Hubbry Logo
Notified bodyNotified bodyMain
Open search
Notified body
Community hub
Notified body
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Notified body
Notified body
Notified body
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
CE Mark

A notified body, in the European Union, is an organisation that has been designated by a member state to assess the conformity of certain products, before being placed on the EU market, with the applicable essential technical requirements. These essential requirements are publicised in European directives or regulations.

A manufacturer can use voluntarily European harmonised standards to demonstrate that a product complies with some (or all) of the EU essential requirements; alternatively, a notified body assess the conformity to these essential requirements. Conformity assessment can include inspection and examination of a product, its design, and the manufacturing environment and processes associated with it. For example, a notified body may designate that a medical device conforms to the essential requirements of the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR (EU) 2017/745) which defines the applicable legislation, including the general safety and performance requirements, for medical devices. With this type examination certificate, (and ensuring the product also satisfies all other applicable regulations), the manufacturer can generate its declaration of conformity and label the product with the CE Mark, which is required for distribution and sale in the EU. Additionally, the EU member state accrediting the notified body will then inform the European Commission that the product complies with the essential requirements (or not).[1][2][3]

More generally, a notified body is an independent, accredited body which is entitled by an authorized accrediting body. Upon definition of standards and regulations, the accrediting body may allow a notified body to provide verification and certification services. These services are meant to ensure and assess compliance to the previously defined regulations, but also to provide an official certification mark or a declaration of conformity.[4][5]

Criticism and improvement

[edit]

The notified bodies system used by the European Union has been publicly criticized in some capacity since at least 2008[6][7][8][9][10] for issues such as:

  • "a lack of uniformity in certification procedures and in the application of harmonised standards";[6]
  • "the varying levels of expertise among notified bodies,"[9] including "differences in test results";[6] and
  • "encouraging 'forum shopping' by sponsors to identify those notified bodies with the most lax operating standards."[9]

Discussion of further expanding coordination groups of notified bodies for different product areas, improving marketing surveillance, and making participation in standardization and coordination activities mandatory began within EU member states.[6] However, more criticism would arise out of the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) scandal in early 2010, when media revealed that the French manufacturer of silicone gel breast implants had been using unapproved in-house manufactured industrial-grade instead of medical-grade silicone for most of its implants. Investigators also brought criticism down on notified body TÜV Rheinland for issuing a certificate of quality for a production process that didn't include the in-house industrial-grade silicone. However, TÜV stated "its remit was to check the production process, not the content of the silicone."[7][11]

The revelation had a ripple effect, causing both more criticism about the responsibilities of notified bodies and the regulatory process in general and more corrective action. The Central Management Committee was created in September 2010 "to develop the effectiveness of the regulatory system on medical devices in the EU by improving decision making among the national regulatory authorities."[7][12] Then in February 2012, European Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli called upon EU member states to take a hard look at the regulatory system, including how notified bodies play a part. His recommendations included properly verifying whether a notified body is capable of accurately assessing medical devices, improving how conformity assessments are conducted, and developing tools to enhance medical device traceability.[13] The European Commission acted, that September revealing its proposed changes to medical device regulation, including expanded requirements on notified bodies, to be published in 2014 and go into effect in 2017.[14] However, the commission also opted to instate additional reforms — separate from its draft regulations — that would go into effect much sooner, asking notified bodies to perform unannounced visits to manufacturers and expand their device testing standards. At the same time the NB-MED (European Forum of Notified Bodies Medical Devices) coordination revised their code of conduct due to criticism.[7][15]

In late 2013 and early 2014, a French court ordered (and later upheld its decision) that notified body TÜV Rheinland pay restitution to those affected by the PIP scandal.[16] However, this decision and a similar case in Germany has created questions about how much liability should be applied to notified bodies for patient devices found to be dangerous despite previous notified body assessment. The German case against TÜV was dismissed initially and on appeal in district and regional courts, and an appeal to a German federal court resulted in referral of the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for clarification "on three issues on the interpretation of the Medical Devices Directive."[17] Additionally, the original restitution decision by French courts was appealed and overturned on July 2, 2015, forcing affected patients to return their interim compensation, leaving many patients without recourse.[18]

As of February 2016, the German case is ongoing, waiting for CJEU input. Rudd-Clarke and Page postulated in December 2015 that if "the CJEU decides that notified bodies are under a duty to protect patients, the practical effects could be that the CE certification process slows down, which is likely to have a detrimental impact on the cost for manufacturers of getting a product to market, while notified bodies may face a significantly increased litigation risk for failure to comply with their duties."[3]

Regulations governing medical device manufacturers and Notified Bodies operating in the medical device field were tightened with the Medical Device Regulation of 2017.

Nando database

[edit]

The European Commission maintains an online database which includes all designated notified bodies: Nando (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) Information System. This searchable and publicly available Nando database contains different lists of notified bodies, including the identification number and contact details of each notified body as well as the tasks for which it has been notified. The lists as well as the designated tasks for each notified body are subject to regular update: as the notification of notified bodies (and their withdrawal, suspension, reinstatement) is the responsibility of the notifying EU Member State (and not of the European Commission), the data in this Nando database is provided by the designating authorities of that EU Member States.

The database can be used to verify the status (valid/withdrawn/expired/suspended) of a notified body related to a particular European Directive or Regulation as well as the associated designated scope of tasks related to conformity assessment procedures set out in that Directive or Regulation.[19][2]...

