Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report Attività
Giugno 2014 - Giugno 2015
European Federation for Elevator Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
2
3
MONITORAGGIO LEGISLATIVO………………………………………………….. 7
ISTITUZIONI DELL’UNIONE EUROPEA……………………………………….. 9
STAKEHOLDER A BRUXELLES: Incontri Importanti Per EFESME…13
ATTIVITÀ COLLEGATE ALLA NORMAZIONE………………………………… 14
ESIBIZIONI INTERNAZIONALI... ………………………………………………….16
DOCUMENTI DI SUPPORTO ………………………………………………………….19
INDICEINDICE
4
5
EFESME REPORT ATTIVITÀ
Giugno 2014 - Giugno 2015
EFESME rappresenta ormai da 10 anni una delle rappresentanze più forti in Europa a
tutela delle PMI del settore ascensoristico.
Gli ultimi anni, segnati anche da una forte crisi economica e finanziaria, oltre che
sociale e occupazionale, che tarda a lasciare il passo alla crescita, hanno imposto alla
Federazione una necessaria riorganizzazione dei servizi offerti e della struttura che
mirasse sempre più a dare risposte concrete ai membri associati.
Il 2014 è stato un anno strategico per le Istituzioni Europee, in quanto il Parlamento
Europeo è stato rinnovato il 1 luglio 2014 e la nuova Commissione Europea è stata
eletta il 1 novembre 2014. L’Europa è chiamata ora più che mai a dare delle risposte
concrete agli Stati Membri e alle realtà economiche che operano all’interno del mercato
europeo.
In tal senso EFESME, in qualità di attore e rappresentante europeo del settore
ascensoristico, è chiamato a un impegno sempre maggiore per la difesa degli interessi
delle imprese che rappresenta.
Di seguito è presentata l’attività svolta dalla Dirigenza di EFESME con il supporto
dell’Ufficio di Bruxelles nell’ultimo anno, ovvero un aggiornamento rispetto al Report
Attività 2013-2014 che è stato presentato in occasione della scorsa Assemblea
Generale di ANACAM (giugno 2014).
Questa relazione si sviluppa su 5 punti:
Monitoraggio Legislativo
Istituzioni Dell'Unione Europea
Gli Stakeholder A Bruxelles: Incontri Importanti Per Efesme
Attività Collegate Alla Normazione
Esibizioni Internazionali
6
7
MONITORAGGIO LEGISLATIVO
► CLASSIFICAZIONE ENERGETICA - Efficienza energetica, Eco-design dei prodotti
relativi all'energia ed Etichettatura energetica.
La direttiva Ecodesign 2009/125/CE è alla base della politica industriale sostenibile
dell'UE, che mira a favorire un miglioramento delle prestazioni ambientali dei prodotti
nel mercato interno. Essa stabilisce un quadro per l'elaborazione di requisiti specifici di
progettazione per i prodotti connessi all'energia.
Secondo l'articolo 16, la Commissione dovrebbe
stabilire dei Piani di Lavoro per determinare
l'elenco dei prodotti per i quali viene effettuato uno
studio preparatorio durante un dato periodo e che,
eventualmente, vengono inclusi sotto lo spettro
della direttiva. Finora, tre fasi successive di
attuazione hanno avuto luogo: il periodo transitorio
(a partire dal 2005), il primo piano di lavoro (2009-
2011) e il secondo piano di lavoro (2012-2014).
Per sviluppare il successivo piano di lavoro (2015-2017), uno studio di supporto è stato
condotto con lo scopo di identificare prodotti prioritari e per stilare un elenco indicativo
di gruppi di prodotti prioritari (circa 20) per la progettazione ecocompatibile e
l'etichettatura energetica.
Data l'importanza di questo studio, EFESME ha preso parte come stakeholder
interessato nello studio per stabilire il Piano di Lavoro sull'Ecodesign 2015-
2017; lo studio, condotto per conto della Commissione europea, ha avuto inizio nel
gennaio 2014 e si è concluso nel dicembre 2014. Durante questo periodo, un gruppo di
prodotti è stato selezionato alla Commissione europea per un'analisi più approfondita.
Gli ascensori sono stati inclusi in questo elenco di prodotti ed EFESME ha fatto in modo
che gli interessi e le opinioni delle PMI siano stati presi in considerazione. Abbiamo
commentato oralmente e in forma scritta tutte le bozze dei vari rapporti dello studio e il
nostro contributo è stato molto apprezzato anche dal personale che ha condotto la
ricerca. Inoltre, abbiamo partecipato ai due meeting per gruppi di interesse, organizzati
a Bruxelles il 3 luglio 2014 e il 29 ottobre 2014. Grazie alla nostra partecipazione,
abbiamo fatto in modo che la panoramica sul nostro settore sia stata il più esaustiva
possibile, chiara e non influenzata da un singolo attore, principalmente le grandi
industrie.
8
MONITORAGGIO LEGISLATIVO
► CLASSIFICAZIONE ENERGETICA - Efficienza energetica, Eco-design dei prodotti
relativi all'energia ed Etichettatura energetica.
Incontro con ELA per un confronto su questi temi nel
febbraio 2015
Il Presidente ELA Lamalle ci ha invitato ad un incontro bilaterale per discutere di temi su
cui confrontarsi con EFESME, tra i quali spiccano la stesura definitiva di una PCR
(Product Category Rule) per gli ascensori e l’implementazione della Nuova Direttiva
Ascensori 2014/33/UE.
I requisiti normativi attualmente presenti in materia di consumo energetico e impatto
ambientale sono molteplici:
- Direttiva Ecodesign 2009/125/EU e Energy Labelling 2010/30/UE;
- Direttiva sulla performance energetica degli edifici (EPBD) 2010/31/EU, dove sinora
Danimarca, Portogallo ed Italia, trasponendo la direttiva, l’hanno applicata anche agli
ascensori;
- Direttiva sull’Efficienza Energetica EED 2012/27/UE.
In questo quadro molto variegato, per prepararsi ad un’eventuale futura inclusione
degli ascensori nello spettro di queste direttive, si è scelto di adottare il metodo della
Dichiarazione Ambientale di Prodotto (EPD). L’EPD è definita come il documento
contenente la quantificazione delle prestazioni ambientali di un prodotto mediante
opportune categorie di parametri calcolati con la metodologia dell’analisi del ciclo di vita
(Life Cycle Assessement, LCA). Il framework nel quale preparare la EPD è la PCR. Le
PCR sono le regole specifiche di prodotto (Product Category Rules) e linee guida che
permettono di predisporre gli studi LCA e le relative dichiarazioni ambientali di tipo III
(ISO 14025).
EFESME sta attualmente valutando se unirsi ad ELA e possibilmente anche ad
ELCA in questo progetto di strutturazione di una PCR per gli ascensori.
L’argomentazione di ELA è che, per come le politiche energetico-ambientali si stanno
evolvendo, è plausibile che anche il nostro settore sarà presto incluso e per questo si
avrebbe tutta la convenienza ad agire in anticipo dotandosi volontariamente di misure
che favoriscano questo processo.
9
ISTITUZIONI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA
► PARLAMENTO EUROPEO
► 2014/2208(INI) – “Efficienza delle risorse: verso un’economia circolare” (Relatrice: Sirpa Pietikäinen)
Dall’inizio del 2015 EFESME ha analizzato e tenuto monitorato il rapporto di iniziativa
della commissione parlamentare “Ambiente, sanità pubblica e sicurezza alimentare”,
intitolato “Efficienza delle risorse: verso un’economia circolare”.
Il progetto di rapporto tratta il tema dell’economia circolare, cioè un sistema in cui tutte
le attività, a partire dall’estrazione e dalla produzione, sono organizzate in modo che i
rifiuti prodotti diventino risorse per la produzione di altri beni. Naturalmente, questo
testo molto articolato si concentra anche sugli aspetti di efficienza energetica delle
risorse e dei prodotti; a questo proposito, abbiamo individuato e segnalato alcuni articoli
del progetto di rapporto della commissione per merito ENVI che purtroppo promuovono
un’estensione delle regole e soprattutto dell’Ecodesign a nuovi prodotti e gruppi di
prodotto.
A questo fine, anche se il rapporto è di iniziativa e quindi non risulterà in una legge
europea ma solo in un documento di posizione del Parlamento verso la Commissione
europea, abbiamo proposto ai deputati della commissione ENVI alcuni
emendamenti che spiegano le ragioni per cui un’impostazione che prevede
l’allargamento della Direttiva Ecodesign indiscriminatamente a tutti i prodotti
può risultare controproducente.
Vi sono infatti prodotti in cui per ottenere un limitato risparmio del consumo energetico
si possono determinare dei costi intrinseci non proporzionali di altro genere sul prodotto
stesso, e/o magari di maggiore impatto ambientale in una visione più avanzata di ciclo
di vita del prodotto. Da qui, l’esigenza che per ogni classe di prodotti debba essere
effettuato uno studio scientifico accurato e super partes.
Inoltre, l'ottenimento di una diminuzione di consumo energetico potrebbe determinare
evoluzioni del mercato che potrebbero portare a minore concorrenza, col risultato finale
di prezzi maggiori ingiustificati al consumatore e la minore concorrenza potrebbe essere
il risultato di costi di ricerca e sviluppo eccessivi per alcune aziende sul mercato, in
particolare per le PMI.
Il progetto di iniziativa ha raccolto numerosi emendamenti, e alcuni deputati
hanno appoggiato anche la linea proposta da
EFESME.
La votazione in commissione ENVI è prevista
per il 16 giugno 2015 ed EFESME terrà
monitorati gli sviluppi di questo dossier.
10
ISTITUZIONI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA
► COMMISSIONE EUROPEA
► Incontro con Peter Van Loon, Specialista nell’analisi dei casi di concorrenza sleale -
Direzione Generale Concorrenza, Unità: “Mercato e casistica – Industria di base, settore
manifatturiero e agricoltura”, Ramo “Antitrust: Beni di Consumo, Industria di base,
agricoltura e settore manifatturiero”.
Dopo il primo incontro ufficiale a fine 2013, una delegazione di EFESME ha incontrato di
nuovo questo funzionario specializzato in problematiche relative alla concorrenza. Van
Loon ha riportato di avere discusso il caso all'interno della sua unità, che è concorde sul
fatto che il mercato post-vendita risulta un mercato molto importante ma anche ricco di
criticità. Per quanto riguarda la gestione d'ufficio del nostro caso, per il momento la DG
Concorrenza ancora non ha avviato un'analisi approfondita sul nostro settore, ma Van
Loon ci ha consigliato di provare a introdurre il nostro caso nuovamente quando sarà
nominato il nuovo Commissario. Come documento di supporto per la discussione, Van
Loon aveva ricevuto una lettera di riepilogo del nostro
incontro precedente e un position paper aggiornato,
così come il materiale completo del caso francese Ilex
contro Schindler e una sintesi in inglese della Relazione
della CNC spagnola sul mercato della manutenzione
di ascensori in Spagna. Van Loon ci ha assicurato che il
mercato post vendita è di grande interesse per la DG
concorrenza e ha precisato che questo tema è stato
evidenziato come prioritario per il piano di lavoro del
nuovo Commissario europeo per la concorrenza; tra le
aree sulle quali lavorare assumono infatti
maggior rilievo la vendita on line, i beni di
consumo e il mercato post-vendita, dove gli ascensori sono stati menzionati
come possibili prodotti sui quali lavorare. Il successo dipenderà dall'orientamento
del nuovo Commissario, Margrethe Vestager, che ha preso ufficialmente mandato il 1
novembre 2014. Pertanto, Van Loon ci ha invitato a continuare a far pressione sulla DG
Concorrenza, nel tentativo di influenzare le priorità del nuovo Gabinetto.
