COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
T '" ! [ C0M(94) 29 final 
Brussels, 16.02.1994 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AMD THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
ON THE DEVELOPMENT 
OF ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION 
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 
OF COMMUNITY LEGISLATION 
IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
This communication has been drawn up 
in the context of the Strategic Programme for the Internal Market 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I. Introduction 1 
II. Administrative Cooperation: the Elements of a Community 3 
Framework 
A. The obligation to provide mutual assistance 3 
B. The obligation of transparency 4 
C. Two underlying principles 4 
• Proportionality 4 
• Confidentiality 5 
III. Administrative cooperation - a Programme of Discussions 6 
IV. Conclusions 8 
Annexes i 
1. Administrative Cooperation - State of Play i 
What are the roles ? i 
A. The role of the Member States i 
B. The role of the Commission iii 
What are the needs ? v 
What is current practice ? viii 
• The variety of cooperation mechanisms ix 
• A balance between Informal and formal cooperation x 
• Unequal participation in Community cooperation systems xi 
2. Programme of discussions concerning administrative cooperation xii 
A CL 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. This communication considers the current state of administrative cooperation 
across the Community in the Internal Market field and proposes that steps should be 
taken to ensure its effectiveness and further development. 
2. Around the end of 1992 the Council1, the Parliament2, and the Economic and 
Social Committee3 all expressed their support for the need to ensure the effective 
operation of the Internal Market, including a satisfactory degree of administrative 
cooperation. 
In its initial response to the Sutherland Report the Commission indicated that, as 
regards administrative cooperation, it would proceed on a two-part basis. The first part, 
an examination of the Community's urgency procedures which exist for handling urgent 
situations in the fields of animal and plant health, safety etc. has been the subject of 
another communication.4 The present communication is the second part. It 
complements the work on urgency procedures by developing the approach put forward 
in the Sutherland Report to the partnership with Member States. It was announced in 
the Strategic Programme for the Single Market.5 
3. Administrative cooperation between Member States, and between them and the 
Commission, is a requirement which flows from Treaty-based obligations, particularly 
Article 5. It is an essential working tool for the even and effective operation of the 
Community, and this communication concentrates on identifying the need and scope 
for practical action in ensuring that an effective degree of cooperation between 
Member States and between them and the Commission, is achieved. 
4. Although a pattern of administrative cooperation has developed in recent years 
which, for the most part, appears to be operating satisfactorily, there are considerable 
differences between the degree of cooperation which is practised in the many fields 
covered by Internal Market legislation. 
While many of these differences appear to reflect the varying needs of particular 
sectors, the Commission considers that it is timely to re-examine administrative 
cooperation in the Internal Market field, given the very large volume of Community 
legislation which has recently been adopted to create the Internal Market. 
5. It is for this reason that the Commission proposes that, in fields where there has 
been little experience of cooperation, the need to develop specific mechanisms should 
be assessed. The operation of existing systems should also be examined to see where 
they could be improved, where they fall within the ambit of the Internal Market. This 
work should be carried out within an overall framework, established by the Community, 
setting out the basic principles of administrative cooperation. In the light of this 
Council Resolution of 7 December 1992 (OJ C 334, 18.12.1992, p.1) 
Resolution of the Parliament A3-0401/92 (OJ C 21, 25.1.93, p. 513) 
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee CES 602/93 (OJ C 201, 26.7.93, p. 59) 
Commission communication on the handling of urgent situations in the context of implementation of Community 
rules - Follow-up to the Sutherland Report (COM(93) 430 final). 
Commission communication to the Council "Making the most of the Internal Market" : Strategic Programme 
(COM(93) 632 final) 
7/. 
-2-
examination, specific Community provisions may be drafted for those sectors which 
need them. 
6. But mechanisms should only be set up where there is a need for them, and then 
only on the basis that they operate in the simplest possible manner. The Commission 
shares the concerns of Member States that systems of administrative cooperation 
must be clear, non-bureaucratic and provide tangible benefits. 
7. Implementation and enforcement is primarily a responsibility which is exercised 
on the ground. It follows that Community systems for administrative cooperation should 
aim at facilitating the ability of Member State administrations to make contacts, in a 
decentralized manner wherever possible. To this end, an adequate communication and 
data exchange infrastructure is required. Each system must, however, make provision 
for information to be shared with the Commission and other Member States wherever 
national authorities feel that there is a need for action at Community level. 
8. It appears to the Commission that better contacts will not only benefit the 
execution of Community legislation but also help resolve problems in unharmonized 
fields, and help to better protect the financial interests of the Community against 
fraudulent conduct. The ready exchange of information where difficulties arise 
concerning the free movement of goods and services in fields for which no Community 
legislation exists should assist in avoiding the recourse to restrictive measures, or at 
least clarify the situation for the authorities concerned. It may even dispense with the 
need for Community legislation in such fields by promoting the mutual recognition of 
national legislations. 
9. The Commission believes that the development of administrative cooperation 
would best be advanced on an explicit basis. This communication therefore sets out a 
framework for Community administrative cooperation which provides the guidelines 
necessary for detailed application where needed. The Commission is setting up a 
programme of discussions in a Community context in order to examine the ways in 
which administrative cooperation should operate to suit each area of activity in 
question. 
-3 
II. ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION: THE ELEMENTS 
OF A COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK 
10. On the basis of information that has been gathered on the present state of 
administrative cooperation and its assessment of the roles of the Member States and 
the Commission, the needs felt and current practice (cf. Annex 1), the Commission 
considers that a more coherent and transparent approach to administrative 
cooperation for the implementation and enforcement of Internal Market legislation is 
desirable. In some fields the practice of administrative cooperation is already well 
advanced; in others, however, an explicit Community framework for the development 
of administrative cooperation would help both in examining the need for establishing 
mechanisms and in identifying where existing mechanisms could be improved. 
11. . The framework for administrative cooperation would comprise the following 
elements. 
(a) A rule : the fundamental requirement of mutual assistance; 
(b) A tool : the obligation of transparency, by means of a network of clearly 
identified correspondents; 
(c) Two principles : 
• proportionality 
• confidentiality 
A. THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MUTUAL ASSISTANCE 
12. In certain fields, Community measures have already been taken to ensure some 
degree of mutual assistance. A recent example of this is the foodstuffs sector. In 
addition, the Court of Justice has clarified several features of the obligation for 
administrations to cooperate which is implicit in Community legislation (cf. Mateucci v. 
Communauté française de Belgique, case 235/87, judgment of 27.9.88). Now it is 
essential to ensure that the principle of mutual assistance is progressively extended to 
apply to all aspects of Internal Market legislation. 
The objective is to establish, on the basis of mutual confidence, the practical tools 
required to facilitate cooperation between Member States in such a way as to reflect 
both the differing organizational structures within Member States and the Community 
perspective. In some cases where Community financial or economic interests are 
involved (such as customs or agriculture), mutual assistance mechanisms are already 
well defined, involving, for example, exchanges of evidential documentation, and even 
joint investigation missions. In other cases, the practice of mutual assistance often 
involves nothing more than direct bilateral contact between the authorities in Member 
States responsible for applying the legislation. This may be the concern of central 
authorities in Member States (as in the banking field or on competition); where the 
responsibility for enforcement is decentralized (as in the case of the market inspection 
of product safety), cooperation may be easier where a central contact point for a 
particular sector can be used (see paragraph 15 below). 
