Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Preventing new barriers from arising in the single market (Single Market Observatory)'
Date: 1998-03-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, euro, liberalisation of trade, single market, technical barriers to trade

C 157/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Preventing new barriers from arising in
the single market (Single Market Observatory)’

(98/C 157/11)

On 10 July 1997 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 23(3)
of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Preventing new barriers from arising in
the single market’.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 March 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr Vever.

At its 353rd plenary session (meeting of 25 March 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 76 votes to seven with six abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The European Union is currently engaged, at the
Commission’s initiative, in an action plan to round off
the completion of the single market by the end of 1998.
This action plan corresponds in its spirit and timetable
to the wish expressed by the ESC itself from 1995
onwards that a new impetus be given to work which
was tending to mark time, and that decisive progress
be made in the single market, as required for the
introduction of the euro.

1.2.
Vigorously supporting the action plan, the ESC
pointed out after a hearing on 5 March 1997 that it
would not be enough to adopt the final EU directives
which were still lacking, in order to ensure the free
movement of people, products, services and capital. A
decisive factor for the lasting operation of the single
market would be finding ways of preventing at source
the creation of new barriers fed by a constantly increasing
flow of new national regulations. Despite the directives
already adopted and very real progress achieved in the
liberalization of intra-Community trade, it still remains
much easier to create a new barrier in the single market
than to prevent it upstream or to reabsorb it subsequently
at Community level.

1.3.
In issuing an own-initiative opinion on pre-
venting new barriers within the single market, the
ESC wishes to draw the attention of the Community
institutions and the Member States to this essential
aspect of completion of the single market which has so
far been neglected. The success of the action plan will
depend to a large extent on the importance given to
means of remedying at source the excessive creation of
new barriers, in an effective and lasting way.

2. Legal position governing national regulations

2.1.
The operation of the single market is intended
to reconcile freedom of establishment and movement on
the one hand, and social protection, health protection

and protection of the consumer and the environment
on the other, involving a sharing of powers among
Community, national and possibly regional levels. The
arrangements are based on four essential elements: an
obligation in principle to eliminate national restrictions
on trade, approximation of national laws in the fields
necessary to the operation of the single market, mutual
recognition of national provisions to allow freedom of
movement, and prior notification of national regulation
plans which may affect the single market (to which is
added a possibility of subsequent monitoring).

2.2.
Articles 30 to 36 of the Treaty require the
Member States to eliminate all quantitative restrictions
on imports and measures with equivalent effect, unless
there are imperative reasons for maintaining restrictive
national provisions. These imperative reasons, for exam-
ple the need to protect consumers or the environment,
must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination
nor a disguised restriction on trade between Member
States. They must be reasoned and proportionate, and
monitored by the Commission and the Court of Justice.
The ‘Cassis de Dijon’ case well illustrates that freedom of
movement must remain the rule and national restrictions
the exception. However, the Member States currently
tend to legislate particularly actively in the field covered
by Article 36.

2.3.
In order to promote a minimum degree of
convergence in these national legislative, regulatory and
administrative provisions, the European Union adopts,
as the need arises, specific measures to assist the
establishment and functioning of the single market
(Article 100a). The bulk of the regulations on approxi-
mation of Member State provisions with regard to the
single market are based on this provision, subject to a
majority procedure in the Council acting in co-decision
with the Parliament (except for the provisions on
taxation and the free movement of persons). These
common regulations are designed to achieve, in the
Treaty’s words, a ‘high level of protection’ with regard

25.5.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 157/37

to health, safety, environmental protection and con-
sumer protection, but still allow the Member States
a frequently substantial degree of latitude to adopt
complementary measures, which may tend,
in the
absence of adequate monitoring, to fragment the single
market once again.

The European Union, moreover, is seeking to
2.4.
develop mechanisms to ensure the equivalence of
measures applied in the Member States, making possible
mutual recognition which maintains free movement
within the single market even in the absence of harmon-
ization or where harmonization is only partial
(Article 100b); but these mechanisms are still a long way
from being applied simply and effectively by all the
Member States.

