hcrs4925, no title

Topics: Consumer Product Safety Regulation
Organisations: Orgalime


Orgalime, the European Engineering Industries Association, speaks for 38 trade federations representing some 130,000 companies in the mechanical, electrical, electronic, metalworking & metal articles industries of 23 European countries. The industry employs some 10.3 million people in the EU and in 2012

accounted for some €1,840

billion of annual output. The industry not only represents some

28% of the output of manufactured products but also a third of the manufactured exports of the European Union.



aisbl | Diamant Building | Boulevard A Reyers 80 | B1030 | Brussels | Belgium

Tel: +32 2 706 82 35 | Fax: +32 2 706 82 50 | e-mail: secretariat@orgalime.org

Ass. Intern. A.R. 12.7.74 | VAT BE 0414 341 438

Position Paper

Brussels, 25 February 2014

Product Safety and Market Surveillance Package:

No need to rush

Orgalime comments on the European Parliament’s reports

A7-0355/2013 and A7-0346/2013

to the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee.

To Members of the European Parliament

In the coming month, you will likely be invited to vote in first reading on the Product Safety and Market Surveillance Package which includes the

European Commission’s proposals for

Regulations on Market Surveillance for Products (MSPR) and Consumer Product Safety (CPSR).

The whole package is for the moment blocked in the Council, due to split views on whether the uggested mandatory marking of origin improves consumer safety and product traceability (Art. 7 of the CPSR). Most Orgalime members are against such marking which we believe plays no role in improving consumer safety or product traceability, but adds costs for most manufacturers. Therefore we urge the European Parliament to delete Article 7 before proceeding to the adoption of its first reading.

However, we have many more sources of concerns with both Commission proposals as amended

by the European Parliament’s

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)

on the 25 October 2013.

Therefore, we call on the European Parliament to reject the adoption of the IMCO reports. This could trigger a better inter-institutional compromise for the benefit of all stakeholders, including consumers and SMEs, under the next legislature.

Our main reasons for this call are as follows:


The European Engineering Industries Association


aisbl | Diamant Building | Boulevard A Reyers 80 | B1030 | Brussels | Belgium

Tel: +32 2 706 82 35 | Fax: +32 2 706 82 50 | e-mail: secretariat@orgalime.org

Ass. Intern. A.R. 12.7.74 | VAT BE 0414 341 438

Consumer Product Safety Regulation (CPSR) As stressed in our position paper on the IMCO Report on consumer safety


there are many

issues other

than the “made in”

that we believe are a source of confusion to consumers,

legal uncertainty, administrative burden and unnecessary costs to legitimate economic operators, especially the smaller ones:

1. Regrettably, the scope of the CPSR as set in the IMCO report does not exclude all

products covered by harmonisation legislation with a safety objective. Thereby it leads to legal uncertainty. Amendments should aim at establishing a clearer borderline.


The introduction of a voluntary “EU

Safety Tested

” marking (Article 6 a (new)) adds

confusion and costs to all without demonstrable benefits. Therefore, it should be rejected.

3. Many obligations applying to market operators outstep a pure alignment with the New

Legislative Framework legislation. Article 8 in particular entails numerous costly and overburdening requirements without leading to more safety, and without considering their impact on small businesses, especially on those participating in manufacturing and innovation activities within the EU.

4. Vague concepts are introduced without clear requirements, such as

the “child


character of products (in Article 6 - paragraph 1- subparagraph 1 - point e); this should be amended in a recital or combined with

due consideration for “reasonably


conditions of use

” under parental supervision.

Market Surveillance of Products Regulation (MSPR) We believe that the Report on market surveillance could be significantly improved by removing provisions that:

1. cause legal uncertainty, including the confusing cross-references to the CPSR (safety net

approach, Article 13

paragraph 2a (new)), the new definition of 'product presenting an

emerging risk' (Article 3


13a (new));

2. deprive economic operators of their rights : various restrictive obligations

in the MSPR’s

Report conflict with well-established best practices set up by existing harmonised product pecific legislation (e.g. Article 31

paragraph 1 b

subparagraph 2 (new) on


3. add costs and administrative burdens on top of the existing harmonised product specific


(e.g. Article 6

paragraph 1

subparagraph 1 and Article 33 - paragraph 1

on third-party auditing);

Therefore, we call on the European Parliament to reject the adoption of the IMCO reports or to postpone the adoption of its first reading to consider in depth the impact that this legislative package will have. As it stands today, it will make life much more difficult and costly for manufacturers and will fail to achieve what it was meant to: a better framework for market urveillance to protect consumers, workers and very clearly manufacturers in Europe who need a level playing field and clear legislation which national authorities can apply.




Advisers in charge: Philippe Portalier & Efthymia Ntivi (firstname.lastname@orgalime.org)


CPSR - IMCO Report on consumer safety: Regulatory overshoot is counterproductive (14/11/2013). More

Document Info

  • Language: en
  • Author: awilliams
  • Created: February 26, 2014 9:56 AM
  • Last Modified: February 26, 2014 9:56 AM
  • Pages: 2
  • Encrypted: No
  • Dimensions: 594.96 × 841.92
  • Filesize: 225.61 KB
  • SHA1 Hash: b961aff8811866e7f76c7444d4cfeebcc457db37