WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/00 by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Consumer protection against the use of building materials liable to cause chemical contamination of houses.
Date: 2000-09-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: building materials, competence of the Member States, dangerous substance, intra-EU trade, liability, marketing standard, single-family housing

C 103 E/230

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Commission examines the proposals for funding submitted in the framework of calls for proposals on
the basis of a complete description of the initiative and supporting documents. These documents include
the statutes of the organisation confirming its status under national law, evidence of their experience in the
field and their ability to manage Community funds. This evidence is examined before the Commission
agrees to provide a subsidy for the planned action.

Projects selected for funding are required to send intermediate reports, a final statement of accounts and a
final report on the outcome of the project. These documents are verified and evaluated before payment of
the last instalment of the subsidy. Audits are carried out on a regular basis and on an ad hoc basis
whenever doubts about sound management of a specific project arise. Moreover, the Commission has
contracted an independent organisation to carry out an evaluation of the projects funded in 1999.

(1) COM(1999) 567 final.

(2001/C 103 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/00

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Consumer protection against the use of building materials liable to cause chemical contamination

of houses

The marketing and use of products containing certain dangerous materials is restricted by Directive 76/
769 (1).

Recently I have been receiving a growing number of questions on this subject from members of my
constituency. According to these informants, building materials containing, for example, formaldehyde are
often used.

I therefore wish to ask the Commission:

1.

Is action being taken to extend the Directive accordingly or to present a proposal for a new directive
which would meet these demands?

2. To what extent can liability of the builders or vendors of houses contaminated in this way be
established? Does a reversal of the burden of proof in favour of those resident in contaminated houses
exist, or are there plans for European legislation along these lines?

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 (1) on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and
preparations already bans or restricts the use of several dangerous substances in building materials
e.g. asbestos and pentachlorophenol. The Directive is continually amended to introduce new restrictions
on the use of substances when a need for restrictions has been established through risk assessments and
analyses of the advantages and drawbacks of such restrictions. At present there are no plans to restrict the
marketing and use of formaldehyde at Community level.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/231

Construction products (and building materials) are also covered by Council Directive 89/106/EEC of
21 December 1989 (2) on construction products. This lays down essential requirements on construction
works and, through interpretative documents (3), these requirements have been converted into performance
characteristics on products. In the case of dangerous substances it is (cid:145)essential requirement No 3(cid:146) that
applies. This means that construction products for permanent installation in construction works shall not
emit dangerous substances. The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that they
will not be a threat to the hygiene or health of the occupants or neighbours.

However, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the construction products directive foresees that
responsibility for the safety of construction works remains within the competence of the Member States. It
follows that the decision to regulate or not for any of the essential requirements of the Directive (including
No 3 in relation to dangerous substances) is a matter for Member States.

Where a substance, such as formaldehyde, is not the subject of harmonisation at Community level under
Directive 76/769/EEC, Member States may regulate it in relation to construction products. However, as
such initiatives could give rise to different requirements, it could be necessary to act either under Directive
89/106/EEC or under Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty in order to avoid
barriers to trade. The European standardisation body, CEN, is developing harmonised test methods.

The Member States regulate matters of liability for buildings (e.g. design and construction). However,
liability for defective products is regulated at Community level. Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
concerning liability for defective products (4), as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the Parliament and
of the Council of 10 May 1999 (5), sets common liability rules in case of damage caused to individuals by
defective goods.
(cid:145)Defective goods(cid:146) is defined in the Directive, which covers also construction products
which are incorporated in a building.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
(3) OJ C 62, 28.2.1994.
(4) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985.
(5) OJ L 141, 4.6.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Lack of transparency in tendering procedures for Olympic Games projects in Greece

The Commission has reportedly asked for further clarification in connection with two Olympic Games
sites, namely the Olympic Village and the equestrian sports centre, as it
the
transparency of the procedures for awarding the contracts for the work.

is concerned about

1. What were the reasons which led the Commission to ask the Greek Government for further
clarification?

2.

Are the procedures followed in awarding the contracts consistent with Community legislation?

3.

Are there any grounds for annulling the tendering procedure for these two Olympic Games projects?