EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 6.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2743 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Implementation of the Internal Market Information System (IMI): report on the 
Professional Qualifications Directive pilot project 
Accompanying document to the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOM IC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Delivering the benefits of the single market  through enhanced administrative cooperation 
Progress report on the Internal Market Information System (IMI) 
{COM(2008) 703 final} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Background 
The Internal Market Information System (IM I) is an electronic information exchange 
network developed by the European Comm ission in close coope ration with the 27 
EU Member States and the 3 Eur opean Economic Area (EEA) States.1 IMI sets out 
to support day-to-day administrative coopera tion between public administrations in 
the internal market.2  
IMI currently supports a pilot project for the administrative cooperation provisions of 
the new Professional Qualifications Directive.3 A second IMI pilot project in support 
of the mutual assistance obligations of the Services Directive will be launched in 
January 2009.4  
1.2. Aim of the report 
This report accompanies the Commission Communication on "Delivering the 
benefits of the single market thro ugh enhanced administrative cooperation". It 
provides a detailed picture of  progress in the implementa tion of IMI, looking at two 
dimensions: the development of the IM I system and its roll-out during the 
Professional Qualifications Directive pilot project. As such it forms the basis of the 
conclusions and action points presented in the Communication. 
The pilot project aims to assess whether IMI is fit for the purpose of supporting cross 
border administrative cooperation. A conscious  decision was taken to deliver IMI in 
a progressive manner. Thus, an initial basi c software package was delivered at an 
early stage to allow the first pilot project to be run. Feedback from the pilot will 
inform future releases of IMI and allow for continuous improvements.  
The pilot project also sets out to give Member States the opportunity to test the 
appropriate organisational structures to s upport a larger-scale use of IMI in future. 
Facts and figures in this repor t are based on an evaluation of  the project carried out in 
cooperation with national ad ministrations in July 2008. 
                                                 
1 The term "Member States" in this report is used to  refer to the 27 EU Member States and the 3 EFTA 
countries participating in the EEA, i.e.  Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.  
2 For more detailed information in all EU languages, see: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-
net/index.html   
3 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 
recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L 2005/255 p.22. (Art 8, 50 and 56 in particular) 
4 Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
services in the internal market, OJ L 2006/376 p. 36. (Art 28-36 in particular) 
 
EN 3   EN 2. PROGRESS ON SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT  
2.1. Approach taken 
2.1.1.  Software design 
The principle of IMI is to build a single information system which can potentially 
support the administrative cooperation requi rements of many different community 
acts. The IMI architecture is modular. Cert ain functionality provi ded in IMI will be 
the same for all legislative areas and the re levant modules can be re-used. Additional 
functionality will sometimes be needed to meet the information exchange requirements of specific legislative acts a nd in such cases addi tional modules will 
need to be designed and programmed. 
Figure 1 - IMI Modular Architecture 
COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND NATIONAL EXPERTSCOMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND NATIONAL EXPERTS
LANGUAGELANGUAGE
SUPPORTSUPPORT
QUESTION SET GENERATORQUESTION SET GENERATOR
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange for
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange for
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange forCACA
DATADATACACA
DATADATACACA
DATADATACACA
DATADATA
QUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONS QUESTIONSQUESTIONS
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange forCACA
DATADATA
SERVICESSERVICESPROFESSIONALPROFESSIONAL
QUALIFICATIONSQUALIFICATIONS
QUESTIONSQUESTIONS.............. ..............COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND NATIONAL EXPERTSCOMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND NATIONAL EXPERTS
LANGUAGELANGUAGE
SUPPORTSUPPORT
QUESTION SET GENERATORQUESTION SET GENERATOR
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange for
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange for
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange forCACA
DATADATACACA
DATADATACACA
DATADATACACA
DATADATA
QUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONS QUESTIONSQUESTIONS
InformationInformation
exchange forexchange forCACA
DATADATA
SERVICESSERVICESPROFESSIONALPROFESSIONAL
QUALIFICATIONSQUALIFICATIONS
QUESTIONSQUESTIONS.............. ..............
 
