WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/99 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Notified bodies.
Date: 1999-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, EU law, European Economic Area, European standard, accession negotiations, accession to the European Union, approval, competence of the Member States, enlargement of the Union, free movement of goods, protective clause, standardisation, transitional period (EU)

C 225 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Article 16 of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
placing on the market of biocide products provides for a transitional period of ten years. During the
transitional period, the notification requirement under Directive 98/34/EC still remains (see Article 16(5)).

Until the final date for the transposition of the Biocides Directive, on 13 May 2000, the Dutch authorities
do have the right to adopt such national provisions, provided that, apart from being notified as mentioned
above, the provisions are compatible with Articles 28 (formerly Article 30) to 30 (formerly Article 36) of
the EC Treaty. The Commission will check such compatibility on the basis of the texts submitted to it.

(2000/C 225 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/99

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Notified bodies

The Commission(cid:146)s intention to promote free trade between the EU and the countries applying for
membership and to reduce industry(cid:146)s costs by means of the speedy recognition of notified bodies is
supported by the author of this question. There must, however, be no permanent lowering of environ-
mental, social, product and technical standards which may affect consumers either in the EU or in the
applicant countries. For this reason it must be ensured that notified bodies in the applicant countries
receive professional and financial assistance to enable them to monitor the release of products on to the
market, so that the EU(cid:146)s quality standards can be matched. In general terms, however, precautions should
also be taken to ensure that the quality standards of technical monitoring in the EU and in the applicant
countries are such that consumers are guaranteed a high level of protection and safety. There is no room
for any (cid:145)black sheep(cid:146) amongst the ranks of such important institutions as the notified bodies.

1. Why was the question of notified bodies not negotiated as part of the whole accession (cid:145)package(cid:146)?

2. What action is the Commission planning to take in order to bring the notified bodies in the
applicant countries up to the EU(cid:146)s quality standards, and will that action be sufficient?

3. What have the Commission(cid:146)s experiences with the protection clause procedures been so far and what
form will such procedures take during the transition period?

4. What form does the question of jurisdiction take?

How does the Commission intend to carry out regular monitoring of the necessary quality standards

5.
both in the EU and in the applicant countries?

6.
Is the Commission planning to take any further steps in order to promote liberalisation in the field of
testing and standards and thereby to reduce costs borne by producers and hence, indirectly, by consumers?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The Commission is in broad agreement with the position expressed by the Honourable Member.

However, it would add the following comments in reply to the specific questions:

1. Questions relating to notified bodies are covered by the enlargement negotiations, under the chapter

(cid:145)free movement of goods(cid:146). These negotiations are still in process.

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/23

2. The Commission has made it clear to candidate countries that compliance with the acquis in the
matter of notified bodies is indispensable for enlargement, a position that is not contested. The PHARE
programme and, in particular PRAQ III, provide for technical assistance in this field. PRAQ III also
provides for evaluation of progress, as a tool for the effective channelling of assistance. This technical
assistance amounts to a transfer of European best practices, helping the beneficiary countries to
achieve levels of performance comparable to those found in the Community.

3.

and 4. The safeguard procedure provided in Community product legislation only applies within the
European economic area (EEA), or in countries with which specific trade arrangements have provided
for its application. It is not applicable to candidate countries in the pre-enlargement period, unless a
specific agreement provides otherwise. The question of jurisdiction therefore does not arise.

5. Market surveillance in the Community is a responsibility of the Member States. Community law
requires Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with Community law, for
example as regards freedom to place compliant products on the market and the obligation to ensure
that non-compliant products are not placed on the market. However, in the run-up to their member-
ship, the Community will monitor progress by the candidates to apply the acquis through further
screening and sub-committee meetings.

6.

Protocols to the Europe agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of products (PECAs),
currently under discussion with a number of candidate countries, would facilitate trade where it is
the candidate country has already transposed and effectively implemented the
established that
requirements of the acquis on industrial products. This would require the candidate country to have
implemented relevant legislation, to have ensured that notified bodies were performing at Community
levels of competence, to have established effective market surveillance and to have established a
safeguard procedure comparable to that provided within the Community. In the envisaged PECA
procedure, compliance with the obligations of the safeguard procedure would fall under the jurisdic-
tion of the respective parties, subject to the oversight of the joint committee.

(2000/C 225 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1813/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Selection of areas for EU aid in Finland

The initial selections have been made in the Member States for the areas to receive aid under the EU(cid:146)s
regional policy.
In Finland the government is proposing precisely delimited areas for support under
Objective 2, including parts of the fastest-growing and most developed cities.

From the point of view of the less-developed areas surrounding these cities it seems strange that well-off,
developed areas are being selected to receive aid, while the surrounding areas which are suffering from an
exodus of population, the loss of traditional livelihoods and structural changes to industry are not able to
be included among the areas eligible for support.

If it is not possible for aid areas to include whole provinces, they should at least be based on whole
neighbourhoods. Now the government(cid:146)s proposal is seriously neglecting the rural areas around centres of
growth.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that less-developed areas suffering serious problems can receive
EU aid instead of the Member States (cid:145)cherry-picking(cid:146) in this way?