Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/CE in 1997 and 1998
Date: 2000-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: exchange of information, free movement of goods, marketing, single market, technical specification

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 07.04.2000
COM(2000)194 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE COUNCIL,THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/CE in 1997 and 1998

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE COUNCIL,THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/CE in 1997 and 1998

Executive summary

Among the instruments necessary for the management of the single market, Decision
3052/95/EC plays a pivotal role. In a single market, products that have been lawfully
produced and marketed in one Member State can also be marketed in any other Member
State. However, there may be situations where a Member States’ authorities will have to
restrict the circulation of a product, whether domestic or imported, on the market because the
specific characteristics of that product present a danger to the consumer, the environment or
public order in general. The single market therefore, whilst establishing the principle of free
circulation of products, also charges Member States with the task of effectively protecting the
legitimate interests of its citizens.

The objective of Decision 3052/95/EC is to ensure that every decision by the authorities of a
Member State which restricts the free circulation of goods legally marketed in other Member
States is brought to the attention of the Commission and the other Member States as quickly
as possible, allowing the latter to take any appropriate steps. Such transparency is the
prerequisite for efficient decentralised management of the single market. It may also serve to
detect areas where obstacles continue to exist and where harmonisation at Community level
might be called for.

Apart from Decision 3052/95/EC, a range of specific single market instruments provide for
different forms of transparency: all New Approach Directives contain safeguard clauses
which require Member States to signal temporary derogation to the rules of free circulation to
the Commission and the Member States. Directive 92/59/EEC on product safety provides for
a notification procedure whereby Member States notify the withdrawal from the market of a
product that is unsafe. In contrast to these ex-post notifications, the information directive
98/34/EC provides for notification of all technical regulations prior to their adoption.

Decision 3052/95/EC applies in the absence of any other specific obligation of notification. It
can therefore be considered as the catch all provision or the “safety-net” for ensuring
transparency of single market management.

To date 102 measures have been notified under Decision 3052/95/EC. This seems low in
comparison to the number of measures notified under specific instruments, such as the
product safety directive or the information directive.

Several factors are having an impact. First of all, the novelty of the instrument requires a
certain amount of familiarisation/training of national administrations. Linked to that national
authorities have difficulties in identifying Decision 3052/95/EC as the appropriate notification
procedure within a range of
transparency instruments. Communication between the
Commission – central government administrations and decentralised local authorities is

2

sometimes hampered. Finally, economic operators rarely invoke Decision 3052/95/EC as a
“right” to obtain adequate information and justification concerning product restrictions.

This report concludes that information efforts on the working and the added value of Decision
3052/95/EC have to be stepped up at European, national and regional level. In addition, it
raises the issue of a longer term reflection on “what kind of transparency” is required to
manage the single market and how it can best be obtained.

3

INTRODUCTION

Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December
1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures
derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community1
(hereafter referred to as "the Decision"), has been in force in the Member States since 1
January 1997.

The Decision establishes an information procedure designed to ensure the transparency of
measures adopted by the Member States by derogation from the principle of mutual
recognition.

The principle of mutual recognition is a cornerstone of the completion and functioning of the
single market. It provides for freedom of movement in all Member States of products legally
manufactured or marketed in another Member State. Only in exceptional and duly justified
cases do the authorities of a Member State have the right to derogate from the principal of free
movement. In this way, the single market establishes free movement of products, while
charging the authorities of Member States with ensuring that the said free movement does not
jeopardise the legitimate interests of EU citizens.

There are two reasons why this Decision is an essential component of efficient management
of the internal market.

• It ensures that any decision made by a Member State which has the effect of restricting
the free movement of goods is notifiable and transparent. Although a number of sectoral
directives and the Directive on product safety lay down notification procedures, this
Decision is valuable because it covers all
the cases where no specific notification
procedure is provided for.

• The Decision’s goal of transparency is a corollary of the deliberately decentralised
management practised by the authorities of the Member States. If a Member State
adopts measures which restrict the free circulation of goods from another Member State,
this must be brought to the attention of the remaining Member States and the Commission
so that a rapid and appropriate solution may be found at Community level to actions which
may call
into question the free movement of goods and the legitimate interests of
consumers.

Article 11 of the Decision states that, within two years of its implementation, the Commission
shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on its operation and shall propose any
amendment it deems appropriate. The report is divided into three parts describing, firstly, the
mechanics of the Decision, (1), then its implementation by Member States (2) and the
Commission (3) during the first two years, in order to draw a number of conclusions (4).

1

OJ L 321, 30.12.1995, p. 1.

4

1.

THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE DECISION

The Decision requires Member States to notify the Commission of all measures which restrict
the free movement of goods or the marketing of a certain model or a certain type of product
which is legally manufactured and sold in another Member State if the direct or indirect effect
of the measure is a complete ban, a refusal to authorise its marketing, a requirement to modify
the model or type of the product in question in order allow its (continued) marketing, or a
withdrawal from the market.

This notification must take place within 45 days of the date the measure was taken. The only
formal condition is that an information sheet containing the particulars listed in the annex
must be used.

The Decision also provides for a number of exceptions to the notification requirement. In
particular, notification is not required for judicial decisions, measures taken solely in
pursuance of Community harmonisation measures, measures notified to the Commission
under specific provisions, measures notified as drafts, or measures relating to the protection of
public morality or public order.

Finally, as required under Article 9 of the Decision, the Commission is required to provide
Community-wide information on national measures notified pursuant to this procedure. The
Commission is required to respect the principle of confidentiality, which includes professional
secrecy, as referred to in Article 6 of the Decision. Also, without prejudice to unresolved
cases, the Commission is required to provide information on any follow-up action decided on.

The procedure laid down in the decision is described in a vade mecum that the Commission
has sent to the Member States.

2.

2.1

IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES

Implementation of the decision by Member States

As required by the second sentence of Article 11 of the Decision, the relevant Commission
department wrote to the Member States on 24 November 1998, asking them to pass on any
relevant information on how they implement the Decision. A reminder was sent on 22
January 1999 to the Member States which had not replied by the deadline.

Summaries of the information supplied by the Member States are provided below.

Belgium

In a letter dated 12 February 1999, the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that an
inter-ministerial meeting specifically on preparing to implement the Decision had been held
on 29 November 1996 in order to remind the relevant authorities of how to apply the
Decision. At this meeting, CIBELNOR, a Belgian centre under the authority of the Belgian
standards institute was designated as the Belgian contact point for the Decision. A further
inter-ministerial meeting was held on 11 June 1998. The finality of the decision, the need for
authorities to have contact points available, and the possibility of sanctions when the Decision
was not applied were emphasised. A bilateral meeting between the Commission and the
Belgian authorities took place on 23 September 1998. An effort is being made to have a

5

network of contact points in the relevant administrations follow up on the problematic point
that there have not yet been any notifications from Belgium.

Denmark

In a letter dated 10 December 1998, the Danish authorities stated that the Danish Industrial
Development Board’s circular No 145 of 11 September 1996 informed their departments of
the procedure laid down in the Decision. Moreover, yearly information meetings are held to
keep the departments informed. The Danish authorities forward the notifications from other
Member States sent on by the Commission to the relevant departments and to certain
professional organisations for their information and to learn of their opinion.

Germany

The German authorities, in a letter of 29 December 1998, stated that (as the Commission had
been informed in a letter dated 17 December 1996) all Federal and regional authorities subject
to the notification requirement under the Decision had been informed of this requirement. The
German authorities pointed out that, during the period under consideration, 21 measures
affecting health protection (food sector) had been notified by the national contact authority
designated in accordance with Article 7 of the Decision.

Spain

In a note dated 26 February 1999, the Spanish authorities informed the Commission that a
central contact point had been set up in the Secretaría de Estado de Política Exterior y para
la Unión Europea. Contact points had also been established in every ministry affected by the
Decision and all the Autonomous Communities. All the contact points are the same as those
set up under Directive 98/34. The central contact point has prepared several notes concerning
information on or interpretations of how the Decision is to be applied. The notes, the Decision
and the vade mecum have all been sent to the contact points.

For their part, the contact points of the various ministries and the Autonomous Communities
prepared recommendations and information notes on the Decision which were then
distributed to the authorities. The central contact point distributes the Spanish version of the
notification sheet to the other contact points which are responsible for distributing them. An
article on the Decision written for economic and social operators has been published in the
Revista de Comercio Española.

France

In their note of 4 December 1998, the French authorities stated that the Decision had been the
subject of a circular from the Prime Minister, dated 26 July 1996, relating to the reciprocal
procedure on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods
within the Community2. The circular defines the procedures which must be adhered to by the
national authorities with regard to French notifications, and the treatment of notifications
from other Member States. The annexes to the circular contain the vade mecum on the
Decision and the notification sheet.

2

Prime Minister’s circular of 26 July 1996 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on
national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community,
published in the Official Journal of the French Republic of 31 July 1996, p. 11592.

6

Ireland

In a letter dated 19 January 1999, the Irish authorities informed the Commission that the
Decision had been implemented through an administrative procedure identical to the one used
to apply Directive 83/189. It enables the authority responsible for implementing the Decision
to formally notify all government departments and the public authorities concerned of their
obligations under the Decision.

Italy

In a letter dated 30 December 1998, the Italian authorities confirmed that implementation of
the Decision had been the subject of a Communication from the Ministry of Industry, Trade
and the Craft Trades on 14 January 19973. It was addressed to all Italian administrations.

Luxembourg

The Luxembourg authorities indicated in their note of 21 December 1998 that the Ministry of
Energy, which is responsible for this sector, had not issued a single notification of measures
derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods since the Directive entered into
force.

