WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/02 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Use of EU safety marks for the promotion of weapons of torture.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC conformity marking, electronic device, marketing, non-lethal weapon, torture

C 160 E/218

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

(2002/C 160 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Use of EU safety marks for the promotion of weapons of torture

I am told that, since 1990, electro-shock devices have been used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons,
detention centres and police stations in at least 76 countries, in every region of the world. It seems that
several stun weapon manufacturers are advertising that their products have been ‘awarded’ the European
CE standard mark and European guarantee.

1.

How many stun weapon manufacturers are using the CE mark on their products?

Can the Commission clarify the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded to stun

2.
weapon manufacturers?

Does the European Commission consider that CE safety marks on stun weapons are a quality selling

3.
point?

Does the Commission consider that action should be taken to prevent stun weapon manufacturers

4.
from using the CE marks to promote the sale of their products?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0446/02 and E-0470/02
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The CE conformity marking was introduced into Community legislation by Council Decision 93/465/EEC
of 22 July 1993 (1) concerning the modules for the various phases of
the conformity assessment
procedures and the rules for affixing the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the
technical harmonisation directives and by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 (1). The latter
introduced the CE marking into a number of sectoral technical harmonisation directives.

The CE conformity marking must be affixed to any product falling within the scope of a technical
harmonisation directive providing for it. It signifies that the product complies with the legally binding
requirements of the applicable technical harmonisation directive(s). The manufacturer is responsible for
affixing the CE conformity marking, although the directives often require the intervention of a third-party
conformity assessment body. Member States are responsible for the designation of such bodies in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the directives.

A number of services in the Commission are responsible for technical harmonisation directives providing
fall under the responsibility of Directorate general
for the CE conformity marking, although most
Enterprise. However,
intervene directly in the process of evaluating the
the Commission does not
conformity of products nor in the award of the CE conformity marking.

All manufacturers of stun weapons falling within the scope of a technical harmonisation directive
providing for the CE conformity marking must affix this marking to the relevant products. The
Commission does not have information about the number of manufacturers involved.

In an earlier reply to written question E-3259/97 by Mrs Wemheuer (2), the Commission noted that a wide
variety of equipment could potentially be used for purposes of torture. Moreover, it is not always possible
to determine in advance to what use equipment will be put. The Commission is therefore of the opinion
that it is not feasible to apply a differential treatment, in the context of these directives, to equipment that
could potentially be used as an instrument of torture.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/219

Nevertheless, further to previous replies on that subject, in particular to written question P-2783/01 by
Mr Ford (3), and in order to take into account the concerns of the Honourable Members, the Commission is
currently preparing a proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in equipment which may be used
for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The aim of this Regulation is,
among others, to impose controls on exports of equipment which may be used for such purposes in a
third country which will in principle include electric shock equipment and stun guns.

(1) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
(2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.
(3) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.

(2002/C 160 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0458/02

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Article 23 of Directive 97/67/EC on postal services

Pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 97/67/EC (1) on common rules for the development of the internal
market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, the Commission was
required to submit to Parliament and the Council ‘no later than 31 December 2000’ a report on the
application of the directive, including appropriate information about the development of the social aspects
of this sector and, more particularly, about employment.

No such a report, dealing more specifically with the aspects referred to above, has yet been forwarded to
Parliament, although work is apparently under way. However, it would seem that the Commission has not
granted the request made by the European Social Dialogue Committee (ESDC) in the postal sector to be
actively involved in the work of drafting the report.

Given that Parliament’s resolution on the Commission Communication on services of general interest in
‘considers it vital to devise pluralist assessment procedures
Europe, adopted on 13 November 2001,
involving all parties’ concerning ‘the way in which the tasks of general
interest service provision are
fulfilled’ and ‘considers it necessary in view of the successes and problems to date in liberalising important
service areas […] to perform a better assessment of the impact on social and regional cohesion before
deciding whether it would be appropriate to proceed further with the liberalisation which has been
introduced in the [area of] postal services’, I should like to know why the Commission is refusing to
consult and involve the two sides of industry in the postal sector at European level and how, without their
the work in question and the relevance and
it can guarantee the transparency of
involvement,
objectiveness of the information gathered or submitted.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, work is in fact under way to prepare the report on the
application of Directive 97/67/EC (1) in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Directive. This
report is part of the Commission’s work programme for 2002.

As part of the preparation of this report, three studies were carried out by external consultants.