Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the repeal of 8 metrology directives - Impact Assessment Summary [COM(2008) 801 final} {SEC(2008)2910} {SEC(2008)2968}
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, carrying capacity, cereals, marketing, measuring equipment, precision instrument, tanker, water supply, weights and measures

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2909 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the  

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

on the repeal of 8 metrology directives 

Impact Assessment Summary 

[COM(2008) 801 final} 

{SEC(2008)2910} 

{SEC(2008)2968} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This impact assessment concerns the repeal of 8 "Old Approach" metrology Directives and if 
needed the extension of the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC on measuring instruments. It is an 
item in the Commission Legislative Work Program for 2008 (ENTR/015).  

It concerns 8 metrology directives in the following 6 sectors: 
- Cold Water Meters for Non-Clean Water  (Directive 75/33/EEC) 
- Alcohol Meters and Alcohol Tables (Directive 75/765/EEC and 75/766/EEC) 
-  Medium  and  Above-Medium  Accuracy  Weights  (Directive  71/317/EEC  and  74/148/EEC) 
- Tyre Pressure Gauges for Motor Vehicles  (Directive 86/217/EEC) 
- Standard Mass of Grain (Directive 71/347/EEC)   
- Calibration of Ship Tanks (Directive 71/349/EEC) 

All but one of these directives are of the so-called optional type. The instruments described in 
each  directive  must  be  accepted  by  Member  States  and  this  was  useful  in  the  1970’s  when 
there  were  trade  barriers  due  to  differing  Member  State  regulations.  In  addition  to  applying 
the  directives,  Member  States  are  allowed  to  keep  their  own  national  laws  containing 
technical specifications.  

Under the conditions of WTO/TBT agreement of 1995 Member States that choose to regulate 
are obliged to base their laws on international standards. National laws will therefore be based 
on  international  standards,  which  often  have  also  been  transposed  into  European  standards. 
On top of this the ‘Cassis de Dijon’ jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice prohibits 
disproportionate  national  requirements  and  obliges  mutual  recognition  of  products  legally 
marketed  in  other  Member  States.  In  addition  since  1993  the  WELMEC  type  approval 
agreement  has  given  a  framework  for  inter-governmental  cooperation  regarding  the  mutual 
recognition of conformity assessment specifically of non-harmonised measuring instruments 
based on international standards. 

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  approach  to  simplification  (COM(2005)535)  the  general 
objective  is  to  simplify  the  acquis  of  European  law  by  repealing  obsolete  legislative  acts, 
which  have  little  or  no  practical  impact  and  therefore  have  become  irrelevant.  The  specific 
objective is to simplify the EU acquis in the areas covered by eight old approach metrology 
Directives  while  maintaining  the  free  circulation  of  measuring  instruments  in  the  internal 
market and not hindering technological progress.  

In  the  key  issues  document  for  the  public  consultation  the  Commission  services  presented 
three options. 

Option  1:  “Old  approach”  Directives  exist  in  addition  to  national  rules  (current  situation). 
Without  any  new  EU  action,  the  old  Directives  would  exist  until  technical  progress  has 
completely  overtaken  the  technological  specifications.  It  is  expected  that  the  market  will 
continue evolving quickly to include products more technologically advanced and no longer 
covered by the old directives. 

Option  2  is  the  repeal  of  the  Old  Approach  directives  without  any  change  to  Directive 
2004/22/EC on measuring instruments. National rules can continue to exist. Under this option 
the free movement of measuring instruments within the Internal Market would implicitly rely 
on the Mutual Recognition Principle and horizontal legislation framing its correct functioning. 
The existing WELMEC type approval agreement gives a framework for mutual recognition of 
national conformity assessment. Under WTO/TBT obligations, Member States would need to 
base  their  laws  on  international  standards.  Alternatively,  instead  of  national  regulation, 
Member  States  could  rely  on  the  voluntary  application  of  European  standards.  For  the 
updating and development of such standards the Commission could, if needed, give a mandate 
to the European Standardisation Organisations.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Option  3  is  to  add  new  annexes  for  each  instrument  to  Directive  2004/22/EC  on  measuring 
instruments  and  the  repeal  of  the  directives.  This  option  does  not  allow  any  national  rules, 
although Member States remain free to choose the tasks for which they want to prescribe legal 
metrological control. For these tasks they may only allow instruments conformity assessed on 
the  essential  requirements  in  the  directive  to  be  used  on  their  territory.  New  Approach 
harmonisation  prescribes  essential  requirements  and  allows  any  technological  specification 
that  complies  with  these  requirements.  It  should  be  noted  that  Article  2  of  Directive 
2004/22/EC on measuring instruments allows Member States to opt out from requiring the use 
on their territory of instruments complying with the directive, but using the opt-out does not 
allow any alternative national rules and therefore means having no rules. 

From  the  public  consultation  and  an  external  study  it  appears  that  there  are  no  obstacles  to 
trade  in  the  6  sectors  covered  by  the  8  old  approach  directives.  It  is  also  apparent  that  the 
directives  are  less  and  less  used  and  fully  covered  by  international  standards.  The  current 
situation  (option  1)  has  not  hampered  technological  advance  and  where  there  is  additional 
national legislation it apparently fully takes into account mutual recognition and international 
standards. 

The options are the two possible outcomes of the simplification objective: repeal (option 2) or 
re-regulation  (option  3).  Both  would  achieve  the  objective  of  simplification  and  therefore 
other criteria are added to compare to them. It would appear that where there are no reported 
barriers to trade and no other overriding policy needs, there only remain the issues of a high 
level of protection versus administrative costs which are the distinguishing impacts between 
options.  A  high  level  of  protection  is  ensured  either  by  national  law  based  on  international 
standards (options 1 and 2) or by harmonisation (option 3). Alternatively, when there are no 
national  laws  (options  1  and  2)  or  when  Member  States  opt  out  of  requiring  harmonised 
instruments (option 3), there is no guaranteed protection and no administrative costs.  

All costs are of an equal magnitude across the options, i.e. the protection benefits of national 
law  come  at  the  cost  of  low  to  medium  administrative  costs  which  are  equal  to  those  of 
harmonisation. Where there are no laws there are no protection benefits and no administrative 
costs. 

Based on the assessment of impacts there is no option that stands out. As there are no barriers 
to trade, option 3 of harmonisation does not offer any benefit that cannot be achieved either 
by  the  market  in  an  unregulated  context  or  by  national  regulation  based  on  international 
standards  taking  the  concept  of  mutual  recognition  fully  into  account.  What  is  more,  a 
substantial number of Member States have indicated that they could opt out of harmonisation 
if the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC on measuring instruments is extended which effectively 
compromises the very aim of harmonisation.  

For reasons of simplification and subsidiarity, therefore, option 2 of repeal without extending 
the  scope  of  Directive  2004/22/EC  on  measuring  instruments  could  be  deemed  the  most 
appropriate.  

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. Extension of 

EN 

3 

   EN