A story about standardization for design of glass works

This contribution attempts to give an overview of the European standardization framework which is related to the design and calculation of glass works in buildings. The different work levels, institutions, technical committees and workgroups, and the various types of documents and their statute will be introduced, explaining the difference between draft, experimental and final standards, between harmonized, support and design standards, the general and particular meaning of harmonization and implementation. The standardization framework is explained firstly from the point of view of European standardization policy and history, and secondly regarding the standardization framework in Belgium. In particular, an attempt is made to highlight some particularities existing in harmonization efforts of design methods and codes for glass works

Balance Requirements for Standards Development Organizations: A Historical, Legal and Institutional Assessment

Most technical standards-development organizations (SDOs) have adopted internal policies embodying “due process” criteria such as openness, balance of interests, consensus decision making and appeals. These requirements arise from numerous sources including antitrust law, international trade law, public procurement requirements and institutional norms. Yet balance criteria lack a generally-accepted definition and the manner in which they are implemented varies, sometimes dramatically, among SDOs. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the principle that SDOs should ensure a balance of interests among their stakeholders, including in the development of intellectual property rights policies. This article explores the origins and meaning of the balance requirement in the U.S. and EU, and identifies distinct legal, administrative and institutional modalities in which balance requirements are imposed, as well as existing antitrust and competition law requirements surrounding SDO balance

Balance and Standardization: Implications for Competition and Antitrust Analysis

Most technical standards development organizations (SDOs) have adopted internal policies embodying “due process” criteria such as openness, balance of interests, consensus decision making, and appeals. Unlike other aspects of SDO governance, relatively little scholarly research has considered the history, scope, and interpretation of SDO balance requirements. Likewise, existing case law and agency guidance offer little assistance in understanding precisely how these balance principles translate into specific antitrust requirements that apply to standards development. Given the absence of specific guidance on the meaning and implications of balance requirements for SDOs under the antitrust laws, it is necessary to review the development of the laws, regulations, and institutional norms that have shaped balance requirements and their application by different SDOs more generally. A series of recent events and disputes, however, has focused attention on this understudied area, particularly as it pertains to policies concerning intellectual property rights (IPRs). In this article, we provide an extensive survey of the evolution of SDO balance requirements. First, we describe the origins and evolution of balance requirements at the international level, leading to their inclusion in WTO and ISO/IEC instruments. We next describe how balance requirements went from a feature of SDOs to an element of rule of reason analysis under U.S. antitrust law, finding their way into related statutes as well. We then chart the parallel path of balance requirements in the EU, from national SDO features to components of EU standardization policy and eventually factors in EU competition law analysis. We conclude by exploring the different notions of balance that have evolved and their application to antitrust analysis

Smart electricity grids: A very slow deployment in the EU. Egmont Paper No. 74, February 2015

Summary. The European electricity sector will have to deal with a huge challenge in the decades to come. On the one hand, electrical power is increasingly substituted for other forms of energy. It has been forecast that electricity demand will increase in the future (notably because of new needs in transport and heat sectors), although it is currently stagnant, mainly because of the economic crisis. Unless a major alternative energy source is discovered, electricity will become the central energy pillar in the long term. On the other hand, electricity production remains uncertain and will depend on numerous factors: the growth of renewable energy and decentralized energy, the renewal of old power generation capacities, increased external dependency, CO2 charges, etc. This increases the demand for electricity networks that are more reliable, more efficient, and more flexible. Europe’s current electricity networks are ageing, and, as already indicated by the International Energy Agency, many of them will need to be modernized or replaced in the decades to come. Finally, the growing impact of energy trading also needs to be taken into account. These considerations explain the need to modernize the electric grid through various ICT means. This modernization alone may allow the grid to become more flexible and interactive, to provide real time feedback, more adaptation to a fluctuating demand, and finally to reduce the global electricity costs. The paper begins with a description of the EU definition of the term ‘smart grid’ (§ 1) and of the body in charge of advising the Commission (§ 2). The EU legal framework applicable to smart grids is also detailed (§ 3). It is a rather complex domain, connected to various regulations. The paper then examines three critical factors in the development of smart grids (and smart meters as a precondition). Standardization is quite complex, but absolutely essential (§ 4). Innovation is not easily put into action (§ 5). Finally, as digital insecurity has worsened dramatically in recent years, the security of electricity networks, and especially their multiplied electronic components, will become increasingly important (§ 6). Lastly, the paper provides a concise overview of the progress of smart grids in the EU in recent years (§ 7). In a nutshell, the conclusion is that progress is quite slow, many obstacles remain, and, given the appearance of many new regulatory problems, it would be useful to organize a review of the present EU strategy