4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/1

---

450TH PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 14 AND 15 JANUARY 2009

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The social and environmental dimension of the internal market’

(2009/C 182/01)

Rapporteur: Andrzej ADAMCZYK

On 17 January 2008, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on:

The social and environmental dimension of the internal market.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Andrzej ADAMCZYK.

At its 450th plenary session (meeting of 14 January 2009), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes to 29, with 15 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions

1.1   Although not an end in itself, the internal market is an instrument which is contributing to the growing wellbeing of EU citizens, increasing their prosperity, their access to goods and services and improving the quality and security of their jobs, giving them the opportunity to travel, live, work and study anywhere within the EU's borders.

1.2   This progress is linked to the greater opportunities which the internal market is providing both business — thanks to the expansion of the market for goods, services, freedom of investment — and workers, giving them the unprecedented possibility of seeking employment in any EU country of their choice.

1.3   If Europe wants to remain competitive over the long term, the internal market must ensure a sustainable and long term growth which means also taking environmental dimension into account. New standards, rules, products and ideas must therefore take this major challenge into consideration, even though this may lead to inevitable tensions in some industries, especially that all this makes sense only if the European economy is given a chance to survive, i.e. if the short term competitiveness is not undermined.

1.4   The final goal is to significantly improve the functioning of the internal market within a social market economy, i.e. to ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders and make sure they operate in the same legal environment. This is crucial for creating conditions of fair competition, creating more and better jobs by incorporating the social and environmental dimensions into the internal market in order to strengthen European competitiveness.

1.5   In their approach to the deepening of the internal market, the European institutions must take into consideration the legitimate interests of business and the need to respect the fundamental social rights recognised by EU law, international labour standards and the legislation of the individual Member States, including the right to bargain collectively.

1.6   The proper functioning of the internal market requires the resolution of certain ambiguities related to the application of EU law. A straightforward and predictable legal framework is a precondition for the further development and deepening of the internal market.

1.7   More specifically, controversies resulting from the recent judgements of the European Court of Justice relating to the legal interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive appear to legitimise the requirement to review the directive or conclude an additional agreement between the social partners.

1.8   In this respect, SOLVIT network, as a mediator between the institutions and the public, might potentially play an important role. However, the network is heavily underfinanced and understaffed and its role and operations must be reassessed.

2.   Introduction

2.1   Although still in the process of being developed, the internal market has already given EU citizens a host of tangible benefits, and itself represents the principal achievement of the European integration process (1). The gradual opening up of the markets and removal of barriers has, however, brought with it a number of difficulties and problems which must be dealt with if support is to be garnered for further deepening of the internal market.

2.2   It should be remembered that the development of the internal market is not an end in itself but rather a means of raising the standard of living of the people of the European Union and of increasing their prosperity, their access to goods and services and improving the quality and security of their jobs, giving them the opportunity to travel, live and work freely anywhere within the borders of the EU (2). These benefits are inextricably linked to the increased freedom which companies have to do business e.g. through the expansion of the market for goods and services and the freedom of investment.

2.3   The gradual removal of barriers in areas directly related to the four freedoms can lead to problems and tensions in fields where significant differences still exist between the various countries; this particularly applies to such issues as pay, social security, labour law and the rights of the social partners. Such tensions may be, and are to some extent, eliminated by means of additional regulations designed to:

—	clear up the legal confusion which has arisen from the application of regulations from different countries;

—	combat social dumping and unfair competition;

—	protect consumers' rights (3);

—	ensure that producers and suppliers of goods as well as service providers have an effective access to the European internal market;

—	ensure the accessibility of all goods and services, especially services of general interest through design-for-all policies (4);

—	promote active policies to ensure gender equality and to combat all kinds of discrimination.

2.4   To ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to resolve the various ambiguities surrounding the application of EU law. It is completely unacceptable that, in matters which are of key importance to them, the social partners might be obliged to resort to the European Court of Justice, whose decisions are sometimes a source of either incomprehension or controversy.

2.5   In this context, it has to be appreciated that the Commission had decided to invite social partners and Member States to discuss the issues raised by recent Court rulings and has organised a Forum to debate how to respect social rights against the background of increasing labour mobility (5).

3.   Internal market: benefits and challenges

3.1   The internal market has brought a whole variety of benefits. These include benefits for businesses, employees as well as for the public at large, who benefit from the successful operation of the internal market in a variety of areas. The unquestionable achievements of the internal market include the growth in prosperity related to rising GDP, the freedom to travel, reside, work or study in any EU country, significantly broader access to high-quality goods and services, often at lower prices which is linked with enhanced access of producers, trade operators and service providers to the internal market and, last but not least, the extension of consumer rights which now encompass the whole EU area, irrespective of the country of purchase.

3.2   The limitations imposed on the free movement of persons by a number of Member States, in the form of ‘transition periods’, continue to cause controversy despite their limited timeframes. It should, however, be noted that protecting the labour market has proved more difficult than expected in those countries which have applied transition periods; equally, the exodus of skilled workers in search of employment represents a genuine problem for their countries of origin.

3.3   The EESC is, however, of the opinion (6) that labour market integration is the best safeguard against social exclusion. The Commission should work together with the social partners to make better use of Europe’s labour force potential in our rapidly changing societies. One problem which still needs to be resolved is that of the mutual recognition of qualifications (7).

3.4   For businesses, the benefits include access to a large market with a population of almost 500 million, easier cross-border trade and business start-up procedures, the wider application of European standards and labelling as well as improved cross-border cooperation and transfers of technology. Another benefit is an easy access to the capital markets although the functioning of financial services still has to be improved. All these achievements of the internal market, irrespective of whether they involve businesses or the public directly, entail their own social implications and their own challenges.

3.5   While it may seem obvious that the introduction of the internal market has brought about unprecedented economic growth, which has also had a positive effect on public social wellbeing, there is still much debate as to whether the degree of openness of the market and the scope of regulation in individual areas are socially desirable or acceptable. The controversies surrounding recent judgments of the European Court of Justice (Viking (8), Laval (9), Rüffert (10), Commission v Luxembourg (11)), the earlier debate on the Services Directive as well as the problems concerning the opening up of labour markets, social dumping, unfair competition and the impact of the internal market on the functioning of the European social model certainly require analysis and, perhaps, decisions concerning new legislation or co-regulation.

3.6   The internal market has led to lower prices for many products, which is good for both the consumer and for the competitiveness of the European economy. However, this fall in prices often takes place at the cost of employees who are laid off as a result of business restructuring or the transfer of jobs elsewhere. From the social point of view, it is therefore necessary to reconcile the interests of consumers (low prices) with the interests of employees i.e. job security, employment standards and work and pay conditions.

3.7   Economic growth brought about by the internal market has also contributed to the creation of new jobs. This would be a very positive phenomenon were it not for the fact that such jobs are often poorly paid due to the need to remain competitive.

3.8   It has to be stressed in this context that Europe has achieved its high competitiveness mainly through investments in new technologies, workers’ training and education, improvement of work organisation, better health and safety conditions at the workplace as well as active promotion of social dialogue and partnership. However, as workers are also consumers, increasing an economy's competitiveness by limiting the cost of labour can, in effect, lead to a decrease in purchasing power or, in other words, lower consumption and reduced growth.

3.9   The partial opening up of the labour market to economic migrants poses its own specific set of problems. Some Member States have failed to effectively accommodate economic migrants into their collective working arrangements and/or other rules, legal provisions or practices, undermining local labour standards as a result and expanding the informal economy. This leads to a deterioration in working conditions and the erosion of the social dialogue, resulting in social dumping and unfair competition; such developments should be vigorously opposed by both trade unions and employers' organisations.

3.10   Certain practices of businesses employing posted workers were qualified as social dumping and unfair competition by some stakeholders. Moreover, in its judgments in the cases of Viking, Laval, Rüffert and Commission v Luxembourg, the European Court of Justice ruled that such practices were legal and in line with the Posting of Workers Directive which led to major controversies especially as the rulings were clearly in contradiction with the declared purpose of the directive. Promoting the cross-border provision of services requires fair competition and guarantees of employees' rights. It would, therefore, seem that ensuring equal opportunities, fair competition and respect for employees' rights will require new legal initiatives and additional negotiations between the social partners especially on the issue of posted workers.

3.11   However, before new regulations are elaborated, the Committee (12) believes there is an urgent need to take measures to ensure the proper implementation of Directive 96/71/EC, especially given that its objectives have not been fully achieved even 10 years after its enactment.

3.12   The question of opening the market for services and the problems related to Services of general interest, which are, inter alia, covered by the recently adopted Services Directive, remains a separate issue. This directive is currently in the process of being implemented and its impact cannot therefore yet be assessed. It is, however, clear that the social dimension of basic services extends significantly beyond employee issues and social dialogue alone, and that it is equally concerned with ensuring that everybody has access to these services (13).

3.13   In the context of recent price increases in Europe, the question of accessibility of services of general interest is closely linked with the question of affordability, especially as far as energy is concerned. However, the problem of energy supplies must be considered not only in relation to recent and most probably also future price increases but also taking into account the environmental aspects of energy consumption.

4.   The impact of recent rulings on the internal market

4.1   The internal market requires a clear set of rules if it is to function properly. Its further integration will heavily depend on the extent to which an acceptable balance can be found between its economic, social and environmental dimensions within a straightforward and predictable legal framework.

Recent rulings by the European Court of Justice caused controversy in industrial circles across Europe. Clear solutions to issues that remain controversial are vital for re-establishing a much-needed common ground for public confidence.

4.2.1   In the Viking case the International Transport workers’ Federation (ITF) and the Finnish Seamen’s Union threatened industrial action over Viking Line's plans to reflag one of the Finnish vessels to Estonia and replace the crew with cheaper workers from that country. The Court ruled that a threat to strike to force an employer to conclude a collective agreement could in this case restrict the freedom of establishment.

4.2.2   The Laval case involved a Latvian company posting workers into Sweden on Latvian terms and conditions, well below Swedish collectively bargained terms and conditions. The Swedish unions responded by taking industrial action and by arranging a boycott of supplies to the Vaxholm site. The Court took the view that where the Posting of Workers Directive applies it is unlawful for unions to organise industrial action for terms and conditions above the mandatory rules for minimum protection in the Directive.

4.2.3   In the Rüffert case a German company won a tender with the Land Niedersachsen which involved construction work in a prison. The German company subcontracted the work to a Polish company which paid the workers only 47 % of the minimum rate set in the regional sectoral collective agreement. Therefore the Land Niedersachsen cancelled the contract but in the ECJ's view the local law obliging public building contractors to respect collective agreements is incompatible with the Posting of Workers Directive unless the agreement is declared universally binding.

4.2.4   In the Luxembourg case the ECJ supported the Commission's complaint in deciding that Luxembourg had gone too far in implementing the Posting of Workers Directive in relations to requirements in force in this country for domestic companies for, among others, maximum work and minimum rest periods, automatic wage indexation and respect of collective agreements.

4.3   The rulings on the above cases also raised concerns about the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice regarding the EU Directive on posted workers. Those cases were highly divisive and viewed by many actors as a promotion of wage dumping. In those cases, foreign companies bypassed collective agreements, legal provisions or practices and regulations in force in the country of their operations to the detriment of local companies and at the expense of employees.

4.4   The internal market needs to be a source of legal certainty, not ambiguity. It is therefore of crucial importance to agree on those principles that need to be revisited in accordance with both the letter and the interpretation of the law and to find a clear common ground.

5.   Mechanisms and instruments improving the operation of the internal market

5.1   The functioning of the internal market has been progressively complemented by a number of mechanisms that have enhanced its operation. Those mechanisms may be useful for assessing channels for improving the integration of both the social and environmental dimension in the internal market.

5.2   Debates about harmonisation and mutual recognition have been revived in recent years in the context of the latest enlargement processes. There is wide agreement that harmonisation should focus on what is really necessary, and that it is not realistic to aim for too much harmonisation in a European Union of 27 states. Mutual recognition, on the other hand, despite being one of the pillars of the internal market, is widely ignored. Harmonisation could be useful for the construction of the European Social Model, however, the social dimension remains to a large extent the preserve of the 27 Member States, in most cases with the full support of the social partners and in line with the principle of subsidiarity. It could, however, serve a good purpose in the environmental field, establishing rules for products and processes, in accordance with the ambitious objectives that the Union has set itself.

5.3   As a mediator between the institutions and the public, the SOLVIT network could be hugely important in this respect. It is responsible for informing, advising and reviewing issues related to the internal market which concern companies, consumers, workers, etc in the Member States. It accumulates a vast amount of data and know-how. However, generally speaking, the network is heavily under-funded and understaffed and its role and operations must be reassessed.

5.4   The ‘new approach’ has led to EU legislators keeping a low profile while laying down the basic requirements and delegating the technical aspects to standardisation bodies. Even if this can hardly be replicated with respect to the social dimension, it could — and does, indeed, already have — a fundamental importance in the environmental field (quality standards, etc — it would be useful for the Commission to update a number of relevant areas).

5.5   The country of origin principle continues to be a contentious issue as also illustrated by the fact that consumer organisations are not satisfied with it. It states that when an action or service is performed in one country but received in another, the applicable law is the law of the country in which the action or service is performed. The aim of this principle is to stimulate the free movement of goods and services and to encourage cross-border competition. However, it was rejected during the debate on the Services Directive, as it would in fact require states to apply different legal regimes to companies and persons according to their country of origin.

5.6   The Lamfalussy process provided a good example of how pan-European regulatory matters could be improved as it gave a more consistent interpretation and provided for a simpler convergence of national practices and traditions on specific regulatory issues. Beyond the financial services example, the Lamfalussy process is a reference point for the creation of a system that provides quality and simplicity. It remains to be seen whether it is capable of providing a more efficient mechanism for legislating in other areas, especially the environment.

5.7   The Monti clause makes reference — in the context of the free movement of goods — to the fact that the Directive should not be interpreted as affecting in any way the exercise of EU fundamental rights, including the right to take industrial action. Recent rulings by the European Court of Justice have questioned the validity of the Monti clause and it is important to clarify what its limits are and why.

6.   A better framework for integrating the environment in the internal market

6.1   Both energy and environment have become — and will remain for the foreseeable future — top priorities for governments and citizens in Europe. Unfortunately, the protection of the environment is often regarded as a burden for the market, a new set of negative conditions that necessarily affect business competitiveness.

6.2   However, it is widely agreed today that one of the most effective ways of ensuring Europe's future competitiveness is to progress significantly further with the development of ideas, products and standards which respond to one of the most important challenges which humanity faces today and, therefore, the development of an internal market which truly takes into account the environmental dimension, which is a central part of this objective. This, however, does not detract from the fact that new regulations in this area may inevitably cause tension in certain industries, especially that also short term competitiveness remains of crucial importance.

6.3   The treaty of Amsterdam reinforced the idea of the integration of the environmental dimension into other policies being the key to the promotion of sustainable development. The European Commission has explored ways of improving the synergies between the single market and environmental issues by taking into account such measures as public procurement, effective impact assessment, standardisation, financial reporting, or economic instruments such as environmental taxes, etc. The Commission has also enquired about new sectors and problems that may require harmonisation measures.

6.4   To date, given the broad sectors and practices involved in the sustainable-environmental dimension, the integration of environmental concerns in the single market has not been a clear cut issue. It affects important areas of policy such as energy and transport while issues that were originally restricted to the free movement of goods have been expanded to other areas. Therefore, and bearing in mind the great importance that the environment has in the policy agenda today, it would be necessary to make much more progress on those specific issues that can be improved and to identify which internal market tools would be the most appropriate for achieving these goals.

7.   Final remarks

7.1   The internal market is a work in progress. The ultimate goal is to construct an internal market which is free of barriers. A completed internal market means that all stakeholders have equal access to each national market. And, lastly, equal access to the markets of every Member State also means that business, workers and service providers operate in the same legal environment thereby ensuring a level-playing-field and avoiding unfair competition within the borders of the European Union and any undermining of the competitiveness of the internal market as a whole.

7.2   The Committee expressed the opinion (14) that the success of the internal market is the shared responsibility of the European Union and the Member States which must take greater ownership of it. The role played by the social partners in its construction and enforcement should also be emphasised.

7.3   The current debate on the limits of European integration, including the recent discussion on the Services Directive, show just how difficult it is to reconcile the principles of the internal market with the need for high social standards, social protection, functioning and accessible public services and fair competition. The discussions on the internal market should primarily focus on formulating a response to these legitimate questions. In answering these questions, the European institutions must take account of both the legitimate interests of business and the fact that economic freedoms need to be subject to regulation so as to ensure that their exercise does not undermine the fundamental social rights recognised by EU law, international labour standards and the laws of the individual Member States, including the right to negotiate and the right to enter into and implement collective agreements.

7.4   The recent Communication of the Commission on the renewed social agenda (15) reiterates Europe’s strong commitment to harmonious, cohesive and inclusive societies respecting fundamental rights in healthy social market economies. The Commission also declares its commitment to ensuring that there is no contradiction between fundamental freedoms of the Treaty and the protection of fundamental rights.

7.5   The functioning of the internal market under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty still remains to be evaluated; the first EESC assessment of the text of the Treaty indicates, however, that the internal market, while not undergoing structural modification, seems to be defined in a more social light.

---

(1)  COM(2007) 724 final.

(2)  OJ C 93, 27.4.2007, p. 25.

(3)  OJ C 175, 27.7.2007, p. 14.

(4)  OJ C 175, 27.7.2007, p. 14.

(5)  COM(2008) 412.

(6)  OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, p. 15

(7)  OJ C 224, 30.8.2008, p. 100.

(8)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008, case C-438/05.

(9)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008, case C-341/05.

(10)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008, case C-346/06.

(11)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, case C-319/06.

(12)  OJ C 151, 17.6.2008, p. 45.

(13)  OJ C 161, 13.7.2007, p. 80.

(14)  OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, p. 15

(15)  COM(2008) 412.

---

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/8

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The external dimension of the EU's energy policy’

(2009/C 182/02)

Rapporteur: Ms SIRKEINEN

At its plenary session held on 17 January 2008 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on:

The external dimension of the EU's energy policy.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 December 2008. The rapporteur was Ms SIRKEINEN.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14-15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January 2009), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 181 votes for to 4 votes against with 3 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations: Towards an external energy strategy of the EU

1.1   Energy has for long been in the centre of international politics. The other big players on the world political scene have strong energy agendas, open or hidden. Energy is also often used as an instrument or even weapon in international disputes.

—	In the EESC's view the EU, as the strongest global economic unit, must urgently claim its role on the international energy scene.

1.2   European citizens are concerned about the security of their energy supply, high and volatile energy prices as well as climate change and unsustainable global developments in general. The EESC finds that the EU needs a clearly defined, comprehensive external energy strategy to respond to its citizens' concerns, and, in particular, the will and determination to implement it.

—	The EESC proposes two pillars for an external energy policy of the EU: — Securing EU supply of energy, and — An active and responsible energy and climate policy.

1.3   Many elements for such a strategy are already in place. Energy security was taken up by the European Council in its conclusions on 15-16 October 2008, and further proposals were presented by the Commission in its 2nd Strategic Energy Review of 13 November 2008 (1), to which the EESC will return in detail in a later Opinion.

—	In the view of the EESC, EU needs a developed strategy on external energy policy and a practical action plan, taking account i.a. of comments made in this Opinion.

—	Recognising the mutual interdependence between suppliers and users of energy, the EESC in particular urges for reciprocity on access to networks and conditions for investments, including access to upstream investments.

—	Several pipeline projects between Europe and the Caucasus area, Asia and Russia are under development. These are of utmost importance, but may not even be sufficient for Europe in the medium term.

1.4   The EU energy policy has so far concentrated on creating an internal market for energy, in particular electricity and gas.

—	The EESC supports the view that an effective external strategy and performance can only be based on a clear common internal policy and a functioning internal energy market.

—

The EESC underlines that internal energy policy measures can decisively decrease external energy dependence and increase security of supply, in particular energy efficiency, a diversified energy mix, sufficient investments in infrastructure as well as crisis averting measures like early warning, information sharing and stockpiling/substitution.

1.5   Europe has both the responsibility and the potential to drive a profound change in the energy consumption culture — the third industrial revolution.

—	The EU should keep its lead in global climate policy and by all available means enhance a sustainable energy future in developing countries.

1.6   In meeting both short term and long term energy challenges, both domestically in the EU as well as globally, new and better technologies have a crucial role to play.

—	The EESC urges for sufficient resources to be directed to energy R&D and innovation by the EU, Member States and companies, as well as for more inclusive global cooperation in energy R&D.

1.7   The Lisbon Treaty provisions on energy policy and external relations would strengthen the EU's possibilities to act together and have a stronger impact on the global energy policy scene.

—	The EESC recommends that all responsible parties should do their utmost to find a solution to bring the Lisbon treaty into force as soon as possible.

The most crucial requirement is that the EU really acts together. Therefore the strategy should be based on a clear understanding of the different roles of the Union, the Member States and economic actors.

1.8.1   On the external, purely political level the powers are with the Members States. In meeting the challenge of speaking with one voice, positive development has recently been shown in particular in relations with Russia.

—	The EESC urges Member States to act together on external policy and work against energy being used as a weapon in international disputes.

1.8.2   The EU has a common trade policy that is based on uniform principles. The Commission is responsible for conducting trade negotiations on the basis of a mandate given by Council.

—	The EESC recommends that the mandates for multilateral negotiations and for bilateral negotiations with countries and regions are sufficiently ambitious but workable to bring tangible energy-related results.

1.8.3   Contracts on purchasing, infrastructure and other projects are concluded and implemented by companies. Governments often have a strong or even decisive enhancing role in contract negotiations.

—

The EESC recommends that in the context of contract negotiations the EU Member States' government representatives require, as a prerequisite for support to the contract, that the third country in question applies certain rules on its markets, like reciprocity, equal treatment, transparency and protection of investments as well as respect for rule of law and human rights, and that Council agrees on a framework of such principles to be applied to all negotiations on energy contracts with third countries.

1.9   The objective of an external energy strategy is to respond to people's needs and concerns in their private and professional lives.

—	The EESC recommends that the social partners as well as environmental organisations and other civil society representatives should be heard and actively involved in defining the external energy strategy. Their capacities to support international dialogue and negotiations should be fully exploited.

1.10   The organised civil society as well as Economic and Social Councils have influence and therefore their own responsibility for forging EU's external energy policy.

—

The EESC invites civil society organisations to urge their national and regional governments to act together at the EU level on these issues. Solidarity between Europeans is to be put before narrow local or national interest, because the goals of energy security and international responsibility can be better achieved by acting together.

1.11   Dialogue and negotiations on international energy relations are performed in many different fora, given the geopolitical and substantial multitude of the issue. An open dialogue covering, as far as possible, the different aspects of the subject would help a broader understanding and involvement by stakeholders.

—	The issue of energy should be put on or kept as a standing point on the agenda of the EESC's meetings and round tables with its international partners.

—

The EESC sees a role for itself in organising regularly broadly based seminars on external aspects of EU's energy policy, in particular involving civil society organisations also from third countries and regions. The hearing organised by the EESC Study Group on the external energy policy on 1 October 2008 in Brussels already proved fruitful.

2.   Introduction

2.1   Energy has come to stay on the top of the political agenda all over the globe. This is accentuated by political and even military unrest with an obvious link to energy. The backdrop is increasing demand mainly in developing countries — following the positive development of the standard of living in these countries — and envisaged scarcity of some fossil fuels. Moreover, oil and gas supply is marked by high dependency on a few producing countries, and supply is expected to concentrate increasingly in the future.

2.2   Global economic turmoil links to energy prices. Less than two years ago oil and subsequently gas prices started to increase strongly, causing high inflation and considerable problems for consumers and the society as a whole. Presently the oil price has dropped dramatically, causing in its turn concern about sufficiency of production and security of supply. Amidst the volatility the trend of energy prices is expected to be rising, due to market balances and, in particular, political measures to combat climate change. The weakest in our societies are threatened by energy poverty.

2.3   Presently, 53 % of all primary energy used in the EU is presently imported. Import dependency for solid fuels is 40 %, for gas 56 % and for oil 82 % (2005 figures). The Commissions' baseline scenario update 2007 shows a total import dependence in 2030 of 67 %. According to the recent 2nd Strategic Energy review imports of fossil fuels are expected to stay at roughly today's levels in 2020 when the EU's climate and energy policies are fully implemented.

2.4   More than 40 % of its gas imports and a fourth of its oil imports come from Russia, and the share of gas, in particular, will grow. Next biggest oil suppliers are the Middle East and Norway, while for gas the second import source is Norway followed by Algeria. The dependency is reciprocal — suppliers to the EU are dependent on our demand. In particular this is true for Russia, as more than half of its energy exports go to the EU.

2.5   The high figures of import dependency as well as the dominance of certain import sources, which are not all respecting the same market and political rules as the EU, have lifted the issue of energy security high on the EU agenda. This has been further enhanced by some delivery interruptions from Russia as well as recent military actions in Georgia.

2.6   Energy is not one homogenous sector as regards external or other energy policy. Oil is predominantly used in transports and cannot easily be substituted. EU is part of the global oil markets and has therefore little room of manoeuvre. Other energy sources and technologies have diversified uses and are to a great extent interchangeable. Coal and uranium are traded on an open world market, while attention needs to be directed to gas, due to fast growth of demand and the limited number and characteristics of suppliers.

2.7   The EU has, during the last few years, entered several actions with the aim of securing its external energy supply.

2.8   Recently, the European Council on 15-16 October 2008 requested the Commission to submit relevant proposals or initiatives on the issue of energy security, identifying six priorities. The Commission has responded to this in its 2nd Strategic Energy Review. The EESC will prepare a separate, detailed Opinion on this document and the accompanying package of proposals.

3.   Internal elements of EU's external energy policy

3.1   Many policy actions within the EU and the Member States can pave the way for lower external energy dependency and for higher energy security followed by the EU's better position in its external energy policy actions. These measures will be only briefly reiterated here, as they have been discussed thoroughly in other EESC opinions.

3.2   Better energy efficiency is the first and foremost measure, as it affects the development of energy demand and thereby external dependency.

3.3   A balanced energy mix and energy source diversification towards in particular low carbon indigenous energy sources, such as bio, wind and nuclear energy.

3.4   Concerning fossil fuels high efficiency combined heat and power production as well as carbon capture and storage should be enhanced.

3.5   Competition in gas trade should be increased by enhancing establishment of LNG terminals and other infrastructure.

3.6   A well functioning internal energy market supports resource efficiency and solution of possible local or regional supply problems. Sufficient investment in infrastructure is needed as well as open access to networks and other infrastructure. Efficient interconnection requires effective cooperation between energy regulators.

3.7   To deal with risks of security of supply, specific actions are needed. Effective solidarity and early warning mechanisms should be set up to act jointly in case of energy crises and disruptions of supply. The EESC will in due course express its Opinion on the Commission's recent proposals on these issues.

3.8   The EESC expresses its particular support for efficient measures to connect isolated parts of the Union, especially the Baltic States, to the common energy market and ensure a sufficient and diverse energy supply.

4.   EESC general comments on an EU external energy policy

4.1   The EESC defines two pillars of external energy policy

—	Securing EU supply of energy, and

—	Active and responsible global energy and climate policy.

4.2   Such policies need a short term and a long term view. In the short term, because large scale substitution of energy sources and use infrastructures take time, there is a need to increase the supply of energy, while taking all possible short term measures to decrease demand. In the longer term, when investments in research and new technologies will be bearing fruit, energy demand can be even more reduced and, in particular, limited or otherwise problematic sources of energy can be substituted by alternatives.

4.3   Meanwhile the EESC expects that climate change policies will strongly affect the energy scene in two directions — higher prices and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels.

4.4   New technology is the ultimate way to increase energy use and replace problematic sources of energy. In Europe, being a frontrunner on energy and climate policies, we should grasp the possibility, develop the necessary technologies, help others to solve their problems and create new jobs. To achieve this, it is necessary already today to invest sufficiently in energy research and technology development.

5.   Securing EU's supply of energy

5.1   EU has made many efforts bilaterally and multilaterally to extend its rules and their implementation to the rest of the world, in particular its energy partners. The success has so far been limited. Stronger action is required.

5.2   Reciprocity on conditions for investments is urgently needed. Many energy producing countries need foreign investment to develop their energy sources and infrastructures, but this will not happen as long as rules are absent, unclear or not systematically implemented. The arrangements of the Energy Charter should be maintained and similar approaches included in future bilateral energy treaties.

5.3   The same applies to other regulatory issues, like equal treatment, freedom and respect of contract and access to transit infrastructure.

5.4   The EU should actively require and defend the rights and possibilities of European companies to invest upstream in energy source development and infrastructures.

5.5   Europe needs security of supply while our suppliers, in particular Russia, point out that they need security of demand in order to make necessary investments. Long term contracts are often needed to support development of large scale infrastructures. In order to strike a better balance of power, such contracts should be done within a European framework. This would require information sharing between Member States and close cooperation with market actors.

5.6   EU's Priority Interconnection Plan covers a few big interconnection projects, including one for external connection — the Nabucco pipeline bringing gas from the Caspian to central Europe. These projects are of utmost importance, but may not be sufficient for Europe in the medium term.

5.7   Linking the EU to the Caucasus and Central Asia could require several new pipelines in addition to the Nabucco project. The EU should present proposals to coordinate regional projects reaching a significant size, and to mobilise public and private investment.

5.8   The EESC notes the six priority infrastructure actions proposed by the Commission in its 2nd Strategic Energy Review. The Committee will take position to these as well as to the Green Paper ‘Towards a secure, sustainable and competitive European Energy Network’ (2).

5.9   Dialogues with OPEC and the Gulf Cooperation Council need to be deepened as well as of the agreements with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan fully implemented. Stronger ties are needed with Central Asian producers like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to facilitate transport of Caspian energy resources to the EU.

5.10   The importance of Africa as an energy supplier has increased considerably. A developed partnership with Africa needs to be comprehensive, assisting in a balanced way the sustainable development of African oil and gas producers' economies.

5.11   The Mediterranean cooperation, which is under strong development, has an important role to play by covering different aspects of energy — production, transit and consumption.

5.12   The importance of the Northern Dimension will be increasing. Oil and gas fields in the Arctic Ocean and the cooperation in the northern areas should have a higher priority in the EU's external energy policy. The Baltic area cooperation on its part covers mainly energy user and transit countries, where the link to Russia is a key feature.

5.13   With Russia the goal should be a robust, comprehensive framework agreement based on equality, mutual understanding and reciprocity Russia should allow transit of gas in the Russian network and allow European firms to invest in the development of Russian networks and sources. It falls on the Russian part to alleviate concerns about its reliability as energy supplier, just as its European partners are expected to respect their contracts and commitments.

5.14   The EU should also develop cooperation with other energy users, within and beyond the framework of the International Energy Agency.

6.   An active and responsible global energy and climate policy

6.1   The present energy consumption culture was created in Europe and in the United States starting with the first industrial revolution. While trying to increase their standard of living many developing countries are now in the same phase where Europe was a few decades ago. In those countries it means fast increase in energy consumption — it is their right and necessary for the global security and peaceful development. Presently, Europe has both the responsibility and the potential to drive a profound change in energy consumption culture — the third industrial revolution.

6.2   Around 2 billion people around the world in developing countries live without access to electricity and have to rely on wood, dung and agricultural wastes, which have made indoor air pollution one of the world's top 10 causes of premature death. Access for these people to an electricity grid and production capacity is one of the biggest global tasks the world has. It means huge investments and huge increase in the global energy consumption. However, these investments must be done in order to allow everybody human and decent living conditions and the possibility of a higher standard of living.

6.3   EU has rightfully taken the lead in climate policies. The overriding objective here should be to achieve an effective international agreement covering all countries, because both effects of global warming and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions will be strongest outside Europe. The Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009 will be the corner stone of global negotiations and the EU should put all possible effort on that conference. However, unilateral actions by the EU would put an unsustainable burden on EU's economy.

6.4   EU has and is further developing the instruments for mitigating climate change — renewable and other low-carbon energy technologies as well as energy efficiency technologies. These technologies should be effectively deployed globally. This should also increase demand for European know-how and products, creating new jobs.

6.5   The EESC strongly supports the idea of an international agreement on energy efficiency between the major energy consuming countries (US, Canada, Japan, Australia, India and China). One step in this direction is the forum agreed by G-8 in Japan in July 2008. But it has to be ensured that all these key consumers effectively participate in the agreement and contribute their fair share. The agreement should cover, in addition to promoting energy efficiency policies and development and diffusion of technologies and renewables, also the prevention of dual pricing, i.e. subsidized energy prices to domestic users. This leads to considerable waste of energy.

6.6   The EU should also effectively support energy efficiency in developing countries. Here the approach should be to avoid investments in energy intensive production and consumption. EU development policies should be used better for this purpose.

6.7   Supporting education and training should be the main tool in the toolkit for energy cooperation with developing countries.

6.8   The EESC underlines that all cooperation, in particular with developing countries, has to take into account the goal of sustainable development of these countries, including development of democracy and respect of human rights.

---

(1)  Communication from the European Commission: Second Strategy Energy Review ‘An EU energy security and solidarity action plan’ SEC(2008) 2794, SEC(2008) 2795.

(2)  Green Paper ‘Towards a Secure, Sustainable and Competitive European Energy Network’ COM(2008)782 final.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/13

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)’

(2009/C 182/03)

Rapporteur: Mr IULIANO

On 10 July 2008, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on the:

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 December 2008. The rapporteur was Mr IULIANO.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 15 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes in favour, with four abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   Strengthening economic, social and cultural rights

The EESC calls for economic, social and cultural rights (1) to be given greater importance in the European Union’s policies through the use of available geographical and thematic instruments, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights as a complementary instrument.

Following the recent adoption of the optional protocol to the United Nations' Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the EESC asks the European Union to call for the universal ratification and implementation of the covenant and its protocol (see appendix 1).

1.2   Social dialogue and decent work in the EIDHR priorities

As one of the ways of affirming economic, social and cultural rights and one of the prerequisites for maintaining peace and the democratic evolution of every country, the EESC stresses the importance of protecting every aspect of work — which is a crucial element of each individual's social identity and right of citizenship (2). The EESC points to the link between protecting work and all the associated rights set out by the International Labour Organisation core conventions (right to work, right to organise and collective bargaining, non-discrimination at work, outlawing of on child and forced labour) and recognises them as fundamental human rights. For this reason, decent work (as defined by the ILO) and social dialogue, which are a sine qua non for affirming and safeguarding labour rights, must be appropriately recognised as priorities of the EIDHR.

1.3   Support for social partners

As protagonists of the social dialogue, the social partners (workers' and employers' organisations) must be seen, therefore, as the indispensable players and partners of the EU in this context. The social partners must be fully integrated in the political dialogue and must be able to benefit from direct support.

1.4   Strengthening the role of civil society in consultation processes on human rights

The EESC calls generally for foreign policies adopted by the EU to always put the goals of promoting democracy and human rights centre stage and, in particular, for thematic programmes and instruments to be targeted primarily at organised civil society wherever this is possible.

To this end, the EESC calls for the institutions to reflect upon the role of civil society in the Union's foreign policy regarding human rights and the possibility of involving it more directly in the shaping and implementation of such policy. There must be systematic consultation of organised civil society before any strategy document is drafted, including those of individual Third Countries (CSP: Country Strategy Paper).

1.5   The EESC's role: guidance, monitoring and assessment

The EESC asks to be formally involved in the internal consultation process before the annual and multi-annual strategy programming of the EIDHR. In this way it can pass on the results of the work that it is conducting with its civil society partners in the third countries with which it has privileged relations (India-EU Round Table, the Euro-Mediterranean area, ACP countries, etc.). It also asks to be consulted for mid-term review and assessments of the EIDHR.

The EESC intends to play an active role in this process, based on its own experience and its own consultation ‘networks’ (economic and social partners and Economic and Social Councils).

The EESC suggests that thought should be given to creating focal points to support human rights defenders that would enable the EU's institutions and bodies to work as part of a network, each within its own remit.

The EESC can also play an important role vis-à-vis civil society in the area of post-election follow-up in order to consolidate democratic systems.

Following the example of the European Parliament, the EESC proposes that an EIDHR Monitoring Committee be set up tasked with: (1) meeting urgent consultation requests under the new procedures introduced for the financial instruments, and (2) monitoring the programming and implementation of the EIDHR.

2.   The European Union and human rights

2.1   Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the European Union's principal goals both internally and in its relations with third countries. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (1999) states that the European Union ‘is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, which are common values to the Member States’; Article 7 provides for a sanctions mechanism for serious and persistent violation of these rights by the Member States.

2.2   Article 11 of the Treaty also addresses the protection of human rights in the EU's external dealings. The Treaty of Nice, adopted in December 2000, extends the goal of defending human rights and fundamental freedoms and puts it in the context of cooperation actions for development and all other forms of cooperation with third countries (Articles 181 and 181a TEC). Finally, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, promulgated at the Nice summit in 2000, is the touchstone on matters of human rights for both the internal and external dimensions of the Union (3).

2.3   The exponential acceleration of the globalisation process in the last ten years has made the protection of human rights ever more relevant to the EU, especially where its relations with developing countries are concerned. The Commission and the Council, in agreement with the European Parliament (4), have for some time stressed the link between development (combating poverty) and the protection of human rights, since it is these that lay the foundations for a country's real and stable socio-economic development and contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

2.4   ‘[A]s an economic and political player with global diplomatic reach, and with a substantial budget for external assistance, the EU has both influence and leverage, which it can deploy on behalf of democratisation and human rights [in third countries]’ (5) This influence is now being exercised by the Union through political dialogues on human rights with countries with which it has relations. Examples include the structural dialogues dedicated solely to human rights (China) and, at regional and bilateral level, dialogues under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements and Association Agreements with developing countries, the EU's new neighbours and candidate countries respectively.

2.5   One special example is the human rights clause that the EU has introduced into bilateral agreements with third countries, which confirms that respect for human rights and democracy is an ‘essential element’ of the agreement. This clause is part of bilateral agreements concluded by the EU since 1992 and applies at the moment to over a hundred countries (6). Infringement of one of the essential elements can trigger a range of measures at various levels, including suspension of contacts at the political level or changes to the cooperation programmes. The EU also has another instrument: the ‘social incentive’ clause in the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP and GSP+), which lays down additional preferences for countries that respect particular ILO conventions (7).

2.6   Nevertheless, there are still some shortcomings and inconsistencies in European policy on human rights. In 2005, the European Parliament itself adopted a resolution (8) which points out that the ‘human rights clause’ is still lacking in many EU sectoral agreements, including in the textile, fishing and agriculture sectors. In general, it laments the vagueness of the terms and procedures used in the present agreements, which prevent the clauses being applied effectively. More particularly, it highlights the limited role (monitoring and suspension) of Parliament in the negotiation process of the agreements themselves, which give the Council and the Commission the greatest latitude for decision.

2.7   Equally, when it comes to the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) (9) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP) and the free-trade agreements for the Mediterranean (ENP), the EU is apt to focus primarily on the commercial aspects. Development aid could risk being seen as an instrument of coercion against the partners of the South and the agreements could cease to be effective for the development (and hence for the protection of human rights) of the recipient countries.

2.8   The EESC reiterates the need for coherent and complementary policies from the EU to support human rights and democratisation that guarantee the same level of priority in the various sectors of foreign, trade and development policies. A more extensive process of civil society consultation also appears necessary to ensure that this coherence is adequately respected. Civil society organisations could make a valid contribution at the various stages, from negotiation of the agreements to monitoring and assessment at the implementation stage.

3.   Introduction to the EIDHR (European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights)

3.1   The EIDHR is the EU's dedicated financial instrument for supporting activities to protect human rights and democracy in third countries. As such, it must be seen as a complementary instrument vis-à-vis the other means of implementing policies on democracy and human rights mentioned above: political dialogue, diplomatic offensives, trade agreements and geographical and thematic cooperation instruments and programmes.

3.2   This instrument was created under the EU Financial Perspective 2007-2013, which initiated a lengthy process of recasting the Union's foreign aid programmes. This new framework now comprises the geographical instruments IPA (a pre-accession instrument which covers candidate and potential candidate countries), ENPI (instrument for neighbouring countries, the Caucasus states, central Europe and the Mediterranean), DCI (instrument for development cooperation) and ICI (for cooperation with industrialised countries) and the thematic instruments EIDHR (human rights), SI (stability instrument) and INSC (Nuclear safety). Implementation of the thematic instruments does not require agreement from authorities of the third countries.

3.3   The EIDHR Regulation (10) entered into force on 1 January 2007, creating an instrument with its own budget. It did not have an easy passage, since human rights and democracy appeared in the initial proposal as a thematic heading in the DCI instrument, thus forfeiting autonomy vis-à-vis other development cooperation actions. Thanks to pressure from the European Parliament and civil society organisations, a dedicated regulation for human rights and democracy was finally obtained.

3.4   This instrument replaces the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights which was the programme in force from 2000 to 2006. The new instrument responds to criticisms levelled at the European Initiative, which was deemed unduly overly rigid at the administrative and financial level and ill suited to civil society in the countries in which democracy and human rights are in difficulty.

3.5   There are a number of aspects to the revision of the instrument. One is the multiannual strategy programming, which sets the framework for EU aid and specifies the priorities and indicative financial allocations. The related strategy document is drafted by the European Commission's Directorate-General for External Relations following consultations with other stakeholders, including representatives of civil society. A second aspect is the Annual Action Programme, which is based, by contrast, on the strategy document and sets out in greater detail its goals, areas of intervention, management procedures and funding level. The Annual Action Programme is drawn up by EuropeAid.

3.6   It should be mentioned that legal scrutiny by the European Parliament has been introduced for strategy documents drawn up by the European Commission and adopted by the Member States. Parliament's comments are taken into account by the European Commission when the policies are being implemented.

3.7   The EIDHR currently has five objectives (11):

—	1) Enhancing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in countries and regions where they are most at risk;

—	2) Strengthening the role of civil society in promoting human rights and democratic reform, in supporting the peaceful conciliation of group interests and in consolidating political participation and representation;

—	3) Supporting actions on human rights and democracy issues in areas covered by EU Guidelines, including on human rights dialogues, on human rights defenders, on the death penalty, on torture, and on children and armed conflict;

—	4) Supporting and strengthening the international and regional framework for the protection of human rights, justice, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy;

—	5) Building confidence in and enhancing the reliability and transparency of democratic electoral processes, in particular through election observation.

3.8   EIDHR is both a crucially important instrument for implementing tangible actions to support human rights and a flagship instrument, especially for civil society organisations, which will find here the prime launching pad for their initiatives.

4.   General remarks

4.1   The EESC takes a generally positive view of the new EIDHR instrument. There is no doubting its importance for sustaining the EU's human rights policy in the world. It takes an equally positive view of the growth in funding allocated to this instrument. Given its particular experience, the EESC is ready to support civil society in third countries, which must continue to be the prime recipient of the instrument's resources. Finally, the EESC sees a great deal in common between the issues addressed by the instrument and the strategic priorities pinpointed by its own Section for External Relations.

4.2   Nevertheless, the EESC raises two general issues and stresses two requirements: 1) to give greater prominence in the EIDHR's overall structure to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, especially the international right to work (economic, social and cultural rights can be a starting point for subsequently supporting civil and political rights, especially in difficult countries); and 2) to give a more active role to the EESC and to organised civil society (OSC) in the various consultation processes with the European institutions devoted to human rights (12).

4.3   As the EIDHR regulation itself states, ‘the task of building and sustaining a culture of human rights and making democracy work’ cannot be achieved without full respect of economic and social rights. The protection of labour and all its rights enshrined in the ILO Conventions is now a key pillar of third-country development. As the European Commission itself states: ‘The EU believes respect for social rights and labour standards leads to durable and equitable social and economic development’ and hence that ‘key players are the social partners (business, trade unions) […]. Trade unions are often the largest mass membership organisations in partner countries, and are watchdogs for international labour standards’ (13).

4.4   It has already been said that organised civil society could be more involved during the negotiations of agreements between the EU and third countries. But this is not all. It would also seem a good idea for organised civil society to be more involved in the decision-making process in places where strategic and annual foreign aid programming is being decided. In fact, the Commission is currently envisaging consultations on human rights with civil society organisations. Even so, this procedure should be more transparent and be formalised in the institutional agenda.

4.5   In particular, consultations with EU delegations in the recipient countries seem crucial to guarantee that aid is effectively allocated to the society's true needs (14).

4.6   The EESC emphasises that systematic consultation with civil society is also important at intrastate, regional and local level. The EESC therefore encourages representatives at all levels to involve civil society in all political decisions before any strategic documents are drafted or any strategic decisions taken. Because there is no benchmarking in this area, the EESC suggests that — in order to strengthen the consultation process with civil society — these consultations are monitored and assessed regularly and the outcomes used to evaluate the methods adopted.

4.7   To this end, the EESC points to the need to revive a true dialogue between organised civil society and EU delegations. For this reason, the EESC would like to see all the EU delegations more involved in implementing projects and being given specialist staff, dedicated to this task, as in the case of Civil Society Officers, of which there are now a number.

4.8   The EESC calls for human resources and funding allocated to implementing the EIDHR to be adapted to the specific nature of the projects run with civil society and their inherent limitations in terms of time, staffing and financial risk, both in the Commission's delegations in third countries and in Brussels (15). This requires a specific intervention to select and train staff in addition to the positive moves already taken by the Commission.

4.9   The EESC calls in particular for an analysis of the resources the Union really has available to support capacity-building initiatives for the organised civil society organisations already involved and for small independent and informal civil society organisations, given the need to be able to provide them with targeted and often very modest amounts of direct aid (core funding).

5.   Specific remarks

5.1   Objective 1:

The EESC welcomes the specific inclusion of the right of association and to establish or belong to a trade union as the basis for priority intervention under this objective.

Nevertheless, the right to collective bargaining, which complements the right of association and is also enshrined in the conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), should also be specified.

The EESC points out that these matters are relevant and crucial for many countries (16). In these situations, fundamental freedoms of expression and association are being denied; some members of trade unions often pay with their lives for their battle for their rights. In this context, international solidarity and assistance — involving all wherever possible — are needed to give support to local organisations (17).

Nevertheless, the EESC stresses the importance of freedom to operate businesses, which contributes to economic development and is often hampered in various countries.

5.2   Objective 2:

This objective focuses on democratic reforms, supports the reconciliation of the interests of various groups and consolidates participation and representativeness. The EESC points to the absence of social dialogue in the priorities cited in the Action Plan.

Although the freedom of association is reaffirmed, social dialogue should be expressly mentioned as a priority instrument in its own right for the participation and representation of interest groups — in this case, the social partners (employers and workers) — and the reconciliation of their interests. Social dialogue is a means of reconciling the interests of the parties which often enables them to reach their own accommodation. The principle of equality of representation and the affirmation of the fundamental principles of democracy is thus intrinsic in this process. In this way, social dialogue constitutes tangible proof of the exercise of the freedoms of expression and association which are, as the EIDHR itself states, ‘the preconditions for political pluralism and democratic process’.

The implementation of social dialogue, established as a model for reaching agreement between social partners in the EU, should also be supported in third countries, where it is precisely the dynamics of democracy that need to be exercised and strengthened. It should not be forgotten that social dialogue is also, by its very nature, an instrument of conflict-prevention as well as conflict-resolution.

The EESC draws attention to the fact that the freedom of association and social dialogue are fundamental components for the application of policies to support decent work, which both the Commission and the Council adopted and espoused in 2006 (18). It also points out that the EIDHR strategy document refers explicitly to promoting conditions for decent work. It would therefore like to see these considerations being transformed into real and true objectives of the human rights instrument.

5.3   Objective 3: Human rights defenders

The EESC calls for greater attention to be paid to those that champion labour rights and proposes boosting the support afforded human rights defenders under threat, in collaboration with networks of civil society organisations (19).

The EESC suggests that thought should be given to creating focal points to support human rights defenders that would enable the EU's institutions and bodies to work as part of a network, each within its own remit (including the Council of Europe, which has already launched initiatives to this end).

Finally, it proposes collaboration with, and direct involvement of, the Committee of the Regions in initiatives on this subject (see, for example, ‘les villes refuges’ (20)).

5.4   The specific role of the EESC

The EESC requests that the European Commission consult it regularly regarding EIDHR. As the consultative body of the European institutions in which the social partners and other civil society organisations are represented, which in turn work actively in partnership with civil society organisations in third countries, the EESC has a valid contribution to make to both the instrument’s strategic programming and its evaluation.

Following the example of the European Parliament, the EESC proposes that an EIDHR Monitoring Committee be set up tasked with: (1) meeting urgent consultation requests under the new procedures introduced for the financial instruments, and (2) monitoring the programming and implementation of the EIDHR.

Finally, the EESC can play a role in support of civil society in ‘difficult’ countries, for example in post-election monitoring to consolidate democratic systems (the establishment of democratic institutions, especially ones to ensure dialogue between social partners).

---

(1)  Articles 6 to 15 of the Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights recognize: equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all human rights and enjoins States to make that principle a reality. (Article 3)

—	the right to work;

—	to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work;

—	to form and join trade unions;

—	to social security, including social insurance;

—	to the widest possible protection and assistance for the family, mothers, children and younger persons;

—	to an adequate standard of living;

—	to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;

—	to an education and

—	to take part in cultural life.

(2)  Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on decent work, covered also by Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966.

(3)  The European Social Charter of 1961 should be mentioned here, since this is the first legal source at European level to codify economic and social rights. The Charter originally came into force in 1965, was revised in 1996 and has applied in its current form since 1999. Finally, the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989 should also be mentioned.

(4)  Declaration by the Council and the Commission on the European Community's development policy of 10 November2000: http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/council20001110_en.htm.; European Union Development Policy — ‘The European Consensus’, COM(2005) 311 final.

(5)  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries COM(2001) 252 final.

(6)  Commission communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries COM(1995) 216 final.

(7)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001, OJ L 357 of 30.12.1998, pp. 1-112.

(8)  European Parliament Resolution on the Human Rights and Democracy Clause in European Union agreements (2005/2057 INI).

(9)  Negotiations to conclude such agreements, based on the Cotonou Agreement of 2000, were begun in 2002. These agreements provide for the creation of a free trade area between the EU and the ACP partners.

(10)  Regulation (EC) no 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide. OJ L 386/1 of 29.12.2006.

(11)  EIDHR Strategy Paper 2007-2010, DG RELEX /B/1 JVK 70618, EuropeAid website.

(12)  The EESC notes that organised civil society is important not only for the EIDHR instrument, but for all EU foreign aid instruments. It calls, for example, for the thematic programme for asylum and migration that is part of the DCI to be targeted in essence at supporting civil society initiatives to promote the economic, social and cultural rights of migrants, thus taking account of the priorities the Committee set out in its opinions on the EU's migration policy in July 2008. See also the Opinion on Migration and development: opportunities and challenges –rapporteur: Sukhdev Sharma, OJ C 120, 16.5.2008, p. 82.

(13)  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries COM(2001) 252 final.

(14)  In particular, there must be coherence in the distribution of financial resources between the various countries are geographical areas, taking into account of the real state of affairs and real needs.

(15)  Resources set aside for EIDHR currently amount to around 10 % of all funding available for cooperation programmes. The rest is allocated through bilateral agreements and budgetary support agreements for recipient countries. This approach means that, as well as the most relevant allocations being channelled at government level, delegation staff must pay more attention to and be more available for programmes that have a higher priority from the financial point of view.

(16)  See the UNHCR (United Nationals Human Rights Council) website.

(17)  See Opinion: Freedom of association in the Euromed partner countries, rapporteur Juan Moreno OJ C 211, 19.8.2008, p. 77.

(18)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Promoting decent work for all, COM(2006) 249.

(19)  These include coordination and implementation measures in the event of human and trade union rights violations instituted by the Human and Trade Union Rights Department of the International Trade Unions Confederation (ITUC).

(20)  See, for instance, http://www.icorn.org.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/19

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’

COM(2008) 426 final (Additional opinion)

(2009/C 182/04)

Rapporteur: Mr CROOK

On 23 October 2008, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(a) of the Implementing Provisions of the Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an additional opinion on the

Proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation

COM(2008) 426 final (Additional opinion to the own-initiative opinion).

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 December 2008. The rapporteur was Mr CROOK.

At its 450 plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January 2009 …), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 183 votes to 7 with 18 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The EESC welcomes the draft directive which broadly follows the recommendations made in its recent own-initiative opinion on anti-discrimination measures for areas outside employment (1) and should lead to consistent standards of protection against discrimination on all Article 13 TEC grounds across the EU.

1.2   However, the EESC believes that in certain areas the directive offers lesser protection than that which already exists under the race equality and gender directives.

1.3   This is the case in Article 2 which permits exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination, especially with regard to financial services. The EESC recommends that the same requirements for transparency, review and oversight should apply to age and disability as already apply to gender.

1.4   The EESC considers that Article 3 defining the scope of the directive sets limits and allows wide exceptions that will undermine the effectiveness of the directive as a whole.

1.5   The EESC believes that in Article 4 the duty on providers of goods and services to take measures in anticipation of the needs of persons with disabilities and to provide reasonable accommodation is too limited.

1.6   The EESC notes that the equality bodies to be designated under Article 12, unlike bodies designated under the race and gender directives, would not cover the field of employment and recommends that this should be addressed by means of a new recital.

1.7   The EESC regrets that the directive fails adequately to address the issue of multiple discrimination and calls upon the Commission to come forward with a recommendation on this issue.

2.   General overview

2.1   In its recent own-initiative opinion, the EESC reviewed current EU and Member State anti-discrimination legislation and concluded that ‘there is now a need for new EU legislation prohibiting discrimination outside the field of employment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation’.

2.2   Having had the opportunity to consider the contents of the Commission’s Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, noting that certain of its stated concerns had not been fully addressed, the EESC decided to draw up an additional opinion on the proposed directive.

2.3   The EESC welcomes the fact that many of the provisions of the proposed directive replicate the provisions of other Article 13 directives: definitions of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, provisions for enforcement and legal redress including shift of the burden of proof, protection against victimisation and sanctions that must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Like the Race Equality Directive (2), the scope of the proposed directive covers social protection including health care, social advantages, education, access to goods and services including housing (although, as discussed below, with restrictions and exclusions that could reduce the full scope).

2.4   In the following comments the EESC focuses on particular provisions that, in its view, explicitly or implicitly, could offer lesser protection for religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation than exists under other Article 13 directives for racial or ethnic origin or gender.

3.   Comments on specific articles

3.1   Article 2

Article 2 sets out the concept of discrimination; in 2(1)-2(4) there are the same definitions of key concepts as in the other Article 13 directives. Article 2(5) makes denial of reasonable accommodation under Article 4(1)(b) a form of prohibited discrimination.

3.1.1.1   To ensure accurate transposition of the directive into national law, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Coleman –v — Attridge Law, which confirmed that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability in Directive 2000/78/EC applies to a person associated with a disabled person (3), the EESC recommends that the directive should clarify that discrimination on the grounds within the directive includes discrimination on grounds of association with persons of a particular religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Article 2(6) permits Member States to provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination if ‘they are justified by a legitimate aim, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’.

3.1.2.1   The EESC recommended (4) that the ability to provide preferential treatment should also apply to persons with disabilities subject to the same justifiability tests; this should be in addition to measures to ensure effective access under Article 4.

3.1.2.2   It should be stated that for an aim to be ‘legitimate’ for this purpose it must be consistent with the principle of equal treatment, for example to assist the group in question to participate in public life on equal terms.

Article 2(7) would allow Member States to permit ‘proportionate differences in treatment’ by providers of financial services where ‘the use of age or disability is a key factor in the assessment of risk based on relevant and accurate actuarial or statistical data’.

3.1.3.1   The EESC is concerned that this broad exception will perpetuate the well documented disadvantage of young people, older people and disabled people in relation to banking and a range of insurance products.

3.1.3.2   This contrasts markedly with the Gender Goods and Services Directive (5), under which Member States may decide to permit differential insurance rates and benefits for women and men, but only if supported by accurate actuarial data that are compiled, published and regularly up-dated; Member States must then review this decision after five years.

3.1.3.3   The EESC accepts that for some activities risks may be greater for people within certain age groups or people with certain types of disability; however, Article 2(7) allows too wide a scope for differential premiums without requiring insurers to disclose actuarial data. Prospective customers cannot know whether differential rates are justified, and competitors will have no incentive to offer more equitable prices.

3.1.3.4   Even if differential rates are justifiable, disclosure of actuarial or statistical data is necessary to ensure proportionality required under Article 2(7).

3.1.3.5   The EESC recommends that the same requirements for transparency, review and oversight by the Member State should apply for age and disability as apply for gender. The proposed directive should allow Member States to permit differences in treatment only if they require providers of financial services to publish up- to-date actuarial or statistical data relevant to the particular ‘risk’ activity, for example driving, travel, mortgage repayment, and to the age group or to the particular disability concerned. These data should be reviewed periodically to note any variation of risks, and Member States after a fixed period should be required to review the evidence for differential treatment and to consider gradual sharing of risks and equalisation of premiums.

