No C 328/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the conditions under which
non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway within a Member
State
(86/C 328/13)
On 18 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
abovementioned proposal.
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion at its 170th meeting on 16 July 1986,
in the light of the report by Mr Fortuyn, the rapporteur.
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 July 1986.
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 18 September 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 91 votes to 10, with three abstentions:
1. General comments
1.1. As the Commission's explanatory memorandum
points out, this proposal must be seen against the
background of the Judgement of the European Court
of Justice of 22 May 1985 in case 13/83, European
Parliament versus the Council of Ministers, and in the
light of the Commission's White Paper on completing
the internal market which was submitted to the Council
in June 1985 and met with its approval.
1.2. The Court of Justice's Judgement — the 'failure
to act' decision — clearly states that, pursuant to the
principles, objectives and mandatory provisions of the
Treaty, the freedom to provide transport services, hence
also inland shipping services, is a part of the common
transport policy and must be introduced. This means
that carriers must be allowed to offer and perform
inland transport services in Member States in which
they are not established. The White Paper (paragraphs
108 to 112, 'Transport') states that the necessary meas-
ures should come into effect by 1989.
1.3. The proposed Regulation is particularly impor-
tant for inland shipping in five Member States: Ger-
many, France and the three Benelux countries. Thanks
to the extensive network of rivers and canals in this
region, a substantial proportion of both domestic and
international transport is carried out by water. Because
the waterways in this region link up with each other,
vessels can sail directly from one Member State to
another and therefore offer their services in countries
where their owners are not established.
1.4. The freedom to provide inland shipping services
has been a reality for some considerable time already
(!) OJ No C 331, 20. 12. 1985, p. 2.
in part of this region, on the Rhine and its tributaries
in particular, under the Mannheim Convention. In some
cases, however, national provisions still limit free access
to the market.
1.5. The Committee acknowledges that the freedom
to provide inland shipping services is a part of the
common transport policy and that, with a view to
the completion of the internal market, the remaining
restrictions must be lifted. Hence the Committee
approves the main points of the Commission draft
Regulation which lays down the conditions under
which carriers may transport goods and passengers by
inland waterway in Member States in which they are
not established, but is of the view that the proposal
is unsatisfactory in a number of respects and would
therefore draw the attention of the Commission and
Council to the following comments.
1.6. The Committee notes that in the explanatory
memorandum to its proposal the Commission does
not consider vital for inland shipping the question of
structural overcapacity in shipping tonnage. The resol-
ution of this question could contribute towards healthy
market conditions with a minimum of government
intervention. The Committee therefore urges the Com-
mission and Member States to work vigorously together
to remove this excess capacity by means of properly
coordinated schemes for scrapping vessels and social
back-up measures.
1.7. Article 3 of the draft Regulation states that
the carrying out by a non-resident carrier of national
transport operations is subject to the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions in force in the Member
State in which the transport operations are carried
out. This gives the impression that the continued co-
existence of separate markets governed by varying
national provisions is acceptable.
1.8. The Committee regrets that the Commission
provides only a brief explanatory note to this Article
and does not analyse and compare the different national
provisions, thereby broaching the question of how
2 2 . 1 2 . ^ C^fficialjournal of the European Communities l ^ o C ^ ^
desirable it would be to promote harmonization of
these provisions as part ofthe common transport police.
Idereadistinction must be made between different t^pes
of provisions.
