Regulations · March 6, 2026
TR CU 017/2011: documents for clothing and textiles
What decides the form of the document for clothing, and what the laboratory checks.
A formal attitude to PPE documents ends not with a fine but with an accident. Gloves for working with chemicals and gloves for cleaning are legally different goods, even if they look the same.
Personal protective equipment is the category where a formal attitude to documents ends not with a fine but with an accident. This is why the requirements here are stricter than for ordinary clothing: gloves for working with chemicals and gloves for cleaning are legally different goods, even if they look the same.
TR CU 019/2011 applies to personal protective equipment. These are products intended to prevent or reduce the effect of harmful and dangerous factors on a person.
The regulation divides PPE into two classes by the degree of risk, and the class directly decides the form of conformity assessment.
| Class 1 | Class 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the risk | Simple designs, reversible injuries | Protection against irreversible injuries and death |
| Form of conformity assessment | Declaration | Mandatory certification |
| Examples | General-purpose gloves against mechanical impacts, simple workwear with basic protection | Protection against chemicals, electric arc and falls from a height; respiratory protection, hard hats |
The practical conclusion: most serious PPE is certified, which means tests in an accredited laboratory and, for serial production, inspection control. With regular deliveries, a batch scheme quickly becomes more expensive than a serial one. The schemes are explained in a separate article.
The laboratory does not test the product “in general”. It tests the specific protective properties that you claim. Each claimed property is a separate indicator and a separate cost.
| You claim | What will be checked |
|---|---|
| Protection against abrasion and punctures | Resistance of the material to mechanical impacts |
| Protection against low temperatures | Thermal insulation for a given climate zone |
| Limited flame spread | Behaviour of the material in contact with fire |
| Protection against electric arc | Resistance to the thermal effect of the arc |
| Protection against chemicals | Resistance to specific substances, not to “chemicals in general” |
| High-visibility properties | Area and brightness of the retroreflective elements |
| Protective toe cap of footwear | Impact load and resistance to compression |
The key point: protection against chemicals is always specific. Gloves tested for resistance to acids are not confirmed for solvents. The claim “chemical resistant” without naming the substances is not a characteristic. It is a reason for a complaint.
Here the marking carries more meaning than for any other product: the worker uses it to understand what the product protects against and for how long.
The instructions are mandatory and must contain the procedure for checking before use, the limits and the signs by which the product must be replaced. For fall protection systems this is literally a matter of life, and it is checked seriously.
The main buyer of PPE is the employer, who must provide it for the workers. The employer needs the documents not as a formality: after an accident, the investigators will check what the worker was given and whether it matched the working conditions.
From this come the features of sales in this niche:
So careless documents here cost not a blocked product card but the loss of a corporate customer.
| Mistake | Consequence |
|---|---|
| A document under 017 for a product with claimed protection | The wrong regulation; there is no conformity assessment |
| A declaration instead of a certificate for class 2 | Wrong form of conformity assessment |
| “Chemical resistant” without naming the substances | The property is not confirmed |
| A protection class is claimed that is higher than the one confirmed by tests | Misleading, with a risk to life |
| No instructions and no service life stated | Incomplete accompanying information |
| The material or the fittings were changed | The protective properties may have changed, and new tests are needed |
The fourth row is the most dangerous. If you overstate the protection class to win a tender, a person will be less well protected at a critical moment than they expected. This is no longer a question of administrative liability.
If you do not claim protective properties, the product goes back to light industry, and then the starting point is the analysis of TR CU 017/2011. How inspection control works is explained in a separate article.
Regulations · March 6, 2026
What decides the form of the document for clothing, and what the laboratory checks.
For manufacturers · May 9, 2026
How the periodic check goes, and what happens if you fail it.
Regulations · April 2, 2026
How the scheme affects the set of documents, the testing and the time to get the document.