► Incontro con John Clark e Tihana Meić, Specialisti nell’analisi dei casi di concorrenza
sleale - Direzione Generale Concorrenza, Unità: “Mercato e casistica – Industria di base,
settore manifatturiero e agricoltura”, Ramo “Antitrust: Beni di Consumo, Industria di
base, agricoltura e settore manifatturiero”.
Al posto del signor Van Loon, che non poteva essere presente all'incontro quel giorno, il
16 ottobre 2014 una delegazione di EFESME ha incontrato due funzionari della DG COMP
esperti in diritto della concorrenza, al fine di aggiornare la DG COMP sugli sviluppi nel
nostro settore. Dopo una panoramica introduttiva sui problemi che interessano il
settore, dove abbiamo anche incluso alcune considerazioni sui limiti della
rappresentatività all'interno del CEN, EFESME ha illustrato il problema dell'accesso a
strumenti e software. Abbiamo esposto in particolare i casi della Spagna e della Francia.
Infine, ci siamo concentrati sul decreto francese, l'unico caso in cui la direttiva acensori
è stata applicata in modo estensivo. I due funzionari ci hanno invitato a fornire loro
ulteriori sviluppi soprattutto sul caso Ilex contro Schindler, per pianificare una riunione
con il capo unità nel 2015.
11
ISTITUZIONI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA
► AZIONE LEGALE PRESSO LA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA
► Denuncia ufficiale alla CE contro il Portogallo
Grazie al supporto del nostro socio portoghese, EFESME ha scoperto nel luglio
2014 l'esistenza in Portogallo di un decreto, il decreto 349-D2013, il cui
obiettivo è quello di aumentare l'efficienza energetica degli edifici e attrezzature
integrate, dove gli ascensori sono inclusi nello spettro di applicazione.
Purtroppo, le disposizioni del decreto portoghese 349-D2013, che sono
obbligatorie per gli edifici commerciali e privati sul territorio portoghese, creano
una discriminazione per ascensori idraulici.
Inoltre, questo atto legislativo è stato preparato senza il supporto di una
norma tecnica rilasciata dall'organismo di normazione europeo
competente (CEN) ma secondo la Guida privata tedesca VDI 4707. Il decreto
portoghese stabilisce poi che a partire dal 31.12.2015 un'etichetta energetica
per gli ascensori sarà necessaria, e questo, in uno scenario in cui la direttiva
sull'etichettatura energetica non è ancora applicabile agli ascensori.
A nostro parere i requisiti del decreto portoghese non sono in linea con la
Direttiva Ascensori 95/16/CE concernente il ravvicinamento delle legislazioni degli
Stati membri relative agli ascensori, con la Direttiva 2010/31/UE concernente
l'indicazione di etichettatura e informazioni uniformi sul consumo di energia e
altre risorse dei prodotti connessi all'energia e, infine , con la Direttiva 2009/125/
CE che istituisce un quadro per l'elaborazione di requisiti di progettazione eco
compatibile per i prodotti connessi all'energia.
Queste disposizioni rischiano seriamente di ostacolare la libera concorrenza nel
mercato unico europeo, un ostacolo che è principalmente a scapito delle piccole e
medie imprese, dato che la tecnologia idraulica è più comunemente adottata dalle
piccole imprese.
Per questo motivo, EFESME si è impegnata a preparare e presentare una
denuncia ufficiale alla Commissione europea, che è stata inviata il 5
agosto 2014.
La Commissione europea ha preso in considerazione il nostro reclamo e
ha chiesto chiarimenti al Portogallo. Più precisamente, il nostro fascicolo è
attualmente trattato sotto il protocollo EU Pilot, un sistema che facilita gli scambi
di informazioni tra la Commissione europea e gli Stati membri UE. Il Portogallo ha
avuto tempo per fornire spiegazioni alla Commissione fino al 10 marzo 2015 e la
CE sta attualmente valutando il dossier. Nel caso in cui la Commissione giudichi
le risposte esaustive, il caso verrà risolto con una modifica volontaria del testo
normativo da parte del Portogallo (se sarà dichiarata una non conformità con le
direttive europee). Se la risposta non sarà soddisfacente, la Commissione avvierà
di norma una procedura di infrazione.
EFESME accoglie favorevolmente che la Commissione europea abbia
condiviso la nostra preoccupazione e che abbia pertanto aperto
un'inchiesta; si tratta di un fattore positivo, in quanto si è reso esplicito
che le nostre preoccupazioni in merito a questo decreto nazionale
risultano fondate.
12
ISTITUZIONI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA
► AZIONE LEGALE IN UNO STATO MEMBRO
► ACGM - A chiusura di un’indagine dell’Autorità Italiana Garante della Concorrenza del Mercato, Kone e Schindler hanno ritirato la
loro comunicazione pubblicitaria in materia di efficienza energetica A seguito di una segnalazione di EFESME nel dicembre 2013, l’Autorità
Italiana Garante della Concorrenza del Mercato (AGCM) ha analizzato le
pubblicità contenute nei siti web di Kone e Schindler e ha acquisito informazioni
attraverso ispezioni presso le sedi aziendali. Dopo alcuni mesi di indagine,
l'AGCM ha supposto che i messaggi contenuti in queste pubblicità
potessero influenzare negativamente la scelta consapevole di potenziali
clienti. L'autorità italiana ha contestato i dati sul consumo di energia di alcuni
tipi di ascensori, fatti senza fornire le informazioni necessarie per la loro corretta
interpretazione; inoltre, l'AGCM ha contestato anche il riferimento alla Guida
tedesca VDI 4707, utilizzata come se fosse la norma
ufficiale in materia di consumo energetico, attraverso la
quale ai prodotti delle due aziende veniva assegnata
un’etichetta di "classe A" di efficienza energetica.
L’AGCM ha anche supposto che le due aziende abbiano
usato un’etichetta troppo simile all’etichetta energetica
che, secondo la legislazione europea, si applica solo ad
alcuni elettrodomestici e prodotti di consumo.
Nel corso del procedimento, Kone e Schindler hanno contestato il contenuto della
nostra relazione e le osservazioni formulate dall'AGCM. Tuttavia, al fine di evitare
il prolungamento della procedura e dato il rischio di fallimento con conseguenti
sanzioni contro di loro, le due società hanno preferito impegnarsi a rimuovere la
pubblicità ingannevoli dai loro siti Web. L'AGCM, dopo aver ascoltato le
opinioni di EFESME, ha accettato questi impegni e ha chiesto a Kone e
Schindler di rimuovere le pubblicità.
Dato questo grande risultato raggiunto da EFESME in uno Stato membro
dell'UE, abbiamo invitato caldamente tutti i membri di EFESME a
monitorare a livello nazionale tutte le attività poco chiare e le pubblicità
ingannevoli, e di avvertirne in caso le rispettive Autorità garanti a livello
nazionale.
EFESME sta attualmente valutando la possibilità di portare il caso direttamente
alla Commissione europea, perché l'uso improprio delle etichette energetiche
attraverso la Guida VDI 4707 non è attribuibile solo alle due società in questione
in Italia, ma appartiene a molti organismi notificati a livello europeo.
13
GLI STAKEHOLDER A BRUXELLES: INCONTRI IMPORTANTI PER EFESME
► Incontro col Segretario Generale di UEAPME Peter Faross -
UEAPME è l'organizzazione che rappresenta gli interessi dell’artigianato europeo e le PMI a livello dell'UE ed è anche un Partner sociale europeo
riconosciuto.
Il 16 ottobre 2014 una delegazione di EFESME ha
incontrato il Segretario generale di UEAPME Peter Faross,
per discutere in dettaglio la questione dell'efficienza
energetica per il nostro settore. Negli ultimi anni, questo
particolare elemento ha attirato le nostre preoccupazioni, e
per questo abbiamo seguito attivamente lo sviluppo e
l'implementazione della EPBD, etichettatura ecologica e
della direttiva Eco-design. Anche se EFESME è convinto
dell'importanza e della necessità di ridurre il consumo energetico al fine di raggiungere
gli obiettivi fissati per il 2020, crediamo che la nostra industria non sia pronta per essere
inclusa nell'ambito delle direttive citate. Data l'estrema diversità di tipi e usi degli
ascensori e le varie tecnologie utilizzate, un'esatta valutazione del consumo energetico
reale di ascensori è molto soggettiva e dipende da molte variabili. EFESME ha illustrato
lo stato dell'arte della normativa applicabile al nostro
settore, le nostre preoccupazioni per quanto riguarda
l'adozione discutibile della Guida tedesca VDI 4707 e le
nuove regole di categoria di prodotto volontarie per gli
ascensori (PCR).
Il Segretario Generale di UEAPME Peter Faross ha espresso
che, a suo avviso, siccome le misure relative all’efficienza
energetica hanno subito un'accelerazione negli ultimi anni, gli Stati membri non sono
pronti né più disposti a essere costretti a imporre alle industrie tali enormi cambiamenti
nel breve periodo. Per questo motivo, ha stimato che l'approccio del nuovo Commissario
per l'energia (Miguel Arias Cañete, che ha preso incarico dal 1° novembre 2014) sarà di
lasciare questa 'politica allargamento' agli Stati membri e le industrie.
► Incontro col CEAHR, la Confederazione europea delle associazioni
orologiaie e i riparatori di orologi
CEAHR è l'associazione internazionale che rappresenta gli imprenditori impegnati nella
manutenzione, riparazione o restauro di articoli di orologeria. Il 16 ottobre 2014 una
delegazione di EFESME ha incontrato il Segretario Generale del CEAHR Michael Van
Gompen e l’Avv. Peter Dyrberg (avvocato del CEAHR). CEAHR ha combattuto per anni
per ottenere un libero mercato per i servizi di riparazione, affrontando alcune sfide che
sono molto simili alle nostre. Nel corso degli anni, CEAHR ha presentato due denunce
alla Commissione europea, ma purtroppo, il loro dossier è sempre stato respinto.
Trattandosi di una problematica affine alla nostra, li abbiamo incontrati per confrontare
le nostre esperienze ed essere informati sugli ostacoli che hanno dovuto superare.
