Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0256
Offentligt
1750577_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 2.5.2017
SWD(2017) 213 final
PART 3/3
Compliance Package
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the Council
on establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, assistance
and problem solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012
{COM(2017) 256 final}
{SWD(2017) 211 final}
{SWD(2017) 212 final}
{SWD(2017) 214 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
Annexes 11 to 20
Contents
ANNEX 11:
ANNEX 12:
ANNEX 13:
ANNEX 14:
ANNEX 15:
ANNEX 16:
ANNEX 17:
ANNEX 18:
ANNEX 19:
ANNEX 20:
AVAILABLE IT BUILDING BLOCKS AND EU FUNDING ................ 205
OUTLINE AND PROJECT PLAN OF THE SINGLE DIGITAL
GATEWAY ................................................................................................ 210
GOOD PRACTICES FROM THE MEMBER STATES ........................... 214
CONTENTS OF YOUR EUROPE ............................................................ 222
EXAMPLE OF PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS ....................................... 224
REPORT ON THE ONLINE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...................... 228
VISUAL OUTLINE OF THE SINGLE DIGITAL GATEWAY .............. 253
FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE RELEVANT
SERVICES ................................................................................................. 254
METHODOGY OF COST AND BENEFIT CALCULATION ................ 259
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................... 274
204
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0003.png
Annexes to the impact assessment on the single digital gateway
ANNEX 11: A
VAILABLE
IT
BUILDING BLOCKS AND
EU
FUNDING
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) building blocks
The CEF building blocks offer basic capabilities (specifications, software and services) that
can be used in any European project to facilitate the delivery of digital public services across
borders.
At the core the CEF building blocks are interoperability agreements between European Union
member states. They ensure interoperability between IT systems so citizens, businesses and
administrations can benefit from seamless digital public services wherever they may be in
Europe.
The building blocks are based on existing formalised technical specifications and standards.
They are intended to facilitate the adoption of common technical specifications by projects
across different policy domains with minimal (or no) adaptations by providing services and
sometimes sample software. The building blocks can be combined and used in projects in any
domain or sector at European, national or local level.
eDelivery
The eDelivery building block helps public administrations to exchange electronic data and
documents with other public administrations, businesses and citizens, in an interoperable,
secure, reliable and trusted way.
Concretely, eDelivery prescribes technical specifications. Through the use of this building
block, every participant becomes a node in a network using standard transport protocols and
security policies: these nodes are conformant to the same technical rules and therefore capable
of interacting with each other. As a result of this, organisations that have developed their IT
systems independently from each other can start to securely communicate with one another
once they have connected to an eDelivery node.
This building block could be an option in the single digital gateway for the exchange of
documents used as evidence by citizens or businesses when completing procedures online.
eID
In line with the eIDAS Regulation (EU) 910/2014, the eID building block helps citizens of
one Member State to access online services provided by public and private organisations from
other participating EU Member States, using their own national eID.
It allows cross-border authentication, in a secure, reliable and trusted way, by making national
electronic identification systems interoperable thanks to the development of open-source
software components, documentation, training and support.
The eID building block could be used to enable cross-border transactionality of online
procedures, as foreseen by the single digital gateway proposal.
205
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0004.png
Annexes 11 to 20
eSignature
In line with the eIDAS Regulation (EU) 910/2014, the eSignature building block helps public
administrations and businesses to accelerate the creation and verification of electronic
signatures. The deployment of solutions based on this building block in a Member State
facilitates the mutual recognition and cross-border interoperability of eSignatures. This means
that public administrations and businesses can trust and use eSignatures that are valid and
structured in EU interoperable formats, and that legal value of eSignatures can be recognised
in countries other than the country of origin of the signer.
The eSignature building block could be further used to enable cross-border transactionality of
online procedures, as foreseen by the single digital gateway proposal.
eInvoicing
Since 2001, European legislation has given electronic invoices legal equivalence with their
paper counterparts. However, a diversity of eInvoicing standards exists. Directive 2014/55/EU
on eInvoicing in public procurement calls for the definition of a common European standard
and makes it mandatory for all contracting authorities to accept eInvoices complying with the
European standard as of November 2018.
The eInvoicing building block aims at supporting CEN in the definition of the common EU
eInvoicing standard and at promoting its use amongst both public and private entities
established in the EU.
Use of this building block could be recommended in the frame of procedures covered by the
single digital gateway, beginning with public procurement procedures.
eTranslation
The eTranslation / Automated Translation building block helps European and national public
administrations exchange information across language barriers in the EU. While eTranslation
is mainly intended to be integrated into other digital services, it also offers stand-alone
services for translating documents or snippets of text.
This building block builds on the existing Commission Machine Translation Service
(MT@EC). The technical implementation of a user interface for this building block
guarantees confidentiality and security of all translated data. Unlike general-purpose web
translators, the eTranslation building block is adapted to specific terminology and text types
that are typical for the usage context (e.g. tender documents, legal texts, medical
terminology).
Already used on the Online Dispute Resolution Portal, this building block could help making
multilingual the information, services and procedures that are accessible through the single
digital gateway.
Interoperability tools
Costs associated with the digitalisation of procedures are expected to be limited if public
authorities use the tools at their disposal for increasing interoperability such as the European
Interoperability Framework or the Core Public Services Vocabulary.
206
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0005.png
Annexes 11 to 20
European Interoperability Framework (EIF)
The European Interoperability Framework aims at supporting enhanced interoperability
between public administrations across Europe.
Foreseen to be reviewed by the end of 2016, this framework provides a set of
recommendations / guidelines to improve the interoperability of European public services, as
well as an action plan for implementation.
Several of the recommendations made in this Framework could be promoted in the frame of
the single digital gateway. Implementation of the European Interoperability Framework will
facilitate the achievement of the Single digital gateway objectives by increasing the level of
interconnection of public services and thereby reducing solutions costs.
Core Public Services Vocabulary (CPSV)
439
The Core Public Services Vocabulary is a tool for:
-
-
Providing information on public services in a user-centric way, grouped logically
around key business events;
Mapping different data models to a common model requiring only one single
description, with a view to federating and sharing information in a more efficient and
interoperable way.
Concretely, it consists of a common data model for describing key business events and public
services. It allows for harmonised, machine-readable and interoperable semantic descriptions.
Use by Member States authorities of the Core Public Services Vocabulary when designing or
updating their websites would facilitate the development of the search by the single digital
gateway's user interface of online information, services and procedures, and thereby help
improving their findability. The use of common models and vocabularies would also facilitate
translation as well as the reporting and analysis of users' feedback.
EU funding
The European social and regional development funds provide EU funding to most Member
States in the area of e-government (thematic objective (TO) 2 "enhancing access to, and use
and quality of information and communication technologies" and thematic objective (TO) 11
"enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities"). All Member States have access to
TO2. For TO 11, 18 Member States are eligible, and 17 use it.
The tables below provide an overview. In the past, (some) Member States have made active
use of EU funding in order to implement requirements from EU legislation, e.g. the Services
Directive 2006/123/EC, the Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EC, the eIDAS Regulation
EU 910/2014, NIS Directive 2016/1148, directive on the Reuse of Public Sector Information
2013/27/EU and Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement 2014/55/EU
440
.
439
440
http://ec.europa.eu/isa/ready-to-use-solutions/cpsv-ap_en.htm
Forthcoming study on the main actions, plans and funding priorities of Member States towards the
modernisation of Public Administrations, Wavestone for the European Commission, 2016.
207
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0006.png
Annexes 11 to 20
All eligible Member States except Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands have included links to
thematic objectives 2 and 11 in their operational programmes, which is the pre-condition for
securing EU funding in this area.
Figure 11.1: Member States with thematic objectives 2 and 11 in operational programmes
441
Romania
Croatia
Slovenia
France
Czech Republic
Latvia
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
4
6
Countries involved in the study
Italy
Slovakia
Greece
Malta
Poland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Spain
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
Ireland
Lithuania
Sweden
UK
1
TO2
Netherlands
TO11
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total number of links to Thematic Objectives
Source: In-depth analysis of NRP 2016 documents, performed by Wavestone
441
Data prepared after carefully surveying the NRPs for countries in the study and identifying reforms linked
TO2 and TO11, subsequently categorising them between cross-cutting reforms and sector specific reforms
208
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0007.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Figure 11.2: ESIF funding for e-government under TO2 for 2014-2020, EUR million
1600
1400
1200
Million Euro
1000
800
600
400
200
0
eGov 078
openGov 079
Figure 11.3: ESIF support for institutional capacity building in 2014-2020, EUR
209
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0008.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 12: O
UTLINE AND PROJECT PLAN OF THE
S
INGLE DIGITAL GATEWAY
The preferred option follows an EU-coordinated approach, where the Commission covers EU-
level information on the Your Europe portal and Member States cover agreed national
information in their own different websites and portals, and both access levels (EU and
national) are linked. The Your Europe portal will be the EU-level access point to the Single
digital gateway, and all national and other EU websites that are part of the gateway will
contain links to the central access point site.
The Your Europe portal, which is part of the Commission's Europa site, contains separate
sections for citizens and businesses. Both sections have a hierarchical navigation structure
according to topic, guiding the user from EU-level information to corresponding information
for each Member State, as well as EU-mandated assistance and problem-solving services and
contact details of national competent authorities. This general structure will remain, but will
be supplemented by further search possibilities and filled with new national content in
(usually) English.
1.
Information and assistance services
The information areas on Your Europe, as well as the assistance and problem solving services
to which it links (supplemented in the future by national - public or private- services where
Member States decide to add them to the gateway) will constitute the scope of the gateway in
terms of information and assistance services.
2.
Findability and awareness
A new common search facility will be added to the Your Europe central page, which will
guide the user to the right information pages which Member States will have notified to the
Commission as part of the gateway. Member States will need to provide information in the
agreed areas in their national as well as a foreign language (most likely English). A common
EU-level enquiry form for assistance services will make for additional findability of these
services from the Your Europe central page.
3.
Quality criteria and feedback
Common quality criteria (e.g. clear, comprehensive and easy-to-understand information, clear
descriptions of procedures and assistance services, respect of deadlines) will be introduced to
apply to all covered information, assistance services and procedures. These will be monitored
via a common user feedback tool that will be available on Your Europe and all linked portals,
and through which users can comment on whether they could find what they were looking for,
and if so, comment on the quality. This information will be used for quality and compliance
monitoring and to further develop and improve the gateway content according to user needs.
4.
Procedures
In addition, the gateway seeks to ensure that citizens and businesses can access and carry out
the most important administrative procedures fully online. As Member States are on different
levels of e-government implementation, this cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, it
will follow an agreed implementation timetable per Member State. Foreign users should be
able to carry out procedures on an equal footing with domestic users. As the transmission of
foreign evidence usually constitutes the biggest hurdle to being fully online for foreign users,
with Member States usually requiring translation and certification of foreign documents, the
Commission will provide a user interface IT tool for the cross-border use of documents and
data. The details of this tool will be specified later on.
210
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0009.png
Annexes 11 to 20
5.
Governance
The single digital gateway is a fully cooperative project between the Commission and the
Member States. For this purpose a single digital gateway coordination group will be created to
support consistent implementation of the legal requirements. The group will work on the basis
of annual programmes to implement the project plan (see below). In addition, since the
success of the gateway will depend on how well it meets the needs of it users, we plan to
create a stakeholders network group of organisations representing the different user groups.
The Commission will also coordinate the networks of EU assistance services and create more
synergies.
6.
•
•
•
Responsibilities
In general, the responsibilities of the Member States are:
Getting information about applicable national rules online and make sure it fulfils the
quality criteria, including one foreign language;
Monitoring compliance of national level assistance services with quality criteria;
Getting the 10+10 key procedures are online and available for foreigners.
The main responsibilities of the Commission is to:
•
•
•
•
Provide EU level information online (as in Your Europe portal);
Coordinate the networks of EU assistance services networks (synergies as compared with
current situation);
Provide common IT tools for the single digital gateway;
Ensure governance of the single digital gateway.
The detailed responsibilities that the chosen package of options places on the Commission and
the Member States are indicated under the description of each option in section 4 of the
impact assessment.
The single digital gateway project will require solid preparation, strong coordination,
proactive implementation and continuous development over time to make sure that it remains
fully aligned with user needs. Careful planning and a clear understanding of who does what
are of the essence.
Assuming that the Commission Proposal will be adopted in Q1/2017 and the legal act in
Q3/2018, the timetable below presents main actions which need to be undertaken to ensure
the successful launch of the gateway in Q3/2020 and its further development.
7.
Timing
Q1/2018
Project plan
Commission actions
Pre-adoption stage
Works with MS on developing synergies for
information and assistance services towards
the objectives of the single digital gateway
Work with the COM on further
convergence of information and
assistance services towards the
objectives of the single digital
gateway
Analyse the needs and efforts which
have to be done to ensure full
compliance with the Regulation
Member States’ actions
Q1/2018
Analyses different options related to the IT
tools and applications listed in the Commission
Proposal
211
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0010.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Timing
Q2/2018
Commission actions
Establishes a network of stakeholders
(Chambers of Commerce, etc.) to discuss with
them ideas related to the practical
implementation of the single digital gateway
Prepares the draft annual work programme
(e.g. to clarify detailed implementation steps
per Member State)
Adoption of the [single digital gateway] Regulation
Convenes the first meeting of the single digital
gateway Group to discuss the first annual work
programme
Sets up internal governance structure to
manage and coordinate all EU level services
and portals that are part of the single digital
gateway
Adoption of the first annual work programme
Adopts implementing acts
Starts developing the IT tools required for
supporting the single digital gateway:
- user interface
- repository of links
- reporting tool on the functioning of the
Single Market
- data collection tool
- user feedback collection tool
Organises trainings, workshops, visits in
Member States to discuss/advise Member
States as regard the use of the ESF, ERDF and
other sources of financing, managed by the
COM
Issues of interpretative/guidance documents or
recommendations, if needed
Preparation of promotion campaigns and
discussion within the [single digital gateway]
Group
Finalisation of work on the IT tools
Implementing act on tool for cross-border use
of evidence
Beta-version of the single digital gateway to be
put online and tested
Appoint national co-ordinators and
notify their names to the COM
Ensure that sufficient resources are
made available at national level
Put in place the internal structure of
co-ordination and monitoring
Adoption of the first annual work
programme
Discuss the draft implementing acts in
the single digital gateway Committee
Start working on:
- filling the online information
coverage gaps
- getting the missing procedures online
- ensuring that existing online
procedures are accessible for foreign
users
Re-structuring, tagging of information
on their websites
Member States’ actions
Q2/2018
Q4/2018
Q3/2018
Q3/2018
Q1/2019
Q1/2019
Q1/2019
Q2/2019
Q2/2019
Q3/2019
Q3/2019
Q4/2019
Q4/2019
Notification of links to the national
services to the repository of links
Q3/2020
Testing together with the COM the
tools and applications to ensure that
they are ready to use as from Q3 2020
All agreed information is offered online
All agreed information is offered
User feedback tools deployed on all single online
digital gateway related webpages
User feedback tools deployed on all
single digital gateway related
webpages
212
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0011.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Timing
Q4/2020
Q4/2020
Q4/2022
Commission actions
Member States’ actions
Q4/2022
Q1/2024
Q3/2024
Launch of tool for cross-border use of
evidence
Launch of the Single digital gateway
First report on obstacles in the Single Market
based on data gathered through all services
within the single digital gateway and the user
feedback tool
First report on the functioning of the single
digital gateway
Second report on obstacles in the Single
Market
Second report on the functioning of the single
digital
gateway
and,
if
needed,
recommendations for improvement
8.