1.^. ^ i t h reference to Article 1 of the proposed
Re^u la t ion^ theCommit tee i sof t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e
carrier is subject solelv to the laws^ regulations and
administrative provisions of thecountrv in which he
is established as regards establishments access to the
occupations profits t a ^ technical regulations and re^is^
tration dues for the firm's vessels^ social provisions
covering the firm'semplo^ees^ and the master'squalifi
cations. Therefore the Committee recommends that the
harmonization of national provisions be studied. Idere
it should be noted that the relevant national provisions
^overnin^ Rhine shipping have alreadv been aliened
through the cooperation of the member states con
cerned on the Central Commission for the l^avi^ation
ofthe Rhine. Aientionma^ also be made ofthe directive
submitted in 1 ^ ^ but not vet adopted on access to the
occupation of carrier of ^oodsb^ waterway in national
a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a n d o n t h e m u t u a l r e c o ^
ni t ionof diplomas^cer t i f ica tesandotherevidenceof
formal qualifications for this occupation ^CO]l^oC^eol^
2^. 1 2 . 1 ^ ^ . The Committee ur^es that this proposal
be dealt with speedilv.
l.lt^. A second cate^orv of provisions comprises
those which regulate various aspects of national or
re^ionalmarl^ets^e.^. those concerning tariffs^ access
toapa r t i cu la r market sector ^not to be confused with
the general provisions on access to the occupations
f re i^htoff icesandrota t ions^stems^and indirect t a ^
ation such as VAT. Por this cate^or^ of provisions
carriers^ irrespective of their nationalitv^are subject to
the provisionsin force i n t h e A i e m b e r ^ t a t e in which
the transport servicesareofferedandperformed. for
this tvpe of provision too^ the Committee considers
it important to s tudv theharmoniza t ionofd ive r^en t
regulations so tha t ca r r i e r s cano f f e r their services on
comparable terms on the national markets of Aiember
states in which thev are not established^ in the Pederal
Republic of Ce rman^ for instances carriers can^ subject
to theprov is ionson freight rates^concludetransport
contracts directlv with the charterer^while in Bel^ium^
Prance and the Netherlands freight is ^enerallvdistrib
uted proportionally ^rotation s^stem^b^ freight offices.
1.11. wi thout aiming for completeness^athirdcate
^ o r ^ o f provisions ma^ be mentioned^ ^^mel^ traffic
regulations to promote safe navigation and the proper
maintenance of waterwavs ^e.^. draught and speed
restrictions^ the lev^in^ of canals l o c ^ bridge and
mooring tolls, ^uch provisions are determined b^ local
circumstances and should of course be observed b^ all
waterway users^ irrespective of their nanonalit^.
1.12. Although there is no indication that the abol
i t ionof theremain in^res t r i c t ionson thefreedom to
provide services will brin^ about major changes on the
inland shipping mar^et^developmentsonthismarl^et
should be followed closeiv so that social backup
measures can betaken.
2. specific comments on the Articles
2.1. A r r ^ ^
2.1.1. ^ i t h reference to the general comments in
point 2 . ^ t h e Committee would point out that at the
moment there are no general provisions ^overnin^
access to the occupation of carrier bv inland waterwav
and therefore no distinction is made between authorize
ation for national and international transport oper^
ations. Consequently until thePOirectiveproposedin
1 ^ ^ is introduced^ authorization to carr^ out inter
national operations will have to be based on the authors
ization granted b^ the Aiember^tates^ preferable alon^
similar lines to the Rhine shipping arrangements.
2.1.2. In the Committee'sview the provision t h a t a
carrier mav pursue his activities onlv temporarily i n a
Aiember^tate in which he is not established is not clear
enough and is open to different interpretations.
COn those transport markets where cabotage is now
permitted there are no time limits.
2.2. A r r ^ 2
2.2.1. The aim of this Article is to provide protection
against possible dmfaiP competition from non^
Community firms which^ although formally established
i n a A i e m b e r ^ t a t e ^ d o n o t h a v e a ^ e n u i n e l i n l ^ with
aAiember^ta te .
2.2.2. In the Committee 'sopinion the inclusion of
suchaprovis ion in this Regulation will ^ o o n l v a v e r v
small wav towards achieving this aim^viz.onlv where
such firms avail themselves of the ri^ht to carr^ out
cabotage operations^ thevcan still participate without
restrictions in transport operations in the Alember
states where the^a rees tab l i shedand in in te rna t iona l
operations.
No C 328/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86
2.2.3. Hence the Committee recommends not only
that such a provision be included in the proposed cabo-
tage Regulation, but also that a general regulation be
drawn up to protect the whole Community inland
shipping sector against 'unfair' competition. Such a
general regulation would, however, have to be applied
with the necessary restraint so as not to hinder
unnecessarily the free movement of capital with
countries which have a similar economic system to the
Community.
2.2.4. A similar regulation has already been in-
troduced for Rhine shipping (see OJ No L 280,
22. 10. 1985, p. 4: Protocol of Signature of Additional
Protocol 2 to the Revised Convention for Rhine Navi-
gation and the Implementing Regulation thereto).
2.2.5. The Committee is pleased to note that the
provision now proposed by the Commission is modelled
on similar lines so that the two regulations tie in well
with each other.
2.3. Article 3
2.3.1. With reference to the general comments con-
tained in points 1.7 to 1.12, the Committee notes that
it would be useful for all those involved in inland
shipping if a summary but clear list were provided of
those national provisions which have to be complied
Done at Brussels, 18 September 1986.
with if use is made of the right to carry out cabotage
operations; the aim being (a) to prevent—without
prejudice to the carrier's own liability—misunderstan-
dings and errors caused by ignorance and (b) to make
it possible to assess to what extent national provisions
should be harmonized, thereby bringing a European
market regime for inland shipping that much closer.
2.3.2. Date of entry into force
In the light of the above comments, and since the
Member States have to adopt the measures necessary to
implement the Regulation (cf. Article 4), the Committee
considers that the deadline of 1 January 1988 mentioned
in Article 1 for its entry into force is too short. The
Commission's White Paper on completing the internal
market gives 1989 as the date for the introduction
of the freedom to provide services, while the general
completion of the internal market is scheduled for 1992.
Consequently, the Committee recommends that more
time be allowed for the entry into force of the
Regulation.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Gerd MUHR
26. 5. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/37
APPENDIX
The following amendment was defeated by the Committee in the debate:
Paragraph 2.2.
'The Committee wishes to draw attention to ongoing discussions in the Council with regard to freedom to
provide services in maritime transport, aimed at considering 'vessels flying the flag of an EEC Member State'
as an alternative criterion for application of the above freedom. The Committee would refer here to its
opinion on a common maritime transport policy, unanimously adopted on 27 November 1985 (J).
Reasons
The above amendment was tabled for two reasons:
1. First, as a logical follow-on from the ESC opinion on a common maritime transport policy, which
added the alternative criterion of ships flying the flag of a Member State to Appendices II-l, II-2 and II-6.
2. Secondly, in addition to the nationality of physical persons, the nationality of ships is an established
principle in international law, i.e. ships have the nationality of the country whose flag they fly. This is
explicitly mentioned in the following international conventions (amongst others):
(a) UN Convention on High Seas, 1958 (Article 6);
(b) UN Convention on Law of the Sea, 1984 (Article 92);
(c) UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of ships, 1986 [Article 4 (2)].
Result of the voting
For: 29, Against: 29, Abstentions: 48.
(!) OJ No C 344, 31. 12. 1985, p. 31.
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulations (EEC) No
797/85, (EEC) No 270/79, (EEC) No 1360/78 and (EEC) No 355/77 as regards agriculture
structures, the adjustment of agriculture to the new market situation and the preservation
of the countryside
(86/C 328/14)
On 7 May 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
abovementioned proposal.
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on
the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 July 1986, in the light of the oral report by Mr Zinkin.
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 18 September 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion:
1. Introduction socio-structural policy (opinion on the proposal for a
Regulation on improving the efficiency of agricultural
1.1. The Committee has given several opinions in structures; opinion on the perspectives for the common
which comments have been made on various aspects of agricultural policy (CAP); opinion on the fixing of


Full & Egal Universal Law Academy