WRITTEN QUESTION E-4121/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Prohibition of markings by independent third-party certifiers in addition to the CE marking.
Date: 2001-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approval, interpretation of the law, labelling, product quality

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/235

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The question asked by the Honourable Members, which concerns the implications of the recent judgment
of the Court of Justice (C-225/98 (cid:129) School buildings, Nord-Pas de Calais) for the handling of infringement
proceedings and the future directives on public procurement, raises complex issues.

The Commission is currently examining this case law and will present its interpretation in an interpretative
communication on the possibilities of taking into account social objectives in public procurement, which it
undertook to adopt by the end of June 2001.

On the basis of that communication, the Commission will decide on the action to be taken in infringement
proceedings against certain Member States.

Furthermore, in the light of the communication and taking into account the discussions in the Council and
in Parliament on the adoption of the recast public procurement directives, the Commission will examine
the case for proposing the incorporation of an explicit provision in the legislation in order to clarify the
possibility of including social criteria.

(2001/C 174 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4121/00

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

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Prohibition of markings by independent third-party certifiers in addition to the CE marking

Article 10(3) of the machinery directive 98/37/EC (1) mentions form and meaning as cumulative criteria
justifying the prohibition of markings by private third-party certifiers. But in the explanatory text to the
1999 directive this (cid:145)and(cid:146) becomes an (cid:145)or(cid:146) instead; which means that the prohibition does not apply merely
in the presence of both criteria, but even if only one criterion obtains. The explanation also says that
voluntary marking must not generally apply to aspects that are covered by the directive.

Is the Commission aware that, as regards prohibiting or permitting the affixing of markings by private
third-party certifiers, its explanatory text on the machinery directive contradicts the directive(cid:146)s unambig-
uous wording on the rule and the exception?

Is the Commission aware that, without any democratic authority from Parliament,
explanatory text that does not have the force of law to make nonsense of the directive(cid:146)s provisions?

it

is using an

Is the Commission aware that the industry takes the explanatory text to be a kind of legal provision, and
that this misleading impression is causing considerable uncertainty in the market and placing jobs at risk?

(1) OJ L 207, 23.7.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

Although some directives (and in particular Article 10(3) of Directive 98/37/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to machinery) contain phrases such as (cid:145)The affixing of markings on the machinery which are likely
to deceive third parties as to the meaning and form of the CE marking shall be prohibited(cid:146), other New
Approach directives (1) contain equivalent phrases referring to (cid:145)the meaning or the graphics(cid:146).

C 174 E/236

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

In view of these differences, which are not based on considerations linked to the different directives, the
Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach (2), drawn
up by the Commission, provides in section 7.4 (cid:145)CE marking and other marks(cid:146) a uniform interpretation of
the principles to be applied for the New Approach directives. This interpretation is as follows: (cid:145)In view of
the objectives of technical harmonisation, markings and marks additional to the CE marking need to fulfil
a different function from that of the CE marking. Thus, they should provide an added value in signifying
conformity with objectives that are different from those to which the CE marking relates (for example
environmental aspects not covered by applicable directives). The affixing of legal marking (such as a
protected trademark of a manufacturer), or of acceptable certification and other marks additional to the CE
is allowed to the extent that such markings or marks do not create confusion with the CE
marking,
marking, and that they do not reduce the legibility and visibility of the CE marking. This confusion may
either refer to the meaning or form of the CE marking (3). Whether or not a marking or mark is confusing
should be decided from the point of view of all relevant parties likely to come into contact with it(cid:146).

This guide has been discussed with the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation and Conformity
Assessment Policy, who agreed to its publication.

The comments on the Machinery Directive (4) offer the same interpretation.

The above-mentioned guides are intended to clarify the directives based on the New Approach and to
ensure that those directives are applied uniformly across the different sectors of the Single Market. The
guides are informal and non-binding, and this is clearly indicated in their forewords. The forewords also
point out that only the Directives themselves are compulsory.

(1) Particularly Directives 98/79/EC (OJ L 331, 7.12.1998) and 97/23/EC (OJ L 181, 9.7.1997).
(2) Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Cat. No CO-22-99-014-EN (DE, FR)-C.
(3)

(132) The wording used in various New Approach directives varies slightly, but any other interpretation would
prevent achieving the purpose of the applicable provisions.

(4) Community legislation on machinery (cid:129) Comments on Directive 98/37/EC, Publications Office Catalogue No CO-

01-96-279-EN (DE, ES, FR, IT)-C.

(2001/C 174 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4129/00

by Ant(cid:243)nio Seguro (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Secretary-General(cid:146)s report on the outcome of the Nice European Council

On Saturday, 16 December 2000 an article was published on the last page of the Portuguese newspaper (cid:145)O
Pœblico(cid:146) entitled (cid:145)Confidential report by Prodi colleague (cid:129) Portugal seen as a loser in Nice(cid:146). That article
referred to a report drawn up by the Secretary-General of the Commission on the outcome of the Nice
European Council. In accordance with the rules applicable, can the Commission confirm whether such a
report exists and, if so, send me a copy?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

The note referred to by the Honourable Member was an internal note designed to give a very rapid initial
report on the outcome of the Nice European Council to the Commission(cid:146)s delegations and representations.
It was not intended for public distribution and does not represent the Commission(cid:146)s assessment of the
European Council, which was given to the Parliament by the President of the Commission on 12 December
2000. However, since the note has been leaked to the press, the Commission is, as requested, making a
copy available to the Honourable Member.