REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, building materials, harmonisation of standards, market approval, quality standard, technical standard

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.7.2016  COM(2016) 445 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC  
 
 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the 
implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 
construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  Construction  Products  Regulation1  (CPR)  replaced  the  former  Construction  Products 
Directive (CPD) setting up harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products 
in the EU. The CPR has been applied fully since July 2013. 

This  report to  the European Parliament and to the Council, required  by Article 67(2) of the 
CPR, presents the state of implementation of the CPR, including the experience  gained, the 
extent of achievements of the CPR objectives and issues that require improvement. 

The factual evidence behind this report comes from Member State and stakeholder reports to 
the  Commission,  regular  feedback  received  from  Member  States  and  the  main  stakeholders 
mainly through the Advisory Group, the Standing Committee on Construction and the market 
surveillance  administrative  cooperation  group  (AdCo-CPR)  and  an  external  study  entitled 
‘Analysis  of  implementation  of  the  Construction  Products  Regulation’,  completed  in  July 
20152. 

This report does not address issues already included in specific studies, reports produced by 
the Commission and reports to be produced later in the year. This includes the 2014 report on 
hazardous  substances3,  the  report  on  delegated  powers  adopted  in  20154  and  the  upcoming 
report  on  financing  of  the  European  Organisation  for  Technical  Assessment  (EOTA)  due 
1 January 20175. 

Similarly, the coherence of the EU legislation applicable to the construction sector, including 
the CPR, as well as its costs and benefits for the sector are subject to a sectoral fitness check 
planned  for  2017.  Regarding  the  economic  impact  of  the  CPR,  a  study  has  been  launched 
whose results are expected by summer 2016. 

1  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down 
harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  and  repealing  Council  Directive 
89/106/EEC, OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 5. 

2  http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-the-implementation-of-the-construction-products-regulation-
pbET0415686/, http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-the-implementation-of-the-construction-
products-regulation-pbET0415688/, http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-the-implementation-of-the-
construction-products-regulation-pbET0115716/. 
3  COM(2014)511, 07.08.2014, required by Art. 67(1). 
4  COM(2015)449, 16.09.2015, required by Art. 61(1). 
5  As required by Article 34(2) of the CPR. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.  APPROACH OF THE CPR 

The CPR objectives 

The main objective of the CPR remains the same as in the CPD, i.e. to make the single market 
work  better  and  improve  the  free  movement  of  construction  products  in  the  EU,  by  laying 
down harmonised conditions for marketing construction products.  
The CPR also has specific operational objectives: simplifying the existing system6, clarifying 
the  concepts  and  definitions  used  and  increasing  the  credibility  of  the  whole  structure.  All 
these objectives also contribute to EU SME policy, which aims to level the playing field for 
SMEs, especially micro-enterprises. 
The  CPR  approach  contributes  to  the  European  Union’s  ‘Europe  2020’  strategy7  and  to  the 
‘Construction  2020’8  objectives,  namely  the  sustainable  competitiveness  of  the  construction 
sector and its enterprises. 

The functioning of the CPR 

The CPR-based system harmonises the conditions for marketing of construction products by 
creating a common technical language defining the essential characteristics in relation to their 
performance  in  harmonised  technical  specifications:  harmonised  standards  and  European 
Assessment  Documents  (EADs).  They  are  to  cover  the  sphere  of  basic  requirements  for 
construction works9. Where a construction product is covered by a harmonised standard10 or a 
European  Technical  Assessment  has  been  issued  for  it,  the  manufacturer  draws  up  a 
declaration of performance (DoP) and affixes a CE-marking to such a product.  

The  CPR  thrust  towards  consolidating  the  single  market  for  construction  products  has  been 
directed differently from the general principles originally set in the Council Resolution on the 
New Approach to technical harmonization and standards11 and since revised by Decision No 
768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products12. The main differences 
are:  

  The  division  of  powers  between  the  EU  and  Member  States:  the  EU  deals  with  the 
single  market  access  rules.  The  Member  States  are  responsible  for  safety, 
environmental and energy requirements applicable to construction works.  

