LeX-Ray

In order to guarantee the free movement of products within the Union, it is necessary to ensure that products are compliant with Union harmonisation legislation and therefore fulfil requirements providing a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety in general, health and safety in the workplace, protection of consumers, protection of the environment, public security and protection of any other public interests protected by that legislation. Robust enforcement of these requirements is essential to the proper protection of these interests and to create the conditions in which fair competition in the Union market for goods can thrive. Rules are therefore necessary to ensure this enforcement, regardless of whether products are placed on the market via offline or online means and regardless of whether they are manufactured in the Union or not.

Union harmonisation legislation covers a large share of manufactured products. Non-compliant and unsafe products put citizens at risk, and might distort competition with economic operators selling compliant products within the Union.

Strengthening the single market for goods through further enhancing efforts to keep non-compliant products from being placed on the Union market was identified as a priority in the Communication from the Commission of 28 October 2015 entitled ‘Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business’. This should be achieved by strengthening market surveillance, providing economic operators with clear, transparent and comprehensive rules, intensifying compliance controls and promoting closer cross-border cooperation among enforcement authorities, including through cooperation with customs authorities.

The framework for market surveillance established by this Regulation should complement and strengthen existing provisions in Union harmonisation legislation relating to the ensuring of compliance of products and the framework for cooperation with organisations representing economic operators or end users, the market surveillance of products and controls on those products entering the Union market. However, in accordance with the principle of lex specialis , this Regulation should apply only in so far as there are no specific provisions with the same objective, nature or effect in Union harmonisation legislation. The corresponding provisions of this Regulation should therefore not apply in the areas covered by such specific provisions, for instance those set out in Regulations CPR ( 3 ) , (EU) 2017/745 ( 4 ) and (EU) 2017/746 ( 5 ) , including as regards the use of the European database on medical devices (EUDAMED), and (EU) 2018/858 ( 6 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council.

GPSD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 7 ) lays down the general safety requirements for all consumer products and provides for specific obligations and powers of the Member States in relation to dangerous products as well as for the exchange of information to that effect through the Rapid Information Exchange System (RAPEX). Market surveillance authorities should have the possibility of taking the more specific measures available to them under that Directive. In order to achieve a higher level of safety for consumer products, the mechanisms for exchanges of information and rapid intervention situations provided for in GPSD should be made more effective.

The provisions on market surveillance of this Regulation should cover products that are subject to the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I concerning manufactured products other than food, feed, medicinal products for human and veterinary use, living plants and animals, products of human origin and products of plants and animals relating directly to their future reproduction. This will ensure a uniform framework for market surveillance of those products at Union level and will help to increase the confidence of consumers and other end users in products placed on the Union market. If new Union harmonisation legislation is adopted in the future, it will be for that legislation to specify whether this Regulation is also to apply to that legislation.

Articles 15 to 29 of Regulation 2008/765 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 8 ) laying down the Community market surveillance framework and controls of products entering the Community market should be deleted and the respective provisions should be replaced by this Regulation. That framework includes the provisions on controls of products entering the Community market, in Articles 15, 28 29 "unknown" class="internal-link article" href="#art_27" data-bs-toggle="popover" data-bs-trigger="hover focus" data-bs-content="Release for free circulation" data-bs-placement="top" >27, 28 and 29 of Regulation 2008/765, which apply not only to products covered by the market surveillance framework, but to all products in so far as other Union law does not contain specific provisions relating to the organisation of controls on products entering the Union market. It is therefore necessary that the scope of the provisions of this Regulation with regard to products entering the Union market extend to all products.

In order to rationalise and simplify the overall legislative framework, while simultaneously pursuing the objectives of Better Regulation, the rules applicable to controls on products entering the Union market should be revised and integrated into a single legislative framework for controls on products at the Union's external borders.

Responsibility for enforcing Union harmonisation legislation should lie with the Member States, and their market surveillance authorities should be required to ensure that the legislation is fully complied with. The Member States should, therefore, establish systematic approaches to ensure effectiveness of market surveillance and other enforcement activities. In this regard, the methodology and criteria for assessing risks should be further harmonised in all Member States in order to ensure a level playing field for all economic operators.

