ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (80)30
Vol.1980/0014

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic desarchives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifié par lerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 desRates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(80)30final
Brussels,24January1980
REMOVAL OFTECHNICAL BARRIERS TOTRADE
(Communication totheEuropeanParliament)
«II
12
COM(80)30final

REMOVAL OFTECHNICAL BARRIERS TOTRADE
-GENERAL INTRODUCTION -
Thework described inthis document forms part ofthegeneral scheme on
which theCommission hasnowbeen engaged forseveral years with toa
view toensuring thefree movement ofgoods throughout theCommunity .
Theproblems inherent intheremoval oftechnical barriers totrade have
already been discussed many times atmeetings between theCommission and
Members oftheEuropean Parliament ,especially attherecent meetings ofthe
Committee forEconomic andMonetary Affairs .
There areseveral reasons why this text hasbeen prepared .
The first isconnected with the fact that the results ofthe Commission 's
work inthis field arepresented totheParliament atvarious stages inthe
form ofdirectives covering specific products .These texts arehighly
technical andsince they appear atintervals ,asaresult ofthenature
ofthework itself ,itissometimes difficult toseeexactly howthey
fit into thevarious policies which theCommission istrying topromote
(industrial policy ,policy oftheenvironment ,oftheprotection ofconsumers
andfortheeconomy ofenergy ).
Nowthat anewParliament isbeginning totackle these problems ,itwas
essential that theCommission should submit ageneral descriptive document
which would give theParliament anoverall view oftheCommission 's
aims inthis field ,thereasons fortheaction ithastaken ,the
priorities which itintends toadopt andtheinstruments which ithopes
touse .
Inaddition ,theCommission hasnowreached thestage where itmust
turn itsreflexion totheguidelines which ithasused until now andwhich were
almost exclusively ontheharmonization ofthelegal ,administrative or
regulatory provisions which create barriers .

-2-
Experience hasshown that there areother technical obstacles tothefree
movement ofgoods resulting largely from differences inthenon-
mandatory standards regularly adopted bythevarious standards bodies in
theCommunity .
TheCommission must ,therefore ,extend thescope ofitsactivity and at
thesame time ,inorder tomake thebest useofhuman andmaterial
resources ,select thepriorities foraction rather more carefully than
hasbeen thecase inthepast .TheCommission would like topresent to
theEuropean Parliament themajor options which result from this andto
discuss them onthe basis ofthe attached text .
From this study ,clear policy guidelines should emerge which will give
theCommunity greater assurance and authority inthedifficult task
which ithas toaccomplish .
Finally ,atatime when acode ontechnical barriers totrade has just
been signed andtransposed into Community legislation aspart ofthemulti­
lateral trade negotiations ,itwasright that the -Commission should outline
toParliament theresults ofitsnegotiations inthis field ,since these
represent theexternal aspect ofitspolicy fortheremoval oftechnical
barriers totrade andcomplement theefforts undertaken within the
Community .
Itisclear from theattached document ,that these twoactions contribute in
facilitating thecircj.' . ofgoods within theCommunity ,totheestablishment
ofanindustrial policy aswell astherealization ofother objectives such as
theamelioration oftheenvironment ,theprotection ofconsumers ,safety at
work ,energy savings etc...They encourage abetter industrial basis inthe
Community bycreating aunified market and ,inthis waylead tothepreferential
access totheCommunity market forCommunity products .
However ,theCommission hasnot adopted such arigid attitude towards
theobstacles created bytechnical barriers that itwould seek toensure
Community harmonization atanyprice .

-3-
Onthecontrary ,initsCommunication onthesafeguarding offreedom of
trade within theCommunity addressed tothenine Member States on
6November 1978 andtransmitted totheEuropean Parliament and tothe
Council ofMinisters on10 .November 1978 ,theCommission stated that ,
inaccordance with thenewguidelines laid down bytherecent Court of
Justice ruling ,itintended toexplore ,alltheways inwhich itcould
ensure stricter application oftherules oftheEECTreaty onfree movement
ofgoods ,and inparticular Articles 30to36inorder toachieve a
broader andmore effective liberalization ofintracommunity trade .
TheCommission restated itsproposals during theEuropean Parliament 's
debate of22October 1979 onthe Communication referred toabove and
totheproblems raised thesein .
Themain principle identified bytheCourt ,particularly initsrecent
judgement of20February 1979 inCase N°120/78*asregards theinter­
pretation ofEECrules onfreedom oftrade canbesummarized asfollows :
1."Anyrules liable tohinder directly ,orindirectly ,immediately
orinthefuture ,intracommunity trade constitute aviolation ofthe ■
rules ofArticles 30etseq .oftheEECTreaty ."
2.Asregards commercial andtechnical regulations more particularly ,
theCourt stipulated that anyproduct legally manufactured andsold
inaMember State must inprinciple oeadmitted tothemarket ofany
other Member State .
3.Even ifsuch rules apply indiscriminately tohome-produced and
imported products ,they canonly create barriers ifthese arenecessary
inorder tosatisfy mandatory requirements ,are inthegeneral interest ,
arethemain guarantee ofthat general interest andifthat general
good ismore important than therequirement offree movement ofgoods
which isoneofthebasic rules oftheCommunity .
*Court reports ,REC/1979 ,p649

