Revision of the 'New Legislative Framework' (Decision No 768/2008/EC and Regulation (EU) No 765/2008)
Date: 2026-03-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: single market

Factual summary of contributions received during the public consultation on 
“Product  legislation  –  ensuring  futureproof  rules  (revision  of  the  New 
Legislative Framework - NLF)” 

This summary cannot in any circumstance be regarded as the official position of the Commission and 
its  services.  Contributions  to  the  public  consultation  cannot  be  interpreted  as  representative  of 
European or national populations or population subgroups or stakeholder types. 

The purpose of the public consultation was to provide all EU citizens and other interested parties with 
the  opportunity  to  contribute  to  the  impact  assessment.  The  public  consultation  survey  was  open 
from 12 November 2025 to 4 February 2026. This summary report is comprised of factual reporting 
activities only (the full dataset, with break-down for respondent groups, will be analysed in the impact 
assessment). 

1.1  Analysis of respondent profiles 

type  of 

respondent  most  commonly 

The public consultations received 299 responses and 16 position papers. Business associations were 
the 
followed  by 
companies/businesses (25%, 74/299) and public authorities (19%, 58/299). Large organisations (250 
or more employees) were the size of organisation most commonly represented (34%, 103/299), with 
other  sizes  of  organisation  more  or  less  equally  represented:  medium  (50-249  employees)  (19%, 
56/299), small (10-49 employees) (20%, 59/299) and micro (1-9 employees) (22%, 65/299). Citizens 
represented 5% of respondents (16/299). 

(34%,  103/299), 

represented 

Most  respondents  were  from  the  EU  (95%,  283/299)  with  22  EU  Member  States  represented. 
Germany  (23%,  68/299)  was  most  represented,  followed  by  Belgium  (21%,  64/299),  France  (10%, 
29/299),  and  Italy  (9%,  27/299).  Responses  were  received  from  6  non-EU  countries  (5%,  16/299), 
primarily from the USA (8) and UK (4), as well as Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and Türkiye (1 each). 

1.2  Familiarity with the NLF 

Most respondents reported having an expert level of knowledge of the NLF (75%, 225/299) with the 
rest reporting a general level of knowledge (25%, 74/299). 

1.3  Simplification of product information obligations through digitalisation 

Respondents were asked to comment on the possible introduction of a digital product passport (DPP) 
to provide product information, e.g., compliance and safety documentation and instruction manuals. 

1.3.1  Digital product compliance information 

The  majority  “strongly”  agreed  that  the  DPP,  if  introduced,  should  include:  information  currently 
included  in  the  declaration  of  conformity/performance  (88%,  192/218),  safety  information  (66%, 
143/216), users instructions (62%, 137/220) and certificates of conformity (58%, 117/201). However, 
only 24% (71/299) agreed that instructions should only be provided in digital format. 

When asked to comment on the introduction of the DPP, respondents stressed the importance of: 
ensuring  information  is  easily  understandable  and  accessible  in  multiple  languages;  maintaining 
offline access or alternative formats for consumers without digital connectivity; and guaranteeing that 
safety-critical  information  remains  immediately  visible  at  the  point  of  purchase.  Commonly  cited 
advantages include: 24/7 accessibility from any location; faster updates and real-time information; 
reduced  paper  usage; 
identification;  and  streamlined 
communication  between  operators  and  authorities.  Commonly  cited  risks  include:  cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities  and  data  manipulation;  digital  exclusion  of  certain  user  groups;  over-reliance  on 
technology that may fail or become obsolete; and increased complexity for smaller operators. 

improved  traceability  and  product 

 
When  asked  to  comment  on  the  expected  costs  associated  with  the  introduction  of  a  DPP, 
respondents mostly stated concerns around: IT development and integration costs, particularly for 
SMEs;  ongoing  maintenance  and  updates;  staff  training  and  adaptation  processes;  and  data 
management  and  hosting  expenses.  Some  respondents  emphasised  that  digitalisation  may  reduce 
longer-term  administrative  costs,  particularly  through  automation  and  reduced  duplication  of 
documentation. However, the transitional phase is consistently described as resource-intensive. 

A QR code was by far the most popular form of data carrier for a DPP (if introduced). The majority 
(84%, 252/299) reported that a QR code was either very suitable (58%, 174/299) or suitable (26%, 
78/299). Just over four in ten reported that contactless technologies (42%, 127/299) or other barcodes 
(45%, 134/299) were suitable or very suitable. 

When  asked  to  comment,  respondents  expressed  a  preference  for  widely  adopted,  low-cost 
technologies such as QR codes due to ease of deployment and consumer familiarity. More advanced 
technologies  such  as  NFC  are  viewed  as  promising  but  potentially  costlier.  Interoperability  and 
simplicity  emerge  as  dominant  principles.  Respondents  consistently  favour  solutions  that  do  not 
require proprietary systems or specialised hardware. 

A large  majority (86%, 258/299) agreed that  the digitalisation of product compliance information 
would facilitate market surveillance checks in general (including 56%, 168/299, “strongly” agreeing). 
A  similar  majority  (84%,  250/299)  agreed  that  it  would  facilitate  market  surveillance  checks  for  e-
commerce (including 55%, 165/299, “strongly” agreeing). 

When  asked  to  comment  on the  benefits  for  market surveillance,  respondents  tended  to  mention 
faster verification of compliance, improved traceability of supply chains, enhanced detection of non-
compliant or  counterfeit  products,  and better  coordination  across  Member  States.  When  asked to 
comment on the costs, respondents tended to mention investment in IT systems and training, data 
management  and  cybersecurity 
in  early 
implementation  phases.  While  upfront  investments  are  recognised,  many  respondents  view 
digitalisation as potentially reducing long-term inspection and documentation costs 

increased  analytical  workload 

infrastructure,  and 

A majority (61%, 182/299) reported that market surveillance authorities (MSAs) should be able to 
upload comments or notes regarding the measures they have taken in the digital compliance tool 
(including 38%, 113/299, “strongly” agreeing). Only 22% (67/299) disagreed. 

1.3.2  Digital product compliance information and e-commerce 

A large majority (84%, 252/299) reported that MSAs and customs authorities should have access to 
digital  product  compliance  information  for  products  offered  online  (including  65%,  194/299, 
“strongly” agreeing). 

A majority (83%, 249/299) agreed that products listed online should be accompanied by compliance 
information  in  digital  form  (including  62%,  184/299  “strongly”  and  22%,  65/299,  “partly”).  When 
asked to comment, respondents highlighted increased transparency for consumers, and competitive 
pressure on non-compliant operators but additional compliance workload for sellers. Some cautioned 
against excessive burdens on small online sellers, particularly where platform interfaces may not yet 
be harmonised. 

A majority agreed (“Very highly” or “Highly”) that the inclusion of digital compliance information for 
products offered online would offer benefits: 

•  allow MSAs to check more products offered online (80%, 180/225); 
•  allow end users to make more informed product choices (78%, 168/225); 
•  equal access to information for online and brick-and-mortar stores (74%, 167/225); 
• 

reduce the number of non-compliant products entering the EU from 3rd countries (59%, 132/225). 

 
1.3.3  Digital product compliance information and CE marking 

There was a divergence of views as to whether the CE mark should be displayed only digitally (and 
not physically), for example, by including it in the DPP: a slight majority (54%, 161/299) disagreed 
(including 37%, 

 110/299 “strongly”), whilst 29% (87/299) agreed, 12% (35/299) were neutral and 5% (16/299) did not 
know. 

When asked to give a reason for removing the obligation to physically affix the CE mark, the majority 
of those answering this question reported that: there was no need for the CE mark if a DPP is provided 
(90%, 19/21), the CE mark does not guarantee compliance (76%, 16/21) and the CE mark is misleading 
as it is perceived as a quality mark (62%, 13/21). 

When  asked  to  give  a  reason  for  not  removing  the  obligation  to  physically  affix  the  CE  mark,  the 
majority  of  those  answering  this  question  reported  that:  the  CE  mark  makes  it  easier  to  visually 
identify products that comply with EU product rules anywhere in the EU (86%, 95/110); and that 
consumers trust more in CE-marked products (55%, 61/110). Only a minority (37%, 41/110) agreed 
that the CE mark guarantees that the product is compliant. When asked to comment, respondents 
highlighted  the  immediate  visual  recognition,  simplicity,  familiarity  and  accessibility  without 
technological mediation. 

A majority (60%, 180/299) agreed that the requirement to physically affix the CE mark should remain 
and be complemented by a digital display, to be included, for instance, in the DPP (including 39%, 
115/299 agreeing “strongly”). When asked to comment, respondents highlighted the preservation of 
immediate  visual assurance,  enhanced  access  to  detailed  compliance  data  via  digital  channels  and 
reduced need for extensive physical documentation. 

1.4  Enhanced circularity in the NLF 

The respondents were asked questions about the potential need to introduce, update or clarify certain 
definitions related to product circularity, as well as the potential need to clarify responsibilities based 
on the type of product modification. 

A  majority  of  respondents  reported  that  the  following  requirements  were  “absolutely”  or  “very” 
necessary to ensure the safety of refurbished products: 

•  Mandatory safety checks for refurbished products by the refurbishers themselves (e.g. internal 

risk analysis): 57%, 170/299 (including 31%, 92/299, “absolutely necessary”). 

•  Obligation  for  the  manufacturer  to  provide  the  product  information  necessary  for  safe 

refurbishment: 53%, 158/299 (including 28%, 84/299, “absolutely necessary”). 

There  was  a  divergence  of  views  regarding  the  introduction  of  a  separate  conformity  assessment 
module for substantially modified products: 33% (62/188) were in favour, 31% (59/188) were against, 
and 23% (44/188) were in favour only for products subject to third-party conformity assessment. 

Respondents  were  mostly  not  supportive  of  a  separate  conformity  assessment  module  for  used 
products: only 16% (36/225) were in favour, whilst 44% (99/225) were against, and 14% (31/225) were 
in favour only for products subject to third-party conformity assessment. 

When  asked  to  comment,  respondents  emphasised  the  need  for:  a  clear  distinction  between 
refurbished, repaired and substantially modified products; proportional safety requirements based on 
the  degree  of  modification;  and  legal  clarity  regarding  responsibility  for  conformity.  Several 
stakeholders  argued  that  imposing  full  new-product  conformity  assessment  on  lightly  refurbished 
products could undermine circular economy objectives. 

 
1.5  Enhanced responsibility of conformity assessment bodies (experts only) 

Respondents  were  asked  to  consider  different  options  to  overcome  identified  shortcomings  in the 
oversight of notified bodies that may ultimately lead to safety risks. 

1.5.1  Strengthening oversight and accountability of notified bodies 

Most respondents (71%, 153/217) were supportive of the general principle that the Commission shall 
have  the  authority  to  suspend,  restrict  or  withdraw  the  notification  of  a  notified  body,  when 
necessary to ensure compliance. Only 5% were unsupportive, whilst 25% (54/217) did not know. 

Among the total of 71% that supported the general principle, there were some caveats regarding when 
the notification could be suspended, restricted or withdrawn: 43% (93/217) said that the Commission 
should only have such authority when a notifying Member State authority fails to act despite clear 
non-compliance or misconduct of notified body; and 10% (22/217) said Commission should only be 
able to suspend temporarily the notification (if substantiated/urgent). Only 18% (38/217) felt that the 
Commission’s authority should also include investigative powers over notified bodies. 

A majority of respondents (63%, 134/213) supported mandatory timelines for notifying authorities 
to complete the periodic reassessment of notified bodies. Only 8% (18/213) believed that current 
practices are appropriate. 

Most of those in favour of mandatory timelines (43% of all respondents, 92/213) believed that there 
should be flexibility, i.e., the absence of timely reassessment should not result in automatic removal 
from  the  New  Approach  Notified  and  Designated  Organisations  (NANDO)  database.  The  others  in 
favour of mandatory timelines (20% of all respondents, 42/213) believed that there should not be 
such flexibility, i.e., the timeline for the reassessment is not respected the notified body should be 
automatically removed from the NANDO database. 

1.5.2  Enhancing the monitoring of outsourcing the tasks of notified bodies 

A  majority  of  respondents  (85%,  148/175)  believed  that  the  NLF  should  include  additional 
requirements  to  ensure  the  reliability  of  notified  bodies.  Only  15%  (27/175)  believed  that  no 
additional requirements should be included. 

A majority of respondents recommended: stricter requirements for the expertise of the staff, with 
sufficient technical expertise (62%, 108/175); and minimum tasks carried out by the notified body 
without subcontracting (107/175).  

There was only weak support for: notified bodies being required to have a minimum number of full-
time staff (21%, 37/175); and a minimum number of certifications delivered per year in the notified 
area (18%, 32/175). 

Of  those  respondents  who  were  able  to  offer  a  view,  a  majority  supported  the  introduction  of 
measures to ensure the integrity and independence of notified bodies: 

•  Breaching  the  rules  related  to  professional  integrity  should  be  an  explicit  reason  for  the 

withdrawal of the notification (56%, 86/154); 

•  Dedicated  assessment  of  the  professional  integrity  during  the  reassessment  of  notified  bodies 

(54%, 83/154); 

•  More precise rules setting out prohibited practices (54%, 83/154); 
•  Mandatory accreditation (53%, 82/154). 

In the event that mandatory accreditation was introduced, of those who were able to give a view, the 
vast  majority  (78%,  108/139)  reported  that  notifying  authorities  should  still  exist  alongside  the 
national accreditation bodies; only 6% (9/139) reported that notifying authorities should be abolished 
– national accreditation bodies should take over their tasks.  

 
A slight majority (52%, 111/214, including 21%, 44/213 “strongly”) believed that accreditation could 
improve if there were an EU-level monitoring, investigative, and decision-making power in the area 
of accreditation, whilst only 11% (23/214) partly disagreed and none strongly disagreed.  

A majority of respondents agreed that integrating third-party conformity assessment certificates into 
the digital compliance tool, for instance, the DPP, would create benefits, namely: facilitating checks 
of the product by MSAs (87%, 164/188); and enhancing reliability of the certificate as it could not be 
falsified (74%, 143/192). Nearly half (50%, 112/225) agreed that it would facilitate the monitoring of 
the notified bodies. Only 18% (41/225) believe that it would make no difference.  

1.5.3  Levelling the competence of notified bodies 

Of those who were able to give a view, a majority reported that three measures could help ensure a 
more aligned level of competence among notified bodies: 

• 
• 
• 

Improved peer reviews of the national accreditation bodies: 65% (114/175); 
Introducing mandatory accreditation for all notified bodies: 57% (100/175); 
Strengthening the supervision of notified bodies by Member States authorities: 53% (92/175). 

Of those who were able to give a view, fewer than half (41%, 72/175) reported that strengthening the 
Commission’s  oversight  of  notified  bodies,  including  through  investigative  and  decision-making 
powers, could help ensure a more aligned level of competence among notified bodies. When asked 
to comment, respondents called for: regular audits and inspections; transparency in subcontracting 
arrangements and strong oversight mechanisms to ensure reliability. 

There was a divergence of views as to whether non-harmonised standards or other rules should be 
allowed as a basis for accreditation of  conformity assessment bodies: 31% (70/225) agreed, whilst 
32% (73/225) disagreed, and 36% (82/225) did not know. 

Of the 70 respondents agreeing that non-harmonised standards or other rules should be allowed as a 
basis for accreditation of conformity assessment bodies, the majority (59%, 41/70) reported that the 
harmonised European standards plus the requirements of the specific legislation in question could 
be used. Other possibilities were supported by fewer than half of respondents. 

There  was  a  divergence  of  views  as  to  whether  current  peer  assessment  system  for  national 
accreditation bodies ensures coherent practice: 29% (64/225) agreed and 9% (21/225) were neutral, 
whilst 27% (61/225) disagreed and 34% (77/225) did not know. 

There was a divergence of views as to measures to ensure a greater coherence of practices by national 
accreditation bodies: 25% (57/225) supported clear and detailed schemes for sectoral legislation; 21% 
(49/225) supported a common pool of peer evaluators for different sectorial legislation; whilst 29% 
(66/225)  supported  “Other”  measures.  Only  3%  (7/225)  supported  a  permanent  team  of  peer 
evaluators and only 13% (29/225) supported strengthened EU level oversight of peer reviews. 

1.6  European Product Act 

There was no clear consensus as to whether the NLF, the Market Surveillance Regulation and the 
Standardisation Regulation should be merged into one European Product Act to ensure legislative 
coherence, with 44% agreeing, 17% (39/225) neutral, 28% (63/225) disagreeing and 11% saying they 
did not know. 

When asked to comment, the arguments in favour tended to be reduction of fragmentation, easier 
navigation  for  economic  operators,  and  improved  consistency  in  enforcement.  However,  some 
emphasised  that  merging  legal  acts  must  not  dilute  sector-specific  requirements  or  create  overly 
broad, inflexible frameworks. Overall, simplification and coherence were widely supported objectives, 
provided that technical specificity is preserved where necessary.