EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2507 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying document to the   
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Future networks and the internet 
 
Indexing Broadband Performance  
 
{COM(2008) 594} 
{SEC(2008) 2516} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
1.1. Broadband take-up — and beyond............................................................................... 4 1.2. Maximising broadband impacts ................................................................................... 6 1.3. Methodological note .................................................................................................... 6 2. Ranking and results...................................................................................................... 9 3. Indicators of success .................................................................................................. 11 
 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
In a short space of time, high-speed internet (b roadband) has become fundamental to modern 
economies. It has changed the way we access the internet and how we use it. It has made 
economic activity more efficient and has ex tended social interaction in previously 
unforeseeable ways.  
In the past, fixed telephone lines were used exclusively for voice te lecommunications. Cable 
TV networks and satellite only transmitted tele vision signals. With the development of ADSL 
and other broadband technologies, these networks can transmit a wider range of services. 
Operators increasingly provide bund les of voice, data and video-re lated services. ‘Triple-play’ 
and ‘multi-play’ offers are the first step towards a long-term evolution that will allow users to seamlessly access content and services through a variety of fixed and wireless networks.  
The diffusion of broadband has stimulated the mi gration to the partic ipative web, or web 2.0, 
encouraging users to become content producers and the rise of more open innovation systems. 
It has offered new opportunities for professi onal and personal activities and encouraged 
creation as well as more intensive uses of the internet.  
The European broadband market is developing ra pidly and already outstri ps that of the United 
States. The penetration rate reached 20% of the population in January 2008, a threefold 
increase since enlargement in 2004, with Denm ark, Finland and the Ne therlands being world 
leaders. In the course of 2007 speeds have significantly improved, with almost half of 
Europeans accessing speeds above 2 Mbit/s. Br oadband in rural areas has been made 
available to 80% of population, up 7 percentage points over the previous ye ar. However, there 
are some signs of fatigue: growth in penetrati on is slowing down and th ere are increasing gaps 
between Member States in term s of take-up, speed, price and c overage. There is a need to 
analyse the underlying conditions in the Member St ates to assess the EU readiness to progress 
in the development of broadband.  
The Council Conclusions of 12.06.2008 invite the Commission to  ‘develop, in consultation 
with the Member States, a Broadband Performa nce Index, to be publishe d together with the 
values observed for each of its component indi cators, that will seek to compare broadband 
developments in the Member States and thei r propensity to further take up of advanced 
services and the benefits that arise from their use’. 
High-quality monitoring is crucial to the desi gn of an appropriate policy framework. The 
Commission has announced
1 that it will benchmark the overall performance of the Member 
States on a range of factors, which could in clude speeds, rural coverage, affordability, 
innovation and other socio-economic dimensions. In  consultation with the Member States, it 
has developed a Broadband Performance Inde x that seeks to compare broadband 
developments. This document details the results of this first exercise, which may be extended 
in future to other relevant indicators as data become available. Results show that France and the UK are now on a par with the Netherlands and other Nordic countries in having world-
class potential while large countries like Poland, Italy, Germany and Spain need to do more to 
bring their broadband economy up to  speed. It also highlights the very important role played 
by the socio-economic context in furthering deve lopments in several other Member States. 
                                                