-4-
Thedefinition ofobstacles tofreedom oftrade prohibited byArticle 30
etseqoftheEECTreaty asgiven bytheCourt isvery Droad .Itcanbe
used toseek out and toproceed more efficiently again rtnewnon-tariff
barriers which hinder free trade within theCommunity <:ften hidden inor
disguised asavariety ofrules andregulations .
Asaresult ofthecourt 'sdecisions ,andthe judgement :referred toabove
inparticular .Member States maycontrol marketing conditions asregards
their ownproducts while thesame isnotthecase forproducts imported
from other Member States .
Anapproach based ontheguidelines described would make itpossible
henceforth toput astop totheapplication ofalarge number ofnational
regulations insofar asthese hinder trade between theMember States .
Such anapproach would ,atthesame time ,make itpossible tosafeguard
thespecial problems ofeach Member State and toensure that these are
known toandunderstood byCommunity consumers while still ensuring that
thelatter have achoice ofavery wide range ofproducts .
TheCommission hopes that itwill bepossible forfruitful discussions
onthis particular point andonthedocument asawhole totake place
with theEuropean Parliament .

REMOVAL OrTECHNICAL BARRIERS TOTRADE
-Communication totheEuropean Parliament -
I. Theremoval oftechnical barriers totrade isoneoftherequire­
ments fortheestablishment oftheCommunity 'sinternal market .Goods must
beable tomove freely sothat theconsumer canreap thebenefits of
competition between manufacturers andofawider choice ofproducts ,andin
order that themanufacturers inturn cantake advantage oftheeconomies of
scale offered byamarket of260million inhabitants (soon torise toover
300million )andfind intheinternal market adequate scope forthedevelop­
ment ofnewproducts before setting out topenetrate markets outside the
Community .
This iswhy theCommission has always laboured tobreak down these insidious
non-tariff barriers toCommunity traie ,especially those ofatechnical nature .
II. Uptonow ,practically all itsefforts inthis field have been
directed totheremoval ofbarriers resulting from differences between the
provisions oflaw ,regulation oradministrative action .
Itshould benoted that technical barriers aregenerally taken tomean
barriers justified byreasons ofhealth ,safety ,etc .,andthat asaresult
their elimination canonly beeffected byharmonizing directives based on
Article 100ofthe EECTreaty .
Unjustified barriers ,ontheother hand ,corae -under theban inArticle 30and
theprocedure inArticle 169 .
These also involve thetechnical sector ,ofcourse ,but ,astheCourt of
Justice recognized incase 120/78,thebaninArticle 30isapplicable toany
national legislation ,even that inafield which islikely tobeharmonized .
With regard totheimplementation ofArticle 30,theCommission explained in
itsletter ontheprotection offree trade within theCommunity ,which was
addressed tothe Member States on6November 1978 andforwarded totheEuropean
Parliament on10November 1978 ,theaction itwastaking ,andwould continue
totake ,inthefulfilment ofitsduties asguardian oftheTreaty .

