ECJ rules that four specific safety standards must be freely available

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=283443&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6361468

by planede • 2 years ago

20 10 2 years ago

curia.europa.eu

mhitza• 2 years ago

Point 18

The request for access concerned four harmonised standards adopted by CEN, in accordance with Regulation No 1025/2012, namely, standard EN 71-5:2015, entitled ‘Safety of toys – Part 5: Chemical toys (sets) other than experimental sets’; standard EN 71‑4:2013, entitled ‘Safety of toys – Part 4: Experimental sets for chemistry and related activities’; standard EN 71‑12:2013, entitled ‘Safety of toys – Part 12: N-Nitrosamines and N-nitrosatable substances’; and standard EN 12472:2005+A 1:2009, entitled ‘Method for the simulation of wear and corrosion for the detection of nickel released from coated items’ (‘the requested harmonised standards’).

planede• 2 years ago

Response from BSI (British national standardization body): https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/insights/b...

And an article that feels is mostly biased to paint it as a negative: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2024/3/...

I didn't find any other recent publication about it. I first read the response from BSI.

xxpor• 2 years ago

It seems to me the current structure of ISO being a private body is fundamentally untenable. Obviously it costs money to develop standards and regulations, but the budget should come from governments paying to develop standards they want. I don't think we benefit from a competitive landscape today in the private standards industry. For the most part, it seems like there's effectively one body that produces them for a continent anyway (ANSI for NA, ISO for EU/ROW). Keep the competition in the testing/certification space.

extraduder_ire• 2 years ago

I think most ISO standards aren't legally mandated, which would be the distinction here.

I think it's fair to require free access to laws, or parts thereof.

euroderf• 2 years ago

Can this be generalized to:

The privatization and consequent monetization - in any way, manner, or form - of publicly-mandated requirements is.. evil^H^H^H^H vigorously contrary to the pubic interest.

Restated: Any law (and consequent mandate) is a public law, and any less-than-public variant is bogus, and subject to punishment-free leaks.

raverbashing• 2 years ago

BSI answer is through clinched teeth it seems

intsunny2• 2 years ago

EFF explanation on why this is a huge victory for EU citizens:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/making-law-accessible-...

The important bits:

Earlier this month, the European Union Court of Justice ruled that harmonized standards are a part of EU law, and thus must be accessible to EU citizens and residents free of charge.
In 2018, two nonprofits, Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know, made a request to the European Commission for access to four harmonized standards—that is, standards that apply across the European Union—pertaining to the safety of toys. The Commission refused to grant them access on the grounds that the standards were copyrighted.
Last week, the EU Court of Justice overturned the General Court decision, holding that EU citizens and residents have an overriding interest in free access to the laws that govern them.

intsunny2• 2 years ago

Also Morrison & Foerster (aka Mofo) were involved in representing the nonprofits Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know to the ECJ. Not exactly cheap and not exactly small fries....

https://www.mofo.com/resources/news/240305-morrison-foerster...

crote• 2 years ago

It's the most sensible outcome, really. How can you be expected to follow the law if the law isn't easily available to read? ISO/IEC has always felt like legally-enforced predatory rent-seeking to me. Why do I need to pay several hundred dollar just to download a shitty PDF to implement some absolutely trivial stuff, like ISO 8601 documenting a datetime format?

I much prefer the USB approach, where manufacturers have to pay to participate in writing the standards and you have to pay a certified laboratory to verify your product meets the standards, but the standard itself is open and freely available to anyone. Rather than gatekeeping safety and compatibility it promotes innovation and experimentation instead - any hobbyist or startup can try something out without spending a fortune first.

mncharity• 2 years ago

I was years ago brainstorming ways to improve physics education content, and explored linking to commercial/professional online material. So for instance, the glossy specs for a sump pump might mention a flow rate, and thus help develop a feel for reasonable values of volume transport, and for associated power etc. And also for pumps, and building moisture control. And provide a grounding "this stuff is real, used, useful, and applies to things in my life". And encourage curiosity and browsing.

Toy safety standards seemed an obvious candidate. Especially for younger kids and girls. And indeed, lots of fun bits turned up in such standards. Infant grip torque, pinching force, etc, etc. In paywalled "google temporarily turns up an unauthorized leak" "there's no way to link to this stuff" standards. Punted.

ECJ rules that four specific safety standards must be freely available

Related Stories