Phillip Ford wrote: > I was under the impression that the CE mark "in itself" was supposed to > show compliance with all relevant Directives and so permit free movement > of goods within the borders of the EC. snip
Georg M. Dancau wrote: ...... snip ......see below > During 1997 the BAPT plans to test abaout 10000 samples of > products for domestic environnment and about 100 samples of > equipment for industrial environnment (i.e. according to > EN50081-2). No its not only the Federal Office for Post and Telecommunications in Mainz, Germany who try to overstep the laws, its the also the BIPT (Belgium Institute for Post and Telecommunications) who try to regain control of EMC. In Belgium they are preparing an amendment to the law in order to enforce their monopolistic administrative position (like they have actually on telecommunication equipment). Let me explain their bitterness. For telecommunication equipment in Belgium (and still in most country's) you need to have a typical Country depended certification performed by the BIPT (provide them with 3 equipments, pay,..). The EMC rules don't give them this opportunity anymore to impose their absolute authority. That's bothering them, they try to find away around by for instance: - performing post compliance test without any need, without any complain - impose rules on the ownership of test equipment (licenses!), etc.. Lets stop this people from doing that at our expenses, whe pay them. Lets also get writ of the people who tels that a check on neighbors equipment is great. We will end-up soon again, like in the old war stiles of Germany and Russian people, having people who denounce his neighbors, parents, children, other business, etc.. Is it that what we are heading to? Are they conscientious on what they are saying / doing and where they are heading to? THINK IT OVER. Georg M. Dancau wrote: > > At the EMC Zuerich, Mr. Gerd Jeromin, from the > Federal Office for Post and Telecommunications > in Mainz, Germany made following statements: > > During 1996 10060 sample units were checked or tested. This > figure does not onclude shipments stopped at the border. > > 67% were found OK or not suspect > 33% were found not OK > > The checks concentrated especially on the correctnes and > credibility of the Declaration of Conformity. > > >From the units found not OK, 132 were manufactured in > ohter countries of the EU. > > >From the 100 German cases of non compliance, following > penalties were charged: > > 7 fines < 1000DM > 7 fines > 1000DM > > During 1997 the BAPT plans to test abaout 10000 samples of > products for domestic environnment and about 100 samples of > equipment for industrial environnment (i.e. according to > EN50081-2). > > * Dr. Georg M. Dancau * HAUNI MASCHINENBAU AG * -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -------------------------
