Single Market Scoreboard Single Market Scoreboard · 2008. 9. 1. · the frantic activity of 1998 which saw Member States notifying more than 1000 national implementing measures.

Single MarketScoreboard

N° 4OCTOBER 1998


JUNE 1999 - N°


THE SINGLE MARKET SCOREBOARD

Table of contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part A:Monitoring of the Action Plan – What remains to be done and future monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part B:Overview of Single Market regulatory environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Implementation of Single Market Directives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. Infringements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. Regulatory Simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124. European Standardisation Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135. Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Part C: Feedback from Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Co-ordination centres and contact points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. Notification of technical regulations – Directive 98/34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203. Notification of national measures impeding free movement –

Decision 3052/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Part D: Feedback from the Dialogue with Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. Do citizens know their EU rights? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222. Difficulties experienced by Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Annexes

Annex I:Action Plan commitments to be completed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Annex II:Implementation of SLIM Teams’ recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34



The Action Plan reaches a successfulconclusion

The Action Plan for the Single Market setout an ambitious 18-month programmein the run-up to the introduction of theeuro. It must be judged a success: inmost cases, the targets laid down in theAction Plan were achieved. The regularreporting of progress in the Scoreboardwas crucial to that outcome: it helped tomaintain the political momentum andassisted the successive CouncilP residencies in fixing their priorities.Inevitably, however, some actionsremained unfinished on 1 January 1999;Part A of this edition tracks progress in1999 and this will continue in futureeditions.

... and points the way to the next phaseof the Single Market

Although the Single Market may not yethave attained the degree of integrationachieved by a national market, it is aneconomic reality. The challenge for thef u t u re will be to increase itse ffectiveness in order to serve thebroader goals of the Union – improvedp roductivity and competitiveness,sustainable growth and higheremployment. Future policy will bedeveloped by the interplay of twodistinct elements: on the one hand, ana g reed vision of the long-termstrategic objectives of the Single Marketand on the other, the constant reviewof market perf o rm a n c e (based onintensified monitoring and measurementof market effectiveness) and of progresson implementation of andcompliance with existing measures.

Together, these elements will enable theUnion to identify immediate priorities foraction. Progress towards adoption ofthese priority actions and theirsubsequent implementation will also bemonitored by the Scoreboard. This cycleof measurement, evaluation, adaptationand implementation will be at the heartof the future strategy for the Single

Market, which will focus on the need toi m p rove the level of integration andeffectiveness of the market.

The Scoreboard will be central to thisexercise: expanded and developed intoa permanent instrument, it will provide aclear picture of existing strengths andweaknesses. It will thus enable theUnion to evaluate the effectiveness of itspolicies in achieving its longer- t e rmobjectives and point the way to the needfor adjustments to existing measures orfor new initiatives. The detailedindicators found in the pre s e n tScoreboard – which have enabled us tobenchmark progress in improving theadministrative and legal framework – willbe joined in future editions by a fullereconomic analysis, which together withthe annual process of economic reformlaunched at the Cardiff Euro p e a nCouncil, will emphasise the performanceof the market itself.

The Scoreboard highlights new strengths

Some Member States have given newimpetus to the task of implementingSingle Market legislation. The recentprogress achieved by some (for example,Belgium and Germany) demonstrates thatintense activity within the administration,with vigorous political support at thehighest levels, can yield significant resultsover a short period. Similar efforts arenow required from a number of MemberStates (notably Portugal, Italy andG reece) whose transposition re c o r dremains poor.

Some Member States have succeeded inremoving obstacles to the functioning ofthe Single Market. The activity of someCo-ordination Centres and Contact points– their establishment was a majorcommitment under the Action Plan -shows that there is willingness to applynew methods and seek bilateralsolutions to problems encountered by

Single MarketScoreboard1

INTRODUCTION

businesses in trading across the SingleMarket. Such developments, togetherwith the Commission’s acceleratedhandling of infringement pro c e e d i n g screate the conditions for a more efficientmanagement of the Single Market.

For the first time for some years, there isnot only a slight decline in the numberof national technical re g u l a t i o n snotified, but also a marked decrease inthe number of Commission opinionsquestioning the compatibility of draftregulations with the principles of freemovement (which implies that MemberStates are taking more care to avoidpotential obstacles to free movementwhen drafting technical re g u l a t i o n s ) .From August 1999, measures relating toservices in the information society will bec o v e red by the same notificationre q u i rements, thus enhancingtransparency and avoiding fragmentationof the market.

… but confirms that certain weaknessesremain

Implementation of priority Single Marketpolicies remains uneven acro s ssectors and within Member States. Inthe utilities sector, liberalisation isadvancing only slowly. Althoughcompetition has increased, particularly inthe telecommunications and energ ysectors, gaps still remain in theimplementation of the relevant EUlegislation. The implementation andenforcement of environmental legislationcontinues to be an important source ofproblems in many Member States. Inpublic procurement the Commission isincreasing its efforts to monitor thetransparency and openness of marketsand to assess the economic impact of thelegislation..

While the overall backlog of non-implemented legislation has beenreduced the slow implementation ofrecent legislation continues to fragmentthe Single Market. This means that theadjustment of legislation to technologicaldevelopments and the simplification ofthe regulatory framework are beingdelayed. This is detrimental to the EU’scompetitiveness, adversely affects labourmobility in Europe, limits market accessand unnecessarily increases costs forcross-border business. In some instances,excessive delays can be observed,despite Court of Justice rulingscondemning the Member Statesconcerned.

Citizens' rights - further efforts needed toincrease awareness

Citizens enjoy a number of substantialrights in the Single Market. However,opinion surveys confirm that too fewcitizens are aware of these rights. The"Dialogue with Business and Citizens"has already made progress in ensuringthat citizens can find out about theserights, but the task is far from over.

Part D of the Scoreboard reviews thefeedback obtained from the SignpostService about the difficulties encounteredby people trying to exercise their rights.Three major reasons for these difficultiesare highlighted:

• the lack of information about therules;

• the lack of transparency in theapplication of these rights by nationaladministrations;

• administrative procedures on the partof Member States which fail to ensurethat those rights can be fully andeasily exercised in practice.

Single MarketScoreboard 2

The June 1997 Action Plan for the SingleMarket set out a differentiated calendarfor meeting the targets identified. A greatdeal was achieved before the planexpired on 31 December 1998 butsome targets were not met. TheCommission’s Communication ofFebruary 19991 drew a line under theAction Plan whilst identifying the actionsthat remained incomplete (Annex I liststhose actions and provides details onprogress achieved).

In most areas where the target has notbeen reached, work has continued andprospects are good. Liberalisation of theelectricity market became effective on19 February 1999. The majority ofMember States have now transposed theDirective, many opening their marketsbeyond the threshold established in thelegislation. France and Luxembourg areexpected to implement the Dire c t i v eb e f o re the end of the year. Thetransposition of the g a s l i b e r a l i s a t i o nD i rective is also pro g ressing in asatisfactory way. The Council Regulationconcerning clarification and codificationof State Aid procedures was adoptedon 22 March 19992. It clarifies andstrengthens the Commission’s powers fordealing more efficiently with state aidscases and improving transparency andlegal certainty. Consumer protectionin the Single Market was enhanced bythe adoption, in May 1999, of theDirective on the sale of consumer goodsand associated guarantees. A Com-munication on Patents3 was published inFebruary 1999 outlining measures fori m p roving patent protection in theUnion. The Communication on SingleMarket and the Environment w a sadopted by the Commission on 8 June1999, and the one on M u t u a lRecognition is scheduled to be adoptedby mid-June 1999.

However, in a few areas there has beenno significant progress. New rules onallocation of airport slots have beenheld back. Little progress has been madein adopting the European CompanyStatute, as well as the 10th and 14th

Company law directives.

The tax package, proposed as part ofthe Action Plan, is now being discussedat Council level. The Cologne EuropeanCouncil set a deadline for completingdiscussions at the Helsinki Euro p e a nCouncil on the Code of Conduct and onproposals for Directives on the taxationof savings and on interest and royalties.

Important initiatives have been launchedrecently which will have a profoundimpact on the functioning of the SingleMarket. These include the Action Planfor a Single Financial Market4, theCommunication on Pensions5, the WhitePaper on the re f o rm of CompetitionPolicy6 and the Consumer Policy ActionPlan for 1999-20017.

The Action Plan for Financial Serviceswas confirmed as the basis for futurework at the ECOFIN Council of 25 Mayand European Council in Cologne. TheScoreboard will monitor progress usingthe financial services Action Plan, whichlists indicative priorities and time-scalesfor legislative and other measures totackle three strategic objectives. Theseobjectives are to ensure a Single Marketfor wholesale financial services; thatthere are open and secure retail markets;and that there are fully adequateprudential rules and means ofsupervision. The Plan calls for theadoption, before the end of 1999, ofp roposed directives on collectiveinvestment undertakings, distance sellingof financial services and electro n i cmoney.


