionably a positive sign of social progress, although according to statistical analyses, including recent ones, it is not yet sufficient. Moreover, it is essential that this growth lead to the real application of equal working conditions and pay with men, as well as protection of women against abuse and discrimination at work and in society. Employment differences between men and women also exist among entrepreneurs: there is a glaring discrepancy between the numbers of businessmen and businesswomen. The Member States and the European Union must therefore strengthen what tools they already have and adopt new ones in order to facilitate and safeguard female employment.

7.1

Immigration into the EU is growing constantly. The vast difference between economies and standards of living inside Europe and the developing countries outside Europe is driving migration towards our, richer countries. Immigration must not be seen as a threat but rather as a phenomenon which, if comprehensive policies are implemented, can represent a potential factor for growth, development and integration.

7.2

Given the general ageing of the population and a declining working population, migrant workers perform tasks in the EU which effectively match the production, economic and social needs of the host countries. Employment and integration policies must be geared to allocating human resources, including immigrants, as effectively as possible by making best possible use of their skills, vocational experience and qualifications (9).

7.3

The Commission itself argues that immigration could be a positive factor in labour market adjustment. Moreover, as long as immigrant workers are employed within the official economy, their tax and social security payments contribute to welfare systems, and they therefore constitute a major new element in the European labour market of the next few years. Neither should the vital economic support provided by their remittances to their families be overlooked: these often constitute their sole source of economic support. For these reasons, better integration of immigrants is an essential objective for EU Member States (10).

7.4

The need to be brought into the official economy does not concern immigrant workers alone: population ageing raises issues such as combating unregistered and insecure work on the agenda as a matter of urgency, if national economies are to be put on a sounder and more sustainable footing.

8.1

The European Commission states, in a range of documents, that public debt must be substantially, progressively and continuously brought under control or reduced if sustainability of public finances in the Member States is to be achieved. Efficient allocation of resources — without repercussions for the quality or universality of public services — is necessary for this purpose.

8.2

Demographic changes — which are raising concern about the sustainability of the welfare state — are the main reason why the various social protection funding systems in the EU Member States must, each in its own, specific way, operate efficiently, fairly and transparently to serve their citizens.

8.3

The EESC emphasises that social services of general interest, and the social economy actors, have an important function in supplementing support for families and the elderly. The importance of their work needs to be recognised, and such bodies should be supported on the basis of agreed requirements, since they perform a socially useful role.

8.4

The European Union can perform an important function in this respect: the Lisbon strategy (integration of social, economic and employment policies) introduced an unprecedented, innovative approach, and one of its instruments, the open method of coordination, can be seen as one of the most interesting innovations in Community policy in recent years. This instrument has unfortunately been underused and often underestimated, at the same time as the Community legislative instrument has been abandoned. The European social model is a goal which unfortunately remains far from being fulfilled — but is certainly not an obstacle to be sacrificed for the sake of the internal market.

8.5

In some European countries, especially those facing macro phenomena such as the rising average age of the population, funding for welfare and pension systems is jeopardised by evasion of tax and social security contributions. Any project to overhaul welfare and health systems and employment possibilities must include measures to combat tax evasion and avoidance which represent the primary threat to sustainable national budgets.

8.6

The EESC therefore wishes to draw attention to the importance, in seeking solutions and changes in line with demographic developments, of combating evasion of tax and social security contributions, as well as the falling number of taxpayers.

9.1

Numerous European Commission documents on the sustainability of pension systems focus on the shrinking population of working age and the increase in the number of retired workers, both of which are effects of rising life expectancy.

9.2

Over the coming decades, pension systems will need to be capable of guaranteeing future generations a secure and decent old age. This is why, in the first place, the impact of ageing on pension systems cannot be countered only by encouraging the use of supplementary or private pensions: to do so would be a dangerous simplification. Rather, efforts should be devoted to devising effective instruments making such supplementary pension schemes more straightforward, secure and reliable, and to ensuring that they are shielded from unforeseeable fluctuations on the financial markets. Supervision of private pension funds also needs to be stepped up, in order to extend control arrangements and guarantee proper management.

9.3

In many EU countries, the current crisis in pension systems is not caused by population ageing alone, but also by the fact that contributions are steadily contracting, with no corresponding increase in resources from elsewhere (e.g. through tackling evasion of tax and social security contributions), while the demand for pensions on the part of citizens continues to rise.

9.4

Matters are made still worse by the fact that young people are entering employment ever later, and frequently on insecure and low-paid terms, meaning that they pay lower pension contributions compared to their parents at the same age.

9.5

Population ageing may require individuals to stay for longer on the labour market. In some EU Member States in particular, however, it is more urgent to speed up entry into employment and, more broadly, to provide better job opportunities and working conditions early in working life.

9.6

The European Commission forecasts an increase in spending on pensions from now until 2050 throughout the EU, with the exception of Austria on account of its pension reforms in 2000. Although only slight increases in expenditure are expected in Italy and Sweden, as their public pension schemes are contributory, very substantial increases are projected in the other countries, rising to 9.7 % in Portugal.

9.7

Consequently, the issue of pension system sustainability cannot be analysed and resolved in isolation. There must be a clear picture of its causes, which are not generated only across European society as a whole, as in the case of widespread population ageing, but also arise from all the differing circumstances concerning the labour market, economic growth and social protection systems in the various EU countries.

9.8

The objectives that should be set in order to address the question of pension system sustainability go beyond simply raising the pension age, a measure which, if applied without regard to specific criteria, could prove useless — indeed harmful — for the quality of life of European citizens.

9.9

In view of the differences between types of work, including strenuous, repetitive or physically demanding work, the solution to the problem of an ageing population cannot be simply a higher retirement age across the board: working longer will not have the same effect in all occupations, and the difference between the legal pension age and the real age of retirement must be taken into consideration.

9.10

Steps to combat job insecurity and undeclared work and to support wage policies, fairer distribution of wealth and more effective social cohesion must be accompanied by an irreversible, gradual and voluntary rise in the retirement age, to be achieved and upheld through permanent dialogue with the social partners and civil society.

10.1

The fact that an increase in the average age of the population leads to an increase in health spending is readily understood. However, forecasting future trends in health expenditure, and predicting which specific areas will require the heaviest investment, over the coming decades, is an extremely complex exercise. It is not possible to predict how much public money will have to invested in health on the basis of demographic trends alone; health spending also depends on the types of policies it is decided to implement in this field, on advances in medical science, the evolution of diseases and levels of pollution, and on the political and technological choices made in order to contain them.

10.2

However, as previously explained, all studies reveal that a situation is rapidly approaching in which people will work longer. Older workers are inevitably at greater risk of illness and physical decline simply because they are older than their colleagues. As the population of older workers is unquestionably set to continue rising, a health system urgently needs to be devised that can implement effective preventive policies in all the EU Member States. Furthermore, workers who have been in long-term precarious employment will find themselves in need when they reach pension age: they will have to be provided for using other forms of collective solidarity, according to the arrangements in each Member State, including for health and welfare. The increase in precarious employment will thus have a direct impact on welfare costs.

10.3

If the aim is to keep public spending down to sustainable levels, the EU Member States must pool their efforts to implement care, accident prevention, monitoring and information exchange programmes, in order to forge closer and more effective links between working life and health.

10.4

Not all jobs are the same. Workforce ageing is also tied in with the fact that some jobs are more strenuous, risky or repetitive than others: the effects of age vary according to occupation. An older worker cannot perform physically demanding manual functions, but can more easily carry out office-based or mental tasks.

10.5

A longer working life consequently entails greater health problems for workers in strenuous occupations. This factor must be taken into account. If future plans revolve around a later retirement age in those sectors where it is possible, then major efforts will have to be made in the field of health care and health and safety at work.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/8

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee regrets that the Commission's initiatives intended to combat fiscal fraud have not yet been adequately backed up by cooperation from the Member States. It supports future initiatives in this regard and urges the Commission to make use of all the powers presently invested in the European institutions by the treaties.

1.2

The EESC considers the Commission's communication to be well-structured, taking a balanced view of the problems involved in tackling fiscal fraud and singling out stronger administrative cooperation between the Member States as the main means of countering the spread of fraud.

1.3

The Communication's practical response to the issue of relations with third countries is to propose a Community approach. The EESC agrees with the proposal.

1.4

The EESC supports the proposal to reconsider VAT — something it has itself advocated on previous occasions — believing that a think-tank should be formed to envisage replacing VAT, with the proviso that any new tax should not lead to increased payments by businesses or citizens.

1.5

The EESC recommends that the Commission make full use of OLAF's current powers, under which the European anti-fraud body holds important functions. The Commission must assess whether OLAF has adequate means to perform its official tasks.

1.6

The EESC views the proposal to ensure increasingly efficient cooperation between national anti-fraud bodies as an absolute priority. This could be achieved by setting up a network of police forces and investigative bodies, allowing them to share available databases, and it recommends that the technical and legal issues involved be carefully examined.

1.7

The proposal for a high-level forum on administrative cooperation is a step in the right direction. There can be no possible justification for the apparent bureaucratic resistance and obstacles to this idea.

1.8

The EESC believes it would be helpful to incorporate the achievements of some Member States into Community law, introducing the ‘normal market value’ criterion for anti-fraud purposes.

1.9

The EESC recommends a cautious approach to introducing joint liability between vendors and purchasers, but reversing the burden of proof in the case of apparently unjustified transactions, in the light of judgments by the Court of Justice.

1.10

The EESC feels that the Commission's proposal to introduce simplified requirements for operators who cooperate with the authorities and, by the same token, stricter controls and procedures for parties judged to be a risk, merits further consideration.

1.11

The EESC calls upon the Commission to continue funding Community programmes to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests, such as Hercule II.

1.12

The EESC recommends harmonising the provisions of Directive 77/799/EEC with existing provisions concerning indirect taxation as well as standardising the various VAT systems.

2.1

The Commission communication proposes developing ‘a strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud’, noting that although the Community legal framework has been improved and consolidated, it is not sufficiently used and administrative cooperation is not commensurate with the size of intra-Community trade.

2.2

The Commission thus takes up a theme that has often been addressed, namely the need for closer administrative cooperation between the tax authorities of the Member States — an instrument for combating fiscal fraud and evasion, which can produce fiscal losses and cause distortions of competition, impairing the functioning of the internal market.

2.3

When the communication was presented, László Kovács — the commissioner responsible for taxation and customs union — stated: ‘I firmly believe that it is time to look at new ways of effectively combating tax fraud. The scale of this phenomenon has become very worrying.’

2.4

Economists say that tax fraud accounts for a total of 2-2.5 % of GDP, or EUR 200 to 250 billion. So-called VAT carousel fraud is one of the biggest problems, but smuggling and counterfeiting of alcohol and tobacco, and fraud involving direct taxation are equally serious issues. Since 1993, the free movement of goods, services, people and capital within the internal market has made it more difficult for the Member States to combat tax fraud effectively on their own.

2.5

In the sphere of indirect taxes, Community standards lay down direct common rules for the Member States (uniform procedures, identification of the competent authorities, information provision arrangements) to facilitate administrative cooperation and information exchange.

2.6

The Commission identifies three priority areas for action:

2.6.1.1

The Commission believes that tax fraud can be combated more effectively through:

2.6.2.1

‘… tax evasion does not stop at the external borders of the European Union.’ The Commission proposes a Community approach to cooperation with third countries which, as it is at present based on bilateral agreements between individual countries, generates a range of situations which fraudsters can easily take advantage of. The Commission also proposes that tax cooperation clauses should be included in the economic partnership agreements that the Community concludes with its economic partners.

2.6.3.1

The Commission opens the debate on the possibility of strengthening the principle of joint and several liability for the payment of VAT, subject to the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

2.6.3.2

The Commission is also considering the possibility of extending application of the reverse charge mechanism — currently mandatory only for certain transactions, whereas for others it can be imposed more or less at the Member State's discretion — for transactions within a Member State. The Commission considers that any change to the prevailing VAT rules must substantially reduce the risk of fraud, exclude new risks and above all not create disproportionate red tape for companies and for authorities, and it must in addition ensure tax neutrality and non-discriminatory treatment of operators.

2.7.1

The Commission also proposes that other specific measures should be considered, including:

3.1

The Committee believes that the legal instruments provided by the present legislative framework are up to the task of combating tax fraud. There is, on the other hand, an urgent need to press the Member States to make wider use of existing instruments for administrative cooperation and to comply with the deadlines and procedures laid down. In a present-day climate of economic globalisation in which fraud is also taking on a transnational dimension, it is essential that requests for information be met as investigations are taking place.

3.2

In order, however, to have a more uniform system between the direct and indirect tax aspects, the Commission could harmonise the provisions of Directive 77/799/EEC in line with existing provisions concerning indirect taxation, and introduce more efficient methods for exchanging information given the opportunities offered by computer technology. It is also important to standardise the various VAT systems, with particular regard to the obligations of liable parties.

3.3

The Community legislative framework can be broadly divided into five basic types:

3.4

References to Community legislation, together with a brief summary of the relevant provisions, are set out in Appendix A.

4.1

The EESC believes that the increasing frequency of tax fraud should be combated more vigorously and laments the fact that Member States' action and their cooperation is considered by the Commission to be insufficient, despite a complex, well-structured legal framework.

4.2

The distorting effect of tax evasion and avoidance on the smooth functioning of the economy and the internal market is a serious issue which has hitherto been underestimated, as has the relationship between tax fraud, money laundering and economic crime. Indeed, fraud aimed at wrongfully obtaining national or EU financial aid is often carried out by means of false tax documents and, vice versa, the money gained from tax fraud, including in cross-border transactions, is often used for subsequent illegal or criminal acts.

4.3

With regard to tax avoidance — which, unlike tax evasion, involves practices which are not unlawful per se, but which are designed solely to obtain an undue tax saving — the Committee points out that national legislation has not dealt with this issue uniformly. To avoid the proliferation of administrative and social costs linked to inconsistent legislation, the Committee would welcome moves to harmonise national legislation in this area; a general anti-avoidance provision could be introduced, a common list of cases in which tax administrations can exercise repudiation — for tax purposes — of the legal effects of transactions where tax avoidance is deemed to have occurred.

4.4

The EESC believes that the Commission's proposals take a too cautious approach to the issue, considering the power conferred on the Commission by the Treaties to take all the necessary measures to secure the financial stability of the European institutions. Indeed, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 confers on the Commission substantial implementing powers. The Committee also points to the principle of subsidiarity — laid down under Article 5 of the Treaty of Rome — which stipulates that the Community shall also take action in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, whenever the objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved by the Member States or rather, can be better achieved by the Community. The EESC calls upon the Commission to make full use of these powers.

