Summary

  • COM(2026) 780 is a draft regulation, not a law already in force; its access rule is limited to referenced standards and deliverables supporting EU legislation and policies.
  • The proposal lowers a user charge but leaves the future funding route unsettled: the EUR 183 million 2028–2034 estimate is indicative and depends on the next EU budget framework.

The access price falls; the funding question moves

A standard can be privately produced and still become a practical part of complying with public law. That is the tension behind the European Commission’s proposal of 6 October. COM(2026) 780 would replace Regulation 1025/2012 and make certain standards cited by EU legislation and policy freely available online. But the Commission’s own impact assessment shows that removing the reader’s bill does not remove the cost of maintaining the system.

The proposal is not yet law. It is before the European Parliament and Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. Its target is narrower than “all standards”: draft Article 5 covers referenced standards and standardisation deliverables that support Union legislation and policies. European standardisation organisations and designated alternatives would have to provide unrestricted online access within the EU in readable, searchable, printable and electronically accessible formats. Draft Article 7 would establish an EU Standards Platform to list referenced material, explain how to access it, track requests and show system performance.

The platform is an index and accountability surface; the proposal assigns provision of the documents to the organisations that develop them.

That distinction matters because a harmonised standard is not merely a handbook once EU law refers to it. It can offer manufacturers a presumption of conformity with legal requirements. In 2024, the Court of Justice found an overriding public interest in disclosure of the harmonised toy-safety standards at issue in Case C-588/21 P, reasoning that they formed part of EU law because of their legal effects. The ruling concerned those standards and that access dispute; it is not a declaration that every technical standard is EU law.

The Commission’s estimates make the proposed financing shift unusually visible. Removing paywalls for harmonised standards could save businesses about EUR 30 million per year. At the same time, free and unrestricted access could reduce national standardisation bodies’ revenue by up to EUR 30 million annually—about 15% of their EU standards sales and 6% of total annual revenue. These are separate estimates, not an accounting entry that automatically transfers the saved amount to the bodies that produce the standards.

The assessment says targeted EU budget support may be needed for the national bodies most exposed. The proposal also gives an indicative EUR 183 million estimate for activities over 2028–2034, based on EUR 23.7 million in standardisation spending in 2027. That figure is neither a committed reimbursement nor a dedicated fund for lost sales. The Commission says the post-2027 source and scope remain subject to negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework and later annual budgets.

The preferred design keeps European standardisation organisations central while allowing designated alternative standards-development organisations to receive requests in defined cases, such as failure to meet a deadline or when another organisation is better placed. That flexibility can address bottlenecks, but the impact assessment estimates that parallel channels could cost businesses EUR 4.5 million a year in duplication. The proposal is therefore balancing access and speed against the institutional base that delivers the standards.

It also expands participation for SMEs, consumers, environmental and social interests. Yet the draft says those participation obligations do not necessarily include voting rights. Access to a document, a place in technical discussions and authority to decide are different powers. The legislature will decide the legal framework; standardisation organisations will continue to perform much of the technical work inside it.

The immediate question is not whether free access is desirable. It is whether the final law couples that right with a funding and reporting structure capable of sustaining production, revision and public participation. Until Parliament and Council settle the text and the EU budget process settles the money, both the access rule and its institutional effects remain proposed, not observed.

Sources