In order to allow for the piloting and con tinuous improvement of the software, the 
IMI system is being developed in a pr ogressive manner, as outlined below: 
(1) release basic version of the application to support a pilot project on the 
Professional Qualifications Directive 
(2) release enhanced version of the IMI application in support of a fully 
operational system for the Professi onal Qualifications Directive 
(3) deliver a version containing the tool s so that IMI can  support additional 
legislative areas (first step will be to add the Services Directive) 
(4) design and programme additional work flows specific to the Services 
Directive 
The first version of the IMI application is  in production. The second version has been 
programmed and is currently being tested  before going into production. The third 
version is being programmed and is planne d to go into production in January 2009. 
Once this version is available, it will te chnically be possible to  add new legislative 
areas to IMI without any additional programming. The requirements for the 
additional workflows specific to the services directive are currently being analysed in 
close cooperation with Member States. 
 
EN 4   EN 2.1.2.  Governance 
Member States are closely involved in the development of IMI. Two committees 
oversee its overall deployment: the Pan-Eu ropean eGovernment Services Committee 
is responsible for the rel ease of IDABC funding based on recommendations issued 
by the Internal Market  Advisory Committee. 
Since March 2006 Member States and the Commission have been working together 
intensively in order to agree on the deta iled requirements for the system. Regular 
meetings take place with Member State committees and working groups in order to 
determine how best to support each specific piece of legislation in IMI. National 
experts are therefore able to provide regul ar input and feedback, thus shaping each 
step in the process. 
This course of action is in itself an example of the prin ciple of shared responsibility 
that underpins the renewed partnership approach between the Commission and 
Member States needed to deliver the full benefits of the internal market. 5  
2.2. Delivery to date 
Despite initial delays due to difficulties in  the performance leve l of the application, 
the first version of the IMI application was delivered to allow the launch of the 
Professional Qualifications Directive pilot project on time.  
This first version contains all the ba sic building blocks necessary to support 
information exchanges between competent au thorities across the EEA. This includes: 
• Repository which can store th e contact details and search criteria for relevant 
competent authorities throughout the EEA  
• Multilingual search facility to identify pa rtner authorities in other Member States 
without prior knowledge of th eir administrative structure 
• List of predefined questions and an swers (based on the specific piece of 
legislation) available in a ll official EU languages to help authorities communicate 
with each other 
• Transparent set of procedures  on how to deal with requests, agreed by all Member 
States 
• Request management tool to monitor pr ogress and identify potential problems 
with specific information requests 
• In addition, a number of support elements are included: 
• Language management tool to allow European Commission to manage the 
translation of screen informati on into all official EU languages 
                                                 
5 See: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and 
Social Committee and the Co mmittee of the Regions, "A single market for 21st century Europe" , COM 
(2007) 725 
 
EN 5   EN • Access to online IMI training system in a ll EU languages to help users familiarise 
themselves with the application 
• IMI website in all EU languages acting as a gateway to the application (IMI 
Production and IMI Training System) a nd containing the relevant system 
documentation 
2.3. Outlook 
The enhanced version of th e IMI application needed to  support a fully operational 
system for the Professional Qualifications  Directive is curren tly undergoing testing 
and will be released in the autumn of  2008. It includes a number of additional 
functions requested by Member States (such as the possibility to print requests) and 
the use of online machine translation for certain language pairs. Other improvements 
identified by IMI users, such as the intr oduction of a more s ophisticated competent 
authority search tool, will be inco rporated in future releases.  
Analysis and design is complete and progra mming is well advanced to ensure that 
IMI is able to support additio nal legislative areas. A numbe r of new features will be 
introduced, including most not ably a so-called "question set generator". This tool 
will allow the online creation of new question sets based on the provisions of a specific piece of legislation without any additional programming intervention. It is 
planned for delivery in time for the launch of  the Services Directive pilot project in 
the beginning of 2009.  
Analysis is underway to ensure that IMI can  support the specific requirements of the 
Services Directive, which requires specifi c additional workflows such as case-by-
case derogations and the alert mechanism. The high level requirements for these workflows have been defined in cl ose cooperation with Member States. 
As the anticipated volume of authorities using IMI for the Services Directive is 
significantly higher than for Professional Qu alifications, analys is has also been 
completed on a module to allow author ities to self-register in IMI. 
3. I
MPLEMENTATION AND ROLL-OUT – THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 
DIRECTIVE PILOT PROJECT  
3.1.1.  Approach taken 
The Commission and Member St ates are working together  to establish a general 
information exchange system to facilitate e fficient cooperation in the internal market. 
But in order for IMI to deliver the expected benefits, establishing the system alone is not sufficient. Additional steps need to be taken to roll-out IMI across the EEA. 
Each country has nominated a 'National IMI Coordinator' (N IMIC) to manage 
overall IMI project coordination. It is up to the NIMIC to decide how best to do this. 
Critical elements of a successful IMI roll -out would include the following tasks: 
• Registration of authorities in IMI 
• Organisation of awareness-raising a nd training for competent authorities 
 
