30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/1

1.1

The Commission's presentation of the Green Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules has opened up a broad debate on the need for Community guidelines to make it easier for businesses, consumers and workers to bring liability actions against those in breach of Articles 81 and 82 TEC in the course of their business activity.

1.2

The EESC wishes to state, first of all, that the aim is to ensure the effective protection of everyone involved in the European internal market. Given the free movement of goods, there must be a degree of uniformity in all countries between rights and obligations deriving from contracts and services. Where cross-border transactions are concerned, some harmonisation between national legislation in the various countries must be promoted.

1.3

Secondly, account must be taken of the existence of both European and national competition authorities (NCAs), whose task it is to determine what are prohibited practices, and to establish the economic sanctions that could be imposed on companies in breach of the rules. The Green Paper is concerned with securing compensation for loss in the private sector, in other words through the courts, which means that this action must fit in with the action already being undertaken by the NCAs.

1.4

It should be stated that the EESC does not hold a blanket position covering all of the most important issues raised by the Green Paper; on each of these issues, it puts forward arguments that will help the Commission to take decisions aimed at establishing guidelines for future legislative action. All of these issues are responded to and discussed in section 5 of the opinion.

2.1

The European internal market has undergone a substantial reorganisation where competition rules are concerned, which has helped firstly to give this market the rules needed to ensure that companies act within a framework of free competition. Secondly, this reorganisation has helped to adapt national competition rules between Member States, so that companies can exercise their right to freedom of establishment under the same conditions.

2.2

One of the issues facing the internal market is how to provide effective protection of the other part of the market, in other words, consumers — in the broadest sense of the word — whose rights are adversely affected when contracts and services take on a cross-border nature. When the relevant companies are based in another Member State, consumers can only exercise their national consumer rights they enjoy in their own countries, whereas competition rules apply to the entire internal market.

2.3

Community competition legislation lacks an effective system for claiming damages for a breach of the rules laid down in Articles 81 and 82 TEC across the internal market. The Commission's new approach on competition policy and consumer protection has helped prompt the presentation of the Green Paper, which sets out the key issues, with a view to taking legislative action to protect the rights of those who have suffered loss as a result of the lack of free competition in the internal market.

2.4

Consideration must be given to the importance of Article 153(3) TEC (1), which provides for a horizontal consumer protection policy that applies to all policies.

2.5

In this context, the Green Paper raises the most important issues for introducing protection measures and for establishing damages claims for breaches of Community antitrust law, particularly in relation to Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty and their implementing rules. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the Green Paper covers a complex legislative framework, which could lead to a reform of national procedural rules — a matter that raises questions, mainly with regard to issues of subsidiarity and even affecting other issues of civil law.

2.6

The Green Paper takes as its starting point the dual application of competition law. On the one hand, the public authorities, i.e. not only the Commission but also the national authorities (NCAs), apply the rules individually, making use of the powers available to them. Firstly, the competition authorities are empowered both to declare infringements of the rules and to declare the invalidity of agreements restricting competition. Secondly, they have the power to impose financial sanctions based on the implementing regulations for competition law.

2.7

On the other hand, the private enforcement of competition law is allowed in ordinary courts, because the Courts of Justice have the right to enforce this law directly. In this private sphere, particular importance is attached to requests for precautionary measures forcing undertakings to discontinue any prohibited practices, in order to reduce the detrimental impact on competitors and consumers.

2.8

Nevertheless, the purpose of fully protecting the rights granted in the Treaty is to ensure that damages can be contested in court, and this is the basic aim of actions for damages caused by breaches of competition rules. Restricting free competition affects undertakings as well as consumers, who are at the end of the chain of market activity.

2.9

The ECJ has issued an important judgment, giving private individuals who have suffered as a result of a breach of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty the right to claim for compensation. In cases where national legislation opposes this right (2), the articles of the Treaty are deemed to take precedence over national legislation.

2.10

The Green Paper offers different options for discussion, which help to determine the different forms of damages actions possible, on the basis of public actions brought by the competition authorities or private actions brought by individuals who have suffered damages. To this end, the Green Paper lists a number of questions that it considers to be fundamental and which put forward various options and focus the discussion in order to achieve the best possible results, so that these options can then be implemented and also adapted to national legal systems, which are not always in line with one another.

3.1

The Green Paper is structured around a list of questions, aimed at stimulating a discussion of the legal nature of damages actions, providing a number of options circumscribing and shaping the Commission's future legislative action. It attempts to clarify under what circumstances a damages action could be brought, and what factors, bearing in mind existing legislation in some Member States, would make the process easier.

3.2

The Commission poses three questions providing a number of possible options:

Question A: Should there be special rules on disclosure of documentary evidence in civil proceedings for damages under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty? If so, which form should such disclosure take?

Question B: Are special rules regarding access to documents held by a competition authority helpful for antitrust damages claims? How could such access be organised?

Question C: Should the claimant's burden of proving the antitrust infringement in damages actions be alleviated? If so, how?

The second issue addressed is fault requirement, since in many Member States civil liability actions require fault to be proven. The question posed is:

Question D: Should there be a fault requirement for antitrust-related damages actions?

With regard to the third issue, the concept of damages, the following two questions are proposed:

Question E: How should damages be defined?

Question F: Which method should be used for calculating the quantum of damages?

The passing-on defence and indirect purchaser's standing is also addressed:

Question G: Should there be rules on the admissibility and operation of the passing-on defence? If so, which form should such rules take? Should the indirect purchaser have standing?

One important question is whether this type of action could be used to protect consumers' interests, given that it is considered to be hard to apply to stand-alone actions. It would make sense, in this case, to bring collective actions, which already exist in some EU countries.

Question H: Should special procedures be available for bringing collective actions and protecting consumer interests? If so, how could such procedures be framed?

Costs play an important role in the success of proposed actions, since the high costs sometimes deter claimants from bringing an action, which leads to the question:

Question I: Should special rules be introduced to reduce the cost risk for the claimant? If so, what kind of rules?

The success of proposed actions can hinge on the coordination of public and private enforcement, hence the following question:

Question J: How can optimum coordination of private and public enforcement be achieved?

Jurisdiction and applicable law is another of the issues addressed. Given the cross-border nature of many practices prohibited under competition rules, the question is:

Question K: Which substantive law should be applicable to antitrust damages claims?

Other questions included in the proposal are:

Question L: Should an expert, whenever needed, be appointed by the court?

Question M: Should limitation periods be suspended? If so, from when onwards?

Question N: Is clarification of the legal requirement of causation necessary to facilitate damages actions?

4.1

Regulation 1/2003 (3) recognises that both the Commission and the NCAs are responsible for monitoring the proper implementation of Community competition law by the Community authorities and the Member States and, within the limits of their powers, they can declare a commercial practice prohibited or an abuse of a dominant position within the market, with the ensuing sanctions, in a form and on a scale appropriate to the damages caused.

4.2

The problem arises with regard to private enforcement, in the civil courts, where individuals who have suffered loss, including consumers, as a result of prohibited competitive practices, wish to bring a judicial action to seek compensation for damages caused by distortion to competition. This is the debate that needs to be resolved at EU level, because the free movement of goods and services in the European internal market requires Community measures, in particular bearing in mind that the situation varies considerably from one Member State to another and, since no European legislation exists on the matter, it is the national courts that have jurisdiction.

4.2.1

The solution to facilitating consumer damages actions cannot necessarily be used for disputes between businesses, which are the parties most often involved in disputes concerning restrictions to competition. The Commission's proposal must envisage an approach for such disputes. Similarly, the protection of workers in companies involved in antitrust practices must be provided for.

4.3

Nevertheless, given the absence of Community legislation on compensation for loss arising from breaches of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, the ECJ (4), which had received a request for a preliminary ruling on the application of these rules by a national court, ruled that the articles of the TEC would apply directly. Claims for damages caused by restrictions on competition fall within the jurisdiction of national courts. Furthermore, the ECJ reiterated the principle already expressed in a number of rulings (5) according to which the Treaty has created its own legal system, which is incorporated into the Member States' own legal systems, and which is equally binding on states and private individuals.

4.4

The ECJ has also confirmed (6) that Articles 81(1) and 82 ‘produce direct effects in relations between individuals, and create rights for the individuals concerned which the national courts must safeguard’ and even adds (7) that ‘in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law’.

4.5

The EESC considers that Community guidelines could be drawn up establishing the conditions for bringing an action for damages arising from infringements of the Treaty. This action must compensate those who have suffered losses, within reasonable limits, for economic loss or loss of profit resulting from prohibited competition practices. Above all however, it must enable consumers — in the broadest sense of the word — to exercise their economic rights, recognised in the laws designed to protect them, and this is why we welcome the Green Paper on the matter. We do, however, wish to highlight the need for proceedings to be made shorter, in order to ensure the best outcomes as swiftly as possible.

5.1

The EESC considers it to be a priority to determine, from the outset of a private case brought in a civil court, future actions for damages caused by prohibited competitive practices.

5.2

The public competition authorities, both Community and national, have an instrument for implementing Community legislation — Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (8) — which gives them wide-ranging powers to act in claims against undertakings suspected of breaching competition law. Despite this considerable power to act, all the public authorities can do is declare that an undertaking has infringed antitrust legislation and then impose fines.

5.3

The problem becomes more complicated when, at Community level, competition authorities lack the power to bring damages actions. Furthermore, the ECJ can only act on references for preliminary rulings, because sole jurisdiction in this area lies with the national courts. With this in mind, the ECJ has stated the need for Member States to establish their own arrangements for bringing damages actions (9).

5.4

Private enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 TEC means that they can be used by national courts in civil proceedings to bring actions for damages for private individuals. The problem lies in determining what type of action is most appropriate and especially whether a special action should be brought. There are considerable problems and these can be seen in the wide range of questions raised by the Commission in its Green Paper. The EESC would like to help to guide the debate by making some remarks on the issues raised.

5.4.1

Access to evidence. The rules on evidence in civil proceedings raise two key questions: 1) the burden of proof and 2) evaluating this evidence. These issues should be considered in court cases likely to take place under various circumstances: a) following a competition authority ruling, b) before a competition authority ruling and even c) at the same time that the competent authority is carrying out an analysis of certain practices.

5.4.1.1

Regulation (EC) 1/2003 establishes each and every circumstance in which Community and national competition authorities can demand proof, in order to determine whether prohibited practices are taking place (10); the option of using competition authority files as evidence would thus be a way of solving private individuals' problem of obtaining proof. The question is, would the decision to grant access to files be left to the courts to which a request is made, or would the private individuals — the claimants — have the right to obtain them? The ECJ (11) has developed a substantial body of case-law on the Commission's commitment not to release contentious documents to third parties until the main proceedings are over.

5.4.1.2

Consequently, with regard to what are known as ‘follow-up’ actions, the following approach could be used: once a breach has been declared by the competition authorities and a damages action has been initiated by the individuals affected, the competition authority would provide the courts with the evidence, thus establishing a link between public and private enforcement (12).

5.4.1.3

In cases where damages actions for breach of antitrust rules do not apply as the result of a decision by the competent authorities, the EESC considers that presentation by the claimants of evidence adequate for a preliminary assessment of the likelihood of the action's success (establishing the facts) should be deemed sufficient to bring such an action. This argues for not only for the existence of special rules for releasing documentary evidence, but also for the courts to be granted an active role and broad powers, including the power to impose sanctions, with regard to fundamental aspects of the action and in particular as regards the finding, gathering and release of evidence.

5.4.1.4

Because the national courts that will hear antitrust damages cases have a parallel power concerning abuses of competition rules (Regulation 1/2003), their access to these documents, without prejudice to the duty to safeguard confidentiality referred to above, must not form an insurmountable obstacle. The rules of access must, as a matter of priority, obey the law of the forum, but the competition authorities must also be obliged to release to the courts any evidence that they request.

5.4.1.5

It should be emphasised that access to documents already held in a damages action is particularly important in actions for antitrust damages regardless of the investigating body (administrative or judicial) and regardless of the outcome of the case (13).

5.4.1.6

The possibility that the administrative bodies involved in an antitrust action might also select the evidence that can be accessed in a damages action is likely to create suspicion and liability as regards the criteria governing the selection process.

5.4.1.7

Lastly, on the assumption that the courts are to be given special and wide-ranging powers in this type of case, support should be given to the idea that the refusal of one of the parties to submit evidence could have a negative impact on its assessment, enabling the court to take this refusal into consideration in order to determine whether or not the case is proven.

5.4.1.8

Another possibility for cases involving consumers would be to reverse the burden of proof, by placing it on the defendant, meaning that, once a given practice has been declared anticompetitive by the competition authorities, they can only be exonerated from paying compensation for damages if it is proved that this does not apply to the claimants. Attention is drawn to this, as one of the main principles of consumer protection, and although most Member States enforce the rule that the burden of proof lies with the claimants, exceptions leading to the reversal of this burden of proof (14) are also recognised, as has occurred in court rulings (15)  (16). If a prior ruling exists stating that an infringement has occurred, failure to reverse the burden of proof in damages actions where this infringement is the cause would represent an unacceptable duplication of proof which, in this case, would have to be produced not by an authority that has special investigative powers but by the injured parties, which would heighten the asymmetries between the parties in this type of action.

5.4.1.9

Also related to the submission of evidence is the issue of expert witnesses, whose services are often required, due to the complexity of damages actions. The multiplication of possibly contradictory experts should be avoided, however, as this would contribute little to the desired effectiveness of the proceedings. In line with the court's wide-ranging powers already argued for in this context, where the parties fail to reach agreement, it should fall to the court to appoint any experts required, possibly in cooperation with the administrative competition bodies.

5.4.2

Damages. The key issue is to consider the loss incurred by individuals and to quantify such loss. DG SANCO has carried out a study (17) in order to establish a concept of damage to consumers and to draw up a definition that could apply in different areas, including competition. The issue has wide repercussions, because an assessment of the loss will depend on the share of the market affected by the prohibited practices. In any event, deterring the losses incurred by individuals involves extremely difficult problems of assessment, because it has been recognised that it is very often easier to assess the advantages gained by companies from an antitrust agreement than the loss it has caused.

5.4.2.1

While the courts must be given broad powers when hearing this type of action, an equitable approach would be reasonable, although for reasons of the system's consistency and bearing in mind the trends-based development of case-law, guidelines must be provided on the criteria (proof of equity) to be used when determining the amount of damages.

5.4.2.2

Another related point concerns the limitation period (18) applying to the right to claim damages for antitrust practices, which cannot begin to be calculated, especially in actions brought following a competition authority ruling, before the final judgment has been handed down on the infringement, because this might cause further difficulties regarding access to evidence.

5.4.2.3

Lastly, the issue of the legal nature of a claim for compensation must be addressed because, in most cases, the absence of a contractual relationship between the business that has committed the breach and the consumer makes it harder to establish a legal base for the claim. To this end, applying the rules on non-contractual obligations (19) would enable use to be made of the damages action system, which is a deep-rooted tradition in national legislation.

5.4.3

Collective actions compared to individual damages actions  (20). In the context of damages for breach of antitrust rules, group actions provide a perfect example of some key objectives: i) effective compensation for damages, facilitating claims for damages by organisations on behalf of the consumers affected, thus helping to provide real access to justice; ii) the prevention and deterrence of antitrust behaviour, given the greater social impact of this type of action. Furthermore, from the point of view of those breaching the rules, the possibility of concentrating their defence would have marked cost and efficiency gains.

5.4.3.1

The key point about collective action is that it recognises organisations' legitimacy to act, which makes it easier for them to bring a case before the courts, along similar lines to Directive 98/27/EC (21), in the area of injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests. Although this directive in the field of consumer protection, founded on the principle of the mutual recognition of organisations' legitimacy and their notification to the Commission (22), does not provide for damages or compensation for loss, it has opened the way at European level for the active legitimacy of various bodies and organisations and for bringing actions on behalf of collective interests (23).

5.4.4

Funding damages actions. The standard practice of bringing damage liability actions shows that the procedural costs act as a deterrent. First of all, the high costs required to bring proceedings can prevent an action from getting off the ground and secondly, the protracted nature of civil proceedings increases their costs. Consideration could be given to the idea of consumer authorities creating a fund to support collective claims.

5.4.4.1

Unless this happens, there is a risk that the injured parties would be dispersed, with individual, sometimes derisory payouts that would make it extremely difficult to secure funding for actions of this nature, in contrast with the defendants, who can readily pour further funds into their defence.

5.4.4.2

Practice has demonstrated that the difference in the costs born by the injured parties and by the undertaking or association of undertakings that has breached the rules puts the latter under pressure. It is considered that providing for exemptions from or reductions in legal costs for the claimants in damages actions for breach of antitrust rules — without prejudice to the right to penalise parties acting in bad faith, or payment of costs if a case is won — is a means of offsetting the asymmetries between parties in actions of this nature.

5.4.5

The passing-on defence and indirect purchaser's standing entails a complex procedure in that losses caused by a prohibited practice by an undertaking could have an impact further down the supply chain or even affect the end-consumer. This makes it still more difficult to bring damages actions, in particular due to the difficulty in proving a link between the loss and the prohibited practice. Difficulty in providing proof results in passing-on being excluded from damages actions.

5.4.6

Jurisdiction and applicable law. The Brussels Convention covers the issue of jurisdiction for hearing cases and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Subsequently, Regulation 44/2001 set out the implementing rules, within the EU, for cross-border disputes. This can solve most of the potential implementing difficulties in actions for damages caused by prohibited competition practices. Collective actions in the field of damages actions for antitrust practices are established practice in only a minority of Member States and when deciding on whether this is a useful option, consideration must thus be given to their specific characteristics, in particular in terms of the competent jurisdiction and the applicable legislation. The cost and efficiency gains for both claimants and defendants produced by this type of action will only be effective if the rules can be applied consistently, which depends on giving primacy to the law of the court having jurisdiction. Making information available not only on the bodies competent to bring actions of this nature but also on actions pending and the ensuing rulings would appear to be an important step in establishing genuine private enforcement of competition policy.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/7

1.1

The proposal provides for a codification; despite some minor formal adjustments, the acts being codified do not make any change to the law as it stands.

1.2

In a ‘people's Europe’, it is important that Community law should be both understandable and transparent. The European Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore highlighted the need to codify legislative acts that have been frequently amended, and have agreed by inter-institutional agreement that an accelerated procedure may be used. Codification may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in question.

2.1

The EESC notes that the Commission proposal strictly adheres to the purpose of the accelerated procedure with regard to codification.

2.2

Nevertheless it may be asked whether having the legislation on copyright and related rights in a fixed form is appropriate; the usefulness of codification is only obvious when the law in the relevant area is no longer expected to change radically.

2.3

Given that Community law is still evolving (for example, the pending proposals on ‘criminal measures’) and differences between Member States in terms of transposition into national law, it is clear that the balance between, on the one hand, the rights of holders of copyright and, in particular, holders of related rights and, on the other hand, the rights of users of protected works (members of the public, the scientific and university community, etc.; i.e. ‘consumers of cultural services’) are not being respected, since in several Member States the rights of users are being increasingly curtailed. For instance, in many cases, the right to private copying is challenged by physical or software protection using DRM (digital rights management) technologies; reverse engineering as a means to achieve interoperability of software is being contested for the same reasons.

2.4

Exacerbating these adverse developments for ‘consumers’ is the introduction of stiffer penalties for circumvention of DRM in order to make private copies or backup copies.

2.5

The EESC feels that the codification measures in the field of copyright and related rights are premature, since Community law needs to be rebalanced, in particular to take into account the Lisbon Strategy. Moreover, a large number of key issues are left to subsidiarity, and differences in transposition into national legislation could constitute an obstacle to the free movement of works and ‘cultural services’.