The Netherlands

In a letter dated 1 February 1999, the Dutch authorities reiterated that the Centrale Dienst
voor In- en Uitvoer (CDIU) had been designated as the contact point pursuant to Article 7 of
the Decision. They added that they had made the authorities responsible for implementing the
Decision aware of the requirements set out in it and of the Commission’s vade mecum.
Moreover, as part of the Interdepartementale Werkgroep Notificatie, a manual had been
prepared to assist the services concerned with implementing the Decision. A copy of this
manual was enclosed with the letter from the Dutch authorities. The Dutch authorities
emphasised how useful the meeting with the Commission held on 27 April 1998 had been in
preparing this manual, as the practical aspects of implementation had been addressed. They
also suggested that discussion on these matters should continue, for example, at a future
meeting of the Committee set up under Directive 98/34/EC. Moreover, a meeting of the
national authorities was to be held in 1999 to compare experiences and restate the
requirements laid down in the Decision.

Austria

On 30 December 1998, the Austrian authorities sent a fax containing detailed information on
how they had implemented the Decision. Several meetings were organised by the Federal
Ministry of Economic Affairs in 1996, during which the Decision, the vade mecum and the
note were distributed. On 17 December 1996, the Council of Ministers adopted a circular on
implementation of the Decision, which, together with the vade mecum and the note, was sent
to the regional authorities, among others.

3

Communication of the Ministry of Trade and Industry No 16185 of 14 January 1997. Not published.

7

Portugal

In a note dated 19 February 1999, the Portuguese authorities reiterated that their Decision
30/97 of 11 November 1997 had set up the Instituto Português da Qualidade as the national
contact point responsible for the notification procedure instituted by the Decision. The
Portuguese authorities stressed the efforts they had made to inform economic operators of the
information collected under the Decision, most notably by setting up an Internet site. They
also noted that, up to now, the majority of notifications concerned foodstuffs, medicines or
chemicals.

Finland

In a letter of 12 January 1999, the Finnish authorities informed the Commission that the
responsible departments had implemented the Decision by means of administrative
cooperation between the authorities and administrative agreements. In this context, the
departments took the following action: informing the other ministries and authorities of the
content of the decision and that it had come into force, describing the sectors which were not
subject
to harmonisation and holding meetings and seminars on the application of the
Decision. In addition, during a package meeting which took place on 9 October 1998, the
relevant departments, in cooperation with the Internal Market DG, held a conference on the
application of the decision.

Sweden

In a letter dated 23 December 1998, the Swedish authorities pointed out that regulation
1996:830 requires both national administrations and local authorities to provide the
information relevant to the Decision. The national contact point has also laid down rules for
its implementation4. In spite of the efforts already made, the relevant services recognise that
additional action must be taken to ensure that the Decision is applied at all administrative
levels, particularly locally and regionally, where the need for information is most strongly
the Swedish authorities have raised several problems concerning the
felt. Moreover,
implementation of the Decision: the division between the different information procedures is
unclear; the Decision does not cover the measures taken by certain private bodies; nor does it
cover certain types de measures such as preliminary contacts, which may nonetheless affect
the free movement of goods; obtaining information from other Member States is difficult; and
lastly, they have some doubts concerning notifications of measures taken in fields that are in
the process of harmonisation.

United Kingdom

In a letter dated 27 January 1999, the British authorities stated that they had not yet notified
any measures up to that time. Their explanation for this is that the measures which require
notification under this Decision have often already been notified under other notification
procedures. The Decision was implemented in the United Kingdom via an administrative
circular of 11 December 1996. Nonetheless, having recently examined how the Decision was
being applied, the British authorities stated that new guidelines would soon be sent to the
departments along with a reminder of their obligations under the Decision. The national
authorities also stressed that they were eager to be kept informed of the conclusions that the

4

KFS 1996:3 : National Board of Trade rules for providing information on national measures derogating
from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community.

8

Commission drew from the notifications it received. Lastly, they emphasised that they were
experiencing difficulty identifying the country of production of certain products, and thus in
deciding whether measures affecting them were notifiable.

As for the national authorities competent under Article 7 of the Decision, the Member States
provided the Commission with the details of those which had been appointed to transmit or
receive the information referred to in the Decision. The complete list of them is given in
Annex I.

2.2

Breakdown of notifications

2.2.1 Member States

During 1997, the year in which the Decision came into force as set out in Article 12, the
Commission received a total of 33 notifications from the following Member States (see
Annex 2):

- the French Republic (26 notifications);

- the Federal Republic of Germany (four notifications);

- the Republic of Finland (three notifications).

In 1998 (see Annex 2), the number of notifications increased to 69. They were issued by just
four Member States:

- the Hellenic Republic (43 notifications);

- the Federal Republic of Germany (18 notifications);

- the French Republic (five notifications);

- the Kingdom of Denmark (three notifications).

However, the number of notifications remains unsatisfactory and must be increased, since it is
apparent that numerous national measures which fall within the scope of the Decision have
not been notified. As Annex 3 shows, the notified measures concern important sectors of the
economy which are regularly the subject of national measures.

The following Member States have not notified any measures:

- Austria;

- Belgium;

- Spain;

- Ireland;

- Italy;

- Luxembourg;

- The Netherlands;

9

- Portugal;

- Sweden;

- United Kingdom.

