No C 134/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
1.5. Article 75, paragraph 2 of the Regulation which 
deals with reimbursements of family benefits will no 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988. 
The Committee approves the Commission proposal 
subject to the following considerations: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The present Commission proposal constitutes 
an important step in the direction of finally getting 
around to removing barriers to trade in such important 
fields as radio and television, domestic appliances, elec­
tronic engineering etc. These barriers arise both from 
deliberate administrative red-tape and from lack of 
formal harmonization of technical specifications. 
1.2. The proposed Directive in the Committee's 
opinion stands every chance of removing a substantial 
number of these costly barriers to trade and to inno­
vation. 
1.3. The Commission, however, is asked to review 
the wording of the Directive's escape clause (Art. 6). 
The Committee, though agreeing that certain dero­
gations are called for in special cases, proposes that in 
order to avoid abuse of such broad terms as 'public 
service stations or emergency operations' a system be 
established under which the final decision lies explicitly 
with the Commission. The Commission, within a cer-
0) OJNoC322, 2. 12. 1987, p. 4. longer be necessary. Because of the complexity arising, 
it had not, in any case, received unanimous approval. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
tain deadline, will thus have to decide whether a certain 
special measure as communicated by a Member State 
does indeed constitute a justified derogation in the 
public interest or whether is an unwarranted barrier to 
trade. Police frequencies do for example at present in 
one Member State constitute a de facto barrier to trade 
seemingly without any public service justification. If 
Member States are required only to inform the Com­
mission of these measures such barriers are unlikely to 
change. 
1.4. The Committee furthermore invites the Com­
mission to publish the special measures taken by a 
Member State in the Official Journal in order to guaran­
tee easy access to this information for manufacturers 
and importers. It is equally important that the date 
from which these measures will be implemented is 
given. To avoid excessive cost the Committee suggests 
that a parallel system to the one that is to be established 
in the public works sector be introduced, i.e. a publi­
cation in full (in the original language) in the Official 
Journal (or since the sector covered by this Directive is 
heavily English oriented) in English; with a summary 
of important elements to be published in the other 
official languages of the Community, the original text 
alone being authentic. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (*) 
(88/C 134/02) 
On 25 November 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 2 March 1988. The rapporteur 
was Mr Noordwal. 
At its 254th plenary session (meeting of 23 march 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/3 
1.4.1. If this proves too costly and time-consuming 
the following alternative procedure could be envisaged: 
— the Member States notify in English, French and 
German their special national measures to the 
Standing Committee, 
— no later than three months after this notification the 
Standing Committee in turn provides publication 
thereof either via official Cenelec publications (in 
its 3 working languages E/F/D) or directly, 
— Member States cannot implement the special meas­
ures until after the date of the above publication. 
1.5. The Committee feels that the procedure for cer­
tification of conformity laid down by the Directive is 
too narrow. Except for terminal equipment only one 
possibility is left open, i.e. the manufacturer's declar­
ation of conformity. This poses no problems for big 
manufacturers but is unsatisfactory for small manufac­
turers and importers who do not have the possibility 
of in-house testing. They must then pay for a third 
party certification in a test institute, without getting 
full value for their money, other than as a technical 
document in the file. The Committee understands the 
reasoning behind this, namely that uniformity must be 
reached in this area in order to avoid a multiplicity of 
certification symbols confusing to the consumer. 
1.6. But uniformity in this area in the Committee's 
opinion can be more satisfactorily obtained without the 
abovementioned side-effects through the introduction 
of a uniform Euro-mark for conformity in electromag­
netic compatibility (EMC). Since nowadays only a few 
countries in Europe have such a mark this would fur­
thermore be the right time to introduce one mark in 
Europe. 
1.7. The Committee proposes to add an Annex III 
to the Directive for a uniform EEC mark of conformity. 
See proposed mark with dimensions in Annex I. 
1.8. The present draft Directive does not cover safety 
aspects. However, in the area of safety of electrical 
equipment the Low Voltage Directive has been func­
tioning satisfactorily since 1973. 
In this Directive three equal means of attestation are 
allowed: 
— the manufactures declaration, 
— certification by a third party, 
— a mark of conformity granted by a third party. 
1.9. In general this principle has worked satisfac­
torily and could also be applied to the area of electro­magnetic compatibility. At the start of the Low Voltage 
Directive many safety marks were already in commer­
cial use and it was not possible to replace these marks 
with a single European safety mark. 
1.10. For EMC the Community still has the chance 
to introduce a single European mark, and thus avoid 
proliferation of different national EMC marks. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 6 
For the reasons given above (1.3) the Commission shall 
publish these special measures and the date from which 
they are to be implemented in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities. 
2.2. Article 10.1. 
For the reasons mentioned above, the Committee pro­
poses that this Article should be modified in such a way 
that apparatus not covered by Directive 86/361/EEC 
may have the possibility of attestation by means of: 
— a manufacturers declaration, or 
— a certificate granted by a third party, 
— a mark of conformity granted by a third party. 
Furthermore, a technical file including the test results 
concerned shall be held at the disposal of the competent 
national authority for a period of 10 years after the 
placing of the apparatus on the market. This file shall 
be kept by the manufacturer or agent in case of a 
manufacturers declaration and by the certification body 
in case of a certificate or mark of conformity. 
In the Committee's opinion it is unreasonable to require 
an unlimited timeframe. The length of time during 
which documentation must be kept should be fixed and 
be sufficiently long to allow for adequate experience 
with the EMC behaviour of the apparatus. 
2.3. Article 10.2. 
The remarks under 10.1 are equally valid for Article 
10.2. 
2.4. Article 10.3. 
The technical product documentation including test 
results of apparatus covered by Directive 86/361/EEC 
should also be stored for 10 years by the certification 
body. 
No C 134/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
2.5. Article 10.4. 
The notification of a certification body should state 
whether the certification body is capable of handling 
all apparatus covered by the EMC Directive or whether 
it is restricted to a number of European Standards. This 
is necessary because many test-institutes will find it 
too expensive to be equipped with all the necessary 
measuring facilities (e.g. outdoor test sites, anechoi'c 
rooms, etc.). 
2.6. Annex I 
The declaration of conformity of which an example is 
given in this Annex is too long and technical to serve 
the purpose of being delivered with each individual 
apparatus in order to give information to the consumer. 
In the Committee's opinion a simple statement saying 
'In conformity with the EEC Directive on EMC for 
example on the equipment, on the package, in the 
manual or in the guarantee certificate would be suf­
ficient. For inspection purposes the recommended form 
of declaration must of course be part of the test results 
and be readily available on demand. 
2.7. Annex II 
The text should be modified in such a way that the 
responsibility remains with the certification body even 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988. if the tests (supervised by the certification body) are 
carried out by the manufacturer. 
The certification process should be set up in such a way 
that three levels can be discerned: 
1. Recognition and notification of the certification 
body(ies) by the national authorities: an indepen­
dent board of certification should be installed to 
supervise the functioning of the certification bodies 
(also for contact with notified certification bodies 
in other Member States). 
2. Inspection and supervision of the test institutes and 
laboratories: this should lie with the certification 
bodies which actually grant the use of the EMC 
mark based on the results of the test institutes and 
laboratories where the tests are being carried out. 
3. Advanced marking of equipment based on test 
results: this is entrusted to the test institutes and 
laboratories recognized by the certification body. 
Final responsibility remains at the certification 
board (also test laboratories of manufacturers may 
be recognized). 
Such 'Supervised Manufacturers Testing' practice is 
also allowed for safety under the Low Voltage Direc­
tive. This enables also smaller countries to give 'full-
licence' to the certification body. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/5 
APPENDIX 
European mark of conformity for equipment complying with the EEC EMC Directive 
Minimal dimensions 
in millimeters 10 1,5