2.6

Thus, at the present stage, a simple technical consolidation by the Office for Publications would have made it possible to clarify the existing legal situation at the time of consolidation; in future, this technique could be applied whenever there is an important amendment to the applicable law, without appearing to constrain future changes to the law, as the choice of codification could presage.

3.1

In addition, the Committee would like to see the introduction in Community law of adequate recognition and protection of licenses such as the General Public License (GPL) or the Creative Commons License with regard to books and artistic creation; these licenses offer greater freedom to users and GPL, for example, governs a very large number of the software packages used in computer servers (Internet routers, administration, businesses).

3.2

These more permissive licenses help to promote the dissemination and appropriation of works by users and recipients, and are fully in line with the objectives of the rapid dissemination of knowledge and technology, which should be an essential element of the Lisbon Strategy.

3.3

The EESC therefore asks the Commission to re-open the debate on this matter, which seems likely to become sterile with codification, and consider initiatives for bringing works within the reach of a larger number of people, through recognition of free licenses and a rebalancing of rights between holders and users in the information society so as to strengthen competitiveness and innovation in the European Community.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/8

1.1

The proposal provides for a codification; despite some minor formal adjustments, the acts being codified do not make any change to the law as it stands.

1.2

In a ‘people's Europe’, it is important that Community law should be both understandable and transparent. The European Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore highlighted the need to codify legislative acts that have been frequently amended, and have agreed by inter-institutional agreement that an accelerated procedure may be used. Codification may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in question.

2.1

The EESC notes that the Commission proposal strictly adheres to the purpose of the accelerated procedure with regard to codification.

2.2

Nevertheless it may be asked whether having the legislation on copyright and related rights in a fixed form is appropriate; the usefulness of codification is only obvious when the law in the relevant area is no longer expected to change radically.

2.3

The term of protection of copyright, originally ten years in the nineteenth century, is now seventy years after the death of the author; there is nothing to say that terms of protection will not increase still further in the future as a result of pressures from copyright holders and holders of related rights.

2.4

As it stands today the situation is heavily weighted in favour of the heirs of deceased authors (about three generations) and the holders of related rights. These terms have become disproportionate in relation to the needs of the public and the creators themselves and they should be revised. If, as seems likely, a WTO member, such as the United States, should decide to extend the original term of protection to 90 years, or even 100 years (‘Disney amendment’), what will happen in Europe? Should we then revise trade agreements on intellectual property?

2.5

A very large number of works — literary, philosophical and others — are only published once, in their original language, and will not be published again during the lifetime of the author, or even of that of his/her heirs. Although these works may not have been best sellers in their time, a good number of them do nevertheless have some value, but they quickly become inaccessible to potential readers. The indefinite extension of rights would, in practice, benefit only a relatively small number of creators, whilst the protection system, because of the length of the term of protection, means that a far larger number of works become inaccessible to readers and students once the first edition is out of print.

2.6

Thus it may be asked whether having the legislation on copyright and related rights in a fixed form is appropriate; the usefulness of codification is only obvious when the law in this area is no longer expected to change radically.

2.7

Careful consideration needs to be given, in the digital era, to the diffusion of works and the public's right to be able to access creative works and universal culture. Thus the EESC feels that codification is premature, and it would have preferred a simple consolidation and a re-examination of the conditions and term of protection for copyright and related rights consistent with the Lisbon Strategy.

3.1

In addition, the Committee would like to see the introduction in Community law of adequate recognition and protection of licenses such as the LGPL (Lesser General Public License for technical documentation) or the Creative Commons License with regard to books and artistic creation; these licenses offer greater freedom to users and the GPL, for example, governs a very large number of the software packages used in computer servers (Internet routers, administration, businesses).

3.2

These more permissive licenses help to promote the dissemination and appropriation of works by users and recipients, and are fully in line with the objectives of the rapid dissemination of knowledge and technology, which should be an essential element of the Lisbon Strategy.

3.3

The EESC would therefore ask the Commission to re-open the debate on this matter, which seems likely to become sterile with codification, and consider initiatives for bringing works within the reach of a larger number of people, through recognition of free licenses and a rebalancing of rights between holders and users in the information society.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/10

1.1

In a ‘people's Europe’, it is important that Community law should be both understandable and transparent. The European Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore also highlighted the need to codify legislative acts that have been frequently amended, and have agreed by interinstitutional agreement that an accelerated procedure may be used. Codification may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in question.

1.2

The Commission proposal under discussion here is fully consonant with the objective of codification and with the rules involved. The EESC therefore endorses it.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/11

1.1

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

1.2

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

1.3

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 93/94/EEC of 29 October 1993 relating to the space for mounting the rear registration plate of two or three-wheel vehicles. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

1.4

The Commission proposal under discussion here is fully consonant with the objective of codification and with the rules involved. The EESC therefore endorses it.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/12

1.1

The Committee welcomes the initiative of the Commission to update the current rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks and in particular the proposed changes to the ‘Geographic Indication’ (GI) system, with applications being put forward by the relevant national authorities, and the proposed procedure for any amendment of the new regulation.

1.2

The Committee does not support categorisation as proposed in the draft proposal since it could be misleading.

1.3

Ingredient listing for spirit drinks is supported only if it is applied in the same way to all alcoholic beverages.

1.4

‘Authenticity Indicators’ (AIs) are important in the fight against fraud and counterfeit products and provisions for their use need to be included in the draft.

1.5

The definition of vodka is particularly contentious, notably as to the raw ingredients from which it may be produced. The Committee proposes that the raw materials used should be restricted to cereals, potatoes and beet molasses and that consequently there should be no need to indicate the raw materials used on the labels.

2.1

The current rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks are to be found in Council Regulation (EEC) 1576/89 (1) and Commission Regulation 1014/90 (2). These rules have been successful in regulating the spirits sector. However, it is now necessary to clarify some points and to take account of developments since the rules were established. The current proposal for a regulation has therefore been produced.

2.2

This proposal aims to enhance the clarity of the current regulations (footnotes 1 and 2 below), adapt to new technical requirements and take account of additional factors, such as WTO requirements. It also aims to safeguard the existing good reputation of EU spirit drinks and provide consumers with the necessary information.

3.1

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the proposal to amend and update the current regulations and it notes that the EU level organisation that represents the producers of spirit drinks (3) has been consulted at length and also supports the initiative.

3.2

In particular the Committee welcomes the changes to bring the system of Geographic Indications into line with WTO requirements and the proposal to allow a simple and transparent procedure for amendments of the proposed Regulation.

3.3

The fact that this new regulation will replace two existing regulations should be made clear in the first paragraph of the introductory recital by adding reference to Regulation 1014/90 to the existing reference to Regulation 1576/89 as being repealed and replaced by this proposed new regulation.

3.4

The industry is of very significant importance to the EU economy, contributing some EUR 5 billion in exports each year (4), directly employing about 50 000 people (and indirectly some 5 times that number) and making annual capital investments of over EUR 1 billion. It is also a major customer for EU agricultural producers. Before the most recent enlargement it used some 2 million tonnes of cereals, 2.5 million tonnes of sugar beet, 300 000 tonnes of fruit and 16 million hectolitres of wine each year; these figures are to be updated for the EU25. Since then, with the accession of ten new Member States, potatoes must also be included; annual use of potatoes as a raw material for spirits is about 100 000 tonnes.

3.5

The EU spirits industry is the most competitive in the world at present and any changes made must not cause it to lose this advantage. Of particular importance here will be the maintenance of its excellent reputation and the ability to continue to innovate.

3.6

It is important that the changes made in consolidating and updating the existing Regulations do not lose any of the key principles that these include. Of particular importance here are the current labelling provisions. Comments on these are included in the detailed comments included at Appendix I.

3.7

The individual definitions of spirit drinks are complex and the Committee discusses them only where this seems to be essential.

4.1

The proposal introduces the division of spirits into ‘categories’; the proposals are to divide all spirit drinks in to categories ‘A’ (‘spirits’), ‘B’ (‘specific spirit drinks’) and ‘C’ (‘other spirit drinks’). It is not clear why there is considered to be a need for this division into categories, but we consider that confusion could arise because certain drinks could be placed in more than one category, depending on the method of production used. The Committee also notes that the explanatory memorandum refers to Category ‘A’ as ‘an exclusive group’ which includes ‘only the purest form of product’. This could suggest that other categories are not pure, whereas the aim of the regulation is to ensure that all EU produced spirit drinks have an excellent reputation.

4.2

The EESC recognises that the proposed categorisation would not have any legal effect but the Committee does not consider that the proposed division into categories will help consumers or others. Nor does it seem necessary for the structural cohesion of the document. The Committee suggests that if categories are to be introduced they will need to be properly justified. Further, the EESC would then have concerns about the actual descriptions used for each category.

4.3

The EESC is also concerned that if placed in categories this could provide a basis for discrimination between various spirit drinks, possibly in labelling or in taxation. The Committee would oppose such discrimination.

4.4

The debate (5), until now, has shown that the proposed categorisation is controversial and therefore likely to be changed. If this happens, consideration must therefore be given to some redrafting to make generic allowance for various traditional practices; further, Annex II of the Proposal would need elaboration to define more clearly which practices are allowed for products.

5.1

The EESC is not aware of any requests from consumer organisations in the area of spirit drinks. Their concern will probably remain that spirit drinks should be of very high quality and safe to consume (when used appropriately).

5.2

The question of ingredient listing is not included in the Commission draft and the EESC supports this as unnecessary and unrealistic at this time. The EESC would however support ingredient listing if it were to be applied to all alcoholic drinks in the same manner and if it could be done in such a way that it had meaning for the consumer.

6.1

The EESC welcomes the clarification of the ‘Geographic Indications’ (GI) rules as they apply to spirit drinks. It would be helpful to state clearly that applications may only be made to the Commission by Member States, or where appropriate, by the authorities in third countries.

6.2

Some care will be necessary to avoid GI rules being established for too many products if GIs are to continue to be recognised as valuable.

6.3

The EESC assumes that the provisions in Article 5 allowing Member States to lay down and apply stricter rules than those necessary under this new regulation would apply primarily to products with an agreed GI but it would be helpful to clarify if this article could be applied to any product (whether or not it has a GI).

7.1

There is a need to be very specific about ‘flavours’ and ‘flavourings’ (6) and which process may be used in which products. At present there appears to be confusion in the draft.

7.2

There may be a requirement for definitions of some additional flavoured spirit drinks. This should be considered.

7.3

In the case of sweetening the Commission should consider the need for clarifying the position on ‘rounding’ where a limited amount of certain sweetening agents are added to adjust the taste of the final product.

8.1

The proposal by the Commission to place individual definitions of spirit drinks in an Annex and then to allow these to be changed after agreement in a Management Committee for Spirit Drinks without opening the full text of the regulation for discussion is supported. It will allow the regulations to be more responsive to innovation.

8.2

Consideration should be given to allowing no changes to be made to individual spirit drink definitions in Annex II of the Commission's proposal for a period of, say, five years after the new Regulation has come into force to provide a period of stability.

9.1

The draft does not touch on the question of authenticity indicators. It should do so. The European Spirits organisation (CEPS) suggests that AIs should be food grade materials and must be present in concentrations of less than 0.1 % weight by volume in a product and must not impart any distinctive character to that product. The EESC supports their proposal.

9.2

AIs are increasingly important in the fight against fraud and counterfeit products. They are also used in products other than spirit drinks but it is important for their use to be agreed by producers of spirit drinks in the context of this proposal.

10.1

While the EESC does not wish to become involved in too much detail over definitions of products, the case of vodka is of particular difficulty, as the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 20 February showed (7). The Committee has therefore considered this case in order to give a view that might achieve consensus.

10.2

The Committee considers the case of vodka in Appendix II of its opinion and concludes that there is a case for some restriction of the raw materials that may be used in vodka production (to cereals, potatoes and beet molasses). The key is that it will allow this major category to be better protected, allowing commercial operators to build on its reputation and standing. However, provision must be made for those products that would no longer be eligible for the description ‘vodka’; such products should be allowed a transitional period of about three years from agreement being reached on the new Regulation in order to change their category and to adjust their marketing.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/15

1.1

The Council has called on the EESC to issue an opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning use of alien (1) and locally absent (2) species in aquaculture.

1.2

The Commission's proposal is aimed at protecting the aquatic environment and its biodiversity from the risks that accompany the occurrence of alien species. The Commission has deemed the existing framework, which includes the Habitats Directive (3) to be insufficient.

1.3

The Commission is proposing to introduce a regulation, based on already existing practices and codes of practice, without prejudice to future strategies.

1.4

The proposed regulation does not deal with problems relating to, for example, angling, ornamental fish and other exotic animals, but aims to foresee, prevent and manage the future problems caused by alien species away from their natural habitats.

1.5

The Committee feels that there is a tendency to over-regulate within the European Union. This should not be the case for the proposed regulation.

1.6

The EESC recommends the drawing up of a list of established species (i.e. ‘naturalised’ alien species) in order to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape for these species.

1.7

The Committee recommends that the term ‘locally absent species’ be properly defined. The terms ‘zones’ and ‘ecoregions’ should also be defined in the context of the proposed regulation.

1.8

The EESC also feels that the EU is a single market, and that there should be a distinction between alien and locally absent species within the EU and outside of the EU.

1.9

The EESC notes the foreseeable problems small producers would face as a result of the introduction of this regulation. In particular, it notes the lengthy forms, as per Annex 1 of the proposal.

2.1

The proposal to regulate at EU level the import of alien species into the Community area for use in aquaculture, which will protect the variety of native aquatic fauna and flora (4) and at the same time promote the development of aquaculture, is very much welcomed by the EESC in principle.

2.2

The Committee acknowledges the high importance and need for a regulation concerning the use of alien species in aquaculture, in order to protect the aquatic environment and its biodiversity.

2.3

In the event of the proposed regulation's adoption, the Committee urges the Commission to launch an appropriate information campaign on the regulation in order to prevent it from being misused by the media seeking to scare consumers and to sell more newspapers.

2.4

The EESC feels that it is essential for the regulation to favour the development of aquaculture in Europe (5), since it is a growing sector which will create many opportunities in the future, if it is not hampered by the current proposal in its present form.

2.5

The EESC notes the rapid progress and development of the sector outside the EU, noting also that the sector is saturated and in need of the development of new species. The EESC also points out that the aquaculture sector has the potential to be a success story within the framework of the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy), for the fishing sector.

2.6

The EESC feels that intra-EU trade should be simplified, with less red tape and documentation, and should not be over-regulated.

2.7

The Committee stresses the need to ensure that the regulation is not so cumbersome as to hinder the further development of the sector and has concerns regarding the unity between its ecological, economic and social aspects. Moreover, the Committee feels that translocation of species is sufficiently controlled within the EU.

2.8

The real difficulties for the aquatic environment in our regions are caused by the introduction of exotic or alien species in aquaculture. In order to simplify and shorten the proposal as much as possible, the Committee's proposal would be to concentrate efforts on this problem and deal with locally absent species separately. The use of locally absent species does not seem very important in aquaculture. Another related problem is that the regions where one species is absent, are not defined by the Commission.

2.9

A further simplification would be to distinguish between species within the EU and alien and locally absent species from outside of the EU. The EESC recommends that this be taken into consideration since the EU is moving towards a more integrated common market.

2.10

The Committee observes that, due to the volatility of the sector, it might not always be feasible and practicable for producers to plan as far ahead as deemed necessary by the Commission in order to receive a permit for import and movements.

2.11

For example, if a producer is breeding a certain stock from Israel and the stock dies, the producer needs to act quickly and, for instance, import from the USA in order to avoid losing valuable time. The current proposal would prevent the producer from carrying out his activities until he receives a new permit. Translocations and movements, and in particular trade movements, should be exempt from the proposed regulations after the general scientific statement that the ‘risk’ to cultivate an alien or locally absent species in aquaculture is low.

2.12

The EESC notes the frustration of professionals within the sector at the approach often taken by the Commission. Therefore it is also important to focus on ensuring that the regulation is simplified and practically-oriented and that costs are minimised for the parties concerned.

2.13

The Committee notes that ornamental fish and salmon are not dealt with in this proposal, but stresses that these are potentially large contributors to the overall problem.

2.14

The EESC stresses the importance of ensuring that the regulation is clear in its objectives and has a clear scope and limit. Given that there are no comprehensive and detailed rules concerning the sector, the EESC suggests that the Commission should propose such an overarching regulation, or at least launch an action plan for the future direction of the sector.

2.15

The EESC is aware that the proposal originated before the EU's 2005 simplification initiative but feels that the current proposal should take this into account by being simplified.

3.1

The proposal goes far beyond necessary and justified measures; the status quo regarding species some of which have been used in European aquaculture for centuries (e.g. carp, rainbow trout, char and others) is not taken into account. So far the cultivation of these species has not led to any damage to ecosystems. Risk assessments for the movement of these species at all stages of development and lengthy authorisation procedures are far removed from reality and not practicable. It is common practice for aquaculture firms in the Community area to cooperate across borders in compliance with the veterinary requirements and to move carp, trout and other established fish species on a short-term basis.

3.2

The Committee urges that established fish species (6) be excluded from the provisions of the draft regulation through a positive list or a list of exceptions by the individual member states. Equally, the issue of locally absent species should be excluded. It is incomprehensible to associate controlled aquaculture with the spreading or translocation of indigenous but locally absent fish or other species.

3.3

The issue of locally absent species is already regulated by specific regulations of the Member States. The proposed regulation should concentrate on the protection of the EU's aquatic biodiversity from the risks that accompany the import of alien species. In fact it would be very difficult to implement the proposed regulation concerning locally absent species because there is no generally accepted definition of local regions in this context. Omitting the provisions on locally absent species would make the proposed Council Regulation more readily comprehensible and much easier and cheaper to implement.

3.4

The Committee points out that the decision period of up to a year on an application for movement (Article 10) would delay production decisions to an unacceptable extent and lead to unacceptable economic disturbances, and recommends that the period be shortened.

3.5

The EESC also stresses the importance of exploring the possibility of a ‘what if’ scenario under Article 10, to provide for cases where a permit application receives no response. For example, under Spanish law, silence equals consent if there is no reply within the proposed deadline of one year. The EESC feels that, if legally possible, the Spanish example should be applied to this Article of the proposal.

3.6

Applications for multiple movements over 5 years (Article 6) are not practicable, since very short-term unplanned decisions on purchases, sales and the exchange of fish at various development stages are frequently required. The proposed regulation would directly conflict with the planned provisions on the declared objectives of promoting aquaculture and promoting the diversification of the range of species in aquaculture.

3.7

Decisions on applications for the import and movement of aquatic organisms for aquaculture are important; they should be based on scientific reasons and announced as early as possible.

3.8

For the authorities concerned, the planned consultative committee and the aquaculture firms, the wide-ranging rules would mean immense personnel and financial expenditure, which cannot be met with the available human resources. That would conflict with the general drive to reduce bureaucracy both in the Member States and at EU level.

3.9

The EESC feels that the excessive quantity of rules should be reduced to what is strictly necessary. In particular, there should be fewer criteria in Annex 1 of the proposed regulation.

3.10

The import and movement of alien fish species can entail considerable risks. Thorough scientific knowledge is needed to assess these risks. The scientific data needed cannot, as suggested in Annex 1, be acquired by applicants from their work; the applicant would need expert advice.

3.11

The Committee feels that, in order to help producers, a list of EU scientists with the required knowledge should be made readily available to producers. At the same time, information or training on the application process should also be made available to producers.

