TRTürkçe
ENEnglish
AZAzərbaycanca
UZO‘zbekcha
ARالعربية
FRFrançais
DEDeutsch
RUРусский
UTO versus ETA: choose the construction-product route for the intended market
Compare Türkiye’s national construction-product route with the European technical assessment route. Market, specification scope and actual product configuration determine the evidence; a UTO does not become an ETA through translation.
Start with the market and specification, not the preferred document
UTO is a national technical approval route in Türkiye; ETA is a European technical assessment used within the applicable construction-product CE framework. Türkiye’s national G route and the CE route carry different technical and assessment duties. First identify the marketed product and intended use, then check whether an applicable national or harmonised specification already covers them. A missing standard in the manufacturer’s folder does not prove that no specification exists.
For the EU route, check the currently applicable construction-product rules and the scope of mandatory harmonised technical specifications. The Commission describes ETA as a voluntary complementary route for products outside the relevant harmonised scope. An existing national approval does not bypass that scope check or supply the European assessment document and declaration obligations by itself.
An existing approval for one kit does not settle a changed kit
Conditional example: a UTO describes a kit with a specified adhesive and masonry substrate, while the EU customer requests different fixings and a steel substrate. Identify the actual kit, intended use and installation conditions in each file. Compare the reported characteristics and assessment methods with the proposed European assessment basis; a translation of the UTO does not demonstrate the changed connections or substrate performance.
Keep the genuine existing reports and their limitations. Ask the relevant assessment body which results can support the new scope and which evidence is missing. Do not rename an old specimen or present a component report as a full-kit assessment. Shared drawings or test results may help preparation, but their applicability and acceptance must be established for the actual product, use and method.
Decision-makers and the manufacturer’s responsibilities
Check the Ministry’s actual appointment scope for the national technical approval body and the relevant product-area designation for an ETA technical assessment body. Kayra can prepare a route comparison and evidence-gap file; it does not issue either assessment or make the competent body’s decision. Under the European route, the manufacturer still carries the applicable declaration and CE obligations and any required third-party assessment tasks.
Check the EAD citation and the applicable transition rules before treating an ETA as a CE basis. The Commission says an ETA based on a non-cited EAD cannot support CE marking, and a mandatory new performance specification can supersede the EOTA route for the product and use concerned. Neither route gives blanket approval of a building project; compare the declared performance and assessment limitations with the project’s real requirements.
Related service guides
- ← Return to the main document guide
- 01Who Manages the UTO Process?Open guide →
- 02UTO Certification and Consultancy ProviderOpen guide →
- 03Documents and Records Required for UTOOpen guide →
- 04UTO Cost and TimescaleOpen guide →
- 05UTO Enquiry and ValidityOpen guide →
- 06UTO Renewal and SurveillanceOpen guide →
- 07UTO Audit ProcessOpen guide →
- 08Is UTO Mandatory? Requirements ExplainedOpen guide →
- 09Frequently Asked Questions About UTOOpen guide →
Tell us what you need and our specialists will contact you.
Share the intended markets, product configuration and existing assessment scope so the differences between the two routes can be mapped.