Harmonized product standards for structural precast elements

Where are we heading?

The judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in case C-100/13 of 16 October 2014 [1] has raised serious concerns in all areas of the German construction industry. According to the general interpretation, the court held that no national requirements may be imposed in addition to harmonized European product standards, as is currently the case in Germany with its Bauregelliste B Teil 1 (Construction Products List B, Part 1), among other documents. A comprehensive consultation process is currently underway on the legal implications of this ruling. The Conference of Construction Ministers of...

Related articles:

Issue 2017-02 How will structural precast components be used in Germany?

Implications of the ECJ judgement

Pursuant to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in case C-100/13, additional national requirements for harmonized (CE-marked) construction products are not permissible. The same applies to...

Issue 2018-02 An update on European regulations pertaining to structural precast elements

Do we need Mandate M/100?

Standardization orders (also referred to as “mandates”) that the European Commission issues to the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) contain a basic framework and are complemented by...

Issue 2017-05

The gap after the Ü

There is no longer any room for the German mark of conformity, the so-called Ü-Zeichen, on construction ­products that already bear the European CE mark. This is what the European Union demands for...

Issue 11-2015

60th BetonTage: Structural precast ­elements and CE marking

Next year, the BetonTage in the German city of Ulm will take place already for the sixtieth time. The reputation and status enjoyed by this leading German and European event is in good part due to the...

Issue 2018-04

Ü-mark replacement in sight

The judgment passed by the European Court of Justice in Case C-100/13 – three and a half years ago – has caused a great deal of excitement in Germany. The well-known consequence of this ruling is...