3.12

It is proposed that instead of the planned individual assessments only one sample risk assessment for each ecoregion or Member State, to be carried out by a qualified scientific establishment, should be provided for. If the risk is estimated as ‘slight’ in such a sample assessment, any future application for a routine movement in that ecoregion can be confined to providing details on locality, personnel and dates. This proposal would lead, if implemented, to a better quality of risk assessment and at the same time to an enormous saving in bureaucratic expenditure for the aquaculture firms and the authorities. The costs of a sample assessment by a scientific establishment should be borne by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).

3.13

The Committee further stresses the need for ecoregions to be defined by the Council Regulation for harmonisation between the Member States.

3.14

The EESC feels that it would be beneficial to have an interval of at least one year between the date of publication of the regulation and its entry into force, in order to bring national legislation into line and to inform the sector and people concerned of the changes that will be introduced.

3.15

The Committee draws attention to its previous opinions on the CFP (7), aquaculture (8) and biodiversity (9), and fully stands by them in the context and scope of this opinion.

3.16

The Committee draws the Commission's attention to GMO and polyploid species. Their potential danger to the aquatic environment should not be underestimated. There is a need for stricter regulation of genetically modified organisms as well as salmon in aquaculture and the introduction and translocation of ornamental species.

3.17

The Committee calls upon the Commission to take note of both this opinion and those previously mentioned in order to create a better working environment for the aquaculture sector with regard to the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/18

1.1

Interest in the protection and welfare of animals is on the increase in many parts of the EU and in some non-EU countries as well. It is appropriate, therefore, to give support to market forces and to make any necessary adjustments to EU minimum requirements. This need not involve more restrictive requirements, but improved and more relevant rules based on scientific and socio-economic studies. It is also important to establish a joint quality labelling scheme for products that meet specific animal-welfare requirements. Substantial improvements are also needed for animals used in research and testing and in statutory safety tests.

1.2

In broad terms, the Commission action plan reflects these requirements and may form the basis for further priority-setting in this field. The Committee backs the proposed strategy as a starting point, but will, in due course, also be looking closely at the Commission's specific proposals with an eye to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between animal welfare on the one hand and social and economic factors on the other. It is, however, vital that imports from non-member countries with lower standards do not drive out EU products. If that were to happen, livestock farming would relocate to places with lower standards, thereby forcing EU players to cease production. In that respect, the Committee is not convinced that the Commission's action plan goes far enough in securing sustainable solutions.

1.3

The EESC very much regrets the impossibility of discussing this issue in the current negotiating round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Nonetheless, in trade in agricultural products, it is essential that, in the longer term, animal welfare be recognised as a non-trade concern. Otherwise, the EU could be compelled to take unilateral action to secure the requisite understanding of the need for law change. In the shorter term, the Commission and civil society must put pressure on the EU retail sector and food industry to impose equivalent requirements on imports from outside the Union through certification schemes and similar safeguards.

1.4

Research activities need to be coordinated and built upon so that resources can, as far as possible, be pooled and turned to good account. The provisions also need to be reviewed regularly, not least so that they continue to reflect technological developments and new knowledge.

1.5

The EESC welcomes the proposal to set up a centre or laboratory for the protection and welfare of animals. However, a more imaginative approach should also be considered, namely a global centre to help deal with animal-welfare issues at an international level, thereby supporting the work of the OIE (1) and the Council of Europe and providing assistance in EU bilateral agreements.

1.6

Moreover, the Commission, working together with the OIE and the Council of Europe, should take the initiative for an international conference to help build up a more sustainable network for researchers from outside the EU and foster a greater level of informal international cooperation in this field.

1.7

With regard to the use of animals in laboratories and for toxicological testing, the Committee thinks that the strategy should be broadened to include a ‘need’ provision whereby animals may only be used in this way if there is some kind of proven social need for the product in question.

2.1

The main aim of the action plan is to secure animal welfare in the EU and at the international level, to identify future needs and to provide for the more effective coordination of existing resources. Under the plan, the following five main areas of action for 2006-2010 are to be monitored and evaluated, not least with a view to follow-up beyond 2010:

2.2

The plan also sets out 28 initiatives that the Commission is intending to implement between now and 2010. These include 21 actions already underway, already announced or specifically provided for under Community legislation.

2.3

The Commission has also published working documents setting out the strategic basis of the initiatives and the core element underpinning the measures proposed in the action plan. The Commission also considers compliance with the 3Rs declaration on animal testing adopted in 2005 (2) to be a key component of the action plan.

2.4

The Commission feels that its animal-welfare role could be made easier through more effective coordination between the various departments concerned. This would help to ensure a more consistent and coordinated approach across Commission policy areas, just as measures with an animal welfare impact are to be vetted both to demonstrate compliance with the EC Treaty Protocol on protection and welfare of animals and to identify their socio-economic impact.

3.1

As the representative of civil society — and given the diversity of its membership — the EESC clearly bears a share of responsibility for framing the relevant provisions of animal welfare as part of the European social model (3). It is important to press ahead with the current approach and to secure, within the EU, sound and acceptable levels of animal protection, without thereby generating any unnecessary distortions of competition or undermining protection levels by imports from non-member countries where standards are lower. The overall strategic plan boosts transparency in this area and improves the scope for constructive cooperation on the part of all stakeholders. This applies, in particular, to agricultural producers who, with an eye to their long-term investment, motivation and management, should be involved in shaping the future strategy.

3.2

Broadly speaking, therefore, the EU farming sector is in favour of reasonable and well-balanced animal welfare provisions, but would also draw attention to the concomitant risks of distorted competition arising, in part, from the fact that Member States are able to introduce additional national requirements, but also a corollary of the practice of importing from non-member countries that have lower standards, or none at all. The risk of competition being distorted by additional national rules is, moreover, made all the greater by the ‘cross-compliance’ requirement under the Common Agricultural Policy. The result is legal uncertainty in the Member States — hence the need for clarification of the legal position in this regard.

3.3

With regard to third-country imports, common EU rules applying across an internal market of thirty countries with a combined population of 500 million (4) will also have a knock-on effect both in non-EU countries themselves and in relation to their imports into the EU. For instance, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation recently pointed to the growing global interest in animal welfare and the need to adapt to developments in this area in both primary production and industrial processing (5).

3.4

In the short term, however, it should also be brought home to retail chains and processing industries within the EU that, when importing agricultural goods and processed animal products from non-EU countries, it is in their own interests — and is also conducive to their public image — to ensure compliance with an appropriate code of conduct in the country of production, including animal-welfare requirements that are consistent with EU rules in this area. This may, for instance, involve mandatory cooperation with suppliers (6). The Commission should, in any event, take the initiative in this regard. Civil society too should draw attention to the issue via the media. It must be made clear to retail chains and the food industry in the EU that, in future, more attention will be paid to the production conditions of imported agricultural goods and processed animal products from non-EU countries. Consumer bodies and farmers' organisations should jointly undertake to pursue activities along these lines at national level. However, in trade in agricultural products, it is also absolutely vital in the longer term to secure recognition of animal welfare as a non-trade concern (cf. below).

3.5

As for the risk of EU-internal distortions of competition, it would be irrational — and unacceptable to the public in a number of Member States — to harmonise the provisions, thereby ruling out the possibility of more far-reaching standards being introduced at national level. If, however, at EU level, the minimum requirements concerned were, in future, to a greater extent based on more objective criteria underpinned by research and scientific studies, then understanding and acceptance of them would be bound to increase, thereby giving less cause for the introduction of more far-reaching national rules. To ensure, therefore, that a proper regulatory environment is put in place in this area, it is essential that any new initiatives be backed up by scientific data and appropriate socio-economic assessments. Steps should also be taken to ensure that, with a view to putting in place the suggested indicators, the research findings are assessed and applied in a competent way. At the same time, Member States should have some scope for flexibility to reflect, for instance, environmental and climactic conditions.

3.6

The Commission feels that the adjustment, management, and dissemination of these standards as well as the preparation of relevant socio-economic studies and impact assessments could be facilitated by the creation of a European centre or laboratory for the protection and welfare of animals. The EESC would ask that consideration be given to a more imaginative approach, namely a global centre to help deal with animal-welfare issues at international level, and thus support the work of the OIE and the Council of Europe and provide assistance in any bilateral agreements that might be made.

3.7

The EESC agrees on the need to foster partnership between the Commission and industry in order to promote alternatives to the use of laboratory animals in industry, in conjunction, for instance, with the setting-up of the centre and the submission of a strategy on the application of the so-called ‘3Rs’ principle which can provide guidance for the use of laboratory animals in the EU (7). The Commission initiative may also give a fillip to the activities currently underway elsewhere to promote alternative methods (8). The EESC, however, feels that the strategy should be broadened to include a ‘need’ provision, permitting animal testing only in cases where there is a proven social need for the product for which the chemical or substance concerned is to be used.

3.8

The intense competition and opening-up of the EU market involves a substantial risk that products from countries outside the Union with lower standards or no standards at all will gradually drive out EU production and sales, including those on non-EU markets The very tight squeeze on farm profits, coupled with the additional costs of animal welfare, may thus be a vital factor in farmers' capacity to remain in business. Moreover, in most cases, it will be too risky for farmers to base their production around the relatively small group of consumers who are willing to pay more (9).

3.9

Imports from non-member countries with lower animal-welfare requirements thus raise highly complex issues and the Committee is not convinced that the Commission's action plan goes far enough in securing adequate and sustainable solutions. The EESC very much regrets the impossibility of discussing this issue in the current WTO negotiating round, but, in terms of trade in agricultural products, the EU must nonetheless continue to press to have animal welfare recognised as a non-trade concern.

3.10

If, however, it proves impossible to achieve adequate sustainable solutions in this way or to secure the necessary understanding of the issue within the auspices of the WTO, the EU must, even without prior international agreement, require that imports from non-member countries comply with equivalent rules. A degree of provocation may thus be needed to draw the requisite attention to the issue and promote understanding of the need for a change in the law.

4.1

Compliance with EU rules in this area means that the EU institutions and Member States must meet the deadlines they themselves have set for the submission, adoption and implementation of the specific provisions. This has not always been the case in the past — hence also the failure, relative to earlier decisions, to meet the deadline for a number of initiatives set out in the action plan.

4.2

The action plan does not address the difficulties surrounding long-distance animal transport, which is a corollary of the EU single market and the abolition of veterinary borders. In 2004, the Council adopted an amendment to the rules on the protection of animals during transport, which is due to enter into force in 2007 (10) and the Commission has announced its intention of submitting a proposal after 2010. In this and in other areas, it is important that the rules are based on scientific findings and that the key provisions on transport time and space requirements during transport are subject to more effective monitoring.

4.3

All experience shows that management is the key factor in animal welfare. This element should be the focus of future animal-protection and animal-welfare provisions, through, among other things, requirements for training and guidance, combined with ongoing animal-welfare checks within the different production systems. That should also mean less detailed rules for production systems and legislation that is easier to handle.

4.4

Thanks to structural developments in animal production, with the establishment of bigger and ever more specialised production units and the application of new technology, it is now possible to monitor animal welfare more closely than ever before through a range of indicators. The increasingly detailed knowledge about objective, quantifiable animal-welfare indicators can also be factored into the design of new production buildings. The proposed centre could devise benchmarks, backed by scientific fact, to foster progress in this area. When laying down any fresh requirements, however, consideration should be given to the long payback period on agricultural investments.

4.5

The EESC backs the establishment of a specific Information Platform for Animal Welfare to facilitate dialogue and the exchange of expertise/experience on this issue between stakeholders such as consumers, producers, retailers, industry etc. (11). However, there are substantial limits as to what can be done here and, in practice, it is impossible for consumers in the EU to get any clear picture of the differences between various production systems and their in-built benefits and drawbacks. Consumer organisations, therefore, want to see the EU and the Member States take responsibility in this area and lay down minimum standards.

4.6

The EESC also backs the establishment of a joint marketing system to foster the application of higher than minimum welfare standards. It is vital that this system be based on joint, objective criteria and documented knowledge. The EU may well make such a labelling scheme available to producers and distributors, but what really counts is that the development of products complying with higher standards should, as far as possible, be market-driven. To be successful, however, any labelling scheme must be backed up by checks and accompanied by a carefully conducted, credibility-enhancing information campaign.

4.7

The introduction of a labelling scheme indicating the country of origin of goods imported from outside the EU is dealt with in general terms in a separate document. Such a scheme is particularly relevant for animal products and industrially processed goods derived from them. Under such a scheme, it should be possible to identify goods not produced in line with EU animal welfare standards.

4.8

According to the action plan, the quest for high standards is a hallmark of environmentally sound production. The Commission feels that such production should also be taken as a benchmark for the highest animal-welfare standards too (12). Experience shows that environmentally sound production does, in some areas, have the potential to improve animal welfare, but that unfit conditions also remain and that further knowledge is needed.

4.9

At all events, it is important to make the best possible use of resources within the EU. This applies not only to research and scientific studies where national resources should, as far as possible, be coordinated so as to permit pooling and optimum utilisation. Resources could therefore be used more effectively if, among other things, they were coordinated by a joint advisory committee composed of representatives with expertise in this area. Moreover, the Commission, working together with the OIE and the Council of Europe, should take the initiative for an international conference to help build up a more sustainable network of researchers both inside and outside the EU and to foster greater informal international cooperation in this field.

4.10

EU veterinary and disease-control measures incorporate a range of welfare aspects, even although there is not always any incontrovertible link. The public, moreover, are concerned when they see sizeable numbers of healthy animals being slaughtered and disposed of during outbreaks of dangerous contagious diseases. It is important, therefore, to focus more on preventive measures and to work closely with scientists and veterinarians to develop viable alternative methods of controlling animal diseases of this kind.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/22

1.1

The EU co-financing mechanism for veterinary prevention and control measures has developed gradually over time and been adapted to reflect experience gained in the field to date. However, this mechanism should now be subject to a more fundamental rethink to take account of prospective developments, not least increased trade. The EESC will be monitoring the way forward in this regard and wants to play a constructive role in giving the process form and practical substance.

1.2

The EESC endorses the Commission's proposal, which, for the time being, involves only limited changes and adaptations. These tie in with the proposals set out in the preliminary evaluation of overall policy in this area, and simplified administrative arrangements and scope for multi-annual planning are, at any event, desirable objectives. The EESC likewise backs the proposal to provide for financial assistance for the computerisation of trade and import procedures and integrated computerised veterinary systems. The proposed list of diseases and zoonoses, and the simplified procedure for modifying that list, also appear expedient.

2.1

The Commission has launched an evaluation of the EU's overall animal health policy. This includes a cost-effectiveness assessment of the current financial instruments that are designed to cover the surveillance, control and eradication of animal disease and zoonoses. Consideration is also being given to the most effective ways of inducing producers to take the requisite preventive measures. Based on the outcome of this evaluation, alternatives to the current way in which Community financial support is granted to the Member States might be proposed (1). For the time being, the Commission has opted to propose only a few, limited adjustments involving no change of policy on the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses. The proposal merely seeks to make directly applicable and obviously necessary changes that have been shown to be useful as part of the ongoing evaluation.

2.2

The Commission proposal simplifies the approval and financing procedures for national programmes for the eradication, monitoring and control of animal diseases and zoonoses. Under the proposal, programmes may be approved and financed for up to six years at a time. Up to now, although the Member States have been entitled to submit multi-annual programmes, the Commission has been unable to approve the financing of such programmes for more than one year at a time. There is also a proposal to broaden the scope of the financial provisions to improve information policy on animal health and food safety in products of animal origin and the use of integrated computerised veterinary systems (2).

2.3

Under the existing rules, financial assistance may be provided to cover expenditure incurred by the Member States for the financing of national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of 23 endemic animal diseases and 8 zoonoses or epizootics (3). The list may be added to or modified by the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. With a view to securing sharper prioritisation, the Commission is proposing a shorter list of diseases eligible for co-financing. The Commission explains that the list has been drawn up to a greater extent on the basis of the impact of the diseases both on public health and on international and intra-Community trade. It is also proposed to merge the lists of diseases and of zoonoses and to subject them to the same procedure for the granting of any financial contribution (4). As the Commission says, this is designed so as to make better use of resources and to ensure that Member State priorities tie in with those of the EU and are consistent with other national programmes. It is also proposed that any future modifications to the list be adopted under a regulatory committee procedure. The Commission feels that this is particularly relevant in respect of emerging diseases that pose a risk for both animal and public health.

3.1

Community co-financing of measures to eradicate, control and monitor infectious animal diseases and zoonoses has always attracted considerable interest, given the complex nature and impact of the diseases involved and the substantial costs that such activities incur. To control serious infectious animal diseases, however, clear financial procedures need to be in place and assurances must be given from the outset and in all cases that full compensation will be paid in cases where, for instance, animals have to be slaughtered or products destroyed. Otherwise there is a risk that, at the start of any outbreak or suspected outbreak of a serious infectious animal disease, the action taken will be too ineffectual, thus making the impact more far-reaching than need be the case. This applies in particular to the national policy-making process. Also, any outbreak of a serious infectious animal disease often attracts a great deal of public attention, provoking major consumer reaction even in the absence of any direct and incontrovertible link to food safety issues.

3.2

Greater market access and trade, longer transport times and the concentration of livestock in various different ways increase the risk of diseases spreading and raise the economic impact involved in prevention and control. For that reason too, there is a need for an overall evaluation of Community animal health policy, including a more detailed assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the current financial instruments that are designed to cover animal disease surveillance, control and eradication, and of the prevention measures required in herds. The EESC wants to play an active part in framing the requisite co-financing models in respect of national programmes, not least to provide a more coherent and effective framework for food safety policy ensuring a higher level of transparency.

3.3

In this connection, the EESC laments the opaqueness and complexity of the existing rules and will thus, as part of the upcoming revision, be calling for a more readily understandable and cohesive system and a better classification of the co-financing rules. There is a need, therefore, to identify and facilitate the use of the relevant legislation throughout the EU in the wide field of animal health and food safety. This will also support the activity of the Commission and the Member States in the international framework by improving the understanding and transparency of EU legislation vis-à-vis the EU's trade partners and neighbours. Information gathering and dissemination will also help secure more effective implementation of the rules.

4.1

The EESC feels that the proposal giving scope to approve and finance national programmes for a number of years at a time will clearly make for administrative simplification and help ensure the more effective achievement of the programme objectives. It will also help make for a better and more transparent administration, thus securing better use of Community funds.

4.2

The collection and dissemination of current information relating to animal health and food safety is needed for the better development and implementation of legislation in this field. In future, it will be particularly important to put in place more transparent Community legislation and to communicate that legislation to the authorities, producers and consumers concerned.

4.3

The EESC thus backs the proposal that the EU make a financial contribution to the establishment of an information policy in the field of animal health, animal welfare and food safety in products of animal origin including the installation and development of information tools, such as, for instance, an appropriate database for gathering and storing information relating to Community legislation.

4.4

Likewise, it is appropriate to take into account the technical developments achieved in the computerisation of the veterinary procedures and to provide for the resources needed for the hosting, management and maintenance of the integrated computerised veterinary systems.

4.5

The list of animal diseases and zoonoses that may give entitlement to co-financing should, it goes without saying, reflect the priorities set in line with the potential impact of such diseases and zoonoses both on public health and on international and intra-Community trade in animals and products of animal origin. The EESC agrees that, as proposed, the focus should be placed more on zoonoses and public health rather than on more production-related animal diseases, and endorses the proposal to merge the lists of diseases and of zoonoses and to provide for the same procedure for the granting of any Community financial contribution.