3.2   Article 3

Article 3 defines the scope of the proposed directive, that is the areas of activity to which the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation will apply.

3.2.1.1   The EESC welcomes the fact that 3(1) (a)-(d) mirrors the scope of the Race Equality Directive (6) as it had recommended (7).

3.2.1.2   After 3(1) (d) making ‘access to and supply of goods and other services which are available to the public, including housing’ areas in which discrimination is prohibited, the draft directive states: ‘Subparagraph (d) shall apply to individuals only insofar as they are performing a professional or commercial activity’.

3.2.1.3   This exception, also appearing in Recital 16, is not in the Race Equality Directive. The EESC is concerned that without a definition of ‘professional or commercial’, a lack of clarity will weaken the impact of the directive. If, as the Commission suggests (8), the aim is to exempt private transactions, then the EESC submits that this can be read from the fact that only goods and services available to the public are covered. Further, Recital 17 states: ‘While prohibiting discrimination, it is important to respect […] the protection of private and family life and transactions carried out in that context.’

Article 3(2) disapplies protection against discrimination on any of the four grounds where it relates to practices under national laws on marital or family status or on reproductive rights.

3.2.2.1   The EESC acknowledges that marital status, family status and reproductive rights are matters on which Member States have competence to legislate, but the EESC does not accept that such competence should wholly negate EU-wide legal protections against discrimination.

3.2.2.2   Marital status. With respect to the national prerogatives on the regulation of marital status, the Court of Justice has recently held that ‘civil status and the benefits flowing there from are matters which fall within the competence of the Member States and Community law does not detract from that competence. However, it must be recalled that in the exercise of that competence the Member States must comply with Community law and, in particular, with the provisions relating to the principle of non-discrimination (9).’

3.2.2.3   Family status. The concept of ‘family status’ is not defined and is consequently too vague to be used as a basis to exclude protection.

3.2.2.4   Reproductive rights. The EESC regards access to reproductive services as an integral part of health services, in respect of which under both Community law and national law there should be no discrimination on any grounds. There is evidence of discrimination in relation to reproductive services on grounds of sexual orientation, disability and age. Further, as it is women who seek and make use of reproductive services, to exclude protection against discrimination in this area could constitute discrimination on grounds of gender as well as disability, or age or sexual orientation.

3.2.2.5   Therefore the EESC believes Article 3(2) as a whole should be reconsidered, and any final formulation should state that national laws relating to marital status, family status or reproductive rights must be implemented without discrimination against any persons on any of the grounds within the directive.

3.2.2.6   Article 3(3) makes the prohibition of discrimination in education subject to ‘the responsibilities of Member States for the content of teaching, activities and the organisation of their educational systems, including the provision of special needs education’.

3.2.2.7   The EESC is concerned that this exception, which is not in the Race Equality Directive and which goes beyond Article 149, the specific Treaty provision on education (10), could unduly limit the impact of this directive in eradicating discrimination and harassment in schools and other educational institutions.

3.2.2.8   The EESC notes that Article 150 TEC states in terms almost identical to Article 149 that Member States have responsibility for the content and organisation of vocational training, yet vocational training has been within the scope of EU anti-discrimination legislation without any limitations (11).

3.2.2.9   The evidence of discrimination in education across the EU on grounds of religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation was a main driver for the proposed directive. The EESC considers that the prohibition of discrimination and the promotion of equal treatment in education is of such fundamental importance to the development of democratic and tolerant societies, to social and economic development and for the achievement of social cohesion that legislation for this purpose at Community level is necessary, consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in Article 5 TEC.

3.2.2.10   It is particularly important to set a high level of protection against discrimination in the provision of special needs education, to ensure fair and honest treatment of all children irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. To do so would not interfere with Member States' policies regarding separate or integrated education, but would ensure that those policies are operated without discrimination. The European Court of Human Rights judgment in D.H. and others –v– Czech Republic illustrates how decisions on who should receive special needs education can maintain entrenched patterns of educational discrimination (12).

3.2.2.11   The EESC considers that consistency in protection against discrimination in education is of particular importance because of the frequent overlap in this field between discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin and on grounds of religion or belief. If a limitation as in Article 3(3) was not necessary in the Race Equality Directive, it is not clear why it is necessary in this proposed directive.

3.2.2.12   Whatever the boundaries of Member State responsibilities in relation to education, the directive should state explicitly that all such functions must be exercised without discrimination.

3.2.2.13   The second sentence in Article 3(3) permits differences in treatment in access to educational institutions based on religion or belief; the EESC considers that the directive should ensure that such institutions are not able to discriminate on any other ground.

3.3   Article 4

Article 4 is concerned with equal treatment of persons with disabilities.

3.3.1.1   The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (13) includes a non-exhaustive description of who is included within ‘persons with disabilities’. EU Member States should have regard to this description in developing national laws protecting and promoting equality rights of persons with disabilities. Guidance to this effect and on the meaning of discrimination on grounds of disability should be included in the proposed directive.

3.3.1.2   The EESC welcomes in Article 4 the dual approach to removing barriers to access to social protection, social advantages, health care, education and access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing and transport, which is in line with the EESC recommendation (14). This includes a duty to take measures in anticipation of the access needs of persons with disabilities (Article 4(1)(a)) and a requirement to provide reasonable accommodation to ensure non-discriminatory access in a particular case (Article 4(1)(b)). Article 2(5) makes non-compliance with Article 4(1)(b) a form of prohibited discrimination. The EESC recommends that the directive should clarify the concept of ‘effective non-discriminatory’ access.

3.3.1.3   The EESC is concerned about the three limitations to the anticipatory duty in Article 4(1)(a), namely that measures taken to meet access needs should not

a)	impose a disproportionate burden

b)	require fundamental alteration of the social protection, social advantages, health care, education or goods and services in question, or

c)	require the provision of alternatives.

3.3.1.4   The limitations in (b) and (c) lack precision, and are likely to preserve unjustifiable discriminatory practices. For example, a health care provider that offers health care services only to able-bodied persons, relying on (b), could resist calls for alteration of their service. Or a local authority that currently offers a bus service to the local hospital which cannot accommodate wheel chair users, relying on (c) could resist calls to provide an alternative form of transport. The EESC submits that it is sufficient to require anticipatory measures to be ‘reasonable’, which is not currently a requirement under Article 4(1)(a), and to make the duty under 4(1)(a) subject to the single proviso that such measures should not impose a disproportionate burden.

3.3.1.5   Article 4(2) would give binding legal authority to specific factors that are to be taken into account in determining whether measures in Art. 4(1)(a) or 4(1)(b) would ‘impose a disproportionate burden’. Recital 19 identifies size, resources and nature of the organisation as factors that should be taken into account in assessing whether the burden is disproportionate. In Directive 2000/78/EC similar factors were stated in Recital 21. Two additional factors, ‘life cycle of the goods and services’ and ‘possible benefits of increased access for persons with disabilities’, are listed in Article 4(2). The EESC considers that as both these additional factors should form part of any assessment of proportionality they are unnecessary and may deter providers of social protection, social advantages, health care, education, goods and services, housing and transport to accept the need to take measures to ensure effective access by disabled people.

3.3.1.6   Article 15(2) permits Member States to defer for up to four years full implementation of the obligation to provide effective access. While the EESC would hope to see all Member States moving toward ensuring good access for disabled people as soon as possible, the EESC does not disagree that Member States should be permitted to delay giving effect to the anticipatory obligation in Article 4(1)(a) for this limited period only. It is essential, however, that the directive makes clear that no delay beyond the deadline for transposition should be permitted for compliance with the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for a particular disabled person under Article 4(1)(b).

3.4   Article 12

3.4.1   The EESC welcomes the requirement on Member States to designate one or more bodies for the promotion of equal treatment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation with competences parallel to those specified for such bodies under the Race Equality Directive and the Gender Goods and Services Directive. The EESC further welcomes the clear statement in the preamble (15) that such bodies should operate in a manner consistent with the UN Paris Principles which, in particular, seek to guarantee the independence of national human rights institutions. As already stated by the EESC, these bodies should be responsible for regularly evaluating the results of national anti-discrimination policies (16). These bodies should be expected regularly to engage in meaningful dialogue with organisations representing persons at risk of discrimination on all of the grounds included in the proposed directive.

3.4.2   The proposal in Article 12 will, however, leave a gap, since there will still be no requirement to designate a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment in employment and occupation on these grounds, as the Employment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) does not require a specialised equality body. Bodies established under the Race Equality Directive must cover both employment and non-employment equality on grounds of racial or ethnic origin and bodies established under the Gender Goods and Services Directive and the (recast) Equal Treatment Directive (2006/54/EC) should cover both employment and non-employment equality between women and men.

3.4.3   The EESC recommends, therefore, an additional recital in the preamble to the proposed directive, encouraging Member States to give to the bodies designated under Article 12 equivalent competences in respect of equal treatment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation within the scope of the Employment Framework Directive.

4.   Multiple discrimination

4.1   In its recent own-initiative opinion, the EESC referred to evidence of the frequent incidence of multiple discrimination, that is discrimination on more than one of the grounds within the scope of Article 13. The EESC recommended that a new directive should confirm that the principle of equal treatment includes protection in relation to multiple discrimination, so that it would be given effect in EU and national law.

4.2   The proposed directive recognises (17) that women are often victims of multiple discrimination, but does not consider multiple discrimination across other grounds. The EESC recommends that progress toward full recognition of multiple discrimination could be made in two ways:

a)

An additional recital in the proposed directive encouraging Member States to ensure that legal procedures are available to deal with situations of multiple discrimination, specifying in particular that national legal procedures shall enable a complainant to raise all aspects of a multiple discrimination claim in a single legal claim.

b)	A recommendation by the Commission stating the need to take account of multiple discrimination in drafting and enforcing national laws which, while not binding on Member States, would need to be taken into consideration by national courts.

---

(1)  EESC opinion on Extending anti-discrimination measures for areas outside employment and the case for a single comprehensive anti-discrimination directive, rapporteur: Mr Crook (OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, p. 102)

(2)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 3.

(3)  [2008] EUECJ C-303/06 of 17 July 2008, in this case discrimination against a non-disabled parent with primary care of a disabled child.

(4)  Footnote 1, paragraph 8.10.5.

(5)  Council Directive 2004/113/EC, Art. 5.

(6)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 3.

(7)  Footnote 1, paragraph 8.6.

(8)  Chapter 5 ‘Detailed Explanation of the Specific Provisions’ in COM(2008) 426 final.

(9)  Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, C-267/06, 1 April 2008, para 59.

(10)  Article 149 (1) TEC states: ‘The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.’

(11)  For example Council Directive 2000/43/EC Art. 3(1)(b) or Council Directive 2000/78/EC Art. 3(1)(b).

(12)  Grand Chamber judgment 13.11.2007 (no. 57325/00).

(13)  Article 1.

(14)  Footnote 1, paragraph 8.10.2.

(15)  Recital 28.

(16)  Footnote 1, paragraph 8.10.8.

(17)  Recital 13.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/24

---

450TH PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 14 AND 15 JANUARY 2009

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles’

COM(2008) 316 final — 2008/0100 (COD)

(2009/C 182/05)

Rapporteur: Mr RANOCCHIARI

On 9 June 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles.

COM(2008) 316 final — 2008/0100 (COD).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Mr RANOCCHIARI.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 173 votes to two with one abstention.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The EESC has always championed any initiative that seeks to streamline legislation, all the more so when sensitive issues such as safety and the environment are involved. Consequently, it welcomes the European Commission's proposal for a regulation which attempts to address all three of these important issues by legislating on type-approval requirements of motor vehicles and tyres.

1.2   The Commission's intention of repealing over 150 directives and replacing them with the proposed regulation appears at first sight very interesting and is certainly conducive to the simplification desired. However, if it is not correctly calculated, this option could risk adding a new layer of procedures that might not always be compatible with the present ones, thus exacerbating the difficulties and burdens for industry and Member State authorities.

1.3   Specifically, the EESC wonders how this proposal meshes with the recent framework directive on European approval (2007/46/EC) or the UN/ECE standards currently being drawn up, which will be discussed more fully later in this opinion.

1.4   The EESC contends, in fact, that simplification of the type-approval process and procedures, which the Commission sets out to achieve by introducing harmonised rules, could be effected through the incremental incorporation of current and future UN/ECE regulations into Annex IV of the aforementioned directive on European approval as and when these standards need bringing into line with technical progress.

1.5   On the matter of advanced safety technologies: since appropriate technical specifications are not available for all of them and to the same degree, the EESC would prefer these to be dealt with in individual proposals that take on board current developments at the UN/ECE working parties in Geneva.

1.6   Finally, on the question of standards for tyres, the EESC accepts the industry proposal, which respects the timescale of the Commission proposal, but simplifies it by having two introduction cycles instead of the five envisaged.

1.7   Given the doubts that had been voiced, the EESC welcomed the European Parliament initiative calling for a further study of the issue in the wake of that conducted on behalf of the European Commission. However, the findings of this second study have not furnished the clarifications expected.

1.8   In the absence of the necessary cost-benefit analysis of some of the solutions proposed, the EESC thus fears that the considerable extra costs to the industry, and hence to consumers, will further slow down the replacement of Europe's vehicles in circulation, which has already been hit by the current economic crisis.

1.9   Finally, the EESC recommends that the Member States' type-approval inspection authorities now look with renewed vigilance at the safety requirements for vehicles — and especially the tyres of vehicles — that will be imported into Europe after the regulation under discussion has been adopted.

2.   Introduction

2.1   Despite considerable progress over the last decade, vehicle safety and environmental protection rightly remain the focus of attention throughout the European Union. Specifically, there are ongoing concerns over the modest results achieved to date in reducing transport pollution, particularly CO2 emissions, and regarding the number of road accident victims. Still every year, more than 44 000 people are killed and a further 1,7 million injured in road accidents in the 27 Member States (1).

2.2   As we know, EU type-approval legislation lays down precise rules on motor vehicle construction — rules designed, on the one hand, to guarantee optimum safety levels for vehicle occupants and all road users, and on the other, to safeguard environmental protection. Type-approval legislation currently comprises some 60 base directives — 50 on safety and about 10 on the environment — to which should be added around 100 related amending directives.

2.3   Ongoing research and development in the motor vehicle sector now makes it possible to provide a more substantial and effective response to these two requirements through the use of new technologies capable of reducing road accidents and pollution, both for newly-designed vehicles, and, at least partly, for those currently on the roads.

2.4   According to the CARS 21 (2) recommendations, these serious problems should be addressed through an integrated approach to achieving objectives which — as pointed out by Commission vice-president Mr Verheugen when presenting the proposed regulation — will benefit the public, the environment and the industry. To meet the EU's safety and environmental objectives, the various regulations that govern new vehicle construction need to be regularly updated. On the other hand, it is also necessary to limit the regulatory burden on industry by simplifying existing legislation, where possible. To this end, the CARS document referred to above also recommends use of the UN/ECE standards (3) where available.

3.   The Commission proposal

The aim of the proposed regulation is to amend current vehicle type-approval legislation with regard to three areas:

In particular, the proposed regulation provides for:

3.1.1   Amendment of current type-approval legislation on vehicle and component safety:

The Commission intends to repeal over 150 existing directives, replacing them with one single Council and Parliament regulation, directly applicable in the EU.

3.1.2   Introduction of the following safety requirements:

—

From 2012, mandatory fitting of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems for new car series and commercial vehicles, with all new cars being equipped by 2014. ESC acts on the braking or power systems of a vehicle to assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle in critical situations (caused, for example, by poor road conditions or excessive speed during cornering).

—

From 2013, mandatory fitting of Advance Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) on large vehicles, employing sensors to alert the driver when a vehicle is too close to the vehicle in front and, in certain situations, applying emergency braking to prevent or reduce the consequences of a collision. All new vehicles are to be equipped by 2015.

—	From 2013, mandatory fitting of Lane Departure Warning (LDW) Systems on large vehicles to assist drivers by warning them when their vehicle is in danger of leaving the lane unintentionally, mainly due to lack of driver attention. All new vehicles are to be equipped by 2015 (4).

3.1.3   New requirements on tyres (5):

—	Low Rolling Resistance Tyres (LRRT), to be mandatory from 2012, lead to lower fuel consumption by reducing the resistance to motion that occurs when the tyre rolls, caused mainly by the deformation of the wheel or tyre or the deformation of the road;

—	Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), mandatory from 2012, warn the driver when the tyre is below its optimum pressure;

—	Noise reduction: as set out in Appendix I to the proposed regulation;

—	Wet grip: as set out in Appendix I to the proposed regulation.

4.   General comments

4.1   The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal to set harmonised standards for motor vehicle construction in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of safety and environmental protection.

4.2   Subject to close scrutiny of the directives to be repealed and the consequences thereof, the Committee believes that the proposed regulation could be an ideal means both of increasing active and passive safety, thus reducing the number of road accidents, and also of introducing devices that can reduce CO2 emissions.

4.3   The Committee recognises that the preferred option is aimed at maximising simplification for the benefit, in particular, of national authorities and industry. However, the Committee thinks that regulatory simplification should not be limited to bringing together the current procedures under a kind of framework regulation on safety. Furthermore, the Committee feels that consideration should be given to the implications of the introduction of Directive 2007/46/EC (6) — the new framework directive on EU type-approval — so as to ensure consistency and prevent duplication of procedures adding to, rather than reducing, the burden for authorities and manufacturers.

4.4   The Committee shares the Commission's view that the timetable for the introduction of specific new requirements for the type-approval of vehicles should take into account the technical feasibility of those requirements. In general, the requirements should initially apply only to new types of vehicle. Existing types of vehicle should be allowed an additional time period to comply with the requirements.

4.5   As regards the requirements on tyres, it should not be forgotten that the tyre is the only element of contact between the vehicle and the road and its safety characteristics should take priority over all other aims. In consequence, the Committee would argue:

—	that it is necessary to make certain that improvements in environmental performance do not undermine the equally important vehicle user and public safety requirements;

—	that an integrated approach should be taken that does not undermine overall tyre performance (rolling resistance, wet grip, etc.) by concentrating exclusively on reducing noise (though important).

4.6   The Committee has doubts as to the effectiveness of the impact assessment carried out on behalf of the Commission and welcomed the European Parliament's decision to carry out a further independent study. Indeed, the Committee believes that the data used in the impact assessment may have led to a distortion of the results.

Regrets, however, that the study commissioned by the European Parliament and published at the end of November 2008 (7) fails to address the questions and does not dispel the EESC's doubts either regarding the administrative and technical aspects or concerning a more detailed cost-benefits analysis of the Commission proposal.

4.7.1   The study in question focuses solely on tyres and TPMS — in the latter case expressing a preference for the more costly ‘direct’ over the ‘indirect’ system (see below) — while adding nothing new about the other advanced safety systems or about the impact of the proposed simplification.

4.8   This being the case, it seems to the EESC that the expected higher costs to the industry, and hence to consumers, of implementing the regulation as presented are not matched by adequately demonstrated benefits. There is a risk, therefore, of further slowing down the replacement of Europe's vehicles in circulation, which has already been hit by the current economic crisis.

4.9   The Committee also thinks that to ensure the competitiveness of the European industry, which achieves excellent performance levels regarding safety, a regulation is needed that does not have the net effect of distorting competition to the benefit of non-EU manufacturers whose costs, and often overall safety levels, are undoubtedly lower. This means checking that imported vehicles and tyres meet all the requirements that would be laid down by this regulation.

4.10   The Committee also believes that there should be adequate assessment of the impact of the regulation on the whole tyre industry. The economic sustainability of small and medium-sized distribution companies could, on initial analysis, be jeopardised. Stock surpluses, foreseeable if the Commission's proposed deadlines for entry into force are observed, could put the distribution chain in difficulty; it is unlikely that the majority of companies in the sector, most of them small and incapable of operating on the international market, would be able to offload potentially large amounts of stock.

4.11   Even though the matter does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community, the Committee shares the view of the Commission — rightly eager to avoid barriers emerging to the single market and conscious of the cross-border implications of the proposed regulation — that the proposal's objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone and that binding measures agreed at EU level are required.

4.12   The Committee clearly supports the proposal that Member States are to lay down the penalties for infringement of the provisions of this regulation and that those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

4.13   The Committee also endorses the choice of a regulation as the legal instrument, as this ensures specific implementation methods and deadlines in all the Member States — a particularly important aspect for such highly technical legislation. Furthermore, the use of the split-level approach enables the core provisions to be laid down in the proposed regulation, for adoption through the co-decision procedure, while deferring the technical specifications to a second regulation, to be adopted under the comitology procedure.

5.   Specific comments

5.1   The Committee supports any initiative that seeks to simplify regulation. As indicated above, however, it has serious misgivings about the means to attain this. In the Committee's view, the simplification must be precisely that and the new regulation must not be the sum of its predecessors; in any event, additional burdens on the certification offices must be avoided.

In particular, however, the Committee thinks that the simplification of the type-approval and procedural process envisaged by the Commission through the introduction of harmonised provisions must be achieved through the gradual incorporation of current and future UN/ECE regulations into Annex IV of Directive 2007/46/EC (8) (especially when the requirements of the regulations are more stringent and require a certain lead-time (9) for the product to be adapted) and consistent with the need to adapt these provisions to technological progress.

5.2.1   These courses of action are not envisaged in option (c) of the regulation's impact assessment (‘replace all existing Directives through the proposed Regulation’), but they do appear in option (b), which is to ‘review each Directive as and when it is due to be modified, and decide whether replacement is appropriate’. Moreover, the reason for choosing option (c) of the impact assessment (‘it represents the quickest way of simplifying the current regime and is in line with the CARS 21 recommendations’) does not appear sufficiently well substantiated and fails to take adequate account of other fundamental elements of CARS 21 such as sustainability, taking account of the UN/ECE and the need to guarantee an adequate industrial lead-time to those affected by the standard.

5.2.2   If option (c) were adopted, the present regulation would be effective where there was no equivalent UN/ECE regulation or where — as in the case of tyres — installation requirements are needed that are not covered by the UN/ECE regulation.

5.3   Alternatively, the Committee sees a possible compromise to make the regulation more truly effective whereby a date would be set for the entry into force which would avoid the problems the proposed regulation currently poses and eliminate the risk of adoption of UN/ECE regulations creating a divergence of the requirements (or application dates) contained in directives which would be repealed.

5.4   As far as the administrative aspects are concerned, therefore, the Committee thinks and proposes, in the light of the study of directives in Annex IV, that irrespective of the entry into force of the regulation or parts of it, the regulation itself should retain the application dates contained in the directives to be replaced and take account of the transitional provisions in the UN/ECE regulations which will be introduced in their stead.

5.5   The Committee also thinks that the ‘advanced safety technologies’ should not be included in a ‘horizontal’ regulation, but instead be the subject of individual proposals for new and/or modifications to UN/ECE regulations which should be presented and discussed in the appropriate working parties (GRB, GRRF, GRSP (10)) of the UN/ECE in Geneva, where the correct technical evaluation of the proposed safety systems can be made. A similar approach should be adopted in the cases highlighted by the Commission where the UN/ECE environment has no equivalent requirement to the one enshrined in EC directives.

On the matter of advanced road safety systems, the Committee makes these specific points:

5.6.1   Electronic Stability Control has been the subject of changes to regulations in Geneva and planning regarding categories M2, N2, M3 and N3 (11) is complete. The Committee believes that the timeframe must remain the one set out in the chart in Article 12.4.1 of UN/ECE R 13 (12), which provides for a gradual introduction, starting in July 2009 and ending in July 2016, depending on the type of vehicle.

Advanced Emergency Braking System: Industry can only develop mandatory systems if it has clearly defined technical specifications and these, according to information available, do not exist in the case of AEBS. Introduction dates cannot be set based on a system that is not technically specified and the introduction must be preceded by an appropriate impact assessment that includes precisely calculated costs and benefits.

5.6.2.1   The definition of the Advanced Emergency Braking System given in Article 3 of the proposal is very broad and may include systems that are not yet sufficiently reliable. These may themselves become a safety risk because of technologies that are not yet mature. There must be provision for adequate study and development and a long enough lead-time.

5.6.3   The measures on AEBS cover categories M2, M3, N2 and N3. In many cases, light commercial vehicles in category N1 have versions that also belong to higher categories (N2, M2 and M3), which makes it necessary to diversify the range for heavier versions with relatively low volumes. It would seem sensible to restrict the AEBS requirements to heavy commercial vehicles or at least to vehicles with a GVM of more than 7,5 tonnes and to consider the need to exempt certain categories, such as urban transport buses, refuse-collection vehicles and other public-service vehicles that travel at restricted speeds.

5.6.4   Lane Departure Warning System: the Committee thinks the same considerations apply as for AEBS:

—	the need for technical specification, to be defined at UN/ECE in Geneva;

—	technical differentiation for different categories of vehicle;

—	cost/benefits analyses and exemptions for specific categories.

5.7   In brief, the Committee thinks it precipitate to introduce AEBS and LDWS, which at present can only be applied to heavy vehicles. A period of research and experimentation is still needed in order to ascertain what the real benefit of these systems would be. This would also furnish useful input for applying these systems to light motor vehicles in future.

5.8   TPMS: Since the technical requirements of the system are currently under discussion by the Informal Group of the GRRF (13), the Committee asks the Commission to await the conclusions of this work (which should also take into account the requirements already in place in non-European countries) before taking decisions on the matter. In order to avoid increasing the cost of passenger cars, it would be desirable to have a choice of measurement sensitivity which would also enable application of the ‘indirect’ system, given its many positive aspects, above all that of continuing to operate even when tyres are replaced. The ‘direct’ system, for its part, requires a sensor to be mounted within each tyre. This either involves changing the sensors along with the tyres or dismantling, retrieving and refitting them. This is not only expensive, but also difficult, since the sensors are not visible from the outside and could easily be damaged.

5.9   Where the technical provisions regarding tyres are concerned, the Committee points out that:

—

the levels proposed to cut noise could involve a reduction in safety for vehicles and hence consumers, while reducing speed in congested areas and/or repairing the road surface would cut noise by 3 to 4 times more. Moreover, in class C3, for example, the reduction of 3dB would be difficult to achieve without lowering the road-holding properties of the tyres themselves. C3, or traction, tyres must have aggressive treads to provide a good grip on slippery surfaces.

—	Rolling resistance: the application dates for categories C1 and C2 should be revised, while the particular nature of C3 tyres requires further analyses and, if need be, a deferral of introduction until after a further impact assessment.

—	Wet grip: the Commission's proposal to introduce mandatory requirements based on UN/ECE R 117 (14) should be accepted as it stands.

5.10   The Committee points out that the proposal for a regulation imposes changes every two years which do not match the lead times needed by the tyre industry. This is certainly not in line with ‘better regulation’. The Committee therefore supports the solution suggested by the industry to respect the timescales in the proposal but to simplify it and have two cycles for implementation (2012-2016 and 2016-2020) rather than the five currently proposed. This will enable the processes of type-approval, logistics and possible stocks to be managed effectively.

5.11   Another aspect wanting clarification is the treatment of retread tyres. The definition of this type of tyre (Regulation UN/ECE R 109) bears upon the site of manufacture and not the tyre itself. There is clearly a difficulty in defining the ‘type’ of tyre in line with the new regulations — for example on noise — in one and the same factory reconditioning a broad range of tyres. In the EESC's view, the considerable difficulty of application and the huge costs that would fall upon companies — mostly SMEs — warrant the sector's exemption from the regulation, though all the envisaged safety requirements would still have to be observed.

5.12   Finally, the Committee asks the Commission to evaluate the advisability of taking the date of manufacture as a reference for the requirements on tyres, since the present requirement of putting this date on all tyres marketed in the European Union means that it can easily be recognised by sellers, consumers and national authorities. It is this date, and not the date of market introduction or sale, that should serve as proof that the tyres meet the new requirements imposed.

---

(1)  Source: CARE (Community Road Accident Database): gathers and processes data on road accidents supplied by the Member States.

(2)  COM(2007) 22 final, 7 February 2007 — A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework for the 21st century.

(3)  Based in Geneva, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe promotes cooperation and integration between its 56 member states in developing common standards and rules in various areas, including type-approval of motor vehicles.

(4)  Summary of compulsory deadlines regarding safety requirements:

—	ESC: 29.10.12 new type-approvals, 29.10.14 new registrations

—	AEBS: 29.10.13 new type-approvals, 29.10.15 new registrations

—	LDWS: 29/10/2013 new type-approvals, 29/10/2015 new registrations.

