EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.2.2019 SWD(2019) 26 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and functioning of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts {COM(2019) 87 final}



Table of contents 1.Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation 1.2. Scope of the evaluation 2.Background to the intervention 2.1. Description of the intervention 2.1.1. Scope of application of the Directive 2.1.2. The Directive’s intervention logic 2.2. Role of harmonised European standards and standardisation requests 2.3. Major amendments to the original Lifts Directive 95/16/EC 2.4. Baseline and points of comparison 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1. Transposition and implementation of the Lifts Directive 3.2. Description of the market 4.Method 4.1. Description of the methodology 4.2. Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1. Relevance

5.1.1. Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free movement and safety 5.1.2. Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new technologies 5.1.3. Clarity of the Directive 5.2. Effectiveness 5.2.1. Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its main objectives 5.2.2. Assessment of specific issues related to the effective implementation of the EHSRs 5.3. Efficiency 5.3.1. Costs entailed by the Lifts Directive 5.3.2. Benefits entailed by the Lifts Directive 5.4. Coherence 5.5. EU added value 6.Conclusions Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Evaluation questions Annex 3: Research Methodology Annex 4: Synopsis report Stakeholder consultation Annex 5: Comparative Table between Directive 84/528/EEC and Directive 95/16/EC Annex 6: Overview of costs-benefits identified in the Evaluation

Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition ADCO Lifts Administrative Cooperation Group of Market Surveillance Authorities CABL-SC Standing Committee for the Cableways Directive CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CEN European Committee for Standardisation DG Directorate-General DG GROW Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs DoC Declaration of Conformity EO(s) Economic Operator(s) EEA European Economic Area EEA-L (in this report) European Elevator Association EFTA European Free Trade Association EHSR(s) Essential Health and Safety Requirement(s) ELA European Lifts Association ELCA European Lifts & Lift Components Association hEN(s) harmonised European standard(s) EQ Evaluation Question ESO(s) European Standardisation Organisation(s) EU European Union ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute FTE(s) Full time equivalent(s) ICSMS Information and Communication System for the pan-European Market Surveillance LC Lifts Committee LD Lifts Directive LWG Lifts Working Group MS Member State(s) MSA(s) Market Surveillance Authority/ies NACE Nomenclature Générale des Activités Économiques dans les Communautés Européennes NB(s) Notified Body/ies NB-L European Coordination Group of Notified Bodies for Lifts NLF New Legislative Framework OJEU Official Journal of the European Union RAPEX EU Rapid Exchange System for dangerous non-food products R&D Research and Development REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme RfU Recommendation(s) for use SBS Small Business Standards SBS Structural Business Statistics SME(s) Small- and Medium-sized Enterprise(s) TC Technical Committee ToR Terms of Reference TRIS Technical Regulation Information System UCMP Unintended Car Movement Protection UEAPME European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises 1.Introduction 1.1.Purpose of the evaluation The EU legal framework relating to lifts was initially introduced by means of two directives: Council Directive 84/528/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for lifting and mechanical handling appliances and Council Directive 84/529/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electrically, hydraulically or oil-electrically operated lifts. As of 1 July 1999, both directives were repealed by Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts. Directive 95/16/EC provided common Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs) for lifts, regardless of the operating technique employed. Finally, on 20 April 2016 Directive 95/16/EC was in turn repealed and replaced by Directive 2014/33/EU. The reason for this was to align the framework applicable to lifts to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) as part of the so-called "Alignment Package". Considering that no major changes in the substance were brought by Directive 2014/33/EU in comparison to Directive 95/16/EC, the period before the entry into force of the current Directive (i.e. between 1 July 1999 and 20 April 2016, applying to the application of Directive 95/16/EC) remains relevant and has been taken into consideration for the evaluation of the performance of the new Directive. The main purpose of this Staff Working Document is to assess the performance of the Directive and the extent to which the Directive meets its objectives. The main objectives of the Directive are (i) guaranteeing the free circulation of lifts and safety components for lifts within the EU and (ii) ensuring a high level of protection of health and safety of users and maintenance personnel. The evaluation examined whether the Directive has been effective, efficient, coherent and relevant in meeting these objectives and assessed its EU added value. The evaluation draws on the research conducted by external contractors and the Commission's experience with the enforcement and management of the Directive. The Commission is legally required, following Article 46 of the Directive, to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the functioning and implementation of this Directive by 19 April 2018. This is done in order "to monitor and ensure the correct implementation and functioning of this Directive […] exploring also the need for a new legislative proposal in this sector". This Commission Staff Working Document will form the basis of that report. It is also, more generally, meant to inform stakeholders and policymakers on the outcome of the evaluation and to form the basis of possible follow-up actions. 1.2.Scope of the evaluation The geographic scope of the evaluation extends to the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the 28 Member States of the EU and three EFTA Countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), Turkey within its Custom Union with the EU and Switzerland by virtue of the mutual recognition agreement with the EU. The evaluation covers the whole scope of the Directive with regard to (i) lifts intended for the transport of persons only, (ii) lifts intended for the transport of persons and goods, (iii) lifts intended for the transport of goods only, if the carrier is accessible to persons and if the controls of the lift are inside the carrier or can be reached from within the car, and (iv) six types of safety components for use in such lifts listed in Annex III of the Directive. It includes the analysis of the standardisation process, conformity assessment and market surveillance. To that end, Member States, notified bodies, standardisation organisations, industry stakeholders, and user's associations have been consulted. As benchmarks, where relevant, the experience of key trading partners (such as the USA, China, Korea and Japan) was used to assess performance and identify best practices. Finally, regarding the temporal scope of the evaluation, the date of entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, 1 July 1999 is taken as a starting point of the assessment. 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Description of the intervention 2.1.1.Scope of application of the Directive Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2014/33/EU “Member States shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market or putting into service of lifts or the making available on the market of safety components for lifts on their territory which comply with this Directive”. Therefore, the Directive does not cover existing lifts, which have already been placed on the market and put into service. Furthermore, modernisation activities conducted on such existing lifts also fall outside the scope of the Directive. Nevertheless, if an existing lift is subjected to significant modifications which have altered its characteristics, then the said lift should be considered as a "new product" thus in turn entailing the application of the Directive. Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/33/EU defines a "lift" as "a lifting appliance serving specific levels, having a carrier moving along guides which are rigid and inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the horizontal, or a lifting appliance moving along a fixed course even where it does not move along rigid guides". Furthermore, pursuant to Article 1, the Directive applies to lifts "permanently serving buildings and constructions and intended for the transport of (a) persons, (b) persons and goods" and "(c) goods alone if the carrier is accessible, that is to say a person may enter it without difficulty, and fitted with controls situated inside the carrier or within reach of a person inside the carrier". Lifts can be classified into two main categories according to their drive systems – traction or hydraulic lifts. Both categories are divided in sub-categories according to the specific technical solution used as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Classification of the lift product group 2.1.2.The Directive’s intervention logic The Directive has two main objectives: ·Ensuring the free movement of lifts and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and contributing to and effectively operating internal market for the said products. As such, Member States must allow marketing on their territory of lifts and safety components for lifts that comply with the requirements of the Directive; ·Guaranteeing that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for users and maintenance personnel thus improving the health and safety of these groups. These two strategic objectives are further broken down into three specific objectives, namely: ·Simplifying and harmonising conformity assessment procedures in the EU; ·Harmonising essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) across the Member States; ·Preventing the placing on the market of non-compliant lifts and related components. In order for these specific objectives to be achieved, the Directive includes key provisions to be transposed and implemented by Member States. These key provisions include: ·the EHSRs contained in Annex I. In line with the New Approach principles, Directive 2014/33/EU does not harmonise the product requirements applicable to lifts and their safety components by prescribing a particular set of technical solutions but by providing for the essential health and safety requirements (hereinafter "EHSRs") with which these products must comply. Thus, the manufacturers of lifts and safety components retain the choice of the specific technical solutions to adopt, provided that they prove that these technical solutions comply with the EHSRs. This proof can be brought by manufacturers by means of one of conformity assessment procedures provided for in Annex IV of the Directive; ·the requirement to ensure the granting of a two-way communication between the lift installer and the building constructor pursuant to Article 6(1); ·the procedures for conformity assessment together with the related provisions on the CE marking and the EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC). A manufacturer can only place a product on the EU market when it meets all the applicable requirements. The conformity assessment procedure is carried out before the product can be placed on the market. The conformity assessment procedures aim to demonstrate that the product in question meets all the EHSRs in Annex I. It includes testing, inspection and certification and a Notified Body (hereinafter “NB”: a private body designated by an the competent authorities of an EU Member State to assess the conformity of certain products before being placed on the market) is involved in all circumstances. In line with the principles of the New Legislative Framework (NLF), Decision 768/2008 has provided for a number of conformity assessment procedures which may be used to prove compliance depending on the risk presented by the product as well as the choice of the manufacturer. Once the conformity assessment procedure has been completed, the manufacturer draws up a DoC which contains identification of the product, the relevant applicable legislation, the manufacturer or authorised representative's contact details as well as other relevant information; ·the provisions on market surveillance (in Chapter V of the Directive). The market surveillance is the ex-post verification which aims to ensure that the products which are available on the market and which circulate freely are compliant with the EHSRs. Unlike the conformity assessment procedure which is overseen by a NB, the market surveillance tasks are carried out by market surveillance authorities which are Member States' authorities. Market surveillance is usually performed by means of targeted inspections, regular market surveillance programmes, joint actions by several MSAs etc. These provisions are expected to work through mechanisms (i.e. incentives – both regulatory and economic - to comply with the Directive, brand recognition, positive/negative feedback and penalties) that will trigger short, medium and long term results (referred to as outputs, outcomes and impacts respectively, see figure 2 below). For instance, the obligatory CE marking may bring added value to economic operators due to the fact that it is perceived as a “brand” proving the safety of products.