4.6

Naturally, the technical and information requirements for the eradication, control and monitoring programmes for which Community financing is sought should be updated and adjusted in a regular and timely fashion in order to match technical and scientific progress and feedback from experience in the implementation of the programmes. It is therefore appropriate, in line with the proposal, to enable the Commission to adopt those technical criteria — and update them as necessary — using a regulatory committee procedure.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/25

1.1

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2.1

The Committee regards it as very useful to have all the texts integrated into one Directive. In the context of a People's Europe, the Committee, like the Commission, attaches great importance to simplifying and clarifying Community law so as to make it clearer and more accessible to ordinary citizens, thus giving them new opportunities and the chance to make use of the specific rights it gives them.

2.2

The Committee believes that codification must be undertaken in full compliance with the normal Community legislative procedure.

2.3

It has been ensured that this compilation of provisions contains no changes of substance and serves only the purpose of presenting Community law in a clear and transparent way. The Committee expresses its total support for this objective and, in the light of these guarantees, welcomes the proposal.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/26

1.1

The Commission proposal seeks, using the accelerated procedure provided for in the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994, to codify Directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves. Codification is used for legal instruments that have become difficult to understand as a result of frequent amendments.

1.2

The directive in question has been thoroughly revamped on a number of occasions, making it difficult for the intended users of the legislation to understand its content and scope without legal research and clarification of the text currently in force.

2.1

For these reasons, the European Economic and Social Committee endorses the proposal for codification, which makes it easier for Europe's citizens to access EU law and helps secure better lawmaking — a concern advocated and voiced by the Committee in earlier opinions (1).

2.2

Under Article 6 of the Directive, the Commission was supposed, not later than 1 January 2006, to submit to the Council a report, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), on the intensive farming system(s) which comply with the requirements of the well-being of calves from the pathological, zootechnical, physiological and behavioural point of view, as well as the socio-economic implications of different systems. The report was also to include proposals relevant to its own conclusions. The Council was then to act by a qualified majority on these proposals no later than three months after their submission.

2.3

This did not happen, yet, despite the fact that the deadline has long since expired, the Commission now appears to be proposing that codification be carried out with effect from that date, thereby, in effect, ruling out the use of the simplified procedure since any amendment would require a fresh decision.

2.4

As the EESC has frequently pointed out, it is unacceptable for institutions and the Member States to lay down deadlines they themselves are unable to meet. This undermines respect for — and confidence in — EU rules, with the upshot that other stakeholders also feel under no obligation to meet the specified deadlines either.

2.5

In its proposal for an Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, the Commission also announced the ‘submission of a report to Council and the European Parliament on the protection of calves kept for farming purposes’ for 2008 (2). This draft report will be based on the EFSA report published in June 2006 (3). The Commission will now be studying the report, gathering additional data, assessing the social and economic aspects and consulting with experts, Member States and other stakeholders before the submission of any tangible proposals. The EESC welcomes the basic preliminary work, but deplores the failure to meet the deadline.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/27

1.1

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. The new Directive will supersede the various Directives incorporated in it; their content is fully preserved, and they are brought together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2.1

The Committee considers it extremely helpful that all the legislation on this matter is being consolidated into a single directive. Keeping in mind the goal of a people's Europe, the Committee agrees with the Commission on the importance of simplifying and clarifying Community legislation so as to make it clearer and more accessible to ordinary people, thus opening up new opportunities to them and enabling them to benefit from the rights that legislation gives them.

2.2

To protect human health and the environment, all measures to ensure the optimum use of biotechnology, in particular for human foodstuffs, need to be taken, and all use of genetically-modified micro-organisms (GMMs) must be contained so as to avoid any negative consequences.

2.3

The EESC emphasises that the control of GMMs can only be effective if it is applied consistently in all Member States of the Community, as GMMs, once used, can reproduce across borders.

2.4

The EESC recalls that a genetically modified micro-organism (GMM) is ‘a micro-organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally’ and agrees with the Commission's stated position relating to occupational safety and hygiene and to prevention of accidents and control of dissemination.

2.5

The Committee has satisfied itself that this codification does not involve any substantive change to the provisions it consolidates and simply serves to present Community legislation in a clear format. The Committee fully supports this aim, and, having satisfied itself as stated above, is in favour of the proposal under consideration.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/28

1.1

The purpose of the Commission proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Decision 90/638/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases. The new Decision will supersede the various acts incorporated in it. It preserves their content and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2.1

Accordingly, the Committee approves the proposed codification, which will give the public easier access to the law and contribute towards better lawmaking.

3.1

The issue of whether other simplification procedures could be used without undermining the effectiveness of the current system of monitoring and eradicating animal diseases should also be addressed.

3.2

Increasingly, the pathogens which affect animals tend to come from countries outside the European Union. In the very near future, the European Union and its Member States will need to become more vigilant and to pool their skills in the area of combating animal diseases in order to preserve public health and ensure that citizens can eat meat products safely.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/29

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) points out that an EU Forest Action Plan must be drawn up in an economically, ecologically and socially (sustainably) balanced and equivalent way. The same applies to the practical implementation of the key functions.

1.2

The Committee takes the view that the number of objectives should be increased from 4 to 5, by adding ‘Promotion of the forest as a workplace’ which would include the ‘safeguarding and extension of the vocational skills of those employed in forests’ and the ‘strengthening and maintenance of rural areas’.

1.3

The Committee proposes that the subject of safeguarding and extending vocational skills of those employed in forests should be taken into account when considering the forest as a workplace. This is a reasonable proposal, since it is ultimately the employees of forest enterprises, ministries and administrations of the Member States who will be expected to put the Action Plan into practice in the rural areas alongside the forest owners.

1.4

The EESC sees the strengthening and maintenance of rural areas as an important factor in ensuring that the EU Forest Action Plan can be successfully implemented on the spot in the Member States. The rural areas chapter of the Action Plan actively ensures that these areas in Europe have a future and do not atrophy and lag behind as ecological and social wastelands.

1.5

The Committee attaches importance to the fact that the EU Forest Action Plan is a totally reliable project and not a mere declaration of will. Reliability is the key to the acceptance and credibility of an EU Forest Action Plan.

2.1

In drawing up the EU Forest Action Plan the Commission and the Member States formulated a common vision of forestry and the contribution of forests and forest management to modern society:

2.2

Forests for society: long-term, multi-functional forestry, which fulfils current and future social requirements and guarantees forest-related livelihoods.

2.3

Multi-functional forestry offers economic, ecological, social and cultural advantages. It provides renewable, environment-friendly raw materials and plays an important role in economic development, employment and well-being in Europe, particularly in the rural areas. Forests contribute to the quality of life, in that they provide a pleasant living area, leisure and recreational opportunities and at the same time represent conservation and ecological values. Forests should conserve the spiritual and cultural heritage which they represent.

2.4

In line with the above, the Action Plan pursues four objectives:

2.5

The five-year Action Plan (2007-2011) consists of a range of key actions which the Commission would like to put into practice together with the Member States. It also contains additional actions which can be carried out by the Member States in accordance with their specific conditions and priorities with the support of existing Community instruments; the implementation of these may also make national instruments necessary.

2.6

With a view to the practical implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan a transparent framework is needed for forest-related measures and decisions at Community and Member State level.

2.7

The Action Plan should serve to inform and develop further targeted forest policy activities between Community measures and the forest policies of the Member States.

2.8

The objectives of the EU Forest Action Plan are the maintenance, support and extension of economic, ecological and social (sustainable) forest management and of the multifunctional role of forests.

2.9

The principle would be to lay down nationally comparable forest programmes as a binding framework for the implementation of international forest-related obligations and rules. The growing importance in forest policy of global and cross-sectoral themes, such as the use of wood as an energy source, requires better consistency, information and coordination.

2.10

Against the background of the great variety of ecological, social, economic and cultural features and the different forms of forest ownership in the EU, the EESC believes that the Action Plan should take account of the need for specific regional incentives and measures for the various kinds of forest management and property relationships. It brings out the important role played by forest owners, forest management employees and the rural area in the sustainable management of EU forests.

2.11

The Committee recommends the Commission to take into account the following five objectives in its EU Forest Action Plan:

3.1.1

The Committee believes that potential forest products other than wood, such as the provision of high-quality drinking water or the relationship between CO2 and the trade in emissions, should in this connection be taken into consideration under this objective.

3.1.2.1

In addition to encouragement, the general exchange/knowledge transfer of results of research and technological development between European research centres should also help to strengthen the competitiveness of the forest sector.

3.1.2.2

To improve the general competitiveness of forestry the Action Plan should clarify scientifically, in cooperation with the individual Member States, how many employees with relevant qualifications are needed in the Member States to carry on sustainable forest management on the basis of national laws and regulations in an economically viable way.

3.1.3.1

The EESC considers that the forest owner should not be compensated through subsidies for currently non-marketed forest goods and services. The payment for services should be made directly to the forest owner by the individual users and beneficiaries.

3.1.3.2

The Committee advises the Commission to propose to the Standing Forestry Committee that an ad hoc working group be set up to find out and document what activities and experiences in connection with additional marketing possibilities for forest products and services exist in the individual Member States. All forest owners and Member States will benefit from such an exchange of documentation.

3.1.4.1

In the processing of wood residues for energy generation it must be ensured that this use does not lead to impoverishment of soil quality and consequent reduction in the variety of species.

3.1.4.2

When chemically treated wood waste is used as an energy source it should be ensured that in the combustion process dangerous residues are not released into the air and soil.

3.1.4.3

The EESC believes that European decisions must be taken on the basis of scientifically based research results as to who (Member States) uses wood as an energy source, and how and where it is used in a sustainable way. In the developing countries alone 50 % of wood consumed is used up as irreplaceable fuel (energy source) with no corresponding added value. This should not be allowed to happen in the Member States of the EU; it should be ruled out. The most favourable strategic choice in ecological, economic and social terms for European energy production using wood should be assessed in a long-term perspective and put into practice.

3.1.4.4

Before any genetically manipulated seed or plant material is used in forestry it must be ensured that it is ecologically acceptable.

3.1.5.1

Cooperation should be encouraged not only with forest owners but also with those employed in forestry. Here the forester and middle management in the rural area have a special role as a link between forest owners and industry; this role should be maintained and promoted through appropriate structures. The mobilisation of wood resources and forest management depend on the availability of qualified management on the spot.

3.1.5.2

Against this background, the EESC argues that the Member States should promote the vocational training and further training of forest owners, forest management, forest workers and forestry enterprises. The Member States should encourage not only forest owners' associations but also employees' professional organisations by setting up advisory services. This encouragement is a component of sustainable (social) development, which is particularly needed in the rural environment.

3.1.5.3

To increase the competitiveness and the economic viability of forestry the Member States can also, as part of their priorities,

3.2.1

The Committee believes that the maintenance, protection and extension of ecological sustainability in forestry and conservation are essential to achieve this objective proposed by the Commission.

3.2.2

The EESC sees voluntary certification of forest enterprises in recognised certification systems as very helpful in guaranteeing, promoting and extending sustainability.

3.2.3.1

The EESC welcomes the concept of a European Forest Monitoring System. The relevant international organisations to be involved should be listed by name to ensure that important actors and expertise are not omitted.

3.2.3.2

A European Forest Data Centre should present the collected, scientifically evaluated data to a wide public and make it available as needed in accordance with the guidelines of data protection.

3.2.4.1

The important basis for current information on the state of forests is the annually drawn up and published forestry reports of the individual Member States. Therefore, the Committee believes that the drawing up of the individual reports should be promoted through the EAFRD and the Life+ instrument.

3.2.4.2

The transition from single crops, which are susceptible to fire, to mixed stands as a precaution against forest fires should be used and promoted more intensively.

3.3

Concerning the third objective of the Action Plan proposed by the Commission (‘Contributing to the quality of life’), the Committee proposes the following new wording: ‘Improving the quality of life through sustainable forest management’.

3.3.1

In its communication, the Commission notes that Member states can encourage investment to enhance the public amenity of Forests. The Committee considers the EAFRD should as well provide support in maintaining and strengthening rural areas, as forests play a very important role in it.

3.3.2.1

The promotion of training and information measures should not be confined to the environmental field; the social field should also be promoted. The two fields overlap, for example the social responsibility of teachers or the cultural dimension require a maximum of training and information in the social field.

3.3.3.1

In urban areas and conurbations woodland and the stock of wood are clearly decreasing in all Member States. Woodland is at risk both from greater emission damage and particularly from clearing activities. Compensatory land in the same natural area is rarely available, owing to the above average demand for residential and industrial land and the constant extension of infrastructure. Roads, railways and airport extensions play an important part in this trend.

3.4.1.1

The EESC considers that, during the implementation of the Action Plan joint meetings, should be organised in which associations and actors from the entire sustainable forest management of Europe meet and represent their respective fields. The same applies to the setting up of ad hoc working groups. These measures would ensure that the Action Plan would be accepted and supported by many actors in forest management.

3.4.2.1

A measure to reduce worldwide deforestation would be to establish a European primeval forest protection law laying down among other things under what legal conditions wood from tropical and primeval forests arrives in the EU and is processed and used there. The Commission should examine an appropriate legal initiative and achieve the adoption of a European primeval forest protection law by 2012. The EESC would like to emphasise that the ongoing EU FLEGT process can be a tool to combat worldwide deforestation and deterioration of primeval forests. The FLEGT legislation should work as a system to prevent illegally logged timber entering the EU markets and processing industry.

3.4.3.1

To achieve a multiplier effect, all stakeholders in forest management should be involved and financially supported in events likely to have great influence on the public in the Member States.

3.5

In order to guarantee sustainable forest management in the EU, The EESC believes that the vocational skills of those employed in the forest should be ensured. The strengthening and maintenance of rural areas also plays a decisive role in this connection. Therefore, the EESC calls upon the Commission to take into consideration the following new objective:‘Promoting the forest as a workplace’.

3.5.1

The Committee stresses that the forest can fulfil all its functions and social tasks only if enough people (forest workers, machine operators, forest management officials and forest managers) are employed in its management and care. These employees should have a basic specialised qualification and receive continuing further training. Of course this also applies to forest owners working with their employees. The qualification should be adapted to the economic, ecological and social requirements of the job. This applies particularly to ensuring conservation in forests.

3.5.2

To achieve this objective, the EESC proposes following new Key actions:

3.5.3.1

The Commission and the Member States should increase their promotion of training/further training, research, development and technology transfer in the field of forestry, wood and conservation.

3.5.3.2

The Committee defends that the Commission must support recognised forest management certification systems, which help to guarantee and extend employment by providing indicators of sustainable personnel planning and development in forest enterprises.

3.5.4.1

The Commission should support scientific research on the connection between sustainable forest management and the vocational training/qualification of forest owners and employees in forest management (clarification of requirements).

3.5.4.2

The EESC advises the Commission to make a study of what specific job profiles are needed to ensure that the forest sector is competitive in the long term.

3.5.5.1

Woodland in the Member States is mainly found in structurally weak rural areas. In these areas the forest sector ensures the maintenance of the infrastructure and the employment and income of the forest owners and the rural population. Without economically intact forestry these ecologically valuable tourist areas would be uncoupled from the general development of a country. Likely consequences of this would be migration of population away from the land, an ageing population, neglected woodlands or decline in infrastructure. The destruction of rural structures leads inevitably to difficulties in the use of wood as a raw material at a time of increasing global demand.

3.5.5.2

The Commission should promote and support investigation and research on the importance of forestry for rural areas.

3.5.5.3

The EESC believes that the Member States should be called upon to guarantee and improve the labour market situation in rural areas. Social hardship arising from continuing structural change is to be avoided. If necessary such developments should be counteracted through coordinated programmes. The attractiveness of rural areas for the population, particularly young people, should be increased.

3.5.5.4

The Committee urges the Commission to support rural areas financially through the EAFRD. On receipt of a request financial support should be given directly to forest owners/enterprises or to combinations of forest enterprises.

4.1

The Commission should ensure that all stakeholders of European forestry are represented in the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/34

1.1

The 1979 rules on the production and circulation of compound feedingstuffs for livestock have been subject to a number of amendments relating, among other things, to labelling and composition information (1). As a result, the balance between confidentiality (as advocated by the feedingstuffs industry) and full disclosure of content and composition (as advocated by the farming sector) has also shifted a number of times.

1.2

The labelling rules were harmonised in 1990 and stipulated that the relevant feed materials should be listed out in descending order by weight, without any obligation to declare the actual quantities involved. Following the BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and dioxin crises, it was decided in 2002 to introduce so-called ‘open labelling’ to provide both quantitative and qualitative content information. Under these arrangements, it became mandatory to declare the percentages of materials used in descending order by weight, with a tolerance of 15 % of the declared value. Provision was also made to communicate the exact percentages by weight of feed materials used in the compound feedingstuffs, at the customer's request (2).

1.3

This requirement was referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the context of the examination of a number of requests by the feedingstuffs industry for the annulment or suspension of the relevant national rules. In its judgment handed down on 6 December 2005 (3) the Court of Justice largely supported the position of the EU institutions, not least as regards the validity of the directive. However, under the principle of proportionality, the Court did declare invalid the obligation to inform customers, on request, of the exact percentages by weight of feed materials used in the compound feedingstuffs. Among other things, the Court found that the obligation could not be justified by the objective of protecting public health and went beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

1.4

Against that backdrop, the Commission is therefore proposing a ‘correcting Decision’ taking account of the principle that amending acts should not be amended themselves but that they may, however, be corrected. According to the Commission, this ‘will guarantee transparency and clarity of Community law while at the same time not imposing a direct obligation on the Member States to change their national legislation, as they are in any case obliged to take all appropriate measures under their national legal systems to ensure fulfilment of the Court's judgment’.

2.1

The EU feedingstuffs industry is well aware of the Court of Justice ruling and, from the comment cited above, the Commission recognises that the correction has no practical implications. However, the EESC feels that the rules must reflect the current legal position and thus supports the Commission's proposed correction.

2.2

The EESC also supports the principle of ‘open compounds’ which facilitates user choice and is also conducive to competition in this area. It is important for agricultural producers to know as accurately as possible what is contained in the compounds, not only in terms of the actual feed composition alone, but also so as to be able to compare prices and quality. The arguments advanced by the feedingstuffs industry — including the demand for confidentiality in the interests of market competition and possible patenting — appear to carry less weight in the light of the experience gained to date in the compound feedingstuffs market.

2.3

That said, the EESC does recognise that special arrangements apply in individual cases and to quite specific compound feedingstuffs used, for instance, in fish farming (4). The EESC would therefore ask the Commission, in interests of confidentiality vis-à-vis ongoing technological developments, to consider exempting a small number of special compounds from the requirement to declare the percentages of materials used in descending order by weight. However, any such provision must be applicable in exceptional cases only and only where absolutely necessary.

2.4

In practical terms, the provision to declare the percentages of materials used by weight, with a tolerance of 15 % of the declared value, is by and large warranted. Where it is, in practice, impossible to check lower quantities (e.g. 10 %) with this kind of accuracy, the national inspection authorities must be able to carry out checks using company documentation.

2.5

It is sometimes claimed that it is, in practice, impossible to analyse the content of a compound. This is not true — allowing for the exception mentioned above — since laboratories are in place in all the Member States that are perfectly able to perform this task quite satisfactorily.

2.6

Last but not least, the EESC feels that, in the interests of intra-Community trade and compliance with EU rules in this field, it is vital that Member State authorities monitor the relevant provisions and observe them fully — something that has not always been the case in the past. The Commission should, with the help of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), show more commitment to meeting its obligations in this regard than it has done so far.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/36

1.1

The proposed decision (1) aims to repeal the Council Decision of 21 March 1962 (2) instituting a procedure for prior examination and consultation in respect of certain laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning transport proposed in Member States.

