1 / 6

Paul Coebergh van den Braak Chairman, BUSINESSEUROPE WG on Free Movement of Goods Also

Business views on Safety and Surveillance package. Paul Coebergh van den Braak Chairman, BUSINESSEUROPE WG on Free Movement of Goods Also Philips - IP&S. P Coebergh van den Braak. 2013-05-29. Package benefits to be preserved. Pursuit for safe and compliant products

akina
Download Presentation

Paul Coebergh van den Braak Chairman, BUSINESSEUROPE WG on Free Movement of Goods Also

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Business views on Safety and Surveillance package Paul Coebergh van den Braak Chairman, BUSINESSEUROPE WG on Free Movement of Goods Also Philips - IP&S P Coebergh van den Braak 2013-05-29

  2. Package benefits to be preserved • Pursuit for safe and compliant products • Simpler, clearer and more consistent legal framework on product safety and market surveillance • Should lead to • lower compliance cost • better enforcement, giving a level playing field and fewer non-compliant products

  3. MSR scope and definitions • Good to cover not only safety but product compliance aspects for all public interests • Necessary to distinguish • Safety risk from other non-conformity issuescalling everything “risk” will cause confusion • Various degrees of safety riskmagnitude, likelihood • Material from formal non-compliance less severe measures for paperwork-only issues

  4. What is a risky product? • Now: multiple interpretations • Example: lighter model – Greece  NL • Good measures to improve: • Risk assessment – first check compliance with harmonized requirements and standards • Cross-border co-op, EU level assessments review • Business input in EU MS-Forum will help • But option for action upon a risk despite presumed conformity = legal uncertainty • Proportionality and burden of proof! • Effective appeal procedures essential

  5. Towards a stronger surveillance system • Lack of financial resources: need for • Political will (MS’s) • Good organization, facilities, competent officers • Authorities must know and apply the law • Good: more horizontal co-op and border controls • Shared labs: clarify role; subject to accreditation • Border controls: no unnecessary hold up • Fees and penalties: caution • Target rogue traders, not bona fide players • No incentives for unjustified controls or actions! • Penalties: proportionate, dissuasive, focus on real, harmful non-compliance

  6. Concerns • We hear suggestions to introduce more third party certification • Should not become broadly mandatory for products • Costly but will not contribute to more compliance: • Will be forged, burden lands on the good players • Creates more unlevel playing field • No replacement for surveillance and enforcement • Commissions implementing powers • Anchor transparancy and stakeholder consultation in the legal text

More Related