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Notified body

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A notified body is an organization designated by an to assess the of certain products with applicable before they are placed on the market within the . These bodies play a in the assessment process for products requiring third-party verification, such as medical devices, machinery, and pressure equipment, ensuring compliance with essential health, safety, and environmental requirements. Designation as a notified body involves rigorous by national authorities to confirm the organization's technical competence, , and operational , with bodies listed in the EU's NANDO database for transparency and mutual recognition across Member States. Notified bodies must adhere to harmonized standards and undergo regular surveillance, including accreditation under ISO/IEC 17065 or equivalent, to maintain their status. In practice, notified bodies conduct procedures ranging from type examination and production to full quality assurance systems, issuing certificates that enable manufacturers to affix the , symbolizing presumption of conformity with EU directives or regulations. For higher-risk categories, their involvement is mandatory, facilitating free movement of goods while mitigating potential hazards, though challenges such as capacity constraints under updated regulations like the Medical Device Regulation have highlighted tensions between stringent oversight and market access.

Core Definition and Purpose

A notified body is an organization designated by the competent authority of an EU Member State (or associated countries under agreement) to perform conformity assessment tasks for specific products under relevant EU harmonisation legislation. These bodies, which may be private or public entities, evaluate whether products meet essential requirements for health, safety, and environmental protection before market placement, particularly for categories requiring third-party involvement beyond manufacturer self-assessment. The core purpose of notified bodies is to enable the affixing of the , signifying compliance with standards and allowing free circulation of goods across the . By conducting independent audits, testing, , and surveillance, they mitigate risks associated with higher-hazard products—such as medical devices, machinery, and —ensuring that only verified items enter the market. This third-party verification supplements manufacturer declarations, promoting trust in product safety without centralizing control at the level. Designated bodies must demonstrate technical competence, impartiality, and adherence to international standards like ISO/IEC 17065 for activities, with their identifications published in the EU's NANDO database for transparency. This framework, rooted in the New Approach to technical harmonisation since the , decentralizes assessment to national designees while harmonizing criteria EU-wide, balancing regulatory efficiency with robust oversight.

Scope of Application Across EU Regulations

Notified bodies are designated under legislation that incorporates conformity assessment procedures requiring third-party intervention, as outlined in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 on and market for the of products. This scope applies to harmonized sectors where products may pose risks to , , or the environment, mandating notified body involvement for specific modules such as EU type-examination (Module B), conformity to type based on (Module C2), production (Module D), or product (Module E), per the common framework in Decision No 768/2008/EC. Low-risk products often rely on manufacturer self-declaration under Module A (internal production control), bypassing notified bodies, while higher-risk categories necessitate their expertise to verify compliance with essential requirements and harmonized standards. In the health and consumer safety domain, notified bodies play a central role under Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation, MDR, applicable since May 26, 2021), assessing devices in Classes IIa, IIb, and III through audits of quality management systems, clinical evaluation reviews, and technical documentation scrutiny; as of October 2024, only 36 notified bodies hold MDR designations amid capacity shortages. Under Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation, IVDR, applicable since May 26, 2022), they evaluate List A and B devices plus Class D, with 18 designated bodies reported by late 2024, reflecting stricter scrutiny for high-risk diagnostics like SARS-CoV-2 tests. For personal protective equipment (PPE), Regulation (EU) 2016/425 requires notified bodies for Category II (intermediate risks, e.g., hearing protection) via type-examination and Category III (irreversible risks, e.g., respiratory devices) via full quality assurance, excluding Category I self-certification. Industrial and technical product sectors further delineate notified body application by hazard levels. The 2006/42/EC (codified as Directive 2006/42/EC) engages them for partly completed machinery or guards with specific hazards, involving design and production conformity verification. Pressure Equipment Directive 2014/68/EU mandates intervention for Category III (medium risk, e.g., steam generators) and IV (high risk, e.g., nuclear vessels) via quality assurance modules. Other examples include the Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU for certain electrical equipment, ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU for explosive atmospheres (Categories 1 and 2), and Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU for components and subsystems. Toys under Directive 2009/48/EC require notified bodies only for chemicals posing chemical risks or traceability needs, while Construction Products Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 uses them for AVCP systems 1, 1+, and 2+ involving factory production control .
LegislationSectorNotified Body Requirement
Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR)Medical devicesClasses IIa+; QMS audits, type-examination
Regulation (EU) 2016/425PPECategories II and III; type-examination, quality assurance
Directive 2006/42/ECMachineryPartly completed machinery, specific hazards
Directive 2014/68/EUPressure equipmentCategories III and IV; module D/H
Directive 2014/34/EUExplosive atmospheres (ATEX)Equipment Groups I/II Categories 1-2; EC-type examination
Designations are tracked in the EU's NANDO database, covering over 30 acts as of 2023, with member states notifying bodies for precise tasks, ensuring targeted application without universal mandate across all CE-marked products.

Historical Development

Origins in the New Approach to Technical Harmonization

The New Approach to Technical Harmonization emerged in the early 1980s as a response to the limitations of the traditional "Old Approach," which relied on exhaustive, detailed harmonization of national laws through directives specifying precise technical requirements for products, leading to slow legislative processes and barriers to the free movement of goods within the European Community. This shift was driven by the goal of completing the internal market by 1992, as outlined in the of 1986, necessitating a more efficient framework that avoided micromanaging every product detail while ensuring safety and compatibility. The foundational document was the Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on a New Approach to Technical Harmonization and Standards, which established core principles including the definition of essential health and safety requirements in framework directives, the use of voluntary harmonized standards (developed by bodies like CEN and CENELEC) to provide a presumption of conformity, and reliance on manufacturers' self-certification for low-risk products. For higher-risk categories requiring independent verification—such as pressure equipment or machinery—directives mandated involvement of third-party conformity assessment bodies to validate compliance, marking a departure from purely governmental oversight under the Old Approach. This resolution, complemented by the Global Approach of 1984 on testing and certification, emphasized mutual recognition and reduced trade barriers by standardizing procedures rather than specifications. Notified bodies originated within this framework as independent organizations designated by EU member states to perform conformity assessments, including testing, inspection, and certification, for products falling under New Approach directives. Member states notify the European Commission of these bodies' identification numbers and scopes of competence, enabling them to affix the upon successful assessment, which signifies compliance and allows across the . The first directives implementing this model, such as the Directive (73/23/EEC, amended) and the (89/392/EEC), incorporated notified body roles for specific modules like type examination and , ensuring rigorous yet decentralized enforcement without centralizing all technical decisions in . This structure balanced regulatory efficiency with accountability, as notified bodies operated under national but adhered to harmonized criteria, fostering a where empirical evidence, rather than prescriptive rules, underpinned .

Evolution Through Key Directives and Regulations

The role of notified bodies in conformity assessment emerged as part of the European Union's New Approach to technical harmonization, formalized by the Council Resolution of 7 May 1985, which shifted from detailed prescriptive legislation to essential safety and performance requirements, with notified bodies tasked with verifying compliance for products requiring third-party involvement. This framework distinguished between manufacturer self-declaration for simpler products and notified body certification for higher-risk categories, as implemented in early directives such as the 89/392/EEC (adopted 21 June 1989), which mandated notified bodies for procedures like full (Annex V) and product verification (Annex VII). Similarly, the 93/42/EEC (adopted 14 June 1993) expanded their scope to Class IIb and III devices, requiring EC-type examination and audits under Annexes II, III, and V. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, proliferation of New Approach directives—such as the Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC (adopted 29 May 1997) and the Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive 98/79/EC (adopted 20 December 1998)—highlighted inconsistencies in notified body designation and oversight, prompting reforms to enhance competence and mutual recognition. The New Legislative Framework (NLF), enacted through Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 (adopted 9 July 2008) and Decision No 768/2008/EC (adopted 9 July 2008), marked a pivotal evolution by mandating accreditation of notified bodies by national bodies against harmonized standards like EN ISO/IEC 17065, introducing coordinated assessments, and standardizing conformity modules (A–H) across aligned to ensure consistent application and reduce fragmentation. Subsequent sector-specific regulations further refined notified body requirements, replacing directives with directly applicable rules and heightened scrutiny. For instance, the Medical Device Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (adopted 5 April 2017, applicable from 26 May 2021) imposed rigorous designation criteria, including joint EU audits and performance evaluations, in response to vulnerabilities exposed by incidents like the scandal, while expanding notified body involvement to all Class Is, , Ir, IIa, IIb, and III devices. Analogous updates in the Regulation (EU) 2016/425 (adopted 9 March 2016) and Construction Products Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (adopted 9 March 2011) emphasized accredited expertise and market surveillance coordination, reflecting an ongoing shift toward proactive and reduced reliance on for complex products.

Designation and Oversight

Criteria and Process for Designation

Designation of notified bodies occurs at the national level by competent authorities in EU member states, which verify compliance with general and sector-specific requirements before notifying the European Commission. These requirements, harmonized under Decision No 768/2008/EC, emphasize organizational integrity, technical capability, and operational safeguards to ensure reliable conformity assessments. Sectoral regulations, such as Annex VII of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 for medical devices, impose additional obligations tailored to risk levels and assessment modules. Key criteria for designation encompass:
  • Legal and : The body must be a legal entity established in the or EEA, with a documented structure that clearly defines management responsibilities, decision-making processes, and separation of functions to avoid conflicts.
  • and : Operations must be free from commercial, financial, or other pressures that could compromise objectivity, including policies to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest for staff and subcontractors.
  • Technical competence and resources: Personnel must possess relevant qualifications, experience, and ongoing training; facilities and equipment must support required testing and audits, with sufficient numbers to handle workload without delays.
  • Quality management : Implementation of a compliant with standards like EN ISO/IEC 17065, covering document control, internal audits, , and corrective actions.
  • Confidentiality and liability: Robust procedures for protecting sensitive information and adequate financial liability coverage, unless exempted by national law.
The process begins with the candidate organization submitting a formal application to the member state's , including evidence of compliance such as certificates, organizational charts, and scope of intended activities. The authority conducts a thorough , typically involving documentary review, on-site inspections, interviews with personnel, and verification of processes against legislative criteria. For high-risk sectors like medical devices, joint assessments by multiple member states or Commission involvement may occur under Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745. Upon successful verification, the authority designates the body for specific assessment procedures (e.g., modules A to H in harmonized ) and notifies the Commission via an electronic system, detailing the body's identification number, scope, and validity period—often limited to three to five years with mandatory re-assessments. The Commission publishes the information in the New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations (NANDO) database, enabling manufacturers to select designated bodies for certification. Designations can be suspended or withdrawn if non-compliance is identified through ongoing or complaints.

Accreditation and Supervision by Member States

Member States of the designate notified bodies through their competent national authorities, which assess applications to ensure compliance with criteria outlined in sector-specific legislation and the general framework of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. These criteria encompass , from economic operators, sufficient personnel with requisite qualifications, and robust systems to guarantee impartial and competent assessments. Designation is not automatic; authorities evaluate evidence of technical capability, often requiring demonstration via or equivalent means before notifying the and listing the body in the NANDO database. Accreditation serves as the primary mechanism to verify a assessment body's competence for notified body status, conducted by the single national body per as mandated by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. These bodies, operating independently and without profit motive, assess against harmonized standards such as EN ISO/IEC 17065, which specifies requirements for bodies certifying products, processes, or services. involves rigorous evaluation of the body's procedures, resources, and , with scope limited to the specific assessment modules (e.g., EU type-examination or ) for which designation is sought. Peer evaluations among national bodies, coordinated by the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA), ensure mutual recognition and equivalence of accreditations across under Article 10 of the regulation. Ongoing by Member States' competent authorities is essential to maintain notified bodies' adherence to designation conditions, involving systematic monitoring such as annual reports, periodic audits, and re-assessments typically every three to five years depending on sector rules. Authorities conduct activities, including document reviews and on-site inspections, to detect deviations in performance, impartiality, or resource adequacy, with powers to mandate corrective actions, restrict scopes, or suspend/withdraw notifications if non-compliance persists. This framework, reinforced by market provisions in Articles 16–28 of (EC) No 765/2008, enables rapid response to risks, such as through information exchange via the Administrative Cooperation (ADCO) groups. While provides initial assurance, emphasizes causal , as lapses in oversight have historically contributed to inconsistencies in conformity assessments across sectors like medical devices.

Roles in Conformity Assessment

General Responsibilities

Notified bodies are designated to perform third-party conformity assessments for products falling under harmonisation legislation that mandates independent verification, ensuring compliance with essential health, safety, and environmental requirements before market placement. Their core tasks include reviewing manufacturers' technical documentation, conducting type-examination procedures to approve product designs against harmonised standards, and issuing EU-type examination certificates where applicable. These assessments follow modular procedures outlined in Annex II of Decision No 768/2008/EC, such as Module B (-type examination) combined with modules like D ( of production) or F (product verification through testing or ). In addition to initial certification, notified bodies maintain ongoing surveillance responsibilities, including periodic audits of manufacturers' systems, unannounced factory visits, and review of post-market data to confirm continued . They must document all findings, retain records for specified periods (typically up to 15 years for high-risk products), and withdraw or suspend certificates if non-conformities are identified that pose risks. For subcontracted tasks, notified bodies remain fully accountable, ensuring subcontractors meet equivalent competence standards. Notified bodies operate under strict principles of , , and non-discrimination, employing personnel with requisite expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest, as verified through to standards like EN ISO/IEC 17065. They are required to notify relevant authorities of certifications issued, serious risks detected, or changes in their operational scope, facilitating coordinated oversight across the via the NANDO database. Confidentiality of proprietary manufacturer information is mandatory, except where disclosure is compelled by law or for safety alerts.

Sector-Specific Functions (e.g., Medical Devices)


In the medical devices sector, notified bodies assess conformity with Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR) for Class IIa, IIb, and III devices, which require third-party verification due to elevated patient risks from potential malfunctions or biological interactions. These bodies evaluate whether manufacturers' quality management systems, technical documentation, and clinical evidence demonstrate safety and performance as defined in Annex I of the MDR. Successful assessment enables CE marking, allowing market access across the European Economic Area. Conformity procedures are tailored by risk class, primarily under IX (quality management system audit plus technical documentation review), with options for X (EU type-examination) combined with XI (production or product ) for specific cases.
Device ClassPrimary Procedures (Annexes)Key Assessment Focus
IIaIX (Chapters I, III, Section 4) or IX with XIQMS audit; technical documentation review for one representative device per category; clinical verification.
IIbIX (Chapters I, III, Section 4) or X + XIQMS audit; full technical documentation review (all devices for non-exempt implantables); type-examination where applicable.
IIIIX or X + XIComprehensive QMS and design scrutiny; mandatory clinical consultation with expert panels for certain implantables and high-risk actives.
Notified bodies perform initial on-site audits to verify QMS implementation per standards harmonized with MDR, scrutinize technical files for (Annex I, Chapter III), and confirm clinical evaluations under Annex XIV, ensuring equivalence to state-of-the-art evidence. They issue certificates—such as QMS approval or EU design examination—valid up to five years, subject to renewal. Ongoing functions include through annual audits, document sampling, and at least biennial on-site visits, plus unannounced audits (at least once every three years for Class III and certain IIb devices) to detect non-conformities in or post-market . These measures enforce causal links between and real-world safety outcomes, with notified bodies required to report serious incidents to competent authorities.

Conformity Assessment Procedures

Step-by-Step Process for Manufacturers

Manufacturers must first identify the applicable harmonization legislation and determine the required conformity assessment procedure, which dictates whether a notified body is involved; this occurs for products posing higher risks, such as certain medical devices under the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) or machinery under the , where modules like EU type-examination (Module B) necessitate third-party verification. The process begins with selecting a suitable notified body from the NANDO database, ensuring it holds designation for the relevant and conformity modules; manufacturers then submit a formal application, including preliminary technical documentation outlining design, manufacturing processes, and compliance evidence. The notified body conducts an initial review of the application and documentation, followed by audits of the manufacturer's (e.g., for medical devices) and, if required, product testing or type-examination to verify conformity with essential requirements. Upon successful assessment, the notified body issues a certificate, such as an EU type-examination certificate or quality assurance approval, valid for a specified period (typically 3-5 years) and subject to ongoing surveillance audits. Finally, the manufacturer integrates the certificate into internal production control, affixes the CE mark (including the notified body's identification number), draws up the EU Declaration of Conformity, and maintains the technical file for at least 10-15 years (varying by sector) for potential authority inspections.

