Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:971
Date: 2017-12-14
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 14 December 2017 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Acts of the institutions — Harmonised technical standard adopted on the basis of a regulation and published in the Official Journal of the European Union — Included — Limits — Determination of the technical standard applicable to a product (Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 305/2011, Art. 2(11)) 2. Approximation of laws — Construction products — Regulation No 305/2011 — Harmonised standards — Scope — Criteria for determination (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 305/2011, Art. 17(1) and (5)) 3. Approximation of laws — Construction products — Regulation No 305/2011 — Harmonised standards — EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 for steel and aluminium structures — Scope — Anchors to be fixed into concrete before it sets — Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 305/2011) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 32, 33) 2. To that end, in order to interpret standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011, it is necessary, first, to refer to the content of that standard, including its annexes, as regards its scope. It is necessary, second, to interpret a harmonised standard in the light of the mandate from which it originates. In accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 305/2011, harmonised standards are to be established by the European standardisation bodies listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34 on the basis of requests issued by the Commission. Under Article 17(5) of that regulation, the Commission must assess the conformity of harmonised standards established by the European standardisation bodies with the relevant mandates. It follows that the scope of a harmonised standard cannot be interpreted more broadly than that of the mandate on which it is based. Third, where, as in the context of the main proceedings, a product may fall within the scope of several harmonised technical specifications, it is necessary in the first place to examine whether the most recent standard had the effect of repealing the earlier one. Where, therefore, a harmonised standard does not indicate expressly that it is intended to replace another harmonised standard or one or more European technical assessments, those harmonised technical specifications remain in force and constitute special derogating rules. Fourth, as regards guidelines published by national or international standardisation bodies, it must be noted that, even if such documents are intended to explain the scope of the harmonised standards whose references are published by the Commission, the fact remains that they cannot constitute legally binding instruments in the EU legal order. It follows that those documents are of no relevance for the interpretation of a harmonised standard, nor do they bind the national courts, even though they may be a useful guide for the implementation of the standard. (see paras 34-36, 38, 40, 44) 3. Harmonised standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011, ‘Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures — Part 1: Requirements for conformity assessment of structural components’, must be interpreted as meaning that products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, intended to be fixed into concrete before it sets fall within its scope if they have a structural function, in the sense that their removal from a structure would immediately reduce its resistance. The function of the load-bearing component in the overall structure of the construction work must thus be essential. (see paras 48, 49, operative part)