@honze_net If it is referenced as harmonised standard in EU law or regulations — yes. While the decision in this case is narrow as it is about 4 specific standards concerning toys and chemicals, it makes general statements on the connection between free access to law and referenced standards, so it should be a valid argument when EU law exists that references ISO 27001 as a harmonised standard.

@honze_net
Had a similar question about ISO/IEC standards in this regard, especially as they aren't developed under the governance of the EU. As far as I know ISO27001 isn't referred to in law and so no requirements to make public. Would be interesting if somebody makes a similar case for standards referred to in procurement. I recall in Netherlands we already had some standards public because they were referred in the law.
@jwildeboer

@voxpelli @jwildeboer I'd hope that it'll encourage SDOs to consider whether they want their standards to be broadly adopted, and if so, to stop gating them behind paywalls. Although if they don't, the EU can develop and release alternatives, which one can hope will drive the rent seekers out of business.

@voxpelli @jwildeboer depends on the standard really

@kkarhan @stman It was enforced with this decision for 4 harmonised standards. So there now is a precedent. That’s how this works …

@patrick_h_lauke @jwildeboer Omg yes. For every legislation.

@cccfr No. The decision is about harmonised standards that are directly referenced. If you want to read the decision in German: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?mode=req&pageIndex=0&docid=283443&part=1&doclang=DE&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=6475952

@vinzv Just read the court decision? They give good reasons in there. Example: how can citizens check if a product fulfils the requirements set by a harmonised standard without having access to the standard? Etc.

@justinas @jwildeboer Funnily enough, toys for kids are one of the driving force behind regulation and safety standards. It is a problem that nearly everyone agree on, that get quite controversial in the details and that is hellishly hard to get right. Don't sleep on toys.

@justinas The decision establishes a precedent. This precedent can now be used to enforce the principle in other areas too.

The reasons given by the court give a lot of leeway to argue that public interest outweighs protection rights in many more cases and IMHO it hints at that being the default going forward.