Gert, John, Before I start into the technicalities I should like to wish everybody on this forum a very Merry Christmas (or Season's Greetings if you do not celebrate Christmas) and a safe and happy New Year.
Now to the technicalities... This discussion has migrated into a debate on legal admissibility and I am not sure of the legal credentials of those involved. For my part, I have some legal training but that does not extend to having a degree in Law. A Declaration of Conformity is what it says it is, a "declaration" (i.e. a statement) that a certain product or set of products is in "conformity" (i.e. meets) certain criteria, as described on the DoC. This was certainly the principle behind the creation of ISO/IEC Guide 22:1996 General criteria for supplier’s declaration of conformity (I was the UK expert on the committee that produced this standard). Now this document is to be superseded by two ISO/IEC Standards presently under development, namely: - General requirements for suppliers declaration of conformity and - Requirements for supporting documentation to a supplier’s declaration of conformity. Within Europe we have EN 45014:1998, which is similar to ISO/IEC Guide 22. Therefore, it is correct to say that manufacturers are required to produce a DoC to: 1) state what Directives have been applied when fitting the CE marking to a product (or product series) 2) state how the essential requirements of the above Directives have been met (typically, what Harmonised Standards have been met) 3) identify the company (or individual) that is making the declaration As has been said previously, in order to support the single CE marking required on a product, a singe DoC is required. This Declaration is required by Civil law, as Gert has said. Of course, products of one manufacturer are sold by others, either in their original form (possibly re-badged, possibly not) or incorporated into other products, as mentioned by John. Company 'A' may therefore require, in a contract, that Company 'B' meets the requirements of all applicable Directives and Company 'B' may well offer a DoC as proof that they do comply. Assuming that Company 'A' accepts the DoC, this document now binds Company 'A' under Civil law while it is simultaneously required by the State under Criminal law. The burden of proof (at least in England and Wales) is different between Civil and Criminal cases, with the burden being "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases but only "on the balance of probabilities" for civil cases. Therefore it is easier to prove a Civil action than a Criminal action. If the DoC states that a product complies with certain standards but it does not, then Company 'A' could sue Company 'B' for breach of contract. However, it is possible for a product to meet the safety objectives of the LVD (or essential requirements of a true 'new approach' directive) without meeting any Harmonised Standards at all: and it is these legal minima that must be proven in a criminal case. Once again therefore, it is easier to prove a Civil action than a Criminal one. I could go on further, but I think that I have written enough for now. Of course, it goes without saying that if you want to really get into the legal niceties then you should contact a lawyer who is qualified for the relevant jurisdiction you are interested in. So, once again, Merry Christmas or Season's Greetings as applicable to you, Richard Hughes Safety Answers Limited www.safetyanswers.ltd.uk
