DOCUMENTS Country Report Expertise Centre COUNTRY REPORT 2006 - 2007

5.3 Conformity Assessment and consumer protection

5.3.1    Regulations

5.3.2    Conformity assessment bodies

5.3.3    Notified bodies

5.3.4    Safety practices

(ST) = Short term 2007, (LT) = Long term 2008, (C) = Continuously.

5.3.1    Regulations

A list of DTM’s expectations on the development during 2007 is given in Annex 9.

Ø      The transposition of the Council Directive no. 2001/95 on General Product Safety (GPSD), amending the Law no 4703 needs to be finalised (ST).

Ø      The implementation of Council Decision 339/93 on Control of Conformity with the Rules on Product Safety of Products from Third Countries needs to be finalised (ST).

Ø      The prepared implementation of EU Decision 3052/95 on Notification procedure on national measures derogating from the free movement of goods needs to be published (ST).

Further regulatory actions needed:

Ø      The regulation on testing and periodical inspection of lifts should be split up in two (LT).

Ø      The problem of products without CE-marking transferred through EU-countries should be due to Turkish discussions with the relevant EU country to reach a bilateral agreement (ST).

Ø      Continued withdrawal of mandatory standards that are hindering the free movement of goods under implemented EU directives (C).

5.3.2    Conformity assessment bodies

Ø      UDDer and TÜRKLAB need to strengthen their role and position in Turkish CA society (C).

Ø      TÜRKLAB should apply to the “stakeholder members” group within EA and ILAC (LT).

Ø      TÜRKAK’s database on 1 050 public laboratories should be completed and updated with new information and combined with the list on 1 200 conformity assessment bodies (CABs) identified by the Ministry of Industry and Trade as well as with the CABs identified by MEDA projects, including the MEDA project for a TURKLAB database on CABs. (LT+C)

Ø      Testing capacity needs to be identified, established or extended for testing in the following product areas: products under the LVD and Machinery directives, hot water boilers, explosives for civil use and for verification of energy labelling (LT).

Ø      The Ministries should develop their authorisation of test laboratories and inspection bodies to require quality systems, assessments and preferably accreditation as a requirement (ST).

Ø      Public laboratories have no quality system unless they serve exporters requiring so (LT).

Ø      The Ministries should consider privatising public test laboratories and inspection bodies. Privatisation could promote further private investments in sectors needing so. (LT+C).

Ø      TÜRKAK should take necessary initiative that make EA’s internal assessment procedures create quality and confidence in system certification in Turkey (ST+C).

5.3.3    Notified bodies

For an efficient implementation of the EU Directives Turkey needs a sufficient range of Notified Bodies (C). Annex 13 presents lists of potential Turkish NBs as identified by DTM and MIT. The lists cover total 16 CABs, besides universities, as competent to be 50 NBs to 17 directives.

Ø      An agreement between Turkey and the EU Commission needs to be reached to make the first three NBs operational¹ and to publish further directives to their notifications (ST).

Ø      Ministries should more actively identify conformity assessment bodies being potential NBs. Further NB applications should be finalised and sent to the EU Commission (ST).

Ø      It should be noted that NBs do not need to have their own laboratories (C).

5.3.4    Safety practices

Ø      Turkey should enforce its attempt to reach full access to RAPEX information (ST).

Ø      Turkey cannot prevent products without CE marking from third countries, having a transit certificate, to enter the Turkish market via EU member countries. The possible safety problem should be dealt with through market surveillance activities and actions towards the responsible importer to Turkey (C). If a problem relates to a specific country, Turkey should initiate discussion with the relevant authorities of the member state in order to deal with this problem. (ST+C).

Ø      Further awareness campaigns are needed to improve both manufacturers’ and consumers’ knowledge on CE-marking, the necessity of CE-marking also within Turkey and also to eliminate the misunderstanding of CE-marking being a quality mark (C).

Ø      To eliminate the risk of unfair competition and to avoid the sales of unsafe products Turkey should ensure, through market surveillance, that all 

Ø      manufacturers properly apply CE-marking (C).

Ø      Market surveillance activities must include the Internet market as part of the totalmarket (C).

Ø      The Government should activate consumers’ organisations by offering them financial support (C).

Ø      The Market Surveillance Coordination Board is recommended to have a decision-making role and the market surveillance authorities should continue to organize seminars for the civil society (C).