-2-
Theother facet ofCon-.rnuru.ty c-;tion inthis field ,i .theadoption of
directives pursuant toArticle I0r),has yielded quite substantial results .
Inthesector ofindustrial proiucts ,over 120directives have been adopted
bytheCouncil acting onprop :*olsfrom theOmidssion :they relate mainly
tomotor vehicles (owing totheimportance ofthat branch ofindustry )and
metrology (because ofthemany disputes arising outofmisunderstanding ofthe
measurement methods used ),but they also extend toother sectors such as
tractors ,chemistry (inparticular cosmetics ,pharmaceuticals andtoxic
substances )and textiles .
About fifty proposals arenowbefore theCouncil ,
HieCommission hasalso used thepowers delegated toitbytheCouncil and
implemented theprocedure laid down forthe adaptation ofcertain directives
totechnical progress ,andinthis context hasalready adopted more than
twenty directives atanincreasing tempo .
Inthefoodstuffs sector ,progress hasbeen less spectacular ,largely because
ofthestructure ofthefood industry :theCommission 'stask hasbeen greatly
complicated bythenumber ofcompanies concerned ,thedifferences intheir size ,
andthecomplexities ofcompetition between firms manufacturing the same
product orproducts which -theconsumer regards asequivalent .Nevertheless ,
trieCouncil ,hasadopted fifteen main directives and thirty-five amending
directives .
Though this record .• theprocedures envisaged inthe "General
Programme for theremoval oftechnical barriers totrade ",which was adopted
in1969 andrevised in1973 ,have been putinto effect bytheCommission with
thenecessary energy anddrive ,itdoes •notmean that thesituation is
satisfactory .
III . Theaim isnot toaccumulate directives ,but tore:ro hindrances
totrade .This isanobjective that isstill along way from rea 1 ,acion and
will notbeachieved bymerely following upthework already under -vsy ,forthe
barriers that canbedealt with bydirectives issued inaccordance vvith
Article 100oftheEECTreaty areonlv apart oftheactual barriers .

Allthenationalstandardsbeingdrawnupbythenationalstandardization
authoritiesattherateofdozenseveryweekarenotinfactprovisionsoflaw,
regulationoradministrative action.Thesenationalstandardsarenotdesigned
deliberatelyinordertocreateobstaclesbutaregenerallymeanttoserveworthy
aims:rationalization ofproduction ,improvementofproductquality,protection
ofworkers,users,consumersortheenvironment ,moreeconomicuseofenergy
andthelike.
Bethatasitmay,thewaytheyaredrawnupandthefactthatonlythenational
industryisactivelyinvolvedintheirpreparationgivesthenationalmanu­
facturersatwofoldadvantageovertheircompetitors :
-theycanbesurethatinthepreparationofthesestandardsdueconsideration
willhavebeengiventotheirviewsandtheirmanufacturing processes ;
-theyareawareoftheintendedpatternofdevelopment andmodification in
advanceoftheircompetitors ,andthereforehavetimetoprepareforit.
Theeffectofthesenationalstandardsinsomeofthemembercountriesis
enhancedbytheimportanceattachedtothembytheinspectionauthorities and
bythepublicitygiventocertificates ofconformitywiththenationalstandards .
Ifwerememberthatinsomeofthenationalmarketscertainmarksandcertificates
ofconformityhaveachievedarespectability thatsimplifiestheprocedures and
reducescostsintheformalitiesrequiredforthe-useoftheproductsconcerned
(e.g.insurancecontracts),itwillbeclearthatthenationalmanufacturers ,
betterabletofindtheirwayaroundinthebureaucratic mazeoftheirown
country,haveaheadstartintheirnationalmarket.Theiradvantagemaybesuch
astodiscouragemanufacturers fromothermembercountries ,andtendtowalloff
theinternalmarketintoaseriesofnationalmarkets,contrarytothespirit
oftheTreatyofRome.
Wishingtoslowdownandcoordinatetheflowofdivergentnationalstandards ,
theCommissiongavesupporttothefoundation anddevelopment oftheEuropean
CommitteeforStandardization (CEN)andtheEuropeanCommissionforElectro­
technicalStandardization (CENELEC).Afterfifteenyearsinexistence ,however,
neithertheCENnorCENELEChavealtogetherliveduptothehopesthatwere
placedinthem:thenumberofEuropeanstandardsproducedeachyearfallswell
shortofrequirements ,andtheysometimesincorporate "nationaldeviations "that
greatlylessentheirimpact.
ThislackofefficiencyinEuropeanstandardization isabittersetback,for
experiencehas'shownthattheworkdonebytheinternational organizations
(theInternational Organization forStandardization ,theInternational