Governance structure
The envisaged governance structure for implementation, coordination and development of the
gateway would be based on the following elements:
a) Co-ordination within Member States of all tools and services which will be accessible
through the gateway, monitoring their quality and ensuring that they comply with the
foreseen quality standards on a permanent basis. Each Member State should appoint
one
national co-ordinator
who would be entrusted with the co-ordination tasks at the
national level and who could act as an interlocutor in discussions with other Member
States and the Commission.
b) Co-ordination within the Commission in relation to websites and tools provided by
different services of the Commission. The co-ordination can be ensured in the most
efficient way if one
central point within the Commission
is appointed to perform the
relevant tasks, including monitoring of the quality of linked services, analysing user
feedback, ensuring the development, maintenance and the security of IT tools and
applications relevant for the gateway.
c)
The single digital gateway Co-ordination Group
bringing together the Member
States (their national co-ordinators) and the Commission for coordination, discussion
and decision-making on the practical implementation of the gateway and its further
development. The work of the group would be prepared by the Commission co-
ordination centre. In particular the Group should agree on:
- The annual work programme;
- Promotion activities;
- Steps which should be taken to ensure the consistent implementation of the
gateway in all Member States including assistance measures.
d) A
Stakeholder feedback group
including representatives of the main user groups to
provide input on planned developments and priorities to ensure regular calibration of
the project towards the real needs of its users.
213
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0012.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 13: G
OOD PRACTICES FROM THE
M
EMBER
S
TATES
How to present good quality information
Austria
A table presents a list of categories of products which are not subject to harmonisation. For each
category, the main pieces of law applicable and their amendments are identified, the competent
authority is indicated, together with an e-mail address for questions.
http://www.en.bmwfw.gv.at/technicalaffairsandsurveying/ProductContactPointOfTechnicalRules/Seit
en/default.aspx
Denmark
The Product Contact Point for the Construction website presents general information concerning
product categories under the FAQ section. A search tool allows the search for all applicable and soon
to be applicable standards in both Danish and English.
http://danishcprcontactpoint.dk/forside/0/2
The Product Contact Point website explains the principle of mutual recognition and publishes a list of
Danish general rules and technical rules per product, in English.
https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/product-contact-point
Finland
Finland is making available a common open wiki for public administration IT materials.
https://wiki.julkict.fi/julkict/
France
The Product Contact Point for the Construction website allows the search for information on standards
and construction products both through a free search and through a graphical search. It also has
information on other relevant documents and concerned bodies. The FAQ section presents
comprehensive overall information on construction products in France.
http://www.rpcnet.fr/index.php
The Product Contact Point publishes information sheets by product family, in English, with links to
the relevant European and/or French legislation, contact details for the government departments
responsible for this legislation and for market surveillance, as well as other useful contacts.
http://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/libre-circulation-marchandises/free-movement-of-goods-in-
europe?language=en-gb
Germany
Many German e-government websites offer the additional facility of "easy language", i.e. the more
complicated text on the official website is translated into a more simple language.
Ireland
The website of the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government presents
information on all aspects of construction in Ireland, well beyond standards for construction products.
Specific thematic documents guide the user to understand what requirements apply.
http://www.housing.gov.ie/
214
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0013.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Luxembourg
Citizens and businesses can access the information they need on their rights and obligations through
accessing a single website. The website structures the information around topics, and uses a single
template for all procedures. The logic of the template is the one of the user, so the information is
adapted to it, not the other way round. To that extent, the PSC engages people with specific
communication skills and proof-readers without specific expertise in the topic covered. Furthermore,
the website also provides a user-friendly and precise search engine through which the user can find the
information he needs in a more dynamic manner.
http://www.guichet.public.lu
Sweden
The PCPC website proposes a good overview of national rules and EU standards, in both Swedish and
English. Information goes beyond what is offered by the Product Contact Point for Construction.
http://www.boverket.se/en/start-in-english/products/construction-products-regulation/cpr-contact-
point/
United Kingdom
The Product Contact Point explains the principle of mutual recognition and publishes an exhaustive
list of UK technical rules according to product categories.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mutual-recognition-regulation-across-the-eea#technical-rules-for-
specific-non-harmonised-products-in-the-uk
Availability and usability of information provided by the PSC has scored considerably above the EU
average (2015 Points of Single Contact Study) and was praised for the good quality of supporting
functions (e.g. search, navigation). The portal provides extensive information on business procedures.
http://www.gov.uk
Public and private entities working together
Finland
The Finnish Building Information Foundation is a private, non-profitmaking Foundation which
provides construction information in Finland. The company publishes instructions for building and
property management, regulations, contract documents and forms and product information, and
promotes good practices.
https://www.rakennustieto.fi/index/english.html
Ireland
Ireland has chosen a private company, Licences.ie, to provide an Integrated Licensing Application
Service. The company provides all the infrastructure and resources necessary to deliver the service at
its own expense. It recovers all costs by means of charges levied on the licensing authorities which are
using its service. The licensing authorities may decide not to use the Licenses.ie. In such a case, they
have to build their own system to enable the access to e-procedures.
Luxembourg
The Point of Single Contact cooperates with the Chambers of Commerce to identify and prioritize
requirements and procedures relevant for businesses which should be included in the scope of PSC
services.
Poland
The Ministry of Economic Development shares tasks over PSC with the Polish Chamber of
Commerce: when questions from users submitted to the PSC Help Centre require technical
knowledge, they are transmitted to the Chamber of Commerce which contacts relevant experts. The
answers from experts are verified and sent to users from the Help Centre.
215
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0014.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ProductIP
Personal Product Compliance Partner is a private company established in the Netherlands that
provides on a client's request and for an affordable price a comprehensive requirements list for a given
product (the list of requirements for a defined market, from a defined moment, for a defined product,
where applicable, for a defined customer, etc.).
https://www.productip.com
Sweden
The Product Contact Point for Construction displays an overview of links towards Swedish and
European private sector organisations that can help with various questions related to selling goods in
the EU.
http://www.boverket.se/contactpoint-cpr
The PSC has a section on how to find affordable business advisers:
https://www.verksamt.se/en/web/international/find-advisors
Quality management for information and assistance services
France
Le Référentiel Marianne aims to provide users of national administration services with guarantees on
the conditions and performance of these services. It was redesigned in 2016, resulting from a large-
scale study on user satisfaction. Administrations have to comply with 12 commitments belonging to
five categories: effective guidance; information relating to users' expectations; a warm welcome and
attention; clear responses within published deadlines; progress by listening to users; and undertakings
of the public agencies.
Germany
The PSC of Brandenburg is getting content reviewed and approved by the competent authority staff as
well as by the PSC staff, including legal experts, before posting it.
Malta
The PSC ensures the accuracy of information through 19 service-level agreements with ministries and
competent organisations. These administrative arrangements ensure the updating and reliability of the
information.
SOLVIT
The 2013 Commission Recommendation on the principles governing
SOLVIT
provides that SOLVIT
centres should abide by minimum service obligations and detailed case handling rules, such as time
limits for SOLVIT centre replies to applicants and regular quality checks of cases. After a case has
been closed, applicants should be invited to give feedback on how the case has been handled by
SOLVIT. The general performance of SOLVIT and per Member State is subject to reporting and
published online each year in the Single Market Scoreboard.
United Kingdom
The central e-government portal "gov.uk" is run according to a published Digital Service Standard,
which includes principles such as ongoing user research and usability testing to continuously seek
feedback from users to improve the service. The service should be regularly assessed according to pre-
identified performance indicators, and performance data reported on a dedicated performance
platform. The ministry responsible for the service should test it from the beginning to the end.
The responsible service defines standard criteria for services, develops open source solutions and
promotes the exchange of good practices. Multidisciplinary development teams are created in the
operational departments, covering expertise in infrastructure, development, and analysis of user needs.
It also monitors developments in digital professions and works on role identification for the
216
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0015.png
Annexes 11 to 20
composition of a collaborative team. The service follows a policy of discouraging digitising legacy
services.
https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/assets/documents/digital-service-standard.pdf
Your Europe Advice
The
Your Europe Advice
service provides free and personalised advice in the enquirer's language
within a week.
Quality criteria apply to the reply, such as "precise, concise, complete, tailor-made,
clear, accurate and easily understandable for "normal citizens" without legal knowledge". Various
quality control measures are carried out by both the contractor and the Commission, such as random
ex post quality control of replies, ex-ante controls and keeping records for internal management
purposes of expert-by-expert performance in relation to the content-related and the formal quality
criteria.
Using the user feedback mechanism to improve quality
Luxembourg
The PSC organizes its own mystery shopping to get feedback and define priorities for further
development.
Malta
The Maltese PSC has a good and complete track and trace mechanism in place, resulting in the highest
possible performance on this element of the PSC.
The Netherlands
The Dutch chamber of commerce portal "ondernemersplein" uses analytics and user feedback as part
of a feedback loop to continuously improve the content on its website.
Poland
The Point of Single Contact collects user feedback on every service (Help Centre and on the PSC
portal). This includes a short and effective feedback mechanism on each web page of the portal.
Poland uses the application Survicat to create targeted questions.
http://business.pl
United Kingdom
The UK is continuously measuring user satisfaction on its e-government platform "gov.uk". Each
service runs a satisfaction survey feedback page, asking to rate the experience of using the service on a
5 point scale, from 'very satisfied' to 'very dissatisfied'. It also includes a final open-ended question for
users to say whatever they think of the service. Key performance figures for services and results from
the user feedback mechanism are kept in a central database managed by gov.uk. The GDS team is
undertaking efforts to establish monthly performance benchmarks on delivery, accuracy and
usefulness.
https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/measuring-success/measuring-user-satisfaction
The UK Friends and Family Test (FFT) is a user insight tool which asks users of public services:
"Would you recommend this service to your friends and family?" FFT scores are published
transparently and displayed by each provider. The score provides a vivid, actionable and customer-
focused performance measure, and open text feedback is used by providers to improve user
experience, as an example of the UK's programme of creating Open Public Services.
OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation,
https://www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-
innovation/innovations/page/friendsandfamilytest.htm#tab_description
217
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0016.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Your Europe
The portal has a constant button on all webpages "Help us improve", asking the user whether he found
what he wanted, what he was looking for, as well as an open text box for any suggestions.
Central government plan to roll out e-procedures
Cyprus
In Cyprus, the Council of Ministers established a national strategy to enable communication with
public authorities through a single point of entry: the ARIADNI gateway, established in 2015, is
already covering 20 e-services, and is foreseen to be complete for both citizens and businesses within
the next 2 years.
https://cge.cyprus.gov.cy/re/public/
Estonia
Estonia is deciding on which procedures to digitalise through a centrally steered competitive process.
Services need to provide evidence about the return on investment of digitalisation, which determines
which procedures are chosen for digitalisation. Taxes online were a prime example for a successful e-
procedure.
France
In France, a citizen who wishes to register for their pension, check the number of points they still have
on their driving license, join the army or create an enterprise online does not have to create another
account on the website of the involved authority. Instead, via FranceConnect, they can just login by
using the account they already holds at the tax authority, the post office or the social security
authority.
https://franceconnect.gouv.fr/
Hungary
Hungary had a national programme foreseeing the task of drawing up an action plan for making the 10
most frequently used procedures by citizens available online. In order to choose these procedures,
public authorities examined 20 cases.
Other procedures were also selected to be made available online, after the examination of more than
100 cases, this time based on the ease of making them available online.
Luxembourg
Citizens and businesses can carry out a number of administrative procedures online through
connecting to a single platform called “MyGuichet”. The user can handle the whole procedure online,
from completing a form to signing it and attaching supporting documents. In addition, MyGuichet
provides additional services. It enables the user to follow the processing of the application through an
eTracking tool. And it allows the user to collect all completed forms, supporting documents and
personal data which may be reused for another administrative procedure in a dedicated secure eSpace.
http://www.guichet.public.lu/myguichet/en/index.html
Poland
Plans for rolling-out e-procedures are part of the 2012 Strategy: "Efficient State 2020".
United Kingdom
In the UK, a central portal was established in 2012 by the Government Digital Service ('GDS'). The
GDS centrally scrutinises all government services that are geared towards more than 100 000 users.
Potential service use is estimated by looking at comparative existing digital services. The GDS leads
the digital transformation of government and is part of the Cabinet Office.
https://gds.blog.gov.uk/about/
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office).
218
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0017.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Achieving cost-efficiency
The Netherlands
The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs initiated a plan that deals with the fragmentation of portals in
the Netherlands. In order to improve the quality and findability of the information, the ministry set up
a central platform for business information called ondernemersplein.nl (the Dutch PSC). Within this
system the existing portals work together by providing information, sharing best practices and
improving their key performance indicators together. The system continuously has to adapt to
changing economic and regulatory changes in the Netherlands. In order to do this, it is
essential
that
the involved organisations closely cooperate with each other and that there is flexibility within the
system.
Poland
Poland uses structural funds to set up a self-sustainable online system for collecting and updating
information regarding requirements and procedures.
United Kingdom
A digital efficiency report produced in 2012 shows that the re-use of platforms in different
government departments and for different services generates significant cost-savings. Real-time digital
dashboards accessible directly via gov.uk monitor the performance of every single digital service.
Figures are available on costs for digital transactions and service take-up. Figures published by the
efficiency reform group are available on gov.uk and further information is available from
parliamentary scrutiny.
http://gov.uk/performance
Denmark
The Danish government provides a service (called 'form engine' – "Blanketmotor") to authorities
where they can produce their own digital solutions in an easy way. This is particularly relevant when
there is no 'return on investment' in creating a digital solution. The Danish Business Authority paid for
the initial development cost of EUR 228,680 of the form engine, and requires a very small fee for the
operational costs of the engine from each authority. The further development is done collaboratively
and all authorities benefit from it. (E.g. if one authority develops a payment module and pays for it, all
other authorities can reuse this afterwards.) The service is extremely popular. The solutions will
automatically be aligned with the technical and usability demands for design (looks and feel, flow,
etc.) of the portal.