Figure 2: The Directive’s intervention logic

The total harmonisation of the legal framework related to lift safety as well as the development of harmonised European standards (hereinafter "hENs") which support the provisions of the Directive and allow the establishment of presumption of conformity are among the immediate results stemming from the application of the Directive. The establishment of NBs for lifts and safety components and the enforcement of market surveillance and corrective measures are also seen as immediate outputs. The correct and full implementation of all these provisions is directed at achieving some specific outcomes, namely: a reduction in lift-related accidents, a reduced number of non-compliant lifts placed on the market, the facilitation of intra-EU trade for lifts and safety components, the establishment of a fair and level-playing field for businesses in the lift sector and an overall increased competitiveness of the EU lift sector. In the long term, the foreseen impacts of the provisions of the Directive are the increased health and safety for users and maintenance personnel and the removal of all trade barriers to the Internal Market of lifts. These foreseen impacts fully meet the initial objectives of the Directive. 2.2.Role of harmonised European standards and standardisation requests Article 14 of Directive 2014/33 lays down a presumption according to which lifts and safety component for lifts, which are in conformity with hENs, references of which are published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to comply also with the EHSRs, provided that the harmonised standards cover the risks presented by the product. A harmonised standard is defined as "a European standard adopted on the basis of a request made by the Commission for the application of Union harmonisation legislation". These standards are developed by the European Standardization Organizations (ESOs) such as the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), which are entrusted by the EU with the mission to develop and adopt European standards in support of EU legislation. The Commission confers such a mission to the ESOs by means of a standardisation request. Hence, the hENs play a pivotal role as they support the provisions of the Directive by providing manufacturers with possible technical solutions which are presumed to be compliant with the ESHRs. One standardisation request (reference M/BC/CEN/CLC/3/92) in relation to the Lifts Directive was issued by the Commission to CEN in 1992. Thus, since 1992, CEN has elaborated and published a number of hENs for lifts and safety component of lifts. To be in line with Directive 2014/33/EU, the Commission issued a new standardisation request to CEN (reference M/549) in September 2016. Regarding the relationship between the EHSRs and hENs, it should be noted that the application of hENs conferring presumption of conformity to the Directive's EHSRs is always voluntary and such standards cannot add additional requirements which go beyond the EHSRs. The hENs merely provide technical solutions to manufacturers, which are in no circumstances binding, unlike the EHSRs which should always be complied with. If after carrying out the risk assessment, the manufacturer considers that the hENs do not address all the risks of its product or prefer other alternative technical solutions, he may apply alternative technical solutions but having to demonstrate the compliance with the EHSR in the technical file to be submitted to a NB within the framework of a conformity assessment procedure. The development of hENs also has the potential to support the establishment of global value chains. For example, ESOs cooperate with international standardisation bodies such as ISO and IEC, to develop international standards to be used worldwide. The aim is that hENs for lifts to become leading international standards. For example, many standards for lifts developed by CEN like EN 81-20/50 are already used worldwide. 2.3.Major amendments to the original Lifts Directive 95/16/EC After its entry into force in July 1999, Directive 95/16/EC was amended on several occasions, most notably by the revised Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC before being repealed and replaced by the new Directive 2014/33/EU as from 20 April 2016. During the implementation phase of the Directive 95/16/EC it appeared necessary to clarify the definition of lift in order to better delimitate the respective scopes of the Machinery Directive and the Lifts Directive. The fact that there are a number of machines intended for lifting of persons justified the need to clarify these borderline cases (products that could potentially fall under the scope of both Directives). The main objective of this intervention was to exclude the potential situations of overlapping between both Directives in which the two legal regimes would be applicable to the same product. Thus, Article 24(1) of the Machinery Directive amended the scope of Directive 95/16/EC, clarifying the definition of a “lift” as “a lifting appliance serving specific levels, having a carrier moving along guides, which are rigid and inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the horizontal”. The amendment extended the scope of the Lifts Directive to include also lifting appliances moving along a fixed course even where they do not move along rigid guides. This amendment also clarified the definition of carrier, which “is a part of the lift by which persons and/or goods are supported in order to be lifted or lowered”. On 20 April 2016 the new Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU replaced Directive 95/16/EC and introduced relatively limited changes. Its main purpose was to align the legislation on lifts and safety components to the NLF. The main changes brought by the new Directive are: ·The terminology of the list of safety components, Annex III, points 2 and 6, has been amended. Point 2, referring to devices to prevent “unchecked upward movements” has been amended into “uncontrolled movements” (UCMP). Point 6, referring to "electric safety devices in the form of safety switches containing electric components" has been amended into "electric safety devices in the form of safety circuits containing electric components". ·Several new or amended definitions, additions from the NFL, such as: placing on the market, making available on the market for safety components, authorised representative, importer, distributor, economic operator, technical specification, recall and withdrawal; ·The obligations of economic operators have been aligned to the NFL. For example, the installer of lifts and manufacturer of safety components must report to the national authorities any non-conformities or safety issues identified in their product(s); ·New and modified requirements for Member States for setting up and performing market surveillance and related activities; ·Few modifications on the terminology used for EHSRs listed in Annex I;

·New and modified requirements for accreditation, notification and operation of the NBs in accordance with the NFL. 2.4.Baseline and points of comparison The Directive 95/16/EC, which has now been replaced by Directive 2014/33/EU, was adopted in 1995 and became fully applicable on 1 July 1999. Due to the lack of sufficient quantified data relating to the period prior to the adoption of Directive 95/16/EC, the baseline scenario could not be fully reconstructed within the framework of the present evaluation. Directive 95/16/EC repealed and replaced Council Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC. The scope of application of both Directives was limited to "electrically, hydraulically or oil-electrically operated" lifts, which meant that the requirements applicable to lifts using other propulsion techniques were not subject to harmonisation. Therefore, before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, disparities between the binding provisions of the various national systems for types of lifts not covered by Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC subsisted. These disparities constituted barriers to trade and limited the free movement of these products within the EU. Furthermore, Council Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC did not reflect the New Approach principles, which were only introduced by Directive 95/16/EC. Thus, before Directive 95/16/EC, lift manufacturers were required to comply with a specific technical standard and they could not benefit from a presumption of conformity by demonstrating the conformity of their products with hENs. As an order of magnitude, while trade within the EU-15 in 1995 (therefore prior to the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC) amounted to around EUR 700 million, it reached nearly EUR 1,8 billion in 2004. In 2015, the intra-EU trade has surpassed EUR 2,8 billion. 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1.Transposition and implementation of the Lifts Directive One of the two main objectives of the Lifts Directive is to ensure the free movement of lifts and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and to contribute to the effective operation of the internal market for these products. Therefore, in order to achieve this objective, the provisions laid down by the Directive should be applied in a coherent manner throughout the EU and discrepancies in the applicable framework in different Member States should be minimal. The Directive has been fully transposed into the national legislation of the Member States and is part of the acquis to be implemented by the new Member States. Following the subsequent enlargements of the European Union, the Lifts Directive became applicable in more and more countries. Overall, all Member States have uniformly transposed the main provisions of the Directive relating to the EHSRs and conformity assessment.The evaluation study found that no significant discrepancies persist across the Member States and no major problems in the implementation of the Directive were reported. Also, 73% of the interviewed stakeholders do not consider that there have been any persisting national practices which incorporate costly or unnecessary requirements into products or structures covered by the Directive. Nevertheless, some discrepancies have been identified by stakeholders in relation to the provisions of Directive 95/16/EC. Their impact on the performance of the Directive and in particular its effectiveness are analysed with more details in section 5 of this document. (1) The definition of “installer” was transposed in the exact same terms used by Directive 95/16/EC in 26 Member States. The Estonian legislation initially contained a different definition. (2) The provision requiring the establishment of a two-way flow of information between the person responsible for the building construction and the lift installer (Article 6(1) of the Directive) has been transposed in its exact terms in the national legislation of 26 Member States and no additional requirements were introduced. The Austrian and the Hungarian legislations both provide for specific mechanisms to ensure that this two-way flow of information is ensured. (3) Twenty Member States have included into their respective national transposition legislation provisions relating to the accessibility of disabled persons, namely EHSR 1.2. and 1.6.1., which are formulated in the exact terms as those in the Directive. The remaining 8 Member States have incorporated the accessibility provisions for lifts mainly into their respective national building regulations. In this regard, it should be noted that the general building accessibility rules fall under the realm of competence of the Member States and therefore they have exclusive competence to regulate these aspects. (4) A number of stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the application of the third paragraph of EHSR 2.2 related to the prevention of the risk of crushing. This EHSR is of particular relevance for the health and safety of maintenance personnel operating outside the lift car. The provision stipulates that the risk of crushing is to be prevented by means of free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions that can be reached by the lift car to enable a person to avoid being crushed in case of unexpected movement of the car. The first two paragraphs of this EHSR set the requirements for lifts to be "designed and constructed to prevent the risk of crushing when the car is in one of its extreme positions. The objective will be achieved by means of free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions." The third paragraph introduces a flexibility by allowing "in specific cases, in affording Member States the possibility of giving prior approval, particularly in existing buildings, where this solution is impossible to fulfil, other appropriate means may be provided to avoid this risk." The “prior approval” procedure allows installers to use alternative means to avoid the risk of crushing after obtaining the prior approval of the respective national authority. However, the Directive does not provide indications as to the criteria according to which the national authorities may grant or refuse to grant such a prior approval. In fact, some stakeholders consider the “prior approval” as the most recurrent problem related to the implementation of the Directive, and some others consider that the application of the “prior approval” represents the deepest discrepancy in existing differences across Member States. (5) Additional issues have been raised in relation to the conformity assessment and in particular in relation to the EC-type examination certificate for lifts. Specifically, information gathered from some stakeholders had suggested that installers were sometimes requested to present further evidence on lift compliance. However, following the entry into force of Directive 2014/33/EU, these uncertainties have been clarified as the new Directive has partly amended the content of the EC-type examination certificate (now called “EU-type examination certificate”) for lifts and safety components for lifts. 6) In relation to the market surveillance, unlike Directive 95/16/EC which did not contain any specific procedures, Directive 2014/33/EU now incorporates dedicated provisions in line with the New Legislative Framework. The evaluation demonstrated that market surveillance has been differently implemented across Member States, in terms of strategies, extent of monitoring activities and frequency and types of checks. Thus, at least 11 Member States have adopted an essentially proactive approach towards market surveillance, while only one Member State has declared to have rather opted for a reactive approach.

