WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Total ban on goods containing asbestos

France recently decided to introduce a total ban on the production, import and sale of products containing asbestos, making it the sixth EU country to do so after Sweden and others.

What is the Commission's view of the ban on imports of asbestos introduced in France and already applicable in Sweden and other countries? Is it consistent with the principles of the internal market? Can EU Member States which have not imposed a total ban on asbestos invoke the Cassis de Dijon principle to force France and Sweden to allow imports of goods containing asbestos which are approved in the exporting country? Does the Commission intend to submit proposals for directives laying down equally stringent rules for asbestos as those applying in France, Sweden and other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The Community has operated a policy of controlled use on the marketing of asbestos-containing products since the mid-1980's. Accordingly, all but one of the asbestos fibres are totally banned and fourteen categories of products containing the last remaining fibre, known as chrysotile, are also banned. Other product categories containing chrysotile fall outside the scope of the Community harmonization and should be allowed to circulate freely, provided they are properly labelled, and subject to application of Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission learned from press and television reports and from a special meeting of experts in Brussels, which it convened in July 1996, of French intentions to impose a total ban on asbestos, with exemptions, from 1st January 1997. However, the details of the French plans have not yet been worked out and the Commission has not yet been formally notified by the French authorities of the intended ban.

The Commission recalls that France has applied the Community policy of controlled use to the marketing and use of asbestos. It understands that France now intends to regulate chrysotile-containing products not covered by the existing Community policy. The Commission cannot, at this stage, give a view on the French intentions. Such a view can be given only when France has notified a draft national law setting out the details of what is proposed.

On the question whether a national ban with exemptions is compatible with the principles of the internal market the answer must depend upon the case. The details of national measures falling within the scope of the Community harmonization need to be compared with the provisions of the Community directives. The details of national measures falling outside the scope of the Community harmonization need to be examined in the framework of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty and the relevant case law (such as the Cassis de Dijon case).

In 1993 the Commission drew up a draft proposal for a directive to ban asbestos with exemptions. After seven meetings of Member State experts the Commission realised that no qualified majority could be obtained for the draft proposal and deferred its attempt at total harmonization pending completion of an extensive work programme. The work programme, at that time introduced by the Commission and intended to build consensus among Member States, includes studies on asbestos and on the substitute fibres and requires classification of certain substitute fibres. This work is unlikely to be finished till 1998. Meanwhile the Commission continues to discuss the asbestos question with Member State experts and will propose a ban of asbestos with exemptions as soon as there is any prospect of this being supported by a qualified majority of Member States.