This comparison covers 7 official alert references, including lighting chains, published from 2006-02-10 to 2006-02-24. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about ignition/materials, plug interfaces. 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.
Product label not stated · 0098/06
Report published 2006-02-24 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Lighting chain with plastic frame and paperback in a form of a Christmas tree with 120 replaceable incandescent lamps and a flashing unit. Type/model: Unknown. [1]
Reported risk explanation
This product presents the risk of electric shock because the cross section area of the core is less than required, the insulation is of poor quality, the cord anchorage is missing and the plug is non-standardized and the cable inlet of the flashing unit is rounded. The resistance to ignition of the plastic parts of the lamp holders is not adequate, there is a risk of fire.This product does not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standard. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market and recall ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
This product presents the risk of electric shock because: the insulation of the wire is poor, the cross section area of the wires is less than required, the cord anchorage is missing, the cable inlet of the flashing/sound generating unit is not rounded, the plug is non-standardized and the construction of the plug makes it possible to insert the plug partially into the socket. The plastic parts of the lamp holders do not resist to ignition sufficiently, so it may entail risk of fire. This product does not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standard. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market and recall ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
Report published 2006-02-10 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Lighting chains "Everstar"1. 80 plug-in type miniature incandescent lamps and a transformer (type: JT-650); 2. 120 plug-in type miniature incandescent lamps and a transformer (type: JT-850Type/model: Unknown. [3]
Reported risk explanation
According to the information placed on the product, lighting chain is intended for indoor and outdoor use, while the plug is not protected against ingress of water (risk of electric shock). The plastic cover of the lamp holders does not have sufficient resistance to ignition, thus it may cause fire.These products do not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standards. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall and prohibition of selling ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [3]
Report published 2006-02-10 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Lighting chain "Everstar" 1. 40 plug-in type miniature incandescent lamps and a transformer (type: JT-650). 2.160 plug-in type miniature incandescent lamps and a transformer (type: JT-850).Type/number of model: Unknown. [4]
Reported risk explanation
Information placed on the transformer ('indoor use only') is different from the one placed on the packaging (‘outdoor use’). There is a risk of electric shock due to the fact that water can get on the transformer not protected against ingress of water. Lighting chain is not provided with a plug protected against splashed water and is not suitable for permanent connection to the mains supply with wiring box. The plastic cover of the lamp holders does not have sufficient resistance to ignition, thus it may cause fire. These products do not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standards. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall and prohibition of selling ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [4]
Report published 2006-02-10 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Window decorating Lighting chainBrand: Unknown. Description: The lighting chain consists of 35 incandescent lamps with resistor bridge fixed on a plastic frame, which forms a shooting star. [5]
Reported risk explanation
Notified product presents risk of electric shock because the cross sectional area of the cable is smaller than required by the relevant standard and the non-standardized plug was used. The plastic cover of the lamp holders does not have sufficient resistance to ignition and may cause fire. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Prohibition of selling ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [5]
Report published 2006-02-10 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Lighting chains plastic frame forming different figures: 1. Star with 132 replaceable incandescent lamps and a flashing unit; 2. Heart with 100 replaceable incandescent lamps and a flashing unit; 3. Ball with 96 replaceable incandescent lamps and a flashing unit; 4. Santa Claus with 50 series-connected replaceable incandescent lamps; 5. Snowman with 35 series-connected replaceable incandescent lamps.Type/model: Unknown. [6]
Reported risk explanation
The cross section area of the conductor is less than required, the insulation is of poor quality and the construction of the plug is non-standardized. The plastic parts of the lamp holders do not have sufficient resistance to ignition therefore they may cause fire. These products do not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standards. [6]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [6]
Report published 2006-02-10 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Lighting chains - unknown brand 1. plastic frame in the form of a star with 108 replaceable incandescent lamps and a flashing unit; type/model: 108 Polaris2. plastic frame in the form of a butterfly with 100 replaceable incandescent lamps and a flashing unit [7]
Reported risk explanation
The cross section area of the core applied between the lamp holders and the mains cable is less than required, the inlet of the flashing unit is not rounded (thus the cable may get damaged), the cord anchorage is missing and the construction of the plug is non-standardized. The plastic parts of the lamp holders do not have sufficient resistance to ignition, this may cause fire. This product does not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standards. [7]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Prohibition of sell and recall ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [7]
7 distinct official alert references, published between 2006-02-10 and 2006-02-24. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2006
7
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, Fire: 7 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.
7 distinct descriptions displayed; 0 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.
Plug, socket and connector interfaces — what evidence do we have?
Identify the exact plug/socket or connector configuration, intended country interface and any adapter supplied. Document the interface dimensions, accessible parts and assembly controls for specialist review against current applicable requirements. Do not assume a reported interface failure applies to every configuration.
Material, ignition and use context — what evidence do we have?
Identify the relevant material/component and exposure to the reported ignition mechanism. Document product configuration and intended use before agreeing justified methods and criteria. The recorded fire concern does not select a complete mandatory test panel.
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.
