WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Timber industry trade obstacles to supplying the Netherlands

A KOMO certificate is required for the export of finger-joint wooden window sills to the Netherlands. The provisions of the certificate depart to some extent from the Austrian, German and Swiss provisions.

Verification of these provisions for KOMO certification in particular involves considerable financial outlay. Four inspections a year are mandatory in the Netherlands, whereas all other European countries require no more than two inspections in respect of quality provisions.

Although the Holzforschung Austria 3 facility has been able to carry out this verification for some time, the main inspection is still carried out by an institute in the Netherlands in an extremely bureaucratic fashion.

In this instance, it is the detailed aspects which are most problematic.

There are European standards for the classification and testing of adhesives; those standards are also applied by the Netherlands. Testing and certification of an adhesive or similar product by a renowned European research institute is not recognised for KOMO certification purposes, however. The same test must be repeated by an institute in the Netherlands.

To resolve these problems, an attempt is being made in cooperation with the research and inspection institutes in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Austria to standardise the existing provisions for window sills and bring them into line with European standards, but the Netherlands withdrew after the initial discussions and are no longer collaborating.

Certification of timber products constitutes a further problem. Only in the Netherlands is certification required, for a host of public works projects, that the timber used comes from sustainably managed forests. In Austria, too, the Forests Act stipulates ongoing verification of sustainable forest management.

A European certification system, PEFC, involving all European states apart from the Netherlands, is currently being developed.

The question is, then, whether such bureaucratic measures are erecting obstacles to trade which actually ought not to exist in the EU.

The fact is that, in all essential respects, the requirements to be met in the Netherlands by a technical product must be the same as in Central Europe.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Provided that the Dutch requirements relating to the testing of adhesives for finger-joint wooden window sills, as described by the Honourable Member, are State measures pursuant to Articles 28 to 30 (ex Articles 30 to 36) of the EC Treaty, the Commission considers that the principle of mutual recognition should apply to such measures.

This general principle of mutual recognition means that the authorities in the Member State of destination must take note of inspections, analyses and tests carried out in the Member State of origin, in so far as the results of these are made available and show that the product satisfactorily and suitably fulfils the objective of the regulations in the Member State of origin(1).

In accordance with established case-law of the Court of Justice, and without infringing Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty, it follows therefore that the Member States should not require economic operators to submit products or their manufacturing systems for tests and analyses already carried out in the Member State of origin, when the results of these tests are available to the authorities of the Member State of destination(2).

As regards the Dutch requirement that the timber used should be certified as coming from sustainably managed forests, it should be noted that the Commission was against a generalised system of compulsory certification notified by the Dutch authorities under notification 98/319/NL, under the terms of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(3).

As regards the awarding of contracts for public works, supplies and services, the Commission has stated in its Green Paper, Public Procurement in the European Union Exploring the Way Forward(4), that the relevant Directives have sufficient scope for taking into account environmental considerations, particularly when defining technical rules, selecting candidates and assessing bids. In its Communication on public procurement(5), the Commission undertakes to prepare a Communication on this issue, which it is currently drafting.

(1) See, in particular, the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 June 1993, Commission v. Belgium, Case C-373/92, ECR 1993, p. I-3107.

(2) Judgment of 11 May 1989, Criminal proceedings against Esther Renée Bouchara, née Wurmser, and Norlaine SA, Case 25/88, ECR 1989, p. 1 105.

(3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(4) COM(96) 583 final.

(5) COM(98) 143 final.