Audit, Testing, and Certification Mechanisms

Notified bodies implement audit mechanisms to evaluate manufacturers' systems (QMS) and production controls, ensuring sustained compliance with harmonization legislation. Initial audits consist of a stage 1 review assessing documentation readiness and a stage 2 on-site verification of implementation, applicable across directives requiring notified body involvement. Surveillance audits occur at least annually to monitor ongoing conformity, while unannounced audits—mandatory under regulations like the Medical Device Regulation (MDR, 2017/745)—target high-risk sites or suppliers to detect non-compliances without prior notice. Testing mechanisms vary by conformity assessment module or annex but generally involve sample-based verification of product performance against essential requirements. In procedures like type-examination (e.g., Annex X of MDR), notified bodies conduct or commission physical, electrical, or tests on representative samples, often supplementing manufacturer-submitted reports with independent validation. For production modules, testing integrates into audits via random sample checks rather than full-scale batch verification. These activities prioritize risk-based sampling, with notified bodies required to test protocols and retain evidence for post-market oversight. Certification mechanisms culminate in the issuance of formal attestations following successful audits and testing, enabling . Certificates, such as EU type-examination or QMS approval documents, specify scope, validity (typically up to five years), and conditions for renewal via re- audits. Notified bodies must justify decisions in writing, upload certificates to databases like NANDO, and suspend or withdraw them if non-conformities persist, with processes available to manufacturers. Empirical data from MDR implementation shows certification backlogs, with only 27 notified bodies fully operational for high-risk devices as of 2023, delaying .

Operational Resources and Databases

The NANDO Database

The NANDO (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) database serves as the official repository for information on organizations designated by Member States to conduct conformity assessments under relevant harmonization legislation. It lists notified bodies, including their unique identification numbers, authorized tasks, and the specific directives or regulations they cover, enabling manufacturers, authorities, and stakeholders to verify qualified assessors for , such as . Established under the 's New Approach framework, NANDO ensures transparency in the by publicly documenting designations, which must meet criteria like technical competence, independence, and impartiality as outlined in EU guidelines. Managed by the through the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW), the database is updated in real-time as Member States notify changes, such as new designations, suspensions, or revocations, to reflect current operational status. As of 2023, it includes entries for diverse sectors, from under the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) to machinery and products, with filters allowing searches by , country, or body name. The Commission monitors compliance to keep listings accurate, addressing issues like outdated notifications that could undermine market surveillance. Users access NANDO via the Single Market Compliance Space portal, where advanced search tools permit querying by product category or mutual recognition agreements with non-EU countries, facilitating efficient selection of bodies for audits, testing, and certification. For instance, manufacturers seeking notified bodies for high-risk devices must consult NANDO to confirm designations under Regulation (EU) 2017/745, as only listed entities can issue valid EU type-examination certificates. This functionality supports enforcement by market surveillance authorities, who cross-reference NANDO to validate certificates during post-market checks, though empirical data indicates occasional lags in updates due to national notification delays. NANDO's integration into broader EU digital tools, such as the upcoming updates under the Compliance Space, aims to enhance with other databases like those for economic operators, reducing administrative burdens while maintaining rigorous oversight of notified body . Despite its utility, the database has faced criticism for not fully capturing real-time capacity constraints among bodies, as evidenced by sector-specific backlogs reported in notifications post-2021 MDR implementation.

Additional Tools and Guidelines

In addition to the NANDO database, the European Commission's Internal Market (IMI) system serves as a collaborative platform for member states' authorities to exchange information on notified bodies, including alerts on non-conformities and coordination during assessments. This tool facilitates real-time supervision and , with over 10,000 notifications exchanged annually as of 2023 to address cross-border issues in conformity verification. The Blue Guide, officially titled "Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach," outlines operational principles for notified bodies across sectors, emphasizing impartiality, competence, and confidentiality in conformity assessments under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. Updated in 2014 and referenced in subsequent EU legislation, it details requirements for designation, such as maintaining technical expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest, while providing case examples of procedural compliance. For medical devices under the Medical Device Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR), the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) issues endorsed guidance documents, including MDCG 2019-6 on requirements, which clarifies scopes, staff qualifications, and frequencies, with revisions up to 2023 incorporating feedback from capacity assessments. These documents, numbering over 50 as of 2024, address sector-specific challenges like risk classification and post-market surveillance integration. The Notified Body Operations Group (NBOG) publishes guides, such as BPG 2010-1 on equivalence of non-harmonized standards, to promote harmonized application of procedures across notified bodies, with updates reflecting MDR/IVDR transitions and peer audits conducted since 2010. Complementing these, the Team-NB , revised in 2023, establishes ethical standards for notified bodies, mandating transparency in fee structures and impartiality in certifications, signed by over 40 members to mitigate risks of inconsistent . EUDAMED, the EU database on medical devices, includes modules for notified body certificates and scopes of designation, operational since 2021 for certain actors, enabling public access to over 5,000 active certificates as of October 2024 and supporting in high-risk device approvals. These resources collectively ensure operational alignment, though implementation varies by due to national differences.

