20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/21 
Additional opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the 
laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (!) 
(89/C 71/06) 
On 23 March 1988 the Economic and Social Committee adopted its Opinion on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
On 24 January 1989 the Bureau of the Committee, acting under the third paragraph of 
Article 20 of the rules of procedure, decided to prepare an additional Opinion on the subject. 
At its 262nd plenary session (meeting of 26 January 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
designated Mr Noordwal rapporteur-general and unanimously adopted the following 
Opinion. 
The Committee welcomes the fact that the Council's 
common position (2) has taken account of the Commit­
tee's Opinion (*) in a number of important respects e.g. 
the introduction of a ten-year period rather than an 
unlimited one after the apparatus has been placed on 
the market during which the technical file shall be held 
by the manufacturer at the disposal of the competent 
authority. 
But the expression 'relevant competent authorities' used 
in this context in Article 10.2 of the common position 
in place of the original wording 'competent national 
authority' appears to the Committee, however, as mis­
leading and could be interpreted to signify that authori­
ties in all Member States should be informed. This 
would be unduly onerous and the Committee therefore 
strongly recommends a return to the original wording, 
as initially approved. 
More importantly, however, the Committee particu­
larly regrets that the Council has altered the original 
Commission draft Article 10.2 by introducing a require­
ment for third party certification by an approved body 
in the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer 
has not or only partially applied recognized standards 
or in the cases for which no standards exist. 
The Committee finds is difficult to understand the 
rationale behind this stipulation. Firstly the Committee 
(!) OJ No C 134, 24. 5. 1988, p. 2. 
(2) Adopted on 7 November 1988. sees this as a departure from the principles of the 'new 
approach' upon which the electromagnetic compati­
bility Directive is based. This approach implies that (1) 
essential requirements concerning public safety aspects 
are laid down in a Community Directive, (2) the Com­
munity Directive on defective products provides com­
mon rules for dealing with abuses or mistakes in the 
system and (3) the principle that the manufacturer's 
declaration is accepted as proof of conformity with the 
EC Directive. It is true that in the recent common 
position adopted by the Council on the 'machines' 
Directive the principle of mandatory third party attest­
ation was applied but only for particularly dangerous 
machines which constitute a small number of all 
machines covered. Electromagnetic compatibility, how­
ever, to quote the Commission 'has virtually nothing 
to do with the concept of safety'. 
The Committee fails to see why more stringent require­
ments should be laid down in a Directive which does 
not deal with safety than in one (the 'machines' Direc­
tive) which does and which accepts the principle of 
manufacturers declaration for all but the most danger­
ous machines. 
The Council's position would have serious conse­
quences for European manufacturers whose main for­
eign competitors do not face such rules in their national 
market. Speed is essential for innovation. Because Euro­
pean or recognized national standards do not in general 
exist for innovative products, the necessary discussion 
with the competent body would delay marketing in an 
unacceptable way. 
Done at Brussels, 26 January 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE