92/05 - ZJC-B, 111/05 - Decree of the US, 93/05 - ZVMS, 120/06 - Decree of the US and 126/07), is also mandatory when the designer designs a lightning protection system in a less complex building in accordance with Article 6 of these Regulations and is carried out in accordance with the procedure and with the participants specified in the Act governing the construction of buildings.(2) The subject matter of the audit referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be exclusively the checking of the flawlessness of those parts of the design of the electrical installations and electrical equipment in the project for obtaining a building permit, which demonstrate that the submitted design with regard to the lightning protection system meets the requirements of these Regulations with at least the equivalent level as if the technical guideline and the documents referred to therein had been used.The auditor in charge shall include in the summary of the audit report within the meaning of the Regulation governing project documentation only those data which are essential for the scope of the audit referred to in the preceding paragraph. By signing the audit report, he only confirms that his audit shows that the project complies with the requirements of this Regulation.It is proposed to add a new paragraph 4 to the text of the Article:Where a particular product of a lightning protection system of origin of an EU Member State or for circulation on the internal market of the EU has already been approved in previous audits, the products from such audit shall be considered to comply with the requirements of this Regulation to at least the equivalent level as if the technical guideline and the documents referred to therein had been applied. Schloh1 interprets this requirement as not being duplicative or as not applying in those cases where, for a given product, this has already been established and such an audit can be applied to all subsequent products or to cases of marketing of the same type of products with the same technical characteristics.Case 50/85 Schloh v Auto Controle Technique SPRL [1986] ECR 1855.Reason:The basic rule of the EU internal market on the free movement of goods is that goods moving freely within the EU must not be subject to a so-called double burden. This double burden means that a product must not be subject to re-licences/examinations/tests/analyses/requirements as to form and content etc. (i.e. measures that have the same effect as quantitative restrictions) in the importing country. For example, if a product can be marketed in the country of origin with certain licences, e.g. the A-test, and that such licence is recognised by another EU Member State in which the product is also being sold or marketed. If the authorisation had to be sought anew, this would constitute a so-called double burden, which is prohibited under Article 34 TFEU. The double burden results in a reduction in the competitiveness of the imported product (the double burden imposes additional costs) and thus in discrimination against domestically produced goods. Therefore, double burden is considered as a discriminatory rule prohibited by Article 34 TFEU. E.g. Prevectron2 would not be subject to new tests in the Member State where it is marketed.However, this rule has exceptions. EU Member States have the possibility, where the protection of human health is at stake, to require measures that may restrict the free movement of goods (Article 36 TFEU), but they must restrict it only proportionately (principle of proportionality). This is how Article 36 TFEU has been interpreted by the CJEU, and these interpretations form part of that provision. E.g. in case 50/85, Bernhart Schloh1 , the CJEU ruled that the type-approval of cars is (no longer) necessary in those cases where a car of the same type has already been type-approved and is already in circulation in an EU Member State. This means that once the first car has been type-approved, subsequent cars of the same type, with the same technical characteristics, the same make, etc., should no longer be subject to the type-approval test. The same applies if a car with the same characteristics is legally in circulation in the country of importation. Otherwise, it is a measure having equivalent effects to quantitative restrictions and is prohibited under Article 30 TFEU.Thus, this rule (from the above-mentioned Schloh case) can also be applied with a high degree of analogy to the obligation to audit products under a lightning protection system: where a particular product of a lightning protection system has been found by an audit to require a level at least equivalent to that required by Technical Guideline TSG-N-003 and the documents referred to therein, then further audits of the same product are no longer necessary or are prohibited in accordance with Article 34 TFEU and the above-mentioned CJEU interpretation of that Article. Thus, the administrative authorities granting the various permits (e.g. building permit, occupancy permit, etc.) are obliged to apply the revision of the previous building and, if this is positive, they must allow the use of the technical product or a specific product as sufficient lightning protection. They may require the applicant to prove that this protection is sufficient, and the historical audit serves as this proof.