When ‘ATEX-certified’ doesn’t always mean the same thing
When it comes to products for potentially explosive atmospheres, people often refer to an ATEX certificate in general terms. That sounds clear-cut, but it isn’t always the case.
The situation is more nuanced, particularly for equipment intended for Zone 2. Under the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, mandatory testing by a notified body is not required for many products in Category 3G. Under certain conditions, the manufacturer may assess and document conformity themselves and confirm this with an EU Declaration of Conformity. The ATEX Guidelines explicitly state that Category 3 equipment does not necessarily have to be certified by a notified body; the manufacturer must apply internal production control, draw up technical documentation and issue an EU Declaration of Conformity.
But that doesn’t mean: ‘The manufacturer can just issue any old document and that’s that.’
On the contrary: in the case of a manufacturer’s declaration, the responsibility lies primarily with the manufacturer itself. And this is precisely where the real risk lies — not only for the manufacturer, but also for retailers, importers and end customers.
Zone 2 and Category 3G: Why self-assessment may be permitted
Zone 2 refers to areas where, under normal operating conditions, an explosive atmosphere does not normally occur, or only occurs for a short period of time. Category 3G equipment is frequently used in such areas.
For this category, conformity assessment may be carried out through internal production control. The manufacturer therefore checks and assesses for themselves whether the product meets the essential safety requirements. They then draw up the technical documentation and the EU Declaration of Conformity. The ATEX Directive defines Category 3 as equipment designed to ensure a normal level of safety under normal operating conditions.
Important: This is not a carte blanche. The manufacturer must be able to demonstrate why the product is suitable for the specified zone, gas group, temperature class and application.
A manufacturer’s declaration is not the same as an external certificate
It is important to make a clear distinction:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| EU Declaration of Conformity | The manufacturer hereby declares, in a legally binding manner, that the product complies with the applicable EU requirements. |
| ATEX Certificate / EU Type Examination Certificate | A notified body has assessed and certified a type or specific aspects of a product. |
| Voluntary audit | The manufacturer has voluntarily commissioned an external testing body, even though this is not a mandatory requirement for this category. |
| Marketing Certificate | A document lacking sufficient technical or legal substance. Caution is advised here. |
A manufacturer’s declaration may therefore be legally valid. However, it is only reliable if it is backed up by a sound technical assessment, comprehensive documentation and verifiable testing.
The real issue: who is liable if something happens?
Ideally, everything works as it should. The device is correctly rated, correctly labelled, used correctly, and the operator has selected it to suit the zone.
In the worst-case scenario, things look different:
A device is marketed as suitable for Zone 2. It later transpires that the technical assessment was flawed, the documentation is inadequate, or the product may, after all, pose a fire hazard under real-world conditions. If damage then occurs, the issue is no longer simply the cost of the device. It then becomes a matter of personal injury, property damage, plant downtime, expert assessments, product recalls, legal costs and potential claims for compensation.
EU product safety rules set out clear roles: manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance and affixing the CE marking; however, importers and distributors also have obligations and must help to ensure that only compliant products are made available on the market.
Risk to the retailer
It is particularly important for retailers not to rely blindly on every manufacturer’s specification.
A retailer does not have to develop or test every product from scratch themselves. However, they should at least carry out a reasonable check to ensure that the documentation is accurate:
- Is there a full EU declaration of conformity?
- Is the ATEX marking correct?
- Are the zone, category, gas group and temperature class correct?
- Is there an instruction manual containing safety instructions?
- Is the manufacturer accessible, reputable and able to provide documentation?
- In the case of non-EU manufacturers, is it clear who the importer and the responsible economic operator are?
If a retailer sells a product that is clearly of dubious quality, repeats technical claims without verifying them, or makes false claims about the product’s suitability, they may be held liable in the event of damage.
The situation becomes particularly tricky if the manufacturer is based outside the EU or is financially insolvent. In such cases, the injured party or insurer will seek out whoever is accessible. This may be the importer, but in some circumstances it could also be a distributor within the supply chain.
Risk to the end customer / operator
In the ATEX sector, the end customer is often not simply a ‘buyer’, but the operator of a plant or an employer. As such, they have specific obligations.
