No C 175/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 88 
The Committee approves the Commission proposal to Nevertheless, it recommends the expansion and exten-
extend the period of validity of the aforementioned sion of the present system during the forthcoming 
rapid exchange system by a further 6 years. period. 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the general safety requirement for products 
(88/C 175/07) 
On 16/17 December 1987 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth 
paragraph of Article 20 of its rules of procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative 
Opinion on product safety. 
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 
5 April 1988 in the light of the report by Mrs Williams. 
At its 255th plenary session (meeting of 27 April 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The objective 
The objective of this own-initiative Opinion, the autho­
rization for which was unanimously approved by the 
Committee in December 1987, is to urge the Com­
mission to propose legislation on consumer product 
safety. The legislation should make it obligatory for all 
those involved in the manufacture, supply and sale 
of consumer goods to comply with a general safety 
requirement. 
1.1.1. The objective mentioned above is reinforced 
by the two following considerations: 
— the implications for consumers of the completion 
of the internal market in 1992 and the consequences 
for them of the free movement of goods, 
— the implication of Article 100 A, paragraph 3, of 
the Single Act which states that the Commission in 
its proposals 'concerning health, safety, environ­
mental protection and consumer protection will 
take as a base a high level of protection'. In this 
Opinion the Committee interprets this Article to 
refer to both the on-going protection of consumers 
and the need for emergency action, including prod­
uct recall. 1.2. In addition, the Committee also takes into 
account the following points. 
1.2.1. There is a need for a move towards harmon­
ization in face of the growing amount of national 
legislation which differs in scope and content from one 
Member State to another and also a need to remove 
technical barriers to trade, and to dissuade Member 
States from using spurious health and safety standards 
to hinder free trade. 
1.2.2. In this context it is important to note that 
Article 36 of the EC Treaty states that, though barriers 
may be justified to protect the health and safety of 
citizens, they must not 'constitute a means of arbitrary 
discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade 
between Member States'. 
1.2.3. Specific legislation on particular subjects (i.e. 
'vertical' directives) already exists in the Community. 
These vertical Directives are limited in number, and 
though they include safeguard clauses which allow 
Member States to intervene in cases of danger, these 
protective measures apply only to the specific products 
which these Directives cover. 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/13 
1.2.4. This still leaves a wide variety of products 
uncovered, and as it is virtually impossible to adopt 
vertical directives for every product, there is a need for 
a broadly based horizontal framework directive to deal 
with those products for which vertical directives do 
not at present exist, and also cover loopholes and 
inadequacies in existing legislation. 
1.2.5. In the enlarged market, sound modern safety 
standards (or norms) will be essential for consumer 
products on sale and in use throughout the Community. 
Such standards will need to be equivalent in all Member 
States and methods of enforcement consistent (See also 
chapter 3). 
1.3. This initiative then is the means of urging the 
Commission into action and into producing a draft 
Directive as a matter of the utmost urgency. It is not, 
however, the task of the Committee to produce the text 
for Community legislation whether in the form of a 
Directive or Regulation or in a combination of both. 
The Committee's role is to draw the attention of the 
Commission to a number of differing perspectives, on 
the procedures necessary to the achieving of a much 
greater degree of consumer product safety. 
1.4. The enormous complexity of the subject of 
product safety is recognized, but the following infor­
mation documents in particular have been taken into 
consideration: 
— consumer goods safety/consumer safety, 
— communication from the Commission on safety of 
consumers in relation to consumer products. This 
document indicates that there is increasing evidence 
of the impact of domestic accidents at both social 
and economic levels. These accidents now involve 
at least 45 million people a year and are frequently 
due as much to human behaviour and ignorance 
as they are to dangerous products and inadequate 
instructions for use, 
— the Directive on product liability dealing with the 
special responsability of manufacturers to which 
this present own-initiative is complementary (l), 
— the new approach to the technical harmonization 
of standards (Resolution 7 May 1985) (2) which is 
also an indispensable complement. 
2. Definitions 
The Committee considers it essential to adopt specific 
definitions and makes the following suggestions. 
(}) Directive 85/374/EEC (OJ No L 210, 7. 8. 1985). 
(2) OJ C 316, 4. 6. 1985. 2.1. The term 'consumer products', for the purposes 
of this Opinion, means any category of goods, whether 
durable or non-durable, legally bought and normally 
used by domestic consumers. The Committee neverthe­
less recognises that there may be grey areas which 
result from the sometimes narrow divisions between 
equipment which can be used for both domestic and 
professional purposes. 
The term 'consumer products' also includes raw 
materials, if sold as finished products, component parts, 
spare parts and accessories. The Committee is not con­
cerned with products sold second hand by private indi­
viduals, though those sold commercially are included. 
Moreover, products which might affect animals are at 
present excluded. 
2.1.1. The Committee recognises that services are 
often closely tied in with products (particularly in the 
renting or hiring of appliances). Nevertheless, it limits 
its present initiative to products only. 
2.2. The Committee points out that safety is inevi­
tably relative and not absolute, and depends on a num­
ber of varying social, economic and cultural factors. 
Nevertheless, it interprets 'safe' as meaning that there 
is no risk, apart from a very minimal risk, that any of 
the following examples will injure or cause the death 
of anyone: 
— the product itself, 
— the keeping, use or consumption of the product, 
— the assembly of any product which is supplied unas­
sembled, 
— any emission or leakage from the goods or, as a 
result of their use, keeping or consumption, 
— reliance on the accuracy of any measurement, calcu­
lation or other reading made by or by means of the 
goods. 
2.3. The term 'general safety requirement' needs to 
be clearly interpreted. The suggested meaning of the 
term is that goods put into circulation in het Com­
munity must provide the safety consumers are entitled 
to expect, taking into account the normal use to which 
such goods could reasonably be expected to be put. 
2.3.1. Consumers depend on safe design and con­
struction. The Committee notes here the contribution 
of designers in that products will be significantly safer 
if potential hazards are taken into account at the very 
earliest development stage. 
No C 175/14 Official Journal of thi 
2.3.2. Products could be considered to fail to comply 
with this general safety requirement if they are not 
reasonably safe having regard to all the circumstances 
including: 
— the marking of the goods, their presentation, any 
mark used in relation to them and any instructions 
or warnings issued regarding use, storage or con­
sumption, 
— any published and approved European safety stan­
dard, 
— any reasonable means of making the goods safe, 
bearing in mind implications of possible cost. 
3. Standards (i.e. norms) and Regulations 
3.1. The Committee is aware of the growing signifi­
cance of the legal requirement under the new approach 
for the technical harmonization of standards, which 
obliges products to be safe in order to benefit from 
mutual recognition of standards and tests. The Com­
mittee is also aware of the role of both CEN and 
Cenelec and of national standards bodies in creating 
agreed voluntary standards while at the same time 
recognising that it is a function of government to deter­
mine basic mandatory regulations. 
3.2. The following points should be noted: 
3.2.1. Special standards and special features nor­
mally expressed as 'essential safety requirements' will 
be needed for particular products where there are spe­
cial risks to health and safety. 
3.2.2. Legislation on a general safety requirement for 
consumer products will help in guaranteeing a basic 
safety level for the large number of domestic products 
where there are no standards or specific regulations. 
3.2.3. The Committee notes the problem of cases 
where existing norms or regulatory requirements for 
health and safety are not high enough, and the need for 
clarification as to whether conformity can be considered 
as an adequate defence (See also paragraph 6.3). 
3.2.4. The need for adequate harmonized regulatory 
requirements on health and safety in line with Article 
100 A (3), i.e. 'taking as a base a high level of protec­
tion'. These requirements must be written into stan­
dards, and quality assurance must be maintained for 
the whole production process. 
3.2.5. Recognition that it is not only standards 
organizations which have a contribution to make in European Communities 4. 7. 88 
setting criteria for safer products, but also other recog­
nized institutes and associations. 
3.2.6. In this connection the Committee notes the 
Commission's declared intention of extending the 
involvement and representation of consumers from 
recognized organizations on standards bodies. It urges 
the Commission to implement its long-awaited decision 
to extend representation and to create the necessary 
financial conditions. 
4. Product safety in the production chain 
In the implementation of product safety along the pro­
duction chain, from manufacturer through to retailer, 
the following factors must be taken into consideration: 
4.1. The role of the manufacturer in applying con­
trols both during the production process and after the 
product is in general circulation. 
4.2. The responsibility of producers to supply infor­
mation and instructions for use in a clear, simple, and 
complete manner, taking into account also the problem 
of language when a product made in one Member State 
is used in another. 
4.3. The possible contribution of self-regulation by 
industry through voluntary codes of conduct capable of 
swift adaptation and the problems relating to effective 
meaningful enforcement of such codes. In this connec­
tion, the Committee would refer to its own-initiative 
Opinion on the producer-consumer dialogue issued in 
1984, and which put forward the suggestion of a frame­
work Directive making provisions with which volun­
tary codes would have to comply. 
4.4. The contribution of independent codes of con­
duct relating to safety from outside organizations such 
as the agencies of the United Nations. 
4.5. Communication of warnings and implemen­
tation of recalls by manufacturers, including references 
to replacement, repair or destruction. 
4.6. Systematic monitoring after goods have been 
sold into the market, and checking up on consumer use 
and abuse wherever feasible. 
4.7. The special problems of importers and suppliers 
of goods from outside the Community. 
4.8. The problems of retailers, who with their direct 
contact with consumers, bear the burden of responsi­
bility for a dangerous or defective product made by 
someone else. 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/15 
5. Inspection and controls 
5.1. In the implementation of product safety and 
controls, the following points, many of which have 
been commented upon in previous ESC Opinions, must 
be considered: 
— the points in the production chain at which inspec­
tion by public authorities should be carried out, 
— the difficulties in ensuring consistency of approach 
and testing throughout the EC, 
— the costs to Member States of extending public 
authority services, 
— the extent and practicality of governments delegat­
ing to public authorities orders to carry out product 
recall, bans on sales, and of implementing confor-
miy with standards, 
— possible difficulties in dealing with unlicensed street 
and market traders with no fixed address. 
5.2. The Committee recognizes the key importance 
of public authorities in inspection and control. It 
stresses the need for public bodies in all Member States 
to lay down: 
— a normal procedure to deal with dangerous goods, 
which would include general measures concerning 
a range of products and specific measures concern­
ing a particular brand or product, 
— an immediate emergency procedure to be put into 
operation without delay, 
— guidelines for cooperation and co-ordination at 
both national and European levels. 
5.3. In the case of imported goods, special controls 
should be introduced and maintained at the first point 
of entry. The Committee points to the need for co­
operation between competent authorities and customs, 
and excise officers. 
5.3.1. The need to adapt manufacture of products 
to different, or even stricter, standards must be borne 
in mind in the case of export to third countries. In the 
case of products intended for third world countries 
where there is often much ignorance and little protective 
legislation, the Committee recognizes a Community 
obligation not to market unsafe goods. 
6. Safeguards 
6.1.1. The development of European rapid recall sys­
tems are recognized, and the Commission is urged to 
expand its service among the Member States. At present 
this is an information system only, and the Committee draws attention to the fact that information, perhaps 
not always as transparent as it should be, is not enough 
on its own. 
6.1.2. There are, however, problems to be taken into 
account relating to warnings and suspensions as well 
as to product recalls. The Committee suggests that, 
provided there are no unreasonable delays, manufac­
turers should have the opportunity to comment on 
products with which they are involved. In the case of 
recalls, the Committee calls for the Commission to give 
clear indications of required data, such as brand or 
trade name, identification number, batch number, date 
and place of supply, name and address of manufacturer 
or supplier. 
6.1.3. A good network of communication at all 
appropriate levels is essential if a positive reaction is to 
be achieved from people who need to be advised or 
warned. They must be enabled to respond by clear, 
simple, multi-media approaches. The Committee reco­
gnizes the problems which result when people do not 
react to a warning: unsafe goods can continue to be 
used, passed on from person to person, for many years. 
6.1.4. Information and education continue to be 
accepted as running in parallel with consumer safety 
legislation. In education, where consumer organizations 
have a particular role to play, the development of 
personal responsibility is recognized as a prime 
ingredient. 
Education also includes an awareness that there is a 
price to be paid for safety. 
6.2. Consumer remedies 
6.2.1. Consumer remedies and access to justice 
should be considered in the light of the Communication 
from the Commission on consumer redress [doc. 
COM(87) 210 final] which deals with remedies for 
unsatisfactory and faulty goods. Unsafe goods, which 
have caused an injury, form a special category. It may 
happen that a large number of people suffer from the 
effects of the same product. In that case, consideration 
could also be given to the possibility of victims them­
selves undertaking class action to obtain compensation. 
This would in no way take away from consumers their 
right to act as individuals. In addition, the Committee 
suggests that the Commission should consider setting 
up a Community fund to compensate people who for 
a variety of reasons, (such as the bankruptcy of a firm 
they are dealing with) have no other effective remedy. 
6.3. The position of producers/distributors - Sanc­
tions and defences 
6.3.1. With regard to sanctions against producers 
who produce and market unsafe goods, it could be 
No C 175/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 88 
considered whether economic sanctions alone are 
enough. Current Community law does not allow the 
imposition by the Commission of criminal proceedings. 
Moreover, the Committee notes that sanctions vary in 
Member States, and therefore suggests that the Com­
mission should explore the possibility of imposing 
administrative sanctions at Community level. 
In the case of goods knowingly and deliberately pro­
duced or sold by 'business delinquents', the Committee 
urges Member States to take the most severe appropri­
ate action at national level. 
6.3.2. For example, legislation could be framed along 
the lines of declaring it a criminal offence to supply, 
offer or agree to supply, or expose or possess for supply, 
any goods which fail to comply with a 'general safety 
requirement', as defined in paragraph 2.3 above. 
6.3.3. The Committee points out that while all those 
involved in manufacturing or selling will acquire new 
obligations, they should also be entitled to defences as 
mentioned in chapter 3 (standards). It accordingly urges 
the Commission to itemize defences which could be 
used in the case of alleged breaches. 
6.3.4. Possible defences could include the following: 
a) the supplier was in conformity with an existing 
standard (but see paragraph 3.2.3); 
b) the supplier reasonably believed the goods would 
not be used or consumed in a Member State; 
c) the supplier took all reasonable steps and exercized 
all possible care in avoiding committing the offence; 
d) if the goods were sold by a retailer who, at the time 
of supply, did not know and had no reasonable 
grounds for knowing that they failed to comply 
with the general safety requirement; 
e) the manufacturer, supplier or retailer collaborated 
in the swift withdrawal of a dangerous product 
from the market. 
7. The role of the Commission 
The Committee suggests that the Commission under­
take the following tasks: 
7.1. A thorough analysis of existing product safety 
legislation and its implementation in Member States, 
and in other industrialized countries. 
7.2. An examination of the work done by inter­
national organizations such as the Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and socio-professional groups such as the European Bureau 
of Consumers' Unions (Bureau europeen des unions 
des consommateurs, BEUC), the Committee of Family 
Organizations in the European Communities (Comite 
des organisations familiales aupres des Communautes 
europeennes, COFACE) and reputable manufacturing 
and trading organizations. 
7.3. A reappraisal of existing Community legislation 
and proposals in the pipeline from the various director­
ates-general in order to ensure that safety legislation is 
integrated and co-ordinated with other legislation. 
For example, the proposed Directive for the approxi­
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to 
machinery which deals with the use of machines in 
industry, might be examined to see if it is relevant to 
similar machines used by private consumers. 
7.4. The Commission should continue to be respon­
sible a) for the collection and coordination of accident 
statistics (EHLASS) (*) supplied by Member States. It is 
these facts which can provide the basis for determining 
priorities for action and b) for the operation of the 
system for the rapid exchange of information. 
The Committee would, however, like to see these sys­
tems more ambitious, more transparent and more effec­
tive. 
7.5. The Committee also suggests that the Com­
mission could consider other related issues such as: 
— the development of risk assessment models, 
— the comparability and compatibility of statistics in 
Member States, and indeed in other countries which 
are trading partners, 
— the more detailed examination of death statistics 
which, though smaller in number than injuries, 
could point to much more serious dangers, 
— the scrutiny of serious injuries for a period of at 
least three years after an accident. 
7.6. The Committee emphasizes that it is the collec­
tion and analysis of facts which lead increasingly, 
inter alia, to the identification of unsafe products. It 
recognizes that a product can be dangerous because it 
is badly designed or made, or because instructions are 
inadequate or incomplete; but it also points out that 
human behaviour, often unpredictable, is a frequent 
contributor to accidents. 
(J) EHLASS = European Home and Leisure Accident Surveil­
lance System. 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/17 
7.7. The Committee stresses the need for a simple 
and acceptable procedure by which those concerned, 
notably the competent authorities designated by Mem­
ber States, and the Commission, can find quick sol­
utions in emergency situations. 
7.8. Accordingly, the Commission should act as the 
central recipient of information on dangerous products 
urgently notified to it by both national and local autho­
rities who have concluded that swift action is necessary. 
These authorities would also inform the Commission 
about voluntary withdrawals carried out by producers. 
Under appropriate circumstances, the Commission 
would also take into account information relayed to it 
by other reputable sources in view of the need to have 
access to a wide range of respondents. 
7.9. If the original action turns out to be justified, 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1988. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The twelfth annual report of the European 
Regional Development Fund, for 1986, was published 
by the Commission on 1 December 1987. The Commit­
tee welcomes the report which indicates that in the the Commission should have the task of requiring all 
Member States to take equivalent action. 
7.10. In a sudden emergency involving the health 
and safety of a substantial number of people, immediate 
action is needed. Member States can themselves decide 
to respond instantly, but in addition the Commission 
should be in a position to ensure that binding emergency 
measures are adopted in the Member States in accord­
ance with uniform criteria. There is therefore a need 
for an effective Community legal instrument (see para­
graph 1.3) with a clear set of rules, to make intervention 
in emergency cases possible. This intervention would 
involve the immediate suspension, seizure or even 
destruction of dangerous goods. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
year under review the range and scale of the Fund's 
activities continued to increase. The Committee also 
notes with approval the progressive development of the 
analytical procedures which the Fund is bringing to 
bear on the identification of priority issues and the 
examination of proposals for the alleviation of regional 
problems. Opinion on the twelfth report of the European Regional Development Fund 
(88/C 175/08) 
On 21 December 1987, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Commit­
tee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
twelfth report of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 
The Section for Regional Development, and Town and Country Planning, which was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
19 April 1988, in the light of the report by Mr Black. 
At its 255th plenary session (meeting of 27 April 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously with one abstention.