Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonisation conditions for the marketing on the construction products (Text with EEA relevance) (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2009-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, building, construction policy, free movement of goods, quality label, technical rule

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.10.2009 
COM(2009) 579 final 

2008/0098 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

laying down harmonisation conditions for the marketing on the construction products 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
2008/0098 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

laying down harmonisation conditions for the marketing on the construction products 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

HISTORY OF THE PROPOSAL  

Commission’s adoption of the proposal 23 May 2008 

Transmission of the Proposal to the Council and the European 

Parliament – COM(2008)311 - A6-0068/2009-2008/0098(COD) - 

in accordance with Article 95 of the Treaty: 23 May 2008 

Opinion of the European Parliament - first reading: 24 April 2009 

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 25 February 2009 

In its session of 21-24 April 2009 the European Parliament approved in first reading 390 votes 
in favour, 4 against and 6 abstentions the report of Ms Neris, containing 102 amendments. 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

In October 2005, the Commission launched a three year simplification rolling programme as 
part  of  its  Better  Regulation:  Simplification  Strategy.  The  aim  is  to  make  legislation  less 
burdensome,  easier  to  apply  and  thus  more  effective,  notably  by  considering  whether  the 
approach  originally  chosen  is  the  most  effective  one  for  meeting  the  objectives  of  the 
legislation.  Simplification  of  the  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC,  the  Construction  Products 
Directive, referred to hereafter as the CPD, is one of the initiatives under this strategy.  

The  CPD  is  aimed  at  ensuring  the  free  circulation  and  use  of  construction  products  in  the 
Internal  Market.  Since  the  construction  products  are  intermediate  products  intended  to  be 
incorporated in the construction works, the concept of safety applies to those products to the 
extent that they contribute to the safety of the works. This specificity explains that the CPD 
achieves  its  objective  by  defining  harmonized  means  to  express  the  performance  of  the 
product in an accurate and reliable way, rather than by harmonizing the safety requirements of 
the product, as it is the case in the New Approach directives.  

The  objective  of  the  Commission  proposal  is  to  replace  the  CPD  by  a  Regulation,  with  the 
aim  of  better  defining  the  objectives  of  this  Community  legislation,  as  well  as  making  its 
implementation easier and more efficient. 

As part of the Better Regulation initiative, the proposal intends to bring about clarification of 
the  basic  concepts  and  the  use  of  CE  marking;  to  introduce  simplified  procedures,  so  as  to 
reduce the costs incurred by enterprises, in particular SMEs; and to increase the credibility of 
the whole system by imposing new and stricter designation criteria to bodies involved in the 
assessment and the verification of constancy of performance of construction products. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
More specifically, the objective of the proposal is to ensure accurate and reliable information 
on  construction  products  in  relation  to  their  performance.  This  is  achieved  by  a  system 
composed  of  two  main  elements:  on  the  one  hand,  a  set  of  harmonised  technical 
specifications, harmonised standards and European Assessment Documents (EAD), providing 
the methods for assessing the performance of the products and, on the other hand, a number of 
Notified  and  Technical  Assessment  Bodies  designated  in  conformity  with  strictly  defined 
technical criteria, which contribute to the correct application of such methods. 

3. 

3.1. 

A. 

B. 

OPINION  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  BY  THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

General view 

The  Commission  has  considered  it  appropriate  to  accept  a  large  number  of 
amendments  approved  by  the  European  Parliament because they do not modify the 
main  substance  of  the  initial  Commission  proposal:  they  quite  frequently  also 
contribute  to  improving  it  by  making  it  more  precise.  Whilst  welcoming  those 
amendments, the Commission has preferred, in a certain number of cases, a slightly 
different formulation. 

Of  the  changes  accepted  by  the  Commission,  Amendments  17  and  70,  deleting 
recital 17 and modifying Article 21, have introduced the most important substantial 
changes to the Commission proposal. The Parliament has limited hereby the use of 
European  Technical  Assessments  (ETAs)  only  to  situations  where  the  product  in 
question  is  not  covered  or  not  fully  covered  by  a  harmonised  standard.  Given  the 
specific  character  of  harmonised  standards  in  this  context  (performance-based 
standards),  the  Commission  can  accept  these  amendments,  while  not  going  against 
the main objective of the proposal. 

On  the  other  hand,  certain  amendments  could  not  be  accepted  because  they  would 
have modified the substance of the Commission proposal in a manner not compatible 
with the objectives presented above. Within the reasons that have led to the rejection 
of these amendments, it is worth pointing out their evident inconsistency, in several 
cases,  with  the  general  principles  of  the  Internal  Market  Package  for  Goods. 
Moreover, sometimes the horizontal character of the amendments has not coincided 
with  the  sectorial  nature  of  the  Commission  proposal.  Accepting  some  of  the 
amendments would have created internal incoherence within the whole proposal, too. 

C. 

Finally, a series of amendments have been rejected because of their significant direct 
implications on the substance of the proposal. The most important ones concern the 
following matters:  

a) 

b) 

c) 

the  obligation  established  for  the  manufacturers  to  affix  CE  marking  even  in 
absence of a real declaration of performance (DoP) with any content, because 
no  regulatory  requirement  for  such  declaration  exists;  this  would  lead  to  a 
meaningless  CE  marking,  which  cannot  be  accepted,  and,  in  addition,  would 
impose unnecessary burden to enterprises;  

an  obligation  to  declare  the  content  on  dangerous  substances,  going  beyond 
REACH  obligations  and  introduced  without  any  justification  or  impact 
assessment;  

the possibility to maintain national marks together with the CE marking. In this 
respect,  the  vote  in  the  Plenary  represents  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  as 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
D. 

Amendment  54  to  Article  7,  opening  this  route,  was  rejected:  however, 
Amendment 17 related to the corresponding recital 30 was maintained.  

The Council has been continuing their works, with a view of improving the technical 
quality  of  the  proposal  and  defining  the  mandate  for  the  Presidencies  for  further 
negotiations  with  the  Parliament.  The  Council  has  also  dealt  with  most  of  the 
Parliament  amendments,  indicatively  taking  a  rejecting  stand  on  a  large  number  of 
them.  On  the  other  hand,  the  progress  made  in  the  Council  has  to  some  extent 
reflected also on the contents of the Parliament amendments, thus paving way for the 
establishment  of  a  solid  common  base  for  the  thrive  towards  a  second  reading 
compromise  between  the  Institutions  on  this  proposal.  The  Commission  warmly 
welcomes all such efforts, facilitating the work ahead. 

3.2. 

