One signature, one party, full responsibility
The declaration of conformity is the least glamorous document in a technical file and the one that carries the most personal weight. It is a statement, signed by the manufacturer, that a product conforms to the legislation named in it. Not a laboratory’s statement, not an importer’s statement, not a consultant’s. The manufacturer’s, and the responsibility it carries is the manufacturer’s alone.
That is why the document is short. It has to be, because everything in it is an assertion that somebody is prepared to stand behind. A declaration that runs to several pages is usually a declaration with an annex, and the annex is a different document doing a different job: the technical file. The declaration says what is claimed and who claims it. The file shows why the claim is supportable. Neither one is complete without the other, and neither one can be replaced by a supplier’s reassurance in an email.
Read as a contract rather than as paperwork, the declaration makes sense. It binds one party to a statement about one product against one set of rules, and it tells a market surveillance authority where to go when it wants to test that statement. Every line exists to answer one of those questions.
It has to be finished before the goods are placed on the market
The timing is not a formality. The declaration must be drawn up and signed before the product is placed on the market, which means before it is made available for the first time in the course of business. A declaration produced after a shipment has landed, because a customs broker asked for one, is a document created in the wrong order, and authorities are entitled to notice that.
Behind the signature sits a technical file, and that file has to be retained and has to be producible. The file is what turns the declaration from an assertion into a testable one: drawings, specifications, the test reports relied on, the assessment of which requirements apply, and the reasoning behind the choice of route. A manufacturer who can sign but cannot produce the file has signed something it cannot support.
Our own position is narrow, and it is better stated here than discovered later. CE documentation applies to our wall-hung series only. It is not a claim we make for the rest of the 89-model range, and a buyer importing floor-standing or back-to-wall models into the EU should treat the applicable route — and whether CE is required for those products at all — as a question for the authority or the notified body handling the file. Being precise about scope is the first duty the document imposes.
The four parts, read in order
Every declaration is built from the same four parts, and they always appear in the same order because each one depends on the one before it. Read them as a sequence rather than as a form.
The note at the foot of the diagram — one page, four parts, read downwards — is the useful summary. Most of the errors found in declarations are errors of sequence: a product identified loosely in part one, legislation named vaguely in part two, and a claim in part three that is therefore broader than anything the manufacturer can support.
Who and what: the first two parts
The first part identifies the manufacturer and the product. The manufacturer’s identity has to be complete enough that an authority can write to it, which means a legal name and an address, not a trade name and a website. The product identification has to be specific: the model code or codes the declaration covers, and enough description to remove any doubt about which article the claim attaches to.
This is where the most expensive ambiguity lives. A declaration naming a family, when the tests were run on one model in that family, is a declaration whose scope exceeds its evidence. Where a market authority compares the declaration against the technical file, the mismatch is immediate and the consequence is not a conversation: the claim fails for the models outside the evidence, and in practice that means all of them, because the document cannot be split after the fact.
The discipline is to write the codes. If a declaration covers three models, it names three models. If a model is added later, the declaration is revised rather than stretched, because a stretched declaration is a false statement signed by somebody.
Which rules, and what is being claimed
The second part names the legislation the claim is made against. For sanitaryware on the European route that will typically include the construction products legislation and the harmonised standard applied to the product, of which EN 997 is the one that governs WC pans and suites. Naming the standard matters because the standard is what defines the tests and the performance declarations the product must be able to demonstrate.
A declaration that names legislation without naming the standard leaves the claim unanchored. It is also a signal, because a manufacturer who has actually tested to a standard will name it without being asked. Where the requirement set for your market is not one we can evidence, the honest answer is that the route needs confirming with the authority or the notified body, and that belongs in a quotation rather than in a document signed after the fact.
The third part is the claim itself, in the set wording the legislation prescribes: that the manufacturer declares, under sole responsibility, that the product conforms. Two words in that formula do the work. Sole responsibility means exactly what it says and cannot be delegated to a testing house, an agent or an importer. And the wording is prescribed, which means it is not a place for drafting: paraphrase it and the document becomes an opinion rather than a declaration.