EN 6   EN • Provision of support facilities for end-users 
• Involvement in requests in case of problems 
It is possible to carry out all the above  tasks within one NIMIC. Depending on the 
administrative structures, it is also possibl e to delegate all or certain coordinating 
functions to other levels of the admini stration, acting as 'Super-Delegated IMI 
Coordinators' (SDIMIC) or 'Delegated IMI Coordinators' (DIMIC) within IMI.6 Each 
country has to decide on the IMI set up wh ich is best suited to its administrative 
structure and practices.  
IMI also offers the flexibility for each Memb er State to find the most appropriate fit 
in terms of how to best organise the workfl ows. It is possible, for example, for some 
Member States to involve IMI Coordinato rs in approving information requests sent 
by its authorities, and for others to allow authorities to send information directly. A 
Member State may choose that certain au thorities should only be allowed to send 
queries, but not be able to respond to  requests from other Member States. 
In Member States with regional structures , IMI also allows each region to choose its 
own set up so that it is possible for the set up to vary between different regions in the 
same Member State. IMI can also be set up differently between legislative areas – this is particularly important since the mutual assistance provisions are not the same in different community acts.  
The first step in rolling-out and testi ng the IMI system was the launch of the 
Professional Qualifications pilot project in November 2007. Initially, Member States 
concentrated on identifying and registering relevant competent authorities. By February 2008, a sufficient cr itical mass of authorities ha d been registered for the 
pilot information exchange between aut horities to commence. The project was 
limited to four professions (doctors, pha rmacists, physiotherapists and accountants) 
and involved all 30 EEA countries. 
Professional Qualifications Directive pilot project  
The use of IMI is not expressly foreseen in the Professional Qualifications Directive. 
The Commission makes it available to Memb er States who are free to use it in 
support of the administrativ e cooperation provisions  of the directive.  
The aim of the Professional Qualifications pilot project is two-fold. First, it is an 
opportunity to assess the added value of the IMI system in supporting the exchange 
of information between competent authorities, which is required by the administrative cooperation provisions of in ternal market legislation. Secondly, it 
provides an important opportunity for Member  States to progressi vely put in place 
appropriate organisational stru ctures to support a large-scal e use of IMI in future.  
In the summer of 2008, the Commission undertook a series of steps to gather 
feedback from Member States and to evaluate the pilot project: 
                                                
 
6 A DIMIC can carry out all the same actions as a NI MIC within the IMI system with the exception of 
registering other DIMICs. In order to cater for Member States with federal structures, it is possible to 
nominate regional "Super DIMICs" who will be able  to register further DIMICs in its region. 
 
EN 7   EN • Electronic questionnaire sent to IM I Coordinators and to the Group of 
Coordinators for the recognition of prof essional qualifications: 28 (out of 30) 
National IMI Coordinators re sponded as well as 21 ( out of 59) Delegated IMI 
Coordinators7 
• Electronic end-user feedback gathered  after each request: 43 responses were 
received by 28 July 2008 
• Interactive feedback session on 24-26 June  2008: 40 participants from 21 Member 
States attended (20 National IMI Coordi nators, 10 Delegated IMI Coordinators, 
10 Competent Authorities) 
The results of this exercise are presented below. 
3.2. Organisational aspects 
3.2.1.  IMI suitably flexible for diverse administrative structures but some Member States 
have not yet made the necessa ry investment in underst anding the available choices 
For the Professional Qualifications Directive pilot, Member States decided to 
delegate the role of National IMI Coordinator (NIMIC) to national-level ministries, either responsible for economic affairs, Eur opean affairs or administrative reform. In 
addition, almost all Member States chose to also involve other ministries with 
responsibility for the recognition of prof essional qualifications (in most cases 
education, labour or health/ social affairs).
8 
Of all Member States, only Germany impl emented a decentralised IMI model: each 
federal state or Land  nominated a Super-Delegated IMI Coordinator (Super-DIMIC) 
responsible for overall IMI c oordination in its territory.9 In addition, the majority of 
the German Länder  also involved the authorities  responsible for professional 
qualifications recognition, as Delegated IMI Coordinators. 
                                                 
7 In addition to the 28 National IMI Coordinators and the 21 Delegated IMI Coordinators, the 
Commission also received the response from 2 Profe ssional Qualifications Co ordinators: Denmark and 
Cyprus. The views expressed have been taken into account throughout the report. 
8 For the IMI pilot project, Finland, Italy, Malta and Portugal decided that it was sufficient to nominate a 
National IMI Coordinator and no additional Delegated IMI Coordinators. 
9 Most SDIMICs in Germany are institutions with responsibility for IT and public administration (8), 
some are situated in the economics, finance or la bour ministry (6). In one case the SDIMIC is the 
Ministry of the Interior and in another it is the Ministry of Health.  
 