14
ATTIVITÀ COLLEGATE ALLA NORMAZIONE
► SBS - SBS, Small Business Standards è la nuova associazione creata nell'ottobre
2013 al fine di rappresentare gli interessi di tutte le PMI europee nel sistema di
normazione europeo nelle sue varie forme, nata con l'intento di accrescere la
consapevolezza e la conoscenza sulla normazione e facilitare l'uso di
norme da parte delle PMI.
EFESME è stata una degli otto membri fondatori, appoggiando
questo progetto già dalla sua prima stesura in forma di call for
proposal. Lo scopo di SBS è di includersi direttamente nello sviluppo
di norme, rappresentare e difendere le PMI presso gli organismi di
normazione europei e nazionali e di combinare strumenti per
assicurare una piena comprensione dei benefici che l’utilizzo di norme
può portare alle PMI.
EFESME rappresenta un pilastro per questo progetto ed è
stato l'unico membro associato a ottenere la nomina di ben
due esperti tecnici per partecipare alle riunioni CEN e ISO: l’Ing.
Giuseppe Iotti e l’Ing. Luciano Faletto sono stati
rispettivamente nominati per difendere la voce delle PMI. Inoltre, il nostro
impegno in questa attività ha anche una connotazione politica, in quanto il nostro Vice
Presidente Massimo Bezzi è stato nominato Vice Presidente di SBS.
Le azioni svolte finora tramite SBS
► Marzo 2014 - EFESME ha risposto alla consultazione per la bozza preliminare
del "Programma Annuale dell'Unione per la normazione europea" ed ha proposto due
emendamenti che enfatizzano i bisogni delle PMI;
► Maggio 2014 - EFESME ha trasmesso un position paper sull’accessibilità agli
standard per le PMI. Questo documento intende denunciare alcune problematiche che
ancora limitano il pieno accesso alle norme e al sistema di normazione: complessità
delle norme ed incidenza della loro revisione, costo della normazione, rappresentanza
nel CEN/TC10 e accessibilità linguistica. Abbiamo chiesto che il principio del Think Small
First sia applicato in ogni nuova legge e in tutte le pratiche stabilite all'interno degli
Organismi Europei di Normazione.
► Maggio 2014 - EFESME ha risposto alla consultazione della Commissione
Europea sul progetto di mandato che richiede agli Organismi di Normazione
Europei di sviluppare standard europei su aspetti energetici materiali per
prodotti relativi all'energia, in supporto dell'implementazione della Direttiva Eco-
design 2009/125/CE.
► Dicembre 2014 – EFESME ha pubblicato un position paper sul settore
ascensoristico e il problema della traduzione delle norme. Questo documento è
stato co-redatto da SBS ed EFESME e riflette una delle nostre preoccupazioni,
presentate a Small Business Standards in un position paper in maggio (Vedi sopra); su
nostra sollecitazione esplicita, SBS ha deciso di dedicare un position paper sull'ultimo
punto, l'accessibilità linguistica per il nostro settore. Il documento è pertanto il
risultato di un impulso che viene dalla nostra Federazione, e mette in luce lo stato
dell'arte della disponibilità di traduzioni per le norme europee che concernono
gli ascensori. Tra le proposte nelle conclusioni del documento, SBS (ed EFESME)
invitano la Commissione europea a rafforzare il completamento di un equo mercato
europeo unico e a garantire a tutte le imprese un uguale accesso alle norme. Una
Decisione della Commissione europea del 2006 ha effettivamente preso in
considerazione la possibilità che il bilancio dell’UE includa anche una voce per la
copertura dei costi di traduzione per le lingue ufficiali dell'UE, e pertanto abbiamo
15
ATTIVITÀ COLLEGATE ALLA NORMAZIONE
► L’attività tecnica è stata seguita con successo anche quest’anno dall’Ing. Giuseppe
Iotti de ll’Ing. Luciano Faletto, rispettivamente in ambito europeo (CEN) e internazionale
(ISO).
Per quanto concerne l’attività CEN, nel corso del 2014 il gruppo WG1 del TC 10 che si
occupa delle norme base per gli ascensori ha concluso le nuove norme base EN 81-
20 e 50. Si tratta di norme destinate a cambiare in maniera importante il modo di
operare, e questo entro tre anni, durante i quali convivranno sia la nuova che la vecchia
struttura normativa (EN 81-1&2).
Alla luce delle nuove EN 81-20 e 50, si apre adesso un importante lavoro di
revisione delle altre norme del settore; alcuni esempi sono la EN 81-70
sull’accessibilità o la EN 81-21 sugli ascensori con spazi verticali ridotti di sicurezza. A
partire dal 2015, inoltre, si sono riaperti i lavori del WG10 sulla sicurezza degli ascensori
esistenti.
Per quanto concerne l’attività a livello ISO, durante l’ultimo anno questa si è
concentrata soprattutto su temi di carattere energetico. Questo lavoro è ora terminato,
in quanto le ISO 25745-1 e 2 sui metodi di misurazione del consumo energetico
degli ascensori e metodi per le verifiche periodiche sono state pubblicate.
Tuttavia durante lo scorso Plenary Meeting del CEN è emerso il piano strategico a livello
mondiale di arrivare ad una normazione globale nell’arco di 10 anni circa, partendo da
norme europee. Alcuni paesi, come la Cina, già utilizzano infatti norme europee. Seguire
questo processo per 10 anni non sarà una sfida facile per EFESME, ma col supporto di
SBS cercheremo di garantire che le PMI del settore partecipino in questo processo.
16
ESIBIZIONI INTERNAZIONALI
La partecipazione a fiere internazionali rappresenta per EFESME uno dei principali e
migliori strumenti per promuovere la propria attività e per cercare nuove adesioni.
Infatti, la partecipazione a fiere internazionali è sempre una buona via per entrare in
contatto con nuovi ambienti stimolanti, scambiare esperienze ed esplorare
nuove opportunità di business per i nostri associati. Le esibizioni internazionali
offrono anche un’incredibile opportunità per incontrare produttori, componentisti
ed installatori da vari paesi, con lo spirito di scambiare buone pratiche e tenersi
aggiornati sui nuovi sviluppi tecnologici.
In questo senso, abbiamo identificato gli eventi annuali più promettenti sotto il
profilo della partecipazione internazionale, capaci di presentare anche un ritorno di
visibilità per le nostre attività:
► 2014 • World Elevator & Escalator Expo – 13/16 maggio 2014 – Guangzhou - Cina
► 2015 • Asansör Istanbul - 26/29 marzo 2015 – Istanbul – Turchia
• Russian Elevator Week - 9/11 giugno 2015 – Mosca – Russia
• Interlift ‘15 – 13/16 ottobre 2015 – Ausburg - Germania
Riferimenti Web
•http://www.efesme.org/fair
17
18
19
Documenti di Documenti di
SupportoSupporto
20
21
EFESME
Comments to the Working Plan 2015-2017
task 3 report
August 2014
22
Who is EFESME?
EFESME represents and defends the interests of the European SMEs operating in the lift
sector and embodies a wider European initiative aiming to redefine the representation of
Lift SMEs.
EFESME was created in April 2005 and draws together the European Federation of National
Associations belonging to all branches of the lift sector; to date EFESME brings together 14
National associations from 13 EU Member States.
EFESME is broadly included in European Bodies representing the SMEs: the Federation is a
member of UEAPME since 2009 and became founding member of SBS – Small Business
Standards – in October 2013.
Today, SMEs are constantly promoting their presence at the European level, seeking a
common and meaningful participation in the technical and normative evolution for the lift
sector.
In this context, EFESME is pleased to provide the Study to establish the Working Plan 2015
-2017 for the Ecodesign Directive with a first group of comments to the section of the
"working plan 2015-2017 task 3” concerning lifts.
We strongly believe that developed and complete information to draft the text at its best
can only be gained with the participation of all interested stakeholders in this sector.
EFESME represents thousands of micro, small and medium enterprises active in the
installation, maintenance and production of lifts and for this reason, we are convinced that
we could give a strong contribution to the study.
Further information and evidence would be provided in due time, anyway before the
compilation of the next report for task 4.
23
Comments to the Working Plan 2015-2017 task 3 report
1. As first comment, we consider that the pictures in figure 12, which were provided to
you to explain how electric and hydraulic lifts are currently constructed and work,
illustrate solutions which are very seldom adopted for the products normally placed in the
market nowadays. We suggest that, if possible and agreed, more suitable pictures and
descriptions, which we might provide to you in due time, replace the existing ones in order
to allow a better understanding of the issues at stake.
2. In our opinion the number of trips per year given by the E4 project and taken as a
reference in your document are not realistic, especially as far as residential buildings are
concerned, for which an average of 30,000 to 60,000 trips per year are the values
collected during the development of such project. For some reasons, which are becoming
clearer to us only in the recent times, somebody decided that this number had to be much
higher, equal to 100,000 trips per year, with the consequence of undermining the
reliability of the descending evaluations. Detailed evidence of such arbitrary decision
would be provided in due time.
3. The figures given in fig 13 and in table 44 are quite unrealistic as far as the future
reduction of hydraulic lifts is concerned, due to the fact that their life time normally
exceeds 30 years by far and only a limited number of such lifts is subject to such high
traffic to justify their replacement with lifts based on different technologies. On the other
end, the lower number of trips per year to be taken into account for all lifts in residential
buildings would lead to a much lower yearly energy consumption, thus affecting also the
data shown in the relevant tables later on in the report.
4. Data shown in table 45 cannot be considered as applicable to the average type of lifts
currently installed in residential buildings and, even more, they cannot at all be related to
hydraulic lifts for residential buildings. As a matter of fact:
a. hydraulic lifts, as an average, serve buildings having up to 4 or 5 floors and their
average speed is equal to 0.65 m/s. It is commonly agreed that their number of
trips per year spans from 20,000 to 50,000.
b. Most of electric lifts currently installed by the majority of companies have 1:2
suspension and an average speed of:
i. 1,0 or 1,6 m/s in case of residential buildings with up to 8 floors
ii. 2,0 or 3,0 m/s in case of office buildings with up to 20 floors.
c. It is our opinion that such table 45 should be deeply revised and, for completeness
of information, should include at least one column concerning hydraulic lifts for
residential buildings. A suitable example would be provided in due time
24
5. The data provided in the tables from 45 to 49 should include the updated values and refer to
the lower speeds and lower number of tips per year mentioned in our points above. We suggest
that these new data for tables 45 and 46 are possibly provided by KONE, the company which
owns the tool used in first instance. In addition, we can anticipate that a quick survey is being
carried out by us to evaluate if an additional type of lifting equipment might be included in the
volumes to be taken into account. These lifting equipments, often indicated as lifting platforms
or home lifts, are oriented to the lower segment of the market and are characterized by
continuously growing volumes: already achieved many thousands of units per year. In case of a
positive outcome of our survey, we would provide you with the necessary details for you to
decide whether this matter might be relevant for your investigations and worth being taken into
account.
a. The new data, supported by some evidence which we would provide in due time,
would be a more reliable reference for the estimation of the annual energy consumption
values. This would explain why the information provided by the E4 project should be
considered as overestimated, This would, then, allow a better estimation of the expected
savings due to the implementation of newer, more efficient technologies, with an important
impact on the information shown in tables 52 to 54, concerning potential savings.
b. Information provided in tables 46, 47 and 48, in our opinion, concern situations based
on the 100,000 and 300,000 trips per year proposed by the E4 project. As anticipated
earlier, we consider that they are by far overestimated and are clearly influenced by the
arbitrary decisions affecting the data of the lifts as shown in table 45. If necessary, we
might try to provide an updated calculation in due time.
