51998AC1132

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Green Paper from the Commission on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure` (98/C 407/16)

On 15 December 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the 'Green Paper from the Commission on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure`.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 July 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Kritz ().

At its 357th plenary session on 9 and 10 September 1998 (meeting of 9 September) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 95 votes for and one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. The principal function of ports is to provide facilities for transfer of goods and passengers between ships of all kinds and inland transport of all kinds. In ports cargo is also transferred between different forms of sea transport. The commodities handled in ports are as varied as international trade itself.

1.2. Some processing plants, like refineries, ore smelters, power stations and steel works, are often located within or close to ports. They are often the very reason for a port's existence, and not subordinate activities to the port.

1.3. A port is not a unity from an operational point of view, but consists of a number of bodies providing port services. The main activities which take place in a port are the following:

(a) Services related to ships

- navigational aids;

- pilotage;

- towage;

- mooring;

- berth allocation;

- shipping agencies;

- ship brokerage;

- waste reception;

- ship cleaning;

- ship repair.

(b) Services related to cargo

- stevedoring;

- groupage (containers and pallets);

- cargo storage;

- forwarders.

(c) Control and inspection

- customs clearance;

- ship safety inspection;

- dangerous goods;

- surveyors.

1.4. Some of the port services are provided on a monopoly basis, while others are provided by firms competing for the delivery of a specific service.

1.5. There is a great diversity among ports in terms of ownership, internal organization and governmental involvement in the management of ports. This reflects historical traditions and different philosophies regarding the role of ports and the degree of governmental support, intervention and control when it comes to financing and charging. Government in this case means central, regional or local government.

1.6. In some Member States the role of the central government is far-reaching and might include ownership, investment funding and tariff setting. In Germany the land and water surfaces of ports are in general owned by 'Länder` and/or municipalities. In the Netherlands, most ports are run by municipalities, but the ports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam are organized as separate municipal enterprises ('havenbedrijf`), but with a strong central governmental interest. In the UK the majority of cargo is handled by private sector ports. Ports in Sweden are in most cases run as limited liability companies, with the local municipality as the main or only shareholder.

1.7. The majority of ports are, in one way or another, owned and administered by a port authority. This term, however, does not have an unambiguous definition. In some cases the port authority controls only a small proportion of the activities undertaken in its area, while in other cases it is the real management body, directly responsible for a wide range of activities.

1.8. Modern high-technology ships are expensive and shipping companies work hard to ensure that vessels undertake as many journeys as possible per year. The capacity of ports affects the turnaround time for ships, which is of importance especially for shorter journeys where efficient roll-on/roll-off systems are often used. The pressure to reduce handling times in ports will continue, for both cargo vessels and ferry services. This is a result not least of the growing importance of short-distance maritime traffic. Other critical factors for ports are links to the hinterland and reliability, which is essentially shaped by the relationship between management and labour.

2. The Commission document

2.1. The ports have so far not been at the centre of the European transport policy debate, and have only to a limited extent been subject to measures taken at Community level. The purpose of the green paper is to open a discussion on the European port sector to identify those issues which need to be addressed at Community level. If necessary, coherent policies should be developed to improve the performance of the sector while supporting the economic and social needs of the Community.

2.2. The main objectives of a Community port sector policy should be, firstly, to help increase port efficiency and improve port and maritime infrastructure by integrating ports into the multimodal trans-European network and, secondly, to meet the Community's responsibilities under the Treaty to ensure free and fair competition in the port sector.

2.3. The Commission suggests a number of possible measures, which can be applied in the context of existing policies. It also identifies policy areas, in particular in the fields of port charging and market access, in which new initiatives should be considered.

2.4. The green paper has three main chapters. The first deals with 'EU ports and the common transport policy`, and summarizes the development in areas where port issues are already included in Community policies. The main points are the following:

- The role of ports in Trans-European Transport Networks

- Connections to neighbouring third countries

- Ports as transfer points in the intermodal transport chain

- Ports and development of short sea shipping in Europe

- Maritime safety and the environment

- Research and development.

2.5. The second main chapter of the green paper discusses 'Financing and charging for ports and maritime infrastructure`.

