The acquired cohort contains 4 official alert references published from 2011-07-15 to 2013-09-27. This page compares 2 selected, distinct product descriptions, including rechargeable torch, rechargeable head-lamp. The other 2 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 operating/charging heat, 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.
Rechargeable torch · A12/1297/13
Report published 2013-09-27 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
The housing of the rechargeable torch is made of dark green plastic, with a black operating button and a white charge indicator lamp. The LED panel with 19 LEDs is placed under the protective lampshade without fixing. The 18-LED panel with transparent plastic lamp shade is placed on the side of the [1]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of electric shock because:- the dimensions of the battery charger mains plug is not sufficient;- live parts are easily accessible;- the cross-section area of the core is less than required.The product poses a risk of burns because the internal wires may overheat in case of short circuit.The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60598. [1]
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: UnknownType of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 03/04/2012 [1]
Report published 2013-09-20 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
The housing of the rechargeable lamp is made of black and silver-grey plastic and includes a built-in battery. The LED panel is located under a transparent, detachable lamp shade. A battery charger is attached to the product. The packaging is a colourful cardboard box. [2]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of electric shock because:- the dimensions of the mains plug of the battery charger do not meet requirements; - live parts of the LED panel and the device connector terminal sockets are easily accessible;- the cross-section area of the core is less than required.The product poses a risk of fire because in case of short-circuit the internal wires may overheat and cause fire.The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60598. [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: UnknownType of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 25/03/2013 [2]
4 distinct official alert references, published between 2011-07-15 and 2013-09-27. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2011
2
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.
Burns, Electric shock: 1 recorded references
Electric shock, Fire: 3 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.
2 distinct descriptions displayed; 2 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'measures': 2}.
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.
Operating heat and battery/charging configuration — what evidence do we have?
If the product includes the reported battery configuration, compare the actual operating or charging heat mechanism with cell/charger specifications, protection circuitry and foreseeable use. Keep heat or electrochemical injury following mouthing or swallowing separate; it does not establish a charging fault.
Useful evidence: Cell/charger specifications, protection design, operating limits, assembly/revision history and existing thermal/electrical evidence.
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.
