Source: European Parliament
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2023 on the 30th anniversary of the single market: celebrating achievements and looking towards future developments(1),
– having regard to its resolution of 8 May 2025 on the old challenges and new commercial practices in the internal market(2),
– having regard to the Commission work programme 2025 (COM(2025)0045),
– having regard to the Commission evaluation of the New Legislative Framework (NLF) (SWD(2022)0365),
– having regard to 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(3),
– having regard to 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/EEC(4),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011(5) (MSR),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 entitled ‘A comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce’ (COM(2025)0037),
– having regard to the proposal of 17 May 2023 for a regulation establishing the Union Customs Code and the European Union Customs Authority, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (COM(2023)0258),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2025 entitled ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ (COM(2025)0030),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6) (Standardisation Regulation),
– having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC(7) (Product Liability Directive),
– having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC(8),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 entitled ‘The European Green Deal’ (COM(2019)0640),
– having regard to Directive 2024/1799 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on common rules promoting the repair of goods and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directives (EU) 2019/771 and (EU) 2020/1828(9),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004(10) (Consumer Protection Regulation),
– having regard to Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC(11),
– having regard to the Commission notice of 29 June 2022 entitled ‘The “Blue Guide” on the implementation of EU product rules 2022’(12),
– having regard to the Commission staff working document entitled ‘Executive Summary of the Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairness’ (SWD(2024)0231),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act)(13),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act)(14),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2020 entitled ‘A new Circular Economy Action Plan – For a cleaner and more competitive Europe’ (COM(2020)0098),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC(15) (Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation),
– having regard to Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)(16),
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A10-0189/2025),
A. whereas the new legislative framework (NLF) has improved the consistency and efficiency of product legislation in the single market through harmonised definitions and obligations for economic operators, conformity assessments, market surveillance and notified body accreditation, together with the voluntary application of harmonised standards to show conformity with EU product legislation;
B. whereas the NLF has proven to be an effective tool for fostering European competitiveness, its introduction marking an important evolution from the ‘old approach’ to the ‘new approach’; whereas it focuses on essential requirements and enables a flexible regulatory environment that fosters innovation and sustainable development through a strong public-private partnership within the European standardisation system, in order to ensure that only compliant products are put on the market;
C. whereas the 2022 evaluation of the NLF offers a valuable opportunity to integrate its findings into the revision process, ensuring that the EU’s regulatory framework remains adaptable to technological advances, digitalisation, sustainability and evolving market needs; whereas the NLF’s revision process offers a valuable opportunity to assess its effectiveness, efficiency and relevance, with particular attention to Parliament’s priorities, including social inclusivity, environmental responsibility, product safety and compliance, competitiveness, reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and strengthening the single market;
D. whereas the NLF establishes a unified set of rules to ensure that products placed on the EU market meet consistent safety and quality standards, contributing to a high level of consumer protection that is recognised across Member States;
E. whereas the NLF, as an element of the European standardisation system, also plays an important role in the competitiveness of European industry by promoting innovation, encouraging voluntary contributions from technical experts and bringing safe and state-of-the-art technologies to the EU single market;
F. whereas the modernisation of product legislation, particularly through digitalisation, has the potential to simplify compliance procedures and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens for economic operators, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while maintaining high standards of safety and regulatory compliance;
G. whereas the revision of the NLF must continuously evolve to address emerging risks, such as the increasing presence of new technologies in products; whereas it must also take into account the growing concern over the presence of hazardous substances in products; whereas the revision of the NLF will be a key tool in strengthening the market surveillance framework in order to address the challenges posed by e-commerce and the evolving nature of digitally connected products, as well as to adapt to the new requirements of the circular economy;
H. whereas the evaluation of the MSR, although not yet part of the NLF revision, is part of the broader enforcement effort to ensure that products in the EU market meet high safety standards and do not pose risks to consumers and the environment;
I. whereas the digital product passport (DPP) should serve as a central instrument to promote transparency, traceability and informed decision-making by consumers and authorities alike;
J. whereas a horizontal, cross-sectoral implementation of the DPP covering new, second-hand, refurbished and remanufactured products would reduce fragmentation in sustainability reporting and ensure consistency across the internal market;
K. whereas e-commerce plays a substantial role in shaping consumer experiences by facilitating enhanced convenience, broadening access to a wide range of goods and services and enabling consumers to benefit from more affordable purchasing options; whereas, at the same time, it poses significant consumer protection challenges, including exposure to unsafe or non-compliant products, disparities in the accessibility, clarity and comparability of information, and commercial practices designed to exploit consumers’ behavioural biases and vulnerabilities;
L. whereas the EU recommerce market was valued at EUR 94 billion in 2022–2023, representing 12,3 % of total e-commerce, and is projected to grow to EUR 120 billion, accounting for 14 % of e-commerce by 2025; underlines that its rapid growth is driven by multiple factors, including rising consumer awareness of sustainability and environmental concerns, increased demand for affordable alternatives, and growing interest in unique items, as recommerce facilitates access to vintage and out-of-production goods;
M. whereas the rise in online product sales represents a significant challenge as the difficulty of identifying the parties responsible, such as non-EU sellers or intermediaries, creates enforcement issues; whereas loopholes in tracking and taking action against online sellers who fail to comply with EU legislation persist, allowing non-compliant products to be sold without adequate oversight;
N. whereas e-commerce platforms are subject to various obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the General Product Safety Regulation(17) (GPSR) and may be held liable under the Product Liability Directive (PLD) in specific circumstances; whereas, in this respect, online platforms are liable if they do not respect their specific obligations as intermediaries; whereas e-commerce, in particular on very large online platforms and non-EU platforms, still presents significant challenges to the EU’s competitiveness and raises concerns over consumer rights and health and safety, particularly as certain product categories raise urgent concerns regarding their impact on vulnerable consumer groups;
O. whereas although the NLF aims for harmonised enforcement, the implementation and oversight of conformity assessment bodies varies across the EU Member States; whereas some countries may be more diligent in carrying out inspections and enforcing compliance, while others may face delays or lack of prioritisation; whereas this inconsistent enforcement can create disparities in product safety levels and distort the internal market;
P. whereas the NLF must ensure that conformity assessment procedures are harmonised, robust, and remain fit for purpose in addressing the increasing complexity of digital and interconnected products, including cybersecurity risks and evolving technological features, while prioritising the safety and rights of consumers;
Q. whereas the NLF framework should include clear guidelines to ensure consistent application across the Member States, uphold high standards of product safety, and promote fairness and transparency in the internal market;
R. whereas the role of notified bodies in the conformity assessment process must be strengthened by enhancing transparency, independence and competence within the accreditation system, facilitating the recognition of products in all EU Member States and ensuring they can effectively respond to the challenges of digitalisation and the circular economy, while safeguarding the interests of businesses, in particular SMEs, and consumers alike;
S. whereas several Member States have already implemented VAT reductions for reused, refurbished, repaired and second-hand products, including those sold by charities and social economy platforms, with the aim of promoting circular economy principles and boosting the local economy;
Roles and responsibilities of economic operators
1. Emphasises the need for a future-proof model that maintains the foundational principles of the NLF, while integrating emerging policy priorities and the findings of the 2022 evaluation, in particular sustainability, digitalisation and enhanced market surveillance; stresses that the revision should benefit consumers and businesses;
2. Highlights the need for a new legislative framework that is aligned with the overall objectives of increasing legal certainty and transparency, for both consumers and businesses, as well as strengthening EU competitiveness and enforcement with streamlined compliance procedures without lowering safety or quality standards; underlines that simplification should be pursued to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens without undermining agreed policy objectives or weakening consumer protection;
3. Calls for the revision to ensure consistency across EU product legislation, including with the GPSR, the PLD, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), the Artificial Intelligence Act(18), and the DSA and with a view to ensuring the free movement of safe and compliant products within the internal market; calls on the Commission to revise and, where applicable, update the roles and responsibilities of economic operators and their corresponding obligations under Decision No 768/2008, in order to enhance legal certainty, strengthen consumer protection and ensure that EU economic operators can operate on an equal footing within the internal market and vis-à-vis non-EU companies;
4. Underlines that the responsible person in the EU acting on behalf of non-EU traders for product compliance often lacks the capacity to provide consumer redress or compensation, particularly when acting as an authorised representative; recognises, furthermore, the lack of harmonised requirements to ensure these actors can fulfil their obligations; urges the Commission to accelerate its in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the provisions relating to the ‘responsible person for products placed on the Union market’, and also to build upon the results of the interim report on Article 4 of the MSR; calls on the Commission to consider the introduction of a mandatory requirement for non-EU traders to appoint a responsible person in the EU with increased legal and financial liability to ensure that consumers are not left without redress, while ensuring a level playing field between EU and non-EU companies; urges the Commission, furthermore, to establish operational requirements for responsible persons, which may include aspects related to their economic solvency or ability to effectively carry out their respective tasks;
5. Stresses that the NLF must evolve to support the integration of the requirements of the circular economy and digitalisation, as highlighted in the fitness check and the evaluation of the NLF; notes that this includes ensuring that conformity assessments effectively address the challenges posed by rapidly advancing technologies, such as software and hardware updates, product connectivity and artificial intelligence, which have the potential to alter essential product characteristics after they have been placed on the market, while also supporting competitiveness and simplified compliance procedures;
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure the proper application of the NLF, which must be consistent with existing Union legislation, including with provisions strengthening consumer protection in relation to the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making; recalls, in this regard, the existing provisions in the General Data Protection Regulation(19) and the Artificial Intelligence Act to the effect that consumers must be clearly informed when decisions are made using artificial intelligence or automated processing, in particular when personal data are involved and that consumers should have the option to seek human intervention in such cases;
7. Stresses the importance of effective and consistent implementation of the MSR as a cornerstone of the NLF; underlines the essential role played by national market surveillance authorities in ensuring the safety and compliance of products placed on the EU market, including those sold online; calls for the strengthening of their operational capacity and coordination, both at national and EU level, in particular through better risk-based planning and joint actions, and calls on the Commission to assess the need for an EU market surveillance authority; highlights the need to ensure adequate resourcing for market surveillance authorities, improved cooperation, enhanced information exchange and the use of digital tools; encourages the Commission and the Member States to continue supporting cooperation mechanisms such as the EU Product Compliance Network, and to ensure consistent enforcement practices across sectors and borders, in order to ensure a well-functioning market surveillance system, which is crucial for safeguarding consumer protection, fair competition and trust in the single market;
8. Notes that the evaluation of the MSR is not yet part of the NLF revision but should be finalised by December 2026 together with a proposal for a revision; emphasises that the MSR plays a pivotal role in enhancing the effectiveness of market surveillance across the EU; suggests maintaining the use of the MSR risk assessment to identify high-risk products and monitor the compliance history of economic operators, in particular those from third countries; invites the Commission to assess the feasibility of a risk-based alert notification system for operators with a history of poor compliance performance that could enable reinforced market surveillance monitoring; suggests introducing a more proactive and digitally enabled supervisory mechanism entrusted to national authorities designated by the Member States, with the aim of ensuring more effective and consistent oversight; stresses, in this context, the importance of updating the MSR to streamline and standardise market surveillance authorities’ actions and information exchange in the EU; recommends developing key performance indicators to systematically and objectively evaluate compliance;
Digital product passport (DPP)
9. Highlights the benefits of a horizontal and interoperable DPP as a tool that can provide access to harmonised information on product characteristics, product conformity, supply chains, energy efficiency, detailed sustainability performance metrics, and essential data on product composition, durability, reparability, reusability, recyclability, maintenance costs and price and availabilities of spare parts; notes that the specific information to be included in the DPP must consider the product category with different access rights depending on the actors involved; believes that the DPP should become the go-to point for consumers, authorities and businesses along the value chain;
10. Considers that the DPP should replace existing declarations of conformity in order to streamline conformity requirements; welcomes, in this context, the forthcoming regulation on toy safety, which will allow economic operators to fully rely on the DPP instead of drawing up declarations of conformity;
11. Emphasises the value of the DPP in empowering consumers to make informed choices, thereby building consumer trust and facilitating circular product flows; underlines its potential to support sustainable consumption in line with the EU’s climate and environmental goals and to contribute to engaging consumers in favour of a sustainable economy in the single market;
12. Stresses that a horizontal DPP would significantly enhance the work of market surveillance and customs authorities, as it would enable the efficient screening of essential product compliance information for conformity checks; underlines that market surveillance authorities should ensure that economic operators always provide the required data and that it remains constantly accessible to consumers, public authorities, refurbishers and repairers, in accordance with the time limits, access rights and other relevant provisions set out in the corresponding legislation; emphasises that the Commission should provide tailored assistance, clear guidelines, streamlined procedures and capacity-building tools for relevant economic operators, especially SMEs, in order to facilitate the implementation of the DPP;
13. Invites the Commission to establish an ambitious strategy of ensuring interoperability between the DPP and existing databases, including the EU Safety Gate, the Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance, Certex, and the future EU customs data hub, as well as with mechanisms developed under the Consumer Protection Regulation; believes that data contained in the DPP should be machine-readable and easily transferrable between these systems, in order to ensure that products identified as unsafe or non-compliant by one market surveillance or customs authority are automatically flagged to everyone;
14. Calls on the Commission to assess the feasibility of the progressive integration of the DPP into the NLF as a horizontal requirement for all relevant products made available on the EU market; notes, however, that the DPP is still at early stages of development and requires a gradual approach to ensure that economic operators can adapt to comply with the applicable requirements, with a view to achieving full implementation;
15. Recognises that various companies are actively developing DPP solutions tailored to second-hand goods and that the technological tools to monitor the life cycle of such products are already available; calls on the Commission to assess such initiatives and consider whether a gradual introduction of the DPP for second-hand items could, once the DPP for new products is fully implemented, contribute to promoting circular economy business models, build consumer confidence, support environmental objectives, while upholding safety standards, by enabling both market surveillance authorities and consumers to assess the legitimacy, quality and performance of second-hand products; emphasises, nevertheless, the specific implications associated with second-hand products, where the capacity of the seller, often a consumer, to correctly update the DPP may be limited; notes, therefore, that for operators such as refurbishers, remanufacturers and importers of second-hand goods, it may prove difficult to obtain the original information; calls on the Commission to consider the DPP and the related requirements in the context of circular products and to assess how they can best promote the circular economy;
16. Considers that the DPP should be implemented in a way that supports economic operators by simplifying their compliance obligations, allowing more mandatory information to be communicated digitally, reducing paper-based information requirements and offering a single tool for all product compliance and information-related requirements; stresses, however, that information which is vital to ensure consumer safety should also be provided in a paper-based format for users, who may not possess the necessary digital literacy or technical means to access such information;
17. Recognises that the CE marking has been beneficial in enabling manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity, which can then be assessed by market surveillance authorities; recognises the need to improve awareness of the CE marking and the risks of a misleading safety or quality label for consumers; points out that, in order to avoid misconceptions and to streamline the flow of information via the DPP, the Commission should assess the feasibility of applying the CE marking in ways that are appropriate for different product categories and assess whether or not the CE marking should be applied in physical format on the product or rather expressed only through the DPP;
18. Calls on the Commission to consider streamlining the relevant CE marking information via the DPP, in order to enhance transparency and provide comprehensive product information; believes that the Commission should step up its efforts to ensure that the data carriers of the DPP (such as QR codes, barcodes or RFIDs) incorporate appropriate and proportionate technical security measures aimed at significantly reducing the risk of counterfeiting specific to each product category, with a view to ensuring the authenticity and integrity of the data, preventing unauthorised duplication, and reinforcing market surveillance mechanisms, thereby contributing to greater sustainability and enhanced consumer protection;
19. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possible use of harmonised methodologies in the DPP for environmental, durability and performance measurements, with a view to supporting the possible establishment of EU-wide sustainability indicators adapted to each product’s characteristics, integrating relevant metrics, such as traceability, recyclability and performance in terms of circularity; stresses that this index should be directly and easily accessible through the DPP via a data carrier, such as a QR code, placed on the product, enabling consumers to access clear, structured, standardised and verifiable information about the product, so as to enhance consumer trust and awareness; believes that EU businesses would also benefit from it, as the use of harmonised methodologies would facilitate the development of their own sustainability indexes and reduce compliance costs, while increased transparency would enable them to compete on the basis of quality and sustainability rather than price or volume;
20. Stresses the potential for integrating DPP with waste hierarchy principles in a way that could be supported by appropriate indicators in order to prioritise reuse over recycling; highlights the need to ensure that manufacturers retain key product details for extended periods;
Sustainable business models and consumption patterns
21. Supports the alignment of the NLF with broader EU initiatives promoting sustainability, repairability and the design of products with extended lifespans, such as Ecodesign, the Right to Repair, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, the Standardisation Regulation and the Waste Framework Directive(20), thereby encouraging consumers to transition away from unsustainable consumption patterns, while ensuring that the revision of the NLF will foster digitalisation and simplified procedures, and will enhance the competitiveness of EU businesses;
22. Invites the Commission to assess the feasibility of integrating extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes within the NLF in order to adopt a harmonised framework, which could include measures such as financial incentives and repair vouchers; believes that the Commission should evaluate whether clear definitions and delineations of responsibilities within the NLF can prevent overlaps and ensure that EPR provisions reinforce, rather than duplicate, sectoral and waste legislation, foster competitiveness by streamlining compliance requirements, in particular of locally produced goods with a lower environmental footprint, increase transparency, and ensure fair competition in the internal market;
23. Strongly believes that durability is pivotal to promoting high-quality, long-lasting products, and, in line with the ESPR, the NLF should seek to ensure that manufacturers make spare parts and maintenance services available over an extended period depending on product categories, ensuring products remain functional and reducing the frequency of premature disposal;
24. Further calls on the Commission to establish harmonised provisions within the NLF regarding the recycling and proper disposal of products at the end of their life cycle, taking into account the requirements set in the ESPR and in the Waste Framework Directive; suggests that this could include provisions related to take-back schemes and dedicated support measures to promote the refurbishment, reuse and sustainable management of digital devices and other products;
25. Is concerned by the environmental, social and economic impact of fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion, and their actual and potential consumer protection implications; underlines that such practices pose important compliance challenges to Union product legislation and may also raise issues of fair competition; notes with concern that many products placed on the market fail to meet EU chemical and safety requirements, while economic operators often face limited accountability; calls on the Commission to assess the feasibility of developing clear and harmonised definitions of ‘fast-fashion’ and ‘ultra-fast fashion’ to address the specific risks associated with these business models, ensuring a level playing field for all market participants and preventing regulatory fragmentation within the internal market; further calls on the Commission to assess provisions that would ensure the availability of fully effective tools to address the challenges posed by the proliferation of ‘ultra-fast’ and low-quality products, including more robust conformity assessment procedures and enhanced enforcement tools, to secure an internal market which guarantees the highest levels of consumer protection, while allowing the growth of innovative products and ideas and reducing any unnecessary administrative burden on responsible businesses and compliant products;
Second-hand sellers, refurbishers, repairers and associated operators in the circular economy business model
26. Stresses, in particular, the need to establish harmonised definitions of ‘remanufacturers’ ‘refurbishers’, ‘repairers’, and, where appropriate, other emerging social, economic and circular economy actors; notes that, in the absence of these common definitions, such actors may be erroneously classified as manufacturers or importers and thereby deemed non-compliant with the obligations applicable to those categories, potentially exposing them to sanctions; believes that such definitions should be proportionate and that they will introduce more legal certainty and transparency concerning the rights and obligations of these economic actors; considers it necessary for these definitions to be harmonised in alignment with the definitions of the corresponding activities in the ESPR, where present, in order to ensure a uniform application of sustainability requirements;
27. Emphasises that the establishment of common definitions should take into account the specific obligations that economic operators, including refurbishers and repairers and other emerging economic operators are reasonably able to comply with, in the light of the nature and limitations of their respective business models; considers that enhanced legal clarity could help foster the development of the second-hand market and contribute to a more sustainable and resilient consumption model, with particular benefits for SMEs and local economic activities; highlights, in this regard, the importance of the rules established under the Right to Repair to make repairing products easier and more appealing for consumers;
28. Recognises the importance of enhancing consumer trust in second-hand products and calls for the establishment of an EU-wide certification mechanism for refurbishers and repairers; considers that such a mechanism should be based on common methodologies, which should be developed taking into account local specificities, with the aim of facilitating the development of sustainable and competitive business models that also boost the creation of good-quality jobs in the EU;
29. Recognises that the NLF does not grant independent refurbishers access to technical documentation or declarations of conformity; underlines that this lack of access hinders lawful and safe product refurbishment, particularly for complex products such as electronics and machinery, where such access is necessary to ensure conformity; believes that the DPP could close this gap by allowing actors engaged in legitimate repair and refurbishment activities access to relevant compliance and safety information necessary to lawfully restore products to a compliant state; considers that such access should be limited to what is necessary to ensure safety and to enable the proper performance of their tasks, while taking into account the protection of commercially sensitive information;
30. Emphasises the need to develop a clear and harmonised definition of ‘substantial modification’ which can be used as a basis for product-specific legislation, distinguishing it from routine repair or maintenance operations; believes that a standardised assessment procedure for determining the substantial nature of a modification would enhance legal certainty and support second-hand economic operators; believes that there is an urgent need to develop guidelines subject to regular review of common refurbishment and repair processes, in particular for electronic devices, such as the replacement of screens, batteries or cameras, including an indication of compatible components, with a view to establishing a presumption of conformity with applicable legislation, thus fostering the development of circular business models and supporting the work of relevant authorities and economic operators;
31. Stresses the significant economic potential of recommerce – which involves refurbishers, repairers and other emerging actors – as a viable alternative to unsustainable consumption models; invites the Commission and consumer authorities to conduct awareness-raising campaigns on the benefits of reuse and recommerce alternatives;
Standardisation and conformity assessments
32. Believes that harmonised standards constitute a pivotal element of the single market in supporting public interest objectives set out in EU law; underlines that the Commission is responsible for issuing standardisation requests with a view to safeguarding consumer interests, health, safety, environmental protection and data security, as well as fostering social inclusion, supporting competitiveness, promoting innovation, reducing unnecessary administrative burdens, and simplifying compliance procedures; notes, in this regard that it is the role of European standardisation organisations to respond to such requests, with the objective of taking into account the general public interest as enshrined in EU legal acts, and to help drive the Union’s strategic priorities, including the transition towards a climate-neutral economy, enhanced resource efficiency and the development of circular economic models;
33. Welcomes the fact that the single market strategy recognises that businesses continue to face challenges due to the absence or delayed availability of timely and effective harmonised standards, leading to increased costs, legal uncertainty, reduced competitiveness, weakened market surveillance and slower adoption of new technologies; notes that this is also the case in rapidly evolving sectors such as artificial intelligence; expresses concern that, in the absence of adequate and applicable standards at the time of application of new legislation, manufacturers and innovators could face adverse consequences, as could consumers, since producers may self-certify their products under incorrect risk classifications, thereby undermining the objectives of Union law and compromising user protection;
34. Underlines that the delayed publication of harmonised standards in the Official Journal remains a significant issue for various market participants and consumers and limits the ability of market surveillance authorities to enforce compliance; calls on the Commission to put in place maximum deadlines for standardisation requests and to streamline the standardisation process;
35. Stresses the importance of standardisation in promoting the free movement of goods and reducing barriers within the internal market, as well as in enhancing the competitiveness of European businesses by facilitating compliance with Union law; underlines, in this context, the benefits of the long-standing public-private partnership between European institutions and European standardisation organisations, which has been instrumental in developing products that are safer and better aligned with the objectives of the digital and green transitions, while also ensuring that standards are market-driven, and thus developed in response to market needs and innovation, without compromising consumer safety;
36. Underlines the importance of standardisation for the international competitiveness of European businesses; calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to coordinate a common European approach to positions in international standardisation forums for all products subject to international standards; believes that a common European approach could be key to improving European coordination and engagement at international level in relation to standardisation with like-minded global partners; emphasises that the adoption of international standards should be facilitated if these standards are in line with EU policy objectives and strategic interests, in order to open up additional markets for European products, avoid unnecessary duplication, promote consistency in the global regulatory environment and facilitate international trade;
37. Stresses that the revision of the NLF should contribute to the greater inclusiveness, transparency and effectiveness of the standardisation process, both in the development and implementation phases, including in the allocation of EU funds to European standardisation organisations; recalls that ensuring substantial, long-term and stable financial support for civil society organisations and SMEs is essential to facilitate their effective participation in the standardisation process; considers that the revision of the NLF should be done in parallel with the revision of the Standardisation Regulation;
38. Stresses the importance of maintaining the principle whereby conformity assessment procedures serve to verify products’ compliance with the applicable requirements set out in EU harmonisation legislation under the NLF; believes that such procedures have been successful in ensuring product safety, performance and reliability while also contributing to the harmonisation of internal market rules; underlines, however, the need to assess the review of the functioning and the clarity of the existing conformity assessment modules, in the light of persistent legal uncertainty, inconsistent application across sectors and emerging risks stemming from technological developments, such as connected products; believes that such a review should adhere to the principle that the level of risk associated with a product should determine the conformity assessment procedure required; calls on the Commission to continue efforts to address these issues, including through better market surveillance, updated standards and streamlined processes for economic operators, particularly SMEs, thereby ensuring a future-proof system;
39. Stresses that notified bodies must operate in a competent, impartial and independent manner; expresses concern over the significant variation between Member States in how their competence is assessed, leading to persistent legal uncertainty and divergent practices; regrets that, in some cases, notified bodies issue conformity certificates without adequately verifying full compliance with all the relevant clauses of the applicable harmonised standards, which may seriously undermine the credibility of the standardisation system and significantly impede the effective work of market surveillance authorities; suggests that the Commission explore the possibility of the mandatory accreditation of notified bodies, in order to ensure their competence, impartiality and independence across all Member States; considers this essential to address divergent practices, enhance legal certainty and strengthen confidence in the conformity assessment system;
o
o o
40. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
|