COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 669 final 
Brussels, 15 December 1993 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
MANAGEMENT OF THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION 
OF NATIONAL RULES AFTER 1992 
Operational conclusions reached in the light of the inventory 
drawn up pursuant to Article 100b of the EC Treaty -
-1-
MANAGEMENT OF THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION 
OF NATIONAL RULES AFTER 1992 
Operational conclusions reached In the light of the inventory 
drawn up pursuant to Article 100b of the EC Treaty -
1. In this communication, the Commission wishes to present the conclusions it has 
drawn from work under Article 100b, in the light of progress in implementing the 1985 
White Paper. 
I. THE AIMS OF ARTICLE 100b 
2. Article 100b of the Treaty provides that "during 1992, the Commission shall, 
together with each Member State, draw up an inventory of national laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions which fall under Article 100a and which have not been 
harmonized pursuant to that Article". 
3. The aim of such an inventory is to enable the Commission, where appropriate, 
to propose that the Council decide that the provisions in force in a Member State must 
be recognized as equivalent to those applied by another Member State. 
4. Article 100b is not, therefore, a second legal basis designed to harmonize 
notionaliy what has not been harmonized under Article 100a, but a provision aimed at 
facilitating the mutual recognition of non-harmonized national provisions; this is 
because, in areas where the Community has not deemed it necessary to harmonize, 
only mutual recognition can guarantee completion of the internal market 
5. Now that the harmonization programme set out in the White Paper of June 1985 
on completing the internal market is reaching completion, the Community must 
henceforth see to it that the internal market functions smoothly, basing its action 
chiefly on existing Community provisions and establishing the necessary conditions 
for consistent application of mutual recognition. 
6. Moreover, the principle of proportionality, which goes hand-in-hand with the 
principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Treaty on European Union, should 
-2 
furthermore prompt the Community to set up a system for managing mutual 
recognition that can prevent any excessive regulatory activity. 
7. Steps also have to be taken to ensure that exceptions to the principle of free 
movement, which must be specific and limited but are allowed by the Treaty (in 
Article 36, for example), can be contemplated only in conditions that make for the 
prevention or swift treatment of problems and the transparency that is essential in a 
context where mutual confidence is central to the overall approach. 
8. The Community will thus have to set up machinery which: 
- ensures that the aims of the Internal Market are achieved ; 
- affords some degree of legal certainty to economic operators, with the 
principle of the acceptance of goods coming from other Member States, 
notably through mutual recognition of non-harmonized national provisions, 
being confirmed in particular; 
- allows differences between national rules to remain where they do not 
affect the smooth functioning of the internal market; 
- allows Member States to safeguard their general interests in conditions 
that make for transparency and prevention or rapid treatment of problems, 
thereby strengthening mutual confidence and settling problems before 
they develop into formal disputes; 
- encourages Member States to limit their rules to what is strictly necessary 
for the smooth and harmonious functioning of the large internal market. 
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 100b 
A. THE INVENTORY OF BARRIERS 
9. By letter of 7 June 1990, the Commission requested Member States to begin the 
preparatory work for the implementation of Article 100b, by examining the barriers that 
still stood in the way of establishment of the area without internal frontiers. 
10. In response to concerns voiced by most Member States at the scale of the task, 
compilation of the inventory was organized in two stages: 
- work initially focused on goods. A letter to that effect was sent to the 
Member States on 30 July 1990, in response to which all except 
Luxembourg sent in contributions. In view of the uneven quality of these 
contributions, the Commission, as well as discussing them with the internal 
market coordinators, tabled them at meetings of expert groups on 
telecommunications and foodstuffs; 
-3-
by letter dated 28 August 1991, the information-gathering exercise was 
subsequently extended to cover all aspects of the internal market 
(services, agriculture, transport, etc.) and Member States were requested 
to send in further contributions on such topics. 
B. ANALYSIS OF THE INVENTORY 
11. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the inventory compiled under 
Article 100b(1): 
12. Composed of contributions received from Member States that relate chiefly to 
remaining barriers to the free movement of goods and supplemented by the 
Commission's own observations, the inventory has not revealed any sector that is not 
dealt with either by measures taken under the 1985 White Paper programme or by 
infringement proceedings initiated under Article 169 of the Treaty for failure to fulfil 
obligations under Article 30 in particular; it has, however, identified specific barriers 
that are mostly confined to bilateral relations between a few Member States and 
concern a particular product in isolation (e.g. aerials and pencils). 
