Annexes to SEC(2009)1704 - Accompanying document to theREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEETHE OPERATION OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC FROM 2006 TO 2008 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | SEC(2009)1704 - Accompanying document to theREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC ... |
|---|---|
| document | SEC(2009)1704  |
| date | December 21, 2009 |
Annex 1 – procedures for standardisation 3
1. Information procedure 3
1.1. Role of ESOs 3
2. Mandates 3
2.1. The consultation process 3
2.2. Role of ESOs 3
3. Formal objections 3
Annex 2 Breakdown of new national standardisation activities from notifications (CEN and CENELEC) 2006-2008 by state 4
Annex 3 Breakdown of new national standardisation activities from notifications (CEN and CENELEC) 1999-2008 by group of countries 5
Annex 4 Sectoral breakdown of notifications 6
Annex 5 Mandates 2006-2008 – total 7
Annex 6 Mandates by subject area 8
Annex 7 Commission Decisions on formal objections 2006-2008 9
Annex 8 Brief description of the notification procedure 11
Annex 9 Developments in Court of Justice case-law on the matter 2006-2008 13
Annex 10 Application of the procedure 2006-2008: notifications of technical regulations submitted by the member states 14
10.1 Volume of notifications during the 2006-2008 period 15
10.2 Breakdown by country 16
10.3 Breakdown by sector 20
10.4 Commission reactions: comments and detailed opinions 2006-2008 (Articles 8(2) and 9(2) of the Directive) 23
10.5 Commission reactions: blockages 2006-2008 (Articles 9(3) and 9(4) of the Directive) 24
10.6 Member State reactions 25
10.7 Urgency Procedure (Article 9(7) of the Directive) 26
10.8 Follow-up to Commission reactions 29
Annex 11 Application of the procedure 2006-2008: participation of EFTA countries signatory to the EEA Agreement, of Switzerland and of Turkey 30
Annex 12 – Internet consultations 2006-2008 31
Annex 1 – procedures for standardisation
1.Information procedure
1.1.Role of ESOs
The NSBs, which are members of CEN and CENELEC (including bodies from the EFTA countries), send the necessary information to the CEN Management Centre and the Central Secretariat of CENELEC. The information gathered is sent monthly (except in the summer and over the end of year period) by CEN and quarterly by CENELEC to the Commission (DG Enterprise and Industry), all the members of CEN and CENELEC and to ETSI.
Within the Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry disseminates both the regular returns and the annual reports of CEN and CENELEC to relevant services.
ETSI takes part in the information procedure, although its role is limited to receiving and examining the information submitted by CEN and CENELEC members via the secretariats of these two bodies..
2.Mandates
2.1.The consultation process
The Commission requests the political and technical endorsement of its policy in a particular area from the Member States. This is achieved by means of a consultation, firstly informally with the standardisation bodies, stakeholders and Member States through sectoral committees or expert groups and then formally with the Member States through the Standing Committee. The consultation process is co-ordinated by DG Enterprise and Industry. The Committee gives its opinion on the draft mandate, an opinion that is fully respected by the Commission services and that is acted upon wherever reasonable and possible. Following this consultation – and any amendment arising from it – the mandates are forwarded to the relevant ESOs for acceptance.
2.2.Role of ESOs
The ESOs may accept the mandate as issued by the Commission services, or indeed not accept it if they so wish, a decision made at Technical Board level. In practice, as mandates are discussed with the ESOs prior to their being issued, refusal is very rare and mandates are usually only not accepted if the work is outside the scope of the ESO.
The mandates can be addressed to any one of the ESOs, or any combination of them, as the work envisaged requires.
It is common for the ESOs to request co-funding for the mandated work following acceptance – by means of action grants – although the issuance of the mandate itself does not mean funding will necessarily be available and the request for funding must undergo a thorough evaluation process by the Commission services.
3.Formal objections
The procedure begins with the formal objection either being received by the Commission through the Permanent Representation or being launched by the Commission itself. The documents are then circulated to the Committee, and normally a Member State expert group is consulted for opinion also. Once a draft Commission Decision is ready, this is consulted with the Committee. After receiving a positive opinion, the Decision is processed further.
Annex 2 Breakdown of new national standardisation activities from
notifications (CEN and CENELEC) 2006-2008 by state
| Country | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | Total |
| AT | 357 | 219 | 219 | 795 |
| BE | 6 | 50 | 50 | 106 |
| BG | na | 25 | 25 | 50 |
| CH | 27 | 34 | 14 | 75 |
| CY | na | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CZ | 23 | 55 | 56 | 134 |
| DE | 503 | 450 | 448 | 1401 |
| DK | 8 | 9 | 9 | 26 |
| EE | 16 | 10 | 10 | 36 |
| ES | 190 | 131 | 129 | 450 |
| FI | 10 | 11 | 11 | 32 |
| FR | 238 | 243 | 242 | 723 |
| GR | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| HU | 11 | 11 | 11 | 33 |
| IE | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| IS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IT | 107 | 132 | 133 | 372 |
| LU | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LT | 19 | 18 | 18 | 55 |
| LV | 14 | 18 | 18 | 50 |
| MT | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| NL | 64 | 56 | 56 | 176 |
| NO | 20 | 19 | 19 | 58 |
| PL | 69 | 65 | 65 | 199 |
| PT | 13 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| RU | 32 | 150 | 150 | 332 |
| SE | 9 | 14 | 14 | 37 |
| SI | 6 | 28 | 28 | 62 |
| SK | 45 | 19 | 19 | 83 |
| UK | 127 | 153 | 145 | 425 |
| CEN | 1905 | 1904 | 1835 | 5644 |
| CENELEC | 16 | 20 | 56 | 92 |
| From EU-15 | 1638 | 1472 | 1458 | 4568 |
| From EU-12 | 236 | 399 | 400 | 1035 |
| From EFTA | 47 | 53 | 33 | 133 |
| TOTAL | 1921 | 1924 | 1891 | 5736 |
Annex 3 Breakdown of new national standardisation activities from
notifications (CEN and CENELEC) 1999-2008 by group of countries
Annex 4 Sectoral breakdown of notifications
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |||
| CEN | |||||
| Building and construction - Structures 115 | 115 | Building and construction – Structures | 135 | Food products | 192 |
| Water quality and water supply | 73 | Surgical instruments | 126 | Building and constructin - Structures | 123 |
| Building and construction - Undetermined | 70 | Food products | 78 | Building and constructin - Fire protection | 77 |
| Building and construction - Fire protection | 57 | Air quality | 77 | Aerospace | 71 |
| Food products | 55 | Waterproofing materials | 59 | Building and construction – Undetermined | 67 |
| Small tools | 39 | Road Building and Maintenance | 54 | Road Building and Maintenance | 55 |
| Furniture | 38 | Building and construction – Undetermined | 52 | Fasteners | 47 |
| Road Building and Maintenance | 35 | Building and construction – Fire protection | 51 | Small tools | 46 |
| Building and construction - Thermal matters | 34 | Petroleum products | 36 | Light alloys | 45 |
| Chemicals and chemical engineering | 30 | Water quality and water supply | 35 | Water quality and water supply | 39 |
Annex 5 Mandates 2006-2008 – total
| Type | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | Total |
| After formal objection (New Approach) | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| Amendments (New Approach) | 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| New Approach mandates | 5 | 7 | 2 | 14 |
| Mandates under other legislation | 7 | 5 | 9 | 21 |
| Mandates under Community policy | 4 | 6 | 6 | 16 |
| Total | 24 | 20 | 18 | 62 |
Annex 6 Mandates by subject area
| Subject | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | Total |
| Services | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ICT | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Energy | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Transport | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Environment | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| Consumer protection | 4 | 0 | 4 | 8 |
| Other | 0 | 6 | 5 | 11 |
| New Approach | 12 | 9 | 3 | 24 |
| Total | 24 | 20 | 18 | 62 |
Annex 7 Commission Decisions on formal objections 2006-2008
Annex 8 Brief description of the notification procedure
This annex gives a general overview of the notification procedure for products and indicates the specific procedural characteristics that apply to Information Society services. For a more detailed description of the procedure, please refer to the information brochure Guide to the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, available on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris.
Legal bases
Introduced in 1984 by Directive 83/189/EEC1, the notification procedure in the field of technical regulations has gradually been extended to all industrial, agricultural and fishery products. In 1998, Directive 83/189/EEC was repealed and codified by Directive 98/34/EC2, which in turn was amended by Directive 98/48/EC3 in order to extend the notification procedure to Information Society services, with the adaptations needed to take account of the demands of the sector.
Obligation to notify and the standstill period
Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC (hereinafter "the Directive") stipulates that the Member States shall inform the Commission of any draft technical regulation prior to its adoption. The simple transposition of a Community act does not require prior notification, unless the national authorities adopt national provisions that go beyond mere compliance with Community acts and that contain technical regulations within the meaning of the Directive (Article 10 of the Directive).
Starting from the date of notification of the draft, a three-month standstill period – during which the notifying Member State cannot adopt the technical regulation in question – enables the Commission and the other Member States to examine the notified text and to respond appropriately. The only derogation to this rule is linked to the nature of the measure in question: for technical specifications linked to fiscal or financial measures, there is no standstill period. This also applies to technical regulations that have to be adopted urgently (see below).
Possible reactions and consequences
Where it emerges that the notified drafts are liable to create barriers to the free movement of goods or to the free provision of Information Society services (Articles 28-30, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty) or to secondary legislation, the Commission and the other Member States may submit a detailed opinion to the Member State that has prepared the draft (Article 9(2) of the Directive). The detailed opinion has the effect of extending the standstill period by an additional three months. The Commission and the Member States can also make comments about a notified draft that appears to comply with Community law but that requires clarification in its interpretation (Article 8(2)). The Commission can also block a draft for a period of 12 months if Community harmonisation work is due to be undertaken or is already underway in the same field (Article 9(3) to (5)).
In the event of a detailed opinion being issued, the Member State concerned informs the Commission of the action that it intends to take in response to the detailed opinion, and the Commission comments on that reaction (Article 9(2)). With regard to the comments, even though the Directive does not lay down any legal obligation for the Member State receiving the comments to indicate what follow-up action it intends to take, the Member States are inclined to respond, thus making the procedure a genuine instrument of dialogue.
Urgency procedure
Article 9(7) of the Directive describes an emergency procedure, which is designed to allow the immediate adoption of a national draft, subject to a closed list of certain conditions that must be clearly indicated at the time of notification (‘serious and unforeseeable circumstances relating to the protection of public health or safety, the protection of animals or the preservation of plants'). The aim of the emergency procedure is to enable a notifying Member State faced with serious or unforeseeable circumstances immediately to adopt the draft technical regulation, without having to wait for the three-month standstill. The Commission decides on the justification for the emergency procedure as soon as possible. If the request to apply the emergency procedure is accepted by the Commission, the time limit for the 98/34 procedure does not apply, and the notified text can be adopted. Nevertheless, any examination of the substance of the text can subsequently be carried out, as part of infringement proceedings for breach of Community law.
Communication of final texts
At the end of the 98/34 procedure, the Member States are bound to inform the Commission of final texts as soon as those texts have been adopted and to indicate cases in which the notified draft has been abandoned, in order to allow the 98/34 procedure to be closed (Article 8(3) of the Directive).
‘Technical standards and regulations’ committee
The Standing Committee laid down in Article 5 of the Directive consists of representatives appointed by the Member States and is chaired by a representative of the Commission. In its ‘Technical standards and regulations’ configuration, the Committee meets regularly and constitutes a forum for discussing all issues connected with the application of the directive.
Application of the 98/34 procedure to Information Society services
The 98/34 procedure also applies to Information Society services, with the following adaptations: a) in the event of a detailed opinion being issued, the total standstill period is four months from the date of the communication, instead of the six months stipulated for products; b) the Commission can only block the draft for a maximum of 12 months if the subject of the draft is already covered by an EU Council proposal and if the notified text contains provisions that do not comply with the proposal drafted by the Commission; c) the emergency procedure can be invoked not only under the circumstances stipulated for products ('serious and unforeseeable circumstances') but also 'for urgent reasons ...relating to public safety'.
The simplified procedure
EFTA countries that are contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, apply the 98/34 procedure with the necessary adaptations4: they notify their drafts via the EFTA Surveillance Authority and can comment on the drafts notified by the 27 Member States. The same kind of reaction is provided for the entire European Community to drafts notified by the three countries signatory to the EEA Agreement.
Switzerland (which is part of EFTA, but which does apply the EEA Agreement) also participates in the system. This country applies the 98/34 procedure on a voluntary basis following an informal agreement to exchange information in the field of technical regulations: it submits its drafts to the Commission and can make and receive comments on the notified drafts.
Turkey, which transposed the Directive in 2002, participates in the procedure in the same manner as the EFTA countries. The decision to have Turkey participate in the notification system was taken in 1997 as part of the implementation of the final phase of the Customs Union between Turkey and the European Community.
Annex 9 Developments in Court of Justice case-law on the matter 2006-2008
The two Court of Justice judgments delivered on the Directive during the 2006-2008 period are presented below in chronological order: the first of them was delivered following proceedings for failure to fulfil an obligation launched by the Commission against a Member State (Article 226 of the EC Treaty) and the other under the preliminary ruling procedure (Article 234 of the EC Treaty). The common feature of these judgments: they clarify the notion of technical regulation and the obligation to notify, and confirm the Court’s previous case-law regarding the unenforceability of technical regulations not notified prior to their adoption.
It should be pointed out that, like the other Court judgments on the notification procedure, these judgments can be consulted on the following website: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/).
Judgment of 26 October 2006, Case C-65/05, Commission versus Hellenic Republic
(JO C 326 of 30 December 2006, page 8)
In the field of games of chance, the judgment Commission v Hellenic Republic stated that national measures prohibiting the use of all electric, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, and the use of games on computers in undertakings providing internet services, and making the operation of such undertakings subject to the issue of a special authorisation, must be considered technical regulations in the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC.
In addition, the judgment has a bearing on the issue of urgency provided for by the Directive. In fact, the Court adds (logically) that the obligation to notify cannot be called into question by the need to adopt national legislation urgently in order to deal rapidly and directly with a social problem.
Judgment of 8 November 2007, Case C-20/05, Schwibbert
(JO C 315 of 22 December 2007, page 4)
In its most recent judgment, Schwibbert, the Court provides another example of a technical regulation notifiable under the Directive. In this instance, it concerned the obligation to affix the distinctive sign « SIAE » to compact discs of works of figurative art for the purposes of marketing them in Italy.
The Court clarifies that this obligation constitutes a technical regulation which, if not notified to the Commission, cannot be invoked against an individual (Judgment CIA Security).
Annex 10 Application of the procedure 2006-2008: notifications of technical regulations submitted by the member states
Annexes 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 give a statistical overview of the development of the number of draft technical regulations notified by the Member States between 2006 and 2008, and of their breakdown by Member State and by sector. It should be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 11 of the Directive, ‘statistics concerning communications received’ as part of the notification procedure are published once a year in the Official Journal, C series5.
The reactions to the notified drafts – in the form of comments or detailed opinions from the Commission or the Member States, or of blockages on the part of the Commission – are illustrated in Annexes 10.4 to 10.6.
Annex 10.7 refers to the requests to apply the urgency procedure that the Member States addressed to the Commission pursuant to Article 9(7) of the Directive.
Annex 10.8 shows the action taken by the Member States in response to the Commission’s reactions.
10.1 Volume of notifications during the 2006-2008 period
Figure 1
The statistics in figure 1 show that the Member States notified to the Commission 668 draft regulations in 2006, 710 in 2007 and 601 in 2008.
10.2 Breakdown by country
Figure 2
During the 2006-2008 period, two Member States each notified more than 200 draft technical regulations: they were Germany (212) and the Netherlands (205). A group of five other countries (Sweden, France, United Kingdom, Austria and Belgium) come next with a total number of notifications of between 100 and 160. As far as the two “new” Member States are concerned, Bulgaria and Romania submitted 33 notifications (10 and 23 respectively) between 2007 and 2008.
