Your complaint has been submitted to the European Ombudsman. We will send you an acknowledgement of receipt within a few days.

NB - Please note that this e-mail was sent from a notification only e-mail address. If you wish to contact technical support, please use the link below:

Sender

Complaint about maladministration

Part 1 - Contact information

Part 2 - Against which European Union (EU) institution or body do you wish to complain?

Part 3 - What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.

Part 4 - What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

From:	kafi@cq-cq.eu
Date:	Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:05:30 AM CEST
EOWEB_COMPLAINT_ID:	16238

First name:	Karl
Surname:	Fischer
On behalf of (if applicable):
Address line 1:	Friedenstr. 42
Address line 2:
Town/City:	Pforzheim
County/State/Province:
Postcode:	75173
Country:	Deutschland
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail address:	kafi@cq-cq.eu

According to the European Commission, a "harmonised standard" issued within the context of the New Approach is a standard

- for which the European Commission (and/or EFTA)
has issued a standardisation mandate to CEN,
CENELEC or ETSI, and

- for which a reference has been published in the
Official Journal of the EU.

Although all standards developed by CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are the results of "European harmonisation" in a more general sense, only those standards which exhibit both properties listed above are deemed "harmonised standards" according to the legal definition by the European Commission.

The fact that a mandate is the basic prerequisite for the harmonisation of a standard by citation in the OJEU is confirmed by the "Guidelines for the publication of references of standards in the Official Journal of the European Union" (Brussels, 6th April 2005) [1] which stipulate:

"3. Which checks does the EC sectorial unit have to make ?

(...)

b) on the conformity of the content:
- is the standard covered by the relevant directive ?
- is the standard subject to the relevant mandate ?

(...)

the sectorial units have to be aware that the publication of references of harmonised standards in the Official Journal has a legal effect and thus errors have to be avoided."

In numerous publications and requests to the Commission since 2012 I have emphasized that no mandate exists for the standard EN 50561-1 and therefore its citation in the OJEU as a harmonised standard is illegitimate. The replies I received from the Commission were evasive letters from Mr Diego Canga Fano of 23 April 2013 [2] and from Mr Gwenole Cozigou of 20 May 2014 [3]. Mr Cozigou simply stated that EN 50561-1 were subject to mandate M/313 but completely ignored my arguments which refute that claim, he wrote in German:

"Die Kommission erteilte CENELEC und ETSI 2001 den Normungsauftrag M313 zur Entwicklung harmonisierter Normen für Telekommunikationsnetzwerke (...) Im Heimbereich verwendete PLC-Geräte unterliegen als Teil des Telekommunikationsnetzwerks dem Normungsauftrag M313."

Translated into English this reads as follows:

"In 2001 the Commission addressed mandate M313 to CENELEC and ETSI to develop harmonised standards for telecommunication networks (...) In-house PLC equipment are subject to mandate M313 as part of the telecommunication network."

But contrary to this assertion mandate M/313 concerns standards for telecommunication networks only as whole installations and it makes unmistakably clear that it does not cover standards for equipment (products) connected to these networks by stating:

"This mandate does not concern the preparation of harmonised standards relating to the electromagnetic compatibility of equipment to be connected to the networks."

Note that the words "not" and "equipment" are underlined in the original mandate text [4]. The fact that PLC products are expressly not covered by M/313 has even been formally confirmed by the Commmission itself according to the CENELEC document "STATUS REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF EC MANDATE M/313 ON EMC OF TELECOM NETWORKS" from June 2002 [5] which states:

"3.1 Networks and not products

Following a query from CENELEC, the Commission has formally confirmed that M/313 envisages the preparation of harmonised standards on EMC of networks and not of products (...)"

EN 50561-1 concerns "in-home communication apparatus that use the low-voltage power installation as the transmission medium". In other words, it is a product standard for PLC equipment which is intended to be connected to a PLC network. It follows that contrary to the Commission's present assertion the standard EN 50561-1 is definitely not subject to mandate M/313.

Prior to the harmonisation of EN 50561-1 Mr Canga Fano wrote [2]:

"In 2001, the Commission addressed Mandate 313 to CENELEC and ETSI to develop harmonised standards for telecommunication networks, including PLT ones. At the moment the draft standard FprEN 50561-1 (...) is under examination by the Commission services in view of a possible publication of its reference in the Official Journal as a harmonised standard (...)"

After the harmonisation, Mr Cozigou has confirmed in his letter [3] that the Commission regards M/313 to be the relevant mandate. So it is very obvious that the stipulated check if the standard EN 50561-1 is subject to M/313 has not been conducted or its outcome has been simply ignored during that examination by the Commission which Mr Canga Fano has mentioned, though the guidelines clearly state that "the publication of references of harmonised standards in the Official Journal has a legal effect and thus errors have to be avoided".

Summary:

I have submitted evidence that - according to the legal definition for a harmonised standard by the European Commission - a mandate is a necessary prerequisite for the harmonisation of a standard by citation in the OJEU. And I have submitted evidence that - contrary to the Commission's assertions - the product standard EN 50561-1 is not subject to mandate M/313. Actually no mandate exists for the PLC product standard 50561-1 and therefore it is not eligible for citation in the OJEU. It follows that the Commission has ignored and breached its own regulations and that the citation of EN 50561-1 as a harmonised standard in the OJEU is illegitimate.

The Commission's replies on my requests contradict its own mandate and its own formal confirmation given to CENELEC upon request according to which M/313 does not concern products ("equipment to be connected to the networks") but only networks as whole installations. Therefore the Commission's replies so far were neither convincing nor satisfactory and its explanations do not effectively challenge my arguments for the illegitimacy of the harmonised standard EN 50561-1.

To download the related documents from my website please use the following URLs:

[1] http://cq-cq.eu/Guidelines_OJEU.pdf
[2] http://cq-cq.eu/CangaFano_DJ5IL.pdf
[3] http://cq-cq.eu/Cozigou_DJ5IL.pdf
[4] http://cq-cq.eu/M313.pdf
[5] http://cq-cq.eu/M313_Status.pdf

Part 5 - What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

Part 6 - Have you already contacted the EU institution or body concerned in order to obtain redress?

In November 2012 I published a 2-part article concerning the draft standard FprEN 50561-1. In part two entitled "Doomed to Fail: FprEN 50561-1" [1] I also pointed out that a valid mandate for this standard does not exist. In March 2013 this article was sent by email as well as by registered mail to the following addressees:

- Antonio Tajani
Vice-President of the European Commission
- Martin Schulz
President of the European Parliament
- Luis Filipe Girao
Head of Unit F/5
Enterprise and Industry DG
- Birgit Weidel
Deputy Head of Unit F/5
Enterprise and Industry DG
- Elena Santiago Cid
Director General CEN-CENELEC
- Tore B. Trondvold
President CENELEC

My letter to VP Tajani was answered by Diego Canga Fano [2] with an evasive standard letter.

In March 2014 - just after the citation of EN 50561-1 in the OJEU - I published and sent an Open Letter [3] in German to Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, in which I stressed again that the citation is illegitimate because a valid mandate does not exist.

My Open Letter to VP Reding was answered by Gwenole Cozigou [4]. I sent my final reply letter [5] to Mr Cozigou in June 2014 by registered mail.

As already explained, the Commission's replies so far were neither convincing nor satisfactory and its explanations do not effectively challenge my arguments for the illegitimacy of the harmonised standard EN 50561-1.

To download the related documents from my website please use the following URLs:

[1] http://cq-cq.eu/DJ5IL_rt005e.pdf
[2] http://cq-cq.eu/CangaFano_DJ5IL.pdf
[3] http://cq-cq.eu/DJ5IL_OB_Reding.pdf
[4] http://cq-cq.eu/Cozigou_DJ5IL.pdf
[5] http://cq-cq.eu/DJ5IL_Cozigou

Sender

Complaint about maladministration

Part 1 - Contact information

Part 2 - Against which European Union (EU) institution or body do you wish to complain?

Part 3 - What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.

Part 4 - What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

Part 5 - What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

Part 6 - Have you already contacted the EU institution or body concerned in order to obtain redress?

Part 7 - If the complaint concerns work relationships with the EU institutions and bodies: have you used all the possibilities for internal administrative requests and complaints provided for in the Staff Regulations? If so, have the time limits for replies by the institutions already expired?

Part 8 - Has the object of your complaint already been settled by a court or is it pending before a court?

Part 9 - Please select one of the following two options after having read the information in the box below:

Part 10 - Do you agree that your complaint may be passed on to another institution or body (European or national), if the European Ombudsman decides that he is not entitled to deal with it?