13. In practice, each cooperation system will be used by a Member State when it 
needs information from another but the system will also provide for information to be 
made generally available if the problem involves several Member States or is shown to 
be of Community-wide interest. This is not a bureaucratic complication: while in most 
cases bilateral cooperation is sufficient, the benefits of the Internal Market will not be 
maximized unless solutions to problems are shared and applied throughout the 
Community. 
B. THE OBLIGATION OF TRANSPARENCY 
14. Each cooperation system requires that Member States and the Commission are 
aware of the responsible authorities throughout the Community. The Commission 
proposes that the necessary transparency of national implementation and enforcement 
mechanisms requires Member States to transmit basic information to the Commission 
and the other Member States concerning the bodies which undertake the enforcement 
of the legislation concerned. This will include practical details on the identity of the 
officials in these bodies who are responsible for organizing mutual assistance for the 
application of Internal Market legislation. This information is essential for improving the 
interface between those responsible in the Member States for enforcement, the 
definition of needs and modes of mutual cooperation, and the identification of priority 
sectors for Community supportive measures. 
15. An essential part of this transparency is the notification, for each sector, of a 
central contact point in each Member State who will act as correspondent with his or 
her counterparts in other Member States and the Commission for enforcement of 
Community rules. The function of each correspondent is to ensure that the flow of 
information between Member States and between his Member State and the 
Commission takes place rapidly and effectively, which may involve coordinating the 
information flowing to and from the relevant bodies within the Member State. 
Coordination across sectors within each Member State should continue to be a 
function of the members of the Internal Market Advisory Committee. 
16. With respect to existing legislation, the Commission proposes that this 
information should be notified by Member States as soon as possible, and at all events 
by the end of 1994. For future legislation, this information should become a normal 
part of the process of national implementation of Community law, to be communicated 
to the Commission along with the transposition text. 
C. TWO UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES 
17. Two underlying principles on which the effective operation of mutual assistance 
depends reflect both the rulings of the Court and the views of Member States in recent 
discussions. 
Proportionality 
The principle of proportionality implies that the practice of administrative cooperation 
should be tailored to what is reasonable, that is, that authorities limit their demands on 
each other to what is essential to the task in hand. 
Regarding requests for information between administrations, enforcement experts «.ï 
each sector will be best placed to judge how proportionality is applied in practice, 
particularly as they will be suppliers as well as requesters of information. Measures 
such as standardization of forms or automated processing of information can reduce 
the burden of their procedures. 
The same principle applies to the obligations that these administrations place on 
business and citizens. Successful administrative cooperation can lighten the load on 
enterprises and the individual. 
Cooperation efforts should also guarantee value for money by ensuring that the 
benefits are in keeping with the resources deployed. 
Confidentiality 
In certain areas, rules in respect of confidentiality are indispensable, for example on 
the exchange of commercially-sensitive information. Member States sometimes 
appear to be less concerned about confidentiality in respect of non-national products 
than about national ones. In a single market it is clear that the same standards should 
apply in respect of all products on the market. 
The exchange of classified information in general and via telematic networks in 
particular requires common security rules and procedures as well as technical enabling 
measures such as the making available of data protection tools. 
Where personal data are concerned, exchanges of information must respect legislation 
in force on data security. 
-6-
III. ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION : A PROGRAMME OF DISCUSSIONS 
18. The Community framework for administrative cooperation discussed above 
should be applied on a sectoral basis. The Commission does not underestimate the 
challenge this presents. Although the framework is not a radical departure from 
existing good practice needed for enforcing Community legislation, Member States 
may in some sectors need to consider the allocation of responsibilities between 
departments and enforcement bodies, and between national, regional and local levels 
of administration. 
19. The Commission proposes that the Community framework should be used in 
continuing the discussions of the need for and type of administrative cooperation. 
These discussions should be focused on those fields with little practical experience of 
administrative cooperation, and on those where the quality of current practice might be 
improved, taking account also of the timing of the entry into force of legislation or the 
sensitivity of the particular risk which is regulated. In the light of these criteria, the 
Commission intends to organize sectoral discussions in the fields indicated in Annex 2. 
The Community framework set up in accordance with this communication, and its 
principles, will be the common thread running through these discussions. 
The aims of each sectoral discussion would be: 
• in areas of activity for which there is only limited experience of administrative 
cooperation, and which have no specific mechanism for it, to examine the 
need for administrative cooperation, especially with respect to information 
exchange and decision-making6, and to agree on the practical mechanisms 
required. Depending on the sector, cooperation systems may be required for 
scientific or technical cooperation, evaluations and assessments (of a product 
or service), inspections, or market surveillance; 
• in fields where cooperation is starting, such as scientific cooperation in the 
food sector or administrative cooperation between official food control 
services, to examine and identify the measures needed to make these 
cooperation systems start to work as effectively as possible; 
• in other fields, to examine the efficiency of existing mechanisms of 
administrative cooperation and consider changes that may be necessary, 
while leaving in place systems which already work satisfactorily; 
• to identify the supportive measures to be taken by the Commission in the 
short and longer term. As explained in the last section of annex 2, the 
Commission is already engaged in activities designed to support 
administrative cooperation for the Internal Market. It may be necessary, 
however, in the light of the possible development of cooperation in some 
sectors, to enlarge the scope of such supportive activities, particularly in 
respect of informative publications and of assistance with making 
communication between national enforcement authorities easier. As the 
different needs are identified, the Commission will come forward with a 
suitable programme of such measures; 
6 While in principle administrative cooperation does not affect the competence of Member States in enforcing 
Community legislation, it may nonetheless, in the cases provided for in the legislation (eg the Directive on 
consumer product safety) result in decision-making on a Community level 
-7-
• where appropriate, to introduce a Planning Process for Telematic Networks 
between Administrations (TNA-PP), providing a pragmatic and transparent 
approach to the identification of needs, bottlenecks and missing networks as 
well as to performance evaluation and priority-setting, and to implement it 
through the TNA/IDA programme; 
• to examine any malfunctions of the system and their origins on the basis, in 
particular, of the views of economic operators, over an observation period in 
1994. 
20. Some of these sectoral discussions may result in more detailed provisions on 
implementation of Community legislation being established, wherever possible through 
informal methods (for example, in guidelines, or by the establishment of working 
groups of enforcement experts). In cases where this proves to be essential, these 
provisions will take the form of Community legislation. The Commission will monitor the 
progress being made in the sectoral discussions and come forward with proposals to 
overcome difficulties where necessary. The end of 1994 will serve as a useful 
benchmark by which to judge progress as it is the date proposed (in paragraph 16) for 
the notification of the bodies responsible for enforcement. The Commission will also 
assess progress in the development of administrative cooperation in its annual reports 
on the operation of the Internal Market. 
21. Although the objective of this communication is to ensure that the application of 
Internal Market legislation is supported by effective mechanisms for administrative 
cooperation, the Commission notes that the Court's rulings have often been made in 
the context of matters not subject to harmonization. An effective mechanism for 
facilitating bilateral and other contacts between administrations would materially assist 
the resolution of difficulties concerning the trade in products and services in the non-
harmonized field. It would, in general, help the development of mutual recognition of 
national rules through the rapid exchange of information between the authorities 
concerned and, in particular, might avoid the recourse to restrictive measures by the 
Member States. 
