WRITTEN QUESTION E-3029/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of products containing precious metals

Since there is no specific Community directive to harmonise the manufacture and marketing of products containing precious metals, some EU Member States are using their domestic legal regulations to obstruct the marketing of products from other Member States, even in cases where the inspections they perform are identical or equivalent to those in the Member State from which the goods have come.

The main problem lies in the different methods used by the Member States to approve products. To be more precise, Spain has 52 laboratories authorised by the state authorities to inspect and stamp goods. Nonetheless, exporters are required to have the same goods stamped in the Member State for which they are bound (chiefly Portugal, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland), and are thus obliged to pay laboratory charges in both Spain and the other Member State in question, since the latter does not recognise the Spanish quality mark. As a result, apart from the additional costs incurred, commercial transactions are subject to holdups and delays.

In such circumstances, does the Commission intend to take measures of any kind to remedy this absence of legislation, which is responsible for a clear obstacle to the free movement of goods and for the consequent failure to observe the principle of mutual recognition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1998)

As a general observation, it should be noted that the Commission has already examined the Member States' legislation on precious metals as part of an EU-wide survey. Following this examination, the Member States were asked to amend their existing legislation (these amendments are still under way in three Member States) in order to comply with the principle of free movement of goods enshrined in Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty and set out in the rulings of the Court of Justice (for products containing precious metals, see in particular the Robinson judgement of 22 June 1982, Case 220/81, and the Houtwipper judgement of 15 September 1994, Case C-293/93). As a rule, compliance with this principle means accepting hallmarks on products legally manufactured or marketed in other Member States and accepting sponsors' marks and quality labels which give the same level of detail as required by law in the Member State where the product is marketed.

In practice, however, there are still problems with free movement. These problems stem mainly from the restrictive application of the principle of mutual recognition and in particular the notion of equivalence. Despite having adopted mutual recognition clauses in compliance with the Commission's request, some Member States with a mandatory official hallmarking system, i.e. where stamping is done by one or more officially recognised independent bodies, seem to refuse to give equal recognition to hallmarks laid down by an official body and hallmarks laid down by a body which is controlled by the manufacturer but closely monitored by the national authorities as part of their quality assurance system.

Because of this situation, the Commission has resumed talks with the Member States concerned.