6. Concerning both the "other services consumption" based on the information shown in table
50 and also the life cycle analysis (mentioned for the escalators, with reference to figure 51),
we highlight that such sort of list of materials, their relevant percentage impact and their
distribution, might concern only a certain model of electric lifts and cannot be directly applied to
a wider range of lifts, including hydraulic lifts. Without going now into too deep details, we
suggest that more specific information would be provided as soon as these issues have been
clarified by the group currently working on the development of the PCR for lifts which we
already mentioned.
7. Last, but not least, we confirm that an investigation is going on with reference to the costs
for some larger volume type of lifts, in order to collect and make available some reasonably
reliable data which might assist in comparing different types of new lifts based on different
technologies. This as a starting base for evaluating the expected payback time in case of
replacement or major renovation of existing lifts, in order to try to fully justify the improvement
of the energy efficiency of such units. We are expecting that major renovations or full
replacement may more easily apply to lifts with high traffic, high running energy consumption
and, probably, also most severe wear and quicker obsolescence, such as lifts for office, hotels,
commercial buildings, etc. On the other end, this might not be applicable to the much lower
traffic type of lifts for residential buildings, unless their type of construction doesn't allow for a
reasonably long life duration expectancy. As soon as any reasonable information would be
appropriately consolidated, it would be made available to you for further discussions.
25
8. Concerning our opinion on the overlaps existing with other products, we can anticipate
that:
a. Motors for lifts, in many cases, require special design, construction and
performance, so that it is likely that they might not fall within the types covered by
the relevant directives. More detailed information would be provided later on for an
appropriate evaluation.
b. Energy consumption in standby mode, is already being improved in the most
recent lift models and might not be subject to the limitations introduced by the
relevant directives, due to the peculiarity of the lifts operation in their various
applications. Also in this case investigations are being made and information on the
outcome would be provided as soon as available.
c. Technological new options would require much longer investigation times, so we
might not immediately be in a position to provide reliable, up-to-date indications at
this point in time. Any further development of some interest would be brought to
your attention as soon as it would be disclosed.
Conclusion As stated in the introduction, we will soon provide further information and evidence – where possible – to better support our position. In the meantime, we remain available for any discussion on the items presented.
26
27
EFESME comments to the Working Plan 3, Task 4.
We would like you to consider some comments, a few editorials and some more technical, which we
are submitting to you here below.
1. In paragraph 14.1.1 we suggest to modify, in the last line, "use of rare earth materials in
permanent motors" with "use of rare earth materials in traction motors".
2. In paragraph 14. 1.2 we need to highlight the fact that most of the improvement options
mentioned are already being implemented, especially concerning the hydraulic lifts, for which
the risk of accidentally spilling oil during replacement is being taken care by a progressive
reduction in the quantity of oil being used, procedures and tools for the replacement, in
addition to the selection of more environmental friendly type of oils.
3. In paragraph 14. 2. 1, under the heading Lifts Directive, we need to point out that the essential
health and safety requirements listed in Annex 1 are not the only ones applicable to lifts,
because they are supplemented by a good number of those listed in the machinery directive
and also considered as applicable. In addition it is left to the responsibility of the designer has
to carry out a risk assessment in order to identify if there are other risks which are not covered
by those essential safety requirements. The harmonized standards are the documents which
provide specifications in order to guarantee compliance with the directive. In these standards,
for instance, there are already provisions concerning the risks of oil leakage. Anyway, as soon
as it appears that new risks might affect the health and safety of people, there are procedures to
carry out the revision of the standard in order to take also these new risks into account. By the
way, recently under the New Legislative Framework (NLF), there was a recast of the Lifts
Directive but no modification was introduced in the Essential Health and Safety Requirements
in Annex 1. Vibration and noise produced by lifts do not seem to be an issue, and the moment,
because the competition in the market is driving a progressive improvement from this point of
28
view, while specific restrictions to the maximum noise in some building areas might be depending
on the specific structure of the building and not necessarily only on the performance of the lift.
Energy consumption was never considered a problem, in the past, and now its progressive
reduction might be considered as a good marketing opportunity, as long as the tools made
available for its evaluation are transparent, correctly planned, properly applied and do not
cause undue discrimination to the specific detriment of some types of products.
4. In paragraph 14. 2. 1, under the heading Energy Performance of Buildings Directive we want to
point out that, by the time all new buildings in the EU will have to consume nearly 0 energy,
most likely the energy consumed by lifts would need to be taken into account and, in that case,
would need to be known. This means that the implementation of the 2010 recast of the EPB
Directive, in our opinion, would probably include also lifts. But knowing the energy
consumption of lifts in a specific building does not necessarily imply classifying the lifts
according to an energy efficiency classification system which would be very unlikely to
consider their real performance, which depends on the practical use of the lift in that specific
building.
5. In paragraph 14.2.2 we have to strongly oppose the idea to define energy efficiency
requirements as proposed by ELA, especially when this energy efficiency classification is the
one given by document VDI 4707. This document is not a standard and was developed by a
private body, VDI, which considered only a restricted number of stakeholders. VDI did not
care to avoid discriminating some type of products which are still very popular in the market
and, when properly applied, provide an energy efficiency performance much higher than that
estimated by applying the VDI 4707. Such reference in the regulation being implemented in
Portugal is likely to be considered as a limitation to the free circulation of products within the
EU market. In our opinion, the reference should be made to the standards ISO 25745- 1 and
ISO 25745-2 and should consider only the energy consumption in the running phase and in the
standby condition, as apparently already specified in Denmark.
29
6. Concerning paragraph 14. 2. 3 we, at the moment, are supporting the proposal of finalizing a PCR
for lifts, to be agreed upon by the largest possible number of stakeholders. This might be the bases
for Energy Performance Declarations to be provided in addition to the value of the energy
consumption of lifts under the EPBD. In our opinion the specifications of the PCR shall be such
that they may be considered an appropriate tool to guarantee reliable and comparable Life Cycle
Assessments. Considering the presence of a large number of competitors and the already proved
market drive towards a continuous improvement of the energy performance of lifts, this might be
the only good opportunity to ensure that in the future more and more environmental friendly lifts
would be placed in the market. For instance it might encourage the industry to further develop the
technology of drives for the "variable reluctance" motors, which might usefully replace the
"permanent magnet" ones with a fair reduction of costs and environmental impact But, we repeat
again, It is important that the PCR specifications, to be considered as legal prescriptions, really
satisfy the requirement of providing fair rules which do not cause undue discrimination for any of
the possible types of products, as long as they are sufficiently efficient for the intended use. In
addition, it is of paramount importance that the PCR shall also consider the environmental impact
of partial modernizations. This would encourage the improvement of the energy efficiency of lifts
in existing buildings, because it would guarantee a more efficient and less expensive way of
greatly improving the energy performance of the existing stock of lifts, without the need to fully
produce completely new lifts and cause too much waste when fully dismantling the existing ones.
7. Concerning paragraph 14.2.5 we have to say that the European standards EN 81-20 and EN 81-50
do not deal with the energy consumption and the energy efficiency of lifts. We strongly doubt that
they will ever deal with such matters also in the future, although they are actually the bases for the
development of new ISO prescriptive safety standards for lifts to be adopted worldwide. On the
contrary the document VDI 4707, as mentioned earlier, is not a standard and should not be taken
as a reference as it is not appropriately considering the performance of various types of products,
causing an unacceptable discrimination and a distortion in the market. We acknowledge that the
VDI guidance for the evaluation of the energy consumption is an appropriate concept, but the way
the values are calculated in VDI 4707 is not correct and the results in most cases are quite far from
those obtained by the implementation of the real standard, ISO 25745-2.
30
8. In paragraph 14.4.2 the reference to the number of workers involved in the lift sector in year 2008
is incorrectly indicated to concern only the UK, while it actually refers to the total of the EU
market.
31
EFESME
POSITION PAPER
DG COMP – July 2014
THE STATUS OF COMPETITION IN THE ELEVATOR
PRODUCT AND SERVICES MARKET
32
Who is EFESME?
EFESME represents and defends the interests of the European SMEs operating in the lift
sector and embodies a wider European initiative aiming to redefine the representation of Lift
SMEs.
EFESME is broadly included in European Bodies representing the SMEs: the Federation is a
member of UEAPME since 2009 and became founding member of SBS – Small Business
Standards – in October 2013.
Please see also our document of December 2013.
Brief updating on the European elevator market
The elevator market in Europe represented in 2012 a total value of around 10 billion euros,
corresponding to a sale of about 120.000 new elevators, a complete or semi-complete
modernization of about 100.000 existing elevators, and the maintenance of 5,4 million units,
the 50% of which date more than 20 years.
About 80% of this market value is therefore attributable to services, namely to maintenance,
repair and modernization of existing lifts.
Over 50% of the market is covered only by four multinational groups - Otis, Schindler, Kone,
ThyssenKrupp Elevator - with a smaller presence of other International brands such as
Mitsubishi (which are associated in ELA), and the rest of the market share is spread over
thousands of independent SMEs.
The majority of European SMEs are bound to National associations belonging to the European
Federation EFESME, which directly represents around 150.000workers, that is 67% of the
whole personnel employed in this sector.
Moreover, upstream the whole lift sector as properly defined, there is the independent
components industry (associated in ELCA), concentrated in a few countries, such as Italy,
Germany and Spain, and which has a relevant turnover and staff as well.
A matter of fair competition: the special tools issue
A description of this issue was included in our document of December 2013; but here are
some important updates.
After the requests made in 2008 by the DG ENTR of the European Commission to the CEN/
TC10, which is responsible for the elevator sector, the existing standards EN 81-1/2 should
have been amended at that time but they were not; moreover, the text of the new standards
EN 81-20 and 50 (wrote by CEN/TC10 in accordance with the DG ENTR requests). should
have been published within 2014, but they were not so far, and there will be a transitional
period of 3 years during which it will be possible to continue using the old standards, where
the requirement is not covered; in any case, the application of an EN standard is never
mandatory. But the essential safety requirement should be covered in any way, irrespective
of what the standard states as an “indication”; unfortunately, it is quite evident that market
surveillance authorities have tolerated this situation for too long.
This issue should be more under the focus of the DG ENTR, but it definitely has relevant
33
effects on the competition in the market, and it will still have effects in the next 3 or 4 years,
which is a period long enough to let the competition suffer more and more.
It has to be underlined that for “special tools” it should be also meant any necessary tools
such as spare parts and instructions on how to use these tools and parts, in order to keep the
lift working safely. In brief, anything needed for emergency operations, preventive and
corrective maintenance and modernization. The Machinery Directive 2006/42/EU did not
mean to limit the relevance of the term “special tools” in the way wished by the ones who
support a reductive interpretation.
