26. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning general product safety (*) 
(90/C 75/01) 
On 12 June 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
12 January 1990. The rapporteur was Mrs Williams. 
At its 273rd plenary session (meeting of 31 January 1990), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 93 votes in favour to 59 against and 7 abstentions. 
Introduction 
1. The Committee approves in principle the intro­
duction of Community legislation which makes it 
obligatory for all those involved in the design, manufac­
ture and sale of products to comply with a general 
safety requirement. Indeed, the Committee cannot do 
otherwise than agree with this general aim, stated clear­
ly and voted on unanimously in April 1988 in the 
context of its own-initiative Opinion on the general 
safety requirement for products (2), which urged the 
Commission to prepare legislation on consumer prod­
uct safety. 
2. Nevertheless, it recognizes the need for clarifi­
cation, inclusion of certain subjects, and overall simpli­
fication in order to facilitate the interpretation and the 
enforcement of the proposed legislation and to suppress 
legal uncertainty. 
Aims and objectives of the draft Directive 
3. The starting point is that all products must be 
safe. The basic aim of the proposal is therefore quite 
simply to ensure the free movement of safe products and above all to avoid putting dangerous products on 
the market. This is the benchmark by which all aspects 
of the proposal must be measured. 
4. Additional aims include the need to stress clearly 
and openly that supplying unsafe goods can be a form 
of unfair competition, as it gives the supplier of unsafe 
goods an unfair advantage over a competitor who 
accepts the costs associated with building-in safety. 
Moreover, there is the need to move rapidly towards 
harmonization of safety regulations in face of the 
increasing amount of national legislation which differs 
in scope and content from one Member State to 
another. 
5. Additionally there is the need to strengthen the 
confidence of the citizens of Europe in the relevance of 
the internal market to their needs. The legal base of 
the draft directive is Article 100 A, paragraph 3 of the 
Single Act which states that 'The Commission, in its 
proposals (...) concerning health, safety, environmental 
protection and consumer protection will take as a base 
a high level of protection.' 
6. Objectives fall quite clearly into two separate, 
though inevitably connected parts: 
(») OJ No C 193, 31. 7. 1989, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988. — In the Internal Market of 1993 it is the intention 
that goods should be freely sold in a Community 
No C 75/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 26.3 90 
framework of harmonized safety requirements both 
specific and general, observed by all manufacturers, 
importers and suppliers. Until this Directive comes 
into force, it may occur that goods banned in one 
Member State could still legally be placed on the 
market in others. Accordingly the present proposal 
outlines voluntary and statutory requirements by 
which companies and enforcement officiers can 
assess safety, and describes measures for the control 
of goods. 
— It is essential to create in the Community an effec­
tive, practical and immediate method of dealing 
with emergency situations in cases where serious 
risks result from particular products. 
Background: remedial and preventive measures 
7. This draft Directive cannot be contemplated in 
isolation. The Committee stresses the importance of 
integrating and co-ordinating all Directives which con­
cern aspects of health and safety. 
The proposal must also be seen in special relation to: 
— The new approach to technical harmonization and 
standards; in the Internal Market sound modern 
norms and methods of certification will be essential 
for products on sale and in use throughout the 
Community. It should also be seen in connection 
with the proposal on a global approach to certifi­
cation and testing (1). Here the Committee empha­
sizes that such standards will need to be equivalent 
in all Member States and methods of interpretation 
and application consistent, though it notes that 
standards are voluntary, can be inadequate or out-
of-date and may or may not include criteria for 
safety. 
— The existence of specific Community legislation on 
particular subjects, including the 'new approach' 
Directives which do not draw a distinction between 
products in general and consumer products in par­
ticular. These are limited in number—and always 
wil be—relating only to those products to which 
they apply. Consequently, there is a need for a 
broadly-based general framework directive to cope 
with products for which 'vertical' directives do no 
exist. There is also a need to deal with loopholes in 
(!) OJ No C 267, 19. 10. 1989. existing 'vertical' legislation: for example, the 'new 
approach' Directives: 
— do not contain details of national emergency pro­
visions, 
— do not provide the means of co-ordination of 
such national emergency provisions at Com­
munity level, 
— do not require a permanent monitoring of the 
market on the part of the Member States nor 
a monitoring of production on the part of the 
suppliers. 
— The existing Directive on product liability dealing 
with the special responsibilities of the manufacturer. 
The Committee sees the proposal on general prod­
uct safety as a necessary complement to the existing 
Directive on product liability. The difference 
between the two is that product liability is primarily 
remedial whereas the new draft is mainly preventive. 
Unfortunately, the product liability Directive is not yet 
fully implemented in all Member States. The Com­
mittee accordingly deplores the present wide disparity 
of implementation and consequent legal incertainty. It 
urges Member States to take immediate steps to enforce 
fully the present product liability Directive. 
Scope of the draft Directive 
8. The Committee notes that the present proposal 
concerns all products and does not provide for any 
exemptions by product sectors. Though it accepts that 
this application to all products has met with reser­
vations on the basis of its wide approach, nevertheless 
on balance it agrees with the Commission's proposal 
and points out that many specific Directives do not 
differentiate between products according to their use 
by professionals or by consumers (e.g.: Directives on 
dangerous substances, on machines, on pressure vessels, 
...). This broader-based draft Directive, in which safety 
is not divisible, will, inter alia deal with the increasing 
difficulty of differentiating between professional and 
consumer products (e.g. do-it-yourself, gardening and 
products). In many cases it is impossible to distinguish 
between finished and semi-finished goods and access­
ories in such a way as to make preventive action poss­
ible. 
9. The Committee notes that the present proposal 
does not include services except when the service affects 
the safety of the product in installation or repair. It 
endorses this present limitation, though recognizing 
the close links between products and services and the 
inevitable problems which can arise. Nevertheless, it 
calls for additional legislation, also in the context of 
Article 100 A, to deal with safety services from a preven­
tive and remedial standpoint. 
26. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/3 
General legislation supplemented by speficic legislation 
10. Against the background of the forthcoming com­
pletion of the Internal Market, it is essential that a 
general product safety requirement be promptly incor­
porated into Community law in the form of a Directive. 
This is the only way to protect all consumers against 
dangerous products before there is free movement of 
goods among the Member States. 
The product safety proposal lays down basic general 
provisions with a framework for compulsory inter­
vention, and thus eliminates existing disparities among 
the after-sales checks in individual Member States. This 
would provide all market participants with greatly 
improved legal certainty. 
The Committee is of the opinion that the product safety 
Directive should apply only where there are no adequate 
specific Community safety rules. 
The general safety Directive will apply if there is no 
specific directive on the matter or if an existing specific 
directive does not ensure product safety adequately. 
But it is not expected that the general safety Directive 
will have to be used if safety is already adequately 
ensured by a specific Directive. 
11. The Committee recommends that, in the interest 
of clarity, the Commission should include in relevant 
Articles reference to specific provisions applicable to 
particular products. 
Definitions 
12. If definitions are not clear and consistent, the 
opportunity is created of giving Member States the 
means of erecting trade barriers followed by endless 
arguments over meaning and costly procedures to settle 
disputes. The Committee feels that several of the Com­
mission's definitions need clarification. These are dealt 
with in the context of individual Articles. 
13. The meaning of 'general safety requirement' 
must be made quite clear: goods put into free circulation 
in the Community must provide the safety consumers 
are entitled to expect, taking into account the use to 
which they could normally or reasonably be expected 
to be put. It must also be borne in mind that defective 
goods are not necessarily also unsafe. 
Collection of information 
14. The Committee stresses that it is the collection 
and analysis of facts which should be the starting point for any legislation on safety. It is accordingly disap­
pointing that the Commission makes no direct reference 
to EHLASS. Moreover, it urges the Commission to 
make sure that, at the end of the current pilot period, 
adequate Community funding must be found to ensure 
a permanent and reliable system for assembling and 
analysing data on accidents and for initiating in-depth 
studies. It seems possible that the Commission intends 
devolution of EHLASS to Member States. Certainly 
Member States have a major part to play, but the 
Commission must also use EHLASS data at a co-ordi­
nated Community level. It is such a system which can 
provide the means of finding out if the 45 million yearly 
accidents in Europe happen because products are badly 
designed and made, because instructions are inadequate 
and incomplete, or simply because of human ignorance 
or behaviour. An accident results from a product, a 
situation and a person—seldom from a product alone. 
Who is involved? 
15. With respect to safety, no one can opt out of 
making a positive contribution, whether the Com­
mission, Member States nationally and locally, manu­
facturing industry, retailing and distribution, trade 
unions, consumer organizations and indeed individuals 
in their capacity as consumers, and particularly as 
parents in charge of small children. The Committee 
notes that 'impact statements' are included in annexes 
to the proposal. It endorses the need for business to 
monitor the safety of goods permanently, but stresses 
the importance of ensuring a simple system which can 
be put into practice with the minimum of fuss (e.g. by 
using commercially produced forms and spreadsheets). 
This would be of particular benefit to small and 
medium-sized enterprises where the new administrative 
commitments may impose unfamiliar but necessary 
burdens. 
16. The Committee suggests that the particular obli­
gations of retailers need further clarification (e.g. in 
relation to the safe assembly of products put together 
in the store). It suggests that they, as being in closest 
contact with consumers at the point of sale and at the 
moment of complaint, should have an obligation to 
tell suppliers about proven safety problems which are 
brought to their attention. 
The Committee is concerned with the rights of redress 
and recompense for distributors, including retailers. It 
is not reasonable or fair for distributors to have to 
No C 75/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 3. 90 
suffer financial losses in respect of faults they have not 
created or been a party to. All such losses should be 
borne by those who created the faults. 
Education and information 
17. No form of protection can be completely success­
ful if it is not at the same time accompanied by infor­
mation and education. Consequently, the Committee 
urges the Member States to put into practice much 
more effectively the Council of Ministers' Resolution 
of May 1986 on consumer education in primary and 
secondary schools. It recognizes the particular role of 
consumer organizations in consumer education in gen­
eral and in safety education in particular, with special 
emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility. 
The needs of the less-able user must be taken into 
account, with special regard to the communication of 
warnings. It also commends the work of product safety 
commissions, both in protection and in information, in 
those Member States where they already exist. 
Safety requirements for imported and exported goods 
18. In the case of imported products, special controls 
should be introduced and maintained at the first point 
of entry taking into account the requirements of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The 
Committee points to the need for cooperation between 
competent authorities and customs and excise officers. 
19. The need to adapt manufacture of exported 
products to different, or sometimes stricter, safety stan­
dards in third countries must be borne in mind. The 
Committee feels that the export of dangerous products 
to non EC countries should be banned. The ban should 
apply in particular to third world countries where there 
is often much ignorance and little protective legislation. 
It notes that some unsafe goods which are exported 
find their way back as imports on the domestic market. 
Specific comments 
Article 1 
The aim of the Directive should be clarified in order to 
emphasize the prime importance of the obligation on 
producers to place only safe products on the market. (1) The Committee asks the Commission to make it 
quite clear that placing a product on the market means 
putting it in circulation not only on a commercial and 
contractual basis but also as the means of promoting 
gifts and free samples. 
It points out that the concept of 'foreseeable time of 
use'—which implies use under normal circumstances 
—will need to be understood and reflected in the 
preparation, by voluntary consensus, of the standards 
which in practice will tend to define criteria for prod­
ucts. 
The Committee draws attention to the possibility of 
legal problems regarding the use of the words 'without 
prejudice' in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Article 1, as 
their interpretation under the common law system may 
be at variance with that under Community law. 
