WRITTEN QUESTION P-2230/03 by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Approval of multi-purpose utility vehicle in Denmark.
Date: 2003-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, approval, commercial vehicle, competition, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, safety device, transport regulations

C 51 E/226

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The fee or company contribution for the award and use of the EU eco-label is low, which is an incentive
for businesses to try to take part in the scheme. However, in some cases, the firm’s contribution does not
cover the actual costs involved in the scheme. The EU scheme requires public schemes in the Member
States to offer individual case management and other services, which may mean that some countries give
lower priority to this work and therefore do not promote the interests of the environment, consumers or
business.

Can the Commission therefore say whether analyses of alternative models of financing the eco-labelling
scheme are envisaged or have been carried out, including higher business contributions, EU assistance for
Member States’ administration of the scheme or other initiatives which may encourage the Member States
to promote the scheme? What is the Commission’s assessment of developments in general in this area and
what initiatives are expected to be taken in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The different stakeholders involved in promoting the eco-label (Member States, Commission, competent
bodies and interest groups) place considerable emphasis on marketing and promotion and have set up a
marketing management group to co-ordinate promotion activities. An awareness raising campaign planned
for 2004 will contribute to the visibility of the scheme.

As already mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2241/02 (1), views
differ on the question of fees. The Commission had carried out a consultation with stakeholders in
preparing the recent revision of the Decision establishing the Eco-label fees and proposed a structure
consisting of an application and an annual fee. Test and verification costs are not included in those fees.
The Commission does not intend to further revise this fee structure.

However, the Commission has started general discussions about the revision of the scheme within the
policy group of the European Union Eco-labelling Board to further improve the instrument and the
involvement of Member States. As this work is in its initial stage no decisions have been taken so far. The
work of the policy group can be followed at the web site address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
ecolabel/background/pm_managementgroups.htm#policy

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002.

(2004/C 51 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2230/03

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Approval of multi-purpose utility vehicle in Denmark

HWH, a company in the town of Hadsund, has had its application for approval of a new ‘LADOG’ multi-
purpose utility vehicle rejected by the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency. The vehicle is made in
Germany and is a multi-purpose utility vehicle specially designed for the local government sector.

The Commissioner of Police granted road contractors acting on behalf of Århus County a three-month
exemption running from 11 November 2002 to use a similar vehicle.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/227

The Road Safety and Transport Agency’s rejection of the application was the result of the following
complications:

(cid:1) Vehicles weighing more than 3 500 kg must be fitted with ABS brakes. The weight of the vehicle in

question itself is 2 400 kg with a total maximum weight of 5 000 kg.

(cid:1) Since the vehicle is a new design with hydrostatic drive (cid:1) i.e. it has no gear box (cid:1) it is not technically

possible to equip the vehicle with ABS brakes.

(cid:1) The Road Safety and Transport Agency has classified the LADOG vehicle as category N2 (cid:1) i.e. as a
lorry. However, it is not immediately obvious that the vehicle should fall into that category since,
firstly, the vehicle itself weighs only 2 400 kg and the weight of the equipment it carries may vary
from 0-2 600 kg. Secondly, there is no reference in the implementing order for the Road Traffic Act
to a requirement for brakes in conjunction with a hydrostatic drive system. In other words, the
LADOG vehicle is difficult to classify within the usual categories.

The vehicle is, however, already approved and in use in the following countries: Germany, France,
Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy and Slovenia.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. whether the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency’s strict interpretation of the rules concerning

ABS brakes is consistent with EU competition law, and

2. whether the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency’s strict interpretation of the rules concerning

ABS brakes is consistent with the EU principle of mutual recognition?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Approvals can be granted at either a vehicle or a system level in accordance with national or European
provisions. Where a vehicle or system is type-approved in conformity with Union Directives harmonising
a particular area, Member States are obliged not to restrict the placing on the market of the vehicle or
system concerned. In case of non-harmonised Community provisions, the application of national rules
should not distort the functioning of the internal market and shall be assessed in accordance with the EC
Treaty provisions on free movement of goods.

With regard to vehicle approvals, only M1 category vehicles (i.e. passenger cars), at the present time, are
obliged to be European whole vehicle type-approved. The approval of all N category vehicles, therefore, is
subject to national type-approval and outside a harmonised area. Member States refusing the entry into
service into their territory of vehicles authorised in other Member States shall justify it on necessary and
proportionate grounds, according to the internal market rules. However, if a vehicle is fitted with a system
type-approved in conformity with a Directive, then no Member State may restrict the placing on the
market of the vehicle on grounds relating to that system.

Annex I, point 2.2.1.22 of Council Directive 71/320/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the braking devices of certain categories of motor vehicles and of
their trailers (1), as amended (2), relating to braking systems, requires that N2 category vehicles be fitted
with anti-lock braking systems (ABS), whilst the fitment of ABS of N1 category vehicles is optional.
Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 relating to the type-approval of vehicles and their
trailers (3) defines a vehicle of N2 category as a vehicle ‘used for the carriage of goods and having a
maximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes and not exceeding 12 tonnes’. Therefore, if a single braking system
is to be type-approved in conformity with Directive 71/320/EEC as suitable for all versions of the ‘LADOG’
multi-purpose utility vehicle, it must incorporate ABS, as certain versions of the vehicle would be classified
as N2, according to the information provided.

C 51 E/228

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Directive 71/320/EEC does not differentiate between different types of drive, although, it can perhaps be
assumed that the provisions have been drafted without specific consideration of hydrostatic drives, as these
are not normally used on road vehicles. If it is technically impossible to type-approve a braking system for
a vehicle with a hydrostatic drive because the test in Directive 71/320/EEC are not appropriate, then the
manufacturer can ask the approval authority to seek a derogation from the provisions of Directive 71/320/
EC in accordance with Article 8(2)(c) of Council Directive 70/156/EEC.

To conclude, N category vehicles are not subject to European whole vehicle type approval, therefore the
Danish authorities are entitled to operate their own national type-approval scheme for such vehicles. Any
such scheme must not mandate provisions that are more onerous than those contained in the relevant
Community Directives, and approvals granted in conformity with the Community Directives must be
accepted. From the information provided, the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency classification of
the LADOG vehicle as an N2 category vehicle, and hence requiring ABS to be fitted, is consistent with the
relevant Community Directives. The Danish Authorities are not obliged to recognise national approvals
granted in other Member States, as the provisions upon which those approvals are granted may not be the
same as those required in Denmark. Danish authorities must however justify any refusal on necessary and
proportionate grounds, according to the internal market rules.

(1) OJ L 202, 6.9.1971.
(2) OJ L 267, 4.10.2002.
(3) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970.

(2004/C 51 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2237/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE)
and Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling along the A 12 (Tyrol)

The Governor of the Tyrol has signed an order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling
along the A 12 from Km 20,4 (Kundl) to 66,8 (Ampass). This decision clearly infringes Community rules,
disregards the fundamental principles of free movement of goods and places an additional dangerous
restriction on traffic.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this serious situation, which infringes the
principle of the free movement of goods inside the European Union?

What measures has the Commission considered to ensure that such actions are not taken again in future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

On 23 July 2003, considering that the ban on heavy goods vehicles carrying certain types of goods on a
section of the A 12 motorway, in effect as of 1 August 2003, infringed the rules on freedom to provide
services and represented an obstacle to the free movement of goods within the European Union, the
Commission decided to being a case against Austria before the Court of Justice. In view of the fact that,
after the infringement proceedings were instituted by the Commission on 24 June 2003 and the reasoned
opinion sent on 9 July 2003, the Austrian Government failed to provide sufficient information, the
Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice, requesting that the measures at issue be
suspended temporarily. On 30 July 2003, the President of the Court of Justice issued an order to the effect
that Austria should cease to apply the legislation challenged by the Commission pending a ruling in the
above proceedings.