ARTICLE
17 April 2018

Key European Market Surveillance Reforms Debated In Brussels Public Hearing

CL
Cooley LLP

Contributor

Cooley LLP logo
Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation, where innovation meets the law. Cooley has nearly 1,400 lawyers across 18 offices in the United States, Asia and Europe, and a total workforce of more than 3,000.
Last month, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection held a public hearing on the Goods Package (read our previous blog on the Goods Package here).
UK Consumer Protection
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Last month, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection held a public hearing on the Goods Package (read our previous blog on the Goods Package here). As part of its on-going work in connection with the Goods Package, Cooley attended that hearing.

The hearing comprised of five panels ranging from Member States' experience with the administration of the current goods framework to practical challenges with products entering the EU from third countries and business and consumer perspectives. It also included discussion of the SOLVIT network and the problem solving procedure in the proposal for a regulation on mutual recognition of goods.

As a result, there was a broad range of discussion, which highlighted various tensions between stakeholder views on the proposals. As could be expected, some felt the proposal did not go far enough, while others felt it went too far. One of the Rapporteurs for the proposals made clear that he believed that there is room to strengthen the package even further and that the intention is to finish the package before the end of the legislative term.

Some suggestions to strengthen the proposal were:

  • To expand the scope of the market surveillance and enforcement proposal to apply to non-harmonised products, as well as harmonised products.
  • To enhance the requirement for a person responsible for compliance information to instead be a person responsible for the conformity of the product.
  • To allow consumer associations to be able to interact with market surveillance authorities officially.

Some stakeholders pointed to specific examples of where they consider the proposal to go too far, including the range of minimum powers to be given to market surveillance authorities and the increased burdens on business and market surveillance authorities as a result of the proposed requirement for a person responsible for compliance information. Concerns were also raised about the risk to the independence and impartiality of market surveillance authorities inherent in the proposals for compliance partnerships and memorandums of understanding.

The Goods Package will continue to move through the legislative process and it remains to be seen how these areas of tension will be dealt with, if at all. We will continue to update on its progress.

The programme from the hearing can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/140375/Final%20Programme%20hearing%20Goods%20Package.pdf

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More