WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/99 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. CE mark.
Date: 1999-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC conformity marking

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/29

been concluded. The commitments correspond to investments of € 559 million. The grants are made in
conformity with contracts concluded between the investor and the Portuguese authorities. The European
regional development fund (ERDF) and European social fund (ESF) pay 75 % of the public expenditure
financing the aid schemes providing the grants.

According to the Portuguese authorities,
they have no knowledge at
redundancies or relocations linked to the projects carried out by Siemens.

this stage of any collective

the terms of a grant contract concluded with the Portuguese
If an enterprise were not to respect
authorities, it would be for these latter to take the legal action referred to in the contract, including, if
necessary, measures to ensure a refund of the relevant part of the grant.

In the next programming period, Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260 of 21 June 1999 laying
down general provisions of the structural funds (1), provides that the Member States shall ensure that an
operation retains the contribution from the funds only if that operation does not, within five years of the
date of the decision of the national authorities or the managing authority on the contribution of the funds,
undergo a substantial modification resulting notably from a cessation or change in location of a productive
activity.

In the guidelines issued earlier this year for the next programming period, there is a statement of principle
that the structural funds should not be used for the mere relocation of existing activities.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 219 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/99

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

(12 October 1999)

Subject: CE mark

The CE mark is a requirement for the free movement of goods within the EU. From the start it was
intended only as a (cid:145)European passport(cid:146) for European products. The greatest reservations concerning the
original Commission proposal related to the fact that the CE mark might be seen by consumers as an
indication of quality. Such considerations were raised in the report by the relevant European Parliament
committee on the Council decision concerning modules and the CE conformity marking (93/465/EEC). In
its resolution of 12 February 1999 the European Parliament (cid:145)advocates a graduated scheme of European
conformity symbols that, in addition to the (cid:145)CE(cid:146) symbol, will also provide for voluntary private or statutory
conformity symbols(cid:146).

In section 14 of his answers to the European Parliament(cid:146)s questionnaire the future Commissioner
Erkki Liikanen likewise states that (cid:145)greater recourse to European standardisation, certification and accred-
itation are important elements for increasing transparency and confidence in the markets by regulatory and
voluntary means(cid:146).

Despite these pronouncements, uncertainty still pervades the business world as a result of changes made
by the Commission or so-called translation errors.

1. What specific measures and changes has the Commission in mind as regards the directives or other
texts relating to the EC mark and will
it in future comply with the European Parliament(cid:146)s wish that
voluntary and widely recognised private quality marks should be accepted in addition to the CE mark?

2.
In the opinion of a business-friendly Directorate-General for Industry, should any restriction or even
a ban on private marks additional to the CE mark not be excluded since such a ban could scarcely be
imposed on competitors from third countries (for example, U1 marks from the USA) and would therefore
significantly distort competition?

C 219 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

The CE mark substantiates the conformity of industrial products placed on the Community market
1.
with all the obligations incumbent on manufacturers under technical harmonisation directives which
require the mark to be affixed as proof of compliance with the safety, public health and user protection
requirements. The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty provides, in Article 95
(ex Article 100a), for a high level of protection and that the CE mark thus conveys this message.

With regard to the divergent interpretation given in the Member States to the CE mark as regards its
meaning and scope, the Commission has taken steps to clarify the situation to determine, in particular, any
potential overlapping betewen CE marking and voluntary national marks. The Commission will shortly
publish a guide on the new approach and the global approach.

The Commission leaves it to the market to confirm the important role of voluntary marks which have a
genuine added value for all economic operators. However, the Commission opposes the affixing of marks
encroaching on the scope covered by CE marking.

2.
The multiplication of marks on the Community market, which have in some cases become necessary
to ensure access to points of sale, entails considerable costs for European producers. Any overlapping
between marks is a waste of resources. This multiplication of marks hampers the free movement of
products and is detrimental to the competitiveness of companies. Moreover, the Commission is not
convinced that a profusion of marks serves the consumer(cid:146)s need for information.

The Commission has therefore come out in favour of a development that averts the proliferation of marks.

Moreover, the Commission intends to compile a report on the implementation of Council Decision
93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 (1) concerning the conformity assessment procedures used in the technical
harmonisation directives and CE marking for a global evaluation of the situation at the internal level and
in relations with non-member countries following the implementation of certain agreements on mutual
recognition.

(1) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

(2000/C 219 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998)

Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already
disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private),
institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or
individuals, in connection with the Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998) included in the fourth framework
programme (budget of ECU 358 million, equivalent to slightly less than ITL 700 billion?

Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

The Biomed 2 programme, which covered all main areas of biomedical research, received a total of
3 550 multinational projects during the years 1995-1998. A total of 617 research contracts involving
about 6 100 different teams were signed and funded. All 617 research projects are continuing in 1999 and
consist of 287 concerted actions (148 of them ending in 1999), and 330 shared cost actions (157 of them