13. In spite of the fact that the contributions received were confined to merely 
reporting barriers, it can be considered that Article 100b will apply to a limited number 
of residual cases where it is difficult in practice to determine whether the national 
measures concerned fall under Article 30 or whether harmonization at Community 
level is genuinely necessary. 
14. In the light of the information it has received, the Commission does not see the 
need for any specific measures for the recognition of equivalence at Community level. 
15. Above all, however, the establishment in 1992 of a procedure for bilateral or 
multilateral recognition, between any Member States and on a case-by-case basis, of 
the equivalence of national provisions deemed liable to create barriers to trade would 
not have been a sufficiently general, comprehensive and therefore appropriate 
solution for meeting the 31 December 1992 deadline and thus ensuring that the aims 
of the internal market were achieved; such an approach: 
would have required more determined and more extensive cooperation 
from Member States, on a generalized bilateral or multilateral basis (a slow 
and cumbersome procedure); 
would not have achieved recognition of equivalence in all possible 
eventualities (Member State by Member State); 
would not have ensured rapid and appropriate treatment of any barriers 
possibly emerging after 31 December 1992 (non-exhaustive nature of the 
inventory of actual or potential barriers); 
4-
would not have facilitated the adaptation of national rules to new circumstances 
(resulting from experience or scientific and technological progress) if national 
provisions were specifically and formally recognized as equivalent on a particular 
date. 
16. On the other hand, the present state of Community law, as enshrined in Article 30 of the 
Treaty and secondary legislation and developed through decisions of the Court of Justice, has 
already established the principle of the acceptance of goods coming from other Member States. 
This principle is based in particular on the mutual recognition of national rules and may be 
departed from only to satisfy mandatory requirements or on the grounds listed in Article 36, such 
as health, safety or the protection of consumers or the environment. 
17. In view of the forthcoming completion of the White Paper programme and in the light of the 
conclusions drawn from the inventory provided for in Article 100b, it is therefore essential to 
ensure compliance with the principle of the acceptance of goods coming from other 
Member States, by managing transparently, effectively and consistently what must remain 
exceptions to that principle. 
III. THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW: 
THE FREE MOVEMENT PRINCIPLE STRENGTHENED 
A. A FIRM BODY OF CASE-LAW 
18. As the Court of Justice held in Cassis de Dijon (Case 120/78 [1979] ECR649) and 
subsequent judgments spelling out the rule, any product lawfully produced and marketed in one 
Member State must, in principle, be admitted to the market of any other Member State. 
19. Exceptions to this principle may be accepted only if the national rules in the commercial or 
technical field that are liable to create barriers: 
are such as to satisfy mandatory requirements or grounds listed in Article 36 such as 
public health, public security, consumer protection or protection of the environment; 
are proportionate to the objective to be attained, i.e. are an instrument which is 
necessary and hinders trade least. 
20 This case-law prompted the Commission to develop a number of guidelines, which it 
presented for the first time in its communication concerning the consequences of the judgment 
given by the Court of Justice in the above mentioned Case 120/78 (Cassis de Dijon). In that 
communication (OJ No C 256, 30.10.1980), the Commission stressed the following points in 
particular: 
The principles deduced by the Court imply that a Member State may not in 
principle prohibit the sale in its territory of a product lawfully produced and 
marketed in another Member State even if the product is produced according to 
technical or quality requirements which differ from those imposed on its 
domestic products. Where a product 'suitably and satisfactorily* fulfils the 
legitimate objective of a Member State's own rules (public safety, protection of 
the consumer or the environment, etc.), the importing country cannot justify 
prohibiting its sale in its territory by claiming that the way it fulfils the objective is 
different from that imposed on domestic products. 
In such a case, an absolute prohibition of sale could not be considered 
'necessary' to satisfy a 'mandatory requirement* because it would not be an 
'essential guarantee' in the sense defined in the Court's judgment." 
21. The Court has in a line of decisions clarified the scope of the principle of the 
acceptance of goods coming from other Member States; it has thus been prompted to 
draw a distinction between cases where barriers to free movement are based on 
consumer protection and those where barriers have to do with the protection of public 
health. 
In the first set of cases, the Court has applied the principle whereby, where proper 
labelling is adequate to inform the purchaser, a Member State is not entitled on 
consumer protection grounds to prevent an imported product being marketed. 
