Article 41 of Machinery Regulation 2023/1230: exchange of experience between notifying authorities

Article 41 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 establishes that the European Commission organises the exchange of experience between the national authorities of the Member States responsible for the notification policy on conformity assessment bodies. The practical objective is to improve the consistency and quality of the notification process throughout the Union, which directly affects the credibility of the notified bodies that certify hazardous machinery before it enters the European market.

What exactly is the "exchange of experience" under Article 41?

It is an institutional mechanism, organised and coordinated by the European Commission, through which the national authorities responsible for notification policy — that is, the government bodies that designate and supervise notified bodies in each Member State — share practices, assessment criteria, technical difficulties and administrative solutions. It is not an optional or informal forum: Article 41 imposes on the Commission the active obligation to organise it, making it a structural component of the market surveillance system for machinery in the Union.

Unlike other articles of the Regulation focused on the obligations of manufacturers or distributors, Article 41 operates at the institutional level between States. Its effect, however, is indirect but relevant for any manufacturing company: the more consistent the criteria with which national authorities notify assessment bodies, the smaller the disparity in requirements between certifying machinery in one country or another.

Why is this mechanism necessary within the Machinery Regulation?

Because the notification of conformity assessment bodies falls within the competence of each Member State, not the Commission directly. Each national authority applies its own administrative procedures to designate which bodies may certify machinery in accordance with Regulation 2023/1230. Without a coordination mechanism, there is a risk that the same type of machine could receive assessment treatment of unequal rigour depending on the country where the certifying body was notified, undermining the principle of free movement of goods within the single market.

Article 41 directly addresses this risk by establishing that improving the "consistency and quality" of the notification process is an explicit and permanent objective, not a generic aspiration. This connects with the obligations of notifying authorities regulated in earlier articles of the Regulation itself, reinforcing the system of cross-checking between States.

Who participates in this exchange and what role does the Commission play?

The participants are the national notifying authorities of each Member State, i.e. the ministries or public agencies responsible for deciding which conformity assessment bodies may operate certifying machinery under Regulation 2023/1230. The European Commission does not participate as an assessing authority, but as the organiser and facilitator of the exchange: it convenes, structures and gives continuity to the process.

For machinery manufacturers, this is indirectly relevant: the notified body that certifies their product has been designated following criteria that, thanks to Article 41, tend to converge between Member States. This reduces the risk that the validity of a conformity certificate is de facto questioned by market surveillance authorities in another country.

→ If you are concerned that the conformity assessment of your machinery might depend on different criteria depending on the notified body chosen, try IgeraIndustria free for 14 days and instantly check what each article of Regulation 2023/1230 requires before starting your technical file.

Case study: Maquinària Industrial Ebre, S.L.

Maquinària Industrial Ebre, S.L., a hydraulic press manufacturer based in Tortosa (Tarragona), was planning in 2026 to request conformity assessment for a new high-risk press model, included in Annex I of the Regulation, from a German notified body instead of its usual Spanish body, due to shorter delivery times. The company's quality team, made up of 6 technicians, feared that the assessment criteria between notified bodies from different countries might differ substantially, creating uncertainty about the validity of the certificate in Spain. After reviewing Article 41 of Regulation 2023/1230 with the help of its legal department, they confirmed that the exchange-of-experience mechanism between the 27 national notifying authorities is designed precisely to reduce such divergences, which gave them the legal certainty to proceed with the German body and save 5 weeks compared to the national option.

Does Article 41 create direct obligations for machinery manufacturers?

No. Article 41 exclusively regulates the relationship between the European Commission and the national notifying authorities. It does not impose direct obligations on manufacturers, importers or distributors of machinery, although its effect of regulatory consistency indirectly impacts the legal certainty of the entire sector.

How often must this exchange of experience be organised?

The text of Article 41 does not specify a concrete periodicity; it establishes the general obligation for the Commission to organise such an exchange, leaving the frequency and format of the corresponding meetings or forums to its operational discretion.

What is the difference between a "notifying authority" and a "notified body"?

The notifying authority is the public entity of a Member State that designates and supervises conformity assessment bodies. The notified body is the entity, already designated, that actually certifies the conformity of the machinery. Article 41 is addressed to the former, not the latter.

Does this article have binding effect on Member States?

Yes, insofar as it imposes on the Commission the obligation to organise the exchange; however, the effective participation and degree of harmonisation resulting from such exchanges depend on the practical cooperation of each national authority.

How can a manufacturing company benefit from this mechanism?

Indirectly: by improving the consistency of notification criteria, the manufacturer gains predictability when choosing a notified body in any Member State, reducing the risk that its certificate is questioned due to differences in criteria between countries.

Is there a formal body where this exchange takes place, such as a coordination group?

The legal content provided in Article 41 does not specify the existence of a formal coordination group with its own name; it is limited to establishing the Commission's obligation to organise the exchange of experience between national authorities.