Electrical appliances and equipment: insulation, labels/instructions — reported risk evidence
The acquired cohort contains 6 official alert references published from 2005-10-07 to 2013-10-25. This page compares 5 selected, distinct product descriptions, including power supply unit, travel charger, mobile phone battery charger. The other 1 records still contribute to the cohort counts but are not displayed: descriptions may repeat, lack the display inputs, or fall outside the eight-description display limit. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about insulation, labels/instructions. Compare the product features and dated findings below before scoping an investigation. These historical observations do not determine your product’s compliance or a market failure rate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Dated official observations
Compare the product features and reported failure mechanism
The source wording below describes the reported case at that time. Read each complete report before using it in an investigation.
Power supply unit · A12/1445/13
Report published 2013-10-25 · notifying country Italy · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Power supply unit contained in a paper envelope. [1]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of electric shock because the insulation is not sufficient and the clearance /creepage distances in the power unit are not sufficient. In addition, the power unit does not have instructions for use.The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60950. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 29/05/2013 [1]
Report published 2013-06-07 · notifying country Cyprus · reported origin Italy
Reported product description
Travel charger compatible with ipod. The product is packed in a transparent cardboard box. The brand and the bar code of the product are also printed on the box. [2]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of electric shock because:- The insulation between the primary and secondary windings of the transformer is not equivalent to reinforced insulation. - Input power conductors are not properly positioned or fixed. Therefore, reliance is placed upon the soldering alone to maintain the conductors in position. - There are no instructions and safety information. The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) and the relevant European standard EN 60950. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 19/12/2012 [2]
Report published 2007-06-29 · notifying country Spain · reported origin Taiwan
Reported product description
Mobile phone battery charger. Blister-packed with the following label: CONTACT. CO SAGEM 9XX/3020/36/V65/X [3]
Reported risk explanation
This product poses a serious risk of electric shock because:- it did not pass the electric strength test of 3000 Vac primary to secondary;- safety clearances between primary and secondary are less than those laid down in the standard;- there are no instructions in the language of the country in which the product is sold. The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and with the relevant European standard EN-60950-1. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authoritiesDate of entry into force: Unknown [3]
Report published 2006-03-10 · notifying country Finland · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Refrigerator / Heating Cabinet "Euro Cooler & Warmer"Type/model: CC-24B. [4]
Reported risk explanation
Wiring of the appliance (connectors, capacitors, primary and secondary circuits, winding) is such that distances between live parts and accessible parts are below minimum distance required thereby potentially leading electric shock when consumers use it. The appliance is also not marked properly with marking either missing, being misplaced or wrongly coloured. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawn from the market by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [4]
Report published 2005-10-07 · notifying country Spain · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Electric hair dryer "CROWN- Professional hair dryer" in various colours; 220/240V; 50/60 Hz; 450/750W. (Type/model: HQ-683 – 684 – 685 – 686). [5]
Reported risk explanation
Risk of electric shock. Unsafe internal insulation; insufficient protection against humidity; insufficient electric resistance; Presence of sharpened parts that can damage the wires insulation; insufficient cord section; missing cable fixation; missing safety instruction. The hair dryer does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standards. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from distribution ordered.Date of entry into force: UnknownType of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from distribution ordered.Date of entry into force: Unknown [5]
6 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-10-07 and 2013-10-25. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2006
1
2007
1
2008
1
2013
2
Recorded risk labels within this evidence task
Label combinations are source facts within one comparison; they do not create separate guides with identical preparation tasks.
Electric shock: 5 recorded references
Electric shock, Fire: 1 recorded references
Source selection, exclusions and calculation method
Filter the acquired, completely parsed English weekly XML releases. Deduplicate official alert references. Group by product category and the complete set of conditional evidence-question topics supported by actual risk text. Risk-label combinations remain recorded cohort facets and do not create buyer intents. Brand, product name, model, origin, notifying country, measurement-only changes and different wording of the same questions do not create intents. Unrecognized mechanisms stay internal for enrichment. Count report years and notifying countries deterministically. Display at most eight newest descriptions with at least 40 characters after whitespace normalization, nonempty reported measures and distinct casefolded descriptions; break date ties by official identifier. All cohort records count even if their description is shorter or not displayed. This is not a representative sample. Counts concern this acquired corpus only.
One acquired version per official public alert reference. Display at most eight newest distinct product descriptions whose normalized whitespace-collapsed text contains at least 40 characters and has nonempty reported measures; ties sort by official identifier. The complete cohort includes shorter descriptions. This is an explicit display selection, not a representative sample.
5 distinct descriptions displayed; 1 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {}.
These are selected, dated enforcement observations in the acquired weekly reports, not a random market sample, market-wide failure rate, proof of current product status, or a determination about your product. Notification country is not a complete sales-market or jurisdiction-coverage field. A quoted legal/standard reference is the report’s statement, not independently verified current law or a mandatory test panel.
Calculation safety-gate-evidence-comparison-10; units recorded alerts; no incidence denominator.
Turn the reported failure mechanism into a scoped investigation
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Power-supply insulation boundaries — what evidence do we have?
If your product uses a mains supply or adapter, identify the actual power-supply architecture, insulation boundaries and accessible parts. Ask a qualified specialist which design evidence and investigation would address the reported shock mechanism for this configuration. No medical-device standard or pass/fail limit is selected from this alert.
Useful evidence: Schematics, adapter/component specifications, ratings, insulation/protection design and configuration-specific existing test evidence.
Labels, instructions and actual use — what evidence do we have?
Capture the exact label/instruction revision and destination/use context. Compare the information gap described in the report with your own product and current sector requirements, keeping a reported defect separate from a universal wording obligation.
Useful evidence: Current labels/instructions, revision and market/translation records, use/risk information and reviewed applicable requirements.
Can we trace the affected component, formula or design revision across our supplied products?
Compare the reported descriptions with your own identifiers and change records. Treat missing or “Unknown” source fields as unresolved; they do not establish that no action was needed.
Useful evidence: Product identifiers, revision history, supplier/batch traceability and market/operator records.
Who would own an evidence review and any resulting corrective-action decision?
Read the reported measures as historical observations. Establish your own operator roles, sector-specific rules, decision owner and communication responsibilities before adopting another case’s response.
Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the recorded product features and failure mechanism with your product. Confirm the applicable product regime, deciding evidence, operator responsibilities and justified next steps. This does not assume that GPSR or a representative appointment applies to every alert category.
Questions for providers
Which specific product features and reported risk mechanism make these cases relevant or irrelevant to our product?
What current legal, standards or scientific sources support your proposed investigation criteria, and what cannot be concluded from these dated alerts?
Which existing evidence can answer the risk question, what additional work is justified, and who owns any resulting corrective-action decision?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
