Commission opinion of 21 February 2008 in application of Article 7 of Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council Directive as regards a prohibition measure adopted by the Swedish authorities in respect of a Barrier Gland MCT Brattberg — RGSFB — ATEX SE-01-07 (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2008-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, drilling equipment, product safety, quality label, technical regulations

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/1

I

(Resolutions, recommendations and opinions)

OPINIONS

COMMISSION

COMMISSION OPINION

of 21 February 2008

in application of Article 7 of Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
Directive as regards a prohibition measure adopted by the Swedish authorities in respect of a
Barrier Gland ‘MCT Brattberg — RGSFB’

ATEX SE-01-07

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 50/01)

1. THE NOTIFICATION BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE

KINGDOM OF SWEDEN

Article 2(1) of Directive 94/9/EC on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States concerning equipment and protective
systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres
states that Member States shall take all appropriate measures to
ensure that the equipment, protective systems and devices to
which the Directive applies, may be placed on the market and
put into service only if, when properly installed and maintained
and used for their intended purpose, they do not endanger the
health and safety of persons and, where appropriate, domestic
animals or property.

Article 7(1) of the Directive provides that where a Member State
ascertains that equipment, protective systems or devices bearing
the CE conformity marking and used in accordance with its
intended use are liable to endanger the safety of persons and,
where appropriate, domestic animals or property, it shall take
all appropriate measures to withdraw such equipment or protec-
tive systems from the market, to prohibit the placing on the
market, putting into service or use thereof, or to restrict free
movement thereof. The Member State shall immediately inform
the Commission of any such measure, indicating the reason for
its decision.

On 26 March 2007, the authorities of Sweden formally notified
to the European Commission a prohibition measure concerning
the placing on the market and the withdrawal from the market
of a Barrier Gland bearing the trademark MCT Brattberg,
model RGSFB, manufactured by MCT Brattberg AB, S-371 92
Karlskrona.

Pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Directive, the Commission is
required, after consulting the parties concerned,
to declare
whether it finds such a measure justified or not. If the measure
inform the Member
is found justified, the Commission shall
they can take all appropriate measures with
States so that
respect to the equipment or protective system concerned,
in
accordance with their obligations under Article 2(1).

2. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES

The measures taken by the Swedish authorities were founded on
the non-conformity of the product with the essential health and
safety requirements of Annex II to the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC,
with reference to the incorrect application of the specification
of
the following harmonised European standards which are
referred to in the EC Type Examination Certificate:

— EN 50018:2000 + A1:2002 Electrical apparatus for poten-

tially explosive atmospheres — Flameproof enclosure ‘d’:

Technical deficiencies: Non compliance with sealing test
requirement (sub-clause C.3.1.1 of the standard, essential
health and safety requirement 1.2.9 of Annex II to the Direc-
tive).

The gland did not pass the sealing test,
intended to be
performed on a test sample at a pressure of 30 bar for
2 minutes:

— a few leakages occurred at a pressure below 0,5 bar,

C 50/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

— leakages occurred from several places at 1 bar and from

multiple places at 2 bar,

— at 3 bar, the modules that provide the sealing in the
from the frame and

cable entry began to press out
finally popped out within 5 seconds.

Administrative deficiencies: Certificate (sub-clause 13.1 of the
standard).

No specification of
Gland certified as ‘apparatus’ instead of Ex-component.

types and variants of barrier glands;

— EN 50014:1997 + A1:1999 + A2:1999 Electrical apparatus
for potentially explosive atmospheres — General requirements:

Administrative deficiencies: Instructions (clause 27 of the stand-
ard, essential health and safety requirement 1.0.6 of
Annex II to the Directive).

Recapitulation of marking is missing; there are obscurities
regarding certified types and variants (which of the glands
are covered by the certificate), settle time (what time applies
for certified glands) and certified glands for pipes (whether
the certified glands are allowed to be used for pipes); the
document referred to in the certificate (‘Nomenclature of
drilled modules’) could not be identified in the instructions.

3. THE COMMISSION'S OPINION

On 27 March 2007, the Commission wrote to the manufacturer
— MCT Brattberg AB — and to the Notified Body who
issued
Examination Certificate — LCIE
Fontenay-aux-Roses — inviting them to communicate their
observations regarding the measure taken by the Swedish autho-
rities.

EC Type

the

On 14 May 2007, LCIE Fontenay-aux-Roses replied by letter,
contesting the administrative deficiencies detected by the
Swedish authorities and stating that they were ‘not critical’. They
also attached a letter from the manufacturer, MCT Brattberg,
cancelling the contract with LCIE and asking them to withdraw
the certificate.

On 31 August 2007, the Swedish authorities transmitted to the
Commission a letter addressed to them by the manufacturer,
MCT Brattberg, dated 8 February 2007, stating the following:
‘We have withdrawn the LCIE Certificate from all daughter companies
and agents and are not selling any equipment with ATEX accreditation
at this time. All equipment with ATEX markings has now been with-
drawn and quarantined within our Quality Assurance System’.

In light of the documentation available, the comments of the
interested parties and the measures taken by the manufacturer,
the Commission considers that
to the
restrictive measures fails to comply with the essential health and
safety requirements referred to above. These non-conformities,
in particular the technical deficiencies, give rise to serious risks
for persons using the product in question.

the product subject

the
Consequently, having followed the required procedure,
Commission is of the opinion that the measures taken by the
Swedish authorities are justified.

Done at Brussels, 21 February 2008

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President