There are three issues that should not be confused: 1) The GS mark is voluntary - I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with this. 2) Within the EU framework, can Germany legally mandate the GS requirements, such as ergonomics? Glen Dash has replied to this issue with his well stated opinion. 3) Regardless of the answer to 2), does Germany actually mandate legal compliance with the GS requirements - i.e, is the Equipment Safety law of 1980 enforced? This question appears to still be unanswered.
Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics [email protected] Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. > ---------- > From: Richard F. Duran[SMTP:[email protected]] > Reply To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 11:56 AM > To: WOODS, RICHARD; Glen R Dash > Cc: 'emc-pstc' > Subject: RE: GS Requirements > > I think everyone is getting confused here. As far as I know Germany does > not require products to carry a GS mark! CE is all that is necessary in > the > E.U. which includes Germany. GS marks are "voluntary", which means that > whoever is issuing them can basically require whatever they want in order > to get this "voluntary" mark! > > > > Rick Duran > Compliance Engineer > TUV Product Service > ------------- > Original Text > From: Glen R Dash <[email protected]>, on 4/27/98 9:53 AM: > To: Internet Gateway@Services@PSNBL["WOODS, RICHARD" > <[email protected]>] > Cc: Internet Gateway@Services@PSNBL["'emc-pstc'" > <[email protected]>] > > Basically, the system works like this: Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome > prohibits "quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having > equivalent effect..." That rather vague language has been interpreted by > the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rather braodly, and was use to strike > down, among other things, the German beer purity law. Member States may > implement laws restricting imports pursuant to Article 36 if those laws > are aimed at public morality, security, protection of health, national > treasures or the protection of property. The Article states, however, > "such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means > of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade ..." > > Here again the ECJ has been strict in its interpretations and many laws > have been ruled in violation of the Treaty under Articles 30 and 36. > > Note that Articles 30 and 36 do not refer to Directives. They are > operative even if a Directive covering a subject does not exist. There > was no European beer purity law, for example. > > Where a Directive does exist, it is tougher for a Member State to justify > additional laws, but not impossible. The reason for this is that Article > 100a under which most "new approach" directives are adopted requires the > Directive to provide a "high level of protection" for users and consumers. > Therefore, cases where a Member State can justify an even higher level of > protection would be quite rare. > > The question being raised related to ergonomics requirements in Germany. > For all the law quoted above, I must admit that I am unsure of the answer, > but I think I know where to look. I believe that there are EU ergonomics > requirements in the EU Directives on workplace safety -- the Fifth > Directive, as I recall. Workplace safety directives, however, are adopted > by the EU under Article 118a of the Treaty which works differently than > Article 100a. Article 118a sets a floor for workplace safety and > encourages Member States to adopt higher standards. > > I believe that a if I were to judge, I would say that product requirements > should be governed by Article 100a, and if Germany wanted, by law, to have > ergonomic requirements for products to meet, it would have to be prepared > to justify them under Article 30 and 36. However, use of that product -- > the setting of table heights and lighting, etc. -- would fall under > Article 118a style Dirctives, freeing the Member States to adopt stricter > requirements than the EU Directives require. In this way, the social > policy of encouraging workplace safety is satisfied without inhibiting > trade between the Member States. > > But, then, the case hasn't come up before the ECJ, so who really knows? > My advice -- if it is at all practical to comply, comply. You'll end up > with a better product anyway. If not, see your lawyer and get a legal > opinion from an expert in EU law. > > -- Glen Dash > > On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, WOODS, RICHARD wrote: > > > This has been a very interesting thread. There appears to be two > distinct > > groups of thought. One group believes that an EU state can enforce a > state > > law affecting trade as long as it is not in violation of a Directive. > > Another group seems to believe that no EU state may enforce a law the > tends > > to impede trade. To this latter group I ask the question, what is the > legal > > basis for this claim? > > > > Richard Woods > > Sensormatic Electronics > > [email protected] > > Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of > > Sensormatic. > > > >