  Harmonised marketing conditions: instead of harmonising construction products or the 
requirements  for  them,  EU  legislation  (the  CPR)  limits  itself  to  creating  harmonised 
conditions  for  marketing  such  products.  The  harmonised  technical  specifications  are 
intended  to  facilitate  the  free  circulation  of  construction  products  and  to  empower 
economic actors to reap the full benefits of the single market. 

6    The  CPR  was  therefore  listed  in  the  Commission's  rolling  programme  for  update  and  simplification  of  the 
acquis  communautaire  and  integrated  into  the  REFIT  (Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance)  programme  in 
2014. 

7  http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm. 
8  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  ‘Strategy  for  the 

sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises’, COM(2012) 433, 31.7.2012. 

9 As listed in Annex I to the CPR. 
10 As defined in Article 2 (1) of the CPR. 
11 Council Resolution of 7 May 1985, OJ C 136 of 4.8.1985. 
12 OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 82. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
Having a common technical language provides professionals, public authorities and users of 
construction  products  with  reliable  information  to  compare  the  performance  of  products. 
Other advantages include:  

  products have to be tested only once according to a harmonised standard or an EAD;  

  national authorities can set performance requirements using harmonised standards or 

EADs;  

  users of construction products can better determine their performance demands;  

  market surveillance can rely on one common information structure.  

General implementation 

As  the  CPR  introduces  new  documentation,  procedures  and  obligations,  the  Regulation 
provides for a transition period. The CPR is only fully applicable since 1 July 2013 i.e. less 
than three years before this report. This is one of the reasons why the implementation of some 
aspects of the CPR cannot be fully assessed yet, making this assessment partly preliminary. 

To  accompany  the  transition,  the  Commission  launched  information  campaigns  chiefly 
targeting  economic  operators,  in  particular  SMEs,  but  also  public  authorities  and  users  of 
construction  products13.  Several  industry  associations  and  public  authorities  also  ran 
information campaigns targeting their respective members or territories. 

Overall, all elements required by the CPR have been implemented by all those concerned: for 
example,  notified  bodies  and  technical  assessment  bodies  are  in  place  across  Europe14; 
product contact points for construction are in place in Member States. However, some aspects 
have  not  yet  been  implemented  at  full  scale  and  require  further  efforts,  as  developed  in  the 
following sections. 

3.  RULES ON MARKETING CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS 

To place a construction product on the EU market, the DoP and the CE marking are required. 
Manufacturers of products covered by the harmonised sphere must use them15. They are also 
the only means to provide information16 on products’ performance in relation to the essential 
characteristics17defined by means of the CPR.  

For the product performance information system set up by the CPR to  be efficient, uniform 
application  is  needed.  Therefore,  the  rules  on  harmonised  conditions  for  marketing 
construction products have to be set at EU level, in or by means of the CPR. If Member State 
public  authorities  were  to  adopt  their  own  approaches,  this  would  hamper  consistency  and 
contribute to the fragmentation of the single market. 

13 A June 2012 conference, a 2014 video and a 2015 brochure (‘EC marking of construction products — step by 

step’, http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents?tags=ce-guide). 

14 Nando, at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=directive.notifiedbody&dir_id=33. 

15  Under  Article  4(1),  this  sphere  comprises  products  covered  by  harmonised  standards  and  those  for  which 

European technical assessments have been issued. 

16  Following  adoption  of  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  157/2014  of  30  October  2013  on  the 
conditions  for  making  a  declaration  of  performance  on  construction  products  available  on  a  website, 
manufacturers can make the DoP available electronically. There is evidence that this approach is used and 
viewed positively by industry. 

17 Cf. Article 4(2) of the CPR.  

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Nevertheless,  the  use  of  national  marks18  continues  in  several  Member  States  against  the 
principles  of  the  CPR.  National  ex  ante  processes  or  verifications  covering  the  harmonised 
area19  are  not  allowed.  This  is  also  the  case  of  voluntary  marks  without  any  national 
connotation, as they unduly prevent the free movement of CE-marked construction products, 
for  example  when  linked  to  a  more  demanding  system  of  assessment  and  verification  of 
constancy of performance (AVCP) imposed by building inspections or insurance companies 
or when linked to financial incentives. 
This  has  been  confirmed  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  judgement  in  case  C-100/1320, 
which  stated  that  Members  States  were  to  refrain  from  setting  additional  requirements.  The 
applicability  of  this  judgment  under  the  CPR  and  its  wide  reach  across  all  harmonised 
standards  confirm  the  mandatory  nature  of  the  common  technical  language.  Since  the 
harmonised system created in or by means of the CPR is considered exhaustive,21 no space is 
left  for  any  other  systems  dealing  with  the  marketing  of  construction  products  within  the 
harmonised  sphere.  The  Commission  has  therefore  asked  all  Member  States  to  align  their 
national systems with these principles and is closely following the adjustments they make. 

Another key implementation issue identified by many stakeholders is the substantial overlaps 
between  the  information  required  in  the  DoP  and  in  the  CE  marking,  which  generates 
additional administrative and financial burden. Under a flexible interpretation of Article 9(2), 
the  CE  mark  could  contain  only  the  critical  information  and  refer  to  the  DoP  for  other 
information. The DoP would be either provided on paper with the product, electronically or 
via  a  website.  This  could  alleviate  the  burden  on  manufacturers,  thus  fulfilling  the  CPR’s 
simplification  objectives.  The  Commission  is  continuing  to  promote  such  a  simplified  and 
flexible solution, also to ensure legal certainty for manufacturers, who do not want different 
interpretations at Member State level. 

4.  CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT CONTACT POINTS 

Product contact points for construction (PCPCs) established by all Member States to provide 
information on national rules are functioning and responding to requests for information from 
industry. The European Commission publishes a list of PCPCs and convenes regular meetings 
of them to ensure appropriate coordination and exchange of best practices. 

However,  awareness  of  the  services  offered  by  the  PCPCs  remains  relatively  low  among 
industry and some questions have been raised about their response times and the quality of the 
information they provide.  

The Commission is considering ways to improve the situation, including in the context of the 
Single Digital Gateway initiative which aims to streamline existing EU and national platforms 
providing information and services on single market rights. 

In parallel to the Commission initiatives, Member States must continue to help their PCPCs to 
function better and make them better known to the construction sector. 

18  Marks  (or,  more  generally,  procedures  creating  ex  ante  requirements  for  manufacturers)  with  a  national 

connotation. 

19 The area of basic requirements for construction works, as stated in Annex I to the CPR. 
20 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?td=ALL&language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-100/13 %23. 
21 As in para 62 of the judgment in case C-100/13. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.  HARMONISED STANDARDS 

Under  the  CPR,  the  457  existing  harmonised  standards  cited  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Union (OJEU) and their more than 2 000 supporting standards are the main source 
of common technical language in this field. The harmonised standards are estimated to cover 
around  75  to  80 %  of  all  construction  products  so  far.  Most  of  these  standards  became 
applicable shortly before the CPR took full effect which partially explains some stakeholders’ 
impression that radical changes occurred under the CPR. 

Unlike harmonised standards developed under Union harmonisation legislation fully based on 
the  New  Legislative  Framework22,  CPR-based  harmonised  standards  are  expected  only  to 
outline  the  methods  and  criteria  for  assessing  the  performance  of  construction  products  in 
relation  to  their  essential  characteristics.  In  general,  they  are  not  setting  requirements  for 
products'  performance  itself.  This  is  due  to  the  division  of  powers  between  the  EU  and 
Member States described above. 

One of the specificities of the CPR is that it foresees that the use of harmonised standards is 
obligatory for manufacturers when placing their construction products on the market and for 
Member  State  authorities  when  setting  requirements  for  their  use23.  This  means  that  all 
stakeholders  can  rely  on  the  uniform  rules  in  place  and  not  have  to  turn  to  other  (national) 
instruments for these purposes24.  

As the use of harmonised standards is obligatory for construction products and these standards 
have a major impact on the market, there is a particular need for them to be of high quality. 
Their  adoption  procedures  must  be  designed  and  applied  with  this  goal  in  mind.  It  is 
particularly  important  that  the  various  categories  of  stakeholders25  are  fairly  and  equitably 
represented and that the rules in Articles 3(3) and 27 of the CPR on establishing new classes 
or  threshold  levels  of  performance  are  complied  with.  There  is  room  for  improvement  on 
these two aspects. 

As  most  harmonised  standards  date  back  to  the  CPD  era  and  all  were  developed  based  on 
standardisation  mandates  usually  issued  10-20  years  ago,  some  now  require  revision  in  line 
with technical and market developments. Besides, not all of the CPR’s specific features have 
been  thoroughly  taken  on  board  yet.  The  transition  from  the  CPD  to  the  CPR  has  required 
stakeholders, European standardisation organisations and Member State authorities to learn to 
assimilate the new features and carry them over into harmonised standards. There have been 
some delays in starting this process and the adaptation is ongoing. 

These  circumstances have  required greater monitoring  and surveillance by the Commission. 
Consequently,  a  significant  number  of  candidate  harmonised  standards  are  not  cited  in  the 
OJEU before appropriate adjustments or the adoption of delegated acts to incorporate classes 
for 
and/or 

levels.  Continuous  cooperation  with  European  Committee 

threshold 

22  Decision  No  768/2008/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July  2008  on  a  common 
framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EE, OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 
82. 

23 Cf. Articles 4(2), 8(3), 8(6) and 17(5). 
24 Access to harmonised standards is an important question, as recognised by the European Court of Justice’s 
Advocate General in his opinion (paragraph 51 in particular) delivered on 28.1.2016 on case C‑613/14. This 
opinion  also  underlined  the  pertinence  of  standards  as  part  of  the  EU  harmonisation  mechanism  – 
Furthermore, the European Ombudsman has recently closed a query on this topic Q2/2013/EIS by her report 
of 11.12.2015. 

25 See Article 17(2) of the CPR. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
Standardization  (CEN)  consultants  will  be  essential  to  improving  the  situation  before  the 
harmonised standards are presented to the Commission for publication of their references in 
the OJEU. 

Although  the  CPR  did  not  bring  about  large-scale  changes  to  the  general  framework  for 
harmonised standards in this field, stakeholders have recently demanded a quicker and better 
streamlined  standardisation  process,  with  standards  responding  better  to  user  needs.  The 
exhaustive  nature  of  CPR-based  harmonised  standards,  confirmed  by  the  ECJ  in  case  C-
100/13 referred to above26, still requires a number of standards to be adapted27. In addition, 
new  or  revised  standardisation  requests  have  to  be  delivered28  and  the  current  backlog  with 
harmonised standards not yet cited in the OJEU cleared. All this can be achieved only through 
enhanced collaboration between CEN, Member States, industry, the Commission and relevant 
stakeholders, notably through the Joint Initiative on Standardisation29. 

6.  EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT (EOTA) 

For products for which the performance cannot be entirely assessed by harmonised standards, 
the  CPR30  defines  specific  procedures  involving  a  request  for  a  European  Technical 
Assessment by the manufacturers and the drawing up and adoption of EADs by EOTA, the 
organisation of Technical Assessment Bodies (TABs).  

The  policy  goals  for  EOTA,  as  defined  in  the  CPR  and  emanating  from  experiences  and 
criticisms of the CPD, were attained: to shorten and simplify procedures, to reduce the costs 
for  manufacturers,  and  to  make  these  procedures  more  transparent.  In  order  to  move  from 
issuing product approvals to merely assessing their performance, the first step was to put in 
place  a  set  of  principles31,  which  then  were  turned  into  specific  procedures  for  drafting  and 
adopting  EADs32.  Compliance  with  these  principles  has  been  good  thanks  to  greater 
participation in these procedures by the manufacturers involved and the Commission. 

Since  November  2011,  most  Member  States  have  designated  TABs  using  Commission 
electronic tools, following strict criteria set in and based on the CPR33. Requests for European 
Technical Assessments (ETAs) and therefore also the preparation of draft EADs are mainly 
dealt with by a limited number of TABs. 

However, the transition from the CPD to the CPR is not yet complete. Close to 90 % of ETAs 
issued under the CPR are still based on Guidelines for European technical approvals (ETAGs) 
used as EADs34. Principles for these practices have been agreed upon with EOTA and need to 
be  followed  to  pre-empt  any  complications,  especially  for  the  manufacturers  involved.  The 
conversion  of  ETAGs  into  EADs,  starting  with  those  most  frequently  used,  is  under  way35. 

26 See footnote 16. 
27 In particular on certain basic requirements for construction works. 
28 Since amendments to existing standards should be made using the shortened mandating procedure. 
29 Commission decision of 1.6.2016 on the approval and the signing of the Joint Initiative on Standardisation, 

C(2016)3211. 

30 Cf. Article 19(1) defining the scope of these activities.  
31 Cf. Article 20. 
32 Cf. Articles 19(2) & (3) and Annex II to the CPR; cf. also Article 21. 
33 Cf. Articles 29 & 30 and Table 2 of Annex IV to the CPR; the Commission guidelines under Article 29(4) have 
also  been  duly  communicated  to  Member  States.  By  May  2016,  50  TABs  have  been  designated  in  25 
countries, including three EFTA countries. Six Member States have not designated any TAB. 

34 Cf. Article 66(3) of the CPR. 
35 The publication of reference to the first converted EAD of this kind in the OJEU took place in May 2016. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
European  technical  approvals  issued  under  the  CPD  (by  30 June 2013)  can  be  used  by 
manufacturers as ETAs until the end of their validity (maximum five years i.e. possibly until 
30 June 2018)36.  

The  paradigm  change  within  TABs  from  ‘product  approval’  to  ‘performance  assessment’                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
is  the  main  challenge  for  correct  implementation  of  the  CPR  provisions  on  drafting  and 
adopting  EADs.  After  the  adoption  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1062/2013 on the format of the European Technical Assessment for construction products37, 
EOTA  and  the  Commission  agreed  on  the  principles  governing  the  drafting  of  EADs  and 
developed  detailed  guidance  based  on  the  experience  gathered  in  these  processes38.  All  this 
allowed for the first publication in the OJEU of references to EADs in July 201539. 

The  Commission  has  not  been  informed  by  EOTA  of  any  need  to  resolve  disagreements 
between TABs, as referred to in Article 23 of the CPR. However, this does not mean that no 
such  disagreements  exist,  particularly  as  there  have  been  delays  in  adopting  EADs  within 
EOTA40. 

In  conclusion,  Articles  19,  20,  21  and  24  of  the  CPR  are  functioning  in  line  with  their 
objectives. The practical transition from the CPD to the CPR could have been faster and the 
procedures in place could still be further streamlined. However, in general the improvements 
required  for  quicker  and  more  transparent  finalisation  of  EADs  can  be  made  without 
regulatory proposals41. 

7.  NOTIFIED BODIES AND NOTIFYING AUTHORITIES 

The  credibility  of  the  system  established  by  the  CPR  relies  widely  on  the  notified  bodies 
(NBs)42, which have to fulfil strict requirements on their technical competence, impartiality, 
and  accountability43.  Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  their  independence,  a  criteria 
emphasised  during  the  CPR  adoption  process.  Notifying  authorities  designated  by  Member 
States44 are responsible for the national notification and monitoring procedures. 

The activities of the Group of Notified Bodies and its subgroups have been enhanced by their 
strengthened  regulatory  backing  in  the  CPR45.  Such  coordination  is  necessary  to  ensure 
uniform application of the rules in place, so as to avoid the occasional criticism for varying 
practices in this field. 

Increased  legal  certainty  and  consistency  were  achieved  when  Annex  V  to  the  CPR  was 
amended  by  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  568/2014  of  18 February 201446. 

36 Cf. Article 66(4) of the CPR. 
37 OJ L 289, 31.10.2013, p. 42-43; this act is based on Article 26(3) of the CPR. 
38 Cf. Article 24 of the CPR. 
39 By May 2016, 40 EADs had been cited in the OJEU. 
40 So far, EOTA has not reported to the Commission any delays in the development of EADs either, as required 

in point 6 of Annex II to the CPR. 

41 The procedural rules set out in Annex II to the CPR could be streamlined using a delegated act (cf. Articles 

19(3) and 60(d)). 

42 These bodies are called on to perform third-party tasks on AVCP for construction products. By May 2016, 623 

NBs had been notified. 

43 The requirements for NBs are set out in Article 43 of the CPR. 
44 Cf. Article 40 of the CPR. 
45 Cf. Articles 43(11) and 55 of the CPR. 
46 OJ L 157, 27.5.2014, p. 76-79. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
That  Regulation  clarified  the  degree  of  involvement  and  the  role  of  NBs  in  assessing  and 
verifying  constancy  of  performance  of  construction  products.  As  a  result,  NBs  now  better 
understand their responsibilities. 

The transition from the CPD to the CPR has brought about a paradigm change also for NBs.  
Some of them still need to  adapt in order  to  fully  incorporate the progress  towards targeted 
certification activities47, in addition to the other clarifications of their functions. This also has 
a bearing on the use of accreditation standards for notification purposes. 

The feedback received from the application of the CPR provisions in this field indicates that 
some rules could be more precise48. In the same vein, these provisions49 would benefit from 
further examination whether they should be distanced from the New Approach principles50. 

8.  MICRO-ENTERPRISES AND SIMPLIFICATION 

To  level  the  playing  field  for  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises,  the  CPR  provides  derogations 
from  the  obligation  to  draw  up  a  DoP51  and  simplified  procedures  for  placing  construction 
products on the market52.  

At the present implementation stage, experience is still limited on the practical use of most of 
these  options,  with  the  exception  of  the  rules  on  simplified  procedures  concerning 
classification  without  testing,  sharing  and  cascading53.  These  provisions  are  in  frequent  use 
where applicable.  

However, there is so far no documentary evidence of use of the other options in question. This 
could mean that the expected alleviation of financial and administrative burden on companies 
has not materialised. Reasons cited by stakeholders for this limited uptake include:  

  varying practices and interpretations in Member States;  

 

low awareness in industry about these options;  

  uncertainty over the meaning of key terms in the CPR;  

  difficulties  in  demonstrating  ‘equivalence’  and/or  providing  alternative  technical 

documentation;  

  doubts over the actual extent of financial savings applicable;  

 

fear of disapproval of authorities or users if the procedures are not (correctly) applied. 

In  particular,  these  doubts  have  affected  the  potential  for  microenterprises  to  apply  the 
simplified procedures of Article 37 as intended during the regulatory process for the CPR. 

A  comprehensive  approach  appears  to  be  required,  with  further  elaborations  on  the  way 
forward, to better meet the expectations of SMEs, especially micro-enterprises, operating in 

47  As  opposed  to  product  certification,  the  CPR,  and  its  new  Annex  V  in  particular,  focus  on  certifying  the 

constancy of performance. 

48 Cf. notably Articles 43, 45, 46, 52(2) and 55 of the CPR. 
49 From Decision No 768/2008/EC. 
50 Cf. notably Articles 44, 50(1), 51 and 53(2) of the CPR. 
51 Article 5. 
52 Articles 36 to 38. Of these, Article 37 concerns micro-enterprises specifically. 
53 Article 36. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  EU  construction  sector.  The  Commission  is  to  facilitate  these  developments  via 
discussions in a technical platform.  

9.  MARKET SURVEILLANCE 

Within  the  new  legislative  framework  adopted  in  2008,  Regulation  (EC)  No  765/200854 
established  the  main  administrative  framework  for  market  surveillance  in  Member  States, 
whereas  Decision  No  768/2008/EC  contained  reference  provisions  for  individual  market 
surveillance  procedures:  these  provisions  were  to  be  used  by  inserting  them  into  the  sector-
specific  legislation.  Market  surveillance-related  Articles  56  to  59  of  the  CPR  thus  draw 
largely on Articles R31 to R34 of Decision No 768/2008/EC, but have had to be adjusted for 
the context at hand. These adjustments could be seen as a partial cause for some of the market 
surveillance challenges experienced during CPR implementation55. 

The  functioning  of  market  surveillance  authorities  in  Member  States  has  been  based  on 
Regulation  (EC)  No  765/2008  since  its  entry  into  application  on  1 January 2010  and  all 
Member  States  have  duly  established  them  for  construction  products,  albeit  with  variable 
availability of resources and real impact on the market. Their cooperation within the market 
surveillance  administrative  cooperation  group  (AdCo-CPR)  Group  has  continuously 
intensified during the last few years, partially due to new financial support by the EU for the 
group’s activities. AdCo-CPR has recently organised several joint market surveillance actions 
and contributed efficiently to developing the ICSMS system56 to better serve the needs of the 
construction  sector.  The  RAPEX  system,  established  under  the  General  Product  Safety 
Directive 2001/95/EC, has also been used for construction products, with a view to ensuring 
their safety in use. 

Further ongoing developments within AdCo-CPR include drafting a sector-specific approach 
to  risk  assessment  for  construction  products.  In  addition,  Member  State  authorities  are 
tackling  the  current  challenges  in  applying  Articles  56  to  58  of  the  CPR  with  a  view  to 
streamlining  the  procedures  involved57.  These  developments  are  highly  beneficial  for  future 
decisions on improving market surveillance in Member States. 

10. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD 

The  CPR  has  been  implemented  for  a  relatively  short  period  only,  therefore  not  all  the 
objectives the CPR was aiming at have been achieved yet. A significant part of the challenges 
reported above  relate to implementation difficulties and delayed  adaptation by stakeholders. 
Before being able to draw definite conclusions on the performance of the legislation, further 
work is  necessary to improve implementation,  particularly at  national level (for example on 

54 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the 
requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing 
Regulation (EEC) No 339/93, OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30. 

55 On 13 February 2013, the Commission adopted a package of proposals to improve the safety of consumer 
products  and  market  surveillance  for  industrial  products  (COM(2013)  75;  COM(2013)  78;  COM(2013)  76), 
currently pending for adoption in the European Parliament and the Council. 

56 General information and communication support system for market surveillance.  
57 The Commission has so far not been informed of any formal procedures initiated by Member States under 
these Articles; according to Article 56(2), such information would have been needed at the very beginning of 
such procedures. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
uniform  interpretation  and  removing  obstacles  to  free  movement)  but  also  by  other  players 
such as CEN and EOTA. For this reason, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to 
propose amendments to the CPR at this stage. 

However the Commission sees a clear need for continued dialogue with Member States and 
other stakeholders, close monitoring of the situation and enforcement of existing rules. 

Building  on  the  efforts  already  made  in  terms  of  clarification,  in  order  to  further  support 
adequate and uniform implementation of the CPR, as well as focusing on the areas identified 
in  the  present  report  could  notably  include  the  development  of  additional  interpretative 
material and of guidance, as well as communication and awareness actions. 

There is potential for a quicker and a better streamlined standardisation process with standards 
responding  better  to  the  needs  of  their  users  through  a  close  and  efficient  collaboration 
between CEN, Member States, the industry and the Commission. 

For EOTA, the procedural rules set out in Annex II to the CPR could be streamlined for the 
quicker and more transparent finalisation of EADs via a delegated act. 

At this stage, the Commission sees a need to further clarify certain provisions in the CPR to 
support uniform application, notably the following: 

•  Article 5 on derogations from drawing up a DoP; 

•  Article 6 on the content of the DoP; 

•  Article 9(2) on the information following the CE marking; 

•  Article 37 on simplified procedures for micro-enterprises; 

•  Article  38  on  simplified  procedures  for  individually  manufactured  or  custom-made 

products; 

•  Articles 56-58 on procedures for market surveillance. 

The  Commission  intends  to  continue  following  attentively  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation in order to identify further potential issues that could not yet be solved at the level 
of interpretation.  

The  Commission  will  engage  in  further  dialogue  with  relevant  stakeholders  on  the  issues 
identified  via  technical  platforms  to  be  convened  by  the  end  of  2016.  Once  the 
implementation  of  the  CPR  could  be  expected  to  have  reached  a  more  mature  stage,  and 
considering  the  outcomes  of  such  dialogue  and  the  results  of  upcoming  related  studies, 
sectoral assessment and reports58, the Commission will review the performance of the CPR.  

58 E.g. the above-mentioned construction fitness check, study on economic impacts of the CPR, report on EOTA 

financing, initiatives on market surveillance and the Single Digital Gateway. 

11