WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/02 by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission. Use of European CE Quality Marks on electro-shock equipment.
Date: 2002-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community certification, EC conformity marking, arms trade, code of conduct, electrical equipment, non-lethal weapon

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/223

(2002/C 172 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/02

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Use of European CE Quality Marks on electro-shock equipment

The Commission will recall that in June 2000, at the request of the European Parliament’s STOA Panel, the
Final Study on Crowd Control Technologies was published. The Study included an appraisal of ‘electro-
shock and stun weapons’. It pointed out that the EC has actually given CE quality control markings for
such weapons which foreign manufacturers use as an official seal of approval in promoting their overseas
sales. It recommended that this practice should be stopped or that, alternatively, the Member States should
take the necessary measures to prevent the export or transhipment of devices aimed at administering an
electric shock.

Will the Commission now indicate what action it has or is taking to implement the recommendations of
this Study on electro-shock equipment?

Will the Commission provide information on the number of companies manufacturing these products that
are in receipt of CE certification?

Will the Commission outline the process by which the CE mark is awarded for such products?

Taking into account reports in the Stoa Study on the effects of stun weapons which include short-term
effects such as severe pain and loss of muscle control and long-term effects such as scarring of skin, severe
depression and memory loss, is the Commission concerned that the safety of the victim is sufficiently
taken into account in the awarding of the CE mark?

Will the Commission outline what research methods it uses in evaluating products to enable the quality
mark to be awarded?

What is the status now of the 1998 European code of Conduct on Arms Exports vis-à-vis electro-shock
equipment which stated that export licences will not be issued if the exports may be used for internal
repression, or if they may provoke or prolong armed conflicts?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The CE conformity marking was introduced into Community legislation by Council Decision 93/465/EEC
of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures
and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the
technical harmonisation directives (1) 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
intervene directly in the process of evaluating the
the Commission does not
Enterprise. However,
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.

C 172 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

In an earlier reply to written question E-3259/97 by Mrs. Wemheuser (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.

However, further to previous replies on that subject, in particular to written questions E-0446/02 by Mrs
Banotti (3) and E-0470/02 by Mrs. Scallon (4), and in order to take into account the concerns of the
for a Council Regulation
Honourable Members,
inhuman or degrading
concerning trade in equipment that may be used for torture or other cruel,
treatment or punishment. The aim of this Regulation is amongst 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.

the Commission is currently preparing a proposal

Finally, as regard the application of the European Code of Conduct on arms exports vis-à-vis electro-shock
equipment, the list of items to which this Code is to be applied is found in the Council Declaration of
13 June 2000 (5), and does not include such equipment.

(1) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
(2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.
(3) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 217.
(4) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 218.
(5) OJ C 191, 8.7.2000.

(2002/C 172 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Proposed closure of Smurfit Corrugated in Warrington, UK

Can the Commission investigate, as a matter of urgency, the proposed closure of Smurfit Corrugated in
Warrington, UK? In view of the fact that this company is a multinational employing 16 000 workers in
Europe, has failed to consult with the workforce, is refusing to call together the company works council
and may use savings from the closure to invest in another plant, can the Commission ensure that all
European directives and regulations are upheld and that the company engages in consultation and
meaningful negotiations with the workforce?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission would point out that several Community Directives stipulate procedures for informing
and consulting workers’ representatives that may be applicable when enterprises are closed down,
especially Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to collective redundancies (1), and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the
establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (2). In
addition, another Directive has just been adopted (3) on 11 March 2002 by the Parliament and the Council
in order to complete the Community rules in this area.

The first two Directives have been implemented into the national legal orders of the Member States. It is
up to the competent national authorities to assess whether they are properly implemented in each case.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
(3) OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.