Among these tools, we particularly focus on the two-way voice interfaces, as described in our
previous position paper of December 2013.
Action by the National Competition Commission of Spain of September 11th 2013
On 7th May 2012 the above mentioned Commission started an investigation on a group of 5
Spanish companies, among them Zardoya Otis and Schindler, parts of their multinational
groups, for their supposed actions against competitions, consisting in communications to
clients which were reputed unfair, just referring to special tools, spare parts and instructions.
After this investigation, the decision has been to fine these companies for a total of about 4.8
millions Euro (among them 2.845.362 to Otis, and 1.892.690 to Schindler, this sum being
98% of the total fine).
The investigation started from some answers given by these companies to clients wishing to
withdraw their maintenance contracts with them; in these letters the a.m. companies
doubted the technical capabilities of the competitors, claiming among other statements that
they did not have available the necessary spare parts. On 13th March 2012 Schindler even
stated to a client that they only may produce a certain product (Micromatic system), whose
intellectual property is theirs only, so that they are the only ones who may sell them. In the
same date Schindler stated that their personnel is trained to only use these tools and spare
parts. In some cases it has been written that the spare parts were available also to
competitors, but at a higher price and after a certain time, compared to the “original”
supplier.
According to the Spanish authorities, these statements were misleading and/or disparaging to
the competitors, trying eventually to eliminate competition from the market.
These companies have been fined 1% of their annual turnover in the Spanish market, apart
from Schindler, whose fine has been doubled, because it has been found that the company
made available to its officials some forms to make this kind of illegal activity normal.
It should be noted that the Spanish legislation on Competition originates from the European
one, therefore similar behaviours in other EU markets should be dealt in the same way.
Finally, it might be interesting to be noted that previously in Spain at least three important
surveys on the lift maintenance and repair market have been issued by local and national
competition authorities. The first one in December 2008 by the Basque Government, already
cited in our previous position paper; the second one in February 2010 by the Competition
Authority of Catalonia. Both expressed the worry about possible behaviours which were
actually demonstrated in the Spanish market some time later.
34
In particular, the study of the antitrust authorities in the Basque Country identified clearly the
following barriers to competition in the lift sector: a) technological barriers, b) maintenance
contracts, c) misinformation and consequent need for public information campaigns, d)
distortions in administrative authorization of maintenance (this issue is of course pertinent to
various national situations). Finally, in September 2011 the National Competition Commission
(CNC) has published a report on the functioning of the lift maintenance market in Spain, in
which it proposes the adoption of measures to increase the limited competition that exists in
the sector. Among those measures, CNC asks for legislative provisions aimed at ensuring that
maintenance companies which compete with manufacturers and installation companies that
also carry out maintenance activities are given access by such companies to supplies of the
tools and spare parts that are necessary to carry out their business on conditions that permit
effective competition by these third-party maintenance companies.
France
France is the first Country - and so far, the only one - where the situation we are denouncing
has been changed, or at least is now changing, after the publishing of the National Decree
2012-674 (see later in this document; it was reported also in our previous position paper of
December 2013).
As an example, we may here report what happened to some clients of the company Ilex,
affiliate of our French member association ANPA, a behaviour which has become a cause of
litigation between our member and Schindler of France. The problems denounced by Ilex were concentrating on three issues:
A) two-way voice interfaces
B) delivery of spare parts
C) special tools for control and diagnosis
A) Before the release of the Decree 2012-674, on 1st March 2010 Ilex signed a maintenance
contract on four Schindler elevators located in the Blue Marine condominium, in Port Fréjus,
because the client decided to switch the maintenance contract from Schindler to Ilex.
As provided by law, each lift should be equipped with a backup phone connected to the call
centre of the maintenance company, in order to face rescue operation safely. Moreover, even
though the regulation imposes to immediately reprogram the numbers of emergency
telephones to the company's maintenance center, on 1st March Schindler did not reprogram
the phones, leaving the new maintenance company Ilex also without the documentation to
change them itself. For this reason Ilex was forced to solicit the intervention of Schindler, but
they had to wait for nine months to get an intervention from a Schindler technician to
reprogram the telephone number from the Schindler emergency center to the Ilex one; during
this time the work of the lifts was obviously unsafe. In many other cases the client couldn’t
wait, and Ilex had to substitute the equipment, which is not an economically efficient practice,
as the equipment was new as hardware.
After the release of the Decree 2012-674, this has become explicitly illegal in France, so the
company which used to have the maintenance contract before has mandatorily to cooperate to
exchange the telephone number. But the fact is that this common practice before the 2012-
674 in France is eventually illegal wherever in Europe, even though no European or local
Authority can directly asks the multinational companies to respect the provision of the Lifts
35
Directive about it. Here, it has to be noted that one of the defence issues of Schindler is that
the applicable standard EN 81-28 does not asks for such a cooperation, it does not enter the
issue itself, it does not even deal with this phone number programmed or not into the
equipment. And it is true, this issue is not a surprise for them, due to a quite normal attitude
of CEN/TC10: when a question may become delicate for the multinational companies, the
standard may avoid entering in detail on how to realize an essential safety requirement. This
is the same to say that the standard not always does what it was theoretically made for, and
CEN/TC10 is not working for the safety only. But many companies and even NBs or Member
State authorities behave as the standard only exist, more than the Directive itself. As it is the
case of the special tools. We suppose that the practices used by Schindler in this case in
France before the Decree 2012-674 are still in use in other parts of Europe, against the
provisions of the Directive, but many technicalities are involved, so we are annexing a
document in French to illustrate in details the point of view of our party, in order to make
possible for the Competition authorities at European level to investigate on this. B) In August 2010, two Schindler elevators maintained by Ilex broke down due to an over-
voltage and two pieces, called EPROM ("Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory")
containing all the program of each lift, had to be replaced. Schindler is the only supplier of
this spare part compatible with Schindler elevators. The EPROM is an electronic circuit where
the operational lift program is, without this device a correct and safe working is impossible.
After having had no answer to their request for two new EPROM to Schindler, Ilex turned to
the Frejus agency (closer to their place) where they claimed not to have available the spare
part, sending Ilex to the central agency in the Paris region. The central workshop claimed
that they would have need some detailed information about that particular lifts, and this
discussion, probably unfounded, took about two weeks. Only after 4 weeks the EPROM was
delivered on place, while Schindler claims to deal with such issues normally within 8 days.
This kind of problem with spare parts happened several times, in similar modalities (see also
client Le Palazio), and in the case here described the delay in providing Ilex with the two
EPROMs made Ilex lose its maintenance contract, which maybe was the scope of the
Schindler behaviour, to show that actually competitors cannot deal with their machines.
C) Ilex, when taking the maintenance service on any lifts, should be able to know all the
safety and functional parameters; so, where needed, it is necessary to have available the
appropriate diagnosis and programming tools. It should be noted that, in the view of the
Directive such as in the common sense, these tools should be on place (which will be the
text of EN 81-20), and, over all, available to those who bought the elevator. Schindler
refused to deliver such tools claiming in written form that these technologies are intellectual
property of the enterprise and may not be distributed to other parties. According to
Schindler, external companies may supply the Schindler lifts, but using the Schindler local
technical assistance only. It has to be underlined that here it is told only of “maintenance”
tools, which means also repair, etc., but this has nothing to do with the project or even the
installation stage of the product. This point has been clearly taken, once again, by the
Decree 2012-674 in France after what happened to Ilex in this case, but what about the rest
of Europe? By the way, an observation of Ilex at that time was that even the multinational
companies were not all consistent in this behaviour, because for instance Kone had no
difficulty in releasing their special tools. But Ilex observed also that among its clients there
are many more from the rest of the 3 multinationals (Otis, Kone, ThyssenKrupp) than from
Schindler, and this maybe is not just a case, showing clearly the close relation between
36
To make his voice heard, Ilex invested many resources to bring its case to expert judgment
of the Court, which is a difficult practice for a SME.
The case above described is under process now, and some finding could be reached in the
forthcoming months.
Italy and the Netherlands
In Italy, our associate member ANACAM sent us, just as one of several examples, a
correspondence dated June 2012 between Ceam (100% Otis – indeed they were talking
mainly of some Otis Gen2 lifts) and the company Sannascensori. This member of ANACAM is
an estimated maintenance company serving the Hospital of Sassari (Sardinia) who asked for
the instructions and special tools which should have been on place in order to let the lifts
work safely in such a building. Ceam answered that the requests were “generic” and
“confused”, and would like to know if there was a specific technical problem on the lifts and
on which one, before sending any document or material. Sannascensori recalled in its letter
the contents of the Italian Decree n. 162/1999 (annex I, point 6, Instruction for use) but
Ceam answered these juridical fundaments were not justified, and insisted to know a specific
reason for sending such information, as a general requirement of the Lift Directive was not
there, and less than less considering the existence of any standards about it. Finally, Ceam
quoted a copy of the electrical diagrams (supposed to be lost by the client?) for a cost of 250
Euro, and a delivery time of 15 working days.
More generally, in Italy there are huge problems of competition in the maintenance service
market, with the use of unfair terms in the maintenance contracts. Just to report a recent
case, the Italian Authority for Competition and Market concluded on 4th November 2013 that
some unfair terms were included in the contracts of 8 companies, among them Kone, Ceam
(100% Otis), ThyssenKrupp and Otis itself. These terms had no direct relationship with the
a.m. issue of special tools, spare parts and instructions, but it is quite clear that, where for a
competitor is hard and/or expensive to find them on place or at the right price within right
time terms, the level of competition on the maintenance service contracts is lower than it
should be in different market conditions, and other unfair terms cooperates to this result. It
should be recalled the Basque Country survey a.m., which identified as barriers to a more
free market in the first position the technological ones, in the second maintenance contracts.
There is a recent case reported by our member association from The Netherlands, NLB,
where the maintenance company of one of their members, Mr. Krouwel, asked ThyssenKrupp
for a spare part and received an offer of 3.405 Euro which is far over the market price.
Another example reported by the Secretary of NBL which happened to a Dutch member is an
offer of Kone tacho MX18, from Kone, at 5.024 Euro, which is likely to be around ten times
its fair value on the real market.
37
The post-sales service market as an oligopolistic market
These examples and other anti-competitive practices make the post-sales service market
(which as stated above represents the 80% of the whole lift market in Europe) have an
oligopolistic aim, because independent maintainers are hampered in getting the information
and the technologies needed to operate with effectiveness and safety. Moreover, these
practices contribute to restrict the competition also in the new elevators market, since
access to the necessary standards is restricted to a few subjects who have produced them.
The evidence proved by fines for anti-competitive behavior in the maintenance
market
Sometimes the results of this situation emerge with clarity even at European level, like in
the well-known case of huge fines inflicted several years ago to some of these companies in
a series of Member States in Central and Northern Europe, due to anti-competitive practices
in the maintenance market, even against customers such as the European institutions.
The controls at National level
Some Member States are identifying these situations at their level, which is useful, but it
should not be forgotten that the operations of multinational companies have a global or
however European logic, although parts of the legislation are at the national level, which
creates some ambiguity and operational difficulties. But this is now quite a common
problem, faced and solved within the Union frame in other cases, such as the car repair
issue.
A possible solution at national level: The French Decree n° 2012-674 on
maintenance
In July 2012 the French Government issued a Decree which very clearly and concisely defines
obligations which are unavoidable for elevator installers.
Given that the market includes operating elevator systems without instructions, equipment
and facilities essential to safely perform maintenance operations and rescue, this Decree tries
to hinder the current situation. Indeed, the owner of the lift should put at disposal of the
maintainer, if different from the installer, all the essential information and tools, necessary for
a safe and prompt maintenance. The provisions of article 3 of that Decree - implemented to
compensate the above highlighted shortcomings of harmonised technical rules under
European Directives – fully satisfy the EHSRs laid down in Annexes I to Directives 95/16/EC
(notably the 6.1 and 6.2) and 2006/42/EC (notably the 1.1.2):
38
Art. 3. − Après l’article R. 125-2-1 du code de la construction et de l’habitation est ajouté un
article R. 125-2-1-1 ainsi rédigé : « Art. R. 125-2-1-1. − I. – 1o Toutes les parties de l’installation doivent être accessibles au
prestataire d’entretien pour l’exécution de sa mission. En conséquence, le ou les éventuels
codes d’accès à tout ou partie de l’installation ou toute autre forme de déverrouillage,
nécessaires à l’entretien, au dépannage ou à la remise en service doivent être fournis
intégralement sans frais et sans restriction de durée d’usage par le fabricant ou l’installateur
qui les a introduits sur l’installation au propriétaire de l’ascenseur qui pourra les remettre à
l’entreprise d’entretien de son choix. « Notamment les dispositifs de téléalarme doivent être accessibles pour la réalisation des
tests cycliques et pour la modification du numéro de réception des appels ; « 2o La documentation technique, les dispositions de remise en service, les outils spécifiques
et notices d’utilisation nécessaires à l’entretien, au dépannage ou à la remise en service de
tout ou partie de l’installation doivent être fournis, sans restriction de durée d’usage, par le
fabricant ou l’installateur au propriétaire de l’installation à sa demande, dans des conditions
de prix et de délais raisonnables. Le propriétaire remet ces éléments à la disposition de
l’entreprise d’entretien de son choix ; « 3o Les dispositions de remise en service, les notices d’utilisation des outils, la
documentation technique doivent être suffisamment explicites pour permettre au prestataire
d’entretien de modifier les paramètres de fonctionnement pour les besoins de l’entretien, du
dépannage et de la remise en service sans diminuer le niveau de sécurité prévalant avant son
intervention. « Elles devront également contenir toutes les informations nécessaires pour permettre au
prestataire d’entretien d’assurer la formation appropriée de son personnel; […]
The French National legislation on maintenance provided for the aforementioned lack relieving
in CEN standardisation by imposing stringent obligations to installers; this is making the French
National services market more competitive than earlier, but also more competitive than the
average of the other National markets in Europe. But this should not mean that it is not
possible to do anything at the appropriate level which is the European one.
A new frontier of the competition in the lift market: energy saving and environmental
impact
At the moment, lifts are not subject to EPB Directive 2010/31/UE nor to Ecodesign Directive
2009/125/EC. The main reason is that lifts are considered in general not to consume a relevant
percentage of the energy used in a common building, nor to have a relevant impact on the
environmental impact of the building itself. Nevertheless in the near future it is possible to
forecast more attention on these equipments as well. But now a strong pressure is applied by
the multinationals’ lobby on the European institution to include soon the lifts into this picture
as well, because, in parallel, they are introducing in the market their product as more energy
saving and environment friendly than the usual ones. Of course any marketing is legitimate in
itself, but not when the advertising should be misleading or even false.
Our federation has reported to the Italian Competition Authority on November 2013 suspicion
of such actions by Kone and Schindler thanks to their websites, and the Authority opened an
enquiry about it on 23rd May 2014.
39
(hydraulic technology) is introduced in the false terms to be even 5 times more energy
consuming than their one, when in the normal residential market this datum is false.
Also in this case of energy issues there is a relationship with the standards level: at the
moment it is difficult to measure and declare the energy consumption of a lift, and even
worse to compare them, because there is no consensus on a EN norm for this scope (an ISO
norm is coming), so in the recent years a private German norm has been used, VDI 4707,
which has not been released after a balanced participation of all the parties involved.
40
41
EFESME
DG COMP – October 2014
UPDATE
ON
THE STATUS OF COMPETITION IN THE ELEVATOR
PRODUCT AND SERVICES MARKET
42
ITALIAN CASE: investigation of the Competition Authority on Schindler and Kone
At the end of November 2013 EFESME reported to the Italian Competition Authority about the existence of a website
page related to multinational Schindler in which it was affirmed, without any supporting evidence, that the electric elevator
Schindler 6300 would consume in a year approximately 1,000 KWh, while the equivalent hydraulic elevator would use
about 6,000 KWh.
It is well known that SMEs in the Italian elevator market mainly produce hydraulic elevators, and their equipment,
"threatened" by a possible replacement with Schindler electric lifts, is based on hydraulic technology.
The information provided by Schindler was pointed out as misleading, since in reality:
a) where, due to traffic conditions, an electric elevator has a better energy performance than an hydraulic one, in this case
installers already tend to install electric lift;
b) in minor traffic conditions, electric and hydraulic elevators have an energy performance which is more or less
equivalent, and in some cases the hydraulic performance is even more efficient.
Moreover, just a few days later, EFESME also informed the Authority of a website page related to Kone; even though
Kone provided more data regarding the electric lift Monospace, in comparison with a standard hydraulic elevator, the
information was again misleading: here the reference traffic was of 190,000 strokes per year, a frequency that a hydraulic
lift could never reach. Generally, a hydraulic lift serves at maximum 50.000 strokes per year.
It should be noted, as it was the case in the report for the Italian Competition Authority, that at all levels the same two
companies, perhaps in conjunction with other multinationals, have lobbied to make sure that this type of unfair
comparative advertising could succeed. Regulations, laws or procedures able to support inappropriate assumptions were
used to validate the commercial policies of these companies.
For instance, the private German standard VDI 4707, which wrongly de facto became a European standard in the
calculation of the energy consumption and efficiency, falsely assumes that the cabins operate at a full load or nearly full
load. This does not correspond to the reality and therefore penalises the hydraulic elevator.
Moreover, in the drafting process of ISO standards which will replace the VDI 4707 in the market, and which will become
also EN standards in accordance with the Vienna agreement, many proposal still under discussion, suggested by big
enterprises, contained inaccuracies and are designed to magnify the performance of proprietary technologies of
multinationals at the detriment of the universal technologies of the SMEs.
Within the framework of a future subjection of lifts to energy and environmental Directives - for instance, in the so-called
PCR rules designate to draft the so-called EPDs (environmental product declarations) - it has been proposed to adopt the
VDI 4707 energy consumption calculations as if it was equivalent to ISO. In those calculation a minimum of 100.000
strokes per year are foreseen, but this is suitable to evaluate electric elevators, and not the hydraulic ones.
In February 2014 the Italian Authority contacted EFESME, calling for integration of documentation, a proof that the alert
didn’t fall on deaf ears.
43
In May 2014, following investigations on the two companies carried out by the Guardia di Finanza italiana on behalf of the
Competition Authority, Schindler and Kone produced counter-arguments, which in part were made available also for
EFESME.
In these documents the two companies proposed corrective actions ("commitments") to modify what stated in their websites;
however, this were really slight changes and for this reason EFESME considered the action insufficient; with some
differences between the two companies, the message sought to be given the public did not change in its substance.
Finally, in September EFESME could in its turn counter-argument the affirmation of the two multinationals. After a final
remark that is supposed to be presented within these days, the Authority should rule definitively on the issue by December.
FRENCH CASE: ILEX vs. SCHINDLER
As explained in detail in our position paper of July 2014 “The status of competition in the elevator product and services
market”, some clients of the French company ILEX - affiliate of our French member association ANPA - decided to switch
the maintenance contract from Schindler to Ilex.
After the maintenance passed to Ilex, some spare parts needed to be replaced and Schindler outrageously delayed their
delivery, forcing the Ilex maintenance company to leave the elevators broken down for weeks.
Moreover, when safety and functional parameters were asked, Schindler denied the access to the parameters, again
preventing the Ilex maintenance company from duly operating on the elevators made by Schindler.
Last but not least, Schindler tried to convince the owners of the buildings that “no one can better maintain a Schindler
elevator than Schindler itself”.
This behaviour became a cause of litigation between our member Ilex and Schindler, a case that is still under process now.
On 26th September the ruling was foreseen, but the Commercial Court of Versailles, where the case was initially brought,
recognised that a real hindrance to free competition of the market is at stake and for this reason the case was brought to a
higher Court, i.e. the Commercial Court of Paris.
One hundred and thirty written proof have been collected by Ilex, and also the deposition of other ten French companies
which faced the same problems.
This evolution requires at least a delay of 6 months for a next trial session to take place, but there is an incontrovertible
evidence that the Court recognised the seriousness of this dossier.
44
45
Meeting with DG Competition With Peter Van Loon
1 July 2014
Giuseppe Iotti
Francesca Fazio
Meeting with: Peter Van Loon, Case handler – Directorate General for Competition, Unit:
“Markets and cases IV: Basic industries, Manufacturing and Agriculture” – “Antitrust:
Consumer goods, Basic industries, Agriculture and Manufacturing”
As A result of a meeting held in December 2013, and after some exchange of documents with
officials of the competition, EFESME met Mr. Van Loon again for an update on our case.
In support of our discussion, Van Loon had received a summary letter of our previous encounter and
an updated position paper, as well as the complete material of the French Ilex case against
Schindler and a summary in English of the CNC report on maintenance of elevators market in Spain.
The meeting opened with the analysis and especially the answers to the letter that we sent to the
official of the DG COMP: Van Loon said he discussed the case within his Unit, and that the after-
sales market appears as a very important market but also a problematic one.
Despite the undoubted interest of our case, Van Loon pointed out that this is a delicate period of
transition for the Commission, given that this Institution will undergo a renew in November of
this year. For this reason, the Unit's priority is to close the dossiers that are still open, so as to
prevent a possible different agenda setting by the new Commissioner. Van Loon however assured
that the after sales market is of great interest to DG Competition, and he specified that the
debriefing that they prepared for the new Commissioner includes as main focuses online sales,
consumer goods and after-sales market, where elevators were mentioned as one of the
possible areas to work on.
The success will depend on the guidelines of the new Commissioner.
With regard to the creation of a roundtable of stakeholders, Van Loon discussed internally this
issue, but he showed us the limits of action of DG Competition in this field; it should be the DG
Enterprise and Industry to lead this project, as it is the DG ENTR the one who manage contacts with
industry, the one who has an appropriate structure and mainly more resources, while the DG COMP
only deal with the investigation on cases of infringement.
Regarding the management of our case ex officio, by the time the DG Competition has still not
started an in-depth analysis on our market, but Van Loon advised us to try to introduce our case
again when the new Commissioner will be appointed.
The Secretary-General Iotti therefore asked Van Loon to try to be more incisive in the discussion
with DG ENTR. He then explained the existence of the Lifts Working Group, an internal working
group of the DG ENTR, which meets about once a year and EFESME has is among the invited
participants. However, a kind of refusal on the discussion of the topic "after sale" has been detected
over the years. The Directive does not expressly cover this aspect and discussions within the LWG
were mainly focused on new products. The problem stems from an ambiguity at the basis of the
Lifts Directive, which states that the instructions and special tools have to be sold together with
the product; hence the Directive also includes the after-sales sector.
Van Loon said he is now aware of the problem, but he explained us that a more pragmatic approach
by DG COMP should be put on place: if he will merely forward the problem to DG ENTR, this latter
would not start rechecking the Directive but would make sure that the problem is managed by DG
COMP, which does not have the instruments.
46
Van Loon asked us if we believe there is a problem of implementation in the Member States. The
Secretary-General Iotti replied that the Machinery Directive includes the requirement to provide the
tools, but that the standard we use for the sector does not meet this requirement. From here, the
Secretary-General Iotti developed the discussion starting from Ortún letter sent to CEN in 2008,
which did not have effects, since the new standard, which will be probably published this year, will
have a transition period of 3 years and therefore an overall making process of 10 years since 2008.
This lack of a standard in force gives place to many companies to find the excuse not to give the
special tools. France worked out a specific national Decree which tries to solve the problem, and we
all wonder why the European level does not follow this approach.
From our position paper we then took the example of what happened with the case of Spain, where
the Spanish Competition Authority CNC fined some large firms for anti-competitive behaviour.
Being a specialist in the subject, Van Loon explained that "unfair competition" is an ambiguous term
that has different meanings within itself: the creation of cartels, dominant position of certain
companies. In his perspective is not obvious to say that four companies that hold 50% of the
market are in a dominant position from a legal point of view.
The SG Iotti then showed how the French case that Ilex is bringing to trial against Schindler
may have very similar traits to the Spanish case which was analysed by CNC, as it is made clear
that some large companies, primarily Schindler, in fact create obstacles to the proper maintenance
of its elevators by independent maintainers, but above all that they try to convince owners that an
independent maintenance will not be at the same qualified level as the one provided by Schindler
itself. To analyse the legal bases of the Spanish decision, Van Loon asked us to send his a copy
of the decision.
The Secretary-General Iotti then proceeded to briefly illustrate the Italian and Dutch cases.
Van Loon then asked for some clarification on the existence of a market for spare parts and if there
are price lists. The SG Iotti explained that major companies offer on-line price lists which are used
as a benchmark for market prices of spare parts.
Van Loon admitted that there is an obvious problem in the Directive but nevertheless this is not
easy to resolve. As regards to the effectiveness of the standard, the SG Iotti claimed to have
participated in all preparatory work; nevertheless, the draft of the new standard is very weak and it
will not be able to solve the problem effectively.
Given a good example of what happened in France with French Decree, Van Loon asked whether in
other Member States EFESME is lobbying at national level to get similar national laws, approaching
the problem from the demand side, i.e. involving the customers.
In response, Iotti replied that in some countries, as for example in Italy, we are trying, but that the
effects are still not concrete. However, he stressed the security issue that this ambiguity of the
Directive is able to create, a concern also shared by Van Loon.
Finally, on the sidelines of the meeting, the Secretary-General Iotti also briefly showed the
Portuguese case, which concerns the installation of new equipment.
At the end of our meeting, Van Loon concluded that:
- he will contact the officials of the LWG of DG ENTR to discuss our case and this ambiguity in the
Lifts Directive;
- he invited us to continue to put pressure on the DG Competition, especially when the new
Commissioner will be appointed, in the hope that our case will be considered a priority by the new
Cabinet;
- with regard to the example of car repairers, who managed to get a Regulation specific to their
sector on the after sales market and spare parts, Van Loon told us that it will be very difficult for the
Commission to decide to launch an initiative like that one, because the lift sector, although it has
good market share, is not comparable to the impact that cars have on individual consumers;
- he concluded that temporarily for the time being our hope would be a new standard.
47
COMPLAINT
TO THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
CONCERNING FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY LAW
1. Surname and forename of complainant:
EFESME aisbl
European Federation for Elevator Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
2. Where appropriate, represented by:
Mr. Giuseppe IOTTI, EFESME Secretary General
3. Nationality:
Italian
4. Address or Registered Office:
Rue Joseph II, 36-38 – B-1000 Brussels - BELGIUM
5. Telephone/fax/e-mail address:
Tel. 0032 2 2307414
Email. [email protected]; [email protected]
6. Field and place(s) of activity:
Representation of European small and medium enterprises operating in the elevator sector
7. Member State or public body alleged by the complainant not to have complied with Community law:
“Ministérios Do Ambiente, Ordenamento Do Território E Energia E Da Solidariedade, Emprego E Segurança Social” of
Portugal
8. Fullest possible account of facts giving rise to complaint:
Thanks to the support of our Portuguese member, represented by the enterprise Grupnor, we were informed of the
existence in Portugal of the Portaria 349-D/2013, a Decree whose goal is to establish technical requirements concerning
the thermal quality of the building envelope the energy efficiency of the technical equipment integrated. In Annex I of
the “Portaria” elevators are dealt under article 11. Article 11.2 refers to International standards, but in case these have
still not been put in place, the article comes to the German VDI 4707. In our opinion, this reference is unfair, as we
already know very well that the International standard ISO 25745-2 is not finalized yet. This influence towards VDI
4707 is enforced by the Portuguese legislator considering chart I.31, where only VDI 4707 classification is considered;
moreover, even when ISO 25745-2 will be finally released, the decree with its chart I.31 could be kept unchanged. VDI
4707 is a private German guideline, which was drafted by only one part of the industry, and for this reason a
questionable one, as it has not been shared by all the parties involved.
The provisions of Portaria 349-D2013 are mandatory for commercial and service buildings in the Portuguese territory,
and any lift installer has to comply with them, in addition to the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC. Furthermore, point 11.3
establishes that starting from 31/12/2015, the provision of an energy label for the elevators will be required, which is
48
, which is still not applicable to elevators.
Moreover, VDI 4707 creates in our opinion discrimination between electric and hydraulic elevators, at the detriment of
these last ones, which are the stronghold of SMEs in Europe. We believe there is an undervaluation of the hydraulic
energy efficiency of about 20%, and an overvaluation of the electric one of the same value. For this reason, we consider
the Portuguese Decree n. 349-D/2013 to be probably discriminatory against some products without any real technical
reason, and without the support of any technical standards, released by the competent European Standardisation Body,
i.e. the CEN.
9. As far as possible, specify the provisions of Community law (treaties, regulations, directives, decisions, etc.) which the
complainant considers to have been infringed by the Member State concerned:
Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts
Directive 2010/30/EU on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and
other resources by energy-related products
Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products.
10. Where appropriate, mention the involvement of a Community funding scheme (with references if possible) from which
the Member State concerned benefits or stands to benefit, in relation to the facts giving rise to the complaint:
None.
11. Details of any approaches already made to the Commission's services (if possible, attach copies of correspondence):
Our Federation already alerted the DG ENTR of the European Commission both by email and with an official letter,
addressed to the Responsible for the Lifts Directive in the EC, Ms. Raimoinda SNEIGIENE. The email dates 16 th May
2014, while the official letter dates 19th May 2014.
12. Details of any approaches already made to other Community bodies or authorities (e.g. European Parliament
Committee on Petitions, European Ombudsman). If possible, give the reference assigned to the complainant's approach
by the body concerned:
None.
13. Approaches already made to national authorities, whether central, regional or local (if possible, attach copies of
correspondence):
None.
13.1 Administrative approaches (e.g. complaint to the relevant national administrative authorities, whether central,
regional or local, and/or to a national or regional ombudsman):
//
13.2 Recourse to national courts or other procedures (e.g. arbitration or conciliation). (State whether there has already
been a decision or award and attach a copy if appropriate):
//
49
14. Specify any documents or evidence which may be submitted in support of the complaint, including the national
measures concerned (attach copies):
“Portaria n.° 349-D/2013 de 2 de dezembro 2013”, released by the “Ministérios Do Ambiente, Ordenamento Do
Território E Energia E Da Solidariedade, Emprego E Segurança Social” of Portugal and published in the Portuguese
Official Journal (Diário da República, 1.ª série — N.º 233 — 2 de dezembro de 2013).
15. Confidentiality (tick one box):
x "I authorise the Commission to disclose my identity in its contacts with the authorities of the Member State against
which the complaint is made."
"I request the Commission not to disclose my identity in its contacts with the authorities of the Member State against
which the complaint is made."
16. Place, date and signature of complainant/representative:
Brussels, 4th August 2014
Giuseppe Iotti
EFESME Secretary General
50
(Explanatory note to appear on back of complaint form)
Each Member State is responsible for the implementation of Community law (adoption of implementing measures before a
specified deadline, conformity and correct application) within its own legal system. Under the Treaties, the Commission of the
European Communities is responsible for ensuring that Community law is correctly applied. Consequently, where a Member
State fails to comply with Community law, the Commission has powers of its own (action for non-compliance) to try to bring
the infringement to an end and, if necessary, may refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The
Commission takes whatever action it deems appropriate in response to either a complaint or indications of infringements
which it detects itself.
Non-compliance means failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations under Community law, whether by action or by
omission. The term State is taken to mean the Member State which infringes Community law, irrespective of the authority -
central, regional or local - to which the non-compliance is attributable.
Anyone may lodge a complaint with the Commission against a Member State about any measure (law, regulation or
administrative action) or practice which they consider incompatible with a provision or a principle of Community law.
Complainants do not have to demonstrate a formal interest in bringing proceedings. Neither do they have to prove that they are
principally and directly concerned by the infringement complained of. To be admissible, a complaint has to relate to an
infringement of Community law by a Member State. It should be borne in mind that the Commission’s services may decide
whether or not further action should be taken on a complaint in the light of the rules and priorities laid down by the
Commission for opening and pursuing infringement procedures.
Anyone who considers a measure (law, regulation or administrative action) or administrative practice to be incompatible with
Community law is invited, before or at the same time as lodging a complaint with the Commission, to seek redress from the
national administrative or judicial authorities (including the national or regional ombudsman and/or arbitration and
conciliation procedures available). The Commission advises the prior use of such national means of redress, whether
administrative, judicial or other, before lodging a complaint with the Commission, because of the advantages they may offer
for complainants.
By using the means of redress available at national level, complainants should, as a rule, be able to assert their rights more
directly and more personally (e.g. a court order to an administrative body, repeal of a national decision and/or damages) than
they would following an infringement procedure successfully brought by the Commission which may take some time. Indeed,
before referring a case to the Court of Justice, the Commission is obliged to hold a series of contacts with the Member State
concerned to try to terminate the infringement.
Furthermore, any finding of an infringement by the Court of Justice has no impact on the rights of the complainant, since it
does not serve to resolve individual cases. It merely obliges the Member State to comply with Community law. More
specifically, any individual claims for damages would have to be brought by complainants before the national courts.
The following administrative guarantees exist for the benefit of the complainant:
(a) Once it has been registered with the Commission's Secretariat-General, any complaint found admissible will be
assigned an official reference number. An acknowledgment bearing the reference number, which should be quoted in
any correspondence, will immediately be sent to the complainant. However, the assignment of an official reference
number to a complaint does not necessarily mean that an infringement procedure will be opened against the Member
State in question.
(b) Where the Commission's services make representations to the authorities of the Member State against which the
complaint has been made, they will abide by the choice made by the complainant in Section 15 of this form.
(c) The Commission will endeavour to take a decision on the substance (either to open infringement proceedings or to
close the case) within twelve months of registration of the complaint with its Secretariat-General.
(d) The complainant will be notified in advance by the relevant department if it plans to propose that the Commission close
the case. The Commission's services will keep the complainant informed of the course of any infringement procedure.
***
51
Brussels, December 2014
POSITION PAPER
Linguistic accessibility of standards in the lift sector
BACKGROUND INFORMATION SMEs and craft enterprises are faced with increasing competitive pressure stemming from globalisation, enlargement and the opening up of markets spurred by new technologies and innovation. SMEs need to tackle these challenges. The European legislation has considerably enhanced SME position; to ensure the best possible framework for the European SMEs enabling them to live and grow under rapidly changing market conditions. Moreover, the Single Market has also expanded by 10 new Member States, which is increasing the pressure for market integration and competition. For the internal market to function efficiently, previously closed markets are being opened up to fair competition. Standards are necessary in such process and on the whole beneficial. However, the availability of standards may not be commercially advantageous for all companies at all times. It is absolutely a necessity that Standards, which are a tool for competitiveness, do not become an economic burden due to indirect cost of accessing them. Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs is one of the four targets for economic growth and job creation, according to “The EU cohesion policy 2014-2020 – Targeting Investments on Key Growth Priorities”, drawn up by the European Commission. The Regulation on European Standardisation, entered into force in January 2013, also shares this aim and encourages a broader and effective participation in the standard setting process to relevant stakeholders and SMEs. Moreover, the EU Regulation calls the National Standardisation Bodies to facilitate access of SMEs to standards and standards development process. GENERAL REMARKS This position paper aims at reporting some issues that still hinder a correct access to standards with a clear reference to the case of SMEs operating in the elevator sector. European standards are published in English, French and German; it is then up to the National Standardisation Organisation to translate the standard. However, this linguistic choice is not in line with the figures of the sector market: Italy, for example, is the country with the highest number of elevator installed in Europe, with about 950.000, followed by Spain (850.000), while Germany and France have 660.000 and 530.000 respectively. An SME, of these countries, which does not necessarily has the tools to understand one of the three official languages, must then wait for the standard to be eventually translated by its National Standardisation Body. As the evidence shows, this process can take a serious lapse of time and, in several cases - mainly in Greece and Romania, where the concentration of elevator SMEs is remarkable and therefore a full comprehension of the standard would be recommended - no translation is even made available. It is worrying to notice that these lacks affect very sensitive issues such as safety and accessibility. Revealing examples are EN 81-77:2013 on lifts subject to seismic condition or EN 81-80:2003, related to the improvement of safety of existing passengers and good passenger lifts. In addition, translated versions, when provided, may be of approx. 10% more costly than untranslated standards – as it happens in Hungary.
52
Assessment of current standards in place in the elevator sector in 7 countries namely Greece, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Spain, provides an overview of the disequilibrium between countries, in terms of accessibility to the Standards (see annex). This statement means that in particular member states, SMEs face two options: either they have financial resources available to proceed with translation of relevant standards to their activities, which represent an additional indirect costs of accessibility, or to wait for the national translation, which for some cases, may take many years. Notifiable examples are EN 81-28:2003 on remote alarm on passenger and goods passenger lifts, and EN 81-70:2003 +A1:2005 on accessibility to lifts for persons including persons with disability. Finally, it should also be pointed out that the frequency of the standards’ revision and the numerous further amendments worsen the scenario, making the translation process even less viable. CONCLUSIONS SBS is convinced that access to standards for SME must be as easy as it is for large enterprises. For this reason, it is necessary that the Think Small First principle will be applied in all established practices within the European Standardization Organizations. Linguistic access to standards should not become a competitive instrument for companies within the sector. SBS supports implementation of Dec. N°1673/2006 of the European Commission, on the financing of the European Standardization and particularly its recital 6 and article 3 point e, which emphasizes the importance and opportunity of Community financing the translation for European standards or any other European standardization product, used in support of Community policies and legislation into official Community languages other than the working languages of the European standardization bodies. SBS backs the exchange of best practices among the National Standardisation Organisations, designed to guarantee the access to standards to all enterprises.
53
EFESME Proposal of amendments to
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on
resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy
(2014/2208(INI))
Rapporteur: Sirpa Pietikäinen
Brussels, 27th April 2015
Amendment 1
Motion for a European Parliament
Resolution
Article 11
Text proposed by the Rapporteur
Urges the Commission to propose a review of
the Ecodesign Directive by the end of 2016,
incorporating the following important changes:
broadening the scope to cover all main
product lines; gradually including all relevant
resource-efficiency features in the mandatory
requirements for product design; introducing a
mandatory product passport based on these
requirements; implementing self-monitoring
and third-party auditing to ensure that products
comply with these standards; and defining
horizontal requirements on, inter alia,
reusability and recyclability;
Amendment
Urges the Commission to propose a review of
the Ecodesign Directive by the end of 2016, incorporating the following important changes:
gradually including all relevant resource-
efficiency features in the mandatory
requirements for product design; implementing
self-monitoring and third-party auditing to
ensure that products comply with these
standards; and defining horizontal requirements
on, inter alia, reusability and recyclability;
54
Motivation
Even though several studies proved a positive impact of the Ecodesign Directive on the EU energy
consumption, for SMEs the inclusion in this framework is very difficult and if good results are
achieved this is mainly due to the culture governing individual business. The extension of the scope
of the Directive to “all main product lines” does not take into consideration the real potential of
consumption saving of each product groups; moreover, the public perception in the Member States
and the real impact on consumers shall be taken into account when analysing the product groups.
The Ecodesign and Energy labelling resulted in a reduction of energy consumption, but they also
created additional burden and some confusion to the consumers. Accurate and independent studies
are necessary to avoid that limited energy savings determine additional unproportioned costs to the
product, costs that are mainly supported by consumers. A more pragmatic approach based on a trade
-off assessment between real energy saving and impact on consumers and enterprises shall be
adopted, trying to avoid to include new product when their saving capacity is limited compared to the
new requirements. Furthermore, introducing new mandatory requirements like a product passport
will result in more red tape and costs for enterprises, mainly the micro, small and medium-sized ones.
Amendment 2
Motion for a European Parliament
Resolution
Article 15
Text proposed by the Rapporteur
Calls on the Commission to propose a
regulatory framework for urban mining in
existing landfills and to develop an
environmental permit system for the recycling
industry based on self-monitoring and external
auditing;
Amendment
Calls on the Commission to propose a
regulatory framework for urban mining in
existing landfills for the recycling industry
based on self-monitoring and external auditing;
55
Motivation
Before expanding product lines subject to energy saving policies, and most of all before introducing
binding requirements and even an environmental permit system, we need that competent authorities
establish shared and appropriate methods for the measurement and classification of energy savings
that will be achieved; moreover, super partes authorities in charge of their execution shall be clearly
appointed. Without a clear framework and the supervision of competent authorities, energy saving
risks to turn into a marketing tool, where only the most unscrupulous players will be rewarded.
Amendment 3
Motivation
The European Commission estimate that 23 million SMEs in the EU represent 99% of businesses, and
that they are a key driver for economic growth, innovation, employment and social integration. In its
2013 annual SMEs performance review, the EC evaluated that SMEs accounted for 66.5% of all
European jobs in 2012 and for over €3.4 trillion value added at current prices against a total value
added produced by the private, non-financial sectors of approximately €5.9 trillion. Even more
interesting is that nine out of ten SMEs are actually micro enterprises with less than 10 employees,
meaning that foundations of the EU economy are micro firms
For this reason, SMEs representatives should be fully included in this process.
Motion for a European Parliament
Resolution
Article 23
Text proposed by the Rapporteur
Calls on the Commission to establish a
permanent resource-efficiency platform to
encourage and facilitate the application of the
latest research findings, the exchange of best
practices and the emergence of new industrial
synthesis and industrial ecosystems;
Amendment Calls on the Commission to establish a
permanent resource-efficiency platform
including SMEs representatives to encourage
and facilitate the application of the latest
research findings, the exchange of best
practices and the emergence of new industrial
synthesis and industrial ecosystems;
56
Amendment 4
Motivation
As recognized by the European Commission since 2008 with the SBA and 2011 with the revision of
the SBA, SMEs contribute substantially to employment, growth and economic prosperity. To comply
with the huge variety of regulation and policy, they have to invest a considerable amount of their
economic and human resources to assimilate all new legislation and standard. For this reason, more
funds should be mobilised for SMEs to promote resource efficiency.
Motion for a European Parliament
Resolution
Article 25
Text proposed by the Rapporteur
Stresses that all EU funding, including funding
through EFSI, Horizon 2020, cohesion funds and the EIB, must be mobilised to
promote resource efficiency
and urges the Commission to abolish all
environmentally harmful subsidies;
Amendment
Stresses that all EU funding, including funding
through EFSI, Horizon 2020, cohesion funds and the EIB, must be mobilised to
promote resource efficiency, especially among SMEs, and urges the Commission to abolish all
environmentally harmful subsidies;
57
58
EFESMEEFESME -- EUROPEAN FEDERATION FOR ELEVATOR SMALL AND MEDIUMEUROPEAN FEDERATION FOR ELEVATOR SMALL AND MEDIUM--SIZED ENTERPRISES aisblSIZED ENTERPRISES aisbl
3636--38, Rue Joseph II B38, Rue Joseph II B--1000 Bruxelles Tel: +32 2 2307414 1000 Bruxelles Tel: +32 2 2307414 -- Fax: +32 2 2307219Fax: +32 2 2307219
EE--mail: [email protected] mail: [email protected] -- www.efesme.orgwww.efesme.org
![Senza titolo 30/10/12 20 - University of Cagliari · 2016-01-22 · [ Nota ] “L’aver saputo reinventare questi metalli, finora senza fascino e senza storia, senza memoria e senza](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f2cc913870cc674c3413e9c/senza-titolo-301012-20-university-of-cagliari-2016-01-22-nota-aoelaaver.jpg)