Electrotechnical Commission ,theIni;mationalOrganization forLegalMetrology,
theCodexAlirneritarius Commissionar:theFAO)andbysevei.ilbodiesatEuropean
level(theCouncilofEuropeandtheJNOEconomicGommissio:;forEurope)cannot
entirelysatisfyCommunityrequiremei 'salthoughtheCommissioncollaborates
anddoesitsutmosttodrawinspirat .>nfromtheirwork.Th:.)resultsthey
producearebindingneitherontheG:/ernraentsnoronthestandardization bodies
whotakepartinthepreparatory wor<,andalltooofteninternational standards
forproductsaremerelyarepositoryforthevariousspecifications found
throughouttheworld.
Communityactiontoharmonizenation;*!standardshasthereforebeenlessthan
adequate.
IV.Turningtothebarriersresultingfromprovisionsoflaw,
regulationoradministrative action,hereagaintheapproachhithertoadopted
bytheCommissionneedstobeseriouslyreconsidered .
1.OnanumberofoccasionstheEuropeanParliamenthasopenlycomplainedat
havingtoexamineverytechnicalproposalswithoutunderstanding theplace
theyoccupywithintheprogrammeasawhole.TneCommission ,ofcourse,
transmitsitsproposalsasandwhentheyaredrawnupinordernottodelay
theworkoftheCouncil,andthismethodresultsinafragmentarypresentation
whichmakesitstillmoredifficulttounderstandverycomplexandspecialized
documents .
TheCommissionhastoabidebyCommunitydecisions ,andwhenaframework
directiveadopted ,bytheCouncilstipulatesthatthespecialdirectives
relatingtoagivensectoraretobeadoptedinaccordancewiththeprocedure
laiddowninArticle .100oftheEECTreaty,itmustcomply.Ithasneverthe­
lesstriedtomeetthewishesexpressed ,bytheEuropeanParliamentand,to
beginwith,hasrequestedwiderpowersintheconstruction materialssector.
Itwillfollowupitseffortsinthisdirection.
2.Butthemethodadoptedhithertofortheremovaloftechnicalbarriersto
tradeposesyetanotherfundamental problem:itresultsmagrowingburden
ofresponsibility fortheCommissionandaconstantlyincreasingworkload

-5-
foritsstaff .Whereas afewyears agothetask ofCommission officials in
this field Wcis todraw upnewproposals andjustify them totheother
Community institutions ,today much oftheir work istaken upwith the
management ofdirectives already adopted ,i.e. controllong their implementation
intheMember States (nearly 250actions forinfringement arepending )and
adapting them totechnical progress .
These last-mentioned tasks arebound togrow with theCommunity patrimony ,
i.e. with thenumber ofdirectives adopted bytheCouncil ,andwill entail
asteady expansion c.ItheCommission 'sstaff .Even ifthis increase ofwork
atCommunity level andthewider responsibilities undertaken bytheCommission
brought about acorresponding reduction intheworkload andresponsibilities
ofthenational administrations ,anindefinite reinforcement oftheCommission
staff dealing with these matters would beunacceptable .
Moreover ,ifall thetechnical barriers resulting from provisions oflaw ,
regulation oradministrative action were tobeabolished bythis method ,
several thousand directives would berequired rather than just twohundred .
TheCommission istherefore conscious oftheneed todiversify itsactivities
inthis field ,especially astheroad ahead isalong andarduous one .Even
iftheCommission were delegated further powers bytheCouncil pursuant to
Article 155 ,asrecommended intheproposal onconstruction materials (see
point VII),itwould still benecessary -for aslong asreference toCEN
orCENELEC standards isasdifficult asitisnow -for the Commission 'sstaff
tohold consultations with the interested circles -Governments ,producers
andconsumers -before preparing thedrafts .Such consultations ,however ,
aretedious ,andthe legal texts that have tobeprepared -relating ,as
they do,totechnical matters andentailing major economic consequences -
arenot easy todraft .
Bearing inmind that under Article 100oftheTreaty ,abinding provision must
generally already exist inoneMember State atleast ,itisnothard tosee
howcumbersome isaprocedure that requires Community consensus tosolve
aproblem that could becreated byonenational civil servant working with
two orthree experts .

V. The Commission muii-e therefore rev .>wthe whol® ofitas activities in
connection with therenioval ofbarrier -totrade inthelight ofthepolicies
itintends topursue .
From thepoint ofview ofthe industrial policy ,itwould beamistake tothink
that theremoval ofbarriers isanop;iation without effect ontheevolution
ofindustrial structures .The establishment ofasingle internal market will
primarily benefit those industries -whether oftheCommunity oroutside -
that are able totake advantage ofthteconomies ofscale that canbe
expected toensue from thedevelopment .ofthis internal market .Those economies
canbeachieved only bystepping upseries production ,and ,since thedevelopment
ofthemarket isgenerally notlikely ;oenable every company tomultiply its
production ,keener competition will br:.ng about changes ofstructure either inthe
form ofmergers or,forinstance ,bymore .intensive specialization onthepart
oftheundertakings concerned .
TheCommission hasnever attempted tostand inthewayofanatural process which
istheoutcome offree competition between theCommunity companies andwill enable
them toface their non-Community competitors onthemost favourable terras .
Asthe internal market develops ,therefore ,theCommission must carefully continue
toexamine itspriorities and the time limits within which itwishes tobring
about theunity ofthat market in'given sectors .The time limits must becom­
patible with those within which industry can adapt itself tothesituation thus
created .
Inaddition ,theCommission isobliged toconduct apolicy aimed atprotecting
theinterests oftheconsumer asLaid dev-n inthepreliminary programme ofthe
Community (O.J. 25April 1975 -C92/1).This programme recognizes that the
consumer hascertain bas ;.irights andinparticular theright totheprotection
ofhishealth andsafety ,totheprotection ofhiseconomic interests ,to
information anc' .'representation .Therecognition ofthese rights imposes two
distinct butconnected aims ontheCommunity ,namely theelimination oftechnical
barriers andtheprotection oftheconsumer .
Inthis respect itshould benoted that whilst representing aspecific objective ,
theprotection oftheconsumer canbeanimportant factor forbetter co^oetitivity
between firms ,especially through itsaction onprices andonthequality of
products andtherefore lead togreater competitivity with respect tocompetition
from industries inthird countries ,towhich allusion wasmade before .
Itshould also benoted that inthe fields oftheenvironment andofenergy economy
improvement --:,intechnique andproducts arealso being achieved bymeans of
harmonization atCommunity level sothat Member States donotintroduce new
barriers through theimplementation ofpolicies conducted inthese fields ,