Surveillance activities also differ between Member States in terms of type of checks. Thus, some MSAs monitor mainly documents and authorisation checks (e.g. Hungary, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden and Poland), while others focus on product marketing inspections and on accompanying document checks in the lift sector (e.g. the Czech Republic) or conduct inspections in the premises of lifts installers and in buildings where lifts are installed (i.e. Estonia and Cyprus).The same applies for the numbers of checks performed by the different Member States which vary considerably, in some cases ranging from 1 to 582 checks performed in 2013. Data gathered within the framework of the evaluation indicated some degree of divergence regarding the respective penalty regimes adopted by the different Member States for the infringements to the provisions of Directive 95/16/EC. However, Directive 2014/33/EU has now introduced a dedicated provision and requires that the “penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. The evaluation has concluded, based on a number of concurring sources, that the proportion of non-compliant lifts in relation to the total number of installed lift is negligible. For instance, the number of penalties imposed, as well as the instances of voluntary corrective measures taken by economic operators or restrictive measures imposed by MSAs in the lift sector between 2010 and 2013 have been relatively low. Thus, at EU level in 2013, few measures were reported relating to non-compliant lifts or safety components, consisting mainly in voluntary measures (15), restrictive measures (14) and penalties (3). Furthermore, over the period 2005-2015, no RAPEX notifications related to lifts or lift safety components in scope of the Directive were submitted. In addition, only one safeguard clause procedure has been initiated. At Member State level, the few data collected through national reports reflect this positive outline. Although these data could be also interpreted as due to low MSAs’ effectiveness in identifying non-compliant lifts, they still allow inferring on the low absolute dimension of non-compliance in the sector. 3.2.Description of the market The lift market is characterised by enterprises that besides manufacturing lifts and safety components in scope of the Directive, sell also other products and services (i.e. other lifting equipment and maintenance services) that do not fall in scope of the Directive. The number of firms active in the lifts market including manufacturing of safety components, installation of lifts and modernisation and maintenance activities was equal to 0,1% of the total number of firms active in all the manufacturing sectors in the EU28 in 2014 corresponding to around 2 000 firms according to Prodcom data. Nevertheless, the number of firms impacted by the Directive is actually lower than 2 000, as this number includes also firms performing only modernisation and maintenance which are activities outside the scope of the Directive. The distribution in the number of firms per size is very uneven in the lifts sector: 51% of firms are micro, 31% are small, 15% are medium, and only 3% are large firms. While, the number of firms in the lift sector has been overall declining since 2008, possibly due to the financial and real estate crisis, this trend seems to particularly impacting large firms (8% decrease). The number of medium and small firms has decreased on average by 6 and 5% respectively, while the number of micro firms has increased overall by 1%. In 2015, large firms employed 62% of EU workforce in the lift sector, medium firms employed 24%, small firms 11% and micro firms 3%. When looking at the distribution per country, 70% of firms in the lift sector were located in ten Member States in 2014. Over the period 2008-2014, all EU countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Greece and Poland, experienced a decrease in the number of firms active in the lift sector. Most turnover is produced by large firms, with a strong presence of four large multinational companies – Kone, Otis, Schindler, and ThyssenKrupp Elevator – which had a combined market share of at least 55% in terms of value in Europe in 2014. Micro and SMEs play a key role as manufacturers and importers of safety components, as well as providers of maintenance and modernisation services. The overall turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components is estimated to be equal to around EUR 5 billion in Europe in 2014 according to European Lifts Statistics (2017) provided by the European Lifts Association (ELA). According to the same source, the number of new lifts installed in the EU28 plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey experienced an average decrease of 1% over the period 2010-2015, passing from 132 857 units in 2010 to 124 574 units in 2015. This trend is almost entirely due to significant drops in two of the biggest markets – Italy (-61%) and Spain (-53%) – both having suffered the real estate bubble crash in 2008. In most other countries, the number of new lifts installed has actually increased (+16% on average). Figure 2: Turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components in the EU between 2008 and 2014 Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, Final report, based on Eurostat SBS, data for EU28 Based on statistics provided by the European Elevator Association (EEA-L), ELA and European Lifts & Lift Components Association (ELCA), the number of existing lifts in service in Europe is 5 700 000. This figure includes both lifts put into service before the Directive was in force and those placed on the market under it. Six countries totalled nearly 80% of the overall production value of the EU28 in 2015: Spain (23%), Germany (19%), Italy (16%), and France (10%). Well below follow Finland (6%) and Sweden (5%). The major producing countries are also those where R&D mainly takes place. The most innovative European country in the lift sector is Germany, granting on average 52 patents per year, i.e. 30% of total patents granted in the EU over the period 1990-2012. It is followed by France (11% on average), Spain (9%), Finland (6%) and Italy (4%). These countries are also amongst the ten most innovative worldwide in the lift sector between 1990 and 2014. The full list includes China, Japan, Germany, the USA, the Republic of Korea, France, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, and Taiwan. 4.Method 4.1.Description of the methodology

The main purpose of the present evaluation is to assess the performance of the Lifts Directive and the extent to which the Directive meets its objectives in an efficient and coherent way, is still relevant and has EU added value. The evaluation aimed at gathering both qualitative and quantitative evidence from a number of complementary data sources, including European and national public authorities, industry associations, economic operators, notified bodies, consumer organisations and citizens/users of lifts. The evaluation project was monitored by an Inter Service Steering Group (hereinafter "ISSG") composed of representatives of three European Commission services, namely DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, DG Justice and the Secreteriat-General. The evaluation was supported by a studyconducted by an independent consultant – consortia between EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting. This study comported three major phases. The first two phases were aimed to collect data. On the one hand this collection was accomplished by means of desk research and literature review in the initial inception phase. On the other hand, during the second phase data was gathered from the stakeholder by different means such as interviews, targeted consultations as well as a Public Consultation. Finally, the independent consultant analysed the collected data and presented its Final Report to the Commission submitted in the end of 2017. The whole process and the findings are included in the publicly available Final Report on the evaluation of the Lifts Directive. The desk research during the initial inception phase included a comprehensive review of the existing documents and legislative texts at international, EU and national levels. Insights on the policy context have been gathered through previous studies and reports on the on-going work of the Commission on harmonisation legislation, the standardisation requests, documents of the NB-L co-ordination group including the RfUs, documents of the European manufacturers/installers associations and economic operators annual reports. These documents have been crucial to frame the legislative background, the Directive’s main provisions and working mechanisms and to identify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders’ concerned by the Directive. During the second phase, data was collected using various tools aiming to reach out all stakeholders in the most effective way. The following techniques were used: ·A Public Consultation launched by the Commission in early June 2016 and concluded in January 2017, involving overall 66 stakeholders. The results of the Public Consultation have been considered as evidence to be triangulated with information gathered through the other research tools; ·Four targeted surveys addressed to four categories of stakeholders (Member State authorities in charge of the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the enforcement of the Directive, Notified Bodies, lift installers and safety component manufacturers, including SMEs, and related industry associations). Overall, it involved 116 stakeholders. The targeted surveys included both closed and open questions complementing the questions of the Public Consultation; ·Interviews with 38 stakeholders. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their specific knowledge of or experience with the Directive, particularly for the case studies. They were also selected to ensure a balanced geographical coverage and a balanced representation of all of the above mentioned stakeholder categories; ·A Workshop held in the context of the LWG. The workshop served to discuss the preliminary results of the study with representatives of the Commission, of Member States and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies and NB-L. The workshop has been a valuable tool to collect further evidence and validate the results with the Member States and the relevant stakeholders. Altogether, through the different tools used, more than 220 stakeholders were consulted, with a wide geographical coverage. More details on the consultation are included in the synopsis report in Annex 3. 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings The limitations of the study conducted by the independent consultant as well as the corresponding mitigation actions undertaken are described in Table 1. Table 1 - Limitations and mitigation actions Limitation Mitigation measure Lack of assessment of the effectiveness of the Directive against the baseline Whenever possible information reported by stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into force of the Directive has been considered in the analysis Lack of data on market surveillance in the lift sector A number of questions were foreseen in the targeted surveys to fill in these gaps. The answers to these questions proved to be not entirely informative, therefore the assessment of the effectiveness of market surveillance was based on available data collected through desk research. Lack/incompleteness of market data A specific methodology, to gather estimates to disaggregate data, has been developed, also through additional stakeholder consultation Lack of official data on lift accidents at EU level Additional reports/literature have been investigated to fill-in the gaps at least for the main MS. Most of the analysis is based on data requested to ELA Low response rate to targeted survey questions collecting data for the CBA Specific interviews were scheduled to fill-in these gaps. Moreover, the CBA performed within the framework of the evaluation study presents the estimates resulting from this exercise trying to avoid generalisations due to small sample on which calculations are based. Unbalanced representation of some stakeholders/MS General interviews aimed at involving the least represented categories/ MS Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting, Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, Final report, page 25 The main limitation that the independent consultant had to face while conducting the study was linked to the difficulties to reconstruct the baseline scenario. This was partly due to the fact that no impact assessment was conducted prior to the adoption of Directive 95/16/EC and also due to the difficulties to collect information dating back to more than 20 years. In order to mitigate this limitation, the independent consultant relied on information regarding the period prior to the adoption of the Directive that was gathered by the various stakeholders which took part in the targeted survey. In addition, the independent consultant has invoked limitations related to the lack of market data as well as standardised lift-accident data. The lack of such data is due to several factors: ·incomplete data in the national reports on market surveillance activities;

·the fact that maintenance and modernisation activities are excluded from the scope of the Lifts Directive renders more complex the precise definition of the lifts market. Due to data aggregation, it was not possible to distinguish the number of firms active in the production and installation from those performing modernisation and maintenance only, and therefore not impacted by the Directive but by the national legislation; ·incomplete official accident data in national reports on market surveillance for lifts; ·the absence of an official centralised reporting system on accidents as well as a common classification on the seriousness of the injuries; ·lack of distinction between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive and “existing lifts” (i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the Directive) In order to mitigate the limitations related to lack of market data, the consultant has developed a specific methodology to the market analysis which is described in section 4.2.1. of the Final Report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive study. In order to mitigate the consequences of the fragmented lift-related accident data, the consultant has performed a more in-depth desk research and gathered additional information about the lift accidents for at least the biggest national markets (such as DE, ES, FR and IT). However, as mentioned in section 3.4. above, the data that has been gathered did not allow to conduct a detailed comparison between the state of play in the different Member States. Nevertheless, some trends could still be observed. The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) which closely monitored the study expressed reservations regarding the quality of the first interim deliverables. For example, the desk research was very limited and the ISSG had to suggest alternative sources of information. After the consultant had taken into account the comments of the ISSG, the quality of the Final Report has improved. Overall, the reliability and robustness of the data gathered within the framework of the study has been assessed as satisfactory given the care that was taken to carry out inclusive consultation and measures put in place to reach in a balanced way European industry associations, manufacturers, installers, national authorities and notified bodies to ensure input of representative sample of stakeholders. Furthermore, the qualitative assessment is considered to be sufficiently reliable. Finally, as regards the quantitative analysis, data on cost/benefits were available only for a limited number of companies and hence it makes sometimes impossible to draw firm general conclusions at EU level. Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, the study managed to gather more information, with a sufficient level of precision in comparison to the one already available to the responsible Commission service. The final results and conclusions of the study report are therefore considered sufficiently reliable to use as a basis for the present document. The Final Report of study was also presented in a meeting of the Lifts Working Group which took place on 17 January 2018. This Working Group is composed of representatives of the national authorities in charge of the implementation of the legislation and the market surveillance. Also at this level, the quality of the report and its conclusions were well received and supported. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions The core of the evaluation is the analysis of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added-value of the Lifts Directive. Detailed evaluation questions were developed to ensure that the evaluation criteria could be properly assessed. 5.1.Relevance The relevance of the Directive is assessed by checking the relevance of its objectives to current needs, especially taking into account innovation and new technologies and the clarity of the Directive. 5.1.1.Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free movement and safety The Directive pursues two strategic objectives: to ensure the free movement of compliant lifts and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and also to guarantee that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for users and maintenance personnel (see also the intervention logic in section 2.1.2 above). The evidence gathered through surveys and interviews confirms that both objectives correspond to the present needs of consumers and economic operators in the field and are still particularly relevant today. 99% of respondents to the survey stated that the Directive meets their current needs to a great/some extent. The relevance has been confirmed also by six interviewees. On the one hand, in respect to the objective to ensure the free movement of compliant products, 94% of the consulted stakeholders acknowledge that the Directive contributes to reducing barriers to intra-EU trade. On the other hand, in respect to the objective to guarantee a high level of safety of lifts and components, the need for a Directive harmonising the EHSRs for lifts and safety components is also confirmed by 94% of survey respondents.While the core needs identified at the time of the Directive’s adoption are still persistent and the objectives of the Directive still relevant thereto, the evaluation identified some specific needs, such as the prevention of the risk of crushing as well as the accessibility for disabled persons that are not addressed according to some respondents. These respondents point out to the lack of specificity of the relevant provisions as well as the different implementation of these provisions at national level as sources of concern. These concerns and more specifically the effectiveness of the relevant provisions will be further analysed in Section 5.2.2. below. 5.1.2.Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new technologies

