CPR Non-Compliance Penalties: What Manufacturers, Importers, and Distributors Face Under EU Construction Products Regulation 2024/3110

The Construction Products Regulation 2024/3110 (CPR) represents a fundamental overhaul of the legal framework governing construction products placed on the EU internal market. Unlike its predecessor, Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, the new CPR introduces a markedly more robust enforcement architecture — one that includes explicit, harmonised penalty provisions designed to ensure consistent application across all 27 Member States. For manufacturers, importers, authorised representatives, and distributors, understanding the penalty landscape is no longer optional. It is a core element of regulatory risk management. Non-compliance can trigger administrative sanctions, market withdrawal obligations, mandatory recalls, public disclosure of infringements, and in the most serious cases, criminal liability under national law. This article provides a comprehensive, authoritative analysis of the penalty framework under CPR 2024/3110, with practical examples, sector-specific considerations, and actionable compliance guidance.

1. The Legal Foundation: How CPR 2024/3110 Establishes Its Penalty Framework

The Construction Products Regulation 2024/3110, published in the Official Journal of the European Union and entering into force through a phased implementation timeline, establishes a dual-layer penalty architecture. At the EU level, the regulation sets out minimum obligations and categories of infringement. At the national level, each Member State is required to designate competent national authorities and to enact effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties for breaches of the regulation.

This approach mirrors the structure used in other EU product safety legislation, including Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance and compliance of products, which serves as the overarching market surveillance framework applicable across multiple sectoral regulations including the CPR. The interaction between CPR 2024/3110 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 is critical: market surveillance authorities (MSAs) draw their investigative and enforcement powers from both instruments simultaneously.

1.1 The Principle of Effective, Proportionate, and Dissuasive Sanctions

Article provisions within CPR 2024/3110 require Member States to lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements and to take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The regulation explicitly mandates that penalties must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive — a formulation drawn directly from EU treaty obligations and well-established in product regulation jurisprudence. This tripartite standard means that a fine too low to deter a large manufacturer is legally deficient, even if technically applied. National courts and regulators are expected to calibrate sanctions to the economic capacity of the offender, the duration and severity of the infringement, and any prior violations.

1.2 Minimum Harmonisation of Penalty Categories

While CPR 2024/3110 does not prescribe fixed fine amounts across the EU (leaving quantum to national discretion), it does establish mandatory categories of conduct that must be subject to penalties. These include: placing construction products on the market without a valid Declaration of Performance (DoP) or Declaration of Conformity (DoC) where required; affixing the CE marking without completing the applicable assessment and verification of constancy of performance (AVCP) procedure; providing false, misleading, or incomplete technical documentation; failing to cooperate with market surveillance authorities; and continuing to supply non-compliant products after a corrective order has been issued. Member States that fail to implement adequate penalties for these categories risk infringement proceedings from the European Commission under Article 258 TFEU.

2. Who Is Exposed: Obligations and Liability Across the Supply Chain

One of the most significant features of CPR 2024/3110 relative to its predecessor is the explicit and detailed delineation of obligations — and therefore penalty exposure — for each economic operator in the supply chain. The regulation abandons any ambiguity about who bears responsibility at each stage of the product lifecycle.

2.1 Manufacturers

Manufacturers carry the primary and most extensive obligations under CPR 2024/3110. They are responsible for ensuring that products are manufactured in accordance with the declared performance, that factory production control (FPC) systems are maintained, that technical documentation is compiled and retained for a minimum of ten years following placement on the market, and that DoPs or DoCs are made available to downstream users. A manufacturer who affixes CE marking to a product without completing the required AVCP procedure — or who falsifies test results in the supporting technical file — is exposed to the full range of penalties under national implementing law, including administrative fines, criminal prosecution, and mandatory withdrawal from the market.

2.2 Importers

Importers occupy a legally critical position under CPR 2024/3110 because they are treated, for enforcement purposes, as standing in the shoes of the manufacturer when the manufacturer is established outside the EU. Before placing a product on the market, importers must verify that the manufacturer has completed the applicable AVCP procedure, that the product bears CE marking, that a DoP or DoC accompanies the product, and that the product’s labelling and documentation meet EU language requirements. Importers who fail to conduct this due diligence and place non-compliant products on the market are fully liable for resulting penalties. They cannot shield themselves by pointing to the non-EU manufacturer’s failings if they did not carry out adequate pre-import verification.

2.3 Authorised Representatives

Authorised representatives act on behalf of manufacturers under a written mandate. CPR 2024/3110 specifies the tasks that may and may not be delegated to authorised representatives and makes clear that representatives who exceed their mandate or who facilitate non-compliance by the manufacturer — for example, by lodging false declarations with a notified body — are themselves subject to penalties. The authorised representative’s EU establishment provides a jurisdictional anchor for enforcement that would otherwise be difficult to exercise against an overseas manufacturer.

2.4 Distributors

Distributors are required under CPR 2024/3110 to verify, before making a product available on the market, that it bears CE marking, is accompanied by required documentation, and is labelled in accordance with applicable requirements. While distributors are not responsible for the underlying AVCP assessment, they are liable if they knowingly supply products they have reason to believe are non-compliant. CPR 2024/3110 also introduces obligations for distributors to inform manufacturers and importers of suspected non-compliance, and to cooperate with MSAs during investigations.

3. Categories of Infringement and Their Penalty Exposure

Under CPR 2024/3110 and its interaction with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, infringements can be grouped into several distinct categories, each carrying different levels of regulatory and legal consequence. Understanding these categories allows economic operators to prioritise their compliance programmes appropriately.

3.1 CE Marking Violations

Affixing CE marking without completing the applicable AVCP procedure is one of the most serious infringements under the CPR framework. CE marking on a construction product is a legal declaration that the manufacturer has assessed the product’s performance against the applicable harmonised standard (hEN) or European Technical Assessment (ETA), has applied the correct AVCP system (ranging from System 1+ through to System 4), and has issued a compliant DoP or DoC. False CE marking may simultaneously constitute an infringement of CPR 2024/3110, Directive 2006/42/EC (if the product also falls within machinery scope), and potentially Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. In several Member States, deliberate false CE marking is criminalised and may result in custodial sentences for responsible individuals alongside corporate fines.

3.2 Declaration of Performance and Declaration of Conformity Failures

The DoP or DoC is the backbone of CPR compliance. Failures in this area range from failing to issue any DoP at all, to issuing a DoP that references a revoked or superseded harmonised standard, to declaring performance levels that are not supported by the underlying test data. CPR 2024/3110 introduces enhanced requirements for the content and accessibility of DoPs, including mandatory digital accessibility provisions. A DoP that fails to meet these requirements is treated as a defective declaration, with the same legal consequence as the absence of a declaration.

3.3 Technical Documentation Deficiencies

Manufacturers must compile and maintain comprehensive technical documentation demonstrating that the product meets its declared performance. Inspections by MSAs routinely reveal that technical files are incomplete, contain test reports from laboratories not accredited for the relevant scope, reference standards that have since been superseded, or simply cannot be located within the required ten-year retention period. Each of these deficiencies constitutes a distinct infringement. Where a manufacturer operates across multiple Member States, the same documentation failure can trigger parallel enforcement proceedings in several jurisdictions simultaneously.

3.4 Failure to Cooperate with Market Surveillance Authorities

CPR 2024/3110, read alongside Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, grants MSAs extensive investigative powers including the right to request documentation, conduct inspections, take samples for testing, and issue corrective orders. Failure to respond to MSA requests within specified timeframes, obstruction of inspections, destruction of evidence, or provision of false information during investigations all constitute separate infringements carrying their own penalty exposure. In the context of digital market surveillance — which CPR 2024/3110 addresses more explicitly than the previous regulation — MSAs also have powers to order the removal of online listings for non-compliant products and to require online marketplaces to take down product pages.