Analysis of the amendments 

Amendment 1 - Recital 1 

With  this  amendment,  the  Parliament  wishes  to  emphasise  the  environmental  values  in  the 
context of construction. Such an objective is in principle acceptable; however, the distinction 
between  “natural”  and  “man-made”  environment  seems  inappropriate  here.  Because  of  this, 
the wording has been reconsidered so as not to encompass the said distinction. 

The rules of Member States require that construction works are designed and executed so as 
not  to  endanger  the  safety  of  persons,  domestic  animals  and  property  nor  damage  the 
environment. 

Amendment 124 - Recital 7 a (new) 

The purpose of this new recital, to clarify the width of the concept “supply of a construction 
product  on  the  Community  market”  included  in  Article  2(5),  is  supportable.  Also  the 
clarification that manufacturers incorporating their construction products in works should be 
allowed, but not obliged, to declare the performance of these products merits to be highlighted 
in  this  manner.  According  to  the  Commission  view,  such  a  recital  would  also  make  similar 
kinds  of  additions  to  Article  2(5)  itself  redundant,  thus  enabling  to  maintain  the  coherence 
with the definitions included in the Internal Market Package for Goods. Nevertheless, with a 
view to the internal logics of the order of recitals, it would seem preferable to insert this new 
text after the initial recital 21.  

Cf. Recital 21c 

21c)  Products  made  on  the  site  of  construction  works  should  not  be  considered  to  fall 
within the scope of the concept of the supply of construction products on the Community 
market.  Manufacturers  incorporating  their  construction  products  in  works  should  be 
allowed, but not obliged, to declare the performance of these products in accordance with 
this Regulation. 

Amendment 2 - Recital 8 a (new) 

The  objective  of  this  addition  appears  to  be  to  underline  the  need  to  take  into  account  the 
health  and  safety  aspects  related  to  the  use  of  a  construction  product  during  its  entire  life 
cycle.  As  such,  the  Commission  supports  such  aims  and  has  therefore  accepted  this 
amendment in principle. Still, the wording has been reformulated so as to focus on just this 
aspect.  Moreover,  according  to  the  Commission  opinion,  this  added  text  would  be  placed 
more appropriately after the initial recital 14.  

Cf. Recital 14 

Amendment 4 - Recital 11 a (new) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Amendment 4 deals with Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), but does not correspond 
to  any  Article,  since  the  EPDs  are  not  mentioned  anywhere  in  the  proposal,  although  they 
have been included in the on-going standardisation work based on a mandate. Besides, they 
have  been  foreseen  only  for  voluntary  use  so  far.  Because  of  this,  the  wording  of  this 
amendment has been readjusted as follows when incorporating it into the amended proposal 
of the Commission. In addition, according to the Commission view, this added text would be 
placed  more  appropriately  as  a  new  recital  with  the  number  43c  (the  one  added  by  the 
Parliament with this same number becoming recital 43b). 

Cf. Recital 43c 

(43c)  The use of Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), when available, should be 
encouraged  in  the  context  of  assessing  the  sustainability  of  the  use  of  resources  and  the 
impact of construction works on the environment. 

Amendment 125 - Recital 11 b (new) 

This  new  recital  aims  at  incorporating  the  use  in  harmonised  standards  of  classes  of 
performance  in  relation  to  the  essential  characteristics  of  construction  products,  in  the  lines 
initially included in recital 12. Encouraging this in the manner approved by the Parliament can 
be  fully  supported  by  the  Commission.  Since  these  concepts  fit  better  here,  accepting  the 
Parliament  amendment  improves  the  quality  of  the  proposal:  obviously,  the  corresponding 
deletions are proposed for recital 12. Some very insignificant editorial adjustments have been 
suggested  to  the  Parliament  version,  so  as  to  streamline  the  text.  –  As  the  previous 
amendment, numbered recital 11a above, is proposed to be moved elsewhere as explained, the 
new recital at hand could thus become recital 11a of the amended proposal. 

11a) When appropriate, classes of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of 
construction products should be encouraged to be used in harmonised standards, so as to 
take account of different levels of basic works requirements for certain works as well as of 
the differences in climate, geology and geography and other different conditions prevailing 
in the Member States. The European standardisation bodies should be entitled to establish 
such classes in cases, when the Commission has not already established them, on the basis 
of a revised mandate.  

Recital 12 

Where an intended end use requires minimum performance levels in relation to any essential 
characteristics, to be fulfilled by construction products in Member States, these levels should 
be established in the harmonized technical specifications. (DELETED: so as to take account 
of  different  levels  of  basic  works  requirements  for  certain  works  as  well  as  of  the 
differences in climate, geology and geography and other different conditions prevailing in 
the Member States.) 

Amendment 5 - Recital 14 

The  text  added  to  this  recital  concerns  the  increased  coverage  of  harmonised  standards,  a 
principle  fully  supportable  as  such.  The  wording  has  been  reconsidered  somewhat,  so  as  to 
widen  the  scope  of  such  efforts  to  all  relevant actors  (as  opposed to only the  Commission), 
and  to  introduce  here  explicitly  also  the  objective  of  transferring  construction  products,  for 
which the use of guidelines for European technical approvals (ETAGs) or EADs would have 
constituted a sufficient basis of experience, under harmonised standards. Moreover, according 
to  the  Commission,  such  a  broadening  of  the  scope  of  this  addition  would  also  render 
unnecessary  the  similar  amendments  proposed  by  the  Parliament  to  Articles  20  (cf. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Amendment 120, adding a new paragraph 3a to this Article) and 53 (cf. Amendment 89, the 
second subparagraph to be added to this Article). 

Additionally to the new text, added as explained above, which has been inserted as the fourth 
subparagraph  of  this  recital,  the  amended  proposal  of  the  Commission  comprises  also  two 
other  new  subparagraphs:  The  second  one  concerns  the  concept  “performance”,  which 
according to the Commission is more appropriate to be described here, rather than defining it 
within Article 2 (cf. Amendment 27, dealt with below). The third subparagraph corresponds, 
as explained above (cf. Amendment 2), to recital 8a, which the Parliament has suggested to be 
added to the proposal. 

Those  harmonised  standards  should  provide  the  appropriate  tools  for  the  harmonised 
assessment  of  the  performance  in  relation  to  the  essential  characteristics  of  construction 
products. Harmonised standards should be established on the basis of mandates adopted by 
the Commission, covering the relevant families of construction products, in accordance with 
Article 6 of Directive 98/34/EC. 

In  this  context,  the  performance  of  a  construction  product  should  be  understood  as  its 
performance in relation to its essential characteristics, expressed by levels or classes, or in a 
description. 

When assessing the performance of a construction product, account should also be taken to 
the health and safety aspects related to its use during its entire life cycle. 

The  range  of  construction  products  covered  by  harmonised  standards  should  be  widened, 
notably,  when  appropriate,  by  mandating  them  to  be  developed  on  the  basis  of  existing 
EADs or ETAGs.  