EN 8   EN  
Figure 2 - Different options for the set-up of IMI 
European Commission – IMI Administration
- EC IMI Helpdesk -EC
Member
States
Regional
Level
Functional
Level
Competent
AuthoritiesMember State 1 Member State 3
e.g. a Member State with federal structureMember State 2
Federal State 1 Federal State ...16
NIMIC
- helpdesk -
NIMIC
NIMIC
- helpdesk -
CA
CA CACA
CACA
CA CACACA
CA CACA CACA
DIMIC 1
- helpdesk -
DIMIC 2
- helpdesk -
DIMIC 1
- helpdesk -
DIMIC 2
- helpdesk -
CA
SDIMIC 1
 SDIMIC 16
CAEuropean Commission – IMI Administration
- EC IMI Helpdesk -EC
Member
States
Regional
Level
Functional
Level
Competent
AuthoritiesMember State 1 Member State 3
e.g. a Member State with federal structureMember State 2
Federal State 1 Federal State ...16
NIMIC
- helpdesk -
NIMIC
NIMIC
- helpdesk -
CA
CA CACA
CACA
CA CACACA
CA CACA CACA
DIMIC 1
- helpdesk -
DIMIC 2
- helpdesk -
DIMIC 1
- helpdesk -
DIMIC 2
- helpdesk -
CA
SDIMIC 1
 SDIMIC 16
CA
 
Most of the Member States report that the organisational structure chosen proved 
suitable to support the smooth r unning of the IMI pilot project.10 In response to the 
European Commission questionnaire, most  IMI Coordinators state that they 
encountered no problem in relation to the or ganisational structure of IMI. The main 
problems that were encounter ed – according to the quest ionnaire responses – were: 
• Unsure how to best reflect administrative  structure of Member State within the 
IMI virtual organisa tional architecture11  
• Unsure which responsibilit ies to delegate to De legated IMI Coordinators12 
• Difficulty in identifying all competent authorities13 
A similarly positive picture emerged in terms of  the suitability of the structure for the 
extension of IMI to additional professi ons under the Professional Qualifications 
Directive. Most think that no significant changes are required but that additional IMI 
Coordinators will be needed to  support such system growth.14 Belgium and Spain, 
for instance, have both come to the conclu sion that a model similar to the German 
example outlined above may be mo re suitable in the long run. 
                                                 
10 In response to the Commission electronic questionnaire, 23 NIMICs fu lly agree that their organisational 
structure was suitable to run the IMI pilot project, 5 NIMICs tend to agree. Th e DIMICs were slightly 
more sceptical: about half fully agree, half tend to agree. 
11 3 NIMICS, 7 DIMICs  
12 4 NIMIC, 4 DIMIC 
13 3 NIMIC, 3 DIMIC 
14 17 NIMICs believe that the organisational structure is adequate to support this growth. 8 think it is 
adequate but additional Coordinators will have to be nominated. All DIMICs think that the 
organisational structure is adequate for an extension to additional profession but that additional 
Coordinators will have to be nominated. 
 