8-
IV. CONCLUSIONS 
22. The Commission considers that a policy framework is required for cooperation 
between the Member States' administrations, and between them and the Commission, 
for the enforcement of Community law in the Internal Market, with the following guiding 
principles: 
• all administrative services in the Member States responsible for the 
enforcement of Community law must, taking into account Article 5 of the 
Treaty, provide one another with mutual assistance in the exercise of their 
functions, and in particular reply as soon as possible to requests for 
cooperation originating from one of them, and exchange the information 
required for this purpose; 
• these exchanges of information should be performed under conditions of: 
- confidentiality, i.e. they should be covered by professional secrecy and the 
requirements of the services from which the information originates; 
- proportionality between the nature of information requested and the 
objective of the check to be carried out; 
• to this effect, each Member State needs to take appropriate measures for 
providing the most effective possible interface between its own services and 
those of the other Member States and the Commission; 
• each Member State should ensure the transparency of these measures and of 
its control mechanisms and their modalities of operation, in particular by 
notifying them to the Commission and the other Member States. This 
notification should be made by the end of 1994 for the areas of activity 
mentioned in Annex 2. 
23. The Commission, for its part, in close collaboration with the authorities of the 
Member States, in particular in those areas where Community legislation does not 
already provide details on the enforcement of its provisions, will examine, in particular 
through a programme of discussions by area of activity : 
• cooperation systems which might be set up or strengthened in order to 
implement these principles; 
• the form that these cooperation systems should take, on the principle that any 
solution must aim at maximum effectiveness at minimum cost, using the 
simplest possible procedures; 
• such Community support measures as may be envisaged for developing and 
strengthening these cooperation systems, such as the publication of 
guidelines for implementation, the setting up and subsequent operation of 
telematic networks, the collection and analysis of data, the promotion of 
exchanges of civil servants, training activities, and so on. 
On the basis of this examination, to be completed by the end of 1994, the Commission 
will identify the appropriate measures and formulate such proposals as may prove to 
be necessary. The results of these discussions will be assessed in the Commission's 
Annual Report of the Internal Market. 
ANNEX 1 
ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION: STATE OF PLAY 
1. The October 1992 Report to the Commission by the High Level Group on the 
Operation of the Internal Market chaired by Mr. Peter Sutherland, entitled "The Internal 
Market after 1992: meeting the Challenge", contained an important section on 
"Enforcing the Rules through Partnership". The recommendations made under this 
heading aimed at the development of a cooperative approach to enforcement of 
Internal Market legislation through, inter alia, the establishment of a permanent 
framework for administrative partnership between Member States and the 
Commission, an analysis of the exercise of Community powers to handle urgent and 
serious consumer problems, including the possibility of a coordination unit within the 
Commission to ensure effective communication at Community and national level, and 
the drawing up of enforcement guides for groups of directives. 
2. In its response to the Sutherland Report of 2 December 1992, the Commission 
said that implementation of the Report's recommendations would "reinforce the 
economic effects of the Internal Market, as well as its political dimension", and 
welcomed the main lines of the strategy for the management of Internal Market 
presented in the Report, "based on transparency, cooperation and decentralization of 
application". The Commission announced its intention to present to the Council 
proposals on guidelines for the development of administrative cooperation in the 
different fields covered by the Internal Market in its communication of 22 December 
1993 "Making the most of the Internal Market": Strategic Programme7. 
3. The following sections assess the state of play on administrative cooperation by 
considering the roles of the Commission and the Member States, the needs for and the 
current practice of administrative cooperation. 
WHAT ARE THE ROLES ? 
4. The roles of the Member States and the Commission described here are those 
which they should adopt for the purposes of administrative cooperation, without 
prejudice to the Commission's permanent obligation to ensure that Community law is 
implemented. 
A. The Role of the Member States: 
5. Under the Treaties the Member States retain responsibility for the 
implementation and enforcement of Community law within their jurisdiction. The 
development of administrative cooperation within the Community for the more effective 
For references, see footnotes at page 1. 
enforcement of the law does not alter that fundamental responsibility. Nevertheless, 
Member States exercise that responsibility within the framework of Community law and 
are bound by both general and specific obligations with respect to enforcement of that 
law. At the general level, Article 5 of the Treaty requires Member States to take all 
appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Treaty 
and to abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the objectives of the Treaty. 
More specifically, the Council has in some fields (for example, customs, indirect 
taxation, agriculture, foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals) adopted detailed secondary 
legislation in respect of the enforcement of Community law which requires Member 
States to take specific measures. 
6. It should be recalled that the Court of Justice has in various rulings, notably in 
respect of infringement cases based on Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty, made clear 
that the Member States, when exercising their right to enforce national law (including 
non-harmonized provisions), are required to take account of certain principles inherent 
in Community law, in particular: 
(a) Proportionality 
In the absence of Community legislation, controls by the Member States 
must be reasonable and respect the fundamental requirement of free 
movement laid down in the Treaty (Henn and Darby, case 34/79, judgment 
of 14.12.1979; Casati, case 203/80, judgment of 11.11.1981); 
(b) Mutual confidence 
National authorities may not reimpose unnecessary testing, certification or 
inspection requirements if these have already been carried out by the 
national authorities of other Member States or competent organizations 
recognized by them (Biologische Producten, case 72/80, judgment of 
17.12.1981; United Foods and Abeele, case 132/80, judgment of 7.4.1981; 
Woodworking Machines, case 188/84, judgment of 28.1.1986; Bouchara, 
case 25/85, judgment of 11.5.1989). 
(c) Cooperation in the exercise of controls 
Cooperation between different national authorities should take place in order 
to alleviate as far as possible the burden of administrative controls for 
economic operators, through, for instance, the exchange of information 
between authorities regarding the conformity of products to requirements, or 
by giving notice of control requirements and changes to them (De Peijper, 
case 104/75, judgment of 20.5.1976; Denkavit, case 251/78, judgment of 
8.11.1979; Italian wine, case 42/82, judgment of 22.3.1983). 
In summary, the Court has ruled that enforcement of the law should be proportional 
and non-discriminatory, directed at the simplification and alleviation of controls and 
reliant on mutual confidence and mutual recognition. 
7. The Commission considers that the "obligation to cooperate" is implicit in Articles 
5 and 30 of the Treaty and in Community case law, but, for the reasons indicated in 
paragraph 12 below, the need for cooperation has been reinforced by the removal of 
frontier controls. 
Bilateral cooperation between the Member States is a necessary part of cooperation 
within the Community framework. Nevertheless, in a Community without internal 
4 so 
Ill 
frontiers defective products manufactured in one country will find their way to another 
by an infinite number of routes, often passing through other Member States. Only if 
information concerning such products is made available to all authorities can effective 
action be taken to protect the interests of all Community citizens. Similarly, the 
conclusions arrived at by two or more Member States in relation to interpretation or 
application of Community legislation will be of interest to all Member States. 
In addition, the obligation to cooperate may well help to reduce bilateral difficulties 
caused by different national rules in non-harmonized fields, and perhaps to accelerate 
their mutual recognition Community-wide. 
B. The Role of the Commission 
8. The role of the Commission in the implementation and enforcement process is to 
provide common services to the Member States which will assist them in their 
implementation and enforcement of Community law. These services may be of 
different kinds, according to the needs of the system. 
• publication of interpretations of existing Community rules as a basis for 
common enforcement; 
• the organization of meetings, seminars and conferences on enforcement 
issues to improve mutual understanding; 
• the promotion of the progressive introduction of efficient, reliable and user-
friendly communication and data exchange systems, combined with a high 
degree of co-ordination between the thirteen administrations involved; 
• the development of common systems for presentation of requests for 
cooperation or of relevant data; 
• the promotion of exchanges of national officials and joint training programmes 
for enforcement; 
• the collection, translation and circulation of information on national 
enforcement structures and practice. 
• in the case of Member States with less developed administrative 
infrastructures, financial contributions to strengthening these, including staff 
training. 
• using the publication by the Commission of a new periodical presenting its 
documentation and its databases as a means of contact with the national 
administrations. 
• on competition, a communication is to be issued towards the end of 1994 on 
cooperation between the Commission and the national competition 
authorities. 
The extent of the services provided by the Commission will be determined case-by-
case, and will depend on the degree of cooperation required by the national 
authorities. It is also clear that because of constraints on Community resources there 
will be limits on the services which the Commission can offer, and some priority-setting 
will be necessary. 
IV 
9. Recent examples of the work now carried out by the Commission to support 
administrative cooperation systems include: 
• the development and updating of Guides to Community legislation (such as 
New Approach and Public Procurement Directives) and interpretative 
communications; 
• the work under the INSIS, CADDIA and pre-IDA programmes on setting up 
communication and data exchange networks linking administrations in priority 
areas (as for example indirect taxation, customs, veterinary and plant-health 
checks, and statistics) with a view to meeting the challenge of the abolition of 
checks at internal borders; 
• the ongoing MATTHAEUS programme (adopted in 1991) for the training of 
customs officials through exchanges, seminars and common training modules 
and the similar MATTHAEUS Tax programme (adopted in October 1993); 
• the five-year KAROLUS programme agreed in September 1992 for the 
exchange between Member State administrations of 1900 national officials 
engaged in the implementation of Community legislation in the area of the 
Internal Market, which will promote mutual confidence between national 
administrations; 
• the work done under the SOSENET project which, as part of the ENS R&D 
programme, defined the architecture of telematic services for the coordination 
of social security schemes with a view to improving and simplifying current 
procedures, facilitating the access of the citizen to his rights and creating new 
services; 
• an example of the type of result to which discussions on administrative 
cooperation can lead is the drafting of simple forms which eliminate a 
multiplicity of forms from different administrations and assist with language 
problems. Such forms are currently being considered by market surveillance 
authorities in the industrial and consumer product field as a means of 
requesting information from and responding to each other easily and quickly 
to assist their investigations into product safety and conformity; 
• in the field of indirect taxation, the Commission was able to work closely with 
the Member States to set up all the mechanisms required to enable fiscal 
frontier controls to be abolished in time for the abolition of frontier controls on 
1 January 1993. These included a telematic VAT Information Exchange 
System (VIES), detailed procedures for the control of movements of goods 
liable to excise duty, a network of Central Liaison Offices together with a 
common directory of their structures and personnel, standard forms for 
information requests and replies, training seminars and exchange visits for 
national officials, and arrangements for monitoring and improving the system. 
This shows what can be achieved by close collaboration within a clear legal 
and institutional framework; 
• on customs and agriculture, the Commission has sent the Council a proposal 
to improve the existing mechanisms for mutual assistance in order to take into 
account the changed conditions of the Internal Market8. This provides, inter 
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of 
the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the 
law on customs or agricultural matters (COM(93) 350 final - SYN 450, 1 September 1993). (OJ C 262, 28.9.93, p. 
8). 
a 
alia, a framework for the computerized Customs Information System (CIS), 
which has been operating since October 1992. 
• Directive 93/99/EC on the subject of additional measures concerning the 
official control of foodstuffs9 and Regulation (EC) 793/93 on the evaluation 
and control of the risks of existing substances10 both provide a framework for 
scientific cooperation; 
• the creation of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal 
Products11 also provides coordination on the enforcement of Community law. 
• the maintenance and development of SIGL (System for the Management of 
Import and Export Licences). This system allows Member States, and the 
Commission, to be informed about the import and export licences issued or 
denied, and thus manage or monitor the external fence. The agreement by 
the Council on 8 February 1994 on a common import regime will provide a 
spur to administrative cooperation on imports, and will facilitate the 
Commission's management of the external dimension of the single market. 
10. In resource terms, it should be emphasised that while it will be possible to 
redirect some resources from legislative activity to administrative cooperation, the 
implications of these Commission-led supportive measures should be taken into 
account. They can be expected to increase as Community legislation already adopted 
comes into force. The Commission intends, in the light of the more precise definition of 
needs for all sectors that will take place in the coming months, to come forward with 
appropriate proposals. 
WHAT ARE THE NEEDS? 
11. In its effort to establish a single market over the past nine years the Community 
has adopted harmonized legislation in a wide variety of sectors in order to achieve 
such common objectives as a high level of protection of health and safety for its 
citizens and equal conditions of competition for its enterprises. In parallel, measures 
have been adopted to check distortions to competition, such as Regulation 4064/89 on 
concentrations between undertakings, adding to the rules on abuse of dominant 
positions, cartels and state aids, which are contained in the Treaty and are also 
essential to ensuring the development of the Internal Market. The Commission now 
has to ensure that this legal framework is applied in a coherent and consistent way 
throughout the Community. This task is not new - it follows in particular from Article 5 
of the Treaty and has been clarified in the case law of the Court of Justice - but it 
demands a degree of coordination between authorities which are organized and 
operate differently in each Member State. Uneven or incomplete application of 
Community law will not only reduce the overall benefits of the Internal Market and 
affect the interests of the citizens or enterprises concerned, it will also jeopardize the 
mutual confidence which underlies the whole Internal Market structure. 
3 OJL290, 24.11.1993, p. 14. 
10 OJL84, 5.4.1993, p. 1. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and 
supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the 
Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ L 214 , 24.8.1993, p 1). 
i'i 
VI 
12. The need for administrative cooperation between the Member States has been 
reinforced by the abolition of internal frontiers within the Community. The right to move 
goods across the Community without any form of frontier checks has extended to 
Community level the situation that previously only existed within each individual 
Member State. The administrative structures and procedures, both formal and 
informal, that exist at national level in order to ensure that regulations are properly 
applied throughout the national territory may now have to be developed at Community 
level. All measures which can render enforcement of this legislation as homogeneous 
as possible should be considered, and first among these should be cooperation 
between administrations responsible for enforcing the legislation. 
13. In harmonized areas, the Community has already established certain 
mechanisms for cooperation between national authorities (and between those 
authorities and the Commission) in respect of the implementation and enforcement of 
some Internal Market legislation. This is particularly the case for administrations 
directly involved in the operational consequences of dismantling customs and tax 
controls at internal frontiers, in managing the external frontier and also in sectors which 
have an immediate link with public health, such as animal and plant health controls, 
foodstuffs or pharmaceutical products. In other fields, however, such as that of 
Community harmonized legislation for industrial products, no such detailed 
mechanisms have been established. The question before the Community is whether 
mechanisms are necessary in such fields, and if so, what form they should take. 
14. In non-harmonized areas, it may also be worth considering the case for 
establishing some appropriate mechanisms for administrative cooperation to help 
resolve practical difficulties which can arise from those aspects of the four freedoms of 
movement which are not subject to harmonization. As is explained above, the Court 
has already made it clear that certain basic obligations on Member States to cooperate 
apply equally to harmonized and non-harmonized fields, and the Commission therefore 
believes there is scope to explore possibilities for administrative cooperation in the 
non-harmonized area. 
15. Based on existing Community experience, it is possible to identify the kinds of 
problems or needs which give rise to closer administrative cooperation. These needs 
reflect the expectation that Community rules will be applied fairly and effectively. 
(a) Needs arising from innovation 
Although the interpretation of the law rests with the courts, effective 
application of the law requires that rules are understood in a similar way by 
all those who must apply them. Even after detailed guidelines for 
interpretation of legislation have been drawn up, there is a need for all 
bodies concerned to take account of new circumstances or new 
technological developments. There is, consequently, a need for exchange of 
information between Member States and the Commission in respect of 
these issues in order to ensure as far as possible a common interpretation 
of the regulations in question. 
(b) Needs arising from assessment of individual cases 
A second need relates to the assessment which each administrative unit 
makes on particular cases on a day-to-day basis before it applies the rules. 
Thus the market control authorities in one region may from time to time 
require technical information held in another region (such as records of the 
c 
VII 
original approval of a product or inspection of a factory) before they can 
decide on the conformity of the product to regulations. Such information has 
to be received quickly if it is to be useful to the authorities concerned. 
Exchange of information is also necessary to ensure free movement of 
goods. For instance, when a product from one Member State is found not to 
be in conformity by another Member State measures may be taken to 
modify or withdraw the product. These measures of control have to be 
proportionate according to the Court of Justice and administrative 
cooperation is necessary to ensure that they are limited to what is strictly 
necessary (for instance, by checking only the product batch that is not in 
conformity rather than the entire production run). 
(c) Needs arising from the implementation and enforcement of decisions 
Administrative cooperation is needed to ensure effective implementation and 
enforcement of a decision whenever the responsibilities of the authority 
taking the decision do not cover the entire territory in which the regulations 
are in force. Cooperation between two or more authorities may be 
necessary, for instance, in order to ensure that a product found to be unsafe 
in one area is no longer manufactured in another area or marketed in a third. 
Cooperation is also necessary to ensure that effective remedies have been 
found in a Member State from which a non-conforming product or service 
originates, in order to achieve equal conditions of competition in the Internal 
Market. 
(d) Needs related to the adequacy of legislation 
The information obtained through the enforcement of existing legislation 
may provide the technical evidence that legislation is inadequate by, for 
example, identifying problems that can only be satisfactorily resolved by an 
extension or revision of the legislation itself. The successful development or 
adaptation of legislation may thus depend to some extent on the 
effectiveness of feedback from enforcement authorities, in addition to such 
feedback as the Commission can obtain for itself, for example through its 
network of Euro Info Centres. 
16. Mechanisms to facilitate common interpretation, informed assessment and 
effective enforcement of controls already exist at Community level in a few sectors 
where harmonized legislation is of long standing; the challenge before the Community 
today is to examine the effectiveness of these mechanisms and extend the 
commitment to administrative cooperation that characterizes those sectors to a wider 
area, while bearing in mind that the needs of each sector in terms of the degree of 
cooperation required will vary. The needs of each mechanism will in any case have to 
be defined at the operational level in each sector, in a decentralized manner. 
17. In contrast to the relative homogeneity of administrative practice within each 
Member State, the organization of administrative cooperation in the Community 
context must take account of significant differences between the Member States in the 
manner in which public authorities enforce regulations, which are reflected in different 
organizational structures, operational practice and the overall level of resources 
devoted to enforcement. Unfortunately, in many areas of Community legislation 
precise information is not available about the administrative means by which the 
Member States enforce Community law, although such information is important for 
VIII 
developing the mutual confidence necessary to promote effective cooperation across 
the Community. 
18. To ensure good communication, the Commission considers that the first priority 
is that the bodies concerned must be identified, together with the way in which they will 
interface with corresponding bodies in other Member States. 
Secondly, a greater transparency of national enforcement systems, on a sectoral 
basis, would materially assist all those in the Community involved in administrative 
cooperation in this field. Indeed, where there are weaknesses in enforcement 
structures, it might be possible to envisage supportive measures at Community level, 
e.g. training programmes, exchanges of officials. 
19. Thirdly, another argument for administrative cooperation is the need to overcome 
communication problems deriving from differences of language and communication 
and data exchange infrastructure. If administrative cooperation across the Community 
is to achieve comparable levels of efficiency to the best national systems, major efforts 
will have to be made to overcome these cultural and structural obstacles through 
supportive measures, using where appropriate data communication networks. 
The growing need for administrative cooperation may in some cases require the 
establishment of an efficient, reliable and user-friendly system of communication and 
data exchange between administrations, in particular electronic mail. At the same 
time, it is necessary to take account of the particular needs of public administrations, 
especially in terms of data security, confidentiality and certification, if electronic data is 
to take the place of traditional media. 
Modalities for organizing the interface between members of an administrative 
cooperation network must also take into account how essential it is to ensure effective 
communication by using the simplest and most appropriate means (such as standard 
forms, the provision of a central contact point with suitable communications and 
interpretation, so as so facilitate decentralized relationships where necessary). 
WHAT IS CURRENT PRACTICE ? 
20. This section provides a short review of the present state of administrative 
cooperation within the Community. It reflects a two-part exercise which the 
Commission has undertaken to obtain a broad perspective, as part of its follow-up to 
the Sutherland Report: 
• a survey of the management of urgent cases as provided for in Community 
legislation; 
• discussions with the Member States in a series of sectoral meetings of the 
less well known problems related to enforcement of Community legislation 
and the identification of "contact points" to deal with enforcement problems. 
21. With respect to the management of urgent cases, the Commission has recently 
issued a separate communication which reviews existing urgency procedures for 
consumer goods (food and non-food), medicines, medical devices, radioactive 
U 
IX 
contamination and veterinary and phytosanitary controls12. These procedures, which 
by definition involve the rapid transmission of information between Member State 
authorities and the Commission, exemplify some of the issues to be resolved through 
administrative cooperation in an acute form. Although the operation of these 
procedures is largely judged to be satisfactory, the Commission suggests a number of 
improvements in the procedures which should be further discussed with the Member 
States, such as: 
• improvement of the communication and data exchange systems used; 
• restriction of the use of procedures to genuine emergencies; 
• more precise information to be supplied in order to facilitate reactions from 
other authorities; 
• wider participation in these procedures by all Member States; 
• the development of common rules for confidentiality/publicity in respect of 
urgent cases. 
22. The sectoral meetings on administrative cooperation outside the framework of 
urgent cases have been organized in collaboration with the Member State 
representatives on the Advisory Committee for the Internal Market. Rather than 
concentrate attention on those fields where mechanisms for administrative cooperation 
are of long standing (e.g. customs or pharmaceuticals), they have covered a variety of 
fields such as the "New Approach" to technical harmonization, dangerous substances, 
foodstuffs, the recognition of diplomas, veterinary controls, and human and veterinary 
medicines. Following these meetings, some important points have emerged, as 
follows: 
The variety of cooperation mechanisms 
23. The examination so far of cooperation mechanisms between the Commission 
and the Member States for the implementation and enforcement of Community law 
now in place has shown that these take various forms. Some of them have been tried 
and tested over a long period of time, others are still embryonic. Some are formalized 
and detailed, with binding procedural rules, while others are informal and voluntarist, 
essentially based on ad hoc bilateral contacts between the Member States with little 
Community-level activity. 
24. Although the range of solutions chosen is very wide, there are nevertheless a 
number of criteria against which it is possible to measure the relative stage of 
development of each cooperation system, such as: 
• Are there detailed Community rules with respect to enforcement ? 
• What is the scope of such rules ? (Are they limited to codification of 
information exchange, for example, or do they indicate the powers of control 
and intervention which Member States must exercise ?) 
12 SOT reference at page 1. 
IÏ 
• Is there Community-level decision-taking with respect to the information 
provided by national enforcement authorities ? 
• Is there a Community-level body that is clearly responsible for monitoring 
enforcement and is enforcement data collected or exchanged at Community 
level ? 
• Are there Community-level measures aimed at improving coordination 
between enforcement officials (meetings, seminars, newsletters, exchange 
visits, joint training, joint inspections) ? 
• Are there systems in existence or under development which go beyond the 
Community scale (under the OECD, the UN etc.) ? 
25. A consensus has emerged from the Commission's consultations so far with those 
responsible for enforcement of legislation that the choice of modalities for cooperation 
should be left to those responsible for the legislation concerned. Differences in 
structures and procedures reflect different needs. It is not necessary to establish 
similar degrees of cooperation for issues which present different kinds of risk. More 
important than a homogeneous or "standardized" approach is the need for a clear 
definition of each system and, as is discussed below, the need for all participants to be 
equally bound by the rules of that system. 
A balance between informal and formal cooperation 
26. In those areas where the Community has not yet agreed on detailed rules for the 
enforcement of Community law, national enforcement authorities are sometimes 
reluctant to contemplate the establishment of such rules. A widely-held assumption is 
that cooperation between enforcement authorities in different Member States will occur 
wherever necessary as a matter of course, that such cooperation is normal practice in 
any efficient administration, and that cooperation can be left to the discretion of the 
authorities concerned. 
27. Although the development of such an informal ("voluntary") approach to 
administration cooperation at Community level may be a helpful first step and shows 
that Member States recognize the need to establish regular contacts between national 
authorities, it may not always be a sufficient basis for the effective operation of a single 
market. The Commission notes that within the Member States enforcement activity is 
usually the subject of detailed administrative arrangements for internal coordination, 
even where enforcement of legislation is highly decentralized. (The area of public 
procurement is a notable exception.) Information is usually exchanged on a systematic 
basis between local or regional authorities; sometimes it is kept in a centralized or 
widely-accessible database. 
If Member States organize cooperation within their own borders, it seems paradoxical 
that they should be reluctant to do so in the Community context, where the practical 
difficulties in the way of cooperation, such as language barriers and diversity of 
national organizational structures, are obviously greater. Given that the Community 
market will now have to be managed with the same degree of efficiency as national 
markets hitherto, the development of some minimal rules for the enforcement of 
Community law must be a high priority. 
Ci 
XI 
Unequal participation in Community cooperation systems 
28. In its review of existing cooperation systems, and particularly those dealing with 
urgent cases, the Commission has noted that the participation of Member States in the 
system is often unequal. For instance, some Member States never notify problems or 
emergencies under the systems in place or, where the system provides for Member 
States to react to the information circulated, never react or do so with considerable 
delay. This is not a question of deliberate infringement of Community law. It may 
reflect structural problems in the organization of enforcement in the Member State 
concerned. 
29. It is not possible to assess the causes for apparent failures of cooperation 
systems without further knowledge of the national administrative systems in place. 
Because of the high degree of mutual interdependence which characterizes the 
management of the single market, the Member States have a responsibility to assist 
the Commission in efforts to achieve greater transparency of national systems. If 
genuine structural problems are identified in enforcement at national level, it may be 
necessary to provide for the possibility of Community support to certain Member States 
in order to assist them to put into place the infrastructure necessary for the effective 
enforcement of Community law. Without the assurance that, broadly speaking, 
Community law is being enforced in a comparable way in all Member States, it is 
unlikely that the objectives of Article 7 A of the Treaty will be realized. 
30. The Commission concludes from this examination that mutual confidence will be 
increased, and Community law applied more effectively, where there are explicit rules 
for administrative cooperation. It considers that it is important to examine the need to 
establish mechanisms for administrative cooperation in fields where none exist, and 
that such an examination should be based on a policy framework for administrative 
cooperation derived from experience already gained in some areas. 
The Commission suggests that, in all cases where Community legislation does not 
already contain detailed provisions relating to cooperation in respect of enforcement: 
• all systems of administrative cooperation should be based on a Community 
framework of guidelines; and 
• the modes of cooperation appropriate for the sector concerned should be 
agreed at Community level, in discussions between the Commission and 
national authorities. 
i 
XII 
ANNEX 2 
Programme of discussions 
concerning administrative cooperation 
in the implementation and enforcement of Community law 
Areas to be covered 
Discussions will be organized in the context of a Community framework for 
administrative cooperation. Discussions should take place first in those fields where 
there has been little or no experience of administrative cooperation, and particularly on 
those which involve consumer products and services or are known to pose problems 
for enforcement authorities. Where mechanisms already exist and are largely 
satisfactory, it is more a matter of identifying possible improvements, and discussions 
can be undertaken in the medium to longer term. 
Further areas of activity will be included in these discussions as Community legislation 
develops. 
Technical harmonization: directives to remove barriers to trade 
Public procurement 
Firearms. 
Dual use goods 
General Product Safety Directive 
Telecommunications 
Foodstuffs, animal and plant health, veterinary medicines 
Notification of technical regulations 
Customs 
Taxation 
Drug precursors 
Cultural goods 
Right of establishment 
Company law 
Insurance, banking, securities 
Intellectual property 
Broadcasting 
Transport 
Unharmonized fields. 
to 
FICHE FINANCIERE 
COOPERATION ADMINISTRATIVE 
DANS LE CADRE DU MARCHE INTERIEUR 
crédits 
autorisés en 
1993 
Engagements 
1 
64.597.000 Paiements 
2 crédits 
demandés en 
1994 
Engagements 
3 
51.830.000 Paiements 
4 variation en 
% 
Engagements 
5 
-19.76% Paiements 
6 
1. Intitulé de Taction 
Développement de la coopération administrative pour la mise en oeuvre et l'application 
de la législation communautaire dans le cadre du marché intérieur (qui est aussi cité dans 
le programme stratégique pour le marché intérieur). (La majorité de ces dépenses 
figurent également dans la fiche financière pour ce programme). 
2. Lignes budgétaires concernées 
voir point 7.2 ci-dessous. 
3. Base légale 
Traité instituant la Communauté européenne et notamment ses articles 5, 7A, 30 à 36, 
52 à 66, 100, 100A, 100B, 129B àD. 
4. Description de l'action 
4.1 Objectif général de l'action 
-Mettre en place un système de coopération administrative cohérent entre les Etats 
membres, et entre ceux-ci et la Commission, pour l'application effective de la législation 
communautaire; 
- Faciliter le développement des réseaux télématiques entre administrations nationales et 
entre celles-ci et les instances européennes. 
Les actions proposées se fondent notamment sur les communications et résolutions 
suivantes: 
a) Communications 
Communication de la Commission, du 7 octobre 1991, sur "Les besoins 
d'échanges d'informations entre administrations pour assurer le fonctionnement du 
marché intérieur" - (SEC(91) 1752 final). 
Communication de la Commission, du 2 décembre 1992,M Le fonctionnement du 
marché intérieur de la Communauté après 1992 - Suivi du Rapport Sutherland" 
(SEC(92) 2277 final). 
Communication de la Commission, du 12 mars 1993, sur les réseaux 
télématiques transeuropéens entre administrations - (COM (93) 69 final). 
Communication de la Commission, du 2 juin 1993, "Renforcer l'efficacité du 
marché intérieur - Pour un programme stratégique sur le marché intérieur" (COM(93) 
256 final). 
Communication de la Commission, du 22 décembre 1993, " Tirer le meilleur 
parti du marché intérieur : Programme stratégique" (COM (93) 632 final). 
b) Résolutions : 
- Résolution du Conseil, du 7 décembre 1992, sur les moyens d'assurer le bon 
fonctionnement du marché intérieur (JO n° C 334 du 18.12.1992, p.l). 
4.2 Période couverte par l'action 
Action permanente qui va au-delà de l'échéance de 1993 prévue à l'article 7A du Traité 
CE, afin d'assurer le fonctionnement du marché intérieur et le progrès vers l'Union 
économique et monétaire. 
5. Classification de la dépense 
5.1 DNO 
5.2 CD 
5.3 sans objet 
a'i 
6. Type de la dépense 
Les dépenses opérationnelles, qui vont faire l'objet, ou font déjà l'objet, d'actions 
séparées, comprennent pour l'essentiel : 
- des contributions financières et des subventions (notamment celles qui sont destinées 
aux organismes européens chargés de la coopération administrative dans les secteurs 
spécifiques); 
- des obligations financières découlant de contrats d'études préparatoires, de faisabilité 
ou d'évaluation, qui contribuent à la coopération entre administrations pour la mise en 
oeuvre du marché intérieur, (notamment dans le cadre de la mise en place des réseaux 
télématiques entre administrations) et à la réalisation d'autres objectifs politiques liés à 
l'achèvement et au fonctionnement du marché unique; 
- des subventions destinées au soutien de projets d'intérêt communautaire entrepris par 
des organismes extérieurs; 
- le financement d'actions des échanges de fonctionnaires, de formation, d'information et 
de programmes de communication. 
7. Incidence financière 
7.1 Mode de calcul du coût total de l'action 
Le passage de l'échéance de 1993, où l'accent était mis sur la réalisation des objectifs 
législatifs du Livre blanc, a impliqué une révision important des intitulés de la ligne 
"Marché intérieur" en vue du projet de budget pour 1994. Cette révision comportait 
une modification des actions types correspondant aux orientations politiques contenues 
dans les communications de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement, du 2 décembre 
1992 "Le fonctionnement du marché intérieur de la Communauté après 1992 - Suivi du 
Rapport Sutherland" (SEC (92) 2277 final) et du 2 juin 1993 "Renforcer l'efficacité du 
marché intérieur - Pour un programme stratégique sur le marché intérieur" (COM (93) 
256 final). Le programme stratégique (COM (93) 632 final) qui vient d'être adopté, et 
dont la coopération administrative est l'une des composantes prinicipales, vise à 
approfondir ces actions types modifiées face aux changements qualitatifs dans la mission 
des services pour la surveillance de la mise en application de la législation 
communautaire dans le cadre d'une coopération administrative renforcée avec les Etats 
membres. 
Il est évident que dans une certaine mesure les ressources existantes peuvent être 
redéployées pour faire face au nouveau défi. Ceci pourtant nécessite un examen 
approfondi des allocations existantes afin d'identifier les opportunités de redéploiement. 
Par ailleurs, il est clair que pour certaines de ces tâches les ressources existantes sont 
insuffisantes. Dans d'autres cas, il est aussi clair que les implications en termes de 
ressources ne peuvent pas être chiffrées, avant que des travaux complémentaires décrits 
dans le programme stratégique soient achevés permettant une évaluation précise dei 
besoins. 
<'... y 
Ceci dit, la présente fiche financière tente, dans un premier temps, de faire le bilan des 
V-ÎXJQS. budgétaires associées aux politiques marché intérieur et d'établir l'ordre de 
grandeur des montants affectés à la coopération adrnini^' aîive dans la poursuite r?s 
politiques correspondantes. îl faudrait ajouter que les montants mentionnés ci-dessous 
oe seront pas tous utilisés pour la coopération aduiiuîsïr_ûve, la répartition entre les 
différents aspects étant impossible de chiffrer à présent. 
7.2 Ventilation par éléments du coût total de Taction 
Les cL'Ptres ci après reprennent la situation telle quelle s'est précisée dans l'Avant Projet 
de Budget 1994. 
Ventilation par grandes 
lignes du programme 
* (indique que le volet 
comporte aussi des actions 
nouvelles) 
-Coopération administrative * 
-Surveillance de la mise en 
application* 
-KAROLUS: 
-MATTHAEUS et 
MATTHAEUS-Tax 
-Echanges vétérinaires 
Réseaux transeuropéens* 
TOTAUX Lignes 
budgétaires 
concernées (en 
tout ou en partie) 
B3-4015 
B5-108 
B5-3000 
B5-3051 
B2-5101 
B5-7210 
B5-7211 
B5-7212 
B5-7213 
B5 -7214 Budget 1993 
_____ 
1.000.000 
1.420.000 
2.427.000 
250.000 
17.000.000 
9.800.000 
2.000.000 
700.000 
64.597.000 Budget 1994 
1.000.000 
2.130.000 
2.900.000 
20.000.000 
10.000.000 
12.900.000 
2.000.000 
900.000 
51.830.000 
*(indique que le volet comporte aussi des actions nouvelles). 
7.3. Echéancier indicatif des crédits 
Les communications spécifiques aux actions particulières donneront tous les éléments 
d'appréciation utiles. 
8. Dispositions anti-fraude prévues 
La vérification des subventions ou de la réception des prestations et études 
préparatoires, de faisabilité ou d'évaluation commandées est effectuée par les services de 
la Commission avant paiement, en tenant compte des obligations contractuelles et des 
principes d'économie et de la bonne gestion financière ou globale. Des dispositions anti-
fraude (contrôle, remise de rapports, etc.) sont inclus dans tous les accords ou contrats 
conclus entre la Commission et les bénéficiaires des paiements. 
Le contrat-cadre conclu en 1992 entre la Commission et les organismes européens de 
normalisation prévoit, par exemple, une présentation très claire des coûts associés avec 
la préparation de normes européennes dans le cadre des mandats qui permettront un 
contrôle efficace des dépenses effectuées. 
De manière générale, toutes les actions permanentes font l'objet d'un suivi régulier de la 
part des services concernées, ainsi que pour les actions ponctuelles, d'une évaluation ex-
post. Des informations, statistiques et autres, fournissent une aide dans l'évaluation du 
progrès des actions communautaires et contribuent ainsi à la consolidation du dispositif 
anti-fraude. 
Dans plusieurs règlements, des dispositions spécifiques sont prévues et les mesures de 
contrôle internes se fondent sur la vérification de conformité aux faits par les chefs 
d'unités responsables de la gestion de projets et de programmes individuels. 
9. Eléments d'analyse coût-efficacité 
9.1 Objectifs spécifiques et quantifiables, population visée 
Les objectifs spécifiques de cette action relative à la coopération administrative dans le 
cadre du marché intérieur sont repris ci-après. 
Il s'agit de la gestion de la mise en oeuvre de la législation communautaire qui passe par­
la surveillance du respect des Etats membres de leurs obligations communautaires; 
Il faut assurer la qualité de la mise en application à travers un encadrement cohérent de 
la coopération administrative avec le soutien technique nécessaire, la surveillance de la 
mise en application des règles communautaires et moyens de résoudre des problèmes de 
cette mise en application. 
Dans le cadre de la subsidiarité, la Commission n'intervient que là où il s'avère dans les 
examens de secteurs prévus dans la communication que les structures existantes ne 
garantissent pas une application efficace de la législation pour le marché intérieur dans 
tous les Etats membres, pour un secteur spécifique. Pour les secteurs non harmonisées, 
7-; 
un renforcement de la coopération administrative peut même éviter la nécessité de 
légiférer. 
La population visée par l'action est celle des administrations nationales. 
9.2. Justification de Taction 
L'ensemble de cette action relève du principe d'attribution à la Commission des 
compétences d'exécution de règles établies par le Conseil dans le cadre de la réalisation 
et le fonctionnement du marché intérieur. Il est à rappeler que le Conseil, par sa 
résolution du 7 décembre 1992 sur les moyens d'assurer le bon fonctionnement du 
marché intérieur, a invité les Etats membres et la Commission à examiner la nécessité de 
renforcer la coopération afin de résoudre tout problème d'ordre pratique qui pourrait se 
poser. Le Parlement, par sa résolution du 18 décembre 1992 sur le suivi à donner au 
programme du marché intérieur de 1992, a également invité la Commission à prendre les 
mesures nécessaires pour faire face au défi qu'impose le fonctionnement du grand 
marché. La Commission, pour répondre à cet objectif, par sa décision du 23 décembre 
1992, a mis en place un comité consultatif pour la coordination dans le domaine du 
marché intérieur. 
Pour les actions en cours il n'y a pas véritablement de solution alternative à une action 
communautaire, car toute carence de la Commission dans le domaine de l'achèvement et 
du suivi du fonctionnement du marché intérieur risquerait d'entraîner la mise en place de 
politiques nationales divergentes. 
Toutefois, la Commission examine en permanence les différentes possibilités de réponses 
aux exigences d'économie et d'efficacité. 
C'est ainsi qu'en matière de normalisation, la stratégie, qui était fondée initialement sur 
une harmonisation détaillée des législations nationales, se poursuit actuellement sur deux 
orientations complémentaires: 
- la reconnaissance mutuelle des règles nationales; 
- la limitation du rapprochement des législations au niveau communautaire aux seuls cas 
où les objectifs des législations nationales ne sont pas équivalents. 
En outre, la Commission, dans le cadre du suivi du Livre vert sur la normalisation, a 
introduit des changements importants au système de financement de la normalisation 
européenne. 
En ce qui concerne le plan d'action pour l'échange de fonctionnaires nationaux entre les 
administrations des Etats membres (programme KAROLUS), une participation des 
administrations concernées a été fixée à hauteur de 50% des indemnités de séjour durant 
la période d'échange, les autres frais étant à la charge du budget communautaire. Ce 
programme est complémentaire aux autres programmes d'échanges adoptés par le 
Conseil dans certaines domaines spécifiques c.à.d. MATTHAEUS, MATTHAEUS-
TAX, et le domaine vétérinaire. 
93 Suivi et évaluation de l'action 
Indicateurs de performance sélectionnés 
a) Nombre d'échanges de fonctionnaires effectuée dans le cadre des programmes 
KAROLUS, MATTHAEUS, MATTHAEUS-TAX et dans le domaine vétérinaire. 
b) Etablissement et fonctionnement des réseaux télématiques entre les administrations 
chargées de la surveillance du marché intérieur et entre celles-ci et la Commission. 
Modalités et périodicité de l'évaluation prévue 
L'évaluation des travaux relatifs au fonctionnement du marché intérieur se fait sur base 
annuelle par l'intermédiaire des actions et des interventions du comité chargé de la 
coordination du marché intérieur. Ce rapport est prévu dans la Communication de la 
Commission, du 2 décembre 1992, "Le fonctionnement du marché intérieur de la 
Communauté après 1992 - Suivi du Rapport Sutherland" (SEC(92) 2277 final), 
Pour le programme KAROLUS, il est prévu à l'article 18 de la décision de la 
Commission (93/10/CEE) fixant les dispositions d'application du programme, que la 
Commission établisse un rapport financier annuel sur l'exécution du programme et que 
ce dernier soit transmis aux coordinateurs nationaux de manière à permettre le suivi de 
sa mise en oeuvre. 
(Eléments pour information interne) 
10. Dépenses administratives (Partie A du Budget) 
NOTE: Il faut rappeler qu'il y a des sommes déjà inscrites en Partie A destinées aux 
tâches spécifiques de surveillance dans certains secteurs du marché intérieur, et pour les 
frais de réunions de comités, dont la part qui devra être imputée à la coopération 
administrative ne peut pas encore être estimée 
10. 1 L'action proposée imptique-t-eRe «ne augmentation du nombre des effectifs 
de la Commission? Si oui, combien? 
Oui. Il est probable que le développement de certaines actions dans le cadre du volet 
"coopération administrative" du programme stratégique peuvent générer des dépenses 
de fonctionnement supplémentaires et des demandes d'augmentation des effectifs. Bien 
V 
que quelques évaluations préliminaires et partielles ont été fournies à la DG XV par 
certaines services, à ce stade, et avant d'analyser les besoins en détail, en coordination, le 
cas échéant avec les Etats membres, aucune estimation fiable ne s'avère possible. Les 
actions spécifiques découlant du programme stratégique feront l'objet des fiches 
financières individuelles donnant tous les éléments d'appréciation nécessaires. 
Néanmoins, il est possible d'évaluer les effectifs nécessaires au suivi de la coopération 
administrative dans 14 des 17 secteurs mentionnés dans l'annexe 2 (en estimant qu'au 
moins 3 secteurs ont déjà des systèmes qui n'ont pas besoin de d'avantage de personnel). 
Un fonctionnaire A et un fonctionnaire C devraient suffire aux besoins de 2 secteurs, ce 
qui impliquerait un total à 7 fonctionnaires 'A' et 7 fonctionnaires 'C. 
Une partie de ces effectifs pourrait être trouvée via une réallocation des ressources ou 
un redéfinition des tâches du personnel actuellement occupé à organiser des réunions de 
comités pour préparer la législation. Ceci particulièrement dans des secteurs où l'effort 
législatif a diminué. Aussi, ces effectifs seront nécessaires au fur et à mesure de 
l'introduction de nouvelles structures de coopération administrative. Il n'y aura 
probablement pas besoin de fonctionnaires supplémentaires pendant l'année 1994, mais il 
feront l'objet de demandes pour l'établissement du budget 1995. 
Il est clair que des demandes pour des effectifs statutaires doivent être présentées en 
tenant compte des perspectives financières et des enveloppes en vigueur pour les 
exercices budgétaires concernées. 
10.2 Indiquez le montant des dépenses de fonctionnement et de personnel générées 
par la proposition d'action. Explicitez le mode de calcul. 
On pourrait envisager un comité pour la coopération administrative par secteur, qui se 
réunirait une fois par an. Chiffrées à 15 000 ECU par réunion (ligne A-2510), fois 14 
secteurs, ceci donne des dépenses s'élevant à 210 000 ECU par an. Mais celles-ci 
pourraient être partiellement compensées par la probabilité qu'il y aura moins de 
réunions de comités pour des consultations sur la législation nouvelle. 
Pour le personnel statutaire mentionné au point 10.1, on obtient des dépenses de 14 fois 
90 000 ECU/an, soit 1 260 000 ECU par an, des titres Al, A2 et A5 du budget.. 
De nouveau, toutes ces dépenses seront étalées au fur et à mesure que les nouvelles 
structures éventuelles seront introduites. La liste des secteurs n'est pas définitive. Lors 
des discussions qui vont précéder la mise en place d'un changement de structure 
quelconque, il peut s'avérer que certains secteurs n'ont besoin d'aucunes mesures 
supplémentaires, ou que d'autres peuvent être ajoutés à la liste. 
i 
ISSN 0254-
COM(94) 29 final 
EN 10 06 01 
Catalogué number : CB-CO-94-053-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-65479-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg