Standardisation Regulation

The Commission published an evaluation of the Standardisation Regulation in June 2025.¹ The evaluation drew attention to the slow pace of delivery of standards and the limited range of stakeholders participating in the formulation of standards. The problem of speed of delivery has been exacerbated by Court of Justice judgments that have enhanced the status of harmonised standards in EU law. Furthermore, recent case law has found a requirement for free access to the content of harmonised standards, thereby complicating the process for publication of standards.

To prepare the current review, the Commission ran a public consultation from 24 September to 17 December 2025. It published a factual summary of the responses to this consultation on 10 February 2026. The summary groups the reported issues under four headings: (i) responsiveness of the standardisation system, including the speed with which standards are developed; (ii) inclusiveness of the standardisation process – meaning the ability to participate in setting standards; (iii) access to standards; and (iv) the international dimension of standardisation.

Delivery of standards can be improved by empowering the Commission to adopt common specifications when the European standardisation bodies are, for whatever reason, unable to deliver. Common specifications are an alternative means for manufacturers to demonstrate the compliance of their products with the applicable regulatory requirements, such as on safety. This is commonly known as a 'fall-back' and has been increasingly used in product legislation going back to Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of public sector body websites and mobile applications. The Commission addresses this point alongside the broader standardisation agenda in the single market strategy.

New Legislative Framework

The NLF is a framework for harmonised rules on the making available on the market of products in the EU. It dates back to 2008, when Decision No 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products and Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation were adopted on the same day, as part of a package.

The former establishes a set of reference provisions which is applied to each sectoral act, thereby ensuring consistency between the different pieces of EU product legislation. This includes rules on the bodies responsible for the assessment of the conformity of products, both in-house and third-party. It also establishes procedures for that assessment. The latter establishes rules on accreditation, i.e. control of conformity assessment bodies carried out in the public domain and not as a commercial activity. Initially, it also covered market surveillance, but this subject-matter was removed when the updated Market Surveillance Regulation was adopted in 2019. Were the Commission to propose combining the existing NLF and market surveillance legislation in the European product act, this would represent a reversal of that decoupling.

The Commission published an evaluation of the NLF in November 2022. The main points on which the evaluation found updates might be necessary were the need for increased digitalisation of the EU product harmonisation framework and its adaptation to certain objectives of the circular economy. The logic for the latter point was that the NLF as currently conceived focuses on the moment at which the product is first placed on the market, whereas the objectives of the circular economy mean that compliance might need to be assessed dynamically, for example after recycling or repair.

To prepare the current review, the Commission ran a public consultation from 12 November 2025 to 4 February 2026. It published a factual summary of the responses on 4 March 2026. The summary examines the responses in relation to three main substantive themes: (i) the digital product passport (DPP); (ii) circularity; and (iii) conformity assessment bodies.

Market Surveillance Regulation

The review of the Market Surveillance Regulation is fundamentally different from the standardisation and NLF reviews. The regulation was adopted in 2019 and has applied since July 2021. The review is, therefore, less an adaptation of an outdated legislative instrument, but rather an immediate response driven by political considerations.

Given the short timeframe, there is no evaluation of the current legislation supporting the Commission's work, although the 2026 work programme does announce one for the fourth quarter of 2026, i.e. after the date announced for the legislative proposal.

This said, previous work provides some insights as to the possible content of the proposal. In a study on the implementation of the regulation carried out for the Commission in October 2024 (the 2024 MSR study), one option proposed by the authors for future reform was 'to continue reviewing the strengthening of responsibilities of providers of online marketplaces'. Furthermore, in the single market strategy, the Commission looked at reform of market surveillance in terms of 'EU-level governance'. As well as increasing national authorities' capacities, its ideas included the possible establishment of an EU market surveillance authority.²

Standardisation

On 29 April 2026, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted an opinion on strategic standardisation for a stronger single market (rapporteur: Angelo Pagliara, Workers – Group II, Italy). Among other things, the opinion calls for increased small and medium-sized enterprise (SME), trade union and civil society organisation participation in the standardisation system, while at the same time ensuring that that system remains 'industry-driven'. It also calls for improved public access to harmonised standards, although this is to be balanced by the protection of the intellectual property rights held by the European standardisation organisations.