Over time, a number of drivers – such as demographic development, urbanisation, safety, travel speed acoustic noise, ride comfort and occupied space – have contributed to the development of new technologies related to lifts. The drivers that led to such developments are various and are not directly related to the implementation of the Directive. The Directive is still adequate in addressing needs related to these developments thanks to the flexibility of its EHSRs, which leave to the manufacturers/installers the choice of the specific technical solutions used to comply therewith. Also, 72% of survey respondents and 91% of the Public Consultation acknowledge that the flexibility of EHSRs allows to address potential safety needs related to innovation and new technologies. The Directive’s EHSRs are considered flexible enough so that according to 94% of survey respondents, they allowed European firms’ propensity to innovate and for 84% of respondents it increased the European lift sector competitiveness with respect to global competitors. Therefore, the Directive is still needed as it sets common requirements for all economic operators active in the sector across Europe, providing that all lifts placed on the EU market comply with its EHSRs. Moreover, the Directive demonstrated to be able to align to technological developments occurred in the lift sector and to take into account risks related thereto. 5.1.3.Clarity of the Directive On average, 92% of survey respondents deem that tasks, obligations and rights of all stakeholders concerned by the Directive (i.e. safety component manufacturers, lift installers, NBs, public authorities – namely Member States and their market surveillance authorities) are clear, in particular in Directive 2014/33/EU. Among the tasks of stakeholders concerned by the Directive, the rules for affixing the CE marking are clear, according to the large majority of respondents (69%) or clarified in Directive 2014/33/EU (20%). Moreover, they are easy to apply in practice, raising only some needs for further clarification with respect to rules for affixing the CE marking on UCMP devices - a subsystem made sometimes up of several components. As for the drafting of the EU DoC, 79% of survey respondents declare there are no issues in relation to its content. Overall 79% of survey respondents and 64% of Public Consultation respondents deem the different definitions provided in Directive 95/16/EC (Article 1(4)) clear, complete and up to date. Furthermore, according to 73% of survey respondents, the definitions provided in Article 2 of the new Directive 2014/33/EU are even clearer. It should be noted that Directive 2014/33/EU aligned the legal framework applicable to lifts to the New Legislative Framework (hereinafter "the NLF"). Therefore, a significant number of these definitions have been taken over from Decision No 768/2008/EC thus ensuring consistency with the respective legal frameworks applicable to other harmonised products. Nonetheless, the consultations revealed some issues, which may require additional clarification. In particular, several stakeholders have raised issues regarding the precise definition of the scope of the Lifts Directive. While, pursuant to Article 2(5), the Lifts Directive applies to lifts, which are made available on the market for the first time, it does not cover modernisation activities conducted on existing lifts. Therefore, modernisation, maintenance, (software) updates and changes are regulated by the national legislation of the respective Member States. In the light of these elements, some stakeholders have indicated that that they would welcome guidance on when a lift is no longer considered as a "modernised old lift" but as a new lift, thus requiring a CE marking. Another issue identified in the study is related to the definition of "installer" as provided for in Article 1(4) of Directive 95/16/CE. This definition was also taken over by Directive 2014/33/EU in its Article 2(6). According to this definition, the installer is "the natural or legal person who takes responsibility for the design, manufacture, installation and placing on the market of the lift", i.e. the Directive uses the term "installer" instead of "manufacturer" of the person who places the CE marked lift on the market in the end of the 'manufacturing process'. Installation of a lift – its incorporation into a building or construction – is part of that process. Neither the old Directive, nor the new Directive separately defines the “manufacturer of a lift” which in theory could be used to refer to the operator applying for the EU type-examination certificate and not necessarily installing the lift on site. The study has pointed to the fact that today very often the manufacturer and the installer of a lift are two distinct economic operators. However, both Directives clearly indicate that the installer is the responsible economic operator for the compliance of the lift with the Directive. Furthermore, Directive 2014/33/EU foresees the possibility for several economic operators to be involved in the supply chain of a lift in its Article 16(2) stipulating that "where the person responsible for the design and manufacture of the lift and the person responsible for the installation and testing of the lift are not the same, the former shall supply to the latter all the necessary documents and information to enable the latter to ensure correct and safe installation and testing of the lift". In conjunction with Article 7 on obligations of installers, this provision indeed covers the situation where different persons are involved in the design/manufacturing and the installation/testing, and provides clarity on each party's responsibilities. A third issue identified in the study is related to the delimitation of the concepts of "putting into service" and "placing on the market". While "placing on the market" of a lift is defined in Article 2(5) of Directive 2014/33/EU, the concept of "putting into service" mentioned in Article 3(1) thereof is not defined. This seems to contribute to a certain confusion of both concepts by some stakeholders. Thus, 43% of survey respondents claim that “putting into service of a lift” may occur a number of years after the lift has been placed on the market, in particular for large and complex projects. According to installers, this causes difficulties when either the legislation or the relevant hENs change between the moment the lift is placed on the market and the moment the said lift is put into service. These installers explain that they are bound by the contract signed before a possible change occurred, implying that they have to provide a lift complying with new requirements. Article 4(1) of the Directive provides that “Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the lifts covered by this Directive may be placed on the market and put into service only if they comply with this Directive”. In regards to the concerns raised by the stakeholders, it should be noted that point 2.3. of the Blue Guideclarifies that the concept of placing on the market refers to the moment when a product is made available for the first time on the Union market. It is at that moment that the conformity assessment procedure has been concluded and the product’s compliance with the applicable EHSRs is established. At the same time, the reference to the concept of putting into service essentially serves to ensure that no additional requirements are imposed on lifts which have been installed correctly (i.e. in line with the specific technical solution assessed during the conformity assessment procedure). Therefore, even in case of a change of the legal framework, the reference point for the conformity assessment remains the moment of placement on the market. This is furthermore confirmed by Article 44 of Directive 2014/33/EU which lays down the transitional provisions between the old and the new Directive. In the light of the above elements, it can be concluded that the confusions regarding the three areas of concern reported in the study are not attributable to an unclear or conflicting wording of the provisions of the Directive but rather to a certain misinterpretation of the Directive by some stakeholders. After having been made aware of the above problems and in order to provide the necessary clarification, the Commission has published in June 2018 a revised version of the Guide to the application of the Lifts Directive. In this regard, it should be noted that already 76% of the survey respondents have expressed satisfaction with the clarity of the previous versions of the guidance documents to the Directive and in particular the Guide to Application of the Lifts Directive. The Commission will monitor further issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the interpretation of the Directive and develop together with the stakeholders (most notably within the framework of the Lifts Working Group) further specific guidance documents if necessary. 5.2.Effectiveness To assess the effectiveness of the Directive, the evaluation has looked into the contribution of the Directive towards the achievement of its main objectives, namely to ensure the free movement of compliant lifts and safety components for lifts throughout the EU and also to guarantee that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for users and maintenance personnel. 5.2.1.Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its main objectives 5.2.1.1.Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its main objectives Both the market analysis and stakeholder consultation conducted within the framework of the present evaluation have shown that the Directive has had a significant positive impact on reducing barriers to trade. Nearly all the stakeholders (96% of survey respondents) consider that the Directive facilitated the free movement of lifts and safety components, and 75% deem this is specifically achieved through a reduction of different requirements across Member States.

This general perception of the stakeholders is also supported by the available market data which clearly indicates an overall growth of the value of sold production of lifts between 1995 and 2015. However, as shown in Figure 3 below, this overall growth is unevenly distributed throughout the reference period: the steady growth between 1999 and 2005 is followed by a period of stagnation between 2005 and 2008 before returning again to a period of a more moderate growth. In the period preceding the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC (1995-1999), the annual average growth rate of the overall sold production of lifts was equal to +1%. After the entry into force of that Directive, the value of sold production of lifts grew on average by 14% in the EU15 from 1999 to 2005. During the period between 2006 and 2015, sold production decreased annually on average by 3% in the EU28 including a sharp decrease (-29%) between 2008 and 2009, possibly due to the financial and real estate market crisis. Figure 3 – Value of sold production of lifts in scope of the Directive in Europe between 1995 and 2015 (nominal values) Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom The overall trend with regards to the production of safety components also points towards an overall growth of the value of sold production between 1995 and 2015. However, unlike lifts, the growth of the lift safety components' value has been more steady and evenly distributed throughout the reference period. Between 1995 and 1999 the annual average growth rate of the overall sold production of safety components was equal to +14%. After the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, the value of sold production of lift safety components grew annually on average by 2% in the EU15 from 1999 to 2005. Considering the period between 2006 and 2015, sold production continued to increase annually on average by 2% in the EU28. This included a sharp decrease (-17%) between 2008 and 2009. Figure 4 – Value of sold production of lift safety components in scope of the Directive in Europe between 1995 and 2015 (nominal values) Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom A comparison between intra- and extra-EU trade of lifts and their components shows how the former is impressive with respect to the latter, although this difference is reducing over time. Between 1995 and 1999, the annual average growth rate of extra-EU trade of products in the scope of the Directive was equal to +4%, while the annual average growth rate of intra-EU trade was equal to +12%. After the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, the extra-EU trade grew annually on average by 8% from 2000 to 2005. After the enlargement to EU28, the average annual growth rate of extra-EU trade was 5% between 2006 and 2015. Regarding the intra-EU trade, the average annual growth rate in the EU15 was on average 9% between 2000 and 2005, and 1% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015. Figure 5 – Intra- and extra-EU trade in products within scope of the Directive between 1995 and 2015 Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom The above data indicates that the Directive had at least potentially a positive impact on reducing barriers to trade.