2.5.1. There is a wide variety of methods for financing port facilities and for charging for the use of port services. This reflects not only differences in the way ports are owned and organized, but also different attitudes regarding the role and function of ports. There is a clear trend towards considering ports as purely commercial enterprises with limited public service obligations.

2.5.2. Competition between ports has increased. The traditional 'hinterlands` are more and more overlapping due to the development of the trans-European transport network, technology changes in the transport sector and the completion of the internal market. The concentration process within the liner shipping industry has also led to increased competition between ports. The Commission underlines that the diverse arrangements for port financing and charging involve risks for distortion of competition and inefficient use of economic resources.

2.5.3. In order to address these problems, the Commission intends to examine the possibility of developing a Community framework for port charging. Such a framework would be based on the user-pays principle. It would require charges to be linked with costs, and contain guidelines on the extent to which port charges should reflect the cost of infrastructure investments. The charging framework would, in principle, apply to ports with international traffic.

2.5.4. As a first step the Commission intends to make an inventory of public finance given to main ports with international traffic as well as charging practices in these ports.

2.5.5. If the Union is to develop a more uniform approach to port charges, a framework should then, according to the Commission, be included in a proposal for a Council directive.

2.5.6. In the view of the Commission, the implementation of a Community approach to port financing and charging would have to be progressive and dovetail with a general approach to infrastructure charging and financing for all modes of transport. The Commission intends to present a communication on a coherent approach to charging in 1998.

2.5.7. In the state aid field the Commission will continue to examine public financial support to undertakings carrying out commercial activities in ports. A framework for port charging might include rules on state aid in the port sector.

2.5.8. The Commission underlines that maritime infrastructure outside the port area needs particular attention. For aid to navigation within the port area, as well as to dredging of approach channels to ports, the user-pays principle has to be examined with caution in order to take account of the different geographical location of ports.

2.6. The third main chapter of the green paper is about 'Port services: organization and market access`.

2.6.1. A large number of services and facilities are provided in ports, some related to cargo, others to ships. Port services have by tradition been protected by exclusive rights and/or legal or de facto monopolies of a public or private nature. During the last decade the cargo-handling services have been more commercially orientated, due to new technologies and increased competition between ports, whereas restrictions often still remain for services related to ships.

2.6.2. The European Court of Justice and the Commission have adopted a number of decisions in relation to ports, particularly in the field of competition (e.g. abuse of a dominant position, discriminatory tariffs).

2.6.3. As a complement to the present case-by-case approach the Commission proposes a regulatory framework at Community level, aiming at a more systematic liberalization of port services in the main ports with international traffic, in order to establish over a reasonable period of time a level playing field between and within Community ports.

2.6.4. The objective of the liberalization measures would be to ensure open access to the market for port services, on the basis of transparency, non-discrimination and certain principles for charging. An appropriate framework for the implementation of public service obligations should be determined whenever they are deemed necessary.

2.6.5. The Commission underlines that the heterogeneous character of port services and the diverse nature of ports require a differentiated approach to the liberalization of the various kinds of port services. Any steps towards liberalization should be introduced gradually, in order to give the sector sufficient time to adapt.

3. General comments

3.1. The Economic and Social Committee agrees with the Commission that the green paper will bring into focus the importance for the Union of efficient ports. The port sector handles more than 90 % of the Union's trade with third countries and approximately 30 % of intra-Community traffic, as well as more than 200 million passengers every year.

3.2. The purpose of the green paper is to launch a discussion in order to identify the problems in the port sector. Various measures to solve these problems should then be evaluated and, if necessary, be followed by concrete proposals for Community legislation. The Committee supports this step-by-step approach of policy-making, as the ports so far have been subject to Community policy measures only to a limited extent.

3.3. The Committee endorses the green paper's principle objectives of a Community port sector policy, i.e. to help increase port efficiency, to improve port and maritime infrastructure by integrating ports in the TENs, and to ensure free and fair competition in the port sector. The ultimate goal must be to promote Europe's industrial competitiveness and to increase the welfare of the citizens in the Member States.