 
1 COM(2008) 199, ‘Preparing Europe’s digital future — i2010 Mid-Term Review’. 
 
EN 4   EN 1.1. Broadband take-up — and beyond 
Broadband penetration, i.e. the overall number of broadband lines divided by the national 
population, has been traditionally used as the main benchmark for setting broadband objectives
2. The 2007 Strategic Report on the renewed Lisbon strategy3 calls on Member 
States to set national targets for high-speed in ternet usage, aiming for a 30% penetration rate 
in the EU by 2010. The June Council Conclusions add that all Member States should achieve 
a penetration rate of at least 15%. In Ja nuary 2008 the EU average was 20% (Figure 1). 
However, the gap between Member States with the highest and lowest penetration increased 
from 27.4 percentage points in January 2007 to 28 in January 2008. 
EU Broadband penetration rate (January 2008)7.6%
8.4%
8.8%
9.1%
9.8%
13.7%
13.8%
14.2%
14.6%
15.0%
16.1%
16.9%
17.1%
17.3%
17.4%
18.3%
21.2%
23.3%
23.8%
25.4%
25.6%
25.7%
29.1%
31.2%
34.2%
34.6%
35.6%19.0%
20.0%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
BG PL SK EL RO LT CY HU CZ LV PT MT IT SI IE ES AT EU27 EE FR DE LU BE UK NO SE NL FI DKJanuary 07
Data for FR, NL, AT, EE and LT refer to October 
Figure 1  Source: Communications Committee. The EU average does not include Norway. 
The penetration rate indicator is a useful tool for a number of reasons: 
• It is very simple to construct, as it is cal culated from primary indi cators (fixed broadband 
lines and population). 
• It is a straightforward measure, being re latively easy to collect, update, understand and 
communicate. 
• It is widely collected and international comparisons are relatively easy. 
• The methodology for data gathering is sufficiently  tested and robust, at least for EU and 
other OECD countries. 
• It facilitates target-setting. 
                                                 
2 Data for the European Union ar e currently collected in the Co mmunications Committee using a 
harmonised methodology. 
3 COM(2007) 803. 
 
EN 5   EN By its very nature, however, this indicator ha s a number of limitations, arising mainly from 
the fact that all broadband lines ar e considered a homogeneous product: 
• It does not give the split between business and residential customers. Countries with 
similar penetration rates may follow completely  different patterns, demand being led either 
by business or by residential customers.  
• Differences in the average size of households imply that the real gap between the most 
advanced and the least develope d countries may be smaller than  the official figures based 
on population indicate. 
• It does not indicate differences in speeds. User s in countries with similar penetration rates 
may experience very different levels of quality and innovation. 
• The current measure concerns the penetratio n rate of fixed lines and does not include 
wireless solutions. The Communi cation Committee is in the process of collecting these 
data, but the exercise is proving cumbersome. 
• Penetration rates do not provide information about the availability of broadband over the 
country as a whole. 
• Penetration rates do not provide info rmation on the drivers of growth. 
Different factors may impact on the take-up of  broadband services and result in increasing 
gaps between Member States. Differences are visi ble not only in terms of  penetration rates but 
also in coverage, speeds, prices and level of usage, as a result of competition and other socio-
economic factors. The result is that the overall patterns of broadband development in the European Union are increasingly fragmented. Close monitoring of broadband markets, taking 
into account all relevant variables, is crucial to provide a fair, reliab le picture of how the 
broadband market is evolving in each Memb er State and in the European Union.  
A composite indicator can be a useful tool to summarise multi -dimensional issues that cannot 
be captured by a single  indicator, to compare broadband a doption among countries, to provide 
support for policy makers and to offer insights on the readiness of countries to progress in the 
development of broadband. It is easier to inte rpret and facilitates benchmarking. Information 
on the individual components of a composite indicator is necessary to improve the 
understanding of trends and identify policy responses. 
 
EN 6   EN  
1.2. Maximising broadband impacts 
While the rate of broadband take-up will remain a crucial measure of the development of 
broadband markets, the Broadband Performa nce Index (BPI) provides complementary 
information on barriers to and drivers of gr owth. In particular, the BPI ranks the EU-27 
countries plus Norway in terms of the supply and demand factors that affect the take-up and 
use of broadband.  
The index has three main objectives: 
• To compare the relative performance of countri es in the area of broadband, strengthening 
benchmarking. 
• To identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of individual countries to facilitate and 
fine-tune policy making. 
• To assess the relative propens ity of the EU Member States to progress in the area of 
broadband. 
1.3. Methodological note 
Given the general objectives above, the fr amework for the index has the following 
components:  
• Broadband coverage,  reflecting developments in rural areas;  
• Competition by coverage,  reflecting countries’ innovative capacity, propensity to invest 
and consumer choice (the level of competition as corrected by the relative size of the 
market); 
• Speeds,  reflecting quality developments; 
• Prices , reflecting affordability; 
• Use of advanced services,  reflecting the propensity of indi viduals and businesses to take up 
innovative services and the perception of trust;  
• Socio-economic context,  reflecting factors that summarise preferences, skills and capital 
equipment that influence the propensity to use advanced communica tion technologies and 
services. While components may be partly correlated (as often ha ppens for economic and 
social phenomena), each adds something particular to the index and to overall 
performance4.  
Basic statistical indicators have been se lected according to the following criteria: 
                                                 
4 The composite index can be thought of as a latent variable that cannot be observed directly but that can 
be calculated through a linear combination of basic indicators, gathered along some dimensions which 
may partly overlap, but which need to be included for the sake of exhaustiveness. 
 
EN 7   EN • Relevance with respect to the theoretical fr amework and the dimensions of the composite 
index; 
• Availability, quality and coherence ac ross the different EU Member States. 
All the indicators have been collected accordin g to methodologies agreed at EU level. The 
index will be updated as new data become ava ilable. If new sources of measurement that 
could be relevant to the index become ava ilable, the index will be revised accordingly. 
The outcome of the BPI is represented by a va lue ranging from 0 to 1, where the maximum 
and minimum values of the scale are arb itrary decisions depending on the selected 
normalisation method. The value has no meaning in  itself unless compared  with the results 
obtained for other countries. It do es not refer to any specific di mension that can be expressed 
with usual basic or derived metrics. The comp osite index tells whether a country performs 
worse or better than other countries. 
Methodological issues  
Normalisation is required prior to any data aggregation, as indicators in a data set tend to have different 
measurement units.  We consider normalisation through re-scaling  as the best option because it uses all available 
information and is easy to express and communicate. Acco rding to this methodology, indicators are normalised 
to an identical range of (0;1), according to the following formula: 
)( min)( maxmin
i c i cic ic
cix xx xI−−=  for a given country c and indicator i 
One main methodological issue concerns  missing data , which are replaced  by data available for a contextual 
variable highly correlated with the missing variable. 
For example, in the case of broadband prices, the composite indicator includes the monthly price of broadband 
products in the 1–2 Mbit/s and 2–8 Mbit/s brackets (curren tly the most used speed brackets). However, products 
with these speeds are not al ways available. When not available, prices  are replaced by the prices of bundles in 
the same speed bracket (i.e. broadband access associated with  other services such as te lephony or TV) or, when a 
speed bracket is simply not offered, by the price of a product with the next higher speed, which can then be 
considered the entry level price for consumers. 
When contextual variables are not ava ilable, missing data have been replaced  by the average normalised scores 
across the remaining variables. In pr actice this means assuming that the pe rformance of one country for a single 
missing indicator is the same as for th e remaining ones (for which data are available). This has been the case for 
the "competition by coverage" indicator for Bulgaria (bec ause national coverage data were missing) and for ICT 
expenditure in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta.  
Weighting is  the last element that needs to be taken into account. Each of the dimensions should be given a 
weight in line with its political relevance. Weights are ca lculated as simple arithmetical averages of the opinions 
expressed by experts through a surv ey of Member States plus Norway5 (Table 1). 
                                                 
5 Experts were designated through the i2010 High Level Group, see 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/high_level_group/index_en.htm. 
 
EN 8   EN  
PLATFORM COMPETITION  
*NATIONAL COVERAGE  BB coverage in rural areas  RURAL COVERAGE  
COMPETITION BY 
COVERAGE  
BROADBAND PRICE  BB ACCESS PRICES IN PPP -
Median price 1-2 Mbit/s 
BB ACCESS PRICES IN PPP  – 
Median price 2-8 Mbit/s 
MEDIAN OF THE NORMALISED 
PRICE
AVERAGE SPEED  
% OF SUBSCRIBERS TO PRODUCTS 
WITH SPEEDS ABOVE 2 MBIT/S 
USE OF INTERNET SERVICES BY 
ENTERPRISES  
INDIVIDUALS DOWNLOADING 
SOFTWARE ,MUSIC GAMES , E-GOV 
TRUST E -BANKING AND ONLINE 
PURCHASES (INDIVIDUALS ) 
E-SKILLS (INDIVIDUALS ) QUALITY  
TAKE-UP OF 
ADVANCED 
SERVICES  
PC AND 3G PENETRATION  
ICT EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA  SOCIO -ECONOMIC 
CONTEXT  
 
EN 9   EN 2. RANKING AND RESULTS  
The outcome of the BPI is represented by a valu e ranging from 0 to 1, higher values implying 
that a country performs better than others in  terms of the various components. Results for 
EU27 Member States plus Norway are shown in Figure 2. The aim is to identify strengths and 
weaknesses that may stimulate or ha mper further growth of broadband. 
BPI 
0,000,100,200,300,400,500,600,700,800,90
BG CY RO PL EL LT SK EE IE LV HU IT CZ PT MT SI LU ES DE FI AT BE FR NO UK DK NL SESocio-economic context
Take up of advanced services
Speeds
BB price
BB competition*coverage
BB coverage in rural areas
 
Figure 2 
The highest ranked is Sweden, followed by the Ne therlands. Both countries have a favourable 
socio-economic context, with a high propensity to use advanced services and a competitive 
environment that has ensured affo rdable prices and high speeds.  
Denmark, UK, Norway, and France form a second cluster. France’s performance is very good 
in terms of supply-side indicato rs such as speeds and prices, but is limited by the take-up of 
advanced services (in particul ar by individuals) and the socio- economic context (in particular 
in terms of PC and 3G penetration). The othe r countries in the group are characterised by a 
positive socio-economic environment. Denmark has strong broadband take-up, driven by a favourable socio-economic context (i n particular in terms of pref erences and skills), a positive 
propensity to use advanced services, but limited competition which translates into high prices. Average speeds have improved significantly in  the course of 2007, driven by strong demand. 
The UK performs well in most indicators but lags  behind in speeds and take-up of advanced 
services, in particular by bus inesses, although trust in the on line environment is generally 
positive.  
A third group of countries includes Belgiu m, Austria, Finland, Germany and Spain. In 
Finland broadband take-up is high and largely favoured by a positive socio-economic context 
that ensures a strong propensity to use ICT services. Broadband in  Finland is widely available 
despite its scarcely populated regions. Relative to other countries, however, its performance is 
limited by the degree of platform competitio n, high prices and low speeds. The socio-
economic environment in Belgium and Spain is le ss favourable as the pe netration of PCs and 
3G (in Belgium in particular) is relatively li mited. Moreover, their performance is constrained 
by high retail prices and a relati vely low take-up of advanced se rvices (by Spanish enterprises 
 
EN 10   EN in particular), despite positive results for broadband coverage and speeds. Relatively low 
speeds are the main barrier to further developm ents in Germany and Austria. Competition in 
Germany and rural coverage in Austria are relatively weak. 
Luxembourg, Slovenia, Malta, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Italy make up the fourth 
cluster. Luxembourg and Italy have a favourab le socio-economic context. Citizens and 
businesses in Luxembourg have a positive propensity to use advanced services, while performance in competition and speeds is weak. Use of advanced services in Italy is more limited, in particular because of low usage of eGovernment and other purchasing activities by 
individuals, as well as relative performan ce in platform competition and prices. The Czech 
Republic, Portugal, Slovenia and Malta feature a weaker  socio-economic contex t, in particular 
for ICT expenditure and skills, with limited use of advanced services (due in particular to trust-related indicators) as well as relatively high prices and, in Malta and Slovenia, limited 
speeds. 
A fifth cluster groups Latvia, Hungary, Ireland and Estonia. The socio-economic context is 
more favourable in Ireland than in the other countries, but relatively  high prices and low 
speeds limit its performance, possibly as a result  of weak competition. Relatively high prices, 
low speeds and limited rural coverage hold back performance for the whole group.  
The remaining seven countries are more scat tered. Their performance is limited in most 
dimensions by the socio-economic context and by high prices in some countries (Slovakia, 
Lithuania, Poland, Cyprus).Romania features  a good degree of platform competition but 
coverage is limited; Cyprus on the contra ry has good broadband coverage; Lithuania a 
satisfactory degree of competition and Slovakia relatively high speeds.  
The BPI has been successful in illustrating elemen ts that are not immediately apparent from a 
mere analysis of penetration rates. This was i ndeed the purpose of the BPI. Even in some of 
the leading countries, the resu lts highlight weaknesses (in pa rticular prices and speeds), 
apparently due to a weak competitive environment. Elsewhere, competition has translated into 
low prices and high speeds, but users have a low propensity to take up advanced services. In 
several Member States, the socio-economic context, resulting in low skills and a 
correspondingly low interest in advanced servi ces, appears to be an important barrier to 
further development. By showing what is drivin g broadband take-up and in particular what is 
holding it back, the index will help Member  States and the Commission to design and 
implement more targeted actions to improve take up. 
 
EN 11   EN 3. INDICATORS OF SUCCESS  
The list of components, indicators, their sources, weights (in italics)  and rationale are listed in  Table 1. Table 2 summarises  the main results 
per country under each component. 
Table 1 
Component Indicator Source Ref.  date Description Rationale 
Broadband 
coverage in 
rural areas 
(0.68) Broadband 
coverage in rural 
areas 
 IDATE 31/12/07 % of population in rural areas 
connected to a local exchange 
equipped with a DSLAM. 
* Data for CZ, EE, RO and 
BG are based on estimates This is a measure of the geographical digital di vide. Because of sparse population and distance, 
rural areas suffer from underinvestment in broadband and coverage is limited. The indicator here 
measures the propensity of a country  to provide broadband for all. 
Competition 
(0.92) Platform 
competition * national coverage 
 COCOM 
and IDATE 1/01/08 
31/12/07 Platform competition = new 
entrants’ lines (using LLU, own PSTN and non-DSL 
lines) over the total number of 
broadband lines * % of national population connected 
to a local exchange equipped 
with a DSLAM 
* Data for BG are not 
available 
* Data on competition for NO 
are from Idate  This is a measure of the level of competiti on as corrected by the size of the market.  
Stronger platform competition is assumed to l ead to more innovation, investment and choice. 
Platform competition translates into high pe netration rates when broadband coverage is 
generalised. Hence the geometrical average. 
 
EN 12   EN  
BB price  
1 Mbit/s-2 Mbit/s  Van Dijk 1/04/2008 BB Price. Median offer in the 
[1 – 2] Mbit/s basket A comparison of prices for BB access in PPP in  the 1 Mbit/s-2 Mbit/s basket (around 31% of 
users in the EU subscribe to such products). 
BB price  
2 Mbit/s-8 Mbit/s 
 Van Dijk 1/04/2008 BB Price. Median offer in the 
(2 – 8] Mbit/s basket A comparison of prices for BB access in PPP in the 2 – 8 Mbit/s basket (34% of users in the EU 
subscribe to these products).  Prices 
(0.88) 
Price/speed 
 EC based 
on Van 
Dijk 1/04/2008 Median of the price divided 
by the download speed Calculated on the basis of all offers available in each market (including bundles), this indicator 
calculates the median of the monthly price in PP P divided by the adver tised download speed and 
takes into account the availab ility of higher speed offers.  
 
Take-up by 
speeds 
 EC based 
on IDATE 31/12/07 Weighted average of national 
broadband speeds, with weights equal to the take-up 
of each speed bracket  
* Data for CZ and EE, are 
based on estimates Speeds provide a proxy for the quality of broadband.  
Speeds6 
(0.99) 
% of subscribers 
to speeds above 2 
Mbit/s 
  IDATE 31/12/07 % of subscribers to speeds of 
2 Mbit/s or more 
* Data for CZ and EE, are 
based on estimates High-speed broadband lines are required to deliver  advanced services such as IPTV. Countries 
with a higher proportion of subscribers currently  using high speeds are assumed to have a higher 
propensity to migrate to faster speeds. 
                                                 
6 Experts from Member States agree on the need to improve the measurement of speeds, which is currently performed on the basis o f advertised speeds rather than effective 
speeds. 
 
EN 13   EN  
Take-up of 
advanced services 
(1.08) eInvoicing  
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on 
ENT)  01/2007 % of enterprises sending e-
invoices  A measure of the propensity of enterprises to use advanced services 
 eGovernment 
take-up by 
businesses  
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on ENT)  2007 % of enterprises filling in 
official forms online  A measure of the propensity of enterprises to use advanced services 
 Downloads 
(games, music, 
films) 
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on 
HH) 1st quarter 
2007 % of individuals downloading 
music/video/games (last 3 
months) A measure of the propensity of individuals to use advanced services  
 Downloads 
(software) 
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on HH) 1
st quarter 
2007 % of individuals downloading 
software (last 3 months) A measure of the propensity of individuals to use advanced services  
 eGovernment by 
individuals 
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on 
HH) 1st quarter 
2007 % of individuals who have 
used the internet, in the last 3 months, for filling in official 
forms A measure of the propensity of individuals to use eGovernment services  
 Online 
purchases 
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on 
HH) 1st quarter 
2007 % of individuals purchasing 
online (last 3 months) A measure of the propensity of individuals to ma ke online transactions and therefore of trust  
 eBanking  
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on HH) 1
st quarter 
2007 % of individuals using e-
banking (last 3 months)  A measure of the propensity of individuals to ma ke online transactions and therefore of trust  
 
EN 14   EN Socio-economic 
context 
(0.95) e-skills 
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on 
HH) 1st quarter 
2007  % of individuals with at least 
basic skills In using the internet (having performed at 
least 1 internet-related 
activity) A measure of the digital skills necessa ry for the take-up of services  
 Household PC 
penetration 
 ESTAT 
(ICT 
survey on 
HH) 1st quarter 
2007  % of households with access 
to, via one of its members, a computer at home A measure of the level of equipment enab ling the use of broadband applications  
 Penetration of 
3G handsets 
 EC based 
on IDATE 31/12/07 Number of 3G subscribers / 
national population A measure of the level of equipment en abling the use of broadband applications 
 ICT expenditure 
per capita 
 EITO 2007 ICT expenditure per capita 
* Data for CY, LU and MT 
are not available. A measure of preference for ICT  
 
 
EN 15   EN Table 2  
BB rural coverage 
Competition by 
coverage 
Monthly Median 
offer. Basket [1 – 
2] Mbit/s (€/PPP)  
Monthly Median 
offer. Basket (2 — 
8] Mbit/s (€/PPP) 
Median of 
price/speed 
(€/kb/s) 
Take-up speeds 
(download kb/s)  
% of subscribers to 
products with 
speeds above 2 Mbit/s 
e-Invoicing (% of 
enterprises) 
e-Government (% 
of enterprises) 
Online games and 
music (% of 
individuals) 
Software 
downloading (% of 
individuals) 
e-Government (% 
of individuals) 
Purchasing online 
(% of individuals) 
e-Banking (% of 
individuals) 
e-skills (% of 
individuals) 
Household PC 
penetration 
Penetration of 3G 
handsets (% of 
population) 
ICT per capita 
expenditure (€) 
BE 100% 42%  46.44  50.34  55.99 7,672  91% 8% 37% 23% 15% 8% 15% 35% 68% 67% 3.85% 1784  
BG 0% NA   36.38   47.34  25.60 2,069  7% 4% 29% 16% 5% 3% 2% 2% 34% 23% 2.87% 268  
CZ 75% 53% 39.63   62.31  55.68 3,439  43% 14% 34% 20% 10% 4% 8% 12% 53% 43% 1.77% 675  
DK 100% 34% 29.14   34.25  81.93 7,093  48% 25% 61% 33% 35% 33% 43% 57% 82% 83% 13.53% 2464  
DE 88% 34%  37.59   37.97  157.49 3,262  32% 11% 43% 21% 30% 17% 41% 35% 74% 79% 12.59% 1620  
EE 73% 38%  19.62   56.47  57.18 967  4% 11% 58% 29% 23% 20% 6% 53% 65% 57% 4.80% 610  
IE 73% 26%  29.39   40.58  43.97 2,014  19% 15% 69% 13% 10% 19% 26% 24% 58% 65% 20.33% 1649  
EL 50% 18%  25.86   25.74  138.20 5,900  30% 4% 77% 15% 9% 5% 5% 4% 37% 40% 8.24% 783  
ES 88% 34%  36.34  46.19  53.92 5,000  83% 5% 38% 25% 21% 8% 13% 16% 56% 60% 22.96% 1136  
FR 97% 37%  26.25/   26.25  389.59 5,242  55% 7% 59% 22% 14% 18% 26% 32% 64% 62% 13.58% 1607  
IT 82% 23%  46.40   23.74  161.15 5,619  45% 10% 35% 14% 12% 5% 7% 12% 42% 53% 36.03% 1218  
CY 80% 10%  30.32  30.32  23.45 1,285  9% 5% 14% 20% 11% 10% 8% 12% 40% 53% 0.99% NA  
LV 65% 48%  22.80   33.39  71.75 2,791  32% 7% 26% 27% 10% 6% 6% 28% 59% 49% 9.23% 476  
LT 68% 44%  21.14   33.25  11.70 1,207  14% 5% 60% 27% 16% 11% 4% 21% 51% 46% 3.10% 367  
LU 100% 15%  30.81   45.52  188.77 1,620  12% 7% 35% 33% 37% 21% 37% 46% 79% 80% 16.87% NA 
HU 80% 38%  35.41   54.02  59.78 5,086  45% 2% 44% 27% 17% 14% 7% 12% 54% 54% 3.28% 608  
MT 99% 44%  36.58   60.77  67.49 2,439  29% 13% 49% 19% 13% 9% 16% 22% 47% 63% 6.71% NA 
NL 99% 49%  18.66   28.04  142.77 7,744  63% 6% 73% 45% 29% 33% 43% 65% 84% 83% 11.03% 2056  
AT 81% 50%  27.25   49.54  147.33 3,069  43% 8% 54% 17% 17% 13% 26% 30% 69% 71% 14.81% 1779  
PL 43% 24%  62.88   85.71  15.12 2,761  8% 3% 56% 17% 12% 4% 11% 13% 50% 54% 2.70% 410  
PT 86% 28%  53.59   65.34  135.46 4,720  55% 9% 66% 21% 9% 13% 6% 12% 43% 48% 30.14% 915  
RO 25% 30%  20.30   83.59  100.90 2,667  33% 12% 20% 12% 4% 2% 2% 2% 29% 34% 4.55% 213  
SI 86% 41%  33.78   28.68  165.35 3,027  17% 4% 61% 25% 19% 6% 9% 19% 59% 66% 9.03% 828  
SK 39% 31%  80.89   69.32  21.26 7,703  48% 9% 56% 23% 11% 8% 10% 15% 64% 55% 8.52% 450  
FI 91% 25%  36.38   42.82  58.21 4,016  32% 16% 78% 34% 30% 17% 32% 66% 79% 74% 24.62% 1925  
SE 90% 57%  23.44   27.16  213.19 11,305  57% 12% 55% 35% 23% 24% 39% 57% 78% 83% 27.81% 2473  
UK 96% 46%  8.45   16.47  197.06 3,644  47% 8% 40% 26% 17% 18% 44% 32% 71% 75% 20.68% 2059  
NO 94% 38%   25.47   35.85  106.86 6,093  62% 10% 61% 35% 34% 26% 48% 71% 85% 82% 25.54% 2260  
 
EN 16   EN