I think the following is basically right. One of the fundamental objectives (and requirements) of the original treaty of Rome, which has been re-inforced since as the treaty has been amended, is the free movement of goods within the EU and the removal of barriers to trade. In recent years, under the terms of the "new approach" directives, there has been a move towards presumption of conformity for products placed on sale provided that such products carry the CE mark.
There is European directive numbered 83/189/EEC which addresses procedures to be followed for introducing new technical requirements. This directive is basically targetted at removing the possibility of new barriers to trade being introduced. 83/189/EEC requires certain procedures to be followed by the European Commission when it comes to commissioning new technical standards. Importantly, it also defines procedures to be followed by each member state if implementing new or modified technical regulations ( I think this is the case, it always used to be). This procedure basically requires notification through the European Commission of the proposed standard, regulation, etc. This notification and draft of the relevant documents is translated by the EC into the native language of each member state and distributed for review by relevant authorities in each member state. In this way, each member state has the opportunity to review and oppose new national legislation and standards. Also, importantly, the issue of European standards under the scope of product compliance directives have the force of law in that conflicting national standards must be withdrawn by the final designated date of withdrawal. So I think the bottom line is that a EU state can implement a national regulation relating to product compliance provided that it does not conflict with existing European legislation and European standards and that the regulations have passed successfully through the 83/189/EEC procedures. This actually is a little bit of a joke as the documents distributed under 83/189/EEC have always been circulated to a very small audience and some quite interesting things have found their way through with no objections. I didn't catch the beginning of this thread so I am not sure what the original problem was reported to be. However, there is an anti-competition unit at the EC which monitors this kind of thing that is usually very interested to hear of problems with respect to barriers to trade. Also, I think I am right in saying that each member state has an anti-competition unit which also makes all the right noises about fighting the good fight in terms of barriers to trade. Best regards Nick Evans Managing Director Genesys IBS Ltd Worldwide IT&T Product Design & Compliance Tel: +44 1600 710300 Fax: +44 1600 710301 Mobile: +44 385 367348 (GSM) E-mail: nick_evans_gene...@msn.com (if sending attachments, please copy e-mail to our central e-mail account: gene...@dial.pipex.com) Web: Http://www.gentel.co.uk/genesys -----Original Message----- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 27 April 1998 13:07 To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: RE: GS Requirements This has been a very interesting thread. There appears to be two distinct groups of thought. One group believes that an EU state can enforce a state law affecting trade as long as it is not in violation of a Directive. Another group seems to believe that no EU state may enforce a law the tends to impede trade. To this latter group I ask the question, what is the legal basis for this claim? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic.
