Enforcement and implementation by national authorities

The MSR is enforced by national market surveillance authorities and agencies (MSAs) and by designated authorities at the EU external border, usually customs authorities. Customs authorities check goods at borders, while MSAs monitor products already on the EU market. There are around 2 000 sectoral and non-sectoral MSAs in the EU, with their number varying widely between Member States, depending on national governance and administrative systems.

MSAs have the power to require relevant information from economic operators regarding products, supply chains and distribution networks, including online marketplaces. They can also test products, investigate cases of suspected non-compliance and require appropriate corrective measures from economic operators. In cases of non-compliance or breaches of EU harmonisation legislation, MSAs can require remedial action to make products compliant, impose penalties, and/or restrict product distribution and/or market access. MSAs cooperate in administrative cooperation groups (AdCos), and Member States notify the European Commission on how they have enacted penalties. Member States have a 'single liaison office' (SLO) responsible for drafting a national market surveillance strategy covering all sectors under EU harmonisation legislation, including supply chains and online markets. The SLOs are responsible for coordinating the activities of the various national market surveillance authorities and representing the common position at EU level.

The MSR has been in force since 16 July 2021. It replaced Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 to improve the prevention of non-compliance through enhanced cooperation between EU countries and MSAs, between MSAs and customs authorities, and between MSAs and businesses. It also added enforcement tools to address online sales and established the EU Product Compliance Network (EUPCN).¹ The EUPCN was established to help streamline market surveillance practices, including joint investigations. The EUPCN's database centralises enforcement data – for example, on product testing, enforcement and remediation actions, substances of very high concern (through the SCIP database), market surveillance data and information on shared initiatives – to enable authorities to better verify compliance data and identify high-risk products. The network's rules of procedure include EEA, EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) and the EFTA Secretariat as observers, while EU candidate countries request observer status on a case-by-case basis. The Commission has published guidance documents on the practical implementation of Article 4 of the MSR, a key provision applicable to many harmonised products with a high risk of non-compliance, which requires the establishment of an economic operator in the EU (in 2021), and on joint activities to promote compliance (in 2022). A Commission implementing regulation specifies procedures for the designation of testing facilities.

The MSR is closely linked to other EU legislation under the EU compliance framework, including sector-specific EU product harmonisation and consumer protection rules, the updated General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR), applicable since December 2024, the Digital Services Act (DSA) of 2024 and the EU Customs Code, reformed in April 2026. Its upcoming revision is part of the European Product Act package.²

Previous European Commission evaluations of EU market surveillance legislation

A 2017 (REFIT) evaluation of the 2008 MSR reached conclusions that were critical overall regarding its implementation between 2008 and 2016, some of which are still relevant today.³ While confirming the relevance and potential EU added value of market surveillance harmonisation, it identified a significant lack of active participation by Member States in information sharing and cooperation, particularly with respect to cross-border activities and online marketplaces. In addition, it found considerable variation in the implementation of market surveillance mechanisms by the Member States, owing to varying approaches, interpretations and administrative capabilities. For instance, Italian market surveillance is decentralised under a sectoral system (responsible ministries and other relevant enforcement bodies), whereas the German system is decentralised at the regional and local levels (federal and Land level). The evaluation also found cooperation between national enforcement authorities and economic operators to be weak and incoherent, noting that, for instance, decentralised Member States needed more internal coordination and resources to implement the MSR than centralised ones. Moreover, some MSR provisions were considered too unspecific and, by 2017, outdated. Finally, the evaluation found that costs varied widely between national authorities and, as regards benefits, found no evidence of cost savings or tangible consumer protection. Thus, it recommended legislative improvements.

The current MSR – adopted in 2019 and applicable since July 2021 – seeks to address the weaknesses identified in the 2017 evaluation. Article 42(1) of the MSR stipulates that it should be evaluated in 2026 (see more about the current evaluation in the section below). A second evaluation was required under Article 42(3) – this one by 16 July 2023 and specifically on the implementation of Article 4 of the MSR. This evaluation was published on 3 March 2025, with a significant delay of 19 months. The Commission justified this delay by citing 'data limitations' and the fact that the July 2023 date was too close to the date of application of the regulation (16 July 2021), which would have limited implementation findings to 'only one year'.⁴

Article 4 of the MSR requires that ,for some products subject to EU harmonisation legislation and with a high risk of non-compliance, a 'responsible economic operator' be established in the EU.⁵ These operators are in charge of specific tasks, including verifying relevant documentation (such as the declaration of conformity or of performance and other technical product documents), providing it to the authorities, informing them of a product's risks and cooperating on corrective actions.

The Article 4 evaluation report assessed the scope of Article 4, as well as the costs and benefits associated with applying its provisions. It was based on an extensive external study, underpinned by desk research, surveys and interviews. It also took into account findings from two joint actions, initiated by a working group in the EUPCN and by the Joint market surveillance action on harmonised products (JAHARP) 2021 omnibus, respectively (see evaluation report, pp. 2-4 and 6). The report states that 'it is not a full evaluation' within the meaning of the EU better regulation guidelines and toolbox, because, despite the delay, the data 'gathered only 2 or 3 years' after the MSR became applicable were still limited. Moreover, the report notes an uneven distribution of feedback from MSAs across the EU and very limited feedback from economic operators, which could only partially be offset by a survey of relevant manufacturers in Germany and France (conducted by the multinational market research firm Ipsos).

Having transparently acknowledged these limitations, the evaluation concludes that Article 4 has been partially effective in enhancing product safety and compliance, protecting EU consumers and reducing costs for MSAs. It stresses the challenges of identifying responsible economic operators, particularly in relation to online sales from third countries. Like the above-mentioned 2017 MSR evaluation, the report confirms the high relevance and European added value of EU market surveillance. While Article 4 appears broadly coherent with related EU legislation, some inconsistencies and gaps in the definitions and obligations of economic operators were detected. More generally, the report highlights the increasing complexity of the EU regulatory framework for market surveillance.

In conclusion, both evaluations found that the MSR provisions they covered should be implemented and enforced more effectively and consistently across the EU, notably with regard to e-commerce from third countries and non-compliant products. Findings regarding the potential extension of Article 4 to all products and the definition of responsible economic operators appear inconclusive, whereas the introduction of additional tasks for these operators seems to have received considerable support from stakeholders.

2026 Commission evaluation and upcoming revision – 'back-to-back' procedure

As noted above, the MSR is currently under evaluation. The review is taking place amid a surge in online sales and in the number of non-compliant products entering the internal market from third countries, which is putting pressure on the EU market surveillance and compliance system. The EU's 2025 single market strategy identified the presence of outdated harmonised product rules and the lack of product compliance as the key barriers to the full development and competitiveness of the single market. To overcome these barriers, it recommended action to strengthen market surveillance and compliance implementation by tackling fragmented national rules and enforcement and by modernising the system for the digital and green transitions. Following up on the strategy, the Commission announced in its 2026 work programme that the MSR would be revised in the third quarter of 2026 (as part of the European Product Act, together with a revision of the New Legislative Framework (NLF) and EU standardisation rules).

The timing is slightly ahead of the schedule provided for in the MSR, according to which the Commission is required to evaluate the MSR by 31 December 2026 (Article 42 of the MSR). The revision also appears to have been accelerated by the Commission's decision to conduct the ex-post evaluation together ('back-to-back') with the ex-ante impact assessment, instead of conducting a separate, stand-alone evaluation before beginning work on the impact assessment, as is usually the case under the 'evaluate first' principle of the EU Better Regulation Guidelines.

The 'back-to-back' procedure has been increasingly used by the Commission in recent years, which has often justified its use by a lack of time when preparing legislation.⁶ The choice of this procedure limits the transparency and accessibility of the legislative process insofar as the justification for its use is not public, at least until the publication of the proposal and accompanying documents (which should explain it). The call for evidence could provide an explanation, but does not do so in the case of the MSR revision. In most cases, the 'back-to-back' evaluation will be annexed to the impact assessment published with the proposal.⁷ The 'back-to-back' practice has been discussed in the past and criticised by several actors, including the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors (ECA).⁸ The Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) also acknowledged potential weaknesses of the practice in 2023.⁹

The fact that the evaluation is not available ahead of the legislative proposal revising the current MSR prevents the co-legislators and the public from accessing its findings in a timely manner. Notwithstanding this caveat, essential elements of the MSR evaluation can be identified from other sources. First, Article 42(2) of the MSR – in line with the BRG – sets out the aspects¹⁰ to be reviewed in the course of the evaluation with regard to the MSR's effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. Second, the Commission's call for evidence 'for an evaluation and impact assessment run in parallel', published on 12 November 2025, specifies that the aim is not only to improve the functioning of the single market, EU-wide cooperation and consistent enforcement against unsafe or non-compliant products but also to simplify the MSR and reduce its administrative burden. Building on the above-mentioned previous evaluations, the revision is expected to focus on third-country products entering the internal market. Moreover, the evaluation is also expected to cover market surveillance and compliance issues relating to expensive, large or emerging products, as well as national administrative capacities and digitalisation.

Apart from the previous evaluations, stakeholder views are an important source for assessing whether and how the MSR helps MSAs and customs authorities enforce and implement EU product rules. Hence, together with the call for evidence, an open public consultation was launched, which ran for 12 weeks, as required by the Better Regulation Guidelines (from 12 November 2025 to 4 February 2026). It received 154 valid replies, around 63 % of which came from companies and business organisations, 11 % from EU citizens and 9 % from non-governmental organisations. The rest came from public authorities and other respondents. At the time of writing, it appears that the Commission has not yet published the usual summary report on this consultation (a short synthesis of the stakeholder contributions is provided in the last section below). Additional surveys, interviews and a stakeholder workshop were also announced in the call for evidence.

Furthermore, an external study has been launched by the Commission to support the back-to-back evaluation/impact assessment.¹¹ Other relevant research conducted in recent years can also be expected to underpin the evaluation. Among this work, in 2022 the Commission published an assessment of the challenges and opportunities for market surveillance activities in relation to digitalisation, new technologies and the digital supply chain. This assessment was complemented by a pilot   study aimed at providing market intelligence to MSAs for market surveillance actions in the toy sector. Finally, a study testing a method to monitor and measure product non-compliance, developed by DG GROW and the JRC, was launched in December 2021 and appears to be still ongoing (the interinstitutional EU studies database provides no information on its progress or completion; the study itself could not be traced).

While this briefing was being edited for publication, a draft legislative proposal establishing a framework for product compliance, accreditation and market surveillance was leaked and published in Contexte on 15 September 2026. The draft proposal would repeal Decision No 768/2008/EC, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft confirms that the 'back-to-back' evaluation of the MSR will accompany the proposal and explains that the revision of the NLF was incorporated into the same proposal.

Parliamentary resolutions and Commission response

Parliament has scrutinised various aspects of market surveillance and product compliance policies. For instance, in October 2024 it held a plenary debate with a resolution on safer products and EU oversight of e-commerce and imports. Members highlighted the high number of non-compliant products sold on third-country online marketplaces (4.6 billion under the €150 customs threshold for exemptions in 2024), notably dangerous toys. They required stricter enforcement of the MSR, the DSA, the GPSR and customs controls.

In the same vein, a resolution of 9 July 2025 and, triggered by a scandal around the Chinese platform SHEIN in France, another resolution of 26 November 2025, stressed the need to implement and enforce market surveillance rules effectively. They reiterated the challenges caused by the surge in e-commerce and non-compliant products entering the EU's internal market, which affect consumer protection as regards health, safety and unfair competition. Both resolutions strongly urged the Member States and MSAs to better use the MSR coordination mechanisms and to ensure full and consistent enforcement of compliance rules, including penalties, sanctions and/or restrictions and removal of products (namely when dealing with non-EU economic operators). Furthermore, Parliament called for better coordinated cooperation and an increase in funding, resources and digitalisation for both MSAs and customs authorities. It stressed the need for carrying out joint risk analysis, prioritising third-country products that entail safety and non-compliance risks. It furthermore insisted on 'urgently' putting in place more and better testing facilities for e-commerce products such as toys, radio equipment, batteries, textiles, cosmetics and electrical appliances. Moreover, the resolutions deplored the unfair competition posed against EU manufacturers and the lack of accountability, given that MSAs often cannot track non-compliant EU traders or responsible economic operators on e-commerce platforms, owing to often wrong or missing information. According to Parliament, this has caused not only an influx of (cheap) non-compliant products but also loss of market shares and jobs in the EU.

The Commission's response to the latter resolution of 14 April 2026 stated that it was 'intensifying enforcement via targeted joint actions and priority control areas, scaling up the use of proactive web crawlers to identify non-compliant products more effectively and reduce administrative burden, and connecting customs and market surveillance IT systems'. Referring to the revision of the MSR, it stressed that it 'plans to close regulatory loopholes that undermine enforcement, starting with the rules on authorised representatives of foreign manufacturers which, as the Parliament notes, are too often non-existent or fictitious'. The Commission announced a verification system, relying on tools such as the Digital Product Passport (DPP), to make checks across the EU more effective and to give responsible economic operators acting as authorised representatives 'product-compliance responsibilities commensurate to their role. According to the Commission, the revision would also provide for the pooling of resources and expertise among national authorities across the EU and for better testing capacity at EU level in priority areas.

Committee oversight activities, parliamentary questions and citizens' petitions

Another form of parliamentary scrutiny are delegation visits on the ground, one such example being the visit by members of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) to China to discuss concerns about health and safety risks for EU consumers and, in particular, the lack of platform oversight. Furthermore, IMCO has been holding regular public scrutiny sessions with stakeholders and the Commission on market surveillance and e-commerce, in the context of which it has questioned platform representatives, including those of SHEIN, AliExpress and Temu. On 6 May 2026, following a presentation of the findings in an evaluation of the MSR carried out by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (see section below), IMCO once again held such an exchange of views. The committee also commissioned a study on funding gaps affecting EU customs and market surveillance authorities, which was published in February 2026.

In their parliamentary questions to the Commission, Members of the European Parliament have raised key issues that were also highlighted in the resolutions cited above. Many of these questions refer to the fragmented implementation of rules, the challenges linked to exercising market surveillance over the e-commerce practices of third-country sellers, and safety concerns. Since the beginning of the current 10th parliamentary term, 21 written questions and one oral question on market surveillance and product compliance have been tabled; most of these questions relate to the implementation of the MSR, the DSA, the GPSR and/or relevant sectoral product compliance legislation (e.g. on toys, cars or construction products).¹² In its answer to a question on the safety of e-scooters sold through large online platforms, for instance, the Commission reiterated that the revision of the MSR would address regulatory and digital shortcomings and improve cooperation and the pooling of resources, while also pointing to the relevance of the Machinery Directive, the GPSR and the reformed EU Customs Code.

Finally, Parliament has received citizens' petitions highlighting alleged shortcomings in the implementation of sectoral and horizontal EU legislation on market surveillance and product compliance. These include a 2024 petition alleging a breach of single market rules by the Chinese online marketplace TEMU and a 2025 petition claiming that the Latvian market surveillance authority had declared a compliant window to be non-compliant, owing to an overall flawed conformity assessment system for windows. These petitions have been considered by Parliament's Petitions Committee and have been closed.