Where public health is concerned, the Court has taken the view that although a 
Member State is always entitled to ban a product that would endanger the health of its 
citizens, it is for the authorities of the Member State that wishes to prohibit the sale of 
a product imported from another Member State, where it is lawfully produced and/or 
marketed, to check in each particular case that the product in question constitutes a 
real risk. 
The Court has thus held that Community law does not permit national rules which 
make authorization to market products subject to proof by the importer that the 
product in question is not harmful to health, without prejudice to the right of the 
national authorities to ask the importer to submit all the information in his possession 
needed to assess the facts (Case 174/82 Sandoz [1983] ECR 2445). 
In the case of products whose harmfulness is not established when they are imported 
for the first time, the importing Member State must furthermore lay down a procedure 
for prior authorization and, should it refuse to grant authorization, give the grounds for 
its decision; operators must also be able to challenge such refusal before the courts 
(see in particular Case 178/84 Purity requirement for beer [1987] ECR 1227, ground 
46). 
22. Finally, the Court has completed its case law by drawing a distinction between : 
on the one hand, rules on conditions with which goods must comply in 
order to be legally manufactured and marketed (such as conditions 
relating to their denomination, shape, dimensions, weight, composition, 
presentation, labelling, packaging or handling) and, 
on the other hand, provisions which limit or prohibit certain sales practices 
(such as a general prohibition on reselling at a loss). 
-6 
The former, in accordance with the "Cassis de Dijon" judgment mentioned above, 
constitute measures with an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions which are 
prohibited by Article 30, even where these rules are applied without discrimination to 
all products, unless their application to products from other Member States can be 
justified on grounds of general interest of such a nature as to take precedence over 
the requirements of free movements of goods. 
Concerning the latter type of provisions, however, the Court considers that national 
measures which limit or prohibit certain sales practices do not constitute measures 
having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions prohibited under Article 30, 
provided that these provisions are applied to all operators concerned who exercise 
their activity in the national territory, and provided that they affect in the same way, 
both in law and in practice, the marketing of national products and those coming from 
other Member States ("Keck and Mithouard" judgment of 24 November 1993, joined 
cases C-267 and C-268/91 - prohibition of reselling at a loss-). 
B. COMMUNITY LEGISLATION SUPPLEMENTED 
23. In the above-mentioned communication on the consequences of the Cassis de 
Diion case, the Commission already drew the necessary conclusions and laid down 
some guidelines for its own action. 
24. On the one hand, it has tackled commercial rules laying down technical or 
qualitative conditions to be met, for admission to the market of one Member State, by 
products manufactured and marketed in other Member States, in all cases where the 
trade barriers occasioned by such rules are inadmissible according to the very strict 
criteria set out by the Court. 
25. On the other hand, it has directed harmonization work mainly at national laws 
having an impact on the functioning of the common market where the barriers to trade 
to be removed arise from national provisions which are admissible under the criteria 
set out by the Court. 
26. To forestall difficulties that could arise from new national provisions, it proposed 
that a procedure be introduced for the notification of draft technical regulations; the 
procedure came into being under Directive 83/189/EEC. 
27. Now that the entire programme for completing the internal market, as 
established in the White Paper of June 1985, is being rounded off and the inventory 
provided for in Article 100b has not revealed any major barrier still in place that cannot 
be removed under planned Community measures or through infringement 
proceedings initiated under Articles 30 to 36 of the Treaty, the principle of the 
acceptance of goods coming from other Member States has been strengthened. 
28. It is thus necessary, if the internal market is to function smoothly, to set up 
machinery for dealing swiftly, effectively, transparently and consistently with cases 
where an exception could legitimately be made to the mutual recognition principle. 
-7 
IV. PROPOSAL: MUTUAL RECOGNITION, 
LEGAL CERTAINTY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION 
29. In addition to the observations made earlier on the small number and nature of 
the remaining obstacles identified, the principle of the acceptance of goods coming 
from other Member States has been strengthened by recent developments in 
Community law stemming from the Treaty (as amended by the Single European Act 
and the Treaty on European Union), secondary legislation (measures taken under the 
1985 White Paper) and decisions of the Court of Justice. 
30. It is therefore necessary to ensure from now on that cases where a 
Member State makes an exception to this principle, to satisfy a mandatory 
requirement or on grounds listed in Article 36, are brought to the attention of the 
Commission and the other Member States as soon as they arise, so that such 
transparency can enable problems to be settled swiftly: 
either, and preferably, on a voluntary basis by the Member States 
concerned; 
or, if necessary, at Community level before such problems produce all 
their adverse effects on businesses, consumers and, more generally, 
Community citizens. 