Article 2 
b) 'Safe product' must be clearly defined in a positive 
instead of a negative manner, so as to give the purchaser 
(or user) a 'reasonable expectation of safety'. It should 
also be borne in mind that safety is inevitably relative 
and not absolute, depending on a number of varying 
economic and social factors. 
It must be made quite clear that acceptability of the 
risk factor depends on the attitudes of society in general 
towards the minimal unavoidable risks people are pre­
pared to tolerate. It must also be apparent that society 
progressively raises its standards towards the risks it 
will tolerate. 
The Committee is not satisfied with the definitions of 
'safe product' and the use of the term 'unacceptable 
risk' and requests the Commission to find suitable 
alternative wording. It considers that the definition of 
'safe product' should be re-examined in the light of 
Article 6 of the product liability Directive (85/374/ 
EEC) (*), namely the expectation of the concept of 
safety. This clarifies the definition used by the Com­
mittee in its previous Opinion (2) as follows: 'safe' 
means 'that there is no risk, apart form a very minimal 
risk, that any of the following examples will injure or 
cause the death of anywone: 
— the product itself, 
— the keeping, use or consumption of the product, 
(!) OJ No L 210, 7. 8. 1985. 
(2) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 13, paragraph 2.2. 
26. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/5 
— the assembly of any product which is supplied unas- Article 4 
sembled, 
(1) Add a third indent after (b): 
— any emission or leakage from the goods or, as a 
result of their use, keeping or consumption, <(c) tgLkes into acc0unt evidence from accident 
data.' 
— reliance on the accuracy of any measurement, calcu­
lation or other reading made by or by means of the 
goods.' 
c) aa) In the context of 'foreseeable use', the Com­
mittee accepts that safety depends on the intended, 
normal and reasonably predictable use of products 
(including their packaging). At the end of this paragraph 
it would like the Commission to add a reference to 
the fact that sometimes even misuse is foreseeable, 
particularly in the case of children. 
Where such misuse is foreseeable, it should be taken 
into account in standards, and appropriate warnings 
should be applied to the product. 
Article 2(d) of the draft Directive should be amended 
by deleting the word 'may' and inserting the word 
'actually' in its place. 
Article 3 
The Committee points out that it is the suppliers who 
in the first instance must accept responsibility through 
codes of good conduct for putting only safe products 
on the market since it is upon them that, according to 
Article 2, the general safety requirement mainly falls. It 
is the role of the Member States, who are sovereign, to 
make sure that they comply with this self-enforcement, 
and to take preventive measures if they do not. If 
criminal liability is envisaged for any manufacturer and 
distributor placing a dangerous product on the market, 
then defences (particularly to retailers) should be avail­
able in certain circumstances as stated in the Com­
mittee's own-initiative Opinion (l). The same comment 
applies to (1) of Article 4. 
The Commission must make it clear in the first para­
graph that free gifts and samples are included. (2) The Committee approves the intent of this 
Article. Nevertheless it suggests that Member States, 
the Commission and business should invest in research 
on behavioural studies, particularly in relation to 
instructions for use and warnings. And it points out 
that clear, consistent and systematic guidance is necess­
ary for those who communicate with the public whether 
in words or in symbols. 
Article 5 
The Committee points out that this Article should be 
subject to Articles 3 and 4. 
It suggests that the use of the word 'manufactured' in 
the first sentence is not enough, and that it should be 
rephrased to include items such as processing, packag­
ing, transportation and installation. Also in this sen­
tence the Committee points out the need for further 
clarification of the phrase 'presumed to comply'. Pre­
sumption should be made subject to 'the absence of 
evidence or reasoned representations to the contrary'. 
The Committee notes that the present proposals no 
longer refer to standards or norms, and suggests that 
they should be included in (2) among the criteria to be 
taken into account when assessing compliance with 
general product safety requirements. 
Whilst the existence of a voluntary standard for any 
product should not inevitably lead to the idea that it 
is therefore safe, since many standards may not be 
concerned with safety, reference should be made specifi­
cally to those standards drawn up by the European 
Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the Euro­
pean Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization 
(Cenelec) at the request of the Commission. 
(!) OJ No C 175 of 4. 7. 1988, p. 16, paragraphs 6.3.3 and 6.3.4. These are the standards which follow agreement in the 
appropriate Standing Committees, in respect of the 
essential requirements of the new approach directives. 
No C 75/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 3. 90 
Also included in the list of criteria given in (2) should 
be accident statistics and studies in ergonomics. 
(2) Add 'presumed' to 'compliance'. 
Article 6 
The Committee emphasizes that prime responsibility 
for preventive product safety lies with suppliers and 
not with public authorities. This responsibility should 
also enable suppliers on their own initiative to with­
draw a product. So that they can carry out their task 
effectively—in the light of increasing freedom and 
self-responsibility—the Committee points out that any 
system for monitoring safety aspects of products must 
be simple, practical and involve the minimum of admin­
istration. Nevertheless, it should be clearly spelled out 
that the more potentially dangerous the product, the 
more rigorous are the measures needed for monitoring. 
It is also essential for suppliers to inform public authori­
ties about the dangers they may identify. 
Article 7 
(l)(c) The Committee requires Annexes 1 and 2 to 
be integral and binding part of the proposal, and to tie 
in with Article 18. 
It also raises the problem of particular groups such as 
small shopkeepers and mail order companies in adopt­
ing adequate preventive measures. 
It questions whether the use of the words 'indicative list' 
is indeed an appropriate heading. This is particulary 
important with respect of the identification of the prod­
ucts which is a prerequisite to the effectiveness of pre­
ventive measures on the part of the Member States, the 
supplier and the Commission. 
In the context of Annex 2, the Committee suggests 
that the draft Directive should be amended to protect 
innocent retailers, in the event of goods being seized, 
by including the legal right to recover the costs which 
have been incurred. 
(d) The Committee again stresses the importance of 
collecting data about accidents and personal injuries 
associated with products, and indicates that there must 
be a common basis so that results can be compared. The Commission must retain responsibility for coordinating 
and evaluating data produced by EHLASS, and use it 
as a means of giving guidance on priorities for investi­
gation and as a mechanism for feeding information into 
the standards-making and updating process. 
(d) Replace 'sickness' by 'illness' in the English text, 
and add 'disability'. 
(e) Following the consideration to be given to collec­
tive complaints about identical products from reputable 
organizations, the Committee suggests that consider­
ation could also be given to the possibility of individual 
consumers themselves, as well as consumers' associ­
ations, of undertaking administrative and court action 
to obtain preventive intervention. 
(f) In the interest of building up consumer confi­
dence, the Committee urges the widest possible publi­
cation of information. There should be a clear obli­
gation to inform the general public. Publication in the 
Official Journal is not enough. 
Add two new points: 
'(g) at the request of the Commission ensure con­
sistency of approach to testing throughout the 
EC, and take into account the fact that there 
will be national costs in extending public 
authority services. 
(h) at the request of the Commission set up a coor­
dinating body to monitor standards of enforce­
ment and safety rules throughout the EC, and 
lay down criteria by which enforcement will 
be evaluated, since adequate enforcement by 
national authorities is a prerequisite of the suc­
cessful implementation of this Directive in par­
ticular and of the single unified market as a 
whole.' 
Article 8 
(1) The Committee has strong reservations about the 
use of the word 'local': with the free circulation of 
goods in the internal market, Member States can never 
be sure that the problems relating to unsafe products 
can be limited to a locality, a region or even to a single 
nation. Consequently, the Committee recommends the 
deletion of the last sentence of the first paragraph. 
Article 9 
The Committee endorses the need for a rapid infor­
mation system at Community and at national levels, 
extended with full transparency. 
26. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/7 
(2) In the first sentence delete 'having not only local 
effects'. Add an extra sentence at the end of (2): 
'Member States should have an obligation to inform 
the general public immediately in cases of serious 
and immediate risk.' 
(5) The Committee approves the appointment of a 
single competent authority to cooperate effectively with 
the Commission. Nevertheless, it recognizes that 
measures must be taken to co-ordinate action in those 
Member States where there may be a number of differ­
ent authorities and government departments involved 
in safety issues. 
Article 10 
(2) Add: 
'Member States must also inform the public' 
Since the Directive includes perishable products, such 
as fresh foods, and seasonal products, such as toys and 
garden mowers, a prohibition notice up to three months 
may cause the product to be unsaleable altogether or 
unsaleable until a future season, even though the pro­
hibition notice is subsequently removed because it was 
finally decided there was no unacceptable risk. 
Although an application can be made under paragraph 
1(c) of the Directive to set aside the prohibition notice, 
the time taken to secure its removal and the costs 
involved may cause losses to distributors who should 
be entitled to compensation for all losses incurred. This 
might include a statutory right to return banned goods 
and to be repaid. 
Articles 11 and 11 
The Committee foresees problems in implementing 
Article 11 and asks the Commission to devise a much 
simpler and more practical procedure for initiating 
mechanisms in emergencies. 
Moreover, it sees intervention from the Commission as 
necessary in cases only where action of a Member State 
is inadequate according to the requirements set out in 
this proposal. Primary action should normally be taken at the most appropriate level, closest to the event. The 
role of the Commission is subsidiary, concentrating on 
co-ordination. 
Articles 13 and 14 
The Committee supports the need for the Commission 
to be assisted by a body to deal with emergency situ­
ations. Indeed it would like to see its role extended to 
cover the whole accident prevention policy, with 
powers to investigate EC-wide data on accidents, to 
monitor safety standards and recommend appropriate 
practical action, particularly in the fields of infor­
mation, education and enforcement coordination. 
The Committee notes that representation on the pro­
posed 'committee on product safety emergencies' is 
confined to representatives of Member States and 
would therefore ask the Commission to establish an 
additional advisory committee which should include 
representatives from manufacturing, distribution, 
retailing and consumer interests. 
It stresses that this committee must be flexible and free 
from rigid procedures so that it can take action quickly. 
Though it should have a small inner core with precise 
rules, in addition representation of a reasonable balance 
of interests, besides governmental representation, is 
crucial to its success. 
The Committee also suggests that, provided there are 
no unreasonable delays, manufacturers should have the 
opportunity to comment on products with which they 
are involved. 
Finally, the Committee also asks the Commission to 
recommend that each Member State should set up its 
own 'committee on product safety' at national level, on 
the basis of those already existing or about to be set 
up in some Member States. 
Article 16 
This Article is unnecessary and should be omitted, since 
there is no contradiction nor overlapping between this 
present proposal and the product liability Directive 
(85/374/EEC) (x). Any reference to this Directive could 
appear as an additional 'whereas' clause in the pre­
amble. 
Article 17 
(1) 'Whenever feasible' is not legally precise and 
must be rephrased. 
(') OJ No L 211, 7. 8. 1985. 
No C 75/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 3. 90 
(such as the bankruptcy of a firm) have no other effec­
tive remedy. This should not be seen as the means of 
escaping obligations. 
Article 18 
The Committe seeks clarification about the impli­
cations of the word 'sanctions'. It accepts that some­
times economic sanctions will be enough, but in several 
cases criminal proceedings may be necessary in the case 
of unsafe goods knowingly and deliberately produced 
and sold. It is the Member States who must introduce 
such sanctions since current EC law does not allow the 
imposition by the Commission of criminal proceedings. 
The Committee stresses the urgent need for the Direc­
tive on product safety. Nevertheless, under present cir­
cumstances, it considers that enactment by 1 January 
1991 is unrealistic and suggests completion before the 
introduction of the Internal Market in 1993. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
APPENDIX 1 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Amato, Aparicio Bravo, Aspinall, Ataide Ferreira, Bazianas, Beretta, Berger, Bernasconi, 
Bleser, Boddy, Boisseree, Bordes-Pages, Briganti, Vasco Cal, Calvet Chambon, Carroll, Cavazzuti, Ceballo 
Herrero, Christie, Alves Conde, Corell Ayora, Cortois, Coyle, Decaillon, von der Decken, Delia Croce, Dos 
Santos, Drago, Drilleaud, van Eekert, Elstner, Etty, Eulen, Flather, Flum, Forgas, Frandi, Freeman, Geuenich, 
Gomez Martinez, Gredal, Green, Haas, Hagen, Hilkens Houthuys, Hovgaard, Jakobsen, Jaschick, Jenkins, 
Kaaris, Kitsios, de Knegt, Laka Martin, Lappas, Larsen, Liverani, Luchetti, Maddocks, Margalef Masia, 
Mayayo Bello, Mercier, Morales, Moreland, Mourgues, Muhr, Mufiiz Guardado, Murphy, Nielsen B., 
Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Nieuwenhuize, Pelletier C, Petropoulos, Polyzos, Quevedo Rojo, Ramaekers, Rangoni-
Machiavelli, Roseingrave, Rouzier, Santillan Cabeza, Schmitz, Silva, Smith A. R., Smith L. J., Speirs, 
Staedelin, Tiemann, Tixier, Vallejo Calderon, Velasco Mancebo, Vercellino, Williams, Zufiaur Narvaiza. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arena, Arets, Bagliano, Beltrami, Bento Goncalves, Berns, Black, Bredima-Savopoulou, 
Broicher, Campbell, Ceyrac, Collas, van Dam, De Tavernier, Dodd, Donck, Fresi, Gardner, Germozzi, 
Giacomelli, Hancock, Kenna, Kirchfeld, Kroger, Laur, Low, Lustenhouwer, Machado von Tschusi, Mainetti, 
Margot, Marvier, Meyer-Horn, Muller, Noordwal, Pardon, Pearson, Pelletier R., Perrin-Pelletier, Petersen, 
Poeton, Proumens, Ribiere, Robinson, Rolao Goncalves, Romoli, Schade-Poulsen, Schnieders, Schnitker, 
Schoepges, Storie-Pugh, StrauS, Tamlin, Telles, Termes Carrero, Tukker, Vidal, Wagner, Wick, Yverneau. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr: Bos, Matteoli, de Normann, Salmon, Serra Carracciolo, Solari, Whitworth. (2) The Committee does not like the phrase 'substan­
tially relevant' and suggests its replacement by 'pro­
vided the clear intention of such statements is to be 
truthful, accurate and free from malice'. 
(3) Add after 'redress' the words 'or compensation'. 
After (3) include a new point. The earlier provision of 
previous Article 11 should be reinstated: 'Member 
States may make it mandatory for manufacturers to 
recall, replace or refund the price of products found to 
be unsafe, or to carry out necessary repairs free of 
charge.' The Committee also remains concerned about 
problems arising from unsafe goods which have caused 
actual injury. It suggests that the Commission should 
explore the possibilities of setting up a Community 
fund to compensate people who for a variety of reasons 
Done at Brussels, 31 January 1990. 
26. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/9 
APPENDIX 2 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of 
the debate: 
Point 8 
Delete entirely and substitute: 
'The Committee notes that the present proposal concerns all products including 'any manufactured product 
and agricultural product'. Industrial products are already adequately covered by specific Regulations. 
Directives are being introduced to provide further legislation concerning health and safety at work. Agricul­
tural products are an area subject to regulations tailored to specific requirements which are not capable or 
suitable for inclusion in a general consumer product directive. Indeed, there are some products, in addition 
to agricultural ones, where it is not entirely clear what hazards are involved and would be better dealt with 
by Directives dealing with specific issues. 
The Committee is not in favour of the proposed wide scope of the Directive and believes it should be 
restricted to consumer products as defined in paragraph 1 of its own-initiative Opinion (OJ No C 175, 
4. 7. 1988).' 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 46, against: 81, abstentions: 4. 
Point 10 
The third paragraph should be dropped. 
The fourth paragraph should read: 
'The general safety Directive must only apply if there is no specific Directive on the matter.' 
Reason 
The use of the word 'adequately' in the current text is vague and creates legal uncertainty. 
The fifth paragraph can also be dropped. 
Voting 
For: 46, against: 77, abstensions: 8. 
Point 15 
Replace the final sentence with: 
'This would be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises where the new administrative 
commitments will be a further burden which is completely unnecessary for the achievement of the aims of 
the Directive, and therefore undesirable.' 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 33, against: 80, abstentions: 6. 
Point 16 
The second sentence should read: 
it suggests that they ..., should be encouraged to tell their suppliers ... brought to their attention.' (rest 
unchanged) 
Reason 
The present text speaks of an obligation. At a time when the individual responsibility of businesses is clearly 
recognized and valued (see point 15 and the comment on Article 6), (legal) obligations should be rejected. 
No C 75/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 3. 90 
Voting 
For: 48, against: 80, abstentions: 5. 
Article 2 c) aa) 
Delete second and third sentences. 
Reason 
There are the following arguments against proposing that the Commission add to its document a reference 
to the possibility of misuse: 
— it is not necessary to draw explicit attention to something which is foreseeable, 
— the proposal takes no account of the responsibility of parents for teaching their children how to handle 
certain objects, 
— in practice, the proposal would for example mean that knives and matches would have to carry stickers 
warning of their dangers, although such warnings would not reach the main risk group, small children, 
as they cannot yet read ... 
Voting 
For: 51, against: 62, abstentions: 8. 
Article 6 
Add to the Opinion, as a separate paragraph, the following: 
'Whilst the second sentence of this Article limits the obligations of retailers, the general duty of permanent 
monitoring does create obligations which are unclear, difficult to assess and seem to imply a check by retailers 
after sales which is not realistic and creates administrative and economic burdens, particularly for small 
shopkeepers and mail order companies. Article 6 should be amended to provide that the obligation to monitor 
should not apply to distributors and retailers.' 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 48, against: 64, abstentions: 10. 
APPENDIX 3 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Minority statement 
Following the vote by name on the Opinion the members of the Employers Group listed below who voted 
against the Opinion made the following declaration: 
'Group I agrees that there is a need for a Directive on the safety of consumer products, in accordance with 
the Committee's own-initiative Opinion of April 1988 (OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988); however, it is opposed to 
the present proposal for three reasons: 
— the scope of the Directive must be limited to consumer products and similar products, 
— the definitions relating to safety and acceptable risks should be expressed in the same terms as those used 
in the Directive on civil liability for defective products, 
— excessive extension of the administrative system would not only be intolerable for small and medium-
sized enterprises (SME), distributors and retailers, but also ineffective because the appropriate means for 
monitoring the declarations envisaged by the Commission are lacking.' 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arena, Arets, Bagliano, Beltrami, Bredima-Savopoulou, Broicher, Campbell, Ceyrac, Collas, 
van Dam, Dodd, Donck, Fresi, Gardner, Giacomelli, Hancock, Kenna, Kirchfeld, Kroger, Low, Machado 
von Tschusi, Mainetti, Meyer-Horn, Noordwal, Pardon, Pearson, Pelletier R., Perrin-Pelletier, Petersen, 
Poeton, Proumens, Ribiere, Robinson, Rolao Goncalves, Romoli, Schade-Poulsen, Schnieders, Tamlin, Telles, 
Termes Carrero, Tukker, Wagner, Wick.