WRITTEN QUESTION P-3152/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Exploding Nokia telephones.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition law, consumer protection, defective product, electricity storage device, mobile phone, producer's liability, product safety

C 78 E/476

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

There are no reasons for the Commission to assume that legislation regarding safety, consumer protection
or liability would require to be extended, nor that information to users on this topic needs to be intensified
or that additional research is required. Within the framework of existing legislation it is important that
effective action against these dangerous batteries is taken so as to protect the consumer and instruments to
do so are in place.

In its regular contacts with the national enforcement authorities the Commission will continue to monitor
the situation.

(1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10.5.1999,

OJ L 141, 4.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(3) OJ L 11, 15.1.2002. This Directive has to be transposed into national legislation by 15 January 2004.
(4) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.
(5) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0499)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3152/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Exploding Nokia telephones

Recently, over a short space of time, a number of mobile phones manufactured by the Finnish Nokia
company have exploded. Nokia claims that these incidents result from the use of cheap (lithium) batteries
not supplied by Nokia.

The telephone and batteries belonging to an inhabitant of Hengelo, who recently suffered an injury when
his mobile phone exploded, are currently being investigated by the Netherlands Consumer Association.
It claims that the young man from Hengelo was using original batteries. Nokia is aware of the incident but
has not yet been able to investigate it. However, it maintains that, from the information currently available,
it may be deduced that, once again, a counterfeit battery was the cause of the explosion.

In connection with the foregoing, Nokia advises consumers to use only original Nokia batteries. Nokia
declines any liability for the explosions and claims that the Nokia warranty becomes invalid if batteries
other than original batteries are used.

1.

Is the Commission aware of various incidents involving exploding Nokia telephones?

Does the Commission take the view that the damage caused thereby is covered by Nokia’s product

2.
liability?

Does the Commission take the view that this is a case of customers being obliged to purchase a

3.
particular product?

If so, does the Commission take the view that an obligation of this nature is bad for competition and

4.
that it may be in breach of competition legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The attention of the Honourable Member is first of all drawn to the Commission’s answer to written
question P-3145/03 (1) by Mr Van Velzen which provided information about Community legislation and its
application to mobile phones and batteries.

The Commission is still waiting for detailed reports from the Member States’ enforcement authorities, but
as far as it is aware the incidents are due to short circuits in faulty batteries, which were not sold by the
mobile phone manufacturer in question. He, therefore, could not be held liable for the damages caused if
such batteries explode.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/477

regulations and
The Council adopted Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (2) (the ‘Product
Liability Directive’) on 25 July 1985.

the laws,

This Directive establishes the principle of liability without fault on the part of the producer for damage to
persons or any item of property caused by a defect in his product. Under this Directive the manufacturer
of the mobile phone can be exonerated from liability, if the damage is due to a faulty replacement battery.

If however it could be proven, that the short circuit leading to the explosion could have been caused by a
defect in the mobile phone itself, it is unlikely that a manufacturer could be exonerated from liability in
cases where the replacement battery is found to be safe.

At present, the Commission does not have reason to believe that the manufacturer in question is acting in
a way that is bad for competition. His current position seems to be driven by the need to defend himself
against allegations regarding the safety of his phones. However, the Commission will raise the matter in its
regular dialogue with industry so as to ensure that there is a competitive market in safe replacement
batteries for mobile phones.

(1) See page 474.
(2) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999,

OJ L 141, 4.6.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0500)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject: Residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and the Oropesa-Benicàssim SCI (Castellón, Spain)

In the Serra de la Renegà, which lies within the municipal district of Oropesa del Mar (Castellón), the
building work which has begun on 1 000 chalets and two hotels will have an irreversible impact on the
area’s exceptional natural treasures and the ‘Oropesa-Benicàssim’ site of Community interest (SCI) placed
on the Natura 2000 network by the Spanish authorities (a marine SCI put forward because of its
important posidonia beds), bordering on the Serra de la Renegà.

The sites mentioned are the home of species protected by the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) such as the
peregrine falcon, the grey nightjar, the mountain lark, the wheatear and the long-tailed warbler, and
contains ecosystems classed as priorities under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (2)), and particularly,
rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi and pseudo-steppe with grasses
and annuals of Thero-Brachypodieta, and thermo-Mediterranean and pre-steppe brush.

Given that under the provisions of the current planning regulations scheme, the entire Serra de la Renegà
is designated as ‘building land’:

(cid:1) Could the Commission specify what stage has been reached with the processing of Complaint 2003/

4833, SG (2003) A/7394/2, submitted by the Serra de la Renegà Defence Platform?

(cid:1) Does the Commission not believe that in order to protect the species covered by Community
legislation, it would be advisable to extend the SCI so that it also covers the territory of the Serra de la
Renegà?

(cid:1) Does the Commission not believe that the construction of the planned chalets and tourist installations
violate both the Bird and Habitats Directives, due to the negative effects that this residential building
will have on the protected species?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.