2.2.2

European Economic Area

In accordance with Decision No 16/97 of 26 March 1997 of the Joint Committee of the
European Economic Area (EEA)5, the Decision is also applicable in all Signatory States of
the EEA as from 1 December 1998.

Consequently, pursuant to Article 109 of and Protocol 1 to the Agreement on the EEA, the
Commission has, since 1 December 1998, been forwarding to the EFTA (European Free
Trade Association) Surveillance Authority notifications which it receives pursuant to the
Decision. The Surveillance Authority reciprocates by forwarding the notifications which it
receives from the EEA member countries to the responsible Commission departments.

Within the framework of cooperation provided for by Article 109 of the EEA Agreement,
however, the EFTA Surveillance Authority may also have access to notifications received by
the Commission between 1 January 1997 and 30 November 1998, during which time the
Decision was in force in the European Union but not in the EEA.

The fact that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not forwarded notifications by the EEA
countries to the Commission since 1 December 1998 is because the Decision only recently
came into force in the EEA. This also explains why the Commission does not yet have any
information on specific administrative arrangements.

3

3.1

IMPLEMENTATION BY THE COMMISSION

Internal procedures established by the Commission

The unit responsible for implementing the Decision at the Commission is the department of
the Internal Market DG which handles complaints about obstacles to the free movement of
goods.

When it receives the notification sheet,
registers it and provides an
acknowledgement of receipt. The notification sheet is then forwarded to the Commission
departments which are responsible for the field affected by the notification.

this department

The sheet is then translated into all the EU languages and sent to all the Member States for
their information and any observations.

3.2

Action taken by the Commission to promote the implementation of the Decision

The Commission held information sessions as part of the package meetings on the free
movement of goods which are held with the Member States (Articles 28 to 30 of the EC
Treaty). Other bilateral meetings between some Member States and the Commission also took
place in order to solve problems as they arose.

5

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 16/97 of 26 March 1997 amending Annexe II (Technical
regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement, OJ L 182, 10/12/1997, p. 49.

10

In addition, at the same time that Member States were adopting the Decision, the Commission
adopted a vade mecum for it. It is designed to help the relevant national authorities determine
which measures must be notified under
the information procedure. The Commission
distributed the vade mecum, in particular at the above-mentioned package meetings.

Also, in accordance with Article 10 of the Decision, the Standing Committee established by
Directive 98/34/EC (ex Directive 83/189/EEC) was kept informed of how the procedure was
working and, in particular, of how Member States were implementing it. This Committee, and
the Chairpersons of the package meetings at their meeting on 6 February 1998 and 12
February 19996, were also informed of certain practical
issues and the difficulties of
interpretation which had been encountered in the first two years of its implementation.

Moreover, in order to improve implementation of the Decision and promote the transparency
of national measures for the benefit of economic operators, the Commission used its meetings
with the various professional organisations to inform them of the entry into force of the
Decision and the implementation procedures.

3.3

Coordination with other community instruments

Article 8 of the Decision ensures that the different notification procedures are coordinated. To
a great extent, management of the single market
is decentralised and handled by the
authorities in the Member States. The principle of administrative cooperation between
Member States is the foundation of this decentralised management. Transparency of the
actions undertaken by these authorities is the essential ingredient of this cooperation. Several
kinds of instruments help to ensure it.

3.3.1

Notifications under the New Approach Directives

The New Approach Directives lay down notification procedures which ensure that
management measures, and in particular measures refusing mutual recognition of a product,
remain transparent (e.g. directives on simple pressure vessels, toy safety, medical devices, gas
lifts, safety of
appliances, personal protective equipment, electromagnetic compatibility,
machinery, etc.). Under these Directives, freedom of movement is ensured for all products
which comply with their requirements. Only in very specific circumstances may the Member
States invoke the safeguard clause provided in the Directives to withdraw a product from the
Market. The Commission must be notified of the withdrawal and will examine it according to
the procedure provided for in the safeguard clause of the New Approach Directives.

As a general indication, the 1997 and 1998 notification figures for some key directives are
given in Annexes 4 and 5.

6

Meeting with representative of national authorities chairing the package meetings on the free movement
of goods (Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty) and on public procurement on 6 February 1998.

11

3.3.2

Notifications under Directive 92/59.

Directive 92/59/CEE7 on product safety, like the Decision, may be considered to be a catch-
all instrument. Directive 92/59/EC applies to all products intended for consumers or which
may be used by them. It sets out a general requirement for safety which also covers risks
which the specific Directives on technical harmonisation do not. Two notification procedures,
one of which is an emergency procedure, are provided for. They concern measures adopted by
Member States which restrict or block product’s access to their market. These procedures
to notify emergency
apply when no specific EU legislation lays down the requirement
measures.

The 1997 and 1998 notification figures for Directive 92/59 are given in Annexes 6 and 7.
Sectoral analysis reveals toys and baby accessories made up a large part of notifications not
related to foodstuffs in 1997 and 1998 (57% in 1997 and 17% in 1998). Cosmetic and hygiene
products account for 17 % (1998) and 7% (1997) of these notifications. Lighters are also
regularly notified (7% in 1997 and 26% in 1998).

3.3.3

Notification under Directive 98/34.

Thirdly, Directive 98/34/EC8 provides for the notification of draft versions of technical
regulations and rules on the services of the information society. There are two main
differences between this notification procedure and those mentioned above: rules to be
notified must be general, not specific, and notification takes place prior to the rules being
adopted. This procedure has enabled over 6300 national drafts to be examined since 1984,
thus helping to eliminate obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market. Recent
trends show a slight drop in the number of notifications: in 1998 the Commission received
604 compared to 670 in 1997 (to which must be added the 230 texts notified en bloc by the
Dutch authorities as part of the regularisation of infringements of the Directive). In 1998, the
following sectors, in decreasing order, were the subject of the bulk of the notifications:
machinery,
and
and foodstuffs,
construction. In 1997, the Commission issued 117 detailed opinions on drafts that were
potentially contrary to Community law. In 1998, the number of detailed opinions dropped to
64.

agricultural products

telecommunications,

transport

3.3.4

The Decision as a safety-net

The Decision is designed to be a safety-net for the three kinds of transparency instruments
in the context of managing the Internal Market, a national
mentioned above. When,
government withdraws from the market a product which was legally marketed in another
Member State, they must notify this measure under the Decision if they are not already
required to do so under another Community instrument (Article 8 of the Decision). The
objective of the Decision is thus to ensure that the Commission and Member States are
completely informed of the obstacles to trade in the internal market. In the absence of other
relevant instruments, it should guarantee a quick and coordinated reaction of the Member

7

8

Council Directive No 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety, OJ L 228, 11.08.1992,
p.24.
Directive No 98/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204,
21.7.1998, p. 37, as modified by Directive No 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information
in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

12

States managing the internal market, either to eliminate obstacles or to take efficient measures
to protect consumers across Europe. Nonetheless, the statistics on notifications received in
1997 and 1998 (see below) must be borne in mind.

Germany

4

France

26

1997

1998

Finland

3

Germany

France

Denmark

Greece

18

5

3

43

Total

33

Total

69

3.4

Follow-up on notifications

Following up on notification is basically a two-step process: a prior appraisal process leads to
a decision on the follow-up measures to be taken.

As part of the appraisal process, the Commission department responsible for managing the
instrument in question receives the notification from the Member State. This department then
forwards the notification to the other Member States and to the sectoral and general
departments of the Commission.

When analysing the notification, the Commission may previously consult with a committee of
experts or scientists if the notified measure is particularly technical and requires specific
expertise. However, this has not yet been necessary.

In other cases, when the justification provided by the Member State seems insufficient to
carry out such an analysis, the Member State may be asked to provide further information9.

Following this in-depth analysis, the Commission decides on how to follow-up on the
notification. Essentially, one of the following two situations will occur:
(cid:1)

The notified measure is temporary and concerns a specific product. Generally, there is no
particular follow-up to such cases, since they are isolated occurrences. The obstacle to the
free movement of goods is not caused by differences between the regulations of the
Member States of origin and of destination. Instead, the product’s technical specifications
(e.g. design flaws, inadequate information for consumers, etc.) are often the basis for the
notified measure.

(cid:1)

9

The notified measure reveals significant differences, or even incompatibility, between the
regulations of the Member States of origin and of destination. In such cases, products or
sectors for which the principle of mutual recognition is not enough to ensure the free
movement of goods can be updated. As an example, many of the notifications received by

See the case of notifications from France on obstacles to placing in vitro diagnostic devices on the
market.

13

the Commission in the first two years after the Decision was implemented concerned
obstacles to the marketing of enriched products (with vitamins and other nutrients). These
notifications confirmed information which the Commission was already aware of and
which indicated that Member States’ approaches differed significantly on these matters. In
such cases, the Commission may begin by submitting the problem to the Technical
Regulations Committee, which, under the Decision, is responsible for monitoring how it is
applied and hearing the Member State’s points of view and, if necessary, come to a joint
solution with them. On the other hand, when no solution can be found in this way, it may
be necessary to undertake a harmonisation process. In this way, the notification procedure
set up by the decision will have fulfilled its role of identifying fields where obstacles
persist and lead to the adoption of the measures needed to eliminate them.

Follow-up on notifications under Decision 3052/95/EC proper must be distinguished from
any incidental follow-up that the Commission may undertake if the notification brings factors
that require separate treatment under a different procedure to its attention. This is particularly
the case of irrelevant notifications. A measure may not need to be notified, or may need to
be notified under another instrument. In such cases, the Commission department responsible
for implementing the Decision will forward the notification to the relevant department.

A measure notified under Decision 3052/95/EC may also seem incompatible with Articles 28
and 30 of the EC Treaty which set out the principle of freedom of movement for goods. In
such cases, the Commission, acting in its full capacity as the guardian of the Treaty, will
examine in detail
the justification for the measure (contacting Member States where
necessary), and, if necessary, begin the infringement procedure set out in Article 226 EC. It
should be emphasised that in the few cases where the Commission felt it was useful to begin
the procedure, the notification was generally accompanied by or followed by a complaint.

4.

ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

During the first two years it was in force, the implementation of the decision did not provide
the hoped for results. More specifically, the low number of notifications did not allow the
Decision to fulfil its role, which is, above all, to be a special instrument providing information
on how the internal market is functioning in practice in the field. As stated above, the
implementation of the decision did not sufficiently enable the Commission to be better
informed of the proper functioning of the principle of mutual recognition, nor to identify the
sectors where it might be functioning poorly, which could justify a harmonisation proposal.

Nor had the Decision fulfilled its role of providing a quick resolution to certain problems of
free movement. The 45-day deadline set in Article 4 of the Decision was supposed to allow
the Commission to be quickly informed of any problems concerning free movement and to
contact the concerned Member State to promptly come to a joint solution. The Decision is
supposed to be part of the Commission’s general policy aiming to speed up the processing of
problems concerning free movement by preventing the procedures established by the Treaty
from being triggered.

Given the statistical information available – as poorly representative as it may be – it seems
clear that the difficult start-up is due to practical problems with implementation. In fact, it
appears that the idea of decentralised management of the internal market which is at the heart
of the Decision is coming up against problems caused by a lack of information on how to
apply the Decision itself and on its role among all of the transparency instruments in the
internal market.

14

Nonetheless, one factor must not be forgotten. It takes time to break in a system of
cooperation between 15 governments and the Commission. The experience gained with the
implementation of Directive 98/34/EC would seem to indicate that implementation of the
Decision should substantially improve in the years ahead. It took several years for the
systematic notification of standards and technical regulations required under Directive
98/34/EC to become genuinely effective.

Moreover, it should be noted that the efficiency of the transparency tools for managing the
single market depends on applying them properly, which in turn requires the authorities in
charge of applying it and the enterprises and citizens concerned to be well-informed. National
governments, which are responsible for indicating a measure must be notified under the
Decision, are poorly-informed of the mechanics of the Decision. Indeed, these measures are
very often adopted by regional or decentralised authorities. Yet these authorities are not
always in a position to fulfil their notification obligations under Community law. In part this
is a challenge that must be met at national level, insofar as those who receive the information
provided by the Commission or the departments of Member States’ central governments are
not necessarily the national civil servants who must apply the Decision.

The Commission will intensify its efforts to ensure effective implementation of the
Decision by the Member States at local and national levels, as well as in economic
sectors. To accomplish this, the following action will be taken:

• Stepping up the awareness programmes on the existence and implementation of the
Decision is advisable, particularly among regional or decentralised authorities. Drafting an
explanatory booklet and holding seminars will be effective ways of informing the
authorities about their obligations under Community law.

• In order to support the measures provided for in point 1, and to encourage cooperation
between Community, national and local authorities, the Commission will ask the Member
States to submit annual reports as from 2000, listing the notifications issued and giving
information on implementation of the Decision including any difficulties which have been
encountered. In addition, the reports should include any relevant information forwarded by
the regional or decentralised authorities. At the same time, the Commission encourages
Member States to regularly provide the relevant authorities with training and information
on the Decision.

• Given that non-governmental bodies are sometimes a useful channel of cooperation for
implementing Community law and can exert an influence which bolsters the respect of
Community law, the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, plans to hold
regular meetings with the professional associations concerned. These meetings will make it
possible to make more information available to the associations so that, over the long term,
they will be able to act as relays for detecting measures which have not been notified,
while remaining faithful
to the proposals made by the Commission in its 1999
communication on the principle of mutual recognition10.

• Though other channels which provide information exist, a system of disseminating the
information affected by the Decision on an Internet site will be set up to keep economic

10

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 16 June 1999
concerning mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the action plan for the single market.

15

operators and the relevant national authorities better informed of the existence and
implementation of the procedure.

• Given the effective advisory role played by the Standing Committee established by
Directive 98/34/EC, the Commission will continue to keep the Committee regularly
informed of the implementation of the Decision and will increase the role it plays in
monitoring notifications and action taken under these operational measures.

• The objectives of transparency and flexibility which the Decision emphasises are difficult
to reconcile with any coercive action which might be justified by effective non-
implementation of the Decision. This explains the limited number of procedures instituted
against Member States which have failed to notify certain measures. The Commission will
intensify its vigilance and determination regarding non-notification by the Member States.
For this reason, as part of the administrative cooperation, the Commission will inform
Member States of the follow-up to package meetings on cases which were brought to its
attention by complaints and which should have been notified. Its departments will
cooperate with the relevant authorities in Member States in order to uncover and clear up
any suspicious or problematic situations, and any other uncertainties as to whether a
national measure should be notified.

In addition, an investigation into the transparency necessary for decentralised
management of the single market could be undertaken.