Amendment 8 – Recital 16 

Amendment 8 has the purpose to delete the parallel use of ETAs and harmonised standards, 
i.e. to restrict the issuing of ETAs to cases where the construction products in question are not 
covered  or  not  fully  covered  by  any  harmonised  standards.  The  Commission  has  come  to 
support it, with only a minor editorial chance of the wording. – In addition, to be consistent 
with the rest of the proposal, the reference to “importers” should be deleted and the wording 
should  be  revised  because  only  manufacturers  should  be  entitled  or  obliged  to  make  a 
declaration  of  performance  and  to  affix  the  CE  marking  on  their  products.  Similar  changes 
have been carried out also for recitals 18 and 22, as well as Articles 4 and 12, and Annex II. 

In  order  to  allow  manufacturers  (DELETED:  and  importers)  of  construction  products  to 
draw  up  a  declaration  of  performance  for  construction  products,  which  are  not  covered  or 
not  fully  covered  by  a  harmonised  standard,  it  is  necessary  to  provide  for  a  European 
Technical Assessment.  

Amendment 9 – Recital 17 

This  amendment,  being  fully  in  line  with  recital  16  as  resulting  from  the  Parliament 
amendment 8, is accepted as well. 

DELETED 
Amendment 11 – Recital 20, 1st part (“The TABs … European Technical Assessments”) 
The  text  added  by  the  1st  part  of  this  amendment  to  recital  20  emphasises  the  principle  of 
transparency  in  the  context  of  establishing  EADs  and  issuing  ETAs.  This  idea  is  quite 
supportable,  especially  with  a  view  to  the  manufacturer’s  part  in  the  procedure.  Still, 
according  to  the  Commission,  the  wording  has  benefited  from  some  readjustments,  on  one 
hand to take into account the more general importance of transparency in this context, but on 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
the  other  hand  to  exercise  some  caution  particularly  due  to  confidentiality  issues  involved. 
These seemingly conflicting goals are thus proposed to be coincided with the text added in the 
end of the recital. 

The TABs should establish an organisation to coordinate the procedures for the establishment 
of  (DELETED:  draft)  EADs  and  for  issuing  of  European  Technical  Assessments,  ensuring 
the transparency and the necessary confidentiality of these procedures. 

Amendment 18 – Recital 33 a (new) 

This new recital aims at excluding the importers from the scope of Articles 26 – 28. The idea 
is  in  principle  acceptable  but,  according  to  the  Commission,  the  wording  approved  by  the 
Parliament  should  be  readjusted  somewhat.  This  matter  links  also  to  the  Parliament 
amendments 77 & 83, below, adding new paragraphs to Articles 26 & 27 for this purpose: it 
would  seem  more  appropriate  to  refrain  from  repeating  these  same  principles  in  these 
contexts, but instead to clarify this issue once and for all in the new recital at hand. Moreover, 
according to the Commission opinion, this added text would be placed more appropriately as 
a new recital after the initial recital 34, i.e. with the number 34a. 

Cf. Recital 34a 

In order to enhance the impact of market surveillance measures, all simplified procedures 
foreseen  for  assessing  the  performance  of  construction  products  should  apply  only  to 
natural or legal persons which manufacture the products they place on the market. 

Amendment 21 – Recital 43 a (new) 

Amendment  21  wishes  to  strongly  emphasise  the  inevitable  need  for  comprehensive 
information campaigns after the adoption of the proposal. As such, it is fully supportable: this 
matter  has  already  been  included  in  the  Commission  work  programme.  This  could  also  be 
seen as supportive to the obvious needs for additional human and financial resources for such 
new  activities  of  the  Commission.  Very  insignificant  editorial  changes  to  the  wording 
approved by the Parliament have been included in the amended proposal. 

The Commission and the Member States should, in collaboration with stakeholders, launch 
information campaigns to inform the construction sector, particularly economic operators 
and  users  of  construction  products,  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  common  technical 
language,  the  distribution  of  responsibilities  between  the  individual  economic  operators 
and the users, the affixing of the CE marking to construction products, the revision of the 
basic  works  requirements  and  the  systems  of  assessment  and  verification  of  constancy  of 
performance. 

Amendment 23 – Recital 43 c (new) 

This new recital brings forward the contents of the basic work requirement 7. In principle, it 
can be supported, although raising some questions (other basic works requirements have not 
been suggested to be treated similarly in the recitals). Besides, the respective and supportable 
addition to Annex I itself by the Parliament amendment 93 has not been taken into account 
here.  Therefore,  some  wording  adjustments  have  been  included  in  the  amended  proposal  of 
the  Commission.  –  As  the  previous  Parliament  amendment,  numbered  recital  43b,  is  not 
proposed to be included, the new recital at hand could thus become recital 43b of the amended 
proposal, leaving room for another new recital of the Parliament, suggested as recital 11a, to 
be placed as recital 43c. 

The  development  of  the  basic  works  requirement  7  on  “sustainable  use  of  natural 
resources”  should  notably  take  account  of  the  recyclability  of  construction  works,  their 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
materials  and  parts  after  demolition,  the  durability  of  construction  works  and  the  use  of 
environmentally compatible raw and secondary materials in construction works. 

Amendment 24 – Article 1 

Amendment 24 wishes to further clarify the subject matter of the proposal in a manner fully 
acceptable  to  the  Commission.  Still,  according  to  the  Commission  the  wording  merits  to  be 
slightly adjusted, adding the word “harmonised” in it in the context of establishing rules.  

This  Regulation  lays  down  conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  by 
establishing harmonised rules on how to express the performance of construction products in 
relation to their essential characteristics and on the use of CE marking on those products. 

Amendment 115 - Article 2, point 1 a (new)  

This  new  definition  concerns  the  reduced  use  of  ETAs  and  assists  in  distinguishing  the 
situations  in  question.  Since  such  clarifications  improve  the  quality  of  the  proposal,  after 
being  amended  quite  substantially  by  the  deletion  of  parallel  use  of  ETAs  and  hENs,  the 
Commission can fully support them. However, the more appropriate place for this new recital 
appears to be found as point 12a (following the numbering of the initial proposal); in addition, 
some  wording  suggestions  have  been  included  in  the  amended  proposal,  so  as  to  make  the 
outcome even clearer and more concise. 