3.4. The green paper gives a balanced description and analysis of the problems in the port sector as they are perceived by the customers and the ports themselves. The Committee, however, had wished to see a more systematic approach in describing the various activities that take place in and around ports, and in analysing the need for actions for each of these activities. Furthermore, one shortcoming of the green paper is the lack of basic data, e.g. on the structure of the European port system, on revenues and costs, and on the level of charges in different ports for similar services.

3.5. There is a clear trend towards regarding and treating ports as commercial enterprises, which ought to recover their costs from port users who benefit from them directly; this trend is irrespective of ownership. The Committee not only welcomes this development but also finds it essential that a Community ports policy is based on the notion that ports are commercial enterprises, working in a market economy and applying the user-pays principle. Such an approach will facilitate policy-making, as activities in ports should in principle fall under the same rules as those applicable to most other economic activities.

3.6. The green paper points out that the user-pays principle will have to be examined with caution when it comes to some specific maritime infrastructure and port services, like light-houses and other aids to navigation, breakwaters, sea-locks, dredging and icebreaking. In some Member States investments in and operation of these facilities are funded by the taxpayer, in others by the users of the port. This is, in the view of the Committee, not a satisfactory situation. The principle of transparency is not always adhered to, and distortion of competition between ports does occur. It is therefore urgent that the Commission issues guidelines on who should pay for the supply of the above mentioned facilities.

3.7. Within the transport sector there are economic activities which are in principle similar to ports: airports, railway stations, and terminals for combined road-rail transport. Like ports, they are not a mode of transport, but interconnection points between different modes of transport. The Committee had wished to see in the green paper references to and comparisons with, in particular, airports which have characteristics similar to ports, even if competition between airports is less marked than competition between sea ports. A Council directive on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports was adopted in 1996, and in 1997 the Commission proposed a Council directive on airport charges. In the green paper on sea ports, access to the market for port services and a framework for charging are two key issues.

3.8. The green paper says that 'port services are to be seen as an integrated part of the maritime transport system as they are indispensable for the proper functioning of this mode of transport` (paragraph 19 in the executive summary). This is, according to the Committee, a questionable sentence, as the inland transport systems (rail, road, inland waterways) are basically in the same position in relation to ports as the maritime transport system. In the view of the Committee, ports have to be responsive to the needs of both the inland transport systems and the maritime side.

3.9. The green paper underlines that competition between ports has intensified, especially as regards container traffic. This means that pricing, investment and financing decisions of a particular port have marked effects on its neighbours, in the same Member State or in other countries. Increased competition between ports leads to more efficient transport systems, but the Committee finds it essential that competition takes place on an equal and fair basis and is not distorted by public aid or unfair practices. The Committee therefore welcomes that the Commission intends to get information on the financial flows from the public sector to the various types of ports in the Member States, and that it plans to make an inventory of public finance given to the main ports with international traffic as well as charging practices in these ports. The Committee suggests that the request for information on sources of funding should go to the Member States and not to the ports.

3.10. The Committee would like to draw the attention to the fact that competition between ports is achieved not only by what is done by the ports themselves, but also by the development of road, rail and inland waterways connections with the hinterlands. Improvements of road or rail infrastructure may favour some ports to the detriment of others. There are examples where rail freight charges have been set so as to stimulate traffic flows to and from particular sea ports. In the view of the Committee both the Commission and the Member States have to pay more attention to such possible distortion of competition between ports.

3.11. When a comprehensive Community policy is to be developed for the port sector, all aspects and views have to be taken into account. Not least the social consequences of the measures discussed have to be considered. In this connection the Committee would like to stress the following. It is now essential to press rigorously ahead with the dialogue set in motion by the green paper among all those involved, taking particular account of the social dimension. The ESC played a part in this process with its hearing of interested parties at sectoral level on 11 May 1998. Every mode of transport has a joint committee for social dialogue at sectoral level. A 'combined transport` working party exists to promote liaison between the committees and to coordinate activities. Sea ports are not covered, whereas for instance the joint committee for civil aviation explicitly includes airports. Employees' request for a joint committee for sea ports has not yet been satisfied. The Committee would therefore welcome the initiation of an organized dialogue between the social partners in the port sector.

4. Specific comments

4.1. A framework on port charging

4.1.1. The green paper examines the possibility of developing a Community framework for port charging in order to solve the problems of unfair competition, abuse of a dominant position and discrimination between users. For port services the Commission suggests that such a framework could lay down certain general principles with a view to ensuring that the prices charged reflect the cost of the services provided. As for infrastructure the Commission considers that charges could be based on marginal costs, and ensuring cost recovery of new investments. The suggested framework raises several principal and practical questions to which the Committee would like to draw the attention in the following.

4.1.2. As has been pointed out earlier, ports are rarely, if ever, owned and operated by one organisation, but are complex and diverse organizations comprising numerous bodies, each specialising in particular activities and services (see paragraphs 1.3 and 3.4 above). Therefore it might be difficult to develop a general framework for port charging, which would apply to both infrastructure and services.

4.1.3. In a footnote to paragraph 52 in the green paper it is mentioned that the overall transit costs through ports amount to 5-10 % of the total door-to-door costs in the case of deep sea transport, and to 40-60 % in the case of short sea shipping. It would be desirable to have these costs specified by type of service in order to get an idea of which cost items are the most important ones when applying the charging principle of cost-relatedness.

4.1.4. As for infrastructure different charging principles are discussed in the green paper. Precise definitions of what should be included in the term infrastructure are, however, lacking. (Quays and connected land areas will obviously be included in the term infrastructure as well as lighthouses and other navigational aids, but how to treat cranes and warehouses?)

4.1.5. Ports are to a large extent commercial enterprises. They should therefore fall under the same rules as most other economic activities working in a market economy, and the user-pays principle should apply with few exceptions. In this perspective a special framework for port charging is not relevant.

4.1.6. The Committee agrees with the Commission that there are problems of unfair competition, abuse of a dominant position and discrimination between users, even if the dimensions of the problems are not known. One may question, however, if a Council directive on a framework for port charging is an effective instrument to solve these problems. In the view of the Committee clear rules on state aid, strong enforcement of such rules, and a strict application of the competition rules in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty should be sufficient means to cope with the problems.

4.1.7. As regards state aid the Commission has taken the view that public investment in port infrastructure, which is accessible to all users on a non-discriminatory basis, is not to be considered as state aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty. On the other hand, where particular investments favour certain operators rather than others, they are considered to be aid. They may, however, benefit from the exemptions provided for in the Treaty, for example in the case of regional development projects [Article 92(3)(c)]. Public aid to particular undertakings providing services is generally seen to fall within the scope of Article 92 [with the exemptions in Article 92(2) and 92(3)]. State aid issues are very complex, and the interpretation of what is considered to be state aid in the port sector differs from Member State to Member State, which can give rise to unfair competition between ports or operators. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the Commission must issue state aid guidelines for ports in order to achieve a level playing field. Such guidelines need to define what is understood by 'aid` and by 'infrastructure`, and the concept of 'open access` has also to be clarified.

4.2. Market access to port services

4.2.1. Port services have by tradition been protected by exclusive and/or legal or de facto monopolies. Even if entry restrictions have been removed to some extent over the latest decade, mainly in the field of cargo handling services, current practices have resulted in complaints by users and potential suppliers, and the European Court of Justice and the Commission have adopted a number of decisions. (A survey of recent cases is presented in an article on 'Ports maritimes et concurrence`, published in Competition Policy Newsletter (DG IV), 1998 Number 1 February).

4.2.2. As a complement to the case by case approach the green paper proposes that a regulatory framework should be developed at Community level, aiming at liberalization of the markets for port services in order to increase efficiency and to create a level playing field between and within Community ports.

4.2.3. The Committee strongly supports the Commission proposal. As to cargo handling services, it is important that not only new 'traditional` operators but also shipowners, shippers/cargo owners and forwarders could enter the market (self-handling).

4.2.4. The Committee considers that the principle of free market access cannot be applied everywhere, because of the heterogeneous nature of these services and the diverse nature of ports in terms of size, function and geographical characteristics. The green paper suggests that the regulatory framework would apply to 'the main ports with international traffic`. It has to be noted that for the majority of European ports - irrespective of size - international trade is considerably larger than domestic trade. In the view of the Committee the regulatory framework should comply with port and maritime safety standards.

