Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0256
Offentligt
1750575_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 2.5.2017
SWD(2017) 213 final
PART 1/3
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
Table of Contents
1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
2.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
3.
4.
4.1.
4.2.
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
6.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
Context and scope ........................................................................................................ 4
Current situation ........................................................................................................... 4
Calls for an initiative .................................................................................................... 4
Trends and good practices............................................................................................ 5
Scope of the initiative .................................................................................................. 5
Consistency with other initiatives ................................................................................ 7
Conclusions of the evaluation of existing policies....................................................... 8
Problem definition........................................................................................................ 9
Problem drivers - reasons for the under-performance of existing services .................. 9
The problem that requires action and its size ............................................................. 10
Problem details ........................................................................................................... 13
Who is affected and how? .......................................................................................... 21
How would the problem evolve – what is the baseline case? .................................... 22
Right of EU to act and subsidiarity ............................................................................ 24
Objectives of the initiative ......................................................................................... 25
General policy objectives ........................................................................................... 25
Specific policy objectives .......................................................................................... 25
Options to achieve the objectives............................................................................... 25
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 25
Option 1
Nationally centralised business and citizens' portals ............................... 27
Option 2 –EU coordinated approach .......................................................................... 30
Option 3
EU-wide fully centralised approach ........................................................ 33
Main impact of the options ........................................................................................ 35
Main impact of option 1 ............................................................................................. 35
Main impacts of option 2 ........................................................................................... 46
Main impacts of option 3 ........................................................................................... 57
Social impact .............................................................................................................. 64
SME impact................................................................................................................ 64
Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 65
Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence .................................................................... 65
Choice of the preferred package ................................................................................ 68
Benefits of the preferred package – why will it succeed? .......................................... 68
Costs of the preferred package and available EU funding ......................................... 70
Choice of legal instrument ......................................................................................... 71
Subsidiarity and proportionality of the preferred option............................................ 71
2
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
8.
9.
Cumulative impact and synergies of the preferred option ......................................... 71
Coherence with other proposals ................................................................................. 71
Implementing the preferred option – what is the timeline? ....................................... 72
Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 74
List of annexes ........................................................................................................... 76
3
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0004.png
1.
C
ONTEXT AND SCOPE
1.1.1.1.
Current situation
Although the Single Market is the core of the European Union, in reality it can be challenging
for EU citizens and businesses to exercise their Single Market rights. Businesses need to
know and understand the rules and regulations that apply when they sell products and services
in other Member States. These include issues such as product requirements, authorisations,
taxes, and registrations.
Likewise, citizens need information about practical formalities when moving to another
Member State to live, work or study. In particular, there is a need for information on practical
issues concerning the destination country, such as information on how to register as a
resident, register in electoral rolls, set up a business, take up a job, have qualifications
recognised, enrol children at school, register a car, retire, etc. Consumers need information
about their rights when shopping online (within the Single Market), and how to claim and
enforce them.
Various portals and contact points both at European and national level have been created over
the past decades (see Annex 8 for a detailed description) with the aim to address these needs.
Several EU initiatives have been adopted or are in the pipeline to facilitate foreign users'
access to e-procedures in specific sectors. However, the main finding of the evaluation is that
currently available EU and national level information and assistances services, and online
procedures are very fragmented, with varying levels of coverage and differences in quality. It
is also not user centred, difficult to find and to use, especially for foreign users.
1
This will be
explained more in detail in section 1.5 and Annex 3.
1.2.1.2.
Calls for an initiative
This assessment is very widely shared and has led to a whole range of calls on the
Commission to take action:
- A 2014 Report of the High Level Group on Business Services called for a more
comprehensive and user-friendly interface for information and assistance so businesses can
easily navigate the requirements of the Single Market. Setting up a business from another
Member State should also be made easier.
- The March 2015 Competitiveness Council conclusions on Single Market policy called for
a political commitment ‘to strengthen and streamline Single Market tools […] in order to
better meet the needs of businesses and citizens in their cross-border activities’. This was
repeated by the Competitiveness Council of February 2016, which, in addition, welcomed
'the concept of a single digital gateway, which would in particular address the needs of
start-ups'.
- In September 2015, seventeen Member States called for an initiative enabling every
business to succeed in the single market, by 'setting up a network of digital single gateways
(fully functioning e-government portals) to help businesses to start-up, scale-up and trade
across borders by providing all the information needed to operate in a Member State'. Full
digitalisation should ensure that businesses only have to go through one digital process to
set up and operate anywhere in the EU.
- In January 2016, the European Parliament
2
called for the development of a comprehensive
single digital gateway as a single end-to-end digital process for businesses to set up and
operate across the EU, from the online set up of the business, domain names, the exchange
of compliance information, recognition of e-invoices, filing taxes, a simplified online VAT
1
2
Foreign users: EU citizens and businesses operating in another MS than the one from which they originate, are resident
or established
European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act (2015/2147(INI).
4
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0005.png
scheme, online information on product compliance, posting of workers, consumer rights,
access to consumer and business networks, notification procedures and dispute settlement
mechanisms.
- In June 2016, the REFIT Platform (consisting of business stakeholders and Member States
representatives) issued an opinion recommending the establishment of a single entry point
with clear information and coordinated services for businesses in each Member State to
assist companies operating in the Single Market, and the definition of minimum common
quality criteria for the content, functioning and level of integration of each portal with the
single digital gateway.
- In January 2017, the EU Citizenship report 2017 was published, which mentions the single
digital gateway as a priority for EU Citizenship.
3
In response to these calls for action and to the problems raised on many occasions by
stakeholders
4
, the Commission communication 'A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe'
of May 2015 proposed the creation of a single digital gateway, which was included as part of
the E-government Action Plan 2016-2020. The single digital gateway would expand, improve
and streamline all information, assistance and problem solving services needed to operate
efficiently across borders, enabling users to complete the most frequently used national
procedures online. The Single Market Strategy of October 2015 mentioned the single digital
gateway as a means of addressing the specific requirements of start-ups.
1.3.1.3.
Trends and good practices
The basic principle for the single digital gateway is not to start from scratch, but to build on
the existing information and assistance services at EU and national level in order to make the
Single Market work better. Furthermore, many Member States have made excellent progress
in rolling out e-government programmes and developed very good practices in the process
that should be used as a model for the development of the single digital gateway.
For instance, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta have managed
to overcome administrative silos and have developed fully integrated citizens and business
portals. France and the UK manage the quality of the content on their government portals with
an elaborate set of quality criteria and performance indicators. User feedback mechanisms are
in place in most of the best performing platforms. Austria, Denmark, France, the UK and
Sweden are showing that it is possible to guide users through the complex area of product
rules online (see Annex 13 for additional examples of good national practices).
However, this basic positive trend of e-government rollout ensures much less the inclusion of
non-national users – even for the best performing Member States. This will be further
elaborated on, in the problem description.
1.4.1.4.
Scope of the initiative
The main aim of the single digital gateway is to reduce as much as possible the additional
administrative burden that EU citizens and businesses face when they expand their activities
in other Member States. To achieve this, the single digital gateway needs to provide access to
national rules, requirements and procedures that citizens and businesses from other Member
States need to know about and comply with. To assist the user with this journey, the gateway
should cover three layers, namely information, procedures and assistance services. The
importance of a user journey approach has also been confirmed by the REFIT Platform
Government Group. The scope of each of these layers has been defined as described below.
3
4
COM (2017) 30/2
In particular: the main EU umbrella business organisations Eurochambres, EuroCommerce, Business Europe, but also
Danish Business Forum (submission to REFIT platform), through various position papers and surveys of their
members.
5
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0006.png
1.4.1.
Information
The issues to be covered are based on the existing Your Europe portal (see Annex 14). These
were defined in 2009 and adjusted over the years (based on regular Your Europe user exit
surveys) to meet the needs of EU citizens and businesses operating in other Member States. A
currently ongoing Commission study on information and assistance needs of businesses
operating cross-border within the EU has also confirmed the relevance of the business topics
for the target group
5
.
In May 2014, in the context of the digital transformation of its web presence, the Commission
carried out a major and representative user poll in 24 languages, receiving 106,792 valid
responses, and the result of which was further refined by subsequent in-depth user research
6
.
"Business, Economy" and "Live, Work, Travel in EU" were the top two of the identified 15
top-level information classes of the Commission's Europa website architecture. Each class
gives access to a number of tasks. All information areas for citizens listed in Table 1.1 below
are included in the "Live, Work Travel in EU" class and covered by the Your Europe Citizens
Portal. Likewise, all information areas for businesses as listed in Table 1.1 are included in the
"Business, Economy" class and covered by the Your Europe Business Portal. Thus, very
broad and representative user research is behind these topics.
There is a broad consensus between the Commission, the Member States and the stakeholder
organisations about the importance of these information areas. A similar approach is widely
used in portals at national level. Commission-internal desk research (see table 2.5 in Annex 4)
has shown that most Member States cover the below business topics on their portals and
websites.
Table 1.1: Most important information areas for businesses and citizens in the Single Market
Citizens
Travelling
Working and retiring
Using transportation
Adhering to residence formalities
Accessing education and youth services
Accessing health services
Adhering to family law
Buying goods and services
Businesses
Starting a business
Adhering to employment rules
Adhering to taxation rules
Selling goods
Providing services
Adhering to product requirements
Accessing finance
Adhering to environmental rules
1.4.2.
Procedures
The single digital gateway will only require full digitalisation of the most important
(especially for the cross-border user), most frequently used or cumbersome procedures in
order to decrease the administrative burden for citizens and businesses very significantly. For
the public consultation we selected an initial list of 31 procedures, (15 for businesses, 16 for
citizens) based on existing studies, experiences in the Member States and input from
stakeholder organisations. On the basis of the outcome, this impact assessment and its
annexes have been drafted assuming 20 key online procedures based on the priorities
expressed by the respondents. We also examined the current state of digitalisation of all these
procedures in the different Member States (see results in Annex 4) to assess whether the aim
to get them all online would be realistic and we have questioned Member States about their
on-going e-government programmes. The resulting list is ambitious but feasible, especially in
5
6
Study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-border within the EU, including gap and cost
analysis, Ernest & Young, Draft Final Report, January 2017
http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/docs/digital_transformation/report_on_common_architecture_level_1_-
_executive_summary.pdf
6
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0007.png
view of ESIF funding that is available for Member States that still have important gaps to fill
(see table 6.5 in section 6.2.3).
Table 1.2: Procedures, 10+10 most important procedures based on the outcome of the online public
consultation
For businesses:
Registration of business activity
VAT registration
VAT return
Corporate/business tax declaration
Recognition of professional qualification
Registration for income tax
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 of employees with pension schemes
For citizens
Registering a change of address
Requesting or renewing ID card or passport
Request a birth certificate
Request recognition of diploma from a foreign EU
national
Apply for a study grant
Enrol in university
Declaring income taxes
Register for social security benefits
Register a car
Register for a pension
1.4.3.
Assistance services
The assistance services to be included in the single digital gateway are those created under EU
law or co-funded through the EU budget (see Annex 8 for a detailed explanation of their
purpose and legal or other basis). The reason for their inclusion in the gateway is that they all
have a clear Single Market mandate because they specifically cater to the Single Market needs
of the cross-border user. However, Member States may voluntarily include other national
assistance services (such as chambers of commerce) if they meet the quality conditions (see
section 5.2.2 and Annex 6).
Table 1.3: Assistance and problem solving services to be included in the gateway
7
With binding EU legal basis
Points of Single Contact
Product Contact Points
Construction Product Contact Points
National Assistance for Professional Qualifications
National Contact Points for cross-border healthcare
The European Job Mobility Portal EURES
9
Online Dispute Resolution
National services (voluntary)
Without binding EU legal basis
SOLVIT
Your Europe Advice
Enterprise Europe Network
8
European Consumer Centres
Europe Direct
Intellectual Property Rights Helpdesk
1.5.1.5.
Consistency with other initiatives
10
The single digital gateway is part of the E-government Action Plan.
11
It supports the
Commission’s digital transformation objective, creating a streamlined web presence and
avoiding further fragmentation caused by new portals and contact points.
7.
8
9
10
11
For an extended list of other relevant services and initiatives, see Annex 9.
The Enterprise Europe Network has a wider mandate: helping SMEs to become more competitive and take advantage
of business opportunities, not only in the single market, but also beyond. The Network also delivers important services
in the area of innovation, including services co-financed under the Horizon 2020 programme. The SDG will only apply
to the network's single market advisory services.
EURES has a wider mandate: helping jobseekers, workers and employers in realising mobility opportunities (matching
jobs and people cross-border). The SDG will only apply to the information and assistance services of EURES.
For a full list of related and linked initiatives, see Annex 9.
EU e-government Action Plan, COM(2016) 179. See also EU-wide digital once-only principle for citizens and
businesses: Policy options and their impacts, SMART 2015/0062, GNK Consult et al. 2016.
7
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0008.png
The actions concerning the once-only principle that are included in the same action plan will
contribute to the success of the single digital gateway. These actions will facilitate the sharing
of information between Member State administrations. Work towards achieving this is based
on a large-scale pilot project on business cases and an assessment of its feasibility for citizens.
The Public Document Regulation
12
is also relevant in this context, as it will require Member
States to accept a series of documents from citizens without further verification and
translation by the end of 2018. Other actions of the plan that are complementary and directly
relevant for the single digital gateway are the take-up of eID and e-signature through the
eIDAS Regulation; the E-justice Portal (including the Business Registry Interconnection
System BRIS), the VAT information portal, the interconnection of insolvency registers, and a
planned company law initiative to facilitate digital solutions throughout a company lifecycle.
Furthermore, the gateway is consistent with the revision of the European Interoperability
Framework.
13
The single digital gateway is fully compatible with these initiatives that seek to improve the
provision of information online and digitalise procedures at EU and national level. The
information and assistance services in Annex 8 will be covered by the legal instrument for the
single digital gateway which means that they would need to meet the quality criteria, be part
of coordinated promotion actions, integrate the user feedback mechanism and link up to the
user search interface of the single digital gateway. The other initiatives provide input for joint
reporting on single market obstacles included in Annex 9 are not as such covered by the
single digital gateway, but they are complementary and contribute to achieving a seamless
online environment for EU citizens and businesses. Furthermore, the single digital gateway
will
link
to the services and procedures in Annex 9 (parts A and B).
1.6.1.6.
Conclusions of the evaluation of existing policies
The evaluation (see Annex 3) has pointed to a number of problems, including a lack of
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence both for the individual services and for them as a
package for citizens and businesses. The REFIT Platform opinion further testifies to the fact
that the current range of different portals makes it too time consuming and difficult to search
for information and complete necessary procedures. Both the REFIT Government and the
Business Stakeholder Groups agree that this constitutes a barrier to doing business in the
Single Market which should be addressed.
1.6.1.
Effectiveness of existing services
As far as the effectiveness of individual services is concerned, recurring and cross-cutting
problems pointed out are: lack of visibility and findability online, lack of quality and under-
use. In addition, gaps exist with regard to national-level information, which is either not
online or only in national language, and procedures can often not be carried out online by
foreign users – even where this is possible for domestic users. Cross-border accessibility
remains one of the key development points in order for contact points and other portals to
fully support the Single Market.
Nevertheless, the level of quality, user-centricity and accessibility for foreign users is quite
divergent for the different services.
For services funded by the EU, quality criteria have been included in contracts (Enterprise
Europe Network, Your Europe Advice). These services are contractually obliged to cater for
foreign users.
12
13
Public Document Regulation (EU) 2016/1191.
The specific interaction of these intiatives with the single digital gateway will be described more in detail in the legal
instrument proposal.
8
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0009.png
For services created through binding EU law, quality criteria have proven to be too general
(Points of Single Contact) or hardly exist (Products Contact Points). Additional voluntary
quality criteria (Charter for PSCs) have had limited success.
14
Access for foreign users is still
limited.
For services created through non-binding EU law and managed by the Commission (SOLVIT,
Your Europe
15
) quality criteria have been agreed, and access for foreign citizens is foreseen,
but due to their voluntary nature some Member States are fully on board, others are not.
Access for foreign citizens is guaranteed for these services.
1.6.2.
Efficiency of existing services
The efficiency part of the evaluation produces a mixed picture. The EU-level assistance
services are considered cost efficient when taking into account the savings and other benefits
these services provide to businesses and citizens compared to much more costly private
alternative services. However, the national-level assistance services (PSCs, PCPs and PCPCs)
can only be considered as partially efficient. The cost effectiveness aspect is difficult to
assess, as data are missing, but they are under-performing for businesses as far as their
effectiveness is concerned. Moreover, the low quality of their websites represents a missed
opportunity to reduce the number of requests through providing better online up-front
information, and thus improving cost-efficiency
16
.
There is scope for more efficiency and easier findability online if the individual services
promoted their services under a common brand name. The EU could create added value here,
as one recognizable brand, backed up by a common brand search engine. This could only be
set up at the EU level.
1.6.3.
Coherence of existing services
The lack of coherence refers to the fact that all the instruments that were evaluated were
created by EU level action, but do not operate as a whole: they are dispersed, incomplete, not
sufficiently linked up and not sufficiently user-friendly. A common approach to ensuring
quality through minimum quality standards is missing. There is no overall EU-Member States
governance structure to ensure consistency of all the instruments. Whilst the legal framework
promotes synergies, these have not been sufficiently exploited by the Member States (in the
absence of binding obligations). In particular, contact points for goods and services are
distinct for most Member States, whilst businesses tend to demand them as a package. On the
European level, the problem lies primarily with duplicating content on Commission websites.
Successful sign-posting policy is, however, in place.
2.
P
ROBLEM DEFINITION
1.7.2.1.
Problem drivers - reasons for the under-performance of existing services
The underlying reasons for the under-performance of the existing services are:
- Silo based, administration-centred approaches, leading to fragmentation.
In the absence of a coordinated, holistic approach from the perspective of the user, national
and EU administrations have acted as "silos", dealing with related but different topics on a
multitude of single topic portals that are not inter-linked, and only covering the policy areas
within their mandates. This has led to complexity, lack of coherence and restricted online
findability.
14
15
16
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/services-dir/psc-charter_en.pdf
For the content that Your Europe aims at, see Annex 14.
On the premise that personalised assistance is always more expensive than online information.
9
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0010.png
- Administration-centred design.
EU and national administrations design services from their perspective, not that of the user.
Both at EU and national level, administration-centred service design has traditionally
produced public services that accommodated the needs of the administration than more that of
the user in terms of clear and easy-to-understand online explanations. It is easier for the
administration to 'launch and leave' a new webportal than to organise for regular and
systematic updates of its content.
Digitalising public services eventually generates substantial benefits in administrative
efficiency. But it also requires considerable upfront investments, which can be an obstacle to
the fast roll-out of e-government.
- National administrations' neglect of the non-national user.
National administrations concentrate on national digital solutions; accessibility for foreign
users is at best an afterthought. Foreign users have little or no voice in decision-making, and
their needs in terms of language coverage and access to procedures are generally not taken
into account. This leads to various problems, such as form fields of procedures only accepting
national data, foreign evidence (e.g. documents) not being accepted as part of the online
procedure, payment possibilities only being accessible to nationals, foreign eIDs not being
accepted and procedures only in the national language(s).
Table 2.1: Problem tree - four main problem drivers and the problems they have caused – as
resulting from the evaluation
Problem drivers
17
Problems
Lack of online
information
Silo-based
approach
Lack of awareness
and findability
Consequences
Difficult and time-consuming to find out what is needed for
expanding operations or moving to another Member State,
discouraging such actions.
No awareness of the possibilities that the Single Market
provides,
leading
to
missed
opportunities
More time and money must be spent on finding information.
Available information is not clear, comprehensive or up to date
so that extra time and resources must be spent on verifying its
reliability.
Extra time and money is spent on less transparent, slower,
paper-based procedures.
Where national information is not available in another language
or users from another Member State cannot complete online
procedures, it is much more difficult for foreign users to operate
in a Member States than for domestic users.
Priority setting and policy design risks not addressing the
problems that are most important for citizens and businesses
Administration-
centred design
First generation
drawbacks
Lack of quality
Lack of online
procedures
Lack of
accessibility for
foreign users
Lack of overview
of single market
problems
Neglect of foreign
users
1.8.2.2.
The problem that requires action and its size
Not finding, not being able to use or not being aware of the right services, experiencing
quality problems with them and, as a consequence, resorting to expensive private services
leads to high transaction costs for citizens and businesses when engaging in cross-border
activities.
Box 1: Outcome of the study about administrative formalities of important procedures and
administrative burden for businesses
18
:
17
For details of problem drivers, see Annex 5.
10
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0011.png
A business that establishes a cross-border subsidiary and hires employees, incurs an average cost of
EUR 9 700. This consists of finding out about and carrying out eight common administrative
procedures, and has been established by business and public administration surveys (see annex 19 for
the methodology). This is 80% more than what a domestic business would have incurred for the
same procedures (i.e. EUR 5 400).
The cost difference is mainly caused by the translation of documents, and by commercially
purchased advice costs (partly to make up for the missing or bad quality information and foreign
language problems) and costs of submitting documents (due to longer and costlier travel).
2.2.1.
Estimated size of the target groups
In principle, all EU citizens and businesses are part of the target group for the single digital
gateway. Even if a citizen has no intention to work or study in another Member State, they
may still occasionally travel to or buy something online from another Member State, and want
to find out about their rights and obligations in that context.
Table 2.2: Target audiences of the single digital gateway
Citizens active in another Member State as
19
Workers
Students
Residents
Tourists
Consumers
Migrants between the Member States
SMEs active in another Member State as
20
Exporters
Investors
Subcontractors
7.1 million (2013)
571 000 (2010)
18.5 million (2014)
223 million visits (2015)
19% of online shoppers (2015)
1.3 million (2014) intra-EU
5.5 million (26 % of SMEs, 2009)
500 000 (2009)
1.4 million (2009)
This also means that the impact of the problems described in the previous section is
potentially very big. When looking for comprehensive online information on national rules
that apply across the Single Market to help them to achieve tasks, foreign firms and citizens
are at a disadvantage. Not being able to find or understand information about applicable rules
in other Member States discourages citizens and businesses from exploring the Single Market
and creates important additional costs.
By investigating the magnitude of cross-border population movement, the data collected
points to an estimate of approximately 1.8m immigrants and commuters between EU Member
States in 2009. This trend is likely to grow by over 400 000 people (23%) over the coming
eight years, reaching 2.2 million individuals per annum by 2020. Looking at immigrants and
commuters likely to use online cross-border services, this study estimates there would be a
total current demand of 1.3m users for online cross-border services per annum.
21
18
19.
20
21
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017,
for the European Commission, covering: general registration of economic activity, VAT registration, VAT return,
requests for VAT refunds, registration of income tax, corporate/business tax declaration, registration with national
social insurance scheme upon establishment, registration of employees with pension and insurance scheme, payment of
social contributions and payroll withholding tax for employees, reporting end of contract of employee. (to be finalised
in March 2017).
Eurostat, Migration and migrant population statistics.
Internationalisation of European SMEs, Final Report, European Commission 2010
Study on the analysis of the needs for cross-border services and assessment of the organisational, legal, technical and
semantic barriers,, 2013
11
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0012.png
Moreover, a distribution of an estimate of 140,000 branches and immigrant business start-ups
between Member States provides a useful approximation of the business population that could
utilise cross-border business services.
2.2.2.
Costs for EU businesses and citizens
Businesses need to find and comply with the rules, requirements and administrative
procedures in Member States, such as the technical regulations for products sold across
borders, or the rules affecting public calls for tender. In the public consultation
22
, 80% of
businesses found complying with national requirements difficult. Other surveys have
established inaccessibility of information on rules and requirements, and different national
product and service rules, and complex administrative procedures causing difficulties.
23
Finding relevant, accurate and understandable information online is not always
straightforward, and firms commonly spend a considerable part of their human resources on
familiarising themselves with relevant Single Market legislation and keeping track of
changes.
24
Large firms often employ several members of staff, only to ensure regulatory
compliance.
25
Such costs can constitute an important barrier especially for SMEs and start-
ups.
According to the public consultation on the start-up and scale-up initiative, resources required
to navigate the regulatory complexity is the third-biggest problem for SMEs.
26
More than half
of SMEs say that national administrative procedures related to exporting to other Member
States are too difficult to comply with and therefore deter many firms from exporting.
27
The
smaller the company, the less likely it is to sell abroad due to the lack of knowledge of the
rules in other Member States. This leads to less choice and higher prices for consumers. In a
Single Market of 28 Member States, the costs of gathering information rise rapidly, in
particular through legal advice fees needed to find and understand the relevant requirements.
Furthermore, according to the Commission’s internal 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.
28
In addition,
the information gathering process causes considerable hassle to citizens.
2.2.3.
Existing gaps in information coverage and online procedures
Current coverage of information for businesses on national websites and portals within the
eight areas set out in table 1 is 71%
29
on average, ranging from 38% up to 100% for the
different Member States. These figures only concern presence of the relevant information on
any website, but do not address findability, nor quality of the information. Moreover, the
figures for accessibility of that same information for foreign users are much lower since only
57% of the information is available in a language other than the national language(s) of the
country concerned. Accessibility of information for foreign users ranges from 17% for the
lowest scoring countries to 96% for the best performer.
22
23
24
25
.
26
27
28
29
See Annex 16.
Eurochambres survey of EU entrepreneurs; High-level Group on Business Services.
Commission evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, SWD(2014)23 final of 22/1/2014.
Evaluation of Single Market Legislation for Industrial Products,
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=9966151
Public consultation of the start-up and scale-up initiative.
Flash Eurobarometer 421: Internationalisation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2090_421_ENG
Flash Eurobarometer 413: Companies engaged in online activities.
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2058_413_ENG
See Annex 4 and 19 for the methodology. The methodology takes into account intra-EU migratory flows.
EC own research January 2017, see Annex 4 for details.
12
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0013.png
Table 2.3: Information provided on current national websites (% of information to be required)
30
With regard to procedures, research
31
shows that of the 20 procedures selected following the
public consultation, around 55% are already available fully and an additional 26% partly
online, see Annex 4).
The figure below also clearly shows the problem regarding accessibility of foreign users.
Table 2.4: Procedures accessible fully online (% of the core procedures to be required)
1.9.2.3.
Problem details
32
Problem 1: Lack of online information
Information on national rules applicable in the country of destination is essential for citizens
and businesses who want to expand their activities to other Member States. When this
information is not accessible online, it is an obstacle for the exercise of Single Market
rights.
33
For domestic firms and citizens the lack of online information may be compensated
30
31
32
33
Figure 2.3. and 2.4: EC own research, December 2017, see Annex 4 for details
EC own research, December 2017, see Annex 4 for details.
For additional evidence, see Annex 5.
According to a 2015 Eurobarometer survey on European businesses and public administration, only four in ten
companies are satisfied with the ease of obtaining reliable information from public authorities in their country, just 3%
13
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0014.png
by a visit to a local administrative office, but this option creates a substantial hurdle for users
in other Member States.
34
Businesses
often have to rely on intermediaries in order to find and digest the information
needed to start or expand cross-border activities,
35
as confirmed by a recent study on
administrative formalities.
36
Large companies typically employ several people who are
specialised in regulatory compliance. Smaller firms deal with the problem by using external
service providers like chambers of commerce, industry associations, lawyers and
consultants.
37
Paying for such services makes the costs of regulatory compliance
proportionately higher for them.
38
For self-employed or start-ups the costs of cross-border
regulatory compliance could be prohibitive.
In 2010, there were almost 21 million SMEs in the EU, representing over 99.8% of EU
companies and other undertakings. More than 44% of them are involved in some form of
international contact. Nearly 30% of SMEs are engaged in import and export activities and
2% have foreign direct investments abroad. Moreover, about 7% (more than 1.4 million) of
EU SMEs are involved in international subcontracting. While most of these operate with
client enterprises located within their own Member State, about 26% also have clients in other
Member States (about 383 000 SMEs).
39
In the public consultation for the single digital gateway, 93% of businesses considered it very
important or important to have online access to information about products and services in
other EU countries.
The Services Directive has obliged Member States to set up Points of Single Contact that
provide information about rules and procedures for the provision of services, for both
temporary and permanent establishment. However, the Services Directive does not cover all
services (financial, transport and health services are excluded), nor does it cover taxation,
social security or other regulatory areas of relevance for businesses. Member States’
implementation of the Points of Single Contact has been uneven
40
and only in eight countries
out of 31 are these contact points performing well.
41
Stakeholders also find
42
that the scope of
the Points of Single Contact is not sufficient to cover the actual needs of businesses. This is
confirmed by the Stakeholder Group of the REFIT Platform.
Unlike for services, there is no obligation for Member States to provide online information on
products. Several sets of rules can apply to one product, resulting from both EU and national
legislation. Product legislation is mostly drafted for a generic group of products like toys and
chemicals, or from a risk or health and safety angle, e.g. with regard to products using low
voltage electricity. This makes it difficult for a producer or exporter to find out the exact
legislation that applies to a specific product. As an example of the complexity of product
being ‘very satisfied’. Most companies (55%) are dissatisfied, and almost one in five (17%) say they are ‘very
dissatisfied’. Given the extra difficulties (language, lack of familiarity) for companies established in other Member
States, scores for cross-border situations can be expected to be even lower.
An expanded argumentation of this problem is in the evaluation – see Annex 3.
As an example, in a stakeholder meeting a Romanian firm starting operation in Luxembourg informed the Commission
that it had paid €3000 in consultancy fees.
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017,
for the European Commission, to be finalised in March 2017
Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products (2014),
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=9966151,
pp. 93-94, 105.
Idem, p. 102, 138.
Impact assessment for the Proposal for a Regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by
simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No
1024/2012, 2013.
See Annex 3; in particular The Performance of the Points of Single Contact. An Assessment against the PSC Charter,
European Commission 2015.
The reviewed countries were EU28 plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
High-Level Group on Business Services, Final Report April 2014.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
14
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0015.png
requirements, a set of applicable EU and national rules for paper cups is included as Annex
15.
Box 2: The costs of complying with technical requirements
Compliance with technical rules in different countries and keeping track of their evolution is no easy
task. For example, one sizable furniture company selling products in most EU countries employs
about 200 people to ensure that all their products meet the legal and technical requirements of each
Member State. This translates into 120 consultants in its headquarters plus 1 to 4 correspondents per
country. When planning to enter a new market within the EU, the company starts to research the legal
and technical requirements that apply to their products at least two to three years prior to starting
operations. The company found the most difficult categories of products are the non-harmonised
ones. In addition, national interpretations for harmonised rules as well as the tests used to prove
compliance and the reporting systems can differ, posing a further challenge to businesses.
The company clarified that having access to reliable and detailed information about product rules, as
well as an easy way to find the relevant authorities to contact at different stages of the planning,
production and marketing processes would be highly beneficial to their business.
43
In 2009, a network of Product Contact Points was set up to facilitate access to specific
technical rules for non-harmonised products, based on user request.
44
The contact points have
to respond within 15 working days to a request and provide complete information about
national technical rules affecting a product along with the contact details of the relevant
national public authorities. The contact points are encouraged to provide their services in
several languages and to provide personalised advice to users.
45
In principle, there should be no problem to obtain information on rules applying to
harmonised goods (where products are covered by requirements set in EU legislation), as all
EU rules are published online.
46
Information on European legislation is available online
through the EUR-lex
47
and EU Export Helpdesk
48
databases. In addition, the Your Europe
business portal explains EU law in understandable language. However, gaps exist with regard
to national-level information, also for Your Europe.
49
Furthermore, while the Technical
Regulation Information System (TRIS) database gives access to any national legislation on
product rules that has been notified, it is not organised in a way that would make it easy for
firms to find all the relevant information and understand what applies to a specific product.
50
In practice, the interplay of EU and national rules makes it very difficult for a producer to find
out about the exact rules applying to his product. And this does not even include the – much
broader - issue of whether a producer would indeed need to comply with another Member
State's technical rules, or whether he could export his products in conformity with his own
country's national rules, based on the mutual recognition principle.
51
For citizens
there are even fewer EU requirements to provide information than for
businesses. In the single digital gateway public consultation, 60% of citizens who have tried
to find which national requirements they should fulfil when moving to another Member State
found this difficult or somewhat difficult to do. The main reasons were that websites were
hard to find or understand, and that they contained inaccurate or outdated information. A
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Information received at a bilateral meeting with the European Commission in August 2016.
The Product Contact Points were set up following a provision (Art. 9) in the Mutual Recognition Regulation
(764/2008).
Mutual Recognition Regulation (764/2008), Art. 10.
Industry stakeholders have indicated that even for harmonised products the practical implementation of the rules varies
between Member States.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html
http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/index.htm?newLanguageId=EN
See Annex 3.
The problem of legal complexity of the substance of product legislation is outside the scope of this initiative. The issue
of lack of (good quality) online information about such legislation is within its scope.
This is outside the scope of this initiative.
15
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0016.png
further problem was that of understanding the language.
52
According to the same consultation,
81% of citizens would like the authorities to have an obligation to provide minimum
information for carrying out cross-border activities, and 72% would like to see this in at least
one other EU language.
In the last ten years, the movement of EU citizens across Member States has increased
steadily as more and more citizens move within the EU to live, work or study. Around 2.5%
of the EU population is residing in a Member State other than their Member State of origin.
Increasing numbers of EU-28 citizens have taken advantage of free movement. In 2011,
around 12 million EU citizens resided in a Member State other than the Member State of
origin; 1 million more than in 2009 and 24% more than in 2007. There are multiple reasons
for this, although work is one of the most driving forces. Out of the 12 million, 6.3 million are
employed in the host Member State. Marriages also motivate intra-EU mobility, as 13% of all
marriages were international in 2007.
53
Table 2.5: Current availability of information for businesses in all Member States
54
Area
Starting, running and closing a business
Paying taxes
Getting funds
Hiring staff
Providing services
Complying with health and safety conditions
Complying with environmental rules (certification and labels)
Selling goods
Average EU
Availability of
information in the
national language (%)
90%
86%
86%
79%
68%
62%
58%
40%
71%
Availability of
information in
English (%)
80%
73%
70%
60%
50%
33%
39%
27%
54%
Table 2.6: The burden of navigating regulatory complexity in the absence of online information
Finding
Not knowing the rules is a barrier to
export within the EU
Resources spent on familiarisation
and compliance with applicable rules
in other Member States
Resources required to navigate
overall regulatory complexity
Not knowing where to get consumer
information and advice
Not knowing where to get consumer
information and advice on cross-
border shopping in the EU
Figures
1/3 of exporting SMEs
2/3 of SMEs interested in
exporting
15-20% of human resources
200 FTEs , large EU wide
home decoration retailer
61% of start-ups mention
this as an obstacle, the third
biggest problem overall
79% of EU citizens
Source
Flash Eurobarometers 421 and 413
Evaluation of Internal Market legislation
for industrial products; Bilateral meeting
with Commission services
EC public consultation on starting up
and scaling-up, 2016
Evaluation of the European Consumer
Centres Network (ECC-Net), report by
CPEC for DG SANTE, 2011
Consumers Conditions Scoreboard,
CCS, 2013
68% of EU citizens
52
53
54
See the consultation in Annex 16; but also the EU citizenship consultation 2016,
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/document/files/2016-flash-eurobarometer-430-citizenship_en.pdf
Impact assessment for the Proposal for a Regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by
simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No
1024/2012, 2013.
See Annex 4 for more details.
16
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0017.png
Identified inaccessibility of
information on rules and
requirements as the main internal
market obstacle
81% of businesses
2016 survey by Eurochambres
55
Problem 2: Lack of quality of information and of assistance services
Regardless of the amount of information made available online, or the number of assistance
services created, if their quality is low, none of these will really help citizens and businesses.
Information may be inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, not user-friendly or only available in a
single language not accessible for cross-border users. Contact points may take far too long to
respond or provide information that is not operational.
The REFIT Platform Opinion
56
confirms this, with the business stakeholder group
recommending a Commission initiative to establish minimum quality criteria for the
performance of points of single contact, and most members of the Government Group
recommending that the Commission introduce common quality criteria for the content,
functioning and level of integration of each portal with the single digital gateway.
Box 3: Information only available in a single language
The study about administrative formalities indicated that no online information could be found in
21% of the relevant combinations of countries and procedures investigated. Where online
information was available, the handling deadline of the authority was missing in 60% of the cases,
accepted languages for the procedure in 56% and whether a delivery notice would be sent in 50%.
57
Evidence shows that almost half of the information supplied by the Points of Single Contact is
still structured according to the logic of the administration and not according to the logic of
the business user.
58
Only half of the contact points have interactive services, and these are less
usable for foreigners. Similarly, the evaluation of the European Consumer Centres
59
recommended making the informatics tool more user-friendly and enhancing its functionality
with respect to statistical analysis.
Table 2.7: The fragmentation of information and assistance services
Finding
Users are dissatisfied with user-
friendliness of the information they find
When moving to another country, users
prefer to find information and assistance
through one-stop-shop websites
Digital public services not being user-
friendly is an obstacle to using them
The need to provide the same information
more than once is an obstacle to using
digital public services
Figures
51%
87%
Source
Report on 2015 public consultation on EU
Citizenship
Report on 2015 public consultation on EU
Citizenship
Report on the public consultation and other activities
of the European Commission for the preparation of
the EU E-government Action Plan 2016-2020,
European Commission 2016
Report on the public consultation and other activities
of the European Commission for the preparation of
the EU E-government Action Plan 2016-2020,
European Commission 2016
73%
66%
The report on the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation
60
lists the
following deficiencies of the national contact points: (a) slow response times to requests for
55
56
57
58
59
60
Eurochambres survey "EU Internal Market Barriers and Solutions: The Business Perspective", 23 September 2015.
REFIT Platform Opinion on the submission by the Danish Business forum and Businesseurope on the Point of Single
Contact, adopted 27/28 June 2016.
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017
The Performance of the Points of Single Contact. An Assessment against the PSC Charter, European Commission
2015.
Evaluation of the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net), report by CPEC for DG SANTE, 2011.
Analysis on the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, 2015.
17
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0018.png
information; (b) poor quality of replies (provided in legal language that is difficult to
comprehend, or queries that were not fully answered); and (c) the language barrier.
Problem 3: Lack of fully online procedures
Even where information about applicable rules is available and clear, the next hurdle is to
comply with them by completing the relevant administrative procedures. The Services
Directive obliged Member States to ensure that businesses can complete the necessary
procedures and formalities to start or carry out their activities with Member States’
administrations via Points of Single Contact and by electronic means, including across
borders.
The Points of Single Contacts have achieved limited success in introducing online procedures,
especially regarding the accessibility for non-national users, and there are large variations
between Member States.
61
There are more online services for businesses than for citizens, and an increasing number of
business procedures are only delivered online.
62
For many citizen ‘life events’ (finding a job,
moving, starting a small claims procedure, changing civil status, owning a car or studying)
procedures are not available online. Three out of four citizens would welcome the availability
of online services. In particular, the measures rated as highly important are: making all online
public services inclusive and accessible to all (64%); giving users access to public services
online (63%); and making online public services more trustworthy and secure.
63
The most
common language for surfing online is English.
64
Problem 4: Lack of awareness and online findability
The fourth identified problem is that even in an ideal situation where information is complete
and of good quality, where assistance services are responsive to user needs, and procedures
can be completed online by all, citizens and businesses still need to be able to
find
them
easily. However, evidence shows that they are often unaware of the existence of the various
portals and support services. This is largely due to the high level of fragmentation of the
services on offer, their many different brand names and the confusion about what can and
cannot be expected from each of them.
Table 2.8: The lack of awareness of the services
Finding
Consumers and businesses are unaware of
any online services at European level that
they could turn to in case of problems
European Consumer Centres are not
known
National online services in the area of
social security do not refer to the
existence of corresponding EU-level
services
Figures
92% of consumers and
businesses
85% of citizens and 80% of
cross-border shoppers have
heard of them
87% of services do not refer
to EU level
Source
European Parliament, "A European
Single Point of Contact", 2013.
Evaluation of the European
Consumer Centres Network, report
by CPEC for DG SANTE, 2011.
EMPSS Study interim report
61
62
63
64
The Performance of the Points of Single Contact. An Assessment against the PSC Charter, European Commission
2015. The Services Directive sets out a list of obligatory features of the Points of Single Contact that the Member
States need to implement. The PSCs also provide a framework for more advanced e-government services aimed at
creating a more business-friendly environment.
The e-government benchmark report 2015, 2016
https://www.capgemini.com/resource-file-access/resource/pdf/egovernment_benchmark_2016.pdf
https://www.capgemini.com/news/the-european-commission-egovernment-benchmark-2015-more-digital-
transformation-of-european
EU citizenship consultation 2015.
YourEurope Business Exit Survey. It consisted of +/- 1600 results between December 2015 and January 2016, and
draft final report of European Commission study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-
border within the EU, including gap and cost analysis, Ernest and Young, 2017 (forthcoming).
18
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0019.png
At European level, no less than 44 online services for businesses and citizens were identified
in 2013. Of these, 48% targeted citizens, 34% business and 18% provided services across
these groups.
65
Combined with an extensive range of service providers at national level, it is
difficult to understand who is responsible for what, and to identify the most appropriate
service. In a recent survey, one third of Dutch entrepreneurs who are active in the Single
Market cite "poor findability of information on applicable rules" as one of the main
obstacles.
66
Box 4: Difficulty to find information online:
A company mentioned that in order to handle VAT return, it had to spend 20 hours to collect the
required documents and carry out the procedure, even with the help of a consultant because it was
difficult to find information online on this procedure
67
.
The various contact points are not well known and enhanced cooperation could help.
68
The
Member States have been encouraged
69
to combine the various contact points, but most have
not followed this recommendation. Most national contact points are not even inter-linked on
the national level, let alone across borders.
70
Problem 5: Lack of accessibility for foreign users
The lack of access of foreign users to online procedures (and information) is a recurring
problem due to problems of language,
71
national form fields only accepting national data,
acceptance of only national means of identification
72
, need for the foreign user to provide
certified and translated copies of original documents as evidence
73
, and offering only national
means of payment. On average, domestic EU businesses spend EUR 1423 to register their
economic activity. Businesses from another Member State (excluding sole traders) spend
almost double this amount, i.e. on average EUR 2799.
Table 2.9: Obstacles to cross-border use of common procedures by businesses
74
Extra burden /Obstacle
Information about the procedure not available in EN
Forms are not available in EN
Submission of foreign data not possible
Assistance services not available in EN
Translations required for evidence to be submitted
Obligatory use of translator established in the host country
Certified translation required from any translator in the EU
Online identification possible for domestic users but not
possible for foreign users
Occurrence in procedures examined
43%
54%
22%
40%
47%
25%
17%
8%
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
A European Single Point of Contact, European Parliament 2013.
KvK Ondernemerspanel, Panel survey on the European Internal Market
Link to kvk.nl
Feedback received in the context of the (Commission-financed) study about administrative formalities of important
procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017
Analysis on the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, 2015.
Mutual Recognition Regulation 764/2008; Construction Products Regulation.
Outcome of the Commission study Screening Report on Member States' Product Contact Points and Product Contact
Points for Construction, Ecorys, forthcoming, 2017.
The Performance of the Points of Single Contact. An Assessment against the PSC Charter, European Commission
2015.
Study on Analysis of the Needs for Cross-Border Services and Assessment of the Organisational, Legal, Technical and
Semantic Barriers, Final Report, European Commission 2013. The full implementation of the eIDAS regulation should
address the acceptance of eIDs and e-signatures across borders;
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG.
For citizens, 14 often used documents are covered by the Public Documents Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 that dispenses
with authorisations and translations.
Outcome of European Commission study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative
burden for businesses, Ecorys, forthcoming, 2017. See Annex 19 for methodology.
19
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0020.png
Section 2.2.3 further illustrates the gap in online services for national and foreign users
concerning electronic procedures. Although high-volume transactions, such as company or
tax registrations, are frequently provided online, sector-specific procedures are still widely
unavailable.
75
The public consultation for the single digital gateway also demonstrated that one out of three
citizens who have tried cross-border procedures either found them difficult or gave up. The
most important issues are the requirement for offline steps, the procedure not being online at
all, or users not finding the information online. Issues relating to languages, including
document translations or recognition of certification were also important obstacles.
76
Concerning specific difficulties in transferring information, documents or data between the
public authorities of the home country and those of another
77
, the most difficult for citizens
was when the receiving administration did not accept nationally recognised information,
documents or data from the citizen’s home country.
78
The public consultation on the e-
government plan showed that more than 40% of authorities very often require original paper
document or certified copies as part of procedures.
When interacting online with a public authority in another EU country, many citizens expect
to be able to access all relevant information and start the procedure online using a ‘one-stop’
shop (43%) and that the information would be provided in a language they understand (40%).
Stakeholders have indicated that interaction and language functionalities can drive usage. In
the public consultation, it was noted by citizens that full online transactionality (72%), easy
navigation (72%), the possibility to use a known language (67%) and the availability of a
helpdesk (63%) are the most important quality aspects of online procedures.
79
Consequently,
providing information and procedures in a wider range of languages – and allowing
information input in at least one widely used foreign language – would be essential
components for easier access to the Single Market.
Problem 6: Lack of overview of Single Market problems
Finally, the overall objective of making the Single Market work better for all can only be
achieved if we have a clear view of the remaining obstacles and of their relative importance
for citizens and businesses. Most of the assistance and problem solving services within the
scope of this project collect some statistics about problems and queries submitted to them.
Where available, a yearly overview of such data is published in the Single Market
Scoreboard. However, there are many gaps in this overview and the fact and figures collected
are often difficult to compare.
Current complaint mechanisms focus on breaches of existing EU law, and on deficiencies in
its application, but not on obstacles that are not infringements. The lack of evidence and
subsequent analysis makes it more difficult for EU policy-makers to reliably identify the most
75
76
77
78
79.
The e-government benchmark reports confirm these findings. Cross-border transactional services are only possible in
very few cases, causing unnecessary burdens – compared to what is possible with digital technologies – for citizens
and businesses wanting to move, work or start-up in another EU country. e-Government services are not available in
35% to 63% of the steps involved in seven key life events (such as starting a business, starting a small claims
procedure, changing civil status, moving and studying). For further details about evaluations of existing instruments
see Annex 3.
See the stakeholder consultation results in Annex 16.
EU-wide digital once-only principle for citizens and businesses: Policy options and their impacts, SMART 2015/0062,
GNK Consult et al. 2016.
Report on the public consultation and other activities of the European Commission for the preparation of the EU
eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, European Commission 2016,and the Public Documents Regulation (EU)
2016/1191.
Public consultation results in Annex 16; also the Study on Analysis of the Needs for Cross-Border Services and
Assessment of the Organisational, Legal, Technical and Semantic Barriers, Final Report, European Commission 2013.
20
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0021.png
troublesome obstacles hampering the functioning of the Single Market.
80
Surveys and
consultations can only provide a partial answer and are only a snapshot of the situation
without describing the evolution of the problem over time. Moreover, it seems that especially
businesses are very reluctant to complain about Single market obstacles.
The lack of a more systematic approach to comprehensive analysis and evidence about the
state of the Single Market or obstacles faced citizens and businesses means that policy-makers
do not have a clear picture of the real state of the Single Market as experienced and perceived
by its real users.
1.10. 2.4. Who is affected and how?
2.4.1.
Citizens and businesses
Citizens and businesses find it difficult, especially from abroad, to tap the full benefits of the
Single Market. They need comprehensible information about applicable rules and the ability
to complete procedures online, but these are available only to a limited extent, if at all.
Moreover, if problems arise or publicly available information is not clear or not specific
enough, the person or company also needs personalised assistance. Currently finding good
information or assistance is unnecessarily cumbersome and time consuming.
However, the use of online sources has radically increased the potential to shorten the time
and lower the cost of obtaining information. The expectation of firms and citizens is that such
improvements should also be available when dealing with public administrations, including
from other countries.
Obstacles that make it difficult for firms to export goods and services to other Member States
have an effect on general welfare as they reduce competition, prevent efficiency gains and
renewal of the economic fabric, thus lowering growth.
2.4.2.
Public administrations
Public administrations (EU and national) are affected as they should respond to the
expectations of citizens and businesses, but are not always in a position to do so. Although
online services provide opportunities to increase efficiency by cutting costs and improving
quality, the need to change the behaviour of a multitude of actors, and the limited means at
the disposal of administrations constrain their ability to modernise quickly. A silo based
approach still makes for an administrative working culture that does not exploit synergies, but
rather creates fragmentation in a user-unfriendly way.
Moving online requires an upfront investment that can be substantial and payback times can
be several years. However, good practices that focus on reusable software and centrally
located software as service provision can substantially lower the upfront investment.
2.4.3.
EU policy makers
A representative overview of the real problems faced by businesses and citizens in the Single
Market is not readily available for policy making. Even though data are gathered through
various mechanisms (including Your Europe Advice, SOLVIT, Enterprise Europe Network,
Chambers of commerce, business organisations), it often focuses on specific cases and is not
systematically combined and analysed at a central level to give a representative picture of the
state of the Single Market as perceived by its users.
81
80
81
This under-reporting of problems has also been confirmed by consultation results, e.g. at a Workshop on the Mutual
Recognition Principle on 17/06/2016: "A representative of the Danish Ministry of Business and Growth reported about
a recent study carried out among Danish companies and showing that, when facing a problem linked to mutual
recognition, a vast majority of companies simply accept and comply since they consider that the cost of awaiting
results of legal procedures is not worth; moreover, in most of the cases, they do not report the problem anywhere."
European Parliament Report on Non-Tariff Barriers in the Single Market, 2016.
21
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0022.png
1.11. 2.5. How would the problem evolve – what is the baseline case?
2.5.1.
Lack of online information
Without further action beyond that already agreed or ongoing, the provision of information
for businesses and citizens is likely to improve at national level but mostly within the silos of
specific policy areas, depending on the specific considerations of the information provider,
with more information services available at national than at regional or local levels.
More Member States that seek to improve the efficiency of their information and assistance
structures, will adopt a single citizens and business portal approach and a consolidation
process for the various contact points may take place, although not very fast. The Commission
has recommended that Member States create ‘Single Market Centres’ that coordinate
information nationally, facilitating the access of citizens and businesses to information about
rules and procedures.
82
However, only a few Member States have acted on this. In the absence
of legal obligations, the application of the established PSC charter
83
(foreseeing turning the
PSCs into e-government business portals providing everything that businesses need) is likely
to continue to be uneven and not fully delivering for businesses. In particular, information
about national rules for products would in many cases continue to be only available upon
request since there is no legal obligation to provide it online.
Member States’ input to the Your Europe portal will continue to be uneven for nationally
relevant information.
2.5.2.
Lack of quality
Improvements in the quality of online information and services depend largely on national
agendas and priorities. EU-level action has played and will continue to play a nudging role,
i.e. by continuing to push for the implementation of the Points of Single Contact Charter, and
by exposing Member States' weaknesses through the annual e-government benchmarking
reports and the Single Market Scoreboard. However, progress has been slow and uneven.
In the absence of binding and across-the-board quality standards, Member States are likely to
give priority to making information and services available online over creating high-quality
online information and services. This is confirmed by the latest (2016) Commission e-
government benchmarking report, which concludes that "governments have advanced in
making public services digital, but focussed less on the quality of the delivery from the user’s
perspective."
84
More Member States could be encouraged to apply the quality provisions drafted for Product
Contact Points and Product Contact Points for Construction.
85
A Commission-financed
study
86
provides guidelines for improving consistency across PCPC and PCP websites,
including minimum desirable web content, best practices and ideas for an integrated
PCP/PCPC/PSC webpage. However, the low response rate of PCPs and PCPCs
87
to the
questionnaire casts doubts on the willingness of Member States to take these on board.
82
83
84
85
86
87
Communication on the better governance for the Single Market
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/governance/20120608-communication-2012-259-2_en.pdf
Charter for the Electronic Points of Single Contact under the Services Directive,
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/14950/attachments/1/translations
"The ease of using and speed of using the services online – as perceived by the mystery shoppers - advanced poorly,
increasing by only 1 percentage point since the first assessment in 2012." eGovernment Benchmark 2016, "A turning
point for eGovernent development in Europe?", Cap Gemini, Sogeti, IDC, Politicnico di Milano, 2016, for the
European Commission.
As contained in Regulations 764/2008 and 305/2011.
Inventory on Contact Points – Studies on Product Contact Points (PCP), Product Contact Points for Construction
(PCPC) & Point of Single Contact (PSC), Ecorys, 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/support-tools-
studies_en
7 PCP out of 32 and 10 PCPC out of 28 replied.
22
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0023.png
2.5.3.
Lack of online procedures
Through their e-government programmes, Member States will continue to make progress in
digitalising their interaction with citizens and businesses.
Various Commission initiatives – already adopted by the co-legislators but not yet fully
implemented, proposed but not yet adopted by the co-legislators or still under preparation by
the Commission – aim to put in place online procedures in
certain sectors
under Single
Market law, such as public procurement, company law and VAT. These always include cross-
border access. If adopted and when implemented, these initiatives will mean progress.
2.5.4. Lack of accessibility for foreign users
With regard to the Points of Single Contact, the progress that Member States have made based
on the charter requirements
88
has been limited and generally less advanced for cross-border
users. The differences in the online availability of key procedures for national and non-
national users can be considerable.
89
However, cross-border access to e-procedures will be
greatly facilitated by the eIDAS Regulation. By the September 2018 implementation deadline,
Member States will be required to recognise eIDs notified by other Member States. This will
take away one of the current obstacles for users to access e-procedures in other Member
States. Nevertheless, Member States are likely to focus on domestic users while neglecting
the needs of users from other Member States. At EU level, a number of sector-specific
initiatives are in the pipeline which, if adopted by the co-legislators, would mean progress
with accessibility for foreign users (e.g. Services e-card for business and construction services
providers and pilot project to test the once-only principle for businesses cross-border in a
number of areas).
The Public Documents Regulation
90
obliges Member States to accept certain citizen
documents issued by another Member State without requiring an apostille stamp to prove
their authenticity or translation by mid-2018. This will help citizens in some of the most
common cases where you need to provide supporting evidence, but there is no requirement to
accept online documents, nor will the regulation address documents businesses need for
procedures.
Overall these actions limit progress to specific sectors without making a big leap forward
across the board.
2.5.5.
Lack of awareness and findability
The level of knowledge about the existing services will remain low and promotion efforts for
the portals, contact points and assistance services are likely to continue in a largely
uncoordinated way between the national and EU level.
The potential gradual introduction of specialised web portals (such as a European Mobility
Portal on Social Security, VAT Portal) would continue to make it easier to find information –
but only in cases where the portal itself is findable. No major changes in the findability of the
existing services would be foreseen. There would be no instrument to stop the trend of further
duplication and fragmentation.
2.5.6.
Lack of overview of Single Market problems
The assessment of the state of play of the implementation of the Single Market, and obstacles
that firms and citizens encounter in their cross-border activities would continue to be based
mostly on ad hoc studies, cases and surveys. Such surveys are regularly commissioned by the
88
89
90
Charter for the Electronic Points of Single Contact under the Services Directive.
See Annex 3 of EU-wide digital once-only principle for citizens and businesses: Policy options and their impacts,
SMART 2015/0062, GNK Consult et al. 2016.
Public Documents Regulation (EU) 2016/1191.
23
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
European institutions, Member States and business stakeholders, implying limitations in terms
of scope, focus, length and expected results.
2.5.7.
Conclusion
The provision of information about the requirements to operate in the Single Market is
fragmented and not sufficiently accessible for foreign users. Current EU-level initiatives only
seek to address the problem on a sector-by-sector basis. Especially for users from other
Member States, access to the Single Market would remain fraught with problems. Without
additional action, the base line scenario would still see improvements being made in the right
direction. But it would miss the opportunity for the big leap ahead that is needed to offer
citizens and businesses the real benefits of the Single Market through a responsive, modern,
user-centric and joined up service from EU and national level administrations. The REFIT
Platform also stated that this is needed and demanded by business stakeholders.
3.
R
IGHT OF
EU
TO ACT AND SUBSIDIARITY
The main objective of the single digital gateway is to improve the functioning of the Single
Market with an initiative based on articles 21(2), 48 and 114(1) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The Single Market is not an area with fully harmonised rules. Beyond the basic principles and
the areas in which fully harmonised rules were agreed, citizens and businesses will still need
to comply with national rules whenever they exercise their Single Market rights. Therefore it
is essential for the functioning of the Single Market that citizens and businesses can easily
find out what these rules in any of the Member States are. It is equally essential that the
procedures for compliance with such rules should not entail a significant additional regulatory
burden for foreign users compared to domestic users.
These objectives cannot be achieved sufficiently without action at EU level. As described
above, the current system of information and assistance services lacks coherence since the
instruments, which were created by EU level action, are not sufficiently linked up and not
sufficiently user-friendly. A common approach to ensuring quality through minimum quality
standards is missing. Whilst the legal framework promotes synergies, these have not been
sufficiently exploited by the Member States (in the absence of binding obligations).
Moreover, so far individual actions by Member States have led to considerable differences in
approach, and such differences impose additional costs on firms, in particular SMEs, when
operating in cross-border situations and discourage many from scaling up internationally.
Within the single digital gateway, Member States would still be in charge of providing
information about their specific national context. Coordination at EU level, an agreed set of
common quality criteria and a requirement to ensure full accessibility for foreign users, would
make sure that information, procedures and assistance services are of comparable quality and
fully accessible for non-national EU citizens, leading to better enforcement of Single Market
rights for citizens and businesses.
The type of provisions envisaged for the single digital gateway is not new either. Similar
requirements were already included in sectorial instruments such as the Services Directive
(including provisions on online information, quality, assistance and online procedures),
Professional Qualifications Directive (with provisions on online information, assistance and
online procedures), Cross-border Health Care Directive (with provisions on information and
assistance), and the EURES Regulation (with provisions on information, assistance and
quality).
The EU added value of the single digital gateway is that it will reduce fragmentation by
expanding the good practices already established in many areas to the overall service package
24
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0025.png
to be provided to EU citizens and businesses. The initiative will not touch the substance of the
policy areas for which information needs to be provided, it will only require MS to create full
transparency about their applicable rules. This is an essential requirement for letting EU
citizens and businesses do business, work, study and travel in the Single Market.
4.
O
BJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE
1.12. 4.1. General policy objectives
The overall policy objective is to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Single Market by
reducing or removing existing barriers to cross-border business activity and mobility of
citizens. Helping citizens, SMEs and start-ups to benefit from the Single Market will boost
competition, jobs and growth.
The initiative addresses the removal of obstacles in terms of information availability, access
to e-procedures and use of assistance services cross-border and online. By reducing
transaction costs for information gathering and administrative procedures, it will encourage
citizens and businesses to exercise their Single Market rights.
1.13. 4.2. Specific policy objectives
More specifically the single digital gateway aims to ensure that:
- Information about EU rights and national rules and procedures that citizens and
businesses need to exercise their Single Market rights is available online;
- Information, assistance services and procedures meet minimum quality standards;
- Core national procedures are available online;
- Information and procedures are fully accessible for cross-border users;
- Awareness about the services on offer is increased and information and assistance
services are easy to find and well-coordinated;
- Feedback from citizens and businesses is systematically gathered and analysed to
improve service quality and to detect Single Market obstacles.
5.
O
PTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES
1.14. 5.1. Introduction
Options included in the analysis
Apart from the baseline option of no further action as described in section 2.6, three option
packages are included for analysis:
– Option 1: National centralised business and citizens portals, is based on the concept of a
network of single digital gateways, as proposed by 17 Member States in a letter of
September 2015 to the Commission;
– Option 2: EU coordinated approach, is based on a combination of best practices at EU and
national level;
– Option 3: EU wide fully harmonised approach, based on a resolution of the European
Parliament
91
calling for a single end-to-end digital process for businesses to set up and
operate across the EU, covering many fields. This option would centralise information
provision and harmonise procedures at EU level for foreign users.
Table 5.1 shows the three options and their various elements, and how they relate to the
problem drivers, problems and objectives.
91
European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act (2015/2147(INI)).
25
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0026.png
All three options are structured to address each of the six problems identified. The description
of the relevant elements within each of the options will be presented in line with that
structure. Some elements are the same for two or all three of the options.
The preferred package of options will result from their comparison in Section 6 of this
document.
Table 5.1: Options for the single digital gateway
1. Nationally centralised
business and citizens' portals
– EC covers EU level
information in Your Europe
– MS cover agreed national
information in single
national business and
citizens portals
– The EC and MS levels are
inter-linked
– EC and MS all monitor their
own compliance
– Quality criteria with
monitoring via separate user
feedback tools one for each
portal
– EC and MS all monitor
their own compliance
– Voluntary roll-out of online
procedures based on rolling
work programme
– MS can decide on priorities,
no legal requirements
2. EU coordinated
approach
– EC covers EU level
information in Your
Europe,
– MS cover agreed national
information in different
websites and portals
– The EC and MS levels are
inter-linked.
– Joint monitoring of
compliance
– Quality criteria with
monitoring via common
user feedback tool used
for all linked portals
– Joint monitoring of
compliance
– Obligatory to offer 10+10
national procedures fully
online
– Quality criteria fully
harmonised, integrated in
contract, with monitoring
via single user feedback
tool
– EC monitors compliance
– All 10+10 procedures will
be harmonised at EU level
for foreign users (such as
for EPC and Services
Card)
– EC will develop IT
structure for procedures
within IMI
– Information and guidance
about procedures should be
made available in EN
Lack of
accessibility
for foreign
users
– Online procedures should be
made fully accessible for
foreign users
– National solutions for use of
documents and data to be
made accessible for foreign
users
– Coordinated promotion
Lack of
awareness
and
findability
– Merger of contact points
(for services, products,
construction products)
– Every national portal has its
own search facility
– Link to common user
feedback tool on EU and all
national single digital
gateways
– Link to common user
feedback tool on EU and
all national websites and
portals
– Information and guidance
about procedures should
be made available in EN
– Online procedures should
be made fully accessible
for foreign users
– Common user interface
for cross-border use of
documents and data to be
designed later
– Coordinated promotion
– Common assistance
service finder
– Common search facility
– For the 10+10 procedures:
– Fully guaranteed,
translation in all or several
languages
– Procedures are fully
accessible to foreign users
by design
– Integrated user interface
for cross-border use of
documents and data
– Joint promotion
– Common assistance
service finder
– Single search facility and
fully harmonised
presentation of
information
– Common user feedback
tool will be fully
integrated
3. EU-wide fully centralised
approach
– EC will provide all agreed
information via an
external contractor
– MS only need to verify
– EC monitors compliance
Lack of
online
information
Lack of
quality
Lack of
online
procedures
Lack of
overview of
single
market
problems
26
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0027.png
1.15. 5.2. Option 1
Nationally centralised business and citizens' portals
The main characteristic of this option is that it prescribes a central information structure via
single portals on the national and EU level, but takes a soft law approach with regard to the
rollout of online procedures. It foresees no EU solution for accepting documents and data
from other Member States. Each Member State should merge the three main business contact
points (for services and goods).
5.2.1.
Information coverage within single national portals and a single EU portal
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States and the Commission respectively to provide online national and EU
level information about rights, rules and requirements applicable within an agreed range of
areas that are relevant for citizens and businesses exercising their single market rights, as
currently covered by Your Europe.
– For both the Member States and the Commission to group this information within single
business and citizens portals.
This option aims to ensure that enough high-quality information is available online for
businesses and citizens, complemented where needed by high-quality individual assistance.
Both information and assistance would have to be accessible through the same interface.
Defining the scope of the information coverage based on users' needs is key to the success of
the initiative. The scope of the information coverage would be defined as described below.
The starting point for information coverage are issues already covered by the Your Europe
services and the e-Justice portal. Member States and the Commission will continue to provide
assistance through services mandated by the EU (see section 1.4.3), with Member States
having the option to voluntarily include national assistance services under the single digital
gateway. They will also have the option of including relevant complementary private or
public-private assistance services.
For services, this option will complement the existing obligations under the Services
Directive. The objective is to add areas not covered by the directive but recommended in the
Charter of the Points of Single Contact. On the basis of user feedback, the information will be
adapted as user needs develop and EU and national rules evolve.
For goods, a new obligation will be introduced to provide information on national product
rules online on a website. Member States will need to offer a summary of the applicable rules
for product categories, but may also refer to the assistance services for more detailed
information tailored to specific products. This follows good practices already adopted by
many Member States. To complement this, the single digital gateway will link to the
Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) database and to the database of the EU
Export Helpdesk.
92
5.2.2.
Minimum quality criteria
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States and the Commission to ensure that all information and assistance
services and online procedures linked to the single digital gateway meet a minimum set of
quality criteria, to be monitored via user feedback.
– For the Commission and the Member States to put in place their own user feedback
mechanisms to cover their own single portals.
92
See Annex 8 and 9 for further details
27
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0028.png
This element sets quality criteria for the information, assistance services and online
procedures offered, including a requirement about the availability to provide them in at least
one language that is also widely understandable for foreign users. This element builds on the
existing quality criteria that are defined, for instance, for the Services Directive and the Points
of Single Contact Charter, Your Europe Advice and SOLVIT.
Quality criteria include basic explanations about purpose, deadlines and fees regarding
assistance services and procedures. Systematic collection of user feedback will help to
monitor compliance with quality standards and to identify problems and address them quickly
and efficiently. Furthermore, each assistance service would need to keep records of numbers,
origin and subject matter of requests, as well as of response times.
93
5.2.3.
Voluntary roll-out of online procedures
This element includes the following requirements:
– A governance structure for Member States and the Commission in order to discuss and
identify which procedures would be offered fully online.
– An annual work programme listing the procedures that each Member State agrees to put
online.
– Arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the state of implementation.
In order to improve the availability of online service provision, this element uses a voluntary
approach where the procedures to be introduced online are agreed separately for each Member
State, respecting national priorities, but not necessarily leading to an even set of procedures
across the Member States.
5.2.4.
Making information and procedures accessible for foreign users
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States to provide all information that is part of the single digital gateway in
one other commonly used language. Funding will be made available for translations in to
English.
– For Member States to make all procedures that are online also fully accessible for foreign
users.
–
For Member States to allow foreign users to make use of e-documents and data.
All national procedures that are already available online would need to be fully cross-border
transactional. In practice this will entail a range of practical elements:
– Making procedures available in another language or providing step-by-step online
guidance in another language. This can be implemented through various technical
solutions, depending on the basic IT structure of the procedure.
– Accepting eIDs will become obligatory under the eIDAS Regulation as of September
2018. The technical building blocks required for its implementation have been developed
under the CEF programme (see Annex 11).
– Form fields used in procedures will need to accept contact details, such as addresses and
phone numbers from other Member States.
– Payment facilities need to include systems widely used in other Member States, including
for instance the possibility to make a SEPA transfer.
93
See Annex 6 for concrete quality criteria to be included in the single digital gateway proposal
28
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0029.png
For the cross-border acceptance of e-documents further efforts are needed to develop and
implement cross-border once-only solutions. In this option Member States will only be
required to make national solutions for documents, for instance e-messaging boxes and e-
safes accessible for foreign users.
5.2.5.
Merger of contact points for services, products and construction products
This element includes the following requirement:
– A requirement for Member States to merge the existing contact points for services,
products and construction products.
With a view to improving overall quality as well as findability, the various contact points
created by EU law would be merged with a view to increasing awareness and findability of
these services, but also to offer a more coherent assistance service to businesses and create
economies of scale for the administrations involved.
Several Member States have already merged the services at least partially,
94
and 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%).
95
Members of the REFIT Platform Government
Group recommend to the Commission to
"(…) consider the integration of online information
related to other contact points such as those falling under the Mutual Recognition Regulation,
Construction Products Regulation and SOLVIT with that of the PSC; facilitate integration of
information on online portals".
96
5.2.6.
Coordinated promotion
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States and the Commission to co-brand all promotion actions of the included
services with the single digital gateway brand name.
– For Member States and the Commission to inform about, coordinate and where possible
combine and synchronise promotion actions.
Promotion will raise awareness of online services. Under this option all promotion efforts of
services within the remit of the single digital gateway will always include a reference to the
gateway as a whole. Member States and the Commission finance their respective promotion
actions.
5.2.7. User feedback tool and coordinated data gathering and reporting from assistance
services
This element includes the following requirements:
– For the Commission to provide a user feedback reporting tool that would allow it to
identify problems with rules and difficulties encountered dealing with public authorities in
an easy and familiar way in all EU languages;
– For Member States to collect data about the problems and queries submitted by citizens
and businesses to the different services within the single digital gateway and to regularly
submit it to the Commission;
– For the Commission to compile and analyse this data regularly.
94
95
96
Besides Lithuania above, also the United Kingdom, Slovenia and the Czech Republic provide good practices. See
Annex 12.
See Annex 13.
REFIT Platform Opinion on the submission by the Danish Business Forum and BusinessEurope on the Point of Single
Contact, 27/28 June 2016.
29
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0030.png
In addition to data gathered through assistance and problem solving services, an easy-to-use
online tool can encourage the users of the single digital gateway to indicate problems they
encounter in the Single Market. The public consultation indicated that 76 % of respondents
would be willing to give feedback on their experience with the Single Market, so as to draw
policy-makers' attention to recurrent problems.
97
The tool will not be a formal complaint handling mechanism, nor will it offer individual
replies or feedback (there will be signposting to SOLVIT for that). The received input would
help to produce a good overview of the Single Market as perceived by users, identifying clear
problem areas for possible future actions to improve its functioning.
5.2.8.
Addition in comparison to the baseline situation
Compared to the baseline situation, option 1 addresses the problems identified by introducing
the following changes.
Table 5.2: Problems addressed by option 1
Lack of online
information
Requires Member States to create national single businesses and citizens portals (where
these do not already exist), to provide national information on a list of topics, and to
monitor their compliance in offering the agreed information. The Commission will cover
EU level information in Your Europe. The two levels will be linked.
Introduces compulsory minimum quality criteria for information, information on
procedures and assistance services.
Introduces the requirement to have user feedback tools for each national portal and to
monitor compliance in meeting the quality criteria.
Makes information and information about procedures available in English. Makes sure
that procedures and national means to submit supporting evidence already available
online are accessible to users from other Member States,.
Introduces the coordinated promotion of the services offered and the merger of the
national contact points for services and products.
Introduces a requirement for each national website to have a search facility to facilitate
navigation.
Requires the creation of a common feedback tool about Single Market obstacles to be
linked to from each website.
Lack of quality
Lack of accessibility
for foreign users
Lack of awareness
and findability
Lack of overview of
Single Market
problems
1.16. 5.3. Option 2 –EU coordinated approach
The main characteristic of this option is that Member States could choose
where
they provide
the required information online. They would only need to provide the links to the relevant
websites on a central Commission repository, from which a common search facility would
pick them up and present them to the user in reply to a search. As part of this, an "assistance
service finder" would be developed to guide users to the right assistance service. The search
facility would be limited to the gateway content, and could be integrated on EU and national
information portals and webpages. In terms of procedures, this option assumes that Member
States are obliged to make 10 key procedures for businesses and 10 for citizens fully online.
5.3.1.
Information coverage within existing national and EU portals and websites
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States and the Commission to provide online EU and national level
information about rights, rules and requirements applicable within an agreed range of
areas that are relevant for citizens and businesses exercising their single market rights, as
currently covered by Your Europe.
Regarding information coverage and scope this option is the same as option 1, but unlike
option 1 it leaves the choice of offering this information through a single business and
97
See Annex 16.
30
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0031.png
citizens portal or via a range of different portals to the Member States. All information
portals will be inter-linked and findability should be ensured via a common search facility
(see section 5.3.5).
5.3.2. Minimum quality criteria monitored jointly by Member States and the Commission
through user feedback
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States and the Commission to ensure that all information and assistance
services and online procedures linked to the single digital gateway meet a minimum
quality standard, to be monitored on a regular basis via user feedback.
– For the Commission to develop a common user feedback mechanism to be used on all
national and EU level websites and portals covered by the single digital gateway. Input
will feed into a database that is accessible to the Commission and the Member States to
enable joint monitoring.
The quality criteria in this option are the same as those for option 1, but the compliance with
the criteria will be monitored jointly by the Commission and the Member States through a
common user feedback mechanism to ensure full comparability and coordinated action.
5.3.3.
Obligation to offer the most important procedures online
This element includes the following requirement:
– For Member States to move core procedures assumed to be, 10 for business and 10 for
citizens (to be listed in the legal instrument) fully online (see section 1.4.2);
These procedures have been identified as being important for businesses and citizens,
especially in a cross-border context, based on various studies and the public consultation
98
.
The work to make core procedures available online will be aligned with other ongoing and
planned EU initiatives.
5.3.4.
Making information and procedures accessible for foreign users
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States to provide all information that is part of the single digital gateway in
one other commonly used language. EU funding will be made available for translations
into English.
– For Member States to make all procedures that are online also fully accessible to foreign
users.
– For the Commission to develop a common user interface to manage the provision of
evidence across borders to implement the 'once only' principle.
– For competent authorities in the Member States managing base registers (where national
data from citizens are kept) to make their systems interoperable with the common user
interface.
– For competent authorities in the Member States to accept evidence submitted via the
common user interface.
The first and second requirement of this option are the same as for option 1. The requirement
for the use of cross-border evidence is more ambitious.
A solution is needed to make it possible to submit documents required for procedures in the
scope of the single digital gateway. This includes supporting evidence in the form of
98
See Annexes 2 and 16.
31
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0032.png
authenticated documents or data, as part of a procedure across borders. There are various
solutions how procedures can be linked with registers held by competent authorities.
99
Problems to be solved include the issues of language, permissions, and linkages to online
procedures. In most cases a fully online procedure would in most cases need this tool and a
solution will be part of the user centric service offered through the single digital gateway.
This option does not address the recognition of the substance of the evidence.
5.3.5.
Common search facility
This element includes the following requirements:
– For Member States and the Commission to provide links to relevant websites in a common
repository.
– For Member States and the Commission to structure information around common data
models to improve findability.
– For the Commission to provide a search facility combined with navigation tools for various
topics to guide the users.
An alternative to a fully harmonised presentation of information (as in option 3) is to make
sure that users can easily find information, services and procedures through a search facility
that is limited to the content specifically earmarked as part of the single digital gateway. This
content may need to be tagged with the right search words to improve the quality of the
package presented to a user search request. Some basic harmonisation of the identification of
public services may be needed to improve their findability.
100
The search facility does not
require the creation of a new portal, but can be integrated as part of the EU and national
information portals and webpages.
5.3.6.
Common assistance service finder
This element includes the following requirements:
– For the Commission to develop a common tool that will guide the users to the right
assistance service.
– For the Member States to ensure that the basic information about the assistance services is
available to ensure good functioning of the tool.
At national and EU level, such assistance service finding tools or wizards for a limited range
of services have already been integrated.
101
This helps the users to find the right assistance
service even in a very complex landscape and it avoids these services receiving too many
queries that should have been addressed to other assistance services.
5.3.7.
Coordinated promotion
This option element is the same as for option 1.
5.3.8. User feedback tool and coordinated data gathering and reporting from assistance
services
This option element is the same as for option 1 and 3.
99
100.
101
For further information see ‘The Once-Only Principle Project’ (TOOP) is co-funded under Horizon 2020 and gathers
50 partners from 22 Member States with a view to explore and demonstrate the ‘once-only’ principle.
https://www.rlp-
forschung.de/public/facilities/2/research_projects/21340.
For instance through the use of the Core Public Services Vocabulary:
http://ec.europa.eu/isa/ready-to-use-
solutions/cpsv-ap_en.htm.
For instance in Germany, the 'Behördenfinder'
32
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0033.png
5.3.9.
Addition in comparison to the baseline situation
Compared to the baseline situation, option 2 addresses the problems identified by introducing
the following changes:
Table 5.3: Problems addressed by option 2
Lack of online
information
Lack of quality
Requires Member States and the EC to provide information on a list of topics and to
jointly monitor their compliance in offering the agreed information. The EC and Member
State pages are linked.
Introduces compulsory minimum quality criteria for information, information on
procedures and assistance services.
Introduces the requirement to have a common user feedback tool to jointly monitor
compliance in meeting the quality criteria.
Introduces a requirement for Member States to offer online 10+10 procedures.
Makes information and guidance on procedures available in English and makes sure that
online procedures already available are accessible to users from other Member States. It
creates a common user interface for the cross-border use of documents and data.
Introduces the coordinated promotion of the services offered.
Creates a common assistance service finder and a common search facility that extracts
information from all connected websites.
Requires the creation of a common feedback tool about Single Market obstacles to be
linked to from each website.
Lack of online
procedures
Lack of accessibility
for foreign users
Lack of awareness
and findability
Lack of overview of
Single Market
problems
1.17. 5.4. Option 3
EU-wide fully centralised approach
The main characteristic of this option is that the Commission would provide all EU and
national-level information through a central database on the EU level. The option would not
prescribe putting the 20 core procedures online, but would foresee the establishment of a
special IT tool to allow the back office cooperation of home and host country authorities to
accommodate the needs (mainly in terms of submission of evidence) of the foreign user.
"Findability" of information and procedures would be easy on the central database. A
common assistance finder (same as option 2) would help find assistance services.
5.4.1.
Information coverage within a central database
This element includes the following requirements:
– For the Commission to create and manage (or outsource to an external contractor) a
centralised database with an interface for users and generate the content to cover an agreed
range of information (as in options 1 and 2);
– For the Member States to provide content according to harmonised templates and to verify
and validate national information collected by the Commission.
This option would add to option 1 a harmonised presentation of all information through a
centralised database. Information on national rules would be collected in this database (as is
done currently in the EU Export Helpdesk) instead of reusing existing information available
on national websites. The database would then be made available through the single digital
gateway.
This option would ensure uniformity in coverage and presentation and would provide a
simple and coherent access to information. It would make data easily findable and comparable
across Member States.
5.4.2.
Minimum quality criteria monitored by the Commission through user feedback
This element includes the following requirements:
- For the Commission to ensure that all information and assistance services and online
procedures linked to the single digital gateway comply with a minimum set of quality
criteria, to be monitored essentially via user feedback.
33
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
- For the Member States to verify the information provided by the Commission.
- For the Commission to include a user feedback mechanism in the central database.
The quality criteria agreed in this option are the same as those for options 1 and 2, but the
monitoring of compliance would be done centrally through a user feedback mechanism
integrated in the central database. The Commission would ensure that the quality criteria are
met.
5.4.3.
Harmonised EU wide procedures
This element includes the following requirements:
-
For the Member States and the Commission to create harmonised EU wide procedures,
modelled on the European Professional Card, for the 10+10 procedures identified in option
2.
-
For the Commission to develop and manage the IT applications for these procedures.
This is an ambitious option that would require harmonisation of access for foreign users to the
most relevant procedures. This approach would offer businesses and citizens a single access
point to those procedures, especially designed to accommodate foreign users and integrating
back office cooperation between national authorities where needed. This approach would
follow the model of the European Professional Card and use the Internal Market Information
system as a basis. Delegated acts would foresee the technical details of the system.
5.4.4.
Addressing lack of accessibility for foreign users
This option will guarantee full accessibility for foreign users
by design,
but only for the 20
procedures. All information about national rules will be translated in English and a large part
of the information will be translated in all EU languages. The 20 procedures would be fully
accessible for foreign users and the interface would be available in all languages, just as is the
case for the European Professional Card.
5.4.5.
Uniform navigation structure with search engine
Thanks to the fully centralised and harmonised approach of option 3, there should be no
problem of findability of any of the information. The database will include a search engine
and an intuitive navigation path, but no additional requirements are needed to address
findability.
5.4.6.
5.4.7.
Common assistance service finder
Joint promotion
This element is the same as for option 2.
This element includes the following requirements:
- A requirement for Member States and the Commission to promote all information,
procedures and services under the same brand name in a coordinated fashion;
- Financing of all promotion actions through the EU budget.
This option ensures that all promotion actions are joint and based on a common single brand
name, financed through the EU budget. To achieve all the benefits of the single digital
gateway, it is necessary to ensure effective search engine findability of the entry point and all
the underlying services.
5.4.8. User feedback tool and coordinated data gathering and reporting from assistance
services
This element is the same as for options 1 and 2.
34
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0035.png
5.4.9.
Addition in comparison to the baseline situation
Compared to the baseline situation, option 3 addresses the problems identified by introducing
the following changes.
Table 5.4: Problems addressed by option 3
Lack of online
information
Lack of quality
The Commission provides all agreed information online. Member States help providing
this information according to harmonised templates, and verify it prior to publication.
The Commission monitors compliance.
Introduces full harmonisation of quality criteria for information, guidance on procedures
and assistance services (through a contract if outsourced).
A single user feedback tool monitors compliance in meeting the quality criteria.
Introduces a requirement to harmonise at EU level the 10+10 procedures for foreign
users. The Commission is required to develop the IT structure for procedures within IMI.
It makes information and guidance on procedures available in all or several EU official
languages.
The 20 procedures are fully accessible to cross-border users by design. An integrated
user interface for the cross-border use of documents and data is foreseen.
Introduces joint promotion of the services offered.
Creates a common assistance service finder, a single search facility, and a fully
harmonised format for the presentation of information.
Requires the creation of a common feedback tool on Single Market obstacles to be
integrated in the single gateway.
Lack of online
procedures
Lack of accessibility
for foreign users
Lack of awareness
and findability
Lack of overview of
Single Market
problems
6.
6.1.1.
portal
M
AIN IMPACT OF THE OPTIONS
1.18. 6.1. Main impact of option 1
Main impact of information coverage within single national portals and a single EU
A legally binding obligation on Member States to provide all information citizens and
businesses need to operate within the Single Market online would generate additional costs
for Member States, depending on how much information is already available through national
portals. For some Member States the gap will be very small, for others a very significant
effort is needed.
102
The volume of information to be provided will also depend on the regulatory complexity of
the Member State concerned. Information will in any case need to be succinct and user
friendly, which should keep the volume down.
The Your Europe portal can be used as a reasonable benchmark for the volume of national
information to be provided, since it already covers all topics that are part of the envisaged
scope of the single digital gateway. The most mature part of Your Europe is the citizens’ part,
which currently includes the equivalent of 245 pages of EU level information for 163 topics.
The business part currently covers 46 topics but could be expected to cover around the same
number of topics as the citizens section, adding up to a comprehensive volume of content of
around 500 pages.
If Member States would provide the same range of information about their national rules in
their national web portals, they would be likely to comply with the basic requirements of this
option.
The costs for providing this type of information have been assessed at 17 person days by a
recent study for all information on (complex) VAT rules. For the single digital gateway, 16
102
See Annex 4.
35
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0036.png
such topics would need to be covered representing an effort of 272 person days per Member
State. However, this would be the maximum cost if a Member State had to start from scratch.
None of them is in that position, even the lowest performing Member States already covers
around 40% of all information needed, while the best performing Member States covers
100%.
103
The average coverage is around 70%, representing an estimated additional effort of
around 80 person days on average per Member State.
104
In any case, these costs are likely to be more than compensated for by direct savings made
due to many users being able to help themselves with information available on websites
instead of turning to contact points with individual queries. This is illustrated by the example
of the Your Europe portal that currently serves 13 million users per year. The web portal
operates in cascade with the individualised Your Europe Advice service. It allows users who
do not find the information they were looking for online to submit an individual request for
advice and receive a reply by e-mail or telephone. Figures show that at current usage levels,
providing a personal advice service is around 75 times more expensive than providing the
same information online.
Table 6.1: Online information is cheaper than individual assistance
2016 figures
Your Europe portal
Your Europe advice
Channel
Web based
Individual assistance
N° of users
17 000 000
22 000
Costs (incl. FTEs)
Cost per enquiry
EUR 1 200 000
EUR 0.92
EUR 1 900 000
EUR 75.00
Source: European Commission, DG GROW
Moreover, the improved availability of information will considerably reduce the time and
effort that citizens and businesses spend seeking information. The lack of such information
creates frustration for users and firms often leading to them paying lawyers and consultants to
get the information they need, which is especially onerous for SMEs.
6.1.2.
Creating national single citizens and business portals
A key element of this option consists of requiring Member States to create single citizens and
business portals to host the content required under the single digital gateway. At present 26
Member States already have created such portals either for citizens and businesses separately
or for both groups together. Only two Member States
105
do not yet have such portals.
A legal requirement to establish single portals in all MS would in practice only create
significant IT costs for a few Member States. However, the most difficult part of establishing
single portals is not so much the IT investment but the major governance effort required to get
all parts of the administration on board. Member States who have managed to achieve this,
report that taming the internal silos has been a herculean task. Although all seem to agree that
the end result represents very significant cost savings for the administration itself and, in any
case, a major improvement for citizens and businesses, these obvious net benefits are not
always enough to trigger the necessary administrative culture change.
6.1.3.
Main impact of minimum quality criteria
All of the assistance services to be covered by the single digital gateway are either already
required by existing EU law or paid from existing EU budgets. For both categories the
objective of the single digital gateway is to provide good quality services. Experience (e.g.
with SOLVIT) shows that improving the quality of the service is most often not a matter of
adding resources but of assigning the right resources with the necessary skills to provide such
services.
103
104
105
These estimates are EC own resarch, see Annex 4.
See table 7.4 for details.
Germany and Italy
36
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0037.png
Adherence to a minimum list of quality criteria is not really an option but an essential element
for the success of the single digital gateway, since providing information and assistance of
variable and unreliable quality would seriously undermine the credibility of the single digital
gateway as a whole.
Direct implementing costs involve setting up a practical framework for monitoring
compliance with quality criteria and for enforcing a good level of quality across the board.
This will help to generate more added value from expenses already made. Ensuring
compliance with the quality requirements will be one of the tasks of the national single digital
gateway coordinator, and at EU level the Commission will need to ensure the same. For this
purpose extra resources need to be included as part of the overall management costs of the
preferred option package. This will involve a user feedback tool with an estimated
development cost of EUR 40 000.
Experience with existing services (SOLVIT, Your Europe Advice and the Your Europe
portal) shows that once a quality framework is agreed, very good results can be achieved by
devoting between 5% and 35% of the total management effort to quality monitoring and
improvement.
6.1.4.
Main impact of voluntary roll-out of procedures
Voluntary roll out of online procedures would in principle entail the same costs and benefits
as obligatory digitalisation (see impact of option 2, section 6.2.3), but within this option each
Member State could ultimately decide not to digitalise any procedures thus keeping both the
costs and benefits at zero. In view of the significant benefits digitalisation creates for the
running costs of administrations, it is unlikely that no digitalisation would take place.
However, in a voluntary scenario, the risk of uneven development and considerable delays
would be relatively high, even within a framework to coordinate at EU level. Moreover, it
could undermine the overall credibility and relevance of the portal in the eyes of its users,
making it less useful.
6.1.5.
Main impact of making information accessible in another EU official language
To ensure that foreign users have access to national information, the agreed content within the
remit of the single digital gateway would need to be translated into at least one other language
in addition to the national languages (most usefully in English). Taking an estimated 500
pages of web text as a basis for the overall volume of pages to be translated
106
, translation
costs would amount to EUR 32 500 (EUR 65 per page
107
) per Member State. The annual cost
for translation of new content would be around half that amount, namely EUR 16 250 (based
on Your Europe experience). However, these costs will not be additional costs for all Member
States, since many of them already provide information in at least one other language. Costs
for translations in English could be covered through EU funding.
In addition to the translation costs, managing web content in more than one language also
requires an adapted content management system. However, experience with the Points of
Single Contact and with the national portals feeding into Your Europe shows that all Member
States already have content management systems equipped to handle two or more languages
(see also section 2.2.3).
6.1.6.
Main impact making online procedures accessible to foreign users
Around 39% of all procedures to be covered by the single digital gateway are already cross-
border transactional.
108
For the remaining 61% additional work is needed:
106
107
108
See section 6.1.1 for explanation
Rate quoted in Commission framework contracts.
See Annex 4
37
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0038.png
- Solutions to ensure that foreign users have the possibility to access procedures in English,
either by translating forms in English (very low cost solution), or by integrating an
explanatory guide, depending on the basic IT structure of the procedure. One cost example
was provided by Cyprus where the annual fee for maintaining 93 e-procedures in two
languages is around EUR 20 000.
- Accepting eIDs will become obligatory under the eIDAS Regulation as of 2018
109
. The
technical building blocks required for its implementation have been developed under the
CEF programme. So these costs should not be attributed to the creation of the single digital
gateway.
- Costs for adapting form fields to accept contact details, such as addresses and phone
numbers from other Member States are very low.
- Adding payment facilities generally accessible for foreign users does in principle not entail
any additional costs and any such costs could be recuperated directly.
- For the cross-border acceptance of e-documents further work is needed to develop and
implement cross-border once-only solutions. Such work is in any case ongoing under other
programmes (see Annex 9 for details of the once-only pilot) in view of the need for cross-
border acceptance of e-documents for a wide range of other initiatives and taking account
of the once-only principle. The associated costs are not part of the single digital gateway
and such projects need a separate impact assessment.
Making existing procedures cross-border transactional will not entail any major additional
costs for the Member States under this option (other than those already incurred under the
eIDAS regulation). However, given the current problems with access to national procedures
for non-nationals
110
and the absence of clear national quality guidelines to achieve this, some
extra resources must be dedicated to the task. Depending on their starting point, each Member
State should assign up to 1 FTE for a full year to examine current problems, write internal
guidelines for compliance with the single digital gateway requirements in this area, and
supervise their implementation by the different national authorities.
6.1.7.
Main impact of a merger of contact points
A merger of the existing contact points for services, products and construction products would
help to improve the overall findability and quality of the services provided. This model has
been successfully implemented in the UK and Lithuania. In the public consultation 81% of
business were in favour of a merger between the contact points for services and those for
goods. Among public authority respondents 70% considered such a merger desirable, but
difficult (28%) or somewhat difficult (48%). However, the feedback received through
bilateral meetings with Member States' representatives suggest that a mandatory merger
requirement would be quite problematic for some in view of national administrative
structures.
6.1.8.
Main impact of coordinated promotion
A coordinated promotion with co-branding implies that any national promotion efforts of the
services covered by the gateway should always include a reference to the gateway as a whole.
This increases the visibility of the single digital gateway both for businesses and citizens.
The increased visibility facilitates the findability and access of firms and citizens to
information sources and procedures concerning the Single Market, making it easier to operate
in markets or move across borders.
109
110
For e-signature the obligation under eIDAS exists already.
See Annex 5, PSC table.
38
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0039.png
Promotion should essentially be done online and should also include search engine
optimisation. The current budget for promoting Your Europe is around EUR 450 000 per
year. In addition, EU-wide promotion campaigns for citizens' rights, consumer rights and
business opportunities also refer to Your Europe. As a new service for citizens and
businesses, the single digital gateway will need to be promoted intensively at its launch both
directly to establish the new brand and indirectly to ensure that users quickly find their way to
it. An additional one-off promotion budget of around EUR 2 million would be needed.
Annual promotion work at EU level would require a further EUR 500 000.
111
The Member States have to adjust their promotion efforts so that there is a common brand
reference in all contexts, with a possibility of co-branding the single digital gateway with
national initiatives. Coordinating the promotion efforts would be part of the overall
management effort for the single digital gateway.
6.1.9.
Main impact of user feedback and Member State reporting
The single digital gateway creates an opportunity to systematically gather non-personal data
from many different sources to provide a richer picture of the state of the Single Market,
based on how its users experience it in practice. This also offers additional material for
evaluations and impact assessments.
This benefits firms and citizens as they can report problems with rules and public authorities
in an easy and familiar way in all EU languages. The tool created for the collection of data
can save time, by for example closed-form questions which can be answered quickly.
While no direct and individual reply or follow-up will be provided to firms and citizens, they
will be able to see the overall picture of problems collected through the tool. Furthermore,
SOLVIT and Your Europe Advice will be signposted in case they would like to provide more
details of their problem. The data gathered via the tool would provide additional input for
policy makers in identifying and addressing problem areas of the Single Market. The
development costs for such a tool are estimated at EUR 150 000.
112
The resulting data need to be combined with data currently gathered through SOLVIT, EEN,
Your Europe Advice, European Consumer Centres and by national assistance services and it
should be analysed systematically. This could lead to very important savings on the EU
budget currently spent on studies since a large part of this expenditure is on gathering very
basic data about experiences of citizens and business in the single market.
The data should in principle also be published on the EU Open Data Portal to make it
available for further research and re-use by third parties where possible, facilitated by the use
of common data structures.
6.1.10. Costs and benefits of option 1
Table 6.2: Overview of costs and benefits for option 1
Costs
Information coverage
MS
Completing national information where
missing, estimated at 80 person days per
MS (one-off)
Recurring costs for managing and
updating.
Reduced need for (more expensive) assistance services
to answer individual queries.
Better compliance with applicable rules
Improved image of national public services
Savings/benefits
111
112
Based on the current YourEurope promotion budget.
EC/DG GROW estimate.
39
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0040.png
EC
Completing EU level information for
businesses where missing, managing and
keeping it up to date (part of ongoing
work in the Your Europe Portal
Reduced need for (more expensive) assistance services
to answer individual queries.
Improved image of EU public services.
Finding information and assistance services will be
faster and cheaper
Better overall experience with public services
Fewer barriers to expanding activities across borders
Users
Creating single business and citizens portals
MS
Creating a single citizens and business
portals (already exists in 25 MS)
Getting all relevant administrations to
feed information into a single portal
EC
Users
Less resources needed for development and
maintenance of many different websites and portals
Reduced need for all parts of the administration to invent
their own solutions for content and quality management
Improved image of national public services.
Easier to link to national information
Much easier, faster and cheaper to find national level
information and assistance services
Better overall experience with public services
Fewer barriers to expanding activities across borders
Minimum quality criteria
MS
Initial effort to establish a quality
monitoring system and improve existing
services where needed
Resources to monitor, encourage and
facilitate quality compliance
EC
Resources to manage the quality
management system at EU level
Organise training for the different
networks of contact points and assistance
services, both tasks estimated at 1 FTE
Develop and maintain common user
feedback tool, estimated at EUR 40 000
Users
Much easier to find and understand national rules
Much better experience with the services, less time
wasted due to late responses, uncertainty and
unanswered queries
Trust in the single digital gateway since it provides a
quality guarantee
Voluntary roll-out of online procedures
MS
Digitalising remaining off-line
procedures, costs depend on state of
digitalisation per Member State
Coordinate the process
+ If implemented, improvement in handling compliance
with national rules, especially in cross-border situations
leading to considerable savings of time, effort and
money.
+ Major administrative savings in handling procedures
+ Improved compliance with national rules
Good quality services generate fewer complaints and
lower management costs
A common EU wide quality framework will make it
easier to enforce quality criteria
More enquiries can be met by online information, fewer
enquiries to be addressed to Your Europe Advice
EC
Users
40
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0041.png
Making information accessible in another community language
MS
EC
Users
Organise translation of information
covered in EN
Manage funding to cover translation
costs in EN
+ Major improvement in handling compliance with
national rules, especially in cross-border situations
leading to considerable savings of time, effort and
money.
Organising and implementing a process
aimed at making existing online
procedures fully cross border
transactional , requiring 1 FTE for a year
Monitor compliance
+ Major improvement in handling compliance with
national rules, especially in cross-border situations
leading to considerable savings of time, effort and
money.
Less non-standard applications to handle due to
foreigners not being able to use national online
procedures
+ Fewer requests for individual assistance from foreign
users
Making online procedures accessible for foreigners
MS
EC
Users
Merger of contact points
MS
Effort required to overcome
administrative resistance against the
merger
Economies of scale will lead to savings in operational
costs
Improved service quality will lead to better image of the
public administration
Less signposting to other services needed
EC
Users
Coordinated promotion
MS
(Minimal) cost of integrating references
to the single digital gateway and its logo
in national campaigns
EC
Moderate promotion budget and
management costs, estimated at EUR 2m
for the launch of the gateway, and EUR
0.5m for subsequent years.
Users
Much easier to find the right services
Improved service quality
All services can benefit from the overall promotion
effort, reducing the need for specific promotion
campaigns
No need for separate promotion of Your Europe
More awareness of the services package available,
leading to reduced time and effort for citizens and
businesses
User feedback mechanism and coordinated reporting
MS
Organise collection of data regarding
Less need for expensive studies to investigate problems
queries submitted to assistance services
and to measure user experience
at national level
EC
Develop and maintain user feedback tool
Less need for expensive studies to investigate problems
for single market problems
and to measure user experience
Organise collection of all data from EU
More evidence about gravity of specific single market
and national level services and from user
obstacles to feed into policy development and
feedback mechanism, analyse and
enforcement action priority setting
publish results
Users
Make the effort to submit feedback
Get overview of all problems reported by other users;
influence the further development of the Single Market;
get their voice heard
41
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0042.png
Table 6.3: Additional administrative costs and savings linked to option 1
Per Member State
Requirement
The Commission covers EU level information
in Your Europe; MS cover agreed national
information in single national business and
citizens portals; The Commission and MS all
monitor their own compliance
Every national portal has its own search
facility
Merger of contact points (for services,
products, construction products)
Coordinated promotion
Quality criteria with monitoring via separate
user feedback tools, one for each linked
portal; EC and MS all monitor their own
compliance
Initial cost
On average 80 person
days, (= 0.3 FTE estimated
at EUR17 666)
113
,
2 MS
114
would need to
create citizen and business
portals
115
EUR 5000
119
IT effort
120
, internal
Internal administrative
121
coordination effort
coordination effort
122
p.m. (No change in promotional resources or efforts
required)
EUR 32 000 for national
5-35% of resources for
123
user feedback tool ,
overall service
1 FTE (estimated at EUR
management
124
estimated
53 000)
at 1 FTE (EUR 53 000)
Savings in operational costs; less sign-
posting to other services needed
EUR 2m
EUR 0.5m
Annual running cost
Savings
EUR 74 per information need that can
be answered by online information
instead of an individual enquiry
117
;
fewer resources needed for
development and maintenance of many
different websites and portals
Commission
Annual running
Initial cost
cost
1 FTE on average,
estimated at EUR
53 000
116
p.m.
p.m.
118
p.m.
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Based on Eurostat public sector labour cost survey figures (LCS surveys 2008 and 2012 [lc_ncost_r2]) 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.
Germany and Italy.
Based on a concrete past case from a Member State, a very rough estimate for this cost would be EUR 1.5 m for each of the two Member States.
These costs are not additional due to the single digital gateway. Member States will be able to reuse information already presented on their national portals and they already have resources allocated
to fulfil the role of Your Europe editorial board members.
Based on cost comparison between Your Europe (information online, EUR 0,92 per enquiry) and Your Europe Advice (individual assistance, EUR 74 per enquiry).
No additional costs, will be integrated with current effort for the Your Europe portal.
The 2016 Deloitte study on Development of an EU VAT web-portal quotes EUR 5-8000 as cost for an advanced search engine with filters. Many national portals already have search engines, so the
lower figure (5000) was chosen.
The IT effort is difficult to estimate. We assume that the IT cost will be balanced by the savings in operational costs and the reduced sign-posting effort to the other contact points.
It is assumed that existing staff can cover this initial internal coordination effort.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
Based on the assumption that the development cost of such a tool is EUR 40 000, and that at least 20% of MS already have such tools.
Based on experience with, Your Europe (5%), SOLVIT (15%) and Your Europe Advice (35%). Will depend very much on how the service is organised.
42
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0043.png
Per Member State
Requirement
Initial cost
50% of option 2:
On average, 5
procedures
125
estimated at
EUR 2.85 m per MS
126
Annual running cost
Savings
For 9 of the 10 business procedures, the
cost savings per MS are assumed to be
50% of option 2, i.e. EUR 2 m per MS.
No figures available for the remaining
11 procedures.
Commission
Annual running
Initial cost
cost
Coordination
costs
127
EUR 500 000;
manage
funding
130
Monitoring of
compliance
131
Voluntary roll-out of online procedures based
on rolling work programme
p.m.
Information and guidance on procedures
made available in EN
Online procedures made fully accessible for
foreign users
National solutions for use of documents and
data to be made accessible for foreign users
Development of user feedback tool on single
market obstacles
Collection of data, analysis and publication of
results
1 FTE (estimated at EUR
53 000)
Cannot be quantified -
depends on the situation in
each country.
132
Organise translation of
information covered into
EN
128
p.m.
EUR 1m
129
EUR
150 000
133
Organise collection of data
regarding queries
submitted to assistance
services at national level
134
1 IT developer
(EUR 120 000)
1 FTE (estimated
at 138 000)
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
This figure is based on the assumption that in a voluntary scenario, Member States will digitalise fewer procedures than under option 2. The assumption is that they would digitalise about 50% less
than under option 2. For the count of procedures not fully online or where information was not available – see Annex 4, table 4.5. It might be slightly overestimated. The same assumption is made
with regard to Member State savings and costs for users.
The cost of getting a single procedure online is estimated at EUR 600 000, which is at the higher end of the different estimates provided by the Member States. The overall cost estimate is the most
likely to represent an overestimation.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
For translation of national information into English, MS can use a common translation fund to be created. Based on overall expected volume of 500 pages per Member State, and a translation cost
of EUR 65 per page (rate quoted in Commission framework contracts).
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
But as the solution would already exist for national users, extending it to cross-border users is expected not to cause major additional costs under this solution.
Internal Commission estimate.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
43
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0044.png
Per Member State
Requirement
Hosting and maintenance costs for IT tools
Management of the single digital gateway136
Total
3 010 666
137
2 FTE (estimated at
EUR106 000)
212 000
Initial cost
Annual running cost
Savings
2 million
138
Commission
Annual running
Initial cost
cost
Hosting: EUR
25 000135
2 FTE (estimated
at EUR 276 000)
3 150 000
1 559 000
135
136
137
138
Based on current Your Europe hosting costs for YEST and intake form (= EUR 19 000) as a proxy for search interface and assistance finder, and additional hosting costs for feedback.
This includes, inter alia, inserting links in common repository, administrative coordination effort and being part of the SDG governance structure.
The two MS without portals would need to add 1.5 m to this figure.
These savings are purely indicative and based on a rough estimate of potential savings for 9 of the 20 procedures. However, national administrations will also incur savings from putting information
online and merging the three national business contact points. But as it was impossible to calculate these savings, they were not included.
44
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0045.png
6.1.11. User benefits
Option 1 provides considerable benefits for users as far as the completeness of EU and
national information is concerned. However, as there would be no common search facility
covering all the websites that make up the gateway, a user would either need to search for
information on every national portal individually, or access national portals via Your Europe.
Furthermore, the search engine on national portals would only be in the national language
making a search potentially very difficult for foreign users. National user feedback tools
would also only be in the national language, which would make it more difficult for foreign
users to submit feedback, and for the Commission to feed it into a global gateway quality
monitoring system. The merger of the three national business contact point networks would
make a search somewhat easier on a national level.
The user benefits from the voluntary roll-out of online procedures are impossible to calculate,
as Member States could decide to be very ambitious, or do nothing at all. For the cost and
benefit calculation for Member States, the assumption has been that under the voluntary
scenario, Member States will on average do less than under an obligatory scenario. This
would reduce the user benefits accordingly. ‘National solutions for use of documents and data
to be made accessible for foreign users’ would achieve non-discriminatory access of foreign
users, but would not reduce their additional burden in terms of translation and certification of
documents.
The table below shows the user benefits that could be calculated. These do not cover the
entire solutions foreseen, and only give an "idea" of potential user benefits. The real user
benefits could be much higher.
Table 6.4: User benefits that can be calculated
Solution foreseen under this option
Information: every national portal has its own
search facility, merger of 3 contact points,
completeness and quality of online
information
User benefits under this option
Citizens would save 50% of the 1.5 million hours they currently
spend looking up online six essential topics about their rights
and obligations in order to live, study or retire in another
Member State.
139
For the nine topics that businesses typically research when
expanding their activities across borders, they would save
between EUR 3.5 and 46 billion annually.
140
It is impossible to calculate this with any degree of certainty
under a voluntary scenario, but the general Commission
experience in this case is that Member States will do less than
under a mandatory scenario. The assumption made for this
benefit calculation is that Member States will do half of what
the mandatory option 2 element foresees, resulting in half of the
user benefits of option 2.
For nine procedures, the potential cost savings for all EU
business users would thus be in the magnitude of EUR 3.5
billion.
141
The 11 other procedures were not assessed.
Purely indicative, and just giving an idea of potential benefits:
For citizens: 770 000 hours saved
For businesses: EUR 7 – 49.5 billion saved
Procedures: voluntary roll-out of online
procedures
Total user benefits
139
140
141
Based on Commission own research. For the methodology, see annex 19. For citizens, the hours cannot be converted
into a monetary estimate as they do not relate to an actual expenditure but rather to citizens' spare time lost, as well as
hassle costs.
Study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-border within the EU, including gap and cost
analysis, Ernest& Young, 2017. See annex 19 for the methodology.
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017.
Compare this also with the corresponding user benefit table under option 2.
45
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0046.png
6.1.12. Time needed for implementation
The time needed for implementing this option is calculated as two years. If the regulation
were to enter into force at the end of 2018, the implementation would last to the end of 2020.
This would enable Member States to voluntarily roll out as many online procedures as
possible, merge the contact points for services, products and construction products. The two
Member States that do not have portals would need to put them in place within this
timeframe. The Commission would need to adopt a number of implementing acts, develop the
repository of links, a data collection tool and the reporting tool on the functioning of the
Single Market.
6.1.13. Ease of implementation
This option would be relatively easy to implement and would potentially cause difficulties for
only two Member States that do not yet have citizen portals. The voluntary nature of the roll-
out of online procedures would leave full flexibility and decision-making power with Member
States.
The merger of the contact points is a REFIT Platform business stakeholder proposal, and
Member States were advised to consider the integration of online information on goods with
that of the Points of Single Contact at an operational level. One Member State has found this
problematic as it would interfere with the administrative organisation of services. More
generally, this would require internal coordination work and some IT development.
Member States would need to provide user feedback tools and search facilities on their
portals. This is relatively easy to implement and most Member States have this already.
Member States would need to allocate human resources for quality monitoring and for
making online procedures fully accessible to foreign users. However, as pointed out in section
6.1.6., the latter only requires limited additional work.
The Commission would provide a translation budget for translating national content into
English, which should ease implementation.
1.19. 6.2. Main impacts of option 2
6.2.1.
Main impact of information coverage through an EU coordinated approach
Option 2 includes a legally binding obligation on Member States to provide all information
citizens and businesses need to operate within the Single Market online, as does option 1. The
impacts of this element of the option are analysed in section 6.1.1.
This option does not require MS to establish single portals and leaves them free to organise
content as they see fit, allowing flexibility to adapt the governance to the specific
administrative organisation of each country.
6.2.2.
Main impact of minimum quality criteria for the included services
Like option 1, option 2 requires an agreement on quality criteria (cf. impact section 6.1.3).
The main difference is in the monitoring of compliance that will be done jointly by the EC
and MS. In that respect, a common user feedback tool will have to be put in place to provide
input for monitoring compliance with the quality criteria, information coverage and user
friendliness of all services provided through the single digital gateway. Such a tool can be
developed within the existing Your Europe content management system at an estimated cost
of EUR 40 000.
142
142
Estimate by the Your Europe team.
46
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0047.png
6.2.3.
Main impact of the obligation to have core procedures online
The 2016 e-government benchmark study reported that 25% of the procedures required for
foreign entrepreneurs to start their business in another country are completely off-line. In
contrast, entrepreneurs starting a business in their own country face such issues in only 2% of
the cases.
143
Solving this problem as proposed in this option, would therefore have a very
significant impact on the internal market business environment for start-ups.
This option will require Member States to offer the assumed 20 most frequently used
procedures for businesses and citizens fully online. Already today on average 55% of the
procedures to be included in the digitalisation effort under this option are already fully online
while another 26% are partly online. The situation varies significantly between the different
Member States (see section 2.2.3) and the remaining gaps would need to be closed by a
deadline to be agreed. This work can be fully integrated in the e-government and ICT actions
already envisaged by Member States and funded through the ESIF (see Table 6.5).
It is difficult to give a meaningful figure for replacing an existing off-line procedure by an on-
line version without considering the very specific context of each Member State. Where
generic IT platforms have been developed, the marginal cost of digitalising a new procedure
will be relatively low. Ireland has outsourced the provision of the IT platform for on-line
licensing procedures to a private company which now offers the platform to all municipalities
for a per transaction fee. Cyprus and Denmark have also developed such platforms.
The costs of moving procedures online vary widely depending on the complexity of the
procedure, the availability of existing procedure infrastructure, whether we are talking about
both front end (user interface) or both front end and back office (subsequent processing of the
data by the administrations involved), and the possibility to use ready-made building blocks.
To be on the safe side, the estimated cost of making one procedure available online
(€600 000) is a very conservative high-end estimate, based on a complex procedure (tax
returns), assuming no procedure infrastructure, automating both the front end and the back
office, and assuming no savings from ready-made components.
144
This means that the cost
figures overestimate the direct costs implied by the proposed single digital gateway, which
will only require the digitalisation of the front end, not the much more complex back office.
Table 6.5: Examples of generic IT solutions to digitalise multiple procedures
Ireland
Cyprus
145
Denmark
Total development cost
Number of procedures
None for the government, private
business model/payment per
97 licence procedures across 40 authorities
transaction
EUR 213 000 + EUR 7000 per
93 procedures for the Points of Single Contact (with
procedure
an additional 150 procedures planned)
EUR 226 680 + yearly maintenance
Potentially unlimited, 300 in 2016
cost EUR 43 046 for a 'form-engine'
service
Source: European Commission, stakeholder consultation on the single digital gateway
The case examples provided by the Member States as part of the stakeholder consultation, all
demonstrate that whatever IT approach is chosen, the costs of moving procedures on-line are
greatly outweighed by the savings generated by digitalisation, especially if this is done in a
coordinated way across the different parts of the administration.
143
144
145
E-government Benchmark Background Report 2015,
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-
egovernment-report-2015-shows-online-public-services-europe-are-smart-could-be-smarter
The reference procedure cost is the upper limit estimate for a national level procedure with at least 100 000 users from
the study “Business Case Berichtenbox voor Bedrijven. Definitief eindrapport, AgentschapNL / Ministerie van
Economische Zaken, 2014.”
Based on figures provided by the Cyprus PSC.
47
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0048.png
Some savings can be made in costs associated with the digitalisation of procedures if public
authorities use the tools at their disposal for increasing interoperability such as the European
Interoperability Framework
146
.
Many Member States have made e-government a priority of their operational programmes for
ESIF, which could provide the right financial framework to implement the roll-out of online
procedures.
Table 6.6: Summary of costs and savings for national digitalisation projects
Costs
UK
UK
Croatia
Building Gov.uk
147
EUR 23m
Savings
EUR 610m
EUR 3m per year
70% of administrative
costs
Digitalising of the procedure
EUR 120 000 (development) +
148
for petitioning the Parliament
EUR 45 000 (annual management)
Getting procedures online as
part of the Point of Single
Contact
149
EUR 26 500 per procedure
34.8% of the total cost for
EUR 416m of initial IT development the users
Digitalising and simplifying 60
assuming no applications can be
Germany
frequently used procedures
150
32.7% of the total cost for
reused
the administration
EUR 79.4m per year for
government in efficiency
EUR 600 000 per tax procedure
Digitalising business
savings
Netherlands
procedures with a volume of at EUR 400 000 per non-tax procedure
EUR 17.9m per year for
least 100 000 transactions
EUR 16 000 per local procedure
business in administrative
costs
Aligning 300 procedures related
EUR 4 350 per procedure, without
to the business life cycle with
taking into account possible
Not quantified
Belgium
the one-stop-shop requirements
synergies or re-use of applications
in the Services Directive
Source: European Commission, stakeholder consultation on the single digital gateway
Table 6.7: comparison of channel costs per transaction
Channel
Cost per transaction
– figures
151
Cost per
transaction
(original figures
in British
pounds)
152
€ 9.83 (100%)
Cost per
transaction
(original figures
in Norwegian
kr)
153
€ 8.74 (100%)
Cost per
transaction
(original figures in
British pounds)
154
€ 12.13 (87%)
€ 13.94 (100%)
€ 3.91 (28%)
€ 0.09 per online
visit (1%)
Counter service
Letter (physical)
Email
Telephone
e-services / self services
€ 14 (100%)
€ 11.70 (83.57%)
€ 11 (78.57%)
€ 7.80 (55.71%)
€ 4.20 (30%)
€ 3.26 (33%)
€ 0.17 per online
visit (2%)
€ 4.37 (50%)
€ 0.33 per online
visit (4%)
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
http://ec.europa.eu/isa/ready-to-use-solutions/cpsv-ap_en.htm
UK Digital Efficiency Report,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-efficiency-report/digital-
efficiency-report
Figures provided by the UK in the public consultation on the single digital gateway.
Figures provided by the Croatian PSC.
E-Government in Deutschland: vom Abstieg zum Aufstieg", Fraunhofer, commissioned by Nationaler
Normenkontrollrat, November 2015.
Digitaliseringsstyrelsen,Danish Agency for digitisation, 2012
Potential for Channel Shift in Local government, Socitm, 2012, as quoted in UK Digital Efficiency Report, 2013
Norwegian Government Digitizing Public Sector Services, 2012, as quoted in UK Digital Efficiency Report
Customer Contact Profiling Report – ESD Toolkit Aston Campbell associates, 2008, as quoted in UK Digital
Efficiency Report
48
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0049.png
Table 6.6: ESIF spending (EUR) on e-government and ICT development
155
Country
Allocation
Country
Allocation
Bulgaria
118 million
Lithuania
244 million
Czech Republic
330 million
Hungary
601 million
Estonia
204 million
Malta
5 million*
Greece
173 million
Poland
153 million
Spain
542 million*
Portugal
278 million
France
66 million*
Romania
188 million
Croatia
191 million
Slovenia
62 million
Italy
135 million
Slovakia
352 million*
Cyprus
50 million*
Sweden
5 million*
Latvia
173 million
Source: Summary of Operational Programmes supporting institutional capacity building 2014-2020
6.2.4.
Main impact of making information available in another EU language
Option 2, like option 1 would require translation of the agreed content within the remit of the
single digital gateway into at least one other language (most usefully in English). For the
impact of these elements cf. section 6.1.5.
6.2.5.
Main impact of making online procedures accessible to foreign users
In option 2, like in option 1, all national procedures that are already available online would
need to be fully cross-border transactional. For the impact of this element, see section 6.1.6.
Option 2 also includes the development of a common user interface for cross border use of
documents and data. A main bottleneck for cross-border transactionality of online procedures
is indeed the lack of acceptance of electronic supporting evidence (documents or data
submitted as proof) in cross-border situations. Authenticity of such evidence and language
aspects can be problematic. While at national level the once-only principle has already
reduced the need for continuous resubmission of the same documents or data, such solutions
exist today only at a very small scale at EU level (for instance for the European Professional
Card, where a solution has been implemented through IMI). Other solutions are being tested
as part of an ongoing pilot project.
156
This option would require the development of a
common interface enabling citizens and businesses to manage access to evidence (documents
or data) in cross border situations. It would also facilitate the evolution towards fully
transactional cross-border procedures.
A possible technical solution for such a tool could build on IMI, in particular the existing
repository for the European Professional Card. The estimated development costs for a generic
IT tool based on IMI would be between EUR 0.5 and 1 million.
157
Member States would need
to ensure interconnection with existing databases or in their absence foresee manual
uploading of e-documents or data by the relevant authorities. However, other technical
solutions are also possible, taking account of the experience with the ongoing once-only pilot
project.
158
In the absence of a preferred technical solution today, it is not possible to give a
reliable cost figure. Any such technical solution would need to be implemented through a
secondary act with a separate impact assessment.
155
156
157
158
The figures are allocations to those thematic objectives of ESIF funds that mention e-government or ICT development.
In the absence of other information, the amounts marked with an asterisk are for e-government solutions only. Source:
Summary of Operational Programmes supporting institutional capacity building 2014-2020, European Commission,
September 2016, and Commission data.
For further information see ‘The Once-Only Principle Project’ (TOOP) is co-funded under Horizon 2020 and gathers
50 partners from 22 Member States with a view to explore and demonstrate the ‘once-only’ principle.
https://www.rlp-forschung.de/public/facilities/2/research_projects/21340
Cost estimate by DG GROW.
To develop and test reusable IT components that can help to implement a technical solution , see Annex 11.
49
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0050.png
6.2.6.
Main impacts of common assistance services finder
Barring full integration of contact points (as in option 1), a requirement to at least introduce a
common front office for services catering for the same target audience, would go a long way
in reducing confusion among the users about where to go with which question. This can be
done through a common assistance services finder that automatically guides the users to the
right service. Costs for developing such a tool are around EUR 100 000
159
and there are
important savings for the administration due to joined use of resources and reduced need for
signposting users individually to the right service.
6.2.7.
Main impacts of coordinated promotion
Coordinated promotion is part of both options 1 and 2. For a detailed analysis of impacts of
this element, see section 6.1.8.
6.2.8.
Main impacts of a common user search facility
The cost estimates for the development of a search-based tool for linking to and re-using
information on the national portals is estimated at EUR 500 000 for a more sophisticated
solution, including the common assistance service finder.
160
As there is an alternative where
the costs of the integrated search engine would accrue per search, around EUR 350 000
161
in
yearly licencing fees would need to be foreseen.
The links to national webpages will need to be included in a common repository to allow the
search facility to use the closed set of approved EU and national webpages that are part of the
single digital gateway. Such a repository can be created within IMI by using the existing
generic building blocks at an estimated cost of EUR 75 000.
6.2.9.
Main impact of user feedback and MS reporting
This element is common to all options. For a description of its impact see section 6.1.9.
Table 6.7: Overview of costs and benefits for option 2
Costs
Information coverage
Same as for option 1
Minimum quality criteria with joint monitoring
- Initial effort to establish a quality monitoring
system and improve existing services where
needed
- Resources to monitor, encourage and
facilitate quality compliance
- Resources to manage the quality management
system at EU level
Commission
- Organise training for the different networks
of contact points and assistance services ,
both tasks estimated at 1 FTE
- Develop and maintain common user feedback
tool, estimated at EUR 40 000
+ More enquiries can be met by online
information, fewer enquiries to be addressed
to Your Europe Advice
+ Good quality services generate fewer
complaints and lower management costs
+ A common EU wide quality framework will
make it easier to enforce quality criteria
Savings/benefits
Member States
159
160
161
As stated in the draft Feasibility Study on a European Mobility Portal on Social Security. The assistance services finder
can be integrated in the common user serach interface.
Estimate.
This is a very rough estimate and would in any case be subject to contractual negotiation.
50
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0051.png
+ Much easier to find and understand national
rules
Users
+ Much better experience with the services,
less time wasted due to late responses,
uncertainty and unanswered queries
+ Trust in the single digital gateway since it
provides a quality guarantee
Obligatory digitalisation of 10+10 procedures made accessible to cross-border users
- Digitalising remaining off-line procedures,
costs depend on state of digitalisation per
Member State (for an estimate, see Table 7.4)
Member States
- Organising and implementing a process
aimed at making existing online procedures
fully cross border transactional , requiring 1
FTE for a year
- Support national efforts through European
Interoperability Framework, the European
Social Fund and the European Regional
Development Fund
+ Major administrative savings in handling
procedures
+ Improved compliance with national rules
Commission
+ More structured expenditure under existing
funds, in support of the Single Market
+ Major improvement in handling compliance
with national rules, especially in cross-border
situations leading to considerable savings of
time, effort and money.
Users
IT tool for cross-border use of evidence
Member States
- Linking national base registers with the
common interface
- Development costs between EUR 500 000
and EUR 1 million of common interface for
managing cross-border exchange of evidence
+ Reduction of administrative burden due to no
further need to check validity and
authenticity of documents
+ Opportunity to simplify current procedures in
IMI
+ Great reduction of administrative burden
thanks to re-use of existing national
data/documents in cross border situations
+ No need for translations, validation,
authentication of documents.
+ Full online management of evidence
Making information available in English
Same as for option 1
Making online procedures accessible to foreign users
Same as for option 1
Common assistance services finder
Member States
Commission
Users
- Provide accurate descriptions of assistance
services at national level
- Develop common assistance finder as part of
the functionality of the common search tool
+ Much easier to find the right service
+ Improved service quality
+ Less need for further individual signposting
due to users approaching the wrong service
+ Easier to ensure service quality
Commission
Users
51
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0052.png
Coordinated promotion
Same as for option 1
User Search facility
Member States
- Introduce links to relevant information into
common repository
- Develop and maintain user interface
including search facility, common assistance
finder and a common repository for web
links at an estimated EUR 575 000
depending on functionality.
+ Reuse of information already provided on
national webpages
Commission
Users
User feedback mechanisms and coordinated reporting
+ Less time and effort to find relevant
information
Same as for option 1
52
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0053.png
Table 6.8: Additional administrative costs and savings linked to option 2
Per Member State
Requirement
EC covers EU level information
in Your Europe; MS cover
agreed national information; Joint
monitoring of compliance
Initial cost
On average 80 person days,
(= 0.3 FTE estimated at EUR
17 666)
162
For assistance finder: provide
accurate descriptions of
assistance services where
these do not yet exist..
For common search facility:
introduce links to relevant
information into common
repository
166
.
Annual running cost
1 FTE on average for
managing and updating,
estimated at EUR 53 000
163
Savings per MS
EUR 74 per information need that
can be answered by online
information instead of an individual
enquiry
164
Commission
Annual running
Initial cost
cost
p.m.
p.m.
165
Common search facility and
common assistance finder
As under initial cost, but
only for updates.
167
EUR 500 000 in IT
development
costs
168
EUR 350 000 in
licencing fees
169
1 FTE for IT
development costs
(EUR 120 000)
p.m.
EUR 0.5m
+
common repository of links
Coordinated promotion
p.m. (No change in promotional resources or efforts required)
EUR 75 000
170
EUR 2m
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
Based on Eurostat public sector labour cost survey figures (LCS surveys 2008 and 2012 [lc_ncost_r2]) 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.
These costs are not additional due to the single digital gateway. Member States will be able to reuse information already presented on their national portals and they already have resources allocated
to fulfil the role of Your Europe editorial board members.
Based on cost comparison between Your Europe (information online, EUR 0,92 per enquiry) and Your Europe Advice (individual assistance, EUR 74 per enquiry).
No additional costs, will be integrated with current effort for the Your Europe portal.
It is assumed that the 1 FTE foreseen for quality monitoring can also cover this task.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
This includes the common assistance finder, the cost of which is estimated at EUR 100 000 (as stated in the draft Feasibility Study on a European Mobility Portal on Social Security). Needs will i.a.
depend on quality of information provided by the Member States.
This is a very rough estimate of necessary licencing fees, which are per search, based on the traffic to the Your Europe portal, multiplied by 2 for the first year of operation. For the following years,
a 50% increase in traffic is expected and reflected in the figure. The amount will be subject to contractual negotiation, so is very difficult to foresee at this stage.
Estimate by relevant Commission services, based on generic repository building block in IMI.
53
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0054.png
Quality criteria with monitoring
via common user feedback tool
used for all linked portals; Joint
monitoring of compliance
10+10 national procedures fully
online
Information and guidance on
procedures made available in EN
Online procedures made fully
accessible for foreign users
Common user interface for cross-
border use of documents and data
Development of user feedback
tool on single market obstacles
Collection of data, analysis and
publication of results
1 FTE (estimated at EUR
53 000)
On average, 9.6 procedures
173
estimated at EUR 5.7 m per
MS
174
5-35% of resources for
overall service
management
171
estimated at
1 FTE (EUR 53 000)
p.m.
Organise translation of
updates
176
For 9 of the 10 business procedures,
the cost savings per MS would be
EUR 4 m
175
. No figures available
for the remaining 11 procedures
EUR 40 000 for
common user
feedback tool
172
1 FTE (estimated at
EUR 138 000)
n/a
EUR 1m
177
n/a
EUR 500 000,
manage funding
178
Monitoring
compliance
179
0.5 FTE (estimated
at EUR 69 000)
1 IT developer
(EUR 120 000)
1 FTE (estimated at
138 000)
1 FTE (estimated at EUR
53 000)
180
p.m.
EUR 0.5-1 m
181
EUR 150 000
182
Organise collection of data
regarding queries submitted
to assistance services
183
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
Based on experience with, Your Europe (5%), SOLVIT (15%) and Your Europe Advice (35%). Will depend very much on how the service is organised.
Based on internal Commission estimate.
This figure is based on the count of procedures out of 20 not fully online or where information was not available – see Annex 4, table 4.5. It might be slightly overestimated. The total number of
procedures not fully online, for all Member States (= 268), was divided by 28.
The cost of getting a single procedure online is estimated at EUR 600 000, which is at the higher end of the different estimates provided by the Member States. The overall cost estimate is the most
likely to represent an overestimation.
See annex 19 for the methodology. There are large differences across Member States. The figure of EUR 4m may be an overestimate.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
For translation of national information into English, MS can use a common translation fund to be created. Based on overall expected volume of 500 pages per Member State, and a translation cost
of EUR 65 per page (rate quoted in Commission framework contracts).
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
The costs are very difficult to quantify, and will be part of a separate impact assessment that will be conducted for this solution (which would require an implementing act). Already 20 Member
States are participating in a Commission-financed pilot which is supposed to work towards implementing this solution.
Estimate by relevant Commission services. Basic option of user interfact to manage access to documents and data provided directly from issuing authorities, to be used in procedures in other
Member States.
Internal Commission estimate.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
54
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0055.png
Hosting and maintenance costs
for IT tools
Management of the single digital
gateway
185
Total
5 823 366
2 FTE (estimated at EUR
106 000)
212 000
4 000 000
186
4 265 000 -
4 765 000
Hosting: EUR
25 000
184
2 FTE (estimated at
276 000)
2 236 000
184
185
186
Based on current Your Europe hosting costs for YEST (= EUR 19 000) as a proxy for search interface and assistance finder and intake form, and additional hosting costs for feedback.
This includes, inter alia, inserting links in common repository, administrative coordination effort and being part of the SDG governance structure.
These savings are purely indicative and based on a rough estimate of potential savings for 9 of the 20 procedures. However, national administrations will also incur savings from putting information
online. But as it was impossible to calculate these savings, they were not included.
55
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0056.png
6.2.10. User benefits
The user benefits would be considerable under this option as far as completeness of
information and its findability is concerned. The common search facility could provide
information covering all Member States through one search request, saving the user a lot of
time otherwise spent on various national portals. Search terms could be inserted in all EU
languages, which would greatly increase findability and general user-friendliness.
The user benefits from the obligatory digitalisation of 20 core national procedures would also
be significant, saving the user a lot of cost, time and hassle that he would otherwise have to
incur, e.g. when required to come to an office or to send documents by post. A study on
business procedures carried out to underpin this impact assessment concluded that for 9
procedures, the cost savings for all EU businesses - if e-procedures were introduced where
missing - would be in the order of magnitude of EUR 7 billion. The common user interface
for cross-border use of documents and data is expected to decrease the burden of translation
and certification of documents, but this is at this stage difficult to quantify as subject to the
outcome of a pilot and a future implementing act with its own impact assessment.
A common user feedback tool in all EU languages would facilitate especially the foreign
user’s quality monitoring and would thereby possibly lead to higher quality services also
accommodating his needs.
The table below shows the user benefits that could be calculated. These do not cover the
entire solutions foreseen, and only give an "idea" of potential user benefits. The real user
benefits would be much higher.
Table 6.9: User benefits that can be calculated
Solution foreseen under this option
Information: common search facility,
common assistance service finder,
completeness and quality of online
information
User benefits under this option
Citizens would save 60% of the 1.5 million hours they currently spend
looking up online six essential topics about their rights and obligations
in order to live, study or retire in another Member State.
187
For the nine topics that businesses typically research when expanding
their activities across borders, they would save between EUR 4 and 48
billion annually.
188
For nine procedures, the potential cost savings from digital document
submission for all EU business users would be in the magnitude of EUR
7 billion (made up of: 6.5 billion for domestic users, and 48.1 million for
cross-border users in current costs from "in person" or "by post"
carrying out of the procedures).
189
The 11 remaining procedures were not assessed:
Common user interface for cross-
border use of documents and data
For nine procedures, the cost savings for cross-border business users
would be EUR 126 million, split up into: EUR 11 m for collecting
documents from authorities, 55 m in document certification costs, 60 m
in translation costs.
190
Purely indicative, and just giving an idea of potential benefits:
For citizens: 885 000 hours saved
For businesses: EUR 11.1 – 55.1 billion saved
Procedures: 10+10 national
procedures fully online
Total user benefits
187
188
189
190
Based on Commission own research. For the methodology, see annex 19. For citizens, the hours cannot be converted
into a monetary estimate as they do not relate to an actual expenditure but rather to citizens' spare time lost, as well as
hassle costs.
Study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-border within the EU, including gap and cost
analysis, Ernest& Young, 2017. See annex 19 for the methodology.
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017.
Idem.
56
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0057.png
6.2.11. Time needed for implementation
The time necessary for this option would be two years, i.e. until the end of 2020 if the
regulation is adopted by the end of 2018.
6.2.12. Ease of implementation
This option would be relatively easy for Member States to implement as far as completeness
of information and findability are concerned. Member States would need to cover the
information gap, provide accurate descriptions of assistance services where these do not yet
exist, and introduce links to relevant information into a common repository. The Commission
would have the task of developing the common search facility and common user interface for
cross-border use of documents and data, which would require implementing acts, a budget
and human resources. However, practical work on the common user interface for cross-border
use of documents and data has already started through a (voluntary) Commission-financed
pilot in which 20 Member States are participating.
191
The common user feedback tool in all
languages would be relatively easy to develop and to deploy on all portals.
Member States that are not very advanced with e-government may need to make a substantial
effort to fully digitalise the assumed 20 national procedures. However, EU structural funds
can support the implementation in those Member States that have indicated this as a priority
in their operational programmes. Likewise, translation into English can be paid for through an
EU budget line.
Member States would need to foresee limited human resources for quality monitoring and
making online procedures fully accessible for foreign users.
1.20. 6.3. Main impacts of option 3
6.3.1.
Main impact of offering all EU and national information in a centralised database
This option complements the obligation of providing information with a central database that
facilitates the search by offering a fully harmonised presentation of information, as there is no
need to combine information from a multitude of sources. Users would have easier,
centralised access to comparably structured information.
For Member States synergies with information already on national portals and websites would
be better lost. Even if the Commission outsources the content management for a central
database to an external contractor, the latter will still need to get in touch with all relevant
authorities in the Member States to gather the necessary material according to harmonised
templates and then ask for validation of the edited content. This therefore demands additional
resources at Member State level too.
Information on the same topics is duplicated on the national level and in this centralised
database, potentially creating confusion for the users.
The Commission needs to design, build and maintain the database and its interface. The
budgetary and other resource implications are considerable. A recent study
192
looking into the
creation of a centralised portal for VAT rules and procedures produced an estimate of
EUR 500 000 for gathering, editing, validating and translating (into English only) all of the
necessary content
193
. This is complemented by annual operation cost for updating of around
EUR 150 000.
194
On the basis of these figures, the estimated cost for a centralised database of
191
192
193
194
'Once-Only' principle large-scale pilot project,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/co-creation-05-2016.html
"Feasibility study of the options for development, implementation and maintenance" of an EU VAT web-portal,
Deloitte, 2016.
An estimated equivalent of 30 pages per Member State, 840 pages in total.
This is under the assumption that Member States would cooperate with the Commission for the entire process.
57
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0058.png
the size required for all topics to be covered by the single digital gateway would be around
EUR 8 million to establish (content only) and EUR 2.4 million annually for keeping it up to
date.
195
6.3.2.
Main impact of minimum quality criteria for the included services
The monitoring of compliance with harmonised quality criteria would be based on user
feedback, but still will require the deployment of resources within the Commission. It
estimated that 1 FTE would be needed to monitor compliance.
6.3.3.
Main impact of EU wide harmonised online procedures
The harmonisation of the assumed 20 online procedures would constitute a clear advantage
for cross-border citizens and businesses, since it would provide them with a single interface,
available in all EU languages. The costs for the Commission of implementing this approach,
modelled on the European Professional Card and the planned e-Services Card, would be
approximately EUR 44 million, for business analysis and IT development costs (based on the
estimated cost of 2.2 million for the e-services card
196
). Costs for the Member States would be
limited to their involvement in agreeing on the business requirements for each of the new EU
wide procedures.
6.3.4.
Main impact of a tool for cross-border evidence
Like option 2, option 3 also includes the development of a common user interface for cross
border use of documents and data. In this case it would be integrated in the centralised
interface. For its impacts, see section 6.1.6.
6.3.5.
Main impact of making information and procedures accessible for foreign users
This option would require translation of all content into English and possibly into all EU
languages, considering that the service would be centrally coordinated by the EC. This would
represent a clear advantage for users, since they could access information in their own
language. The translation costs for the Commission would amount to an initial cost of EUR 1
million for English only, and EUR 23 million for translation in all EU languages. Annual
costs for updates would be around half these amounts.
197
There would be no extra costs for making procedures accessible for foreign users, as they
would be especially designed to accommodate foreign users.
6.3.6.
Main impacts of joint promotion
The benefits of this option come from coordinating all promotion actions into campaigns
under a common brand name. The joint promotion efforts are financed from the EU budget
and thus the Member States can make savings, if they are currently promoting their services.
This option requires an annually agreed EU budget contained in the Single Market
governance tools budget line. To ensure adequate coverage of all Member States and cater for
all languages, the budget would need to be quite substantial. As a benchmark, the ongoing
'Open for business campaign' has an annual budget of EUR 5 million. It reaches out to all
businesses but only in five countries every year. For the single digital gateway the same
approach could be adopted but it would also need to include citizens. This would increase the
costs to EUR 10 million per year.
If all Member States had to be targeted at the same time (as would be appropriate at the
launch of the single digital gateway), a budget of more than EUR 50 million would be needed.
195
196
197
Using the same extrapolation factor as for Option 1, namely x16 corresponding to the number of chapters to be
covered.
See impact assessment for the Commisison proposal on an e-card for services
See section 6.1.5
58
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0059.png
As a saving, the current budgets for promotion of existing EU level services to be integrated
in the single digital gateway could be largely reduced. The advantage of this option would be
that awareness raising can be done in an even manner across the EU, also covering countries
and regions where currently no awareness raising activities are undertaken.
A disadvantage of this approach is that it may not be possible to adapt the format, style and
message of the promotion adequately to the very specific national needs and circumstances. In
addition, there may be duplication with national efforts to promote their own national portals
linked to the single digital gateway.
6.3.7.
Main impact of user feedback and MS reporting
This element is common to all options. For a description of its impact see section 6.1.9.
Table 6.10: Overview of costs and benefits for option 3
Creation of a common database
Member
– Duplication of effort because content on existing
Technical management of the
States
national portals cannot be reused
information will be done at EU level
– Developing central content management system
for all relevant EU and national information
(limited if based on existing Your Europe content
Easier to manage and monitor than a
management system)
Commission
distributed system
–
Managing content gathering and verification (or
outsourcing to a contractor estimated at EUR 8m,
with EUR 2.4m annual running costs.
Much easier navigation since all
information will be available in a fully
Users
harmonised format
Much easier to compare rules in
different Member States
Minimum quality criteria
No need to ensure quality of
MS
– Only ensure quality of own assistance services
information or of procedures since this
will be handled at EU level
EC
– Monitor quality compliance with quality criteria
Major improvement in finding reliable
Users
information and online procedures that
are easy to use
EU wide harmonised online procedures
– Work together with the EC to agree on common
No need to make national procedures
MS
business requirements for all procedures
accessible for foreign users
EC
– Develop and manage the 20 online procedures
Major improvement in handling the
Users
most important procedures in a cross-
border context
IT tool for cross-border use of evidence
Same as for option 2
Common assistance finder
Same as for option 2
Joint promotion
Decrease of national promotion
budgets for individual services
covered
– Significant promotion budget and equally high
Current EU level promotion budgets
Commission
management costs, estimated at EUR 50m for the
for the individual services covered by
launch and EUR 10m for subsequent years.
the single digital gateway
More awareness of the services
Users
package available
User feedback mechanisms and coordinated reporting
Same as for option 1
Member
States
59
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0060.png
Table 6.11: Additional administrative costs and savings linked to option 3
Requirement
EC will provide all agreed
information via an external
contractor;
MS only need to verify; EC
monitors compliance
Initial cost
Per Member State
Annual running cost
Commission
Savings
Initial cost
- Develop central content
management system for all
relevant EU and national
information (limited if based on
existing Your Europe content
management system)
- outsourcing content gathering
and verification estimated at
EUR 8 m
201
Annual running cost
EUR 2.4 m for keeping
content up-to-date; 1FTE
(EUR 138 000) to follow
work of contractor. 1 FTE
for IT expert (EUR
120 000)
202
1 FTE (= EUR
53 000
198
) to gather
additional material to fit
the harmonised template.
0.5 (EUR 26 500) FTE on
average for supplying
updates to content to
contractor and validating
contractor's work.
199
EUR 74 per information
need that can be
answered by online
information instead of
an individual enquiry
200
Single search facility and fully
harmonised presentation of
information and common
assistance service finder
+common repository of links
Joint promotion
For assistance finder:
provide accurate
descriptions of
assistance services
where these do not yet
exist
203
EUR100 000 for common
assistance finder
204
EUR 75 000
205
p.m.
EUR 50m for launch
p.m.
p.m.
EUR 2.8 m (annual cost for
first three years minus
annual Your Europe
promotion budget)
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
Based on Eurostat public sector labour cost survey figures (LCS surveys 2008 and 2012 [lc_ncost_r2]) 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.
According to in-house estimations by the relevant Commission services; reflects national FTE working as national liaison for Your Europe.
Based on cost comparison between Your Europe (information online, EUR 0,92 per enquiry) and Your Europe Advice (individual assistance, EUR 74 per enquiry).
Based on the recent "Feasibility study of the options for development, implementation and maintenance" of an EU VAT web-portal, Deloitte, 2016, which estimated that EUR 500,000 would be
necessary for gathering, editing, validating and translating (into English only) an estimated equivalent of 30 pages per Member States, 840 pages in total. This would need to be multiplied by 16 to
cover the corresponding number of chapters of the Single Digital Gateway.
Based on Trade Export Help Desk, which is fully outsourced but where 1 Commission FTE follows the work of the contractor, and 1 FTE for all IT aspects of the database.
It is considered that the 1 FTE to gather additional material to fit the harmonised template can also carry out this task.
The cost of the common assistance finder is estimated at EUR 100 000 (as stated in the draft Feasibility Study on a European Mobility Portal on Social Security). No cost is forseen for the single
search facility, as the Commission has a corporate IT solution which could be used for this.
Based on in-house estimations by the relevant Commission services.
60
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0061.png
Quality criteria fully
harmonised, integrated in
contract with monitoring via
single user feedback tool; EC
monitors compliance
All 10+10 procedures will be
harmonised at EU level for
foreign users (such as for EPC
and Services Card); EC will
develop IT structure for
procedures within IMI
Information and information
about procedures made available
in all or several languages
Integrated user interface for
cross-border use of documents
and data
Development of user feedback
tool on single market obstacles
Collection of data, analysis and
publication of results
Hosting and maintenance costs
for IT tools
5-35% of resources for
quality management of
own assistance services
206
estimated at 0.3 FTE
(EUR 17 666)
Agree on common
business requirements
for all procedures
207
1 FTE (EUR 53 000) as
coordinator
Ensuring quality of
information and of
procedures will be
handled at EU level (0.7
FTE = EUR 37 100)
EUR 40 000 for user feedback
tool
0.7 FTE (estimated at EUR
96 600) for monitoring
quality compliance of
information and procedures
p.m.
EUR 44 million for business
analysis and IT development
costs
208
10 FTE
(EUR1 380 000)
EUR 1m
209
for EN
p.m.
211
EUR 0.5 m
212
EUR 150 000
213
Organise collection of
data regarding queries
submitted to assistance
services
214
EUR 500 000 for EN
210
0.5 FTE (estimated at EUR
69 000)
1 IT developer (EUR 120
000)
1 FTE (estimated at
138 000)
p.m.
Hosting: EUR 525 000
215
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
Based on experience with, Your Europe (5%), SOLVIT (15%) and Your Europe Advice (35%). Will depend very much on how the service is organised.
The FTE necessary for this task is not included, as this whole work stream would be subject to an implementing act with its own impact assessment.
Based on the estimated cost of 2.2 million for the e-services card (see the impact assessment for the Commission proposal on an e-card for services).
For translation of national information into English, MS can use a common translation fund to be created. Based on overall expected volume of 500 pages per Member State, and a translation cost
of EUR 65 per page (rate quoted in Commission framework contracts). For 3 languages this would be EUR 3; for 23 languages it would be EUR 23 million.
EUR 1.5 million for 3 languages; EUR 11.5 million for 23 languages
The costs for this solution would be assessed through a separate impact assessment (necessary for the implementing act).
Estimate by relevant Commission service.
Internal Commission estimate.
The FTE necessary for this task are included in the "Management of the single digital gateway".
Based on: estimate of relevant Commission services for technical maintenance, improvements and hosting costs for the 20 procedures = EUR 500 000, plus 25 000 for search interface and
assistance finder, and additional hosting costs for feedback (current Your Europe hosting costs for YEST and intake form (= EUR 19 000) served as a proxy).
61
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0062.png
Management of the single digital
gateway
Total
106 000
2 FTE (estimated at EUR
106 000)
150 166
37 000
216
103 865 000
2 FTE (estimated at
276 000)
8 562 600
216
These savings are purely indicative and do not include the main areas for savings of this option, namely by putting information online (instead of personalised assistance) and by the EU taking over
the promotion. These two areas were not included as impossible to calculate.
62
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0063.png
6.3.8.
User benefits
The user benefits are extensive under this option as far as completeness of information is
concerned. The harmonised structure of the database would ensure optimal comparability of
the information across Member States, as well as very good findability through the single
search facility. The information would be of high quality, as the EU could require this
contractually. A single user feedback tool in all EU languages would ensure that all users
could provide feedback, which the Commission would analyse to monitor compliance.
Information could be offered in more than one EU language, depending on the budget
available.
The option would also provide clear benefits for the cross-border user for the assumed 20
procedures to be harmonised. Most likely, foreign users would not need to pay for translations
and certification of their documents (though this would be subject to an implementing act
with its own impact assessment), and would benefit from e-submission of documents and data
for the 20 procedures. According to a study
217
underpinning the impact assessment, for nine
investigated business procedures, cross-border users face EUR 174 million in additional costs
as compared to domestic users for the same procedures (see table below). However, these
benefits would not apply to the domestic business user, making up more than 95% of the total
business user population.
Apart from the 20 procedures, there would not be a requirement on Member States to make
online procedures fully accessible for foreign users. Overall, for procedures the benefits for
the total user population would thus be limited.
The table below shows the user benefits that could be calculated. These do not cover the
entire solutions foreseen, and only give an "idea" of potential user benefits. The real user
benefits could be much higher.
Table 6.12: User benefits that can be calculated
Solution foreseen under this option
Information: Single search facility and fully
harmonised presentation of information,
common assistance finder, completeness
and quality of online information
User benefits under this option
Citizens would save 75% of the time they currently spend
looking up online six essential topics about their rights and
obligations in order to live, study or retire in another Member
State.
218
For the 9 topics that businesses typically research when
expanding their activities across borders, they would save
between EUR 4.4 and 50.4 billion annually.
219
Procedures: 10+10 procedures harmonised
at EU level for foreign users (such as for
EPC and Services Card)
For 9 procedures, the cost savings for cross-border business users
would be EUR 174 million, split up into: EUR 11 m for
collecting documents from authorities, 55 m in document
certification costs, 60 m in translation costs, and 48 million in
non-electronic submission costs.
220
The cost savings from the remaining 11 procedures remain
unassessed.
Purely indicative, and just giving an idea of potential benefits:
For citizens: 1.1 million hours saved
For businesses: EUR 4.6 – 50.6 billion saved
Total benefits
217
218
219
220
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017
Based on Commission own research. For the methodology, see annex 19. For citizens, the hours cannot be converted
into a monetary estimate as they do not relate to an actual expenditure but rather to citizens' spare time lost, as well as
hassle costs.
Study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-border within the EU, including gap and cost
analysis, Ernest& Young, 2017. See annex 19 for the methodology.
Idem.
63
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0064.png
6.3.9.
Time needed for implementation
For this option a legal instrument would only be necessary for the part of the 10+10
procedures. The regulation (covering the 20 procedures and the integrated user interface for
cross-border use of documents and data) could be adopted at the end of 2018 and
implemented two years later, at the end of 2020. A number of implementing acts would also
need to be adopted and implemented during this period.
All the rest could be done under an EU budget line and the Commission work programme. A
four-year period is estimated to be necessary for hiring the contractor through a call for tender
(one year), the development of the IT architecture, the database and harmonised content
templates and content management system (one year), collecting content from Member States
according to a harmonised template, final verification and translation (two years). This means
that, with the exception of the 20 procedures part which would be implemented a year earlier,
this option could be achieved by end 2021.
6.3.10. Ease of implementation
This option would be costly for the Commission and Member States, as it would be necessary
to duplicate the information available through the central EU database on their own national
portals. Member States would, in addition to their national portal content, need to provide the
central contractor with information in line with harmonised templates and validate edited
content. The EU budget necessary for developing the database and content would be
considerable. In addition, a budget and resources would need to be foreseen every year for
running and updating the database.
A promotion budget of EUR 50 million would also be required at EU level, as well as almost
the same amount for the development of the harmonised procedures. Politically, it appears
unfeasible to get the Member States to agree to changing the substance of their most
important national procedures. Overall, this option would be difficult to implement.
1.21. 6.4. Social impact
By facilitating cross-border trade in goods and services, and by facilitating citizens’ ability to
work and study in other Member States, the single digital gateway has the potential to
enhance labour mobility and support citizens' fundamental right to free movement in the EU.
Lower barriers to mobility can improve educational opportunities and social cohesion. These
have second-order effects on patterns of economic development, productivity and mobility for
work and living.
221
1.22. 6.5. SME impact
The single digital gateway would facilitate SMEs access to the Single Market by significantly
reducing the transaction costs for providing services or selling goods in other Member States.
Just over half (52%) of all SMEs say the administrative procedures when exporting are too
complicated, with 24% saying this has been a major problem.
222
Better access to the Single
Market will lead to greater economies of scale and scope and thus enhanced firm-level
competitiveness and cost efficiencies.
The lower the entry barrier to doing business in another Member State is, the easier it is for
firms to provide their goods and services in other countries. This should increase the volume
of trade and competition in the Single Market. According to a study
223
, firms that are active
221
222
223
EU-wide digital once-only principle for citizens and businesses: Policy options and their impacts, SMART 2015/0062,
GNK Consult et al. 2016.
Flash Eurobarometer 421: Internationalisation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2090_421_ENG
"Final Report on the Opportunities for the Internationalisation of European SMEs", European Commission 2011.
64
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
across borders introduce innovative products, services and processes more often than firms
that are not active internationally.
Businesses from third countries looking for online information on EU Member States' rules
and requirements will benefit from increased online provision of information to the same
degree as EU businesses when they are established in the EU. This may contribute to an
increase in exports (of products compliant with EU and national rules) to the EU market as
well as more investment.
7.
C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS
1.23. 7.1. Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence
All elements of each of the three option packages are assessed against the following criteria:
For effectiveness:
- Usefulness: is this what our users (including SMEs and start-ups) really need? Can we
make sure we will still be aligned with the user needs in ten years from now?
- Digitalisation: are we making the best use of digital possibilities today and in the near
future?
- Enforceability: can we monitor results and do we have instruments to make sure it will
work? How will it prevent mistakes we made in the past?
- Feasibility: can it be implemented across the board also taking account of different levels
in IT development, centralised and decentralised administrative structures? Is there
sufficient support among the Member States?
For efficiency:
- Cost effectiveness: is this the most efficient way of solving the problem?
- Synergies and non-duplication: does it take full account of existing solutions and actively
prevent further duplication?
- Proportionality: does it ensure that we do not spend too much effort on less important
elements?
For coherence:
- Alignment: is the option in line with the policy objectives of the Single Market and other
initiatives?
The scores against these criteria are 1 for low, 2 for medium and 3 for high. The overall
scores are expressed as a percentage of the maximum score for the relevant criterion.
For a more detailed explanation of costs and benefits, timing and ease of implementation of
option 1, please refer to sections 6.1.10-6.1.12, for option 2: 6.2.10-6.2.12, and for option 3:
6.3.8.-6.3.10.
65
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0066.png
7.1.1.
Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of option 1
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Table 7.1: Option 1 - Nationally centralised business and citizen's portals
Coherence
Cost-effectiveness
Proportionality
Enforceability
Digitalisation
Usefulness
Specific objectives
= What we want to achieve
1. Nationally centralised business and citizen's
portals
Ensure full coverage of information citizens and
businesses need
EC covers EU level information in Your Europe
MS cover agreed national information in single national
business and citizens portals
EC and MS all monitor their own compliance
Coordinated promotion
Merger of contact points (for services, products,
construction products)
Every national portal has its own search facility
Agreed quality criteria with monitoring via separate user
feedback tools (one for each portal)
EC and MS all monitor their own compliance
Voluntary roll-out of online procedures based on rolling
work programme
MS can decide on priorities, no legal requirements
Information and procedures should be made available in
EN
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
Improve awareness of services available
Eliminate or overcome duplication an complexity,
improve findability
Improve quality across the board for all
information and assistance services, and for
procedures
Ensure that EU citizens and businesses can
complete the most important part of their
interactions with the administration online
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
Make all information and procedures fully
accessible for non-national citizens and
businesses
Online procedures should be made fully accessible for
foreign users
National solutions for use of documents and data to be
made accessible for foreign users
Get a more systematic overview of obstacles
encountered by cross-border users
Link to common user feedback tool on EU and all
national single digital gateways
Subtotals*
TOTALS
2
48%
3
77%
3
50%
3
65%
3
65%
3
80%
71%
2
69%
90%
90%
60%
74%
ASSESSMENT TOTAL
* As a pourcentage of the maximum score
Option 1 scores high on coherence (90%) and quite good on efficiency (71%), but not good
enough on effectiveness (60%). This is mostly due to the significant drawbacks of leaving the
roll-out of online procedures voluntary for the Member States and of the lack of a common
solution for the problem of cross-border use of documents for procedures. Furthermore, the
lack of findability will not be sufficiently addressed since the search facilities on the national
business portals will in principle not cater for search in all EU languages. Finally, the lack of
a common monitoring tool for quality will make enforcement of the quality criteria more
cumbersome. For these reasons, it is unlikely that the needs of the users identified would be
met with this option.
7.1.2.
Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of option 2
Option 2 scores well for all three criteria, especially coherence (100%) and efficiency (88%).
It has no low scores for any of the aspects assessed. It provides sufficient guarantees of
enforceability thanks to the use of a common user feedback tool for coverage and quality
monitoring. This option will rely more than the other two on very close cooperation between
the Commission and the Member States.
66
Coherence
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
Feasibility
Synergies
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0067.png
Table 7.2: Option 2 - EU-coordinated approach
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Coherence
Synergies and non-
duplication
Cost-effectiveness
Proportionality
Enforceability
Digitalisation
Usefulness
Feasibility
Specific objectives
= What we want to achieve
2. EU coordinated approach
Ensure full coverage of information citizens and
businesses need
EC covers EU level information in Your Europe
MS cover agreed national information in different websites
and portals
Joint monitoring of compliance
Coordinated promotion
Common assistance service finder
Common search facility
Agreed quality criteria with monitoring via common user
feedback tool used for all linked portals
Joint monitoring of compliance
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Improve awareness of services available
Eliminate or overcome duplication an complexity,
improve findability
Improve quality across the board for all information
and assistance services, and for procedures
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
Ensure that EU citizens and businesses can complete
Obligatory to offer 10+10 national procedures fully online
the most important part of their interactions with the
Agreed timetable for implementation for each MS
administration online
Information and procedures should be made available in EN
Make all information and procedures fully
accessible for non-national citizens and businesses
Online procedures should be made fully accessible for
foreign users
Common user interface for cross-border use of documents
and data to be designed later
Get a more systematic overview of obstacles
encountered by cross-border users
Link to common user feedback tool on EU and all national
websites and portals
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
Subtotals*
TOTALS
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
* As a pourcentage of the maximum score
75%
85%
67%
76%
93%
87%
88%
85%
100%
100%
76%
87%
7.1.3.
Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of option 3
Option 3 has by far the best scores for meeting the needs of the users (93%). Its fully
centralised approach would guarantee a harmonised way of presenting information ensuring
that users can easily find the information they are looking for. Harmonised EU wide
procedures would be designed fully to be accessible for cross-border users. However, serious
drawbacks of this option are the lack of feasibility due to little support from the Member
States for such a centralised approach. In addition, the overall efficiency of this option is not
very high since it combines very high costs with significant duplication.
67
Coherence
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0068.png
Table7.3: Option 3 - EU-wide fully centralised approach
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Coherence
Synergies and non-
duplication
Cost-effectiveness
Proportionality
Enforceability
Digitalisation
Usefulness
Feasibility
Specific objectives
= What we want to achieve
3. EU-wide fully centralised approach
Ensure full coverage of information citizens and
businesses need
Improve awareness of services available
Eliminate or overcome duplication an complexity,
improve findability
EC will provide all agreed information
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
Joint promotion
Common assistance service finder
Single search facility and fully harmonised presentation of
information
Quality criteria fully harmonised and integrated in contract,
with monitoring via single user feedback tool
EC monitors compliance
All 10+10 procedures will be harmonised at EU level for
foreign users (like for EPC and Services Card)
EC will develop IT structure for procedures within IMI
Fully guaranteed, translation in all or several languages
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Improve quality across the board for all information
and assistance services, and for procedures
Ensure that EU citizens and businesses can complete
the most important part of their interactions with the
administration online
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
Make all information and procedures fully
accessible for non-national citizens and businesses
Procedures are fully accessible to foreign users by design
Integrated user interface for cross-border use of documents
and data
Common user feedback tool will be fully integrated
Get a more systematic overview of obstacles
encountered by cross-border users
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
Subtotals*
TOTALS
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
* As a pourcentage of the maximum score
93%
81%
93%
27%
62%
48%
52%
45%
71%
71%
72%
65%
1.24. 7.2. Choice of the preferred package
Based on the analysis above, option 2 is most likely to achieve the objectives efficiently and
in a proportionate way, while maximising the benefits for stakeholders. At the same time, this
option is best aligned with the ideas and wishes expressed by the Member States so far. Broad
support is key for the successful implementation of this ambitious project. The Commission
and the Member States will need to work together very closely to achieve an effective, step-
by-step implementation of all the different requirements of the preferred option. To illustrate
how this could work, a detailed project plan is included in Annex 12.
1.25. 7.3. Benefits of the preferred package – why will it succeed?
For EU citizens and businesses with a cross-border perspective, the benefits of having full
online access to reliable information and user friendly procedures in a language that they can
understand, will be very considerable. They will be able to compare rules and obligations in
the different Member States, check them against their EU rights and handle a large part of
their administration fully online. They will waste less time trying to find out which rules
apply, which documents are needed, visiting administrations, waiting and getting all the
paperwork done. The study about administrative formalities
224
has calculated that the costs of
cross-border businesses are 50% higher compared to domestic businesses, and that the
aggregate cost difference (between the same number of domestic and cross-border businesses,
for nine procedures) is EUR 131 million. Almost half of the additional costs for cross-border
businesses is caused by translations (EUR 60 million) , followed by additional costs for
gathering information (mostly advice, EUR 30 million), submitting documents (EUR 22
million, mostly travel costs if submission in person is required, certification (EUR 11 million)
and collecting data and documents (EUR 7 million). The savings for domestic businesses
from digitalisation are much greater and in the order of magnitude of EUR 6.5 billion for just
nine businesses procedures, and EUR 48 million for cross-border users. As far as information
224
Study about administrative formalities of important procedures and administrative burden for businesses, Ecorys, 2017
See annex 19 for the methodology.
68
Coherence
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0069.png
is concerned, businesses could save between EUR 11 and 55 billion annually for researching
nine business topics
225
. The benefits for citizens can only be indicated by estimating the
number of hours saved. The preferred option would reduce by 60% the 1.5 million hours that
citizen currently spend on researching online seven essential topics before going abroad. If
these costs, time and hassle could be avoided, not only for businesses but also for citizens,
more people would be encouraged to expand their activities across borders due to much
increased transparency. Furthermore, e-procedures reduce the risk of administrative errors and
corruption.
Improved knowledge about rights and opportunities, and better-quality online services may
also contribute to more firms and citizens claiming these EU rights. An example is the
principle of mutual recognition for intra-EU trade in goods that is currently not well-known
among businesses.
The preferred option will have the following specific advantages compared to the current
situation:
-
Holistic:
This option aims at the vertical integration of the whole sequence of information,
procedures and assistance services that Single Market users need. It will also link the many
separate services that have been created in different policy domains over the past decades.
It will go a long way to overcome the current fragmentation and duplication, and the gaps
in the currently available information.
-
User-driven:
Through a common user feedback tool the option will systematically receive
feedback on the quality and coverage of the services included. This will ensure that we
concentrate resources on what is most important for the users, and provide for an
integrated and efficient monitoring tool to assist enforcement. The expected result is a
much higher level of customer orientation of these public services, also for cross-border
customers.
-
More digital:
The current services have been built over several years, and in many cases
recent information technology developments have enabled e-government solutions that
were not feasible or were much more expensive earlier. Moving procedures online has
advanced considerably and it can be expected that all Member States are in the position to
complete the move of the most frequently used procedures online relatively quickly, and
also make them fully transactional for cross-border users.
-
More practical and more enforceable:
The option includes clear and practical common
rules for the range of services provided, integrates the lessons learned and facilitates
enforcement. The proposed concrete quality standards for information, assistance and
procedures will ensure consistency in service quality that is lacking today. Clearer rules of
what makes a procedure fully online and fully accessible for cross-border users will help to
prevent new single market obstacles.
-
Experience-based:
The solutions contained in the package have already been tested in
practice, as they build on existing services and have been chosen based on feedback from
Member States and stakeholders, in particular concerning their good practices. The chosen
package is based on the most successful national solutions, in particular the citizen and
business portals of France, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta. The
package also reflects experience gained through the management of EU level networks and
portals such as SOLVIT, Your Europe and the contact points, and the Commission-wide
digital transformation process.
-
Strong support:
The chosen package is broad and ambitious, but it is based on strong
225
Study on information and assistance needs of businesses operating cross-border within the EU, including gap and cost
analysis, Ernest & Young, 2017. See annex 19 for the methodoloy.
69
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0070.png
support from the Member States and stakeholders. In particular, the Member States will
play an essential role in its implementation. During the consultation process, a series of
bilateral meetings identified good practices to follow and pitfalls to avoid, based on
experience with national e-government programmes. The consultation process has helped
to shape the package and has confirmed that there is strong support for it. Likewise,
business organisations, chambers of commerce, the European Parliament and the REFIT
platform have strongly encouraged the Commission to propose such an initiative.
1.26. 7.4. Costs of the preferred package and available EU funding
7.4.1.
Cost for Member States and the Commission
The preferred package of options has eight cost categories. These are 1) extending the
coverage of information; 2) providing information in another language; 3) meeting quality
requirements for assistance services; 4) getting procedures online; 5) making online
procedures fully transactional across borders; 6) developing the single digital gateway support
tools, hosting and maintaining them; 7) promoting the gateway; and 8) managing it, see table
6.8.
Based of the assumed 20 procedures to be made available online, these costs amount to
EUR 167 million of initial investment costs and around EUR 8 million of annual running
costs for all Member States and the Commission together. The initial investment costs would
already be mostly compensated for by the saving of EUR 112 million per year through the
digitalisation of only nine out of the ten business procedures (with the 10 citizen procedures
remaining unassessed). These figures are only indicative, but show the large potential for cost
savings for national administrations from going online. Other areas for potential savings, e.g.
deriving from a shift to online information instead of personalised advice to the public, are not
included as they could not be calculated.
For the two countries that have the fewest procedures online (still 17 out of 20 missing),
moving them online would take EUR 10.2m for each. This is 2 to 3% of the 2014-2020 ESIF
funding they have allocated to e-government, so the required investment is relatively minor. It
is expected that the single digital gateway approach will lead to costs savings for managing
existing services, but it has not been possible to quantify these savings.
Concerning access to European funding when implementing the single digital gateway, the
2014-2020 ESIF can be used
226
by 17 Member States for funding of e-government
programmes and ICT projects. Thirteen Member States are currently using these funds for
that purpose. (see Table 6.5 and Annex 11 section 11.3). Many of them have already replaced
paper based procedures by online versions on that basis and others could follow that example
to comply with the requirements of the single digital gateway.
Horizon 2020 is funding a pilot project for once-only which is important for cross-border use
of online procedures.
The ISA
2
programme
227
is developing reusable building blocks for EU wide interoperability,
where the core public service catalogue is of particular importance, as it is envisaged to be
used for the single digital gateway. In addition, the development of the common user
interfaces foreseen for the single digital gateway could be funded via this programme.
1.27. 7.5. Choice of legal instrument
The existing contact points, information and assistance services have been established on the
basis of a variety of legally binding and non-binding instruments.
226
227
Provided these Member States have foreseen this in their Operational Programmes.
https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/
70
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0071.png
In view of the identified preferred option, the instrument to create the single digital gateway
will need to overcome this divergence and address the identified problems in a practical way.
It will need to complement the existing directives, regulations and recommendations that
establish the different services. It will need to fill in the details where they have been missing
and provide the necessary legal basis where voluntary action has not delivered satisfactory
results. A regulation based on Articles 21(2), 48 and 114(1) of the Treaty would appear to be
the most suitable instrument to satisfy these requirements.
1.28. 7.6. Subsidiarity and proportionality of the preferred option
The preferred option strikes a careful balance between on the one hand the need to leave
ownership and responsibility for national information and national procedures with the
Member States, and on the other the need to address the obstacles that have occurred over
time for citizens and businesses trying to exercise their Single Market rights. For each of the
problems to be addressed, the most effective and proportionate solution has been chosen, as
explained in the previous sections. The result is an approach that would appear to be both
widely supported by Member States and very much welcomed by the intended beneficiaries,
the citizens and businesses of Europe. This gives additional reassurance that the preferred
option is fully aligned with requirements for subsidiarity and proportionality.
1.29. 7.7. Cumulative impact and synergies of the preferred option
The single digital gateway can rely on the strong foundation of the national technology
networks that have already been put in place by Member States. This is also true for those
Member States that are lagging behind, given the substantial investments in e-government
already planned to cover the gap by 2020, which corresponds to the timeframe for
implementation of this initiative.
The benefit of the gateway, as built on the preferred option, is that it provides a clear
framework for the roll-out of national online procedures based on Single Market priorities and
principles. The latter can be taken on board already while national programmes are still
ongoing. This is more cost-efficient than taking remedial action ex-post. As has been
indicated in this assessment, the cross-border perspective tends to be overlooked by the
Member States. The leverage effects of the gateway in terms of efficiency and benefits to both
citizens and business and for administrations are potentially considerable.
Moreover, the use of the building blocks
228
developed under the Connecting Europe
Facility
229
offers possibilities for additional savings of 20-40% and reducing the
implementation cycle costs by 40-50%.
230
Helpdesk functions, assistance services and
feedback tools can rely on services already available on the national and the EU levels.
1.30. 7.8. Coherence with other proposals
The preferred option contributes to achieving the objectives of the Digital Single Market
strategy, such as tackling discrimination based on residence or nationality. It supports the
other actions of the E-government Action Plan. The proposed options are in line with the
recommendations of the European Interoperability Framework.
Furthermore, the option complements the start-up and scale-up initiative,
231
which promotes
the growth of firms by improving the business environment and cutting red tape. SMEs, in
particular those trading across borders will benefit from lower costs related to information
searches – relatively more than large firms. They will also benefit from the more uniform
quality of available online information, assistance and procedures. Those trading across
228
229
230
231
eID, eDelivery, eSignature , eInvoicing, and eTranslation.
With a budget of €970 million.
The Advantages, Economics and Value of Reuse', joint paper Gartner Research and the MIT, 1 July 2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8998
71
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0072.png
borders will benefit from procedures that are important for them. SMEs will find it easier to
identify procedures about the Single Market and thus enter new EU markets. They can signal
problems with rules and public authorities in an easy and familiar way in all EU languages.
Ongoing initiatives at EU level are addressing aspects of VAT registration and return through
the mini-one-stop-shop,
232
as well as patient registration,
233
and thus the single digital
gateway needs to articulate its approach with these initiatives. Similarly, the approach needs
to be articulated with the planned company law initiative to facilitate the use of digital
technologies throughout a company's lifecycle.
The initiative contributes to and supports the achievements of other ongoing EU initiatives.
For an overview of how the single digital gateway links to other initiatives, see Annex 9.
1.31. 7.9. Implementing the preferred option – what is the timeline?
Work on the single digital gateway can start before the adoption of the regulation. The
Commission can start upgrading the current Your Europe portal in line with the overall
objectives. The different actions to be implemented as from adoption of the legal proposal are
set out in the table below, and in more detail, in Annex 12.
Table 7.4: Implementation plan and milestones
Timing
Commission actions
Pre-adoption stage
Q1/2018
Works with MS on further convergence of
information and assistance services towards
the objectives of the single digital gateway
Analyses different options related to the IT
tools and applications listed in the
Commission Proposal. Incorporate IT
security risk assessment and IT security
plans.
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 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
Appoint national co-ordinators and notify
their names to the COM
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
Q2/2018
Q2/2018
Q4/2018
Q3/2018
Q3/2018
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
Q1/2019
Q1/2019
232
233
Council Regulation (EU) No 967/2012.
E-health Action Plan 2012-2020 - Innovative healthcare for the 21st century, COM(2012)736, 6.12.2012.
72
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0073.png
Timing
Q1/2019
Commission actions
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
Member States’ actions
Start working on:
- filling the online information coverage
gaps
- getting the missing procedures online
- ensuring that existing online procedures
are accessible for foreign users
Q2/2019
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 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,
including a review of IT security plan and
measures to cover risks.
All agreed information is offered online
User feedback tools deployed on all single
digital gateway related webpages
Re-structuring, tagging of information on
their websites
Q2/2019
Q3/2019
Q3/2019
Notification of links to the national
services to the repository of links
All agreed information is offered online
MSs with most advanced e-government
programmes to offer all agreed
procedures online
User feedback tools deployed on all
single digital gateway related webpages
Q3/2020
Q4/2019
Beta-version of the single digital gateway to
be put online and tested
Implementing act on tool for cross-border
use of evidence
Launch of tool for cross-border use of
evidence
Testing together with the COM the tools
and applications to ensure that they are
ready to use as from Q3 2020
Q4/2019
Q4/2020
Q4 2020
Q4/2022
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
Q4/2022
Q1/2024
Q3/2024
73
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
1750575_0074.png
8.
M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION
The set of indicators below aims to measure whether the single digital gateway will succeed
in meeting the objectives defined in section 4.2 of this impact assessment.
The legislative proposal on the single digital gateway foresees that the necessary ongoing
monitoring and evaluation measures are based on direct user feedback about the quality,
availability and findability of the services offered. In addition, users will be encouraged
through a second feedback tool to report problems encountered with the Single Market.
The user feedback tool is an efficient way for steering quality management but also for
gathering evidence about success. When implemented as an integral part of an information
system, it can provide quick and accurate picture of strengths and weaknesses. It is a low-cost
option replacing an expensive ongoing evaluation machinery.
The gap analysis (see Annex 4) shows that the areas that need particular monitoring are linked
to those Member States that have large gaps in the availability of information and procedures
online, especially concerning the access of foreign citizens. The main risk for the successful
implementation of the single digital gateway is that the Member States lagging behind today
will not be able to catch up quickly enough. However, the planned governance structure based
on very close cooperation of the Member States and the Commission, and the possibility to
use ESIF funding should help in bringing all Member States up to speed.
The results of the monitoring efforts should guide continuous improvement of the services
and will also be used for a Commission report on the functioning of the single digital gateway
to the European Parliament and the Member States every two years. A full evaluation should
take place four years after entry into force of the regulation.
Table 8.1: Monitoring the performance of the single digital gateway
Specific objectives
Ensure full coverage of information
citizens and businesses need
Improve awareness of services
available
Eliminate or overcome duplication
complexity, improve findability
Improve quality across the board for
all information and assistance
services, and for procedures
Ensure that EU citizens and
businesses can complete the most
important part of their interactions
with the administration online
Make all information and procedures
fully accessible for non-national
citizens and businesses
Indicator
Percentage of businesses and
citizens who indicate they have
found the information they were
looking for.
Trends in average number of
monthly users.
Percentage of businesses and
citizens who indicate they have
easily found the information they
were looking for
Percentage of business and citizens
who indicate satisfaction with
quality (based on criteria).
Percentage of businesses and
citizens who indicate that they have
been able to complete the available
procedures fully online.
Percentage of cross-border
businesses and citizens who indicate
that they have been able to complete
the available procedures fully
online.
Usability of data from user feedback
tool and from assistance services
regarding obstacles in the Single
Market and quality of resulting
report
Operational objective
Yearly increase from
benchmark in Year 1, towards
target of 90%
Yearly increase from
benchmark in Year 1
Yearly increase from
benchmark in Year 1, towards
target of 90%
Yearly increase from
benchmark in Year 1, towards
target of 90%
Yearly increase from
benchmark in Year 1, towards
target of 95%
Yearly increase from
benchmark in Year 1, towards
target of 95%
Get a more systematic overview of
obstacles encountered by cross-border
users
Positive feedback from
stakeholders on usefulness of
reporting on Single Market
obstacles
74
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
75
 kom (2017) 0256 - Ingen titel
9.
L
IST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1: Procedural information
Annex 2: Synopsis report of the public consultation
Annex 3: Evaluation
Annex 4: Gap analysis of national online information and procedures
Annex 5: Detailed problem descriptions
Annex 6: Detailed quality criteria
Annex 7: Overview of problem drivers, problems, objectives and options
Annex 8: Services to be covered by the single digital gateway
Annex 9: Overview of the initiatives with links to the single digital gateway
Annex 10: Visual overview of links with other initiatives
Annex 11: Available IT building blocks and EU funding
Annex 12: Outline and project plan of the single digital gateway
Annex 13: Good practices from the Member States
Annex 14: Contents of Your Europe
Annex 15: Example of product requirements
Annex 16: Report on the online public consultation
Annex 17: Visual outline of the single digital gateway
Annex 18: Financial and human resources of the relevant services
Annex 19: Methodology of cost and benefit calculations
Annex 20: Glossary
76