# CE2004084EN.01015001.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/150

---

(2004/C 84 E/0187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/04

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Adaptation of Council Directive 92/58/EEC on minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work

Subject:

Council Directive 92/58 EEC (1) lays down minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work. However, the specifications for signs laid down in the directive are now out of date. Member States have since introduced a range of new signs, as a result of which signs are no longer uniform and standards have deteriorated as a result.

1

Article 9 of the directive says that the annexes laying down specific specifications for signs should be adapted in the light of technical progress.

| 1. | Does the Commission share the view that the directive on signs need to be adapted for the above reasons? If so, does it intend to submit appropriate proposals? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission share the view that the directive on signs need to be adapted for the above reasons? If so, does it intend to submit appropriate proposals? If not, why not?

| 2. | Is it not urgent to adapt the directive given that ten new Member States are about to join the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it not urgent to adapt the directive given that ten new Member States are about to join the EU?

| 3. | Is the Commission not concerned that the aim of the directive might be undermined by lack of ‘maintenance’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission not concerned that the aim of the directive might be undermined by lack of ‘maintenance’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

(1 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission has always attached great importance to updating and adapting, in line with technical progress, the provisions of directives on the protection of the health and safety of workers at work and, in particular, Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work (2).
  The question concerning the need to adapt Directive 92/58/EEC has therefore been put to the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3).
  At its 61st plenary meeting on 19 December 2000, the Commission asked the Advisory Committee to state its opinion on the difficulties experienced by the various Member States in implementing Directive 92/58/EEC and on the possible need to amend it.
  While highlighting the need for more systematic collection of data on problems concerning the legibility and/or comprehension of signs, the Committee did not consider a revision of Directive 92/58/EEC to be a priority. In this opinion, despite the acknowledgement of problems related to comprehension of the signal for evacuation in the event of fires or other accidents, the three interest groups (government, employers and workers) felt that there was indeed no urgent need to amend the Directive but that more work should be done on collecting information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has always attached great importance to updating and adapting, in line with technical progress, the provisions of directives on the protection of the health and safety of workers at work and, in particular, Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work (2).

2

The question concerning the need to adapt Directive 92/58/EEC has therefore been put to the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3).

3

At its 61st plenary meeting on 19 December 2000, the Commission asked the Advisory Committee to state its opinion on the difficulties experienced by the various Member States in implementing Directive 92/58/EEC and on the possible need to amend it.

While highlighting the need for more systematic collection of data on problems concerning the legibility and/or comprehension of signs, the Committee did not consider a revision of Directive 92/58/EEC to be a priority. In this opinion, despite the acknowledgement of problems related to comprehension of the signal for evacuation in the event of fires or other accidents, the three interest groups (government, employers and workers) felt that there was indeed no urgent need to amend the Directive but that more work should be done on collecting information.

| 2. | No. The ten new Member States must transpose and implement the existing Directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

No. The ten new Member States must transpose and implement the existing Directive.

| 3. | The Commission feels that the aim of the Directive is still met, namely to provide workers with more information on the health and safety risks to which they are exposed, independently of the linguistic and cultural differences between workers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission feels that the aim of the Directive is still met, namely to provide workers with more information on the health and safety risks to which they are exposed, independently of the linguistic and cultural differences between workers.

---

(1)  OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 23.

1

(2)  OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.

2

(3)  Council Decision of 27 June 1974, OJ L 185, 9.7.1974, p. 15, repealed by Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work, OJ C 218, 13.9.2003.

3

---