# C_2008197EN.01000602.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage lodged on 29 April 2008 — Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV and Consolidated Nederland BV

(Case C-185/08)

(2008/C 197/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV

Applicants:

Defendants: Kedge Safety Systems BV and Consolidated Nederland BV

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Class A 1 anchor devices within the meaning of European standard EN 795 (which are intended to remain in position permanently) fall exclusively within the scope of Directive 89/106/EEC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Class A 1 anchor devices within the meaning of European standard EN 795 (which are intended to remain in position permanently) fall exclusively within the scope of Directive 89/106/EEC (1)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, do these anchor devices — possibly, in that case, as an item of personal protective equipment — fall within the scope of Directive 89/686/EEC (2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, do these anchor devices — possibly, in that case, as an item of personal protective equipment — fall within the scope of Directive 89/686/EEC (2)?

possibly

2

| 3. | If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, is it necessary, in the light of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC, in particular point 3.1.2.2 thereof, to assess whether personal protective equipment that is covered by that directive by itself fulfils the basic requirements of that directive, or is it necessary also to consider whether the anchor device to which the protective equipment concerned is connected is safe in the foreseeable conditions of use, as defined in Annex II? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, is it necessary, in the light of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC, in particular point 3.1.2.2 thereof, to assess whether personal protective equipment that is covered by that directive by itself fulfils the basic requirements of that directive, or is it necessary also to consider whether the anchor device to which the protective equipment concerned is connected is safe in the foreseeable conditions of use, as defined in Annex II?

| 4. | Does Community law and, in particular, [Decision] 93/465/EEC (3) allow for the option of applying a CE marking to an anchor device as referred to in Question 1 as evidence of compliance with Directive 89/686/EEC and/or Directive 89/106/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does Community law and, in particular, [Decision] 93/465/EEC (3) allow for the option of applying a CE marking to an anchor device as referred to in Question 1 as evidence of compliance with Directive 89/686/EEC and/or Directive 89/106/EEC?

3

| 5. | If the answer to Question 4 is either wholly or partly in the affirmative, what procedure(s) should be followed in determining compliance in respect of Directive 89/686/EEC and/or Directive 89/106/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to Question 4 is either wholly or partly in the affirmative, what procedure(s) should be followed in determining compliance in respect of Directive 89/686/EEC and/or Directive 89/106/EEC?

| 6. | Is European standard EN 795 to be regarded — in respect of anchor devices as referred to in Question 1 — as Community law to be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is European standard EN 795 to be regarded — in respect of anchor devices as referred to in Question 1 — as Community law to be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

| 7. | If the answer to Question 6 is in the affirmative, is European standard EN 795 to be interpreted as meaning that the anchor device referred to in Question 1 must be tested (by a Notified Body) under foreseeable conditions of use (such as external temperatures, weather conditions, ageing of the anchor device itself and/or of the materials by which it is attached, or the roof construction)? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If the answer to Question 6 is in the affirmative, is European standard EN 795 to be interpreted as meaning that the anchor device referred to in Question 1 must be tested (by a Notified Body) under foreseeable conditions of use (such as external temperatures, weather conditions, ageing of the anchor device itself and/or of the materials by which it is attached, or the roof construction)?

| 8. | If the answer to Question 7 is in the affirmative, must the tests be carried out in accordance with user restrictions (referred to in the instructions for use)? |
| --- | --- |

8.

If the answer to Question 7 is in the affirmative, must the tests be carried out in accordance with user restrictions (referred to in the instructions for use)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12).

1

(2)  Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18).

2

(3)  Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisation directives (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 23).

3

---