KANBrief 4/24
Overlap and conflicts may arise between standardization in the area of German building regulations law on the one hand and the body of subordinate regulations under German workplace law, including the relevant standards, on the other. KAN has published a legal opinion that sheds light on this area of potential conflict.
In Germany, requirements pertaining to the building structures of workplaces are defined primarily in workplace law and building regulations law. These two areas of law pursue different objectives. Whereas workplace law serves to ensure workers’ safety and health during the erection and operation of workplace premises, building regulations law has the general objective of preventing hazards in building structures. Contradictions may arise where these two areas of law overlap. From the perspective of workplace law, points of contact with building regulations law exist in particular in the following areas: fire safety, escape routes, circulation routes and areas, artificial lighting/daylight, accessibility, noise/sound insulation and ventilation.
A body of subordinate regulations, such as the ASR technical rules for workplaces and technical building regulations, exists in the areas of both workplace law and building regulations law. Specifications of this kind are indispensable guidelines for parties planning and erecting buildings. Owing to their specificity, technical rules and standards have a key function in practice.
Increasing numbers of technical standards (for example addressing planning, erection and commissioning) concern structures serving as workplaces and therefore falling within the scope of both building regulations law and workplace law. Examples include schools, laboratories, sewage treatment plants, fire stations and ambulance stations, and the accessibility of buildings and sports facilities. However, standards addressing building structures frequently fail to give consideration to national rules and regulations governing occupational safety and health, since experts from the two legal spheres are often not present on the committees concerned. This may lead to the requirements in standards deviating from or even contradicting national occupational safety and health regulations.
To examine this area of conflict more closely, KAN commissioned a legal opinion1. This systematically examined points of overlap or conflict between the two areas of law, and how these are to be evaluated in legal terms. In particular, it discusses the consequences for users of standards (e.g. employers, building owners, architects/planners) in cases where standards in the area of building regulations law conflict with German occupational safety and health regulations (e.g. ASRs, DGUV regulations) or standards setting out requirements for workplace premises.
The legal opinion shows that the problem of inconsistent requirements exists primarily at the subordinate regulatory levels. In practice, such conflicts are seen to be the exception rather than the rule. On the rare occasions where they do occur, however, they may have far-reaching legal consequences, particularly for the user of the body of standards and regulations.
Statutory rules governing conflicts between provisions – such as Section 3a (4) of the German Workplaces Ordinance (ArbStättV), which accords priority to other legislation and, in particular, to the building regulations law of the German regional administrations where this legislation extends beyond the requirements of the ArbStättV – may be of some benefit in these cases. However, a user-friendly and, above all, comprehensively legally watertight solution for conflicts between technical standards in building regulations law and technical rules in workplace law often does not exist. Whether such a solution exists depends primarily on the following factors:
Even involvement of the authorities does not always yield a clear solution to potential conflicts. The reason for this is that, on the one hand, responsibility is distributed over a number of authorities, and on the other, involvement of the occupational safety and health authorities in the planning approval process prior to erection of the workplace is not generally mandatory. The possible need for refurbishment owing to changes in requirements also gives rise to legal uncertainties comparable to those preceding erection of a building.
In German construction practice, DIN technical standards (irrespective of whether they are developed entirely at national level or adopted from the standards of international or European standards organizations), in particular, are understood and applied in a similar way to directly applicable law. They are also relevant under civil and criminal law. Their conflict with the body of technical occupational safety and health regulations therefore presents users with considerable problems. This is the case even when the technical standards have not been explicitly referenced by an act. Only when no conflict arises can those responsible in the field, such as owners of buildings, architects and employers, apply the technical rules and standards without restriction without exposing themselves to legal risk.
One of KAN’s mandates is to support a practical, coherent and user-friendly body of occupational safety and health regulations. The results of the legal opinion are therefore intended to support positions, particularly during committee work, and to assure even greater coherence in the body of standards and regulations.
Katharina Schulte
schulte@kan.de
1Redeker Sellner Dahs (law office): Legal opinion on the coherence of the subordinate body of regulations under German building and workplace legislation and its significance for standardization (see box for link)