An overview of statistics on total notifications and those concerning the single market reveal
an imbalance between these two instruments with regard to notifications and follow-up. It
could be time for the transparency mechanisms required for decentralised management of the
single market to be reassessed in order to improve how they work. At the same time, this
reassessment should address the follow-up tools (standstill periods, creating a single office
within the Commission for all notifications regardless of their legal basis, interventions by
Member States, the Commission or scientific committees, etc.). Its objective would be to
provide national governments and the Community administration with ample, efficient means
to manage the single market as efficiently as possible in the interests of enterprises and
citizens.

16

ANNEX 1

Competent authorities under Decision 3052/95/EC

BELGIUM
CIBELNOR (c/o Institut belge de normalisation)
Avenue de la Brabançonne, 29
1000 Bruxelles
Tel:
Fax:

+32-2-738.01.11
+32-2-733.42.64

DENMARK
Erhvervsfremme Styrelsen
Internationale Tekniske Handelsvilkår
Tagennsvej 137
2200 København N
3586.86.86
Tel:
Fax:
3586.86.87
X400: C=DK; A=DK400; P=EFS; S=Journal

GERMANY
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft
Herr Dr. Winkel
-Referat EB3 -
D - 53107 BONN
Tel:
Fax:
X400: C=DE; A=BUND400; P=BMW1; O=BONN1; S=BUERO-EB3
E-mail: BUERO-EB3@BONN1.BUND400.DE

00-49-228/615 ( - 4119 Herr Dr. Winkel - 2502 Herr Behrens; - 4398 Herr Schirmer)
00-49-228/615-2056

GREECE
Ministry of Development
Standardisation Body M. Evangelos E. Melagrakis
ELOT
313 Acharnon St. GR - 11145 ATHENS
Tel:
Fax:
X400: C=GR A=MASTER400 P=EURODYN O=GOV OU=YBET OU=GGB S=PBOX

+(30 1) 228.00.01
+(30 1) 202.68.75

SPAIN
Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores
Dirección General de Asuntos técnicos de la Unión Europea
D. Luis Antonio Rico
C/ Padilla 46, planta 2E - 28006 MADRID
Tel: 0034/1/563.68.70
Fax: 00/34/1/562.48.61
X400: C=es/ADMD=mensatex/PRMD=mae/ORG=sece/S=rico/G=luis

17

FRANCE
SGCI
Attn: M. Régis Rama
“Carré Austerlitz”
2, Boulevard Diderot
F - 75572 PARIS CEDEX 12
Tel:
Fax:
X400: C=FR; A=Atlas; P=IRIS; O=SGCI; S=SGCI-RENET
regis.rama@sgci.finances.gouv.fr
E-mail:

+33-1-44.87.10.60
+33-1-44.87.12.96

IRELAND
Single Market Unit
Department of Tourism and Trade
Mr. Ronnie Breen
Kildare Street
IRL - DUBLIN 2
Tel:
Fax:
X400: C=IE/admd=NA/prmd=ENTEMP/pn=BREENR
E-mail:breenr@entemp.irlgov.ie

+353-1-662.14.44
+353-1-676.61.54

ITALY
Ministerio dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’artigianato
Direzione generale della produzione industriale
Ispettorato tecnico, Divisione XIX - Roma
Italia - ROMA
(e-mail: min.ind.isp.tecnico.@agora.stm.it)
X400:
U=M.I.C.A.=ISPIND, P=DGS, A=MASTER400, C=IT
Tel:
Fax:

+39-6.4705.3069
+39-6.4788.7748

S=Ispettorato

tecnico,

D=

Classe>IPM,

D=ID-NODO>BF9RM001,

LUXEMBOURG
Service de l’Energie de l’Etat M. Jean-Paul Hoffmann, Directeur
Boîte postale 10
L - 2010 LUXEMBOURG
Tel:
Fax:
Email: jean-paul.hoffmann@eg.etat.lu
X400: C=LU; A=INFONET; P=EFS; O=EG; S=HOFFMANN; G=JEAN-PAUL

+352-46.97.46.1
+352-222.524

THE NETHERLANDS
Ministerie van Financiën
Belastingdienst/Douane centrale dienst voor in-en uitvoer
Afdeling O.R.
Postbus 30003
9700 RD GRONINGEN

18

+(31 50) 523.91.78/ 523.92.75
+(31 50) 523.92.19

Tel:
Fax:
X400: C=NL A=400NET P=CDIU S=NOTIF OU1=CDIU

AUSTRIA
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft
Attn: Mme Maria Haslinger
Abteilung II/5
Stubenring 1
A - 1011 WIEN
Fax: 43/-1/715.96.51.61 or 714.27.23
Tel:
Email: maria.haslinger@bmwa.gv.at
X400: C=AT; A=GV; P=BMWA; O=BMWA; G=Maria; S= Haslinger

43-1/711.00-5453

PORTUGAL
Instituto Português da Qualidade - IPQ
Rua C à Avenida dos Três Vales
2825 Monte da Caparica
Portugal
Tel:
Fax:

+351-21-294.81.00
+351-21-294. 81.01 / 294.82.22

FINLAND
Ministry of Trade and Industry
Trade department
Section for Internal market Affairs
P.O. Box 230
FIN - 00171 HELSINKI
tel: +358-9-1601 (1603657 Antti Riivari, 160 3527 Pia Nieminen)
Fax: +358/-9/-160/4022
X400: S=tuoteilmoitukset, O=ktm, P=vn, A= mailnte, C=fi

SWEDEN
Mrs. Kerstin Carlsson
Kommerskollegium - U3
(National Board of Trade)
P.O. Box 6803
113086 STOCKHOLM
+46.8.690.48.00
Tel:
Fax:
+46.8.690.48.40
X400: C=SE, ADMD=400net, O=Komkoll, S=nat not point

19

UNITED KINGDOM
Department of Trade and Industry
Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate 2
Bay 327
151 Buckingham Palace Road
UK - SW1W 9SS
Tel:
Fax:
X400: S=TI; G=83189; O=DTI; OU1=TIDV; P=HMG DTI; A=GOLD 400; C=GB
E-mail: 83189.ti@tidv.dti.gov.uk

0171.215.1488
0171.215.1529

M. Lars-Ake Erikson EFTA Surveillance Authority Senior Officer Goods Directorate 74 rue
de Trèves B-1040 BRUXELLES

20

ANNEX 2

Statistical Information on Decision 3052/95/EC (Notifications per Member State)

Member States

1997

1998

FRANCE

GERMANY

FINLAND

BELGIUM

DENMARK

GREECE

SPAIN

IRELAND

ITALY

LUXEMBOURG

THE NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

PORTUGAL

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

5

18

3

43

26

4

3

21

ANNEX 3

Notifications per sector

1997

Veterinary Medical
Products
(F: 5) = 5

Foodstuffs
(D: 4; FI: 3) = 7

Pharmaceuticals
(F : 21) = 21

Veterinary
Medicinal Products
(F : 5) = 5

Other (DK : 2)

Chemicals (DK : 1)
= 1

2

1998

=

Foodstuffs
(EL : 43; D : 18) =
61

Veterinary
Medicinal
Products
(F: 5) = 5

Foodstuffs
(D: 4; FI: 3) = 7

Pharmaceuticals
(F : 21) = 21

Foodstuffs
(EL : 43; D : 18) =
61

Chemicals (DK :
1) = 1

Veterinary
Medicinal
Products
(F : 5) = 5
Other (DK : 2)
= 2

22

ANNEX 4

Notifications under certain New Approach Directives (1997)

LV Mach

Toy

GA

EMC

PV

PPE MD

Total

13

1

14

0

1

4

0

1

0

7

4

0

6

2

19

72

3

3

1

7

8

5

4

.

8

1

2

2

Member
State

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

The
Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United
Kingdom

1

2

1

1

3

4

2

2

7

1

11

18

10

5

0

0

Total

23

9

Abbreviations : LV = “Low Voltage Directive”, Mach = “Machinery Directive”, Toy =
“Toy Directive”, GA = “Gas appliances Directive”, EMC = “Electromagnetic Compatibility
Directive”, PV = “Pressure Vessels Directive”, PPE = “Personal Protective Equipment
Directive”, MD = “Medical Devices Directive”.

23

ANNEX 5

Notifications under certain New Approach Directives (1998)

LV Mach

Toy

GA

EMC

PV

PPE MD

Total

Member
State

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

2

1

3

Spain

20

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

The
Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United
Kingdom

15

13

19

50

12

Total

135

.

2

3

1

2

8

6

2

4

24

2

5

28

3

1

4

1

8

5

35

0

27

1

0

2

0

17

13

0

24

52

17

13

8

35

0

2

0

201

Abbreviations : LV = “Low Voltage Directive”, Mach = “Machinery Directive”, Toy =
“Toy Directive”, GA = “Gas appliances Directive”, EMC = “Electromagnetic Compatibility
Directive”, PV = “Pressure Vessels Directive”, PPE = “Personal Protective Equipment
Directive”, MD = “Medical Devices Directive”.

24

ANNEX 6

Notifications under Directive 92/59/EEC (1997)

Member States

Notifications (foodstuffs)

Notifications (non-food
products)

Information

Warning

Article 8

Information

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

TheNetherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

UnitedKingdom

EFTA

TOTAL

1

1

1

2

5

1

1

12

3

2

10

2

5

19

16

1

1

2

2

2

3

11

6

8

6

1

2

8

3

4

2

3

3

1

1

1

6

2

1

65

54

18

25

ANNEX 7

Notifications under Directive 92/59/EEC (1998)

Member States

Notifications (foodstuffs)

Notifications (non-
food products)

Information

Warning

Article 8 Information

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

TheNetherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

UnitedKingdom

EFTA

TOTAL

8

6

2

5

18

1

8

2

11

5

4

3

73

3

5

18

2

3

2

1

1

12

47

1

4

0

1

1

7

6

3

32

6

26

18

1

40

1

7

4

3

5

3

155

26