3.5 Continued Supply After Corrective Order

Among the most aggravating factors in CPR enforcement is the continued supply of a product after an MSA has issued a formal corrective order requiring withdrawal or remediation. This transforms what might have been a manageable administrative infringement into a wilful violation, significantly increasing the penalties that MSAs and courts are likely to impose. In some Member States, continued supply after a corrective order can elevate an administrative matter to criminal liability, with personal liability attaching to company directors and senior compliance officers.

4. Penalty Levels Across Member States: A Comparative Overview

Because CPR 2024/3110 sets the framework but leaves penalty quantum to national law, significant variation exists across the EU. Economic operators active in multiple markets must therefore understand the specific enforcement landscape in each jurisdiction where they place products.

4.1 High-Enforcement Jurisdictions

Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden are consistently recognised as high-enforcement jurisdictions for construction product compliance. German market surveillance authorities, coordinated through the Marktüberwachungsbehörden network, operate a well-resourced and systematic programme of product checks, including targeted campaigns focused on specific product families such as structural fasteners, fire-stopping products, and facade cladding systems. French enforcement is coordinated through the DGCCRF and regional DREAL offices, with fines for serious CPR violations reaching six-figure sums for repeat offenders. The Netherlands has invested significantly in digital market surveillance capabilities under the auspices of the NVWA.

4.2 Emerging Enforcement Activity

Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic have historically shown lower enforcement intensity, partly due to resource constraints in national MSAs. However, EU-funded market surveillance projects and the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 — which obliges Member States to report surveillance activities and outcomes to the Commission — are driving a convergence upward in enforcement capacity. Economic operators who have relied on lower enforcement probability in certain markets should treat this as a transitional period rather than a permanent advantage.

4.3 Cross-Border and Pan-EU Enforcement

CPR 2024/3110 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 together establish the ICSMS (Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance) as the primary platform for sharing information between MSAs across Member States. A non-compliance finding in one Member State will typically be entered into ICSMS, triggering review and potentially parallel enforcement action in other Member States where the same product is sold. Manufacturers who attempt to contain a non-compliance finding to a single market by settling quickly with one MSA may find that the finding has already propagated through ICSMS to enforcement authorities elsewhere.

5. Practical Examples of CPR Enforcement Actions

Examining real-world enforcement patterns illuminates how the penalty framework operates in practice, and where the greatest compliance risks are concentrated by product category and economic operator type.

5.1 Structural Steel Products

A manufacturer of structural steel sections placed products on the German market bearing CE marking under EN 10025 (hot rolled products of structural steels). An MSA inspection revealed that the factory production control system had not been assessed by a notified body under AVCP System 2+, as required for this product family. The manufacturer had completed only internal testing and issued DoPs on that basis. The enforcement outcome included mandatory suspension of CE marking use, a formal corrective order requiring full System 2+ certification before resuming supply, and an administrative fine calculated on the basis of the value of products supplied during the non-compliant period. The case was referred to the ICSMS system, triggering investigations in Austria and the Netherlands where the same products were distributed.

5.2 Fire-Resistant Glazing

A distributor supplying fire-resistant glazing units sourced from a third-country manufacturer placed products on the Belgian market without verifying that the accompanying DoPs correctly reflected the actual AVCP procedure completed. Subsequent testing by the Belgian MSA revealed that the declared fire resistance classification (EI 30 to EN 13501-2) was not supported by the test evidence in the technical file, which related to a different product configuration. The distributor was held liable alongside the importer, with the enforcement authority applying the principle that distributors cannot rely on face-value acceptance of documentation where commercially reasonable due diligence would have identified the discrepancy. Both parties received administrative fines and were required to fund remedial testing and notification of all downstream customers.

