Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee - Second biennial Report on the Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in the Single Market
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, domestic market, freedom to provide services, mutual recognition principle, product safety, report, statistics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 23.7.2002
COM(2002) 419 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Second biennial Report on the Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in the
Single Market

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT

The importance of mutual recognition for the proper operation of the single market should not
be underestimated: the economic value of intra-Community trade in products covered by
mutual recognition is estimated at approximately

430 billion.

€

• The specific assessments of how mutual recognition operates, carried out between 1999
and 2001, confirm that mutual recognition operates well for products which pose few
safety problems, such as bicycles, tanks and containers.

• In contrast, the application of mutual recognition for technically complex products (e.g.
buses, lorries, construction products and precious metals) or products which can pose
safety or health problems (such as food supplements and fortified products) seems to
operate less well because a number of economic operators and national administrations
are unfamiliar with the principle (lack of information, absence or refusal of dialogue or
administrative cooperation).

• In order to facilitate the application of mutual recognition for products between economic
operators and national administrations, the Commission will adopt guidelines on this
in a communication to the Member States and economic operators. The
subject
communication will explain the rights and obligations of the parties concerned in cases
where the principle of mutual recognition needs to be applied. In addition, it will ensure
that the best possible use is made of existing instruments in order to root the proper
application of the principle of mutual recognition in national legislation and administrative
practice. Practical guides by sector or group of sectors and seminars will probably remain
effective tools for increasing familiarity with and improving the operation of the principle,
not only in the Member States but also in the candidate countries. These tools are
particularly important for the bodies which are involved and cooperate in conformity
checking.

• In the specific sectors in which national rules provide for such different levels of protection
its role (as in the field of
that the principle of mutual recognition cannot properly fulfil
fortified foodstuffs and construction products), harmonisation will continue to be the most
suitable solution, on condition that it covers all the problems for which mutual recognition
cannot provide an effective solution. Harmonisation is also an important tool, particularly
in relation to the protection of health, the environment and the consumer.

In the field of services, the Commission has just defined a new strategy based partly on
the application of mutual recognition as a means of eliminating the redundant (and often
contradictory) superposition of regulations which constitute barriers to cross-border trade and
stifle innovation. Mutual recognition will continue to play a very important role in the field of
financial services.

2

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Second biennial Report on the Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in the
Single Market

(Text with EEA relevance)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
1.1
1.2

2

2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3

2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5

2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2

3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

4

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
Context of the report................................................................................................. 5
Aims of the report .................................................................................................... 6

SPECIFIC MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE WAY MUTUAL
RECOGNITION OPERATES ............................................................................... 7

Training and information .......................................................................................... 7
Conferences, seminars and round tables................................................................... 7
Guides and various publications............................................................................... 9
Internet sites............................................................................................................. 9

Instruments for the prevention and amicable settlement of problems....................... 10
Notification of draft national regulations under Directive 98/34/EC....................... 10
Notification of specific measures under Decision 3052/95/EC ................................ 11
Administrative cooperation in networks.................................................................. 11
"Package meetings"................................................................................................ 12
Professional qualifications ..................................................................................... 13

Infringement proceedings ....................................................................................... 13
Products................................................................................................................. 13
Professional qualifications ..................................................................................... 14

HARMONISATION: MEASURES ADOPTED OR PROPOSED..................... 14
Products ................................................................................................................. 14
Horizontal measures............................................................................................... 14
Vertical measures: some specific cases................................................................... 15
Professional qualifications...................................................................................... 15
Electronic commerce .............................................................................................. 16
Commercial communications ................................................................................. 16
Financial services ................................................................................................... 17

SPECIFIC SURVEYS ON HOW MUTUAL RECOGNITION OPERATES IN
CERTAIN PRODUCT SECTORS ...................................................................... 18
Specific surveys...................................................................................................... 18
Foodstuffs .............................................................................................................. 19
Various vehicles: buses, lorries, trailers and bicycles .............................................. 20
Construction products............................................................................................. 20
Ladders and scaffolding not designed to be incorporated into a building................. 21
Other product categories......................................................................................... 21

3

5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

6
6.1
6.2
6.3

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

THE NON-HARMONISED PRODUCT FIELD ................................................ 23
Do the surveys reveal how mutual recognition actually operates? ........................... 23
The extent of unfamiliarity with mutual recognition must not be underestimated… 24
…and is reflected in practice by an over-cautious attitude....................................... 24
Does unfamiliarity imply that the principle does not work? .................................... 24
Does unfamiliarity pose a problem?........................................................................ 25

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 25
Products ................................................................................................................. 25
Professional qualifications: need for simplification and consolidation..................... 27
Services: a new strategy for the freedom to provide them ....................................... 27

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................ 29

STATISTICS ON QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE REGULATED PROFESSIONS29

PRODUCTS: STATISTICS ON COMPLAINTS AND INFRINGEMENTS .......... 31

PRODUCTS: RESULTS OF THE SURVEYS OF NATIONAL AUTHORITIES .. 36

PRODUCTS: RESULTS OF THE SURVEYS OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS .... 41

4

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Context of the report

In accordance with the principle of mutual recognition as it emerges from the case
law of the Court of Justice concerning the application of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC
Treaty, a Member State cannot, in principle, prohibit the sale on its territory of goods
which are lawfully produced and marketed in another Member State, even if those
goods are produced to technical or qualitative specifications that differ from those
required of its own goods. The Member States may depart from this principle and
take measures prohibiting or restricting access by such goods to the national market
only under very strict conditions1, since such measures must be necessary and
proportionate in relation to overriding requirements to protect, for example, public
health, consumers or the environment. Where such requirements are involved,
mutual recognition is not automatically applicable: the host Member State retains the
possibility of requiring that the degree of protection afforded by a product from
another Member State is equivalent to that provided for in its national regulations2.

1

2

As long ago as 1980, the Commission set out a number of guidelines on the application of the principle
of mutual recognition resulting from the case law of the Court - see the Communication from the
Commission concerning the consequences of the judgment given by the Court of Justice on
20 February 1979 in Case 120/78 (Cassis de Dijon), OJ C 256 of 3 October 1980, "Cassis de
Dijon" Judgment, ECR 1979, p. 649.
With regard to consumer protection, the Court of Justice stated in one of its judgments that "no
consideration relating to the protection of the national consumer militates in favour of a rule preventing
such consumer from trying (a product which is manufactured) according to a different tradition in
another Member State" ("De Kikvorsch" judgment of 17 March 1983, ECR 1983, p. 947). The Court
held that such protection can be achieved by other means which are less of a barrier to trade, such as
"suitable information for the consumer" in the form of "appropriate labelling".
With regard to the protection of health or safety, the Court has stated that "(…) it is for the national
authorities to demonstrate in each case that their rules are necessary to give effective protection to the
interests referred to in Article 36 (now Article 30) of the Treaty and, in particular, to show that the
marketing of the product in question creates a serious risk to public health" ("van Bennekom"
judgment of 30 November 1983, ECR 1983, p. 3883). The Court stated in its judgment in the case of
the Commission v. Germany (regulation on beer) of 12 March 1987, ECR 1987, p. 1227, that "by virtue
of the principle of proportionality, traders must also be able to apply, under a procedure which is easily
accessible to them and can be concluded within a reasonable time, for the use of specific additives to be
authorised by a measure of general application". The Court stated in this connection "that it must be
open to traders to challenge before the courts an unjustified failure to grant authorisation".
In its judgment of 22 January 2002 (Canal Satélite Digital SL, Case C-390/99), the Court of Justice
confirmed that a prior authorisation procedure restricts both the free movement of goods and the
freedom to provide services. Therefore, in order to be justified with regard to those fundamental
freedoms, such legislation must pursue a public-interest objective recognised by Community law and
comply with the principle of proportionality; that is to say, it must be appropriate to ensure achievement
of the aim pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve it. In the same judgment,
the Court of Justice stated the principles with which such an authorisation procedure must comply for it
to be proportionate. See, in particular, points 4.1 and 5.1 of the First Biennial Report on the Application
of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in Product and Service Markets - SEC(1999)1106 of
13 July 1999.

5

The principle of mutual recognition applies mutatis mutandis to the freedom to
provide services in the single market. This implies that a provider
lawfully
established in a Member State must be able to provide his services in all the other EU
Member States, which must normally allow him to do so without imposing any
further restrictions on him. The only admissible barriers are those which are non-
discriminatory, justified by overriding reasons of general interest, likely to achieve
the objective in question and, in any event, proportionate.

It should be pointed out that the principle of mutual recognition does not apply in
cases where the rules for marketing goods and services have been fully harmonised
by specific directives.

1.2.

Aims of the report

In its Communication to the Council and to the European Parliament3,
the
Commission proposed a number of initiatives to improve the application of the
principle of mutual recognition. Some of these initiatives were intended for
economic operators and others for the Member States. In the communication, the
Commission undertook to draw up an evaluation report at two-yearly intervals,
which would be forwarded to the Council and the European Parliament.

The First Biennial Report on the Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition
in Product and Service Markets4 led to a preliminary diagnosis of how this principle
operates in the single market, on the basis of the data available to the Commission in
19995.

The present report is the Second Biennial Report, the main purpose of which is to
assess the progress made in the application of mutual recognition in the single
market6 since 1999 and to highlight the fields in which mutual recognition continues
to pose problems7.

3

4

5

6

7

Communication COM(1999)299 final to the Council and to the European Parliament of 16 June 1999
on mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the Action Plan for the Single Market.
SEC(1999)1106 of 13 July 1999.
The Communication and the First Biennial Report were the subject of a Council Resolution of
28 October 1999 (OJ C 141, 19.05.2000, pp. 5-6) and of an own-initiative opinion of the Economic and
Social Committee of 29 November 2000 (ECS 1402-2000; OJ C 116, 20.04.2001, pp. 14-19). The
Council Resolution was incorporated into the agreement on the European Economic Area by virtue of
Decision No 15/2002 of the EEA Joint Committee of 1 March 2002 (OJ L 110, 25.04.2002, pp. 9-10).
It should be emphasised that this report does not concern the application of the principle of mutual
recognition in fields other than the free movement of goods and services, e.g. the Community's external
trade policy, or joint action in the field of judicial cooperation.
The economic importance of the proper operation of mutual recognition for products should not be
the economic value of intra-Community trade in products covered by mutual
underestimated:
in this connection, Communication
recognition is estimated at approximately
COM(2001)736 of 7 December 2001 on economic reform and the operation of Community product and
capital markets.

430 billion. See,

€

6

2.

SPECIFIC MEASURES
RECOGNITION OPERATES

TO IMPROVE

THE WAY MUTUAL

Themeasuresdefinedbythe1999Communicationonmutualrecognitionarebased
on three main pillars: a) improving information and developing training; b) taking
advantageofthe instrumentsforpreventingand for amicablyand effectivelysettling
problems of free movement and c) exploiting the possibilities afforded by
Communitylawtoeliminateexistingbarriers.

With regard to products, sectoral round tables organised by the Commission have
revealed that there is a great deal of uncertainty on the part of the players
concerned as to how to apply mutual recognition in everyday practice. This
uncertainty is often reflected in widely differing interpretations, not only by national
administrations but also by economic operators. In some national administrations,
theconceptof"equivalence"seemstogiverisetoanumberofmisunderstandings.

It is essential that mutual recognition should operate effectively, particularly in view
of the fact that the Commission has noted a new wave of "re-regulation". This new
wave is mainly due to technological progress and to the desire to step up health
checks (particularly on food). Thanks to the procedure put in place by Directive
98/34/EC,which obligesthe MemberStatesto notifyany draftsof technical rules, it
is possible for the Commission to take action to ensure that the Member States
include the principle of mutual recognition in the drafts of national technical rules.
This preventive action is followed up, if necessary, by the procedures for
infringement of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty, instituted by the Commission
under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, to ensure that the principle is also incorporated
intoexistingnationallegislation.

About 95% of cases involving infringements of mutual recognition for products are
settled through dialogue with the Member States and before the matter has even
been brought before the Court of Justice, which confirms the special benefits of
cooperation between the Commission and the Member States. In the field of
administrativecooperationinnetworks,thenetworkofcontactpointsforcitizensand
businesseshasnot produced very positive results in this sector. A more successful
mechanismexistsforthemutualrecognitionofprofessionalqualifications.

2.1.

Training and information

2.1.1. Conferences, seminars and round tables

Since 1999,
the Commission has organised 15 specific seminars on mutual
recognition in the single market. These seminars have been held on the occasion of
"package meetings". The main participants were the national administrations, which
welcomed them and seemed to be in favour of holding such seminars more regularly.

The Commission has also organised round tables intended for administrations and
businesses.

7

The first round tables were held on 30 November 2000 on mutual recognition in the
food sector8. One of the conclusions to emerge is that, although the composition,
packaging and labelling of foodstuffs and the name under which a product is sold are
already largely harmonised, the fact that this harmonisation is incomplete and/or
optional leaves the way open, according to the economic operators, to restrictions on
the movement of foodstuffs. Mutual recognition will thus continue to play an
essential role in this field. The round tables confirmed that there still seem to be a
number of barriers to the free movement of enriched foodstuffs and food
supplements due to the Member States' different assessments of the scientific
uncertainties as to the harmlessness of the long-term consumption of these products9.
These differences underlie the widely differing national legislations and procedures
for gaining access to national markets. It is for that reason, in particular, that the
in its White Paper on Food Safety10, proposed a programme of
Commission,
legislative reforms covering all aspects of food products "from the farm to the table".
In this context, the Commission has presented a proposal for a Directive on food
supplements11 and also intends to present a proposal for a Directive on fortified foods
by the end of 2002.

The second round tables on mutual recognition were held on 6 September 2001 and
concerned several categories of industrial products12. They confirmed that there were
still some problems in everyday practice. For certain products (buses, scaffolding),
legislation to achieve greater harmonisation is currently being adopted. As a result of
the recent publication of the first harmonised standards and the issuing of European
technical approvals, rapid progress is being made towards the completion of the
single market for construction products. For intra-Community trade in the other types
of products dealt with at these round tables, mutual recognition is still crucially
important. For most of the product categories concerned, a number of economic
operators complained that, whether they like it or not, they always have to adapt their
products to comply with the technical rules of the Member State of destination.

The idea of drawing up practical guides on the application of mutual recognition to
certain types of products with a view to better informing the parties concerned was
warmly welcomed by the participants in the round tables. They also considered that
reinforcing administrative cooperation through specialised networks of competent
national officials by product category, and greater transparency of national decisions,
would be very useful for reinforcing the application of mutual recognition on the
ground.

8

9

10

11

12

The summary of these round tables is published on Internet site
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/index.htm
See the cases pending before the Court of Justice, and in particular C-387/99, C-150/00 and C-95/01.
COM(1999)719 final of 12 January 2000.
COM(2000)222 final of 8 May 2000, as amended by COM(2001)159 final.
The sectors discussed at these specialised round tables cover the following product categories: buses,
lorries, vans and trailers; coupling systems for these vehicles, for passenger vehicles (M1) and for
wheeled farm or forestry tractors; bicycles; tanks and containers; construction products for which there
are no (harmonised) standards or technical type-approval; ladders and scaffolding not designed to be
incorporated into a building; fire and burglar alarm systems; and childcare products (in particular beds,
pushchairs and baby seats). A summary of these round tables has been published on Internet site
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/mutrec.htm

8

The Swedish authorities were particularly interested in this subject and organised, in
close cooperation with the Commission, a seminar on mutual recognition in the field
of conformity assessment, which took place on 13 June 200113.

2.1.2. Guides and various publications

There is no doubt that the application of the principle of mutual recognition requires
a basic knowledge of the principles of the free movement of goods. The Commission
published a "Practical guide to the concepts and application of Articles 28-30 of the
EC Treaty", in which it describes in particular the principle of mutual recognition
and summarises the most pertinent case law of the Court of Justice on the subject. It
is available on the Commission's Internet site14.

Following the commitment entered into in the report on the implementation of
Decision 3052/95/EC15 in 1997 and 199816, the Commission published, during 2001,
a guide to Decision 3052/95/EC. This document is intended not only for the national
authorities who have to implement the decision, but also for economic operators. The
Commission is making every effort to distribute it as widely as possible, particularly
by publishing it on its Internet site17.

The Commission also published in autumn 2000 a brochure entitled ‘Maintaining the
single market. Directive 98/34/EC’, which outlines the purpose and operation of the
notification system established by that Directive. This brochure was distributed to the
central units responsible for managing the notification system in the Member States
and to a large number of European industrial associations.

2.1.3.

Internet sites

In order to increase public awareness of the principle of mutual recognition in the
single market, a new Internet site is devoted to it18.

For Directive 98/34/EC, the Commission also created a new Internet site19 which
enables all economic operators and the interested public to find out about draft
technical rules and rules on information society services which have been notified to
the Commission, so that they can register their reactions if they so wish.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

See http://www.swedac.se.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/art2830.htm
Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 December 1995,
establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the
principle of the free movement of goods within the Community.
COM(2000) 194 final of 7 April 2000.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/3052intro.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/index.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

9

2.2.

Instruments for the prevention and amicable settlement of problems

2.2.1. Notification of draft national regulations under Directive 98/34/EC20

In 2001, the Commission received 530 draft technical regulations (25 relating to
rules on information society services and the rest to products), which were examined
by its departments. There were 604 in 1998, 591 in 1999 and 751 in 200021. These
figures show that, despite the completion of the single market, the Member States
continue to adopt a large number of technical regulations, or even "re-regulate",
mainly as a result of technological advances and the desire to have more thorough
health checking, particularly as regards food health. These initiatives must be
monitored so as to prevent them from jeopardising the smooth operation of the single
market. Recording them makes it possible to identify the sectors in which
Community measures are necessary.

There is a discernible trend towards improving the quality of national legislation: the
Member States are endeavouring to introduce an increasing number of mutual
recognition clauses into their draft legislation for the non-harmonised sectors22.

In 2000, the Directive also contributed to harmonisation at Community level by
preventing the adoption of national measures which might have made some Member
States' positions inflexible, while the purpose was to seek common solutions (e.g. on
dangerous substances in electric and electronic equipment,
food supplements,
compound feed, and the addition of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs).

There was a rapid increase in the field of services. Thus, while the Commission
received 11 notifications in 1999, there were 23 in 2000 and 25 in 2001, covering
subjects as complex as electronic signatures, combating computer crime, electronic
commerce, the protection of minors in communications, or the names of domains.

20

21

22

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations. Directive
98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 extended this procedure to
include rules on information society services (OJ L 217, 05.08.1998, p. 18).
See Table 7.2.4 in annex to this report. For the 1995-1998 statistics, see the report of the Commission to
the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the operation of
Directive 98/34/EC from 1995 to 1998: COM(2000)429 final of 7 July 2000, and the statistics in
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/statistics/index_en.htm.
In 1999, the Member States and the Commission delivered 408 observations and 148 detailed opinions.
In 2000, despite a considerable increase in the number of notifications, the Member States and the
Commission delivered 444 observations and 144 detailed opinions. In 2001, the Member States and the
Commission delivered 152 detailed opinions. However, less than half the detailed opinions delivered by
the Commission concerned the absence of mutual recognition clauses.

10

Unfortunately, in the field of information society services, it is apparent that Member
the principle of mutual
States often still do not apply to a sufficient extent
recognition and demand the duplication of the requirements already met by operators
in other Member States. Problems are also caused by the fact that, in some cases, the
Member States include concepts of extra-territoriality in their draft regulations23. In
such cases, the Commission systematically reminds the Member State concerned that
it cannot impose the same obligations on operators established elsewhere in the EC
as it imposes on its own operators and that, on the contrary, each new regulation
must recognise and take due account of the requirements and checks already fulfilled
by each operator in his country of establishment.

2.2.2. Notification of specific measures under Decision 3052/95/EC24

As the Commission stressed in its report of 7 April 200025 on the implementation of
the Decision,
the Decision is not operating satisfactorily, since the number of
notifications recorded during the years covered by the report (1997 and 1998) and
confirmed during the following years26 is not sufficient to give a faithful portrayal of
how mutual recognition operates in the Community.

the Decision27.

The Commission, as it announced in its report, is endeavouring to promote the
application of
the active
cooperation of the Member States, the Commission will on its own not be able to
guarantee that the Decision fully and satisfactorily performs the function expected of
it at the time of its adoption.

is, however, clear

that, without

It

2.2.3.

Administrative cooperation in networks

All the Member States have set up some contact points for citizens and some for
businesses28. There is also a coordination centre for each Member State which
operates as a network coordinator in the Member State, as an initial point of contact
between Member States (within this network), and as a point of contact between
these countries and the Commission. The purpose of this network is to assist citizens
and businesses in the event of problems resulting from the incorrect application of
the single market rules by a public authority29.

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

This statement is confirmed by the statistics. Thus, in 1999, the Commission delivered 8 observations
and one detailed opinion on the 11 notifications received in this field, while the Member States
delivered 2 observations. In 2000, the Commission delivered 4 observations and 9 detailed opinions on
the 23 notifications received, while the Member States delivered 5 observations. In 2001,
the
Commission delivered 10 observations and 4 detailed opinions. The Member States, for their part,
delivered 2 observations.
Decision 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing
a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the
free movement of goods within the Community.
Report COM(2000)194 final of 7 April 2000 from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/EC in
1997 and 1998.
The Commission received a total of 33 notifications in 1997, 69 in 1998, 26 in 1999 and 67 in 2000.
See point 4 of the above-mentioned report COM(2000)194 final and points 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of this
report.
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/cpoints/index.htm.
This network normally deals with cases which the contact points and coordination centres receive
directly from citizens and businesses. The Commission forwarded, on a trial basis, cases about which it
had received complaints regarding vehicle registration.

11

The results of this mechanism are somewhat disappointing. One of the reasons for
this is the absence of compulsory deadlines for dealing with cases submitted to the
network and the time it takes to solve problems, which varies extremely widely. And
yet the speed with which their problems are solved is crucially important for a large
number of citizens and businesses. It also emerges that the target groups of the
contact points are not yet well aware of their existence, since the extent of most
Member States' promotional measures is insufficient.

The Commission therefore adopted a communication on this subject30 with a view to
rectifying these shortcomings. By June 2002, a user-friendly on-line database
covering the entire EU will be set up in order to improve transparency and, by
introducing an element of peer pressure, to encourage the Member States to achieve
better results. The Commission also adopted a Recommendation31 giving the
coordination centres clear principles for dealing with cases within the network.

There has long been more fruitful cooperation on the recognition of professional
qualifications32. In order to arrive more rapidly at solutions to certain problems
detected, the Commission has had regular contacts with the national authorities, in
particular the experts of the groups and committees responsible (coordinators' group
and other committees of senior officials).

2.2.4.

"Package meetings"

As part of the constructive dialogue between the Commission and the national
administrations, the Commission organises regular "package meetings" with the
competent authorities of the Member States. By means of thorough discussions on
the complaints submitted to the Commission and on the infringement proceedings
under way, it is possible to arrive at amicable settlements of the cases on the agenda
of these meetings.

It should be emphasised that the "package meetings" are not an alternative to
instituting infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, but a
complementary and parallel approach. A "package meeting" enables all
the
participating parties to exchange their points of view and is therefore a didactic
instrument much valued by the authorities of the Member States.

During the period 1998-2001, 53 "package meetings" were organised: 19 in 1998, 13
in 1999, 11 in 2000 and 10 in 200133. It is worth noting that the decline in the
number of meetings has been offset by improved efficiency, mainly due to an
increase in the number of cases discussed per meeting. In addition, there is a marked
increase in the number of ad hoc bilateral meetings with the national authorities. This
type of meeting permits a more thorough discussion of highly technical dossiers.

30

31

32

33

COM (2001) 702 final of 27 November 2001.
Commission Recommendation 2001/893/EC of 7 December 2001 on principles for using "SOLVIT" -
the Internal Market Problem-Solving Network (OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 79.
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/update/solvit/index.htm.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/index.htm
See Table 7.2.5 in annex.

12

2.2.5.

Professional qualifications

In the field of professional qualifications, it is worth recalling initiatives involving
political and academic cooperation aimed at coordinating courses of study and at
improving the transparency of diplomas and qualifications.

The Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO have jointly drawn up,
outside the harmonised field, a supplement to the diploma which contains both the
personal results of the holder of the diploma and a description of his or her national
system of higher education. Although the supplement to the diploma is a voluntary
instrument,
is now starting to be widely implemented throughout Europe. In
conformity with the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing
training, volunteers, teachers and trainers34, a parallel
instrument, the certificate
supplement, has been devised for vocational qualifications35. This supplement is
currently being tested in the Member States.

The ministers of education of more than 30 countries have agreed, under the Bologna
process, to create by 2010 a "European higher education area" in which it will be
easier to compare diplomas. A parallel process is being launched in vocational
education and training, the aim being to increase transparency and mutual trust in the
field of vocational qualifications.

2.3.

Infringement proceedings

2.3.1.

Products

Approximately 28% of the cases recorded (complaints and own-initiative cases) by
the Commission during the period 1998-2001 in the "non- harmonised" field of the
free movement of goods (Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty)
involve mutual
recognition. About a third of the infringement proceedings36 during the same period
concern the lack of mutual recognition37.

There would be little point in trying to draw conclusions on the basis of the statistics
of cases shelved or settled, since they also include groundless complaints and
complaints regarding very specific situations in one or more Member States38. As for
infringement proceedings, the same statistics reflect not only the large number of
obstacles due to the lack of mutual recognition, but also the Commission's
considerable efforts to oblige the Member States to incorporate the proper
application of the principle of mutual recognition into their
regulations and
administrative practice.

34

35

36

37

38

OJ L 215 of 9 August 2001, pp.30-37.
See http://www.cedefop.eu.int/transparency/certsupp.asp)
A letter of formal notice, a reasoned opinion and referral to the Court of Justice in accordance with
Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
More detailed statistics are given in Tables 7.2.1 to 7.2.3 in annex to this report.
It should be noted that there was a one-off increase in the number of complaints during the reference
period as a result of the obstacles created in the wake of the dioxin crisis. These complaints are included
in the total number of cases examined in 1999 and 2000.

13

2.3.2.

Professional qualifications

With regard to the recognition of professional qualifications, the application of the
principle of mutual recognition mainly concerns citizens, who continue to benefit
from the Community Directives on the recognition of diplomas as part of the
freedom of movement conferred by the Treaty39. It should also be noted that a
declining number of complaints were recorded for the period 1999-200040, which
seems to indicate that
the Community instruments concerned are operating
satisfactorily.

3.

HARMONISATION: MEASURES ADOPTED OR PROPOSED

Mutual recognition is not always a miracle solution for ensuring the free movement
of goods in the single market. Harmonisation or further harmonisation remains
without doubt one of the most effective instruments, both for economic operators
and forthenationaladministrations.Mutualrecognition cannotbe a miracle solution
forensuringthefreemovementofgoodsinthesinglemarket.

Thus, between 1999 and 2000 the number of continuing obstacles and particular
difficulties called for a specific effort of harmonisation not only in the field of
professional qualifications, electronic commerce, consumer protection, commercial
communications and financial services, but also in the sectors of foodstuffs (food
supplements) and industrial products (measuring instruments, lifts, recreational
craft, civil aviation products, etc.). In the field of consumer protection, the
Commission intends to draw up a proposal for a framework Directive providing, in
particular,formaximumharmonisationwithahighlevelofprotection.

3.1.

Products

3.1.1. Horizontal measures

The new Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
3 December 2001 on general product safety41 repealed the previous Directive on the
same subject42. The new Directive not only lays down safety requirements for
products which are not subject to specific sectoral provisions (such as childcare
products and cigarette lighters), but also creates a legal reference framework for
assessing the equivalence between the levels of protection afforded by the product
and the level of protection of the Member State of destination.

Thus, the Directive stipulates that a product is deemed to be safe (i.e. pose no or only
very slight risks) if, in the absence of specific Community provisions governing the
safety of the product, it complies with the specific national regulations of the
Member State on whose territory it is marketed, on condition that such provisions lay
down the health and safety requirements which the product must satisfy in order to
be marketed and that they are drawn up in accordance with the Treaty, and in
particular Articles 28-30 thereof.

39

40

41

42

See Tables 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 in annex.
See Table 7.1.3 in annex.
OJ L 11, 15.01.2002, p.4.
Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety.

14

In addition, the Directive establishes a presumption of conformity where the product
complies with the voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the
references of which the Commission has published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities, in accordance with the specific procedure provided for by
the Directive.

Thus, the Directive will facilitate the application of mutual recognition for products
intended for consumers and posing no or only slight risks, while providing a high
level of protection for human health and safety.

In the communication on the follow-up to the Green Paper on consumer protection in
the European Union43, the Commission proposes a framework Directive providing,
in particular, for maximum harmonisation with a high level of protection. In this
field, combining an adequate level of harmonisation with the principle of mutual
recognition and the country-of-origin principle (both of which would have to be
enshrined in the framework Directive) would avoid the fragmentation of the internal
market due to diverging interpretations in the case law at national level.

3.1.2.

Vertical measures: some specific cases

Harmonisation or further harmonisation is necessary, particularly if it is established
that the principle of mutual recognition cannot be applied. Thus, the Commission
proposed a specific directive on food supplements44. As for substances which may be
added for specific nutritional purposes to foods intended for particular nutritional
uses, Commission Directive 2001/15/EC of 15 February 200145 seeks to remove the
continuing obstacles to the free movement of these products.

In the industrial products sector, further harmonisation is planned for measuring
instruments46, lifts47, recreational craft and personal watercraft48, and in the field of
civil aviation49.

3.2.

Professional qualifications

The adoption of the new Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 June 1999 on professional qualifications in craft trades, commerce
and certain services will facilitate professional recognition. This Directive (a) creates
a mechanism for the recognition of diplomas for professions not yet covered by the
general system (Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC) and (b) recasts 35 directives
on liberalisation and transitional measures adopted in the past. It will therefore help

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

COM(2002)289 final.
COM (2000)222 final of 8 May 2000, as amended by COM(2001)159 final.
OJ L 52, 22.02.2001, p.19.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measuring instruments:
COM(2000)566 final of 15 September 2000.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery and amending
Directive 95/16/EC - COM(2000) 899 final of 26 January 2001.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/25/EC
on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
relating to recreational craft - COM(2000) 639 final of 12 October 2000.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing common rules
in the field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency - COM(2000)595 final of
27 September 2000.

15

to promote the free movement of EU citizens in the Union while simplifying
Community law.

3.3.

Electronic commerce

Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce50 seeks to remove obstacles to the free
movement of information society services between Member States by establishing a
clear and stable legal framework based on single-market principles.

With a view to facilitating the movement of information society services throughout
the European Union, the Directive lays down that service providers can provide their
services on the basis of the rules of the Member State in which they are established
(the country of origin). Member States can restrict the movement of information
society services from other Member States only on the basis of the exemptions set
out in the Directive. In addition, the Directive harmonises certain legal aspects of
information society services with a view to guaranteeing their
freedom of
movement51.

Directive 1999/9352 establishes a legal framework for electronic signatures and
certain certification services with a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the
Internal Market. Amongst other things, the Directive lays down the requirements to
be met by certification service providers issuing qualified certificates. It lays down
that each Member State must apply the national provisions adopted under the
Directive to certification service providers established on its territory and to the
services they provide. Member States may not
impose any restriction on the
provision of certification services originating in another Member State in the fields
covered by the Directive.

3.4.

Commercial communications

There are still some national restrictions on commercial communications, for which
the simple application of the principle of mutual recognition would not be enough to
complete the single market since, according to the analyses carried out by the
Commission, a number of single-market fields interact: import of services, freedom
of establishment, export of services and elimination of serious distortions of
competition. Without targeted harmonisation, it would be impossible to establish
uniform rules.

50

51

52

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal
aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market
("Directive on electronic commerce"), OJ L 178, 17.07.2000, p.1. It should be noted that that Directive
does not lay down additional rules of private international law and does not deal with the powers of
national courts.
Definition of providers' place of establishment and their obligations of transparency, transparency
requirements for commercial communications, the conclusion and validity of electronic contracts,
liability of Internet intermediaries, on-line settlement of disputes, and cooperation between national
administrations.
Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a
Community framework for electronic signatures, OJ L 13 of 19 January 2000, p. 12.

16

In this context, the Commission adopted a communication53 proposing a Regulation
on the use and communication of sales promotions. This Regulation provides for the
replacement of certain restrictions by targeted harmonisation measures and the
application of mutual recognition for any continuing national requirements on sales
promotions.

The Commission also initiated a discussion on sponsorship54.

The communication on the follow-up to the Green Paper on consumer protection in
the European Union55 deals,
in particular, with all aspects of communications
between consumers and businesses. The Commission proposes that the problem of
existing restrictions in this field be resolved through complete harmonisation.

3.5.

Financial services

The Commission is particularly keen to maintain a clear and coherent legislative
framework for financial services, for which, owing to the complexity and volume of
the applicable standards, mutual recognition plays a particularly important role. This
is illustrated by the Directive on electronic commerce, the basic principle of which is
the "single market" clause, which enables on-line suppliers to offer their services
throughout the Union on the basis of the rules applied by the Member State in which
they are established. However, the Directive provides for several exemptions to this
clause, a number of which concern financial services. Furthermore, the single-market
clause will apply to fields in which the national rules still differ considerably,
particularly in the non-harmonised fields.

In order to present an action programme, the Commission adopted a Communication
on electronic commerce and financial services56.

for

In its Communication,
the Commission considers that greater convergence of
national rules will be necessary, particularly as regards the rules of professional
investment services and the obligations to provide pre-contract
conduct
information. The latter are largely covered by the proposal for a Directive on the
distance marketing of
to guarantee maximum
services.
convergence, various approaches should be combined, by drafting legislative
proposals to ensure a high level of consumer protection throughout the Union and,
whenever it appears appropriate, by providing for the need for the Member States to
apply mutual recognition.

In order

financial

The Commission is putting forward a three-stage strategy: it plans to launch a
convergence programme covering contractual and non-contractual rules. These
harmonisation measures will be accompanied by targeted measures to reinforce
consumer confidence in electronic commerce, in particular by using appropriate
means for settling cross-border disputes and by improving Internet payments. Lastly,
the Commission lays stress in its Communication on improved cooperation between

53

54

55

56

Communication COM(2001)546 final of 2 October 2001 on sales promotions in the Internal Market,
containing a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on sales
promotions in the Internal Market.
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/comcom/sponsorship/index_en.htm.
COM(2002)289 final.
COM(2001)66 final of 7 February 2001.

17

the supervisory authorities, since the authorities in the host Member States are
increasingly dependent on their counterparts in the Member State in which the
service provider is established.

4.

SPECIFIC SURVEYS ON HOW MUTUAL RECOGNITION OPERATES IN
CERTAIN PRODUCT SECTORS

On the basis of surveys of economic operators and national administrations, the
applicationoftheprincipleofmutualrecognitionwastestedforanumberofproduct
categories. The results of these surveys vary considerably from one category to
another.

However,thefollowingresultscanbehighlighted:

-
In the sectors where Community harmonisation does not yet concern new or
technologically advanced product categories, economic operators are very often
confronted by barriers to trade resulting from the lack of mutual recognition (e.g.
fortifiedfoodproducts,certainconstructionproducts).

In theoptionallyharmonised sectors (buses,lorries,trailers), the nature of the
-
obstacles to trade ranges from stringent requirements in the national type-approval
procedures to restrictions imposed by the "highway codes", which differ from one
MemberStatetoanother.

-
Theconstructionproductssectorstillsuffersfrommarketfragmentation,which
is the result of the application of national technical rules and "quality marks", which
arecommercialnecessitiesforobtainingmarketaccessforagivenproduct.

-
In the non-harmonised sectors studied (bicycles, ladders, scaffolding, articles
of precious metal, childcare articles, and tanks and containers) and in the field of
alarm systems, some parts ofwhich are harmonised, the difficulties vary depending
onthecomplexityandtechnicalsophisticationoftheproduct.

4.1.

Specific surveys

In its 1999 communication, the Commission already recognised the need for more
reliable information for accurately assessing the application of mutual recognition in
sectors where there is incomplete or no harmonisation of legislation on products. The
Commission therefore collected a range of data on the successes and shortcomings
recorded in the field of mutual recognition by conducting two series of similar
surveys: the first on a sample of economic operators in the European Union57 and the
second on the competent national administrations58. These surveys were carried out
on the basis of highly detailed questionnaires containing specific questions on, in
particular,
the attitudes of national
administrations and economic operators in the conformity-assessment process, any
difficulties encountered, their nature and their consequences.

the invocation of mutual

recognition,

57

58

About 2 000 economic operators were contacted.
Where appropriate, national administrations include regional authorities when the matter under
consideration falls outside the field of competence of a central national administration. The number of
national authorities is given in Table 7.3.8 of this report.

18

Mainly because of the low response rate from economic operators, the results of
some of these surveys provide only a rough outline of the situation and would
probably need to be supplemented by more thorough surveys. This is particularly
true in the following sectors: canned food, non-alcoholic beverages and beer,
fortified products and construction products59.

The results of these surveys60 are summarised below.

4.2.

Foodstuffs

Mutual recognition still plays an important role in the field of foodstuffs despite the
fact that harmonisation is already well advanced61.

Two-thirds of the businesses which replied to the questionnaire in the canned food
sector experience no difficulty in marketing their products in another Member State.
The surveys of national administrations do not reveal any particular problems.

In the sector of non-alcoholic beverages and beer, about 59% of the replies do not
reveal any difficulty in marketing these beverages in another Member State. 31% of
the replies mentioning obstacles complain of differences between the national
technical specifications which define the characteristics required of the beverage,
while 75% refer to problems relating to packaging and labelling. Two-thirds of the
national administrations questioned have not yet encountered problems with mutual
the national administrations
recognition.
consider
the
administrations questioned).

the surveys suggest
frequent problems concern labelling (35% of

In contrast,
the most

that

that

With regard to fortified products, 89% of the businesses which replied to the
questionnaire refer to problems in intra-Community trade in this type of product.
Most of these problems seem to be due to differences between the national technical
specifications which define the characteristics required of
thus
confirming the need for Community legislation. To this end, as announced in the
action plan in the White Paper on food safety, the Commission intends to present a
proposal for a Directive on fortified foodstuffs by the end of 2002. In particular, the
proposal will lay down the provisions governing the marketing of foodstuffs to
which nutrients such as vitamins and mineral salts have been added.

the product,

59

60

61

For canned food, replies were received from 21 of the 394 economic operators contacted (5%). For the
surveys on non-alcoholic beverages and beer, there were replies from 38 of the 289 economic operators
contacted (13%). For fortified products, 18 of the 67 businesses contacted replied. For construction
products, replies were received from 5% of the businesses contacted, which were mainly active in the
field of masonry products (28 replies). It should also be noted that, with regard to construction and
ladders, some Member States have a national certification and branding system which, although
voluntary, is actually a commercial necessity for gaining access to the national market (customer
confidence in national brands). This grey area between compulsory authorisation procedures and
voluntary certification and branding systems means that the replies in these two sectors should be
interpreted with caution. For vans, 38 businesses replied.
The detailed results of these surveys are given in Tables 7.3.1 to 7.3.7 and 7.4.1 to 7.4.14 in annex.
These statistics should not be confused with those referred to in point 3 of the Internal Market
Scoreboard of November 2001 (No 9), namely the survey on the quality of the EU regulatory
environment, which deals more generally with operators' opinions on the conformity requirements for
products
site
the
harmonised
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/update/score/index.htm.
See Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/index_en.html.

non-harmonised

Internet

sector.

both

and

See

the

in

19

Furthermore, these replies confirm the information available to the Commission from
infringement proceedings.

4.3.

Various vehicles: buses, lorries, trailers62 and bicycles

The analysis of the surveys conducted in the bus sector shows that almost 60% of
national administrations have encountered problems with the application of mutual
recognition. Since almost all the administrations questioned state that there is a
national approval procedure before the product is placed on the market, it is hardly
surprising that one of the main causes of difficulties is, according to the businesses
questioned, the unwieldiness of approval procedures and the need to adapt certain
buses to local standards before they can be marketed. As regards administrations, the
dimensions of buses seem to be the main difficulty for 40% of those questioned.

In the lorry sector, the marketing difficulties are very similar in number and nature to
those encountered for buses. 34% of the 223 attempts to market lorries in a Member
State have met with difficulties, the main sources of which seem to be compliance
with compulsory technical rules of the Member State of destination and the refusal to
recognise certificates and attestations obtained in the Member State of manufacture.
It should be emphasised that, in 70% of cases in which difficulties were encountered,
businesses had to adapt their products at the request of or following action by the
host Member State.

As for trailers, the businesses questioned stated that certain technical specifications
seem to be imposed by the provisions of the various local "highway codes", which
contain requirements that vary widely from country to country (e.g. maximum
dimensions, particular markings, maximum axle loads, etc.). In 61% of cases,
is possible that
businesses had no difficulties in marketing their products. It
manufacturers ensure that
the provisions of the Member State of destination's
highway code are complied with at the production stage.

Bicycles are not covered by Community harmonisation. The analysis of the surveys
shows that there are still relatively few problems caused by the incorrect application
of the principle of mutual recognition. None of the administrations questioned
suggested that there should be harmonisation in this field. Economic operators seem
to experience difficulties mainly in four Member States. Furthermore, economic
operators in the bicycle sector seem to be very willing to adapt their products to the
demand on the target market: 68% of the manufacturers questioned stated that they
had adapted their bicycles to fit in with local consumption habits. However, on the
basis of the replies to the survey, it is not possible to assess how far the various local
"highway codes", which sometimes contain technical rules requiring manufacturers
to adapt their products, directly influence local consumption habits.

4.4.

Construction products

In the absence of technical specifications such as those provided for in Article 4 of
Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products63, mutual recognition applies to a

62

63

lorries and trailers have been partly harmonised. See,

Buses,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/index.htm.
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.

in particular,

Internet

site

20

broad category of construction products, in particular road safety equipment, pipes
and masonry products64.

the fact

About 54% of the businesses which replied to the questionnaire refer to problems, in
contrast to the other 46%, which belong mainly to the import branch. It is possible
that
that manufacturers often deal with authorisation and certification
procedures benefits importers, who are thus able to sell duly authorised or certified
products. 80% of the replies criticise different testing methods as a major problem,
and compulsory tests to be conducted by a third party under a compulsory
conformity-assessment procedure (73% of replies).

The national administrations questioned do not seem to encounter as many problems
as economic operators. Despite the considerable number of marketing procedures, no
more than 35% of national administrations stated that they had encountered problems
of mutual recognition. A quarter of the national administrations did not agree that
products from other Member States provide an equivalent level of protection.

4.5.

Ladders and scaffolding not designed to be incorporated into a building

71% of the businesses contacted did not report any problems. However, none of them
actually manufactures this type of product. Problems were reported only by the
remaining 29% of manufacturers65. In 80% of the problem cases, the certificates and
information submitted by the manufacturers failed to convince the national
administrations that the level of protection afforded by the product was equivalent to
that required by the legislation of the Member State of destination. The legislation of
only one Member State required four ladder manufacturers to modify their products
to comply with its legislation. According to the replies to the surveys, no other
Member State has required the manufacturers concerned to modify their products.

Since the overall number of problems encountered by administrations is small, few
administrations consider that harmonisation is desirable.

4.6.

Other product categories

The analysis of the surveys conducted on childcare articles suggests that the number
of difficulties encountered in marketing them in the European Union remains small.
This seems to be due to the fact that there are European safety standards for
children's beds and cots and for babies' car seats.

Fire and burglar alarm systems make up a special product group because of the
simultaneous application of a number of directives66 and because of the important

64

65

66

It should be emphasised that the role of mutual recognition in this sector will decrease considerably as
harmonised standards are gradually adopted and European technical
type-approvals are more
systematically applied. A more detailed description of the recent progress in this specific sector can be
found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/construction/index.htm.
5 businesses.
Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits, Council Directive
89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
electromagnetic compatibility, and,
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal
equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity.

for certain systems, Directive 1999/5/EC of

21

role of insurance companies, which seem to promote the installation of alarm
systems which meet certain quality standards67. There seem to be relatively few
difficulties. The technical complexity of this type of product probably explains why
more problems were reported by administrations than by economic operators, and
why 39% of administrations would like to see further harmonisation.

At first sight, there seem to be few problems with articles of precious metal. The
main difficulties are due to the obligation to obtain a national hallmark68 and to
differences between national specifications on minimum fineness69 and nickel
content. Thus, manufacturers established in Member States with a low minimum
fineness standard sometimes have to market their products under a name other than
"gold" in the countries with a higher minimum fineness standard or design different
product lines, which obliges them to revise their production methods. However,
some of the businesses questioned pointed out that consumer tastes and habits varied
from country to country and that manufacturers mostly had to adapt their products
for purely commercial reasons.

The more widespread use of hallmarking systems and the resulting problems of
mutual recognition are confirmed by the national administrations, despite a high
level of administrative cooperation. It is therefore not surprising that half of the
administrations questioned would like to see harmonisation for precious metals and
that the other half would like administrative cooperation to be stepped up70.

The analysis of the replies by businesses in the tank sector reveals that there seem to
be few difficulties with the application of mutual recognition. However, businesses
which state that they have not experienced any difficulties have often adopted
avoidance strategies or work to order according to their customers' particular
specifications. Besides the differences between the national technical specifications
laying down the characteristics required of the product, the main source of problems
seems to be the obligation to resubmit products to all or some of the acceptance tests,
with different test methods and different methods of conformity assessment by third
parties.

Lastly,
the existence of international, and particularly European, standards on
containers (of all types) seems to facilitate the application of mutual recognition: few
problems were reported.

67

68

69

70

See, in particular, http://www.cea.assur.org/cea/v1.1/publ/uk/ouvrage/ and
http://www.efsac.org/list.html.
The hallmark serves to testify to the conformity of the product with regard to its gold content (and
hence the standard of fineness) and its nickel content. The requirement for national hallmarking seems
to be a source of difficulty for the marketing of articles of precious metal in ten Member States. See the
recent judgments of the Court of Justice on this matter: judgment of 14 June 2001, Commission v.
France, Case C-84/00 and judgment of 21 June 2001, Commission v. Ireland, Case C-30/99.
The legal minimum standard of fineness represents the gold content below which the guarantee service
does not grant its hallmark and the article cannot be marketed in a country under the name "gold".
There is no European standard on this minimum fineness.
The Commission has proposed harmonising legislation, but nothing has yet come of it: see in this
connection the proposal for a Council Directive 93/C 318/06 on articles of precious metal (OJ 1993,
C 318, p. 5), as amended by the proposal for a Directive 94/C 209/04 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on articles of precious metal (OJ 1994, C 209, p. 4).

22

5.

THE NON-HARMONISED PRODUCT FIELD

The Commissionnotesthatitisverydifficulttoobtain agenuineand reliable picture
of how mutual recognition operates for products, despite the surveys of national
administrationsandeconomicoperatorsonthebasisoftargetedquestions.

Certain economic operators want to adapt their products to the consumer tastes of
thetargetmarket and have therefore not resorted to mutual recognition. Those who
donotwanttoadapttheirproductsarereluctanttotake on the problems involved in
possibleconformity-checkingproceduresinthehostMemberState.

The source ofanysuch difficultiesgenerally seems to be the failure of the principle
ofmutualrecognitionandtheuncertaintyofthenationaladministrationsastohow to
applythem.

5.1.

Do the surveys reveal how mutual recognition actually operates?

The Commission has always found it very difficult to obtain, even by means of very
precise surveys, a clear and reliable picture of how the principle of mutual
recognition is actually applied in practice. The Commission notes that the national
administrations possess very few statistics on the number of cases in which the
principle of mutual recognition is applied, invoked or refused. In a large number of
cases, for mutual recognition to be applied, national legislation does not require the
active intervention of the national authorities before a product is placed on the
market in the host Member State. Furthermore, in a number of cases it was not easy
to identify the national administration responsible.

they have no difficulties in marketing their products,

With regard to economic operators, either such statistics do not exist or they were not
sent to the Commission. Furthermore, the commercial strategy of some of the
manufacturers questioned undermines the reliability of the information on how
mutual recognition operates in the single market. This is because, although they state
they have adopted
that
strategies which could be described as "problem avoidance". One such strategy is to
manufacture products which comply with the national standards of a target market
before any attempt to place the product on that market. Another is to manufacture a
number of product lines, each complying with a different and more demanding
national standard than the others and to have the product approved by the appropriate
authorities responsible for these standards. These two strategies oblige manufacturers
to propose different product lines but avoid any difficulty with marketing. The cost
of such strategies can therefore only be offset by businesses which sell sufficiently
large volumes of products. Lastly, in some of the sectors studied, manufacturers
work to order and offer customised products which meet the national standards
required by their customers.

Another major problem, at least for certain product categories, is the low response
rate. Apart from reasons associated with the methodology used (telephone surveys or
written surveys), the main reason for this low rate may be the reluctance of some
economic operators to reveal what they regard as strategic commercial information.
However, the low response rate could also be explained by the fact that businesses
consider that mutual recognition operates well and that, since there were no
difficulties regarding mutual recognition, there was no need to reply to the surveys.
This same reluctance, coupled with a lack of precise information within the
businesses surveyed, seems to be the reason why it is impossible to quantify, or even

23

estimate, the additional direct or indirect costs incurred as a result of difficulties in
applying mutual recognition.

In any event, the surveys conducted did not produce any major surprises. The
comparison of their data with those of infringement proceedings shows that
infringement proceedings are a relatively reliable source of what can be the major
problems of mutual recognition in the single market.

5.2.

extent
The
underestimated…

of unfamiliarity with mutual

recognition must not be

The surveys described in Chapter 4 of this report and the round tables mentioned in
point 2.1.1 confirm that a considerable proportion of the economic operators
recognition71.
questioned are still unfamiliar with the principle of mutual
Furthermore, even if the principle of mutual recognition is often regarded as the
practical application of the free movement of goods within the single market, its
invocation by economic operator remains relatively marginal72. Since the main
interest of economic operators is to gain rapid access to the national market, they
often opt for adapting the composition of the product to the national rules of the
Member State of destination. They believe too often that invoking the principle
would not lead to any relaxation of the attitude of the national authorities concerned
and state that they wish to avoid wasting time. It must therefore be concluded that, if
all the parties directly concerned were more familiar with the principle of mutual
recognition, access to the target market could be easier and cheaper for economic
operators.

5.3.

…and is reflected in practice by an over-cautious attitude

The round tables and the surveys confirm that, in the face of unknown factors – that
of a product which does not comply to the letter with the technical rules of the
Member State of destination or that of other rules and traditions in the Member State
of destination - uncertainty predominates in the attitudes of administrations and
economic operators. This uncertainty is sometimes reflected in excessive caution on
the part of both economic operators and the national authorities questioned, which
expressed on numerous occasions the wish to strengthen and improve administrative
cooperation.

5.4.

Does unfamiliarity imply that the principle does not work?

Not necessarily. The surveys clearly show that the principle of mutual recognition
operates satisfactorily for a large number of products (beverages, bicycles, ladders
and scaffolding, and childcare products). For the large majority of economic
operators and national administrations active in these sectors, the free movement of
these products has become so self-evident that deliberately invoking the principle of
mutual recognition has become superfluous.

71

72

See, in particular, Table 7.4.14 in annex.
Tables 7.4.4 and 7.4.5 in annex.

24

5.5.

Does unfamiliarity pose a problem?

Unfamiliarity will have few consequences for uncomplicated products involving low
risks to health, safety or the environment. In this case, the mutual trust between the
Member States ensures that such products can move freely in the single market.

In contrast, for new or complex products which are subject to a national authorisation
procedure or any other form of conformity check when marketed in the Member
State of destination, unfamiliarity with the principle poses a real problem both for the
administrations responsible for conformity checking as part of market supervision
and for the economic operators who do not want to adapt their products to the market
of the Member State of destination.

6.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of the measures taken between 1999 and 2001 is positive. However,
in view of the continuing lack of information on the principle of mutual recognition
and of the uncertainty of the national administrations as to how to apply it, the
Commission considersthat the guidelines proposed in the 1999 Communication on
mutualrecognitionarestillvalid.

The Commission will adopt practical guidelines on mutual recognition, in particular
by a communication to the Member States and economic operators, explaining the
rights and obligations of the parties concerned when the principle of mutual
recognitionneeds to be applied. It will also ensure that the best possible use is
madeofexistinginstrumentsinordertoroottheproperapplicationoftheprinciple of
mutual recognition in national legislation and administrative practice. The
Commission will launch more targeted measures in those product sectors where
thereareindicationsthatmutualrecognitiondoesnotalwaysoperateproperly.

In any event, Community harmonisation will continue to be the most suitable
solution in the specific sectors where there is such a difference in the levels of
protection afforded by the national rules that the principle of mutual
recognitioncannot play its role properly (fortified food products and construction
products).

The Commission has adopted a new strategy for services, with a special effort to
improvetheapplicationofmutualrecognition.

6.1.

Products

A number of measures proposed in the 1999 Communication on mutual recognition
have already been carried out, while others will be in the near future73.

In view of the continuing lack of information on the application of the principle of
mutual recognition and the uncertainty of the national administrations as to how it
should be applied, the Commission considers that the approach defined in its 1999

73

See detailed list in Table 7.5 in annex to this report.

25

Communication74 will have to be continued in order to improve information for
economic operators and national administrations.

The following one-off or ongoing measures are planned:

• clearer guidelines on the application of mutual recognition in everyday practice:

a)
adoption by the Commission of a communication to the Member States and
economic operators explaining the rights and obligations of the parties concerned in
cases where the principle of mutual recognition is applied. In particular, the Member
States will be reminded of
the obligation to insert systematically a mutual
recognition clause in their existing legislation75 and the obligation to state adequate
reasons in cases where a Member State deems it necessary to derogate from the
principle of mutual recognition.

b)

publication of practical guides in specific fields;

more

c)
exchange of
improvement of administrative cooperation in networks76;

regular

information between administrations

and

d)

launching training and information measures;

• better use of existing instruments in order to root the proper application of the
principle of mutual recognition in national legislation and administrative practice.
The instruments in question are, in particular, the complaints and infringement
procedures, Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field
of technical standards and regulations and the rules governing information society
services, Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on
national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods
within the Community, and Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety;

• more targeted measures in the product sectors in which there are indications that

mutual recognition does not always operate properly.

Nevertheless, greater harmonisation will continue to be indispensable in the specific
sectors where the diversity and/or difference of the technical rules poses too many
problems to permit the proper application of the principle of mutual recognition77. In
that case, harmonisation will at least have to cover all the problems for which mutual
recognition cannot offer an effective solution. The more rapid adoption of
harmonised European standards for product categories to which a Community

74

75

76

77

Communication COM(1999)299 final to the Council and the European Parliament of 16 June 1999 on
mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the Action Plan for the Single Market.
See, in particular, the "foie gras" judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 October 1998, Commission of
the European Communities v. French Republic, Case C-184/96, ECR 1998, p. I-6197.
See point 2.2.3 of this report.
See, for instance, cases C-12/00 and C-14/00 currently pending before the Court of Justice. They
concern the ban on the marketing of certain cocoa and chocolate products under the name under which
they are marketed in the Member State of origin.

26

directive applies (e.g. Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products, the new
"general product safety" Directive, etc.) will still be vitally important78.

6.2.

Professional qualifications: need for simplification and consolidation

The European Commission presented a proposal for a Directive79 to clarify and
simplify the rules in order to facilitate the free movement of qualified persons
between Member States, particularly in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the
European Union. This proposal would replace the fifteen existing directives on this
subject. The proposal represents the first overall modernisation of the Community
system since it was devised.

for migrant
Without prejudice to the maintenance of existing guarantees
professionals, a number of changes are proposed to the current rules, in particular
greater liberalisation of the provision of services, making the recognition of
qualifications more automatic, and making the procedures for updating the Directive
more flexible. The Commission also proposed stepping up its cooperation with the
Member States in order to make citizens more aware of their rights and to provide
more help for them to have their qualifications recognised.

6.3.

Services: a new strategy for the freedom to provide them

The Commission noted that European businesses and consumers generally begin by
studying what is available to them nationally before purchasing, providing or using
services from abroad. This approach prevents full advantage being taken of the
opportunities afforded by the new service-oriented economy, since the single market
must be regarded as a "natural" market for all service providers and their customers.

In order to speed up the achievement of this objective, the Commission launched a
new strategy for services80, one of the principles of which is that a genuine single
market based on the effective application of the basic freedoms set out in the Treaty
(in this case the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services) and
hence on the application of mutual recognition and the principle of proportionality
eliminates the pointless (and often contradictory) superposition of regulations which
impede cross-border trade. The European Parliament explicitly stated in a resolution
on the subject that "as far as is possible, mutual recognition of national rules and
requirements and the country of origin principle should be applied"81. Nevertheless,
resorting to harmonisation is one means of establishing a high level of protection, at
Community level, in the public interest, such as consumer protection.

The Commission will carry out an exhaustive and systematic analysis of all
continuing obstacles to the free movement of services and of their repercussions in

78

79

80

81

COM(2001)527 final of the 26 September 2001: report from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on actions taken following the resolutions on European standardisation adopted by
the Council and the European Parliament in 1999; see also point I.D of Internal Market Scoreboard
No 9 of November 2001 (SEC(2001)1908).
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of
professional
also
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/02-393.htm.
"An Internal Market Strategy for Services": Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament of 29 December 2000; COM(2000)888 final.
See Resolution of 4 October 2001, A5-0310, PE 309.503.

COM(2002)119

qualifications,

7 March

2002

final

See

of

-

27

other sectors of the economy. This analysis will cover the rules and practices
involved at each of the six stages of the commercial process82. It will also assess how
the differences between regulatory and administrative practices impede the provision
of cross-border services and prevent the export of effective commercial models in the
Union. This analysis will be based on the six stages of the commercial process. The
results of this study will be presented in a report to the Parliament and the Council in
2002. The Commission will
then be able to identify the key fields in which
infringement proceedings may have to be instituted or in which it is necessary to
improve the existing mechanisms which help businesses and individuals to take
advantage of the single market.

On this basis, another series of initiatives will be launched in a second phase,
namely: measures dealing with obstacles which can be removed by directly applying
the principles of the Treaty, non-legislative measures and measures to dismantle
obstacles by targeted harmonisation, involving in particular a mechanism to ensure
that the single market can be used by all European service providers as their national
market, mainly as a result of the effective application of the principle of mutual
recognition.

* * *

The Commission requests the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and
Social Committee to take note of this report.

82

The first stage is establishment. When a business is set up in a Member State, it must, in order to be
competitive and to provide its own services as effectively as possible, call on recruitment services,
financial services and commercial services (second stage) and be able to promote its own services (third
stage), provide them (fourth stage), set their prices and sell them (fifth stage) – all in the best possible
conditions. It must also manage an after-sales service in order to continue to fill its order books and to
get to know its market in order to improve its services (sixth stage).

28

7.

ANNEXES

7.1.

Statistics on qualifications for the regulated professions

Fig.7.1.1: Mutual recognition of qualifications for the regulated professions: number of
cases in which diplomas were recognised

Profession

Period

Total number

Countries which did
not supply figures

Main host
countries

Main
countries
of origin

D-I-EL-
IRL-B
B-D-UK-F-
FIN

UK-NL-
EL-E-B
UK-NL-F-
S-B-

UK-E-NL-
IT-IRL
NL-UK-B-
I-E

S-D-B-UK-
F
B-UK-D-F-
NL

UK-D-E-B-
A

D-I-NL-
UK-F-A

F-IRL

B-D

IRL-F-UK-
NL-DK

IRL-F-DE-
UK-E

Doctors

1997/1998

Nurses

1997/1998

Dentists

1997/1998

Midwives

1997/1998

Architects

1997/1998

Veterinarians

1997/1998

Pharmacists

1997/1998

6517

2496

779

164

849

337

423

D-F-Lux-P and for
1998 also E
D-LUX-IRL- for
1997 A- for 1998 UK
and E
D-LUX-P - for 1998
F-UK-E
D-LUX-IRL - for 97
A and for 98 F-UK-
E-FIN
I-EL-FIN LUX - for
98 NL-FIN-(IRL-
DK-S no
authorisation
required to practise).
B-I-EL-E-NL-UK -
for 97 A-P
I -LUX-EL -PT-A -
for 98 NL-IRL

29

Fig. 7.1.2: Mutual recognition of qualifications for the regulated professions: number of
cases in which diplomas were recognised
(all professions, general system)

Profession

Period

1997/
1998

1999/
2000

All professions
General system
of which:
- Teachers

- Physiotherapists

- Engineers

- Lawyers
All professions
General system
of which:
- Teachers
- Physiotherapists
- Engineers

- Lawyers

Total
number

1063983

Countries
which did not
supply figures
EL

Main host countries

Main
countries of
origin

UK-NO-D-IRL-LUX UK-D-B-NL-S

2431

2068

762

326
811884

2145
1192
189

425

B-NL-D-UK-F

D-E-UK-B-F

UK-D-DK-IRL-E

E-IRL-F

UK-D-F-A-IRL
UK-LUX-D-NO-NL

UK-LUX-E-
A-NO
D-UK-NO-
IRL-E
UK-IRL-I-D-
IS
IRL-D-E-B-I
D-B-NL-F-E

UK-NL-NO-IT-DE
D-LUX-NO-A-UK
I-UK-D-ISL

UK-B-I-D-F

E-D-B-F-SV
B-D-NL-UK-F
DK-D-IRL-A-
UK
D-I-E-F-IRL

Fig. 7.1.3: Number of complaints received concerning qualifications for the regulated
professions for the period 1999-2000

Profession

Number of complaints

Doctors
Nurses

Dentists

Pharmacists

Veterinarians

Other paramedical professions

Architects

Teachers

Engineers

Lawyers

Other

Total

83

84

Including EEA countries.
Including EEA countries.

0
0

5

2

0

8

3

2

5

8

12

45

30

7.2.

Products: statistics on complaints and infringements

Fig. 7.2.1: Statistics on complaints and cases of infringement of mutual recognition
involving products during the period 1998-2001

Member State

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total

Cases
resolved or
filed without
action during
this period
12
6
22
5
10
50
1
20
0
10
9
4
6
16
14

Number of
infringement
proceedings
under way at
31/12/2001
10
4
6
5
3
14
3
10
0
8
4
2
2
4
2

185

77

Cases being
investigated at
31/12/2001

Total number of
cases dealt with
during this
period

New cases
recorded during
this period

3
2
18
2
1
9
0
5
0
3
2
0
7
6
2

60

25
12
46
12
14
73
4
35
0
21
15
6
15
26
18

21
9
32
9
9
41
4
13
0
12
11
3
13
12
13

322

202

Fig. 7.2.2: Statistics on the proportion of cases involving mutual recognition in relation
to the total number of cases covered by Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty (1998-2001)

Member State

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total

Total cases
Articles 28-30
100
86
118
109
52
225
20
133
4
47
59
18
48
92
57
1168

Mutual recognition cases

Proportion

25
12
46
12
14
73
4
35
0
21
15
6
15
26
18
322

31

25%
14%
39%
11%
27%
32%
20%
26%
0%
45%
25%
33%
31%
28%
32%
28%

300

250

200

Number

150

100

50

0

60

50

40

Number

30

20

10

0

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number

New cases recorded (Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty)

1998

1999

2000

2001

Articles 28-30

Mutual recognition

Formal notice (Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty)

1998

1999

2000

2001

Articles 28-30

Mutual recognition

Reasoned opinions (Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty)

1998

1999

2000

2001

Articles 28-30

Mutual recognition

32

12

10

8

Number

6

4

2

0

300

250

200

Number

150

100

50

0

Referrals (Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty)

1998

1999

2000

2001

Articles 28-30

Mutual recognition

Cases filed without action (Articles 28-30 EC)

1998

1999

2000

2001

Articles 28-30

Mutual recognition

33

Fig. 7.2.3: Breakdown of cases by product sector (1998-2001)

Product sector

Number of
complaints

Percentage

Number of
infringements

Percentage

Foodstuffs:
Fortified products

Food supplements

Other
Total foodstuffs

Medical appliances

Textiles

Fuels

Vehicles:
Cars
Motorcycles/bicycles
Accessories
Other
Total vehicles

Fire and burglar
alarm systems

Aircraft

Telecommunications

Construction

Precious metals

Pesticides and other
chemical products

Ladders

Machinery

Metrology

Miscellaneous

23

28

48
99

3

4

2

38
14
8
14
74

10

4

4

28

17

13

4

23

4

33

7.14%

8.70%

14.91%
30.75%

0.93%

1.24%

0.62%

11.80%
4.35%
2.48%
4.35%
22.98%

3.11%

1.24%

1.24%

8.70%

5.28%

4.04%

1.24%

7.14%

1.24%

13

5

21
39

1

1

0

5
1
4
2
12

3

2

1

7

9

4

2

4

2

13.40%

5.15%

21.65%
40.21%

1.03%

1.03%

0.00%

5.15%
1.03%
4.12%
2.06%
12.37%

3.09%

2.06%

1.03%

7.22%

9.28%

4.12%

2.06%

4.12%

2.06%

10.25%

10

10.31%

34

Fig. 7.2.4: Application of Directive 98/34/EC (1999-2001)

1999

2000

2001

Total number of notifications
Telecommunications
Foodstuffs/agricultural products
Transport
Construction
Mechanical engineering
Chemicals
Pharmaceutical products
Household and leisure equipment
Energy, minerals, wood
Environment, packaging
Health, medical equipment
Miscellaneous products
Information society services

591
70
125
90
73
61
37
27
9
24
44
3
17
11

751
186
127
131
109
42
33
13
8
26
33
5
15
23

530
47
108
69
99
25
19
24
13
32
37
6
26
25

Application of Directive 98/34/EC: detailed opinions and remarks (1999-2001)
2001

2000

1999

Detailed opinions

delivered by the Commission
delivered by the Member States

Remarks

Made by the Commission
Made by the Member States

148
43
105
408
155
253

144
49
95
444
242
202

152
62
90
299
147
152

Fig. 7.2.5: Package meetings in the Member States in 1998-2001

Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total

Number of meetings
19
13
11
10
53

Cases discussed
240
155
164
120
679

Average number of cases per meeting
12.63
11.92
14.91
12
12.81

35

7.3.

Products: results of the surveys of national authorities

Fig. 7.3.1: Invocation of the rules of the Member State of origin

Type of product

National authorities
against which the rules
of another Member
State were invoked

National authorities
against which a mutual
recognition clause was
invoked

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages85
Tanks and containers
Ladders and scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction products
Childcare products
Canned food
Food supplements86

33%
32%
50%
35%
19%
6%
31%
35%
19%
21%
53%

6%
26%
0%
15%
0%
12%
25%
24%
19%
53%
40%

National authorities
which confirmed that
there is a prior
authorisation
procedure
82%
22%
18%
5%
71%
12%
63%
59%
0%
11%
40%

Type of product

Fig. 7.3.2: Administrative cooperation

National
administrations
participating in a
form of
intra-Community
administrative
cooperation

National
administrations
participating in a
form of
intra-Community
administrative
cooperation and
satisfied with this
cooperation

National administrations
which want intra-Community
administrative cooperation to
be reinforced

As a percentage
of all the
administrations
questioned

As a percentage
of administration
already
participating in
administrative
cooperation

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and containers
Ladders and scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction products
Childcare products
Canned food
Food supplements

59%
33%
30%
55%
19%
47%
81%
65%
57%
58%
53%

73%
57%
100%
64%
80%
75%
57%
42%
75%
55%
86%

29%
17%
10%
29%
29%
29%
44%
29%
33%
37%
20%

45%
57%
33%
9%
40%
50%
43%
50%
50%
27%
43%

85

86

"Beverages" means non-alcoholic beverages and beer.
"Food supplements" means food supplements and fortified products.

36

Fig. 7.3.3: Harmonisation favoured by
national administrations

Type of product

National administrations
in favour of harmonisation

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and
containers
Ladders and
scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction
products
Childcare products
Canned food
Food supplements

35%
39%
0%
18%
43%

18%

50%
18%

24%
21%
47%

Fig. 7.3.4: National authorities which have
encountered problems with mutual
recognition:

Type of product

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and
containers
Ladders and
scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction
products
Childcare products
Canned food
Food supplements

National authorities which
have already faced
problems of mutual
recognition

59%
32%
45%
50%
43%

29%

50%
35%

24%
53%
87%

37

Fig. 7.3.5: Type of problems already encountered by national administrations87

Type of product

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and containers
Ladders and
scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction products

Childcare products

Canned food
Food supplements

Different
level of
quality or
performance

Safety

Dimen-
sions

Name
under
which it
is sold

Termi-
nology

Symbols

Testing

27%
29%
20%
30%
14%
24%

31%
41%

14%

37%
40%

33%
12%
30%
25%
33%
47%

6%
41%

57%

32%
80%

40%
6%
0%
5%
10%
18%

0%
18%

10%

5%
7%

13%
12%
10%
20%
0%
6%

25%
12%

19%

26%
47%

0%
18%
10%
5%
0%
6%

6%
18%

5%

0%
13%

0%
18%
0%
0%
5%
0%

6%
6%

14%

0%
7%

13%
24%
10%
10%
19%
12%

6%
24%

14%

16%
20%

Type of product

Testing
methods

Packaging

Marking

Labelling

Conformity
assessment
procedures

Production methods
and processes directly
affecting the product

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and containers
Ladders and
scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction products

Childcare products

Canned food
Food supplements

7%
18%
10%
5%
14%

12%

13%

29%

19%

21%

7%

0%
6%
10%
0%
0%

18%

0%

6%

19%

16%

7%

0%
18%
10%
15%
10%

6%

38%

24%

14%

26%

40%

7%
24%
10%
35%
0%

18%

31%

12%

14%

42%

60%

0%
29%
10%
10%
10%

6%

13%

24%

24%

11%

13%

7%
0%
0%
10%
5%

0%

13%

18%

10%

16%

20%

87

More than one answer possible.

38

Fig. 7.3.6: Information requested by national authorities when assessing the conformity
of the product88

Type of product

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and containers
Ladders and scaffolding
Precious metals
Construction products
Childcare products
Canned food
Food supplements

Proportion of
administrations
requesting
information on the
product

65%
56%
40%
40%
62%
65%
56%
76%
57%
63%
80%

Type of information requested

Compulsory
technical
rules already
applied

47%
44%
20%
35%
33%
47%
38%
59%
48%
32%
60%

Certificates
or
attestations
already
obtained
65%
44%
30%
20%
67%
41%
31%
71%
52%
42%
53%

Voluntary
standards
applied

Other
documents

0%
33%
20%
10%
24%
35%
13%
47%
52%
5%
0%

12%
33%
20%
20%
14%
41%
19%
35%
38%
11%
20%

88

More than one answer possible.

39

Fig. 7.3.7: National authorities which have already refused to recognise the
equivalence of the level of protection determined by89:

Type of product

Buses and
lorries

Yes
No answer

Alarm
systems

Bicycles

Beverages

Yes
No answer

Yes
No answer

Yes
No answer

Tanks and
containers

Yes
No answer

Ladders and
scaffolding

Yes
No answer

Precious
metals

Yes
No answer

Construction
products

Yes
No answer

Childcare
products

Yes
No answer

Canned food

Yes
No answer

Food
supplements No answer

Yes

The compulsory
technical rules
applied for this
product

35%
18%

22%
39%

0%
50%

10%
50%

10%
38%

12%
29%

19%
56%

24%
29%

10%
38%

0%
37%

13%
53%

The certificates
or attestations
already
obtained for this
product
6%
35%

33%
39%

20%
50%

0%
55%

10%
38%

18%
29%

6%
56%

18%
35%

19%
33%

5%
32%

7%
53%

The voluntary
standards applied for
this product

0%
29%

28%
39%

10%
60%

0%
55%

10%
38%

12%
29%

0%
56%

0%
41%

14%
33%

0%
37%

7%
73%

Fig. 7.3.8: Number of national authorities which participated in these surveys

Buses and lorries
Alarm systems
Bicycles
Beverages
Tanks and containers
Ladders and scaffolding

17
16
11
19
19
16

Precious metals
Construction products
Childcare products
Canned food
Food supplements
Total

15
13
21
19
15
181

89

More than one answer possible.

40

7.4.

Products: results of the surveys of economic operators

Fig. 7.4.1: Proportion of economic operators who have
encountered marketing problems in another Member State

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles
Fire alarm systems
Burglar alarm systems
Objects in precious metals
Tanks
Ladders and scaffolding
Canned food
Non-alcoholic beverages and beer
Fortified products
Construction products
Containers

34%
34%
53%
39%
33%
18%
28%
43%
27%
41%
29%
33%
41%
89%
54%
18%

Fig. 7.4.2: Contacts with the administration of the Member State of
destination

The economic operator has been in contact with the national authorities of the
Member State of destination

Sector

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles
Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm systems

Articles of precious metal

(A)
25%
11%
25%
16%
8%
5%
12%

11%

5%

(B)
72%
34%
48%
41%
24%
27%
43%

25%

18%

44%
Tanks
27%
Containers
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

18%
5%

41

Fig. 7.4.3: Request by the host Member State

Sector

The authorities asked what
technical specifications were
met by the product

The economic operator
did not invoke
conformity with the
rules applicable in the
Member State where
the product was
marketed or
manufactured

The economic operator
had to demonstrate the
equivalence of the level
of protection provided
by the product under
national regulations

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles

Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm systems

(A)
13%
10%
16%
13%
5%
4%

8%

4%

(B)
37%
30%
30%
33%
16%
20%

28%

9%

(A)
5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
1%

1%

1%

of

2%

precious

Articles
metal
Tanks
Containers
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

14%
5%

35%
27%

7%
0%

8%

2%

(B)
15%
14%
7%
5%
6%
8%

4%

2%

8%

18%
0%

(A)
9%
5%
16%
10%
4%
3%

11%

9%

1%

10%
2%

(B)
26%
14%
30%
27%
11%
14%

38%

22%

1%

25%
13%

Fig. 7.4.4: The economic operator invoked the mutual recognition
clause

Sector

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles
Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm systems

(A)
7%
4%
12%
12%
3%
3%

11%

0%

(B)
20%
11%
22%
31%
10%
16%

38%

0%

Articles of precious
metal
Tanks
Containers
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

2%
20%

1%
4%

1%

5%

42

Fig. 7.4.5: Reasons for which the clause was not invoked

Sector

Ignorance of the clause

The economic
operator thought that
there was no clause in
this sector

Did not want to
invoke the
clause

Other reason

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles
Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm systems

Articles of precious metal

(A)
3%
0%
6%
2%
2%
1%

2%

10%

1%

(B)
9%
0%
11%
6%
6%
4%

6%

23%

5%

(A)
3%
1%
4%
2%
1%
0%

0%

0%

1%

(B)
9%
2%
7%
5%
3%
0%

0%

0%

4%

7%
Tanks
Containers
0%
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

14%
0%

3%
0%

6%
0%

(A)
0%
4%
0%
3%
0%
1%

0%

0%

1%

2%
0%

(B)
4%
2%
7%
1%
6%
6%

2%

2%

(A)
(B)
0%
1%
12% 1%
4%
0%
1%
7%
2%
0%
1%
1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

4%
0%

1%

2%

5% 11%
0%
0%

Sector

Fig. 7.4.6: Number of cases in which the authorities ruled that a
product did not provide the requisite level of protection (non-
equivalence)
(A)
9%
6%
22%
4%
1%
2%

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles
Fire alarm systems

(B)
26%
19%
41%
9%
3%
12%

Burglar alarm systems

Articles of precious metal

Tanks
Containers

6%

0%

1%
5%
1%

21%

0%

5%
12%
1%

(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

43

Fig. 7.4.7: Documents forwarded to the Member State of destination90

The economic operator had to forward to the authorities of the Member State of destination
information or documents on the product

Type of information

Sector

Total

Certificates or
attestations
already obtained

Voluntary
standards

Compulsory
technical rules

Other
information

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare
articles
Fire alarm
systems

Burglar alarm
systems

Articles of
precious metal

(A)
(B)
22% 63%
30% 87%
39% 74%
26% 67%
11% 35%

9% 51%

(A)
16%
25%
25%
18%
8%

6%

(A)

(B)

(B)
9%

(B)
(A)
46% 3%
76% 10% 28% 22% 66% 2%
48% 4%
47% 0%
24% 2%

(A)
(B)
13% 37% 4% 11%
7%
14% 26% 6% 11%
11% 13% 33%
4%
8%
14% 3%
5%

7%
0%
6%

32% 1%

8%

7%

37% 1%

4%

19% 66%

17%

60% 8% 28%

7%

23% 3% 11%

25% 57%

11%

26% 5% 11%

7%

17% 2%

5%

4% 15%

3%

12% 2%

8%

2%

7% 1%

4%

Tanks
Containers
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

30% 72%
17% 93%

18%
16%

45% 11% 27% 27% 66% 12% 29%
0%
4%
90% 2% 10%

20% 0%

90

More than one answer possible.

44

Fig. 7.4.8: Refusal by the Member State of destination to recognise the equivalence of the
level of protection attested by91:

Sector

Certificates or attestations
already obtained

Voluntary
standards

Compulsory
technical rules

Other
information

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles

Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm
systems

(A)
3%
6%
4%
5%
3%

1%

9%

1%

(B)
9%
19%
7%
13%
8%

8%

32%

(A)
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%

1%

0%

(B)
4%
3%
0%
3%
3%

4%

0%

(A)
3%
8%
8%
1%
1%

1%

1%

(B)
9%
24%
15%
1%
3%

6%

4%

(A)
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%

0%

0%

(B)
0%
2%
4%
2%
0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

Articles of
precious metal
Tanks
Containers
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

14%
13%

0%
0%

0%
0%

6%
2%

3%

1%

1%

0%

7%
1%

0%

17%
6%

1%

1%
0%

2%

2%
0%

91

More than one answer possible.

45

Fig. 7.4.9: Changes made to the product (A)

The economic
operator was
ultimately
able to place
or keep the
product on the
market
without
having to
adapt it
30%
10%
14%
38%
44%

10%

53%

38%

Sector

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare
articles
Fire alarm
systems

Burglar alarm
systems

The
economic
operator
adapted the
product

Changes made
mainly on the
initiative of the
company

Changes made
mainly at the
request of the
importer or
purchaser

43%
70%
35%
36%
48%

61%

36%

54%

17%
26%
18%
9%
16%

10%

4%

6%

2%
12%
0%
14%
21%

39%

9%

29%

Articles of
52%
precious metal
60%
Tanks
17%
Containers
(A) on the basis of the number of problems – More than one answer possible

13%
31%
10%

15%
19%
7%

27%
21%
77%

Changes made
mainly at the
request of the
authorities of
the Member
State of
destination

Actions or
measures by
the country
which led
directly or
indirectly to
changes being
made to the
product

28%
42%
20%
12%
10%

27%

26%

5%

23%
11%
0%

39%
46%
20%
18%
27%

31%

26%

6%

26%
17%
0%

46

Fig. 7.4.10: Adaptation of products to allow for local consumption habits

Sector

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles

Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm
systems
Articles of precious
metal
Tanks
Containers

Economic operators who have adapted
their products and who would in any case
have adapted their products to allow for
local consumption habits
45%
56%
38%
31%
68%

62%

33%

33%

58%

54%
100%

Other economic operators

55%
44%
62%
69%
32%

38%

67%

67%

42%

46%
0%

Fig. 7.4.11: Delay in placing products on the market

Delay in placing on the
market

Delay caused directly or indirectly by actions or of
measures by the country concerned

Sector

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles

Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm
systems
Articles of precious
metal
Tanks
Containers

(A)

9%
15%
6%
16%
6%

8%

13%

25%

10%

6%
2%

(B)

26%
44%
11%
41%
19%

45%

45%

57%

37%

14%
10%

(A)

7%
8%
2%
5%
3%

3%

7%

5%

8%

5%
0%

(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

(B)

21%
23%
4%
12%
8%

16%

23%

12%

29%

11%
0%

47

Fig. 7.4.12: Giving up the attempt to market products

Sector

The economic
operator gave up
the attempt to
market his
product of his
own accord

The economic operator gave up the attempt to market
his product as a result of the following actions or
measures by the Member State:

Refusal to grant a
marketing
authorisation

Withdrawal of the
product from the
market

A blanket ban
on the product

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles

Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm systems

Articles of precious
metal
Tanks
Containers

(A)
7%
4%
6%
1%
3%

2%

7%

3%

2%

4%
1%

(B)
22%
11%
11%
1%
8%

12%

23%

8%

9%

10%
7%

(A)
0%
1%
6%
2%
0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%
0%

(B)
0%
4%
11%
5%
0%

2%

6%

0%

0%

2%
0%

(A)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%
0%

(B)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%
0%

(A)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%
0%

(B)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%
0%

48

Fig. 7.4.13: Delays in marketing due to the authorisation procedure
The compulsory marketing authorisation procedure in the Member State of destination lasted

Sector

less than 45
days

from 45 to 90
days

from 90 days to
6 months

more than 6
months

Total

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare
articles
Fire alarm
systems

Burglar alarm
systems

Articles of
precious metal

(B)
(A)
(A)
11% 0%
4%
4%
12% 8%
14% 26% 8%
15% 8%
6%
11% 1%
4%

1%

2%

1%

(B)
0%
23%
15%
21%
3%

6%

(A)
1%
2%
2%
1%
0%

1%

(B)
4%
5%
4%
1%
0%

2%

(A)
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%

1%

(B)
(A)
(B)
24%
8%
9%
2% 16% 47%
0% 22% 41%
3% 20% 51%
14%
5%
0%

4%

3%

14%

2%

6%

3%

11%

0%

0%

1%

4% 11% 40%

10% 23% 3%

8%

0%

0%

9%

20% 22% 51%

3%

12% 1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

1%

4%

14%

Tanks
Containers
(A) = as a percentage of the number of attempts to market the product
(B) = as a percentage of the number of problems

18% 2%
0%
7%

4%
0%

1%
1%

3%
7%

7%
1%

1%
0%

2% 13% 31%
13%
2%
0%

Fig. 7.4.14: Economic operators' familiarity with the principle

%

Number of economic operators

Sector

Buses
Lorries
Vans
Trailers
Bicycles
Childcare articles

Fire alarm systems

Burglar alarm systems

Articles of precious
metal
Tanks
Containers
Total

Familiar

Unfamiliar

Familiar Unfamiliar

Total

11
40
30
32
20
21

21

14

51

28
22
290

13
17
8
25
14
26

18

17

40

26
14
218

24
57
38
57
34
47

39

31

91

54
36
508

46%
70%
79%
56%
59%
45%

54%

45%

56%

52%
61%
57%

54%
30%
21%
44%
41%
55%

46%

55%

44%

48%
39%
43%

49

Table 7.5: Progress of the measures proposed in the communication "Mutual recognition in the
context of the follow-up to the Action Plan for the Single Market" (COM(1999)299 final of 16
June 1999)

Measure

Completed

Under
way
√

Future
measure

Remarks

√

√

√

Points 2.3 and
6.1.1 of this
report

Points 2.2.1
and 6.1.1 of
this report

Point 6.1.1 of
this report

Point 2.1.2 of
this report

Point 1.1 of
this report

Points 2.1.1
and 6.1.1 of
this report

Point 6.1.1 of
this report

Points 2.2.3
and 6.1.1 of
this report

Point 6.3 of
this report

Point 3.5 of
this report

√

√

√

√

1. Biennial Report

2. Ensuring that the Member States properly apply
Community law in the field of mutual recognition

3. Making full use of the possibilities afforded by
for

instrument

an

Directive
promoting mutual recognition

98/34/EC as

4. Compiling guides on the application of mutual

recognition in particular sectors

5. Compiling an explanatory brochure on the

application of Decision 3052/95

6. Economic analysis of

the application of

this

mechanism in various sectors.

7. Organisation of sectoral round tables and specific

seminars

8. Community contribution to the practical projects
to increase awareness of the principle of mutual
recognition among target groups

9.

Preparation of a "standard" request which will be
sent
to the European and national federations
concerned so that their members can use it in
their dealings with the authorities responsible for
applying mutual recognition

10. Promoting dialogue with citizens and businesses

11. Specific sectoral initiatives to promote the better
application of the principle of mutual recognition
in the field of services

√

√

√

√

12. Drafting

communication
commerce and financial services

a

on

electronic

50