Orgalim, an association representing Europe's technology industries, calls for binding timelines for standardisation requests (9‑12 months) and citations. To gain speed, they suggest changes to the drafting process, such as removing translation periods and shortening voting periods. ANEC, which represents the consumer voice in standardisation, advocates replacing the current harmonised standards system with a permanent, independent mechanism within the Commission, which would include legal and technical experts and which would be able to assess standards against fundamental rights. ANEC warns against the current funding constraints. It suggests that Annex III organisations (i.e. those eligible to receive funding under the current regulation) be explicitly designated as beneficiaries under a revised regulation.

Industry representatives such as BusinessEurope and Orgalim are concerned about the concept of free access to standards. They see complications as regards interaction with international standards, which are protected by copyright. BusinessEurope argues that a legal basis for compensation must be established in the revised regulation if standards are made available for free.

New Legislative Framework

BusinessEurope further proposes a specific 'NLF Check' for both legislative proposals and standardisation requests. This is conceived of as a quality assessment within the Commission, enacted at the earliest stage of drafting, to ensure that outcomes are technically feasible and coherent with the NLF. It is also intended to prevent the delegation of political issues to standardisation committees.

The Environmental Coalition on Standards argues that the NLF review should take the opportunity to update and harmonise definitions for circular economy processes and economic operators, aligning with the Ecodesign Regulation. To support circularity, used products with a 'CE mark' should retain the presumption of conformity of the original product, and the focus of any compliance assessment should be on the refurbishment process itself.

Market surveillance

At the meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 26 September 2024, Ministers heard an information point on the need to discuss and reflect upon a further unified approach regarding the enforcement of EU standards in e‑commerce. This point was at the request of Germany, with the support of Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Poland. In the supporting information note, those Member States expressed support for commitments made by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to tackle problems with e-commerce. They called for reinforcement of market surveillance authorities' intervention powers, in particular regarding their ability to act against online platforms, alongside enhanced cooperation and coordination with customs authorities.

The Competitiveness Council held a public exchange of views on e‑commerce on 8 December 2025. A preparatory note from the Danish Presidency asked for Member State views on additional measures to be taken to counter problems and how Member States could coordinate within the existing framework. It asks specifically whether new legislative measures, such as increasing online marketplaces' responsibilities, are necessary. In the context of issues which were then current with platforms such as Shein, Temu and AliExpress, the French delegation took a strong position. It called for a market surveillance authority at EU level and strengthened coordination between EU authorities.

On 29 April 2026, the EESC adopted an evaluation report on the Market Surveillance Regulation (rapporteur: Antje Gerstein, Employers – Group I, Germany). The overall finding is that problems are linked to enforcement and are not regulatory. The report recommends strengthening checks on authorised representatives, as provided for under the current regulation, by means of minimum quality criteria and a publicly accessible database. The report also draws attention to the significant confusion between the regulation and associated legislation, such as rules on product safety, customs controls and consumer protection, and recommends that this be addressed in the upcoming European product act.

EU trade associations have expressed their views on e-commerce directly. In petitions sent to the European Parliament, associations complain of unfair competition from third countries in the markets for prams and footwear, which they allege threaten EU industry. These two petitions served as the basis for a motion for a resolution by Parliament's Committee on Petitions on the protection of EU companies, jobs and products against unfair competition from non-EU countries, which was adopted in plenary on 29 April 2026.

There is industry support for the establishment of an EU market surveillance authority. Both Orgalim and BusinessEurope take this position, although they caution that its mandate would need to be carefully defined and that it should not attempt to duplicate or take over all the work of Member States' market surveillance authorities, as national authorities are more attuned to local market sensitivities. Orgalim also suggests that a new EU market surveillance authority could carry out checks on products intended for use by businesses, as Member States' market surveillance authorities currently focus on products intended for use by consumers.

In line with its focus on business-to-business transactions, Orgalim also proposes amending the definition of a 'product presenting a risk' in the Market Surveillance Regulation to cover economic harm caused by non-compliance. It argues that this would help to address level playing-field issues caused by non-compliant low-value products imported from outside the EU. Further, Orgalim calls for the Commission to develop harmonised guidelines to improve cooperation between customs and market surveillance authorities. This idea is buttressed by an 'explain or comply' principle, whereby those authorities would need to justify any departure from the guidelines.