WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/99 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Adverse effects of replacing national quality marks with 'self-certification' by manufacturers on the basis of Conformité Européenne.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC conformity marking, Netherlands, application of EU law, competence of the Member States

C 203 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

(2000/C 203 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/99

by Francisca Sauquillo PØrez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Situation of an official in the light of the Disciplinary Board(cid:146)s conclusions

Even though the former ECHO director has been cleared of any blame by the College of Commissioners
following the conclusion of the disciplinary procedures laid down in the Staff Regulations, individuals are
launching initiatives within the Commission and other institutions with the aim of reopening the case.

1.
Does the Commission take the view that the exoneration of the former ECHO director by the College
of Commissioners following the intervention of the Disciplinary Board and the investigation carried out by
the former UCLAF constitutes the end of the proceedings and that, now that judgment has been passed,
the case can be reopened only under the conditions laid down in Article 11 of Annex IX to the Staff
Regulations?

2. Will the Commission provide assistance, in accordance with Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, to an
official who is continuing to suffer harassment from the staff of the Commission and from members of
other institutions even though he has been exonerated under the Commission(cid:146)s own procedures? What
form will this assistance take?

How will the Commission make good the harm done to this official now that his innocence in the

3.
ECHO affair has been proven?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that the disciplinary proceedings which
1.
were instituted against the former Director of ECHO were closed by the Commission(cid:146)s decision of 14 July
1999 in accordance with the reasoned opinion delivered by the Disciplinary Board. The decision to close
the proceedings was based on the facts which were then at the disposal of the Commission. In any
disciplinary case, it is only possible to re-open proceedings if new facts are discovered.

2. and 3.
Any official who is threatened, attacked, insulted or defamed as an official in relation to facts
in respect of which a decision has been taken not to discipline him or her is entitled to assistance from the
Institution of their employment under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. This assistance will usually take
the form of paying the individual(cid:146)s legal fees. The Commission can confirm that it is providing such
assistance in the case at issue, in keeping with the Regulation.

(2000/C 203 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/99

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Adverse effects of replacing national quality marks with (cid:146)self-certification(cid:146) by manufacturers on the

basis of (cid:145)ConformitØ EuropØenne(cid:146)

1.
Can the Commission confirm that introduction of the CE ((cid:145)ConformitØ EuropØenne(cid:146)) marking for
consumer goods and professional equipment enables manufacturers to decide independently whether their
products satisfy the requirements for safety, quality, energy-efficiency and protection of the environment,
in contrast to the system currently existing in the various Member States where a product can only be
marketed if a quality mark has been supplied by a body designated by the national authority, such as
KEMA in the Netherlands?

In what way will the Commission verify the extent to which products covered by the European

2.
directives on CE marking actually comply with the requirements laid down in those directives?

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/27

the Commission check whether

the system of self-verification (with manufacturers and
3. Will
importers themselves being responsible for ensuring that new products meet the requirements of the CE
directives) will lead to the requirements being circumvented? If so, how? If not, is it prepared to submit to
Parliament without delay a proposal for effective monitoring?

Can the Commission confirm that

4.
the Dutch Labour Inspectorate and
Commodity Inspectorate (cid:129) and comparable bodies in the other Member States (cid:129) do not have the power
to request technical files from manufacturers or to consult a notified body in another Member State? If so,
what does this mean in terms of effectiveness of compliance with the directives?

the regional offices of

5.
In how many cases did the notified bodies of the individual Member States request technical files on
products because they suspected that a product bearing an EC sticker did not satisfy the basic requirements
of the relevant CE directives?

6.
Is the Commission aware that an investigation conducted by the Commodity Inspectorate in
The Hague in 1998 into the safety of grinding machines, drill presses and bandsaws found that 90 % of
the items inspected failed to comply with the European directive on machinery and none complied with
the Dutch legal requirements?

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of its current and planned activities to provide national
7.
authorities, research bodies and the public with a rapid and satisfactory source of information on whether
products actually satisfy the essential requirements of the relevant CE directives?