The signature, the date and the file behind it
The fourth part carries the place and date of issue, the signature, and the identification of the person signing on behalf of the manufacturer. The date is not decoration: it is the evidence that the declaration existed before the product was placed on the market, and it is the first thing to check when a declaration is produced during a dispute.
Behind the signature sits the technical file, which has to be kept and has to be producible on request. In practice that means a file that is indexed, current, and stored somewhere a successor can find it, because the obligation survives staff changes. A file that exists only as a folder on somebody’s laptop is a file that will be lost, and losing it converts a defensible position into an indefensible one.
The operator inside the European Union
A manufacturer outside the European Union cannot simply sign and disappear. The framework requires an economic operator established inside the Union who can be contacted by market surveillance authorities on matters covered by the applicable legislation, and whose details appear so that the contact is possible. That operator is not the manufacturer and does not take over the manufacturer’s responsibility. What it provides is an address the system can reach.
For a buyer, that line is worth reading before the container ships rather than after. If the declaration names an operator who has changed, or names none, the document has a gap that a market surveillance officer will find in the first minute, and filling it later means reissuing a document that was supposed to exist before the goods were placed on the market.
Four errors that void the document
These are the four that recur, and each of them turns a declaration into something a buyer cannot rely on.
- Signing before the evidence exists. A declaration issued against a test that is booked but not completed is a statement about a result nobody has yet. The file has to be able to support the claim on the day it is signed.
- Declaring more models than were evaluated. A family name on the document and one model in the technical file is the most common mismatch, and it fails the whole declaration rather than the extra models.
- Naming legislation without a standard, or a standard the product was not tested to. Both make the claim unanchored, and the second makes it false.
- No reachable operator, or a technical file that cannot be produced. The document then asserts conformity while removing the means of checking it, which is the failure mode authorities look for first.
One further error is worth separating because it is made in good faith: an importer reissuing the manufacturer’s declaration under its own letterhead, as though it were the manufacturer. That document is not a declaration of conformity, and a buyer who relies on it has relied on a party who has not accepted the responsibility the document describes.
The test of a declaration is therefore simple. Can the signature be traced to a legal person? Can the product be traced to a model code? Can the legislation be traced to a standard? Can the standard be traced to a report? Can the report be produced? If all five answers are yes, the document is doing its job. If any one is no, the rest do not save it.
Frequently asked questions
Who signs a declaration of conformity?
The manufacturer, and the responsibility is the manufacturer’s alone. It can be a person authorised to sign on the manufacturer’s behalf, but the party accepting the obligation is the manufacturer. A testing house, an agent or an importer cannot sign it in that capacity.
When must the declaration be drawn up?
Before the product is placed on the market, which means before it is first made available in the course of business. A declaration produced later, in response to a request at the border, is a document created out of sequence and is treated as such.
Do all of your toilets carry CE marking?
No. CE documentation applies to our wall-hung series only, and we do not claim it for the rest of the range. For floor-standing, back-to-wall or smart models the applicable route should be confirmed with the authority or the notified body handling your file.
Does the declaration have an expiry date?
It is tied to the product, the legislation and the evidence behind it rather than to a calendar. It must be revised when any of those changes: a new model, an amended standard, or a change in the manufacturing arrangement that the file relied on. Treat revision triggers as the real validity rule.
What is the technical file for?
It is the evidence behind the claim: drawings, specifications, the reports relied on and the reasoning for the route taken. It has to be retained and produced on request. A declaration without a producible file asserts conformity while removing the means of verifying it.
Can a declaration cover several models at once?
Yes, if each of them is identified and each is supported by the evidence in the file. What it cannot do is name a family and leave the individual models unlisted, because the scope of the claim then exceeds the scope of what was evaluated.
Related on this site
Documents and certificates
- Certificates held, and which series each covers
- Declarations, test reports and the drawing set
- Ask which models sit inside the CE scope
Related reading
- CE marking toilets for the EU
- Certificate scope: model and market
- Inspection Certificate or Test Report