Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on connected telecommunications equipment and the mutual recognition of the conformity of equipment'
Date: 1997-12-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, harmonisation of standards, quality label, telecommunications equipment

C 73/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Directive on connected telecommunications equipment and the mutual recog-
nition of the conformity of equipment’

(98/C 73/02)

On 27 June 1997 the European Council decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 November 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Green.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 95 votes to two.

1.

Introduction

1.1. Harmonization of the European telecommuni-
cations terminal market has been under way since 1983.
In 1985, the Commission proposed a Directive on the
mutual recognition of test results for terminal equipment,
which was adopted as Council Directive 86/361/EEC (1).
This was superseded by the terminal equipment Directive
91/263/EEC (2), which introduced a harmonized regime
for the whole type approval process, including placing
on the market and putting into service of terminal
equipment. Directive 91/263/EEC was extended by
Directive 93/97/EEC (3) to cover all satellite earth sta-
tions.

1.2. With the acceleration of the pace of technology,
this existing legislation needs fundamental revision. The
time taken to produce the legal measures called for in
Directives 91/263/EEC and 93/97/EEC is too long in
comparison with product lifetimes of as little as three
years. Liberalization of the infrastructures, and deregu-
lation of the services market from January 1998, have
created a very competitive and dynamic environment.
The Commission has therefore proposed significant
changes in the European regulation of telecommuni-
cations equipment. The proposed directive is intended
to operate in an environment where there is competitive
supply of networks, services, and terminals.

2. The Commission proposal

The aim of the Commission’s proposal is to
2.1.
provide a regulatory framework for the placing on the
market, free circulation and putting into service of
‘Connected Telecommunications Equipment’ (CTE) (4)
which complies with essential requirements.

(1) ESC Opinion OJ C 303, 25.11.1985.
(2) ESC Opinion OJ C 329, 30.12.1989.
(3) ESC Opinion OJ C 161, 14.6.1993.
(4) CTE = Connected Telecommunications Equipment,

is

defined in Article 2(a).

The proposed directive will replace Directives
2.2.
91/263/EEC and 93/97/EEC. It will have an enlarged
scope, covering ‘non-harmonized’ product areas as well
as equipment for which harmonized regulations or
standards exist. It will replace the current national
approvals regimes in the non-harmonized areas. The
scope will also be enlarged to cover radio equipment of
all kinds, excluding radio equipment which is intended
for exclusive public security use.

2.3.
To achieve flexibility in applying the proposed
directive, and to allow for innovative types of networks
and terminals in the future, the essential requirements
for CTE are expressed in general terms. A Committee
to be known as TCAM (5) will advise the Commission on
identifying and defining specific requirements applicable
to each CTE type as necessary.

2.4.
Experience of the present legislation has led the
Commission to propose a lighter interpretation of
essential requirements than was used in Directives
91/263/EEC and 93/97/EEC. The previous requirements
on prevention of harm to the network and on proper
interworking with the network have been dropped. In
some circumstances, CTE can be placed on the market
on the basis of safety and EMC (6) requirements alone.
However, other essential requirements can be applied,
such as prevention of degradation of service to other
users, Community-wide portability, effective use of the
radio spectrum, and aspects related to health, users
with disabilities, emergency and security services, and
individual privacy.

2.5. Networks to which CTEs may connect will be
identified by Member States, and the network operators

(5) TCAM = Telecommunications Conformity Assessment
in

surveillance

committee

(defined

and Market
Article 12.1).

(6) EMC = Electromagnetic compatibility.

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/11

will be obliged to publish technical specifications of the
network interface, or ‘ONTP’ (1), in sufficient detail to
permit the design of compatible CTE.

3.4.
The scope of radio equipment covered by the
directive should exclude radio equipment used by radio
amateurs (3) and receive-only radio equipment capable
of radio reception solely of Broadcasting Services.

2.6. New procedures for conformity assessment are
proposed, with suppliers’ declarations replacing the
third-party testing regime of Directive 91/263/EEC. The
manufacturer can choose to use alternative technical
specifications in lieu of harmonized standards to show
he meets the essential requirements, except for certain
radio product tests, which will be specified by Notified
Bodies.

