REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the implementation of the Measuring Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC pursuant to its Article 25(Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2011-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, measuring equipment, metrology

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.6.2011 
COM(2011) 357 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report on the implementation of the  
Measuring Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC pursuant to its Article 25 
(Text with EEA relevance) 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report on the implementation of the Measuring Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC 
pursuant to its Article 25. 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

A. 

1. 

Introduction 

Purpose of this document 

The  purpose  of  this  document  is  to  report  on  the  implementation  of  Measuring  Instruments 
Directive  (MID),  inter  alia,  on  the  basis  of  reports  provided  by  the  Member  States. 
Furthermore  it  draws  from  two  SME  surveys  and  a  public  consultation.  Two  external 
consultants  provided  inputs  concerning  the  evaluation  of  the  directive  and  respectively  the 
assessment of impacts of suggestions for possible changes. 

2. 

Measuring Instruments Directive (MID) 

The Measuring Instruments Directive (Directive 2004/22/EC1) has been in operation for 4½ 
years since 30 October 20062. 

It applies to the following instruments defined in the Annexes to the Directive: 

•  water meters; 

•  gas meters and volume conversion devices; 

•  active electrical energy meters; 

•  heat meters; 

•  measuring systems for continuous and dynamic measurement of quantities of liquids other 

than water; 

•  automatic weighing instruments; 

•  taximeters; 

•  material measures; 

•  dimensional measuring instruments; 

•  exhaust gas analysers. 

1 

2 

OJ L 135, 30.4.2004, p. 1:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004L0022:20091201:en:PDF 
The  directive  also  contains  a  transition  period  of  10  years  (until  29  October  2016)  during  which 
instruments  conforming  to  old  rules  are  allowed  to  continue  to  be  marketed  (Article  23  of  Directive 
2004/22/EC) 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The main policy objective of the Directive is to facilitate and enhance the internal market for 
instruments required for measuring tasks for reasons of public interest, public health, public 
safety, public order, protection of the environment, protection of consumers, levying of taxes 
and  duties  and  fair  trading,  where  Member  States  consider  such  formal  legal  measurement 
justified. 

MID  guarantees  a  high  level  of  confidence  through  essential  requirements  which  are 
applicable in all Member States and is expressed by means of CE and M marking. It defines 
performance criteria, while giving manufacturers technological flexibility on ways of meeting 
them. MID offers a wide choice of conformity assessment procedures that cater for the needs 
of small and large producers alike. 

The legislation does not define for which activities the measuring instruments need to be used. 
That  remains  a  matter  for  national  governments.  For  instance,  practices  differ  between 
Member  States  on  whether  meters  are  required  for  water  consumption  or  common  heating 
systems. Similarly, factories may use many different types of meters for internal production 
purposes which do not need to be regulated. 

However,  where  a  formal  legal  measurement  is  required  by  a  Member  State,  as  in  the  vast 
majority  of  consumer  transactions,  then  only  instruments  which  comply  with  the  Directive 
can  be  used.  The  Directive  distinguishes  categories  to  take  account  of  the  huge  disparity  of 
temperatures in Europe where measuring instruments placed outside need to remain accurate, 
between - 40 degrees in a Scandinavian winter and + 70 degrees in a Mediterranean summer. 

The  Directive  allows  to  reference  international  standards  that  may  be  used  alongside 
European standards by CEN/CENELEC/ETSI to demonstrate compliance with the legislative 
requirements.  Also  relying  on  the  international  standards  of  the  60-country  strong 
International  Organisation  for  Legal  Metrology  (OIML),  for  instance,  helps  European 
industry to be more competitive and penetrate global markets3. 

The unit responsible for the MID is DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit G/5. 

3. 

Reasons for the review  

In Article 25 of the Measuring Instruments Directive4 the Commission is invited to report on 
the implementation of the Directive as follows: 

“The European Parliament and the Council invite the Commission to report, before 30 April 
2011, on the implementation of this Directive, inter alia, on the basis of reports provided by 
the  Member  States,  and,  where  appropriate,  to  submit  a  proposal  for  amendments.  The 
European  Parliament  and  Council  invite  the  Commission  to  evaluate  whether  conformity 
assessment procedures for industrial products are properly applied and, where appropriate, to 
propose amendments in order to ensure consistent certification.” 

Furthermore,  Directive  2011/17/EU  repeals  8  Old  Approach  directives  in  the  area  of  legal 
metrology: one directive in 2011 (ship tanks) and the other seven in 2015 respectively (water 

3 

4 

See for more information:   
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/legal-metrology-and-prepack/measuring-
instruments/index_en.htm 
OJ L 135/1, 30.4.2004 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
meters, weights (2x), alcohol meters (2x), tyre pressure gauges, mass of grain) respectively. 
Following on the repeal the Directive foresees a 10 year transition period allowing placing on 
the market of instruments carrying the harmonised markings based on existing certificates, i.e. 
until 2021 and 2026 respectively5. 

In a Joint Statement by the three institutions the Commission was invited “to report before 30 
April 2011 […] and in accordance with the principles of better lawmaking (including where 
appropriate  impact  assessment  and  open  consultation)  […]  determine  whether  and,  if  so,  to 
what extent the scope of the Measuring Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC should be extended 
so  as  to  include  any  of  the  measuring  instruments  currently  regulated”  by  the  repealed 
directives6. 

B. 

Evaluation 

In  this  report  the  Commission  assesses  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  taking  due 
account  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been  applicable  for  only  4½  years,  namely  since  30  October 
2006.  

The main purposes of the evaluation exercise undertaken are to: 

•  provide ballpark market estimates for each sector covered by MID; 

•  review the effectiveness of the Directive; 

•  draw conclusions for further action. 

The assessment has been made using three different evaluation tools: 

•  small  and  medium  size  enterprises  (SME)  have  been  solicited  via  the  Enterprise  Europe 
Network with the aim of achieving a more SME-friendly regulatory environment following 
up on the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme; 

•  evaluation of the Directive has been made by external experts;  

•  the findings have been subject to a public consultation. 

1. 

Economic weight of the measuring instruments sectors in the scope of the Directive 

In their evaluation report external experts7 have estimated that the MID applies to around 345 
million  units  of  measuring  instruments  (MIs)  sold  annually  in  the  European  market  with  a 
total sales value of around €3.25 billion. There  are around 900 manufacturers active in the 10 
sectors covered by the MID not including the large number of SMEs operating as distributors, 

5 

6 

7 

EN 

OJ L 71/1, 18.3.2011: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:071:0001:0003:EN:PDF 
Statement  by  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  in  Council  document  6291/11 
2011
ADD1 
http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/sgvista/i/sgv2/repo/repo.cfm?institution=CONS&doc_to_br

February 

14 

of 

owse=CSST/2011/06291&sw_inconnu=1 
Centre  for  Strategic  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Interim  evaluation  of  the  Measuring  Instruments 
Directive, July 2010  

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
importers  or  providers  of  repair  services.  The  total  number  of  employees  occupied  in  the 
sector is estimated at 190,000. 

Around  20-25%  of  measuring  instruments  in  the  EU27  are  imported  while  25-30%  of  the 
measuring  instruments  produced  in  the  EU27  are  exported  to  third  countries.  There  is 
however important variation among the different categories of measuring instruments. Trade 
levels  in  both  directions  are  particularly  high  (over  50%  of  total)  for  the  less  technology 
intensive  categories  of  material  measures  (MI-008)  and  dimensional  measuring  instruments 
(MI-009)  but  also  for  electricity  meters  (65%).  At  the  same  time,  the  share  of  production 
exported  is  particularly  high  in  the  case  of  more  advanced  technology  instruments  such  as 
Automatic  Weighing  Instruments  (up  to  42%  for  the  sub-category  of  automatic  gravimetric 
filling  instruments)  and  in  the  Gas  Meters  category  (44%)  where  EU  firms  are  the  world 
leaders. 

Table 1 – Total size of market covered by the MID 

Market size – 
number of items sold 
annually (000s) 

18,000 

6,900 

14,000 

800 

31.2 

21 

50 
300,000 

300-400 

25-35 

345,000 

Market size- value 
of items sold 
annually  
(million €s)  
450 

410 

610 

290 

240 

550 

25-40 
440-490 

70-80 

130 

3,250 

Share in 
total MIs 
market 

13.8% 

12.6% 

18.8% 

8.9% 

Employees 
occupied in 
sector  
(1000s) 
25 

30 

32 

18 

7.4% 

14-16 

16.9% 

1% 
14.3% 

2.3% 

4.0% 

100% 

25 

1 
34 

7 

17.5 

190 

MI-001: Water Meters 
MI-002:  Gas  Meters  & 
Conversion Devices 
MI-003:  Active  Electricity 
Energy Meters 
MI-004: Heat Meters 
MI-005: Measuring Systems 
for  Liquids  other 
than 
Water 
MI-006: 
Weighing Instr. 
MI-007: Taximeters 
MI-008: Material Measures8 
MI-009:Dimensional 
Measuring Instr. 
MI-010: 
Analysers 
Total 

Exhaust  Gas 

Automatic 

2. 

Views by Small and Micro enterprises 

End  2009  a  survey  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission  services  using  the  SME  panel 
consultation tool of the Enterprise Europe Network. It attracted a total of 286 responses, half 
manufacturers and half users, mainly small and micro enterprises with turnover of less than 
€10  million  from  most  Member  States 9.  The  SMEs  were  active  in  all  types  of  measuring 
instruments  covered,  most  used  CE+M  marking  which  indicates  that  the  instrument  is  in 
conformity with the MID, whilst 40% traded widely on the internal market, 25% only in the 
domestic market and 40% exported outside of the EU. 

The findings of the survey suggest that in their majority SMEs do not face particular problems 
different from those reported from large companies in the evaluation10. Barriers to trade due 

8 
9 
10 

Data refer to all material measures of length in the market. Not only MID certified.  
All Member States excepting Netherlands and the United Kingdom 
pp 35-40 in CSES, Interim evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive, July 2010 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
to  protection  from  national  authorities  (real  or  perceived),  costs  for  conformity  assessment 
that  are  higher  than  what  would  be  considered  adequate  are  reported  but  only  from  a  small 
number  of  SMEs.  There  are  also  no  specific  categories  of  MIs  identified  with  particular 
issues/problems. From the user side, the survey suggests that consumer protection is adequate.  
One issue raised by the SME survey concerns the unfair competition by non CE+M marked 
products. While this point should not be considered as an SME specific problem, it seems to 
be more prominent in comparison to the evidence provided during the interviews with trade 
associations  and,  mainly  larger,  companies.  It  could  reflect  transition  where  there  are  still 
many lower quality instruments with cheaper national approvals coming onto the market and 
this will resolve by itself when the transition period ends in 2016. 
As  regards  the  issue  of  relaxing  conformity  assessment  procedures  for  inexpensive 
instruments,  it  should  be  noted  that  such  instruments  are  usually  mass  produced  and  so 
conformity  assessment  is  all  the  more  relevant.  The  large  choice  of  conformity  assessment 
procedures available for each type of instrument should help relax bottlenecks. 
Finally  the  Directive  allows  defining  subassemblies  but  it  does  not  allow  manufacturers  to 
define  them.  Should  this  be  otherwise  all  kind  of  incomplete  instruments  possibly  marked 
may appear on the market and this would complicate market surveillance. 

3. 

Main findings of the evaluation 

The main findings of the evaluation of the MI Directive are the following. 

Innovation  has  not  been  hampered  and  in  some  cases  MID  is  considered  to  be  positive  for 
innovation. 

Optionality has led to close to full application with Member States requiring instruments as 
determined  by  the  Directive  in  90  %  of  possible  cases.  Therefore  consumer  protection  is 
virtually  equal  across  the  EU  and  the  risk  of  unfair  competition  due  to  differences  between 
Member States is minimal. 

The  MID  has  helped  improve  the  operation  of  the  internal  market  with  the  use  of  a  single 
conformity  assessment  certificate,  which,  being  about  10-15%  more  expensive  than  the 
former national certificates, has benefitted producers that are active on more than one market. 
The need was identified that such certificates should have a common format. 

Stakeholders  have  been  fully  consulted  at  all  times  in  the  working  group  Measuring 
Instruments. They have been fully involved in the preparation of comitology proposals. The 
regulatory  committee  procedure  has  been  used  once  and  the  advisory  procedure  around  10 
times for publications concerning international standards of OIML11 that give presumption of 
conformity with the essential requirements of the Directive. 

The smooth running of the Directive has been enhanced by the 2004 “Commission Statement 
to  WELMEC12  on  Cooperation”  resulting  in  40  guidance  documents  of  conceptual  nature 
being referenced on the Commission website after final agreement with all stakeholders in the 
Working group on Measuring Instruments. 

11 
12 

OIML is the International Organisation for Legal Metrology  
WELMEC is the organisation of national authorities responsible for legal metrology 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
With the exception of taximeters there is a full coverage by standards, being either European 
harmonised  standards  or  normative  documents  referring  to  international  standards  on  which 
the Measuring Instruments Committee has advised positively. 

The  New  Legislative  Framework  gives  conformity  assessment  procedures  which  are  very 
close  to  those  in  MID.  A  proposal  to  recast  the  MID  adapting  it  to  the  New  Legislative 
Framework will be presented soon. 

The  quality  of  market  surveillance  appears  as  an  important  concern  of  industry  and  it  is  an 
area where most authorities recognise that their effort until recently has been limited. 

There  appear  to  be  inconsistencies  among  the  notified  bodies  in  terms  of  interpreting  MID 
requirements and other guidance as well as differing levels of capacity; as well as the rather 
restrictive interpretation by notified bodies of the guidelines of WELMEC posing constraints 
to using alternative approaches to conform to the essential requirements. 

There is no evidence that the implementation of the MID has generally disadvantaged SMEs – 
although in some specific sectors (weighing instruments and fuel dispensers) the lack of rules 
distinguishing individual components (sub-assemblies) may disadvantage some SMEs. 

4. 

Outcome of the Public consultation  

The  public  consultation  on  the  evaluation  report  led  to  85  reactions  from  firms,  industry 
federations  and  Member  States.  The  European  consumer  organisation  declined  to  react 
because MID was not its priority. 

The relatively few answers in the public consultation on the evaluation indicate that there are 
no major points missing nor are there any major points of disagreement with the assessment in 
the  evaluation.  The  issue  of  failing  market  surveillance  was  not  addressed  by  any  Member 
State. See for details the report on the Public consultation13. 

As  regards  the  suggestions  for  new  proposals  some  useful  material  was  received  but  in  no 
case  was  there  sufficient  evidence  to  base  an  impact  assessment  on.  It  concerns  technical 
complex and detailed changes where the Commission services need to rely very much on the 
inputs of experts and stakeholders in order to fulfil the requirements of smart regulation. See 
for details the report by an external consultant14. 

The evaluation of the MI Directive can be deemed to be complete as regards the evaluation 
and  generally  supported  as  regards  its  analysis.  As  such  there  is  no  reason  to  consider 
regulatory  changes  and  in  a  Commission  Services  Working  Document  the  Commission 
services indicated being sensitive to the risks of changing the MID in such an early stage of its 
application  (4½  years).  The  possibilities  of  standardisation  and  guidance  have  not  yet  been 
fully  utilised.  Changing  the  directive  beyond  the  technical  adaptations  allowed  by  the 
Directive in its Article 16 could lead to regulatory drift and to uncertainty in the market place.  

C 

Repeal of Old Approach Directives 

13 
14 

RPA, Report on the public consultation, March 2011 (Background document 6). 
RPA, Report on suggestions for amendments and additions of new categories to the MID, March 2011 
(Background document 7). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1. 

Introduction 

As  regards  the  Commission  obligations  stemming  from  the  Joint  Statement  of  the  three 
institutions adjoined to Directive 2011/17/EU repealing the eight Old Approach Directives the 
Commission services have proceeded as follows: 

–  A  letter  to  Member  States  asking  for  their  views  (June  2010)  to  which  6  Member  States 

reacted. 

–  An SME survey via the Enterprise Europe Network (May-June 2010) to which there were 

117 reactions. 

–  A public consultation (September – October 2010) to which there were around 20 reactions 

from authorities and 10 from organised industry. 

2. 

Arguments presented by authorities 

Some authorities bring up two arguments in favour of continued regulation: 

-  Replacing  harmonisation  by  national  rules  would  imply  barriers  to  trade  due  to  national 
approvals  and  diverging  national  regulations,  thereby  reducing  consumer  protection  and 
competition on the Internal Market. 

-  Harmonisation  of  technical  documents  is  needed  for  periodic  in-service  checks  (the 
requirement and the modalities of which are national competence). 

In  the  absence  of  harmonisation  for  these  increasingly  obsolete  instruments,  it  is  clearly  a 
possibility that individual MS will develop national requirements. While those requirements 
do not have to comply with these directives any more, they have nevertheless to respect the 
basic  principles  of  the  Treaty;  especially  the  principle  of  free  movement  of  goods  (Articles 
34-36 TFEU). Additionally, the Mutual Recognition Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 requires a 
procedure  of  notification  in  the  case  that  a  product  lawfully  marketed  in  one  Member  State 
may  not  be  marketed  in  another  Member  State  on  the  grounds  of  having  been  produced 
following different technical rules to those required in the Member State of destination. Such 
notifications  would  be subject to consideration under articles 34 - 36 TFEU and the current 
jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice. For example, it is unlikely that only different 
markings  would  be  a  valid  reason  for  banning  a  product.  In  addition,  WTO-TBT 
commitments require Member States to legislate on the basis of international standards, which 
already  exist  in  the  form  of  OIML  documents  and  are  virtually  equal  to  the  letter  to  the 
technical  specifications  in  each  of  the  repealed  directives.  This  is  reinforced  by  the 
notification obligations under Directive 98/34/EC which aim to ensure full mutual recognition 
of equivalent products and conformity assessment procedures.  

Therefore  new  national  rules  replacing  the  Directives  will  not  differ  in  practice  from  the 
repealed  Directives  and  there  would  be  little  ground  for  multiple  national  markings  and 
conformity  assessment  if  the  product  complies  with  the  law  in  one  Member  State.  When 
transition ends in 2021 and 2026 respectively, national rules will therefore not lead to change 
for the products currently covered by the repealed Directives. The Commission is not in any 
way against national rules based on international standards which are in accordance with the 
principles of mutual recognition, if a Member State should considers such rules necessary. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
As  regards  the  second  argument  about  harmonisation  ensuring  equal  technical  documents 
needed  for  periodic  in-service  checks  (the  requirement  and  the  modalities  of  which  are 
national competence) international standardisation can pave the way for such documentation 
being equal. If needed, there is still ample time to ensure that this can be achieved before the 
end of transition.  

The  discussion  of  both  the  above  arguments  concerning  instruments  under  the  scope  of  the 
repealed  Directives  leads  to  the  expectation  that  national  rules  will  reflect  international 
standards which will equal the content of the Directives and that there will be no additional 
trade barriers.  

With  the  exception  of  weights,  which  are  not  subject  to  technological  change,  technically 
more advanced products which are outside of the scope of the repealed Directives are more 
important in terms of annual turnover than those within the scope of the repealed Directives.  

The reasons in favour of repeal given in the Commission proposal15 were that the mechanical 
instruments covered by the Directives are becoming obsolete and that there were no reports of 
significant barriers of trade for technically more advanced instruments not harmonised by the 
Directives. This analysis remains valid and has been confirmed16. 

3. 

SME survey 

The  SME  survey  via  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network  (May-June  2010)  gave  117  responses, 
most  of  which  were  users  (84)  next  to  manufacturers  (16)  and  distributors/importers  (17). 
Notwithstanding the existing harmonisation, limited trade barriers with costs up to 10% due to 
multiple testing are reported for some instruments. This could be due to the coverage of more 
technically  advanced  instruments  by  additional  national  regulations  which  are  allowed  in 
parallel  under  the  Old  Approach.  Manufacturers  expressed  a  preference  for  self-declaration 
(currently not used in MID). For some instruments (irrigation meters, foul water, weights and 
tyre  pressure  gauges)  users  are  in  favour  of  better  market  surveillance  and/or  periodic  in-
service testing.  

4. 

Public consultation 

The  public  consultation  (September  –  October  2010)  received  around  20  reactions  from 
authorities  and  10  from  industry.  Some  reactions  from  authorities  reflected  the  arguments 
already  treated  above  whilst  others  indicated  support  for  repeal  and/or  the  prospect  of  new 
national regulation where needed. No examples were given of barriers to trade nor were there 
reports of notifications under the Mutual Recognition Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 in which 
authorities  need  to  give  evidence  of  the  reasons  for  taking  a  product  of  the  market  in  cases 
where mutual recognition is in force. 

Reactions from organised industry were the following. 

–  As regards water meters, industry indicated that irrigation and foul water meters containing 
particles cannot be covered by the current MID provisions and that this is not needed either 
because there are no barriers to trade. 

15 
16 

COM(2008)801 
RPA, Report on the Repeal of the Old Approach Directives, March 2011 (background document 8) 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  On  alcohol  meters  industry  makes  no  mention  of  trade  barriers.  Spirit  drinks  producers 
expressed  the  same  opinion  as  in  2008  insisting  that  “producers  are  not  limited  in  their 
operational  choices”,  the  details  of  which  were  not  further  specified.  Wine  producers  do 
not  want  harmonisation  and  refer  to  the  full  coverage  of  DG  AGRI  regulations  and 
international  OIV  standards.  Neither  do  beer  producers  want  harmonisation  mentioning 
existing flexibility. 

–  The tyre pressure gauge (garage) industry can accept harmonisation that takes account of 
the forthcoming results of the 2009 mandate M/45717 under which European standards are 
being  developed  which  would  also  serve  for  the  Car  Safety  Regulation  (EC)  No 
661/2009.There are no barriers to trade reported. 

–  There were no reactions from industry concerning mass of grain or ship tanks. 

The European consumer organisation declined to react because metrology was not its priority. 

5. 

Conclusions on the repealed Old Approach Directives 

At this moment, there is no reason for the Commission to propose to add sectors covered by 
the 8 repealed directives to the Measuring Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

New barriers due to new national rules are not to be expected because such national 
rules  need  to  be  based  on  international  standards  and  therefore  will  in  effect  be 
equivalent. 

No existing trade barriers or other overriding reasons have appeared that would justify 
harmonisation. 

SMEs report low barriers to trade due to multiple testing which no longer would seem 
to  be  justified  under  the  obligations  of  the  Mutual  Recognition  Regulation  (EC)  No 
764/2008.  

There  is  virtually  no  support  for  harmonisation  from  organised  industry  and  no 
mention of trade barriers. 

Organised consumers do not consider these sectors of legal metrology as a priority. 

There  are  no  significant  changes  in  2010  to  the  impact  assessment  underlying  the 
Commission proposal for repeal in 2008. 

The long transition period will allow current certificates to be recognised up till 2021 
for ship tanks and up till 2025 for other instruments. 

D. 

Policy Conclusions and further action 

The overall positive evaluation of the MID has nonetheless shown that there exist substantial 
problems with the coherent application by notified bodies and market surveillance. Changes 
to  the  directive  should  be  done  carefully  and  fully  assessed  taking  into  account  all 

17 

M457 Standardisation mandate to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in the field of tyre pressure gauges for 
motor vehicles and tyre pressure management systems (measuring instruments) 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
alternatives. During this early stage of application of the Directive a stable legal framework 
would seem to be a benefit for the further successful development of the internal market in 
legal metrology. 

The Commission services will pursue the following priorities 

1.  Introduce  the  New  Legislative  Framework  into  the  Measuring  Instruments  Directive  for 
which a legislative proposal is expected during 2011. 

2. Enhance information, cooperation and guidance to notified bodies and authorities with the 
aim of ensuring a coherent application of the Directive. 

3.  Coordinate  market  surveillance  notably  in  the  form  of  common  actions  in  order  to  more 
efficiently apply resources which are available for market surveillance. 

4.  Aid  stakeholders  in  establishing  guidance  on  transition  of  petrol  pumps  which,  although 
formally outside of Directive, is considered to be an important point by industry. 

5.  Impact  assess  any  suggestions  for  new  proposals  with  stakeholders  in  line  with  smart 
regulation whereby full account is taken of all alternatives to regulation  and  where possible 
make any necessary changes under the terms of the Directive, i.e. by means of comitology.  

Background documents18 

1. RPA, Report on the Public Consultation, March 2011 

2. RPA, Report on suggestions for amendments and additions of new categories to the MID, 
March 2011 

3. RPA, Report on the Repeal of the Old Approach Directives, March 2011 

18 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/legal-metrology-and-prepack/public-consultation/index_en.htm 

All background documents are available on:  

EN 

10 

   EN