What Happens When a Battery Is Found Non-Compliant?

Non-compliance and corrective action cover the steps that follow a finding that a battery does not meet the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, from the initial finding through correction, verification and, where needed, restriction or withdrawal. Corrective action is the operator duty to bring the battery into conformity, and the authority duty is to set a proportionate period and to verify the correction. The process is corrective before it is punitive: the first aim is a conforming battery on the market, and measures that restrict or withdraw follow where correction is not carried out, is not possible, or does not address a risk.

Corrective action discipline matters because the same non-compliance can recur across models, batches and Member States if the root cause is not addressed. A correction that fixes a single label, without checking whether the same label error affects other models, leaves the root cause in place. A correction that fixes the label and the labelling process, with a check across models, addresses the cause and prevents recurrence. The corrective action file should show the finding, the cause, the correction, the check across models and the verification, in that order.

How is non-compliance identified?

Non-compliance is identified through market surveillance checks, operator self checks, notified body surveillance, complaints, or information from distributors and end users. Identification should state the requirement breached, the evidence for the breach, the battery models and batches affected, and the risk assessment. A finding that states only that a battery is non-compliant, without the requirement and evidence, cannot be corrected reliably, because the operator cannot tell which requirement to address. A finding with requirement, evidence, models and risk allows a targeted correction.

Identification records should be filed as a non-compliance register, with each finding numbered, dated and linked to the battery models affected. A register that lists findings without model links cannot show the scope of a finding, and a register without dates cannot show whether a finding is current. The register should be reviewed regularly, with open findings tracked to closure, and closed findings retained for the evidence period. The register is part of the conformity evidence, not a separate quality file.

What corrective action must an operator take?

An operator who has reason to believe a battery is not in conformity must take corrective action to bring the battery into conformity, withdraw it or recall it, as appropriate to the non-compliance and the risk, and must inform the market surveillance authority where required. Corrective action includes stopping further placing where the non-compliance affects batteries not yet placed, correcting batteries already on the market where correction is possible, and withdrawing or recalling where correction is not possible or the risk requires it. The operator must also inform distributors and, where a recall is required, end users, through the channels set in the corrective action procedure.

Worked check: a label error is found on one model. The operator corrects the label, checks all models using the same label artwork, corrects the affected models, and provides the corrected artwork and the cross model check to the authority. A second operator corrects only the model named in the finding, and the same error is found later on another model. The first correction addresses the cause; the second addresses only the instance. The authority verification will distinguish the two approaches by the cross model check.

How is a corrective action plan prepared?

A corrective action plan is prepared with the finding, the root cause analysis, the correction steps, the responsible roles, the timetable, the verification method and the communication plan. The plan should be proportionate to the non-compliance and the risk, with a shorter timetable where a risk is present. The plan should be agreed with the authority where the authority has set a period or required a measure, and the operator should report progress against the plan, with evidence, rather than reporting only at completion. A plan without a timetable or a verification method cannot be monitored, and an authority cannot judge whether the plan is on track.

Plan preparation should involve the roles that control design, production, labelling, passport updating and distribution, because a correction in one area can affect another. A labelling correction that changes the QR code, for example, affects the passport link and the registry entry, and the plan must include the passport and registry steps. A plan prepared by a single function, without the other functions, will miss the interaction and will need revision after implementation has started.

How is corrective action verified?

Corrective action is verified by the operator through retest, reinspection and document review, and by the authority through checks of the corrected battery, the corrected file and, where needed, sample testing. Verification should confirm that the correction addresses the finding, that the root cause has been addressed, and that the correction has not introduced a new non-compliance. A verification that confirms only that the named battery now passes a single test, without checking the root cause or the cross model scope, is incomplete verification.

Verification evidence should include the retest reports, the corrected documents, the cross model check and the authority verification result, filed together as the closure pack. A closure pack without the authority result, where the authority set a period, is incomplete, because the operator cannot show that the authority accepted the correction. A closure pack with the authority result, the retest and the cross model check shows closure from all three perspectives: operator, evidence and authority.

When does corrective action lead to withdrawal or recall?

Corrective action leads to withdrawal where the battery cannot be brought into conformity, or where the authority requires withdrawal because the non-compliance cannot be corrected on the market. Recall follows where the battery has reached end users and presents a risk, or where the authority requires recall because withdrawal alone does not address the risk to end users. Withdrawal removes the battery from the distribution chain; recall reaches end users and requires communication, return and handling arrangements. The choice between the two follows the distribution stage and the risk, not the operator preference for the less disruptive measure.

Withdrawal and recall planning should be prepared in advance, with distributor lists, end user communication templates, return handling and treatment routes, and a timetable. A plan created after a recall is required will be assembled under pressure, with distributor lists out of date and communication templates untested. A plan created and tested in advance, with a mock recall exercise, allows the measure to be implemented within the authority period and to be evidenced as implemented.

How are findings from corrective action recorded?

Findings from corrective action should be recorded in the non-compliance register, with the root cause, the process change and the check that the process change has been implemented. As checked on 28 October 2026, the register should be reviewed after each closure, with the review dated, so that a recurring finding is visible as a pattern rather than as a series of separate instances. This guide gives general educational information only and is not individual legal advice. A reader with a specific battery or market decision should check the current Regulation text and any applicable delegated act, as checked on 28 October 2026, before acting.

This guide gives general educational information only and is not individual legal advice. A reader with a specific battery or market decision should check the current Regulation text and any applicable delegated act, as checked on 28 October 2026, before acting. Correction should address the cause and the cross model scope, and closure should be evidenced from operator, evidence and authority perspectives.