27. 11. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 298/19 
Opinion on the report on the operation of Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure 
for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations 1984-1987 
(89/C 298/04) 
On 6 September 1989 the Commission decided, in accordance with Article 198 of the 
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social 
Committee on the abovementioned report. 
The Committee for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services was instructed to prepare the 
work on this topic and adopted its Opinion on 6 September 1989. Rapporteur: Mr de 
Normann. 
The Economic and Social Committee, at its 269th plenary session, meeting on 27 September 
1989, adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
Summary 
In this Opinion the Committee: 
— comments on the report on the implementation and 
operation of the Directie 83/189/EEC (!) over the 
years 1984 to 1987 (Article 11 of the Directive), 
— makes suggestions for improvements in the oper­
ating procedures, 
— recommends for the consideration of the Com­
mission items for inclusion in a new draft Directive 
which it understands is in preparation for sub­
mission to the Council. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 
1983 and its extension 88/182/EEC (2) of 22 March 1988 
have three objectives: 
— to provide the Commission with an early warning 
of technical regulations proposed by Member States 
which may act as barriers to trade, 
— to ensure total transparency of national plans for 
regulations and standards and to ensure effective 
cooperation between the Commission and the Mem­
ber States in the creation of a Single Market, 
— to ensure that the Commission and the Member 
States are jointly responsible for the proper working 
of these systems through a Standing Committee 
(Article 5 of Directive 83/189/EEC). 
1.2. On 8 December 1988 the Commission issued a 
report on the operation of Directive 83/189/EEC laying 
down a procedure for the provision of information in 
the field of technical standards and regulations 1984-
1987. (COM(88) 722 final.) 
(1) OJ No L 109, 26. 4. 1983, p. 8. 
(2) OJ No L 81, 26. 3. 1988, p. 75. The Commission has undertaken this review four years 
after the entry into force of the Directive (1 January 
1985) in accordance with Article 11 of the Directive 
which provides for a formal review of its operations 
and immediately before its extension to all products 
sectors in accordance with Council Directive 88/182/ 
EEC of 22 March 1988. 
1.3. The Committee considers that this Directive 
(the 'information procedure Directive'), adopted on 
28 March 1983, has operated effectively in preventing 
the creation of new technical barriers to trade within 
the Community in so far as it has instituted a mechan­
ism for the collective scrutiny of draft technical legis­
lation at national level and it has set up at the same 
time an institutional and procedural framework to 
facilitate and accelerate standardisation at European 
level. 
1.4. This analysis by the Commission has led to 
proposals and plans for the more effective use of the 
procedures under the Directive. The Committee wel­
comes these proposals as a further contribution to 
improving transparency in standards work in the Com­
munity and to preventing the erection of new barriers 
to trade. 
1.5. The Committee notes that Article 11 of the 
Directive is now amended to require an annual report 
from the Commission on the results of the application 
of the Directive and welcomes the intention of the 
Commission to submit these to the Economic and Social 
Committee, starting with the report for 1988. 
1.6. The Committee notes that, although the Direc­
tive does not deal with general information about stan­
dards work, this is an essential precondition for the 
Directive to fulfil its objectives. 
So the Committee underlines the need to increase sub­
stantially the diffusion within Member States of infor­
mation about standards work amongst the social part­
ners and to the public at large. 
No C 298/20 Official Journal of the 
2. The social implications of the Directive 
2.1. The principle of voluntary cooperation 
2.1.1. The Committee recognizes that an important 
aim of the Directive in the context of realizing a Single 
European Market is to stimulate initiatives to harmon­
ize standards. 
It emphasizes yet again that the harmonization of stan­
dards requires the cooperation and participation of all 
various interest groups involved, not only of manufac­
turers and authorities, but also workers, users and 
consumers. This is essential particularly with regard to 
their health, safety and welfare. 
The Committee has always emphasised this and draws 
attention to its Opinion of 17 September 1986 (^ in 
which it urged that particular attention be paid to the 
safety of users, workers and consumers in harmonising 
standards. 
2.1.2. The Committee accordingly urges the Com­
mission to extend the basis for cooperative discussion 
on standards affecting health, safety and welfare and 
to continue to promote the closer involvement of the 
social and other interest groups concerned. 