Here ,too ,theCommission will mak& ev&ry effort possible .
VI. TheCommission will have totackle theproblem from several angles
itshould seek notonly toremove thebarriers ,asithasdone hitherto
(bydirectives based onArticle 100 )but also trytoprevent such barriers from
arising .Whether theobstacles arecreated byprovisions oflaw ,regulation or
administrative action orinsome "other way ,this twofold approach must besuch
that notime islost inidentifying problems ,notmerely from thelegal
standpoint but according totheir economic importance andthetime limits
within which they have toberesolved .
VII . TheCommission will also continue itswork inimplementation of
Article 100 ,though itwill concentrate more ofits attention onthose areas
inwhich itismost anxious tosucceed inorder toavoid dissipation ofeffort .
Ithasnever been theCommission 'spolicy toharmonize forthesake ,of
harmonizing ,anduptonow ithasnot only kept within thebounds ofthe
programmes approved bytheCouncil ,but ithasalways tackled new areas "inclose
consultation with theparties concerned ,namely those most affected bythe
walling offofthemarket andmost consciuous oftheneed todoaway with
national barriers .
Since ,however ,thenumber ofofficials whocanbeassigned toatask ofthis
kind islimited ,itwill become more andmore necessary tomake astrict
selection from among therequests received from industry inorder togive
maximum efficiency totheCommission 'sactivities .
Among thesectors that require special surveillance isthat ofmotor vehicles ,
forwhich itistoberegretted that theCouncil hasnotyetadopted thelast
three proposals presented bytheCommission ,one in1972 andtheother two
in1976 .Mention should also bemade ofagricultural tractors -asector in
which theindustry isendeavouring toorganize itself -andinamore general
wayofthemechanical andelectrical engineering industries .Inthese sectors
theCommission will trytocarry through aselective butconsistent policy ,
drafting itsproposals with aview toachieving aconcrete approach tothe
problems within theframework already laid down intheframework directives
adopted bytheCouncil .
TheCommission will also seek toobtain aCouncil decision ontheproposal for
adirective onconstruction materials andontheprocedure itwishes toput
into effect .

-8-
Inthis proposal the Gorrrcu.-ssion hassuggested that theG:ancil delegates wide
powers toit:basing itsei ;onadetailec .progranBtte itw.ll beable ,under
certain conditions ,toadopt theindividi tldirectives relating tovarious types
ofmaterial following extensive consul .tat :ons ,inparticular with theEconomic
arid Social Committee .
TheCommission wishes tothank theEurope ;inParliament forsupporting its
initiative .
Should that procedure beapproved bytheCouncil ,theCommission would ,of
course ,propose that itbeused forother sectors still outstanding inorder to
simplify thepreparation ofspecial directives .Inthematter ofspecial
directives ,itwill continue togive very careful consideration totheopinion
oftheEconomic ana Social Committee ,which hasalways followed itswork with
close attention and towhich theCommission isindebted for thesupport ithas
consistently received .
Now that anumber ofdirectives have been adopted inthe field ofchemical
produces ,efforts will bedirected chiefly totheir regular adaptation to
technical progress and totheimplementation ofthedecisions they involve .
Inthis connection ,special mention should bemade ofthesixth amendment to
theDirective ondangerous substances adopted bytheCouncil on18.09.1979 (*)
this alone sets anextremely ambitious programme fortheCommission ,which
will have tofellow upandcontrol allnewchemical products within thecontext
ofthis Directive whi :'iarenotified ashaving been placed onthemarket .
Asregards cosmetics ,anamendment tothebasic directive iscurrently before
theCouncil ......-• •"•-••jthens consumer protection inthis area andmust ,
therefore ,beconsidered asapriority matter .Thesame goes fortheproposal
toamend thedirective onthe "labelling oftextiles "andthat ontoys ,both
ofwhich will betransmitted shortly totheCouncil .
Inthefoodstuffs sector ,theCommission will notonly have topress forthe
adoption oftheproposals already presented ,which theCouncil hasbeen
discussing foryears (tenyears inthecase oftheproposal onnineiial waters !)
but itwill also have tomeet the commitments ithas entered into with the
Council with regard totheconditions ofuseofadditives andaromatics .
(*)OJL259of15.10,1979

