REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the outcome of the evaluation of the relevance of the tasks set out in Article 31(4) that receive Union financing pursuant to Article 34(2) 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: 2019-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, EU aid, building materials, financial aid, harmonisation of standards, product safety, quality label, technical cooperation, technical standard, technology assessment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.10.2019  COM(2019) 800 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the outcome of the evaluation of the relevance of the tasks set out in Article 31(4) that receive Union financing pursuant to Article 34(2) 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  
 
 
Introduction 

1. 
The  Construction  Products  Regulation1  (the  CPR)  regulates  the  internal  market  for 
construction products. It aims for free movement in the sense of Article 8(4) of the CPR. The 
CPR has been applied fully since July 2013. 

This  report analyses  how the European Organisation for Technical  Assessment  (EOTA) has 
carried out the tasks for which it has received EU grants. This entails assessing the relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value for these tasks. 

Article 34(2) of the CPR requires the European Commission to evaluate the relevance of the 
tasks  set  out  in  Article 31(4)  that  receive  EU  financing  against  EU  policies  and  legislation 
requirements and to inform the European Parliament and the Council of the outcome of this 
evaluation.  These  are  the  tasks  assigned  to  EOTA,  which  is  the  organisation  of  Technical 
Assessment Bodies. 

The evidence for this report comes from two main sources:  

1)  information provided by EOTA; and  

2)  an  external  study  entitled    ‘Supporting  study  for  the  evaluation  of  the  relevance  of 

EOTA tasks’ (the study), completed in December 20162. 

The  information  from  EOTA  was  submitted  in  early  2019  and  included  quantitative  and 
statistical data for 2014-2018. 

The  study  covered  the  period  between  April  2011  and  the  end  of  2015.  It  analysed  the 
available  information  as  well  as  additional  data  collected  from  the  main  actors  and 
stakeholders  involved  in  the  system  established  by  the  CPR3.  The  study  acknowledged  a 
number of challenges, notably: (i) the relatively short application period of the CPR (mostly 
dedicated  to  the  required  transition  process  for  the  main  stakeholders  concerned);  (ii)  the 
limited consistency and  comparability of data; and (iii) the limited representativeness  of the 
stakeholder  consultation  (resulting  from  uneven  participation).  Bearing  those  potential 
weaknesses in mind, the study allowed for an initial assessment. 

2. 

Setting the scene 

2.1.  The role of EOTA 

EOTA is the organisation for technical assessment established by the Technical Assessment 
Bodies (TABs) pursuant to Article 31(1) of the CPR. 

EOTA  was  assigned  a  key  role  in  the  transition  from  the  former  product  approval  system 
under  the  Construction  Products  Directive  (the  CPD)4  to  the  new  CPR  performance 

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  Study carried out by BRE, ECORYS and Vito, available on https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/supporting-study-for-the-

evaluation-of-the-relevance-of-eota-tasks-pbET0115714/. 

3  Interviews  of  11  representatives,  26  TABs  and  45  companies  (including  29  SMEs)  and  validation  workshop  with 

manufacturers, manufacturers’ associations, TABs, Member States and EOTA held in October 2016. 

4  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  of  21 December  1988  on  the  approximation  of  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 

provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12-26. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
assessment system. 

EOTA  offers  manufacturers  an  alternative  route  for  obtaining  the  CE  marking  for 
construction  products  not  covered,  or  not  fully  covered,  by  harmonised  European  standards 
developed  by  the  European  Committee  for  Standardisation  (CEN).  For  those  construction 
products,  manufacturers  can  request  a  European  Technical  Assessment  (ETA),  which  will 
form  the  basis  for  issuing  the  declaration  of  performance  and  affixing  the  CE  marking,  as 
specified  in  Article 21(1)  of  the  CPR.  This  route  was  also  expected  to  make  the  entry  of 
innovative products on the market simpler and quicker.  

ETAs are developed by TABs on the basis of European Assessment Documents (EADs) that 
are drawn up by EOTA in application of Article 19 of the CPR and following the procedures 
set out in its Annex II. 

2.2.  EOTA objectives and tasks 

EOTA's objective, as stipulated in Article 31, is to coordinate TABs. 

Article 31(4) lists the tasks that EOTA must carry out as a minimum: 

a)  organise  the  coordination  of  the  TABs  and,  if  necessary,  ensure  cooperation  and 

consultation with other stakeholders; 

b)  ensure  that  examples  of  best  practice  are  shared  between  TABs  to  promote  greater 

efficiency and provide a better service to industry; 

c)  coordinate the application of the procedures set out in Article 21 and in Annex II, as 

well as provide the support needed to that end; 

d)  develop and adopt European Assessment Documents; 

e)  inform  the  Commission  of  any  question  related  to  the  preparation  of  European 
Assessment  Documents  and  of  any  aspects  related  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
procedures  set  out  in  Article 21  and  in  Annex  II  and  suggest  improvements  to  the 
Commission based on experience gained; 

f)  communicate any observations concerning a TAB not fulfilling its tasks in accordance 
with the procedures set  out in Article 21 and in Annex II to the Commission and the 
Member State which designated the TAB; and 

g)  ensure  that  adopted  European  Assessment  Documents  and  references  to  European 

Technical Assessments are kept publicly available. 

EOTA’s  core  tasks  are  those  mentioned  under  c  and  d,  as  they  relate  directly  to  the 
development  of  EADs.  Tasks  a  and  b  can  be  considered  as  supporting  tasks  that  have  a 
significant impact on the process and quality of the deliverables. Finally, tasks e, f and g can 
be considered as monitoring tasks. 

Regarding the procedure for developing and adopting EADs (i.e. task d), the CPR defined in 
its Article 20(1) the following requirements: 

a)  be transparent to the manufacturer concerned; 
b)  define appropriate mandatory time limits in order to avoid unjustified delay; 
c)  take  appropriately 
confidentiality; 

into  account 

the  protection  of  commercial  secrecy  and 

2 

 
 
 
d)  allow for adequate participation by the Commission; 
e)  be cost-effective for the manufacturer; and 
f)  ensure sufficient collegiality and coordination among TABs designated for the product 

in question. 

Transparency, confidentiality, cost-effectiveness and timeliness are also stated as imperatives 
in recitals 19 and 23 of the CPR, and reflected in the procedure established in Annex II, which 
additionally specifies the Commission involvement. 

2.3.  EOTA's structure 

As  stated  in  Article 31(2),  EOTA's  aim  is  of  general  European  interest.  The  organisation 
comprises  49  TABs  in  22  EU  Member  States  (all  except  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Latvia,  Malta, 
Estonia  and  Luxembourg),  two  EEA  and  EFTA  countries  (Norway  and  Switzerland)  and 
Turkey5. 

EOTA  members  are  public  authorities  or  private  bodies  designated  by  the  government  of 
participating  states.  Some  Member  States  have  designated  only  one  TAB,  others  more  than 
one. In some Member States, the designated TAB is responsible for technical assessments and 
the  development  of  EADs  in  all  product  areas,  while  other  Member  States  have  designated 
TABs specialised in one or more of the product areas set out in Article 29(1) and in Annex IV 
to the CPR. 

According to its statute, EOTA comprises: 

  the  Executive  Board  (staff  of  the  Secretariat  and  six  representatives  of  TABs 

appointed by the General Assembly);  

  the  General  Assembly  (formed  by  all  members  of  EOTA  and  the  Executive  Board); 

and 

  the Technical Board. 

The  EOTA  General  Assembly  and  the  Executive  Board  are  responsible  for  developing 
EOTA's policy and strategy. 
EOTA  also  has  a  Secretariat6  and  a  Stakeholder  Advisory  Group7  that  includes  one 
representative of each key party representing the interests of the construction sector and the 
EOTA  Executive  Board.  The  Stakeholder  Advisory  Group  is  defined  and  overseen  by  the 
EOTA Executive Board and is chaired by the President of EOTA. 

5  Source:  NANDO  database,  as  of  31.12.2018.  The 

list 

is  available  on  http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

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

6  The  Secretariat  employs  four  full  time  equivalent  staff  members:  the  Secretary  General,  a  project  manager,  a  technical 

assistant and a secretary. 

7  The Stakeholders Advisory Group meets once a year, or at any other time as needed, and provides recommendations to the 
Executive  Board  on  the  following  items:  the  role  of  EOTA  within  the  implementation  of  the  CPR,  EAD  and  ETA 
processes, quality systems and procedures promoting greater efficiency and providing a better service to industry,  feed-
back on tasks fulfilled by TABs, international and stakeholder recognition, partnerships with other organisations, as well 
as advice on legal viability and financial stability. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.4.  The process for developing EADs 

2.4.1.  Procedure defined in Annex II of the CPR 

A manufacturer of a construction product not covered, or not fully covered by a harmonised 
European standard can request that an ETA be issued for its products. For this, it needs to turn 
to a TAB. The TAB has then to determine, in line with Article 21(1) of the CPR, whether a 
particular  product  is  already  covered,  fully  or  partially,  by  either  an  EAD  or  a  harmonised 
European  standard,  and  inform  the  manufacturer  accordingly.  If  an  EAD  fully  covering  the 
product exists, the TAB delivers the ETA based on it. 

Where  a  (new  or  revised)  EAD  is  required  for  the  issuing  of  the  ETA,  the  TAB  having 
received  the  request  (called  the  'responsible  TAB'  or  'RTAB')  informs  EOTA,  concludes  a 
contract  with  the  manufacturer  and  defines  within  this  contract  the  work  programme  for 
drawing up the EAD (point 2 of Annex II). The EAD will cover the performance aspects of 
the essential characteristics the manufacturer intends to declare. 

The new or revised EAD is developed by a working group of TABs in cooperation with the 
manufacturer  and  is  then  adopted  by  EOTA.  The  working  group  is  led  by  the  RTAB,  and 
comprises  the  TABs  which  have  expressed  their  interest  to  participate  upon  EOTA's 
invitation8. The European Commission is informed about the development of the EAD, which 
is to be completed in 9 months from the receipt of the ETA request (points 3 and 4 of Annex 
II). 

After informing the manufacturer and taking into account their observations (if any), EOTA 
formally  adopts  a  draft  EAD  and  submits  it  to  the  Commission.  The  Commission  has  15 
working  days  to  communicate  its  observations.  EOTA  has  then  to  amend  the  draft  EAD 
accordingly and to send the assumed final EAD to the manufacturer and to the Commission 
(stage 7 of Annex II). At this point an ETA can be issued. 

As soon as the first ETA is issued by the RTAB on the basis of the assumed final EAD, that 
EAD is adjusted, if needed, based on the experience gained. Only then does EOTA adopt the 
final EAD and send a copy of it to the Commission, together with a translation of its title in 
all  official  EU  languages  for  publication  of  its  reference  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  EU 
(stage 8 of Annex II). 

The first ETA is issued and a product can receive a CE mark based on this ETA, pending the 
citation of the EAD in the Official Journal. 

2.4.2.  Use and conversion of CPD documents 

Before the CPR came into force, European technical approvals were issued under the CPD. 

According  to  the  CPD  (Article 9),  European  technical  approvals  were  based  either  on 
guidelines for European technical approvals (ETAGs) or on the ‘common understandings of 

8  These are the ‘participating TABs’. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
approval procedures’ (CUAPs)9. The European technical approvals had a maximum validity 
period  of  5  years10  meaning  that  such  documents  could  not  remain  in  use  (as  a  basis  for 
drawing up the declaration of performance) after 1 July 2018. 

The only way CUAPs  could  transition  from  the  CPD to  the CPR was by developing EADs 
based  on  the  CUAPs’  technical  content,  provided  they  were  up  to  date.  European  technical 
approvals issued on the basis of CUAPs had to be replaced by ETAs on the basis of a EAD by 
30 June 2018. 

In the case of EADs, Article 66(3) states that ETAGs ‘may be used as’ EADs, as a basis for 
issuing ETAs under the CPR as long as they contain all the elements necessary for EADs in 
accordance  with  Article 24  of  the  CPR  and  as  long  as  their  technical  content  had  not  been 
outdated in the meantime. Owing to the development of new assessment methods and criteria 
under  the  CPR,  ETAGs  have  become  obsolete  and  have  been  progressively  converted  into 
EADs. Currently 12 ETAGs (with all their parts) have been converted and cited in the Official 
Journal by June 2019 and 14 ETAGs are under conversion. 

2.5.  The funding of EOTA 

The CPR stipulates the funding arrangements for EOTA and its tasks to be funded. 

Article 20  (2)  provides  that  ‘the  TABs  shall,  together  with  the  organisation  of  TABs  (i.e. 
EOTA)  bear  the  full  costs  of  the  development  and  adoption  of  European  Assessment 
Documents’.  According  to  Article 31  (5),  ‘Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  TABs 
contribute with financial and human resources to the organisation of the TABs.’ 

However,  considering  EOTA’s  role  in  the  harmonised  system  for  construction  products, 
Article 31(2)  specifies  that  EOTA  ‘shall  be  considered  a  body  pursuing  an  aim  of  general 
European  interest  within  the  meaning  of  Article 162  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC, 
Euratom)  No 2342/2002  of  23 December  2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 1605/2002  on  the  Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities’. 

Therefore  ‘Union  financing  may  be  granted  to  the  organisation  of  TABs  for  the 
implementation of the tasks referred to in Art 31(4)’ under the provisions of Articles 32, 33, 
34(1) and 35 of the CPR. 

In  practical  terms,  this  means  that  the  funding  of  EOTA  is  shared  between  TABs  and 
supported  by  the  European  Commission,  and  that  manufacturers  are  not  to  bear  any  of  the 
costs of developing and adopting EADs However, manufacturers pay fees to TABs for issuing 
of ETAs and these fees vary from one TAB to another. 

EAD  funding  is  made  available  by  EOTA  to  the  responsible  TAB  and  to  the  participating 
TABs. 

9  The  concept  of  CUAPs  was  developed  inside  EOTA  under  the  CPD  to  provide  for  a  clear  basis  for  issuing  European 
technical approvals in cases provided for in Article 9(2) of the CPD, where this could not be done by means of applying 
ETAGs. 

10 According to Article 8(4) of the CPD. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.  Main findings 

3.1.  Performance of EOTA 

3.1.1. Activities 

EOTA’s activities are divided into four work packages. 

Work package 1 - the Secretariat. This package incurs the highest costs in the form of staff 
remuneration.  The  Secretariat  coordinates  and  provides  the  necessary  support  for  the 
procedures set out in Article 21 and in Annex II of the CPR. 

Work package 2 is related to meetings of EOTA bodies and working groups. 

Work package 3 is the core activity in terms of developing EADs. In the last 3 years this 
has represented 41% of the man-days. 

Work package 4 relates to supporting expert services and other kinds of support activities. 
It  represents a minimal part of the total man-days. 

All these activities have been co-financed by the EU grant to EOTA. 

Table  1  -  EOTA  budgeted  activity  per  work  package,  in  man-days  and  as  a  percentage 
(2013-2018): 

Budget in 
man-days* 
WP1 — 
Secretariat 
WP2 — 
Meetings 
WP3 — EAD 
dev 
WP4 — 
Support 
Total 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

602 - 85%  687 - 49% 

693 - 61% 

770 - 41% 

1001 - 50% 

900 - 52% 

51 - 7% 

89 - 6% 

160 - 14% 

153 - 8% 

197 - 10% 

242 - 14% 

51 - 7% 

614 - 44% 

239 - 21% 

912 - 49% 

784 - 40% 

602 - 34% 

0 - 0% 

0 - 0% 

42 - 4% 

41 - 2% 

0 

- 0% 

705 

1,391 

1,134 

1,876 

1,982 

0 - 0% 

1,744 

Source: 2013-2018 grant agreements 

 *man-days adjusted to a 12-month equivalent for 2013 and 2014 to allow comparison with later years 

3.1.2  Development of EADs 

As of 31 December 2018, EOTA had adopted 324 EADs 

Of  these,  217  have  been  cited  in  the  Official  Journal,  and  the  remaining  107  are  being 
processed for citation.  

Of  the  217  cited  EADs,  20  refer  to  superseded  EADs  (replacing  formerly  cited  EADs). 
Therefore the total net number of EADs listed in the last round of publication in the Official 
Journal  in  2018  is  197.  For  the  last  3  years,  where  the  procedure  can  be  considered  fully 
implemented, an average 61 EADs per year have been cited in the Official Journal. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 - Number of EADs adopted and cited, per year (2013-2018): 

Year 

EADs adopted 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
Total 

24 
47 
107 
53 
93 
324 

* including superseded EADs 
** excluding superseded EADs 

EADs 
citations in the 
Official 
Journal* 
0 
19 
65 
70 
63 
217 

EADs 
cited in the 
Official 
Journal** 
0 
14 
53 
67 
63 
197 

The cited EADs can be divided in two categories: EADs resulting either from the conversion 
of documents based on the CPD (ETAGs or CUAPs11), or new EADs Most of the cited EADs 
are based on documents developed under the CPD era (57%). 

Table 3 - Typology of cited EADs per year (2015-2018): 

Year 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Total 

EADs based on ETAGs 

EADs based on CUAPs 

New EADs 

Total  

0 

18 

1 

19 

3 

34 

28 

65 

10 

32 

28 

70 

3 

24 

36 

63 

16 

108 

93 

217 

Most  of  the  93  new  EADs  are  not  related  to  new  products  entering  into  the  market  but  on 
products covered, but not fully covered, by an existing standard or EAD (often resulting from 
an ETAG or CUAP conversion). These ‘new’ EADs include only one/two additional essential 
characteristics or refer to a slightly wider scope or additional intended uses12 compared with 
the pre-existing harmonised technical specifications. 

The 107 EADs adopted but not cited yet include: 

  EADs pending EOTA reaction after the Commission's comments13; 
  EADs pending citation after final adoption14; and 

  EADs rejected by the Commission for not being in line with Article 19(1). 

11  Common understanding of approval procedure - this concept did not appear in the CPD, but was developed within EOTA 
to provide a clear basis for issuing European technical approvals in cases provided for in Article 9(2) of the CPD, where 
this could not be done by means of applying ETAGs. 

12  This issue is specifically addressed under the relevance issue (see Section 4.3). 
13  At stage 7(c) or 8 of the Annex II procedure. 
14  At stage 8, where it often appears that the Commission's comments at stage 7(c) have not been taken into account and that 

an additional assessment is needed. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Adjusting the document according to Commission comments can take a long time, so many 
documents  are  pending.  The  EADs  adopted  by  EOTA  continue  to  necessitate  a  significant 
amount  of  technical  and  legal  comments  from  the  Commission.  This  is  why  the  number  of 
EADs adopted by EOTA but not cited have increased. 

EADs by product area: 

Cited EADs do not cover all 36 product areas (which include the 35 set out in Annex IV of 
the CPR15 plus an additional ‘other’ area resulting from Article 29(1)), but only 28 of them. 

Graph 1- Cited EADs by main product areas (above 5% of all EADS): 

About half of all cited EADs have been developed in four product areas only: 

  14.2% on fixings (area 33); 

  13.2% on thermal insulation products. Composite insulating kits/systems (area 4); 

  10.1% on structural metallic products and ancillaries (area 20); and 

  9.1 % on structural timber products/elements and ancillaries (area 13). 

No  EADs  have  been  cited  in  the  following  areas:  10  (fixed  firefighting  equipment);  11 
(sanitary  appliances);  24  (aggregates);  25  (construction  adhesives);  27  (space  heating 
appliances);  30  (flat  glass,  profiled  glass  and  glass  block  products);  and  31  (power,  control 
and communication cables). 

EADs by responsible TAB: 

Twenty-nine out of 49 TABs have developed EADs in the role of 'responsible TAB'. Twenty 
TABs  have  not  developed  any  EADs  and  23  have  not  developed  any  EADs  cited  in  the 
Official Journal. 

15  Product areas listed in Annex IV of the CPR are attached in annex. 

8 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
 A very small number of TABs develop EADs. As shown in the table below, two TABs have 
developed about 50% of the total amount of cited EADs. These are DIBt16 (Germany), which 
has developed 38% of all cited EADs and OIB17 (Austria), which has developed 13% of them. 

Table 4 - Number of adopted and cited EADs, per responsible TAB, 2013-2018  
(excluding TABs that have not developed any EAD): 

Responsible 
TAB 

Country 

Adopted 
EADs 

Cited 
EADs 

Share of 
cited 
EADs 

DIBt 
OIB 
ETA-DK 
TSUS 
TZUS 
ITeC 
Eurofins 
RISE Certif. 
CSTB 
BM Trada 
UBAtc 
BBA 
LNEC 
ITC 
ITB 
KIWA 
ZAG 
CEREMA 
IETcc 
SINTEF 
SKG-IKOB 
TECNALIA 
ICECON 
ICiMB 
ITECONS 
STC 
FM App 
CPC 
IBDIM 

Total 

16  Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik. 
17  Österreichisches Institut für Bautechnik. 

Germany 
Austria 
Denmark 
Slovakia 
Czechia 
Spain 
Finland 
Sweden 
France 
UK 
Belgium 
UK 
Portugal 
Italy 
Poland 
Netherlands 
Slovenia 
France 
Spain 
Norway 
Netherlands 
Spain 
Romania 
Poland 
Portugal 
Italy 
UK 
Turkey 
Poland 

107 
46 
34 
12 
13 
14 
10 
6 
10 
8 
13 
6 
4 
4 
8 
7 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 

324 

83 
28 
18 
11 
10 
10 
8 
6 
5 
5 
4 
4 
4 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 

217 

38.2% 
12.9% 
8.3% 
5.1% 
4.6% 
4.6% 
3.7% 
2.8% 
2.3% 
2.3% 
1.8% 
1.8% 
1.8% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 

9 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
Six  TABs  have  developed  74%  of  all  cited  EADs  while  23  TABs  have  developed  the 
remaining 26%. 

Twenty TABs (40% of all TABs) have not developed any EADs at all. 

3.1.3  Issuing ETAs 

ETAs are issued at the request of manufacturers on the basis of EADs. 

TABs issued 6,240 ETAs  in  2013-2018. The number of ETAs  issued has increased  year on 
year. 

Table 5 - Number of ETAs per year (2013-2018): 

Year 

ETAs issued 

2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
Total 

23 
643 
926 
1,262 
1,576 
1,810 
6,240 

Under the CPR, ETAs are in principle based on EADs. As explained in Section 2.4.2, in order 
to ensure the transition from the CPD to the CPR, ETAs have also been issued on the basis of 
ETAGs or EADs converting ETAs and of EADs converting CUAPs. 

Table 6 – Number of  ETAs by basis (2013-2018): 
Percentage of 
Number of 
ETAs issued 
ETAs issued 

ETAs based on 

ETAGs or EADs 
converting 
ETAGs 
EADs converting 
CUAPs 
new EADs 
Total 

4,873 

817 
550 
6,240 

78% 

13% 
9% 
100% 

As  the  above  table  shows,  91%  of  the  ETAs  issued  have  been  based  on  documents  with 
content  dating  back  to  the  CPD  era  and  only  9%  of  ETAs  are  based  on  new  EADs  As 
mentioned above, a clear majority of the ETAs based on new EADs do not concern products 
newly arrived on the market, but rather slight deviations from harmonised standards (or other 
EADs). 

Three  documents  (ETAG  001  on  metal  anchors  for  use  in  concrete,  ETAG  004  on  external 
thermal insulation composite systems with rendering and ETAG 026 on fire stopping and fire 
sealing products), have  been the basis for more  than one third of all ETAs.  If we add EAD 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
330232  (itself  one  of  the  three  EADs  converting  ETAG  001),  ETAG  005  on  liquid  applied 
roof  waterproofing  kits  and  ETAG  015  on  three  dimensional  nailing  plates,  these  six 
documents cover 50% of the ETAs issued. 

Graph 2 - ETAs by basis document (2013-2018): 

Considering  the  wide  diffusion  of  the  products  covered  by  these  six  documents  and  their 
stability  due  to  their  continuous  application  since  the  1990’s,  the  Commission  could  apply 
Article 19(1)  of  CPR,  which  gives  the  possibility  to  use  the  EAD  as  the  basis  for 
standardisation requests. 

ETAs by product area: 

Manufacturers'  interest  in  ETAs  is  focused  on  few  product  areas.  In  fact,  two  thirds  of  the 
6,240 ETAs are for only three of the product areas defined by Annex IV of the CPR: 

  area 33: fixings (36%); 

  area 35: fire stopping fire sealing and fire protective products; fire retardant products 

(17 %); and 

  area 4: thermal insulation products; composite insulating kits/systems (15%). 

Moreover, more than 85% of ETAs issued in these three product areas are based on ETAGs or 
EADs converting ETAGs. 

Graph 3 - ETAs by product area (2013-2018): 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
  
If  we  include  area  3  (membranes  including  liquid  applied  and  kits);  area  34  (building  kits, 
units,  and  prefabricated  elements)  and  area  13  (structural  timber  products/elements  and 
ancillaries), the six areas highlighted in the above table make up 86% of the issued ETAs. In 
comparison, the other 30 areas only make up14%. 

This could reinforce the case for possibly applying Article 19(4) of the CPR and preparing a 
standardisation request. 

No ETAs have been issued in the following product areas (and consequently no EADs cited in 
the  Official  Journal):  area  11  (sanitary  appliances);  area  24  (aggregates);  area  27  (space 
heating appliances); and area 31 (power, control and communication cables). 

ETAs by country: 

From 2013 onwards, TABs located in Germany have issued 26% of the ETAs, TABs in the 
Czech  Republic  14%  and  TABS  in  the  United  Kingdom  12%.  These  three  countries  have 
issued half of all ETAs. 

For Germany, this represents the activity of the sole TAB (DIBt). For the Czech Republic, it 
is mostly the result of the main TAB, TZUS18. The situation is different for the UK where all 
eight TABs are active. 

Graph 4 - Number of ETAs issued per TAB (above 50 per TAB): 

Manufacturers  holding  an  ETA  come  from  66  different  countries  all  around  the  world.  The 
main holders from third countries are in Canada (34), India (24) Taiwan (24), USA (21) and 
United Arab Emirates (20). All other 29 third countries hold less than 15 ETAs each. 

Inside the EU, data on the ETA holder country (manufacturer) does not necessarily match the 
ETA issuing country (TAB). For example, Czech firms hold 3% of the ETAs while the Czech 
TABs  have  issued  14%  of  ETAs.  Similarly,  UK  firms  hold  7%  of  the  ETAs  and  the  UK 
TABs  have  issued  12%  and  Danish  firms  hold  2%  of  the  ETAs  and  the  Danish  TAB  has 
issued 8%. In contrast, Italian firms hold 8% of ETAs whereas 2% of ETAs have been issued 
by Italian TABs. 

18  Technický a zkušební ústav stavební Praha. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
    Graph 5 - ETAs by country of issuing TAB:  

            Graph 6 - ETAs by country of holders: 

3.2.  Budget 

3.2.1 EOTA funding resources 

Under  Article 33  of  the  CPR,  the  European  Commission  has  provided  operating  grants  to 
EOTA  that  cover  a  substantial  proportion  (40-50%)  of  its  costs,  including  the  costs  of 
developing EADs 

Table 7 - EOTA funding sources, 2013-2018 (in € and share of EU funding): 

Source 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Membership 
fees received 

EC grant 
received 

487,321 

757,308 

760,681.80 

665,047.14 

879,917.69 

886,483.01 

183,790 

336,612 

440,000 

533,133.78 

570,000 

550,000 

Total 

671,111  1,093,920 

1,200,681.80 

1,198,190.92 

1,449,917.69  1,436,483.01 

Share of EC 
funding 

27% 

31% 

37% 

44% 

39.31% 

38.29% 

3.2.2 EAD reimbursement 

EOTA's  core  activity  is  the  development  of  EADs,  for  which  EOTA  finances  each  RTAB. 
When the EAD is adopted by EOTA, the responsible TAB confirms to the EOTA Secretariat 
which TABs participated in its development. The responsible and participating TABs fill in a 

13 

 
 
         
 
 
 
 
 
table with time and travel details as the proof of activity eligible for the reimbursement from 
EOTA  funds.  An  average  number  of  man-days  for  EAD  development  is  agreed  within  the 
TABs which varies depending on whether a TAB was responsible or had a participating role. 
However, this average number of man-days does not correspond to the real time investment 
made by TABs when developing a new EAD that is drafted on the basis of already existing 
ones and does not require new assessment methods. 
The convenors, the members of project teams (PTs)19 and other groups involved each submit 
a  table  to  the  EOTA  Secretariat  setting  out  the  number  of  man-days  and  travel  details.  The 
convenors provide the Secretariat with the list of participants of the meetings held during the 
reporting quarter. 

The  EOTA  man-day  fee  is  calculated  according  to  the  country  of  origin  of  the  TABs 
concerned, taking into account comparative price levels of 2013 published by Eurostat. 

Travel costs are reimbursed for: 

  participants of the meetings of EOTA PTs, WGs and other EOTA groups; 

  EOTA officers participating in the meetings of EOTA's statutory bodies; 

  members of Executive Board participating in the meeting of Executive Board; and 

  participants of other meetings in the interest of EOTA (after the prior consent of the 

Executive Board). 

When a PT or working group meeting is held, only one person for each TAB is eligible for the 
reimbursement of their travel costs, including any experts participating on behalf of that TAB. 

A  flat  rate  of  €150  per  night  is  applied  to  cover  costs  of  accommodation  and  local 
transportation  at  the  meeting  location.  Plane  and  train  tickets  are  reimbursed  according  to 
actual expenses. 

Invoices  differ  widely  between  RTABs  in  terms  of  the  information  they  contain  on  the 
working hours involved in developing the EAD. This does not allow an accurate comparison 
between the work undertaken and the TABs' reimbursement claims, which results in a lack of 
transparency since the costs claimed by various RTABs for developing EADs cannot be easily 
compared  and  analysed.  The  Commission  is  working  with  EOTA  to  introduce  greater 
transparency and accountability on the reimbursement of these costs on the basis of real time 
invested in the development (or amendment) of each EAD. 

4. 

Evaluation of EOTA in performing its tasks 

4.1  Effectiveness 

This section analyses to what extent the EOTA route has contributed to the internal market of 
construction  products  and  to  what  extent  it  has  met  its  specific  objectives.  It  also  identifies 
intended and unintended impacts. 

19 Which are the operating level of the working groups. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.1.1.  Implementation  of  Article 29  of  the  CPR  on  the  designation,  monitoring  and 
evaluation of TABs and Article 30 of the CPR on the requirements for TABs: 

Setting  up  the  TABs  took  some  time  after  the  entry  into  full  application of  the  CPR.  As  of 
31 December 2018, 21 Member States and three non-EU countries (Switzerland, Norway and 
Turkey)  had  designated  TABs.  There  are  no  TABs  in  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Latvia,  Malta  and  Luxemburg,  so  manufacturers  from  these  countries  have  to  address  their 
requests to TABs located in other countries. This can have a clear impact on their access to 
the EOTA alternative route, if only from a language point of view. Nevertheless,  150 ETAs 
are held by these seven countries, apart from Malta which does not hold any20. 

All  TABs  are  expected  to  comply  with  the  requirements  set  out  in  Table  2  of  Annex  IV 
relating  to  their  competence  in  analysing  risks,  setting  technical  criteria,  setting  assessment 
methods,  determining  the  specific  factory  production  control,  assessing  the  product  and 
general management. Once a participating country nominates a TAB, the Commission verifies 
its competence by examining the information provided by this country in  a ten-question list 
included in the guidelines for evaluating the TABs adopted in 201521. 

It is important to note that the main active TABs (except German DIBt and Austrian OIB) are 
also notified bodies under the CPR. Therefore, their position in the market is enhanced by the 
fact  that  they  can  offer  a  ‘one-stop-shop’  to  the  manufacturer  (issuing  of  the  ETA  and 
subsequently continuing to perform AVCP tasks for the product). 

4.1.2.  Implementation of Article 31 of the CPR on the coordination of TABs 

The  study  has  concluded,  mainly  based  on  interviews  of  TAB  representatives  and 
manufacturers  having  received  ETAs  for  their  products,  that  EOTA  fulfils  the  objective  set 
out in Article 31(1) of the CPR and is carrying out all of the tasks set out in Article 31(4). The 
study  has  nevertheless  shown  room  for  improvement,  particularly  in  the  level  of 
communication  and  cooperation  between  TABs.  A  certain  tension  appears  to  have  emerged 
between  coordination  and  competition  between  TABs,  leading  to  some  overlap  and 
duplication  in  TABs’  deliverables.  The  study  also  recommends  better  monitoring  of 
timescales (delivery times) and clarification of roles in the EOTA system. 

4.1.3.  Quality of EADs 

The content of an EAD is defined in Article 24. 

EOTA has  replaced the former European Organisation for Technical  Approvals (established 
by the CPD) and, as stated in the 2016 CPR Implementation Report22, the paradigm change 
from the CPD to the CPR, i.e. from ‘product approval’ to ‘performance assessment’, has been 
its main challenge for developing and adopting EADs 

20  Greece: 63; Hungary: 31; Latvia: 21; Estonia: 20; Bulgaria: 11; and Luxembourg: 4. 
21  Available through: 

https://www.eota.eu/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CPR%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20evaluation%20of%20TABs.pdf. 

22  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, COM/2016/0445 final, 7.7.2016. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
After the Commission  adopted the format of the European Technical  Assessment  in  201323, 
EOTA  and  the  Commission  agreed  on  the  format  of  the  EAD  in  2015.  This  led  to  the  first 
publication  in  the  Official  Journal  of  references  to  EADs  in  July  2015.  Then  in  2016  the 
Commission  developed  detailed  guidance  on  the  EAD  format  based  on  the  experience 
gathered  in  these  processes.  This  led  to  a  gradual  and  significant  increase  in  the  number  of 
EADs finalised each year and eventually cited in the Official Journal, from 14 in 2015 to 63 
in 2018. 

Under the current system, the Commission comments on the content of EADs only after the 
EOTA Technical Board has approved them (see Section 2.4.1). The Commission identifies on 
average 30 issues requiring adjustments in a given draft EAD proposed by EOTA. 90% of its 
comments  are  accepted  by  EOTA  (specifically  by  the  TABs  drafting  the  EADs),  which 
indicates  limited  prior  quality  control  of  the  documents  submitted  to  the  Commission.  This 
situation  leads  to  increased  delays  in  the  citation  of  EADs  particularly  as  correcting  some 
issues  (e.g.  exact  scope,  unnecessary  product  identification  clauses  in  EADs,  factory 
production control or task for NBs) require longer periods of analysis. 

The Commission had developed a checklist to improve the quality of EADs adopted in EOTA 
at stage 7, which is in use by TABs since June 2019. 

However, the Commission's comments are not always systematically incorporated before the 
issuing  of  the  first  ETA,  leading  to  situations  where  the  final  EAD  requires  additional 
revisions, delaying again the citation. 

4.1.4.  Concentration on specific product areas 

The development of EADs has focused on the following products areas: 

  area 33: fixings (29 cited EADs); 

  area 04: thermal insulation products and kits (26 cited EADs); 

  area 20: structural metallic products and ancillaries (21 cited EADs); 

  area 13: structural timber products and ancillaries (19 cited EADs); 

  area 22: roof coverings, lights, windows, related kits and ancillaries (14 cited EADs); 

and 

  area 9: curtain walling, claddings, structural sealant glazing (12 cited EADs). 

It  should  be  noted  that  these  product  areas  do  not  necessarily  concern  the  most  innovative 
products.  These  are  also  areas  where  relevant  ETAGs  were  developed  under  the  CPD  and 
many of these EADs are variants of these ETAGs. 

In  other  product  areas,  less  than  10  EADs  have  been  cited  in  the  Official  Journal  while  for 
seven product families, no EAD has been cited. 

4.1.5.  Concentration on specific TABs 

Out of the 49 TABs, only 29 TABs have received manufacturers’ applications requiring them 

23  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 1062/2013,  OJ  L  289,  31.10.2013,  p. 42-43;  this  act  is  based  on 

Article 26(3) of the CPR. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
to start developing EADs. 

As mentioned earlier, a small number of TABs are very actively developing EADs. These are: 
DIBt, OIB and ETA-DK24 (the single TABs for Germany, Austria and Denmark), which have 
developed 59% of all cited EADs 

In contrast, 40% of TABs have not received any applications from manufacturers. 

A  certain  level  of  specialisation  has  emerged.  For  certain  product  areas,  a  given  main  TAB 
appears to be attracting a major part of manufacturers’ requests. For example, in product area 
33 (fixings), 25 out of 40 EADs have been developed by DIBt (63%) whereas only six other 
TABs have developed EADs (37%) in this product area. 

Similarly, it appears that manufacturers tend to submit their request for an ETA to the TAB 
that  has  developed  the  relevant  EAD,  possibly  for  reasons  of  trust.  Therefore,  the 
specialisation at the level of EADs is reflected at the level of ETAs, for example DIBt, OIB 
and ETA-DK have issued 39% of all ETAs. Denmark with ETA-DK represents 8% of EADs 
and 8% of ETAs and Austria with OIB represents 6% of EADs and ETAs. 

This  would  indicate  that  EAD-developing  TABs  could  have  a  competitive  advantage  in  the 
ETA market. 

However,  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic  do  not  follow  the  same  pattern.  Whereas  the 
German  DIBt  has  developed  38%  of  EADs,  only  26%  of  ETAs  are  held  by  German 
manufacturers and one third of these have been issued by TABs from other countries, which 
may suggest that DIBt clients tend to address their requests to other TABs when they have to 
endorse the costs. The opposite is shown in the case of the Czech Republic and TZUS with a 
share of 5.6% of EADs  compared to  14% of ETAs, showing that TZUS  may  attract  clients 
from other countries for issuing ETAs. 

4.1.6.  Concentration of EADs and ETAs based on past ETAGs 

As mentioned in Section 3.1.3, there is a concentration of issued ETAs in just a few product 
areas, with two thirds of the 6,240 ETAs belonging only to three areas. More than 85% of the 
ETAs  issued  in  these  three  product  areas  are  based  on  the  use  of  ETAGs  as  EADs,  or  on 
EADs  converting  ETAGs.  In  addition,  six  ETAGs25,  together  with  their  conversions  into 
EADs, constitute the basis for about 60% of all issued ETAs. 

As stated in Section 2.4.2, the transition from the CPD to the CPR together with the technical 
developments  of  assessment  methods,  required  the  conversion  of  ETAGs  and  CUAPs  into 
EADs Today 91% of ETAs issued under the CPR are based on documents coming from the 
CPD era. 

4.1.7.  Proliferation of EADs and ETAs 

In a number of instances, several EADs are being developed in parallel for the same kinds of 
products  (e.g.  on  bonded  fasteners).  These  parallel  EADs,  if  allowed  to  be  adopted,  would 
create serious difficulties for competing products, confusion on the declared performance and 

24  ETA-Denmark. 
25  ETAG 001, ETAG 004, ETAG 026, ETAG 005, ETAG 015, ETAG 029. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
confusion for the product user. This proliferation of EADs also promotes a less than optimal 
use of EOTA and Commission resources, both financial and human. 

This approach is sometimes justified on the basis of the confidentiality rules provided for in 
Article 20(1)  c  and  Annex  II  to  the  CPR  for  ‘the  protection  of  commercial  secrecy  and 
confidentiality’.  However,  once  adopted,  EADs  become  harmonised  technical  specifications 
with  direct  and  Europe-wide  consequences  in  competition  and  marketing  of  the  relevant 
construction  products.  Therefore,  confidentiality  provisions  are  taken  into  account  together 
with other pivotal principles that could be compromised by its blind application. Guidance on 
the  procedure  for  developing  EADs  to  avoid  their  unjustified  proliferation  while  ensuring 
confidentiality is protected is currently being discussed with Member States and EOTA. 

One single ETAG represents 24% of all ETAs (1,490) issued (ETAG 001 used as EAD and its 
associated EAD conversions). Thirteen EADs (or ETAGs used as EADs) have each been the 
basis for more than 100 ETAs, 49 EADs have each been the basis for less than 100 ETAs and 
the rest have each been the basis for less than 10 ETAs. 

In addition, some products currently on the market are covered by two ETAs, as it is the case 
of an injection system belonging to the fixings product area (area 33) for which a first ETA 
has been issued based on ETAG 001-5 used as a EAD and then a second ETA has been issued 
based on EAD 331522-00-0601 (only adopted) with a slightly different scope. 

4.1.8.  Obstacle to SMEs 

The  EOTA  route  for  CE  marking  offered  to  manufacturers  comes  at  a  price.  Though 
companies do not bear any costs for the development of EADs, they pay fees to the TABs for 
issuing  the  ETA.  These  fees  can  be  significant  (€24,000  to  €36,000  -  see  more  details  in 
Section  4.2.3  on  efficiency),  and  sometimes  the  investment  cannot  be  recuperated  by 
increased  demand  on  the  market.  Furthermore,  the  manufacturer  has  no  guarantee  that  the 
EAD  on  which  his  ETA  is  based  will  not  be  superseded  at  any  time  by  a  newer  version 
following the request of another manufacturer for some changes, thus potentially generating 
additional costs. 

Incurring these costs and taking such risks is challenging for SMEs, especially in the area of 
EADs converting ETAGs as they represent the biggest share of ETAs, thus of manufacturers 
concerned. 

A small number of the responses from manufacturers interviewed in the study indicated that 
the EOTA CE marking route may be used by larger manufacturers in a way that gives them a 
competitive advantage over their competitors26. 

4.1.9.  Performance of EOTA and TABs when issuing EADs and ETAs: 

The format for European Technical Assessments was adopted in October 2013 and the EAD 
format was finalised in March 2015. In spite of these early achievements, the vast majority of 
EADs have not been finalised within the deadlines set out in Annex II. 

An IT tool is being developed to improve the exchange of information between EOTA and the 
Commission (to inform on deadlines, to register all accomplished stages for the development 

26  See study, page 44. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
of  EADs,  to  inform  on  possible  delays,  etc.)  and  to  automatically  update  the  NANDO 
database27 when an EAD is cited. 

According to the procedure defined in Annex II of the CPR and owing to the unconditional 
obligation set  in  Article 4(1),  granting a CE  marking for  a product  based on a EAD not  yet 
cited  could  be  justified.  The  intention  of  the  legislators  was  to  allow  for  adjusting  the  draft 
EAD after the first ETA had been issued and to avoid delaying the ETA processes for other 
subsequent manufacturers. However, in those cases where the EAD is rejected and not cited, 
the validity of the declaration of performance and the CE marking based on the issued ETA 
may  be  put  in  question.  This  concerns  70  ETAs  and  31  EADs  (including  in  particular  18 
ETAs issued by six different TABs on a single adopted EAD coming from the conversion of a 
CUAP). This means that products have received a CE mark and been placed the market based 
on an EAD that still requires further improvement in order to be cited in the Official Journal. 

In addition, although manufacturers have no direct legal obligation to update their ETA and 
CE marking after the revision of an EAD, market pressure tends to force manufacturers to do 
so. Moreover, if a new EAD superseding the previous one (or converting an ETAG) contains 
significantly changed assessment methods, this leads to the obligation to issue a new ETA. 

The study suggests the need to revise Annex II to reflect actual responsibilities and timescales 
required for developing EADs and citing them in the Official Journal28. 

However, the relatively high number of EADs that have been rejected or are pending citation 
is mostly due to EOTA's lack of appropriate quality control. The in-house technical and legal 
capacity that EOTA has committed to set up, together with the recent checklist for verifying 
the  quality  of  EADs  at  stage  7,  are  expected  to  significantly  improve  the  quality  of  draft 
EADs  and  their  citation  rate  and  therefore  to  also  reduce  deadlines.  Such  an  improvement 
would also be instrumental in reducing the proliferation of EADs (see earlier Section 4.1.7). 

4.2  Efficiency 

This  section  assesses  whether  the  expected  results  and  impacts  have  been  obtained  at  a 
reasonable/proportionate cost. 

4.2.1.  Costs for the Commission 

On  the  Commission  side,  costs  include  the  annual  grant  to  EOTA  and  costs  of  input  by 
Commission  departments  into  the  development  of  EADs  in  terms  of  staff  and  support 
(dedicated  consultants).  These  costs  are  specific  to  the  CPR  as  other  internal  market 
legislation does not propose such alternative routes to standardisation. 

Since  2016,  the  EOTA  grant  has  remained  relatively  stable:  €550,000  in  2016,  €570,000  in 
201729 and €550,000 in 2018. Sixty-five EADs were cited in 2016, 70 in 2017 and 63 in 2018, 
which gives an indicative ratio per EAD of between €8,143 in 2017 and €8,730 in 2018. As 
already mentioned, the EOTA budget  covers four different  work packages, the costliest one 

27  NANDO  is  the  New  Approach  Notified  and  Designated  Organisations  Information  System,  which  is  in  the  form  of  a 
website  so  that  manufacturers  can  search  to  find  a  Notified  Body  for  their  products.  NANDO  is  also  used  for  EOTA 
purposes, i.e. to list the EADs cited in the Official Journal and the TABs designated by the Member States. 

28  See study, page 82. 
29 Source: EC Financial transparency system http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
being  the  Secretariat,  followed  by  the  development  of  EADs  (representing  34-49%  of  the 
budget in 2016-2018), meetings and the support activities. 

Human  resources  deployed  by 
the  Commission  for  monitoring  EOTA  represent 
approximately  1.5  full  time  equivalents.  This  has  remained  stable  despite  the  increasing 
number of EADs adopted by EOTA since 2014 (from 24 in 2014 to 93 in 2018) and despite 
the EADs adopted by EOTA continuing to  need a significant  amount of technical  and legal 
comments from the Commission. 

The relevant Commission department has also contracted a consultant to review the quality of 
draft  EADs  proposed  by  EOTA  and  thus  decrease  the  in-house  effort  (this  support  has 
amounted to €120,000 per year since 2014). 

The  supporting  study  has  shown  the  need  to  better  link  the  grant  agreement  to  the  CPR 
objectives and to strengthen the systems to control the financing of EOTA, the financing of 
the development of EADs, and the funding of TABs. 

The Commission has asked EOTA to develop a common invoicing system for TABs so that 
the  real  costs  for  developing  each  EAD  are  reflected  in  the  TAB’s  invoices  sent  to  EOTA. 
EOTA has also committed to use a more realistic and accurate TABs reimbursement scheme 
for the development/amendment of EADs based on the real work invested in each particular 
case. 

4.2.2.  External efficiency 

Concerning the cost-effectiveness for manufacturers enlisting the support of EOTA, 22 out of 
the 26 manufacturers interviewed in the study (all of EOTA's clients) stated that commercial 
gains outweigh the costs of compliance, to a large or very large extent (in the case of 12 of 
them)  to  a  medium  extent  (for  four  of  them)  or  to  a  small  or  very  small  extent  (for  four  of 
them)30. In general, EOTA's clients consider that the time for issuing EADs and ETAs could 
be shortened (according to the replies, the adoption of EADs takes 16.3 months on average), 
and  they  complain  about  ‘delays  to  market’  despite  the  improvements  made  since  the  CPD 
era. However, this compares very favourably with the time required to develop a harmonised 
European standard. 

Based  on  product  turnover  data  provided  by  nine  EOTA  clients,  the  study  found  that  the 
financial returns of products sales on the internal market outweigh the costs of compliance of 
an ETA at a benefit to cost ratio of 443 to 1. This calculation is based on an overall product 
revenue estimated by the nine manufacturers at €157 million. However, the small size of this 
sample presents its strong reservations for the representativeness of such quantitative results 
and no other evidence is available. 

Regarding the total cost for manufacturers to obtain an ETA, it is estimated by the study in a 
range of €40,000 to €52,00031, where the main cost is the TAB fee, varying between €24,500 
and €36,000 (with two firms indicating fees of €150,000 or more)32. 

Out  of  the  35  manufacturers  (all  EOTA  clients)  questioned  in  the  study  on  whether  they 
would request an ETA in the future again, 26 gave a positive reply. 

30 The other two respondents did not specify the extent. 
31  The lowest assessment is based on the sample of the nine firms that provided product turnover data, the highest on the 45 

firms interviewed. 

32  Other costs are the first year factory audit (€11,233 on average) and the HR inputs (between €4,822 and €6,944). 

20 

 
 
 
                                                           
4.3  Relevance 

Relevance  is  about  the  adequacy  between  the  objectives  of  the  EOTA  route  (and  of  EOTA 
and TABs) and the needs of the manufacturers and of the market. 

While  the  CPR  does  not  expressly  refer  to  innovation  as  the  EOTA  objective,  the  EAD 
procedure targets innovative or novel products, which owing to the duration of standardisation 
processes  cannot  be  covered  by  harmonised  standards.  The  Commission's  grant  agreements 
identifies as an expected impact of the EAD procedure the possibility given to manufacturers 
to affix the CE marking to ‘new and often innovative construction products’. The statutes of 
EOTA indicate that its  duties include wider  activities concerning ‘the making  available and 
the use of construction products and the facilitation of innovation in construction’. 

According  to  the  supporting  study,  TABs  and  their  clients  consider  that  EOTA  is  relevant. 
They consider that, as standardisation does not cover and is not suitable for all products, the 
EOTA approach is appropriate in particular for brand new and genuinely innovative products, 
often presented as  forming the core of the EOTA activities. Of the 26  TABs  asked to  what 
extent the objectives of EOTA meet their needs, 19 replied ‘completely’ and four ‘mostly’. Of 
the 37 manufacturers asked the same question, 20 replied ‘completely’ and 11 ‘mostly’. 

However, no evidence could be found to demonstrate the impact that EOTA would have on 
innovation within the construction sector. 

Relatively  speaking,  the  EOTA  route  does  not  cover  as  many  construction  products  as  the 
ones covered by standardisation. The number of ETAs issued is substantially lower than the 
number of certificates issued during the same timeframe on the basis of harmonised standards. 
While  there  were  6,240  ETAs  as  of  31  December  2018,  the  number  of  certificates  issued 
every year annually can be counted in the millions. 

Again, the overwhelming majority of EADs have not been prepared for brand new and really 
innovative products. Even the TABs participating in the study raised doubts over the number 
of truly innovative products, which they consider to be less than the 9% of EADs generated 
from ‘new’ products rather than from documents coming from the CPD era (EADs converting 
ETAGs or CUAPs). 

In reality, manufacturers most frequently apply for an ETA to  affix a CE mark on products 
that are commonly used in construction work and for which, although a harmonised standard 
is available, the manufacturer wants to declare an essential characteristic or intended use not 
covered by the harmonised standard. Therefore, the EOTA route could be seen as a  way for 
manufacturers to obtain a market benefit from having a CE mark on their products. 

As noted above, there is a tendency to develop new EADs instead of amending existing ones, 
resulting in a number of EADs that are very close in scope. Consequently, products are placed 
on  the  market  with  two  declarations  of  performance  based  on  two  ETAs  (e.g.  because  they 
cover two different intended uses), which is certainly not the purpose of the EOTA alternative 
route. 

Finally, the study has found that EOTA does not place enough emphasis on supporting the CE 
marking of innovative products, pointing to the need to provide support to TABs and the need 
for  clear  guidance  on  EADs  and  innovation  to  manufacturers  through  European  trade 
associations. 

21 

 
 
 
 
4.4  Coherence 

This section assesses the internal coherence of the EOTA system and its coherence with the 
whole CPR system. 

EOTA  supports  coordination  between  TABs  and  the  development  of  standard  EADs  and 
standard ETAs has particularly helped ensure internal consistency. 

However, the level of activity varies widely between TABs and the study has concluded that 
increased  coherence  could  be  achieved  by  developing  best  practices.  As  noted  earlier, 
insufficient  cooperation  between  TABs  contributes  to  the  unjustified  proliferation  of  EADs 
and ETAs, detrimental to most manufacturers and confusing for the users. 

Regarding  internal  coherence  for  the  whole  CPR  system,  the  EOTA  route  complements  the 
harmonised  European  standards  developed  by  CEN.  Nevertheless,  a  number  of  additional 
considerations need to be taken into account to complement this analysis: 

First, circumstantial evidence points to the large uptake of the EOTA being the result of the 
underperformance  of  the  main  standardisation  route,  in  particular  as  the  EOTA  route 
contributes  to  bridge  the  gap  caused  by  the  absence  or  incompleteness  of  exhaustively 
harmonised  standards,  in  particular  for  construction  products  with  small  market  shares,  or 
‘non-standard’ products, according to the study. This seems to be confirmed by the continued 
increase  in  the  number  of  EADs  and  ETAs  and,  in  particular,  the  sometimes  very  large 
number of ETAs issued under a same EAD for some specific products areas. 

Second,  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  opening  of  this  alternative  route  to  standardisation 
was to allow faster time-to-market of innovative construction products. The predominant use 
of base documents with content dating back to the CPD, the concentration of ETAs along a 
limited  number  of  product  areas  and  the  observed  lack  of  disruptive  innovative  products 
among the ones with ETAs indicate that the EOTA route is not (or only very marginally) used 
to support this. 

Finally, EADs with a large number of ETAs, which also have been operational in the market 
for  long  periods  (as  ETAGs  and  EADs),  indicate  a  stability  that  should  lead  to  the 
development of a harmonised standard being considered. 

In the supporting study, of the 26 TABs that were asked whether there would be advantages if 
some EADs were developed into harmonised standards, 12 replied ‘no’, four replied ‘yes’ and 
10  replied  ‘don't  know’.  Of  the  39  manufacturers  who  were  asked  the  same  question  (all 
EOTA  clients  and  holding  or  requesting  an  ETA),  11  replied  ‘yes’,  12  replied  ‘no’  and  16 
replied ‘don't know’33. 

4.5  EU added value 

Assessing the EU added value of the EOTA route requires that we consider whether action at 
Member State-level could have produced similar or better results and impacts. 

The  study  shows  that  TABs  generally  recognise  EOTA's  added  value  for  their  actions 
although  they  suggest  this  added  value  could  be  increased  through  efficiency  and 
effectiveness gains. 

33 See study, page 58. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
On the EU added value of the EOTA route to the CPR system, the manufacturers interviewed 
for  the  study  were  not  in  a  position  to  provide  conclusive  information  on  the  costs  and 
timescales that alternative national procedures would entail. However, in the absence of this 
route,  mutual  recognition  would  apply.  This  could  well  entail  delays  and  rising  costs  for 
construction products to be marketed in several Member States, which would complicate the 
access  to  the  internal  market.  The  main  advantage  of  the  EOTA  route  is  the  possibility  to 
grant CE marks for products even in the absence of harmonised standards. 

Manufacturers have also reported unexpected benefits in external trade where a CE mark, be 
it based on harmonised standards or EADs, appears to be considered as a quality label. This is 
for  example  the  case  for  fixings  (product  area  33)  manufactured  in  Europe  whose 
manufacturers  benefit  from  a  competitive  advantage  over  their  competitors  from  third 
countries. 
Finally,  some  ETAGs  or  EADs34  have  been  adopted  by  several  third  countries  as  their 
technical regulation, which gives European companies an important competitive advantage on 
the international market. 

5. Conclusions 

For  the  seven  tasks  set  out  in  Article 31(4)  CPR  that  are  covered  in  this  report,  evidence 
indicates that no task remains unfulfilled35 and that EU financial support is justified. 

For  the  period  analysed,  the  EOTA  route  has  supported  the  transition  from  the  CPD  to  the 
CPR by offering the required flexibility. 

Despite this, a series of structural issues have also been identified: 

  The  EOTA  route  is  used  by  a  limited  number  of  companies  manufacturing 
construction  products.  In  addition,  EOTA  activities  show  a  very  narrow  coverage  in 
any of the three possible dimensions (product areas, geographic distribution and TABs 
involved) and there is no indication that this situation is improving. 

  Whereas the EAD route was intended primarily to facilitate speedier entry into market 
of  innovative  products,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  ETAs  do  not  concern 
innovative products but products already in the market. 

  Circumstantial  evidence  also  strongly  suggests  that  the  EOTA  route  has  benefited 
above all from the underperformance of the standardisation system. Some EADs can 
even  be  seen  as  standards  developed  through  alternative  means.  This  is  particularly 
visible in the area of fixings where one ETAG (currently transformed into EAD) has 
been the basis for 25% of all ETAs. 

  Costs  for  the  development  of  EADs  are  high  and  so  are  the  fees  charged  to 
manufacturers to obtain an ETA. The route remains expensive and not SME friendly. 

Other areas for improvement in the management of EOTA: 

34  For example, ETAG 001 is used as the basis of the technical specifications in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of 

America and Canada. 

35  EOTA has not communicated observations on a TAB not fulfilling its tasks, but there is no evidence it should have. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Competition  between  TABs  is  limited  due  to  the  absence  of  transfer  of  assessment 
know-how or exchange of best practices which somewhat restricts the participation of 
a larger number of TABs. 

  The coordination of procedures, in relation to the proliferation of EADs and ETAs and 
insufficient internal draft EADs quality checks lead to multiple verification processes 
between  the  Commission  and  EOTA  and  hence  contribute  substantially  to  delays  in 
the final adoption and citation of EADs in the Official Journal. 

Should  any  revision of the CPR and of the harmonisation  system  applicable to  construction 
products be proposed, the role of EOTA and of the EOTA route should be analysed in depth 
as part of the harmonised technical specifications at the centre of the CPR and aligned with 
the conclusions presented in the evaluation of the CPR36. 

36 Evaluation 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, 
SWD(2019) 1770. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex  

Product areas (source: Annex IV of the CPR) 

Area codes  Products areas 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Precast normal/light weight/autoclaved aerated concrete products. 
Doors, windows, shutters, gates and related building hardware. 
Membranes, including liquid applied and kits (for water and/or water vapour 
control). 
Thermal insulation products. Composite insulated kits/systems. 
Structural bearings. Pins for structural joints. 
Chimneys, flues and specific products. 
Gypsum products 
Geotextiles, geomembranes, and related products 
Curtain walling/cladding/structural sealant glazing. 
Fixed fire fighting equipment (fire alarm/detection, fixed firefighting, fire and 
smoke control and explosion suppression products). 
Sanitary appliances. 
Circulation fixtures: road equipment. 
Structural timber products/elements and ancillaries. 
Wood based panels and elements. 
Cement, building limes and other hydraulic binders. 
Reinforcing and prestressing steel for concrete (and ancillaries). Post 
tensioning kits. 
Masonry and related products. Masonry units, mortars, and ancillaries 
Waste water engineering products 
Floorings. 
Structural metallic products and ancillaries. 
Internal & external wall and ceiling finishes. Internal partition kits. 
Roof coverings, roof lights, roof windows, and ancillary products. Roof kits. 
Road construction products 
Aggregates. 
Construction adhesives. 
Products related to concrete, mortar and grout. 
Space heating appliances. 
Pipes-tanks and ancillaries not in contact with water intended for human 
consumption. 
Construction products in contact with water intended for human consumption. 
Flat glass, profiled glass and glass block products. 
Power, control and communication cables. 
Sealants for joints. 
Fixings. 
Building kits, units, and prefabricated elements. 
Fire stopping, fire sealing and fire protective products. Fire retardant 
products. 

25