Die Rechtliche Einordnung harmonisierter europäischer Normen im Rechtsgefüge des Gemeinschaftsrechts

Although the term “standards” may sometimes lead to misunderstandings, technical standards (norms) are very different from legal standards (norms), both institutionally and on the substance. Institutionally, there are two independent decision-making levels. Technical standards are drawn up and adopted by industry, while legal norms are drawn up at the state level. Technical standards are "per se" voluntary and have more of the character of a recommendation, whereas legal norms are always binding. The group of addressees of a technical standard is rather limited. In general, they are manufacturers of certain products or providers of services. A legal norm, on the other hand, addresses the general public. Nevertheless, both have one thing in common. Both formulate general substantive "rules" that can (technical standards) or must be applied by anyone (legal norms). Because of the technical know-how gathered in the standardisation organisations, the broad acceptance of standardisation and the constant adaptation of standards to the latest state of the art, the legislative institutions make frequent use of standards to support their legislation. In the same spirit, the European legislator makes extensive use of standardisation to support its legislation. This is particularly true for internal market legislation. Here he has developed a method that, on the one hand, maintains the principle of voluntary application of standards and, on the other hand, the independence of the standardization organizations. However, it also creates a special position for specific technical standards within the legal structure of Community law. Nevertheless, it has been and still is unclear what legal status standards developed in the context of the internal market legislation have. In the meantime, there are judgments of the European Court of Justice that come closer to answering this question.

The aim of the following contribution is to highlight the importance of the Court’s judgments as well as to discuss the yet open questions.