Cf. Article 2, point 12a 

12a.  "product  not  covered  or  not  fully  covered  by  a  harmonised  standard"  means  any 
construction product, the performance of which cannot be entirely assessed, in relation to 
the essential characteristics of this product, according to an existing harmonised standard, 
because inter alia: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the product does not fall within the scope of any existing harmonised standard; or 

for  at  least  one  essential  characteristic  of  that  product,  the  assessment  method 
foreseen in the harmonised standard is not appropriate; or  

the harmonised standard does not contain any assessment method in relation to at 
least one essential characteristic of that product; 

Amendment 27 - Article 2, point 3 a (new) 

Amendment  27  consists  of  adding  a  new  definition  on  “performance  of  a  construction 
product”. In order for this to be inserted, however, the wording should be improved so as to 
accommodate  the  real  needs  for  such  a  definition.  In  this  context,  quite  like  the  following 
ones,  coherence  should  be  found  between  the  use  of  concepts  “value”,  “level”,  “class”  and 
“threshold”; and “individual” would not appear to have any added value here. All in all, it has 
therefore been considered most opportune to deal with this issue within the amended proposal 
of the Commission in recitals (cf. recital 14, where it has been added).  

Cf. Recital 14 

Amendment 116 - Article 2, point 3 b (new)  

This new definition relates to “threshold level”. In order for this to be inserted, however, the 
wording should be improved so as to accommodate the real needs for such a definition. The 
word “characteristic” is used here in the meaning  of  the concept “parameter”. Therefore, as 
well  as  to  avoid  misunderstandings  about  the  legal  consequences  of  such  threshold  levels 
owing to the differentiation between “technical” and “regulatory” ones, the wording should be 
readjusted  accordingly.  In  this  context,  quite  like  the  adjacent  ones,  coherence  should  be 
found between the use of concepts “value”, “level”, “class” and “threshold”: this links also to 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
other  Articles  (cf.  Articles  18  and  20).  In  fact,  the  amended  proposal  of  the  Commission  is 
suggesting  this  to  be  solved  by  inserting  the  contents  of  the  Parliament  amendment  27  on 
“performance”  into  the  recitals  (cf.  recital  14),  as  well  as  introducing  yet  another  new 
definition, that of “level”, as point 3a. 

“level”  means  the  result  of  the  assessment  of  the  performance  of  a  construction 

3a. 
product in relation to its essential characteristics, expressed as a numerical value; 

“threshold  level”  means  a  minimum  or  a  maximum  performance  level  of  a 

3b. 
construction product, determined in the harmonised technical specifications 

Amendment 117 - Article 2, point 3 c (new)  

This new definition concerns the concept “class”. In order for this to be inserted, however, 
the wording should be improved so as to accommodate the real needs for such a definition. 
The word “characteristic” is used here in the meaning of the concept “parameter”. Therefore, 
the  wording  should  be  readjusted  accordingly.  In  this  context,  quite  like  the  previous  ones, 
coherence  should  be  found  between  the  use  of  concepts  “value”,  “level”,  “class”  and 
“threshold”.  

“class” means a range of levels, delimited by a minimum and a maximum value, of 

3c. 
performance of a construction product; 

Amendment 30 - Article 2, point 4 a (new) 

Amendment 30 inserts a definition of “European Technical Assessment” to the proposal. The 
idea as such is welcomed by the Commission. However, since the last part of this Parliament 
amendment  appears  redundant,  because  the  same  matter  has  been  included  in  the 
corresponding  enacting  Articles,  some  wording  changes  are  necessary  to  come  to  the 
amended proposal of the Commission; in addition, the more appropriate place (in the structure 
of the initial proposal) for this definition would seem to be as point 13a. 

Cf. Article 2, point 13a 

13a.  “European  Technical  Assessment”  means  the  documented  assessment  of  the 
performance  of  a  construction  product,  in  relation  to  its  essential  characteristics,  in 
accordance with the respective European Assessment Document; 

Amendment 39 - Article 2, order of points 4 b to 4m (partially new) 

Amendment  39  reflects  the  wish  of  the  Parliament  to  place  these  definitions  in  a  changed 
order.  The  Commission  considers  the  idea  of  readjusting  this  order  quite  acceptable,  but 
would refrain from this until it has been clarified and determined, which definitions are finally 
to be included in the text. Besides, also points 1a to 4a (within the Parliament amendments, as 
partially  already  suggested  above)  as  well  as  points  16a  to  20  should  be  considered  to  be 
included in this eventual reshuffle. Therefore, the amended proposal of the Commission does 
not contain any reactions to Amendment 39 at this stage. 

Amendment 36 - Article 2, point 4 c 

This amendment aims at adding some new, clarifying elements into the definition in point 13 
of  the  initial  Commission  proposal  on  EADs:  as  such,  its  first  part  can  be  accepted.  On  the 
other hand, the final part repeating the restriction to the scope of issuing EADs appears here 
superfluous and repetitive. 

13. 
"European Assessment Document" means a document adopted by the organisation 
of  Technical  Assessment  Bodies,  for  the  purpose  of  issuing  European  Technical 
Assessments; 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Amendment 33 - Article 2, point 4 e 

In the sequence of the Parliament amendments, this one corresponds to point 7 of the initial 
Commission proposal, dealing with the concept “manufacturer”. This amendment being the 
first  alignment  required  in  the  final  text  to  the  final  wording  of  Decision  768/2008/EC,  the 
Commission welcomes it as such. 

7. 
"manufacturer" means any natural or legal person who manufactures a construction 
product or who has such a product manufactured, and markets that product under his name 
or trademark; 

Amendment 32 - Article 2, point 4 i  

In the sequence of the Parliament amendments, this one corresponds to point 5 of the initial 
Commission proposal, concerning “making available on the market”. The initial Commission 
proposal is similar to the wording used consistently in the Internal Market Package for Goods. 
Also for this reason,  while accepting in principle the clarifications the Parliament wishes to 
bring forward here, the Commission considers this matter be treated more adequately within 
the recitals only (cf. above, amendment 124, and recital 21c of the amended proposal). 

Cf. Recital 21c 

Amendment 34 - Article 2, point 16 a (new) 

Amendment 34 consists of a new definition on “user”. The idea of adding such a definition to 
the proposal can be accepted, but adequate account needs to be taken of the concerns on the 
legal  sources  for  the  responsibilities  involved.  Therefore,  some  adjustments  to  the  wording 
suggested  by  the  Parliament  appear  necessary,  resulting  in  the  formulation  of  the  amended 
proposal of the Commission. In addition, the more appropriate place for this new text would 
seem to be as point 11a in the initial sequence of the proposal. 

11a.  “user” means any natural or legal person responsible, pursuant to the rules in force 
in the Member State in question, for the safe incorporation of a construction product into 
construction works; 

Amendment 35 - Article 2, point 16 b (new) 

This amendment brings along a new definition of “Technical Assessment Body” (TAB). The 
Commission  is  inclined  to  accept  it  in  principle,  provided  that  the  wording  is  sufficiently 
adjusted: the final part of the Parliament text, repeating the restriction to the scope of issuing 
EADs, seems superfluous here. Besides, the more appropriate place for this new text would 
appear to be as point 12b in the initial sequence of the proposal. 

