Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:07:51.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The difficulties of Regulating Markets and Risks in Europe through Notified Bodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jean-Pierre Galland
Jean-Pierre Galland*
Affiliation:
Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Marne la Vallée
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although scholars have described and commented on the European New Approach to standardisation principles, they have paid much less attention to the ways in which this innovative process and its follow-on, i.e. the Global Approach, have been implemented. In many cases, this comes through the day-to-day activity of a very specific population of European experts, the notified bodies. Notified bodies, whose role it is to certify that products, for a given sector, comply with the essential safety requirements set out in the corresponding directive, originate from the Member States, but also compete against each other within a European certification market. This article examines the technical and political difficulties encountered by the Commission and the Member States in ensuring both the independence and the competences of these certifiers. It describes and questions the organisational architecture devised in response to these problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 365 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jabko, Nicolas, L’Europe par le marché.Histoire d’une stratégie improbable, (Paris: Presses de Science Po, 2009)Google Scholar.

2 Pollack, Mark A., “Creeping competence : the expanding agenda of the European Community”, 14, 2, JEPP (1994) pp 95–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Council Resolution 85/C 136/01 of May 7, 1985 on a new approach to technical harmonisation and standardisation.

4 Joerges, Christian, Falke, Josef, Micklitz, Hans-W, Bruggemeier, Gert, European Product Safety Internal Market Policy and the New Approach to Technical harmonisation and Standards, (European University Institute Working Papers Law, 1991)Google Scholar; Joerges, Christian, Ladeur, Karl H., Vos, Elen (eds.), Integrating Scientific Expertise into Regulatory Decision Making, National Traditions and European Innovations (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1997)Google Scholar; Bundgaard-Pedersen, Torben, “States and EU technical standardization: Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway managing polycentric policy-making 1985-95”, 4, 2 JEPP, (1997), pp 206–224 Google Scholar; Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Michelle Egan, « Transnational market governance and regional policy externality:why recognize foreign standards?”, 8, 3 JEPP (2001), pp 454–473.

5 Egan, Michelle, “Regulation strategies, delegation and European market integration”, 5 JEPP (1998), pp 485–506 Google Scholar; Schepel, Harm, The Constitution of Private Governance; Product Standards in the regulation of Integrating Markets. (Oxford and Portland:Hart Publishing, 2005)Google Scholar.

6 Egan, Michelle, Constructing a European Market; Standards, Regulation, and Governance (Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Council Resolution 85/C 136/01, Annex 2.B.VIII, §3.

8 The author conducted a series of interviews (6) in June 2012 with notified bodies and other actors of European standardisation.

9 This was the case from the first New Approach Directives (“Toys”, 1988; “Pressure equipments”, 1987; “Construction products”, 1989)

10 Council resolution of May 28, 1989 on a global approach to assessing conformity, OJ 1990, 010, pp 0001-0002.

11 It is thus desired that notified bodies should themselves be accredited under international standard ISO 45000, which assesses the quality of inspection bodies.

12 Fabienne Péraldi-Leneuf, “Le cadre juridique de la notification des organismes habilités”, Réalités industrielles (november, 2002), pp 63–68.

13 Competition at the level of the services provided by the notified bodies applies to each sector and each directive. The result is the emergence of a market based on the directive(s) governing a sector.

14 Kessous, Emmanuel, “L’objectivation des qualités industrielles en discussion.Les acteurs du marché européen confrontés à l’élaboration de normes communes”, 102 Réseaux (2000), pp 93–117 Google Scholar.

15 For a focus on the case of the medical devices sector, see my article (supra, note 1) and Bernhard Lobmayr, “An Assessment of the EU Approach to Medical Device Regulation against the Backdrop of the US System”, 2(1) EJRR (2010), pp 137–149.

16 The European Commission's NANDO (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) website, <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/nando> (last accessed on 5 August 2013).

17 Mehmet Cetik, “The Business Forms and Controlling Sharehoders of ‘Notified Bodies’ under the New Approach Regulations:A Preliminary Assessment to Implement the Statute of “European Company”, Tilburg University, the Netherlands, Spring 2010, available on internet at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1674209> (last accessed on 5 August 2013)

18 Ibid. (appendix)

19 Thus in France, many notified bodies have “association 1901” (non-profit) status, which says nothing about the nature of the associates.

20 Infra, part 3.

21 Borraz, Olivier, “Governing standards: the rise of standardization processes in France and in the EU”, 20(1), Governance (2007), pp 57–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Council decision regarding the modules relating to the different phases of the procedures for evaluating conformity and the rules for placing and using “CE” conformity marking, intended for use in technical harmonisation directives, 93/465/CEE.

23 Decision of the European Parliament and Council on a common framework for the sale of products, replacing Council decision 93/465, Annex 1, Article R17, Requirements applicable to notified bodies, 768/2008/CE.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 EC, Framework for coordination and cooperation between notified bodies, Member States and the European Commission under the community harmonisation Directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach, CERTIF 94/6 Rev.6, February 20, 1998.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 EC, Code of Conduct for the functioning of the system of notified bodies, CERTIF 97/1 Rev. 3, July 17, 1998.

30 Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament. Enhancing the Implementation of New Approach Directives, 7/05/2003, COM (2003) 240 final

31 Ibid.

32 Draft regulation by the Parliament and Council, 14/02/2007, COM (2007) 37 final.

33 Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and Council setting out the requirements for the accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Council regulation (CE) No. 339/93, July 9, 2008, 765/2008.

34 Article 4. In France for example, COFRAC, the French Accreditation Committee, had been set up in 1994, and similar committees or bodies had also been set up in other Member States in the 1990s and 2000s. On this question, it would seem that the European contribution was essentially to extend this innovation to all the Member States.

35 For this purpose, moreover, a European cooperation for Accreditation (EA) was set up.

36 Jacques McMillan, “La ‘certification’, la reconnaissance mutuelle et le marché unique”, Revue du Marché Européen (1991), pp. 181–211.

37 Hauray, Boris, L’Europe du médicament, (Paris: Presses de Science Po, 2006)Google Scholar

38 Vos, Elen, Wendler, Frank (eds.), Food Safety in Europe.A Comparative Institutional Analysis. (Antwerpen-Oxford: Intersentia, 2006)Google Scholar.

39 Majone, Giandomenico, La Communauté Européenne:un Etat régulateur (Paris: Montchrestien, 1996)Google Scholar.

40 Christian Joerges, Free trade with hazardous products?The Emergence of Transnational Governance with Eroding State Government, (EUI Working Papers Law 05/2006).

41 Shapiro, Martin, “The problems of independant agencies in the United States and in the European Union”, 4 JEPP (1997), pp 276–291 Google Scholar.

42 Dehousse, Renaud,“Regulation by networks in the European Community:the role of European agencies”, 4, JEPP (1997), 246–261; Shapiro, ibid Google Scholar.

43 Egan M., supra note 5; Frankel, Christian, Hojbjerg, Eric, “The Constitution of a Transnational Policy Field:Negociating the EU Internal Markets for Products”, 14 JEPP (2007), pp 96–114 Google Scholar.

44 Harm Schepel, supra note 5.