Part A

A. MONITORING OF THE ACTION PLAN – WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE AND

FUTURE MONITORING

1 Assessment of the Single Market Action Plan, June1997 – December 1998, COM (99) 74 final, of18.02.1999

2 Council regulation 659/99, JO, L 83, 27.3.993 Promoting innovation through Patents, COM (99) 42

final, 3.2.19994 Implementing the framework for Financial Markets:

Action Plan, COM (99) 232 final, 11.5.1999,5 Towards a Single Market for Supplementary Pensions,

COM (99) 134 final, 11.5.1999 6 White Paper on modernisation of rules implementing

Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, COM (99) 101final, 28.4.1999

7 Action Plan for Consumer Policy (1999-2001),COM(98) 696 final, 1.12.1998


Part B

1. Implementation of Single MarketDirectives

Member States’ efforts to reduce thetransposition deficit have come tosomething of a standstill in 1999, afterthe frantic activity of 1998 which sawMember States notifying more than 1000national implementing measures. Thisalmost halved the "fragmentation factor"(the number of directives not yetimplemented in one or more Member

States). Based on 1405 Single MarketDirectives applicable at the end of May1999, it now stands at 12.8%, comparedto 18.2% in May 1998. In the last sixmonths Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg,and to a lesser degree, France and Spainhave achieved considerable success inreducing their implementation backlog.

B. OVERVIEW OF THE SINGLE MARKET REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1:Progress in implementation ofSingle Market Directives

Figure 2:Percentage rate of Single MarketDirectives not yet transposedacross the whole of the Union

* 180/1405 Directives** 203/1365 Directives*** 249/1368 Directives

Source: EFTA Single Market Scoreboard N°48

8 1257 Single Market Directivesform the basis of the statistics setforth in the above figure.


Part B

Germany and Spain have now joined thegroup of countries (Denmark, Finland,Sweden and the Netherlands) whichtends to meet the deadlines forimplementing new legislation. Bycontrast, little progress has been made byPortugal, Italy, and Greece, whichcontinue to have a non-transpositionrecord above 5%. The EFTA States havenow overtaken some of the EU States.Liechtenstein in particular, has succeededin closing the gap with the other EFTA

States. Norway and Iceland, however, arestill doing less well than theirneighbouring Nordic countries.

Part of the late implementation problemconcerns older Directives for which thedeadline for implementation expire dbefore January 1997 (Figure 3). Nearly allsuch instances are now the subject ofinfringement proceedings. In a significantnumber of these cases the Court hasalready given its ruling.

-

92/74

92/73

95/17

94/994/6795/1795/4795/62

-

-

-

90/605

96/43

89/48

-

93/118

94/6296/43

93/10494/5594/5695/62

-

-

-

-

93/1296/43

-

92/74

93/4094/2894/3995/995/10

93/10494/3395/1795/26

93/3593/6994/6295/2995/47

-

-

93/103

92/10093/83

93/6894/5596/4396/86

-

91/271

-

93/10393/10494/3395/2195/30

94/6795/2695/47

-

94/51

94/46

93/10494/3394/4594/5695/30

93/68

-

-

-

-

95/47

-

-

-

90/42893/11994/56

95/3095/4796/43

-

-

-

94/4596/43

94/5695/395/62

-

-

-

-

94/6295/68

B D EL E F IRL I L NL A P UK

Referral to the ECJunder Art. 228

Infringementproceedingsinitiated under Art. 228

Court ruling

Referral to the ECJunder Art. 226

Reasoned opinions

Figure 3: State of non-implemented Directives for which the deadline expired before 1.1.1997

Under Article 228 (formerly Art. 171),Belgium, France, Italy and Luxembourgrisk facing the Court a second time, ifthey fail to comply with earlierjudgements relating to the failure toimplement directives (Figure 3). Greecehas been taken to the Court for a secondtime for the failure to transpose Directive89/48 and may incur sanctions if foundin breach of its obligations again.

Most delays, however, relate to thetransposition of recent directives (Figure4). Some 50% of directives for which the

deadline for implementation expired in1997 have still not been implemented byall Member States. For 1998 the figurerises to 83.5% and for those due forimplementation before the end of May1999, it is 92.3%.

In recognition of the difficulty of meetingtheir obligations, the Member Statesagreed, in a Resolution adopted by theSeptember 1998 Internal Market Council,to extend into 1999 the practice ofestablishing timetables for implementingSingle Market legislation to eliminate the


Part B

backlog. This demands considerableefforts by Member States as a significantnumber of Directives must beimplemented before the end of this year(ranging from 61 Directives for Finland toalmost twice as many (123) for Portugal).For the EFTA States there remain 45Directives for Iceland, 50 for Norway and55 for Liechtenstein to be implementedbefore the end of the year.

To date, most timetables received fromMember States are incomplete. Theprospect of the complete elimination ofthe backlog (the target set in June 1997by the Action Plan) still seems remote.The Commission therefore calls uponMember States to honour theirobligations and to meet the terms of theResolution of September 1998.

This slow pace of implementation ofrecent legislation remains a source ofconcern. Overdue economic reform isbeing further delayed. Measures adjusting

rules to take account of technologicaldevelopments and new provisions toimprove consumer protection or protectthe environment cannot yield their fulleffects.

When the delays are broken down bysector progress can be observed in allsectors, notably in p u b l i cp ro c u rement, telecommunicationsand chemical products. The pattern ofimplementation varies between MemberStates. Highlighted figures may indicatethe presence of deep-seated problemsfor some Member States.

In terms of the number of Directives stillnot fully implemented in all MemberStates, transport stands out as a difficultsector. However, the high number ofDirectives (32/61) whose deadline forimplementation expired after 1.1.1997, aswell as the very short periods fortransposition established by someD i rectives (particularly in maritime

3

7

7

16

12

19.8

4

16

3.1

1

5

14

13

10.1

1

9

9

32

18

14.8

1

1

12

11

9.1

7

7

9

25

17

17.5

2

6

6

24

15

13.9

1

7

12

34

22

12.3

1

6

10

26

21

15.2

1

2

14

17

6.0

1

4

4

29

18

14.3

1

8

11

37

21

13.1

7

12

3.7

3

11

15

5.9

2

2

23

20

7.2

B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UKYear of

Transposition

Deadline

1995

1996

1997

1998

<31.05.1999

Average

delay in

notification

(months)

Backlog of non-transposedDirectives overtotal number ofDirectives

15/77

20/62

36/72

61/73

24/26

19.5%

32.3%

50.0%

83.5%

92.3%

Figure 4: Member States’ backlog of non-transposed directives analysed by calendar year according to the deadlinefor implementation and observed average delay.

Number of Directives to beimplemented before end of 1999

Number of Directives for which no planning provisions have been

received

Number of Directives overdueat 31.05.1999

Figure 5: State of Member States’ transposition backlog and state of planning provisions

B

87

55

49

DK

64

16

20

D

75

11

34

EL

117

50

73

E

65

7

26

F

109

36

68

IRL

19

55

I

121

60

77

L

107

92

68

NL

77

60

34

A

105

51

63

P

123

18

80

FIN

61

18

19

S

70

29

29

UK

92

23

47

7

Part B

transport), must be taken into account. Intelecommunications, implementation hasconsiderably improved as Member Statesfill the gaps in the national legislativeframework. In fact, liberalisation of thetelecommunications market is alre a d ybringing significant economic re s u l t sboth in terms of market gro w t h ,estimated at over 30% in the last threeyears, and the number of operators,which now stands at more than 300.Delays in implementing v e t e r i n a r ylegislation relating to inspections, healthchecks and animal feed are a majors o u rce of concern, as the importantre f o rms undertaken have yet to bereflected in national legislation. Theenergy sector figures for the first time asdelays are accumulating in theimplementation of recent legislation.

EFTA States

In relation to the EFTA States the patternof implementation varies. In Norwayimportant gaps remain in medicinalproducts, company law and insurance. InLiechtenstein problems concentrate oncompany law, banking and insuranceand on chemicals in Iceland. Aside fromderogation or transition periods enjoyedby the EFTA States with respect to SingleMarket Directives, particularly in theveterinary field, negotiations are stillgoing on between Liechtenstein and theCommission regarding the application ofthe provisions of the Agreement and itsAnnexes on free movement of persons.


