The European Consumer Voice in Standardisation
ANEC
ANEC represents consumer interests in European standardization, working to ensure technical standards and regulations protect consumer safety and rights.
Lobbying Activity
Consumer advocates urge preservation of universal postal service
13 Nov 2025
Message — ANEC supports modernizing postal regulations but insists the universal service obligation must stay comprehensive and affordable for all citizens. They want minimum quality standards for all delivery companies and deliveries maintained at least three days weekly.123
Why — This would maintain reliable, affordable postal access for vulnerable consumers in remote regions.45
Meeting with Guillaume Roty (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and
7 Nov 2025 · The quarterly meeting between the DG GROW H3 and the organisations listed in Annex III to the EU standardisation Regulation.
Consumer group demands safer recycling and hazardous substance bans
6 Nov 2025
Message — ANEC calls for strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility schemes with transparent eco-fees, mandating high-quality WEEE treatment standards including EN 50625, and accelerating phase-out of hazardous substances. They emphasize waste prevention must take precedence over recycling, with policies promoting durable, repairable products.1234
European consumer group opposes delaying AI Act over standards
7 Oct 2025
Message — The organization opposes any postponement of the AI Act's applicability, arguing companies can already comply with clear principles and obligations without waiting for harmonized standards. They emphasize standards are voluntary tools that should complement, not delay, enforcement of core obligations.123
Why — This ensures immediate protections for consumers against AI risks to safety and fundamental rights.45
Impact — Companies lose flexibility to delay compliance while awaiting detailed standardization guidance.6
Meeting with Guillaume Roty (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs), Guillaume Roty (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) and
23 Sept 2025 · The upcoming revision of the Standardisation Regulation 1025/2012 and in particular the issue of inclusiveness in standardisation work.
Consumer Group Backs EU Cobalt Exemptions in Toy Safety Rules
4 Sept 2025
ANEC demands both paper and digital product manuals
2 Sept 2025
Message — ANEC insists that manufacturers provide instructions in both paper and digital formats. They argue printed manuals are vital for consumers lacking digital literacy or internet access. They also propose moving CE markings to digital files to reduce confusion.123
Why — This prevents the transfer of information access costs from businesses to consumers.4
Impact — Manufacturers lose the potential cost savings and efficiency of providing exclusively digital information.5
Consumer group ANEC urges mandatory paper manuals for products
2 Sept 2025
Message — ANEC demands that product instructions remain available in both digital and paper formats. They propose moving the CE marking to digital files to prevent consumer confusion. They also suggest manufacturers must perform risk assessments before using electronic formats.123
Why — Consumers without internet access would maintain their access to essential safety information.4
Impact — Industry loses the financial benefit of shifting documentation costs onto the consumer.5
Response to Revision of the 'New Legislative Framework'
1 Sept 2025
Please find attached ANEC's comments to the Call for Evidence for the Revision of the New Legislative Framework (NLF).
Read full responseANEC Demands Inclusive Standards for EU Consumer Agenda
26 Aug 2025
Topic — This consultation gathers feedback on the upcoming EU consumer policy strategy for 2025-2030.
Message — ANEC calls for an inclusive standardisation system guaranteeing strong and sustained consumer participation. They urge the creation of a European legal framework for the safety of services. Additionally, consumer protection must be embedded by design into digital products and services.123
Why — Increased funding and political recognition would amplify ANEC's influence in standardisation processes.45
Response to Revision of the Standardisation Regulation
15 Jul 2025
Please see the reply from ANEC in attachment.
Read full responseMeeting with Barbara Bonvissuto (Director Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)
7 May 2025 · Meeting between DG GROW and ANEC regarding the proposed Paper to Digital Omnibus and the revision of regulation 1025/2012
Response to Technical description of important and critical products with digital elements
10 Apr 2025
Please find attached ANEC's contribution.
Read full responseResponse to Technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematics subsystem of the rail system
14 Mar 2025
ANEC supports advancing data interoperability requirements to facilitate rail transport for consumers. Interoperability, including cross-border functionality, is necessary for all of Europe and fundamental to the success of future transport systems. Data standards relating to traffic infrastructure and coordination can lay down the baseline for an open, interoperable and integrated service provision. An important issue that should be standardised is data types and categories and how these are communicated to the consumer. Any sensitive data must be protected and provide consumers with the option to opt-in (or opt-out), as well as have access and control over the data they generate. We welcome that the article on Connection time and passenger information in stations foresees adaptation also to persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility as well as to passengers transporting a bicycle.
Read full responseMeeting with Piotr Müller (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
20 Feb 2025 · Toys Safety Regulation
Response to Evaluation of the EU Lifts Directive
5 Feb 2025
As consumers live more and more in cities and urban areas, multi-storey buildings are becoming increasingly common. Safe vertical transport is essential for accessibility, particularly for persons with disabilities and older persons. Lifts are a key component of inclusive urban infrastructure, yet issues such as poor maintenance, high upgrade costs, and inadequate accessibility persist for consumers. The evaluation of the Lifts Directive should ensure that lifts serve their purpose as an inclusive and safe means of vertical transport for all consumers. ANEC thinks that installing non-accessible lifts should no longer be acceptable practice in any country, after the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006. The aim of the Lifts Directive must be to provide mandatory basic accessibility requirements for all lifts. The European Union acknowledges the role of standardisation in achieving greater accessibility. ANEC recommends incorporating lift accessibility requirements from EN 81-70 into the lift safety standard EN 81-20 in its next version. Some accessibility provisions have already transitioned to EN 81-20, such as lighting, levelling, and light curtains. A more comprehensive integration of accessibility into safety standards will ensure that lifts are universally inclusive. The Lifts Directive shall include a provision to initiate the revision accordingly. The harmonised standards on lifts shall respect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Despite the Lifts Directive does not cover the maintenance and modernisation of lifts, we think that the EU Member States national authorities responsible for maintenance should respect common benchmarks to ensure the safety and accessibility of lifts during their lifespan across the EU. Lack of proper maintenance can lead to safety hazards, inconvenience, and exclusion, particularly in social housing where elevators are frequently out of service. In some cases, such as in Valencia after the recent floods, broken lifts have left elderly residents trapped in their apartments, highlighting the need for preventive measures to mitigate the impact of now not so rare extreme weather conditions. In the cases when consumers are trapped in a lift, cars shall be fitted with two-way means of communication designed according to the principle of multiple senses, considering also the needs of persons with visual, hearing, cognitive and speech impairments, allowing permanent contact with a rescue service. A key issue remains the distinction between the Lifts Directive dealing with the design, manufacture and installation of lifts and the national building regulations, which define the rules on the areas where the lift is installed. From a consumer point of view, the building layout near the lift is as important as the lifts itself to prevent regulatory gaps that hinder accessibility improvements. In buildings open to the public, the controls of lifts intended for the transport of persons shall be located and designed to be accessed and used by persons with disabilities. The function of the controls shall be clearly indicated according to the principle of multiple senses. With the increasing use of Wi-Fi connection and digital technologies (eg: AI) to enable predictive maintenance and permanent monitoring to be carried out (eg: improving availability for consumers), lifts can be exposed to cybersecurity risks. An effective and robust interplay between the Lifts Directive and the AI Act and Cyber Resilience Act is essential. This will also support the drafting of standards offering a high level of security protection, in addition to safety, along the lines of ISO 8102-20 and EN IEC 62443.
Read full responseMeeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and
16 Oct 2024 · Cooperation on LIBE related matters
Response to Implementing Regulation setting out the template for the collection of data under Regulation (EU) 2023/1230
28 May 2024
ANEC welcomes the draft Commission Implementing Regulation. A standardised template will ensure uniform conditions for the collection by Member States of accident data and information for the purpose of adding/withdrawing a category of machinery or related products to Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2023/1230. In some columns of the template, a number is required, e.g. the Y columns on Article 6.5(b), whereas under the same heading the Explanations column requires free text descriptions, which could be extensive. Similar issues apply to the columns related to Article 6.5(a) and Article 6.5(c). As a result, it could become difficult to complete the template. It is important that free text descriptions can be included in an easy way. In the column Explanations on Article 6.5(b), it would be useful to also indicate whether the related product/machinery fulfilled the relevant standard(s) and if not, against which clauses of the EN(s) there were failures. We suggest there needs to be some way in which the accident being reported can be followed up as the detail required by the template is, understandably, at a quite high level and it is often the case that the finer detail about incidents reported needs to be understood before the actual cause of the accident can be established. We draw attention to the importance of providing guidance on how to fill in the Template. ENDS.
Read full responseResponse to Reporting indicators relevant for the General Product Safety Regulation
8 May 2024
ANEC, the European consumer voice in standardisation, and BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, welcome the draft implementing act of the EC regarding output indicators that Member States should use to report about the application of the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR). This will not only ensure the collection of consistent data; more fundamentally, by assessing the degree to which the GPSR is implemented and applied, it will give useful indications of challenges and of efforts needed to step up market surveillance and product safety. As such, it also has potential to support any future revision of the legislative framework or the improvement of European Standards. We stress in particular the importance of: - Making sure that the reporting will cover those market surveillance activities related to providers of online marketplaces. This will allow to better assess the effectiveness of Art. 22 in tackling challenges brought by online & distance sales. - Developing a template for Member States to communicate the necessary information in a standardised way. While we would have preferred this template to be included as Annex to the Implementing Regulation (similar to the draft Implementing Regulation on the product safety recall notice), we recommend setting a date by which it should be ready and clarifying that both members & observers of the Consumer Safety Network will be consulted. - Specifying which elements & details should be included in the public summary report that the EC will draw up based on the data supplied by Member States. As stated in recital 81 (GPSR), public access to the information available to the authorities on product safety should, as a general rule, be ensured. In this context, we suggest as regards the annex: - (point 1) to require the breakdown of resources per Market Surveillance Authority (MSA), on top of overall number of staff & budget allocated to market surveillance. - (point 2) to include information, when available, on whether the safety issues reported by individual consumers were triggered by product-related injuries & accidents, and if so, what types of harm was caused by the products in question. - (point 3) to ensure that on top of the number of investigations, MSA also report on the outcomes. In order to ensure that Member States report about this in the same way, it would be helpful to distinguish the Coordinated Activities for Product Safety from the total number of investigations. It would also be useful to have the breakdown of investigations in terms of product categories, compliance rate, risk assessment, items bought online/offline, and from/outside the EU. - (point 5) to add to the average & median time of handling a case by market surveillance authorities, the outcome of such checks, including the reason why a product was identified as dangerous. - (point 6) when applicable, to have indications about the different perceptions by MSA when performing risk assessment. - (point 7) to clarify that the number & type of measures both relate to those taken by MSAs and economic operators, similar to the information available on the EU Safety Gate. In this respect, we consider important to identify the number of product recalls and when possible, estimates of recall participation. When it comes to the provisions included in Art 22 of the GPSR, and the cooperation with providers of online marketplaces or the measures taken against them - the reporting should include the number of orders issued by MSA to require removal of illegal content, the percentage of orders answered within two working days and the number of actions reported by providers of online marketplaces to MSAs pursuant the obligation to regularly check the EU safety gate. Furthermore, we recommend including in the summary report that the EC will draw-up, the number of dangerous product-related accidents reported to them and resulting in a serious risk or actual damage to the health or safety of a consumer. ENDS
Read full responseANEC urges harmonised absolute A-G scale for car labels
16 Apr 2024
Message — ANEC calls for a standardised EU car label using a color-coded A to G scale. They want an absolute labelling scheme to prevent misleading comparisons based on vehicle weight. Additionally, labels should reflect realistic fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.123
Why — Consumers gain clearer information to help them choose more efficient vehicles.4
Impact — Manufacturers of larger vehicles lose the benefit of misleading weight-based comparisons.5
ANEC demands stricter bans and faster phase-out of bisphenols
7 Mar 2024
Topic — The consultation addresses restrictions on bisphenol A and other bisphenols in food packaging.
Message — The group wants paper included in the ban and BPS removed from plastics. They propose reducing transition periods to six months and limiting sell-off times. Mandatory external monitoring must ensure continued safety compliance of manufactured products.123
Why — Strengthening these regulations would significantly reduce consumer exposure to harmful chemicals.45
28 Feb 2024
ANEC welcomes the requirement of the General Product Safety Regulation that allows individual consumers and other organisations to send information to the EU Safety Gate portal. As far as we understand, this provision does not concern only products falling under the scope of the GPSR, but also products falling under vertical EU legislation, such as toys, electrical household appliances, etc. We propose the Implementing Act clarifies this. To make the system as efficient as possible, we have the following suggestions: Consumers and others should be ENcouraged to notify a safety problem, not DIScouraged by administrative burden. We therefore invite the EC to establish a simple, uniform template for notifying an unsafe/unhealthy product and to attach it in Annex to the Implementing Regulation, in line with the draft Implementing Regulation establishing the template for a recall notice. We enclose an idea for the template. Such a uniform template will make clear how submissions can be made: this is not evident from the information and data categories in the text of the draft Implementing Regulation (Article 1, especially points (a) and (c)). Not all fields should be mandatory to make a submission. Products must be identifiable for authorities, but we recommend that submissions can be made even if not all data is provided (see recital (4)), including those that are anonymous submissions. Consumers should also be asked to consent to being contacted for subsequent clarification. There should be a feature that allows the upload of supporting materials (such as pictures, videos, newspaper & magazine articles, correspondence with economic operators etc). It might also be feasible to allow the flagging of products with a high/lethal risk through a kind of alert button, to make sure those notifications come to the attention of enforcement authorities more quickly. The website where the template is located should contain an easy-to-understand information guide to consumers. Consumers are not regular users of Safety Gate. The website where the template will be located should contain easy-to-understand instructions of what type of information is requested. Submissions should be possible in all EU languages and while not mandatory it would be welcome if national market surveillance authorities and risk assessment agencies would also inform consumers about this notification option. Information on non-safety issues should not be lost. In relation to recital 6, we acknowledge consumer complaints in the context of the GPSR concern only safety issues, and not quality issues where safety is not at stake. However, as such data is valuable in the continuous improvement of products, it would be a pity to ignore it. We believe such data would also be valuable in enforcement of consumer legislation in other areas, such as the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Ecodesign etc. We suggest the EC internally flags such data regularly (e.g. once per year) through reports to other entities for to aid follow-up in the respective areas. The functioning of the system should be evaluated and assessed. When implementing Article 47 of the GPSR, the functioning of this modality should also be taken into account, as there is an important link to the enforcement of other provisions, such as on online marketplaces, penalties, new technologies etc. Annex: Proposal from ANEC & BEUC for a template to notify unsafe/unhealthy products. ENDS.
Read full responseANEC urges wider publication of safety recall notices
19 Feb 2024
Topic — The European Commission is establishing a standardized template for product safety recall notices.
Message — ANEC recommends publishing notices in print media and physical stores to ensure accessibility. They also suggest including medical advice warnings and maintaining searchable public databases.123
Why — Consumers gain better protection through more accessible safety information and specific medical guidance.45
12 Feb 2024
This is an excellent initiative which deserves ANEC's strong support. Difficulties have arisen in drafting European standards that satisfactorily addressed issues of recognition of professional qualifications of clinicians; in our experience this was one of the key factors in the limited adoption of the work developed in the European standardisation committee CEN/TC 403 Aesthetic surgery services. It is important that the requirements for knowledge and skills shall be aligned with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) level scale. 1. Balancing aspirations and realities in EU healthcare qualifications The draft is not very specific about exact training requirements. It could usefully be descriptive as to the sources of information of good practice, even if there will be various definitions of best practice across the EU. There are already diverse requirements for clinician qualifications across the EU. This new EU legislative proposal has some good ideas in a difficult area. A central challenge is that if the legislation is too prescriptive then some Member States may be unable to accommodate their less rigorous specifications. But if the legislation is less precise then it may not achieve the objective of raising the quality of professional qualifications across less developed health systems. The draft directive gets round this difficulty by making its requirements aspirational, aiming for these higher level of qualifications will support compliance, without being prescriptive. The pace of innovation in clinical research is such that new medical treatments and procedures will always co-exist. It will always be near impossible for all delivery of healthcare treatments and therapies across the whole of the EU to be at the level of best-known practice. There may be debate as to whether newer treatments are indeed better and not all innovations will be clearly better superior in the initial stages. Yet such advances will always have implication for training of clinicians. A further factor is that clinical advances can be associated with greater cost, particularly where complex equipment or expensive drugs are concerned. As dentistry is specifically mentioned in this case, it is worth noting that this is an area where there are many new treatments and procedures, including surgical procedures, becoming available that are in unequal use across the EU on grounds of cost. There would appear to be no need for dental practitioners to be trained in providing treatments that are unlikely to be offered in their Member States, but with the current EU legislative proposal compliance could still be achieved by aspiring to its requirements. 2. Specific comments on the text of draft Delegated Directive amending Directive 2005/36/EC We welcome the requirements for the ability to participate in adequate training in Amendments to Directive 2005/36/EC Article 1 (c) and (d). It is especially key that EU initiatives like EU4Health are leveraged to make this possible at national level, at a time when the health systems in the EU are strained by unprecedented challenges like shortage of healthcare workers, insufficient bed capacity, aging and growing population. See in document attached further comments on the text of the draft Act and its Annex.
Read full responseMeeting with Christel Schaldemose (Member of the European Parliament) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs and Forbrugerrådet Tænk (the Danish Consumer Council)
28 Nov 2023 · toys safety regulation
Meeting with Tom Vandenkendelaere (Member of the European Parliament)
21 Nov 2023 · Toy safety, recall obligations online platforms, mental health of children, noise regulations
Response to Reducing human health risks associated with the use of sunbeds
7 Nov 2023
ANEC has long been raising concerns about how excessive tanning can cause severe health problems such as skin cancer but also eye damage or immune suppression. According to the PROSAFE report (2012) of a European joint market surveillance action and the 2019 article 'Sunbed use legislation in Europe: assessment of current status': Self-tanning devices were reported in 50% of the European countries researched, and almost 40% of countries researched do not require supervision of use. The study also showed that although a warning display is required in 77% of cases, a signed informed consent is not required in 80%. Without trained staff and adequate health care advice, the potential for harm to the uninformed consumer is much greater. Without being educated about health implications, particularly vulnerable consumers are at risk. ANEC therefore: welcome and agree that the debate on sunbeds is brought to a higher political level, as ANEC long recommended; rather than a European Recommendation, strongly call on the European Commission to develop European legislation that bans access to sunbeds for people < 18 years and for people with skin type I; want providers of tanning facilities to be trained in order to express the required knowledge and give a professional consultation to customers (considering and going beyond EN 16489 Professional Indoor UV Exposure Services). In addition, we stress the need for: mandatory warnings to be affixed on sunbeds in a clearly visible and easily legible way, drawing the attention of the user to the inherent health risks; strict requirements for advertising; continued market surveillance actions on sunbeds. ENDS.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Toy Safety Directive
30 Oct 2023
ANEC and BEUC welcome the draft Toy Safety Regulation (TSR). AIM 1 protecting children against harmful chemicals We strongly support banning known and suspected endocrine disruptors, respiratory sensitizers and STOTs. Combined with the limited derogation options, this will protect children against such chemicals. Further, the TSR will enable protective limits to be set for all toys. We recommend reinforcing the obligation in Art. 49 to consider exposure from toys and all other sources. Likewise, ECHA should be required to consider potential combination effects in its opinions. The new limits for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances should be extended to all toys. AIM 2 reducing non-compliance A Digital Product Passport can facilitate enforcement and reduce the prevalence of non-compliant toys on the EU market. Safeguards are however needed to ensure the accuracy of the information and a well-functioning tool for all actors involved in the supply chain, consumers and authorities. We agree on a free access by consumers, but without requiring them to install specific apps or to register with personal data. Data processing shall be based on consent with consumers having to opt in. To safeguard childrens health and well-being, we further recommend the following: NON-CHEMICAL RISKS As the TSR rightly extends toy safety requirements to childrens mental health, we are concerned that interactive software, including computer and smart phone games either specifically designed for and targeted at children or that can be reasonably expected to be played by them, are not covered. The proposal should further build on the General Product Safety Regulation and cover threats from smart toys. A possibility to establish specific safety requirements for these and other risks, such as mechanical or physical risks should be added. Based on the principle the higher the risk, the higher conformity assessment procedure, EC-type examination for smart toys and other toy categories should be included. Limits for sound emitting toys should be introduced. The overlap between toy and non-toy scooters should be further clarified. TOY LABELS AND WARNINGS The TSR will enable manufacturers to replace the word Warning with a pictogram. To avoid consumer confusion, it should provide for a single pictogram to be used. To make toy labels work for consumers, clear legibility criteria in relation to e.g. minimum font size or text/background contrast should be added. While the CE marking should be relegated to the technical files, the obligation to include in the label a full ingredient list should be extended from cosmetic toys to toys that are substances or mixtures. This would enable consumers to make informed choices while facilitating enforcement efforts. ONLINE SALES Given their central role in the supply chain, the TSR should introduce a possibility to hold online marketplaces liable for non-compliance where no other responsible economic operator can be identified or takes appropriate action. Online marketplaces should be obliged to verify the identity of sellers on their sites, as well as to detect, remove and prevent the (re)appearance of non-compliant toys. Additional obligations for Very Large Online Platforms under the DSA should be set regarding the systemic risks related to the appearance of non-compliant toys. GOVERNANCE We welcome the new powers of the EC to specify/amend certain TSR provisions and to address emerging risks. The precautionary principle should be reintegrated in the legal text to guide the regulator in situations where there are reasonable grounds for concern but scientific evidence is insufficient or uncertain. Enforcement capacities should be strengthened, especially at national level, and the reporting of toy-related accident and injury facilitated by the setting up of a pan-European database. Joint market surveillance actions should be conducted. The proposed transition period should significantly be reduced. ENDS.
Read full responseMeeting with Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Policy Hub - Circularity for Apparel and Footwear
9 Oct 2023 · Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)
Response to Evaluation of Standardisation Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012
29 Sept 2023
ANEC (the European consumer voice in standardisation) and BEUC (the European consumer organisation) welcome the call for evidence for an evaluation of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012. Standards increasingly concern new technologies, often in support of EU digital legislation through the request for harmonised standards (in line with the approach of the New Legislative Framework (NLF)). The status and role of harmonised standards have also evolved over the past decade, illustrated not only by past court cases but the latest amendment of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 by Regulation (EU) 2022/2480, recognising the strategic role harmonised standards play in the Single Market. ANEC and BEUC see the need for further improvements to ensure that the European Standardisation System delivers standards in line with societal needs, especially those of consumers. More particularly, we recommend including the following topics in the review and the preparatory work for it such as the consultation and the impact assessment: - How to ensure that the frontier between standards and law is well defined and that legislators do not delegate elements of policymaking to standard-setting bodies? This raises the question of whether everything is standardisable, whether the NLF is the right approach in all areas and importantly, whether the respective legal provisions are substantive enough when the NLF approach is indeed taken. - Technical standards are crucial in ensuring that products placed on the EU market respect peoples health, safety and fundamental rights. Given the societal importance of standards, civil society's participation in the European Standardisation System, including through Annex III organisations, should be a cornerstone. - Civil society representatives do not currently have sufficient impact and the European Commission itself recognised in the 2022 Standardisation Strategy that their involvement should be increased. The assessment of civil society participation requires a panoramic view, analysing not only participation at the European level but also at the national and international levels. The level of resources provided to civil society organisations for effective participation in standardisation at all levels is central here, as are the corresponding political frameworks. - Consequences of harmonised standards forming part of EU law, as concluded by the European Court of Justice in the James Elliott case (2016), and how this should be reflected in Regulation (EU) 1025/2012. This extends to the degree of scrutiny that needs to be exercised on draft harmonised standards (and by whom), as well as free accessibility to harmonised standards. - Given that harmonised standards are part of EU law, whether standardisation requests should set conditions on when and how the European Standardisation Organisations can pass the development of harmonised standards to other standards development organisations (most notably ISO and IEC). This is also relevant to reinforcing European strategic autonomy. Accordingly, ANEC and BEUC not only support the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 but ask for a targeted amendment of the legislation to address these aspects.
Read full responseResponse to Energy labelling requirements for electronic displays
21 Sept 2023
ANEC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the current Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations for Electronic Displays in order to help improve revised Regulations for this important product group. Our position is summarised in the attached position paper, we invite al relevant stakeholders to read it.
Read full responseANEC Demands Stricter EU Rules Against Misleading Green Claims
27 Jun 2023
Topic — A proposal for a directive requiring companies to substantiate voluntary environmental claims.
Message — The organization requests that legislation specify binding criteria and conditions for environmental claims. It calls for prohibiting green claims on products containing hazardous substances without any postponement. The group also recommends using the European Ecolabel as a primary benchmark.123
Why — Consumers would benefit from better protection against greenwashing and more affordable sustainable products.4
Impact — Companies using misleading environmental labels would face stricter enforcement and mandatory financial penalties.5
19 Jun 2023
ANEC understands the need of the postponement of the date of applicability of the RED delegated act from 1 August 2024 to 1 August 2025. Should the EC take this decision, we would like the to stress that it is an exceptional decision and that the extra time should be used to progress the technical work in an effective manner and not to postpone legal obligations which the industry has criticised and opposed since the beginning for commercial reasons.
Read full responseANEC Demands Chemical Safety Standards for Recycled Plastic Bottles
30 May 2023
Topic — EU initiative defining rules for calculating and reporting recycled content in plastic bottles.
Message — ANEC calls for recycled content requirements to be aligned with the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. They demand urgent updates to food contact material rules to prevent human exposure to toxic substances.12
Why — Consumers gain stronger health protections by preventing the use of contaminated recycled packaging materials.3
Impact — The recycling industry could face complete bans on using recycled plastics for beverages.4
Response to Modification of the reference to the technical specifications for wired charging of Directive 2014/53/EU
8 May 2023
Please find attached the positive ANEC's comments.
Read full responseResponse to Energy labelling requirements for household tumble dryers [review]
4 Apr 2023
ANEC welcomes the revised Ecodesign and Energy Labelling for tumble dryers. This revision has experienced significant delays and it is high time the revised measures are swiftly adopted, to ensure that the expected resource savings potentials are achieved, and consumers can benefit from better performing, more efficient, and more durable tumble dryers. The market is already evolving towards more energy efficient technology in the sector and the new measures should further encourage this trend, without further delays. We support the approach taken by the European Commission to introduce material efficiency measures, in line with the approach that was already taken for other household appliances, like washing machines and dishwashers. Making spare parts easily available to professional repairers and end-users is an important step to enable longer lasting and more repairable products. At the same time, the process for replacement of parts should also be feasible for professional repairers and end-users to perform. In this regard, we encourage the Commission to take inspiration from the proposed Ecodesign Regulation for smartphones and tablets, where specific measures have been included to make the process of repair and replacement of spare parts easier. Regarding the proposed reparability index: while its introduction may potentially aid steering the market towards more material efficient products, ANEC expresses concern that a single aggregated score hides information to the consumer. Hence the importance of availability of additional consumer relevant repair and maintenance information to the consumer (not only for repairers). We also signal the risk of possible consumers frustration caused by the promise of reparability when even a high score does not guarantee success of repair. We believe the rescaled energy label should be quickly introduced for tumble dryers. We recommend avoiding the co-existence of the current and the rescaled energy labels as much as possible, to avoid confusion among consumers and retailers. We also recommend not to foresee transition periods during which the two labels (old and new ones) are provided in the product packaging, as consumers may be tempted to compare the two labels, even if such comparison should not be possible due to different calculations and parameters. We encourage the European Commission to consider the findings of the EU-funded project BELT, which had the primary objective of smoothing the introduction of the new energy labelling system for the first five household appliances. We welcome the proposed user information requirements, which aim at clarifying that the Eco programme is the reference programme to assess energy efficiency. However, we believe this limitation should be made clearer to consumers when buying a product, as the risk is to confuse them on the meaning of the energy label. The energy label should provide consumers with transparent information on the performance of the most used drying programs, and not only one.
Read full responseANEC Demands Stricter Bans on Toxic Chemicals in Packaging
17 Mar 2023
Message — The group demands more ambitious targets for preventing unnecessary packaging waste. They also call for a mandatory phase-out of hazardous chemicals in materials. Legislation must prioritize reuse systems over recycling to protect human health.12
Impact — Manufacturers of low-quality recycled materials face higher costs to meet safety standards.5
ANEC urges stricter durability and simpler labeling in Euro 7
9 Feb 2023
Message — ANEC requests tougher durability standards to match actual vehicle life expectancy. They also demand simpler labeling systems to avoid confusing consumers about vehicle emissions.12
Why — Consumers gain better information and vehicles that remain clean for their entire operational lifespan.34
Impact — Standards for vehicle durability would harm Eastern European car owners by excluding older vehicles.5
ANEC demands third-party cybersecurity checks for critical products
12 Jan 2023
Topic — The EU is establishing mandatory cybersecurity requirements for all connected digital products.
Message — ANEC seeks third-party assessment for all critical digital products instead of self-assessment. Products must be cybersecure by design and default for their entire lifecycle. The group also proposes specific privacy protections for connected children's toys.123
Why — These changes would reduce consumer risk by shifting security responsibilities to manufacturers.4
Impact — Manufacturers would lose the convenience of self-assessment, increasing their market entry costs.5
Response to Short-term rental initiative
12 Jan 2023
ANEC welcomes the Commissions proposal for a Regulation to enhance transparency in the field of short-term accommodation rentals. ANEC considers it imperative to find new ways of defining the relationships between consumers, prosumers, providers and platforms to establish whether consumer law (B2C) or national contract law (C2C) applies to the transactions. Matters relating to the sharing economy require to be adequately addressed by both regulations and standards. There are existing standards and guidelines that can be helpful in the development of the regulation on short-term rentals in the context of the collaborative economy: ISO 10002: 2004 - Customer Satisfaction: Complaints Handling or ISO 10008:2013 Quality management - Customer satisfaction - Guidelines for business-to consumer electronic commerce. In the document attached we give our recommendations on how the proposal's clarity can be improved in the consumer interest.
Read full responseANEC Urges Stronger Repairability Rules for Mobile Devices
28 Sept 2022
Topic — EU initiative setting energy efficiency and repairability standards for smartphones and tablets.
Message — ANEC demands functionality software updates for five years to match security updates. They want spare parts available for seven years to improve product longevity. Consumers should always have access to spare batteries regardless of endurance.123
Why — Longer device lifespans would reduce replacement costs and waste for consumers.4
Impact — Consumers lose transparency when a single aggregated score hides important repair information.5
ANEC pushes for longer software support and spare parts availability
28 Sept 2022
Message — They want software updates provided for five years instead of three. They also request spare parts availability for seven years and accessible batteries.123
Why — Consumers would benefit from more durable, reliable, and easily repairable products.4
Response to Safety requirements to be met by European standards for certain children products (excluding toys)
26 Aug 2022
ANEC overall welcomes the EC draft decision and the consideration the Commission and Member States have given to our previous comments.
We re-iterate our strong support for a hazard-based approach when developing safety requirements and welcome that all relevant hazards have been identified and listed in the draft.
We welcome the clarification in relation to existing mandates and to connected products.
In addition, we welcome in particular the following elements covered by the Annex:
- “Whenever possible, special needs of users with disabilities - both carers and children, shall be taken into account to ensure their safety”.
- “Appropriate information to draw the attention of parents and carers shall be placed on the children’s products - and/or packaging – …”, which excludes such information to be provided in a digital way only.
We suggest the following aspects to be included in the recitals of the draft Decision:
- Precautionary principle: While we agree that the “safety requirements should reflect the new scientific and technical knowledge and the market evolution”, we call for the precautionary principle to be better reflected, so as to also guide the development of standards as well as the design and safety assessment of children products. It is a cornerstone of the General Product Safety Directive on which the present draft decision is based.
- Accident and injury data: accident and injury data must be taken into consideration in addition to “anthropometric data, medical research, known health advice (...) and state-of-the-art scientific and technical knowledge regarding children’s safety and/or health”. Absence of an accident history should not be taken as an automatic presumption of low or no risk.
- Severity of the risks: The safety requirements associated with each hazard (listed in the Annex) should reflect the severity of the risks resulting from the hazard. Where there is a high probability of a hazard resulting in death, or long term or disabling injury, the hazard should be ‘eliminated’. In situations where the severity of injury is generally less, it may be sufficient to ‘limit’, but not necessarily eliminate, the hazard. This concept is reflected in the ANEC comments on the analysis of hazards presented in the Annex (see attached file).
In Article 1:
- it is not clear from the scope whether sports, playground and recreational equipment are covered. If not, we re-iterate the need to set up a separate COM Decision on the safety requirements to be met by European standards for these products.
- (b): in relation to ‘transportation’: are car seats included?
Annex:
We submit some further comments on the Annex in order to ensure the text not only offers the fullest clarity to the regulators and enforcement authorities but offers the highest levels of safety practicable to children. See attached file.
ENDS.
Read full responseMeeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)
7 Jul 2022 · Ecodesign Regulation and Empowering consumers in the Green Transition
Response to Type approval of motor vehicles regarding access to in-vehicle generated data
20 Jun 2022
ANEC submits this feedback in response to the call for evidence on the topic of vehicle data, functions, and resources, published by the European Commission on March 29th.
Today’s smart mobility (mobility devices and software) gathers a great amount of user and usage data which is currently limited or even not accessible to third parties, including users. There is also an on-going risk about the vulnerability of car electronics to hacker attacks.
The current legal framework applicable to access to in-vehicle generated data and resources does not sufficiently ensure fair and non-discriminatory access by the user and all services providers. On the other hand, the principles laid out in the General Data Protection Regulation regarding car data (‘My Car My Data’) need to be enforced by specialised legislation(s), as the scope of mobility related data is too wide to be covered by one general regulation.
ANEC thus welcomes the proposal of a Data Act which will empower consumers and other users of connected products with the right to have access to any accessible vehicle data and the right to share such data with third parties.
We emphasize the following points:
• ANEC emphasizes the necessity for OEMs to be transparent about the data points and functions available in the vehicle. Most drivers do not realize how much and what information technology equipment is in their cars, and they consequently do not necessarily pay attention or understand the implications of use of such an IT equipment. The ‘necessary’ data needed to support smart mobility services and the functioning of these systems should be determined and openly communicated.
• Consumers must be allowed the right to give consent through opt-in options only, to raise their awareness of what they are choosing. The risk of opt-out options for consumers is to forget to untick unnecessary or unwanted features. Systems shall be designed to accommodate this.
• Clear privacy and (cyber) security measures should be in place when consumer data is being collected and used. It is particularly important for data used by IT systems since a cybersecurity breach would have a direct influence on the physical safety of the vehicle (e.g., sudden and unwanted acceleration or deceleration). A particularly robust and secure data collection strategy should therefore be developed for autonomous and connected vehicles. Special attention should be given to hybrid and electric vehicles, as they only recently appeared on the market, will represent an increasing share of road vehicles, and introduce uses of data never encountered before.
• The access and use of privately owned data by public authorities for official statistical purposes, or by other stakeholders to assess manufacturing costs and measure energy consumption and environmental impacts, can be very beneficial to policymakers, manufacturers, and consumers. The legal background of all these types of uses need to be regulated and explicitly presented to all stakeholders involved, including the consumer.
• ANEC supports that the European Commission mandates the use of standardised data formats at EU-level, as a lack of data standardisation, data formats compatibility and exchangeability will hinder the successful deployment of ITS and other mobility services. A closed ecosystem, where data is available only to some transport modes operators’ or companies, shall be prevented. It should be shared and governed by the same rules within the EU Mobility Data space.
Read full responseResponse to Cyber Resilience Act
25 May 2022
ANEC supports the broad scope of the initiative and agrees that a robust and coherent EU legislative intervention on cybersecurity will provide a more effective, less-fragmented protection for consumers. ANEC agrees that the CRA will complement and close gaps in the existing EU legislative framework.
We submit the attached position.
Read full responseMeeting with Malte Gallée (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Environmental Coalition on Standards
6 May 2022 · Amendment to the Standardisation Regulation
ANEC demands stricter testing and data transparency for automated vehicles
5 May 2022
Message — ANEC recommends testing systems with maximum vehicle loads to ensure worse-case scenarios are covered. They urge for clear information on how consumer mobility data is shared and used. The group also calls for harmonizing traffic rules so automated systems can interpret signs accurately.123
Impact — Manufacturers could face more burdensome testing requirements and higher costs for data compliance.6
Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and SCHUFA Holding AG
5 Apr 2022 · AI Act
Response to Amendment to the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 European standardisation
28 Mar 2022
ANEC agrees with the European Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 1025/2012. We agree it is essential that action is taken to enable European standards, and other standardisation deliverables, to reflect only European values and principles in supporting the European public interest. Hence we welcome the wish of the Commission to limit the electorate able to take decisions in the ESOs on Standardisation Requests, their supporting standards and other standardisation deliverables to the national standardisation bodies (which we understand to be those of the EEA countries).
Nevertheless, the ESOs and the national standardisation bodies have operated in a global environment for many years and, although this co-operation should be welcomed as the Commission acknowledges, it can mean that the positions taken by the national standardisation bodies are also at risk of being influenced by a more international perspective. For example, numerous multinational companies that do not have their headquarters in Europe have national offices in EEA member states, and these are sometimes active in standardisation at national level and in the national mirror committees. In a similar limitation, each national standardisation body should be required to ensure its votes, on Standardisation Requests and related deliverables cited in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 1025/2021, take into account only the positions of companies that are headquartered in the EEA member state.
Bearing this in mind, ANEC also believes the Commission should continue to pursue the option to use implementing acts - establishing technical specifications or common specifications - as a fallback where harmonised standards are absent (for whatever reason) or would be insufficient in ensuring the European public interest.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU
15 Mar 2022
ANEC recognises some improvements have been made in the EC proposal for revision of the Energy Performance Directive COM(2021)802 compared to the current text. However, there are still several points where we believe more ambition is required to effectively boost renovation of buildings in the EU, lower CO2 emissions and achieve more energy savings.
We address the key issues in our new paper against the background of ANEC position (https://tinyurl.com/yb9hhbep) we developed as contribution to the Impact Assessment.
The overall target has not changed compared to the current one: zero emission stock by 2050, and a decarbonisation objective of 55% of less greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Considering the latest discussions on climate change mitigation the overall ambition of this target is questionable. The timeline for zero emission stock needs to be shortened, otherwise we risk missing the 1,5°C (2,0°C respectively) limit.
There is a need to act urgently and boldly on climate change. Time is of the essence. This can be done by not only improving the energy efficiency of buildings, but also by phasing out the use of fossil fuels and encouraging the generation of renewable energies on site (e.g. with solar systems). Against this background, the EU climate targets can be supported through the EPBD revision by boosting the renovation rates in a manner that is truly suitable for the environment and (vulnerable) consumers.
You can find our specific recommendations in the ANEC Position Paper on the EC Proposal for a Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive attached and on our website: https://tinyurl.com/2p9y5dw8
Read full responseMeeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament) and The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated
17 Feb 2022 · AI
18 Jan 2022
ANEC has long expressed concern on the problems that may occur when using recycled materials without adequate control of the virgin materials. While we still wait for a comprehensive revision of the EU legislative framework on Food Contact Materials to improve chemical safety for consumers and the environment, we find it untimely for that revision to be precedented by legislation with the goal to first increase the recycled plastic content in food packaging.
As a matter of priority, legal provisions for chemicals in virgin materials used in the manufacture of products including (food) packaging must be strengthened by implementing or enhancing sectoral product legislation.
This involves (but is not limited to) the elimination of SVHCs and other substances of concern from those materials or products in a generic fashion (e.g. following the proposal by the European Parliament to phase out CMRs and EDCs in the Packaging Directive).
We express concern with certain limits in the proposed draft regulation:
- It is unclear how safety of novel processes is going to be reviewed. Once they are allowed on the market they will be very hard to control and for the European Commission “to take appropriate and immediate action” in case there is evidence that recycled plastics developed with a novel technology may endanger the health of consumers. We urgently call on following the precautionary principle in this respect not to put the health of consumers at risk.
- We are concerned at the risk that chemical recycling would be promoted with this regulation, while almost none of the existing technologies seem economically viable.
- The text states that “recycling is an essential prerequisite for the transition to the Circular Economy” – this statement can be biasing, because there are still many issues with health safety and environmental impacts related to plastics recycling. Moreover, a recent ECHA report on chemical recycling of plastics (https://is.gd/MqnRQX) highlights that chemical recycling is challenging and there is little knowledge about the abilities of different chemical recycling processes to eliminate substances of concern.
- The proposal also refers to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 “setting out compositional requirements that ensure the safe use of plastic food contact materials” and that recycled plastics should be of the same composition of as plastics manufactured in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 10/2011, “to ensure the same level of safety”. While it is welcome that that Regulation regulates plastics food contact materials by means of a positive list thus only allowing authorised substances to be used, its Annex I is partly outdated and needs more systematic review. In fact, ANEC calls (https://is.gd/ccn4Hm) on an expiry date for all authorisations (e.g. 5 years) to be set for approved substances and materials, in line with the provisions for materials in contact with drinking water of the revised Drinking Water Directive.
Generally, policy in this context should aim for improved recycling processes to ensure homogenous and clean single-type waste streams (a prerequisite for primary recycling resulting in high quality products), including efficient collection and sorting systems allowing separation of different materials for different purposes, as well as the development of specific specifications to facilitate recycling aimed at reducing the variety of materials and their chemical composition, to make them "fit for recycling".
With a view to the information of substances of concern in products, it is important to address the lack of information on these in products and waste. It may be useful to require a full declaration of all substances used including their quantities in certain cases (e.g. materials in contact with food or with the drinking water, toys).
In conclusion, recycling must be promoted only when contamination with problematic chemicals can be excluded.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive
18 Nov 2021
The transport and mobility sector has huge potential for transformation. It has a tremendous opportunity to reduce GHG emissions as well as improve Noise and Traffic Congestion throughout the EU.
ANEC, therefore, welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (AFIR) that aims to enable widespread uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles. It is a major positive step. We note the importance of opportunities such as this review and consultation for involving of consumers representatives.
Furthermore, ANEC strongly supports moving towards forms of mobility that are sustainable, energy-efficient, and respectful of the environment and that benefit human health. Technical innovations such as EVs, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), and other Smart Mobility solutions, will contribute to achieving this goal. However, ANEC would like to draw attention to the fact they are not the only solution.
It is key to recognise more traditional pathways towards more sustainable mobility, such as encouraging the creation of dedicated environments for cycling, e-cycling and other modes. Other solutions should also be considered prioritised and followed within the EU Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (and action plans involving 82 initiatives, that should guide transport policies in Europe over the next 4 years, and related transport industry transition targets to be achieved by 2030, 2035 and 2050).
Other recommendations include:
• Consumers must have clear information on the impact of their mobility choices (Personal Battery/Electric/Combustion/Hyrbid Vehicles vs Public Transport).
• The physical safety of Personal Mobility Vehicles and Light Electric Vehicles must be improved and must not be ignored in sustainable transport discussions overall.
• New technologies should never exclude the consumers which would not like to use them, no matter what the reason is.
• Availability and Access to recharging for Electric Vehicles (EVs) should follow Design for All at its core. This concerns not only the technological aspect but also the payment options available. Special emphasis should be taken to avoiding the possible discrimination of consumers using different payment options or coming from other countries (or even regions).
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Toy Safety Directive
28 Oct 2021
ANEC welcomes the EC’s inception impact assessment, which contains many points we agree with. We agree the aim of this initiative should be to further strengthen the protection of children against possible risks in toys, in particular from chemicals & to further complete the Single Market for toys. Although the Toy Directive certainly brought improvements to child safety in Europe, we are of the opinion that a revision is necessary to improve different aspects.
We agree the main aspects to be tackled are chemical risks, internet-connected toys, and compliance & enforcement.
We welcome the conclusion of the Commission’s evaluation with respect to deficient chemical provisions. Chemical requirements for toys need to be strengthened significantly. Key point is to broaden the scope of Art 46 to allow for the establishment/amendment of provisions for all kinds of chemicals & all kinds of toys (not only for children under 36 months). The extended Comitology should be used to specify, where appropriate, also essential requirements for safety aspects other than chemicals (i.e. mechanical & physical requirements, e.g. to set noise limit values). We welcome the proposed measures to be assessed, in line with our position paper ‘Toy Safety Directive evaluation and Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS): Which way forward?’ (April 2021).
We welcome the intention to address risks posed by internet-connected toys. It is essential to address issues we brought to the attention of the European Commission in 2016 & 2017 about unsecure smart toys (Cayla the spying doll). As more & more toys are now connected to Internet or other communication networks/protocols, new rules are needed to effectively protect children. New technologies can pose risks not only because they can have a direct impact on the health & safety of children & their personal data protection, but also because of connectivity, they can be indirectly used as a tool to put at risk their personal security (e.g. kidnapping). Safety obligations of producers need to cover the entire lifespan of the connected toy, not only when it is placed on the market (e.g. software updates). Market Surveillance authorities must have the means & resources to check this evolving aspect of safety. Harmonised Standards have to also reflect it.
EU Safety Gate notifications show that the toy market is far from clean and that there is a continued need for increased market surveillance actions. Necessary resources (budget & staff) shall be made available; the European Commission shall organise & finance joint market surveillance actions on toys.
In the interest of legal certainty, specific requirements for visibility & legibility of warnings on toys (e.g. minimum letter size) need to be introduced, in order to enable Member States to enforce these requirements in a uniform way (there are no specified requirements in the Directive and belonging standards). Warnings on toys are often too small, hidden by other text & sometimes difficult to discover & read.
We welcome the intention to improve reporting obligations by Member States on unsafe toys. In this context, we reiterate the need to revitalise the European Injury Database (EU-IDB) and to create a legal basis to collect accidents & injury data in the EU. The Single Market Programme could provide a sound financial base for this.
ANEC fully supports to convert the Directive into a Regulation.
Finally, we ask for the following aspects to be tackled: better regulate noise levels in toys (set the limit to what is allowed for adults in industry according to Directive 2003/10/EEC, there is no safety-based reason to expose children to higher levels than is allowed for adults); introduce EC-type examination for certain categories of toys (applying the principle ‘the higher the risk, the higher the conformity assessment procedure’, already applied for PPE or Medical Devices); remove CE Marking from the toy or its packaging & relegate it to the technical file.
Read full responseMeeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)
22 Oct 2021 · Machinery
Meeting with Thor-Sten Vertmann (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
19 Oct 2021 · Preparation of the Sustainable Product Policy Initiative and Consumer Empowerment for the Green Transition.
Meeting with Isabelle Perignon (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
19 Oct 2021 · Preparation of the Sustainable Product Policy Initiative and Consumer Empowerment for the Green Transition
Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
19 Oct 2021 · Preparation of the Sustainable Product Policy Initiative and Consumer Empowerment for the Green Transition
Response to Short-term rental initiative
14 Oct 2021
ANEC welcomes that the European Commission continue to take interest to regulate the collaborative economy services, and especially the short-term accommodation rentals.
While the Digital Services Act brought progress with horizontal rules for platforms, this type of accommodation needs more regulation at European level, especially for the platforms which offer them, without compromising the advantage of peer-to-peer transactions.
Before the current crisis, saturation of accommodations in some destinations created problems that came as unforeseen consequences: gentrification, noise pollution, high waste accumulation, degradations, rise of prices, lack of housing… this requires asking platforms to work and be transparent with municipalities to help tourism policies and upgrade facilities. There need to be strategic aims set by local planning authorities and the method of enforcing them. With these challenges in mind, their role in shifting the demand from to less well-known destinations should also be further explored.
Back in 2017, ANEC collaborated with Consumers International on the CI/ANEC Position paper ‘Sharing Economy*’ describing the challenges consumers face in the collaborative economy with view to our contribution to international standardisation work that was starting in that area, while waiting for European legislation in the sector.
Currently, we are involved in the development of several international standards in ISO TC 324 ‘Sharing economy’. Still, these standards will not answer all issues of this sector, especially when combining visions on this market that are often different from those of European consumers and stakeholders.
ANEC therefore welcomes the EU initiative on Tourist Services – Short term rental “to ensure clear and simple rules are in place for STRs across the EU while supporting public authorities in defending public interest objectives.”
From a consumer perspective, it is crucial to address on short term accommodation rentals several elements:
• transparency of the platform on the status of the provider (individual or business);
• responsibility of the platform about the classifieds published and type of providers (individual or business);
• importance of having an efficient complaints handling system;
• responsibility of the platform about the safety of the accommodations (fire safety, security, pool safety…).
It is also important that the platforms share with public authorities’ relevant information to reduce inconvenience.
The initiative’s objective (i) Access of public authorities to data on STRs and (ii) Market access conditions for STR players and level playing field as described in the STR initiative roadmap can help in these matters.
An additional aspect that we suggest the EC should bear in mind is that tourism extends beyond EU boundaries, so consumer needs and rights to be considered should include:
• EU citizens using STRs to visit destinations outside the EU
• Non-EU citizens visiting destinations inside the EU
Linked to this is the fact that platforms providing STRs may not be based in the EU.
* ANEC/CI 2017 position on sharing economy: https://tinyurl.com/425h9uh2
Read full responseMeeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Orgalim – Europe's Technology Industries and
5 Oct 2021 · Machinery regulation
Response to Review of the general product safety directive
1 Oct 2021
ANEC strongly supports the proposed General Product Safety Regulation:
The underlined value of the safety net function and precautionary principle
Coherent market surveillance rules between harmonised and non-harmonised products as well as the new tools given to Member States
Stronger traceability in the supply chain and a greater responsibility for safety of online marketplaces
New provisions on connected products
Clear rules on product recalls
Risk assessment to also cover the needs of vulnerable consumers, environmental considerations and the safety of child appealing products
Detailed criteria for penalties, thereby making enforcement more consistent
Commission’s new powers to adopt implementing measures and set up specific traceability requirements
Enforcement work of the Consumer Safety Network to be closely coordinated with the enforcement network for harmonised products
Benefits of cooperation with consumer groups for enforcement
Strengthened international cooperation on product safety
We urge co-legislators to address the following concerns :
Loopholes with regard to online marketplaces must be closed so all enforcement actions could ultimately be addressed to them in case no other actor intervenes. The general safety requirement in article 5 should be addressed to online marketplaces and they should be defined as importers.
An obligation for mandatory collection of accident and injury data in a pan-European database should be added.
Recall notices should always be published. Where traders can contact consumers directly through contact data previously obtained, the recall notices should be published as consumers may have purchased products as gifts or have sold them on second-hand marketplaces
The provisions on remedies for consumers in case of recalls stipulate that economic operators could instead of repairing or replacing the recalled product also opt for refunding the (remaining?) value. It is not the traders but consumers who should have the choice for the type of remedy.
Beside risk-based market surveillance, it will be important that authorities perform random checks so dangerous products that were not on the radar can also be detected.
Higher conformity assessment procedures should be applied in relation with the level of risk.
The definition of a safe product does not contain anymore the points to be considered for such definition. These are now under article 7. However, we see a need to explicitly link those criteria of article 7 to article 6 to ensure the criteria must be considered by European Standardisation Organisations. Further, we suggest deleting the first half sentence of article 7 ‘Where the presumption on safety in article 5 does not apply’. This deletion clarifies that the criteria of article 7 apply to all relevant actors at any moment, legislators, economic operators, standards makers and enforcement authorities.
The implementing acts with the specific safety requirements should be legally-binding and be detailed enough to be enforced directly. A hazard-based approach should be followed during the development of safety requirements and the drafting of standards, in line with the aspects for assessing the safety of products contained in article 7. As the ESOs do not have to accept the Standardization Request related to the Commission Decision, no legal certainty exists for economic operators and market surveillance authorities in the absence of standards .
The voice of consumers in the ESOs must continue to be heard. Hence the role of ANEC is crucial in influencing the content of standards so all consumers can benefit from their use.
Noting public authorities have also withdrawn from many standardisation activities to the detriment of the public interest, we call on authorities to become more engaged in standardisation and support consumer participation in standardisation at national level.
Read full responseResponse to Smartwatches and connected toys
26 Aug 2021
ANEC welcomes the draft delegated Regulation supplementing of the Radio Equipment Directive. We recognise that the draft act addresses the issues we brought to the attention of the European Commission and TCAM Expert Group in December 2016 and November 2017 about unsecure smart toys and children smart watches .
It is therefore more than 6 years that we are waiting for measures to be taken to protect consumers from unsecure products. While we understand that time is needed to apply the new rules and develop the voluntary standards (one of the ways to comply with the new requirements), we stress that the date of applicability of the delegated Regulation (article 3) should be as soon as possible and that further delays are not acceptable anymore.
We would like to be reassured about the inclusion in the scope of the draft delegated act of other consumer smart products such as smart locks/bells/lightbulbs, etc. We understand they are covered if ‘communicating themselves over the internet’ via another equipment such as a mobile phone (for the applicability of letter d)). However, we are unsure whether they would be covered if connecting only via Bluetooth (or another communication protocol, Near Field Communication (NFC)) for the applicability of letter e). We also wonder about smart ‘pet devices’ such as pet trackers as such devices track pets who are generally together with humans/people.
We therefore suggest the following wording for article 1.2:
The essential requirement set out in Article 3(3), point (e), of Directive 2014/53/EU shall apply to any of the following all radio equipment, if that radio equipment is capable of processing, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, personal data, as defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or traffic data and location data, as defined in Article 2, points (b) and (c), of Directive 2002/58/EC including:
(a), (b), etc
We welcome in particular the inclusion of ‘childcare’ equipment as more and more products used by/for children are now connected to the Internet or other communication networks/protocols. However, we think that the equipment designed or intended not exclusively for childcare should also be covered in article 1.2 (a/b) (in symmetry to the wording used for wearables in the same article, as a matter of legal coherence and clarity).
We therefore suggest the following wording for article 1.2 (a):
(a) radio equipment designed or intended, whether exclusively or not, for childcare;
We also welcome the conclusions of the analysis of overlaps with other EU legislation, such as that regulating the market access of Medical Devices (article 2). We expressed some doubts about the possible exclusion of Smart Meters and 5G as we do not believe the applicable legislation contains similar and equivalent provisions in terms of market access. We are satisfied they are included in the scope of the delegated Regulation.
Editorial comments:
The sequence of the letters in article 1.2 should be corrected as there are two letters (a).
Recital 6: we think that a reference to the Medical Devices Regulation should be made for ‘implants’ as they would be radio equipment falling out the scope of the present delegated act.
Read full responseResponse to Standardisation Strategy
8 Aug 2021
Please find attached the response to the consultation on the Roadmap from ANEC, the European consumer voice in standardisation.
Read full responseResponse to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence
13 Jul 2021
Please find attached ANEC's comments.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Machinery Directive
13 Jul 2021
Please find attached ANEC's comments.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU legislation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals
1 Jun 2021
We agree with the EC assessment that "the current restriction process is too slow to sufficiently protect consumers and professional users against risks from the most hazardous substances" and "the normal restriction procedure, through specific risk assessment, puts a high burden on authorities". We do acknowledge the general strategy outlined in the EC’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability to make use of the generic approach to restrict classes of chemicals (such as CMRs) in consumer products.
Yet, we do not think that the envisaged REACH revision measures regarding restrictions will solve the problems. For instance, the generic approach to ban classes of substances can only be applied where a harmonised classification exists. This envisaged approach will add little to consumer protection for hazard classes not yet incorporated in CLP in the foreseeable future.
Irrespective of this an approach relying primarily on specific product regulation might do a better job in protecting consumers. It is important to recall some other REACH shortcomings:
• REACH does not allow using an approval system for chemicals in articles. However, positive lists as used in cosmetics and food contact legislation (plastics) are preferable from a consumer protection perspective. It is inherent to such systems that non-approved substances are not allowed to be used.
• REACH addresses intentionally added substances and their impurities but does not address reaction products formed in the processing of materials
• Non-toxic effects or parameters associated with chemicals not looking at specific (groups of) substances cannot be addressed in REACH. Yet, these parameters have been used cost efficiently to establish chemical requirements in legislation and voluntary instruments for various articles e.g.TVOC.
• Measures to indirectly restrict chemicals are out of the scope of REACH. For example, one could regulate flame retardants in garments by requiring that the flame retardant property is maintained when garment has undergone a number of washing cycles.
• The flexible adaptation of the scope and (temporary) handling of exemptions of restrictions is rather difficult in REACH. ROHS allows to establish (temporary) exemptions on technological grounds.
• Moreover, the REACH approach focusing on chemicals rather than on products fails to provide for a complete set of rules for a specific product group. The current practice in the field of national and EU ecolabels or OEKOTEX standards focusing on certain products or product families seems more appealing.
• Finally, the obligation under Article 33 for companies to reply within 45 days to consumer enquiries is too long.
We, therefore, reiterate our call to action:
• First of all, we need the development of a consistent approach to address chemicals in all consumer-relevant products including ALL options rather than limiting the approach to an improved REACH restriction procedure.
• The existing gaps and shortcomings in the current regulatory frameworks for all products as well as their benefits vis-à-vis REACH and improvement options must be assessed in a comprehensive fashion.
• Insufficient chemical provisions in existing product legislation (as toys) must be identified and improved.
• Identification of product areas for which additional product specific regulatory measures need to be taken.
• Development of suitable (alternative) specific regulatory frameworks for chemicals in certain consumer-relevant products, e.g., the GPSD or the Construction Products Regulation do not seem to be suitable frameworks for restricting chemicals in products, and thus separate legislative frameworks are needed to address them or one regulatory framework for all products not yet covered elsewhere using implementing measures for specific products could be established.
• Identification of a complete set of chemical rules including appropriate test protocols for the product areas in question.
More at: https://is.gd/a8GeJh
Read full responseMeeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and European Environmental Bureau and
5 May 2021 · Implementation of the chemicals strategy for sustainability
Response to Technical requirements and test procedure for approval of intelligent speed assistance (ISA)
28 Apr 2021
ANEC submits this feedback in response to the publication of the European Commission’s draft Delegated Regulation on Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) systems. We consider this of key consumer concern as speed is a leading cause of fatalities on EU roads. ANEC welcomes the use of intelligent speed assistance systems. We support and congratulate the EU for being the first in the world to mandate ISA as it is an important technology to reduce speeding.
ANEC welcomes the decision to include ISA systems in the General Safety Regulation.
Please find attached some specific comments and feedback on the topic.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU
18 Mar 2021
ANEC clearly favours ‘policy option 3’; the amended EPBD is to address in particular the following 7 key aspects among the measures considered:
- The update of the framework for Energy Performance Certificates is fundamental. With a view to increasing their quality and availability through greater harmonisation, the provision of energy certificates needs to be based on calculated demand as a prerequisite to assess the energy performance of a building. it should no longer be allowed to use certificates based on energy use because they simply cannot be compared neither among each other for different buildings (due to big variations in use pattern) nor with EPC based on calculated demand. In fact, energy certificates currently based on the consumption are generally associated with the energy bill. This poses a problem for the credibility of such certificates when consumers rent apartments and their energy bill does not meet their expectations based on the certificate. Proper information provision as well as reliability, traceability and comparability is key to enhance sustainable choices for consumers and construction professionals.
- Phased introduction of mandatory minimum energy performance standards for different types of buildings: In principle, we welcome this approach. Still, this minimum performance should not represent or even be below a level which is already given in different national legislation but be challenging for each climatic zone. Additionally, there should be a meaningful differentiation between building types based on use (residential versus commercial) rather than type of ownership (public versus private) because of different use patterns, the intended lifetimes of the buildings and related maintenance activities.
- Introduction of Building Renovation Passports: A building passport could give valuable information and be converted into a tool to combine energy savings and circular economy principles. This could be done by giving an overview of the energy-related renovation measures carried out and at the same time documenting where in the building which building material was installed and how (e.g. glued, dowelled). This information is important in order to easily identify the single components and allow their efficient return to the material cycle.
- Introduction of a ‘deep renovation’ standard in the context of financing and building decarbonisation objectives: Deep renovation, i.e. the reduction of energy consumption by 60 %, highly depends on the availability of financial means and therefore needs a balanced approach. This cannot be done on a compulsory basis for private owners, but only with financial incentives. From the technical point of view, the 60% savings depend on the starting point and are basically applicable at decent costs only for low performing buildings. The question is, whether this value should be combined to an absolute target value x (in kWh per m2 a). Also, as for insulation material the focus needs to be shifted from thermal insulation to renewable and re-usable or recyclable insulation materials.
- Resource efficiency and circularity principles: consumers generally focus on human health and comfort, accessibility and adaptability of the building to enable them to live independently in their familiar surrounding as long as possible. These aspects need to be addressed at the design stage. It needs to be noted Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or Environmental Footprint methodologies do not provide meaningful indicators for the assessment of buildings. ANEC believes meaningful indicators are needed for the overall resource use at EU and MS level.
- Further to the EC Energy poverty recommendation, a political and financial framework needs to be developed to ensure affordable energy prices for vulnerable consumers.
- Sustainable mobility: The requirements for new buildings will also need to be updated to consider E-mobility charging infrastructure.
Read more @ https://is.gd/Hcejtg
Read full responseResponse to Europe’s digital decade: 2030 digital targets
8 Mar 2021
ANEC welcomes the European Commission consultation on the Roadmap for a Communication on a Europe’s digital decade: 2030 digital targets and we support the Commission’s intention to focus on people’s needs and expectations ensuring that “the digital transformation has humans at its centre”.
The proposed ‘Charter of Digital Principles and Fundamental Rights’ should bring about enforceable rights for consumers and be part of the EU legal order. We are unsure whether the proposes ‘inter-institutional solemn declaration’ would have a binding nature, creating rights and obligations.
Policy and legislation tend to focus on mainstream consumers and do not always cover the needs of vulnerable consumers. Given current demographic and societal trends, an inclusive approach is needed to ensure the protection of consumers especially consumers in situation of vulnerabilities.
While there are targets for ‘digital education and skills’ among the ‘common digital targets’, targets on consumer protection and empowerment are missing and should be added to the strategy. The Communication needs to be ambitious and should also measure if the level of protection granted to consumers is adequate and consumers are sufficiently empowered in the digital world (e.g. Enforcement index on EU data protection rules).
One way to introduce values/principles in product/service design (eg: privacy by design) is standardisation as standards can embed principles in technologies, underpinning legislation. While the identification of strategic priorities in the standardisation development of digital technologies is key to ensure European values and principles are preserved and protected, a reflection has to take place about the decision-making processes at the European and international levels.
And because the European values and principles include consumer protection, we are concerned by such developments.
Openness, global markets and international trade should not preclude the protection of European values and principles.
Read full responseResponse to Technical requirements and test procedure for approval of advanced vehicle systems
5 Mar 2021
Vehicle safety is a priority concern for consumers. ANEC agrees with the Commission that considering and investing in advanced safety features is key. ANEC supports setting the safety measures for vehicles discussed in this consultation.
We would like to take this opportunity to support ISA (Intelligent Speed Assistance).
We repeat that “cascaded acoustic warning” is not effective. The best available option is a “speed control function” which limits engine power and of course, a very high standard of accuracy for speed limit detection rates is needed.
Furthermore, we present further notes on listed safety features:
• An emergency stop signal is a good idea, which ANEC supports.
• We also support a rear-view camera, which is already mandatory for new vehicles in the US. Rear-view cameras in the US address the problem of children playing behind cars whilst reversing, mainly on driveways. As noted, ANEC supports the proposal but notes that we should bear in mind that the effect will be different in Europe.
• ANEC agrees with the overarching idea of alcohol interlock. However, we are unclear about how it could be implemented on a wide scale (in every vehicle). We understand that alcohol locks a mandatory interface, and this is what is proposed. We ask that every vehicle should be prepared for an alcohol interlock system to be installed, if necessary. We believe that it would be too much to have a mandatory interlock system in every vehicle. The current proposal as we understand is in line with this as such an interface allows fitting such lock when needed.
Read full responseResponse to Modernising the EU’s batteries legislation
9 Feb 2021
Batteries are a priority topic for consumers.
ANEC agrees with the Commission that considering and investing in the safety and sustainability of these products is crucial.
ANEC supports setting sustainability and safety requirements for all batteries placed on the EU market.
We present some key points to develop within this work:
• It would be useful if we return to standardized battery sizes at least to some extent. Toys, small electronic devices and similar, more and more often come with non-standardized batteries which limit users who want to exchange them at low cost.
• No battery regulation is currently in place to forbid having different voltage batteries that have the same dimensions. IEC EN 62115 (electric toys) is asking for a marking of the voltage, but this marking of voltage might not be enough to avoid wrong battery usage in toys. It is a serious matter if batteries of different voltages are of exactly the same size and shape.
-> There needs to be a single uniform size/shape for each battery voltage.
• Many toys or other consumer products have recharging possibilities, but a dangerous situation might be created if you try to charge primary cells, which cannot be recharged.
• IEC EN 62115 does not address the danger coming from Lithium batteries, which is a built-in feature of more and more toys. Often they are delivered with a USB cable - or just a USB inlet. There is no testing of the charging controller of Lithium batteries, which is notoriously dangerous.
• There are child appealing batteries found on the (online) market. Batteries should not have characters, faces, cartoons (e.g. 2D images representing a person, cartoon, strip figure).
• Battery compartments can become very hot, therefore the issue of temperature limits of surfaces likely to be touched should be considered. An example is hoverboards, which children sometimes use bare feet.
We also note the importance of the safety of batteries used in vehicles. Furthermore, with the growing number of fires caused by batteries, their use, maintenance and disposal, we believe these aspects should be considered. Many fires are caused by lithium-ion batteries, which are used in in electric bicycles (electric bicycles, electric scooters and other personal mobility devices (PMDs)) toys, smartphones, and tablets.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials
29 Jan 2021
It has been known for a long time that the current regulatory framework for Food Contact Materials (FCM) is deficient and puts consumers at risk. Harmonised rules (particularly for plastics) are incomplete and outdated; implementing measures for most other materials are missing. So far, the Commission has done little to improve the situation.
When starting its reflections on regulating printing inks, the Commission expressed some sympathy for the idea to abandon the establishment of detailed provisions, including helpful positive lists of substances allowed to be used. Alas, also the current IIA Roadmap hints at the exclusion of a positive list system from the onset replacing it with a tier approach.
By contrast, we believe that the prevailing system of industry self-control in the field of food contact materials has failed and must be much reduced, whilst assessments by national authorities and EFSA - independent of industry - must be considerably reinforced. Experience has shown private certification bodies not to be "independent" necessarily.
The alternative approach we promote is based on the following principles:
• Radical reduction of substances and materials.
• Elimination of substances of (high) concern in all types of FCM.
• Pre-market authorisation for substances and materials - not only substances used in the production but – in the long run - also final materials (including non-intentionally added substances, NIAS) must be authorised by EFSA prior to placing FCMs on the market. In general, positive lists based on existing national legislation and guidance papers shall be established following a priority programme, such as proposed by the EU Parliament. For some materials (e.g. glass, ceramics) it may be sufficient to establish migration limits.
• Expiry date for all authorisations, in line with the provisions for materials in contact with drinking water of the revised Drinking Water Directive.
• Systematic control of authorisations
• A fee system for industry for authorisations, renewals and market surveillance – payable to EFSA and Member States’ enforcement agencies. All uses by all manufacturers must be authorised and subject to a fee separately.
• In addition, industry should pay a market surveillance fee payable to Member States’ enforcement agencies. In the long run, a system could be envisaged where all toxicity and analytical tests necessary are conceived and commissioned by EFSA at the expense of industry. Such a payment structure would reduce the amount of substances to be evaluated considerably, and thus would make the system far more manageable.
The IIA roadmap talks about "a generic approach to the assessment and management of those substances with the most hazardous properties". This could mean to use the hazard classes just as an instrument for priority setting of assessments. This is highly questionable. We regret this misinterprets the generic approach to risk management outlined in the EU Chemicals Strategy, which means it as a ban of CMRs and other harmful chemicals in a generic fashion based on the CLP hazard classification. The strategy states “the generic approach to risk management becomes the default option, in particular as regards their use in consumer products".
Of course, next step is the development of conditions of bans (e.g. a monomer cannot be banned simply on the grounds that it is carcinogenic when it is no longer present in the final product in relevant amounts). It can be quickly done by a generic ban of certain classes of substances (subject to exceptions) in legislation and would not be sensible to consider this as a "first tier" of assessment.
More information on ANEC views can be found in “ANEC reflections on the basic directions for the future development of the EU legislative framework on Food Contact Material (FCM)”, attached and at this link https://is.gd/aLUjFp
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of the 'New Legislative Framework' for EU legislation on industrial products
2 Dec 2020
Q1 No. The NLF should make an explicit reference to cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence risks that can impact on product safety/compliance. A product should be safe/compliant over the whole of its expected lifespan.
The definitions of ‘making available on the market’, ‘placing on the market’, ‘conformity assessment’ need to be reconsidered to take into account the evolving, learning and predictive functionalities of a product, impact of interconnected products, and potential privacy considerations affecting safety/compliance.
The concept of ‘substantial modifications’ could be considered to reflect the changing nature of a product.
Consistency has to be ensured between the NLF requirements and creation of a right-to-repair for consumers, and the more sustainable use of products.
Q2 No. For many consumer products (e.g. under LVD) there is no conformity assessment procedure requiring the intervention of a third-party. Products under the LVD are self-assessed by the manufacturer. At the same time, electrical appliances remain hazardous and can kill, as shown by Safety Gate notifications. In our view, the higher the risk, the higher the conformity assessment procedure (module) needs to be. This should also be the case for everyday consumer products, and not only those under the PPE or Medical Devices Directives.
The criteria of ‘burdensome procedure’ should not feature in legislation because of its subjective nature.
Q3 Notified Bodies have a key role in guaranteeing the safety of products on the market and so ensuring the protection of consumers. It is essential they work in a competent and independent manner. However, the way their competence is assessed varies among Member States. Due to these differences, it is unclear how the competence of a Notified Body is assessed. Despite the introduction by the NLF of European-wide rules on the operation of accreditation and peer-evaluation system, accreditation is not mandatory. We think it should be mandatory to create a true level playing-field for Notified Bodies, based on competence.
Q.4 Not always. Some certificates for consumer products claim compliance with a standard when the product is clearly not complying and even presents serious risks to users. One cause is due to the Notified Body not checking the product against all clauses of the applicable standards. These “partial” certificates may discredit the standards, are clearly misleading and make the work of market surveillance authorities more complex.
Q5 No. Even though CE Marking is not intended as a mark for consumers, its appearance on many consumer products (or their packaging) is misleading to consumers. ANEC wants to see CE Marking relegated to the technical file of the product. CE Marking is a legal requirement. It is not a safety mark nor quality mark. Also, only some products are required (and allowed) to bear CE Marking. Hence does the absence of CE Marking mean that a product is exempt or non-compliant?
Q6 Before replying to this question, it is important to assess whether the product shortages experienced during the first COVID-19 crisis were due to market access issues or (lack of) preparedness in planning for pandemic situations.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive
19 Nov 2020
ANEC recognizes that there is a lot on the positive side regarding this topic (see economic, social and environmental impacts), but we must monitor consumer interest as it is suggested under 'likely impacts on fundamental rights'.
We agree that ITS should become more open throughout different countries and stakeholders and that it should also pay special attention to new mobility means, modes, and services (including personal mobility devices/options).
- From a consumer point of view, users who are not able or deliberately do not use the new systems should not be set aside.
- The harmonisation of data formats is needed, allowing infrastructure and means of road transport to communicate whilst speaking the same language and thus improving safety.
- ITS will handle the personal data of travellers and therefore consumers should actively give their consent (opt-in). Systems should be designed for this. Therefore, consumers should be recognised as stakeholders in this process.
Read full responseResponse to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence
31 Aug 2020
As the European Commission’s assessment of product safety and liability legislation shows, there are gaps in present legislation and new AI related aspects such as explicability require new legal provisions, especially for enforcement purposes. We therefore support Option 3.c: EU legislative instrument establishing mandatory requirements for all applications.
The new rules have to cover risks posed by AI systems in a proportionate manner, with more stringent rules for high-risk applications. The EU regulatory approach on safety should be based and explicitly refer to the precautionary principle.
We think that new rules should be adopted to make the appropriate risk assessment of all AI systems, taking into account of the nature of the hazard and the likelihood of its occurrence. Based on the assessment results, different rules can be applied in a proportionate manner.
In order to assess whether the AI system is posing a high or low risk, criteria such as likelihood of the harm occurring, immediacy of the harm, the foreseeable use of the AI system (and not only the intended use which is not covering the potential effects of machine learning) have to be taken into account too. In addition, provisions have to deal with how uncertainties and assumptions impact the risk assessment. Once the risk is identified, mitigating measures have to be adopted (by industry, public authorities). Standards can be used to support the risk assessment. Any assessment, audit, certification, market surveillance activities have to cover the evolving nature of the AI system. For this, access to the AI system algorithms, codes and data sets must be ensured to understand and assess the risks.
About the level of risk, in our view, it is not a question of the kind of AI application as such, but of how to assess the risks posed to consumer protection by AI systems. In addition to cyber risks, personal security risks, risks related to the loss of connectivity and mental health risks, the risks to the environment should not be forgotten.
We believe that product liability rules should be updated to ensure consumers are protected when they face problems with their digital goods.
We also believe that new consumers rights should be enshrined, for all AI systems, and not only high-risk applications, as follows:
-Right to Transparency, Explanation, and Objection
-Right to Accountability and Control
-Right to Fairness
-Right to Safety and Security
-Right to Access to Justice
-Right to Reliability and Robustness
We think that consumers interacting with AI systems must be able to keep full and effective self-determination/autonomy over themselves. This means securing human oversight over processes in AI systems. AI systems must not create asymmetries of power or information, such as between businesses and consumers. AI systems must not endanger the environment.
We also suggest adopting the definition of AI provided by the EC HLEG on AI in the ethical guidelines. And to add a definition of ADM-Systems (Automated Decision Making).
Legislation is needed to determine how and by whom biometrics technology can be used and the guarantees for citizens and consumers. Considering the high risk of abuse, discrimination and violation of fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, the European Union must develop a strong, privacy-protective approach for biometrics systems before they are largely used in public spaces.
Consumer information is useful in order to help transparency. However, labels are only as good as the requirements and enforcement systems on which they are based. Once clear legal rules and enforcement mechanisms are in place, the role of a label could be considered.
Another important element to address is the inherent information asymmetry associated with AI or an evolving/machine learning system, making the function of a label different from a label linked to traditional, non-AI products (e.g. Ecolabel).
Read full responseResponse to Environmental claims based on environmental footprint methods
28 Aug 2020
The intention set in the Green Deal to tackle misleading green claims is laudable. So too is the recognition that consumers need reliable, comparable and verifiable information on the environmental performance of products and services. We disagree, however, that the substantiation of claims should be done using the PEF/OEF method. We urge a different approach is taken, with a regulation that could specify conditions of use of certain claims in light of following arguments:
• typical green claims on consumer products take many forms e.g. “reusable”, “renewable”, “biodegradable”, “made of recyclable content”, “free of”, “does not contain” which are not based on lifecycle considerations (i.e. have nothing to do with LCA/PEF);
• as regards methods to assess reliability of environmental declarations, no one method is able to characterise the environmental performance of activities. Different methods have strengths and weaknesses which must be analysed and combined in a meaningful and cost-efficient manner;
• our studies have highlighted the methodological constraints of the LCA approach such as lack of precision, limited comparability, difficulty in identifying superior products, or in identifying relevant environmental aspects (e.g. when impacts are dependent on space, time and background levels). Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) based on LCA indicators are used for advertising, but do not necessarily provide sound information to help consumers choose an environmentally friendly product;
• the EC PEF pilots confirmed the PEF methodology is even a “disimprovement” of the constrained LCA methodology;
• during the pilot phase, LCA practitioners also had a critical stance on PEF/OEF which is seen as a step backwards for its inclusion of problematic methodological choices (e.g. on toxicity impact categories);
• suitable LCA methodology (not PEF) could be an instrument to be used in environmental assessments for some environmental aspects e.g. in identifying relevant stages in the life cycle or certain relevant emissions (to identify suitable non-LCA indicators).
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED TO SUBSTANTIATE GREEN CLAIMS:
We believe it would be more appropriate to develop a Regulation to specify in detail the conditions and binding requirements for use of specific terms, based on the principles of ISO 14020 ‘Environmental labels and declarations — General principles’. This would also include requirements for evaluation of environmental claims.
Any verification would be based on a relevant test procedure (e.g. chemical analysis) or other appropriate conformity assessment procedure (e.g. to trace origin of bio products). The rules can take inspiration from earlier guidelines developed by the EC in the context of fighting greenwashing.
Such a regulation would need to be developed in synergy with other initiatives under the upcoming EU sustainable product policy, especially the extension of the Ecodesign criteria to other non-energy related products, and enhanced promotion of the Ecolabel as a label of environmental excellence which could serve as benchmark for other product policies and inspire improvements to products on the market.
COMMUNICATION TO CONSUMERS:
The sub-options on potential communication to consumers based on PEF go beyond the substantiation of green claims. We strongly oppose the development of such a format in light of the limits noted above and because it would risk jeopardising the Ecolabel.
The poor precision of the method does not allow consumers to have clear understanding of a superior product. Moreover, such information must not overburden the consumer with the responsibility to identify sustainable choices.
COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PEF/OEF METHOD AND ALTERNATIVES:
In the ANEC position paper annexed (https://is.gd/UEivwm), we put forward an alternative approach to Product Environmental Footprinting, also proposing a framework for the selection of environmental indicators.
Read full responseResponse to Review of the general product safety directive
27 Aug 2020
We agree to the problem definition, emphasising the challenges posed by new technologies, e-commerce and a fragmented legislative framework for market surveillance.
We recommend Option 4. A full revision of the legal instrument is necessary to address safety risks brought by the Internet of Things and Automated Decision Making, to clarify the obligations of all actors in the supply chain, including online marketplaces, and to ensure consistency with other legislation.
In addition, because the GPSD does not contain any product safety requirements, we believe that there is an urgent need to revise how safety requirements are set:
A shortcoming of the GPSD is that it provides the private European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) with the freedom to decide the detailed safety requirements for specific products. Although we do not consider the present setting of safety requirements complicated, we think the related Commission Decision should be legally-binding, which it is not at the moment.
The measures adopted must be detailed enough so they can be enforced directly. They should be product-specific implementing measures, based on preparatory studies for product groups and following a prioritised programme, in analogy to the Energy-related Products Directive.
A hazard-based approach should be followed during the development of safety requirements and the drafting of standards. This would identify the hazards and assess and address risks. The safety levels set out in the requirements should be relevant to the significance of the hazards and risks and be defined by the policy-makers, not the ESOs.
As the ESOs do not have to accept the Standardization Request (SReq) related to the Commission Decision, no legal certainty exists for economic operators and market surveillance authorities in the absence of standards. The safety requirements could be used to for market surveillance purposes, even if the ESOs decide to reject the SReq.
Member States should be able to introduce a Formal Objection (FO) to a standard earlier. The possibility for a Member State to express a FO to a standard intended to support legislation before the publication of its reference in the OJEU should also be introduced. This would be another step to aiding legal certainty.
The voice of consumers in the ESOs must continue to be heard. Knowingly or unknowingly, the position of business interests in the development of European standards can undermine the broader consumer interest. Hence the role of ANEC is crucial in influencing the content of standards so all consumers can benefit from their use. Business also tends to reflect the needs of only ‘average’ or ‘mainstream’ consumers in standards, which disadvantages ‘vulnerable’ consumers: children, older people and persons with disabilities. Noting public authorities have also withdrawn from many standardisation activities to the detriment of the public interest, we call on authorities to become more engaged in standardisation and support consumer participation in standardisation at national level.
As option 4 will include repealing the current GPSD, the new GPSD must continue to function as a safety net, to cover lacunae in sector specific legislation and for all those consumer products for which no specific rules exist; be based on the precautionary principle and allow market surveillance authorities to withdraw products from the market based on this principle.
Besides the need to address new challenges, the revision of the GPSD must also:
-Make it possible to apply higher conformity assessment procedures
-develop criteria to assess the safety of child appealing products
-collect EU-wide accident and injury data
-improve the functioning of the Safety Gate
-use the GPSD as a tool to reduce consumer exposure to harmful chemicals
-Ensuring quicker market intervention and emergency legislation
-common safety rules for food-imitating products.
More detailed recommendations can be found in ANEC/BEUC’s position paper
Read full responseResponse to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste
31 Jul 2020
In ANEC’s view, the "essential requirements" of the Packaging Directive are vague, do not give clear instructions to business and cannot be enforced. The associated CEN standards were intended to provide more detailed provisions and clarity, but the influence exerted by the European packaging industry in their drafting meant they do not contain the substantive requirements needed. ANEC urges development of detailed legal requirements for packaging, using delegated acts, rather than relying on standardisation alone.
1 | PREVENTION – A TOP PRIORITY
Reduction goals: Goals for overall reduction of (various kinds of) single-use packaging must be established.
Excessive packaging: It is key to set clear-cut and enforceable rules for prevention of excessive packaging (in certain areas) and to define measurable quantitative criteria for this. The criteria should be based on a maximum ratio between the volume of the packaging and volume of the packed product or, preferably, a maximum ratio between the surface of packaging and the volume of the packed product (see also annex).
The aim is not just to minimise packaging material, but also to prevent deceptive packaging promising more content than is present. Such rules should also apply to the delivery of online sales where often excessive packaging is used for shipping goods.
Ban specific forms of packaging: In addition, specific forms of packaging - such as aluminium cans for beverages, complex multi-layer materials or secondary packaging in areas such as cosmetics - should be banned.
Prevention of hazardous chemicals: It is essential to prevent the use of hazardous chemicals to protect the consumer and prevent impediments to recycling. The current vague provision in the Directive, requiring only to minimise the presence of noxious and other hazardous substances and materials, needs to be replaced by clear-cut limits for hazardous chemicals which take not only into account end-of-life operation, but also protect the health of users and consumers. For instance, SVHC or CMR chemicals should be generally banned. The provisions should cover not only packaging materials but also imprints, perhaps setting separate rules for them. These provisions must apply equally to virgin materials and recycled materials.
2 | REUSE
We want systematic expansion of reuse systems at the expense of single-use packaging, wherever possible and useful. This should include:
• product-specific reuse targets for (various kinds of) beverage containers and also other product groups, such as food preserves, yogurts, detergents, shipping or transport containers etc.,
• use of reuse systems for certain product groups and ban on corresponding single-use product systems (e.g. for mineral water),
• standardising shapes and other features (such as materials, breaking resistance and refill number) of reuse containers to aid collection and reuse across Europe, based on industry specifications in some countries where bottles are used by a pool of fillers, or existing standards (such as the Austrian AF-standard bottle for soft drinks, see annex),
• encouraging Member States to grant tax incentives for prolonged use/reuse, and to introduce taxes for single-use/ one-way systems.
3 | RECYCLING WITH PRECAUTION
Recycling must be promoted only when contamination with problematic chemicals can be excluded.
Increased recycling rates are possible only if homogenous and clean waste streams can be ensured. It follows the plethora of packaging material and their chemical composition must be cut severely. Hence, the material composition of packaging applications must be specified and conforming packages labelled as fit for recycling. Such materials should be separately collected (e.g. PET bottles or PE/PP containers).
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy
28 Jul 2020
The EU urgently requires a new framework to work towards reduced emissions (zero emissions) and support the development of infrastructure for smart mobility on European roads. Automated and electric mobility presents a diverse range of new opportunities for consumers. These systems will have significant impacts on personal mobility services, not only for vulnerable citizens or older people but for all consumers. Smart vehicles play a vital role in this context.
ANEC welcomes the Commission’s comprehensive strategy to reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050.
Added to this, it is also important to consider the location of emissions. In densely populated areas it is very favourable to decrease or even eliminate local emissions (pollutions, noise etc.) from traffic. Many people would benefit from this. There are different ways to achieve this goal, e.g. only allowing electric cars, more public transportation, shared mobility (scooter/bikes) but also the delivery of goods with electric trucks or even bikes (within the city centre).
Providing EU citizen/consumers with more sustainable, more affordable, and accessible alternatives is key. ANEC notes that the roadmap is comprehensive, and it covers the needs and progress towards sustainable mobility. We further highlight the importance of access to information. Currently, most people do not know which type of transport is best in terms of emitting fewer emissions, but they also are not sure in terms of price and time needed/taken. Even if a consumer wants to choose the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation, it is not clear what is best and though air transport may be the worst, it is often unavoidable.
There is no vendor-independent information, website, or app where a journey can be planned, providing information regarding emissions, time and costs. Maybe when driving a car with 5 people, it is actually better than taking the train if the user needs to take the bus/taxi to and from the station. Every situation is different. Digitization could play a vital role in solving this issue.
It is also necessary to develop an EU wide railway infrastructure, especially in CESEE countries where it is far from being competitive to road transportation. We believe it is included under “alternatives” but with special mention, we could also shift the mobility talk from roads to railways. Transportation needs (from daily to occasional) can be better met by combining different possibilities through efficient multimodal points infrastructure.
Furthermore, the roadmap covers the whole transportation sector, but many examples are only related to the transportation of people – the transport of goods need to be taken into consideration. How much greenhouse gas is emitted from the transportation of goods in comparison to the transportation of people? The answer could provide direction to achieve the best results in decreasing emissions in a short period of time.
Overall, ANEC supports setting an EU wide coordinated approach to this transition. In some of the Member States steps towards the implementation of smarter and partly automated technology has already reached an advanced stage. It is therefore of crucial importance that issues that stem for the use of such technology are understood (such as technical uncertainties, safety, data protection issues, standardisation, and minimum requirements on environmental performance). Doing this at the EU level as outlined in the roadmap will be more effective than consideration solely at national levels.
Read full responseResponse to A New Consumer Agenda
23 Jul 2020
ANEC wants a new vision for the role of consumers & consumer policy in Europe that integrates consumer interests in all relevant policies. This is crucial as our activities span important areas unusual for consumer policy. Beyond general product safety, standards are used as a tool for consumer protection in legislation on specific product safety, accessibility, the environment, services & ICT . Despite the negative impact and consequences of the COVID 19 crisis, standards have proven to be essential to protect society and the economy in emergency situations and in the new normal ahead. An inclusive standardisation system, with strong consumer participation, is a guarantee standards can play such a key role.
The GPSD needs revision to reflect the impact of new technologies on product safety . The concept of safety must be enlarged to cover security threats from IoT & AI. Revisions of product directives must respect consumer interests also .
The Consumer Agenda should support adoption of a horizontal law introducing basic mandatory cybersecurity requirements for connected and AI products. We also ask for creation of a legislative framework at European level on the safety of services, underpinned by specific standards.
During the pandemic, thousands of non-compliant protective masks entered the market, a clear example of laws & standards being of little value if not enforced. There needs to be more joined-up coordination among national authorities, aided by the EU level (e.g. joint market surveillance actions) as well as international cooperation.
Actions to build trust of consumers in the privacy & security of their personal data in the digital environment are urgent.
The assumption that informed consumers will make the best choices for themselves is challenged by digital technologies. In a time of information asymmetry, this does not always hold. Consumer protection principles should be introduced in the design of products & services, with standards a tool to embed such principles in technologies (“consumer protection based on sustainability principles by default and by design”).
Knowledge about product characteristics is a prerequisite for consumers to be actors in the green transition. But such knowledge can be achieved only if information is coherent, reliable, understandable & transparent. Today legal framework does not protect consumers enough from hazardous chemicals, we call for introduction of a European horizontal legislative framework for chemicals in consumer products .
Ecodesign should be extended to the broadest range of products, with measures for waste prevention. Enforcement & extension of environmental standards & labelling schemes that have been successful (e.g. Ecodesign & Ecolabel) should be a priority, if levels of welfare are to be increased. The recovery should use a Circular Economy model that cuts use of resources & reduces impacts on the environment & human health.
We believe empowerment of individual consumers needs to be complemented by empowerment of the authorities & associations entrusted with consumer protection. It must not avoid or replace the protection of all consumers, vulnerable or not . Reflection is needed on new elements that put consumers in a vulnerable situation, with rules and policies to tackle vulnerabilities by default. The needs of the often-discriminated consumer groups like children, persons with disabilities and older persons must be adequately addressed.
Using knowledge built during their activities, national consumer organisations can directly contribute to consumer policy, without the intermediation of consultants. For this knowledge to be used at European level, a new structure is needed, reflecting the cross-sectoral nature of consumer affairsand to learn from the national situations. National consumer organisations play a vital role in independently representing the collective consumer voice. More resources for capacity building (participation in national standards).
Read full responseResponse to Modernising the EU’s batteries legislation
9 Jul 2020
Batteries are becoming a priority topic for consumers. With the ever-reducing price of Lithium-ion batteries and technologies, we have the reality that batteries (integrated with solar/wind) could viably be powering the entire home as well as the car, the bicycle etc. The EU urgently requires a new framework to work towards reduced emissions (zero emissions) and support the development of infrastructure for electric vehicles on European roads. Batteries can allow our road transport systems to be emissions-free. Therefore, ANEC welcomes the upcoming Commission proposal for a regulation on this technology. The life cycle of batteries for e-vehicles and e-mobility overall should be considered in regard to the transition to a circular economy.
ANEC strongly agrees with the Commission that considering and investing in the supply chain of these products is crucial to ensure the sustainability of this technology.
ANEC supports setting sustainability requirements for all batteries placed on the EU market.
We present some key points to develop within this work:
- It’s particularly important to ensure the modular design of bigger capacity batteries (i.e. car batteries), so it would be possible to exchange only faulty module(s) and not the whole battery. A clear definition of how to have a modular construction of batteries in order to facilitate second life use, repair and recycling of electric vehicle batteries is crucial. Proper recycling of batteries should be ensured and thus receive/provide rare materials for new batteries or other products.
- We can support a transition to rechargeable batteries only, but with a clear focus on the real cost for consumers. Today rechargeable batteries are ten times more expensive than one-way batteries which means they are cost-wise rational to use only in energy-demanding devices. However, there are a lot of use cases where we need only a fraction of energy (i.e. remote controls) and where rechargeable batteries would be much too expensive (currently).
- It would be useful if we return to standardized battery sizes at least to some extent. Toys, small electronic devices and similar, increasingly often come with non-standardized batteries which limit users who want to exchange them at low cost.
- Performance and durability requirements are needed by developing measurement methods for different battery parameters (e.g. capacity, power fade, energy round trip efficiency – investigate metrics)
- The characterization of capacity fade/retention and round-trip efficiency can be seen possibly as a general requirement for the lifetime of a traction battery
- State of health (SOH) of the battery is an essential parameter for the proper functioning of large battery packs
We also note the importance of the safety of batteries used in vehicles. Furthermore, with the growing number of fires caused by batteries, their use, maintenance, and disposal, we believe these aspects should be considered. Many fires are caused by lithium-ion batteries, which as mentioned are used not only in electric bicycles (electric bicycles, electric scooters and other personal mobility devices (PMDs)) but also toys, smartphones and tablets.
Read full responseResponse to Chemicals strategy for sustainability
17 Jun 2020
A LONG OVERDUE INITIATIVE:
ANEC is dismayed the European Commission (EC) has not delivered the European strategy for a non-toxic environment which was foreseen in the 7th Environmental Action Programme by 2018. Not only has the strategy not been delivered, but we are still not aware of tangible preparatory work. Given this, we are disappointed, but not surprised, the roadmap contains mostly broad phrases with little detail.
ANEC has long followed the European legal framework for chemicals in products, finding it wanting in ensuring an appropriate level of safety to consumers or the environment. We therefore wholly disagree with the view that "a comprehensive regulatory framework for chemicals in the EU is already in place". The roadmap recognises the evaluation initiatives which the strategy will build upon identified a number of gaps and weaknesses that the EU chemicals policy needs to tackle to fulfil its objectives. However, a sound assessment of the regulatory shortcomings in the field of products has not yet taken place. For instance, the Fitness Check of the most relevant chemicals legislation (excluding REACH) did not look at the product areas not sufficiently covered by existing legislation. Whilst the roadmap indicates the strategy will aim to enable the regulatory framework to reflect scientific evidence on risks posed by hazardous chemicals in products (including imports), it is not apparent this means the development of a dedicated, consistent approach to address chemicals in products beyond REACH. This is a crucial aspect.
The roadmap mentions the expression “one substance, one assessment” with a view to “simplify and strengthening the legal framework”. It may be useful to collect data for substances, but this would not be a practical approach for all applications in products and would ignore product specificities. Hence, the outlined approach runs counter to our vision of a meaningful product policy as indicated below. It appears strange to assess one chemical by looking at hundreds or thousands of different applications – from construction products to tattoo inks. We think it better to group chemicals according to their use and exposure pattern (e.g. to address all products releasing VOCs to the indoor air and so forth).
Also, the production of pharmaceuticals should not be under the scope of this strategy as there is already an EU Strategic Approach to Pharmaceuticals in the Environment.
PROBLEMS THE INITIATIVE SHOULD TACKLE:
We believe the lack of a consistent approach at EU-level to chemicals in consumer products has led to flaws in current legislation (e.g. Toy Safety Directive, REACH, GPSD). For instance, REACH cannot serve this purpose due to inherent limitations of the legislation (long procedures; no possibility to adapt the legislation rapidly; a substance-by-substance approach; no positive lists of permitted substances; the disregard of product-specific technological needs). It should also be noted REACH cannot address issues not directly associated with toxicity (e.g. limiting release of chemicals through requirements on colour fastness, or preventing the washing-out of flame retardants).
THE SOLUTION: ADDRESS PRODUCT SPECIFIC ASPECTS IN CHEMICAL RULEMAKING
A new European horizontal legal approach for chemicals in products is needed to ensure consumers consume only products that are safe. We have put forward what we think to be priority areas, with proposed solutions, in our paper, “Hazardous chemicals in products - The need for enhanced EU regulations” (bit.ly/2XuQA4H).
This strategy has a vital role to play in the circular economy policy and interface between chemicals, products and waste legislation. We believe that if the strategy does not tackle at its core the minimisation of exposure to hazardous chemicals in consumer articles, there will be a major loophole which will jeopardise the success of most other measures on sustainable products planned in the Circular Economy Action Plan.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive
4 May 2020
ANEC, the European consumer voice in standardisation, welcomes the opportunity to express its views on the European Commission Evaluation Roadmap/Impact Assessment published April. The EU urgently requires a new framework to work towards reduced emissions (zero emissions) and support the development of infrastructure for electric vehicles on European roads.
First and foremost, ANEC supports the European Commission's initiative to review the fulfilment of the objectives of Directive 2014/94/EU. This outcome of these objectives will allow for e-mobility to be for Europe a means greater mobility at a reduced cost, reduced air pollution and climate change mitigation for all. The topic of consumers and access to charging facilities is crucial and deployment across EU MS needs to be planned and harmonised to no one is left behind.
We understand that the COM is now looking at accessibility of recharging/refueling points from a data/digital perspective only (i.e. digital information on the location, real-time availability and pricing of refueling/recharging stations to be used in travel information services) in the ITS Directive and that it is not related to the position and design of the stations themselves. We would like to have this considered while carrying out the revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive and also in the recommendations for procuring, awarding concessions and granting aid for Alternative Fuels infrastructure.
Read full responseResponse to A new Circular Economy Action Plan
17 Jan 2020
1. The focus needs to be moved from the end-of-life phase to the reduction of environmental impacts
• The title “Circular economy – new action plan to increase recycling and reuse of products in the EU” misleads: the focus should be moved from recycling to waste prevention by tackling short-lived products. Reuse is not much further detailed in the roadmap.
The title and scope of the planned communication should instead reflect some actions the roadmap foresees, and the will expressed in front of the EU Parliament by Environment Commissioner Sinkevičius “for a paradigm shift during his mandate” compared to earlier Circular Economy action plans, “moving from recycling to preventing and minimising waste in the first place”.
• If the new Circular Economy Action Plan is to guide the EU towards a long-term vision for its green policies and contribute to achieving the UN SDGs, it needs to point to the reduction of environmental impacts. Hence, we await a bold sustainable product policy and meaningful actions on high-impact sectors.
2. Chemical safety of products needs to be enhanced to avoid hazardous chemicals stay in the material cycles
• Another reason to urgently move away from the end-phase of product lifecycles is the importance of tackling first the chemical safety of products in the market, by filling gaps in existing European regulatory provisions for chemicals in (consumer) products.
• The push towards increased recycling and use of recycled materials in products, before putting in place the EU strategy for a non-toxic environment, overlooks the alarming risk of creating toxic cycles.
• The issue is partly touched upon in the Roadmap problem description (A) but is not explicit in the initiative’s aim (B) when speaking of fostering an internal market for secondary raw materials.
3. Empowering consumers goes beyond (environmental footprint) information
• The effectiveness of consumer information in changing consumption patterns should not be overrated, nor must information overburden the consumer with the responsibility of identifying sustainable choices. To empower consumers, it is crucial long-established environmental product policies (such as Ecodesign, Energy labelling and Ecolabel) are fostered to enable choice editing and help eliminate the most unsustainable products from the market.
• The extension of scope to other non-energy related products could be joined by campaigns promoting the Ecolabel as a label of environmental excellence which could additionally serve as benchmark.
• The intention of addressing misleading green claims is laudable, as well as recognising that consumers need reliable, comparable and verifiable information (as the energy label and Ecolabel can provide).
• It must be highlighted that consumer information based on a choice of LCA indicators cannot serve this purpose. This is due to the poor precision of the method which does not allow consumers to have a clear indication of a superior product.
• As regards methods to assess reliability of environmental declarations, no single method is able to suitably characterise the environmental performance of activities. Different methods have strengths and weaknesses which must be analysed and, combined in a meaningful and cost-efficient manner. Methods based on LCA have limitations (including lack of comparability) that need to be considered. For instance, LCA is not a suitable instrument to address several environmental aspects (e.g. when impacts are dependent on space, time and background levels).
See also our Position Papers:
‘Keeping hazards in the circle?’ Interface between chemicals, products & waste legislation https://bit.ly/35XDvlb
Future product policy framework to facilitate a transition to a circular economy https://bit.ly/2TB9c1d
'Environmental Assessment goes astray: A critique of environmental footprint methodology & its ingredients' https://bit.ly/3alEFu7 and reply to EC consultation https://bit.ly/2
Read full responseResponse to Smartwatches and connected toys
1 Mar 2019
In December 2016, ANEC participated in campaign to alert consumers and public authorities about the risks posed by connected products and toys in particular, to consumers. The campaign #toyfail was organised by the Norwegian Consumer Council with the support of BEUC and several national consumer associations.
It was based on the results of tests done on some connected toys (eg: Cayla doll) . Internet-connected toys engage in ‘conversations’ with children by using built-in microphones and speech recognition technologies. The test results found spoken data, collected during the use of the toys, may be shared with third-parties. It is also possible to use a mobile phone to speak to a child through the toys, using a Bluetooth connection, with the link maintained up to 20 metres away, so potentially putting the child at risk.
ANEC presented the test results at the EC TCAM Committee calling Member States to support the adoption of European Commission delegated acts to cover issues related to the safety of radio equipment to ensure that the personal data and privacy of the user and of the subscriber are protected and actions against fraud, according to article 3.3 of Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU.
In October 2017 ANEC participated in another campaign to alert consumers and public authorities about the risks posed by connected watches, to consumers and children in particular. The campaign #WatchOut was organized by the Norwegian Consumer Council with the support of BEUC and several national consumer associations .
It was based on the results of tests done on some connected watches (Gator 2, Tinitell, Viksfjord and Xplora). These smartwatches for children are wearable mobile phones that allow parents to use an app on their smartphones to keep in touch with and track the location of their children. The tests showed that two devices had flaws that could allow a potential attacker to take control of the apps, thus gaining access to children’s real-time and historical location, and personal details, as well as even enabling them to contact the children directly, all without the parents’ knowledge.
Needless to say, these security flaws have serious implications for the privacy, and – potentially - for the safety and well-being of the users. Taking into account that the target users of this type of watch are young children, this is particularly alarming.
ANEC presented the test results at the EC TCAM Committee calling Member States to support the adoption of European Commission delegated acts to cover issues related to the safety of radio equipment to ensure that the personal data and privacy of the user and of the subscriber are protected and action against fraud, according to article 3.3 of Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU.
We therefore welcome this initiative and support Option 4 (adoption of a delegated act pursuant both Articles 3(3)(e) and (f) of Directive 2014/53/EU. We also think that Article 3(3)(d) should be taken into account. We also support the adoption of another delegated act according to Article 3(3)(i) and Article 4.
The new mandatory essential requirements will be implemented by Harmonised Standard, to which elaboration ANEC will participate.
As indicated by the Commission, it is essential to have a legal basis which allows for uncompliant products to be taken off the market if not respecting the essential requirements for accessing the market, in order to deliver safety, personal data protection and security for consumers.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Machinery Directive
11 Feb 2019
ANEC welcomes the European Commission’s inception impact assessment on the revision of the Machinery Directive.
The Machinery Directive has generally worked well in providing a sufficient level of safety for consumers in the EU, as well as aiding the free movement of machinery products. Consumers benefit from the greater choice of products, and from competition. However, some limitations can still be observed. We therefore agree the Machinery Directive needs updating to improve safety levels further and take account of the latest IT innovations.
For the reasons mentioned above, ANEC does not support Option 0 - baseline scenario (no change).
ANEC supports the alignment of the Machinery Directive with the New Legal Framework (NLF) as foreseen in option 2, to explicitly address aspects relating to emerging digital technologies, e.g. AI, cybersecurity, IoT. Most connected products presently available in the Single Market are designed and manufactured without even the most basic security features embedded in their software. In order for consumers to trust the Internet of Things, consumers must be assured that the connected products they purchase, or services they use, are secure and protected from software and hardware vulnerabilities. For this to happen security by design and by default must become a priority. To this end, the Machinery Directive (and other legislation) must be revised to ensure that connected products are both safe and secure before being able to be placed on the Single Market. Revisions to cover AI and other self learning systems, robots and cobots are very important and essential, particularly the question of how such machines are verified as being ‘safe’ and remain safe. Option 2 is surely the only possible option that will take proper account of digitisation.
ANEC does not support option 3 as it perpetuates lack of coherence with other NLF measures.
Finally, ANEC fully supports option 4 (together with option 2) to convert the Directive into a Regulation. A Regulation imposes rules and requirements that are applicable at the same time throughout the Union, and which do not give room for divergent interpretation or transposition by Member States. It would therefore ensure the same level of safety, create legal certainty, allow for a more-coherent enforcement and also contribute to a level playing field between economic operators.
In conclusion, ANEC is of the opinion that the Machinery Directive has generally worked well in providing a sufficient level of safety for consumers in the EU, as well as aiding the free movement of machinery products. We support turning the Directive into a Regulation and to align it with the New Legislative Framework, duly adressing aspects relating to emerging digital technologies, e.g. AI, cybersecurity, IoT.
Read full responseResponse to Amendment of the Toy Safety Directive to introduce limit values for formaldehyde
1 Feb 2019
ANEC, the European Consumer Voice in Standardisation, fully supports the Draft Act for setting limit values for formaldehyde in toys.
Read full responseResponse to Amendment of the Toy Safety Directive to adapt the migration limits for aluminium
1 Feb 2019
ANEC, the European Consumer Voice in Standardisation, fully supports the Draft Act for setting limit values for aluminium in toys.
Read full responseResponse to Common chargers for mobile phones and similar devices
31 Jan 2019
For many years, ANEC – the European consumer voice in standardisation – and other consumer organisations have been calling on manufacturers to provide a common external power supply for mobile phones and other devices. The present plethora of chargers – both within brands and among brands - represents unnecessary costs to the consumer in their direct (or implied) purchase, and to the environment in the extraction of the raw materials for their construction and in their disposal.
We therefore support the regulatory option aiming at making common charging solutions mandatory, whether under pursuant Article 3(3)(a)of the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU or a different legal basis. We think the scope of the legislation should be charging solutions for mobile phones and other devices such as tablets, digital cameras, notebooks etc.
We think that choice between different technical scenarios will depend on the timing of the regulatory action. Bearing in mind that legislation (delegated regulation or directive) takes time to be discussed and adopted, we think that scenario 2 (Plug charger with detachable cable and USB Type C socket on plug charger) is the most appropriate. This would allow the possibility to handle higher current which is necessary for fast charging. USB Type C is also easier to use for people with dexterity impairments and in general reduces the risk of mishandling and thus damages. However, we do not support the use of adaptors or proprietary sockets, because they are a barrier and cost for consumers.
As indicated by the Commission, wireless charging systems should also be considered as already now many smartphones are using the Qi standard for charging. It is therefore important to avoid any fragmentation in this area as well.
Should the regulatory action be rapid, we think that scenario 1 should be taken into account as it reflects the present market offer.
The legislation to be adopted should foresee for strong market surveillance to be carried out in order to take out from the market dangerous products. This would be possible with New Approach/New Legislative Framework based legislation. It should not be forgotten that at the moment many unsafe chargers are available on the market.
The legislation to be adopted should also foresee for consumers to be able to chose to buy or not a new charger when buying a new device and to be informed about the charging performance/speed in order to be able to make such a choice.
The charging speed is a key factor and fragmentation is already happening as several open and proprietary solutions are present on the market (eg: Quickcharge 2 Quickcharge 3 or Power Delivery for smartphones). The legislation to be adopted should addressed this point as well and ensure that consumers are informed about it. Lack of interoperability and lack of information result in consumer detriment.
We do not support (and we never did) the voluntary approach because we do not think that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concluded in 2009 between the Commission and most mobile phones manufacturers through which they committed voluntarily to use one type of charger (Micro-USB connector technology) was a success. As compliance was also possible through an adaptor, consumers were facing extra costs. Consumers did not gain economically from this situation and the MoU objectives were only partially met as the problem of unsafe chargers on the market had not been addressed. Indeed, RAPEX notifications show a high number of universal chargers (especially cheap ones) to be unsafe.
Since then we have been calling the Commission to take action and make common chargers mandatory for mobile phones and other devices. Only legislation can deliver safety, economic and environmental benefits in the interest of consumers and the environment.
Read full responseResponse to Detailed rules on unmanned aircrafts
5 Nov 2018
Following a number of injuries to people on the ground, including children, from drones, ANEC welcomes the initiative from the European Commission to develop an aviation regulatory framework, as well as a standardisation request, ensuring the safe use of all kinds of drones.
General remark:
The two legislative drafts and their annexes are long and technical. A four weeks consultation was very short for our voluntary experts to study all the documents in detail.
Preliminary views:
- Standards
The draft implementing regulation talks at several points about “standards” in a rather inconsistent way: for registration of drones, there is an ANSI standard cited; for noise purposes, there is an EN-ISO cited. At other points in the documents, there is mention of drone design being in accordance with “recognised standards”. Recognised by whom? Standards from where? Similarly, there is mention of “industry” standards but maybe the ANSI one is meant, and there is another reference to “acceptable” standards. Some definitions seem lacking.
- ‘By design’ requirements
The General Data Protection Regulation has the extremely useful requirement of ‘Data Protection by Design’, which allows for a huge range of product (i.e. goods and services) innovation and applications that may not be anticipated explicitly at this time.
We would therefore welcome if the drones regulation could include:
(1) a requirement to be ‘safe by design’ (similar to the General Product Safety Directive, which requires products to be safe, but does not express this as a design requirement). The ‘by design’ words then enable very useful design process standards to be developed to cope with a wide variation in types and applications and such standards are in themselves inherently risk-based process and methodology as the regulation is calling for.
(2) a requirement to protect individuals’ privacy by design where used for
a) organisational purposes; and/or
b) personal and household purposes. Although excluded from the GDPR, drones used by consumers in their private lives do present a C2C privacy risk (spying in neighbours’ gardens for example)
Those are in our opinion the main factors where ‘by design’ requirements would really help protect consumers and the public in the case of drones.
Previous points:
In addition to the points mentioned above, we would also like to re-iterate our views expressed during previous consultations on how to protect consumers. See the attached file.
Read full responseResponse to Multiannual Financial Framework: Internal Market, Competitiveness of SMEs and European Statistics Programme
20 Jul 2018
Please see the file attached.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation and potential revision of the EU tyre labelling scheme
19 Jul 2018
European consumer organisations, ANEC and BEUC, strongly support the proposal for a revision of the regulation on the labelling of tyres (TLR). Overall, we very much welcome the many proposals that have been made to align with the EU Energy label. Specifically, we agree that:
- The tyre label needs a rescale to be applied by 2020. It is urgent to rescale the parameters currently displayed on the label to consider both technological developments and the fact that the General Safety Regulation (GSR) minimum requirements now leaves the bottom classes empty. Not acting on the latter would be misleading for consumers.
- Consumer awareness about the label must be raised. We agree with the European Commission’s proposal that the full label should be displayed in any kind of selling, including in visual advertisements, technical promotional material, and on the internet.
- Information on the snow and ice performance of tyres must be included on the label, as a good grip on snowy/icy road is one of the most important characteristics for consumers who live in cold climates where snow and ice are occurring frequently. However, pictograms must be 1) self-explanatory and 2) tested upfront among consumers, which is in our view not the case in the current proposal.
- Information on sustainability and life-expectancy of tyres should be provided. We welcome the inclusion of mileage and abrasion as a parameter in the proposal. A well-balanced long-life tyre offers not only safety and cost-savings to consumers, but it helps save energy and raw materials.
>> For the two last point above, we strongly encourage the European Commission (EC) to directly require information on ice, mileage and abrasion to be displayed on the label - instead of waiting for the test standards to be finalised. In parallel, the EC should urgently send a standardisation request to the European Standardisation Organisations to develop the missing test standards. However, we note that tyres, which are one of the core safety components in motor vehicles, have complex characteristics. Improving one aspect can deteriorate the performance in other areas. Safety should always be the priority when adding new parameters.
- A clear understanding of the label should be ensured. In this view, we welcome the new clause under article 12 to test the design and content of the label among consumers (in line with the Energy label process). We encourage the EC to not only test individual pictograms but also to test the label as a whole to avoid e.g. overload of information. Key information related to safety such as wet grip must stand out and receive equal weight in terms of space than fuel efficiency.
- The type approval process should include the tyre label declaration. We believe such procedure constitutes an additional guarantee of the correctness of the label.
- Enforcement must be enhanced, and the database established under Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 can help. The centralisation of data in the Energy label database can be useful for market surveillance purposes, to provide the public with information on tyre labelling and to monitor and evaluate when the rescaling.
- New information requirements for consumers. We welcome the proposal to mandatorily provide information to consumers in the technical documentation, the product information sheets and in the technical promotional material.
- An assessment of the proposed regulation must take place in the coming years to evaluate its effectiveness. However, the EC should carry out the assessment earlier than 2026. Also, a clear revision date should be determined.
Read full responseResponse to General Safety of Vehicles and Pedestrians
17 Jul 2018
ANEC strongly supports the European Commission’s proposal COM(2018) 286 final.
Technical progress in the area of advanced vehicle safety systems offers new possibilities for reducing casualty numbers and in order to minimise the number of fatalities, some of the relevant new technologies need to be mandatory on all new vehicles, not only as currently on premium or luxury vehicle models. However, it is also paramount that the vehicles remain road-worthy (noting the significant 2nd and 3rd hand market for vehicles).
In particular:
-We support active safety measures to avoid accidents, but those should complement passive safety and not substitute or deteriorate passive safety measures, both need to be improved in parallel.
-We very much support Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), which is one of the most effective new vehicle safety technology currently available to reduce deaths and serious injuries by preventing crashes. Speeding remains still a very important factor for accidents and an Assisting overridable ISA on all vehicles would help reducing fatal crashes by 19-28% and serious crashes by 14-17%.
-We support the installation of Event Data Recorders on all motor-vehicles, trucks and buses to be included.
-We support also advanced emergency breaking, lane-keeping systems, driver drowsiness and attention monitoring and distraction detection and reversing detection systems (with camera and monitor) which have a high potential to reduce casualty numbers considerably. However, it is important that the systems are effective and do not fail, e.g. if the camera fails due to frigid temperature or dirt, an alert on the dashboard screen should warn the driver of the failure.
-Today’s trucks are very ill-designed for urban use. They have poor direct vision and therefore huge and deadly blind spots environments (they are responsible for 15 % of road fatalities). A European direct vision standard that would make safer designs compulsory, at least for trucks most commonly used in urban areas, and ambitious direct vision requirements for other types should be introduced from the early 2020s as technology is already available.
-Bearing in mind that the new vehicles will be traded widely in the internal market, where they could be used for up to 20 years it needs to be assured that the functionality of the systems does not deteriorate. The functionality of advanced driver assistance and future automated driving systems need to be assured over the entire life cycle. A provision should be included in the package to make it mandatory for the manufacturers to make software updates available throughout the life cycle of the vehicle to securely download the required software and to ensure that the component that is operated by this software is fully functional.
-Additionally, with the increasing digital automation, risks of remote manipulation (cyber-attacks, or compatibility conflicts etc) have to be avoided. In view of these new complexities and requirements for road safety, type approval procedures for the independent evaluation of these vehicle systems must be adapted and take effect in the development process of the vehicle model the entire end-to-end life-cycle processes for the vehicle and its electronics systems. Additionally, effective measures should also be taken to prevent tampering and market surveillance should be enhanced to detect free riders.
Whereas we welcome the Commission’s proposal we are disappointed that it does not address the issue of child deaths in cars due to hyperthermia (majority of those children were forgotten in cars according to US data). In Europe, no national or European data sources track heat related incidents to children in motor vehicles, but it does not mean it does not happen in Europe. New systems provide drivers with a warning on their monitor not to forget the mobile phone or wallet. We would like to see this alert extended for the most vulnerable car occupant.
Read full response15 Jun 2018
we submit the attached comments.
Read full responseResponse to Commission implementing decision on establishing a model accessibility statement under the WAD
15 Jun 2018
We submit the attached comments.
Read full responseResponse to Proposal for a Regulation on Enforcement and Compliance in the Single Market for Goods (Goods package)
19 Mar 2018
The EC Communication on the Goods Package confirms there are still too many unsafe and illicit products on the market, despite Regulation 765/2008/EC, and the Single Market having celebrated its 25th anniversary. Indeed, testing by consumer organisations confirms many consumer products – both with and without CE-marking – are unsafe.
Although the EC proposal is a step in the right direction, we fear it represents only a ‘quick fix’ that fails to address the fundamental problems of market surveillance: lack of financial & human resources, and commitment of Member States to make these resources available.
We particularly welcome the proposals,
- to designate Union laboratories for testing and risk assessment;
- to oblige a legal representative in the EU;
- to give clear rights to surveillance authorities to carry out mystery shopping;
- to add transparency on CE marking and the activities of surveillance authorities;
- to provide EC resource to assist Member States.
Unfortunately,
- The focus of the proposal is more on the provision of information by market surveillance authorities to economic operators on their own legal obligations (e.g.: compliance partnership arrangements), rather than on the surveillance authorities and their activities;
- exclusion of non-harmonized products means the many consumer products falling under the General Product Safety Directive are not addressed;
- lessons from ‘Dieselgate’ are ignored e.g. no firm percentage of checks per Member State and product category is foreseen, when more products need to be tested in laboratories and under real-use conditions;
- the financing of market surveillance is ignored. A fee structure for inspections should be established to equip authorities with certain revenues to support their inspection work. The proposal also fails to include an innovation from regulating the car sector that a right to the EC to fine non-compliant manufacturers on top of the fines from Member States should national measures not be meaningful;
- the fragmentation of market surveillance, both between and within Member States, is overlooked when Regulation 765/2008/EC has not led to more effective national structures or collaboration between Member States;
- the EC wants to leave the monitoring of accident and injury data to Member States, when a pan-European accident & injury database is needed to ensure consistency of data across Member States. This would be a key tool for enforcement, development of new safety legislation, the improvement of technical standards and prevention of further injuries;
- clear rules on product traceability are missing (such as an obligation to add a batch-type or serial number, and full name and address of manufacturer and importer). This will undermine the effectiveness of requiring a legal representative in the EU as it may be impossible to link a dangerous product to that person in EU territory. Therefore, surveillance authorities will neither be quicker nor more effective in keeping dangerous products off the shelves and away from online stores;
- the proposal fails to respond to the new challenges of connected products;
- despite the aim to establish better strategies and rights for surveillance authorities to carry out checks on online sales, it will be meaningless without a clarification of the legal obligations of platforms and other intermediaries;
- partnership agreements between authorities and economic operators could confuse the impartiality and independence of surveillance authorities, especially if fees are payable under such agreements;
- it is not clear whether the compliance network will allow all stakeholders – including consumer groups – to help prioritise and select common, simultaneous surveillance activities;
- there is no link between surveillance initiatives and other legislation to protect the rights of consumers e.g. effective procedures for consumer redress in all Member States have yet to be put in place.
Read full responseResponse to Review of ENISA Regulation and laying down a EU ICT security certification and labelling
28 Jul 2017
ANEC supports the preliminary policy option 3 ‘Propose an ICT security legislation based on the 2008 New Legislative Framework (‘New Approach legislation’) as a coherent regulatory framework across the EU with clear requirements would ensure that products and services are designed with cybersecurity in mind before being put on the market, meeting consumers expectations.
However we need to stress that the outcome of any certification system based upon compliance with a standard is only as good as the standard it is based on. A standard with weak or poor requirements will result in a certification process (with or without label) that does not provide a high level of consumer protection. This of course is further justification for consumer participation being deemed essential in ensuring that standards and conformance systems ensure a high level of consumer protection. Certification marks and labels are intended to be a source of information for consumers and must be reliable.
The proposed legislation should address issues such as ‘cyber diligence check’ for connected products taking into account the different parties involved in the putting on the market and use of products. We think that the proposed legislation (and standards) should follow the principle of security & privacy by design centered on consumer needs. Security by design emphasizes technical design embedding consumer protection and control rather than human dependent risk mitigation actions. For example, security updates have to be made regularly. However recent cyberattacks show that consumers are sometimes not very reactive for reasons such as the complexity of the update process. Simplified user controls by design could be helpful.
And in order to effectively protect children, security by design should be by default. By default, the settings of any connected product must be set to the highest level of privacy & security protection from the outset, preventing attacks and intrusions.
It will be also important to assess the links between lack of security and product safety. Existing product safety legislation and standards cover the safety of individual devices but may not be fit to properly protect consumers from the security risks of connected devices. To ensure the safety of the system as a whole additional provisions and standards will need to be adopted when the device is controlled and operated as part of a connected system.
In the European regulatory framework (NLF), non-compliance tends to be addressed through public market surveillance which is a post-market measure. Moreover, as market surveillance is a responsibility of Member States under subsidiarity, it is defined and enforced differently in different Member States. Although the legislation requires Member States to commit adequate resources to market surveillance, ANEC believes that only harmonised market surveillance across Europe will be effective.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Drinking Water Directive
21 Mar 2017
Whilst ANEC welcomes that materials in contact with drinking water have been recognised as one of the key issues to be tackled in the revision, we strongly disagree with the problem definition that “different national approval systems for such products and materials, which are not mutually recognised” and “too much legal flexibility” lead to “multiple testing” and, as a consequence, create an “unnecessary burden” for industry.
The main problem is the lack of consumer protection resulting from only few countries having comprehensive approval systems in place (and many Member States having virtually nothing).
The current legal provision lacking any substance is simply inadequate as it does not lead to a high level of safety for consumers in all EU contries. Apart from that the lack of European rules not only leads to cost burdens for industry, but also for those Member States who want to protect their citizens and cannot build on European rules. These problems cannot be solved by “proposing EU harmonized standards for materials and products in contact with drinking water” (if “harmonised standards” means standards prepared by the European standards bodies upon request by the Commission).
We need a regulatory approach either in form of implementing measures adopted by the Commission (provided for in the DWD) or a separate legal framework for materials in contact with drinking water. They may be complemented by European test standards prepared by CEN.
Finally, mutual recognition of approved materials in Member States is definitely not a way forward given the absence of such rules in many Member States.
Read full responseResponse to Commission Implementing Regulation -information provided for in Article 10 (10) of the RED 2014/53/EU
6 Feb 2017
ANEC welcomes the draft commission implementing regulation about informing consumers of restrictions on putting into service or of requirements for authorisation of use of radio equipment.
However we propose that information is provided not only in writing on the packaging and in the instructions accompanying the radio equipment but also in alternative formats in order for consumers with disabilities, people with visual impairments in particular, to be able to get this important information for safe use.This is in line with recital 15) of the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU.
We also think that a special reference to on-line sales should be made, bearing in mind the increasing volumes of electronic commerce. . This is in line with recital 9) of the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU.
We therefore believe that our suggestions do not go beyond the scope, aim and spirit of the Directive and contribute to the aim of the implementing act, which is uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts, according to article 291 TFEU.
We suggest that new paragraphs are added in article 2:
“3. The package information and instructions leaflet must be written and designed to be clear and understandable, enabling the users to act appropriately. The type size should be as large as possible to aid the readers. A type size of 12 points, as measured in font ‘Times New Roman’, not narrowed, with a space between lines of at least 3 mm, should be considered as a minimum. As a general rule dark text should be printed on a light background.
4. Paragraphs 1-3 apply in the case of any means of distance selling, including the Internet. The information about restrictions for use shall be displayed in a visible and legible manner. The information should be available also in electronic accessible format on the economic operators’ websites or apps.
5. Member States should conduct information campaigns to make consumers aware of the information on restrictions of use”.
In addition to the proposed Implementing Regulation, we are of the opinion that the Commission should invite Member States to conduct information campaigns to make consumers aware of the new information on restrictions of use. This could be done as part of the regular Commission-Member States dialogue on market surveillance (implementation Regulation (EC) No 765/2008).
Read full responseMeeting with Sarah Nelen (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)
26 Jun 2015 · circular economy
Meeting with Rolf Carsten Bermig (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
26 Jun 2015 · EU Energy Label
Meeting with Aurore Maillet (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
26 Jun 2015 · Energy Labeling
Meeting with Rolf Carsten Bermig (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
26 Jun 2015 · Circular Economy
Meeting with Heidi Jern (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
26 Jun 2015 · Investment Plan