12b.  “Technical  Assessment  Body”  means  a  body  designated  by  a  Member  State  to 
participate  in  the  development  of  European  Assessment  Documents  and  to  carry  out  the 
tasks related to the issuing of European Technical Assessments; 

Amendment 40 - Article 2, point 18 

Amendment  40  wishes  to  further  clarify  the  definition  of  “factory  production  control”,  by 
adding  some  new  elements  to  it.  The  Commission  accepts  in  principle  the  need  for  certain 
clarifications  here;  however,  all  of  these  added  elements  would  not  appear  fully  justified, 
some of them bringing along excessive restrictions. Besides, the use of some concepts is not 
in  line  with  the  mainstream  of  the  proposal  and  would  thus  seem  to  require  some 
readjustments. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
"factory production control” means the documented permanent internal control of the 
technical 

the  relevant  harmonised 

in  accordance  with 

factory, 

in  a 

18. 
production 
specifications; 

Amendment 41 - Article 2, point 20 a (new) 

Amendment 41 consists of a new definition on “kit”. The idea of adding such a definition to 
the  proposal  can  be  accepted,  but  the  wording  could  benefit  from  further  reconsiderations, 
with  a  view  to  the  practical  needs  and  experiences  from  the  construction  sector  during  the 
application of the CPD. In addition, the more appropriate place for this new text would appear 
to be as point 1a in the initial sequence of the proposal. 

Cf. Article 2, point 1a 

“kit" means a set of at least two separate components that need to be put together to 

1a. 
be installed in the works; 

Amendment 47 - Article 5, paragraph 2, point c a (new) 

Amendment 47 consists of the notion of “generic” intended use. The Commission accepts this 
idea but, in order to be consistent with the current practice, this expression should be replaced 
by the one of “intended end use”. 

Amendment 50 - Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 

Amendment 50 consists of the reformulation of Art 6(1), which now appears to seek to make 
it somewhat easier to supply the DoP copies also electronically: the clear change to Art 6(2) 
seems  to  indicate  the  wish  of  the  EP  to  give  preference  to  eSupply.  If  such  a  reorientation 
were  to  be  widely  accepted  amongst  the  MS,  as  well,  the  Commission  does  not  see  any 
reasons for opposing it. 

Amendment 51 - Article 6, paragraph 2 

Amendment 51 is consistent with amdt 50: this amendment seems to indicate the wish of the 
EP to give preference to eSupply. If such a reorientation were to be widely accepted amongst 
the  MS,  as  well,  the  Commission  does  not  see  any  reasons  for  opposing  it.  Nevertheless, 
wording should be improved e.g. the word “producer” does not seem to be a correct concept 
here. 

Amendment 53 - Article 7, paragraph 1, subpara 1 (“The CE … not be affixed”) 

The first part  of  this Amendment 53 does not modify the meaning of  the proposal, but it is 
considered not to be necessary. 

Amendment 56 - Article 8, paragraph 4 a (new) 

Amendment  56  poses  no  problem  in  the  substance.  However,  it  is  not  necessary  because 
similar clauses are already included in the Regulation 765/2008. If, nevertheless, it were to be 
included, the wording should be developed further. 

Amendment 58 - Article 9, paragraph 1 a (new) 

Amendment 58 reflects the wishes of the Parliament firstly to emphasise the independency of 
the future Product Contact Points (as in the amended proposal of the Commission, “PCPs for 
Construction”),  and  secondly  to  oblige  the  Commission  to  draw  up  guidelines  for  their 
responsibilities.  The  Commission  agrees  in  principle  with  both  these  ideas;  however,  some 
wording changes would appear inevitable, when account is taken notably of the current and 
foreseen  role  of  the  Standing  Committee  for  Construction.  Any  clauses  “authorising”  the 
discretionary  actions  of  the  Commission  could  also  be  read  as  restricting  such  competences 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
elsewhere,  with  no  such  provisions.  Moreover,  the  independency  aspects  might  be  better 
covered by a separate paragraph: in order to integrate them most appropriately to the text and 
to  take  into  account  the  other  emerging  needs,  the  amended  proposal  of  the  Commission 
consists of a thorough reformulation of this issue, divided in several paragraphs. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Each  Member  State  shall  establish  Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction 
pursuant to the provisions in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) N° 764/2008 on their 
designation and communication. 

The  provisions  of  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  said  Regulation  shall  apply  to 
Product Contact Points for Construction, with regard to construction products. 

In  addition  to  the  tasks  defined  in  Article  10(1)  of  the  said  Regulation,  each 
Member  State  shall  ensure  that  the  Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction 
also provide the information on any regulatory requirements applicable to the 
incorporation,  assembling  or  installation  of  a  specific  type  of  construction 
product in the territory of that Member State. 

4. 

Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction  shall  be  independent  of  any  body  or 
organisation involved in the procedure for obtaining the CE marking. 

Amendment  61  –  Article  16,  para  2,  subpara  1,  part  2  (“Harmonised  standards  shall 
provide the generic intended use of the products … referred to in Article 51(2)”) 

The Commission accepts in principle the idea to include these concepts in the standards but, 
for  consistency  with  the  current  practice,  the  expression  “generic  intended  use”  should  be 
replaced by “intended end use”. In addition, it appears to be necessary to add in Article 2 the 
definition of this concept. This definition is proposed thus as Article 2, point 17a. For the rest 
of  the  amendment,  the  links  to  the  distinction  between  different  types  of  essential 
characteristics  or  the  reference  to  Annex  IV,  Table  1,  do  not  appear  useful  here  for  the 
purpose described above. 

2.  Harmonised  standards  shall  provide  the  methods  and  the  criteria  for  assessing  the 
performance of the construction products in relation to their essential characteristics. 

When foreseen in the respective mandate or  otherwise technically justified, a harmonised 
standard shall refer to an intended end use of products to be covered by it. 

Article 2(17a)  

17a.  “intended end use” means one of the end uses of construction products as listed in 
Annex  VI  of  this  Regulation  or  otherwise  defined  in  the  respective  harmonised  technical 
specification; 

Amendment 119 - Article 18, paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 

Amendment 119 combines several previous amendments suggested in the Parliament for this 
Article.  Its  general  objectives  are  fully  acceptable  to  the  Commission,  but  the  wording 
resulting from the Parliament elaborations would seem to merit some readjustments, primarily 
of editorial nature. In paragraph 2, the reference added to revised mandates would appear to 
serve its purpose more adequately, if it were placed in the end of the 1st subparagraph, instead 
of the 2nd one. 

2.  Where  classes  of  performance  in  relation  to  the  essential  characteristics  of  construction 
products  are  not  established  by  the  Commission,  they  may  be  established  by  the  European 
standardisation bodies in harmonised standards, on the basis of a revised mandate. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Where  the  Commission  has  established  classes  of  performance  in  relation  to  the  essential 
characteristics of construction products, the European standardisation bodies shall use those 
classes in harmonised standards.  

Paragraph  3  deals  with  the  establishment  of  “minimum  performance  levels”,  removing  the 
initial  clauses  on  “classified  without  testing  or  without  further  testing”,  which  therefore 
should  be  reincorporated  into  the  proposal  as  the  following  paragraph  3a,  as  appropriately 
readjusted.  Besides,  the  former  concept  has  been  replaced  in  the  amended  proposal  of  the 
Commission  by  “threshold  levels”,  as  discussed  also  above  in  the  context  of  this  new 
definition added in Article 2 as its point 3b. Also the reference here to “generic intended use” 
would need to be replaced by “intended end use”, as explained above under Article 16(2) (cf. 
Amendment 61). 

3.  When  foreseen  in  the  respective  mandates,  the  European  standardisation  bodies  shall 
establish  in  harmonised  standards  threshold  levels  in  relation  to  essential  characteristics 
and,  when  appropriate,  for  intended  end  uses,  to  be  fulfilled  by  construction  products  in 
Member States. 

The Commission may establish conditions under which a product shall be deemed to 

3a. 
satisfy a certain level or class of performance without testing or without further testing. 

Those  measures,  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this  Regulation,  by 
supplementing  it,  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  regulatory  procedure  with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 51(2). 

Where such conditions are not established by the Commission, they may be established by 
the  European  standardisation  bodies  in  harmonised  standards,  on  the  basis  of  a  revised 
mandate. 

The changes adopted by the Parliament for paragraph 4, related to the obligation for Member 
States to follow the classification systems established at Community level in their respective 
regulatory activities, can be accepted as such by the Commission. 

4. Member States may determine the levels or classes of performance, to be complied with by 
construction  products,  in  relation  to  their  essential  characteristics  (DELETED:  of 
construction products) only in accordance with the classification systems established by the 
European standardisation bodies in harmonised standards, or by the Commission. 

Amendment 67 - Article 19, paragraph 3 

This  amendment  reflects  the  wishes  of  the  Parliament  to  include,  both  into  mandates  and 
harmonised  technical  specifications,  information  on  the  “envisaged  generic  use”  (which 
obviously is the same concept as “generic intended use” previously utilised by the Parliament 
and  would  therefore  need  to  be  replaced  by  “intended  end  use”,  as  explained  above  under 
Article 16(2) (cf. Amendment 61)). While this idea is fully supported, where appropriate, by 
the  Commission,  it  would  seem  preferable  to  deal  with  it  solely  within  Article  16,  more 
specifically  aimed  for  the  matter  of  the  contents  of  both  standards  and  mandates,  and 
respectively  within  Article  20  (as  a  new  paragraph  2a),  when  it  comes  to  EADs.  Such 
provisions  have  already  been  inserted  in  the  amended  proposal  of  the  Commission  in  both 
these Articles, which according to the Commission pre-empts the need to amend Article 19 
for this purpose at all. 

Article 20(2a) 

2a.  When  appropriate,  the  organisation  of  Technical  Assessment  Bodies  referred  to  in 
Article  25(1)  shall  establish  in  the  EAD  threshold  levels  in  relation  to  essential 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
characteristics  of  the  construction  product  within  its  intended  end  use  as  foreseen  by  the 
manufacturer. 

Amendment 68 - Article 20, paragraph 1 

Amendment 68 is part of the changes adopted by the Parliament in order to delete the parallel 
use of ETAs and harmonised standards, i.e. to restrict the issuing of ETAs to cases where the 
construction  products  in  question  are  not  covered  or  not  fully  covered  by  any  harmonised 
standards  (cf.  above  under  Amendment  8  on  recital  16).  As  already  mentioned,  the 
Commission has come to support this general choice; however, according to the Commission 
view it would appear sufficient to insert this respective amendment within Article 21(1) only, 
instead of repeating it in every context. Therefore, the amended proposal of the Commission 
does not contain changes to Article 20(1). 

Cf. Article 21.1 

1.  The  European  Technical  Assessment  (ETA)  shall  be  issued  by  a  Technical  Assessment 
Body, for a construction product not covered or not fully covered by a harmonised standard, 
at the request of a manufacturer or importer on the basis of a EAD in accordance with the 
procedure set out in Annex II. 

Amendment 120 - Article 20 paragraph 3 a (new)  

This amendment consists of a new paragraph, with which the Parliament wishes to enhance 
the  move  from  EADs  to  harmonised  standards:  this  fully  supportable  principle  has  already 
been  discussed  above  under  amendment  5  on  recital  14.  On  the  whole,  according  to  the 
Commission view, it would in fact appear more appropriate to deal with this issue only with 
these  reinforced  references  in  the  said  recital,  without  including  any  such  amendments  into 
the main text of the proposal. The amended version thus follows this line. 

Cf. Recital 14 

Amendment 71 - Article 24, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 

With this amendment, the Parliament wishes to emphasise the need for transparency of peer 
evaluations  and  for  the  accessibility  of  the  subsequent  appeal  procedures.  According  to  the 
Commission,  these  objectives  would  of  course  be  worth  aiming  at,  but  (regarding 
transparency) also the confidentiality issues should be taken into account here. Moreover, all 
appeal procedures would obviously have to be designed as accessible, otherwise the question 
would  no  longer  be  about  appeals.  The  most  opportune  manner  of  accommodating  these 
partially  conflicting  goals  could  be  to  move  the  qualifier  “appropriate”  to  signify  not  only 
appeal procedures, but instead all these contexts. 

2.  The  Commission  shall  establish  appropriate  procedures  for  carrying  out  the  evaluation, 
including (DELETED: appropriate) appeals procedures against decisions taken as a result 
of the evaluation.  

Amendments 122, 111 & 77 - Article 26, paragraph 1 points b and c & subparagraph 1a 
(new), paragraph 2 a (new) 

The  amendments  at  hand  all  concern  parts  of  Article  26,  dealing  with  the  main  bulk  of 
simplified  procedures.  More  specifically,  the  emphasis  of  the  Parliament  is  now  directed 
mainly  on  sharing  and  cascading  (points  b  and  c)  as  well  as  on  the  exclusion  of  importers 
from these procedures.  

Firstly, the Parliament wishes to clarify the conditions for sharing (point b), more particularly 
the  need  for  consent  from  the  manufacturer  who  initially  has  obtained  the  test  results  in 
question. The Commission accepts and fully supports this clarification, which has thus been 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
inserted as such in the amended proposal of the Commission (actually, without the last word 
“or”, since its use could cause the erroneous impression that the manufacturer could choose 
to utilise only one at a time of the different alternative procedures contained in Article 26). 

The  Parliament  amendment  on  cascading  (point  c)  starts  by  adding  references  to  “system 
providers”. Also here, the Commission accepts this amendment, which improves the quality 
and the precision of the proposal. On the other hand, the following two added sentences seem 
somewhat  superfluous  or,  when  it  comes  to  the  latter  of  these,  possibly  unnecessarily 
demanding  for  the  manufacturer.  Therefore,  they  have  not  been  contained  in  the  amended 
proposal of the Commission. 

Finally,  the  Parliament  wishes  to  insert  a  new  paragraph  concerning  the  exclusion  of  the 
importers from the scope of this Article. The idea is in principle acceptable but, according to 
the Commission, as mentioned above under the Parliament amendment 18 (new recital 33a, 
which in the amended proposal of the Commission has been inserted as recital 34a), it would 
seem more appropriate to refrain from repeating these same principles in the context at hand: 
the Commission prefers to clarify this issue once and for all in the said new recital. It should 
additionally be noted that Article 14 does not create any rights to “manufacturers” under its 
scope,  but  instead  only  poses  new  obligations  for  them.  This  matter  links  also  to  the 
Parliament  amendment  83,  below,  adding  a  similar  kind  of  new  paragraph  to  Article  27  for 
the  same  purpose.  For  these  reasons,  such  a  new  paragraph  has  not  been  included  in  the 
amended proposal of the Commission. 

(a) 

(b) 

for  one  or  several  essential  characteristics  of  the  construction  product  he  places  on 
the market, that product is deemed to achieve a certain level or class of performance 
without testing or calculation, or without further testing or calculation, in accordance 
with  the  conditions  set  out  in  the  relevant  harmonised  technical  specification  or 
Commission decision. (DELETED: ; ) 

the construction product he places on the market corresponds to the product-type of 
another  construction  product,  manufactured  by  another  manufacturer  and  already 
tested  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  harmonised  technical  specification.  When 
these  conditions  are  fulfilled,  the  manufacturer  is  entitled  to  declare  performance 
corresponding to all or part of the test results of this another product. 

The  manufacturer  may  use  the  test  results  obtained  by  another  manufacturer  only  after 
having  obtained  an  authorisation  of  that  manufacturer,  who  remains  responsible  for  the 
accuracy, reliability and stability of those test results. 

(c) 

the  construction  product  he  places  on  the  market  is  a  system  made  of  components, 
which he assembles duly following precise instructions given by the provider of such 
a  system  or  of  a  component  thereof,  who  has  already  tested  that  system  or  that 
component  for  one  or  several  of  its  essential  characteristics  in  accordance  with  the 
relevant harmonised technical specification. When these conditions are fulfilled, the 
manufacturer  is  entitled  to  declare  performance  corresponding  to  all  or  part  of  the 
test results for the system or the component provided to him. 

The  manufacturer  may  use  the  test  results  obtained  by  another  manufacturer  or  system 
provider only after having obtained an authorisation of that manufacturer or system provider, 
who remains responsible for the accuracy, reliability and stability of those test results. 

Amendment 78 - Article 27 – title 

Through  amendment  78,  the  Parliament  wishes  to  add  the  qualifying  words  “which 
manufacture construction products” also to the title of this Article. The same idea is proposed 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
in  Amendment  79  to  the  first  paragraph  of  the  Article.  While  accepting  this  idea,  the 
Commission considers that it is not appropriate to repeat this both in the title and in the text of 
the Article.  

Amendment 79 - Article 27, paragraph 1 

This amendment consists solely of adding the same wording as the Parliament has suggested 
to  the  title  of  this  Article  (cf.  the  previous  amendment,  dealt  with  above).  While  the 
Commission  accepts  the  principle  behind  this,  the  solution  at  hand  would  not  seem  to  meet 
appropriately the needs to clarify the initial proposal in this respect. With a view to reaching a 
widely acceptable compromise on the treatment of micro-enterprises, the results from the on-
going discussion thus better merit to be supported. The text of the amended proposal of the 
Commission reflects this line of thought 

Determination of the product-type on the basis of type-testing for the applicable systems 4 
and  5,  as  set  out  in  Annex  V,  may  be  replaced  by  micro-enterprises,  manufacturing  a 
construction  product,  by  a  STD.  The  STD  shall  demonstrate  the  compliance  of  the 
construction product with the applicable requirements. 

Amendment 83 - Article 27, paragraph 2 c (new) 

Also  here,  the  Parliament  wishes  to  insert  a  new  paragraph  concerning  the  exclusion  of  the 
importers from the scope of this Article. The idea is in principle acceptable but, according to 
the Commission, as mentioned above under the Parliament amendment 18 (new recital 33a, 
which in the amended proposal of the Commission has been inserted as recital 34a), it would 
seem more appropriate to refrain from repeating these same principles in the context at hand.  

Amendment 84 - Article 28, paragraph 1 

With this amendment, the Parliament wishes to underline the need for enhancing confidence 
of the market as regards the use of Specific Technical Documentation (STD) in the simplified 
procedure  at  hand.  In  principle,  the  Commission  accepts  this  goal.  However,  the  exact 
purpose  of  the  STD  (in  this  or  in  other  contexts)  is  not  to  “guarantee  safety”,  but  to 
demonstrate  and  justify  that  the  pre-defined  conditions  for  the  use  of  a  given  simplified 
procedure exist. The wording “provide for an equivalent level of confidence and reliability” 
appears  somewhat  diffuse  and  should  thus  be  readjusted  better  to  suit  the  real  objectives  of 
this added clause. Moreover, in the whole proposal, the requirements posed on construction 
works  have  consistently  been  called  “basic  works  requirements”,  as  opposed  to  “essential 
…”.  For  these  reasons,  the  Commission  prefers  to  streamline  the  text  of  this  paragraph 
pursuant  to  the  results  from  the  on-going  discussion.  The  amended  proposal  of  the 
Commission thus reflects this line of thought. 

1. 
For  a  construction  product  designed  and  manufactured  in  a  non-industrialised 
production process  in response  to  a  specific order, and installed in a single  identified work, 
the manufacturer may replace the performance assessment part of the applicable system, 
as  set  out  in  Annex  V,  by  a  STD,  demonstrating  compliance  of  that  product  with  the 
applicable requirements. 