(5)  For the sake of clarity, the following lists the Commission's proposed deadlines regarding the tyre requirements:

—	2012 — type-approval in respect of new types of vehicle — all C1 tyres are to meet the wet grip requirements, and all C1-C2-C3 tyres are to meet the stage 1 rolling resistance and rolling noise requirements

—	2014 — new registrations — only C1 tyres are to meet the wet grip requirements and C1-C2 are to meet the stage 1 rolling resistance requirements

—	2016 — type-approval in respect of new types of vehicle — C1-C2-C3 tyres in line with stage 2 rolling resistance requirements; only C1-C2-C3 tyres that meet the rolling noise requirements are to be registered and put on the EU market

—	2018 — only C1-C2 tyres that meet stage 2 rolling resistance requirements are to be registered on the EU market

—	2020 — only C3 tyres that meet stage 2 rolling resistance requirements are to be put on the EU market.

(6)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.

(7)  Type approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (IP/A/IMCO/ST/2008-18).

(8)  Directive 2007/46/EC List of requirements for the purpose of EC type-approval of vehicles.

(9)  The time needed for the industry to implement any new requirement involving changes to vehicle structures.

(10)  The working parties of the UN/ECE in Geneva: Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF); Working Party on Noise (GRB); Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE); Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG); Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE); and Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP).

(11)  Vehicles in category N are those with at least four wheels designed for transportation of goods. They are subdivided into three classes — N1, N2 and N3 — depending on maximum mass: N1 < 3 500 kg; N2< 12 000 kg; N3 > 12 000 kg. Class N1 is further subdivided into 3 categories — NI, NII and NIII, also based on mass. Category M vehicles, on the other hand, are those with at least four wheels and designed for transporting passengers. These are again subdivided into three classes — M1, M2 and M3 — based on the number of places and their maximum mass: M2> 9 seats and < 5 000 kg; M2> 9 seats and < 5 000 kg; Category O vehicles are those with trailers.

(12)  UN-ECE Regulation 13: Heavy vehicles braking.

(13)  GRRF: Working party on Brakes and Running Gear.

(14)  UN-ECE Regulation 117: Tyres with regard to rolling sound emissions.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/30

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - ‘Think Small First’: A ‘Small Business Act for Europe’

COM(2008) 394 final

(2009/C 182/06)

Rapporteur: Mr MALOSSE

Co-rapporteur: Mr CAPPELLINI

On 25 June 2008 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the:

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - ‘Think Small First’: A ‘Small Business Act for Europe’.

COM(2008) 394 final.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Mr MALOSSE and the co-rapporteur was Mr CAPPELLINI.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes to ten with nine abstentions.

1.   Summary and conclusions

1.1   In its opinions INT/390 and INT/394 (1), the Committee has already expressed its support for an ambitious European-style Small Business Act that is commensurate with the potential for growth and job creation represented by the EU's existing 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as those that could be created.

1.2   Although it contains worthy intentions and positive initiatives (e.g. on the European Private Company and payment deadlines), the Committee thinks that the European Commission's proposal falls short of what is required, particularly in these difficult economic and financial times.

1.3   The Committee therefore proposes an ambitious SBAE, including:

—	a binding legal instrument to govern application of the Think small first principle, ensuring, by way of maximum compulsion, the effective, practical implementation of these governance principles, at EU level and in the Member States and regions;

—	a roadmap accompanied by a precise timetable and suitable means for implementing specific, large-scale SBAE initiatives;

—	clear commitments on reducing red tape, particularly as regards the once only principle for all administrative formalities;

—	reorganisation of the Commission's services to provide SMEs with a genuine partner and instruments to promote the Europeanisation of companies;

—	European tools to act as a lever to promote capitalisation, networking, investment and life-long learning in SMEs;

—	a coherent policy framework across all EU policies so that SMEs are considered the rule rather than the exception;

—	national interpretation of the SBAE's objectives, including by means of legislation; and

—	a return to the practice of permanent consultation of intermediary organisations and the social partners.

2.   Introduction

2.1   The French presidency of the European Union has called on the EU to consider the idea of a European-style Small Business Act, citing the example of the pro-SME legal instrument currently in force in the USA. The idea of the Small Business Act had also been previously raised by the Committee (2) and the European Parliament

2.2   The American Small Business Act set up an administration (the Small Business Administration) charged with providing assistance to American SMEs, via measures in support of small business start-up and development, particularly among ethnic minorities, women and young people. It also includes measures to promote the awarding of public procurement contracts to SMEs by the federal State and government agencies.

2.3   At a time when the EU and the rest of the world are experiencing a serious financial and economic crisis, it is companies and in particular SMEs that are not only the most sensitive but also the most important elements in terms of job creation and recovery capacity. Thus, a revised, much more ambitious SBAE could be a key instrument in a new long-term EU strategy for investment, growth and jobs.

2.4   The Committee has recently commented on this issue on two occasions:

—	via an exploratory opinion, at the request of the Slovenian presidency, on The different policy measures, other than suitable financing, that would help SMEs to grow and develop, which contains proposals on an effective SBAE that would be more than just a political declaration (3); and

—

via another exploratory opinion, at the request of the French presidency, on the subject of International public procurement with explicit reference to the ongoing negotiations on the revision of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), which proposed, inter alia, an ambitious roadmap for introducing the SBAE (4).

2.5   While welcoming the positive initiatives contained in the Small Business Act, the Committee regrets the form that the Commission has opted for (a simple communication) which entails no obligations in terms of deadlines or means of implementation, or any proposal guaranteeing the effective implementation of Think small first.

2.6   The Committee thus regrets that there is no specific legislative measure to ensure the systematic implementation of the Think small first principle in the legislative process and its application. It considers that the binding dimension is particularly important in terms of implementing pro-SME governance. The practical application of this principle and its interpretation at each stage of the legislative and policy process at EU, national and regional levels should therefore be enshrined in an appropriate legal instrument.

2.7   The Committee greatly regrets that its earlier proposal for a binding roadmap was not acted upon as regards the work programme and priorities; these do not need to go through the legislative process as they are already part of existing programmes or could be added later at the mid-term review stage. Also, many of the specific measures proposed are either already in the pipeline or were announced some time ago. The major, useful proposals, such as the statute for a European Private Company, the Directives on late payments and reduced VAT, and the block exemption on State aid are fairly symptomatic of this situation.

2.8   The Small Business Act must draw a clear distinction between, on the one hand, small family-run or craft-based local companies – which make up the vast bulk of SMEs and for the most part do not want to expand in order to retain control – and, on the other, medium-sized or small companies with strong development potential that could be referred to as precursors. Particular attention should be given here to SMEs in regions with structural handicaps, especially island and mountainous regions and areas of low population density.

2.9   Against this backdrop, the Committee has been consulted on the Commission communication. In conjunction with the Assemblée Permanente des Chambres de Métiers [French trade body], it held a hearing in Paris on 7 October 2008 to better frame its response.

3.   Committee recommendation 1: a binding legal instrument governing the application of Think small first

3.1   The SBAE should not be limited to merely providing additional political recognition; it must be enshrined in legislation that makes its implementation mandatory.

With regard to the Think Small First principle, the Committee reaffirms its previous position (opinion INT/390) and calls for it to be made a binding rule in a form yet to be determined (e.g. code of conduct, interinstitutional agreement or Council decision) but which would be binding on the European Parliament, Commission and Council. An interinstitutional agreement on the same legal basis as the Better regulation agreement of 2003 would seem one interesting avenue, among others, that the Committee could explore. Very specifically, this binding instrument should:

3.2.1   ensure that legislation at all levels is designed with a view to the specific situation and needs of the various types of SME; all new EU legislation on companies should be subject to the prior consultation of the relevant intermediary organisations, including the social partners and social economy organisations, with a response time of at least twelve weeks (and not eight, as proposed by the Commission);

3.2.2   ensure that legislation on companies is not amended too frequently (minimum interval of six years). It should also be proposed that the date of entry into force for all new legislation with binding provisions should be 1 January each year, while all legislation aimed at reducing or easing the burden should be applicable with immediate effect at any time;

3.2.3   ensure that legislation at all levels complies with four fundamental principles:

—	a systematic SME impact assessment should be mandatory for all new legislation, so that no legislation can be adopted without a prior assessment of its impact on the various types of business in the relevant sector;

—	the proportionality principle – to be applied systematically to the various types of company;

—	the once only principle – to be applied to all formalities required of businesses; and

—	the safeguard or precautionary principle – to guard against additional restrictive legislation;

3.2.4   ensure the establishment of a quantity-based obligation to ease the administrative burden for companies on the internal market – an obligation that requires EU-legislation red tape to be cut by 25 % by 2012.

4.   Committee recommendation 2: A precise roadmap with deadlines, means and funding (where necessary)

4.1   The Committee advocates a precise roadmap setting out priority actions, specific measures, implementation deadlines, and the means and funding (where necessary) required to implement them. It should be ensured that all proposed measures are implemented by 2013 and accompanied by monitoring and assessment.

4.2   The operational aspect takes the form of a package of 92 measures which the Committee supports; it would like to see them rapidly implemented at both EU and Member State levels. However, as with the four legislative proposals, it views these measures as the implementation or continuation of ongoing or previously agreed initiatives. These measures are not sufficiently attuned to the expectations and needs of the various types of SME; the Committee calls for a more ambitious plan, commensurate to the actual role of small companies and the current global economic climate. It therefore calls on the Commission, Council and European Parliament to launch a truly European project to support SMEs and micro companies, based not only on high-growth enterprises but also on local- and social-economy businesses and on traditional activities. The project should also be based on better governance to enable enhanced dialogue between public authorities, the economic and social partners and organisations representing the different types of SME, while taking proper account of the different situations pertaining to each type.

4.3   Among the proposed measures at EU level, the Committee particularly supports:

—

the draft Regulation establishing a European Private Company  (5) – an initiative proposed by the Committee in 2001 in an own-initiative opinion, aimed at creating euro-companies capable of capitalising on the growth opportunities offered by the single market and thus reducing the formalities and costs linked to setting-up in the various Member States. The Committee calls for this project to be swiftly adopted, finding a formula that does not in any way distort competition or erode social rights;

—	the proposed amendment to the Directive on late payments  (6), which should provide stricter obligations and penalties for public authorities in the event of payments exceeding the 30-day limit.

4.4   The Committee calls for ambitious, practical measures to be added, such as:

—	pilot measures on energy efficiency for SMEs in the construction sector, given their dominance in this sector (80 % of companies) and their potential for making a considerable contribution to cutting CO2 emissions (40 % of emissions coming from housing);

—	provisions adapted to the different sectors of industry and gradual processes of phased environmental management for small companies so as to ensure that the environmental and energy objectives do not exclude small businesses;

—	specific EU measures to Europeanise companies, in the form of programmes fostering closer links and cooperation (cf. the former INTERPRISE and EUROPARTENARIAT programmes, wrongly axed by the Commission in the 2000s);

—

closer involvement of companies in EU training and education schemes, which could take the form of a new initiative to foster closer links between companies and educational establishments. The Committee calls again for more substantial programmes to promote the mobility of apprentices and young people in initial vocational training;

—

facilitating and encouraging business transfer; the Committee reaffirms the importance of the transfer of business ownership, especially for small production and service-based businesses in urban and rural areas whose anticipated disappearance will have a huge negative impact. It advocates systems for bringing together buyers and sellers as well as tax and capitalisation incentives and public-private partnerships;

—	developing more evenly the Enterprise Europe network to make it a genuine European network for information and cooperation.

4.5   Faced with the challenge of a global recession, the Committee would particularly advocate strengthened financial mechanisms via the EIB and EIF to facilitate access to short-term funding and to support companies in difficulty when still worthwhile. It thus calls for current initiatives and those proposed under the SBAE to be considerably expanded given the current economic climate. Above all, marginal pilot projects should be jettisoned and genuine efforts made to open up and strengthen local finance networks (risk capital, business angels, mutual guarantees, etc.) and to support the creation of funds to assist European and cross-border projects.

4.6   Furthermore, as requested in its previous opinion 390/2008, the Committee calls for the SBAE to include new initiatives that meet the requirements of the organisations concerned as voiced at a number of EU conferences and by the EESC itself and the European Parliament, i.e. to:

—	integrate the SME dimension into all Community policies: the Committee points out that, beyond political discourse, it is still the large company model that too often predominates in the legislative process;

—

continue the policy of simplified administration, whilst ensuring perfect coordination with the sectoral intermediary organisations concerned; the Commission must ensure closer cooperation with these organisations and the Committee, to prevent this simplification being counter-productive. The Committee reiterates its scepticism as to the merits and effectiveness of systematically exempting small companies from the scope of certain legislation; it prefers proportionality in the implementation of legislation;

—

support the assistance and advisory activities of intermediary organisations; the Committee attaches great importance to matters of governance, particularly the issue of consultation and monitoring. It regrets that the Commission does not accord greater importance to the role of intermediary organisations, which are key to any dialogue with the millions of companies concerned, their managers and staff. The Committee reiterates its view that these organisations are a key element in the success of EU policies and that they play a vital role in providing SMEs – particularly the smallest companies – with both information and support;

—	put in place a broader and consistent policy of innovation to support not only companies already known to be innovative but also day-to-day innovations in marketing and low and medium technology and non-technical innovation, especially in smaller businesses;

—

broaden access to Community programmes by easing legal, financial and administrative constraints that discourage SMEs and by facilitating group projects proposed by intermediary organisations. The Committee calls again on the Commission to launch a consultation with the European SME representative organisations in order to simplify the programme access procedures and lay down new conditions for organising and participating in programmes at various regional levels. In terms of SMEs' access to EU funding, the access procedures need to be simplified as much as possible. A first step here could be to coordinate the various EU programmes (Structural Funds, CIP, 7th FPRD, etc.), given that the procedures for each one are different. Similarly, if framework documents were written in clearer language most SMEs would find it easier to utilise the various development tools available under these programmes. Finally, concerted action is needed by EU and national institutions to simplify procedures: SMEs, whose skills do not generally lie in administration, are still overly burdened by red tape.

4.7   As regards public procurement, each Member State should establish its own personalised system for supporting SMEs that wish to access national or EU procurement markets. This aid would help SMEs to get to grips with the procedures involved in putting together a tender, and with the specific jargon of procurement. (SMEs' difficulty in accessing procurement is partly due to a lack of understanding of the terminology used.)

5.   Committee recommendation 3: Specific proposals for EU-level action

5.1   For the SBAE to be effective, the Committee advocates a visible and ambitious policy at EU level, which is currently lacking. It recommends in particular:

—	assigning to a European Commissioner full responsibility for implementation of the European Small Business Act;

—	reorganising the Commission's services so that, as happened with the SME Task Force, SMEs will have access to a visible and accessible political partner dedicated solely to SMEs and to protecting their interests within the EU institutions, particularly during the decision-making process;

—

establishing a European SBA committee to act as a management committee, involving not only representatives of the Member States, but also delegates from the relevant European representative bodies, including the social partners. This management committee should be given extensive powers to control implementation of the SBA, monitor the action plan and coordinate the plans implemented by the Member States. To coincide with the introduction of the SBA, the Committee also calls for:

—	the appointment of an SME envoy at each Commission DG, responsible for ensuring that the legislative measures and programmes managed by the DG take sufficient account of the priorities and expectations of SMEs and micro-enterprises; and that

—

the enterprise culture that is crucial to the practical application of Think small first be created both in society and in the institutions. Ensuring that ‘the rules laid down respect the majority of those to whom they apply’, in this case SMEs, presupposes certain knowledge of the SME world. For this reason, the Commission should encourage the Member States to follow the example it has set with its Enterprise Experience programme, which gives many EU officials an insight into the world of SMEs. This kind of initiative should inspire the individual Member States, or at least those that have not yet taken such an approach.

6.   Committee recommendation 4: Specific measures at national level

6.1   As regards national competence, the Committee recommends that each Member State:

—	adopt national legislation to give binding effect to the Think small first principle;

—

draw up a Small Business Act national plan in close partnership with the relevant socio-economic players. Each year a report – separate to the NRP (National Reform Programme) report – would be presented outlining the achievements under each national plan. An annual conference could highlight examples of good practice and success stories. The close involvement of the relevant European organisations and the Committee would give recognition to this exercise;

—

support common actions to develop initiatives in areas such as: business transfer (legal and taxation issues); bankruptcy law, with the aim of always giving companies and entrepreneurs a second chance; the development of one-stop shops across the EU and the application of the once only principle to formalities; and

—	appoint a national SME envoy, charged with both managing implementation of the SBAE in the Member State and also with ensuring that national laws transposing EU legislation comply with the fundamental principles of Think small first.

6.2   In terms of areas of action that fall under national competence, the Committee recommends that the Member States consult each other more frequently and plan common measures, possibly via enhanced cooperation, to jointly develop initiatives in areas such as: business transfer (legal and taxation issues); and bankruptcy law, with the aim of always giving companies and entrepreneurs a second chance.

6.3   At national and cross-border levels, the Committee stresses the need for the development and interoperability of one-stop shops across the EU. Member States could be encouraged to open up and develop the interoperability of their national offices for administrative formalities (physical or virtual). On the latter issue, initiatives have been taken under the Services Directive and also under the Regulation to improve the functioning of the mutual recognition principle. The establishment of one-stop shops should be followed up by a communication to SMEs, upon start-up and throughout their life, informing them of the existence of such services.

7.   Committee recommendation 5: Consistency, participation and assessment

7.1   In the face of major international challenges, the current economic climate and the objective of revising the Lisbon process, the Committee feels that the Small Business Act should:

—	provide for structured initiatives to enforce intellectual property rights, i.e.: the Community patent and an EU-wide patent jurisdiction, but also a European observatory on counterfeiting and piracy (originally called for by the Committee in 2001);

—	foster an integrated approach to SME policy that embraces all sectoral policies at EU, national and regional levels;

—	foster governance, partnership and cooperation between public authorities, local government, the economic and social partners, and organisations representing the different types of SME at all levels of the EU; and

—

support the development and competitiveness of all SMEs, including those operating in local markets; the positive actions of the Small Business Act must draw a clear distinction between, on the one hand, local companies – which make up the vast bulk of SMEs and, on the other, companies with strong technological or extra-territorial development potential. The former must have a favourable environment for their business; the latter need the means of accelerating their growth and Europeanising, or even internationalising, bearing in mind that many local businesses may have an opportunity to develop in bigger markets or to be involved in groupings and clusters so as to reach the critical mass needed for successful Europeanisation or internationalisation.

7.2   The Committee feels that, besides the political will of public authorities at EU, national and local levels to work to promote SMEs and particularly small companies, the success of the SBAE will depend hugely on the role of intermediary representative organisations. It calls on the authorities concerned to put in place all necessary measures and support to promote the work of these organisations, and for them to be involved in the post-Lisbon EU process.

7.3   The Committee reiterates its explicit request for annual assessment of the implementation of the SBAE, in terms of both the action programme and application of the Think small first principle and all SME policies at EU and national levels, and calls again for an annual report of progress made, inter alia in cooperation with intermediary organisations. This report should be a separate initiative under the Lisbon strategy; it should give rise to recommendations from the Commission to the Member States and the regions, enable adaptation or revision of the SBAE, and be submitted to the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the EESC.

---

(1)  EESC opinions on The different policy measures, other than suitable financing, that would help SMEs to grow and develop (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009, p. 7) and on International public procurement (OJ C 224, 30.8.2008, p. 32).

(2)  See the Committee's opinion CESE (rapporteur: Ms Faes – OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, p. 8).

(3)  EESC opinion on ‘The different policy measures, other than suitable financing, that would help SMEs to grow and develop’ (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009, p. 7).

(4)  EESC exploratory opinion on International public procurement (OJ C 224, 30.8.2008, p. 32).

(5)  COM(2008) 394 final.

(6)  Directive 2000/EC/35 (OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35). EESC opinion: OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 50.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/36

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and related rights’

COM(2008) 464 final — 2008/0157 (COD)

(2009/C 182/07)

Rapporteur: Mr GKOFAS

On 4 September 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and related rights

COM(2008) 464 final — 2008/0157 (COD).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Mr GKOFAS.

At its 450th plenary session of 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes to 3, with 15 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The EESC calls for the establishment of a single system to harmonise Member States' rules on protecting the copyright of musical compositions that contain the contributions of several authors, in order to avoid problems in the cross-border distribution of royalties.

1.2   The EESC also calls for music compositions with lyrics to be treated as single works, with a period of protection lasting 70 years after the death of the last author.

1.3   The Member States often give many differing collecting societies responsibility for copyright, meaning that users are subject and liable to more than one of them even for a work that the user obtained as a complete, unedited and single work, produced in one medium. Provision should be made and it should be clearly stated that works produced in this way are single complete and non-divisible products and must be treated as such.

1.4   A single copyright management body should be established to collect duties and protect copyright holders. It should be the sole body responsible for collecting duties and distributing any sums to other existing or newly-founded bodies representing copyright holders, so that users have only to deal and make contracts with one organisation and not several.

1.5   The EESC recommends extending the duration of protection for fixations of performances from 50 to 85 years. In order to step up efforts to protect anonymous performers, who generally cede their copyright in the phonogram in return for an ‘equitable remuneration’ or a lump sum payment, there should be a regulation stating that record producers should reserve at least 20 % of receipts from the sale of phonograms that they decide to use during the extended period of protection.

1.6   The EESC recommends establishing a fund for performers and above all for less-well known performers, as the big names always come to agreements with producers regarding percentages of sales of phonograms.

1.7   The EESC believes that a contract should be drawn up between the performers represented and members of collecting societies to ensure that royalties are managed and collected legally. The collecting societies would then have no right to collect any sum on behalf of any individual copyright holder with whom they had no written and dated contract.

1.8   These companies should be of a non-profit nature and be fully transparent in their records of receipts and payments of royalties, in order to ensure resources are distributed properly.

1.9   The EESC is however concerned that receipts from secondary sources of income put an excessive burden on those responsible for payment. More specifically, there is a need to clarify the meaning of public performance via radio or television at Community level and then to translate that into Member State legislation, so that reasonable performance and rebroadcasting is understood as the private rebroadcasting of prepaid public performances.

1.10   The EESC believes that remuneration should be equitable for both sides, for the copyright holders and for those subject to payment. The lack of clarity surrounding equitable remuneration for the transfer of the performer's rental right must be dealt with. It is unacceptable that there is no single Community rule on this and that it is left to the discretion of legislators in individual Member States, who in turn transfer responsibility to collecting societies that determine often inequitable payments that are not subject to controls.

1.11   The EESC believes that there is a need to specify that public use means the use of a work for profit in the context of a business activity that demands or justifies that use (of a work involving sound, images, or sound and images).

1.12   More specific mention should be made of whether the performance is broadcast via equipment or through direct communication (optical disks, magnetic waves (receivers)). In such cases, responsibility for public broadcasting (and the choice) belongs not to the end user but to the broadcaster; the user of the work is not therefore the end user and therefore the concept of public performance does not apply here.

1.13   Use of the media cannot be considered a primary public performance when it is broadcast from places such as restaurants, cafes, buses, taxis, etc. and as a result these should be exempt from the payment of performers' royalties. Royalties from phonograms have already been paid by those who obtained the phonograms, who have the right to play them with wired or wireless devices. Listening to phonograms on the radio must be considered to be private use by the public, whether at home, at work, on the bus or at the restaurant. As members of the public cannot be in two places at once, the royalties are paid by the stations that are the real users.

1.14   Professional sectors where music and/or images play no role in the production process should be exempt. Sectors where the broadcast of music or images plays a secondary role in the conduct of business activities should pay a lower set amount, clearly determined following negotiations between the representatives of users' collective organisations and the single copyright management body.

1.15   The EESC believes that there should be an additional fund to act as a guarantee for collecting societies and ensure that they pay out the sums to performers even if they encounter difficulties. The ‘use it or lose it’ provision should be written into contracts between performers and phonogram producers, in addition to the ‘clean slate’ principle for contracts covering the extension period, after the first 50 years.

1.16   The EESC is particularly concerned that Community legislation is aimed in general terms at protecting intellectual and related property rights without taking into account the corresponding rights of users and final consumers. While reference is made to the fact that creative, artistic and business activities are largely carried out by self-employed persons and as such should be facilitated and protected, the approach is not the same for users. It is therefore necessary to iron out inconsistencies between Member States' national rules, replacing penalties for failure to pay royalties, where they exist, with administrative fines.

1.17   The EESC agrees with the amendment to Article 3(1) but with the inclusion of an 85-year protection period. The EESC would also like the second and third sentences of Article 3(2) to refer to 85 years. The EESC welcomes the inclusion in Article 10 of paragraph 5 concerning the retroactive nature of the directive.

1.18   The EESC calls on the Commission to take into account the comments and proposals aimed at improving the existing case-law and calls on the Member States to comply with the directives and take the necessary legislative measures in order to build them into national law.

2.   Introduction

2.1   The current regime, which provides protection lasting 50 years, stems from European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and more generally the related rights of performers.

2.2   Furthermore, as stressed in the explanatory memorandum of the proposal, as well as affecting well-known artists, the main impact will be on those who have ceded their exclusive rights to the phonogram producer in exchange for a lump sum payment. Naturally these equitable one-off payments for radio or television broadcasts of their phonograms will cease.

3.   General comments

3.1   The aim of the opinion is to amend certain of the existing articles of Directive 2006/116, which governs the protection period relating to performances and phonograms, and to highlight certain additional measures and issues in order to help achieve the aims of the opinion more effectively, i.e. easing social disparities between producers, top-level performers and session musicians.

3.2   The EESC is highly concerned about the protection of performers' copyright and related rights, particularly in connection with phonograms, and would recommend meeting their requirements with a minimum contribution during the extended protection period.

4.   Specific comments

4.1   The Commission's main idea focuses on extending the duration of protection of copyright for performers.

4.2   The EESC believes that this harmonisation among Member States is necessary in order to avoid difficulties in the cross-border distribution of royalties from other Member States.

4.3   The EESC also believes that music compositions with lyrics should be treated as single works, with a period of protection lasting 70 years after the death of the last author, given that it is better to increase protection of authors' copyright rather than have a shrinking period of protection that would cause many problems.

4.4   Accordingly, the EESC recommends that protection for fixations of performances should be increased from 50 to 85 years.

4.5   In order to step up efforts to protect anonymous performers, who tend to cede their copyright in the phonogram in return for ‘equitable remuneration’ or a lump sum payment, there should be a regulation stating that record producers should reserve at least 20 % of receipts from the sale of those phonograms that they choose to use during the extended period of protection.

4.6   In line with the above aims, the EESC believes a fund should be set up for performers, especially for less well-known performers.

4.7   The administration and payment of sums should be carried out by collecting societies which should administer so-called secondary remuneration claims. Specific safeguards should however be put in place regarding the running and composition of these bodies.

4.8   The EESC believes that in principle there should be a written contract between performers who are represented and the collecting societies, in order to ensure the legality of the administration and receipt of royalties.

4.9   These societies should be of a non-profit nature and should be fully transparent in their records of royalties collected and distributed. The EESC believes that these societies, which should be established in accordance with the standards and rules of each State, should be separated into two categories depending on whether they represent authors or performers. The EESC believes that the existence of more such societies representing different groups would lead to confusion and would certainly make transparency and controls more difficult to secure.

4.10   Meanwhile, performers also collect income from other sources. The collecting societies were set up mainly to administer so-called ‘secondary remuneration claims’, of which there are three main types: a) equitable remuneration for broadcasting and communication to the public b) private copying levies, and c) equitable remuneration for the transfer of the performers' rental right. Naturally, this income will increase with the extension of the protection period from 50 to 85 years.

4.11   Nevertheless, the EESC is concerned that these receipts from secondary sources of income place an excessive burden on those responsible for their payment, an issue that is clearly quite separate from the extension of the protection period. More specifically, there is a need to clarify the meaning of communication to the public via radio or television at Community level and then to translate that into Member State legislation, so that there is a proper understanding of reasonable performance and rebroadcasting by private means of prepaid public performances.

4.12   The EESC believes that the payment of equitable remuneration for rebroadcasting of a previous performance, particularly when the rebroadcast is not for profitable ends, is excessive and contributes to copyright fraud in music.

4.13   The EESC is also concerned by the way funds gained from artists’ other two sources of income are administered. It is a major issue that concerns all those subject to royalties. Without a prior written contract between the person due the above-mentioned additional income and the person acting as their representative in the collecting society responsible for paying it, how can the former be sure that the latter will make the additional payment properly?

4.14   Furthermore, the lack of clarity surrounding equitable remuneration for the transfer of the performer's rental right must be dealt with. The EESC believes that the payment should be equitable for both sides: for the person receiving royalties and the person paying. In addition, this payment should be determined in a proportionate way, every five years or so, following bilateral collective negotiations.

4.15   The EESC believes that in this way, while also regulating payments for copies for private use, especially for professionals in the leisure industry that use the copies for other than strictly private purposes, it will be possible to ensure a stable flow of income from secondary sources throughout the extended period of protection, while combating music piracy and increasing legal sales of phonograms over the internet.

4.16   In addition, the EESC believes that to ensure that collecting societies pass on payments to performers there should be an additional fund to act as a guarantee in the event of difficulties, and able to pay the sums concerned.

4.17   The EESC also believes that to achieve the desired objectives, certain accompanying measures should be included in the directive. More specifically, the ‘use it or lose it’ clause should be included in contracts between performers and phonogram producers, as well as the principle of the ‘clean slate’ for contracts covering the extension period, after the first 50 years. If a year passes following the extension of the protection period, the rights to the phonogram and the fixation of the performance shall expire.

4.18   The EESC is certain that priority should be given to protecting performers who find that their works are locked into phonograms that the producer through failure to act has not made available to the public. It believes that additional measures are necessary to prevent producers from discarding performers' work; these could be administrative measures or take the form of fines or penalties.

4.19   The EESC also believes that, since the Member States have a great tradition of popular songs, there should be special regulations for this type of song and others of a similar nature that can be deemed ‘orphan works’, in order to bring them into the public domain.

4.20   The EESC agrees with the reference in Article 10 to the retroactive nature of the law for all current contracts.

4.21   The EESC also agrees with paragraphs 3 and 6 of Article 10.

4.22   The EESC agrees with the right to an annual additional payment for the extended period of protection in contracts concerning the transfer or assignment of rights from artists or performers.

4.23   The EESC agrees that 20 % of the receipts that the producer receives during the year preceding the payment is an appropriate amount for the additional payment.

4.24   The EESC disagrees with the proposal that the Member States should regulate the payment of the additional annual amount by the collecting societies.

4.25   The EESC believes it is essential that there be a written contract between each individual performer and the representatives of the society. This contract must precede the collection of royalties by representatives on behalf of the performer. The societies must submit annual accounts to another distinct body made up of performers and producers, showing the administration of receipts gained from additional payments made during the extended protection period.

4.26   The EESC agrees with the transition measure in Article 10 and with the one on the exploitation of the phonogram by the artist.

4.27   The EESC therefore considers it necessary to have a single regulation under which certain producers should be exempt from the rule on reserving 20 %, for instance, those whose annual income does not exceed EUR 2 million. Naturally, an annual check of producers would be necessary in order to ascertain which fell into this category.

4.28   The EESC is concerned that in the absence of legislative provisions on means of payment, payment checks, payment proof, possible bankruptcy of companies, cases where royalty holders die or renounce their rights, agreements between persons with rights and collecting societies, checks on collecting societies and many other legal issues, the adoption of this directive, particularly in the area of the management and payment of the 20 % of additional income, will generate greater problems upon implementation, without really resolving the problems of levelling out conditions for well-known performers and unknown performers.

4.29   The solution to this problem lies not only in extending the protection period, but in carefully designed contracts including the ‘"use it or lose it’ clause. The EESC believes that legislative provisions that help to avoid works being locked up for 50 years should be adopted at the same time as adopting the amendment to the directive. Additional provisions are essential particularly for the means of payment of royalties to royalty holders, before the amendment is adopted as internal law by the Member States.

4.30   The EESC believes that in order to avoid generalisations and differing interpretations, the concept of ‘publication of a phonogram’ must be made sufficiently clear. There is also the issue of the simultaneous publication of a phonogram by two different artists and above all by session musicians, who have not ceded their rights to the producer concerned (media broadcasts, rehearsals of songs for competitions, or the broadcast of songs on the internet).

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/40

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI)’

COM(2008) 467 final — 2008/0148 (CNS)

(2009/C 182/08)

Rapporteur: Mr STANTIČ

On 5 September 2008 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 172 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI)

COM(2008) 467 final — 2008/0148 (CNS).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Mr STANTIČ.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 15 January 2009), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 149 votes to 1 with 5 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   Top-class research infrastructure is one of they key pillars for the further development of the European Research Area.

1.2   Setting-up and running a competitive world-class European research infrastructure generally exceeds the capabilities and the potential capacity demand of individual Member States. For this reason, joint action in this area has an especially high level of European added value. The attractiveness of such infrastructures leads to greater networking and cooperation within the European Research Area and helps to reduce the fragmentation that remains.

1.3   The EESC therefore supports the roadmap put forward by the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) for the development of 44 new, large-scale research infrastructures of pan-European interest in the coming 10 to 20 years.

1.4   Individual, national legal frameworks are unlikely to provide an adequate legal basis for the development of world-class research infrastructure of pan-European interest. The EESC therefore supports the proposed regulation for a single Community framework for ERI, which can facilitate and speed up the implementation of the projects proposed by the ESFRI.

1.5   New, world-class research infrastructures can significantly boost the attractiveness of the European Research Area (ERA) and prevent the brain drain out of Europe. However, concentrating large-scale infrastructure exclusively in developed countries will, at least in the short run, attract researchers from across Europe. This potentially negative effect for some countries can be compensated in the longer run by ensuring ERI are well distributed geographically and access to ERI is as open as possible.

1.6   The EESC calls on the Member State to follow up on the ESFRI and Commission's initiative, and to draw up their national roadmaps for the development and modernisation of research infrastructure as soon as possible.

1.7   The Committee supports the proposed exemption from value added tax and excise duty for ERI, since this boosts their attractiveness and provides them with a competitive advantage over similar projects elsewhere in the world.

1.8   The EESC recommends that the Community contribute more actively to the co-financing of ERI by increasing funds in the 8th Framework Programme for research and development. By gaining leverage through partial ownership, the Community will be in a better position to guarantee a wider geographical distribution of ERI and provide open access for as wide a circle of European researchers as possible.

1.9   The Committee recommends giving greater priority in European cohesion policy and its financial instruments, the structural funds, to the development of new research and innovative capacities. It also calls on the Commission and Member States to develop additional policy instruments to stimulate further investment in research infrastructure by the private sector.

1.10   The EESC would like to draw attention to the costs of running and maintaining ERI once initial investment has been completed. These costs, which can reach levels of up to 20 % of the investment value annually, are a potential threat to the notion of open access for researchers from countries that are not members of an ERI. It would therefore be worthwhile including co-financing for ongoing operations from European funds within the context of the Eighth Framework Programme for R & D.

2.   Introduction

2.1   The establishment of a European Research Area (ERA) has been the principal aim of all Community measures on research and development since 2000 (1). In the period that followed, the Member States have launched numerous initiatives in this area. However, a range of national and institutional barriers still stand in the way of the final aim, which is the introduction of the ‘fifth freedom’ in Europe, the free movement of knowledge. One of they central problems for Europe in the area of science and research is its fragmentation, which prevents Europe from fully exploiting its research potential.

2.2   There is no doubt that top-class research infrastructure represents one of they key pillars in the further development of the ERA (2) since it:

—	fosters excellence in science,

—	makes it possible to carry out globally competitive basic and applied research,

—	attracts the best researchers,

—	stimulates innovation in industry and promotes the transfer of knowledge,

—	contributes to European integration,

—	generates higher European added value.

2.3   One of the characteristics of large-scale European research infrastructure is that the high investment and running costs which they involve, as well as the ability to fully exploit capacities, are often beyond the reach of individual Member States. This means that, quite often, European centres of excellence are unable to achieve critical mass. Some also suffer from inadequate networking and cooperation. In spite of these shortcomings, Europe has in the past succeeded in setting up a number of important, pan-European projects of a world class standard, such as CERN, ITER, EMBO, ESA, ESRF (3) and others.

2.4   The Proposal for a Regulation COM(2008) 467 final, which is the subject of this opinion, is one of five Commission initiatives that have been planned for 2008 and are aimed at significantly speeding up the creation of a European research area (ERA) (4).

2.5   The proposal would contribute to the goals of the Lisbon Agenda since it would speed up public and private investment in research, which still lies well below the target of 3 % of GDP by 2010 (currently at 1,7-1,8 % of GDP on average). The proposal would provide a basis for the much-needed consolidation of European research infrastructures. These will enhance the ERA and boost the competitiveness of European enterprises.

3.   Background

3.1   Already in 2002, the European Council, which was seeking to tackle the numerous challenges being faced in the area of research infrastructure more successfully, established the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) (5), giving it a mandate to draw up a roadmap for the development and construction of the next generation of large-scale infrastructure of pan-European interest.

3.2   The ESFRI, in cooperation with the Commission, and following extensive consultations (with 1 000 high-level experts), identified 35 pan-European projects (6) which would meet the need for large-scale European research infrastructures in the coming 10 to 20 years (7).

3.3   The roadmap foresees new, vital research infrastructures of various sizes and value, which will cover a wide variety of research areas, ranging from social and natural sciences, to electronic systems for archiving scientific publications and data bases (8). The estimated value of all projects is more than EUR 20 billion.

3.4   In identifying the factors that might obstruct the setting-up of world class pan-European research infrastructures, the ESFRI also highlighted, besides financial and organisational restrictions, the lack of a legal framework or structures at European level that would make it possible to set up international partnerships in a straightforward and effective manner. Currently, partners wishing to cooperate on the development of shared research infrastructure must first agree on the national legal basis (9) they intend to use (or must resort to an international agreement), which causes additional administrative problems.

3.5   The ESFRI has therefore singled out the need to develop a specific Community legal framework for establishing European research infrastructure (henceforth ERI) involving several Member States.

3.6   Definition of the term ERI: the term is applied to objects, installations, sources and services which the scientific community uses to carry out top-class research. This includes scientific equipment, knowledge based sources (scientific collections, archives, structured scientific data), infrastructure based on information and communication technology, as well as any other unique resources that are essential to excellence in research. Such research infrastructure can either be located ‘in one place’ or be ‘dispersed’ (organised network of sources).

4.   Commission proposal

4.1   Having reached the conclusion that current legal tools which are based on different national legislation cannot meet the needs of new pan-European infrastructure, and on the initiative of the Member States, the Commission drew up a proposal for a Council Regulation on a Community legal framework for ERI based on Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

4.2   The main purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable Member States and third countries involved in the Community's Framework Programme for research and development to jointly set-up and operate research facilities of pan-European interest.

4.3   ERI has legal personality which is based on its membership (at least three Member States are required; third countries and intergovernmental organisations can join), and enjoys full legal capacity in all Member States. The regulation establishes the legal framework of requirements and processes needed to set up an ERI.

4.4   The ERI has the status of an international organisation in respect of the directives on value added tax, excise duty and public procurement. It is thus exempt from VAT and excise duty, and its public procurement is not covered by the provisions of the directive on public procurement (10).

4.5   The ERI can be co-financed from the financial instruments of cohesion policy in accordance with the Council Regulation (11) laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund.

5.   General comments

5.1   The EESC believes that the proposed, new legal instrument, which would complement existing legal tools, will facilitate and promote the decision making process on new infrastructures of pan-European interest, and thus help to speed up the creation of the ERA and the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals.

5.2   The EESC welcomes the clear and determined commitment of the Commission and the Member States to harmonise the ongoing development of European research infrastructure. Only in this way will it be possible to implement the roadmap as proposed by the ESFRI.

5.3   Developing new, research infrastructure of the highest worldwide standard can contribute significantly to the overall attractiveness of the European Research Area. It plays a vital role in efforts to hold on to and further motivate the 400 000 highly talented young researchers which Europe needs to achieve the three percent target on investment in science and development. In addition, top class research infrastructure can attract gifted and highly qualified researchers from around the world.

5.4   Due to the extremely demanding nature of the proposed research infrastructure projects (12), the possibilities for smaller or less developed countries to host major research infrastructures, or participate in them, are, realistically speaking, quite limited. Future, large-scale infrastructure is likely to be mainly located in the most developed countries, which in the short run could exacerbate the brain drain within the EU. In the longer run, the risk of this occurring should diminish, since 28 of the 44 projects on the ESFRI's list are classified as ‘distributed infrastructures’, in other words, infrastructure involving a network across Europe of one form or another. This also makes it more likely that smaller and less developed countries will be able to participate. To ensure such participation materialises, the EESC calls for researchers to be granted broad access to such infrastructure. It is also important to link up scientific, technical and administrative staff as much as possible across such widely dispersed structures.

5.5   Around 15 % of researchers in European research institutions cooperate with industry in their use of research infrastructure. The development of new research infrastructure can therefore generate new demand, numerous ‘spin-off’ effects and provide additional stimulus for the transfer of knowledge and technology into industry. It can also contribute to the achievement of the Barcelona target, which is to increase private investment in R&D to 2 % of GDP.

5.6   The European Economic Recovery Plan launched by the Commission on 26 November 2008 to dampen the economic impact of the financial crisis specifically mentions R&D. The list of long-term measures set out in the plan includes so-called ‘smart investments’. The Commission places particular emphasis on this and calls on Member States and the private sector to invest more in R&D, innovation, and education. The EESC underlines the positive effects of investments in research infrastructure. The potential trade value of investments is over EUR 10 billion, which can help preserve a large number of jobs in businesses that would be responsible for carrying out the infrastructure projects. It would also act as a positive stimulus for a faster transition to the knowledge society.

5.7   The European Roadmap on Research Infrastructures serves as an excellent basis for national roadmaps. The Committee notes that some Member States have not taken these initiatives seriously enough. It therefore calls on them to make up for lost opportunities as quickly as possible, and to follow-up on the ESFRI's and the Commission's initiatives.

5.8   The emphasis in the future financing of research infrastructure will remain on funding from the Member States. That is why it is important to coordinate such funding. Only in this way will it be possible to achieve critical mass, ensure investments are effective, and guarantee adequate specialisation and scientific excellence within infrastructures.

5.9   In spite of the increases in funding for research infrastructure in the 7th FP and the options available under cohesion policy, the EU budget still falls well short of what is needed to implement the ambitious plans. The EESC draws attention to the need for greater synergy between the 7th Framework Programme and the structural funds as regards the funding of research infrastructure. It also calls on the Commission and Member States to develop further policy instruments to stimulate greater investment in research infrastructure by the private sector. Greater commitment by the EIB (for instance, in the form of support from the 'Risk Sharing Finance Facility') and other financial institutions would also be welcome.

5.10   The Committee recommends that greater priority be given in European cohesion policy and its financial instruments, the structural funds, to the development of new research and innovative capacities. It calls on Member State governments to start making greater use of structural funds to modernise and expand their research capacities. In the new Member States in particular, European funds often remain unused because governments do not provide adequate financial participation, or do not give enough priority to improvements in research capacities. As a consequence, many researchers are leaving their home countries looking for research opportunities. Progress in this area is therefore crucial if we are to successfully tackle the problem of the brain drain within Europe.

6.   Specific comments

6.1   The Committee supports the proposed exemption from value added tax since this can significantly boost the attractiveness of ERI. It can also provide them with a competitive advantage over similar projects elsewhere in the world. We therefore support the idea of guaranteeing ERI as much tax relief as possible (within the rules on state aid). Many existing research infrastructures which meet the criteria of an ‘international organisation’ under the relevant directives are already benefiting from exemptions on VAT and excise duty. However, the current procedure involves drawn-out and complicated negotiations, and causes delays in the setting up of infrastructure, as well as considerable legal and financial uncertainty. An automatic exemption for ERI, as foreseen in the Regulation, would remove major barriers to the development and running of research infrastructures in Europe.

6.2   The EESC recommends giving serious consideration to the possibility of the Community participating more actively in the financing of the ERI. By gaining leverage through targeted grants, the Community can guarantee a more balanced geographical distribution of the ERI, as well as better access for those countries that are not direct members. However, to implement such a policy additional designated funding needs to be secured in the 8th Framework programme for research and development.

The Committee believes that there is no reason why the EU should not adopt the same approach to research infrastructures as it does to co-financing for other European infrastructure networks (for example, roads, railways, power lines, gas pipelines, etc.).

The Committee wishes to draws attention to the problem of running and maintenance costs once initial investment has been completed. According to some estimates these can reach levels of up to 20 % of the investment value annually. These costs are often neglected in investment studies and can significantly hamper the smooth, long-term operation of research infrastructures. The Committee therefore recommends including the possibility of co-financing the ongoing operation of research infrastructures from European funds under the Eighth Framework Programme for R & D.

6.3.1   On the subject of running costs, the EESC recommends that the charging of reasonably priced user fees for the joint use of infrastructure should be considered a ‘limited economic activity’ (Art. 2).

6.4   The Committee emphasises the importance of open access to all ERI for as wide a circle of European researchers and scientists as possible. It would not be right if, in practice, access were restricted to the countries that are members of an ERI, or was based exclusively on the ability to pay. The proposal for shared ownership by the Community, as put forward under point 6.2, would also facilitate open access and thus contribute to better integration into the European research area.

6.5   In developing and using top-class infrastructure it is also important to take into account the protection of intellectual property. Potential problems should be solved responsibly and in good time.

---

(1)  In 2000 the Commission published its first Communication in this area, ‘Towards a European Research Area’.

(2)  Competitiveness Council (Internal Market, Industry and Research), 29-30 May 2008.

(3)  CERN — The European organisation for Nuclear Research, ITER — International Fusion Energy Organisation, EMBO — European Molecular Biology Organisation, ESA — European Space Agency, ESRF — European Synchotron Radiation Facility.

(4)  The other initiatives/policies are: Joint programming in research, European partnership for researchers, Intellectual property management and Wide opening of the ERA to the World.

(5)  ESFRI — European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/home.html.

(6)  European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures, Report 2006, http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/roadmap.htm. The roadmap was completed in 2008 (projects in the fields of environmental, biological and medical sciences in particular were added) and now includes altogether 44 projects.

(7)  European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures, Report 2006, http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/roadmap.html.

(8)  The infrastructural projects cover 7 different scientific areas: Social Sciences and Humanities, Environmental Sciences, Energy, Biomedical and Life Sciences, Material Sciences, Astronomy — Astrophysics — Nuclear and Particle Physics, Computation and Data Treatment.

(9)  For example: the French ‘societé civile’, the German ‘GmbH’, the British ‘limited liability company (Ltd)’, or the Dutch ‘stichting’ (‘fondation’).

(10)  Council Directive 2006/112/ES of 28.11.2006, Art. 151(1)(b), Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25.2.1992, Art. 23(1), and Directive of the EP and the Council 2004/18/EC of 31.3.2004, Art. 15(c).

(11)  Council Regulation 1083/2006 of 11.7.2006.

(12)  The estimated, average value of individual ERI is between EUR 500 million and EUR 1 billion.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/44

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery for pesticide application, amending Directive 2006/42/EC of 17 May 2006 on machinery’

COM(2008) 535 final — 2008/0172 (COD)

(2009/C 182/09)

Rapporteur working alone: Mr JÍROVEC

On 24 September 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery for pesticide application, amending Directive 2006/42/EC of 17 May 2006 on machinery

COM(2008) 535 final — 2008/0172 (COD).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Mr JÍROVEC.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 192 votes, with 3 abstentions.

1.   Summary and recommendations

1.1   The EESC fully endorses the document presented by the Commission.

1.2   It welcomes the changes, which constitute increased health, safety and environmental protection in the use of pesticide application equipment throughout the Community and the whole EEA.

1.3   It harbours some reservations as a result of a lack of clarity regarding the impact on jobs in countries that have not yet incorporated the directive into domestic law.

2.   Introduction

2.1   The European Parliament and the Council have recognised, in the Decision adopting the 6th Community Environment Action Programme, that the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment must be further reduced.

2.2   The European Commission has adopted the Thematic Strategy and proposed a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to deal with the main legislative aspects of its implementation (hereafter, the Framework Directive). The Thematic Strategy sets out five main objectives:

—	to minimise risks to health and the environment from the use of pesticides;

—	to improve controls on the use and distribution of pesticides;

—	to substitute the most dangerous pesticides with safer alternatives;

—	to encourage low-input or pesticide-free cultivation;

—	to establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress.

2.3   The proposed Framework Directive introduces requirements for Member States to set up a system for the regular maintenance and inspection of equipment in use as set out in the thematic strategy's first aim.

3.   Background

3.1   The objective of the proposal is to ensure that new machinery for pesticide application does not endanger the environment unnecessarily. This proposal introduces supplementary essential environmental protection requirements that must be fulfilled by new machinery for pesticide application before it is placed on the market and/or put into service in the Community.

3.2   Harmonisation of requirements is a prerequisite for ensuring a high standard of protection while ensuring the free movement of such products in the Community.

3.3   This directive repeals Directive 98/37/EC and will be applicable from 29 December 2009.

3.4   The proposal is fully consistent with the objectives and aims of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy, the Lisbon Strategy, and the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

3.5   The proposal is in line with the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.

3.6   The proposal builds on the Commission's July 2002 communication ‘Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides’, which the European Economic and Social Committee welcomed.

3.7   The proposal comes in response to the impact assessment carried out in the final consultation, which confirmed the need to establish environmental protection requirements that new pesticide application machinery must comply with before being placed on the market and/or put into service.

3.8   The directive's impact assessment addresses monitoring and certification in detail and suggests that the way to achieve the desired objective is to introduce a mandatory certification system for new pesticide application equipment at Community level.

3.9   The external consultant (BiPro) examined the possible impacts and expects harmonisation to raise environmental protection standards for new machinery. The cost increase will be unevenly distributed, since some manufacturers already comply with regulations or certification schemes. However, harmonisation will have the advantage of ensuring fair competition in the internal market.

4.   Legal aspects

4.1   This proposal introduces new environmental protection requirements. These supplementary essential requirements are mandatory provisions intended to ensure that the products do not endanger the environment unnecessarily.

4.2   The legal basis is provided by Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which sets out the principles for the establishment of the internal market. This directive ensures the free movement of machinery falling within its scope.

4.3   The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community.

4.4   Certain Member States have already introduced mandatory environmental protection requirements and conformity assessment procedures for pesticide application equipment. Other Member States have announced draft regulations. To leave the setting of requirements to a voluntary certification scheme would have the effect of multiplying divergent national provisions and procedures. This generates undue costs for industry and constitutes obstacles to the free movement of goods within the Community.

4.5   Harmonisation of the requirements is the only way to achieve the desired objective while ensuring an equivalent level of protection throughout the Community, fair competition between manufacturers and the free movement of goods in the internal market.

4.6   The proposal complies with the subsidiarity principle.

4.7   This proposal does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective and is therefore in accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.

4.8   The directive also means minimising the administrative burden for manufacturers of machinery for pesticide application.

4.9   The proposal is in line with the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.

4.10   The proposal will not affect the Community budget.

4.11   The Member States are required to communicate to the Commission the text of national provisions transposing the directive as well as a correlation table between those provisions and this directive.

4.12   The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.

5.   Explanatory remarks

5.1   The environmental protection requirements only apply to pesticide application equipment and to risks for the environment covered by the proposed new essential requirements in Annex 1 of the directive.

5.2   The proposal adds to the new definition of ‘essential safety and health requirements’, thus avoiding the need to change references to essential safety and health requirements in the directive.

5.3   Amendments to Articles 4 (1), 9 (3) and 11 (1) enshrine the environmental protection goal.

5.4   This includes the requirement of manufacturers of pesticide application equipment to estimate risks of damage to the environment.

5.5   The directive defines the pesticide application equipment covered.

5.6   The directive establishes the essential requirements to ensure minimum harm to the environment.

5.7   The proposed new essential requirements are intended to be supported by technical specifications of harmonised standards for the various categories of machinery for pesticide application. To this end, the Commission will give a mandate to the appropriate European standards authorities.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/46

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast)’

COM(2007) 844 final — 2007/0286 (COD)

(2009/C 182/10)

Rapporteur: Mr BUFFETAUT

On 25 February 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast)

COM(2007) 844 final — 2007/0286 (COD).

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 October 2008. The rapporteur was Mr BUFFETAUT.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 152 votes to two with four abstentions.

1.   Introduction

1.1   The text submitted to the European Economic and Social Committee is presented as a recast of the existing directive. In fact, it is more than a simple review or tidying-up of the text currently in force. The Commission claims that this recast is part of a simplification drive under the Better Regulation heading — which some would question. The primary aims of the proposal are:

—	environmental: effective protection of the environment by means of an integrated approach taking all environmental factors into account;

—	economic: harmonisation of procedures and practices in order to prevent distortions of competition.

2.   The Commission's objectives

2.1   The Commission recognises that polluting emissions have fallen over recent decades, but considers the reduction to be insufficient and wishes to go further in combating polluting emissions.

2.2   The IPPC Directive covers some 52 000 installations in the European Union and, in spite of the efforts made, emissions of pollutants still far exceed the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution.

2.3   The pollution generated by industrial activity contributes significantly to negative health and environmental impacts. About 83 % of sulphur dioxide, 34 % of oxides of nitrogen, 25 % of dioxide emissions and 23 % of mercury come from these installations (1). These emissions are not only emitted into the air, but also affect water and the soil. These activities are also major consumers of raw materials, water and energy and contribute to waste production. The integrated approach (IPPC), through the competent national authorities' procedure for issuing permits that govern waste from the businesses concerned, is therefore a valid means for tackling a reduction in pollution.

2.4   For the Commission, this approach must be based mainly of the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT). The principle is to use the most effective techniques to protect the environment in a given sector, provided that such techniques are commercially available and economically viable.

2.5   In order to facilitate this approach, the Commission is organising an information exchange on BAT with the Member States and other stakeholders in order to establish BAT reference documents (BREFs) indicating what is regarded as BAT at EU level for each industrial sector. Since the IPPC offices are in Seville, this has come to be known as the Seville procedure.

2.6   Moreover, some branches of industry (but some only) are further covered by sectoral directives, which set out operating conditions and minimum technical requirements. In particular, these directives lay down emission limit values for certain pollutants and are applicable without prejudice to the implementation of the IPPC Directive.

2.7   After conducting a number of studies and surveys, the Commission considered that the existing provisions needed to be strengthened in order to combat industrial emissions. It also judged that there are shortcomings in the current legislation that led both to unsatisfactory implementation of the directive and to difficulties in enforcing it.

2.8   The Commission therefore proposes to revise and combine seven separate directives into a single directive (known as the Industrial Emissions Directive), with the basic aim of:

—	strengthening the best available technique concept;

—	revising the emission limit values for large combustion plants;

—	setting up a committee to adapt existing non-essential technical requirements to technical and scientific progress or define the reporting by the Member States;

—	introducing new provisions on inspections;

—	stimulating innovation and the deployment of new techniques;

—	simplifying and clarifying certain provisions on permitting;

—	extending and clarifying the scope of the directive;

—	stimulating the taking into account of emerging techniques.

3.   General comments

3.1   The three principles underpinning the current directive,

—	an integrated approach to the impact of industrial activity

—	use of the best available techniques

—	the possibility of taking account of local conditions when laying down permit conditions,

meet with the agreement of the businesses concerned and reflect a comprehensive and seamless approach to improving the environmental performance of industrial sites.

3.2   While it is true that there are some differences between the Member States in the way the 1996 directive has been implemented, it should be borne in mind that full implementation is very recent (October 2007 for pre-existing installations) and that enough time has not yet elapsed to take proper stock of implementation. However, according to the Commission, evaluations of specific permits and, more broadly, of Member State practices, reveal numerous problems in implementation, due in particular to the unclear provisions of the existing directive. Again according to the Commission, all the consultations and forecasts suggest that the situation will not improve without a change in the legislation. It should be noted that implementing legislation is a matter for the Member States, and that mandatory compliance with permit conditions is incumbent upon the operators of the installations concerned.

3.3   BREFs have already been adopted and disseminated since 2001, but the translation of these documents into all the EU official languages has been very time-consuming. It has nevertheless been demonstrated through the implementation studies that not all national administrations have yet fully completed their tasks, although the responsibility, in the event of delayed or incomplete implementation, cannot be placed on the industries concerned alone if those permit conditions are not in line with BREFs. Consequently, more feedback from widespread implementation of BREFs throughout the EU should be welcomed since they are being used in very different ways.

3.4   All this may well explain the inadequacies noted, but it may also be wondered if it is not premature to undertake a significant recast of the directive. A number of Member States have issued operating permits late to existing installations, sometimes even after the deadlines set by the directives had expired.

3.5   Concern is however quite justified, since the emissions forecast data from the Member States suggests that implementation of the BATs, especially in the case of large combustion installations, will not be enough to enable the air pollution strategy objectives to be met.

3.6   In any case, no such recast can be undertaken without complying with ‘the principles of transparency, economic efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and fairness and solidarity in the distribution of effort between Member States’, to quote the words of the European Council.

4.   Points involving specific difficulties

4.1   Role of BREFs

4.1.1   Until now, BREFs had a dual role:

—

being the reference for defining what is considered as BAT when drawing up permits: BREFs are used as a reference source of information on multiple options on BATs meeting different site-specific situations. They represent the outcome of a multi-stakeholder approach on what to consider BAT, tailored to different types of processes from which the competent authority selected the most suitable standard,

—	when under preparation, they provided a forum for exchanging information on the performance and evolution of techniques within the Union.

BATs were selected on the basis that this technical benchmark is achieved at a cost that does not threaten competitiveness for industry, this being implicit in the BAT definition which requires BAT to be ‘developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector under economically and technically viable conditions [and] as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator’ (Article 2.11 IPPC, 3(9 IED)). In the opposite case, like for emerging techniques not considered as BATs, these simultaneously represented best practice and state-of-the-art manufacturing processes, and offered a database of performances by various technologies and methods of operation in the branch of industry in question.

4.1.2   It is important to retain the current approach: BATs represent techniques that enable regulatory requirements to be met on a case-by-case basis and, among other objectives, industrial emissions to be monitored, protecting the environment while taking account of the costs and benefits of applying these techniques. Regulations must still be applicable to all at the same time throughout the Union, in order to avoid overall confusion concerning the review dates of the permits, the review dates of the sector BREFs, or the degree of conservatism of the sectors concerned. BATs must also help to reduce distortions of competition.

4.1.3   As part of the review, the role of BREFs needs to be clarified. They do not set emission levels, but must remain a benchmark and a tool for progress, making it possible, among other objectives, to comply with the emission limit values or environmental standards (water, air soil) defined elsewhere. It is worth recalling that, as stated in the 2005 BREF Outline and Guide, ‘BREFs do not prescribe techniques or emission limit values’. The definition of emission levels is a matter for EU economic and environmental policy. Lastly, these tools should not stand in the way of the necessary flexibility reflecting local and technical conditions.

4.2   The Seville process

4.2.1   The process is open and based on consultation, albeit not strictly democratic. The three ‘classic’ parties concerned are either represented, or can be: the Member States, technical experts and NGOs. However, the process remains ‘vertical’ and there is little contact between different branches of industry. BREF drafters change and (in the case of the Member States and the Commission) successive versions of the BREFs, or BREFs for different sectors, are rarely drafted by the same person. This represents a loss of substance and know-how in tackling certain pollutants, of either the ‘deadly’ (NOx, CO, CO2, etc.) or global (SOx, metals, dust, etc.) type, with regard to the techniques used, which should be forwarded to the Information Exchange Forum (IEF). The Seville process does however have the merit of regularly assessing the recorded performance of industrial sectors. If the Member States were a little more actively involved, they could profit from the process in order to make it more efficient, as they would be able to supply the data collected from their mandatory inspections.

4.3   Permit revisions

4.3.1   An installation may be covered by several BREFs at the same time. It must therefore be ensured that the periodic revision of BREFs and the pace at which permits are reconsidered, which may lead to changes in the binding requirements are compatible with installation break-even cycles. Here again, only legislative type regulation/programming is appropriate to the situation. Emerging techniques will fit in all the better if the issues are specified in advance. By the same token, BATs will be all the more effective if they can be progressively adjusted, but it would be inconceivable to impose investment changes at the same rate as BREF revisions. It is therefore up to the European legislator to establish a coherent calendar for progress, in the light of recorded performances and technical advances: such a task should not be delegated to the Seville process.

4.4   Emerging technique concept

The new text introduces the concept of an emerging technique. The defining feature of an emerging technique is that it needs to be tested in a real industrial setting; techniques may appear promising in the laboratory or even in pilot installations, but turn out to be unsatisfactory in normal use. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that the introduction of this concept into the text is clearly understood as a means of stimulating innovation in order to test new techniques, and not as a prelude to defining new references.

4.5   Integrated approach

The new text maintains the principle of adjustment according to local contexts and specific operating conditions, opting to use derogations. The system, even if it allows the competent authorities a degree of flexibility to take account of specific conditions, is more rigid that the previous one. It is important for the definition of Best Available Techniques to proceed from genuine and transparent discussions between local and national administrations and the industrialists concerned.

4.6   Incorporating the sectoral directives

It must be ensured that this does not result in a particularly laborious and complex text, which would run counter to the aim of simplification. The incorporation of sectoral directives in the proposal for a directive varies significantly from one directive to another, mostly with regard to the emission limit values, the main reason being to bring the emission limit values more closely into line with the BAT performance values. The objectives of clarity and coherence, for both Member States and the operators concerned, must remain a key aim of incorporation, as this will allow excessive administrative burdens to be reduced.

4.7   Comitology, Information Exchange Forum and the Seville IPPC office

The proposal for a directive suggests greater use of comitology, particularly in defining the criteria for derogating from BREFs. What role then will stakeholders play? And what role will the IEF and the Seville office have? It is to be feared that European industry will in the future be increasingly reluctant to supply the Seville IPPC office with relevant information on BATs, whereas this cooperation has so far been unanimously hailed as a European success story. Furthermore, comitology is a rather opaque procedure little to the liking of the European Parliament. The comitology procedure should therefore be restricted to the amendment of secondary elements of legislation.

4.8   Soil protection

The new text stipulates that sites must be returned to the state they were in before an installation began operating. The wide variety of soil types in Europe entails applying the subsidiarity principle, leaving more scope for the national authorities. The best option would therefore appear to be leave the site in the condition required for its approved future use.

4.9   Publishing of reports

Under the provisions of the text, the authorities are to publish reports within the two months following an inspection. This is too short, since the entrepreneur in question should be allowed enough time to submit comments and establish an action plan, and also for these aspects to be made public.

4.10   Application of the directive

The planned application of the directive in January 2016 seems too early in the light of experience with implementing the current IPPC Directive. Moreover, a number of draft European directives are currently being prepared and are scheduled to come into force in 2020 (revision of the directive on national emission ceilings, implementation of the ‘green package agreement’). The Göteborg Protocol is also currently under review by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, which has set 2020 as the deadline for setting its new objectives.

In the interests of consistency, the proposal for a directive should be brought into line with the other environmental regulations, by proposing 2020 instead of 2016 as the date for its entry into force.

5.   Conclusion

5.1   If the IPPC Directive has not been implemented satisfactorily, it would be helpful to do everything possible with the Member States and other stakeholders to bring about rapid improvements in the implementation of the existing directive, in order to provide a solid basis for recasting it, as envisaged in the Communication from the Commission and the 2008-2010 Action Plan on implementation of legislation on industrial emissions. The objectives of a revision of the text should be environmental and economic efficiency, transparency, consultations with the relevant stakeholders, a sound cost-benefit balance and compliance with the principle of equity and solidarity in sharing efforts among the Member States.

5.2   The IMPEL network could help to enhance the implementation of the existing directive, and official translation of the BREF documents into the EU languages should also help them to be better understood and consequently applied at national level. In cooperation with the Seville IPPC office, steps must be taken to ensure that diverging views are not built into the BREFs, as this would undermine the coherence and relevance of these documents at European level.

---

(1)  SEC(2007) 1679.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/50

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system’

COM(2008) 388 fin — 2008/0127 (COD)

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing Council Directive 06/23/EEC’

COM(2008) 390 fin — 2008/0128 (COD)

(2009/C 182/11)

Rapporteur: Mr KRAWCZYK

On 4 September 2008 and 18 July 2008 respectively, the European Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system

COM(2008) 388 fin — 2008/0127 (COD)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing Council Directive 06/23/EEC

COM(2008) 390 fin — 2008/0128 (COD).

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 November 2008. The rapporteur was Mr KRAWCZYK.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 15 January 2009), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 131 votes for and 5 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The prompt and encompassing implementation of the Single European Sky (SES), based on the Commission's proposal is a very important strategic step towards further European integration and strengthening of the European common market. It also enhances European social cohesion and social mobility.

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal as an important action towards truly implementing Single European Sky. This package known as Single European Sky II (SES II) addresses many of the weaknesses which occurred during the implementation of SES I introduced in 2004.

1.2.1   The SES II legislative proposal should therefore not be delayed and the EESC calls on the EU legislator to reach final agreement before March 2009. In order to meet the objectives of the Single European Sky, it is essential for the EU legislator (Council and Parliament) not to dilute the Commission's proposals in this context.

1.3   Above all safety requirements have to be improved in parallel with the increase in traffic.

1.4   The EESC in particular strongly supports:

—	The proposals related to the performance monitoring framework and binding performance targets provided that performance is assessed on the basis of four key criteria: safety, capacity, the environment and cost-effectiveness.

—	The broadening of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) scope of responsibility by including safety of aerodromes and Air Traffic Management (ATM)/Air Navigation Services.

—	The acknowledgement of the importance of the human factor in air safety.

—	More effort in order to increase the competence of the staff responsible for ensuring safety, application of ‘Just Culture’.

—	Reformulation of art. 5 of the of the regulation on the provision of air navigation services, which is deleted in the Single European Sky II proposal, so as to permit an extension of the certification system to all staff in the safety chain and primarily ATSEP.

—	Setting up the deadline in 2012 for Functional Airspace Blocks implementation.

—	Further enhancement of SESAR and its financing methods.

—	A strengthening of European ATM network functions.

—	A reform of EUROCONTROL.

—	The recognition of airport capacity limitations.

—	An amendment to art. 18 a — the EESC would not object to a study being carried out provided it is not explicitly aimed at opening these services to competition.

1.5   Optimising European ATM through the SES II implementation will largely contribute to the decreasing of CO2 emissions by the airline industry. Shorter routes may save nearly 5 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Improving both air traffic management and airport operations could reduce emissions by up to 12 % for the average flight, or 16m tonnes of CO2 per year.

1.6   Even though SES II is generally widely supported by various stakeholders there is a strong need for further consultation on the implementation regulations after the approval of SES II. Consultation should be undertaken at each level of the SES II implementation (EU, national and regional) and among social and/or industrial partners/stakeholders.

1.7   The implementation of SES II will provide benefits for citizens and consumers including:

—	Higher safety levels.

—	Shorter travelling times.

—	Better service/performance, including higher reliability and better predictability of the schedule resulting in less lost connections for transfer passengers.

—	Lower fares due to lower costs for the airlines.

—	Smaller personal carbon footprints.

2.   Introduction

2.1   The adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (1), Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (2), Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky (3), and Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 on the interoperability of the European air traffic management network (4) (the first package of the Single European Sky legislation) laid down the legal basis for a seamless, interoperable and ATM system at the European level. The EESC has dealt with the proposed regulations in its opinion issued in 2002 — TEN 080 Action programme/Single European Sky and TEN 098 Implementation of the Single European Sky.

2.2   The massive increase in demand for air transport is straining the capacity of infrastructure: 28 000 daily flights by 4 700 commercial aircraft push airports and air traffic management to their limits. The enlargement of the EU, together with an active neighbourhood policy, has extended the European aviation market to 37 countries with more than 500 million citizens (5).

2.3   The fragmentation of air traffic management hinders the optimal use of capacity and creates an unnecessary financial burden of approx 1 billion EUR on aviation (on average, aircraft fly 49 km longer than necessary). Flight inefficiencies accounted for detours of 468 Mkm in 2007 resulting in EUR 2,4 billion of additional costs for the airline industry. Air traffic flow management delays equalled 21,5 million minutes in 2007 resulting in additional 1,3 billion EUR of unnecessary cost to the airlines and subsequently to their customers.

2.4   In response to a strong demand from industry, Member States and other stakeholders, to simplify and increase the effectiveness of the regulatory framework for aviation in Europe, the High Level Group on the future of the European aviation regulatory framework submitted in July 2007 a report containing a set of recommendations on how to improve the performance and the governance of the European aviation system. This report and the reports of the Eurocontrol Performance Review Commission confirmed that the European Air Traffic Management Network (EATMN) should be designed and implemented with a view to the efficiency, safety and environmental sustainability of the whole air transport network at EU level.

2.5   In December 2007 EASA sent the Commission an opinion concerning aerodromes. Its opinion on air traffic management and air navigation services followed in April 2008, favoured completing the process initiated in 2002 by adding the safety aspects of aerodromes and ATM/air navigation services (ANS) to the tasks entrusted to the EASA.

2.6   The European Commission Communication Package — Single European Sky II: towards a more sustainable and better performing aviation, ref COM(2008) 388, COM(2008) 389/2, COM(2008) 390 was issued on 25 June 2008.

3.   The Commission's proposal (SES II)

3.1   In order to complete the creation of the Single European Sky, it is necessary to adopt additional measures at Community level, to improve the performance of the European aviation system in key areas such as: safety, capacity, flight and cost efficiency and environment within the overriding safety objectives.

The Single European Sky II (SES) consists of four pillars:

The first pillar embraces a system of performance regulation:

a)

Enhancing the performance of the ATM system through the establishment of an independent performance review body which will monitor and assesses the performance of the system. It will develop indicators for the various performance areas and will propose Community-wide targets (i.e. delay, cost reduction, shortening of routes). The Commission shall approve the performance targets and shall pass them on to the national level. The agreed targets will be binding.

b)

Facilitating the integration of service provision through the Commission's support to set up functional airspace blocks by: setting firm deadlines for the implementation (at latest by the end of 2012); extending the scope to lower airspace up to the airport and clearing national legal and institutional obstacles.

c)

Strengthening the network management function through a range of tasks exercised by different actors including: European Route Network Design, Management of Scarce Resources, Traffic Flow Management and Management of the deployment of SESAR's technologies and procurement of Europe-wide infrastructure elements.

The second pillar — the single safety framework:

The competences of EASA have progressively developed since 2002 to cover the fields of airworthiness of aircraft, aircraft operation and air crew licensing. Following this approach the Commission proposes to extend the competence of the Agency to the remaining key safety fields of aerodromes and Air Traffic Management/Air Navigation Services.

The third pillar SESAR — technological and operational part of SES:

Europe must accelerate the development of its ATM system to respond to the challenges and synchronise both airborne and ground deployments. SESAR is meant to increase safety levels by a factor of ten, capable of handling a threefold increase in traffic at half of today's cost per flight. EESC has prepared in 2006 opinion — TEN 232 — giving full support to the implementation of SESAR.

The fourth pillar — managing capacity on the ground:

It will include: better use of existing infrastructure, improved infrastructure planning, promotion of intermodality and improvement of access to airports and the Community Observatory on Airports Capacity.

4.   Specific comments

The EESC strongly supports the Performance Scheme for ANSPs (ref. Art. 11).

4.1.1   The EESC strongly welcomes the proposed Performance Framework (Art. 11 of the framework regulation). The EESC supports the creation of such a performance scheme as an enabler of improved performance. In order to meet the objectives of the Single European Sky, it is essential for the EU legislator (Council and Parliament) not to dilute the Commission's proposals in this context.

4.1.2   The EESC supports the proposed Performance Framework (Art. 11 of the framework regulation), provided that performance is assessed on the basis of four key criteria, namely — in order of importance — safety, capacity, the environment and cost-effectiveness.

4.1.3   It is important that national/regional targets are consistent with network-wide targets and therefore it is essential for the Commission to approve the national (regional) performance plans. This will also require an effective and efficient consultation process at European, regional and national level to ensure that targets and objectives of individual ANSPs are compatible and complementary to SES objectives.

4.1.4   The EESC believes that emphasis should initially be placed on safety, flight efficiency (environment), cost efficiency and capacity (delays) before moving on to the other areas. Target setting must include an appropriate balance between the various key performance areas reflecting the diversity of operations across Europe.

4.1.5   The EESC believes that safety targets can only be set and achieved once incident reporting and safety management systems have been introduced in all European States. Due to different legal systems across Europe, the data currently collected is incomplete. A Just Culture must be implemented in all Member States to ensure open and complete safety reporting.

4.1.6   The EESC believes that a truly independent and appropriately resourced performance review body is required to monitor and assess the performance of the system reporting directly to the European Commission and include provision for an appeals process.

4.1.7   The EESC wishes to stress that the performance review body as well as the National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs) must be independent and separate from the organisations whose performance is assessed (in terms of governance, location and staff). This independence is integral to the credibility of the review process.

4.2   Safety/EASA

4.2.1   The EESC strongly supports the extension of EASA's scope to ATM and aerodrome safety regulation to ensure an integrated approach for safety in Europe. It is essential for the EU legislator not to delay the extension of EASA's scope. This is, in particular, essential to ensure a successful implementation of the SESAR master-plan, which will require a close integration of ground and airborne systems.

4.2.2   It is essential for EASA safety rules to be based on acceptable Regulatory Impact Assessment and for the EU institutions to ensure that adequate public funding is made available to ensure that EASA can build up the required expertise for those additional functions.

4.2.3   The EESC calls on the EU Member States to ensure that a roadmap is developed to phase out the Eurocontrol Safety Regulation (SRC/SRU) activities and to migrate them into EASA. Eurocontrol will have a key role to play during the transition to EASA, but once EASA has built up the competence there is no need to keep the resources at Eurocontrol and therefore a sunset clause needs to be set for all Eurocontrol SRU/SRC activities. In this context, the EESC would like to refer to the successful model used for JAA (FUJA report endorsed by all ECAC DGCAs) which could be extended to the Eurocontrol SRC/SRU functions as well.

4.2.4   The EESC believes that the achievement of Just Culture should be central to the aims of the package including the implementation of Safety Management Systems and incident reporting. The uniform implementation of Just Culture, as endorsed by the High Level Group, is a necessary pre-cursor to the availability of safety statistics. This will enable the proposed performance scheme to reliably monitor safety achievements and to set safety targets.

4.2.5   The EESC calls on the Council and the Parliament to reformulate Article 5 of the regulation on the provision of air navigation services, which is deleted in the Single European Sky II proposal, so as to permit an extension of the certification system to all staff in the safety chain and primarily ATSEP.

4.3   Just Culture, the human factor and staff competence

4.3.1   The EESC regrets that the proposed legislation does not have a fifth pillar relating to Just Culture, the human factor and staff competence. Air traffic management and air navigation services will long remain heavily dependent on the human factor. Thus this factor is closely tied in with maintaining and improving the level of air safety, and particular attention should therefore be paid to the competence of staff responsible for ensuring safety.

4.4   Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs)

4.4.1   The EESC strongly supports the need to introduce a binding date of the end of 2012 the latest for all Member States to implement Functional Airspace Blocks that meet specific performance targets, since the first SES package did not include a deadline for FABs which has resulted in no FAB being established.

4.4.2   In this context, it is essential for the Ministries of Transport and the Ministries of Defence to fully exploit the potential of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) through improved civil-military and military-military coordination in ATM and consolidation of ATM infrastructures and services.

The EESC supports the wider definition of FABs and the timetable for FAB development. The EESC feels it is important that measures are taken to address the hurdles at national level to FAB implementation including: sovereignty, liability and full integration of the military. Still bottom up approach as one of the principles of FAB implementation should be promoted.

4.4.3.1   With these issues in mind, the EESC is disappointed that the Commission has not followed through with the High Level Groups recommendations concerning a Aviation System Coordinator in order to support FAB development.

4.4.4   The EESC would like to stress that there is a clear need to reduce the number of service providers in European ATM if cost efficiency objectives are to be met. The number of Area Control Centres (ACCs) in Europe will need to be adapted strictly to the operational needs, irrespective of national borders, to make a cost effective Single European Sky.. The EESC would like to stress that there is a need to develop a system for enhanced cooperation between service providers if performance objectives are to be met.

4.4.5   Thanks to technology improvements, together with a reduction of the number of service providers and ACCs, an increase in productivity of the ATM system can be expected. Technological developments (e.g. remote work) and the fact that aviation in Europe is a growth industry, will mitigate much of the impact, including social factors.

4.4.6   Under SES regulation, ANSPs are required to have contingency plans in place for all the services they provide in the case of events which result in significant degradation or interruption of their services. At present all ANSPs duplicate their current ACCs infrastructure. The EESC stresses the importance for ANSPs to focus on solutions which are more efficient and cost effective by first looking for fall back options within existing national infrastructure (other ACCs or military facilities) and anticipate provisions in FAB developments for such contingencies.

4.4.7   The EESC stresses the importance of social dialogue at EU and FAB level when managing the transition.

4.5   Route Charges and Common Projects/SESAR

4.5.1   The EESC does acknowledge the existing difficulty in funding new technologies and incentive programmes. The lack of adequate funding mechanisms is a risk to the deployment of the first SESAR implementation package and the subsequent phases of SESAR deployment. The EESC therefore wish to stress the need for the EU institutions to provide bridge finance to support for SESAR implementation. This is important in order to overcome the transition costs to the new SESAR system. EESC has strongly supported the SESAR project from its very beginning.

4.5.2   The EESC does not support the use of charges to pre-finance common projects as proposed in amendment to article 15 of the service provision regulation which continues to include the concept of using route charges to fund common projects to ‘… assist specific categories of airspace users and/or air navigation service providers in order to improve collective air navigation infrastructures …’.

4.5.3   The EESC welcomes the new operational concepts as described in the SESAR ATM master-plan as the technical/operational complement to SES as a result of the SESAR definition phase. The EESC however would like to stress that a lot more work will be required during the next SESAR phase and the SESAR Joint Undertaking. The EESC therefore welcomes the Council decision to start SESAR's development phase. The EESC stresses the importance for the next SESAR phase to remain user driven and to deliver early benefits.

4.5.4   The EESC welcomes the proposal of the Commission to ban cross-subsidies between en-route and terminal ATM services. However, the EESC is disappointed that the Commission has not proposed a complete ban on cross-subsidy between air navigation services. Since cross-subsidy in general leads to a distortion in competition the problem is not limited to the case of cross-subsidy between en-route services and terminal services but also for those cases where cross-subsidy occurs between either one of these categories in particular between terminal services at different airports.

4.6   Airspace Regulation and Network Management Function

4.6.1   The EESC strongly supports the need for a strong European Network Management and Design in particular with regard to route design, the coordination and allocation of scarce resources (radio frequencies and transponder codes) and other network functions as defined in the ATM master plan. The EESC also would like to outline that the principle of ensuring clear separation between service provision and regulatory activities must apply to network management functions; the service provision functions should be managed by the industry.

4.6.2   It is essential that those functions are carried out at the European level independently from specific interest of individual ANS providers. In particular, the lack of a pan-European approach has led to non-optimised routings resulting in unnecessary fuel burn and avoidable environmental damage.

4.6.3   The EESC is unclear about the need for the implementing rules which shall include consistency between flight plans and airport slots and to necessary coordination with adjacent regions. If the Commission's aim is to stop abuse of current slot rules, which is supported by EESC, than this could be handled within the existing regulatory framework.

4.7   Reform of Eurocontrol

4.7.1   The EESC would like to emphasise the importance of reforming Eurocontrol in line with the text of the Communication (i.e.‘the internal reform of the organisation should align governance structures with the Single European Sky with a view to (i) complying with the requirements for network tasks; and (ii) reinforcing industry involvement in line with the common transport policy’).

4.7.2   The EESC feels that Eurocontrol could continue to deliver expertise to the EU but there is a need for greater transparency regarding its role and how it should be funded. Governmental tasks, in particular, should be funded from public funds. In particular long term research (2020+) should be fully funded through public funds rather than via the en-route charges.

4.7.3   The EESC feels that, wherever possible, Eurocontrol service provision tasks (e.g. Experimental Centre, Institute of Air Navigation Services) should be in competition with other services providers, managed according to market principles and not subsidised from the general Eurocontrol budget/en-route ATM charges.

4.8   The lack of airport capacity is a recognised risk to meeting future performance targets. The EESC welcomes the recognition of the importance of airport capacity and its inclusion as one of the four pillars of SES II and in particular the need to align airport capacity with ATM capacity.

4.9   Ancillary ATM services

4.9.1   While the necessity of providing ancillary ATM services at the highest professional level is out of question, it is important to realise, that their costs nowadays are meaningful. For example, the annual en-route MET costs total an excessive amount of around 300 m EUR.

4.9.2   The EESC requests an amendment to Article 18a, which would imply a long-term restructuring of the sector and opening of certain services to market principles. The EESC would not object to a study being carried out provided it is not explicitly aimed at opening these services to competition. The Committee points out that the overriding objective of this sphere of air traffic control is to ensure air safety.

The sense of urgency that exists among the relevant actors creates an environment that is favourable for the implementation of the changes.

4.10.1   A road map of further steps should be presented by the EC soon after the SES II approval.

4.10.2   A project management team should consist also of experienced change management experts. SES II is also about changing mindsets and culture. If successful, SES II will create sustainable air traffic solutions for the next generations.

---

(1)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.

(3)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 20.

(4)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 26.

(5)  Several neighbouring states have decided to enter the European Common Aviation Area to gain a stimulus for growth and employment.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/56

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services’

COM(2008) 580 final — 2008/0187(COD)

(2009/C 182/12)

Rapporteur-general: Mr HENCKS

On 6 November 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services

COM(2008) 580 final — 2008/0187 (COD).

On 21 October 2008, the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr HENCKS as a rapporteur-general at its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 15 January 2009), and adopted the following opinion by 132 votes to 1.

1.   Conclusions

1.1   The stated aim of Regulation (EC)717/2007, which was to ensure that roaming users of mobile services should not pay an excessive price when making or receiving calls has, broadly speaking, been achieved: 400 million consumers now benefit from a Eurotariff.

1.2   However, according to the Commission, the development of prices for Community-wide voice roaming services since the entry into force of the above-mentioned Regulation does not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that competition at the retail or wholesale levels is likely to be sustainable from 2010 onwards in the absence of regulatory measures; prices at wholesale and retail level do not vary sufficiently below the maximum levels set by the Regulation to provide evidence of healthy competition.

1.3   Therefore, so that consumers continue to benefit from the assurance that they will not be charged an excessive price when making or receiving a regulated roaming call, the Commission's main proposals are:

—	to extend Regulation 717/2007 until 30 June 2013;

—	to continue to lower, during the extended period, the maximum call price per minute by EUR 0.03 per year;

—	to set maximum roaming prices for SMS (wholesale and retail) and for data transmission (wholesale).

1.4   The EESC welcomes the new reductions in maximum prices for roaming voice calls which it considers proportionate and appropriate.

1.5   It also approves the introduction of a maximum Eurotariff for retail SMS messages and the introduction of a cap on wholesale prices.

1.6   With respect to roaming data transmission services, the EESC regrets that the proposal to reduce prices only applies to wholesale data services, although retail prices are also excessive due to the lack of sufficient competitive pressure.

1.7   Lastly, the EESC believes that it is absolutely vital to strengthen consumers’ right to information so as to offer them better protection and more transparency with regard to prices.

2.   Background

2.1   The European Council of 23 and 24 March 2006 concluded that focused, effective and integrated information and communication technology policies at both European and national level were essential to achieving the Lisbon Strategy's goals of economic growth and productivity and, in this context, noted the importance for competitiveness of reducing roaming charges.

2.2   The Commission had on many previous occasions expressed concern about the excessive retail prices paid by users of public mobile communication networks when using their mobile telephone in another country within the Community (Community roaming charges), due to a high level of wholesale charges levied by the operator of the foreign host network and, in many cases, high mark-ups on the retail price charged by the subscriber's network operator.

2.3   The 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications did not provide the national regulatory authorities with adequate means of taking effective measures to tackle excessive Community roaming charges.

2.4   In these circumstances, the European Union, on the basis of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, took action in the market by means of a regulation (1), setting, for the period from 1.9.2007 to 30.9.2010:

—	a ceiling on the wholesale price per minute;

—	a maximum ‘Eurotariff’ for the retail market

that may be levied by mobile operators for the provision of international roaming services for voice calls originating and terminating within the Community.

2.5   In its opinion on the subject (2), the EESC welcomed the measure and considered that the EU's action was necessary and proportionate, and raised the level of consumer protection by effectively extending their right to access to information through its transparency measures, and defending their economic interests by introducing a mechanism applying maximum price limits for the provision of roaming services for voice calls between Member States.

2.6   In its position, the European Parliament agreed that the common approach should be established for a limited time period, but called for it to be able to be extended or amended in the light of a review to be carried out by the Commission by 3 December 2008, which was also to examine the impact of the Regulation on the smaller mobile telephony providers in the Community and their position in the Community-wide roaming market.

2.7   In view of the fact that, in addition to voice telephony, new mobile data communication services are gaining ever more ground, the European Parliament called on the Commission to monitor market developments in roaming data communication services, including SMS (short message service) and MMS (multimedia messaging service) in the Community.

3.   The Commission proposal

3.1   The proposed regulation under consideration is based on a communication (3) on the review of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 and on two Commission working documents (4).