To ensure transparency and monitoring of Mem-
2.5.
ber State initiatives which can affect the operation of
the single market, Directive 83/189 introduced a prior
notification procedure which was supplemented on
1 January 1997 (Decision No 3052/95) by an obligation
to notify individual measures which could be a barrier
to mutual recognition; the procedure now covers all
agricultural and industrial products. This obliges each
Member State to inform the European Commission,
and through it the other Member States, of technical
regulation plans which can affect the operation of the
single market. It lays down a three-month reflection
period before any implementation, to allow the Com-
mission, which can receive comments from the other
Member States and consult the industrial sectors con-
cerned, to examine these measures, and if necessary to
take initiatives with regard to them (request for extension
of the reflection period from three to six months, request
for amendment of notified plans, possible reasoned
opinion starting an infringement procedure).

2.6.
The Commission can thus verify the effects of
the measures notified on the operation of the single
market, whether they meet the Community rules —
Treaty and implementing rules — their merits and their
proportionality when they create barriers. The European
Court of Justice also considered that enterprises and
individuals can use an absence of prior notification as a
justification for not applying a new national technical
rule. Overall, this prior information and monitoring
procedure is operating, but the rise in the number of
notifications indicates that much remains to be done
to impose better discipline on the Member States.
Moreover, the procedure remains currently limited to
draft rules on products rather than services, although
the Commission has presented proposals for extending

it to information society services. These proposals were
approved by the ESC and are being adopted elsewhere.

2.7.
In addition, the Treaty has provided for a
possibility of subsequent monitoring not only by the
Commission but also by the various Member States,
allowing for an infringement action to be brought. But
this procedure seems to have given rise to hardly any
actions in practice.

2.8.
Finally, the procedures on the free movement of
persons relate only partly to Community procedures.
They also concern — for certain political, security and
legal aspects and for questions concerning third country
nationals — the operation of the ‘third pillar’ set up by
the Maastricht Treaty and subject to special intergovern-
mental cooperation procedures. However, the new
Treaty of Amsterdam seeks in this field to strengthen
links between Community and intergovernmental
responsibilities, under conditions allowing more shared
responsibility and further progress. Because of this,
questions relating to free movement of persons are
mentioned in this opinion only for the sake of complete-
ness. They will need to be the subject of more thorough
consideration by the ESC in a wider framework.

3. Recent developments in national regulations

3.1.
In the first place, there has been a significant
increase in national regulations which may create new
barriers. Annual notifications have risen from a rate of
about 350 in the early years of application of the
Directive 83/189 procedure to about 450 in subsequent
years, and reached the record figure of 900 for 1997.
Even allowing for the fact that this figure includes the
exceptional case of 230 delayed Dutch notifications
brought forward, the 670 remaining notifications for
1997 show a considerable increase (40 %) in one year.
This certainly shows that the procedure is working and
that the Member States are meeting their notification
obligations. However, it also reveals a proliferation
of draft national regulations which places a heavy
monitoring workload on the European Commission,
involving not only DG XV and DG III, but the other
DGs concerned with technical aspects.

3.2. One aggravating factor is that these new national
initiatives have been concentrated in recent years mainly
(90 % of them) in supposedly harmonized fields. These
are mainly telecommunications, agri-food products, the
building and public works sector, mechanical construc-
tion and transport. The technical rules concerned relate
mainly to health, safety and security, consumer protec-
tion and the environment. This can be explained in a

C 157/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.98

number of ways. On the one hand, they are sectors and
fields where public authority has more reason than
elsewhere to lay down rules, whether at Community or
national level. Moreover, insofar as Community rules
concentrate on ‘essential requirements’, national rules
have been allowed scope for other details. If the
Commission ensures that, in the health and safety field,
these essential requirements constitute both minimum
and maximum requirements, the Member States are
sometimes tempted to consider that they can still add
further complementary requirements, while retaining in
the fields of consumer protection or environmental
protection real margins of manoeuvre to issue rules
which go beyond these common requirements.

Apart

3.3.
from the persisting entanglement of
national technical rules, one must also mention the
development of national or indeed regional markings
and labels which, without having a binding legal effect,
can also create barriers to free marketing on the
single market scale. The mutual recognition of national
certificates is also sometimes hindered by some buyers
who continue to demand in practice that national
certificates are obtained.

Community rules, which have decreased considerably
over recent years. This reduction in Community rules
can be explained in two ways. Firstly, most of the
directives necessary to the operation of the single
market were adopted earlier, with the 1992 programme.
Secondly, the stress placed in recent years on the
objective of alleviating Community rules, particularly
in the Molitor Report’s recommendations, has led the
European Commission to realign its proposals (‘better
legislation’ approach) and to present fewer new pro-
posals than in the past.

3.7.
The situation is thus clearly unbalanced in
quantitative terms. In the period from 1992 to 1994, the
Member States adopted 1 346 national rules, while the
Community itself adopted only 116 rules. Paradoxically,
the Member States which most vigorously campaigned
for limited Community rules, such as Britain, Germany,
France, are those which have notified the largest number
of new national drafts. Moreover, while Community
rules tend to be deregulatory, since they seek to transform
15 disparate provisions into a single regulation, national
rules essentially only add new measures without abol-
ishing any earlier ones (even if these measures may also
be justified for the citizen or the consumer in a given
context).

3.4.
The Commission’s analysis of the notifications
shows that one third called for no comment on its part,
while one third led to minor comments and one third to
more lengthy comments, with the Commission asking
for an extension from three to six months of the
reflection period before implementation of the notified
plan. In total, one notification out of every two posed a
real problem — more or less serious — in terms of
Community law. In the overwhelming majority of
cases Member States complied with the Commission’s
comments requesting amendment of the draft or at least
a clause providing for mutual recognition of products
imported from another Member State.

It should also be noted that the Member States
3.5.
themselves have acquired, through this notification
procedure, the option of monitoring one another and
that they are to send the Commission reasoned opinions
on the initiatives which appear to them to cause
problems. They are thus called upon to exercise a
kind of collective, shared monitoring, which they do
effectively because they intervene about as frequently as
the European Commission itself; this clearly shows the
usefulness of the procedure.

4. Reasons for restoring balance

4.1.
Unless more effective action is taken against the
creation of barriers at source, completion of the single
market will be like a constantly receding horizon (even
if it is in any case inevitable for national and/or regional
disparities to persist in a single market regarded as
‘completed’). Thus, even when the main directives have
been adopted, maintaining the single market in a proper
operational state will remain a constant problem for
which appropriate ‘self-correcting solutions’ will have
to be found.

4.2.
Similarly, there will be no satisfactory solution
to the problem of alleviating, simplifying and clarifying
regulations on the single market as long as this question
has not been thought through with the adoption of
measures which also concern regulations at national
and regional level.

Finally, it should be stressed that this increase in
3.6.
national rules has coincided with an inverse trend in

4.3.
It also seems necessary for the Member States to
change their behaviour as the introduction of the euro
approaches. Just as the stability and growth pact requires

25.5.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 157/39

a convergence of economic and budgetary policies, so
the operation of the single market under a single currency
should require more convergence of legal, regulatory
and administrative national provisions, and at all events
a constant concern for ‘euro-compatibility’.

5.2.
In particular, the Member States should adopt
fewer national regulations in fields which are covered
by harmonization measures at Community level. First
and foremost, this should concern national measures for
transposing directives, in which the states should be
careful not to create excessive administrative provisions
which go beyond the aim of the directive concerned.

4.4.
It is also advisable to ensure greater transparency
on new national measures, so as to guard against risks
of drift which could possibly arise from two innovations
in the Treaty of Amsterdam (signed in 1997). The new
treaty provides Member States with the possibility not
only of maintaining but also of introducing stricter
national rules than Community legislation [Article 95(5),
formerly Article 100a(4)], while Article 95(3), formerly
Article 100a(3), already provides Member States with a
high level of protection for their nationals. While the
European Commission retains a monitoring power over
these measures for a period of six months, its agreement
is tacitly assumed at the end of that period. Moreover,
the Member States can strengthen, through Article 176
(formerly 130t), the measures adopted by the European
Union in the environmental field on the basis of
Article 175 (formerly 130s).

4.5.
Finally, this question will increase in scale with
the prospect of new enlargements, which will increase
the possibilities for Member States to create new barriers
at source. It will therefore be necessary to agree upon
and implement appropriate solutions before then.

Thus a close, lasting and satisfactory relationship
4.6.
must be re-established between the operating needs of
the single market, protection of the consumer and the
environment, and the requirements of subsidiarity. This
relationship must be based on measures which ensure
greater fluidity in trade, more simplicity in regulations,
more compatibility between national measures, and
greater transparency overall at single market level.

5. Measures recommended at national level

5.1.
In general terms, it seems essential to persuade
Member States to change their attitude towards excessive
regulation. The European Council itself has already
acknowledged the need for progress to lighten the
burden of regulation in the Member States themselves.
It is therefore important to apply to the Member
States the recommendations which the Molitor Report
addressed to the Community institutions: better-ordered
existing regulations, fewer new regulations, and further
simplification of the regulations in force. The Member
States should be asked to present to the Commission
each year an updated report on their contribution to the
alleviation and simplification of rules in Europe. The
Commission could then make a summary for the
attention of the European Council.

5.3. When a Member State adopts a national regula-
tory measure which can affect the single market, it
should in principle be required clearly to include in these
rules a clause worded according to a model common to
all the Member States and stipulating that it has taken
account — subject to a European notification — of the
most effective means to avoid barriers to the import of
products freely produced and marketed in another
Member State.

It should also be ensured that,

5.4.
in practice,
national standardization bodies refrain from adopting
a national regulation in a field which is covered by a
European standard in preparation.

5.5.
The training of national elected representatives,
officials, magistrates and jurists in the requirements of
the single market should also be developed, with special
attention given to the principle of ‘national treatment’
of Community citizens which has not yet been accepted
in administrative cultures (cf. rules on social security,
taxation,
training
residence questions, etc.). This
requirement should extend to the regional and local
level, where European regulations are often insufficiently
well-known. For example, practical application of the
mutual recognition of qualifications or the right of
residence of Community nationals frequently makes it
necessary to take direct action with the body responsible.

5.6.
Information efforts should also be directed
towards non-national Community citizens, in order to
enhance their knowledge of the most relevant legislation
and administrative procedures, and to simplify their
exercise in practice of freedom of establishment in the
European Union.

5.7.
The Member States of EFTA, which are already
closely associated with taking on the acquis communau-
taire, and as far as possible the states which have
applied for European Union membership, which are to
incorporate this acquis gradually in their rules, should
be encouraged to take similar measures, which would
also be subject to an appropriate follow-up by the
European Commission.

C 157/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.98

6. Measures recommended at Community level

application of directives, this should not run counter to
the need for harmonization. It would therefore be
advisable to restrict the use of such optional directives.

6.1.
First and foremost, the above recommendations
addressed to the states could be more easily applied if
they were covered by a common commitment such as a
code of conduct for Member States. Such a code of
conduct could take the form of a Council recommen-
dation, giving rise to Commission monitoring.

As regards the procedure for prior information
6.5.
and notification of draft regulations,
it should be
extended to services which are not currently within the
scope of Directive 83/189. An initial step forward would
be for the Council and Parliament rapidly to adopt the
Commission proposal on its extension to information
society services (1).

6.2.
As regards Community regulations, one must be
aware of the limits to the extent to which they can
be streamlined, especially given the Member States’
unchanged tendency to legislate and regulate excessively
themselves. Indeed, one of the ways of promoting the
streamlining and simplification of regulations in Europe
would be to maintain Community regulations at a
sufficient level to bring national regulations closer
together. But, above all, their effectiveness must be
strengthened.

6.6.
The Commission should directly consult the
European representatives of sectors concerned about the
draft national rules notified to it. It should also be
possible to bring notifications of draft rules by Member
States to the knowledge of all concerned by creating a
data bank which could be consulted via Internet. This
data bank should also give users of the single market an
overview of national regulations in force within the
single market.

6.3.
It must first be noted that harmonization loses a
good deal of its effectiveness when it imposes on Member
States only a minimum level, allowing them the freedom
to go beyond it. This is often the case with harmonization
covering in particular environmental protection and
consumer protection, where the Member States can
adopt national regulations going beyond those adopted
at European level. This asymmetry can deprive harmon-
ization of a good deal of its effectiveness, as the
derogations jeopardize uniform application of Com-
munity law by prejudicing free movement of products,
free movement of persons, free provision of services and
freedom of establishment in the single market. It would
be desirable to arrive at a more effective concept of
harmonization, by envisaging, in certain fields where
this approach would be appropriate, greater use of
regulations rather than directives. Such measures, by
limiting the possibility of diverging additional national
rules, would also contribute greatly to streamlining and
simplifying rules in Europe. The adherence of all the
Member States would be needed to ensure effective
application of this new type of requirements; this
adherence would be encouraged by effective, thorough
prior consultation involving the Member States and all
groups affected by the proposed measure, and covering
also the most suitable type of implementation.

6.4.
It would also be advisable to re-examine ways
of using open or optional directives. In some cases, the
‘residual’ powers left to Member States in the application
of some directives can be very important (for example,
the possibility of choosing among the products or
substances listed at European level those which they
wish to authorize on their territory). Although it may
be necessary to leave a certain flexibility in the

6.7. On mutual recognition, it must be noted that it
is not always effective in the fields where European
standards are lacking, thus contributing to the persis-
tence of barriers on the Community market. Certain
checks are not yet recognized, particularly for food
products. Moreover, the difficulties encountered by the
European Organization for Testing and Certification
(EOTC) in playing its role properly in the various fields
of activity of enterprises, particularly quality assurance
systems, lead the national certification bodies to con-
clude bilateral agreements on mutual recognition. The
question of practical application of the principle of
mutual recognition thus needs to be reconsidered from
several angles:

6.7.1.
A wide-ranging information campaign on the
significance of the CE mark should be addressed once
again to economic operators by the Commission and
the Member States.

6.7.2. More work should be done at European level
to improve transparency with regard to mutual recog-
nition of conformity checks on products. Indeed, it is
too often found that a multiplicity of checks persists on
products passing between the Member States, both in
the regulated sector and in the voluntary sector. Common
points of reference should be decisively adopted at
European level on the quality of checks.

6.7.3.
Supplier’s declarations regarding conformity
with the essential requirements laid down by the
European Union should be generally regarded as

(1) OJ C 158, 26.5.1997.

25.5.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 157/41

adequate by the Member States, without the need for
additional checks, provided that an effective system for
exchange of information on non-conforming products
can be set up in parallel between the Member States.
The same facility for third country products should
depend on the existence of reciprocity.

As regards the conformity markings them-
6.7.4.
selves, it is quite common to see national or technical
marks in addition to the CE mark on products. This
multiplicity of markings runs counter to the objective
of simplification and transparency which must be the
rule as regards technical barriers to trade. It would be
particularly useful if further consideration were given
to this point by the Commission, the Member States
and the various actors concerned with conformity
certification.

6.7.5.
Finally, it would be advisable to strengthen
checks at the external frontiers of the EU and the EEA
to ensure that the CE marking is not falsely applied
to imported products, particularly mass-consumption
products.

In order to verify that harmonization directives
6.8.
and mutual recognition provisions have a real effect on
the lifting of barriers, a test for ‘real lifting of barriers’,
going beyond the strict framework of legal application
of the directives, should be incorporated in the ‘score-
boards’ drawn up by the European Commission as part
of the implementation of its action plan.

7. Conclusions

Despite the undeniable progress made in the operation
of the single market, the Member States continue to
adopt many rules at national level in fields which are
meant to be subject to Community harmonization. This
situation, which imposes a heavy surveillance burden
on the Commission, is worrying in two ways. Firstly, it
shows that the Member States hardly apply to themselves
the objective of alleviating rules which they advocate at
European level. Moreover, it perpetuates a constant
process of creation of new potential barriers to trade,
even if prior notification of procedure makes it possible
to correct many of them.

It therefore seems essential to be vigilant about the
situation and to continue the analysis of it
(new
developments, sectors concerned, forms taken by new
barriers). Indeed, the development of this phenomenon
at its present rate would destabilize the operation of the
single market and compromise its completion. At this
stage the Committee would stress the need for rapid
adoption of new initiatives at both national and Com-
munity level to remedy the situation:

7.1.

At national level:

6.9.
It is also essential to go beyond the progress
achieved in recent years by strengthening the resources
for European standardization committees, in order to
have the largest possible number of common references.

7.1.1.
The Member States should apply the same
discipline which they require of the European Union to
alleviating and clarifying rules in Europe, and should
present each year a report summarizing their contri-
bution in this field;

In the field of free movement of workers, there
6.10.
is a need to follow up the Flynn Action Plan (1) based on
the recommendations made by the ‘Veil Group’ in March
1997.

7.1.2.
In particular they should be careful, in transpos-
ing directives, not to create excessive administrative
requirements which go beyond the objectives set by
these directives;

6.11.
Finally, it is a sad fact that small and medium-
sized businesses, which under the Community definition
account for 99.8 % of all businesses in the EU, are the
main victims when the internal market does not operate
as it should. The smallest firms and local businesses,
which lack the requisite legal, staff and financial
resources, are particularly hard hit by barriers that arise.
Thousands and thousands of firms are thus deprived of
the benefits awaited of the EU-wide market.

The Committee therefore urges the European Com-
mission and the Member States to launch an information
campaign to explain to small firms the rights they enjoy
in the single market and to boost information facilities,
in particular the Euro-Info-Centres, with this in mind.

(1) COM(97) 586 final of 12 November 1997.

7.1.3.
Draft national rules which can affect the single
market should include a standard clause stipulating that
it has taken account — subject to a European notification
— of the most effective means to avoid barriers to the
import of products freely produced and marketed in
another Member State;

7.1.4. Measures should be taken to raise the aware-
ness of elected representatives, officials and jurists in
the Member States and train them in the requirements
of the single market;

7.1.5. Non-national Community citizens
should
receive clearer information on the applicable procedures
which would make it easier, among other things, for
them to avail themselves of the right to establishment;

C 157/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.98

7.1.6.
European countries associated with the single
market (EFTA and applicant countries) should be
encouraged to take similar measures.

7.2.

At Community level:

First and foremost,

the above recommen-
7.2.1.
dations addressed to the states could be more easily
applied if they were covered by a common commitment
such as a code of conduct for Member States;

Community rules should be maintained at a
7.2.2.
sufficient level for effective approximation of national
rules;

In certain fields where this approach would be
7.2.3.
appropriate, directives should give way to regulations,
after all those concerned have been consulted;

7.2.4. Open or optional directives should be used
only in limited, strictly justified cases;

7.2.6.
The representatives of European economic and
social partners should be consulted on these notifi-
cations; it should also be possible to access them on an
Internet data bank, where it would also be desirable to
give an overview of national rules in force within the
single market;

7.2.7.
An information campaign on the CE mark
should be relaunched; transparency should be strength-
ened on the mutual recognition of conformity checks;
checks at external frontiers should be better harmonized.
Suppliers’ declarations of conformity should suffice,
while being supplemented by an effective Community
system of information exchange on non-conforming
products;

7.2.8.
The Commission’s ‘scoreboards’ on implemen-
tation of directives should include a test for ‘real lifting
of barriers’;

7.2.9.
The resources of the European standardization
committees should be strengthened to make available
the largest possible number of common references;

7.2.10. On the free movement of workers, follow-up
action should be taken on the Flynn Action Plan;

7.2.5.
Prior notification for proposed rules should be
extended to cover not only products but also services,
starting with information society services;

7.2.11.
A campaign should be launched to inform
small and medium-sized businesses, and the resources
of the Euro-Info-Centres should be stepped up.

Brussels, 25 March 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

25.5.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 157/43

APPENDIX I

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following passages of the section opinion, retention of which had been requested by more than a
quarter of the votes cast, were rejected as a result of amendments adopted in plenary:

Point 6.3

‘ ... or where appropriate, the adoption of more binding directives imposing not only minimum
requirements but also maximum requirements.’

Results of voting on deletion of the above phrase

For: 45, against: 26, abstentions: 8.

Point 7.2.1

‘To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, the Council should express a commitment
on the part of Member States which could lead to a recommendation including a code of conduct to
prevent the creation of undesirable new barriers at source.’

Results of voting on deletion of this point

For: 52, against: 30, abstentions: 5.

C 157/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.98

APPENDIX II

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Table of notifications by Member States in 1997

Notifications (Article 8.1)

Comments (Article 8.2 + Article 7 of the EEC/EFTA Agreement)

Detailed opinions (Article 9.1)

Intentions for directives (Articles 9.2 + 9.2 bis)

Comments

Detailed
opinions

Intentions for directives

Member State

Notifi-
cations Member

Com-
States mission

EFTA

Member

Com-
States mission

9.2

9.2 bis

Netherlands
Austria
Germany
United Kingdom
Belgium
France
Denmark
Spain
Italy
Sweden
Finland
Greece
Portugal
Ireland
Luxembourg

1

342
106
99
71
59
51
40
35
31
23
22
12
7
3

53
20
18
11
8
32
18
10
9
3
5
6
6
1

61
29
11
6
38
16
24
8
9
11
7
9
3
2

5
24
2

6
1
3

11
11
1

29
8
11
1
1
18
2
2
14

1
6
8

6
19
4
3
33
6
8
4
7
5
2
2
2

Total EEC

901

200

234

64

101

101

1

1

1

2