Amendment 86 - Article 33, paragraph 5 

Amendment  86  consists  of  a  reference  added  about  “complete  transparency  v-a-v  the 
manufacturer”.  The  Commission  fully  supports  this  principle,  as  mentioned  already  above 
(cf. Amendment 11 on recital 20), obviously tempered with the necessary restraints brought 
about by confidentiality aspects.  

Amendment 88 - Article 51, paragraph 2 a (new) 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
With this amendment, adding a new paragraph to the Article at hand, the Parliament wishes to 
emphasise the independence of the members of the Standing Committee. This principle can 
be accepted by the Commission, since this could help to increase transparency and objectivity. 
However, the wording would require some streamlining, since in this context the assessments 
do not focus on the “conformity” (cf. Article 19 & Annex V). 

2a.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  members  of  the  committee  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1  are  independent  of  the  parties  involved  in  the  assessment  and  verification  of 
constancy of the essential characteristics of construction products. 

Amendment 89 - Article 53, paragraph 3 

Amendment  89  consists  of  two  parts  added  to  the  paragraph  at  hand.  Firstly,  the  initial 
reference  of  the  proposal  to  ETAGs  has  been  enlarged  to  encompass  also  the  so-called 
CUAPs.  However,  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  the  full  formal  acceptance  of 
CUAPs, which did not enjoy this status under the CPD (never mentioning them even once), 
and  the  most  extensive  use,  where  appropriate,  of  their  contents  (the  assessment  methods 
envisaged and developed in them) in this context. By the subsequent adjustments inserted in 
Annex II, the latter objective has been secured. Therefore, while the Commission accepts the 
idea  behind  this  part  of  the  amendment,  as  described  above,  any  changes  in  this  Article  for 
these purposes do not appear necessary or even opportune. 

Secondly,  a  new  subparagraph  has  been  added  for  the  same  purposes  as  in  Article  20(3a) 
above, i.e. so as to facilitate the move from ETAGs towards hENs. As already mentioned in 
this  previous  context,  this  is  probably  not  the  most  opportune  place  for  such  a  reference, 
which  is  more  appropriately  (already)  dealt  with  in  recitals  (cf.  recital  14  as  adjusted).  For 
these reasons, the Commission has not amended its proposal as regards the paragraph at hand. 

Cf. Recital 14 and Annex II 

Amendment 90 - Annex I, paragraph 1 

With this amendment, the Parliament wishes to emphasise the need for considering the health 
and safety of everybody involved during the whole life cycle of construction works, i.e. from 
the  construction  phase  to  the  demolition  stage.  In  principle,  its  contents  are  acceptable,  but 
according to the Commission opinion the wording merits some adjustments. This matter links 
also  to  Amendment  2  and  the  text  added  by  the  Parliament  as  recital  8a  (in  the  amended 
proposal of the Commission into recital 14), which applies the same approach to construction 
products.  

Construction works as a whole and in their separate parts must be fit for their intended use, 
taking  notably  into  account  the  health  and  safety  of  persons  involved  throughout  the  life 
cycle of the works. 

Amendment 91 - Annex I, Part 3. Introductory wording 

Amendment  91  concerns  certain  additions  to  the  introductory  wording  of  BWR  3,  again 
highlighting the life cycle approach as regards construction works. The principle of including 
"safety  of  workers"  in  this  context,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the  construction  and 
demolition stages, is acceptable as such. However, Directive 89/391/EEC deals already with 
this issue. In any case, some adjustments to the wording would appear necessary: for instance, 
the reference to “their lifecycle”, as accepted by the Parliament, is somewhat ambiguous. 

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that they will, throughout 
their life cycle, (DELETED: not) be a threat neither to the hygiene nor health and safety of 
workers, (DELETED: the) occupants and neighbours, nor exert an exceedingly high impact 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
over  their  entire  life  cycle  to  the  environmental  quality  nor  to  the  climate,  during  their 
construction, use and demolition, in particular as a result of any of the following: 

Amendment 92 - Annex I, Part 6, part 1 (“The construction works … the occupants”) 

This amendment deals with BWR 6. Its first part, adding “lighting” into the initial proposal, 
could  be  agreed  upon.  The  other  part  of  the  Parliament  amendment  cannot  be  supported 
because  it  implies  confusion  between  construction  works,  the  topic  of  this  Annex  I,  and 
demands set on construction products, which shouldn’t be posed in this context. 

The construction works and their heating, cooling, lighting and ventilation installations must 
be designed and built in such a way that the amount of energy required in use shall be low, 
when account is taken of the climatic conditions of the location and the occupants. 

Amendment 93 - Annex I, Part 7. Introductory wording 

Amendment 93 consists of adding the words “at least” into the introduction for BWR 7. This 
addition  of  “at  least”  can  be  accepted.  In  this  context,  however,  particular  attention  should 
also  be  paid  to  the  fact  that  the  BWRs  are  not  obliging  the  Member  States  to  anything,  but 
instead just outlining the “areas” considered important for the (broadly understood) safety of 
construction works. 

The construction works must be designed, built and demolished in such a way that the use of 
natural resources is sustainable and ensure, at least, the following: 

Amendment 94 - Annex II, Title 

This  amendment  concerns  the  title  of  Annex  II,  adding  there  the  reference  to  the  scope  of 
EADs  and  ETAs.  This  issue  has  been  clarified  in  the  previous  parts  of  the  text.  In  these 
circumstances, while accepting it as such, the Commission has not considered it necessary to 
have this reference inserted also here. 

Amendment 99 - Annex III, point 4 

This  amendment  relates  to  the  added  reference  into  Annex  III  to  the  “generic  use”  of  the 
product at hand. In order to maintain the coherent use of concepts within the whole proposal, 
this addition should be readjusted as the reference to “intended end use", which is the concept 
utilised elsewhere. 

Identification  of  product  (allowing  traceability)  and  reference  to  the  intended  end 

4. 
use: 

Amendments  102-106  -  Annex  V.  Part  1,  point  1.1.,  1.2.,  1.3.,  1.4.,  1.5,  introductory 
wording 

These  amendments  consist  of  maintaining  the  same  numbering  of  the  systems  which  is 
already  used  under  the  CPD.  The  Commission  accepts  fully  the  idea  of  this  matter  being 
revisited and reconsidered: however, in this context sufficient attention has to be taken also of 
the  other  possibilities  brought  forward  in  the  on-going  discussion  in  the  Council  In  these 
circumstances,  the  amended  proposal  of  the  Commission  does  not  contain  any  reactions  to 
Amendments 102 to 106 at this stage.  

3.3. 

Amended proposal 

Having  regard  to  Article  250(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty,  the  Commission  amends  its  proposal  as 
indicated above. 

EN 

18 

   EN