In order to assist market surveillance authorities to strengthen consistency in their activities related to the application of this Regulation, an effective peer review system should be established for those market surveillance authorities wishing to participate.

Certain definitions currently set out in Regulation 2008/765 should be aligned with definitions set out in other Union legal acts and, where appropriate, reflect the architecture of modern supply chains. The definition of ‘manufacturer’ in this Regulation should not relieve manufacturers of any obligations they might have under Union harmonisation legislation where specific definitions of manufacturer are applied, which might cover any natural or legal person who modifies a product already placed on the market in such a way that compliance with the applicable Union harmonisation legislation might be affected and places it on the market, or any other natural or legal person who places a product on the market under its name or trade mark.

Economic operators throughout the entire supply chain should be expected to act responsibly and in full accordance with the legal requirements applicable when placing or making products available on the market, so as to ensure compliance with the Union harmonisation legislation on products. This Regulation should be without prejudice to the obligations corresponding to the roles of each of the economic operators in the supply and distribution process pursuant to specific provisions in Union harmonisation legislation, and the manufacturer should retain ultimate responsibility for compliance of the product with requirements of the Union harmonisation legislation.

The challenges of the global market and increasingly complex supply chains, as well as the increase of products that are offered for sale online to end users within the Union, call for the strengthening of enforcement measures, to ensure the safety of consumers. Furthermore, practical experience of market surveillance has shown that such supply chains sometimes involve economic operators whose novel form means that they do not fit easily into the traditional supply chains according to the existing legal framework. Such is the case, in particular, with fulfilment service providers, which perform many of the same functions as importers but which might not always correspond to the traditional definition of importer in Union law. In order to ensure that market surveillance authorities can carry out their responsibilities effectively and to avoid a gap in the enforcement system, it is appropriate to include fulfilment service providers within the list of economic operators against whom it is possible for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement measures. By including fulfilment service providers within the scope of this Regulation, market surveillance authorities will be better able to deal with new forms of economic activity in order to ensure the safety of consumers and the smooth functioning of the internal market, including where the economic operator acts both as an importer as regards certain products and as a fulfilment service provider as regards other products.

Modern supply chains encompass a wide variety of economic operators who should all be subject to enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation, while taking due consideration of their respective roles in the supply chain, and the extent to which they contribute to the making available of products on the Union market. Therefore, it is necessary to apply this Regulation to economic operators that are directly concerned by Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I to this Regulation, such as the producer of an article and the downstream user as defined in REACH of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 9 ) and in CLPSMR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ) , the installer as defined in Directive 2014/33 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 11 ) , the supplier as defined in Regulation 2009/1222 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 12 ) or the dealer as defined in SFELR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 13 ) .

In the case of a product offered for sale online or through other means of distance sales, the product should be considered to have been made available on the market if the offer for sale is targeted at end users in the Union. In line with the applicable Union rules on private international law, a case-by-case analysis should be carried out in order to establish whether an offer is targeted at end users in the Union. An offer for sale should be considered to be targeted at end users in the Union if the relevant economic operator directs, by any means, its activities to a Member State. For the case-by-case analyses, relevant factors, such as the geographical areas to which dispatch is possible, the languages available, used for the offer or for ordering, or means of payment, need to be taken into consideration. In the case of online sales, the mere fact that the economic operators' or the intermediaries' website is accessible in the Member State in which the end user is established or domiciled is insufficient.

The development of e-commerce is also due, to a great extent, to the proliferation of information society service providers, usually through platforms and for remuneration, which offer intermediary services by storing third party content, without exercising control over that content, and therefore not acting on behalf of an economic operator. Removal of content regarding non-compliant products or, where this is not feasible, restricting access to non-compliant products offered through their services should be without prejudice to the rules laid down in Directive 2000/31 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 14 ) . In particular, no general obligation should be imposed on information society service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor should a general obligation be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. Furthermore, hosting service providers should not be held liable as long as they do not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and are not aware of the facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent.

While this Regulation does not deal with the protection of intellectual property rights, it should nevertheless be borne in mind that often counterfeit products do not comply with the requirements set out in the Union harmonisation legislation, present risks to health and safety of end users, distort competition, endanger public interests and support other illegal activities. Therefore, Member States should continue taking effective measures to prevent counterfeit products from entering the Union market pursuant to CEIPRR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 15 ) .

A fairer single market should ensure equal conditions for competition to all economic operators and protection against unfair competition. To this end, strengthened enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation on products is necessary. Good cooperation between manufacturers and the market surveillance authorities is a key element, allowing immediate intervention and corrective action in relation to the product. It is important that, for certain products, there should be an economic operator established in the Union so that market surveillance authorities have someone to whom requests can be addressed, including requests for information regarding a product's compliance with Union harmonisation legislation, and who can cooperate with market surveillance authorities in making sure that immediate corrective action is taken to remedy instances of non-compliance. The economic operators who should perform those tasks are the manufacturer, or the importer when the manufacturer is not established in the Union, or an authorised representative mandated by the manufacturer for this purpose, or a fulfilment service provider established in the Union for products handled by it when no other economic operator is established in the Union.

The development of e-commerce poses certain challenges for market surveillance authorities with regard to the ensuring of compliance of products offered for sale online and the effective enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation. The number of economic operators offering products directly to consumers by electronic means is increasing. Therefore, economic operators with tasks regarding products subject to certain Union harmonisation legislation perform an essential role by providing market surveillance authorities with an interlocutor established in the Union, and by performing specific tasks in a timely manner to make sure that the products comply with the requirements of Union harmonisation legislation, for the benefit of consumers, other end users and businesses within the Union.

The obligations of the economic operator with tasks regarding products subject to certain Union harmonisation legislation should be without prejudice to existing obligations and responsibilities of manufacturer, importer and authorised representative under the relevant Union harmonisation legislation.

Obligations of this Regulation requiring an economic operator to be established in the Union in order to place products on the Union's market should only apply to areas where the need for an economic operator to act as a liaison point with the market surveillance authorities has been identified, taking into account a risk-based approach, having regard to the principle of proportionality, and taking into account high level of protection of end users in the Union.

Moreover, those obligations should not apply where the specific requirements set out in certain legal acts on products achieve in effect the same result, namely DR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 16 ) , CPR, Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 17 ) , Regulation 2013/168 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 18 ) , Directive 2014/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 19 ) , ME2D2 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 20 ) , Regulation 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 21 ) , MDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/746, SFELR and Regulation 2018/858. Consideration should also be given to situations where potential risks or cases of non-compliance are low, or in which products are mainly traded through traditional supply chains, which is the case, for instance, for Directive 2014/33, CIR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 22 ) and TPED of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 23 ) .

Contact information of economic operators with tasks regarding products subject to certain Union harmonisation legislation should be indicated with the product in order to facilitate checks throughout the supply chain.

Economic operators should fully cooperate with market surveillance authorities and other competent authorities to ensure the smooth performance of market surveillance and to enable the authorities to perform their tasks. This includes, where requested by authorities, providing the contact information of the economic operators with tasks regarding products subject to certain Union harmonisation legislation where this information is available to them.

Economic operators should have easy access to high quality, comprehensive information. Since the single digital gateway established under Regulation 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 24 ) provides for a single point of online access to information, it can be used in respect to providing relevant information on Union harmonisation legislation to economic operators. Nevertheless, Member States should put in place procedures for ensuring access to the Product Contact Points established under Regulation 2019/515 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 25 ) in order to assist the economic operators in addressing properly their requests for information. Guidance on issues relating to technical specifications or harmonised standards or design of a specific product should not be part of the obligations of Member States when providing such information.

Market surveillance authorities might carry out joint activities with other authorities or organisations representing economic operators or end users, with a view to promoting compliance, identifying non-compliance, raising awareness and providing guidance on Union harmonisation legislation and with respect to specific categories of products, including those that are offered for sale online.

Member States should designate their own market surveillance authorities. This Regulation should not prevent Member States from choosing the competent authorities to carry out the market surveillance tasks. In order to facilitate administrative assistance and cooperation, Member States should also appoint a single liaison office. Single liaison offices should at least represent the coordinated position of the market surveillance authorities and the authorities in charge of the control on products entering the Union market.

E-commerce poses certain challenges for market surveillance authorities regarding the protection of the health and safety of end users from non-compliant products. Therefore, Member States should ensure their market surveillance is organised with the same effectiveness for products made available online as it is for products made available offline.

While performing market surveillance of products offered for sale online, market surveillance authorities are facing numerous difficulties, such as tracing products offered for sale online, identifying the responsible economic operators, or conducting risk-assessments or tests due to the lack of physical access to products. In addition to the requirements introduced by this Regulation, Member States are encouraged to use complementary guidance and best practices for market surveillance and for communication with businesses and consumers.

Special attention should be given to emerging technologies, taking into account that consumers are increasingly using connected devices in their daily lives. The Union regulatory framework should therefore address the new risks to ensure the safety of the end users.

In the age of constant development of digital technologies new solutions that could contribute to the effective market surveillance within the Union should be explored.

Market surveillance should be thorough and effective, to ensure that Union harmonisation legislation on products is applied correctly. Given that controls may represent a burden for economic operators, market surveillance authorities should organise and conduct inspection activities on a risk-based approach, taking the interests of those economic operators into account and limiting the said burden to what is necessary for the performance of efficient and effective controls. Furthermore, market surveillance should be performed with the same level of care by the competent authorities of the Member State irrespective of whether non-compliance of the given product is relevant on the territory of that Member State or is likely to have an impact on the market of another Member State. Uniform conditions for certain inspection activities carried out by the market surveillance authorities where products or categories of products present specific risks or seriously breach the applicable Union harmonisation legislation might be laid down by the Commission.

Market surveillance authorities, when performing their duties, are confronted with different shortcomings in terms of resources, coordination mechanisms, as well as powers with regard to non-compliant products. Such differences lead to fragmented enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation and to market surveillance being more rigorous in some Member States than in others, potentially compromising the level playing field among businesses and creating also potential imbalances in the level of product safety throughout the Union.

In order to ensure that the Union harmonisation legislation on products is correctly enforced, market surveillance authorities should have a common set of investigative and enforcement powers, allowing for enhanced cooperation between market surveillance authorities and more effective deterrence for economic operators that willingly infringe Union harmonisation legislation. Those powers should be sufficiently robust to tackle the enforcement challenges of Union harmonisation legislation, along with the challenges of e-commerce and the digital environment and to prevent economic operators from exploiting gaps in the enforcement system by relocating to Member States whose market surveillance authorities are not equipped to tackle unlawful practices. In particular, the powers should ensure that information and evidence can be exchanged between competent authorities so that enforcement can be undertaken equally in all Member States.

This Regulation should be without prejudice to the freedom of Member States to choose the enforcement system that they consider to be appropriate. Member States should be free to choose whether their market surveillance authorities can exercise investigation and enforcement directly under their own authority, by recourse to other public authorities or upon application to the competent courts.

Market surveillance authorities should be in a position to open investigations on their own initiative if they become aware of non-compliant products placed on the market.

Market surveillance authorities should have access to all necessary evidence, data and information relating to the subject matter of an investigation in order to determine whether applicable Union harmonisation legislation has been infringed, and in particular to identify the economic operator responsible, irrespective of who possesses the evidence, data or information in question and regardless of where it is located and of the format in which it is held. Market surveillance authorities should be able to request economic operators, including those in the digital value chain, to provide all the evidence, data and information necessary.

Market surveillance authorities should be able to carry out the necessary on-site inspections, and should have the power to enter any premises, land or means of transport, that the economic operator uses for purposes relating to its trade, business, craft or profession.

Market surveillance authorities should be able to require a representative or a relevant member of staff of the economic operator concerned to give explanations or provide facts, information or documents relating to the subject matter of the on-site inspection, and to record the answers given by that representative or relevant member of staff.

Market surveillance authorities should be able to check the compliance of products to be made available on the market with Union harmonisation legislation and to obtain evidence of non-compliance. They should, therefore, have the power to acquire products and, where the evidence cannot be obtained by other means, to purchase products under a cover identity.

In the digital environment in particular, market surveillance authorities should be able to bring non-compliance to an end quickly and effectively, notably where the economic operator selling the product conceals its identity or relocates within the Union or to a third country in order to avoid enforcement. In cases where there is a risk of serious and irreparable harm to end users due to non-compliance, market surveillance authorities should be able to take measures, where duly justified and proportionate and where there are no other means available to prevent or mitigate such harm, including, where necessary, requiring the removal of content from the online interface or the display of a warning. When such a request is not observed, the relevant authority should have the power to require information society service providers to restrict access to the online interface. These measures should be taken in accordance with the principles laid down in Directive 2000/31.

The implementation of this Regulation and the exercise of powers in its application should also comply with other Union and national law, for example Directive 2000/31, including with applicable procedural safeguards and principles of the fundamental rights. That implementation and that exercise of powers should also be proportionate and adequate in view of the nature and the overall actual or potential harm caused by the infringement. Competent authorities should take all facts and circumstances of the case into account and should choose the most appropriate measures, namely, those which are essential to address the infringement covered by this Regulation. Those measures should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Member States should remain free to set out conditions and limits for the exercise of the powers to fulfil duties in national law. Where, for example, in accordance with national law, prior authorisation to enter the premises of natural persons and legal persons is required from the judicial authority of the Member State concerned, the power to enter such premises should be used only after such prior authorisation has been obtained.

Market surveillance authorities act in the interest of economic operators, of end users, and of the public, to ensure that public interests covered by relevant Union harmonisation legislation on products are consistently preserved and protected through appropriate enforcement measures, and that compliance with such legislation is ensured across the supply chain through appropriate checks, taking into consideration the fact that administrative checks alone, in many cases, cannot replace physical and laboratory checks in order to verify the compliance of products with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation. Consequently, market surveillance authorities should ensure a high level of transparency while performing their activities and should make available to the public any information that they consider to be relevant in order to protect the interests of end users in the Union.

This Regulation should be without prejudice to the functioning of RAPEX in accordance with GPSD.

This Regulation should be without prejudice to the safeguard clause procedure provided for by sectoral Union harmonisation legislation, pursuant to Article 114(10) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. With a view to ensuring an equivalent level of protection throughout the Union, Member States are authorised to take measures in relation to products presenting a risk to health and safety, or other aspects of public interest protection. They are also required to notify those measures to other Member States and the Commission, allowing the Commission to take a position on whether national measures that restrict the free movement of products with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market are justified.

The exchange of information between market surveillance authorities, and the use of evidence and investigation findings should respect the principle of confidentiality. Information should be handled in accordance with applicable national law, in order to ensure that investigations are not compromised and that the reputation of the economic operator is not prejudiced.

Where, for the purposes of this Regulation, it is necessary to process personal data, this should be carried out in accordance with Union law on the protection of personal data. Any processing of personal data under this Regulation is subject to GDPR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 26 ) and Regulation 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 27 ) , as applicable.

To ensure the effectiveness and consistency of testing across the Union in the market surveillance framework with regard to specific products or a specific category or group of products or for specific risks related to a category or group of products, the Commission might designate testing facilities of its own or public testing facilities of a Member State as a Union testing facility. All Union testing facilities should be accredited in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 2008/765. In order to avoid conflicts of interests, Union testing facilities should only provide services to market surveillance authorities, the Commission, the Union Product Compliance Network (the ‘Network’) and other government or intergovernmental entities.

Member States should ensure that adequate financial resources are always available for the appropriate staffing and equipping of the market surveillance authorities. Efficient market surveillance is demanding in terms of resources, and stable resources should be provided at a level appropriate to the enforcement needs at any given moment. Member States should have the possibility to supplement public financing by reclaiming from the relevant economic operators the costs incurred when performing market surveillance in relation to products that were found to be non-compliant.

Mechanisms for mutual assistance should be established, since it is imperative for the Union market for goods that the market surveillance authorities of the Member States cooperate with each other effectively. Authorities should act in good faith and, as a general principle, accept requests for mutual assistance, in particular those concerning access to EU declaration of conformity, declaration of performance and technical documentation.

It is appropriate that Member States designate the authorities responsible for applying the customs legislation and any other authorities in charge under national law of control on products entering the Union market.

An effective way to ensure that unsafe or non-compliant products are not placed on the Union market would be to detect such products before they are released for free circulation. Authorities in charge of the control on products entering the Union market have a complete overview of trade flows across the Union's external borders and should therefore be required to carry out adequate controls on a risk assessment basis to contribute to a safer market place which ensures a high level of protection of public interests. It is for Member States to designate the specific authorities that are to be responsible for the appropriate documentary and, where necessary, physical or laboratory checks of products before those products are released for free circulation. A uniform enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation on products can only be achieved through systematic cooperation and exchange of information between market surveillance and other authorities designated as authorities in charge of the control on products entering the Union market. These authorities should receive well in advance from the market surveillance authorities all the necessary information concerning non-compliant products or information on economic operators where a higher risk of non-compliance has been identified. In turn, authorities in charge of the control on products entering the customs territory of the Union should inform the market surveillance authorities in a timely manner of the release of products for free circulation, and the results of controls, where such information is relevant for the enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation on products. Furthermore, where the Commission becomes aware of a serious risk presented by an imported product, it should inform the Member States about that risk in order to ensure coordinated and more effective compliance and enforcement controls at the first points of entry to the Union.

Importers should be reminded that Articles 220, 254, 256, 257 and 258 of LDUCCR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 28 ) provide that products entering the Union market that require further processing in order to be in compliance with the applicable Union harmonisation legislation shall be placed under the appropriate customs procedure allowing such processing by the importer. Generally, the release for free circulation should not be deemed to be proof of conformity with Union law, since such a release does not necessarily include a complete check of compliance.

In order to use the EU Single Window environment for customs and therefore to optimise and unburden the data transfer between customs and market surveillance authorities, it is necessary to set up electronic interfaces that allow automatic data transfer. Customs and market surveillance authorities should contribute to determine the data to be transmitted. Additional burden for customs authorities should be limited and the interfaces should be highly automated and easy-to-use.

It is necessary to establish the Network, hosted by the Commission, aimed at structured coordination and cooperation between enforcement authorities of the Member States and the Commission, and at streamlining the practices of market surveillance within the Union that facilitate the implementation of joint enforcement activities by Member States, such as joint investigations. This administrative support structure should allow the pooling of resources and maintain a communication and information system between Member States and the Commission, thereby helping to strengthen enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation on products and to deter infringements. The involvement of administrative cooperation groups (ADCOs) in the Network should not preclude the involvement of other, similar, groups involved in administrative cooperation. The Commission should provide the necessary administrative and financial support to the Network.

There should be effective, speedy and accurate exchange of information among the Member States and the Commission. A number of existing tools, such as the information and communication system for market surveillance (ICSMS) and RAPEX enable coordination among market surveillance authorities in the Union. These tools, together with the interface permitting data transfer from ICSMS into RAPEX should be maintained and further developed in order to exploit their full potential and help to increase the level of cooperation and exchange of information between Member States and the Commission.

In that context, for the purpose of collecting information relating to the enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation on products, ICSMS should be upgraded and be accessible to the Commission, single liaison offices, customs and market surveillance authorities. Furthermore, an electronic interface should be developed to allow effective exchange of information between national systems of customs and market surveillance authorities. With regard to the cases of mutual assistance requests, the single liaison offices should give any support necessary for cooperation between the relevant authorities. Therefore, ICSMS should provide the functions enabling an automated indication to the single liaison offices when deadlines are not met. When sectoral legislation already provides for electronic systems for cooperation and data exchange, as is the case for example of EUDAMED for medical devices, those systems should be kept in use, when appropriate.

In general, ICSMS should be used to exchange information considered helpful for other market surveillance authorities. This might include checks undertaken in the context of market surveillance projects, regardless of the outcome of the tests. The amount of data to be entered in ICSMS should strike a balance between imposing too great a burden, when the efforts for entering the data would exceed the work involved in doing the actual checks, and being comprehensive enough to support greater efficiency and effectiveness on the side of the authorities. Thus, the data entered in ICSMS should also cover simpler checks than laboratory tests only. Nevertheless, there should be no need to include brief visual checks. As a guideline, checks which are individually documented should also be entered in ICSMS.

Member States are encouraged to use ICSMS for interactions between customs and market surveillance authorities as an alternative to the national systems. This should not replace the Community Risk Management System (CRMS) used by customs authorities. These two systems could work in parallel since they fulfil different, complementary roles, with ICSMS facilitating communication between customs and market surveillance authorities in order to allow for a smooth treatment of customs declarations in the scope of the product safety and compliance framework while CRMS is for customs common risk management and controls.

Injuries caused by non-compliant products are important information for market surveillance authorities. ICSMS should therefore provide for related data fields so that market surveillance authorities can enter readily available reports provided for in the course of their investigations, thus facilitating later statistical evaluations.

The Commission should be able to exchange market surveillance related information with regulatory authorities of third countries or international organisations within the framework of agreements concluded between the Union and third countries or international organisations, with a view to ensuring compliance of products prior to their export to the Union market.

In order to achieve a high degree of compliance with applicable Union harmonisation legislation on products while at the same time ensuring an effective resource-allocation and a cost-efficient control of products entering the Union market, the Commission should be able to approve specific pre-export control systems. Products falling under such approved systems might, as part of the risk assessment performed by authorities in charge of controls on products entering the Union market, benefit from a higher level of confidence than comparable products which have not been subject to a pre-export control.

The Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Regulation in light of the objective it pursues, and taking into consideration new technological, economic, commercial and legal developments. Pursuant to point 22 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better L aw Making ( 29 ) , the evaluation, based on efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and value added, should provide the basis for impact assessments of options for further action, particularly as regards the scope of this Regulation, the application and enforcement of the provisions related to the tasks of economic operators placing products on the market, and the system of product-related pre-export controls.

The financial interests of the Union should be protected through proportionate measures throughout the expenditure cycle, including the prevention, detection and investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used and, where appropriate, administrative and financial penalties.

The diversity of sanctions across the Union is one of the main reasons for inadequate deterrence and uneven protection. Rules on establishing sanctions, including monetary penalties, are a matter of national jurisdiction and should, therefore, be determined by national law.

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in relation to: determining the uniform conditions for checks, criteria for determination of the frequency of checks and amount of samples to be checked in relation to certain products or categories of products, where specific risks or serious breaches of Union harmonisation legislation have been continuously identified; specifying the procedures for the designation of Union testing facilities; laying down benchmarks and techniques for checks on the basis of common risk analysis at the Union level; specifying the details of statistical data covering controls performed by the designated authorities with respect to products subject to Union law; specifying the details of implementation arrangements for the information and communication system and defining the data relating to the placing of products under the customs procedure ‘release for free circulation’ transmitted by customs authorities; and to the approval of specific systems of product-related pre-export controls and the withdrawal of such approvals. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation 2011/182 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 30 ) .

Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to improve the functioning of the internal market by strengthening the market surveillance of products covered by Union harmonisation legislation, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States given the need for a very high degree of cooperation, interaction and coherent action of all of the competent authorities in all Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and present in the constitutional traditions of Member States. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles, including those related to the freedom and pluralism of the media. In particular, this Regulation seeks to ensure full respect for consumer protection, the freedom to conduct a business, the freedom of expression and information, the right to property and the protection of personal data,