kom (2019) 0087 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and functioning of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts

Europaudvalget 2019
KOM (2019) 0087
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 22.2.2019

SWD(2019) 26 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU

Accompanying the document

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

on the implementation and functioning of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of

the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts

{COM(2019) 87 final}

kom (2019) 0087 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and functioning of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1.

1.2.

Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................... 5

Scope of the evaluation................................................................................................... 5

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 6

2.1.

2.1.1.

2.1.2.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

Description of the intervention ....................................................................................... 6

Scope of application of the Directive .......................................................................... 6

The Di e ti e’s i te e tio logi

................................................................................ 7

Role of harmonised European standards and standardisation requests ...................... 10

Major amendments to the original Lifts Directive 95/16/EC ........................................ 11

Baseline and points of comparison ............................................................................... 12

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 13

3.1.

3.2.

Transposition and implementation of the Lifts Directive ............................................. 13

Description of the market ............................................................................................. 16

METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 18

4.1.

4.2.

Description of the methodology ................................................................................... 18

Limitations and robustness of findings ......................................................................... 19

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 21

5.1.

Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 21

Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free movement and safety .... 21

Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new technologies ....... 22

Clarity of the Directive .......................................................................................... 22

5.1.1.

5.1.2.

5.1.3.

5.2.

Effectiveness.................................................................................................................. 25

Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its main objectives .. 25

Assessment of specific issues related to the effective implementation of the

5.2.1.

5.2.2.

EHSRs

5.3.

Efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 36

Costs entailed by the Lifts Directive ..................................................................... 37

Benefits entailed by the Lifts Directive ................................................................. 41

5.3.1.

5.3.2.

5.4.

5.5.

Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 42

EU added value.............................................................................................................. 43

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 44

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 47

ANNEX 2: EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................................................................................................. 50

ANNEX 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 52

ANNEX 4: SYNOPSIS REPORT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION................................................... 65

ANNEX 5: COMPARATIVE TABLE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 84/528/EEC AND DIRECTIVE

95/16/EC ............................................................................................................................................. 72

ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF COSTS-BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION ....................... 75

Glossary

Term or acronym

ADCO Lifts

CABL-SC

CBA

CEN

DG GROW

DoC

EO(s)

EEA

EEA-L (in this report)

EFTA

EHSR(s)

ELA

ELCA

hEN(s)

ESO(s)

ETSI

FTE(s)

ICSMS

Meaning or definition

Administrative Cooperation Group of Market Surveillance

Authorities

Standing Committee for the Cableways Directive

Cost-Benefit Analysis

European Committee for Standardisation

Directorate-General

Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry,

Entrepreneurship and SMEs

Declaration of Conformity

Economic Operator(s)

European Economic Area

European Elevator Association

European Free Trade Association

Essential Health and Safety Requirement(s)

European Lifts Association

European Lifts & Lift Components Association

harmonised European standard(s)

Evaluation Question

European Standardisation Organisation(s)

European Union

European Telecommunications Standards Institute

Full time equivalent(s)

Information and Communication System for the pan-European

Market Surveillance

Lifts Committee

Lifts Directive

LWG

MSA(s)

NACE

NB(s)

NB-L

NLF

OJEU

RAPEX

R&D

REFIT

RfU

SBS

SME(s)

ToR

TRIS

UCMP

UEAPME

Lifts Working Group

Member State(s)

Market Surveillance Authority/ies

Nomenclature Générale des Activités Économiques dans les

Communautés Européennes

Notified Body/ies

European Coordination Group of Notified Bodies for Lifts

New Legislative Framework

Official Journal of the European Union

EU Rapid Exchange System for dangerous non-food products

Research and Development

Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme

Recommendation(s) for use

Small Business Standards

Structural Business Statistics

Small- and Medium-sized Enterprise(s)

Technical Committee

Terms of Reference

Technical Regulation Information System

Unintended Car Movement Protection

European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized

Enterprises

NTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose of the evaluation

The EU legal framework relating to lifts was initially introduced by means of two directives: Council

Directive 84/528/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States

relating to common provisions for lifting and mechanical handling appliances and Council Directive

84/529/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to

electrically, hydraulically or oil-electrically operated lifts.

As of 1 July 1999, both directives were repealed by Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts.

Directive 95/16/EC provided common Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs) for lifts, regardless

of the operating technique employed.

Finally, on 20 April 2016 Directive 95/16/EC was in turn repealed and replaced by Directive 2014/33/EU.

The reason for this was to align the framework applicable to lifts to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) as

part of the so-called "Alignment Package".

Considering that no major changes in the substance were brought by Directive 2014/33/EU in comparison

to Directive 95/16/EC, the period before the entry into force of the current Directive (i.e. between 1 July

1999 and 20 April 2016, applying to the application of Directive 95/16/EC) remains relevant and has been

taken into consideration for the evaluation of the performance of the new Directive.

The main purpose of this Staff Working Document is to assess the performance of the Directive and the

extent to which the Directive meets its objectives. The main objectives of the Directive are (i) guaranteeing

the free circulation of lifts and safety components for lifts within the EU and (ii) ensuring a high level of

protection of health and safety of users and maintenance personnel. The evaluation examined whether the

Directive has been effective, efficient, coherent and relevant in meeting these objectives and assessed its

EU added value. The evaluation draws on the research conducted by external contractors and the

Commission's experience with the enforcement and management of the Directive.

The Commission is legally required, following Article 46 of the Directive, to submit a report to the European

Parliament and the Council regarding the functioning and implementation of this Directive by 19 April 2018.

This is done in order "to monitor and ensure the correct implementation and functioning of this Directive

[…]

e plo i g also the eed fo a e legislati e p oposal i this se to ".

This Commission Staff Working

Document will form the basis of that report. It is also, more generally, meant to inform stakeholders and

policymakers on the outcome of the evaluation and to form the basis of possible follow-up actions.

1.2. Scope of the evaluation

The geographic scope of the evaluation extends to the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the

28 Member States of the EU and three EFTA Countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), Turkey within

its Custom Union with the EU and Switzerland by virtue of the mutual recognition agreement with the EU.

See also Decision 768/2008; the NLF introduced a common structure and definitions to be used in all EU product

legislation.

See also Recital 50 of the Lifts Directive.

The evaluation covers the whole scope of the Directive with regard to (i) lifts intended for the transport of

persons only, (ii) lifts intended for the transport of persons and goods, (iii) lifts intended for the transport of

goods only, if the carrier is accessible to persons and if the controls of the lift are inside the carrier or can

be reached from within the car, and (iv) six types of safety components for use in such lifts listed in Annex

III of the Directive. It includes the analysis of the standardisation process, conformity assessment and

market surveillance. To that end, Member States, notified bodies, standardisation organisations, industry

stakeholders, and user's associations have been consulted. As benchmarks, where relevant, the experience

of key trading partners (such as the USA, China, Korea and Japan) was used to assess performance and

identify best practices.

Finally, regarding the temporal scope of the evaluation, the date of entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, 1

July 1999 is taken as a starting point of the assessment.

2. B

ACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION

2.1. Description of the intervention

2.1.1. Scope of application of the Directive

Pu sua t to A ti le

of Di e ti e

/ /EU Me e States shall ot p ohi it, est i t o i pede the

placing on the market or putting into service of lifts or the making available on the market of safety

components for lifts on thei

te ito

hi h o pl ith this Di e ti e . The efo e, the Di e ti e does ot

cover existing lifts, which have already been placed on the market and put into service. Furthermore,

modernisation activities conducted on such existing lifts also fall outside the scope of the Directive.

Nevertheless, if an existing lift is subjected to significant modifications which have altered its

characteristics, then the said lift should be considered as a "new product" thus in turn entailing the

application of the Directive.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/33/EU defines a "lift" as "a lifting appliance serving specific levels, having a

carrier moving along guides which are rigid and inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the

horizontal, or a lifting appliance moving along a fixed course even where it does not move along rigid

guides". Furthermore, pursuant to Article 1, the Directive applies to lifts "permanently serving buildings and

constructions and intended for the transport of (a) persons, (b) persons and goods" and "(c) goods alone if

the carrier is accessible, that is to say a person may enter it without difficulty, and fitted with controls

situated inside the carrier or within reach of a person inside the carrier".

Lifts can be classified into two main categories according to their drive systems

–

traction or hydraulic lifts.

Both categories are divided in sub-categories according to the specific technical solution used as shown in

Figure 1.

c.f. Section 2.1. of “The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU products rules 2016”, 2016/C 272/01

Figure 1: Classification of the lift product group

2.1.2. The

Directive’s intervention logic

The Directive has two main objectives:



Ensuring the free movement of lifts and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and

contributing to and effectively operating internal market for the said products. As such, Member

States must allow marketing on their territory of lifts and safety components for lifts that comply

with the requirements of the Directive;

Guaranteeing that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for

users and maintenance personnel thus improving the health and safety of these groups.



These two strategic objectives are further broken down into three specific objectives, namely:



Simplifying and harmonising conformity assessment procedures in the EU;

Harmonising essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) across the Member States;

Preventing the placing on the market of non-compliant lifts and related components.

In order for these specific objectives to be achieved, the Directive includes key provisions to be transposed

and implemented by Member States. These key provisions include:



the EHSRs contained in Annex I. In line with the New Approach principles, Directive 2014/33/EU

does not harmonise the product requirements applicable to lifts and their safety components by

prescribing a particular set of technical solutions but by providing for the essential health and

safety requirements (hereinafter "EHSRs") with which these products must comply. Thus, the

manufacturers of lifts and safety components retain the choice of the specific technical solutions to

adopt, provided that they prove that these technical solutions comply with the EHSRs. This proof

can be brought by manufacturers by means of one of conformity assessment procedures provided

for in Annex IV of the Directive;

the requirement to ensure the granting of a two-way communication between the lift installer and

the building constructor pursuant to Article 6(1);



source: Ecodesign preparatory study for lifts implementing the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019 based on the

E4 (Energy-Efficient Elevators and Escalators) project.



the procedures for conformity assessment together with the related provisions on the CE marking

and the EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC). A manufacturer can only place a product on the EU

market when it meets all the applicable requirements. The conformity assessment procedure is

carried out before the product can be placed on the market. The conformity assessment

procedures aim to demonstrate that the product in question meets all the EHSRs in Annex I. It

i ludes testi g, i spe tio a d e tifi atio a d a Notified Bod he ei afte NB : a p i ate od

designated by an the competent authorities of an EU Member State to assess the conformity of

certain products before being placed on the market) is involved in all circumstances. In line with the

principles of the New Legislative Framework (NLF), Decision 768/2008 has provided for a number of

conformity assessment procedures which may be used to prove compliance depending on the risk

presented by the product as well as the choice of the manufacturer. Once the conformity

assessment procedure has been completed, the manufacturer draws up a DoC which contains

identification of the product, the relevant applicable legislation, the manufacturer or authorised

representative's contact details as well as other relevant information;

the provisions on market surveillance (in Chapter V of the Directive). The market surveillance is the

ex-post verification which aims to ensure that the products which are available on the market and

which circulate freely are compliant with the EHSRs. Unlike the conformity assessment procedure

which is overseen by a NB, the market surveillance tasks are carried out by market surveillance

authorities which are Member States' authorities. Market surveillance is usually performed by

means of targeted inspections, regular market surveillance programmes, joint actions by several

MSAs etc.

These provisions are expected to work through mechanisms (i.e. incentives

–

both regulatory and economic

- to comply with the Directive, brand recognition, positive/negative feedback and penalties) that will trigger

short, medium and long term results (referred to as outputs, outcomes and impacts respectively, see figure

2 below). For instance, the obligatory CE marking may bring added value to economic operators due to the

fa t that it is pe ei ed as a

a d p o i g the safet of p odu ts.

Figure 2: The Directive’s i terve tio logic

The total harmonisation of the legal framework related to lift safety as well as the development

of harmonised European standards (hereinafter "hENs") which support the provisions of the

Directive and allow the establishment of presumption of conformity are among the immediate

results stemming from the application of the Directive. The establishment of NBs for lifts and

safety components and the enforcement of market surveillance and corrective measures are

also seen as immediate outputs.

The correct and full implementation of all these provisions is directed at achieving some specific

outcomes, namely: a reduction in lift-related accidents, a reduced number of non-compliant lifts

placed on the market, the facilitation of intra-EU trade for lifts and safety components, the

establishment of a fair and level-playing field for businesses in the lift sector and an overall

increased competitiveness of the EU lift sector.

In the long term, the foreseen impacts of the provisions of the Directive are the increased

health and safety for users and maintenance personnel and the removal of all trade barriers to

the Internal Market of lifts. These foreseen impacts fully meet the initial objectives of the

Directive.

2.2. Role of harmonised European standards and standardisation requests

Article 14 of Directive 2014/33 lays down a presumption according to which lifts and safety

component for lifts, which are in conformity with hENs, references of which are published in the

Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to comply also with the EHSRs,

provided that the harmonised standards cover the risks presented by the product. A

harmonised standard is defined

as "a European standard adopted on the basis of a request

made by the Commission for the application of Union harmonisation legislation". These

standards are developed by the European Standardization Organizations (ESOs) such as the

European Committee for Standardization (CEN), which are entrusted by the EU with the mission

to develop and adopt European standards in support of EU legislation. The Commission confers

such a mission to the ESOs by means of a standardisation request.

Hence, the hENs play a pivotal role as they support the provisions of the Directive by providing

manufacturers with possible technical solutions which are presumed to be compliant with the

ESHRs.

One standardisation request (reference M/BC/CEN/CLC/3/92) in relation to the Lifts Directive

was issued by the Commission to CEN in 1992.

Thus, since 1992, CEN has elaborated and

published a number of hENs for lifts and safety component of lifts. To be in line with Directive

2014/33/EU, the Commission issued a new standardisation request to CEN (reference M/549

)

in September 2016.

In Article 2(1) of Regulation 1025/2012 (to which Directive 2014/33 refers).

Directive 95/16/EC was in force at the time of this request.

Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=select_attachments.download&doc_id=1632.

Regarding the relationship between the EHSRs and hENs, it should be noted that the application

of hENs conferring presumption of conformity to the Directive's EHSRs is always voluntary and

such standards cannot add additional requirements which go beyond the EHSRs. The hENs

merely provide technical solutions to manufacturers, which are in no circumstances binding,

unlike the EHSRs which should always be complied with. If after carrying out the risk

assessment, the manufacturer considers that the hENs do not address all the risks of its product

or prefer other alternative technical solutions, he may apply alternative technical solutions but

having to demonstrate the compliance with the EHSR in the technical file to be submitted to a

NB within the framework of a conformity assessment procedure.

The development of hENs also has the potential to support the establishment of global value

chains. For example, ESOs cooperate with international standardisation bodies such as ISO and

IEC, to develop international standards to be used worldwide. The aim is that hENs for lifts to

become leading international standards. For example, many standards for lifts developed by

CEN like EN 81-20/508 are already used worldwide.

2.3. Major amendments to the original Lifts Directive 95/16/EC

After its entry into force in July 1999, Directive 95/16/EC was amended on several occasions,

most notably by the revised Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC before being repealed and

replaced by the new Directive 2014/33/EU as from 20 April 2016.

During the implementation phase of the Directive 95/16/EC it appeared necessary to clarify the

definition of lift in order to better delimitate the respective scopes of the Machinery Directive

and the Lifts Directive. The fact that there are a number of machines intended for lifting of

persons justified the need to clarify these borderline cases (products that could potentially fall

under the scope of both Directives).

The main objective of this intervention was to exclude the

potential situations of overlapping between both Directives in which the two legal regimes

would be applicable to the same product.

Thus, Article 24(1) of the Machinery Directive amended the scope of Directive 95/16/EC,

clarifyi

g the defi itio of a lift as

a lifting appliance serving specific levels, having a carrier

moving along guides, which are rigid and inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the

horizontal

. The a e d e t e te ded the s ope of the Lifts Di e tive

to include also lifting

appliances moving along a fixed course even where they do not move along rigid guides. This

a e d e t also la ified the defi itio of a ie , hi h

is a part of the lift by which persons

and/or goods are supported in order to be lifted or lowered

Currently, there are three main prescriptive elevator codes used in the world:

1 ASME A17/CSA B44 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, used in North America;

2. Building Standard Law of Japan (BSLJ), plus the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS)/Japan

Elevator Association (JEA) series of standards used in Japan; and

3. EN 81 series of standards used in Europe and other regions and countries. ISO/TC 178 standard

ISO 8100-1/-2 has the same content as EN 81-20/-50. The European and ISO-standards will be merged

in amended versions of the EN-ISO 8100-1/-2 by the end of 2020.

c.f. Recital 27 of Directive 2006/42/EC.

Furthermore, the requirements of the Lifts Directive are to a certain extent more stringent than the

requirements of the Machinery Directive.

On 20 April 2016 the new Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU replaced Directive 95/16/EC and

introduced relatively limited changes. Its main purpose was to align the legislation on lifts and

safety components to the NLF. The main changes brought by the new Directive are:



The terminology of the list of safety components, Annex III, points 2 and 6, has been

a e ded. Poi t , efe i g to de i es to p e e t u he ked up a d o e e ts has

ee a e ded i to

uncontrolled movements

UCMP . Poi t

6, referring to "electric

safety devices in the form of safety switches containing electric components" has been

amended into "electric safety devices in the form of safety circuits containing electric

components".

Several new or amended definitions, additions from the NFL, such as: placing on the

market, making available on the market for safety components, authorised

representative, importer, distributor, economic operator, technical specification, recall

and withdrawal;

The obligations of economic operators have been aligned to the NFL. For example, the

installer of lifts and manufacturer of safety components must report to the national

authorities any non-conformities or safety issues identified in their product(s);

New and modified requirements for Member States for setting up and performing

market surveillance and related activities;

Few modifications on the terminology used for EHSRs listed in Annex I;

New and modified requirements for accreditation, notification and operation of the NBs

in accordance with the NFL.



2.4. Baseline and points of comparison

The Directive 95/16/EC, which has now been replaced by Directive 2014/33/EU, was adopted in

1995 and became fully applicable on 1 July 1999. Due to the lack of sufficient quantified data

relating to the period prior to the adoption of Directive 95/16/EC, the baseline scenario could

not be fully reconstructed within the framework of the present evaluation.

Directive 95/16/EC repealed and replaced Council Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC. The

scope of application of both Directives was limited to "electrically, hydraulically or oil-electrically

operated" lifts, which meant that the requirements applicable to lifts using other propulsion

techniques were not subject to harmonisation. Therefore, before the entry into force of

Directive 95/16/EC, disparities between the binding provisions of the various national systems

for types of lifts not covered by Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC subsisted. These

disparities constituted barriers to trade and limited the free movement of these products within

the EU.

Furthermore, Council Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC did not reflect the New Approach

principles, which were only introduced by Directive 95/16/EC. Thus, before Directive 95/16/EC,

lift manufacturers were required to comply with a specific technical standard and they could not

benefit from a presumption of conformity by demonstrating the conformity of their products

with hENs.

As an order of magnitude, while trade within the EU-15 in 1995 (therefore prior to the entry

into force of Directive 95/16/EC) amounted to around EUR 700 million, it reached nearly EUR

1,8 billion in 2004. In 2015, the intra-EU trade has surpassed EUR 2,8 billion.

MPLEMENTATION

STATE OF

LAY

3.1.

Transposition and implementation of the Lifts Directive

One of the two main objectives of the Lifts Directive is to ensure the free movement of lifts and

safety components for lifts throughout the EU and to contribute to the effective operation of

the internal market for these products. Therefore, in order to achieve this objective, the

provisions laid down by the Directive should be applied in a coherent manner throughout the

EU and discrepancies in the applicable framework in different Member States should be

minimal.

The Directive has been fully transposed into the national legislation of the Member States and is

part of the acquis to be implemented by the new Member States. Following the subsequent

enlargements of the European Union, the Lifts Directive became applicable in more and more

countries.

Overall, all Member States have uniformly transposed the main provisions of the Directive

relating to the EHSRs and conformity assessment.

The evaluation study found that no

significant discrepancies persist across the Member States and no major problems in the

implementation of the Directive were reported. Also, 73% of the interviewed stakeholders do

not consider that there have been any persisting national practices which incorporate costly or

unnecessary requirements into products or structures covered by the Directive.

Nevertheless, some discrepancies have been identified by stakeholders in relation to the

provisions of Directive 95/16/EC. Their impact on the performance of the Directive and in

particular its effectiveness are analysed with more details in section 5 of this document.

The defi itio of

installer

as t a sposed i the e a t sa e te s used

Di e ti e

95/16/EC in 26 Member States. The Estonian legislation initially contained a different

definition.

(2) The provision requiring the establishment of a two-way flow of information between the

person responsible for the building construction and the lift installer (Article 6(1) of the

Directive) has been transposed in its exact terms in the national legislation of 26 Member States

and no additional requirements were introduced. The Austrian and the Hungarian legislations

both provide for specific mechanisms to ensure that this two-way flow of information is

ensured.

c.f. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, pages 39-45 and 132-137.

In the Estonian Product Conformity Act, which was transposing the provisions of Directive 95/16/EC,

reference was made to “manufactuer” instead of “installer”. Nevertheless, this did not have an impact

on the obligations entrusted to that economic operator. The Building Code, which transposes the

provisions of Directive 2014/33/EU now refers to “installer” in its Article 80.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 40.

(3) Twenty Member States have included into their respective national transposition legislation

provisions relating to the accessibility of disabled persons, namely EHSR 1.2. and 1.6.1., which

are formulated in the exact terms as those in the Directive. The remaining 8 Member States

have incorporated the accessibility provisions for lifts mainly into their respective national

building regulations. In this regard, it should be noted that the general building accessibility

rules fall under the realm of competence of the Member States and therefore they have

exclusive competence to regulate these aspects.

(4) A number of stakeholders have raised concerns

regarding the application of the third

paragraph of EHSR 2.2

related to the prevention of the risk of crushing. This EHSR is of

particular relevance for the health and safety of maintenance personnel operating outside the

lift car. The provision stipulates that the risk of crushing is to be prevented by means of free

space or refuge beyond the extreme positions that can be reached by the lift car to enable a

person to avoid being crushed in case of unexpected movement of the car. The first two

paragraphs of this EHSR set the requirements for lifts to be "designed

and constructed to

prevent the risk of crushing when the car is in one of its extreme positions. The objective will be

achieved by means of free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions."

The third paragraph

introduces a flexibility by allowing "in

specific cases, in affording Member States the possibility

of giving prior approval, particularly in existing buildings, where this solution is impossible to

fulfil, other appropriate means may be provided to avoid this risk."

The p io app o al p o edu e allo s i stalle s to use alte ati e ea s to a oid the isk of

crushing after obtaining the prior approval of the respective national authority. However, the

Directive does not provide indications as to the criteria according to which the national

authorities may grant or refuse to grant such a prior approval.

I fa t, so e stakeholde s o side the p io app o al as the ost e u e t p o le elated

to the implementation of the Directive, and some others consider that the application of the

p io app o al ep ese ts the deepest dis epa

i e isti g diffe e es a oss Me e

States.

1718

(5) Additional issues have been raised in relation to the conformity assessment and in particular

in relation to the EC-type examination certificate for lifts. Specifically, information gathered

from some stakeholders had suggested that installers were sometimes requested to present

further evidence on lift compliance. However, following the entry into force of Directive

For instance, in France, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and the UK, building regulations “accessible”

passenger lifts should conform to harmonised standard EN 81-70. In Poland, the national building

regulations include specific provisions for granting disabled persons accessibility to lifts, aligning with

the recommendations of the Declaration made by the European Parliament, the Council and the

Commission. In Cyprus, Italy and Latvia the building regulations provide for specific requirements on

the dimensions of the lift car, on the presence of telephone devices and on the exact location of lift

control panels. In Spain, Latvia and Italy local regulations prescribe additional requirements such as

the use of Braille system.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 145.

This provision remained unchanged following the entry into force of Directive 2014/33/EU.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 147.

With regards to the Directive 95/16/EC, the Evaluation study had pointed out to some discrepancies in

the national transposition legislations of the different Member States. For further information c.f.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 41.These discrepancies now seem to have

been addressed in the national measures transposing Directive 2014/33/EU.

2014/33/EU, these uncertainties have been clarified as the new Directive has partly amended

the content of the EC-type examination certificate (now called

EU-type

examination

e tifi ate fo lifts a d safet o po e ts fo lifts.

6) In relation to the market surveillance, unlike Directive 95/16/EC which did not contain any

specific procedures, Directive 2014/33/EU now incorporates dedicated provisions in line with

the New Legislative Framework.

The evaluation demonstrated that market surveillance has

been differently implemented across Member States, in terms of strategies, extent of

monitoring activities and frequency and types of checks. Thus, at least 11 Member States have

adopted an essentially proactive approach towards market surveillance, while only one Member

State has declared to have rather opted for a reactive approach.

Surveillance activities also differ between Member States in terms of type of checks. Thus, some

MSAs monitor mainly documents and authorisation checks (e.g. Hungary, Norway, Slovakia,

Sweden and Poland), while others focus on product marketing inspections and on

accompanying document checks in the lift sector (e.g. the Czech Republic) or conduct

inspections in the premises of lifts installers and in buildings where lifts are installed (i.e. Estonia

and Cyprus).

The same applies for the numbers of checks performed by the different Member

States which vary considerably, in some cases ranging from 1 to 582 checks performed in

2013.

Data gathered within the framework of the evaluation indicated some degree of divergence

regarding the respective penalty regimes adopted by the different Member States for the

infringements to the provisions of Directive 95/16/EC. However, Directive 2014/33/EU has now

i t odu ed a dedi ated p o isio a d e ui es that the

penalties provided for shall be effective,

proportionate and dissuasive

The evaluation has concluded, based on a number of concurring sources, that the proportion of

non-compliant lifts in relation to the total number of installed lift is negligible. For instance, the

number of penalties imposed, as well as the instances of voluntary corrective measures taken

by economic operators or restrictive measures imposed by MSAs in the lift sector between 2010

and 2013 have been relatively low.

Thus, at EU level in 2013, few measures were reported

relating to non-compliant lifts or safety components, consisting mainly in voluntary measures

(15), restrictive measures (14) and penalties (3).

See also Decision 768/2008; the NLF introduced a common structure and definitions to be used in all

EU product legislation.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 44.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 45.

Article 43 of Directive 2014/33/EU.

Data aggregated by the authors of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, based on the report on the MS

reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013 period

pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts. cf. Table 4, Evaluation of

the Lifts Directive, final report page 45.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 62.

Furthermore, over the period 2005-2015, no RAPEX

notifications related to lifts or lift safety

components in scope of the Directive were submitted. In addition, only one safeguard clause

procedure has been initiated. At Member State level, the few data collected through national

reports reflect this positive outline. Although these data could be also interpreted as due to low

MSAs’ effe ti e ess i ide tif i g o

-compliant lifts, they still allow inferring on the low

absolute dimension of non-compliance in the sector.

3.2.

Description of the market

The lift market is characterised by enterprises that besides manufacturing lifts and safety

components in scope of the Directive, sell also other products and services (i.e. other lifting

equipment and maintenance services) that do not fall in scope of the Directive.

The number of firms active in the lifts market including manufacturing of safety components,

installation of lifts and modernisation and maintenance activities was equal to 0,1% of the total

number of firms active in all the manufacturing sectors in the EU28 in 2014 corresponding to

around 2 000 firms according to Prodcom data.

Nevertheless, the number of firms impacted by the Directive is actually lower than 2 000, as this

number includes also firms performing only modernisation and maintenance which are

activities outside the scope of the Directive.

The distribution in the number of firms per size is very uneven in the lifts sector: 51% of firms

are micro, 31% are small, 15% are medium, and only 3% are large firms. While, the number of

firms in the lift sector has been overall declining since 2008, possibly due to the financial and

real estate crisis, this trend seems to particularly impacting large firms (8% decrease). The

number of medium and small firms has decreased on average by 6 and 5% respectively, while

the number of micro firms has increased overall by 1%. In 2015, large firms employed 62% of EU

workforce in the lift sector, medium firms employed 24%, small firms 11% and micro firms 3%.

When looking at the distribution per country, 70% of firms in the lift sector were located in ten

Member States in 2014. Over the period 2008-2014, all EU countries, with the exception of

Bulgaria, Greece and Poland, experienced a decrease in the number of firms active in the lift

sector.

Most turnover is produced by large firms, with a strong presence of four large multinational

companies

–

Kone, Otis, Schindler, and ThyssenKrupp Elevator

–

which had a combined market

share of at least 55% in terms of value in Europe in 2014. Micro and SMEs play a key role as

manufacturers and importers of safety components, as well as providers of maintenance and

modernisation services.

In addition to ICSMS, RAPEX (Rapid Exchange of Information System) is a system set up for

improving communication and collaboration between MSs and the Commission on measures and

action taken in relation to products posing serious risks, which ensures that appropriate action can be

taken everywhere in the EU.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 62.

Kone is a Finnish company, ThyssenKrupp is German and Schindler is Swiss. Otis is a US-based

company with a strong presence on the EU market through its subsidiaries, which were taken into

account for the purposes of this analysis. Other relevant European companies are the Spanish Orona

and the Greek Kleemann.

The overall turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components is estimated to be equal

to around EUR 5 billion in Europe in 2014 according to European Lifts Statistics (2017) provided

by the European Lifts Association (ELA). According to the same source, the number of new lifts

installed in the EU28 plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey experienced an average decrease of

1% over the period 2010-2015, passing from 132 857 units in 2010 to 124 574 units in 2015.

This trend is almost entirely due to significant drops in two of the biggest markets

–

Italy (-61%)

and Spain (-53%)

–

both having suffered the real estate bubble crash in 2008. In most other

countries, the number of new lifts installed has actually increased (+16% on average).

Figure 2: Turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components in the EU between 2008 and

2014

EUR bln

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, Final

report, based on Eurostat SBS, data for EU28

Based on statistics provided by the European Elevator Association (EEA-L), ELA and European

Lifts & Lift Components Association (ELCA), the number of existing lifts in service in Europe is 5

700 000. This figure includes both lifts put into service before the Directive was in force and

those placed on the market under it.

Six countries totalled nearly 80% of the overall production value of the EU28 in 2015: Spain

(23%), Germany (19%), Italy (16%), and France (10%). Well below follow Finland (6%) and

Sweden (5%).

The major producing countries are also those where R&D mainly takes place. The most

innovative European country in the lift sector is Germany, granting on average 52 patents per

year, i.e. 30% of total patents granted in the EU over the period 1990-2012. It is followed by

France (11% on average), Spain (9%), Finland (6%) and Italy (4%). These countries are also

amongst the ten most innovative worldwide in the lift sector between 1990 and 2014. The full

list includes China, Japan, Germany, the USA, the Republic of Korea, France, Switzerland, Spain,

Finland, and Taiwan.

ETHOD

4.1.

Description of the methodology

The main purpose of the present evaluation is to assess the performance of the Lifts Directive

and the extent to which the Directive meets its objectives in an efficient and coherent way, is

still relevant and has EU added value. The evaluation aimed at gathering both qualitative and

quantitative evidence from a number of complementary data sources, including European and

national public authorities, industry associations, economic operators, notified bodies,

consumer organisations and citizens/users of lifts.

The evaluation project was monitored by an Inter Service Steering Group (hereinafter "ISSG")

composed of representatives of three European Commission services, namely DG Internal

Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, DG Justice and the Secreteriat-General.

The evaluation was supported by a study

conducted by an independent consultant

–

consortia

between EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting. This study comported three major phases.

The first two phases were aimed to collect data. On the one hand this collection was

accomplished by means of desk research and literature review in the initial inception phase. On

the other hand, during the second phase data was gathered from the stakeholder by different

means such as interviews, targeted consultations as well as a Public Consultation. Finally, the

independent consultant analysed the collected data and presented its Final Report to the

Commission submitted in the end of 2017. The whole process and the findings are included in

the publicly available Final Report on the evaluation of the Lifts Directive.

The desk research during the initial inception phase included a comprehensive review of the

existing documents and legislative texts at international, EU and national levels. Insights on the

policy context have been gathered through previous studies and reports on the on-going work

of the Commission on harmonisation legislation, the standardisation requests, documents of

the NB-L co-ordination group including the RfUs, documents of the European

manufacturers/installers associations and economic operators annual reports. These documents

ha e ee

u ial to f a e the legislati e a kg ou d, the Di e ti e’s ai p o isio s a d

working mechanisms and to identify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholde

s’ o e ed

the Directive.

During the second phase, data was collected using various tools aiming to reach out all

stakeholders in the most effective way. The following techniques were used:



A Public Consultation launched by the Commission in early June 2016 and concluded in

January 2017, involving overall 66 stakeholders. The results of the Public Consultation

have been considered as evidence to be triangulated with information gathered

through the other research tools;

Four targeted surveys addressed to four categories of stakeholders (Member State

authorities in charge of the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the

enforcement of the Directive, Notified Bodies, lift installers and safety component



Evaluation of Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws relating to lifts, Final report,

November 2017

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9f1a5907-e539-

11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1/language-en



manufacturers, including SMEs, and related industry associations). Overall, it involved

116 stakeholders. The targeted surveys included both closed and open questions

complementing the questions of the Public Consultation;

Interviews with 38 stakeholders. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their

specific knowledge of or experience with the Directive, particularly for the case

studies

. They were also selected to ensure a balanced geographical coverage and a

balanced representation of all of the above mentioned stakeholder categories;

A Workshop held in the context of the LWG. The workshop served to discuss the

preliminary results of the study with representatives of the Commission, of Member

States and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies and NB-L. The workshop

has been a valuable tool to collect further evidence and validate the results with the

Member States and the relevant stakeholders.

Altogether, through the different tools used, more than 220 stakeholders were consulted, with

a wide geographical coverage.

More details on the consultation are included in the synopsis report in Annex 3.

4.2.

Limitations and robustness of findings

The limitations of the study conducted by the independent consultant as well as the

corresponding mitigation actions undertaken are described in Table 1.

Table 1 - Limitations and mitigation actions

Limitation

Mitigation measure

Lack of assessment of the Whenever possible information reported by stakeholders

effectiveness

the referring to the situation previous to the entry into force of the

Directive

against

the Directive has been considered in the analysis

baseline

Lack of data on market A number of questions were foreseen in the targeted surveys to

surveillance in the lift fill in these gaps. The answers to these questions proved to be not

entirely informative, therefore the assessment of the

sector

effectiveness of market surveillance was based on available data

collected through desk research.

Lack/incompleteness

market data

of A specific methodology, to gather estimates to disaggregate data,

has been developed, also through additional stakeholder

consultation

Lack of official data on lift Additional reports/literature have been investigated to fill-in the

gaps at least for the main MS. Most of the analysis is based on

accidents at EU level

data requested to ELA

Low

response

rate

to Specific interviews were scheduled to fill-in these gaps.

The Evaluation study contains five case studies covering inter alia the issues of the lift accessibility for

disabled persons, the prior approval procedures, market surveillance activities etc.; c.f. Evaluation of

the Lifts Directive, final report, pages 137-175.

targeted survey questions Moreover, the CBA performed within the framework of the

collecting data for the CBA evaluation study presents the estimates resulting from this

exercise trying to avoid generalisations due to small sample on

which calculations are based.

Unbalanced representation General interviews aimed at involving the least represented

of some stakeholders/MS

categories/ MS

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting, Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, Final

report, page 25

The main limitation that the independent consultant had to face while conducting the study was

linked to the difficulties to reconstruct the baseline scenario. This was partly due to the fact that

no impact assessment was conducted prior to the adoption of Directive 95/16/EC and also due

to the difficulties to collect information dating back to more than 20 years.

In order to mitigate this limitation, the independent consultant relied on information regarding

the period prior to the adoption of the Directive that was gathered by the various stakeholders

which took part in the targeted survey.

In addition, the independent consultant has invoked limitations related to the lack of market

data as well as standardised lift-accident data. The lack of such data is due to several factors:



incomplete data in the national reports on market surveillance activities;

the fact that maintenance and modernisation activities are excluded from the scope of

the Lifts Directive renders more complex the precise definition of the lifts market. Due

to data aggregation, it was not possible to distinguish the number of firms active in the

production and installation from those performing modernisation and maintenance

only, and therefore not impacted by the Directive but by the national legislation;

incomplete official accident data in national reports on market surveillance for lifts;

the absence of an official centralised reporting system on accidents as well as a

common classification on the seriousness of the injuries;

lack of distinction between accidents

i ol i g lifts su je t to the Di e ti e a d e isti g

lifts i.e. lifts i stalled efo e the e t i to fo e of the Di e ti e



In order to mitigate the limitations related to lack of market data, the consultant has developed

a specific methodology to the market analysis which is described in section 4.2.1. of the Final

Report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive study.

In order to mitigate the consequences of the fragmented lift-related accident data, the

consultant has performed a more in-depth desk research and gathered additional information

about the lift accidents for at least the biggest national markets (such as DE, ES, FR and IT).

However, as mentioned in section 3.4. above, the data that has been gathered did not allow to

conduct a detailed comparison between the state of play in the different Member States.

Nevertheless, some trends could still be observed.

The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) which closely monitored the study expressed

reservations regarding the quality of the first interim deliverables. For example, the desk

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 26.

research was very limited and the ISSG had to suggest alternative sources of information. After

the consultant had taken into account the comments of the ISSG, the quality of the Final Report

has improved.

Overall, the reliability and robustness of the data gathered within the framework of the study

has been assessed as satisfactory given the care that was taken to carry out inclusive

consultation and measures put in place to reach in a balanced way European industry

associations, manufacturers, installers, national authorities and notified bodies to ensure input

of representative sample of stakeholders. Furthermore, the qualitative assessment is

considered to be sufficiently reliable. Finally, as regards the quantitative analysis, data on

cost/benefits were available only for a limited number of companies and hence it makes

sometimes impossible to draw firm general conclusions at EU level.

Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, the study managed to gather more information, with

a sufficient level of precision in comparison to the one already available to the responsible

Commission service.

The final results and conclusions of the study report are therefore considered sufficiently

reliable to use as a basis for the present document. The Final Report of study was also

presented in a meeting of the Lifts Working Group which took place on 17 January 2018. This

Working Group is composed of representatives of the national authorities in charge of the

implementation of the legislation and the market surveillance. Also at this level, the quality of

the report and its conclusions were well received and supported.

NALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The core of the evaluation is the analysis of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence

and EU added-value of the Lifts Directive. Detailed evaluation questions

were developed to

ensure that the evaluation criteria could be properly assessed.

5.1.

Relevance

The relevance of the Directive is assessed by checking the relevance of its objectives to current

needs, especially taking into account innovation and new technologies and the clarity of the

Directive.

5.1.1. Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free

movement and safety

The Directive pursues two strategic objectives: to ensure the free movement of compliant lifts

and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and also to guarantee that lifts and safety

components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for users and maintenance

personnel (see also the intervention logic in section 2.1.2 above).

The evidence gathered through surveys and interviews confirms that both objectives

correspond to the present needs of consumers and economic operators in the field and are still

particularly relevant today. 99% of respondents to the survey stated that the Directive meets

C.f. Annex 2.

their current needs to a great/some extent. The relevance has been confirmed also by six

interviewees.

On the one hand, in respect to the objective to ensure the free movement of compliant

products, 94% of the consulted stakeholders acknowledge that the Directive contributes to

reducing barriers to intra-EU trade.

On the other hand, in respect to the objective to guarantee a high level of safety of lifts and

components, the need for a Directive harmonising the EHSRs for lifts and safety components is

also confirmed by 94% of survey respondents.

While the core needs identified at the time of

the Di e ti e’s adoptio a e still pe siste t a d the o je ti es of the Di e ti e still elevant

thereto, the evaluation identified some specific needs, such as the prevention of the risk of

crushing as well as the accessibility for disabled persons that are not addressed according to

some respondents. These respondents point out to the lack of specificity of the relevant

provisions as well as the different implementation of these provisions at national level as

sources of concern.

These concerns and more specifically the effectiveness of the relevant

provisions will be further analysed in Section 5.2.2. below.

5.1.2. Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new

technologies

Over time, a number of drivers

–

such as demographic development, urbanisation, safety, travel

speed acoustic noise, ride comfort and occupied space

–

have contributed to the development

of new technologies related to lifts. The drivers that led to such developments are various and

are not directly related to the implementation of the Directive.

The Directive is still adequate in addressing needs related to these developments thanks to the

flexibility of its EHSRs, which leave to the manufacturers/installers the choice of the specific

technical solutions used to comply therewith. Also, 72% of survey respondents and 91% of the

Public Consultation acknowledge that the flexibility of EHSRs allows to address potential safety

eeds elated to i o atio a d e te h ologies. The Di e ti e’s EHSRs a e o side ed fle i le

e ough so that a o di g to

% of su e espo de ts, the allo ed Eu opea fi s’

propensity to innovate and for 84% of respondents it increased the European lift sector

competitiveness with respect to global competitors.

Therefore, the Directive is still needed as it sets common requirements for all economic

operators active in the sector across Europe, providing that all lifts placed on the EU market

comply with its EHSRs. Moreover, the Directive demonstrated to be able to align to

technological developments occurred in the lift sector and to take into account risks related

thereto.

5.1.3. Clarity of the Directive

On average, 92% of survey respondents deem that tasks, obligations and rights of all

stakeholders concerned by the Directive (i.e. safety component manufacturers, lift installers,

An Italian MSA, two implementing authorities, an Italian and a Spanish industry association

representing SMEs, a German representative from the coordination of NBs for lifts.

89 out of 95 survey respondents.

Including 72 out of 109 “to a large extent”, 31 out of 109 “to

a moderate extent”.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page v of executive summary and page 50.

NBs, public authorities

–

namely Member States and their market surveillance authorities) are

clear, in particular in Directive 2014/33/EU. Among the tasks of stakeholders concerned by the

Directive, the rules for affixing the CE marking are clear, according to the large majority of

respondents (69%) or clarified in Directive 2014/33/EU (20%).

Moreover, they are easy to

apply in practice, raising only some needs for further clarification with respect to rules for

affixing the CE marking on UCMP devices - a subsystem made sometimes up of several

components. As for the drafting of the EU DoC, 79% of survey respondents declare there are no

issues in relation to its content.

Overall 79% of survey respondents and 64% of Public Consultation respondents deem the

different definitions provided in Directive 95/16/EC (Article 1(4)) clear, complete and up to date.

Furthermore, according to 73% of survey respondents, the definitions provided in Article 2 of

the new Directive 2014/33/EU are even clearer. It should be noted that Directive 2014/33/EU

aligned the legal framework applicable to lifts to the New Legislative Framework (hereinafter

"the NLF"). Therefore, a significant number of these definitions have been taken over from

Decision No 768/2008/EC thus ensuring consistency with the respective legal frameworks

applicable to other harmonised products. Nonetheless, the consultations revealed some issues,

which may require additional clarification.

In particular, several stakeholders have raised issues regarding the precise definition of the

scope of the Lifts Directive.

While, pursuant to Article 2(5), the Lifts Directive applies to lifts,

which are made available on the market for the first time, it does not cover modernisation

activities conducted on existing lifts. Therefore, modernisation, maintenance, (software)

updates and changes are regulated by the national legislation of the respective Member States.

In the light of these elements, some stakeholders have indicated that that they would welcome

guidance on when a lift is no longer considered as a "modernised

old lift"

but as a new lift, thus

requiring a CE marking.

Another issue identified in the study is related to the

definition of "installer"

as provided for in

Article 1(4) of Directive 95/16/CE. This definition was also taken over by Directive 2014/33/EU in

its Article 2(6). According to this definition, the installer is "the

natural or legal person who

takes responsibility for the design, manufacture, installation and placing on the market of the

lift",

i.e. the Directive uses the term "installer" instead of "manufacturer" of the person who

places the CE marked lift on the market in the end of the 'manufacturing process'. Installation of

a lift

–

its incorporation into a building or construction

–

is part of that process. Neither the old

Directive, nor the new Directive

sepa atel defi es the

manufacturer of a lift

hi h i theo

could be used to refer to the operator applying for the EU type-examination certificate and not

necessarily installing the lift on site. The study has pointed to the fact that today very often the

manufacturer and the installer of a lift are two distinct economic operators. However, both

Directives clearly indicate that the installer is the responsible economic operator for the

compliance of the lift with the Directive.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 55.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 53.

Furthermore, Directive 2014/33/EU foresees the possibility for several economic operators to

be involved in the supply chain of a lift in its Article 16(2) stipulating that "where

the person

responsible for the design and manufacture of the lift and the person responsible for the

installation and testing of the lift are not the same, the former shall supply to the latter all the

necessary documents and information to enable the latter to ensure correct and safe installation

and testing of the lift".

In conjunction with Article 7 on obligations of installers, this provision

indeed covers the situation where different persons are involved in the design/manufacturing

and the installation/testing, and provides clarity on each party's responsibilities.

A third issue identified in the study is related to the delimitation of the concepts of "putting into

service" and "placing

on the market".

While "placing

on the market"

of a lift is defined in Article

2(5) of Directive 2014/33/EU, the concept of "putting into service" mentioned in Article 3(1)

thereof is not defined. This seems to contribute to a certain confusion of both concepts by some

stakeholders. Thus, 43% of survey respondents

lai that

putting into service of a lift

occur a number of years after the lift has been placed on the market, in particular for large and

complex projects. According to installers, this causes difficulties when either the legislation or

the relevant hENs change between the moment the lift is placed on the market and the

moment the said lift is put into service. These installers explain that they are bound by the

contract signed before a possible change occurred, implying that they have to provide a lift

complying with new requirements.

A ti le

of the Di e ti e p o ides that

Member States shall take all appropriate measures to

ensure that the lifts covered by this Directive may be placed on the market and put into service

only if they comply with this Directive

. I ega ds to the o e s aised the stakeholde s, it

should be noted that point 2.3. of the Blue Guide

clarifies that the concept of placing on the

market refers to the moment when a product is made available for the first time on the Union

market. It is at that moment that the conformity assessment procedure has been concluded and

the p odu t’s o plia e ith the appli a le EHSRs is esta lished. At the sa e ti e, the

reference to the concept of putting into service essentially serves to ensure that no additional

requirements are imposed on lifts which have been installed correctly (i.e. in line with the

specific technical solution assessed during the conformity assessment procedure). Therefore,

even in case of a change of the legal framework, the reference point for the conformity

assessment remains the moment of placement on the market. This is furthermore confirmed by

Article 44 of Directive 2014/33/EU which lays down the transitional provisions between the old

and the new Directive.

In the light of the above elements, it can be concluded that the confusions regarding the three

areas of concern reported in the study are not attributable to an unclear or conflicting wording

of the provisions of the Directive but rather to a certain misinterpretation of the Directive by

some stakeholders.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 53.

The “Blue Guide” on the

implementation of EU product rules,

2016; 2016/C 272/01.

Pursuant to Article 44(1) “Member

States shall not impede the putting into service of lifts or the

making available on the market of safety components for lifts covered by Directive 95/16/EC which

are in conformity with that Directive and which were placed on the market before 20 April 2016.

“

After having been made aware of the above problems and in order to provide the necessary

clarification, the Commission has published in June 2018 a revised version of the Guide to the

application of the Lifts Directive.

In this regard, it should be noted that already 76% of the

survey respondents have expressed satisfaction with the clarity of the previous versions of the

guidance documents to the Directive and in particular the Guide to Application of the Lifts

Directive. The Commission will monitor further issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the

interpretation of the Directive and develop together with the stakeholders (most notably within

the framework of the Lifts Working Group) further specific guidance documents if necessary.

5.2.

Effectiveness

To assess the effectiveness of the Directive, the evaluation has looked into the contribution of

the Directive towards the achievement of its main objectives, namely to ensure the free

movement of compliant lifts and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and also to

guarantee that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for

users and maintenance personnel.

5.2.1. Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its

main objectives

5.2.1.1.Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its

main objectives

Both the market analysis and stakeholder consultation conducted within the framework of the

present evaluation have shown that the Directive has had a significant positive impact on

reducing barriers to trade.

Nearly all the stakeholders (96% of survey respondents) consider that the Directive facilitated

the free movement of lifts and safety components, and 75% deem this is specifically achieved

through a reduction of different requirements across Member States.

This general perception of the stakeholders is also supported by the available market data

which clearly indicates an overall growth of the value of sold production of lifts between 1995

and 2015.

However, as shown in Figure 3 below, this overall growth is unevenly distributed throughout the

reference period: the steady growth between 1999 and 2005 is followed by a period of

stagnation between 2005 and 2008 before returning again to a period of a more moderate

growth.

In the period preceding the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC (1995-1999), the annual

average growth rate of the overall sold production of lifts was equal to +1%. After the entry into

force of that Directive, the value of sold production of lifts grew on average by 14% in the EU15

from 1999 to 2005. During the period between 2006 and 2015, sold production decreased

annually on average by 3% in the EU28 including a sharp decrease (-29%) between 2008 and

2009, possibly due to the financial and real estate market crisis.

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/29961

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63.

Figure 3

–

Value of sold production of lifts in scope of the Directive in Europe between 1995 and

2015 (nominal values)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

EUR bln

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EU15

EU28

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

The overall trend with regards to the production of safety components also points towards an

overall growth of the value of sold production between 1995 and 2015. However, unlike lifts,

the growth of the lift safety components' value has been more steady and evenly distributed

throughout the reference period. Between 1995 and 1999 the annual average growth rate of

the overall sold production of safety components was equal to +14%. After the entry into force

of Directive 95/16/EC, the value of sold production of lift safety components grew annually on

average by 2% in the EU15 from 1999 to 2005. Considering the period between 2006 and 2015,

sold production continued to increase annually on average by 2% in the EU28. This included a

sharp decrease (-17%) between 2008 and 2009.

Figure 4

–

Value of sold production of lift safety components in scope of the Directive in Europe

between 1995 and 2015 (nominal values)

3.0

2.5

2.0

EUR bln

1.5

1.0

0.5

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EU15

EU28

The figure presents data within the maximum available timeframe. The “EU15” and the “EU28” are to

be considered as geographical aggregates.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63.

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

A comparison between intra- and extra-EU trade of lifts and their components shows how the

former is impressive with respect to the latter, although this difference is reducing over time.

Between 1995 and 1999, the annual average growth rate of extra-EU trade of products in the

scope of the Directive was equal to +4%, while the annual average growth rate of intra-EU trade

was equal to +12%.

After the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, the extra-EU trade grew annually on average by

8% from 2000 to 2005. After the enlargement to EU28, the average annual growth rate of extra-

EU trade was 5% between 2006 and 2015.

Regarding the intra-EU trade, the average annual growth rate in the EU15 was on average 9%

between 2000 and 2005, and 1% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015.

Figure 5

–

Intra- and extra-EU trade in products within scope of the Directive between 1995 and

2015

3,200

3,000

2,800

2,600

2,400

2,200

2,000

EUR mln

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Extra-EU15 trade

Extra-EU28 trade

Intra-EU15 trade

Intra-EU28 trade

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

The above data indicates that the Directive had at least potentially a positive impact on

reducing barriers to trade.

Based on the evidence gathered, the Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal

market for the products in its scope.

90% of survey respondents think that the Directive contributed to the establishment of legal

certainty and a level playing field for companies in the EU. By way of example, an implementing

authority observes the Directive created a level playing field for all NBs, whose requirements for

accreditation have been harmonised, particularly with Directive 2014/33/EU.

Moreover, notwithstanding the few discrepancies identified across Member States in the

application of the Directive it substantially contributes to the legal certainty as well as to the

establishment of a level-playing field across the EU, which both ensure an effectively operating

internal market. To confirm this, 71% of survey respondents declare that national

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63.

implementations have no impact on the effectiveness of the Directive nor do they influence

regulatory or administrative costs across Member States.

5.2.1.2. Contribution to the objective of ensuring the safety of lifts and

safety components

Accidents related to lifts can involve users or maintenance personnel. They can be lethal (i.e.

leading to death), serious (i.e. leading to hospitalisation) or minor.

The overall perception of the stakeholders is that the Lifts Directive has contributed to the

improvement of the level of safety. Thus, lift safety is perceived as satisfactory by 97% of survey

respondents and by 91% of Public Consultation respondents. In addition, 94% of survey

respondents think the Directive increased lift safety.

This perception of increased levels of safety is supported by some evidence indicating a trend

towards a reduction of the number of lift-related accidents.

Data on lift-related accidents throughout the EU is fragmented and statistics from Member

States often appear to lack details on the precise causes of accidents (e.g. lift misuse rather than

lack of lift safety) and they do not distinguish between accidents involving lifts subject to the

Di e ti e a d

existing lifts

i.e. lifts i stalled efo e the e t i to fo e of the Di e ti e .

Furthermore, statistics from Member States do not cover the same reference periods and do

not necessarily consider the same types of accidents in their respective national reports. Hence,

these data can only provide selected, anecdotal indications on the number of accidents and

trends over time in individual countries. The most significant limitation comes from the fact that

available data often do not distinguish clearly between the concerned groups (users or

maintenance personnel or both altogether), between the types of lifts concerned (lifts falling

inside the scope of the Directive or outside its scope i.e. installed prior to its entry into force)

and between the types of accidents (lethal or non-lethal and in the second case the degree of

gravity of the accident). These data cannot, therefore, be compared or aggregated.

Nevertheless, some trends can be observed when analysing these data together.

A preliminary observation before analysing the available data on lift related accidents concerns

the evolution of the new lift installations in recent years. This data is particularly relevant as the

evolution of the stock of installed lifts should be analysed together with the evolution of the

number of lift-related accidents. This is the only way to distil an accurate ratio of accidents in

proportion to the number of lifts. Thus, according to data provided by ELA, in 2015 there has

been an average increase of 16% of the newly installed lifts in a number of Member States.

Despite an average overall decrease of 1% over the period 2010-2015, the disaggregated data

indicates that opposite trends existed in 2010 and 2015 regarding new lift installations in the

largest EU national markets (Spain and Italy) and the other Member States. Thus, while in Spain

and Italy, a much higher number of lifts were being installed in 2010 in comparison to the other

Member States, this trend has been inversed in 2015 when Germany accounted for 17% of the

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 64.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 35.

total new installations in Europe.

This data clearly shows that the stock of installed lifts in the

EU has been steadily increasing until 2015.

Regarding accident-related data on the other hand, reports are available from 6 Member States

(Greece, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain) which contain data on accidents

involving lifts in the period around 2009-2013 It should be noted that these reports do not

necessarily use the same reference periods, the same method of calculating the ratio of

accidents, nor the same definition of "lift

accident".

Furthermore, neither of these reports

indicates whether these accidents involve the same users, maintenance personnel or both

groups altogether. Nevertheless, the information contained in these reports provides

indications that the number of lethal accidents remains very low and has been reduced over

time. For example, between 1998 and 2009, there were in total 41 lethal accidents related to

lifts in Greece varying between 1 and 8 annually

being equivalent to less than 0,20 accidents

per 100 000 lift units in service. In France the total number of lethal accidents reported between

2001 and 2013 is 44.

The number of accidents varied between 0 and 8 annually representing

up to about 0,16 accidents per 100 000 lift units. The annual number of all reported accidents in

France diminished from 3 200 in 2008 to 1 840 in 2013. In the Netherlands the number of all

accidents related to lifts was very low varying between 3 in 2011 and 2013 to as high as 9 in

2014 over the period from 2011 to 2015

equalling 0,3 to 1,0 accidents per 100 000 lifts. In

Germany the number of all accidents declined over the period 2011-2013 from 178 to 133

incidents representing reduction from 2,7 to 1,9 accidents per 100 000 lift units while in Spain

the number of all accidents decreased from 5,1 (2012) to 3,0 (2013) accidents per 100 000 lift

units.

In contrast to the above, according to ELA the number of accidents over the total number of

installed lifts has been increasing at an annual average rate of 7% over 2008-2015. However, the

relevance of this distinct information is questionable, as these data relate to both accidents

involving "existing lifts" (which are outside the scope of the Directive) as well as lifts covered by

the Directive. Furthermore, it has not been specified whether this increase concerns accidents

involving users, maintenance personnel or both groups together.

A possible approach towards identifying trends in the evolution of the number of lift-related

accidents is to focus specifically on those accidents involving maintenance personnel. The

reason for this is that such accidents are much better reported and documented as they

constitute work-related accidents and as such they trigger a specific follow-up (maintenance

personnel can benefit from specific social security services). Conversely, accidents involving

users are mostly reported by users themselves and in general, no specific follow-up is ensured.

Therefore, the reliability of such data can be seen as questionable.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 35.

Zarikas, V. and others (2013), ‘Statistical

survey of elevator accidents in Greece’,

Safety Science, Vol.

59, pp. 93–103.

Fédération des ascenseurs (2014), ‘Situation

économique du secteur’,

mai 2014, p. 10.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 47.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 47-48.

Thus, according to statistics collected in the framework of an EU Commission's study (2007)

there were 1 339 lift accidents involving maintenance personnel within eight EU Member States

between 2001 and 2005.

Furthermore, according to the evaluation study (based on PRODCOM and ELA data), the

number of lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel compared over the existing

installations has been decreasing at an annual average rate of 3% between 2008 and 2015.

Based on these concurring sources, the study has come to the conclusion that the trend

towards a reduction of the lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel is indicative

of the improvement in lift safety levels.

This conclusion can be further reinforced by a

comparison between the evolution of the stock of lifts and the number of accidents during the

period 2010-2015. Data regarding both the stock of lifts and the number of accidents has been

provided by ELA. Bearing in mind the overall increase of the stock of installed lifts over the

period, the 7% increase in lift accidents indicated by ELA should be relativized. Unfortunately,

the limited data available does not allow to draw quantitative conclusions in this regard.

In the light of the above, the evaluation has concluded that the accident related data is not

entirely reliable. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the said data does not

distinguish between lifts within the scope of the Lifts Directive and outside its scope.

Nevertheless it can be concluded that the Lifts Directive has been overall effective in improving

the level of protection of health and safety of maintenance personnel. As far as users are

concerned, the data available does not enable drawing any quantitative conclusions.

Nevertheless, the data provided by the national reports in particular suggest that the impact of

the Directive is in no circumstances adverse and the Directive could even have brought a minor

contribution to the improvement of the level of lift safety.

5.2.2. Assessment of specific issues related to the effective

implementation of the EHSRs

The wording and content of the Directive's provisions and annexes were assessed on how they

impact the effectiveness of the Directive. No major concerns were identified with regards to the

provisions on the defining the tasks, obligations and rights of all stakeholders concerned by the

Directive (i.e. safety component manufacturers, lift installers, Public Authorities

–

namely

Member State implementing authorities and MSAs, NBs).

Some stakeholders have pointed towards specific risks which have not been addressed under

the Lifts Directive such as the risk of fire. However, this specific risk is addressed by the EHSRs of

the Machinery Directive

which apply to lifts. Therefore, these concerns are not directly linked

to the wording of the Lifts Directive.

Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), ‘Technical

assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on

lifts subject

to Directive 95/16/EC’.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 46, figure 19.

Nevertheless, the study pointed out the increase in the skills of maintenance personnel and the

potential improvements in the national legislation on safety at the workplace could be also contributing

factors to this decrease.

Directive 2006/42/EC on Machinery, Annex I, EHSR 1.5.6, 3.5.2 and 5.5.

Nevertheless, the evaluation has identified two issues which are related to the interpretation by

the stakeholders of the EHSRs: the first one is the provision on the risk of crushing and prior

approval and the second one is the provision regarding the lift accessibility for disabled persons.

5.2.2.1.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provision on the

prevention of the risk of crushing and prior approval

As already mentioned in Section 3.1. above, this EHSR requires lift designers to provide free

space or refuge when the lift is at one of its extreme positions (extreme top or extreme bottom

position in the lift shaft/well) in order to prevent the risk of crushing. According to 45% of

survey respondents and to 59% of respondents to the Public Consultation, the risk of crushing is

not properly addressed by the Directive. According to 42% of survey respondents, the wording

of this EHSR leaves little room for choice how to address this risk thus disregarding the New

Approach principles.

I additio , o e s ha e ee e p essed ega di g the p io app o al p o isio thi d

paragraph of EHSR 2.2) which constitutes an exception to the requirement to provide for a free

space/refuge in the extreme top or bottom positions of the lift shaft.

This exception is

particularly relevant for lifts which are to be installed in existing buildings where the limitations

of the existing structures might not allow to provide free space or refuge.

The o di g of the p io app o al p o isio suggests that its appli atio is ot li ited to

e isti g uildi gs […]

particularly in existing buildings

[…] . I this

egards, the evaluation

study outlined the concerns of some stakeholders related to the scope of application of this

provision.

The concerns expressed by the stakeholders evolve around two main issues with this provision:

on the one hand, the criteria used by Member States to grant or refuse a prior approval are not

harmonised (thus leading to divergent practices) and, on the other hand, by allowing Member

States to grant installers permission to use alternative means, different safety standards might

emerge both across the EU and even within individual Member States.

With regards to the concern related to the lack of harmonised criteria to be used by the

different Member States when granting prior approval, the evaluation has indeed identified

diverging practises across the Member States. However, fragmented data on the respective

national practices only covers seven Member States which does not allow to establish clear

trends across the entire EU.

In particular, data on the number of prior approvals granted by

each Member State is lacking except for Cyprus which declares to have granted a prior approval

on two occasions.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 50.

Pursuant to the third paragraph of ESHR

2.2. of Annex I to Directive 2014/33/EU : “However,

specific cases, in affording Member States the possibility of giving prior approval, particularly in

existing buildings, where this solution is impossible to fulfil, other appropriate means may be provided

to avoid this risk.”

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 112.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 147.

The a aila le data e e theless suggests that the Me e States’ p a ti es di e ge o se e al

points: application to new and/or existing buildings, requirement to prove the impossibility to

provide free space, involvement of a NB and also the possibility to choose the specific

alternative solution to be used to prevent the risk of crushing.

The later constitutes the second point of concern for stakeholders. A number of stakeholders,

(mainly economic operators) across the EU have taken the view that the third paragraph of

EHSR 2.2. should be either amended in order to introduce a clear set of criteria for granting

prior approval or it should be repealed altogether.

Those stakeholders that advocate for the

repeal of this provision mainly do so because of alleged risk for distortion of competition and

hindering of innovation. On the other hand, those stakeholders that prefer to see this provision

amended stress that while is necessary and relevant, the application of the third paragraph of

EHSR 2.2. should be limited exclusively to existing buildings.

However, there could have been a misconception among the stakeholders concerning the

interpretation of EHSR 2.2. as a whole and the "prior approval" procedure in particular. In fact,

it should be noted that EHSR 2.2 is in line with the New Approach as its paragraph 1 defines the

objective to be achieved but at the same time does not prescribe the technical specification to

be applied. While it is true that the second paragraph of EHSR indicates what is considered to be

the most effective way to achieve this objective, the third paragraph on the prior approval

actually introduces a certain flexibility as it enables installers to opt for alternative technical

solutions. In any case, this procedure does not allow to derogate from the safety objective but

enables, the adoption of other appropriate means to avoid the risk of crushing.

As a stakeholder had

ightl o se ed ithi the f a e o k of the e aluatio stud ’s

o sultatio s,

the Directive leaves roo for a oeuvre to cover the risk of crushi g, the

problem being that not all MS apply this provision in the same way, and this is the issue.

Therefore, despite its particular structure in three paragraphs, EHSR 2.2. is in fact in line with

the New Approach principles.

Improved coordination at the level of the MSAs (especially in the framework of the ADCO

Group) could contribute the emergence of a more coherent and uniform application of this

provision at EU level. This improved coordination between the MSAs could be further

complemented by specific standardisation activities.

The Commission will further investigate the practical implications of the divergent approaches

by the Member States on the effective application of the Directive. In addition, the Commission

will support within the boundaries of its competences the coordination between the MSAs as

well as any standardisation activities specific to this provision.

5.2.2.2.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provision regarding

lift accessibility for disabled persons

The Directive ensures non-discriminatory access conditions for users with disabilities through

provisions set in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.6.1 of Annex I, which are related only to the minimum

size of door entry, the dimensions of the lifts car and the position of control panels.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 148.

However, the second paragraph of EHSR 1.2. does not require that lifts are made accessible for

disabled persons in all circumstances but only "where

the lift is intended for the transport of

persons, and where its dimensions permit".

If this is the case, the Directive sets out harmonised

accessibility requirements for the lift car.

According to 71% of survey respondents the provisions on lift accessibility to disabled persons

have been implemented differently across the EU.

However, these results do not distinguish between the accessibility requirements applicable to

lifts and the accessibility requirements applicable to the entire buildings. Unlike the former, the

later have not been harmonised at EU level and therefore, they fall under the realm of

competence of Member States.

As a result, Member States have sometimes introduced specific provisions to complement the

EHSRs related to lift accessibility for persons with disabilities. Thus, different national practices

for granting lifts accessibility to disabled persons have emerged inter alia depending on the type

of building in which a lift operates (new or existing building), its function (public or private

building), or its height (two or more floors). For example, some Member States have laid down

provisions defining the minimum size of the lift car, while others refer to the standard EN 81-

70.

In any case, 65% of survey respondents do not perceive the accessibility requirements for lifts to

have any major impact on the implementation and on the effectiveness of the Directive.

that sense, the additional national requirements which are sometimes introduced are not

perceived by stakeholders as burdensome or hindering the internal market for lifts. As a matter

of fact, 54% of them

even consider that there is a need to enshrine additional provisions for

minimum compulsory awareness of manufacturers and installers in the legal framework for

ensuring accessibility to lifts of disabled persons.

5.2.2.3.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions relating to

the harmonised European standards

Nearly all the stakeholders (95% of the survey respondents) agree that development of hENs

have been pivotal in ensuring an effective application of the Directive by all the actors involved.

This support is also confirmed by the fact that no formal objections to hENs have ever been

raised since the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC.

79% of the survey respondents acknowledge that the development of hENs constitutes an

effective tool for promoting both the free movement of compliant lifts and components as well

as for promoting a high degree of safety. The hENs are largely used as one of the main reference

guide for ensuring compliance with the Directive.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 139.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 50.

49 out of a total of 90.

Pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU)No 1025/2012, Member States and the European

Parliament may raise a formal objection against a hEN if they consider that it "does

not entirely satisfy

the requirements which it aims to cover and which are set out in the relevant Union harmonisation

legislation"

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 59.

Nevertheless, some concerns have been identified regarding the wide-spread reliance on the

hENs. In fact, despite the voluntary character of these standards they are often perceived as de

facto mandatory by economic operators and in particular by SMEs. Generally, the latter tend to

rely (nearly exclusively) on hENs as they provide a much less expensive alternative for

demonstrating compliance with the Directive than providing their own technical specifications.

SMEs generally have rather limited resources available for R&D purposes and thus relying on

the technical solutions provided by the hENs (which are generally reflecting the state-of-the-art)

is more cost-effective than developing own solutions. Nevertheless, due to the voluntary nature

of hENs SMEs wishing to advance an innovative solution on the market, which is not covered by

a hEN, are free to do so.

Another issue raised within the framework of the present evaluation is related to the

lengthiness of procedure for adoption of the hENs. In fact, 75% of respondents to the Public

Consultation identified as a drawback the sometimes lengthy procedure needed by CEN to

develop hENs.

Therefore, hENs might not always be able to cope with the speed of

technological progress. However, it should be noted that compliance with the hENs is not

mandatory and therefore they cannot in principle constitute barriers to innovation. The

Commission is committed to collaborate closely with the ESOs within the boundaries of the

framework laid down by Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 so as to ensure the smooth and swift

functioning of the standardisation activities in the Lifts sector.

Finally, SMEs might be potentially disadvantaged by the way the hENs are developed. Some

stakeholders have raised their concerns regarding the inclusiveness of the process of

development of hENs in which SMEs are not necessarily well represented. While the

Commission is committed to involve the broadest possible range of stakeholders in the

standardisation activities, the question of the representation of SMEs in the process of

development of hENs relates to the internal organisation of the relevant ESOs which are

independent private bodies.

5.2.2.4.Effectiveness of the implementation of the conformity assessment

procedures

The study concluded that conformity assessment procedures represent one of the main

strengths of the Lifts Directive.

The possibility for installers and manufacturers to choose one

(or more) of the different conformity assessment procedures fully matches the needs of

operators to achieve compliance.

Moreover, conformity assessment procedures cover all production phases and act as a sort of

he klist to e su e that all steps a e o e ed a d o pl

ith the Di e ti e’s EHSRs.

Therefore, despite being reported as the major compliance cost stemming from the Directive

(see section 5.3.1), 92 % of survey respondents recognise the effectiveness of conformity

assessment procedures to ensure product compliance with the EHSRs.

Furthermore, according

to some stakeholders, the application of the Directive raised fewer problems than most other

New Approach Directives thanks to the conformity assessment procedures harmonised under

the Directive. These procedures indeed require all lifts to be assessed by NBs before being

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 60.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 61.

placed on the market, which the evaluation identified as a factor relevant to the low extent of

product non-compliance in the Lifts sector.

5.2.2.5.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions on

enforcement and market surveillance

The market surveillance is conducted once the products have been placed on the market. Thus,

the market surveillance, which is the

ex-post

compliance check, is complementing the

conformity assessment which is the

ex-ante

compliance check, Unlike the conformity

assessment which is entrusted to the NBs, the responsibility for conducting the market

surveillance lies with the Member States and more specifically with their respective Market

Surveillance Authorities ("MSAs"). Also, unlike the conformity assessment procedures which

have been harmonised by Decision 768/2008 (and then taken over in the Lifts Directive), the

Directive does not harmonise the market surveillance procedures. Therefore, Member States

are free to organise their market surveillance activities. However, this has the adverse effect

that today the implementation of market surveillance activities across the Member States is

very uneven and there is a general lack of resources.

The available information shows that the level of non-compliance in the sector is very low. This

conclusion is shared by 87% of the stakeholders consulted within the framework of the study

and the data collected for the report on market surveillance activities.

This overall high level of compliance can be credited also to the conformity assessment

procedures which impose that all lifts must be assessed by one or several third party

assessment bodies (the NBs) before being placed on the market. Therefore, it should be

concluded that the high level of compliance should be achieved by the effective conjunction of

the

ex-ante

(conformity assessment) and

ex-post

(market surveillance) compliance checks.

Nevertheless, some barriers to the enforcement of the market surveillance have been

identified. However, it should be noted that these barriers are not attributable to any

shortcomings in the legal framework. Instead, these barriers are related to the resources

allocated to market surveillance activities by the Member States and the coordination of the

said activities. Firstly, Member States report a lack of resources for conducting market

surveillance in the lifts sector, which, in turn, may hamper effective enforcement. A second

barrier of effective enforcement is the differences in the implementation of market surveillance

activities in the Member States.

In order to be effective, the level of enforcement needs to be

uniform across the EU.

Regarding the resources affected to market surveillance activities, the study has identified

certain discrepancies between the different Member States. Thus, in 2013, only four MSAs

Data gathered within the framework of the Evaluation Study indicate that there are discrepancies

between the market surveillance authorities in different Member States in terms of budget allocated to

these activities, the proactive or reactive approach of the different MSAs, the number of inspections

per year etc. For further detailed information c.f. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report,

page 158.

Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland and Hungary.

have declared to have a budget specifically dedicated to activities in the lifts sector and five

had dedicated staff/inspectors to perform market surveillance of lifts and safety components.

On the other hand, the priority given to market surveillance in the lift sector differs across the

Member States.

Thus, some Member States such as Spain allocate medium priority to lift

surveillance, while others such as the Netherlands allocate high priority. Such lack of uniformity

across Member States could potentially lead in long run to the creation of weaknesses, which

could, at least in theory, result in lower compliance. In this regard, 78% of survey respondents

and 81% of respondents to the Public Consultation state that market surveillance activities in

the sector are not fully effective.

Overall, the Directive has been uniformly transposed across the Member States, and there is no

evidence of any transposition difficulties. As for its implementation, the analysis identified some

discrepancies across Member States. A number of them (i.e. those related to the EU type-

e a i atio e tifi ate, o te t of the EU DoC, NBs’ otifi atio p o edu es ha e ee

addressed in the new Directive.

5.3.

Efficiency

To assess the efficiency of the Directive, the costs which it entails for the different stakeholders

categories (MSAs, NBs and EOs) were analysed against the benefits resulting from the

application of the Directive for the economic operators (EOs), users and maintenance

personnel. A detailed overview of the costs and benefits identified in the framework of the

evaluation is available in Annex 5 to the present document.

Unfortunately, a general limitation on data hampered a thorough assessment

of the Di e ti e’s

efficiency. Very few stakeholders were able to provide quantitative data, and those who did,

provided mostly rough estimations. Therefore, this section presents only anecdotal evidence,

whenever available, which should be considered as purely indicative. The analysis remains

therefore mainly qualitative.

Despite the above methodological limitations, there seems to be an overall consensus among

stakeholders on the benefits outweighing the administrative and compliance costs.

The Directive improved the internal market by harmonising national procedures and hence

reducing costs for economic operators. While larger companies benefit more than SMEs from

the internal market, the overall positive opinions on the Directive are shared also by SMEs.

Also, evidence shows a general reduction in lift-related accidents over recent years, which could

lead to think of an increase in lift safety. While the direct causal link with the Directive cannot

be quantitative proved, it is common opinion of stakeholders that the Directive helped to

increase safety.

Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Greece and Hungary.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 62.

5.3.1. Costs entailed by the Lifts Directive

The main driver concerning costs comes from the

ex-ante

and

ex-post

controls that each

product (either a lift or a safety component) must undergo before and after being placed on the

market. The stakeholders concerned are: the Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs), the

Notified Bodies (NBs) the economic operators and users.

It should be noted that the great part of costs (for example, the conformity assessment by

MSA/NB) were already present with the previous Directives and cannot be credited to the

Directive 95/16/EC and Directive 2014/33/EU.



Market Surveillance authorities

Market Surveillance Authorities mainly bear the

enforcement costs

due to recurrent market

surveillance activities, withdrawal of non-compliant products from the market, assessment of

NBs, and periodic communication to the Commission and other MS of their activities.

MSAs’ duties i te s of e fo e e t of the Di e ti e’s p o isio s e e al ead fo esee i the

previous Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC. Thus, the costs of inspections could not be

attributed directly to the Directive, since MSAs would have incurred them anyway. There is,

however, a reduction of burden for MSAs, since NBs are now in charge of conducting the

conformity assessment verifications.

The main source of costs for the Notified Bodies are related to the need to gather the necessary

resources (human as well as material resources) to ensure the performance of the conformity

assessments and the issuing of the EU-type approval certificates, cost for national

accreditations, cost for purchase harmonised standards.

Directive 95/16/EC mandated the NBs to perform the conformity assessment procedures in the

lift sector. Before that, under Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC, the "EEC type-approval"

was granted by the Member States authorities. Hence, Directive 95/16 did not introduce

additional costs as the conformity assessment procedure was already existing under the old

legal framework. Instead, the Directive shifted the responsibility for this procedure from the

Member States authorities to NBs without significantly changing the scope of the obligation.

However, it should be noted that today, the NBs can perform conformity assessments which are

valid throughout the whole EU and their services may be solicited by EOs established in any of

the Member States. Therefore, while the costs related to the performance of the conformity

assessment are now borne by the NBs, they benefit in return from an EU-wide market and their

activities are no longer limited to the territory of a single Member State.



Notified bodies

However, NBs bear also some other specific costs:

MS are required to periodically inform the Commission on their market surveillance activities,

including the inspections on the lift market. Costs due to information obligations as foreseen by Art.

7(1); Art. 9(1) and (3); Art. 11 were already due in Dir 84/528/EC and hence not assessed.

Before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, the geographical competence of the MSAs which

were entrusted with the performance of the conformity assessment procedures was limited to their

respective Member State.

The primary source of costs for NBs is related to periodic fees due to

national accreditation

procedures

or any of the other means to periodically prove their sufficient level of competence

to the notifying bodies. These costs are not strictly derived from Directive 95/16/EC, since it

does not require mandatory accreditation.

Evidence gathered from NBs in 8 MSs

indicates that the average annual cost for accreditation

i ease ith the size: €

fo t o i o NB % of thei a ual tu o e , €

, %o

the a ual tu o e fo o e s all NB a d €

, % o the a ual tu o e fo se e

medium and large NBs.

Training expenses

are also a burdensome compliance cost. 16 respondents report an annual

spending on traini

g a gi g et ee €

fo i o NBs a d €

fo ediu a d la ge

NBs . I te s of NBs’ a ual tu o e , it ep ese ts a a e age of , % fo th ee i o NBs,

0,55% for three small NBs, 0,12% for eight medium NBs and 0,03% for two large NBs.

The NBs may be required to buy (and update) harmonised European standards. This cost is

quite relevant, especially for smaller NBs that usually buy singular standard/update.

However,

larger NBs, which are usually active in several harmonised sectors may need to buy more

standards. Therefore, they usually prefer to pay an annual flat-rate fee to a service provider in

order to have access to any subsequent updated standards

NBs replies to the survey highlighted other types of costs (without any quantification). 49%

claims additional costs for innovate their equipment and systems to comply with the Directive

and 53% (n=24) underwent process re-engineering for the same purpose. Overall, 44% of NBs

replying to the survey deem that costs to innovate equipment and systems would have been

lower if the Directive had not been implemented.



Economic operators

Economic operators (installers of lifts and manufacturers of safety components) are subject to

several obligations at different stages: (i) in the design and production of the safety component;

(ii) in the design phase of the lift, and (iii) in the lift installation phase. Costs for these economic

operators are mainly derived from

both compliance costs and administrative burden.

The first

are, for example, costs to ensure compliance with the EHSRs, to perform the conformity

assess e ts a d elated to NBs’ se i e fees, t ai i g spe ialised te h i ia s, pe iodi pu hase

of hENs or the creation of alternative technical solutions. The Administrative burden includes

costs related to the CE marking, the production of the EU Declaration of Conformity and its

archive for the period required by the Directive (i.e. ten years).

Compliance costs

are mainly related to the conformity assessment procedures (e.g. the EU

type-examinations) and to on-site verifications performed by NBs (e.g. final inspection). Other

compliance costs include training expenses, the purchase of updated harmonised standards,

Data on accreditation costs and turnover have been gathered through ten interviews involving NBs

from BE, DE, DK, FI, FR, IT, NL, SE.

These figures are calculated as the ratio between the average expenditure on training activities related

to the Directive and the annual turnover, as reported by interviewees and survey respondents.

Data on costs for harmonized standards and turnover have been gathered through 14 interviews

involving NBs from AT, BE, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL.

initial expenses for new equipment bought to comply with the Directive, re-engineering of

internal processes to acquire a system certification and other expenses due to external

consulting services. It is to be noted however that some of these costs (e.g. expenses for new

equipment, re-engineering and external consulting services) might have occurred even without

the entry into force of the Directive.

The overall burden of compliance costs varies considerably from one economic operator to

another depending on: (i) the size of the company; (ii) the business structure; (iii) the preferred

conformity assessment procedures.

Interviewed companies confirmed that

conformity assessment procedures

are the most

burdensome provisions of the Directive and strongly depends on the type-examination chosen

(see also section 5.2. above for details of the EU-Type examination).

The data gathered within the framework of this evaluation concerning the specific costs related

to each conformity assessment module

does not allow to draw generalised quantitative

conclusions regarding the costs entailed for the economic operators. Nevertheless, some trends

can be observed.

La ge fi s te d to opt fo the full ualit assu a e s ste

Module H i t odu ed

Directive 2014/33/EU which, although entailing higher initial costs and recurring annual

inspection costs, is more convenient for large production volumes. In fact, the cost for this

module does not depend on the number of lifts designed, being a one-off cost. Before Directive

95/16/EC the conformity assessment procedures were a variable cost proportional to

production volumes. The introduction of Module H has reduced the marginal compliance cost

for larger companies, which could spread the fix cost on a larger number of produced lifts.

However, these costs should include other, non-identified internal costs (i.e. the labour cost of

employees) and may change depending on the size of the company, but interviewees could not

provide an estimate for such costs.

Lack of statistics on the number of conformity assessments, does not allow for a quantification

of the cost reduction for enterprises using module H. However, according to some interviews

the current compliance cost is estimated to be around half in comparison to the situation

existing before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC.

Among the compliance costs entailed by the Lifts Directive, there are also

the costs related to

the purchase of hENs.

Before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, EOs, were required to

comply with a multitude of national rules. Furthermore, they were not able to benefit from the

presumption of conformity related to the compliance with hENs. Today, by proving compliance

with a hEN, the EOs are presumed to comply with the relevant EHSRs and thus their product can

circulate freely throughout the EU.

While this undoubtedly a benefit and a reduction of costs for economic operators, the

evaluation study has nevertheless pointed out to the fact that this change may affect differently

the companies according to their size. Thus, SMEs which generally tend to be less export-

Data has been mainly provided by the relevant stakeholders (the economic operators). However, only a

limited number of stakeholders provided such information which does not allow to draw generalised

conclusions.

oriented and are usually active on the territory of a single Member State benefit to a lesser

extend from this administrative simplification then bigger companies which operate in several

Member States. Instead, the SMEs have to incur the costs of acquiring the standards as well as

the successive updates thereof. However, it should be noted that the cost of acquiring these

standards is lower than the costs associated with alternative technical solutions. Thus, it

appears more cost-efficient for SMEs to opt for a demonstration of the compliance with the

Directive by relying on the presumption of conformity.

Another concern in relation to SMEs which has been highlighted in the evaluation study is

related to the fact that hENs are recognised by consumers as a reference for "high quality" and

tend to become a de facto market standard. Hence, the application of the hENs which should be

voluntary becomes de facto mandatory for all economic operators in the market, including

SMES that are generally less export-oriented. This may entail additional costs for SMEs respect

to the cheaper national standards (that are less frequently updated). Nevertheless, should the

SMEs wish to propose innovative solutions to the market, they are free to do so as the

application of hENs is purely voluntary.

The frequent updates of hENs also imply additional costs for the economic operators, which do

not have the same weight depending on the size of the company.

According to data available for 7 companies the cost for a single harmonised standard ranges

et ee € a d €

; thei the a ual e pe ses fo ha o ised sta da ds a ou t fo .

of annual turnover for larger companies to 0.035% for SMEs, though this incidence changes

considerably on the specific products/services. Furthermore, larger companies, which are often

active in more than one product sector and thus usually buy more standards, pay an annual flat-

rate fee to a service provider in order to have access to any update and fix to a certain amount

the overall costs for technical standards. For this reason, the weight of these expenses on SMEs

is proportionally higher in comparison to larger companies. Nevertheless, as shown above, it is

more cost-efficient for SMEs to acquire these hENs rather than to conduct the conformity

assessment.

Another relevant source of costs is the

training of employees on issues related to the Directive.

While the initial costs borne by economic operators straight after the implementation of the

Directive were directly linked to it, it is acknowledged by the companies that the recurrent

annual training expenses are only partially due to the Directive. Unfortunately, interviewees

were not able to disentangle the costs of training due to the Directive from other types of costs.

The provisions entailing

administrative burden

for drafting the

EU DoC

and affixing

the CE

marking

are not particularly burdensome for lift installers. Similar requirements to prepare a

DoC and mark each lift with an EEC marking were already present in the previous Directive

84/528/EEC, thus these costs are considered as not relevant for the purpose of this analysis.

Finally, the economic operators reported

other costs related to the Directive

(but not

quantifiable). 58% of economic operators implemented some updates to their

equipment/machineries and 59% undertook process re-engineering to be compliant with the

Directive. 28% of economic operators reported that they requested external support from legal

consultants to comply with the Directive.

5.3.2. Benefits entailed by the Lifts Directive

The potential benefits of the Directive for the economic operators are:



A reduced administrative burden/compliance costs and harmonised level-playing field

due to harmonisation of the regulatory framework;

Increased internationalisation due to both harmonisation legislation and perceived high

quality of EU product requirements.

The creation of a common EU regulatory framework for the lifts has reduced the intra-EU export

costs because exporters are no longer required to perform any local testing or receive any

additional authorisation from the local authority.

This benefit is generally recognised mainly from large operators (more export oriented than

SMEs) and according to one of them the total burden of compliance costs is nearly half than the

cost to comply to each national regulation.

However, SMEs are generally less export-oriented and are most often active in their national

market and hence benefit to a lesser extent from the enhanced functioning of the Internal

market.

Furthermore, 1/3 of the respondents

to the survey claim that such harmonised regulatory

framework across Europe has supported companies to implement a stronger

internationalisation strategy also in third countries. In fact, as reported by an Italian

manufacturer of safety components,

the CE marking is increasingly perceived as a standard of

quality by the industry beyond the EU borders:

buyers in Asia and US prefer products with a CE

marking being a signal of higher quality and safety.

However, also in this case, large enterprises benefit more than SMEs and

their revenues from

exports in the lift sector are higher in comparison to SMEs.

These findings have been confirmed by the contributions received within the framework of the

Open Public Consultation. All large enterprises with few exceptions have declared that the costs

and benefits induced by the Directive are balanced and acceptable, with 14 of 63 indicating that

benefits outweigh costs. Similarly, all large enterprises agree that the Directive has increased

their competitiveness. Finally, 73% of survey respondents do not perceive that national

practices incorporate costly or unnecessary requirements into products or structures covered

by the Directive.

The benefits for consumers/users are considered in terms of a lower number of lift-related

accidents and of increased lift accessibility for people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, available accident statistics do not allow to establish a direct causal link between

the Directive and an increase in lift safety. Evidence shows that

the number of accidents

involving maintenance personnel has been decreasing since 2008 possibly indicating a

progressive improvement in lift safety levels.

20 out of 63 survey respondents.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 75.

In the same view, available data are not sufficient to quantitatively estimate the increase of

disa led pe so s’ ell-being.

However, the Directive should be seen as a great improvement

with respect to

the previous regulatory framework that did not foresee any provisions

targeting their needs.

For example, the Directive provides for rules on the dimension of the lift

car and the position of lift controls. However, these provisions suffer some limitations as they

vary considerably across Member States, thus granting different levels of accessibility and

deemed as insufficient.

5.4.

Coherence

The Lifts Directive is interrelated with other EU legislation, in particular the Machinery

Directive

, the Cableway Installations Regulation

and the Construction Products Regulation

In order to assess the coherence, stakeholders were asked to identify overlaps,

complementarities and additional requirements for products in other pieces of legislation

relevant for lifts. The internal coherence of the Lifts Directive was also assessed, looking

amongst others at the requirements for installers of lifts and manufacturers of safety

components.

No major issues of overlaps or inconsistencies have emerged from the evaluation. On the

contrary, a number of complementarities exist, and they cause no duplication of costs according

to 88% of survey respondents.

The Machinery Directive has strong interrelations with the Lifts Directive. The hazards related to

lifts that are not covered by the Lifts Directive are covered by the EHSRs of the Machinery

Directive. Applicable EHSRs are also described in the NB-L’s

dedi ated Re

ommendation for Use

document, together with the reasons for their applicability to lifts. This contributes to making

economic operators aware of the relation between the EHSRs defined in the Lifts Directive and

those applied under the Lifts Directive but defined in the Machinery Directive.

Also with reference to the coherence of the Lifts Directive with the Cableway Installations

Directive (replaced as of 21 April 2018 by Regulation (EU) 2016/424), the study did not identify

any overlaps or inconsistencies as their scopes are mutually exclusive. The study referred to the

concerns raised by a few isolated stakeholders regarding the interface between the Lifts

Directive the old Cableway Installation Directive

. In particular, according to one stakeholder

the distinction between "inclined lifts" and "funiculars" need to be further clarified. This issue

was discussed during a meeting of the Standing Committee for the Cableways Directive (CABL-

SC) and it was agreed that these concerns can be clarified by means of improved guidance.

With regard to the Construction Products Regulation, any reference was removed in the new

Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU. The relation between the two areas of legislation, considering that a

Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery,

and amending Directive 95/16/EC.

Regulation (EU) 2016/424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on

cableway installations and repealing Directive 2000/9/EC is already in force and will become fully

applicable on 21 April 2018.

Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying

down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council

Directive 89/106/EEC.

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 77.

lift installation has an interface with the building or construction where it is installed, is dealt

ith th ough the Lifts Di e ti e’s A ti le

that i t odu es a t o-way

flow of information

between the lift installer and the person responsible for the work on the building or

construction.

The internal coherence of the Directive has been assessed by looking specifically at

requirements for lift installers and safety component manufacturers. No overlapping rule has

ee ide tified a d the defi itio of safet o po e t a ufa tu e a d lift i stalle a e

overall clear, with clearly identified responsibilities. In addition, the alignment of the Lifts

Directive with the NLF has significantly contributed to clarify the requirements for all economic

operators concerned.

5.5.

EU added value

As part of the Union harmonisation legislation, the Directive aligned the former national

legislations relating to the lift sector. Even though a baseline scenario on national legislation in

force before the full applicability of the Directive could not be reconstructed, a number of

factors allow to conclude that the Directive did bring additional value compared to what would

have been achieved at national level in the context of multiple deviating provisions.

A large majority (94%) of respondents to the survey recognise the EU Added Value of the

Directive, especially in terms of enhanced free circulation of lifts and safety components and of

their increased safety.

The study has concluded that the introduction of the Directive and the New Approach has

supported innovation thanks to the flexibility of its EHSRs. According to 94% of survey

espo de ts, the Di e ti e has sti ulated the Eu opea e te p ises’ p ope sit to i o ate. It

increased the European lift sector's competitiveness with respect to global competitors

according to 84% of respondents. The trend in the number of patents granted in the sector

since 1995 and in the years immediately after the entry into force of the Directive up to 2004

confirms this. Without a harmonised legal framework, a fragmented EU lift market would not be

as competitive on the world stage.

The i te al a ket legislatio has, i the ase of the lift i dust , i deed a ted as a atal st fo

p o oti g i o atio . Fi st of all, the e has ee a positi e i pa t o i o atio , si e the

economies of scale generated by product standardisation allowed new investments in R&D.

Second, new demand for certain products has been created by EHSRs over the years. This was

the ase fo i sta e of the Di e ti e’s EHSR . elati g to the i o po atio of t o-way

ea s of o

u i atio i e lift u its, hi h e e epo ted to ha e oosted the de a d

for emergency telephone systems.

Alo gside the stakeholde s’ pe eptio , the EU Added Value of the Di e ti e i te s of

enhanced free movement of lifts and safety components is confirmed by the increasing

relevance of intra-EU trade since 1995, which suggests an improvement in the conditions for

placing lifts and safety components on the market due to the introduction of the Directive. The

Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 79.

hENs and EHSRs have been important in this sense, as recognised in particular by Member

States that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the Directive.

The EU added value of the Directive is further confirmed since, through harmonising EHSRs for

lifts and obligations for the relevant economic operators, it overall reduced the costs for

complying with the legislation, if compared to the previous regulatory framework. This is

especially true for companies that were already operating cross-borders.

ONCLUSIONS

The evaluation covered the performance of the Lifts Directive since the entry into application of

Directive 95/16/EC in July 1999. It assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence

and EU added-value in order to verify whether it meets its objectives and provides the

mechanisms to deal with future changes in the business environment.

The main conclusion of the evaluation is that the Directive is functioning properly and is

contributing positively to its main objectives of ensuring an effectively operating internal market

for safety components and lifts and of improving the health and safety of lift users and

maintenance personnel.

The evaluation has been supported by an evaluation study which itself has been mainly based

on desk research and field research using a number of tools such as an Open Public Consultation

(Public Consultation), targeted surveys, interviews and a workshop organised in the context of

the Lifts Working Group. A broad range of stakeholders (Member State authorities in charge of

the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the enforcement of the Directive, NBs,

lift installers and safety component manufacturers, including SMEs, and related industry

associations) were involved in these activities in order to gather the most representative results.

The main limitations which the evaluation has faced are related to the availability of sufficient

quantitative data allowing to reconstruct the baseline scenario, the lack of official quantitative

data on the lift-related accidents at EU level, the lack of sufficient data on market surveillance in

the lift sector as well as the low response rate to the targeted survey questions collecting data

for the CBA. In order to mitigate these limitations, the available qualitative data was analysed

together with the available qualitative data in order to identify overall trends.

As market surveillance is entrusted to the Member States and the Directive does not provide for

any reporting mechanisms, the Commission does not have the tools to gather detailed country-

specific data on lift-related accidents and market surveillance activities. However, the

Commission is committed to work closely with the MSAs by making use of all of the available

coordination mechanisms such as the coordination between the ADCO group and the Lifts

Working Group.

Looki g o e spe ifi all i to the o lusio s of the e aluatio , fi stl the Di e ti e’s o je ti es

are still considered to be

relevant.

The Directive demonstrated to be able to align to

technological developments occurred in the lift sector and to take into account risks related

thereto.

While the Directive is perceived as overall

clear

by stakeholders, some issues have been

identified within the framework of the evaluation. In particular, some of the definitions such as

lift i stalle a d the o epts of putti g i to se i e a d pla i g o the a ket . Fi all ,

some concerns have been raised regarding the precise definition of the scope of the Directive.

However, the evaluation has concluded that these concerns are not to be attributed to unclear

or conflicting wording within the Directive, but rather to certain difficulties in the interpretation.

Therefore, while some issues have been clarified by the new Directive 2014/33/EU, the others

are covered in the revised version of the Guide to the application of the Lifts Directive. The

Commission will monitor further issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the interpretation

of the Directive and develop together with the stakeholders (most notably within the

framework of the Lifts Working Group) further specific guidance documents if necessary.

While the provisions of the Directive have been uniformly transposed across the Member

States, the evaluation has nevertheless identified discrepancies in the implementation of some

of the provisions and most notably the EHSR 2.2. on the prevention of the risk of crushing and

the prior approval as well as the provisions on lift accessibility for disabled persons. However,

the evaluation has concluded that the implementation issues related to both of these provisions

are essentially due to the diverging provisions and/or practices adopted by the Member States

to complement the relevant provisions of the Directive. The Commission is committed to

promote improved cooperation between the Member States in general and between the MSAs

in particular so as to contribute to the emergence of more coherent practices across the

Member States regarding the granting of prior approval pursuant to the third paragraph of EHSR

2.2. Regarding the provision on the lift accessibility for disabled persons, the evaluation has

concluded that the additional requirements which are sometimes introduced by the Member

States to complement the relevant EHSRs of the Directive do not impose additional burden on

the economic operators and do not hinder the internal market for lifts.

The e aluatio has o luded that the Di e ti e’s o t i utio to the a hie e e t of its

objectives, namely the achievement of a well-functioning internal market for lifts and safety

components and the improvement of safety of lifts, has been overall

effective.

The development and use of harmonised standards has been key to ensure the effectiveness of

the Directive, especially providing SMEs which have rather limited resources in comparison to

the larger economic operators with an easier and cost-effective way to achieve compliance with

the EHSRs.

The conformity assessment procedures caused no major implementation problem and resulted

to be one of the main strengths of the Directive. Unlike a number of other New Approach

Directives, in the case of the Lifts Directive all of the conformity assessment modules used for

the conformity assessment of lifts require the involvement of a NB. This particularity has

contributed to the low levels of non-compliance in the lifts sector.

Rega di g spe ifi all the Di e ti e’s o t i utio to o je ti e of i p o i g the lift safet , the

major difficulty to assess the performance of the Directive is due to the lack of official data on

lift-related accidents across the Member States. In addition, the available data sourced mainly

from national reports and provided by sectorial associations does not allow to quantify the

Di e ti e’s o t i utio . Ne e theless, the a aila le data ega di

g accidents involving

maintenance personnel provides some indications on the overall trends. This data has been

considered as particularly relevant for the assessment due to the fact that accidents involving

maintenance personnel are generally better reported and documented and they trigger a

specific follow-up. In the light of the above, the data gathered within the framework of the

evaluation concerning the period between 2008 and 2015 indicates an average annual decrease

of accidents involving maintenance personnel. This clearly indicates the positive contribution of

the Directive regarding this specific group. Regarding the users of lifts, the evaluation has

concluded that the impact of the Directive is in no circumstances adverse and the Directive

could even have brought a minor positive contribution to the improvement of the level of lift

safety.

Regarding the implementation of the market surveillance provisions, the evaluation has

concluded that the level of non-compliance in the sector is very low. Nevertheless, there are

discrepancies between the Member States regarding both the resources allocated to market

surveillance as well as the overall approach towards these activities (proactive or reactive). As

market surveillance activities are entrusted to the Member States, the Commission will support

further coordination between the MSAs especially within the framework of the ADCO Group.

Regarding the

efficiency

of the Directive, the evaluation has concluded that there is no evidence

that compliance costs due to the Directive have increased in comparison to the period prior to

its entry into force. Based on the available qualitative data, it can be concluded that the

Directive has achieved a balance of the costs and benefits for all stakeholder categories. By

replacing the different national regimes with a single harmonised EU-wide legal framework, the

Directive reduced the associated administrative and compliance costs. However, these benefits

seem not evenly spread, with larger companies benefiting more than SMEs from harmonisation

due to their orientation to intra-EU export.

Finally, the reduction of lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel over the recent

years suggests that the Directive has contributed to the increase of lift safety. While a direct

causal link with the Directive cannot be proven based on the available quantitative data,

stakeholde s a k o ledge the Di e ti e’s o t i utio to the i p o e e t of the le el of safet

of lifts.

Lastly, the

EU added value

was acknowledged by all stakeholders. Intra-EU trade would not be

as eas

ith di e gi g atio al e ui e e ts i pla e. The Di e ti e’s added alue to the

enhancement of the free movement is confirmed by the increasing relevance of intra-EU28

trade since 1995. This relates to the positive role of EHSRs, which not only created better

conditions for the placing of lift-related products on the market, but also allowed the

internationalisation and innovation in the sector. Despite the limited data available regarding

lift-related

a ide ts, the Di e ti e’s added alue to the i p o e e t of the lift safet is

confirmed by the reduction of the number of lift-related accidents concerning maintenance

personnel. Finally, the evaluation has concluded that the overall cost of compliance with the

Directive have been reduced.

Annex 1: Procedural information

EAD

DG, De

CIDE

LANNING

/CWP

REFERENCES

Lead DG: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG

GROW); Unit C3 Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems.

Work planning reference: 2016/GROW/003

RGANISATION AND TIMING

The Inter Service Steering Group consisted of SG, DG JUST and DG GROW. After the kick-off

meeting on 09.09.2015, the ISSG met on 14.01.2016, 17.03.2016, 15.09.2016, 14.12.2016,

09.03.2017, 18.10.2017 and 16.03.2018.

XCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES

Not applicable.

ONSULTATION OF THE

RSB (

IF APPLICABLE

)

Not applicable.

VIDENCE

SOURCES AND QUALITY

The evaluation study was outsourced to an independent consultant applying standardised

methodology for external evaluations as defined in the Better Regulation framework.

Literature, open on-line sources and publicly available reports and studies have been used.

Other important sources of information were an Public Consultation involving overall 66

stakeholders, four targeted surveys addressed to four categories of stakeholders (Member State

authorities in charge of the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the enforcement

of the Directive, Notified Bodies, lift installers and safety component manufacturers, including

SMEs, and related industry associations) involving 116 stakeholders and interviews with 38

stakeholders. Additionally, a Workshop held in the context of the LWG.

Market data about the lifts and safety components for lifts sector is not readily available and

there is no specific matching product categories in statistical databases of Eurostat or other

sources. Additionally, lifts are products which are placed on the market only once their

installation on-site has been completed implying that statistics may not fully catch these

products.

General market information was collected from publicly available sources (e.g. annual reports of

economic operators) and from the European and national industry associations' publications.

More detailed cost related information was collected vie specific consultation of a limited

number of economic operators which agreed on to provide elementary data.

The robustness of the consultations:

During the preparatory phase, the external used existing studies and documents of the

Lifts Working Group and the Notified Bodies Lifts to prepare the next steps in the

evaluation study. The work resulted in preliminary questionnaires for the interviews,

targeted and public consultation. It also provided an insight to the evolution of the legal

framework and the adaptation to the technical progress and innovation of the Lifts

Directive over the period covered by the evaluation.

The Inter Service Steering Group monitored the development of the consultation both

with regard the process and the analysis of the information collected by the contractor.

The ISSG paid particular attention to the independence of the evaluation team

considering that information sources were limited and replies were potentially driven by

commercial interests of the economic operators.

The external consultant team carefully sought for technical expertise from wide range

of consultees and the ISSG in analysing the few more technical and/or safety related

issues raised during the evaluation. This approach resulted in a balanced analysis of the

replies and reduced the risk of errors and confusion in the interpretation of the results.

The Public Consultation was announced on the Europa website but also widely

published via indirect channels to reach also SMEs and consumer associations to unlock

the potential of stakeholders who initially did not engage to the evaluation process.

Contributions by industry appear to be coherent and representative for the sector.

Through the Public Consultation and targeted surveys but in particular through the

Workshop held in the context of the LWG information and feedback from national

authorities could be collected from the majority of the Member States. The online

Public Consultation resulted in 66 replies, providing also the view of users and

confirmed conclusions that could be drawn from the information already obtained from

economic operators, Notified Bodies and national authorities.

Triangulation of data from the surveys, the interviews and the Public Consultation,

allowed identifying divergences between the data collected through the different tools.

The answers were largely covering and reinforcing conclusions drawn on the basis of the

different stakeholder groups' feedback.

Compliance costs appear to be limited, at least balanced with the benefits of having a

European level harmonisation legal framework in place, however it was extremely

difficult to obtain this kind of information as economic operators and Notified Bodies do

not have a record of the break-down of costs for this purpose. Most of the investment,

operation and maintenance costs are inherent to the manufacturing and installation

processes anyhow and the specific costs to meet the requirements of the Directive

appear to be very low.

Whereas the number of replies and the level of coherence are sufficiently high, the qualitative

assessment can be considered as reliable. However, information related to market size and

compliance costs need to be interpreted with care and should be seen as indications of an order

of magnitude rather than as precise estimates.

Given the significant number of lifts in service (approximately 5 700 000 units) and placed on

the market annually (approximately 125 000 units), used in most cases on daily basis by tens of

millions users, the number of reported accidents is extremely low. There is however no

systematic collection of information about causes of accidents, many minor incidents are not

reported by users and available accident statistics does not distinguish between incidents

associated with lifts which were placed on the market under the Directive and older lifts. None

of the reported cases reveal any shortcomings in the Directive itself. Whereas this situation is

confirming the excellent safety record of lifts covered by the Directive, caution is needed on the

interpretation of this finding and national authorities are encouraged to collect data related to

accidents and problems they may identify with lifts and safety components for lifts.

Annex 2: Evaluation questions

22 evaluation questions (EQ) have guided the assessment of the Directive. They refer to the

analysis of the European lift market, and to five evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness,

efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. The evaluation criteria were understood to mean:



Relevance: whether the objectives of the Directive still correspond to current problems,

needs and challenges. In particular, the study assessed to what extent the scope and

mechanisms of the Directive allowed addressing the main issues arising from the lift

sector and in regard to lift safety. It also assesses whether the Directive follows up and

adapts to technological, scientific and social developments (EQ from 2 to 5).

Effe ti e ess: hethe a d to hat e te t the Di e ti e’s

objectives in terms of lift

safety and functioning of the internal market for lift and safety components have been

achieved so far at both national and EU level (EQ from 6 to 15).

Efficiency: whether the Directive has proportionally delivered its results in terms of

costs and benefits (EQ from 16 to 18).

Coherence: whether the Directive is consistent with other EU pieces of legislation

relevant for lifts and whether it is internally coherent (EQ 19 and 20).

EU Added value: to what extent the results of the EU action are additional to those that

would have resulted from action at Member State level (EQ 21 and 22).



The following lists enumerates the evaluation questions that have been addressed in the study:

The European lift market

How has the European lift market evolved since the adoption of the Directive? What is

the current situation and trends in the lift market?

Relevance

To what extent did the initial objective of facilitating the functioning of internal market

correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do?

EQ 3. To what extent did the initial objective of ensuring a high level of safety of lifts

correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do?

EQ 4. How are innovation and new technologies taken into account?

EQ 5. Is there an issue of clarity of the Directive?

Effectiveness

The implementation of the Directive

What are the discrepancies between MS in the process of the implementation of the

Lifts Directive?

EQ 7. Have there been problems with the implementation of the Directive?

The effectiveness of the Directive in achieving its objectives

EQ 6.

EQ 2.

EQ 1.

For further details c.f. Section 8.3. of Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study.

How effective was the development and use of the European harmonised standards for

the Lifts Directive?

EQ 9. To what extent has the conformity assessment procedure for lifts and safety

components for lifts been effective and provided highest degree of health and safety for

consumers and users?

EQ 10. How effective are Market Surveillance Authorities in identifying non-compliant lifts and

safety components for lifts?

EQ 11. To what extent has the Lifts Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal

market for the products in its scope?

EQ 12. To what extent does the Directive ensure legal certainty, transparency and non-

discrimination between companies?

EQ 13. To what extent has the Lifts Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of

health and safety of users and maintenance personnel?

Enabling factors

EQ 14. What are the barriers to effective application and enforcement, in particular through

surveillance of lifts on the market?

EQ 15. What are the factors that influence positively and negatively the effective application of

the Directive?

Efficiency

EQ 16. What are the regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholders?

EQ 17. What are the main benefits for stakeholders and civil society that derive from the

Directive?

EQ 18. To what extent are the regulatory costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? How

affordable are the costs for the stakeholders, given the benefits they receive? What does

this represent in terms of administrative and reporting burdens?

Coherence

EQ 19. Are there overlaps/complementarities between the Lifts Directive and any pieces of EU

legislation or Member State legislation in the relevant areas (in particular Cableways

and Machinery Directives)? To what extent are they coherent? Are there additional

requirements at EU and national level with regard to certain products? Are there

contradictions?

EQ 20. Are the requirements for installers and manufacturers clear? Are there overlapping

rules?

EU added value

EQ 21. What is the additional value resulting from the Lifts Directive, compared to what could

be achieved at national level?

EQ 22. What is the added value of the Lifts Directive for stakeholders?

EQ 8.

Annex 3: Research Methodology

The evaluation grids

The approach to answering the evaluation questions has been defined in specific evaluation grids,

presenting:



The judgment criteria used to specify the meaning of the evaluation question;

The analytical approach used in order to answer the evaluation question, given the judgement

criteria;

The indicators used to evaluate the achieved results as well as to identify potential shortcomings;

The sources of information, including primary sources (i.e. stakeholders), and secondary sources,

i.e. existing documents, publications, reports.

All evaluation grids are presented in Annex 8.3. to Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts

Directive Study.

The research approach

The approach to the analysis has been based on the understanding of the relation between the evaluation

questions and the intervention logic of the Directive. Besides the reconstruction of the intervention logic,

the tools and techniques adopted in the study and described in the following sections include:



Desk research;

Field research;

Case studies.

Desk research

The desk research included a comprehensive review of the existing documents and legislative texts at

international, EU and national levels. Some examples are relevant literature on lift safety and sector, the

policy context and the mai

issues elated to the Di e ti e’s i ple e tatio .

Policy context, transposition and implementation

Insights on the policy context have been gathered through previous studies and reports on the on-going

work of the EC on harmonisation legislation, NB-L RfU, the requests for standardisation and the

amendments to the Directive. These documents have been crucial to frame the legislative background, the

Di e ti e’s ai p o isio s a d o ki g e ha is s a d to ide tif the oles a d espo si ilities of

stakeholde

s’ o e ed the Di e ti e. Fi all , fo assessi g the t a spositio a d i ple e tatio of the

Directive at Member State level, the national transposition laws of the 28 EU Member States have been

analysed specifically focusing on:



The definition of the "installer of a lift";

This section is based on Section 4 of Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study.



The provisions in the national building regulations in relation with the requirement of Article 2(2) of

the Directive in order to ensure a two-way flow of information between the lift installer and the

person responsible for work on the building or construction;

The transposition of Article 8 of the Directive included any restrictions in the use of harmonised

standards;

The prior approval as set out in section 2.2 of Annex 1 of the Directive to prevent the risk of

crushing;

The provisions for granting lift accessibility to disabled persons.

The raw data of this analysis are presented in Annex 8.6. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts

Directive Study. The national reports for market surveillance, drafted by MSAs pursuant to Article 18(6) of

Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, represented another information source to understand the policy context of

the Directive.

Market data analysis

Products falling in scope of the Directive include lifts intended for the transport of persons, persons and

goods, goods alone if the carrier is accessible, and their safety components (as listed in Annex IV). After-

sales services (e.g. maintenance) are not in scope of the Directive.

The market analysis looked at the following indicators:



Units and value of lifts and safety components sold (production);

Overall value and volume of intra/extra EU imports/exports of lifts and safety components;

Competitiveness;

Turnover;

Number of patents;

Number and size of enterprises (i.e. safety component manufactures, lift installers);

Number of employees.

A number of sources have been analysed to look for the above-mentioned indicators. The table below

summarises the results of this analysis, showing which indicators have been identified, in which sources

and referred to which products. Unfortunately, in many cases the available data do not fully match with the

products in scope of the Directive. Where possible, indicators related only to the products in scope of the

Directive have been estimated by integrating official and non-official sources.

Table 1

–

Methodology for each indicator

Indicator

Source

Coverage

Products: Lifts and safety

components

Issues

Action

Estimate

Units and value of

ELA reports

lifts and

(2013, 2015,

components sold

2017)

(production)

Fully matching with the

scope of the Directive,

Territory: EU28 with the though likely to under-

exception of BG, CY, EE, HR, represent SMEs.

IE, LV, MT, SK + CH, NO, TR

Timeframe:

2010-2015

Where available, these data were used to provide a breakdown at MS level and to calculate None

the ratio of the number of accidents/number of installed lifts for MS.

The under-representation of SMEs is not deemed to hinder the estimate of production sold,

as they play a minor role in lift production.

In some cases, these data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources.

Eurostat

Prodcom

Intra- and extra-

EU28 trade

(import and

export) in volume

and value

Eurostat

International

Trade

102

And UN

Comtrade

Products: Lifts: NACE Rev. 2

(A)

Data at MS level are

(A)

Data have been used only at aggregate level (EU).

code 28221630 and 28221650 very fragmented.

(B)

The inclusion rather than the exclusion of skip hoists in scope of the Directive is not

Safety components: NACE

(B)

NACE codes for lifts straightforward. Nonetheless, skip hoist production value -whether in scope or not of the

Rev. 2 code 28221950

Directive- over total EU production of lifts and skip hoists is estimated to not exceed

include

skip hoists.

10%,99 meaning that those outside the scope of the Directive are even fewer. This estimate

Territory: EU28 and EEA

(C)

NACE codes for lifts

is confirmed by data provided by the German statistical office.100 As a result, the indicator

include lifts that might

has been used as it is.

fall

under

the

Timeframe:

Machinery

Directive

(C)

The percentage of lifts that may fall under the Machinery Directive (MD) has been

1995-2015

NACE

(e.g. due to different

esti ated as esidual, o side i g that ost p odu ts i its s ope a e aptu ed

Rev. 2 code 2822. As a result, the indicator has been used as it is.

speeds).

(D)

We estimate that only 92% of the NACE code for safety components fall within the

(D)

The NACE code for

scope of the Directive, being the remaining 8% related to escalator.

Products: Lifts: SITC Rev. 3

safety

components

code 74481

refers also to

escalators

(E)

The number of new lifts installed has been estimated based on Prodcom data, by adding

Safety components: SITC Rev. that are not in scope of to lifts produced in the EU the net import/export balance. The units of imported/exported

lifts (not provided by Prodcom) has been estimated by dividing the import/export values by

the Directive.

3 code 74493

the (estimated) unitary lift cost (total production value/total production quantity). The

(E)

The number of new

Territory: EU28 and EEA

Value of lifts sold

= no

calculation necessary

Value of lift components

sold

= value of lift

components

including

escalator

components*0.92

Units of new lifts installed

= units of lifts sold + units

of lifts imported

–

units of

lifts exported

Import/export of lifts

= no

calculation necessary

Import/export

components

import/export

lift

100

Eurostat PRODCOM provides the value and volumes of sold production.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/prom_esms.htm

A skip hoist is a bucket or car operating up and down a defined path, receiving, elevating, and discharging bulk materials.

The Directive does not apply to lifting appliances whose speed is not greater than 0,15 m/s. (Art. 1(3)).

Feedback from four industry representatives: an EU representative of SMEs, an Italian industry association, an expert of the sector and a representative from CEN TC10.

Overall, 24 stakeholders were contacted but only these replied.

Based on the authors’ estimates,

the production value of skip hoists in Germany was equal to 11%, 10% and 10% in 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively over total EU

production of lifts, skip hoists and components. Similar data have been requested also to statistical offices of other major producing countries (i.e. ES, FR, IT), but this level of

disaggregation was not available. Similarly, more disaggregated data were requested to Eurostat (to account for the value of skip hoists only), but this level of detail for

NACE codes was not available.

Indicator

Source

Database

Coverage

Timeframe:

2002-2015

Issues

Action

Estimate

lifts installed needs to underlining assumption is that lifts are imported/exported at the price they are produced.

components

including

101

be estimated.

escalator

Although these figures are not fully comparable with those provided by ELA,

for some

components*0.92

years there is a good correspondence between Prodcom and ELA data, the latter being

equal to 82% of the former in 2010, to 74% in 2012, to 84% in 2013.

Needs to be estimated

Estimated based on UN Comtrade Database.

Export shares

Turnover of products in

scope of the Directive

Turnover in the lifting and

handling

equipment

sector, related to both

production and services *

0.22 * 0.40

Competitive-ness

Turnover

None

Eurostat

Structural

Business

Statistics

103

(SBS)

None

Products: Lifting and handling

equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code

2822

Territory: EU28 + NO and TR

Timeframe:

2008-2014

Lifting

includes also To isolate the turnover related to the products in scope of the Directive, data from both

lifting machineries

that ELA and the annual reports of the four largest market players have been considered.

do not fall in scope of 1) Data from ELA provided the value of new lifts sold and of modernisation in Europe,

the Directive.

per year, between 2010 and 2015. Knowing that maintenance accounted for around

104

Handling

equipment

50% of total turnover in the sector in 2011 and 2013, this percentage was used to

are not in scope of the

calculate the overall turnover in the lift sector. The resulting value was then

Directive.

compared to the turnover of the lifting and handling equipment sector based on SBS

data, to get the share over the total turnover including lifting and handling

equipment. This share was equal to 15% on average between 2010 and 2014.105

Data from the annual reports provided the turnover of the four largest market

players in the sector. Based on the market analysis performed by Credit Swiss,106

their turnover accounts for 55% of total EU turnover. We assumed that their market

share is still 55% in the other regions their reports refer to, i.e. EMEA and Europe 38

countries. This percentage has been used to calculate the total turnover in the lift

102

Prodcom does not provide details on trade partner countries as does Eurostat International Trade database.

The reason could be that the definition of “new lift” changes from one database to the other. Moreover, geographical coverage

is different.

“Turnover” includes all duties and taxes on the goods or services invoiced by the unit with the exception of the VAT invoiced

vis-à-vis its customer and other similar

deductible taxes directly linked to turnover. It also includes all other charges (transport, packaging, etc.) passed on to the customer, even if these charges are listed separately

in the invoice. Reduction in prices, rebates and discounts as well as the value of returned packing must be deducted. Income classified as other operating income, financial

income and extra-ordinary income in company accounts is excluded from turnover. Operating subsidies received from public authorities or the institutions of the EU are also

excluded. Source for definitions:

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupMetadata.do

(document named Help for Indicators).

Production value provided by SBS cannot be compared to the value of sold production provided by Prodcom, as production value is calculated differently from one database

to the other. Production value in SBS is defined as turnover, plus or minus the changes in stocks of finished products, work in progress and goods and services purchased for

resale, minus the purchases of goods and services for resale, plus capitalised production, plus other operating income (excluding subsidies). Income and expenditure classified

as financial or extra-ordinary in company accounts is excluded from production value. Included in purchases of goods and services for resale are the purchases of services

purchased in order to be rendered to third parties in the same condition. Production value in Prodcom is valued at the selling price net of turnover tax and discounts granted to

customers. Packaging costs are included even if charged separately. Freight costs are not included. As a consequence, turnover from SBS is not related to production value

from Prodcom.

According to Credit Suisse (2012 and 2014),

Elevators and Escalators.

The definition of turnover provided by Eurostat (see footnote 103) includes values that are excluded from ELA data. Moreover, since ELA mainly represents large enterprises,

this share could be an underestimation of the value of turnover in the lift sector.

According to Credit Suisse (2015) and EFESME (2014).

101

103

104

105

106

Indicator

Source

Coverage

Issues

Action

sector between 2010 and 2014. The resulting value was then compared to turnover

of the lifting and handling equipment sector based on SBS data. This share was equal

107

to 30% on average between 2010 and 2014.

Then, the average resulting from estimates 1) and 2) above was calculated for each year,

and applied to data related to the total lifting and handling equipment sector provided by

SBS (22% on average). Resulting estimates have been cross-checked with some external

sou es. Based o ou esti ates, the total tu o e i the lift se to as e ual to €

illio i

. Based o EFESME

, the sa e a ia le as e ual to €

illio i

the

same year. Similarly, according to Elevatori (2015)108 the turnover in the Italian lift sector

as e ual to € . illio , hile a o di g to ou esti ates it as € . illio i the

same year.

Result: the turnover in the lift sector (including turnover from both production and services,

indicator 1) is equal to around 22% of the turnover of the lifting and handling equipment

sector.

Estimate

Turnover

includes also We calculated the value of turnover related to the sale of products in scope of the Directive

revenues from after- applying the parameter of 40%109 to the above-calculated

indicator 1.

sales services (i.e.

modernisation

and

maintenance) that do

not fall in scope of the

Directive.

Annual reports of

Kone, Otis,

Schindler,

Thyssen Krupp

Products: Lifts, escalators,

auto-walks, automatic doors

and integrated access control

systems

Both the product and These data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources.

geographical coverages

are outside the scope

the

Directive.

Moreover, these data

Territory: Europe, Middle-East

do not cover SMEs.

a d Af i a, a d Eu ope

ou t ies

110

Timeframe:

2008-2015

Number of

patents

European Patent

Office (EPO)

Products: Lifting and handling

equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code

2822

Territory: World

The number of patents

refer to the NACE code

related to

lifting and

handling equipment,

including products that

Number

patents

related to products in

scope of the Directive

Number of patents in the

and

handling

As explained above, we estimated turnover related only to sales of new lifts and lifting

Turnover and R&D expenses in the lifting and handling equipment sector are correlated.

Based o A adeus’ data, this o elatio is e ual to .

=0.6) in both 2013 and 2014.

We assumed that the correlation between expenses in R&D (and related patents) and

turnover is the same in the lift sector as in the lifting and handling equipment sector.

None

107

108

109

110

Given that the geographical coverage of reference is wider than the EU28 and that figures for turnover do not related only to lifts, this share could be an overestimation of the

value of turnover in the lift sector.

Elevatori (2015),

The great beauty: the Italian lift industry,

Interlift 2015.

CreditSuisse (2012, 2014, 2015), EFESME (2014), interview with an EU SME representative, with an Italian industry association, with a large installer.

Including, a part from the 28 EU MS, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey.

Indicator

Source

Coverage

Timeframe:

1990-2014

Issues

are not in scope of the

Directive.

Action

Estimate

components in the EU, which is equal to around 9% (i.e. 22%*40%) of total turnover in the equipment sector * 0.22 *

lifting and handling equipment sector.

0.40

As a result, the number of patents related to products in scope of the Directive has been

calculated by applying the parameter of 9% to the number of patents in the lifting and

handling equipment sector provided by EPO.

Number of

enterprises

Eurostat

Structural

Business

Statistics (SBS)

Products: Lifting and handling

equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code

2822

Territory: EU28 + NO and TR

Timeframe:

2008-2014

Lifting

includes also

lifting machineries

that

do not fall in scope of

the Directive;

Handling equipment

are not in scope of the

Directive;

Number of enterprises

include also those

enterprises active only

in the after-sales

services that do not fall

into the scope of the

Directive.

Amadeus database

provides micro-level

data for the sector of

lifting and handling

equipment.

The number of active enterprises falling within the scope of Directive has been estimated at

being at the maximum between 21% and 25% of the corresponding SBS data (i.e., 22%

111

112

113

average).

This proxy is based on data for Germany

and Italy

that also include

enterprises active only in the after-sales services (i.e., outside the scope of Directive).

Being impossible to disaggregate further, this data will be considered as purely indicative.

Number of enterprises in

the lift sector

(i.e.

including both

manufacture/ installation

and after-sales services) =

Number of enterprises in

the lifting and handling

equipment sector * 0.22

Size of

Amadeus

enterprises falling

Database

within the scope

(Bureau van Dijk)

of the Directive

Products: Lifting and handling

equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code

2822

Territory: EU28 + NO and TR

Timeframe:

2005-2014

We calculated the shares of micro, small, medium and large enterprises in the sector of Count of firms according

lifting and handling equipment for the available years and applied them to official data on to size to obtain their

the number of enterprises provided by SBS.

relative share over total

As a result, we obtained the distribution of firms per size in the sector of lifting and firms in the sector of

lifting

and

handling

handling equipment, assuming it is similar to that of the lift sector.

equipment.

Data provided by ELA specifically relate to the lift sector. These data include employees None

involved in both production/installation and the provision of after-sale services (the latter

not being covered by the Directive). However, considering that:

ELA data are likely to exclude micro and small firms

–and

related employees- active

only in the after-sales market;

For most firms, employees involved in installation are likely to be also involved in the

Number of

employees

ELA reports

(2013, 2015,

2017)

Lifts and safety components

Although related only

to the lift sector, these

data include also

employees and

enterprises active only

in the after-sales

market (i.e. not

111

112

113

It was not possible to apply the same share as for turnover since the underlining assumption would have been that the turnover per firm in the lift sector is distributed equally

as in the lifting and handling equipment sector, which is likely not to be the case.

According to estimates based on data provided by the German statistical office, the number of firms in the lift sector in Germany in 2014 was equal to around 188, i.e. equal to

around 21% of the firms active in the lifting and handling equipment sector in the country in the same year, according to SBS.

The number of firms in the Italian lift sector is equal to 400, i.e. equal to around 25% of the firms active in the lifting and handling equipment sector in the country in the same

year according to SBS. Source: ANACAM (the Italian lift industry association)

http://www.anacam.it/anacam/chi-siamo

Indicator

Source

Coverage

Issues

covered by the

Directive). Moreover,

these data are likely to

refer to large

enterprises only, as

they are represented

by ELA.

Action

provision of service;

ELA data are considered sufficiently reliable. Moreover, they are coherent with data

retrieved from the annual reports of the major producers, considering that they employ

114

40% of total workforce in the sector.

As a result, the indicator has been used as it is and was preferred to the indicator from SBS.

When presenting data from ELA disaggregated per firm size, we assumed that the

distribution of employees across different firms in the lift sector is the same as that of the

lifting and handling equipment sector.

These data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources.

Estimate

Annual reports of

Kone, Otis,

Schindler,

Thyssen Krupp

(from 2008 to

2015)

Products: Lifts, escalators,

auto-walks, automatic doors

and integrated access control

systems

Territory: Europe, Middle-East

a d Af i a, a d Eu ope

ou t ies .

Timeframe:

2008-2015

Both the product and

geographical coverages

are outside the scope

of the Directive.

None

114

Based on

authors’ estimates on Amadeus data applied to SBS.

Lift-related accidents

As for

accidents related to lifts,

in light of the lack of data from official sources, the evaluation

mainly relied on data provided by ELA, in combination with information from national studies,

national reports on market surveillance specifically conducted in the lift sector115 and reported

in the targeted surveys. Similarly to data for the market analysis, accident data are limited (see

elo se tio

, hi de i g a tho ough e aluatio of the Di e ti e’s

effectiveness in improving

lift safety.

Cost-benefit analysis

Table 20 in Annex 8.8. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study maps the

obligations deriving from the Directive for each stakeholder impacted. The identification and

assessment of the costs and benefits introduced by the Directive could not rely on a previous

impact assessment, and has therefore been based on a comparison with the previously existing

directive regulating lifts (i.e. Directive 84/528/EEC). The matching allowed for the identification

of new requirements and simplifications that caused new costs or the ceasing of others (see

Table 21 in Annex 8.8. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study).

Data on cost/benefits has been collected through surveys and interviews to the different

categories of stakeholders.

Field research

The field research consisted of a combined mix of tools:



A Public Consultation launched by the Commission in early June 2016 and concluded in

January 2017, involving overall 66 stakeholders. The results of the Public Consultation

have been considered as evidence to be triangulated with information gathered

through the other research tools;

Four targeted surveys addressed to four categories of stakeholders (Member State

authorities in charge of the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the

enforcement of the Directive, NBs, lift installers and safety component manufacturers,

including SMEs, and related industry associations). Overall, it involved 116 stakeholders.

The targeted surveys included both closed and open questions complementing the

questions of the Public Consultation;

Interviews to 38 stakeholders. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their specific

knowledge of or experience with the Directive, particularly for the case studies. They



115

European Commission; Report on the Member States reviews and assessment of the functioning of

market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No

765/2008.

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance/organisation_en



were also selected to ensure a balanced geographical coverage and a balanced

representation of all stakeholder categories;

116

A Workshop held in the context of the LWG. The workshop served to discuss the

preliminary results of the study with representatives of the Commission, of Member

States and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies and NBs. The workshop

has been a valuable tool to collect further evidence and validate the results with

relevant stakeholders.

Altogether, through the different tools used, more than 220 stakeholders were consulted, with

a wide geographical coverage. Bulgaria and Croatia are the only countries for which no

stakeholder was willing to participate.

Please refer to Annex 0 of the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study for a

detailed overview of stakeholder consultation.

Case studies

Five thematic case studies have been drafted, with the objectives of:



Ensuring a higher level of detail, not feasible with reference to all the Member States

and all the aspects of the implementation of the Directive (e.g. its effectiveness in terms

of safety, the costs for economic operators, the use and benefits of harmonised

standards). Therefore, case studies have been used to produce useful insights and

specific evidence, that helped to better understand the overall situation in the EU and

the results achieved with the Directive in specific areas of action;

Illustrating in practical terms the implication and impacts of specific situations;

Understanding the causal links between the intervention and the achievements/results/

impacts;

Identifying successful practices and approaches.



In line with the issues highlighted in the evaluation questions and emerging from the targeted

surveys, the case studies focused on the following topics:



Access to lifts for disabled persons: national policies and regulations on the matter (case

study 1);

P io app o al : i ple e tatio issues a d possi le solutio s ase stud ;

Technological trends in the lift industry since 1999: are EHSRs and European

harmonised standards appropriate, flexible and effective to support the implementation

of the Lifts Directive? (case study 3);

Market surveillance of lifts: a comparison between Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and

Spain (case study 4);

Analysis of costs and benefits induced by the Directive on SMEs (case study 5).



Case studies have been based on both desk and field research

–

with a total of 20 stakeholders

being interviewed. Please refer to Annex 8.7. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts

Directive Study for the case studies.

Limitations and mitigation measures

Overview

The following table presents the mitigation measure undertaken for each limitation described

below. The following sections provide details.

Table 2

–Limitations

and mitigation measures

Limitation

Mitigation measure

Lack of assessment of the Whenever possible, the report highlights information reported by

effectiveness

the stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into

Directive

against

the force of the Directive

baseline

Lack of data on market A number of questions were foreseen in the targeted surveys to

surveillance in the lift fill in these gaps. The answers to these questions proved to be not

sector

entirely informative, therefore the assessment of the

effectiveness of market surveillance was based on available data

collected through desk research.

Lack/incompleteness

market data

of A specific methodology, to gather estimates to disaggregate data,

has been developed, also through additional stakeholder

consultation

Lack of official data on lift Additional reports/literature have been investigated to fill-in the

accidents at EU level

gaps at least for the main MS. Most of the analysis is based on

data requested to ELA

Low response rate to Specific interviews were scheduled to fill-in these gaps.

targeted survey questions Moreover, the CBA in section 6.3 presents the estimates resulting

collecting data for the CBA from this exercise trying to avoid generalisations due to small

sample on which calculations are based.

Unbalanced representation General interviews aimed at involving the least represented

of some stakeholders/MS

categories/ MS

Desk research limitations

Policy context, transposition and implementation data limitations

To properly assess the Directive, the definition of a baseline scenario would have been ideal.

However, the reconstruction of the baseline scenario was not possible in the context of this

study. This was due firstly to the lack of an impact assessment for the Directive at the time of its

adoption

– hi h should p o ide a pi tu e of the aseli e.117

Secondly, the collection of

information dating back to more than 20 years ago (as the Directive was adopted in 1995)

would have proved cost-ineffective.

117

Inasmuch as an Impact Assessment

“verifies

the existence of a problem, identifies its underlying

causes”.

EC (2015), Better Regulation Guidelines, p.16.

To partly address this limitation, whenever possible, the report highlights information reported

by stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into force of the Directive.

Moreover, the evaluation of the effectiveness of market surveillance in the lift sector was

hampered by a serious lack of data in the national reports on market surveillance activities.

More specifically, a number of indicators118 could not be obtained. As a consequence, a

number of questions of the targeted survey were foreseen to fill in these gaps. The answers to

these questions however proved to be not entirely informative, therefore a thorough

assessment of the effectiveness of market surveillance could not be achieved.

Market data analysis limitations

The limitations encountered in gathering market data related to:



Incomplete data for the years before 2000;

The NACE codes used for the analysis include products that are outside the scope of the

Directive (i.e. some lifts and skip hoists that are subject to the Machinery Directive),

thus limiting a precise estimate of the lift market;

Available data do not allow distinction between safety components manufacturers and

lift installers, thus again hindering an accurate assessment of the lift market;

For the same reason, available data do not provide the number of new lift installers and

safety components manufacturers entering the market since 1999. Furthermore, data at

national level are highly fragmented;

Finally, as part of the Union harmonisation legislation, the Directive does not cover

after-sales services (i.e. maintenance and modernisation of lifts). However, these

constitute an integral and relevant part of the lift sector, particularly in Europe. Due to

data aggregation, it was not possible to distinguish the number of firms active in the

production and installation from those performing modernisation and maintenance

only, and therefore not impacted by the Directive but by the national legislation.



As a result of the limitations encountered, a specific methodology to the market analysis has

been developed, as described in section 4.2.1. The limitations described partly hindered the

assessment of the impacts of the Directive on the internal market, though some trends can still

be identified.

Lift-related accident data limitation

The constraints in accident data are related to several factors, such as:

118

i.e. the number of safety components for lifts recalled from the market, per MS, per EU/non-EU

product; the number of inspections carried out by MSA as reported in the national reports; % of non-

compliant lifts or safety components for lifts recalled from the market per MS, per EU/non-EU

product; comparison to key trading partners; time necessary to take a safety component off the market,

if it is taken in whole EU at the same time; % of non-compliant lifts and safety components for lifts in

all production placed on the market and put into service, per MS; % of controls that resulted in

identification of non-conformity of lift or safety component; % of controls that resulted in prohibiting

lifts and safety components for lifts to put on the market or put into service, per MS, per product; % of

inspections by MSAs, where the conclusions are different from the results provided by the conformity

assessment procedures (particular of final inspection or unit verification).



The absence of an official centralised reporting system on accidents and of common

classifications on the seriousness of the injury;

The lack of details on the causes of accidents (e.g. whether accidents are due to

d a a ks i the Di e ti e’s EHSRs, la k of

maintenance or to lift misuse), and tendency

not to report minor accidents;119

The lack of a sufficiently wide timeframe (i.e. from 1995 to 2015) for both registered

accidents and the number of lifts into service per Member State;

Statistics never distinguishing between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive

a d e isti g lifts i.e. lifts i stalled efo e the e t i to fo e of the Di e ti e ;

Incomplete official accident data in national reports on market surveillance for lifts.

As a consequence, additional reports and literature have been consulted to gather data on lift

accidents at least for the leading countries (e.g. DE, ES, FR, IT), but for the abovementioned

reasons, they are hardly comparable. Moreover, specific requests for data were sent to ELA. It is

to be noted that ELA mainly represents the big market players and that the methodology to

collect these data was not provided. However, when national industry associations were

contacted to triangulate such data, they always referred to data collected by ELA.

The lack of accident statistics has in part hindered the evaluation of the effectiveness of the

Directive in terms of increased lift safety, although some trends may still be observable.

Cost-benefit analysis limitations

The analysis incurred some limitations that did not allow for a comprehensive assessment of all

the costs and benefits entailed by Directive 95/16/EC. To collect the largest possible amount of

quantitative data from MSAs, NBs and economic operators, questions on the costs and benefits

entailed by the Directive were included in the surveys and in the Public Consultation. However,

only a small number of respondents could provide the requested data or were willing to,

possibly for confidentiality reasons (i.e. none of the respondents could or would provide an

overall number of performed EC type-examinations). In addition, respondents could not provide

exact figures but rather average estimates of most of the costs that they incurred when the

Directive came into force.

Regarding the development of a baseline to compare costs and benefits before and after the

implementation of the Directive, as previously discussed, data are not available.

The major benefit of the Directive for consumers and maintenance personnel is a higher safety

level of lifts. However, data on the period before the implementation of the Directive are not

available, thus a more in-depth analysis of the effects on lift safety could not be performed.

These limitations made it difficult to calculate the overall costs and benefits entailed by the

Directive. Whenever possible, costs and benefits are reported in quantitative terms and with

respect to the whole EU market. In other cases, costs are only available in unitary terms for a

single company, but could not be extended to the whole market. Finally, some other

costs/benefits were not quantifiable and were described only in qualitative terms.

119

ELA (2012). The Importance of Accident Statistics.

Field research limitations

The field research has been extensive and largely outdid the expected targets (as reported in

Annex 0 on stakeholder consultation). Moreover, stakeholders were, for the large majority, very

keen on providing their input to the evaluation.

Nonetheless, some issues are worth mentioning. As for the targeted surveys, it resulted that

information requested was very detailed and respondents expressed the need for an extension

of the deadline in order to provide more complete information. This implied a rescheduling of

activities (e.g. interviews) that were specifically aimed at investigating issues emerged from the

targeted surveys. Furthermore, as already mentioned, quantitative questions aimed at

collecting data for the CBA received very low rates of response. In addition, some categories of

stakeholders (i.e. large enterprises)120were particularly represented, to the detriment of other

categories (i.e. SMEs). The same consideration regards the geographical representation, with a

particularly high involvement of German stakeholders.121

When referring to the evidence provided by the targeted surveys or Public Consultation in

Chapter 6, percentages are calculated on the actual number of answers received per each

question, thus excluding:



A s e s that did ot p o ide a i fo atio , i.e. the

I do not know

sele tio s;

Not applicable

a s e

s, i.e. those questions that were not asked to some respondents

as it was outside their area of competence;

No answer received

, i.e. he the espo de t de ided to skip the uestio .

In practice, reported percentages often have a different calculation basis, and the base might be

less than 116 (the total number of respondents to the targeted surveys) and less than 66 (the

total number of respondents to the Public Consultation).

As fo the i te ie s, a ge e al la k of Pu li Autho ities’

detected.

illi g ess to pa ti ipate

120

121

85% (28 out of 33) of total enterprises responding to the targeted survey are large enterprises.

19% (22 out of 116) of total respondents are German.

Annex 4: Synopsis report Stakeholder consultation

1. Introduction

The overall process of stakeholder consultation for the evaluation of the Directive began in early

June 2016 and continued up to January 2017. The consultation collected inputs from a wide

range of stakeholders through different tools, namely:



A Public Consultation launched and managed by the EC;

Four targeted consultations based on online surveys addressed to MS implementing

authorities, MSAs, NBs, economic operators;

Targeted interviews;

A workshop presenting the first findings to the LWG.

The Public Consultation and the four targeted consultations were conducted ahead of the

interviews, as the latter were aimed at complementing and triangulating the information

collected and clarifying issues emerged. The workshop held in the context of the LWG served to

collect further evidence and validate the results with the Member States and the relevant

stakeholders.

2. Scope of the consultation activities and stakeholder groups covered

Regarding the geographical coverage of the stakeholder consultation, all EU Member States,

together with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, were involved in the consultation, except for

Croatia and Bulgaria (figure below).

Figure 1 - EU coverage and number of stakeholders involved per Member States

122

Source: Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report

122

In addition to those presented in the map, 17 EU level organisations were involved in the study.

1.1.

Public Consultation

The Public Consultation was launched on 22 September and closed on 16 December 2016.

123

consisted of an online questionnaire available in six official languages: English, French, German,

Italian, Spanish and Polish. It ran on the

issio ’s i f ast u tu e EU Su e a d as

addressed to all EU citizens. The survey was designed to gather feedback on:



The evaluation criteria, in particular the relevance, effectiveness and added value of the

Directive;

Newly developed technologies and their impact on the lift industry and safety;

The current state of the art of the accessibility to lifts granted to people with disabilities

(either permanent or temporary);

The clarity and exhaustiveness of the definitions and rules provided in the Directive.

61 questionnaires were received from stakeholders who reported having some knowledge of

the Directive and of the lift sector, namely:



8 Public Authorities (AT, CZ, 3 DE, FI, PL, UK);

6 NBs (ES, CZ, FR, 2 IT, TR);

1 Standardisation Organisation (IT);

24 manufacturers/installers (AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, ES, DK, FI, FR, IT, NO, PL, RO, SE, TR,

UK);

10 industry associations

124

(CH, 2 DE, FR, 2 EU level, IT, PT, SE, UK);

12 maintenance personnel, users and other target groups

125

(EU level, FR, PL, SE, UK).

Additionally, five questionnaires were received from stakeholders stating to have a basic

knowledge of the sector (a German Public Authority, a Finnish trade association and three

anonymous).

To avoid overlapping, the Public Consultation had a very general character as compared with

the specific information required in the targeted surveys.

1.2. Targeted surveys

Four targeted surveys based on online questionnaires, were launched on 6 June 2016, closed on

15 September 2016 and ran on the EY online survey tool (eSurvey). The questionnaires have

been differentiated and aimed at:



The analysis of the implementation of the Directive at national level;

The collection of data on accidents, the overview of the market surveillance activities -

in order to fill-in the gaps of the reports currently available

126

;

123

124

125

Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8930

Of whom two representing SMEs.

Three organisations representing lifts owners, two EU organisations representing persons with

disabilities, three organisations representing users, one EU organisation representing maintenance

personnel, three users/citizens.



The assessment of the costs and benefits of the Directive, for companies, MS authorities

(including MSAs) and NBs;

The in-depth analysis of conformity assessment procedures.

Overall, the targeted surveys was addressed to 595 stakeholders, 116 of which replied:



11 Member State implementing authorities

127

(out of 35; missing replies from AT, BE,

BG, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV, NO, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR, UK);

11 MSAs

128

(out of 92; missing replies from AT, BG, CH, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT,

LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, TR);

53 NBs (out of 268) in 15 different countries

129

;

33 among installers and manufacturers, 28 large, three SMEs and two micro (out of 153)

in 17 different countries

130

;

Six national industry associations

131

and one European association (out of 47

representatives).

1.3. Interviews

The project also foresaw stakeholder involvement through 38 interviews (with two Public

Authorities not willing to be involved).

More in detail, the interviews aimed at:



Investigating in details specific topics and issues emerged from the analysis of the

survey as well as from the desk-based research, by discussing them with the involved

national and EU stakeholders;

Gaining a better understanding of the consequences of current practices, the most

important and emerging issues, by involving stakeholders acting in the lift market (e.g.

representatives of user associations, representatives of industry associations, lift

installers, manufacturers of safety components, NBs, standardisers);

Understanding the different perspectives and viewpoints, by discussing with different

stakeholders;

Triangulating information and interpreting data collected throughout the desk and field

research carried out so far.

The stakeholders involved were selected according to a combination of the following

criteria:

Geographical representativeness, to ensure a balanced representation of all EU

Member States;



126

127

128

129

130

131

Report on the MS reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the

2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts.

From CH, CY, DE, EE, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, SI. The complete coverage of the EU28 MS could

not be achieved due to stakeholders’ unwillingness to reply, despite the several reminders sent to

highlight the importance of the study.

From BE, DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, NL, NO, SE, SK, UK. The complete coverage of the EU28 MS could

not be achieved due to stakeholders’ unwillingness to reply, despite the several reminders sent to

highlight the importance of the study.

AT, BE, CZ, FI, FR, DE, IE, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, SK, TR, UK.

AT, BE, CH, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, DE, HU, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE, TR, UK.

From BE, DE, DK, IT, MT, UK.



Balanced representation of all stakeholders, so as to include those categories that were

(i) not addressed by the targeted consultations, and especially the ESOs, user, worker

and other civil society associations; (ii) under-represented in the previous two types of

consultations, i.e. the Public and the targeted consultation (e.g. SMEs).

The stakeholders involved are listed below:



3 MS implementing authorities (EL, NL, PT);

4 MSAs (FR, IT, LV, PL);

7 NBs;

2 ESOs;

9 installers/manufacturers (a large, five medium and four small-sized enterprises);

6 industry associations;

7 user and worker associations and other target groups

132

3. Stakeholder Consultation: Results

According to the large majority of respondents to the targeted survey, the definitions provided

in the Directive are clear, complete and up to date. Moreover, 73% of respondents think that

the definitions are now clearer in Directive 2014/33/EU.

133

Among these, all economic operators

(both large companies and SMEs) agree on the above statement.

Conversely, the results of the Public Consultation suggest that some definitions such as

"installer of a lift", "placing on the market of the lift" and "model lift" might need to be

reviewed. Similar issues were raised in the context of the LWG and the interviews and thus

confirmed that some stakeholders would welcome a revision of the said definitions. It should be

noted however, that these stakeholders belong to different target groups.

A large share of respondents

134

to the survey deem that tasks, obligations and rights of all the

stakeholders concerned by the Directive (i.e. safety component manufacturers, lift installers,

Member State implementing authorities, MSAs, and NB) were already clear in Directive

95/16/EC. When this was not the case, they have been either partially or completely clarified in

Directive 2014/33/EU.

135

The respondents to the Public Consultation state at a near unanimity

136

, that the EHSRs took

suffi ie tl i to a ou t i o atio s a d te h ologies at the ti e of the Di e ti e’s app o al.

Furthermore, responses to the targeted survey and the Public Consultation also confirm that

the stakeholders consider the EHRSs to be flexible enough to adjust to the development of new

technologies that offer the same or better levels of safety than the one provided by ENs.

137

132

133

134

135

136

137

Three organisations representing disabled people (LU, EU level), three organisations representing

maintenance personnel (ES, FI, FR) and a consumer association (EU level).

(74 out of 101), c.f. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 108.

On average, 46% (39 out of 84 on average) of respondents to this question, cf. Evaluation of the Lifts

Directive, Final report, page 109.

On average, 46% (39 out of 84 on average) of respondents to this question, cf. Final report, page 109.

(98%, 56 out of 57), cf. Final report, page 110.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 110.

With regard to accessibility of lifts by people with disabilities, both the majority of respondents

to the targeted survey

138

and to the Public Consultation

139

underline the need to enshrine

additional provisions for minimum compulsory awareness of manufacturers and installers in the

legal framework for ensuring accessibility to lifts of disabled persons. More specifically, nearly

half of the Public Consultation respondents consider the general information about accessibility

of lifts and access conditions as bad/very bad and 42% consider that the availability of lifts in

public buildings with more than one floor could be improved.

140

The large majority

141

(84 out of 107 or 78%) of survey respondents deem European ENs in line

with developments occurred in the lift and safety component industry. The results of the

stakeholder consultations indicate that the support for the ENs in the lift sector is stronger in

the Member States which have joined the EU after 2004 as compared to the all-EU average.

142

It should be noted nevertheless that 39 out of 54 (72%)

143

of the Public Consultation

respondents deem the length of EN development process as excessive. Similarly, 33 out of 54

(61%) of respondents believe that hENs should be revised more often.

For the large majority of survey respondents

144

(72 out of 105 or 69%), the rules for affixing the

CE marking were clear already in Directive 95/16/EC, and if this was not the case, they have

been either partially or completely clarified in the new Directive. Moreover, 62% (65 out of 105)

of the survey respondents declare to have never encountered a situation where these rules

needed to be clarified and only 1% (1 out of 105) declare to have had the need for clarification

in some cases.

As far as the conformity assessments procedures are concerned, the large majority of survey

respondents deem them to have proved adequate for both the design and the production/

installation phase. Only 8% (8 out of 100) of the stakeholders assess procedures as

inadequate.

145

With regard to the market surveillance, the responses to the stakeholder consultation indicated

that overall the stakeholders are not completely satisfied with the market surveillance activities

in their countries. Thus, 53% (49 out of 92) of respondents to the targeted survey report that

market surveillance is only somehow effective and 25% (23 out of 92) evaluate it as

ineffective.

146

An analysis by category of stakeholders shows that in general economic operators

and NBs tend to be more critical towards the effectiveness of the market surveillance

activities.

147

These conclusions are also supported by the results of the Public Consultation in

the course of which 81% of the stakeholders have indicated that they deem the effectiveness of

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

54%, (49 out of 90), cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113.

73%, (24 out of 32), cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 114.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 115.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 116.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 117.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 116.

market surveillance authorities in removing non-compliant products from the market as low or

very low.

148

Regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the Lifts Directive, 69% (80 out of 116) of the

survey respondents declared not to be aware of any discrepancies across EU Member States in

the implementation of the Directive which would hinder the effectiveness of the Directive in

achieving its objectives.

149

However, respondents to the Public Consultation have reported their concerns regarding some

aspects related to the market surveillance. Thus, around 70% (33 out of 47) of respondents

deem that the extent of market surveillance activities, the MSAs' approach to determining

compliance as well as the penalties applicable in case of infringements are not uniform across

the Member States.

150

Furthermore, 61% of the respondents to the Public Consultation (36 out

of 59) consider the uneven enforcement of market surveillance across EU Member States the

major obstacle hindering the free circulation of lifts and lift safety components.

151

In this regard, it should be noted however, that the market surveillance as well as the choice of

the specific penalty regime to be applied in case of infringements are within the realm of the

competence of the Member States which could explain these discrepancies.

As far as the relevance of the Lifts Directive concerned, the respondents to the targeted survey

almost unanimously (115 out of 116 or 99%) have declared that the Directive is relevant as it

meets their current needs to a great or at least to some extent.

152

Similarly, almost all survey

respondents regard the Directive as effective in guaranteeing the free circulation of lifts and

safety components within the EU (112 out of 116 or 97%) and in ensuring a high degree of lift

safety (113 out of 116 or 98%).

153

With regard to the overall clarity of the Directive, 40 out of 60 (66%) of respondents to the

Public Consultation report having faced only small issues related to the clarity of the

definitions.

154

Similarly, the majority of stakeholders (35 out of 61 or 58%) did not encounter

difficulties due to the

la it of e o o i ope ato s’ espo si ilities all alo g the alue hai .

155

Stakeholders consulted through both the targeted surveys and the Public Consultation have

very similar opinions on the positive value brought by the Directive, inasmuch as they recognise

that although the Directive contributed to reducing costs to a lower extent, it brought other

major benefits such as the free movement of lifts/safety components and the reduction of

disparities among Member States.

156

Overall, the stakeholders consulted in the framework of the targeted survey expressed their

positive assessment regarding the impacts of the Lifts Directive. More specifically, over 90% of

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 116.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 118.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 119.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 120.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 119.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 121.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 122.

the stakeholders deem that the Directive has facilitated the free circulation of lifts and safety

components, has reduced the barriers to trade by harmonising the national requirements and

practices and has thus established a level playing field for all economic operators.

157

These conclusions are supported to a significant extent by the results of the Public Consultation.

Respondents to the Public Consultation were asked to give their opinions about positive and

negative aspects potentially induced by the Directive. Among the most positive impacts,

stakeholde s sig alled the alig e t ith the state of the a t of lift te h olog th ough ENs

and the facilitation of intra-EU trade for lifts and safety components and cost savings.

Conversely, the respondents did not rank the increasing safety of lifts and the reduction of the

number of non-compliant lifts placed on the market as the main contributions of the

Directive.

158

On the other hand, among the negative aspects of the Directive, 33 of the 54 (61%) the

consulted stakeholders highlighted the fact that the Directive did not play a relevant role in

introducing mandatory requirements for accessibility to lifts by disabled persons and also the

fa t that the edu ed Me e States’ o pete es to egulate the se to e e tuall led to a

less specific legislation for lifts.

159

Finally, for 43% of the respondents, the Lifts Directive has

increased the administrative burden.

160

157

158

159

160

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 123.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 124.

Respectively 61% (33 out of 54) and 54% (27 out of 50), cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study,

Final report, page 124.

cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 125.

Annex 5: Comparative Table between Directive 84/528/EEC

and Directive 95/16/EC

Provisions in Directive

84/528/EEC

Art. 5: Establishes that all

products in the scope of the

Directive shall undergo an EEC

Type-Examination before being

placed on the market.

Art. 6: EEC type-

approval/component type

approval are granted by the

Member States which also

provide a type-approval

certificate.

Art. 7: If a MS which has

granted an EEC type

approval/component approval

fail to conform to the type, it

shall suspend or withdraw the

approval and inform other MSs

and the Commission.

Provisions in Directive

95/16/EC

Art. 2 and Art. 3: MSA must

ensure that only lifts and

components compliant with

the safety requirements are

placed into market.

Art. 8: the EC type-

examination (and other

technical inspections) are

performed by NBs.

Baseline

No additional or reduced

burden for MSAs.

The administrative burden

entailed by the conformity

assessments are on NBs and

no longer on MSs.

Art. 7: While in previous

regulation only issuing

authority could withdraw a

certificate, the new

regulation allows any MSA

which identifies a non-

compliant product to remove

it from the market.

Art. 8: the verification

procedures, as set out in this

article and further described

in the mentioned annexes,

are carried out by NBs

Art. 9 par 2: MSs shall apply

the criteria set in annex VII in

assessing NBs.

This provision, affecting

MSAs, does not add or

reduce the related

enforcement and

administrative costs.

Art. 9, par. 2 and Art. 10: EEC

type-examination shall be

carried out by bodies approved

for this purpose by the

Member States; Approved

bodies appointed by Member

States to carry out EEC type-

examination in accordance

with Art. 11 shall comply with

minimum criteria laid down in

Annex II.

This article of the Directive

indicates the conformity

assessments that can be used

by lift installers and

manufacturers. While the

previous Directive did foresee

only the EEC type-

examination, the new

Directive allows for multiple

solutions. The additional or

reduced costs for economic

operators relating to the

conformity assessments are

considered for the purposes

of this analysis.

Provisions in Directive

84/528/EEC

Art. 10, par. 2: MS shall notify

other MSs and the Commission

of the body or list of bodies

concerned.

Provisions in Directive

95/16/EC

Art. 9: MS shall notify the

Commission and other MSs

of the bodies which they

have appointed to carry out

the verification procedures.

Art. 9 par. 3: A Member State

which has notified a body

must withdraw its

notification if it finds that the

body no longer meets the

criteria laid down in Annex

VII and immediately inform

the Commission and the

other MSs.

Art. 8: The article (and the

related annexes) sets out the

conformity assessment that

lift installers and

manufacturers of safety

components should follow

before placing a product on

the market.

Baseline

No relevant changes for MSs

in comparison to previous

Directive.

Art. 13/14: MSs shall monitor

the approved bodies and, in

case of withdrawal of approval,

communicate the changes to

the Commission and ensure

continuity and remove from

the market all improper

certificates.

No relevant changes for MSs

in comparison to the previous

Directive.

Art. 17: Manufacturer, or

authorised representative,

using the EEC mark must: (i)

inform the body which granted

the certification; (ii) allow

representatives of such body to

perform inspections. The

approved body granting the

certificate must provide copies

to other approved bodies, MSs

and Commission.

Art. 18: The approved body

which has granted the EEC

type-certificate must carry out

the EEC inspection of the

appliance/components for

which the EEC type-certificate

was granted.

The Directive foresees

different types of conformity

assessments. The additional

or reduced costs for

economic operators relating

to the conformity

assessments are considered

for the purposes of this

analysis.

Art. 8: The article (and the

related annexes) sets out the

duties of NBs regarding the

inspections to conduct before

granting a certificate.

The Directive foresees

different types of conformity

assessments. The additional

or reduced costs for

economic operators relating

to the conformity

assessments are considered

for the purposes of this

analysis.

Directive 84/528/EEC already

required installers and

manufacturers to affix the

EEC marking. For this reason,

the CE marking will not be

accounted in the analysis of

costs.

Art. 20: The EEC mark of

conformity affixed to an

appliance and/or component

shall certify that it conforms to

the type approved or granted

an EEC type-examination

certificate.

Art. 10: the CE marking is

regulated in this article.

Manufacturers are required

to affix the marking on the

products.

Provisions in Directive

84/528/EEC

Art. 21: MSs communicate to

other MSs and the

Commission: (i) list of bodies

responsible for carrying out

examinations; (ii) list of

approved bodies; (iii) any

subsequent amendment to the

lists.

Provisions in Directive

95/16/EC

Art. 9: MS shall notify the

Commission and other MSs

of the bodies which they

have appointed to carry out

the verification procedures.

Baseline

No relevant changes for MSs

in comparison to previous

Directive.

Annex 6: Overview of costs-benefits identified in the

Evaluation

Regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholder categories impacted by

the Directive 95/16/EC

(given the low representativeness of data available the estimated costs should consider as

purely indicatives)

Type of cost Description

MSAs /

Monitoring Costs due to inspection activities as

administra costs

foreseen by Art. 2(1) and (2); Art.

tion

7(3); Art. 9(2) and (3); Art. 10(4)(b).

MSAs/

Administrati Costs due to information obligations

administra ve costs

of MSs towards the EC and other MSs

tion

as foreseen by Art. 7(1); Art. 9(1) and

(3); Art. 11.

NBs/

Human

Initial

and

recurring

training

resources

expenses: (i) to familiarise with the

Directive (and related ENs); (ii) due to

year-on-year training related to the

Directive.

NBs

Investment Cost of purchasing ENs. Recurring

costs

costs depend on (i) the range of

services provided; (ii) size of NBs

(larger NBs pay flat-rates to providers

of technical standards).

NBs

Investment Cost for national accreditation

costs

procedures

Estimated cost

Two SMAs (DK and FI) report cost

app o i atel

et ee € ,

a d

€ ,

pe i spe tio .

Not assessed as already due in previous

Directive 84/528/EEC.

16 NBs report costs ranging between

€

a d € ,

. A ou ti g, o

average, for 0.34% of annual turnover

(higher for SMEs)(data from)

Business

Monitoring

costs

Normally updated twice a year. 13 NBs

report cost for Harmonised Standards

et ee € a d €

. A ou ti g o

average from 0.01% for larger

companies to 0.035% for SMEs

Average annual cost per year: 1% of

annual turnover for 2 micro NBs;

0.05% for 1 small NB; 0.01% for 7

medium/large NBs

Cost of conformity assessments: 2 large companies reports an EC type-

variable costs depending on the type

e a i atio

osts fo

€

-€

of conformity assessment

Three

enterprises

reports

unit

e ifi atio

osts €

-€

. The

share of cost over the turnover is

negligible for large installers and

manufacturers, while it is 0.74% for 2

SMEs.

Cost of purchasing ENs. Recurring

costs depend on (i) the range of

products; (ii) size of EO (larger EOs

pay flat-rates to providers of technical

standards).

Normally updated twice a year. 13

companies report cost for Harmonised

Sta da ds et ee €

a d €

accounting from 0.01% of annual

turnover for large companies and

0.035% for SMEs.

Business

Investment

costs

Type of cost Description

Business

Human

resources

Business

Initial

and

recurring

training

expenses: (i) to familiarise with the

Directive (and related ENs); (ii) due to

year-on-year training related to the

Directive.

Administrati Costs for preparing an EC DoC mark Not assessed as already due in previous

ve costs

and for affixing it on each lift

Directive 84/528/EEC.

Estimated cost

However, large companies may also

opt for module H and pay flat-rates to

providers of technical standards. This

reduce dramatically the cost per unit

verified.

Harmonized standards are updated

more frequent than nationals. This

causes additional unnecessary costs for

SMEs because they are usually not

export-oriented.

Accounting, on average, between

0.08% for SMEs and to 0.12% for large

enterprises, only part of which relates

to the Directive.