WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/02 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Uniform application of standards.
Date: 2002-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, European standard, harmonisation of standards, machinery, marketing, safety standard, technical standard

C 28 E/248

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The Commission is of the opinion that this legislative progress has to be taken into account in the specific
case of the Sliedrecht dykes. The Commission hopes to come to final conclusions regarding this specific
dyke project shortly.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1977, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 28 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform application of standards

Is the Commission aware that machinery certified in one Member State (e.g. Italy) as being in conformity
with CEN standard, and purchased on that basis by a company in another Member State (e.g. the UK),
sometimes fails inspections by the authorities in the Member State of purchase, who have a different
interpretation of CEN rules?

Does the Commission realise that, in such circumstances, the company in question has no recourse against
the manufacturer, as the latter points out that he has due certification that CEN standards have been met?

Has the Commission conducted any studies as to the uniform application of standards across the EU and
the problems that arise from different interpretations by various national authorities thereof?

Does the Commission have any suggestions as to what a company should do if it is victim of such a
situation as described above?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Machinery placed on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA) must comply with the essential
health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive (1). Application of the technical specifications of
harmonised European standards remains voluntary. However, machinery manufactured according to these
specifications is, as a rule, presumed to comply with the requirements of the Directive covered by the
standards.

The Commission is particularly concerned to develop consistent application of the essential requirements.
Within the Working Group of the Machinery Directive, Member States and the Commission seek to reach
common interpretation. A group has also been set up to develop administrative co-operation between
national authorities in matters of market surveillance. For machinery subject to type-examination before
being placed on the market, the Notified Bodies concerned meet regularly to co-ordinate their activity and
formulate common answers to questions of interpretation of the Directive and of harmonised standards.

Member States have the duty to ensure that machinery placed on the market does not endanger the health
or safety of persons and, to this end, they carry out appropriate surveillance of machinery placed on the
market. It may occur that, despite application of a harmonised European standard, the market surveillance
authorities of a Member State find that a given model of machinery is not in compliance with the
requirements of the Directive and is liable to endanger the health and safety of persons.

In practice, the matter is often raised with the manufacturer concerned and measures to bring the
machinery into conformity are agreed between the manufacturer and the national authorities. This should
enable a company which has purchased items of such machinery to have it brought into conformity by
the manufacturer.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/249

If such a case reveals a shortcoming in a harmonised standard, this should be drawn to the attention of the
relevant national and European standardisation bodies. If necessary, the national authorities shall bring the
matter before the Technical Standards and Regulations Committee (2), following the procedure laid down in
Article 6(1) of the Machinery Directive. The Commission will then decide whether to withdraw the
references of
Journal and mandate the standardisation
organisation to amend the standard as necessary.

the standard concerned from the Official

When they ascertain that a machine is liable to endanger the health or safety of persons and a voluntary
solution is not found, the national authorities can decide to order withdrawal of the unsafe machinery
from the market, following the safeguard procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Machinery Directive. The
Member State must inform the Commission of any such measure, indicating whether the non-conformity
results from failure to satisfy the essential health and safety requirements, from incorrect application of a
harmonised standard or from shortcomings in the standard itself.

After consulting interested parties, the Commission decides whether the measure taken by the national
authorities is justified.
If a harmonised standard proves deficient, the references of the standard are
withdrawn from the Official Journal and a mandate is given to the relevant European standardisation body
to amend the standard as necessary.

The possibility of redress open to a company that has purchased machinery subject to such a safeguard
measure depends on the legal provisions in force in the Member State concerned.

(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the

Member States relating to machinery, OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.

(2) Set up under Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 98/34/EC of the 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, OJ L 204,
21.7.1998.

(2003/C 28 E/281)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2713/02

by Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Collection of agricultural statistics

Would the Commission outline what measures it is taking to simplify the procedures for the collection of
agricultural statistics so as to reduce the amount of paperwork and administration which farmers are
obliged to carry out in order to comply with the requirements of the various schemes under the Common
Agricultural Policy: what efforts are being made to avoid duplication of effort through using existing
databases, making systems compatible and sharing information between administrations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2002)

A distinction should be made between information collected for statistical purposes and that collected for
administrative management of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Nevertheless,
it is clear for the
Commission that the use of administrative information for statistical purposes is not only possible but
even desirable in order to avoid duplications and reduce the burden for the farmers. However, there are
frequently limitations to what can be achieved due to practical and legal constraints. Work to overcome
these limitations is a continuing preoccupation as is the study of successful experiences in some Member
States and elsewhere.

As far as the statistical aspects are concerned, the Commission takes full account of the requirement
imposed on it by Article 285 of the EC Treaty that the production of statistics ‘… shall not entail excessive
burdens on economic operators.’ In particular, as far as the Farm Structure Surveys are concerned, it has
taken steps to authorise Member States to use information from sources other than statistical surveys. The
TAPAS (1) programme has supported Member States in initiatives to improve the efficiency of Community
agricultural statistics while the LUCAS (2) project seeks to provide reliable statistics at Community level
from a reduced and less intrusive sampling design.