-9-
VUI . The activities described inthelast section aremerely a
continuation ofthose already inprogress andwnich there asnoquestion if
abandoning ,but inparallel theCommission
proposes tohold meetings -asoften asneeded ,andnotless than twice ayear -
ofthenational officials responsible forstandardization policy inorder to
coordinate their activities .Atthese meetings ,thedelegation from each Member
State will give adetailed account ofitscurrent programmes anditsintentions
with respect totechnical specifications that itintends tomake mandatory ;it
will also indicate anydifficulties that might bearising initsexports to
other Member States asaresult ofthis type ofbarrier .
Itwill beessential tofind joint solutions tothese difficulties ,which may
bedueeither tothespecifications themselves ortotheinspection formalities .
Inthefirst case ,Community harmonization maybecalled for ,either bymeans of
aCouncil directive orsimply through harmonization ofnational standards ,for
theMember States often use themethod ofreference tothestandards drawn up
bytheir ownstandardization bodies .Inthesecond case ,asolution might be
found inreciprocal recognition ofthe inspections carried out inother member
countries .TheCommission feels sure that many oftheproblems canbesolved ,
atanyrate inpart ,byprocedures less formal ,andthus more flexible ,than the
issue ofdirectives .Inwhat follows itwill beshown how itintends toidentify
those difficulties :thegeneral idea is,however ,-that periodic contacts and
frank discussions between theresponsible officials would make itpossible to
clear upmisunderstandings andtosetnewguidelines with aview topreventing
theproliferation ofbarriers resulting from unilateral national decisions .
Atthese meetings ,theCommission will have theopportunity toexplain the
measures itproposes totake ,andtoenhance their chances ofsuccess bymaking
the reasons for them better understood .
IX. Iftheprinciples outlined above are tobeput into effect ,
coordination between thenational standardization bodies ,which theCommission
hasalways encouraged ,must bedeveloped andstrengthened .Amajor factor in
that coordination will bethe trans formationof the CEN and CENELEC into
effective organizations .Forthat purpose ,there must first beafirm
commitment tothese bodies onthepart oftheGovernments oftheMember States
and the Commission .

-10-
Atthepolitical andtechnical level ,this must take thefont ofmor<3 active
participation intheir work (notably with '.egard totheir organization and
control )andinthedecisions taken .Themetings oftheCENand i-ENELEC
should cease tobeaconfrontation ofnational interests ,andbee :mea
forum forthepooling ofinformation bythonational experts .
\
\
Where theproblems encountered areoutside :hesole competence ofthe
standardization experts ,theCommission ,ir .association with national
officials ,will study thevarious options ,point outthemain guidelines ,
anddefine priorities .
IfEuropean standardization istofulfil anyuseful purpose ,European
standaixSs will have tobeprepared ,without "deviations ",attherate
ofseveral hundred ayear .This will notexcessively complicate thework
ofthestandardization institutes intheMember States ,since theEuropean
standards will have tobeincluded inthenational standardization systems
andthework done atEuropean level will notneed toberepeated nationally .
Oneneed only think ofthework b$ing done over andover again bytheeight
standardization authorities intheMember States -each jealous ofits
prerogatives andindependently drawing upitsownnational standards -to
realize theabsurdity ofthesituation andtheamount ofwork andmoney
that could besaved byEuropean organizations with asuitable mode of
operation .
Inrecent months ,theCommission hasbeen intouch with themanagement of
theCENandCENELEC .Ithasstated itsrequirements andinquired what
adjustments they intend tomake totheir organization andworking methods
inorder tomeet thedemand .Provided they show genuine willingness toinprove ,
theCommission might wish tostrengthen the "gentlemen 'sagreement "
concluded between itsowndepartments andtheCEN .andexamine theconditions
inwhich financial support tothose bodies might begranted .The amount and
form ofthis support would have tobediscussed with therepresentatives of
theMember States inthecontext ofanoverall policy .
TheCommission also intends topromote therepresentation ofconsumers on
standardization bodies asitannounced initssecond programme forapolicy
forconsumer protection andinformation .