8. What
is the Commission planning to do to compile statistics on the effects of
subsequently, to ensure that standards do not fall for consumers, professional users or the environment?

the CE and,

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1999)

The CE marking is affixed to products covered by New Approach Directives (1), on the responsibility
1.
of the producer, his authorised representative in the Community or the person responsible of placing the
product on the Community market, as an indication that the essential requirements of relevant directives
have been met and that the conformity assessment procedures laid down in those directives have been
complied with. These conformity assessment procedures vary according to the nature of the risks and
products concerned. In many cases, third party tests and certificates are required. All the procedures have
been established on the basis of a high level of protection. Further, while some Member States may have
used quality marks for some products before the adoption of Community measures, this was not a
universal practice. In consequence, the Commission cannot agree with the statement of the Honourable
Member.

Ensuring compliance by those who place products on the Community market

is a
2. and 3.
responsibility of the Member States. The Commission(cid:146)s concern is to ensure that the Member States carry
out this obligation. The recent programme of mutual joint visits, which ended with a seminar in Brussels
in September 1999, promoted the exchange of understanding and best practice. It is an example of the
way in which this responsibility is being executed.

4.
Community law requires the manufacturer, his authorised representative or the person responsible
for placing the product on the market (in certain cases the person having the documentation) must be
established in the Community and to retain the technical documentation, on the basis of which conformity
to New Approach Directives has been established, and to keep it at the disposal of the national authorities.
This documentation includes all specific information for verification of conformity with the safety
requirements, which may include any certificates and test reports provided by notified bodies in
connection with establishment of conformity. The Commission considers that this should contribute to
effective market surveillance.

C 203 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

5. Where a manufacturer requests a notified body to carry out conformity assessment procedures
required under New Approach Directives, these are done on the basis inter alia, of technical documenta-
tion provided by the manufacturer. It is not the function of notified bodies to carry out autonomous
market surveillance activities, which are the prerogative of national authorities.

6.

The Commission is not aware of survey results of the type referred to by the Honourable Member.

7.
The identification of defective products is a matter for the Member States. The Commission, through
administrative co-operation, safeguard and, for consumer goods presenting severe and immediate hazards,
RAPEX procedures, assists with the distribution of information concerning defective products which have
been identified by Member State authorities, where problems have not been satisfactorily resolved. The
medical devices vigilance system monitors serious incidents involving medical devices, whether rectified or
not.

8. Monitoring of injuries, with a view to reducing their incidence has in the past been carried out under
the European home and leisure accident surveillance system (Ehlass). The Community action programme
on injury prevention in the framework of action in the field of public health (2) will reinforce and develop
this, helping identify any areas where deficiencies in product safety may contribute to accidents. As has
been made clear above, the Commission does not share the view of the Honourable Member that the use
of the CE marking reduces safety standards. It believes that the reverse is the case, due to the application of
uniformly high levels of protection to products placed on the internal market.

(1) OJ C 136, 4.6.1985; OJ L 220, 30.8.1993; OJ L 282, 17.11.1993.
(2)

Parliament and Council Decision 372/99/EC of 8 February 1999 adopting a programme of Community action on
injury prevention in the field of public health (1999-2003), OJ L 46, 20.2.1999.

(2000/C 203 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: State aid and the RAI affair

Can the Commission provide an update on the proceedings against the Italian state radio and television
service (RAI) for receiving allegedly unfair state aid?

Is the Commission aware that RAI TV has spent, and continues to spend, huge amounts of money on trite,
uneducational entertainment programmes and on heavily biased programmes of a political and/or cultural
nature?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 1999)

In February 1999 the Commission requested the Italian government to provide the information necessary
to assess whether the aid granted to Radio Televisione Italiana (RAI) might be considered as existing aid in
the sense of Article 88(1) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty.

On the basis of the information submitted by the Italian government, the Commission decided in July
1999 to initiate the formal investigation procedure with respect to some aid measures granted to RAI by
the state and Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale (IRI) over the 1992-1994 period. The Commission
takes the view that these measures can not be considered as existing aid, as they were not foreseen in any
law pre-dating the entry into force of the EC Treaty. At the present stage, the Commission has doubts as to
their compatibility with the common market.