2.2. Cooperation in standards work 
2.2.1. The Committee notes that the common rules 
of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) 
and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Stan­
dardization (Cenelec) require that when forming and 
briefing their delegations to Technical Committee meet­
ings, CEN and Cenelec members, which are the national 
standards institutions of the Member States, should 
ensure that they will convey a collective, national point 
of view which takes account not only of manufacturers 
but of all the interests affected by the work. 
2.2.2. The Committee welcomes CEN/Cenelec mem­
orandum No 5 'trade unions and the preparation of a 
European standard' which lays down a good basis for 
a substantial improvement in cooperation. In it the 
general assemblies of CEN and Cenelec recommend: 
— trade unions participation at national level in stan­
dards work and in policy matters relevant to the 
interest of the work force, 
— the active participation of trade unions in national 
delegations to CEN or Cenelec Committees devel­
oping an European standard, 
(') OJ No C 328, 22. 12. 1986, p. 20. European Communities 27. 11. 89 
— questions submitted by or proposals/drafts received 
from European trade union organisations should be 
given due consideration by the CEN/Cenelec body 
concerned. 
2.2.3. Equally the Committee welcomes CEN/Cene­
lec memorandum No 2 'consumer interests and the 
preparation of standards' which makes equivalent Rec­
ommendations to cover the interests of consumers. 
2.2.4. The Committee believes however that further 
encouragement should be given to the involvement of 
the social partners in preparatory activity on standards 
projects at European level. 
2.3. Consultation on health and safety 
2.3.1. The Committee notes that a tripartite Con­
sultative Committee composed of representatives of the 
social partners and the Commission meets several times 
a year in Luxembourg to exchange views and discuss 
proposals on health and safety. 
Furthermore in March 1989 a tripartite working party, 
set up within the framework of the Consultative Com­
mittee, recommended that mandates for standardiz­
ation relating to Article 100 A (Single European Act) be 
sent to that Committee for its Opinion. The Committee 
supports this Recommendation. 
2.3.2. The Committee also welcomes the Com­
mission proposal to give financial support to the Euro­
pean Trades Union Confederation (ETUC) to set up 
an operation to establish a technical expertise for the 
examination of proposals affecting hygiene and safety 
at work and to make their views known through the 
usual channels of the ETUC. 
2.4. Participation in the Standing Committee 
2.4.1. The Committee notes that the Standing Com­
mittee set up under Article 5 of Directive 83/189/EEC 
has the right of initiative and consists solely of two 
nominees from each Member State. There is no direct 
representation of Community social groups and the 
Commission does not intend to propose that there 
should be. 
2.4.2. However, the Committee notes that the Com­
mission holds at least two meetings a year of an 
extended Article 5 Standing Committee at which rep­
resentatives of national standards institutions, CEN 
and Cenelec meet the nominees of the Member States. 
The Committee asks the Commission to ensure that 
representatives of the consultative bodies of the social 
partners and the consumers are given the opportunity 
to submit their concerns to these meetings. 
27. 11. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 298/21 
3. The information procedure for standards 
3.1. Principles of European standardization policy 
3.1.1. Chapter II of the report describes the operation 
of the information procedure for standards. 
The Committee endorses the need for transparency in 
standards work and the role of CEN/Cenelec and their 
national members in ensuring it as a fundamental prin­
ciple of European standardization policy. 
3.1.2. The Committee supports the 'general guide­
lines' formally agreed by CEN/Cenelec with the Com­
mission in November 1984 and with the European Free 
Trade Association (EFTA) in April 1985. 
These guidelines ensure cooperation at European level 
between official and voluntary interests within the 
framework of EEC Treaty Article 100 (including Article 
100 A of the Single European Act) on the removal of 
non-tariff barriers to trade. 
3.1.3. The Committee notes that with this cooper­
ation in view, the EC Council adopted a Resolution in 
July 1984 setting out the principles for a European 
standardization policy leading to the new approach 
to technical harmonization and standards adopted by 
Council Resolution 85/C 136/01. This established the 
principle of presumption of conformity to the essential 
requirements for products manufactured in accordance 
with CEN/Cenelec harmonized European standards. As 
a result the concept of general reference to standards 
has tended to replace the drafting of technical require­
ments for technical Annexes to Directives. 
