Article 7
This Decision is addressed to: 1. Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf Postbus 551 NL-4100 AH Culemborg. 2. Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven Postbus 312 NL-4100 AH Culemborg. This Decision is shall be enforceable pursuant to Article 192 of the EC Treaty. Done at Brussels, 29 November 1995. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission (1) Since 1 January 1993, pursuant to the Machinery Directive (see preceding footnote), testing no longer applies to cranes which bear a 'CE mark`, subsequently renamed 'CE marking` under Article 6 of Directive 93/68/EEC, and are accompanied by a declaration of conformity in accordance with the Directive. (2) Recognition by the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment, 18 February 1992. Decision No 2306/77, Nederlandse Staatscourant 77. (3) KeBoMa's annual report for 1992, p. 1. (4) Such an expert may, for instance, be the supplier of the crane, but in practice KeBoMa is often called in. (5) See point 4 of the notification. This is also explicitly apparent from the final assessment report on SCK, p. 3, mentioned in footnote 3, p. 80. (6) Since 1 January 1993, however, SCK, according to a letter dated 21 July 1994, has been using a different postal address. (1) NMB sectoral survey of carne hire companies, 15 December 1990, p. 19. (2) NMB sectoral survey, pp. 4, 15 and 19, and p. 19 of FNK's notification. (3) See point 19 of FNK's notification and the letter dated 3 March 1992 from FNK to various crane-hire companies. (4) General conditions for the performance of contracts by crane operators, registered with the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Courts] of Amsterdam and Rotterdam on 1 January 1991. (5) Before the 'inhuurverbod` was introduced on 1 January 1991, a transitional provision was in force which meant that a certificate-holder was obliged when hiring cranes to check whether the hired equipment and personnel satisfied such requirements as it could assume liability for. (1) OJ No L 117, 7. 5. 1994, p. 30. (2) OJ No L 316, 23. 11. 1988, p. 43. (1) Points 17 and 18 of FNK's notification. (2) [1972] ECR 977, at paragraphs 15 to 25, [1987] ECR 405, at paragraphs 34 to 43. (1) [1983] ECR 3151, at paragraph 60. (2) [1966] ECR 299, especially at p. 348. (1) Point 28 of SCK's notification. See also points 26 and 27 of that notification. Evidently, SCK is now distancing itself from its own views (Answer to the statement of objections of 21 October 1994, p. 19, footnote 3). (2) [1991] ECR II-1439, at paragraph 118.