1.2

The purpose of the proposed decision is to codify the Council Decision of 21 March 1962, and hence it fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

1.3

The current codification proposal follows from the Commission's decision of 1 April 1987 (3) in which it instructs its staff to undertake the codification of all legislative acts after no more than ten amendments in order to ensure that the Community rules are clear and readily understandable.

2.1

The Committee is particularly concerned about recent trends that alienate European citizens from the European idea and more importantly from the European legislative and decision making process. The Committee's mission is to help bridge the widening gap between Europe and organized civil society, that is to say its citizens.

2.2

Clearly, as long as several provisions that have been amended several times remain in fragmented form, so that they have to be sought partly in the original instrument and partly in the latter, amending one, the considerable research work will prevent ordinary citizens and numerous civil society organizations to find easily the legal information they need.

2.3

Therefore the Committee fully endorses the current proposal, in the particular hope that it will help all citizens and civil society interest groups to get better and more precise information concerning a given European legislative instrument.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/37

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee reiterates the great importance it attaches to the success of the Galileo satellite radio-navigation programme. The EESC has emphasised in several opinions (1) on the matter that Galileo is the European Union's flagship scientific and technical project, particularly in terms of the strategic challenge that the civilian-managed European satellite radio-navigation system represents, not just for the global system of satellite navigation and positioning, but also for services to business, citizens, society and for a more globally competitive European industry.

1.2

The Committee believes it is essential that the strategic value of the Galileo programme should be universally recognised, given that it is the biggest public-private partnership project ever undertaken thus far on a European scale, and the first public infrastructure with a constellation of thirty satellites over three different orbits. It is the property of the European institutions and can offer a new global public service with a market that is increasing exponentially (2), and with accurate space and time positioning over the entire planet.

1.3

The Committee cannot conceal its concern regarding the delay in completing the development and in-orbit validation phase for the satellites and ground components of the system, which was meant to have been concluded under the responsibility of the Galileo Joint Undertaking during 2006 and which will now last until the beginning of 2009. The successive phases involving positioning the satellite constellation, full installation of the ground components and the operating phase — particularly commercial — cannot therefore be completed before the end of 2010.

1.4

The Committee fully agrees with the need to avoid the waste of resources and expertise that would derive from extending the work of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, which was tasked with covering the entire development and in-orbit validation phase, following the establishment of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority, which already started operations in mid-2006, in accordance with the Council Regulation of 12 July 2004 (3).

1.5

The Committee believes, however that it is essential, as it emphasised in a recent opinion: ‘… for the hand-over period between the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU) and the Galileo Supervisory Authority (GSA) to be effected smoothly’, and to ensure:

1.6

While the Committee endorses the guiding principles of the proposal to amend the statutes of the GJU (5), on which referral to the EESC is mandatory under Article 171 of the Treaty, it would highlight the following points and make the recommendations outlined below.

1.6.1

While the Committee endorses the amendments to the above Regulation, it feels it is insufficient to propose modifications to the annexed statutes alone. It believes it should also provide for:

1.6.2

Regarding the Galileo Supervisory Authority (GSA), the EESC believes it is essential to amend the original GSA regulation ‘in order to introduce the tasks transferred from the GJU to the GSA, such as steering the development and in-orbit validation phase, managing the activities emerging from the European R&D framework programmes, and monitoring and managing technical developments in the operational system’.

1.6.2.1

The GSA was established under Council Regulation No 1321/2004/EC of 12 July 2004 and has been operational since mid-2006. It was set up to provide for management of public interests relating to the European EGNOS and Galileo satellite radio-navigation programmes, and to act as contracting authority for future satellite radio-navigation services concession contracts. However, the regulation does not provide for the GSA to manage the development phase or any research work or activity during such or successive phases, nor does it provide the human and financial resources required to cope with such tasks.

1.6.2.2

The Committee has not been consulted on the Council's draft Regulation COM(2006) 261 final of 2 June 2006, amending Regulation No 1321/2004/EC on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes. Consequently, a discussion of its content is beyond the scope of the present opinion.

1.7

The Committee believes, however, that it is essential to amend Regulation No 1321/2004/EC in order to ensure the continuity of the Galileo programme and the appropriate transfer of activities from the Galileo Joint Undertaking to the Supervisory Authority, and to provide the best guarantee of completion for the development phase of the Programme once the Joint Undertaking has been wound up. Similarly, the legal, technical and financial arrangements and questions must be clarified, after 31 December 2006, in order to facilitate the completion of the various phases and to ensure the system can be fully operational.

1.8

The Committee would stress the need for ‘the Commission, the Galileo Joint Undertaking, the European GNSS Supervisory Authority and the European Space Agency to make every effort to ensure that the Galileo system is fully operational by the end of 2010’, as called for in the Conclusions of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council of 12 October 2006. The Council also welcomed the Commission's legislative proposals aiming to transfer the remaining activities of the Galileo Joint Undertaking to the Authority during 2006.

1.9

The Committee requests that it be kept updated on Galileo Programme developments and on the crucial role of the ESA in designing and developing European GNSS programmes. Furthermore, the EESC would like to be consulted on the Green Paper on Galileo applications which the Commission intends to publish before the end of 2006 (6).

2.1

The EESC has followed the creation and development of the Galileo European satellite radio-navigation and positioning programme from its very beginnings, recognising the strategic, fundamental role it plays in the competitiveness of the European system, both in terms of its innovative, occupational and social implications, and improved quality of life for citizens.

2.2

The Galileo programme provides for four successive phases:

2.3

The Committee is extremely concerned at the delays accumulated in the development and in-orbit validation phase and, consequently, in the subsequent commercial exploitation phases. This is a setback that compromises the general timetable that was established for the project, and holds up the delivery of an exceptional instrument that combines the expertise and results of European research, and that can provide for successful participation in the global market for satellite radio-navigation related products and services. In 2005 this market was worth EUR 60 billion, with an annual growth rate of 25 %; it generated, in the EU alone, 150 000 jobs, mainly in the high-tech, research and services sectors.

2.4

As it stressed in a recent opinion (7), the EESC is even more concerned about the current uncertainty surrounding the legal, technical and financial arrangements and questions. This uncertainty affects both the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJA) and the Supervisory Authority (GSA) and could, if not resolved by the end of 2006, compromise the satisfactory completion of the different phases which were planned in order to ensure the system can be fully operational, and which can play a fundamental role in delivering a European economy based on more competitive knowledge, on a global level.

2.5

The EESC has previously highlighted the need to involve — from the very launch phase of the Galileo Joint Undertaking — private partners in the development and exploitation of the system, and to provide continuous support when the project is underway, given that Galileo is the biggest European public-private partnership ever.

2.6

At the end of the definition phase in May 2002, the Galileo Joint Undertaking was established in accordance with Article 171 of the EC Treaty by Regulation 876/2002/EC, with the EU and the ESA (8) as founding members, for a four-year period ‘to ensure the unity of the administration and financial control of the project for the research, development and demonstration of the Galileo Programme and to this end mobilise the funds assigned to that programme’.

2.7

The Galileo Joint Undertaking was set up to complete the development phase and to prepare the subsequent phases of the Galileo programme, with two main tasks:

2.8

In its Resolution on the Action Plan for implementing the European Space Policy (9) of 29 January 2004, the European Parliament also noted the vital importance of the Galileo Programme for the development of industry, transport, environmental protection and the delivery of the Lisbon Strategy objectives, and called on the Commission and the Council to provide Galileo with efficient structures, and for the creation of a Supervisory Authority to ensure, in addition to transparent operations, the safety of the system (10).

2.9

The Supervisory Authority was established under Council Regulation No 1321/2004/EC of 12 July 2004 and has been operational since mid-2006, to provide for management of public interests relating to the European EGNOS and Galileo satellite radio-navigation programmes, and to act as contracting authority for future satellite radio-navigation services concession contracts.

2.10

The current regulation does not provide scope for management of the development phase or any research work or activity during such or successive phases, nor does it provide the human and financial resources required to cope with such tasks.

2.11

The regulations of the GJU (11), on the other hand, provide for a four-year timeframe, which expired in mid-2006. The regulation should, therefore, be extended so that the entire satellite and ground component development phase and the ‘in-orbit’ system validation phase can be completed, along with negotiations for selecting the future concessionaire.

2.12

In order to avoid any further project delays and any uncertainty in relations between the different parties, the Committee believes there is a need to proceed with a rapid, transparent review of both the GJU and the GSA regulations, in order to provide the parties with clear ground rules when expertise is transferred between the two bodies.

2.13

The Committee endorses the objectives of the proposal under discussion, which aims to avoid the waste of resources and expertise that would derive from extending the work of the Galileo Joint Undertaking following the establishment of the European GSA Supervisory Authority, which already started operations in mid-2006.

2.14

The EESC considers, however, that the content of the proposal is inadequate, partly because it confines itself to the GJU statutes annexed to Regulation 876/2002/EC, and partly because the proposal should tie in with the review of the GSA regulation, on which the Committee has not thus far been consulted.

2.15

Given the current state of play, the Galileo development phase will not be completed before the end of 2008. Only then will the four satellites that are to be built and launched by the European Space Agency as part of the ‘in-orbit validation’ phase be operational. Consequently, and in accordance with the current statutes, the Galileo Joint Undertaking should continue to operate until the end of 2008, i.e. with a lifecycle approximately three years longer than initially intended.

2.16

Furthermore, the GSA was set up to provide for management of public interests relating to the European EGNOS and Galileo satellite radio-navigation programmes, and to act as contracting authority for future satellite radio-navigation services concession contracts, but not to manage the development phase or any research work or activity during that phase. In addition, the GSA has not been provided with the human and financial resources required to cope with such tasks.

2.17

The Committee shares the Council's stance on ‘the importance of promoting the European satellite radio-navigation system in order to achieve commercial success, particularly by research activities.’ The Council considers that ‘the largest proportion of the economic benefits of Galileo comes primarily from downstream applications’ (12).

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/41

1.1

As it has stated on a number of occasions, the European Economic and Social Committee attaches the utmost importance to the success of the GALILEO programme.

1.2

In its own-initiative opinion The Galileo programme: the successful establishment of the European Supervisory Authority, the Committee also emphasised that the hand-over from the GALILEO Joint Undertaking to the Galileo Supervisory Authority must be effected smoothly and with legal certainty.

1.3

The Committee thus approves of the Council's legal approach, which aims to amend Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes in order to ensure the continuity of the GALILEO programme and the successful transfer of activities from the GALILEO Joint Undertaking to the Supervisory Authority.

1.4

The Committee considers that the proposed amendment to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004, which sets out the tasks of the Supervisory Authority, effectively meets the need to enable the Supervisory Authority (a) to ensure the completion of the development phase and (b) to carry out research activities that are useful and necessary to the European GNSS programmes.

1.5

The Committee also considers that the new wording proposed for Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 adequately meets the need to ensure the necessary legal certainty as regards the ownership of the system — before the end of the development phase — and of tangible and intangible assets created or developed before the Joint Undertaking is wound up and during the ensuing development phase.

1.6

Like the Council, the Committee also stresses that it would be advisable to avoid pointless and costly organisational overlap as far as possible and that constructive cooperation between the organisations during the transitional period must be ensured.

1.7

Finally the EESC welcomes the fact that the proposed text includes the recommendations that it made in its own-initiative opinion (TEN/246).

2.1

The proposed Council Regulation aims to regulate the legal and ownership-related problems that might arise, on the basis of the wording of current texts, as a consequence of the winding-up of the Joint Undertaking before the end of the development phase and before its activities are taken over by the European Supervisory Authority.

2.2

In order to prevent these difficulties arising, the draft Regulation proposes to add text to the current wording of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 and to replace Article 3(1) of that Regulation with a new text.

3.1

When the GALILEO programme started up, the tasks allocated to the Joint Undertaking and to the European Supervisory Authority were different, both in their nature and in their timetable for implementation. Today, due to the approximately two-year delay in starting the development phase and in actually establishing the European Supervisory Authority, it has been necessary for economic, legal and technical reasons to enable the Supervisory Authority to intervene in the development phase and to wind up the Joint Undertaking. This, of course, has required changes to existing law, specifically to Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004.

3.2

During this inevitable transitional period, these two bodies must work in close cooperation in order to ensure a smooth transfer of activities.

3.3

The transfer of activity and of know-how can only be successful if the legal framework is clearly defined and legal certainty is ensured.

3.4

The aim of the proposal is precisely to establish this legal framework and to ensure this legal security on the essential issues, which are:

3.5

The proposed Regulation meets these requirements and the Council's clear willingness to avoid any organisational overlap, which would be both pointless and costly, must be welcomed.

3.6

With regard to another legal aspect, which is not directly related to the Regulation in question, the Council should consider the issue of the launching States' international liability for the satellites in the GALILEO constellation.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/42

1.1

The Committee shares the views of the Commission which, in the light of the high prices that mobile users pay for the ‘international roaming’ service on their mobile handsets, has presented a proposal for a regulation to provide a harmonised legal basis for action to facilitate the completion of the internal market for electronic communications and, at the same time, put citizens at the centre of Community policy.

1.2

The proposal is necessary and proportionate, and raises 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 at retail and wholesale level.

1.3

The Committee would prefer the Commission, in its review of the functioning of the regulation, to base its ensuing proposals on the ‘calling party pays’ principle. and the ‘home pricing’ principle under which the prices paid by roaming customers are similar to those applied by their home network.

2.1

Europeans' increasing mobility outside their own countries and, in particular, within the EU, has generated an increasing need to ensure telephone communication through the ever-growing numbers of mobile handsets. Users' ability to make and receive calls when travelling abroad, thanks to agreements between the operators in different countries, is known as ‘roaming’.

2.1.1

This involves services provided by a national mobile network operator (visited network) to a mobile operator in another country (home network). The market usually comprises the following services:

2.1.2

It is estimated that almost 150 million Europeans are already using this service, either when on holiday or, to a much greater extent (accounting for some three-quarters of the total), for work purposes.

2.2

Roaming unarguably offers economic and social benefits to users, but has also been repeatedly criticised by users, consumer organisations, regulatory authorities and politicians on account of its prices, which are much higher than those paid for national calls. Critics also point out that roaming prices are far from transparent for end users; they are unjustified in view of the costs involved in providing the service, and vary widely between countries and operators: broadly speaking, prices range from EUR 0.20 paid by a Finnish user calling home from Sweden, and EUR 13.05 paid by a Maltese user in Latvia. According to several studies of the sector, operating companies are earning some EUR 8.5 billion a year across the EU for this service, representing between 3 % and 7 % of their turnover — and which is still rising.

2.3

The Commission has been expressing its concern at the high prices of roaming for mobile users travelling in Europe since the end of the last decade, through a number of initiatives:

2.4

In spite of the clear diagnosis provided by the criticisms, the initiatives of the European institutions, the measures adopted by some Member States and even the reductions in charges made by certain operators, it has not yet been possible to adopt effective and speedy measures to achieve a substantial and harmonised reduction of roaming prices in the EU.

2.5

After examining various regulatory options and their consequences, on 12 July 2006 the Commission eventually presented a proposal for a regulation on roaming on public mobile networks in the EU, which seeks to limit the prices that operators can charge each other for handling mobile calls, and the price charged to the user for making and receiving such calls outside their home country but within the European Union. The regulation would amend the present framework regulation for electronic communications, laid down by Directive 2002/21/EC.

3.1

The Commission's purpose with the proposed regulation is to establish a harmonised, objective, coherent and proportionate legal basis which facilitates the completion of the internal market in electronic communications, is in keeping with the renewed Lisbon Strategy for promoting growth and employment through greater competitiveness, and responds to the Commission's associated i-2010 initiative.

3.2

Such a basis would enable maximum limits to be set for the charges applied by terrestrial mobile operators within the European Community for the provision of roaming services for voice calls between Member States regarding both wholesale charges between network operators, and the retail charges of the original provider. The maximum price limits would have to take account of the different elements involved in making an international roaming call (including overheads, signalling, call origination, transit and termination) and the differences in the underlying costs of providing the service.

3.3

Under the ‘European Home Market Approach’, the aim is to ensure a high level of protection for users of public mobile telephone networks travelling within the Community, while safeguarding competition between mobile operators, allowing them to differentiate the products they offer and to adapt their pricing structures to market conditions and consumer preferences.

3.4

Price limits are to be set as follows:

3.5

The draft regulation also addresses the need for price transparency, by introducing an obligation upon mobile providers to give personalised information on retail roaming charges to their roaming customers on request. This information is to be free of charge, and customers may choose whether to receive the information by Short Message Service (SMS) or orally over their mobile telephone. Mobile providers will also be obliged to provide information on roaming charges when subscriptions are taken out, on a periodic basis and when there are substantial changes to roaming charges.

3.6

The pricing requirements of the proposed regulation should apply regardless of whether roaming customers have a pre-paid or a post-paid contract with their home provider, to ensure that all users of mobile voice telephony may benefit from its provisions.

3.7

The draft regulation gives the national regulatory authorities the power to enforce compliance, in line with their existing roles under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications. As well as being responsible for communicating the average mobile termination rate, to be published on a regular basis by the Commission, they are also given the task of monitoring developments in retail and wholesale prices for the provision of voice and data communications services, including SMS and Multimedia Message Service (MMS), to mobile customers when roaming in the Community. This applies in particular to the outermost regions, in order to assess viability and recovery of costs by operators and, where appropriate, to determine the penalties for infringement.

3.8

The measures necessary for the implementation of the regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6). The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC is three months. The Commission is to be assisted by the Communications Committee set up Article 22 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

3.9

The proposal provides for a review of the regulation after two years. This means that if at that time market developments show that the regulation is no longer required, the Commission will consider proposing its repeal, in line with the principles of better regulation.

4.1

The Committee appreciates the effort made by the Commission to lay down a legal basis enabling the adoption of effective measures to reduce charges for roaming on mobile voice telephony services in Europe. It is worth noting that the Commission calculates that a reduction of up to 70 % in roaming prices would be possible, representing a saving for consumers of some EUR 5 billion.

4.1.1

The Committee considers that the proposed measure brings a high level of consumer protection in two ways: firstly in terms of their economic interests, by reducing roaming costs; and secondly, by increasing price transparency by means of promoting users' right to access to information. It agrees with the criteria which have prompted the Commission to present this proposal, which it supports.

4.2

The Committee is also aware of the difficulty in reaching agreement on these measures to reduce roaming prices, given the reluctance of certain regulatory authorities and operators. The main criticisms have been that the Commission's proposal goes too far along the regulatory path; there has not been enough consultation with the relevant actors; the deadlines for application are too short, not allowing operators to adjust; the companies involved should be given an opportunity to practice self-regulation; action could have been taken on retail prices but not wholesale charges; the initiative could be particularly prejudicial to operators in countries with large numbers of visitors, or could have the unwanted effect of generating higher prices for other telecom services and jeopardising future investment needs for the development of electronic communications (3G, broadband, etc.).

4.3

On the other hand, it should be pointed out that telephone operators' earnings are so high that their economic viability is guaranteed even with a reduction in roaming rates, as recognised in operators' own sectoral studies.

4.3.1

The choice of a regulation is justified since, while the efforts to reduce roaming prices on the part of some operators are recognised, experience shows that such initiatives fail to guarantee either the rapidity or the degree of harmonisation required for a solution to the problem.

4.3.2

The Committee considers that a regulation is needed, as it can then be applied directly by the Member States. This makes it preferable to simple market self-regulation or measures that Member States might themselves adapt, given the transnational character of roaming. This is a cross-border issue which national regulatory authorities are unable to tackle.

4.4

Moreover, the possibility in the future of creating virtual operators points to the dangers of adopting different decisions for different parts of the EU, which could compromise the overall development of electronic telecommunications throughout Europe.

4.5

Together with all the above points, the EESC regrets that the Commission's measures to bring an end to the excessive charging for this service by operators fall far short of users' expectations, and indeed short of the measures that the Commission itself had originally envisaged.

4.6

The Committee believes that the aim should be to remove all differences in roaming-related charges between Member States, without undermining whatever competition may develop between the products offered by the different operators. In practice, this means customers pay the same price as in their home country, regardless of where they are (the ‘home pricing’ principle). The goal of domestic and roaming price parity is not achieved with the draft regulation, in spite of the reduction in charges.

4.7

The proposed regulation sets limits on the prices to be paid by roaming customers for calls received, but does not abolish such payments, as long demanded by user companies and consumers, and as the Commission had originally envisaged. The Committee believes that future efforts should be directed to introducing the ‘caller pays’ principle, which is fairer.

4.8

The Committee regrets that the Commission has not assessed the possible social impact on employment of adopting this measure, and hopes that its implementation will not undermine either employment or working conditions in the sector: on the contrary, it hopes that the expectations raised by the European Social Agenda (7) can be upheld.

4.8.1

The Committee views the six month delay before the entry into force of the retail charge limits — the price paid by final users — to be excessive, given that operators can easily adapt to the new situation, and calls for this delay to be removed.

4.8.2

It is however considered more reasonable for the proposed regulation to include a number of transitional measures for a period of six months, introducing measures to offset the imbalances which might result for some operators from the implementation of the regulation, especially in the new Member States — provided that such transitional arrangements are not discriminatory towards consumers in these countries.

4.9

The Committee hopes that the implementation of the regulation will not lead to an adjustment in mobile charges, whereby certain operators, under specific circumstances, attempt to recover costs by increasing their gains from other services. For this reason, it must be ensured that the mechanisms for setting wholesale and retail charges cover all service costs.

4.9.1

However, given the highly dynamic nature of the electronic communications market, the Committee agrees with the Commission's intention to review the functioning of the regulation no later than two years after its entry into force. In the planned report, the Commission must include its reasoning regarding the continued need for regulation or the possibility of its repeal, in the light of developments in the market and with regard to competition.

4.9.2

When the functioning of the regulation is reviewed, its impact on employment and working conditions, and on operators' investment, must be assessed in order to identify the consequences.

4.10

The Committee believes that the opportunity provided by the adoption of the regulation should be used to resolve other roaming-related problems, apart from unfair pricing of services, such as the equally unfair activation of roaming services in border areas between EU countries.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/47

1.1

The Committee agrees with the European Council presidency on the importance of codification, as this offers certainty as to the law applicable to a given matter at a given time and helps make Community law more transparent and accessible for the European public.

1.2

The purpose of the present proposal is to codify Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3356/91, on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport. The Committee feels that consideration should be given to how far this codification exercise should also include legislation relating to other transport modes, such as rail, intermodal transport, short sea shipping and air transport.

1.3

The Committee welcomes the proposed codified version, provided that the content of the acts being codified is preserved and that any changes do no more than bring those acts together, with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

1.4

Given how important it is for the European public to have access to transparent Community legislation, the Committee would urge the Commission to consider whether, and to what extent, other legislation might also be codified.

1.5

Member States should coordinate the checks, verifications and inspections that are performed. Failing that, Member States should at least share the findings so as to allow transport to flow freely and to avoid fresh inspections or checks being carried out by each individual country. With RIS (River Information Services) in place, this should pose no problem at all for inland waterway transport.

2.1

The sheer volume of Community law with which Europe has to deal and the frequent amendments to existing legislation mean that the information is scattered, making it difficult for the public to keep track.

2.2

The European Commission evinces great interest in making Community law simpler and clearer, and thus more accessible to the public.

2.3

For that reason, the Commission has instructed its staff that all legislative acts should be codified after no more than ten amendments.

2.4

The presidency conclusions of the December 1992 European Council in Edinburgh underscored the importance of codification as this offers certainty as to the law applicable to a given matter at a given time, and thus also helps boost transparency.

2.5

Since codification may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in question, the European Parliament, Council and Commission decided in the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 that an accelerated procedure may be used in this case.

2.6

The present proposal seeks to codify Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport. The new regulation brings together Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 and the various amendments to it.

2.7

The Commission proposal preserves the content of the amendments, and does no more than bring them together, with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

3.1

The Committee notes that the present Commission proposal seeks to codify only Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport, but does not cover other transport modes such as rail, intermodal transport, short sea shipping and air transport, for which border controls continue to apply. The Committee feels that these other transport modes should be taken into consideration as well.

3.2

The Committee would stress that Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 and the codification proposal seek to eliminate systematic controls at the frontiers of Member States. As Article 3 of the proposed regulation makes clear, checks may still be made as part of the normal control procedures applied in a non-discriminatory fashion throughout the territory of a Member State.

3.3

The Committee welcomes the Commission's codification proposal. The more transparent European legislation is for the public the better. The Committee would therefore urge the Commission to consider whether, and to what extent, other legislation might also be codified.

3.4

Recital 4 of the proposal states that, under existing Community legislation, Member States are free to organise and perform checks, verifications and inspections where they so wish. They should, however, coordinate these activities, or, failing that, at least share the findings so as to allow transport to flow freely and to avoid fresh inspections or checks being carried out by each individual country. With RIS (River Information Services) in place, this should pose no problem for inland waterway transport.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/49

—

The price stability objective should become a symmetrical objective, e.g. 2 percent +/- 1 percentage point. An objective with a midpoint makes it easier to judge how close to the objective we are, and can also be useful if you want an equal response from the ECB when the inflation rate changes because of falling or rising demand.

—

If a policy aims to take greater account of the connection between monetary policy measures and fiscal policy measures, then core inflation is the measure that should be used, as it does not include price changes that the ECB cannot influence or which may be temporary. It is more an indication of the price change trend. Moreover, when assessing price changes, the ECB should consider whether they might be a result of tax changes.

—

The price stability requirement for common currency candidates must be reviewed. Officially, this requires a change to the Treaty. However, given that such a change was not even included in the Constitutional Treaty, a flexible interpretation of the Treaty would be appropriate, so that eurozone entry would depend on respecting the spirit rather than the letter of the requirement. The logical solution would be to set the same price stability objective as for eurozone members.

—

Stability and a credible monetary policy are not dependent on keeping inflation below 2 %. A somewhat higher level as a measure of price stability would not be a threat to stability. It is more important to know that the authorities are willing and able to control inflation, so that the chosen target can be achieved.

—

The ECB should publish the minutes of its meetings.

—

There is little call for a pro-cyclical policy as long as capacity utilisation has not yet reached a level likely to give rise to inflationary pressure. Unemployment is still at unreasonable levels and there is considerable scope for more labour market participation. In years when the economic climate is healthy, economic policy should focus on planning for the economic problems that will flow from demographic trends. The general EU budget and deficit objectives are not enough when the economy is on an upward trend. Member States that have already achieved these objectives cannot rest on their laurels.

—

The EESC believes that the indicators for budget balance and national debt should be maintained, but the discussion must be taken a step further, taking the real objectives of economic policy into account.

—

The main focus of the three-yearly economic guidelines should be a minimum level of economic growth, a downward trend for unemployment and the Lisbon Agenda percentage objective for the workforce. National objectives should be set, although these must not be lower than the objectives for the EU as a whole.

—

Finance ministers must be consistent: they cannot say one thing in Brussels and then do another at home.

—

The interval between Cologne Process meetings should be used to carry out joint studies on economic links, the impact of various policy measures and similar questions.

—

The Cologne Process could be the appropriate forum for applying sufficient weight to the requirement for all parties to fulfil their obligations on economic statistics.

—

Prior to each meeting the European Parliament should adopt a resolution on the economic situation and the policy required.

—

Both ECOFIN and the euro group should be present in order to provide input from Finance Ministry circles and from the Finance Ministers that are directly responsible for the fiscal policy that is to be combined with the European Central Bank's monetary policy.

—

A further analysis should be carried out for core inflation. A more detailed study of the specific policies pursued by countries with a good inflation/growth ratio (i.e. low inflation compared to the growth rate) should provide a basis for future benchmarking.

—

It might be useful to carry out an analysis of, for example, the extent to which productivity changes have been responsible for the differences in growth rates? How far do productivity gain differentials depend on different levels of investment and innovation? What methods are generally available for increasing productivity? The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to look into the link between the primary growth and employment objectives and, for example, productivity gains and inflation levels.

1.1

The European Union's economic guidelines — Broad Economic Policy Guidelines — are now set for a three year period. This year's guidelines contain only minor changes to the 2005 guidelines.

1.2

The EESC has therefore decided not to comment on these changes in this year's opinion on economic policy and to address instead the formal basis for the guidelines. A study such as this cannot be restricted to the formal content of the economic guidelines; it also has to address monetary policy and its links with fiscal policy.

1.3

The basis for European Union action in monetary and fiscal policy matters is to be found in the Treaty rules on the single currency decided upon in Maastricht, in the Stability and Growth Pact and in the Treaty rules on economic policy guidelines. Following the changes introduced in 2005, these guidelines are dealt with under the annual Lisbon Process.

1.4

The aim is to look at the interplay between these rules and their impact on actual policy both in the European Union as a whole and nationally. In order to get a comprehensive analysis, wage formation will also be addressed. The analysis will necessarily be somewhat theoretical in nature, in order to advance the debate and improve policies. The objective is to see whether the current rules are having the best possible impact on the broad objectives for price stability, growth and employment.

1.5

Our recommendations, however, are not confined to current policy but also address rule changes. These changes can be implemented immediately, particularly those relating to the conduct of decision makers. Only in one case do our recommendations involve changes to the Treaty.

2.1

The European Central Bank's primary objective is price stability. The Treaty rules adopted in Maastricht set a second objective, namely that the European Central Bank is to support growth when price stability has been achieved. In this context, a comparison is usually made with the US Federal Reserve, whose objective is based more on a global view of price stability as well as employment and growth. The wording used might appear to imply only a difference of degree but the differences are clearer in terms of the actual monetary policy pursued. The Federal Reserve is more likely to use employment trends as a reason for interest changes. For the European Central Bank, price stability seems to be the only basis for interest changes.

2.2

In addition to actual monetary policy measures, the way the objective is worded is, consequently, also important to its impact on overall policy.

2.3

In a complete picture of economic policies — including both monetary policy and fiscal policy — it is not just interest rate policy that is crucial to how fiscal policy can be pursued; the choice of monetary policy objectives is equally important. A Finance Minister probably often thinks, ‘If I do this, will it be countered by interest changes to curb its impact?’ In order to avoid one policy area imposing too tight constraints on the other, the European Central Bank and ECOFIN should consider the same set of policy objectives. It is especially important for the ECOFIN euro group and the ECB to take the same approach. The monetary policy objective should be set with the long term in mind. The European Central Bank has often stated that the 2 percent objective was based on previous ECOFIN positions. Opinions as to what might constitute a desirable level of inflation do not differ significantly, but the objective and measures must be respected by all.

2.4

When the European Central Bank set the objective for price stability, an inflation level of less than 2 percent was chosen. Already in 2003 the objective was changed to below but close to 2 percent. The objective is thus somewhat more realistic since the first objective of under 2 percent could mean that even deflation was acceptable.

2.5

There remain, however, two problems with this definition: it is almost impossible to decide how far we are from the objective and what distance is acceptable. A symmetrical objective leaves a space around the most desirable rate of inflation. Given the European Central Bank's call for a level close to 2 percent, the best formulation of the objective would be 2 percent +/- 1 percentage point. Such an objective would also remove some of the concerns that arise around occasional changes at promille level. The EESC believes there is every reason to change the European Central Bank's objective to a symmetrical objective. An objective with a midpoint can also be useful if you want an equal response from the ECB when the inflation rate changes because of falling or rising demand. In the past, the interest rate rose quickly when the European economy was doing well before the turn of the millennium, whereas rates fell considerably more slowly when there was a downturn a couple of years later.

2.6

The remaining problem is, what type of inflation is being measured? The European Central Bank's formal objective uses the HICP (Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices), i.e. it measures the overall level of inflation. Items such as energy prices or food prices can be removed from this in order to produce inflation levels that can be considered to be more sensitive to monetary policy and that do not depend on factors beyond our control. This is mainly to offset the impact of oil price increases, which are temporary changes which can head off in the opposite direction quite suddenly. A modified price index is necessary in order to avoid temporary changes impacting directly on the European Central Bank's policies. Notwithstanding the likely long-term increase in energy prices, temporary oil price rises can never be offset by interest rate changes, which are only thought to have an impact after 1-2 years.

2.7

What is usually referred to as ‘core inflation’ is the measure of inflation trends in the domestic economy (the euro area for the European Central Bank). These price level changes are more symptomatic of trends, and it these that the European Central Bank needs to work on most. The most direct impact of interest rate changes on the rate of price increases ought logically to be found between this inflation measure and the European Central Bank's interest rate policy. If the European Central Bank accepts a rate of inflation above its stated objective then this is most probably because it has also taken one of these reduced inflation scenarios into account. If core inflation is also referred to, the ECB will find it easier to get its policy across. If a policy aims to take greater account of the connection between monetary policy measures and fiscal policy measures, then core inflation is the measure that should be used. This would make it easier for macro-economic policy to impact more positively on growth and employment.

2.8

A comparison between the official inflation rate according to the HICP and the measures that apply to core inflation shows (see Appendix) only small variation. The only appreciable difference was in 2005, when energy prices impacted on general prices. A comparison of inflation with the European Central Bank's target shows that core inflation only came in well below target in 2000 and 2005. If a core inflation target had been set, policy in 2005, for example, should have been less restrictive.

2.9

Another factor that affects the inflation level, without being a direct consequence of domestic demand, is changes to taxes and duties. If, for example, the Member States increase VAT in order to reduce the budget deficit, inflation also rises. This could induce the European Central Bank, if using the HICP to measure inflation, to raise interest rates. But VAT increases stifle consumer demand and should therefore, taking a holistic approach to economic policy, actually be accompanied by a cut in interest rates. In situations such as these, e.g. when Germany raises VAT from 16 % to 19 % at the end of this year, the European Central Bank should look closely at the causes of inflation and remember that a one-off event will not result in a trend towards higher inflation. Furthermore, if the ECB allows this type of tax hike in one country to influence monetary policy, it will also have a negative impact on all the other eurozone countries.

2.10

In order to join the single currency, the Member States that are not yet part of the eurozone must, according to the Treaty, have an inflation rate that is ‘close to that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability’. ‘Close to’ means a maximum differential of 1.5 %. ‘Best’ in this context means the lowest inflation level. This objective is not as logical today as it was at the start of the 1990s. Given the situation over the last few years, this could mean a lower inflation rate than in the eurozone countries. The requirement is even more absurd given that it is based on inflation in the EU Member States rather than just on that in the eurozone countries. In recent times, non-eurozone members have been the three to follow for the price stability requirement for countries that wish to adopt the euro. The price stability requirement for single currency candidates therefore needs reviewing. Officially, this requires a change to the Treaty. However, given that such a change was not even included in the Constitutional Treaty, this change would take so long that most eurozone applicant countries would be forced to try to meet the current requirement. A flexible interpretation of the Treaty would therefore be appropriate, so that eurozone entry would depend on respecting the spirit rather than the letter of the requirement. The logical solution would be to set the same price stability objective as for eurozone members. If this objective were to be adjusted to 2 percent +/- 1 percentage point, then the same should apply to euro candidates.

2.10.1

A more flexible approach to price stability might also be needed in countries with rapid economic growth. Ireland, for instance, is an example of the need for somewhat higher inflation as a necessary adjustment in a strongly expanding economy.

2.11

Inflation is a statistical measure needed to underpin economic policy, but the public sees price rises differently, reacting strongly to rises in rent, food and petrol prices, etc., whereas few people even notice that some goods have come down in price. What is more serious, however, is the fact that different people are affected in very different ways. When it is chiefly basic essentials that rise in price, it is the poor that suffer the most, as a general price rise of 2 %-3 % can mean a significant increase in their cost of living. Politicians must take note of these effects and counteract them by means of various policy measures. This is not so much a question of the scope of budget policy as its specific content.

3.1

Have Member State policies changed since the Stability and Growth Pact was reviewed, and has the Commission's and subsequently the Council's assessment of the countries changed? It would seem that only Lithuania has clearly used the new Pact's explanations for a deficit. Nevertheless the new Pact has resulted in all Member States establishing medium/long-term national objectives for public finances. The objectives are framed according to the individual country's actual situation.

3.2

Given the economic developments following the review of the Pact, it is logical that it has not had any visible effect. Most of the changes introduced referred almost exclusively to periods of major economic problems, whereas we have just seen a revival of the economy and improvements that can also be discerned in the Pact's indicators.

3.3

Economic expectations for 2005 and 2006, particularly in the light of more positive developments in Germany, point to a generally improved compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact indicators. The fact that this is taking place against a backdrop of very high oil price rises shows that the economic improvements are quite robust. The extent to which oil price rises will impact on individual countries will depend on how far they are dependent on oil imports. Even in ‘good’ years, however, some countries are still some way from achieving the budget balance target. They should benefit from the positive trend in other EU countries.

3.4

In most countries, however, the growth rate achieved or expected is not at a level that would call for the Pact's more stringent stance on budget measures during economically ‘good’ years to come into effect. There is little call for a procyclical policy as long as capacity has not reached a level likely to give rise to inflationary pressure. Unemployment is still at unreasonable levels and there is considerable scope for more labour market participation. The interplay between fiscal policy and monetary policy is under fresh strain compared to the very weak economic situation of previous years. In years when the economic climate is healthy, economic policy should focus on planning for the economic problems that will flow from demographic trends.

3.5

The general EU public sector budget and debt objectives are not enough when the economy is on an upward trend. Member States that have already achieved these objectives cannot rest on their laurels. It is important that they should use the national objectives in accordance with the new Stability and Growth Pact to improve their economic situation.

3.6

In addition to the fact that the difficult economic situation prior to 2005 was the main source of problems in clarifying the Pact's indicators, there are statistical explanations that are seldom noted. When there is low inflation in the economy, national debt retains its value. Specific measures are needed to reduce it. When growth is strong the national debt as a percentage of GDP is reduced without any need for action, and budget balance improves. When inflation is high, the cost of the public sector's economic subsidies as a share of GDP falls, giving a statistical improvement in budget balance and national debt. When there is growth, revenue increases without any need to raise taxes. To some extent then, the difficult statistical impact on national debt and budget balance in recent times has been succeeded by positive statistical effects.

3.7

Another of the consequences of the bad years is that saving has been unusually high. The lack of investment opportunities in Europe has given rise to capital flight to the US. With the growing confidence in the economy that comes with better times, it is to be expected that reduced concern about the future will mean that people will save less. A virtuous circle could be created through even stronger demand.

3.8

Finally, it can be said that EU level fiscal policy has a special problem, i.e. that the people responsible for framing it and ensuring it is complied with are constantly changing. It can happen that a quarter of finance ministers are changed in any one year, and the new ministers do not feel the same sense of responsibility for the policies of the previous incumbents. ECOFIN therefore needs more long-term decisions so that a new set of ministers cannot stymie a policy that is already up and running. The constant change of ministers also makes it difficult to get an ECOFIN with the political will to implement a common policy.

4.1

The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines have existed since 1993. They initially dealt with fiscal policy only, but employment issues were included later and since 2005 they have been grouped together with the employment guidelines and the Lisbon Agenda as part of a comprehensive process. This is basically a national policy matter, where the Commission and the Council provide guidelines. There is nothing about pecuniary sanctions, unlike with the Stability and Growth Pact.

