WRITTEN QUESTION P-1413/00

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Internal market: validity of certificates of origin in another Member State

For the purposes of a civil construction project currently under way in Lisbon, the Portuguese company Brimexo decided to install a particular type of tube for conducting hot and cold water, originating in Italy. The tube used is made of reticulated polycthylene PE-X and is manufactured by Unidelta Idrosanitária Savallesse SPA. The brand name is Ultrapex; the tube is accompanied by a certificate of origin issued by the Italian Institute of Plastics (the official Italian certifying authority).

The Portuguese authority (EPAL) responsible for approving the project decided to withhold its approval, on the grounds that this tube had not been certified by the National Civil Engineering Laboratory. In its turn, the Laboratory said that the correct process concerning the tube was not certification but approval, under Article 17 of Portuguese Decree-Law 38/382 of 7 August 1951.

Can the Commission state whether this decision is compatible with the internal market, given that it implies that products received on the market of a Member State (in this case, a tube for conducting hot and cold water) have to be certified by the Member State in which they are located (notably, here, under a decree-law dating from 1951), or whether, in fact, it is sufficient that a product has been certified by the relevant authority in its Member State of origin? Is the principle of mutual recognition being duly respected? Is this decision compatible with the work which the Commission has undertaken in this area? Is it compatible with European Court of Justice case-law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The facts related by the Honourable Member agree with those given in a complaint referred to the Commission.

The Commission is investigating this complaint as a matter of urgency in the light of the principle of mutual recognition, as defined by the European Court of Justice's case law (see in particular the ruling of 20 February 1979, Rewe, known as Cassis de Dijon). This principle, as cited in the Commission communications of 15 June 1989, on a global approach to certification and testing(1), and of 16 June 1999, on mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the action plan for the single market(2), must be implemented by the national authorities at several levels. In terms of the rules of design, manufacture and operation of products lawfully produced or marketed in another Member State, the Member State of destination must accept products that meet technical specifications which, while different from those applied at national level, nevertheless allow an equivalent level of health and safety. In terms of procedures to assess product conformity with certain fundamental requirements, the Member State of destination must accept the documents provided by the operators as issued by the relevant bodies which have been accredited by the Member State where they were produced; further checks are not justified if the results of the checks carried out in the Member State of origin meet the requirements of the Member State of destination. In terms of testing and analysis, the Member State of destination must take into account the analysis and testing carried out in another Member State, where these are equivalent to those it requires itself, and must not require them to be repeated. Finally, the national authorities implement systems to assess the bodies responsible for testing and certification of products.

By investigating the complaint, the Commission will have access to all the information it needs in order to determine whether the principle of mutual recognition has been observed in this case. If, on concluding this investigation, the Commission considers the principle in question to have been breached, it will not hesitate to initiate infringement proceedings.

(1) OJ C 267, 19.10.1989.

(2) COM(1999) 299 final.