WRITTEN QUESTION P-3081/00

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2000)

Subject: European Economic Area

Does the exemption granted to Norway in connection with dangerous substances, relating to the classification of polyacrylamides, comply with the EEA Agreement? If it does, what is its justification?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the derogation from Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(1).

During the negotiations for the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, the following derogation was agreed: The Contracting Parties agree on the objective that the provisions of the Community acts on dangerous substances and preparations should apply by 1 January 1995. [mldr] Pursuant to co-operation to be initiated from the signature of this Agreement in order to solve remaining problems, a review of the situation will take place during 1994, including matters not covered by Community legislation. If an European Free Trade Association (EFTA) State concludes that it will need any derogation from the Community acts relating to classification and labelling, the latter shall not apply to it unless the EEA Joint Committee agrees on another solution.

The reason for this derogation was that the standards then pertaining in the EFTA countries were more exacting than those of the Community. It was thought to be a retrograde step to withdraw those standards, especially since the Community has the intention to continue to raise its standards in this area.

A review of the situation has taken place at approximately two year intervals since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, the latest being in 1998. This led to a joint statement(2) in the EEA joint committee of 26 March 1999 in which Norway declared it had concluded that it accepts the existing Community acquis, with effect from 1 January 1999, but with derogations in specific areas. It was agreed that the objective should be maintained that the Community acts concerned should apply fully by 1 January 2001. A new review of the situation will take place during 2000.

The derogations that Norway has with regard to the classification of polyacrylamide as a carcinogen were the subject of a ruling on 14 June 2000 by the EFTA Court of Justice. The case concerned the interpretation to be given to the joint statements adopted by the EEA joint committee in 1995 and 1999 on this subject.

The EFTA Court interpreted the wording of the 1995 joint statement so that Norway was given the right to classify substances as carcinogens whilst not being able to label polyacrylamides differently from the system laid down in Directive 67/548/EEC on dangerous substances and Council Directive 88/379/EEC of 7 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations(3). The Court also noted that as an exception to a fundamental principle of the EEA Agreement, namely that of the free movement of goods, the wording in the joint statement should be interpreted narrowly. The wording of the 1999 joint statement is the same as that of the 1995 joint statement, but with the additional wording that Norway may apply different provisions regarding impurities, additives or individual constituents with regard to substances classified as carcinogens. The EFTA Court found that according to the joint statement Norway may set its own labelling rules regarding concentration limits for carcinogenic substances as impurities in other substances.

(1) OJ B 196 of 16.8.1967.

(2) OJ C 185, 1.7.1999.

(3) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.