In work areas with potentially explosive atmospheres, the ATEX Directive 1999/92/EC also applies. Among other things, it requires employers to assess explosion risks, classify zones and select suitable work equipment.
In practical terms, this means:
Even if a device has an EU declaration of conformity, the operator must check whether it is suitable for their specific application.
Examples:
| Frage | Why is this important? |
|---|---|
| Is it really Zone 2, or is it actually Zone 1? | A Category 3G device is not suitable for Zone 1. |
| Is the gas group compatible? | Not every Ex-rated device is suitable for every environment. |
| Is the temperature class correct? | Surfaces that are too hot can become a source of ignition. |
| Is the ambient temperature suitable? | Many devices have limited temperature ranges. |
| Was the device used for its intended purpose? | Incorrect use can render compliance virtually worthless. |
If the operator chooses the wrong device or uses it contrary to the instructions, they may be held wholly or partly liable.
Insurance: A piece of paper won’t cover the damage
One important point is often overlooked: even if the manufacturer is legally liable, they must also have the financial means to meet their obligations in the event of a claim.
Product liability insurance can cover certain types of damage caused by defective products. However, it does not cover a lack of technical compliance, inadequate documentation or incorrect ATEX marking. In the event of breaches of duty, incorrect risk assessments or grossly inadequate evaluations, an insurer will scrutinise very closely whether cover exists at all.
That is why a key question is:
Is the manufacturer not only technically competent, but also adequately insured and financially capable of covering the costs of a major claim?
After all, if a small manufacturer goes bankrupt following a claim, this is of little help to the claimant. The risk then shifts to other parties involved: the importer, the dealer, the operator, and their insurers — or, in the worst-case scenario, the claimant ends up having to bear part of the cost themselves.
Being in the right and getting money are two different things.
Comparison: Manufacturer’s declaration vs. certificate from a notified body
| Topic | Manufacturer's declaration: Category 3G / Zone 2 | Certificate issued by a notified body |
|---|---|---|
| Admissibility | Often permitted for Category 3G | Often required for higher categories |
| External audit | Not mandatory | Yes, depending on the procedure |
| Responsibility | In stock at the manufacturer | Still with the manufacturer, but external testing strengthens the evidence base |
| Quality of evidence | Depending on the documentation and the manufacturer’s expertise | Generally higher |
| Risk for traders | Higher if the documentation is weak or the manufacturer is of dubious reputation | Small, but not zero |
| Risk to operators | Nevertheless, the choice and use must be appropriate | The choice and use must also be appropriate |
| Insurance topic | This is particularly critical in the case of small or obscure manufacturers | Also relevant, but usually better documented |
| Worst Case | The manufacturer is liable, but may be insolvent or inadequately insured | The manufacturer remains liable; the testing body is only liable in the event of its own error |
What happens in the worst-case scenario?
What happens in the worst-case scenario?
The question is:
- Was the product suitable for the area?
- Was the ATEX marking correct?
- Was the ATEX marking correct?
- Was there any reliable technical documentation?
- Was the product installed and operated correctly?
- Did the dealer make accurate or inaccurate technical statements?
- Had the importer fulfilled its responsibilities?
- Has the operator chosen the right device for their zone?
- Is there any insurance that actually pays out?
- Who is economically viable?
Ultimately, the costs are not automatically borne by the party who is ‘actually at fault’. In practice, it is often the party who is directly accessible, insured or contractually involved who pays first. This is followed by claims for recourse along the supply chain.
That is why a clean supply chain is so important for ATEX products.
Fazit
For Zone 2 equipment, a certificate from a notified body is not always required. A manufacturer’s declaration of conformity may be entirely acceptable for Category 3G.
However, it is only reliable if the manufacturer adheres to sound engineering practices, the documentation is complete, and the company remains financially viable in the event of a claim.
For retailers and operators, it is therefore not enough simply to ask for an ‘ATEX certificate’. The better questions are:
Is the declaration of conformity plausible?
Is the labelling correct?
Is the device really suitable for this area?
Is the manufacturer reputable, contactable and adequately insured?
Who bears the risk if the valuation later turns out to be incorrect?
This is particularly true in potentially explosive atmospheres: a cheap product with poor documentation can end up being the most expensive option.