20.1.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC14/15
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation(EEC)concerningtheaffixinganduseof
theCEmarkofconformityonindustrialproducts(l)
(92/C14/07)
On28June1991theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,under
Article100AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon9October1991.TheRapporteur
wasMrProumens .
Atits290thplenarysession(meetingof30October1991),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
unanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalbutfeelsthata
certainnumberofcommentsarenecessary.provisionsoftheDirectives;however,theprovisions
themselvesvary.
2.3.Responsibility alsovariesfromoneDirectiveto
another,restingeitherwiththemanufacturerand/or
hisauthorizedagent,thepersonresponsibleformarket­
ing,orthenotifiedbody.
2.4.Thirdly,theCEmarkisnotalwaysreproduced
identically.Itsgraphicdesignvaries,andidentification
numbersornumbersgivingtheyearmaybeaffixed.
2.5.Thesediscrepanciesnaturallycausegreatcon­
fusionandneedtoberectified.1.Introduction
1.1.TheCEmarkwasconceivedin1985aspart
ofthe'newapproach'.However,atthattime,some
problemsrelatingtoconformitywerestillunresolved.
1.2.Workcontinuedatsectorallevel,andthis
explainsthediscrepanciesbetweenthenineDirectives
coveredbythepresentproposal.
1.3.TheconditionsforgrantingaCEmarkhave
thereforevaried.
1.4.Accordingly,thepurposeofthepresentproposal
istoharmonizetheseconditionsandtolaydownfuture
rulesforgrantingofthemark,moreespeciallyin
Article2.
1.5.Theproblemisnotthattherewasalackofco­
ordinationorexamination whenthenineDirectives
weredrawnup,butratherthatthepointstakeninto
accountvariedaccordingtoexperienceandthetypeof
industrialproducts.3.Generalcomments
3.1.ThesolepurposeoftheCEmarkistoshow
thataproductconformswithCommunitystandards
andprovisions.Oneofthemainaimsoftheseisto
ensureahighsafetylevel.
3.2.However,consumersandprofessionalusers
(particularly,smallbusinesses)mayviewtheCEmark
asaqualitysymbol—whichitisnot.
3.3.Consumerorganizations shouldbealertedto
thisfact,sothattheycancirculatetheinformation
amongtheirmembers.Ofcourse,suchinformationin
nowayreplacestheinformationwhichmustbepro­
videdbyproducersanddistributors .
3.4.However,astheDirectivesstandatpresent,
therearefewindustrialproductswhicharelikelyto
generateconfusion:theCEmarkisgenerallyaffixedin
aplacewheretheconsumerisunlikelytonoticeit,since
itismainlydesignedforMemberStates'inspectors.2.Implementingdiscrepancies
2.1.ExaminationofthenineDirectives'provisions
hasrevealeddiscrepanciesasregardstheaffixingofthe
CEmark.
2.2.ThemeaningoftheCEmarkdiffersfromone
Directivetoanother,eventhoughtheCEmarkalways
meansconformitywiththebasicrequirementsand
evaluationproceduresetc.whichunderpintheoverall
(i)OJNoC160,20.6.1991,p.14.3.5.WiththeexceptionofDirective88/378/CEEon
toys,theDirectiveshavenotyetbeentranslatedinto

NoC14/16 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 20.1.92
nationallegislation.Oftheremainingeight,onlyDirec­
tive89/106/EEConconstructionproductshastobe
implemented ,butnotuntilafter30June1991.
3.6.TheCommitteeurgestheCommissiontocon­
siderextendingtheimplementation ofthepresentRegu­
lationtoproductsregulatedbeforetheintroductionof
the'newapproach'in1985.
ThiswouldseemtobetheCommission'simplicitwish.4.3.Article4
4.3.1.TheCommitteeconsidersthatArticle4will
generateconfusionanddistortcompetition .
4.3.2.Indicationoftheyearmaymaketheconsumer
oruserthinkthattheproductisoldorevenobsolete.
4.3.3.Moreover,theidentificationnumberwillnot
appearifthemanufacturerhastakenresponsibilityfor
affixingtheCEmark.Theomissionmightleadthe
consumertobelievethattheproductislesssafeor
unsafe.
4.3.4.Theadministrative needsattherootofthis
Articlecouldbemetbyarequirementthattheyearand
identification numberbementionedonalldocuments
(bills,dispatchnotes,etc.)accompanyingtheproduct.
4.4.Article6
4.4.1.AlthoughArticle6doesnotseemlikelyto
applyverywidely,theCommitteeconsidersthatthe
Commissionshouldspecify(perhapsinarecital)that
ifuseofaregisteredmarkthatcouldbeconfusedwith
theCEmarkisprohibited,theholderwillstillbe
entitledtocompensation .
4.4.2.Itgoeswithoutsaying—buttheCommission
shouldneverthelessspellitout—thatthisprovisionis
toapplyequallytoproductsfromthirdcountries.
4.4.3.However,problemscouldarisewithregardto
legalproofofamark'sregistration .Themarkshould
inanycasehavebeenregisteredand/orprotectedat
international ifnotworldlevel.4.Specificcomments
4.1.Article2
4.1.1.ThewordingofArticle2(2)shouldbeclari­
fied,atleastinarecital.Itspresentwordingisambigu­
ous,evenifitdoesprovideameansofrespectingcertain
Communitylegalprovisions.
4.1.2.Article2(3)seemsinconsistentwithPoint18
oftheExplanatoryMemorandum .OftheDirectives
underconsideration ,only87/404/EEC(simplepressure
vessels)and89/106/EEC(constructionproducts)pro­
videforexceptions,anditappearsthattheseexceptions
arenottobemodified.
4.2.Article3
4.2.1.Article3(3)shouldbeamendedtoread'tothe
packaging,whereitexists,and/ortotheaccompanying
documents...'.
DoneatBrussels,30October1991.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
FrancoisSTAEDELIN