4.2

Ever since EMU was created, the discussion has been dominated by the imbalance between a central monetary policy and a fiscal policy that continues to be national. The Stability and Growth Pact is a ‘hybrid’ that also contains elements of common policies and pecuniary sanctions, while the economic guidelines are underpinned by recommendations.

4.3

What avenues are open for developing the economic guidelines? In order to find them, we need to distinguish clearly between the establishment of economic policy objectives and the means used to try to achieve them.

4.4

With regard to the Stability and Growth Pact, budget balance and government debt as a proportion of GDP have, in the general debate, come to be considered as objectives. However, these two elements do not, in themselves, constitute ultimate objectives. They are more indicators of the direction policy is taking. A balance or surplus in the official budget is targeted in order to be able to make use of it in an economic recession. A budget surplus thus becomes a means to boost the economy at some later date. The EESC considers that the indicators for budget balance and national debt should be maintained, but the discussion must be taken a step further, taking the real objectives of economic policy into account.

4.5

The broad objectives for all economic policy — both monetary and fiscal — are price stability, growth and full employment. These objectives must be formulated. Price stability has already been addressed. The basis for the economic guidelines should therefore be that the European Union also defines desirable growth and full employment. In practical terms, there are real problems associated with this. If the objectives are to be realistic, they must be seen in relation to the current economic situation. This means that they may need revising rather often, and not be set for such a long term as the price stability objective.

4.6

It is debatable how far growth can be used as a measure of economic development. The measures normally used do not take social and environmental effects into account. However, when considering purely economic growth, there are two established measures: an increase in real GDP per inhabitant and the same measure in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). The latter attempts to equate the actual economic situation in various countries. It does not matter which measure is used as it is the rate of increase that is targeted. It hardly differs from year to year depending on which type of GDP is measured. Some years ago attempts were made to establish the rate of increase at which unemployment starts to fall. The objective then was to achieve that growth rate for GDP (approximately 3 %) at the very least. However, this type of growth objective can vary over time, as it can between different economies. In view of the problems in reducing unemployment, it is, however, difficult to imagine a growth objective that is lower than when unemployment is starting to fall. Not many countries have actually achieved a minimum growth level such as this in recent years.

4.7

When comparing countries and growth-oriented policy options, its is important to make a distinction between the two chief methods to secure growth. Either growth increases when more is produced using the same technology, usually by employing a bigger workforce; or through productivity gains, where more is produced using the same workforce. Over the next few years it will still be possible to use the first method, whereas a few years hence only the latter method will be available, owing to demographic trends.

4.8

It is considerably more difficult to find an objective for employment. The objective must be twofold: it is partly a question of the proportion of the working age population in the labour market (employment level); and partly of how many are unemployed. The Lisbon Agenda set objectives for the employment level as a whole (70 %), for women (60 %) and for people between 55 and pensionable age (50 %).

4.9

No percentage goals were set for unemployment. To begin with, there are various methods for measuring unemployment. However, owing to the existence of open unemployment and the fact that some people are covered by some form of labour market policy measures, at least two objectives are necessary. Given that very few countries are close to what might be called full employment (i.e. just a few percentage points of unemployment, which is always to be found in a dynamic economy, where change must be a constant), it might be appropriate to set — as an objective for the long term — a certain percentage reduction in unemployment.

4.10

Given this reasoning, the main proposal of the three-yearly economic guidelines should be to focus on a minimum level of economic growth and a downward trend in the unemployment rate. The Lisbon Agenda percentage objective for the workforce can be maintained until further notice. The situation that applies to monetary policy — with clear objectives against which policies can be assessed — is also needed for fiscal policy.

4.11

The role of the economic guidelines should subsequently be more a matter of the Member States reporting what they are doing to achieve the objectives, with the Commission and the Council assessing how adequately the objectives have been achieved. If the objectives have not been reached the EU should be able to criticise the policies chosen and make proposals based on benchmarking of successful policies pursued in other countries. Each country must, however, be assessed on the basis of its circumstances and its current economic situation.

4.12

Since fiscal policy continues to be a national question, the current emphasis on the broad economic situation within the European Union is not particularly relevant when assessing each country's policies. The economic guidelines should therefore be amended. Future guidelines should set national objectives for the overall objectives, which should not, however, be less ambitious than those for the EU as a whole, and countries should be assessed in terms of how they meet their objectives.

4.13

With greater emphasis on what individual Member States are doing, based on their economic circumstances, and with stronger links with the Lisbon Agenda's clearer employment objectives, the economic guidelines can tie in more closely with the broad thrust of the Lisbon Agenda. Broad economic policy could be more of a natural feature of the Lisbon Agenda national reform programmes, and thus speed up implementation of the Lisbon Agenda as a whole.

5.1

The year 1999 saw the creation of what has come to be known as the Cologne Process. This annual forum for discussing current policies for ECOFIN, the European Central Bank, the Commission and the social partners (ETUC,UNICE/CEEP) is little-known. It has, however, probably played an important role in raising the awareness of those involved of each other's policies and their opinions with regard to economic policy.

5.2

These discussions take place on two levels: an expert level and a high level group. The meetings usually take place every six months and focus on views of the current economic situation and the policies needed.

5.3

The discussions and conclusions from 2005 show how far perceptions and suggested measures diverge. The Commission highlights the improved economic situation. The European Central Bank stresses how important it is to have wage moderation, which is, of course, a feature of UNICE's contribution. The CEEP talks about the need for public investment. The UEAPME does not only talk about the need to look after small businesses but also says that higher inflation might have to be accepted. ETUC highlights the need to stimulate the general economy in order to kick-start domestic demand, and says that salaries are not just a cost but the main prerequisite for demand and that salaried workers have done their bit over the years to keep inflation down through salary increases that are lower than productivity gains.

5.4

Given this scenario, one might wonder whether the Cologne Process might be in need of a fresh start. How can it be moved forward? Thus far, the Cologne Process dialogue has been a matter of getting together and exchanging opinions. This could be improved by, for example, using the time between meetings to draft joint studies on economic relations, on the impact of various policy measures and similar questions. This could move the parties closer together in their understanding of the economic reality that must be the starting point. This proposal could also tie in with the EESC's earlier proposal for a body for independent economic studies (1).

5.5

A less ideological question — but one that is nevertheless crucial to the choice of policies pursued — is the reliability of statistics. It goes without saying that all Member States should manage to make the necessary statistics available at the same time. To choose policies on the basis of faulty statistics wreaks havoc. Perhaps the Cologne Process conversations are the best place to bring home to those involved the need to fulfil their obligations on economic statistics. The European Parliament has also repeatedly called for better statistics.

5.6

With regard to the formal structure, change might also provide a more lively discussion. The European Parliament's role could be strengthened. Instead of a merely formal presence, prior to each meeting the EP could adopt a resolution on the economic situation and the policies required. An appraisal such as this could be set against the more formal review that the Commission can be expected to deliver. Both ECOFIN and the euro group should be present in order to provide input from Finance Ministry circles and from the Finance Ministers that are directly responsible for the fiscal policy that is to be combined with the European Central Bank's monetary policy.

5.7

Although each party — the European Central Bank, Finance Ministers and the social partners — pursues its policies independently, the improved cooperation we advocate is urgently needed. Independence does not mean absence from the general debate, nor does it mean not listening to good advice. Neither is independence undermined if a party goes public instead of always pointing out that it makes all its assessments entirely alone and is not influenced by anyone. Finance ministers must be consistent: they cannot say one thing in Brussels and then do another at home. The European Central Bank should be able to publish their minutes, as do the central banks in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

6.1

The European Parliament had this to say about the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs on 26 May 2005: ‘… growth in the euro area and the 25-member European Union is failing to achieve its potential on a sustained basis and is still too weak, particularly in the four leading economies in the euro area; … household consumption is still faltering and the economic outlook for 2005 and 2006 continues to be unsatisfactory, contributing to a continuing high level of unemployment which will decline only slowly; … despite the lowest interest rates since the Second World War, there is little willingness to invest.’

6.2

The classic dichotomy in economic literature is inflation and unemployment. A good result for one seems, statistically, to lead to a poor result for the other. We have decided, using inter alia scenarios such as that described by the European Parliament, to try instead to establish relationships between inflation and growth.

6.3

In a given economic situation it is possible to compare growth in countries with low inflation and in countries with high inflation. We can also see how growth varies in a country in various situations when inflation varies. Our tables may not be scientific, but they do point clearly to the fact that an awareness of the relationship between inflation and growth is important in order to find the right policy mix.

6.4

When we see countries with relatively high inflation and high growth and, on the other hand, countries with low inflation and low growth, it would seem only logical to ask whether there is more than a statistical connection between inflation and growth. In order to see whether these really are causal connections, some statistical correction is first necessary, as economic situations can differ, especially where development levels (GDP) are concerned. It also has to be ascertained whether some specific economic policy might have led to high or low growth when different inflation levels are present. This means that the focus is often on certain countries so it is perhaps not possible to draw conclusions about general connections between inflation and growth.

6.5

The growth rate is a real problem, at least for the ‘old’ EU-15 countries. According to Commission statistics, their growth has been so low that they have lost approximately half of one percent of GDP per year compared with other industrialised countries (1995 — 2005) (2). (N.B. a reference to the Commission document is needed below.) During the same period, domestic demand in these countries fell by around one percent compared to other industrialised countries. The relatively good years after the turn of the millennium were entirely dependent on increased demand for European products from other countries. An analysis of the reasons behind this almost catastrophic growth rate must be carried out in order to find a better policy for the future.

6.6

This description of the ‘costs’ of low inflation can be compared to another description of the costs of high inflation in a letter from the former ECB president Wim Duisenberg to the European Parliament: ‘The ECB's quantitative definition of price stability reflects sound and well-established economic criteria. By allowing for only low rates of increase in the price level, it permits the minimisation of the costs of inflation, which are well-known to the general public and which have been extensively documented in the literature.’

6.7

When searching for the optimum inflation target, it is important to remember the need to preclude costs induced by high inflation, as well as those resulting from the difficulty in securing satisfactory growth. It is also important to realise that inflation in itself is neither a solution nor a problem; it is rather a question of the flexibility that a certain level of inflation brings to the economy and the catastrophic impact of high inflation on confidence, long-term thinking and incomes distribution.

6.8

The Appendix contains information on inflation (HICP and ‘core inflation’) and growth (real increase in GDP) for the EU countries. The figures go back to the year the European Central Bank became operational.

6.8.1

Generally speaking it was a period of low inflation and low growth. Only in 2001 and 2002 was the growth rate almost acceptable, and from 2004 for some countries. For nearly all of these countries inflation and growth go together. Following the growth levels seen in the initial years (1999-2000) as a result of demand from the rest of the world, EU internal demand has been unable to create a satisfactory growth rate. During those years and since the recent improvement, inflation has not risen much above 2 %.

6.8.2

We could comment on the situation in various countries, but we will restrict ourselves to the following:

6.8.3

If inflation is the yardstick against which general demand in the economy is measured, then both of them have — with a few exceptions — been too low. Given that it is difficult for the economy to readjust satisfactorily when overall price changes are small, inflation has been an obstacle to growth. This has been too uncomfortable for some to contemplate, despite the fact that it is generally accepted that a certain level of inflation is needed to oil the wheels of a dynamic economy. In the current globalised economy, dynamic changes have become essential in order to cope with international competition.

6.8.4

Stability and a credible monetary policy are not dependent on keeping inflation below 2 %. A somewhat higher level as a measure of price stability would not be a threat to stability. It is more important to know that the authorities are willing and able to control inflation, so that the selected target can be achieved.

6.9

A further analysis can be carried out using time series for core inflation. With the exception of 2005, the differential between the consumer price index and price trends excluding energy prices has been rather small. A more detailed study of the specific policies pursued by countries with a good inflation/growth ratio (i.e. low inflation compared to the growth rate) should provide a basis for future benchmarking.

6.10

The Appendix also contains figures for labour productivity per hour worked. The figures do not refer to individual national trends but to performance as compared to the EU15 average. The table shows how close a country is to the average.

6.10.1

There ought not be any rapid change in the ranking over a six-year time period, and this is true for most countries. There are, however, a few exceptions. Greece, with low productivity, is rapidly catching up with the rest. Ireland is now above average and continues to see productivity gains. During the same period Italy has fallen behind the rest, as has Portugal, which started off from a low base.

6.10.2

A more detailed analysis could be useful here, too. For example, to what extent have productivity changes been responsible for the differences in growth rates? How far do productivity gain differentials depend on different levels of investment and innovation? To what extent do different education systems lead to innovation differentials? What methods are generally available for increasing productivity? The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to look into the link between overall growth and employment objectives and, for example, productivity gains and inflation levels.

6.11

However, a preliminary conclusion that can already be drawn from the inflation and growth statistics is that there must be better coordination between monetary and fiscal policy, with price stability, growth and employment becoming valuable objectives for all economic policy decision-makers: the European Central Bank, the Commission, ECOFIN, the social partners and the Member States. When all the players base their proposed measures on the same three objectives, they are forced to look at all the consequences of their proposals. Measures that are excellent for achieving price stability in one economic situation can be entirely wrong in another. In certain contexts they can boost growth and employment, while having the opposite effect in others.

6.12

The European Central Bank's February 2004 edition of its Monthly Bulletin seems to point to a new understanding, which could be a starting point for a new integrated policy approach. It lists the most important factors for kick-starting investment: satisfactory profitability, sufficiently available financing and the right conditions for demand.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/57

1.1

The EESC believes that the Commission Communication accurately and exhaustively sets out the current process of preparing for the Euro in Slovenia, as well as the progress made by the ten other Member States that are due to adopt the Euro once they meet the necessary conditions. It therefore endorses the Commission Communication.

1.2

The EESC recommends that the Commission think carefully about the matter and, where possible, takes account of the Committee's recommendations in its future reports and recommendations.

2.1

The Commission document is the regular annual report on progress made by the eleven Member States (1) that are due to adopt the Euro and become members of the Euro area once they have met the necessary conditions. It is already the third of its kind since 2004. The present report was drawn up ahead of the normal November deadline because of the anticipated enlargement of the Euro area with the entry of Slovenia on 1 January 2007 (2); it provides a detailed review of current preparations in that Member State. Ongoing practical preparations at national level in the other ten Member States are also set out in the report.

2.2

With regard to the process of enlarging the Euro area, which is the political and economic responsibility of Member States, the Commission emphasizes the importance of careful forward planning and in-depth, comprehensive preparation which should involve both the public and private sector, as well as the wider public. In its conclusions, the report lists further steps that need to be taken in Slovenia. It also stresses the need to step up preparations in the other Member States and to consolidate the majority of the national plans for the adoption of the Euro.

3.1

This is the first Commission report to be examined by the EESC on the practical preparations for the future enlargement of the Euro area, although it is already the third in a row to be issued since the Euro area was established in 2002. Nonetheless, it should be emphasised that the introduction of the Euro must not be considered and dealt with merely as a technical project, but rather as a major change with significant economic, monetary and social consequences.

3.2

Member States are, without a doubt, the ones responsible for making sure that the adoption process is a success. However, it should be emphasized that all civil society organisations need to be involved, given that they represent individual interest groups and ensure the active involvement of such groups in that process throughout the Member States due to adopt the Euro. The current enlargement will take place in individual Member States and not in twelve all at once, as was the case in 2002 when the Euro was introduced. In 2001, the EESC noted that not only had a significant amount of resources been mobilised for that process, but that also all the interested parties had been active in the changeover, and that the public had been well prepared and fully involved (3). It is particularly important, and, indeed, urgent, to ensure that the same conditions prevail in Slovenia, given that the country is less than three months away from adopting the Euro.

3.3

Opinion polls (4) show that the Slovenian public is the best informed about the Euro, out of all the Member States due to enter the Euro area. The information campaign carried out with national and European funding contributed significantly to this. It is nevertheless worrying that the Slovenian public, according to the latest Eurobarometer opinion poll carried out in April 2006, is also the most sceptical about the effects on inflation of the Euro's introduction, even more so than in those Member States deemed to be the most sceptical about the Euro (5).

3.4

Monitoring the prices of both goods and services, especially public sector services, in the run up to the introduction and for a specified period afterwards, can significantly help reduce public scepticism about the negative effects of adopting the Euro. It also reduces the possibility of unjustified price hikes and ‘rounding up’ in currency conversion. The European Parliament resolution on the enlargement of the Euro zone (6) draws attention to similar problems.

3.5

Voluntary cooperation between consumer organisations and traders is appropriate, but not sufficient. Publishing a monitoring review on the price of goods every three months in the final run up to the Euro does not seem enough to minimise the negative public perceptions about the effects of introducing the Euro.

4.1

The Committee proposes that the Commission recommend that in their preparations for adopting the Euro and in addition to the necessary information campaigns, Member States pay special attention to ensuring that all interest groups are involved in the process, with the support of civil society organisations. To this end, Member States and the EU should provide financial resources to train and prepare the various interest groups for work and life with the new Euro currency.

4.2

Serious consideration should be given to the introduction of arrangements for monitoring the prices of public sector services, as well as monthly price changes for goods and services generally, during the six month period prior to the Euro's introduction and for at least one year afterwards. Member States could thus in future avoid the shortcomings detected during the 2002 introduction of the Euro and again during subsequent enlargements of the Euro area.

30.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/59

1.1

The EESC welcomes the presentation of the implementing regulation for the new Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of national social security systems as an important step towards improving free movement within the EU.

1.2

The EESC considers it appropriate, particularly in the current European Year of Workers' Mobility, to call on Member States to work towards bringing the implementing regulation into force as quickly as possible. Only then can the new Regulation 883/2004 be implemented and the attendant improvements and simplifications come into effect.

1.3

Rapid adoption would be more than a symbol, as the aim is in fact to take a concrete step towards giving the citizens of Europe greater opportunities for mobility. The implementation of Regulation 883/2004 and the implementing regulation under discussion here would substantially simplify, clarify and improve the coordination of social security systems for all beneficiaries and users.

1.4

In particular, the EESC welcomes the wider scope of the regulation — to cover more persons and more areas of social security — and all the provisions to improve cooperation between social security institutions.

1.5

The EESC calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps to adapt all the regulations and treaties that extend the coordination of social security systems to the European Economic Area, Switzerland, Greenland and nationals of third countries as soon as possible. All of the above-mentioned regulations and treaties contain references to Regulation 1408/71 and its implementing regulation 574/72. The appropriate changes with reference to new Regulation 883/2004 must be complete by the time it comes into force.

1.6

With regard to better and faster procedures for the exchange of data, the EESC recognises the potential for cost savings in administration and the advantages to insured persons of speeding up procedures for cross-border cases. However, the EESC also points out that speeding up the transfer of data alone will not constitute a breakthrough. The desired efficiency in processing times will only be achieved if the institutions in the Member States have sufficient and properly qualified staff with appropriate technical resources.

1.7

In connection with the future transfer of data largely by electronic means, the EESC also emphasises its concerns that the data in question are of a sensitive, personal nature (relating, for example, to health, incapacity and unemployment). It is therefore essential to ensure that these data are properly secure and cannot fall into the wrong hands.

1.8

The EESC also calls for lessons to be learnt from the implementation of the European health insurance card, inter alia as regards the ongoing shortcomings in its practical use in individual Member States. Member States are encouraged to take appropriate steps to ensure that European citizens can make full use of the advantages of the new arrangements, especially in the area of health insurance.

1.9

The EESC expressly welcomes all those measures in the implementing regulation that are intended to offer more legal certainty and transparency to all users of the new coordinating regulation. In the past, there have been instances between Member States where debts arising between institutions were not paid even after several years. The EESC hopes that payment practice between states will be significantly improved, although shortcomings in enforcing the collection of outstanding debts between social security institutions still remain.

1.10

The EESC wonders whether the provisions in the regulation and the implementing regulation — in particular the inclusion of economically inactive persons in its scope — might give rise to a process whereby the EU's generous social security systems were weakened and benefits gradually eroded. In this connection, the EESC believes that steps must be taken to produce comparable and meaningful data showing the current and expected future cross-border drawing of health and social security benefits in the EU. Changes relating to the applicability of Regulation 883/2004 are particularly interesting.

1.11

Finally, the EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen measures to raise awareness among all potential users of the regulation of the arrangements for and advantages of coordination of social security systems. The necessary preparations for this should, in the Committee's view, be started immediately.

2.1

The Community rules on the coordination of national social security systems are currently laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and its implementing regulation, Regulation (EEC) No 574/72. Over the years, these two regulations have been modified and updated several times. Regulation 1408/71 is to be replaced by Regulation (EC) 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council, which was adopted on 29 April 2004.

2.2

These regulations on the coordination of national social security systems are intended to define the measures necessary for the persons covered to travel, stay or reside in another Member State without losing their social security entitlements. To ensure that rights are safeguarded, the regulations provide for different procedures to meet specific needs in the various branches of social security and for the practicalities of coordination. It is thus a matter of coordinating rather than harmonising the systems.

2.3

Article 89 of new Regulation 883/2004 provides that a further regulation shall lay down the procedure for implementing the said regulation. Only when this implementing regulation (COM(2006) 16 final), which was published in draft form on 31 January 2006 and is the subject of this EESC opinion, comes into force, can the new Regulation 883/2004 be implemented after entering into force. Until such adoption, Regulation 1408/71 and its implementing Regulation 574/72 remain fully in force.

2.4

The separation between basic regulation and implementing regulation has become established practice in the way Community law deals with coordinating the social security systems in the Member States. The basic regulation sets out principles, whereas the implementing regulation is more technical.

2.4.1

The current draft of the implementing regulation can therefore be seen as a user manual, so to speak, for Regulation (EC) 883/2004. Thus, the idea is to clarify any remaining questions of an administrative or procedural nature and to deal with certain aspects of Community-wide coordination that require specific procedures.

2.4.2

For example, in the area of old-age pensions, it is necessary to specify what steps insured persons must take in order to apply for payment of their pensions, to which institution the claim must be submitted (where they have worked in several Member States), how the institutions are to exchange information to ensure that the insured person's full career is taken into account, and how each institution is to calculate the pension to be paid for the relevant period.

2.5

However, the separation between fundamentals and technical aspects is not very clear in practice. The current implementing regulation contains a number of points that belong more logically in the basic Regulation 883/2004.

2.5.1

The negotiations concerning Regulation 883/3004, which took more than six years, were fortunately brought to a positive conclusion in April 2004 before the last round of EU enlargement, and were thus saved from being delayed still further. A consequence of this was that parts of Regulation 883/2004 were unfinished (for example some empty annexes, in particular Annex XI). Thus, some substantive issues that more logically belong in basic Regulation 883/2004 are left to be dealt with in the current implementing regulation. This relates in particular to aspects of financial settlement between social security institutions. There are no outstanding substantive issues relating to the rights of citizens.

2.5.2

This EESC opinion will pay particular attention to the above-mentioned substantive issues.

3.1

The proposed implementing provisions are intended to:

3.2

The new implementing regulation differs significantly in terms of its structure from Regulation 574/72 implementing Regulation 1408/71. This is largely because the structure of the new implementing regulation follows that of the new basic Regulation 883/2004, which differs substantially from basic Regulation 1408/71 on a number of points. The most significant difference is that the new Regulation 883/2004 is wider in terms of the persons and areas of social security covered than the current Regulation 1408/71. In addition, the focus in the new Regulation 883/2004 has been put on general provisions and definitions, which differs from the special provisions contained in the chapters on individual classes of insurance in Regulation 1408/71.

3.2.1

Regulation 1408/71 was originally only designed for employees and their dependants. At the beginning of the 1980s, the scope was extended to include self-employed people. At the end of the 1990s, this was further extended to cover civil servants and students.

3.2.2

In order to fall within its scope, a person had to be a citizen of a Member State or resident in a Member State as a stateless person or refugee. Family members and survivors are also included.

3.2.3

Survivors are also included if they are citizens of a Member State, in which case the nationality of the person from whom the rights are derived is not relevant.

3.2.4

Regulation 883/2004 now applies to all EU citizens who are insured under national legislation, as non-employed persons are also fully covered.

3.2.5

The scope of what is covered is also wider than under Regulation 1408/71. In new Regulation 883/2004, in addition to the existing arrangements, early retirement pensions and paternity benefits equivalent to maternity benefits are included. However, in contrast to Regulation 1408/71, advances on maintenance payments are no longer included within the scope of Regulation 883/2004.

3.2.6

Regulation 883/2004 now applies to all legislation that affects the following areas of social security: a) sickness benefits; b) maternity and equivalent paternity benefits; c) invalidity benefits; d) old-age pensions; e) survivor's pensions; f) benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases; g) death grants; h) unemployment benefits; i) early retirement pensions; j) family benefits.

3.3

The extension of the scope necessitates certain new rules and procedures that are tailored to these groups of people, including, for example, provisions defining the legislation applicable for taking account of the periods that people who have never been employed or self-employed devoted to bringing up children in their various countries of residence.

3.4

The structure of the current implementing regulation follows that of the basic Regulation 883/2004: Title 1 deals with general rules, Title 2 deals with the applicable legislation, and Title 3 covers specific provisions for the various categories of benefits, followed by financial provisions (Title 5) and transitional and final provisions. In its specific comments on individual articles of the regulation, the Committee will concentrate on the general rules and the applicable legislation rather than on the details of the individual types of benefits.

3.4.1

The annexes to the implementing regulation are currently empty and must be completed. They include implementing provisions for agreements that remain in force, and new implementing provisions for agreements (Annex 1), special schemes for civil servants (Annex 2), Member States reimbursing the cost of benefits on a lump-sum basis (Annex 3) and the list of competent authorities and institutions already mentioned (Annex 4).

3.5

In addition, many measures and procedures provided for in the regulation are intended to ensure greater transparency of the criteria which the institutions of the Member States must apply under Regulation 883/2004.

3.5.1

Thus, numerous definitions that have been grouped together in the general provisions in Title 1 of Regulation 883/2004 were spread over different categories of social security in Regulation 1408/71, which in some cases dealt with them inconsistently. There is more emphasis on general definitions and fewer definitions in the individual chapters. Thus, the new regulation does not treat each category of insurance as a different world with its own rules.

3.5.2

Article 5 (equal treatment of facts) is also a significant step. This stipulates that Member States are to take account of facts or events occurring in another Member State as though they had taken place in their own territory.

3.6

The content of the basic regulation and implementing regulation only applies to cross-border matters between at least two Member States. Only in these cases are there any additional requirements for insured persons or employers, such as informing the social security institution of a posting abroad. What other responsibilities insured persons and employers have in the competent Member State remains a matter for the Member States and is not affected by the basic regulation or the implementing regulation.

4.1

The EESC welcomes the presentation of the implementing regulation for the new Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of national social security systems. This proposal is a step towards better conditions for free movement within the EU. It does not contain any significant problems for the various bodies responsible for implementing the laws and administrative procedures for coordinating social security systems in the Member States, nor does it appear to contain any provisions that might cause problems for insured persons.

4.2

On the contrary, the draft regulation contains many simplifications, clarifications and improvements. In particular, the EESC welcomes its wider scope — to cover more persons and more areas of social security — and all the provisions to improve cooperation between social security institutions.

4.2.1

The expansion of the scope to cover more persons will have the greatest effect on the numbers of people covered in those countries in which insurance cover is based on residency. In countries in which insurance cover is linked to employment, the effect is less noticeable, as hardly any new groups of people are included.

4.3

Therefore, the EESC repeats its call, aimed in particular at the Member States and made in previous opinions, to push forward with processing the draft implementing regulation as quickly as possible and to work to ensure that it enters into force as soon as possible. The new regulation on coordination and the attendant improvements and simplifications must be put into effect as quickly as possible (1).

4.4

The current draft for the implementation of Regulation 883/2004 has taken some time to see the light of day, around a year and a half having passed since the adoption of Regulation 883/2004. It has been on the table since the beginning of 2006. In view of the complexity and breadth of the subject matter, and of the large number of questions remaining, it will certainly take some time for all the practical and procedural details in the individual Member States to be dealt with by the Council and the Administrative Commissions.

4.4.1

It is planned that the implementing regulation will come into force at the beginning of 2008. As stipulated in Article 91, the regulation comes into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This length of time seems necessary, but also sufficient for adapting systems to the new regulations. An extension of the six-month period between publication and entry into force should certainly be avoided.

4.4.2

To facilitate the rapid implementation of the basic regulation, the EESC therefore calls on the Member States to provide their social security institutions, without delay, with the necessary resources in terms of staff and equipment to enable them to adapt quickly. Existing instruments at national level — in particular the existing TRESS networks (2), which bring together the interested parties and players in the Member States — should be used to carry out an appropriate evaluation of the practical implementation of this regulation in individual Member States once it enters into force. The EESC calls on the Commission to support these measures. An extension of the six-month period between publication and entry into force should certainly be avoided.

4.5

Moreover, work is still being done on Regulation 883/2004 itself. In particular, Annex XI needs mentioning here. When the regulation was adopted in 2004, this annex was not completed and is now being dealt with and discussed alongside the draft implementing regulation in the Council working group.

4.5.1

Annex XI does not only affect Regulation 883/2004, but also the implementing regulation itself. The two documents cannot be viewed separately from each other. Annex XI deals with Special provisions for the application of the legislation of the Member States. The content of this annex must be determined by the European Parliament and by the Council before the date of application of the implementing regulation.

4.5.2

This annex may define specific procedures for implementing certain laws. In it, the Member States try to uphold certain national provisions. Annex XI is one of the most controversial parts of the regulation, in that it may contain quite a number of entries. The EESC will express a separate view on this matter directly after this opinion.

4.6

In particular, the pursuit of vested interests must not, inter alia in the context of the European Year of Workers' Mobility 2006 proclaimed by the Commission, further delay the entry into force of the new coordinating Regulation 883/2004 and with it the application of all the improvements already adopted. Rapid adoption would be more than a symbol, as the aim is in fact to take a concrete step towards giving the citizens of Europe greater opportunities for mobility (3).

4.7

The EESC points out that Regulation 1408/71 and its implementing regulation 574/72 remain in force for certain groups of people even if Regulation 883/2004 enters into force, unless other regulations or agreements are also altered. (See Article 90 of the basic regulation and Article 90 of the implementing regulation.)

4.7.1

The scope of the rules for coordinating social security set out in 1408/71 was widened to additional groups of people over the years. This inclusion of additional groups of people was not, however, laid down in Regulation 1408/71 or 574/72 itself, but in specific additional regulations or agreements.

4.7.2

Firstly, this affects the applicability of the rules on coordination for third country nationals, their family members and their survivors, which is covered by Regulation 859/2003. Since 1 June 2003, third country nationals lawfully resident in a Member State are covered by the coordination rules in the same way as EU citizens. An important point to remember is that the inclusion of third country nationals within the scope applies only to cross-border issues between at least two Member States involving these insured persons, and not to cross-border issues between their home country and an EU country.

4.7.3

Secondly, the provisions of Regulations 1408/71 and 574/72 have applied to EEA Member States and their citizens since 1994. The agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons, which has been in force since 1 June 2002, expands the scope of the coordinating rules to Switzerland. Regulation 1661/85 led to the inclusion of Greenland and its citizens.

4.7.4

All of this also meant that EU citizens also benefited from wider geographical scope. EEA countries and Greenland were put on the same footing as EU countries. In the spirit of equal treatment of EU nationals and third country nationals in social matters, this state of affairs should be preserved. Appropriate changes to these regulations are also needed if this extension of scope is also to apply to Regulation 883/2004.

4.8

With this in mind, the EESC calls for all the relevant regulations and treaties that relate to Regulation 1408/71 to be amended as soon as possible, and certainly by the start date of the new coordination arrangements. It should then be possible to apply Regulation 883/2004 in the same wider geographical area and to the same wider group of people. Otherwise, the affected third-country nationals and citizens of the EEA, Switzerland and Greenland would not come under its protection. It is also possible that EU citizens would be put at a disadvantage in certain cross-border matters involving these countries. Regulation 1408/71 would continue to apply to such cases.

4.8.1

The Commission is urged to take the necessary steps as soon as possible. Firstly, there is unequal treatment of different citizens resident in the European Union. Secondly, having to apply two such complex regulations simultaneously would also be a disproportionate burden on social security institutions in the Member States.

4.8.2

It should also be pointed out that if Regulation 1408/71 and its implementing regulation 574/72 are to continue to apply, even if only to a small group of beneficiaries, they will need constant renewing and adapting to changes. This would be an unacceptable burden for the administration of the European Union and for all users of the regulations.

4.9

Regulation 883/2004 also provides for better procedures for faster and more reliable exchange of data between social security institutions in the Member States. In particular, this is to involve the promotion of electronic data exchange and working with electronic documents.

4.9.1

Whilst procedures involving paper documents have hitherto been the norm, and electronic processing only happened by mutual agreement between two Member States, the electronic exchange of all data between institutions is now to be the rule.

4.9.2

As well as savings in administrative costs, this is expected to have advantages in terms of faster procedures for insured persons, shorter response and processing times, and faster reimbursement or payment of benefits in cross-border cases.

4.9.3

The proposed regulation stops a long way short of saying that every institution must communicate electronically with every institution in the EU. Instead, a minimum of one access point in one institution per Member State, which is equipped to receive and send electronic social security data and forwards the data to the competent national institution, is sufficient. However, Article 83 of the draft states that, for the purposes of identifying the communication partner, a public database must be created. This includes the ‘competent authorities’, ‘competent institutions’, ‘institutions of the place of residence’, ‘institutions of the place of stay’, ‘access point’ and ‘liaison body’ as defined. This access makes it possible to replace previous annexes to the regulation with lists of institutions updated as appropriate.

4.9.4

In this context, the EESC calls for lessons to be learnt from experience with the implementation of the European health insurance card, inter alia as regards the ongoing shortcomings in its practical use in individual Member States. In particular, the extent to which it would be possible to use health insurance institutions' existing databases should be looked into. It will be up to the Administrative Commission to identify the data that are essential for communication. In addition, Member States should be encouraged to take appropriate steps so that European citizens can make full use of the advantages of the new arrangements, especially in the area of health insurance.

4.10

The EESC recognises that electronic data transfer enables processing to be speeded up, which is in the interests of insured persons. To that extent, this change is welcome. At the same time, however, the EESC is concerned that this involves sensitive personal data (relating to such matters as health, incapacity and unemployment). It is therefore essential to ensure that these data are properly secure and cannot fall into the wrong hands.

4.10.1

All of the guarantees provided for in the Community provisions on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing and free movement of personal data also apply here. These were regulated by Article 84 of Regulation 1408/71 and are set out in Article 77 of Regulation 883/2004. Nonetheless, in particular in the light of electronic data transfer between institutions in Member States becoming the rule, the EESC calls for the implementing regulation to make explicit reference to the sensitivity of the data and to provide for appropriate mechanisms to ensure their security.

4.10.2

At all events, the EESC regrets the absence of a form of words similar to that in Article 84(5)b of Regulation 1408/71, which strictly forbids the use of these data for purposes other than social security. Such a provision should be explicitly included in Article 4 of the implementing regulation.

4.11

The advantages of using electronic means for the exchange of data between social security institutions should not, however, be exaggerated. There is no doubt that data will be transferred more quickly. In many cases, national institutions also need to be restructured.

4.11.1

It is questionable, however, as to whether faster transfer times will really bring about significant benefits to insured persons. As a rule, the time taken for data transfer is relatively short in comparison to the total time taken to process a file. Due to the complexity of the matters involved (take pensions for example: contribution paid in more than one country, pro rata calculations, etc.), some cases will still require special processing and cannot be dealt with by computer programmes without disproportionate cost or indeed at all. In such cases the files will still need to be dealt with by officials.

4.11.2

Consequently, the EESC does not believe that speeding up the transfer of data and facts will in itself bring about a breakthrough. The desired efficiency in processing times will only be achieved if the institutions in the Member States have sufficient and properly qualified staff with appropriate technical resources.

4.11.3

The EESC therefore calls on the Member States to begin immediately preparing staff in social security institutions for the new arrangements in the basic regulation and the implementing regulation. Appropriate staff training is indispensable. The EESC calls on the Commission to take appropriate initiatives within its competence to support the Member States in carrying this out. In particular, it calls for Community resources to be made available for training programmes and, where appropriate, assistance with training to be provided.

4.12

Because the social security schemes covered by Regulation 883/2004 are based on solidarity between all insured persons, provision should be made for mechanisms to ensure more effective recovery of claims relating to benefits not due or contributions not paid by the insured person or the contributions payer.

4.12.1

The EESC agrees with the Commission that more binding procedures to reduce the time needed for payment of these claims between Member States' institutions are essential in order to maintain confidence in the exchanges.

4.12.2

For example, the implementing regulation provides for setting common deadlines for fulfilling certain obligations or completing certain administrative tasks, which are intended to help clarify and structure relations between insured persons and institutions.

4.12.3

Furthermore, procedures for mutual assistance between institutions, based on Council Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, are planned. In addition, interest on contributions owed is to be introduced, which is expected to improve payment practice.

4.12.4

The EESC expressly welcomes all of these measures set out in the implementing regulation that are intended to offer more legal certainly and transparency to all those involved in implementing the new coordinating regulation. In the past, there have been instances between Member States where debts arising between institutions were not paid even after several years. The EESC hopes that payment practice between states will be significantly improved, although shortcomings in enforcing the collection of outstanding debts still remain.

4.13

The EESC also welcomes the greater flexibility of the new implementing regulation when compared to Regulation 574/72, which fixed the procedure for implementing 1408/71. This will continue to allow Member States to implement somewhat better at bilateral level than is required in the implementing regulation, provided that doing so is not detrimental to the interests of beneficiaries and to coordination. However, on the basis of this principle, according to which this flexibility should not be detrimental to beneficiaries, the EESC advocates a stronger form of words in Article 9 than the current one, which states that ‘these procedures [must] not adversely affect the rights of beneficiaries’. In particular, it should be explicitly stated that other forms of implementation must not lead to longer deadlines or additional administrative procedures.

4.14

The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen measures to ensure that all users of the regulation are better informed about the rules and benefits of coordinating social security systems, including the changes brought about by the applicability of 883/2004. The information should be sent to businesses and all insured persons, in particular to those active in a wide variety of forms of employment, from employees to the informal sector. The necessary preparations for this should, in the Committee's view, be started immediately.

4.15

Regulation 883/2004 provides that procedures must reflect the need for a balanced sharing of costs between Member States. However, the EESC wonders in this context whether the provisions in the regulation and the implementing regulation might give rise to a process whereby the EU's generous social security systems were weakened and benefits gradually eroded. In particular, with regard to the inclusion of economically non-active persons within the scope of the regulation and to the free movement of persons within the EU, the EESC insists that coordination should not lead to any levelling down or dismantling of social standards.

4.15.1

In this connection, the EESC believes that steps must be taken to produce comparable and meaningful data documenting the current and expected future cross-border drawing of health and social security benefits in the EU. Changes resulting from Regulation 883/2004 are particularly relevant.

30.12.2006   

EN