3.1.4. The Committee recognises nevertheless that in 
order for CEN and Cenelec to play their necessary part 
in the Community and EFTA framework they must 
organise themselves and their relationship with their 
national standards institution members in such a way 
that they are able to anticipate demand, manage the 
necessary work, target and deliver it cost-effectively 
and competently. The Committee urges Member States 
and their national standards bodies to ensure that their 
input to these organizations in terms of resources of 
people and money is adequate, not only for the necess­
ary work on standards making but also for the necess­
ary promotion of the advantages of European stan­
dards. 
3.1.5. The Committee also urges CEN/Cenelec and 
their national members to take the appropriate initiat­
ives to promote and publicise the advantages of Euro­
pean standardization, the means of achieving it and the 
opportunities for involvement in it, in forms which are 
simple and easily understood. The Committee is concerned that the advantages of 
European standards and the procedures for making 
them are insufficiently understood and appreciated by 
industry and consumers. 
The Committee would like to see active programmes 
of promotion by CEN/Cenelec at the European level 
and by the national standards bodies at Member State 
level to encourage industry to press for European stan­
dards as an integral part of their trading plans for 1993 
and beyond. 
The CEN/Cenelec members should encourage their 
constituents to establish the agenda and the timetable 
for European standardization, taking account of infor­
mation on national requirements, and to consider 
opportunities of influencing any projects undertaken by 
national initiative. 
The Committee urges the Commission to examine how 
this could be encouraged. 
3.1.6. The Committee regrets that no reference to 
European certification and testing appears in the report 
and notes that European standardization policy will be 
complemented by proposals for a Community frame­
work for certification and testing. It recognizes that 
these elements are essential for the mutual recognition 
of national standards and the acceptance of harmonized 
European standards. 
3.1.7. The Committee believes that the Research and 
Technological Development (R &: TD) resources of the 
Community should be deployed to accelerate necessary 
prenormative work requirements as a contribution to 
the Single Market in 1993 and beyond. 
3.1.8. The Committee urges the Commission in this 
initiative, as with standardization, to include EFTA in 
its considerations. 
3.1.9. The Committee believes that European stan­
dards institutions should not proliferate otherwise the 
task of coordination and collaboration with the Com­
mission and with the EFTA secretariat will become 
increasingly complex. It views the creation of a separate 
standards body for telecommunications [European 
Telecommunications Standards Institution (ETSI)] with 
some anxiety and supports the efforts of the Com­
mission to ensure that it can be coordinated with CEN 
and Cenelec. 
3.2. Organization of the information procedure 
3.2.1. Integrated standardization infor­
mation system 
CEN and Cenelec jointly provide within their Integrated 
Standardization Information System (ISIS): 
— information on the work programme of the 
national, European and international standards 
organization, recording the stages reached in the 
drafting of standards (INFOPRO), 
No C 298/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 11. 89 
— information on the relationship of published 
national standards to European and international 
standards; whether identical, equivalent or related 
(ICONE). 
The system covers the 18 European Community and 
EFTA countries and acts as a single point for collation 
and distribution for all the national information (the 
'CEN/Cenelec central unit'). 
3.2.2. INFOPRO 
For the purposes of Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 82/ 
189/EEC CEN and Cenelec set up a data base in 1985 
funded under contracts signed with the Commission 
and the EFTA secretariat. 
It was compiled from the complete work programme 
of the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission 
(IEC), the complete programmes of CEN and Cenelec 
and notifications received from the CEN and Cenelec 
members. 
These European national standards institutions (ISO 
members and the IEC national Committees) have to 
inform the central unit about any new subject added to 
the national standards programme (Article 2 of Direc­
tive 83/189/EEC) and about any draft standard 
(Article 4). All the other CEN/Cenelec members, the 
Commission and the secretariat of EFTA have to be 
informed at the same time. 
The Committee notes that the Commission has under­
taken legal action against a Member State for not 
communicating a draft national standard and hence for 
not having applied the provisions of the Directive. 
3.2.3. ICONE 
The Comparative Index of National Standards in Euro­
pe (ICONE) is managed by CEN under contracts with 
the Commission and EFTA as part of the Strategic 
Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer 
(SPRINT), programme set up in 1983. 
CEN and Cenelec members notify the central unit of 
the references of their published standards which are 
related to ISO, IEC, CEN or Cenelec standards. From 
the data base it is possible to find the reference of 
the national implementation of the international or 
European standard. 