Figure 6: Breakdown by area and Member State of non-transposed Directives ranked according to the percentage ofDirectives not yet transposed across the whole Union

58.8

51.7

50.0

36.4

28.2

17.2

16.7

16.7

14.3

13.6

10.5

7

11

-

-

3

3

1

-

6

2

1

1

2

1

-

-

3

-

2

2

-

-

-

5

1

2

-

3

3

1

4

4

1

7

10

1

3

3

17

3

1

7

3

-

-

9

1

1

-

2

-

-

5

2

-

3

9

1

2

3

20

4

2

4

2

3

2

10

4

-

2

12

1

1

6

5

-

3

15

1

1

8

15

1

1

8

5

-

3

18

2

2

9

9

1

2

3

-

-

-

9

2

-

-

4

2

-

2

-

-

-

11

1

2

3

14

5

-

3

2

1

4

17

1

2

2

15

5

1

5

9

1

-

5

1

-

-

6

1

1

1

-

-

4

8

-

-

-

7

2

1

1

-

1

2

10

1

2

-

13

2

-

5

1

-

% B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK

Telecommunications (17)

Transport (60)

Intellectual and industrial

property (8)

Public Procurement (11)

Social Policy (39)

Veterinary checks (198)

Chemical products (78)

Energy (12)

Environment (91)

Food legislation (103)

Cosmetic products (38)

(#) number of Directives concerned in each sector

8

Part B

Public procurement

Implementation of public procurementlegislation has improved, enabling theCommission and Member States to shiftthe focus to its correct application and toassessing its economic impact. As part ofa package of measures outlined in theCommunication on Public Procurementadopted on 11 March 19989, theCommission is developing indicators tomeasure the degree of openness andt r a n s p a rency of European publicprocurement markets.

The first of these indicators is nowavailable. Based on the tenderspublished in accordance with theD i rectives, they provide a means ofmonitoring progress towards an effectiveSingle Market in public pro c u re m e n t .They show that there is considerablevariation in the amount of procurementpublished in different Member States.The overall volume appears lowc o m p a red with a total EU publicp ro c u rement market estimated at

11-12 % of GDP - though not all tendersneed to be published under the EUDirectives.

These provisional figures will becompleted later in the year with otherkey indicators. These include the totalvalue of public pro c u rement, theproportion that is cross border and thedegree of price convergence for productsp u rchased by the public sector. Toi n c rease transparency a search andretrieval mechanism is being developedwithin SIMAP to provide access totenders not published in TED.

Indicators will be produced annually,allowing Member States to monitor theirp ro g ress more easily. They couldbecome a regular feature of the Cardiffp rocess of monitoring economicperformance in the Single Market.

BelgiumDenmarkGermanyGreeceSpainFranceIrelandItalyLuxemburgNetherlandsAustriaPortugalFinlandSwedenUK

Total EU 15

Number of entitiespublishing in theOfficial Journal

419527

3 114396715

3 186130

1 27640

573413236270606

1 694

13 595

Number of tenderspublished in theOfficial Journal

2 5501 342

15 9541 6804 164

19 694796

8 117284

1 3842 4881 291

8942 529

11 065

74 232

Value of tenderspublished as

percentage of GDP

2.24%2.38%1.12%

N/A1.58%1.85%2.18%1.41%3.29%1.10%1.90%2.29%2.59%2.56%3.20%

1.87%

Figure 7: Monitoring of public procurement, 1998 data

Source: These figures are estimates produced by the Commission services from data available in the TED10 database andfrom Eurostat.

10 The Tenders Electronic Daily database is available freeof charge at http://ted.eur-op.eu.int/.


9 Public Procurement in the European Union, COM (98)143 final of 11.03.1998.

9

Part B

2. Infringements

3.97-3.98

9.96-9.97

B

4

9

DK

0

0

D

4

6

E

5

6

EL

4

5

F

3

5

IRL

3

0

I

3

8

L

1

2

NL

0

1

A

0

0

P

5

5

FIN

0

0

S

0

0

UK

0

0

EU

32

47

Letters offormal notice

Reasonedopinions

Judgements ofEuropean

Court of Justice

Cases referredto the EuropeanCourt of Justice

Figure 8: Infringement statistics for alleged breaches of Single Market rulesComparison between 1.3.98-1.3.99 and 1.9.97-1.9.9812

3.97-3.98

9.96-9.97

B

5

8

DK

1

0

D

5

3

E

2

3

EL

9

7

F

13

13

IRL

2

1

I

3

2

L

1

1

NL

2

3

A

3

2

P

2

4

FIN

1

0

S

1

0

UK

2

1

EU

52

48

3.97-3.98

9.96-9.97

B

30

25

DK

3

3

D

20

17

E

13

15

EL

11

12

F

45

45

IRL

5

5

I

40

31

L

11

7

NL

7

9

A

11

10

P

19

19

FIN

5

2

S

4

5

UK

12

14

EU

236

219

3.97-3.98

9.96-9.97

B

30

34

DK

5

8

D

31

42

E

17

36

EL

27

37

F

52

78

IRL

15

9

I

43

60

L

6

9

NL

9

15

A

28

24

P

21

19

FIN

16

16

S

13

17

UK

21

25

EU

334

429

`

3.98-3.99

9.97-9.98

3.98-3.99

9.97-9.99

3.98-3.99

9.97-9.99

3.98-3.99

9.97-9.99

F i g u re 8 shows that the number ofinfringement pro c e d u res (letters off o rmal notice, reasoned opinions,referrals to the Court by the Commissionand judgements of the Court) continuesto be high. The figures for letters off o rmal notice, reasoned opinion andreferrals to the Court relate to incorrectimplementation of Single Marketd i rectives or incorrect application ofSingle Market rules in the Treaty orsecondary legislation. They do not,therefore, include proceedings in respectof failure to notify measure simplementing Single Market dire c t i v e sinto national law.

The noticeable increase in the number ofreasoned opinions and referrals to theCourt, compared with the pre c e d i n gperiod, largely reflects the application ofthe Commission’s new internal rules11 onthe conduct of the infringementp ro c e d u res, aimed principally atspeeding up their handling.

11 SEC(1998) 173312 The figures in the table are independent of one

another. One and the same case may appear severaltimes, e.g. if the letter of formal notice and thereasoned opinion were both sent between 1 March1998 and 1March 1999. Also shown in the tables arethe cases closed after the formal initiation ofproceedings.

How does the infringement procedurefunction?

The infringement procedure provides fora dialogue between the Commission andthe Member State concerned. Aftercareful consideration of the facts and theapplicable law, the Commission maydecide to open the infringementprocedure by sending to the MemberState a letter of formal notice inviting itscomments on its alleged breach ofCommunity law. In most cases the replyfrom the Member State allows the case tobe closed. However, if the Commission,despite the arguments put forward by theMember State, considers that the breachof Community law persists, it delivers areasoned opinion to the Member State,inviting the latter to react. Afterexamining the Member State’s reply, theCommission may decide to refer the caseto the Court of Justice.

Initiating an infringement pro c e d u remerely reflects the Commission’s viewthat the Member State is failing to fulfil itsobligations under the Treaty. Only theCourt of Justice can rule definitively thata breach of Community law has occurred.Indeed, in most cases the process itselffrequently enables the Commission andthe Member State to resolve theirdifferences without recourse to the Court.


10

Part B

Figure 9 deals with the most seriouscategory of infringements. When aMember State has been found by theCourt to have failed to fulfil itsobligations under Community law, Article228 of the EC Treaty requires it to takethe steps necessary to comply with thejudgement of the Court. Most MemberStates take the appropriate action, but ina small number of cases the Commissionbegins a further infringement procedure,

under Article 228, for an alleged failureto comply with the judgement of theCourt. Cases in figure 9 refer to incorrectapplication or implementation oflegislation in the areas of theenvironment, discrimination against non-nationals as regards access toemployment in the public sector,incorrect implementation of the televisionwithout frontiers legislation, taxation andtransport policy.

Figure 9 : Pending cases of alleged failure to comply with a judgement of the Court of Justice in cases concerning theSingle Market at 1.3.99

1

2

1 1 5

2 2

1 1

1

2 12

7

B DK D E EL F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU

Letters of formalnotice sent underArticle 228

Reasoned opinions

Figure 10: Breakdown by sector of reasoned opinions sent between 1.3.98 and 1.3.99

3

11

3

1

1

2

9

30

1

1

1

3

3

5

4

1

1

1

5

21

3

1

4

1

1

3

13

3

1

1

1

1

1

3

11

6

12

11

9

3

4

45

1

4

5

3

8

10

2

2

1

9

2

3

41

1

2

1

4

3

11

2

1

1

1

1

1

8

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

11

3

1

2

1

1

11

19

1

1

1

2

5

2

1

1

4

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

12

18

44

51

13

11

18

20

4

6

51

236

B DK D E EL F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU

Free movement ofpersons

Free movement ofgoods

Establishment andprovision ofservices

Transport

Telecommunications

Taxes

Publicprocurement

Intellectual andindustrial property

Consumer affairs

Environment

Total


11

Part B

Analysis of reasoned opinions

Reasoned opinions are a useful measurefor identifying current problem areas inthe application of Single Market rules.The delivery of a reasoned opinion bythe Commission means that theCommission considers that a breach ofCommunity law has occurred. Figure 10breaks down, by sector and by MemberState, reasoned opinions issued between1 March 1998 and 1 March 1999. Thesectors with the largest number ofinfringement procedures are the right ofestablishment and free provision ofservices, the environment and the freemovement of goods.