31. This approach offers the advantage of being a pragmatic method of dealing with 
barriers to the free movement of goods. The cooperation established between the 
Member States themselves, where necessary with support from the Commission, will 
thus help ensure that action by the Community does not exceed what is necessary for 
achieving the free movement objective. 
32. On the other hand, problems can be solved without formal disputes only within a 
framework that is clearly defined and based on mutual confidence. 
The Member State concerned must thus transmit the information at the earliest 
opportunity, explaining the reasons why it deems it legitimate to impose compliance 
with its (existing) legislation on goods coming from another Member State. 
33. The necessary information procedure should cover four types of decision: 
a general ban on a model or type of product; 
refusal to grant authorization for a model or type of product which is being 
placed on the market of the Member State concerned for the first time and 
which is subject to an authorization procedure along the lines of that 
resulting from the case-law of the Court of Justice and described by the 
Commission in its communication on the free movement of foodstuffs 
within the Community (OJ No C 271, 24.10.1989, p. 3) 
8-
a requirement that the model or type of product concerned be modified 
before it can be placed on the market in question; 
withdrawal from the market of a model, type or category of product. 
34. The information procedure would concern only the main decision taken on a 
model or type of product (general ban, refusal to grant authorization, withdrawal from 
the market) and not the measures preparing or leading up to that decision (preventive 
measures, investigations, etc.). 
35. Furthermore, this procedure for the exchange of information should cater for 
only those cases which are not already covered by existing notification procedures: 
technical regulations which have already been notified at the draft stage 
under Directive 83/189/EEC should not be notified under these 
arrangements. Only (negative) decisions taken in pursuance of such 
technical regulations would be concerned; 
likewise, where it is decided to impose a general ban on a category of 
products, to refuse to grant authorization in respect of a particular product, 
or to withdraw a product from the market, on the grounds of the hazard it 
represents for the health and safety of consumers, specific procedures are 
already provided for under Decision 89/45/EEC on a Community system 
for the rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of 
consumer products and Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety 
(from 29 June 1994); 
lastly, certain directives contain safeguard clauses that require 
Member States to notify national measures they may take in certain well-
defined circumstances. 
36. Emphasis should be placed here on the role played by the procedure 
established by Directive 83/189/EEC in ensuring the mutual recognition of differing 
national rules. Through the systematic insertion of mutual recognition clauses in 
national draft technical regulations and through the possibility open to Member States 
of having their own rules recognized in drafts notified by other Member States, 
businesses are able to enjoy greater legal certainty. The Directive thus weeds out 
many potential cases of non-recognition. Given the large number of notifications 
made under the procedure (over 400 a year), Directive 83/189/EEC is making a 
significant contribution to the unity of the single market. 
37. On the other hand, Community provisions currently in force do not always make 
it possible to ascertain, as soon as they arise, cases where a Member State considers 
it legitimate and necessary to impose compliance with its own national rules on a 
model or type of product which is nevertheless lawfully and fairly produced and/or 
marketed in another Member State. 
38. However, in an internal market in which priority is to be given to mutual 
recognition in cases where national rules have not been harmonized, it must at least 
be possible to identify swiftly any cases where mutual recognition is not applied. 
Businesses must be able to operate in a legal environment based on clear principles 
to which only rare exceptions are allowed. 
The proposed information procedure should thus enable any exceptions to be 
identified swiftly and should help to find a solution that re-establishes or strengthens 
the principle of the free movement of goods. 
CONCLUSIONS 
39. In its resolution on making the single market work1, the Council undertook to 
work in partnership with all Community institutions and Member States to ensure that 
the single market worked effectively, and to act speedily if new barriers were found 
which could jeopardize its operation; it also invited the Commission to propose any 
practical arrangements to help ensure the smooth running of the single market. 
40. In view of the foregoing and in full accordance with the conclusions it intends to 
draw in particular from the report of the high-level group chaired by Mr Sutherland on 
the operation of the internal market after 1992, the Commission will thus be 
transmitting to the Council and the Parliament a proposal to establish a simple and 
pragmatic procedure for the exchange of information between Member States and the 
Commission to enable the Community to manage more transparently the mutual 
recognition of national rules which have not been harmonized at Community level. 