2.7.
This easier access to the market is balanced by a
market surveillance regime, with penalties for products
which do not meet the essential requirements. Such
products will be removed from the market, but also will
be deemed to have caused ‘damage’ as described in the
Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC. Manufacturers
will be liable for this damage, and for direct economic
damage suffered as a result of non-compliance with the
essential requirements.

3. General comments

3.1.
The Committee welcomes all actions that sim-
plify Community laws and respond to market circum-
stances so as to allow a more open, competitive and
dynamic Community marketplace in the future, which
is clearly the aim of
the proposed directive. The
Committee considers that the proposed directive will be
an important part of the foundation for the future
information society, through its lighter interpretation of
essential requirements than was used in Directives
91/263/EEC and 93/97/EEC.

3.2.
The Committee supports in principle the major
elements of the proposed directive. However, there are
some areas of concern.

3.3.
The exclusion of equipment intended for exclu-
sive public security use should apply for all CTE, not
only for radio. This should be stated at the beginning of
the directive, rather than in the definitions. Possibly the
wording of the proposed Telecommunications Data
Protection Directive could provide a model (2).

(1) ONTP = Open Telecommunications Network Termi-

nation Point [defined in Article 2(b)].

(2) ‘This Directive shall not apply to the activities which fall
outside the scope of Community law such as those provided
for by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union,
and in any case to activities concerning public security,
defence, State security (Including the economic well-being
of the State when the activities relate to State security
matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal
law’, Article 1.3 of Common Position No 57/96, 12.9.1996,
OJ C 315, 24.10.1996, p. 96.

3.5. National licensing regimes for radio products
will continue to be necessary in many Member States.
The directive should state that the provisions of the
directive are without prejudice to measures, compatible
with Community law, taken by Member States to permit
or authorise the use of the radio frequency spectrum.

3.6.
The essential requirement for effective use of the
radio frequency spectrum should be a general essential
requirement, applicable to all radio equipment. To avoid
confusion, the different requirements for radio and other
kinds of CTE should be identified more clearly in the
text.

The role of Notified Bodies (4) is unclear and
3.7.
should be better defined. Their role seems to be limited
either to (a) identifying radio test suites for particular
CTE types, which could instead be done on a general
basis by TCAM, or (b) checking the manufacturer’s
statement of which CTE type a particular product
conforms to, but without verifying that conformity.
Unless the Notified Body has a role in product inspection
or production control, its identification number should
not be included in the CE Marking.

3.8.
The content of the other specific essential require-
ments taken up in Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission
proposal is still undefined. It is important that any such
requirements be well defined in advance. The Member
States should be involved in the interpretation of these
requirements in the proposed committee.

The proposed directive should clarify that con-
3.9.
sumers are protected through horizontal
legislation
for aspects of products that fall outside the essential
requirements. This is important because the proposed
directive has a lighter interpretation of essential require-
ments than was used in Directives 91/263/EEC and
93/97/EEC.

3.10.
In the opinion of the Committee, the possibility
of removal of all products from the market under the
safeguard provisions of the directive is an adequate force
compelling suppliers to ensure that CTE meets all
applicable essential requirements, and that the simplified
access to the market is not abused. No further provisions
on liability for non-compliance are needed.

(3) Within the meaning of Article 1, definition 53, of the
radio regulations in the International Telecommunications
Convention.

(4) See Articles 10 and 11.

C 73/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

3.11.
The directive should include safeguards and an
appeals procedure for manufacturers who believe that
their products have been withdrawn from the market
without proper justification.

Hazards from radio frequency radiation are covered by
the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This sub-article should
be deleted.

3.12.
The directive should also include an appeals
procedure to resolve disputes as to whether the technical
specifications of ONTPs published by network operators
are in sufficient detail to permit the design of compatible
CTE.

3.13.
The recent WTO agreement on mutual recog-
nition (MRA) does not contain provisions for manufac-
turers’ self-declarations. This raises the question of
reciprocity which should be recognized by the proposed
directive.

4. Specific comments

4.1. Article 2(d)

The text should read:

‘ ... a document which describes inter alia those
characteristics..’

4.2. Article 3.1(a)

4.5. Article 4.1(d)

The requirement for ‘protection of individual privacy’
may already be covered by the proposed Telecommuni-
cations Data Protection Directive (1). This sub-article
should be reconsidered.