Table 1 – Number of notifications of technical regulations submitted by the Member States from 2006 to 2008
| Member States | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| Austria | 42 | 48 | 36 |
| Belgium | 28 | 48 | 32 |
| Bulgaria | - | 4 | 6 |
| Cyprus | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Czech Rep. | 21 | 24 | 35 |
| Denmark | 24 | 38 | 22 |
| Estonia | 8 | 11 | 5 |
| Finland | 18 | 39 | 31 |
| France | 57 | 58 | 45 |
| Germany | 77 | 83 | 52 |
| Greece | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Hungary | 15 | 12 | 12 |
| Ireland | 6 | 14 | 16 |
| Italy | 20 | 20 | 18 |
| Latvia | 10 | 8 | 10 |
| Lithuania | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Luxembourg | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Malta | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Netherlands | 71 | 63 | 71 |
| Poland | 48 | 50 | 21 |
| Portugal | 7 | 3 | 2 |
| Romania | - | 5 | 18 |
| Slovakia | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| Slovenia | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| Spain | 70 | 35 | 41 |
| Sweden | 50 | 64 | 54 |
| United Kingdom | 59 | 51 | 39 |
| Total EC | 668 | 710 | 601 |
Table 2 – Percentages of notifications submitted by the Member States from 2006 to 2008
| Member States | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| Austria | 8,3% | 9,9% | 6,5% |
| Belgium | 5,5% | 9,9% | 5,7% |
| Bulgaria | 0,0% | 0,8% | 1,1% |
| Cyprus | 0,2% | 0,0% | 0,0% |
| Czech Rep. | 4,1% | 4,9% | 6,3% |
| Denmark | 4,7% | 7,8% | 3,9% |
| Estonia | 1,6% | 2,3% | 0,9% |
| Finland | 3,5% | 8,0% | 5,6% |
| France | 11,2% | 11,9% | 8,1% |
| Germany | 15,2% | 17,1% | 9,3% |
| Greece | 1,0% | 0,8% | 1,3% |
| Hungary | 3,0% | 2,5% | 2,2% |
| Ireland | 1,2% | 2,9% | 2,9% |
| Italy | 3,9% | 4,1% | 3,2% |
| Latvia | 2,0% | 1,6% | 1,8% |
| Lithuania | 0,4% | 1,2% | 1,4% |
| Luxembourg | 0,4% | 0,4% | 0,4% |
| Malta | 1,4% | 0,0% | 0,0% |
| Netherlands | 14,0% | 13,0% | 12,7% |
| Poland | 9,4% | 10,3% | 3,8% |
| Portugal | 1,4% | 0,6% | 0,4% |
| Romania | 0,0% | 1,0% | 3,2% |
| Slovakia | 1,8% | 2,5% | 2,7% |
| Slovenia | 2,2% | 1,6% | 0,5% |
| Spain | 13,8% | 7,2% | 7,4% |
| Sweden | 9,8% | 13,2% | 9,7% |
| United Kingdom | 11,6% | 10,5% | 7,0% |
10.3 Breakdown by sector
Figure 3
Building and construction are constantly increasing and represent the sector with the highest number of notifications during the period in question (365 notifications). They are followed by the foodstuffs and agricultural products sector (298 notifications). Between 2006 and 2008, two other sectors grew significantly: telecommunications (221 notifications) and transport (215 notifications). Information Society services represent on average 5,3% of the total number of notifications.
Tables 3 and 4 – Breakdown by sector of the drafts notified by the Member States of the European Union in 2006 and 2007
| Sectors | 2006 | Sectors | 2007 | |||
| Building and construction | 104 | 15,6% | Building and construction | 145 | 20,4% | |
| Foodstuffs and agricultural products | 96 | 14,4% | Foodstuffs and agricultural products | 111 | 15,6% | |
| Chemicals | 15 | 2,2% | Chemicals | 30 | 4,2% | |
| Pharmaceuticals | 18 | 2,7% | Pharmaceuticals | 23 | 3,2% | |
| Domestic and leisure equipment | 18 | 2,8% | Domestic and leisure equipment | 31 | 4,4% | |
| Mechanical engineering | 85 | 12,7% | Mechanical engineering | 55 | 7,7% | |
| Energy, ores, wood | 45 | 6,7% | Energy, ores, wood | 26 | 3,7% | |
| Environment, packaging | 51 | 7,6% | Environment, packaging | 64 | 9,0% | |
| Health, medical equipment | 11 | 1,6% | Health, medical equipment | 7 | 1,0% | |
| Transport | 75 | 11,2% | Transport | 71 | 10,0% | |
| Telecommunications | 86 | 12,9% | Télecommunications | 81 | 11,4% | |
| Miscellaneous products | 30 | 4,5% | Miscellaneous products | 29 | 4,1% | |
| Information Society services | 34 | 4,9% | Information Society services | 37 | 5,2% |
Tables 5 and 6 – Breakdown by sector of the drafts notified by the Member States of the European Union in 2008
| Sectors | 2008 | ||
| Building and construction | 116 | 19,3% | |
| Foodstuffs and agricultural products | 91 | 15,1% | |
| Chemicals | 12 | 2,0% | |
| Pharmaceuticals | 36 | 6,0% | |
| Domestic and leisure equipment | 31 | 5,2% | |
| Mechanical engineering | 42 | 7,0% | |
| Energy, ores, wood | 29 | 4,8% | |
| Environment, packaging | 54 | 9,0% | |
| Health, medical equipment | 5 | 0,8% | |
| Transport | 69 | 11,5% | |
| Télecommunications | 54 | 9,0% | |
| Miscellaneous products | 27 | 4,5% | |
| Information Society services | 35 | 5,8% |
10.4 Commission reactions: comments and detailed opinions 2006-2008 (Articles 8(2) and 9(2) of the Directive)
Table 7
| Year | Comments | Detailed opinions |
| 2006 | 154 | 61 |
| 2007 | 136 | 66 |
| 2008 | 128 | 52 |
The number of detailed opinions issued by the Commission during the period in question did not vary significantly: 61 detailed opinions in 2006 on the total number of 668 notifications (10.9%); in 2007, 66 detailed opinions on the total number of 710 notifications (9.29%). On the 601 notifications of 2008 the Commission issued 52 detailed opinions, corresponding to 8.65% of the total number.
On the other hand, the number of comments made by the Commission decreased at a constant rate from 154 in 2006 to 128 in 2008.
Figure 4
10.5 Commission reactions: blockages 2006-2008 (Articles 9(3) and 9(4) of the Directive)
During the 2006-2008 period, the Commission requested a 12-month postponement of the adoption of 22 draft regulations notified by the Member States, because they concerned a subject on which Community harmonisation work had already been announced or was underway.
Table 8
| Year | Standstills | Total | |
| Announcement of a Community text (Article 9(3)) | Presentation to the Council of a Community text (Article 9(4)) | ||
| 2006 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 2007 | 7 | 4 | 11 |
| 2008 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
10.6 Member State reactions
Table 9 Comments and detailed opinions issued by the Member States 2006-2008 (Articles 8(2) and 9(2))
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | ||||
| Com. | D.O. | Com. | D.O. | Com. | D.O. | |
| Austria | 13 | 8 | 13 | 4 | 13 | 5 |
| Belgium | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Bulgaria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Cyprus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Czech Rep. | 12 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Denmark | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Estonia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Finland | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| France | 14 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 16 | 12 |
| Germany | 30 | 8 | 42 | 6 | 27 | 2 |
| Greece | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Hungary | 11 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Ireland | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Italy | 21 | 6 | 22 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Latvia | 4 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Lithuania | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Luxembourg | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Malta | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Netherlands | 8 | 2 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Poland | 10 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
| Portugal | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Romania | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Slovakia | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Slovenia | 6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Spain | 18 | 6 | 19 | 2 | 18 | 3 |
| Sweden | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 2 |
| Total | 174 | 52 | 167 | 39 | 135 | 51 |
10.7 Urgency Procedure (Article 9(7) of the Directive)
Table 10 Requests to apply the urgency procedure received 2006-2008
| YEAR | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |||
| COUNTRY | Requests | Favourable opinion | Requests | Favourable opinion | Requests | Favourable opinion |
| Austria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Belgium | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Bulgaria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cyprus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Czech Rep. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Denmark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Estonia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Finland | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| France | 8 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Germany | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Greece | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hungary | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Ireland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Italy | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Latvia | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Lithuania | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Luxembourg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Malta | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Poland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Portugal | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Romania | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Slovakia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Slovenia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spain | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Sweden | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| United Kingdom | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 17 | 4 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 4 |
Table 10 provides an overview of the number of requests to apply the emergency procedure, by Member State and by year; it also shows the number of requests to which the Commission gave a favourable opinion (14 out of the 49 made during the entire 2006-2008 period).
Table 11 – Breakdown by sector of the requests to apply the urgency procedure 2006-2008.
Table 11, which gives a sectoral breakdown of the requests to apply the urgency procedure received by the Commission during the 2006-2008 period, shows that the application of this exceptional procedure was invoked mainly in the foodstuffs and agricultural products sector (11 requests) and in the health and medical equipment sector (7).
10.8 Follow-up to Commission reactions
Table 12 shows that, in 2006, the recipient Member States responded to 53 of the 61 detailed opinions issued by the Commission (86.8%) and that 41 responses were deemed satisfactory by the Commission (67,2%). In 2007, they responded to 54 of the 66 detailed opinions (81,8%); 45 were satisfactory (68,1%). In 2008, 52 detailed opinions were issued by the Commission. Of the 43 responses from the Member States (82.6%), 30 were deemed satisfatory by the Commission (57,6%).
Table 12*
| Year | Detailed opinions | Responses from the Member States | Satisfactory | Closures |
| 2006 | 61 | 53 | 41 | 8 |
| 2007 | 66 | 54 | 45 | 8 |
| 2008 | 52 | 43 | 30 | 5 |
*Data at 04/06/2009
Table 13
| Year | Observations COM | Responses from the Member States |
2006 | 154 | 114 |
2007 | 136 | 80 |
2008 | 128 | 67 |
Table 13 shows that, in 2006, the recipient Member States responded to 114 of the 154 observations issued by the Commission (74 %). In 2007, they responded to 80 of the 136 (58,8 %) and, in 2008, Member States responded to 67 of the 128 observations made by the Commission (52,3 %).
Annex 11 Application of the procedure 2006-2008: participation of EFTA countries signatory to the EEA Agreement, of Switzerland and of Turkey
Table 13 – Number of notifications from EFTA countries and comments issued to them by the European Community
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |||||
| Notifications | Com. EC | Notifications | Com. EC | Notifications | Com. EC | ||
| EFTA | Norway | 21 | 9 | 21 | 5 | 16 | 8 |
| Liechtenstein | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Iceland | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 0 |
Table 14 – Number of notifications submitted by Switzerland and Turkey and comments issued to them by the Commission or the Member States
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |||||
| Notifications | Com. | Notifications | Com. | Notifications | Com. | ||
| Switzerland | 13 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 0 | |
| Turkey | 19 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 |
Table 15 – Number of comments from EFTA, Switzerland and Turkey regarding the notifications from the Member States
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | ||
| EFTA | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Switzerland | 0 | 8 | 1 | |
| Turkey | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Annex 12 – Internet consultations 2006-2008
Figure 5
1Directive of 28 March 1983, OJ L 109/8 of 26.4.1983
2O L 204/37 of 21.7.1998.
3O L 217/18 of 5.8.1998.
4Annex II, Chapter XIX, point 1 to the EEA Agreement, which includes Article 8(2) of the Directive
5For 2006: OJ C 151/10 of 5.7.2007; for 2007: OJ C 132/7 of 30.5.2008; for 2008: OJ C 131/3 of 10.06.2009.
EN Error! Unknown document property name. EN