Brussels, 28/04/2009 (Agence Europe) - In order to promote better circulation and better use of building products used in the EU for construction or renovation work, the European Commission presented a new regulation aimed at establishing a common technical language for those involved in the sector and at clarifying the conditions for access to EC marking. These objectives were supported by a large majority of the House (390 to 4 and 6 abstentions) during the vote on the report that Catherine Neris (PES, France) devoted to the text in question. Although Parliament agrees to the reform proposed by the Commission - which should contribute to simplifying the current system and lead to better functioning of the internal market - it nonetheless underlined the inadequacies. Ms Neris took the view that, by simplifying procedures and making them more flexible, this would not necessarily lead to “weakening control of the declared product performance”.
MEPs above all regret that the choice of assessment criteria for the products is partially left to member states, which means that the real significance of EC marking will vary depending on the country where products are marketed, with consequences in terms of credibility. Also, they point out, the text proposed does not deal with the energy use of products or their potential danger for users.
To answer these concerns, Parliament has brought in a series of changes intended to: - ensure that all building products marketed must bear the EC mark in order to guarantee that everything that is sold in Europe has undergone appropriate control procedures with simplified procedures for micro-businesses; - reserve access to manufacturers of building products and not to importers of simplified procedures allowing easier access to EC marking with a view to improving market surveillance, which will allow the importation of products of poorer quality via doubtful import companies to be avoided; - and introduce a minimum level of harmonisation when it comes to assessment criteria for building products in Europe so that, whenever possible, EC marking may have the same significance wherever the product is marketed.
Furthermore, Parliament has introduced the possibility of creating new assessment criteria that are not simply “technical” but which allow performance relating to questions of general interest to be calculated, such as the environment, security or health risks for users. The manufacturer will, in particular, have to declare any dangerous substance listed in the annex, including among other things the elements mentioned in the REACH regulation (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals).
The question of the simultaneous existence of two marks and the predominance of EC marks remains unresolved. The Council was unable to reach a common position on this issue. This is one of the reasons why it was not possible to find a first reading compromise between the institutions. As a result, work will continue with the Parliament elected in June and the next rotating EU presidency held by Sweden. (O.L./transl.jl)