About one fifth of cases (9/44)concerning free movement of goods arisefrom incorrect application of directiveson veterinary controls and animal feedproducts. In the area of the environment,about one third of cases refer to incorrectapplication or non-conformity withDirectives on waste management, whilstand another third refer to waterp rotection and management. In thetransport sector 8 cases concern the"Open Sky" infringements.

France, Italy and Belgium togetheraccount for half the reasoned opinionsissued during this period. Franceaccounts for the highest share of allegedinfringements concerning goods. Aboutone third of Belgian cases (9/30) relate toenvironmental issues. Italy accounts foralmost half the cases being pursued inthe public pro c u rement area. Inparticular, 5 out of the 9 Italian casesregard incorrect application of CouncilDirective 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992,relating to the co-ordination ofp ro c e d u res for the award of publicservice contracts.

It is also worth noticing the relativelyhigh number of infringements openedagainst Luxembourg in thetelecommunications area and Portugal’spoor record on environment (11 out ofPortugal’s 19 reasoned opinions).

Efficiency of the infringements procedure

Between 1 March 1998 and 1 March1999, 198 cases were closed after a letterof formal notice had been sent. A further69 were also closed after the MemberStates had received a reasoned opinionfor alleged incorrect implementation ofDirectives or alleged incorrect applicationof Single Market rules.

Early resolution of legal disputesbetween the Commission and theMember States remains critical to theefficient functioning of the Single Market.However, as figure 11 shows, wherecases of incorrect application or incorrectimplementation of EU rules cannot beresolved before being referred to theCourt of Justice, the time elapsedbetween the case being opened by theCommission and the Court’s judgementcurrently averages more than five years(and can take 8 years or more). For non-communication of implementingmeasures cases take between 2 and 3years.

Figure 11: Time elapsed between opening ofinfringement case and European Courtjudgements delivered in 1998


3. Regulatory Simplification

Recent meetings of the European Counciland of the Internal Market Council havestressed the importance of promoting alegislative and administrative frameworkconducive to enhanced markete fficiency. They emphasised theimportance of ensuring that when ruleswere agreed upon, they should be lesscomplicated and more user friendly andnot add to the administrative burden andcosts of business.

The first tangible results from the SLIM(Simpler Legislation for the Intern a lMarket) exercise launched in 1997 arestarting to come through: the Conciliationprocedure was successfully concluded onthe Intrastat proposal aimed at reducingthe data elements collected for intra-EUtrade statistics; two CommissionRegulations on net mass and statisticalvalue have been issued; and the revisedDirective on ornamental plants, clarifyingits scope and reducing the administrativeburden on both suppliers andadministrations, has been adopted by theCouncil.

The third phase of SLIM was concludedin late 1998 and the Commission hasc o n s i d e red the re c o m m e n d a t i o n spresented by the SLIM teams on social-security co-ordination rules,e l e c t romagnetic compatibility andinsurance. The detailed situationregarding the three Phases of SLIM areshown in Annex II. The fourth phase ofSLIM commenced in January 1999. Threesectors are being reviewed: dangeroussubstances, company law and pre -packaging13. SLIM teams are expected toissue recommendations by late summerand the Commission will then prepare anoverall report on Phase IV. In the secondhalf of 1999, the Commission’s serviceswill prepare an overall assessment of theSLIM initiative. In addition to theassessment of SLIM, the Commission willexamine the Test Panel and otherinitiatives aimed at improving theregulatory environment in the SingleMarket.

A progress report on the Business TestPanel was presented to the February1999 Internal Market Council meeting.The use of this innovative consultationp ro c e d u re of businesses on draftCommission proposals (VAT directive onfiscal representation and 4th accountingDirective) has ensured that a wide rangeof enterprises have submitted theirobservations, which confirmed the needto amend the existing legislation.

The issue of regulatory reform is alsobeing addressed at special conferencesand at the OECD. The Dutch authoritiesrecently hosted a two day meeting on 15-16 April in the Hague. The meetingfocused on issues such as theCommission’s recent guidelines on thequality of the drafting of Communitylegislation, the assessment of draft(national) legislation and the SMEperspective on regulatory reform.

The Netherlands was the first MemberState to participate in the OECD reviewof regulatory reform and was the subjectof a comprehensive report covering,i n t e r-alia, the contribution of betterregulation towards economic expansion.Both Denmark and Spain areparticipating in the second round ofreviews, to be concluded early in 2000.

Future editions of the Scoreboard willincorporate indications of Member Stateactivity in relation to impro v i n glegislative quality, such as theestablishment of specific units withinadministrations responsible for betterregulation, proposals designed tosimplify existing legislation, andinitiatives to assess administrativeburdens and compliance costs.

12

Part B

13 Simpler Legislation for the Single Market: Extension toa Fourth Phase, SEC(98) 1944, 16.11.1998


13

Part B

4. European Standardisation Output

As the Commission communication onthe "Efficiency and accountability ofEuropean standardisation for the NewA p p roach" points out, the Euro p e a norganisations have set up a joint websiteon their standardisation activities, toprovide a common access point for smalland medium-sized businesses inparticular and to give progress reports onstandardisation under the new-approachDirectives. Users of the site can search,by Directive or by family of products, forE u ropean standards which are underdevelopment, at the public survey stageor about to be adopted. The site also setsout the keynotes of the new approach,contains the full texts of the Directivesc o n c e rned and quotes harm o n i s e dstandards whose references have beenpublished in the Official Journal. Theinformation is updated daily, except forthe CEN data, which is updated everytwo weeks. The site is accessible eitherat h t t p : / / w w w . N e w A p p ro a c h . o rg o rh t t p : / / e u ro p a . e u . i n t / c o m m / d g 1 5under "Dialogue with business – Keyissues – Technical standards".

The Berlin standardisation conference of15-17 March 1999 was attended by over400 participants and was a great success.It dealt with four important topics:e n l a rgement, promotion, intern a t i o n a lstandardisation and future standardi-sation.

Figure 12 shows the progress made withEuropean standardisation under the new-a p p roach Directives. In all, 127 newstandards were ratified between April1998 and May 1999, raising thepercentage of ratified standards to 40% ofmandated standards, compared with35.6% in the last period. This figure doesnot cover standardisation activities in theconstruction products domain, since thework programme is constantly evolving.According to the information receivedfrom CEN, the first harmonised standardsin this domain will be available in 1999.

* Excluding constructiponproducts, for which astandardisation programme is stillunder development;

** including active implantablemedical devices

Under development

Under approval

Ratified

Figure 12: Progress in standardisation activities in the framework of the new approach*


14

Part B

Figure 13: Implicit Tax Rate* on Comsumption, Employed Labour and Other Factors of Production

1980

13.3

19.7

13.3

6.7

n.a.

15.7

17.3

10.7

12.7

13.8

17.1

11.9

18.3

14.2

12.4

13.5

1990

13.4

20.6

13.5

12.0

16.5

15.0

19.7

13.0

14.1

15.0

16.8

15.6

20.7

17.5

13.0

13.8

1996

13.7

21.2

13.7

12.3

16.6

14.6

18.9

13.4

17.9

15.4

15.6

15.9

19.0

16.1

14.6

14.4

1980

37.7

37.5

36.5

28.8

n.a.

37.2

23.4

33.4

33.9

45.4

36.6

17.8

39.2

50.9

27.2

34.9

1990

43.3

43.8

38.5

34.5

34.3

43.2

30.8

42.5

30.4

49.7

39.3

32.5

47.6

57.2

24.4

37.7

1996

44.8

47.1

43.3

38.3

44.9

44.9

29.1

50.1

30.2

46.7

45.8

42.0

55.3

57.6

27.3

42.6

1980

39.0

37.1

53.2

17.0

n.a.

46.7

29.2

18.9

43.6

39.2

38.0

18.3

11.5

32.8

62.4

42.1

1990

34.2

36.4

38.3

28.7

10.5

45.6

19.9

27.2

32.3

30.7

36.3

15.6

22.0

58.3

57.1

36.3

1996

38.6

35.8

36.1

24.0

9.7

47.6

21.4

33.1

49.8

37.0

38.9

18.0

24.1

47.4

36.8

35.6

Consumption Employed Labour Other factors of production

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Spain

Greece

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Europe

* Implicit taxrates indicatethe tax burdenby dividing taxrevenues by therelevantmacroeconomictax base.ITRConsumption:consumptiontaxes (e.g. VAT,excises, etc.) /Final nationalconsumptionITR EmployedLabour: Taxeson employedlabour (e.g.wage taxes,socialcontributions) /Totalremuneration of employeesITR Otherfactors: taxes oncapital andbusiness (e.g.corporation tax,wealth tax) /income fromcapital andentrepreneurialactivities.

Source : Eurostat, The Structures of the Taxation Systems 1970-1996, Luxembourg 1998.

5.Taxation

Tax systems of Member States remainnationally oriented and many includeprovisions which hamper access by non-residents to domestic markets. Thiscontributes to the segmentation of theSingle Market. More o v e r, unfair taxcompetition may lead to tax measureswhich may affect, in a significant way,the location of business activity withinthe Community and may, there f o rconstitute harmful tax competition. TheCode of Conduct for business taxation isdesigned to curb such measures.

The structure of taxation systems in theEU (Figure 13) provides a unifiedframework by which the heterogeneoustaxation systems of diff e rent Member

States can be compared. It shows anincreasing taxation of labour. This trendundoubtedly contributes to the high andpersistent unemployment found in theUnion. The reduction in the taxation oflabour is a priority of European taxationpolicy. This approach was endorsed byMember States at the Essen summit and,more recently, the Cologne EuropeanCouncil. The evolution of implicit taxrates can be used to monitor the trend inthe tax structure of Member States.

As far as tax obstacles to the fullimplementation of the Single Market areconcerned, wide differences between thelevels of national VAT rates, continue todistort the Single Market. Moreover, the



Part B

Figure 14: Standard rates of corporation tax in the European Union

Member States

BelgiumDenmarkGermany

GreeceSpainFranceIreland

ItalyLuxembourgThe NetherlandsAustriaPortugalFinlandSwedenUnited Kingdom

Total rate (%)

40.1732

52.3143.60

35 or 40354028

41.2537.45

3537.4

34282830

Remarks

Reduced rates are applied subject to certain conditionsAs from 199952.31 is the rate for retained profit: it includes corporation tax at 45 %, asolidarity surcharge of 5.5 % on the corporation tax due and trade tax, whichvaries. 43.60 is the rate applied to distributed profits, inclusive of corporation tax.

Depending on the type of company (quoted or not, etc.)

A 25 % reduced rate applies to the first IRL 50000 of a company’s income. A special temporary rate of 10 % applies to manufacturing industry in general.

Reduced rates: 20 % (small companies) and 10 % (starting rate for small businessmaking profits up to £ 50000

Source: European Commission, DG XXI - Forthcoming Inventory of Taxes.

present system, largely based on thedestination principle and special regimes,does not allow market forces to reducethe divergences. Economic operators arethus confronted with various specific andcomplex regimes.

Differences between the capital incometaxation regimes of Member States alsodistort cross-border business activity andthe integration of financial markets. The

further integration of financial marketswould benefit from an adequate processa d d ressing relevant taxation issues.Differences in national corporation taxesremain substantial (Figure 14). At therequest of the Council the Commission isundertaking a study in order to assessthe impact on the Single Market ofexisting differences in effective corporatetaxation and the policy issues that suchdifferences may give rise to.



Part C

The primary responsibility for theeffective day-to-day management of theSingle Market rests with the MemberStates, who should ensure that rules areproperly enforced and problems swiftlysolved. With most legislation now inplace, the focus is shifting to makings u re that administrative co-operationbetween Member States works smoothlyto the benefit of businesses and citizens,that problems are identified early andthat no new barriers to free movementare raised. This part of the Scoreboardreports on developments in relation tothree instruments which seek to meetthese objectives:

• the network of co-ordination centresand contact points - a review isp rovided on the basis of re p o r t sreceived from Member States;

• Directive 98/34/CE (formerly 83/189)which re q u i res Member States tonotify draft technical re g u l a t i o n swhich may impede free movementwithin the Single Market and which,from August 1999, will be extended tocover rules related to the informationsociety; and

• Decision 3052/95 which re q u i re sMember States to notify theCommission of any national decisionsrefusing market access to productslawfully manufactured or marketed inanother Member State.

1. Co-ordination centres and contactpoints

All Member States have now designatedContact Points for Citizens and forBusiness12 (over 200 in total), as well asnational Co-ordination Centres. TheseContact Points and Co-ordination Centresconstitute a network of officials innational and regional administrationsdesignated to assist in the eff i c i e n t ,informal resolution of problems relatingto the application of Single Market rules.Specifically, the Contact Points provide aclear point of access to govern m e n tadministrations, which businesses andindividuals can consult when theyexperience difficulties in attempting toexercise the rights granted to them withinthe Single Market. The Co-ordination

Centres act as a link between MemberState administrations and with theCommission. Working together to identifythe nature of the problems encounteredand the steps re q u i red to overc o m ethem, the Contact Points and Co-ordination Centres assist businesses andindividuals in seeking a quick resolutionto their difficulties without resorting tothe European Commission’s off i c i a lcomplaints procedure.

Activity recorded by Co-ordination Centres

In the first 18 months of operation, theCo-ordination Centres received andc o n s i d e red 299 complaints fro mcompanies and individuals in their owncountry, and 69 complaints from those inother EU countries (Figure 15). Of these,the Swedish, British and Dutch Co-ordination Centres accounted for almosttwo thirds of all complaints dealt with.However, not all complaints submitted toCo-ordination Centres re p re s e n t e dproblems requiring remedial action. Forexample, many complaints sprang from alack of information or understanding ofthe rights conferred by the Single Market.Of the cases reported, 61 were resolvedbilaterally and 40 have been the subjectof a formal complaint to theCommission, 5 of which have beenreferred to the European Court of Justice.

C. FEEDBACK FROM MEMBER STATES

12 Details available on Internet athttp://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15 under "Dialogue withBusiness"

Nationalsor domesticcompanies

299

55

61

40

5

OtherMemberState

69

7

27

6

2

N° of complaints

No actionrequired

Cases resolvedbilaterally

Formal complaintsent to EC*

Cases before theECJ**

Figure 15: Cases dealt with since October 1997

* EC = EuropeanCommission

** ECJ = EuropeanCourt of Justice


Part C

Feedback to date indicates thatbusinesses make much greater use of themechanism than do individual citizens.F u r t h e rm o re, Contact Points and Co-ordination Centres appear to be betterdisposed to assist with business relatedproblems than problems encountered atan individual level. This is not surprisinggiven that many are established withintrade related departments and thatnational administrations are moreexperienced in assisting businesses inmatters involving foreign administrationsthan assisting individuals, simply due tothe importance that many governmentshave long placed on promoting theoverseas commercial success of theirdomestic undertakings. The feedbackf rom the Citizens Signpost Servicesuggests that the limited number of casesreported by citizens may be explained, inpart, by the fact that individuals tend tobe somewhat sceptical about thelikelihood of receiving effective supportfrom a public authority in resolving aproblem.

Sectoral analysis

The data supplied by Member States isnot sufficiently representative to allow adetailed analysis at this stage. But it doeslift the veil on the functioning of thenetwork. Moreover, recent feedback fromthe Co-ordination Centres re i n f o rc e sfindings elsewhere, such as in thebusiness survey. It shows that manyproblems result from a lack of mutualrecognition of national standards,

discrimination against non-nationals, oroverly restrictive national technicalregulations. Figure 17 provides an overallp i c t u re of the relative frequency ofcomplaints and the box oppositecontains descriptions of some examples.

Overall assessment

National administrations view this newmechanism in a positive light and see itas a step towards improving thefunctioning of the Single Market, as wellas co-ordination between national andCommunity levels. In particular, Co-ordination Centres are well suited tobilateral resolution of cases that do notinvolve a dispute on legal gro u n d s .However, cases involving interpretationof EU legislation may require a moreformal procedure involving Commissionintervention.

Although the results so far areencouraging, much more work isnecessary to ensure that this mechanismdevelops rapidly to fulfil its role inensuring that the Single Market deliversmaximum benefits to businesses andcitizens. First, efforts are needed toi n c rease public awareness of theexistence and role of these ContactPoints. Member States such as Germany,Austria, Italy and Portugal report a steadyincrease in approaches from citizens andbusinesses following pro m o t i o ncampaigns. Secondly, contacts betweenCo-ordination Centres have developedmost strongly in line with traditionaltrade patterns and bilateral relations. Thechallenge is now for the Co-ordinationC e n t res to improve the scope andeffectiveness of such contacts beyondthese traditional patterns. Thirdly, thereare, as yet, no mandatory deadlines to berespected in the treatment of cases andthe time taken to resolve a problemvaries considerably. Yet, for manybusinesses and citizens, the speed withwhich their problem is resolved is ofcrucial importance. Finally, the MemberStates and the Commission must continueto work together to monitor thefunctioning of the network by gathering,analysing and reacting to feedback fromboth users and providers of the service.

Figure 16: Breakdown by Member State* of complaintsfrom nationals or domestic companies

* Italian figures arenot included asthey cover bothCo-ordinationCentres andContact Points;Figures for Greececoncerncomplaints onlyfrom non-nationals and aretherefore notincluded

The full potential of this mechanism,designed to promote fast and informalresolution of day-to-day problems withinthe Single Market, has yet to be realised.The mechanism is necessarily a flexibleone, allowing for traditional differencesin practices and administrative structuresin the Member States. For instance,some Member States continue to rely,more than others, on alternative channelssuch as embassies and bodiesre p resenting commercial interests. Butthe overall objective is the same acrossthe European Union.


Part C

Figure 17: Breakdown of complaints by main sector

Strengths

• Speed• Flexibility• Increased

cross-border co-operation

• Good co-operationbetween Co-ordinationCentres and Contactpoints

Weaknesses

• Low awareness• Varied working

methods• Absence of

mandatory deadlines

Figure 18: Strengths and weaknesses of the Co-ordination Centre network

Some Problems – Some Successes

A Finnish construction companycomplained that it was subject to heavynotification pro c e d u res and doublepayments on holiday rights for secondedworkers. The competent authorities inFinland and Germany held discussions toreach an agreement to avoid doublepayments. As of 1st January 1999, thehouse builders concerned are no longersubject to German payments on holidayrights.

A Swedish company producing boltclippers complained that it could not getauthorisation to sell its products inGermany. The competent authorities inSweden and Germany held discussions toreach an agreement. The problem wasresolved bilaterally, giving the Swedishcompany access to a new market.

A Finnish producer of fire protectionsystems was not able to receive typeapproval from the Swedish authoritiesalthough the required test results hadbeen delivered. After the exchange ofletters between the Co-ordination Centresa type approval was delivered.

F rench authorities refused to acceptcertification in relation to baby-cotsmanufactured by an Irish producer. Aftercontacts between the two Co-ordinationCentres, the matter was referred to theEuropean Commission. The Commissioninvestigation found that there was nobreach of EU rules.

A UK supplier of fire-fighting vehiclescomplained about an advertisement inthe Official Journal for the supply of fireengines to a fire brigade in theNetherlands which excluded suppliersnot based in the Netherlands for aminimum of 2 years. After the Co-ordination Centres’ intervention, thetender pro c e d u re was temporarilystopped and the contract was re -advertised without the discriminatoryrequirement.


2. Notification of technical regulations -Directive 98/34

The procedure laid down in Directive98/34 is intended to prevent newtechnical barriers from springing upwithin the Single Market. It may alsohelp to identify where harmonisation isneeded by indicating domains in which aCommunity solution would be preferableto a variety of national initiatives.

The Member States are continuing toadopt a variety of national technicalregulations on industrial and agriculturalproducts, chiefly covering the technicalspecifications of the products concerned,the tests to which they must be subjectedand the certification or authorisation theyrequire.

The number of notifications is slightlydown: in 1998 the Commission received604 notifications, compared with 670 in1997. The sectors in which mostnotifications were made were, in order off requency: machinery, agriculturalp roducts and foodstuff s ,telecommunications, transport andconstruction (the transport and foodstuffssectors were top of the list in both 1997and 1996, while telecommunications rosefrom fourth place in 1996 to third placein 1997 and 1998).

Although the number of notifications isslightly down on its 1997 level, it remainshigh, largely because of the type ofp roject notified: many are partialtechnical adaptations of existing technicalregulations previously notified. Moreover,the degree of Community harmonisationvaries according to the sector: somedomains, such as foodstuffs, are onlypartially harmonised, whileharmonisation is nearing completion inareas such as telecommunications, wherethe new Directive 99/5/EC of 9 March1999 on telecommunications term i n a lequipment is also to apply to radioequipment from 8 April 2000. There havealso been a number of intern a t i o n a lconventions in the transport sector.

Standardisation is still incomplete insome sectors, such as constructionprojects. Where there are no Europeanstandards, national technicalspecifications remain applicable subjectto compliance with the essentialrequirements of the Directive concernedand the recognition of other, equivalentnational technical solutions.

The quality of the technical regulationsnotified seems to be improving, with thetotal number of detailed opinions (i.e.opinions that the project notified is likelyto obstruct the free movement of goods)delivered by the Commission and theMember States down by some 30% (173in 1998, compared with 246 in 1997).This decline, proportionally greater thanthe quantitative drop in the number ofprojects notified, may be a result of theCommission’s efforts over several yearsto bring these factors to the attention ofthe Member States.

Part C

Figure 19: Draft technical regulations notified byMember States and detailed opinionsdelivered (1993-1998)*

* The 1997 figures do not include the 230 notificationsmade by the Netherlands in response to the judgmenthanded down by the Court of Justice in 1996 on theCIA Security case, where the Court declaredinapplicable any technical regulations not previouslynotified to the Commission in compliance withDirective 83/189/EC.

** Detailed opinions delivered by the Commission andthe Member States.

*

**


3. Notification of national measuresimpeding free movement - Decision3052/95

Decision 3052/95/EC lays down thatMember States must notify theCommission of any national measureimpeding the free movement of productslawfully manufactured or marketed inanother Member State. Decision 3052/95complements a range of new approachd i rectives and the product safetyDirective (92/59/EC), which all providenotification obligations in their respectivefield of application. The transparencyestablished by Decision 3052/95/EC isessential for the smooth functioning ofthe Single Market, in that it constitutes a"safety net" ensuring that the generalinterest in fields such as safety, healthand the environment is protected, andthat the remaining obstacles to the freemovement of goods in the Communityare lifted.

The number of notifications shows thatthis mechanism still has to develop itsfull potential. The general level ofnotification remains very low (68notifications in 1998 and 33 in 1997).M o re o v e r, only some Member Statesnotify (Germany (4), France (26) andFinland (3) in 1997; Germany (17),France (5), Denmark (3) and Greece (43)in 1998). Finally, notifications concentrateon certain sectors; of the 101notifications: 28 concern medicines ormedical reagents, 8 concern veterinarymedicines or products, 61 concern foodsupplements and 4 concern foodstuffs.

The Commission will publish a reporton the application of Decision 3052/95later this year. This report will alsocontain suggestions for improving theworking of Decision 3052/95.

Part C

Figure 20: Breakdown by Member State of drafttechnical regulations notified in 1998

Figure 21: Sectoral breakdown of draft technicalregulations notified in 1998


Part D

The "Dialogue with Citizens andBusiness" was launched at the CardiffEuropean Council in June 1998. Buildingon the success of the "Citizens First"initiative, it provides a two-waycommunication between the Commissionand individuals and enterprises.

The analysis below concentrates on the"citizens" aspect of the Dialogue andpresents:

• the results of three re c e n tE u ro b a rometer surveys aimed atmonitoring the impact of thei n f o rmation campaign on citizens’rights in the Single Market; and

• a review of the direct feedback,obtained via the telephone andinternet by the Citizens SignpostService.

These reveal three major reasons forthe difficulties encountered by citizens inthe exercise of their rights:

• The lack of information orunderstanding of the legalframework: citizens are not alwayswell informed about their EU rights,and even less so about theadministrative procedures they mustrespect in order to exercise theserights effectively.

• The lack of transpare n c y: evenwhen citizens take the right steps,the complexity of pro c e d u res andincomplete information given bynational administrations sometimesengenders the feeling that the wholeprocess is simply too difficult. Thismay ultimately deter citizens fromexercising their Single Market rights.

• Cases of inadequate administra-tive procedures: in addition to theproblems identified above, there areoccasionally cases which appear toviolate at least the spirit of Communitylaw.

1. Do citizens know their EU rights?

Three surveys were conducted between1997-99 by EOS Gallup on behalf of theEuropean Commission. In October 1997a survey was undertaken just before amajor publicity campaign on citizensrights in all Member States. The secondsurvey was held in May 1998, after thecampaign, and the third in April 1999, amonth ahead of the official entry intoforce of the Amsterdam Treaty.

The polls were conducted in all 15European Union countries amongst 8 000people aged between 18 and 65. To thegeneral question, aimed at measuringwhether citizens feel well informed abouttheir rights (Figure 22), roughly threequarters of people surveyed in eachsurvey responded negatively. Betweenthe first two surveys, there was asignificant increase in those claiming tobe well-informed, from 17,6 to 22,2 %,while the April 1999 level was nearlyunchanged, at 21,8 %. In addition, therehas been an encouraging decrease in the"don’t know" answers, the share fallingfrom 8.6% in 1997 to just 2.6% in 1999.

When broken down by Member State theresults show that more people inDenmark and France (36% and 31%respectively) feel well informed abouttheir rights than in other EU countries.

D. FEEDBACK FROM THE DIALOGUE WITH CITIZENS

October 97

May 98

April 99

Figure 22: Comparison of survey results on perceivedlevel of information

Do you feel well informedabout your rights to work, liveand study in another country

of the European Union?

Yes

17.6%

22.2%

21.8%

No

73.9%

75.6%

75.7%

Do notknow

8.6%

2.4%

2.6%


Part D

Certain more specific questions aimed atidentifying the extent of people’s actualknowledge. The answers were revealing.When asked whether a work permit isneeded to work in another EU state, onein three citizens replied aff i rm a t i v e l y ,despite the fact that more than 30 yearshave passed since the first legislation onf ree movement of workers wasi n t roduced. Similarly, only half ofrespondents knew that an EU citizen has

the right to vote at local elections inanother EU country, if he or she is aresident there. There was, however, clearprogress in Austria and France, wherethe population knowing that a workpermit is not needed more than doubledduring this period; and Italians were verywell aware of their right to vote in localelections - 74,3 % as compared to the EUaverage of 48,2 %.

October 97

May 98

April 99

Figure 23: Comparison of survey results on factual questions

Do you need a work permit to work inanother European Union country?

Yes

38.4%

31.4%

32.5%

No

36.4%

53.9%

51.4%

Do notknow

26.2%

14.7%

16.2%

As a European Union citizen, do you havethe right to vote at local elections in

another country of the European Union ifyou are resident there?

Yes

41.9%

49.6%

48.2%

No

31.1%

31.0%

32.0%

Do notknow

27.0%

19.4%

19.8%

2. Difficulties experienced by Citizens

Since its launch in November 1996 the"Citizens Signpost Service" has receivedwell over 20.000 enquiries from all partsof the Union seeking information andadvice on the issues listed in Figure 24.The service is provided by a team ofexperts working for ECAS, a non-profito rganisation under contract to theEuropean Commission, and covering all

the official languages of the EuropeanUnion. They reply to specific problemsraised by individuals, by telephone or viathe internet, providing the necessaryadvice and identifying who is competentto deal with their problem at regional,national or EU level.

By the end of March 1999 over 17.000enquiries had been analysed. Thedifficulties reported by citizens to ECAS

Figure 24: Analysis of enquiries handled by the Signpost Service ( to March 1999)

N° of enquiries

6 062

2 902

2 753

2 658

2 242

488

232

17 337

%

35.0

16.7

15.9

15.3

12.9

2.8

1.3

100.0

Subject

Working in another EU country

Living in another EU country

Buying goods and services in the single European market

General EU rights

Studying, training and doing research in another EU country

Travelling in another EU country

Equal rights and opportunities in the European Union

TOTAL


Part D

f requently involve procedural oradministrative problems arising, forexample, from limited access toinformation, inability to find the rightpoint of contact, or a failure to get theirrights recognised.

Sectoral findings

As reported in the May 1998 Scoreboard,there are considerable practical problemsthat can prevent people from fullybenefiting from their rights which mayhave severe consequences for theindividuals concerned. Amongst theseare denial of access to social security andunemployment benefits, the loss of a joboffer or a refusal to supply gas orelectricity. These difficulties also inhibitthe efficiency of EU-wide labour markets.The benefits of the Single Market arereduced when people find themselvescaught in a trap arising from the way inwhich the rules are applied.

To help assess these problems theCommission asked the Signpost Serviceto carry out further work on theenquiries received in the fields ofrecognition of diplomas, residence rightsand social security. The Commission isat present preparing a full report on thefeedback from citizens, in which thed i fficulties identified by the SignpostService will be considered in depth. Atthis stage, the Commission recognisesthat the details given by enquirers maycover only certain aspects of a problem:the Service may, for example, not be inpossession of all the relevant facts, nor

does its role require it to intervene withthe authorities concerned. It should alsobe noted that people who exercise theirrights and opportunities without difficultydo not turn to the Signpost Service.

Nevertheless, the regularity with whichcertain difficulties are reported suggeststhat there are recurring problems.

The Signpost Service has found casesw h e re employers refuse to sign anemployment contract on the grounds thatthe applicant has no residence card – notissued in the first place because theapplicant had no job. Other casesinclude people awaiting recognition oftheir diploma who find, to their dismay,that there is a three month limit onexporting their unemployment benefit toanother EU country, after which the rightto benefit is lost, if the person does notreturn to his country of origin. Problemsalso appear frequently for people whohave not contacted the social securityinstitution where they have the right toclaim unemployment benefit beforeleaving the country and who, therefore,did not comply with the relevant timelimits. Claimants who return to theirhome country after having lost a job inanother Member State, find that theirclaim for unemployment benefits shouldhave been made in the host country,before returning home.

The cases analysed by the SignpostService provide plenty of examples ofdifficulties encountered. Some of theseare summarised opposite.


Part D

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

• A German citizen living in Denmarksubmitted her application forrecognition of a teaching diploma inDenmark in Autumn 1995. The Danishauthorities confirmed receipt of alla p p ropriate documentation. Sheobtained recognition of her diplomawith great delay in the summer of 1997.During this period she was unable towork.

• A Spanish nurse with over 10 years’experience in Italy was allowed toparticipate in open competitions inSpain to work in state hospitals.However, she was told that even if shewere to succeed, she would not beselected because she did not have anyexperience in Spain.

RESIDENCE PERMITS

• A German citizen moved to Belgiumand immediately asked for a residencepermit. Although she was employedshe was asked to bring a civil statuscertificate – a document not normallyd e l i v e red in Germany - and a"declaration of good conduct" from theGerman administration. Seven monthslater she had still neither received herpermit nor an official explanation forthe delay.

• An Italian part-time worker in Germanywas asked to declare his salary to get aresidence permit. However, in his case,EU legislation entitles him to the rightof residence and thus a perm i t ,irrespective of a "proof of sufficientresources".

• A German citizen wanting to study inThe Netherlands was informed that, asa condition for a residence permit, hehad to deposit a minimum of 13,000HFL in a local bank account. TheSignpost Service explained that as astudent he only had to declare that hehas sufficient resources for his stay.

• A Greek, studying medicine in Italywas not accepted for the new academicyear on the grounds that he failed toprovide a renewed residence permit.The Signpost Service informed him thatthe permit is delivered as a proof ofhis right to stay for study purposes and

that its absence is no reason to denyhim the right to study.

SOCIAL SECURITY

• A Belgian citizen asked her socialsecurity service what documents sheneeded for going on holiday in Italy.Although she mentioned that she wassuffering from chronic illness she wasonly given the E-111 form for urgentand unforeseen health care needed onthe spot when abroad. In Italy she washospitalised due to her chronic illnessand was asked for an E-112 formcovering ongoing treatment. TheSignpost Service advised her to paythe full expenses in Italy, to fill in a E-126 form to obtain refund ofexpenses in Belgium, to ask for the E-113 form to certify the hospitalisationand for the E-125 to certify health-careexpenditure in Italy.

• A French woman, recruited andemployed in France by a UK-basedcompany as a posted worker for morethan 3 years, needed expensivematernity care in France. She foundthat she had no social insurance forthat, neither under the British healthscheme, nor under the French. TheSignpost Service had to inform her thather employer had put her in anincorrect position as a posted worker -the stay abroad for a posted workercannot last more than one year, two atmost, and he/she remains under theinsurance scheme of the country oforigin. (She was advised to try to get anE-112 form from the UK forprogrammed care in France.)

• A Frenchman worked for two years ina UK university. On return to France hewas unable to claim health care andunemployment benefits. The Fre n c hauthorities requested an E-106 formwhich he could not get from the UK.The right form was the E-119 form, theE-106 serving only to cover familymembers. As for unemploymentbenefits, he should have applied forthese in the UK before departing and,after four weeks, used the E-303 formto transfer the benefits to France for upto three months



Annexes


This annex provides an overview ofactions included in the Action Plan forthe Single Market which had not beencompleted at the date of 31.12.98. A starindicates (★) an action which has beensuccessfully completed, the cross sign(✚) indicates actions where someprogress was achieved in meeting thetargets set in the Action Plan and theminus sign (0) indicates those for which

p ro g ress is disappointing. The tablessummarise the current situation andassess the degree to which Communityinstitutions and Member States areachieving the objectives which they setout in the Action Plan. Whereappropriate, a comment has been addedin the final column, particularly toindicate the next steps to be taken.

Annex IACTION PLAN COMMITMENTS TO BE COMPLETED


Annex I

All delays in transposition of Singlemarket legislation to be eliminated

Extension of SLIM and othersimplification work to new sectors

Phase 1

Follow up to Commission initiativesconcerning:

Mutual recognition

Conformity marking

Community Patent Systems

Construction products

31.12.98

31.12.97

-

-

31.12.97

-

Member States have partiallyrespected timetables. Transposi-tion of the remaining directivesis now urgent.

Commission proposals forimplementing SLIM Phase Irecommendations were madewith respect to Intrastat,recognition of diplomas andornamental plants. Onconstruction products efforts areconcentrated on the setting ofstandards.

The Council conclusions adoptedat the 30/3/98 Internal MarketCouncil asked the Commission toprepare a Communication on thefunctioning of mutualrecognition making appropriateproposals for its improvement.

In collaboration with theMember States, the Commissionis establishing an inventory ofnational conformity marks.

A Green Paper was published inJune 1997. Opinion of the Euro-pean Parliament given inNovember 1998. ACommunication was adopted bythe Commission outliningmeasures for improving patentprotection in the EU, COM (99)44 final.

The Commission has taken stepsto speed up the setting ofstandards. In November 1997, itissued a Communication on thecompetitiveness of theConstruction Industry, reportingon the "status quo" of thestandardisation process.

✚

✚

★

✚

★

✚

Progress achieved byMember States in 1998should encourage MemberStates lagging behind tomake further progress in1999.

Implementation of mostSLIM recommendations hasbeen accelerated and insome cases concluded. Therecommendations onSimplified GoodsNomenclature is temporarilyblocked in the Council.

A communication will beissued in June 1999. Likelyadoption of Councilconclusions on theCommission proposals bythe December InternalMarket Council.

The Commission will reportin the second half of 1999on the implementation ofDecision 93/465 concerningCE marking.

These measures willinclude proposals toestablish a unitary EU patentvalid throughout the EU andpatent protection ofinventions related tocomputer programmes, aninterpretativecommunication on freedomof establishment andfreedom to provide servicesfor patent agents and a pilotaction to support efforts bynational patent offices topromote innovation.

Intensive work is underwayin the Commission incollaboration with CEN, toremove all technicalobstacles delaying thestandardisation process. Aprogress report will bemade available by mid-1999.

Action Deadline State of play Assessment Follow-up

Strategic Target 1 : Making the rules more effective


Annex I

Measures to reform transit

Elimination of distortions in the areaof indirect taxation legislation

Modernisation and more coherentapplication of VAT:

Change of status of VAT Committee

Restructuring the Community frame-work for the taxation of energyproducts

State aids:

Reinforce controls on aid for rescueand restructuring

31.07.97

31.12.98

-

31.12.97

Amendment to the transitprovisions of the Communitycustoms code have been adoptedin April 1999.

Operational measures providedfor in the Transit Action Planwere launched as planned.

The functional and technicalspecifications of the newcomputerised transit system(NCTS), were approved inOctober 1998 and its legal basisentered into force 31.03.1999.

Discussions will be pursued inthe Taxation Policy Group.

Proposal adopted by theCommission (COM(97) 325 of25 June 1997)

The main features of theproposal have now beenexamined from a technical pointof view and a number of changeshave been suggested. Afterdiscussion in the Taxation PolicyGroup, a Presidencycompromise document waspresented for discussion byECOFIN on 25 May 1999.

Commission should adoptrevised guidelines before the endof July 1999.

✚

✚

✚

✚

✚

Provisions implementing thecode and amending thecommon transit conventionshould be adopted inDecember 1999.

On the basis of an evaluationby the Commission and theMember Sates anoperational workprogramme will beestablished in 1999 for theperiod 2000/2001.

NCTS will becomeoperational at the end of1999 for its initialimplementation. Itsprogressive extensionthroughout all 22 countriesconcerned is planned until2004

Discussion of proposalexpected at a future ECOFINmeeting.

The ECOFIN Council did notapprove the Presidencycompromise document, dueto opposition from Spain.Further discussion ontechnical details may nowtake place under theGerman and FinnishPresidencies.


Strategic Target 2: Dealing with key market distortions

★ = Action completed ✚ = Some progress achieved in meeting Action Plan targets 0 = Progress disappointing


Annex I

Strategic Target 3: Removing sectoral obstacles to integration

Effective implementation of Directiveon internal market for electricity

Implementation oftelecommunications liberalisation ontime

New rules on allocation of airportslots

Rules on airport charges

Strengthen rules on marketsurveillance in certain sectors

European Company Statute

Tenth Company Law Directive oncross-border mergers

Regulations on European Statutes forco-operatives, associations andmutual societies

19.02.99

01.01.98

31.12.97

-

-

-

31.12.97

-

Most Member States (exceptFrance and Luxembourg) havetransposed the Directive. Thetwo other Member States whichremain to transpose the Directiveare Ireland (one yearderogation) and Greece ( 2years derogation).

The telecommunicationsregulatory framework for thecreation of a liberalised andharmonised Europeantelecommunications market isnow largely in place in mostMember States. Nationallegislation in place is beingapplied to a substantial degree inaccordance with the principlesset out in the regulatory package.

Commission proposal foramendments to existing rules onslot allocation to be adopted inthe course of 1999.

The Council is unlikely to reacha Common position soon.

Discussions with Member Statesare underway to define the focusand scope of future action.

The proposals are still underdiscussion in the Internal Marketand Social Affairs Councils.

Commission Proposal will betabled as soon as a solution tothe worker participationquestion can be identified.

Linked to the outcome ofdiscussions on the EuropeanCompany Statute.

✚

✚

0

0

✚

0

0

0

The Commission issued the2nd report on the state ofliberalisation of the energymarkets, assessing progressachieved in the liberalisationof national markets andidentifying further steps forachieving an effective SingleMarket in this area.

The Commission continuesto monitor theimplementation and effectiveapplication of measures atnational level. The 5threport on theimplementation of theregulatory package will beissued in autumn andshould assist the reviewprocess.




Annex I

Eliminate border controls

Adaptation of the right to reside andremain in another Member State

Build on Commission efforts toimprove and extend use of theEURES service

Directive on the sale of consumergoods and associated guarantees

Communication on the Single Marketand the environment

-

31.12.98

-

-

31.12.97

Ten Member States(A,B,D,E,F,IT,L,NL,P and GR)have achieved this goal on thebasis of the Schengen Agreementbut for the time being controlsare still carried out betweenGreece and the other 9 Schengencountries. In accordance with aProtocol annexed to theAmsterdam Treaty, the Schengenacquis has been integrated intothe framework of the EU as of 1May 1999.

In its Communication of 1 July1998 (COM (98) 403 final), theCommission announced themain lines of its future proposalcreating unified rights for allunion citizens. In parallel theCommission has proposedimprovements to the rights ofentry and residence for workerslaid down in Regulation (EEC)1612/68 and of Directive 360/68EEC (proposal of 22 July 1998,COM (98) 394 final).

The Heads of Public EmploymentServices confirmed in Novem-ber1998 their interest in exploitingand supporting the EURESservice in the context ofEuropean employ-ment strategy.

The Directive was adopted by theCouncil on 17 May 1999.

Commission Communicationadopted on 8 June 1999, COM (99)263.

✚

✚

✚

★

★

DK, FIN and S will join thearea without internalfrontiers in the year 2000.In accordance with Article62 of the EC Treaty andtaking into account theAction Plan approved by theVienna European Council,the Council will adopt,within the next five years,the measures required toachieve the objective ofsuppression of controls ofpersons at internal borderswithin the EU.

EURES Jobs’ database wasopened on Internet in June1998.The strengthening of EURESis an ongoing process.

Action Deadline .State of play Assessment Follow-up

Strategic Target 4: Delivering a Single Market for the benefit of all citizens




Part B summarised the maindevelopments in the area of regulatorysimplification. The following tables

provide a detailed analysis of progressachieved in implementing the SLIM teamrecommendations.

Annex IIIMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE SLIM TEAMS


Annex II


Annex II


Annex II


Annex II


Annex II


Single Market Scoreboard Single Market Scoreboard · 2008. 9. 1. · the frantic activity of 1998 which saw Member States notifying more than 1000 national implementing measures.

Documents