Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0441
Offentligt
1908223_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 7.6.2018
SWD(2018) 320 final
PART 1/2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
establishing the Programme for single market, competitiveness of enterprises, including
small and medium-sized enterprises, and European statistics and repealing Regulations
(EU) No 99/2013, (EU) No 1287/2013, (EU) No 254/2014, (EU) No 258/2014, (EU) No
652/2014 and (EU) No 2017/826
{COM(2018) 441 final} - {SEC(2018) 294 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Table of contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 4
THE OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 23
PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................................................... 31
DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ...................................................... 42
HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?....................................... 47
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 50
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION....................................................................................... 52
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 63
ANNEX 4: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
AN AMBITIOUS COMPETITION POLICY
FOR A STRONGER UNION IN THE DIGITAL AGE ('THE COMPETITION
PROGRAMME')
.................................................................................................................................. 64
ANNEX 5: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
IT AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS FOR THE
SINGLE MARKET
............................................................................................................................. 105
ANNEX 6: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
EUROPEAN STATISTICAL PROGRAMME'
(ESP)
................................................................................................................................................. 127
ANNEX 7: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
IMPLEMENTATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE MARKET FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
......................................... 145
ANNEX 8: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
STANDARDS IN THE FIELD OF
REPORTING AND AUDITING
........................................................................................................ 154
ANNEX 9: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
ENHANCING THE INVOLVEMENT OF
CONSUMERS AND OTHER END-USERS IN UNION POLICY-MAKING IN FINANCIAL
SERVICES (ICFS)
............................................................................................................................. 166
ANNEX 10: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
COMPANY LAW AND ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING
.................................................................................................................................. 178
ANNEX 11: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
CONSUMER PROGRAMME AND NEW
DEAL FOR CONSUMERS
................................................................................................................ 189
ANNEX 12: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
INTERNAL MARKET - GOVERNANCE
TOOLS
.............................................................................................................................................. 210
ANNEX 13: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
INTERNAL MARKET
–
SUPPORT TO
STANDARDISATION ACTIVITIES
................................................................................................... 226
ANNEX 14: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
INTERNAL MARKET
–
OPERATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNAL MARKET FOR GOODS, SERVICES AND PUBLIC
PROCUREMENT
.............................................................................................................................. 235
ANNEX 15: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
COSME
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ANNEX 16: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
HEALTH PROGRAMMEERROR!
BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ANNEX 17: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
FOOD CHAIN PROGRAMMEERROR!
BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED
ANNEX 18: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC ANNEX ON
CUSTOMS AND TAX POLICY
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT BUDGET LINE
..................
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ANNEX 19: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ...........
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ANNEX 20: PROGRAMME SPECIFIC INDICATORS...........
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0003.png
Glossary
Term or acronym
CHAFEA
COSME
DG COMP
DG DIGIT
DG ESTAT
DG FISMA
DG GROW
DG JRC
DG JUST
DG SANTE
DG TAXUD
EASME
EEA
EFTA
GDP
MFF
NGOs
REFIT
SMEs
SMP
TFEU
Meaning or definition
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency
Europe’s programme for small and medium-sized
enterprises
Directorate-General Competition
Directorate-General Informatics
Directorate-General Eurostat - European statistics
Directorate-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and
Capital Markets Union
Directorate-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and
SMEs
Directorate-General Joint Research Centre
Directorate-General Justice and Consumers
Directorate-General Health and Food Safety
Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
European Economic Area
European Free Trade Association
Gross Domestic Product
Multiannual Financial Framework
Non-governmental organizations
The Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme
Small and medium-sized enterprises
Single Market Programme
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
3
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0004.png
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
The Single Market is a cornerstone of the European Union. Since its inception, it has
proved a major contributor to growth, competitiveness and employment. It is one of
Europe’s major achievements and its best asset in an increasingly global world. It is also
an engine for building a stronger, more balanced and fairer EU economy. To fully deliver
the Single Market on the ground, the substantial body of EU legislation and standards
underpinning it is not sufficient in itself. Adopting rules is only one part of the picture;
making them work is just as important: citizens and businesses need to know their rights,
local administrations need to know how to apply the rules and courts need to know how
to enforce them. This means information tools, training programmes or emergency
mechanisms need to be in place. Financial support within the EU Budget is thus
indispensable to help ensure the effective operation of the Single Market. This is
ultimately a matter of trust in the EU, in its capacity to create growth and jobs while
protecting the public interest.
The achievements of the Single Market are not irreversible. They will require continued
investment in the future not only to be preserved but also to achieve their full potential
and for the EU to be able to address new economic challenges. In view of the increasing
pressure from global competitors and in the absence of appropriate financing, there is a
risk that the effectiveness of the Single Market would be undermined and that
fragmentation and protectionist tendencies within the EU could increase. This would in
turn impact the way citizens perceived the benefits of European integration. The EU has
an interest, therefore, in ensuring that such support framework continues to function to
the benefit of the EU economy and citizens.
1.1.
Scope and context
One of the priorities of the Juncker Commission is to establish a deeper and fairer
Internal market, as shown in particular by the adoption of the Digital Single Market
1
, of
the Single Market Strategies
2
and the Capital Markets Union Action Plan
3
, all in 2015. A
strong Single Market is also seen as a precondition for a stronger Union in the President's
"6th scenario" for the future set out in the State of the Union speech of 2017
4
. This
requires a consistent effort in all the relevant fields of the Single Market. To be in a better
position to tackle them, in a context of budgetary constraints, the EU needs to seek
synergies and prevent duplication and fragmentation in its support to the Single Market.
It also needs to ensure greater visibility and coherence of its action towards Single
Market users, who may find in particular the proliferation of tools and support
programmes confusing.
Strengthening the governance of the Single Market is also fully in line with the numerous
Council conclusions or European Parliament Resolution dealing with the Single Market
most notably in the
Competitiveness Council conclusions of 29 February 2016 on the
Single market strategy (Ref 6622/16)
and of the
Resolution of the European Parliament
of 26 May 2016 on the Single market strategy (Ref. 2015/2534 (INI)).
1 COM(2015) 192 final "A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe"
2 COM(2015) 550 final, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business
3
COM(2015) 468 final, "Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union"
4
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm
4
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0005.png
As a result, the Commission concluded on the need to propose a programme for the
Single Market for the next multiannual financial framework.
At the time of submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
5
various scenarios for the
COSME, ISA² and Health programmes were under discussion. Either programme could
remain integrated in the Single Market Programme or adopted as part of another
programme or, in the case of COSME, part of the programme could be moved to the
InvestEU Fund. If any of these programmes or parts of them were to be adopted under
another programme, the present impact assessment would nevertheless remain valid by
disregarding the relevant elements.
Following the finalization of this Impact Assessment the loan guarantees for SMEs
previously provided for under the COSME programme, will be implemented under the
SME window of InvestEU
6
in a format further described in this impact assessment
7
.
After the submission of this impact assessment to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board a
political decision was taken by the Vice-Presidents that the Health programme will be
implemented as part of the European Social Fund+. Through different actions, the Health
programme and the Food Chain programme aim to ensure a high level of health
protection (of humans, animals, plants) in the Single Market as mandated by Articles 114
and 168 TFEU. In other words, they contribute fully and appropriately to the objectives
of the Single Market programme, notably (but not exclusively) to the objective of
ensuring that the operation of the internal market "take(s) as a base a high level of
protection" in matters concerning health.
On the other hand, measures under the Health programme are also characterized by a
strong social dimension, in that they also aim to address health inequalities and health
social determinants, issues which citizens and stakeholders in general consider to be
better addressed in conjunction with other measures of the EU social pillar. The results of
the open public consultation for the Internal Market programme indeed confirm citizens'
and stakeholders' views in that sense, without questioning the relevance of the Health
programme measures for the functioning of the Single Market or their objectives.
This means first that, when the Health programme be integrated into the European Social
Fund+ framework instead of the present programme, its measures will continue to play a
key role in ensuring the smooth functioning of the Single Market (for patients moving
across borders, for products
–
pharmaceuticals, medical devices, blood, organs, etc.).
Secondly, that the health dimension and objectives of the Internal Market programme
will remain valid, and they will be pursued both through the measures of the Food Chain
programme and through synergies to be established with the Health programme. To all
extent and purposes, the Health programme impact assessment was an integral part of the
Single Market programme impact assessment.
5
6
On 28 March 2018.
COM (2018) 321 final "A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends, The Multiannual
Financial Framework for 2021-2027". Pages 18
–
19 indicate that the loan guarantees for SMEs will be delivered
through the relevant window of the InvestEU Fund through an amount of € 2 billion attributable to this programme
but allocated under the InvestEU Fund.
7
See programme-specific annex 15, COSME Subannex
–
Access to Finance for SMEs
5
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0006.png
Implementing these actions through other MFF programmes changes the size of the
programme but does not materially alter the objectives, suggested programme structure
and delivery mechanisms for the Single Market Programme. Non-participation of any of
these programmes may affect certain synergies quantitatively but not qualitatively as
these synergies could still be partially achievable.
A stand-alone Impact Assessment for COSME
8
, ISA
2 9
and the Health Programme
10
have
been drafted and are annexed to the Single Market programme. For the purpose of
presenting the impact assessment for the Single Market Programme, these elements will
remain included in the further analysis.
The baseline for this impact assessment includes both the current MFF and the theoretical
impact of the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU (EU27 baseline scenario)
11
for 14 programmes and budget lines dealing with specific aspects of the Single Market.
The total current budget is just under €6bn or 0.55% of the total
EU28 budget meaning
that the existing programmes and budget lines provide substantial EU value added with a
very limited impact on the EU budget.
Following upstream guidance from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) this impact
assessment will focus on the merging of the existing programmes and not analysis of the
individual programmes and budget lines
12
described in table 1.1, along with the
additional commitments undertaken since the adoption of the current MFF by the
Commission as described in table 1.2
13
. It also includes the analysis of proposed new
interventions to support the functioning of the Single Market under the new MFF as
described in table 2.1.
Potential benefits of grouping existing programmes and budget lines together, such as
flexibility in terms of fund allocation, simplification of programme structure,
management and delivery modes and exploitation of synergies (e.g. avoiding duplication
of efforts or common actions), will be explored.
This impact assessment satisfies the requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect
of preparing an ex-ante evaluation.
The selected programmes and budget lines under the current multiannual financial
framework are united by their shared objectives to regulate, implement, facilitate, enforce
and protect various activities and actors within the Single Market regulatory framework.
Thus they are all, in their different ways, essential for the functioning of the Single
Market. The selected budget lines include activities that support delivery of the Single
Market in the wider sense, such as the need to safeguard the health of humans, animals
and plants, so as to preserve a well-functioning Single Market and its resources and its
activities. It includes supporting business opportunities for SMEs through access to
finance and new markets and encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit in the Single Market.
These programmes and budget lines are an important contribution to empower citizens,
8
9
See Programme-specific annex 15
See Programme-specific annex 5
10
See Programme-specific annex 16
11
I.e. 2014-2020 MFF commitments minus 15%
12
The programme specific annexes provide description and analysis of individual programmes and are prepared in
accordance with the same guidelines as the main document. (see annex 4-18).
13
These additional commitments are to be added to the Baseline EU 27 scenario
6
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0007.png
consumers, businesses and administrations in the Single Market. They are included in the
scope of the Single Market programme to ensure their uninterrupted delivery.
Furthermore, it should be noted that, while it undoubtedly contributes to the delivery of
Single Market policies, the European Statistical Programme covered by this impact
assessment has a transversal character which is wider than the Single Market as it serves
all policies of the Union based on Article 338 TFEU. Therefore it is important to ensure
that the inclusion of the European Statistical Programme in the scope of this programme
does not jeopardise the continued provision of high quality statistics on Europe to
support the design, monitoring and evaluation of all Union policies, including
empowering businesses and citizens to take informed decisions.
Table 1.1 Initial commitments under the scope of the Single Market Programme
Programme/ Budget
line
Current
MFF
EU28
(m €)
EU27
baseline
scenario
(m €)
14
Description
1. Interoperability
solutions and
common frameworks
for European public
administrations,
businesses and
citizens as a means
for modernising the
public sector (ISA²
programme)
180
153
The programme supports the development of digital solutions
that enable public administrations, businesses and citizens in
Europe to benefit from interoperable cross-border and cross-
sector public services.
2. Implementation
and Development of
Single Market for
Financial Services
25.9
22
3. European
Statistical
Programme (ESP)
452.8
384.9
4. Standards in the
field of reporting and
auditing
5. Enhancing the
involvement of
consumers and other
14
57
48.5
6
15
8,9
16
This budget line covers measures contributing to the completion
of the internal market and its operation and development in the
area of financial services, financial stability and capital markets
union. It covers expenditures on consultations, studies
(including conformity assessment of the legislation), surveys,
evaluations, meetings of experts, information activities,
awareness raising, training materials, publications and
development of policy-related IT systems.
The programme provides high quality statistics on Europe using
multiple data sources, advanced data analytics methods and
digital technologies to support the design, monitoring and
evaluation of all Union policies, including Single Market
policies. The statistics provided through the programme will
also empower businesses and citizens to take informed
decisions in the Single Market and beyond.
The programme provides EU funding to three European and
international organisations in the field of financial reporting and
thereby underpins the EU legal framework on financial
reporting (accounting and auditing) and trust in the Single
market for financial services.
The programme supports the development of financial expertise
in organisations representing European end-users and other non-
industry stakeholders thereby empowering consumer
Baseline scenario showing 15% reduction following a EU27 scenario. Calculated on the amounts for MFF (EU28)
for the individual programme/budget line. Such baseline scenario is without prejudice of the budgetary resources
established in the context of the next MFF and any subsequent decision on the repartition of budget among the
different specific programmes which are part of the proposed Single Market Programme.
15
Covering only 3.5 years (from mid-2017 until 2020).
16
Covering 7 years based on an average of 1.5 per year (10.5 m).
7
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0008.png
Programme/ Budget
line
Current
MFF
EU28
(m €)
EU27
baseline
scenario
(m €)
14
Description
interactions in the Single Market for financial services markets.
end-users in Union
policy-making in
financial services
(ICFS)
6. Company Law
prerogative
9.2
7.8
The budget line has supported studies with a view to making
company law and corporate governance more transparent and
efficient in the Single Market; performed studies on cross-
border mobility of companies; Commission assessment of third
countries Anti Money Laundering (AML) regimes;
transposition checks of the AML Directives and membership of
the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.
The programme promotes the development and enforcement of
consumer rights, product safety and supports measures to
inform and empower consumers in the Single Market. The
programme also supports the integration of consumers' interests
in other policy areas and monitors, supports and supplement
consumer policies in Member States. The REC Programme also
aims at enabling individuals in their capacity as consumers or
entrepreneurs in the internal market to enforce their rights
deriving from Union law.
The Internal market governance tools aim to provide
information, advice, assistance and problem-solving services
helping citizens and businesses move, operate and live in other
member states, as well as facilitating those exchanges between
public administrations provided by Single Market regulations.
The budget line provides support to European standardisation
activities to facilitate circulation of products in the single market
and to ensure compliance with the safety requirements imposed
by European legislation.
The budget line supports removing and preventing barriers on
the Single Market by the enforcement of EU services and
product rules including via market surveillance, conformity
assessment and accreditation, mutual recognition, translation
under the Single Market Transparency Directive
17
, support for
policy-making in services, support for public procurement, and
support for a number of sectoral purposes on harmonised
product rules.
The Programme creates an environment favourable to the
competitiveness of SMEs within the Single Market and beyond
by encouraging an entrepreneurial culture, providing access to
finance, supporting internationalisation, industrial
modernisation and access to markets.
The programme supports the improvement of public health,
preventing and managing diseases, mitigating sources of danger
to human health, including by harmonising relevant legislation
and focuses on improving the health of EU citizens and
reducing health inequalities, encouraging innovation in health
and increasing the sustainability of health systems and
defending the EU against cross-border health threats so as to
preserve a well-functioning Single Market.
The Common Financial Framework ensures that the EU has a
legal framework to promote high levels of safety necessary for
ensuring the free circulation of food, animals and plants in the
7. Consumer
Programme and the
consumer and
contract law part of
the Rights Equality
and Citizenship
programme (REC)
188.8
160.5
8. Internal market:
Governance tools
9. Internal market:
Support to
Standardisation
activities
10. Internal market:
operation and
development of the
internal market for
Goods, Services and
Public Procurement
29.1
24.7
159.6
135.7
159.3
135.4
11. COSME
2357
2003.5
12. Health
programme
449.4
382
13. CFF for food
chain (the Food
Chain Programme)
17
1891.9
1608.1
Directive 2015/1535
8
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0009.png
Programme/ Budget
line
Current
MFF
EU28
(m €)
EU27
baseline
scenario
(m €)
14
Description
Single Market and for safeguarding and protecting the health of
EU citizens.
The budget line finance a series of punctual activities
–
mainly
studies - which support the Commission in its policy developing
role in the area of EU customs and tax policy which are both
important for a well-functioning Single Market.
14. Customs and tax
policy development
support budget line
Total
22.6
5988.4
19.2
5090.1
Whereas this Impact Assessment does not discuss the budgetary allocations for the
overall programme and each of its components, it is important to note that the initial
assumption provided for its preparation was to base this proposal on the basis of the
current 2014-2020 MFF allocations. Concretely, this represents that the contents in terms
of activities and actions included in each of the individual programmes in this Impact
Assessment and its annexes are based on the assumption of that minimum baseline (MFF
2014-2020).
The EU-27 budget scenario is equivalent to approximately 1% of EU GNI following the
UK's departure, i.e. entailing a 15% cut in relation to the current 2014-2020 MFF
allocations (so called "EU 27 baseline scenario").
Bearing in mind that this programme is the added sum of a large number of programmes,
some with an already limited budget, considering a 15% (or €0.9bn) reduction would
have a direct impact and would impede some of the actions considered in this impact
assessment (e.g. cuts would impair the collective capacity of the European statistical
system to make the necessary investments in digital technologies and new data sources to
produce in-time statistics with the required level of disaggregation across regions and
population groups which will result in a reduction of statistical production across policy
areas).
Compared to the baseline in 2014 the Commission has undertaken a number of new
commitments during the current MFF that would also need to be financed under the next
MFF as described in table 1.2.
Table 1.2
–
Additional commitments by the Commission from 2014-2020
Commitment
Budget
(m €)
Description
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) proposes a mechanism for EU
cooperation to help make innovative health technologies available to
Europe's patients, make better use of available resources and improve
business predictability. The proposal seeks to ensure that when HTA is
performed, the methodologies and procedures applied are more predictable
across the EU and that joint clinical assessments are not repeated at
national level, thereby avoiding duplication and discrepancies.
The Goods Package addresses existing shortcomings of mutual recognition
and market surveillance identified in the Single Market Strategy and
foresees a set-up of a European Product Compliance network to enhance
Health Technology
Assessment (HTA proposal)
COM(2018) 51 final
Goods package
COM(2017)795
18
17 per
year
18
13.7 pr.
year under
new MFF
Budget decision not finalised
9
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0010.png
Procurement strategy
COM(2017)572 and Ex-ante
assessment mechanism
COM(2017)573
0.6 pr. year
Single digital gateway
COM(2017)256
Type approval and market
surveillance of motor vehicles
COM(2016) 31 final
2.33 pr.
year
16 until
2020 and
4.3 pr.
year post
2020
1.36 in
2019-2020
and 4.8 pr.
year post
2020
Budget
allocation
not yet
defined
enforcement. Mutual recognition: average 1M€/year under new MFF;
Market surveillance: 22 M€/year under new MFF).
The procurement strategy sets out the priorities to improve the functioning
of public procurement in the EU, in particular to use procurement more
strategically, deliver better value for public money and better outcomes for
citizens and society, and a better functioning of the internal market. The
Commission commits to assisting Member States by developing a range of
support tools in 6 priority areas. In particular, the roll-out of large
infrastructure will be supported by the "ex-ante assessment mechanism for
large infrastructure projects".
Integrates access to information, procedures and assistance at European
and national levels and provides citizens and businesses with easier access
to information tools and problem solving services and imposes an
obligation for full online access to the most important procedures on
Member States
Provides new Regulation on type approval and market surveillance of
motor vehicles to assure that the new rules are followed and avoid the
provision of non-conform products to the European citizens.
Targeted amendments to 5 consumer law directives and revision of the
injunction directive plus a package of non-legislative actions in order to
better support enforcement of consumer rules. The objectives are to
provide consumers with additional tools to defend their rights; strengthen
redress by giving an added role to non-profit organisations for the
collective defence of consumers in 'mass harm situations'; enhance product
safety, and ensure equal treatment and empowerment of consumers.
Roadmap to boost the role of finance in achieving a well-performing
economy that delivers on environmental and social goals as well.
This Action Plan is also one of the key steps towards implementing the
historic Paris Agreement and the EU's agenda for sustainable
development.
The main objective of this legislative initiative is to make sure that the full
potential of the decentralised system of enforcement of EU competition
rules put in place by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is realised, by
empowering the National Competition Authorities to be more effective
enforcers. This will boost effective enforcement of the EU competition
rules. It will also underpin close cooperation in the European Competition
Network.
New Deal for consumers
(expected 11/04/2018)
Action Plan: Financing
sustainable Growth
COM(2018)97 final
Proposal to empower the
competition authorities of the
Member States to be more
effective enforcers and to
ensure the proper functioning
of the internal market
COM(2017) 142 final
Total based on available
information
2.3 per year
€45m per year, €315m during a 7 year MFF
programme
Taking existing (Table 1.1) and additional (Table 1.2) commitments together, the
reference baseline budget would amount to €6.3bn or €5.4bn in the EU27 baseline
scenario.
On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual
Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. It included the Single Market Programme as
one of the proposals. This impact assessment report reflects the decisions of the MFF
proposals and focuses on the changes and policy choices which are specific to the Single
Market Programme.
Exclusions from the scope and coherence with other MFF programmes
10
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
The Single Market programme will function alongside other programmes with relevance
for delivering the Single Market on the ground.
The cooperation activities supported under the
Fiscalis
and
Customs
programmes
represent key elements to strengthen the Single Market. The customs union is a
foundation of the Union and an enabler of the Internal Market and other EU political
priorities. It has a key function not only in its traditional role of duty collection for the
Union budget but also because customs authorities hold a central role in ensuring
external border and supply chain security, contributing to the security of the European
Union. As a result, Customs were not included into the Single Market programme due to
their relevance under the security heading. Fiscalis has obvious links to the Single
Market but supports a policy domain that remains subject to Member States' sovereignty
and is based on the principle of unanimity in Council. Hence the decision not to have it
merged with other Single Market programmes, which relate to areas under co-decision
and/or falling under the exclusive competence of the Commission. However custom
authorities still play an important role when controlling the safety or conformity of
imports of food and non-food products. (30% of goods come into the Single Market from
third countries). Import controls require close cooperation between customs and market
surveillance, joint actions, linking up of IT systems at EU level as well as capacity
building in Member States to align national systems.
The effectiveness of the Single Market Programme, notably its public authorities'
cooperation, is also dependant on the effectiveness of the
Digital Europe
programme as
it will provide the digital interoperability and infrastructures needed by a number of EU
programmes. As this programme is intended to be a major infrastructure programme
under the new MFF, it has been decided not to distinguish digital Single Market issues
from its broader infrastructure focus. Generic solutions developed under the Digital
Europe Programme will be streamlined, made fit-for-purpose so they can be integrated
into the IT solutions supporting the Single Market under the Single Market Programme.
Common governance for the IT Interoperable solutions inside and outside the Single
Market Programme could further increase the coherence across programmes. Artificial
intelligence, big data analysis, access to data sources and other IT related issues form a
core part of the Competition programme. As these activities also feature in the Digital
Europe programme, the effectiveness of the Single Market Programme, including the
Competition programme, will be boosted by the Digital Europe programme. Close
cooperation and planning among services will facilitate the combination of measures
from the Health programme and from the Digital Europe Programme to support Member
States' efforts toward digitalisation of health services; and measures from the Health
programme combined with expenditure from the structural funds to foster investments
that are in keeping with the need to increased resilience and efficiency of health systems.
The
European Social Fund
and
ERASMUS+
will act as a catalyst to foster labour and
youth mobility. As both will become major programmes in the field of investing in
people under the new MFF, it has been decided not to distinguish free movement of
workers issues from such a broader focus.
The
European Regional Development Fund
provides important support to SMEs, start-
ups and scale-ups via financial instruments, grants for SME innovation, business-
research cooperation, technology transfer and advisory services (including results
stemming from other Union programmes), take-up of energy and resource efficient
production methods, support to internationalisation, clusters and networking, and
11
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0012.png
provision of infrastructures facilitating business development (e.g. broadband access,
FabLabs, demonstrators, science parks) and improving institutions and governance (e.g.
via eGovernment). The focus of the ERDF programmes are regionally and locally
relevant impacts, in particular helping SMEs to benefit from digitisation,
decarbonisation, circular economy and globalisation opportunities based on Smart
Specialisation Strategies. Around 4% of the ERDF budget also supports trans-national
cooperation, including to foster administrative cooperation, capacity building and
integration among Member States. The Single Market Programme will take these
investments into account when designing its work programmes in order to ensure
complementarity.
Also, the programme will encourage SMEs to benefit from breakthrough innovation and
other solutions developed under other EU programmes like the
9
th
Framework
Programme
and the
Space programme.
On Support to innovation Horizon 2020's SME
instrument covers the business development and prototyping phases whilst COSME
provides support to recipients via EEN and Financial Instruments. Finally, and subject to
the caveat expressed in the section 1.1 Scope and context, the budget for the SME
guarantee facility attributed to the COSME programme will be implemented under the
SME window of the
InvestEU
Fund.
The Food Chain programme actions, such as veterinary measures in case of animal health
crises implying culling of animals and decontamination of farms, could be complemented
by market based interventions from the EU's
Common Agriculture Policy
(CAP)
programming. The inclusion of the Health programme in the
ESF+
will foster synergies
with the Single Market programme, notably through actions on Antimicrobial Resistance
with the Food chain program, which is part of the Single Market Programme.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
Given the significant divergence in size, scope and organisation of the individual
programmes and budget lines there is also significant divergence in the depth of lessons
that can be extracted from each programme/budget line. The main lessons learned in
individual programmes and budget lines included in the Single Market Programme are
summarised in table 1.3
19
.
Table 1.3 Main lessons learned in programmes and budget lines included in the Single
Market Programme
Programme/
Budget
line
Interoperability solutions
and common frameworks
for European public
administrations,
businesses and citizens
as a means for
modernising the public
sector (ISA² programme)
19
Description
The final evaluation of the previous ISA Programme was largely positive,
describing the ISA programme as aligned with the policy priorities of the European
Commission and the needs of Member States were implemented efficiently and
coherently, delivering results that are reused by both Commission services and
Member States. It was highlighted the need to further engage the stakeholders,
mainly policy domain owners and major national Member States administrations
during the whole lifecycle of the definition and implementation of solutions; The
use of pilots with the MS where they can tailor and test in the field how to integrate
The programme specific annexes provide full description and analysis of individual programmes (see annex 4-18).
12
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0013.png
Programme/
line
Budget
Description
and benefit from the adoption ISA2 funded solutions has proved to be quite
successful for both sides (the solution owner and the user Member State).
Studies have shown the macroeconomic impacts of EU competition enforcement to
be significant. Major lessons in terms of identifying new and growing challenges
have also been learnt in the day-to-day enforcement of EU competition policy.
These include a more complex and demanding IT and data driven world
(increasingly sophisticated IT tools used by firms, continuous increase in the
volume of electronic communications and the use of artificial intelligence, big data
and algorithms) as well as the need for a wider and deeper engagement with
national authorities and courts. Findings from a number of surveys demonstrate that
there is scope for reaching out to a wider group of stakeholders impacted by EU
competition policy.
The diversity of the actions undertaken under this programme (studies, surveys,
subscriptions to databases, development and maintenance of information systems in
support of the business, etc.) enabled the Commission to adapt its policies to a
wide-ranging and constantly changing environment and to adopt evidence-based
proposals following a broad consultation with stakeholders. This influenced for
example the progress made on the implementation of the Capital Markets Union
Action Plan, the Consumer Financial Services Action Plan as well as the progress
made on the Banking package to improve resilience and reduce risks in the banking
sector.
The two mid-term evaluations of the ESP demonstrate that the current delivery
mechanism works effectively and that the programme is run efficiently and is
reaching its objectives. The ESP provides a clear EU-added value, thanks to the
harmonised provision of comparable and high-quality data for the EU. However,
the evaluations also show the need to ensure adequate resources in the future for the
modernisation of the statistical production processes, to be able to respond to the
growing needs of the users, especially concerning timeliness and coverage of new
data for emerging policy needs, while becoming more agile and taking advantage of
new technologies.
In the context of the programme on standards in the field of financial reporting and
auditing the Commission carried out an ex-ante evaluation in 2012, an evaluation in
2014 and annual evaluations as from 2015. The results of such evaluations clearly
show that the objectives of the programme were achieved and that therefore the
current funding delivery mechanisms function effectively and will ensure
performing results also within the context of the new SMP.
The financing of Better Finance and Finance Watch through the current DG
FISMA capacity building programme as well as previous pilot projects and
preparatory actions enhancing the involvement of consumers and other end-users in
Union policy-making in financial services, was also a success which enabled both
organisations to grow as expert non-industry organisations with complementary
profiles bringing high European added value in pursuing planned objectives. The
continuation of such funding mechanism within the new SMP would allow the EU
to successfully pursue the same objectives of predecessor programmes whose EU
relevance is constantly increasing.
The budget line "Company law" for company law/corporate governance and anti-
money-laundering/counter terrorism financing has not been subject to evaluation or
consultation due to the fact that it was financed under the Commission's
prerogatives under Article 54(2) of the Financial Regulation. Experience in
executing the budget shows that there could be potential synergies for instance for
studies, where, company law and anti-money laundering policies, could benefit
from activities funded under other policy fields of the future Single Market
Programme to the extent that this allows covering the topics on which carrying out
a study in these specific policy areas is required.
The ongoing evaluation of the Consumer Programme shows a general satisfaction
of the stakeholders in terms of relevance and effectiveness of the activities. The
European Consumer Centres, E-enforcement academy, and the RAPEX system,
scored highly, as well as the support to BEUC and for all the networking and
Competition programme
Implementation and
Development of Single
Market for Financial
Services
European Statistical
Programme (ESP)
Standards in the field of
reporting and auditing
Enhancing the
involvement of
consumers and other
end-users in Union
policy-making in
financial services (ICFS)
Company Law
prerogative
Consumer Programme
and the consumer and
contract law part of the
Rights Equality and
13
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0014.png
Programme/
Budget
line
Citizenship programme
(REC)
Description
stakeholders events. Overall the objectives and priorities of the Consumer
Programme are assessed as being still fully relevant and should be continued.
Additional priorities could be given to sustainable consumption, a uniform and high
level of consumer protection throughout the EU, support to consumer organisations
at the Member State level (e.g. jointly with the Member States in their role as
consumer watchdogs). Finally, experience shows that the programme should enjoy
a higher degree of flexibility in order to better address new market challenges
driven by fast and often unpredictable societal and technological changes.
Continuous investment in boosting the quality, the visibility and the transparency of
these tools (Your Europe, Your Europe Advice (YEA), SOLVIT, the Internal
Market Information system) is needed to keep helping citizens and businesses to
efficiently use their Internal Market rights, but also to cope with increasing cross-
border mobility and activity and further digitalisation of the single market, i.e., a
comprehensive upgrade of the Your Europe portal will be required, as the single
digital gateway will be based on the Your Europe portal with a new common user
interface (search engine) managed by the Commission
The evaluation confirmed that the existing Regulatory framework fits the objectives
but showed areas for improvement at policy and operational level. At policy level
the main lessons learnt concern: a) speed and timeliness elaboration of standards;
b) inclusiveness of weaker stakeholders representing consumers, environmental,
workers interests and especially of SMEs which link innovation with
standardisation in the standardisation process c) support to competitiveness of
European businesses at global level; d) enhance communication channels between
the Commission and the European standardisation system. At operational level the
main
lessons learnt concern the need to: a) •
Speed up and simplify the
administrative procedures for conclusion of grant agreements , reporting
requirements and providing practical guidance on the procedures by use of IT; b)
move further towards a more performance-based system.
The REFIT evaluation on the functioning of market surveillance found that the
current approach of financing individual joint actions of market surveillance
authorities without a more coherent framework for coordination has little effect in
curbing the tide of non-compliant products that can be found on the single market.
In addition, while national authorities professed a willingness to participate in joint
actions, they criticised the heavy administrative burden that joint actions represent.
The evaluation found that the problem of non-compliant products within the Single
Market is driven by four main factors, namely (1) fragmentation of the organisation
of market surveillance in the EU, (2) resources constraints for market surveillance
authorities, (3) low deterrence of the current enforcement tools, notably with
respect to imports from third countries and e-commerce and (4) important
information gaps (i.e. lack of awareness of rules by businesses and little
transparency as regards product compliance).
The REFIT evaluation on the functioning of Mutual recognition found that another
problem highlighted by the Single Market Strategy is the suboptimal functioning of
the mutual recognition principle. Its inadequate application makes it harder for
companies seeking access to markets in other Member States, leading to lost
opportunities for the economy at large. Economic operators are often required to
produce specific documentation or carry additional tests; this increases their costs
and discourages them from expanding to new markets.
The interim evaluation for COSME
20
concluded that the programme is highly
relevant in fostering economic growth and creating employment opportunities and
is strongly aligned to the evolving needs of SMEs. Its strength lies in the use of
intermediaries who have a direct and longstanding contact with SMEs for the
implementation of the programme. This allows customised SME support tailored to
specific sectors, such as tourism, textiles, creative industries etc. and to reach a high
multiplier effect of actions. The COSME loan guarantee facility has delivered
Internal market:
Governance tools
Internal market: Support
to Standardisation
activities
Internal market:
operation and
development of the
internal market for
Goods, Services and
Public Procurement
COSME
20
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084
14
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0015.png
Programme/
line
Budget
Description
significant impact on the ground and has also been positively evaluated by the
European Court of Auditors.
The mid-term evaluation of the 3rd Health Programme concluded that the
programme has overall valid and appropriate objectives in place leading to actions
which are relatively focused and generate EU added value while accommodating
existing needs and challenges. Stakeholders participated in the mid-term evaluation
through various consultations including an open public consultation on the
relevance, added value, efficiency, effectiveness, and coherence of the programme.
They signalled some concerns about administrative burdens in the programme's
implementation and the need to strengthen communication and dissemination about
its actions and results.
The mid–term evaluation confirmed that the added value pursued through the
programme (the first drawing together of all such actions) was delivering the
desired objectives, and that the objectives and areas of action remain valid. In the
open public consultation, concerns were raised about the impacts of measures that
had to be taken after the outbreaks of "Xylella" (a plant pest) in southern Europe,
thus confirming the need to focus more on monitoring and prevention in the
phytosanitary area.
Health programme
CFF for food chain (the
Food Chain Programme)
1.2.1. Key lessons learned from previous programmes
This section will extract key lessons common to all Single Market sub-programmes.
These can be grouped into four main areas, as well as for the cross cutting objectives of
the new MFF.
1) Empowerment of citizens, consumers and businesses in the Single Market
Businesses need information and assistance on product requirements, authorisations,
taxes, registrations and support to access to finance; and citizens and consumers on
practical formalities when moving abroad or purchasing safe goods and services in
another country. Despite this, stakeholders in the open public consultation (40%) cited
the lack of sufficient information and communication about programmes as one of the
important obstacles reducing benefits of EU programmes.
21
Tools like Your Europe portal, Your Europe Advice, SOLVIT, Internal Market
Information (IMI) system and the Single Market Scoreboard provide information, advice,
assistance and problem-solving services based on close cooperation with national
administrations and monitor the performance of the Single Market. Within the
Commission, the Your Europe portal has become the primary EU portal in 2018 for
information to citizens and businesses and the third-most consulted inter-institutional EU
portal with 20 million visits in 2017.
Every year the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) assist about 100.000
consumers to resolve disputes with traders from another Member State and an amicable
solution found in at least 3 cases out of 4. Since 2004, over 20,000 alerts on dangerous
products have been published thanks to the EU rapid alert system for dangerous
consumer products (RAPEX). Since opening in 2016, the EU Online Dispute Resolution
platform has attracted more than 4 million visitors.
21
See annex 2 for more details
15
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0016.png
Despite all this, only 6% of EU citizens feel that they are well informed about their rights
as a citizen of the EU and only 36% feel that they are fairly well informed
22
. In the public
consultation on the single digital gateway
23
, 80% of businesses found complying with
national requirements in other countries difficult and 60% of citizens find it difficult or
somewhat difficult to know which national requirements they should fulfil when moving
to another Member State
24
.
The evaluation
25
of the functioning of market surveillance for products also revealed lack
of awareness of rules by businesses and little transparency as regards product
compliance.
In the competition area, Eurobarometer Citizen Surveys in 2010 and 2014 showed a lack
of awareness of where to turn in cases of higher prices, fewer products or supplier
choices or lower quality. In addition, a 2016 Eurobarometer survey showed only limited
knowledge and awareness of State aid rules
26
. In 2016, the Court of Auditors also pointed
to the need to increase awareness of and ensure more effective compliance with State aid
rules by Member State authorities
27
2) Administrative cooperation and integration among Member States
Supporting administrative capacity and cooperation to achieve a high level of business
compliance with EU rules is essential for ensuring that EU legislation does not remain on
paper but is applied in practice, for the safety of consumers and for establishing a level
playing field across the Single Market. Around three quarters of public authorities
regarded digitization of public institutions as a key challenge whilst, at the same time,
policies supporting digitization were judged as the least successful by up to 18% of
respondents.
28
In the field of the Single Market for goods and services, a number of market surveillance
'joint actions' have been successfully implemented to improve coordination across
Member States. They have contributed to the identification of sensitive non-compliant
products such as helmets, toys or childcare products but the problem of non-compliant
products within the Single Market persists. For instance in 2015 a joint report found that
30% of children's high chairs tested presented a serious or a high risk. The REFIT
evaluation
29
on the functioning of market surveillance found that non-compliance is
22
Eurobarometer 430: European Union citizenship
–
March 2016.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/public-consultation-single-digital-gateway-0_en
24
Commission staff working document synopsis report on the stakeholder consultation on the single digital gateway
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 (SWD/2017/0212 final - 2017/086 (COD)).
23
25
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2017:0469:FIN)
For example only four in ten citizens in the EU had recently heard or read about a company receiving State aid, a
figure similar the result of a previous Eurobarometer survey where about 40% of the respondents said they heard
about EU competition policy. At the same time, fewer than one in five respondents (17%) feel well informed about
State aid in their country while 81% of respondents agree that citizens should have full access to information about
State aid given to companies.
27
In the specific area of cohesion (see Special Report No 24/2016 by the European Court of Auditors). As a follow-up
of this report, DG COMP together with DG REGIO has set-up an action plan on how to raise awareness of national
granting authorities as regards the interaction between State aid rules and structural funds. Thematic workshops have
been organised (e.g. State aid rules regarding RDI and risk finance) and specific training sessions have been
organised for those Member States that considered that they lack administrative capacity and knowledge regarding
State aid rules.
28
See annex 2 for more details
29
26
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2017:0469:FIN)
16
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0017.png
driven among others by the fragmentation of the organisation of market surveillance in
the EU. Financing individual joint actions of market surveillance authorities needs to
move to a more coherent coordination framework to reduce non-compliant products in
the Single Market.
National consumer protection authorities have screened more than 5,000 websites since
2007 to identify and follow-up infringements of EU consumer laws. Since 2004,
numerous coordinated actions have been carried out regarding product safety by the
network of competent national market surveillance authorities and a specific cooperation
has been established with China given the high share of notified dangerous products
originating from this country. According to the 2017 evaluation of the EU consumer and
marketing law, the legislative framework is fit for purpose but there is a need to better
enforce rules and support redress on the ground to ensure consumer rights are a reality
and faster and more efficient response is provided on EU wide cases as highlighted by
recent large-scale cross-border issues, such as "Dieselgate", dual quality standards of
foodstuff or the slow response to the problems of passengers stranded in large flight
cancellations.
Cross-border cooperation between national authorities surveying the food supply chain is
needed to preserve the safety of our foods as recognised by the recent Fitness Check
evaluation of the General Food Law in relation for instance to the functioning of the
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
30
. For example, it has been estimated
that an escalation of African swine fever outbreaks could lead to losing export markets in
pig meat products worth €5 billion per year with very significant impacts on jobs and
farmer incomes and a significant potential impact on the EU budget due to pressures to
support prices and compensate for income losses. These risks have been avoided to date
due to the range of support measures to assist Member States to combat the disease.
The horse meat crisis in 2013 and similar fraudulent food practices reported in the EU
have also shown the need to improve cross-border cooperation. Such crises show the
need to strengthen the capability of national enforcers to detect, prevent and pursue
violations of food chain requirements, and potential frauds
31
. Food safety tops the list of
challenges for the EU, with 75% of answers in the consultations.
3) Rule-making, standard setting and enforcement at EU institution level
To prepare and evaluate policies, support standard setting and enforce EU legislation, the
Commission needs up to date and reliable data. For instance, the European statistical
programme has been developed to produce and disseminate high quality European
statistics which are indispensable for EU decision-making and for the measurement of
the performance and impact of EU initiatives.
The importance of having up to date and relevant information is also visible in the need
to continuously adapt policies and enforcement responses to fast evolving markets, new
business models and new threats to consumers. Specifically the evaluation of the
Consumer Programme indicated its slow capacity to respond to new market challenges
driven by fast and often unpredictable societal and technological change and to specific
30
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT THE REFIT EVALUATION of the General Food Law
(Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) {SWD(2018) 37 final}
31
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/official_controls/food_fraud/horse_meat/qanda_en
17
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0018.png
limitations in certain Member States for an optimal uptake typically due to limited
resources. Finally the production of evidence is valued but the timeframe is too slow.
The ongoing evaluation of the European Statistical Programme
32
showed that a
permanent capacity to respond faster to emerging new data needs has to be developed.
Globalisation, digitalisation and rapid technological change challenge the foundations of
measuring economic performance, i.e. GDP and key economic indicators. Therefore,
substantial efforts also need to be invested in developing new methodologies. Data
collections need to be adapted using all available data sources.
4) Health as a resource for society and the Single market
Human, animal and plant health, and a safe food supply chain, are a prerequisite for
society and for the smooth functioning of the Single Market and promoting trade. Cross
border health and food crisis disrupt the functioning of the Single Market by limiting the
movements of persons and goods and disrupting production. Protection of health and
food safety was quoted by three quarters of respondents to public consultations as the key
challenge for the EU.
Health is the third among main concerns of citizens
33
mentioned by 20% of Europeans,
and stands in first place in eight countries, with the highest scores seen in the Netherlands
(54%), Hungary (42%) and Finland (41%).. More than 70% of the public want "the
EU
to do more for health"
34
The mid-term evaluation
35
of the third Health Programme confirmed the importance of
increasing the capacity of the EU and Member States to prepare for and swiftly manage
cross border health threats, of stepping up coordinated efforts to fight against
antimicrobial resistance, to seek new forms of integrated actions to create economies of
scale to help Member States deliver their healthcare duties
36
and foster interoperable and
standardised cross-border exchange of health data, and the scaling up of best practices.
The mid-term evaluation of the Food Chain Programme
37
shows that all activities
receiving EU financial support in this area remains essential to human, animal and plant
health along the food chain and the support to trade with non-EU countries. The Food
Chain Programme has also proven to be flexible in addressing emerging needs for co-
financing especially in the occurrence of outbreaks of health threats.
1.2.2. Lessons learned concerning cross-cutting objectives of the new MFF
Participating DGs and the results of the open public consultation confirm simpler rules as
the most desired change in the next MFF (90% of responses). This was followed by the
need for flexibility and the exploitation of synergies between EU programmes and funds
32
The report is not yet published but available upon request to Eurostat.
Standard Eurobarometer 88, November 2017 at
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/STANDARD/surve
yKy/2143
34
Eurobarometer 87.1 March 2017 at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/eurobarometer-
052017/default_en.htm?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=6e69d6d588-
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-6e69d6d588-189770033#health
33
35
Mid-term evaluation of the 3rd Health Programme 2014-2020
e.g. to develop a common EU approach to Health Technology Assessment (HTA); to share medical expertise through European
Reference Networks that enable patients suffering from rare disease to access healthcare irrespective of where they live in the EU
37
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014
36
18
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0019.png
(60% to 75% of replies). In general, there is a high demand for rationalisations of EU
funds among stakeholders but also with national and local authorities.
38
Uncoordinated approach to different actions:
- Data gathering and processing by different programmes
To prepare policies, set standards and check enforcement the Commission is often
looking for specific evidence in commercial databases
39
. Pooling resources in this area
between services could provide concrete gains. One significant example is access to a
database containing detailed worldwide firm level information. Identical access to this
dataset is currently bought by at least 4 Commission services, each paying approximately
€100,000 a year.
Another example is Eurobarometer where each question costs around €15,000. This
limits the number of questions asked by services. A more coordinated use of this tool by
the services involved in Single Market policy making should produce synergies. Joint
coordination and planning could increase SMP members bargaining power when asking
for slots in the Eurobarometer planning calendar.
Greater coordination in studies can lead to a more value focused use of the budget and
avoid unwanted duplications. Good examples were the cooperation of several
Commission services to gather and analyse data on related Single Market topics such as
the Public consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online
intermediaries, data and cloud computing and the collaborative economy and the study
"Mystery shopping survey on territorial restrictions and geo-blocking in the European
digital single market". This can be further enhanced through a more coordinated
assessment of needs and timing at planning stage.
- Trainings, and capacity building actions
Trainings on similar topics such as basic consumer law requirements for consumer
organisations and SMEs organisations could benefit from a common core of principles
and branding while ensuring adaptation to the needs of consumers and interests of SMEs
which are very different.
The same applies to training programmes for national authorities on enforcement of
Internal Market Law which are run separately by different Commission services,
covering complimentary subjects and sometimes targeted to the same audience. For
example, in the areas of Internal Market
40
, Consumer Protection
41
and Food Chain
42
trainings are run related to product and food chain safety and to verification of
compliance which are targeted at national enforcement bodies and inspectors which
could benefit from a common core and branding, while preserving the sectorial
38
39
See annex 2 for more details
There are already strategies to purchase data for the whole Commission (e.g. through Eurostat).
40
Commission Services are organising ad hoc training, EU Product Compliance Network training to Member States
inspectors (incl on the use of internet-supported information and communication system),
41
Commission Services is currently running a consumer protection and product safety "e-enforcement academy" which
is open to product inspectors working under Regulation 765/2008, to General Product Safety Directive competent
authorities and to about 400 national and regional authorities competent for the enforcement of the consumer law
acquis in the CPC Regulation 2004/2006 (about 20 directives, including some sector specific ones).
42
DG SANTE: training actions for MS and third countries on EU requirements
–
"Better Training for Safer Food". E-
commerce and food fraud sessions are open to other national enforcement actors involved in verification of compliance
with food chain rules.
19
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0020.png
specificities. Different Commission services are also organising trainings for national
judges
43
. Greater coordination could lead to simplification at Commission and at Member
State level, particularly as some are resource intensive activities and thus participation
may be problematic for smaller national enforcement authorities. Moreover they may not
be coordinated among Commission DGs. This is the case for instance with the purchase
of testing/ laboratories services on product testing.
- Awareness raising activities
Awareness raising activities, when targeting the same audience may mean a duplication
of management and administrative costs at the level of each DG. One such example is
linked to awareness-raising on the circular economy (food waste, recycling, etc.) where
different audiences need to be targeted.
Coordinated and cross-border enforcement
The Commission facilitates and supports coordinated actions or control campaigns by
Member States in several areas such as joint enforcement actions on product and food
safety or consumer protection law. These could be streamlined to avoid overlaps of
similar actions covering the same sectors
44
45
.
- Support to network of Member State authorities
Most of the current programmes run different networks of Member State authorities or
expert groups that consist of representatives of the Member States
46
. At present, the
organisation of these different network meetings is not coordinated centrally which
43
DG JUST organises a training programme for national judges which is covering a wide array of EU laws. DG
COMPETITION also organised their own trainings for national judges in competition law.
44
DG SANTE: co-funding can be provided to Member States to cover laboratories' and other costs incurred in the
context of Coordinated Control Programmes (i.e. EU-wide, time-limited, ad-hoc plans to verify a specific aspect, e.g.
fraudulent practices in a certain segment of the food chain). So far SANTE has not procured testing itself. JUST
joint/coordinated enforcement actions are run on product safety as well as on consumer protection law GROW is
facilitating joint inspections of harmonised products. Joint actions in the area of medical devices is currently financed
from the Health Programme, organised by GROW. DG COMP carries out the inspections to which MS can join.
45
In the context of the new CPC Regulation 2017/2394, national authorities and the Commission have the duty to
jointly address widespread infringements to consumer law of Union dimension.
46
GROW: the EU Product Compliance Network is a network of market surveillance authorities and administrative
cooperation groups (ADCOs). It is also foreseen to run a network of testing laboratories. For services, there are several
expert groups that consist of representatives of the Member States in order to foster cooperation. DG JUST: Network
of national authorities enforcing consumer protection law. For example, the Consumer Protection Cooperation network
meets at least every month either face to face in committee meetings and specific workshops or via webinars. It uses a
very active knowledge sharing platform , it is facilitated by an internal community managers who is managing rights,
training users and posting news. DG COMP: The European Competition Network (ECN) comprising of national
competition authorities enforce antitrust and cartel rules. There is a need for a wider and deeper cooperation with
national competition authorities and courts on the application of EU competition rules. Administrations can
electronically and securely communicate and cooperate in the context of the ECN. ECN may have synergies with the
consumer one. In the area of State aid, Multilateral Cooperation with Member States consists of the State Aid
Modernisation Working Group (SAM-WG) chaired by a Member State, the High Level Forum (HLF) chaired by the
Commission, to which the SAM-WG reports and gives recommendations and technical working groups under the
SAM-WG. DG SANTE : Admin cooperation on cross-border enforcement in the food chain - tracing of goods,
Specialised Network for fraud,
20
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0021.png
results in possible duplication and administrative burden. Exchange of the lessons
learned from running these networks can also be improved. Moreover there are currently
networks with similar interest or members whose meetings are not always adequately
synchronised (e.g. competition and consumer protection networks are constituted of the
same authority in several Member States).
- IT development
At present there are separate systems used for the cooperation between national
competent authorities and the European Commission which are not interoperable or are
implemented independently of each other due also to different legal basis and could
benefit from greater convergence. They often include the same national authorities
which have to use different systems to exchange information in relation to particular
fields. Around 80% of public authorities in the open public consultation asked for
introduction of user-friendly IT tools and 65% for e-governance solutions
47
.
- Uncertainty about budget negotiations
Certain activities such as studies, surveys, evaluations, expert meetings, trainings and
information activities
48
(accounting for at least €435m or 7% of the combined budget of
the Single Market programmes and budget lines under the MFF2014-2020
49
) are
necessary for proper implementation of existing policies and are classified as
Commission prerogatives. The legitimacy of prerogatives is frequently challenged by the
Council and budget has to be negotiated every year putting these activities constantly
under pressure. Conversely, the financial envelope for a programme is set for the whole
MFF period and constitutes a reference amount for the budget authority during the annual
procedure. This causes uncertainty each year as to how much money will be available for
these essential support measures. Such uncertainty affects the quality of studies or
evaluations that could span over several years and may affect the quality of final
Commission proposals based on such evidence.
Simplification
Some programmes and budget lines have reported a need for simplification of
administrative management and reporting procedures. In the area of supporting
standardisation, evaluations revealed lack of a common understanding of the
management of grant agreements and no solutions for electronic reporting tools and data
comparability issues. This complicates both reporting and measurement of impacts and
performance of individual actions. The evaluation of the Consumer Programme also
showed that there seems to be significant room for simplification for grants management.
47
48
See annex 2 for more details
This concerns the following budget lines: Digital Single Market Support programme, Implementation and
Development of Single Market for Financial Services, Company Law prerogative, Internal market: operation and
development of the internal market for Goods and Services, Internal market budget line
–
support to standardisation
activities, Customs and tax policy development support budget line
49
Calculation based on budget lines 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 & 14 in table 1.1. Amounts for support activities in remaining
programmes is not fixed and not included in the calculation.
21
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0022.png
As regards the Food Chain Programme, reimbursement mechanisms to Member States
can be simplified to reduce unnecessary burdens on the Commission and the recipients
alike. Similarly, in the Health Programme simplified forms of grants, such as lump sums,
unit costs and flat rates could be used.
In the open public consultation, respondents underlined that complex procedures leading
to high administrative burden and delays were considered as the most important obstacles
reducing benefits of EU programmes (around 80% of answers)
50
.
Going forward, there is scope for simplification and cutting down the number of small,
one-off actions in COSME and devote the resources towards the key areas of intervention
(e.g. access to finance, access to markets) where a sustained effort and economies of
scale will yield the highest efficiency and the biggest impact at EU level.
Flexibility
Lack of flexibility in case of unforeseen events is considered by stakeholders (60%-70%
of answers) as an important obstacle to fully exploiting the benefits of EU programmes
51
.
This is particularly the case in the Food Chain Programme and in the Health Programme,
where there is a need to establish a direct mechanism to react to large scale health threats
or emergencies affecting food, animals and plants. Since the EU 2014-2020 MFF, the
reserve for crises in other sectors such as agriculture is, for instance, not available for the
food chain area. In the event of serious health crisis or outbreaks of veterinary and
phytosanitary epidemics, such as the recent case of avian influenza, the financial support
to counter those threats or to implement eradication activities and to timely contain the
spread of these epidemics could become difficult as their budgetary impact might not
always be accommodated within the ceiling of the current programme.
The European Statistical Programme also calls for the inclusion of a specific mechanism,
ensuring a certain budgetary flexibility in order to cope with new and emerging statistical
needs and ad-hoc data collections.
Flexibility is also required in those areas where standardisation is used to implement
legislation. The absence of common budget lines for standardisation and food safety lead
to a 3 year delay in developing necessary standards following the entry into force of the
Regulation on the placing on the market and use of feed. Another similar example is the
Child Resistance Requirements for Cigarette Lighters where development of the standard
was delayed by two years.
1.3.
Main findings of public consultation
The public consultation on the Multiannual Financial Framework proposal took place
between 10 January 2018 and 9 March 2018. The questionnaire covered areas of
investment, research and innovation, SMEs and Single Market.
50
51
See annex 2 for more details
See annex 2 for more details
22
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0023.png
Among challenges relevant to the Single Market Programme the most important were
access to finance, especially for SMEs and digital transition of economy (82%),
promotion of public health (79%), support to industrial development (78%) and fair
competition and safe food (75%). Generally between 20 and 50% of respondents
considered SMP releated policies as fully or fairly well contributing to these challenges.
Smooth circulation of goods both within EU and at EU borders was judged highest (50%
of all replies). Followed by support to industrial development (42%), provision of EU
statistics (40%) and support to capital flows and investments (39%). Only up to 12% of
respondents considered that these policies are not sucessful at all
52
.
2. THE OBJECTIVES
2.1.
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
Maintaining the achievements of the Single Market and addressing new challenges to
achieve the Single Market's full potential will require continued investment.
2.1.1. Existing challenges for a Single Market Programme
Existing challenges for a Single Market Programme are foreseen in four areas in
particular:
1.
The Single Market is still fragmented, knowledge about it is lacking and doing
business remains cumbersome, and especially SMEs face hurdles when starting or
scaling-up a business or when looking for finance.
The Single Market is still far from perfect. In particular the Single Market for services
needs action to remove remaining barriers for companies. The regulatory framework
needs to accommodate new innovative business models. The Single Market should also
become more competitive and integrated to better benefit consumers, businesses and
employees and to ensure financial stability. Strong consumer organisations and national
competent authorities are needed to follow the rapid development and increasingly
complex retail markets, to act to counterbalance market asymmetries and advocate
consumers’ interests. Limited awareness and/or expertise is also limiting the capacities of
consumers, businesses or public administrations to meet the challenges stemming from
the transition to a green, circular and low-carbon economy and thus contribute to this
transition via changes on retail markets. Tools also need to be developed for consumer
knowledge and to support the building up of capacities of NGOs supporting consumers
and/or specific groups of citizens (e.g. those subject to "vulnerability patterns").
The administrative burden to operate a business, such as obtaining permits and licenses,
or complying with regulatory framework in the area of company law and corporate
governance often remains high. In addition, there is often a lack of entrepreneurial spirit
to generate new activity. Newly created companies and smaller firms still do not
sufficiently reap the opportunities offered by the Single Market and by
internationalisation. They also face difficulties in obtaining finance and in the uptake of
innovation; they do less business on-line than bigger firms and have difficulties in
52
See Annex 2 for details.
23
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0024.png
finding the right skills. While SMEs are essential to generate jobs and growth, they are
limited in their contributions by these barriers, and to a greater extent than bigger firms.
2.
Cooperation between Member States and enforcement at national level is still too
limited and cooperation between Member States and the Commission needs to be further
strengthened
Member States authorities need to improve cooperation between themselves. Exchanges
on best practices and joint market surveillance across Member States are insufficiently
used as demonstrated during the preparation of the goods package proposal
53
.
Enforcement authorities may lack state-of-the-art tools to share intelligence and
investigate increasing complex products, online business models and international supply
chains and their capacities may remain uneven. E-commerce sales of non-compliant and
unsafe products is a concern. However Member States' internet investigation capacity
and instruments (both for general product safety requirements and for food chain
requirements) do not keep up with international trade and supply chain developments,
also due to sub-optimal exchange of information across border and with customs
authorities. Market surveillance authorities often lack resources, leading to EU rules not
being equally enforced or applied which endangers a level playing field and encourages
regulatory arbitrage. In the health and food chain areas, effective implementation of
statutory requirements is a prerequisite to ensure the safety of commodities and citizens
in the Single Market.
National administrations lack data on the use of certain policy tools. This is the case for
public procurement, which impacts the governance of public procurement systems, the
detection of problems or the efficiency of public policies and public spending. Finally,
EU competition policy requires enforcement and compliance at national level in the area
of State aid where cooperation with national authorities and courts needs to be
strengthened to prevent fragmentation of the Single Market.
3.
EU rules and standards are at risk of falling behind in terms of speed, excellency
and relevance and EU level law enforcement needs to adapt to new challenges
EU rules and standards are not always up-to-date or future proofed. Insufficient
knowledge on the application of existing acquis and on transposition measures in
Member States puts the relevant legislation at risk. EU level law enforcement needs to
adapt to the digital age for effective detection of possible infringements and efficiency in
its enforcement. At global level, the progressive globalisation of trade call for increased
convergence on international standard setters and coordinated enforcement of rules to
ensure a reliable business environment for companies operating across the world.
4.
If health of humans, animals and plants is not preserved, the good functioning of
the Single market and of the society as a whole is under threat
53
Proposal for a Regulation on Enforcement and Compliance in the Single Market for Goods (Goods
package) COM(2017)795
24
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0025.png
Health and the safety of food chains are invaluable resources for society. Failure to
protect them will have a negative impact on people and on the free circulation of goods,
services and people. Potential problems include risk of pandemics, cross-border health
and food security threats; loss of biodiversity; insufficient information and data for
Member States to respond to pressures to make health systems more effective, accessible
and resilient. These can result in sustainable development goals becoming more difficult
to reach, in hurdles for companies and/or professionals to introduce new innovative
health technologies, in risk of premature mortality and increase of health inequalities.
Resilient food chains also need to harness preparedness for cyclical outbreaks of animal
diseases and plant pests.
The EU has an interest, therefore, in ensuring that this support framework continues to
function to the benefit of the European economy and citizens. To be in a better position
to tackle these challenges the EU needs to seek synergies and prevent duplication and
fragmentation in its support to the Single Market. It also needs to ensure greater visibility
and coherence of its action towards its users, who may find the proliferation of tools and
support programmes confusing.
2.1.2. Main adjustments to existing activities under the Single Market
Programme
The evaluations and lessons learned of the included programmes and budget lines show
that they have all brought added value and should continue. It has however been shown
that a number of adjustments are needed in the existing activities under the Single Market
Programme, Table X shows the main adjustments across all programmes
54
.
Table 2.1 Main adjustments in existing programmes/budget lines
Programme/
Budget
line
Interoperability solutions
and common frameworks
for European public
administrations,
businesses and citizens
as a means for
modernising the public
sector (ISA² programme)
Description
Exchange of information between different public sector IT systems (cross-sector
interoperability) has been identified as a challenge which among others slows down
or prevents electronic data exchange and thus creates administrative burden.
Development of horizontal digital solutions that cross-cuts different policy areas in
the Single Market Programme, should improve cross-sector interoperability, as well
as the sharing and reuse of existing IT solutions. This more holistic approach will
also tackle another challenge flagged by the Member States, and that is the take-up
of digital interoperability solutions in the context of the Single Market.
The evaluation of the current European Statistical Programme underlines that there
is a need for more timely data delivery as well as for filling existing data
gaps. Moreover, globalisation, digitalisation and rapid technological change call for
more agility to better capture new phenomena and to respond to the spread of 'fake
news'. Therefore, the new programme must invest substantial efforts in developing
new methodologies and in exploiting new technologies and data sources.
The evaluation of the existing Consumer programme does not lead to the
conclusion that substantial change is necessary. What is mostly needed is an
improvement in the delivery model. The flexibility and simplification brought by
the Single Market Programme should allow faster adaption of financing schemes to
retail market developments and to new needs of authorities or consumer
associations.
European Statistical
Programme (ESP)
Consumer Programme
and the consumer and
contract law part of the
Rights Equality and
Citizenship programme
(REC)
54
Full description of lessons learned and adjustments are available in the corresponding programme-specific annexes
(see annex 4-18).
25
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0026.png
Programme/
line
Budget
Description
Continuous investment in boosting the quality, the visibility and the transparency of
these tools and a single digital gateway as an entry point to information,
procedures, assistance and problem-solving services are required to keep helping
citizens and businesses to efficiently use their Internal Market rights. More
systematic collection of comparable user feedback and statistics from information
and assistance services, as foreseen through the single digital gateway should help
providing essential feedback on the functioning of the single market. Gradual
expansion of IMI for any legislation in the field of the internal market should
reinforce its role as the "default tool" for administrative cooperation.
Experience has shown that development of standards is often delayed due to
lengthy process of negotiating grant agreements with standardisation organisations
for elaboration of standards and for conducting necessary standardisation work and
laboratory test (time to contract). Simpler and faster working methods such as
implementing of a general template with electronic submission instead of paper
should speed up the process.
The REFIT evaluation on the functioning of market surveillance found that the
current approach of financing individual joint actions of under-resourced market
surveillance authorities has little effect against non-compliant products. Substantial
change under the future MFF is going to be an increased EU funding for the
establishment of an EU Product Compliance Network within the Commission to
facilitate coordination, capacity building leading to an effective enforcement.
The programme is very efficient in delivering jobs and growth. Its contribution to
global and societal challenge is less evident. The Commission propose to include in
certain actions a bigger focus on global and societal challenges. 20% of the
programme is fragmented into many actions, this hampers effectiveness and
efficiency. Need to reduce the number of one-off small actions and invest in the
most efficient actions such as the loan guarantee facility, the Enterprise Europe
Network, the
mentoring scheme for new entrepreneurs
(formerly Erasmus for
Young Entrepreneurs) and the Clusters actions. COSME will no longer propose an
equity instrument. This is best achieved by the EU invest fund and at the same time
we will focus on the Guarantee instrument within the SME window of the EU
invest fund. The geographical coverage of COSME could be improved. The
Commission proposes the creation of a network of national contact points to
follow-up implementation. There is no centralised database of implementation
results so the Commission will create a centralised tool to provide implementation
data.
The midterm evaluation of the 3rd Health Programme found that it would be
desirable to streamline the thematic priorities and focus on areas with more visible
EU added value. Therefore, in the current health programme the Commission is
proposing 15 work areas under 4 objectives, instead of 24 thematic priorities. In
addition, the mid-term evolution identified the three key areas with the biggest EU
added value (cross-border health threats, economies of scale and exchange of best
practices). These areas of work are proposed as central elements of the health
programme. Stakeholders signalled during the mid-term evaluation their wish to be
more closely involved in the programme's planning.
The evaluation also recognised that the establishment of 24 European Reference
Networks (ERNs) for rare diseases, a new form of integrated work, has a huge
potential to improve the care provided to citizens across EU. Therefore that support
to integrated work
–
including establishing further ERNs - will be strengthened
.
A number of recent and emerging challenges, such as globalisation, the
increasingly complexity of the food supply chain and climate change, will pose
significant threats and challenges and are therefore expected to influence the future
EU approach in this area. Simplification of the administrative management will
also contribute to a more effective and efficient EU food chain programme.
Amongst others, some stakeholders expressed the need for increased possibilities
to co-fund preventive measures.
Internal market:
governance tools
Internal market: Support
to Standardisation
activities
Internal market:
operation and
development of the
internal market for
Goods, Services and
Public Procurement
COSME
Health programme
CFF for food chain (the
Food Chain Programme)
26
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0027.png
2.1.3. New political priorities or emerging problems needing EU
intervention
Support to EU Competition policy
The macroeconomic impacts of EU competition enforcement are significant
55
. At the
same time, the increasing sophistication of the IT tools and algorithms used by
companies for conducting their business, as well as the steadily growing volume of
electronic communications and economic data that need to be analysed in competition
cases have significantly increased the complexity of the investigations handled by the
Commission. This will therefore require sophisticated, tailor-made IT tools and
equipment and the possibility to involve outside experts for certain technical issues, and
the monitoring of remedies and ex-post assessment of the effectiveness of the
Commission's enforcement action. Enforcement of EU competition law also requires
deepening the cooperation between the Commission and the national competition
authorities. This depends on well-functioning and state-of-the-art IT systems that allow
for the timely and secure exchange of confidential information. The effectiveness of
national State aid control, transparency and evaluation need to be enhanced as more than
97% of new State aid measures are being implemented without prior scrutiny by the
Commission following the recent modernisation of State aid rules. In the absence of a
support programme addressing those challenges, the enforcement of all branches of EU
competition policy would gradually become less effective, less timely and less relevant to
rapidly evolving market developments, thereby
–
by extension
–
threatening the proper
functioning of the Single Market. Around three quarters of respondents to public
consultations considered fair competition as an important challenge for the EU
56
. To
address this gap this impact assessment also includes a new proposal for
An Ambitious
Competition policy for a stronger Union in the digital age
as described in table 2.1 below
and in the corresponding sector specific annex.
Innovation uptake by SMEs and industrial modernisation
A recent study
57
on advanced manufacturing provides evidence that there are barriers to
the uptake of innovation, such as sufficient know-how, adequate human capital and
organisational and managerial capacity. Small firms have much larger problems
overcoming these barriers than large firms. While 75% of companies indicate the high
costs of investment in advanced manufacturing technologies, an EIB study
58
shows that
over 90% of smaller companies active in key enabling technologies struggle to raise the
finance they need. More than 90% of SMEs in Europe also feel lagging behind in digital
innovation. As the specialised competences are often concentrated in few countries and
55
See in particular Dierx, Adriaan, Fabienne Ilzkovitz, Beatrice Pataracchia, Marco Ratto, Anna Thum-Thysen and
Janos Varga (2017), "Does EU competition policy support inclusive growth?", Journal of Competition Law &
Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 225-260 (at https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/13/2/225/3920779 ); for metastudies
on the benefits (including macroeconomic benefits) of competition and competition policy see also OECD Factsheet on
how competition policy affects macro-economic outcomes (October 2014) (at
http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/2014-competition-factsheet-iv-en.pdf ) and 'Ex-post economic evaluation of
competition policy enforcement: A review of the literature' by Fabienne Ilzkovitz and Adriaan Dierx, DG Competition
(June 2015) (at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/expost_evaluation_competition_policy_en.pdf ).
56
See annex 2 for more details.
Kroll et al. (2016) An analysis of drivers, barriers and readiness factors of EU companies for adopting
advanced manufacturing products and technologies.
58
EIB (2016) Access-to-finance conditions for KETs companies, available at:
http://www.eib.org/infocentre/publications/all/access-to-finance-conditions-for-kets-companies.htm
57
27
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0028.png
SMEs struggle to find the right partners, too few SMEs in the EU embrace advanced and
additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence and augmented reality and master new
service offerings, especially in traditional manufacturing sectors. This situation has a
direct impact on the ability of small businesses to reap the benefits of the Single Market.
A more strategic use of SME intermediaries such as clusters and business networks is
needed to better help SMEs to scale-up and grow and to boost industrial modernisation.
The proposal for a new Single Market Programme therefore also includes a new proposal
for a new
scaling-up instrument
(e.g. lump sum grants) to provide growth acceleration
support to over 20,000 SMEs engaged in strategic inter-regional collaboration for
different industrial specialisations. This support is to be channelled via clusters and
business networks, which provides a framework for the modernisation of and partnership
between SMEs as described in table 2.1 below and in the corresponding programme
specific annex 15 for the COSME programme.
Table 2.2 Proposed new commitments
Name
An Ambitious
Competition
policy for a
stronger Union
in the digital
age
Description
The Competition section of the programme pursues; 1) that the enforcement of EU
competition policy as well as policy guidance is supported by state-of-the-art tools
and infrastructure, as well as external technical expertise and information; 2)
strengthening, deepening and extending cooperation and partnerships with European
public administrations; 3) strengthening, deepening and extending cooperation and
partnerships with third country authorities and 4) raising awareness of EU
competition policy among a wider group of stakeholders concerned by the
enforcement of EU competition rules.
A new scaling-up instrument under the programme will encourage the uptake of
results from other EU programmes (Horizon/FP9, LIFE, Galileo, Copernicus, ERDF,
ESF, EAFRD, EMFF). It will complement the support provides by ERDF
programmes to technology take-up and strengthen the link between SME support
under regional and industrial policies to unlock the growth opportunities of SMEs. It
is designed as a tool to support scaling-up activities of SMEs across regional, sectoral
and technological boundaries in order to help them to embrace industrial
transformations, to access global industrial value chains and international markets,
and engage in strategic interregional collaboration. The instrument will therefore
offer growth acceleration support to help groups of SMEs to jointly foster
internationalisation activities, business and new skills development and to test and
take-up advanced technologies, new business models and low-carbon and resource-
efficient solutions to reduce production costs or to integrate them into new or
emerging industrial value chains. This will complement the support for interregional
partnerships along value chains provided under the ERDF.
COSME+
Scaling-up
instrument
As described in section 1.2, a number of lessons have been extracted in terms of cross
cutting challenges to be addressed by the next MFF. A modern budget for the EU should
not only continue to improve the delivery of both existing and new political priorities but
also deliver solutions to the increasing need for flexibility, synergies and simplification.
By adopting a Single Market Programme, that merges a large number of existing
programmes, these cross-cutting challenges can be most appropriately addressed via the
programme structure as described in chapter 3.
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
To tackle these challenges a programme for the Single Market should do two things in
terms of general and design specific objectives:
28
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0029.png
1. Aim to support and develop a well-functioning Single Market where citizens,
consumers and businesses, especially SMEs, can fully exploit opportunities, and
are safe in the knowledge that their rights and human, animal and plant health are
protected and where competition is preserved.
2.
Reduce overlaps and explore synergies between the different Single Market
programmes implemented by the Commission, offering ultimately better value for
money and more efficient delivery on the ground.
Figure 2.1. Objectives tree
The programme's main aim is to support a well-functioning Single Market, ensure high
levels of health protection and appropriate action to counter cross-border health risks. To
achieve this general objective in terms of contents the specific goals of the programme
are:
Empowering citizens/consumers (directly or indirectly), businesses (in particular
SMEs) and public administrations to get full access to the opportunities offered
by the Single Market.
Fostering administrative cooperation between Member States and between the
Member States and the Commission via information, best practice exchange and
capacity building.
Support to rule making, standard setting including at international level, and
enforcement at EU level through financing data gathering and analysis.
Foster the protection of health as an invaluable resource for society and the
internal market
59
.
More operational objectives are presented and are analysed further in the detailed annex
describing each action/subprogram.
The connection between the content specific objectives of the Single Market Programme
and the operational objectives of the individual programmes/budget lines under the scope
is described in table 2.2.and present the internal coherence between the objectives of the
programme and the programmes and budget lines included under its scope.
The objective to 'foster
the protection of health as a resource for society and the Single Market'
will remain relevant
and valid also with the Health programme being integrated in a separate spending framework (see above, section 1.1).
59
29
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0030.png
While also supporting the objectives of the Single Market Programme, the European
Statistical Programme, with its highly transversal character, will ensure the provision of
high-quality statistics on Europe to support the design, monitoring and evaluation of the
Union policies, using multiple data sources, advanced data analytics methods and digital
technologies.
Table 2.3 Coherence between objectives for the Single Market Programme and
objectives of individual programmes and budget lines
60
Objectives
Empower
citizens
/consumers
and
businesses(in
particular
SMEs at
different
stages of their
development)
√
√
√
√
N/A
√
N/A
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
N/A
Support to
administrativ
e cooperation,
capacity
building and
integration
among
Member
States
√
√
√
√
N/A
Support to
rule-making,
standard
setting and
enforcement
at EU
institutions
level
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
N/A
√
√
√
Foster the
protection
of health
as a
resource
for society
and the
Single
market
N/A
√
√
N/A
N/A
Programme/line
An Ambitious Competition policy for
a stronger Union in the digital age
IT and business solutions for the
Single Market (successor of ISA2)
European Statistical Programme
(ESP)
61
Implementation and Development of
Single Market for Financial Services
Standards in the field of reporting
and auditing
Enhancing the involvement of
consumers and other end-users in
Union policy-making in financial
services (ICFS)
Company law and anti-money
laundering
Consumer programme and New
Deal for consumers
Internal Market - Governance tools
Internal market
–
Support to
Standardisation activities
Internal market
–
operation and
development of the internal market
for Goods, Services and Public
Procurement
EU programme for the
Competitiveness of SMEs (COSME)
Health programme
Food chain Programme
Customs and tax policy development
support budget line
N/A
√
√
√
N/A
√
√
√
√
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
√
N/A
N/A
√
√
N/A
√ signifies that the operational objectives of the programme/budget line contribute to the content specific objective
of the Single Market Programme. Detailed description of the connection between Single Market objectives and all
(sub)objectives of the included programmes and budget lines are presented in aannex19
61
The European Statistical Programme has a transversal character, covering all Union policies, not only those covered
by this impact assessment.
60
30
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0031.png
3. P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
As demonstrated in section 1.2 and section 2.1 a number of both content specific and
cross-cutting challenges run across the existing programmes and budget lines. The new
Single Market Programme will have as its strong priority to achieve a programme
structure that is both politically and legally feasible while addressing the need for
flexibility, simplification and synergies.
To achieve both the abovementioned content specific and cross-cutting objectives for the
programmes/budget lines under the proposed scope three overall scenarios for
implementation are possible:
Option 1: A
business as usual scenario
where implementation is a continuation
of the current multiannual programmes and budget lines while adding the new
spending proposals described in tables 1.1 and 2.1 with separate legal bases.
Option 2: An
integrated scenario
where a new programme is adapted to deliver
current and new programmes and budget lines falling under the scope via a single
legal base that that is flexible enough to ensure preservation of specific legal and
institutional requirements.
Option 3: A
fully unified scenario
where a complete merger of all programmes
under the scope is delivered under a single common basic act with identical legal
and institutional requirements for all activities under the scope.
Under the
'business as usual'
scenario the current structure of 14 separate programmes
and budget lines would continue with the possible addition of new activities as described
in tables 1.1.and 2.1.
This structure would not provide any new simplification or added flexibility. Cooperation
and possible synergies in delivery of the budget would continue on an ad hoc basis as is
the case today (e.g. as is already being done with the YourEurope platform). Feasibility is
high since it is the continuation of already successful programmes/budget lines with the
only potential complexity coming from establishing the new activities described in table
2.1. This option will be considered the baseline scenario for comparison with other
possible structures of the programme.
The 'integrated
scenario'
expands on the business as usual scenario in the delivery of
proposed activities through a joint programme. Under this scenario all existing
prerogative lines and the administrative support from all the programmes and budget
lines in the scope would be grouped together under a horizontal structure. This structure
would allow for increased coherence, simplification, flexibility and synergies across the
administrative spending (studies, data collection, IT tools, etc.) and on some content in
the existing prerogatives (for example market information and enforcement actions).
Along with the horizontal structure, "pillars" would be created to accommodate the
specific legal and institutional requirements for governance of each individual
programme/budget line, such as the European Statistical Programme
62
or the emergency
procedures under the food and feed programme, which have dedicated institutional/
governance settings and are not of relevance to other parts of the programme. This would
62
As formulated in Regulation (EC) 223/2009 on European statistics.
31
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0032.png
ensure the uninterrupted delivery of such procedures and inclusion of the associated
stakeholders where relevant.
Such an approach would place a limit on the synergies and simplifications that can be
achieved. However, from a feasibility point of view this structure scores high because it
can be implemented through a new unified basic act with sub-provisions for specific
institutional/governance models and therefore avoid disruption to current policy
objectives and governance models for existing programmes and budget lines.
Figure 3.1: Architecture for an Integrated Single Market Programme option
63
Prerogatives, administrative support expenditure & new competition proposal
Enhancing
the
involve-
ment of
consumers
and other
end-users
in union
policy
making in
financial
services
Health
programme
CFF for
food Chain
IT and
business
solutions
for the
Single
Market
(successor
of ISA
2
)
Standards
in the field
of financial
reporting
and
auditing
Internal
Market
budget line
–
Support
to
standardisa
tion
activities
Consumer
Programme
European
statistical
programme
EU
programme
for the
Competitiv
eness of
SMEs
(COSME)
The third scenario is a fully 'unified
programme'
where a single legal structure covers
all spending under the scope of the programme. This would potentially make it possible
to develop synergies in a larger part of the operational and administrative categories of
spending in all programmes and budget lines and potentially increase the scope of
synergies significantly. However this would require extensive political debate in order to
streamline different existing governance requirements into an approach that could
potential satisfy all involved stakeholders and respond to specific EU intervention logic,
in particular under the above mentioned pillars such as, for instance, the emergency
procedures under the food and feed programme. There is a strong stakeholders support
for the continuation of the current programmes so a "unified" programme could be badly
perceived by stakeholders e.g. SMEs who could fear that’s the SME policy is not
receiving sufficient recognition by the Commission. It is therefore not considered
feasible that a single unified governance mechanism for a fully integrated programme
can be found under the current legal and political requirements.
As summarized in table 3.1 the analysis shows that, scenario 1 (business as usual) would
be feasible but would bring no added benefits in terms of flexibility, simplification and
synergies between existing programmes/budget lines. This scenario would thus be
inconsistent with the level of ambition identified for the next multiannual financial
framework. On the other hand, scenario 3 (fully unified programme) for the Single
Market would increase the scope of potential benefits significantly but due to the pre-
existing diversity of activities under the scope it is considered prohibitively difficult to
arrive at a governance model that can satisfy all necessary requirements and deliver
simplification at the same time. For this reason this scenario is discarded. Scenario 2
would allow for a less ambitious but feasible pursuit of new simplification, flexibility and
63
The measures included in the Health programme pillar will be integrated in a separate framework (see section 1.1
above) and the architecture of the Single Market Programme will be adjusted accordingly.
32
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0033.png
synergies across the programmes/budget lines included under the scope. Scenario 2 of an
integrated Single Market Programme is therefore considered the preferred option and will
form the basis for further analysis in the impact assessment.
Table 3.1 Analyses of a Single Market Programme in the next multiannual financial
framework
Scenario
Parameter
Flexibility
Simplification
Synergies
Feasibility
Total
Business as
usual
Integrated Single Market
Programme
Unified programme for the
Single market
+
+
++
--
2 points
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0 points
4 points
0 = no change, - = negative effect, + = positive effect.
3.1.
Possible synergies under a changed MFF structure for the Single Market
The integrated Single Market Programme allows pursuing synergies for all supporting
expenditure for the various programmes/budget lines under the scope (data gathering and
processing, IT tools, etc.) and for a limited set of operational activities such as training
and capacity building in Member States.
For the preparation of this section on synergies, data was compiled from Commission
services involved in the programme and subsequently validated and developed in a half-
day workshop on 2
nd
March 2018 (see section 1.2 for examples of issues related to
uncoordinated approach to different actions). The result of this work is compiled in table
3.2 below.
As a result of closer cooperation between Commission services it would be expected that
additional synergies are discovered and developed during the implementation of the
Single Market Programme.
Table 3.2 Potential synergies in the Single Market programme
Affected policy area of programme
Health / Food
Customs and
Taxation
Competition
Consumer
Financial
Statistics
Market
SME
IT
Potential synergy
Trainings and capacity building
Coordinated and Cross-border enforcement
Data gathering and processing.
Awareness raising activities
Support to networks of Member States'
authorities
Sharing IT development and operations
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
33
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0034.png
The potential synergy areas, solutions proposed and their pros and cons are:
-
Trainings and capacity building
Developing a general training offer under a Single Market capacity building
heading.
This would involve pooling together organisation of training activities,
focusing on the preparation of re-usable training material, offered on-line (i.e., e-
learning) and open to other EU institutions and to all Member States. Common,
horizontal modules could be developed (e.g. on e-commerce, detection of
fraudulent/deceptive practices, risk based planning of controls in the field of
dangerous products) and would complement the modules for specific policy
areas. This could also include a corporate approach for the organisation of
trainings, for example through a framework programme for developing capacity
training modules for both consumers and businesses under the same contract.
Setting up a capacity building programme focusing on SMEs and covering
different aspects under Single Market policies:
dealing with consumers' issues,
accessing finances, etc. or to other targeted groups (i.e. Consumers' associations).
Coordinated approach to supporting Member States' enforcement capacities.
Comprehensive national enforcement strategies could be the basis for funding
support to Member States, covering capacity building, modernisation and
alignment of control systems and funding of testing and controls.
A coordinated approach to training or a common training programme would avoid
information overload and foster more cooperation between national enforcers in the
Member States (in particular where cross cutting skill areas are needed for enforcement
action, such as e-commerce or fraudulent practices), and create a centralised training
offer related to enforcement in one place where e-learning materials could be provided in
one place according to target groups across policy areas. The network of intermediaries
64
in the COSME programme would also facilitate better outreach, especially among SMEs
Organising these trainings together would reduce the number of trainings and will lead to
resources savings, both on the side of the Commission and national authorities. Using
joint contracts for trainings could increase the impact and reduce work on project
cooperation which would result in cost savings. There could be however feasibility
problems for national administrations to ensure participation at the right level in these
joint trainings and also some programmes are subject to comitology procedure.
65
A coordinated approach to supporting Member States' capacities would allow simpler co-
funding and more flexibility for them to seek co-funding of "mixed" programmes which
may span over several funding opportunities but not fit into any of them. In those cases
where this approach is feasible Member States could introduce requests for
strategy/capacity building funding under a single programme and take a more holistic
approach to the Single Market.
- Coordinated and Cross-border enforcement
64
65
E.g. The Enterprise Europe Network and Cluster organisations.
For example, financing of the Better Training for Safer Food programme is subject to comitology by the Standing
Committee of the Food Chain votes.
34
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0035.png
Commission coordinated cross-border enforcement campaigns by national
authorities could be run in areas where several administrations need to be
involved as in the case of product and food safety and cyber security issues, on
commercial practices, personal data protection and Intellectual Property Rights or
in the area of EU antitrust rules and merger cooperation. DGs organising
coordinated or joint enforcement campaigns could come together for planning
and exchanges of best practices and improve Commission engagement with
national authorities.
Single framework contract for procuring products testing by laboratories could be
open to DGs supporting enforcement networks and joint actions and to national
enforcement authorities for their controls of products in the Single Market.
Coordinated cross-border enforcement campaigns could help create cross-sectoral and
cross-border investigation teams. The annual planning of these across different sectors
would reduce overlaps and allow better exchange of experience. In cases where
enforcement actions are voted/examined by a Committee feasibility may be a problem.
- Data gathering and processing
Enhancing existing platforms on data available at EU level such as BASEXT
66
to
better address the needs of the Single Market Programme.
Making use of Eurostat advice and services for the production and dissemination
of statistical information supporting SMP sub-programmes.
A "Single Market Knowledge Hub" to gather and analyse market studies,
performance indicators, country profiles, market research, Member State reports
to organise all the information and allow for sophisticated analytics.
Text mining: introduce thematic building blocks (instead of DGs building their
own intelligence).
Access to information, assistance and problem-solving services: all Single Market
information and assistance services for citizens, consumers and business are to
become more easily accessible through the single digital gateway.
Common purchase of access to databases when needs are similar.
Creation of a framework contract for studies with higher value and higher
individual studies value, use of such framework contracts would be optional.
Joint bid for Eurobarometer slots and coordination of questionnaires.
By grouping certain projects the services involved in the Programme could increase the
size of their procurements, save on management costs and generate economy of scales
67
.
This could allow services to get access to specific knowledge and to better pooling and
analysis of market intelligence in bigger data sets. Data sets could also be required in the
same, open format both from consultants and Member States which could lead to easier
exchange and reporting. In addition, duplication of studies could be avoided and
outcome of similar studies could be cross-checked for accuracy.
Making better use of the joint procurement of external databases will give the
Commission a better bargaining position and allow significant savings compared to
66
67
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/basext/en/home
. BASEEXT is managed by Eurostat.
Special rules on confidentiality apply in the area of EU competition policy and may limit the use and exchange of
certain information
35
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
individual contracts with data suppliers. The potential savings for 5 DGs currently using
the same database would be up to €400,000 per year and €2.8m during a seven year MFF
(assuming purchase of data and storing it on Commission servers for all to have access
to).
A bigger budget in joint bids for Eurobarometer slots and coordinated questions would
allow asking more and more coordinated questions (cost savings on each duplicative
question avoided is €15,000). Furthermore a joint proposal by several departments would
gain higher priority in the Eurobarometer planning calendar.
Creation of framework contracts with higher value would enable having joint studies
covering similar topics no longer constrained by budget and more flexibility in situations
where one department runs out of budget while the other has a surplus. Such framework
contracts could also be open to Member States.
An option to manage contracts separately should also be kept, in particular for DGs with
specialised needs, where it would still be necessary to run separate studies to get the
appropriate knowledge and so the qualitative outputs expected. High value would also
mean that SMEs would probably need to form consortia in order to participate.
Support to networks of Member State authorities
Pooling support activities to networks and centralised management of meetings.
Framework contracts for meetings, web-meetings, conferences organisation
support, common tools, common scheme for exchange of officials/investigations
teams.
Pooling support activities could lead to a more efficient organisation of enforcement
cooperation meetings and peer reviews among Member States as long as the centralised
management doesn't create added bureaucracy at the expense of flexibility and speed in
managing the networks which have different objectives, modes of work, participants or
frequency of meetings.
Awareness raising activities
Setting up networks for raising awareness of existing services and tools,
signposting to the most relevant service providing information, assistance or
problems-solving capacity. Developing a common brand and readily identifiable
elements to all campaigns.
A coordinated approach in this field would produce economies of scale. Also the long-
standing experience of awareness-raising activities and an extended network of
intermediaries of COSME can provide additional leverage for all Single Market
awareness raising activities.
Streamlining IT assets, Sharing IT development and operations
The joint management of the Single Market Programme could facilitate a
strengthened coordination of IT assets (frameworks, standards, solutions)
currently supporting the various information systems used by the included
programmes.
36
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0037.png
This approach would enable a more streamlined IT support across the Single Market
Programme domains consistent with the corporate IT governance within the
Commission. This enhanced collaboration between sectorial IT support will be a core
driver in view of sharing and reusing common solutions across services and the pooling
of IT resources. Besides reducing the total cost of ownership of the digital services,
enabling scalability and reducing time to market and interoperability fragmentation, such
an approach would contribute to critical mass towards a sustainable and aligned digital
transformation that pays prime attention to cross-border, cross-sector dynamics.
For example, the information systems that are used for the cooperation between national
competent authorities and the European Commission could benefit from technological
overhauls and state of the art investments with a view to improve their effectiveness. The
programme would also strive to reuse datasets across business portfolios and support
policy principles such as the
“once-only” –
while ensuring due diligence of data privacy
and other relevant legal provisions.
3.2.
Possible simplifications and improved flexibility in a common MFF structure
for the single market
Better predictability and flexibility of budget for support activities
Supporting activities such as studies, evaluations, information campaigns and trainings of
firms currently falling under the prerogative lines (around 7% of last MFF budget falling
under the scope of the Single Market Programme) will be integrated into the programme
allowing the budget for these activities to be fixed for the whole period of the MFF
68
.
The benefit of predictable financing should allow for long term planning of supporting
activities in product standardisation or financial services regulation. The increased
financing stability will be accompanied by a higher level of political scrutiny over budget
implementation. As discussed previously, the integration of existing prerogative lines and
administrative spending will also allow for increased flexibility in adapting to changing
needs across these areas of the new programme
69
.
3.3.
Possible prioritisations in response to the EU27 baseline scenario
The lessons learned and stakeholder feedback shows that the activities to be included in
the SMP provide strong EU added value and should as a matter of principle be continued.
The SMP is only a small part of the budget in comparison with other MFF programmes
(€6bn, 0.55% in current MFF). This limited budget is however supporting
one of the
most significant parts of the European Project. To decrease the available budget could
endanger the functionality of the programmes especially taking into account the
additional commitments as presented in the table 1.2, such as the Goods package, Health
Technology Assessment or Single Digital Gateway.
68
Programme legislation will determine the volume of expenditure and it is not subject to annual budgetary
negotiations. The budgetary authority cannot refuse budget already assigned by programme legislation based on the
MFF.
69
See section 3, Programme structure.
37
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0038.png
Savings from the identified synergies will materialise mainly from cross-cutting
implementation, better coordination, common enforcement, and as such are difficult to
quantify. Although potential savings have been identified during the preparation of the
IA they are marginal when compared to the EU27 baseline scenario. The identified
synergies are mainly considered avenues for improved delivery of the content-specific
objectives and if the SMP were reduced to the indicated EU27 baseline there would need
to be real reductions in delivery which could not be offset by the potential synergies
identified at this stage. The main responses to the EU27 baseline scenario are identified
in table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Prioritisations in response to the EU27 baseline scenario
Programme/
Budget
line
An Ambitious
Competition policy for a
stronger Union in the
digital age
Interoperability solutions
and common frameworks
for European public
administrations,
businesses and citizens
as a means for
modernising the public
sector (ISA² programme)
Implementation and
Development of Single
Market for Financial
Services
Description
The programme would be adjusted by removing the priority of boosting external
partnerships and wider stakeholder outreach. In terms of the actions listed that
would mostly effect the outreach actions as well as the human competency actions
to the extent they relate to third country authorities.
The policy initiatives under the Single Market Programme will continue to require
IT solutions in their implementation. Those solutions will continue to need to be
interoperable across borders and across sectors. As such, the budget needs for “IT
and business solutions for the Single Market Programme” would not diminish, but
the coverage or scope of the IT solutions can be adapted according to the budgetary
constraints.
Actions will continue to be implemented but would inevitably require a scaling
back of activities funded that could potentially undermine the quality of policy
delivery in the context of financial services, capital markets union and financial
stability because of more limited options for example to acquire data, procure
studies, build up IT tools and communication strategies.
Eurostat would cover only a minimum of information needs required by EU
legislation. Many existing regular statistics based on voluntary data collections, e.g.
related to the Energy Union or Digital Single Market, will have to be discontinued.
It will not be possible to develop specifically designed statistical surveys or other
data sources that would meet emerging policy needs.
Actions will continue to be implemented but would inevitably require a scaling
back of activities funded that could potentially undermine their effective functions
in the context of global standard setting activities and therefore have a negative
impact on EU interests in such context, including for example a qualitative and
quantitative decrease of European Financial Reporting Advisory Group opinions..
The funding of current activities will be at risk. The current funding is already very
limited and further reduction would put into question the survival of the programme
in a policy field. Consequently the already underrepresented views of consumers
would be even less represented while defining policy on financials services.
While possibly some synergies could be gained within the SMP (studies benefiting
from activities funding under other policy fields where suitable, communication
activities) the margin for adjustment remains very small, also given a very small
budget available for these policies in the past and a number of legal obligations in
the current acquis to produce reports. Both, as regards company law and anti-
money laundering/counter terrorist financing policy, it must be taken into account
that any possible reduction of the budget would impact significantly the quality of
the support and development of this EU policy
Activities in the UK will discontinue and help to offset budget reductions rather
than abandoning specific actions, the programme expects to make productivity
gains on certain activities (for example thanks to more efficient IT systems), the use
European Statistical
Programme (ESP)
Standards in the field of
reporting and auditing
Enhancing the
involvement of
consumers and other
end-users in Union
policy-making in
financial services (ICFS)
Company Law
prerogative
Consumer Programme
and the consumer and
contract law part of the
38
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0039.png
Programme/
Budget
line
Rights Equality and
Citizenship programme
(REC)
Description
of more powerful data analytics and through the development of synergies within
the Single Market Programme. However, it may still be necessary to reduce funds
allocated to supporting consumer assistance on the ground, awareness-raising
activities as well as the support and capacity building of consumer authorities and
organisations, and market analysis. Priority will be given to activities indispensable
to ensure an efficient implementation of the consumer acquis and the Commission’s
obligations found in this acquis.
Reduction would make it impossible to fulfil existing legal obligations stemming
from Internal market legislation, such as the provision of the Internal Market
Information system (IMI) for all those policy areas currently listed in the annex of
the IMI Regulation and its expansion to new legal areas. It would mean halting any
further development of services despite increasing demands from citizens and
businesses and incapacity to address new business and/or societal developments
related to the digital single market and e-government, such as the deployment of the
IT tools and the comprehensive upgrade of the Your Europe portal which are
required to launch the up-coming single digital gateway.
Running the standardisation system would continue but it would not be possible to
fund all standardisation projects needed to support recently adopted EU legislation
and would entail a negative impact on innovation - particularly so for SMEs since
they have lesser means to defend themselves against non-compliant products being
placed on the market. Costly laboratory trial tests needed before developing a
standard would no longer be afforded which would negatively impact quality of
standards.
A reduction would make it impossible to fulfil new commitment made during the
current MFF e.g. under the Goods Package or type approval proposals. Activities
indispensable to preserve the proper functioning of the Single Market (such as
accreditation, conformity assessment, preventing new barriers under the Single
Market Transparency Directive, services and maintaining the Single Market
product legislation fit and up-to-date with the digital age) would need to be
reduced and further developments would need to be restricted.
No entire action would be discontinued in the EU27 baseline scenario but parts
related to implementation in the UK will be discontinued and other proportional
reductions would be implemented.
The further development of initiatives such as additional European Reference
Networks, Health Technology Assessments and eHealth would be very limited, and
the support to achieving the Sustainable Development Goal number three of
“ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being and access to health care for all”
would be minimal.
It would prevent the necessary strengthening of actions against plant pests. There
is a strategic phasing-in under the current MFF of the budget for detection and
eradication of harmful organisms The baseline would not take this into account and
would thus significantly reduce the scope for action (e.g. against Xylella). It would
also limit the efforts to work with and support Member States in the fight against
food fraud.
A reduction of budget to an EU-27 budget would not lead to the elimination of a
certain type of activities. Indeed, the same types, namely studies, evaluation, and
communication activities would continue to be set up. Studies for evaluations or
reports which the Commission is obliged to deliver on the basis of Union
legislations would be prioritised. In addition, the relevance of intended initiatives
with the EU customs and tax agenda would be checked and would allow
prioritisation. For example, initiatives which can be linked to fair taxation or the
Union Customs Code implementation could be prioritised.
Internal market:
Governance tools
Internal market: Support
to Standardisation
activities
Internal market:
operation and
development of the
internal market for
Goods, Services and
Public Procurement
COSME
Health programme
CFF for food chain (the
Food Chain Programme)
Customs and tax policy
development support
budget line
39
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0040.png
3.4.
EU added value and legal base
3.4.1. EU added value
The need for EU intervention is already well established for the existing
programmes/budget lines
70
and the proposed structure for a Single Market Programme
would not alter the pre-existing rationale of these individual interventions.
In the open public consultation around 80% of stakeholders considered that EU
programmes and funds add more value than could be achieved at national level. The
Single Market is considered the best illustration of EU added value action, as it is a
public good delivering real and tangible value. However, as new barriers continuously
appear, some respondents ask for further standardization and for strengthened market
surveillance with sufficient budget allocation
71
.
Although Member States are primarily responsible for delivering the Single Market on
the ground the Commission as a guardian of the Treaties and the EU as a whole has an
interest that this delivery is done in a coherent way, and that citizens, consumers and
businesses enjoy the same rights and the same opportunities throughout Europe. Action
at EU level is required to ensure the consistent development of the Single Market, non-
discrimination, consumer protection, functioning competition, developing capabilities in,
as well as cooperation and trust between Member States, tackle cross-border issues and
ensuring the security of the Single Market. Developing a Single Market Programme can
only be achieved at EU level as actions require active cooperation and coordination of
national capacities.
For instance, to ensure that consumer and safety laws are respected across the Single
Market, consumer authorities and associations have to cooperate to ensure an equal
assessment and correction of practices in this field. The EU has to support such
cooperation with adequate IT tools, evidence and legal expertise. In addition, the EU is
best placed to support EU-level consumer representation, including financial services,
awareness raising, collection of evidence, exchange of best practices and networking
among authorities and bodies assisting and/or representing consumers. EU action is in
particular required in the area of awareness-raising concerning the application of the EU
competition rules and its effects for the functioning of the Single Market. In addition,
safeguarding health as an invaluable resource for the society and the Single Market by
protecting citizens and the economy against cross border health threats (for humans, and
animals and plants equally) can only be effective and efficient if coordinated at EU level.
As regards the new proposal for
An Ambitious Competition policy for a stronger Union
in the digital age,
a large body of literature and studies demonstrates the macroeconomic
benefits of competition and competition enforcement. For instance, a study
72
from 2017
demonstrated that the Commission's cartel and merger decisions taken over the period
2012-2014 boosted GDP by 0.3% and employment by 0.2% after five years, similar to
70
Discussion of subsidiarity and EU added value for individual programmes/budget lines can be found in the
corresponding annexes.
71
See annex 2 for more details
72
Dierx, Adriaan, Fabienne Ilzkovitz, Beatrice Pataracchia, Marco Ratto, Anna Thum-Thysen and Janos Varga (2017),
"Does EU competition policy support inclusive growth?", Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2,
pp. 225-260.
40
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0041.png
various estimates of the impact of the Services Directive
73
.. The competition enforcement
action
–
which only covered part of EU level competition enforcement
–
was also found
to reduce inequalities between rich and poor households.
The new
Scaling-up instrument
will directly leverage the high EU added-value of the
COSME programme as it will target SMEs that are engaged in strategic interregional
collaboration as part of clusters and encourage the transnational uptake of solutions to
boost SMEs competitiveness. It will complement efforts at regional and national level
and others measures at EU level, such as interregional collaboration of regional
authorities under the European Regional Development Fund.
3.4.2. Legal base
According to settled case-law, the choice of the legal basis for a European Union
measure must be based on objective factors amenable to judicial review, which include
the aim and content of that measure and not on the legal basis used for the adoption of
other European Union measures, which might, in certain cases, display similar
characteristics. In addition, where the Treaty contains a more specific provision that is
capable of constituting the legal basis for the measure in question, the measure must be
founded on that provision. If examination of a measure reveals that it pursues two aims
or that it has two components and if one of those aims or components is identifiable as
the main one, whereas the other is merely incidental, the measure must be founded on a
single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant aim or component.
With regard to a measure that simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, or that has
several components, which are inseparably linked without one being incidental to the
other, the Court has held that, where various provisions of the Treaty are therefore
applicable, such a measure will have to be founded, exceptionally, on the various
corresponding legal bases. Recourse to a dual legal basis is not possible where the
procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other
74
The basic acts establishing programmes currently in force which will be integrated into
the Single Market Programme are based on diversified legal bases. Those include:
Article 114 TFEU in case of activities supporting financial reporting and auditing
75
(and
a large number of internal market measures that contain ancillary financing provisions),
Article 169 TFEU and Article 169 (2) (b) TFEU concerning consumer protection
76
,
Article 168 (5) TFEU concerning public health
77
, Articles 43 and 168 (4) (b) TFEU
concerning measures in veterinary and phytosanitary fields
78
, Article 197 TFEU on
administrative cooperation Article 173 TFEU encouraging a favourable environment for
the development of undertakings, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings,
Article 195 TFEU concerning tourism, and Article 338 TFEU on statistics.
In the light of the synergies obtained, the merging of the previous programmes has
resulted in the proposal pursuing simultaneously four objectives that are inseparably
linked without one being incidental to the other i.e. the internal market (Article 114
73
See Copenhagen Economics (2005a): "Economic assessment of the barriers to the internal market for
services"; Final report.'The economic impact of the Services Directive: A first assessment following implementation',
EUROPEAN ECONOMY, Economic Papers 456 (June 2012).
74
See e.g. Case C-490/10 Parliament v. Council at paras 44 to 47.
75
Regulation 258/2014
76
Regulation 254/2014, Regulation 2017/826,
77
Regulation 282/2014
78
Regulation 652/2014
41
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0042.png
TFEU), measures in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields (Articles 43 and 168 (4) (b)
TFEU), encouraging a favourable environment for the development of undertakings,
particularly small and medium-sized undertakings (Article 173 TFEU) and statistics for
EU policies (Article 338 TFEU).
4. D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
Single Market governance, policy implementation and funding have traditionally been set
up and implemented with a strong sector specific focus. Each of the programmes to be
incorporated in the Single Market Programme has their own historic background and
independent approach on implementation and delivery. The instruments used are direct
funding by way of grants and financial instruments. Policy support actions are partly
implemented by procurement. This is especially the case under the Commission
prerogatives on budget lines not related to a funding programme and where tasks
assigned to the Institutions by the Treaty require the exercise of discretionary powers in
translating political choices into action
79
. Detailed descriptions of the delivery
mechanisms for each budget line included in the scope of the Single Market Programme
are described in the corresponding programme-specific annex.
Setting up this programme is an opportunity to streamline procedures, increase
commonalities, adopt common management and delivery models and an opportunity to
consider further the use of executive agencies to support programme implementation.
Finally, and subject to the caveat expressed in the section 1.1 Scope and context, and in
line with the Commission's overall objectives of streamlining, increasing efficiency and
achieving a better visibility of EU support, the successor to the SME guarantee facility of
the COSME programme will be implemented under the SME window of the InvestEU
Fund and under the rules established for the InvestEU Fund. The delivery of the SME
guarantee facility under the InvestEU Fund is more efficient, as the InvestEU Fund will
be based on a budgetary guarantee rather than a fully funded financial instrument. To this
end, it will be stipulated in the Regulation that the budget allocated towards the SME
guarantee under the COSME programme shall be made available to the guarantee fund
linked to the InvestEU Fund on the condition that the implementation of an SME
guarantee facility is focused on supporting higher risk SME financing transactions under
the SME window of the InvestEU Fund.
4.1.
Programme coordination and delivery
4.1.1. Coordination in the Commission
The day to day running of the Programme will require an Inter Service Group (ISG)
within the Commission to ensure coordination between the services involved in running
79
See recital (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive
agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes stating that "Outsourcing
of management tasks should nevertheless stay within the limits set by the institutional system as laid out in the
Treaty. This means that tasks assigned to the institutions by the Treaty which require discretionary powers in
translating political choices into action may not be outsourced".
42
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0043.png
the specific activities. The ISG will consist of the DGs tasked with the implementation of
the programme and administrative support will be provided by the lead DGs.
The ISG will develop the internal arrangements for the cross-cutting activities and
support measures announced in the work programme, monitor relations with any relevant
executive agency and will be consulted on the scope of the activities to be externalised.
The ISG will be involved in budget appropriation and programme evaluation.
An additional option in implementing the Single Market Programme would be for the
responsible Commission services to be assisted by a Common Support Centre similar to
the one set up to assist in the day to day management of the Horizon 2020 Programme
under the current Multiannual Financial Framework which provides a consistent
application and interpretation of a single set of rules in Horizon 2020 across all
components of this Framework Programme and a harmonised implementation of full
grants cycle across all implementing bodies. This support however also creates rigidity in
the implementation when based on a single set of rules which is appropriate for a very
large scale of operations in administering grants which is not foreseen for the Single
Market Programme. . Given the diversity of actions under the Single Market Programme,
the use of a Common support Centre is therefore not foreseen for the Single Market
Programme. It is considered that the ISG within the Commission will be sufficient to
ensure proper coordination of actions.
Under the template put forward for sector programmes under the Multiannual Financial
Framework post 2020, the funding rules applicable to the programme budget will closely
follow the provisions of the new Financial Regulations. Where appropriate, the
programme's ISG can be consulted or ad hoc cooperation can be established for the
implementation of specific cross-cutting activities, such as rationalising some IT tools
developed under the Single Market Programme or its predecessors.
4.2.
Delegation to executive agencies
Delegation to an executive agency is primarily relevant for activities that are repetitive,
non-political and benefits from economies of scale in their production. A good example
is the delegation of management of grants awarded to a large number of recipients
according to a set of common rules or the contracting out of media buying for
communication campaigns. One or several existing executive agencies could be tasked to
run specific grants or procurements meeting these criteria and develop the necessary
expertise in the delegated task across several programmes. Other procurements could be
delegated to executive agencies on the basis of a pre-existing specialisation (e.g. in the
health and food safety domain).
Due to specialisation and standardisation of administrative activities such agencies are
very cost efficient. Cost analysis has shown, for instance, that delegation of programme
management to EASME is estimated to deliver savings of 26% or €104m over 2014-
2024 relative to implementation by the Commission itself
80
.They also form a single
recognizable counterpart to recipients of funding. This will allow Commission services to
concentrate resources on developing and retaining expertise required for non-repetitive
and policy making tasks.
80
ICF GHK. 2013. Cost Benefit Analysis for the delegation of certain tasks regarding the implementation of Union
Programmes 2014-2020 to the Executive Agencies (Final Report 19 August 2013), pages 63 and 135.
43
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0044.png
4.2.1. Current delegation
Under the current multiannual financial framework the programmes included under the
scope of the Single Market Programme have already delegated a number of such
activities to executive agencies as summarised in table 4.1.
Table 4.1
–
Existing delegation of activities for programmes under suggested scope for
the Single Market programme
Programme
Health Programme
Food Chain Programme
Consumer programme
Internal market governance tools
81
COSME
Total
Delegation
(M€)
339
112
142
3
765
1.361
delegation
(%)
75
6
75
11
32
Delegated
to
CHAFEA
CHAFEA
CHAFEA
EASME
EASME
Under the current multiannual financial framework the European Commission has
entrusted the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) to
implement activities for three programmes under the scope of the Single Market
Programme: the Health, the Food Chain and Consumer programmes.
For the Health Programme this is mainly done through financing three types of different
actions: grants for projects, grants for joint actions with Member States and operating
grants. CHAFEA ensures a complete electronic lifecycle for grants from evaluation of
proposals, to collection of deliverables and final reports. A good example is the "Better
Training for Safer Food" (BTSF) initiative under the CFF for Food Chain Programme.
The aim of BTSF is to organise a Community (EU) training strategy in the areas of food
law, feed law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as well as plant health rules. While
the Commission sets out policy objectives and the general strategy for BTSF, the
Executive Agency puts into practice this initiative by managing all phases of the projects,
from launch of calls for tender to evaluations of offers, award of contracts, and
supervision of implementation. For the Consumer programme, CHAFEA implements
grants and a part of the procurements in the programme. Certain specific procurements
remain executed directly by the parent DG in case of highly sensitive files or where
CHAFEA does not have the necessary technical expertise.
The COSME programme, on average, delegates around 110 million per year (90% of the
budget for the non-financial instruments) to EASME. Half of this relates to the Enterprise
Europe Network, the other half is constituted of a large number of smaller actions. Under
the current multiannual financial framework, EASME has also partly implemented a
small fragment of the Internal Market Governance tools (Your Europe Business) but with
funding deriving from the COSME budget line.
81
The main part of the delegation for this activity (Your Europe Business) derives from the COSME budget.
44
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0045.png
4.2.2. Future delegation of activities under the Single Market Programme
From 2018, the portfolio of executive agencies is no longer limited by a strict
interpretation of "programme" implementation as a result of the entry into force of the
new Financial Regulation. This means that externalisation may now be considered for the
implementation of certain tasks related to the management of individual projects and for
the implementation of administrative expenditures. As such, externalisation can be
extended to activities previously implemented by the Commission as long as it respects
the requirements set out by Regulation 58/2003 for any delegation of tasks to Executive
Agencies (prior cost benefit analysis, exclusion of any delegation of tasks involving
discretionary powers, inclusion of the activity in the Establishment Act of the Executive
Agency)..
In this context, the experience of executive agencies can be extended to other
implementation tasks that are currently implemented within the Commission proper.
Externalisation cannot be applied to all tasks. Some actions may be politically sensitive,
or need a specific knowledge to be implemented most effectively, which would require
in-house evaluation and award of individual contracts and funding to be performed by the
Commission itself or some selected activities with a particularly close relation to policy
making.
Without prejudging of the result of the cost benefit analysis that will be performed to
analyse the opportunity of delegation to executive agencies for the next programming
period
82
, the following elements can already be mentioned. Positive experience with the
current delegations from the Health, Food chain, Consumer and COSME programmes
means they should continue under the next multiannual financial framework. The current
delegation of the activities for Your Europe Business might no longer be considered
suitable for delegation to the executive agency as analysis has showed that the delegation
created an extra layer of coordination that effective delivery can be better achieved by
fully integrating delivery with the other Internal Market governance tools which are
currently managed in-house.
As a part of the preparation of the impact assessment for the Single Market Programme,
the services involved have performed a preliminary analysis and identified potential
candidates for future delegation of activities to an executive agency.
As regards the delegation of the implementation of grants:
The possible use of grants to incentivise uptake of digital interoperable assets
from the current ISA
2
programme.
Operating and action grants without calls for proposals (under framework
contracts) to European standardisation organisations.
The use of grants to support joint enforcement actions, best practise development
and capacity building in the area of market surveillance and product compliance.
As regards the delegation of the implementation of public procurement:
82
The performance of this Cost Benefit Analysis is a requirement set out by Article 3 of Regulation 58/2003.
45
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0046.png
Day to day management of the contract supporting Your Europe Advice (part of
the Single Market Governance tools)
83
.
Market studies, data gathering and analysis, product testing, communication
actions, training programmes and material in the area of market surveillance and
product compliance.
As regards the delegation of the implementation of other activities:
Direct payment or reimbursement of travel and meeting costs linked to
enforcement coordination meetings of market surveillance authorities, exchange
of officials, peer review visits of market surveillance authorities.
Direct payment or reimbursement of Member States' testing costs in the context
of agreed priority actions of the EU Product Compliance Network.
Management of joint procurement for EU Product Compliance Network (e.g.
framework contracts open to COM/agency and authorities)
The potential for delegation in the next multiannual financial framework is described in
table 4.2.
Table 4.2
–
Potential for future delegation in the Single Market Programme
Name
Potential
delegation
(%)
84
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
29
75
45
32
75
Type of activities to be delegated
Grants
Public
Other
Procurement
√
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
√
N/A
√
√
√
√
√
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
√
√
N/A
√
√
√
√
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
√
N/A
N/A
√
N/A
√
IT and business solutions for the Single Market
(successor of ISA2)
Ambitious Competition policy for a stronger
Union in the digital age
Implementation and Development of Single
Market for Financial Services
European Statistical Programme (ESP)
Standards in the field of reporting and auditing
Enhancing the involvement of consumers and
other end-users in Union policy-making in
financial services (ICFS)
Company Law prerogative
Consumer Programme and the consumer law part
of the Rights Equality and Citizenship
programme (REC)
Internal Market: Governance tools
Internal market: Support to Standardisation
activities
Internal market: operation and development of
the internal market for Goods, Services and
Public Procurement
COSME
Health programme
83
Your Europe Advice offers citizens and businesses tailored information and advice on their rights in the Internal
Market, free of charge and in all 24 EU languages, including re-direction to the authority or other body (local, national
or European) best placed to solve their problem. It is provided through a contractor (ECAS, European Citizens' Action
Service) managing a network of 60 legal experts with EU law background, expertise and experience in national law
and administration in all Member States, financed by the Commission which also takes care of the political guidance,
maintenance and further adaptation of the YEA database application to the citizens and experts' needs
84
Based on working assumptions and knowledge about the current multiannual financial framework.
46
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0047.png
Food Chain Programme
Customs and tax policy development support
budget line
6
0
N/A
N/A
√
N/A
N/A
N/A
In a context of continuing existing delegations and as a result of the identification of the
above potentials for new delegation, a political decision will be needed at the appropriate
time as to how to organise the delegation of actions from the Single Market Programme.
This choice will largely depend on the result of the Cost benefit Analysis.
5. H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
As the Single Market Programme is a merger of 15 new and existing programmes it
covers a very large number of policy areas and consequently includes a large number of
(sub)objectives and indicators. In as much as only a limited number of key performance
indicators are possible, combining indicators to measure the overall performance of the
programme covering many policy areas is not a viable monitoring strategy
85
.
To prepare the impact assessment a half day workshop was conducted between the
Commission services involved in the programme and the JRC. As a result the involved
services were able to design and select a limited number of highly aggregated Key
Performance Indicators that would best reflect the overall performance in terms of both
the content-specific (reflecting key components of the programme) and cross-cutting
objectives for the Single Market Programme
86
. The chosen indicators are based on the
learnings from evaluation which showed the need for reducing the total number of
indicators and shifting the focus to only key indicators which are measuring performance
rather than output and for which the sources of data should be clearly identified at the
design stage.
Programme/budget line
An Ambitious Competition policy
for a stronger Union in the digital
age
a,b,c)
IT and business solutions for the
Single Market (successor of ISA2)
a,b,c)
Indicator
Customer benefit from cartel prohibition
decisions and merger interventions
Level of alignment with the European
Interoperability Framework
87
of the
Member States
Ability to complete procedures on-line.
Impact of statistics published on the
internet: number of web mentions and
positive/negative opinions
Percentage of international financial
reporting and auditing standards endorsed
by the EU
Consumer condition index
88
Frequency
Annual
Source of data
In-house
NIFO (National
Interoperability
Framework
Observatory)
Eurostat, In-
house
N° of
endorsement
regulations
Consumer
scoreboard
Annual
European Statistical Programme
(ESP)
a,b,c)
Standards in the field of reporting
and auditing
c)
Consumer programme and New
Deal for consumers
a,b,c)
Annual
Annual
Biannual
The full mapping of (sub)objectives and indicators and their connection to the content specific objectives of the
Single Market Programme are detailed in annex 19-20.
86
The final list of the indicators will be decided in the legal base
87
European Interoperability Framework Communication (COM(2017)134)
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2c2f2554-0faf-11e7-8a35-
01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF)
88
Composite index covering three dimensions: knowledge and trust; compliance and enforcement; complaints and
dispute resolution
85
47
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0048.png
Programme/budget line
Internal Market - Governance tools
a,b,c)
Indicator
Number of visits to Your Europe portal
Number of IMI bilateral requests
89
Share of implementation of European
standards as national standards by Member
States in total amount of active European
standards
- Number of new complaints it the area of
free movement of goods and services, as
well as EU legislation on public
procurement
- Services Trade Restrictiveness Index
90
Joint market surveillance campaigns
Number of SMEs receiving support and
total volume of financing made available to
SMEs supported
91
.
Number of companies supported having
concluded business partnerships.
Strength of integrated work engagement
Frequency
Annual
Source of data
Single Market
Scoreboard
Internal Market
Scoreboard
- Commission
centrally registry
of complaints
(CHAP)
-OECD
Internal market
–
Support to
Standardisation activities
a,c,d)
Internal market
–
operation and
development of the internal market
for Goods, Services and Public
Procurement
a,b,c)
Annual
-Annual
- Annual
EU programme for the
Competitiveness of SMEs
(COSME)
a,b,
Health programme
a,b,c,d)
a,b,c,d)
Annual
To be
developed
92
Member States
/SANTE
Annual
Number of successfully implemented
Member States
national veterinary and phytosanitary
annual
Food chain Programme
/SANTE
programmes
Note: The key performance indicator for each programme is linked to content specific objectives for the Single Market
Programme as described in table 2.2): a) Indicator linked to:
Empower citizens/consumers and businesses(in particular
SMEs at different stages of their development);
b) Indicator linked to:
Support to administrative cooperation, capacity
building and integration among Member State;
c) Indicator linked to:
Support to rule-making, standard setting and
enforcement at EU institutions level;
d) Indicator linked to:
Foster the protection of health as a resources for the
society and the internal market
In order to measure the achievement of the cross-cutting objectives for the new Single
Market Programme the following design specific indicators will be monitored in-house:
Synergies
Training and capacity building:
- Number and subject of training organised covering more than one policy area (with common programme
or common venue or common participants or common date)
- Participants feedback from such trainings and key learnings
Joint enforcement actions:
- Number and field of common enforcement actions covering more than one policy area (no. of countries
covered, no. of common inspections)
- Reduction of time of product testing due to common Framework Contract
Data gathering:
- Number of common purchases of databases and amounts saved
- Number of joint Eurobarometers, number of policy areas covered and amounts saved (due to elimination
of overlapping questions)
- Number and value of studies launched under joint framework contract for studies
- Number of joint studies launched and covering more than one policy area
89
90
Requests/exchanges from one Member State to another
OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI) is a unique, evidence-based diagnostic tool that provides an up-
to-date snapshot of services trade barriers in 22 sectors across 44 countries, representing over 80% of global services
trade.
http://www.oecd.org/tad/services-trade/services-trade-restrictiveness-index.htm
91
Subject to the caveat expressed in the section 1.1 Scope and context
92
This information comes from different sources. This has to be centralised at programme level. Discussion with JRC
will follow to develop a central monitoring system that would allow an annual calculation of this indicator.
48
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0049.png
Support to networks of Member State authorities
- Usage of joint FWC for meetings (Saved time and cost on organisation of repetitive events)
Awareness raising activities:
- Number of joint promotion campaigns covering more than one policy area
- Measure of success of such campaigns (e.g. no. of citizens/firms reached, feedback received)
IT development and operations
- Number, development time and related costs of common IT projects supporting more than one policy area
-Users' feedback on these systems
Flexibility
- No of times budget were moved from one SMP pillar to another.
- No of times FWC for studies was used for standard development and associated reduction in delivery
time for standards.
Simplification
- Number, value and kind of common support activities cleared by Agency
- Number of FTE saved for preparation of one work programme instead of many
- Travelling time and lodging saved for the Commission and national authorities due to common Member
State Programme Committee
There will be separate mid-term evaluations of the components of the Single Market
Programme. Each evaluation will be content specific and focus on its detailed objectives.
The findings will feed into the evaluation of the whole SMP, which will concentrate on
design specific objectives (simplification, flexibility and synergies) and the key
performance indicators specified in the legal base. In order to provide meaningful
recommendations the mid-term evaluation should be conducted when SMP actions are
likely to produce real output on the ground. Assuming that the next MFF has a duration
of 7 years the mid-term evaluations should start during the 5
th
or 6
th
year of the
programme implementation. The final evaluation should take place when all actions are
executed and cleared.
The existing data sources seem sufficient for the monitoring of the proposed indicators.
Monitoring indicators presented above are not sufficient to provide an adequate
evaluation of the effects of the whole programme. For this reason, it is foreseen to plan
for mid-term and ex-post evaluations of specific SMP components with the relevant data
collection. The detailed monitoring and evaluation arrangements for different SMP
components are discussed in the respective programme-specific annexes. The detailed
connection between all objectives and draft comprehensive list of all indicators is
presented in Annex 19 and 20 respectively. Following experience with the current
programmes, too many indicators can be difficult to monitor and not proportionate to
objectives at hand. Therefore further work will be done to reduce and streamline the list
proposed in the annex.
49
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0050.png
Annex 1: Procedural information
1. L
EAD
DG(
S
), De
CIDE
P
LANNING
/CWP
REFERENCES
Lead Directorates-General (DGs)
This initiative is co-led by Directorate-Generals for Internal Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), Competition (COMP), Informatics (DIGIT),
Eurostat (ESTAT), Financial stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
(FISMA), Justice and Consumers (JUST), Health and Food Safety (SANTE) and,
Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD).
Decide planning and Commission Work Programme references.
The Decide Consultation reference for this initiative is ISC/2018/03016. The MFF
proposal was published in the Commission Work Programme 2018
93
.
2. O
RGANISATION AND TIMING
The Inter-Service Steering Group for this initiative was chaired by the Secretariat-
General. Besides lead DGs the following Directorates-General participated: the Legal
Service (LS), Budget (BUDG), Communication Networks, Content and Technology
(CNECT) and Joint Research Centre (JRC), Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
(EMPL), Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN), Research and Innovation (RTD) and
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
The following meetings took place:
27 November 2017
–
preparation of public consultations
8 February 2018
–
on lessons learnt and objectives
16 March 2018
–
on the final draft Impact Assessments
There was also a separate Inter-Service Steering Group Meeting related to COSME
which took place on 22 February 2018. In addition, to services represented in the Single
Market Programme, the following Directorates-General participated: Regional and Urban
Policy (REGIO), Research and Innovation (RTD), Environment (ENV), Joint Research
Centre (JRC), Climate action (CLIMA), Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN),
Budget (BUDG), Trade (TRADE) Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL).
Besides the above, leading DGs met regularly to discuss and develop different parts of
the Impact Assessment.
93
Commission Work Programme 2018 page 11 and, Annex 1 page 2.
50
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0051.png
3. C
ONSULTATION OF THE
RSB
An informal upstream meeting was held with RSB representatives. During this
discussion Board members provided early feedback and advice on the basis of an
inception impact assessment. Board members' feedback did not prejudge in any way the
subsequent formal deliberations of the RSB. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB)
discussed the draft impact assessment on 18 April 2018 and issued a positive opinion on
20 April 2018. The Board recommended the following improvements:
RSB recommendations
The report should be updated to reflect and explain
the latest decisions regarding the scope of the
programme.
In the introduction, the report could better explain
the nature of the programme-specific annexes. It
should fix inconsistencies between the annexes and
the report. It should include findings which are
significant for the Single Market Programme budget
from the annexes in the main report. It should spell
out the changes within the individual programmes
which will be implemented in the next period. It
should also reflect stakeholder input more clearly in
the presentation of the policy context and new
priorities. The report should explain how the
concerns expressed in particular in terms of
prioritisation are properly reflected, e.g. with regard
to health and to a safe and sustainable food chain.
The report lays out common priorities of the Single
Market Programme but could discuss more the
prioritisation between them and between the sub-
programmes. As such, the analysis could reflect the
scenarios for cutting activities and/or achieving
synergy gains in order to cope with a possibly
limited budget.
The report could better explain the coherence and
potential synergies between the instruments of the
Single Market Programme and other MFF
programmes.
Revisions introduced
Section 1.1 'scope
and context'
has been expanded
to reflect scope of the Single Market Programme.
The nature of the programme-specific annexes have
been clarified in section 1.1 'Scope
and context'.
Main findings from SMP (sub)programmes have
been clarified in the main IA report in table (1.3,
Main lessons learned in programmes and budget
lines included in the Single Market Programme),
and main changes to (sub)programmes have been
added in table (2.1,
Main adjustments in existing
programmes/budget lines)
and stakeholder views
have been clarified.
Section 3.3 about 'possible
prioritisations in
response to the EU27 baseline scenario'
has been
added to the report.
"Exclusions from the scope and coherence with
other MFF programmes"
under section 1.1 has been
expanded with additional information about
coherence and potential synergies with other
programmes.
4. E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
This impact assessment is based on midterm evaluations and experience of the individual
programmes of the MFF 2014-2020 budget period. The list of programmes is presented
in section 1.1 Scope and context. The common lessons learnt from the experience with
the programmes are summarised in section 1.2. More detailed information is available in
programme specific annexes.
This impact assessment was also supported by public consultations, which are
summarised in Annex 2.
51
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0052.png
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
1. I
NTRODUCTION
This synopsis documents public consultations accompanying the preparation of the
proposal to introduce the Single Market Programme
94
.
The public consultation on the proposal took place between 10 January 2018 and 9
March 2018.
The questionnaire covered areas of investment, research and innovation, SMEs and
Single Market. The analysis below focuses on areas covered by the Single Market
Programme: SMEs and Single Market.
The results of this consultation were used for the preparation of the proposal and
accompanying impact assessment.
2. R
ESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
The on-line public consultations for this initiative were announced on the Commission
consultation page
95
, used EUSurvey as the consultation tool and lasted for 8 weeks
96
. The
questionnaire was available in all EU languages. The questionnaire and replies are
available on the abovementioned consultation page.
Responses to public consultation are voluntary and represent only views of the
respondents. Consequently, they cannot be interpreted as representative in a statistical
sense to the whole EU.
2.1. Description of respondents
Responses are classified based on self-identification by the respondent.
By the end of consultation period, 4052 replies arrived. This analysis however, will
concentrate on around 28% of respondents (1122 replies) who chose “EU support to the
Single Market” (307 replies) and/or “EU support for SME and entrepreneurship” (1034)
as the topics of their replies
97
.
94
Individual sub-programmes of the Internal Market Programme subject to evaluations had also their own topic
specific public consultations
–
for details please check programme-specific annexes.
95
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-eu-funds-area-investment-research-innovation-smes-and-
single-market_en
96
The Commission Secretariat General granted a derogation from the recommended 12 weeks consultation period.
97
Question 28, it was possible to choose multiple topics. The remaining topics were “EU support for research and
innovation” (3837 answers, 95% of all answers) and “EU support for Investment” (642 answers –
16% of all)
52
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0053.png
The replies came from all 28 EU Member States, from Norway and Iceland (EEA),
Switzerland (EFTA) and 13 other countries. Around 60% of replies came from just six
countries: Spain, Italy, Belgium, Germany, France and UK. (See Fig. A2.1)
A third of replies came from citizens (409), a third from companies (396), 16% from
NGOs and academia (180), 8% from public authorities (89). There were 257 replies from
individual companies (93% of which were SMEs
98
) and 95 replies from business
associations
99
. National public authorities from 14 EU Member States
100
and regional or
local authorities from 13 Member States
101
participated in the consultations.
Around 230 organisations are registered as official lobbyists in the transparency
register
102
.
Fig. A2.1. Distribution of answers to public consultations by country and stakeholder
type.
180
155
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Number of responses
127124
115
87
Public
28 EU MS, + EEA and EFTA
authorities;
Other
89; 8%
National authorities from 14 MS
organisations;
Regional authorities from 13 MS
48; 4%
257 firms, including 238 SMEs
95 business associations
90 NGOs
Companies;
396; 35%
citizens; 409;
37%
64
53
40 36
28 26 26
23 20 20 19 19
17
NGOs,
academia;
180; 16%
62
0
13 12 10 7
5 3 3 3 3 2
Note: Covers only those who chose “EU support to the Single Market” and/or “EU support for SME and
entrepreneurship” topics
*Other includes 17 answers from Norway, 14 from Switzerland, 3 from Iceland, Israel (7), Turkey (4), two answers
from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Moldova and Peru, one answer from Albania and Kosovo, Belarus, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Ecuador, Paraguay and USA
98
238 replies from SMEs, more than ten SME replies came from Spain (41 replies), Italy (37), UK (23), Germany (22),
France (16), the Netherlands (15)
99
The remaining 44 replies came from consultancies and law firms
100
National authorities replies: Austria (5 replies), two replies from Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, one
reply from Czech Republic, Cyprus , France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia and Romania. There was also
seven national authorities from outside EU
101
Regional or local authorities from: Germany (13 replies), eight from France and Spain, Italy (7), Sweden (6),
Belgium (4), three from Finland and Denmark, two from Poland, Portugal and UK, one from the Netherlands and
Slovenia
102
http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do
53
Spain
Italy
Belgium
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Sweden
Austria
Portugal
Greece
Hungary
Denmark
Bulgaria
Finland
Ireland
Poland
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Romania
Slovenia
Estonia
Slovakia
Croatia
Latvia
Luxembourg
Malta
Lithuania
Other*
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0054.png
Among all the respondents, 362 had previous experience with EU Health Programme,
followed by COSME (336), EU Food and Feed Programme (71), Digital Single Market
support programme (62) and European statistical programme (51).
2.2. Analysis of responses
Respondents were asked to identify and assess the importance of the key challenges for
the Commission spending programmes. Almost all participants (97%) considered at least
one challenge covered by the Single Market Programme
103
as very or rather important.
The most important challenges were access to finance, especially for SMEs and digital
transition of economy (82%), promotion of public health (79%)
104
, support to industrial
development (78%), fair competition and safe food (75%).
Citizens and NGOs considered health and safe food as top priorities. SMEs rated as
second industrial development and as fourth financial stability. For public authorities
digitalisation of economy and industrial development were most important, as well as
quality and digitization of public institutions.
All topics relevant to SMP score above 50% relevance in the groups interested in SMEs
and Single Market (see Table A2.1.)
Table A2.1. Stakeholders’ perception of importance of challenges covered by the Single
Market Programme, by respondent type.
(Question 29.
– answers:” very important” and “rather important”)
Respondent type:
Challenges:
Facilitate access to finance, in particular to SMEs
Facilitate digital transition of the economy, industry,
services and society
Promote and protect public health
Support industrial development
Ensure fair conditions of competition in the EU
Promote a safe and sustainable food chain
Improve quality of public institutions (including
digitalisation)
Ensure that existing rules are applied and enforced
consistently across the EU
Promote financial stability
Ensure smooth circulation of goods both within EU and at
EU borders
Ensure a high level of consumer protection and effective
redress
Support capital flows and investment
103
104
All
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
%
82%
82%
79%
78%
75%
75%
71%
69%
69%
61%
60%
58%
Citizens
and NGOs*
No.
%
4
3
1
6
5
2
7
8
9
11
10
13
76%
79%
85%
72%
75%
82%
72%
70%
68%
61%
63%
54%
SMEs
No.
%
1
3
5
2
6
7
8
9
4
11
12
10
92%
78%
75%
85%
74%
67%
66%
64%
76%
59%
55%
64%
Public
authorities
No.
%
3
1
7
2
5
6
4
8
13
9
11
11
82%
92%
60%
83%
71%
63%
76%
57%
49%
55%
51%
51%
For challenges covered by the IMP see table A2.1.
When all 4052 answers are considered, health is the highest raked IMP relevant challenge (80% of all replies),
followed by digital transition of economy (73%), safe food chain (73%) and support to industrial development (69%).
Next are: improvements to public institutions (68%), fair competition (67%), consistent application and enforcement of
EU rules (61%), financial stability (60%), access to finance (58%), consumer protection (55%), reliable statistics
(53%), smooth circulation of goods (50%) and support to capital flows and investments (44%).
54
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0055.png
53%
10
52%
1122
589
238
89
No. of answers
Note: Refers only to those selecting EU support for SME and entrepreneurship and/or support for the single market.
Rank and percentages based on
answers: “very important” and “rather important”. Not shown answers include “neither
important nor unimportant”, “rather not important”, “not important at all”, “no opinion”.
* includes also “research and academia” and “churches and religious communities”
Provide reliable and comparable statistics
13
55%
12
58%
13
Subsequently respondents were asked to judge how successful current policies are in
addressing these challenges. Generally, between 20 and 50% of respondents considered
SMP related policies as fully or fairly well contributing to the challenges. Smooth
circulation of goods both within EU and at EU borders was judged highest (around 50%
of all replies by all stakeholder groups except public authorities who judged highest the
support to capital flows), followed by support to industrial development (42%) and
provision of EU statistics (40%). Support to capital flows and investments (39%) was
fourth. Third of respondents judged the remaining polices as at least fairly well
addressing the challenges. Only one in five respondents thought that EU policies help to
improve quality of public institutions (See table A2.2).
On the other hand, respondents considered that policies to improve public institutions
(including digitalisation)(12%), ensure correct application and enforcement of EU rules
(11%) and fair competition or access to finance (10%) are not successful at all. Citizens
and NGOs were most unsatisfied with policies towards correct application and
enforcement of EU rules (14%), SMEs with access to finance (14%) and public
authorities with the quality of institutions (18%). Policies towards smooth circulation of
goods and support to industrial development received the least negative responses (4%).
Table A2.2. To what extent do the current policies successfully address these challenges?
By type of respondent.
(Question31
–answers “fully” and “fairly well addressed”)
Respondent type:
EU Policies:
Ensure smooth circulation of goods both within EU and at
EU borders
2
42%
2
46%
4
38%
3
38%
Support industrial development
3
40%
3
41%
2
40%
2
39%
Provide reliable and comparable statistics
4
39%
4
40%
2
40%
1
40%
Support capital flows and investment
5
34%
5
35%
12
31%
10
26%
Ensure fair conditions of competition in the EU
6
34%
6
35%
6
35%
5
34%
Facilitate digital transition of the economy, industry,
services and society
7
34%
9
34%
7
35%
11
24%
Promote and protect public health
8
34%
8
34%
10
32%
6
30%
Promote a safe and sustainable food chain
8
34%
7
34%
5
36%
12
21%
Ensure a high level of consumer protection and effective
redress
10
34%
10
33%
9
34%
9
29%
Promote financial stability
11
32%
11
32%
7
35%
4
37%
Ensure that existing rules are applied and enforced
consistently across the EU
12
31%
12
30%
11
32%
6
30%
Facilitate access to finance, in particular to SMEs
13
21%
13
22%
13
20%
12
21%
Improve quality of public institutions (including
digitalisation)
1122
589
238
89
No. of answers
Note: Refers only to those selecting EU support for SME and entrepreneurship and/or support for the single market.
Rank and percentages based on answers: “fully” and “fairly well addressed”. Not shown answers include “addressed to some
extent only”, “not addressed at all”, “no opinion”.
All *
No.
%
1
49%
Citizens
and NGOs*
No.
%
1
50%
SMEs
No.
%
1
52%
Public
authorities
No.
%
6
30%
55
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0056.png
* includes also “research and academia” and “churches and religious communities”
Nevertheless around 75% of stakeholders considered that EU programmes and funds add
more value than could have been done at national level. With only 1% saying that
Member States would do better. These views were shared among all stakeholder
groups
105
(see Table A2.3).
Table A2.3. To what extent do the current programmes/funds add value, compared to
what Member States could achieve at national, regional and/or local levels? By topic of
reply.
(Question 33)
Respondent type:
To large/fairly good extent
To some extent only
Not at all
All answers
76%
20%
1%
Citizens and
NGOs*
74%
22%
1%
SMEs
80%
17%
1%
Public authorities
76%
21%
1%
No. of answers
1122
589
238
89
Note: Refers only to those selecting EU support for SME and entrepreneurship and/or support for the single market.
Don’t know” answers not included
* includes also “research and academia” and “churches and religious communities”
Too complex procedures leading to high administrative burden and delays were
considered as the most important obstacles reducing benefits of EU programmes (around
75% of answers of all respondent types). To a lesser extent (50%-60%), no flexibility in
case of unforeseen events or no synergies between programmes as well as difficulties in
combining EU with other public or private funds or insufficient administrative capacity
were cited. Followed by insufficient involvement of citizens and lack of communication
featured in around 40% of relies.
On the other hand, lack of EU standards was seen as the least of a problem and was
quoted by only around 20% of respondents (see table A2.4).
Table A2.4. To what extent the obstacles below prevent the current programme/funds
from achieving their objectives. By respondent type.
(Question36
–answers “To a large extent” and “To a fairly large extent”)
Respondent type:
Obstacles:
Too complex procedures leading to high administrative
burden and delays
Lack of flexibility to react to unforeseen circumstances
Insufficient synergies between the EU programmes/funds
Difficulty of combining EU action with other public
interventions and private finance
Insufficient administrative capacity to manage programmes
Insufficient involvement of citizens
Lack of information/communication
Insufficient use of financial instruments
Inadequate facilities to support enhanced cooperation
Insufficient scope
Insufficient critical mass
105
All *
No.
%
1
75%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
57%
56%
53%
48%
44%
41%
36%
34%
34%
30%
Citizens
and NGOs*
No.
%
1
73%
2
3
4
6
5
7
10
8
9
11
59%
55%
52%
49%
52%
42%
34%
38%
35%
32%
SMEs
No.
%
1
68%
2
5
3
4
7
6
8
9
11
10
48%
42%
47%
45%
34%
35%
33%
32%
28%
29%
Public
authorities
No.
%
1
85%
3
2
4
5
7
7
6
11
9
13
67%
76%
64%
46%
39%
39%
44%
26%
38%
22%
Almost identical results occur are observed when all 4052 replies are considered: to large/fairly good extent (78%),
not at all (1%).
56
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0057.png
Out of date and inadequate IT capabilities
Lack of EU standards and EU rules
Other
12
13
14
27%
21%
13%
12
13
1
28%
23%
73%
12
13
14
25%
20%
3%
12
14
10
24%
18%
27%
1122
589
238
89
No. of answers
Note: Refers only to those selecting EU support for SME and entrepreneurship and/or support for the single market.
Rank and percentages based on answers: “to a large extent” and “to a fairly large extent”. Not shown answers include “to
some extent only”,
“not at all”, “don’t know”.
* includes also “research and academia” and “churches and religious communities”
Stakeholders almost unanimously considered that changes to the future MFF should
result in fewer, clearer and shorter rules (88% of answers), as well as better alignment
between different funds (75%). Better feedback to applicants, stability between
programming periods and user-friendly IT tools featured in third to fifth place (60% -
70%). Such ranking was similar to all respondents except for public authorities which
considered stability between programming periods and user-friendly IT tools among the
top three most desired improvements (see table A2.5). The last on the list of all
respondents was increased reliance on national rules, supported by less than a quarter of
SMEs, 30% of all and citizens and as much as 40% of public authorities.
Table A2.5. To what extent would the steps below help to further simplify and reduce
administrative burdens for beneficiaries under current programmes/funds? By
respondents type.
(Question 38
–answers “To a large extent” and “To a fairly large extent”)
Respondent type:
Simplification measures:
Fewer, clearer, shorter rules
Alignment of rules between EU funds
Better feedback to applicants
A stable but flexible framework between programming
periods
User-friendly IT tools
Adequate administrative capacity
E-governance
Extension of the single audit principle
More structured reporting
More reliance on national rules
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All
%
88%
75%
71%
68%
67%
59%
54%
51%
49%
29%
Citizens
and NGOs*
No.
%
1
87%
2
76%
3
70%
4
66%
5
6
7
8
9
10
66%
58%
55%
50%
46%
29%
SMEs
No.
%
1
87%
2
73%
3
72%
4
63%
5
6
9
8
7
10
58%
53%
45%
45%
47%
23%
Public
authorities
No.
%
1
96%
4
76%
5
74%
2
87%
3
7
8
6
8
10
80%
66%
65%
69%
65%
40%
1122
589
238
89
No. of answers
Note: Refers only to those selecting EU support for SME and entrepreneurship and/or support for the single market.
Rank and percentages based on answers:
“to a large extent” and “to a fairly large extent”. Answers not shown include “to
some extent only”, “not at all”, “don’t know”.
* includes also “research and academia” and “churches and religious communities”
3. R
ECEIVED POSITION PAPERS
Stakeholders replying to the consultation sent 157 position papers explaining further their
views. The key messages of these papers are presented below.
In general, most of the participating stakeholders consider EU action as appropriate when
two criteria are filled. On the one hand, they are now convinced that the EU should focus
on
added-value
sectors and actions (This is something that came up a very high number
57
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0058.png
of times. For example :
IBEC, Confederation of Danish industry, Business Europe,
Confederation of Finish industries, Emilia-Romagna Region, AECB Bulgaria…
). It
seems that stakeholders now consider this criterion as crucial. On the other hand, EU
actions are successful when
they bring the EU closer to citizens.
Keeping in mind this and the specific objectives of the two policies assessed
–
SMEs /
Single Market, one can sum up the contributions of stakeholders, in the following terms.
General remarks on funds
Regarding funds, several limits are very often raised. Those are mainly:
-
-
-
unpredictability,
complex rules
lack of rationalisation with all other EU funds/ financial instruments with
overlapping objectives especially in the context of their proliferation.
Therefore, there is a high demand for synergies and rationalisations of EU funds among
themselves but also with national and local authorities (EUROCITIES,
Osterreich,
European Cyclist Federation, NECS TOUR, Emilia-Romagna Region, Flanders
Investment and Trade…).
One can also observe a strong call for simplification and a
better balance predictability of means and flexibility to react to unforeseen events (AECB
Bulgaria, Business Europe, RUP, Investitionsbank, and European Network of Credit
Unions).
SMEs
The participating stakeholders unanimously praise EU programmes supporting SMEs,
especially the COSME programme. Indeed, SMEs face specific and structural difficulties
justifying a dedicated policy. They consider that this policy respects the added-value
criterion and acknowledged their concrete results for both financial instruments and
specific policies such as the EEN. They are all in favour of maintaining a SME policy in
the next MFF and even endowing this policy with a higher budget (Business
Europen,
Wirtschaftskammer Osterreich, Confederation of Finnish industries and Flanders
Investment and Trade insisting on the EEN, Association of German Guarantee Banks,
TURBO).
According to the
Wirtschaftskammer Osterreich,
the three priorities - access to
finance, access to (export) markets, better competitive environment for entrepreneurship
- of the programme should be maintained.
However, some limits have been identified.
(1) Nature of SMEs financial support: available types of financial instruments are still too
restricted; modern financing should be used involving notably more private investment
(Business
Europe, EBAN, Start up Cyprus, Confederation of Danish industry, EARSC),
or other kinds of alternative source such as the crowdfunding (EUROCITIES). This
would allow more risky investments and a better access to finance for start-ups and scale
ups (EBAN).
58
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0059.png
(2) Accompanying measures: support is considered by some stakeholders as too
restricted in terms of timing; according to them, concrete examples tend to prove that
helping SMEs/ start-ups for 2 to 3 years and not only 1 year, is more efficient. In the case
of the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF), shifting from 10 to 15 years maximum for loan
guarantees would open LGF to more SMEs because many investments need a longer-
term visibility.
(3) Insufficient communication: for some of the contributing stakeholders information
about access to funds and/or support (EEN) is not sufficient, some did not even know
about all the existing programmes. It is in particular the case for the outermost regions,
which face multiple structural difficulties
–
lower attractiveness of the markets, low level
of training and information, low visibility of the EEN network. However, it is also the
case for some regions of continental Europe and for some specific sectors (Tourism for
European Cyclist Federation and NECS for example Tour)
according to the responses.
Therefore, respondents proposed to increase the general awareness of this programme.
In that regard they suggested a great number of different options, including: creation of a
network of local SME envoys, involving cities in the EEN because they know best which
companies could need help, European start up cities programme that will promote best
practice exchange on how cities can support start-ups, creating local information desks or
contact points, offering technical guidance to SMEs to access public procurement,
communication plan focusing on stories of successful SMEs which were supported by
COSME in order to inspire potential entrepreneurs, translation of all COSME
administrative documents in every European language.
(4) Include more types of SMEs in more sectors: This item covers different situations.
First is the issue of the criteria for choosing SMEs eligible for support. According to
AECB Bulgaria,
as the European support is targeted at SMEs and start-ups boosting
research and innovation, only a small proportion of SMEs can benefit. They therefore
suggest more diversified instruments addressing all types of enterprises. In addition,
different respondents ask for improving the integration of SMEs in specific sector (such
as space for
EARSC)
or in specific context (collaborative projects according to the
Ile de
France region).
Finally, the
Women Entrepreneurship platform
recommends adapting
SMEs policy rules to the specific issue of gender, by promoting female entrepreneurship,
creating adequate indicators and providing sufficient resources.
(4) Lack of assessment. According to some stakeholders, SMEs actions should be further
assessed with appropriate indicators. Some of them ask for integrating this criterion into
the European Semester (AECB
Bulgaria)
Single Market
Single Market is considered the best illustration of EU added value action, as it is a
public good delivering real and tangible benefits (Confederation of Danish Industry/
Business Europe). However, the Single Market is a never-fully-achieved project as new
59
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
barriers continuously appear. Therefore, some respondents ask for further standardization
(EAPFP), and for strengthened market surveillance with sufficient budget allocation
(Business Europe). For the next MFF, and also in order to ensure a proper functioning of
the Single Market, the
Confederation of Danish industry
suggests that intra EU
infrastructure should be the top priority as this enables a better cross-border connectivity
(energy, transport, data).
Regarding digital transition, relevant stakeholders praise the perspective of a genuine
digital single market and they feel the need for trans-European digital services
Health
More than half of the replies to the open consultation came from stakeholder groups
consisting of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active at EU-level in the field of
public health (e.g. the European Patient Forum
–
EPF, the European Public Health
Alliance
–
EPHA, EuroHealthNet, European Innovation Parthership on Active and
Healthy Ageing
–
EIP-AHA, Social Impact of Pain
–
SIP, Rare Disease Europe
–
EURORDIS,… ). The remaining replies were received by EU-wide
or national
organisations of health professionals (e.g. The Standing Committee of European Doctors,
the European Network of Medical Residents in Public Health
–
EUR NET MRPH, Malta
Dental Technologists Association,…), which were complemented by contributions from
two national trade associations of the healthcare industry (Med Tech Europe and the
German Federal Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry
–
BPI).
Most respondents agree that there is a need for an ambitious health agenda beyond 2020
with a stand-alone PH programme, and would welcome additional financing which
would be justified by the return on investment and economy of scales. They also
consider that the EU should continue to pursue the achievement of its Treaty objectives
(Art 168 TEU) and SDGs with a strong programme for public health complemented by
other financial instruments. Some respondents point to the fact that while citizens expect
the EU to do more on health this is not reflected in the Commission Communication for
the next MFF.
Respondents also consider that health is above all a public good, a fundamental right and
a major European value which should remain at the core of EU policy making; that
Internal Market and competitiveness considerations should not take precedence over
health considerations; that social values should not be subjugated to "marketization", and
that merging some EU programmes to improve cost-efficiency and effectiveness of EU
level actions should always consider the health and social equity impact prior to cost-
saving.
As to "how" the Treaty's objectives should be pursued, respondents consider that current
public health issues could only be effectively dealt with through collaboration at EU
level; that there is an obvious added value of EU action to address challenges such as
tackling health threats, health inequalities, migration, ageing population, patient safety,
60
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
high quality health care, non-communicable diseases (incl. major risk factors such as
obesity), infectious diseases and AMR.
The consultation results also point to the EU's crucial role in addressing the
transformative developments of multiple emerging technologies on populations and
societies across Europe, including the transformation of health systems, data gathering
and exchanges, and EU research programmes
Achievements of EU action in the field of fight against cross border threats, quality and
safety of medicines, rare diseases and cooperation on HTA were praised by respondents
and EU initiatives on vaccines, tobacco control and ERNS welcome. Some respondents
indicated the need to do more to improve transparency in the pharmaceutical sector and
to develop patient-centred initiatives, and to foster innovation and digital health.
Food Chain
Core needs expressed in the context of the open public consultation focused on the two
major issues below:
Consumers' interests:
o
The agri-food sector to become consumer centric and win back the
consumers' trust.
o
Consumers’
dietary needs and food preferences related to lifestyle and life
stage to be focused on for healthy and sustainable nutrition.
o
Importance of food information to prevent major threats such as obesity,
diabetes, AMR.
o
Prevention of food frauds.
o
Exchange of best practices among Member States.
Sustainability of farming and food production and distribution:
o
Increased competitiveness of the sector.
o
Prevention of food waste.
o
Circularity.
o
Digitalisation.
o
Innovation.
o
Animal welfare.
o
Resource efficiency to ensure adequate response to threats like climate
change and land erosion.
There is a strong support that the EU should play a leading role at global level to drive a
change.
In view of the next MFF, the idea of public-private partnership to join and combine
efforts in view of best addressing the issues above was put forward. More specifically:
1.
One respondent invited the European Commission and Member States to support
an integrated programme coordinating both long-term research and short-term
implementation, education, technology transfer and dissemination - thus contributing to
61
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
achieving the SDGs and the Paris Agreement - through a comprehensive programme in
FP9, targeting technological solutions in food security, sustainable farming, food safety
and healthy nutrition. It stressed the need for this action to be inclusive, gathering all the
necessary actors from all relevant sectors, from start-ups and SMEs to large
multinationals, from industry to academia, from farmers and manufacturers to consumers
and societal organizations, from east to west, north to south.
2.
A second respondent proposed a pan-European approach in which the major
stakeholders, including farmers, industry, academia, government, investors and societal
and consumer organisations join forces in a cooperative effort to find the solutions to the
challenges of providing nutrient security to a growing world population in a circular and
resource-efficient way. This could take the form of an Agri-Food Joint Undertaking
combining private research investments and public funds from the next Framework
Programme.
4. H
OW THE RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WERE USED
The results of the consultation were used in writing the SMP impact assessment and
programme specific annexes. They were used to underpin lessons learnt from the current
programmes as well as the need for synergies, simplifications and flexibility of the new
one.
62
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Annex 3: Evaluation results
The key cross cutting lessons learned from the evaluations of different programme
components are presented in section 1.2 of the impact assessment report.
The detailed findings of different programme components are provided in section 1.2 of
programme specific annexes (annex 4 to annex 18).
63
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0064.png
Annex 4: Programme specific annex on
An Ambitious
Competition policy for a stronger Union in the digital age (
'THE
COMPETITION PROGRAMME')
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
1.1 Scope and context
1.1.1 Legal and political context
EU competition law has an essential role to play in ensuring the proper functioning of the EU's the Internal
Market, as is recognised explicitly in the Treaties on the EU and on the Functioning of the EU. Under
Article 3(3) TEU, the Union shall establish an internal market. Protocol No 27 to both the TEU/TFEU on
the Internal Market and Competition states that "the
internal market
as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on
European Union
includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted"
106
. Indeed, EU competition
policy has constituted a
sine qua non
for the founding and development of the internal market since its
inception in 1958.
107
1.1.2 Broad description of the Competition programme
The broad scope of the Competition Programme corresponds to the
main challenges of the Single Market
Programme (SMP)
108
(for more detail on the challenges in the competition field, the eligible actions and
specific objectives see sections 2-4 below):
Wider Outreach to Stakeholders
falls under the first SMP challenge (Empower
citizens/consumers and businesses in particular SMEs at different stages of their development).
Boosting Internal Partnerships with Member State authorities and courts
is grouped under
the second IMP pillar (Administrative cooperation, capacity building and integration among
Member States).
State-of-the-Art Enforcement and Guidance
as well as
Boosting External Partnerships
with
third country competition authorities can be attributed to the third SMP pillar (EU level rule-
making, standard setting, support to implementation and enforcement of Single Market rules).
1.1.3 Reflection paper on the future of EU finances
EU value added is a key principle that should drive the design of the next MFF
109
EU competition policy,
reinforced by the Competition Programme, would generate considerable added value in support of the
Single Mmarket (see section 3.3 below).
1.1.4 Relevant European Parliament resolutions and European Council conclusions
This is reinforced by Article 3(1)(b) TFEU which states that the EU shall have exclusive competence in respect of
"establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market". See judgment of
the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011. In Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (Case C-
52/09) at para 20 (" … Article 3(3) TEU states that the European Union is to establish
an internal market,
which, in accordance with Protocol No 27 on the internal market and competition, annexed to the Treaty of
Lisbon (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 309), is to include a system ensuring that competition is not distorted …) and para
21 (" Article 102 TFEU is one of the competition rules referred to in Article 3(1)(b) TFEU which are
necessary for the functioning of that internal market.").
107
COM(2011) 328 final. “Report on Competition Policy 2010”
108
See section 2.1 below.
109
See p. 25 of the Reflection Paper.
106
64
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0065.png
The multiple linkages between competition policy and the internal market run like a red thread through the
European Parliament Resolution of 14 February 2017 on the annual report on EU competition policy
110
.
The Resolution also makes numerous statements on the external dimension of the internal market and
competition policy
111
. The Resolution specifically called on "the
Commission to reallocate sufficient
financial and human resources to DG Competition"
and requested "that
the Commission have sufficient
technically skilled engineers available when investigating high-tech companies".
In its conclusions of 21 March 2014, the European Council welcomed the Commission's plans to
modernise the State aid rules, in particular the extension of the scope of the General Block Exemption
Regulation (meanwhile implemented), while stressing the need for maintaining a level playing field among
the Member States. In its conclusions on the Single Market of 23 June 2017, the European Council stressed
that "timely
implementation and better enforcement of existing legislation are also key to reaping the
benefits of Europe's Single Market".
1.1. Lessons learnt from previous programmes
1.2.1 Lessons learnt
As the Competition programme is a new programme, there is by definition no evaluation of previous
programmes. Nevertheless, evaluations have been carried out of key parts and aspects of EU competition
policy.
Notably, studies have shown the macroeconomic impacts of EU competition enforcement to be significant.
For example, a paper published in 2015 ("Distributional macroeconomic effects of EU competition policy
–
A general equilibrium analysis") by DG COMP and DG ECFIN staff
112
, found that EU competition
policy enforcement in the cartel and merger areas supported growth (see impact in graph below (left)),
employment, while reducing inequalities between rich and poor households. The magnitude of the
inclusive impact on growth and employment could be stressed. Indeed, the impact of the enforcement
action was similar to that estimated for the Services Directive
113
. The OECD reached similar conclusions in
2014, finding robust evidence in support of the relationships set out in the graph below (right)
114
.
In terms of leverage and EU value added, the internal market
–
the EU's principal asset
–
has so far
generated enormous benefits and value added for EU citizens and businesses compared to limited
budgetary expenditure. As appears from the foregoing, the same holds true for EU competition policy
See eg: " … whereas a strong and effective EU competition policy has always been
a cornerstone of the internal
market
… "; "stresses that without an effective EU competition policy
the internal market cannot attain its
full potential
… " (emphasis
added).
111
See eg: " … the European Union, under the leadership of the Commission, should promote a ‘competition culture’
in the EU and worldwide" (emphasis added).
112
Adriaan Dierx, Fabienne Ilzkovitz, Beatrice Pataracchia, Marco Ratto, Anna Thum-Thysen, Janos Varga (2017),
"
Does EU competition policy support inclusive growth?"
, Journal of Competition Law & Economics,
Volume 13, Issue 2, 1 June 2017, Pages 225–260, Oxford Journal of Competition Law & Economics,
Volume 13, Issue 2, 1 June 2017, Pages 225–260, (https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/13/2/225/3920779 ;
see also Ex-post economic evaluation of competition policy enforcement: A review of the literature (June
2015) (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/expost_evaluation_competition_policy_en.pdf )
113
Cartel and certain merger decisions in 2012-2014.
114
OECD Factsheet on how competition policy affects macro-economic outcomes (October 2014), p. 2 at
http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/2014-competition-factsheet-iv-en.pdf
110
65
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0066.png
which is essential to deliver the internal market on the ground. EU competition policy
115
also collaterally
impacts the budget through fines in cartel and antitrust decisions (over the last 10 years, annual revenues
have averaged roughly EUR 1.7 billion, with annual amounts varying between EUR 0.4 billion and EUR
4.2 billion)
116
.
Other more specific and recent evaluations and studies have included among other things enforcement in
the energy (antitrust), telecoms (mergers), the impact on competition of certain aid schemes under Member
State control (State aid) and the passing-on of overcharges (cartels)
117
. The issues and findings covered are
coherent with the Internal Market (and the envisaged Single Market Programme), as they are aimed at
providing a better understanding of various aspects of the Internal Market relevant to the enforcement and
formulation of competition law and guidance (see 1.1. above). A special case concerns the training of
national judges in EU competition law (see second box below)
118
.
Major lessons in terms of identifying new and growing challenges have also been learnt in the day-to-day
enforcement of EU competition policy. These challenges and the risks associated with not addressing them
will be set out in more detail under section 2.1 below which "should
identify and explain the main
challenges and problems to be addressed by the future programmes".
These include a more complex and
demanding IT and data driven world (increasingly sophisticated IT tools used by firms, continuous increase
in the volume of electronic communications and the use of artificial intelligence, big data and algorithms)
as well as the need for a wider and deeper engagement with national authorities and courts (in part due to
recent and impending legislative reforms). Tackling these challenges would be coherent with the envisaged
Single Market Programme. In the absence of a support programme addressing those challenges, the
enforcement of all branches of EU competition policy would gradually become less effective, less timely
and less relevant to rapidly evolving market developments, thereby
–
by extension
–
weakening the internal
market.
1.2.2 Key messages from stakeholders
Findings from a number of surveys demonstrate that there is scope for reaching out to a wider group of
stakeholders impacted by EU competition policy. Indeed, Eurobarometer Citizen Surveys in 2010 and 2014
showed a lack of awareness of where to turn to in case of competition problems such as higher prices,
fewer products, reduced supplier choice or lower quality. In addition, a 2016 Eurobarometer survey
115
116
With an administrative budget of EUR 7.5 million in 2016.
Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources December 2016, p. 71
117
See
inter alia
An Overview of Subsidy Disclosure Practices in EU Member States, 21 December 2017
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0617273enn.pdf); Ex post assessment of the impact of State aid
on competition, 19 December 2017, (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0617275enn.pdf);
Economic impact of competition policy enforcement on the functioning of telecoms markets in the EU, 21 June 2017,
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0417233enn.pdf); Improving Monitoring Indicators System to
Support
DG
Competition's
Future
Policy
Assessments,
14
June
2017
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0117397enn.pdf); Report on Zero-rating practices in broadband
markets, 9 June 2017 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0217687enn.pdf); Study on the Passing-
On of Overcharges, 25 October 2016 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/KD0216916ENN.pdf);
Support study for impact assessment concerning the review of Merger Regulation regarding minority shareholdings, 14
October 2016 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/KD0416839ENN.pdf); Study on the financing
models for public services in the EU and their impact on competition. Executive summary, 3 October 2016
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd021641enn.pdf); Study on Geographic Market Definition in
European
Commission
Merger
Control,
16
February
2016
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/study_gmd.pdf); Study on Ex-post evaluation of the impact of
restructuring aid decisions on the viability of aided (non-financial) firms, 5 February 2016
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0116104enn.pdf); Study on
The economic impact of
enforcement of competition policies on the functioning of EU energy markets, 15 January 2016
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0216007enn.pdf); Ex-post evaluation analysis of two mobile
telecom mergers: T-Mobile/tele.ring in Austria and T-Mobile/Orange in the Netherlands, 26 November 2015
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0215836enn.pdf); A review of merger decisions in the EU:
What
can
we
learn
from
ex-post
evaluations?
(October
2015)
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0115715enn.pdf).
118
Study on judges’ training needs in the field of European competition law, 3 June 2016
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0416407enn.pdf).
66
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0067.png
showed only limited knowledge and awareness of issues related to State aid transparency
119
. In 2016, the
Court of Auditors also pointed to the need to increase awareness of and ensure more effective compliance
with State aid rules
120
. Such action would be coherent with the first broad Challenge of the Single Market
Programme ("Empowering citizens, consumers and businesses ).
Moreover, the public consultation on the Multiannual Financial Framework took place between 10 January
2018 and 9 March 2018. The questionnaire covered areas of investment, research and innovation, SMEs
and Single Market. In total the Commission received 4052 replies. Around 28% of respondents (1122
replies) chose “EU support to the Single Market” (307 replies) and/or “EU support for SME and
entrepreneurship” (1034) as the topics of their replies. There is a wide geographical coverage of responses.
The replies came from all 28 EU Member States, from Norway and Iceland (EEA), Switzerland (EFTA)
and 13 other countries.
Among challenges relevant to the Single Market Programme the most important were access to finance,
especially for SMEs and digital transition of economy (82%), promotion of public health (79%), support to
industrial development (78%) and fair competition and safe food (75%) (see table below).
Stakeholders’ perception of importance of challenges covered by the Single Market Programme,
by respondent type.
(Question 29.
– answers:” very important” and “rather important”)
Respondent type:
Challenges:
Facilitate access to finance, in particular to SMEs
Facilitate digital transition of the economy, industry,
services and society
Promote and protect public health
Support industrial development
Ensure fair conditions of competition in the EU
Promote a safe and sustainable food chain
Improve quality of public institutions (including
digitalisation)
Ensure that existing rules are applied and enforced
consistently across the EU
Promote financial stability
Ensure smooth circulation of goods both within EU and at
EU borders
Ensure a high level of consumer protection and effective
redress
Support capital flows and investment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
All
%
82%
82%
79%
78%
75%
75%
71%
69%
69%
61%
60%
58%
Citizens
and NGOs*
No.
%
4
3
1
6
5
2
7
8
9
11
10
13
76%
79%
85%
72%
75%
82%
72%
70%
68%
61%
63%
54%
SMEs
No.
%
1
3
5
2
6
7
8
9
4
11
12
10
92%
78%
75%
85%
74%
67%
66%
64%
76%
59%
55%
64%
Public
authorities
No.
%
3
1
7
2
5
6
4
8
13
9
11
11
82%
92%
60%
83%
71%
63%
76%
57%
49%
55%
51%
51%
For example only four in ten citizens in the EU had recently heard or read about a company receiving State aid, a
figure similar the result of a previous Eurobarometer survey where about 40% of the respondents said they
heard about EU competition policy. At the same time, fewer than one in five respondents (17%) feel well
informed about State aid in their country while 81% of respondents agree that citizens should have full
access to information about State aid given to companies.
120
In the specific area of cohesion (see Special Report No 24/2016 by the European Court of Auditors). As a follow-up
of this report, DG COMP together with DG REGIO has set-up an action plan on how to raise awareness of
national granting authorities as regards the interaction between State aid rules and structural funds. Thematic
workshops have been organised (e.g. State aid rules regarding RDI and risk finance) and specific training
sessions have been organised for those Member States that considered that they lack administrative capacity
and knowledge regarding State aid rules.
119
67
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0068.png
Real life example of success story of synergies, with other SMP programmes/activities:
To carry out its enforcement action in support of the internal market, DG COMP has built specific IT tools
allowing it to interact effectively with market participants, citizens and national authorities, while manage
information efficiently.
First, DG COMP is adapting its IT tools to handle ever bigger case files and to support integrated, secure
and efficient case and document management applications. Given the corporate rationalisation effort of the
Commission, DG COMP has been named as domain leader for the CASE@EC project, collaborating with
DGs AGRI, BUDG, MARE, TRADE and OLAF who have similar needs.
Second, in order to keep pace with the adoption by companies of the latest communication technologies
including mobile devices and cloud-based applications, DG COMP has invested in state-of-the-art forensic
IT tools and investigation and analysis capability with a view to inspections on the premises of
undertakings and the subsequent analysis of very large numbers of documents and amounts of data.
Third, DG COMP has developed IT systems in the area of State aid control that strengthen enforcement of
EU State aid rules. For instance, national administrations can notify State aid for approval by the
Commission in a fully electronic and secure manner.
Fourth, DG COMP has put in place IT systems that are crucial for allowing the Commission and the
national competition authorities (NCAs) to enforce EU antitrust and cartel rules more effectively. In
particular, the NCAs and DG COMP can communicate and cooperate electronically and securely in the
context of the European Competition Network, inform each other of new cases and envisaged enforcement
decisions, coordinate investigations and joint enforcement actions, exchange evidence and confidential
information in individual competition cases and share information on topical antitrust and cartel policy.
Last but not least, DG COMP has established IT systems that permit the Commission to conduct market
enquiries and consultations with relevant stakeholders in order to evaluate, for instance, the effects of
mergers or of potentially abusive practices. This has allowed the Commission to prevent harmful effects on
competition (eg through higher prices, reduced choice or less innovation) in support of the internal market.
As will be made clear below these efforts and achievements provide a platform for addressing ever
increasing challenges in the IT and data field which are especially relevant in for the Competition
programme (see in particular section 3)
Real life example of problems due to lack of flexibility, coherence, separation from other
programmes dealing with similar or complementary issues?
Since 2002, DG COMP has operated a grant-based programme dedicated to the training of national judges
in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges. This programme is co-delegated
to DG COMP by DG JUST as part of a larger Justice Programme adopted for the period 2014 to 2020.
While the programme has produced benefits, a more coherent and flexible arrangement would be to
subsume it under the envisaged Single Market Programme; in addition, given Denmark's and the UK's
Treaty opt-outs the current training activities do not cover judges from those Member States. More
flexibility in terms of delivery mechanisms
–
e.g.
use of service contracts rather than grants
–
would also
be desirable. A Competition programme would help addressing the varied training needs of judges more
effectively, while reaching out to Member States not covered by the existing grants program.
There is a clear and unambiguous synergy between competition rules and internal market, and a coherent
and consistent application of EU competition law is vital for the functioning of the internal market.
Training of judges could therefore benefit from joint training actions. For example, there are cases
covering behaviour of state owned undertakings, where both internal market rules and EU competition law
may be concerned.
68
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0069.png
2. THE OBJECTIVES
2.1 Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
2.1.1 Baseline scenario: no spending programme
There is currently no spending operational programme supporting EU competition policy. The baseline
scenario is thus a zero dedicated budget in the area of EU competition policy.
2.1.2 Expected impacts with an unchanged policy (Baseline scenario)
With an unchanged policy, i.e. in the absence of an adequate support programme in the next MFF period,
EU competition policy would not maintain its capacity to address a number of IT and data driven
transformational challenges affecting virtually the entire economy. EU competition enforcers
–
including
the Commission - are confronted with increasingly sophisticated and numerous IT tools used by economic
operators; an exponential increase in electronic communications; a rapidly growing use of algorithms, Big
Data, Big Analytics and artificial intelligence (AI
121
); increasing difficulties in detecting infringements (as
digital tools may help conceal anticompetitive conduct) and collecting evidence and managing case files; a
growing need to procure data from independent third parties; a rising need to have recourse to tailor-made
tools for investigations (such as state of the art software and hardware for in-depth analysis of documents
and datasets); as well as tools for economic simulations and knowledge management (see 2.1.3).
Case handlers and teams across all branches of EU competition law would benefit significantly from
common, faster, more powerful and efficient case management and document systems (see box on success
stories in section 1 above). Likewise, they would potentially benefit considerably from AI in connection
with (i) the classification and review
122
of documents; ii) investigative and data analysis; iii) the
assessment and drafting of decisions as well as iv) reviews of replies to large information requests and
sector enquiries
123
.
Those needs in terms of technology and the need for skilled operators are particularly acute against a
background of exponentially growing electronic casefile sizes (requiring ever larger amounts of storage
and processing capacity)
124
coupled with the increasing complexity of competition cases (see section 2.1.3
below)
125
.
State-of-the art IT tools (including skilled operators) would also help tackle the mounting administrative
burden associated with legal requirements to ensure due process in competition cases (eg access to file and
the obligation for the Commission to make a full record of parties' statements)
126
.
Many competition decisions are appealed to the General Court which verifies that the Commission has
accurately stated the facts in the contested decisions
127
. Thus, ensuring the integrity of digital evidence
Artificial intelligence is the ability of a computer or other machine to perform actions thought to require
intelligence, including, among other things, logical deduction and inferences, creativity, the ability to make
decisions based on past experience and the ability to understand spoken language.
122
Such as predictive coding (reducing the number of irrelevant and non-responsive documents requiring manual
review) and natural language processing (a branch of artificial intelligence that helps computers understand,
interpret and manipulate human language).
123
To this end DG COMP has signed a service contract to receive a consultancy
report on “Artificial Intelligence
Applied to Competition Enforcement” by June 2018, a project which may be relevant for other Internal
Market Programme services. DG COMP will also launch a "Knowledge Base" prototype in Q1 2018, aimed
at helping case handlers to find relevant information from various sources faster and in a unified interface.
124
"Impacts of increasing volume of digital forensic data: A survey and future research challenges" - Volume 11, Issue
4, December 2014, Pages 273-294 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1742287614001066 ).
125
The complexity in casework also results from the more economic approach flowing from recent reforms in all
branches of EU competition law.
126
This is particularly relevant in the antitrust and cartel area; in accordance with the Intel judgment on 6 September
2015 (Case C-413/14 P) case teams will have to pay considerable attention to the recording of meetings and
other contacts.
121
69
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0070.png
brought before the EU Courts is another challenge
128
. The Commission's data strategy recognises that it
"must continue to ensure full compliance with legal and other confidentiality considerations and to
guarantee a high level of security for sensitive information"
129
.
Without access to state-of-the-art solutions and equipment (including artificial intelligence) to perform
activities such as data analysis and forensic IT, EU competition enforcement would gradually become
slower and less effective, less efficient and less relevant; under the Baseline scenario, the Commission's
currently high success rate before the EU Courts would be put in jeopardy; the Commission would be less
able to monitor market developments; in turn, the deterrent effect of EU competition policy would likely
diminish, weakening and fragmenting the internal market. In the State aid field, suboptimal enforcement
would involve State aid being granted later rather than sooner or, in the case of eg high-risk investments in
sectors with fast innovation cycles, not granted at all
130
, affecting the competitiveness and costs of
businesses operating in the internal market
131
. Under the Baseline scenario merger control could gradually
become less effective and targeted resulting in errors
132
. A further risk is that the Commission can be
exposed to significant damages actions in so far as its decisions are annulled and are shown to have caused
unjustified harm to firms or other parties.
In antitrust and cartels, the baseline scenario could mean that many infringements will go undetected or
escape with impunity, diminishing general deterrence. By way of illustration, cartel investigations have
become almost entirely digital, requiring the use of state-of-the-art IT forensic tools (see 2.1.3 below). The
magnitude of the potential impact of less effective cartel enforcement (as well as for mergers), in the
absence of state-of-the-art tools, in terms of customer savings appears from the graph below (for potential
macroeconomic impacts see the graph at 1.2.1 above).
See 'Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law' by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Eric
Gippini Fournier (2017), p. 286.
128
Through the so-called chain of custody which must document the collection, storage, analysis, transfer and
condition of the evidence.
129
See Communication on Data, Information and Knowledge Management at the European Commission C(2016) 6626
final of 18 December 2016.
130
These risks have been discussed at working group level in the Commission's multilateral Partnership with the
Member States.
131
Delays in State aid procedures may force businesses to have recourse to bridge-loan financing.
132
In particular by approving mergers that entail a significant impediment to competition in the internal market or
prohibiting mergers which are in fact procompetitive.
127
70
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0071.png
Investing in AI will therefore be of strategic importance if the Commission is to keep and increase its
investigative capacity in competition enforcement in the broader context of constrained staff and budget
resources in the Commission, as well as to keep up with other leading international law enforcement
authorities and private law firms that are investing in AI (for more detail see 2.1.3 below).
Previous and upcoming legislative and regulatory reforms
–
in particular in the State aid, antitrust and
cartel areas - require that EU competition rules are properly understood, interpreted and enforced at
national and sub-national levels. Without being able to engage more deeply and widely in a secure manner
with national authorities and courts, the enforcement of EU competition policy
–
and the internal market -
would be further fragmented. Divergences in the way national authorities apply EU competition rules to
economic operators damage the internal market, not least from the point of view of Member States and
businesses as well as potential foreign investors. Such cooperation with national authorities
–
especially in
the framework of the European Competition Network and the multilateral and bilateral State aid
Partnerships
–
specifically require upgraded and secure IT solutions allowing for the exchange of
confidential documents but also, which is equally important, frequent face-to-face meetings with national
authorities and national courts for the purposes of training, peer review and the exchange of best practices
and information. This is particularly so given that 85% of EU cartel and antitrust decisions have been
adopted by national competition authorities since 2004 and that 97% of newly implemented State aid
measures are not notified to the Commission as a result of the State Aid Modernisation reforms 2012-2014
(see 2.1.3 below).
It will also be increasingly difficult, under the Baseline scenario, for the Commission to continue to claim
global intellectual leadership as the leading competition enforcer
133
in particular in the debate on the role of
antitrust in the digital age
134
.
133
President Juncker's mission letter to Commissioner Vestager of 1 November 2014 asks her to focus eg on
"maintaining and strengthening the Commission’s reputation world-wide"
and "pursuing an effective
enforcement of competition rules in the areas of antitrust and cartels, mergers and State aid, maintaining
competition instruments aligned with market developments" during the Commission's mandate.
71
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0072.png
2.1.3 Challenges that need to be addressed by the Competition programme
In the following challenges specific to the four areas of the Competition Programme are discussed.
Ensuring state-of-the-art EU level enforcement and policy guidance, boosting partnerships with national
and third country authorities as well as widening stakeholder outreach under the Competition programme
would generate benefits in terms of performance, flexibility, synergies, coherence and simplification within
the Commission's competition DG, vis-à-vis other Single Market Programme services
135
and in relation to
Member State authorities and courts.
2.1.3.1 Challenges for EU level antitrust and cartel enforcement and policy guidance
Antitrust case files are becoming ever more challenging to manage. The file of a recent antitrust case
amounted to more than 600,000 pages. In the Google comparison shopping case, the evidence on the
Commission's file included
inter alia
5.2 Terabytes of search results from Google (one Terabyte being
equal to 85,899,345 pages)
136
. The Google case also illustrates that significant expenditure on expertise
may also have to be incurred post-decision to assist the Commission in monitoring the implementation of
decisions
137
. Needs for such expertise is likely grow in step with the increasing size and complexity of
cases, not least considering that antitrust remedies increasingly require changes in companies' algorithms
and data practices and the consequent monitoring of the effects of these changes.
In the detection of antitrust and cartel infringements
–
against an evolving technological landscape - digital
investigations have become a
sine qua non
for modern competition authorities
138
; indeed, antitrust and
cartel investigations are today virtually digital, requiring the application of AI both in the fact-finding
phase and in conducting data analysis of large datasets through using machine learning, link analysis
139
,
lexical analysis
140
, entity-relationship modelling
141
, text clustering
142
and targeted visualization analysis
143
;
such methodologies require a combination of specialised hardware and software as well as investments in
highly trained operators.
Forensic IT capacity will be increasingly crucial in gathering potential evidence during on the spot
inspections whilst respecting the integrity of the inspected undertakings’ systems and data (eg in retrieving
deleted emails) as well as ensuring the integrity of the evidence. Proof of anticompetitive conduct is by
now predominantly to be found in electronic format and kept in places and maintained in a form which
may facilitate that the proof is concealed, withheld or destroyed. Effective action in this area requires state-
of-the-art hardware and software which need to be continuously maintained, enhanced and upgraded as
well as investments in highly trained operators.
See 'Virtual Competition' by Ariel Ezrachi (2016) which notes that major economic actors influence the debate
through funding of articles, academic initiatives etc (pp. 246-247 on 'Intellectual Capture').
135
For example in areas such as the collaborative economy and public procurement (which involve national
expenditure as in the case of State aid.
136
A1 page documents with 12 point Times New Roman saved in .docx format (see
https://aimblog.uoregon.edu/2014/07/08/a-terabyte-of-storage-space-how-much-is-too-
much/#.WnCTbWdty5w
); for the Google case in question see
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-
1784_en.htm
.
137
In 2017 the Commission procured technical expertise to advise it on technical and economic issues relating to the
monitoring of Google's compliance with the decision.
138
To take but one example, through the use of advanced intelligence gathering methods, computer forensic
capabilities and sophisticated questioning techniques, the Israeli competition authority has been able to
uncover cartels, even without the cooperation of any member of the undertaking (OECD Roundtable on Ex
officio cartel investigations and the use of screens to detect cartels (2013)).
139
A technique used to evaluate connections between network nodes (such as people, organisations and even
transactions).
140
Lexical analysis involves breaking whole chunks of text into paragraphs, sentences and words.
141
A graphical representation of entities and their relationships to each other.
142
The task of grouping a set of texts in such a way that texts in the same group (called a cluster) are more similar to
each other than to those in other clusters.
143
Data visualization helps to understand the significance of data by placing it in a visual context. Patterns, trends and
correlations that might go undetected in text-based data can be exposed and recognized easier with data
visualization software.
134
72
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0073.png
Beyond inspections, the detection of cases or potential cases in the future is expected to require a thorough
technical and economic understanding of companies' behaviour with regard to data and algorithms and
other emerging technologies such as the internet of things and blockchain technology.
At the same time, the roll-out of artificial intelligence in the legal sector ('legal tech') is accelerating;
investments in start-ups since the financial crisis have increased rapidly
144
. Law firms are already using
artificial intelligence for purposes such as due diligence and review of contracts
145
. An often cited author as
regards the impact of AI on the legal profession predicts that "The 2020s will be the decade of disruption"
(overlapping with the next MFF period); AI applications have also emerged in the area of competition
law
146
. A current focus is on applications able to infer meanings from data, answer natural language legal
research questions as well as predict outcomes
147
.
Another growing antitrust and cartel related challenge concerns the risks of anticompetitive conduct
including collusion in the form of price coordination by competitors through algorithms
148
; or, in any case,
enhanced risks of tacit collusion (currently not caught by antitrust and cartel rules) resulting in wealth
transfers from customers
149
. A recent OECD paper draws attention to the need to carefully examine these
new evolving markets (eg to consider possible changes in competition law as regards tacit collusion)
150
;
according to the OECD "the economics of data favours market concentration and dominance"
151
.
2.1.3.2 Challenges for EU level merger control and guidance
Over the past four years, the number of merger notifications has increased by close to 40% (from 277 in
2013 to 380 in 2017), accompanied by a rise in transaction values. Some economic sectors and industries
have become increasingly consolidated. These trends are compounded by ever more voluminous case files,
a development which is projected to persist into the future. Case files in some complex investigations can
reach up to hundreds of thousands of documents. Manifestly, sophisticated IT tools need to be deployed to
review and assess such quantities of documents filed by the merger parties.
Artificial intelligence tools will likely become crucial in the process of ensuring efficient and exhaustive
discovery as well as and treatment of large bodies of evidence, both of a qualitative and a quantitative
nature, and notably in the assessment of internal documents of the notifying parties and third parties as well
as the handling and processing of large quantitative datasets (including econometric modelling). This is
particularly so given the short legal deadlines of the EU Merger Regulation (one month since notification
in normal cases, five months in case of in-depth, phase II investigations). Clearly, the process of review
and assessment of evidence will
–
as in the case of antitrust and cartels - increasingly need to be supported
and augmented by appropriate methodologies as described above in relation to antitrust and cartels.
Since the introduction of a legal test more firmly grounded on an effects-based approach in the reform of
the Merger Regulation in 2004, the complexity of merger assessment has also increased considerably. Two
sources of evidence have by now become an integral part of complex merger assessments: quantitative data
'Tech revolution in law' post by Amy Stoomer dated 19 January 2018 on at the LegalNews.com website; the post
reports that
145
See 'Artificial intelligence closes in on the work of junior lawyers', Financial Times, 4 May 2017; December 20,
2016; see post 'The 10 Most Important Legal Technology Developments of 2016 by Robert Ambrogi dated
20 December 2016 which lists a number of large law firms using services by ROSS Intelligence, a startup
that uses IBM’s Watson platform to answer lawyers’ natural-language
legal research questions.
146
Professor Richard Susskind, ibid.
147
For developments in the use of AI in the legal sector see eg Financial Times, 12 December 2017 ('Law firms
streamlining work with standardised system') and 6 December 2017 ('the super-intelligent attorney').
148
The Commission's Final Report on the e-commerce sector of 10 May 2017 found that 53% of responding retailers
track online prices of competitors, of which 67% with software and 78% subsequently adjust prices.
149
See 'Virtual Competition' by Ariel Ezrachi (2016), Chapter 7 ('Tacit Collusion on Steroids'), pp. 70, 71, 80
("conscious parallelism
will likely become more common"); Michal S. Gal, 2017, “Algorithmic-Facilitated
Coordination: Market And Legal Solutions; "Should We Be Concerned That Data And Algorithms Will
Soften Competition?" (May 2017) by Paul A. Johnson.
150
See OECD publication entitled 'Algorithms and Collusion: Competition Policy in the Digital Age'
www.oecd.org/competition/algorithms-collusion-competition-policy-in-the-digital-age.htm
.
151
See OECD publication entitled " Data-driven Innovation for Growth and Well-being" (October 2014)
(http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/data-driven-innovation-interim-synthesis.pdf ), p. 7; see also 'Big Data and
Competition Policy' by Maurice Stucke and Allen Grunes (2016).
144
73
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0074.png
and internal documents. The increasing complexity of merger cases - both in terms of the concerns
investigated and the remedies considered - is reflected in rising legal and consultancy bills
152
. In turn,
certain of those developments oblige the Commission to rely to a greater extent on external technical
expertise, market information and studies
153
(which given the short merger deadlines typically cannot be
procured through a normal tender). But obtaining external expertise can also generate significant synergies
and positive spillovers
154
. Similarly, the Commission experience from recent merger cases has shown that
information from commercial information providers' proprietary databases (eg sector-specific data) may be
required at short notice.
2.1.3.3 Challenges for EU State aid control and guidance
While State aid control (Articles 107-108 TFEU) is an exclusive power of the Commission, Member States
play a crucial role in ensuring effective compliance on the ground
155
. This role has become even more
important after the State Aid Modernisation (SAM) concluded in 2014, which led to a widening of the
scope of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). As a result, 97% of all new aid measures today
are being implemented without prior Commission prior approval, a dramatic increase compared to the pre-
SAM era
156
. The reform will only be completely successful if Member States implement such aid measures
in full compliance with State aid rules. To address this challenge, the Commission must intensify
cooperation with the Member States and ensure full State aid transparency, allowing interested
stakeholders (the Commission, competitors and the wider public) to verify the conformity of the aid with
the rules
157
. That is why the Commission has established bilateral and multilateral Partnerships with the
Member States (see below under 'Boosting internal partnerships'). Also, to assist Member States in
complying with the transparency requirements, the Commission has developed the Transparency Award
Module (TAM).
The expiry of numerous hard and soft law instruments forming part of SAM in the coming years gives rise
to significant additional challenges. As a key input for the post-SAM related evaluation work ahead, the
Commission will rely on evaluations to be made by the Member States on the direct and indirect effects of
large (above EUR 150 million) aid schemes which will be received in the next few years (the process
having started by end-2017). To this end, the Commission will be required to contract additional technical
expertise. Meanwhile, the Member States are requesting related assistance and training from the
Commission. At the time of writing, the Commission had already approved 37 evaluation plans covering
13 Member States, with a total annual budget of EUR 48 billion (with additional plans in the pipeline)
158
,
corresponding to about 45% of total State aid annual spending in the EU. A trend towards larger schemes
points towards a potential rise in the number of such evaluations. If the Commission were not able to
properly analyse the Member States' evaluations as they are delivered, adverse effects on the internal
market could follow
159
.
Like antitrust, cartel and merger enforcement, State aid control needs more sophisticated IT-tools as well as
AI in order to analyse data, evidence and the lawfulness of aid already granted and also to detect the
In one merger case the legal fees exceeded EUR 35 million; another discernible trend is the hiring of multiple
economic consultancies (in a recent case five economic consultancies were enlisted).
153
Recent cases have for example arisen in connection with particularly intricate remedies proposals which required
the advice from engineering experts or from specialists in national law.
154
For example, a report commissioned from a UK university assessed the Commission's approach to geographic
market definition. That study (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/study_gmd.pdf ) has
become a point of reference for national competition authorities and other stakeholders.
155
Recital 15 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of ('General Block Exemption Regulation) provides that
"State aid enforcement is highly dependent on the cooperation of Member States. Therefore, Member States
should take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation, including compliance of
individual aid granted under block-exempted schemes".
156
See State aid Scoreboard for 2016.
157
See http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/transparency_and_evaluation.html
158
The majority concern large regional or RDI aid schemes under the GBER or notified broadband schemes.
159
Such as undesirable firm location effects, distortions of dynamic incentives to innovate and the crowding-out of
private investment. Lack of transparency could also prevent third parties from verifying whether State aid has
been granted in line with EU State aid rules, thereby reducing per-review in a situation where the
Commission has withdrawn from ex ante scrutiny.
152
74
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0075.png
presence of aid in public interventions and anticipate developments in the economic nature of public
activities and services. The relevant challenges include
inter alia:
•
Analysis of files: There is currently no IT-tool at hand to search data across individual cases for
purposes of comparison; nor is there any AI-driven analytical tool that would detect certain patterns in the
Member State’s approach to a
public financing in similar cases, predict future trends or point to relevant
cases and jurisprudence
160
.
•
Monitoring of compliance with the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER): The
Commission has so far monitored compliance with the GBER
ex-post
without IT tools. Given resource
constraints, this exercise can only cover a small fraction of block-exempted aid measures. AI could support
monitoring by detecting deviations between the GBER’s provisions and national aid schemes, as well as
between individual
aid awarded under a scheme on the one hand and the GBER and the scheme’s
provisions on the other hand.
•
Conformity of public commercial economic operations with the ‘Market Economy Operator
Principle’: Where the State provides its resources on market conditions,
EU State aid rules do not apply. AI
could be used to compare market operator behaviour in similar large projects
161
.
•
Existence of a market; question of the economic nature of public activities and services: EU State
aid rules only apply if public funding is for activities in a market environment. Pursuant to Court
jurisprudence, the question whether a market exists for public services may depend on the way those
services are organised in the Member State concerned. That situation is not static and to a large extent
dependent on political choices or economic developments. AI may help detect regulatory and economic
developments in public services
162
.
•
The material selectivity of public funding: One constitutive element of State aid is the selectivity
of a public measure, ie that it only favours certain undertakings and not others who are in the same factual
and legal situation as the beneficiary/ies of the measure. This also applies to fiscal measures. State aid may
be at hand in case a fiscal measure deviates from the reference system and its intrinsic objectives in the
Member State concerned. AI tools could help in assessing the intrinsic objective of complex tax measures,
detect deviations from these objectives in individual cases and also identify amendments to the reference
system over time.
2.1.3.4 Boosting internal partnerships: challenges for European Competition Network
Since 2004, the antitrust and cartel rules (enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU) are enforced by the
national competition authorities (NCAs) of the Member States in addition to the Commission. Together
they make up the European Competition Network (ECN). Ensuring undistorted competition within the
internal market depends significantly on the national competition authorities. For this model to work it is
crucial that the Commission takes an active role in ensuring coherence and effectiveness of the application
of the EU rules by NCAs. To that end, the Commission has set up and is coordinating horizontal working
groups and sector-specific subgroups within the ECN
163
. Frequent and confidential meetings with the
NCAs in these fora are required to promote a common competition culture and reduce inherent risks of
divergent outcomes in the internal market due to incoherent enforcement. The continued proper
functioning of the ECN also requires a secure, fully operational and interoperable IT infrastructure
allowing for the exchange of confidential documents
164
in addition to meetings in person
165
.
The introduction of the new CASE@EC database could be an opportunity to introduce such tools.
This could facilitate and shorten the assessment of such large public investment where the advancement of a project
that is potentially in the common interest depends on the timely adoption of a Commission decision
authorising the public investment.
162
For example, depending on the nature of their activities, hospitals may either fall within or outside State aid rules.
163
For example, joint working groups deal with horizontal topics (eg cartels), as well as with key sectors of the
economy (eg energy, financial services).
164
Under the current MFF, the ECN IT infrastructure expenditure is covered by the ISA programme.
165
Meetings in the ECN are crucial for the exchange of intelligence, the development of best practices and for ensuring
a coherent approach in cases and policy matters.
161
160
75
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0076.png
These two strands of the ECN need reinforcement in view of two factors. First, the proposal for a Directive
to empower the national authorities to be more effective enforcers (ECN+)
–
expected to be adopted in
2018 - is very likely to translate into more enforcement of the EU competition rules, reinforcing the need
for close coordination and cooperation in the ECN
166
. Second, the digital transformation of markets and
operators and the challenges this generates for the application of EU competition rules policy as described
above are equally applicable to the ECN. Increasingly complex cases will intensify the need for early and
in-depth coordination, as well as more policy meetings to agree on new methods and tools to tackle novel
anticompetitive practices across the internal market. The digitisation across sectors means that businesses
increasingly operate beyond national borders which in turn increases the need to coordinate and align
national and EU investigations within the ECN.
The EU antitrust and cartel rules
–
Articles 101 and 102 TFEU - are enforced not only by the European
Commission and NCAs (public enforcement), but also by national courts
167
.
To ensure a coherent application of EU antitrust and cartel rules by national courts on the ground, the
Commission operates a grants programme dedicated to the training of national judges in EU competition
law and judicial cooperation between national judges
168169
. It also funds regular meetings of the association
of European Competition Law Judges, AECLJ, a group of supreme and appellate court judges who hear
cases in their courts concerning the application of European competition law. All these measures promote
knowledge and understanding of competition policy and law issues throughout the respective judiciaries in
order to avoid divergent application of EU law in different Member States.
The need for the Commission to provide support to national courts and to train judges is very likely to
escalate as a result of the following developments: first, increased enforcement by the NCAs as a result of
powers that will be bestowed through ECN+ (and, thus, increased judicial review of NCA decisions);
second, the implementation of the recent Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions (Damages
Directive), which makes it much easier for citizens and businesses to bring actions for damages before
national courts for EU antitrust infringements.
170
Significant growth in new private enforcement cases
across the internal market is expected, requiring the Commission to step up its engagement with national
courts and its training of national judges to ensure a coherent application of EU law.
171
2.1.3.5 Boosting internal partnerships: challenges for merger control
The EU merger regime is based on a clear division of competences between the Commission and the
national competition authorities, which act as partners in ensuring consistent, efficient and effective merger
control throughout the EU; for example, in connection with the referral mechanisms which give the
necessary flexibility to reallocate cases. Cooperation aimed at further exchange of best practices and
convergence takes place within the EU Merger Working Group since January 2010, comprising the
Commission and the national competition authorities. There is a need to further strengthen cooperation and
convergence through the exchange of best practices and knowledge between the national competition
authorities, building on the Best Practices on cooperation between EU National Competition Authorities in
Merger Review which were adopted as a result of the work of the EU Merger Working Group in 2011.
2.1.3.6 Boosting internal partnerships: challenges for State aid control
For example, the proposal will significantly extend the possibility of NCAs to provide each other with mutual
assistance, requiring enhanced IT tools also at the EU level.
167
National courts review decisions by the national authorities; they directly apply the EU antitrust rules in disputes
between parties (e.g. in private litigation to declare a specific contractual clause null and void); and they
award damages to consumers and companies harmed by competition law infringements (private
enforcement). Over the last ten years, the Member States have notified to the Commission more than 600
judgments where EU competition law is applied by national courts.
168
The grant programme is co-delegated to DG Competition as part of the Justice Programme (as regards problems in
this respect see box at the end of section 1 above).
169
Since 2002 more than 150 projects for training of judges in EU competition law have been co-financed involving
around 10 000 national judges from all Member States.
170
The deadline to implement the Directive in Member States' legal systems expired on 27 December 2016.
171
For example in the form increased requests by courts for disclosure of documents in the Commission's position;
requests for the Commission, to provide information, opinions and observations in court proceedings etc.
166
76
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0077.png
A key challenge in the State aid area will be to deepen and widen the Multilateral Partnership with the
Member States at all levels - the Working Group on the Implementation of the State Aid Modernisation
(SAM-Working Group), the High Level Forum and thematic working groups - in order that State Aid
Modernisation (SAM) can maximise its contribution to the internal market. Likewise, the Bilateral
Partnerships with Member States also need to be deepened and extended. That bilateral engagement could
take the form of country visits, setting up coordination and follow-up processes that facilitateinformal
exchanges and are thus complementary to formal State aid procedures, as well as training and other support
to Member State authorities at all levels (including regional and local authorities as well as courts). A main
challenge will be to engage in reflections with Member States on how to promote structures and procedures
to enhance
ex ante
compliance and carry out effective ex post controls at national level.
SAM Implementation & Better State Aid Control
Multilateral
Partnership
Support SAM implementation by
promoting the exchange of best
practices between MS and providing
guidance on the implementation of
new rules.
Traditional case enforcement
Bilateral
Partnership
Strengthen the bilateral dialogue
with MS with the aim to
proactively identify and address
the root causes of compliance
problems.
A particular challenge will be to assist the Member States (e.g. through workshops) in connection with the
Member States' evaluations of large aid schemes referred to above. Successful experiences and best
practices from Member States should be shared and used to design future aid measures more effectively.
Further development of IT tools will be needed (e.g. the Transparency Award Module platform
172
ensuring
greater transparency of aid to individual beneficiaries as required by SAM as well as the SANI tool aimed
at speeding up the treatment of State aid notifications).
Challenges
Empowerment
of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
√
Wider outreach to
stakeholders concerned
by EU competition
policy beyond those
parties
most
immediately interested
(eg specialised lawyers)
Administrative
cooperation
and
integration
among
Member States
√ Boosting internal
partnerships
with
national
authorities
(including
national
competition authorities)
and courts to ensure the
effective application of
EU competition in the
internal market.
Rule-making, standard
setting and enforcement
at EU institutions level
√
State-of-the-art
enforcement and policy
guidance at EU level
(in particular through
upgraded IT tools and
recourse to external
technical expertise).
Boosting
external
partnerships with third
country authorities with
a view to protecting the
internal market from
Health as a resource for
society and the internal
market
N/A
Programme/line
Competition
programme
172
Currently 24 Member States have joined the TAM platform.
77
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0078.png
anticompetitive
conduct.
2.1.3.7 Challenges in reinforcing and extending external partnerships
EU competition policy has a direct role in protecting the internal market against anticompetitive conduct
and activities, including when emanating from abroad. The EU Courts have ruled that the Commission has
an extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce the EU antitrust, cartel and merger rules to the extent that an
anticompetitive conduct is implemented in or has effect in the internal market
173
.
The Commission thus has a strong interest in engaging closely with third country authorities and in
particular competition authorities, with a view to promoting worldwide convergence of competition rules,
while cooperating closely in individual cases
174
. Multilaterally, the International Competition Network,
comprising some 130 authorities, serves as the main forum for promoting convergence. The Commission
has also signed different forms of cooperation agreements with several of its major trading partners and
neighbours (such as US, Canada, China, India, Brazil and Switzerland). The challenges in ensuring
effective cooperation with third country competition authorities are likely to grow in the coming decade; in
the period of 2014-2015 in 52 % competition decisions adopted by the European Commission there was
some form of cooperation with the competition authority of a third country; in cartel investigations
cooperation took place in 69 % of all cases. A particular focus for future cooperation could be emerging
economic blocs such as ASEAN and MERCOSUR which face similar competition challenges as the EU
during its early years and decades.
So far cooperation has mainly concerned antitrust, cartels and mergers but recently subsidies have become
a particular focus of attention and debate
175
. Decisions by third countries to grant a subsidy to a company
that operates globally may affect competition in the internal market. In the negotiations of Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs), which include competition and State aid provisions, the Commission aims in
particular to include strong commitments on subsidies, beyond what exists in WTO, extending
transparency to subsidies to services, broader consultation possibilities and conditioning the most distortive
subsidies. In June 2017 the Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China aimed at
dialogue on State aid control and State intervention in the economy
176
. There is considerable scope for
investing more in such activities, not only in terms of direct face-to-face engagement with third country
authorities but also as regards the gathering of intelligence, for example mapping the use and extent of
subsidies in key third countries (including at sub-federal level which often are not identified under current
disciplines). The Commission is also addressing subsidies in the multilateral context, such as in WTO and
OECD. Several precedents under MFF 2014-2020 exist of cooperation with third countries within mainly
internal market orientated programmes
177
.
2.1.3.8 Challenges in achieving wider stakeholders outreach
Surveys carried out in 2010, 2014 and 2016 demonstrate the need for wider stakeholder outreach, not least
as regards State aid (see 1.2.2 above). Raising awareness among a wider group of citizens and businesses
affected by EU competition rules (beyond those mostly concerned such as legal and economic advisers
specialised in competition law) would increase the effectiveness of competition law through information on
See in particular C-89/85 - Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1993:120 (concerning a
cartel); C-413/14 P - Intel v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632 (concerning abuse of dominance) and T-
102/96 - Gencor v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1999:65 (concerning a merger).
174
President Juncker's mission letter to Commissioner Vestager of 1 November 2014 asks her to focus eg on
"promoting a competition culture in the EU and world-wide" during the Commission's mandate.
175
A working group on international subsidies policy has recently been established within the multilateral State aid
Partnership comprising the Commission and Member State representatives.
176
See
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1520_en.htm
.
177
See Regulation on a multiannual consumer programme for the years 2014-20, in particular Articles 5 and 8 as well
as Annex I on types of action under Objective IV ("(d) administrative and enforcement cooperation with
third countries which are not participating in the Programme and with international organisations"); in a
similar vein, see Article 7 on eligibility of "working visits" within third countries as well as recital 10 on tax
cooperation with third countries of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 establishing an action programme to
improve the operation of taxation systems in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Fiscalis 2020).
173
78
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0079.png
types of behaviour which are not allowed under EU competition rules ('prevention is better than cure')
178
;
the effectiveness of EU competition rules would also be served by apprising citizens and businesses of
their legal rights under those rules (eg the right to redress and compensation if harmed by others' anti-
competitive behaviour). Such awareness-raising events and activities could benefit from synergies with
other activities under the Single Market Programme. More broadly, the contribution of EU competition
policy to a fairer society and economy, ensuring equality of opportunity, could be conveyed under a
Competition programme within the Single Market Programme, a central pillar of which is to empower
citizens and businesses.
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one SMP
programme to other)
√ /
N/A
√
√
√
√
Simplification
With which other SMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
√ / N/A
√
√
√
√
Programme/line
Competition
programme
State-of-the-art
enforcement
and
guidance at EU level
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Boosting
external
partnerships
Wider
stakeholder
outreach
√ / N/A
√
√
√
√
2.1.4 New political priorities or emerging problems needing EU intervention (including legal
commitments)
Reference is made to section 1.1.4 above to European Parliament and European Council statements on the
internal market and competition policy. A number of emerging challenges have been set out in sections
2.1.2 and 2.1.3 above including the digital transformation and the need to engage more closely and
effectively with national authorities and courts across all areas of completion policy as well as the need to
reach out to a wider group of stakeholders. In addition, the following more specific instruments and
provisions are relevant.
Article 31 of the proposal for Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to
empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the
proper functioning of the internal market of 22 March 2017 (COM(2017) 142 final) (expected adoption in
2018) states that "The costs incurred by the Commission in connection with the maintenance and the
development of the European Competition Network System and cooperation within the European
Competition Network shall be borne by the general budget of the Union within the limit of the available
appropriations".
2.2 Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
2.2.1 General objective linked to the challenges described above
The general objective of the Competition programme is to support the Single Market Programme and
thereby the functioning of the internal market.
2.2.2 Specific objectives linked to the challenges described above
First specific objective: To ensure that the enforcement of EU competition policy as well as policy
guidance is supported by state-of-the-art tools and infrastructure (including software and hardware) as well
178
President Juncker's mission letter to Commissioner Vestager of 1 November 2014 asks her to focus eg on
explaining and demonstrating the benefits of competition policy "to citizens and stakeholders at all levels"
during the Commission's mandate.
79
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0080.png
as external technical expertise and information (falling within the "Support rule-making, standard setting
and enforcement at EU institutions level" objective in the Single Market Programme).
Second specific objective: To strengthen, deepen and extend cooperation and partnerships with European
public administrations (including national competition authorities and courts) in the form of direct contacts
as well as interoperable IT infrastructures ensuring the exchange of confidential documents and
information (falling within the "Administrative cooperation, capacity building and integration among
Member States" objective under the Single Market Programme).
Third specific objective: To strengthen, deepen and extend cooperation and partnerships with third country
authorities (including competition authorities) with a view to strengthening competition disciplines for the
benefit of the internal market (falling within the "Support rule-making, standard setting and enforcement at
EU institutions level" objective in the Single Market Programme).
Fourth specific objective: To raise awareness of EU competition policy among a wider group of
stakeholders concerned by the enforcement of EU competition rules, thereby strengthening the
effectiveness and legitimacy of those rules (falling within the "Empower citizens/consumers and businesses
in particular SMEs at different stages of their development" objective under the Single Market
Programme).
Challenges
Empower
citizens/consumers and
businesses in particular
SMEs
at
different
stages
of
their
development
To raise awareness of
EU competition policy
among a wider group of
stakeholders concerned
by the enforcement of
EU competition rules,
thereby strengthening
the effectiveness and
legitimacy of those
rules.
Administrative
cooperation, capacity
building and integration
among Member States
Support rule-making,
standard setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
Programme/line
Competition
programme
To strengthen, deepen
and extend cooperation
and partnerships with
European
public
administrations
(including
national
competition authorities
and courts) in the form
of direct contacts as
well as interoperable IT
infrastructures ensuring
the
exchange
of
confidential documents
and information.
To ensure that the
enforcement of EU
competition policy as
well as policy guidance
is supported by state-of-
the-art
tools
and
infrastructure
(including software and
hardware) as well as
external
technical
expertise
and
information.
To raise awareness of
EU competition policy
among a wider group of
stakeholders concerned
by the enforcement of
EU competition rules,
thereby strengthening
the effectiveness and
legitimacy of those
rules.
Potential for
Programme/line
Competition
programme
Simplification of your programme, and/or synergies and/or flexibility and/or performance
√
2.3 Cross cutting objectives of the new MFF
Section 3.3 below in particular explains how the Competition programme would enhance performance in
support of the internal market, in particular given the major leverage effect of competition enforcement in
terms of macroeconomic benefits. Being included in the Single Market Programme would also lead to
increased flexibility and simplification eg given the possibility to carry out multiannual projects. The
Competition programme would provide ample scope for synergies (not least in terms of joint studies and
80
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
data collection) with other activities under the Single Market Programme. Possible synergies are outlined
in section 4.3 below.
3. PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
3.1 Prioritisation
The prioritisation in terms of objectives broadly follows the order in which the four specific objectives are
set out in section 2.2 above.
According to that logic, the most prioritised actions would involve state-of-the-art software and hardware
tools (such as forensic IT, investigative and data analysis as well as artificial intelligence), accompanied by
trained operators. It would also include other external technical expertise and information sources falling
under the first specific objective of the Competition programme (see 2.2). Actions relating to interoperable
IT infrastructures ensuring the exchange of confidential documents and information as referred to in the
second specific objective of the Competition programme should enjoy the same level of priority.
Next, as a second category, priority status should be afforded to the strengthening, deepening and extension
of cooperation and partnerships with European public administrations (including national competition
authorities and courts) in the form of direct contacts (seminars, trainings, workshops, meetings etc.).
Finally, a third priority would comprise the strengthening, deepening and extension of cooperation and
partnerships with third country authorities (including competition authorities) (see third specific objective
at 2.2) as well as actions aimed at raising awareness of EU competition policy among a wider group of
stakeholders concerned by the enforcement of EU competition rules (fourth specific objective at 2.2).
3.2 Critical mass of funding and projects
The projects and funding required to support the specific objectives in the Competition programme satisfy
the critical mass criterion for several reasons. First, the scale and scope of DG Competition's activities is
(similar to the internal market) economy-wide. The numerous studies and evaluations referred to under
'Lessons learnt' above (see section 1.2.1) testify to the varied nature of DG Competition's enforcement
–
eg
in terms of sectors - in the internal market. Second, DG Competition's enforcement concerns both the
private sector as a whole (antitrust, cartels and merger control) as well as all tiers of the public sector (State
aid) and to the extent that public undertakings engage in economic activity (antitrust, cartels and merger
control). A key task of EU competition policy is also to engage in so-called competition advocacy aimed at
making other policies and regulation more competition friendly; such advocacy is directed at many
stakeholders groups as well as to the Member States and third countries (see the OECD's findings on the
importance of advocacy at section 1.2.1).
As regards the first specific objective of the Competition programme (state-of-the-art enforcement and
guidance), the transformational IT-driven challenges outlined above (see sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) will
necessitate projects in step with fast-moving technological developments, likely resulting in significant
costs (eg in the follow-up of complex decisions) (see section 2.1.3). State-of-the-art hardware and software
acquisitions also need to be accompanied by highly skilled and trained operators. In the case of possible
algorithmic collusion, firms continuously modify their algorithms, requiring continuous alertness and
agility (including in terms of deployment of technology) on the part of competition authorities. The
increasing complexity of cases referred to in sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 (eg evidentiary requirements and the
more economic approach) is one of the drivers of this challenge (see graph below which reflects the
considerable increase in the numbers of pages in merger decisions necessitated by the more complex
category of merger cases (so-called phase-two cases) (x-axis denoting number of pages in the decision):
81
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0082.png
Deep engagement with the Member States will be needed to evaluate large State aid schemes (a process
which already encompasses half of all aid reported in the EU and which will extend well beyond 2020);
technical expertise will also be needed in connection with remaining cases in the banking sector involving
impaired assets and asset relief.
IT projects play a key role under the Competition programme; such projects are launched by DG
Competition during a test phase after which synergies are found with other activities under the Single
Market Programme along the lines of the current CASE@EC case management system (see graph below):
Sector inquiries (both in the antitrust and State aid areas) aimed at supporting the Commission's key
priorities also generate the need for expertise and studies; the Energy union and the Single Digital Market
were the focus of two of the most recent sector inquiries, which are particularly resource intensive
undertakings. Deepening and broadening the analysis of the various impacts of EU competition policy (eg
the impact of deterrence and on innovation) will also generate demand for studies, workshops etc. A
promising novel area of research concerns the extent to which effective competition policy reduces
inequalities.
Likewise, the second specific objective (Boosting internal partnerships) is likely, by itself, to generate a
critical mass of funding and projects (not least joint projects conducted with the Member States). First, the
confidential nature of ongoing competition and State aid proceedings requires not only the maintenance
and upgrading of secure and stable IT systems which are interoperable vis-à-vis the Member States.
Already in 2017, the first full year of implementation of ECN2 (the new exchange platform for the ECN),
more than 16,000 documents were exchanged and this number is only expected to increase as NCAs
become better acquainted with this new tool; confidential face-to-face meetings go hand in hand with day-
to-day antitrust and cartel enforcement and are indispensable for sustaining a well-functioning network
with the national authorities and for agreeing on a coordinated approach in applying competition rules in
the internal market. Looking at the period from 2010 to 2017, a total of 202 meetings of the various ECN
working groups and sectoral subgroups took place. In 2017 27 ECN meetings took place per year within 22
groups.
Second, the need for actions under this specific objective is particularly pressing if the fruits of recent
(State Aid Modernisation and the Antitrust Damages Directive) and planned (ECN+) legislation are to be
82
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0083.png
harvested; for example, in the area of the Commission's multilateral partnership with the Member States,
this need is illustrated by the number of multilateral working group meetings with Member States
179
as well
as the range of key State aid issues discussed at these events at the request of the Member States or the
Commission
180
.
Third, there is a need for a rapid, informal and confidential process whereby Member State authorities can
seek clarification on material and procedural questions, eg in the area of EU State aid rules
181
. Reaching
out to the sub-national level presents a special challenge for State aid control.
The increased enforcement activity of national authorities and courts due to the above-mentioned initiatives
means that that there will be an even greater need to train national judges to deal with competition law
issues. Looking at the period 2007-2016 a total of 8,020 judges received such training. To illustrate the
scope for actions in this wide field, reference can be made to a recent evaluation of the need for training of
judges in EU competition law
182
. Few judges deal with all aspects of EU competition law; the evaluation
revealed that most judges with experience of EU competition law had dealt with only one type of
enforcement action. The table shows the large number of judges that may have to deal with public
enforcement (review of decisions by national authorities) and with private enforcement (ie actions for
damages caused by antitrust or cartel infringements) where harm to victims in foregone compensation has
been estimated to amount to several billions a year
183
. An even greater number of national judges are
potentially concerned by the enforcement of State aid rules (national judges have the power, among other
things, to order the recovery of illegal aid.)
Number of judges in the competent courts (EU total)
(A denotes the number of judges who may potentially have to
deal with competition cases; B denotes the number of judges specifically assigned to deal with competition cases)
19 State Aid Modernisation working groups have been held since 1 February 2014 while five High Level Forums
took place between 10 June 2014 and 28 June 2017; the next High Level Forum takes place on 19 June 2018.
180
The following ten overarching topics were addressed: 1) the introduction of the State Aid Modernisation at national
level and awareness raising; 2) the annual prioritisation, at Member States' request, of pending State aid cases
in their respective ‘portfolios' with
the objective of managing priority cases more efficiently, in line with
national priorities; 3) the Commission’s decision-making
process; 4) follow-up of implementation of the so-
called Timonen report (on best practices, training, networks, portfolio reviews, case management and
maximising the use of the GBER); 5) maximisation of the use of the GBER; 6) ensuring compliance with
GBER and general State aid requirements; 7) State aid and international competition; 8) State aid evaluation;
9) transparency; and 10) updates on further developments or additional actions taken by the Commission to
support SAM implementation.
181
Since February 2016, all Member States have used the
Commission’s IT-tool ‘eState aid WIKI’. They have thus far
submitted over than 600 queries on all major State aid rules, both as regards the notion of State aid and as
regards the compatibility of aid with the internal market; by far the most queries concerned the General
Block Exemption Regulation.
‘eState aid WIKI’ is a platform for informal
exchanges on general State aid
matters (thus not case-specific)
between the Commission’s services and the Member States and EFTA
countries (including the EFTA Surveillance Authority).
182
See 'Study on judges’ training needs in the field of European competition
law - Final report' by ERA (Academy of
European Law), EJTN (European Judicial Training Network) and Ecorys (January 2016).
183
The impact assessment report accompanying the antitrust damages directive estimated the compensation foregone to
be as high
as €5.7 to €23.3 billion per year (see SWD(2013) 203 final, 11 June 2013).
179
83
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0084.png
Actions within the third ('Boosting external partnerships') and fourth ('Wider stakeholder outreach')
specific objectives would add to the overall critical mass of funding.
The number of EU and Commission competition cooperation agreements and free trade agreements
containing competition and State aid clauses serves as a useful benchmark to assess the level of
convergence with third countries' competition regimes. There were 21 such agreements in 2016,
necessitating continued follow-up, while leaving scope for further expansion. During the next MFF period,
the number of completed agreements is expected to almost double, with an estimated 39 agreements to be
concluded by end-2019
184
. Bilaterally, cooperation also takes place not only with partners with whom the
Commission has signed a cooperation agreement (such as the US, Canada, Japan, Korea, China, Brazil and
Switzerland), but also with new and emerging agencies in countries such as Mexico. Similarly, there is
room for expanding the number of technical workshops organised with third country authorities as only
three such events were organised in 2016 (two with China and one with India).
The scope of the Commission's cooperation with third country competition authorities with the aim of
protecting the internal market in individual cases does not only include cartel and antitrust enforcement
area but also extends to merger control (see graph illustrating the range of jurisdictions involved
185
).
On the enlargement front, some of the candidate countries (eg Serbia and Montenegro) will require more
assistance from the Commission to build a proper legislative framework in the area of EU competition
policy. In the same vein, the European Neighbourhood Policy countries will require continued support
from the Commission in the area of EU competition policy, in particular as regards State aid.
184
185
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/management-plan-comp-2018_en.pdf
Cooperation with third country agencies took place in 41 of 546 formal merger decisions adopted in 2014 and 2015,
representing 7% of all merger decisions.
84
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0085.png
Similarly, at the multilateral level, the number of Commission contributions to relevant international bodies
and fora can be used as a proxy for action in support towards international convergence of competition
policy. The Commission provided 15 such contributions in 2016: eight to the OECD; five to the ICN
(International Competition Network) and two to UNCAD. There is scope for greater contributions at the
multilateral level not least as regards subsidy policy. The Commission is contributing to the discussions in
WTO, and has set up a working group on international subsidies with the Member States. The Commission
also continues to engage in sectoral initiatives to address subsidies in the international context, such as for
steel (G20 Global Forum on steel excess capacity), for semiconductors (Regional support guidelines for the
semiconductor industry) as well as for shipbuilding (OECD).
In addition, the Brexit negotiations on the withdrawal agreement and a future trade agreement will also
require input on EU competition policy beyond the start of the next MFF period.
Finally, in relation to the fourth specific objective of the Competition programme, there is considerable
scope for additional actions when expanding outreach beyond expert groups to categories of audiences
affected by EU competition policy on the ground (such as businesses of all types, consumer organisations
and regional and local authorities); indeed, the fact that in 2017 alone, officials of DG Competition were
invited to give 173 lectures on EU antitrust, merger and State aid rules
186
mostly before expert audiences,
illustrates the need for widening the outreach action.
3.3 Added value
In macroeconomic terms, the very significant leverage effect of EU competition policy (financed by a
modest administrative budget) is incontestable as already explained in "Lessons learnt" in section 1.2.1.
That finding is supported by a large body of studies
187
. For example, as regards the value added of
competition policy enforcement, a study
188
from 2017 demonstrated that the Commission's cartel and
merger decisions taken over the period 2012-2014 boosted GDP by 0.3% and employment by 0.2% after
five years, similar to various estimates of the impact of the Services Directive
189.
The competition
enforcement action
–
which only covered part of EU level competition enforcement
–
was also found to
reduce inequalities between rich and poor households.
As these positive macroeconomic impacts in terms of GDP, employment and inequality reduction (see also
section 1.2.1) are based on conservative assumptions and only rely on cartel and aspects of merger
enforcement, they likely understate the real effects which, moreover, do not take into account the well-
attested positive impacts on innovation or the effects of sanctioning and deterring abuses of a dominant
position. Nor do they account for the considerable enforcement activity of the national competition
authorities. While difficult to quantify, State aid control, which is focused on minimising distortions of
competition in the internal market, also likely contributes considerably in macroeconomic terms
190
. There
is consensus that competition as a driver of efficiencies is particularly important in knowledge intensive
sectors, close to the technological frontier
191
. The order of magnitude of the contribution of State aid
control, not least to fair competition in knowledge intensive sectors, is illustrated by the sheer size of large
R&D&I-State aid schemes subject to mandatory State aid evaluation (see section 2.1.3 above). At the time
of writing, eight approved R&D&I-aid schemes are subject to such valuation requirements aimed at
Number of requests for permission to speak at external events registered by DG Competition.
See 'Ex-post economic evaluation of competition policy enforcement: A review of the literature' by Fabienne
Ilzkovitz and Adriaan Dierx, DG Competition (June 2015); OECD Factsheet on how competition policy
affects macro-economic outcomes (October 2014).
188
Dierx, Adriaan, Fabienne Ilzkovitz, Beatrice Pataracchia, Marco Ratto, Anna Thum-Thysen and Janos Varga
(2017), "Does EU competition policy support inclusive growth?", Journal of Competition Law & Economics,
Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 225-260.
189
See Copenhagen Economics (2005a): "Economic assessment of the barriers to the internal market for
services"; Final report.'The economic impact of the Services Directive: A first assessment following implementation',
EUROPEAN ECONOMY, Economic Papers 456 (June 2012).
190
The OECD's literature review (ibid) found that to the extent to which competition enforcement or advocacy
increases the level of competition, the greater the contribution to efficiencies which in turn translate into
productivity and growth; see also 'Ex-post economic evaluation of competition policy enforcement: A review
of the literature' by Fabienne Ilzkovitz and Adriaan Dierx, pp. 21-22.
191
See 'Ex-post economic evaluation of competition policy enforcement: A review of the literature' by Fabienne
Ilzkovitz and Adriaan Dierx, p. 26.
187
186
85
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0086.png
assessing these schemes' direct impact on beneficiaries as well as their indirect impacts, both positive and
negative; the evaluations also covers the well as proportionality and appropriateness of the schemes. The
average annual budgets of these eight schemes together amount to around EUR 5.2 billion (corresponding
to 5% of total State aid spending in the EU).
State
No
aid
Member
State
Working title
Annual
budget
(EUR
million)
Entry into
force/adoption
of the decision
Final evaluation report
due on
40761
40098
40266
40324
40391
41471
41386
41884
UK
FI
FR
ES
FR
PL
UK
DE
Innovate UK (Technology Strategy Board)
TEKES aid for R&D
Régime ADEME Investissements d’Avenir
CDTI R&D aid scheme
Régime cadre aides RDI 2014-2020
National Research and Development Centre
SME R&D Tax Credits
Central Innovation Programme for SMEs (ZIM)
796
400
300
800
850
907
648
543
01/01/2015
01/01/2015
01/01/2015
01/01/2015
01/01/2015
05/03/2015
01/04/2015
15/04/2015
30/09/2019
30/06/2020
30/06/2020
30/06/2020
30/06/2020
30/06/2020
30/09/2019
30/06/2019
Further work is needed to establish the full macroeconomic contribution of an effective competition policy,
for example the impact on inequality reduction (a current focus of the OECD: see graph below which
shows how much for each dollar of monopoly profits, a total of USD is estimated to be transferred from the
90 percent poorest to the 10 percent richest in twelve OECD countries, half of which are EU Member
States)
192
. Thus, although difficult to quantify, there are also strong grounds for arguing that EU
competition policy reinforces the social dimension of the internal market (see also additional sources cited
in section 1.2.1).
For each dollar of monopoly profits, how much money is distributed from the bottom 90 percent to the
top 10 percent?
192
See 'The Effects of Market Power on Inequality' by Sean F. Ennis (Senior Economist, OECD Competition Division;
Chris Pike, Competition Expert, OECD Competition Division) and Pedro Gonzaga (Policy Analyst, OECD
Competition Division). The authors' views do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or the
governments of OECD member countries.
86
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0087.png
As noted at the outset (section 1.1), EU competition is
de jure
and
de facto
an integral pillar of the internal
market. A suboptimal competition policy accordingly detracts from the potential of the internal market.
This is particularly so in terms of the remaining gaps of the internal market on which EU competition
policy has focused in recent years, including network industries such as financial services, electricity, gas
transport, telecoms as well as the digital single market
193
; indeed, the literature supports the existence of
significant positive gains in terms of innovation and productivity to be made downstream by stimulating
competition in such network sectors upstream, such as transport, energy and telecommunications
194
.
Moreover, the Commission's competition advocacy and surveillance activities vis-à-vis the Member States
(eg within the European Semester) pursues the same goals the internal market legislation, i.e. the removal
of unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions on competition
195
. Cartel enforcement in connection with
public procurement can make public procurement in the internal market more efficient
196
; in the EU, the
public purchase of goods and services has been estimated to be worth 16% of GDP
197
.
In view of the macroeconomic benefits outlined above, strengthening the enforcement of and compliance
with EU competition law would generate significant added value at EU level; likewise, reinforcing the
networks, partnerships and other cooperation structures
–
especially with the Member States - would
produce additional added value.
As regards State aid control, the room for Member States to give aid without prior authorisation from the
Commission has
–
as part of the State Aid Modernisation
–
been greatly expanded over the last four years,
in order to make the procedure simpler and more focused, thereby facilitating public investment.
Continuing to facilitate such efficiency-enhancing investment (which strengthens the internal market
See the annual reports on competition policy in recent years.
See 'Ex-post economic evaluation of competition policy enforcement: A review of the literature' by Fabienne
Ilzkovitz and Adriaan Dierx, p. 26; See also Bourlès et al. (2013) (covering 15 OECD countries during 1984-
2007) finding that by increasing competition in upstream sectors by completely eliminating anti-competitive
regulations would increase multi-factor productivity growth by 1 to 1.5% per year in the observed OECD
countries.
195
See recital 69 ("Where such requirements are discriminatory or not objectively justified by an overriding reason
relating to the public interest, or where they are disproportionate, they must be abolished or amended") as
well as Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market.
196
Studies appear to agree on the conclusion that the stronger enforcement and increased scope of cartel policies in the
US and the EU in particular has contributed to the observed decline in overcharges (with the notable
exception of overcharges resulting from bid rigging cartels) (see 'Ex-post economic evaluation of
competition policy enforcement: A review of the literature' by Fabienne Ilzkovitz and Adriaan Dierx, p. 19).
197
See
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/public-procurement/
.
194
193
87
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0088.png
overall) would generate considerable value added. For instance, the number of RDI aid notifications
dropped markedly after the SAM reform; at the same time, total spending for RDI under the reformed 2014
General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER)
–
ie the cornerstone of SAM
–
more than doubled from
EUR 3.3 billion in 2015 to EUR 7 billion EUR in 2016. To reap the benefits of the new State aid
architecture, investments in the multilateral and bilateral partnerships would need to be stepped up (see
section 2.1.3). The overall impact of SAM on newly implemented aid measures appears from the graph
below:
As a result of the sharing of work with national competition authorities (NCAs) within the European
Competition Network (ECN), the enforcement of the EU antitrust and cartel rules is now taking place on a
scale which the Commission could never have achieved on its own. Since the empowerment of the NCAs
to apply the Treaty rules on antitrust and cartels in 2004, the Commission and the NCAs have adopted over
1,000 enforcement decisions, of which 85% by the NCAs. Thus scaling up the investment in the ECN is
likely to further increase the added value of the Competition programme, especially after the planned
strengthening of the powers and independence of the NCAs (ECN+ directive), which is expected to lead to
increased enforcement by the NCAs and, as a result, increased judicial review of NCA decisions,
ultimately leading to an increased need for the Commission to provide support to NCAs and national courts
and to train judges. In the digital economy, increasingly complex cases will intensify the need for early and
in-depth coordination in cases, as well as more policy meetings to agree on new methods and tools to
tackle novel anticompetitive practices across the internal market. To take but one example demonstrating
the added value of cooperation within the ECN: during 2016 a coordinated monitoring of the online hotel
booking sector was carried out by the Belgian, Czech, French, German, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Dutch,
Swedish and UK competition authorities and the Commission
198
. The pie chart below demonstrates the
considerable extent to which enforcement within the ECN
–
ie the Commission and the NCAs
–
during its
first ten years focused on sectors where the internal market is incomplete
199
.
The need for training of national judges increases also due to the very recent entry into effect of the
antitrust damages directive, which aims to help citizens and companies claim compensation if they are
victims of infringements of EU antitrust rules. Ensuring a coherent and consistent application of the rules
to compensation by national judges is crucial for ensuring that citizens and businesses harmed by
anticompetitive practices can receive adequate compensation independent of the Member State they are
located in. It is noted that the amounts of foregone compensations by victims of cartels and other antitrust
infringements have been considerable so far
200
.
The monitoring resulted in a report dated 6 April 2017 assessing the impact of enforcement in the online hotel
booking sector in recent years.
199
See
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/antitrust_enforcement_10_years_en.pdf
.
200
Estimated to amount to billions per year; the very highest estimate
–
around EUR 23 billion per year - is
macroeconomically significant (corresponding to 0.18 percent of EU GDP in 2013) (see impact assessment
accompanying the damages directive).
198
88
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0089.png
Investment in cooperation between the Commission and the National Competition Authorities would also
be required to increase the added value from the EU's one-stop-shop merger control. Since 1990 EU
merger control has helped to enable the corporate restructuring associated with the development of the
internal market, EMU and globalisation, while ensuring that such restructuring - mostly in the form of
concentrations - preserves and strengthens competition in the internal market. The obligation to cooperate
is legal in nature ("The Commission should act in close and constant liaison with the competent authorities
of the Member States from which it obtains comments and information")
201
. As an example of added value
and synergies of investment by the Commission, reference is made to the study on the definition of
geographic markets in Commission merger cases which became a point of reference among EU
competition authorities (see section 2.1.3). Moreover, as the number of notifications increases (ie the
current trajectory: see graph), the need to closely and constantly cooperate with NCAs rises.
201
See recital 13
–
and also recitals (3), (4), (5) and (14) - of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004
on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation). The Commission
transmits to them copies of notifications and of the most important documents lodged in a case. Member
States may express their views throughout the procedure. In particular, in cases where in-depth proceedings
have been opened or may lead to the imposition of a fine for a procedural infringement, Member States are
formally consulted in the Advisory Committee. Over the last months, the Working Arrangements for the
functioning of the Advisory Committee have been revised, strengthening the close and constant liaison
between the Commission and the Member States’ Authorities. A referral system also allows for a reallocation
of specific cases, under certain conditions, between the Commission and Member States' authorities (notably
if an agency other than the one initially competent appears as better placed to review the deal).
89
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0090.png
It is well established that successful advocacy in favour of competition friendly rules and regulation
ultimately makes the economy more productive
202
. To this end, increased investment in boosting external
partnerships (eg pushing for convergence and cooperating on concrete cases) will continue to add value
(whilst protecting the internal market against anticompetitive conduct abroad).
Expanding outreach activities to encompass more categories of audiences affected by EU competition
policy is also likely to add value: the better the rights and obligations under those rules are known and
understood, the better they are enforced; a greater understanding of the rules and their rationale among
wider groups of stakeholders would also be likely to add political support and legitimacy to EU
competition policy, in particular among the Member States, increasing strengthening their resistance to
lobbying efforts by vested interests and incumbent firms facing competitive threats.
From a strict legal standpoint, the issue of added value (which forms part of an assessment according to the
principle of subsidiarity), does not arise in the case of competition policy which is an exclusive competence
(see section 1.1). According to Article 5(3) TEU the principle of subsidiarity does not
–
legally speaking -
apply in areas of exclusive competence. But, as appears throughout this report, a political choice has been
made to enable and to share work with Member States in State aid control, antitrust and merger
enforcement through numerous mechanisms and arrangements. Doing less at the centralised level, and
more at the national level
–
within the scope of the EU exclusive competences - has helped increase the
effectiveness of the enforcement of EU competition rules. The envisaged Competition programme would
further entrench that political choice.
Also, the preceding added value assessment (although not strictly speaking legally required) can be
considered justified from a Better Regulation perspective, in particular given that no spending programme
has so far been considered to support EU competition policy. In view of the very significant leverage effect
of EU competition policy in terms of consumer and customer welfare, unlocking the potential of the
internal market and macroeconomic benefits, the Competition programme is also proportionate to the
specific objectives set out in section 2.2; the principle of proportionality is also served by the actions
envisaged under the second specific objective involving partnerships at the national level (ie without undue
centralisation).
Finally, as mentioned in section 1.2.1, EU competition policy financed by an administrative budget of
EUR 7.5 million (figures for 2016), impacts the overall EU budget collaterally through fines mainly in
cartel and antitrust decisions (over the past decade, annual fines have averaged EUR 1.7 billion, varying
between EUR 0.4 billion and EUR 4.2 billion)
203
.
4.1 Consequences of a baseline scenario (ie no Competition programme) versus a Competition
Programme scenario
The Competition programme would constitute a new element in the MFF context. As it has not been
evaluated previously, the likely impacts of a 'no change' scenario (see in particular section 2 above) are
worth reiterating briefly. If EU competition policy would remain unsupported by a programme (and
continue to be financed by a modest small administrative budget) it would soon become less effective, less
efficient and less relevant. It would be less coherent with the Commission's and the EU's obligation to
complete and strengthen the internal market; the Commission would probably lose its current international
leadership in competition policy, and thereby diminish its possibilities to shape global economic
governance;
thus, stakeholders’ awareness of, and support for, EU competition policy would dwindle over
time, resulting in a gradual loss of legitimacy across the Union.
Conversely, as outlined in section 3, in view of the very significant leverage effect of EU competition
policy in terms of consumer and customer welfare, unlocking the potential of the internal market and
macroeconomic benefits, an adequately funded programme would generate considerable value added in
terms of an effective, efficient and relevant enforcement and development of EU competition policy,
including through the strengthening of partnerships with national authorities and courts. The Commission
See the graph at section 1.2.1 ("Lessons learnt") derived from the OECD publication on the impact of competition
policy on macroeconomic outcomes; all relationships set out in the graph (including those relating to
advocacy) are underpinned by robust evidence according to the OECD.
203
Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources (December 2016), p. 71.
202
90
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0091.png
would also be able to maintain and reinforce its current global leadership in this important area of
economic governance. Greater awareness and understanding of EU competition policy on the part of
stakeholders would further reinforce such positive feedback loops.
4.2 Broad categories of actions under the Competition programme
Before addressing the specific mechanisms by which the Competition programme could be funded and
delivered on the ground such as procurement and grants, it is appropriate to set out certain broad categories
of actions which cover all four specific objectives of the Competition programme as defined in section 2.2
above.
204
The broad categories of actions below have been inspired by the definition of actions under current
programmes (2014-2020) in the consumer, customs and taxation as well as justice areas, adapted where
appropriate to the specificities of the envisaged competition programme.
Actions in the area of IT tools and related expertise to protect competition in support of the internal
market, in particular:
establishment, maintenance, development and, modernisation of IT tools such as databases,
information and communication systems, specific software (eg eDiscovery software and proof of
concept of software), forensic IT, investigative data (including Big Data) and economic analysis,
artificial intelligence
205
as well as IT tools for the monitoring of markets and sectors relevant to
competition policy;
enlisting skilled experts necessary in connection with the use of IT tools;
acquisition of IT equipment necessary in connection with the use of IT tools and expert work.
Actions in the form acquisition of other expertise and information sources, including through expert
meetings, to protect competition in support of the internal market:
Acquisition of expertise, studies, consultations, market intelligence, databases and other
information sources (eg procurement of external technical expertise in complex and time-sensitive
investigations)
206
;
organisation and procurement of and participation in expert events (such as seminars, workshops
and conferences);
monitoring of markets and sectors relevant to EU competition policy.
Human competency actions, including the development and strengthening of networks with the Member
States and third countries, to protect competition in support of the internal market:
strengthening cooperation and cooperation structures with and between national enforcement
bodies, national courts and other relevant Member State or third country authorities (especially the
204
205
206
For that reason reference to competition enforcement and competition policy is made where appropriate (in line
with the approached used in the current Consumer programme (2014-2020).
For example, in order to enable the treatment of large bodies of evidence both of a qualitative and a quantitative
nature
Acquisition of the Joint Research Centre’s expertise through administrative arrangements could provide additional
support.
91
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0092.png
multilateral and bilateral State aid partnerships, the European Competition Network, the
Association of European Competition Law judges and the merger network);
supporting Member State authorities (especially within the State aid partnerships, the European
Competition Network and the merger network) and courts as well as third country authorities
through capacity building, training, increasing transparency and stepping up exchanges of best
practices and expertise as well as exchanges of enforcement officials and training (for example
through the organisation of and participation in working visits, seminars, conferences, workshops
and meetings of stakeholders and experts).
Outreach actions to protection competition in support of the internal market, in particular:
Organisation of and participation in seminars, conferences, workshops, meetings and working
visits involving stakeholders, in particular those affected by EU competition policy, to improve
their knowledge and awareness of EU competition policy (including their rights and obligations
under EU competition policy) as well as to increase political support for, and therefore the
effectiveness of, EU competition policy.
Surveys (such as Eurobarometer surveys) to measure the knowledge of and views on EU
competition policy.
Support for events concerning EU competition policy organised by the Member State holding the
Council Presidencies.
4.3 Synergies with other activities covered by the Single Market Programme
It is envisaged that synergies be pursued across the Single Market Programme through joint activities (data
gathering and processing, IT tools etc.). This also applies to the Competition programme; in addition, a
result of closer cooperation between Commission services it would be expected that additional synergies
are discovered and developed during the implementation of the Single Market Programme.
Therfore, before addressing the more detailed issue of delivery mechanisms it is appropriate to outline
possible areas of synergies with actions under the other activities
207
envisaged to be brought under the
Single Market Programme (see table below). The possible areas and examples of synergies below are not
intended to be exhaustive.
Existing programmes/activities
Interoperability solutions and common frameworks for European public
administrations, businesses and citizens as a means for modernising the public
sector (ISA programme)
Implementation and Development of Single Market for Financial Services
European Statistical Programme (ESP)
Standards in the field of reporting and auditing
Enhancing the involvement of consumers and other end-users in Union
policy-making in financial services (ICFS)
207
Working assumption at the time of writing.
92
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0093.png
Company Law prerogative
Consumer Programme and the consumer and contract law part of the Rights
Equality and Citizenship programme (REC)
Internal market: Governance tools
Internal market: Support to Standardisation activities
Internal market: operation and development of the internal market for Goods,
Services and Public Procurement
COSME
Health programme
CFF for food chain (the Food Chain Programme)
Customs and tax policy development support budget line
Health programme
CFF for food chain
Customs and tax policy development support budget line
New commitments by the Commission from 2014-2020
Health Technology Assessment
Goods package
Procurement strategy and Ex-ante assessment mechanism
Single digital gateway
Type approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles
New Deal for consumers
Action Plan: Financing sustainable Growth
Proposed directive to empower the competition authorities of the Member
States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of
the internal market
New programmes
An Ambitious Competition policy for a stronger Union in the digital age
COSME+ Scaling-up instrument
Some areas of potential
synergies
with
the
Competition programme
Actions in the IT area
(for example Artificial
Intelligence to analyse
and process Big Data as
well as large volumes of
documents
and
information
more
efficiently) could be a
fertile
terrain
for
synergies across the
Single
Market
Programme. Synergies in
the IT area would also
cover enforcement and
other networks which
exist in the competition,
consumer and customs
areas (see below).
Expertise
208
, studies and
events could also be
procured jointly; for
example focusing on
gaps in the internal
market that may require
both enforcement and
regulatory action under
the Treaties, such as
–
to
name but two examples -
the
Digital
Single
Market and the Single
Market for Financial
Services.
Outreach events could
also be broadened to
encompass a wider range
of
internal
market
policies.
Synergies could also
exist in the area of
standardisation
and
intellectual
property
rights, including before
international fora.
Potential areas of synergies in respect of other activities under the Single Market Programme
208
Administrative arrangements with the JRC could be agreed to this effect
93
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0094.png
Synergies with 'Digital Single Market Support Programme'
Competition enforcement supports many dimensions of the Digital Single Market (DSM), for example by
facilitating the use of e-commerce across borders (eg by tackling geoblocking where possible under the
Treaty's competition rules
209
). A potentially wide area of synergies appears to exist, in particular in terms of
acquiring and exchanging expertise and market intelligence.
Synergies with 'Digital Public Administrations for Businesses and Services (ISA2)'
Potentially significant synergies exist notably in the areas of data exchange with Member State authorities
and the implementation of transparency obligations where the aim could be to boost and extend
interoperability
210
both between the Commission and Member States as well as between the Member
States' IT systems, whilst ensuring trust and confidentiality according to the Commission's European
interoperability policy
211
.
Synergies with 'Internal market
–
Support to Standardisation activities'
The issue of FRAND commitments by holders of standard-essential patents (ie undertakings to license
such standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) within the EU's
governance structures for standard-setting (eg ETSI) is central both from the point of view of view of
effective standardisation as well as competition policy. In order to establish the extent to which actual
licensing terms agreed by holders of SEPs are in line with their actual FRAND commitments and the
specific requirements of EU competition law (as interpreted by the EU Courts), the relevant services falling
within the Single Market Programme could undertake a more comprehensive study of licensing practices.
Such a study could also cover national court practice in dealing with SEPs and FRAND related disputes, eg
through interim measures. This would go hand in hand with the follow-up work in relation to the
Commission Communication on Standardisation of November 2017, which inter alia related to FRAND
and SEPs enforcement
212
.
Synergies with 'COSME'
SMEs in the EU are faced with significant challenges in securing the necessary financing throughout their
critical phases from seed to start-up to early expansion, and even later in their growth phase. As a rule, this
is due to asymmetric information about SMEs' credit-worthiness or the soundness of their business plans.
This failure in business finance markets translates into a ‘funding gap’. EU State aid rules allow public
support that covers the funding gap in various stages of SMEs' growth and product development.
Cooperation exploiting the synergies between State aid policy and SME policy could help target public
SME support
–
both State aid and EU financial instruments
–
more precisely at market failures throughout
the development phases of SMEs, thereby increasing the efficiency of public funding. Synergies can be
generated through joint studies and joint outreach actions combining the Commission's COSME structures
with its multilateral and bilateral partnerships with the Member States. Moreover, prior to setting up
financial instruments under COSME (eg a fund), joint studies could probe the market failures and the
potential to generate additional (growth) activities in the common interest, the potential to crowd in or
crowd out private investors, or generate additional lending. This may lead to a more coherent definition of
‘market failure’ across policies and thus to a more efficient use of public funding (State aid and EU funds).
Synergies with 'Consumer programme' and 'New deal for consumers'
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/ecommerce
https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/home_en
211
Communication on a European Interoperability Framework
–
Implementation Strategy, section 2.9, in particular
underlying principle 8 on security and privacy and Recommendation 15.
212
Communication on a balanced IP enforcement system responding to today's societal challenges (COM(2017) 707
final), 29 November 2017.
210
209
94
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0095.png
Synergies could exist by drawing on the experiences from enforcement within European Competition
Network and from within the CPC (Consumer Protection Cooperation)
213
, a network of authorities
responsible for enforcing EU consumer protection laws, for example as regards secure and interoperable IT
systems. Market knowledge could be exchanged
214
. In the same vein, synergies may exist between the
conduct of inspections and so-called sweeps under the CPC Regulation
215
. Joint training in for example the
monitoring of online marketplaces could be envisaged
216
. Currently around half of all National
Competition Authorities within the European Competition Network are also responsible for enforcing
consumer protection legislation; lessons from the national level could thus be learnt on how to maximise
synergies between these two policy areas.
In particular, online commerce continues its marked growth, raising issues not least from the of view of EU
consumer protection and competition law raising issues for example in terms of misleading advertising, the
role of e-commerce platforms as well as restrictions of competition at the distribution level. Data and the
use of machine learning and algorithms play an increasingly significant role in online commerce. Against
this background, the Commission services responsible for consumer, digital and competition policy could
carry out joint studies of data-related issues in online commerce which would be more comprehensive for
enforcement and policy-making purposes. Those services could also carry out joint surveys
(Eurobarometer) of consumers, retailers and other stakeholders, including online platforms.
Synergies may exist in the area of the enforcement of consumers' rights, especially regarding ex-post
evaluations, studies or monitoring exercises of the new means for private enforcement under the initiative
'New Deal For Consumers' and the Antitrust Damages Directive 2014/104.
Internal Market - Governance tools
217
Synergies exist not least in the area of enforcement where Member State conduct may infringe internal
market and competition rules at the same time, as well as in terms of sectoral focus; indeed, the
Commission's Single Market Governance Communication identified single market sectors with the most
growth potential, which require greater focus by Member States and the Commission (services, financial
services, transport, the digital single market and energy)
218
. These priorities remain relevant today, while
some additional ones have been identified in recent years the collaborative economy
219
. Also, the Internal
Market Information system (IMI), an IT-based information network that links up national, regional and
local authorities across borders, could involve synergies regarding the evolving multilateral and bilateral
State aid partnerships. There is also a nexus between State aid policy and public procurement, in particular
in the context of Services of General Economist Interest.
Customs and tax policy development support budget line
Synergies may exist in the area of training of national authorities given the existence of a decentralised
network of national authorities aimed at ensuring a coherent application of EU law both in the area of
customer and competition which constitute exclusive competences of the Treaty; in the customs area an
extensive eLearning programme has been developed by the Commission's Taxation & Customs Union
department in collaboration with a pool of customs experts from national authorities and the private sector
Customs and tax policy development support budget line
The CPC projects have used the CPC knowledge exchange platform, an IT tool developed in 2014-2015, to support
collaborative work and share results with the wider CPC network.
214
In 2016 the CPC authorities identified irregularities in 235 websites (66.8% of the total swept websites). Such
exchanges would need to respect rules on confidentiality.
215
A "sweep" is a set of checks carried out simultaneously by national enforcement authorities to identify breaches of
EU consumer law in a particular sector.
216
Such support is already provided under the auspices of the 'e-enforcement academy' aimed at developing and
providing training in Internet investigations for the consumer protection cooperation (CPC) and consumer
product safety networks (CSN) ('e-enforcement academy').
217
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/governance/20120608-communication-2012-259-2_en.pdf
219
Commission Communication on 'A European agenda for the collaborative economy' (COM(2016) 356 final).
213
95
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0096.png
In the area of corporate taxation, a major challenge is to ensure that revenues from digital activities are
attributed to the Member State where the value is generated. Corporate taxation is based on the principle
that profits should be taxed where the value is created, but when it comes to the digital economy the link
between value creation and taxation is not well captured by today's rules. Profits derived from digitalised
business models are heavily driven by intangible assets, data and knowledge, which are difficult to identify
and value. Moreover, intangible assets can be easily shifted around. Together, the current rules and the
high mobility of intangible assets push down the tax contribution of more digitalised businesses, creating
competitive distortions. This was already outlined in the Commission Communication on a fair and
efficient tax system in the EU for the digital economy, which was adopted on 21 September 2017
220
. The
Commission is currently working on a legislative package to tackle digital taxation and this initiative could
be ideally complemented by joint studies and data collection by the Commission services responsible for
taxation and State aid, in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the digital taxation landscape,
supporting policy making and enforcement of tax and competition policy in this area.
Cohesion Policy and EU Funds under shared management:
The Managing Authorities of the EU Funds under shared management have to design their support
schemes in line with EU state aid rules.
4.4 Delivery mechanisms
As the Competition programme is new, no experience exists in terms of previous assessments and
evaluations of delivery mechanisms, for which reason that issue can only be addressed in rather summary
form here.
Nevertheless, it is likely that procurement in various forms will be the predominant and most appropriate
delivery mechanism under the Competition programme.
While IT related projects and expenditure (including proof of concept of software given the rapid
developments in particular in artificial intelligence) will be particularly significant in this context
221
, other
forms of expertise will also need to be procured. Given that DG Competition largely devotes its resources
to enforcement, the need for specific expertise arises in connection with individual cases in the areas of
antitrust, cartels, merger control and State aid control. For that reason technical expertise in the form of
consultations (as defined in the table below) is likely to play a particularly significant role (see table).
Communication on a Fair and Efficient Tax System in the European Union for the Digital Single Market
(COM(2017) 547 final), 21.9.2017.
221
To take but one example in the IT field, in order to link national State aid registries to the Commission’s
‘Transparency Award Module’ (TAM) IT-platform,
the Commission needs to overcome technical issues with
the automatic import of technical parameters (such as the Granting Authorities) as well as the need for
consistency checks as regards possible inconsistencies between the different IT systems.
220
96
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0097.png
Outside the enforcement of EU-competition rules, external expertise may become necessary in the area of
multilateral and bilateral cooperation with Member States, in order to gain insight in technical or sector-
specific issues and thus facilitate the coherent interpretation of applicable EU-rules, or in order to
efficiently produce pedagogical material for bilateral training actions.
It is likely that a combination of specific contracts and framework contracts will be used. A framework
contract could for example be appropriate in case several similar studies or consultations are required in a
particular area (for example the evaluation of guidelines, frameworks etc adopted as part of the State Aid
Modernisation which was concluded in 2014).
The most suitable type of procurement procedure for specific contracts will depend on the objective needs
in each specific case (see table below).
It is not expected that extensive use will be made of grants; rather, based on experience, certain current
grant-based activities may also, at least partially, be carried out under service contracts; for example, the
training of judges in competition law (which has so far formed part of the Justice programme) has hitherto
mainly been grant-based. In order to better target specific needs, audiences or to ensure a more even
distribution of training across the Member States, service contracts could be used as an effective
complementary tool.
222
222
Study on judges’
training needs in the field of European competition law (June 2016), pp. 82, 96.
97
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0098.png
5. HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
5.1 Preliminary remarks
As the Competition programme is new, no programme-specific lessons exist in terms of monitoring and
evaluation
223
; nevertheless, extensive monitoring, reporting and evaluation activities which cover the
envisaged specific objectives (section 2.2) are already in place and can be adapted to the new programme.
5.2 Monitoring
The performance of the Commission programme in delivering the specific objectives (see section 2.2)
would be monitored according to a combination of output, result and impact indicators per specific
objective
224
; a list of possible monitoring indicators is outlined below in table form in section 5.4. The
indicators would be both quantitative and qualitative in nature.
The relevant data would be collected internally as well as externally (eg through surveys, studies and
evaluations). The results of the post-SAM evaluations of large national aid schemes will constitute a new
data source that will be built into the monitoring and evaluation activities in the course of the next MFF
period.
As the bulk of competition policy consists in enforcement, this specificity needs to be taken into account
for monitoring purposes. Each decision needs to be decided on the basis of established facts and applicable
law
225
. While numerical targets for competition enforcement do not necessarily reflect its effectiveness in a
meaningful way, the Commission, like most competition authorities, provides the number of decisions (or
intervention rate) to indicate the level of activity and output. Competition decisions may impose fines and
other conditions to produce a deterrent effect
226
; thus the greater the number of such decisions
–
all things
being equal
–
the greater the deterrent effect, which in turn translates in customer savings and further down
the line in macroeconomic benefits (see section 1.2.1).
Other monitoring under the SMP such as the consumer programme may also be relevant to assess the
performance of the Competition programme.
5.3 Evaluation
Evaluations of EU competition policy, especially specific legal and guidance frameworks in the antitrust
227
,
merger control and State aid areas, are carried out regularly in accordance with Better Regulation rules and
principles.
Lately, evaluations of entire branches of enforcement activities (cartels and certain merger decisions) have
been undertaken to measure impacts in terms of customer savings and macroeconomic variables (such as
growth, employment and inequality reduction).
Specific evaluations have assessed the impact of competition interventions in particular sectors and in
particular cases (especially in merger control) (see section 1.2). Such types of evaluations are envisaged to
With the exception of training of judges which form part of the 2014-2020 Justice programme.
Outputs refer to those effects (most often tangible products) achieved immediately after implementing an activity,
while the results look at the mid-term effects or the difference made on the ground thanks to the outputs.
Impact indicators indicate the long-term effects of the programme by measuring its contribution to the
broader policy areas.
225
A specificity as regards antitrust and cartel enforcement is that a target would also depend on factors beyond the
Commission's control (decisions of the parties or other market players to disclose infringements through the
leniency programme, whistleblowing, complaints or the availability of information to the Commission to
detect infringements ex officio). In each and every case, the Commission must fully respect the rights of
defence of the parties.
226
See section 1.2.
227
For example a number of Block Exemption Regulations and related guidelines such as those concerning vertical and
horizontal agreements.
224
223
98
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0099.png
be pursued into and throughout the next MFF period. Some evaluations could be performed in-house
228
whereas others may be outsourced
229
.
Regular stakeholder surveys could be undertaken to assess impact under the relevant specific objectives of
the Competition programme
230
. In previous years stakeholders' and citizens' views on competition and
competition policy have been surveyed (a type of survey particularly relevant for the fourth specific
objective of the Competition programme); as an example of type of survey relevant for the first and second
specific objectives reference can be made to a Eurobarometer Qualitative Study on the perceived quality of
DG Competition's actions
231
. Such Eurobarometer surveys could also take place under framework contracts
covering other subprogrammes of the Single Market Programme.
A significant source of new data will be available in the course of the next MFF period in the area of State
aid; as described in section 2 - under the State Aid Modernisation reform
–
the Member State must carry
out evaluations of large aid schemes in order to assess to what extent the schemes in fact achieved the
stated objectives (ie the positive effect) and to what extent they produced negative effects on competition
and trade between the Member States
232
.
Mandatory reports on aid schemes, produced by the Member States
233
and the Commission’s State Aid
Scoreboard
234
constitute further significant sources for evaluation purposes.
5.4 List of possible monitoring indicators
Specific
Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
Measurement
Source of
Data
Frequency
Baseline
Target
First specific objective: State-of-the-art enforcement and policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Estimate
of
customer
benefits resulting from
cartel prohibition decisions.
Impact
Indicator
EUR
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
No target
for 2021-
2027
See evaluation on the effects of temporary State aid rules adopted in the context of the financial and economic crisis
at (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/temporary_stateaid_rules_en.html ).
229
See for example an ex-post evaluation of the regional aid guidelines
(
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_regional_aid_guidelines/study_rag_evaluation_en.pdf
).; Ex post
assessment of the impact of state aid on competition,
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0617275enn.pdf.
230
See
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/surveys_en.html
.
231
This survey was based on in-depth interviews, carried out in May-July 2014 by TNS Qual + among lawyers,
companies, economic consultants, business and consumer associations, Member States' ministries as well as
national competition authorities who directly contributed to the work of DG Competition in 2010-2013. The
results consist of six individual reports reflecting each stakeholder group's specific views, as well as an
aggregate report summarizing the results of the individual reports.
232
In particular, evaluation is required for some categories of large schemes under the 2014 GBER (when their average
annual State aid budget exceeds EUR 150 million). Evaluation provisions are also included in a number of
Commission guidelines (Broadband, Regional aid, Risk finance, Aviation, R&D&I, Environment and
energy, Rescue and restructuring). The significance of Member States’ evaluation reports as an information
source can be illustrated by the current and expected number of evaluation plans and the corresponding State
aid budget: At the time of writing, the Commission had already approved 37 evaluation plans of 13 Member
States, with a total annual budget of EUR 48 billion; corresponding to about 45% of total State aid annual
spending in the EU; if the additional three evaluation plans that are currently under assessment are approved,
even 15 Member States would be covered. The current trend towards larger aid schemes implies a potential
rise in the number of evaluations and thus a rising significance of this data source.
233
Article 21(1) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application
of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty106
provide that ‘Member States shall submit to the
Commission annual reports on all existing aid schemes with regard to which no specific reporting obligations
have been imposed in a conditional decision […]’.
234
The State Aid Scoreboard contains data on explicitly authorised or block-exempted State aid expenditure; it is based
on annual reporting by Member States pursuant to Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) 794/2004
(see
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html
).
228
99
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0100.png
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Estimate
of
customer
benefits resulting from
merger interventions.
Macroeconomic
benefits
modelling using customer
benefits as an input.
Stakeholder surveys on the
perception of enforcement
and policy guidance.
Number of published policy
guidance texts with the
purpose of interpreting
antitrust, merger and State
aid rules in light of market
realities,
contemporary
economic and legal thinking
as well as developments in
the EU Courts' case-law.
Amount of fines imposed in
antitrust, cartel and, merger
decisions.
Amount of unlawful State
aid to be recovered pursuant
to a Commission decision.
'Additionality': Amount of
private
investment
leveraged by individual
State
aid
measures,
according
to
the
counterfactual assessment
made in a Commission
decision (this may either be
'input' additionality (i.e. the
beneficiary invests more
own resources as a result of
the
aid)
or
'output'
additionality
(i.e.
the
beneficiary generates higher
output of eligible activities
as a result of the aid).
Number of Commission
decisions in the field of
antitrust and cartels.
Number of Commission
statements of objections in
the field of antitrust and
cartels.
Impact
Indicator
EUR
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
No target
for 2021-
2027
No target
for 2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-2027
No target
for 2021-
2027
and
Impact
Indicator
Result
Indicator
EUR
Inhouse
Regular
Percentage
Survey
Regular
and
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Output
Indicator
Output
Indicator
EUR
Inhouse
Annual
EUR
Inhouse
Annual
and
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
No target
for 2021-
2027
No target
for 2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-2027
and
Result
Indicator
EUR
Inhouse;
Member
State
reports;
Member
State
evaluations
Regular
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
235
No target
for 2021-
2027
235
It is not meaningful to set numerical targets for competition policy enforcement. Most of the indicators used to
measure the Commission's performance include trends as targets (stable, increase, decrease, no target). On-
going investigation by the Commission is always without prejudice to the final decision to be taken by the
Commission in the case. However, DG Competition, like most competition authorities, provides the number
of decisions (or intervention rate) to indicate the level of activity and output for the preceding year, also for
deterrence purposes. As regards antitrust and cartel enforcement, a target would also depend on factors
beyond the Commission's control (decisions of the parties or other market players to disclose infringements
through the leniency programme, whistleblowing, complaints or the availability of information to the
Commission to detect infringements ex officio). In each and every case, the Commission must fully respect
the rights of defence of the parties. These considerations are also relevant for the following indicators:
Amount of fines imposed in antitrust, cartel and, merger decisions; Number of Commission statements of
objections in the field of antitrust and cartels; Number of Initiation of Proceedings in antitrust cases; Number
of antitrust cases with ongoing monitoring of remedies or commitments.
100
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0101.png
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Number
of
leniency
applications
in
cartel
procedures.
Number of Commission
simplified
and
non-
simplified decisions in the
field of merger control.
Number of Commission
merger decisions subject to
commitments, withdrawals
in phase two, or prohibitions
(i.e. intervention decisions).
Number of merger referral
requests and decisions.
The share of GBER
expenditure
over
total
expenditure on State aid.
The
percentage
of
horizontal State aid of all
aid
in
the
EU.
Number of Commission
decisions in the field of
State aid.
Amounts of State aid
recovered
under
Commission decisions in
the field of State aid.
Number of aids awards
above
EUR
500,000
published in accordance
with
the
State
Aid
Modernisation transparency
requirements.
Number of State aid
measures subject to ex-post
monitoring.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
No target
for 2021-
2027
236
No target
for 2021-
2027
237
No target
for 2021-
2027
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Output
Indicator
Result
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
Percentage
Inhouse
Annual
and
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
and
Result
Indicator
Percentage
Inhouse
Annual
and
Output
Indicator
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
EUR
Inhouse
Annual
and
No target
for 2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
238
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
No target
for 2021-
2027
239
No target
for 2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
240
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Member
State
reporting
Annual
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
241
DG Competition's leniency applications in cartel procedures are driven by the willingness of the cartels' participants
to cooperate and the time they chose to do so. As this is a factor beyond the control of the Commission, no
output target can be set.
237
DG Competition's enforcement activities in the merger area are driven by merger activity on the markets and
notifications by companies. As this is a factor beyond the control of the Commission, no output target can be
set.
238
The trend may reach a plateau before 2027, as the share of GBER expenditure over total State aid expenditure was
already high at the time of writing (97% of all new aid measures being implemented under the GBER,
representing ; about 46 % of total spending (based on average country specific shares to reflect equally
differences in Member States practice).
239
Excluding aid in the field of agriculture. DG Competition's enforcement activities in the State aid area are also
driven by notifications by Member States. As this is a factor beyond the control of the Commission, no
output target can be set.
240
As a cornerstone of its State Aid Modernisation (SAM) initiative, the European Commission has introduced new
transparency requirements concerning state aid granted by Member States to undertakings. For each state aid
award above €500,000, Member States will be required to publish the identity
of the beneficiary, the amount
and objective of the aid and the legal basis. State aid transparency builds on the practice already existing
under European Structural and Investment Funds or the Common Agricultural Policy.
241
The Commission continuously monitors the implementation of state aid measures by Member States. This ex-post
monitoring exercise involves a check of the legal basis and the list of beneficiaries and an evaluation of each
beneficiary, the region in which the beneficiary is located and the principal economic sector in which the
beneficiary has its activities. These requirements also apply mutatis mutandis to ad hoc aid. Such information
must be kept for at least 10 years and must be available to the general public without restrictions.
236
101
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0102.png
State-of-the-art
enforcement
policy guidance
and
Number of State aid
schemes and their annual
budget subject to the
evaluation obligation.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Second specific objective: Boosting internal partnerships
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Number of national judges
trained in EU competition
law for national judges.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Regular
meetings
of
Directors General, the ECN
Plenary, ECN working
groups
and
sectorial
subgroups.
Opinions and amicus curiae
briefs provided to national
courts
concerning
the
application of the EU
antitrust and cartel rules and
replies to requests for
information from courts.
Number of national court
judgments reported to the
Commission by the Member
States.
Regular meetings with the
national
competition
authorities in the Merger
working group.
Number
of
envisaged
decisions signalled to the
Commission under Article
11(4) of Regulation 1/2003.
Number of State aid High-
level fora and SAM-
working group meetings
under
the
multilateral
partnership.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Reports by
Member
States
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Annual
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
242
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
243
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
Boosting
internal
partnerships
Number of sectoral and
thematic working group
meetings under the State aid
multilateral partnership.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
242
internal
Number of country visits
Output
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
Increasing
243
Under Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the
rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty the "Member States shall forward to the
Commission a copy of any written judgment of national courts deciding on the application of Article 81 or
Article 82 of the Treaty. Such copy shall be forwarded without delay after the full written judgment is
notified to the parties."
Article 11(4) states that "No later than 30 days before the adoption of a decision requiring that an infringement be
brought to an end, accepting commitments or withdrawing the benefit of a block exemption Regulation, the
competition authorities of the Member States shall inform the Commission". To that effect, the national
competition authorities shall provide the Commission with inter alia a summary of the case.
102
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0103.png
partnerships
under the bilateral State aid
cooperation.
Indicator
defined
in 2020
trend for
2021-
2027
Third specific objective: Boosting external partnerships
Boosting
external
partnerships
Number of contributions by
the
Commission
to
increased
international
convergence of competition
policy to multilateral fora
(International Competition
Network (ICN), OECD and
UNCTAD).
Number
of
technical
assistance
workshops
organised
by
the
Commission with third
countries with a view to
increased
international
convergence of competition
policy.
Number of cooperation
cases
where
the
Commission
cooperates
with other third country
competition authorities in
merger and antitrust cases.
Number of third country
competition authorities the
Commission
cooperates
with on average per case.
Number of working visits to
third country authorities
with a view to increased
international convergence of
competition
policy.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
external
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
external
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Boosting
external
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
To be
defined
in 2020
Boosting
external
partnerships
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Fourth specific objective: Wider stakeholder outreach
Wider
stakeholder
outreach
Number of outreach actions
to raise awareness of EU
competition policy.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
Wider
stakeholder
outreach
Number
of
people/organisations
reached
with
outreach
actions aimed at raising
awareness
of
EU
competition policy.
Percentage
of
positive
replies in opinion surveys
agreeing
that
effective
competition has a positive
impact on consumers.
Output
Indicator
Number
Inhouse
Annual
To be
defined
in 2020
Wider
stakeholder
outreach
Result
Indicator
Percentage
Survey
Regular
To be
defined
in 2020
Increasing
trend for
2021-
2027
103
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
104
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0105.png
Annex 5: Programme specific annex on
IT and business
solutions for the Single Market
1.
Introduction: Political and legal context
1.1.
Scope and context
The Co
issio 's efle tio pape o the EU's fi a es o side s digital t a s atio al
et o ks as a ajo a ea of EU added alue , hi h o ple e ts a tio s al ead e isti g at
national level. As stated in the paper,
the EU of 27 will fa e a wide range
of challenges in the
period leading up to 2025 and eyond. .
A o g the , the digital t a sfo atio
ill
undoubtedly evolve and continue for decades to come.
The programme described in this annex and which accompanies the master impact assessment
relati
g to a e
I te al Ma ket P og a
e fo the e
ulti-annual
financial framework
aims at ensuring that digital is harnessed and enables a faster and efficient achievement of the
envisaged policy goals and its associated impact while promoting operational mutual
recognition between involved entities at different levels. .
In a global context where connectedness is the norm, the cross-border aspects are on the rise.
A functioning Single Market significantly relies on information exchanges between authorities.
Whether, for academic qualifications recognition when going abroad to study, or for
transparent electronic identification for setting up a business online, the data dimension is a
crucial element that enables, in practice, the smooth free movement of data, goods, services
and capital.
The Tallinn declaration
244
, adopted by the members of the Council in 2017, also underlines the
importance of both implementing the Digital Single Market by 2020 and adopting the main
eGovernment principles, such as
i te ope a ilit
desig .
Against that background, the new programme should build on the results achieved by both the
ISA Programme for 2010-2015, and the current programme ISA
2
, and be coherent with both the
Tallinn Declaration and the Council conclusions on the eGovernment Action Plan
245
. It should be
in line with the recommendations made by the previous evaluations of these programmes and
take i to a ou t the afo e e tio ed digital t a sfo atio " a d the asso iated data
ecosystem as an important exogenous factor.
244
245
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ministerial-declaration-egovernment-tallinn-declaration
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12359-2016-INIT/en/pdf
105
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0106.png
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
The relevant findings can be tracked back to the IDABC
246
and the ISA programme
247
. These
programmes and its successor (ISA
2
) are the main spending instruments through which DIGIT
supports EU Member States.
The final evaluation of the ISA programme
248,249
confirmed that ISA tied in with other EU
initiatives in the areas of internal market, competition law, geo-spatial data (INSPIRE
250
),
maritime domain (CISE
251
), and open data (Pan European Open Data Portal
252
). However, the
strategy taken by ISA to ensure coherence with other EU initiatives is not apparent to its
stakeholders.
The final evaluation of the previous ISA Programme
253
was largely positive, describing the ISA
programme as aligned with the policy priorities of the European Commission and the needs of
Member States were implemented efficiently and coherently, delivering results that are reused
by both Commission services and Member States.
Nevertheless, the evaluation report also highlights some shortcomings and makes
recommendations to:
put more emphasis on legal and organisational interoperability, while continuing the
current ISA activities;
support the implementation of the European Interoperability Strategy and Framework;
update and implement a communication strategy for the programme, with a focus on
targeted engagement including sector-specific stakeholders;
develop a more systematic business-case approach;
Those points have been definitely improved in the current ISA2 programme. However, it can be
pointed out as lessons learned from the current programme,
a) The need to further engage the stakeholders, mainly policy domain owners and major
national Member States administrations, in the very beginning once a proposal is
conceptualised. Those stakeholders should then be involved during the whole lifecycle of
the definition and implementation of solutions; starting from the capturing and definition of
the business requirements, to the testing, adoption and integration of the solutions in the IT
systems of the concerned MS.
246
IDABC stands for Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public Administrations, Businesses
and Citizens.
247
Decision 2004/387/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on interoperable delivery of
pan-European eGovernment services to public administrations, businesses and citizens (IDABC), OJ L 144,
30.4.2004 (See OJ L 181, 18.5.2004, p. 25.
248
COM(2016) 550 final, Final evaluation of the ISA Programme Annexes
249
COM(2016) 550 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Results of the final
evaluation of the ISA programme, Brussels, 1.9.2016
250
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/
251
https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/common-information-sharing-environment-cise
252
https://www.europeandataportal.eu/
253
SWD(2016) 279 - Final evaluation of the ISA programme
106
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0107.png
b) The use of pilots with the MS where they can tailor and test in the field how to integrate
and benefit from the adoption ISA2 funded solutions has proved to be quite successful for
both sides (the solution owner and the user Member State).
c) Data interoperability appears to be a key unlocking factor for effective cross-border
exchanges. Although technical considerations need to be addressed, the main challenges
seem to revolve around semantic, legal and organisational alignment between exchanging
entities and their authoritative sources of data.
d) Furthermore, technical support and consultancy services in the field could be given to
selected national administrations to better understand what are the main business needs of
the MS towards to implement an efficient Internal Market.
More recently, the European Commission commissioned a study
254
to examine how
interoperability and eGovernemt are tackled in the European Semester Process. The study, that
took a deeper look at 2016 Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs), National Reform
Programmes (NRPs), as well as national Operational Programmes (OPs), highlighted some
recommendations that are relevant for the context at stake:
DIGIT shall take into account the main challenges of Member States in implementing
specific EU legislation.
DIGIT shall continue complementing the work done under the European Semester process,
and in particular, the CSRs produced by the Commission, with the results of the ISA2
programmes.
A portfolio of solutions ready-to-use
ased o the Eu opea Se este s p io ities should e
p oposed to Me e States ad i ist atio s th ough ISA a o pa i g easu es.
Messages received from various stakeholders confirm the above statements:
In the Tallinn declaration
255
, Member States call
upo the Co
digital o side atio s i to e isti g a d futu e poli a d egulato
above)
issio to full i teg ate
i itiati es . See lesso
During Interim evaluation of the ISA Programme (2013), the majority of stakeholders
perceived synergies as generally not well established and sometimes overlapping, which
some stakeholders attribute to the lack of information communicated to stakeholders, the
lack of synergies identified in the programme and the lack of a control mechanism to ensure
the reuse of ISA solutions. The issue regarding duplication of efforts and overlaps among EU
initiatives was also confirmed by the interim evaluation of the
Competitiveness and
Innovation Programme (CIP) - ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT-PSP)
256
. This evaluation
mentioned that the possible overlap of the objectives of the ICT PSP Programme and the
IDABC Programme (ISA predecessor) was a serious concern.
Study on the main actions, plans and funding priorities of Member States towards the modernisation of Public
Administrations - ISA2 action 2016.21
255
Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment - the Tallinn Declaration
–
signed on 6/10/2017
256
CIP ICT-PSP Interim Evaluation, ICT PSP, May 2009.
254
107
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0108.png
At the ISA2 Committee meeting of 24/01/2018, Member States called for practical use cases
and pilots (See lesson b) above)
Study "Outcomes and benefits of ISA² Action SEMIC", recommended:
o
o
o
o
o
Continue focusing on communication and awareness-raising;
Promote data standards;
Provide solutions for increased and sustainable data quality;
Support the tools and approaches that lead to high-quality public services;
Promote data governance and management practices in public administrations.
2.
THE OBJECTIVES
2.1.
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
In the light of new emerging technologies, the increasing abundance of open data and growing
connectivity between citizens, businesses and governments in Europe, adopting interoperable
ICT solutions and information processing dimensions is becoming increasingly important.
Entities involved in smooth running of the Internal Market can no longer fulfil their mission
properly if they do not harness ICT to streamline their internal processes, redesign service
delivery and put citizens and businesses at the core of policy-making, whilst relying on
interconnected, interoperable networks and systems where data flows are mutually
understood. The successful implementation of ISA² should lead to the reduction of the
administrative burden on citizens and businesses to enable their interactions with public
authorities to be faster, more convenient and less costly and increase the overall efficiency and
the quality of public services.
ISA
2
Programme
The ISA
2
programme, by expanding and consolidating the activities of the ISA programmes, aims
to facilitate cross-border or cross-sector interactions between European public administrations,
businesses and citizens and to contribute to the development of a more effective and efficient
e-administration at different levels, i.e. national, local and regional
257
. To achieve this, the
programme should promote the implementation of interoperability solutions and facilitate their
uptake.. A financial envelope of EUR 131 million is available for the implementation of the ISA
2
programme between 2016 and 2020.
While the ISA
2
third annual work programme for 2018 is currently under preparation, its second
work programme for 2017, with a budget of EUR 25.5 million, contains 36 actions grouped
around nine different clusters. The nine clusters of action are: key and generic interoperability
enablers (EUR 5.4 million), information interoperability (EUR 1.8 million), access to data (EUR
3.5 million), geospatial solutions (EUR 2.2 million), eProcurement (EUR 2.1 million), supporting
257
SWD(2016) 279 final Commission Staff Working Document Final evaluation of the ISA programme, Annexes,
Brussels, 1.9.2016.
108
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0109.png
instruments for decision making and legislation (EUR 2.6 million), supporting instruments for EU
policies (EUR 3.6 million), supporting instruments for public administrations (EUR 3.5 million),
and accompanying measures (EUR 0.7 million)
258
. If successfully implemented, the actions of the
ISA
2
programme should lead to:
More efficient and effective access to information across borders when establishing
European Public Services;
Easier discovery and understanding of the available public services related to business or
life events;
Cost savings and improved efficiency thanks to sharing and reuse of available solutions
and interoperability of information exchange at European, national, regional or local
level;
Reduction of the administrative burden imposed to legal persons for performing
transactions with the governments
Fostering of eParticipation;
Easier access to and sharing of open government data.
Key Challenges & Priorities
The European Union needs to address new political priorities and emerging challenges in order
to ensure a secure, integrated and sustainable digital single market.
Even though the overall eGovernment
259
and interoperability performance
260
is moving in the
right direction, additional efforts are required , in particular regarding the provision of effective
IT solutions and information processing for the efficient implementation of EU policies and
legislations, and the improvement of smooth cooperation between Internal Market players and
authorities.
The European Commission (DIGIT) should work closely with Member States and other sectors
contributing to the completion of the internal market..
1. Identify, develop, pilot, deploy, maintain and promote the enablers that would support
the Internal Market programme objectives;
Member States confirmed their commitment to implementing the eGovernment principles
in the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment
261
. The implementation of eGovernment
p i iples ill fa ilitate Me e States a ilit to gi e high ualit , digital pu li se i es to
both citizens and businesses. The new programme should provide practical results when it
comes to involving the needs of citizens and businesses in the co-creation of digital
solutions.
2. facilitate sharing and re-use of solutions and best practices between Internal Market
players;
258
259
https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/actions_en
eGovernment Benchmark 2017, Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in
Europe, FINAL INSIGHT REPORT
–
VOLUME 1, DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology.
260
State of Play of Interoperability
–
Report 2016, DIGIT.
261
Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment at the ministerial meeting during Estonian Presidency of the Council of the EU
on 6 October 2017.
109
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0110.png
3. ensure the promotion and uptake of the digital elements and their associated
communities that contribute to an efficient Internal Market programme;
4. undertake the necessary activities to ensure digital aspects are harnessed by design into
Internal Market activities and optimally benefit citizens, businesses and
administrations.
As confirmed by stakeholder consultations, it is important for public administrations to
transform their internal processes and accelerate their ability to adopt digital transformation
efficiently. ICT should be harnessed in order to improve the efficiency of processes and delivery
of services in sectors such as, such as e-Procurement, eInvoicing
262
, eHealth
263
, eJustice
264
and
digital transportation. For example, in order to fully enforce the EU competition law, it is
essential to further intensify and deepen the cooperation between the Commission and the
national competition authorities by adopting state-of-the-art, interoperable IT solutions
allo i g fo the s ift a d se u e e ha ge a d p o essi g of data. Rega di g this data
dimension, the ability to safely exchange, process and optimise the usage of the information
flows supporting the Internal Market is a core element that spans across the whole Internal
Market portfolio.
To this end, the new programme should build on the current achievements of ISA
2
and other
initiatives under the current MFF, but also build more synergies
265
within the Internal Market in
order to address the digital skills gaps
266
, to promote the use of open data
267
and to harness new
technologies (artificial intelligence, blockchain and big data) that would ensure enhanced
effectiveness in policy goals
268
.
Challenges
Empowerment
of citizens,
consumers and
Programme/line
businesses
IT and business
solutions for the
Single Market
Administrative
cooperation and
integration
among Member
States
√
Rule-making,
standard setting
and enforcement
at EU institutions
level
√
Health as a
resources for the
society and the
internal market
√
√
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
Directive 2014/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic invoicing in public procurement,
06.05.2014.
263
Draft Council Conclusions 14078/17 on Health in the Digital Society
–
making progress in data-driven innovation
in the field of health, Brussels, 28 November 2017.
264
Ares(2017)5947429 Inception Impact Assessment, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the
courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, Directorate-General for
Justice and Consumers.
265
As several previous evaluations of ISA and IDABC, EU Council Conclusions, European Parliament Resolutions
have shown and upcoming European Commission initiatives foresee.
266
We refer to the Digital Single Market supporting programme that will be led by CNECT.
267
COM(2017) 9 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Building a European Data Economy.
268
Council Conclusions EUCO 14/17 European Council Meeting, Brussels 19 October 2017.
262
110
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0111.png
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
The general objectives of this initiative are
To support the efforts of the Member States and European Institutions in modernising
and digitising the public sector organisations at all levels
269
.
To provide inclusive and user-friendly end-to-end digital public services and processes
to all citizens and businesses in the Union
270
.
To contribute to the reduction of administrative burden by promoting administrative
cooperation, interoperability through digital means and user engagement to allow
citizens and businesses to enjoy user-centred services that address their needs.
To ensure that policy makers in the EU have the necessary capabilities for making more
evidence-informed policies, deciding rapidly between alternative options and better
monitoring implementation.
The specific objectives of this initiative are:
To facilitate the engagement and participation of public, private and civil society
stakeholders in policy-making and collaborative public service design, co-creation and
delivery.
To identify, develop, pilot, deploy, maintain and promote the digital enablers that
would support the Internal Market programme objectives and facilitate information
exchanges at all levels;
To facilitate sharing and re-use of solutions and best practices between Internal Market
players;
To ensure the promotion and uptake of the digital elements and their associated
communities that contribute to an efficient Internal Market programme;
To undertake the necessary activities to ensure digital aspects are harnessed by design
into Internal Market activities and optimally benefit citizens, businesses and
administrations
Challenges
Empowerment
of citizens,
consumers and
Programme/line
businesses
1. To support the
efforts of the
269
270
The publication
of open
Administrative
cooperation and
integration
among Member
States
The provision of
IT tools to public
Rule-making,
standard setting
and enforcement
at EU institutions
level
Health as a
resources for the
society and the
internal market
The digitisation,
adoption of
Public administrations and public institutions in the European Union.
COM (2016) 179 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU eGovernment Action Plan
2016-2020, Brussels, 19.4.2016.
111
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0112.png
Challenges
Empowerment
of citizens,
consumers and
Programme/line
businesses
Member States
and European
Institutions in
modernising and
digitising the
public sector
organisations at
all levels
government data
will allow easier
access to
information.
Administrative
cooperation and
integration
among Member
States
authorities
(building on the
results of ISA
2
and other
programmes)
will strengthen
administrative
and judicial
cooperation.
Rule-making,
standard setting
and enforcement
at EU institutions
level
Health as a
resources for the
society and the
internal market
common
standards and
interoperability
will affect all
sectors,
including
healthcare.
Health sector in
particular, can
benefit from
more efficient
internal
processes, better
information
sharing, and
communication
with patients.
2. To provide
inclusive and
user-friendly
end-to-end
digital public
services and
processes to all
citizens and
businesses in the
Union
3. To contribute
to the reduction
of administrative
burden
by
promoting
administrative
cooperation,
interoperability
through digital
means and user
engagement to
allow
citizens
and businesses
to enjoy user-
centred services
eParticipation
tools will support
the
representation
of itize s
interests.
eProcurement
will facilitate the
functioning of
the internal
market and the
interactions with
businesses.
Will lead to
increased
sharing and
reuse of
standardised
open data,
benefiting other
public
administrations,
businesses and
citizens.
The provision of
IT tools to public
authorities
(building on the
results of ISA2)
will strengthen
and simplify
administrative
and judicial
cooperation.
112
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0113.png
Challenges
Empowerment
of citizens,
consumers and
Programme/line
businesses
that
address
their needs.
4. To ensure that
policy makers in
the EU have the
necessary
capabilities for
making
more
evidence-
informed
policies, deciding
rapidly between
alternative
options
and
better
monitoring
implementation.
The abundance
of open data and
the use of data
analytics will
contribute to
better policy
making.
Administrative
cooperation and
integration
among Member
States
Rule-making,
standard setting
and enforcement
at EU institutions
level
Health as a
resources for the
society and the
internal market
The assessment
of ICT
implications will
ensure that
policy making
takes into
account ICT and
the latest
technological
developments.
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
To accelerate the transformation of the European society, the deployment of cross-border,
cross-domain digital solutions (e.g. for secure cross-border exchange of information between
authorities, for the delivery of online public services to citizens and/or business, for information
p o essi g… eeds to e pu sued a d the take-up
must be supported at all levels of public
administrations.
From the business processes, to the data that need to be stored, exchanged and retrieved, or to
the applications used to execute these processes, an effective Single Market entails unavoidably
the development of new ICT solutions or the adaptation of existing ones.
In order to support such digital aspects of the Single Market Programme, the proposed
p og a
e the efo e o sists of a f a e o k ith th ee ai st u tu al ele e ts st a ds
Interoperability, sharing & reuse - Information Processing - Digital Solutions & Services
I.
Interoperability, sharing & reuse
As stipulated i the T eaties of the Eu opea U io EU , the EU s i te al a ket
gua a tees fou f eedo s
- the free movement of goods, capital, services and people
between the 28 Member States.
Common policies supported by interconnected, interoperable networks and systems
ensure these freedoms. People are free to work and relocate and businesses are free to
113
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
trade and operate in all EU Member States. In doing so, they inevitably have to interact
electronically with Member State public administrations and authorities who in turn
need to cooperate. Public administrations themselves have to be able to exchange data.
Ensuring such ability to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, involving the sharing
of information and knowledge is at the core of interoperability at large.
The main activities under this strain will aim at establishing and promoting the use of
common specifications, interoperability solutions, common frameworks and the
necessary governance structures for sharing and reuse. Liaison with broader digital
programmes that having a more ambitious and generic interoperability scope will be
ensured and the necessary adaptation/specialisation for the Internal Market context
will be implemented.
Establishing interoperability between different Member States and sectors within the
scope of the Single Market initiatives will also contribute to productivity gains through
the reuse of solutions and to reducing the digital heterogeneity that puts at risk the
digital single market.
II.
Information Processing
Any Single Market initiative shares the Information Society traits where the creation,
distribution, use, integration and manipulation of information are unavoidable
activities.
For example, Industrial installations and aircraft operators have to report on CO2
emissions under the Emissions Trading System. In the same vein, Airline companies
have to report to law enforcement authorities on passengers' data to prevent terrorism
and National authorities have to exchange information on criminal records. Contracting
authorities have to publish notices and data on their public procurement activities. All
these examples illustrate some information processing activities that most probably rely
on digital means.
This strand will foster activities like collection, storage, retrieval, consultation, filtering,
exchange, analysis or reporting, etc. of any kind of meaningful data (text, image or
video) in the scope of the Single Market.
III.
Business, citizens and public Adminsitrations Solutions and Services
Whenever "information is processed" under the Single Market, it is likely that some sort
of business processes will have to be established or modified. The subsequent mixture
of automated and non-automated (e.g. paper based) processes will undoubtable rely on
any sort of digital solution (a new surveillance system gathering seismic information
from distributed sensors; the sectorial specialisation of existing generic digital building
blocks; digital transformation of public procurement).
Against this background, the activities under this strain will ensure the sufficient design,
piloting and uptake of digital solutions that are fit-for-purpose and reusable. It will
ensure that generic digital services are adapted to the specific needs of the Internal
Market while securing compliance with mainstream digital policies and IT corporate
114
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0115.png
standards. Generic digital building blocks might therefore be combined to offer fit-for-
purpose Internal Market solutions.
Advisory capabilities, providing support services and technical assistance for effective
implementation will further complement the envisaged package and facilitate the
uptake of the solutions by the Member States.
Given that technology is constantly evolving and that it is unlocking innovative ways to
efficiently tackle Single Market challenges (e.g. block-chain, Artificial Intelligence, Mixed
ealit , Big Data A al ti s… , e su i g that su h te h ologi al p og ess e efits the
Single Market completion and smooth functioning will equally be an integral part of this
strain.
Legal basis
The legal basis for the new programme is Article 172
271
(ex Article 156 TEC) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as was the case for previous programmes. Under this
article and Article 170, the EU can implement measures to ensure the interoperability of
networks, in the field of technical standardisation for example, and may also allocate funding to
projects of common interest supported by Member States.
Subsidiarity principle
According to the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5(3) of the TFEU
272
, actions at EU
level may only be taken if the envisaged aims cannot be achieved sufficiently by the Member
States alone and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed actions, be
better achieved by the EU.
Like the previous programmes (i.e. IDA, IDABC, ISA and ISA
2
), and given the trans-national
character of the proposed action, the principle of subsidiarity applies as the programme falls
under the shared competence of the European Union.
Member States are primarily responsible for modernising and digitising their administrations at
national and sub-national levels. However, some countries are still lagging behind in terms of
eGovernment, interoperability, and process & organisation maturity and performance. All these
factors may adversely affect the establishment and functioning of the internal market. EU action
is needed to support the Member States in improving their performance, as well as operational
capabilities, within and across borders.
In particular, cross-border exchanges of information between administrative or law
enforcement authorities, cannot by their very nature, be solely decided by Member States
acting alone, since more than one Member State is involved. This can be only achieved through
the creation of common or interconnected information systems, standards & specifications or
services at Union level. Even if these are in place or in the process of established by ISA
2
, CEF
and other Commission standardisation initiatives, there is a need for improved interoperability
and efficiency, which calls for concerted action at EU level.
271
C 326/13 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, Part Three Union Policies and Internal
Actions, 26.10.2012.
272
C 326/13 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, 26.10.2012.
115
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0116.png
As the programme will also ensure EU coordination on collaborative public service design, co-
creation and delivery, there is a clear scope for the application of the subsidiarity principle in
this EU action.
Proportionality principle
In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) of the TFEU
273
, the
new programme will not go beyond what is necessary in order to support the Single Market
through enhanced interoperability, standardisation and
ad i ist atio s i eased ope atio al
capabilities.
Given the legal basis of the ISA
2
programme
274
and the fact that the new programme does not
deviate but builds upon and expands the priorities of the ISA
2
programme, this programme
complies with the principle of proportionality.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
The current funding mechanism of the ISA
2
is direct procurement by the European
Commission
275
. In practice, the Work Programme is agreed via comitology but the
implementation of subsequent actions is distributed amongst Commission Services that rely on
procurement for implementation. This procurement that relies on existing framework contracts
or new call for tenders can take the shape of full outsourcing (complete delivery done outside)
or co-sourcing (i.e.: via external consultants on premise for delivery).
For the activities that entail a policy dimension, the work is carried out internally by European
Commission officials.
In addition to the above delivery modes, the current ISA2 programme is envisaging to partially
rely on grants (possibly 1/3
rd
of its spending budget), given that lessons learnt have pointed to
the lack of financial incentives for interoperability uptake and have suggested harnessing such
financial incentives.
When it comes to the ambition of the future " - IT and business solutions for the Single Market
" Programme, it is clear that the delivery mix highlighted below will be the most appropriated
options as:
- Direct Procurement via Framework contracts only would hamper a close Policy drive and limit
incentives for uptake;
- Regular Procurement only (i.e.: tendering) might not allow relying on the available expertise
distributed amongst the European Commission services;
- Internal implementation only might take away the focus on the Policy Delivery goals and
amount to a negative return on investment compared to partial outsourcing/procurement
besides leaving untapped the market potential for innovative options, for instance;
273
274
C 326/13 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, 26.10.2012.
C 326/13 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, Part Three Union Policies and Internal
Actions, 26.10.2012.
275
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-future-eu-finances_en
116
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0117.png
In addition to these aspects, relying on Executive agencies is a relevant consideration for some
specific aspects:
- Provided that there is sufficient critical mass for a positive return, the "grants" management
would benefit from being delegated to such an Agency while the programming component
would remain at Directorate-General level to ensure a policy drive.
- Similarly, the procurement aspects might be positive candidates for Agency externalisation
and might lead to positive economies of scales for bulk, mechanistic and mature activities;
-
Fo i te al "ope atio al ele e ts/fu tio s" IT tools, Audit Se i es … fo hi h the e a e
mature common approaches and sufficiently aligned rules with marginal business specificities,
relying on a Common Support Centre is an approach that seems favourable and
synergy/efficiency friendly.
I additio to the a o e optio s, a d although the sha ed a age e t
ode has ot ee
retained, it is worth noting that its contribution is crucial to ensure effective delivery of the
envisaged objectives and associated policies. Against this background, strong cohesion with the
EC Services and business portfolios relying on this shared delivery mode would need to be
ensured at governance levels (for example via complementary ex-ante conditionality in the
national operational programmes).
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
It is important to regularly monitor and evaluate the new programme to assess whether its
objectives continue to meet the identified stakeholder needs. The evaluation of the -
IT and
business solutions for the Single Market Programme should examine the relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, and utility, including stakeholder perceived quality and satisfaction
with the programme, as well as sustainability and both internal and external coherence of the
p og a
e s a tio s.
The evaluations must examine the benefits of the actions for the identified stakeholders and
thei ohe e e ith othe EU i itiati es a d the Eu opea Co
issio s
ajo p io ities
276
.
When evaluating the impact and the involvement of stakeholders of the programme, it is
important to take into account the standardisation organisations, researchers and the private
sector, especially SMEs, where relevant.
The evaluations will also verify synergies with other EU programmes and initiatives, in particular
with other synergetic programmes that complement the Digital landscape (e.g.: CEF2; Digital
Eu ope P og a
e… . Both a i te i a d a fi al e aluatio of the e p og a
e ill eed
to take place, respectively, 3 and 6 years following its inception. As was the case with the ISA
programme, the interim evaluation of this proposed programme might not be able to capture
all of the aforementioned dimensions, such as utility, as not all aspects of the programme might
have had a significant impact on the programme stakeholders during this initial period of
analysis.
276
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities_en
117
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Furthermore, the evaluations shall assess the performance of the -
IT
and
business
solutions for the Single Market for Citizens and Business Programme against its objectives as
spe ified i the spe ifi o je ti es se tio . The a hie e e t a d the i pa t of p og a
es
objectives could be monitored through the many indicators such as:
the level of awareness and reuse of the interoperability solutions in line with the
priority on Interoperability, Sharing & Reuse;
the level of awareness and implementation of the European Interoperability
Framework in line with the priority on the Interoperability, Sharing & Reuse;
the numbers of supporting instruments for public administrations delivered and used in
line with the priority on the Interoperability, Sharing & Reuse;
the amount of data collected and processed and the reuse of the data shared, where
possible, in line with the priority of Information Processing;
the number of times public administrations stated that they took into account the
guidance on the sufficient design and uptake of digital solutions in line with the priority
of Digital Solutions & Services.
Moreover, the evaluations shall contain, where applicable, information regarding the qualitative
and quantitative assessment of the digital solutions offered by the programme.
More detailed indicators for measuring the result and impact of the specific actions of the
programme shall be defined in the annual work programme. More specifically, the measures
p oposed fo the e aluatio of the p og a
e s a tio
ight e st u tu ed i the follo i g
categories:
Process metrics (e.g. cost, risks, time)
–
metrics specifically related to the efficiency of
the management of the programme;
Generic metrics (applicable to all actions, e.g. evaluation of the policy impact,
stakeholder involvement)
Action specific metrics
–
metrics specifically related to the effectiveness and impact of
the programme actions.
The monitoring of the programme will take place on a quarterly basis and will aim to assess the
following:
Qualitative achievements of individual actions of the programme (e.g. publication of
studies, update of solutions, etc.);
Effectiveness monitoring of the individual actions of the programme (e.g. Number of
downloads of core vocabularies, number of stakeholder communication activities,
number of legal solutions assessed, etc.);
Assess e t of ho the p og a
e a tio s
eet use s
eeds;
Identification of any risks and issues associated with the execution of the programme.
118
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0119.png
It is suggested to mainly rely on the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO)
community as a key and primary source of monitoring intelligence. The table below provides
nonetheless an initial set of indicators mapped against the specific objectives of the
programme.
Specific
Objective
Indicator
Definitio
n
Unit of
measurem
ent
Source
of data
Frequency
of
measurem
ent
Yearly
Baselin
e
Target
To facilitate
the
engagement
and
participation
of
public,
private
and
civil
society
stakeholders
in
policy-
making and
collaborative
public service
design,
co-
creation and
delivery.
The
Output
number
of users
of
IT
Solutions
under
the
Internal
Market
Program
me that
have a
direct
Public
facing
dimensio
ns
User
Output
centricit
y score
of some
public
facing
Digital
Solutions
number
Interna
l-
Tbd in Increasin
2020
g trend
for 2021-
2027
To facilitate
the
engagement
and
participation
of
public,
private
and
civil
society
stakeholders
in
policy-
making and
collaborative
public service
design,
co-
creation and
delivery.
To facilitate
the
engagement
and
Number/b
enchmarki
ng
Externa
lly
conduc
ted
evaluat
ion
Yearly
Tbd in Increasin
2020
g trend
for 2021-
2027
Number Output
of data
sets that
have
Number
tbd
Yearly
Tbd in Increasin
2020
g trend
for 2021-
119
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0120.png
participation
of
public,
private
and
civil
society
stakeholders
in
policy-
making and
collaborative
public service
design,
co-
creation and
delivery.
To
identify,
develop, pilot,
deploy,
maintain and
promote the
digital
enablers that
would support
the Internal
Market
programme
objectives and
facilitate
information
exchanges at
all levels;
To
identify,
develop, pilot,
deploy,
maintain and
promote the
digital
enablers that
would support
the Internal
Market
programme
objectives and
facilitate
information
exchanges at
all levels;
To ensure the
promotion
and uptake of
the
digital
been
produce
d/publis
hed in
open
standard
s
2027
Number
of digital
assets/c
ompone
nts that
have
been
develope
d/reused
/uptake
number
Ideally yearly
Join-up
unless
impossi
ble for
securit
y
purpos
es.
Tbd in Increase
2020
in reuse
rate;
Number results
of
successf
ul cross-
border
pilots
launched
number
Particip
ants
Survey
+
interna
l
18 months
tbd
Success
rate
increase
Number
of
conferen
ces/enga
Output
Number
Interna
l-
Yearly
Tbd in Increasin
2020
g trend
for 2021-
120
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0121.png
elements and
their
associated
communities
that
contribute to
an
efficient
Internal
Market
programme;
To ensure the
promotion
and uptake of
the
digital
elements and
their
associated
communities
that
contribute to
an
efficient
Internal
Market
programme;
To facilitate
sharing and
re-use
of
solutions and
best practices
between
Internal
Market
players;
gement
initiative
s around
Single
Market
digital
elements
2027
Reuse of Result
Single
Market
digital
assets
(core
vocabula
ry;
building
block,
framewo
k…
Number
NIFO
Yearly
survey
combin
ed with
joined-
up and
possibl
e
results
of
technic
al
assista
nce
Tbd in Uptake
2020
increase
Extent to Result
which
Member
States
include
the
principle
s of the
Europea
n
Sharing
and
Reuse
Framew
ork
in
their
policies
at
national
level
Extent to output
which
ICT
is
taken
Number
–
NIFO
Every 18 Tbd in
scale 0 to Questi months
2020
12
onnaire
,
Nation
al
Interop
erabilit
y
Frame
work
Observ
atory
Increase
in scale
compare
d
to
previous
baseline
To undertake
the necessary
activities
to
ensure digital
Number
NIFO
Questi
onnaire
,
TBD in 100% at
2020
the end
of
the
program
121
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0122.png
aspects
are
harnessed by
design
into
Internal
Market
activities and
optimally
benefit
citizens,
businesses
and
administration
s
into
account
when
preparin
g
new
Internal
Market
related
legislatio
n
Nation
al
Interop
erabilit
y
Frame
work
Observ
atory
me
122
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0123.png
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
6.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
For the purpose of completing the Impact Assessment, various data sources, both primary and
secondary were consulted. In order to piece together the legal and political context of the new
initiative, to identify the main lessons learn from previous initiatives as well as the main
challenges and priorities of the new programme, a long list of secondary sources was compiled.
The secondary sources analysed for the impact assessment included relevant EU legislation,
relevant non-binding European initiatives (including Communications, Strategies, Action Plans,
etc.), upcoming EU initiatives (such as proposals for regulation and inception impact
assessments), relevant Council Conclusions and European Parliament Resolutions, and interim
and final evaluations of the relevant programmes, such as ISA, IDABC, and CEF. In order to
obtain an overarching image of the state-of-play of digital government at the European level
initiatives and legislations initiated by various DGs, including DIGIT, DG CONNECT, DG GROW,
DG JUST, DG HOME, DG MOVE, were analysed. This helped to ensure that the identified political
priorities and challenges of the programme were in coherence with the ongoing initiatives
related to digital government at EU level.
Fu the o e, i o de to fu the assess Me e States eeds i the a ea of digital go e
e t
and to put forward the priorities of Digital Public Administrations for Citizens and Business,
publications of the European Commission as well as internal studies shedding light on the topic
of digital government in Europe were consulted
277
. This complemented the policy priorities and
challenges identified in the analysed official EU texts.
I o de to st e gthe the elia ilit of the ide tified p io ities a d Me e States eeds,
primary data from identified digital government stakeholders was collected. Interviews were
also conducted in the field of digital Public Administration. Interviewees included Bulgarian,
Italian and French Member State representatives working in the digital government domain,
Open Forum Europe, representing the civil society perspective, members of the academia and
think tanks, digital government expert working in OECD as well as Digital Europe. The different
perspectives and areas of expertise of the consulted stakeholders allowed to further refining
programme priorities. More detailed information on the interviewees can be found in the Sub-
Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment.
277
Such as Study on the main actions, plans and funding priorities of Member States towards the modernisation of
Public Administrations - ISA2 action 2016.21, SC117 EIS Action Review Background Document, State of
Play of Interoperability in Europe report 2016, eGovernment Benchmark Report, yearly eGovernment
factsheets, Big Data Analytics for Policy Making report, Outcomes and benefits of ISA² Action SEMIC,
among others.
123
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
Besides the cluster Open Public Consultation of the Internal Market programme, takeholders in
the digital government domain were consulted through interviews. The interviews focused on
gathe i g i te ie ees pe spe ti es o the i po ta e of digital go e
e t fo Me e
States, Me e States e isti g halle ges a d futu e p io ities to deli e digital go e
e t,
lessons learnt from previous European Commission initiatives in the digital government domain
and its future role to support Member States in this domain
–
most of them being relevant for
the Internal Market pruposes.
Digital Government as a priority in the EU
All consulted stakeholders unanimously agreed that the role of digital technologies is crucial for
the transformation of public administration. There was also widespread agreement that digital
transformation is seen as a political priority across EU, as Member States increasingly recognise
the magnitude and the importance of digital transformation.
Me
er States’ halle ges
The interviewees identified multiple challenges that Member States face. The list below
summarises the most recurring ones:
Need to
overcome legacy processes and infrastructures.
According to the stakeholders,
citizen-driven cross-border digital public service delivery can only be realised if public
sector operations and decision-making processes are transformed to overcome
constraints of legacy systems and analogue structures and systems. E.g. the Bulgarian
digital infrastructure dates back to 1970s.
Need to
ensure inclusiveness of digital services
and digital government more broadly
by
improving the digital skills of both citizens and civil servants.
It is important to focus
on the digital skills of civil servants, as they will be ultimately responsible for delivering
and implementing digital government. It is equally important to improve digital skills of
citizens to ensure that they can benefit from digital government;
Need to
overcome the initial costs of digitisation,
especially for the Member States
that are lagging behind when it comes to digitisation. Upgrading systems and
infrastructures to ensure interoperability and to achieve the smooth exchange of data
between public administrations is a costly process and several Member States require
support in order to realise this.
e States
halle ges
ee
e tio ed, ut o a less f e ue t
I additio , the follo i g Me
scale:
Inefficient of no use of public data
–
there is still a lack of sharing and reuse of open
data across EU, despite the fact that data will be at the core of public sector
transformation;
Lack of implementation of digital government priorities at the local level;
124
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Continuous lack of legal and semantic interoperability, preventing cross border
administrative cooperation and delivery of digital public services;
Need for a broader mentality shift at the political level of what public sector will look
like in the future. There is a need for a better understanding and more professionals in
the digital government domain at the political level in order to drive the transformation
forward.
Role that the EU could play
The Commission should continue to focus on providing support to, and coordination of efforts
among, Member States to strengthen back office and internal processes of the public sector and
it should continue to work on achieving common standards in the EU. The Commission should
continue to focus on providing support in areas where Member States cannot achieve success
individually, such as promoting interoperability, standards and common infrastructure (common
uildi g lo ks .
Furthermore, the interviewees mentioned that the EU could provide tailored advice to Member
States helping them to tackle specific challenges related to digital government. The Commission
could then provide dedicated training and support in order to help Member States reach a
higher maturity of digital government. One way this could be done is to help a Member State to
identify gaps in its maturity between what has been achieved in another Member State in a
certain domain that it would like to succeed in (To-Be) and where it is (As-Is) thereby building a
plan to achieve that goal.
Most interviewees agreed that prior to launching an initiative, it is important to have a common
approach at the EU level of how and in which direction the public administration should change.
It is important to ensure coordination, evaluation and monitoring of the numerous
interconnected EU initiatives related to digital government.
Lessons learnt from EU initiatives
Several interviewees stressed the fact that the implementation of the EU initiatives is lacking as
most of them are not mandatory and that the European Commission mainly relies on soft law
instruments in the digital government domain. It is also important to ensure that the design of
the new initiatives take into account its long term sustainability.
The Commission should work towards developing and implementing better tools for the
evaluation of impacts and better reporting practices of the results of different funding priorities.
The interviewees stressed that, currently, there are not a lot of clear results from EU
p og a
es i the digital go e
e t do ai . The e appea s to e a la k of e aluatio
culture with regard to measuring real impact of EU spending.
An exchange of best practices between Member States should be encouraged more and
facilitated.
Other interviewees had fewer lessons learnt to share either due to lack of their experience with
the EU initiatives or because they had a positive outlook on the success of the initiatives.
Future Priorities
Continued focus on standards, exchange of data between administrations, increasing
interoperability;
125
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0126.png
Harnessing big data, automation of services and AI;
Universal adoption of e-Authentication;
Strengthening cyber security;
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results
For the purpose of completing the Impact Assessment, and more specifically, for the completion
of section 1.2 and 4 the following programme evaluations were taken into account:
ISA Programme Interim
278
and Final Evaluation
279
;
Results of the public consultation
280
of the European Interoperability Framework
revision;
IDABC Interim
281
and Final
282
evaluation;
CIP ICT-PSP Interim Evaluation
283
.
278
COM(2013) 5 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Interim evaluation
of the ISA Programme, Brussels, 18.1.2013.
279
COM(2016) 550 final, Final evaluation of the ISA Programme Annexes
279
COM(2016) 550 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Results of the final
evaluation of the ISA programme, Brussels, 1.9.2016
280
https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/isa/files/eif-public-consultation-factual-summary-en.pdf
281
Interim evaluation of the IDABC programme, final report
282
COM(2009) 247 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND THE COUNCIL Final evaluation of the implementation of the IDABC programme, Brussels,
25.9.2009
283
CIP ICT PSP Second Interim Evaluation, Final Report, 2011.
126
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0127.png
Annex 6: Programme specific annex on
European Statistical
Programme' (ESP)
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
The European statistical programme, pursuant to Article 13 of
Regulation (EC) 223/2009
on European
statistics, shall provide the framework for the development, production and dissemination of European
statistics, setting out the main fields and the objectives of the actions envisaged for a period corresponding
to that of the multiannual financial framework. It shall be adopted by the European Parliament and the
Council. The current European statistical programme is laid down in
Regulation (EU) 99/2013.
It has been
extended by
Regulation (EU) 2017/1951
but will expire at the end of the current multiannual financial
framework in 2020. The post-2020 European statistical programme will therefore have to be established.
The general objective of the programme is to provide high-quality, comparable and reliable statistics on
Europe which underpins the design, monitoring and evaluation of all the Union policies and helps policy
makers, businesses, academia, citizens and media to make informed decisions and participate in the
democratic process and debate about the present state and future of the Union. This will ensure the
availability of the statistics required to underpin the Single Market and other key policies of the next
multiannual financial framework, in particular those outlined in the Commission reflection papers. The
statistics provided through the programme will also empower businesses and citizens to take informed
decisions. EU added value will be realised by providing comparable and trustworthy statistics while
maintaining the balance between the needs of a wide range of users and response burden on citizens and
businesses.
In order to achieve its objectives, the programme will finance actions to improve data availability, as well
as to enhance skills and to foster the uptake of new technologies by national statistical offices and Eurostat.
In this regard, the ECOFIN Council in November 2017 has highlighted the need to ensure that human and
financial resources are adequate for the investment in and maintenance of statistical infrastructure at
European and national level in order for the European Statistical System to meet the need for regular, high
quality, official statistics at Member State and EU level in the context of the challenges created by
globalisation and advances in technology.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
The evaluations
284
of the ESP 2013-2017 programme have shown that it brought significant added value to
the EU. It was run efficiently, delivering comparable and high quality statistics that were used for the
design and monitoring of EU policies. It also formed a solid basis for informed decisions by governments,
business and citizens.
This was made possible by the use of EU harmonised methodologies, quality criteria, and assurance
mechanisms and also, by coordinating EU spending. In practice, this means that statistics need to be
developed as official statistics, based on the European Statistical Programme, by Eurostat and the national
statistical systems of Member States. This partnership, the European Statistical System (ESS), should be
led by Eurostat.
284
A first mid-term evaluation of the ESP 2013-17 was completed in 2015:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4375449/02-Final-evaluation-report-2008-2012-1_EN-ACT-part1-
v5.pdf.
A second one is being conducted back-to-back with the impact assessment of the post-2020 ESP.
127
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
In parallel, the evaluations indicated that further improvements of timeliness, relevance, coverage and a
greater level of detail of European statistics are needed. A permanent capacity to respond faster to
emerging new data needs has to be developed. Globalisation, digitalisation and rapid technological change
challenge the foundations of measuring economic performance, i.e. GDP and key economic indicators.
Therefore, substantial efforts also need to be invested in developing new methodologies. Data collections
need to be adapted using all available data sources.
The current extension of the ESP for the period 2018-2020 contains first measures to close the most urgent
data gaps and increase timeliness of European statistics. In particular, the extension of the programme
contains measures for the production of new and better statistics in support of a more social Europe. For
example, the programme will provide better data on income and inequalities as well as skills and equal
opportunities on the labour market. Furthermore, the integration of migrants into the labour market will be
better monitored. In addition, the ESP (2018-2020) includes the development of the 'proofs of concept' for
smart statistics in a number of EC political priorities.
The analyses indicate that European statistics should continue to be produced within the context of the
European Statistical System, under the leadership of Eurostat. In parallel, the current strong dependency on
national statistical systems to produce European indicators sometimes results in a slower response to new
emerging information needs. To this end, new approaches using all available data sources, not only data
provided by the Member States' national statistical authorities, must be explored.
The European approach to statistics, as outlined in the Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European
Statistics, has not yet been fully implemented. If the activities included in the Law were to be implemented,
for instance using specifically designed survey schemes at Eurostat level, along with modelling techniques,
and using all available sources (not only national), Eurostat could produce new indicators and statistics
faster and more flexibly to meet the emerging needs.
The Commission Communication on Data, Information and Knowledge management has called for better
recognition and use of the data held by the Commission as a strategic asset. As other DGs outside the
programme also collect data for policy purposes, there is room for synergies and efficiencies in the
collection and use of statistical data across the DGs in the Commission, in particular concerning impact
assessments and performance measurement of various EU programmes. Preliminary findings from an
ongoing IAS audit on the coordination and quality of statistics in the Commission point in the same
direction.
Eurostat implements an ongoing dialogue with its main stakeholders, in particular through annual hearings
with the Commissions DGs, frequent meetings with producers (national statistical institutes) at both
technical and senior management levels, with the European Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC),
businesses and users of European statistics, including media, academia, researchers, etc. As part of this
ongoing dialogue, a series of consultations and discussions have already been conducted on the needs and
expectations for European statistics after 2020.
In order to collect stakeholders' views on their needs for statistics in the period after 2020, quality of
statistical information, in particular timeliness and relevance, the ways European statistics is
communicated, the planned consultation activities include:
Open public consultation
Consultation of the European Statistical Advisory Committee
Consultation of the Commission Directorates General
Targeted consultation of National Statistical Institutes
128
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
The ongoing European statistical programme 2013-2020, financed from heading 1a of the current MFF
(budget lines 29.02.01 and 29.01.04.01), is under central direct management by the Commission (Eurostat).
The MFF envelope for the implementation of the programme was set to EUR 57,3 million for 2013, EUR
234,8 million for the period 2014 to 2017 and EUR 218,1 million for the period 2018-2020.
From a financial point of view, the programme is implemented by awarding contracts mainly in the
domains of statistics and IT services, and by grants mainly to national statistical authorities. A specificity
of the programme is that Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics allows for direct awards of
grants to national statistical authorities.
The baseline scenario used as a benchmark for the assessment of the policy options is the current European
statistical programme laid down in Regulation (EC) 99/2013 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/1951)
with its statistical outputs and actions to improve the statistical production processes in Member States.
Despite progress in improving European statistics under the previous (2013-2017) and extended (2018-
2020) European statistical programmes, the evaluation has shown that users highlight existing information
gaps and demand further improvements of timeliness and relevance as well as a greater level of detail of
European statistics. Therefore, continuing with the status quo of the current programme would imply that
the European statistical programme cannot bring full added value to EU policies and that the relevance of
European statistics will gradually decrease over time. For new EU policies in particular, Eurostat will not
be able to produce in-time statistics with the required level of disaggregation across regions and population
groups.
The challenges for the next programme can be defined as follows:
Insufficient availability of high quality statistical information for the design and monitoring of
new EU policies (e.g. on globalisation, digitalisation of the economy, security)
Insufficient agility to address new demands and to provide faster evidence on emerging topics and
deeper analysis of the effects of globalisation, new technological developments and socio-
economic trends.
Statistical reporting requirements on economic operators as well as citizens.
Insufficient analysis provided by European statistics on today's complex realities and
interlinkages, and for improved communication and engagement with users, especially EU
citizens.
A main problem driver concerns the fast changing nature of the issues that EU policies need to address
(e.g. globalisation, migration, security), which also means that official statistics must be able to react more
rapidly without increasing the burden on respondents. As a result, the next European statistical programme
needs to become more agile and innovative, going beyond established methods and data sources.
The second driver of the problem is the rapid technological change and spread of information via social
media, which confront traditional producers of statistics with a new reality demanding urgent and bold
responses for European statistics to remain a highly trusted information source. Today, European citizens
are universally connected and digitally aware. They have a multitude of new data sources at their disposal,
access to which could not be easier or more tempting. Providers of other, non-official data, increasingly
compete with official statistics by producing more timely, but often less reliable information. In this 'post-
truth' era, reliable and trustworthy official statistics are needed more than ever.
Consequently, the post-2020 European statistical programme will increase the relevance and value-added
of European statistics by closing existing and emerging information gaps and by improving timeliness and
coverage of the data. In order to do so, the programme will support Eurostat and national statistical
authorities to make better use of multiple data sources, advanced data analytics methods and digital
technologies.
129
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0130.png
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
European statistics, produced under Eurostat's leadership, are an indispensable part of the EU's sound and
evidence-based policymaking under the current MFF, addressing all policy areas of the Union as stipulated
in Article 338 of the Treaty. That Article also sets out requirements as regards the production of European
statistics, stating that they must conform to standards of impartiality, reliability, objectivity, scientific
independence, cost-effectiveness and statistical confidentiality.
In order to ensure the continued provision and development of European statistics on all policy areas of the
EU, thus going far beyond the scope of the Single Market, the European statistical programme needs to be
continued under the next MFF.
In response to the challenges listed under 2.1, and the conclusions drawn from the evaluation and
stakeholders consultations, the programme will put particular emphasis on the following areas:
Underpinning key EU and national economic, social and environmental policies with the
production of relevant, comprehensive and high quality European statistics tailored to policy
needs.
Providing more detailed regional statistics on topics relevant for EU policies and close to citizens.
Using innovative data collection methods like 'Internet of Things' sources and smart systems, to
produce data on smart cities, health, mobility and farming.
Improving timeliness and agility by introducing specifically designed survey schemes and by
producing statistics centrally at Eurostat using various data sources and modelling techniques and
not only data provided by the Member States' national statistical authorities.
Coordinating the production of statistics by other Commission services, and setting-up a data hub
for the Commission in cooperation with other DGs (DIGIT, Connect, JRC).
Delivering added-value for policy design and monitoring by providing new data analytics services
in the framework of the Data, Information and Knowledge management and the Data4Policy
initiative.
Providing better statistical insights for EU citizens by communicating statistical information more
pro-actively, in a simpler and more understandable way and by supporting fact-checking and
myth-busting functions of the Commission.
General objective
of the European statistical programme under the post-2020 MFF:
To provide high-quality, comparable and reliable statistics on Europe which underpins the design,
monitoring and evaluation of all the Union policies and helps policy makers, businesses, academia, citizens
and media to make informed decisions and participate in the democratic process and debate about the
present state and future of the Union.
The
specific objective
to realise the programme's general objective, which will be translated into success
criteria for monitoring purposes, is the following:
To produce and communicate high quality statistics on Europe in a timely, impartial and cost-efficient
manner, through enhanced partnerships within the European Statistical System and with all relevant
external parties, using multiple data sources, advanced data analytics methods, smart systems and digital
technologies.
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
The structure of the programme will underpin the Commission's political priorities in order to maximise the
EU value added of European statistics.
The investments will ensure that new and improved statistics will be delivered in support of the political
priorities under the new MFF. The implementing actions will be selected based on their potential to
increase the relevance and use of European statistics for important policy areas and to close data gaps as
regards newly emerging political priorities.
130
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
First priority will be given to actions needed to maintain the high quality and relevance of statistics which
feed into the budgetary surveillance of the EU and which underpin the enhanced Stability and Growth Pact,
European Semester exercise and the Investment Plan for Europe.
Secondly, the development of new statistics to close identified data gaps will be prioritised according to the
political needs in the context of the next MFF, such as
The digital economy with a special focus on the collaborative economy;
The future of the Economic and Monetary Union;
Single Market, SME creation and growth, including monitoring entrepreneurship from a gender
perspective;
Trade policy and globalisation;
The European Agenda on Migration;
Geospatial information for economic, social and territorial cohesion policy;
Data on passenger mobility, multimodality, intelligent transport systems;
Evidence in support of the European Defence Action Plan (EDAP) and the European Defence
Fund.
Furthermore, timeliness and/or coverage of statistics for other key policy areas will be improved, such as
the European Pillar of Social Rights, the Energy Union and Climate Action, the environment and the
circular economy, and the future Common Agricultural Policy.
Under the specific objective, priority will also be given to actions that improve the communication and
accessibility of statistics to a wider audience and promote user engagement with the aim to counter the
spread of 'fake news'.
In order to increase the agility and responsiveness of European statistics, the programme will
include actions on 'Smart statistics', exploiting data sources like the 'Internet of Things' and smart
systems to produce data on smart cities, health, mobility and farming;
Big data sources like mobile phone and traffic data or web-scraping;
Innovative survey schemes and modelling techniques to deliver faster statistical evidence;
Data hubs and data analytics services to deliver added-value for policy design and monitoring in
the Commission in line with the Data4Policy initiative;
Solutions for better data sharing and matching across and with Member States;
Fostering statistical literacy and developing new tools to consume and share European statistics
and to support myth-busting initiatives of the Commission;
Protection of data and statistical confidentiality.
Furthermore, the establishment of new partnerships with other, non- official data providers such as the
private sector is of utmost importance in order to facilitate access to privately-held data that increasingly
becomes relevant for statistical purposes. Priority will also be given to foster existing partnerships with
administrative data holders as well as academia and media.
The evaluation of the ongoing and previous programmes has shown that the European statistical
programme features a critical mass of projects which were efficiently managed by Eurostat.
The necessity for EU action and the EU added value is demonstrated for all funding priorities, as the
European statistical programme directly supports all EU policy areas. Comparable and high quality
European statistics are a precondition for effective, efficient and performance-oriented policies under the
next MFF.
The objective of the programme cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone. Only a
coordinated approach at EU level on the basis of an EU legal act will ensure the necessary coherence,
comparability and quality of statistical information at European level in all domains covered by the
programme. Moreover, the challenges identified in section 2.1 apply to all Member States and the
European Statistical System as a whole and can therefore be addressed effectively only with EU action.
The development and re-use of common tools and technologies for statistics is also more efficient if
coordinated at EU level.
131
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Art. 338 TFEU, in Part seven related to General and Final Provisions, provides the legal basis for statistics.
It stipulates that
the European Parliament and the Council may adopt measures for the production of
statistics where necessary for the activities of the Union.
It also states that
European statistics must
conform to standards of impartiality, reliability, objectivity, scientific independence, cost-effectiveness and
statistical confidentiality.
These provisions indicate that the scope of the European statistical programme
goes beyond providing statistics for the Single Market, as it covers all activities of the EU that require
statistical information. Moreover, the Treaty stipulates that special quality standards apply to European
statistics.
Regulation (EC) 223/2009 on European statistics specifies in Art. 13 that the European statistical
programme should be adopted by the Parliament and the Council and that the programme has to be
implemented in accordance with Art. 14 and 17.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
The programme will be designed to benefit from the delivery mechanisms that have proven to be efficient
and effective in the implementation of the existing European statistical programme. The appropriations will
support actions for the development, production and dissemination of European statistics needed for the
purposes of achieving the general and specific objectives of the programme, focussed on actions with high
EU added value. The operational appropriations will be used under direct management for procurement,
grants and actions with international organisations when appropriate.
Grants to national statistical institutes and other national authorities will be used to foster a more agile
development of statistics for policy-making through the use of new methods and technologies. Due to the
specificity of national statistical institutes and the other national authorities responsible in each Member
State for developing, producing and disseminating European statistics, they may receive grants without a
call for proposals in accordance with the Financial Regulation and as stipulated in Art. 5(3) of Regulation
(EC) 223/2009. In that context, Eurostat will resort to a standard co-financing rate of the grants up to 70%
and up to 95% for collaborative networks. Collaborative networks within the European Statistical System,
as foreseen under Art. 15 of Regulation (EC) 223/2009, allow sharing of expertise and fostering
specialisation on specific tasks.
In the implementation of the specific objective, a greater share of procurement at EU level in relation to
grants will be undertaken whenever it is more cost and time efficient for the collection of data. Areas where
a higher share of procurement might be beneficial concern for example innovative survey schemes, private-
sector data sources, or data analytics services.
Under the programme, new data needs will be increasingly met through multi-source data integration and
'smart statistics' rather than by means of traditional statistical surveys. While this will require additional up-
front investments, it will reduce the burden on businesses and generate data that is more timely available
for policy-making. This strategy will also imply a stronger use of public-private partnerships in areas such
as data sharing, data science skills and data analytics methods. This involvement of public-private
partnerships to complement the cooperation with national statistical systems to produce European
indicators, in order to improve response time to new information needs, will entail an increased use of
procurement procedures.
The programme's cost of control will be improved by substantially increasing the average size of
transactions managed by Eurostat.
In terms of financial flexibility, and as put forward in the reflection paper on the future of EU finances, the
programme could put aside a reserve for unexpected data collections and analytical services.
Unit costs for staff were introduced by Eurostat in 2015. The development of simplified cost options to be
used generally by all DGs for common cost categories will be monitored and implemented as soon as
possible.
While there is no overlap with other existing programmes, the statistical activities and data collections of
Eurostat and other Directorates-General could be better coordinated and streamlined. To strengthen the
132
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
interaction and allow a better monitoring of those programmes, major spending programmes should refer
specifically to resources allocated for European statistics.
It is expected that the current practice of supplementing the programme's budget with sub-delegated credits
will be continued, in order to cover data collections specifically requested by policy DGs. As the
implementation of sub-delegated credits in Eurostat relies on the availability of human resources, those
limited resources would mainly be directed towards data production in policy areas where Eurostat can
maximise added-value (e.g. through its quality assurance mechanisms).
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
The specific objective of the programme defined in section 2.2 will be accompanied by an indicator
designed to measure the performance of the programme. The indicator should be strongly tied to the
objective and fulfil the other criteria elaborated by DG BUDG under the 'EU Budget Focussed on Results'
initiative, namely that they should be result oriented, budget related, easy to monitor, and robust.
In order to measure the performance of the programme in delivering on the specific objective, it is
proposed to use the indicator 'Impact of statistics published on the internet: number of web mentions and
positive/negative opinions', based on in-house data collected by Eurostat.
It is proposed to carry out an interim evaluation of the programme by end of 2024, to ensure that enough
data is available on the programme and to take into account the results of the final evaluation of the
previous European statistical programme 2013-2020.
It is proposed to have the ex-post evaluation of the programme completed by end of 2029, when a
sufficient level of data will be available. Both the interim and ex-post evaluations would cover at
minimum the evaluation criteria deemed compulsory at Commission level at that time. As with previous
programmes, both evaluation reports will be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council
after consulting the European Statistical System Committee and the European Statistical Advisory
Committee.
133
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
1.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
The impact assessment had to be prepared in a very short period of time, starting at the end of 2017 to be
concluded by March 2018. As a consequence Eurostat decided to prepare it without the support of external
studies and based it almost entirely on existing documents, such as annual activity reports and monitoring
of activities, results of user satisfaction surveys, results of Commission Directorates- General (DGs)
hearings, reports of critical projects and reports on the cost of producing European statistics. The full list
of documents includes also the results of several stakeholder consultations done in the past years. In
addition some new targeted stakeholder consultations could be quickly organised and their results could be
exploited. Such consultations concerned national statistical institutes, Commission DGs and the European
Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC).
List of external sources used for the impact assessment:
European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (ESGAB) reports 2015-17
European Statistical Advisory Committee opinions
Report of the Internal Audit Service on the production process and the quality of statistics not
produced by Eurostat
Feedback of Commission DGs during the targeted consultation
List of internal sources (Eurostat) used for the impact assessment:
Annual activities reports 2015, 2016 and 2017
Master plans 2015-17
Monitoring reports to EP and Council
ESP previous impact assessments and evaluation reports
Results of the User Satisfaction Surveys 2015-17
Results of DGs hearings 2015-17
Reports on cost of producing European statistics
Survey on burden in business statistics
Reports on ESS Vision 2020 projects
Monitoring of activities per objectives
Report from the Power from Statistics conference
Reports on big data projects
HR reports 2015-17
Eurostat's impact on the web 2015-17
Website reports 2015-17
Inventory of statistics produced by other DGs than Eurostat
Reports on antifraud prevention
ABAC extractions, 2015-2017
Microdata access reports
Statistics on datasets published
134
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
Eurostat implements an ongoing dialogue with its main stakeholders, in particular through annual hearings
with the Commissions DGs, frequent meetings with producers (national statistical institutes) at both
technical and senior management levels, with the European Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC),
businesses and users of European statistics, including media, academia, researchers, etc. As part of this
ongoing dialogue, a series of consultations and discussions have been conducted on the needs and
expectations for European statistics after 2020.
The following stakeholder categories were consulted on the evaluation of the current ESP and on the future
ESP:
Users
of European statistics (DGs of the European Commission, public administrations,
businesses, researchers, academia, public at large). Users of European statistics is the basic source
providing feedback to Eurostat on the quality aspects of European statistics as well as their
insights on new priorities which need to be taken into account in the future statistical programmes.
The key challenge for statistical data users is to choose and understand the available information in order to
turn statistics into knowledge that serves as a basis for the decision making process. With this in view, it is
therefore important to reinforce the dialogue with users and continue assessing from their point of view,
what should be the priorities for European official statistics for the next programming period.
Producers
of European statistics. Producers of European statistics are mainly National statistical
institutes (NSIs) and Other National authorities (ONAs) producing official statistics in the
Member States as part of the European Statistical System (ESS).
Respondents
(providing data to producers).The Respondents' category includes all types of
respondents who provide data to the NSIs and/or ONAs and Eurostat. They are businesses,
households, public and private partnerships, institutions and bodies.
With the increased user demand and new priorities for European statistics more data need to be collected
from the respondents which in turn increases the response burden on respondents and producers of
statistical information.
Therefore, it is more important than ever to search for new data sources and to have close partnerships with
stakeholders who own, collect, and process or store data sources, including public private partnerships.
Relations with public and private partners, including expert communities may help bridge data, knowledge
or expertise gaps. A digital transformation taking place across the globe provides for ever increasing
availability of data. This trend is of strategic relevance for official statistics and offers a huge opportunity
to improve the timeliness and relevance of official statistics as well as to lower response burden. Therefore,
producers of European statistics as well as respondents providing data for the production of it is an
important category of European statistics stakeholders and therefore their opinion and views, in particular
as regards the response burden as well as possibility to use other data sources will be taken into account for
the preparation of the ESP beyond 2020.
It should be noted that for the extension of the European statistical Programme 2018-2020, Eurostat
initiated numerous activities, e.g. investigating the opinions of users of European statistics via web based
user satisfaction surveys (USS), specific surveys for media representatives, and a series of user
conferences. However, due to the tight deadlines of the preparation of the next MFF, Eurostat concentrated
on feedback from a selected number of stakeholders for the post-2020 ESP:
Consultation of the Commission Directorate-Generals
Consultation of National statistical institutes
The European Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC)
The statistical user/stakeholder conferences
Consultation of the Commission Directorate-Generals
135
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
In January 2018, as an integral part of the consultation process, Eurostat launched a consultation of all
Commission Directorate-Generals (DGs) and services, which are the main users of statistical information.
The objective of the consultation was to assess the high-level needs for the future ESP so that high
relevance of European statistics in a longer-term perspective is ensured. An important aspect of such needs
relates to those high-level indicators the DGs intend to use to monitor and evaluate the next generation of
spending programmes under their responsibility. The consultation covered the following questions:
In addition to the European statistics currently available, which statistical data would be needed
and for which policy areas under the next MFF (e.g. as identified in the Commission reflection
papers)? Please rank by order of priority.
Which policy areas will require more complete and/or timely European statistics?
In the context of the need to further reduce costs and burden, can you indicate existing European
statistics which could be simplified?
In which way could Eurostat support the monitoring of your spending programmes under the next
MFF?
For which policy areas could additional Eurostat services provide added value?
Feedback was received from 23 DGs. The following general remarks could be highlighted:
The need for statistical data and/or Eurostat services in different statistical domains will remain
important regardless of the changes in the political agenda or resource pressure.
Eurostat data are and should be used extensively, as the Better Regulation guidelines require the
use of quantitative evidence for impact assessments, evaluations and policy monitoring, e.g. for
modelling activities supporting the Better Regulation process; to build performance measurement
frameworks in the context of the European Semester and in general to measure the results and the
impacts of the DGs policy initiatives.
Eurostat could offer additional services to the DGs, such as training and counselling on statistical
methodology (when running studies on data collection or on the development of indicators), also
in new and rapidly evolving areas such as big data techniques; dissemination of statistics (as e.g.
in the reuse of Eurostat's dissemination chain); facilitating the acquisition of commercial data
sources; supporting in finding statistics for particular purposes; centralizing acquisition of external
(paid and unpaid) data.
More and more data will come from non-conventional sources (precision farming, satellites, social
networks crowdsourcing, etc.).
Eurostat is seen as playing an important role in developing expertise for accessing, processing and
analysing such data in areas that are relevant for the Commission policies.
Eurostat could promote and make more use of the possibilities offered by the new technologies to
compile statistics in a cost-efficient manner, such as Big Data and Internet of things.
The Commission DGs indicated a number of statistical domains where additional statistical data will be
needed to be able to reflect on the challenges as identified in the Commission political agenda:
High quality statistics produced by Eurostat is needed for the defense sector.
Competitiveness statistics and data for growth and productivity measurement should become a
regular statistical production.
Digital economy with a special focus on collaborative economy. The Communication on a
European Agenda for the collaborative economy published in June 2016 commits the Commission
to monitor "both the evolving regulatory environment and economic and business developments"
within this sector. Given the rapid growth of the collaborative economy and the lack of statistics
on this very sector, the new ESP could be a good framework for the systematic collection of these
data in the future.
Circular economy. The recently announced Plastic Strategy, which aims at improving the value
chains and the quality of plastics recycling (through better design, reuse), reducing plastic waste
and littering (in particular marine litter and micro plastics), is very likely to call for additional data
and statistics.
136
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
There is a need to develop an EU-wide survey on the prevalence of gender-based violence within
the ESS.
Eurostat is encouraged to foresee in its post-2020 ESP a legal act for the regular collection of
Passenger Mobility Statistics.
In order to support MSs in addressing migrants' integration the information gap on education
needs and qualification levels of the asylum seekers needs to be closed.
The SDGs include the reduction by at least half of the proportion of people living in poverty until
2030. However, the UN has not defined a uniform poverty indicator for the purpose of this target.
For the EU, such analysis needs to be carried out by Commission services. Therefore, one of the
priorities for Eurostat could be to develop new indicators of poverty and inequality that can be
used in the SDG context. The focus of these efforts could be extreme poverty.
The Commission DGs identified specific statistical domains, where improvements are needed in some of
the quality aspects, in particular timeliness and coverage:
Environmental accounts and energy statistics. Further improvements in the coverage, quality,
timeliness and comparability of statistics in this area should be supported by the new ESP.
Further improvements are needed in the priority areas, like water statistics, chemicals indicators,
waste indicators, indicators for nature, biodiversity and ecosystems, plastics and plastic statistics,
forest statistics, soil indicators, agro-environmental indicators.
Timeliness can be improved for other types of European Statistics which are also used for
transport policy needs (e.g. Research & Development data and Structural Business Statistics).
Basic statistics such as structural business statistics, business demography etc. has to be
maintained while striving to improve their timely delivery and fuller coverage.
Improvements in timeliness of social inclusion statistics derived from EU-SILC should be another
priority.
It would be useful to explore the feasibility of an earlier provision of government finance series
gathered though the ESA national accounts system.
There is a need for regional data on public expenditure on education and more harmonised,
complete and detailed data on private expenditure on education.
The reporting framework to be established under the Energy Union Governance proposal will
reduce respondents' burden of the Member States, as the number of current reporting obligations
will decrease and the whole structure will be put under one common umbrella (e.g. reports
relating to national action plans on energy efficiency and renewable energies will also be
integrated under Governance related reporting). Monitoring under the Energy Union Governance
regime will need to draw on the timely European statistics.
More timely European statistics needed on the Balance of Payments, Foreign Direct Investment.
More complete statistics on foreign affiliates (regarding sectors covered, it would be useful to
have similar data also on non-services sectors as well as better coverage by sectors, including to
the extent possible with estimations replacing missing data) would be helpful.
Healthcare statistics and in particular healthcare expenditure statistics currently collected will be
of increasing importance during the period covered by the next ESP. It is expected that the data
collection not only be completed and continued, but also improved with respect to timeliness and
reporting detail.
Consultation of national statistical institutes
Taking into account the new challenges posed for European statistics in a changing environment as well as
the fact that National Statistical Institutes of the MSs (NSIs) are important players in the production of
European Statistics, Eurostat worked very closely with the NSIs to elaborate the European Statistical
System (ESS) priorities beyond 2020. The outcome and concrete priorities were extensively discussed with
the NSIs during 2016-2017. Discussions were held on the following issues: changing economies and
societies, fast changing of data use and user needs, data revolution aspects and impact on statistics, budget
137
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
constraints. New strategic priorities were formulated taken into account the current stance and the
dynamics of the external environment.
Important priorities distinguished covered the following:
New/additional needs for statistics to measure emerging phenomena
in the societies, which in
some cases are not well captured today, e.g.: migration, economic and social inequality,
environmental, climate change and energy issues, circular economy, globalisation, digital market,
new production models caused by digitisation (such as the sharing economy, the blurring of
boundaries between workers and self-employed, goods and services, producers and consumers),
combining statistical and geospatial information, measuring progress towards 2030 sustainable
development goals.
Quality-related improvements driven by users' needs:
improving the timeliness, granularity
and comparability of statistics are the quality elements where improvements in the outputs are
most sought after; reducing the inherent asymmetries in statistics on cross-border flows within the
EU; ensuring the high relevance of new and existing statistics through systematic dialogue with
users.
Better communication of European statistics:
aligning statistical products and communication
methods with the needs, level of knowledge and skills, as well as life or business situations and
other characteristics of different user groups; getting closer to citizens, especially the younger
generation, in addition to professional users; exploring the possibilities offered by new and
existing communication channels; tailoring the choice of communication channels, services and
messages to different user groups so as to bring statistics closer to users and ensure high end user
value; going beyond the publication of pure facts and figures to help users understand them;
describing figures as attractively and clearly as possible, offering simple and clear messages, basic
interpretation and visual aids ready to be re-used by the press through different communication
channels; more focus on visualisation, infographics and interactive tools; being open to on-
demand services; moving from data to information and knowledge, and pushing boundaries
towards more data analysis, story-telling and horizontal reports; supporting fact-checking, thus
contributing to the importance of trusted data and restoring the standing of facts; promoting linked
open data initiatives.
More agility and interaction in responding to user needs:
improving identification and analysis
of data users and their needs; upgrading existing mechanisms of two-way communication with
users to discuss their needs, explore their difficulties in using statistics, anticipate their future
needs, and offer relevant products and services; exploring the possibilities of going beyond the
traditional business model, for instance by offering experimental statistics, including blending our
sources with third party data, certifying data published by non-official or non-statistical providers,
offering linking of statistical and non-statistical data and data protection services, etc., while
carefully considering the associated benefits, risks and implementation options.
Stronger user capabilities:
guiding users and helping them understand how statistics can help
shape solutions in private and business life (e.g. more story-telling); promoting new uses of
statistics; helping to educate both professional users (policy-makers, journalists, researchers) and
ordinary citizens, especially young people, to increase statistical literacy and reduce the risk of
misinterpretation and manipulation of information based on statistics.
Development of new methods for producing statistics:
being more agile, experimenting with
data to optimise data sources and statistical products; continuously seeking new and innovative
ways to produce statistics, with state of the art methodologies, efficient processes and modern
technologies, including digitisation and automation of statistical processes; exploring the
possibilities of improving statistical production based on the exchange of microdata between ESS
members; carefully considering ways to reduce the response burden.
Making the best of the data revolution:
stepping up analysis and exploitation of new data
sources; investing in data integration with a view to benefiting from multiple data sources and
unleashing the potential of big data to support statistical production; where useful, acquiring
access to privately-held data sources through a collective action, coordinated and led by Eurostat
138
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
and supported by the adoption of an enabling EU legislation; further enhancing the use of
administrative data sources for statistical purposes.
Relations with external stakeholders:
seeking ways to establish close relations with the relevant
private sector organisations building on partnership; in particular, cooperating with the technology
sector to ensure that statistical production and dissemination is based on modern technology (e.g.
access to privately-held data for statistical purposes; integration of data from multiple sources;
semantic web standards to support and feed statistical production; modern visualisation
techniques); enhancing cooperation with research and academia in developing methods for all
phases of the statistical process, especially as regards developing methods and technical solutions
for the use of big data and analytical interference from data and statistics.
Consultation of the European Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC)
The ESAC, which unites users, respondents, academia, and businesses organised various workshops to
discuss the future needs for statistics. The discussions focussed on the impact of the changed environment
on production of European statistics, measurement of these changes, concrete actions as well as the impact
of them. The outcome of these events includes a wealth of input from the users/methodologists as well as
businesses with the view to improve European statistics and the way it is produced and communicated.
Eurostat launched a targeted consultation (end of January
–
mid February 2018) asking for the ESAC
opinion on the priorities for the post-2020 ESP. In particular, Eurostat was interested in receiving feedback
as regards the following:
Options to increase the relevance of European statistics for different user groups.
Areas where timeliness or completeness (e.g. breakdown, availability by countries, regions,
components, etc.) of statistical information needs to be further improved in relation to main user
needs or new phenomena.
Less important statistical fields which could be discontinued in the next European Statistical
Programme for the sake of burden and cost reduction.
Measures to increase agility and/or to further decrease response burden (e.g. new ways of
collecting data, etc.).
Proposals to improve the communication of European statistics and the engagement of users.
To summarise the ESAC position paper, which is a reaction to the Eurostat consultation, the following
issues could be taken into account for the elaboration of the post-2020 ESP:
Official statistics plays and should play a fundamental role in providing insight into the economy
and society and that they are vital to the wellbeing of the EU societies and citizens.
The ESS needs to retain its unique selling point of assured quality, while improving practice in the
directions of speed of delivery, extracting information from new data sources, and response to
new questions.
The ESS should pay increasing attention to training and improving statistical skills at all
educational levels and also to improving citizens' statistical literacy, including that of non-users.
The ESS is expected to aim at better coordinating the production of statistics by other
Commission services.
Data generation processes evolve rapidly, and therefore care and attention are needed to ensure
that official statistics which are based on, or are taking advantage of, new sources of “big data”
are sustainable, and are consistent over time.
Special attention should be paid to the challenge of ethical data governance. The issues of ethical
data governance are becoming more important with the advent of new kinds of data, but they are
not the same issues as technical matters concerning whether the new kinds of data are “good
enough” for some purpose, or issues of how to
capture or use such data. Ethical data governance
should be addressed in the next ESP.
ESAC identified a continuing need for adequate geographical breakdowns of the published data,
particularly in monitoring change in social conditions at sub-national level. ESAC appreciates that
important work is already under way in different countries and in different statistical domains, in
139
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
order to provide statistics down to NUTS 2 level. However, the aim should be to provide statistics
broken down to at least NUTS 3 level to support national and regional policy-making.
Additional issues having an impact on the value of statistics should be addressed, especially those
of “post truth reality” and the digital-information
era. The individuals and institutions should be
clearly informed about the quality of different types of official statistics coming from the ESS and
other European institutions. In today’s rapidly changing data environment, helping users know
where to go, and what data can be trusted, is critical. Reinforcing the ESS brand is also very
important.
One major trend shaping the world is urbanisation, closely connected to the new reality of
globalisation and migration. The EU Urban Agenda is a new method of working with the aim to
promote the economic, social and environmental transformations of cities through integrated and
sustainable solutions. Monitoring progress of Sustainable Development Goal 11 “Sustainable
Cities and Communities” requires a broad set of selected indicators describing cities and their
residential areas and other human settlements. Hence the request for regional and urban statistics
is an urgent issue at European, national, sub-national, regional and local levels. Providing the
requested geographical breakdowns in practice would be more feasible if statistical data were
geocoded.
Digitalisation, international cooperation and partnerships call for common standards. The ongoing
development of common standards and data interoperability will be valuable for both capacity
building and efficiency gains and will also have a positive impact for users.
High-level stakeholder conference "Power from Statistics"
This conference was organised in October 2017 to determine which topics will be relevant to decision
makers and citizens in the future and how European statistics could best deliver this information. The
Conference brought together a multidisciplinary audience, consisting of policy makers, journalists,
business leaders, academics and official statisticians from all over Europe to discuss the needs and
challenges facing evidence-based policy-making to discuss priorities of European statistics, quality aspects
and the value of statistics for knowledge based societies, etc. and covered such topics as trends in
migration, globalisation, new economic and business models, sustainable development and science, and
statistics and society. The following could be distinguished which will require a proper reflection in the
post-2020 ESP:
New data sources (open data, citizens sourcing, and private data) can make the policy cycles more
agile and better informed. Access to new data sources requires new partnerships: data
collaboratives (data cooperatives or data pooling, research intelligence products, application
programming interfaces, trusted intermediary, etc.). Sharing of data should be motivated by
reciprocity, research and insights, regulatory compliance and responsibility. There were concerns
expressed as regards the use of private data sources: privacy and accuracy, data quality,
competitive concerns, and cultural challenges. In order to overcome risks and avoid them,
mitigation actions are necessary throughout the whole statistical production cycle. The biggest
risk is to miss the opportunity and not share data or not use private data sources. Eurostat should
be at the forefront on these developments and actively engage with stakeholders on data
collaboratives.
The rapid technological change and spread of information via social media confront traditional
producers of statistics with a new reality demanding urgent and bold responses for European
statistics to remain a highly trusted information source. Providers of other, non-official data,
increasingly compete with official statistics by producing more timely, but often less credible
information. In this 'post-truth' era, reliable and trustworthy official statistics are needed more than
ever.
European statistics on migration as well as on other domains on the Eurostat's website should be
clear, understandable and user friendly. There is a need to simplify the presentation of data, use
interactive tools and always test on consumers; narratives, storytelling, visualisation should be
improved. Availability of timely data was indicated as a challenge. For this purpose, there is a
140
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
need to exploit new data sources. It will help to reflect on what currently is needed for policy
makers, e.g. the flow of migrants, their living conditions, etc. Questions related to migration
should also be integrated to existing surveys like Labour force survey to complete the picture.
Close cooperation with the Commission DGs is indispensable; division of labour and
responsibilities between statistical offices and researchers should be clearly established.
The ESS should play a leading goal in measuring the SDGs. To fulfil this role it is crucial to
shorten the time lag between the policy makers' requests/need and the time when statistics is
produced. Cooperation with industries should be strengthened, so that it is possible to foresee the
scenarios for which the data will be needed.
With the globalisation phenomenon, a quick reaction of statisticians is needed. So far it is not
properly reflected by statistical information. Global value chain is only one side of it; however
more information needed on jobs, etc. Better cooperation in terms of capturing globalisation is
needed between the national accounts and business statistics. Business statistics needs to be
modernised.
Capturing emerging phenomena. New economic and business models are emerging, which are not
yet captured by European statistics and may not be part of traditional measurement of GDP and
production. This leads to a search of new techniques and measures. Data harvesting from the web
or web scraping, machine learning could be examples of those. It is quite complicated to find the
right data reflecting on the collaborative economy. Eurostat does it partly, however with a big
time lag. Access to privately owned data sources could solve the problem. Eurostat has to
continue discussions with the private data owners and establish partnerships with them.
The
Open Public Consultation
was jointly carried out as part of the 'Investment cluster' by the
Secretariat General of the Commission and took place between 10 January and 9 March. Beside such
areas as investment, research and innovation, SMEs and Single Market, the questionnaire covered
European statistics. The results received cannot be interpreted as representative of the whole EU since
out of 4052 respondents only few (8) commented on European statistics. 5 of them considered that
there is a lack of comparable statistics on fire (fire safety) across Europe.
141
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0142.png
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results
Eurostat has conducted two mid-term evaluations of the current ESP. The first one
285
covered the
implementation of the programme in the years 2013 and 2014 plus relevant progress accomplished in 2015.
It was completed in 2015 and it also considered the results of the final evaluation
286
of the linked
"Programme for the Modernisation of European Enterprise and Trade Statistics" (MEETS), which finished
at the end of 2013, to check that the two programmes were coherent and well-coordinated.
The first mid-term evaluation concluded that 17 out of the 23 detailed objectives were well on track for
completion. Limited difficulties were experienced in relation to the other six, these being economic
governance (1.2.2), people’s Europe (3.2.1), geospatial, environmental, agricultural and other sectoral
statistics (3.3.1 and 3.3.4), priority setting and simplification (2.1) and partnership within the European
Statistical System and beyond (1.1). In particular for the objective on priority–setting and simplification,
substantial reductions could not be obtained with the existing mechanism to fix negative priorities. New
approaches for priority setting are being therefore implemented in the ESS and proposals for framework
regulations have been adopted for agriculture statistics, business statistics and social statistics to simplify
the production of statistics in those fields. The quantitative evaluation, based on the percentages of planned
activities that were completed or on track and of the outputs produced for each objective, was accompanied
by a qualitative evaluation. The analysis indicated that all projects classified as critical on the basis of their
strategic importance, the number of staff involved or the financial resources invested, had been
successfully concluded or were on track. Good progress had also been made on projects related to
modernisation of the production system. The evaluation also indicated that the projects involving
collaboration between the members of the ESS showed good results, with the European Statistical System
collaboration networks and the European Statistical System 2020 Vision implementation projects having
made particularly good progress. Measuring the costs of producing statistics and the burden on respondents
proved to be more difficult, with different methodologies being used in the Member States. Eurostat
therefore launched in 2015 a first cost assessment survey on production of official statistics in the
European Statistical System.
The evaluation also recommended taking care of some critical issues by giving the following
recommendations:
1.
2.
3.
Give particular attention to those objectives where problems have been encountered.
Secure sufficient resources to maintain the necessary level of investment for the modernisation of
the production of European statistics.
Identify and implement projects at EU level which can maximise EU added value.
The evaluation found out that the ESP continued to be relevant, as its objectives still corresponded to the
needs of the EU. It also stated that Eurostat had made efficient use of its resources, both financial and
human and that the ESP continued to produce a clear EU-added value. Finally, it concluded that the ESP
was well coordinated with other EU initiatives in the same field, both other Eurostat programmes, such as
the MEETS programme, and statistics produced by other Commission Directorate-Generals.
A second mid-term evaluation started at the end of 2017 to support the impact assessment of the post-2020
ESP. It was conducted back-to-back with the impact assessment and it covers the years 2015, 2016 and
2017. Its report is presented as an annex of the impact assessment.
285
286
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0309&rid=1
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0444&rid=1
142
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
The percentages of planned outputs that were achieved or on target had bene constantly over 90 %, to pass
95 % in 2017. As a result, 20 of the 23 detailed objectives of the ESP can be considered on track to be
accomplished by the end of the programme. The remaining three objectives only showed limited problems,
which will have to be taken care of in the remaining period of the programme. Those are detailed objective
2 on economic governance, detailed objective 4 on economic globalisation and detailed objective 18 on
dissemination and communication.
In the years which are included in the current evaluation, 2015-2017, the total budget spent has been about
EUR 172 million. Almost another EUR 94 million have supplemented the ESP own budget as credits sub-
delegated by other DGs to cover data collections that were specifically requested by policy DGs.
The budget has been spent in the three priority areas of the programme. The first priority area "Statistical
outputs" deals with the production of European statistics. In this area the money has been spent mostly for
grants used to provide financial support to MSs. MSs use the support for improving their national statistical
systems and for implementing actions to initiate new data collections. All MSs have benefited from grants,
allowing them in the end to produce more and better quality data. As a result the total number of
disseminated datasets increased by 722 datasets or around 15%, in the three years being evaluated.
The second priority area "Production methods of European statistics" supports the production by improving
the way statistics are produced, their quality and the way they are disseminated. In this area grants were
given to MSs to strengthen the quality and efficiency of statistical production through innovative statistical
methods and tools. MSs used the money to participate in the modernisation projects of the European
Statistical System Vision Implementation Programme (ESS.VIP). In this same area procurements were
used either to finance part of the projects of the ESS.VIP or to finance the modernisation of the statistical
infrastructure used for the regular production and dissemination of the statistics. This allowed addressing
some of the weaknesses identified in the first mid-term evaluation. Examples of the results are the
modernisation of the IT infrastructure to exchange data with MSs, the renovation of Eurostat website, the
implementation of a series of new visualisation tools and of new ways to reach out to users.
The third priority area "Partnership" aims at supporting the production and quality of the statistics by
improving the cooperation inside the ESS and with other international organisations and third countries. In
this area the budget was mostly used to support the development and production of statistics in countries
outside the EU, with particular emphasis on enlargement and the European Neighbourhood Policy. This
has allowed regularly publishing data from some non-EU countries, especially to support the enlargement
process and the negotiations.
In spending the budget no major problems have been encountered and there were no infringements.
Eurostat put in place an effective system of anti-fraud measures, which prevented cases of fraud.
The evaluation results show that the programme has been run efficiently. So far:
A trend of internal productivity is observed.
The financial implementation shows an execution rate for the ESP's budget of 98.87%.
Execution on available commitment and payment appropriations both exceeded the targets set in
Eurostat's Management Plan.
Costs and burden are decreasing but slowly and they are difficult to measure.
All activities of the ESP are monitored in a timely and efficient way.
Concerning the ESP relevance, the ESP has contributed and continues to contribute to satisfy the
users' needs and to the design and monitoring of policies but more is needed:
The number of users and the quantity of data extracted from the Eurostat website have increased
substantially.
Eurostat is more and more mentioned as a reference source of data on the Internet.
Users are generally satisfied with the quality of Eurostat's data and services but they demand
more, especially regarding timeliness and comparability of data.
143
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
More microdata sets are available for users, and the number of requests has steadily increased.
New dissemination tools have made it easier for users to consult European statistics.
New modern ways of reaching out to users (social media) are used.
When approving Eurostat's annual work programmes, the European Statistical Advisory
Committee (ESAC) has expressed some general concerns to be taken into account for the future,
including the need for adequate resources.
Important stakeholders suggested that changes are needed in the way official European statistics
are produced to stay relevant.
Eurostat consulted every year the other DGs of the Commission and could in a majority of cases,
but not all, accommodate their requests.
The European Governance Advisory Board has suggested that changes are needed to exploit the
advances in data sources and maintain the official European statistics as relevant.
The modernisation of the statistical production is progressing and delivering results but now it is
time to implement those results in the ESS.
Work on Big Data and official statistics advanced and implementation can start. However, data
governance issues may require changes in the business model.
The evaluation also shows that the ESP is coherent internally and externally with other initiatives aiming at
producing statistics:
The different components of the ESP interact well together to contribute to the general objective
of the programme.
Eurostat coordinates the production of statistics in the Commission and will improve such
coordination.
Sub-delegated credits were needed to supplement the programme's budget to cover data
collections that were specifically requested by policy DGs.
Finally, the ESP implementation has shown that the programme has produced and continues to produce a
clear EU-added value for its main objectives. The EU added-value of the programme is demonstrated by
the harmonised provision of comparable and high-quality data for EU countries. The ESP as a harmonised
system with common quality standards for the production of statistics is unparalleled in the world. A
similar level of harmonisation, comparability and quality cannot be achieved at Member State level alone
to make essential contributions to Union activities, in particular the 10 political priorities of the
Commission.
The evaluation work has shown that in general the structure of the ESP is fairly complex, with objectives
and sub-objectives, covered by areas and measured by indicators which sometime are not clearly distinct
one from another. It is then inherently difficult to understand and to monitor, therefore it is recommended
to simplify the structure of the future post-2020 ESP.
144
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Annex 7: Programme specific annex on
Implementation and
Development of Single Market for Financial Services
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
The current prerogative budget line managed by DG FISMA "Implementation and
development of the single market for financial services" is intended to cover expenditure
arising in connection with measures contributing to the completion of the internal market
and its operation and development in the area of financial services, financial stability and
the capital markets union. In order to achieve this, the budget line consists of measures
contributing to, among others, greater proximity to citizens and businesses including by a
broader consultation of stakeholders, monitoring the implementation of legislation by
Member States, a comprehensive review of regulations (with a view to assessing the
impacts of the measures taken for the sound operation of the internal market for financial
services and proposing changes when necessary), and guaranteeing the completion and
management of the internal market, especially in the fields of pensions, free movement of
capital and financial services whilst preserving financial stability. .
The current Commission's priorities include boosting Jobs, Growth and Investment,
working towards a deeper and fairer internal market and working towards an energy
union. These priorities have been again mentioned by President Juncker in its 2017 State
of the Union speech, emphasising the completion of an Energy Union, a Security Union,
a Capital Market Union, a Banking Union and a Digital Single Market.
DG FISMA's work carried out with the support of this prerogative line contributes
directly to at least three of these essential work streams, including working towards an
energy union thanks to the recent work that will have growing importance in the coming
years thanks to the sustainable finance initiative.
Regarding the completion of the Banking Union, there is still work ahead of us to
achieve it and if we want that banks operate under the same rules and under the same
supervision across the continent. There is a need to reduce the remaining risks in the
banking systems of some of our Member States.
Should we want a stronger European Union, we need to pursue our work towards a
stronger single market, also in the area of financial services and capital markets in
building a Capital markets Union. .
In the context of Europe continuing to lead the fight against climate change, sustainable
finance work stream that started some months ago should take growing importance in the
years to come.
Sustainable finance is the provision of finance to investments taking into account
environmental social and governance considerations.
145
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
All these work streams will not be possible without the support of the budget made
available through the prerogative budget line.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
No evaluation has been conducted as the previous source of funding is a prerogative line
under Article 54(2) of the Financial Regulation. A conventional evaluation would be very
difficult to achieve given the wide-ranging and constantly changing activities to adapt to
new political priorities that are covered by this budget line (studies, surveys,
subscriptions to databases, development and maintenance of information systems in
support of the business, etc.). More recently, we could mention, in the context of the
objective “a new boost for jobs, growth and investment”, the progress made in 2017 on
the implementation of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan. 2/3 of the 33 actions were
delivered in the first 20 months. This was made possible thanks to budget devoted to
specific studies and the data gathered in the different databases to prepare evidence-based
proposals. Similarly, it is worth mentioning the Consumer Financial Services Action Plan
as well as the progress made on the Banking package to improve resilience and reduce
risks in the banking sector, contributing to the objective of “a deeper ad fairer internal
market with strengthened industrial base”. Finally, the adoption by the Commission in
December 2017 of the EDIS proposal and the EMU package in the context of the
completion of the banking union, contributing to the objective of “a deeper and fairer
economic and monetary union”.
The previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2) of the Financial
Regulation.
There could be potential synergies for studies, subscriptions to databases, communication
activities, Eurobarometer surveys, where, given the small budget currently available for
the different policy areas currently covered by FISMA prerogative line could benefit
from activities funded under other policy fields of the future Internal Market Programme.
DG FISMA is already cooperating with other DGs, in particular with DG ECFIN-
although not in the IMP framework-, in order to share the costs burden of acquiring data
under respective framework contracts. It is foreseen to further expand this cooperation
and save costs wherever possible.
There is also little to no overlap with other DGs, as concerns the engagement with
stakeholders. In action to facilitate a better dialogue and information exchange with
stakeholder will therefore need to be funded by this ‘programme’. Efforts are already
being made to streamline this engagement by bringing together stakeholders in the form
of workshops and conferences rather than individual meetings. This approach saves costs
in terms of workhours spent in stakeholders meetings but requires funding in order to
organise these larger, collective stakeholder engagement meetings.
No problem due to lack of flexibility, coherence, separation from other programmes
dealing with similar or complementary issues have been observed.
146
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0147.png
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
As already mentioned, the previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article
54(2) of the Financial Regulation allowing the DG to pursue its work and objectives
related to the
Implementation and development of the single market for financial services
and therefore to cover for expenditure arising in connection with measures contributing
to the completion of the internal market and its operation and development in the area of
financial services, financial stability and the capital markets union, among others.
Essential achievements have been made in these areas in the course of the current MFF.
This does not mean that the work is over and that no further improvements will be
required based on the monitoring and evaluation of the new functioning frameworks.
Better Regulation requires a continuous assessment, including monitoring financial
markets and the implementation of legislation, assessing whether the existing legislation
is fit for purpose and proposing changes when necessary, and identifying potential areas
for action where new risks emerge, with a continuous involvement of stakeholders
throughout the policy cycle. The activities covered by the prerogative line all aim to
improve evidence based policy making.
Lack of data and quantitative input to effectively monitor developments on financial
markets, identify risks to financial stability, assess policy options and analyse the
effectiveness of measures taken is a problem that this budget line contribute to tackle.
Similarly, the budgetary means provided, even if very scarce, contribute to obtain
adequate level of information regarding arising financial stability risks, competition
issues and market malpractices, as well as stakeholders' engagement and feedback
channels, especially as concerns users of retail financial services.
The capital markets union (CMU), one of the flagship initiatives of the current
Commission, is a plan to mobilize capital in Europe. It is designed for all companies,
including SMEs, and infrastructure projects that need capital to expand and create jobs.
Deeper and more integrated capital markets provide businesses with a greater choice of
funding at lower costs, offer new opportunities for savers and investors and make the
financial system more resilient.
The creation of a true single market for capital in the EU by 2019 is a key element of the
Investment Plan announced by the Juncker Commission in November 2014. However,
once the plan will have been implemented, the Commission should not stop acting but to
the contrary pursue its actions to ensure that the objectives pursued will have long-term
effects on jobs and growth and ultimately contribute to a stronger Union.
The challenges faced by the CMU initiative will remain if we do not pursue our actions,
and if we do not monitor and evaluate their added value.
In response to the financial crisis, the European Commission pursued a number of
initiatives to create a safer financial sector for the single market. These initiatives form a
single rulebook for all financial actors in the Member States. They include stronger
147
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0148.png
prudential requirements for banks, improved protection for depositors and rules for
managing failing banks.
This single rulebook is the foundation for the banking union.
As the financial crisis evolved into the euro area debt crisis it became clear that deeper
integration of the banking system was needed for the euro area countries, which are
particularly interdependent. That’s why, on the basis of the
European Commission
roadmap for the creation of the banking union, the EU institutions agreed to establish a
single supervisory mechanism (SSM) and a single resolution mechanism (SRM) for
banks. The banking union applies to countries in the euro area. Non-euro area countries
can also join.
As a further step to a fully-fledged banking union the Commission put forward a
proposal for a European deposit insurance scheme (EDIS) in November 2015. This
would provide stronger and more uniform insurance cover for all retail depositors in the
banking union.
The first two pillars of the banking union
–
the SSM and the SRM
–
are now in place and
fully operational. However, to complete the banking union, a common system for deposit
protection has not yet been established and further measures are needed to tackle the
remaining risks of the banking sector. In October 2017 the European Commission
published a communication urging the European Parliament and the Council to progress
quickly in the adoption of these measures and to complete all parts of the banking union's
architecture.
Once this essential work will be completed, again, the EU action does not come to an
end. Monitoring implementation in Member States will be crucial to the functioning of
the Banking Union. In addition, new challenges are arising and will take on growing
importance in the years to come with the emergence of the Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)
and crypto-currencies, currently unregulated and that may put the financial stability at
risk.
In the context of Europe continuing to lead the fight against climate change,
the
Commission is currently finalising its strategy on sustainable finance on the basis of the
recommendations included in the final report by its High-Level Expert Group on
Sustainable Finance (HLEG). These strategic recommendations are directed towards a
financial system that supports sustainable investments.
Delivering an EU strategy on sustainable finance is a priority action of the Commission's
Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan, as well as one of the key steps towards
implementing the historic Paris Agreement and the EU's Agenda for sustainable
development. To achieve the EU's 2030 targets agreed in Paris, including a 40% cut in
greenhouse gas emissions, we need around €180 billion of additional investments a year.
The financial sector has a key role to play in reaching those goals, as large amounts of
private capital could be mobilised towards such sustainable investments. The
Commission is determined to lead the global work in this area and help sustainability-
conscious investors to choose suitable projects and companies.
148
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0149.png
Indeed Finance has a big role to play in funding a sustainable future and moving
towards a low-carbon society, where renewable energy and smart technologies improve
our quality of life, spurring job creation and growth, without damaging our planet.
The European Union has taken the lead in efforts to build a financial system that supports
sustainable growth. In 2015, landmark international agreements were established with the
adoption of the UN 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris
Climate Agreement. The EU has set itself ambitious climate, environmental and
sustainability targets, through its 2030 Energy and Climate framework, the Energy Union
and its Circular Economy Action Plan.
These commitments, and the growing awareness of the urgency to address environmental
challenges and sustainability risks, call for an effective EU strategy on sustainable
finance.
Work in this area will intensify in the years to come requiring under the new MFF the
support provided so far by the current prerogative budget line.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
√
To provide evidence
based policy making for
a deeper and more
integrated
Capital
Markets Union so as to
ensure long-term
effects on jobs and
growth and contribute
to a stronger Union.
Programme/line
Prerogative line
Internal market for
financial services
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
√
In the context of the
completion of the
Banking Union,
monitoring the
implementation in the
Member States will be
crucial for its
functioning.
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
√
Delivering an EU
strategy on sustainable
finance is a priority
action of the CMU
Action Plan, as well as
one of the key steps
towards implementing
the historic Paris
agreement and the
EU's agenda for
sustainable
development.
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
N/A
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
Candidate for
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one IMP
programme to other)
Simplification
With which other IMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
Programme/line
Prerogative line
Internal market for
financial services
N/A - The previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2)
of the Financial Regulation.
There could be potential synergies for studies, databases, communication
activities, Eurobarometer surveys, where, given the small budget currently
available for the different policy areas currently covered by FISMA
prerogative line could benefit from activities funded under other policy
fields of the future Internal Market Programme.
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
149
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0150.png
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
Objectives will remain unchanged.
This ‘programme’ aims to ensure that DG FISMA can meet the goals set out in its
mission statement, namely monitoring the effectiveness of reforms and ensuring that EU
legislation is fully implemented as well as to respond to emerging financial risks.
It specifically aims to facilitate a better assessment of policy options that are being
considered for inclusion in legislative proposals as well as measures taken in the past,
especially as concerns their effectiveness and efficiency.
It also pursues the objective to meet the EC’s commitment as regards Better Regulation
and evidence-based policymaking.
Finally, it intends to facilitate a more efficient information exchange and dialogue with
stakeholders.
DG FISMA should receive sufficient budgetary support to pursue its work and objectives
related to the
Implementation and development of the single market for financial
services" and therefore to cover for expenditure arising in connection with measures
contributing to the completion of the internal market and its operation and development
in the area of financial services, financial stability and the capital markets union, among
others.
Its work towards the Capital Markets Union, the Banking Union and the work on
sustainable finance contributing to the fight against climate change will remain the core
tasks for the forthcoming MFF, in addition to the monitoring of existing acquis, assessing
the effectiveness of the measures taken with a view to the sound operation of the internal
market for financial services and the evaluation of the overall impact of the internal
market on businesses and the economy, identifying areas where legislation can be
improved, as well as remaining vigilant to potential new financial risks and tackle them
as appropriate.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Pursue actions related
to Capital Markets
Union so as to ensure
long-term effects on
jobs and growth and
contribute to a
stronger Union.
Programme/line
Prerogative line
Internal market for
financial services
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
In the context of the
completion of the
Banking Union,
monitoring the
implementation in the
Member States will be
crucial for its
functioning.
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Delivering an EU
strategy on sustainable
finance is a priority
action of the CMU
Action Plan, as well as
one of the key steps
towards implementing
the historic Paris
agreement and the
EU's agenda for
sustainable
development.
Work in this area will
intensify in the years to
come requiring
additional support
under the new MFF.
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
150
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0151.png
New challenges arising with the emergence of
ICOs and cryptocurrencies, currently unregulated
may put the financial stability at risk.
Candidate for
Potential for
Programme/line
Prerogative line
Internal market for
financial services
Simplification of your programme, and/or synergies and/or flexibility
N/A - The previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2) of the Financial Regulation.
There could be potential synergies for studies, databases, communication activities, Eurobarometer
surveys, where, given the small budget currently available for the different policy areas currently covered
by FISMA prerogative line could benefit from activities funded under other policy fields of the future
Internal Market Programme.
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
Commission activities carried out through the procurement of studies, purchase of access
to databases, conformity assessments, communication activities, development and
maintenance of information systems.
In particular, the 'programme' aims to facilitate the following:
- Producing analysis, evaluations and impact studies on the effectiveness of the measures
taken with a view to the sound operation of the internal market for financial services and
the evaluation of the overall impact of the measures on businesses and the economy,
- Assessing policy options that are being considered for inclusion in legislative proposals,
especially as concerns their effectiveness and efficiency,
- Broadening the strategy regarding the development of statistics on financial service
sectors and statistical development projects in cooperation with Eurostat and the OECD,
- Supporting activities that enhance supervisory convergence and cooperation,
- Improving payment systems and retail financial services in the internal market,
- Increasing the proximity to citizens and businesses with a targeted communication and
including the development and strengthening of dialogue with these stakeholders.
EU action in this area is required given the increasing interconnectedness, cross-border
activities and complexity of financial institutions and markets. In order to assess risks to
financial stability and monitor the functioning of the internal market, a holistic, European
view is necessary.
Member States are unable and/or unwilling to fully analyse issues arising from cross-
border activities and interconnectedness between national markets. While it is important
to engage with national regulators and supervisors and gather information on national
151
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0152.png
markets from them, it is much more efficient as well as effective to piece this information
together at the European level.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
Commission activities carried out through the procurement of studies, purchase of access
to databases, conformity assessments, communication activities, development and
maintenance of IT systems. There are no alternative ways to continue obtaining the
necessary data and information and to conduct the actions supporting DG FISMA's
mission.
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
Commission activities carried out through the procurement of studies, purchase of access
to databases, conformity assessments, development and maintenance of IT systems and
communication activities.
Performance can be assessed based on the percentage of delivery of the initiatives
foreseen in the Management Plan
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measurement
Source of
data
EUROSTA
T
Frequency of
measurement
Yearly
Baseline
Target
A new boost for
jobs, growth and
investment
Employment
rate
population
aged 20-64
FINTEC
–
composite
indicator of
financial
integration
in Europe
CISS
–
Composite
indicator of
systemic
stress
69.2%
(2014)
At least 75%
A deeper and fairer
internal
market
with a strengthened
industrial base
ECB
Yearly
O.5/0.3
Increase
A deeper and fairer
economic
and
monetary union
ECB
Yearly
0.25
in
normal
times
0.8 in a
crisis
mode
stable
152
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
6.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
Not applicable as the previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2)
of the Financial Regulation.
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
Not applicable as the previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2)
of the Financial Regulation
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results
Not applicable as the previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2)
of the Financial Regulation.
Sub-Annex 4: [any
other initiative specific annex…..]
Not applicable as the previous source of funding is a prerogative line under Article 54(2)
of the Financial Regulation.
153
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0154.png
Annex 8: Programme specific annex on
Standards in the field
of reporting and auditing
1. I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
1.1.
Scope and context
The programme provides EU funding to three European and international organisations
in the field of financial reporting:
- the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG);
- the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRSF);
- the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB).
This programme underpins the EU legal framework on financial reporting (accounting
and auditing), an essential element of the legislation regulating EU capital markets. This
remains fully relevant in the context of the EU's efforts to establish a Capital Markets
Union, which is one of the main objectives of President Juncker, as stated again in his
2017 State of the Union. The programme was established to overcome long-standing
concerns about the non-diversified, voluntary and precarious funding that the three
beneficiaries previously relied upon, which undermined the continuity and independence
of these organisations.
The programme has a financial envelope EUR 57 007 000 for the period 2014-2020,
broken down as follows:
- EFRAG: EUR 23 134 000
287
;
- IFRS Foundation: EUR 31 632 000;
- PIOB: EUR 2 241 000.
Funding is provided to the three beneficiaries by means of an operating grant.
EU added value of this programme in the next Multiannual Financial Framework
(MFF)
In a global economy, there is a need for a global accounting language. International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) developed by the International Accounting
Standard Board (IASB) are adopted and used in many jurisdictions around the world.
Such international accounting standards need to be developed under a transparent and
287
The 2014 Regulation
(
No 258/2014) allocated a financial envelope of EUR 43 176 000 to the programme for the
period 2014-2020 and EUR 9 303 000 to EFRAG for the period 2014-2016. The programme was amended in 2017
(Regulation No 2017/827) to extend EFRAG's funding for the full duration of the programme, increasing the
financial envelope for the programme to EUR 57 007 000 for the period 2014-2020 and the EFRAG's allocation to
EUR 23 134 000 for the same period.
154
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0155.png
democratically accountable process. In 2002 the EU decided to adopt international
accounting standards in order to enhance the global competitiveness of its companies,
and to not develop "regional" EU standards, but the EU kept the discretion whether or
not to endorse a particular international standard. In order to ensure that global standards
are of high quality and compatible with Union law, it is essential that the interests of the
Union are adequately taken into account in that international standard-setting process;
this why the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) ensures that the
EU is speaking with one voice and the interests of Union are adequately taken into
consideration in that process. Regarding auditing, it is important to make sure that the
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) standard setting activities are properly
responsive to the public interest. The Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB) is
responsible for monitoring the due process of the standard setting process.
The objectives and rationale for the programme identified in the 2012 ex-ante
evaluation
288
remain relevant.
The objective to improve the conditions for the efficient functioning of the internal
market by supporting the transparent and independent development of international
financial reporting and auditing standards must be pursued in the future to preserve the
EU’s international
influence.
In particular, it remains the case that no significant further progress towards establishing
national funding mechanisms in EU Member States can be expected and any new
funding mechanisms that may be established would not compensate for the withdrawal of
EU funding (most large MS have already establised a funding mechanism). Moreover,
the renationalisation of funding of bodies related to standards-setting in financial
reporting would run counter to the thrust of the Capital Markets Union project. It could
also undermine the EU's efforts to speak with a more unified voice in international
economic and financial fora.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
The programme was subject to an ex-ante evaluation published in 2012, which also
analysed the (limited) experience gathered from the predecessor programme. The
programme's main strategic objective is to ensure stable, diversified, sound and adequate
funding for the three beneficiaries. A secondary strategic objective, particularly relevant
for the IFRSF, is to preserve the EU's international influence in the field of financial
reporting. The discontinuation of EU funding was rejected on the grounds that it would
not allow the programme objectives to be achieved. Alternative delivery mechanisms, in
particular establishing national funding mechanisms in EU Member States, were
explored for EFRAG and the IFRSF but were not considered realistic.
288
SWD(2012)444 final of 19.12.2012.
155
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0156.png
In addition, the beneficiaries report on a yearly basis and the Commission engages in
numerous interactions with the beneficiaries throughout the year, notably by participating
in their governance structures as a member or observer. On this basis, the Commission
also submits an annual report to the European Council and European Parliament. These
reports have all shown that the programme objectives are being achieved.
There have been no audits by the Court of Auditors.
As far as the funding of EFRAG is concerned, the EU put in place the first financing
programme of this body in 2010 to make it independent from the private sector and
national standard setters. The programme covered the period 2010-2013. The
Commission proposed to prolong its financing for the period 2014-2020. However, in the
context of discussions on the financing regulation the European Parliament and the
Council decided to shorten the proposed financing period of EFRAG from seven to three
years (2014-2016) in order to ensure that EFRAG delivers on the implementation of its
governance reform, which they fully supported.
In 2014, the evaluation carried concluded that the governance reform of EFRAG was
successfully implemented. It involved a fundamental revision of the EFRAG Statutes and
the EFRAG Internal rules to incorporate a new governance structure. As a result, the
decision was taken to amend the Financing Regulation by prolonging the financing of
EFRAG for the period 2017-2020
289
. As regards the Commission proposal to amend the
Financing Regulation by prolonging the financing of EFRAG for the period 2017-2020,
it referred to an ex-ante evaluation, which accompanied the Commission proposal of the
Financing Regulation for the period 2014-2020 given that the financing period 2017-
2020 was already covered and the proposed amounts of financing remain unchanged.
In the context of the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory
Authorities in 2017, the Commission sought feedback about possible synergies between
the roles of ESMA and EFRAG in the endorsement process for international accounting
standards. Such synergies, which could go as far as integrating EFRAG's role within
ESMA, could realise economies of scope. However, stakeholders' feedback was
overwhelmingly opposed to grant a stronger role to ESMA in this area (only few market
or prudential
supervisors
favoured significant changes in the role and/or governance of
EFRAG). The Commission is therefore not pursuing this option further at this stage.
As regards the PIOB, there is a diversification of funding sources, with a substantial
contribution from IFAC but below a two-thirds threshold, as stipulated in the Regulation.
The PIOB is responsible for monitoring the due process of the international standard
setting process in the areas of audit and assurance, education, and ethics.
289
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0396
156
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0157.png
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
As indicated in section 1, no significant further progress towards establishing national
funding mechanisms in EU Member States can be expected for the next MMF and any
new funding mechanisms that may be established would not compensate for the
withdrawal of EU funding. Moreover, the renationalisation of funding of bodies related
to standards-setting in financial reporting would run counter to the thrust of the Capital
Markets Union project. It could also undermine the EU's efforts to speak with a more
unified voice in international economic and financial fora.
In terms of implementation modalities, given the limited scale and targeted nature of the
programme, there does not appear to be scope to simplify programme design or
implementation modalities. There does not appear to be any possibility to merge
programmes that would achieve significant reductions in administrative costs (which are
minimal).
Any scenario implying a reduction of the programme's financial envelope would require
across-the-board cuts in the funding at least of the two main beneficiaries (IFRSF and
EFRAG) because they are the most important beneficiaries of the funding. This would
inevitably require a significant scaling-back of EFRAG and IFRSF's activities and could
potentially undermine the IFRSF's ability to function as an effective global standards-
setter.
As regards the PIOB, the role of the PIOB may be strengthened in the future by the
outcome of the Monitoring Group Consultation Paper concerning "proposals for
strengthening the governance and oversight of the international audit-related standard
setting boards in the public interest", which was published on IOSCO's website on 9
November 2017.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
N/A
Programme/line
Programme to support
specific activities in the
field of financial
reporting and auditing
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
N/A
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
The EU legal
framework on financial
reporting is an essential
component of the
Capital Markets Union
project. Continuity and
independence of the 3
organisations
supported, working
towards standards
settings in financial
reporting and auditing
a d suppo ti g EU s
efforts to speak with a
unified voice in
international economic
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
N/A
157
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0158.png
and financial for a is
essential.
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
Candidate for
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one IMP
programme to other)
Simplification
With which other IMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
Programme/line
Programme to support
specific activities in the
field of financial
reporting and auditing
N/A
–
Given the size of the programme and the implementation
mechanism, further simplification would be extremely difficult to achieve.
Also taking into account the specificity of the programme (operating grant
to identified beneficiaries), flexibility and synergies appears impossible to
reach.
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
The strategic objectives and rationale for this programme will remain relevant in the
future (until the end of the next MFF, i.e. 2027).
In the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Commission's main objectives
with this programme will remain to ensure that the EU despite not being the author of
standards in the field of financial reporting , can still exercise an appropriate level of
influence over the international standards setters, to ensure high quality international
accounting standards, which are fit for EU companies; Therefore it needs to ensure a
stable, diversified, sound and adequate funding for the three beneficiaries (EFRAG,
IFRSF and the PIOB). A secondary strategic objective, particularly relevant for the
IFRSF and the PIOB, must be continued to preserve the EU's international influence in
the field of financial reporting. The discontinuation of EU funding is currently not an
option. It would undermine the Commission's credibility and it would jeopardise the
functioning of these beneficiaries. Alternative delivery mechanisms, in particular
establishing national funding mechanisms in EU Member States, were explored for
EFRAG, the IFRSF and the PIOB but were not considered realistic.
As part of future evaluation of this programme, under the next MMF, the beneficiaries
should continue to report on a yearly basis and the Commission should remain engaged
in numerous interactions with the beneficiaries throughout the period, notably by
participating in their governance structures as a member or observer. On this basis, the
Commission would be able to submit an annual report to assess whether the programme
objectives are being achieved.
The Commission should report main achievements and activities in the previous years.
That report should also examine developments in respect of the expanded public good
158
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0159.png
criterion of Regulation No 2017/827 and provide a detailed overview of the
developments in the field of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Programme/line
Programme to support
specific activities in the
field of financial
reporting and auditing
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
The EU legal
framework on financial
reporting is an essential
component of the
Capital Markets Union
project. Continuity and
independence of the 3
organisations
supported, working
towards standards
settings in financial
reporting and auditing
a d suppo ti g EU s
efforts to speak with a
unified voice in
international economic
and financial for a is
essential.
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
Candidate for
Potential for
Programme/line
Programme to support
specific activities in the
field of financial
reporting and auditing
Simplification of your programme, and/or synergies and/or flexibility
N/A
–
Given the size of the programme and the implementation mechanism, further simplification would
be extremely difficult to achieve. Also taking into account the specificity of the programme (operating
grant to identified beneficiaries), flexibility and synergies appears impossible to reach.
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
It is appropriate to continue the financing of the IFRS Foundation, EFRAG and the PIOB
for the period 2021 to 2027 in order to meet the long-term objectives of the Union
programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing.
Priorities
The priorities with the financing of these three bodies will remain the same, namely:
Ensuring high-quality accounting standards and high standards of transparency,
accountability and integrity;
Playing a central role in ensuring that investors are equipped with important
information relating to the balance sheet, the profit and loss statement and cash flow,
financial statements support effective corporate governance;
159
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0160.png
Ensuring the interests of the Union are adequately taken into account in that
international standard-setting process;
Ensuring that the process through which IFRS are developed and approved delivers
standards that are consistent with the requirements of the legal framework of the
internal market;
Assessing the actions taken within EFRAG in order to ensure high standards of
democratic accountability, transparency, and integrity which, inter alia, concern
public access to documents, open dialogue with European institutions and various
stakeholders, the establishment of mandatory transparency registers and rules on
transparency of stakeholders' meetings as well as internal rules, in particular
prevention of conflict of interests;
And finally assessing how the work of PIOB contributes to the enhancement of audit
quality, including the integrity of the auditing profession.
Critical mass
Our estimations for the future financing should be based on the figures of the current
Programme, the beneficiaries' budget projections, the expected inflation rate and should
take into account the current context of budget austerity. From a policy point of view in
order to produce the intended impact, we think that the current level of funding should be
maintained.
There is a critical mass of Union co-financing under which :
the financing structure will not be stable enough (is based on voluntary
contributions). It currently comes from stakeholders that have a direct interest in
the work of the beneficiary (this is the case of the IFRS Foundation and the PIOB
and it partly applies to EFRAG);
The financing received from the other sources would not be sufficient to cover its
public interest mission (this is typically the case of EFRAG).
In addition, in the case of the IFRS Foundation, Europe can maintain its seat in the
Monitoring Board (the body overseeing the IFRS Foundation) if it contributes to the
funding of the Foundation.
The overall objective of co-financing the accounting bodies proposed is to support the
adoption of IFRS and its acceptance as a global single accounting language and to
preserve the EU’s weight and voice in influencing the setting of IFRS at the same time.
Therefore it would be rational to co-finance the international body (the IFRS Foundation)
and the European technical body (EFRAG) at the same time in a coordinated manner.
The EU co-financing is also expected to contribute to enhancing the independence of the
beneficiaries in the field of accounting by allowing them to move from voluntary and/or
private funding sources to stable, predictable, public financing. The EU grant also
contributes to boosting the beneficiaries’ reputation and thus helping them in attracting
160
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0161.png
financing from other sources and in the recruitment of highly qualified independent
experts.
In the case of EFRAG, it is also expected that fair burden sharing among Member States
is enhanced. Also, the EU co-financing should equip EFRAG with sufficient financial
resources to carry out its European public interest mission.
In the case of the PIOB, the aim is strengthen the independence of the organisation: an
oversight body must not be financially dependent on the stakeholders it oversees. Public
oversight may be inefficient or at least not credible otherwise.
See also section 2.1.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
Since the EU seeks to support the development of accounting and audit standards by the
beneficiaries in the public interest rather than supporting specific projects or activities
implemented by these beneficiaries, the selected delivery mechanism was an operating
grant. Alternative delivery mechanisms were explored and rejected in the context of the
2012 ex ante evaluation. These considerations remain valid for the financing of the IFRS
Foundation, EFRAG and the PIOB for the period 2021 to 2027.
The duration of a new programme could be aligned with that of the MFF and as said
above the current level of funding should be maintained .
However, if a trade-off
between the suitability of the funding mechanism and the level of
funding which may be actually available due to budgetary constraints,
one can consider
a fall compared to the current programme, mainly as a result of potential reductions of
the EU's funding contribution to the IFRSF.
These could arise for three reasons: anticipated increases in the IFRSF's self-generated
income, increased contributions from other jurisdictions and cost-savings within the
IFRSF, for example due to the reduction in number of members of the IASB (the IFRSF
has already agreed to reduce the IASB's size from 16 to 14 members). Overall, this could
be consistent with ca. 15% reduction
290
in the programme's financial envelope, assuming
that EU Member States do not reduce their national contributions to the IFRSF.
This would still leave the Commission as the single most important contributor to the
IFRSF's budget and the EU as a whole (including funding from EU Member States) as
the region that makes the largest financial contribution to the organisation. However, if
EU Member States reduce their own contributions proportionately to the EU's, the IFRSF
would likely have to scale-back its activities.
290
i.e. a maximum of approx. EUR 1 300 000 per annum taking the commitment appropriations for 2020 as a
reference.
161
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0162.png
With regard to EFRAG, its role may be affected and strenghtened by the outcome of the
Action Plan on financing sustainable growth which will be published around 7 March
2018 and the Fitness on the EU framework for public reporting by companies that we
plan to publish around 21 March 2018.
If the budgetary constraints implies a reduction of up to 30% of the programme's
financial envelope of approx. EUR 2 600 000 per annum taking the commitment
appropriations for 2020 as a reference, such a reduction would require across-the-board
cuts in the funding at least of the two main beneficiaries (IFRSF and EFRAG). This
would inevitably require a significant scaling-back of EFRAG's activities, even if the
reduction falls more heavily on the IFRSF, as it is unlikely that EFRAG could raise
sufficient funding from private sources or national funding mechanisms to make-up the
shortfall. Moreover, if EU Member States reduce their own contributions to the IFRSF in
proportion to the EU's, the IFRSF would have to significantly scale-back its activities.
This could potentially undermine its ability to function as an effective global
standards-setter.
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
The beneficiaries should continue to report on a yearly basis and the Commission should
remain engaged in numerous interactions with the beneficiaries throughout the year,
notably by participating in their governance structures as a member or observer.
On this basis, the Commission can submits annual reports to the European Council and
European Parliament. These reports have to show that the programme objectives are
being achieved (see priorities of the funding in section 3).
No targets can be imposed to the beneficiaries like the number of endorsement advice
provided by EFRAG to the Commission on financial reporting matters and outreach
activities. The EU co-financing is expected to contribute to enhancing the independence
of the beneficiaries in the field of accounting and auditing and to preserve the EU’s
weight and voice. Imposing targets against which success will be measured would be
counterproductive because one may influence the governance of the beneficiaries..
Arrangements for monitoring and evaluate the programme
The Commission's concern is to make sure that the Community money is spent to the
purposes it was targeted at and in a cost-effective way.
The Commission should therefore continue to monitor closely the fulfilment of the
respective work programme of the beneficiaries and clarify funding issues by
participating in their monitoring bodies (e.g. Commission should remain member or
observer of the IFRF Monitoring Board, of the Supervisory Board of EFRAG, of the
Monitoring Group of the PIOB). The Commission should in particular evaluate their
governance in terms of transparency, the prevention of conflicts of interest and the
diversity of experts, and the steps that have been taken to ensure broad representation of
interests and public accountability.
162
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0163.png
In addition, the Commission should:
Analyse the annual reports produced by the three beneficiaries
Evaluate their financial statements and audit reports
Discuss matters with other possible fund providers
Arrange visits to the three beneficiaries' premises when deemed necessary to
verify the financial systems and controls.
For EFRAG in particular, the evaluation should also include the assessment of the quality
and efficiency of EFRAG's technical work based on its work programme and the
documents issued and whether the expanded public good criterion has been respected
during the endorsement process undertaken during the previous year.
Efficiency
would be measured by scrutinizing whether EFRAG delivered the
documents (e.g., comment letters, input to the IASB's discussion papers)
envisaged in its work-programme.
Quality
could be measured by delivering the documents on time and possibly by
examining the percentage of EFRAG's comments taken into consideration by the
IASB.
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measurement
Source of
data
IFRS
Frequency of
measurement
Yearly
Baseline
Target
To improve the
conditions for the
efficient functioning
of the internal
market
by
supporting
the
transparent
and
independent
development
of
international
financial reporting
and
auditing
standards
Number of
countries
using
the
IFRS
135
(2017)
Maintain
positive
trend
Percentage
of standards
endorsed in
the
EU
compared
to
the
number of
standards
issued
by
the IASB
FISMA
yearly
97%
100%
163
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0164.png
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
6.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
The programme was subject to an ex-ante evaluation published in 2012, which also
analysed the (limited) experience gathered from the predecessor programme.
In addition, the beneficiaries report on a yearly basis and the Commission engages in
numerous interactions with the beneficiaries throughout the year, notably by participating
in their governance structures as a member or observer. On this basis, the Commission
also submits an annual report to the European Council and European Parliament. These
reports have all shown that the programme objectives are being achieved.
In 2014, an evaluation of the funding of EFRAG was carried out and concluded that the
governance reform of EFRAG was successfully implemented. It involved a fundamental
revision of the EFRAG Statutes and the EFRAG Internal rules to incorporate a new
governance structure. As a result, the decision was taken to amend the Financing
Regulation by prolonging the financing of EFRAG for the period 2017-2020
291
. As
regards the Commission proposal to amend the Financing Regulation by prolonging the
financing of EFRAG for the period 2017-2020, it referred to an ex-ante evaluation, which
accompanied the Commission proposal of the Financing Regulation for the period 2014-
2020 given that the financing period 2017-2020 was already covered and the proposed
amounts of financing remain unchanged.
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
In the context of the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory
Authorities in 2017, the Commission sought feedback about possible synergies between
the roles of ESMA and EFRAG in the endorsement process for international accounting
standards. Such synergies, which could go as far as integrating EFRAG's role within
ESMA, could realise economies of scope. However, stakeholders' feedback was
overwhelmingly opposed to grant a stronger role to ESMA in this area (only few market
or prudential
supervisors
favoured significant changes in the role and/or governance of
291
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0396
164
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
EFRAG). The Commission therefore decided not to pursue this option further in its
proposal on the ESAs’ Review
.
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results
See sub-annex 1
165
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0166.png
Annex 9: Programme specific annex on
Enhancing the
involvement of consumers and other end-users in Union policy-
making in financial services (ICFS)
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
In March 2009, the Commission adopted a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the
fallouts of the global financial crisis. The annex to this strategy contained a proposal to
provide direct funding to European retail investor stakeholders to strengthen their voice
in EU policy-making. In June 2010, 22 Members of the European Parliament issued a
cross-party appeal urging civil society to develop financial services expertise and offer an
alternative voice to industry advocacy.
By the end of 2011, a pilot project in capacity building came into being. It provided
financial support for the development of financial expertise in organisations representing
European end-users and other non-industry stakeholders. Through this pilot project and
the subsequent preparatory action, the Commission awarded, via an open call for
proposals, operating grants to two non-profit entities (and only applicants), Finance
Watch and Better Finance between 2012 and April 2017 included (on average,
€1.45
million
per year). All EU financing received did not exceed 60% of their annual budget.
In parallel, the Commission was adopting a package of legislative reform measures for
the financial industry (>40 acts between 2009-2014) introducing new levels of
governance in EU financial supervision, new regulatory/supervisory requirements for
different financial services and new transparency/consumer protection obligations.
Comprehensively, the regulatory framework became even more specialised and
sophisticated. Hence the need for new civil society stakeholders to develop financial
services policy expertise and understand the implications of new rules for consumers and
investors in order to define appropriate advocacy strategies.
Based on an evaluation carried out in 2015, the Commission proposed on 15 June 2016 a
Regulation to provide for multi-annual financing in the form of
action grants
to non-
industry stakeholders specialised in financial services. The Regulation, as adopted by co-
legislators, establishes a capacity-building programme with a budget of
€6 million
covering 1 May 2017 till 31 December 2020. The programme is currently being
implemented, with the second tranche of payments to be approved by Q1 2018. Finance
Watch and Better Finance were designated as sole beneficiaries of the Programme.
Therefore, continue to co-finance these organisations is therefore necessary in the context
of the new Programme.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
In 2015, the Commission conducted an evaluation of the pilot programme with a view to
a potential follow-up, in the form of multi-annual funding with an appropriate legal basis.
166
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0167.png
The evaluation was published in the Commission Staff Working Document of 22
December 2015.
The evaluation presented the following main findings:
Since first receiving EU financial support, Finance Watch and Better Finance
have grown into expert non-industry organisations, the one complementing the
other in terms of scope of activities/membership reach.
Finance Watch and Better Finance worked on different policy areas and targeted
different audiences. With the exception of retail finance, they collectively
managed to cover most of the EU financial political agenda since 2012.
Both organisations managed to provide policy makers with other views (e.g.
through parliamentary hearings at EU and national level) than those expressed by
the financial sector, helping to balance other advocacy interests during EU law-
making.
Finance Watch was assessed as more present on the Brussels policy-making scene
whereas Better Finance was found more effective in the second- and third-level
legislative activities of the ESAs.
Both were found to possess substantial expertise and proper communication
capacity through websites, press releases and conferences for the benefit of their
members and the wider public alike.
One area for further growth was the ability of the two organisations to build the
capacity of their own members to influence EU policy making.
Both remained heavily dependent on EU funding in 2015.
The evaluation found evidence of their added value in relation to national
members and also to European consumers in a way that national consumer
advocacy groups have not been able to deliver.
The evaluation work was conducted by a contractor between January and June 2015. It
included desktop research and a targeted consultation (on-line survey and interviews)
leading to the conclusions described immediately above.
Desktop research involved:
extensive organisational descriptions
a full list of deliverables by each beneficiary including all publications (responses
to consultation, policy papers, research reports),
a full list of conferences organised since 2012 (topics, number of participants),
press releases, key documents and other communication activities.
an evaluation grid converting the high-level questions set out in the terms of
reference into measurable parameters by establishing a judgement criterion
(norm), and indicator for meeting the norm, and defining the ways of measuring
the indicators (e.g. through desktop research, online survey or interviews).
survey and interview questionnaires based on the evaluation grid.
interviews with various stakeholders
167
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0168.png
Surveys
The contractor conducted two internet-based surveys, one per beneficiary based on the
detailed questionnaire derived from the evaluation grid. They were open to responses
between the 12th of March and the 10th of April 2015. The surveys organised for this
evaluation aimed to generate data on beneficiaries’ performance across a broad range of
stakeholders (member organisations, associate members, individual experts, Commission
officials, MEPs and supervisors from the three European Supervisory Authorities
(ESAs)). The Finance Watch survey response rate was 47% out of 109 stakeholders. The
Better Finance survey response rate was 39% out of 95 stakeholders. All stakeholders
had a history of engagement with either beneficiary dating back at least three years.
Interviews
The Commission provided a list of stakeholders to the contractor who held structured
interviews with 24 stakeholders including mainly policy-makers (MEPs, Commission
officials, officials from the ESAs), officials from National authorities and other relevant
financial experts. The Commission conducted the interviews with their fellow colleagues
at DG FISMA and other DGs.
Real life example of success story of synergies, with other IMP programmes:
Financial services support many policies and activities that are aimed at stimulating
growth and societal well-being. In this sense, the activities of Finance Watch and Better
Finance aimed at improving the readability of EU financial regulation to EU citizens and
sharpening the focus of EU policy making on smaller stakeholders have far-reaching
effects.
Some brief examples of synergies with other IMP programmes are the following:
The European Commission is financially supporting EFRAG, the European Financial
Reporting Advisory Group through a budget line (120203) included in the IMP. One of
the ways Better Finance seeks to scale up its advocacy at EU level is to participate in
expert groups. In October 2017, Better Finance managed to join EFRAG as a non-
contributing member.
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
How the Programme currently works
The Capacity-Building Programme involves the preparation and submission by
beneficiaries of annual work programmes. As of 2018 (the first full year of
implementation of the programme) these work programmes are approved and first
instalments of the annual grant are paid during the first quarter. Each beneficiary has its
own comparative advantage so the programme is implemented in different ways, though
some commonality exists (e.g. type of outreach activities). Broadly speaking, both
beneficiaries use the EU grant to organise awareness raising events, to conduct research
and publish expert studies, to develop and implement advocacy campaigns, to carry out
168
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0169.png
member coordination and secure new memberships. Finance Watch, as distinct from
Better Finance, also has a dedicated work stream focussing on own strategic
development, underpinned by a strategic plan. Better Finance is best known for its annual
report on the performance of long-term pension products and focusses on retail
investment products. Finance Watch is actively engaged in most policy areas covered by
DG FISMA while developing also a niche of expertise in sustainable finance. Policy and
expert advice are of high standards in both organisations.
In general terms, since 2012, Finance Watch has received approximately 80% of
available funds every year and Better Finance the remaining 20%. Up to the end of the
preparatory action, operational appropriations were on average in the order of €1.45
million per year. (See table)
Operating grants
YEAR
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016-April 2017
INSTRUMENT
Pilot project
Pilot project
Preparatory action
Preparatory action
Preparatory action
AMOUNT
€1.25 million
€1 million
€1.75 million
€1.75 million
€1.5 million
BENEFICIARIES
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
TOTAL
€7.25 million
Action grants
YEAR
May
–December
2017
2018 (projected)
2019 (projected)
2020 (projected)
INSTRUMENT
Programme
Programme
Programme
Programme
AMOUNT
€1.1 million
€1.5 million
€1.5 million
€1.5 million
BENEFICIARIES
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
Finance Watch, Better Finance
TOTAL
€7.25 million
Challenges for the next MFF
The next MFF will need to support Commission efforts to continuously improve the
delivery of the Single Market for citizens and businesses. It is still costly and time-
consuming for EU citizens and businesses to rights under the Single Market as not all the
required information, procedures and assistance services needed to operate cross-border
are online, they are not well known, of insufficient quality or not accessible to cross-
border EU users. This is particularly true of financial services which also present an
additional challenge
–
a very detailed and voluminous regulatory and supervisory
framework
(>50 pieces of primary legislation; >200 pieces of secondary legislation).
The global financial crisis which started to impact the European financial system at the
end of 2007 shed light on gaps in the relevant EU legislative framework. This was
revised principally between 2009-2014 focussing on improving resilience to future crises,
strengthening EU financial stability and reinforcing the consumer protection dimension.
169
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
The impact of this legislation on all EU citizens can be considerable, particularly if the
risk of financial instability is not properly reduced. Yet, the expertise on financial sector
legislation is highly concentrated among experts working for regulatory and supervisory
authorities and those working for the financial services industry. Civil society
representatives (including parliamentarians and NGO experts) are often not well
equipped to assess the quality of financial services legislation and policies. It is therefore
in the public interest to build up an industry-independent capacity to assess financial
services legislation and policies which will create more awareness of the issues and help
raise the quality of the democratic debate on EU financial services policy. The Capacity-
building programme is addressing this problem.
The Commission consults widely on its policy-making. As part of its continued efforts to
improve the end-user impact of its policies and also to reduce the risk of regulatory take-
over (strong industry influence), the Commission needs influential end-user
representatives to participate in advocacy activities. The Capacity-building programme
builds on positive experience with the pilot project and preparatory action before it. The
two beneficiaries provided quality input to public consultations supporting subsequent
decision-making. Their advocacy throughout the whole policy cycle and involvement in
different Commission and European Supervisory Authority expert groups has supported
the Commission's roles as policy initiator and enforcer, especially work on regulatory
technical standards and implementation of directives.
Looking towards the future and challenges that still lie ahead, EU financial support has
been crucial to help establish Finance Watch and Better Finance as credible advocates of
consumers and other non-industry stakeholders. While they have improved their
expertise over time, their financial situation still relies on continued EU support. It would
also be helpful for other potential beneficiaries to emerge, in order to widen the circle of
non-financial stakeholders participating in EU policy-making.
Assuming positive outcomes of the 2019 evaluation foreseen for the current programme,
capacity-building of non-industry stakeholders in financial services could continue after
2020. Current levels of funding cater adequately for the growth of the beneficiaries and
allow them to deliver results expected of them under the programme. Lower funding
would endanger the financial viability of the two current beneficiaries, the breadth of
their research and outreach activities and the effectiveness of their campaigns. The
Commission would in turn lose capable non-financial stakeholders and miss out on
insights into very concrete impacts of policy and legislative measures in the area of
financial services. At the level of the EU single market, a cumulative loss of consumer
confidence due to rules that are not understood, or worse, investment decisions that turn
out to be based on misplaced trust, could create shocks in the EU financial system and
threaten financial stability. At the level of EU citizens, personal financial decisions
turned awry could put at risk savings and livelihoods.
170
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0171.png
This being a small programme with a moderate budget, the current set-up works fine. DG
FISMA is in charge of both the policy content that keeps beneficiaries active and the
financial management of the EU grant. Other DGs have capacity-building programmes,
some of which will be included under the internal market framework programme.. Some
administrative gains are to be expected for the European Commission. The approach is
yet untested with current beneficiaries. Their current policy counterpart should not
change allowing not just for continuity but also for beneficiary confidence in the new
system to develop within a reasonable timeframe
–
provided that the programme
continues with the same level of funding and the same two beneficiaries apply and are
accepted for the next programme. At the present juncture, synergies with other
programmes to be managed as part of the SMP are not immediately clear.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Citizens need better
information about
financial services in
order to take the right
personal financial
decisions.
Programme/line
Capacity-building
programme enhancing
the involvement of
consumers and other
financial services end-
users in Union policy
making in the area of
financial services.
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
N/A
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Increasingly since the
financial crisis, the
Commission is seeking
to preserve a balanced
and structured
interaction with
stakeholders to
improve the calibration
of its rules.
Health as a resource for
the society and the
internal market
N/A
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one IMP
programme to other)
Simplification
With which other IMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
Programme/line
Capacity-building
programme enhancing
the involvement of
consumers and other
financial services end-
users in Union policy
making in the area of
financial services.
N/A
–
Given the size of the program and the implementation mechanism,
further simplification would be extremely difficult to achieve. Also taking into
account the specificity of the programme (action grants to identified
beneficiaries), flexibility and synergies appear impossible to achieve.
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
The general objective of the continued Capacity-building programme under the next
MFF should be to support the Commission's need for non-industry expertise in financial
services. It would be desirable for the IMP to contain a mechanism to support better
171
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0172.png
performing programmes it finances through funds recouped from unspent appropriations
elsewhere in the IMP.
The specific objectives Regulation EU 2017/826.
1. To further enhance the participation and involvement of consumers and other
financial services end-users in Union and relevant multi-lateral policy-making in
the area of financial services
=> Linked with the rule-making challenge:
Increasingly since the financial crisis,
the Commission is seeking to preserve a balanced and structured interaction with
stakeholders to improve the calibration of its rules.
2. To contribute to the information of consumers and other financial services end-
users about issues at stake in the financial sector
=> Linked with the empowerment challenge:
Citizens need better information
about financial services in order to take the right personal financial decisions.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Citizens need better
information about
financial services in
order to take the right
personal financial
decisions.
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
N/A
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Increasingly since the
financial crisis, the
Commission is seeking
to preserve a balanced
and structured
interaction with
stakeholders to
improve the calibration
of its rules.
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
N/A
Programme/line
Capacity-building
programme enhancing
the involvement of
consumers and other
financial services end-
users in Union policy
making in the area of
financial services.
Potential for
Programme/line
Capacity-building
programme enhancing
the involvement of
consumers and other
financial services end-
users in Union policy
making in the area of
financial services.
Simplification of your programme, and/or synergies and/or flexibility
N/A
–
Given the size of the program and the implementation mechanism, further simplification would be
extremely difficult to achieve. Also taking into account the specificity of the programme (action grants to
identified beneficiaries), flexibility and synergies appear impossible to achieve.
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
The Capacity-building programme is small and targeted. Continuity in the next MFF is
the minimum requirement for its sustainability.
Currently, there are two beneficiaries
–
two associations representing the interests at
European level of consumers, small investors and other non-industry users of financial
services. Their operating budgets are modest (calculated at €2.5 million cumulatively in
172
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
the beginning of 2018) of which up to 60% is funded through the EU grant. The current
annual level of funding (€1.5 million
per annum) constitutes the critical mass of funding
needed to make the programme work effectively.
Funding at EU level is required both to mitigate the risk of regulatory take-over and to
support effective non-industry financial stakeholders with as broad a reach as possible.
An effective way of balancing the Commission's stakeholder mix is to rely on civil
society and end-user representatives who possess the capacity to operate on a European
level.
Experience with the current beneficiaries illustrates how challenging it is for them to
cover as many European citizens as possible. To the best of our knowledge, national
consumer or other end-user groups focussing on financial services are at different levels
of development. The overall picture is very fragmented across the EU, with some
Member States having hardly any such organisations. One of the reasons why Finance
Watch and Better Finance do not have a pan-EU network of members is precisely that
they struggle to find the right or adequately resourced counterparts in all Member States.
From a policy perspective, the cross-border dimension of the end-user impacts of EU
financial services policy is central to efforts to broaden stakeholder policy inputs. For
example, insights provided by Finance Watch and Better Finance respectively in relation
to sustainable finance and pension products have been helpful in ongoing work to
develop a Capital Markets Union (CMU). Part of the potential of the CMU lies precisely
in offering EU citizens the prospect of shopping across borders for the best non-bank
investment products.
It is reasonable to consider that if the Programme were to be terminated, the two
beneficiaries would not find alternative financial support immediately. Their future could
be in jeopardy. At the present juncture, there is no independent alternative available. The
lack of EU funding could inhibit new entrants should the Programme be terminated.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
Possible issues to consider in terms of simplification:
The Commission should guide the two beneficiaries and promote coherence and
complementarity of their annual activities. There is not much overlap currently.
However, this is an area worth monitoring on an annual basis to ensure full added
value of EU spending.
The Annual work programme template could be revised to elicit from
beneficiaries more precise reporting data or qualitative information that could be
used for standard Commission budget reporting documents. For example, one of
the beneficiaries, Finance Watch, has over time developed a niche for itself in
sustainable finance. Commission budget reporting requires DG to quantify the
support of any of their financial programmes to UN climate change targets.
Currently, there is no standard system to collect this information from Finance
173
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0174.png
Watch. Better Finance is also starting to look at sustainable finance from a retail
investment perspective. Possibly, this is an area of growth.
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
Before 1 December every year, beneficiaries submit their application for a grant for the
year n+1. The application is based on a detailed template which among others requires
information about planned outreach activities. In this context, beneficiaries usually
provide statistics as a baseline to determine their progress in achieving desired
communication outcomes by the end of n+1.
Since it is difficult to accurately and objectively measure increase in influence, two
proxies have been chosen:
1.
Number of position papers/responses to public consultations
–
this is the
core business activity for both beneficiaries and is illustrative of how
closely they follow the EU's policy agenda, both on a reactive and pro-
active basis. Public consultations should continue throughout. For this
reason, a corresponding decline in beneficiary advocacy is to be
expected, giving them time to strengthen lesser-developed activities (e.g.
new research projects as part of a pro-active agenda; creation of new
websites to overcome technical difficulties with current ones, expansion
of membership, etc.). For the purposes of the MFF impact assessment,
we are recommending that beneficiaries maintain a positive trend, ideally
no less than 30 position papers/responses to public consultations. The
2017 baseline was 56.
Updated list of Twitter followers
–
the beneficiary Twitter accounts are
efficient communication tools with a strong multiplier effect. They
usually contain links to the specific locations on the respective websites
of the two beneficiaries. They also refer to third-party content (EU
institutions, member associations, national authorities, etc.). The decision
to follow content uploaded by Finance Watch and Better Finance on their
respective Twitter feeds belongs to Twitter followers alone. Since it is
the expression of a choice, it can count as an indicator of interest in the
activities of the two beneficiaries. Data on Twitter followers is updated
in real time and can be checked directly by visiting the Twitter pages of
the two beneficiaries. At the end of 2017, Twitter followers cumulatively
stood at 1740. By 2020, beneficiaries should aim to exceed 2500
followers together.
2.
In line with the multi-annual nature of the Capacity-building programme, these two
indicators should be monitored once a year, every January/February.
Systematic reporting of progress related with these outcome indicators can usefully feed
into evaluation reports of the performance of the programme.
Specific
Objective
To further
enhance the
participation
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measurement
Position paper
or response to
EU
public
Source of
data
Beneficiaries'
annual
Frequency of
measurement
Annual.
Baseline
Target
Number of
position
papers and
Proxy value to
measure pro-
activity
of
56
(2017)
Maintain
positive
174
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0175.png
and
involvement of
consumers and
other financial
services end-
users in Union
and relevant
multi-lateral
policy-making
in the area of
financial
services.
To contribute
to
the
information of
consumers and
other financial
services end-
users
about
issues at stake
in the financial
sector.
responses to
public
consultations
for both
beneficiaries.
beneficiaries to
influence
EU
policy-making
in the area of
financial
services.
consultation.
reports.
trend.
(minimum
threshold
for 2020 =
292
30)
Number
Twitter
followers.
of
Proxy value to
capture
the
reach of the
beneficiaries'
information
dissemination
activities.
Twitter
followers.
Beneficiary
Twitter
accounts for
most up-to-
date data.
Annual.
1740
(2017)
>2500
292
Target set based on the expected decrease of legislative proposals submitted by the Commission in 2019 and 2020.
175
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0176.png
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
6.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
An evaluation was carried out in 2015. The adopted Regulation establishing a capacity-
building programme with a budget of
€6 million
covering 1 May 2017 till 31 December
2020 is currently being implemented. Two beneficiaries were designated. The
Programme is subject to a review based on an evaluation report foreseen by the end of
2019. A recital also establishes that any prolongation, modification or renewal of the
Programme should be subject to an open call procedure to select future beneficiaries.
The evaluation conducted in 2015 of the pilot programme with a view to a potential
follow-up, in the form of multi-annual funding with an appropriate legal basis was
published in the Commission Staff Working Document of 22 December 2015.
The evaluation work was conducted by a contractor between January and June 2015. It
included desktop research and a targeted consultation (on-line survey and interviews).
Desktop research involved:
extensive organisational descriptions
a full list of deliverables by each beneficiary including all publications (responses
to consultation, policy papers, research reports),
a full list of conferences organised since 2012 (topics, number of participants),
press releases, key documents and other communication activities.
an evaluation grid converting the high-level questions set out in the terms of
reference into measurable parameters by establishing a judgement criterion
(norm), and indicator for meeting the norm, and defining the ways of measuring
the indicators (e.g. through desktop research, online survey or interviews).
survey and interview questionnaires based on the evaluation grid.
interviews with various stakeholders
Surveys
The contractor conducted two internet-based surveys, one per beneficiary based on the
detailed questionnaire derived from the evaluation grid. They were open to responses
between the 12th of March and the 10th of April 2015. The surveys organised for this
evaluation aimed to generate data on beneficiaries’ performance
across a broad range of
stakeholders (member organisations, associate members, individual experts, Commission
officials, MEPs and supervisors from the three European Supervisory Authorities
(ESAs)). The Finance Watch survey response rate was 47% out of 109 stakeholders. The
Better Finance survey response rate was 39% out of 95 stakeholders. All stakeholders
had a history of engagement with either beneficiary dating back at least three years.
176
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0177.png
Interviews
The Commission provided a list of stakeholders to the contractor who held structured
interviews with 24 stakeholders including mainly policy-makers (MEPs, Commission
officials, officials from the ESAs), officials from National authorities and other relevant
financial experts. The Commission conducted the interviews with their fellow colleagues
at DG FISMA and other DGs.
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
See sub-Annex 1
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results
In 2015, the Commission conducted an evaluation of the pilot programme with a view to
a potential follow-up. This evaluation was published in the Commission Staff Working
Document of 22 December 2015.
The evaluation presented the following main findings:
Since first receiving EU financial support, Finance Watch and Better Finance
have grown into expert non-industry organisations, the one complementing the
other in terms of scope of activities/membership reach.
Finance Watch and Better Finance worked on different policy areas and targeted
different audiences. With the exception of retail finance, they collectively
managed to cover most of the EU financial political agenda since 2012.
Both organisations managed to provide policy makers with other views (e.g.
through parliamentary hearings at EU and national level) than those expressed by
the financial sector, helping to balance other advocacy interests during EU law-
making.
Finance Watch was assessed as more present on the Brussels policy-making scene
whereas Better Finance was found more effective in the second- and third-level
legislative activities of the ESAs.
Both were found to possess substantial expertise and proper communication
capacity through websites, press releases and conferences for the benefit of their
members and the wider public alike.
One area for further growth was the ability of the two organisations to build the
capacity of their own members to influence EU policy making.
Both remained heavily dependent on EU funding in 2015.
The evaluation found evidence of their added value in relation to national members and
also to European consumers in a way that national consumer advocacy groups have not
been able to deliver.
177
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Annex 10: Programme specific annex on
Company law and
anti-money laundering
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
Company law and corporate governance
One of the priorities of the current Commission has been to establish a deeper and fairer
internal market, and a stronger Single Market is seen as a precondition for a stronger
Union in the 6
th
scenario for the future set out in the State of the Union speech of 2017 as
the most desired scenario. This should be a single market where the freedom of
establishment is guaranteed, where companies can compete on their merits and innovate
and where stakeholders, such as employees, shareholders and creditors of companies, can
have confidence that their rights are protected. Freedom to conduct business is a right
recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Freedom of
establishment, which includes in particular companies, is one of the four freedoms of the
internal market.
Against this background, EU action in the area of company law and corporate
governance aims at fostering a sound and predictable legal environment for business,
while ensuring sufficient protection of all the interests that may be affected by different
business operations. At the same time, promoting a more responsible and sustainable
approach to business is crucial. Funding under the IMP related to company law would
contribute to such EU action.
It would also be necessary to provide for the maintenance and further development of the
Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS, established on the basis of Directive
2012/17/EU), including for anti-money laundering related issues (beneficial ownership
registers).
Anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing
Fight against money laundering and terrorism financing has been one of the Commission
top priorities. Crime has no boundaries. In the context of internal market, financial flows
are integrated and money can flow swiftly from one Member State to another, allowing
criminals and terrorists to move funds across countries avoiding detection by authorities.
An EU coordinated action in all Member States is the only way to make sure that cases of
money laundering or terrorist financing are detected as early as possible, blocked and
investigated.
As indicated above, an EU coordinated action in all Member States is key to ensure that
cases of money laundering and/or terrorist financing are detected in early stages, blocked
and investigated. Recurring financial money laundering scandals in which EU financial
system seems to have been misused seems to indicate that there are flaws in the Member
States' enforcement of EU AML/CFT legal framework.
178
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0179.png
Even if Member States are primarily responsible for delivering the Single market on the
ground, the Commission as a guardian of the Treaties and the EU as a whole has an
interest that this delivery is done in a coherent and coordinated way, and that citizens and
businesses enjoy the same rights and the same opportunities throughout Europe. In
addition, cross border activity requires good cooperation between national authorities,
but the EU has a key role to play in ensuring that such cooperation is effective, efficient
and corresponds to the needs of citizens and businesses.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
The budget line "Company law" for company law/corporate governance and anti-money-
laundering/counter terrorism financing has not been subject to evaluation or consultation
due to the fact that it was financed under the Commission's prerogatives under Article
54(2) of the Financial Regulation.
The yearly budget allocated under the on-going Multi-Annual Financial Framework
amounted in principle to around 1 Mio EUR (due to increasing needs in particular in the
anti-money-laundering area and constant needs in the area of company law, the amount
was increased to 1,7 Mio EUR in 2018).
Experience in executing the budget shows that there could be potential synergies for
instance for studies, where, given the small budget currently available for Company law
and anti-money laundering policy, these policies could benefit from activities funded
under other policy fields of the future Internal Market Programme to the extent that this
allows covering the topics on which carrying out a study in these specific policy areas is
required. Possible synergies could also be obtained as regards communication activities.
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
Company law and corporate governance
In the area of company law and corporate governance, funding would mainly contribute
to addressing challenges related to
rule-making, standard setting and enforcement at
EU institutions level.
Based on the current acquis as well as a number of legislative proposals which are about
to be presented or already in legislative negotiations, the Commission has a number of
reporting obligations in company law and corporate governance stemming directly from
EU legislation. To comply with these obligations, it will be necessary to deliver a number
of studies, and possibly to organise meetings, workshops and conferences that would
need to be financed by the Commission. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission
also has the obligation to monitor the transposition of EU legislation. Also to this end,
data collection is necessary.
New priorities that can currently be identified are emerging issues, such as the
Sustainable Development Agenda which will also be promoted by a Reflection paper
forward looking into the next Commission's mandate, increased attention to human rights
issues in the context of companies' activities, continuous developments in the digital area.
They will constantly create new challenges for adaptation of the regulatory framework
and are prone to generate needs for studies preparing appropriate policy responses.
Related to the maintaining and developing the project of business registers
interconnection, funding would also contribute to challenges related to
administrative
179
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
cooperation and integration among Member States.
The Commission is obliged under
Directive 2012/17/EU to provide for the business registers interconnection (BRIS).
Funding is currently ensured under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). To the extent
that funding cannot be ensured under the successor programme to CEF, it would also be
necessary to provide for the maintenance and further development of BRIS, including for
anti-money laundering related issues (beneficial ownership registers connection).
In detail, the challenges to be addressed by funding related to company law and corporate
governance are the following:
The regulatory framework in the area of company law and corporate governance
has not reached sufficient maturity to allow the full exploitation of the potential of
the Single Market: company law directives and regulations provide a legal
framework which has an impact on investments, with more uncertainty in
company law making the EU less attractive for investors, resulting in untapped
potential. Also, in the absence of a reliable legal framework in company law,
companies have difficulties to access markets in other MS which can deter them,
in particular SMEs, from doing cross-border business. This leads to unnecessary
costs for companies and hinders or prevents them from using the opportunities
offered by the Single Market. Relevant stakeholders (employees, creditors,
minority shareholders and other third parties) are faced with uncertainty as to
their rights and protection in cross-border situations. At the same time, emerging
issues (such as the Sustainable Development Agenda, increased attention to
human rights issues in the context of companies' activities, continuous
developments in the digital area) constantly create new challenges for adaptation
of the regulatory framework. Company-law dedicated funding is needed to
address these regulatory failures and challenges on the basis of solid data
collection, for instance on existing Member States laws, market practices,
economic assessment of existing and future solutions etc. This could be provided
by external studies and consultative stakeholder activities for which dedicated
funding is required.
There is continuous need to evaluate and enforce existing legislation: there is an
extensive acquis in the area of company law and corporate governance; also a
Company law package with a number of targeted amendments to be presented by
the Commission in the first quarter (tbc) of 2018 will bring new changes.
Insufficient knowledge on the application of the existing acquis and on
transposition measures in Member States puts at risk the appropriate pursuit of
the objectives of the relevant legislation. Evaluation and enforcement in the area
requires extensive data collection, where necessary supported by stakeholder
consultation, to be financed by company-law dedicated funding.
Relevant stakeholders are not sufficiently informed about new legislation or
accompanying non-legislative measures (such as guidelines) or on new and still
developing digital tools (e.g. BRIS). Also, as cross-border activity of companies
is continuously developing, the current degree of exchange of information
between national authorities is insufficient, including on IT solutions and best
practices, possibly with a view to developing common approaches at EU level.
Also, it could be relevant to further develop cross-border, interoperable, digital e-
government solutions in the company law area. Therefore, company-law
dedicated funding needs to be used to inform, advise and assist relevant
stakeholders (including through communication measures) and to promote the
necessary information exchange between national authorities and where
appropriate cross-border digital solutions.
180
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0181.png
The Commission has an obligation to deliver the following reports:
o
report on the application of Directive 2012/17 (business registers
interconnection/BRIS): by June 2022, could be advanced in order to
accelerate further development;
o
reports on the application of the amended Shareholders Rights Directive: by
June 2022 and by June 2023;
o
evaluation reports relating to the different proposals forming part of the
Company Law Package: 4 years after the end of the transposition deadline,
i.e. earliest second half of 2025;
o
report on the application of the proposal for a directive on investment firms
supervision: 3 years after the end of the transposition deadline, i.e.
approximately mid-2023.
Anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing
In the area of anti-money laundering and terrorism financing there are significant and
evolving challenges which need to be addressed at EU level. The recent terrorist attacks
and recurring financial scandals call for stronger action in this area To address the cross-
border phenomena, the EU Anti-money laundering/Counter terrorism financing
framework has defined common rules, however, despite substantial and steady progress
in this area, more effort and additional measures to close any potential gaps are still
needed to effectively combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
Based on Directive 2015/849/EU (4th Anti-money Laundering Directive) and its recent
amendments (to be formally adopted and published in spring 2018), the Commission has
a number of obligations in the anti-money laundering policy field stemming directly from
EU legislation in the AML field. To comply with these obligations, it will be necessary
to deliver a number of studies, to organise meetings, workshops and conferences that
would need to be financed by the Commission. As guardian of the Treaties, the
Commission also has the obligation to monitor the transposition and implementation of
EU legislation. Also to this end, data collection is necessary.
In detail, the challenges to be addressed by funding related to
anti-money laundering
and counter terrorism financing policies
are the following:
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) policy has recently received an increased
attention by the Commission and EU institutions and has become a top political
priority. In particular, the Panama committee of the European Parliament was
inquiring, among others, about the Commission work in ensuring the correct and
timely transposition, application and enforcement of the 4
th
Anti-Money
Laundering Directive and its amendments by EU Member States. In this respect,
the Commission will have a number of new obligations to report (also specifically
on its own actions to verify that Member States take action in compliance with
this Directive and to assess emerging problems or new developments in the
Member States). Therefore, it is of a very high political importance that the
Commission provides a continuous quality detailed check of the Member States'
laws transposing EU legislation as well as their correct application and
enforcement in practical terms.
The Commission obligations stemming directly from the 4
th
Anti-Money
Laundering Directive (2015/849) and its amendments:
181
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0182.png
o
to adopt an implementing act on technical specifications and procedures
necessary to provide for the
interconnection of Member States' central
beneficial ownership registers.
The Commission is obliged under
amendments to Directive 2015/849/EU to provide for the beneficial
ownership registers interconnection (via BRIS). Funding of BRIS including
the BO registers interconnection is currently ensured under the Connecting
Europe Facility (CEF). To the extent that funding cannot be ensured under the
successor programme to CEF, it would also be necessary to provide for the
development of BO interconnection via BRIS and its maintenance.
o
This is a particularly important obligation stemming from the amendments to
the Directive 2015/849 that must be flagged from the financial perspective
concerns the Commission's obligation to provide for the interconnection of
Member States' central registers of beneficial ownership. This interconnection
will be carried out through BRIS (Business Register Interconnection System).
According to our information it should be covered by the CER2 programme
o
to adopt an implementation Commission decisions on the list of high risk
third countries for the purposes of Article 9 of the Directive. In this
framework, the Commission has committed to deliver its own methodology
with the aim to develop its self-standing list of high risk third countries in line
with Article 9 of Directive 2015/849.
o
The Commission has an obligation to deliver a number of reports stemming
directly from the anti-money laundering Directive.
1) To summarise and explain the
statistics
referred to in Article 44 (annual
report)
2)
to adopt a
supranational assessment report on risks of money
laundering and terrorist financing
(report every 2 years)
3)
to adopt a Report on the implementation of this Directive (2
years after
the date of transposition and every three years thereafter):
In this Report the Commission must report on certain specific subjects
that will require additional expertise:
-
Account of specific measures adopted and mechanisms set up at Union
and Member State level to prevent and address
emerging and new
developments presenting a threat
to the Union financial system
Follow-up actions undertaken at Union and Member State level on
the basis of concerns brought to their attention,
including complaints
relating to national laws hampering the supervisory and investigative
powers of competent authorities and self-regulatory bodies
Account of the
availability of relevant information for the competent
authorities and FIUs
of the MS for the prevention of the use of
financial system for the purposes of ML and TF
Account of the
international cooperation and information exchange
between competent authorities and FIUs
-
-
-
182
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0183.png
-
Account of necessary Commission actions to
verify that MS take
action in compliance with this Directive and to assess emerging
problems or new developments in the MS
Analysis of the feasibility of specific measures and mechanisms at Union
and MS level on the possibilities to collect and access
BO information
of corporate and other legal entities incorporated outside the Union
Analysis of the
proportionality of the measures referred to in Article
20(1)(b) (PEPs)
Evaluation of how
fundamental rights
and principles recognised by the
Charter have been respected
The Report
could include where appropriate
proposals with respect to:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Virtual currencies:
empowerment to set-up and maintain a central
database registering users' identities and wallet addresses accessible to
FIUs and self-declaration forms for the use of virtual currency users
Improve
cooperation between AROs of the MS
A risk based application of the measures in Article 20(1)(b) (PEPs)
4) to adopt a Report by June 2019 to assess the
framework for FIUs
cooperation with third countries
and obstacles and opportunities to
enhance cooperation between FIUs in the Union
including the possibility
of establishing coordination and support mechanism
5) To adopt a Report by 26 June 2020 to assess whether
all trusts and legal
arrangements which have a structure or functions similar to trusts
governed under the law of MS
were duly identified and made subject to the
obligations as set out in the Directive.
6)
To assess the conditions and technical specifications and procedures for
ensuring secure and efficient
interconnection of central automated
mechanisms (bank account registers).
7) To adopt a report by 31 Dec 2020 to assess the necessity and
proportionality of harmonising the information included in the registers and
assessing the need for the interconnection of the
land registers.
8) To adopt a report (no date indicated) on the need and proportionality of
lowering the percentage for the identification of BO
of legal entities in
light of any recommendation issued in this sense by international
organisations and standards setters with competence in the field of preventing
ML and TF as a result of a new assessment, and present a legislative proposal
if appropriate.
Commission complies with its obligation to contribute to the Financial Action
Task Force (FATF) budget for its membership in FATF:
183
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0184.png
The fight against money laundering has been a top political priority of the
European Union for a number of years, based on the need to protect the financial
system from misuse. The European Commission is a Member of FATF and as
such has an obligation to contribute to its annual budget. The Company law
prerogative budget line has been used for the financing of the FATF contribution
on annual basis. FATF, an inter-governmental body established by the G7 in 1989
and based in the OECD premises, is the foremost international body devoted to
combating of money laundering and
–
since the events of 11 September 2001
–
the financing of terrorism.
Training of obliged entities on anti-money laundering rules (Directive 2015/849 -
4
th
AMLD and its amendments)
The 4
th
AMLD with transposition deadline on June 2017, imposes many
additional and complex obligations on “obliged entities” (professionals applying
the anti-money laundering rules in practice such as banks, real estate agents,
lawyers). It is essential to provide targeted courses to such obliged entities.
Recently, delivering training for legal professionals (notaries and lawyers) that
are covered by the 4
th
AMLD has been envisaged. The Report on the
supranational risk assessment on money laundering and terrorist financing
published by the Commission in June 2017, has shown that the knowledge and
also the practical application of the rules of the Directive by legal professionals is
rather limited. At the same time this issue received European Parliament's
attention.
For this reason, training of legal professionals on AML rules at EU level has been
envisaged to proactively help practitioners to apply correctly the AML rules and
improve the current situation.
Given the fact that the list of obliged entities subject to the 4th AML Directive
covers also other professionals whose training is also essential, it would be
beneficial to extend the training programme in the future (after 2020) also to other
obliged entities.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
√
As regards company
law, the current degree
of exchange of
information between
national authorities is
insufficient, including
on IT solutions and best
practices
Ensure that Member
States competent
authorities in anti-
money laundering field
cooperate between each
other to ensure cross-
border cases of money
laundering and terrorist
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
Programme/line
Programme 1
Company law
prerogative
√
Technological
evolution
and
emergence of new
policy challenges which
may
lead
to
fragmentation and legal
uncertainty
Lack of/difficulty to
collect high quality data
and evidence
Costs and burden for
businesses due to legal
uncertainty
or
fragmentation;
uncertainty
for
stakeholders in the
exercise of their rights
184
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0185.png
financing are detected.
New challenges in the
anti-money laundering
and counter terrorism
financing field emerge,
criminals detect gaps in
the AML/CTF legal
framework and/or in its
enforcement.
Ensure that the EU
rules on anti-money
laundering and terrorist
financing are up-to-
date.
Ensure that authorities
competent in anti-
money laundering field
can deliver a high level
of
compliance
by
obliged entities of the
rules of anti-money
laundering legislation
Ensure that the EU
financial system is
protected through
strengthened
implementation of EU
anti-money laundering
legal framework
Business registers
interconnection
including Beneficial
ownership registers
interconnection
√
Develop and maintain
tools and platforms
required by EU law
(e.g. maintain
interconnection of the
business
interconnection as
required by Directive
2017/1132 and develop
interconnection of MS
beneficial ownership
registers under
Directive 2015/849
–
4th AMLD including
the most recent
amendments
–
5thAMLD)
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
The specific objectives of this prerogative line are the following as regards the two policy
areas covered:
Company Law:
support the development of the EU regulatory framework in the
area of company law and corporate governance with a view to making business
more efficient and competitive while providing protection for stakeholders
affected by company operations; ensure appropriate evaluation and enforcement of
the relevant acquis; inform and assist stakeholders and promote information
exchange in the area.
Anti-money Laundering and counter terrorism financing (AML/CTF):
to
ensure the correct and full implementation and application of EU legal framework
for anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing (AML/CFT) by the
185
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0186.png
EU Member States, to develop future AML/CFT policies to address new
challenges in the AML/CTF field.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
Promote
information
exchange
between
national
authorities,
including
on
IT
solutions
and
best
practices, in the area of
company law
Ensure
efficient
cooperation
between
Member
States
authorities competent in
the field of anti-money
laundering to detect
cases
of
money
laundering and terrorist
financing.
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Gather
up-to-date
information
(and
provide solutions when
gaps in regulations are
identified/evaluate
existing
legislation),
including
by
developing state-of-the
art tools
Facilitate dialogue with
civil society and other
stakeholders (feedback
gathering)
Facilitate introduction
of new technologies
Ensure
the
development,
implementation
and
monitoring of high-
quality and effective
Single Market rule
making and standard
setting (in the company
law and anti-money
laundering and counter
terrorism
financing
field)
Ensure high-quality and
effective enforcement
actions
Business registers
interconnection
including beneficial
ownership registers
interconnection
Develop and maintain
tools and platforms
required by EU law
(e.g. maintain
interconnection of the
business
interconnection as
required by Directive
2017/1132 and develop
interconnection of MS
beneficial ownership
registers under
Directive 2015/849
–
4th AMLD including
the most recent
amendments
–
5thAMLD).
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
Programme/line
Company law
prerogative
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
This budget line being a prerogative line
–
i.e. a line to be used by the Commission at its
own prerogative in view of new challenges and needs as part of policy strategy and
coordination
–,
there is no relevance to define in advance a particular structure and it
would be impossible to establish priorities at the start of the Multi-Annual Financial
Framework. The key consideration here is to define the critical mass of funding needed
to allow effective policy strategy and coordination by the Commission.
186
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0187.png
Over the 2014-2020 period, funding amounted in principle to around 1 m/yr. Due to
increasing needs in particular in the anti-money laundering area and constant needs in
company law, the budget had been increased to 1,7 Mio in 2018. Significant increase
would be necessary (expected around 2-3
€m/yr) in a situation where the interconnection
of registers required to be administered by the Commission according to the legislation in
the field of company and anti-money laundering law would not be financed under the
Digital Europe programme). In any event, some increase will be necessary
–
as already
shown by the increase for 2018
–
as there are new challenges in the field emerging and
new obligations on the Commission imposed by EU legislation. Certainly, any reduction
would have non-negligible consequences as it would prevent carrying out several much
needed studies or other activities.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
The budget of this prerogative line is mainly used to support policy and legislative
developments, monitoring and follow-up and to ensure an efficient implementation of the
Commission's right to initiative and efficient governance of the EU legislative process.
This includes procurements for impact assessment, evaluation, market studies,
conformity checks, experts groups, etc. Therefore, it is appropriate to continue to
implement this budget within DG JUST.
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
For a prerogative line, it is impossible to determine in advance the use of the allocated
funds and thereby to define specific indicators as to the outputs, results or impacts. It is
therefore proposed to monitor and evaluate performance on a financial basis, as is
currently the case with the existing budget line: Commission services will focus on
timely budget execution.
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measurement
Use of budget
available
Source of
data
ABAC
(Commission
financial
system)
Frequency of
measurement
Annual
Baseline
Target
Company Law:
support the
development of the
EU regulatory
framework in the
area of company
law and corporate
governance with a
view to making
business more
efficient and
competitive while
providing
protection for
stakeholders
affected by
company
operations; ensure
appropriate
evaluation and
enforcement of the
relevant acquis;
inform and assist
stakeholders and
promote
information
exchange in the
area.
Timely
budget
execution
Execution of
more than
95% of
budget by
year-end
>95%
>95%
187
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0188.png
Anti-money
Laundering
and
counter terrorism
financing
(AML/CTF):
to
ensure the correct
and
full
implementation
and application of
EU legal framework
for
anti-money
laundering
and
countering
terrorism financing
(AML/CFT) by the
EU Member States,
to develop future
AML/CFT policies to
address
new
challenges in the
AML/CTF field.
188
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Annex 11: Programme specific annex on
Consumer programme
and New Deal for consumers
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
Retail markets, fuelled by households' consumption, generate more than 56% of the EU
GDP and therefore represent the biggest share of the value added generated in the
Single Market. In the EU, retail markets are regulated by an extensive acquis of
harmonised consumer rights and product safety laws, including laws to ensure
consumer redress and efficient administrative cooperation in the relevant harmonised
fields of consumer rights and product safety. In addition, Article 169 TFEU provides that
the Union shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of
consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise
themselves in order to safeguard their interests.
The Consumer Programme 2014-2020 promotes in particular the development and
enforcement of consumer rights in the EU and supports measures to inform and
empower consumers. It builds on and consolidates the achievements of the 2007-2013
Consumer Programme.
It funds actions under the following four objectives:
Safety: to consolidate and enhance product safety through effective market
surveillance throughout the Union.
Consumer information and education, and support to consumer organisations:
to i p o e o su e s edu atio , i fo atio a d a a e ess of thei ights, to
develop the evidence base for consumer policy and to provide support to
consumer organisations, including taking into account the specific needs of
vulnerable consumers.
Rights and redress: to develop and reinforce consumer rights in particular
through smart regulatory action and improving access to simple, efficient,
expedient and low-cost redress including alternative dispute resolution.
Enforcement: to support enforcement of consumer rights by strengthening
cooperation between national enforcement bodies and by supporting
consumers with advice.
Among the Consumer Programme's key achievements, the following can be highlighted:
Consumer product safety: effective monitoring of EU markets and enforcement
of EU product safety law via the EU rapid alert system for dangerous consumer
products (over 20.000 alerts on dangerous products since 2004), strengthening
of capacities of national enforcers through co-funding of exchange of officials
and of coordinated enforcement actions;
189
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Consumer information and education: Strengthening of capacities of national
consumer organisations via the umbrella organisation BEUC, consumer
education with the creation of the Consumer Champion and Consumer
Classroom projects and awareness-raising actions on consumer issues (e.g.
energy, consumer rights with consumer credits or online dispute resolution);
Development of a solid evidence basis for policy making and enforcement at EU
and national level through a consistent monitoring of how the single market is
performing for consumers through the Consumer Scoreboards and a series of in-
depth market studies to investigate specific problems in consumer markets and
specific areas (e.g. consumer vulnerability, e-commerce, online marketing,
environmental claims, comparison tools) and behavioural studies to test policy
options in terms of their impact on consumer behaviour. These studies also
provided key evidence to ascertain the demand side of key strategies and
policies of the Commission (e.g.: DSM, Energy Union, Internal Market, retail
financial markets);
Enforcement and redress: EU wide screenings of websites (more than 5000
websites have been reviewed thanks to coordinated "sweeps") to identify and
follow-up on infringements of EU consumer laws. Breaches of consumer rights
made by large traders with EU level operations were addressed in the area of
on-line games, car rental, and social media. About 100 000 consumers per year
have been receiving concrete assistance by the ECC-Net to resolve their disputes
with traders established in another Member State. The Commission set up in
2016 the ODR platform to provide consumers and business an easier access to
alternative-dispute-resolution procedures when shopping online.
Development of IT tools (in some cases based on legal obligations stemming
from the EU consumer laws) to facilitate the swift and secure exchange of
information and the cooperation between national authorities (e.g.
EU s Rapid
Alert System for non-food dangerous products and the CPC-System for enforcers
of consumer laws in MS).
The legal and political commitments which underpin the existing consumer programme
are still all fully valid (see sub-annex 3 with the relevant legal obligations). Furthermore,
our evaluation of the actions funded under this programmes shows they are still highly
relevant and efficient.
Recent developments: the New Deal for consumers
In May 2017, the Commission finalised a thorough evaluation of the EU consumer and
marketing law which concluded on the need to better enforce rules and support redress
when consumers have been harmed by breaches to consumer laws. This need is
underpinned by recent large-scale issues for consumers created by problems such as
the "Dieselgate", dual quality standards of foodstuff, or massive flight cancellations.
As a consequence, President Juncker stressed in his 2017 State of the Union speech that
"in a Union of equals, there can be no second class consumers" and that he was
"shocked when consumers are knowingly and deliberately misled". The Commission
190
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
therefore announced in its work programme for 2018 a 'New Deal for Consumers'. This
project is proposing an overhaul of consumer laws and redress means and new policy
activities in order to take into account the impact of the further digitalisation of
consumer markets on consumer protection.
This new strand of action will require specific financial support to ensure that the
proposed package of measure deliver on the ground. In particular to ensure:
equal treatment of consumers across the Single Market in relation to double
quality standards;
stronger enforcement capacities of Member States
EU level market intelligence to implement the new Consumer Protection
Cooperation Regulation adopted end 2017;
enhanced product safety especially to take into account new technological
developments such as Internet of Things, robotics and artificial intelligence;
strengthening of consumer protection at international level in order to address
the challenges of the global economy and their impacts on the economic
interests and safety of EU consumers;
support to qualified entities for the revision of the Injunction Directive which will
be one of the legal instrument proposed in the New Deal package.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
The current evaluation covers two separate evaluations that are carried out
simultaneously, whilst respecting the different scopes and nature of the evaluation.
The purpose of the Consumer Programme 2007-2013 evaluation is to assess the main
outcomes and results achieved and to identify the main problems and solutions with
regard to its implementation, including against recommendations from the mid-term
evaluation of the same programme. Actions covered by this programme are also being
assessed for their sustainability.
The purpose of the mid-term evaluation of the Consumer Programme 2014-2020 is to
review the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of outputs,
results and impacts, the latter to the extent possible), the state of play regarding the
implementation of the eligible actions set out in Article 4 and the specific actions
referred to in Annex I of the Regulation, the allocation of funds to the beneficiaries, the
efficiency of the use of resources and the programme's European added value, taking
into consideration developments in the area of consumer protection and other
consumer-relevant EU policies, with a view to a decision on the renewal, modification
or suspension of the actions.
191
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
The evaluation equally addresses the scope for simplification, the programme's internal
and external coherence including possible synergies/complementarities with other EU
programmes.
The midterm evaluation of the current Consumer Programme is on-going and the first
results show a general satisfaction of the stakeholders in terms of relevance and
effectiveness of the activities. The European Consumer Centres, E-enforcement
academy (training programme for enforcement agencies), and the RAPEX system,
scored highly, as well as the support to BEUC and for all the networking and
stakeholders events. The reasons and influencing factors for "lower scores" relate
mostly to the lack of flexibility of the programme to address new market challenges
driven by fast and often unpredictable societal and technological changes. In addition,
there are specific limitations in the Member States for an optimal uptake (e.g. Limited
staff/financial resources/skills of NGOs or authorities). Finally the production of
evidence is widely valued but the timeframe is too slow.
Overall the objectives and priorities of the Consumer Programme are assessed as being
still fully relevant and should be continued. Additional priorities could be given to
sustainable consumption, a uniform and high level of consumer protection throughout
the EU, support to consumer organisations at the Member State level (e.g. jointly with
the Member States in their role as consumer watchdogs.
To achieve coherence at the capacity of consumer organisations, there seems to be
limited overlaps with other programmes, but quite a significant potential for increasing
synergies with activities in other areas. There seems to be significant room for
improvement regarding administrative burdens related to the programme delivery with
a huge demand for simplification as regards grants for joint actions and exchange of
officials.
Regarding programme activities administrated/implemented by Chafea, results so far
point to efficiency, management and high staff turnover issues linked to a lack of critical
size.
Suggestions for changes to the programme include the need for more flexibility (i.e. a
much less prescriptive programme), better planning process with however the ability to
react fast to new policy demands or market developments and better possibilities for
developing linkages to third countries (especially in the area of enforcement).
These lessons are also very relevant for the new funding needs under the New Deal for
Consumers policy line. Indeed, most stakeholders and types of actions will be the same.
However, the need to support centrally certain types of activities will be reinforced: e.g.
the development of relevant market information for enforcement purposes, the
development of adequate testing facilities for connected objects. There will be also a
need to provide efficient and speedy direct (and sometimes small scale) support to
192
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
enforcement capacities in the Member States both for competent authorities and
qualified entities in the sense of the revised injunction directive.
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the Consumer and New Deal for consumers programme of the
next MFF
In the next MFF, the three first main challenges identified for the Internal Market
Programme are relevant for the continuation of the consumer programme and for the
new funding needs under the New Deal for consumers. The fourth challenge regarding
health is also relevant in so far as dangerous products may seriously and physically harm
people. However, in the present state of management of dangerous products in the EU,
it is not considered material in terms of public health threat.
The specific problems are the following:
Consistently high level of non-compliance to key consumer rights, insufficient
redress obtained by consumers, regular occurrence of massive issues harming
consumers across the Internal Market.
Shortcomings of the existing regulatory framework and enforcement tools to
address new safety and economic risks linked to the globalisation of the
production chain, direct internet sales (including from outside the EU) and the
continuous appearance of innovations in consumer products and services
enabled by the rapid digitalisation of all sectors of the economy such as
connected products, artificial intelligence, robotics, new online business models,
etc.;
Insufficient capacities and knowledge of consumers and other relevant active
actors in representing or protecting consumers, such as consumer organisations
and national competent authorities (national, regional and local level) to follow
the rapid development and complexification of retail markets, to act to
counterbalance market asymmetries and to advocate for consumers interests;
Limited capacities of consumers and SMEs to meet the challenges stemming
from the transition to a green, circular and low-carbon economy and thus to
efficiently contribute to this transition on retail markets
Increasing share of the population at risk of being excluded from more complex
and digitalised markets and falling in vulnerability patterns.
These problems are expected to become greater over time as consumer transactions
intensify due to globalisation and digitalisation.
The drivers are the following:
193
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Technological developments, globalisation and digitalisation lead to new
sophisticated, complex products and services being offered very easily and
rapidly to a large number of consumers across borders.
Increase of market asymmetries due to a risk of higher concentration of market
power of large internet platforms and multinational companies (e.g. in the car
i dust , e e g , tele o , …
Budgetary constraints are increasing stretching resources of national authorities
and weakening existing models to strengthen consumer organisations and
empower consumers
Demographic developments such as the increasing ageing of population and
growing social inequalities but also new patterns of consumption in particular by
the youngest generation (partly due to more work
–life
balance).
Environment challenges make natural resources more scarce
The consequences are the following:
Lack of confidence of consumers in the internal Market, sub-optimal competition
conditions.
The emergence of new technologies (e.g. 3D printing, Internet of Things,
advanced robotics), new materials (e.g. bio- or nano-based), new processes (e.g.
increasing online sales, data driven production, artificial intelligence), often
combined with cyber-criminality (e.g. hacking of connected devices and services)
create new challenges for policy makers, enforcers and market surveillance
authorities and weaken the effectiveness of their enforcement actions -
widespread infringement of consumer rights can then spread rapidly and harm
millions of consumers while obtaining redress for consumers becomes
increasingly difficult.
Technological developments and digitalisation whilst being powerful tools to
stimulate the economy and offer more choice for the consumers, require strong,
empowered consumers able to face new challenges. For instance in the area of
financial services block-chain technologies, digitalisation of the banking system
(fintech) and new funding models (crowd-funding) bring new opportunities but
also risks. As not all consumers are able to follow (due to their age and lack of
digital skills), the share of the population becoming vulnerable risk is increasing as
well as the consequential social divide, financial exclusion and over-indebtedness;
Rising consumption worldwide increasingly threatens the environment as it
competes for scarcer resources. Without engaging consumers into more
sustainable consumption patterns, the EU will not be able to meet its goals on a
green, circular and low-carbon economy. The choices made by millions of
consumers can indeed support or hamper these developments and incur in cost
savings for both individuals and the society as a whole
194
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0195.png
Summary problem tree for consumer related activities, regrouped under the IMP main challenges
Empowerment of citizens, consumers and businesses
Growing number of products/ services being offered
rapidly to consumers across borders due to technology.
Increase of consumer markets asymmetries due to
the development of new marketing models (digital only,
multiplication of intermediaries) and new products (IOT,
robotics, AI).
Change in consumption patterns linked to
demography (ageing population, change in rural/city
repartition)
Increase share of the population at risk of
vulnerability (due to technology and educational gaps)
Increased need for sustainable consumption
behaviour (due to increased environmental deterioration)
Limited and complex information to the various
stakeholders involved in retail markets and especially
consumers and their representatives
Limited e-procedures to support problem solving for
consumers in cross border situations
Market asymmetries insufficiently addressed
Insufficient representation of consumer interest at the EU
level
Insufficient incentive for sustainable consumption
Increasing risk of consumer vulnerabilities and inadequacy
of consumer assistance schemes
Administrative cooperation and integration among Member
States
Member States are the prime authorities
responsible for the application and enforcement of EU rules,
but can have limited knowledge, capacity and incentives to
apply EU rules at national level or suffer from budgetary
constraints
Globalisation of markets create global challenges
for enforcers and increase the risk of fragmented regulatory
response
Increased need for cross-border management of
dangerous/fraudulent products and services
Complex tools/technology evolution
Rule-making, standard setting and enforcement at EU
level
Limited civil society/ consumer engagement
Lack of/difficulty to collect high quality data and
evidence
•
Drivers
•
Problems
Limited cooperation/exchange of best practises between
authorities
Member States and Commission IT tools not
interoperable and not digitised
EU rules are not equally or sufficiently enforced or
applied across the EU by Member States authorities
National rules may hinder internal market principles
Not up-to-date competence of authorities.
EU rules and standards could be not up to date or not
future proofed (evolving context)
EU decisions not underpinned with state of the art
tools and evidence
Costs and burden for businesses due to legal
uncertainty or fragmentation; uncertainty for
stakeholders in the exercise of their rights
Lack of relevant and up to date information on
business practices non-compliant to EU laws that
concerns several or all the Member States at the same
time
195
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0196.png
•
Consequences
Less attractive cross-border business, leading to limited
competition and consumer choice, as well as higher prices
Consumers/businesses not using their rights to the full
extent
Increase in the share of the population at risk of
vulnerability
Each Member State develops unique solutions instead of
building on best practice of others
EU solutions differ from global solutions, imposing cost
on global exporters or insufficiently safeguarding the Single
market
Dangerous/fraudulent products and services can be sold
in all MS
Divergent enforcement, serious distortions of
competition, compliance problems and infringements, high
costs to businesses and consumers, unequal level of
protection of consumers
Imprecise, not fit for purpose or easy to circumvent
rules, e.g. in the area of dual quality of products
New markets and/or business models remain
unregulated causing detriments to consumers.
Views of minority stakeholders not sufficiently
reflected in the decision process
Difficult and costly investigations of illegal practices
especially cross border
Difficulty to implement coordinated enforcement
measures on problematic practices affecting several or all
the MS at the same time
196
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
2.2.
Assessment of impacts of new funds attributed to support the New Deal for
Consumers
The New Deal package follows a Fitness Check of EU consumer law, an evaluation of
Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights, both published in May 2017, and a
Recommendation on Collective Redress, published in January 2018. Results show that,
while the substantive rules are overall fit for purpose, their effectiveness is hindered by
lack of awareness and by insufficient enforcement and consumer redress opportunities.
In 2016, 20.1% of EU consumers reported consumer rights-related problems and 24% of
traders thought compliance with consumer law was not good enough. This leads to
consumer detriment and disruption of fair competition for traders.
The problems identified are widespread and have the same causes across the EU. In
cases of widespread illegal practices affecting consumers in several Member States,
enforcement must be based on a common and uniform substantive law framework. The
Fitness Check Report found that the most important added value of EU consumer law is
that the harmonised rules enable national enforcement authorities to address cross-
border infringements harming consumers in several Member States more effectively. At
the same time, the harmonised rules allow traders to trade cross-border more easily
and at lower cost.
The focus was on problem drivers that have not yet been addressed otherwise. The
proposed intervention aims to support in particular the New Deal objectives to ensure
remedies for victims of unfair commercial practices, a strengthened mechanism for
collective injunctions and redress and overall stronger enforcement of consumer laws
and product safety laws, including via international cooperation.
The New Deal Package was subject to intensive and extensive public consultations and
targeted consultations which showed that Consumer associations support all the
proposed measures of the New Deal, except on information requirements and the right
to withdraw. Business associations support the suggested interventions on transparency
fo o li e a ketpla es, f ee digital se i es pa tl , i fo atio e ui e e ts a d
the right to withdraw. There is some resistance from business associations to the
proposed interventions on penalties, remedies, collective injunctions and redress and
f ee digital se i es. Ma
Me e State autho ities suppo t the p oposed
interventions on remedies, collective injunctions and redress, transparency for online
a ketpla es a d f ee digital services.
Some express concerns about interventions on
penalties, remedies and the right to withdraw
The proposed intervention will make consumer redress easier and more effective, and
thus reduce consumer detriment which will be beneficial particularly for vulnerable
consumers. It will also have preventative effect through increased deterrence, which
197
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
will result in higher compliance rates among traders. The intervention will also support
the implementation of the revised CPC Regulation and its effective functioning. By
introducing improved redress opportunities and by filling gaps in current protection for
digital transactions, consumer trust will be enhanced. Law-abiding traders will benefit
from a more level playing field. Compliant traders, including SMEs, will have reduced
costs because of better awareness on requirements, a simplified legal and enforcement
framework. Positive impacts can also be expected for the environment, by ensuring
greater deterrence for misleading green claims which will allow compliant traders to
enjoy their competitive advantage resulting from the use of valid green claims and
encourage more traders to invest in sustainability.
Improved compliance with EU consumer law will ensure that consumer rights become
more tangible for the individual consumers and thus enhance citizens' and businesses'
acceptance of the added value of EU rules and the Internal Market. The Intervention on
collective injunctions and redress can contribute to better access to justice and are also
likely to have positive impacts on vulnerable consumers and on the environment.
2.3.
Specific Objectives of the consumer related parts in the IMP
The general objective of the consumer related parts (hereafter the consumer pillar) in
the IMP is to ensure a high level of consumer protection in the Internal Market and in
particular full compliance to the consumer acquis by businesses; smooth functioning of
the internal market, for the benefit of both consumers and traders; empowerment of
consumers and their representatives; full redress opportunities for consumers who may
have been harmed; effective enforcement by competent authorities; and reliable
evidence on retail markets. These objectives support the overall EU strategy for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth, a Digital Single Market and the New Deal for
Consumers proposed by the Commission on 11 April 2018.
The Consumer Pillar will do so by contributing to protecting the health, safety and the
legal and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to
information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests,
and supporting the integration of consumer interests into other policy areas. This pillar
is not only about consumers' interest but also traders in order to ensure a fair level
playing field in retail markets. The Programme shall complement, support and monitor
the policies of Member States. In addition, the programme will strive to keep our
market information, surveillance and enforcement cooperation tools abreast of
constantly evolving markets because of the impacts on consumer goods and services
and marketing strategies generated by digitalisation, connected objects, artificial
intelligence, and direct trade from third countries. It will ensure that the EU consumer
policy and legislative developments supports new societal needs such as promoting
sustainable consumption, addressing consumer vulnerability in certain markets. It will
address better the gaps in enforcement capacities among the Member States and will
198
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0199.png
enable EU level cooperation to address market issues of Union dimension (i.e. spreading
across all national markets). It will allow national authorities and qualified entities to
ensure the highest and most consistent level of compliance of businesses to consumer
and product safety laws, and that consumers obtain the redress they deserve in case of
problems.
The general objectives will be pursued through the following specific objectives:
Empowerment of citizens, consumers and
businesses
Consumer
Programm
e
Ensuring consumers are aware of
their rights and of consumer safety issues
Strengthening consumer
organisations' roles in consumer policy-making
and advocacy at EU and national levels
Reducing vulnerability of consumers
also linked to negative consequences of
market digitalisation
Enabling assistance and redress
systems for individual consumers including
support to the ADR bodies, the ODR Platform,
and the ECC-Net
Ensuring qualified entities in the
meaning of the Injunctions directive can
deliver on their injunctive role
Promoting sustainable consumption
behaviours
Administrative cooperation and
integration among Member States
Ensuring enforcement
authorities competent in consumer
and product safety laws can deliver
a high level of compliance to the
acquis
Ensuring the availability
of market intelligence tools and
joint actions in the field of product
safety including in relation to
testing of dangerous products
Rule-making, standard
setting and enforcement at
EU institutions level
Providing a high
quality general information
on consumer markets and
conditions and behaviours
and on safety issues
New Deal
for
Consumer
s
Enabling effective and
coordinated EU-level enforcement
actions in the field of consumer law
and product safety
Enabling effective
enforcement cooperation with
third countries
Integrating and
developing information on
consumer markets with a
view to develop evidence
for enforcement actions at
the EU level
Generating
evidence on market issues
stemming from new
technologies (IOT, IA,
mobile e-commerce)
2.4.
Proposal simplification and synergies
Our ongoing evaluation shows that Member States want more efficient, streamlined,
and flexible financing (e.g. through new delivery modes). In doing so, preference should
be accorded to solutions providing for economies of scale.
There are potential synergies for market studies. This is notably the case of market
studies and analysis of emerging/new business models, possibly also behavioural
studies, where synergies could be achieved with DG COMP.
There are other areas such as training actions to enhance business respect for consumer
rights and uptake of ADR/ODR or by better integrating market sources for the Single
Market Information scoreboard which is managed by GROW and already provides for
dedicated sections on the activities of the CPC and the ECC-NET networks or the "Your
Europe" portal which is signposting ECCs and is regularly enriched with ECC studies and
199
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0200.png
advice. A common online publication hub dedicated to citizens could be envisaged with
the conclusion of the new Digital Single Market Portal proposal. There are also general
synergies to be found in a better integration of the IT tools ensuring communication
among the various networks for example by using the same common off the shelves
software and having a central team to provide support for the management of the
relevant communities and the parametrisation of the instances.
There could also be synergies with other programmes, for example the product safety
awareness actions for small businesses/SMEs could fit very well as an action under the II
COSME programme. Another example, we are starting to explore with CNECT the link
between cybersecurity and product safety, in particular to help SMEs to produce "safe
by design" products. Making use of the JRC could also be a potential path for scientific
support to product safety.
We should also develop synergies, for example, the ODR platform could be used as a
hub for multiple consumer related issues. The same site could be modified in order to
dispatch consumers in a more efficient manner (e.g. linking it to the ECC-Net for
instance). A one-stop shop element regarding redress should be favoured.
Given our different target groups, synergies could rather be achieved in the
development stage than in the execution stage (e.g. development of framework training
capacity building activities, development of a common internal market branding for
communication campaigns).
There is limited potential for synergies on content, which inherently differ from one DG
to another. In particular, each DG should maintain a core budget to do all the activities
linked to legislation and policy making (preparation, implementation and follow-up),
such as for instance conformity checks, monitoring etc.
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
objective
Type of action/name of action
Empowerment of citizens, consumers and businesses
Ensuring consumers are aware of their rights
Awareness raising campaigns on consumer rights,
and of consumer safety issues
and product safety
Development of networks and new channels to
relay the information, elaboration of testimonials.
Capacity and synergies building between economic
operators and consumers so that they endorse
their respective responsibilities and roles and
address cross-cutting problems
Strengthening consumer organisations' roles in
Training and support to the operation of consumer
consumer policy-making and advocacy at EU
organisations
200
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0201.png
and national levels
Reducing vulnerability of consumers also linked
to negative consequences of market
digitalisation
Enabling assistance and redress systems for
individual consumers including in a cross border
context
Ensuring qualified entities in the meaning of the
Injunctions directive can deliver on their
injunctive role
Promoting sustainable consumption behaviours
Training of consumer organisations and other
relevant bodies
Development of market intelligence e.g. on the
sharing economy, behavioural aspects in some
sectors and/or in general
Support to the ADR bodies, the ODR Platform, and
the ECC-Network
Support and training of qualified entities
Development of intelligence
Awareness raising campaigns, training and support
to relevant NGOs
Administrative cooperation and integration among Member States
Ensuring enforcement authorities competent in Training and support to Member states competent
consumer and product safety laws can deliver a authorities
high level of compliance to the acquis
Ensuring the availability of market intelligence
co-ordinated market surveillance activities, a rapid
tools and joint actions in the field of product
and effective exchange of information through
safety including in relation to testing of
RAPEX, the system established by the GPSD;
dangerous products
capacity-building and the exchange of good
practices between EU enforcement authorities; the
development of common enforcement tools, joint
testing of products
Enabling effective and coordinated EU-level
Support to networking, exchange of best practices,
enforcement actions in the field of consumer
study visits, provision of IT tools, e-enforcement
law and product safety
training academy
Enabling effective enforcement cooperation
Support to exchange of best practices and joint
with third countries
projects between EU authorities and authorities
from 3
rd
countries, including within the OECD.
Joint trainings with MS to businesses from 3
rd
countries
Rule-making, standard setting and enforcement at EU institutions level
Providing a high quality general information on
The consumer scoreboards and specific market
consumer markets and conditions and
studies
behaviours and on safety issues
The retail markets observatory
Integrating and developing information on
consumer markets with a view to develop
evidence for enforcement actions at the EU
level
Generating evidence on market issues stemming Specific market studies
from new technologies (IOT, IA, mobile e-
commerce)
201
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0202.png
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
The intended funding needs to be flexible and combine various tools such as
procurements, grants, logistic support to Member States. It is intended to use an
executive agency, provided such an agency can reach a critical size to make it efficient
and in a position to implement the vast majority of the programme from drafting the
terms of reference or call for proposals, to evaluation of bids and proposals, to
management and audits of the projects and their evaluation.
The governance system should be a committee meeting annually.
One of the characteristic of the consumer programme is the fairly small amounts
involved per project, the limited absorption capacity of NGOs and public administration
beneficiaries and their incapacity to manage complex accounting requirements. The
mechanism should therefore be considerably flexible in order to allow choosing on a
case by case basis whether to use procurements or grants. For grants these should be
extremely simple, not bound by the use of a complex IT system (such as the one of RTD)
and as far as possible they should be operation support with a limited number of
conditions. A new model of funding of local NGOs and authorities based on direct
management by the Member States may be explored.
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measur
ement
Source of
data
Frequency of
measurement
Baseline
Target
Specific Objective
Consumer programme and New Deal for consumers
General performance
indicator
Improvement
in the
Consumer
Conditions
Index
Composite indicator
reflecting consumers
and traders perception
on the functioning of
retail markets
Index
100=
maximu
m
theoreti
cal
score
%
Consumer
Scoreboard
(Commission)
Every two years
65 (2016)
(current
target for
2020: 66)
Improvement
of 3 points
over the
period
Strengthening
consumer
organisations' roles in
consumer policy-
making and advocacy
at EU and national
levels
% of
consumers
who trust
consumer
organisations
to protect
their rights as
consumers
% of consumers who
agree (strongly agree
or agree) that they
trust consumer
organisations to
protect their rights as
consumers
Regular
survey on
consumer
attitudes
towards
cross-border
trade and
consumer
protection
(Consumer
Conditions
Scoreboard)
ECCs
Every two year
72% (2016)
75% at the
end of the
reference
period
Enabling assistance
and redress systems
for individual
consumers including in
a cross border context
Ensuring qualified
entities in the meaning
of the future Directive
on representative
actions (replacing the
current Injunctions
Directive) can deliver
on their role to bring
Number of
visits to the
websites of
the ECCs.
Total number of
unique visitors on ECCs
websites
Nb
yearly
4.3mio
(2016)
+1% per year
Increased
capacity of
qualified
entities
Number of qualified
entities participating in
cooperation and
exchange of best
practices mechanism
Nb
Commission
Every two years
At least one
qualified
entity per
country at the
end of the
period
202
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0203.png
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measur
ement
Source of
data
Frequency of
measurement
Baseline
Target
representative actions
[subject to adoption of
the Directive on
representative
actions]
Ensuring enforcement
authorities competent
in consumer and
product safety laws
can deliver a high level
of compliance to the
acquis
% of
compliance
rate in first
level SWEEPS
of the CPC
network
% of RAPEX
notifications
entailing at
least one
follow-up
action (by
other
Member
States)
Ensuring the
availability of market
intelligence tools and
joint actions in the
field of product safety
including in relation to
testing of dangerous
products
Enabling effective and
coordinated EU-level
enforcement actions
in the field of
consumer law and
product safety
Providing a high
quality general
information on
consumer markets and
conditions and
behaviours and on
safety issues
Ensuring consumers
are aware of their
rights and of consumer
safety issues
Number of
joint actions
performed
% of websites checked
by CPC authorities in a
CPC sweep and found
compliant to
consumer law
%
Commission
yearly
N/A
Above 40% on
average over
the period
% of RAPEX
notifications entailing
at least one follow-up
action (by other
Member States)
%
Commission
yearly
46% in
2017
Increase of 30
% over the
MFF period to
60 %
Number of joint
actions performed
Nb
Commission
Every two year
At least 3 at
the end of the
period
Number of
coordinated
EU-level
actions
performed
Number of
coordinated EU-level
actions performed
Nb
Commission
Every two year
At least 3 at
the end of the
period
Publication of
a relevant set
of indicators
on retail
markets
Number of EU level
report on consumer
markets or conditions
published by the
Commission
Nb
Commission
yearly
1 per year
1 per year
% correct
answers to 3
questions on
consumer
knowledge of
relevant
legislation
Average percentage of
correct answers given
by consumers on 3
questions related to
the following topics:
rights in case of the
reception of
unsolicited products,
faulty product
guarantee and
distance purchase
cooling-off period.
% of consumers who
have declared to feel
vulnerable or
disadvantaged (either
" to a great extent" or
"to some extent")
when choosing and
buying goods or
services, because of
the complexity of
offers, terms and
%
Regular
survey on
consumer
attitudes
towards
cross-border
trade and
consumer
protection
(Consumer
Conditions
Scoreboard)
Regular
survey on
consumer
attitudes
towards
cross-border
trade and
consumer
protection
(Consumer
Conditions
Every two years
49% (2016)
53% at the
end of the
reference
period
Reducing vulnerability
of consumers also
linked to negative
consequences of
market digitalisation
% of
consumers
who feel
vulnerable
because of
the
complexity of
offers, terms
and
conditions
%
Every two years
21.3%
(2016)
19% at the
end of the
reference
period
203
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0204.png
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measur
ement
Source of
data
Frequency of
measurement
Baseline
Target
conditions
Promoting sustainable
consumption
behaviours
% of
consumers
who are
influenced by
the
environmenta
l impact when
choosing
goods/service
s
% of consumers who
declared that
considering everything
they have bought
during the last two
weeks, the
environmental impact
of any goods or
services also influence
their choice (one of
the following answers:
"yes, for all or most of
the goods/services
bought"," yes, but only
for some", "Yes, but
only for one or two")
%
Scoreboard)
Regular
survey on
consumer
attitudes
towards
cross-border
trade and
consumer
protection
(Consumer
Conditions
Scoreboard)
Every two year
49.8%
(2016)
53% by the
end of the
reference
period
Sub-Annex 1: Stakeholder consultation
The focus has been on implementing a broad-scale interview process with key
stakeholder organisations in all 28 Member States, Norway and Iceland, as well as with
EU level stakeholder organisations. Questionnaires for these targeted interviews were
approved by Commission services and the interviews themselves were held during
December 2017 and February 2018.
In larger Member States where the number of relevant stakeholder organisations is
greater, i.e. Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK, interviews were held with:
Ministry in charge of consumer policy and/or the consumer agency (where
relevant);
The national authority responsible for enforcement of consumer legislation that
is pa t of the Eu opea e fo e e t et o k 'CPC Net o k ;
Other national authorities responsible for policy and enforcement of consumer
legislation and other prioritised consumer relevant legislation (digital economy
and society, energy/sustainable consumption);
National representative of the Consumer Safety Network (CSN);
RAPEX contact point;
National consumer organisations;
The European Consumer Centre/ODR contact point;
Main national business association(s).
In the remaining Member States, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Iceland and Norway interviews were held with:
Ministry in charge of consumer policy or the consumer agency (where relevant);
204
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
The national authority responsible for enforcement of consumer legislation that
is pa t of the Eu opea e fo e e t et o k CPC Net o k ;
National representative of the Consumer Safety Network (CSN) or RAPEX contact
point;
Main national consumer organisation;
The European Consumer Centre/ODR contact point.
The consultation process also took place in meetings with relevant EU networks, such as
ECCG, FSUG, CPN and CPC where the effectiveness of current actions and future needs
were discussed. These meetings took place during January and February 2018.
Fu the o e, the e as also the Co
issio s o li e pu li
part of a larger exercise combining several consultations.
o sultatio
o du ted as
205
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Sub-Annex 2: Evaluation results
The midterm evaluation of the current Consumer Programme is on-going and the first
results show a general satisfaction of the stakeholders in terms of relevance and
effectiveness of the activities. According to the interim results, highest scores in terms
of effectiveness were provided regarding Exchange of enforcement officials, E-
enforcement academy (training programme for enforcement agencies), and support to
BEUC, the European Consumer Centres, the RAPEX system, and networking and
stakeholders events in general. Where lower levels of achievements are reported, the
reasons and influencing factors seem to relate mostly to new market challenges driven
by fast and often unpredictable societal and technological changes. In addition, there
are specific limitations in the Member States that affect an optimal uptake (e.g. limited
staff/financial resources/skills of NGOs or authorities). Finally the production of
evidence (studies, scoreboard etc.) is widely accepted as an effective instrument;
however question marks remain regarding the timeline of studies compared to the
needs of the policy process and the policy uptake of results.
Overall the objectives and priorities of the Consumer Programme are assessed as being
still fully very relevant and should be continued. Additional priorities could be given to
sustainable consumption, to activities that contribute to a uniform and high level of
consumer protection throughout the EU, and to support to consumer organisations at
the Member State level (e.g. jointly with the Member States in their role as consumer
watchdogs).
In terms of coherence, there seems to be little overlaps with other programmes, but
quite a significant potential for increasing synergies with activities in other areas. In
terms of efficiency, there seems to be significant room for improvement regarding
administrative burdens related to the programme delivery and scope for simplification
as regards grants for joint actions and exchange of officials.
Regarding programme activities administrated/implemented by Chafea, there is no
pattern that would indicate that activities managed by Chafea are more or less
effective. However issues have been noted relating to efficiency of programme
management, relating
inter alia
to delineation of responsibilities with DG JUST, the
reportedly high staff turnover, and complex administrative procedures in some areas.
Suggestions for changes to the programme include the need for more flexibility (i.e. a
less prescriptive programme), better planning process with however the ability to react
fast to new policy demands or market developments and better possibilities for
developing linkages to third countries (especially in the area of enforcement).
These lessons are also very relevant for the new funding needs under the New Deal for
Consumers policy line. Indeed, most stakeholders and types of actions will be the same.
However, the need to support centrally certain types of activities will be reinforced: e.g.
the development of relevant market information for enforcement purposes, the
development of adequate testing facilities for connected objects. There will be also a
need to provide efficient and speedy direct (and sometimes small scale) support to
206
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
enforcement capacities in the Member States both for competent authorities and
qualified entities in the sense of the revised injunction directive.
Sub-Annex 3: Legal commitments under the Consumer
Programme 2014-2020
List of legal commitments under their respective legal basis:
Directive 2013/11/EU (ADR):
o
Development of a IT tool to assists consumers
(a) clarify the legal basis and availability and appropriateness of ADR for an issue
they may have;
(b) select the appropriate ADR body for their issue;
(c) structure their complaint and
(d) directly communicate their complaint to the appropriate ADR body in
circumstances where direct communication with a trader and/or the ODR
platform has not worked
o
Training for ADR entities (through public procurement, i.e. a contractor that
organises relevant training courses)
o
Support and facilitate the networking of national ADR entities and the exchange
and dissemination of their best practices and experiences.
o
Take accompanying measures to raise awareness of ADR entities and their
procedures and to promote ADR take-up by traders and consumers.
o
Action in support of capacity building through training available in various
languages and exchange of best practices and expertise for staff members
Regulation 524/2013 (ODR):
o
Develop the ODR platform (and be responsible for its operation, including all
the translation functions necessary for the purpose of this Regulation, its
maintenance, funding and data security.
o
Actions in support of facilitating access to alternative dispute resolution
schemes, including through a Union-wide online system
o
Actions to support the preparation by the Commission of consumer ADR/ODR
protection legislation and other regulatory initiatives, monitoring the
transposition by Member States and the subsequent evaluation of its impact,
and the promotion of co-regulatory and self-regulatory initiatives and
monitoring the real impact of those initiatives on consumer markets
CPC Regulation 2006/2004 and implementation of revised CPC (Regulation
2017/2394)
o
CPC IT tool
o
Sweeps questionnaires and data processing
207
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
o
o
Support to exchange of officials and study visits other capacity building
activities of authorities
Market surveillance tools to develop evidence based Enforcement prioritisation
GPSD
–
Directive 2001/95/EC:
o
"Promote and take part in the operation in a European network of the
authorities of the Member States competent for product safety, in particular in
the form of administrative cooperation"
Budget for running the Consumer Safety Network (CSN)
o
Facilitate Member States' "information exchange on risk assessment, dangerous
products, test methods and results, recent scientific developments as well as
othe aspe ts ele a t fo o t ol a ti ities" …. "i p o ed oope atio at
Community level with regard to the tracing, withdrawal and recall of dangerous
products"
Budget for horizontal co-ordinated product safety activities by national
authorities
o
Facilitate "the establishment and execution of joint surveillance and testing
projects"
Budget for product specific co-ordinated product safety activities by
national authorities
o
Facilitate "the exchange of expertise and best practices and cooperation in
training activities"
Budget for the Exchange of Officials
o
Consult a "Community" Scientific Committee on serious risks posed by certain
products to the health and safety of consumers in several Member States
Budget to contribute to the operation of scientific committees
GPSD
–
Directive 2001/95/EC art. 12 and Regulation 765/2008 art. 22:
o
Operate RAPEX
Budget for the maintenance and the further development and
modernisation of the RAPEX IT galaxy (more budget will be needed than
during previous years under the 2014-2020 programme because of the
needed total revamp of RAPEX and the future addition of international
exchange of information modules)
Retail Financial services Regulations including PAD and consumer credit: workshops
with MS
Main consumer acquis: case law database, awareness raising actions
General treaty obligation to support consumer representation especially at the EU
level with BEUC and ANEC.
Co-financing of ECCS as part of their potential role to host contact points for the ODR
Regulation, the Geoblocking new Regulation, the Service Directive, the package travel
Directive.
Implementation of EU consumer law Directives.
Besides the still ongoing transposition
checks of the Consumer Rights Directive, the new challenge for the coming years will be
208
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
the transposition check of the new Directives 2015/2302 on package travel and linked
travel arrangements (PTD) due in 2018.
Evaluation of existing legislation. Need to carry out evaluations of the EU Directives, in
particular of the new PTD due in 2019 and 2021 as required by that Directive.
209
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0210.png
Annex 12: Programme specific annex on
Internal Market -
Governance tools
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
During the last 15 years the Commission has developed a number of Internal market
governance services (Your
Europe
(YE) portal,
Your Europe Advice
(YEA),
SOLVIT,
Internal Market Information
(IMI) system and the
Single Market Scoreboard
(SMS)
aimed to ensure that the Single market works in practice for businesses, citizens and
public authorities. These services, managed by the Single Market Service Centre help
citizens and businesses reaping the benefits of the Single market and contribute to an EU
serving better people
"needs and wishes to live, study, work, move and prosper freely
across our continent and benefit from the rich European cultural heritage",
in line with
the commitments of the Bratislava Declaration, adopted on 16 September 2017.
Since 2006 the
YE
on line portal brings down barriers to unlock opportunities, by explaining to both citizens and
businesses EU rights and rules in jargon free language, including their national application.
YEA
offers citizens and
businesses tailored information and advice on their rights in the Internal Market, free of charge and in all 24 EU
languages, including re-direction to the authority or other body (local, national or European) best placed to solve their
problem.
SOLVIT
is a network between Member States' administrations set up in 2002 by the Commission and the Member
States, aimed to deliver fast, effective and informal solutions to cross border problems citizens or businesses encounter
when their EU rights in the Internal Market are denied by a public administration.
IMI
is a multilingual online application offered as a service to Member States, allowing authorities to ask each other
questions notify each other of developments and store information they need to share. The Commission is legally
responsible for ensuring the security, availability, maintenance and development of its software and IT infrastructure.
The system has been developed as a generic on-line application, which today provides an IT solution for administrative
cooperation in 12 Internal Market policy areas.
The
SMS
provides an annual evaluation of the functioning of the Single market and Member States’ performance,
according to measurable indicators, for Single Market governance tools and in several policy areas.
All these services and tools help up-hold a
Deeper and fairer internal market
and to
setting up a
Digital Single Market,
two of the 10 Juncker's Commission priorities for the
period 2014-2019. By explaining the rights and administrative formalities, solving
problems and enabling administrations to share information needed to apply EU laws
correctly, they achieve a positive impact in the citizens' daily lives and the businesses'
ability to start-up, scale-up and trade across borders, giving at the same time more
visibility to EU's positive intervention.
In addition, the planned
single digital gateway
to be based on the Your Europe portal
should ensure a centralised access for EU citizens and businesses to all the information
necessary when using their rights to mobility in the EU. It should also ensure full access
to online procedures in a non-discriminatory way (if a procedure is available for a
national of a specific Member States, it should also be accessible to users from other
Member States). It will impose on Member States an obligation to create full online
access to the most important and most often used procedures. It includes a strong
incentive to Member States to adopt ambitious cross-border and national e-government
strategies, so EU citizens and business can benefit fully from the available technological
developments. Relevant eGovernment actions under the European Sttuctural and
210
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0211.png
Investment Funds should be designed in line with the single digital gateway
requirements.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
By explaining the rights and administrative formalities, solving problems and enabling
administrations, the Internal market governance tools improve citizens' daily lives and
businesses' ability to start up, scale up and trade across borders, and increasing the
visibility of the Single Market. Continuously improving the functioning of the Single
Market for citizens and businesses is essential, taking into account the steady increase in
cross-border activity.
Within the Commission, the Your Europe portal has become one of the most visited EU
portal in Q4 2017 and the third most consulted interinstitutional EU portal with 20
million visits over the year 2017 and more than 2 million visits a month in January 2018.
Compared to the previous period (2007-2013) where Your Europe reached 14,6 million
visits in the four years after its launch (2010), it is estimated that the number of visits
would increase to more than 100 million for the period 2014-2020., These figures, prove
its success in helping citizens and businesses to overcome obstacles in the Single Market.
According to regular user surveys, it's seen as a best practice example with interactive
content and all the performance targets in terms of language coverage, number of visits
and user satisfaction have been constantly met year after year since its launch.
Still, a persistent lack of awareness about EU rights emerged from recent Eurobarometer
research showing that only 6% of EU citizens feel that they are well informed about their
rights as a citizen of the EU and only 36% feel that they are fairly well informed
293
. In
the
public consultation on the single digital gateway,
80% of businesses found complying
with national requirements difficult and 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
294
. The lack of EU knowledge also impacts
negatively the turnout of citizens to the elections of the EP. According to
Eurobarometer
295
, as much as 84% of the respondents thought that the turnout would
have been higher if more information was provided on the impact of the EU on their
daily lives.
SOLVIT provides a free, unique and efficient problem solving service in comparison to
costly and lengthy legal proceedings at the national level and formal infringement
proceedings at the EU level and providing greater benefits to the Single Market than the
individual cases solved. The most recent SOLVIT assessment (SWD(2017)210
final),
carried out to underpin actions identified to strengthen the network and accompanying
the SOLVIT Action Plan adopted on 2 May 2017
296
, highlighted shortcomings requiring
improvements, notably as regards the administrative capacity, staffing levels, expertise
and positioning of SOLVIT centres within national administrations; meeting the quality
criteria set out in the 2013 SOLVIT Recommendation; the lack of systematic and
293
Eurobarometer 430: European Union citizenship
–
March 2016.
Commission staff working document synopsis report on the stakeholder consultation on the single digital gateway
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 (SWD/2017/0212 final - 2017/086 (COD)).
295
Flash Eurobarometer 431: Electoral Rights
–
March 2016.
296
COM(2017)255 of 2 May 2017.
294
211
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0212.png
structured set-up for the handling, follow-up and reporting of problems detected in
SOLVIT linked to breaches of EU law by the Member States; and the limited awareness
of SOLVIT as a problem-solving tool, especially among start-ups, SMEs and other
businesses. With regard to the latter, businesses have submitted over the period 2015-
2017 only a small fraction of the total number of cases in SOLVIT, compared with those
submitted by individuals as highlighted in the following table:
Table 1: Business vs citizens cases EU 28, source SOLVIT database
The latest YEA evaluation report (Invitation to Tender N° MARKT-B.TF1/7/2013)
concluded, in 2014, that it meets the objective of providing a service that is fast, of high
quality and offering advice that empowers its users and its cost is overall reasonable.
More recent Commission services' internal assessment shows a slight decrease in the
number of YEA enquiries.
The use of IMI has been steadily increasing over the years: In 2017 more than 33,500
exchanges were recorded in the system, representing a 25% of increase compared to the
year before. Amongst other forms of cooperation more than 110,000 bilateral information
exchanges have taken place since 2008. The system is used by more than 7,800 public
authorities and 18,300 registered users. More than 85% of the users confirm that the
system is easy to use and appreciate the Commission's continuous investment in
improving the functionality of the system. IMI already replaces 12 IT systems with a
capacity for replacing more. This multipurpose tool for administrative cooperation is
characterized by a rational and cost efficient approach to IT development: if IMI is
reused to support additional administrative cooperation procedures, there is no need for
specific development, independent support and separate maintenance services. IMI can
bring synergies and efficiencies, contributing to the IT rationalisation, thereby enhancing
synergies and efficiencies and its added value at EU level for the good functioning of the
Single market, provided that its recognition as the default corporate tool for
administrative cooperation in the Internal Market is preserved and sufficient resources
are allocated.
Real life example of success story of synergies, with other IMP programmes:
Examples of recent SOLVIT cases showing how it helped concrete businesses to benefit from swift proper
enforcement of EU rules in customs and safety and health at work:
A Hungarian company not obtaining correct invoices for tax free refunds within the EU from an
Austrian company raised the issue without success with the Austrian financial authority. After
SOLVIT intervention, the Austrian supervisor clarified conditions for full tax refund. Following
this clarification, the concerned Austrian company changed its practice of issuing invoices and
further streamlined business practices by the creation of a new and less restrictive refund form.
After having been fined in the Netherlands in July 2017 because wrong placement of recording
equipment in the vehicle, a Estonian lorry driver submitted his case to SOLVIT invoking incorrect
212
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0213.png
interpretation of the provisions under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 governing conditions for
inspections of tachographs: Since in this case, the tachograph had been verified in accordance
with those rules, following SOLVIT intervention the Dutch authority agreed to withdraw the fine.
However, significant obstacles persist for both citizens and businesses interested in
moving to, selling products or providing services in another EU country. Finding
relevant, accurate and understandable information online as well as being able to access
and carry out administrative procedures online is crucial for those willing to use the
advantages of the Single Market, but often remains complicated, time-consuming and
expensive, if at all possible as set out in the impact assessment on the single digital
gateway
297
.
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
The good functioning of the Single market is not a given and has not materialized yet in a
number of areas. 25 years later, citizens and businesses are still confronted with
administrative complexity, technical barriers or lack of enforcement on the ground. This
becomes evident in the increasing number of cases submitted to the Single market
assistance and problem-solving services, in particular Your Europe Advice and SOLVIT.
In line with the main objective of the Single Market Strategy
298
- improving opportunities
to access markets across borders and bringing the Single Market's practical benefits to all
citizens and businesses -, the existing governance tools (YE, YEA, SOLVIT, IMI and the
SMS) aim to provide information and advice, assistance and problem-solving services,
based on close connection between Member States' administrations, thereby helping
citizens and businesses to reap the benefits of the Single market and ensuring that it
works in practice for them on the ground.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
√
Enable
citizens/businesses
to have easier
access to more
comprehensible
information,
procedures and
assistance services
Improve problem-
solving tools in
cross-border
situation
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
√
IMI to become the
corporate tool to
manage
cross-
border
policy
challenges.
The
coordination
group
of
the
Member States for
the single digital
gateway
will
increase
cooperation
and
integration.
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
√
Make better use of
the information in
SOLVIT for EU law
enforcement actions
and the design of
future policies.
The common quality
criteria of the single
digital gateway will
help to provide
businesses
and
citizens a consistent
approach
to
information across
borders.
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
N/A
Programme/line
Internal Market
governance tools
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
297
298
SWD(2017) 213 final
COM (2015) 550 final of 28 October 2015.
213
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0214.png
Candidate for
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one IMP
programme to other)
N/A
Simplification
With which other IMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
√
The single digital
gateway will join
various
sectoral
information
and
assistance
sources
under one access
point,
preventing
duplication
and
fragmentation.
Programme/line
Internal Market
governance tools
√
IMI
already
replaces
12
IT
systems
with
a
capacity
for
replacing
more
supporting
IT
rationalisation.
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
As stated above, it remains time consuming and costly for EU citizens and businesses to
exercise their Single Market rights as not all the required information, procedures and
assistance services needed to operate cross-border are online, they are not well known, of
insufficient quality or not accessible to cross-border EU users.
The single digital gateway aims at significantly improving the online availability, quality
and accessibility of information, assistance services and procedures which are relevant
for citizens and businesses in the EU, all to more so when they want to operate and move
within the Single Market. It is based on close cooperation between the Commission and
Member States for an effective, step by step implementation of the various requirements
of the project. The effective implementation of the single digital gateway will be ensured
by the creation of a coordination group which will be a forum for cooperation between
the Commission and the Member States.
The single digital gateway contributes to the Digital Single Market strategic objective of
modernising the public administration, achieving cross-border interoperability and
facilitating easy interaction with citizens, also reflected in the e-Government Action Plan
It is in line with the Commission’s digital transformation objective of creating a
streamlined web presence and avoiding further fragmentation caused by new portals and
contact points. It is in line with the recommendations of the European Interoperability
Framework.
By significantly improving the user experience, the initiative will greatly improve
citizens' and businesses confidence in the Single Market. Digitisation of procedures and
provision of accurate and reliable information as well as easier access to assistance
services will smoothen cross-border exchanges, generate efficiencies and reduce red tape,
thereby contributing to the creation of new job opportunities and growth.
In spite of a successful track record with EU citizens, Single market information and
problem solving tools remain underused, particularly by businesses. Your Europe
Business is currently covered and financed by COSME while Your Europe Citizens is
not related to any programme. A more coherent approach is needed in the future. There is
a need to keep investing on boosting the quality, the visibility and the transparency of the
Single Market governance tools, raising awareness to maximise their impact, notably via
214
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0215.png
promotion focusing on businesses which rarely use today assistance and problem-solving
tools such as YEA or SOLVIT. Making full use of feedback on the functioning of the
Single market from the existing governance tools is essential, as well as continuing to
ensure its transparent evaluation through the Single Market Scoreboard. The latter is
recognised as
"a useful tool to monitor the application of EU law"
by the EP and
Council, that have both asked in several occasions for its further expansion.
Moreover, gradual expansion of IMI for any legislation in the field of the internal market
would reinforce its role as the "default tool" for administrative cooperation, bringing
synergies through IT rationalisation.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Enhanced access to
information, advice,
improved problem-
solving services and
procedures on a
cross-border basis
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
Improve
management
of
cross-border Single
Market challenges,
while promoting IT
rationalisation
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Giving SOLVIT a
more prominent role
in the overall EU
Law enforcement.
Ensure the coherent
application of the
single
digital
gateway
quality
standards
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
Programme/line
Internal Market
governance tools
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
In the context of the ongoing digitalisation of the Single Market and with a view to the
implementation of the single digital gateway, a comprehensive upgrade of the Your
Europe portal is required. The single digital gateway will be based on the Your Europe
portal with a new common user interface (search engine) managed by the Commission.
The high added value, in comparison to their limited cost, of Internal market governance
tools and services, giving visibility to the EU's positive role in the citizens' daily lives
and allowing businesses to reap the benefits of the Single market, needs to be fully taken
into account. Even if generally the amounts provided under the Single Market
Governance tools budget line have enabled the EU to fulfil its obligations as a result of
its prerogatives in this area so far, the issues that have emerged during the current MFFs
(see above) need to be addressed in the upcoming MFF period. As recommended in the
REFIT Platform Opinion adopted on 21 September 2017,
"sufficient human and financial
resources must be available to make sure that all the support networks for the Internal
Market (IMI, SOLVIT, Points of Single Contact etc.) can operate efficiently and have
enough visibility"
299
. Moreover, the Commission has to meet existing legal commitments
in terms of IMI support to 12 Single Market policy areas and upcoming new ones, and in
view of the role of the Your Europe portal
300
as backbone of the single digital gateway
and the new enhanced role of SOLVIT in the enforcement policy.
The outcome of the Brexit negotiations might imply long transitional arrangements
impacting the running and demand of most of these services. This might be rather
REFIT Platform Recommendations
–
Internal Market: XII.2.a and XII.4.c -
“Internal Market Information System
and
Single Market Centres” (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-internal-market-xii2a-and-
xii4c-internal-market-information-system-and-single-market-centres_en).
300
http://europa.eu/youreurope/index.htm
299
215
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0216.png
demanding for assistance and problem-solving services such as YEA and SOLVIT.
Quality improvement, more prominent role in the overall EU Law enforcement and
awareness raising efforts of both services should increase their number of users. Further
expansion of the Scoreboard to ensure that this on-line tool even better reflects the actual
functioning of the Single Market, providing a more comprehensive and accurate view of
how it works in practice, might be resource intensive too.
The provision of IMI remains a legal obligation for the Commission for all areas
currently listed in the annex of the IMI Regulation
301
and those for which pilot projects
have been formally launched such as train driving licences
302
. The continuity of services
needs to be ensured and ready to address increase in system usage. Moreover, there is a
legal obligation to launch a new IMI module for Public Documents
303
and the
Commission made political commitments to ensure the technical implementation of the
SOLVIT Action Plan. Several other pieces of legislations which are currently in different
stages of adoption in the legislative process will use IMI and will thus lead to the launch
of new modules in the system: e.g. European Services e-Card
304
, notification procedure
for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services
305
, firearms, General Data
Protection Regulation. This gradual expansion of IMI for any legislation
"in the field of
the internal market"
should reinforce its role as "default tool" for administrative
cooperation's role.
As stated above, the single digital gateway will provide a single entry point to
information, assistance, problem-solving services and e-procedures. At EU level, it
should reduce fragmentation and lack of awareness by making different contact points
and problem solving mechanisms more findable and accessible, and by ensuring that any
services available through it respect certain minimum quality standards.
The single digital gateway regulation leaves ownership and responsibility for supplying
national information, national procedures and assistance and problem solving services to
the Member States. At the same time, with regard to e-procedures, it addresses the
existing cross-border access' obstacles, eliminating discrimination and reducing
administrative burden on citizens and businesses that operate or want to operate in other
Member States, without affecting the substance or competence regarding any such
procedures. The measures do not extend beyond what is necessary to solve the identified
problems and to achieve the identified objectives. However, the regulation requires
Member States to offer a number of key procedures fully on-line and to make them fully
accessible for cross-border EU users according to an agreed timetable. This will
significantly reduce administrative burden and eliminate the disproportionate hurdles
301
Regulation (EU) No. 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on
administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing Commission Decision
2008/49/EC (OJ No. L 316 of 14.11.2012, p. 1).
302
Commission implementing decision of 14 February 2014 on a pilot project to implement the administrative
cooperation obligations set out in Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by means of the
Internal Market Information System (OJ No. L 45, 15.2.2014, p. 36–39).
303
Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 on promoting the free
movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union
and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ No. L 200, 26.7.2016, p. 1–136).
304
COM(2016) 824 - Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing a European
services e-card and related administrative facilities; and COM(2016) 823 - Proposal for a directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the legal and operational framework of the European services e-card introduced by
Regulation.
305
COM(2016) 821 - Proposal for a directive on the enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the
internal market, laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services.
216
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0217.png
faced by EU citizens and businesses from a different Member State to comply with the
rules applicable in other Member States.
The necessary ongoing monitoring and evaluation measures of the single digital gateway
will be 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. This user feedback is an efficient
way for steering quality management but also for gathering evidence about
success/obstacles in the functioning of the Single market. When implemented as an
integral part of an information system, it should provide quick and accurate picture of
strengths and weaknesses. It is a low-cost option replacing expensive ongoing evaluation
machinery.
Improving the functioning of the Single Market is based on articles 21(2), 48 and 114(1)
of the TFEU. In its Single Market Strategy, the Commission proposed improving
opportunities to access markets across borders and bringing the Single Market's practical
benefits to citizens and businesses. Ensuring further development of the Internal market
governance tools should contribute to a well-functioning Single market for citizens and
businesses, taking into account the steady increase in cross-border activity.
Action at EU level is required to ensure consistent development of the Single Market
tools, non-discrimination and linkage of user-friendly services. Individual actions by
Member States have led to some differences in approach, and such differences impose
additional costs on firms, in particular SMEs, when operating in cross-border situations,
discouraging many of them from scaling up internationally. Member States should create
full transparency about their applicable rules, expanding the good practices already
established in many areas to the overall service package provided to citizens and
businesses by the Single Market Service centre, as this is an essential requirement for
doing business, working, studying or traveling within the EU.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
Running all these services (Your Europe, Your Europe Advice, Internal Market
Information (IMI) system, SOLVIT and the Scoreboard) is currently financed through
the Single Market Governance Tools' administrative budget line 02.030400, with the
exception of the Your Europe Business part, which is an implementing action supported
by COSME
306
. In 2017, the budget line amounted to EUR 3.650.000, covering
expenditure arising in connection with activities deployed for the business management,
content development, IT maintenance, development and hosting, as well as promotion of
these tools. The financing available under the existing financial framework (EUR
25.975.000) represents less than 0,00001% of the EU budget.
More concretely, the Your Europe (YE) budget appropriation covers the costs for the
further development of the content management tool (YEST) and addition of new
functionalities to adapt to new challenges, maintenance, support and training activities; it
does also cover organisation of 2 annual meetings of the YE Editorial Board, composed
by Member States' representatives and chaired by the Commission, as well as promotion
activities. It is currently managed by an internal team of 5 people, supported by an
306
In 2017 the budget for Your Europe Business was covered under COSME (yearly EUR 450,000 operational and
EUR 105,000 administrative credits)
217
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
external team of 5 editors/webmasters. Analysis of the delivery of the Your Europe
Business which has been delegated to EASME under the current multiannual financial
framework shows that duplication of work has evolved between the parent Commission
service and the Executive Agency and that the delegation has so far not provided the
desired simplification of the delivery. It would therefore no longer be considered suitable
for delegation as analysis shows that effective delivery can be better achieved by fully
integrating delivery with the other Internal Market governance tools.
The Your Europe Advice (YEA) service is provided through a contractor (ECAS,
European Citizens' Action Service) managing a network of 60 legal experts with EU law
background, expertise and experience in national law and administration in all Member
States, financed by the Commission which also takes care of the political guidance,
maintenance and further adaptation of the YEA database application to the citizens and
experts' needs (1 official). Delegation to the Executive Agency of the purely day-to-day
management of such a contract is an issue which might eventually be suitable.
As far as SOLVIT is concerned, workshops with Member States' SOLVIT centres (2 per
year) and newcomers' trainings are an essential element for the good functioning and the
success of the network, as well as promotion activities following the adoption of the
SOLVIT Action plan in May 2017. Within the Commission, the SOLVIT team is
composed of 4 officials, ensuring coordination with national SOLVIT centres, with other
networks (i.e., EDCC, EEN, YEA, etc.), bodies (i.e., European Ombudsman), external
stakeholders and services.
The IMI budget and portfolio are managed by an internal team of 6 officials, supported
by an external team of 2 IT experts and a project manager position (1 AD official)
seconded to DG DIGIT, following the MoU with this DG to ensure IT developments
needed for further expansion of the system (which started with the Services Directive in
2008 and is now supporting administrative cooperation for 12 legislative areas within the
Internal Market).
The coordination and annual edition of the on-line Single Market Scoreboard is ensured
in-house by one official, with dedicated technical support from IT and web experts from
the IMI team.
The continuity of all these services needs to be ensured so as to ensure they are ready to
address an expected increase in system usage as a result of awareness raising campaigns
following political (i.e., SOLVIT Action Plan, Council calls to expand the Scoreboard,
etc.) and legal commitments (i.e., IMI expansion to new policy areas, Your Europe's role
in the future deployment and up-take of the single digital gateway).
The ongoing initial investment covering the establishment of the single digital gateway is
based on an implementation plan with a detailed list of actions which need to be carried
out to ensure the timely launch of the gateway. The costs of implementing the single
digital gateway are divided into initial investment costs and annual running costs. The
initial investment started in 2018, and the last part of it (€
3 millions) falls on 2021. The
running costs will be €1.5 million in 2021 and € 2millions/year thereafter.
218
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
The
Single Market Scoreboard
aims to give an overview of the practical management
of the Single Market by carrying out an EU-wide monitoring exercise of governance
tools and policy areas on a yearly basis. The Member States' performance is evaluated
based on reliable indicators. To make the results visually more attractive and easier to
understand and compare, this evaluation is translated into 'traffic light' charts with green,
yellow and red cards for good, average and bad performance. The Scoreboard allows for
comparison of results over the years and amongst Member States building a good basis
for informed decisions or to exercise peer pressure.
Enhancing access to information through the
Your Europe (YE)
portal requires close
cooperation and dedication from both the Commission and the Member States. YE is
running an
annual online user survey
on both the citizens and business part of the
portal. The 2018 survey confirms a constantly very high level of user satisfaction: 94% of
YEB users and 95% of YEC users are satisfied with the portal. Moreover, the Scoreboard
monitors whether Member States support this website in an adequate way. On an annual
basis it is checked and evaluated, whether national governments provide content (i.e.,
national rules implementing the Single Market acquis) and whether they are promoting it
to their own citizens and businesses. If Member States do not meet these information
requirements, an information gap is created, making it difficult for citizens and
businesses to make informed decisions or to fully enjoy their rights. The Scoreboard also
monitors the number of visits to both sections of YE (Citizens and Business), showing
that there is a growing interest in and need for the information provided. The fact that
Member States' performance is monitored and evaluated via a 'traffic light' system with
red green or yellow cards certainly keeps them motivated and ensures that they are not
relenting in their efforts.
The Scoreboard also monitors the efficiency of
Your Europe Advice (YEA)
by
checking on the speed of replies, the aim being to reply to enquiries within 3 working
days. But it also monitors the number of enquiries to YEA and shows the relation
between this number and the improved information on YE (more relevant and user-
friendly information reduces the need of inquiries). It highlights the main subject areas
dealt with and thereby raises awareness for where people's real problems with the Single
Market lie and obstacles to exercising EU rights persist.
The Scoreboard monitors the
SOLVIT
resolution rate by country
–
the aim being to
solve all cases submitted so the network plays a more prominent role in the overall EU
Law enforcement
–
but also the time taken to handle a case (first response time,
preparation time and resolution time). Looking at the Scoreboard results from 2013 until
today, it can be said that the overall performance of Member States' SOLVIT Centres has
definitely improved. In 2013 a majority of countries showed a medium performance
(yellow cards). Over the years this has changed and nowadays most of the Member States
show a good performance (green cards). In addition to this, the Scoreboard provides
useful background information on the distribution of SOLVIT cases amongst the
Member States and their caseload, helping to make decisions on staffing numbers - only
efficient SOLVIT centres can ensure the smooth resolution of problems submitted to
them. Furthermore, the Scoreboard highlights problem areas and thereby shows where
the Single Market is not properly functioning, as well as barriers to the free movement of
people, goods and services in the EU should be removed.
219
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0220.png
All Member States involved in
IMI
have to make an effort to make this network run
smoothly. The Scoreboard offers IMI a platform to fulfil is legal reporting obligation
under Article 25(1) of the IMI Regulation and, in addition to the monitoring via
quantifiable indicators like the speed in accepting and answering requests, the
Scoreboard has
–
upon Member States' request
–
introduced qualitative indicators like
"the efforts made by an authority as rated by counterparts".
This shows the importance
the Member Stats attach to a fair and meaningful monitoring by the Scoreboard. It also
keeps track of the number of exchanges of information through IMI and keeps track of
the areas in which IMI is used promoting IT rationalisation.
The draft
single digital gateway
regulation states that an assessment report on the
functioning of the gateway and of identified Single Market obstacles will be submitted to
the European Parliament and the Council two years after the adoption of the Regulation
and every two years thereafter. An evaluation is also planned to take place five years
after the entry into force of the Regulation. The single digital gateway coordination
group, a central co-ordination body in the single digital gateway governance structure
will assist the Commission in monitoring the performance of the gateway and the state of
application of the Regulation.
Particular monitoring is needed in those Member States that have large gaps in the
availability of information and procedures online, especially concerning the access of
foreign citizens. The planned governance structure based on very close cooperation of the
Member States and the Commission 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 single digital
gateway regulation.
Specific
Objective
Enhancing
access
to
information
through the
Your Europe
public
information
website
Enhancing
access
to
information
through the
Your Europe
public
information
website,
ensuring full
coverage of
national
information
citizens and
businesses
need, in line
with Annex I
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measuremen
t
One
individual
person
visiting
a
single
webpage in a
single on-line
session.
One
individual
person
visiting
a
single
webpage in a
single on line
session.
Source of
data
YE users
statistics
Frequency of
measurement
Yearly
measurement
Baseline
Target
20,1 million
/ 90% of
user
satisfaction
/ 2017
Stable
number
of
users (over
100 million
visitors over
the
whole
period) and
user
satisfaction
Yearly
increase from
benchmark in
Year
1,
towards
target of 90%
Visits
and
user
satisfaction
Number
of
visits to the
Your Europe
portal
and
user
satisfaction
Succesful
search
Percentage of
businesses
and citizens
who indicate
they
have
found
the
information
they
were
looking for.
YE/SDG
user
statistics
Yearly
measurement
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
220
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0221.png
of the SDG
proposed
Regulation
Enhancing
access
to
advice
and
assistance
through YEA
YEA
performance
Giving SOLVIT
a
more
prominent
role in the
overall
EU
Law
enforcement.
SOLVIT
performance
Improve
management
of
cross-
border Single
Market
challenges,
while
promoting IT
rationalisatio
n
Improve
management
of
cross-
border Single
Market
challenges,
while
promoting IT
rationalisatio
n
Improve
management
of
cross-
border Single
Market
challenges,
while
promoting IT
rationalisatio
n
Improve
awareness of
services
available
through the
gateway
Policy areas
covered by
IMI
Performance
of the YEA
service
in
terms
of
number
of
enquiries
received,
ensuring
continuted
high quality
and speed of
replies
Maintain the
performance
standard of
SOLVIT while
ensuring
good
availability,
particularly
with regard
to businesses
IMI
performance
in terms of
policy areas
covered
Individual
enquiries
YEA user
statistics
Yearly
measurement
22662
enquiries
received (of
which
19042
eligible) in
2017
+/-20.000
eligible cases
per year.
Number
of
days between
receipt and
closure of a
case.
SOLVIT
network
statistics
Yearly
measurement
2.414 cases
in 2017: 64
days
average.
+/- 60 days
average.
Policy area
IMI
statistics
Yearly
measurement
12 policy
areas
covered in
2017
Integrating at
least 1 to 1.5
new
policy
area
every
year
EPC
applications
IMI
performance
in terms of
submitted
EPC
applications
Each
individual EPC
application
IMI and
EPC
statistics
Yearly
measurement
2.309 EPC
application
s submitted
in 2017
Duplicating
the issuance
of
EPC,
depending on
the expansion
of
the
covered
professions.
IMI bilateral
requests
IMI
performance
in terms of
number
of
bilateral
requests
Bilateral
requests
IMI
statistics
Yearly
measurement
14.764
requests
sent
Increase use
of the system
of 10% per
year.
Monthly
users
Trends
average
number
monthly
users.
in
of
Eliminate or
overcome
duplication
complexity,
improve
findability of
information,
advice,
Monthly
users
Trends
average
number
monthly
users.
in
of
One
individual
person
visiting
a
single
webpage in a
single on line
session.
One
individual
person
visiting
a
single
webpage in a
single on line
session.
User
statistics
Monthly
measurement
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
Monthly
increase from
benchmark in
month 1
User
statistics
Monthly
measurement
Monthly
increase from
benchmark in
month
1,
towards
target of 90%
221
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0222.png
problem-
solving
services and
procedures
on a cross-
border basis
Improve
quality across
the board for
all
information,
assistance
and problem-
solving
services, as
well as e-
procedures
Ensure that
EU
citizens
and
businesses
can complete
the
most
important
part of their
interactions
with
the
administratio
n online
Satisfaction
with quality
Percentage of
business and
citizens who
indicate
satisfaction
with quality
(based
on
criteria).
Quality
criteria to be
defined in the
SDG
Regulation.
User
statistics
Yearly
measurement
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
Yearly
increase from
benchmark in
Year
1,
towards
target of 90%
Ability
to
complete
procedures
on-line
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
Individual
users
User
statistics
Yearly
measurement
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
Yearly
increase from
benchmark in
Year
1,
towards
target of 95%
Individual
users
User
statistics
Yearly
measurement
Make
all
procedures
indicated in
the SDG fully
accessible for
non-national
citizens and
businesses
Ability
to
complete
procedures
on-line
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
Yearly
increase from
benchmark in
Year
1,
towards
target of 95%
Get a more
systematic
overview of
obstacles
encountered
by
cross-
border users
Data received
through the
user feedback
tool
User
feedback
Yearly
measurement
Feedback
Benchmark
to
be
decided in
year
1,
upon
launch of
the SDG
Positive
feedback
from
stakeholders
on usefulness
of reporting
on
Single
Market
obstacles
222
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0223.png
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
6.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
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 is considerable. As part of the Europa platform of the Commission,
the existing Your Europe portal respects the corporate "Information Providers Guide"
307
,
i.e. the Europa-specific
quality standards on content (definition, drafting, SEO …) and
design (structure, layout, usability, accessibility…).
The 2013 Commission
Communication on an
"Action Plan for boosting Your Europe in cooperation with the
Member States"
was positively welcomed by both the EP and the Council. One year
later, the results of the Your Europe Advice evaluation report (Invitation to Tender N°
MARKT-B.TF1/7/2013) were made available.
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. A study on information and assistance needs has
concluded that businesses could save between EUR 11 and 55 billion annually for
researching nine business topics
308
. As for the benefits for citizens, they can only be
indicated by estimating the number of hours saved. A single entry point to all relevant
information, through the Your Europe portal, 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.
Finding clear and comprehensive information about the applicable requirements is only a
first step. Administrative procedures have to be completed in order to comply with them.
Digitising key procedures reduces compliance costs and increases the rate of compliance
with the applicable regulations. With regard to problem-solving services, the most recent
SOLVIT assessment (SWD(2017)210
final)
was carried out in 2017 to underpin actions
identified to strengthen the network and accompanying the SOLVIT Action Plan adopted
in May of that year.
The study about administrative formalities
309
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
307
308
309
http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/index_en.htm
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 See annex 19 for the methodology.
223
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0224.png
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.
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
The overall consultation process on the single digital gateway started in November 2015
and closed in December 2016. It included a dedicated stakeholders' workshop, an online
public consultation as well as numerous bilateral discussions with stakeholders and
Member States. The process highlighted a strong consensus among business and citizens
around the importance of the main pillars to be covered by this initiative.
The main elements that emerged from the consultation were the need to tackle the
quantity and quality of single market related information, online procedures and
assistance services available, a broad support for the aims of the initiative and a high
level of interest concerning the concrete implementation by stakeholders. Businesses and
citizens considered that having access to all applicable information would be useful to
make informed decisions. Member States considered that minimum information is
already being offered and that it would be challenging to offer all information online. A
majority of respondents preferred to carry out cross-border procedures online. They
considered it important to remove some of the remaining obstacles in the single market.
Member States had concerns with regards to feasibility, notably regarding authentication
and mutual recognition of e-signatures and regarding potential cost of putting all
procedures online.
To get a better overview of the
Single Market Scoreboard's
readers and their
satisfaction, an end user survey was carried out
in the form of a pop-up questionnaire from
October 2015 to January 2016 which provided
for the following results: 47% of the respondents
came from the public sector; 14 % came from
the business sector and 13% were students. As
for the information presented on the Scoreboard:
69% found the information they were looking for
and 97% found the information useful.
Similar satisfaction surveys are run on a yearly
basis with regard to the Your Europe portal. The
2018 survey confirms a constantly very high
level of user satisfaction: 94% of YEB users and
95% of YEC users are satisfied with the portal.
224
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results
The ex-post evaluation of the existing (regulatory and non-regulatory) framework
relevant to the single digital gateway pointed to a number of problems that concern the
individual services, as well as their lack of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence as a
package of Single Market services for citizens and businesses.
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. 92% of consumers and businesses are unaware of any online services at
European level that they could turn to in case of problems. 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. The existing legal framework also contains a
number of gaps. Cross-border accessibility remains one of the key development points in
order for contact points and other portals to fully support the Single Market.
The EU-level assistance and problem-solving services such as Your Europe Advice and
SOLVIT are considered cost efficient when taking into account the savings and other
benefits these services provide to businesses and citizens as 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 better
online up-front information, and thus to be even more cost-efficient.
225
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0226.png
Annex 13: Programme specific annex on
Internal Market
–
Support to Standardisation activities
1.
1.1.
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
European standardisation is the cornerstone of the effective functioning and the completion
of the Single Market, as standards’ issues affect 80 percent of world commodity trade.
Overall, there are 20.000 European standards developed by CEN-CENELEC for products
and services and 35.000 standardisation deliverables by ETSI. Each European standard
replaces at least 34 national standards (members of CEN, CENELEC are not comprised only
of the EU28 but also of EFTA and candidate countries).
Standards are important for the implementation of the EU safety and environmental
legislation, particularly under the "New Approach". This is because the Directives include only
the essential safety requirements wheras standards prescribe the practical ways for meeting
the set requirements. Standards are a tool for EU industrial policy because they set a
common ground for competition (i.e all EU telecom firms are competing by using the same
GSM standards while in the USA each firm has its own technical specifications). Promoting
European standards worldwide allows EU companies, in the cases where EU standards are
being accepted, to compete under the same conditions as the native companies.
The Commission provides financial support to the:
European standardisation organisations for activities related to the quality of
standardisation, standardisation work in the various sectors, the visibility and promotion of
the European standardisation system and
organisations representing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and societal
stakeholders active in standardisation activities, to promote the participation and interests
of the stakeholders in the European standardisation system, improving their information
and use of standards whilst demonstrating to them the benefits..
However, the standardisation environment is changing because of the higher position that
standardisation now has in the political agenda. New elements are being added, namely the
increased amount of standardisation activities to be carried out by the European
standardisation organisations in response to the Communication COM(2016) 176 on ICT
standardisation priorities, as well as the actions envisaged in the Rolling Plan for ICT
Standardisation. Moreover, new technologies and the progressive integration of digital
solutions in industrial global value chains, as well as the fast evolving international context,
are putting pressure on the European Standardisation System to provide new standards'
categories (i.e electronic standards, Machine-to-Machine standards) in very short time
frames. This can still be leveraged to contribute more to EU jobs and growth but it will require
important investments from the European Standardisation System and the EU financial
contribution will be decisive.
The Commission responded to these challenges by proposing the Joint Initiative on
Standardisation [C(2016)3211] which was signed on 13 June 2016 in Amsterdam together
with actors of the European Standardisation System. The Joint Initiative on Standardisation
consists of concrete actions to improve and modernise the system, and its outcome is
expected by the end of 2019. These actions will also require financial support from the
Commission.
226
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0227.png
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
In 2015 the Commission, based on 2013 and 2014 data assessed the performance of the
European Standardisation System (ESS) including the EU Regulation 1025/2012 since its
entry into force in 2013, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and
EU added value.
The evaluation has built on the results of the Independent Review of the European
Standardisation System (ESS) published in April 2015.
Areas where effectiveness has been fostered and which would indicate that progress is
being made are:
Transparency- positive findings were the publicly available planning of the
Commission on standardisation and the publication on internet of the working
plans of the standardisation bodies;
Inclusiveness- while at the European level SMEs appear to be largely represented
at policy and technical level (e.g. in 2014, SMEs were represented at technical
level in more than 80% of CEN’s and Cenelec’s technical bodies and ETSI’s
working groups), the involvement of the other stakeholder groups is more limited;
Timeliness -the time to develop new standards requested by the Commission
decreased from 5 years, on average, in 2009 to 3 years in 2013;
Union financing of Standardisation activities - there is a perception among
European Standardisation organisations and other organisations receiving EU
funding that the Regulation has increased administrative burden. The assessment
of such burden showed that it represents a reasonable share of the amount
provided by the EC fundingThe Vademecum on European Standardisation in
support of Union Legislation and policies and the recent Commission decision
to implement lump sums in line with Article 17(4) of the Standardisation
Regulation are expected to improve the situation in order to make the access to
Union funding easier and more predictable.
Efficiency was assessed in terms of impact to the economy, which was found positive but
the data reffer to national studies performed in France, Germany and UK. They lack
European data to be assessed.
In terms of coherence, EU added value and relevance the evqluqtion showed that
removing trade barriers (replacing 28 national standards and their corresponding
Regulations with one European standard) and fostering a Single Market represent by far
the major potential for EU added value of European standardisation
Overall, the conclusion of, the evaluation was that no major problem in the application of
the legal framework had been identified, while some areas for impr ovement, have been
identified. They concern areas of improvement identified to be addressed in relation to
the overall European standardisation system and areas in relation to the standardisation
activities supported by EU funds. The Commission is working with its partners from the
European standardisation system to address these issues and modernise the fucntioning
and delivery of the system.
The areas to be improved in relation with the overall standardsation system are:
speed and timeliness elaboration of standards necessary for early market uptake;
link SMEs and innovation with standardisation;
Efficient and effectivestandardisation support on legislative and policy needs by
better definition of these needs, by improving the verification of compliance of
standards with the given legislation or policy and by removing conflicitng
national standards;
inclusiveness of weaker stakeholders (representing conumer, environmental,
227
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0228.png
workers interests and SMEs) in the standardisation process at European and
international level;
support to competitiveness of European businesses at global level by adapting the
European stakeholder needs to match with the non-EU processes and by adapting
standards developed outside the EU system, like in ICT within the European
standardisation system.
enhance communication channels between the Commission and the European
standardisation system and optimise the administrative procedures and the
reporting requirements;
The areas to be improved in relation with the standardisation activities supported by EU
funds are:
speed up the process leading to the conclusion of the grant agreements (time to
contract) by employing simpler and faster working methods
streamline of administrative and financial procedures for the management of
grant agreements by providing practical guidance to all involved actors in order to
enhance the common understanding of the rules;
Simplify and rationalise the reporting requirements by allowing electronic and
comparable data to be gathered in a database, by establishing key qualitative or
quantitative indicators to measure the impact and performance of the actions;
regularly monitor the overall Union financing, the results of the simplification
measures and the opportunities to move further towards a more performance-
based system.
228
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0229.png
2.
THE OBJECTIVES
Union financing of activities of the European standardisation organisations and of the
organisations representing SMEs, workers, consumers and environmental interests in
standardisation is limited to an amount of EUR 23 million annually (22,264 million euros for
2017 and 2018 respectively). 42% of the budget is given to support the operating costs of
those organisations The rest 58% is given to actions related with the elaboration and use of
standards. Since 2013, the Commission has reduced the amount granted to the European
standardisation organisations for their operating costs by 33%, in order to finance
standardisation actions that correspond to the policy objectives of the Commission and that
are in line with the Union’s priorities.
So far, only the standardisation priorities that have been taken up under the annual Union
work programme for European standardisation (Article 8 of Regulation (EU) no 1025/2012)
and the Rolling Plan for ICT standardisation (Commission document elaborated with the
support of the ICT Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSP) set up by Commission Decision
(2011/C349/04) of 30 November 2011) would be eligible for receiving Union financing. Since
the adoption of the Communication COM(2016) 176 on ICT Standardisation Priorities, some
of the actions described in the five priority areas (5G, data, cloud, cybersecurity and Internet
of Things) could also become eligible. The annual Union work programme for European
standardisation, and the Rolling Plan for ICT standardisation are essential tools to identify
standardisation work, which has taken priority in terms of the
Union’s financing also.
Moreover, the support given to the organisations representing SMEs, workers, consumers
and environmental interests in standardisation plays a significant role (20% of the EU budget
of standardisation is dedicated to the Annex III organisations) in strengthening the
representation of relevant stakeholder groups (SMEs, consumers, environmental interests
and workers) in European standardisation and pursues its objectives in terms of the
inclusiveness of the system.
Standards matter because they promote innovation, enable interoperability, increase quality
and safety, enable jobs and growth, support global value chains, and help to overcome costly
fragmentation in the single market and in the digital single market thanks to the modernised
European standardisation process.
The Union financing is targeting standardisation work in areas of public policy (e.g. standards
and/or preliminary and ancillary work in the area of consumers’ or workers’ health and safety,
equal opportunities for disabled people, air quality, environmental protections, climate
change, security, or transactions between business and public administration), that otherwise
would not be funded by industry or the NSBs, at least not to such a large extent considering
the timing required also
Since 2015, the refugee crisis and the EU’s role of stabilising the troubled areas that feeds
the crisis, as well as protecting its citizens from terrorists' attacks, is creating a new need for
standardisation in Defence and Security (i.e drones, detectors, databases). Restricted
access and the increased use of raw materials that the Circular economy action aims to
tackle require standards to support the whole process to make recycling possible and
economically viable. Ensuring that Europe produces affordable energy for our industry,
cities, roads and everyday activities requires adding renewables to the existing energy mix
and setting European standards. This, in turn will improve energy storage capacities, build
smart energy hubs and make all such systems interoperable.
Standards are crucial for innovation and progress in the Single Market and digital single
market: they increase safety, interoperability and competition and help remove trade barriers.
They are essential for European productivity and competitiveness. The action contributes to
the functioning and delivery of the European standardisation system in support of the Union
policies and legislation.
Standards are needed to support the compliance of goods with the essential requirements of
the EU legislation,
Standards are needed to provide interoperability between systems (i.e. transport, energy,
security, defence and data systems)
Standards are needed to create platforms for exploitation of innovative ideas by all economic
operators shifting the competition between operators from the technological differences to
the successful application and adaptation of the innovative technology to the market
229
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0230.png
The following policy options and their implications have been considered:
a.
Budget maintenance at the same level under the new MFF
Ensure the basic functioning of the system by providing financial support to the central
secretariats of the ESOs and of the Annex III organisations (as referred in Regulation
(EU) No 1025/2012) and verify the quality of standardisation work.
Minimise the EU funding for the elaboration of the relevant scientific and technical data
and laboratory testing which are necessary to support the development of the standards.
Ask the European standardisation system to finance, using its own resources, the
implementation of the actions agreed under the Joint Initiative on Standardisation.
b.
Increase the budget by 20%
Maintain the financing of European standardisation and cover standardisation needs for
new ICT areas, in particular for the digitisation of industry.
Support the improvement and modernisation of the European standardisation system with
the implementation of the actions agreed under the Joint Initiative on Standardisation,
such as improvement of the IT systems and the setting up of new procedures to provide
the necessary information to the stakeholders and users of standards.
230
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0231.png
2.1.
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
√ Co su e s,
environmental,
workers and SMEs
interests are important
in standardisation
because the standards
affect these areas
Programme/line
Programme 1
Support to
Standardisation
activities
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
N/A
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
√ O e ha o ised
European standard
replaces 28 national
standards and provides
conformity of
compliance with the
essential requirements
of the EU respected
legislation
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
√ / N/A
+ few words of
explanation
√ / Sta da disatio
contributes in the
harmonisation of
health services and on
implementation of
health and safety
regulations on food
consumption and in
working areas
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
Candidate for
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one IMP
programme to other)
√ / N/A
√
Simplification
With which other IMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
√ / N/A
Programme/line
Programme 1
Support to
Standardisation
activities
√ / N/A
√
1
Digital
Single Market
Support Programme
2
Modernisin
g European Public
Administrations and
Services (ISA2)
9
Consumer
Programme
12
Internal
market
–
operation
and development of
the internal market
for Goods and
Services
13
Health
programme
14
CFF for
food chain
15
Customs
and tax policy
development
support budget line
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
231
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0232.png
Programme/line
Support to
Standardisation
activities
Member States
P
romotion
of
participation
interests
of
stakeholders in
European
standardisation system,
improving
their
information and use of
standards and showing
them the benefits of
these.
the
and
the
the
institutions level
Development and use
of standards in support
of Union legislation
and policies for safety
reasons and in areas
which are new or
dominated by few
players and Union
financing is necessary
to assure the
participation of start-
ups and newcomers in
that market
Development and use
of standards in support
of Union legislation
and policies for safety
reasons and in areas
which are new or
dominated by few
players and Union
financing is necessary
to assure the
participation of start-
ups and newcomers in
that market
Candidate for
Potential for
Programme/line
Simplification of your programme, and/or synergies and/or flexibility
1 Digital Single
Market Support
Programme
2
Modernisin
g European Public
Administrations and
Services (ISA2)
5 Implementation
and Development of
Single Market for
Financial Services
(prerogative line)
9
Consumer
Programme
12
Internal
market
–
operation
and development of
the internal market
for Goods and
Services
13
Health
programme
14
CFF for
food chain
15
Customs
and tax policy
development
support budget line
synergies and/or flexibility
synergies and/or flexibility
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
The primary objective of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 is the development of standards.
Therefore, the financial support for the functioning of the European standardisation
232
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0233.png
organisations is a condition sine qua non for elaborating new European standards and
updating the catalogue of the 4500 harmonised standards in support of EU Regulation.
Funding of standardisation priorities that have been taken up under:
i. the annual Union work programme for European standardisation (Article 8 of Regulation
(EU) no 1025/2012) and;
ii. the Rolling Plan for ICT standardisation (Commission document elaborated with the
support of the ICT Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSP) set up by Commission Decision
(2011/C349/04) of 30 November 2011) would be eligible for receiving Union financing. The
standardisation priorities included in the AUWP reflect and support first the Commission
priorities and secondly support the implementation of legislative acts with harmonised
standards.
The programme is structured around the European standardisation organisations that are the
recipients of the standardisation requests and produce European standards.
Funding is focused in support of:
functioning of European standardisation organisations;
standardisation priorities that have been taken up under the annual Union work programme
for European standardisation (Article 8 of Regulation (EU) no 1025/2012) and the Rolling
Plan for ICT standardisation (Commission Decision 2011/C 349/04);
functioning organisations representing small and middle-sized enterprises (SMEs) and
societal stakeholders in standardisation activities.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
The
financing is under direct management and according to the provisions of the articles 15 to 17
of the EU Regulation 1025/2012 through operating, action grants, and procurement contracts.
Operating grants providing support to standardisation activities performed by CEN,
Cenelec and ETSI and of the organisations mentioned in the Annex III of the EU
Regulationin No 1025/2012 for a total amount in 2017 of € € 9 252 323
Action grants to the CEN, CENELEC, ETSI and ECOS for elaboration of standards and
associated work for a total amount of € 9 653
377
Administrative arrangements with JRC for € 325 000
Action grants to the CEN, CENELEC, ETSI for elaboration of standardisation work in the
field of ICT for a total amount of € 2 577 136
Procurement contracts for verification of quality of standards intented to be published in the
OJEU thus to offer presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the
respected legislative acts
–Framework contract for € 4 000 000
Procurement contract for the study requested by the Council on the economic and social
impact of European standardisation estimnated € 2 000 000
Procurement contracts for Technical consultancy contract, in order to assist the work
related to web-publishing
for € 173 439
in 2017
The conclusion and management of the framework contracts, of the grant agreements and of the
procurement contracts is done by the unit responsible for standardisation in DG GROW. The
action grants related with ICT are concluded and managed by the unit responsible for ICT in DG
GROW. The procurement contracts affect a big number of services in the Commission. In order
to ensure that the result satisfies all theese services the works are followed through steering
committees.
However, the centralisation of the Financial services has limited the number of colleagues with
experience in financial management. To anticipate the lack of expertise to manage the grants
within the unit and the Directorate consider necessary to tranfer of the management of the grants
to an executive agency. The expertise of the agency in financial matters would ensure a solid
financial management.
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
The Commission monitors the performance by KPIs that have been integrated in the Framework
contracts with CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Also, every standardisation organisation receiving EU
233
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0234.png
funding has to report annually to the Commission on the implementation of the EU Regulation
1025/2012. These reports provide qualitative analysis of the performance. Finally the impact of
standardisation in the internal market is measured by the implementation rates of
CEN/CENELEC standards by its national members
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measurement
Source of
data
Freq
uenc
y of
mea
sure
men
t
TRIM
ESTR
IEL
Baseline
Target
Impact
of
standardisation in
the internal market
>
90%
average of
all
EU
members
Percentage
of
agreed
EU
standards
that
have
been
published/e
nforced at
National
level
Active
published
European standards
at National level
/Active
European
standards
CEN,
CENELEC
90%
average
of all EU
members
95% average
of all EU
members
234
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
Annex 14: Programme specific annex on
Internal market
–
operation and development of the internal market for Goods,
Services and Public Procurement
1. I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
1.1.
Scope and context
Under the current budgetary period of 2014-2020, the expenditure of Commission services and
their various partners arising in connection to the completion of the internal market of goods
and services, as described below, is financed from the "Operations and development of the
internal market for goods and services" budget line 02.0301 with a budget of EUR 159.089.000.
Its main components are:
Horizontal support for the Single market of goods
The Single Market for goods can only function well and be fair for people and businesses if all
market players play by the rules. The EU has the following tools requiring financing spending:
Market surveillance:
joint actions have been financed since 2013 leading to limited successful
outcome, improving coordination across Member States. In addition, expenses have also
covered the organisation of ADCO meetings and the maintenance of ICSMS system.
Conformity assessment and accreditation:
part of the budget is spent on coordinating
conformity assessment and to support accreditation. In particular, the European Accreditation
o ga isatio has ee fi a ed ith a ope ati g g a t pe ea of
.
€ f o the pe iod
2010-
a d
.
€/pe
year in the period 2014-2017. In addition, expenses cover
organisation of meetings of notified bodies and the maintenance of NANDO IT system (80.000
per year).
Mutual recognition:
the evaluation of the functioning of the mutual recognition principle and
its potential impacts on the internal market was financed from this budget.
Prevention of technical barriers for goods and information society services
Directive (EU) 2015/1535 (Single Market Transparency Directive, hereinafter 'the SMTD')
defines a preventive mechanism to avoid potential barriers to the internal market of goods and
information society services. In order to enable the authorities of all EU Member States to go
through the national drafts notified and react when appropriate, the translation into all EU
languages of the draft national technical regulations notified is indispensable. Since 2016, the
contract concluded for the needs of translations in the context of the SMTD covers also the
translation of the national regulatory texts once adopted. This allows for the appropriate follow-
up to the notifications by all the parties and the creation, in the medium term, of an EU
database including all the national technical regulations notified.
Automotive
The work performed under this budget covers the needs for Better Regulation in the
automotive sector as well as the emergency response to the emissions scandal. The budget was
spent to perform studies required in order to update the many regulations in this sector
covering all aspects of type approval of vehicles while another part of the budget was used to
finance new facilities and work for the new market surveillance tasks, in the aftermath of the
emissions scandal and in starting these market surveillance activities by the Commission.
235
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0236.png
Services
Support for policy-making in services is oriented towards analysis of legal frameworks, gathering
of data, doing regulatory mapping and assessing the economic impact of restrictions and
reforms. The output then feeds into policy preparation, implementation and follow-up of new
initiatives. These activities are labour-intensive and require contacts in all Member States. As
the services sector has politically very sensitive aspects, a major component of policymaking
consists of communication and negotiating efforts, including meetings and conferences with
stakeholders, conducting surveys, engaging in promotional activities and conducting studies to
support policy-making. The current budget has made this possible. It should be noted that there
are legal obligations concerning the monitoring and evaluation arising from the Services
Directive, the Postal Services Directive and the Professional Qualifications Directive that cannot
be avoided and the current budget allowed to meet.
Public Procurement
In order to underpin the procurement policy, resources are used to perform targeted studies
and evaluations on specific topics such as cross-border procurement, joint procurement, green
procurement, procurement in the health and waste sector, have been carried out. Also direct
support to policy measures and enforcement, such as impact assessments and evaluations,
compliance and transposition checks have been undertaken. Awareness-raising activities (e.g.
conferences) are also organised to better use public procurement rules and tools and trigger
changes.
For continuously updating the
legal framework for harmonised products
(construction products, eco-design, electrical and electronic products, machinery and other
mechanical products, chemicals, medical devices, cosmetics and intellectual property), the
existing Internal Market budget line under the current MFF has provided significant added
value, by enabling the financing of different types of studies to support the development and
evaluation of robust Internal Market legislation, by catering for the practical needs for having in
place harmonisation tools (mandates, standards, other technical specifications etc.) of high
quality, as well, support to Committees, external partner bodies, international bodies or legal
interpretation and enforcement.
1.2.
Lessons learned from previous programmes
There has not been one evaluation on the whole budget line, but rather on some of its
main elements in the area of "Horizontal support for the Single market of goods" from
which lessons learned can be extracted.
The REFIT evaluation on the functioning of market surveillance (http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2017:0469:FIN)
found that the current
approach of financing individual joint actions of market surveillance authorities without
a more coherent framework for coordination has little effect in curbing the tide of non-
compliant products that can be found on the single market. In addition, while national
authorities professed a willingness to participate in joint actions, they criticised the
heavy administrative burden that joint actions represent.
The evaluation found that the problem of non-compliant products within the Single
Market is driven by four main factors, namely (1) fragmentation of the organisation of
market surveillance in the EU, (2) resources constraints for market surveillance
236
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0237.png
authorities, (3) low deterrence of the current enforcement tools, notably with respect
to imports from third countries and e-commerce and (4) important information gaps
(i.e. lack of awareness of rules by businesses and little transparency as regards product
compliance).
REFIT
evaluation
on
the
functioning
of
Mutual
recognition
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26976
found that another problem
highlighted by the Single Market Strategy is the suboptimal functioning of the mutual
recognition principle. Its inadequate application makes it harder for companies seeking
access to markets in other Member States, leading to lost opportunities for the
economy at large. Economic operators are often required to produce specific
documentation or carry additional tests; this increases their costs and discourages them
from expanding to new markets.
To overcome these problems, funding should be targeted at raising awareness and
training on the mutual recognition principle, including specific actions for sectors in
which mutual recognition could achieve the greatest increase in EU competitiveness.
Funding should also target cooperation among national authorities to enhance their
"mutual recognition culture" and built trust in different legal systems and product
related requirements.
Moreover, prevention mechanisms have allowed that potential breaches to the internal
market of goods and information society services are identified and corrected. Since
2014, almost 3,000 draft national technical regulations have been notified and the
Commission and the Member States have expressed concerns via more than 1,400
formal reactions.
Support for policy-making in
services
310
is oriented towards analysis of legal
frameworks, gathering of data, doing regulatory mapping and assessing the economic
impact of restrictions and reforms. The output then feeds into policy preparation,
implementation and follow-up of new initiatives. These activities are labour-intensive
and require contacts in all Member States. As the services sector has politically very
sensitive aspects, a major component of policymaking consists of communication and
negotiating efforts, including meetings and conferences with stakeholders, conducting
surveys, engaging in promotional activities and conducting studies to support policy-
making. The current budget has made this possible. It should be noted that there are
legal obligations concerning the monitoring and evaluation arising from the Services
Directive, the Postal Services Directive and the Professional Qualifications Directive that
cannot be avoided and the current budget allowed to meet.
In order to underpin the
procurement policy,
resources are used to perform targeted
studies and evaluations on specific topics such as cross-border procurement, joint
procurement, green procurement, procurement in the health and waste sector, have
been carried out. Also direct support to policy measures and enforcement, such as
310
Study on the economic impact of the Services Directive (http://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/42b77185-3a91-4e32-bca1-118e8e48ec84) and its update
(http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13327/attachments/1/translations)
237
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0238.png
impact assessments and evaluations, compliance and transposition checks have been
undertaken. The activities undertaken in the current framework have been well-spent.
They have allowed the analytical underpinning and knowledge basis to start helping
Member States to implement the new legislative framework adopted in 2014. However,
more is to be done as public authorities have expressed the need for more support
tools, in particular to facilitate the practical implementation of the rules and options.
For sectoral purposes
(construction products, electrical and electronic products,
machinery and other mechanical products, chemicals, medical devices, cosmetics and
intellectual property.
) and more specific policies (CPR and Ecodesign), the existing Internal Market budget
line under the current MFF has provided significant added value, by enabling the
financing of different types of studies to support the development and evaluation of
robust Internal Market legislation, by catering for the practical needs for having in place
ha o isatio tools a dates, sta da ds, othe te h i al spe ifi atio s … of high
quality, as well, support to Committees, external partner bodies, international bodies or
legal interpretation and enforcement. Some of these studies have identified overarching
issues in the legal framework, including cases of significant regulatory burden.All this is
essential to ensure the proper functioning of the Internal Market at grass root level,
where it counts
Real life example of problems due to lack of flexibility, coherence, separation from other programmes
dealing with similar or complementary issues?
The budget for medical devices and cosmetics managed by DG GROW, currently is part of the Health
Programme run by DG SANTE (for medical devices) and the Consumer Programme run by DG JUST (for
cosmetics) resulting in difficulties when managing the budget. Hence both should move under GROW
management under the next MFF.
2.
2.1.
THE OBJECTIVES
Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF
Horizontal support for the Single market of goods
As the Single Market Strategy has highlighted, a serious problem of enforcement of EU
product rules persists to the detriment of honest manufacturers and traders as well as
consumers. The evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 has shown that there is a
need for an increased EU level intervention.
The problem of non-compliant products within the Single Market is driven by four main
factors, namely (1) fragmentation of the organisation of market surveillance in the EU,
(2) resources constraints for market surveillance authorities, (3) low deterrence of the
current enforcement tools, notably with respect to imports from third countries and e-
commerce and (4) important information gaps (i.e. lack of awareness of rules by
businesses and little transparency as regards product compliance).
238
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
To fight these problems, more and better targeted funding is needed (e.g. for the
procurement of testing capacities or purchasing of samples). Funding should also go
towards a better coordination and information exchange amongst national authorities
and provide a more coherent and long-term framework which enables joint actions to
focus on the essential rather than their administration. EU coordination can only be as
strong as the capacities of the national market surveillance authorities allow. Therefore
a necessary complement to stepped-up joint actions, will be peer review and
performance monitoring of market surveillance in and by Member States, as well as
assistance to capacity building, modernisation of control systems and tools, to ensure
ultimately more equivalent market surveillance throughout the Single Market.
Another problem highlighted by the Single Market Strategy is the suboptimal
functioning of the mutual recognition principle. Its inadequate application makes it
harder for companies seeking access to markets in other Member States, leading to lost
opportunities for the economy at large. Economic operators are often required to
produce specific documentation or carry additional tests; this increases their costs and
discourages them from expanding to new markets. To overcome these problems,
funding should be targeted at raising awareness and training on the mutual recognition
principle, including specific actions for sectors in which mutual recognition could
achieve the greatest increase in EU competitiveness. Funding should also target
cooperation among national authorities to enhance their "mutual recognition culture"
and built trust in different legal systems and product related requirements.
Prevention of technical barriers for goods and information society services
More market integration will not be achieved unless the emergence of new barriers
within the Single Market is prevented. The effective implementation of the SMTD
depends much on the translation of notifications since this allows Member States to
react to the drafts notified thus taking full ownership of the internal market. The
number of notifications received has kept to a similar level in the last years. The same
applies to the number of reactions (detailed opinion and comments) issued by the
Commission and by the Member States. At the same time a low number of notifications
of some MS compared to the others suggest that a certain number of technical
regulations remain un-notified, impeding the prevention of barriers and rendering the
identification of systemic issues very difficult. Moreover, in the recent years, the
Commission is committed to follow up with Member States the reactions to the notified
drafts and to create a repository of EU technical regulations available for EU businesses,
for both of which the translation of the final adopted national texts is necessary. These
mentioned work streams will likely raise the number of notifications and translation
needs.
Automotive
The recent emission scandal proved the importance of compliance with the regulations,
not only inside a laboratory but also in the real world. The Commission has provided
immediate response by proposing a new type approval and market surveillance
regulation and by finalising the new emission rules which require vehicles to be tested
under real driving conditions on the road. Still it is likely that only strong market
surveillance by the Commission will assure that the new rules are followed and nobody
tries in the future to cheat the standards, providing non-conform products to the
239
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
European citizens. We therefore need to invest and continue investing in the next MFF
in surveillance activities by the Commission, similar to what is done by EPA in the US in
order to minimise the possibilities for such scandals in the future.
Services
Overall, it is necessary to keep modernising the regulatory framework for the Single
Market for services in line with the market developments, and to make it supportive of
competition and integration to better benefit consumers, businesses and employees. Of
particular importance is an ambitious implementation of the Services Directive and of
the Professional Qualifications Directive.
For example, 47 million people work in regulated professional services, such as doctors,
pharmacists, architects, accountants or real estate agents, which accounts for 22% of
the total EU labour force. More than 600 different generic professions exist in the EU,
with close to 6.000 regulated professions. It was estimated that there would be at least
700.000 more jobs in those services, should existing requirements be made less
stringent. It is essential to have a good understanding of the models, the effects and
economic implications, the current trends and developments and the dynamics in
professional regulation.
Services in the public interest, including postal services, continue to evolve rapidly and it
is necessary to gather information on developments (adjustments to the universal
service obligation for postal services to users' needs, technological developments).
To be able to focus on the most harmful problems in service provision, we need to
understand the effect of remaining restrictions in specific sectors to assess their
economic impact and to assess the need for possible new legislative proposals.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that the Single Market legislation is flexible enough to
accommodate new business models. An example is the spread of platform-based
collaborative economy businesses that have often bumped into a regulatory minefield,
and where European initiatives are needed to preserve the Single Market. Our work on
regulatory mapping and analysis also contributes to the European Semester, in
particular to the country-specific recommendations.
Public procurement
represents 14% of EU GDP. It represents a strong lever to
increase innovation, support environmental and social objectives and a means to
improve public administration and spending. Accompanying the legal framework, a
large number of flanking measures are needed to make the rules work properly on the
ground. In its recent Communication (COM (2017) 572) the Commission has pledged to
develop support tools for public authorities to make procurement work better in
practice. The areas where improvement is needed are greater uptake of innovative,
green and social criteria; professionalisation of public buyers buyers (including those
using European Regional Development Funds); improving access to markets for SMEs
and in third countries; increasing transparency, integrity and quality of data; digitisation
of procurement processes; and more cooperation among public buyers. This obviously
requires resources.
Legal framework for harmonised products
To ensure a regulatory environment that promotes innovation and responds to new
technological and societal challenge, the internal Market product legislation requires
constant evaluation, reviews, compliance and transposition checks and related studies.
240
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0241.png
Such services are the means to collect evidence, data and stakeholder views, which are
instrumental in maintaining the regulatory framework up-to-date and adjusted to
evolving market needs. This is of particular importance with a view to the significant
transformation that industry is currently undergoing in the context of digitisation. IoT
enabled, smart, connected devices, key innovative technologies, like artificial
intelligence, big data, robotics, etc. present huge business opportunities that European
companies must be enabled and encouraged to seize. At the same time the regulatory
framework has to cater adequately for any associated new risks. The regular review of
the regulatory framework and decision making based on sound impact assessments are
important pillars of the Commission's Better Regulation Policy and in particular of the
REFIT programme. The day to day operation of the Internal Market legislation requires
the Commission to take legal actions and decide on technically complex issues, for
example on safeguard clauses, decision to publish or not to publish harmonised
standards, etc. As the required technical expertise is not available in house the
Commission must have recourse to external sources.More specifically, this also
concerns the Construction Product Regulation (CPR) implementation and on-going
review which require relevant feasibility and other studies.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
Enforcement at
national level
√
Enhance Member
States' capacity to
enforce EU harmonised
product rules.
Facilitate
administrative
cooperation of MS in
several areas: market
surveillance, mutual
recognition, prevention
of technical barriers,
services, public
procurement.
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
Programme/line
Internal market for
goods and services
budget line
N/A
N/A
N/A
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
Candidate for
Candidate for
Flexibility
(moving
funds from one IMP
programme to other)
√
The budget for medical
devices and cosmetics
currently is part of the
Health Programme run
by DG SANTE (for
medical devices) and
the Consumer
Simplification
With which other IMP
programmes there are
potential
synergies
√
Consumer Programme,
Food programme,
Competion programme
on enforcement.
Programme/line
Internal market for
goods and services
budget line
√ / N/A
241
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0242.png
Programme run by DG
JUST (for cosmetics).
Both should move
under GROW
management
√
-relevant to the objective, N/A not relevant
2.2.
Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF
The Single Market cannot be supported with non-budgetary policy only. Co-investment
in a better functioning Single market thus needs more sustained financing and more
flexibility to address unforeseen challenges, as shown in the case of car emissions or
dangerous products. EU and the national levels should also co-invest in strengthening
advisory and assistance functions to develop administrative capacities of Member
States.
The Single Market Strategy is the plan to unlock the full potential of the Single Market,
enabling people, services, goods and capital to move more freely, offering opportunities
for European businesses and greater choice and lower prices for consumers. However,
sometimes, these benefits do not materialise because Single Market rules are not
known or implemented or they are undermined by other barriers. And in a rapidly
changing environment, the Single Market needs to adapt to new ideas and business
models.
Horizontal support for the Single market of goods
The "Goods Package" adopted on 19 December 2017, addresses many shortcomings of
mutual recognition and market surveillance that were identified in the Single Market
Strategy and corroborated by the accompanying evaluations. Yet, there are many
problems that cannot be solved by law but that require closer cooperation between
Member States, better integrated networks, trainings, information campaigns and other
actions that integrate the internal market on the ground.
Cooperation and trust are necessary for the successful functioning of
mutual
recognition.
They will help to increase a mutual understanding of the different national
approaches and concerns. This will be fostered by trainings, exchanges of officials and
enhanced administrative cooperation. In addition, the Commission will work more
closely with specific countries and sectors to make mutual recognition work. An online
platform will allow authorities to connect with each other.
While Member States are best placed to monitor their market and impose sanctions,
the current
market surveillance
landscape is too fragmented to effectively enforce EU
product legislation without EU support. Therefore the current lack of resources (staff,
budget, laboratory capacity) needs to be addressed. Increased EU funding will provide
the necessary vehicle to facilitate coordination and an effective enforcement. This is to
be done through an EU Product Compliance Network within the Commission. There will
be administrative support for joint investigations that are necessary to coordinate the
242
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
500 natio
al autho ities e fo e e t. The Net o k ill allo autho ities to pool
knowledge, organise exchanges of officials, develop a common intelligence picture,
create efficiencies so that controls are based on a more targeted and strategic
approach. The Network will also provide standardised training on priority areas and
assist in joint procurement of testing facilities. The Network will be a quality catalyst for
a common European perspective on market surveillance. Enforcement authorities will
coordinate better to share more information about investigations and illegal products
through regular meetings and common IT tools. Capacity building support to strengthen
national market surveillance would be based on comprehensive national enforcement
strategies, rather than ad-hoc co-funded projects.
Accreditation
is an important tool for the implementation of the EU policies related to
the Internal Market, consumer safety and international cooperation. In this respect all
stakeholders must ensure that the latest state of the art is always incorporated into the
accreditation process. As accreditation is based on Harmonised Standards, EU, EA and
the European Standards Organisations have the additional mission to ensure that these
Harmonised Standards used for Accreditation of
Conformity Assessment
Bodies
continue to be in line with the International Standards. The increased responsibility and
trust placed in accreditation brings a great responsibility for EA itself and its members.
Therefore it is essential that EA continues to receive a wide EU support in order to be
able to implement its tasks. Furthermore communication is pivotal to achieving the
consistent implementation of Regulation 765/2008.
Prevention of technical barriers for goods and information society services
The translation budget is essential to guarantee the proper functioning of the SMTD and
thus contribute to the full potential of the internal market of goods and information
society services. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to keep the deadlines for
reaction imposed by the SMTD should the translations into all EU languages be provided
either by the notifying Member State or by each Member State for its own assessment
needs. Moreover, the risk of diverging translations and of lack of accuracy would
increase exponentially. Ultimately, the potential lack of timely availability of the draft
national acts into all EU languages would discourage the Member States from reacting
formally within the deadlines prescribed by the SMTD and would have an impact on the
ownership of internal market by Member States.
Automotive
Increased market surveillance activities in the area of cars
by the Commission
are a
necessity in the aftermath of the emissions scandal. Only with regular surveillance
activities will the products be kept in conformity and cases of defeat devices uncovered.
Services
To keep the Single Market functional the Commission needs to ensure that the
regulations are fit for purpose and adhered to by the Member States.
This requires information on evolving national regulations and other policy measures as
well as economic assessments to support our policy and to maximise EU added value.
The international dimension of trade in services is increasingly important, and there are
more and more requests for entering into specific arrangements with third countries. In
243
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0244.png
view of the staff limitations, improving the Single Market has become more dependent
on the availability of external contractors to provide factual support in terms of surveys,
regulatory mapping and promotional activities.
The Commission will continue to monitor the regulatory environment, and economic
and business developments of collaborative economy. It will ensure that existing EU law
is consistently applied across the Single Market and will continue to look for ways to
encourage the balanced development of the collaborative economy alongside existing
ways of doing business.
Since 2014, the Commission has coordinated a process of mutual evaluation of
regulated professions requiring EU countries to assess and possibly reform existing
frameworks. The Commission will continue to support the recognition of professional
qualifications through detailed rules for countries to use when reviewing existing
professional regulations or proposing new ones. Countries will also need to
demonstrate that public interest objectives cannot be achieved through means other
than limiting access to, or conduct in, the professional activities in question.
The Commission needs to review the regulatory environment that has contributed to
the flat productivity growth of the retail sector. The Commission will suggest best
practices based on well-functioning solutions in different EU countries that will
contribute to reducing barriers and making it easier for retailers to open outlets across
the EU.
The international dimension of trade in services is increasingly important, and there are
more and more requests for entering into specific arrangements with third countries. In
view of the staff limitations, improving the Single Market has become more dependent
on the availability of external contractors to provide factual support in terms of surveys,
regulatory mapping and promotional activities.
Public procurement:
The governance of the procurement systems needs to be improved in the EU; further
efforts are still required to ensure the efficiency, transparency and integrity of the
process. Some of the main missing links are the lack of relevant quality data, the
inability to match related data from different databases, the insufficient sharing and
reuse of data, and a shortage of skills and tools for analysing available information.
Legal framework for harmonised products
Maintaining Internal Market and product legislation fit and up-to-date with the digital
age and limiting administrative burden requires investing in evaluation and impact
assessment studies, cumulative cost assessments, feeding into Better Regulation and
REFIT exercises. There is a continued need to ensure that legal actions of the
Commission are based on sound technological evidence and analysis.
Challenges
Empowerment of
citizens, consumers and
businesses
Programme/line
Administrative
cooperation and
integration among
Member States
Rule-making, standard
setting and
enforcement at EU
institutions level
Health as a resources
for the society and the
internal market
244
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0245.png
Internal market for
goods and services
budget line
Support the completion
of the single market of
goods and services.
Candidate for
Potential for
Programme/line
Goods and Services
budget line
Simplification of your programme, and/or synergies and/or flexibility
The budget for medical devices and cosmetics currently is part of the Health Programme run by DG
SANTE (for medical devices) and the Consumer Programme run by DG JUST (for cosmetics).
Both should move under GROW management
There are several synergies between the market surveillance activities and those of the Consumer
Programme, Food Programme and Competition Programme in the area of enforcement.
Goods and Services
budget line
3.
P
ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
The general internal market budget line combine small amounts and high added value
They result from legal commitments, are used for the provision of services to citizens
and businesses or are indispensable to the completion/ deepening of the Single market.
EU added value includes co-investing in common goods for which action at EU level is
not only relevant but indispensable in the EU beneficiaries' eyes. Protection of
consumers, health and safety, innovation are domains where European citizens expect
the EU to act and to deliver. So this line should not only be shielded from possible cuts,
but a moderate increase would improve the enforcement of harmonised product rules,
EU itize s' a d usi esses' satisfa tio , gi i g isi ilit to the EU s positi e ole
in the
itize s dail li es o allo i g o pa ies, espe iall SMEs to eap the e efits of the
Single market.
Horizontal support for the Single market of goods
Given the necessity to address
conformity
of the level of product safety required in
goods when pursuing the goal of a deeper and fairer Single Market, the Goods package
envisages a considerably increased budget for market surveillance. In fact, increased
funding is essential if the measures foreseen in the Goods Package are to make a
meaningful difference for EU product safety and the principle of mutual recognition.
The administrative support structure of the EU Product Compliance Network that
provides continuous support to national authorities in the coordination of their market
su eilla e tasks a d e ha ge of i fo atio is e essa i fulfilli g the EU goals fo
the Single Market for products. The necessary funding from the operational budget for
this Network, including ADCO groups and ICSMS,
ould a ou t to M€ fo the set-up
phase of 2020-
a d M€ ope atio al udget a uall f o
o a ds
311
.
Over the life-span of the MFF this network needs to be consolidated and expanded and
consequently its cost will evolve. In addition, funding should foresee expenses related
311
The total costs, human resources and operational budget of the Compliance and Enforcement
initiative aimed at strengthening the Market Surveillance framework of Regulation (EC) N°
765/2008 are estimated at around
22M€ per year
(financial statement of COM (2017)795).
245
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
to expert groups, evaluations, public consultations, studies. In addition, to strengthen
market surveillance, direct aids to Member States enforcement capacities will
constitute an important financial need. Another important financial need is digital
compliance and traceability of products including of imports from third countries, in
order to support industrial stakeholders to develop the practical and technical tools to
meet their obligations under EU law. Over the period 2021-
a ou d
M€
would
be needed for the continuation of the measures launched by the Compliance and
Enforcement initiative. However, additional funding needs would need to be further
assessed in order to extend support for national enforcement capacity building, digital
compliance and traceability. A continued financing of accreditation and conformity
assessment should maintain the current levels of reliability of accreditation in the EU.
Expenses should also cover organisation of meetings of notified bodies and the
maintenance of NANDO IT system.
Improving the application of the mutual recognition principle would include additional
expenses related to trainings, exchanges of officials, enhanced administrative
cooperation, etc.
Prevention of technical barriers for goods and information society services
The continuation of the current translation budget will allow continuing the efficient
management of the SMTD taking into account the perspective of (i) an increase in the
number of notifications and (ii) the additional needs related to the translation of final
texts. Indeed, the translations into all EU languages are essential for the assessment by
the Member States of the draft national acts notified within the prescribed deadlines. In
the broader perspective, the smooth operation of the SMTD will foster the active
contribution of Member States in preparing reactions, thus supporting Member States
in taking ownership of their participation in the internal market.
Automotive
Appropriate funds should cover the full extent of the planned market surveillance
activities (checking of around 120 vehicles per year, i.e. to a level similar to the US).
Services
The current level of budget is the minimum allowing for analysis of existing legal
frameworks, gathering of data and assessing the economic impact of the existing
restrictions and reforms, with an inclusion of a limited number of new initiatives and
reviews.
As the Members States expect more and more evidence for policy initiatives, and as
cuts in headcount make external tendering the preferred way of performing many tasks,
there are pressures to increase the budget even in the absence of major new policy
initiatives. Such initiatives will require funds on top of the current budget level.
Public procurement
The continuation of the current budget would allow for, more support tools and policy
measures could be developed by the Commission, covering the six priority areas
recently defined by the Procurement Strategy (COM (2017) 572). Therefore, a
substantial improvement in procurement practice by contracting authorities in Member
States can be achieved.
246
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0247.png
Legal framework for harmonised products
Internal Market legislation requires constant evaluation, reviews and related study.
Therefore, we need to ensure the continuity of the available budget to address our
obligations to implement the Internal Market legislation, ensuring that it is well-
designed, up-to-date and based on sound evidence and analysis.
Cosmetics and medical devices
When it comes to the Single market for goods, another area of improvement identified
concerns two key sectors for EU industry which, put together, represent more than 2.5
million jobs and more than EUR 190 billion of sales: cosmetics and medical devices.
Following past internal reorganisations, the budget for activities related to rules
harmonising these sectors (expert groups, technical supports and IT databases
312
)
does
not fall under the internal market budget line
and is currently part of the Health
Programme run by DG SANTE (for medical devices) and the Consumer Programme run
by DG JUST (for cosmetics). From both a practical and risk minimisation reasons it would
be an advantage to have the financing of both activities (EUR 8 million on an annual
basis) operated by the DG to which the policy area belongs, ie DG GROW
313
.
Added value
The internal market for goods ensures that economic integration does not stop at
reducing border barriers but aims to achieve a deeper level of integration. Mutual
recognition, conformity assessment, accreditation, and market surveillance are
cornerstones for a fair single market for goods.
Without them, there can be no fair
competition between businesses and consumer protection and safety cannot be
guaranteed. Therefore, all of the activities currently carried out under the single market
budget line should continue.
Market surveillance is carried out by the authorities of the Member States by checking
and testing products both on the market and arriving at the external border of the
Union. Internal borders do not exist for products
–
it is vital that they do not exist for
national market surveillance authorities either. Improving cross-border action and
cooperation is the key to making market surveillance more effective.
The EU aspects of neither accreditation nor market surveillance could be financed
exclusively by Member States. In both cases, EU financing is provided in addition to
national financing and supports aspects that go beyond merely national tasks and that
are to do with cross-border effects of their work, such as recognition of test results or
the coordination of market surveillance inspections.
The mutual recognition principle is being applied primarily by national authorities. But
to make the principle effective, action at EU level in terms of training, awareness,
cooperation and coordination is essential. To be effective, the application of the
e.g. the CosIng database for information on cosmetic substances and ingredients, which is one of the most consulted
databases of the Commission with almost 1.5 million visits per year.
313
Similarly, with regards to internal market governance tools, it would make sense to transfer the COSME
appropriations used to finance Your Europe business to the internal market budget lines.
312
247
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
principle needs to be based on common solutions to be applied equally by all national
authorities. Only such common procedures can guarantee that national authorities will
apply the principle in the same manner, thus allowing companies to benefit from an
equal treatment regardless of the country where they try to market their product.
The prevention mechanisms introduced by the SMTD are at the heart of the internal
market. The objective of the Directive, i.e. the avoidance of potential barriers to the
internal market deriving from national technical regulations for products and for
information society services, needs for its own nature to be achieved at EU level.
Moreover, the availability of draft national technical regulations in all EU languages
within a reasonable time frame is key for Member States to react formally to potential
barriers to the internal market, thus taking full ownership in their contribution to its
development.
For the automotive sector, the legal basis for EU intervention is Article 114 TFEU insofar
as the preparation of new legislative proposals is concerned. The proposal for a new
type approval regulation of 27/01/2016 includes provisions providing for an active role
of the Commission (JRC) in the supervisory system of type approval legislation. If
adopted by the co-legislator and providing for an active role for the Commission, it will
provide the legal basis for activities of the JRC in this respect.
However, the Single Market is not an area with fully harmonised rules. Beyond the basic
principles and the areas in which fully harmonised rules have been 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.
4.
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
The activities subject to this impact assessment do not form part of a programme:
several sectoral units are using this budget line for support to the internal market.
Instruments: grants, procurement or any other intervention necessary are used to
achieve the objectives
Channels of intervention: direct support to the main beneficiaries
248
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
5.
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
Summary for the main IA text:
The evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and the preparation of the proposal on
compliance and enforcement revealed important gaps in available information and the
quality of data reported by Member States. It will be essential to establish a robust
system to verify whether and to what extent the proposal has been effective in reaching
its objectives, and whether the objectives have been met efficiently (i.e. at least cost),
as well as the reasons for its success or shortcomings. Meanwhile, a number of the
current reporting requirements for market surveillance authorities need to be simplified
in order to alleviate the administrative burden for authorities.
The most efficient scheme for a future evaluation is to use ICSMS as a main source of
information and, on the basis of the indicators, to assess whether the proposal was
effective and efficient, relevant given the needs and its objectives, coherent both
internally and with other EU policy interventions and achieved EU added-value. The
monitoring through ICSMS would be completed by the work of the EU Product
Compliance Network and the provision by Member States of more reliable and more
comprehensive information on compliance rates and enforcement activity as part of
their national enforcement strategies.
By using ICSMS the monitoring of operational activity could take place on an ongoing
basis at least yearly (e.g. number of mutual assistance requests, restrictive measures
taken). The review of Member States enforcement strategies, market studies, user
surveys and the identification and implementation of common priorities by the EU
Product Compliance Network would allow on a yearly to bi-annual basis an analysis of
progress towards higher level indicators (e.g. control levels in Member States,
compliance gaps, usage of compliance assistance schemes). In this regard, an important
task for the EU Product Compliance Network would be to set up and monitor overall
performance indicators and perform peer reviews.
To provide an adequate basis for the monitoring and evaluation of the initiative,
reference levels will be established to form a consolidated baseline. The methodology
to monitor trends in (non)compliance will be examined, to complete the information
from market surveillance controls where possible with surveys based on sampling ,
across sectors or in a selection and for special supply channels (e-commerce, imports).
An evaluation by the Commission of the functioning of the new legislative framework
could be foreseen in the mid-term (e.g. after 5 years of implementation).
Periodic assessment of the impact and implementation of the Services Directive and the
Professional Qualifications Directive are legal obligations. For postal services we have
the responsibility to collect statistical data.
For the services markets, we rely on the indicators of restrictiveness in services markets.
There are a series of such indicators produced by OECD (PMRs, STRI and now also intra-
EU STRI). The Commission has also developed its own indicators, starting from the
indicator of barriers in business services and on construction and continuing with the
restrictiveness indicator. Restrictiveness can be indirectly measured by measurements
such as sectoral business churn rates and gross operating rates. Services markets
performance can also be measured by looking at the key economic metrics, such as
249
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0250.png
productivity growth, cross-border trade and cross-border investments.
Since 2014, the European Commission has been collecting data on postal services in
cooperation with the Postal National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in the context of the
'EU Postal Survey'
314
. The aim of these postal statistics is to provide the Commission,
regulators and national policymakers with comparable data on the main postal and
parcel developments across the European Union. The data is collected annually from 33
countries that participate in the data collection exercise on a voluntarily basis including
the 28 EU Member States, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland,
Norway and Switzerland.
Better information regarding national regulations and other policy measures as well as
economic assessments will continue to be necessary to support policy and to maximise
EU added value. Further, analysing the effects of digitisation and supporting firms to
adapt to change are important to enhance employment and growth.
314
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/postal-services/statistics_en
250
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0251.png
Specific Objective
Indicator
Definition
Unit of
measurement
Number of
campaigns
Source of data
Frequency of
measurement
yearly
Baseline
Target
Increased
cross-border
and
coordinated market surveillance for
315
harmonised non-food products
Joint market surveillance
campaigns
Joint market surveillance
campaigns in the area of
harmonised product
legislation with 80% or more
participating MS
ICSMS
5-7 campaigns/year
with over half MS
participating (2017)
2021-2023 :
15
2023-2027:
30-40
National enforcement
strategies building
enforcement capacities
Number of
strategies
supported
ICSMS
yearly
- limited, ad-hoc
best-practice
exchange measures
(2017)
- 3 pilot strategies
(2020)
None (2017)
2021-2023:
7
2023-2027:
10
Peer reviews of Member
States' enforcement
strategies and
performance
In-depth peer reviews of
member states' market
surveillance conducted by
the EU Product Compliance
Network
Number of peer
reviews
EU Product
Compliance
Network
yearly
2021-2023:
3
2023-2027:
5
315
Regulation n° (EC) 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products, Proposal for a Regulation on Compliance and Enforcement of Union harmonisation
legislation on products (COM(2017)795, 19.12.2017)
251
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
1908223_0252.png
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality
6.
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
IA on Enforcement and Compliance; Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008;
Meetings of the Market Surveillance Group, etc.
IA on the revision of the Mutual Recognition Regulation, Evaluation of the functioning of
mutual recognition, Meetings of the Mutual Recognition Committee
Stakeholde o kshops o usi esses e pe ie e
-15) of the Services Directive
Work plan for reporting on national reforms in services markets
Access to insurance for services provided in another Member State
Commission staff working document - A Single Market Strategy for Europe - Analysis
and Evidence - Accompanying the document Upgrading the Single Market: more
opportunities for people and business
Study on the economic impact of the Services Directive (and its update)
Assessment of barriers in business services and their economic impact
Study on administrative formalities and costs involved in accessing markets cross-
border for provisions of accountancy, engineering and architecture services
Study on simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the
Services Directive
Market access requirements in the short-term accommodation rental sector
Public consultations on the proposals in the Single Market Strategy, for example on
notifications proposal
Impact assessments on the proposals in the Single Market Strategy, for example on e-
card proposal
Article 23 of Directive 2008/6/EC requires the Commission to report on the application
of the Directive to the European Parliament and Council every four years, providing
appropriate information on developments in the sector. The last report has been
adopted in November 2015. This Application Report summarises how the Postal
Services Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directives 2002/39 and
2008/6/EC) has been implemented across the European Union and the main
developments that have taken place in the postal market since.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/report-application-postal-services-directive-
adopted-0_en
Ecodesign + Energy Labelling]
Review of the Ecodesign EU Regulation 548/2014 on power transformers
Impact Assessment study for an ecodesign regulation on machine tools and welding
252
 kom (2018) 0441 - Ingen titel
equipment
Impact Assessment study for an ecodesign regulation on enterprise servers
Evaluation of Machinery Directive
Evaluation of Lifts Directive
Evaluation of Aerosol Dispenser Directive
Evaluation of Low Voltage Directive (planned for 2018/19)
Evaluation of EMC Directive (planned for 2019/2020)
Impact Assessment Review Noise Emissions Directive
Impact Assessment Road circulation of self-propelled machinery
Impact Assessment Delegated Act Software Defined Radio
[CPR]
Analysis of implementation of the Construction Products Regulation
Supporting Study for the joint evaluation and impact assessment for the Construction
Products Regulation (CPR) review
Supporting study for the evaluation of the relevance of EOTA tasks
Fitness check on the construction sector
Study on the information needs of users of construction products
Study on the Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation
Report on the operation of Directive 2015/1535 (2014-2015)
–adopted
by the
Commission on 20 December 2017
TRIS database
253