WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Restrictive practices for sports equipment.
Date: 2001-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approval, complaint to the Commission, protective equipment, restriction on competition, safety standard, sports body, sports equipment, sports facilities

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/135

(2001/C 340 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/01

by Emilia M(cid:252)ller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Systems for monitoring food safety, animal feed and BSE tests

1. What systems for do the countries of central and eastern Europe, and in particular the candidates for
accession, have for monitoring:

(a)

food safety, and

(b) animal feed?

2. Which central and eastern European countries have already introduced instant testing for BSE or are
planning to do so?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The existing systems in the candidate countries for monitoring food safety, including animal nutrition, are
diverse, with various authorities involved. Changes are in many cases necessary in order to align their
systems with the Community approach on food safety, and the Community legislative acquis.

Food safety has been identified as a priority in the enlargement process. The entire food chain must be
covered by applying the (cid:145)farm to table(cid:146) approach, including the animal feed sector. In order to introduce
a coherent approach in this field, the Commission has invited each candidate country to submit a Food
Safety Strategy. This strategy should include the order and timing for transposing the food safety- related
Community legislation. Moreover
the
responsible authorities and the co-ordination between different authorities.

the strategy should explain the structures and resources of

According to the information available to the Commission at the moment, the Czech Republic, Cyprus,
Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic have either introduced testing methods for
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or are planning to introduce them.

(2001/C 340 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Restrictive practices for sports equipment

Following its reply to my Oral Question QH-0929/00 (1), has the Commission received any (cid:145)duly
substantiated complaints(cid:146)?

Has it also received a submission from the Federation of European Sporting Goods Industries (FESI) on the
multiplication of certification systems by sports federations?

Does it accept that certain sports federations go beyond what is required in terms of safety, sporting
equality or technical necessities and have, in fact, turned their certification schemes into a commercial
practice?

Are sports federations entitled to insist on their own labels even when, under the legislation,
equipment in question is subject to self-certification?

the

C 340 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Does the Commission consider such practices to be consistent with Directive 89/686/EEC (2) and with
competition law?

What action does the Commission intend to take?

(1) Written reply dated 13 December 2000.
(2) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission confirms that, following its reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Oral Question H-0929/00
during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s December 2000 part-session (1), it did receive a complaint concerning
alleged restrictive practices in the field of sports equipment. This complaint is currently being examined in
accordance with prescribed procedures.

The Commission read with great interest the submission from the Federation of European Sporting Goods
Industries (FESI) on the multiplication of certification systems by sports federations and took note of its
requests. Following the submission by FESI, an informal meeting was held between the Commission and
a FESI representative during which the above topic was further discussed.

The Commission is aware of the fact that the role of sports federations has evolved in recent years and that
the economic impact of sports organisations(cid:146) regulations has become more and more important in recent
years. In particular, the increased influence of commerce in the field of sports is noteworthy. This latter
development, however, does not by itself allow the general conclusion that the activities of certain sports
federations go beyond what is acceptable under relevant Community legislation and competition law.

From a competition law point of view, the question whether sports federations are entitled to insist on the
use of their own certification labels is an issue which can only be assessed in the light of the relevant legal
and economic context of each case. In general, however reference can be made to established Commission
policy which provides that certification systems need to respect the following four criteria in order to fall
independence,
(ex Article 85) of
outside the prohibition of Article 81(1)
transparency and acceptance of equivalent guarantees offered by other systems (2).

the EC Treaty: openness,

Furthermore, according to Article 8.3 of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) (3), and
modified by Council Directives 93/68/CEE of 22 July 1993 (4), 93/95/CEE of 29 October 1993 (5) and 96/
58/CE of 3 September 1996 of the Parliament and of the Council (6), the rugby protective equipment
referred to shall be submitted to the EC type-examination procedure described in its Article 10, which
foresees that the manufacturer shall submit a model of the PPE he intends to place on the market to
i.e. an inspection body designated by the national authorities. The Notified Body
a Notified Body,
establishes and certifies that the PPE model in question satisfies to the relevant provisions of the PPE
Directive.

The Commission intends to continue its examination of the complaint it has received, while at the same
time monitoring further general developments on the market for sports equipment.

(1) Written reply 13.12.2000.
(2) See joint Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96, SCK and FNK / Commission ECR II-1739.
(3) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989.
(4) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
(5) OJ L 276, 9.11.1993.
(6) OJ L 236, 18.9.1996.