-11-
X. Inthisfield,too,however,theworksofaraccomplished which
hasprincipally donenomorethanreparetheharmdonebyaglutofspecifications
laiddownatnationallevel,shouldbecompleted.
TheCommissionintendstosetasidesomeofthemeetingsreferredtoin
sectionVIIIfordiscussionsatwhichtheofficialsresponsible fornational
standardization willbeaccompanied bythedirectorsofthestandardization
bodiesintheMemberStates.Thelatterwilldeliverareportontheirprogramme
ofwork,anditishopedthatthiswillhelptopreventwhathappensalltoo
oftenatpresent,namelythatmanufacturers inonemembercountryaretaken
unawaresbystandardsissuedinanother,andcompelledineffecttomake
radicalmodifications totheirproductionatshortnotice.
Afterreportingonthevariousprogrammes ,theworkingpartywillgoonto
considerhowtheycanbecoordmatedtoavoidduplication ofwork.
Moreover,thedraftnationalstandardswillbecommunicated tothe
standardization bodiesinotherMemberStatesearlyenoughtoenablethemto
makeobservations thatcanbeeffectively takenintoconsideration .Lastly,
observersappointedbythestandardization institutesofotherMemberStates ..
willbeable,uponrequest,tobepresentatthestandardization workcarried
outbyanationalinstituteonagivensubject.Thesedecisions ,whichhave
beentakeninthelastfewmonthsbytheresponsibleofficialsoftheMember
StatesactingonaproposalfromtheCommissionshouldquicklyproduce
positiveresults.TheCommissionwillfollowtheirimplementaton closely.
XI.TheCommission'sworkwouldbeincompleteifitdidnotalso
endeavourtoremovebarriersengenderedbythenationalrequirements with
respecttocertification andinspection .Inthisfieldthereisawide
varietyofprocedures ,whichareeitherlaiddownbyprovisionsoflawor
regulationorwhich,althoughnotlegallybinding,doinfactofferreal
advantagestothoseforwhomtheyaremosteasilyaccessible(afewexamples
aregiveninsectionIIofthisdocument ).Theseproblemsaredifficult
topindown.

-12-
Many ofthem canberesolved byharmonization ofthenational steidards and
thecreation of ,anadequate boc •'ofEuropean standards .Pending vheoutcome
ofthis laborious work ,howevei theCommission hasundertaken ,:.nagreement
with theofficials responsible ;'orstandardization inthevarious Member States ,
todraw upaninventory of'nati:aal certification procedures andtheobstacles
totrade they entail . .
Incooperation with theMember states ,itwill examine andimplement any
solutions that might help tolover thebarriers ,e.g. theharmonization of
existing certification procedures or -thedevelopment ofCommunity certification
onlines that would permit' reciprocal recognition oftheinspections carried
outintheMember States andofthe certificates they require ,inthis connection ,
itwill nodoubt benecessary towork outaEuropean approach tothequestion
ofqualification criteria forthecertification authorities andtest laboratories
Thework istobe'continued over thenext fewmonths ,andtheCommission is
very anxious that itshould proceed with alacrity .
XII . TheCommission 'sintention ,then ,istofollow upandintensify
itsefforts toensure that free trade within the -Community isimplemented in
full .Agood deal ofwork hasalready been done ,andthetask ofthefuture
isnotmerely to ^safeguard theCommunity patrimony andcontinue thecurrent
activities onthesame lines asinthepast ,butalso andabove allto
supplement them bytaking account ofother aspects that uptonowhave not
been given thesame priority .Clearly ,theaimtobeachieved istoestablish an
internal market andtoenable theconsumer andtheenterprises totake
advantage ofit.Aswehave said earlier ,theremoval ofbarriers cannot be
regarded asaseparate issue from thevarious policies that theCommission
must follow -itisobvious that that policy isacrucial factor ,anditmust
therefore beeffective andrealistic .Thechoice ofpriorities will beguided
bythose areas ofindustry inwhich action ismore necessary than elsewhere ,
andthemeans must beselected according totheir effectiveness .Forthe
Commission tosponsor aflood ofdirectives that itwould have theutmost
difficulty inmanaging would bepointless :theaimisthefree movement of
goods within theCommunity ,andinorder toachieve that' aimtheCommission
intends tobroaden itspresent activities byplacing asmuch emphasis onthe
prevention ofbarriers asontheremoval ofthose already created .

-13-
Lastly ,theCommission will keep theEuropean Parliament informed of
theprogress ofthework inanoral report .Anysuggestions putfor­
ward .byMembers oftheParliament during thediscussion would be
given very careful attention bytheCommission ,andwould betaken
into account wherever possible inits subsequent activities .
XIII .The Commission 'swork onthe removal oftechnical barriers totrade
within theCommunity isinseparably bound upwith the efforts that
have been made internationally .Inthis connection mention might be
made ofthe contacts that are steadily maintained with theInterna - .
tional Organization forStandardization (ISO),theInternational
Electrotechnical Commission (lEC),theInternational Organization for
Legal Metrology (lOLM ),ortheCodex Alimentarius .Butaplace of
honour must beaccorded tothe work that has borne fruit inthe
GATT "Standards Code ",anintegral part oftheagreements winding up
this year 'smultilateral trade negotiations .The correct name ofthis
Code isinfact the "agreement ontechnical barriers totrade ";itis
theoutcome of -tenyears ofwork ,since itwasin1969 that theGATT
Committee onTrade inIndustrial Products setupaworking party to
examine :
"disparities inexisting orfuture legislation orregulations ,
lack ofmutual recognition oftesting ,andunreasonable application
ofstandards ,packaging ,labelling andmarking regulations ".
After tenyears ofthought and effort ,the "Standards Code "isnow
thefirst internationally agreed text designed tocheck theprolifera­
tion ofdivergent technical standards andregulations issued atnational
level bythevarious contracting parties .Itisthus anattempt to
restrict the scope ofGovernments tosetupbarriers totrade inthe
form ofregulations and standards .
What are itsmain objectives andprovisions ?
TheCode clearly lays down that technical regulations andstandards
must beneither drawn upnor applied with aview tocreating barriers
tointernational trade .

-14
Anysuch regulations and .standards drawn upatnational level must be
"based onthe relevant international standards wherever such standards
exist ,andinany case they must "bewidely circulated atthetime of
preparation toenable ,the other contracting parties tosubmit comments
orobservations .For this purpose ,thecontracting parties undertake
tosetupaninformation point toanswer anyrequests forinformation
inthis connection .Heedless tosay ,theconditions to/becomplied
with inthe case ofimported produots must "benot less favourable
than those applicable tooriginating products ,and itiseven re­
quested that ,wherever possible ^each contracting party should accept
theresults oftests performed inthecountry ofmanufacture andany
certificates awarded bythat country .Itisacknowledged ,however ,
that this point raises awkward questions ofresponsibility andreci­
procity ani ,ifneed be,itcanbethemade thesubject ofprior
negotiation .
Atallevents ,thesystems ofcertification inforce aretobe
communicated totheoth^r contracting parties . ;
Moreover ,provision ismade fortechnical assistance inthis
connection ,especially forthebenefit ofthedeveloping countries ,
and itisstipulated that ,asfaraspossible ,thespecial situation
ofthose countries shall betaken into consideration .
Allthese provisions make forgreater transparency ,wider under­
standing andbetter rationalization oftherules applied bythe
various countries .Inadopting this code ,theCommunity made a
declaration tothe effect that "this code hasbeen designed to
afford mutual andreciprocal advantages toitssignatories and is
expected tobring about aproper balance oftheir rights andobli- ■
gations ".Themeasures taken fortheembodiment oftheagreement in
Community lawreflect that purpose :itisessential that itsappli­
cation bythevarious parties should result ingenuine reciprocity
totheir mutual advantage . ^
f ••/••

-15-
Ifcorrectly applied "bytheprincipal trading partners ,theStandards
Code ought indeed tooffer substantial advantages .Prom thepoint of
view ofinformation alone ,itgives worldwide application tothe
provisions already laid down fortheCommunity intheagreements ^,
signed between theMember States inMay19^9 *;"butwhereas thelatter
related only totechnical regulations with legal authenticity ,the
Code extends toall national standards .
TheStandards Code is,of .course ,first andforemost acode ofconduct ,
anditinnowayprevents theCommunity from going still further in
relations between theMember States .Onthecontrary ,anyharmoni­
zation atCommunity level isbound tosimplify world trade byhelping
tounify themarket with respect tothespecifications with which
produots have tocomply .Furthermore ,theleading role played bythe
standardization authorities ofthe Member States inthe international
standardization bodies (most oftheir technical committer arechaired
byMember State nationals )ensures that technical regulations and
standards harmonized atCommunity level take full account oftherules
andrecommendations adopted internationally ,sometimes being directly
inspired bythem .Hence anyapproximation oftechnical regulations
orstandards between theMember States isentirely inacoord with the
letter and spirit ofthe commitments entered into within theGATT
framework . , I
*OJC76of17.06.1969