4.5

As early as June 2001, with the Communication on Tax policy in the European Union — Priorities for the years ahead (COM(2001) 260 final), the Commission stressed the need to make use of all other available instruments, in addition to legislation, to achieve priorities. In that context, it was highlighted that decisions on tax policy had, and still have, to be adopted unanimously (1).

4.6

Even then, the EESC upheld the need to change the transitional system and introduce without delay the definitive system based on the principle of taxation in the country of origin. With some irony, the EESC wondered at that time: ‘how many more years of the ramshackle transitional system will have to be endured before this objective can be attained?’, calling for simplification and modernisation of rules, more uniform application of the rules and closer administrative cooperation. It would appear that no progress has been made.

4.7

The EESC upholds the general approach of strengthening cooperation by moving beyond the current VAT information exchange system — VIES — and developing measures for automatic or spontaneous information exchange between Member States.

4.8

The EESC welcomes the opening of the debate on changing the VAT system, but stresses the need for an in-depth impact assessment to be carried out, based on the assumption that any changes to the system should make it more effective and simpler and not serve to increase the tax burden on people and businesses. In this regard, the Committee would point to a proposal it made in a previous opinion (2) to consider an alternative to the VAT system, that would ensure a level of revenue at least equal to the current one but would be less costly to society and more efficient from the point of view of collection.

5.1.1.1

One type of VAT fraud with particularly serious consequences, in terms of amounts of tax evaded, and which is highly difficult to detect, is known as carousel fraud. It involves VAT avoidance systems, in which companies are created ad hoc to operate internationally. The aim is to avoid paying VAT due in order to allow the other links in the fraud chain to deduct fictitious tax payments and thus obtain a refund of the VAT or reduce the VAT due. To achieve this unlawful objective, the defaulting party generally does not operate or trade as a real business, and often its headquarters are nothing more than a post-office box. Such companies then disappear, after several months of ‘trading’, without producing the required tax return and paying the tax due, thus making detection very difficult for the tax authorities.

5.1.1.2

The EESC believes that carousel fraud might have been made possible in particular by inadequate cooperation between Member States, as well as by differentiated rate systems. The EESC therefore suggests that all necessary forms of cooperation and intelligence exchange should be activated to combat the phenomenon effectively.

5.1.2.1

VAT evasion has led Member State financial administrations to refine their investigative techniques more and more, with the aim of combating the phenomenon more effectively.

Administrative cooperation has a key role to play in combating VAT fraud, given that such fraud is committed by a chain of companies across the Member States.

By means of relevant treaty instruments, the Member States have established a system of information exchange which has proved useful for determining the status of taxpayers and for combating and curbing transnational tax fraud.

As regards cooperation, the EESC pointed out long ago the need for the Commission to play a more active role, and it therefore welcomes the creation of a monitoring system to verify the quantity and quality of assistance provided.

5.1.2.2

Information exchange is currently far from being standard practice, due to cultural differences, varying levels of computerisation and a lack of legislation to curb Member States' inertia. An EU-wide culture therefore needs to be created whereby it is accepted that cross-border information requests must not be considered an exceptional occurrence but rather standard practice within the investigative process, whenever relevant.

To this end, we must overcome the obstacles to an EU administrative culture, incentivising full use of the existing cooperation instruments, and compliance with deadlines and procedures laid down, so that investigative bodies can have the requested information in a timeframe conducive to their investigative work.

5.1.2.3

Furthermore, in line with the Commission's call for the use of standard computer formats for the exchange of information, the Committee would propose considering the case for creating a network for Member State police forces and investigative bodies involved in the fight against fraud. This could facilitate direct information exchange by means of a certified electronic mail system. Opening up access to Member States' tax return databases — as has happened with level 1 and 2 VIES data — should also be considered.

Such an initiative, which would, however, require prior agreement on the specific data to be included in such archives as well as its compatibility with national legislation on privacy, would be a real step forward in improving the fight against tax fraud, in that it would provide investigative bodies with the information they need directly, in real time and without excessive bureaucracy.

5.1.2.4

Also, although legislation on Member State information exchange is well-structured and generally satisfactory, the greatest obstacle to curbing tax evasion within the EU lies in the inconsistency of legislation across the Member States with regard to powers of inquiry, as well as the varying degrees of deterrence.

This means that fraud is particularly prevalent in countries where investigators' powers of inquiry are less pervasive or where penalties are insufficient to act as a deterrent.

5.1.2.5

Therefore, while respecting Member States' sovereignty, the Committee would advocate harmonising the penalties for fraud cases of comparable gravity, at EU level, as already envisaged, for example, in the fight against money laundering. This would prevent less stringent legislation or less efficient audit systems from effectively creating safe havens for the proceeds of criminal activity and for operating carousel fraud.

5.1.3.1

Measures to counter tax evasion must be in line with EU principles, including non-discrimination and proportionality, as the Court of Justice has often stressed. One of the areas in which the various systems vary greatly is in the use of criteria to determine the taxable amount which differ from the consideration agreed between the parties, not only in the case of goods for private consumption or for purposes other than those of the business, but also in all cases where there is considered to be a risk of fraud or tax evasion.

In this regard, the EESC points out that in all Member State systems the criterion for determining the taxable amount is largely based on the parties' willingness to negotiate and aims to ensure that the actual consideration is taxed given that the taxable amount is generally the contractual consideration agreed on for the goods or service rendered. Alongside this ‘basic’taxable amount criterion, another factor used is normal market value, as a means of adjusting or re-establishing the taxable amount, under certain conditions.

5.1.3.2

The concept of normal market value for VAT purposes is practically the same in all Member States and is broadly in line with Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (Sixth Directive) which defines it as the average sum paid for the same kind of goods and services, in conditions of free competition and at the same stage of marketing, at the time and in the place that the goods or services were acquired or provided, or, if this is not possible, the time and place nearest thereto.

5.1.3.3

In all Member State systems, normal value represents an alternative method of determining the taxable amount:

5.1.3.4

In addition to these cases, there is also a derogation from the principle of determining the taxable amount based on the consideration in cases where:

5.1.3.5

In this regard, the Court of Justice (4) has ruled that national measures designed to prevent tax evasion or avoidance may not in principle derogate from the basis for charging VAT in accordance with the consideration agreed on, as laid down in Article 11, except within the limits strictly necessary for achieving that aim.

5.1.3.6

In other words, normal value is the reference point for detecting fraud. The taxable amount, based on the agreed consideration, if lower than the normal value, must not be substituted by the latter, but tax authorities may infer the existence of fraud by reversing the burden of proof.

5.1.4.1

With a view to curbing carousel fraud, provision has been made in some national legislation for the purchaser to be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of VAT which the supplier has failed to pay in the case of certain categories of goods, where the sale price is lower than the normal value.

5.1.4.1.1

These provisions derive from Article 21 of the Sixth Directive, which permits Member States to hold a person jointly and severally liable for paying VAT, other than the person directly liable, in accordance with the proportionality principle.

5.1.4.2

The motivation for doing this is based on the assumption that transactions for prices which are different from the market value may well be a front for a different, underlying situation involving fraud. Essentially, under the conditions laid down by the legislation, the purchaser is presumed to have acted in bad faith, when, given the price paid, the latter could not fail to be aware that fraud was taking place (5). The purchaser can be released from this presumption on production of documents proving that the below-normal-value price was determined by objectively demonstrable events or situations, or in accordance with legislation, and did not entail a failure to pay VAT, thus decreasing the joint and several liability arising from the supplier's failure to pay VAT.

5.1.4.3

The EESC shares the concerns expressed by many operators regarding the principle of joint and several liability and, in view of the Court of Justice judgment (6), believes that any measures taken should be limited to seeking guarantees of payment by those parties which are clearly identified as required to pay taxes. Provision could therefore be made for a purchaser to be jointly and severally liable with a supplier to pay tax where the sale price is lower than the normal value of the goods sold. It seems quite clear that, given such a strong provision, where the purchaser is penalised by being exposed to paying a tax which others are evading, the practical application of the rule needs to be limited to specific conditions:

5.1.5

The EESC supports the possibility of extending the reverse charge mechanism to domestic transactions in Member States. In a recent opinion, the EESC stated this mechanism ‘to be a tool that could be needed for preventing tax avoidance and evasion. It is particularly apt where the vendor is in financial difficulties’ (7). The Commission itself extended optional application of the reverse charge mechanism after a successful experiment with construction materials and buildings services. Measures must not, however, jeopardise intra-Community trade in goods and services, where different invoicing requirements might compromise the effectiveness of the internal market.

5.2.1

Fraud must also be combated from the more general angle of harmonisation of Member States' laws on direct taxation and investigation procedures.

5.2.1.1

Following the enlargement of the European Union to include more countries, the disparities between tax systems look set to influence, more and more, decisions on capital allocation in the various Member States and their respective arrangements for managing entrepreneurial activities. Indeed, a considerable degree of coordination of economic policy will enable Member States to use their respective tax regulations to influence decisions regarding localisation of investments and resources within the European Union. Nonetheless, the persisting significant disparities between Member States' direct taxation systems could, in some cases, create barriers to the market integration process (8), to the detriment of the competitiveness of the European economy.

5.2.2

The approximation of Member States' tax laws was discussed by the Commission in Communication COM(2003) 726 of 24.11.2003. However, as regards company tax, particularly the ‘comprehensive’ approaches facilitating the setting-up of a European company tax based on a common consolidated tax base (9), there are considerable difficulties in implementation due to the continuing disparities between the different Member States as regards tax base criteria. Moreover, the adoption of a common tax requires, in addition to a high level of convergence of economic policies, a proper legal framework. As things stand, Article 94 of the EC Treaty provides for the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, to issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment of functioning of the common market.

5.2.3

This provision and Member States' continued sovereignty in taxation matters, which do not seem to further initiatives to create a common consolidated tax base for companies operating in the European Union, are still a substantial barrier to the approximation of company tax systems because of both enlargement to include more Member States, which makes it particularly difficult to achieve unanimity, and the fact that the final text of the Constitution for Europe fails to prescribe qualified majority voting for the adoption of laws or framework laws establishing measures in the field of company tax.

5.2.4

With a view to overcoming the unanimity rule, Commission Communication SEC(2005) 1785 of 23.12.2005 entitled Tackling the corporation tax obstacles of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Internal Market. Outline of a possible Home State Taxation pilot scheme is a tangible step towards actual harmonisation of company tax bases, providing an analysis of the pilot scheme Home State Taxation for small and medium-sized businesses (10). This study revealed that the 23 million small and medium-sized businesses in EU-25 account for most of the European economy — making up 99.8 % of all European businesses — and provide around 66 % of private employment (11). The actual adoption of this scheme would allow greater internationalisation of these businesses' activity, in that the compliance costs (12) borne by these businesses, which are much higher than those borne by larger businesses (13), would be lower, and the possibility of loss carry-over, which is the main obstacle to developing cross-border economic activities, would be greater, encouraging the approximation of Member States' laws on company taxation at Community level.

5.3.1

Growth and technological developments in electronic commerce are providing economic operators with new opportunities, but new trading methods require tax systems to adapt, particularly as regards aspects connected with the implementation of consumption taxes. Indeed, tax systems, which were previously governed by conventional trade rules, must take into account these changes and adapt to cater for the new forms of trade which are developing.

5.3.2

The main problem with taxation of electronic transactions concerns the possibility of discrimination arising from transactions being treated differently according to the medium of delivery of the goods being transacted.

5.3.2.1

When weighing up the possibilities of applying conventional principles of tax law to cases belonging to the electronic age, respect for the principle of neutral taxation must be ensured, preventing discriminatory treatment of similar transactions, which differ in the case in point only in the delivery method (on line or off line).

5.3.3

In particular, the greatest difficulties are related to the direct and indirect taxation of intangible (or digitised) goods, in that all stages of the commercial transaction (transfer and delivery) are carried out electronically (on-line trading) by means of the on-line supply of virtual products. Indeed, the services and goods are rendered intangible at the start by the supplier and rendered tangible by the recipient when they arrive. In this case, there is no physically tangible product which can be subject to a physical check, even for inspection purposes.

5.4.1

The EESC believes that the current Community legislation, which is the legal basis for the creation of OLAF, already assigns to this body major responsibilities, as specified by Article 2 of Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom. The Commission is therefore asked to make every endeavour to ensure that its current powers are used in practice, if necessary giving OLAF further resources necessary for it to discharge its institutional role, for example, by using the model of Articles 81 and 86 of the EC Treaty, which regulate competition.

5.4.2

In this context, OLAF could serve as a body with analysis and coordination responsibilities at EU level in the area of combating tax and other fraud, with responsibilities and competences in the field of administrative cooperation related to taxation (direct and indirect taxation and excise duties), to facilitate the exchange of information between bodies required by individual national laws to actively combat tax fraud.

5.5

The development of intra-Community trade requires closer cooperation in the exchange of information on risk management. However, the Commission does not put forward specific initiatives, merely calling on the Member States to use the guide on risk management for tax administrations. On this point, the EESC suggests that a central database be set up to serve as a channel for the information being exchanged by administrations, which is currently only standardised in the field of customs and on a bilateral basis.

5.5.1

In this connection, types of products could be identified which — on the basis of the results of surveys carried out by the relevant bodies in the individual Member States — are more liable to be used for the purposes of carousel fraud. Motor vehicles and high-tech products such as IT tools and telephony products are examples of this. Responsibility for carrying out these analyses could be given to OLAF, which could periodically pass the results on to the Member States, to help them plan the next monitoring exercise and allow subsequent targeted operations. Moreover, a similar communication flow from the Member States to OLAF should be provided for and regulated.

5.6

The EESC believes that the possibility of a Community approach to relations with third countries would certainly be better than bilateral agreements. To this end, specific provisions could be included as part of the plans to approve the Community system of agreements for double taxation referred to in Commission Communications SEC(2001) No 1681 on Company Taxation in the Internal Market and COM(2003) No 726 on An Internal Market without company tax obstacles — achievements, ongoing initiatives and remaining challenges, also discussed by the European Parliament in Communication (SEC A5-0048) 2003. Support should be given to the idea of drawing up specific cooperation clauses, to be included in economic partnership agreements. However, in the absence of clear, decisive commitment from the Member States, it is still essential to continue along the road of bilateral agreements, i.e. not to stop processes currently underway.

5.7

The EESC considers that reinforcing tax declaration obligations, as proposed by the Commission, should be strictly in line with the proportionality and simplification principles. The necessary fight against fraud must not result in unnecessary burdens for the many honest taxpayers and businesses. To this end, the EESC advocates a substantial lightening of obligations for honest businesses which cooperate actively with the tax administrations, and an appropriate reinforcement of the obligations for those which, according to objective criteria, are considered to be a risk.

5.8

The EESC does not agree with the Commission's point on tax on tobacco and alcohol, which are treated as ‘normal’ commodities. Some Member States see the management of excise duty on tobacco and alcohol products as a solution to the associated health problems, which clearly has priority over the functioning of the single market. The Commission proposes to eliminate these distortions, but this will still take a long time, given the widely diverging income levels in the individual Member States and the different revenue and health policy objectives and measures of the individual Member States. Awaiting a reasonable degree of harmonisation of the tax rates, other solutions should be found to guarantee that the individual Member States fully preserve their ability to pursue their own fiscal and health policy objectives. It should however be borne in mind that tobacco smuggling is only to a very small extent generated by Community countries, being controlled by crime multinationals. While it is aware of the high social and health costs associated with abuse of these kinds of substances, and hopes that the appropriate bodies will adopt suitable measures to contain them, the EESC believes that excise duty on tobacco and alcohol must remain strictly the responsibility of Member States.

5.9

The EESC invites the Commission to continue with the Hercule II programme, calling for Parliament and the Council to swiftly adopt COM/2006/0339 final, which calls for the Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests to be extended. The programme has already borne considerable fruit, with 19 training activities in which 2 236 people took part from the various Member States, five third countries and other European institutions, in the light, in particular, of the need for closer cooperation, given the accession to the EU of Romania and Bulgaria, which should also be able to benefit from these activities.

5.10

The EESC considers that it would be appropriate to set up an ongoing high-level forum for discussion and/or consultation, to ensure a more comprehensive approach to aspects of fraud and cooperation between Member States. The current scattering of consultation among a variety of high-level committees, subdivided by area of competence, prevents a useful exchange of good practice which would improve cooperation and the performance of administrations. The Committee considers the bureaucratic objections raised and the lack of direction in ECOFIN to be both incomprehensible and reprehensible.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/17

1.1

Housing is, above all, a fundamental right, access to which, in turn, determines access to other fundamental rights and a life of dignity. It is recognised in the Charter of Human Rights, in the Council of Europe's Revised European Social Charter and in the constitutions of many European states. Having a roof over one's head is essential if an individual is to develop as a person and integrate into society.

1.2.1

The EESC endorses the adoption of the European Housing Charter by the European Parliament's URBAN-Housing Intergroup, which notes the large and growing number of interactions between European policies and housing policies as well as the importance of the right to housing.

1.2.2

Consequently, the EESC calls for the incorporation of the European Housing Charter in the European Parliament's own-initiative opinion on Housing and regional policy.

1.3.1

The EESC would like to see proposals at European level on: a set of common objectives on access to housing; minimum standards on the quality of housing which define the concept of decent housing. Without these criteria, it will be difficult to establish an effective right to housing — and access to housing is clearly a minimum condition for a decent life.

1.3.2

The EESC would point out that the social and community services sector is becoming increasingly important in an ageing society and that such services are often provided together with housing, and it calls for these services to be made the subject of European exchanges and be given a higher profile. It further notes that social housing must be accorded special treatment and cannot, as such, be subject to market rules, as is recognised in the Services Directive.

1.4.1

The EESC would stress that the possibility to use Structural Funds resources to improve housing conditions should be exploited to the full not only by EU12 countries but also by EU15 countries, which can use the Structural Funds to finance operations in the field of integrated urban development. These initiatives will have a positive impact on social and territorial cohesion and on economic growth. In this respect the EESC would suggest that European financial institutions earmark resources at very low rates for integrated building programmes for young people, immigrants, older people and the disabled, thus encouraging worker mobility, improving the social mix and providing affordable solutions for occupants.

1.4.2

The EESC notes that the use of the JESSICA programme will provide the elements necessary to set up a guarantee fund for larger-scale social housing projects and it calls for this question to be considered during the mid-term review of the Structural Funds.

1.4.3

Accordingly, the EESC endorses the introduction of a technical assistance facility for housing projects during the period 2007-2013, in cooperation with representatives and networks of local and regional authorities and supported by the European Commission and the Member States. This facility will make it possible to build on projects and methods for effectively integrating housing projects in urban regeneration programmes. It will also enable the pooling of expertise, and could play a facilitating role in transferring experiences. It would appear to be of the utmost importance to establish a specific instrument for housing with the purpose of promoting effective use of the Structural Funds. This could be done on the basis of Article 45 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds by asking the Commission to smooth the way for the setting up of the technical assistance facility.

1.5.1

In addition, the EESC proposes the creation of an exchange network around the theme of housing and energy efficiency, where players on the ground could exchange information and build on and deepen their experiences, with a view to putting in place sound and ambitious energy policies. This facility could be linked to the Structural Funds support facility, although they would not have the same objectives; thus it would essentially be a matter of ensuring the smooth coordination of these two entities.

1.5.2

The EESC proposes the launch of a campaign to raise awareness of the potential for energy savings in the housing sector. The campaign would be conducted at European level in partnership with networks active in this field, and should be geared to changing users' behaviour. This approach would require the participation of the general public and would make it possible to rally all stakeholders around a positive initiative. The ‘Sustainable Energy Europe’ campaign lacks the focus necessary to raise awareness and has limited resources.

1.5.3

The EESC calls upon the Commission to submit proposals based on a broader approach than that applied to date, which focuses primarily on improving the energy efficiency of buildings. There is a need to work with residents and to take better account of the existing housing stock.

1.6.1

The EESC also supports the European Commission's initiative to set up an inter-service group on urban issues. The Committee suggests that the inter-service group include housing in its remit and that it appoint an interlocutor on this issue.

1.6.2

In addition, it would appear essential that the housing dimension also be included on the agenda for meetings of ministers for regional and urban affairs.

2.1.1

The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, states that (Article II-34): ‘In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the procedures laid down by Community law and national laws and practices.’

2.1.2

Whilst noting that housing does not fall within the EU's remit and that the subsidiarity principle is fully applicable, the EESC feels that this article should be taken on board in the implementation of European policies so as to respond to the social urgency of the situation and the lack of housing for the poorest (but also for people on low incomes and young people starting a career and a family).

2.1.3

Nevertheless, the Laeken summit in December 2001 recognised the importance of housing issues from the point of view of avoiding the risk of growing poverty. The EESC therefore feels that the summit made a vital contribution by opening the debate on the need to increase the supply of social housing in order to combat poverty in Europe.

2.1.4

The right to housing is enshrined in the constitutions of several EU Member States, including Belgium, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Finland and the Netherlands. This therefore raises the possibility of a European right to housing. The EESC believes that it is important and strategic to incorporate housing into the Charter of Fundamental Rights appended to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and deplores the fact that the right to housing, or at least the ‘right to accommodation’, has not been included.

2.1.4.1

The EESC considers the creation of a European housing strategy to be of the utmost importance: a home for every individual is a prerequisite for the more effective implementation of other human rights recognised at European level, such as everyone's right to ‘respect for private and family life, his home and his correspondence’ and respect for the right to ‘get married and have a family’.

2.1.5

The principle of the right to housing is accepted. The question then arises as to the enforceability of this right, in other words the recourse available to a person who cannot find housing. Therefore the EU must be concerned about the conditions for giving effect to the right to housing. If a single solution cannot be considered, each Member State which formally recognises the right to housing must be able to specify:

2.1.6

In keeping with the European Housing Charter, adopted by the European Parliament's URBAN-Housing Intergroup on 26 April 2006, which defines housing as a ‘necessary good’, the EESC welcomes the EP's initiative to draw up a report on housing and regional policy. The EESC hopes that the Parliament will support its request to recognise the right to housing and will propose a partnership with local and regional administrations to promote an adequate level of housing and to make housing affordable for those who do not have access to market housing.

2.1.7

A study on living conditions and the social dimension of housing (1) published in 2006 by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions reveals important differences between the EU15 countries and the EU10 countries in terms of the quality and quantity of housing. It is also worth noting that not all European citizens are guaranteed access to hot water and an indoor toilet, two of the criteria for defining the minimum conditions for decent housing.

2.1.8

As housing is a cornerstone of the European social model, the challenges posed to Europe by social and demographic change must be translated into housing policy. Population ageing, the impoverishment of young adults who, because of lack of resources, continue to live with their parents, access to suitable housing for people with disabilities and access to housing for migrants are all issues which need to be taken on board. The EESC proposes, in line with the conclusions of the Laeken European Council in December 2001, the adoption at European level of:

2.1.9

Moreover, it is essential to promote housing mobility so as to ensure labour mobility. Many people are ‘captives’ of their homes, whether social or owner-occupied housing, because of lack of supply, tax reasons or the cost of borrowing. Increased residential mobility is a prerequisite for greater labour market flexibility.

2.1.10

In view of its implications for community life and the urban economy, housing can no longer be the subject of partial strategies or measures. Whilst recognising the principle of subsidiarity, the EESC suggests that housing must be considered as a key political issue with implications for people's everyday life and as a means of bringing citizens closer to the European project, which seems to be becoming more and more elusive by the day.

2.1.11

The contribution of housing policy to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives, particularly as a driving force of economic growth, should be better identified. The EESC would stress that the impact of housing policy on labour mobility makes it a complement to European policies implemented as part of the growth and employment strategy, whilst also helping to boost territorial cohesion. This is particularly important in the newer Member States, via the provision of financing for urban and rural infrastructure networks, and appropriate energy policies.

2.2.1

The residential environment has always played a structuring role in our societies; the public areas that provide meeting places are linked with zones of individual or collective housing. Town planning and the creation of pleasant districts to live in where the home is a fundamental component are prerequisites for social and territorial cohesion.

2.2.2

Although housing and housing policies differ in each Member State, the European Union as a whole is characterised by very high urban density. European towns and cities are typically compact but what gives them an even more distinctive stamp is the presence of medium-sized buildings, and it is dwellings which shape the urban landscape.

2.2.3

Therefore housing is an important element of urban, economic and social policies in all European countries and there is a need for wider sharing of solutions, particularly in the light of the crises which have afflicted disadvantaged districts in several Member States.

2.2.4

The objectives of European regional policy are to enhance territorial, social and economic cohesion by promoting economic development in the most disadvantaged regions and, since 2005, by focusing on the priority objectives of growth and employment as part of the revised Lisbon agenda.

2.2.5

In order to ensure the competitiveness of all regions and foster job mobility, it is essential that housing supply be diversified, not only in terms of type of tenure but also the mix of neighbourhoods (type of housing and economic activities) or the social mix, which underpins social cohesion. The ghettoisation of some urban districts makes economic activity very difficult.

2.2.6

The location of affordable housing is the corollary of the preceding point. In tandem with the right to housing, the local authority must ensure that quality housing commensurate with household resources is made available throughout the area for which it is responsible.

2.2.7

The development of residential areas has a strong impact on rural areas and if there is to be sustainable development it is essential to give greater consideration to the interaction between rural and urban areas insofar as concerns housing policy.

2.3.1

In some European countries, particularly those which received financing from the Cohesion Funds during the previous funding period, the rate of economic growth is closely linked to the level of activity in the housing sector. This does not, however, mean that people have easy access to affordable housing. Ireland's 2006 National Reform Programme, drawn up under the relaunched Lisbon Strategy, stresses the poor sustainability of growth due to the lack of secure, affordable housing. For example, in its 2006 National Reform Plan, Portugal points out the need to give more support to the construction sector and local authorities in order to foster sustainable growth in the housing sector.

2.3.2

The ready availability of housing for all employees is a sine qua non for the development of a dynamic employment area, and lack of housing is a factor holding back growth in many employment areas in Europe. Thus housing may be a factor behind the rigidity of local labour markets and reduced labour mobility.

2.3.2.1

France has an interesting scheme whereby employers contribute the equivalent of 0.45 % of the total wage bill to housing policy, thus aiding efforts to develop housing solutions for employees. Similarly, the social partners run specific schemes for young people and vulnerable households (guarantee deposits).

2.3.3

It is a particularly pressing need for regions receiving growing numbers of migrants who encounter difficulties in finding housing in a tight market and who come up against discriminatory practices conducive to community segregation.

2.3.4

Housing is one of the main sources of employment in the Europe. There are numerous areas where the employment potential has not yet been developed, particularly in the fields of sustainable housing technologies and ecological homes, which are set to expand considerably in the future. Moreover, construction is one of the sectors facing a serious shortage of skilled labour.

2.3.5

Household and community services, and in particular personal care, are a very important source of employment and are often organised and provided in conjunction with housing-related services. Thus social housing providers, in partnership with social service organisations, provide not only homecare services for the elderly and people with disabilities but also a range of integrated health, education or childminding services, as, for example, in ‘intergenerational’ homes. Support for community-based initiatives can help to sustain social and cultural dynamism in neighbourhoods in crisis.

2.4

In addition to being a source of jobs, household and community services related to housing help to meet the challenges of demographic change, which inevitably have an impact on employment at regional level. For example, intergenerational homes, which are the subject of a targeted policy in Germany, are a response to the need for diversity and offer an effective way of combating the exclusion of elderly or other people living alone. Given the background of an ageing population across Europe, the exchange of good practice should be supported.

2.4.1

The EESC feels that the question of the right to housing should not be considered solely from the standpoint of combating exclusion but also from the viewpoint of population ageing, migratory flows and new forms of poverty, and taking into account the Lisbon Strategy, which seeks to breathe new life into the European economy through greater labour market mobility.

2.4.2

Worker mobility will remain illusory as long as nothing is done to strengthen fundamental social rights, including the right to housing assistance. It is worth noting the impoverishment of residents in social housing which was originally built to house persons in paid employment. The latter no longer have priority access to social housing and experience considerable difficulty in finding decent housing in areas where there is pressure on the housing market.

2.4.3

Over the past decade, housing prices have been rising constantly in nearly all EU countries. This has reduced the capacity of households to consume other goods, which will act as a brake on sustainable growth in the long term. In addition, low interest rates have led to over-investment in the residential sector, thereby putting pressure on financial resources allocated to housing (cf. the Swedish National Reform Programme). The social housing sector represents an instrument for regulating housing prices (through rents) and the sustainability of the sector.

2.4.4

The EESC would further note that when it comes to the implementation of social housing policy, the conditions on intervention by public authorities in Member States and by housing sector players are increasingly governed by Community law. It is essential that competition and internal market policies do not pose obstacles to housing policy aimed at guaranteeing access to decent and affordable housing for all, given the positive contribution which housing policy makes to economic growth and employment in Europe. The objectives have evolved over time and social landlords are now required to develop social services to deal with the lack of an integration policy, particularly for migrants.

2.5.1

The contribution which housing can make to reducing energy consumption is vital, and given the level of energy prices this is an area of activity which will become increasingly attractive for regions.

2.5.2

The largest potential for energy savings lies in the residential (households) sector where the potential is estimated to be 27 % of the energy used, as noted by the European Commission in its Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.

2.5.3

More and more households in Europe are living in poverty because of high home energy bills (fuel poverty).

2.5.4

The potential for reducing consumption will be even greater if appropriate incentive measures are taken at European level.

2.5.5

In this context, it is surprising to note that the approach adopted by the European Commission in its Action Plan for Energy Efficiency focuses mainly on new construction and proposes to extend the scope of standards in this field.

2.5.6

This approach is too narrow since it does not take into account the necessity to change our lifestyles as part of a broader sustainability framework that encompasses various aspects of individual behaviour (not only the utopian dream of everyone having their own house but also day-to-day environmental behaviour). The Commission's approach essentially amounts to raising production costs, which are already too high for average and disadvantaged households, without doing anything to improve the existing building stock or change attitudes, even though numerous studies attest to the importance of such measures.

2.5.7

There is a wealth of evidence that European regional policies make an important contribution to improving cohesion and living conditions. Nonetheless, a greater emphasis on housing in these policies could help to generate positive synergies.

2.5.8

Energy saving policy focuses on new housing, either ignoring old properties or simply applying the new regulations as such to them. Not only should the existing housing stock be taken into consideration, but approaches should be adapted to the specific characteristics of old properties and the particularly high cost of complying with standards.

2.5.8.1

Public assistance must take into account the specific features of social housing: tenants' poor financial position; fiscal support which is less tailored to needs than that available for the private sector.

2.5.8.2

Energy is only one aspect of the problems associated with sustainable development: water, waste management, access for people with disabilities, safety, air quality and health at home. Housing can make a crucial contribution to sustainable development, but this presupposes that appropriate instruments are available, particularly as regards the existing housing stock.

2.6.1

The EESC supported extending eligibility for EDRF financing to housing projects in EU12 countries and to measures related to sustainable urban development and energy efficiency in EU15 countries and as part of integrated approaches for the development of disadvantaged urban districts. Given the importance of the housing dimension, there is a need to encourage and assist Member States and regions in planning the restructuring of urban districts and improving housing within the framework of the Structural Funds.

2.6.2

In fact, it is difficult to implement integrated strategies for the development of urban neighbourhoods without a housing strand. Here the approach adopted in the European Strategy for Social Inclusion, which included the objective of access to decent, affordable housing as a condition for successful social integration, remains equally relevant today. The EESC believes that all of the European instruments should be used to promote better social integration of all groups.

2.6.3

To this end, the European Social Fund must do more to support social inclusion measures which go beyond mere employment market inclusion, since it has been observed that the housing market and the employment market are intrinsically linked. Moreover, immigration policies, which today are set at European level, cannot overlook the role which housing can make in efforts to prevent spatial segregation. The guidelines which the European Commission is to publish on the integration of immigrants through housing must mark the first step in this process, which must also involve better support for projects with a housing dimension in the PROGRESS (2) programme.

2.6.4

It is important to note that improving energy efficiency in buildings is not only a priority for the EU12 countries but for the EU as a whole. In all Member States energy efficiency measures are eligible for Structural Funds financing, in the same way as are measures for improving public areas, the use and promotion of renewable energies and social inclusion measures.

2.6.5

The EESC welcomed the initiative by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to create a new financial instrument, JESSICA (3), specifically to provide support for the development of disadvantaged urban areas, including social housing in these areas. It is worth noting that this instrument will be able to raise capital needed for the renewal of these areas by offering loans and guarantees to players involved in urban regeneration and social housing. This instrument must be managed by players specialised in urban renewal and housing, in close partnership with local authorities. It must be able to exert a leverage effect in order to improve living conditions for local residents. The JEREMIE (4) programme also offers opportunities for players in the social housing field who work to create pleasant neighbourhoods to live in for everyone.

2.6.6

In the field of energy policies, the European Commission proposed the launch under the Intelligent Energy programme of a pilot action for the social housing sector which allowed the selection and promotion of model projects in the area of energy efficiency and exchanges between players in the sector. Given the European objectives to establish a common energy policy and to improve coordination of measures taken by Member States in this field, it is essential to ensure the continuation of this instrument and to extend its scope beyond support for pilot actions.

2.6.7

As regards technological and social innovation, the assistance provided under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development will make it possible to identify not only the potential for reducing energy consumption in the housing sector but also for sustainable urban development.

2.6.8

European standardisation is highly pertinent to housing and related services. However, this is an area where technical or urban planning choices intersect with the choices of society, and it is not acceptable that standards be laid down for the public at large by working parties without a guarantee that the standardisation process is subject to political control. The example of the CEN standard on ‘prevention of crime by urban planning and building design’, which was adopted without any real political consideration of the urban model resulting from the application of a risk-analysis approach, calls for a rethink of the standardisation process in this sector.

2.6.9

Finally, the Commission has drawn up a strategy for sustainable urban development which should encourage towns and cities to consider their development in terms of, inter alia, transport policy. However, this strategy is only indicative and there is a danger that its full potential will not be deployed if it does not touch upon the social dimension of sustainable urban development.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/23

1.1

The proposal relates to the recast version of Council Directive 69/335/EEC on capital duty, which had been amended a number of times. The Directive — which was originally intended to harmonise tax systems and to prevent Member States from creating or levying other similar taxes — was amended on a number of occasions, until in 1985 it was acknowledged by Directive 85/303/EEC that capital duty should be completely abolished given its detrimental economic effects on businesses.

1.2

However, the losses of revenue which would result from such a change were unacceptable for certain Member States; the 1985 Directive therefore had to grant a derogation, giving Member States the opportunity to either exempt transactions from capital duty or charge a single rate of tax, not exceeding 1 %.

1.3

Of course, the principle still applies in the new proposal, which is merely a recasting of the previous texts; the EESC notes this and endorses it. However, the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum gives rise to a number of comments, which the Council may wish to take on board with a view to further initiatives.

2.1

The majority of the 25 Member States acted on the Council's 1985 recommendation, abolishing the duty completely; at present, only seven Member States are still levying it: Poland and Portugal, at a rate of 0.5 % or less; Cyprus, at a rate of 0.6 %; and Greece, Spain, Luxembourg and Austria, at the full rate of 1 %. This unequal treatment is a barrier to the creation of a level playing field between European businesses, which is one of the prerequisites for the single market to function properly. The fact that a good many other disparities and barriers continue to exist in the field of taxation is no excuse not to abolish this duty once and for all.

2.2

It would be useful for the Member States which continue to take up the derogation to compare the benefits in terms of tax revenue with the probable (and to some extent calculable) loss of investment from other EU and third countries, put off by a duty which is now extinct almost everywhere. The EESC believes that forfeiting the derogation would benefit stakeholders and be a step towards the proper functioning of the single market as a whole.

2.3

The EESC would also like to draw attention to a practice that has been adopted by a number of Member States, whereby new charges are introduced to surreptitiously replace the duty once it has been abolished. In some cases, the Commission has intervened and opened an infringement procedure, but other, unnoticed incidents cannot be ruled out. Vigilance on the part of the social partners could help to eradicate them.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/24

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's commitment to strive for ever safer road traffic and fully supports its proposal, which is worthy of a place among the initiatives undertaken to this end.

1.2

The EESC congratulates the Commission on carrying out a cost-benefit analysis and a thorough impact assessment before issuing the proposal: this enabled it to make the proposal realistic, taking all aspects of the issue into due consideration and giving the necessary priority to the protection of the most vulnerable road users.

1.3

However, the EESC feels that the proposal as it is currently worded contains a number of problematic elements which should be pointed out, and suggests some additions and clarifications which should make it easier to implement correctly in terms of timeframes, certification and monitoring of implementation.

1.4

The EESC calls upon the Commission to take into due consideration its suggestions regarding the need for genuinely uniform treatment to avoid distortions of competition between Member States, and regarding the importance of giving Member States more recommendations on certification systems which are easy for the national authorities governing the sector to use.

1.5

The EESC strongly recommends to the Council and the European Parliament that the proposal be implemented as quickly as possible so as to cover most of the vehicle fleet and to ensure that as many human lives as expected are saved.

2.1

Road safety has always been an absolute priority for the Community institutions. There is no doubt that the publication of the White Paper on transport policy (1), one of whose objectives was to halve the number of road accident victims by 2010, was a milestone in its renewed commitment to this cause.

2.2

Successive initiatives, such as the Road safety action programme (2), the eSafety initiative and many others, piloted an integrated approach to the issue, involving industry, public authorities and road users' associations, thereby overcoming the constraints which — partly in the name of the subsidiarity principle — had been placed on the introduction of binding, practical measures at European level.

2.3

Much progress has been made: for example, in the past 30 years, while road traffic has trebled, the number of road accident victims has halved. However, this statistic should on no account be allowed to ease our consciences as Europe is still paying too high a price for the relentless increase in mobility, with around 40 000 deaths per year and the bleak prospect that the challenge laid down by the 2001 White Paper may be lost.

2.4

The EESC recognises that decisive progress in the area of road safety can only be achieved if improvements are made in all three of its ‘pillars’, i.e. the automotive industry, infrastructure and user behaviour. However, it supports any initiative which, although targeting only one of the pillars, can contribute towards achieving the ambitious 2001 goal.

2.5

It was with this in mind that the EESC endorsed (3) the adoption of Directive 2003/97/EC (4), which proposed a European-level harmonised approach to road safety to reduce the risks arising from heavy goods vehicle drivers having incomplete vision to the side.

2.6

Indeed, the aim of Directive 2003/97/EC was to remove the risk of accident arising from the fact that heavy goods vehicles have a blind spot on the passenger side, requiring a set of more effective mirrors to be fitted as of 2006/2007.

2.7

Many road accidents occur precisely because the blind spot around their vehicle prevents large-vehicle drivers from detecting other road users in their immediate vicinity.

2.8

In particular, the risk arises at crossings or roundabouts when, as he changes direction, the driver has to cope with a blind spot on the passenger side which prevents him seeing the road users nearest to the vehicle, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, who are also the most vulnerable road users.

2.9

An estimated 400 people die in this type of accident each year, and that is sufficient reason why the EESC, like other parties, unreservedly supported the adoption of Directive 2003/97/EC repealing and replacing the first directive on the type-approval of systems for indirect vision (71/127/EEC) and subsequent amendments. The repealed directive laid down provisions on the construction and fitting of rear-view mirrors but national measures on the subject remained untouched. Only with Directive 2003/97/EC did a specific set of mirrors or other systems for indirect vision become mandatory throughout Europe.

2.10

As regards types of heavy duty vehicles, Directive 2003/97/EC concerns N2 goods vehicles over 7.5 t and N3  (5) goods vehicles: however, it was amended by Directive 2005/27/EC (6), which, under certain conditions, requires Class IV and Class V mirrors (7) to be fitted on vehicles weighing 3.5 t instead of the previous 7.5 t.

2.11

Directive 2003/97/EC applies to vehicle type-approvals (new types) with effect from 26 January 2006 and to new vehicle registrations (new vehicles) with effect from 26 January 2007. This means that vehicles already in circulation, i.e. most of the fleet, will not be subject to the provisions.

2.12

There are well over five million heavy duty vehicles (=> 3.5 t) in the European Union. Given the life of these vehicles (as long as 16 years) and the slow turnover of the fleet (300 000 registrations each year) with 2007 as the start of the process, it would be 2023 before the entire fleet were equipped with the new mirrors.

2.13

The current Commission proposal seeks to find ways of making the fleet already in circulation safe as well, as quickly as possible.

3.1

The proposal is to be a temporary measure. In essence, the Commission calls for the provisions of Directive 2003/97/EC to be extended to N2 and N3 vehicles already in circulation in respect of the new Class IV and V mirrors (field of vision on the passenger side), with the following exceptions:

3.2

Member States have to implement the directive, and therefore ensure that the new mirrors are fitted, within 12 months of its entry into force, with a number of possible derogations:

3.3

Lastly, vehicles which it is technically impossible to fit with the requisite mirrors may be equipped with other devices for indirect vision (video cameras or other electronic devices), provided that such devices cover at least 99 % of the field of vision as specified above. In these cases, the vehicles must be individually approved by the competent authorities of the Member States.

3.4

Member States are free to extend the scope of the directive to vehicles over 10 years old.

4.1

It should be pointed out that the proposal only makes sense if it is implemented quickly enough to have a significant impact on the fleet in circulation. Indeed, according to the Commission's estimates, the phasing-in of the new mirrors on vehicles will enable a further 1 200 human lives to be saved.

4.2

However, in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal (9), the Commission itself acknowledges that immediate, rigorous implementation of the new requirements would create numerous technical problems, with adverse economic and other effects on operators in the sector and consequent potential market distortions.

4.3

The Commission states that, for over half of the fleet in circulation, the mirrors can be replaced easily and affordably, i.e. at a cost of about EUR 150 (10). Where the rest of the fleet is concerned, solutions range from a slight downsizing of field-of-vision requirements (> 99 %) to highly complex solutions for older vehicles, some of which would require structural modifications in the cabin, the success of which is uncertain, at a cost of thousands of euro.

4.4

Given these variables, in difficult or (where some vehicle models/versions are concerned) apparently insoluble cases, the Commission calls on national inspection authorities ‘to be flexible and accept exceptional solutions at reasonable costs’ (11).

4.5

While the EESC understands the reasons for this vagueness, caused by the many technical issues to be addressed, it feels that the proposal as currently worded is liable to give rise to substantial differences in interpretation, with adverse effects on the European freight transport market.

4.6

The EESC is concerned about two aspects in particular: the risk of disparities in the treatment of operators in the road transport sector, leading to distortion of competition, and the lack of a simple, reliable, uniform certification and monitoring system for the new provisions.

4.6.1

With regard to the first point, it seems inappropriate to require new mirrors to provide 99 % coverage while, at the same time, allowing Member States which have already legislated on the subject a limit of 95 %. The EESC feels that it would be fairer, as well as simpler for monitoring purposes, to lay down a single percentage applying to the whole of the EU.

4.6.2

Remaining on the subject of uniform treatment, the fact that Member States are given the option to decide to delay implementation of the new measures where older vehicles are concerned (12) could cause distortions of competition between vehicles traded internationally. The EESC therefore recommends that the timeframe for implementing the new measures be the same in all the Member States.

4.6.2.1

In this regard, given the large number of vehicles and the complex nature of certification, the EESC believes that an adjustment period of two years from the transposition of the directive is necessary but that that will suffice. On this point, the general approach adopted by the recent Transport Council (13) seems to tally with the solution suggested here. On the other hand, the same Council appeared to be planning to apply the directive to vehicles registered as of 1 January 2000 rather than 1998, thereby excluding about 15 % of the fleet in circulation.

4.6.3

The EESC feels the second point raised is even more worrying — certification and monitoring in respect of the new requirements. It is doubtful whether verification and certification of the field of vision can be carried out effectively on every vehicle as part of a periodic inspection. Determining the field of vision is actually a very demanding operation involving a set of parameters and different, complex recordings.

4.6.3.1

Normally, a type approval mark, as in the case of the above-mentioned Directive 2003/97/EC, relates to the certification of an assembly (mirror, mount, cabin, seat, height of the mirror from the ground) which is not determined by the mirror alone but also by the vehicle model on which it is fitted. These tests are carried out on a prototype, whose approval implies and guarantees the approval of the entire subsequent production series. Thus, the mirrors are type-approved as a single set of components, with a type-approval mark affixed on the body of the mirror which does not have to be replaced when the reflective glass is replaced. This raises a problem for vehicles already in circulation which have been type-approved on the basis of the previous Directive, 71/127/EEC: were the reflective glass alone to be replaced, such vehicles would bear a type-approval mark referring to a repealed directive.

4.6.3.2

Therefore, if no conformity guarantee (mark, certificate etc.) were provided for, there would be a danger that all vehicles would have to be inspected and undergo the tests laid down in Directive 2003/97/EC. In effect, the field of vision of each individual vehicle would have to be re-type-approved, as in cases where electronic devices are used to achieve the field of vision required. It is easy to imagine the impact of this on the workload of the certification and monitoring authorities, given that millions of vehicles would be involved.

4.6.3.3

The solution recommended by the Commission and the Council makes conformity certification part of the annual road worthiness tests required by Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 for vehicles weighing over 3.5 t.

4.6.3.4

These tests are limited, where mirrors are concerned, to recording that they have been safely fitted at the requisite points and that the assemblies are complete. It is therefore unlikely that it will be possible to certify on the basis of these tests that the overall field of vision required, as described above, has been achieved.

4.6.3.5

The EESC's preferred solution, which would be more practical to implement and yield more reliable results, is for the company fitting the new mirrors to issue a declaration of conformity. This document, signed by the company representative, would contain all the vehicle's specifications, including those relating to replaced mirrors or reflective glass. The declaration would be kept in the vehicle and would be valid for the purposes of both the annual inspection and roadside checks. Moreover, as the document would consist almost exclusively of numerical codes, it would raise no particular problems of translation into the EU languages.

5.1

The report introducing the proposal states that Directive 2003/97/EC was amended by Commission Directive 2005/27/EC to extend the general requirement for fitting Class IV and Class V mirrors down to N2 vehicles weighing 3.5 t instead of the previous 7.5 t.

5.1.1

However, this wording is misleading as the provision could be seen as applying to all N2 vehicles under 7.5 t. In actual fact, Directive 2005/27/EC lays down this requirement only for N2 vehicles which have a cabin similar to that of an N3 vehicle, where a Class V mirror can be fitted two metres from the ground. Only in this case can the fitting of the two new mirrors be required.

5.1.2

The EESC therefore suggests, in the interests of clarity, that Article 2(b) of the proposal be revised to include a specific exemption for N2 vehicles weighing 7.5 t or less to which it is not possible to fit a Class V mirror, in line with the provisions of Directive 2005/27.

5.2

Recital 8 provides for an exemption for ‘vehicles whose remaining lifespan is short’, clearly referring to vehicles which have been in use for a considerable number of years and therefore have a limited remaining lifespan. Given that the average fleet lifespan varies between Member States, the Commission needs to make this concept clearer and quantify it.

5.3

Many vehicles already in circulation have been fitted with an optional (Class IV) wide-angle mirror on the driver's side. The requirement now endorsed for a new wide-angle mirror on the passenger side means that the first mirror will have to be replaced too as the driver, who already has to cope with several mirrors, could have problems using two wide-angle mirrors with different curvatures to assess distances.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/28

1.1

Top performances in the scientific and technical field, and their conversion into a competitive, economic force, are essential preconditions for safeguarding our future, for example with regard to nanotechnology, information society, energy and climate issues, preserving and improving our current global position, and developing rather than jeopardising the European social model.

1.2

The Committee has always welcomed any initiative aimed at:

1.3

The Committee strongly and wholeheartedly supports the idea of creating an instrument such as the European Institute of Technology (EIT) with a view to contributing to the development of quality education, innovation and research by encouraging cooperation and integration between European centres of excellences in the field of industry, universities and science.

1.4

The Committee stresses the importance of developing the EIT proposal consistently with its legal basis, aimed in particular at ‘speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes, encouraging an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of undertakings throughout the Community, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings, encouraging an environment favourable to cooperation between undertakings, and fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development’ (2).

1.5

However, the Committee believes that, if this new integrated knowledge, research and innovation instrument is to succeed, it must be able to differentiate itself and stand out from other, existing integrated Community instruments such as the European Technology Platforms, Joint Technology Initiatives, European Networks of Excellence, Integrated Projects, and European advanced masters schemes (3).

1.6

The Committee is aware that it would be inappropriate to make simplistic comparisons between the future EIT and an institute such as MIT in the United States, given that the latter was never a federal excellence project but rather a top-level university characterised by the presence of the ‘MIT Corporation’, supported by an investment management company. Yet the success of institutions like the MIT shows that excellence is the result of an evolutionary process based on the right principles and on sufficient support.

1.7

However, the Committee believes that if the future EIT wants to become a global performer and a world class player symbolising the harnessing of European excellence, it needs to go beyond merely integrating resources.

1.8

To this end, not only must its design, structure and form fully and coherently meet the objectives set out in the Treaty, which form its fundamental legal basis; they must also serve to develop a science- and technology-oriented culture of competence and excellence which attracts the best students and shapes the best scientists and engineers. This is a prerequisite for the creation of new knowledge and continuous innovation.

1.9

The Committee also believes that it is important not to stop at the idea of an internationally prestigious knowledge flagship (4), but it needs the stamina of all engaged players to develop a signature of outstanding results characterising the individual Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) to seek to bring about concrete results that impact on the market:

1.10

The structure and form of the Institute should be designed and set up in such a way as to:

1.10.1

The joint undertaking formula could be given due consideration.

1.11

At the same time, at least the initial success of the EIT will heavily depend on sufficient funding by the Community and Member States, which, however, should not be diverted from the other adopted programmes for research and innovation.

1.11.1

The Committee believes that a number of factors will become increasingly important in the future EIT: firstly, the mechanisms for encouraging patents and the arrangements for managing intellectual property; and secondly, the ability to find sources of private financing, as these will need to play a much greater role than Community funds if resources are not to be diverted from other programmes, especially those for research and innovation.

1.11.2

As regards financial resources, the Committee thinks that provision needs to be made for initial funding from the Community, which could come from additional resources under the Mid-term review of the Seventh RTD Framework Programme, while a substantial part should come on a pro-rata basis from the Member States. Moreover, the possibility of activating EIB actions for innovation networks and university research should not be overlooked.

1.12

Just as important, in the Committee's view, are the skills the Institute will be able to develop in the knowledge, innovation and research market so as to ensure gradually increasing interaction between the Institute itself and its branches, i.e. the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs).

1.12.1

This could also take place through major public events organised by the EIT system and aimed at establishing a single brand of excellence with a network structure that draws in and passes on knowledge and innovation in a decentralised manner.

1.12.2

Innovation and success are the result of a delicate balance between goal-oriented procedures and individual freedom to develop new ideas and concepts to be carried into the test-area of competition. Compliance with standardised EU quality assurance requirements must underpin research, knowledge and innovation initiatives throughout the EIT network. Without market-driven interaction between research, innovation and industry, public-funded research will have only a limited impact on the economy.

1.13

The system for selecting networks of businesses, laboratories and universities as candidates for becoming KICs should, in the Committee's view, work on the bottom-up principle and be based on clear and transparent criteria including professional success and excellence, skill and experience in transferring technologies, especially to SMEs.

1.13.1

In any case, the new KIC status should not be granted indefinitely, but rather be subject to periodic assessment of quality and of measurable results, notwithstanding the need for an appropriate build-up period.

1.14

The Committee also believes that the EIT system should aim — where appropriate — to incorporate selected centres of excellence that already exist in the EU, but avoid becoming a bureaucratic support superstructure for the centres of excellence that already exist in the EU; for this very reason, it should focus more on the industrial component and that of interdisciplinary research, both within its statutory bodies and in the selection bodies.

1.14.1

With this in mind, it would be appropriate to set up an EIT Investment Management Company, which would provide for a more innovative approach that could help redress the shortcomings that have so often been a feature of relations between industry, academia and research.

1.15

Finally, the Committee believes that more clarity is needed as regards the definition and awarding of EIT degrees by the KIC networks and the EIT itself. At least for a sufficiently extended initial period, awarding degrees should remain the prerogative but also the responsibility of those universities and/or technical universities (institutes of technology) of the Member States which are selected as partners within the individual KICs, their degrees being enhanced, once minimum conditions are fulfilled, by the EIT label.

1.16

The Committee feels that the awarding of the EIT label to KIC network degrees should be subject to the following conditions: that the studies and research have been carried out in at least three different institutes in three Member States (to give the degree a interdisciplinary European flavour), that they must have displayed sufficient impact potential in terms of innovation, and, lastly, that they are endorsed by the central EIT.

1.17

As regards the EIT Statutes, the Committee believes that it would be appropriate for the Administrative/Governing Board (5) provided for in the Commission proposal to be supported by a Monitoring Committee made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a Commission representative, an Executive Committee made up of two representatives each of industry, research centres and universities respectively and headed by the Chairperson of the Governing Board, a Director and a Rector.

2.1

The mid-term report submitted to the European Council in Spring 2005 entitled Working together for growth and jobs: A new start for the Lisbon Strategy  (6) defined fundamental principles for reinvigorating the Strategy, i.e. focused actions, broad ownership of the goals and clearly-defined levels of responsibility.

2.2

The elements supplementing the Lisbon Strategy included spreading knowledge through high-quality education systems. In particular, the Union must ensure that our universities can compete with the best in the world. However, this requires the completion of the European Higher Education Area, which will make it easier to build and disseminate knowledge throughout the EU.

2.3

To this end, the Commission stated its intention to moot the creation of a European Institute of Technology, and its commitment to enabling European universities to compete internationally, as ‘existing approaches to financing, governance and quality are proving inadequate to meet the challenge of what has become a global market for academics, students and knowledge itself’.

2.4

The Committee has commented several times on the issue (7). In its exploratory opinion on The road to the European knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy  (8), it upheld the need to create a Common European Area of Knowledge, based on intensified cooperation in learning, innovation and research policies. Moreover, in this opinion the Committee called upon businesses, financial institutions and private foundations to shoulder their responsibilities and invest more in the knowledge-based economy, also supporting European public-private partnership (PPP) agreements.

2.5

In the United States of America, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — MIT — set up in Boston in 1861, now has approximately 10 000 students and a teaching body of around 10 000 people working in a high-quality multi-disciplinary system, including economics, law, architecture, engineering, management techniques, mathematics, physics and biology. The MIT costs over USD 1 000 million per year, but in the ‘Shanghai Listing’, which enumerates the best universities in the world (9), it ranks fifth.

2.6

As regards Europe, by 2010 the Bologna process goals should have been achieved. The Bologna process is the initiative launched by the European Union in 1999 to harmonise the various higher education systems in Europe, with the aim of creating a European Higher Education Area and promoting the European higher education system internationally. The following objectives were set:

2.7

On 26 September 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the creation of a European qualifications framework (11), taking into account the Bologna process and the 2002 Copenhagen process and based on facilitating enhanced European cooperation in the field of vocational education and training, with a number of specific goals (12).

2.8

In 2005, the Commission published the second report on Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training (13). This stressed, inter alia, the difficulty of raising the number of graduates in Europe, the need to update and supplement knowledge, skills and qualifications throughout working life through advanced lifelong learning systems and, lastly, the need to increase public investment in higher education and training, supplementing it with private investment, and to train enough high-calibre, highly-skilled academic and teaching staff to replace older workers (around 1 000 000 people between 2005 and 2015).

2.9

In 2006, an OECD survey was carried out from the demand perspective (14). Entitled the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (15), it provides a general framework of students' characteristics, attitudes and ability to use the knowledge they have acquired.

2.10

The European university educational system's weaknesses seem to have four main causes (16):

2.11

The main general problems which could be resolved by creating a European Institute of Technology (EIT) are as follows:

2.12

In its resolution on the 2007 annual budget, while the European Parliament welcomed the idea of strengthening the capacities of the knowledge triangle (education, research and innovation) and reinforcing the links among them, it was sceptical regarding the setting-up of a new European Institute of Technology, which it believed ‘may undermine or overlap on existing structures and may therefore not be the most effective use of funds in this context’ (18).

2.13

For its part, however, the European Council of 15-16 June 2006 stressed that ‘the European Institute for Technology (EIT), working with existing national institutions, will be an important step towards filling the existing gap between higher education, research and innovation together with other actions that enhance networking and synergies between excellent research and innovation communities in Europe’. It invited the Commission to prepare ‘a formal proposal for its establishment’. In response to this invitation, in November 2006 the Commission issued the proposal addressed by this opinion (19), which follows on from its two previous Communications on the matter (20).

2.13.1

Since then, the December 2006 European Council confirmed the favourable attitude previously expressed.

3.1

The concept underlying the Commission's Proposal for a regulation setting up the EIT is that the EIT can contribute to industrial competitiveness, strengthening the Member States' and the EU's innovation capacity. The proposal's goals are to:

3.2

The Commission proposes to give the EIT a two-level integrated structure, which combines a bottom-up approach with a top-down approach, as follows:

3.3

The EIT's general budget for 2007-2013 is estimated at about EUR 2 367,1 million, coming from:

4.1

The Committee has always welcomed moves to boost the innovation capacity of the EU and the Member States, advocating an integrated approach to the knowledge triangle, particularly linking the academic world and enterprise. It is firmly in favour of ensuring better coordination of research, boosting innovation and education in the EU, achieving a more effective public-private partnership in the area of R&D and providing better access for small and medium-sized businesses to new skills (21).

4.2

However, the Committee cannot deviate from the three key principles underlying the reinvigoration of the Lisbon Strategy:

4.3

The Committee therefore believes that there needs to be careful consideration of how the EIT initiative ties in with the many other initiatives under way, which are based on various other policies such as research, enterprise, regional development, information society, education and culture.

4.3.1

The Committee believes that in order for the future EIT to become a point of reference and a symbol of European excellence, it needs to go beyond merely integrating resources. Instead, it must be designed and structured so as to meet the objectives set out in the Treaty, which form its fundamental legal basis.

4.3.2

The Committee emphasises that a key to the success of the future EIT will be its ability to market a single brand of excellence with a network structure that draws in and passes on knowledge and innovation in a decentralised manner.

4.4

The Committee agrees that the EIT's structure should be as simple as possible, flexible and dynamic, so that it can cater for new demands, and believes that the possibility of setting up a joint undertaking should be explored (22). However, it stresses that this structure must be oriented towards businesses and employment and that it is essential for it to focus on its stated primary objective, which is to convert R&D results into market opportunities.

4.4.1

To this end, the selection criteria for the Governing Bodies should be based not just on scientific excellence but on ability to attract innovative capital, create start-ups, generate and exploit patents and attract public/private financing, not to mention SMEs.

4.5

The Committee believes that this approach should be reflected in the selection criteria for KICs, whose consortia must remain open, in line with the priorities for the multi-annual Community programming for research and innovation, so as to facilitate involvement of smaller businesses and bodies, ensuring the greatest possible flexibility and minimum red tape.

4.5.1

The requirements for KICs need to be better defined:

4.6

In order to promote a European Area of Knowledge, as part of the Lisbon strategy, it will be necessary to create incentives to promote mobility between the various white-collar professions and between the public and private sectors so as to facilitate movement between the different senior and middle management jobs, between researchers and engineers, and between the institutional and private sectors (23): mobility on a European scale must be a key part of training, research and technological applications programmes.

4.7

The Committee notes that initial funding for EIT activities appears to be very limited, while it seems that future resources will be directed towards conventional programmes (24) and draw on the already depleted funds of the 2007-2013 budget in the area of research, innovation and education. The EIT will thus be competing with other tried and tested integrated-approach instruments such as the IPs (Integrated Projects), NoEs (Networks of Excellence) and other more recent instruments such as the JTIs (Joint Technology Initiatives) and the ETPs (European Technology Platforms).

4.7.1

The funding provided for the Seventh RTD Framework Programme, for the period 2007-2013, which represents about 5.8 % of the overall EU budget, is already inadequate to support policies to incentivise research. Therefore, resources cannot be diverted from this except through the normal tendering process, in which the EIT and the KICs should be able to compete on a level playing field with other participants.

4.7.2

At least the initial success of the EIT will heavily depend on sufficient funding by the Community, which, however, should not be diverted from the other programmes adopted for research and innovation: indeed, the Commission's estimates for the period 2007-2013 for the entire EIT system seem to be too low while Community funds from budget surplus are negligible. The Committee feels that one solution might be a joint undertaking (under Article 171 of the Treaty), where the Member States concerned participate directly (cf. the formula used for the Galileo joint undertaking) (25).

4.7.3

In the Committee's view, the initial funding necessary could come from additional resources under the Mid-term review of the Seventh RTD Community Framework Programme; these funds should be in addition to direct contributions from Member States made on a pro-rata basis.

4.7.4

An additional source of funding could be EIB activities under the Innovation 2010 Initiative (i2i) and the EIB action for university research (26) and university networks.

4.8

Community R&D policy also needs more systematic monitoring of all factors that limit the mobility of researchers, which is currently hindered by the differences in arrangements for recognising academic qualifications, as well as those for taxation, insurance and social security (27).

4.9

In the Committee's view, if the EIT aims to be a world-class operator in its field capable of inspiring better performance by other European actors and networks in the knowledge triangle, it will have to be able to attract substantial private funding, which will, over time, have to become its main source of finance.

4.10

A major factor here may be the solution found to intellectual property protection issues, which may warrant further clarification in the proposal, as do the issues relating to the definition and awarding of EIT degrees.

4.11

The Committee believes that more clarity is needed as regards the definition and awarding of EIT degrees by the KIC networks and the EIT itself.

4.11.1

For a sufficiently long initial period, awarding degrees should remain the prerogative and responsibility of Member States' universities and/or polytechnics which have been selected as partners within each KIC. However, even in this initial period, the awarding of degrees should comply with specific minimum requirements.

4.11.2

The requirements could include the following elements:

4.12

As regards the EIT Statutes, the Committee believes that there should be an Administrative Board, with the same membership as that of the Governing Board provided for in the Commission proposal — five representatives of business, five representatives of public and private research centres and five representatives of public and private universities, and an additional four members representing the staff and students of the EIT and the KICs (28) — and chaired by a Commission representative. This would be supported by:

4.12.1

If the joint undertaking formula is adopted for the EIT, the administrative and scientific staff of the joint undertaking should have fixed-term contracts based on the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Community (29).

—

a single framework for transparency of competences and qualifications (European CV, certificates, diplomas, Europass-Training brand etc.);

—

a system of credit transfer for vocational education and training, similar to the ECTS in higher education;

—

common criteria and principles for quality in vocational education and training, structured around a core of common criteria and principles for quality which could serve as a basis for European-level initiatives such as quality guidelines and checklists for education and training;

—

common principles for the validation of non-formal and informal learning, in particular to ensure greater compatibility between approaches in different countries and at different levels;

—

a European dimension of information guidance and counselling services, giving citizens improved access to lifelong learning.

1)

the measurement of learning progress over time and the comparison of progress across countries;

2)

the relationship between aspects of instruction and learning outcomes;

3)

the assessment of ICT competences, as well as the use of technology as a means to capture a broader range of assessment tasks.

—

Administrative Board: This is composed of the founder members. Decisions are adopted by a simple majority except in the case of major decisions, where a majority of 75 % of the votes is required. The Administrative Board takes all strategic decisions relating to planning, financial and budget matters. It also nominates the Director of the joint undertaking;

—

Executive Committee: This assists the Administrative Board and the Director;

—

Director: This is the chief executive responsible for the day-to-day management of the joint undertaking and its legal representative. He/she directs the staff of the joint undertaking, updates the programme development plan, draws up the annual accounts and balance sheet and submits them to the Administrative Board and draws up the annual report on the current status of the programme and its financial situation.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/35

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 74/347/EEC of 25 June 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the field of vision and windscreen wipers for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

2.

The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/36

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 74/151/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain parts and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

2.

The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/37

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 74/152/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the maximum design speed of and load platforms for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

2.

The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/38

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 75/321/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

2.

The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

1.

This proposed directive to codify Directive 98/27/CE (1) looks again at and modifies the proposal on the same subject submitted on 12 May 2003 (2), on which the Committee issued a favourable opinion (3).

2.

This current proposal had to been drawn up because, in the meantime, Directive 2005/29/CE on unfair commercial practices was published on 11 June 2005; this expressly recognised that such practices may be the subject of injunctions provided for in the said directive, with a view to preventing and stopping such unfair practices and making it legitimate for organisations representing collective consumer interests to go to court to have these injunctions imposed.

3.

As referred to in the above-mentioned opinion, the Committee notes that, in line with the Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 20 December 1994, no substantial change may be made as part of a codification. Thorough examination of the alterations proposed here reveals that this principle has been complied with; it should be pointed out that the Commission has met the Committee's request, set out in its earlier opinion, that the proposed directive be accompanied by the full text of the amended proposal, where all the changes made are clearly marked.

4.

The Committee nevertheless feels it must mention that in its opinion on the first Commission proposal on this subject (4), on which the current Directive 98/27/CE is based, it pointed out that the reference in Article 1(1) to an ‘annex’ with a list of directives does unfortunately give rise to a need for constant updating whenever, as is the case here, another directive is published containing substantive legislation requiring implementation by means of measures of the type set out in the articles in the present proposal, for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (5).

4.1

In addition, this manner of drafting the articles reflects an unnecessarily complicated form of legislation, which runs counter to the goals of ‘better lawmaking’ and ‘simplification of legislation’, which the EESC shares with the Commission.

5.

Furthermore, publication of Directive 2005/29/CE (6) and, more specifically, the provisions of Articles 11 and 14, strengthen the recommendation already made in the afore-mentioned 1996 EESC opinion, and acknowledged at the time, that there was a ‘case for liability actions, which would be an effective complement to injunctions’.

5.1

Consequently the EESC calls on the Commission to give further thought to the suitability of extending the sphere of application of measures for representing collective interests, namely those of consumers.

6.

In conclusion, the Committee, within the strict limits of the codification effected by the Commission on the basis of the decision of 1 April 1987 [COM(1987) 868 PV], is favourable to this proposal, as it has been previously in relation to the same directive.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

1.1

Fifty years of continuous development without any consistent consolidation has made European legislation — in the form of treaties, directives and regulations, recommendations, European Court of Justice case law and other Community documents — highly complex and very difficult even for specialists to fathom.

1.2

In some areas, for instance, new directives have been adopted without any consistent checks on whether the body of directives already in place is thereby rendered obsolete or whether the relevant provisions can be incorporated into the new text, thus making it possible to repeal the earlier directive on the same subject. Similarly, certain facets of a particular legal area that, in essence, belong together have, over the years, come to be dealt with separately in an increasing number of new and independent directives. Or again, certain directives have, over time, been partially amended by various legal instruments without the adoption of any new and legally binding consolidated text.

1.3

The time therefore really is ripe for change in this field. There can be no objection to a technical consolidation of the existing directives, provided this is carried out with the best of intentions and is not done for any ulterior motive, such as to settle old scores with other institutions and to push through a particular viewpoint that has thus far failed to secure acceptance in the political process.

The Commission's declared intention is to tidy up Community law from a purely technical angle and it is thus, in principle, to be welcomed.

1.4

In the same way, the Commission's declared intention of simplifying European law in a bid to cut red tape and reduce useless effort in the Member States can only be welcomed.

1.5

The relevant Commission proposals for directives to repeal or amend existing legislation as part of this process must, however, be examined in the light of the two considerations mentioned above.

2.1

The Commission is proposing a new directive (2) to repeal Directive 71/304/EEC.

2.2

The purpose of Council Directive 71/304/EEC of 26 July 1971 was to oblige the Member States to remove restrictions affecting the right to enter into, award, perform or participate in the performance of public works contracts on behalf of the state, or any public entities or legal persons for the benefit of cross-border service providers. The directive sought to combat direct or indirect discrimination against non-national service providers in the awarding of public contracts by the Member States. It also obliged Member States to ensure that non-national enterprises should have access to credits, grants and subsidies under the same conditions as nationals and that non-national enterprises should ‘have access without restriction and in any event under the same conditions as nationals’ to (state-controlled) ‘supply facilities’ that are essential for the performance of their contract.

2.3

The Commission says the current proposal is needed because this directive is now obsolete, given the changes that have taken place since it was adopted.

2.3.1

As the Commission notes, the field of public procurement is now covered by Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, which supersede the directive under discussion here.

2.3.2

As Directive 71/304/EEC also relates in general terms to the freedom to provide services, the Commission further notes that European Court of Justice case law in this area has changed substantially. To back up this statement, the Commission, in a footnote, quotes verbatim from Case C-76/90 Säger, ECR I-4221, which states that Article 59 [now Article 49 — freedom to provide services] of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to all providers of services regardless of their place of origin, ‘which is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services’.

2.3.3

In its explanatory memorandum, the Commission sums up the case law in question, noting that the ECJ has made clear that ‘Article 49 of the EC Treaty prohibits measures that apply indiscriminately and that are likely to impede the freedom to provide services’.

2.4

In the recitals, the Commission again refers to the new public procurement directives and the Säger judgment, stressing that, thanks to them, it has been possible to achieve a level of protection for economic operators that is just as good as that provided for under the directive that is to be repealed.

2.5

The directive itself has only four articles. Article 1 repeals Directive 71/304/EEC. Article 2 enjoins Member States to bring into force the laws and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive, the purpose of which is to repeal another directive; to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions and a correlation table between the directive and the national provisions; and to make due reference to this directive in the measures themselves or on the occasion of their official publication; the Member States themselves are to lay down the methods of making such a reference. Article 3 sets the entry into force of the directive as the day of its publication, while Article 4 states that the directive is addressed to the Member States.

3.1

The proposal for a Directive repealing Directive 71/304/EEC unfortunately fails to fully meet all the criteria set out in point 1 of this opinion.

3.2

As a general point, it should be noted that the proposed directive, the purpose of which is to repeal another directive, is one of the first of a whole series of directives of this kind. It would be well, therefore, to ask whether the most effective way of implementing the work programme for the repeal of a large number of now-obsolete directives over the coming months and years really is to adopt a separate new directive repealing every single obsolete directive. In the ongoing implementation of the work programme, consideration should again be given to whether, as an alternative, it might not be possible — and also more efficient — to repeal several directives at once via a single new directive. Since Member States frequently adopt legislation transposing a number of directives at once, such an approach could be a way of avoiding having to amend the same laws of the Member States repeatedly over a short period of time.

3.3

With regard to the proposed directive under discussion here, further consideration should be given to the question as to whether the transposition arrangements set out in Article 2 really do brook no alternative, or whether, to attain the desired objective, it might not be enough to ask the Member States to check their body of law for any changes that might be necessary and to implement those changes where appropriate.

3.4

After all, the main purpose of the 1971 directive that is to be repealed was to eliminate discriminatory laws and rules in place in the Member States at that time and to enforce general principles of Community law in the field of public procurement — principles that have been reiterated and further fleshed out in directives adopted in the intervening years.

3.5

The abolition of discriminatory rules in force in the Member States was undertaken back in the 1970s as part of the transposition of Directive 71/304/EEC — or, for those countries that joined later, in the course of their adoption of the Community aquis. The planned repeal of this directive does not of course mean that the abolition of these earlier discriminatory national rules is to be rescinded. The repeal of the directive does not therefore necessitate any changes to the national legislation adopted at the time to abolish discriminatory rules, as that legislation has by and large fulfilled its purpose (i.e. the discriminatory rules have been abolished) and, in any case, the Treaty and all the more recent directives require such discriminatory rules to stay abolished or to be prohibited.