Challenges and Criticisms

Capacity Shortages and Certification Backlogs

Since the full application of the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/745) on May 26, 2021, and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/746) on May 26, 2022, notified bodies have encountered acute capacity shortages, exacerbated by a sharp increase in devices requiring their involvement for conformity assessment. Under the prior directives, approximately 23,000 medical devices and 1,500 in vitro diagnostics held notified body certificates, many of which needed re-certification under the stricter MDR and IVDR frameworks, overwhelming the limited pool of designated bodies. As of early 2025, only around 30 notified bodies were fully designated for higher-risk MDR classes (IIb and III), compared to over 500 under the old Medical Device Directive, due to rigorous designation criteria including staff expertise and quality management systems. These constraints have resulted in extensive backlogs, with manufacturers facing wait times of 12 to 18 months or longer for initial audits and reviews, particularly for Class III devices and high-risk IVDs. A MedTech Europe survey of over 200 companies found that 50% of respondents and 30% of IVD respondents experienced significant delays or negative closures of at least one certificate due to insufficient notified body resources for evaluating clinical or . Similarly, the 14th EU notified body survey in March 2025 highlighted ongoing backlogs from complex documentation reviews, with fewer than 2,000 MDR CE certificates issued by mid-2023 despite surging applications, forcing some manufacturers to abandon EU market plans or rely on expiring legacy device provisions. The shortages stem causally from the regulations' demands for expanded clinical evidence requirements and fewer eligible bodies, as many previous certifiers failed designation audits or withdrew due to high compliance costs. Industry analyses attribute up to 70% of delays to notified body overload rather than manufacturer deficiencies, with IVDR facing even steeper bottlenecks—only 11 designated bodies for Class D IVDs as of 2024—prompting EU Regulation 2024/1860 to acknowledge the crisis and extend transitional deadlines. These backlogs have disrupted supply chains, delayed innovative devices' market entry by years, and increased costs, with some notified bodies charging premiums for prioritized slots amid demand exceeding capacity by factors of 5:1 in high-risk categories. Despite incremental progress, such as a 20% rise in MDR applications processed in 2024, surveys indicate persistent overload, with 40% of notified bodies reporting resource strains from parallel MDR/IVDR audits.

Regulatory Burdens on Innovation and Market Access

The conformity assessment processes mandated through notified bodies under EU regulations such as the Medical Device Regulation (MDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/745) impose substantial time delays on manufacturers seeking market access for higher-risk products. Certification timelines have extended significantly since MDR's full application on May 26, 2021, with many firms facing wait times of 12 to 24 months or longer for notified body audits and approvals due to capacity constraints and heightened scrutiny requirements. These backlogs stem from a reduced pool of designated notified bodies—dropping from over 100 under the prior Medical Device Directive to fewer than 30 actively certifying Class III devices by 2024—and the rigorous re-designation processes mandated by the regulations. Such delays directly impede innovation by deferring product launches and revenue generation, compelling manufacturers, especially startups and SMEs, to allocate resources to compliance rather than . Empirical assessments indicate that these hurdles have contributed to a contraction in new device introductions, with industry surveys reporting that over 70% of medtech firms experienced obstacles threatening project viability under MDR and IVDR. For innovative software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) and technologies, the notified body pathway exacerbates barriers through demands for extensive and post-market , often leading to market withdrawals or shifts to less regulated jurisdictions like the . Financial burdens further compound these issues, as notified body fees for audits, testing, and can exceed €100,000 per application for complex devices, alongside from prolonged development cycles. A analysis of MDR and IVDR administrative loads found compliance expenditures rising by 15-25% for affected firms, disproportionately affecting smaller innovators unable to absorb such outlays without external funding. This has fostered a causal link to diminished EU medtech competitiveness, with from sector reports showing accelerated migration to regions offering breakthrough designation pathways that bypass equivalent notified body bottlenecks. Critics, including industry associations like MedTech Europe, argue that while intended to enhance , the system's opacity and stringency—without proportional of risk reduction—systematically favors established players over disruptive entrants.

Empirical Evidence of Effectiveness and Failures

The (PIP) scandal exemplified notified body failures under the pre-2017 Directive (MDD), where Rheinland certified devices using non-medical-grade industrial , resulting in rupture rates up to 10 times higher than standard implants and affecting approximately 400,000 women worldwide, including tens of thousands in the . This case revealed inadequate on-site audits and over-reliance on manufacturer documentation, contributing to health complications such as migration, , and rare instances of anaplastic large cell , with over 20,000 explant surgeries in alone by 2012. The subsequently ruled in 2017 that notified bodies bear direct liability to patients for negligent conformity assessments, underscoring systemic oversight gaps. Similar deficiencies appeared in other high-profile incidents, including urogynecological meshes and orthopedic implants, where notified bodies approved devices with insufficient clinical evidence, leading to widespread withdrawals and harms that prompted the 2017 Medical Device Regulation (MDR). A 2016 comparative analysis found that devices approved first in the —via notified body certification—experienced safety alerts or recalls at a 27% rate (62 of 232 devices), nearly double the 14% for those approved first in the , indicating the EU's third-party model under the MDD failed to preempt post-market issues as effectively as pre-market scrutiny systems. Between 2005 and 2009, the EU recorded approximately 105 high-risk device recalls, many traceable to assessment lapses rather than defects alone. Evidence of effectiveness remains limited and mixed. Pre-MDR surveys of notified bodies showed rare use of conditional certifications for high-risk devices, suggesting lax that permitted market entry without full resolution. Under the MDR, stricter designation criteria reduced active notified bodies from over 70 to 43 by 2023, aiming to enhance assessment rigor through mandatory clinical evaluations and unannounced audits, yet empirical data on reduced failure rates is inconclusive amid ongoing transitions. Gaps persist in high-risk , with 45% of manufacturers reporting inconsistent clinical data acceptance by notified bodies, potentially delaying safer innovations while failing to eliminate pre-existing vulnerabilities. Overall, while reforms have imposed causal via enhanced scrutiny, scandals and comparative recall metrics demonstrate that reliance on private notified bodies has historically prioritized market access over rigorous risk mitigation, with post-MDR safety gains unverified by longitudinal data as of 2025.

Recent Developments and Reforms

Implementation of MDR and IVDR

The Medical Device Regulation (MDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/745) became applicable on 26 May 2021, mandating stricter conformity assessment procedures for notified bodies compared to the prior Medical Devices Directive (93/42/EEC), with requirements for enhanced clinical evaluation, risk management, and post-market surveillance under Annexes IX-XI. Similarly, the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/746) entered into force on 26 May 2022, imposing analogous rigor for IVD conformity assessments, including scientific validity and analytical/clinical performance data per Annexes IX-XI. Designation of notified bodies requires national authorities to verify compliance with organizational, resource, and competence criteria outlined in Article 41 and Annex VII of each regulation, followed by notification to the European Commission and publication in the NANDO database. By early 2025, 20 notified bodies had achieved full MDR designation, enabling certifications for higher-risk classes (IIb and III), though this represents a of the 80+ under the legacy directive, due to elevated qualification barriers like mandatory assessor expertise in specific device technologies. IVDR progress lagged further, with only 12 designations by January 2025, as the regulation's demands for and state-of-the-art documentation deterred applicants, leaving just 16 designation applications pending as of mid-2023 data. The Notified Body Operations Group (NBOG) facilitates harmonized audits, but joint assessments by the Commission have been invoked for complex cases to accelerate approvals. Implementation challenges stem from notified bodies' limited capacity to handle surging application volumes—rising to 1,747 for IVDR by mid-2024—amid requirements for unannounced audits and expanded scope under the new frameworks, resulting in average certification timelines of 13-18 months or longer. To counter backlogs, the Commission launched pilot schemes in 2024-2025 for high-risk devices, involving expert panels for faster scrutiny, while Regulation (EU) 2023/607 extended IVDR transition deadlines to 2027-2028 for legacy IVDs in classes C and D, preserving supply continuity without compromising core safety enhancements. These measures reflect empirical recognition of transitional strains, as evidenced by MedTech Europe surveys showing 93% of MDR manufacturers experiencing certification delays.

Ongoing EU Initiatives and Capacity Building (2021–2025)

In response to capacity constraints experienced after the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) entered full application on 26 May 2021, the and Member States initiated a voluntary joint assessment program for organizations applying for notified body designation. Multidisciplinary teams, comprising Commission officials and national authority experts, evaluate applicants against MDR designation criteria (Article 41), providing non-binding feedback to designating authorities to promote harmonization and expedite approvals. Between 2021 and 2023, this program supported assessments of over 20 applications, contributing to clearer interpretation of requirements such as , competence, and , though not all led to immediate designations due to varying national decisions. An overview report issued in July 2023 concluded that joint assessments effectively clarified expectations and enhanced the overall designation process, with participating authorities reporting reduced variability in evaluations. The Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) further addressed shortages through guidance document MDCG 2022-14, published on 26 August 2022, which outlined 19 recommendations to boost notified body capacity and mitigate risks to device availability. Of these, 11 targeted capacity expansion, including accelerated processing of designation applications, utilization of audit data from legacy directives (e.g., Directive 93/42/EEC) to inform MDR scopes, and incentives for notified bodies to scale operations via subcontracting or staff training while maintaining impartiality. Additional measures emphasized prioritizing certifications for Class III and implantable devices, reserving capacity for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and enhancing transparency by requiring notified bodies to publicly disclose availability and processing timelines via the NANDO database. The guidance also urged Member States to monitor designation progress and report bottlenecks to the Commission quarterly. To preserve operational capacity, the Commission adopted two delegated acts on 1 2022 under MDR Article 37(9), deferring the initial full re-assessment of designated notified bodies from 2024–2026 to 2027–2029 for MDR and aligned timelines for IVDR. This adjustment aimed to redirect resources from administrative reviews toward assessments, addressing backlogs estimated to affect thousands of legacy devices transitioning to new regulations. Complementing these, MDCG 2022-11 (revised January 2023) mandated notified bodies to report capacity metrics biannually, fostering better allocation of applications across the network. By mid-2025, these initiatives yielded incremental gains, with the 20th MDR designation announced in 2024 for Eurofins Expert Services Oy, expanding the network primarily for higher-risk devices, though IVDR designations remained limited at around 10. Ongoing MDCG-endorsed documents, such as those on designation scope (MDCG 2021-17) and performance evaluation guidance, continued to build operational expertise, while Commission calls for in 2024–2025 evaluated further reforms to sustain momentum amid persistent application surges.

References

  1. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/goods/building-blocks/notified-bodies_en
  2. https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/notified-bodies-medical-devices_en
  3. https://lne-gmed.com/notified-bodies-role
  4. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/single-market-compliance-space/notified-bodies
  5. https://www.hpra.ie/regulation/medical-devices/common-aspects-of-the-regulations/notified-body-designation-and-oversight
  6. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/labels-markings/ce-marking/index_en.htm
  7. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/goods/ce-marking/manufacturers_en
  8. https://www.agencyiq.com/blog/the-devil-is-in-the-details-a-deep-dive-into-the-state-of-notified-body-designations/
  9. https://boss.cen.eu/reference-material/guidancedoc/pages/newapproach/
  10. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008R0765
  11. https://www.compliancegate.com/notified-body/
  12. https://www.compliancegate.com/products-requiring-eu-notified-body/
  13. http://hanselawreview.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Vol6No02Art05.pdf
  14. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9f7c3a42-449e-4ccc-9a29-5a544003b338/language-en
  15. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/a-new-approach-to-technical-harmonisation.html
  16. https://www.emergobyul.com/news/europes-blue-guide-new-approach-and-new-legislative-framework
  17. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31985Y0604(01)
  18. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31989L0392
  19. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31993L0042
  20. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31997L0023
  21. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31998L0079
  22. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008D0768
  23. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745
  24. https://www.medical-device-regulation.eu/2019/07/26/annex-vii-part-1/
  25. https://www.medical-device-regulation.eu/2019/07/10/mdr-article-42-designation-and-notification-procedure/
  26. https://european-accreditation.org/accreditation-of-notified-bodies-a-key-element-for-the-functioning-of-the-eu-single-market-for-goods/
  27. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/compliance/conformity-assessment/index_en.htm
  28. https://www.compliancegate.com/eu-conformity-assessment-procedure/
  29. https://www.emergobyul.com/resources/european-medical-devices-regulation-mdr-ce-marking-regulatory-process
  30. https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/en/market-industry-info/search-country-region/region/canada-europe-export/six-steps-ce-marketing-goods-european-union.html
  31. https://medenvoyglobal.com/blog/notified-body-audits-a-guide-for-medical-device-manufacturers/
  32. https://www.team-nb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Team-NB-PositionPaper-MDR-Certification-Process-Consensus-Document-20241218.pdf
  33. https://www.europeansources.info/record/nando-new-approach-notified-and-designated-organisations-information-system/
  34. https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/commercial-policy/technical-barriers/database-notified-bodies-nando
  35. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/single-market-compliance-space/notified-bodies/free-search
  36. https://unmz.gov.cz/en/databases-nando-change-in-connection-with-inclusion-in-single-market-compliance-space-smcs-portal-2/
  37. https://www.kg-legal.eu/info/pharmaceutical-healthcare-life-sciences-law/nando-a-key-base-for-compliant-trade-in-the-eu-on-the-example-of-the-segment-of-medical-devices/
  38. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XC0626(01)
  39. https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations/guidance-mdcg-endorsed-documents-and-other-guidance_en
  40. https://www.nbog.eu/nbog-documents/
  41. https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/69adbba2-55c4-4607-b53e-fce954f64bc2_en
  42. https://acrpnet.org/2023/04/18/eu-adopts-new-approach-to-medical-device-regulation-deadlines
  43. https://www.paconsulting.com/newsroom/med-device-online-were-heading-toward-a-bottleneck-for-eu-mdr-approvals-how-to-get-ahead-13-november-2024
  44. https://www.medtecheurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/mte_report_ivdr_mdr_2024-v7.pdf
  45. https://www.emergobyul.com/news/european-notified-body-survey-mdr-ivdr-certification-numbers-remain-low
  46. https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/59b9d90e-be42-4895-9f6f-bec35138bb0a_en?filename=md_nb_survey_
  47. https://www.lindexer.com/notified-bodies-role-and-existing-bottlenecks-for-ce-marking-under-mdr-and-ivdr/
  48. https://www.confindustriadm.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/250311-FINAL_CDM-position-paper_Targeted-evaluation-MDR-IVDR.pdf
  49. https://www.medtecheurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/250318_mte-report-on-admin-burden-ivdr_mdr_final.pdf
  50. https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2024/11/experts-notified-body-survey-shows-mdr-ivdr-progre
  51. https://mdrregulator.com/news/delays-in-medical-device-certification-and-innovative-healthtech-and-biotech-start-ups
  52. https://www.nsf.org/life-science-regulatory-news/mdr-ivdr-revision-resolution-passed-eu-parliament
  53. https://www.emergobyul.com/news/european-commission-calls-evidence
  54. https://www.medtecheurope.org/resource-library/medtech-europe-2024-regulatory-survey-key-findings-and-insights/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10125071/
  56. https://medinform.jmir.org/2024/1/e58080/
  57. https://www.meddeviceonline.com/doc/the-latest-developments-and-challenges-with-eu-medical-devices-legislation-0001
  58. https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2025/10/medtech-industry-calls-for-major-reforms-to-mdr-an
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12119601/
  60. https://htec.com/insights/a-strategic-analysis-of-the-2025-us-eu-medtech-regulatory-divide/
  61. https://www.medtecheurope.org/news-and-events/news/medtech-europe-responds-to-the-european-innovation-act-call-for-evidence/
  62. https://www.regulatoryrapporteur.org/medical-devices/the-eu-medical-device-regulation-balancing-innovation-with-regulation/832.article
  63. https://www.massdevice.com/pip-breast-implant-scandal-story-triggered-change/
  64. https://medicaldeviceslegal.com/2017/02/20/eu-court-decides-tuv-rheinland-pip-breast-implants-case/
  65. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/in-pip-implant-scandal-a-ragged-safety-net-exposed-idUSTRE8120IO/
  66. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pms-briefings-22-case-study-deep-dive-lessons-from-pip-immanuel-bader-prehe
  67. https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2017/03/notified-bodies-potentially-liable-to-end-users-of-medical-devices-rules-cjeu
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885102200255X
  69. https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i3323
  70. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001276
  71. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medical-technology/articles/10.3389/fmedt.2025.1504294/full
  72. https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/the-eu-mdr-an-unalloyed-disaster/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10276779/
  74. https://ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13023-023-02801-7
  75. https://www.iconplc.com/insights/regulatory-intelligence/eu-regulations
  76. https://www.emergobyul.com/news/20th-notified-body-designated-under-eu-mdr-while-ivdr-designations-lag
  77. https://medfilesgroup.com/eu-ivdr-technical-documentation-notified-body-transition-periods/
  78. https://www.team-nb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Team-NB-PositionPaper-on-MDR_IVDR-Implementation-V3.pdf
  79. https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2025/03/eu-medical-devices-legislation-what-you-need-to-know
  80. https://www.medtecheurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/mte-ivdr-mdr-survey-report-highlights-march.2025.pdf
  81. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/mdcg_2022-14_en.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.