WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/00 by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Swedish edition of Infeuro.
Date: 2000-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU publication, Sweden, euro, production cost, public awareness campaign

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/189

authorities in charge of the enforcement of the low voltage Directive during their meeting in April 2000
the data on television sets being involved in incidents of fire. The Commission has asked Member States to
provide more detailed information on this subject.

The need for further action will be considered on the basis of the data received from Member States.

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(2001/C 46 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1411/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Details concerning information about the euro

(3 May 2000)

Can the Commission provide details of all books, brochures and other printed matter being published and
details of conferences and other activities taking place to (cid:145)provide information about the euro(cid:146)? Will it also
state the cost of each activity and say under which budget heading they are entered?

(2001/C 46 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject:

(cid:145)Infeuro(cid:146)

What does it cost to publish (cid:145)Infeuro(cid:146) in all the languages?

(2001/C 46 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Swedish edition of (cid:145)Infeuro(cid:146)

What does it cost to publish the Swedish edition of (cid:145)Infeuro(cid:146)?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-1411/00, E-1495/00 and E-1496/00
given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The InfEuro newsletter is published in 11 languages and has a total circulation of 380 000. Some 7 000
copies are printed for the Swedish edition. The cost of publishing and distributing one issue is as follows:
€ 65 000 for pre-press work, € 45 000 for printing and € 70 000 for distribution (mailing lists). In other
words, the total cost per issue is € 180 000 (the single unit cost per issue is € 0,47).

With regard to overall budgetary aspects, the Honourable Member may refer to the tables sent directly to
him and to the Parliament(cid:146)s General Secretariat. These tables show the details of agreements concluded
with the Member States which decided to enter into partnerships with the Union, the breakdown by
category of the cost of activities planned in 2000 and the breakdown of expenditure in the previous two
financial years.

C 46 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

A list of all the main products developed can be found in the annex to the Commission Communication
on communications strategy in the last phases of the completion of EMU (1), approved on 2 February
2000.

(1) COM(2000) 57 final.

(2001/C 46 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1413/00

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Internal market: validity of certificates of origin in another Member State

For the purposes of a civil construction project currently under way in Lisbon, the Portuguese company
Brimexo decided to install a particular type of tube for conducting hot and cold water, originating in Italy.
The tube used is made of (cid:145)reticulated polycthylene PE-X(cid:146) and is manufactured by Unidelta IdrosanitÆria
Savallesse SPA. The brand name is Ultrapex; the tube is accompanied by a certificate of origin issued by
the Italian Institute of Plastics (the official Italian certifying authority).

The Portuguese authority (EPAL) responsible for approving the project decided to withhold its approval, on
the grounds that this tube had not been certified by the National Civil Engineering Laboratory. In its turn,
the Laboratory said that the correct process concerning the tube was not certification but approval, under
Article 17 of Portuguese Decree-Law 38/382 of 7 August 1951.

Can the Commission state whether this decision is compatible with the internal market, given that it
implies that products received on the market of a Member State (in this case, a tube for conducting hot
and cold water) have to be certified by the Member State in which they are located (notably, here, under a
decree-law dating from 1951), or whether, in fact, it is sufficient that a product has been certified by the
relevant authority in its Member State of origin? Is the principle of mutual recognition being duly
respected? Is this decision compatible with the work which the Commission has undertaken in this area?
Is it compatible with European Court of Justice case-law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The facts related by the Honourable Member agree with those given in a complaint referred to the
Commission.

The Commission is investigating this complaint as a matter of urgency in the light of the principle of
mutual recognition, as defined by the European Court of Justice(cid:146)s case law (see in particular the ruling of
20 February 1979, Rewe, known as (cid:145)Cassis de Dijon(cid:146)). This principle, as cited in the Commission
communications of 15 June 1989, on a global approach to certification and testing (1), and of 16 June
1999, on mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the action plan for the single market (2),
must be implemented by the national authorities at several
In terms of the rules of design,
manufacture and operation of products lawfully produced or marketed in another Member State, the
Member State of destination must accept products that meet technical specifications which, while different
from those applied at national level, nevertheless allow an equivalent level of health and safety. In terms of
procedures to assess product conformity with certain fundamental requirements, the Member State of
destination must accept the documents provided by the operators as issued by the relevant bodies which
have been accredited by the Member State where they were produced; further checks are not justified if the
results of the checks carried out in the Member State of origin meet the requirements of the Member State
of destination. In terms of testing and analysis, the Member State of destination must take into account the
analysis and testing carried out in another Member State, where these are equivalent to those it requires
itself, and must not require them to be repeated. Finally, the national authorities implement systems to
assess the bodies responsible for testing and certification of products.

levels.