Thirty-First Statement: European Standardisation Regulation – Speed Must Measure Fidelity, Not Deadlines

GISAD – Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralisation · Statement on the European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on European standardisation, COM(2026) 780 (Initiative 14511)

1. Free access to standards is a matter of the rule of law

Harmonised standards form part of Union law, as the Court of Justice of the European Union has established. Whoever pays for access to the law pays for their own right. The central repository announced in the proposal is therefore the correct step – but it must be machine-readable, barrier-free and accessible without mandatory registration. The door to participation must not stand behind a door to identity verification. This principle applies to consultation portals, and it applies to the texts of the law itself.

2. Four years instead of six is a pace, not a quality

Shortening development times does not solve the underlying problem: many harmonised standards certify processes rather than outcomes. The proposal needs binding measurement criteria for every standardisation request – above all for conceptual fidelity (does the standard measure what the legislation demands?) and for structural effect (interoperability, exit options, avoidance of vendor lock-in). Key performance indicators that only track deadlines measure dates, not fidelity.

3. Alternative award routes require transparency, or they become forum shopping

The possibility of addressing standardisation requests to designated standards development organisations when CEN, CENELEC and ETSI decline, delay or underperform is legitimate as a lever. But the selection must be verifiable. The transparency registers foreseen in the proposal are the right mechanism: they must show whose interests are represented in every standardisation body. Corporate interests belong on the record; natural persons, following the European principle of justice, deserve anonymity protection. Those who verify must themselves be open to verification.

4. The interim presumption of conformity is risky

A harmonised standardisation deliverable that already carries presumption of conformity before the final standard is cited in the Official Journal shifts verification risks onto the market. This is acceptable only if withdrawal is automatic and time-bound, and if the deliverable undergoes the same substantive scrutiny as the finished standard. Interim presumption must not become interim leniency.

5. Standards for AI and cybersecurity must measure structure, not processes

The lack of harmonised standards in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity is the symptom of a systemic flaw: to date, processes and products have been certified. Resilience, however, arises from measurable structure – provenance, decentralisation, fault tolerance. The new standardisation mandates under the AI Act, the Cyber Resilience Act and the revised Cybersecurity Act should make these dimensions mandatory. Otherwise Europe will certify dependency – at high speed.

GISAD – Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralisation · Registered in the EU Transparency Register, No. 244298340978-40

Sources: European Commission, Have Your Say, Initiative 14511 – Standardisation Regulation revision: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14511-Standardisation-Regulation-revision_en · Commission proposal COM(2026) 780: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52026PC0780