- This source supports structured information-system records for market surveillance cooperation under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020.
"information and communication system"
Use this workflow when a market surveillance authority asks for product compliance information, technical documentation, supply-chain data, samples, corrective action, or risk follow-up under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020.
The workflow keeps the request authentic, scoped to the right product law, routed to the Article 4 responsible economic operator, and closed with an evidence pack and records.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
An EU MSR request should be triaged as an authority case, not as an ordinary customer support ticket. First confirm who is asking and what legal power or product rule is cited, then identify the product, Union harmonisation legislation, responsible economic operator, evidence needed, risk level, corrective-action path, and record set.
Open one case file for the request and preserve the original message, attachments, envelope data, sender domain, authority name, Member State, case number, cited legal basis, requested products, requested records, and requested response channel. Do not send technical files, supply-chain data, or personal data until the request is tied to an identifiable market surveillance authority or a channel the authority controls.
Classify the request type before assigning work: information or documentation, Article 4 responsible economic operator contact, product sample or testing support, online-interface issue, serious-risk concern, border-control hold, corrective-action follow-up, or cross-border authority cooperation.
After intake, decide whether the request concerns a non-food product covered by Union harmonisation legislation and whether Article 4 applies to the product category. Article 4 is not a universal responsible-person rule for every product: it applies to the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Article 4(5), while other sector rules may add separate duties.
If Article 4 applies, identify the Union-established economic operator in the correct order: EU manufacturer, importer where the manufacturer is outside the Union, authorised representative with a written mandate, or EU fulfilment service provider where none of the other three is established in the Union. Confirm that the name, trade name or trade mark, and postal contact details appear on the product, packaging, parcel, or accompanying document as Article 4 requires.
Build the first evidence pack around what the authority actually asked for. A complete pack usually includes the request log, authenticity check, product identifiers, supply-chain and distribution facts, Article 4 contact details, EU declaration, technical documentation index, labels and instructions, test reports, standards rationale, marketplace or online listing captures, risk assessment, prior complaints or incidents, and open assumptions.
Treat sample and testing requests as controlled evidence handling. Article 14 allows authorities to acquire product samples, inspect samples, and reverse-engineer them to identify non-compliance and obtain evidence. Keep chain-of-custody records, sample source, sample condition, batch and serial identifiers, shipment records, and any authority testing references.
Use the workflow to assign the Article 4 contact, assemble the evidence pack, track samples and testing, decide risk escalation, and close corrective action without inventing deadlines or over-disclosing unrelated records.
Escalate immediately when the request says the product may compromise health or safety, fail Union harmonisation requirements, present a risk, present a serious risk, require rapid intervention, or require withdrawal, recall, prohibition, restriction, warning, content removal, or public alert. Serious-risk classification must be based on a risk assessment that considers the hazard and likelihood of occurrence, not on commercial impact or availability of safer alternatives.
When non-compliance or risk is confirmed, prepare a corrective-action proposal that fits Article 16: bring the product into compliance, prevent further availability, withdraw or recall it, destroy or render it inoperable, add warnings, set prior conditions for availability, or alert end users. Track whether action is voluntary, requested by the authority, or required because the authority found persistent risk or non-compliance.
Close the triage only after the response record shows what was requested, who validated the authority, what product and legislation were in scope, who acted as the Article 4 contact, what evidence was provided, what was withheld or pending, whether samples or testing were involved, whether risk or non-compliance was found, what corrective action was taken, and where future authority follow-up should land.
Keep an ICSMS-aware case summary even if the company does not access the authority system directly. Article 34 requires authority-side information-system records for measures, testing reports, corrective action, injuries, objections, and certain Article 5 failures, so the company record should be able to reconcile with authority references if the case reappears in another Member State.
"information and communication system"
"applies to more than 70 regulations and directives"
"dangerous non-food products"
"register for their documentation"
"reports of testing carried out"