EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23.5.2008 
SEC(2008) 1901 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the   
 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council 
 
laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of the construction products 
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 311 final} 
{SEC(2008) 1900} 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
As part of the policy on Better Regulation th e Commission has been implementing, an Impact 
Assessment of the draft proposal of the Co mmission for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, laying down ha rmonised conditions for the marketing of the 
construction products, has been  carried out. The Impact A ssessment Board delivered its 
opinion on 10.09.2007 on the draft text of this assessment. The co mments of the Board were 
taken into account and incorporated in the Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal, 
summarised here as follows: 
The three policy alternatives considered in th is context were: Option 1 – No EU action: no 
change; Option 2 – No legislation;  Option 3 – Revision of the CPD. 
OPTION 1 - NO EU ACTION : NO CHANGE  
The baseline option is for the CPD to continue to be in force as it currently exists. Its 
requirements would not be clarified or simpli fied in any other manner than the changes 
related to the natural evolution of the legisl ation in its current form and to legislation 
applicable to this field beyond the CPD. 
However, some of the existing divergences in national requirement s and in testing and 
certification regimes could be reduced through alr eady initiated means of administrative 
cooperation between national authorities. 
Nevertheless, the in-depth analysis of this option demonstrates that many of the current 
problems, such as the unclear meaning of CE  marking, the different approaches to CE 
marking (mandatory, non-mandatory), the comp lexity of the system, the insufficient 
acceptance of CE marking and the pr oliferation of national marks, will continue to exist. This 
is confirmed by the most recent data on comp laints and infringements in areas already 
covered by harmonised technical specifications. Thus, the CPD woul d continue to fail to meet 
its objective of free circulati on and use of construction produc ts in the Internal Market. 
OPTION 2 - NO LEGISLATION  
This option would imply a repeal of the CPD w ithout any substitute, and a reversion to mutual 
recognition taking into account  the New Legal Framework. 
In practice the Internal Market would be ba sed exclusively on the pr inciple that a product 
lawfully marketed in one Member State can be marketed in any other Member State, even if 
the product does not fully comply w ith the technical rules of the destination Member State, as 
long as a Member State has not sufficiently ju stified reasons for banning the product on the 
market in its territory.  
COM(1999)299 final on improving the application of  the principle of mutual recognition in 
the Single Market identified construction in the top five sectors for infringements of mutual 
recognition, between 1996 and 1998, under Article  28 (former Article 30) of the Treaty. By 
the time of COM(2002)419 final, the number of in fringements in the co nstruction sector had 
increased marginally over the period 1998-2001 to rank in the t op four industry sectors. The 
most recent available data confirms these tr ends and shows that mutual recognition is not 
sufficient for assuring efficient functioning of th e internal market for construction products.  
EN 3   EN In May 2006, the stakeholder consultation show ed that manufacturers almost unanimously 
consider that mutual recognition would not be able to achieve the free circulation and use of construction products in the internal market. 
The external study, contracted for preparing th e Impact Assessment of the revision of the 
CPD, analysed whether or not the ‘no legi slation’ option would address the problems 
identified in relation to the CPD. Unsurprisi ngly, given the above di scussion, the conclusion 
was that this option would not fulfil the objective of free circul ation of construction products 
in the Internal Market. 
O
PTION 3 - REVISION OF THE CPD:  THE PREFERRED OPTION  
Option 3, to revise the Community legislation, is the preferred option. It consists of a package 
which mirrors the existing necessity and scores be st in the Impact Assessment. It is the only 
one fully corresponding to the i ssues and problems requiring acti on as well as to the findings 
of the stakeholder consultation undertaken in this respect. It addresses the main identified problem drivers in an optimal way and allows th e best possible improve ments with regard to 
those who are affected. It also safeguards the general acquis  and the technical specifications 
established under the current CPD. Finally it st rictly respects the ba lanced subsidiarity 
achieved in the field of construction, i.e. Memb er States are competent for the rules of design 
and building of works, while EU legislation ensu res the Internal Market  for the products used 
in such works.  
For these reasons, the Impact Assessment recommends choosing Option 3 as the basis for 
future actions. 
The main changes to the current situation fo reseen in the proposed Construction Products 
Regulation (CPR) are threefold: clarification of the legal content, simplification of implementing mechanisms and reinforcemen t of the credibility of the system. 
– Clarification : The proposed Regulation contai ns definitions of the most 
pertinent concepts in the field of the Internal Mark et for construction products. 
In addition, the obligations of the ma nufacturers and of the importers are 
precisely established. The specific mean ing of CE marking for construction 
products is determined clearly. CE ma rking, in this context, entails the 
declaration of relevant information in  relation to the performance of the 
product and means that this informati on was obtained following the provisions 
of this Regulation and therefore has to be considered accurate and reliable.  
– Simplification and reduction  of administrative burden : Coinciding with the 
experience gained through the application of the CPD, the proposal includes an 
important number of measures aimed at  simplifying the route to CE marking, 
thereby reducing the administrative burden of enterprises and in particular of 
micro-enterprises. Simplified procedures are also foreseen for the treatment of 
individually manufactured  products. In addition, the procedures for issuing 
European Technical Assessments (ETA) are to be simplified and clarified. 
– Reinforcing the credibility  of the system:  The proposal introduces new and 
stricter criteria for the notification of bodies carrying out thir d party tasks in the 
process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance. Furthermore, the proposal contains provisions on market surveillance and 
safeguard procedure.