Based on the evidence gathered, the Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal market for the products in its scope. 90% of survey respondents think that the Directive contributed to the establishment of legal certainty and a level playing field for companies in the EU. By way of example, an implementing authority observes the Directive created a level playing field for all NBs, whose requirements for accreditation have been harmonised, particularly with Directive 2014/33/EU. Moreover, notwithstanding the few discrepancies identified across Member States in the application of the Directive it substantially contributes to the legal certainty as well as to the establishment of a level-playing field across the EU, which both ensure an effectively operating internal market. To confirm this, 71% of survey respondents declare that national implementations have no impact on the effectiveness of the Directive nor do they influence regulatory or administrative costs across Member States. 5.2.1.2. Contribution to the objective of ensuring the safety of lifts and safety components Accidents related to lifts can involve users or maintenance personnel. They can be lethal (i.e. leading to death), serious (i.e. leading to hospitalisation) or minor. The overall perception of the stakeholders is that the Lifts Directive has contributed to the improvement of the level of safety. Thus, lift safety is perceived as satisfactory by 97% of survey respondents and by 91% of Public Consultation respondents. In addition, 94% of survey respondents think the Directive increased lift safety. This perception of increased levels of safety is supported by some evidence indicating a trend towards a reduction of the number of lift-related accidents. Data on lift-related accidents throughout the EU is fragmented and statistics from Member States often appear to lack details on the precise causes of accidents (e.g. lift misuse rather than lack of lift safety) and they do not distinguish between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive and “existing lifts” (i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the Directive). Furthermore, statistics from Member States do not cover the same reference periods and do not necessarily consider the same types of accidents in their respective national reports. Hence, these data can only provide selected, anecdotal indications on the number of accidents and trends over time in individual countries. The most significant limitation comes from the fact that available data often do not distinguish clearly between the concerned groups (users or maintenance personnel or both altogether), between the types of lifts concerned (lifts falling inside the scope of the Directive or outside its scope i.e. installed prior to its entry into force) and between the types of accidents (lethal or non-lethal and in the second case the degree of gravity of the accident). These data cannot, therefore, be compared or aggregated. Nevertheless, some trends can be observed when analysing these data together. A preliminary observation before analysing the available data on lift related accidents concerns the evolution of the new lift installations in recent years. This data is particularly relevant as the evolution of the stock of installed lifts should be analysed together with the evolution of the number of lift-related accidents. This is the only way to distil an accurate ratio of accidents in proportion to the number of lifts. Thus, according to data provided by ELA, in 2015 there has been an average increase of 16% of the newly installed lifts in a number of Member States. Despite an average overall decrease of 1% over the period 2010-2015, the disaggregated data indicates that opposite trends existed in 2010 and 2015 regarding new lift installations in the largest EU national markets (Spain and Italy) and the other Member States. Thus, while in Spain and Italy, a much higher number of lifts were being installed in 2010 in comparison to the other Member States, this trend has been inversed in 2015 when Germany accounted for 17% of the total new installations in Europe.This data clearly shows that the stock of installed lifts in the EU has been steadily increasing until 2015. Regarding accident-related data on the other hand, reports are available from 6 Member States (Greece, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain) which contain data on accidents involving lifts in the period around 2009-2013 It should be noted that these reports do not necessarily use the same reference periods, the same method of calculating the ratio of accidents, nor the same definition of "lift accident". Furthermore, neither of these reports indicates whether these accidents involve the same users, maintenance personnel or both groups altogether. Nevertheless, the information contained in these reports provides indications that the number of lethal accidents remains very low and has been reduced over time. For example, between 1998 and 2009, there were in total 41 lethal accidents related to lifts in Greece varying between 1 and 8 annuallybeing equivalent to less than 0,20 accidents per 100 000 lift units in service. In France the total number of lethal accidents reported between 2001 and 2013 is 44.The number of accidents varied between 0 and 8 annually representing up to about 0,16 accidents per 100 000 lift units. The annual number of all reported accidents in France diminished from 3 200 in 2008 to 1 840 in 2013. In the Netherlands the number of all accidents related to lifts was very low varying between 3 in 2011 and 2013 to as high as 9 in 2014 over the period from 2011 to 2015equalling 0,3 to 1,0 accidents per 100 000 lifts. In Germany the number of all accidents declined over the period 2011-2013 from 178 to 133 incidents representing reduction from 2,7 to 1,9 accidents per 100 000 lift units while in Spain the number of all accidents decreased from 5,1 (2012) to 3,0 (2013) accidents per 100 000 lift units. In contrast to the above, according to ELA the number of accidents over the total number of installed lifts has been increasing at an annual average rate of 7% over 2008-2015. However, the relevance of this distinct information is questionable, as these data relate to both accidents involving "existing lifts" (which are outside the scope of the Directive) as well as lifts covered by the Directive. Furthermore, it has not been specified whether this increase concerns accidents involving users, maintenance personnel or both groups together. A possible approach towards identifying trends in the evolution of the number of lift-related accidents is to focus specifically on those accidents involving maintenance personnel. The reason for this is that such accidents are much better reported and documented as they constitute work-related accidents and as such they trigger a specific follow-up (maintenance personnel can benefit from specific social security services). Conversely, accidents involving users are mostly reported by users themselves and in general, no specific follow-up is ensured. Therefore, the reliability of such data can be seen as questionable. Thus, according to statistics collected in the framework of an EU Commission's study (2007)there were 1 339 lift accidents involving maintenance personnel within eight EU Member States between 2001 and 2005. Furthermore, according to the evaluation study (based on PRODCOM and ELA data), the number of lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel compared over the existing installations has been decreasing at an annual average rate of 3% between 2008 and 2015. Based on these concurring sources, the study has come to the conclusion that the trend towards a reduction of the lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel is indicative of the improvement in lift safety levels. This conclusion can be further reinforced by a comparison between the evolution of the stock of lifts and the number of accidents during the period 2010-2015. Data regarding both the stock of lifts and the number of accidents has been provided by ELA. Bearing in mind the overall increase of the stock of installed lifts over the period, the 7% increase in lift accidents indicated by ELA should be relativized. Unfortunately, the limited data available does not allow to draw quantitative conclusions in this regard. In the light of the above, the evaluation has concluded that the accident related data is not entirely reliable. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the said data does not distinguish between lifts within the scope of the Lifts Directive and outside its scope. Nevertheless it can be concluded that the Lifts Directive has been overall effective in improving the level of protection of health and safety of maintenance personnel. As far as users are concerned, the data available does not enable drawing any quantitative conclusions. Nevertheless, the data provided by the national reports in particular suggest that the impact of the Directive is in no circumstances adverse and the Directive could even have brought a minor contribution to the improvement of the level of lift safety. 5.2.2.Assessment of specific issues related to the effective implementation of the EHSRs The wording and content of the Directive's provisions and annexes were assessed on how they impact the effectiveness of the Directive. No major concerns were identified with regards to the provisions on the defining the tasks, obligations and rights of all stakeholders concerned by the Directive (i.e. safety component manufacturers, lift installers, Public Authorities – namely Member State implementing authorities and MSAs, NBs). Some stakeholders have pointed towards specific risks which have not been addressed under the Lifts Directive such as the risk of fire. However, this specific risk is addressed by the EHSRs of the Machinery Directivewhich apply to lifts. Therefore, these concerns are not directly linked to the wording of the Lifts Directive. Nevertheless, the evaluation has identified two issues which are related to the interpretation by the stakeholders of the EHSRs: the first one is the provision on the risk of crushing and prior approval and the second one is the provision regarding the lift accessibility for disabled persons.

5.2.2.1.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provision on the prevention of the risk of crushing and prior approval As already mentioned in Section 3.1. above, this EHSR requires lift designers to provide free space or refuge when the lift is at one of its extreme positions (extreme top or extreme bottom position in the lift shaft/well) in order to prevent the risk of crushing. According to 45% of survey respondents and to 59% of respondents to the Public Consultation, the risk of crushing is not properly addressed by the Directive. According to 42% of survey respondents, the wording of this EHSR leaves little room for choice how to address this risk thus disregarding the New Approach principles. In addition, concerns have been expressed regarding the “prior approval” provision (third paragraph of EHSR 2.2) which constitutes an exception to the requirement to provide for a free space/refuge in the extreme top or bottom positions of the lift shaft. This exception is particularly relevant for lifts which are to be installed in existing buildings where the limitations of the existing structures might not allow to provide free space or refuge. The wording of the “prior approval” provision suggests that its application is not limited to existing buildings (“[…] particularly in existing buildings […]”). In this regards, the evaluation study outlined the concerns of some stakeholders related to the scope of application of this provision. The concerns expressed by the stakeholders evolve around two main issues with this provision: on the one hand, the criteria used by Member States to grant or refuse a prior approval are not harmonised (thus leading to divergent practices) and, on the other hand, by allowing Member States to grant installers permission to use alternative means, different safety standards might emerge both across the EU and even within individual Member States. With regards to the concern related to the lack of harmonised criteria to be used by the different Member States when granting prior approval, the evaluation has indeed identified diverging practises across the Member States. However, fragmented data on the respective national practices only covers seven Member States which does not allow to establish clear trends across the entire EU. In particular, data on the number of prior approvals granted by each Member State is lacking except for Cyprus which declares to have granted a prior approval on two occasions. The available data nevertheless suggests that the Member States’ practices diverge on several points: application to new and/or existing buildings, requirement to prove the impossibility to provide free space, involvement of a NB and also the possibility to choose the specific alternative solution to be used to prevent the risk of crushing. The later constitutes the second point of concern for stakeholders. A number of stakeholders, (mainly economic operators) across the EU have taken the view that the third paragraph of EHSR 2.2. should be either amended in order to introduce a clear set of criteria for granting prior approval or it should be repealed altogether. Those stakeholders that advocate for the repeal of this provision mainly do so because of alleged risk for distortion of competition and hindering of innovation. On the other hand, those stakeholders that prefer to see this provision amended stress that while is necessary and relevant, the application of the third paragraph of EHSR 2.2. should be limited exclusively to existing buildings. However, there could have been a misconception among the stakeholders concerning the interpretation of EHSR 2.2. as a whole and the "prior approval" procedure in particular. In fact, it should be noted that EHSR 2.2 is in line with the New Approach as its paragraph 1 defines the objective to be achieved but at the same time does not prescribe the technical specification to be applied. While it is true that the second paragraph of EHSR indicates what is considered to be the most effective way to achieve this objective, the third paragraph on the prior approval actually introduces a certain flexibility as it enables installers to opt for alternative technical solutions. In any case, this procedure does not allow to derogate from the safety objective but enables, the adoption of other appropriate means to avoid the risk of crushing. As a stakeholder had rightly observed within the framework of the evaluation study’s consultations, “the Directive leaves “room for manoeuvre” to cover the risk of crushing, the problem being that not all MS apply this provision in the same way, and this is the issue.” Therefore, despite its particular structure in three paragraphs, EHSR 2.2. is in fact in line with the New Approach principles. Improved coordination at the level of the MSAs (especially in the framework of the ADCO Group) could contribute the emergence of a more coherent and uniform application of this provision at EU level. This improved coordination between the MSAs could be further complemented by specific standardisation activities. The Commission will further investigate the practical implications of the divergent approaches by the Member States on the effective application of the Directive. In addition, the Commission will support within the boundaries of its competences the coordination between the MSAs as well as any standardisation activities specific to this provision. 5.2.2.2.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provision regarding lift accessibility for disabled persons The Directive ensures non-discriminatory access conditions for users with disabilities through provisions set in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.6.1 of Annex I, which are related only to the minimum size of door entry, the dimensions of the lifts car and the position of control panels. However, the second paragraph of EHSR 1.2. does not require that lifts are made accessible for disabled persons in all circumstances but only "where the lift is intended for the transport of persons, and where its dimensions permit". If this is the case, the Directive sets out harmonised accessibility requirements for the lift car. According to 71% of survey respondents the provisions on lift accessibility to disabled persons have been implemented differently across the EU. However, these results do not distinguish between the accessibility requirements applicable to lifts and the accessibility requirements applicable to the entire buildings. Unlike the former, the later have not been harmonised at EU level and therefore, they fall under the realm of competence of Member States. As a result, Member States have sometimes introduced specific provisions to complement the EHSRs related to lift accessibility for persons with disabilities. Thus, different national practices for granting lifts accessibility to disabled persons have emerged inter alia depending on the type of building in which a lift operates (new or existing building), its function (public or private building), or its height (two or more floors). For example, some Member States have laid down provisions defining the minimum size of the lift car, while others refer to the standard EN 81-70. In any case, 65% of survey respondents do not perceive the accessibility requirements for lifts to have any major impact on the implementation and on the effectiveness of the Directive. In that sense, the additional national requirements which are sometimes introduced are not perceived by stakeholders as burdensome or hindering the internal market for lifts. As a matter of fact, 54% of them even consider that there is a need to enshrine additional provisions for minimum compulsory awareness of manufacturers and installers in the legal framework for ensuring accessibility to lifts of disabled persons.

5.2.2.3.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions relating to the harmonised European standards Nearly all the stakeholders (95% of the survey respondents) agree that development of hENs have been pivotal in ensuring an effective application of the Directive by all the actors involved. This support is also confirmed by the fact that no formal objections to hENs have ever been raised since the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC. 79% of the survey respondents acknowledge that the development of hENs constitutes an effective tool for promoting both the free movement of compliant lifts and components as well as for promoting a high degree of safety. The hENs are largely used as one of the main reference guide for ensuring compliance with the Directive. Nevertheless, some concerns have been identified regarding the wide-spread reliance on the hENs. In fact, despite the voluntary character of these standards they are often perceived as de facto mandatory by economic operators and in particular by SMEs. Generally, the latter tend to rely (nearly exclusively) on hENs as they provide a much less expensive alternative for demonstrating compliance with the Directive than providing their own technical specifications. SMEs generally have rather limited resources available for R&D purposes and thus relying on the technical solutions provided by the hENs (which are generally reflecting the state-of-the-art) is more cost-effective than developing own solutions. Nevertheless, due to the voluntary nature of hENs SMEs wishing to advance an innovative solution on the market, which is not covered by a hEN, are free to do so. Another issue raised within the framework of the present evaluation is related to the lengthiness of procedure for adoption of the hENs. In fact, 75% of respondents to the Public Consultation identified as a drawback the sometimes lengthy procedure needed by CEN to develop hENs. Therefore, hENs might not always be able to cope with the speed of technological progress. However, it should be noted that compliance with the hENs is not mandatory and therefore they cannot in principle constitute barriers to innovation. The Commission is committed to collaborate closely with the ESOs within the boundaries of the framework laid down by Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 so as to ensure the smooth and swift functioning of the standardisation activities in the Lifts sector. Finally, SMEs might be potentially disadvantaged by the way the hENs are developed. Some stakeholders have raised their concerns regarding the inclusiveness of the process of development of hENs in which SMEs are not necessarily well represented. While the Commission is committed to involve the broadest possible range of stakeholders in the standardisation activities, the question of the representation of SMEs in the process of development of hENs relates to the internal organisation of the relevant ESOs which are independent private bodies. 5.2.2.4.Effectiveness of the implementation of the conformity assessment procedures The study concluded that conformity assessment procedures represent one of the main strengths of the Lifts Directive.The possibility for installers and manufacturers to choose one (or more) of the different conformity assessment procedures fully matches the needs of operators to achieve compliance. Moreover, conformity assessment procedures cover all production phases and act as a sort of “checklist” to ensure that all steps are covered and comply with the Directive’s EHSRs. Therefore, despite being reported as the major compliance cost stemming from the Directive (see section 5.3.1), 92 % of survey respondents recognise the effectiveness of conformity assessment procedures to ensure product compliance with the EHSRs. Furthermore, according to some stakeholders, the application of the Directive raised fewer problems than most other New Approach Directives thanks to the conformity assessment procedures harmonised under the Directive. These procedures indeed require all lifts to be assessed by NBs before being placed on the market, which the evaluation identified as a factor relevant to the low extent of product non-compliance in the Lifts sector. 5.2.2.5.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions on enforcement and market surveillance The market surveillance is conducted once the products have been placed on the market. Thus, the market surveillance, which is the ex-post compliance check, is complementing the conformity assessment which is the ex-ante compliance check, Unlike the conformity assessment which is entrusted to the NBs, the responsibility for conducting the market surveillance lies with the Member States and more specifically with their respective Market Surveillance Authorities ("MSAs"). Also, unlike the conformity assessment procedures which have been harmonised by Decision 768/2008 (and then taken over in the Lifts Directive), the Directive does not harmonise the market surveillance procedures. Therefore, Member States are free to organise their market surveillance activities. However, this has the adverse effect that today the implementation of market surveillance activities across the Member States is very uneven and there is a general lack of resources. The available information shows that the level of non-compliance in the sector is very low. This conclusion is shared by 87% of the stakeholders consulted within the framework of the study and the data collected for the report on market surveillance activities. This overall high level of compliance can be credited also to the conformity assessment procedures which impose that all lifts must be assessed by one or several third party assessment bodies (the NBs) before being placed on the market. Therefore, it should be concluded that the high level of compliance should be achieved by the effective conjunction of the ex-ante (conformity assessment) and ex-post (market surveillance) compliance checks. Nevertheless, some barriers to the enforcement of the market surveillance have been identified. However, it should be noted that these barriers are not attributable to any shortcomings in the legal framework. Instead, these barriers are related to the resources allocated to market surveillance activities by the Member States and the coordination of the said activities. Firstly, Member States report a lack of resources for conducting market surveillance in the lifts sector, which, in turn, may hamper effective enforcement. A second barrier of effective enforcement is the differences in the implementation of market surveillance activities in the Member States.In order to be effective, the level of enforcement needs to be uniform across the EU. Regarding the resources affected to market surveillance activities, the study has identified certain discrepancies between the different Member States. Thus, in 2013, only four MSAshave declared to have a budget specifically dedicated to activities in the lifts sector and five had dedicated staff/inspectors to perform market surveillance of lifts and safety components. On the other hand, the priority given to market surveillance in the lift sector differs across the Member States. Thus, some Member States such as Spain allocate medium priority to lift surveillance, while others such as the Netherlands allocate high priority. Such lack of uniformity across Member States could potentially lead in long run to the creation of weaknesses, which could, at least in theory, result in lower compliance. In this regard, 78% of survey respondents and 81% of respondents to the Public Consultation state that market surveillance activities in the sector are not fully effective. Overall, the Directive has been uniformly transposed across the Member States, and there is no evidence of any transposition difficulties. As for its implementation, the analysis identified some discrepancies across Member States. A number of them (i.e. those related to the EU type-examination certificate, content of the EU DoC, NBs’ notification procedures) have been addressed in the new Directive. 5.3.Efficiency To assess the efficiency of the Directive, the costs which it entails for the different stakeholders categories (MSAs, NBs and EOs) were analysed against the benefits resulting from the application of the Directive for the economic operators (EOs), users and maintenance personnel. A detailed overview of the costs and benefits identified in the framework of the evaluation is available in Annex 5 to the present document. Unfortunately, a general limitation on data hampered a thorough assessment of the Directive’s efficiency. Very few stakeholders were able to provide quantitative data, and those who did, provided mostly rough estimations. Therefore, this section presents only anecdotal evidence, whenever available, which should be considered as purely indicative. The analysis remains therefore mainly qualitative.

Despite the above methodological limitations, there seems to be an overall consensus among stakeholders on the benefits outweighing the administrative and compliance costs. The Directive improved the internal market by harmonising national procedures and hence reducing costs for economic operators. While larger companies benefit more than SMEs from the internal market, the overall positive opinions on the Directive are shared also by SMEs. Also, evidence shows a general reduction in lift-related accidents over recent years, which could lead to think of an increase in lift safety. While the direct causal link with the Directive cannot be quantitative proved, it is common opinion of stakeholders that the Directive helped to increase safety. 5.3.1.Costs entailed by the Lifts Directive The main driver concerning costs comes from the ex-ante and ex-post controls that each product (either a lift or a safety component) must undergo before and after being placed on the market. The stakeholders concerned are: the Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs), the Notified Bodies (NBs) the economic operators and users. It should be noted that the great part of costs (for example, the conformity assessment by MSA/NB) were already present with the previous Directives and cannot be credited to the Directive 95/16/EC and Directive 2014/33/EU. ·Market Surveillance authorities Market Surveillance Authorities mainly bear the enforcement costs due to recurrent market surveillance activities, withdrawal of non-compliant products from the market, assessment of NBs, and periodic communication to the Commission and other MS of their activities. MSAs’ duties in terms of enforcement of the Directive’s provisions were already foreseen in the previous Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC. Thus, the costs of inspections could not be attributed directly to the Directive, since MSAs would have incurred them anyway. There is, however, a reduction of burden for MSAs, since NBs are now in charge of conducting the conformity assessment verifications. The main source of costs for the Notified Bodies are related to the need to gather the necessary resources (human as well as material resources) to ensure the performance of the conformity assessments and the issuing of the EU-type approval certificates, cost for national accreditations, cost for purchase harmonised standards. Directive 95/16/EC mandated the NBs to perform the conformity assessment procedures in the lift sector. Before that, under Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC, the "EEC type-approval" was granted by the Member States authorities. Hence, Directive 95/16 did not introduce additional costs as the conformity assessment procedure was already existing under the old legal framework. Instead, the Directive shifted the responsibility for this procedure from the Member States authorities to NBs without significantly changing the scope of the obligation. However, it should be noted that today, the NBs can perform conformity assessments which are valid throughout the whole EU and their services may be solicited by EOs established in any of the Member States. Therefore, while the costs related to the performance of the conformity assessment are now borne by the NBs, they benefit in return from an EU-wide market and their activities are no longer limited to the territory of a single Member State. ·Notified bodies However, NBs bear also some other specific costs: The primary source of costs for NBs is related to periodic fees due to national accreditation procedures or any of the other means to periodically prove their sufficient level of competence to the notifying bodies. These costs are not strictly derived from Directive 95/16/EC, since it does not require mandatory accreditation. Evidence gathered from NBs in 8 MSsindicates that the average annual cost for accreditation increase with the size: €625 for two micro NB (1% of their annual turnover), €1 500 (0,05% on the annual turnover) for one small NB and €3 800 (0,01% on the annual turnover) for seven medium and large NBs. Training expenses are also a burdensome compliance cost. 16 respondents report an annual spending on training ranging between €500 (for micro NBs) and €12 000 (for medium and large NBs). In terms of NBs’ annual turnover, it represents an average of 0,9% for three micro NBs, 0,55% for three small NBs, 0,12% for eight medium NBs and 0,03% for two large NBs. The NBs may be required to buy (and update) harmonised European standards. This cost is quite relevant, especially for smaller NBs that usually buy singular standard/update.However, larger NBs, which are usually active in several harmonised sectors may need to buy more standards. Therefore, they usually prefer to pay an annual flat-rate fee to a service provider in order to have access to any subsequent updated standards NBs replies to the survey highlighted other types of costs (without any quantification). 49% claims additional costs for innovate their equipment and systems to comply with the Directive and 53% (n=24) underwent process re-engineering for the same purpose. Overall, 44% of NBs replying to the survey deem that costs to innovate equipment and systems would have been lower if the Directive had not been implemented. ·Economic operators Economic operators (installers of lifts and manufacturers of safety components) are subject to several obligations at different stages: (i) in the design and production of the safety component; (ii) in the design phase of the lift, and (iii) in the lift installation phase. Costs for these economic operators are mainly derived from both compliance costs and administrative burden. The first are, for example, costs to ensure compliance with the EHSRs, to perform the conformity assessments and related to NBs’ service fees, training specialised technicians, periodic purchase of hENs or the creation of alternative technical solutions. The Administrative burden includes costs related to the CE marking, the production of the EU Declaration of Conformity and its archive for the period required by the Directive (i.e. ten years).

Compliance costs are mainly related to the conformity assessment procedures (e.g. the EU type-examinations) and to on-site verifications performed by NBs (e.g. final inspection). Other compliance costs include training expenses, the purchase of updated harmonised standards, initial expenses for new equipment bought to comply with the Directive, re-engineering of internal processes to acquire a system certification and other expenses due to external consulting services. It is to be noted however that some of these costs (e.g. expenses for new equipment, re-engineering and external consulting services) might have occurred even without the entry into force of the Directive. The overall burden of compliance costs varies considerably from one economic operator to another depending on: (i) the size of the company; (ii) the business structure; (iii) the preferred conformity assessment procedures. Interviewed companies confirmed that conformity assessment procedures are the most burdensome provisions of the Directive and strongly depends on the type-examination chosen (see also section 5.2. above for details of the EU-Type examination). The data gathered within the framework of this evaluation concerning the specific costs related to each conformity assessment module does not allow to draw generalised quantitative conclusions regarding the costs entailed for the economic operators. Nevertheless, some trends can be observed. Large firms tend to opt for the “full quality assurance” system (Module H) introduced by Directive 2014/33/EU which, although entailing higher initial costs and recurring annual inspection costs, is more convenient for large production volumes. In fact, the cost for this module does not depend on the number of lifts designed, being a one-off cost. Before Directive 95/16/EC the conformity assessment procedures were a variable cost proportional to production volumes. The introduction of Module H has reduced the marginal compliance cost for larger companies, which could spread the fix cost on a larger number of produced lifts. However, these costs should include other, non-identified internal costs (i.e. the labour cost of employees) and may change depending on the size of the company, but interviewees could not provide an estimate for such costs. Lack of statistics on the number of conformity assessments, does not allow for a quantification of the cost reduction for enterprises using module H. However, according to some interviews the current compliance cost is estimated to be around half in comparison to the situation existing before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC. Among the compliance costs entailed by the Lifts Directive, there are also the costs related to the purchase of hENs. Before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, EOs, were required to comply with a multitude of national rules. Furthermore, they were not able to benefit from the presumption of conformity related to the compliance with hENs. Today, by proving compliance with a hEN, the EOs are presumed to comply with the relevant EHSRs and thus their product can circulate freely throughout the EU. While this undoubtedly a benefit and a reduction of costs for economic operators, the evaluation study has nevertheless pointed out to the fact that this change may affect differently the companies according to their size. Thus, SMEs which generally tend to be less export-oriented and are usually active on the territory of a single Member State benefit to a lesser extend from this administrative simplification then bigger companies which operate in several Member States. Instead, the SMEs have to incur the costs of acquiring the standards as well as the successive updates thereof. However, it should be noted that the cost of acquiring these standards is lower than the costs associated with alternative technical solutions. Thus, it appears more cost-efficient for SMEs to opt for a demonstration of the compliance with the Directive by relying on the presumption of conformity. Another concern in relation to SMEs which has been highlighted in the evaluation study is related to the fact that hENs are recognised by consumers as a reference for "high quality" and tend to become a de facto market standard. Hence, the application of the hENs which should be voluntary becomes de facto mandatory for all economic operators in the market, including SMES that are generally less export-oriented. This may entail additional costs for SMEs respect to the cheaper national standards (that are less frequently updated). Nevertheless, should the SMEs wish to propose innovative solutions to the market, they are free to do so as the application of hENs is purely voluntary. The frequent updates of hENs also imply additional costs for the economic operators, which do not have the same weight depending on the size of the company. According to data available for 7 companies the cost for a single harmonised standard ranges between €50 and €250; their the annual expenses for harmonised standards account for 0.010% of annual turnover for lar