Wie viele Normen verträgt ein Haus ?

If you are asked now about us fully enumerate those standards that we would have to consider if we wanted to start building a house tomorrow, no one would probably report - and this despite the fact attend this conference loud construction experts. Even the most self-conscious would we probably initially only reply: "It depends on ..." and then zurückzufragen: Which standards was ever mentioned, because if the issue targets of the legal or technical to be observed legal norms, must be clarified first of all, where ever our house was to be built (in which State, if so to what state whether in beplanten or not planned indoors or even outdoors) and for whom and with whom we really want to build (ie: with the participation of a contracting authority or only private individuals, under strictly for people or is a party to consumers, the house is to be built by a general contractor or classic Architektenbau?). Moreover could, so you could not object to us further, a full list of all to our house construction observed legal standards anyway only by a lawyer, and then answered, of course, only by a construction law expert, was said then to reconsider whether it would be better to consult two experts - namely a public for the construction law and one for the construction contract law. And if we had our question asked a particularly caring interlocutor, he would lead us to think at least in places prey, in addition to involve also a European law experts. If our question would, however, aimed at the technical standards, then of course must first be clarified what kind of house we want to build at all - a solid construction, a lightweight, a prefabricated house or even a log cabin? If our house basement, one storey, divided into home ownership or at least divisible, to be built on marshy or rocky ground, as ultra-modern energy-efficient house or house technically more traditionally furnished, wood, concrete or otherwise specially prescribed building materials? This list of predictable counter-questions that you would ask us, in any case, before we could possibly get a full listing of to be observed in our construction technical standards, can probably also be enlarged as the number of civil engineering experts, to which we look at our question then meaningful way would have to turn. In short, if we really wanted to build, we would probably give up the search for a full list of standards for our house quite quickly and nevertheless apply for a building permit and complete the construction contract. So it is finally common. However - and what is common practice can be extremely risky, as this example shows: For undeniably every single relevant for our house legal or technical standard has the potential to be, in the case arising from a cause of our house construction dispute to prove crucial later . Of course one can argue against this that it does not particularly arriving on our standard knowledge as builders because we would help pay the price on our house and the standard experts working for us. Critical to the success of our house building was finally not our own standard knowledge, but compliance with the building standards by the planners and executors appointed by us and compliance with the relevant legal standards by the building authorities financed by our tax dollars. And if we then despite this massive participation of experts nevertheless geschähe wrong with our house construction, it would again not on our own standard knowledge, but rather on the observance and correct application of construction law through contracted by us lawyers and also tax-financed dishes. Finally, it is, so this objection is founded on a regular basis, ultimately, yes, the very purpose of legal and technical standards to ensure the citizens in our modern industrial and technological society security even where the citizens themselves to a real risk assessment no longer able is. However, this concept has become brittle. The by legal and technical standardization actually promised security is increasingly therefore perceived as deceptive because in the meantime feel overwhelmed even by the number and scope of of them to be observed standards even the experts. What is striking is the parallelism between law and technology: Where a right by law failure flood (Holt Schneider 1991) complain, others speak of the engineer mind contradicting standard flood (Scheer et al 2003.). All complain about the vast number of systems and their lack of intelligibility as a central condition for the - at least feared - Failure of their respective standard systems. And the louder the protests are, the more naturally waning public confidence in the operation of the justice and consumer confidence in the safety and suitability of technical products. Some these protests appear as though coated wail. So is not noted in the legal discussion wrongly, that the complaint about the flood of legislation - particularly in Germany - has been around for decades, become as it were commonplace, without yet a real collapse of the legal system must be stated (Mantl 1995, 15; Kang 1990, 19 f), while required by the technical side, to develop a new understanding of creation and use of technical standards taking advantage of modern information technologies (Werner 2004), and thereby to make obsolete the criticism of the standard flood. In view of this situation it is not our intention to enrich the blanket criticism of the standard flood for a further contribution. Rather, we are interested the question of what effect the undoubtedly existing variety of legal norms on the one hand, and technical standards on the other hand then unfolded when both control systems are effective simultaneously. This is, especially in terms of the experiential world of the citizen and consumer is our impression that in almost any other area so impressively the case, as in the private construction and the building process. The well-known formula, according to which a "lost expert report a lost building process", this special issue brings quite well expressed. So, we are interested not the basic system question of need and opportunities to reduce the number of legal construction and constructional standards. We ask rather - aware inherent in the system - for what is meaningful to the respondent despite standard flood to preserve as much as possible in the construction project planning and legal certainty. We therefore do not ask for strategies for defense or even circumvent the relevant standards. We are interested instead the search for policy options, which opened in the construction project a self-determined as possible exercise their rights and opportunities in a rapidly changing and progress of industrial and technological society. Frank Werner (2004), based on technical standards, formulated a pointed question: "What has to provide a standard - the path or path limitation is a standard, the staircase that opens up the problem, or is it the railing that crash one? prevented? " We want to pursue the idea that norms can serve both purposes of the right reasons - but at the same time its full benefits in a like can only develop in the other case, if the user is deliberately decides whether the standard for achievement of one or wants to serve the other purpose. A particularly innovative area of ​​building is suitable the traditional theme of BlowerDoor symposia, ie the development of energy saving and user-friendly at the same time building excellent as factual background of our question. Standards in the field of energy-saving construction and controlled ventilation are now unquestionably part of a staircase that leads us closer to approach problem solving in the field of protection of the climate and energy resources. At the same time it commands the still high Schadensträchtigkeit of building air-tight building envelope, protecting the user from damage to his health and to his property by a natural observance of minimum technical standards to ensure. Starting from each brief general surveys of concept, function, sources and application of legal (2) and technical (3) standards and a stroll through the special field of the relevant building standards (4) is to discuss in particular where and how the link between the construction contract law and technical regulations is done, so what are the gateways through which the technical standards are incorporated into the construction process (5). It this is also the place to discuss both the role of experts in the construction process and implications for the other parties to the construction process, before we substantiate the results obtained in this way with practical examples (6). The view (7) as a mandatory final point of such discussions is, much is revealed already at this point, fail to be optimistic despite considerable concern and criticism: Under the premise deliberately to the capitalization decisions and applications provide substantive and procedural building regulations, technical standards, new technical achievements and finally available to future responsibly energy saving and user-friendly to build scientific progress today and a decent armor.