3.2   These documents state that prices for voice roaming calls at wholesale and retail level do not vary sufficiently below the maximum levels set by Regulation 717/2007 to provide evidence of healthy competition.

3.3   SMS and data roaming services represent 12,3 % and 8,6 % respectively of roaming revenue. SMS roaming prices have, generally speaking, varied little over the last year, despite the political pressure put on operators to encourage them to lower prices, thus avoiding official regulation.

3.4   Consequently, since Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 has not led to healthy competition and since wavelengths are a limited resource and it is therefore impossible to relaunch competition by increasing the number of alternative operators, the Commission has been obliged to make the following proposals:

—	to extend the current regulation beyond 30 June 2010 for a further period of three years;

—	to set new maximum limits on the charges mobile operators may levy for roaming voice calls during the extended period of validity;

—	to clarify the requirements regarding per second billing;

—	to bring forward the date provided for the decrease in the price limits for roaming voice calls from 30 August 2009 to 1 July 2009;

—	to extend the scope of Regulation 717/2007 to cover intra-Community roaming SMS services;

—	to set a maximum limit on wholesale data roaming charges and to introduce transparency and safeguard mechanisms;

—	to promote price transparency.

4.   Specific comments

4.1   In its opinion on Regulation 717/2007, the EESC strongly supported the Commission's aim to achieve a reduction in roaming charges of up to 70 %, which would save the consumer around EUR 5 billion.

4.2   Its proposal for further lowering the maximum prices set out below will lead to this aim being exceeded with regard to incoming calls (down 76 %), whereas the total fall for outgoing calls will be 55,8 %.

EUR/min excluding VAT	Wholesale price	Diff. %	Retail price MOC  (5)	Diff. %	Retail price MTC  (6)	Diff. %
average price before 1.9.2007			0,7692		0,417
Regulation No 717/2007
maximum price 1.9.2007-31.8.2008	0,30		0,49		0,24
maximum price 1.9.2008-30.6.2009 (7)	0,28	6,67	0,46	6,12	0,22	8,33
maximum price 1.7.2009 (7)-30.6.2010	0,26	7,14	0,43	6,52	0,19	13,64
Proposed regulation COM(2008)580
maximum price 1.7.2010-30.6.2011	0,23	11,54	0,40	6,98	0,16	15,79
max. price 1.7.2011-30.6.2012	0,20	13,04	0,37	7,50	0,13	18,75
max. price 1.7.2012-30.6.2013	0,17	15,00	0,34	8,11	0,10	23,75
total fall			0,4292	55,79	0,317	76,01

4.3   The EESC supports the new measures and congratulates the Commission on its necessary and proportionate initiative which also strengthens consumers’ right to information with a view to offering them better protection and more transparency with regard to prices.

4.4   The EESC observes with satisfaction that according to the information provided by the Commission, the price cuts introduced by Regulation 717/2007 have not led to any reductions in jobs or a worsening of working conditions in the sector.

4.5   In its analysis documents, the Commission distinguishes between pay-as-you-go and pay monthly payment schemes for voice and SMS services. However, this difference is not taken into account in the pricing structure set or proposed by the Commission, whereas the economic added value for operators varies substantially between these two categories.

4.6   Moreover, the EESC considers that the European Parliament's call for the impact on smaller mobile communications providers in the Community and their position in the Community-wide roaming market to be assessed is dealt with only vaguely.

4.7   In its opinion on Regulation 717/2007, the EESC expressed its concern that the implementation of the regulation might lead to an adjustment in domestic mobile charges, whereby certain operators, under specific circumstances, attempt to recover costs by increasing their gains from other services.

4.8   The Commission states that, since the entry into force of the first mandatory maximum prices, it has not noticed any increase in domestic pricing that could specifically be attributed to Regulation 717/2007. However, some operators have introduced considerable increases in roaming charges to or from non-EU countries, which fall outside the remit of the Commission and national regulatory bodies.

4.9   With regard to billing for the length of calls, although the maximum retail charges set by the Regulation are expressed as per-minute prices, the Commission's preferred solution was to allow operators to charge a maximum set-up fee equivalent to the initial 30 seconds of a roaming call made, followed by per second billing.

4.10   However, many operators continued their old practices, or even changed their price structure, billing in units of more than 30 and up to 60 seconds. It was noted that the billed duration of outgoing calls was on average 24 % higher than the actual duration of those calls.

4.11   The Commission's new proposal imposes, from 1 July 2009, per second billing for all regulated roaming calls, whether made or received, but with the possibility of an initial minimum charging period not exceeding 30 seconds. This 30-second charging period is justified by the fact that any call, however short, brings significant technical resources into play.

4.12   However, this derogation from the general rule of per-second billing applies only to outgoing calls, whilst incoming calls also require substantial technical resources.

4.13   The Commission proposal brings forward the date provided for the decrease in the maximum price limits for roaming voice calls at both wholesale and retail levels from 30 August to 1 July 2009 so that users can benefit from the new prices during the period in which demand is highest. This presupposes that the regulation under consideration enters into force quickly.

4.14   The proposal under consideration introduces, with effect from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2013, a maximum Euro-SMS tariff that must not exceed EUR 0,11, and a maximum wholesale price of EUR 0,04.

4.15   With regard to data roaming services, the Commission proposal does not, at this stage, propose any retail price regulation, but sets a maximum average wholesale price of EUR 1/MB from 1.7.2009. However, in the recitals to the Regulation under consideration, the Commission notes that the high level of retail prices for data roaming services and the fact that competition in these services is still not sufficient remain a concern, particularly since, in its view, there is still room for improvement as far as price transparency is concerned.

4.16   In these circumstances, the EESC has considerable doubts as to whether the use of alternative means of accessing data services, such as public wireless Internet access, can provide the necessary competitive pressure. The EESC would have preferred the Commission to take immediate action to address prices in this market as well.

4.17   The proposal also provides for the introduction of a mechanism that will allow for connections to be cut if a data bill hits a threshold to be determined freely by the customer, and an automated warning message as this threshold approaches.

4.18   Such a measure, as useful as it may be, raises significant technical problems and risks leaving customers high and dry if they are not able to take a simple step that allows them to exceed the threshold that they themselves have set. Moreover, it is not exactly in line with the desire for transparency and for gearing tariffs to costs. The EESC regrets that these issues were not dealt with in the relevant impact assessment.

4.19   The Commission's proposal also aims to promote price transparency. For this purpose, it extends the obligation on mobile providers to give their roaming customers personalised price information when entering another Member State, to include information on the cost of roaming SMS and data services.

4.20   The EESC supports this measure, on the understanding that it is vital to avoid a situation where multiple information messages are sent each time a border is crossed and that, in addition, care must be taken to ensure that the information on prices is clear and comprehensible and allows comparisons with alternative offers.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC.

(2)  Rapporteur Mr Hernández Bataller, OJ C 324, 30.12.2006, p. 42.

(3)  COM(2008) 579 final.

(4)  SEC(2008)2489 and SEC (2008)2490.

(5)  MOC = mobile originating call/outgoing call.

(6)  MTC = mobile terminal call/incoming call.

(7)  The Commission proposes to bring forward by two months the date that was initially fixed at 30 August 2009.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/60

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the theme ‘Facing the oil challenges’

(2009/C 182/13)

Rapporteur-General: Mr OSBORN

On 21 November 2008 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the theme

Facing the oil challenges.

On 12 November 2008 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr OSBORN as rapporteur-general at its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), and adopted the following opinion by 140 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions.

1.   Summary and Conclusions

1.1   The two critical factors which will shape the future of the oil industry over the next decades are:

—	The acceleration of climate change, largely driven by the increasing emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

—	The finite global supply of reserves, and the gradually growing technical and political difficulties of obtaining secure and easy access to the reserves that remain.

1.2   The interaction of these two factors is currently leading the world into a more and more unstable position as increasing carbon emissions cause climate change to accelerate, and as the increasing consumption of oil brings us closer to the point at which supply constraints may lead to critical shortages and economic disruption.

1.3   The only successful way out of the climate change crisis will be for the global economy to manage a rapid transformation of its energy base away from its current excessive dependence on the burning of fossil fuels. For oil global demand needs to stop growing within a few years and then to decline steadily to much lower levels by the mid-century. This challenge is particularly pressing for Europe because it is so dependent on oil imports.

1.4   New sources of oil are becoming scarcer, and often have political and environmental problems attached to them. The world in general (and Europe in particular) will be better off and more secure if dependence on oil can be reduced.

1.5   European demand should be reduced by at least 50 % by 2050 and probably much more.

1.6   The market cannot achieve the necessary transformation away from oil by itself.

1.7   Fiscal measures to push up the price of oil (1) (and other fossil fuels) relative to other sources of energy through carbon or petroleum taxes or trading carbon permits have an important part to play, and should be developed further. But other measures will also be needed, differentiated by sector.

1.8   The European Union's emission trading system should be developed in such a way that a floor price for carbon is established to give greater certainty to the market. The floor price shall then be driven steadily upwards over the next three decades so as to provide a steadily increasing market pressure on operators of all kinds to diversify away from fossil fuels.

1.9   In the transport sector the key changes needed are:

—	Planning cities, towns and other settlements so as to reduce journey lengths and times where possible.

—	Continuous improvement in the energy efficiency and carbon performance of planes, ships, trains and road vehicles of all kinds.

—	Favouring — rail rather than air flights; — public transport rather than private transport; — electric or hydrogen powered vehicles rather than internal combustion; — cycling and walking wherever possible.

1.10   In homes and other buildings the use of oil (and other fossil fuels) for heating, cooling and cooking will have to be progressively replaced by electricity from green sources.

1.11   In power generation renewable sources need to be expanded as fast as possible. Fossil fuels will however inevitably remain the major fuel for power generation for many years to come, and it is therefore vital to develop and install carbon capture and storage technology as rapidly as possible. The use of oil as a fuel for power generation should dwindle, but where it is still used carbon capture technology should be applied as with coal.

1.12   A new generation of nuclear power plants may have a part to play in some countries in easing the transition to a low carbon economy. But investment in this sector must not be allowed to divert resources and political attention from the development of renewable energy sources.

1.13   The European Union and its Member States have taken an early lead in shifting policies in the right direction on all these issues, but they still need to go further and faster. They also need to seek similar commitments from other developed countries, and devote major financial resources to promoting comparable efforts in developing countries.

1.14   Civil society needs to be involved much more extensively and systematically in the process of spreading awareness and acceptance of the changes needed, particularly those that will affect lifestyles and behaviour.

1.15   The global oil industry faces a dual challenge for the future:

—	to help the world to adjust to a situations of steadily lessening dependence on oil;

—	to apply its enormous resources of knowledge, expertise, and financial power to become (or to help others to become) the pioneers of the new non fossil fuel technologies.

2.   Carbon Emissions and Climate Change

2.1   The risk of devastating climate change driven by growing emissions of Greenhouse Gases is one of the greatest challenges facing the world in the 21st century.

2.2   The IPCC have established that if the global temperature increase caused by GHG emissions is to be kept to no more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels CO2 emissions will need to cease growing within 5-10 years and to decline steadily by something between 50 and 85 % from 2000 levels by 2050.

2.3   This will require a radical transformation of current patterns of consumption and production throughout the world — on the scale of a new industrial revolution. Reductions in the level of emissions from oil-burning must play their part in the overall carbon reduction. It would be helpful to establish a generally agreed trajectory or benchmark for the progressive reduction of global demand for oil over the next four decades, and within that a specific trajectory for Europe. European oil consumption needs to reduce by at least 50 % by 2050 and probably considerably more.

2.4   At present the trajectory of global consumption of oil is still rising from year to year, now principally driven by the rapid expansion of demand in the emerging economies. Although demand in Europe is now nearer to stabilising we have not yet got onto the downward trajectory that will be needed.

2.5   The kind of measures that Europe is now putting in place in the energy package are a start, but in the Committee's view the Commission will need to bring forward a second package soon to achieve the right level of reductions.

2.6   Europe only accounts for less than 20 % of global demand for oil. It will be equally important to secure similar commitments to reduce demand from the other developed countries and from the emerging economies in the current Climate Change negotiations.

3.   Supply of Oil

3.1   The world's resources of oil are finite and cannot last forever. New sources of oil supply in the world are still being discovered, but the new finds tend to be smaller and more difficult to develop, and are sometimes in politically unstable or unfriendly parts of the world. They may be more expensive to develop.

3.2   Some of the new sources are located in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic. Others, such as the Canadian tar sands, will be more difficult to operate, and the extraction process will itself produce larger CO2 emissions. It would be desirable to avoid using such sources if possible, or at least to postpone using them until better environmental and carbon capture safeguards can be put in place.

3.3   Europe faces particular problems in relation to oil supplies. Sources of oil within Europe are becoming depleted, and Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on imports which now account for over 80 % of supply.

3.4   In the future Europe's position could become more difficult. Oil supplies could become less readily available, or only at much higher prices. Volatility of supply and of prices could also become more frequent.

3.5   This potential supply side problem adds extra weight to the importance of making rapid progress in Europe to reduce our dependency on oil. The more rapidly we can reduce overall demand and diversify to other more readily available sources of energy the greater our independence and security will be, and the more strongly we will be able to press others to play their part in restraining demand in order to combat climate change.

4.   What needs to be done? — Diversifying away from oil

4.1   Oil is principally used in the transport sector, but with significant proportions in domestic heating and cooking, in heating and cooling other buildings, in power generation and as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry. In all these sectors it will be necessary to reduce or eliminate reliance on oil as quickly as possible.

4.2   The transport sector — Three changes are needed

—	Planning cities, towns and other settlements so as to reduce journey lengths and times where possible.

—	Continuous improvement in the energy efficiency and carbon performance of planes, ships, trains and road vehicles of all kinds.

—	Favouring — rail rather than air flights; — public transport rather than private transport; — electric or hydrogen powered vehicles rather than internal combustion; — cycling and walking wherever possible.

4.3   Aviation may have to remain a privileged user of oil at least for the next two or three decades for essential uses. But it should make the maximum possible efficiency improvements, and expansion of high speed rail services should be preferred to air transport wherever possible. Further expansion of air transport and airports should also be discouraged.

4.4   In relation to shipping efficiency improvements should be sought continually, and innovative ideas such as adding supplementary wind power to reduce fuel consumption should be actively encouraged.

4.5   Household consumption of oil

Direct burning of fossil fuels in fires, boilers or cooking will need to be phased out, and electricity (increasingly drawing on locally based renewable generation as well as the grid) or sustainable grown wood will have to become the standard household fuel. A timetable for this transition needs to be established.

4.6   Oil in the business sector

A similar transition will be needed in the industrial and business sector of the economy for all general heating and other purposes. Where industrial processes currently rely on the use of fossil fuels as a feedstock sector by sector analysis will be needed to identify how far carbon emissions from such processes can be captured and stored or where such uses can be substituted by non fossil fuel processes.

4.7   Power generation

In power generation there will need to be a great effort to expand renewables of all kinds as rapidly as possible. The targets Europe has set are a good beginning but more needs to be done to carry the different technologies into the market place at affordable prices.

4.8   Coal (and to a lesser extent other fossil fuels) will remain an important fuel for power for power generation for several decades ahead. Carbon capture and storage should be developed as soon as possible. It should then be mandated for any remaining oil-fuelled power stations as well.

4.9   A new generation of nuclear power plants may also have some part to play. But nuclear power technology has its own sustainability problems, and must not be allowed to divert investment resources and political attention from the major expansion of renewables and energy efficiency that are the primary goal of the transition.

4.10   To assist all parties concerned to plan for these changes it would be useful to establish indicative pathways for the levels of savings to be achieved in each sub sector that uses oil, and the likely timetables for these transitions both at global and at regional level.

5.   What Needs to be Done? Policy Measures to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to encourage diversification of energy supply

5.1   Many of the measures needed to encourage and promote the transformations are already well-known. The set of measures contained in the Commission's recent energy package covers many of the points and should provide a good starting point for further development. Everywhere in the world, including Europe, the range of measures needs to be extended and to be applied more vigorously and urgently.

5.2   Fiscal Measures to put a proper price on carbon emissions

Fossil fuels should bear the full cost of the burden that the emission of carbon dioxide is imposing on the world. This requires either taxation of products causing carbon dioxide emissions (such as gasoline), or a system for rationing and trading permits to release carbon dioxide, or both.

5.3   The European Union's carbon trading system needs to be pushed ahead vigorously so that it establishes a clear and stable market signal in favour of reducing fossil fuel consumption and diversifying to other fuels. Anomalies need to be fixed, and exemptions reduced. Above all the system needs to be extended to the rest of the developed world, and as soon as practicable to the emerging economies as well. This should be a key objective in the context of the international Climate Change negotiations.

5.4   It might be desirable to develop the system in such a way that a floor price for carbon is established to give greater certainty to the market. The floor price might then be driven steadily upwards over the next three decades so as to provide a steadily increasing market pressure on operators of all kinds to diversify away from fossil fuels.

5.5   Regulatory Measures

Fiscal measures are not sufficient by themselves to drive the necessary transition away from oil. Demand is too inelastic, and there are political constraints on driving up the prices of oil products too rapidly. There needs to be a comprehensive programme of regulatory measures to drive up standards and drive out inefficient processes and products. There also needs to be support for the research, development and introduction of the new technologies needed.

5.6   For efficiency there needs to be a comprehensive and urgent programme to drive up the energy efficiency standards of all energy-consuming products and services. Europe still has further to go, both in setting the standards and in ensuring that they are complied with. The heating and cooling of buildings for example is still massively inefficient and needs a vigorous programme of action to secure rapid improvement.

5.7   Standards for improving the carbon emissions from vehicles are particularly important. The EESC welcomes the new standards now agreed but urges the early establishment of even more stringent standards for future years so as to establish a firm planning framework for the motor industry to adjust to. The next step now urgently needed is to establish a similar tight programme for the progressive improvement of emissions from vans and from heavier goods vehicles. Again action within Europe needs to be matched by comparable efforts in other parts of the world.

5.8   Research, development and financial support

Some of the new technologies needed are still at the development stage and will need significant support and encouragement from the public sector to secure their early introduction and wide deployment. Carbon capture and storage, further development of renewables, third and forth generation renewables, electric (or hydrogen) powered vehicles and the infrastructure they will need are all in this category and all require major public support to get them well-launched in the world as soon as possible.

5.9   Major investment in the rail sector is needed to spread electrification, and make rail travel the preferred alternative to air flight for most short haul routes in Europe and in other parts of the world.

5.10   Involving Civil Society

Much more needs to be done to bring the general public, business, trade unions and other civil society organisations into partnership and participation in the common effort.

—

Citizens need to be encouraged and incentivised to play their part through such means as improving the efficiency of their homes and cars, using greener forms of energy for lighting and heating, purchasing more energy efficient goods and services, and reducing the carbon impact of their regular travelling and their holidays. In our view there is already a growing proportion of the public and of civil society organisations that would be ready and willing to take action if only they could be given a strong and effective political lead as to what is expected of them, along with appropriate incentives for action.

—	Many local and regional government bodies have already shown vision and courageous political leadership on this issue. They need to be encouraged and incentivised to go further.

—

Businesses similarly need to be incentivised to make further progress. They need to be urged and incentivised to continuously improve the energy efficiency of their operations and to obtain their energy from low carbon sources. Regulation should be used more systematically and vigorously to drive up the energy performance of all types of products and services.

—

Trade unions have an important part to play as well. Many of their members are in the front line in delivering energy efficiency improvements and disseminating practical information and their potential contribution needs to be recognised and encouraged. Properly managed, the new forms of production should provide just as many employment opportunities as the older carbon intensive modes of production, while maintaining good working conditions.

5.11   All of these measures will need to be adopted and pursued vigorously within Europe in order to reduce demand for fossil fuels generally, and particularly for oil. They will also need to be promoted with other partners in the developed world, and increasingly in the emerging and developing economies.

5.12   The emerging economies and the developing world may themselves become innovators and pioneers of the low carbon economy, and this should be actively encouraged, Trade policies should never be used to protect older less carbon efficient industries anywhere in the world.

6.   Adaptation in the Oil and Gas Industry

6.1   While the world economy continues to be dependent on oil the oil industry must clearly work to supply that need. Nevertheless continuing with business as usual would not be an adequate response by the oil industry. There are a number of areas where the oil industry of the world can and should be expected to assist with the transition to a lower carbon economy:

—	Recognise the necessity of the transition of the global economy to a declining usage of fossil oil over the decades ahead, and think, plan and behave accordingly.

—	Continue to improve the oil industry's own carbon performance in its own operations.

—	Substitute biomass or other carbon neutral resources for the use of fossil fuels in its products where feasible and sustainable.

—	Use the oil industry's massive resources of skills and financial power to help other aspects of the transition, and the earliest possible development and deployment of carbon capture and storage.

—	Work closely with the automobile industry to help accelerate the transition to low or zero carbon vehicles.

6.2   For its part the European Union, member states and other governments should maintain intensive dialogue with the global oil industry to try to develop a common understanding of the trajectory for declining oil usage that needs to be established, and to provide appropriate incentives to encourage (or if necessary compel) the industry to move in these five key directions.

6.3   On investment the EESC would like to see the industry devoting more effort to helping in the transition to a world of lower demand for oil in the future, and less to developing more marginal sources of oil, particularly when these are themselves going to cause severe environmental damage.

6.4   The EESC believes that there is some scope for biofuels development (and particularly for greater use of biomass) but that sustainability criteria need to be applied and may limit the scope for expanding this technology. The pyrolysis of biomass to produce biochar that can be applied to soil as a soil improvement, thereby making the soil a carbon sink, looks promising. In the transport sector electricity or hydrogen appear to be more promising as long term solutions. Intensive discussions with the relevant industry sectors should continue to try to establish optimum pathways for these transitions.

6.5   As the price of oil has increased the industry already has a strong financial incentive to improve the efficiency of extraction and refining and to minimise transport costs. The Fuel Quality Directive will provide a further useful incentive in this direction as well as incentivising the introduction of biofuels.

6.6   Taxation of oil products already produces major income for Governments, and this may increase further when carbon permits are auctioned more extensively. Part of these proceeds should be directed to supporting the development of the new energy technologies that are needed. Incentivising the oil industry itself to play a larger part in the transition to the low carbon economy by offering them tax concessions or capital allowances in respect of the necessary investments might also be considered.

---

(1)  The EESC discusses the topic of oil prices in further detail in its forthcoming opinion EESC 348/2008 Facing the challenge of higher oil prices, the EESC's response to the Communication ‘Facing the challenge of higher oil prices’.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/65

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Renewed social agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe’

COM(2008) 412 final

(2009/C 182/14)

Rapporteur: Ms REGNER

Co-rapporteur: Mr PEZZINI

On 2 July 2008 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Renewed social agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe

COM(2008) 412 final.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 December 2008. The rapporteur was Ms REGNER, the co-rapporteur was Mr PEZZINI.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 162 votes to 21, with 25 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The EESC welcomes the Commission communication on a renewed social agenda and, in the context of other ongoing social initiatives, considers it to be a right step towards modernisation of the European welfare state, focusing on empowering individuals to realise their potential and giving the European Union more of a social face.

1.2   In the light of the major global economic and financial crisis, it is all the more important for the European Union to promote a strong social and competitive Europe. The Committee therefore strongly advocates a genuine social policy action programme that goes beyond a renewed social agenda.

1.3   The Commission communication mainly focuses on reacting to new circumstances. In particular, it is about the adaptation of social policy to the changes in society, but most of all to changes in the economy and the labour market. Europe urgently needs modern labour market policies and strong, sustainable and employment-friendly social systems.

1.4   The EESC notes the Commission's reticence about further developing minimum standards in employment rights. In the past, these were the backbone of European social policy and of improving living and working conditions, and should, where necessary and appropriate, remain part of any social agenda in the future.

1.5   The EESC considers that social dialogue remains one of the most important pillars of the European social model — at both national and European level. The social partners play a key role concerning all issues of social change and should therefore be involved in the drafting, implementation and monitoring of all measures under the renewed social agenda. Civil dialogue will in future be another supporting pillar.

1.6   The Open Method of Coordination should be strengthened, in particular through the increased use of quantitative and qualitative targets. The EESC also recommends greater involvement of the European Parliament in this, as well as a requirement to take account of social goals and/or guidelines in the context of public procurement.

1.7   The EESC considers that — in close cooperation with the social partners — the EU should support Member States in adapting, harmonising and monitoring the common flexicurity principles. The EESC therefore calls for a stronger link between the flexicurity debate and the expansion of social dialogue at all levels and collective bargaining at the various levels.

1.8   Community actions to promote equal treatment, to support people with disabilities, to combat social exclusion, and to promote active inclusion should, in the Committee's view, be complemented with stronger policy measures aimed at the employment of older people, disadvantaged sections of the population and the unemployed. Combating poverty must also be a priority.

1.9   The EESC considers it necessary to respond appropriately to the current ECJ rulings in connection with the posting of workers and trade union activities. The discussion forum convened by the Commission is a first step. In particular, various alternatives should be suggested for resolving the tension between the freedoms of the internal market on the one hand and fundamental rights on the other. Where necessary and appropriate, suitable concrete measures to protect workers should be adopted as soon as possible, in which it is made clear that neither economic freedoms nor competition rules take precedence over fundamental social rights.

1.10   Given the fears in many parts of the European population that access to high-quality healthcare will no longer be guaranteed for many in 20 years' time (1), appropriate, clear and transparent goals should be developed and pursued with appropriate monitoring and publicity.

1.11   As well as providing new opportunities and increasing economic growth and competitiveness, migration also has its dark sides. In future, the Commission should also deal with these negative aspects and come up with ways of mitigating them.

1.12   The EESC agrees with the Commission that the application and implementation of existing laws is very important. Mere appeals to the Member States are not sufficient in this context, particularly as regards the directive on the posting of workers. In this context, a high priority must be given to putting in place effective measures for the enforcement of cross-border matters. The Committee also welcomes the Commission's call upon all Member States to set an example by ratifying and implementing the ILO Conventions classified by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as up to date.

2.   The Commission’s proposal

2.1   On 2 July 2008 the European Commission published a communication on a renewed social agenda (2). In that communication, it notes that new social realities require new solutions. It goes on to say that the pace of change is fast, and that policies must keep pace with this and respond innovatively and flexibly to the challenges of globalisation, technological progress and demographic change.

2.2   The Commission explains that the scope for action is very broad and that it is therefore appropriate to set priorities. The agenda therefore focuses on a number of key areas where EU action demonstrates clear added value and full respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

—	Children and Youth — tomorrow's Europe

—	Investing in People, More and Better Jobs, New Skills

—

Mobility

—	Longer and healthier lives

—	Combating poverty and social exclusion

—	Fighting discrimination

—	Opportunities, Access and Solidarity on the Global Scene.

2.3   Actions in each of these areas contribute to the agenda's three goals of opportunities, access and solidarity.

2.4   According to the Commission, the Social Reality Stocktaking has confirmed that citizens and stakeholders expect the EU to bring European added value to social development.

2.5   The Commission intends to continue use the instruments in the EC Treaty (legislation, social dialogue, the Community method, the Open Method of Coordination, EU funding, involvement of civil society) and by exploiting the scope for synergies between them in a comprehensive approach and a ‘smarter mix’ of policy tools. The coordination and surveillance of economic and budgetary policies also play an important role in this respect.

3.   General comments:

3.1   In the renewed social agenda, the Commission states that EU policies already have a strong social dimension and positive social impact. The EESC certainly agrees that the EU should have a strong social dimension and positive social impact, especially at a time of financial crisis affecting the proverbial global village. This financial crisis is leading to an economic crisis, and there are signs of recession in the economies of the EU Member States. This in turn means difficulties for businesses and hard times for workers and for society as a whole. Despite that fact that social policy is largely a matter for the governments of Member States, the Committee welcomes the initiatives that the Commission has taken since 2007 with the Social Reality Stocktaking and now with the publication of the renewed social agenda. The EESC believes that a common strategy will help to alleviate fears about future prosperity. However, a much stronger social message needs to be directed to the European public.

3.2   It is also considered fundamentally positive that the agenda is not limited to the traditional areas of social policy, but also covers other areas such as education, health and intercultural dialogue.

3.3   However, a ‘traditional’ Community approach — albeit renewed and extended to other areas — is not, in the Committee's view, sufficient in the present circumstances. However, the issue of the fundamental direction of macroeconomic policy must not be excluded, lest key aspects of decision-making continue to be left with no social dimension to speak of.

3.4   The Committee takes the view that a genuine social action programme should be one expression of Europe's social dimension. A renewed social agenda alone is not sufficient. The action programme should be based upon positive cooperation between the Member States, not on a competitive ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of social rights, social protection and working conditions (3). It must concentrate on those aspects that bring results in terms of improved living and working conditions, strengthening social security systems whilst ensuring that they are sustainable and promote employment, greater competitiveness, an enhanced ability of businesses and workers to adapt, and more and better jobs.

3.5   Firm action is needed on social objectives. A reactive position, taking the view that it is the job of social policy to respond to changes and to adapt people to the new requirements of the economy, does not go far enough. People and investment in people must be at the centre, improving living and working conditions must be the aim, and clear, effective and binding instruments must form the backbone of any European social policy.

3.6   Particularly in the light of the current crisis, we must not lose sight of the fact that the whole of society shares responsibility for the welfare of the individual. In particular, this includes a fair distribution of income, sufficient employment opportunities in competitive businesses, social protection against risks such as illness, invalidity, unemployment, old age, support for families, educational opportunities for all, protection from poverty and high-quality, affordable services of general interest.

3.7   There is no conflict between a dynamic economy and social progress; rather, they are mutually conducive. A social market economy combines competitiveness with social justice. It is important that social affairs, the economy and the environment be given equal weight.

4.   Objectives and priorities

4.1   The EESC considers that — in close cooperation with the social partners — it is sensible and necessary that the EU should support Member States in adapting, harmonising and monitoring the common flexicurity principles. The main priority should be to help people and to improve their living and working conditions. Particular attention should be paid to social aspects. The Commission and the Member States should make every effort to link the discussions on possible reforms to a strengthening and modernisation of employment relationships at every level. The EESC therefore calls for a stronger link between the flexicurity debate and the expansion of social dialogue at all levels and collective bargaining at the various levels. The concept of flexicurity should ensure the balanced promotion of both flexibility and security. The idea of flexicurity is not to bring about a one-sided, unjustified erosion of workers' rights; the EESC rejects this (4).

4.2   Young job seekers in particular face significant difficulties in access to employment. The ‘work experience generation’ is often welcomed into the labour market with atypical forms of work which in some cases could lead to precarious employment arrangements (5). Measures for active integration and support for lifelong learning are to be explicitly welcomed. Quality and secure jobs are closely linked with a good, broad education. However, beyond this, the European Union and the Member States in particular must develop a policy mix that better matches skills and qualifications on the one hand with the needs of businesses on the other. The aim should be higher employability of school leavers and graduates. A better environment for businesses, enabling them to create high-quality jobs, should also be created. In addition, steps should be taken to avoid precarious employment. On the eve of the evaluation of the European Youth Pact (2005), it is high time to take action.

4.3   A Community initiative to promote high-quality jobs for young people would also be useful. The aim of this should be to ensure, with the active support of the social partners, that university and school leavers' quality and achievements are appreciated. To achieve this, a new contact point should be set up under the JASMINE microcredits (6) scheme.

4.4   The EESC considers the promotion of entrepreneurial activity, entrepreneurship training and the support for financial education in the EU to be important. Entrepreneurship in its broadest sense, which can stimulate and encourage innovative and creative mindsets, should be highlighted in the Lisbon Agenda as one of the key tools to generate more growth and better jobs as well as to achieve social cohesion and combat social exclusion (7).

4.5   Under the Employment Strategy and the Open Method of Coordination, much more ambitious, effective and measurable goals should be set, with more enforcement powers for the Commission. The focus should once again be on quantitative European targets, in particular in the fields of activation, education and life-long learning, youth employment, access to high-quality healthcare and gender equality (8).

4.6   When supporting lifelong learning, the educational policy paradox — i.e. the fact that less qualified people are at a disadvantage when it comes to further training — should receive particular attention.

4.7   Combating long-term and youth unemployment, promoting gender equality and a higher employment rate among women, strengthening the Community programme for employment and social solidarity — Progress 2007-2013 (9) — particularly with the aim of increasing the capacity of the Union's most important networks for promoting and supporting Community policies and introducing progressive instruments for assessing needs and prospects, using a participatory bottom-up approach.

4.8   The environment for social dialogue must be improved. In this context, the Committee notes that the optional framework for transnational collective bargaining under the Agenda 2005 (10) social policy agenda has yet to be set up.

4.9   The EESC agrees with the Commission that it is important that there be a rapid and positive political agreement on the proposals for directives on working time (11) and on temporary agency work (12), To that extent, the EESC welcomes the adoption of the directive on temporary workers by the Council.

4.10   Several recent rulings of the European Court of Justice (Laval (13), Viking (14) and Rüffert (15) cases) have clearly shown up the tension between the rights relating to the single market on the one hand and fundamental rights — particularly union rights — on the other, and have raised fundamental questions. Appropriate action is therefore needed. The discussion forum convened by the Commission is a first step. The Commission should now carry out a thorough assessment of the internal market on workers' rights and collective bargaining. Where necessary and appropriate, suitable concrete measures to protect workers should be adopted as soon as possible in which it is made clear that neither economic freedoms nor competition rules take precedence over fundamental social rights.

4.11   The mobility of people is a rich source of opportunities and helps to boost economic growth and competitiveness. The Committee considers that, alongside these positive aspects, the negative aspects of mobility should be looked at, particularly in connection with large waves of migration. In particular, one thinks of the social impact, such as the social and family situation of migrants and their families, social dumping (particularly in connection with illegal employment), the welfare of migrants, and possible effects on the labour market. Furthermore, the medium and long term impact on the education system in the country of origin and the brain drain (16) should be looked at. The results should then form the basis for measures to mitigate such effects.

4.12   The EESC welcomes the Commission's wish to facilitate the development of good quality, accessible and sustainable social services. However, it stresses that the general interest in these services must take precedence over internal market and competition rules. What is certainly needed is a clarification of the relevant concepts and rules. The Committee therefore proposes a multi-faceted and gradual approach, combining the sector-specific and issue-specific aspects, which would lead to the adoption of legislative initiatives where required and/or to these principles and conditions being adapted to the different sectors concerned (the cross-cutting, sector-specific approach) (17).

4.13   Given the fears in many parts of the European population that access to high-quality healthcare will no longer be guaranteed for many in 20 years' time (18), appropriate, clear and transparent goals should be developed and pursued with appropriate monitoring and publicity.

4.14   Talking about ‘a strong social reflex’ (19), particularly in the context of rules on public procurement, is somewhat bold in the light of the ECJ ruling in the Rüffert case. It is also important not to overlook the fact that the European directives on public procurement mainly, and the reality of public procurement procedures almost exclusively, reflect economic aspects. If they are to take proper account of social aspects, public contracting authorities need a clear and binding framework. Moreover, public procurement would have a social face if it were not only able but also required by law to take account of certain social aspects. The EESC therefore believes that it would make sense for the Commission to make concrete proposals in this direction. For example, social requirements based on European guidelines could be brought in to play so as to make better use of the potential of the Open Method of Coordination.

4.15   In its opinion on the Working Time Directive (20), the EESC has already expressed regret that the European Union was missing an opportunity if it did not take the reconciliation of private and professional life into account. The EESC therefore expressly welcomes the results of the Commission's consultations with the social partners on the reconciliation of private and professional life, and the recently-published proposals for improving conditions on maternity leave (21) and enhanced rights for women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity (22). The Committee also welcomes the fact that the European social partners are reviewing the directive on parental leave.

4.16   Community actions to promote equal treatment, to support people with disabilities, to combat social exclusion, and to promote active inclusion should, in the Committee's view, be complemented with stronger policy measures aimed at the employment of older people, disadvantaged sections of the population and the unemployed. Combating poverty must also be a priority, with a particular focus on women and single parents. At the same time, the policy measures aimed at balanced integration of immigrants should be beefed up. Through its Labour Market Observatory, the EESC can make an active contribution to these analyses.

5.   Instruments

5.1   In recent decades, the EU has put in place minimum standards in the areas of gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as some areas of working conditions and collective defence of workers' rights. This legislation is a significant part of European social policy. Although there has been some progress, much room for further improvement remains.

5.2   The EESC advocates the use of the entire range of social policy instruments (legislation, Open Method of Coordination, autonomous agreements between social partners) and calls for the most appropriate instrument to be used in each area. The fact is that some areas have not yet been dealt with at all at European level, such as sick pay, the definition of the status of employee, or transfer protection; other areas are only partly covered, such as the reconciliation of work and family life and protection from dismissal.

5.3   Undoubtedly, the effective transposition, application and implementation of existing laws is important. In this respect, the EESC agrees with the Commission. It is also important that, when implementing minimum standards, these be seen as a springboard for the improvement of living and working conditions on the ground, and not as the end in themselves. Proper implementation requires effective and appropriate instruments, and, in particular, support for cross-border matters. This is especially true for the transposition and application of the directive on the posting of workers (23). Simply calling for cooperation is not sufficient in this context. Instead, a Europe-wide, binding framework needs to be created. In this context, a high priority must be given to putting in place effective measures for the enforcement of cross-border matters.

5.4   Cross-sectoral, sectoral and cross-border social dialogue remains one of the main pillars of the social model in Member States and at EU level. Employers and trade unions play a key role in addressing social challenges, as they are strong driving forces for the achievement of economic and social progress (24).

5.5   Civil dialogue — to be clearly distinguished from social dialogue — will be another main pillar in the future. To engage citizens and their organisations at all levels to build social Europe will be a real challenge (25).

5.6   The EESC shares the Commission's view that the potential of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) should be developed and that both quantitative and qualitative targets should be used. The EESC emphasises that the Open Method of Coordination should ‘go more local’, thereby reflecting the participatory bottom-up approach and the necessary coordination of partners and policies (26). However, it is further recommended that the European Parliament should be more closely involved in the OMC, thus increasing its democratic legitimacy.

5.7   The development of targets for the well-being of citizens that go beyond the usual indicator of GDP per capita is welcomed, and may help to offset the economics-dominated ways of looking at countries' economic achievements (27).

---

(1)  See ‘Expectations of European citizens regarding the social reality in 20 years’ time’, Analytic Report, May 2008, point 2.9; Flash Eurobarometer Series #227.

(2)  COM(2008) 412 final; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Renewed social agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe.

(3)  EESC opinion of on A new European Social Action Programme, Rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009), point 4.1, p. 99.

(4)  See EESC opinion on Flexicurity (collective bargaining and the role of social dialogue), rapporteur: Mr JANSON, OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, point 1.4, p. 108.

(5)  On this subject, see the package of measures proposed by the EESC aimed at giving young people future prospects beyond insecure employment. In: Own-initiative opinion on Employment of priority categories, 12 July 2007, Rapporteur: Mr GREIF; Chapter 5: Effective combating of youth unemployment, OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, p. 93.

(6)  See opinion CESE on Microcredits (Rapporteur: Mr PEZZINI) OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, p. 23.

(7)  See EESC opinion on Entrepreneurship mindsets and the Lisbon Agenda (Rapporteur: Ms SHARMA; co-rapporteur: Mr OLSSON, OJ C 44, 16.2.2008, point 1.1, p. 84.

(8)  See opinion CESE on the Employment Guidelines (Rapporteur: Mr GREIF, OJ C 162, 25.6.2008, point 2.1 p. 92.

(9)  Decision No 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress (OJ L 315, 15.11.2006).

(10)  Communication from the Commission of 9 February2005 on the Social Agenda, COM (2005) 33 final.

(11)  Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time; COM(2005) 246 final.

(12)  Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on working conditions for temporary workers; COM(2002) 701 final.

(13)  ECJ case C-341/05: Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (Swedish building workers' union).

(14)  ECJ case C-438/05: International Transport Workers' Federation et al v Viking Line ABP et al.

(15)  ECJ case C-346/06: Dirk Rüffert in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG v Land Niedersachsen.

(16)  i.e. the emigration of highly skilled or talented people from a country.

(17)  See EESC opinion on A single market for 21st century Europe, Rapporteur: Mr Cassidy; co-rapporteurs: Mr HENCKS and Mr CAPPELLINI, OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, p. 15, points 1.13 and 1.15.

(18)  See ‘Expectations of European citizens regarding the social reality in 20 years’ time’, Analytic Report, May 2008, Point 2.9.; Flash Eurobarometer Series #227; Survey conducted by The Gallup Organization Hungary upon the request of Directorate-General Employment.

(19)  COM(2008) 412 final, point 5.6.

(20)  See EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Rapporteur: Ms ENGELEN-KEFER) (OJ C 267, 27.10.2005, p. 16).

(21)  Proposal amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 3 October 2008, COM(2008) 600/4.

(22)  Proposal for a Directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Directive 86/613/EEC, COM(2008) 636 final.

(23)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, OJ L 018, 21.1.1997.

(24)  See EESC opinion of 9 July 2008 on A new European Social Action Programme, Rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009, p. 99, point 5.6.

(25)  See EESC opinion of 9 July2008 on A new European Social Action Programme, Rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009, p. 99, point 5.7.

(26)  See EESC opinion of 9 July2008 on A new European Social Action Programme, Rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009, p. 99, point 7.9.3.

(27)  See EESC opinion of 9 July2008 on A new European Social Action Programme, Rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (OJ C 27, 3.2.2009, p. 99, point 7.9.2.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/71

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Council — A European Economic Recovery Plan’

COM(2008) 800 final

(2009/C 182/15)

Rapporteur-General: Mr DELAPINA

On 26 November 2008 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

European Economic Recovery Plan

COM(2008) 800 final.

On 2 December 2008 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr DELAPINA as rapporteur-general at its 450th plenary session, held on 14/15 January 2009 (meeting of 15 January), and adopted the following opinion by 179 votes to one with three abstentions.

1.   Summary and conclusions

1.1   With the global programme to stabilise the financial sector in all its international variants the international community has given a clear signal: economic policy has visibly taken on responsibility for global economic stability. And with the European Economic Recovery Plan the European Union has now also made clear its determination to tackle the crisis with all available means.

1.2   The psychological impact of the economic recovery plan is just as great as the impact of the sums involved. These economic policy signals should have a major stabilising effect on consumer and investor confidence. However, action must follow swiftly from all stakeholders, particularly the European Commission and the Member States, to ensure that pessimistic expectations are not confirmed.

1.3   The steps being taken to revive the real economy will have the desired effect only if the financial sector is made fully functional once again. In addition to the various rescue packages this will also require a reorganisation and a new system of regulation for the financial markets at all levels in order to build confidence.

1.4   European economic policy-makers have recognised the need for counter-cyclical macroeconomic policy to complement economic policy's past reliance on supply-side measures. The EESC also welcomes the commitment to better protection for the weakest members of society and more effective economic policy coordination. The scale of the EU's economic recovery plan is, however, relatively small compared with packages adopted in other regions of the world.

1.5   The Committee considers it to be vital that programmes of public investment and financial stimulus brought forward to assist economic recovery should also play their part in assisting the transition to a low carbon economy that is needed for the future. They urge the Commission and Member States to shape their recovery plans and programmes accordingly.

2.   From sub-prime crisis to global recession

2.1   The causes of the current economic and financial crisis are many and varied. In a declaration made at their summit on 15 November the G-20 heads of state and government listed the following: monetary and exchange-rate policies which led to excessive liquidity, insufficient or non-existent regulation of certain areas or actors, the search for unrealistically high returns coupled with insufficient understanding or analysis of risk by market actors and supervisory and regulatory bodies, excessive leverage, insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies and inadequate structural reforms. These developments led to excesses which highlighted the need for a revision of the rules for actors, products and markets.

2.2   In the USA in mid-2007 a pyramid scheme of property loans collapsed as property prices stopped rising. In an overheated property market with unrealistically optimistic expectations borrowers with low credit ratings were granted loans which were then securitised by the banks and sold on. New, highly speculative and opaque financial products were developed, which were not subject to any form of supervision or regulation. The extent of the risk was not understood by many of those involved.

2.3   The bursting of the property bubble in the USA and some EU states led to the collapse of hedge funds, investment and commercial banks and insurance companies. The securitisation of risk sent shock waves through the world of finance. Uncertainty and lack of trust among financial institutions led to a cessation of interbank lending even among essentially sound institutions and caused the interbank market to dry up.

2.4   Through various channels the impact of the financial market crisis finally began to be felt in the real economy. These effects include the credit crunch, higher financing costs, the impact of falling share prices on assets, contracting export markets, loss of confidence and asset write-downs and potential write-offs on balance sheets. It is now clear that, as at the beginning of 2009, the entire OECD is in a recession, the likely length and depth of which even experts cannot accurately assess at present.

3.   The most urgent challenges

3.1   The first step was to stop the chain reaction on the financial markets. The central banks, especially the ECB, provided the markets with liquidity in order to enable them to continue functioning. At national and international level numerous bailout packages were put together, comprising measures such as capital injections and investment in, or even the nationalisation of, ailing financial institutions, public guarantees, improved deposit protection for savings etc. To a certain extent these measures helped the banks to continue their normal activities.

3.2   The second important step is to strengthen the real economy. The confidence of consumers and investors has to be restored. This requires measures to stimulate domestic demand and to stabilise the labour markets. The lower income groups in particular need support, as they are particularly hard hit by the effects of the crisis, but also because they have the biggest impact on domestic consumption.

3.3   In addition, measures are needed to cushion the impact on the business sector. This sector, through its production, investment, exporting and research and development activities, has a key role to play in revitalising the economy, and it contributes decisively to job creation and the creation of domestic demand. In addition to cyclical aspects, however, sustainability and structural aspects must not be neglected.

3.4   In addition, restructuring of the international financial architecture and more effective regulation of financial markets are needed. The rules applicable to supervisory authorities and ratings agencies and for the filing of company accounts, and the way these rules are coordinated, also need to be changed in order to ensure that crises like the present one can be prevented in future.

4.   The role of European economic policy

4.1   Although the crisis originated in the USA, the European economy was dragged down by its global economic links. The euro has proved its worth as an anchor of stability. Without a common currency the effects on national economies would have been far more serious. An international crisis requires international responses. The European economy requires action on a massive scale. The challenges outlined in section 3 of this opinion require rapid, decisive, massive, targeted, coordinated and proactive measures, although many of these measures will be only temporary.

4.2   At the same time we need to learn from the past. When, at the beginning of the century, after the bursting of the IT bubble and 9/11, all the main regions of the world experienced a sharp fall in economic activity, Europe alone did not opt for an active fiscal and monetary policy stimulus, combined with supply-side measures. This was part of the reason why it took four years to emerge from the downturn, with much of Europe still suffering from weak domestic demand today, which has drastically increased these regions' vulnerability to collapsing international demand.

4.3   The seriousness of the current crisis was recognised too late by the relevant economic policy-making bodies. Up until September the finance and economics ministers, meeting in the ECOFIN Council, were sceptical about the need for an economic recovery plan. Although the euro area economy was already shrinking in the second quarter of 2008, in the summer the ECB paradoxically increased base rates. And the lack of agreement among the heads of government at their Paris summit on the financial crisis dashed hopes of rapid, coordinated action. Unilateral national measures to improve deposit protection for savers did not give the impression of concerted EU action. This makes it clear that merely acting is not enough. Rather, what is needed is better coordination of plans and packages of measures, above all at national level.

5.   The Commission's European Economic Recovery Plan

5.1   It is therefore all the more welcome that the European Commission has now unequivocally demonstrated its commitment to decisive and coordinated action. The Commission's strategy for dealing with the financial crisis aims to address the difficulties of the wider economy and make Europe a key player in the global response to the financial crisis. The Commission was also asked by the Heads of State and Government to draw up proposals for coordinated action for discussion at their meeting in December. This was submitted at the end of November in the form of a European Economic Recovery Plan, which was intended to be timely, temporary, targeted, and coordinated. The European Council, meeting in Brussels on 11 and 12 December 2008, subsequently adopted a plan along these lines.

5.2   Specifically, a fiscal stimulus of 1,5 % of EU GDP is proposed, amounting to EUR 200 bn for the period 2009/2010. EUR 170 bn is to come from the Member States, with EUR 30 bn from the EU budget and the EIB.

5.3   Apart from strengthening the activities of the EIB, particularly with regard to SMEs, the aim is to simplify and accelerate procedures to enable the early deployment of resources from the Structural and Cohesion Funds and the Rural Development Fund. The European Social Fund will finance measures to promote employment, particularly among the economically weakest sections of the population, and the European Globalisation Fund is to be made more effective. Conditions for the granting of state aids will also be relaxed and measures will be adopted to accelerate public procurement procedures.

5.4   The measures adopted by the Member States are to be conducted within the reformed Stability and Growth Pact, making use of the greater flexibility it offers, and are to be in addition to the effect of the automatic stabilisers which stimulate demand by means of government spending and/or tax cuts, of which the Commission proposal gives a number of specific examples. These include, for example, temporarily increased transfers to the unemployed or low-income households, public investment in infrastructure and training, support for SMEs (such as loans or equity stakes), measures to combat climate change, lower taxes and social levies for employers and employees and a temporary cut in the standard rate of VAT. The measures will be temporary in order to ensure that the recovery plan does not compromise the medium and long-term sustainability of public finances.

5.5   The measures by the Member States are to be coordinated, as the individual countries' starting positions and scope for action vary. They are to be temporary, as medium-term budget targets will subsequently have to be reinstated. The measures are to be supported by structural reforms, aimed at improved operation of markets and increased competitiveness.

5.6   The recovery plan is intended to be closely coordinated with the priorities of the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment (people, the economy, infrastructure and energy, research and innovation). The European Commission has adopted a package to help implement the European Economic Recovery Plan and reinforce the Lisbon Growth and Jobs Strategy. The adoption of country chapters assessing Member States' progress in implementing the Lisbon Strategy will take place in the New Year (1). The recovery plan sets out a broad range of measures, and each government is asked to select the appropriate ones.

5.7   Another main thread of the recovery plan is the green economy, i.e. intelligent products for a low-carbon economy. This includes investment in energy efficiency, the environment and climate protection. The measures to support sectors particularly hard hit by the crisis, such as motor vehicle manufacturing and construction, will also be tied to environmental and energy-saving targets.

5.8   Not least, the plan stresses the need for a coordinated global approach, involving the emerging countries, in an effort to return to economic growth.

6.   The EESC's initial assessment

6.1   Qualitative assessment

6.1.1   The Commission document appropriately identifies the existing challenges, needs and requirements for action. Europe must act quickly, confidently, ambitiously and in a focused way. Europe must be conscious of its own importance and must throw its full weight behind international efforts.

6.1.2   Confidence and demand have to be stimulated in order to stop the downward spiral. The negative impact of the crisis on the labour market and on the weakest members of society have to be combated with particular energy. The existing macroeconomic policy mix has not offered appropriate responses to the problems facing us, as it has neglected the importance of domestic demand for the economic cycle. The Commission has taken on board, albeit somewhat late, the need for fiscal and monetary policy to play an active role in strengthening demand, which the EESC has been advocating for years, alongside the supply-side measures to promote competitiveness. The Commission and the Member States have finally acknowledged that expansionary fiscal policy measures are needed, as the effectiveness of monetary policy measures is extremely limited in current circumstances.

6.1.3   The Commission's reference to the greater flexibility of the Stability and Growth Pact since the 2005 reform is particularly interesting in this respect. This flexibility has to be used in the present situation. Given the current extraordinary combination of financial crisis and recession it makes sense to allow the 3 % budget deficit threshold to be temporarily exceeded.

6.1.4   The EESC welcomes the stress laid by the Commission on the positive role to be played by the ECB in supporting the real economy. The Commission refers to the essential contribution which the ECB has made to stabilising markets by lending to banks and by its contribution to liquidity, and to the scope for interest rate cuts.

6.1.5   Clearly, once we have put the crisis behind us and the recovery is underway, the medium-term objectives of fiscal policy will once again have to be observed, so as not to jeopardise the sustainability of public finances. At that time care will be needed to avoid the reimposition of excessive burdens on labour or unacceptable spending constraints. A start should be made now, for example, on developing approaches which would permit new sources of revenue to be tapped. Among other things, restoring government spending to its pre-crisis level should not be seen as an end in itself. With an ageing population and high social standards, as in the European social model, a higher level of state spending is not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover, countries which are praised for their successful flexicurity strategies also have higher than average levels of government spending.

6.1.6   It is essential that national measures not only be complemented by European measures but that they also be coordinated. In this way positive cross-border spill-over effects will be achieved and the problem of ‘freeloading’ avoided. Countries which do not participate in the recovery plan could dilute the impact of the measures. And those which do take action to stabilise the economy risk being pilloried for their deficits. A particular responsibility falls to those Member States which, by virtue of their size, have a significant impact and which have relatively large scope for fiscal easing.

6.1.7   A positive feature of the document is the fact that, when it comes to stimulating growth, environmental, climate-change and energy objectives have not been overlooked, nor is the scope of the document restricted to the highly developed industrialised countries. From a global perspective, the opposition to unjustified protectionist measures is also significant.

6.2   Quantitative assessment

6.2.1   In this opinion the EESC intends to limit itself to a general macroeconomic assessment. The Committee will, however, continue its work and will examine and evaluate the proposals and decisions in detail in a separate opinion. In this context necessary changes to the law on subsidies will need to be discussed, as will changes to the rules of the Globalisation Fund. Some of the measures from the Commission's comprehensive ‘toolkit’ will need to be critically examined. These would include the not uncontroversial reduction of social levies and VAT on labour-intensive services. The compatibility of subsidy and support measures with competition should also be assessed.

6.2.2   As the economic recovery plan is to be accompanied by structural reforms, care should be taken to ensure that these do not run counter to the objective of stimulating demand. Rather, structural reforms should be designed to be socially acceptable and conducive to growth and employment.

6.2.3   Another point of criticism is the fact that the amount of EUR 200 bn over two years appears far more than it actually is. In fact it includes relatively little ‘new money’. The funding that will come from the EU budget and the European Investment Bank in part represents the bringing forward of payments which were already planned. In the case of the national funding, in many cases this does not represent new, additional initiatives but rather a catalogue of measures which were already planned or even adopted by the national governments, even in the absence of an EU recovery plan.

7.   Reorganisation of the financial markets

7.1   Two serious crises in quick succession are sufficient grounds for a new system of regulation for the financial markets, its transactions, its products, its participants, supervision, the rating agencies etc, both within the EU and particularly at global level. This is necessary in order to restore confidence as quickly as possible — confidence in the financial institutions, confidence between institutions and that of investors and consumers. A reform of the financial markets and the rapid restoration of their effective operation is key to ensuring that they can once again begin to fulfil their role of supporting the real economy and to ensuring the success of the measures to bring about economic recovery.

7.2   Europe uncritically adopted many developments originating in the USA, from the introduction of so-called financial innovations, through the financing of pension schemes to rules on company accounts, and the damaging consequences of this are there for all to see. In future greater importance should again be attached to European ways of doing things, and to European strengths, experience and traditions, which would include specific forms of business organisation such as cooperatives. In this process greater use should be made of the critical mass of the euro area, which has grown with enlargement. The G-20 summit in Washington gave some promising signs and the achievements of this summit must be further developed with a view to the next summit, to be held in London on 2 April 2009.

7.3   The necessary reorganisation and new system of regulation for the financial markets are not addressed in the Commission's recovery plan. The EESC hopes that this is only because the Commission is intending to adopt its initiative on supervision of the EU financial markets in July 2009. In redrawing the rules account should be taken of academic studies which show that speculative markets systematically overshoot in both directions as herd behaviour takes control, not least because of the computer model-based trading and decision-making systems used by major market participants. The EESC reserves the right to issue its comments and proposals on this at a later date and draws attention in this connection to the conference it is hosting in Brussels on 22 and 23 January 2009 entitled ‘Rien ne va plus’? Ways to rebuild the European Social Market Economy after the Crash of ‘Casino Capitalism’.

---

(1)  See Commission press release — Decisions on the Lisbon Growth and Jobs Strategy (IP/08/1987) for details of the package of measures.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/75

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market as regards the extension of certain time periods’

COM(2008) 618 final — 2008/0188 (COD)

(2009/C 182/16)

On 5 December 2008, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market as regards the extension of certain time periods

COM(2008) 618 final — 2008/0188 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 450th plenary session of 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), by 192 votes with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/76

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain components and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors’ (Codified version)

COM(2008) 690 final — 2008/0213 COD

(2009/C 182/17)

On 8 December 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain components and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors

(Codified version)

COM(2008) 690 final — 2008/0213 COD.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 450th plenary session of 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), by 186 votes to one with seven abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

---

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/77

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (codified version)’

COM(2008) 691 final — 2008/0206 (CNS)

(2009/C 182/18)

On 19 November 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 94 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Council Directive on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (codified version)

COM(2008) 691 final — 2008/0206 (CNS).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 450th plenary session of 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), by 180 votes to two with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

---