5.3 Online Marketplace Non-Compliance

CPR 2024/3110 introduces specific provisions addressing construction products sold through online marketplaces, reflecting the significant growth in e-commerce channels for building materials. In one Italian enforcement action, a manufacturer selling facade insulation panels through an online platform failed to provide accessible DoPs linked from product listings as required under the digital accessibility provisions of the new regulation. The MSA issued a corrective order requiring the manufacturer to update all listings within 14 days and to provide evidence of compliance. The manufacturer’s failure to respond within the deadline resulted in an escalated fine and a formal request to the platform operator to delist the products under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (the Digital Services Act), which operates in parallel with CPR enforcement powers in the online environment.

6. The Role of Notified Bodies in Enforcement Contexts

Notified bodies (NBs) accredited and notified under CPR 2024/3110 play a dual role in the enforcement landscape. On one hand, they are the primary gatekeepers for AVCP systems requiring third-party involvement (Systems 1+, 1, 2+, and 2). On the other hand, they carry their own regulatory obligations and can themselves become subjects of enforcement action if they issue certificates without adequate assessment.

6.1 Notified Body Certificates and Their Withdrawal

Where a notified body discovers, during surveillance activities, that a manufacturer’s factory production control system no longer meets the requirements against which certification was granted, the NB is obliged to issue a formal finding and, if the manufacturer fails to take corrective action within a reasonable period, to suspend or withdraw the certificate. Withdrawal of an NB certificate has immediate legal effect: the manufacturer’s DoPs relying on that certificate become invalid, CE marking must be suspended, and the manufacturer must notify all known customers. Failure to do so constitutes a further infringement of CPR 2024/3110. The NB is also required to notify the relevant national authority and, through the NANDO (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) database, to update the certificate status publicly.

6.2 Implications for Manufacturers Using Suspended NB Certificates

Manufacturers who continue to supply products relying on suspended NB certificates — even if unaware of the suspension — face significant liability. CPR 2024/3110 imposes an obligation on manufacturers to monitor the status of their NB certificates and to take immediate action upon any change in status. MSAs treat continued supply under a suspended certificate as equivalent in severity to supplying without any NB involvement, on the basis that the manufacturer had or ought to have had knowledge of the suspension.

7. Compliance Risk Management: Practical Strategies for Reducing Penalty Exposure

The penalty framework under CPR 2024/3110 is designed to be deterrent rather than merely compensatory. Economic operators who invest in proactive compliance programmes significantly reduce both their probability of enforcement action and the severity of penalties in the event that issues do arise. MSAs across the EU consistently apply leniency in their penalty calculations when an operator can demonstrate a well-functioning internal compliance system, immediate self-reporting of discovered issues, and prompt corrective action.

7.1 Documentation Management Systems

Maintaining a centralised, auditable repository for all CPR-related documentation — including test reports, FPC records, notified body certificates, DoPs, and correspondence with MSAs — is the single most effective risk mitigation measure available to manufacturers and importers. CPR 2024/3110’s ten-year retention requirement means that documentation must be retrievable and verifiable for products placed on the market during the entire preceding decade. Digital document management systems with version control, access logging, and automated retention period tracking are strongly advisable for any economic operator with a meaningful construction products portfolio.

7.2 Internal Audit Programmes

Regular internal audits of CE marking compliance — benchmarked against the applicable harmonised standards, ETA documents, and AVCP system requirements — allow economic operators to identify and correct deficiencies before they are discovered by MSAs. An internal audit programme that is documented, acted upon, and can be demonstrated to an enforcement authority constitutes strong evidence of good faith, which most national penalty frameworks treat as a significant mitigating factor.

7.3 Supply Chain Due Diligence Protocols

For importers and distributors, structured supply chain due diligence protocols — including pre-import verification checklists, contractual warranties from manufacturers regarding AVCP completion, and periodic review of NB certificate status via the NANDO database — provide both substantive protection and evidential value in enforcement proceedings. A distributor who can demonstrate that it conducted reasonable and documented due diligence before placing products on the market is in a substantially stronger position than one relying solely on representations from its supplier.