4.6. Article 6.1

Add the words ‘in respect of placing on the market’
after ‘is not subject to further national regulation’.

4.7. Article 7.1

Insert the words ‘when properly used in accordance
with the purpose intended by the manufacturer’ after
‘does not comply with the essential requirements relevant
to the CTE type’. (This point follows from General
Comment 3.11)

4.8. Article 7.3

Begin Article 7.3 with the words:

The general essential requirements with respect to safety,
referred to in Article 3.1(a), and contained in Directive
73/23/EEC, should be stated as ‘the principal elements
of safety of Directive 73/23/EEC’, because the term
‘essential requirements’ is not used in that directive. The
requirements should not apply to equipment listed in
Annex II of Directive 73/23/EEC.

‘The Commission shall enter into consultation with
the parties concerned as soon as possible. Where,
after such consultation, the Commission finds that
any measure as referred to in paragraph 1 is justified
it shall immediately so inform the Member State
that took the action and the other Member States.’

4.3. Article 3.1(b)

is

text

(This
taken from Directive 91/263/EEC,
Article 8.2.). (This point follows from General Com-
ment 3.11.)

The general essential requirements with respect to elec-
tromagnetic compatibility, referred to in Article 3.1(b),
and contained in Directive 89/336/EEC, should be
stated as ‘the requirements of Article 4 of Directive
89/336/EEC’, because the term ‘essential requirements’
is not used in that directive. The requirements should
not apply to equipment to which Directive 89/336/EEC
does not apply by virtue of Article 2(2) of that directive.

4.9. Article 8

Article 8 should be deleted. Redress against non-
compliance with essential requirements should be found
through Article 7 and through other provisions of
Community law. (This point follows from General
Comment 3.10.)

4.4. Article 4.1(a)

4.10. Preamble 20

The requirement for ‘protection of health’ is expressed
too broadly for a Telecoms Directive. Requirements
that the equipment shall not endanger the health or
safety of people are already contained in the Low
Voltage Directive, 73/23/EEC, which covers non-
electrical aspects of safety as well as electrical aspect.

The second part of preamble 20 should be deleted. (This
point follows from General Comment 3.10.)

(1) Common Position No 57/96, 12.9.1996, OJ C 315,

24.10.1996, p. 96.

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/13

4.11. Preamble 2l

The original text of preamble 21 should be replaced as
follows:

‘Whereas manufacturers or their authorized rep-
resentatives established within the Community who
are responsible for placing products on the Com-
munity market are liable for all aspects of those
products under Community law, including the pro-
visions on product liability in Directive 85/374/EEC,
whereas Community law also recognizes manufac-
turers’ liability for products used by businesses and
other users of telecommunications that are not
natural persons;’.

(This point follows from General Comments 3.9 and
3.10.)

4.12. Proposed new Article 6.4

‘The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the
application in any Member State of the measures
referred to in Article 8 of Directive 89/336/EEC, nor
shall they prevent any redress otherwise available
under Community law against damage or harm to
persons or property caused by equipment which
meets the essential requirements applicable at the
time of first placing on the market.’

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Directive relating to motor vehicles and their trailers transporting certain animals
and amending Directive 70/156/EEC in respect of the type-approval of motor vehicles and
their trailers’

(98/C 73/03)

On 3 July 1997 the European Council decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 December 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Gardner.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 84 votes to two, with three abstentions.

1.

Introduction

and trailers made according to this directive but may
approve units made to national specifications as well.

1.1.
This is a ‘separate directive’ under the framework
type approval Directive 70/l56/EEC. It deals separately
with type approval for complete vehicles, the chassis
(often standard units produced in large runs) and the
specialized bodywork (often small production runs).
Because the proposal covers a wide range of vehicles,
from large multi-deck trucks to small trailers hitched on
to four wheel drive cars, common solutions present a
particular difficulty.

Like most other type approvals it applies optional
1.2.
harmonization — Member States must accept vehicles

This proposal is under Article 100A and deals
1.3.
only with type approval of vehicles and trailers. It does
not deal with the use of these and with actual transport
conditions. These come under Article 43. The Com-
mission was supposed to propose legislation on these
several years ago but now states that it will do so as
soon as the present 100a Directive has been adopted.