EN 9   EN The pilot has illustrated that IMI is able to reflect the diverse administrative realities 
in Europe. This flexibility, however, means that each Member State has to make an 
initial investment in understa nding the available possibiliti es. At this stage, not all 
have done so. 
3.2.2.  Getting competent authorities on board is crucial  
Perhaps the most important and in some cas es challenging aspect of rolling out IMI 
is the identification and registration of comp etent authorities in the system. With only 
four professions included in the pilot project, the number of competent authorities in 
the majority of Member States was lim ited: with the excep tion of Poland (27 
authorities), Greece (59) and Germany (109) , no country registered more than ten 
authorities to deal with the four professions.  
Member States did not always register all authorities involved in professional 
qualifications recognition for the professi ons involved. As expected, there was a 
marked difference from profession to profession. Where leve ls of cross-border 
activity are particularly high and there is a regular need for administrative 
cooperation, authorities were far more interested in bei ng part of the pilot project.15 
Therefore, for doctors the proportion of re gistered competent authorities is highest, 
followed by physiotherapists and pharmacists.  For accountants, on the other hand, 10 
Member States registered either no authoriti es at all or only some. The main reason 
appears to be the low level of cross-border migration; other reasons include the fact 
that the profession of 'accountant' is not  regulated everywhere and it may cover 
different sets of activity in  each Member State concerned. 
Other challenges encountered by Member Stat es in relation to the registration of 
competent authorities include delays in the transposition of the Professional 
Qualifications Directive and difficulties in identifying all competent authorities. Some Member States have expressed uncerta inty about whether to register only those 
authorities competent which take decisions or  also those that hold specific pieces of 
information that may be required by anot her Member State. In some cases, a 
conscious decision was taken to only regist er a limited number of authorities and to 
rely on those authorities to contact others  in order to answer requests via IMI.  
It is up to Member States to decide how to best organise their mutual assistance 
obligations. However, the pilot shows that it is most efficient if the exchange directly 
involves the requesting authority in one c ountry and the competent authority in the 
other country that actually holds the required information.  
3.3. Quality and benefits of the IMI system 
It is important to bear in mind that the aim of the Professional Qualifications 
Directive pilot was to test the suitab ility of the IMI system in supporting 
administrative cooperation. To do so, a critical mass of re quests was needed. 
However, IMI does not set out to increase the volume of information exchanges but 
                                                
 
15 Compare for instance the number of decisions taken in relation to the professional recognition of 
doctors (2006=8650) with the number of decisions in relation to accountants (2006=15). See the 
summary compiled by the Commission of the requests for recognition of diplomas by profession: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualificati ons/regprof/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome  
 
EN 10   EN rather to increase their qual ity and efficiency. It is in tended to support the exchange 
of information between competent authorit ies only when this is required by the 
provisions of internal  market legislation. 
3.3.1.  Levels of system usage meets expectations 
In the five months of the pilot more than  130 information reque sts were dealt with 
through IMI.16 With the exception of Iceland, Liec htenstein, Malta and Estonia, all 
Member States submitted or received requests.  
It is interesting to note that three-quart ers of requests were sent from the UK, 
Germany, Ireland and Belgium. More than half of the requests were addressed to Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and Italy.
17 In terms of the professions covered by the 
requests, almost two-thirds concer ned doctors, followed by pharmacists and 
physiotherapists. Only 4% of requests covered accountants.18 It is also worthwhile 
mentioning that the majority of requests concerned the permanent establishment of professionals or contained questions of a general nature; no exchanges took place on the provision of te mporary services.
19 This is probably because – unlike the 
permanent establishment rules – the genera l provisions on temporary services have 
only been introduced with the new directiv e on professional qualifications. Since the 
directive has only recently come into effect20, the number of pr ofessionals making 
use of the new provisions at  this early stage is likely to be rather low. As 
professionals and authorities become more fam iliar with this chapte r of the directive, 
the number of cases – and of request s in IMI – is likely to increase. 
Figure 3 - Number of requests handled per Member State (from 28.02.2008-31.07.2008)  
AT 6   FR 9   IT 14 
BE 19  GR 4  LI  0 
BG 12  HU 8  LT 4 
CY 2  IE 17  LU 3 
CZ 4  IS 0  LV 1 
DE 31  RO 23  MT 0 
DK 2  SE 6  NL 5 
ES 19  SK 4  NO 1 
ET 0  SL 1  PL 12 
FI 4   UK 47   PT 6 
                                                 
16 All statistics related to system usage refer to the time period between 28 February and 31 July 2008, 
thus covering a total of 5 months. 
17 In the time period covered by this report, the UK sent 37 requests, followed by Germany (26), Ireland 
(15), Belgium (13) and Spain (7). Most were addressed to Romania (23), followed by Bulgaria (12), Poland (11) and Italy (11). To a lesser degree requests were also addressed to Spain (9), Hungary (7), 
Germany (7), UK (6) and France (5). 
18 In the time period covered by this report, 87 requests dealt with doctors, 29 with pharmacists, 11 with 
physiotherapists and 5 with accountants. 
19 In the time period covered by this report, 74 requests contained questions related to permanent 
establishment and 58 requests were of a general nature. 
20 The transposition deadline for Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications was the 20 October 2007. 
 
EN 11   EN Although it is too early to reach any defin itive conclusions, the numbers do seem to 
suggest that IMI usage roughly reflects mi gration patterns reco rded for the four 
professions. It also seems clear that count ries with higher leve ls of in- or out-
migration of professionals have higher levels of IMI usage. 
20% of authorities registered in IMI were involved in requests. It is apparent from 
user feedback that not all communication be tween authorities has taken place in IMI, 
particularly, where existing contacts are already in place and there is no language 
barrier. Other reasons why authorities did no t make use of IMI include hesitance to 
use IT systems in general as well as uncertainty as to how IMI works and what it adds.
21 
However, feedback also seems to indicate  that as authorities get used to the 
application, they start recognising its added va lue. This translates into higher system 
usage: compared to the first months, the av erage number of reque sts per month at the 
end of the pilot phase has more than tripled.  
Three-quarters of IMI Coordina tors state that this level of usage is what they had 
expected for the pilot phase. Around two-thirds  of Member States think it is likely 
that authorities will use IMI whenever the need arises and about  half are convinced 
that IMI will become the preferred comm unication channel between authorities.  
3.3.2.  IMI has the potential to simplify administr ative cooperation for the benefits of 
citizens in the internal market 
Quality of the IMI System  
Based on the experience of the pilot projec t, Member States report that the IMI 
system is suitable to support crossborder cooperation. Almost all IMI Coordinators 
believe that the IMI system is easy to use.22 The building blocks that IMI offers are 
seen to be of good quality. Member States  highlight in particular the ease of 
registering competent authorities in IMI23, the ability to search for competent 
authorities in other Member States24 and the availability to monitor progress of 
requests25 within the system, including th e use of automatic email alerts26. The 
request creation and request reply module was also seen as very good.27 
Feedback from end-users gathered after each  request draws a similar picture: more 
than half of the respondents found IMI to be  very user-friendly, whilst the remainder 
described the system as 'quite user-friendly'.  
                                                 
21 The vast majority of IMI Coordinators state that the main reason why authorities did not use IMI is 
because there was no need to cont act partner authorities in other Memb er States (70% of NIMICs and 
86% of DIMICs). 44% of NIMICS (26% DIMICs) be lieve that authorities not using IMI have already 
existing contacts to their counterpart, thus not needing to make use of IMI in those cases. IMI Coordinators also think that a significant factor wh y authorities may not use IMI yet is uncertainty as to 
how IMI works and what value it adds (22% of NIMICs and DIMICs).  
22 27 NIMICs and 18 DIMICs responded that they believe IMI is easy to use. 
23 26 NIMICs and 17 DIMICs answered excellent or very good.  
24 24 NIMICs and 19 DIMICs answered excellent or very good. 
25 19 NIMICs and 12 DIMICs answered excellent or very good. 
26 21 NIMICs and 11 DIMICs answered excellent or very good. 
27 21 NIMICs and 13 DIMICs answered excellent or very good. 
 
EN 12   EN "The IMI system is a very usef ul alternative to simple emai l as a means of  contacting 
other Member State competent authorities wh en we have queries or need to raise 
'justified doubts' as per Artic le 50 of Directive 2005/36/EC.  
The high number of times we have used the system is a result of the high number of 
EEA applications we receive every year (around 700, of which around 500 register), 
the vast majority of which do not require further clarification. When the system came 
online, we used the opportunity to se nd requests via IMI that had not received 
responses via email for some time. From our  perspective, the system is a much better 
alternative to email as  
• we are able to keep track of all the requests we have sent,  
• we are sure that we are sending the request to the correct person or body 
(rather than emailing an individual w ho no longer works for the organisation 
concerned for example, as has happened in the past) 
• we are able to use preset questions to ensure that we receive all the 
information we require." 
Frequent IMI user, United Kingdom 
The pilot phase has also shown that more wo rk is needed to fine-tune the application. 
In particular, users have expressed a n eed for more advanced language support. A 
number of end-users have stat ed that at times due to the complexity of the cases they 
are dealing with, it is not al ways possible to resort to the structured, pretranslated 
questions/ answers. Whilst IMI provides the possibility to enter free-text, the pilot 
version does not yet offer the translation of  this text – a func tionality much sought 
after by users involved. To re spond to this need, the next  version of IMI will offer 
online machine translation for certain language pairs. 
IMI Coordinators have also indicated that a more sophist icated competent authority 
search module as well as other practical improvements would be helpful for the long term success of IMI.
28 
Added value of IMI  
The great majority of end-us ers and IMI Coordinators emph asise that IMI is a very 
useful tool with great potential. Particul arly for professions w ith high cross-border 
migration, where there are language barriers or no established contacts, IMI can be 
extremely useful. Member States partic ularly emphasise the following benefits: 
Helps authorities identify their c ounterparts in other Member States29 
Overcomes language barriers and make communication easier30 
Can lead to faster and clearer responses31 
                                                 
28 For further details on the next IMI versions, refer to section 2.3 of this report. 
29 Very beneficial=25 NIMICs, 14 DIMICs; Beneficial=2 NIMICs, 6 DIMICs 
30 Very beneficial=18 NIMICs, 15 DIMICs; Beneficial=7 NIMICs, 2 DIMICs 
 
EN 13   EN Offers a uniform, transparent working method.32 
"Ladies and gentlemen. I have been very content with IMI until now (my compliments 
to the company; I did not think such good quality was possible). IMI contributes 
significantly to making my job easier."33 
IMI user, Germany 
In terms of response times, system statistics back the feedback provided from 
Member States. Despite initial teething probl ems and some delays, even in the early 
phase of the project, almost one-quarter of  the requests were answered within one 
day and three-quarters received a response within two weeks.  In general, the system 
does speed up the process and enables compet ent authorities to take more informed 
decisions quickly, thus providing a better service to citizens and businesses and 
reducing the costs associated with delays. 
3.4. Training, support and awareness 
The success of IMI does not only depend on ha ving the right software in place and 
the right fit between a country's administrative structure and the 'virtual' structure in 
IMI. Without an adequate level of awareness,  users will be hesitant to make use of 
this new tool. Based on the Pilot project, Member States have singled out training 
and awareness-raising as the single  most important success factor. 
The Commission has supported Member States  with the organisation of awareness-
raising and training for competent author ities. The following approach has been 
taken: 
(1) Investment in 'training-the-trainers', including training sessions and material 
for IMI Coordinators34 
(2) Assistance with the organisati on of national IMI training events35 
(3) Development of an IMI Training System as a tool to familiarise end-users 
with IMI 
(4) Promotional activities such as a mu ltilingual IMI website or conference 
participation 
                                                                                                                                                         
31 Very beneficial=11 NIMICs, 10 DIMICs; Beneficial=7 NIMICs, 4 DIMICs 
32 Very beneficial=11 NIMICs, 6 DIMICs; Beneficial=14 NIMICs, 9 DIMICs 
33 This is a translation of the or iginal comment received by a German user through the online IMI user 
questionnaire. The original reads:: " Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, bisher bin ich mit IMI sehr 
zufrieden. (Mein Kompliment an die Firma; ich habe solch eine gute Qualität nicht für möglich 
gehalten.) IMI erleichtert die Arbeit deutlich."  
34 In the course of the pilot project, the Commission held 4 training sessions for IMI Coordinators catering 
for an average of 60 participants on each occasion. In addition, IMI Coordinators were offered training 
material and support in the preparation of national training events. 
35 The Commission offers assistance upon request in developing and organising national training events. 
This is subject to availability and can range from advice in developing the course to acting as trainers. Priority has been given to Member States with large user groups. During the pilot project, the 
Commission collaborated in organisi ng IMI training activities in Germ any, Greece, Hungary, Cyprus 
and Romania. 
 
EN 14   EN (5) Limited end-user support mate rial such as a user handbook36 or interactive 
presentations of the IMI system37 
(6) Regular assistance to IMI Coordi nators through the Commission IMI 
Helpdesk 
3.4.1.  European-level support is seen as helpful 
During the pilot project, all Member States participated in IMI training sessions 
offered by the Commission. All IMI Coordina tors state that they have found them 
very useful. The training material provide d by the Commission was also seen in a 
positive light: all NIMICs and over three-quar ters of DIMICs reported making use of 
the material and found the pres entations provided as well as the access to the IMI 
training system particularly useful. 
Member States also see a role for th e Commission in raising awareness on IMI 
through the provision of gene ric promotional material, such as an information 
brochure or European-level awareness even ts. Further steps will be taken in this 
direction as the pr oject progresses. 
3.4.2.  Member States have taken first st eps to provide training and support 
As the majority of Member States only regi stered a limited number of authorities for 
the Professional Qualifications pilot project,38 the need to undertake comprehensive 
training measures was limited. Accordingl y, most Member States offered only a 
number of small training events (10-25 par ticipants) or raised aw areness about IMI at 
conferences. In addition, 4 Member States set up national IMI websites and 3 Member States prepared paper-based IMI brochures.  
With a view to the expected expansion of th e IMI system in the near future, it is of 
particular interest to take  a closer look at the countri es where the number of IMI 
users during the pilot phase was substant ially higher. In Greece, for instance, a 
national IMI training week for over 90 users was offered by the National IMI 
Coordinator, organised and executed in cooperation with the Commission.  
In Germany – with 140 comp etent authorities and over 300  registered users – the 
National IMI Coordinator took a two-step appr oach. The priority was to ensure that 
IMI Coordinators at Länder -level were enabled to use the system and to train further 
users in their territory. In cooperation w ith the European Commission, initial training 
was offered over four days. It  was open to IMI Coordinato rs as well as competent 
authorities. Through this initial ste p, one-fourth of IMI users received a 
comprehensive introduction to the system. As a second step, the Länder -level IMI 
Coordinators were encouraged to organise additional traini ng where required – a full 
set of training material was provided for th is purpose. Five IMI Coordinators report 
                                                
 
36 The user handbook is available in all o fficial EU languages on the IMI website. See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/i mi-net/docs/user_procedures2_en.pdf   
37 The interactive presentations (Cap tivate presentations) are available in  English on the IMI website. See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/training_en.html   
38 See section 3.2.2 of this repor t: with the exception of Poland (27 authorities), Greece (59) and Germany 
(109), no country registered more than ten au thorities to deal with the four professions. 
 
EN 15   EN having organised their own training sessi ons, partly using existing IT education 
programmes for public authorities. This br ought the proportion of  German-based IMI 
users that benefited from training up to around 60%.  
3.4.3.  More efforts are needed to equi p authorities to make use of IMI 
Despite these efforts across the Member States, some end-users report that they did 
not always feel equipped to use the IMI system properly. Almost half of the IMI 
Coordinators confirm that one of the key challenges during the pilot was that users 
were not aware of the added value of IMI.  
One of the reasons is undoubtedly the limited availability of resources. IMI 
Coordinators often have not had the means to carry out structured IMI training, both 
financially and in terms of skills. In other cases, training was provided too late or too 
early in the process or traini ng material was not available in the relevant language on 
time.  
It is clear that as the IMI system grow s and the number of users increases, further 
activities will be required. Based on the pilot project, a number of potential steps have been identified to improve the level of awareness of IMI users in the future. These include: 
• Providing more multilingual user material such as basic IMI Guide or eLearning 
tools 
• Increasing promotional activities 
• Ensuring that appropriate au thorities participate in Commission training sessions 
• Embedding IMI training into existing  administrative capacity programmes 
3.5. Overall view of the pilot project 
3.5.1.  Lessons learnt for future roll-outs of IMI 
During the pilot, a number of critical success factors were identified: 
(1) Awareness-raising  amongst competent authorities of the added value and 
functionality of IMI was seen as  the most important aspect.  
(2) European Commission guidance , regular meetings amongst IMI 
Coordinators and the provision of a Eur opean IMI Helpdesk was felt to have 
made a significant contribution to the p ilot project and should be continued in 
future. 
(3) IMI coordination within a Member State  will become particularly important 
as the system grows. This includes  not only the timely registration of 
competent authorities but also well trai ned IMI Coordinators that can assist 
competent authorities and can ensure that requests are dealt with in a timely fashion.  
 
EN 16   EN (4) Political support was considered vital to support a larger operational system. 
IMI Coordinators need to have formal backing and mandate to coordinate the 
project in their respectiv e areas of competence  
3.5.2.  Extension of IMI to additional professions is recommended 
Member States agree that the Professional Qualifications Direct ive pilot project has 
shown that the IMI system of fers the functionality need ed to support administrative 
cooperation. The majority see it is a very us eful tool that has th e potential to bring 
substantial benefits to authorities across the EEA in the implementation of internal 
market legislation.39 On that basis, over two-thirds  of IMI Coordinators fully agree 
that it is advisable to extend IMI to additional professions. The remaining one-third tend to agree.  
                                                
 
39 IMI Coordinators gave the following answers to evaluation questionnaire:  
• "The pilot project has shown that IMI offers the functionality to support administrative cooperation."  – 
Fully agree= 13 NIMICs, 9 DIMICs; Tend to agr ee= 12 NIMICs, 8 DIMICs; Tend to disagree= 1 
DIMIC 
• "The pilot project has shown that IMI is a very useful tool."  – Fully agree= 16 NIMICs, 9 DIMICs; 
Tend to agree= 10 NIMICs, 7 DIMICs; Tend to disagree= 3 DIMICs 
• "The pilot project has shown that IMI has the potential to bring great benefits to authorities across the 
EEA". – Fully agree= 14 NIMICs, 11 DIMICs; Tend to agree= 13 NIMICs, 7 DIMICs; Tend to 
disagree= 2 DIMICs.