WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3139/98 by Ana MIRANDA DE LAGE to the Commission. Harmonisation of legislation on precious metals
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MIRANDA DE LAGE
Subjects: Community certification, free movement of goods, harmonisation of standards, marketing, mutual recognition principle, precious metal, product quality













EUR-Lex - 91998E3139 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3139

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3139/98 by Ana MIRANDA DE LAGE to the Commission. Harmonisation of legislation on precious metals  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0091 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/98by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Commission(16 October 1998)Subject: Harmonisation of legislation on precious metalsThe current lack of a Community directive on the manufacture and marketing of objects containing precious metals constitutes a practical obstacle to the free movement of goods in this sector.What measures are available to the Commission to harmonise national legislation in the Member States in this field and thus avoid the abovementioned effects? Does the Commission intend to adopt any legislative measures in this regard?Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission(15 January 1999)It should first of all be pointed out that there is a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive(1) intended in particular to harmonise national legislation concerning articles of precious metal with the aim of ensuring their free movement. The proposal sets out to harmonise standards of fineness and sponsors' and fineness marks, as well as certification systems (three alternative systems are planned: product quality, Community declaration of conformity and third-party verification).The proposal has not yet been adopted because of differences among the Member States concerning the planned certification procedures. The version that is currently being considered by the Council offers a compromise solution. There would accordingly be correspondance between only two of the three certification systems, i.e. third-party verification and product quality, with the system providing for a Community declaration of conformity being retained as optional.Pending harmonisation at Community level, and following a horizontal look at legislation in all the Member States in 1992, the Commission started infringement procedures against most of the Member States, the main aim being to request: recognition of fineness standards struck in other Member States or at least of those standards listed in the proposal for a directive (in the current version, i.e. the version proposed by the Italian Presidency in April 1996, this set of standards matches the list contained in the ISO standard, plus fineness standard 999); the insertion of a clause aimed at recognition of fineness marks legally struck in other Member States, when the information included is equivalent to that laid down in national legislation; insertion of a clause aimed at recognition of sponsors' marks registered in another Member State; abolition of any marking difference between national and imported products, in cases where the latter are submitted for marking in the importing Member State.The infringement procedures have resulted in changes to the relevant legislation in most of the Member States. In the case of some Member States, the procedure is still under way or being resolved. It is therefore fair to say that, following the action by the Commission, the national authorities now accept the principle of mutual recognition with regard to trade in articles of precious metal. It seems that certain concrete problems still exist, however. Actual recognition is often hampered, in practice, by the fact that Member States with a third-party verification system refuse to recognise as equivalent any marks affixed by manufacturers or as part of a product quality system.In these circumstances, the Commission has noted a new series of complaints and cases that have arisen, and it has resumed discussions with all the Member States involved with a view to finding a solution to the problem. In particular, it has asked the relevant authorities if they are ready to recognise as equivalent to marks affixed by a third party those marks that are affixed as part of a product quality system offering suitable and adequate guarantees of professionalism and impartiality.(1) OJ C 209, 29.7.1994.