Council Resolution of 7 December 1992 on making the single market work, OJ No C 334, 
18.12.1992, p. 1 (see points 7 and 24 in particular). 
-10 
Inventory of barriers to trade in goods 
drawn up under Article 100b: 
barriers to trade in specific products 
reported by Member States 
IMPORTANT NOTE 
The following table sets out in summary form the barriers to trade in specific products 
reported by Member States. 
It should, however, be stressed that: 
1- the contributions which the Commission received from Member States varied 
widely: 
For those Member States which sent in a written contribution (all except 
Luxembourg), the information was presented in different forms, ranging from a 
fairly detailed list (Belgium) to a simple letter setting out the general position of 
the Member State concerned on Article 100b (Spain), with a variety of 
combinations, worked out to varying degrees of detail, in between; 
2- the table is merely indicative: 
The information compiled was transmitted under the responsibility of the 
Member States concerned, and the observations made were not usually 
accompanied by an analysis of the legality of the barriers reported; 
3- the barriers were identified by Member States over a period (1990-92) in which 
many of the Community measures planned in the 1985 White Paper were yet 
to be adopted or to enter into force. 
The table is thus valid only as an indication of the type of barriers to trade in goods 
which Member States identified between 1990 and 1992 and whose removal is being 
ensured by the Commission under the powers conferred on it by the Treaty. 
The reader should also refer to the operational conclusions reached in the light of the 
inventory drawn up pursuant to Article 100b of the Treaty and presented by the 
Commission in its communication to the Council and Parliament on management of 
the mutual recognition of national rules after 1992. 
11 
Inventory of barriers to trade in goods 
drawn up under Article 100b: 
barriers to trade in specific products reported by Member States 
SECTOR PRODUCTS I BARRIERS 
(MS of dispatch) (MS of destination) 
I foodstuffs I F00** supplements (UK) Disparities between national rules 
Additives (B-F-UK) Differences between additives allowed in MS 
Alcoholic drinks (IRL-UK) Disparities between national rules 
Potatoes (F-UK) Classification problems (D-F) and import barriers 
JDK) 
Drinks labelling (F-UK) Disparities between names allowed in certain MS 
(P-F-I) 
Beer (B-UK-P) Purity laws and disparities between labelling or 
packaging rules (DK-D-EL-E-F-I) or ban on additives 
J^B) 
Milk products (B-F) Barriers resulting from mandatory names (B-DK-EL) 
or marketing ban (i) 
Peas (B) Classification problems and quality standards (DK) 
Chocolates (B) Ban on sorbic acid (F) 
Precooked foods (B) Disparities between rules on maximum allowable 
temperatures (EL) 
Lollipops (B) Disparities betwen national rules (DKHRL) 
Hard cheese (B) Ban on methymycin (OK) 
Prepackaged foods (F) Obligation to use the imperial metric system for the 
weights of prepackages for honey, jellies, jams and 
marmalades (UK) 
Meat and live animals (F) Import bans, quarantine I (DKHRL-UK) 
Eggs (F) Import barriers (IRL) 
Frozen bread (F) Marketing ban (i) 
Soya protein (DK) Ban on use (D-EL-EH-NL) 
Milk protein, starches (EL) Ban on use (o) 
Radishes in bunches (NL) Control of leaf miner fly (UK) 
Exotic fruit (NL) Plant-health controls (t-E) 
Road vehicles Motor vehicles (B-NL-UK) Lack of mutual recognition of type approval 
Registration plates (B-UK) Ban on plastic registration plates in some MS (P) 
Bicycle reflectors (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (D) 
Deflectors (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (o) 
Glow plugs for diesel engines (B) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (D) 
Ventilators for caravans (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (D-IRL) 
Radiators for caravans (NL) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (F) 
-12 
SECTOR PRODUCTS BARRIERS 
(MS of dispatch) (MS of destination) 
I Road vehicles I Bicycle frames (F) Mandatory marking (DK) 
| (cont'd) | 
Mopeds (F-P) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (DK) 
Trailers (F) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (i) 
Tanks (B-F) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (F-I) 
Invalid carriages(F) Marketing ban (i) 
Licence-exempt vehicles (F) Marketing ban (i) 
I Construction I Fixings (UK) Disparities between rules of certain MS (D) 
Gas cylinders (UK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Metal structures (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (D) 
Sanitary installations: equipment Disparities between rules of certain MS (D) 
and components (B) 
Heating appliances (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (D) 
Lifts and hoists (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (D) 
Welded tubes (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (E) 
Galvanized products (F) Disparities between rules of certain MS (E) 
Extinguishers (F) Disparities between rules of certain MS (E) 
Bricks and concrete blocks (B) Mandatory dimensions in certain MS (UK) 
Electric light bulbs (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Gas appliances (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (F) 
Electrical plugs (F) Obligation to fit an earth terminal (DK) 
Industrial paints (F) Mandatory composition rules (B) 
Padded furniture (F) Mandatory fire resistance standards (UK) 
Ceramic tiles (EL) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (F) 
Construction materials (P) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (E) 
I Telecommunications/ I Fax machines (B-UK) Disparities between rules of certain MS (E-F) 
radiocommunication 
Collective aerials (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Telephones (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Answering machines (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Computer keyboards (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Short-wave radio sets (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Video transmission systems (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Medical telemetry (DK) Disparities between rules of certain MS 
Navigation equipment (EL) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (UK) 
13-
SECTOR PRODUCTS BARRIERS 
(MS of dispatch) (MS of destination) 
i Pharmaceutical I Medicinal products (B-F) Differences between Member States in the way 
products and medical medicinal products are defined (pharmacists' 
equipment monopoly) (D) 
Lack of mutual recognition of marketing 
authorizations 
Excessive delays in granting marketing 
authorizations (E) 
Medical instruments (F) Obligation to resterilize (B) 
Medical equipment (NL) Difficulties in obtaining type approval 
| chemical products | Ethanol(UK) Sales ban in certain MS (D-EL-P) 
Fertilizers (F) Marketing ban on fertilizers with a high ammonium 
nitrate content (B) 
Pesticides (IRL) Disparities between national rules, with special 
reference to maximum permissible residues 
I Miscellaneous I Cosmetics (UK) Disparities between rules of certain MS (E) 
Pumps for beer or refreshing Disparities between rules of certain MS (E) 
drinks (B) 
Precious metals (B-D-F) Lack of mutual recognition of hallmarks 
Aerosols (B) Classification problems (F) 
Bedspreads and carpets (B) Labelling disparities 
Furniture (B) Fire-resistance requirements (UK) 
Sound recordings (UK) Differences in duration of legal protection 
Toys (B) Requirements relating to the concentration of 
cellulose and toxic substances (IRL) 
Children's nightclothes (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (IRL) 
Prams (B) Disparities between rules of certain MS (IRL) 
Pencils and drawing materials (B) Requirements relating to the concentration of toxic 
substances (IRL) 
Raw cashmere (B) Health certificate (UK) 
Eiderdowns (B) Labelling and composition (NL-O-F) 
Clothes (B) Fire-resistance requirements (IRL) 
Teats for feeding-bottles (F) Sales ban (NL) 
Ski lifts (F) Marketing ban (i) 
Carpets (B) Wear-resistance, labelling 
Computer peripherals (F) Import barriers (E) 
Pressure vessels (DK) Lack of harmonized standards 
Electric bells and small ancillary Conformity declaration (E) 
items (i) 
Wine and champagne corks (i) Problem of tax stamp (F) 
Shoes (i) Problem of composition labelling (EL-E-F) I 
-14 
SECTOR I PRODUCTS I BARRIERS 
(MS of dispatch) (MS of destination) 
I Miscellaneous I Shoes and other leather goods (i) New import licence other than the Cites certificate 
| (cont'd) | (D) 
List of permitted leather goods more restrictive 
than the Washington Convention (NL-UK) 
Use of PCP in leather goods and Differences between national rules (D) 
shoes (i) Lack 0f rules in i 
Furnishing fabrics (i) Differences between national rules (UK) 
Flame-retardant standard in UK 
Pressure cookers (i) Differences between technical standards (D-F) 
Gas-fired water heaters (i) Differences between national rules (D-F) 
No rules in i 
Safety footwear (i) Differences between national rules (D-UK) 
Tanks (F) Difficulties in obtaining type approval (i) 
Extinguishers (F) Marketing barriers (DK) 
Packaging (EL) Recovery (D) 
Flowers (NL) Control of leaf miner fly (UK) 
Television sets (NL) Radiation standards (D) 
Voltage indications (i) 
Housings for television sets (NL) Fire-resistance requirements (D.UK) 
Mains-operated electrical Operating instructions (UK) 
appliances (NL) 
«K 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (93) 669 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 06 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-722-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-62860-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg