WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3158/98 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Trade in jewellery within the Community
Date: 1998-10-19
Institutions: European Parliament, FERRER
Subjects: Spain, approximation of laws, complaint to the Commission, export restriction, free movement of goods, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, professional association, proposal (EU), single market













EUR-Lex - 91998E3158 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3158

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3158/98 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Trade in jewellery within the Community  


Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0033 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/98by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission(19 October 1998)Subject: Trade in jewellery within the CommunityThe Spanish Association of Jewellers submitted a complaint to the Commission denouncing the obstacles facing Spanish exporters of jewels attempting to market their products within the Community.What steps does the Commission intend to take to eliminate these obstacles?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission(14 December 1998)In the first instance, it should be noted that there is a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive which aims to harmonise national legislation on articles of precious metal in order to ensure their free movement(1). The proposal aims to harmonise standards of fineness, fineness marks and sponsor's marks, as well as the certification systems (three alternative systems have been put forward: quality assurance, the EC declaration of conformity and third-party verification). It has not yet been possible to adopt the proposal due to differences between the Member States with regard to certification procedures. The version currently being discussed by the Council provides for a compromise solution. This proposes that only two of the three certification systems be made equivalent, these being third-party verification and quality assurance, with the EC declaration of conformity system being retained as an option.Pending harmonisation at Community level, the Commission has, following an examination of legislation throughout the Member States in 1992, initiated infringement procedures against most of the Member States, primarily with the aim of requesting: the recognition of standards of fineness affixed in other Member States, or at least of the range of standards contained in the draft Directive (in its current version, i.e. the version proposed by the Italian Presidency in April 1996, as this range corresponds to the range laid down in the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standard, plus code 999); the insertion of a clause covering the recognition of fineness marks legally affixed in other Member States, when the information contained is equivalent to that laid down by national regulations; the insertion of a clause covering the recognition of sponsor's marks registered in another Member State; and the abolition of any differences in marking between national and imported products, in cases where the latter are submitted for marking in the importing country. The infringement proceedings have given rise to amendments to the legislation concerned in most of the Member States. In some Member States, the procedure is under way or reaching a conclusion. One could then conclude that, following the action taken by the Commission, the national authorities now accept the principle of mutual recognition in the field of trade in articles of precious metal.Nevertheless, some specific problems do still remain, as demonstrated in particular by the complaints from Spanish operators. Under Spanish legislation, the guarantee mark can be affixed either by an official body or by an authorised body. In the case of the latter, this body is one proposed by the manufacturer and expressly authorised to do so by the national authorities, which carefully monitor the marking operations. This system is therefore closely related to the quality assurance system. When it comes to effective recognition, the problems arise, in practice, from the fact that those Member States which operate a third-party verification system refuse to recognise that marks affixed under the responsibility of the manufacturer as part of a quality assurance system are equivalent. It is under these conditions that the Commission has recorded a new series of complaints and officially-identified cases and has re-established contact with all the Member States concerned in order to find a solution to this problem. The authorities in the Member States have, in effect, been asked if they are prepared to give equivalent recognition to marks affixed by a third party and those affixed under a quality assurance system which offers suitable and sufficient guarantees of professionalism and independence.(1) OJ C 209, 29.7.1994.