8. Future Developments: Enhanced Enforcement Under CPR 2024/3110’s Digital and Sustainability Provisions

CPR 2024/3110 introduces several provisions that will progressively increase enforcement activity in areas that were less prominent under the 2011 regulation. Economic operators should begin preparing for this evolving enforcement landscape now.

8.1 Digital Product Passport Requirements

The regulation introduces a framework for Digital Product Passports (DPPs) for construction products, aligned with the broader EU Digital Product Passport initiative under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). As DPP obligations become mandatory for specific product families, failure to provide a compliant DPP will constitute a standalone CPR infringement. MSAs are expected to develop digital scanning and verification capabilities to check DPP compliance at the point of market entry and at sites where products are used.

8.2 Sustainability and Circular Economy Declarations

CPR 2024/3110 expands the scope of essential characteristics to include environmental and sustainability dimensions more explicitly than its predecessor. As harmonised standards are revised or newly developed to reflect these dimensions, manufacturers will be required to declare performance against environmental characteristics including embodied carbon content, recycled material content, and end-of-life recyclability. False or unsupported environmental declarations will be treated as CPR infringements and may additionally trigger liability under the EU Green Claims Directive (once enacted) and existing national consumer protection law.

Summary

CPR 2024/3110 establishes the most comprehensive and robust enforcement framework for construction products in EU regulatory history. The regulation’s penalty architecture operates on the principle of effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions, implemented through national law but anchored in EU-level obligations that ensure a minimum standard of enforcement across all Member States. Manufacturers face the broadest liability exposure, but importers, authorised representatives, and distributors all carry meaningful obligations and can be held directly accountable for infringements within their sphere of control. The interaction between CPR 2024/3110 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 creates a powerful cross-border enforcement network through ICSMS, meaning that non-compliance discovered in one Member State routinely triggers parallel action elsewhere. Economic operators who invest in robust documentation management, internal audit programmes, and supply chain due diligence protocols are significantly better positioned both to avoid enforcement action and to demonstrate mitigating circumstances if issues arise. The evolving landscape — including digital product passports, environmental declarations, and enhanced online marketplace surveillance — signals that enforcement intensity will continue to increase in the years ahead.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the maximum fines for CPR non-compliance under EU law?

CPR 2024/3110 does not set a single maximum fine applicable across all Member States. Instead, it requires each Member State to establish penalties that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, and to notify the European Commission of the relevant national provisions. In practice, maximum fines vary significantly: several Member States have implemented maximum administrative fines in the range of €100,000 to €500,000 for serious infringements, while others have linked penalty calculations to a percentage of the infringing operator’s annual turnover — a methodology that can produce far larger figures for large manufacturers. Criminal sanctions, where applicable under national law, may additionally include custodial sentences for individuals responsible for wilful or seriously negligent infringements. Economic operators with multi-market exposure should consult national legal counsel in each relevant jurisdiction to understand the specific penalty ranges applicable to their situation.

Can a distributor be penalised for a manufacturer’s non-compliance?

Yes. Under CPR 2024/3110, distributors who make construction products available on the market are required to verify that CE marking is present, that a DoP or DoC accompanies the product, and that labelling meets applicable requirements before supplying the product. A distributor who supplies products that are non-compliant — even if the non-compliance originated with the manufacturer — may be held liable if they failed to conduct reasonable verification. The key legal question in enforcement proceedings against a distributor is typically whether they had knowledge of the non-compliance or whether commercially reasonable due diligence would have revealed it. Distributors are advised to implement formal pre-supply verification protocols and to document these checks, as documented due diligence substantially strengthens their legal position in the event of enforcement action.

What happens if a notified body withdraws a manufacturer’s certificate?

If a notified body withdraws a factory production control or product certification certificate, the manufacturer must immediately suspend the use of CE marking on affected products and cease placing them on the market under that certification. Any DoPs issued under the withdrawn certificate become legally invalid. The manufacturer is required to notify all known customers — typically distributors and major direct purchasers — of the withdrawal and its implications. The notified body is obliged to update the NANDO database to reflect the withdrawal, making it publicly visible. Continued supply of products under a withdrawn certificate constitutes a serious CPR infringement, treated by MSAs as equivalent in severity to never having obtained certification, and is likely to attract heightened penalties including potential criminal referral in jurisdictions that criminalise wilful CE marking violations.

How does market surveillance work across EU borders under CPR 2024/3110?

Cross-border market surveillance under CPR 2024/3110 operates primarily through the ICSMS platform established under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, which all Member State MSAs are required to use for recording and sharing information about non-compliant products and enforcement actions. When an MSA in one Member State identifies a non-compliant construction product and enters the finding into ICSMS, MSAs in other Member States where the same product is distributed are automatically alerted and are expected to assess whether action is warranted in their jurisdiction. The Safety Gate rapid alert system (RAPEX) may also be used for products presenting serious risks. Additionally, the Administrative Cooperation group (ADCO) for construction products facilitates coordinated enforcement campaigns targeting specific product categories across multiple Member States simultaneously. Economic operators should not assume that a non-compliance finding can be contained to a single national market.

Does CPR 2024/3110 apply to construction products sold through online marketplaces?

Yes, and this is an area of significantly enhanced regulatory attention compared to the previous CPR. CPR 2024/3110 includes specific provisions addressing online sales of construction products, requiring that DoPs or DoCs be digitally accessible from product listings, that CE marking information is clearly presented, and that product descriptions accurately reflect declared performance characteristics. Online marketplace operators themselves have obligations under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (the Digital Services Act) to cooperate with MSAs and to act on orders to remove listings for non-compliant products. MSAs have increasingly invested in digital market surveillance tools that systematically scan online marketplaces for construction products that appear to lack required documentation or CE marking. Manufacturers and importers supplying through e-commerce channels should treat digital compliance — including DoP accessibility, accurate product descriptions, and digital labelling — as an integral component of their CPR compliance programme rather than an afterthought.

What is the difference between an administrative corrective order and a formal penalty under CPR?

Under CPR 2024/3110, MSAs have a tiered toolkit of enforcement measures. A corrective order is typically the first formal step: the MSA directs the economic operator to take specific remedial action within a defined timeframe, such as withdrawing non-compliant products, updating documentation, or completing a missing AVCP procedure. Corrective orders may or may not be accompanied by an immediate fine, depending on national law. A formal penalty — an administrative fine or, in serious cases, a criminal sanction — is typically imposed where the operator fails to comply with a corrective order, where the infringement is serious or deliberate, or where the operator is a repeat offender. The proportionality of penalties is assessed with reference to factors including the severity and duration of the infringement, the economic gain derived, the degree of negligence or intent, and the operator’s compliance history. Prompt voluntary corrective action, even before a formal order is issued, is consistently treated as a significant mitigating factor in penalty calculations across EU Member States.

How long must manufacturers retain CPR technical documentation, and what are the consequences of failing to do so?

CPR 2024/3110 requires manufacturers to retain technical documentation for a minimum of ten years after the last date on which the construction product was placed on the market in the EU. For certain product categories involving safety-critical applications — structural elements, fire-resistance products, products used in permanent works — national law in some Member States may impose longer retention periods. Failure to produce technical documentation on request from an MSA is itself a standalone infringement of CPR 2024/3110, irrespective of whether the underlying product was actually compliant. It can also significantly aggravate penalties for any associated substantive infringements, because the absence of documentation prevents the operator from demonstrating compliance and is treated as evidence of systemic non-compliance. Importers should note that the ten-year obligation applies from the date of EU market placement, not from the date of importation, and that they may need to obtain and maintain copies of manufacturer technical files to meet this obligation independently.