4.3. Short sea shipping

4.3.1. To promote short sea shipping is one of the priorities of Community transport policy, one element being improved port efficiency. In addition to what has been said in paragraph 4.2 above, there is in the view of the Committee one area in particular where Community actions are needed, namely customs/transit procedures (this area is mostly beyond the direct control of port operators). Complex documentary and procedural requirements in ports impose significant costs on cargo owners and transport operators.

4.3.2. The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's initiative to undertake a fact-finding study to identify requirements in ports that affect maritime transport in Europe and compare them with those prevailing in inland transport; customs requirements and procedures are particularly being addressed.

4.3.3. As was pointed out in the Committee's opinion () on the communication from the Commission on 'The development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe: Prospects and Challenges` () short sea shipping covers a wide range of activities and services which are by no means homogenous. Basic types of service include bulk transport, ferries, feeder transport and liner services. The Committee also stressed that too little attention was paid to the fact that in many trade lanes in Europe, short sea shipping competes with rail freight transport and not with transport by road. This has to be recognized when developing Community policies towards sea ports and short sea shipping.

4.4. The role of ports in the Trans-European Transport Network

4.4.1. The Commission considers the full integration of ports into the TEN-T desirable for the establishment of the multimodal network taking into account, in particular, the need to ensure links to the peripheral areas and to encourage short sea shipping. A proposal () to adapt the existing guidelines for the development of TEN-T [Decision 1692/96/EC ()] was presented in parallel to the green paper on sea ports.

4.4.2. The Committee has recently adopted its opinion () on this proposal and, therefore, no further comments are necessary here. However, on one particular point regarding the development of intermodal transport, the Committee would once again stress what was said in the opinion: 'The Committee is unhappy with what appears to be the almost total elimination of road transport from the development of sea ports and combined transport in the context of the TEN network. While fully supporting the development of intermodal transport as an essential factor in the maintenance of sustainable mobility it suggests that the Commission cannot ignore the fact that a very substantial proportion of the goods passing through Community ports is currently carried by road and that road transport projects must have some part to play in the integration of ports and terminals in the TEN`.

4.5. The social dimension of Community policies on sea ports

4.5.1. The technical, commercial and organisational changes that are taking place in sea ports have considerable effects on employment and working conditions for dockworkers. This is noted in the green paper, but should have been dealt with in a more systematic way.

4.5.2. Over the last few decades the development of modern cargo handling techniques has led to a substantial cut-back in employment in sea ports. At the same time the skills required of sea port workers have increased enormously, and employees have had to accept more flexible and irregular working hours. The Committee finds it essential that a European sea ports policy also takes into account the employment dimension in order to secure and create skilled jobs. In this context, it is also important to promote training of employees to develop new technologies and working methods.

4.5.3. The Committee is of the opinion that, in larger ports, labour pools can still be a useful adjustment mechanism for coping with varying manpower needs of terminal operators and individual firms. Recruitment of port workers from labour pools is governed by statutory conditions of employment with compulsory social security. The pool's employer-related costs must be shouldered by the firms employing workers from the pool.

4.5.4. The green paper makes only marginal reference to relevant instruments of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The Committee underlines that these instruments should be more thoroughly reflected when ideas about future European policies regarding sea ports are being developed.

4.5.5. The ILO has adopted two Conventions on Dock Work:

- the Convention concerning the Social Repercussions of New Methods of Cargo Handling in Docks (No 137), and

- the Convention concerning Occupational Safety and Health in Dock Work (No 152).

The two Conventions have so far been ratified by seven Member States.

4.5.6. Ratification of ILO Conventions is not within the competence of the EU but a matter for the individual Member States. However, the European Court of Justice recommended in a 1991 Opinion on the competence of the European Commission and of Member States in ILO matters (in particular in the field of occupational safety and health) that both parties should closely cooperate with a view to negotiate, ratify and implement ILO Conventions. Against this background, the Committee recommends the Commission to take an initiative in the near future for such a cooperation. It hopes that this will result in ratification of the two Conventions by the Member States which have not yet done so.

5. Summary and conclusions

5.1. There is a great diversity among ports in terms of ownership, internal organization and governmental involvement in the management of ports. This reflects historical traditions and different philosophies regarding the role of ports and the degree of governmental support, intervention and control when it comes to financing and charging.