3.6

At the latest after the adoption of Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC, the public procurement legislation of the Member States was in most cases brought to a level reflecting the changes in European law since 1971. Where this has not yet happened, the Commission can still enforce the new directives. Since all directives are anyway addressed to the legislatures of the Member States, simply repealing Directive 71/304/EEC at European level and requiring the Member States to carry out the necessary checks would obviously in this case be quite enough to achieve the desired effect. In the majority of cases, this will, at most, involve the deletion, wherever they are still in place, of any references to the now-obsolete Directive 71/304/EEC.

3.7

Although it is too late to do anything about it, it is nonetheless regrettable that Directive 71/304/EEC was not repealed in conjunction with the adoption of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC. It is therefore suggested that, for all future directive proposals, checks should always, as a matter of principle, be made on whether the new directive does not render earlier directives obsolete and whether such obsolete directives should not be repealed straight away. This measure too could progressively lead to clearer and more coherent European law.

4.

The EESC therefore recommends that the proposal for a Directive should be amended so as to simply note the repeal of the Directive and to ask the Member States to check their body of law for any changes that might be necessary and to implement those changes where appropriate.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/44

1.1

A codification of rules that have frequently been amended is essential if Community law is to be clear and transparent.

1.2

Codification must be undertaken in full compliance with the normal Community legislative procedure.

1.3

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

1.4

The Committee endorses this codification.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/45

1.1

The Committee welcomes the introduction of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny into the comitology system, enabling the Council and the Parliament to scrutinise and, where appropriate, amend the Commission's implementing regulations when the legislative act recognises the Commission's right to exercise implementing powers in some areas, without authorising it to make substantive amendments; in principle, this involves only making the adjustments and changes necessary for the proper application of the act in question, in accordance with Article 251 TEC.

1.2

The Committee notes that the urgent amendment of some acts proposed by the Commission (1) is in line with Decision 2006/512/EC and the joint statement concerning both the list of acts to be adjusted as quickly as possible and the repeal of time limits on the exercise of the Commission's implementing powers.

2.1

Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 (2) amended Council Decision 1999/468/EC (3) of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, in particular by the addition of Article 5a introducing a new regulatory procedure with scrutiny.

2.2

The comitology procedures for the follow-up of each legislative act will thus comprise a further option strengthening the Parliament's scrutiny over the exercise of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission by the act, with reference to acts subject to this new option and governed by the co-decision procedure, or the Lamfalussy process in financial matters.

2.3

In a joint statement (4), the Commission, the Council and the Parliament agreed on a list of instruments that they believed should urgently be adjusted to the amended Decision, so as to replace the initial procedure with the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This joint statement further stipulates that the principles of good legislation require that implementing powers be conferred on the Commission without any time limit.

2.4

The Commission now proposes to amend retroactively 26 legislative acts considered to be of key importance (5), so as to introduce the new procedure and, where appropriate, repeal any time limits on the implementing powers which might be included in the acts.

2.5

In three cases, the listed co-decision instruments not only modify already existing basic acts but also merely refer to comitology provisions which have to be aligned in those acts. In these cases, the Commission has therefore proposed to adjust the latter. In particular:

2.5.1

To align Directive 2005/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005, the Commission proposes to adjust:

2.5.2

To align Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Commission proposes to adjust:

2.5.3

To align Directive 2001/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002, the Commission proposes to adjust:

2.6

The list of instruments to be aligned as a matter of priority is reproduced below:

3.1

The Committee has always considered that comitology procedures, involving only representatives of the Commission and Member State governments and tasked, according to the nature of the committee established, with the management, consultation or regulation flowing from the follow-up and implementation of legislative acts, should be more transparent and accessible to people living in Europe and especially to those affected by these acts.

3.2

It therefore welcomes the decision to introduce a new regulatory procedure with scrutiny for acts governed by the co-decision procedure. With the Parliament not being directly involved in the committees, it was appropriate that a system be established to scrutinise the Commission's implementing powers so as to verify that the implementing regulations adopted autonomously by the Commission did not exceed these powers.

3.3

The repeal of time limits on implementing powers, which are included in some acts, follows on logically from the enhancement of the scrutiny exercised by the Parliament and the Council, and their right to amend Commission implementing regulations for any act governed by the co-decision procedure and the Lamfalussy process.

3.4

The joint statement of 21 October 2006 called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to submit proposals under the Decision of 17 July 2006, and the Committee notes that the Commission has duly complied with this request.

3.5

It also notes that the acts amended are consistent with the priorities established by this decision.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/48

1.1

The EESC agrees that it is important to make the use of pesticides more sustainable, so as to optimise their beneficial effects and reduce their adverse effects on farming, the environment, the consumer, operators and society as a whole.

1.2

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal in principle, in that it addresses an issue of great importance as regards the European public's well-being, safeguarding the quality of life and of the ecosystem, and rural development, and, moreover, as regards a positive product trend ensuring that products remain competitive on the internal and international markets, with continual improvements in quality.

1.3

The EESC agrees that action plans should be drawn up at national level to identify the objectives in respect of reducing risk and to launch a genuine EU harmonisation policy.

1.3.1

The plans' provisions must be converted into appropriate national, regional and local measures, in particular taking into consideration the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. economic, social and environmental impact.

1.4

The EESC believes that training and information campaigns are essential to achieve rational, sustainable use of crop protection systems, avoiding potential adverse environmental impact.

1.4.1

Training must be extended to all stakeholders, including public authorities and bodies and non-professional users. Clearly, national training systems, which are already managed by properly approved bodies, must be preserved.

1.5

The EESC believes that awareness-raising campaigns should be objective and neutral, highlighting the benefits for crops and the risks and targeting non-professional users in particular, especially local public bodies and authorities.

1.6

When introducing precautionary measures in particularly sensitive contexts, as when laying down rules on aerial spraying, the EESC believes that it would be preferable to ensure a certain degree of subsidiarity.

1.7

The EESC feels that it is important for due consideration to be given to agricultural and plant protection research, in order to minimise the risk which is always present when chemicals and mixtures of chemicals are used.

1.8

The EESC believes that due attention should also be given to cooperation, both with international bodies such as the FAO, the OECD and the WHO and with neighbouring regions.

1.9

Globalisation of the agricultural and food markets calls, in the EESC's view, for a Community initiative to disseminate European production and health standards internationally, in particular by incorporating them into the Codex Alimentarius.

2.1

The term pesticides denotes active substances and products designed to influence fundamental processes in living organisms and which, therefore, have the potential to kill or control harmful organisms (1). However, the Commission proposal also uses the more specific term ‘plant protection products’ (2).

2.2

Pesticides are considered to be essential to protect crops from insects, rodents and natural pathogens, but they can also accumulate in the environment and cause serious risks to human and animal health, particularly when they pollute drinking water. The potential risks in humans include cancer, genetic disorders and permanent damage to the immune system.

2.3

Risks to human health can occur through direct or indirect exposure, misuse or accident, in particular during or after use in agriculture, landscaping and other activities.

2.4

The risks related to each individual active substance contained in pesticides are evaluated during the relevant authorisation procedures, but there is no satisfactory assessment at Member-State level of the effects of exposure to mixtures of chemicals. Thus, as things stand, it would be very difficult to evaluate the overall impact on human health of all substances currently in use (3).

2.5

Indirect exposure of bystanders, residents (via spray drift) and those who could be described as consumers (via residual amounts in agricultural produce or water) can be even more serious for especially vulnerable population groups. In particular, recent research (4) has shown the special sensitivity of foetuses whose neurological development has been affected when their mothers are exposed to pesticides.

2.6

Account must be taken of risks caused to the environment by unintended and excessive flows of chemical substances to water, air and soil, resulting in adverse effects on plants, wildlife, quality of the environmental compartments and biodiversity in general.

2.6.1

At the same time, the fact must not be overlooked that modern society relies on a wide range of fertilisers, biocidal products, food additives, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides, with numerous beneficial effects in terms of higher levels of food safety and quality.

2.7

If used responsibly, they guarantee the availability on the market of high-quality fruit and vegetable produce, raw materials and foodstuffs at low prices which are affordable for all consumers. The use of crop protection products ensures high yields, reduces the levels of natural toxins produced by fungi and bacteria, reduces crop losses and helps to secure sufficient, sustainable food supply on the internal and international markets.

2.7.1

Moreover, all fungicides, insecticides and herbicides are already subject to a rigorous approval process before marketing and use are authorised.

2.8

The EESC agrees that it is important to make the use of pesticides more sustainable, so as to optimise their beneficial effects and reduce their adverse effects on the environment, the consumer and operators: this would also improve the image of operators and farms which use plant protection products prudently.

2.9

The EESC believes that more emphasis should be placed on the potential benefits for farmers of more rational, judicious use of plant protection products. Farmers themselves have, for some years, been engaged in developing more rational techniques such as Integrated Crop Management and Integrated Pest Management with a view to promoting integrated farming in a more tangible way, and this trend should be encouraged.

2.10

The real challenge of the future is not just to provide high-quality, safe conventional and organic products to the ‘most discerning’ consumers, but also to satisfy those seeking products which are both reasonably priced and of guaranteed quality.

2.11

The problems involved in integrating environmental issues into the use of pesticides are covered by the priorities outlined in the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme 2002-2012, which provides for the development and implementation of seven thematic strategies.

2.12

There are clear interactions between the recommendations in the thematic strategies adopted — particularly the strategies on the protection of ground water and natural fauna and flora, soil protection, waste management, and residues and packaging — and the proposal for a framework directive.

2.12.1

The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides sets out four new measures for environmental and health protection, including the proposal for a directive establishing a framework for more sustainable use of pesticides, which is addressed by this opinion.

2.12.2

The Commission has also drawn up an impact assessment of the various scenarios which might result from the implementation of the measures laid down for sustainable use of pesticides and their cost: ‘losses (for the PPP industry and for farmers paying for training and the certification and maintenance of application equipment) and benefits (for less consuming farmers, and training, maintenance or certificating firms) are equal.’ (5)

2.13

The net overall impact, considering the reduced externalities, is thus clearly positive: ‘Extrapolation from a comprehensive study in Germany leads to the conclusion that the optimised use in pesticides should create an overall benefit to the EU which would exceed EUR 200 million each year, through reduced externalities such as adverse effects on the environment and human health.’  (6)

2.14

The EESC has already, in 2003 (7), expressed support for the Commission's effort to draw up a thematic strategy on pesticides. The EESC feels that explicit mention should be made of both the crop protection role of pesticides, and other techniques, i.e. biopesticides, plant extracts, prevention methods, organic methods and plant resistance to certain pests, the risks and benefits of which must be assessed on a sound scientific basis.

3.1

The Commission proposal seeks to protect human and animal health and the environment from the hazardous, inappropriate or excessive use of pesticides in farming and the ecosystem, reducing the risks and adverse impact of pesticide use ‘in a way that is consistent with the necessary crop protection’.

3.2

It provides, in particular, for:

4.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal in that it addresses an issue of great importance as regards the European public and consumer's well-being, safeguarding quality of life, farming and the ecosystem.

4.2

Annual world pesticide sales are estimated at EUR 25 billion and the use of pesticides is still very high in developing countries, even though these markets are sluggish or shrinking (8). Moreover, globalisation of agricultural and food markets calls for increasingly careful compliance with appropriate production and health standards of the Codex Alimentarius by all concerned, to prevent these markets suffering the effects of Gresham's law as well (9).

4.3

Moreover, in various parts of the world, a huge quantity of pesticides is wasted or used needlessly, and a large number of people suffer from poisoning because farmers, operators and local authorities do not know or have not been updated about new technological applications and because the equipment used for pesticides is often obsolete or poorly maintained. In addition, dangerous substances already banned in the EU are still in use in developing countries (10).

4.4

The EESC believes that the introduction of National Action Plans incorporating quantitative targets and implementation schedules is particularly necessary in order to define measures geared to the need to reduce risks, at national, regional and local level, taking into consideration the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. economic, social and environmental impact.

4.5

The socially responsible use of crop protection products is essential to achieve increasingly advanced social objectives, ensuring that farmers discharge their responsibilities in the food chain and produce high-quality foodstuffs for consumers, while also securing sufficiently high levels of agricultural competitiveness on both the internal and international markets as regards the Lisbon Strategy.

4.6

The economic dimension of sustainability ensures that products are only used to the extent necessary to keep the various diseases below the danger line, thus increasing yield and farm product availability as well as reducing the costs of farm management.

4.7

As regards the environment, the risks caused by the excessive accidental presence of chemical substances in water, soil, air and processed farm and food products would be avoided. These substances are harmful to man, flora and fauna, the quality of the environment and biological diversity in general. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that it is essential to prevent the spread and proliferation of plant diseases.

4.8

In order to avoid distorting competition in the internal market, the measures adopted when National Action Plans are introduced should be based on directives and criteria which are common to the whole of the EU.

4.9

Education, training and information campaigns are essential to achieve rational, sustainable use of crop protection systems, and for ensuring that best farming practices are used and avoiding potential adverse environmental impact. Integrated training of all stakeholders, including public authorities and bodies and non-professional users, is of particular importance here.

4.10

Member States have set up different training systems, based on national provisions and legislative requirements and managed by properly approved bodies. The EESC therefore believes that a flexible Community reference framework is necessary in order to cater for the needs of different user groups. It could be based inter alia on teaching methods and course content agreed on by stakeholders at European level (11) and discussed as part of a sectoral dialogue between the social partners in each country.

4.11

The same may be said of information and awareness-raising campaigns, which must be objective and neutral, on the benefits of potential crop protection practices and the risks of harmful effects. These campaigns could be financed in the individual Member States by means such as a tax levied on crop protection products. The funds obtained in this way could be channelled into resources such as simple technical guides updated online to raise awareness among users, particularly non-professional users.

4.12

The EESC believes that it is essential for Member States to set up a system for regular technical inspection and maintenance of pesticide application equipment in use, on the basis of common, harmonised standards founded on essential requirements.

4.13

As regards the introduction of precautionary measures in particularly sensitive contexts, such as the protection of water (12) — which must be in line with the Water Framework Directive — and the sectors defined by Natura 2000, local conditions and types of crops such as rice need to be taken into account.

4.13.1

In the EESC's opinion, it is important to ensure that best practices are followed to reduce risks, laying down balanced, sensible common provisions and minimum parameters. The choice of measures and stringent monitoring thereof should be the responsibility of the Member States. The Committee is not in favour of a general ban, as it feels this would be excessive.

4.14

As regards the introduction of stringent restrictions on aerial spraying, the EESC believes that careful consideration should be given to the fact that there are geographical areas and situations where no other technique is feasible. In such circumstances it might be appropriate to allow only very limited derogations for this kind of operation, so as to secure the greatest possible level of safety and professional skill among operators and thus avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment. Member States and the various tiers of public authority responsible should use standardised risk assessment procedures to monitor safety and competence levels systematically.

4.15

Under the common agricultural policy, increasing support is being given to the development of Integrated Crop Management (ICM) techniques (13). In this context, new Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods should also be phased in on a consensual basis. The EESC firmly supports ICM techniques (14), which are a milestone for sustainable farming systems.

4.16

It is very difficult to distinguish the various effects of crop protection from the effects of a whole series of other farming practices (rotation etc.): if general IPM ‘target-standards’ are to be drawn up and made mandatory by the Member States before 2014, the EESC feels that users must be given incentives to participate fully in this and that general ICM techniques, technical progress and technological research in the sector — supported and consolidated in the Seventh Community RTD Framework Programme work programmes — must be taken fully into account.

4.17

The EESC feels that work programmes and calls for tender under the Seventh RTD Framework Programme 2007-2013 should give due consideration to agricultural and plant protection research into the degrees to which new, advanced technologies are harmless, and into minimising the risk caused by the use of chemicals and mixtures of chemicals.

4.18

In its Own-initiative opinion on The future of the CAP (15), the EESC pointed to a number of possible ways of taking better account of environmental aspects in agricultural policy. The ‘second pillar’ of the CAP requires Member States, in the new 2007-2013 Structural Funds programming period and national and regional development plans for rural areas, to provide incentives for mechanisms to compensate farmers who succeed in reducing the risks involved in their use of chemical plant protection products (16).

4.19

The definition of IPC techniques must be in line with new provisions on the placing on the market of crop protection products, and standards on IPM techniques must take into account the varying natural and climatic conditions within the EU.

4.20

Crop protection products must be handled and stored in such a way as to prevent any potential risk to health or the environment. The EESC believes that, in addition to the proposals, a framework of minimum standards on storage for wholesalers, retailers and farmers should be defined at Community level (17).

4.21

As regards the system of harmonised indicators for the mandatory collection and reporting of statistical information on placing on the market and use of pesticides, the EESC fully agrees that there is a need for statistical information and that it should be mandatory for this data to be collected regularly on the basis of risk and use indicators harmonised at European level.

4.22

The EESC stresses the importance of standardising the information to be requested from all stakeholders the need to avoid any duplication or excessive burdens in terms of either red tape or technical complexity.

4.23

The indicators should be based on risk rather than on the quantity of products used or of residues present, and on the impact on health. WHO studies could be used here. They should also cover the spread of diseases and pathogens affecting crops.

4.24

The EESC calls for due consideration to be given to aspects of international cooperation, as regards both bodies such as the FAO (18) and the OECD (19), and neighbouring regions, particularly the countries of the Mediterranean Basin, the Balkans and bordering countries.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/53

1.1

The Commission proposal seeks to repeal Council Directive 68/89/EEC of 23 January 1968 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the classification of wood in the rough.

1.2

Given the fact that Member States, the forestry sector and forest-based industries have been saying for a number of years that the Directive is not generally applied across-the-board in the timber trade, the Commission has proposed that the Directive be repealed.

2.1

In mid-2005, 19 Member States and 11 representatives of national industry federations took part in consultations aimed at establishing whether or not the Directive had been applied and whether its repeal would have an adverse impact. The results of the survey confirmed that the majority of both Member States and industry federations do not observe the Directive in the timber trade; they believed that the Directive itself was not detailed enough, did not take into account the intended uses of wood and was not geared to market needs.

2.2

Application of the Council Directive has been limited, since it is not binding, the systems of classification and measurement it establishes are out of date, and operators in the timber market have agreed upon and applied other methods of measurement and classification. Despite this, the internal market for wood raw material has expanded, as well as trade with third countries, seemingly without hindrances.

Furthermore, European standards for the measurement and classification of wood have been established; they can be applied, as appropriate, in wood market transactions and are considered a better solution.

2.3

The repeal of the Directive is therefore in line with the results of the consultations with Member States, the forestry sector and forest-based industries. The aims of the Directive can be achieved without Community legislation.

2.4

For the reasons given above, and also given the fact that the repeal of the Directive will not have any budgetary implications and will help to simplify European legislation, the Committee supports the Commission proposal. The Committee believes that legislation that is rarely applied and is not essential for the proper functioning of the internal market in this sector should not remain in force.

13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/54

1.1

There is growing interest in the EU in promoting production and rearing methods that show more consideration than hitherto for domestic animal welfare. In view of this, it is proposed that the present mandatory minimum animal welfare standards should be backed up by voluntary labelling rules that can be used in combination with both general commercial labels and more quality-based labels, not least among them ‘quality schemes’. This will underpin market forces and will not place an unnecessary burden on the political system in the EU or on national inspection bodies. Quality labels play an essential part in competition in the food sector, and they often contain varying animal welfare elements over and above the applicable mandatory minimum standards. However, it is difficult for consumers to see the basis for labelling and the content of rules, and the animal welfare aspects are not always based on proper scientific principles.

1.2

Such a market-based system based on objective criteria to quantify animal welfare will be more flexible, effective and future-oriented than politically imposed criteria and will therefore be better suited to future developments in production and marketing, which will be marked by a greater variation in production conditions as a consequence of EU enlargement, continued specialisation and diversification of production, structural changes in retailing and partnerships in the field of product development and branding.

1.3

It is important to promote production and rearing methods that show more consideration for animal welfare, both directly, through training and the circulation of new research findings, and through market signals, which at the same time will be an essential starting point for a series of priorities within training, investments, etc. In this way a labelling scheme can help create the necessary ‘all round’ synergy and contribute towards a more rational use of resources. Livestock producers need stability, since today they can be subject to a string of more or less valid changes that affect producers' planning and investment strategy.

1.4

An animal welfare labelling scheme going beyond minimum requirements should thus be set up as a voluntary offer to the producer, business and industry interests concerned; private labelling schemes could refer to standards that have a scientific and practical basis and be adjusted in line with new knowledge. In concrete terms this could consist of offering a sort of logo combined with colour labelling or a points system, which could be applied to commercial labels and form an objective basis for marketing combined with a form of private and independent monitoring. The system could, in principle, be applied to all types of domestic animals and animal products and likewise to imported products, in accordance with WTO rules.

1.5

Traditional regulation by the authorities in the form of minimum requirements should still be continued in the EU, as has been the case up to now for labelling the methods used for producing eggs and organic products. However, this form of regulation is politically and administratively burdensome and therefore less suitable for promoting the development of production and rearing methods that pay greater attention to animals' welfare. At the same time the system will be perceived as stiff and bureaucratic by producers, industry and trade interests, without there being any corresponding benefits for consumers.

1.6

The proposed scheme shows essential similarities to environmental labelling schemes in general, including the EU's own eco-label. Environmental labels are thus based on the application of common principles for production and the use of widely differing products to create greater synergy and wide recognition for the label. However, because of mutual competition, players in the food sector will naturally give priority to their own quality labels, which is why the ‘environmental model’ is not directly applicable to animal welfare labelling, which must be based on specific research and the mutual assessment of welfare-related indicators.

1.7

The contribution of research in the EU in the field of animal welfare is thus crucial in determining whether it will be possible in the future to integrate animal welfare into the agriculture and subsequent production and trading chain on a scientific and objective basis. However, it is important that the elements of a labelling scheme be laid down as soon as possible so that research findings and standardised — objective, measurable and replicable — indicators can be turned into practical strategies and used in the labelling scheme as and when they become known and those concerned become familiar with the scheme.

1.8

In any case, a substantial information campaign is required, targeting consumers and the retail sector in particular and including coverage of the EU's mandatory minimum standards. At the same time, thought could be given to setting up a website and database supported by the EU to bring about greater transparency and openness, though common guidelines should first be applied before the exact content is published. Thought should also be given to tighter controls and bans on incorrect and misleading advertising to ensure that businesses live up more to their own claims.

2.1

In accordance with the request from the German presidency, the aim of the opinion is to describe possible animal welfare labelling schemes and their structure, with an eye to promoting the development of production and rearing methods that pay more attention to animals' welfare. It is to be seen against the background of the increased interest in animal welfare in the EU, where animal welfare alongside other ethical considerations is increasingly being included as an element in the ‘European model of society’. Consumers have a right — in line with the findings of Eurobarometer studies — to expect food made from animals to be produced using systems that respect EU regulations, notably those on animal welfare, and to count on the existence of objective and credible possibilities for choosing food that is produced in conditions that show special consideration for animals' welfare (1). Moreover, in many respects there is a connection between animal health and welfare and the development of diseases that can be transferred to human beings.

2.2

According to most research, consumers thus consider animal welfare as a parameter of key importance to a product's quality. However, this view may be less marked in some Member States. An animal's welfare experience or quality of life can be defined as the sum of positive and negative experiences to which an animal is exposed during its life. Pain, disease, conflict behaviour, abnormal behaviour and chronic stress can be considered as the start of negative experiences for an animal, whereas rest, sleep, food, parental care and grooming can be considered as positive experiences. However, there is no recognised unambiguous definition of animal welfare.

2.3

The EU has — among other things, on the basis of recommendations by the Council of Europe — adopted a series of minimum standards for animal welfare in the form of traditional regulation by the authorities. Many of these minimum standards in the years ahead will have to be reviewed in the light of earlier decisions. In addition, specific rules have been implemented on the voluntary labelling of organic products and the mandatory labelling of production methods when marketing eggs, as well as a few isolated rules when marketing poultry for slaughter and beef.

2.4

The food industry and the retail sector are becoming increasingly concentrated and competitive, and make more and more use of quality labels which show that special consideration is being paid to various quality criteria including, to an increasing extent, animal welfare. At the same time producer organisations and co-operatives have set up an array of regionally-based quality labels, which often include consideration for animal welfare and the environment. Some of these products can make use of the EU's system for protecting geographic designations and specialities (2).

2.5

There are major differences from country to country. For example, the British market is dominated by the trade's quality labels, while in France and Italy there are a significant number of regionally-based quality labels. Dutch production is traditionally dominated by the processing sector's quality labels, although more and more labels are being developed by the retail trade and producer organisations. In Sweden producers' own labels dominate, which is tied up with the traditional view in several other countries that naturally assumes that domestic products mean higher quality, including the animal welfare aspects.

2.6

Experiences with voluntary labelling schemes indicate that the Commission's intention is to promote the use of specific, objective and measurable indicators for animal welfare in current and future Community legislation as the basis for legislation on the validation of production systems that apply higher welfare standards than the minimum standards laid down in the present rules (3). According to the Commission this involves a classification of applied welfare standards in order to promote the development of production and rearing methods that pay greater attention to animals' welfare and make it easier to use these standards in the EU and internationally. The Commission also wants to consider the possibilities of EU labelling on this basis.

3.1

As the representative of civil society it is natural for the EESC to contribute towards the formulation of relevant labelling schemes and share responsibility for introducing them in the form of a common European system that can support sustainable development in the internal market and in trade with the rest of the world. Animal welfare forms part of Europe's cultural heritage and the EU's ethical values alongside corporate social responsibility, environmental protection and ecology, which to some extent have been incorporated into EU legislation. There is a certain common identity here with ecology, which as a sustainable production system within agricultural production is based on the environment and animal welfare.

3.2

The EESC therefore supports the Commission's intention to promote animal welfare in the EU on an objective and sustainable basis (4) and considers it appropriate to establish a common system for labelling to promote production and rearing methods that pay greater attention to animals' welfare. The aim here above all is to help get market forces to operate on an objective basis and ‘pull in the right direction’. At the same time it is important that production and rearing methods which pay greater attention to animals' welfare are promoted through training and the circulation of new research findings. The signals from the market will at the same time, as is the nature of things, be the starting point for a whole series of priorities within research, the training of farmers, advisers and vets, and for future investments in the production system. A labelling scheme can thus contribute to creating synergy and to rational resource use, not least as regards producers' planning and investment strategy.

3.3

At any event, this is a long-term process that of necessity must take place in step with the development of objective, measurable and replicable scientifically-based welfare indicators and an assessment of different production systems. It is, however, important early on to lay down frameworks and principles for the formulation of a common labelling scheme for animal welfare, so that work can be prepared and standardised welfare indicators can be incorporated into the scheme as and when they are developed. As soon as possible, therefore, there must be an understanding and acceptance among the parties concerned on the guidelines and structure of the common scheme that can be used for all livestock products on as voluntary and flexible a basis as possible.

3.4

At the same time it has to be admitted that the process is made more complicated not only by a lack of accessible knowledge about the animal welfare aspects and their priority in relation to each other, but also by the diversity of consumer preferences and production conditions, the effect of different traditions and levels of education on people's attitudes, competition in the food sector, the complexities of existing laws, the difficulties of comparing the content of private quality labels and the unreliability of private and public sector inspection bodies, including those relating to imports into the EU.

3.5

In any case, clear and informative labelling is a key factor in promoting production and rearing methods which pay greater attention to animals' welfare. Experiences with organic products and alternative egg production systems have shown that labelling rules have the potential to make production systems show greater consideration for animal welfare.

3.6

Labelling rules fall within the EU's terms of reference. They are constantly the subject of discussion and conflicts of interest, and it is the Commission's intention to bring out a proposal for an amended labelling directive by the end of 2007 (5). Relevant and clear labelling is most often the result of a compromise where it is not possible to satisfy all wishes and demands. This applies not least to food products, where it is often said that labelling requirements are too comprehensive. The food authorities also have reservations about further labelling that runs the risk of overshadowing basic information about a food's characteristics. Consumers are also uncertain about the benefits of much of the information on food, especially that relating to ethical aspects. For these reasons animal welfare labelling should be based on a smaller logo combined with colours, stars or points, which can be applied as a supplement to existing labelling.

4.1

Further statutory requirements and restrictions in the EU may lead to imports from countries with lower standards squeezing EU production and sales, and even cause a loss of market share on the world market. But a stronger focus on animal welfare in the internal market comprising 30 European countries with a total of 500 million inhabitants (6) will have a spin-off effect in countries outside the EU and their exports to the EU. The World Bank's International Finance Corporation has pointed out the increasing interest worldwide in animal welfare and the need to adapt to this development both in primary production and in industrial processing (7).