WRITTEN QUESTION E-3655/01 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Testing standards conformity in the case of construction materials.
Date: 2002-01-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EC conformity marking, building materials, free movement of goods, marketing, mutual recognition principle, product quality, quality label, restriction on competition, technical standard

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/215

The second phase (improvement of the existing arrangements) has just commenced and will initially entail
updating the requirements contained in the Recommendation’s guidelines. Subsequently, in the course of
2003, the measures taken should help to reinforce the objective set out in the Recommendation, namely
to provide consumers with a high and consistent level of safety protection against the risks of fire in all the
hotels of the Community.

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986.
(2) COM(2001) 348 final.

(2002/C 147 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3655/01

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Testing standards conformity in the case of construction materials

In the Netherlands and Germany, construction materials undergo product approval testing at a test
institute on the basis of European standard EN-45011. Various technical aspects are tested and eventually
described in a KOMO attestation, which provides an assurance as to the soundness of the product
concerned. Conformity arrangements exist within the European Community as regards the approval testing
of construction materials. This means that each country must accept aspects that have already been
approved and may at most add a number of requirements specific to its own situation.

In practice, however, paving brick manufacturers are encountering problems with a number of
municipalities in Belgium, as the KOMO certificate is not recognised there. The Belgian municipalities are
demanding that products obtain the Benor mark, in accordance with type specification 250 of the Flemish
Community, before they can be placed on the market. These conditions imposed by the Belgian authorities
cost both time and money. The procedure for obtaining the Benor mark has to be completed in its
entirety, despite the fact
in question in
accordance with European rules, which means that the tested and approved aspects are not being accepted.

test mark already exists for the product

that an approval

Is the Commission aware of the differences which clearly exist on Europe’s internal market as regards

1.
the recognition of approval test marks?

2.

Is it of the opinion that a rule of European law has been infringed in this case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

The Commission had already received complaints about the compulsory or quasi-compulsory use of the
‘BENOR’ mark for certain types of construction products marketed in Belgium. Following discussions with
the Commission, the Belgian authorities have undertaken to amend their rules so that the principle of
mutual recognition can play its proper role.

Nonetheless, the Commission is closely examining how free movement may potentially be hampered by
national conformity marks granted by private or semi-public bodies, which attest that a product conforms
with the (voluntary) standards or the compulsory technical rules that economic operators choose to
comply with, on the basis of tests and certification carried out by the body in question. Compulsory
conformity marks constitute an obstacle to the free movement of construction products insofar as they
exclude from the national market products from other Member States which comply with technical
specifications ensuring a level of protection which is equivalent to that sought by the Member State of
destination.

C 147 E/216

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

It should be stressed that the Commission has asked the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to
compile a draft harmonised standard which will cover paving bricks. The adoption of this standard is
scheduled for the beginning of 2003. As of the entry into force of this harmonised European standard
under Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), national regulations
will not be able to demand of a paving brick which conforms with the harmonised standard that it also
bear the national conformity mark. The EC conformity mark, which covers all the necessary procedures for
assessing conformity, will then, for a paving brick of this type, be the only mark which proves conformity
with the applicable regulations, and this will apply for all Member States.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2002/C 147 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3661/01

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Council

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Derogatory comments made at the Laeken European Council

According to Reuters, the following exchange took place at the Laeken European Council:

Berlusconi: Parma is synonymous with good cuisine. The Finns don’t even know what prosciutto is. I
cannot accept this.

Schüssel: I am not satisfied. We got nothing.

Persson: This is no easy task. We had the problem during the Swedish presidency at Gothenburg. But
it’s strange that the IT agency should go to Spain.

Verhofstadt: The gastronomic attraction of a region is no argument for the allocation of an EU agency.

Chirac: How would it be if Sweden got an agency for training models, since you have such pretty
women?

Berlusconi: I already accepted the (European arrest) warrant. My final word is (shouts) No!

Schröder: I love Parma, but you’ll never get it if you argue like that.

Chirac: Lille is also a candidate. It lies in the heart of the (EU) political landscape.

Schüssel: The (EU) observatory on racism (in Vienna) has only 19 civil servants. Others have
thousands.

Verhofstadt: That’s it. (Closes summit).

Can the Council confirm that this exchange took place?

According to the Laeken Declaration, ‘the European project also derives its legitimacy from democratic,
transparent and efficient institutions.’ In the light of events at Laeken, does the Council consider the
European Council to be such an institution?

Will the Council recommend to the European Council that it should apologise to Europe’s citizens for its
conduct?