5.2. The purpose of the green paper is to launch a discussion in order to identify the problems in the port sector. Various measures to solve these problems should then be evaluated and, if necessary, be followed by concrete proposals for Community legislation. The Committee supports this step-by-step approach of policy-making, as the ports so far have been subject to Community policy measures only to a limited extent.

5.3. The Committee endorses the green paper's principle objectives of a Community sea ports policy, i.e. to help increase port efficiency, to improve port and maritime infrastructure by integrating ports in the TENs, and to ensure free and fair competition in the port sector.

5.4. Competition between ports has increased, but the Committee finds it essential that competition takes place on an equal and fair basis and is not distorted by public aid or unfair practices. The Committee therefore welcomes that the Commission intends to get information on the financial flows from the public sector to the various types of ports in the Member States, and that it plans to make an inventory of public finance given to the main ports with international traffic as well as charging practices in these ports.

5.5. Competition between ports is achieved not only by what is done by the ports themselves, but also by the development of road, rail and inland waterways connections with the hinterlands. In the view of the Committee, these aspects have often been overlooked.

5.6. There is a clear trend towards regarding and treating ports as commercial enterprises, which have to recover their costs from port users; this trend is irrespective of ownership. The Committee not only welcomes this development, but also finds it essential that a Community sea ports policy is based on the notion that ports are commercial enterprises, working in a market economy and applying the user-pays principle.

5.7. Some specific maritime infrastructure and port services, like light-houses and other aids to navigation, breakwaters, sea-locks, dredging and icebreaking, are funded by the taxpayer in some Member States, in others by the users of the port. This is not a satisfactory situation, as it means distortion of competition between ports, and therefore the Committee would like to see guidelines on who should pay for the supply of these facilities.

5.8. When a Community policy is to be developed for the port sector, all aspects and views have to be taken into account. Not least the social consequences of the measures discussed have to be considered. The Committee would therefore welcome a joint/sectoral committee for sea ports as a forum for an organized dialogue between the social partners.

5.9. The green paper examines the possibility of developing a Community framework for port charging in order to solve the problems of unfair competition, abuse of a dominant position and discrimination between users. The Committee draws attention to some principal and practical problems related to the suggested framework, and questions whether a Council directive on a framework for port charging is an effective instrument to solve the problems mentioned. In the view of the Committee, clear rules on state aid and a strict application of the competition rules in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty should be sufficient means to cope with the problems.

5.10. The green paper proposes that a regulatory framework on market access to port services should be developed at Community level. The aim is to increase efficiency and to create a level playing field between and within Community ports. The Committee strongly supports the Commission proposal, but recognizes that the principle of free market access cannot be applied everywhere, because of the heterogenous nature of these services and the diverse nature of ports especially in terms of size and function.

5.11. The Committee welcomes the Commission's initiative to undertake a fact-finding study to identify customs requirements and procedures that affect maritime transport in Europe and compare them with those prevailing in inland transport. Complex documentary and procedural requirements in ports impose significant costs on cargo owners and transport operators.

5.12. The technical, commercial and organisational changes that are taking place in sea ports have considerable effects on employment and working conditions for dockworkers. This is noted in the green paper, but should have been dealt with in a more systematic way. The Committee finds it essential that a Community sea ports policy also takes into account the employment dimension in order to secure and create skilled jobs.

5.13. The Committee underlines that the relevant ILO Conventions must be reflected in future policies regarding sea ports. The Committee recommends the Commission to take initiatives for cooperation with the Member States with a view to ratify and implement ILO Conventions.

Brussels, 9 September 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() The Section invited organizations, representing the ports, the unions, the shippers and the shipowners, to a hearing of the Study Group on 11 May 1998. Written evidences were also presented. The following organizations participated in the hearing: Federation of Private Port Operators (FEPORT), European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO), Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the EU, European Shippers' Council (ESC), European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA).

() OJ C 97, 1.4.1996, p. 15.

() COM (97) 681 final - OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 14.

() OJ C 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1. ESC Opinion: OJ C 397, 31.12.1994, p. 23.

() OJ C 214, 10.7.1998, p. 40.

() COM(95) 317 final.