Buying an autonomous robot in 2027: what the Machinery Regulation changes

Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 replaces the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. Its Article 54 sets its application date at 20 January 2027, and its Article 51 repeals the Directive on the same date. A useful clarification if you encounter another date while searching: the text published in the Official Journal on 29 June 2023 listed 14 January 2027, then corrected by a rectification notice. It is the consolidated version, dated 20 January, that takes effect. Both dates still circulate on secondary sources.

The change in form matters as much as the timeline. A directive must be transposed by each Member State, with its national variations. A regulation applies directly and in identical terms throughout the Union. For a buyer delivering to multiple countries, this removes a degree of uncertainty: the applicable text is the same in France, Germany, or Spain.

This is the first question every buyer with an ongoing project asks, and the regulation addresses it in Article 52. Member States shall not prevent the making available on the market of products which have been placed on the market in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC before 20 January 2027. A machine lawfully placed on the market before the deadline does not become illegal the next day.

The same article specifies that EU type-examination certificates and approval decisions issued under Article 12 of the Directive remain valid. Be mindful, however, of what the term 'placed on the market' covers: it refers to first making available in the Union, not the date of your purchase order. Between an order placed in Asia, production, and maritime transport, several months elapse. An order placed too close to the deadline reaches the market after it, and falls under the regulation.

This is the most often distorted point in commercial summaries, and deserves the most attention. The regulation does not subject all machines to a notified body. Its Article 25 organizes three regimes by category. Outside Annex I, the manufacturer applies internal production control, meaning they assess their machine themselves. For Annex I Part B, they may also use internal production control, provided they have designed the machine according to harmonised standards covering all applicable essential health and safety requirements; otherwise, they must engage a notified body.

Only Annex I Part A systematically requires a notified body procedure: EU type-examination, full quality assurance, or unit verification. Knowing which category your purchased machine falls into determines the nature of the proof you are entitled to demand, and the cost the manufacturer must bear.

The statement 'autonomous robots must go through a notified body' is widespread, but does not match the text. Annex I Part A does not mention autonomy. It addresses, in points 5 and 6, safety components and machines whose integrated systems have self-evolving behaviour, whether totally or partially, and which use machine learning approaches ensuring safety functions.

The criterion is thus cumulative and much narrower: machine learning, behaviour that evolves, and crucially that it supports a safety function. A mobile robot that navigates autonomously but whose emergency stop, obstacle detection, and speed limits rely on classical deterministic components does not meet this criterion by virtue of being autonomous alone. The question to ask the manufacturer is not 'is your robot autonomous?', but 'does a safety function of your machine rely on a machine learning model that evolves after placing on the market?'. The answer determines the applicable procedure.

Many industrial buyers order directly from a factory outside the Union and regard themselves as mere customers. The regulation does not view them that way. Whoever places a machine from a third country on the European market is an importer within the meaning of the text, and Article 13 assigns them specific obligations, independent of those of the manufacturer.

The importer places on the market only compliant machines. Before placing on the market, they ensure the manufacturer has applied the appropriate assessment procedure, has established technical documentation, the machine bears the CE marking, and is accompanied by required documents. They must also indicate their name and contact details on the machine or, failing that, on the packaging or an accompanying document. In other words, importing yourself to save a margin means assuming a regulatory responsibility you did not have. Article 18 goes further: anyone who makes a substantial modification to a machine is considered a manufacturer for that machine.

The EU declaration of conformity is the central document. Its Article 21 specifies it attests that compliance with essential health and safety requirements has been demonstrated, it follows the model of Annex V, and is translated into the language required by the Member State where the machine is placed on the market. A declaration provided only in English for delivery in France is therefore incomplete.

Technical documentation and the declaration must remain available to market surveillance authorities for at least ten years after placing on the market. This span deserves to enter your contracts: if your supplier disappears or stops responding three years after delivery, you remain before the supervisory authority with a file to produce. The regulation further allows instructions to be provided in digital format, which does not dispense with the required language or its accessibility over time.

Confusing a voluntary certificate with a mandatory assessment. A manufacturer may have their machine tested by a laboratory of their choosing and draw up an impressive document. This is not the same as a procedure conducted by a notified body designated for the relevant legislation. The four-digit number of the body and the targeted legislation are verifiable in the Commission's public register.

Accepting a promise of future compliance. 'Certification is underway' is not proof, and a machine delivered without its full file leaves you holding the risk. Conformity is established at placing on the market, not after.

Reasoning by order date rather than placement date. This is the most frequent mistake approaching a regulatory deadline, and the most mechanical: between order, production, and transport, the actual calendar often places you on the other side of the date.