Cross-border transactionality
Belgium
The PSC is available in Dutch, French, German and English.
Denmark
The PSC is available in Danish, English, German, Lithuanian and Polish.
https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/business-denmark
Estonia
The Estonian eID card is also available for non-nationals. It is used for instance:
-
-
-
-
-
For accessing government databases to check one’s medical records, file taxes, etc.;
For picking up e-Prescriptions;
As a pre-paid public transport ticket in Tallinn and Tartu;
For e-voting;
For digital signatures.
219
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0018.png
Annexes 11 to 20
The Netherlands and Lithuania
These two Member States integrated a Message Box in the PSC to provide cross-border users with the
opportunity to submit documents online. Enquiries submitted through the Message Box are processed
inside the PSC or are forwarded to the competent authority.
Malta
Malta gets the highest score as regards accessibility for cross-border user (availability of information
and e-procedures for cross-border users). In particular, Malta makes sure that online procedures that
are available to residents with support of eID can be accessed by foreign users as well. Foreign users
are offered alternative ways for authentication that, in conjunction with additional documentation,
provide an acceptable level of legitimacy of the respective users.
Merging contact points
Czech Republic
The
Czech
Point of Single Contact has got an online enquiry which, under the heading "Business in
the EU", covers both trade in products and services
http://www.businessinfo.cz/en/online-tools/business-enquiry.html
Lithuania
The portal "Business Gateway
Lithuania"
covers both trade in goods and services through one
website. The Point of Single Contact, the Product Contact Point and the Product Contact Point for
Construction are all part of this website and are listed under "Permits and Requirements".
Services and product contact points have always worked together. This ensures above all a better user
experience, as well as a simplification of work for institutions. Enquiries received by the Point of
Single Contact for Services and Products often cover more than one topic and gather different areas of
expertise in the same service allowing for faster comprehensive replies. Institutions also only need to
communicate any changes to relevant regulations to one Single Point of Contact, which results in
better administration.
http://www.verslovartai.lt/en/main/
Slovenia
The Product Contact Point and the Product Contact Point for Construction are run by the same
institution, and covered through one website.
http://www.sist.si/contact-point/information
Spain
The PSC links to other PSCs on a prominent place on the websites.
United Kingdom
The Single Market Service centre is the single contact point for the Point of Single Contact,
YourEurope, SOLVIT, IMI, the Product Contact Points, and TRIS. The Product Contact Point for
Construction is run separately.
Reducing regulatory burden based on user input
Poland
Digitalisation of procedures which are the most "popular" includes different steps:
- Verification of the volume of procedures;
- Contacting authorities in charge to see how it can be digitalised and what can be simplified;
- Consultations with stakeholders (entrepreneurs, tax advisors in case of taxation);
- Changing the law;
- Digitalisation of procedure.
220
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0019.png
Annexes 11 to 20
United Kingdom
The complete rebuild of the entire process for obtaining a vehicle license, the fast voting registry
process and the introduction of the student account are examples of user-driven innovations.
221
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0020.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 14: C
ONTENTS OF
Y
OUR
E
UROPE
222
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0021.png
Annexes 11 to 20
223
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0022.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 15: E
XAMPLE OF PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS
224
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0023.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 15.1
225
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0024.png
Annexes 11 to 20
226
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0025.png
Annexes 11 to 20
227
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0026.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 16: R
EPORT ON THE ONLINE PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Executive summary
The public consultation has highlighted a strong consensus among business and citizens
around the main pillars in terms of content of the Single digital gateway, notably:
-
The need for online information about rules and procedures in other EU countries: 93%
of business respondents and of citizens 92% respondents consider it very important or
important;
Access to e-procedures: 94% of business respondents and 92 % of citizens respondents
consider it very important or important;
Access to services providing assistance upon request: 88% of business respondents and
87% of citizen respondents consider it very important or important.
-
-
Online information on applicable EU and national rules
Businesses and citizens expressed very similar concerns with regards to online information on
applicable EU and national rules. Most respondents in both categories would use the internet
as the first source of information on these issues (74% of businesses and 80% of citizens).
Most of them have tried to find such information online (78% and 70% respectively) but state
that it was difficult (80% and 60.2% respectively). The main difficulties for both groups are
the lack of findability (48% and 43% respectively), the quality of the information (40% in
both cases) and the language in which the information was presented (24% and 13%
respectively).
This is reflected in the opinions of respondents concerning quality criteria for online
information. For both categories, the top three elements are that information should be
findable (82% and 72% respectively), relevant, practical and up-to-date (77% and 69%
respectively) and available in another EU language (72% and 64% respectively). Responding
businesses (91%)and of responding citizens (87%) can understand information in a different
EU language, the most common one being English (88% and 78% respectively), followed by
French and German.
Being up-to-date, being run by an official authority and containing contact details to be
considered trustworthy re considered the three most important indicators of trustworthiness
for a website by both groups of respondents.
When it comes to improving information provision specifically for cross-border users
respondents consider to a great extent that it should be mandatory for authorities to provide
minimum information for citizens to carry out cross-border activities (80% and 80%
respectively) and that this information should be provided in at least one other EU language
(77% and 72% respectively). The most effective means to prevent information gaps is for
national authorities in each EU country to provide all (77% of business and 63% of citizens
consider it very effective) or at least minimum information necessary for cross-border users
(68% of businesses consider it very effective) and in at least one other language (72% and
63% of businesses and citizens respectively consider it very effective). Most public authorities
consider that minimum information is already being provided (50%). Most of them consider it
challenging but feasible to provide all information needed for cross-border activities (50%),
information in a centralised EU database (48%) and information in at least one other EU
language challenging but feasible.
228
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
Annexes 11 to 20
As far as existing national sources of information for rules and procedures applying to
products and services are concerned, a majority of businesses (81%) would be in favour of
merging the contact points for goods and services. This could be a realistic option for
respondent public authorities, 70% of which consider it desirable or very desirable, despite
considering this integration difficult or somewhat difficult (28% and 48% respectively).
Online procedures to comply with national rules
About half of responding businesses and citizens have tried carrying out an e-procedure in
another EU/EEA country. The main problems faced by businesses are the use of too much
jargon, the lack of full transactionality and the need to translate or certify documents. For
citizens the main problems are the lack of full transactionality, the lack of findability of the
procedure and problems with relating to the languages available. Issues relating to languages
and documents provision were identified as the most urgent to address by both groups of
respondents.
The most important quality elements of e-procedures for both groups are the online
transactionality of procedures (69% of businesses and 72% of citizens), the ease of navigation
and presence of step-by-step guidance (80% and 72% respectively), the possibility to carry
out the procedure in at least another EU language (65% and 67% respectively) and the
presence of a helpdesk (51% and 63% respectively).
The three priority procedures to be put online for businesses are 1) registration of business
activity, 2) VAT registration and 3)VAT return, while for citizens they are 1) requesting or
renewing an ID or passport, 2) requesting the recognition of professional qualifications and 3)
registering a change of address.
When asked which actions would help in improving the provision of e-procedures,
respondents agree that it should be mandatory to make procedures available in at least another
EU language (78% of businesses, 73% of citizens and 55% of public authorities) and that at
least the most important (67%, 69% and 70% respectively) or any procedures relevant for
cross-border users required under future European law (69%, 67% and 48% respectively)
should mandatorily be fully online.
Making the availability of at least one foreign language (77% and 67% respectively) the full
transactionality of any relevant procedure required under future EU law (69% of citizens) or
at least the most important procedures (65% of businesses) mandatory are considering as the
most effective measures in encouraging the transition to e-procedures. Half of the responding
public authorities consider these actions as challenging but feasible, the other half being split
between those that consider that such procedures are already in place and those that consider
them unfeasible or unnecessary.
Most public authorities see their transition to e-government as neutral (50%) or positive
(30%). They are evenly split among those that consider making more procedures available
online, and in that case they would be fully transactional in 83% of cases and they would be in
place over the coming two years, and those that do not.
229
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0028.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Services for personalised assistance and advice
Respondents were asked about the most important quality criteria for personalised assistance
services and flagged that replies should be quick (70% of businesses and 63% of citizens),
answer the specific question/query (75% and 79% respectively), be reliable and legally sound
(69% and 60% respectively), clear, simple and in non-legalistic language (64% of businesses),
services should be able to receive and process queries in a foreign language (68% and 58%
respectively) and users should be able to access the service through different channels (35%
of citizens).
Feedback mechanism
A majority of citizens (76%) and businesses (55%) would be willing to give feedback on their
experience with the Single Market, so as to orient policy-making.
Introduction
The single digital gateway intends to provide online "everything that entrepreneurs and
citizens need" to do business cross-border and/or to travel to, buy from, work, study or reside
in another country in the EU Single Market. The single digital gateway would be based on
existing portals, contact points and networks, with the aim to expand, improve and better link
them up and to enable users to complete the most frequently used national procedures fully
on-line. Agreed quality criteria would apply to all services covered by the single digital
gateway.
The Commission launched a public consultation on the single digital gateway in order to
gather stakeholders' input for the impact assessment of the initiative.
Stakeholders' responses to this survey will help the Commission to better understand their
needs and expectations. In particular the survey focused on respondents' views with regards
the availability and quality of:
-
Information on applicable EU and national rules,
on issues such as how to register as
a resident in another EU country, have your qualifications recognised, obtain a permit to
open a shop, register your business activity, selling or manufacturing your products
abroad, rights when shopping abroad, how to register your employees in social security
schemes of another EU country or register for VAT;
Procedures to comply with national rules
(often via national e-government portals),
e.g. national procedures for registering as a resident, registering with employment
services, registering for VAT and tax payments, registering with social security services,
and on the EU level the European professional card procedure;
Services for personalised assistance and advice
when online information is not enough,
e.g. an authority or (semi) private online help centre or association citizens and
businesses can contact when facing problems with rules and procedures, also including
problem solving services.
-
-
The consultation ran from 26 July to 28 November 2016. The questionnaire was published in
24 languages. The consultation was publicised on the Commission's websites, social media
channels as well as in stakeholder meetings. Responses have been published except where
respondents asked for confidentiality.
230
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0029.png
Annexes 11 to 20
The questionnaire was subdivided into 3 parts targeted to three main audiences: (1) business,
self-employed and business representative organizations, (2) citizens, citizens/consumers
representative organisations and academics and (3) public authorities. Respondents indicated
to which category they belong. While most questions were common to all three parts of the
questionnaire, each part also contained questions specifically targeted to the above respondent
groups. For a more detailed analysis of respondent perspectives, the respondent groups are
broken down into further categories (see Overview of Respondents section).
In total 367 responses were received. The numbers and percentages used to describe the
distribution of the responses to the public consultation derive from the answers provided
under the EU-Survey tool. In order to avoid that too many respondents would abandon the
survey before submitting it due to the number of questions asked, replies to questions were
sometimes optional. Respondents often chose not to answer all questions.
Overview of respondents
The consultation sought the views of interested parties, hence the sample of respondents
cannot be considered to be statistically representative. All percentages have been rounded up.
Views were sought from citizens, citizen/consumer associations, businesses, self-employed
and business associations, academics and public authorities. They are presented grouped in 3
categories: (1) business, self-employed and business representative organizations, (2) citizens,
citizens/consumers representative organisations and academics and (3) public authorities.
The following overview of respondents details the Commission's classification of all 367
responses to the consultation.
Table 16.1: Distribution of respondents
Type of respondent
Self-employed
Company
Of which:
SMEs
Firms with more than 250 employees
87
7
35
162
147
11
8
166
39
39
367
93% of respondent companies
7% of respondent companies
10%
45%
40%
3%
2%
45%
10%
10%
N° of answers
33
94
% of answers
9%
26%
Business representative organisation
Total for business category
Private individual
Organisation representing citizens / consumers
Academic / research institution
Total for citizens
Public authority (including government)
Total for Public authority (including government)
TOTAL NUMBER OF REPLIES
231
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0030.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Figure 16.1: Geographical distribution of respondents
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Results of the questionnaire for businesses, self-employed and business representative
organizations
Among businesses participating in the consultation, most are micro enterprises with 1-9
employees (43%), followed by SMEs with 10-49 employees (18%) and SMES with 50-249
employees (7%). Most respondents are active in the services sector (50%) or both in the
services and goods sector (32%). A majority of respondents are active in more than one
European country (48%) or are active in one EU country– but would like to enter other EU
markets (35%).
A strong majority of respondents considers very important or important to have access online
to information about products and services rules in other EU countries (73% and 20%
respectively), e-procedures (68% and 26% respectively) and services providing assistance
upon request (56% and 32% respectively) in relation to their cross-border activities.
232
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0031.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Figure 16.2: Analysis of needs for businesses: How important would it be for you to have online access to the
following services?
Very important
Important
information about products and
services rules in EU countries
Neutral
E-procedures enabling you to
fulfill administrative formalities in
the country of destination online
Links to services providing
assistance upon request relating to
your cross-border activities
Rather not important
Not important
Don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Access to information about products and services rules in other EU countries:
About 78% of business respondents have tried finding which rules they should be following
to comply with national requirements in another EU country and the majority of them thought
it was difficult (80%).
The main reasons given to justify why finding information was considered difficult were that
it was hard to find the right website (48%), that information was hard to understand,
inaccurate, or outdated (40%) and that information was in a language the user could not
understand (24%). Some respondents also suggested further reasons, such as the ambiguity in
the information presented on different official websites, the need for checklists guiding the
user through all the steps they should take to find the relevant information for their case, the
lack of specialised human resources and the need to better know the national regulatory
context in order to put the information into context.
A large majority of respondents are likely to look for information on the internet (74%) while
most of the remaining respondents would directly go to a source they know and trust either
online or offline (24%).
Over 91% of the respondents can understand information in a language that is not their
mother tongue. 88% of respondents can understand information in English, followed by
French (28%) and German (16%). When information is found in a language that users cannot
understand, more than half of respondents say they use free online translation services, even if
the outcome is not perfectly accurate (56%). The second preferred technique is to ask
someone they know to help with the translation (23%). Some respondents declared that they
would keep looking for information from other sources.
233
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0032.png
Annexes 11 to 20
When asked about the most important elements to define the quality of the information found
online, respondents answered that the information they are looking for should be quickly
findable, information should be relevant, practical, up to date and is written from their point
of view and information should be available in English or another commonly used language.
Table 16.2: Most important quality requirements for online information
Quality element
I can find the information I need quickly
Information is relevant, practical, up to date and is written from my point of view
Information is available in English or another commonly used language
I can get in touch with someone (by phone, email, chat) or there is a list of contact details for
national authorities
I can easily find out who owns the website, what it’s for and who it’s aimed at
I can send feedback or leave reviews or ratings that are published on the website
Other
Don't know
No Answer
Ratio
82%
77%
72%
56%
19%
9%
2%
2%
0%
Among the elements that make a website trustworthy, it being up to date and being an official
government or authority website qualify as the most important elements, as detailed in Table
16.3.
Table 16.3: What makes a website trustworthy?
Very
Important
important
Up to date
Official government or
authority website
Contact details
Website of a private
organisation I know
and trust
Quality certification
(e.g. ISO 9001, Trusted
Shops, s@fer-shopping,
Confianza Online, Buy
with Confidence)
User reviews
Other
70%
57%
40%
23%
25%
31%
40%
53%
Neutral
2%
9%
16%
18%
Rather not
Not
important important
0%
1%
2%
3%
0%
1%
1%
2%
Don't
know
2%
2%
2%
1%
No answer
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
26%
31%
11%
12%
6%
0%
12%
5%
35%
2%
32%
6%
14%
3.%
6%
1%
2%
27%
0%
1%
234
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0033.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Extract from the open text replies:
"Built well by today's standards as this demonstrates how seriously the publishing
organization takes their website. For example, if a website isn't responsive (meaning that it's
fully accessible on different screen sizes and if the user changes the font size because of
visual impairments and the like), it seems safe to assume that the organization find it
acceptable not to take into account a significant percentage of the population. This in turn
suggests that the website is just a "nice to have" rather than the main point of contact and
will always be treated second class when it comes to updates and the like." - The Waving
Cat GmbH
A consistent majority of business respondents in in favour of integrating existing national
portals and contact points for goods and services in one national portal, with 46.3% of them
considering it very positively and 35% positively. Only 2% see it negatively or very
negatively.
Extract from the open text replies:
Increasingly, entrepreneurs market goods with a service component (e.g. for maintenance),
or goods and services are related in other ways. For this reason, some business stakeholders
have recently called for the creation of online national business portals covering both goods
AND services. – Anonymous respondent
When it comes to improving information for cross-border users, respondents consider to a
great extent that authorities in each EU country should be obliged to provide a minimum
amount of information (80%) or all information (68%) for businesses to help them carry out
cross-border activities and that information should be provided in at least another EU
language (77%). Table 16.4 below details how these measures are considered by respondents:
Table 16.4: How to prevent gaps in online information
Should be
mandatory
Authorities in each EU country should provide a
minimum amount of information for businesses
to help them carry out cross-border activities.
Information should be provided in at least one
other language.
Authorities in each EU country should provide
all the information necessary for businesses to
engage in cross-border business or private
activities.
For certain important areas, information on
national rules should be collected and made
available in a centralised EU database instead of
on national websites.
EU countries / national public authorities should
provide personal assistance to answer the
specific questions from businesses that are not
covered by the information online.
80%
77%
Should be
voluntary
(guidance)
13%
20%
Not
necessary
2%
2%
No
opinion
4%
1%
68%
27%
2%
2%
63%
26%
5%
6%
43%
48 %
7%
2%
235
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0034.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Most respondents agree that the most effective ways of preventing information gaps is for
national authorities in each EU country to provide all the information necessary for businesses
(77%) or at least minimum information (68%) and in at least one other language (72%). Table
16.5 below provides further details.
Table 16.5: Most effective actions to prevent gaps in online information
Very
effective
Authorities in each EU country
should provide all the
information necessary for
businesses to engage in cross-
border business or private
activities.
Information should be
provided in at least one other
language.
Authorities in each EU country
should provide a minimum
amount of information for
businesses to help them carry
out cross-border activities.
For certain important areas,
information on national rules
should be collected and made
available in a centralised EU
database instead of on national
websites.
EU countries / national public
authorities should provide
personal assistance to answer
the specific questions from
businesses that are not covered
by the information online.
Somewhat
effective
Ineffective
Unnecessary
Do not
know
77%
18%
2%
1%
2%
72%
23%
2%
1%
1%
68%
25%
4%
1%
2%
66%
23%
4%
3%
4%
52%
38%
3%
4%
4%
Cross-border online procedures
Most respondents have never completed an e-procedure in another EU country (52%). Those
who tried faced a variety of issues, the most important of them being that there was too much
legal or administrative jargon (14%), there were some offline steps (14%) and documents
needed to be translated or certified (13%). In particular, issues relating to languages, notably
the explanation of the procedure being available only in the national language (69%), online
forms being in national language(s) only (57%) and inexistent help-desk or help-desk only
available in the national language(s) (38%) and to documents, notably required documents not
existing in the country of origin (29%) and required certified translation for foreign
documents (24%).
Businesses considered easy navigation with step-by-step guidance (80%), full cross-border
transactionality (69%) the possibility to carry out the procedure in one's own language
(65.43%) and the availability of a helpdesk (51%) as the most important quality aspects of
online procedures.
236
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0035.png
Annexes 11 to 20
The suggested procedures were ranked in terms of priority by respondents in Table 16.6.
Table 16.6: Procedures that should be priority for access online for cross-border users
High
Medium
Low
priority
priority
priority
Registration of business activity
VAT registration
VAT returns
Recognition of qualification
Corporate/business tax declaration
Registration with national insurance scheme as
employer
Notification of cessation of activity subject to
VAT
Payment of social contributions for employees
and payroll withholding tax
Registration for income tax
Applying for public procurement
Registration of employees with pension schemes
Notifications related to data protection
Reporting end of contract of employee
Apply for building planning permits
Apply for environmental permits
67%
65%
62%
59%
55%
54%
49%
48%
47%
47%
44%
39%
33%
27%
27%
25%
23%
25%
26%
30%
30%
35%
36%
38%
31%
37%
36%
44%
38%
41%
3%
6%
6%
6%
9%
10%
8%
9%
10%
10%
12%
15%
15%
23%
22%
No priority
6%
6%
7%
8%
6%
6%
8%
7%
5%
12%
7%
10%
9%
12%
11%
Extract from the open text replies:
"If it's required to do business, it needs to be doable 100% online." - The Waving Cat
GmbH
237
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0036.png
Annexes 11 to 20
When considering possible actions aiming at improving the provision of online procedures,
most business respondents indicated that all of them should be mandatory, with the provision
of procedures in at least one foreign language, the full transactionality of any procedure
relevant for cross-border users, and the provision of at least the most important procedures
online topping the ranking (see Table 16.7).
Table 16.7: How to improve the provision of e-procedures
Should be
mandatory
Procedures should be available in at least one
other foreign language.
Any procedures relevant for cross-border
users required under future EU laws should
be fully online. Offline procedures may exist
in parallel.
A limited number of the most important
procedures for cross-border users should be
provided fully online.
All procedures relevant for cross-border
users should be fully online.
78%
Should be
voluntary
(guidance)
17%
Not
necessary
1%
No opinion
4%
69%
25%
0%
7%
67%
23%
4%
6%
60%
31%
2%
6%
All proposed actions for promoting the switch from paper based to electronic procedures are
mostly considered to be very effective or somewhat effective, with a preference for the
provision of procedures in at least one foreign language, the provision of at least the most
important procedures online and the full transactionality of any procedure relevant for cross-
border users required under future EU laws, as shown in Table 16.8.
Table 16.8: Most effective ways of improving the provision of e-procedures
Very
Somewhat
Ineffective Unnecessary Do not know
effective effective
Procedures should be available in at least
77%
16%
0%
1%
6%
one other foreign language.
Any procedures relevant for cross-border
users required under future EU laws
65%
25%
2%
1%
6%
should be fully online. Offline procedures
may exist in parallel.
All procedures relevant for cross-border
65%
25%
1%
2%
6%
users should be fully online.
A limited number of the most important
57%
31%
5%
1%
6%
procedures for cross-border users should
be provided fully online
About 20% of respondents can recommend a well-functioning site for any type of online
information and business procedures. Among the most frequently referred to websites are:
gov.uk, e-estonia.com, and bmf.gv.at.
Assistance services
When asked about online personalised assistance services, most respondents declare that the 5
most important quality criteria are 1) Quick reply, 2) Reply answers my specific question /
query, 3) Reply is reliable and legally sound, 4) Reply is in clear, simple, non-legalistic
language, 5) I can use English or another common second language, and will also receive the
reply in this language.
238
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0037.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Only 10% of respondents can recommend a well-functioning site for online personalised
assistance and advice, including advantageaustria.org and gov.uk.
Extract from the open text replies:
"There should be a centralised customer care service where to report platforms and services
that are not delivering up to standards. There should be an effective enforcement system to
protect the citizens and companies from negligence." Anonymous company, Malta
Feedback mechanism
Most respondents (55%) would be willing to give feedback on their experience with the
Single Market, so as to draw the attention of policy-makers to recurrent problems.
Results of the questionnaire for citizens, citizen or consumer representative
organisations and academics
Among citizens, citizens or consumer associations and academics participating in the
consultation, a strong majority of respondents considers very important or important to have
access online to information about rules and procedures in other EU countries (82% and 10%
respectively), e-procedures (73% and 19% respectively) and services providing assistance
upon request (59% and 28%) in relation to their cross-border activities.
Figure 16.3: Analysis of needs for citizens: How important would it be for you to have online access to the
following services?
Very important
Important
Neutral
Rather not important
Not important
Don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
information about products
and services rules in EU
countries
E-procedures enabling you to
fulfill administrative
formalities in the country of
destination online
Links to services providing
assistance upon request
relating to your cross-border
activities
239
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0038.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Figure 16.4: Geographical distribution of respondents
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Citizens constitute 89% of the respondents in this category, followed by organisations
representing citizens/consumers (7%) and academic/research institutions (5%). The
geographical distribution of respondents is varied, with respondents from almost all EU/EEA
countries, as shown in the figure above.
Access to information about rules in other EU countries:
Almost 70% of respondents in this category have tried finding which rules they should be
following to comply with national requirements when moving to another EU country and
most of them thought it was difficult or somewhat difficult (27% and 59% respectively). The
main reasons given to justify why finding information was considered difficult are that it was
hard to find the right website (43%) and that information was hard to understand, inaccurate,
or outdated (40%), followed by the fact that information was in a language the user could not
understand (13%). Some respondents commented that it was hard to find the right information
when planning to move abroad, for instance when it comes to how their pensions will be
taxed, others highlighted that it is not always possible to know whether the information on a
website is up to date and reliable. Respondents declared having looked for information
concerning how to register their legal partnerships in another EU country, information about
taxation, health insurance, social security, but also elements linked to their professional
activity abroad, such as how to insure a company vehicle in a different EU country.
Over 80% of respondents are likely to look for information on the internet while most of the
remaining respondents would directly go to a source they know and trust either online or
offline (16%).
Over 87% of the respondents can understand information in a language that is not their
mother tongue. 78% of respondents can understand information in English, followed by
French (26%) and German (14%). When information is found in a language that users cannot
understand, more than half of respondents say they use free online translation services, even if
the outcome is not perfectly accurate (69%). The second preferred technique is to ask
someone they know to help with the translation (12%). Respondents also declared contacting
the competent authority in the hopes of finding someone who can speak another language.
240
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0039.png
Annexes 11 to 20
When asked about the most important elements to define the quality of the information found
online, respondents answered that information should be quickly findable (72%), information
should be relevant, practical up to date and written from the users' point of view (69%), it
should be available in English or another commonly used language (64%) and it should be
possible to get in touch with someone or there should be a list of contact details for national
authorities (53%).
Extract from the open text replies:
"A website is trustworthy when it offers the possibility to understand and get familiarized
with the issue and quickly identify the right scheme / administrators." Anonymous citizen,
Sweden
The ranking of the elements that make a website trustworthy is presented in Table 16.9.
Table 16.9: What makes a website trustworthy?
Very
Important
important
Up to date
Official government or
authority website
Contact details
Website of a private
organisation I know and
trust
Quality certification
(e.g. ISO 9001, Trusted
Shops, s@fer-shopping,
Confianza Online, Buy
with Confidence)
User reviews
Other
78 %
66%
45%
21%
16%
27%
31%
46%
Neutral
4%
5%
16%
23%
Rather not
Not
important important
0%
0%
5%
4%
0%
1%
2%
4%
Don't
know
1%
1%
1%
2%
No answer
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
30%
25%
11%
8%
5%
0%
13%
4%
34%
4%
35%
4%
13%
1%
4%
1%
1%
30%
0%
57%
When it comes to improving information for cross-border users, respondents consider to a
great extent that the authorities should mandatorily provide minimum information for citizens
to carry out cross-border activities (81%) and that that information should be provided in at
least another EU language (72%). Table 16.10 below details how each proposed measure is
considered by respondents.
241
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0040.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 16.10: How to prevent gaps in online information
Should be
Should be
voluntary
mandatory
(guidance)
Authorities in each EU
country should provide a
minimum amount of
81%
9%
information for citizens to
help them carry out cross-
border activities.
Information should be
72%
20%
provided in at least one
other language.
For certain important areas,
information on national
rules should be collected and
67%
21%
made available in a
centralised EU database
instead of on national
websites.
Authorities in each EU
country should provide all
the information necessary
61%
34%
for citizens to engage in
cross-border business or
private activities.
EU countries / national
public authorities should
provide personal assistance
55%
33%
to answer the specific
questions from citizens that
are not covered by the
information online.
Not
necessary
No opinion
No Answer
3%
4%
4%
2%
2%
4%
5%
4%
3%
1%
1%
3%
3%
6%
4%
Providing information in at least another EU language and providing all information
necessary to citizens to engage in cross-border business or private activities are considered as
the most effective approaches in reducing the time and costs for citizens to find information
online.
242
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0041.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 16.11: Most effective actions to prevent gaps in online information
Very
effective
Information should be
provided in at least one
other language.
Authorities in each EU
country should provide
all the information
necessary for citizens to
engage in cross-border
business or private
activities.
For certain important
areas, information on
national rules should be
collected and made
available in a centralised
EU database instead of
on national websites.
Authorities in each EU
country should provide a
minimum amount of
information for citizens
to help them carry out
cross-border activities.
EU countries / national
public authorities should
provide personal
assistance to answer the
specific questions from
citizens that are not
covered by the
information online.
63%
Somewhat
effective
26%
Ineffective Unnecessary
Do not
know
4%
No answer
1%
1%
4%
63%
26%
2%
2%
4%
4%
62%
22%
2%
4%
4%
6%
58%
29%
4%
2%
4%
4%
57%
27%
1%
2%
8%
5%
Cross-border e-procedures:
Respondents in this category are almost equally split between those who have (48%) and
those who have never completed (52%) an e-procedure in another EU country. Most of those
who tried either found it difficult (49%) or had to give up (25%). They faced a variety of
issues, the most important of them being that there were some offline steps (21%), It was not
possible to do it online (20%) and users could not find out where to do it online (16%). Also
issues relating to languages, notably the fact that documents needed to be translated and / or
certified (16%), and procedures being in a language the user didn’t understand. (11%) were
signalled as being important.
Extract from the open text replies:
"Often online portals are built for the residents of that country and some of the initial
requirements cannot be met by people not living in the country. This is a form of
discrimination, because it will not be possible for the non-resident to complete the
procedure and obtain what they need. " - M.F., Slovakia.
243
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0042.png
Annexes 11 to 20
When asked about the aspects of online procedures that citizens find the most problematic and
the most urgent to address, respondents identified the presence of forms in national
language(s) only (63%), the need for certified translations of foreign documents (45%), the
presence of assistance services only in the national language(s) (38%) and the need to certify
foreign documents (37.95%) as the most pressing issues, as shown in Table 16.12.
Table 16.12: Problematic aspects of e-procedures that should be addressed as a priority
Issue
Online forms in national language(s) only
Foreign supporting documents require certified translations
Personalised assistance service does not exist or exists only in national
language(s)
Foreign supporting documents need to be certified
The documents required do not exist in my country
Online forms where it’s not possible to enter non-national addresses and
phone numbers
Means of payment only accessible to national users
Foreign e-signature and e-authentication means are not accepted
No Answer
Ratio
63%
45%
38%
38%
35%
33%
25%
23%
0%
Respondents in the citizens' category considered full online transactionality (72%), the easy
navigation with step-by-step guidance (72%), the possibility to use a known language (67%)
and the availability of a helpdesk in case of questions or problems (63%) as the most
important quality aspects of online procedures.
244
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0043.png
Annexes 11 to 20
The suggested procedures were ranked in terms of priority by respondents in the following
way:
Table 16.13: Procedures that should be prioritised for cross-border online access
High
Requesting / renewing ID card
or passport
Request recognition of
professional qualifications from
a foreign EU national
Registering a change of address
Request recognition of diploma
from a foreign EU national
Request a birth certificate
Enrol in university
Declaring income taxes
Register for social security
benefits
Apply for a criminal record
certificate
Apply for a study grant
Register for child allowances
Register for a pension
Register a car
Registering as unemployed
Registering a marriage
Starting an inheritance
procedure
76%
73%
72%
72%
70%
69%
69%
69%
64%
63%
60%
60%
57%
53%
45%
42%
Medium
17%
20%
23%
20%
23%
19%
19%
19%
22%
27%
23%
27%
31%
30%
35%
35%
Low
3%
4%
1%
5%
2%
5%
4%
5%
7%
3%
7%
5%
4%
7%
10%
12%
No priority
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
3%
1%
1%
2%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
5%
7%
Do not
know
2%
3%
2%
3%
4%
4%
7%
5%
4%
4%
7%
5%
4%
6%
5%
5%
When considering possible actions aiming at improving the provision of online procedures,
most citizen respondents indicated that all of them should be mandatory, with the provision of
procedures in at least one other foreign language (73%), the provision of a limited number of
important procedures fully online (69%) and the provision of any relevant cross-border
procedure fully online (67%) topping the ranking.
245
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0044.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 16.14: How to improve the provision of e-procedures
Should be
Should be
voluntary
mandatory
(guidance)
Procedures should be available in
73%
19%
at least one other foreign
language.
A limited number of the most
important procedures for cross-
69%
16%
border users should be provided
fully online.
Any procedures relevant for
cross-border users required
67%
23%
under future EU laws should be
fully online. Offline procedures
may exist in parallel.
All procedures relevant for cross-
53%
36%
border users should be fully
online.
Not
necessary
2%
No
opinion
2%
No
answer
4%
3%
7%
6%
1%
4%
4%
4%
2%
5%
All proposed actions for promoting the switch from paper based to electronic procedures are
mostly considered to be very effective or somewhat effective, with a preference for putting
any procedures relevant for cross-border users required under future EU laws should be fully
online (69%), making procedures available at least in another EU language (67%) and putting
all procedures relevant for cross-border users should be fully online (63%).
Table 16.15: Most effective ways of improving the provision of e-procedures
No need
Very
Partially
Not
for this
Effective
effective
effective
action
Any procedures relevant for
cross-border users required
under future EU laws
69%
14%
4%
1%
should be fully online.
Offline procedures may
exist in parallel.
Procedures should be
67%
20%
3%
1%
available in at least one
other foreign language.
All procedures relevant for
63%
21%
5%
3%
cross-border users should
be fully online.
A limited number of the
most important procedures
54%
27%
6%
1%
for cross-border users
should be provided fully
online
Don't
know
No
answer
4%
8%
4%
5%
4%
5%
5%
7%
About 22% of respondents can recommend a well-functioning site for any type of online
procedures. Among the most frequently referred to websites are: gov.uk, ucas.com,
www.studielink.nl, and several national tax services (e.g. France, Spain and Belgium).
Assistance services:
When asked about online personalised assistance services, most respondents declare that the 5
most important quality criteria are:
246
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0045.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 16.16: Quality criteria for assistance services
Ratio
Reply answers my specific question / query
Quick reply
Reply is in clear, simple, non-legalistic language
Reply is reliable and legally sound
I can use English or another common second language, and will also receive the reply in this
language
I can access the service in different ways (e.g. email, phone, social media)
It is clear from the start what I can expect from the service, and how long it will take.
I can file a complaint about the service
User feedback visible on the page
Quality certification visible on page
Other
Don't know
No Answer
79%
63%
61%
60%
58%
35%
27%
17%
7%
4%
2%
2%
0%
Only about 15% of respondents can recommend a well-functioning site for online
personalised assistance and advice, the most quoted ones being: portaldocidadao.pt,
YourEurope and Your Europe Advice.
Feedback mechanism:
Most respondents (76%) would be willing to give feedback on their experience with the
Single Market, so as to draw the attention of policy-makers to recurrent problems.
Results of the questionnaire for public authorities
In total 39 public authorities replied to the survey. 21 operate at the national, 8 at the regional,
4 at the local, 1 at the international and 5 at the European level.
Most public authorities consider it desirable (45%) or very desirable (25%) to integrate the
services and goods contact points in one national portal, although most of them consider this
integration somewhat difficult (48%) or difficult (28%).
In order to improve online information for cross border users, most respondents consider that
most of the proposed initiatives should be mandatory. Table 16.17 below details how these
measures are considered by respondents:
247
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0046.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 16.17: How to prevent gaps in online information
Should be
mandatory
Authorities in each EU country should
provide a minimum amount of
information for citizens to help them
carry out cross-border activities.
Information should be provided in at least
one other language.
EU countries / national public authorities
should provide personal assistance to
answer the specific questions from
citizens that are not covered by the
information online.
Authorities in each EU country should
provide all the information necessary for
citizens to engage in cross-border business
or private activities.
For certain important areas, information
on national rules should be collected and
made available in a centralised EU
database instead of on national websites.
Should be
voluntary
(guidance)
20%
Not
necessary
No opinion
78%
3%
0%
43%
45%
8%
5%
38%
55%
78%
0%
40%
45%
15%
0%
35%
30%
28%
8%
Public authorities consider that most of the proposed initiatives in the survey are already
being put in place in their administration or would be easy to implement of that they would be
challenging to implement, but feasible. Detailed replies are presented in Table 16.18.
Table 16.18: Feasibility of actions to prevent gaps in online information
Easy to do /
Challenging
Already
Unfeasible
but feasible
being done
Authorities in each EU country
should provide a minimum amount
50%
40%
5%
of information for citizens to help
them carry out cross-border
activities.
Public authorities should provide
personal assistance to answer the
33%
45%
8%
specific questions from citizens that
are not covered by the information
online.
Information should be provided in at
28%
48%
10%
least one other language.
Authorities in each EU country
should provide all the information
10%
50%
30%
necessary for citizens to engage in
cross-border business or private
activities
For certain important areas,
information on national rules should
10%
48%
15%
be collected and made available in a
centralised EU database instead of on
national websites.
Unnecessary Don't know
3%
3%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
3%
23%
5%
The participating public authorities don't appear to have strong views concerning their
administration's switch to e-government, with most of them considering it neutral (50%), and
followed by those that consider it as a positive experience (30%). Among the most quoted
248
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0047.png
Annexes 11 to 20
problems for the transition is the need to coordinate the work of several authorities often
across different government levels, the lack of a legal basis and/or political will, as well as the
lack of human resources in small administrations. Among the examples of good practices in
managing and ensuring the quality of the on-line content on portals, a few examples were
quoted, including the Brussels Region Informatics Service one (BE), and the one of the Dutch
Ministry of Economic Affairs (NL).
Extract from the open text replies:
"We plan to use a standardized procedure description designed by the Walloon region. As a
result, procedures described by other government levels in Belgium will be made available
by any government. We implemented a form platform called Irisbox that supports virtually
any kind of procedure with strong back-office integration and on-line consultation of
authentic sources." - Brussels Region Informatics Centre, Belgium.
"In order to ensure the quality of online content it is crucial to engage the various
government and non-government bodies that are involved in (online) procedures for
services and goods. Processes, procedures, national laws, and EU-regulations change over
time, therefore, it is a challenge to ensure the quality and the utility of the online content.
Due to this fact, the ministry of economic affairs has set up an editorial team for the PSC
(www.ondernemersplein.nl) in which the experts of various bodies and contact points work
together to ensure the quality of the online content of the PSC." - Ministry of Economic
Affairs, the Netherlands.
All the proposed actions to encourage the transition to on-line procedures are mostly
considered by respondent public authorities as actions that should have a mandatory effect
(Table 16.19).
Table 16.19: How to improve the provision of e-procedures
Should be
mandatory
A limited number of the most important
procedures for cross-border users should be
provided fully online
Procedures should be available in at least one
other foreign language.
Any procedures relevant for cross-border
users required under future EU laws should
be fully online. Offline procedures may exist
in parallel.
All procedures relevant for cross-border
users should be fully online.
70%
55%
Should be
voluntary
(guidance)
18%
33%
Not
necessary
13 %
8%
No opinion
0%
5%
48%
30 %
8%
5%
30%
48%
23%
0%
R
eplies concerning the feasibility of these actions highlight that despite some challenges to
their implementation, the actions are considered as being feasible by most respondents (Table
16.20).
249
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0048.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 16.20: Feasibility of actions to improve the provision of e-procedures
Easy to do
Challenging
/Already
Unfeasible
but feasible
being done
A limited number of the most
important procedures for
cross-border users should be
provided fully online.
Procedures should be
available in at least one other
foreign language.
Any procedures relevant for
cross-border users required
under future EU laws should
be fully online. Offline
procedures may exist in
parallel.
All procedures relevant for
cross-border users should be
fully online.
35%
48%
0%
Unnecessary
Don't know
15%
3%
20%
50%
5%
15%
10%
13%
50%
10%
20%
8%
8%
33%
40%
15%
5%
Most of the responding public authorities accept electronic documents as part of their on-line
procedures (25% for all procedures and 58% for some).
The three most used criteria used to decide which administrative procedures to put online are:
a) Presence of a legal requirement (65%),
b) Maximum benefit for users (63%) and
c) Maximising benefit for the authority, in terms of expected savings and increased
efficiency (60%).
Some countries, such as Norway, have developed guidelines defining the criteria for the
digitalisation of procedures. When carrying out the transition, only half of the authorities
specifically take into account the needs of users from other EU countries (50%). Those that
do, mostly make an explanation of the procedure available in at least one frequently used
foreign language (30%) or have a help desk service that can deal with questions and provide
replies in at least one frequently used foreign language (20%). The reasons for not taking
users from other EU countries into account seem to be limited demand from foreign users
(23%) and the fact that it was never considered by the administration (15%). Some authorities
also indicated that the lack of recognition of eIDs or the need for a notary act, which requires
the physical presence of the user, limit the possibility to provide services to cross-border
users.
Extract from the open text replies:
"A prerequisite for this initiative is the recognition of eID across Member States, otherwise
efforts to obtain an overview and accessibility across countries could not be realized in
addition to the pure information needs." – Local Government Association, Denmark.
Respondents indicated to what extent important procedures for businesses and citizens are
online in their administration. Results are presented in Table 16.21 for businesses and Table
16.22 for citizens).
250
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0049.png
Annexes 11 to 20
For businesses:
Table 16.21: To what extent are the following business procedures online?
Fully online
Registration for income tax
Corporate/business tax
declaration
Reporting end of contract of
employee
Payment of social contributions
for employees and payroll
withholding tax
VAT returns
Registration of employees with
pension schemes
Applying for public procurement
VAT registration
Registration with national
insurance scheme as employer
Notification of cessation of
activity subject to VAT
Registration of business activity
Apply for building planning
permits
Notifications related to data
protection
Recognition of qualification
Apply for environmental permits
35%
35%
35%
33%
30%
28%
28%
25%
25%
23%
20%
15%
15%
10%
5%
Partially
online
8%
5%
10%
10%
8%
15%
20%
13%
20%
8%
35%
13%
13%
28%
28%
Not at all
online
3%
3%
8%
8%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
3%
13%
25%
8%
15%
13%
Do not know
/not
applicable
55%
58%
48%
5%
60%
53%
50%
60%
50%
68%
33%
48%
65%
48%
55%
Extract from the open text replies:
"We feel that establishing a business is one the most important life events in the business
lifecycle. A complex, offline-only procedure may be a particular hurdle in fostering
entrepreneurship which is what we aim to abolish." Point of Single Contact, Enterprise
Lithuania - Lithuania
251
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0050.png
Annexes 11 to 20
For citizens
Table 16.22: To what extent are the following citizen procedures online?
Fully online
Declaring income tax
Apply for a criminal record certificate
Apply for a study grant
Registering a change of address
Request a birth certificate
Enrol in university
Register for child allowances
Register for a pension
Registering as unemployed
Register a car
Register for social security benefits
Request recognition of professional
qualifications from a foreign EU national
Requesting / renewing ID card or
passport
Request recognition of diploma from a
foreign EU national
Registering a marriage
Starting an inheritance procedure
40%
38%
28%
25%
25%
23%
20%
20%
18%
18%
15%
13%
8%
8%
5%
3%
Partially
online
20%
13%
18%
30%
25%
23%
13%
15%
25%
20%
20%
8%
35.%
23%
23%
15%
Not at all
online
5%
10%
3%
10%
5%
5%
15%
10%
10%
23%
13%
15%
28%
18%
35%
28%
Do not
know / not
applicable
35%
40%
52%
35%
45%
50%
53%
55%
48%
40%
53%
55%
30%
53%
38%
55%
Public administrations appear to be split concerning their plans to make more procedures
available online, as 43% have plans of putting more procedures online, while 40% does not
currently have any plans to do so. 83% of the administrations that plan on having new
procedures online aim at having fully transactional procedures, while only 17% aim at having
them partially transactional. Among the procedures mentioned by some public authorities as
possible candidates for the on-line transition are: digital trade tax codes, Application for pupil
public transport ticket, and other procedures ordered by specific life events, e.g. "become a
farmer". The timeframe for the entry into force of such procedures goes from 2017 to 2019.
Among the reasons for further digitisation of procedures are: interest of the users, very good
technical implementation possibilities, high number of cases, the presence of an incentive at
EU level (e.g. eIDAS) and through national policies that aim to assist citizens and companies
faster and better, and to make the government more efficient.
When it comes to the promotion of on-line services, different strategies are employed by
public authorities, both online and offline. Some authorities carry out promotional activities as
part of their overall E-government strategy.
Extract from the open text replies:
"We promote digital self-service via the joint municipal digital strategy for 2016-2020 and the
eGovernment strategy, where the focus is on the further development of the digital service
and user experience agree." – Local Government Association, Denmark.
252
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0051.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 17: V
ISUAL OUTLINE OF THE SINGLE DIGITAL GATEWAY
253
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0052.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 18:
F
INANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE RELEVANT SERVICES
Financial resources (per year, all sums are in €)
Human resources (FTEs)
National
(FTE)
(average
per 28
MS)
From 0.1
to 4
31 SOLVIT
centres in
EEA MS
2414 eligible
complaints
Size of the
network
Number of
users/visits
EU
Budget line
National
EU
(FTE)
DG/Agency
SOLVIT
30 000
Trainings
and expert
group
meetings
Combined
with Your
Europe
IMI
02.030400
[Internal
Market
governance
tools]
02.030400
[Internal
Market
governance
tools]
Not available
(difficult to
distinguish
from other
activities)
None
4
GROW.R.4
Your
Europe
Advice
1 900 000
Combined
with Your
Europe
1.5
GROW.R.4
0
60 legal
experts in all
EEA MS
24 454
enquiries
Your
Europe
citizens
500 000
2 x year
meetings
of Editorial
Board and
2 x year
meetings
of
interservic
e group
Your
Europe
business
4 450 000
Internet,
Facebook,
chats,
campaigns
for single
market tools
campaigns
financed by
other DGs
(JUST,
SANCO,
MOVE)
EU co-
ordination
(external
contractor)
YE team
YEST
online
content
manage
ment
tool
02.030400
[Internal
Market
governance
tools]
None
5,5
GROW.R.4
n/a
Not
applicable
13 600 000
visits on the
portal
0202
[COSME]
None
4.5
(EASM
E)
EASME
(Parent unit
GROW.R.4)
n/a
3 500 000
visits on the
portal
254
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0053.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Size of the
network
Number of
users/visits
Financial resources (per year, all sums are in €)
Human resources (FTEs)
National
(FTE)
(average
per 28
MS)
About
4000 staff
equivalent
to 1 500
FTE.
15-20% of
these FTE
are
working on
single
market
advisory
services
EU
Budget line
National
EU
(FTE)
DG/Agency
Enterprise
Europe
Network
50
million/year
delegated to
EASME for
grants in EU
and COSME
participat-
ing
countries.
15-20% of
the resources
of each
consortium
are allocated
to single
market
advisory
services.
3 million
delegated to
EASME for
network
animation
(annual
conference,
IT
cooperation
databases,
intranet,
Grant
agreements
with about
90
consortia;
framework
contracts
for the
animation
budget
EU/EASME
co-ordination
for the
partnership
agreements/g
rants.
Network
partners are
expected to
provide
integrated
services to
SMEs, incl.
promotion
and advice
on EU
finance
schemes. to
local
business
Policy
guidance
by the
Commis
sion;
operatio
nal
support
from
EASME
staff to
EEN
partner
for the
various
services
provided
;
EASME
IT Help
Desk for
the data-
bases
COSME
budget
delegated to
EASME
Maximum EU
co-financing is
60% to the
eligible costs
2,5 H2
+ 40
EASM
E
EASME
(Parent unit
GROW.H.2)
535 Centres
in EU and
COSME
countries;
101
cooperation
centres in 29
third
countries.
435 000 SME
per year
receiving
support from
EEN
255
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0054.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Size of the
network
Number of
users/visits
Financial resources (per year, all sums are in €)
Human resources (FTEs)
National
(FTE)
(average
per 28
MS)
EU
Budget line
National
EU
(FTE)
DG/Agency
communicati
on, training)
EURES
20-23
million
EaSI, 04 03 02
02
Not available
12
EMPL.D1
n/a
28 EU MS +
EEA + some
cooperation
with CH
28 EU MS+
Norway
+Iceland
Not available
European
Consumer
Centres
Network
6 million €
Grants
Consumer
Programme
Budget line
330401
5 million €
2
JUST
E.3/CHAFE
A
From 2 to
8 in each
ECC
over 110.000
contacts from
consumers,
45.000
complaints
and 4.7 million
visits on
national
websites
Points of
Single
Contact
30 000
2 meetings
x year of
the EUGO
Network
Implementatio
n and
development
of the internal
market
120201
Not available
0.5
GROW.E3
n/a
28 MS +
EEA
Over 12 000
000 visits on
PSCs websites
and 200 000
enquiries
Product
Contact
Points
15 000
1 meeting
per year
Implementatio
n and
development
of the internal
market
120201
405 348
(COM
estimate)
1
GROW.B1
1-2
28 MS +
EEA
Over 1645
enquiries
256
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0055.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Size of the
network
Number of
users/visits
Financial resources (per year, all sums are in €)
Human resources (FTEs)
National
(FTE)
(average
per 28
MS)
2
EU
Budget line
National
EU
(FTE)
DG/Agency
Construction
Product
Contact
Points
15 000
1 meeting
per year
Implementatio
n and
development
of the internal
market
120201
Not available
0,2
GROW.C1
28 MS +
EEA
Not available
Professional
Qualification
Assistance
Centres
15 000
1 meeting
per year
Implementatio
n and
development
of the internal
market
120201
Not available
0,5
GROW.E5
Not
available
28 MS +
EEA
Not available
IPR
Helpdesk
1 000 000
-
Main
management
tasks
delegated to
EASME +
external
contractor
Trainings,
grants
COSME
budget
delegated to
EASME
None
0,5 +
0.25 F5
EASME
(Parent unit
GROW.F5)
0
Not
applicable
100 000 visits
on portal, 10 –
12 000 users
registered,
2 000 – 3000
trainings,
1000 requests
Europe
Direct
14 700 000
2 meetings
x year
16030103
None
6 (+
0,20 –
1 in
COM
represe
ntations
in MS)
COMM.C3
Not
relevant
28 MS
Not available
257
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0056.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Size of the
network
Number of
users/visits
Financial resources (per year, all sums are in €)
Human resources (FTEs)
National
(FTE)
(average
per 28
MS)
27 ODR
contacts
points (at
least 2
ODR
advisors
working
full or
part-time)
EU
Budget line
National
EU
(FTE)
DG/Agency
Online
Dispute
Resolution
1 700 000
(covering:
hosting,
translation,
helpdesk and
maintenance
)
Consumer
Programme
and
Connecting
Telecoms
Europe
Facility (CEF
)
Not available
3.5
FTE
(Unit )
+ 9 IT
(extern
al
contrac
tors)
JUST.E3
28 MS (+
EEA to join
in 2017)
261 ADR
entities from
24 MS to
date
(07/02/17)
20 000
complaints
submitted
(from 15/02/16
to 31/12/16)
1 500 000
visitors during
2016
communicatio
n campaign
258
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0057.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 19: M
ETHODOGY OF COST AND BENEFIT CALCULATION
Methodology of cost calculation
Where possible, studies that estimated costs for comparable tasks have been used. A recent
Deloitte study assessed the costs for the development of an EU VAT web portal. The content-
related costs were used as a cost basis for developing content for the information part of the
gateway. The IT-related cost estimates of the study were used to assess the costs of a search
engine.
Other cost assumptions were made by relevant Commission staff, based on their many years
of experience with running portals and assistance services and dealing with IT issues. This is
the case with the number of human resources necessary for particular tasks at national and EU
level, the necessary promotion budget and for developing the common repository of links, the
development of the user feedback tool on Single Market obstacles, translation costs, hosting
costs and IT development costs. These assumptions are nevertheless very imprecise and may
in practice vary a lot.
Cost figures provided by Member States were used as much as possible. These concerned the
costs for setting up a new portal, savings per transaction completed online, and costs for
digitalising procedures. However, as table 6.4 shows, costs are not easily comparable and vary
very much. Therefore, an estimate was made based on high-end figures that might be lower in
reality.
Certain costs turned out to be very difficult to estimate. This was the case for the IT effort
necessary for merging the three contact points. Views expressed by some national authorities
on this in the framework of a study
442
varied and there was no consensus whether this would
be cost-intensive or not. Therefore, the assumption was made that overall, this would be cost-
neutral, as the initial costs would be offset by the expected savings.
A further assumption was made with regard to the voluntary roll-out of procedures. Based on
Commission experience it was assumed that under a voluntary scenario, Member States
would digitalise fewer procedures. Although the extent of this is completely unknown, the
figure of 50% of the 20 procedures foreseen under option 2, where this is obligatory, was
chosen for demonstration purposes.
The costs for the common user interface for cross-border use of documents and data (option
2) were assessed in a very rough way and as far as possible at the current point in time. This
element would depend on a very advanced technical solution, for which an implementing act
with a separate impact assessment will be necessary. Thie separate impact assessment will
assess all the costs more in detail and with greater precision.
When costs for human resources were calculated, the official Commission annual rate of EUR
138 000 was used whenever Commission resources were concerned, and EUR 120 000 for an
IT developer paid for by the Commission. The EUR 120 000 rate comes from a Commission
framework contract. EUR 53 000 was used whenever Member State administration resources
were foreseen. The rate of EUR 53 000 is based on Eurostat public sector labour cost survey
442
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/21401/attachments/2/translations
259
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0058.png
Annexes 11 to 20
figures
443
covering EU average public sector labour costs and their main components (wages
and salaries; direct remuneration, bonuses and allowances; employers' social security
contributions and other labour costs) amounting to EUR 40 000, as well as an additional EUR
13 000 in overhead costs.
Methodology of benefit calculation
19.1.1 Benefits for administrations from digitalising procedures:
Benefits for national administrations from digitalising procedures proved difficult to assess, as
the benefit figures provided by Member States varied a lot (see tables 6.4 and 6.5 for the
savings through digitalised procedures). The estimate for the cost savings as a result of
digitalisation of nine business procedures was based on one Member State, i.e. Denmark (see
also IA table 6.5). The Danish Agency for digitisation has published a comparison of costs
between different channels of service provision
444
:
Channel
Counter service
Letter (physical)
E-mail
Telephone
e-Services/Self Services
Cost per transaction
€14
€11.70
€11
€7.80
€4.20
The cost savings of ca. EUR 10 for a shift from counter service to e-service and of ca. EUR 7
for a shift from letter to e-service were taken as a basis for calculating the savings for each
Member State. The largest part of these savings figures can be attributed to savings in staff
costs. But this also means that the cost savings will be much smaller for Member States with
smaller average public official salary costs than Denmark. The average calculation of savings
will most likely be over-estimated for this reason.
In a next step, the cost saving (in comparison to an online procedure) for value 4 of table 6.3
of the study about administrative formalities was established as EUR 10 (as office visit
required), and the cost saving for value 3 (postal letter required) was established as EUR 7.
This was multiplied by the number of domestic and cross-border businesses going through
each procedure whenever value 4 or 3 was indicated.
443
444
Labour cost, wages and salaries, direct remuneration (excluding apprentices) by NACE Rev. 2 activity ) - LCS surveys
2008 and 2012 [lc_ncost_r2]
Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, 2012, as referenced in the Study on Analysis of the Needs for Cross-border Services and
Assessment of the Organisational, Legal, Technical and Semantic Barriers, 2013
260
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0059.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 19.1: Study about administrative formalities: Complexity category of submitting documents
1
Member
State
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
Bus reg
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
VAT reg
3
3
2
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
4
2
2
2
3
VAT return
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
BTax reg
1
1
1
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
Procedure
6
BTax return
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
Empl reg
2
3
1
4
3
2
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
8
Job start
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
4
9
Job end
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
10
Wages
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1: Simple (procedure included in another procedure or no documents to be submitted)
2: Medium (documents can be uploaded or emailed)
3: Complex (documents must be submitted by post)
4: Very complex (documents must be submitted in person)
261
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0060.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 19.2: Study about administrative procedures: Number of domestic businesses going through procedures
1
Member
State
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
EU28
Bus reg
53,312
45,211
68,833
5,906
163,380
355,222
42,495
15,104
503,319
40,607
593,381
105,000
19,969
91,177
28,450
480,356
76,200
5,485
13,015
5,470
190,376
442,857
205,044
130,534
92,061
39,000
151,676
562,343
4,525,782
2
VAT reg
43,000
25,835
39,333
3,375
93,360
0
24,283
8,631
0
0
0
0
11,411
0
16,257
0
12,756
4,437
0
13,654
0
253,061
0
26,671
52,606
8,355
15,266
316,535
968,826
3
VAT return
215,840
288,575
163,752
24,681
484,311
1,486,228
108,149
39,657
1,475,908
145,628
1,592,214
400,000
72,900
257,963
92,484
2,104,031
95,674
23,234
108,429
15,247
525,715
1,007,625
395,092
272,773
359,753
67,301
290,176
1,063,390
13,176,725
5
BTax reg
0
0
0
3,375
93,360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,411
0
16,257
0
0
3,134
0
0
0
0
0
126,435
0
0
79,160
0
333,132
Procedure
6
BTax return
215,840
288,575
163,752
24,681
484,311
1,486,228
108,149
39,657
1,475,908
145,628
1,592,214
400,000
72,900
257,963
92,484
2,036,550
164,904
23,234
108,429
15,247
525,715
1,007,625
395,092
835,402
359,753
203,344
290,176
1,063,390
13,877,146
7
Empl reg
17,794
3,981
0
2,026
11,836
154,240
0
0
132,682
0
0
30,000
25,035
0
0
114,297
0
1,886
0
733
0
88,845
0
0
26,688
5,877
23,322
287,200
926,442
8
Job start
243,593
285,290
0
31,662
440,757
0
0
46,368
1,601,826
0
1,620,744
450,000
125,095
314,919
106,450
0
84,289
18,442
55,649
9,743
0
1,005,238
304,713
0
0
74,635
0
1,495,003
8,314,415
9
Job end
243,593
0
0
0
0
0
0
46,368
1,601,826
0
0
450,000
125,095
0
0
0
84,289
0
0
9,743
0
0
304,713
0
0
64,425
0
1,859,895
4,789,946
10
Wages
243,593
367,248
191,249
31,662
440,757
2,937,340
266,840
46,368
1,601,826
160,410
1,620,744
450,000
101,586
314,919
106,450
1,991,806
103,076
18,442
55,649
15,089
480,734
1,005,238
609,426
1,380,695
370,903
74,635
212,618
1,495,003
16,694,303
262
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0061.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Table 19.3: Study about administrative procedures: Number of cross-border businesses going through procedures
1
Member
State
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
EU28
Bus reg
185
90
196
7
73
424
59
16
210
49
424
39
76
319
49
209
24
130
52
4
173
136
110
333
182
144
69
218
4,000
2
VAT reg
1,850
900
1,960
70
730
4,240
590
160
2,100
490
4,240
390
760
3,190
490
2,088
242
1,288
237
41
1,730
1,360
1,100
144
1,820
1,435
734
2,180
36,559
3
VAT return
6,646
3,600
7,038
152
9,087
15,263
2,110
560
7,571
1,781
15,252
1,394
2,750
11,491
1,766
11,265
963
3,333
6,163
95
6,224
4,907
3,967
2,906
6,551
2,854
4,232
7,831
147,752
5
Procedure
6
7
8
Job start
222
86
0
5
303
0
0
19
252
59
508
46
92
383
59
0
79
299
26
5,695
0
164
132
0
0
95
0
261
8,784
9
Job end
222
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
252
0
0
46
92
0
0
0
79
0
0
5,695
0
0
132
0
0
95
0
261
6,893
10
Wages
2,954
349
3,128
68
4,039
6,784
938
249
3,365
792
6,779
620
1,222
5,107
785
3,065
963
2,445
1,766
5,695
2,766
2,181
1,763
459
2,912
1,268
1,228
3,480
67,169
BTax reg
BTax return Empl reg
738
1,108
222
87
131
86
782
1,173
235
17
25
5
1,010
1,515
303
1,696
2,544
509
234
352
70
62
93
19
841
1,262
252
198
297
59
1,695
2,542
508
155
232
46
306
458
92
1,277
1,915
383
196
294
59
766
2,283
230
264
571
79
594
891
128
442
662
132
11
16
570
692
1,037
207
545
818
164
441
661
132
191
1,454
631
728
1,092
218
317
312
95
1,292
460
92
870
1,305
261
16,447
25,503
5,787
263
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0062.png
Annexes 11 to 20
The result is the following table:
Table 19.4: Savings for public administrations from e-services instead of office services and by post
1
2
3
5
Procedure
6
7
8
9
10
For all
Member
procedures
Bus reg
VAT reg VAT return BTax reg BTax return Empl reg Job start Job end
Wages
State
AT
533,120 301,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
834,120
BE
452,110 180,845
0
0
0
27,867
0
0
0
660,822
BG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CY
0
33,750
246,810
33,750
0
20,260
316,620
0
316,620
967,810
CZ
0
0
0
0
0
82,852
0
0
0
82,852
DE
3,552,220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,552,220
DK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE
151,040
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151,040
ES
5,033,190
0
0
0
0 1,326,820
0
0 11,212,782 17,572,792
FI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GR
1,050,000
0 4,000,000
0
0 300,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
0 14,350,000
HR
199,690
79,877
0
79,877
510,300
0
0
0
711,102
1,580,846
HU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IT
0
0 14,728,217
0 14,255,850
0
0
0 13,942,642 42,926,709
LT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LU
0
31,059
0
31,340
0
13,202
129,094
0
129,094
333,789
LV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MT
54,700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54,700
NL
1,903,760
0
0
0
3,680,005
0
0
0
0
5,583,765
PL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PT
2,050,440
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 4,265,982
6,316,422
RO
0 266,710
0 885,045
0
0
0
0
0
1,151,755
SE
0 526,060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
526,060
SI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SK
0
0
0
0
0 233,220
0
0
0
233,220
UK
0
0
0
0
0
0 14,950,030
0
0 14,950,030
EU28
14,980,270 1,419,301 18,975,027 1,030,012 18,446,155 2,004,221 19,895,744 4,500,000 30,578,222 111,828,952
Total EU28 111,828,952
264
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
Annexes 11 to 20
This table shows the total savings (covering domestic and cross-border businesses going
through each of the nine procedures) from digitalising these 9 procedures for each Member
State, with the caveat that the savings are based on Danish figures (high end staff costs), as
outlined before. The total EU savings would come up to EUR 111.8 million. The figure per
Member State (111.8 / 28) comes up to EUR 4 million – but this average figure hides the
large variations in cost savings and differences in public officials' staff costs.
265
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0064.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Population
Migration and migrant population statistics
Table 19.5: Immigration by citizenship, 2014 (¹)
Total
Non-nationals
Nationals
Citizens of other
Citizens of
immigrant
Total
Stateless
EU Member States
non-member countries
s
(thousands (thousands
(%)
(thousands
(%)
(thousands
(%)
(thousands
(%)
(thousands
(%)
Belgium
124.8
17.6
14.1
105.9
84.9
64.6
51.8
41.3
33.1
0.0
0.0
Bulgaria
26.6
9.5
35.7
17.0
64.0
1.4
5.4
15.3
57.4
0.3
1.2
Czech Republic
29.9
5.8
19.3
24.1
80.7
14.8
49.3
9.4
31.4
0.0
0.0
Denmark
68.4
19.3
28.3
49.0
71.7
23.8
34.9
24.5
35.8
0.7
1.0
Germany
884.9
88.4
10.0
790.2
89.3
415.9
47.0
372.4
42.1
1.9
0.2
Estonia
3.9
2.6
65.5
1.3
34.4
0.2
4.0
1.2
29.6
0.0
0.8
Ireland
67.4
12.4
18.4
55.0
81.6
26.2
38.8
28.7
42.6
0.1
0.1
Greece
59.0
29.5
50.0
29.5
50.0
16.0
27.1
13.5
22.9
0.0
0.0
Spain
305.5
41.0
13.4
264.5
86.6
100.0
32.7
164.4
53.8
0.1
0.0
France
339.9
126.2
37.1
213.7
62.9
83.5
24.6
130.2
38.3
0.0
0.0
Croatia
10.6
4.8
45.3
5.8
54.6
2.3
21.9
3.5
32.6
0.0
0.1
Italy
277.6
29.3
10.5
248.4
89.5
68.1
24.5
180.3
64.9
0.0
0.0
Cyprus
9.2
1.4
15.3
7.8
84.7
3.7
40.8
4.0
43.9
0.0
0.0
Latvia
10.4
5.9
56.6
4.4
42.9
0.9
8.9
3.5
33.9
0.0
0.1
Lithuania
24.3
19.5
80.4
4.8
19.6
0.7
2.7
4.1
16.8
0.0
0.1
Luxembourg
22.3
1.3
5.9
21.0
94.0
16.5
74.1
4.4
19.9
0.0
0.0
Hungary
54.6
28.6
52.4
26.0
47.6
10.5
19.3
15.5
28.3
0.0
0.0
Malta
8.9
1.8
20.5
7.1
79.5
4.4
49.6
2.7
29.9
0.0
0.0
Netherlands
145.3
37.4
25.8
107.8
74.2
58.4
40.2
47.8
32.9
1.6
1.1
Austria
116.3
9.2
7.9
106.9
92.0
67.0
57.6
39.4
33.9
0.5
0.4
Poland
222.3
127.8
57.5
94.3
42.4
27.2
12.3
67.0
30.1
0.1
0.0
Portugal
19.5
10.2
52.4
9.3
47.6
3.4
17.3
5.9
30.3
0.0
0.0
Romania
136.0
123.9
91.1
12.1
8.9
1.2
0.9
10.9
8.0
0.0
0.0
Slovenia
13.8
2.5
18.3
11.3
81.7
3.3
23.6
8.0
58.1
0.0
0.0
Slovakia
5.4
2.9
54.9
2.4
45.1
2.0
36.8
0.4
8.3
0.0
0.0
Finland
31.5
7.9
24.9
23.1
73.4
9.5
30.1
13.6
43.1
0.1
0.2
Sweden
127.0
20.9
16.4
105.6
83.2
28.1
22.1
70.7
55.7
6.8
5.3
United Kingdom
632.0
81.3
12.9
550.7
87.1
263.6
41.7
287.1
45.4
0.0
0.0
Iceland
5.4
1.9
35.8
3.4
64.2
2.9
53.2
0.6
10.3
0.0
0.8
Liechtenstein
0.6
0.2
26.7
0.5
73.3
0.2
39.8
0.2
33.5
0.0
0.0
Norway
66.9
6.9
10.3
60.0
89.6
35.1
52.5
24.3
36.3
0.6
0.8
Switzerland
156.3
26.2
16.7
130.1
83.2
94.4
60.4
35.7
22.9
0.0
0.0
(¹) The values for the different categories of citizenship may not sum to the total due to rounding and the exclusion of the category 'unknown citizenship' from the table.
Source:
Eurostat (online data code: migr_imm1ctz)
procedure
offline? (0=no,
1=yes)
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
cost saving per
total cost for
migrant for MS administration saved by
[in EUR]
online procedure
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
148000
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
262000
10.00
160000
10.00
1000000
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
681000
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
105000
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
670000
10.00
0
10.00
34000
10.00
12000
10.00
33000
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
0
10.00
0
total savings
3,105,000
266
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0065.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Benefits from putting information online
The savings for administrations from putting information online were calculated based on the
assumption that in the absence of online information, citizens and businesses would need to
contact administrations directly, which is a more expensive channel. A cost comparison
between Your Europe (online information) and Your Europe Advice (individual assistance)
was used to show the difference and potential for savings.
Benefits for citizens
According to European Commission own research, a minimum of 1.5 million hours are lost
every year by citizens trying to find where information is available on their rights and
obligations in order to live, study or retire in another Member State. These 1.5 million hours
are an indication of the benefits of the initiative to citizens in the area of information. This
figure cannot be converted into a monetary estimate as it does not relate to an actual
expenditure but rather to citizens' spare time lost, which is difficult to put into monetary
terms. In addition to the time lost, there is also a certain annoyance factor (hassle costs)
related to these activities, which cannot be quantified either.
The calculation was made in the following way:
1.3 million people migrate from an EU Member State to another each year. In this process,
citizens at least have to:
- register the change of address,
- register for social security benefits,
- register for pension,
- declare income
taxes,
- register their car and possibly register for child allowance,
- enrol in university if student, request recognition of their diploma if active worker or
register as unemployed.
According to EC own research (see annex 4 for details), just finding information on the above
procedures takes on average (simple average across Member States) 1h40min for a citizen
speaking at least 3 languages and already being aware of a variety of information sources. The
average was calculated as follows: 35 minutes for each of the 15 Member States with the best
information offer
445
, 1h15 for of the 7 Member States with a medium information offer
446
, 5h
for each of the 6 Member States with the lowest information offer
447
. This was then adapted to
EU migratory flows according to Eurostat data (Eurostat online data code: migr_imm1ctz).
In order to calculate the citizen benefit of a solution where each Member State has made
available on its portal high-quality and complete information (option 1), the assumption was
made that in this case, the time spent to research the 6 topics would be the 35 minutes
currently needed for the Member States with the best information offer. Under this scenario,
the aggregate hours will be half of the current situation: 768 367 instead of 1.5 million (saving
of 50% as compared to the current situation). For option 2, an additional assumption was
made, namely that with the common search tool, citizens would find the information more
445
446
447
Estonia, Luxembourg, Finland, France, UK, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Malta, Poland, Slovakia,
Portugal, Austria
Latvia, Greece, Ireland, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, Croatia
Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary
267
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0066.png
Annexes 11 to 20
quickly, i.e. after 28 minutes. The aggregate number of hours under this scenario would be
614 693 instead of 1.5 million (saving of 60%). For option 3, it was assumed that with
harmonised information contained in a database, the time to find the information would be 18
minutes. The aggregate number of hours under this scenario would be 395 160 instead of 1.5
million (saving of 75%).
Benefits for businesses
The benefits for businesses of very good and accessible online information were assessed
through an external study
448
. The methodology used is the following:
In order to estimate the number of EU businesses that are searching for online information,
the number of enterprises involved in intra EU exports of goods has been used as proxy
variable
449
.
Based on EUROSTAT
450
statistics in 2013
451
1.8 million businesses (8% of the overall active
enterprises at EU level) were involved in intra EU exports of goods.
Interviews with business representatives from 15 different EU companies
452
who have
experience in cross border operations where used to map behaviours of businesses when they
are searching information about another Member State's rules online.
Results from these consultations indicated that businesses:
•
Search for online information (on average) on 9 topics and each of them performs
from one to nine online searches per year, namely:
o
Minimum one online search per nine topics (i.e. 9 online searches per
year)
o
Maximum one online searches per nine topics (i.e. 81 online searches per
year)
•
are spending from one to eight hours each time they do an online search, namely
o
Minimum one hour per one online search per nine topics (i.e. 9 hours per
year)
448
449
450
451
452
Study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-border within the EU, including gap and cost
analysis, Ernest & Young for the European Commission, 2017
From one side this approach under estimate the number of companies that are potentially interested in searching online
information because it does not include companies that are providing services in another EU MS and companies that
are planning future cross border operations; on the other side not all companies that are doing or planning cross border
activities are searching information online.
Therefore, we consider this estimation as reasonable while being mindful of the inherent limitations.
International trade Statistics (Trade by partner countries and size-class, [DS-058476]) .
EUROSTAT provides the number of enterprises involved in intra EU exports in 2013 for 11 countries (AT, BE, CY,
CZ, DE,HU, LT, NL, PL, RO, SI). From this data it emerges that on average 8% of active enterprises are involved in
intra EU exports for these 11 countries. The same percentage (8%) have been applied to countries for which statistics
are not available.
Multiple feedbacks from 15 companies based in 5 different MS have been collected. Companies involved had different
size and different experience in doing cross border operations. They were asked:
to select from a list of 29 topics the ones for which they have searched online information while doing business in
another MS
to declare how many online searches they have performed per each searched topic
to declare the duration of each online search (in hours)
to declare for how many topics they have required external support and the cost incurred.
268
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0067.png
Annexes 11 to 20
o
Maximum eight hours per nine online searches per nine topics (648 hours
per year)
Combining these data, and considering the hourly average labour cost at Member State
453
level is it possible to draw:
•
•
a “minimum scenario” where each company is speeding nine hours
454
per years
searching for online information;
a “maximum scenario” where each company is speeding 648 hours
455
per years
searching for online information.
The annual cost at EU28 is between € 0.42 and €30.2 billion, that means an average annual
cost for each company of between € 233 and € 16,813.
N. of enterprises
Involved in intra EU
exports of goods
(2013)
1,797,355
Hours spent doing
online searches
Min
9
hours
Max
648
hours
Average hourly
Labour Cost
(EUR)
Costs for searching online information
(EUR)
Min
Max
≈ 26
456
419,718,503
30,219,732,248
However, this does not take into account the potential “outsourcing cost” (e.g. when
businesses require additional external support).
In particular the representatives from the consulted companies declared that
•
•
for six topics (included in the nine for which they were searching online
information) they also needed external support
they paid between less than € 1,000 and € 3,000 to external consultants (per each
researched topic).
Also in this case it is possible to identify two scenarios
457
:
N. of enterprises
doing cross border
operation
(2013)
€ 500 x 6 topics x
each company
1,797,355
419,718,503
€ 2,500 x 6 topics x
each company
30,219,732,248
Costs for searching online information
(EUR)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Costs for External support
5,392,064,976
26,960,324,878
453
454
455
456
457
Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity (lc_lci_lev).
1 online search of 1 hour for 9 topics = 9h.
9 online search of 8 hours for 9 topics = 648 h.
The exact average value at EU level is ≈ EUR 25.95
a “minimum scenario” where each company is speeding the minimum cost (€ 500) for external support for each
searched topic (6); a “maximum scenario” where each company is speeding the maximum cost (€ 2,500) for external
support for each searched topic (6).
269
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0068.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Based on the information presented so far it is possible to conclude that the total costs of
finding online essential information about another Member State' rules are between € 3,233
and € 31,813 for one enterprise, that means an aggregate cost between € 5.8 and € 57.2 billion
at EU28 if we consider that around 1.8 million EU enterprises are doing or are planning to do
cross boarder operations.
Potential benefits
Cost for businesses were computed using the following parameters:
•
•
•
•
•
•
(a)
9
(b)
Min
1
topics for which they require online information (a)
number of online search for searched topic (b)
time spent for each online search (c)
hourly labour cost (d)
number of topics for which they require external support (e)
costs of the external support (f)
Max
9
(c)
Min
1h
(d)
Max
8h
≈ 26
458
(e)
6
(f)
Min
EUR 500
Max
EUR 2500
The assumption was made that with better online information (e.g. higher quality, higher
accessibility) there will be an impact (e.g. reduction) for parameters b, c , e and f. In the case
of perfect accessibility of online information we can compute the benefits for businesses as
time saved. In particular the maximum time saved might be computed in different scenarios
characterised by a radical reduction for parameters b and c, a reduction in the number of
topics requiring external support (e), and a 50% reduction for parameter f
459
.
Scenario
Baseline
1
2
3
(a)
9
9
9
9
(b)
Min
1
1/9
1/9
1/9
Max
9
1/9
1/9
1/9
(c)
Min
1h
1h
40 min
30 min
(d)
Max
8h
1h
40 min
30 min
≈ 26
≈ 26
≈ 26
≈ 26
(e)
6
5
4
3
(f)
Min
€ 500
€ 250
€ 250
€ 250
Max
€ 2,500
€ 1,250
€ 1,250
€ 1,250
458
459
The exact average value at EU level is ≈ EUR 25.95
This hypothesis is related to a possible reduction of the complexity of the required support.
270
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0069.png
Annexes 11 to 20
Scenario
Total internal cost (EUR)
Min
Baseline
1
Diff.
with
Baseline
2
Diff.
with
Baseline
3
Diff.
with
Baseline
419 718 503
48 967 159
-370 751 345
31 090 260
-388 628 244
23 317 695
-396 400 809
Max
30 219 732 248
48 967 159
-30 170 765 089
31 090 260
-30 188 641 988
23 317 695
-30 196 414 553
Costs for External support
Min
5 392 064 975.69
2 246 693 740
-3 145 371 236
1 797 354 992
-3 594 709 984
1 348 016 244
-4 044 048 732
Max
26 960 324 878.45
11 233 468 699
-15 726 856 179
8 986 774 959
-17 973 549 919
6 740 081 220
-20 220 243 659
Total Costs
Min
5 811 783 479
2 295 660 899
-3 516 122 581
1 828 445 251
-3 983 338 228
1 371 333 939
-4 440 449 541
Max
57 180 057 126
11 282 435 858
-45 897 621 268
9 017 865 219
-48 162 191 907
6 763 398 914
-50 416 658 212
In the case of the
Scenario 1
the total costs of finding online essential information about
another Member State' rules will be between € 1 277 and € 6 267 for one enterprise, that
means an aggregate cost at EU28 level between € 2.3 and € 11.3 billion if we consider that
around 1.8 million EU enterprises are doing or are planning to do cross boarder operations.
This means a saving between 60.5% (minimum scenario) and 80.3% (maximum scenario) that
is € 3.5 billion (minimum scenario) and € 45.9 billion (maximum).
Scenario 1 represents option 1, where it is assumed that with complete, high-quality national
information, one online search of 1 hour will be sufficient, and the number of topics requiring
external support can be reduced by 1.,
In the case of the
Scenario 2
the total costs of finding online essential information about
another Member State' rules will be between € 1 017 and € 5 017 for one enterprise, that
means an aggregate cost at EU28 level between € 1.8 and € 9 billion. This means a saving
between 68.5% (minimum scenario) and 84.2% (maximum scenario) that is € 3.9 billion
(minimum scenario) and € 48.1 billion (maximum).
Scenario 2 represents option 2, where it is assumed that the common search engine solution
will reduce the time of the search as compared to option 1, namely from 1 hour to 40 minutes.
Furthermore, the assumption is made that, in comparison with the baseline, the number of
topics requiring external support can be reduced by 2.
In the case of the
Scenario 3
the total costs of finding online essential information about
another Member State' rules will be between € 763 and € 5 017 for one enterprise, that means
an aggregate cost at EU28 level between € 1.4 and € 6.8 billion. This means a saving between
76.4% (minimum scenario) and 88.1% (maximum scenario) that is € 4.4 billion (minimum
scenario) and € 50.4 billion (maximum).
Scenario 3 stands for option 3, where it is assumed that the harmonized database solution will
even further reduce the time of the search as compared to option 1 and 2, namely to 30
minutes. The harmonized structure should allow users to understand the information more
easily than under the other two options. Furthermore, it is assumed that the number of topics
requiring external support can be reduced by 3.
271
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0070.png
Annexes 11 to 20
The benefits for businesses of using fully online procedures that are accessible to foreigners
were calculated through another external study
460
. The methodology used for this study was:
Objective and scope
The objective of the study by Ecorys for the European Commission was to identify the
administrative requirements of various important procedures for businesses and to assess the
costs of the different steps that are needed to comply with them. The study covers all EU28
Member States.
In total ten procedures in the areas of business registrations and tax returns were examined:
(1) general registration of economic activity, (2) VAT registration, (3) VAT returns, (4)
request for VAT refund, (5) registration for income tax, (6) corporate/business tax declaration,
(7) registration with national social insurance scheme upon establishment, (8) registration of
employees with pension and insurance scheme, (9) payment of social contributions and
payroll withholding tax for employees, (10) reporting end of contract of employee.
Methodology – collecting data
Information about administrative formalities was collected from the competent national
authorities of the 28 Member States (inventory). All authorities were asked the same set of
questions covering over 80 items for each of the administrative procedures covered by this
study for which they are responsible. The information was filled partly in advance with
publicly available information, for the authorities to check and complete. In total
approximately 100 different authorities have been contacted of which approximately 40 have
responded. Most of them fully completing the questionnaires for all procedures. In those cases
where items were overlooked or information was not clear, the authorities were contacted for
further information. The authorities were asked to complete the information on administrative
procedures for limited liability companies, with one overall question per procedure about the
most important differences for other legal forms of businesses.
In addition, 61 businesses (limited liability companies and sole traders) operating in 14
selected countries were consulted by means of an online survey from end of November 2016
until early February 2017 (business survey). These countries included both small and large
countries and were also spread geographically across the EU. Two different questionnaires
were developed, one for domestic firms and one for cross-border firms which covered some
additional items such as the cost of translations. The businesses that were consulted included
both existing relations and random firms. The businesses were asked to provide information
on working time and expenses incurred for each of the ten procedures they had gone through.
These data were only filled in by the persons that had gone through the procedures within the
last year. Of the responding businesses, 39 were domestic and 18 operated cross-border and
responded concerning procedures in another EU country. Each of the 57 businesses responded
about one up to six procedures they had gone through.
Methodology – analysis, cost per occurrence
Based on the business survey, costs of various activities and expenditures were classified in
up to five categories of “complexity” with greater complexity corresponding to higher costs.
460
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys for the
European Commission, 2017
272
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
Annexes 11 to 20
For each degree of complexity, the characteristics of the administrative formalities causing the
costs were examined in order to link costs with types of formalities.
For each country and each of the ten administrative procedures, the same average hours
corresponding to that degree of complexity were allocated. This was done to reduce the
impact of random differences in for example language proficiency or travel distances. A
similar approach was adopted for expenses (after conversion into euros) with one difference.
For the relevant degree of complexity, the expenses were calibrated for a reference group of
countries with a similar general price level (consisting of the six countries Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden), so that costs in the other eight countries
covered by the business survey reflect lower general price levels only. This enabled a
separation of differences in costs caused by different administrative requirements and
differences caused by general price levels respectively.
This approach not only enabled to reduce the impact of random differences between
respondents, but also enabled to estimate the costs involved for countries not covered by the
business survey, based on similarities of administrative requirements. One exception is made
to costs where differences between firms are not random but structural, namely the translation
of company statutes which logically does not apply to sole traders. In this case, costs and
numbers of businesses involved (see later) were differentiated by legal form of the business as
well.
Methodology – analysis, frequency
In some countries, some procedures must be gone through more than once per year. The
frequency of the procedure was based primarily on the authorities survey. However, in some
countries different businesses must or may go through the procedures at different frequencies.
Hence, a relation between reported frequencies in the business survey and the authorities
survey was examined, to convert multiple optional frequencies into one average frequency.
Methodology – analysis, number of businesses
Lastly, the business population is based on a mix of authorities survey and Eurostat data.
From the authorities survey, the number of applications (domestic and from other EU
countries) is divided by the frequency estimated in the previous step. For each procedure, the
authorities of only a handful of countries reported the number of applications.
To estimate the number of businesses involved for all countries and procedures, Eurostat data
on numbers of businesses
(old
and new, domestic and cross-border, with and without
employees) were used. These numbers were related to known numbers of applications
(typically for 3 to 5 countries for each procedure), where procedure 1, 2 and 5 apply to all
new firms, procedure 7 applies to new employers, procedures 3, 4 and 6 apply to all firms (old
and new) and procedures 8, 9 and 10 apply to all employers (old and new). For cross-border
firms, an additional assumption needed to be made, namely that 2.5% of the businesses is a
new firm. This is confirmed for some countries where Amadeus data is accurate and also for
Denmark where all business registrations (including from other EU countries) can be freely
accessed.
Methodology – extrapolation to aggregate costs
As a last step, aggregate costs were calculated by multiplying the cost per occurrence, the
frequency (number of times per year) and the number of businesses involved.
273
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0072.png
Annexes 11 to 20
ANNEX 20: G
LOSSARY
Abbreviation/technical term
BRIS
CEF
DG SANTE
Digital-by-default
EC
ECC/ECC-Net
Explanation
Business Registry Interconnection System
Connecting Europe Facility
European Commission Directorate General for Health and Food
Safety
The principle that public services should be provided through
digital channels whenever possible and cost efficient
European Commission
European Consumer Centres. EU co-funded network of centres that
promote the understanding of EU consumers' rights and assist in
resolving complaints about cross-border purchases.
Enterprise Europe Network. An EU co-funded support network that
provides advisory and partnership services to help small and
medium sized businesses (SMEs)to strengthen their
competitiveness, innovate and do business on European and
international markets.
electronic identification
EU Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for
electronic transactions in the internal market
European Mobility Portal on Social Security (feasibility under
assessment)
English
European Professional Card. The first EU-wide fully online
procedure for the recognition of qualifications for nurses,
pharmacists, physiotherapists, real estate agents and mountain
guides.
European Structural and Investment Funds
Electronic signature
European Employment Services. A cooperation network designed
to facilitate the free movement of workers within the EU
Official website of published EU legislation and EU case law
Full time equivalent
information and communication technology
Internal Market Information System. An IT-based information
network that links up national, regional and local authorities across
the EU.
Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations. An
EU funding programme that sets out to improve digital solutions
that enable public administrations to become inter-operable across
borders.
Information technology
Member State
Once only principle. The principle that citizens and businesses
should supply a piece of information only once to a public
administration who should then internally share this data with other
public administrations, avoiding burdens on users from providing
the same information several times.
Product Contact Points
EEN
eID
eIDAS
EMPSS
EN
EPC
ESIF
e-signature
EURES
EUR-lex
FTE
ICT
IMI
ISA/ISA2
IT
MS
OOP
PCP
274
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750577_0073.png
Annexes 11 to 20
PCPC
Points of Single Contact
Charter
Product Contact Points for Construction
A charter that encourages EU countries to develop business friendly
Points of Single Contact. It establishes criteria about in particular
quality and availability of information, completion of electronic
procedures, accessibility for cross-border users and usability.
Point of Single Contact
REFIT stands for regulatory fitness. The platform is a forum that
brings together the European Commission, national authorities and
other stakeholders in regular meetings to improve existing EU
legislation.
Single digital gateway
Single European Payments Area
Small or medium-sized enterprise
A service set up by the EU that assists citizens and businesses to
ascertain their EU rights when they experience problems with
authorities in another EU member state.
Staff working document of the European Commission
Technical Regulations Information System
Value added tax
Your Europe Advice. EU funded advice service for citizens and
businesses about their EU rights.
PSC
REFIT Platform
SDG
SEPA
SME
SOLVIT
SWD
TRIS
VAT
YEA
275