ICONE was designed to help businesses and especially 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) to over­
come the obstacles posed by the existence of more than 
50 000 national standards documents of which more 
than 60% had hardly any European or international equivalent. In practice however it goes no further than 
identifying the relevant standards. The Committee finds 
no evidence of its usefulness outside the CEN/Cenelec 
membership. 
3.2.4. The efficiency of the procedure 
In 1986 the Commission initiated a survey on the 
efficiency of the procedure. It identified a need for 
improvements in the practical and technical implemen­
tation of the arrangements. Proposals to effect this were 
approved by the Commission in February 1987 and 
are summarised in paragraph 35 of the report. The 
Committee supports these proposals. 
The Committee notes from the point of view of market 
research for the promotion of a complete bibliographic 
data base for standardization in Europe, that a feasi­
bility study into the future of the INFOPRO and 
ICONE systems has been initiated. The report has not 
been published yet (July 1989). 
3.3. Use of the information 
3.3.1. The Committee notes the limited use made by 
CEN and Cenelec of the information available from 
the procedure for the programming of European stan­
dardization work, as summarised in paragraph 28 of 
the Commission's report. 
It recognizes that CEN and Cenelec programming 
activities represent the commitment of their members, 
the national standards institutions, to the progressive 
harmonization of standards at European level. 
3.3.2. The Committee notes that the funding avail­
able for the information procedure only enables the 
information to be collated centrally and disseminated 
nationally and that the CEN/Cenelec central unit is not 
intended to offer any evaluation. That would require a 
significant increase in financial resources both to 
employ the necessary experts, engineers, consultants, 
etc., and to provide for the translation of all relevant 
documents. 
The Committee would therefore question the idea of 
enabling the CEN/Cenelec central unit to make a more 
detailed analysis of the data and to strengthen the 
power of initiative, as expressed in paragraphs 41 and 
166 of the report. The Committee believes that the 
available data can usefully be analysed only at industry 
level, and that this should be an integral part of the 
greater involvement of industry (paragraph 3.1.5 
above). 
3.3.3. The Committee understands that in accord­
ance with the Community doctrine of mutual recog­
nition established in the Cassis de Dijon case and recon­
firmed by subsequent decisions of the European Court 
of Justice, different national standards can coexist as 
27. 11. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 298/23 
available criteria to be freely invoked voluntarily any­
where in Europe or indeed elsewhere. The standards 
reflect particular market preferences which may legit­
imately differ, but so long as the provisions of Article 
36 of the Treaty of Rome cannot be adduced by any 
authority, no barriers to trade need result. 
3.3.4. The Committee recognizes that so far much 
European harmonization activity has been generated 
by the EC legislative programme designed to replace 
regulations valid under Article 36 by common essential 
requirements established through Directives, to be 
reflected in appropriate standards. 
In cases where no regulatory trade barriers exist, how­
ever notifications made under Directive 83/189/EEC 
should not necessarily be expected to attract widespread 
interest. 
The Committee notes with concern that there has not 
yet been a significant reduction in national standards 
activity. It urges the Commission to sponsor concerted 
efforts to provide comprehensive and convenient infor­
mation at all levels, publicizing European standardiz­
ation in order to stimulate collective activity amongst 
all interested parties within the framework of CEN and 
Cenelec. 
3.4. Amendments to list I, Annex, Directive 83/189/ 
EEC 
The Committee notes that in Directive 88/182/EEC no 
amendments were made to list I in the Annex to Direc­
tive 83/189/EEC to include the national standards insti­
tutions of Spain and Portugal. 
It assumes that these will be included in the further 
amending Directive proposed and that at the same time 
the ETSI will be acknowledged. 
4. The information procedure for technical regulations 
4.1. The Directive requires the Commission to 
receive timely notification of technical regulations pro­
posed by Member States; to circulate them to other 
Member States; to respond to any comments received 
and where appropriate to initiate a standstill procedure. 
4.2. The Committee supports the conclusion of the 
Commission with regard to improvements in pro­
cedures set out in paragraph 168 of the report. It empha­
sizes in particular that transparency of information is 
desirable both to avoid accusations of 'fortress Europe' 
mentality by the Commission and to facilitate examin­
ation and timely response by Member States. The Committee believes that requirements for confiden­
tiality of notifications made under this Directive should 
accordingly be reviewed and wherever possible 
removed, except where they can be justified in the 
context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
(GATT) arrangements. 
The Committee considers that discussions on a system 
for the exchange of information on technical regu­
lations with EFTA countries should be pursued to a 
satisfactory conclusion. 
4.3. The Committee urges that Member States pub­
lish the information nationally in accessible form and 
specifically inform their standards institutions, indus­
try, worker and consumer organizations and other rel­
evant bodies. 
At European level, the Committee urges the Com­
mission to consider means of communicating the infor­
mation directly to those who may need it, in addition 
to publishing it in the Official Journal. 
4.4. The Committee asks the Commission to review 
its procedures for ensuring receipt of the information 
required from Member States. The Committee wel­
comes the use of third parties under contract to the 
Commission to monitor and report the issue of regu­
lations in each Member State. 
4.5. The Committee welcomes measures to facilitate 
the translation of the drafts into Member States' own 
languages as this is an essential condition for efficient 
examination of the texts. In particular the Commission 
should take steps to accelerate its translation procedures 
in order to reduce the average time of five weeks for 
receipt of translation by Member States. Failing this the 
time given to Member States to respond to notification 
(Article 9.1) should be increased equivalently. 
4.6. The Committee notes the view of the Com­
mission that technical regulations that have not been 
notified should be treated as unenforceable, as ex­
plained in paragraph 131 of the report, and the assertion 
in paragraph 80 that with regard to the option open to 
Member States to claim urgency as grounds for adopt­
ing regulations, it is up to the Commission and the 
Commission alone to assess whether such action is 
justified. The Committee observes that it is the role of 
the European Court of Justice to decide whether or 
not, in any circumstances, a claim that a Member State 
has infringed the Treaty should be upheld. 
The Committee feels that the publication of a communi­
cation adopted in 1986 putting such a view is a prece-
No C 298/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 11. 89 
dent which should not be repeated unless there is a 
sound legal presumption that it will be upheld in the 
Courts. 
4.7. The Committee observes that the original Direc­
tive 83/189/EEC unlike its extension to more specialized 
sectors, 88/182/EEC, does not expressly cover Process 
and Production Methods (PPM) which are obligations 
set by governments requiring a manufacturer to make 
or process a product in a certain way rather than testing 
it for safety or other requirements once it is made, 
irrespective of the process used. 
It notes that the report does not comment on PPM as 
a technical barrier to trade. Nevertheless it believes that 
attention should be given to PPM as a potential barrier 
to trade both within the European Community and 
under the GATT technical barriers to trade agreement 
when the Commission are proposing a revised Direc­
tive. 
5. The operation of the Standing Committee (Article 
5); overseeing the relationships between the Com­
mission, CEN and Cenelec 
5.1. The Committee has received no criticisms con­
cerning the way in which the Commission has operated 
the Standing Committee under Article 5 of 83/189/EEC. 
It supports its use as a pivot of the Directive both as a 
clearing house for Member State problems and as a 
pragmatic and flexible forum through which to pursue 
all aspects of European standardization policy (see 3.1) 
in collaboration with the bodies involved at national 
as well as European level. 
5.2. The Committee welcomes the recognition by 
the Commission of the importance of the Standing 
Committee in defining and vetting mandates for stan-
Done at Brussels, 27 September 1989. dardization given to European standards bodies and 
reiterates its earlier opinion that this function is criti­
cally important as a means of maintaining relations 
with the Committees set up under new approach Direc­
tives and as a means of ensuring a single channel of 
communication with the European standards bodies. 
5.3. The Committee looks forward to a communi­
cation from the Commission which will consider the 
progress of standardization in the Internal Market and 
the relationship between the Commission and the Euro­
pean standardization bodies. 
The Committee expects to be asked for an Opinion on 
this communication. 
6. Financial implications 
The Committee would like to see greater financial 
transparency in the area of Commission work on stan­
dards and regulations. 
In particular this should cover: 
— the funds available to promote European standard­
ization, 
— an analysis of payments under contract to various 
standards bodies and the procedures used by the 
Commission to forecast and monitor this expendi­
ture and to evaluate value for money, 
— the costs incurred in managing the operation of the 
Directive over the period of the report broken down 
to staff involved by categories and expenditure 
incurred under various headings activity. 
The Committee suggests that the Commission attach 
this information to their annual reports in the form of 
a financial fiche. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE