Procedure : 2017/0354(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0274/2018

Texts tabled :

A8-0274/2018

Debates :

PV 13/02/2019 - 23
CRE 13/02/2019 - 23

Votes :

PV 14/02/2019 - 10.9

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2019)0123

REPORT     ***I
PDF 710kWORD 107k
5.9.2018
PE 620.869v04-00 A8-0274/2018

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State

(COM(2017)0796 – C8‑0005/2018 – 2017/0354(COD))

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Rapporteur: Ivan Štefanec

AMENDMENTS
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
 FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State

(COM(2017)0796 – C8‑0005/2018 – 2017/0354(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0796),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0005/2018),

–  having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 May 2018(1),

–  having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A8-0274/2018),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment    1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1)  The internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties. Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States. That prohibition covers any national measure which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Union trade in goods. Free movement of goods is ensured in the internal market by harmonisation of rules at Union level setting common requirements for the marketing of certain goods or, for goods or aspects of goods not covered by Union harmonisation rules, by the application of the principle of mutual recognition.

(1)  The internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties. Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States. That prohibition covers any national measure which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Union trade in goods. Free movement of goods is ensured in the internal market by harmonisation of rules at Union level setting common requirements for the marketing of certain goods or, for goods or aspects of goods not fully covered by Union harmonisation rules, by the application of the principle of mutual recognition as defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Amendment    2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2)  Obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States may be unlawfully created if, in the absence of Union harmonisation rules covering goods or a certain aspect of goods, a Member State's competent authority applies national rules to goods of that type lawfully marketed in another Member State, requiring the goods to meet certain technical requirements, for example requirements relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling or packaging. The application of such rules to goods lawfully marketed in another Member State could be contrary to Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty even if the rules apply without distinction to all goods.

(2)  Obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States may be unlawfully created if, in the absence of Union harmonisation rules covering goods or a certain aspect of goods, a Member State's competent authority applies national rules to goods of that type lawfully marketed in another Member State, requiring the goods to meet certain technical requirements, for example requirements relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling or packaging, request for additional testing and/or duplication of tests. The application of such rules to goods lawfully marketed in another Member State could be contrary to Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty even if the rules apply without distinction to all goods.

Amendment    3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3)  The principle of mutual recognition derives from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to this principle, Member States may not prohibit the sale on their territory of goods which are lawfully marketed in another Member State, even where the goods have been produced or manufactured in accordance with different technical rules. But the principle is not absolute. Member States can oppose the marketing of goods lawfully marketed elsewhere, when such restrictions are justified on the grounds set out in Article 36 of the Treaty or on the basis of other overriding reasons of public interest, and which in either case are proportionate to the aim pursued.

(3)  The principle of mutual recognition derives from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to this principle, Member States may not prohibit the sale on their territory of goods which are lawfully marketed in another Member State, even where the goods have been produced or manufactured in accordance with different technical rules. But the principle is not absolute. Member States can oppose the marketing of goods lawfully marketed elsewhere, when such restrictions are justified on the grounds set out in Article 36 of the Treaty or on the basis of other overriding reasons of public interest, recognised by the ECJ jurisprudence in relation to the free movement of goods, and which in either case are proportionate to the aim pursued. This regulation imposes the obligation to clearly justify why market access is refused.

Amendment    4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4)  The concept of overriding reasons of public interest is an evolving concept developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law in relation to Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty. This concept covers, inter alia, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the fairness of commercial transactions, protection of consumers, protection of the environment, the maintenance of press diversity and the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social security system. Such overriding reasons, where legitimate differences exist from one Member State to another, may justify the application of national rules by the competent authorities. However, such decisions need to be duly justified, and the principle of proportionality must always be respected, regard being had to whether the competent authority has in fact made the least restrictive decision possible. Furthermore, administrative decisions restricting or denying market access in respect of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State must not be based on the mere fact that the goods under assessment fulfil the legitimate public objective pursued by the Member State in a different way from the way that domestic goods in that Member State fulfil that objective.

(4)  The concept of overriding reasons of public interest is an evolving concept developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law in relation to Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty. Where legitimate differences exist from one Member State to another, they may justify the application of national rules by the competent authorities. However, administrative decisions need to be always duly justified, legitimate, appropriate and in respect with the principle of proportionality and the competent authority has to make the least restrictive decision possible. With the aim of reducing internal market barriers and improve the functioning of the internal market for goods, the Commission and the Member States are encouraged to initiate an assessment process as to whether all the national rules are still fit for purpose and are not creating disproportionate non-tariff barriers. Furthermore, administrative decisions restricting or denying market access in respect of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State must not be based on the mere fact that the goods under assessment fulfil the legitimate public objective pursued by the Member State in a different way from the way that goods in that Member State fulfil that objective. In order to assist Member States in their task of justifying restrictions to the principle of mutual recognition, the Commission should provide non-binding guidance reviewing the case law on the concept of overriding reasons of public interest and on how to apply the principle of mutual recognition. Competent authorities should have the ability and opportunity to provide contributions and deliver feedback on the guidance.

Amendment    5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7)  Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 has several shortcomings, and should therefore be revised and strengthened. For the sake of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 should be replaced by this Regulation. This Regulation should establish clear procedures to ensure the free movement to goods lawfully marketed in another Member State and to ensure that free movement can be restricted only where Member States have legitimate public interest grounds for doing so and the restriction is proportionate. It ensures that existing rights and obligations deriving from the mutual recognition principle are observed, by both economic operators and national authorities.

(7)  Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 has several shortcomings, and should therefore be revised and strengthened. For the sake of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 should be replaced by this Regulation. This Regulation should establish clear procedures to ensure the free movement to goods lawfully marketed in another Member State and to ensure that free movement can be restricted only where Member States have duly justified legitimate public interest grounds for doing so and the restriction is proportionate. It ensures that existing rights and obligations deriving from the mutual recognition principle are observed, by both economic operators and national authorities.

Amendment    6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11)  It is important to clarify that the types of goods covered by this Regulation include agricultural products. The term 'agricultural products' includes products of fisheries, as provided for in Article 38(1) of the Treaty.

(11)  It is important to clarify that the types of goods covered by this Regulation include agricultural products. The term 'agricultural products' includes products of fisheries, as provided for in Article 38(1) of the Treaty. The Commission should keep and, when feasible, further develop an indicative and non-exhaustive list up to date online to help identify which types of goods are subject to this Regulation.

Amendment    7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14)  To benefit from the principle of mutual recognition, goods must be lawfully marketed in another Member State. It should be clarified that, for goods to be considered as lawfully marketed in another Member State, the goods need to comply with the relevant rules applicable in that Member State, and to be being made available to end users in that Member State.

(14)  To benefit from the principle of mutual recognition, goods must be lawfully marketed in another Member State. It should be clarified that, for goods to be considered as lawfully marketed in another Member State, the goods need to comply with the relevant rules applicable in that Member State, and to be made available to end users in that Member State.

Amendment    8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(14 a)  To raise awareness on the part of national authorities and economic operators of the principle of mutual recognition, Member States are encouraged to provide for clear and unambiguous ´single market clauses´ in their national technical rules which ensure that goods lawfully marketed in one Member State are presumed to be compatible with the national technical rules of another Member State.

Amendment    9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15)  The evidence required to demonstrate that goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State varies significantly from Member State to Member State. This causes unnecessary burdens delays and additional costs for economic operators, while preventing national authorities from obtaining the information necessary for assessing the goods in a timely manner. This may inhibit application of the mutual recognition principle. It is therefore essential to make it easier for economic operators to demonstrate that their goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State. Economic operators should be able to benefit from a process of self-declaration, which should provide competent authorities with all necessary information on the goods and on their compliance with the rules applicable in that other Member State. The use of the declaration does not prevent national authorities from taking a decision restricting market access, on the condition that such a decision is proportionate and respects the mutual recognition principle and this Regulation.

(15)  The evidence required to demonstrate that goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State varies significantly from Member State to Member State. This causes unnecessary burdens delays and additional costs for economic operators, while preventing national authorities from obtaining the information necessary for assessing the goods in a timely manner. This may inhibit application of the mutual recognition principle. It is therefore essential to make it easier for economic operators to demonstrate that their goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State. Economic operators should benefit from a process of self-declaration, which should provide competent authorities with information on the goods and on their compliance with the rules applicable in that other Member State. The use of the voluntary declaration does not prevent national authorities from taking a decision restricting market access, on the condition that such a decision is proportionate, justified and respects the mutual recognition principle and this Regulation.

Amendment    10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16)  The producer, or the producer's representative, should be responsible for filling in the information in the mutual recognition declaration as the producer knows the goods best. However, the information that the goods are being made available to end users in the relevant Member State may be in the possession of an importer or a distributor, rather than the actual producer. It should therefore be permissible for another economic operator to fill in this information in place of the producer.

(16)  The producer, or the producer's authorised representative, should be responsible for filling in the information in the mutual recognition declaration as the producer knows the goods best. However, the information that the goods are being made available to end users in the relevant Member State may be in the possession of an importer or a distributor, rather than the actual producer. It should therefore be permissible for another economic operator to fill in this information in place of the producer, provided that the economic operator takes the responsibility for the information filled into the mutual recognition declaration.

Amendment    11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18)  In order to ensure that the information provided in a mutual recognition declaration is comprehensive, a harmonised structure for such declarations should be laid down for use by economic operators wishing to make such declarations.

(18)  In order to ensure that the information provided in a mutual recognition declaration is comprehensive and truthful, a harmonised structure for such declarations should be laid down for use by economic operators wishing to make such declarations.

Amendment    12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20)  In order to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of businesses operating in the non-harmonised area, it should be possible to benefit from new information technologies for the purposes of facilitating the provision of the mutual recognition declaration. Therefore, economic operators should be able to make their declaration available online.

(20)  In order to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of businesses operating in the non-harmonised area, it should be possible to benefit from new information technologies for the purposes of facilitating the provision of the mutual recognition declaration. Therefore, economic operators should be able and encouraged to make their declaration available online and in a secure way.

Amendment    13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(20 a)  The Commission should ensure that a template for the mutual recognition declaration and relevant guidelines to complete the declaration are made available on the Single Digital Gateway in all of the official languages of the Union.

Amendment    14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(20b)  A well-functioning principle of mutual recognition is an essential complement to harmonisation at EU level, especially when taking into consideration that many products have both harmonised and non-harmonised aspects following that a considerable number of products with non-harmonised aspects exist in the internal market.

Amendment    15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22)  Where producers decide not to make use of the mutual recognition declaration mechanism, it should be for the Member State to request the information that it considers necessary for the assessment of the goods, taking due account of the principle of proportionality.

(22)  Where economic operators decide not to make use of the mutual recognition declaration mechanism, it should be for the Member State to request the specific and clearly defined information that it considers necessary for the assessment of the goods in respect of the principle of proportionality. The use of the declaration does not prevent national authorities from taking a decision restricting the access to market in accordance with this Regulation.

Amendment    16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(22 a)  The economic operator should be given appropriate time within which to submit documents or any other information requested by the competent authority of the Member State of destination, or to present any comments or arguments in relation to the assessment of the goods in question.

Amendment    17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25)  While a competent authority is assessing goods before deciding whether or not it should deny or restrict market access, it should not be able to take decisions suspending market access, except where rapid intervention is required to prevent harm to safety and health of users or to prevent the goods being made available where the making available of such goods is generally prohibited on grounds of public morality or public security, including for example the prevention of crime.

(25)  While a competent authority is assessing goods before deciding whether or not it should deny or restrict market access, it should not be able to take decisions suspending market access, except where rapid intervention is required to prevent harm to safety or health of users, persons or to the environment, or to prevent the goods being made available where the making available of such goods is generally prohibited on grounds of public morality or public security, including for example the prevention of crime.

Amendment    18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26)  Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 establishes a system of accreditation which ensures the mutual acceptance of the level of competence of conformity assessment bodies. The competent authorities of Member States should therefore not refuse test reports and certificates issued by an accredited conformity assessment body on grounds related to the competence of that body. Furthermore, in order to avoid as far as possible the duplication of tests and procedures which have been already carried out in another Member State, Member States should also accept test reports and certificates issued by other conformity assessment bodies in accordance with Union law. Competent authorities should be required to take due account of the content of the test reports or certificates presented.

(26)  Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 establishes a system of accreditation which ensures the mutual acceptance of the level of competence of conformity assessment bodies. The competent authorities of Member States should therefore not refuse test reports and certificates issued by an accredited conformity assessment body on grounds related to the competence of that body. Furthermore, in order to avoid as far as possible the duplication of tests and procedures which have been already carried out in another Member State, Member States should take due account of test reports and certificates issued by other conformity assessment bodies in accordance with Union law. Competent authorities should be required to take due account of the content of the test reports or certificates presented.

__________________

__________________

23 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30).

23 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30).

Amendment    19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30)  Any administrative decision taken by competent authorities of Member States pursuant to this Regulation should specify the remedies available so that an economic operator can bring proceedings before the competent national court or tribunal. The decision should also refer to the problem-solving procedure provided for in this Regulation.

(30)  Any administrative decision taken by competent authorities of Member States pursuant to this Regulation should specify the remedies available so that an economic operator can appeal the decision or bring proceedings before the competent national court or tribunal. The administrative decision should also refer to the possibility of economic operators to use the SOLVIT network and to have access to the problem-solving procedure provided for in Regulation.

Amendment    20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32)  The Internal Market Problem Solving Network (SOLVIT) is a service provided by the national administration in each Member State aiming to find solutions for citizens and businesses when their rights are breached by public authorities in another Member State. The principles governing the functioning of SOLVIT are set out in the Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU27 .

(32)  The Internal Market Problem Solving Network (SOLVIT) is a service provided by the national administration in each Member State aiming to find solutions for citizens and businesses when their rights are breached by public authorities in another Member State. The principles governing the functioning of SOLVIT are set out in the Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU27 . Each Member State and the Commission must ensure that a national SOLVIT centre is established and that adequate human and financial resources are available to guarantee that the SOLVIT centre takes part in the European SOLVIT network on the basis of the principles set out in the Recommendation 2013/461/EU. The Commission should increase awareness about the existence and benefits of SOLVIT, especially amongst businesses.

__________________

__________________

27 Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU of 17 September 2013 on the principles governing SOLVIT (OJ L 249, 19.9.2013, p. 10).

27 Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU of 17 September 2013 on the principles governing SOLVIT (OJ L 249, 19.9.2013, p. 10).

Amendment    21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33)  The SOLVIT system has proved to be an effective non-judicial, problem-solving mechanism that is provided free of charge. It works under short deadlines and provides practical solutions to citizens and businesses when they are experiencing difficulties with their Union rights being recognised by public authorities. Therefore, economic operators should have to rely on SOLVIT first before the problem-solving mechanism under this Regulation can be triggered. Where the economic operator, the relevant SOLVIT centre and the involved Member States in question all agree on the appropriate outcome, no further action should be required.

(33)  The SOLVIT system has the potential to be an effective non-judicial, problem-solving mechanism that is provided free of charge. It works under short deadlines and provides practical solutions to citizens and businesses when they are experiencing difficulties with their Union rights being recognised by public authorities. Therefore, economic operators should have to rely on SOLVIT first before the problem-solving mechanism under this Regulation can be triggered. Where the economic operator, the relevant SOLVIT centre and the involved Member States in question all agree on the appropriate outcome, no further action should be required.

Amendment    22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34)  However, where the SOLVIT's informal approach fails, and serious doubts remain regarding the compatibility of the administrative decision with the mutual recognition principle the Commission should be empowered to look into the matter and provide an assessment to be taken into account by the competent national authorities at the request of the SOLVIT centre. The Commission's intervention should be subject to a reasonable time-limit, in compliance with the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

(34)  However, where the SOLVIT's informal approach fails, and doubts remain regarding the compatibility of the administrative decision with the mutual recognition principle the Commission should be empowered to look into the matter and provide an assessment to be taken into account by the competent national authorities at the request of any of the SOLVIT centres. For the purposes of collecting additional information or documents necessary for completing its assessment, the Commission should inform the relevant SOLVIT centres about its communications with the economic operator or competent authority concerned. When completing an assessment, the Commission should issue an opinion to be communicated through the relevant SOLVIT centre to the economic operator concerned and to the competent authorities and to be considered during the SOLVIT procedure. The Commission's intervention should be subject to a two-months´ time-limit. The two months period does not include the time necessary for receiving the additional information and documents that might be deemed necessary. If the case is solved during this two months period, the Commission should be able to decide not to issue an opinion.

Amendment    23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(34a)  Where the Commission assesses an administrative decision, it is important for economic operators to be able to use such assessment if they bring proceedings before a national court or tribunal. Therefore, in the particular case of administrative decisions subject to this Regulation, bringing proceedings before a national court or tribunal should not prevent the economic operator from using SOLVIT.

Amendment    24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37)  In order to facilitate the free movement of goods, Product Contact Points should be required to provide information, free of charge, on their national technical rules and the application of the principle of mutual recognition. Product Contact Points should be adequately equipped and resourced. In accordance with Regulation [Single Digital Gateway – COM(2017)256] they should provide information through a website and be subject to the quality criteria required by that Regulation, and be subject to the quality criteria set out in that Regulation.

(37)  In order to facilitate the free movement of goods, Product Contact Points should be required to provide, up to a reasonable level, information, free of charge, on their national technical rules and the application of the principle of mutual recognition. Product Contact Points should be adequately equipped and resourced. In accordance with Regulation [Single Digital Gateway – COM(2017)256] they should provide information through a website and be subject to the quality criteria required by that Regulation, and be subject to the quality criteria set out in that Regulation.

Amendment    25

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38)  Cooperation between competent authorities is essential for the smooth functioning of the mutual recognition principle and for creating a mutual recognition culture. Product Contact Points and national competent authorities should therefore be required to cooperate and exchange information and expertise in order to ensure a correct and consistent application of the principle and of this Regulation.

(38)  Cooperation between competent authorities is essential for the smooth functioning of the mutual recognition principle and for creating a mutual recognition culture. Product Contact Points and national competent authorities should therefore be required to cooperate and exchange information and expertise in order to ensure a correct and consistent application of the principle and of this Regulation. The Union should finance activities aiming at enhancing this cooperation between competent authorities such as trainings and exchanges of good practices.

Amendment    26

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 43

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(43)  For the purposes of raising awareness about the mutual recognition principle and ensuring that this Regulation is applied correctly and consistently, the Union should finance awareness-raising campaigns and other related activities aiming at enhancing trust and cooperation between competent authorities and economic operators.

(43)  For the purposes of raising awareness about the mutual recognition principle and ensuring that this Regulation is applied correctly and consistently, the Union should finance awareness-raising campaigns and other related activities aiming at enhancing trust and cooperation between competent authorities, trade associations and economic operators.

Amendment    27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

-1.  The aim of this Regulation is to strengthen the functioning of the internal market by improving the application of the mutual recognition principle and by removing unjustified barriers to trade.

Amendment    28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  This Regulation applies to goods of any type, including agricultural products, and to administrative decisions taken or to be taken by a competent authority of a Member State ('the Member State of destination') in relation to any such goods lawfully marketed in another Member State, where the decision meets the following criteria:

1.  This Regulation applies to goods of any type, including agricultural products, and to administrative decisions taken or to be taken by a competent authority of a Member State ('the Member State of destination') in relation to any such goods lawfully marketed in another Member State, where the decision meets both of the following criteria:

Amendment    29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)  the provision either prohibits the making available of goods, or a type of goods, on the domestic market in that Member State or else it makes compliance with the provision compulsory, de facto or de jure, whenever goods, or goods of a given type, are being made available on that market;

(b)  the provision either prohibits the making available of goods, or a type of goods, on the market in that Member State or else it makes compliance with the provision compulsory, de facto or de jure, whenever goods, or goods of a given type, are being made available on that market;

Amendment    30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point c – point ii

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ii)  it imposes on those goods, or goods of that type, other requirements that are imposed for the purposes of protecting consumers or the environment and that affect the life-cycle of the goods after they have been made available on the domestic market in that Member State, such as conditions of use, recycling, reuse or disposal, where such conditions can significantly influence either the composition or nature of the goods, or type of goods, or the making available of them on the domestic market in that Member State.

(ii)  it imposes on those goods, or goods of that type, other requirements that are imposed for the purposes of protecting consumers or the environment and that affect the life-cycle of the goods after they have been made available on the market in that Member State, such as conditions of use, recycling, reuse or disposal, where such conditions can significantly influence either the composition or nature of the goods, or type of goods, or the making available of them on the market in that Member State.

Amendment    31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

This Regulation is without prejudice to the Directive (EU) 2015/1535 and the obligation to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission and the Member States prior to their adoption.

Amendment    32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  Article 8(1)(d) to (f) or Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/95/EC;

(a)  Article 8(1)(d) to (f) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/95/EC;

Amendment    33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2)  'making available on the domestic market in a Member State' means any supply of the goods for distribution, consumption or use on the market within the territory of that Member State in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;

(2)  'making available on the market in a Member State' means any supply of the goods for distribution, consumption or use on the market within the territory of that Member State in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;

Amendment    34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3)  'restricting market access' means imposing conditions to be fulfilled before the goods can be made available on the domestic market in the relevant Member State, or conditions for keeping the goods on that market, which in either case require the modification of one or more of the characteristics of those goods, as described in Article 2(3)(c)(i), or the performance of additional testing;

(3)  'restricting market access' means imposing conditions to be fulfilled before the goods can be made available on the market in the relevant Member State, or conditions for keeping the goods on that market, which in either case require the modification of one or more of the characteristics of those goods, as described in Article 2(3)(c)(i), or the performance of additional testing;

Amendment    35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  prohibiting the goods from being made available on the domestic market in the relevant Member State or from being kept on that market;

(a)  prohibiting the goods from being made available on the market in the relevant Member State or from being kept on that market;

Amendment    36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5)  'prior authorisation' means an administrative procedure under the law of a Member State whereby the competent authority of that Member State is required, on the basis of an application by an economic operator, to give its formal approval before goods may be made available on the domestic market in that Member State;

(5)  'prior authorisation' means an administrative procedure under the law of a Member State whereby the competent authority of that Member State is required, on the basis of an application by an economic operator, to give its formal approval before goods may be made available on the market in that Member State;

Amendment    37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6)  'producer' means any natural or legal person who manufactures the goods or has the goods designed or manufactured, and markets them under his name or trademark, or any other natural or legal person who, by putting his name, trademark or other distinguishing feature on the goods presents himself as its producer;

(6)  'producer' means any natural or legal person who manufactures the goods or has the goods designed or manufactured, and markets them under his name or trademark, any natural or legal person who modifies goods already lawfully marketed in a Member State in such a way that compliance with the relevant rules applicable in that Member State might be affected, or any other natural or legal person who, by putting his name, trademark or other distinguishing feature on the goods, including agricultural products, which were not obtained by a manufacturing process, presents himself as its producer;

Amendment    38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7)  'authorised representative' means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from the producer to act on the producer's behalf with regard to the making available of the goods on the domestic market in question;

(7)  'authorised representative' means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from the producer to act on the producer's behalf with regard to the making available of the goods on the market in question;

Amendment    39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9)  'distributor' means any natural or legal person in the supply chain established in the Union, other than the producer or the importer, who makes the goods available on the domestic market in the relevant Member State;

(9)  'distributor' means any natural or legal person in the supply chain established in the Union, other than the producer or the importer, who makes the goods available on the market in the relevant Member State;

Amendment    40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12a)  ‘conformity assessment body’ means conformity assessment body as defined in point 13 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) 765/2008.

Amendment    41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12b)  ‘serious risk’ means any serious risk, including those the effects of which are not immediate, requiring rapid intervention by the public authorities.

Amendment    42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The producer of goods, or goods of a given type, that are being or are to be made available on the domestic market in a Member State ('the Member State of destination') may draw up a declaration (a 'mutual recognition declaration') in order to demonstrate to the competent authorities of the Member State of destination that the goods, or goods of that type, are lawfully marketed in another Member State.

The producer of goods, or goods of a given type, that are being or are to be made available on the market in a Member State ('the Member State of destination') may draw up a voluntary declaration of lawful marketing for the purposes of mutual recognition (hereinafter reffered to as 'mutual recognition declaration') in order to demonstrate to the competent authorities of the Member State of destination during the assessment of goods pursuant to Article 5, that the goods, or goods of that type, are lawfully marketed in another Member State.

Amendment    43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Alternatively, the producer may mandate his authorised representative to draw up the declaration on his behalf.

The producer may mandate his authorised representative to draw up the declaration on his behalf provided that the mandate explicitly mentions it.

Amendment    44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the mutual recognition declaration, the specific information related to the marketing of the goods or type of goods may, however, be filled in by any economic operator.

Alternatively, within the mutual recognition declaration, or the specific information of that declaration related to the marketing of the goods or type of goods may, however, be filled in by any economic operator, provided that the relevant signatory can supply the evidence supporting the information of that declaration.

Amendment    45

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The declaration shall be completed in one of the official languages of the Union and, where that language is not the language required by the Member State of destination, it shall be translated by the economic operators into the language or languages required by the Member State of destination.

The declaration shall be completed in one of the official languages of the Union and, where that language is not the language required by the Member State of destination, it shall be translated by the economic operators into the language required by the Member State of destination.

Amendment    46

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  Economic operators shall be responsible for the content and accuracy of the information that they themselves provide in the mutual recognition declaration.

3.  Economic operators who complete the declaration shall be responsible for the content and accuracy of the information, including translated information, that they themselves provide in the mutual recognition declaration. With this regard, economic operators shall be liable in accordance with national laws for providing declarations containing false or misleading information.

Amendment    47

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.  The mutual recognition declaration may be supplied to the competent authority of the Member State of destination for the purposes of an assessment to be carried out under Article 5. It may be supplied either in paper form or by electronic means.

5.  The mutual recognition declaration may be supplied to the competent authority of the Member State of destination for the purposes of an assessment to be carried out under Article 5. It may be supplied either in paper form or by electronic means or be made available online.

Amendment    48

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 6 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6.  Economic operators may make the declaration available on a website, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

6.  Where economic operators make the declaration available online, the following conditions shall be satisfied:

Amendment    49

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  the declaration, together with any evidence reasonably required by the competent authority to verify the information contained in it, shall be accepted by the competent authority as sufficient to demonstrate that the goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State; and

(a)  the declaration together with supporting evidence in response to a reasoned request by the competent authority to verify the information contained in it, shall be accepted by the competent authority as sufficient to demonstrate that the goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State; and

Amendment    50

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 8 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8.  If a mutual recognition declaration is not supplied to a competent authority of the Member State of destination in accordance with the requirements of this Article, the competent authority may request any of the economic operators to provide the following documentation and information in order to demonstrate for the purposes of an assessment under Article 5 that the goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State:

8.  If a mutual recognition declaration is not supplied to a competent authority of the Member State of destination in accordance with the requirements of this Article, the competent authority may request the relevant economic operator to provide the following documentation and information in order to demonstrate for the purposes of an assessment under Article 5 that the goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State:

Amendment    51

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 8 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  any relevant information concerning the characteristics of the goods or type of goods in question;

(a)  relevant information concerning the characteristics of the goods or type of goods in question that is necessary for the assessment;

Amendment    52

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 8 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)  any relevant information on the lawful marketing of the goods in another Member State;

(b)  relevant information on the lawful marketing of the goods in another Member State that is necessary for the assessment;

Amendment    53

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 8 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)  any other information the competent authority considers useful for the purposes of its assessment.

(c)  other relevant information the competent authority considers necessary for the purposes of its assessment, provided that such requests are duly justified.

Amendment    54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9.  Where the goods for which the mutual recognition declaration is being supplied are also subject to a Union act requiring an EU declaration of conformity, the mutual recognition declaration may be included as part of that EU declaration of conformity.

9.  Where the goods for which the mutual recognition declaration is being supplied are also subject to a Union act requiring an EU declaration of conformity, the mutual recognition declaration may be attached to the EU declaration of conformity.

Amendment    55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  Where a competent authority of a Member State has doubts as regards goods which the economic operator claims are lawfully marketed in another Member State, the competent authority shall contact the relevant economic operator without delay and shall carry out an assessment the goods.

1.  Where a competent authority of a the Member State of destination has reasonable doubts as to whether goods that are made available or are going to be made available on its market are lawfully marketed in another Member State, the competent authority shall contact the competent authority of that other Member State and the relevant economic operator without delay and shall carry out an assessment of the goods.

Amendment    56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The purpose of the assessment is to establish whether the goods or that type of goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State and, if so, whether the legitimate public interests covered by the applicable national technical rule of the Member State of destination are adequately protected having regard to the characteristics of the goods in question.

Amendment    57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  Where, on completion of an assessment under paragraph 1, the competent authority of a Member State takes an administrative decision with respect to the goods, it shall communicate its decision within 20 working days to the relevant economic operator referred to in paragraph 1, to the Commission and to the other Member States. Notification to the Commission and to the other Member States shall be done by means of the system referred to in Article 11.

3.  Where, on completion of an assessment under paragraph 1, the competent authority of a Member State takes an administrative decision with respect to the goods, it shall communicate its decision without delay and no later than within 15 working days to the relevant economic operator referred to in paragraph 1, to the Commission and to the other Member States. Notification to the Commission and to the other Member States shall be done by means of the system referred to in Article 11.

Amendment    58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.  The administrative decision referred to in paragraph 3 shall set out the reasons for the decision in a manner that is sufficiently detailed and reasoned to enable an assessment to be made of its compatibility with the mutual recognition principle and with the requirements of this Regulation.

4.  The administrative decision referred to in paragraph 3 shall set out the reasons for the decision in a manner that is sufficiently detailed and reasoned to facilitate an assessment to be made of its compatibility with the mutual recognition principle and with the requirements of this Regulation.

Amendment    59

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  the national technical rule on which the decision is based;

(a)  the national technical rule on which the decision is based, including the date and the number of the notification of the draft of that technical rule pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535;

Amendment    60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)  the legitimate public interest ground on which the decision is justified;

(b)  the legitimate public interest ground justifying the application of the national technical rule on which the administrative decision is based;

Amendment    61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)  the evidence demonstrating that the decision is appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.

(e)  the evidence demonstrating that the administrative decision is appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.

Amendment    62

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6.  The administrative decision referred to in paragraph 3 shall specify the remedies available under the law in force in the Member State concerned and the time limits applicable to those remedies, and it shall also include a reference to the procedure under Article 8.

6.  The administrative decision referred to in paragraph 3 shall clearly specify the remedies available under the law in force in the Member State concerned and the time limits applicable to those remedies, and it shall also include a reference to the procedure under Article 8.

Amendment    63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  While the competent authority of a Member State is carrying out an assessment of goods pursuant to Article 5, it shall not temporarily suspend the making available of those goods on the domestic market in that Member State, except in one or the other of the following situations:

1.  While the competent authority of a Member State is carrying out an assessment of goods pursuant to Article 5, it may temporarily suspend the making available of those goods on the market in that Member State, only in one or the other of the following situations:

Amendment    64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, the goods pose a serious risk, including one where the effects are not immediate, which requires rapid intervention by the competent authority;

(a)  under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, the goods pose a serious risk to safety or health of users, persons or to the environment, including one where the effects are not immediate, which requires rapid intervention by the competent authority;

Amendment    65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)  the making available of the goods, or goods of that type, on the domestic market in that Member State is generally prohibited in that Member State on grounds of public morality or public security.

(b)  the making available of the goods, or goods of that type, on the market in that Member State is generally prohibited in that Member State on grounds of public morality or public security.

Amendment    66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.  The competent authority of the Member State shall immediately notify the relevant economic operator, the Commission and the other Member States of any suspension pursuant to paragraph 1. The notification to the Commission and other Member States shall be made by means of the system referred to in Article 11. In cases falling within point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the notification shall be accompanied by a technical or scientific justification demonstrating why the case is considered to fall within that point.

2.  The competent authority of the Member State shall immediately notify the relevant economic operator, the Commission and the other Member States of any suspension pursuant to paragraph 1. The notification to the Commission and other Member States shall be made by means of the system referred to in Article 11. In cases falling within point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the notification shall be accompanied by a detailed technical or scientific justification demonstrating that the goods pose a serious risk.

Amendment    67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  If the administrative decision referred to in Article 5 or the temporary suspension referred to in Article 6 is also a measure which is required to be notified through RAPEX as referred to in the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC, a separate notification to the Commission under this Regulation is not required, provided that the following conditions are met:

1.  If the administrative decision referred to in Article 5 or the temporary suspension referred to in Article 6 is also a measure which is required to be notified through RAPEX as referred to in the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC, a separate notification to the Commission and to the other Member States under this Regulation is not required, provided that the following conditions are met:

Amendment    68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  This Article applies if an economic operator affected by an administrative decision has submitted the decision to the Internal Market Problem Solving Network (SOLVIT) and, during the SOLVIT procedure, the Home Centre asks the Commission to give an opinion to assist in solving the case.

1.  This Article applies if an economic operator affected by an administrative decision has submitted the decision to the Internal Market Problem Solving Network (SOLVIT) and, during the SOLVIT procedure, the Home Centre or the Lead Centre asks the Commission to give an opinion to assist in solving the case. SOLVIT home and lead centres as well as the economic operator shall provide the Commission with all relevant documents relative to the decision at stake. The Commission may also give an opinion on its own initiative.

Amendment    69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.  The Commission shall, within three months of receipt of the request referred to in paragraph 1, enter into communication with the relevant economic operator or operators and the competent authorities who took the administrative decision in order to assess the compatibility of the administrative decision with the principle of mutual recognition and this Regulation.

2.  The Commission shall, without undue delay, consider the documents and information provided within the SOLVIT procedure in order to assess the compatibility of the administrative decision with the principle of mutual recognition and this Regulation. Where additional information is needed for the purposes of the assessment referred to above, the Commission shall, without undue delay, request the relevant SOLVIT Centre to enter into communication with the relevant economic operator or operators and the competent authorities.

Amendment    70

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  Following completion of its assessment, the Commission may issue an opinion identifying concerns that should, in its view, be addressed in the SOLVIT case and, where appropriate, making recommendations to assist in solving the case.

3.  Within two months of receipt of the request referred to in paragraph 1 the Commission shall complete its assessment and issue an opinion identifying concerns that should, in its view, be addressed in the SOLVIT case and, where appropriate, making recommendations to assist in solving the case. The two months period does not include the time necessary for receiving the additional information and documents as provided for in paragraph 2.

Amendment    71

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Where, during the assessment referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission is informed that the case is solved, it may decide not to issue an opinion.

Amendment    72

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.  The Commission's opinion shall be considered during the SOLVIT procedure referred to in paragraph 1.

4.  The Commission's opinion shall be communicated to all parties involved in the case as well as to the Member State’s competent authorities responsible for market control activities by means of the system referred to in Article 11. The opinion shall be taken into account during the SOLVIT procedure referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment    73

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Recourse to national remedies by economic operators shall neither affect their possibility to use SOLVIT nor the Home Centre's possibility to seek an opinion as referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment    74

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  Where necessary to complement the information provided online under paragraph 2, Product Contact Points shall provide, at the request of an economic operator or a competent authority of another Member State, any useful information, such as an electronic copy of or an electronic link to the national technical rules applicable to specific goods or a specific type of goods in the territory in which the Product Contact Point is established and information as whether that the goods or goods of that type are subject to a requirement for prior authorisation under national law.

3.  Where necessary to complement the information provided online under paragraph 2, Product Contact Points shall provide, at the request of an economic operator or a competent authority of another Member State, any useful information, such as an electronic copy of or an electronic link to the national technical rules and national administrative procedures applicable to specific goods or a specific type of goods in the territory in which the Product Contact Point is established and information as whether that the goods or goods of that type are subject to a requirement for prior authorisation under national law.

Amendment    75

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.  For the purpose of paragraph 1, the Commission shall establish a Coordination Group (the ‘Group’). The Group shall be composed of representatives from the competent authorities and the Product Contact Points of the Member States.

 

The tasks of the Group shall include:

 

(a) facilitate the exchange of information, best practices and other relevant aspects of control activities in Member States;

 

(b) support the functioning of the Product Contact Points and enhance their cross-border cooperation;

 

(c) provide Commission contributions and feedback to any guidance on the concept of overriding reasons of public interest and recommendations, as well as best practices in order to encourage consistent application of this Regulation;

 

(d) facilitate and coordinate exchange of officials among Member States, especially with regard to particularly problematic sectors;

 

(e) facilitate and coordinate the organisation of common training programmes for authorities and businesses.

Amendment    76

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities and Product Contact Points participate in the activities referred to in paragraph 1.

3.  Each Member State shall inform the Commission of the identity of the representatives appointed from that Member State to the Group. Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities and Product Contact Points participate in the activities referred to in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2a.

Amendment    77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  The Union may finance the following activities in support of this Regulation:

1.  The Union shall finance the following activities in support of this Regulation:

Amendment    78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)  the functioning of cooperation amongst Product Contact Points and the technical and logistic support for this cooperation;

(d)  exchange of good practices;

Amendment    79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  By (…), and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation against the objectives it pursues and shall submit a report thereon to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee.

1.  By (…), and every two years thereafter, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation against the objectives it pursues and shall submit a report thereon to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee.

Amendment    80

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1 a.  Name and address of the economic operator drawing up the mutual recognition declaration

Amendment    81

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point 4.1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.1.  The goods or type of goods described above comply with the relevant rules applicable in the Member State identified below: The title, in each case, of the relevant rules applicable in that Member State:

4.1.  The goods or type of goods described above, including their characteristics, comply with the relevant rules applicable in the Member State identified below: The title, in each case, of the relevant rules applicable in that Member State:

(1)

  OJ C ...


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The single market for goods is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. Achieving a deeper and fairer single market is one of the key political priorities of the European Union together with the implementation of the Single Market Strategy. The free movement of goods is the most developed fundamental freedom generating 25 % of EU GDP and 75 % of intra-EU trade. However, the single market for goods is still not completed. If there are no common rules on the single market such as for products that do not fall under harmonised EU product safety rules or only fall partially under such rules, the principle of mutual recognition should apply. However, the current framework has not proven sufficient to ensure consistent and effective application of the mutual recognition principle.

Therefore, the European Commission announced in its 2017 Commission Work Programme a proposal for the 'Goods Package' that will comprehensively revamp and facilitate the use of mutual recognition in the Single market, hence addressing these weaknesses for a better functioning of the single market for goods.

The principle of mutual recognition requires that goods lawfully marketed in one Member State should not be prohibited in another Member State, unless the latter has justified reasons for banning or restricting the sale. Mutual recognition applies to products not subject to Union harmonisation legislation or only partly covered by it, such as a wide range of consumer products (textile, footwear, childcare articles, jewellery, tableware or furniture).

The new mutual recognition regulation should clarify and simplify the procedures to be followed by businesses and national authorities and improve the functioning of mutual recognition.

Market access based on mutual recognition should only be denied if there is a legitimate and proportionate public interest at stake. Moreover, it is necessary to clarify the scope of mutual recognition and clearly define when it is applicable to increase legal certainty for businesses and national authorities as to when the mutual recognition principle can be used.

The voluntary ‘mutual recognition declaration’ to be completed by economic operators should help businesses demonstrate that their product already meets the requirements of another Member State, reassure the authorities and facilitate cross-border cooperation. The introduction of a self-declaration to facilitate the demonstration of a product being already lawfully marketed will increase legal certainty about the application of mutual recognition and facilitate its application by businesses.

Setting up administrative cooperation will enhance communication and trust among national authorities, and thus facilitate the functioning of mutual recognition. Those involved in mutual recognition do not communicate sufficiently well with each other. This is often because powers and responsibilities for specific regulations are scattered, which complicates navigation around these — often very technical — matters. Therefore, the Product Contact Points should be reinforced as the communication channel for mutual recognition.

The Rapporteur proposes to enhance the cross-border cooperation by establishing a Coordination Group composed of the representatives from the competent authorities and the Product Contact Points of the Member States.

The new mutual recognition proposal also introduces a problem solving procedure to provide effective remedies and re-establish trust in mutual recognition. The existing SOLVIT mechanism should be used as the main problem solving procedure. SOLVIT is a service provided by the national administration in each EU Member State. It helps business when their rights are breached by national authorities in another EU Member State, by aiming at finding a solution. Thus, SOLVIT may be used, as an alternative to court proceedings, by businesses when facing a national decision denying or restricting market access on the basis of the mutual recognition principle.

The proposal should strengthen the European level and the role of the European Commission in the mutual recognition by giving the European Commission obligation to issue opinion on the cases presented to SOLVIT network. Moreover, the European Commission should work more closely with specific countries and sectors to make mutual recognition work. The Commission should also further assess the possible benefits for businesses and national authorities by further developing the existing product list for mutual recognition and provide a guidance on how to apply the principle of mutual recognition. Finally, Member States should continue to explicitly provide for mutual recognition in their national technical rules, but they should do so in a comprehensible manner. Therefore, the Rapporteur encourages Member States to insert a clear and unambiguous ‘single market clause’ in national technical regulations, and develop specific guidance for its use.

The Rapporteur welcomes the proposal and believes that the improvement of the system for the mutual recognition of goods will simplify the procedures for businesses and national authorities and decrease the administrative burdens for businesses allowing them to benefit from the free movement of goods on the Single Market of the European Union.


PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Title

Mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State

References

COM(2017)0796 – C8-0005/2018 – 2017/0354(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

20.12.2017

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

IMCO

5.2.2018

 

 

 

Committees asked for opinions

       Date announced in plenary

ITRE

5.2.2018

JURI

5.2.2018

 

 

Not delivering opinions

       Date of decision

ITRE

23.1.2018

JURI

24.1.2018

 

 

Rapporteurs

       Date appointed

Ivan Štefanec

23.1.2018

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

22.1.2018

16.5.2018

18.6.2018

11.7.2018

Date adopted

3.9.2018

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

31

1

1

Members present for the final vote

John Stuart Agnew, Pascal Arimont, Daniel Dalton, Nicola Danti, Pascal Durand, Maria Grapini, Liisa Jaakonsaari, Philippe Juvin, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Morten Løkkegaard, Eva Maydell, Nosheena Mobarik, Marcus Pretzell, Virginie Rozière, Christel Schaldemose, Andreas Schwab, Olga Sehnalová, Jasenko Selimovic, Igor Šoltes, Ivan Štefanec, Catherine Stihler, Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, Mylène Troszczynski, Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Marco Zullo

Substitutes present for the final vote

Birgit Collin-Langen, Roberta Metsola, Adam Szejnfeld, Sabine Verheyen, Kerstin Westphal

Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote

Isabella De Monte, Michael Detjen, Michaela Šojdrová

Date tabled

6.9.2018


FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

31

+

ALDE

Morten Løkkegaard, Jasenko Selimovic

ECR

Daniel Dalton, Nosheena Mobarik, Anneleen Van Bossuyt

EFDD

Marco Zullo

ENF

Mylène Troszczynski

PPE

Pascal Arimont, Birgit Collin-Langen, Philippe Juvin, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Eva Maydell, Roberta Metsola, Andreas Schwab, Michaela Šojdrová, Ivan Štefanec, Adam Szejnfeld, Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, Sabine Verheyen

S&D

Nicola Danti, Isabella De Monte, Michael Detjen, Maria Grapini, Liisa Jaakonsaari, Virginie Rozière, Christel Schaldemose, Olga Sehnalová, Catherine Stihler, Kerstin Westphal

VERTS/ALE

Pascal Durand, Igor Šoltes

1

-

EFDD

John Stuart Agnew

1

0

ENF

Marcus Pretzell

Key to symbols:

+  :  in favour

-  :  against

0  :  abstention

Last updated: 7 September 2018Legal notice