# CE2004078EN.01094701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/947 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/947

---

(2004/C 78 E/1002)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0253/04

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   The Construction Products Directive

Subject:

| 1. | DG Enterprise is presently consulting EU Member States prior to making recommendations to the European Parliament for the revision of the Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC (1). It is understood that the timescale for this project has now been extended. Can the Commission please advise us of the reason for the delay and the new timetable for completing the project? |
| --- | --- |

1.

DG Enterprise is presently consulting EU Member States prior to making recommendations to the European Parliament for the revision of the Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC (1). It is understood that the timescale for this project has now been extended. Can the Commission please advise us of the reason for the delay and the new timetable for completing the project?

1

| 2. | While the majority of EU Member States are requiring CE marking of products to indicate compliance with the Construction Products Directive, it is understood that four Member States are interpreting the directive differently and are not requiring mandatory CE marking. Can the European Commission please confirm that this anomaly will be removed and that all EU Member States will have to introduce a mandatory requirement for CE marking to indicate compliance with the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

While the majority of EU Member States are requiring CE marking of products to indicate compliance with the Construction Products Directive, it is understood that four Member States are interpreting the directive differently and are not requiring mandatory CE marking. Can the European Commission please confirm that this anomaly will be removed and that all EU Member States will have to introduce a mandatory requirement for CE marking to indicate compliance with the directive?

| 3. | Prior to CE marking, the Construction Products Directive requires attestation that the products conform to the requirements of harmonised European Norms. However, it is recognised that the CE marking is not a quality mark. For good reasons, quality marking continues to be required and the fire protection and security industry is working with relevant Notified Bodies within EU Member States in an attempt to have the testing necessary for quality marking in one Member State recognised in all other Member States. This will reduce overall product introduction costs and therefore benefit the EU as well as making European products more competitive on world markets. Will the Commission support the fire protection and security industry in achieving this ‘one stop testing’ objective? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Prior to CE marking, the Construction Products Directive requires attestation that the products conform to the requirements of harmonised European Norms. However, it is recognised that the CE marking is not a quality mark. For good reasons, quality marking continues to be required and the fire protection and security industry is working with relevant Notified Bodies within EU Member States in an attempt to have the testing necessary for quality marking in one Member State recognised in all other Member States. This will reduce overall product introduction costs and therefore benefit the EU as well as making European products more competitive on world markets. Will the Commission support the fire protection and security industry in achieving this ‘one stop testing’ objective?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

(18 February 2004)

The Commission plans to carry out a revision of the Construction Products Directive, 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 (hereafter the CPD), but so far it has not made any commitments or established any specific timetable for this task.

The aim of the revision of the CPD should be to improve its functioning. The preparatory work for the revision should detect the existing problems and draw from the experience gathered. This work has been carried out during 2003. The timetable for preparing recommendations for its amendment will be fixed as soon as the extent of changes to be made in the system is known.

The Commission is aware that the CPD does not expressly require CE marking and that its text suggests that CE marking is only a prerequisite for obtaining the benefits offered by the CPD. The Commission has always pleaded that the CE marking be affixed as soon as the conditions for its application exist, that is when the harmonised technical specifications are in place. It has conducted a dialogue in the framework of the Standing Committee on Construction in order to come to a uniform interpretation, which would substantially facilitate the role of the market surveillance authorities. However, the Commission did not find it opportune to initiate legal actions before the Member States had the chance to apply the CPD correctly and before a consensus on a uniform interpretation of the CPD is reached.

This aspect would also have to be examined within the framework of a revision of the CPD.

The only mark required for those construction products, for which harmonised technical specifications exist, is the CE marking. Any other marking may only be voluntary.

The information accompanying the CE marking shows the performance of the product, or how good the product is in relation to the relevant characteristic covered by the harmonised technical specification. The CE marking is a single mark necessary to access freely the Internal Market. A product may bear voluntary marks only if they provide an added value and are not liable to cause confusion with the CE marking. Initiatives taken in the voluntary certification field should be exclusively market driven. The Commission does not intend to intervene in this field, unless quality marks were to impair the Internal Market.

---

(1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12.

1

---