# C_2006131EN.01002801.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Novara lodged on 5 January 2006 — CARP SNC, Di Moleri Luigi and Corsi Valter v ECORAD SRL.

(Case C-80/06)

(2006/C 131/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Novara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi, Associazione Nazionale Artigiani Legno e Arredamenti.

Applicant:

Defendant(s): Ecorad Srl

Question(s) referred

| 1. | Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for doors intended to be fitted with panic bars to be manufactured by operators (door fitters) who do not comply with the requirements of the system of attestation of conformity No 1? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for doors intended to be fitted with panic bars to be manufactured by operators (door fitters) who do not comply with the requirements of the system of attestation of conformity No 1?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is yes: regardless of whether technical standards have been adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), are the requirements under Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC legally binding from the date when that decision entered into force in so far as regards the type of attestation of conformity procedure to be complied with by manufacturers (door fitters) of doors intended to be fitted with panic bars? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is yes: regardless of whether technical standards have been adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), are the requirements under Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC legally binding from the date when that decision entered into force in so far as regards the type of attestation of conformity procedure to be complied with by manufacturers (door fitters) of doors intended to be fitted with panic bars?

| 3. | Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC to be regarded as being invalid on the basis that they are contrary to the principle of proportionality in so far as they require all producers to comply with the attestation of conformity procedure No 1 in order to be able to mark doors fitted with panic bars they have themselves manufactured with the EC conformity mark (the mandate to adopt the relevant technical standards being given to the CEN)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC to be regarded as being invalid on the basis that they are contrary to the principle of proportionality in so far as they require all producers to comply with the attestation of conformity procedure No 1 in order to be able to mark doors fitted with panic bars they have themselves manufactured with the EC conformity mark (the mandate to adopt the relevant technical standards being given to the CEN)?

---

(1)  Commission Decision 1999/93/EC of 25 January 1999 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware (OJ 1999 L 29, p. 51).

1

---