IMO the penalties are far from being an acceptable risk; and they
vary from country to country, so enforcement is not even. It is
often the final integrator or customer that ends-up enforcing
compliance. Sometimes customs gets involved too.
A source within the US delegation to the EU told me (circa mid-1995)
that a US manufacturer of non-compliant machinery had a shipment
refused by customs of France, while three other EU countries
permitted entry of the same product at the same time. There was no
mention of fines - but having a shipment refused entry/delivery had
to smart some.
I know of other cases that do not bear repeating here, but suffice it
to say, enforcement is indeed taking place; although from what I see
it seems that the enforcement is the result of user or competitor
compliants instead of random action by the authorities.
Naturally, we're all experts on European Law, right?
(Wrong. Blatant sarcasm intended.)
Regards,
Eric Lifsey
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Penalty for Non-Compliance
From: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]> at Internet
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 2/21/97 11:07 AM
I hear a very disturbing subject being openly discussed among several
of my European contacts. Distributors in Europe are saying that the
CE marking is a joke. That many companies (European Companies are
mentioned most often) are simply applying the CE marking to their
products without testing. Some say that many companies were initially
forced to do this because of the time and cost of testing and
redesign, but since there is very little checking going on the risk is
"Cost Effective".
IS THIS TRUE?
Has anyone heard of specific situations where a company or person has
been fined or jailed for fraudulently placing the CE marking on
non-compliant equipment? What is the penalty for non-compliance? What
is the penalty for fraud? Is anyone checking? Is anyone getting in
trouble?
I have been asked to obtain strong evidence to counter this opinion.
More or less to "put the fear of God" into distributors and reassure
our marketing and sales force that delaying product to market for the
CE mark is the right thing to do.
Can you help? Please post or email me anything you can.
Thanks,
Brian Kunde
[email protected]
Received: from natinst.com (130.164.1.1) by hail.natinst.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 0000A486; Fri, 21 Feb 97 15:12:41
-0600
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
by natinst.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18679;
Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:12:30 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA09537
for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:01:17 -0500 (EST)
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 11:07:34 MST
From: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Penalty for Non-Compliance
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
