Brussels, 12/04/2007 (Agence Europe) - MEPs from the European Parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee gave a positive response to the “internal market” package adopted by the Commission in February (EUROPE 9366). Consisting of five documents, including three legislative proposals, this legislative package aims to improve free movment of goods in the internal market by focusing itself more on the principle of mutual recognition. Speaking about the theme of legislative simplification, Günter Verheugen, European commissioner for enterprise and industry, announced the forthcoming adoption of several targeted initiatives in the area of “cosmetics, toys, medical devices and buildings”.
Internal market package. Alexander Stubb (EPP-ED, Finland) declared that the package of free movement of goods is “a very good package”. Welcoming the fact that it was not a controversial subject, Stubb added that “after the directive on services, it is probably one of the most important legislative elements”. He asked Commissioner Veheugen why the Commission had kept countries from the “European Economic Area” and Turkey out of the legislative proposal. The commissioner inferred that these countries were only indirectly involved. Mia De Vits (PES, Belgium) said that the Commission draft was “extremely ambitious”. She pointed out that on this occasion this involved “goods and not services” and appealed for a “balance between trust between member states and implementation of effective inspection bodies”. Andreas Schwab (EPP-ED, Germany) asked why the number goods affected by the internal market package was not increased. German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt was surprised that these goods had still not been harmonised in the EU. She asked what products were being affected. Verheugen replied that within the internal market, 85% of goods were subject to harmonisation. He did, however, explain: “I don't intend to extend the field by 85%”. British Conservative Malcolm Harbour called for an increase in the quality of product assessment by member states and criticised the lack of visibility at the European Committee for Standardisation. Barbara Weiler (PES, Germany) asked: “How is this going to work in practice?” She was eager to know more about the practical procedures envisaged in the legislative proposal. She mentioned the case where a member state considered that it had sufficiently explained why it was refusing to distribute a product while the Commission judged these explanations insufficient. She warned that “some member states believe that this area comes under the remit of their own sovereignty”.
At the heart of the legislative package is the Commission's goal of giving more support to the principle of mutual recognition. According to this practice, a product put on the market and complying with the rules of one member state can move with the minimum of restrictions within the internal market. Companies are currently obliged to demonstrate that their products respect the rules and standards of the member states in which the company wants to distribute them. The commission is proposing to get rid of the need to provide proof, by obliging member states where the product is sent to provide proof that a national restriction to free movement of a particular product is necessary and proportionate. To illustrate his ideas about the difficulties experienced by some companies in the field of free movement of goods, Verheugen gave the example of the member state that imposed “an extremely onerous acceptance test” before it gave its authorisation for the distribution of imported saucepans, when a national manufacturer existed in the country.
“Better regulation”. Mr Verheugen considered that the administrative charge weighing down on companies represented “5.3% of the EU's GDP” and is mainly made up of “obligations to provide information” and the provision of statistics. The commissioner explained that 50% came from national legislation, 15% from the tendency of member states, such as the United Kingdom to add additional national demands or “gold plating” to European directive provisions and 30% to 35% from European legislation.
Defence. Asked about the Commission's goals in the defence sector, Verheugen pointed out that in the autumn the College would be presenting a defence package containing a draft directive on public procurement in this area. He welcomed the support that the German government had just given to the future directive. Nonetheless, he did explain that this was an area where the ground shifted: the sector employs 300,000 people in the EU but its competitiveness is threatened at a European level. He also referred to the difficulties with the Americans who were demanding specific export authorisation for arms exports that contained 15 components of US origin. (mb)