No C 337/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to machinery (!) 
(88/C 337/11) 
On 15 January 1988, 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 7 September 1988. The 
rapporteur was Mr Perrin-Pelletier. 
At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 119 votes to 2 with 15 abstentions. 
The Economic and Social Committee endorses the pro­
posal for a Directive and an amendment on wood­
working machines submitted in the course of its work, 
subject to the following comments: 
1. General comments 
1.1. Since the adoption by the Council on 7 May 
1985 of a Resolution on a new approach to harmoniza­
tion, the Commission has submitted several proposals 
under the programme set out in the White Paper. Some 
of these (pressure vessels, toys) have already been 
adopted by the Council, while others are still under 
discussion. 
The sector covered by the draft Directive under review 
is vital for completion of the barrier-free market and for 
the development and application of the new approach. 
Application of the principles laid down in the Council 
Resolution has varied considerably so far. Apart from 
the Resolution setting out options, the Commission 
proposals take account of each sector's specific features. 
1.2. The aim of the draft Directive under review is 
to ensure free movement of the machinery and other 
apparatus which it covers. The Committee is aware 
that this is very important for completion of the single 
Community market by 1 January 1993. At the moment 
trade is hampered by the differences between national 
rules and regulations governing the design and manu­
facture of machinery. These rules and regulations, 
which generally come under labour law, supplement 
the rules and regulations governing working conditions. 
However, since the draft Directive is based on the 
'inherent safety' concept and reflects the new policy of 
restricting Community legislation to the definition of 
essential health and safety criteria that are entirely 
preventive in nature, the Committee considers that the 
draft Directive is also a vital ingredient of Community 
social policy. 
(J) OJ No C 29, 3. 2. 1988, p. 1. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that this social 
policy will not bear fruit unless the Commission does 
as it says it will in its explanatory and financial memor­
anda and creates the funds required for the standardiza­
tion work and the procedures required for informing 
and consulting the social partners. 
The Committee welcomes the fact that the Commission 
is proposing a series of Directives, including one on the 
minimum health and safety requirements for the use 
by workers of machines, equipment and installations. 
These interrelated Directives will have to be fully con­
sistent so as to ensure a high level of safety at the 
workplace. 
The Commission's determination to ensure this high 
level of safety can be seen from the fact that the 'essen­
tial requirements' are to be based on the concept of 
'inherent safety', by which hazards are eliminated dur­
ing the design and manufacturing stages. This principle 
has two consequences which the Committee feels it 
must underline subject to the comments made below in 
2.3 and 2.5: 
— Firstly, the possibilities available during the design 
and manufacture of new machines are not necess­
arily available after manufacture. Thus, the Com­
mittee has reservations about the provisions in the 
proposal which might be interpreted to mean that 
existing machinery can be made to conform with 
the Directive; the end of Article 2 (4) or Article 4 
(2), in particular, could be interpreted in this way. 
At a more general level, making the importer (or the 
manufacturer's authorized representative in the Com­
munity) or even the user responsible for a machine's 
conformity prior to the affixing of the EC mark would 
be a serious derogation from the 'inherent safety' prin­
ciple. Therefore the manufacturer himself, whatever his 
country of origin, and not an intermediary, should bear 
sole responsibility for the declaration of conformity 
[Art. 8 (b)] and the affixing of the EC mark (Art. 9). 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/31 
— Secondly, by definition, machines in service before 
the Directive's entry into force and old machines 
put on the market after that date cannot be made 
to conform. The Committee notes that improve­
ments to machines in operation come under the 
machine users' proposal and that the Commission 
plans to draw up another proposal for second-hand 
machines. 
1.3. The proposal's field of application is very wide 
and vague. 
The Committee notes that some of the equipment 
excluded is to be re-inserted in accordance with Article 
149 (3) of the Treaty. It would point out, however, that 
not all machines are intrinsically dangerous to the same 
extent. Thus, extremely dangerous machines should be 
covered by their own essential requirements and be 
subject to advance checks by third parties. In this 
respect the Committee is pleased to note the Com­
mission's amendment with regard to wood-working 
machines. The Committee would also ask to be consult­
ed on any amendments in the same way that it has been 
consulted on the Directive, especially as the procedures 
for proving conformity may very well be amended, and 
the question of whether special procedures ought to 
be considered for the most dangerous equipment may 
arise. 
The Committee also thinks that it would be advisable 
to be more specific about the fields of application of 
the present proposal and other Community Directives 
containing safety and health requirements relating to 
the design and use of equipment and, in particular, 
Directive 73/123/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the 
approximation of Member States' laws relating to elec­
trical equipment for use within certain voltage levels 
(Low Voltage Directive). 
1.4. The proposal is based on the 'new approach', 
the principles of which were laid down in the Resolution 
of 7 May 1985. The Committee would have liked to 
have at least a rough idea of the date by which the 
essential requirements (Annex I) will be covered by 
harmonized standards. The Commission is not able to 
provide a reasonably precise answer to this question; 
however, even in the best possible case the transitional 
period preceding the full entry into force of the 'new 
approach' should stretch way beyond the 1992 target 
date according to the Committee. The 'administration' 
of the Directive, especially during the transitional 
period, is thus of capital importance. 
1.4.1. The Resolution of 7 May 1985 specifies that 
'the essential safety requirements which must be met in 
the case of products which can be put on the market shall be worded precisely enough in order to create, on 
transposition into national law, legally binding obli­
gations which can be enforced'. The Committee is 
aware that the direct application of the essential 
requirements may pose difficulties and in the final 
analysis may even create barriers if the prohibitive 
measures provided for in Article 7 are applied too 
frequently as a result of restrictive interpretations of 
the Member States' inspection authorities (a possibility 
mentioned by the Commission in the sixth paragraph 
of Section I, Chapter 4, of the Explanatory Memor­
andum). 
1.4.2. Nevertheless, the Committee thinks that gen­
erally speaking the Commission proposal should make 
it possible to apply these requirements directly, even in 
the absence of standards. 
1.5. At a practical level, the Committee proposes the 
following measures: 
1.5.1. In order to simplify matters for both firms and 
inspectorates during the transitional period when most 
of the equipment coming under the proposal will not 
be covered by complete standards per machine category, 
the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) 
should, where necessary and when authorized by the 
Commission, draw up explanatory documents for each 
category of machine in accordance with the customary 
procedures indicating the essential requirements appli­
cable (as expressly provided for in Article 8 (a)(i) and 
Annex I, preliminary observations, first paragraph) 
and, possibly, the national standards regarded as being 
equivalent (Art. 5). 
Such a document would not only be extremely useful 
for manufacturers' design offices and Member States' 
inspectorates; it should also be a major help to the 
drafters of complete product standards (type C stan­
dards) for which it would form the basis. 
1.5.2. Finally, the Committee would ask the Com­
mission to establish all the conditions necessary for 
the planned cooperation with CEN and the European 
Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cene-
lec). It awaits with interest the Commission's thoughts 
on how to involve the social partners more closely in 
the work of CEN/Cenelec. 
1.6. The Committee recognizes the difficulty of 
assessing the economic impact of such a Directive, 
especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. 
However, such an assessment cannot simply cover the 
cost of non-Europe and the benefits for manufacturers 
of harmonized rules and regulations—and hence ident­
ical products—throughout the Member States. Con-
No C 337/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
sideration must also be given to the important social 
consequences which the use of inherently safe machines 
will have. 
This having been said, the Committee feels obliged to 
make a couple of comments on the matter. 
1.6.1. From the manufacturer's point of view, the 
uniform application of the essential safety requirements 
will amount to the abolition of barriers to the freedom 
of movement between Member States. The Committee 
does not consider it feasible to make a distinction 
between Member States' products according to their 
level of industrialization or between products from 
large and small firms. 
1.6.2. On the other hand, in return for users having 
a right to these safety standards, it is vital that these 
standards be respected, regardless of the origin of the 
equipment and especially if it comes from a non-Com­
munity country. 
1.7. The Committee thinks that in order to 
implement the Directive a special standing committee 
(as provided for in the Resolution of 7 May 1985) 
should be established with the participation of 'experts 
or advisers' representing the social partners. 
In the Committee's view the considerable importance 
which the Commission itself attaches to this proposal 
fully justifies the establishment of such a committee 
instead of simply resorting to a specialist working party 
of the committee set up by Article 5 of Directive 83/ 
189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of 
information in the field of technical standards and 
regulations. Such a standing committee has also been 
proposed by the Commission for other Directives and* 
in particular, the proposal for a Directive on construc­
tion products. In the latter case, the Committee not 
only approved the initiative but also asked the Com­
mission to ensure that interested parties, and particu­
larly manufacturers and users, were involved in the 
administration of the Directive. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 (3) 
2.1.1. In respect of Article 1 (3), some of the 
exclusions such as 'mobile-site equipment' are some­
what vague and could give rise to doubts as to whether 
some machinery do or do not fall within the scope of 
the Directive. For this reason the definitions could 
usefully be more specific. 
2.1.2. In the course of its work the Committee 
received an amendment adding wood-working 
machines to the Directive's field of application. The 
Committee welcomes this addition and thinks that the 
list of exemptions should be reduced as soon as possible after the relevant trades have been consulted. It is also 
necessary to clarify the links with other Directives, 
especially the Low Voltage Directive. The Committee 
therefore proposes the following wording for the last 
indent of Article 1 (3). 
'All machinery corresponding to the above defi­
nition and covered by an EC Directive containing 
essential safety requirements or technical design and 
construction requirements relating to health and 
safety in respect of the hazards covered by such a 
Directive.' 
2.2. Article 2 
The free movement of machinery for test purposes 
should be covered by a new fifth paragraph worded as 
follows: 
'5. Member States shall not impede the free move­
ment and operation of machinery which does not 
comply with the Directive's provisions if this 
machinery is to be used for test purposes and not 
for normal production operations.' 
2.3. Article 2 (4) 
Trade fairs and exhibitions are concerned with selling, 
often on international markets. The display of equip­
ment intended for non-Community countries and hence 
in compliance with these countries' rules and regu­
lations must therefore be permitted. 
Consequently, the Committee proposes that the scope 
of the fourth paragraph be extended, and suggests the 
following wording: 
'4. At trade fairs, exhibitions, etc., Member States 
shall not prevent the showing of machinery which 
does not conform to the provisions of this Directive, 
provided that an appropriate sign clearly indicates 
that such machinery does not conform and that 
prior to its purchase or use in a Member State: 
— either the machinery must be brought into con­
formity by the manufacturer or by the exhibitor 
if it has been partially dismantled for the pur­
pose of being exhibited or demonstrated, 
— or a model complying with the requirements of 
this Directive must be supplied if the exhibit has 
been designed and manufactured for supply to 
a third country.' 
2.4. Article 3 
The Committee would point out that the essential 
requirements referred to in Article 3 and set out in 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/33 
Annex I are applicable only to machines which, in 
accordance with Article 2, are placed on the market 
after the date of the Directive's entry into force. This 
should be made clear in Article 2 or 3. 
2.5. Article 4 (2) 
In order to dispel any doubts about the interpretation 
of this paragraph, it should be stated that machinery 
designed to be incorporated in a larger unit but which 
can also function by itself must be issued with a declar­
ation of conformity by the manufacturer and bear the 
EC mark. 
On the other hand, when a machine or an assembly of 
machines (within the meaning of Article 1) can only 
operate as part of a larger unit, the certificate of con­
formity and the affixing of the EC mark shall be the 
task of whoever is ultimately responsible for the design 
and/or assembly of the whole unit. 
2.6. Article 5 
2.6.1. In order to conform with Article 8, Article 5 
(1) should be worded as follows: 
'Member States shall presume conformity with the 
essential safety requirements referred to in Article 
3 in respect of machinery bearing the EC mark and 
accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity 
issued by the manufacturer.' 
2.7. Article 6 
In accordance with 1.7 above, the Committee thinks 
that it is not enough to resort to the standing committee 
set up by Directive 83/187/EEC which does not have 
the powers to 'administer' the Directive. Provision must 
be made instead for a special standing committee of the 
type referred to in the Resolution of 7 May 1985. 
The Committee is interested to note that it is the 
Commission's intention to involve the social partners 
in this administration. It is conceivable that the latter 
may wish to have a vote on this body, but it is equally 
desirable not to overburden this body unduly by 
appointing too many members. 
The Committee therefore proposes that this standing 
committee should: 
— consist of representatives appointed by the Member 
States, 
— be assisted by manufacturers' and workers' rep­
resentatives (and by consumers' representatives 
insofar as their interests are affected), — be chaired by a Commission representative. 
The committee shall perform the tasks assigned to it 
by the Commission and, in particular, must be consult­
ed on all matters relating to the Directive's implemen­
tation. It should function within the framework of 
procedure III, variant (a) of the Council Decision of 
13 July 1987. 
2.8. Article 7 
In the Explanatory Memorandum the Commission 
refers to Article 7 as a safeguard clause. This term 
(which is also used in the Resolution of 7 May 1985) 
is unclear. 
The term 'safeguard measure' is in fact used in the 
French version of Article 226 of the Treaty to mean a 
'protective measure' (and is also used as such in Article 
91 with reference to dumping practices and in Article 
115 with reference to commercial policy). 
It would be regrettable if Member States were to regard 
and use Article 7 as a means of protecting their national 
markets. Hence the need to delete Article 7 (1) (c). 
2.9. Article 8 
2.9.1. The Committee thinks that the content of the 
file must be simplified to take account of the following 
facts: 
— The development of new working conditions in 
design offices gives data processing the edge over 
written documentation. 
— Is is vital for the manufacturer to retain his know-
how and his manufacturing secrets. This rules out 
the publication of documentation not strictly 
necessary to prove the proper application of essen­
tial requirements and the communication of the file 
to authorities not qualified to know the content and 
not bound by professional secrecy. 
2.9.2. The Committee would also point out that the 
expression 'authorized representative established in the 
Community' has a limited meaning in law and does not 
cover importers in most cases. Consequently, the precise 
location where the file can be requested should be 
expressly indicated in the EC declaration of conformity. 
2.9.3. Finally, the Committee would question the 
possibilities available for applying these provisions to 
products from non-Community countries. However, 
when standards cover the 'essential safety require­
ments', they should permit frontier checks in appli­
cation of the agreement of 12 April 1979 on technical 
barriers to trade and the international convention of 
No C 337/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
21 October 1982 on the harmonization of goods checks 
at frontiers. 
2.9.4. This will undoubtedly be the case when har­
monized standards are applicable to machines (or parts 
thereof) coming under the Directive. 
2.9.5. At all events, only the manufacturer should be 
able to issue the declaration of conformity, as stated 
above (1.2, penultimate paragraph). 
2.9.6. Consequently, the Committee proposes: 
— the deletion of 'or his authorized representative' in 
the first paragraph, and in the second paragraph 
under (b), 
— the deletion of the first part of the first sentence in 
the last paragraph ('When neither the manufacturer 
nor (...) in the Community'). 
2.10. Article 9(1) 
The next text for Article 9 (1) [proposed by the Com­
mission under Article 149 (3)] stipulates that with 
regard to equipment submitted for type approval, the 
EC mark is to be accompanied by the identifying mark 
of the approved body which issued the certificate. 
This approach has its dangers insofar as it may favour 
certain practices which encourage the purchase of 
equipment approved by national certification bodies 
and which hamper the use if not the free movement of 
equipment. Hence the question of whether this indi­
cation must be made expressly on the machine or only 
in the instruction handbook. Accordingly, it is proposed 
that the end of the first paragraph be amended to read: 
'... and, where appropriate, a special abbreviation 
indicating that the machine has undergone an EC 
type examination.' 
2.11. Article 9 (3) 
2.11.1. With regard to the ban on the 'affixing to 
machinery of marks or inscriptions that are likely to be 
confused with the EC mark' the Committee wondered 
about the possibility of using safety marks if, of course, 
these marks are adapted to confirm the precise appli­
cation of the Directive's essential requirements. 
2.11.2. The retention of existing marks could be a 
particularly dangerous barrier to trade, not because 
they would impede free movement in principle but 
because they could dissuade the user in view of the 
importance attached to them by firms' inspectors. 
2.11.3. On the other hand, the safety mark regarded 
as proof of conformity by the Resolution of 7 May 1985 cannot be imposed on the Member States under 
the proposal (cf. Explanatory Memorandum, II.2. con­
formity certification). 
2.11.4. However, there are reasons for asking 
whether, as a compromise solution between certication 
by the manufacturer (the basis for the Directive) and 
certification by a third party (as proposed for the most 
dangerous machines), a safety mark issued under con­
ditions defined by the Commission to manufacturers 
who so wish (and therefore non-obligatory) would not 
permit sound implementation of the Directive without 
imposing undue constraints on manufacturers. 
2.11.5. Article 9 (3) 
Add a fourth paragraph worded as follows: 
'4. If a mark issued by a third party mainly serves 
to indicate conformity with the Directive's essential 
requirements, it must be approved by the Com­
mission after the opinion of the standing committee 
has been sought.' 
2.12. Article 10 
Add 'or an approved body' after 'Any decision taken 
by a Member State'. 
The legal redress offered to manufacturers in the event 
of a Member State contesting the proper application of 
the essential requirements is dissuasive, especially for 
small and medium-sized enterprises. So that the latter 
can defend their legitimate interests, a readily accessible 
and unbureaucratic Community procedure ought to be 
established. 
To this end, the Committee suggests two solutions, viz. 
— either the Commission is asked to propose a special 
Directive which will establish a Community pro­
cedure applicable to all Directives where similar 
problems may arise, or 
— provision should be made in the present Directive 
for a procedure under which the manufacturer could 
refer the matter in the first instance to the standing 
committee (referred to in 2.7 above) and appeal to 
the European Court of Justice, the whole procedure 
being simplified and completely in writing if the 
applicant so wishes, without an obligation to call 
on the services of a lawyer. 
2.13. Annex 1 
This annex, which lists the essential requirements to be 
laid down under the 'new approach', calls for few 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/35 
comments on the part of the Committee, which wel­
comes their comprehensive coverage.. However, the 
Committee considered that the following comments 
should be made: 
2.13.1. The title of 1.1.2 'Principles of safety inte­
gration' must be understood in the widest sense, i.e. 
since safety is concerned with the protection of physical 
wellbeing, it covers both accident and health risks. This 
is explicitly stated in paragraph (a). 
2.13.2. Add 'and to the uses which it is reasonable 
to expect' at the end of paragraph (d) of 1.1.2. 
On the other hand, Chapter 2 'Additional essential 
safety requirements for certain categories of machines' 
also concerns consumer health and this should be made 
clear in the title by adding 'health and' after 'essential'. 
2.13.3. Point 1.1.4, Lighting: the Committee pro­
poses 'Machinery must be designed and constructed so 
that the working area can be properly lit ...' 2.13.4. Point 1.7.4, (b): Directive 86/118/EEC on 
noise will not enter into force until 1 January 1990. 
New measures on this subject ought not therefore to 
be introduced, since Article 8 of this Directive makes 
provision for 'informative labelling' on machines. 
The texts of the two Directives should, at the very 
most, be consistent and the sound pressure level should 
be 85 dB(A) as stipulated in Directive 86/118/EEC and 
not the 80 dB(A) laid down in 1.7.4 (f). 
2.13.5. Point 2.1, (d): Bearing in mind that a Direc­
tive should fix an aim but not how this aim is to be 
achieved (which is the purpose of standards), the words 
'have curves of a radius sufficient to' should be deleted 
in the second sentence. 
2.13.6. Point 2.1, (f): The stipulation may be imposs­
ible to implement. What is necessary is that all parts of 
the machine are accessible for cleaning so as to remove 
stagnant liquids or insects which may have become 
lodged there despite the precautions taken. 
2.14. Annex 11 
'EC Declaration of Conformity (1) 
The manufacturer (2) 
declares that the new machine described hereafter (3) 
is in conformity: 
(4) with the regulations transposing Directive /EC. 
(5) with the machine which is the subject of EC certificate of conformity No issued by 
(6) with standard No 
— The file provided for in Article 8 may be obtained by the competent national authorities 
from (7) 
— The manufacturer declares that he/she has given permission to to represent him/ 
her in the Community with regard to the rights and obligations stemming from the 
regulations transposing the Directive (8). 
Done at on 
Signature (9) 
1. This declaration must be drawn up in the same language as the Instruction Handbook 
(see Annex 1, paragraph 1.7.4), either typewritten or handwritten in block capitals. 
2. Business name and full address of the manufacturer. 
3. Description of the machinery (mark, type, serial number, etc.) 
4. Delete in the case of application of the procedure set out in Article 8 (2) (b). 
No C 337/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
5. Delete in the case of application of the procedure set out in Article 8 (2) (a). 
6. Name and address of the approved body. 
7. Name and full address of the enterprise or person where the file can be obtained. 
8. Business name, name and full address of the authorized representative. 
9. Name and position of the signatory.' 
2.15. (new) Annex 111 
Under B. 'Model to be used in the case of the application 
of the procedure set out in Article 8 (2) (b)' replace the 
identifying mark of the approved body next to the CE 
markt by an abbreviation (e.g. ET) indicating that the 
machine has undergone a type examination. 
2.16. (new) Annex V 
The requirement in Annex V that the technical con­
struction file should include 'a description of the 
methods adopted to eliminate hazards presented by the 
machinery' highlights the absolute terms used on a 
number of occasions within this proposal. It is fre­
quently impossible to foresee all hazards in that some 
may arise from unreasonable or temporarily irrational 
behaviour on the part of the operator of the machinery 
in question. It would consequently be more realistic to 
add a qualification such as 'to eliminate, as far as is 
reasonably practicable, hazards' both at this and other 
similarly appropriate points in the text. 
Paragraphs 1 and 2 
Delete 'or his authorized representative in the Com­
munity'. 
Paragraph 3 
Add 'named in the declaration of conformity' after 'or 
his authorized representative in the Community'. 2.17. (new) Annex VI 
This annex defines the EC type examination—a pro­
cedure which is already to be found in other texts and, 
in particular, Directive 84/528/EEC and Directive 
84/532/EEC. For the sake of Community regulations' 
credibility, it would be extremely desirable for pro­
cedures bearing the same name to be identical or at 
least to be harmonized. The Commission has every 
right to lay down and update rules and regulations in 
the light of experience but there should be no disparities 
between texts which are bound to raise doubts or create 
misunderstandings. 
Article 9 (1) talks about 'the approved body which 
issued the EC type certificate'. 
The term 'approved' should therefore be used through­
out the Directive, and be substituted for 'agreed' in 
point 9 of Annex VI. 
In the second paragraph of point 2 add 'or, if necessary, 
by an indication of the place where the machine can 
be examined' after 'a machine representative of the 
production planned'. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE