COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 04.03.1998 
COM(1998) 121 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications 
in the Internal Market 

Table of ('ontents 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 
INTRODUCTION. ' 1 
Objective. 1 
The Green paper's proposals. 2 
Response to consultation. 2 
SECTION I. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE GREEN PAPER ON COMMERCIAL 
COMMUNICATIONS. 4 
The European Parliament 4 
The Economic and Social Committee 4 
Member States 4 
Interested parties 5 
SECTION II. THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSE 7 
1. Objective 7 
2. Scope 7 
3. Actions 8 
1 ) Applying a transparent assessment methodology. 8 
2) Setting up a Commercial Communications' Expert Group. 10 
3) Making available a Commercial Communications' contact point and 
information network. 12 
4) Establishing a Commercial Communications' Database. 13 
5) Accelerating complaint resolution 13 
6) Setting up an Expert network. 13 
7) Promoting International co-operation. 13 
8) Clarifying electronic commerce aspects. 14 
9) Keeping the Parliament informed. 14 
4. Priority areas for the Expert Group's consideration. 14 
1 ) The protection of minors. 14 
2) Unfair competition laws and associated matters. 15 
3) Sponsorship. 15 
4) Claims and misleading advertising. 16 
5) Redress systems. 16 
6) Application of the proportionality assessment methodology at national level. 17 
Annex 1. A summary of the proposals made in the Green paper on Commercial 
Communications in the Internal Market. 
Annex 2. Summary of responses to the Green paper on Commercial Communications in the 
Internal Market. 
< c\ 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 
The May 1996 Green paper on Commercial Communications in the Internal Market 
recognised the importance of the sector in terms of employment and growth potential and its 
key role in helping European businesses and non-profit making associations to market their 
goods and services throughout the Union. These services affect a number of important public 
interest objectives such as the protection of consumers and public health and are therefore 
subject to a variety of different national regulations. The Green paper noted that the 
divergence of these national regulations together with the development of cross-border 
commercial communications was leading to obstacles to the proper functioning of the Internal 
Market. At the same time, the increase in cross-border commercial communications, in 
particular in the area of new Information Society services and electronic commerce, could 
adversely affect the efficient protection of public interest objectives. 
The very high level of response confirmed this sector's importance. In addition to the 
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and ten Member States, 433 
interested parties responded to the call for comment over the past 18 months. In general, there 
was strong support for the Commission's proposals. Indeed, suggestions were made both to 
strengthen and add to them. 
The Commission has therefore decided to adopt a range of actions in this sector with the 
objective of facilitating the cross-border provision of commercial communication services 
through the establishment of an efficient and transparent framework which will also ensure an 
appropriate protection of public interest objectives concerned. These actions represent a tool 
to assist relevant authorities in their analysis of problems in this field. This approach is fully 
consistent with, and complementary to, the Single Market Action Plan's Strategic target I of 
making rules more effective. 
More specifically, the Commission proposes: 
1) The application of a transparent, assessment methodology. In many cases, the examination 
of the compatibility of a restriction to cross-border commercial communications with Internal 
Market principles raises the issue of its proportionality with the public interest objective 
pursued. The Commission will apply, where appropriate, the proportionality assessment 
methodology described in the Green paper. This will increase the speed and efficiency with 
which infringements are processed and also improve the quality of any harmonisation 
initiatives the Commission will propose in the field of commercial communications. 
2) Setting up a Commercial Communication Expert Group. The Commission will set up a 
Commercial Communications Expert Group to establish transparent and efficient 
administrative co-operation between itself and the Member States and a dialogue with 
interested third parties. In response to the calls of the Parliament and the Member States, the 
Commission will ensure that any possible duplication with Commission Committees' 
activities will be avoided. It will also ensure that the Expert Group acts rapidly in the relevant 
areas. The Expert group will not cover issues that are already dealt with by Commission 
committees. 
3) Making available a Commercial Communications ' contact point and information network. 
The Commission will establish a central contact point in the Directorate General for the 
Internal Market and Financial services (DGXV) for interested third parties which will work 
closely with the other Directorates General involved with policy in this field. It will also 
establish a Web site to facilitate information flows and transparency. 
4) Establishing a Commercial Communications Database. The Commission will establish an 
information database on national and Community regulations and self-regulatory codes. 
1b 
5) Accelerating complaint processing. The Commission will continue its general efforts to 
speed up the handling of complaints. In this field, it will make efforts to reduce delays by 
using, where appropriate, the proportionality assessment methodology. 
6) Setting up a network of academic experts. The Commission will establish a " 
representative group of academic experts " interested in the various aspects of the 
commercial communication field in order to assist its work and that of the Expert Group of 
Member States' representatives. The network of academic experts will be invited by the 
Commission to provide opinions on specific issues. 
7) Promoting International co-operation. The Commission will promote the principles of this 
approach in international negotiations. 
S) Clarifying electronic commerce issues. The Commission will take account of restrictions 
concerning commercial communication services in its current examination of the specific 
legal issues relating to the development of cross-border services in the Information Society. 
In certain areas where there is legal insecurity it will propose clarification in the context of a 
proposal relating to electronic commerce and associated Information Society services. 
9) Keeping the European Parliament informed. The Commission will inform the European 
Parliament on the application of this approach including an evaluation of the work carried 
and an update of the work programme. 
The Commission will apply this approach to four key areas where commercial 
communication regulations at the national level diverge significantly and therefore potentially 
give rise to both Internal Market barriers and to a lack of effective protection across borders 
within the Community. The four areas are (i) the protection of minors, (ii) unfair competition, 
(iii) sponsorship and (iv) misleading claims. 
m 
-ic 
INTRODUCTION. 
Objective. 
The European Commercial Communications sector plays a key role in the European 
Community. It employs in excess of 1 million Europeans and it is growing thanks to the 
development of new communications technologies and demand. Examples of this growth are 
well reported. In the specialised area of telemarketing the current number of 193,500 
employees in Europe is forecast to grow to 669,500 in the year 2001. Growth of internet 
related commercial communications is similarly expected to increase. For France, Germany, 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom alone it is forecast that these new commercial 
communication services could amount to 1.3 billion Ecus in 2002. This is reflected in the 
development of new specialised on-line agencies and internet audience measurement 
specialists. Its importance for employment is further emphasised by the fact that many users 
of commercial communications have marketing and marketing research personnel that must 
be added to the total employed directly by the sector. It should be emphasised that the 
creative parts of this sector depend on new young talent and the sector is therefore important 
in terms of youth employment in Europe. 
The sector also plays a key role in promoting the competitiveness of European business. 
Without cost-effective marketing campaigns, businesses cannot develop markets or indeed 
are unable to render viable investments in new products or services. Furthermore, commercial 
communication services are critically important for the realisation of the Internal Market 
given that if businesses cannot communicate their presence, products and services across 
borders, they will not be able to engage in cross-border trade. Finally, these services also help 
finance all media. It is recognised internationally that the development of information society 
services and electronic commerce are, and will continue to be, largely financed by revenues 
earned from carriage of these services. 
The Commission acknowledges that an Internal Market approach was required in this area 
given that there existed no co-ordinated framework for the sector even though it is: (i) 
regulated for a wide variety of public interest objectives and (ii) increasingly offering services 
across borders, thanks to the development of new communications channels. 
The Commission's approach to the area of commercial communications has to take account 
of the importance and sensitivity of the various public interest objectives - such as health, 
safety, environmental and consumer protection- which may be pursued by Member State 
measures giving rise to difficulties for cross-border commercial communications. Article 
100a of the Treaty makes it clear that Internal Market measures which affect such public 
interest objectives must take as a base a high level of protection. The importance accorded to 
these public interest objectives by Community law is reflected also in Article 129, 129a and 
130r of the Treaty. 
It follows that a certain balance must be struck between Internal Market concerns and other 
objectives validly pursued by Member States. In determining what action the Commission 
should take in this area, a certain sensitivity must be shown towards the different social and 
cultural situations in the various Member States. 
This Communication summarises the responses to the Green paper on Commercial 
Communications in the Internal Market (COM(96) 192 final) and presents the Commission's 
approach aiming at establishing a European policy framework for commercial 
communication services. Commercial communications means: 
"All forms of communication seeking to promote either products, services or the image of a 
company or organisation to final consumers and/or distributors" 
d 
The Green paper's proposals. 
On 8 May 1995, the Commission adopted a Green paper on Commercial Communications in 
the Internal Market. The Green paper followed an extensive survey exercise to which over 
1,000 interested parties responded. 
The Green paper stressed that the sector of commercial communications was of significant 
importance to the functioning of the European economy; cross-border commercial 
communications were a growing phenomenon in the Internal Market; differences in national 
regulations gave rise to regulatory problems for users, suppliers and carriers of such services 
as well as their recipients and these problems were likely to become more manifest as 
communications possibilities improved with the advent of the Information Society. These 
problems are witnessed by the increasing number of complaints in this field. The number of 
these complaints and the calls for European action from interested parties will multiply as a 
consequence of the technical ease with which commercial communication services can now 
cross-borders thanks to the development of electronic commerce. 
Given these concerns and since these services are used to promote cross-border trade of all 
goods and services circulating within the Internal Market, the Green paper proposed (see 
Annex !) a review of existing restrictions to ensure that there exists a qualitative Community 
framework allowing for cross-border provision of such services together with effective cross-
border protection of public interest objectives and redress against abuses. 
Two key proposals were made to ensure, in view of the expected growth in cross-border 
commercial communication services, that this review would lead to the establishment of a 
high quality, appropriate and coherent European framework: 
• the application by the Commission's services of an assessment methodology aiming to 
facilitate and render transparent the assessment of the compatibility with the Treaty of 
restrictions on cross-border commercial communications; 
.• two inter-related tools to improve co-ordination and information exchange between the 
Commission, the Member States and interested parties: 
!. An Expert Group of Member Slates representatives whose aim would be, on the basis 
of the proposed assessment methodology, to help find constructive solutions to 
problems for cross-border commercial communications, to safeguard the coherence 
of national initiatives and to improve the cross-border protection of public interest 
objectives in this field. 
2. In response to both the call for improved information flow and the need to provide 
the data required for the application of the assessment methodology, the Commission 
will establish a central information contact point which would co-ordinate an 
information and communications network between itself, the Member States and all 
interested parties. 
These proposals meet the objective of ensuring effective regulation as set out in the 
Commission's Single Market Action Plan which was adopted in June 1997 (CSE(97)1 final). 
More specifically, they represent a framework for enforcement and problem solving in order 
to improve the Community legal framework for commercial communications. 
Response to consultation. 
European Parliament. 
The European Parliament adopted its resolution on the Commission Green paper on 
Commercial Communications in the Internal Market ((COM(96)0192 - C4-0365/96). PE 
260.946) at its Plenary meeting on 15.7.97. 
Economie and Social C 'ommiUec. 
On the 27 November 1996 the Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on ihe 
Green paper from the Commission on Commercial Communications in the Internal Market. 
(O.J.N0C66/II of3.3.97). 
Member States. 
To date, the Commission has received responses from ten Member States. These are Austria, 
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom. 
Interested parties. 
The Commission received 433 replies from the five groups of interested parties 
demonstrating the wide interest in this field of Community policy. These can be broken down 
as follows: 127 suppliers of commercial communication services (e.g. advertising agencies 
and of which 30 were European or national trade associations), 44 receiver associations (e.g. 
consumer associations or public health bodies), 197 users (e.g. advertisers, of which 70 
associations) 52 carriers (e.g. media, of which 18 associations) and 13 self-regulatory bodies. 
:ECTIOM I. SUMMARY OF REACTIONS TO THE GREEN PAPER ON COMMERCIAL 
:OMMUNICATIONS. 
Given the purposefully broad questions that were set at the end of each section of the Green 
paper, responses have tended to comment on the entire text and all its proposals. The detailed 
summary in Annex 2 of .this Communication covers those points that received the most 
comments. The key positions of the Institutions and interested parties were as follows. 
The European Parliament. 
The European Parliament in its resolution dated 15.07.97 gave strong support to the proposals 
made in the Green paper. The Parliament wished for the scope of the definition of 
commercial communications to be extended to include on-pack commercial communications 
such as on-pack price promotions, coupons, free-gifts etc. 
Regarding the two key proposals the Parliament's position was as follows: 
On the proposed assessment methodology, the Parliament gave its full support and indeed, 
demanded for it to be strengthened by making it mandatory for the Commission's work, 
adding strict time limits for Commission decisions and requiring that it be applied to all 
national restrictions whether they be in law or self-regulatory codes. 
As regards the Expert Group, contact point and the information network, again the Parliament 
voted with a strong majority in favour of these proposals. 
On the Expert Group, the Parliament called for it to be as open and transparent as possible. In 
order to ensure transparency and efficiency it also called for the Expert Group to meet 
regularly and reach opinions on specific issues raised to it within short and strict time limits. 
It requested that the Expert Group should prepare a regular report for the Parliament to allow 
the latter to monitor its progress. Finally, it felt that the contact point should also provide a 
centra! data bank on regulations and self-regulatory codes in the European Community. 
The Parliament also identified the areas of regulations that it felt should be the first to be 
examined under the new approach. These were regulations on commercial communications 
for children, the regulatory framework for unfair marketing methods and differing national 
restrictions on brand diversification, on-pack commercial communications, events and 
television sponsorship. 
Finally, it added to the proposals. It called for a system of appeal against the Commission's 
decision to proceed with or close infringement cases and added that all efforts should be 
made to ensure that self-regulatory systems be strengthened as well as operated according to 
the principle of country of origin control. 
The Economic and Social Committee. 
In its opinion, the Economic and Social Committee strongly supported all of the proposals 
made in the Green paper. Unlike the Parliament, it did not indicate a priority on which areas 
of regulations should first be subject to the proposed approach. 
The Economic and Social Committee was particularly supportive of the proposed assessment 
methodology and especially the economic chain reactions which it felt accurately mirrored 
how the market for commercial communications operated in the real world. It applauded the 
establishment of the Expert Group and suggested that Member States should copy the 
Commission's lead by establishing national central contact points for policy in the field of 
commercial communications. 
Member States. 
A large majority of the ten Member States who responded was supportive of the proposals. 
Only one of the ten felt that the assessment methodology was not acceptable in principle. The 
others were supportive with a few suggesting that the consumer impacts should be more fully 
integrated in the economic chain reaction. 
Likewise, all the Member States who responded on the proposal to establish an Expert Group 
were favourable. Two stated that consumer associations should be involved as well as seif-
regulatory bodies and another two insisted that it should not duplicate the work of other 
committees or in any way add further delay to the Commission's already long infringements' 
procedure. 
Seven of the ten Member States commented on the contact point and information network. 
They all agreed to these but two made the point that consumer associations should be able to 
have full access to these and should be given sufficient resources to be effective. 
Finally, the Member States went through the priority areas listed in the Green paper in detail 
(see Annex 2) pointing out where they thought the new approach should first be applied. 
They also made a number of further proposals including the need for further work on cross-
border dispute settlement systems and the need to accelerate the existing infringement 
procedure which was considered to be too slow. 
Interested parties. 
A large number of interested parties (both from consumer associations and industry) agreed 
with the Parliament that the definition of commercial communications should include on-pack 
forms of such services. A large majority of interested parties favoured the assessment 
methodology and a number of differing suggestions were made to strengthen this. This 
majority called for mandatory application of the methodology. A number also felt that new 
legislative proposals should be assessed with the proposed methodology to ensure that they 
would not create new barriers in the Internal Market. Self-regulatory codes should also be 
subject to it. Finally, the majority believed that the Commission should make a commitment 
to process infringement cases in this field more rapidly given that the assessment 
methodology should allow the Commission to be more efficient in its future work. Certain 
consumer associations had doubts that the methodology would work without improvement. In 
particular, they felt that the economic chain reaction should give more emphasis to impacts on 
consumers. A few respondents from all the responding groups stated that subsidiarity was 
more important than proportionality and finally a few respondents suggested that the 
economic chain reaction was far too complex to evaluate and should therefore be dropped. 
On the Expert Group the vast majority of respondents from all five interest groups welcomed 
this proposal. However, most called for the Expert Group not to add to add further delays 
either to the processing of infringement cases or to the launching of required harmonisation 
initiatives. Various suggestions were made as to how the Expert Group should be composed 
and operate ranging from the use of opinions from accompanying industry or consumer 
groups which would bring together national associations representing interested parties to its 
dependence on public hearings. Consumer associations opposed the continual presence of 
self-regulatory bodies and felt that this should be balanced with a representation of 
themselves. Many respondents from the five consulted groups called for the Expert Group to 
draw conclusions on a specific point within a fixed time frame and requested that these 
conclusions be made public. There was broad support for the contact point and information 
network. 
Given the very large number of respondents and their different concerns it is not possible to 
summarise the priority areas that were mentioned by them all. However, it is important to 
note that all the problems raised In the Green paper were referred to across the responses that 
were received. 
Finally, a number of consumer associations and public health bodies called for easier access 
to national and Community regulations in this field for their members. They also called on the 
Commission to enforce its efforts on effective enforcement, particularly in cross-border 
cases. They felt that the Commission should examine and develop new systems for cross-
border dispute settlement systems given the increase in cross-border commercial 
communications that was expected. Industry was critical of the existing infringements' 
procedure and called for improvements. In particular, it was felt that this should be made 
more transparent and timely. Some respondents called for the Commission to commit itself to 
strict processing time limits and to decisions that should be subject to appeal by all interested 
parties concerned. 
SECTION H. THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSE-
/. Objective. 
The approach seeks to facilitate the cross-border provision of commercial communication 
services within the Internal Market through the establishment of an efficient and transparent 
framework. This will promote the growth of the European commercial communications' 
sector and allow for the development of efficient cross-border marketing strategies by 
European industry. 
This approach will at the same time ensure the efficient protection of public interest 
objectives. The Commission considers consumer protection and the protection of other public 
interest objectives as being essential for the development of the European Community and the 
proposed approach in the field of Commercial Communications intends to meet these 
objectives. The Commission considers that an efficient protection of such public interest 
objectives across the entire Community also ensures the efficient functioning of the Internal 
Market. There is therefore a balance to be found between the objective of promoting the 
growth of cross-border commercial communication services and that of ensuring consumer 
protection. 
2. Scope. 
The C 'ommission approach will he applicable to all forms of communication seeking to 
promote either products, services or the image of a company or organisation to final 
consumers and/or distributors. This includes all forms of advertising, direct marketing, 
sponsorship, sales promotions, public relations and those services ttsed in the design of 
packaging excluding labelling. 
The 'Commission has extended the scope of the definition proposed in the Green paper to 
include on-pack communications which are not covered by labelling regulations following, in 
particular, comments from consumer bodies and advertisers. 
These services fall within the scope of Articles 59 and 60 such as interpreted by the 
jurisprudence of the Court. Indeed, such services are remunerated and can be, or are, 
provided on a cross-border basis. The fact that these services (be they to an individual or 
other business) are not paid for by the final consumer cannot be invoked to contest the service 
nature of these activities. 
In certain circumstances commercial communication activities could, according to the case 
Law of the European Court of Justice benefit from the application of Article 30 of the EC 
Treaty relating to the free movement of goods. The Court's recognition of the indirect 
economic link between commercial communication services and the sale of goods is clearly 
explained in a number of cases that were referred to in the Green paper. 
.?. Actions. 
1) Applying a traii^purenlt assessment methodology. 
The Commission's services will, in future decisions taken in this field, apply, where 
appropriate, the following assessment methodology which builds on that described in the 
Green paper (see Annex 1) but adds two further criteria in recognition of cultural and social 
differences in the Member States and the need to ensure coherence across public interest 
objectives. The methodology consists of two steps. 
First step: (Analytical overview).The objective of the first step is not to undertake the 
proportionality test as such but to set out a complete "picture" of the impacts of the measure. 
The aim is not to identify restrictions but to provide a factual overview of all possible effects 
of a measure in particular on activities that the measure is meant to regulate and also on the 
public interest objectives such as consumer protection and public health. The first step 
characterises either (i) the relevant national measure restricting the free movement of 
commercial communication services or (ii) the harmonisation measure proposed by the 
Commission. 
Seven criteria arc proposed for this characterisation; (i) What is the potential economic chain 
reaction and the resulting impact on consumers caused by the measure? (ii) What are the 
public interest objectives motivating the measure?; (iii) Is the measure linked to the invoked 
public interest objective?; (iv) Does the measure affect other public interest objectives? (v) 
How efficient is the measure in achieving the invoked public interest objective? (vi) Does the 
measure reflect cultural or social specificity? (vii> Is the measure coherent across all relevant 
public interest objectives and notably those of consumer protection and public health? 
Second step: (Legal assessment).On the basis of this overview and the factual information 
that it provides, the second step consists of an overall legal assessment of whether, for a 
national measure, it could be considered to be proportional or, in the case of Community 
measure, it would be proportional and also coherent with other Community measures. By 
knowing the key characteristics of the measure, the above mentioned seven criteria will help 
the relevant authority to be in a better position to assess its proportionality and coherence. 
The methodology will thus take particular account of the impact of commercial 
communications on the public interest objectives of the protection of consumers and public 
health. This methodology is not an automatic test for assessing proportionality which is left to 
the decision of the relevant authority. Nor is it a cost-benefit or a mathematical analysis 
seeking to quantify the value of public interest objectives. It is only a means of ensuring that 
such evaluations are based on a complete overview of the effects of the measure concerned. 
In this respect this methodology does not substitute the criteria developed by the Court but 
rather assists in their application. Even if the application of this methodology is not rendered 
mandatory, as was explicitly requested by the parliament, the Commission's services will, 
where appropriate, apply it when: 
- (i) considering infringement cases in the field of commercial communication services 
raising the issue of proportionality. 
- (ii) providing analysis and discussing issues within the Commercial Communications Expert 
Group (see below). The Commission plans that discussions on the regulatory problems for 
cross-border commercial communications brought to the attention of the Expert Group will 
be oriented on the basis of this methods, ;ogy. 
The Commission's services will, where appropriate, apply the assessment methodology 
when designing the Commission's own initiatives which are directly linked to the provision 
of commercial communication services. This will further help to ensure the transparency and 
coherence of such proposals across the Community's policy competencies. 
The assessment methodology will provide the following benefits; 
(i) Facilitate the required application of the Treaty. 
As the guardian of the Treaty, the Commission, taking account of all the objectives of the 
Treaty, should assess the compatibility with the principle of free movement of services of 
restrictions arising from the application of differing national regulations to cross-border 
commercial communication services. As demonstrated in the Green paper, many of these 
cases give rise to problems of proportionality of the relevant measures and, in any case, the 
Commission has to assess proportionality in conformity with the jurisprudence of the Court. 
The Commission is obliged to undertake this task to ensure that it is not possible to remove 
barriers that have been identified by application of the Treaty. This has to be assessed before 
proceeding with Internal Market harmonisation. It is worth noting that in the opposite case 
where measures are considered as being disproportionate this does not mean that Member 
States cannot take measures to protect the public interest objectives concerned. They would 
rather be required to adopt other measures which meet these objectives in a more 
proportionate way. 
(ii) Achieve greater transparency and legal security. 
Some legal uncertainty in the field of commercial communications could follow from the lack 
of transparency and differing interpretations of the principle of proportionality in Article 3B 
of the Treaty and in the jurisprudence of the Court on the principles of free movement. In 
presenting how it intends to proceed when assessing the proportionality of national 
restrictions or Community initiatives in the field of commercial communications, the 
Commission seeks to achieve greater transparency and legal security vis à vis the European 
Institutions, Member States and interested parties. This legal security is crucial for 
entrepreneurs considering investing in Europe in electronic commerce. 
(iii) Improve the protection of public interest objectives. 
It is important that in line with existing Community directives or proposals for such 
directives, the Community and Member States should efficiently protect public interest 
objectives such as the protection of consumers and public health. However, it is also 
important to avoid these objectives being unjustifiably invoked so as to protect their own 
national market and thus fragment the Internal Market. The only way to achieve these 
requirements within the area without frontiers is to promote an approach which focuses on the 
quality and the substance of the protection aimed for by the measure. The recognised 
intention to protect should be apparent from an assessment of the concrete content of the 
measure. Furthermore, a more systematic analysis of the effects of measures would help 
detect where existing measures are not sufficient for protecting the public interest objectives 
and, therefore, where supplementary measures are necessary. In this respect it is worth noting 
that through assessing the reactions in the market, the methodology identifies the overall 
impact on consumer protection or other public interest objectives such as public health. 
In this context the application of a transparent assessment methodology would have positive 
impacts on consumer protection and the protection of public health since: 
- It would, in particular, help identify national legislation in terms of consumer 
protection or other public interest objectives which offers best practice in the Community. 
Given that any citizen could expect to benefit from a high level of protection, such a common 
methodology will facilitate the assessment of the differing levels of consumer protection. 
- It will contribute to the design of efficient initiatives in this field. For example, 
through the economic chain reaction assessment one can evaluate how market players react to 
the specific regulation in order to see whether the final outcome is positive or, indeed, 
counterproductive for the consumer. 
- It will facilitate the explanation to interested parties of Community initiatives 
seeking to promote public interest objectives which affect commercial communications. 
- It will incite an improvement in information gathering relating to, for example, 
research and factual evidence on the risks to and the behaviour of consumers. 
(iv) Facilitate assessment. 
The assessment methodology is not difficult to apply since it relies on the analysis of concrete 
and real situations. In particular, the economic chain reaction analysis of the market that 
drives these services is based on factual information which can easily be made available. 
(v) Allow the use of a tool that is both efficient and flexible. 
The Commission will apply the transparent proportionality assessment methodology where 
appropriate. It recommends that national authorities should also apply such a methodology. 
However the Commission considers, at this stage, that it is not necessary to propose a binding 
instrument. The Commission will monitor the efficiency of this approach and according to its 
result could make additional proposals in the future. 
This tool can also be applied by and to self-regulatory bodies which are present in certain 
Member States in this field. The Commission recognises the efforts that the national self-
regulatory bodies have made in establishing a cross-border complaint system that works on 
the basis of the country of origin control principle in the European Advertising Standards 
Alliance (EASA). The Commission believes that self-regulation is only effective when its 
codes are adhered to in a comprehensive fashion by all parties, its sanctions are effective and, 
at the European level, it works on the basis of mutual recognition. The Commission identifies 
the lack of mutual recognition in certain self-regulatory regimes as a clear indicator that the 
proportionality assessment methodology should be applied to codes and that certain national 
systems are still requiring development. In any event, the codes should be compatible with 
the Treaty in order to avoid the introduction of Internal Market barriers through self-
regulation. 
2) Setting up a Commercial Communication Expert Group. 
The Commission will establish a Commercial Communications Expert Group. It will have 
four functions: 
- Facilitate the exchange of views between the Commission and the Member States. 
- Help the Commission to identify solutions to problems in the field of cross-border 
commercial communication services which will either: (i) allow for the application of mutual 
recognition or (ii) identify precise harmonisation needs. 
- Provide data and facilitate information exchange on national measures in the field of 
cross-border commercial communication services in order to assist the Commission to: (i) 
establish and run a database; (ii) collect information on its specific request; (iii) collect 
information on the Member States' regulatory problems with services emanating from third 
countries. 
- Provide information for the work of committees established by secondary Community law 
in the field of cross-border commercial communication services. The Expert Group will be 
chaired by an official of the Commission. Its members will consist of two representatives 
appointed by each Member State. The Commission will invite groups, where they exist, 
made up of national representatives of interested parties (from all areas including consumer 
associations) to present their positions on the issues being considered. The Expert Group will 
10 
meet on a regular basis. The Commission will decide on its agenda in view of the information 
it receives from the information network (see below) and the problems raised by the Member 
States themselves. Furthermore: 
- The agenda of Expert Group meetings will be made public via the information network 
where appropriate. 
- The Expert Group should seek to reach an opinion on a specific point within six months. 
- Its opinion, where appropriate, will be made public by the Commission's central contact 
point (see below) to interested parties. 
- The work oi' the Expert Group will be without prejudice to the Commission's power of 
initiative and its discretion to propose legislation or to begin infringement proceedings 
accorded by Article 169 of the Treaty. Furthermore, complaints made to the Commission 
under Article 169 will not be forwarded to the Expert Group. 
• The work of the Expert Group will obviously not cover national measures which transpose 
existing directives nor will it overlap with work of committees established under such 
directives (e.g. the contact committee of the TVWF directive (Directive 89/552 EEC as 
amended by Directive 97/36 EC)). 
- The Commission will keep the Parliament informed of the work and conclusions of the 
Expert Group. 
The Expert Group represents a new tool for implementing Commission policy in this field 
and will offer the following advantages: 
(i) Increased problem resolution efficiency. 
The Expert Group would improve the possibility of solving problems concerning cross-
border commercial communication services by: 
- Providing an easily accessible forum for the Commission and Member States to hold 
constructive discussions. 
- Facilitating the awareness of national authorities to potential problems of a Community 
dimension. 
- Facilitating informal information flows between national authorities and the Commission. 
- Allowing the Commission services to have greater information for assessing the possibilities 
for applying mutual recognition or, where this proves not to be possible, for preparing 
targeted harmonisation initiatives. 
The work of the Expert Group will not overlap with the Commission's power in the field of 
Article 169 infringements. The Commission's powers will be fully maintained to initiate an 
infringement procedure or to decide whether or not to proceed with a complaint. 
(ii) Increased transparency of the policy-making process. 
The Expert Group will clearly reinforce transparency through: 
- The publication of its agendas and opinions. 
- Allowing interested parties to participate in the policy process. 
11 
- Ensuring that the Parliament is kept fully informed and aware of policy developments. 
In conformity with the Parliament's resolution it will be kept closely informed of the work of 
the Expert Group. By keeping the Parliament informed directly it will be possible to involve 
the Parliament in this approach. The latter will therefore be able to plan and inform its debates 
on future proposals in a more efficient manner 
- Keeping interested parties involved in the policy debate. 
Interested parties, in particular consumer associations, will benefit from the Expert Group 
because: 
- They will have far easier access to information in this field. 
- They can submit written representations. 
- They will be incited to co-ordinate, where possible, their opinions at Community 
level. 
- Avoiding polarisation of the policy debate. 
Polarisation of policy debates will be avoided by allowing a wide variety of interested parties 
to have access to the Expert Group's findings. 
3) Making available a Commercial Communications' contact point and information 
network. 
The Commission will establish a central contact point in the Directorate General for the 
Internal Market and Financial services which will work closely with the other relevant 
Directorates General. Its role will be: 
- To respond to request for information regarding the Commission's policy in this field. 
- To collect information especially about problems regarding the efficient operation of the 
Internal Market in this domain. Obviously, formal complaints (Article 169 proceedings) will 
be sent to the Secretariat General of the Commission for registration. Complaints with respect 
to existing directives will be passed to those services of the Commission responsible for their 
transposition and management. 
- To maintain communications between the Commission, the Parliament and the Member 
States. 
Other Commission services will be closely associated with and be kept fully involved by the 
central contact point to ensure a better flow of information. 
As a complement to the existing Commercial Communications newsletter, the Commission 
will establish a Web site. It will: 
- Make available information on the Expert Group's work (work programme, opinions, 
follow-up etc.) 
- Give access to the database on European commercial communication regulations (see 
below). 
These actions will bring a number of advantages: 
- Interested parties will benefit from the Web site since they will have the possibility of letting 
their views be known directly to the Commission and the Member States. 
- Unlike the organisation of formal public hearings which restrict participation in debates to a 
select number of participants , the network will allow for a far larger number of interested 
parties to be reached and likewise allow them to provide comprehensive information to the 
policy process. 
12 
- I he Web site and network will allow the Commission to disseminate policy information to a 
very large number of interested parties; 
- The contact point will facilitate information collection as well as assist co-ordination of 
policy in this field. 
4) Establishing a Commercial Communications Database. 
The Commission will establish a database on national and Community regulations and self-
regulatory codes in this field. 
This initiative responds to the call for easier access to national and European regulations. The 
Commission believes that this database should be constructed on the basis of information 
exchanged between the Commission, national authorities and self-regulatory bodies. The 
database will be accessible via the Commercial Communications Web site. This would ensure 
that interested parties receive the most up to date regulatory information available from those 
competent for applying the relevant rules. 
5) Accelerating complaint resolution. 
In line with its general policy which seeks to improve its handling of infringements, the 
Commission will also seek to accelerate complaint resolution in this field. 
The Commission considers that the contact point, the information network and the 
proportionality assessment methodology should result in faster processing of complaints and 
thus greatly help the sector and its users as well as the consumers who are the receivers of 
such services. Indeed, all these measures will increase the transparency of the proceedings 
and therefore the plaintiffs, the responding national regulatory authorities and the 
Commission services involved will all be able to work in a more efficient and rapid manner. 
This is, of course, without prejudice to the confidentiality of procedures between the 
Commission and the relevant Member State concerning possible solutions to an infringement 
proceeding. The analysis of measures requires as much precise and factual information as 
possible and this should be more forthcoming under this approach. 
6) Setting up an Expert network. 
'Hie Commission will encourage the establishment of a network of independent experts 
interested in the various aspects of the commercial communication field in order to assist its 
work and that of the Expert Group. The network of academic experts will give views at the 
Commission services' request. 
In view of the need to assess proportionality vis à vis the relevant public interest objectives, it 
could be necessary on a case by case basis to benefit from the assistance of recognised 
experts which represent all the differing interests concerned. In order not to limit the number 
of experts, the Commission will use the new possibilities offered by the internet as a basis for 
organising the work and communication within this network. 
7) Promoting International co-operation. 
The Commission will ensure that EU policy in this field will be promoted in internationalfora 
and, in order to facilitate cross-border commercial communication services at the global level, 
will promote the principles of this approach in international discussions. 
The principles of this approach, in particular the objective of further improving the analysis 
of proportionality and coherence of regulation in this field, have already been welcomed by 
our major trading partners as well as many operators. Given that the advent of the 
Information Society leads to the globalisation of commercial communication services, cross-
13 
border problems with such services from third countries are likely to increase. Therefore, 
there is a need to find international solutions to achieve more efficient protection of public 
interest objectives in an increasingly cross-border trading environment. The Internal Market 
regulatory framework represents a good starting point for reaching such solutions and 
therefore the Community should be involved in international discussions on these issues. 
8) (iarilying electronic commerce issues. 
The Commission is examining the specific legal issues relating to the use of cross-border 
commercial communication services in the Information Society and will propose possible 
clarification in the context of a proposal relating to electronic commerce and associated 
Information Society services. 
Revenues generated from commercial communication services represent one of the major 
sources of funding for Information Society services. This form of funding needs to be 
promoted in order to ensure that the distribution of high quality information will increase and 
remain accessible free of charge. There are already indications that cross-border commercial 
communication services on the internet are subject to legal insecurity and barriers. Examples 
include whether or not Web sites are to be considered as advertising or points of sale, 
transparency provisions for sponsorship which vary between Member States and differing 
national restrictions on advertising for the liberal professions that could undermine the 
development of their on-line information services. Other complex issues such as those 
relating to intellectual property rights and branded domain names also need to be addressed. 
Moreover, as regards new national proposals for regulations pertaining to on-line commercial 
communication services, the compatibility of these with the Treaty will be evaluated via the 
application of the currently proposed third amendment of Directive 83/189/EEC concerning 
regulatory transparency in the internal market for information society services. A common 
position was reached on this proposal in the Council on 26 January 1998. 
9) Keeping the Parliament informed. 
The Commission will inform the Parliament on the application of this approach including an 
evaluation of the work carried out and update the work programme. 
In its resolution, the Parliament explicitly asked to be kept informed by calling on the 
Commission to ensure that the Expert Group would work in a transparent manner and would 
have its results reported to the European Parliament. The Parliament sought, through this 
proposal, to express its willingness for this approach to lead to rapid results and, where 
necessary, to propose to adapt the approach in the light of this monitoring. Given the 
significant number of important public interest objectives (e.g. consumer protection and the 
protection of public health) pursued in this field, it is crucial to keep the Parliament actively 
involved in the development of this approach. 
4. Priority areas for the Expert Group \v consideration. 
According to information and responses received during the consultation on the Green Paper, 
and, in order to ensure rapid and efficient results of its policy, the Commission will prioritise 
its work. During the two years following the adoption of this Communication, the 
Commission will call on the Expert Group to examine problems arising from cross-border 
commercial communications and the objectives, levels and means of protection ofpublic 
interest objectives of differing national regulations pertaining to them in the following areas: 
1) The protection of minors. 
In the field of television advertising the Commission has already undertaken minimal 
harmonisation regarding advertising to minors (Directive 89/552 EEC as amended by 
Directive 97/36/EC). However, further problems have been raised in the context of minors' 
14 
advertising. The European Parliament in its resolution has requested for a more detailed 
assessment of the effects of commercial communications on children. This issue has also 
been raised in a number of positions on the Green paper. 
Consumer associations and public health bodies have called for harmonisation of regulations 
and in some areas for strengthening of protection concerning commercial communications 
aimed at minors. 
Operators complained about certain national restrictions causing barriers to cross-border 
services that were invoking the protection of minors. 
The key problem areas that were highlighted and that will need to be addressed are: 
- Differing national regulations on sponsorship for educational programmes, 
- Differing national regulations on direct marketing targeted at minors, 
- Differing national regulations on television advertising aimed at minors (toys, snack foods, 
confectionery) in so far as these are not already covered by Directive 89/552 EEC as 
amended by Directive 97/36/EC or by work of its contact committee. 
- Differing national regulations on the sponsorship of sports events by brands that are 
associated with products aimed at children or that can have harmful effects on public health. 
2) Unfair competition laws and associated matters. 
This issue was raised by the European Parliament who called for a framework of rules on 
dishonest marketing methods. 
Certain consumer associations also felt that harmonisation of laws preventing unfair 
marketing practices was necessary. This is a particularly important point in view of the 
development of electronic commerce. Consumer associations also wished to ensure that 
fraudulent schemes and pyramid selling techniques are outlawed across the Community. 
Operators pointed to the significant variations in national regulations concerning discounts, 
gifts and competitions, which effectively impeded the development of cross-border 
promotional campaigns. They also noted that multi-level marketing techniques (i.e. 
promotion and selling of products through networks of independent (non-salaried) 
distributors) could develop as a consequence of the possibility of networking independent 
agents globally. 
More specifically, the following problem areas will be addressed: 
- Differing national regulations on discounts 
- Differing national regulations on couponing 
- Differing national regulations on free offers and gifts 
- Differing national regulations on prize competitions, commercial lotteries and sweepstakes. 
- Differing national regulations on multi-level marketing and pyramid selling. 
3) Sponsorship. 
Whilst recognising that certain aspects of TV sponsorship had already been subject to 
harmonisation by Directive 89/552 EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC the European 
Parliament called for the different national regulations relating to sponsorship which are not 
harmonised by this directive and patronage to be examined. 
A number of interested parties noted the differences in definitions of sponsorship or even 
their absence (whereby sponsorship is treated as identical to advertising) for regulatory 
purposes across the Member States. They complained of the legal uncertainty that arose as a 
15 
consequence. Likewise, certain parties also noted that TV sponsorship regulations vary 
significantly between countries. 
The following problems will be addressed: 
Differing national regulations on sponsorship services related to particular products. 
Differing definitions in national regulations of sponsorship and patronage which restrict the 
development of cross-border services in this area. 
Differing national regulations on TV sponsorship insofar as they concern aspects which are 
not covered by Directive 89/552 EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC or the work of its 
contact committee. 
4) Claims and misleading advertising. 
The Green paper noted that Directive 84/450 EEC has already harmonised misleading 
advertising and more recently comparative advertising. Flowever, additional calls for action 
were made in this field as regarded claims. 
( 'onsumer associations and public health bodies wished to see stricter harmonised rules at the 
European level controlling the use of certain health and nutritional claims. Consumer 
organisations noted that differences remain in the interpretation of what is misleading 
advertising between the Member States. They pointed out that this leads to great difficulties 
in the processing of cross-border complaints. 
Operators criticised differing national restrictions on requirements of packaging which went 
beyond the prescribed requirements of labelling legislation. These not only covered "product 
information" (i.e. claims) but also use of brand names (certain Member States have 
restrictions on brand diversification for brands associated with particular product categories), 
and the use of licensed graphics. 
The following problems will be addressed: 
- Specific areas where differing national regulations are giving rise to divergent 
interpretations of "misleading". This is giving rise to evident legal uncertainty for cross-
border commercial communication services and their recipients. 
- Differing national regulations on product or service "claims" that have not been covered by 
legislation on labelling requirements. 
- Differing national regulations on brand diversification relating to particular products or 
services. 
5) Redress systems. 
The Commission has already proposed to improve access to justice with its modified proposal 
for a directive on injunctions for consumers interests (Council Common position CE n° 
48/97). 
Whilst welcoming this action, consumer associations called for improvements in both judicial 
and extra-judicial cross-border redress systems against misleading and fraudulent commercial 
communication services. 
The following issue will be addressed: 
- The Expert Group will examine how existing redress and dispute settlement systems 
(including those operated by self-regulatory bodies) can be improved in a cross-border 
environment. 
6) Application of the proportionality assessment methodology at national level. 
Some national authorities have indicated to the Commission their support for the application 
of the assessment methodology. The Commission would recommend its assessment 
methodology to be applied at national level by relevant national authorities. 
In this context the members of the Expert Group will be invited to indicate: 
- how they apply the principle of proportionality (organisational aspects), 
- to what extent they are applying the Commission's methodology and, if not, 
- whether they would be prepared to adopt this methodology. 
17 
Annex î. A summary of the proposals made in the Green paper on Commercial 
Communications in the Internal Market. 
1. Definitions and scope. 
The Green Paper defined commercial communications as: "All forms of communication 
seeking to promote either products, services or the image of a company or organisation to 
final consumers and/or distributors.'''' This covers all forms of advertising, direct marketing, 
sponsorship, sales promotions and public relations. It encompasses the use of such services 
by all goods and service industries as well as public and semi-public bodies. 
2. The proposed assessment methodology. 
The Green paper explained the implications, in terms of Community action, that could follow 
the expected increase in cross-border commercial communication services. It was likely that 
restrictions to cross-border services would appear as well as problems for the efficient 
protection of public interest objectives as a consequence of Member States applying their 
differing laws' provisions to incoming services. This problem is particularly relevant to 
commercial communications given the disparity of public interest objectives pursued by 
Member States regulations. 
This view resulted from the analysis of existing laws in the Green paper. This not only 
highlighted that national rules differed significantly across Community borders but also that 
the compatibility of any resulting cross-border restrictions with EC law would depend, for the 
most part, on whether or not they met the principle of proportionality i.e. if the measure is 
proportional to the pursued public interest objective. Applicable national legislation on 
commercial communications pursues important public interest objectives such as the 
protection of consumers, the protection of minors, the protection of public health, the 
protection of pluralism etc. For Community measures in this field, the Green paper examined 
how a measure pursuing one public interest objective might impact on a number of other 
public interest objectives and therefore how there was a need to ensure coherence of the 
Community framework. A careful assessment of proportionality was therefore considered to 
be essential in this field. 
The methodology is not an automatic test for assessing proportionality which is left to the 
decision of the relevant authority. Nor is it a cost-benefit or a mathematical analysis seeking 
to quantify the value of public interest objectives. It is only a means of ensuring that such 
evaluations are based on a complete overview of the effects of the measure concerned. In this 
respect this methodology does not substitute the criteria developed by the Court but rather 
assists in their application. 
As specified in the Green paper, according to the case law of the Court, the assessment of 
proportionality requires: first the verification of the appropriateness of the national restrictive 
measure'vis à vis the pursued objective i.e. it must be such as to guarantee the achievement of 
the intended aim; and secondly, testing that the national restrictive measure does not go 
beyond that which is necessary in order to achieve that objective or in other words that the 
same result cannot be obtained by less restrictive rules. 
Since the jurisprudence of the Court has not, as yet, provided precisely defined elements that 
would allow for the assessment of the proportionality of national or Community measures, 
the Commission proposed a methodology in the Greer, paper which would help, where 
necessary, to further improve a systematic and well informed analysis. The Commission 
suggested that this methodology would help appreciate the proportionality and coherence of 
national or Community measures in this field. 
If 
The methodology drew on the jurisprudence of the Court and an analysis of the Community 
market for commercial communication services in particular, in terms of how these services 
impact on public interest objectives, such as the protection of consumers and public health. 
It consisted of a two step procedure: 
First step: (Analytical overview). 
The objective of the first step was not to undertake the proportionality test as such but to set 
out a complete "picture" of the impacts of the measure. The aim was not to identify 
restrictions but to provide a factual overview of all possible effects of a measure in particular 
on activities that the measure is meant to regulate and on the public interest objectives also. 
The first step was to characterise either (i) the relevant national measure restricting the free 
movement of services or (ii) the harmonisation measure proposed by the Commission. Five 
criteria were proposed for this characterisation; Assessment criterion A. What is the potential 
economic chain reaction caused by the measure? This consisted of assessing how the business 
strategies of the economic players involved would alter in response to the measure being 
examined or proposed in order to assess the overall impact of that measure or proposal on the 
consumers that it seeks to protect; Assessment criterion B: What are the public interest 
objectives motivating the measure?; Assessment criterion C: Is the measure linked to the 
invoked public interest objective?; Assessment criterion D: Does the measure affect other 
public interest objectives? And Assessment criterion E: How efficient is the measure in 
achieving the invoked public interest objective? 
Second step: (Legal assessment). 
On the basis of this overview and the factual information that it provides, the second step 
would consists of an overall legal assessment of whether, for a national measure, it could be 
considered to be proportional or, in the case of Community measure, it would be proportional 
as possible taking into account the overall objectives of the Treaty and also coherent with 
other Community measures. By knowing the key characteristics of the measure, the above 
mentioned l~i\c criteria will help the relevant authority to be in a better position to assess its 
proportionality and coherence. 
3. Improved co-ordination and information at the European level. 
The Commission proposed in the Green paper to establish a Expert Group to consider 
commercial communications' issues. This Expert Group's discussions would be based on the 
assessment methodology. It would seek to establish a constructive dialogue between the 
Commission, Member States and interested parties. It would allow for agreement on 
application of mutual recognition by permitting the Commission and Member States to reach 
consensual solutions and thus avoid excessive reliance on the conflictive infringements' 
procedure. Where mutual recognition would prove not to be possible, it would represent a 
new, rapid and precise manner to detect specific problems requiring harmonisation. It would 
therefore avoid broad, all-embracing harmonisation initiatives. 
The Expert Group was also to act as a forum for administrative co-operation, in particular, to 
allow for an exchange of information on new Information Society developments in this field. 
It was proposed that it would therefore consider how the Community approach to commercial 
communications could be promoted at the international level which is essential given the 
global nature of the Information Society. 
As regards the format of the Expert Group, the Commission proposed that it should be an 
Expert Group which would be called when problems arose. The problems to be discussed 
would be tabled by the Commission. The Expert Group would be composed of 
representatives of the Member States. These could be accompanied by national self-
regulators when the issue discussed entered their fields of competence. 
tf 
For the Commission's work to be well targeted and informed, and in order to ensure that the 
Expert Group focussed its attention on key issues affecting "receivers", "suppliers", "users" 
and "carriers" aï commercial communications, the Commission made two proposals to 
improve information provision and communication with interested parties. Hie first was a 
central information contact point which could both give and collate information on regulatory 
issues affecting these services. The second was an on-line information network that would 
enable interested parties to have direct access to the Commission's and Expert Group's work 
and would complement the existing, commercial communications newsletter1. 
4. Areas of commercial communications regulations requiring priority attention. 
Parts I, II and III of the Green paper called on respondents to comment on the Community's 
objectives in this field and also to comment on the problem areas that the Commission had 
identified thanks to the survey exercise that it had conducted prior to the drafting of the text. 
1 Commercial Communications is a bi-monthly publication circulated to 5,000 interested parties in this 
field including members of the European Parliament and national administrations. Enquiries on this 
newsletter should be made to the Editor (Fax(00 44) 1 273 772727 and e-mail:asi@dial.pipex.com). 
^o 
Annex 2. Summary of responses to the Green paper on Commercial Communications in 
the Internal Market. 
1. Definitions and scope. 
European Parliament. 
In its resolution the Parliament called for the scope of commercial communications to be 
delimited in terms of the service providers covered. It also suggests that this scope should be 
extended to cover packaging by calling on the Commission to study the obstacles of using 
commercial communications on packaging1. 
Economic and Social Committee. 
The Committee did not contest the scope of the Green Paper but insisted that commercial 
communication services used or supplied by charities and non profit organisations should be 
included in the scope of the definition given the important role that these services have for the 
operations of these organisations. 
Member States. 
No Member State contested the definition of commercial communications set out in the 
Green paper. 
Interested parties1. 
Certain users of commercial communications (e.g. advertisers) and consumer associations 
criticised the definition for not including on-pack commercial communications which were 
closely associated with the other communication services listed in the definition. It was noted 
that on-pack commercial communications were directly associated to branding strategies. 
Consumer associations pointed out that claims and promotions made on pack attract 
consumers' awareness and therefore should be regulated accordingly. 
In addition a few consumer associations contested the entire policy by constructing two lines 
of reasoning. First, they claimed that since consumers did not demand commercial 
communication services they could not be considered as services under the provisions of the 
Treaty. Secondly, they claimed that the recent jurisprudence of the Court suggested that 
restrictions on "sales methods" could not be analysed under the EC Treaty's provisions on 
free movement unless their application was discriminatory 
2. The assessment methodology. 
European Parliament. 
The Parliament's resolution was clearly supportive of the proposed methodology. To quote 
the resolution, the Parliament: 
"Supports the approach proposed in the Green paper of assessing whether restrictive 
measures are proportionate to their intended purpose, as this will make it possible to ensure 
that the area without frontiers operates effectively and provides better protection for 
1 For example, promotions such as vouchers or competitions placed on the packaging of the product. 
2 The five interest groups are "receivers" (i.e. all forms of consumer and public health associations), 
"users" (e.g. advertisers), "suppliers" (e.g. advertising or direct marketing agencies), "carriers" (e.g. 
media or sports events organisers) and "self-regulators" who were the five target groups of the initial 
surveys run by the Commission prior to the preparation of the Green Paper. 
d( 
objectives of public interest, such as consumer protection, public health protection, the 
protection of intellectual and commercial property and the protection of privacy" 
The Parliament made a number of suggestions as to its implementation. More specifically, it: 
- "Asks the Commission to publish [in this Communication] the definition of the 
proportionality assessment methodology, which .includes strict time limits for decisions, is 
based on existing jurisprudence and explains how it is applicable to existing legislation at 
national and Community level, self-regulatory codes and new legislative proposals" 
- calls for the approach "to be based on (a) the need to combine market opening objectives 
with the maintenance and improvement of high standards; (b) the need for an appropriate 
blend of legislation and self-regulation which reflects the cultural differences in the Member 
States." 
Economic and Social Committee. 
The Committee commended the examination of potential economic chain reactions (Criterion 
A) as an important part of the overview process proposed. It gave a favourable opinion on the 
usefulness of the proposed methodology and the analysis on which it was based, as provided 
in the Working document that was distributed with the Green Paper.3 
More generally in its conclusions the Committee noted that: 
"..the introduction of this type of methodology would offer the prospect of a comprehensible 
and agreed assessment procedure which would reduce the ambiguity and/or uncertainty 
which prevails in its absence." 
Whilst noting that any reduction in consumer protection must be avoided as should the 
provision of an unfair advantage to multi-national enterprises, the Committee considered that; 
"...the methodology may offer the prospect of combining enhanced consumer protection with 
the opportunity for harmonisation of the practices used in commercial communications. As a 
result, this should also help to create more open competition between enterprises creating 
and supplying commercial communications." 
Member States. 
Nine Member States made comments on this proposal. They can be broadly divided into two 
camps. Those who supported it and one that was completely against the methodology in 
substance. 
Of the eight in support two gave their full backing to the methodology .To quote one: 
"The .. Government has no objections to the methodology proposed by the Commission for a 
uniform assessment of measures, including Community measures. The methodology gives 
tangible expression, in the area of commercial communications, to the principles that also 
underlie [its] legislation." 
The third was supportive but felt that more consultation would be required to make it as 
transparent and efficient as possible. The fourth suggested that it should be less focussed on 
the Internal Market policy objective. The fifth and sixth thought that the methodology would 
be useful but suggested that the economic chain reaction should include more detail on the 
impact on consumers. The next felt that the methodology could not be legally binding since 
only the Court's jurisprudence could be referred to, whereas the eighth believed that although 
3 ".. confirms, in analytical form, the experience of members of the Committee who have experience of 
the production and marketing of goods and services and also those who have examined the prospects 
from a consumer viewpoint." 
o» 
it did not object in principle, the infringements' system was sufficiently effective and the 
( ouil's jurisprudence could he relied upon to deal with the highlighted problems. 
Only one Member State was opposed to the proportionality assessment methodology in 
principle. It believed the proposed methodology to be vague and unpractical to apply. 4 
Furthermore, it did not agree that country of origin control is required in this area. 
Interested parties. 
Four types of views were received regarding the proposed proportionality assessment 
methodology. These can be summarised as follows: 
The proportionality assessment methodology needs to be strengthened and rendered 
mandatory since in its application its results are neither politically nor legally binding. 
Respondents across the spectrum of interested parlies who were generally positive about the 
methodology wished to strengthen its application and legal standing. In particular, foui-
suggestions were made: 
- The proportionality assessment methodology should be applied in a mandatory fashion to 
all decisions made by the Commission in this field (i.e. when examining national restrictions 
and when preparing harmonisation initiatives). 
- Member States should be obliged to notify any new measures affecting these services and 
these should be subjected to the proportionality assessment methodology prior to being 
adopted. 
- Self-regulatory codes should be promoted by the Commission and also be subjected to the 
proportionality assessment methodology. 
- The proportionality assessment methodology should be applied efficiently so as not to add 
further delays to the existing lengthy infringements' procedure. In particular, it was suggested 
that the Commission should, in view of the adoption of this agreed methodology, make a 
commitment to process 169 infringement complaints (under Article 169 of the Treaty) in a 
more timely fashion. 
The assessment methodology is market driven and fails to account for the interests of the 
receivers of commercial communication services. 
This criticism was made by the vast majority of the responding consumer associations and 
public health lobbies. In essence, these suggested that criterion A on economic chain 
reactions is supply-led and therefore fails to account for the needs of receivers of commercial 
communications in their various forms. It was further suggested that in proposing this 
assessment the Commission intended to ignore the evidence showing how recipients can 
suffer from certain forms or types of commercial communication services. 
The assessment methodology is not relevant since the emphasis should be on subsidiarity 
rather than proportionality. 
Proportionality of a restriction was not considered to be important by certain interested 
parties. These suggested that, because commercial communications were culturally sensitive, 
they could not be treated the same as other services but rather had to account for national 
sensitivities as reflected in existing national rules. This view was received from certain 
consumer interest groups., certain advertisers (largely nationally based ones) and self-
4 It stated that: 
" // will not be possible to produce a summary of all the possible effects of a measure on the market. It 
is doubtful whether the chain reaction analysis will be realistic, capable of being implemented, or of 
any help. It will be very difficult to identify and define the specific objective of the measure . It will also 
be difficult to identify and evaluate the negative side-effects of the measure." 
M 
regulatory bodies. The suggestion made was that before considering proportionality, the 
principle of subsidiarity should be used to, in a sense, "cut out" commercial communications 
from the remit of the Commission's existing and future action. Depending on replies, the 
scope of this exclusion varied. The most extreme being the total exclusion suggested by a few 
consumer organisations. Areas such as the portrayal of women, the use of nudity in 
advertising etc were often cited. 
The proportionality assessment methodology is impossible to apply and it would therefore be 
far wiser for the Commission to propose general guidelines and harmonise on this basis. 
A minority of respondents across all the interest groups suggested that the chain reaction was 
far too complex to evaluate and apply and that it would be far simpler to lay down some 
common guidelines*. 
3. Improved co-ordination and information at the European level. 
Euro/wan Parliament 
The Parliament voted to support the Expert Group with a large majority and insisted that it 
should be strengthened. It called for the establishment of a tripartite Committee made up of 
equal numbers of representatives of the Member States, industry and consumer organisations, 
and asked to be consulted on its rules of procedure. 
The Parliament also called on the Commission to make its procedures fully transparent and 
insisted that the Commission ensure that: 
"..the Committee consults thoroughly with the complaining parties, meets regularly, operates 
according to strict time limits, publishes its results, considers all complaints lodged with the 
Commission and reports to the European Parliament." 
As regards the contact point and information network, the Parliament requested that the 
contact point should, as a priority, establish a central databank on regulations and self-
regulatory codes in this area and report back to the Parliament on the latter. 
Economic and Social ( 'ommitlee. 
The Economic and Social Committee welcomed the Expert Group proposal. It also welcomed 
the notion of bringing together, within a designated Directorate General, responsibility for 
giving an overall lead for the Commission on Commercial Communications. It felt that such a 
central contact point should ensure: "a common and consistent approach to this complex 
topic." 
It finally added that: 
"The Governments of the Member States might also consider parallel arrangements for 
subjects falling within national regulatory authorities." 
Member States. 
Nine Member States commented on the proposal to set up a Expert Group. A majority of 
Member States supported the idea of a Expert Group. Two agreed that it would be useful and 
noted that it should not undermine the Commission's power of initiative nor prolong the time 
taken by the Commission to deal with cases. One questioned whether the self-regulatory 
bodies should be admitted to the Expert Group. A further two insisted that consumer 
associations be more involved. Another noted its support and suggested that the Expert Group 
should maintain a core membership at successive meetings to ensure consistency. Two 
5 Typically, "users", "suppliers" and "carriers" who called for such an alternative wished to sec non-
binding European guidelines whereas consumer groups in particular felt that these guidelines should be 
the basis of European harmonisation. 
n 
Member States did not object in principle to the proposal but felt that care should be taken 
such that it would not duplicate certain other committees work and that further evaluation of 
how it would work would be useful. 
One Member State was opposed on the grounds that the on-line information network and 
contact point would be sufficient to exchange information between Member States. 
As regards the central contact point and information network, seven Member States 
commented on this proposal and agreed with it in principle. Five gave their support. Two 
other Member States agreed with this proposal but insisted that particular attention should be 
given to ensure that consumer associations had adequate resources to play their part in such a 
network. 
Interested parties. 
Expert Group must meet strict deadlines and not serve as a manner to add further 
administrative delay in processing complaints. 
Although the vast majority of parties from all five interest groups6 welcomed the 
establishment of the Expert Group and its role, there were concerns expressed that it should 
not lead to a further administrative burden for the Commission when dealing with complaints 
or calls for harmonisation. Interested parties wished to see the Expert Group working in 
parallel to either the infringement procedure or the Commission's existing initiatives to 
harmonise certain regulations regarding commercial communications. 
Expert Group must be far more open and transparent in its operation. 
"Users", "suppliers" and "carriers" were generally open towards the composition of the 
Expert Group although a number of their trade associations called for the right to be present 
on the Expert Group or at least to make representations to it. Suggestions varied between full 
participation, in which case the Expert Group would work in open and would hold public 
hearings, or the composition of shadow committees for each of the five interested parties that 
would select representatives who would present at selected Expert Group meetings the 
written representation of their respective "constituencies". 
Consumer associations did not agree that se If-regulatory bodies should be the only group 
other than the Member States who could attend such meetings. 
Expert Group's agenda must be known and its results must be published. 
Those in favour of the Expert Group, but concerned that it should operate in as transparent a 
manner as possible, called for its agenda to be made public prior to it beginning discussions 
on a specific issue. Furthermore, many respondents from the (\\'c consulted groups called for 
the Expert Group to draw conclusions on a specific point within a fixed time frame and 
requested that these conclusions be published and made available to all interested parties. 
4• Areas of commercial communications regulations requiring priority attention. 
European Parliament. 
The Parliament asked the Commission to list in this Communication a full inventory of 
existing barriers to the free circulation of commercial communication services but then went 
on to note that it believed the following areas were particularly in need of attention: 
- multi-level marketing restrictions,7 
6 See footnote 2. 
7 Multi-level marketing refers to door-step and in the home marketing systems whereby agents 
working as freelance salespersons for a particular company market that company's products or services 
ti 
- restrictions on brand diversification, 
- restrictions on commercial communications on packaging, and 
- restrictions on both events and television sponsorship. 
The Parliament called on the Commission to come forward with a more detailed assessment 
of the effects of commercial communications on children as well as their impact on privacy 
and the mechanisms through which consumer cross-border complaints should be addressed. 
It also called on the Commission to propose a framework of rules on dishonest marketing 
methods. 
Finally, without making reference to which legislative texts should be reviewed, the 
Parliament believed that the Commission should consider a SLIM8 analysis of the sector. 
Economic and Social I 'ommitfee. 
The Committee did not comment on this point. 
Member States. 
Seven of the Member States who responded to the consultation commented on this point. One 
felt that differing national misleading advertising restrictions on the regulated professions 
should not be reviewed. Whilst noting that it has repealed its ban on price advertising and 
discounts, it felt that harmonisation of ''bait"9 and unfair price undercutting is required. It 
further called for a harmonised ban on cold-calling without prior consent and similar 
restrictions for e-mail and internet communications. On children, it stressed that any future 
action must distinguish between information and commercial communications. As for 
financial services the lack of advertising harmonisation in this area was considered to 
undermine consumer confidence in non-domestic firms. 
'The second Member State pointed out that its laws on sales periods could require 
modification and that its regulations on free gifts, promotional offers and competitions are 
some of the most restrictive in Europe and are being reviewed. 
The third suggested that the Green paper should have given more emphasis to protecting and 
developing consumer-related regulations. At the European level, in the area of unfair 
marketing practices, it suggested that the International Chamber of Commerce codes in the 
field would serve as a good basis for harmonisation. 
The fourth noted that its regulations on pharmaceuticals advertising are compatible with EC 
law. It felt that problems remained in the field of Internet related commercial 
communications, environmental advertising and more generally commercial communications 
and public health. 
The fifth went through the list of areas highlighted in the Green paper and suggested that it 
does not apply any incompatible restrictions to cross-border commercial communications. It 
believed that no further harmonisation is required in any of these areas and that any 
restrictions elsewhere should be remedied by the Member States themselves and not the 
Community. 
The sixth believed that there may be further grounds for harmonisation of consumer 
protection laws through the application of Article 129a (3) and contested the need for any 
lowering of national restrictions whatsoever on the grounds of Internal Market principles. 
by advertising their presence at local level and seeking to arrange meetings with particular clients in 
their homes or other pre-arranged locations. 
8 SLIM stands for Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market 
9 "Lockvogelwerbung". 
X 
The seventh Member State stressed that in the area of pharmaceuticals' advertising Directive 
92/28/EEC should be transposed by all the Member States. It also raised the issue of alcohol 
sponsorship arguing for self-regulatory codes. In the field of public relations services it 
questioned restrictions caused by insistence on detailed requirements for public relations 
companies tendering for public procurement contracts. 
Interested parties. 
Given the very diverse range of interested parties that responded to the Green paper and the 
fact that some were individuals and others representative bodies, it is not feasible for the 
Commission to list priorities simply according to the quantity of references made to one or 
other specific problem10. However, it should be noted that all the areas identified in the Green 
Paper as requiring analysis were confirmed by a number or many respondents. 
5. Other actions called lor during the consultation. 
Summary of responses received. 
European Parliament. 
The Parliament criticised the long delays that the Commission takes in processing 
infringement complaints and believed that Commission decisions on whether or not to 
proceed with such complaints should be open to appeal, in order to render the Commission 
more accountable. It therefore: 
"Asks for the introduction of a Council decision to enable possible infringement proceedings 
in the Court of First Instance.u" 
It believed that the Commission should, when restrictions are proportional and harmonisation 
is required, study International Chamber of Commerce codes as a model for such 
harmonisation particularly in the field of on-line commercial communications. 
Finally, the Parliament called on national regulatory bodies to apply the country of origin 
control principle and believed that the Commission, consumer organisations and industry 
should consider strengthening self-regulatory cross border systems such as that operated by 
the I-AS A12. 
Economic and Social Committee. 
The Committee did not add to the proposals made in the Green paper. 
Member States. 
One Member State believed that there should be a more detailed investigation of the need for 
EU regulations for the purposes of consumer protection or for the general good. 
Another insisted that the removal of trade barriers should be accompanied by the 
establishment of a Community network for dispute settlement both through the courts and out 
of court, combined with a coherent system for providing legal assistance to Community 
citizens not resident in the Member State where the dispute arises. 
A third criticised the existing infringement mechanism as being slow and ineffective and 
called for improvements to the complaints procedure. It felt that the experience of self 
regulators should be drawn on in this field particularly in view of the Information Society. 
10 This would lead to a bias against consumer and public health bodies, who ,de facto, are less 
numerous than the various industry representations. 
1 ! This is in line with Parliament's Resolution of 16/9/93 on the role of the Court of Justice in the 
development of the European Community's constitutional system (OJ C 268, 4.10.93, pi 56) 
I2European Advertising Standards Alliance. 
a? 
Interested parties. 
Consumer organisations and public health bodies representing "receivers" felt that the 
Commission should give far more emphasis to the problems caused by cross-border 
commercial communications for consumers. In addition to the Commission making publicly 
available easy access to all national laws and self-regulatory codes in this domain, they made 
two other proposals. On the one hand they called for harmonisation to ensure that national 
standards were not undermined and, on the other, they felt the Commission should focus its 
efforts on effective enforcement, particularly in cross-border cases. They stressed that it 
should be encouraged to establish systems for resolving cross-border disputes and exchange 
of information about national regulations and their enforcement. 
"Users", "suppliers" and "carriers" argued that the existing infringements procedure should 
be improved so that they could become more transparent, timely (some calling for the 
application of strict time limits for the processing of cases) and be altered such that 
Commission positions to proceed or not with a complaint could be subject to appeal by all 
interested parties concerned. 
& 
Financial Memorandum 
1. INTITULE DE L'ACTION 
Communication on the follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications 
in the Internal Market 
2. LIGNE BUDGETAIRE CONCERNEE 
B5 - 3000 Strategic Programme for Internal Market 
3. BASE LEGALE 
Communication on the follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications 
in the Internal Market. (Articles 52-66 and 100a.) 
4. DESCRIPTION DE L'ACTION: 
The May 1996 Green paper on Commercial Communications in the Internal 
Market recognised the importance of the sector in terms of employment and 
growth potential and its key role in helping European businesses and non­
profit associations to market their goods and services throughout the Union. 
However, the Green paper also identified a range of obstacles to cross-border 
commercial communications which hamper the proper functioning of the 
Internal Market. 
The very high level of response confirmed this sector's importance. In 
addition to the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and 
ten Member States, 433 interested parties responded to the call for comment 
over the past 18 months. The 433 interested parties can be broken down as 
follows: 127 suppliers of commercial communications services (e.g. 
advertising agencies of which 30 were European or national trade 
associations), 44 receiver associations (e.g. consumer associations or public 
health bodies), 197 users (e.g. advertisers, of which 70 trade associations) 52 
carriers (e.g. media companies of which 18 trade associations) and 13 national 
and European self-regulatory bodies. In general, there was strong support for 
the Commission's proposals: indeed, suggestions were made both to 
strengthen and add to them. 
The communication proposes that the Commission adopt a range of actions in 
this sector with the objective of facilitating the cross-border provision of 
commercial communication services through the establishment of an efficient 
and transparent regulatory framework which will also ensure an appropriate 
protection of public interest objectives concerned. This approach is fully 
consistent with, and complementary to, the Single Market Action Plan's 
Strategic target 1 of making rules more effective. 
More specifically, the Commission proposes: 
1) The application of a transparent, proportionality assessment methodology 
to identify regulatory restrictions to cross-border commercial communication 
services. 
& 
2) Setting up a Commercial Communication Expert Group. 
3) Making available a Commercial Communications' contact point and 
information network 
4) Establishing a Commercial Communications Database. 
5) Accelerating complaint processing 
6) Setting up an Expert network. 
7) Promoting International co-operation 
8) Clarifying electronic commerce issues. 
9) Presenting a report to the Parliament 
The Commission will apply this approach to four key areas where commercial 
communication regulations at the national level diverge significantly and 
therefore potentially give rise to both Internal Market barriers and to a lack of 
effective protection across borders within the Community. The four areas are 
(i) the protection of minors, (ii) unfair competition, (iii) sponsorship and (iv) 
misleading claims. 
4.1 Objectif général de Taction 
The establishment of an Information Network 
The Information Network will help to improve co-ordination and information 
at the European Level and will support the Commission in assisting the 
Member States in making action in this field more transparent. It will also 
improve the exchange of data between various organisations and the national 
and European regulatory authorities. The financial implications consist of 
bringing together the necessary regulatory data, ensuring its timely 
dissemination and enabling Member States and other associated parties to 
share this and other relevant policy information. This will complement the 
existing commercial communications newsletter. Both of these actions have 
received unanimous support by all respondents to the Green paper. 
4.2 Période couverte par l'action et modalités pour son renouvellement 
The Information Network 
The principal means by which the information will be stored, disseminated 
and exchanged will be a Web-site. The initial development, testing and 
running of this will be entrusted to an outside contractor. This would set down 
the necessary channels between the Commission and Member States' 
authorities, through which regulatory data would be exchanged. 
! 
1 B5-3000 1998 
158,5 1999 
135 2000 
115 2001 
115 (inKECU) 
Total 
523,5 
36 
5. CLASSIFICATION DE LA DEPENSE 
5.1 Dépenses non obligatoires 
5.2 Crédits non dissocies 
6. TYPE DE LA DEPENSE 
6.1 Type de la dépense 
The Information Network 
Expenses for outside contracts establishing the web-site: bringing together, 
connecting and loading the regulatory data and developing the information 
exchange channels and ensuring function of the network over a pilot period of 
four years. 
7. INCIDENCE FINANCIERE SUR LA PARTIE B 
(inKECU) 
B5-3000 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total 
Global contracts for establishment of network infrastructure 
Server: 
- hardware, 
- software, 
- Internet access, 
- maintenance (hard and soft) 
- infrastructure 
Personnel*: 
LSA, 
Web master 
Converting legislation: 
(4 ECUs/page-20.000 pages) 
Total 30 
10 
15 
6 
12,5 
25 
60 
158,5 30 
4 
6 
25 
50 
20 
135 30 
4 
6 
25 
50 
-
115 30 
4 
6 
25 
50 
-
115 30 
4 
6 I 
87,5 ; 
175 
80 
523,5 
*) Six months during the first year. 
8. DISPOSITIONS ANTI-FRAUDE PREVUES 
The verification of expenditure comprises checking that tasks have been correctly 
performed before payment, taking into account contractual obligations and the 
principles of economy and sound financial management. Anti fraud provisions 
(verification, presentation of reports etc.) will be included in all contracts concluded 
between the Commission and the Contractors. 
21 
9. ELEMENTS D'ANALYSE COUT-EFFICACITE 
9.1 Objectifs spécifiques quantiilables, population visée 
The Information Network 
The specific objective is to facilitate trade in commercial communication 
services within the Internal Market, in addition to helping the Member States 
to ensure integration of the Internal Market. The action seeks to ensure that the 
future European regulatory framework will help encourage investments in 
these services, which will obviously assist the competitiveness of European 
industry as well as incite employment creation within it. 
The targeted sector is very wide. In addition to the commercial 
communications sectors themselves who employ over 1 million people in the 
Community, this approach should also benefit their users (i.e. all firms and 
organisations who use such services) and also consumers who should receive 
more information on the choice of products and services available to them in 
the Internal Market. Finally, and certainly not least, an efficiently operating 
commercial communications sector results in more expenditure in the media 
and the new media. Hence the media and electronic commerce business would 
also benefit from this action. 
The Information Network also seeks to make the work of the accompanying 
Expert Group as open and transparent as possible and to facilitate the 
exchange of regulatory data. 
9.2 Justification de Paction 
The Information Network 
The Community has exclusive competence for the Internal Market objective 
and the need is for a dialogue between the Member States based on an agreed 
methodology chaired and structured by the Commission so as to help them 
make the Internal Market work. 
The type of intervention has been chosen because the alternative approach is 
to be faced with a heavy wave of infringement complaints and calls for 
harmonisation. This approach should help limit such future Commission 
involvement and help the Member States to meet their tasks more effectively 
with a net saving in Community resources. 
The Information Network will build on the foundations already laid by the 
existing Newsletter on Commercial Communications, launched prior to the 
Communication, as a forum for discussion. 
The Network will also meet the demand from consumer associations and 
public health bodies to give easier access to national and Community 
regulations in this field for their Members. 
Derived or multiplicative benefits will flow from this action 
n 
9.3 Suivi et évaluation de Taction 
Performance indicators will be eventual modifications of national measures 
which will allow for the principle of mutual recognition to be applied between 
Member States in this field of the regulation of commercial communication 
services. 
Bi-annual monitoring reports will be presented to the European Parliament 
10. DEPENSES ADMINISTRATIVES (PARTIE A DE LA SECTION HI DU 
BUDGET GENERAL) 
Actual mobilization of the necessary administrative resources will depend on the 
Commission's annual decision on the allocation of resources, taking into account the 
number of staff and additional amounts authorized by the budget authority. 
10.1 Incidence sur le nombre d'emplois 
Types d'emplois 
Fonctionnaires 
ou agents 
temporaires A 
B 
C 
Autrcs res sources 
Total Effectifs a affecter a la 
gestion de Faction 
Emplois 
permanents Emplois 
temporaire 
1,5 
1 
2,5 Dont 
Par utilisation 
de ressources 
existantesau 
sein de la DG 
ou du service 
concerne Par recours a 
des ressources 
supplementaires 
1,5 
1 
2,5 duree 
Au 
moins 
Sans 
dureede 
Taction 
dureede 
Taction 
i 
i 
i 
10.2 Incidence financière globale des ressources humaines. 
By using existing resources being assigned to manage the operation 2.5 men/year * 
108,000 ECU = 270,000 ECU. (calculation based on chapters A-l, A-2, A-4, A-5 and 
A-7). 
(inKECU) 
Types d'emplois 
Fonctionnaires 
ou agents 
temporaires A 
B 
C 
Autres ressources 
Total Effectifs a affecter a la gestion de Taction 
Emplois Permanents * 1 Emplois temporaire 
montant annuel ! 
1,5*108 
1*108 
2,5* 108 Cout 
Annuel 
162 
108 
270 
23 
10 J Augmentation d'autres dépenses de fonctionnement découlant de Paction 
(inKECU) 
Ligne 
Budgetaire 
(no et intitule) 
A-7030, 
meetings 
(accompanying 
Expert Group) 
A-701 
Mission 
expenses 
Total Montants 
1998 
19,5 
11,75 
31,75 1999 
39 
11,75 
50,75 2000 
39 
11,75 
50,75 2001 
39 
11,75 
50,75 2002 
39 
11,75 
50,75 Module de calcul 
15 representatives *650ECU 
* 4 meetings = 39, 000 
ECU/year, first year only 
two meetings forseen= 15 
M.S.*650ECU*2 = 
19,500 
-one day visit of each EU 
capital=650ECU* 15 
capitals= 9,750 ECU per 
year. 
- 2* one day visits of 
Geneva=2*l,000ECU= 
2,000 ECU 
= 11,750 ECU/year 
For 1998, the other expenditures related to the action (appropriations requested on 
budget line A-7030 and A-7010) are covered by the appropriations given by the 
Commission to DG XV (global envelope to be decided by the Commission on the 18 
February). For the following years effective administrative resources will depend on 
the annual decision of the Commission concerning the appropriation of resources, 
taking into account the global amount allocated by the budgetary authorities. 
3e? 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 121 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 10 02 09 04 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-141-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-31853-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
1<