16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/5
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting of financial support to transport
infrastructure projects (J)
(87/C 68/05)
At its 10 and 11 November 1986 meeting, the Council took note of the Commission's intention to
submit a proposal for a Council Regulation which would commit the appropriations still remaining
from Chapter 58, Article 581 of the 1985 budget before the end of 1986. It decided at the same time to
consult the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting
of financial support to transport infrastructure projects.
The Committee was consulted by a letter of 18 November 1986 to which the proposal was appended
in three languages (English, French and German). Since the Council has to take a decision on this
proposal at its next meeting of Transport Ministers on 15 and 16 December, it stated in its letter that it
would like the Committee to deliver its opinion at its November session.
The Section for Transport and Communications was instructed by the Committee Chairman, on
19 November 1986, to prepare the Committee's work on the matter (Articles 22, 46 and 47 of the
rules of procedure), and at its meeting the same day it set up a drafting group consisting of Mr Rouzier
(rapporteur) and Mr Haas and Mr Masprone (co-rapporteurs).
The Commission proposal is based on Articles 75 and 84 of the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community, under Article 75 consultation of the Committee is mandatory.
The Section for Transport and Communications adopted its opinion at its 174th meeting on
10 December 1986, on the basis of Mr Rouzier's report.
On 16 December 1986 at its 242nd plenary session the Economic and Social Committee unanimously
adopted the following opinion:
0. Preliminary comments
0.1. The Committee acknowledges, by way of an
introductory remark, that the Council may lay down a
deadline for the delivery of a Committee opinion; however,
under Article 198 of the Treaty, this deadline may not be less
than 10 days. Since the letter asking the Committee for its
opinion did not reach the Committee Chairman until 19
November, the 26—27 November Plenary Session deadline
was too short.
0.2. In addition, the requisite documents were not
provided in due course in all languages. The Committee
wishes to protest to the Council about this, especially as it has
happened on several occasions.
1. General comments
1.1. The Committee notes from the press release for
the 10—11 November Council meeting that the Council
examined the draft Regulation on financial support in the
framework of a medium-term programme for transport
infrastructure of 27 June 1986. At the end of the debate, the
Council instructed the Permanent Representatives
Committee to continue examination of the draft Regulation,
in the light of the opinions of the European Parliament and of
the Economic and Social Committee, and in particular of the
method of Community support for projects meeting certain
criteria.
1.2. In its opinion on this matter of 18 September 1986,
as in several previous opinions, the Committee came out 'in
favour of a coherent Community policy based on clearly
defined aims and criteria' (2). In another opinion of 25
September 1985 (3), the Committee pointed out that the
development of transport infrastructure in the European
Community had to satisfy three aims, viz:
— reduction of the economic, social and environmental
costs of transport and improvement in the productivity of
transport firms,
— maintenance and improvement of EEC firms'
international competitiveness with the aid of an
international high-speed transport network,
H OJ No C 323, 16. 12. 1986, p. 4.
(2) OJ No C 328, 26. 12. 1986, point 1. 5.
(3) OJNoC 303,25. 11. 1985.
No C 68/6 Official Journal of the
— alignment of living conditions in the Community's
less-developed and highly developed areas (*).
1.3. In the aforementioned opinion of 18 September
1986, the Committee regretted, however, that the Council
lacked the political will to adopt a longer-term coherent
Community policy which would cut out the yearly round of
haggling over each individual project and piecemeal
spending.
1.4. The Committee notes that unfortunately its fears are
doubly justified: firstly, because the Council has not been
able to agree on the Commission's proposal of June 1986
for a medium-term transport infrastructure policy; and
secondly, because the Commission for its part is now
proposing to spread the 90 million ECU from the 1985
budget over fifteen projects situated in all the Member States
apart from Luxembourg.
1.5. The Committee would point out in this context that
since 1982 a total of 260 million ECU has been provided
under budget line 581 (10 million ECU in 1982; 15 million
ECU in 1983; 80 million ECU in 1984; 90 million ECU in
1985; 65 million ECU in 1986).
1.6. The funds for 1982—1984, totalling some 105
million ECU, have been spent. The 90 million ECU set aside
in the 1985 budget represent an 85,7% increase in
expenditure. Even though the general shortage of
appropriations is outside the Committee's sphere of influence
and is an inhibiting factor from the very start, the Committee
would once again stress that budget appropriations must be
used for their original purpose.
1.7. This is why the Committee endorses the
Commission's proposal as being the legal instrument which is
required for the release of the available budget funds.
(>) OJNoC303,25. 11. 1985.
Done at Brussels on 16 December 1986.
uropean Communities 16. 3. 87
1.8. The Committee would urge the Council to ensure
that if Community assistance is provided, the Member States
do not reduce their original allocations of funds.
2. Specific comments
2.1. The Committee, without wanting to go into the
details of the projects selected by the Commission with the
aid of the Infrastructure Committee, is pleased to note that
the Commission has tried to share out .the appropriations
evenly between road [55%) and rail (45%).
2.2. The Committee also notes that the appropriations
have been shared out satisfactorily between four categories of
projects:
2.2.1. Works to better integrate areas situated
geographically on the periphery of the Community: 40 %.
2.2.2. Transit routes: 34%.
2.2.3. Works in major corridors: 2 4 % .
2.2.4. Other projects: 2 % .
2.3. The Committee considers that all in all this
allocation represents a compromise which must be accepted
by the Council as soon as possible, and at any event by the
end of the year; it would also urgently request the Council to
adopt, in keeping with its decision of 10—11 November, the
Regulation for a medium-term infrastructure programme at
the start of 1987, making it possible to implement a plan for
transport infrastructure which covers more than one
budgetary year.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy