EN  EN EN 
EN  EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 27.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 102 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
 
On the process of mutual evaluation of the Services Directive 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Towards a better functioning Sing le Market for services – bu ilding on the results of the 
mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive 
{COM(2011)20 final} 
EN   EN 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 5 
2. The process of mutual evaluation ................................................................................ 5 2.1. Background: review of national legisl ation and reporting by Member States............. 5 
2.2. Organisation of the mutual evaluation process ............................................................ 6 2.2.1. Preparation of the proc ess: challenges, developm ent of a methodology and its 
political endorsement ................................................................................................... 6 
2.2.2. The three-step approach ............................................................................................... 7 2.2.3. Stakeholder consultation .............................................................................................. 9 3. General remarks ........................................................................................................... 9 4. Establishment-related requirements........................................................................... 10 4.1. Horizontal/cross-cutting aut horisations (Article 9).................................................... 10 
4.1.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?10 
4.1.2. The situation in Member States — what  have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 11 
4.2. Quantitative/territorial  restrictions (Article 15(2) (a)) ............................................... 14 
4.2.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?14 
4.2.2. The situation in Member States — what  have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 14 
4.3. Legal form requirements (Article 15(2)(b))............................................................... 18 4.3.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?18 
4.3.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 18 
4.4. Shareholding requirements (Article 15(2)(c))............................................................ 23 4.4.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?23 
4.4.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 23 
4.5. Bans on having more than one establishm ent (Article 15(2)(e ) of the Services 
Directive) ................................................................................................................... 27  
4.5.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?27 
4.5.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 27 
4.6. Requirement to have a minimum number of  employees (Article 15(2)(f) of the 
Services Directive)..................................................................................................... 29 
EN   EN 4.6.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?29 
4.6.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 29 
4.7. Fixed minimum and/or maximum tariffs (Ar ticle 15(2)(g) of the Services Directive)33 
4.7.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?33 
4.7.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 34 
4.8. Requirements obliging  providers to supply other specifi c services jointly with their 
services (Article 15(2)(h) of the Serv ices Directive) ................................................. 38 
4.8.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?38 
4.8.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 38 
4.9. Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities (Article 25 of the Services Directive) ... 40 
4.9.1. What is the legal backdrop? What are the re levant aspects for the Services Directive?40 
4.9.2. The situation in Member States — What have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?......................................................................................................... 40 
5. Requirements related to cross-border services........................................................... 45 
5.1. The implementation of Article  16 — different approaches ....................................... 45 
5.1.1. Member States introducing a clause on freedom to provide services in their 
‘horizontal law’ .......................................................................................................... 45 
5.1.2. Member States without a horizontal law or a clause on freedom to provide services in 
the horizontal law, i.e. which rely (s olely) on sector-specific changes...................... 47 
5.2. Overview of the most relevant re quirements reported by Member States................. 48 
5.2.1. Obligation on the provider to have an es tablishment in the terr itory of the Member 
State where it provides servic es (Article 16 (2) (a)) .................................................. 48 
5.2.2. Obligation on the provider to  obtain authorisation, includ ing entry in a register or 
registration with a profe ssional body or association (Article 16(2)(b))..................... 50 
5.2.3. Notification/declaration requi rements (Article 16(1)) ............................................... 55 
5.2.4. Other requirements (Article 16(1)) ............................................................................ 57 6. The situation in specif ic services sectors ................................................................... 62 
6.1. Wholesale and retail................................................................................................... 62 6.1.1. Wholesale and retail in general.................................................................................. 62 6.1.2. Ambulant sales.......................................................................................................... . 66 
6.1.3.  Other types of sales .................................................................................................... 68 
EN   EN 6.2. Services in the tourism sector .................................................................................... 69 
6.2.1. Services of travel agencies (including tour operators)............................................... 69 
6.2.2. Services of tourist guides and similar services .......................................................... 71 6.2.3. Accommodation (including hotels, host els, apartments, camping etc.)..................... 73 
6.2.4. Car rental services..................................................................................................... . 73 
6.2.5. Food and beverage (including cat ering services and bars) ........................................ 74 
6.3. Services in the construction sector............................................................................. 77 6.3.1. Requirements applying to establishment ................................................................... 77 6.3.2. Requirements applying to cross-border services........................................................ 82 
6.4. Real estate services .................................................................................................... 85  
6.4.1. Requirements applying to establishment ................................................................... 85 6.4.2. Requirements applying to cross-border services........................................................ 87 
6.5. Business services........................................................................................................ 8 9 
6.5.1. Services provided by employment agen cies (including agents for specific 
professions, information for job seekers, etc.) ........................................................... 89 
6.5.2. Advertising............................................................................................................. .... 91 
6.5.3. Organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs ................................................................ 92 6.5.4. Debt collection services ............................................................................................. 92 6.5.5. Tax advisers ............................................................................................................ ... 93 
6.5.6. Insolvency practitioners ............................................................................................. 94 6.5.7. Patent/trademark agents ............................................................................................. 96 6.5.8. Translators and interpreters........................................................................................ 98 6.6. Private education services........................................................................................ 100 6.6.1. Higher education services ........................................................................................ 100 6.6.2. Vocational training................................................................................................... 10 3 
6.6.3. Adult education and arts, language, dancing schools .............................................. 106 
6.6.4. Driving courses ........................................................................................................ 1 08 
7. Stakeholder consultation .......................................................................................... 111 7.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 111 
7.2. The results of the consultation in detail ................................................................... 111 7.2.1. Authorisations (Article 9) ........................................................................................ 111 
EN   EN 7.2.2. Requirements covered by Article 15........................................................................ 112 
7.2.3. Restrictions on multidisciplinar y activities (Article 25) .......................................... 112 
7.2.4. Requirements for cross-borde r services (Article 16) ............................................... 112 
7.2.5. Relationship between other EU legisl ation and the Services Directive................... 113 
EN 5  EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The process of Mutual evalua tion was an innovative and evidence-based process of ‘peer 
review’ foreseen in Article 39 of the Services Directive1 to assess the state of the internal 
market for services after implementation of the Directive. The process was based upon the 
results of the review of national legislation undertaken by Member States to implement the 
Directive. It concerned specific types of requi rements for which the Directive did not provide 
an outright prohibition but which needed to be  assessed by Member States as to their 
justification and proportionali ty during the period for implementing the Directive.  
This Commission staff working document presents  the results of the process of mutual 
evaluation. It first describes the process as such. It  then sets out the detailed results as regards 
the requirements examined as well  as the specific services sect ors discussed. It ends with a 
description of the result s of the stakeholder consultation whic h was also foreseen as part of 
the process.  
2. THE PROCESS OF MUTUAL EVALUATION  
2.1. Background: review of national legisl ation and reporting by Member States 
During the three years for implementation of th e Services Directive (28 December 2006 to 29 
December 2009), Member States2 were required to  review specific requirements imposed on 
service providers, i.e. they needed to identify the requireme nts in their legislation, assess their 
justification and proporti onality, and, where necessary, abolis h or amend them. By the end of 
the three-year period, Member States needed to report on the results of this review.  
The review of legislation concerned require ments governing the establishment of service 
providers and requirements governing the cr oss-border provisions of services.  
For establishment cases , it covered:  
• Authorisation schemes (Article 9 of the Services Directive) 
• Quantitative or territorial restrictions; obligations on a provider to take a specific legal 
form; requirements relating to company shar eholdings; certain requirements reserving 
access to a service activity to particular providers; bans on having more than one 
establishment in the territory of the same Member State; requirements fixing a minimum number of employees; fixed minimum and/or ma ximum tariffs; obligations on the provider 
to supply other specific services  jointly with its service (Article 15  of the Services 
Directive); and  
• Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities (Article 25 of the Services Directive).  
For the cross-border provision of services
 (Article 16 of the Services Directive), all rules 
applicable to services provided on a cross-bord er basis needed to be reviewed (unless the 
                                                 
1  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
services in the internal market, OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, pp. 36–68. 
2  The term ‘Member States’ is used in this document  to refer to the 27 EU Member States and the three 
EFTA countries participating in the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. Norway, Iceland and 
Liechtenstein. 
EN 6  EN rules fell under one of the derogations to Artic le 16 contained in Article 17 of the Services 
Directive).  
The review covered the rules applic able to a large variety of serv ice activities, i.e. all services 
falling within the scope of the Services Directive.3 It concerned requirements laid down at 
national, regional and local level as well as thos e imposed by professional  associations in the 
exercise of their regulatory powers. The review was generally carried out by those 
departments in national administrations responsib le for the specific laws being reviewed (for 
example laws affecting tourism-related servi ces were generally reviewed by the ministry 
responsible for tourism). It was gene rally coordinated by a central unit.  
As said, Member States needed to report to the Commission on the resu lts of the review. To 
deal with the amount of information involved in this reporting, the Co mmission services, in 
close cooperation with the Member States, se t up an electronic system. Through the use of 
pre-formulated and pre-translated questions a nd answers, the system allowed Member States 
to access some information in all languages. It  also made the information easily accessible 
through a common structure. Last, it helped ensure that the main  information on each of the 
reported requirements was provided through the use of obligatory fields. The electronic 
reporting system was used by all Member St ates and was essential for the Commission 
services and for the other Member States to  understand and make us e of the information 
provided. During the implementation period, the information in the system was only 
accessible to the Member State that entered it.  At the end of the implementation period, all 
reports were made accessible to the othe r Member States and the Commission.  
2.2. Organisation of the mutual evaluation process 
2.2.1.  Preparation of the process: challeng es, development of a methodology and 
its political endorsement 
While the Services Directive called for a proce ss of mutual evaluation, it did not set out its 
organisation in detail. The organisation of th e process needed to address a number of 
important challenges, in particular:  
• the high number of participan ts (27 EU Member States pl us the 3 EEA-EFTA states);  
• the vast amount of information to be dealt with;  
• the limited amount of time available (about 10 months); 
• the fact that important parts of the inform ation reported were only available in the 
respective national languages. 
To deal with these challenges, a methodology wa s developed in cooperation with the Member 
States. The aim was to ensure a good factual knowledge of the requirements to be mutually 
evaluated and to encourage the active engage ment of all Member States. The latter was 
crucial: without this active engagement, the pr ocess of peer review could not have been 
successfully concluded.  
                                                 
3  For more detailed information on the scope of the Services Directive, see page 10 et seq. of the 
handbook on implementation of the Services Directive 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/ docs/services-dir/guides/handbook_en.pdf. 
EN 7  EN The proposed methodology consisted of three st ages: individual self-a ssessments, work in 
clusters of 5 Member States each, and pl enary meetings with all Member States.  
The discussions followed a double approach . On the one hand, they focused on the 
establishment and cross-border requirements as such. On the other hand, they examined 
specific service sectors identified as priorities  by Member States. The priority sectors were 
chosen on the basis of their economic importan ce as well as the level of regulation. They 
comprised: wholesale and reta il services, construction and pr operty-related services, real 
estate activities, tour ism and related services, food and be verage services, services of the 
regulated professions, business services and priv ate education services. Member States were 
of course free to discuss other sectors as well.  
The proposed methodology was developed by the Commission and Member States and 
endorsed by the High Level Group of the Comp etitiveness Council (m eeting of 1 October 
2009). The High Level Group confirmed that the objective of the process was to obtain a 
detailed picture of the internal market for servi ces and to assess the needs for future steps. The 
Group also stressed that the process should not be used to rank or ‘shame’ Member States. 
Mutual trust was key. It was fi nally agreed that the High Le vel Group would have a steering 
role during the process.  
2.2.2.  The three-step approach  
2.2.2.1.  First step: overview of the results of the review of legislation (‘self-
assessments’)  
In a first step, Member States agreed to give  basic information on the main results of their 
review of legislation, i.e. the main changes in their regulator y framework, the main benefits 
expected, as well as the most important requi rements maintained. This  general overview was 
necessary to help prepare the meetings in th e cluster and the plenary, where the detailed 
reports on individual requirements were to be discussed. The self-assessments were submitted by each Member State to the Commission by the end of January 2010. They were translated 
and distributed to all other Member States.  
2.2.2.2.  Second step: meetings in groups of 5 Member States (‘clusters’) 
The aim of the work in clusters was to ensure  in-depth discussions on the legal framework of 
each Member State. Cluster work allowed for a variety of views while nevertheless ensuring a 
workable size for in-depth discussion. It en abled better understand ing of the individual 
situations in the Member States. It encouraged the active engagement of all Member States in 
the process.  
Member States gathered in 6 clusters of 5 c ountries each. The composition of the clusters was 
proposed by the Commission taking into account (t o the extent possible) languages, levels of 
trade, and geographical proximity:  
Cluster 1: Austria, the Czech Repub lic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia.  
Cluster 2: Belgium, France, Liechtens tein, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.  
Cluster 3: Bulgaria, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain.  
Cluster 4: Cyprus, Greece, Ireland,  Romania and the United Kingdom.  
Cluster 5: Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway and Poland.  
EN 8  EN Cluster 6: Estonia, Finland, La tvia, Lithuania and Sweden.  
The work in the clusters was organised by  the Member States themselves with the 
Commission participating just as  an observer. Between the end of January and the middle of 
March, all clusters met two or three times (generally in the capitals of different cluster 
members). In all clusters, Member States agre ed to provide more detailed information about 
the existing requirements and draft ‘extended self -assessments’ for the service sectors that had 
been identified as priorities.  
The results of the cluster discussions were refl ected in a cluster report made available to the 
rest of the Member States. The reports gave  a detailed and comparative overview of the 
situation as regards specific requirements a nd sectors and summarised  discussions. Several 
cluster reports also contained best practices th at had been identified during the meetings. The 
cluster reports generally also indicated certain issues the cluster members wanted to discuss 
during the plenary phase. For instan ce, all clusters stated that there was a need to discuss the 
relationship between the Professional Qualifications Directive4 and the Services Directive. 
The need to address requirements reserving an  activity to specific professions was also 
identified.  
2.2.2.3.  Third step: meetings with a ll Member States (plenaries)  
The plenary discussions started at the end of March and continued until the middle of 
October. These meetings were chaired by th e Commission services. Several documents giving 
a detailed overview of the requirements and sectors under discussion were prepared.  
In total, 7 plenary meetings were held. These concerned:  
• 25 March 2010:  Overview of the work in clusters and first discussion on 
horizontal/cross-cutting authorisation  schemes (Art. 9). 
• 19 May 2010: Continuation of discussi ons on authorisations (Art. 9); 
discussions on legal form require ments (Art. 15(2)(b)), capital 
requirements (Art. 15(2)(c)) and restriction of multidisciplinary activities (Art. 25). 
• 20 May 2010: Discussion on tariffs (Art. 15( 2)(g)), quantitative and territorial 
restrictions (Art. 15(2)(a)) and bans on having more than one 
establishment (Art. 15(2)(e)). 
• 10 June 2010: Discussion on Article 16: general approaches to implementing 
the freedom to provide services clause and the main requirements reported by Member States.  
• 15 July 2010: Continuation of the di scussion on Article 16 and discussion on 
requirements reported in the retail sector. 
• 16 September 2010: Discussion on requirements re ported in the tourism sector, in the 
construction sector and in th e business services sector. 
                                                
 
4  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 
recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, pp. 22–142. 
EN 9  EN • 15. October 2010: Discussion on the relations hip between the Services Directive 
and the Professional Qualif ications Directive 2005/36; 
discussion on requirements reporte d in the education sector and 
discussion on requirements fi xing a minimum number of 
employees (Art. 15(2)(f)) and on obligations on providers to supply other specific services  jointly with their service 
(Art. 15(2)(h)). 
2.2.3.  Stakeholder consultation 
As provided for in the Services Directive, inte rested parties were cons ulted during the process 
of mutual evaluation. The on-line consultation took place between 30 June and 13 September. 
For the results, see below under point 7. 
3. G
ENERAL REMARKS  
Member States reported in total more than 34  000 requirements. Most were notified by 
Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Austria. At the other end, relatively few requirements 
were notified by Bulgaria, Cyprus, Liechtens tein, Malta, Norway, Latvia, Luxembourg and 
Finland. The number of notified requirements does  not necessarily imply that a Member State 
is heavily regulated. The number depends on various factors, including the organisational 
structure of a Member State (federal or centr alised structure; regul atory powers of local 
authorities) and legislative tech niques (e.g. general rules vers us sector-specific regulation). 
Significant differences in the num ber of notified requirements were  thus to be expected. Most 
of the requirements notified we re authorisation schemes and requirements imposed on cross-
border services.  
It is clear that not necessarily all existing re quirements have been reported by all Member 
States. Not all Member States have done equally thorough work and certain differences exist 
in the reporting of the Member States.  
Sections 4 to 6 of this document give an overview of the main requirements that were 
reported and discussed. They rely on the in formation provided by Member States in the 
reports as well as on the information given in the self-assessments, the work in the clusters 
and the discussions in the pl enary meetings. The overview does not intend to provide a 
complete picture. This is not possible given the volume of  reported requirements. The 
different sections focus on the requirement s that have been maintained after the 
implementation period. They also indicate requirements that have  been abolished as a result 
of implementation, but it should be borne in mind that Member States did not have to report 
all the requirements that they abolished5 (in some sections, therefor e, only examples could be 
given). A number of Member Stat es are still in the process of amending existing legislation. 
This is why the document sometimes refers to  changes that are ‘ongoing’ or have been 
announced by Member States. In those cases, ce rtain parts of the information provided may 
no longer be up to date (for instan ce, if laws have si nce been adopted or proposed drafts have 
been modified).  
                                                 
5  The Services Directive only ob liged Member States to report abolished requirements if these were 
covered by Article 15, but not if they came under Article 9, 16 or 25. 
EN 10  EN Finally, the document describes the requirements and their justifications  as reported by the 
Member States. It does not make a judgment as to the justification or proportionality of the 
requirements reported or as to the validity of  the arguments and explanations given by 
Member States. The document does not prejudic e the position of the Commission in trying to 
ensure the full and correct implementation of the Services Directive, including via 
infringement cases. Nor does it prejudice the position of the Commissi on regarding existing 
or future complaints. 
4. ESTABLISHMENT -RELATED REQUIREMENTS6 
4.1. Horizontal/cross-cutting authorisations (Article 9) 
4.1.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What are the relevant aspects for the Services 
Directive?  
‘Member States shall not make access to a servic e activity or the exerci se thereof subject to 
an authorisation scheme unless the fo llowing conditions are satisfied:  
(a) the authorisation scheme does not discri minate against the provider in question; 
(b) the need for an authorisation scheme is ju stified by an overridi ng reason relating to the 
public interest; 
(c) the objective pursued cannot be attained by  means of a less restrictive measure, in 
particular because a posteriori in spection would take place too late  to be genuinely effective. ’ 
Authorisation schemes are procedures that require providers to take steps in order to obtain a 
decision from a competent authority on access to or exercise of a service activity (by contrast, procedures that simply require providers to file a notification or declaration with the 
competent authorities are not considered to  be authorisation schemes). Under these 
procedures, providers often have to supply in formation, documents and certificates to the 
competent authorities without being able to start up a new business or  expand their activity 
until a decision on their applications has been ta ken. As recognised by the European Court of 
Justice, authorisation schemes ar e an obstacle to the establishmen t of service providers and, as 
such, can be maintained only if they are non-discriminatory, jus tified by an overriding reason 
of general interest and proportionate.  
This section deals only with ‘horizontal’ author isation schemes, i.e. those applying across the 
board to many service activities. Authorisatio ns for specific service activities have been 
examined during the sector-specific discussions  in the mutual evaluation process and are 
described in part 6 below. 
                                                
 
6  The overview does not include a specific section on requirements re ported by Member States under 
Article 15(2)(d), i.e. requ irements reserving an activity to speci fic service providers for reasons other  
than professional qualifications. Most of the requirements reported and discussed related to professional qualifications. Where reservation requirements not linke d to professional qualifications were reported in 
the priority sectors, they ar e included in the sector-specific parts of this paper. 
EN 11  EN 4.1.2.  The situation in Member States — what have we seen so far as a result of 
implementation?  
Member States have reported a number of horizont al schemes, in particul ar obligations to be 
entered in business registers or to obtain a ge neral trade licence, as authorisation schemes 
covered by Article 9 of the Directive. This is the case with Belgium (‘ Banque Carrefour des 
Entreprises — Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen’ ), Bulgaria (craft register: ‘ Централен  
регистър  на занаятчиите ’), Cyprus (general trade licence)7, Czech Republic (trade licence: 
‘živnostenské oprávn ění’)8, Estonia (register of economic activities:  ‘Majandustegevuse 
register’ ), France (trade registers: ‘ Registre de commerce et des sociétés’  and ‘ Répertoire des 
metiers’ ), Germany (craft register: ‘ Handwerksrolle’ ), Liechtenstein (trade register: 
‘Gewerberegister’ ), Luxembourg (trade licence: ‘autorisation d’établissement’ ), Malta (trade 
licence: ‘ Liċenzi tal-Kummer ċ’)9, Netherlands (trade register: ‘ KVK Handelsregister’ ), Poland 
(register of business activit ies of natural persons: ‘ Ewidencja Dzia łalności Gospodarczej’ ; 
register of entrepreneurs in the national court register: ‘ Rejestr Przedsi ębiorców Krajowy 
Rejestr Sądowy’ ), Slovakia (trade licence: ‘ živnostenské oprávnenie’ ), and Sweden (different 
company registers held by the company registration office — Bolagsverket )10.  
Other business registers and general trade licen ces were not reported, but were nevertheless 
discussed by Member States during the mutu al evaluation process. Although some of these 
business registers or general trade licences may indeed be authorisation schemes, it appears 
that most were not notified because they were c onsidered simple declarations or to be outside 
the scope of the Directive (for example because applied for taxation purposes).  
Examples include Austria (registration in the trade register: ‘ Gewerberegiste r’), Denmark 
(central business register: ‘ CVR ’), Finland (trade register: ‘Kaupparekisteri’ ), Germany (trade 
register: ‘ Gewerberegister’ ), Greece (general business register: ‘ ΓΕΝΙΚΟ  ΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΟ  
ΜΗΤΡΩΟ ’), Italy (business register: ‘Registro delle imprese’  and craft register: ‘ Albo delle 
Imprese Artigiane’ ), Liechtenstein ( public register: ‘ Öffentlichkeitsregister’ ), Luxembourg 
(trade register: ‘ Registre de Commerce’ ), Norway (business register:  ‘Foretaksregisteret’ ), 
Poland (registration, for statistical purposes, in the register of national economic entities: 
‘REGON’ ), Romania (trade register: ‘ Registrul Comertului’ ), Slovenia (craft register ‘ Obrtni 
Register’ ), and United Kingdom ( ‘Companies house’)   
The discussion during the mutual evaluation pr ocess showed that these horizontal schemes 
can take very different forms and that their objectives can also be different.11  
In all Member States, legal entities, including of course service providers, are obliged to be 
entered in company register s for company law purposes.12 A number of the registers 
                                                 
7  Άδεια  άσκησης  υπό νοµικών προσώπων , επί κέρδει  επιχείρησης , εµπορίου , εργασίας , επαγγέλ µατος 
κλπ., εντός  των δηµοτικών  ορίων  του οικείου  ∆ήµου. 
8  Depending on the activity, procedures to obtain a trade licence in the Czech Republic take the form of 
authorisations in some cases and declarations in others. 
9 The trade licence in Malta has a residual scope of ap plication, i.e. it only applies to those commercial 
activities that are not otherwise governed by any other specific law. 
10 Sweden reported three diff erent registers held by Bolagsverket  (company registration office) covering 
both legal and natural persons: the companies register, the associations register  and the trade register. 
11  In many cases, horizontal registration obligations can be imposed for tax or social  security reasons, such 
as obtaining a VAT or taxpayer id entification number. However, these cases were not discussed in the 
mutual evaluation since taxation is not covered by the Services Directive, and some of these registration 
requirements are stipulated by speci fic EU instruments (for example, VAT registrations are dealt with 
by Directive 2006/112/EC of 28.11.2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 347/1 of 
11.12.2006). 
EN 12  EN mentioned above seem to fulfil primarily (alb eit not necessari ly exclusively) the role of 
company registers. Discussions showed, however, that in a numb er of cases the obligation to 
be entered in such registers also applies to i ndividual entrepreneurs. Th is appears to be the 
case, for example, with the ‘ Registre de Commerce’  in France and in Luxembourg, the 
‘Registro delle Imprese’  in Italy, and the ‘ Handelsregister ’ in the Netherlands. Similar 
situations seem to exist in other Member St ates as well. This was mainly explained by 
Member States by referring to transparency reasons (i.e. making sure that competent authorities are aware of all bus inesses established in their territory) or even, in some 
instances, to mere statistical needs.  
In other cases, cross-cutting obligations to enrol in business registers or to obtain a trade 
licence are imposed on service providers in order to check their good repute or their 
compliance with criteria concerning their activ ity such as professional qualifications or 
technical and financial capacity. This is the case, for example, with the trade licences in the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia, the ‘autorisation d’établissement’ in Luxembourg and the craft 
registers mentioned by Bulgaria , Germany and Slovenia. The ‘ Banque Carrefour des 
Entreprises — Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen’  in Belgium encompasses different 
registration obligations that appear to be im posed to ensure transparency and to verify 
compliance with activity-specific criteria , such as professi onal qualifications.  
In a number of cases, these schemes — for exam ple, the trade licences in the Czech Republic, 
Slovakia and Malta and the Re gister of Economic Activities in Estonia — encompass 
different procedures (authorisat ions or declarations), depending on the specific activity for 
which the licence is sought.  
As a result of the implementation of the Direc tive, some of these horizontal schemes have 
been considered to be unjustified or dispropor tionate by Member States and have either been 
abolished or made less stringent. For instance, in Slovakia  all authorisations covered by the 
Trade Licence Act have been replaced by declarations. Malta  has replaced some of the 
authorisations under its general trading licence by declaratio ns. In some cases, changes have 
been planned but not adopt ed yet. For instance, Bulgaria  has indicated that a draft law 
currently pending before Parliament will make membership in its craft register no longer 
mandatory for those providers that are alread y subject to other registration obligations. 
Cyprus  has communicated its intention to abolish the general trade licence  
Besides these changes to horizont al authorisations, Member Stat es have adopted a number of 
other important administrative simplification reforms benefiting service providers across the 
board. Often, authorisations have been re placed with declarations. For instance, Italy  has 
established a general principle that all econo mic activities that previously required an 
authorisation (save in exceptional cases) can be started upon fili ng a simple declaration to the 
competent authorities. In Hungary , individual entrepreneurs  can now start their activities 
upon filing a declaration instead of  the multi-step authorisation scheme they were previously 
subject to. 
                                                                                                                                                         
12 See for example Directive 2009/101/EC of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for 
the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of 
companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to 
making such safeguards equivalent (OJ L 258/11 of 1.10.2009). This Directive, which codifies a 
number of previous company law directives, requires cer tain categories of companies, in order to ensure 
transparency and information to third parties, to supply information and transmit documents (such as 
their company statutes, details of the persons author ised to represent the company, etc.) to company 
registers in Member States. 
EN 13  EN  
CONCLUSIONS:  
Different types of horizontal authorisation schemes, i.e. schemes that apply to all or a large 
variety of services, exist in the Member States. 
As a result of the implementati on of the Services Directive, so me Member States have reduced 
the scope of such authorisation schemes and repl aced, for certain servic es, authorisations by 
measures such as declarations. In the discussi on, some Member States raised questions about 
horizontal authorisation schemes, in particular  as regards those requiring prior verification 
of conditions. Some Member States  pointed out that not all serv ices covered by such schemes 
needed prior verification and aut horisation. It was stressed t hat declarations could be 
sufficient in many cases.  
In a number of cases, the discu ssion showed that several laye rs of procedures may apply to 
the start of the same service activity. For exa mple, providers may be required to enrol in a 
business or company law register and, on top of that, obtain from other competent authorities 
a general trade licence or ot her authorisation specific to their activity. Member States 
stressed the need to avoid duplic ation and to ensure that proce dures are as simple and quick 
as possible. Some Member States  referred to a principle in th eir administrative system that 
documents may not be required from a provider if they are al ready available within the 
administration. Others indicate d that in many cases the burden of proof as regards 
compliance with requirements applic able to service providers has been shifted from providers 
to the public administration, so activities can now be started upon filing a simple declaration 
without having to submit any  documentary evidence.  
EN 14  EN 4.2. Quantitative/territorial restrictions (Article 15(2) (a)) 
4.2.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with  … quantitative or territo rial restrictions, in 
particular in the form of limits fixed acco rding to population or of  a minimum geographical 
distance between providers’  
Quantitative and territorial restrictions can take different forms. In some cases, they limit the 
overall number of providers in a certain te rritory, e.g. by imposing a maximum number of 
providers through limits fixed according to pop ulation or through a minimum geographical 
distance between providers. In other cases, they  do not limit the overall number of providers 
but determine the geographical lo cations where specific service act ivities can be carried out.  
These requirements in many cases prevent newcomers from entering the market and thus 
seriously restrict the freedom of establishment. Under Article 15 of the Services Directive, they can only be maintained if they are non-di scriminatory, justified by an overriding reason 
of general interest, and proportionate. 
4.2.2.  The situation in Member States — wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation?  
Quantitative and territorial restrictions were reported by 22 Member States
13 in many different 
service sectors. However, a large number of  these requirements were notified by a small 
group of Member States for a relatively homogeneous  group of activities, mainly in the retail 
and tourism sectors.  
4.2.2.1.  Limits according to population, minimum distances, and limits on 
the number of providers in a certain territory  
Limits according to population, minimum distan ces or straightforward limits on the number 
of providers in a certain territo ry have been reported by several Member States. In a number 
of cases such requirements have been abolished — or are in the proce ss of being abolished — 
as they were considered discriminato ry, unjustified or disproportionate.  
For instance, minimum distance requirements have been abolished in some Italian  regions  
for beauticians, travel agencies and petrol stations. Greece  and Spain (at regional level) have 
also abolished minimum distance requireme nts between petrol stations. Similarly, Portugal  
has indicated that it is in the process of abolishing minimum distance requirements for the 
establishment of driving schools. Italy  (at national level and in some regions) has abolished 
limits according to the population for establishmen ts selling food and beverages. In the same 
vein, Luxembourg  has indicated its intention to abo lish the limits according to the population 
for establishments selling alcohol. A number of regions in Austria  and Italy  have abolished 
requirements limiting to one the number of ski schools per ski resort/municipality and Greece  
                                                 
13  Bulgaria, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta , Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom did not report 
any such requirements. 
EN 15  EN has indicated that it will abolish a similar require ment restricting to one the number of private 
art schools that can be opened per district.  
The quantitative and territorial re strictions that have been main tained appear in many cases to 
be used by Member States as a tool to try to reduce or otherwise control the offer of services 
considered to involve potential risks for the reci pients or risks/nuisances at the places where 
they are provided. In these cases, Member St ates sought to justify these requirements by 
citing the protection of the environment or urba n environment and the protection of recipients 
or their health.  
For example, minimum distances between two es tablishments are imposed on night shops and 
phone shops in Belgium (Flanders) with the aim of limiting the nuisance such shops may cause in the neighbourhood where they are located. For similar concerns — plus for public 
health reasons — the number of establishments  that can sell alcohol is limited in France 
(depending on how many inhabita nts live in a certain area) a nd in Spain (based on decisions 
taken by municipalities ‘to avoi d concentration of these establishments’). In Ireland, all 
licensed premises (this includes pubs, hotels, restaurants, th eatres and off-licences — i.e. 
shops selling alcohol for consumption off- premises) can be limited in number by 
municipalities.  
In some cases, Member States indicated that  they impose quantitat ive restrictions, in 
particular in the retail sector, as a tool to limit the concentration of certain types of 
establishments (notably large outlets such as supermarkets) in a given area. In particular, 
some regions in Italy limit the total amount of new square meters of certain types of outlets 
that can be authorised every y ear. It appears that similar rest rictions apply to large-scale 
outlets in other Member States as well. In Greec e, the number of itinerant sellers that can sell 
products outside commercial premises in a given municipality can be limited by the local authorities, and all ‘outside trade’ has to comply with minimum distance requirements. 
Greece has invoked social policy reasons and th e protection of the urban environment to 
justify such restrictions.  
In some instances, minimum distances between establishments carrying out the same service 
seem to be imposed because of scarcity of sp ace and/or to prevent overcrowding in natural 
areas. This appears to be the case for establis hments selling food and drinks on the beach in 
Spain and, in some instances, for holiday hom es and campsites along the coast in Denmark.  
By contrast, in other cases, minimum distances  and quantitative limits are not imposed to 
limit the overall offer of certain services but on the contrary to try to ensure the widespread geographical availability of certain services. The idea seems to be that restricting the 
concentration of establishments in a certain ar ea may encourage their setting up in other areas 
of the country or region. For example, in It aly, both national and regi onal legislation provide 
that authorisations to open new newspape r shops must take into account the population 
density in the catchment area. Some Italian regi ons have indicated that they are considering 
abolishing these requirements. 
Finally, in a number of cases Member States have notified requirements according to which 
only one (or a limited number of ) provider/s can exercise the same activity in a given 
geographical district. The just ification for these requirement s varies. For example, in 
Germany, each district can have only one dispat ch centre for calls to the emergency number 
‘112’. This measure was explained by the need to ensure efficient organisation of the service. 
In Austria, only a limited number of chimney sweep s can work in a distri ct. Austria cited fire 
protection and safety as reasons as well as ‘t he need to guarantee a minimum income to 
chimney sweeps’.  
EN 16  EN 4.2.2.2.  Territorial restrictions determin ing the geographical locations 
where certain service activities can be carried out 
Under Article 15(2)(a), Member States also notified a number of requirements that do not 
limit the overall number of operators allowed in a certain territory but rather determine the 
geographical location or the physical place wher e a given service can be provided. This is 
done either by prohibiting the provi sion of a service in certain areas or by determining that 
certain activities can only be carried out in certain places.  
Member States have indicated that some of  these requirements will be abolished. For 
example, Greece  has indicated that it will abolish the requirement that art traders can only 
establish in towns where there are offices of the governmental department responsible for the 
protection of cultural heritage. Greece  has also reported that the prohibition of ambulant trade 
in towns with more than 20  000 inhabitants will be abolished. France  has indicated that it will 
abolish the requirement that training centres fo r certain health profe ssions can only establish 
in towns where there is a regional hospital. 
Requirements of this type maintained by Memb er States are very heterogeneous and the 
reasons provided very different. A ll in all, the cases most frequently reported seem to concern 
rules that prohibit the exercise of certain service activities in the physical proximity of other 
activities, locations or groups of persons. In many cases, it seems that the aim is to prevent 
risks that these services could represent in a particular area.  For example, in Greece petrol 
stations need to keep a mini mum distance from certain places open to the public such as 
restaurants.14 In Portugal establishments  selling alcohol and sex shops  cannot establish next to 
schools, and in Austria vending machines cannot  be set up in areas around public buildings 
and public transport. In the area of the regul ated professions, France notified a prohibition 
imposed on land surveyors (‘ géometres experts’ ) from setting up an office in the same 
geographical area where they have  previously worked as trainees or employees for another 
land surveyor. However, this requirement wa s notified as being ma de less stringent. 
CONCLUSION:  
With regard to quantitative and territorial re strictions, the mutual evaluation process 
revealed very divergent situations: while some Member States resort to such restrictions in a 
number of cases, in particular in the tourism a nd retail sectors, others do not seem to use 
such restrictions at all.  
Different types of quantitative or territorial rest rictions seem to exist and different reasons 
are invoked to justify them. Most of the re ported cases concern limits (based on the 
population or consisting in minimu m distances between providers)  imposed by Member States 
on the overall number of providers of a certain service that  are allowed to establish in a 
certain area. These restrictions seem to be used mainly to control potential nuisances due to 
the provision of certain services or their effect s in the area where the activity is carried out. 
Specifically in the retail sector , the opening of large-scale ou tlets is sometimes limited by 
quotas imposed on the number of new square metres  that can be authorised  in a given period 
in a certain area.  
Other restrictions concern cases where, for various reasons, Member States do not limit the 
number of providers but rather determine the geographical location of certain activities, in 
particular by prohibiting certain services in specific areas.  
                                                 
14  Greece has indicated that this requ irement will be made less stringent  by reducing the required distance 
from 200 m to 50 m. 
EN 17  EN As a consequence of the Di rective’s implemen tation, a good number of quantitative or 
territorial restrictions have been or are be ing amended. In the discussion, many Member 
States questioned the remaini ng requirements, in particular those that limit the overall 
number of service providers. It was pointed out  that outright quantitative limits on the offer of 
certain services have detrimental effects on co mpetition and, as a re sult, on innovation and 
development of high-quality services. In those cases where specific risks to the health of 
recipients or to the environment may exist, the risks could better be prevented by imposing 
rules, possibly including, if justified, authorisatio n schemes, to regulate the way in which the 
activities in question ha ve to be carried out. The appropriat eness of territori al restrictions 
imposed to ensure the widespread availability  of certain services was also questioned.  
EN 18  EN 4.3. Legal form requirements (Article 15(2)(b)) 
4.3.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with … an obligation on a provider to take a specific 
legal form’  
Legal form requirements can take very different fo rms. In some cases (often in the area of the 
regulated professions), service providers are obl iged to operate as natural persons or under 
specific legal forms (mostly ‘partnerships’ or equivalent forms), which imply a high level of 
personal liability and/or independ ence of the provider. At the other end of the spectrum, some 
Member States stipulate that certain service pr oviders can only act as legal persons, in some 
cases in the form of non-profit organisations. Different legal form requirements restrict 
service providers to different degr ees: in some cases only one specific legal form is excluded, 
in others providers have a choice of several le gal forms, and in some cases only one specific 
legal form is allowed.  
Legal form requirements constitute serious obst acles to the freedom of establishment. They 
limit the choice of business models and particul arly affect service providers from other 
Member States, which may not be able to estab lish unless they change their legal form or 
operate through a subsidiary. Legal form require ments may significantly restrict the cross-
border provision of services, by preventing cert ain providers from of fering their services 
across borders merely because of the legal form  in which they operate. Under Article 15 of 
the Services Directive, they can  only be maintained if they are non-discriminatory, justified 
by an overriding reason of gene ral interest, and proportionate. 
These requirements are often reported as nece ssary to ensure the independence of service 
providers. In some cases, they are also deemed n ecessary to ensure the reliability or solvency 
of the service provider. Some Member States  have also justified certain legal form 
requirements by citing the need to ensure that  providers possess the required skills and 
qualifications. 
Legal form requirements are closely related to shareholding requirements and restrictions on 
multidisciplinary activities, in particular as  regards the regulated professions. Various 
Member States aim to attain the same objectiv es through different types of requirements. 
Moreover, many Member States also often seem to combine these different types of 
requirements to try to achi eve the same objectives.  
4.3.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
Legal form requirements were report ed by almost all Member States15 (in total more than 
400). However, there are considerable differen ces in the number of reported requirements.16 
Legal form requirements are often found in the ar ea of the regulated professions, but also in 
other areas such as educati on services or technical cont rol and supervision services. 
                                                 
15  Only Latvia and Norway did not report any legal form requirements. 
16  Cyprus, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Sweden declared only a single legal form requirement, while Italy, 
Lithuania and Spain reported aroun d 50 and Romania more than 100. 
EN 19  EN 4.3.2.1.  Requirements to provide a service as a natural person or under 
legal forms ensuring a high level of  personal liability of the provider 
(mostly ‘partnerships’ or equivalent legal forms) 
One of the most important, if not the most common, legal form requirements is that which 
limits the exercise of certain activities to natura l persons or partnerships (or similar entities). 
Many Member States impose such a requirement on professions often re ferred to as ‘highly 
regulated professions’ or ‘liberal professions’. In  general, Member States consider that such 
requirements are needed to ensure the independ ence and impartiality of  the service provider 
as well as a high level of pers onal liability. In some cases, they  have been deemed necessary 
to ensure that the activity in question is  carried out by qualified professionals.  
As a result of the implementation of the Serv ices Directive, a number of legal form 
requirements that were considered discriminato ry, unjustified and/or disproportionate have 
been abolished or amended. For example, in Poland , the obligation for the legal professions 
and tax advisers to be exerci sed by natural persons or part nerships has been made less 
stringent by allowing an additional opti on of a joint-stock limited partnership (‘spółka 
komandytowo-akcyjna’) . In Italy , the obligation for itinerant and market traders to be 
individual entrepreneurs or pa rtnerships (and not limited co mpanies or cooperatives) was 
recently abolished. . Germany has indicated that  the legislation on arch itects and engineers 
has been relaxed and now offers a free choice of corporate structure and shareholdings. In 
France , following a recent reform, accountants can now provide services under any legal 
form, except that "commercial companies". Also in France , the prohibition on artist agents 
taking the form of a limited company (‘ société anonyme’  or ‘ société en commandite par 
action’ ) has been reported as  being abolished. Greece  also reported to be abolishing the 
requirement that only natural persons can pr ovide private supportive training services to 
school students.  
However, such requirements remain in a vari ety of areas and Member  States. A good number 
(but not all) were reported.  
In some cases, Member States have reported ob ligations to exercise certain activities as a 
natural person, thus completely excluding legal persons or other entities. Th is is the case for 
example in Greece for ambulant retail traders and in Austria for ski schools and mountain 
guides.  
In many cases, Member States require professiona ls to exercise their activity as a natural 
person, in a partnership or, in some cases, in  other entities providing  for a high level of 
personal liability and/or involve ment of the professional. In some cases, such requirements 
are in fact imposed on a variety of professions  across the board. For instance, in Italy, such 
requirements apply to a wide ra nge of ‘liberal professions’ (s uch as lawyers, accountants, 
architects, engineers17, etc.) which can only be exercised by individuals or in the form of a 
partnership (‘ società di persone’ ) or an association between professionals. A similar situation 
exists in Latvia, where professionals need to a ssume particular legal fo rms as a c ondition to 
practice under their professional title. Similar requirements seem to exist in other Member 
States.  
In other cases, this type  of requirement is imposed on spec ific professions only. For instance, 
Poland, Portugal and Romania have reported obligat ions for legal professionals to operate as 
                                                 
17  It is not clear, though, whether this limitation fully applies to architects and engineers, given that the 
creation of limited companies carrying out engineering activities is allowed by Italian legislation at least 
in certain cases (e.g . public procurement). 
EN 20  EN natural persons, partnerships or entities desi gned specifically for pr ofessionals and often 
providing for a high level of personal liabilit y. Similar requirements limiting the choice of 
available legal forms to natural persons, partne rships or similar ent ities have also been 
reported for accountants in Portugal18 and France19, insolvency administrators in the Czech 
Republic20 and Romania21, veterinarians in France and Romani a, architects and engineers in 
Austria and Bulgaria, and architects in the Czech  Republic. In Belgium, real estate agent and 
land surveying activities can only be exercised by natural persons or by legal persons under 
the responsibility and contro l of an independent land su rveyor/real estate agent. 
Legal form requirements of this type have also  been reported for areas other than ‘highly 
regulated professions’. In Italy, for example, craft companies (‘ società artigiane’ ) cannot take 
the form of limited companies ( ‘società per azioni’) . 
4.3.2.2.  Requirements to provide specific servic es as (specific) legal entities  
Some Member States require the service provide r to be a (specific type of) legal person in 
order to provide certain services, thus excludi ng the provision of these services by natural 
persons. Such requirements are often presented as necessary to guarantee the reliability and solvency of the service provider and/or a high level of quality.  
Some of these requirements have been or are being abolished as a result of the 
implementation of the Services Directive, as they were found to be unjustified or 
discriminatory. In Portugal , for example, in the car rental sector, the obligation to operate 
exclusively as a ‘sociedade commercial’  has been notified as being abolished. The 
Netherlands  reported the abolition of a requirement for organisations training immigrants for 
the obligatory ‘integration exam’ to be lega l persons. These services can now also be 
provided by natural persons. A similar obligation to operate as a legal person is also being 
relaxed for gas emission control services  and greenhouse insp ection services in the 
Netherlands . In Lithuania , a requirement that only a legal entity can be certified to provide 
training to civil servants  has been abolished.  
Nevertheless, in certain areas similar requiremen ts remain. In Italy, em ployment agencies can 
only operate as legal persons and in a limited number of legal form s. In the Flanders region in 
Belgium, in the field of employment services, a careers centre has to be  a legal person.. Many 
similar requirements exist in other Member States. 
Such requirements also exist in the area of pr ivate education. For instance, in Italy, private 
higher education activities (private  universities) can only be ex ercised in the form of public 
law entities (‘ enti pubblici’ ). In the Czech Republic and Cyprus, private universities also need 
to be legal persons.  
                                                 
18  The profession may not be exercised in  the form of commercial companies. 
19  Following a recent reform, in France accountants can now provide services under any legal form, 
except that "commercial companies". . 
20  Insolvency administration services can only be provided by a natural person, an unlimited liability 
partnership (‘veřejná obchodní spole čnost’ ) or a foreign company providing the same liability 
guarantees. 
21  They can also only provide services as a lega l person through a closed list of legal forms. 
EN 21  EN 4.3.2.3.  Other limitations on the number of  legal forms available to carry 
out certain activities 
Some of the legal form requirements reported by Member States do not appear to fall into any 
of the previous categories. These are requirement s that allow the exercise of certain activities 
both by natural and by legal persons, but which still limit — in different ways depending on the Member State — the choice of legal forms that can be used. The reasons justifying these requirements have been reported in a rather  general manner by Member States, which, for 
example, in some cases cited the need to ensure  that no external interests influence the work 
of professionals.  
Some of these requirements were considered  to be unjustified and were or are being 
abolished. For example, Belgium  reported that a requirement that debt recovery activities had 
to be exercised by a natural person or by ‘sociétés commerciales’  has been abolished. In 
Denmark , a restriction on the legal form of real  estate agents and accountants has been 
repealed. In Spain,  limitations in the choice of legal form for travel agents have been 
abolished. 
However, requirements remain in other areas . For instance, in Denmark, land surveying 
activities may only be exercised by a natural pe rson, a grouping of several land inspectors, a 
public limited liability company or a private limited company (but not in different legal 
forms). In France, land surve yors can only provide services  as as legal person as ‘Sociétés 
civiles professionnelles ou interprofessi onnelles’; ‘Sociétés d’exercice libéral’ or ‘Sociétés 
anonymes ou sociétés à responsabilité limitée’.  
In Hungary , an insolvency practitioners’ company can be registered on the list of the 
insolvency practitioners  only if it is a limited liability  company established in Hungary, a 
limited company with registered shares, or a H ungarian branch of a company established in a 
Member State and authorised under Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency 
proceedings. In Estonia, a firm of auditors may opera te as a general or limited partnership, a 
private limited company, a public limited company, or a European company.  
4.3.2.4.  Requirement to be a non-profit organisation 
In a number of Member States, certain serv ice activities can only be undertaken by legal 
persons if they take the form  of a non-profit organisation. Th e reason behind th is requirement 
is generally the need to ensure affordable pric es or to prevent servic e providers from pursuing 
profit-only objectives to th e detriment of recipients. 
Areas where this requirement exists include social  services. For example, in Austria, childcare 
providers are required to  act as non-profit en tities. In Belgium, a requ irement at regional level 
stipulates that advice to debt ors can only be provided by private establishments if they are 
incorporated as ‘non-profit-making organisations ’. In Luxembourg, organisations that inspect 
working conditions must operate as non-profit as sociations. Such requirements have also been 
reported for collecting societ ies (for instance in France, Poland or Slovenia).  
CONCLUSION:  
Legal form requirements have been notified by m any Member States for a large variety of 
different services. In contrast, some Member States do not seem to limit the legal form of 
service providers at all, or at least have not notified any such restrictions.  
Several Member States require certain serv ice providers to be a natural person or a 
partnership, thus excluding companies (or other corporations). This is often the case in the 
EN 22  EN highly regulated professions such as lawyers, tax accountants or architects. These restrictions 
seem to be imposed to ensure  the personal liability of the professionals, their solvency, 
independence and qualifications, or the quality of the service provided.  
In other areas, Member States require se rvice providers to be a company (or other 
corporation) and exclude natural persons or partnerships from exercising the activity. Such 
requirements are seen as necessary to ensure the solvency of the pr ovider and the quality of 
the services. In some cases, Member States re quire certain services to be provided by non-
profit organisations. Such requirements are seen as necessary to guarantee that the provider 
is not pursuing profit objectives to the detriment of the service recipients.  
Discussions showed that lega l form requirements are closel y related to shareholding 
requirements and restrictions on multidisciplinar y activities, in particular as regards the 
regulated professions. Various Member States aim to attain the same objectives through 
different types of requirements but also ofte n seem to combine these different types of 
requirements to try to achieve these objectives. 
Some progress has been achieved during the im plementation of the Services Directive. 
However, it is clear that considerable restrict ions remain. These concern important parts of 
the services sector and include services with a significant cross-borde r growth potential. The 
discussion confirmed that legal form requirement s are very serious obstacles for the internal 
market, which are particularly burdensome for se rvice providers from other Member States. 
These may in fact need to change their legal form  in order to be able to exercise their activity 
in another Member State.  
Member States have in particular questioned re quirements that certain activities can only be 
carried out by natural persons, all the more so when these requirements are applied across 
the board to a wide range of re gulated professions. Some Member  States have argued that the 
solvency of the provider could be safeguar ded by insurance/guaran tee requirements, the 
quality of the service would be best ensure d through requirements on the qualification of 
professionals, and direct involvement in service provision and independen ce of the provider 
can be guaranteed by professi onal rules or rules to ensure  that professionals can act 
independently.  
Legal form requirements requiring the provider  to be a legal person have been questioned, 
since solvency could be safeguarded thr ough insurance/guarantee requirements and the 
quality of the servi ce through requirements for the qual ification of professionals.  
EN 23  EN 4.4. Shareholding requirements (Article 15(2)(c))  
4.4.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with … requirements which relate to the shareholding 
of a company’  
Capital requirements include requirements to have a specific qualificat ion in order to hold 
capital (thus limiting the amount of capital that can be held by th ird parties, i.e. persons who 
do not have specific qualifications) and ob ligations to have a minimum capital.  
Requirements to have a specific qualification in order to hold capital often exist for the 
regulated professions. In fact, for some service sectors a la rge number of Member States 
require that the entire capital or the majority (more than 50  %) is directly owned by members 
of specific professions.  
Minimum capital requirements as a condition to set up a company carrying out specific 
activities have been reported by some Member States for a number of different sectors, but 
they seem to be comparatively less frequent.   
Many capital requirements limit the possibilities for professionals to have third parties 
investing in their companies and can also preven t providers from entering a market (if they do 
not have the minimum capital or minimum share capital to be held by professionals). Both 
aspects severely limit opportuni ties for new service providers to enter the market and for 
already active providers to furt her develop their activities.  
Capital requirements are particularly burdens ome for providers from other Member States, 
who may need to change their ownership structure to establish in another EU country. Under 
Article 15 of the Services Directive, they  can only be maintained if they are non-
discriminatory, justified by an overriding r eason of general intere st, and proportionate. 
As already indicated before, capital require ments are closely linked to legal form 
requirements, in particular for the regulated professions. For example, Member States that 
allow professional services to be carried out in the form of  a company may nevertheless 
require members of the profession to hold the majority of shares/votes in the company (in 
order to try to guarantee that members of th e profession have a deci sive influence on the 
company).  
4.4.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation?  
Around 100 capital requirements have been reported by 23 Member States.22 As in other 
cases, Member States make use of such require ments to very different degrees. Two main 
categories can be highlighted. 
                                                 
22  The Czech Republic, Gr eece, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Sweden  and the United Kingdom did not report 
any requirement. 
EN 24  EN 4.4.2.1.  Requirements limiting the sha reholding by third parties 
Capital requirements limiting the shares he ld by third parties exist largely, but not 
exclusively, in the area of the re gulated professions. Such require ments are used to ensure that 
the majority (more than 50  %) of a company’s capital is held by professionals in the sector in 
question. The objective cited by Member Stat es is almost always to guarantee the 
independence and impartiality of professionals or to ensure that the activity is directly 
exercised by qualified professionals.  
Following implementation of the Services Dire ctive, capital ownership requirements have 
been made less stringent in several cases  because they were found unjustified or 
disproportionate. For example, in Luxembourg , a shareholding require ment for crafts is 
reported as being in the process of being abol ished. In other cases, th e percentage of capital 
that can be owned by th ird parties has been raised. For instance, in France , the capital share 
that can be held by third parties in ‘Sociétés d’exercice liberal’  has been raised from 25  % to 
49 % (except for legal and health professionals). A change in Fr ench legislation raising the 
threshold of third parties capital to 49% has recently been approved specifically for land 
surveyors. In Spain , when professionals opt to se t up a ‘professional company’ (‘ sociedad 
professional’ ), the share of capital that can be held by third parties has likewise been raised 
from 25  % to 49  %.  
Nevertheless, significant restrictions remain. In some cases, the capital of a company is 
entirely closed to non-professionals. Fo r example, Italy has reported that 100  % of the capital 
of professional partnerships in the ‘liberal professions’ has to be owned by the professional 
members. In Lithuania and Slovenia, this ap plies to lawyers, in Portugal to lawyers, 
accountants and auditors, and in Ma lta to lawyers and engineers (‘ periti’ ).  
Member States have also maintained other cap ital requirements. For instance, in Denmark, 
shares in a law firm can only be owned by la wyers actively working as lawyers in the 
company, its parent company or subsidiary — another law firm — or by other employees of 
the firm23. 
Belgium has maintained a requirement that the ma jority of shares in an accounting firm be 
held by accountants and/or tax advisors who are members of the Institute of Accountants and 
Tax Advisors. In France, the legislation states th at accountants must, direc tly or indirectly via 
a company registered on the roll of the prof essional order, hold a cap ital share and voting 
rights equal to at least 75  % in limited liability companies and 66  % in joint stock companies 
and ‘ sociétés par actions simplifiées’24.  
In Belgium, the profession of architect can be ex ercised in the form of legal person only if at 
least 60  % of the company shares are owned directly or indirectly by registered architects. The 
remaining shares cannot be held by persons exer cising a profession that may conflict with that 
of architect. In France, more than 50  % of the company’s shares and voting rights must be 
held by architects or firms providing architectur e services. In Germany, at regional level 
(Bavaria and Saxony), the majority of the ca pital and voting rights has to be held by 
architects. In Austria, the engineer or archit ect responsible for runni ng the business has to 
control more than 50  % of the share capital. In the Czech Republic, the majority of 
shareholders and statutory repr esentatives (executives) must be authorised architects.  
                                                 
23 Other employees of the company ar e only allowed to own up to 10  % of the shares of the company, and 
must pass a test to prove their knowledge of the rules of particular importance for the legal profession. 
24  75  % for ‘sociétés à responsabilité limitée’, 66  % for ‘sociétés anonymes’ and ‘sociétés par actions 
simplifiées’. 
EN 25  EN Such capital requirements may also be f ound in areas other than ‘highly regulated 
professions’. In Italy, at least 51  % of the capital of craft enterprises (‘ impresa  artigiana’ , 
which includes for example bakers, barbers, b eauticians, etc.) must be held by qualified 
craftspersons. As indicated above, a similar re quirement is reported as being abolished in 
Luxembourg. Finally, in France, restrictions  on the capital that can be held by non-
professionals apply to activitie s as diverse as collecting soci eties or racehorse training 
companies. 
One further remark: in some cases, it seems that  professionals established in another Member 
State (than the Member State wher e the legal person is established) are more restricted in the 
capital they may hold than prof essionals established in the Member State where the legal 
person is established25. This would seem to be discriminatory.  
4.4.2.2.  Requirements imposing a mini mum capital requirement on 
companies in certain service sectors 
Requirements to have a minimum amount of cap ital to set up or run a company in certain 
service sectors have also been notified by so me Member States. The objective of these 
obligations is often said to be to enhance the liability/solvency and pers onal responsibility of 
the service provider.  
In some cases, Member States have reported  changes following the implementation of the 
Directive. For instance, in Portugal , a minimum capital requirement of EUR 50  000 for car 
rental activities has been notified as bei ng in the process of being abolished. In Spain , similar 
obligations for travel agenci es have been abolished. In Belgium , minimum capital obligations 
imposed on travel agents are also reported to have been abolished. In Portugal , the 
requirement for travel and tourism agencies  services to have a minimum capital of 
EUR 100  000 has also been reported as in  the process of being abolished. 
In other cases, similar require ments have been maintained. In Italy, public limited companies 
acting as custom agents (‘ spedizionieri doganali’ ) have to hold a minimum capital of 
EUR 100  000 and employment agencies must  have a capital of up to EUR 600  000 Euros 
depending on the specific act ivities they carry out.  
 
CONCLUSION:  
The process of mutual evaluation has shown th at there is great vari ation between Member 
States as regards capital requirements: wh ile some Member States have reported such 
requirements for several different services, other Member States do not seem to resort to them 
at all. This may, in certai n cases, be because the latter adopt a restrictive approach to 
activities carried ou t by professionals and do not allow the exercise of su ch activities by legal 
persons.  
Broadly speaking, there are two different types of  capital requirements: requirements to have 
a specific qualification in order to hold capital (thus limiting the amount of capital that can 
                                                 
25  In Belgium, for example, for accountants and/or tax advisors, the majority of shares and the majority 
voting power must be held by accountants and/or tax advisors who are members of the Institute of 
Accountants and Tax Consultants. Accountants and/or tax advisors established in another Member State 
and having a qualification recognised as equivalent to an accountant or a tax advisor in Belgium can 
only hold a minority of shares. 
EN 26  EN be held by third parties, i.e. by persons  who do not have specific qualifications) and 
obligations to have a minimum share capital.  
As far as requirements limiting the shares held by third parties are concerned, in some cases, 
all shares have to be held by persons with specific qualifications (u sually professionals), 
whereas in other cases a percentage  of shares (ranging between 25 and 49  %) may be held by 
other persons (non-professionals ). Shareholding requirements ar e closely related to legal 
form requirements. For example, Member States  that allow a activ ity profession to be 
exercised by a company may require members of this profession to hold the majority of 
shares/votes in the company in order to guarantee that members of the profession have a 
decisive influence on the company. Shareholding requirements that limit  the shareholding of 
third parties are usually imposed  in order to ensure the i ndependence, impartiality and 
qualifications of the provider.  
Requirements may also take the form of an oblig ation on companies acti ve in certain sectors 
to have a certain minimum capital. Those were often presented as necessary to ensure the 
solvency of the provider. 
As a result of the implementation of the Dir ective, a number of requirements have been 
amended. In most cases, the percentage of capita l that may be held by third parties has been 
raised. Nevertheless, a considerable number of rest rictions remain, in particular in the area 
of the regulated professions. Th e discussion confirmed that cap ital requirements can be very 
burdensome on service providers, in particular providers from other Member States, which 
may need to change their ownership  structure in order to be able to exercise an activity in 
another Member State. Such shareholding rule s have been questioned by some Member 
States, which consider that the application of professional rules, a di stinction between voting 
rights and shareholding rights, and /or an obligation to ensure th at the service is actually 
provided by a qualified person would be sufficient.  
Particular doubts were also raised as to the justification for general s hareholding restrictions 
covering a wide range of activities.  
EN 27  EN 4.5. Bans on having more than one establishm ent (Article 15(2)(e ) of the Services 
Directive) 
4.5.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with  … a ban on having more than one establishment 
in the territory of the same State’  
Bans on having more than one establishment in the territory of the same Member State do not 
prevent providers from one Member State from  establishing in the territory of a second 
Member State (such a requirement would be prohibited under Article 14 of the Services 
Directive), but stop providers from setting up a se cond establishment there. They thus prevent 
providers from expanding their activities and ma y restrict them to a very limited market.  
4.5.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
This type of requirement does not seem to  be very common. Scarcely more than 30 
requirements have been notified by only 9 Me mber States: Austria, Belgium, France, 
Germany26, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain. As far as such requirements 
have been maintained, they have been presen ted as necessary to gu arantee the provider’s 
personal and full engagement in the activity carr ied out and hence the quality of the service 
provided. 
Some requirements of this type have been  abolished. For instan ce, some regions in Austria  
and Italy  report having abolished requirements that prohibited ski instructors from working 
— as self-employed — in more than one ski school and that, similarly, prohibited ski schools 
from establishing at more than one ski st ation. Other bans on having more than one 
establishment have been abolished by Austria  for dancing schools and by France  for 
veterinarians.  
Nevertheless, a small number of requirement s of this type are being maintained.  
In some regions in Italy and Austria, ski inst ructors are still subject to the prohibition on 
providing services in more than one ski school and ski schools cannot es tablish in more than 
one ski resort. These requirements, when main tained, have been explained by the need to 
ensure the full-time presence of ski instructors at the school  
Greece has reported a ban on having more than one establishment for lawyers (to plead before 
a court outside their jurisdicti on, lawyers need to be accompanie d by a local lawyer) as well 
as for veterinary pharmaci sts, private schools (‘ phrontistiria’ ) and itinerant traders at local 
markets (the latter requirement is presented as a measure to combat unemployment). Austria 
reported a ban on having more than one  establishment for chimney sweeps.  
  
                                                
 
26  The requirements reported by Germany were notified as having all been abolished or made less 
stringent.  
EN 28  EN CONCLUSION:  
Bans on having more than one establishment do not seem to be very common — only a very 
limited number of such require ments are reported to be main tained and then only by few 
Member States. The bans notified concern a variet y of different services, the most important 
ones being those affecting certa in regulated professions.  
Several bans on having more than one establishm ent have been abolished as Member States 
considered them to be disproportionate. The few that have been maintained are generally 
considered necessary to ensure the full personal involvement of  the provider in its activity to 
ensure a high level of service quality. Such requirements have been questioned by other 
Member States, which have indicated that the objectives could be achieved by far less 
restrictive means such as the presence of  qualified staff in ea ch establishment.  
EN 29  EN 4.6. Requirement to have a minimum number of employees (Art icle 15(2)(f) of 
the Services Directive) 
4.6.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with  … requirements fixing a minimum number of 
employees’ 
Requirements fixing a minimum number of employees oblige businesses to employ a certain 
number of staff, e.g. one or more persons. In  many cases, the persons need to have certain 
qualifications or skills; in others, no specific skills are required. Such requirements fixing a minimum number of employees need to be dis tinguished from requirements to have certain 
qualifications or specific skills to provide a service. In fact, such requirements go beyond 
qualification requirements in that they requ ire the provider to employ another person in 
addition, whereas a qualifications or ski lls requirement may be met by the provider 
him/herself.  
Requirements fixing a minimum number of employees are burdensome for businesses, which 
may need to employ more staff when entering ma rkets in different Member States. This is 
particularly so for small and medium-sized enterprises, which normally have a limited number of staff and may not be  able to hire more. This could easily prevent SMEs from 
establishing or providing serv ices in Member States impos ing such requirements. Under 
Article 15 of the Services Directive, they  can only be maintained if they are non-
discriminatory, justified by an overriding r eason of general intere st, and proportionate. 
4.6.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
Requirements fixing a minimum numb er of employees do not seem to be used to a very large 
extent. They have been reported by 18 Member States
27. However, the number of reported 
requirements per Member State is rather low (around 10 or fewer).28 In several cases, 
moreover, it seems unclear whether all reporte d requirements in fact call for a minimum 
number of employees or only require the specif ic service to be provided by people with 
necessary skills (hence enabling the provider to do it him/herself or to outsource certain activities). Requirements fixi ng a minimum number of empl oyees have generally been 
justified as necessary to ensure the quality of the service or to  protect consumer s/recipients.  
As a result of the implementation of the Services Directive, several such requirements 
considered to be unjustified or disproportio nate have been abolished, for example: in Spain  
for construction services, electrical works, wholesale of pharmaceutical products, technical 
controls in the field of industria l safety, and driving schools; in Germany  for services in 
connection with the public water supply and sewage systems; in Italy  for ski schools and in 
                                                 
27  The Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finlan d, France, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, the 
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden an d the United Kingdom have not reported any such requirements. 
28  The fact that some Member States have reported a higher number of such requirements, including for 
instance Spain (more than 100), Ital y and Portugal (around 30) may, to some extent, be due to the fact 
that the reported requirements are impos ed in many cases at regional level. 
EN 30  EN Slovenia  for driving schools. Others have been or will be made less stringent, for example for 
construction services in Portugal29 and for environmental contro ls and geodetic services in 
Slovenia .  
A large number of requirements have, however , been maintained. The requirements reported 
can be grouped into th e following categories: 
4.6.2.1.  Requirements to have a fixed minimum number of employees  
These requirements can be found in very differe nt services. In some cases only one employee 
may be needed, in other cases two or mo re employees are necessary. In many cases, 
employees with specific qualifica tions or skills are required. 
Requirements to have at least one  employee have been notified for service activities such as: 
real estate services in Slovenia; driving schools for professional drivers in Poland; some retail 
activities (sale of fertilisers, plant propagati on material, explosives) in Cyprus and Greece; 
sanitary services (pest control) and corporate receivership services for insolvency procedures 
in Lithuania; several activities  including public water or public  sewer services, services in 
energy, geology, auditing, ozone layer assessm ent, motor vehicle emission checks, 
interpreters and translators in Slovakia; fire works shows in Iceland;  funeral services in 
Hungary; travel agencies, construction (elect rical installations) an d technical vehicle 
inspection in Cyprus; hunting services in Roma nia; employment agencies in Greece, Italy and 
Portugal; diving schools in Portugal. 
Requirements to have more than one employee ha ve been notified for se rvice activities such 
as ski schools and funeral director services in Italy and for sanitary services (disinfection) in Lithuania. Requirements have also been notif ied where the provider has to have a minimum 
number of employees with se veral types of skill s (e.g. three teachers and one expert 
supervisor, one expert in agri culture and one engineer, etc. ). Examples: construction in 
Cyprus; technical inspection of lifts, skip hoists and moving wa lkways, technical installation 
and operation of gas networks, fitting and/or repair of gas appliances, maintenance of lifts, 
inspection of oil-based fuel installations a nd inspection of gas distribution networks and 
premises in buildings, holiday camps, and extern al services for the pr omotion of health and 
safety at work in Portugal;
 electrical installations , technical supervision/verification of 
installations/equipment in pressure installati ons, and hoisting and fuel-based equipment in 
Romania; private vehicle inspection centres in  Greece; insolvency practitioners in Hungary; 
improvement of agricultural lands  in Romania and consultancy in agricultural matters in Italy.  
In many of the reported cases, the justification pu t forward is the need to ensure the quality of 
the service, the protection of consumers/recipi ents, and the protection of public health or 
public security. In fact, in some cases, such requirements seem to be imposed because the 
minimum number of staff is deemed to be necessa ry to provide the service or to guarantee a 
high quality. In other cases, Member States want to  ensure that the service can be provided at 
all times and thus require a certain number of st aff to ensure that they can be replaced if 
necessary, etc. In cases where Member States re quire staff with specif ic qualifications/skills, 
the main objective often seems to be to en sure the provision of the service by qualified 
persons.  
                                                 
29  Portugal has indicated that most, if not all, of the requirements of this kind that it had reported in this 
area are in the process of being made less stringent. 
EN 31  EN 4.6.2.2.  Requirements to have a mini mum number of employees in 
proportion to the reci pients of the service 
In some cases, Member State legislation does no t set a fixed number of persons that need to 
be employed but requires a certain number of  employees in proportion to the number of 
recipients of the services (e .g. 1 monitor per 10 children).  
It seems that this type of requi rement applies mainly to the social services in several Member 
States: social housi ng, centres for the protection and care  of children, adult care centres, 
homes for the elderly and disabl ed in Cyprus; social housing fo r persons over 65 and disabled 
persons in Portugal; different t ypes of social assistance and centres for children, students, and 
the elderly in Luxembourg; summer camps for children and home services for the elderly in 
Greece; geriatric establishments , leisure activities for children and youth, and summer camps 
for children in Spain; a number of different soci al services in Italy, in cluding social assistance 
for children with difficulties, services fo r early childhood, multifunctional residences, non-
medical social services, nurseri es, youth centres, socio-educatio nal centres for the disabled 
and day care centres for the elderly. In thes e cases, due to the specific needs of service 
recipients and the nature of the services, a certain number of staff, often with specific skills, may well be needed to guarantee the quality of the services.  
Another area where such requirements have been  reported is education, for example in Spain 
for education services that lead to the award of offi cially recognised diplomas. 
In most cases, such requirements seem to be just ified as necessary to ensure the quality of the 
services, to protect consum ers/recipients and/or to  safeguard public health. 
4.6.2.3.  Requirements fixing the number of employees in a general manner  
In some cases, legal requirements do not sp ecify the precise number of employees but 
stipulate that the number of staff has to be ‘a ppropriate’. This type of requirement has for 
example been reported for certai n certification services in Germany and for education services 
in Cyprus and Portugal. The assessment of wh at is considered to be ‘sufficient’ or 
‘appropriate’ is made on a case by case basis,  which may leave the relevant competent 
authorities with a broad margin  of discretion (whereas Articl e 10 of the Services Directive 
requires conditions for granting authorisatio ns to be clear, unambiguous, objective and 
transparent).  
Again, such requirements have been deemed to be justified to ensure the quality of the service 
and to protect consumers/recipients. 
 
CONCLUSION:  
Requirements to have a minimum num ber of employees do not seem to be used to a very large 
extent. Many Member Stat es do not have such re quirements at all, and th e Member States that 
have such requirements, with certain exceptions, do not seem to impose them in many areas.  
Requirements to have a minimum number of empl oyees seem to apply mainly to technical 
fields, including construction, technical installa tions and inspections, but also exist in other 
areas, e.g. in the tourism sector and for some business services, social services and private 
education. Such requirements can take different fo rms: in many cases, they call for a fixed 
number of employees (often with specific skills).  In other cases, they fix the required number 
in proportion to the number of recipients or in  a more general way by requiring ‘appropriate’ 
EN 32  EN staff. The main objectives pursued seem to be th e need to ensure the quality of the service, the 
protection of consumers/recipients, and the pr otection of public health  or public security. 
Following implementation of the Services Direc tive, a number of these requirements have 
been abolished or made less stringent beca use they have been found unjustified or 
disproportionate. However, there are still some cases where such requirements have been 
maintained. In the discussion, it became clear t hat they may in many cases not be necessary 
but could often be replaced by  qualification requirements.  
EN 33  EN 4.7. Fixed minimum and/or maximum tariffs (Article 15(2)(g) of the Services 
Directive)  
4.7.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with … fixed minimum and/or maximum tariffs with 
which the provider must comply’ 
Tariffs, i.e. prices imposed by the State or by  professional organisations with which the 
providers must comply when offering their servi ces on the market, take different forms. In 
some cases, tariffs predetermine the exact price to be charged by the provider. In others, they 
prescribe only the minimum or maximum amo unt to be charged. In some cases, Member 
States set minimum and maximum tariffs for th e same services, thus leaving only a reduced 
margin for the provider to set the price. In a few Member States, the law seems to set fixed 
fees, but at the same time allows the partie s to deviate from these fees by contractual 
agreement.30 Under Article 15 of th e Services Directive, tariffs can only be maintained if they 
are non-discriminatory, justified by an ove rriding reason of general interest, and 
proportionate. 
Some Member States also have ‘indicative tariffs’. Indicative tariffs are not legally binding, 
but may for instance be set for information purpos es. In practice, however , they may have an 
important influence on prices. I ndicative tariffs were not incl uded in the mutual evaluation 
process (even though they have in some cases been reported), as they  are not compulsory. 
However, their practical application, where they exist, needs to be carefully monitored to ensure that they do not lead to coordinated pricing behaviour among se rvice providers. Such 
coordination would end up having the same eff ect as compulsory tariffs and would raise 
concern under competition rules.  
Tariffs must be distinguished from administrative fees required by a competent authority, for 
example for granting authorisations, from fees  fixed by the State for services the State 
receives itself, and from fees determined by a judge for the reimbursement of costs in legal 
proceedings. All these are different from tariffs  imposed on service providers in the form of 
prices that the provider must comply with when offering its services to a private party. Finally, the notion of fixed tariffs  for services must be distingu ished from fixed prices set by 
law for certain goods. These fixed prices con cern goods and do not involve remuneration for a 
service.  
Fixed, minimum and maximum tariffs constitute a serious restriction on the free movement of 
services across the EU. They limit the possibilitie s of providers to decide on the price to be 
paid for their services and thus  make access to services markets (whether via establishment or 
via the cross-border provision of  services) more difficult. For instance, minimum tariffs limit 
competition on price and thus take away an impor tant tool for service providers to compete 
with incumbent providers in the market. Ma ximum fees also constitute an important 
                                                
 
30  In the Czech Republic, the law sets the remuneration for legal services provided by lawyers only when 
there is no agreement in the contract between the lawy er and the client. Liechtenstein has reported that 
the law governing tariffs for lawyers and legal agents sets tariffs for legal services from which the 
parties may deviate by agreement. In Germany, the parties may also deviate by agreement from the 
minimum fees set by law for la wyers’ activities out of court. 
EN 34  EN restriction. They are fixed by reference, amongst other things, to the national market and may 
therefore have a negative effect  on providers established in ot her Member States where the 
situation may be different (for instance, higher  cost of inputs). Ma ximum tariffs may also 
limit competition on quality. All these restrictions  obviously also affect service recipients, as 
they have the effect of limiting their choice of services and service providers.  
4.7.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
Fixed, minimum or maximu m tariffs exist in many Member States to varying degrees and for 
a wide variety of services, with differences between Member States as regards the sectors 
affected by such requirements. 
Such requirements have been reported by 24 Member States31. The reports provide a rather 
diverse picture of what kind of services ar e subjected to fixed, minimum and/or maximum 
tariffs. Sometimes, even the same service within the same Member State is  subject to different 
tariff requirements (fixed, minimum, maximu m or none) depending on the region concerned.  
4.7.2.1.  Fixed, minimum and maximum tariffs removed following 
implementation of the Services Directive 
Eight Member States, i.e. Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Malta, Romania and 
Spain, have reported the abolition of (or their in tention to abolish) cer tain fixed, minimum or 
maximum tariffs in the course of implementing th e Services Directive. In some cases, this has 
led to the complete abolition of all tariffs or  all tariffs of a specifi c type (e.g. all minimum 
tariffs). In others, only certain tariffs have been abolished.  
Malta  has abolished all legislative provisions prescribing tariffs. The tariffs that remain are 
only optional/indicative.32 In Italy , all legislation providing for compulsory fixed and 
minimum tariffs, at least as rega rds the liberal professions, has b een repealed; this also affects 
those tariffs imposed by professi onal rules, contractual provis ions and codes of conduct. In 
Spain , professional associa tions are no longer allowed to establish indicative tariffs 
(compulsory price setting for professional associations ha d already been previously 
prohibited).33  
Tariffs have also been abolished for sp ecific services, e.g.: for architects in Belgium , 
Germany  (for consultancy services ) and Malta ; for engineers in Malta  and Germany  (again 
for consultancy services but not for planning se rvices); for lawyers, commercial agents and 
‘public brokers’ in Malta ; for veterinarians in Romania, fo r ski instructors, mountain guides 
and tourist guides in certain regions of Italy ; for testing laboratories for precious metals in 
Spain ; for employment agencies in Ireland ; for waste management services in Belgium ; and 
for catering services in Hungary . 
                                                 
31  Only Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia and Norway have not reported any such requirements. 
However, tariffs seem to exist at l east in Bulgaria for certain services. 
32  However, it seems that the possibility to set compul sory tariffs through secondary legislation has been 
left open for certain cases, such as for engineers and veterinarians. 
33  The reason for this prohibition of indicative tariffs is that experience has shown that any guidelines on 
fees, even if only of an indica tive nature, end up being applied de facto  by all professionals, thus 
constituting a hindrance to free competition. In some exceptional cases, and to assist the judiciary in making decisions on prices, the law allows professional associations to issue reports or opinions on 
certain specific costs (at the request of the judiciar y), but not general guidelines or recommendations on 
professional prices. 
EN 35  EN 4.7.2.2.  Fixed, minimum and maximum tari ffs notified as maintained 
Fixed tariffs 
Fifteen Member States34 have reported the existence of fixe d tariffs, i.e. tariffs setting a fixed 
amount (and not just minimum or maximum limits).  
A number of these apply to regulated professi ons such as lawyers (Slovenia), veterinarians 
(Germany), or legal procurators (Spain). Howeve r, they can also be found in other areas, 
including:  
– Inspection and maintenance se rvices, including for industri al installations and lifts 
(Portugal), the inspection of fire installations  and chimney sweeps (Aus tria and Slovenia), 
car inspection (Portugal, Luxembourg), buildings or water inspection (Germany), 
– Social and childcare serv ices (Austria, Italy),  
– Network services such as pos tal services (Lithuania, Unit ed Kingdom), water services 
(Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia),  gas services (Czech Republic, Lithuania, Denmark), 
electricity services (Lithuania, Czech Republic, Romania), thermal energy (Czech 
Republic), heating services (Slovenia) and waste management (Austria, Italy). 
Other services where fixed ta riffs have been reported incl ude insolvency practitioners 
(Hungary, Germany), beach and sea sport ac tivities (Cyprus), and rural accommodation 
(‘agritourism’ in Italy).  
The objective most commonly cited by Member States  to justify fixed tariffs is the protection 
of consumers/recipients, i.e. to ensure that consumers pay for the service received. Besides 
consumer protection, the quality of  the service is also often pu t forward as a reason to impose 
fixed tariffs (for instance in the case of the regulated professions). The protection of fair 
competition is also sometimes mentioned. 
In the area of network services, some Member States seem to impose fixed tariffs in sectors 
where there are only a limited number of providers, as they consider that the lack of market 
players could negatively impact consumer prot ection and not guarantee universal service. 
Ensuring access to these services also seems to be behind the fixed tariffs imposed in the 
social or educational sectors (the fact that th ese services are partly financed by the State is 
also mentioned).  
Maximum tariffs 
Fifteen Member States35 have reported the existence of maximum tariffs.  
The service sectors concerned by maximum tariffs are, again, diverse and cover areas such as:  
– Regulated professions such as surveyors (D enmark), ski instructors and mountain guides 
(Italy) and lawyers (Italy) 36, 
                                                 
34  Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,  Romania and the United Kingdom. 
35  Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Gr eece, Hungary, Italy, Luxe mbourg, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, the United Kingdom. 
36  In Italy, the law repealing the obligation to comply  with fixed and minimum tariffs has not repealed the 
obligation to comply with maximum tariffs. However, Italy has reported that it is possible to pay a 
EN 36  EN – Real estate activities (Austria, Sweden, Germany), 
– Inspection services (Portugal, the Netherla nds, Denmark), including chimney sweeps 
(Austria, Italy), inspection of  fire installations (Austria), gas installation inspection 
(Luxembourg), 
– Network services and ancillary services such as water servic es (United Kingdom, Belgium, 
Portugal), waste services (Poland), measurin g energy consumption (the Netherlands), 
energy labelling services (Denmark), district heating services (Hungary). 
Other services where maximum tariffs have been reported include: education services 
(training for drivers and driving schools37 in Luxembourg), storing of personal and payment 
data for employers (Poland), pl ant protection (Slovenia), funera l services (Portugal), debt 
recovery (Austria), animal sanitary services  (Austria), employment  services (Belgium, 
Greece), , artistic agents (France) and sport agents (France). 
As in the case of fixed tariffs , protecting the consumer/recipien t is the reason most commonly 
invoked to justify maximum tariffs. The quality of the service is again also mentioned, 
notably for the regulated professions. In certain  specific activities, such as real estate 
activities, the reason ci ted for maximum tariffs may also be to combat potential fraud.  
For network services (where, as indicated befo re, a limited number of providers may exist), 
some Member States justify maximum tariffs by the need to ensure th at providers perform 
their tasks while at the same time protecti ng consumers and guaranteeing access to those 
services. 
Minimum tariffs 
Only eight Member States, i.e. Austria, Belg ium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy 
and Poland, have reported the existence of minimum tariffs38.  
Many are found again in the regulated profe ssions: for lawyers in Greece, Cyprus and 
Germany and for architects in Greece or Bulgar ia. Minimum tariffs also apply to tourist 
guides in some Italian regions and in Cyprus. Other sectors where mini mum tariffs have been 
reported include legal advisers  in specific areas, notably pe nsions (Germany), construction 
experts (Germany), social servic es (childcare services in Aust ria or home care services in 
Belgium), diet experts (Cyprus) and collec tive management of copyright (Poland).  
Member States seem to justify minimum tariffs in the regulated professions by the need to 
protect service recipients and ensure the quali ty of the services provided. The objective of 
ensuring fair competition (avoiding dumping) is al so cited by some Member States to try to 
justify the existence of a minimum tariff39, as is the need to ensure the ‘dignity of a 
                                                                                                                                                         
lawyer’s fee higher than the maximum when there is a disproportion between the professional service 
and the fee fixed by law. 
37  Luxembourg had notified this requirement as being repealed, but subsequently announced that this had 
been postponed. 
38  Some Member States have reported minimum tariffs  while mentioning as a justification that they are 
not applied in practice. For example, Cyprus justifies the possibility under the law for the government 
to  set minimum tariffs for services provided by food and diet experts by stressing that this provision has never been applied in practice. 
39  For example, for construction experts in Germany, the objective pursued is to ensure minimum fees for 
providers and fair competition (not a ‘race to the bottom’). 
EN 37  EN profession’. For social services, it seems that the objective pursued in this sector is to 
guarantee wide coverage of such services40. 
4.7.2.3.  Application of both minimum and maximum tariffs 
Four Member States, i.e. Austria, Germany, Ital y and Slovenia, have reported the existence of 
both minimum and maximum tariffs for the sa me services (leaving a limited margin of 
discretion for the provider to set fees). The most common objective cited by Member States is 
again the protection of recipients, more specific ally to guarantee the accessibility and quality 
of the service provided.  
For example, Italy has reported that in some regions, ski instructors and/or mountain guides 
must comply with minimum and maximum tariffs, In Germany the same is true for insolvency administrators or architects
41. In Slovenia, insolvency practitioners must also 
comply with minimum and maximum tariffs, as must chimney sweeps and inspectors of fire 
installations in Austria.  
 
CONCLUSION:  
As regards tariffs, the mutual evaluation proc ess has revealed a relatively diverse picture. 
They are nevertheless widely used. In many case s, such rules are imposed on highly regulated 
professions (such as lawyers, architects and ve terinarians) and in certain network services. 
However, to a lesser extent they are also used in  other sectors. Minimum tariffs are often said 
to be necessary to protect the consumer or ensu re the quality of the services, to ensure fair 
competition (avoiding dumping) and to safeguar d the ‘dignity of th e profession’. Maximum 
tariffs are often justified by the n eed to ensure consumer protection.  
As a result of the implementation of the Di rective, such rules have been abolished in a 
number of cases, so that in some Member States no tariffs at all or no tariffs of a specific type 
(e.g. minimum tariffs) remain. Nevertheless, some requirements have been maintained. The 
discussion with Member States confirmed that the imposition of tariffs is generally perceived 
as a severe restriction on service providers,  which impedes them from competing on price 
and/or on quality (in the case of maximum tar iffs). Maximum tariffs seem to be largely 
accepted for network services where there is a monopoly or a limited number of competitors. 
However, in other areas tariffs are much more c ontroversial, in particular minimum tariffs. In 
this respect, some Member States have point ed out that minimum pr ices could not guarantee 
high-quality services but would in  fact have harmful effects on consumers by preventing them 
from benefiting from competitive prices. Ge neral competition rules ensuring a functioning 
market, general contract rules prohibiting abus ive tariffs, professi onal rules and the proper 
information of consumers would be sufficient to protect the consumer. 
                                                 
40  As explained by Austria and Belgium. 
41  HOAI — Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure. 
EN 38  EN 4.8. Requirements obliging  providers to supply other specific services jointly 
with their services (Article 15(2 )(h) of the Services Directive) 
4.8.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall examine whether their lega l system makes access to a service activity or 
the exercise of it subject to compliance with … an obligation on the provider to supply other 
specific services jointly with his service’ 
Obliging service providers to supply other sp ecific services jointly with their services 
considerably restricts their choice of economic activity a nd hinders innovative business 
models. It is a major burden for existing pr oviders and a significant entry barrier for new 
providers. It may also have a negative effect  on the availability of (non-bundled) services. 
Under Article 15 of the Services Directive, thes e requirements can only be maintained if they 
are non-discriminatory, justified by an ove rriding reason of general interest, and 
proportionate. 
4.8.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
Obligations on providers to supp ly other specific services join tly with their services do not 
seem very common. Little more than 50 such requirements have been reported by 12 Member States
42. Not all of the reported requirements seem to constitute clear- cut obligations within 
the meaning of Article 15(2) (h) of the Services Directive.  
Of the reported requirements, a number have been considered unj ustified or disproportionate 
and therefore have been abolished or have b een reported as being a bolished, for example for 
petrol stations in Italy  (obligation to host a shop), retail in Spain  (big commercial surfaces 
having to sell fuel as well), personal services in France  (where a number of personal services 
had previously to be provided together) or ski schools in Austria , which previously had to 
cover a whole range of winter ski sports.  
A number of requirements have nevertheless be en maintained. These are quite heterogeneous, 
but have generally been justified by the need to protect recipien ts or their health. One of the 
most clear-cut categories seems to  be services with a social objective or linked to a certain 
category of users. In Belgium, for example, se rvice flats for the elderly also have to offer 
maintenance services and meal  distribution. Requirements of this type have also been 
reported for energy/network services in Lithuania,  where heat and hot water have to be jointly 
supplied (in certain conditions). In Austria, pr oviders of educational services for social 
professions also have to provi de continuous training. In Hunga ry, the sale of  therapeutic 
equipment has to be accompanied by deliver y and instructions/technical advice on the 
equipment.  
  
                                                
 
42  Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Luxembourg, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom did not 
report any requirements While most of the others re ported less than 5 such requirements, Italy reported 
20, Austria 10 and Spain 11. 
EN 39  EN CONCLUSION:  
Obligations on service providers to supply other specific services  jointly with their services 
do not seem to be very common. After the implementation of th e Services Directive, even 
fewer restrictions remain.  
The remaining restrictions concern various differ ent services without cl ear tendencies. One of 
the sectors where they are found is  social services, where they ar e justified by  the protection 
of recipients or their health. 
 
 
EN 40  EN 4.9. Restrictions on multidisciplinary acti vities (Article 25 of the Services 
Directive) 
4.9.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
‘Member States shall ensure that providers are not made subject to requirements which 
oblige them to exercise a given  specific activity exclusively or  which restrict the exercise 
jointly or in partnership of different activities. 
However, the following providers may be made subject to such requirements: 
(a) the regulated professions, in so far as is justified in order to guarantee compliance with 
the rules governing professional ethics and conduc t, which vary according to the specific 
nature of each profession, and is necessary in  order to ensure their independence and 
impartiality; 
(b) providers of certification, accreditation, techni cal monitoring, test or trial services, in so 
far as is justified in order to ensu re their independence and impartiality.’ 
Restrictions on multidisciplinary activ ities can take two different forms: 
• They can prevent the provider from exercising several activities at the same time. This 
requirement is usually an obligation to exercise  a given activity excl usively or to refrain 
from a list of activities considered to be in compatible with the exercise of the given 
activity. 
• They can prevent the provider from worki ng in partnership with other providers 
(exercising a different profession). For example, multidisciplinary partnerships between 
lawyers and accountants may be prohibited.  
In accordance with Article 25 of the Services Dir ective, restrictions can only be justified for 
the regulated professions43 or for certification, accreditation, technical monitoring and testing 
services, and only if necessary in order to ensure their independence and impartiality. 
The restrictions vary from an obligation to exer cise the activity exclusively to a ban on certain 
specific activities or on any activities where th e independence and impartiality of the provider 
is at risk. Obviously, if provide rs have to exercise an activity exclusively, this would also 
prevent them from working in part nership with other providers.  
Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities are closely linked with other requirements. In 
particular for the regulated professions, they are often linked with shareholding and legal form 
requirements.  
4.9.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
More than 230 requirements were  reported by 25 Member States44 under Article 25 of the 
Services Directive. The number varies consid erably from Member State to Member State45. 
                                                 
43  As defined in Article 3(a) of the Directive 2005/3 6/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications. 
44  None notified by the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland, Latvia and the United Kingdom. 
45  From 40 (Germany, France) to 21 (Belgium), 20 (Italy, Portugal), 10 (Poland), 7 (Norway), 4 
(Denmark), 1 (Sweden). 
EN 41  EN The requirements concern a wide range of activities. In some cases, the restrictions notified 
by Member States seem to relate to activities other than regulated prof essions or certification 
and testing services. Any restriction not fa lling under one of these two groups should be 
removed in line with Article 25.  
In the area of the regulated professions, the repo rts received concern a wide range of different 
services: car experts (France, Belgium), insolvency practitione rs (Hungary, Romania), tax and 
fiscal advisers (Poland), touris t guides (Portugal, Italy), employment cons ultants (Italy), etc. 
However, a certain homogeneity among the Me mber States can be  seen for certain 
professions (such as for lawyers46, veterinarians47, architects48, engineers49, accountants50 and 
real estate agents51). 
Restrictions to multidisciplinar y activities notified for certifi cation, accreditation, technical 
monitoring and testing services also cover a broad range of ac tivities such as inspection of 
elevators and escalators52, certification, construction and real  estate expertise, agricultural 
control, work inspection or construction inspection53.  
The objectives most commonly cited by Memb er States to justify restrictions on 
multidisciplinary activities are preventing conflicts of interest and guaranteeing the impartiality and independence of the profes sional. Some Member States also invoke 
consumer protection and the need to ensure the quality of the service. In the area of the regulated professions, one of the objectives cited is also to ensure compliance with the professional rules.  
Limitations on multidisciplinary activities  can be divided in two main groups:  
4.9.2.1.  Obligation for the provider to exerci se an activity exclusively or 
restrictions on the exercise of diffe rent activities by the same provider 
(incompatibilities) 
Following implementation of the Services Dir ective, a number of Member States have 
abolished or relaxed certain re strictions on multidisc iplinary activities as they were found to 
be unjustified or disproportionate. In Cyprus , for example, the requirement to exercise 
exclusively the activity of real estate agent has been repealed. France has indicated that  the 
obligation to exercise the activity of auctione er exclusively will be modified. Some Member 
States have decided to repeal the obligation to exercise an activity exclusively and to replace 
it by the requirement for providers to exercise th is activity as their main activity. For instance, 
Cyprus has indicated that the obligation for buildin g contractors to exercise their activity 
exclusively will be replaced by an obligation to have it as their main activity. Other Member 
States that have exclusivity requirements have decided to re lax them and authorise certain 
professions to work in partnership. In Poland , the obligation for advocates, legal advisers, tax 
advisers and patent agents to engage in a gi ven service activity exclus ively has been relaxed 
                                                 
46  Notifications received from Cypr us, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungar y, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, 
Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden. 
47  Belgium, France, Greece, Spain. 
48  Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta. 
49  Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta. 
50  Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal. 
51  Denmark, Portugal and Slovenia. 
52  Austria, France, Portugal. 
53  Germany. 
EN 42  EN in the legislation implementing the Services Di rective. This allows these professions to 
cooperate within one multidisciplinary partnership.  
Nevertheless, significant restrictions on multidis ciplinary activities persist. For instance, in 
Cyprus or in Lithuania, lawyers are obliged to exercise their profession exclusively. In 
Bulgaria, real estate appraisers are also require d to do so. In other Memb er States, there is no 
obligation to exercise an activity exclusively but there are rules on incompatibilities with 
other professions or activities. In France for lawyers and in Germany for tax consultants, the 
law lists specific professions or activities considered to be incompatible with the exercise of their activity
54. Similarly, in Italy, employment c onsultants, accountants and lawyers are 
prevented from exercising a number of other ac tivities listed by law. In Hungary, attorneys 
are not allowed to engage in entrepreneurial activities in order to guarantee their liability and independence. In Luxembourg, a veterinarian is  not allowed to exercise simultaneously the 
profession of pharmacist. Similarly, in Spain, ve terinarians cannot at the same time provide 
pharmaceutical services or engage in th e manufacturing, distribution and sale of 
pharmaceutical sanitary products. In the Cz ech Republic, architects may only perform 
pedagogic or publishing activities and may not  perform any other activity that would 
endanger their independence. In Es tonia, a firm of auditors can be active only in certain other 
areas.  
In some cases, restrictions on multidisciplinary activities do not apply in general but only in 
specific cases. For instance, in Germany, certain structural inspectors and structural inspection 
engineers are not allowed to serv e as experts or engineers on pr ojects where they are involved 
in their planning or execution. In Bulgaria , the same person cannot participate in a 
construction project as both architect/engineer and builder. In other cases, Member States lay 
down a general principle that providers can pr ovide any other services except where this 
would endanger their independenc e or impartiality (e.g. in Fr ance for lift inspectors, in 
Norway for real estate agents or in Sweden fo r real estate agents, who may not trade in real 
estate or engage in any other activity likely to discredit them as an estate agent).  
4.9.2.2.  Restrictions on exercising an activity jointly or in partnership 
Some Member States have maintained a genera l prohibition on different  providers exercising 
activities jointly or in partnership.  
In Italy, Malta and Portugal, for instance, for prof essionals to be able to act and be registered 
as an association of professionals  or a partnership, all partners ha ve to be professionals of the 
same type. In Italy, however, multidisciplinary part nerships of professional services seem to 
be possible at least in certain cases, in partic ular between professions defined as ‘liberal 
professions’, insofar as more specific incompatibility rules do not apply.  
In Greece, legal services cannot be provided jointly  or in partnership with other services (e.g. 
accountants). The same requirement can also be  found in Bulgaria and in Lithuania, where 
lawyers may practice in a partnership only with other lawyers. In Portugal, lawyers, legal 
consultants and accountants are subject to stringent rules on incompatibilities  with other 
professions, both when they ope rate as individual service pr oviders or in partnership.  
In France, an architect cannot be an employee or partner of a natural person or legal entity 
that carries out construction or  real estate activities.  
                                                
 
54  The Steuerberatergesetz (StBerG), Durchfuehrungsverordnung zum StBerG, prohibits commercial 
activities, employment activities and financial administration activities for tax consultants. 
EN 43  EN In Norway, there are restrictions on offering jointly or in partnership services for the 
supervision of electrical systems and other se rvices concerned with the installation and 
operation of electrical systems.  Similarly, in Denmark, car safe ty inspection and car repair 
services may not be offered jointly or in partnership.  
Some Member State laws list activities or pr ofessions considered to be compatible or 
incompatible55 with the exercise of a given activity or list different prof essions allowed to 
exercise their activities jointly. As menti oned before, the Polish  law implementing the 
Services Directive allows advocates, legal advisors , tax advisors and patent agents to exercise 
their activity jointly within one  multidisciplinary partnership.  
Finally, in some cases reported or disc ussed by Member States, restrictions on 
multidisciplinary activities in partnerships also ta ke the form of restrictions or prohibitions on 
taking part in more than one professional partners hip (this seems to be the case for the ‘liberal 
professions’ in Italy) or owning shares in comp anies in other sectors. For example, such a 
requirement can be found in Belg ium, where the profession of architect can only be exercised 
by a legal person if the legal pe rson has no shares in other companies and/or legal persons 
other than those in the same profession. A similar provision exists in France and in the Netherlands
56 for accountants.  
 
CONCLUSION:  
Under Article 25 of the Services Directive, rest rictions on multidiscip linary activities can only 
be justified for two types of se rvices: (i) services provided by  regulated professions and (ii) 
certification, accreditation, technical monitoring  and testing services. Nevertheless, in a few 
cases, some Member States seem to have maintain ed such restrictions in  other areas as well. 
Those restrictions should be removed. 
Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities exist  in many Member States. Multidisciplinary 
activities are regulated either by law or by the rules of pr ofessional organisations charged 
with enforcing professional ethics. The number and extent of restrictions  varies considerably. 
Restrictions can take two different forms: pr ohibitions on exercising other activities and 
prohibitions on exercising an activity in partnersh ip with other providers exercising different 
activities. In both cases, the extent of the restri ctions may vary from an  obligation to exercise 
an activity exclusively to a ban on certain specific acti vities to rules which do not prohibit the 
exercise of any activity in general but only in  specific circumstances, i.e. if and when the 
independence and impartiality of the provider is at risk. All these rules are generally 
presented as justified by the need to ensure the independence and imparti ality of providers.  
Even though several restricti ons on multidisciplinary activities  have been abolished or 
relaxed following implementation of the Services Directive, significant restrictions remain. 
The discussion confirmed that such requirement s severely restrict innovative business models. 
Particular doubts have been raised regarding the most severe restricti ons requiring providers 
to exercise their activity exclusiv ely but also regarding requirements impeding providers from 
exercising certain other activities. Questions have been raised whether it would not be 
sufficient, in certain cases, to have a gene ral rule authorising the exercise of different 
activities as long as the indepe ndence and impartiality of the provider are not at risk. Some 
                                                 
55  Such as in Estonia, where services for the design, installation and maintenance of surveillance and 
security equipment can only be provided by persons who do not have shares in a company that 
manufactures or sells weapons or provides private detective services. 
56  The majority of the voting rights in an accountants’ office or organisation has to be held by accountants. 
EN 44  EN Member States consider that authorisation schemes and rules of professional ethics are 
sufficient to ensure independence or impartial ity (any violation could be sanctioned by a 
posteriori control) or that it is sufficient to put in place me chanisms within a partnership or 
company to avoid any involvement in  issues that could give rise to a conflict of interest or 
compromise independence.  
EN 45  EN 5. REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO CROSS -BORDER SERVICES  
5.1. The implementation of Articl e 16 — different approaches  
One of the most important aspects of the implementation of the Services Directive is the 
implementation of Article 16, on freedom to pr ovide services. Article  16 requires Member 
States to abstain from imposing their ow n requirements on incomi ng service providers 
established in other Member States — except where the requirements are non-discriminatory, 
are justified by the four reasons listed in Ar ticle 16(1) (b) and 16(3), and are proportionate. 
Member States have taken different approaches in implementing Article 1657. These fall into 
two main categories: the ‘horizontal’ approach  (with or without additional sector-specific 
changes) and the sector-specific approach.  
 
5.1.1.  Member States introducing a clause on  freedom to provide services in 
their ‘horizontal law’ 
• Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovaki a and the Czech Republic have implemented 
Article 16 by way of a horizontal law, that  is, general legislation implementing the 
Services Directive. The horizon tal laws of Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland seem to 
state that a rule can only be applied to cross- border services if the specific rule meets the 
criteria provided for in Article 16 and if the relevant (sector-specific) law states explicitly 
that the rule also applies to cross-border services. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have 
included a rule in their horizontal laws whic h, in principle, enables service providers 
established in other Member States to provide services in these count ries without having to 
comply with additional requirements. Exceptions to this have to be laid down by law. The 
basic approach in all these Member States t hus seems to be that requirements do not apply 
to cross-border services unless this is specifically stated in  the (sector-specific) law.  
Within this framework, these Member States have, to different degrees, maintained the 
application of certain requireme nts for specific cases (and have specifically stated this in 
the law).58 
                                                 
57  The following description concentrates on the Member States’ general approach to implementing 
Article 16 and changes made to existing (sector-speci fic) legislation which indicate clearly which rules 
apply to cross-border services and which ones do not. It does not deal with other changes made by Member States in respect of Article 16, such as the abolition of establishment re quirements (for this see 
below point 5.2.1), nor with amendments made to the regulatory framework in general which of course 
also facilitates service provision for cross-border provid ers. Nor does it deal with cross-border services 
covered by the derogation from Article 16 provided for in Article 17 of the Services Directive. 
58  The Czech Republic seems to have made specific provisions in only two cases, i.e. for land surveyors 
and the handling of radioactive material. Estonia requires notification for the handling of pyrotechnic and explosive substances and an authorisation for the handling of weapons. Hungary has notified 41 
areas in which they impose rules on incoming servi ces. This includes 16 authorisation schemes (for 
civil explosion activities, private investigators, handling of firearms etc.) and 23 notification schemes (for patent agents, construction activities, certain accr editation activities, tour operator and travel agent 
activities, adult education and higher education, se rvices related to medical aid, lobbying activities, 
etc.). Lithuania has notified a number of authorisation schemes, in particular for some construction 
works, some education services, the sale of alcohol and tobacco products and activities relating to 
nuclear energy. In Poland, certain requirements apply to cross-border services, inter alia for tour 
operators and travel agents, the packaging of or trade in plant protection products, training on trade in 
and the packaging and use of plant protection products, the training of aircrew in civil aviation, and 
certain activities relating to waste. Based on the horizontal law, it seems that Slovakia applies 
EN 46  EN • Belgium, Bulgaria59, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Gre ece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal60, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom have 
also chosen to implement Articl e 16 by way of a horizontal law.61 In their horizontal acts 
(or drafts as they stand now) these Member St ates seem to have included a clause which 
lays down the principle set out in Article  16, i.e. that requirement s can only be imposed on 
incoming services if they are non-discriminato ry, justified for reas ons of public policy, 
public security, public health or the protection of the envi ronment, and are proportionate. 
On this basis, it seems that, if the sectoral  legislation does not state which rules can be 
applied to cross-border services, it is for the competent authorities to decide in each case 
whether a rule complies w ith these criteria or not.62  
Some of these Member States, including Belgium63, Bulgaria64, Denmark65, Luxembourg66, 
Malta67, Portugal68, Romania69 and Sweden70 have, to varying degrees, also made changes 
                                                                                                                                                         
requirements on incoming services only for SGEIs,  lawyers and auditors. However, in its self-
assessment it reported authorisation schemes for other se rvices, such as translators and interpreters, too. 
Slovakia reported 13 authorisation schemes, including for translators/interpreters, insolvency 
administrators, mediation, geodetic/cartographic activities, and tax advice. 
59  Bulgaria stated that, und er its system, services can be carried out freely if there ar e no special legal 
requirements imposed for cross-border services. 
60  Article 4(3) of the Portuguese horizontal law enshrines the freedom to provide cross-border services 
stating that cross-border service pr oviders can freely conduct business. In addition, the Portuguese text 
expressly prohibits the imposition of Article 16(2 ) SD requirements unless they are exceptionally 
justified by the four reas ons listed in Article 16. As regards requirements other than those laid down in 
Article 16(2), the Portuguese authorities have indicated that they intend to publish guidelines explaining that such requirements are only permissible if they are exceptionally justified by the four reasons listed 
in Article 16. 
61  In Iceland and Luxembourg the current draft hori zontal laws seem to cont ain a clause implementing 
Article 16 but the law has not yet been finally adopted. 
62  Italy has, however, indicated that its competent authorities do not have the power to decide whether one 
of the four reason apply in specific cases. 
63  Belgium seems to have clearly stated that the gene ral register (the Banque Carrefour) does not apply to 
cross-border service providers. In  some regions, Belgium has also replaced authorisation schemes by 
prior declarations for travel agencies from other Member States providing cross-border services. 
64  Bulgaria seems to have replaced, for cross-border services, an author isation scheme for crafts with a 
notification scheme. Specific changes also seem to have been made to the law on tourism. 
65  Denmark has specified that temporary service providers are exempt from the Danish ban on discount 
coupons and price competition. 
66  Luxembourg is in the process of adopting amendments to the framework law on establishment and the 
framework law on social services specifying that authorisation schemes do not apply to cross-border 
services. 
67  From the information reported by Malta, it seems that the trading licences act, which covers a wide 
variety of services, has been changed so that service providers that are legally established in another 
Member State can in principle provide cross-border services in Malta without authorisation or 
notification. The service providers must, however, co mply with all other requirements set out in the 
trading licences act. Malta has also made changes to ot her rules, e.g. on the sale of time-shares and on 
employment agencies, replacing authorisations with no tification requirements fo r cross-border services. 
68  Portugal has amended the Code of Commerce to sp ecify that cross-border se rvice providers no longer 
need to establish and register in Portugal. Portug al has also indicated that  future sector-specific 
amendments will expressly state the requirements that can be imposed on cross border service 
providers. 
69  Romania has also made certain specific changes for cross-border services in the area of tourist guides, 
fire prevention services, construction site supervisors and services for the design, installation, 
maintenance and repair of security systems. 
70  Sweden has specified that the law on terms of  agreement between traders and the law on travel 
guarantees are not applicable to cr oss-border services. In addition, Sweden has indicated that certain 
information requirements do not apply to cross-border services, in the Act amending the Distance and 
Doorstep Sales Act, the Act amending the Occasiona l Sales Act, the Act amending the Marketing Act 
and the Act amending the Product Safety Act. 
EN 47  EN to sectoral legislation in whic h they specify the rules that can  or cannot be applied to cross-
border services. 
In contrast, other Member States, including Cy prus, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, 
Norway and the United Kingdom, seem to ha ve made no legislative changes specifying 
clearly which rules do or do not a pply to cross-border services.  
• Similar to the Member States in the previous  category, Latvia and Sp ain have also included 
a clause on freedom to provi de services, similar to Artic le 16, in their horizontal law71. 
From the information we have received it al so seems that Latvia and Spain have in 
principle totally prohibited Article 16(2) requirements (Spain all, Latvia some of these requirements, including authorisation schemes)
 72.  
Spain has also made many changes in sectoral legislation stating specifically which rules 
apply to cross-border services.73   
• Slovenia has also included a clause laying down th e principle of Article 16 in its horizontal 
law. However, from the information received, it seems that the horizontal law in itself will 
not have the effect that competent authoritie s must or can disapply certain rules on cross-
border services. Rather, it seems that it necessa rily has to be determined in legislation 
which rules apply to cross-border services and which do not. If nothing is specifically 
stated in existing legislation, all the rules applicable to es tablished providers would also 
apply to cross-border services.74  
•  
5.1.2.  Member States without a horizontal law or a clause on freedom to 
provide services in the horizontal law, i.e. which rely (solely) on 
sector-specific changes 
• Germany and France have not adopted any horiz ontal law and therefore have no horizontal 
clause implementing Article 16 in their national regulatory framework. Similarly, 
Liechtenstein and the (current) draft horizontal laws in Austria do not seem to include any 
clause implementing Article 16 of the Services  Directive. To implement Article 16, these 
Member States thus seem to rely solely on making changes to sector-specific legislation.  
From the information available to us, it seems that Germany has made a number of 
important changes75; France has also made a number of  changes specifically addressing the 
situation of cross-border service providers76. However, Austria and Liechtenstein seem to 
                                                 
71  The wording of the Latvian law seems potentially broader, however. 
72  Spain has, however, reported many requirements under Article 16 including authorisation schemes. 
Latvia seems to have excluded the regulate d professions from this outright prohibition. 
73  Spain has made such changes in relation to sector s such as tourism (travel agencies, tourist guides), 
numerous industrial services and the retail sector. 
74  In its recently amended legislation on the construc tion industry, Slovenia specifi ed that all requirements 
apply to cross-border services in th e same way as to establishment cases. 
75  Germany has removed the general obligation to notify a commercial operation (‘Gewerbeanzeige’) that 
applies to a wide range of different activities, the authorisation scheme for itin erant sales (off-premises 
services) and specific authorisation schemes for estate  agents, in the auctioneering sector, for property 
developers and property development managers for cross-border services. It has also ensured that the tariffs applicable for archit ects and engineers do not appl y to cross-border services. 
76  These mainly concern travel agencies, top mode l agencies, live show managers, certain personal 
services and tattoo/piercing services. 
EN 48  EN have made no specific changes in the framew ork of the implementation of the Services 
Directive that state clearly which rules cannot be applied to cross-border services.77  
• The Netherlands has also not adopted any gene ral clause implementing Article 16 and is 
thus relying on changes made to sector-spe cific legislation. The Netherlands’ general 
approach has been to review all requirements, whether applicable to establishment or to 
cross-border services, in the light of Article  16 and maintain only t hose which are justified 
for one of the four reasons given in Article 16 and which are proportionate. The 
Netherlands thus does not distinguish betw een establishment cases and cross-border 
services78all legislation is in principle meant to  be compliant with Article 16 of the 
Services Directive.79 80 
5.2. Overview of the most relevant requirements reported by Member States 
 
5.2.1.  Obligation on the provider to have an establishment in the territory 
of the Member State where it provides services (Article 16 (2) (a)) 
5.2.1.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
Requirements to have an establishment in a Member State are to be distinguished from 
requirements for the provider or the manager etc. to be resident in the Member State, which 
are prohibited under Article 14. Of course, they also need to be  distinguished from ‘mere’ 
authorisation requirements.  
                                                 
77  Austria indicated, however, that § 373a (1) of th e general trade law already contains a clause which 
Austria considers to be in line with Article 16. This  article stipulates that service providers providing 
cross-border services can provide these services in Austria on equal terms with Austrian service 
providers. Austria stated th at this clause was interpreted in line with the directive as meaning that cross-
border service providers would not need to get an authorisation nor make a d eclaration. They would, 
however, have to comply with rules on the exercise of the respective service activity. Austria also states 
that specific rules for cross-border service providers exist in other laws, in particular for tax advisers, 
accountants and engineers. In addition,  Austria states that, as regards the Steiermark region, § 9 of the 
law on the recognition of professional qualifications states that service providers established in other 
Member States can provide their serv ices in the Steiermark on a temporary basis. A similar rule is laid 
down in § 14 of the Kärnten region’s law on the recognition of professional qualifications. Its second 
paragraph however clearly indicates th at for the exercise of the service,  the provider has to comply with 
the laws in Kärnten. In its self-assessment, Aust ria has indicated that only a limited number of 
authorisation schemes are applicable to cross-border services, for instance for boiler installation experts, 
pleasure visits to mines and certain events, e.g.  variety shows and revues, circuses, shows with 
predatory animals and travelling shows. 
78  The requirement to register th e trade/company is an exception, as it only applies to established 
providers. 
79  Changes made to the regulatory framework in general include the abolition of the authorisation scheme 
for the preparation/stuffing of animals, the aboliti on of the licence for assessors dealing with damage 
from disasters/major accidents, the abolition of requ irements on the use of equipment and materials in 
the area of construction and demolition waste, an d the abolition of permission for dumping processed 
animal by-products. 
80  In order to ensure that Article 16 standards are upheld by all Dutch legislative and regulatory 
authorities, the Prime Minister’s Decree on Instru ctions for Legislation and the handbook on the 
implementation of European rules have been amended to allow the legislator to comply with these 
aspects of the Services Direc tive when enacting legislation. 
EN 49  EN A requirement to have an establishment make s the provision of services across borders 
impossible. This is why the ECJ,  relying on Article 56 TFEU, ha s repeatedly stated that the 
requirement of a permanent establishment is the very negation of the freedom to provide 
services  and has set a high threshold for justifying it, requiring that an y such condition be 
indispensable for attain ing the objective pursued . In fact, the ECJ has generally not accepted 
such requirements.  
5.2.1.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
From our information, it is clear that most esta blishment requirements have been abolished or 
are being abolished as they have been found di scriminatory, unjustified or disproportionate. 
For instance, for services cove red by the Services Directive, Portugal  abolished the 
establishment requirement provided for in its co de of commerce which pr eviously applied to 
services across the board. Other examples of areas for which establishment requirements have 
been or are being abolished include control bodies for industrial safety ( Spain ), maintenance 
services for electric substations ( Spain ), sales of certain alcohols81 (Lithuania ), sales of 
alcoholic drinks ( Luxembourg ), the handling of pyrotechnic products ( Lithuania ), 
construction activities ( Austria ), test engineers ( Germany ), travel agencies ( Belgium, 
Lithuania, Spain and Slovenia ), property and business assessment services ( Lithuania ), the 
buying of non-precious scrap metal and its waste ( Lithuania ), exploration for and 
exploitation of crude oil ( France ), the maintenance of fi re safety equipment ( Lithuania ), the 
organisation of auctions of  movable cultural property ( Lithuania ), and the maintenance of 
cemeteries ( Lithuania ), etc. 
As a result, based on what Memb er States have reported, it s eems that many Member States, 
including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Est onia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, 
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, No rway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and 
the Czech Republic, no longer have establishmen t requirements or will no longer have them 
once implementation is complete.  
However, in some Member States, certain establishment requirements have been kept. These 
remaining requirements seem to concern very dive rse services/sectors and have in most cases 
been reported by only one or two Member States. Some of these are cases, such as wholesale 
of alcoholic products (Lithuani a) and wholesale of tobacco products (Lithuania), in which 
Member States do not want itinerant services of  this type for reasons of public policy. Other 
cases concern technical experts82, specific certification services83, chimney sweeps (Austria), 
certain education services84, driving schools85, car rental (Iceland), sale of used cars (Iceland), 
career services (Belgium (Flande rs)), supply of vehicle regist ration plates (United Kingdom), 
and insemination services (Greece and Ireland).  
To justify these requirements, Member States have mostly relied on the ‘public policy’ 
justification, to a lesser degree  on ‘public security’, ‘public health’ and the ‘protection of the 
environment’. In several cases, Member States give more than  one reason or even all four. 
                                                 
81  Lithuania specified that this requirement applie d to undertakings willing to obtain a certificate which 
allows them to participate in a tender for the sale of ethyl alcohol obtained from wine intended for the 
manufacture of bioethanol to be used in the EU fuel sector. 
82  Germany (Hamburg and Berlin) for structural inspectors / structural inspection engineers. 
83  Germany (Hamburg) certification in relation to  sewerage systems; Greece; the Netherlands. 
84  Lithuania for vocational education and higher education; Poland for specific training for safety advisers; 
Romania for education services. 
85  Poland for training for learner drivers, for a dditional training for licence holders, for specific training 
for the transport of hazardous products and for specific training for road transport. 
EN 50  EN Based on these reasons, Member States have in some cases argued that an establishment 
requirement is necessary to ensure quality of serv ice or the reliability of  the provider. In other 
cases, Member States argue that the requirement is necessary to ensure that providers can easily be personally contacted. In the case of chimney sweeps, one region in Austria argues 
that these service prov iders exercise public authority. Howe ver, the main reason, which is not 
always spelt out clearly, seems in many cases to be that Member States want to be able to 
carry out controls/on-site checks at the place of establishment.  
 
5.2.2.  Obligation on the provider to obtain authorisation, including entry in 
a register or registration with a pr ofessional body or association 
(Article 16(2)(b)) 
5.2.2.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services Directive?  
Authorisation schemes impose a considerable bu rden on service provider s from other Member 
States. Their application generally  renders the provision of services  more costly and delays its 
provision. In practice, authoris ation schemes imposed on se rvice providers from other 
Member States may have a dissuasive effect, in particular if the serv ice has to be provided 
urgently but also in other cases such as  when administrative hurdles are too high.  
Authorisation schemes linked to the recognitio n of professional qualifications should in 
principle not exist for cross-border services, in line with the Professional Qualification Directive 2005/36. They may only be imposed fo r regulated professions  which have public 
health or safety implications and which do not  benefit from automatic recognition under Title 
III Chapter III of the Professiona l Qualifications Directive. 
Under Article 16 of the Services Directive, authorisation schemes can only be applied to 
service providers from other Member States  in exceptional cases if, besides being non-
discriminatory, they are justified on grounds of public policy, public secu rity, public health or 
the protection of the environment. And it is clear that even in those cases, they can only be 
maintained if it has been clearly demonstrated that  subsequent controls w ould be too late to be 
genuinely effective and to enable  it to achieve the aim pursued. 
5.2.2.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
Authorisation is clearly the most common re quirement also for cross-border services. 
However, the extent to which cross-border servi ces are still subject to such schemes seems to 
vary considerably in the different Member St ates. While in some Member States, including 
for instance the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hu ngary and Spain, authorisation schemes for 
cross-border services remain in only a few areas,  they seem to have been largely maintained 
in some other Member States.  
Authorisation schemes have been/are being abolished or made non-applicable for cross-
border services or have been replaced by no tification schemes (or by ‘self-certification’ 
statements, i.e. declarations/statements by th e provider that it complies with the relevant 
requirements) in many cases. Spain and Latvia have in principle prohibited authorisation 
schemes for cross-border service providers.  
As a result of implementation of the Services  Directive, there seem to be no horizontal 
authorisation schemes remaining for cross-border services. Horizontal authorisation schemes 
EN 51  EN have been removed or are being removed in se veral Member States for cross-border services. 
For instance , Malta  seems to have amended its trading li cences act so that service providers 
from other Member States can generally pr ovide services without authorisation or 
notification. Similarly, Poland  has clarified that cross-border service providers do not have to 
be entered in any business registers. Bulgaria  seems to have replaced a horizontal 
authorisation scheme for crafts  with a notification scheme. Belgium  has clearly stated that 
the general business registers (Banque Carref our) do not apply to cr oss-border service 
providers. Portugal  has amended its commercial code so  that cross-border service providers 
no longer need to register (nor establish). Slovenia  is in the process of adopting a rule 
ensuring that cross-border craftsmen do not need  to be registered in its craft register. The 
Czech Republic  had already abolished the application of th eir trade licensing acts for cross-
border services providers when it joined the EU. In Sweden  the obligation to set up and 
register as a foreign branch be fore starting to do business th ere no longer applies to cross 
border service providers. 
In addition, existing authorisati on schemes for specific services  have been/are being removed 
or made non-applicable for cross-border serv ices (in some cases replaced by notification 
requirements), in important sectors such as co nstruction, tourism, and education. This is of 
course in particular the case in Member States  which have adopted a general rule that in 
principle no requirements apply to cross-border services (unle ss specifically stated in the 
law), because such rules affect many service sectors at the same time. In other cases, 
authorisation schemes for cross- border services have been or are being removed/made non-
applicable in specific cases. Examples which have been reported to the Commission include 
certain construction services ( Cyprus  and Spain ), gas installations ( Spain ), repair of 
pressure equipment ( Spain ), repair of refrigerators ( Spain ), property developers ( Germany ), 
property development managers ( Germany ), engineers/engineer ing consultancies ( Spain ), 
travel agencies ( Belgium , France  and Spain ), tourist guides ( Malta ), cross-border retail 
services ( Spain ), itinerant trade ( Portugal ), distant sales ( Spain ), the auctioneering sector 
(Germany  and Portugal ), estate agents ( Germany ), certain personal services ( France ), 
maintenance of fire safety equipment ( Lithuania ), services of quality control of buildings 
(Spain ), employment agencies ( Belgium  (Flanders), Malta ), sale of time shares ( Malta ), top 
model agencies ( France ), live show managers ( France ), family mediation services ( Spain ), 
recruitment services ( Lithuania ), evaluation of radio equipment ( Cyprus ), driving 
instructors ( Portugal ), car rental ( Cypru s and Portugal ), commercial agents ( Greece ), 
environmental experts (e.g. Slovakia ), certain training courses ( Spain ), manager of 
sportsmen (France), maintenance of lifts ( Portugal ), leisure activities ( Spain ), catering in 
mobile facilities ( Portugal ), ticket sales of shows ( Portugal ), and forest exploitation 
(Belgium, Flanders).  
However, it seems that a considerable numbe r of sector-specific authorisation schemes 
continue to apply to cross-borde r service activities. The follow ing list illustrates the number 
of schemes reported and the variety of services  covered, but is by no means comprehensive.  
Certification, inspection, expert and analysis services , e.g. experts/certifica tion services in the 
construction sector86, certification of construction products87, experts/certification/measuring 
                                                 
86  Austria (some Länder); cases from several German  Länder for structural inspectors / structural 
inspection engineers ( Prüefingenieure/Prüfsachverständige ) — these rules generally provide for a 
notification requirement if the provider has complie d with similar (substantive) requirements in his 
Member State of establishment but for an authorisation scheme for all other cases; cases of several 
German Länder for certification serv ices relating to safety and fire protection, and for the presentation 
of building documents ( Bauvorlageberechtigung ). 
87  Several Member States, for instance se veral cases from Austrian and German Länder . 
EN 52  EN concerning environmental aspects88, energy performance certification (Sweden), 
verification/control of measuring equipment89, supervision services concerning certain 
products (some Länder  in Germany, and France for tanning be ds), certification /testing of fire 
protection systems (Slovenia), verification of  results of land surveying (Czech Republic)90, 
testing of vehicles91, technical control/experts concerning the safety at work92, 
control/inspections of lifts93, control of gas or el ectrical installations94, control/supervision of 
heating/heating appliances95, boiler installation ex perts (Austria), inspection/expert/analysis 
services in agricultural/food related matters96, certification, testing of technical equipment for 
spraying pesticides (Slovenia), testing and anal ysis of plant protection products (Slovenia), 
experts on pipelines (Germany), control of tanks  for liquid manure (Denmark), measuring the 
quality of petrol (Denmark), and inspection of gambling machines (one Land in Austria).  
Services related to hazar dous substances/equipment:  e.g. different activities linked to 
weapons/firearms and ammunition97, handling of explosive substances and/or pyrotechnic 
goods and/or explosion activities98, handling of nuclear materials/activities related to nuclear 
energy99, handling/storage of dangerous chemicals (Slovenia and Denmark), import, use and 
release of genetically modified  organisms (Romania and Irela nd), use of pesticides United 
Kingdom), handling of ozone laye r depleting substan ces (Slovakia), handling of pathogenic 
germs (Germany), advertising, and wholesale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances 
(Lithuania). 
Services relating to animal s/plants or national parks : e.g. handling/trade etc. in wild/protected 
animals100, reproduction/insemination of animals101, slaughter of animals (United Kingdom, 
The Netherlands), killing or ta king of birds in marine area (U nited Kingdom), animal homes 
(United Kingdom), animal tests/experiments (t he Netherlands), embalming of wild animals 
                                                 
88  Many Member States for emission measuring/c ontrols, for example France, Denmark, Slovakia, 
Cyprus, Germany; many Member States for verification of environmental reports, for instance 
Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia; many Member States concerning water, for instance the Netherlands, 
France, several cases from German Länder  concerning the control of infrastructure for use of water 
endangering substances, several cases concerning wa ste water, for instance Germany; several cases 
concerning soil, for instance the Netherlands and Germany, several cases from German Länder for 
testing of plant protection equipment and concerning waste, as well as several cases concerning noise, for instance in Denmark, cases concerning air quality in Belgium (Flanders). 
89  Several Member States, for instance Belgium, Romania and Germany. 
90  These authorised land surveyors are different from  ‘normal’ land surveyors, whose results they check, 
e.g. for the land register. 
91  Several Member States, for instance Malta, United Kingdom and Denmark. 
92  Luxembourg, France for workplace noise, ra diation and air quality. 
93  Several Member States, for instance Fr ance, Austrian regions, and Belgium. 
94  Several Member States, for instance Luxembourg for gas, Austria (one Land), France for gas and 
electrical installations; the Neth erlands for gas and electricity. 
95  France, Austrian regions, and Slovenia. 
96  Italy (Bolzano), Slovenia for analysis of seed quality; Germany for analysis of milk and experts for 
agriculture, forestry, viniculture and fish eries, Poland for ecological farming. 
97  Estonia and Hungary for the transf er, export, import etc. of firearms and marketing and repair of arms. 
98  Several Member States, for instance Hungary, Cyprus, Denmark, Lithuania for trade in pyrotechnic 
products; the Netherlands for firework-related activitie s and the use of explosives, Sweden for the sale 
of explosive products. 
99  Lithuania for the export, import etc. of nuclear materials, Lithua nia for acquiring, keeping, and 
transporting radioactive materials, Lithuania for the provision of services to nuclear facilities. 
100  France, several cases from Romania concerning tr ade in wild flora and fauna, several cases from 
German regions concerning the co llection and processing of wild animals, and the Netherlands 
concerning the exhibition of protected animals (and plants). 
101  Several Member States, for examples France, L ithuania for insemination of animals, Belgium for 
breeding; the Netherlands for sperm collection. 
EN 53  EN (Cyprus), tests relating to dogs102, keeping, breeding, and sale of dangerous dogs (Lithuania), 
collection and sale of minerals, plants and animals103, collection and processing of wild 
plants104, organisation of animal fights (the Netherla nds), activities in nature protection areas 
(the Netherlands and France), deforesting (the Netherlands), and commercial activities in 
national parks (Sweden). 
Construction/crafts : e.g. construction services105, setting up/maintenance of mining 
construction (the Netherlands),  drilling services (Cyprus), welding services (France), 
plumbers (Denmark), work on/installation of electrical or gas a ppliances/ installations106, 
maintenance of heating installations (Lithuani a), maintenance and installation of cooling 
installations/activities with CFCs (the Netherla nds), asbestos removal (France), archaeological 
works107, construction within the marine envi ronment (United Kingdom), and placing 
scaffolding on highways (United Kingdom). 
Tourism-related services and leisure activities : e.g. travel agencies108, ski instructors109, 
mountain guides110, cave guides (Austria), organisation of events, including variety shows, 
circuses, art shows etc111, diving instructors (Italy, one regi on), recreational diving services 
(Malta), fishing-related tourism (Italy, one region), marketi ng of time-share products (Malta), 
recreational games (Greece), tours in mines (A ustria), tours and excursions with hired 
trams/cars, coaches etc. (Belgium at local le vel), and bullfighting (S pain — one region). 
Education and training services , e.g. schools112, higher education services113, vocational 
training114, advanced vocational training (France), business trainings115, driving instructors116, 
driving schools117, training for drivers (Denmark), training in the aviation area118, dancing 
schools/dancing classes119, dramatic art schools (Greece), training for fire protection 
(Slovenia and France), training re lated to health and safety at  work (Ireland and France), 
training on protection of plants  (Slovenia), training on phytomed icine (Slovenia), training for 
life saving in water (Slovenia) , training on hygiene conditions fo r tattooing services (France), 
training related to plant prot ection products (Poland), course s in food hygiene (Denmark), 
                                                 
102  Several German regions for test of character of dogs and for dog owners. 
103  Several cases from Austrian regions concerning th e collection and sale of minerals and animals, and 
trade in listed plants. 
104  Several cases from German regions for collec tion and processing of wild animals and plants. 
105  Several Member States, for example Malta, Lithuania for the design, construction and management of 
construction works and the management of technical activity in relation to construction works; and the 
Netherlands for construction work and digging. 
106  Several Member States, for instance Finland, Cyprus, Malta, and Denmark. 
107  Ireland, Lithuania for excavation works, and Spain. 
108  For instance Finland, Ireland and Poland. 
109  Several Italian and Austrian regions. 
110  Several Member States, for instance some regions in Italy and Austria. 
111  Several Member States, for instance France for sports, several Austrian regions for circuses, music 
festivals etc. art shows, Hungary  for circuses, Lithuania for orga nising events in public places. 
112  Italy, United Kingdom. 
113  Several Member States, for instan ce Slovenia, Portugal, and Lithuania. 
114  Several Member States, for examples Lithuania fo r vocational education, and Austria (one Land) for 
social professions. 
115  Belgium (Vlaamse Gemeenschap). 
116  Denmark, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom. 
117  Several Member States, for instan ce Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Iceland, Portugal, reported that 
the authorisation applies only to those cross-border service providers who set up (temporary) driving schools in Portugal. 
118  Cyprus for pilots, Poland. 
119  Greece for amateurs, Greece for higher private da ncing schools, and seve ral Austrian regions. 
EN 54  EN training regarding trading, packaging and appli cation of plant protection products (Poland), 
and the training of dangerous dogs (Austria. 
Wholesale and retail services : e.g. markets120, itinerant/ambulant trade121, trade fairs122, 
commerce on public areas123, trade in used goods (United Kin gdom), retail sales of alcoholic 
beverages (Lithuania), retail sales of tobacco products (Lithuania), the supply of and trading 
in electricity and natural gas (Slovenia), energy distribution (Italy, at local level), the sale of 
food supplements (Cyprus), wholesale of veteri nary medicines (Greece) , sale of specific 
plants/plants products (Slovenia), trade in plan t protection products (Poland), and the sale of 
animal by-products (United Kingdom). 
Food and beverage related services : e.g. sale of food/beverages by vending machines in some 
regions in Italy, etc. 
Services provided at courts : e.g. court expert124, court interpreter125, insolvency 
administrator126. 
Business services : e.g. real estate agents127, employment services128.  
Other services: e.g. child care129, housing support services (United Kingdom), services for 
people with disabilities (Austria in  some regions), collecting societies130, detectives 
(Hungary), alarm installations (t he Netherlands), funeral servic es (Lithuania), services for 
cemeteries (Germany (one Land), tattooing servi ces (the Netherlands and Spain in some 
regions), tanning services/solariums (Spain in  some regions and Sweden), other care/support 
services (at home)131, consultation for debtors (Belgium , one Community), street artists 
(Belgium (at local level), acupuncture (Un ited Kingdom), advertising in public spaces132, 
removal services133, security system designers and technicians (Hungary), archiving 
(Lithuania), handling of precious metals and st ones (Lithuania), bottling wines (Slovenia), 
services comprising the use of a plane (including aerial photography)134, aircraft related 
services (Hungary), activities for protection from and prevention of professional risks 
(Cyprus), waste-related services135, activities with an impact on water (United Kingdom), 
                                                 
120  Greece for outdoor markets, Italy, Belgium, and Spain. 
121  Several Member States, for instance Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, and Portugal. 
122  Several Member States, for instance Greece includin g for trade fairs for books , Italy (Lazio), Portugal. 
123  Several Member States, for example Italy (o ne Region), 34 Irish Counties and Lithuania. 
124  Slovenia, Italy (Bolzano) for real estate matters, Slovakia. 
125  Several Member States, for instance Slovenia an d Slovakia for translators/interpreters, Germany (one 
Land), and the Netherlands. 
126  Several Member States, for instance Slovenia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. 
127  Finland, Greece for brokers of civil law contracts in general. 
128  Several Member States, fo r instance Finland and Cyprus. 
129  Several Member States, for instance France, th e United Kingdom, several Austrian regions, and 
Belgium (Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft). 
130  Several Member States, for instance Malta, Slovenia, Ireland, and France. 
131  United Kingdom for care home services and care services. 
132  For instance Finland for placing signs at roads, Austrian regions, and Lithuania for installation of 
outside advertisements. 
133  France. The French au thorities have pointed out that removal services which do not include goods 
transport do not require any authorisation or d eclaration. If the removal services include goods 
transport, it is subject to th e rules on goods transport. 
134  Several Member States, for example Luxembourg;  Hungary for aerial photography; Cyprus for aerial 
photography; Lithuania for aerial photography; and the Netherlands. 
135  Several Member States, including for disposal/management of certain types of waste or different 
techniques, for instance France for the collection of used oil, waste disposal of used tyres, waste 
disposal of textiles/shoes and disposal of electrical  equipment, United Kingdom including for disposal 
of waste batteries, Malta and Slovenia for incineratio n of waste and waste management at Koper port, 
EN 55  EN mediation activities136, training of racing animals137, horse riders in races  (Ireland), charitable 
collections (Germany (one Land) and United Kingdo m), and operators of industrial or mobile 
plants (United Kingdom).  
To justify these require ments, Member States have again relied on the four reasons, often on 
more than one reason at a time or even on a ll four. Based on these reasons, Member States 
have put forward a variety of arguments to ju stify specific authorisation schemes, including 
the need to ensure sufficient qualificatio ns, to safeguard quality, to protect the 
consumer/recipient, etc. It should be noted that  the justificatio ns given under Article 16 do not 
in many cases seem different from the arguments put forward under Article 9.  
 
5.2.3.  Notification/declaration requirements (Article 16(1))  
5.2.3.1.  What is the legal backdrop? What  are the relevant aspects for the 
Services directive?  
Notification requirements are often required for the provision of a service. The alleged reason  
being that, on the basis of such notifications, competent authorities may be able to supervise 
compliance with the relevant legal framework. 
Notification schemes are in many cases less bu rdensome than authorisation schemes. One 
major advantage is that they enable the serv ice provider to start immediately upon sending the 
notification. However, even notification requ irements can render the provision of a service 
considerably more difficult. In fact, in some cases, notification requirements may almost be as 
burdensome as authorisation schemes, e.g. if they need to be made before providing the 
service and to include a lot of documentation.  
Under Article 16 of the Services Directive, not ification requirements can only be applied to 
service providers from other Member States if, besides being non-discriminatory, they are 
justified on grounds of public policy, public securi ty, public health or the protection of the 
environment and are proportionate.  
5.2.3.2.  The situation in Member States — Wh at have we seen so far as a 
result of implementation? 
On the basis of the information received by  Member States, it seems that notification 
requirements are used much less than authorisa tion schemes (except in relation to regulated 
professions, for which many Member  States may require a prior annual declaration in line 
with the Professional Qualifications Directive138). In fact, in some Me mber States, including 
Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, the Neth erlands, Poland and Slovakia, notification 
requirements of this kind do not seem to exist at  all for cross-border serv ices (or only in very 
few instances) whereas in other Member Stat es including Germany, Spain, Hungary, Portugal 
and Austria they seem to be used to a limite d extent (even though in most cases much less 
than authorisation schemes). 
                                                                                                                                                         
Poland for waste management, several cases from the Netherlands, including for collection of specific 
oils, and Romania. 
136  Slovakia, Germany (one Land) for mediation in insolvency matters. 
137  Ireland for greyhounds and ho rses, France for horse training. 
138  Since such notifications are covered by the derogation in Article 17 No 6, they have generally not been 
reported and are thus generally not included in the overview below. 
EN 56  EN Notification requirements have been/are being abolished or made non-applicable for cross-
border services in a number of cases. As is th e case for authorisation schemes, this certainly 
applies to many notification requirements in Memb er States whose genera l approach is not to 
apply any rule on cross-border services unless th is is specifically stated. In other cases, 
changes may have been made to sector-spe cific legislation. Examples notified to the 
Commission include the removal of the cro ss-sectoral notificat ion scheme in the German  
trade law for cross-border services.  
However, notification requirement s have also been maintained (or have even been introduced 
to replace authorisation schemes) in several cases.  
From the information available, it s eems that a horizontal notification scheme  exists in 
Belgium, in Bulgaria and Liechtenstein. Belgium imposes a horizontal notification 
requirement on anybody providing services (or carryi ng out a business ac tivity) in Belgium 
(with limited exceptions). Liechtenstein seems to subject all commerce ( Gewerbe ) to a 
notification requirement. Bulgaria seems to impose a horizontal no tification obligation on 
cross-border services of craftsmen.  
In most cases, notification schemes concern specific sectors  only. Notification schemes have 
been reported for certain certifica tion, expert and verifying services139, including quality 
control of buildings (Spain at regional level) , appraisal services linke d to emission reduction 
activities (Hungary), noise audit (Spain at re gional level); the cons truction sector/crafts , e.g. 
certain construction services140, preparation of building documents141, construction-assembly 
services (Hungary), design, instal lation and maintenance of anti- burglary systems (Romania); 
handling of explosive/pyrotechnic articles142; animal/plant related services , such as 
insemination services (Austria),  breeding (Austria), import and use of pesticides (Germany), 
disinfection services and crop spraying (Ger many at regional level); the tourism sector , 
including travel agents (Hungary), cave guides (Austria), sport servic es (Austria), summer 
camps for children (Spain at regional level), the organisation of events at  sea (France), in the 
retail/wholesale area,  including retail (in general) (one  region in Spain), sale of seeds 
(Hungary), sale of food and beverages in public tran sport (Italy at regional  level), the sale of 
food and beverages at the consumer’s home (Italy  at regional level), the sale of used goods 
(Sweden), the sale of propane and butane gase s (Hungary), the rental, repair and sale of 
medical appliances (Hungary), wholesale of medicines (Slovenia), en ergy supply (Austria); 
the education sector , including adult education (Hunga ry), higher education services 
(Hungary), professional trainers of animals (Cyprus), training or ganisers for fire protection 
exams (Hungary); interpreters at court (Germany at regional level); other services , such as 
services related to blood donation (Germany at regional level), fa mily and home care services 
(Belgium), tattooing (France), information serv ices on medical appliances  and medicines 
(Hungary), bottling of camping gas bottles (Hungary), fire fighters,  distant monitoring of fire 
indicators (Hungary), mannequin placement servic es (France), detective and investigation 
services143, postal and courier services (Lithuania) , lobbying activities (Hungary), the use of 
microwaves to repair water dama ge (Sweden), family mediation services (Spain  at regional 
level), roadside advertising (Spa in at regional level), etc.  
                                                 
139  Several cases for structural insp ectors/structural inspection engineers in German regions; generally only 
notification requirement if qualifi cations are equivalent. Otherwise registration is required (Hungary). 
140  The Netherlands for concrete-, brickwork or plasterwork. 
141  Several cases from German regions; generally on ly notification requirement if qualifications are 
equivalent. Otherwise registration is required. 
142  Estonia for handling of explosives; Estonia for handling of pyrotechnic articles, Hungary for sale of 
explosives. 
143  Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 
EN 57  EN To justify these requirements, Member States have again relied in many cases on more than 
one of the reasons set out in Article 16 or ev en on all four. Based on these reasons, Member 
States have put forward a variety of argument s to justify specific notification requirements, 
including in particular the protection of th e recipient/consumer. The basic reasons for 
notification schemes for the provi sion of a service as such seem s in many cases to be that 
Member States believe that notification lets th em know who is in their territory so that the 
competent authorities can supervise th e service provision, if they wish.  
 
5.2.4.  Other requirements (Article 16(1)) 
In addition to establishment requirements, au thorisation schemes and declarations, Member 
States also reported on other requirements.144  
The majority of information received conc erned obligations on the use of equipment , 
insurance obligations  and obligations to obtain a special ID document  (in addition to the 
catchall item "another obligation for service providers" ). In contrast, there were almost no 
reports of bans on infrastructure, limits on fi nancial assistance to service recipients or 
obligations to have a representative in the territory.  
5.2.4.1.  Requirements affecting the use of  equipment and material which 
are an integral part of the s ervice provided (Article 16(2)(f)) 
Requirements affecting the use of equipment can  prevent service providers from using their 
equipment for the provision of services in ot her Member States which may in many cases 
fully hinder the provision of the service as such, in particular if the equipment is essential and 
cannot easily be substituted.  
Most entries for requirements affecting the us e of equipment or material were made by 
Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands an d Slovenia. Other Member States do not seem 
to use such requirements much  or did not report them.  
The requirements reported cover a range of serv ices including expert, c ontrol or certification 
services145, environmental detection services146 and other measurement services147, 
                                                 
144  In particular, for service providers  these were bans on a service prov ider setting up a certain form or 
type of infrastructure in the territory; the appli cation of specific contractual arrangements between 
service providers and service recipi ents which prevents or restricts service provision by the self-
employed; obligations on a service provider to possess an identity document issued by the competent authorities specific to the exercise of a service ac tivity; requirements which affect the use of equipment 
and material which are an integral part of the servi ce provided; obligations on a service provider to have 
an address or to designate a representative in the terr itory of the receiving Member State; obligations on 
a service provider to take out insurance or to su bscribe to a guarantee or similar arrangement in the 
territory of the receiving Member State, an d other obligations. For service recipients
, Member States 
reported on obligations on a service recipient to obtain an authorisation from or to make a declaration to the competent authority before using a service supplied by a provider established in another Member 
State, and discriminatory limits on the granting of fina ncial assistance to service recipients by reason of 
the fact that the provider is established in another Member State or by reason of the location of the place at which the service is provided and other obligations on the service recipient. 
145  Several Member States, for instance Austria for in spection of heating facilities and security checks of 
elevators; Germany for experts for emission control, experts for soil protection and brownfields, control 
stations for crop protection products, control stations for construction products, inspection of pipelines, 
experts for sewage examination, inspection of collec tive assets for milk and experts for waste disposal; 
and Slovenia for measurement of radioactivity and disposal of plant protection products. 
146  The Netherlands for the det ection of radioactive waste. 
147  The Netherlands for gas measurements. 
EN 58  EN construction services148, body/beauty care149, solariums (Slovenia), funeral services150, 
opticians151, mountain guides (Austria), veterinarians152, castration of animals (the 
Netherlands), slaughter of anim als (the Netherlands), friendliness testing of dogs (Germany at 
local level), activities concerning infrastructu re for handling of substances dangerous for 
water (Germany), road safety teaching (Slo venia), handling of used motor vehicles 
(Slovenia), handling of animal side products (Slovenia), waste coll ection and management 
(the Netherlands and Slovenia), and the demolitio n of constructions waste (the Netherlands). 
In most cases, the requirements concern either  the (often) movable equipment used (and seem 
to aim at ensuring the reliability of the results/quality of services and exact measurements) or the protection of providers or recipients (e.g. eq uipment/first aid kits fo r mountain guides). In 
other cases, requirements seem to relate to the premises.  
5.2.4.2.  Insurance obligations (Article 16(1)) 
Insurance obligations may also be a particular  burden on cross-border service providers and 
may in many cases hinder service provision, fo r instance if the service provider’s insurance 
cover in his home Member State does not cover th e exact same risks. In this and other cases, 
providers may need to conclude an insurance contract before providi ng a service. Moreover, 
such insurance cover for cross-border services may in some cases be too expensive to make 
the service provision economically  worthwhile (insurance contra cts are often more expensive 
on a pro-rata basis for short periods). In so me cases, insurance coverage for cross-border 
services may actually be difficult to find on the market as such.  
As with other requirements, it is clear that  insurance requirements have been/are being 
abolished or made non-applicable for cross-bo rder services in a number of cases. Some 
Member States have reported th is, e.g. for sports agents ( France ), measurement of radon 
volumes ( France ), disposal of used oil ( France ), surveyors ( France ), and intellectual 
property agents ( Portugal ).  
As regards the insurance requirem ents that have been maintain ed, there seems again to be a 
considerable difference in the use (or at least in the reporting) of such requirements between 
the Member States. Most of the requirements were reported by France, Portugal, Germany 
and Spain, while the other Member St ates reported very few or none.  
Insurance requirements were reported fo r certain experts and control services153, funfair 
operators (Germany), certain event organisers  (France), constructio n services (France), 
furniture auctions (France), architects (France) , biomedical research (France), real estate 
agents and real estate property managers  (France and Portugal), distribution of 
phytopharmaceutical products (France), placement services for models (France), travel 
                                                 
148  The Netherlands, e.g. for scaffolding, ladders, piling, conveyors and other material. 
149  Several cases from German regions, including for sterile equipment and use of protective utensils; 
Slovenia for special air sy stem in beauty salons. 
150  Several cases from German Länder, for requirements relating to coffins and transport vehicles; and urns 
for burial at sea. 
151  Austria for equipment in their business premises. 
152  Germany for the use of medicines. 
153  Several cases from German regions, including inspec tion of pipelines, agricultural experts, experts for 
soil protection and brownfield sites; experts for infr astructure handling substan ces dangerous to water, 
agricultural experts; experts for infrastructure handlin g substances dangerous to water; experts for water 
protection; experts for se wage facilities, sewage examination; Fr ance for the inspection of lifts and 
immovable property related experts, Portugal for inspection of gas and distribution networks and for the 
inspection of lifts. 
EN 59  EN agencies154, tourist recreation activities (Portugal),  maritime tour operators (Portugal), diving 
services (Portugal), certain high risk sports activities (Spain at regional level), door to door 
sales (Spain at region al level), aerial photography (Portuga l), application of plant protection 
services (Portugal), lift maintenance (Por tugal), installation and repair of gas 
appliances/installations (Portuga l), accountants (Portugal).  
5.2.4.3.  Obligations to obtain a special ID document (Article 16(2)(e)) 
Requirements to obtain a special ID card are often used to try to enable an immediate and 
easy decision on whether a provider is allowed to exercise an activity. In this way, special ID 
cards are to a certain extent sim ilar to authorisation schemes.  
Requirements to obtain a spec ific ID document do not seem to be very common in most 
Member States. Nevertheless, a good number of Member States have reported some instances 
where this requirement still exists.  
Requirements to obtain a special ID card were re ported in particular in the following areas: 
tourist and cave/climbing guides155, detectives (Austria and the Netherlands), ski instructors 
(Austria and Italy), experts156, collection of plants for comm ercial purposes (Germany at 
regional level), any commercial activity at cemet eries (Germany at regional level), and sworn 
translators/interpreters (the Netherlands). 
5.2.4.4.  Other obligations on service providers (Article 16(1)) 
Austria, Germany, Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands157 reported a large number of 
requirements in this category, many other Member States reported very few or none at all.  
A variety of different requirements were repo rted under this catch-all item. Requirements 
notified include requirements related to the exer cise of the activity as such, for example on 
continuing education, minimum age requirement s, reserves of activity, prohibitions on 
activity in certain areas, and requirements on th e way a service must be provided, for example 
requirements on quality and requirements to ha ve quality systems, protective measures, 
secrecy rules, management requirements, requirements to keep records, etc.  
Like other requirements, these have been re moved in some Member States. For instance, 
Germany  has ensured that tariffs for lawyers and engineers cannot be applied to cross-border 
services; France  intends to make fixed tariffs for ar tistic agents and sports agents non-
applicable for cross-border services; Denmark  has exempted cross-border services from the 
ban on using discount coupons and prize competitions as marketing tools. The United 
Kingdom  has abolished the obligation to have an a ddress in its territory that was previously 
imposed on providers from other Member States wanting to provide cro ss border services in 
this country. Sweden  has stated that the obligations to designate a representative as well as a 
person for the service of documents who are do miciled in Sweden have been abolished and 
that certain information requi rements do not apply anymore to  cross-border services.  
                                                 
154  Several cases from Spanish regions, Portugal, Slovenia and Finland (Aaland). 
155  Austria for tourist and cave guides, Greece for tourist guides. 
156  Germany (Sachsen) for agricultural experts;  Germany (NRW) for st ructural inspectors. 
157  The relatively large number of reports under this  category for the Netherla nds is mainly caused by 
legislation reported by 441 municipalities at local level,  in particular concerning provisions in the local 
Building Regulation and provisions in the General Local Regulation on street artists. Legislation at 
national level reported in this category included information obligations, obligations to mention certain 
matters and which EN standards ar e to be used for tests etc. 
EN 60  EN In other cases, such requirements seem to remain almost as in establishment cases. In 
addition, it seems that, in many cases, requirement s have not been reported. This concern in 
particular requirements reported under Article 15 and 25, including legal form requirements, 
shareholding requirements, tariffs, quantitative restrictions and restrictions on multidisciplinary activities. The logical conclusion to draw from the fact that they have generally not been report ed under Article 16 is that they w ill not be applie d to cross-border 
services. But it is unclear whether this is the case in practice.  
 
CONCLUSIONS 
Member States have taken very different approaches to implementing the freedom to provide 
services clause: 
- Several Member States have laid down a hor izontal general rule that requirements 
applicable to established providers are, in pr inciple, not imposed on cross-border services 
unless a law specifically provides for thei r application to cross-border services.  
- The majority of Member States have included a rule similar to Article 16 of the Services 
Directive in a horizontal framework law transpo sing the directive into national law. Several 
of these Member States have, to varying degree s, also made changes to sectoral legislation 
indicating clearly which rules c an/cannot be applied to cross-borde r services. It seems that as 
long as no clear indication has been given the requirement w ill either be applied to cross-
border services or it will be up to the competen t authority to decide in each individual case 
whether or not to apply a requirement.  
- A few Member States have not chosen a horiz ontal approach to implementing the freedom to 
provide services clause but have relied solely on varying degrees of amendment to existing 
(sectoral) legislation.  
In the discussion amongst Member States, several issues were raised:  
As regards a horizontal approach , it was stressed that it was crucial to make it clear that the 
horizontal framework law implementing the Services Directive took precedence over existing 
(sectoral) legislation. A large number of Memb er States stressed that if the horizontal 
approach merely ‘copied’ Article 16, service providers needed le gal certainty. As far as no 
specification had been made in s ector-specific legislation the e ffects of the implementation 
would largely depend on the competent authorities  to decide in each case whether or not 
certain requirements we re applicable to cross-border serv ices. Competent authorities could 
often be tempted to apply their national legisla tion to cross-border services, considering that 
the notions of ‘public policy’, ‘public security ’ and ‘public health’ woul d not be very precise 
and may be used in a differen t manner in the national legal framework. The application of 
Article 16 would thus need to be monitored care fully to ensure that it was properly applied in 
practice.  
As regards approaches relying on sector-specific requirements  only, Member States raised 
questions as to the comple teness of the transposition.  
In the discussions it wa s pointed out that the real test of  implementation is the question of 
which requirements are in practice a pplied to cross-border services.  
It is clear that as a result of  the Services Directive substantia l progress has been achieved. In 
fact, many requirements will no longer be imposed on cross-border services. This is of course 
in particular the case in those Member Stat es which have chosen an approach according to 
which rules are generally not applied to provide rs of cross-border services unless specifically 
stated otherwise. Other Member States have al so made major changes, some of them across 
EN 61  EN the board. Establishment requirements have b een/are being largely abolished; in many 
Member States they no longer exist. A good number of authoris ation schemes have also been 
abolished or replaced by less re strictive measures (notificati on or ‘self-decl aration’). The 
result, however, seems to vary considerably betw een the different Member States: while some 
Member States have in prin ciple fully abolished authorisa tion schemes for cross-border 
services and others have maintained very few authorisation schemes, still other Member 
States have maintained a large number of such schemes. Notif ication schemes, both sector-
specific and cross-sectoral, have also been abolished in  a number of cases.  
The discussion showed that the number of requi rements applied to cross-border services, in 
particular the number of authorisation schemes, are considered a serious problem by many 
Member States. Many of them confirmed that  establishment requir ements can hardly be 
justified. Some Member States pointed out that  the argument that such requirements were 
necessary to allow on-site checks was no lo nger convincing since th e Internal Market 
Information system (IMI) allowe d efficient cooperation with comp etent authorities from other 
Member States. 
The authorisation schemes and notification requirements (considerably fewer than 
authorisation schemes) that conti nue to apply to cro ss-border services can be found in a wide 
variety of cases. The areas in which they exis t overlap to a large extent and cover the same 
service sectors. Some Member States had partic ular doubts about such requirements in areas 
such as tourism and business services, in whic h reasons of public policy and public security 
may often not be at stake (nor , in many cases, public hea lth or the prot ection of the 
environment). Member States also pointed out t hat the justifications given often do not seem 
to differ from justificati ons for establishment cases. 
In addition, the discussion showed  that problems for the inter nal market persist which go 
beyond legal questions: in fact, insurance cover for cross-border services which may still be 
required in certain cases, often seems to be difficult to obtain, at least at a price allowing 
cross-border service providers to co mpete with established providers 
EN 62  EN  
6. THE SITUATION IN SPECIFIC SERVICES SECTORS  
6.1. Wholesale and retail  
This section on wholesale and retail services co vers the sale of goods — business to business 
and business to consumer. All distribution modes, including e-commerce, have been 
considered under this sector. However, the majority of requirements reported by Member 
States seem to affect sales car ried out from a physical establis hment or via ambulant trade.  
Requirements of particular importance in this sect or seem to be authorisations for the opening 
of large and medium-size retail establishments . The type and degree of regulation in this 
sector varies considerably among Member States.  
 
6.1.1.  Wholesale and retail in general  
This section deals with all the requirements on the wholesale and retail of goods except for 
those that apply specif ically to ambulant traders and othe r types of distribution such as 
doorstep selling and vending machines. 
6.1.1.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes  
Most Member States do not seem to have an all-embracing authorisation scheme for 
wholesale and retail services. On ly in Luxembourg and Belgium is the provision of wholesale 
and retail services subject to an authorisation, which seems to be of a horizontal nature. In 
both countries the scheme seems to be  linked to a qualification requirement.  
The vast majority of the reported authorisati on schemes for the wholes ale and retail of goods 
can be classified into two main  categories: (i) aut horisation schemes for the opening of large 
and medium-size physical retail outlets; (ii) au thorisations linked to the wholesale or retail 
distribution of a specific product.  
Authorisation schemes applicable to the opening of large and medium-sized 
physical retail establishments 
Before a physical retail establishment, of what ever size, can be opened the premises must 
generally comply with health and safety requirements. At least in some instances, this compliance is checked through an authorisatio n scheme. Hungary has abolished a general 
authorisation scheme which existed for retail establishments and replaced it with a notification scheme. 
In addition, some Member States (Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and 
Spain) have reported specific authorisation schemes for the opening of large and medium-
sized physical retail  establishments.  Such authorisation schemes also seem to exist in other 
Member States, such as Austria and Romania158. In some cases, the procedures for such 
                                                 
158 For Austria, see the special authorisation scheme laid down in § 77(5) Gewerbeordnung 1994 (GewO) 
for retail premises above a certain size which sell everyday consumer goods. For Romania, see 
EN 63  EN authorisation schemes for the opening of large and medium-size retail establishments are 
integrated with the procedures for authorising the premises. In other cases the procedures may 
be separate.  
The overriding reasons of genera l interest given by Member States for justifying specific 
authorisation schemes for the ope ning of large and medium-sized retail establishments are the 
protection of the environment (including the urban environmen t), country and town planning 
rules, the protection of workers, social policy objectives, the prot ection of artistic and historic 
heritage and the protection of consumers. Othe r Member States seem to protect the above-
mentioned general interest by applying land use and development rules and town and country 
planning requirements, without having recourse to authorisation schemes159.  
In general, it is the size  of the establishment that determines whether an authorisation scheme 
is required for the opening of a large or medium-sized physical retail establishment. The 
scope of these authorisation schemes varies considerably among the Member States. Italy 
requires an authorisation for establishments where the sales area is larger than 150 m2 (or 
250 m2 for bigger municipalities).. Belgium requi res an authorisation for establishments 
larger than 400 m2. At the other end of the spectrum, so me Member States have authorisation 
schemes that apply only if the outle t has a sales area larger than 2500 m2 (certain regions in 
Spain). In certain Member States (Italy, Greece  and some regions in Spain) these thresholds 
vary according to the population of  the municipality or the size of the territory where the new 
establishment will be located. Finally, certain Member States (Greece and certain regions in Spain and Portugal) also have authorisations linked to the size of the company or company 
group that applies for the opening of the new establishment. 
The implementation of the Services Directive ha s led to significant changes: In many cases, 
authorisation schemes for opening large and medi um-sized physical retail establishments have 
been modified. For instance, economic needs tests that were often included in these 
authorisations have been eliminated in Be lgium, France and Spain. Similar economic needs 
test have been eliminated from building permit applications in The Netherlands. Some 
Member States (France, some regions in Spain)  have raised the thres holds from which these 
authorisation schemes apply. In addition, the criteria for the gr anting of authorisations have 
often been clarified. Finally, the procedures to ob tain an authorisation have been simplified in 
France and in Spain.
160 Luxembourg has reported that it will amend its authorisation scheme 
to ensure that it neither contains economic test s nor allows for the intervention of competitors 
in the granting of individual decisions. Greece has reported that it will abolish the economic test in its authorisation scheme.  
Romania seems to have an authorisation sche me, for the opening of certain physical retail 
establishments, which contains an economic test and allows competitors to have a say in the granting of an indivi dual authorisation.  
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Government Decision 1454/2004 approving the criteria for setting up large retail sale structures. This 
requires a commercial authorisation for retail outlets exceeding 1000 m2. 
159 For example, this seems to be the case in Denm ark, Germany, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
160  For instance, nine regions in Spain previously had two parallel authorisation procedures for the opening 
of large and medium-sized retail outlet establishments. One authorisation was granted by local 
authorities after checking that the premises complied with health and safety requirements. The other 
was granted by regional authorities on grounds of the above-mentioned overriding reasons of general interest. These nine regions have now changed this system, maintaining only one authorisation 
procedure. This is the one carried out by the local  authorities, but it now includes a binding report from 
the regional authorities. 
EN 64  EN Authorisation schemes linked to the distribution of specific products.  
All Member States have notified authorisation schemes linked to the distribution of specific 
products.  Most of them concern the retail distribu tion of sensitive products such as weapons, 
explosives, diamonds, animals, tobacco or alcohol161. Some of these authorisation schemes 
are governed directly or indir ectly by other EU legislation162.  
In some cases, authorisation schemes for specif ic products have been abolished/replaced by 
less restrictive measures because they were found to be unjustified or disproportionate. For 
instance, Portugal has indicated th at it will abolish the authorisat ion for the sale of tickets for 
public events or shows and Slovakia has replaced authorisations for the sale of weapons and 
explosives by notifications. Ic eland, Liechtenstein and the United Kingdom have indicated 
that they have abolished discriminatory  requirements which some of the reported 
authorisation schemes contained. In addition, su ch authorisation schemes/procedures have 
often been clarified, simplified and streamlined — such as the authorisation scheme for the 
resale of used goods in Norway. Other authorisa tions for the sale of specific products that are 
generally not considered sensitive have been maintained. For example, Italy still has an 
authorisation scheme for newspa per shops, reportedly relating to the protection of consumers 
and of the urban environment.163 
¾ Article 15 requirements  
Several Member States have re ported imposing restrictions on retail/wholesale sales in 
particular geographical areas, based on the populat ion of that area or the minimum distances 
between outlets, or simply limiting the number of providers  that can exercise their activity in 
that area.  
In a number of cases such requirements have been  abolished — or are in  the process of being 
abolished — because they were considered unjustified or disproportionate. In particular, minimum distance requirements between petrol st ations existed and have been abolished in 
Italy (at least in some regions) and in Spain (a t least in one region). Greece has informed the 
Commission of its plans to abolish them. Portuga l has reported that it will amend quantitative 
and territorial restrictions on the sale of ticke ts for shows and public entertainment events.  
                                                
 
161  The reported authorisation schemes covered by this section affect the sales activity as such and not the 
placing of a product on the market. Member States have reported authorisation schemes for the sale of 
products such as weapons, explosives or fireworks and have justified them on grounds of public order and public security. Authorisation schemes for setting up  petrol stations have been justified by Member 
States on grounds such as public safety, protection of the environment and of the urban environment. 
Member States have invoked crime prevention in order to justify authorisation schemes for the sale of diamonds or antiques. Authorisation requirements fo r selling animals have been justified by Member 
States on animal welfare grounds. Authorisa tion schemes for distri buting phytopharmaceutical 
products, tobacco or alcohol have been justified by Member States on the grounds of protecting public health, the environment, consumers and animal health, and the need to combat fraud and counterfeiting. 
162  For example, the authorisation schemes provided for in Regulation (EC) no 852/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs and in Regulation (EC) 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene 
rules for food of animal origin. Another example of an authorisation scheme governed by other EU 
legislation is the authorisation for the wholesale of medicinal products for human use, required by 
Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the 
Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. 
163 An authorisation requirement for the sale of newspape rs is laid down in national legislation: see Italian 
Legislative Decree 170 of 24 April 2001. Some Italian regions have also notified similar authorisation 
schemes. 
EN 65  EN Other requirements have been maintained. Fo r instance, minimum distances between two 
establishments are imposed on night shops in Belgium (Flanders) with the declared aim of 
limiting the nuisance such shops are considered  to cause for the neighbourhood where they 
are located. For similar reasons, and on public he alth grounds, local auth orities in Ireland can 
limit the number of shops selling al cohol for consumption off-premises. 
In Italy, some regional legislation limits the numbe r of new large-scale retail outlets that can 
open in a particular region in a given period of time. The legislation limits the total surface 
area of new sales outlets that ca n be authorised every year. The aim seems to be to avoid an 
excessive concentration of large esta blishments such as supermarkets. 
Member States have also notified requireme nts that determine the geographical location  
where certain sales can take place. The rules e ither prohibit the provision of a service in 
certain areas or allow certain ac tivities to be carried out only in certain places. By contrast, 
Greece has said that it intends to amend the requi rement that traders of certain works of art 
can only be located in cities where there are pub lic services for protec ting cultural heritage. 
As regards legal form requirements , Lithuania has indicated that it is abolishing the 
requirement that the provider of certain serv ices (trade in petrol eum products, trade in 
explosives) be a legal person.  
France has maintained a shareholding requirement  (for the wholesale distribution of 
veterinary medicines). Undertaki ngs providing this serv ice need to be owned by a veterinarian 
or a pharmacist or by a company mana ged by one of these professionals. 
As regards obligations to provide services jointly , Spain has said that it no longer requires 
petrol stations to be set up in large commercia l establishments. A numbe r of regions in Italy 
have abolished the obligation on petrol stations to sell ‘non-oil’ products as well as petrol. 
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities 
Italy has notified restrictions on the joint exer cise of wholesale and re tail activities. Greece 
has reported that it obliges traders of antiques to exercise that activity exclusively. The Greek 
authorities have justified this on grounds of th e protection of cultural goods. Estonia has also 
reported a restriction on the joint exercise of the sale of weapons  and the provision of security 
or private detective services. Romania has repor ted a restriction on the joint exercise of 
private detective services and trade in general.  
6.1.1.2.  Requirements applicable to cross-border service providers 
A significant number of requirements applicable to  cross-border service providers have been 
reported by Member States, the majority of which seem to concern the sale of specific 
products or services. 
Establishment  requirements for the sale of  certain types of alcohol in Lithuania, for the sale of 
alcoholic drinks in Luxembourg and for the or ganisation of auctions  of movable cultural 
property in Lithuania were discri minatory and have been or are being abolished. At the same 
time, certain establishment requirements have been maintained in Lithuania for services such as the wholesale of alcoholic products and t obacco products. Lithuania has invoked reasons of 
public policy. An establishment requirement for the sale of cars has also been reported by Iceland as being necessary for the protect ion of public policy a nd public security.  
As a result of implementing the Services  Directive, some authorisation schemes
 for cross-
border service providers have been removed b ecause they were considered unjustified or 
disproportionate. These include authorisation for di stance sales in general in Spain, for 
EN 66  EN itinerant sales and for auction eering in Germany. Portugal ha s said it will remove the 
requirement for an authorisation to sell tickets for public performances.  
Some authorisation schemes linked to the distri bution of specific products and applicable to 
cross-border service activities have been mainta ined. They include authorisations for the sale 
of weapons and explosives in Sweden, Icelan d and Norway; trade in pyrotechnical products 
and precious metals in Lithuani a; retail of alcoholic produc ts in Lithuania, the United 
Kingdom and Norway; retail of tobacco products in Lithuania; sale of food supplements in 
Cyprus; wholesale of veterinary medicines in Gr eece; sale of specific plants in Lithuania and 
plant products in Slovenia; trad e in plant protection products in  Poland; sale of animal by-
products in the United Kingdom; trade in an imals in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom 
and Norway; sale of sex-related products in the United Kingdom.  
Notifications  have been reported for  retail activities in general in one region in Spain, for the 
sale of food and beverages in pub lic transport in one region in Italy, for the sale of used goods 
in Sweden, the sale of propane and butane gases in Hungary, for the rental, repair and sale of 
medical aid in Hungary and for the wholesale of medicines in Slovenia. Spain has also 
reported a notification obligation imposed on established and cross-border franchisors.  
Insurance  obligations have been reported for the di stribution of plant h ealth products in 
France  
Finally, as regards other requirements  applied to cross-border se rvices, it has been reported 
that the requirements limiting the use of cer tain marketing methods (such as the use of 
vouchers and prize competitions) in Denmark and Sweden no longer a pply to cross-border 
retailers providing services in those countries. Sweden has also reported that existing rules on 
distance selling no longe r apply to cross-borde r service providers. 
 
6.1.2.  Ambulant sales  
This section covers a wide variety of off-premis es sales such as sales in local markets (indoor 
and outdoor), sales in public areas and street selling.  
It can generally be concluded th at the regulation of local mark ets and sales in public areas 
seeks to ensure a fair distribution of the limited space in which services can be provided, whereas the regulation of random street selling seeks to achieve effective supervision of 
service providers who generally have no fixe d establishment. In addition, some Member 
States appear to take account of social pr otection objectives when  regulating access to 
ambulant trade. Finally, it seem s that in some Member States ambulant sales can only take 
place in spaces designed for that purpose, and that random street selling is not allowed.  
6.1.2.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes  
Italy seems to be the only Member State that  requires a professional  qualification for the 
provision of ambulant trade services. 
A number of Member States (Belgium, Finl and, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, 
Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom) have re ported authorisation schemes 
for sales in markets. Germany, France, th e Netherlands and Portugal have reported 
authorisation schemes for street selling. Thes e Member States justif y such schemes on the 
grounds of public health, public safety, the prot ection of the environmen t (including the urban 
environment), the protection of consumers, fairness of trade transactions and fraud 
EN 67  EN prevention. In some cases, some of the criteria contained in these aut horisation schemes have 
been justified by Member States on grounds of social policy objectives. 
As a result of implementing the Services Direc tive, several Member States including Greece, 
Italy, Latvia, Spain and the United Kingdom have  modified or are mo difying authorisation 
schemes governing ambulant sales to make them compatible with the Services Directive. 
Portugal has declared its intention of doing s o. Germany abolished an authorisation scheme 
for cross-border provision of services of itinerant sales. Spain and Italy have amended their authorisation procedures regulating access to stal ls in local markets to ensure a fair and 
competitive selection process and have limited th e duration of the authorisations in order to 
allow access to the market. Latvia has simplified the authorisation procedure for street sales and for trade at fairs and mobile shops. In addition, the United Kingdom has indicated that 
discriminatory criteria have been eliminated  and Greece has said that they will be. Portugal  
has reported that residence requ irements will be abolished. 
¾ Article 15 requirements 
A number of different restrictions affecti ng ambulant trade have been reported by a limited 
number of Member States.  
As regards quantitative a nd territorial restrictions
, Greece has reported th at local authorities 
can limit the number of ambulant sellers that can be authorised to  sell goods outside 
commercial premises in a given mu nicipality, and that ‘outdoor tr ade’ establishments must be 
at least 100 m (or in certain cases 50 m) apart.  At the same time, Greece has reported that it 
will no longer prohibit ambulant traders from providing services in towns with more than 
20 000 inhabitants. 
Greece has reported a  ban on having more than one authorisation  to operate a stall in a local 
markets as justified by the objective  to combat unemployment. 
As regards legal form requirements , Italy has recently abolished the requirement that 
ambulant sales and market sales be carried out by an individual entrepreneur or a partnership 
(and not by limited companies or cooperatives). In Portugal and in Greece, however, it seems 
that there is still a ban on legal persons carry ing out ambulant or mobile sales. The Greek 
authorities have invoked social protection objectiv es as a justification for maintaining this 
requirement.  
6.1.2.2.  Requirements applicable to cross-border service providers 
A considerable number of authorisation schemes  have been reported as being also applicable 
to cross-border service provide rs in the area of ambulant trade. There are, for example, 
authorisation requirements for markets in Be lgium, Greece, Italy and Spain; for ambulant 
trade in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece and Portugal; for commerce in public areas in Italy, Ireland 
and Lithuania. To justify th ese authorisations, Member St ates generally invoked ‘public 
policy’ and ‘public health’.  
The implementation of the Services Directiv e has resulted in Germany abolishing its 
authorisation scheme for itinerant cross-border sales activities because it was considered unjustified or disproportionate. Sw eden has also reported that existing rules on occasional 
sales no longer apply to cross-border service pr oviders. Portugal has reported  that it intends 
to eliminate the authorisation scheme appli cable to cross-border pedlars and marketplace 
salespersons.  
EN 68  EN 6.1.3.  Other types of sales 
Finally, a small number of requirements affec ting other types of sales, such as doorstep 
selling,164 have been notified.  
Italy has abolished an authorisat ion scheme for doorstep selling , that was laid down in 
national legislation because it was consid ered unjustified or disproportionate. It has been 
replaced by a declaration obligation. However, some Italian regions still seem to apply 
authorisation schemes to these activities. Ma lta has also abolished an authorisation for 
doorstep selling. One region in Spain has repor ted an insurance obligation for door-to-door 
sales. 
Spain has abolished the authorisation scheme th at was previously requ ired for sales through 
vending machines . Italy has also abolishe d authorisation schemes wh ich applied to sales via 
vending machines, mail orders and teleshoppin g. These schemes have been replaced, in 
national law, by declaration requirements. However, in some regions of Italy, such 
authorisation schemes are apparently still in fo rce. Austria no longer bans the sale of products 
via vending machines in a given area around public buildings and public transport. 
 
CONCLUSION:  
Very few Member States subject the exercise of  retail activities in gene ral to an authorisation.  
In contrast, several Member States have to authorisation schemes for large and medium-sized 
physical retail establishments (the definition of  which varies considerably). These schemes 
are in addition to the requirement s for permits relating to the premises. Member States have 
sought to justify such authorisation scheme s on the grounds of environmental protection 
(including the urban environment), town and country planning, consumer and/or worker 
protection and social policy obj ectives. Member States that  do not require a specific 
authorisation for large and medium -sized retail establishments appear to pursue the same 
objectives through town and country planning rule s. In addition, all Member States impose 
authorisation schemes for the distribu tion of certain sensitive products.   
An important number of changes have been made in the retail sector as a result of 
implementing the Services Directive, becaus e some of the existing requirements were 
considered discriminatory, unj ustified or disproportionate. Some authorisation schemes have 
been abolished and many have been modified. Fo r example, economic needs tests have been 
abolished, thresholds for the appl ication of authorisation sche mes have been raised, criteria 
have been clarified and procedures ha ve been accelerated and simplified. 
During the mutual evaluation process, discu ssion between Member States focussed on the 
advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches chosen  (general planning rules 
versus specific authorisation schemes for la rge and medium-sized es tablishments). Some 
Member States pointed out that it is importa nt to ensure that aut horisation sc hemes do not 
seek to protect the same public interests that  have already been protected through town and 
country planning rules and permits. Member Stat es stressed that the remaining authorisation 
regimes should be further simplified. 
For those cases in which these objectives of general interest are pr otected through planning 
rules, some Member States also stressed the importance of ensuring that planning rules truly 
                                                 
164 At EU level, rules protecting consumers against un fair commercial practices when a contract is not 
signed on the trader’s business premises. have been harmonised by  the Council Directive of 20 
December 1985 protecting the consumer in respect of  contracts negotiated away from business premises 
(85/577/EEC). 
EN 69  EN meet the objectives which they claim to ser ve, that they are not going beyond what is 
necessary to attain these obj ectives and that th ey are adopted and applie d in an objective and 
transparent manner.  
6.2. Services in the tourism sector  
The tourism sector encompasses a wide range of activities. During the process of mutual 
evaluation, the following areas were discussed: travel agencies and to ur operators; tourist 
guides; the provision of short- stay accommodation (such as hot els or camping grounds); other 
tourism-related activities such as car rental. Given its links to the tourism sector, the serving of food and drinks (by rest aurants, event caterers a nd bars) was also covered. 
The level of regulation in the tourism sector s eems to vary considerably between the Member 
States. Some of the activities in this sector ar e regulated professions in a number of Member 
States (for example, tourist guides and travel agents).  
6.2.1.  Services of travel agencies (i ncluding tour operators)  
During the mutual evaluation, discussions covere d wholesalers (such as  tour operators) and 
retailers offering different touris m services such as organised trips, transport tickets, package 
travel and booking or reservation services. 
6.2.1.1.   Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Travel agents seem to be a regulated professi on in Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia 
and Slovenia. In addition, travel agent managers  are a regulated profession in Cyprus and tour 
operators are a regulated profe ssion in the Czech Republic and Slovenia. A large number of 
Member States reported an authoris ation scheme for travel agencies.
165 The Czech Republic 
has an authorisation scheme for tour operators only. In  Austria, and at least some regions in 
Italy, the appointment of the director or manage r responsible for the travel agency seems to 
require an additional authorisat ion (or, in some cases, a decl aration). These authorisation 
schemes are generally deemed justified by Memb er States on grounds of  consumer protection. 
In other Member States, by contrast, travel agen cies are subject to prior declarations and not 
to authorisation schemes. This is the case, fo r example in the Czech Republic, and, as a result 
of implementing the Directive in Slovakia and in certain Spanish and Italian regions. 
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Before the Services Directive was implemented, tr avel agencies were to some extent subject 
to quantitative restrictions, legal form and shareholding requirements. However, a good 
number of these restrictions have been/are be ing abolished because Member States considered 
them unnecessary or disproportionate. Qu antitative and territorial restrictions : Italy has 
abolished (in two regions at l east) quantitative restrictions  limiting the number of travel 
agencies that can provide services in a given area. 
Legal form requirements : Lithuania and Spain, where operators had to be constituted as a 
legal person or as a commercial company respectively, have reported that limitations in the choice of legal form for travel agencies ar e being abolished (Lithuania) and have been 
                                                
 
165  Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Fi nland, France, Greece, Hu ngary, Iceland, Ireland, 
several regions in Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and one region in Spain. 
EN 70  EN abolished (in Spain). Portuguese law continues to re quire that travel agents be constituted as a 
legal person, thereby preventing natural pers ons from setting up travel agencies, although 
Portugal has reported that this requirement will soon be eliminated. 
Shareholding requirements : Belgium and Spain have re ported that minimum capital 
requirements applying to travel agencies have been removed. Po rtugal has reported that it is 
considering abolishing the minimum capital requirement of €  100  000 for travel agencies. In 
Ireland, minimum capital requirements of €  25 000 and €  38 000 are imposed on travel 
agencies and tour operators respectively. 
Reserve of activity : Belgium has reported that it is a bolishing the requirement that the 
manager of a travel agency must have previous ly done an internship in the same sector of 
activity. In contrast, Malta has repo rted that specific training or  a certain degree of experience 
is required either of the manager (if the prov ider is constituted as a company) or of the 
provider (if he is a natural person).  
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities 
Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities seem to  be very rare in the tourism field. After the 
implementation of the Services Directive, even  fewer of these restrictions remain. Belgium 
and Spain have reported that they have abolishe d an obligation for travel agents to exercise 
their activity on an exclusive basis. Portugal  has indicated that owners, directors and 
managers of travel agencies are not allowed to  exercise any other pr ofession involving tourist 
information activities while carrying out thei r managerial duties. However, Portugal has 
reported that this requirement is currently being reviewed to make  it less stringent.  
6.2.1.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services 
In a number of cases the appli cation of requirements to travel  agencies providing cross-border 
services has been removed or is being rem oved as it was not cons idered justified or 
proportionate. However, some Me mber States have reported th at travel agencies providing 
cross-border services are still su bject to a number of requirements.  
Obligation to have an establishment : In one region in Belgium a nd in Spain, the obligation to 
have premises within the country has been abolished. Slovenia has abolished the establishment obligation and such requiremen t has been notified as being abolished by 
Lithuania. Obligation to obtain an authorisation
: Iceland, Ireland and Poland have indicated 
that travel agencies providing cross-border servi ces are still obliged to obtain an authorisation 
before starting to provide cross-border serv ices. Slovenia has abolished the authorisation 
scheme that applied to cross-border travel agencies. One region in Belgium has replaced the 
existing authorisation scheme by a declaration and Portugal has repo rted its intention to do so. 
Estonia and Hungary require registration or notif ication for cross-border services providers 
and Greece has announced that it is pla nning to introduce such a requirement  
Obligation to take out insurance and/or a financial guarantee : Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia 
and certain regions in Spain have reported that  cross-border providers are obliged to obtain 
insurance cover and/or a financ ial guarantee pursuant to their own regulation in this matter. 
The Czech Republic requires insurance cover for cross-border tour operators. To justify such 
a restriction, some Member States have refe rred to the Package Travel Directive, which 
EN 71  EN requires Member States to oblige travel agents to provide sufficient evidence of security for 
refunding money paid to them and for repatr iating travellers if the firm goes bust166.  
6.2.2.  Services of tourist guides and similar services 
There was much discussion among Member Stat es about the activities of tourist guides, 
mountain and cave guides and skiing or diving instructors. A professional qualification is 
required for carrying out these activitie s in at least some Member States. 
6.2.2.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Tourist guides seem to be a regulated profe ssion in ten Member States, (France, Greece, 
Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Port ugal, Slovenia and Spai n). Mountain/climbing 
guides seem to be a regulated profession in five Member Stat es, (Austria, th e Czech Republic, 
one region in Germany, Ital y and Slovenia), and cave guides  seem to be  a regulated 
profession in Austria. Ski instructors seem to be a regulated profession in Austria, Germany 
and Italy.  
Authorisation schemes for tourist guides have  been reported by the Czech Republic, Italy, 
Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sl ovenia, Slovakia and Spain.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Member States have notified a limited number of Article 15 requirements for these activities, 
mostly for ski schools or skiing instructors. A good number of such requirements have been 
abolished or amended as Member States found them unjustified or disproportionate. 
However, some requirements have been maintain ed in certain Member States as they were 
considered necessary to ensure the quality of the service and prot ect the recipients.  
Quantitative and territorial restrictions : Some Italian regions have  abolished requirements 
limiting the number of ski schools established w ithin the same munici pality, while others 
seem to have maintained them. Some Austri an regions have abolis hed requirements that 
forbid schools to take pupils out of a speci fic territorial area where the ski school is 
established, while others have maintained them. 
Bans on having more than one establishment : Some Italian and Austrian regions have 
abolished requirements prohibiting ski instructors from providing their services in more than 
one ski school and, in parallel, prohibiting ski schools from setting up in more than one 
region. Nevertheless, these requirements seem to remain in other regions. 
Legal form requirements : Austrian legislation lays down provisions obliging ski schools and 
mountain guides to provide thei r services as natural persons, thereby preventing legal persons 
from carrying out these activities. 
Tariffs : In Italy, minimum and/or maximum tariffs  have been abolished by a number of 
regions as regards tourist and m ountain guides. (In other cases, they have been maintained). 
Cyprus has reported minimum tari ffs imposed on tourist guides.  
                                                 
166 Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and 
package tours — OJ L158 of 23/06/1990 — p. 59. 
EN 72  EN Ski instructors’ services in Italy may be su bject to different tariffs (fixed, minimum, 
maximum) depending on the region concerned. So me Italian regions say they have abolished 
(or are abolishing) minimum and/or maximum tariffs. 
Joint services: Austria has abolished the obligation for ski schools to cover a wide range of 
different skiing activities.  
Minimum number of employees : In one region in Spain, provide rs organising diving activities 
must employ a minimum number of professionals , including a doc tor and a certain number of 
divers. Similarly, Maltese law lays down the obligation to ha ve a manager with a certain 
degree of education and training to manage and organise activi ties while the diving instructor 
is under water. 
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities 
As in the case of travel agents, there are not  many restrictions on multidisciplinary activities. 
Portuguese legislation does not seem to allow tourist guides to exerci se any other profession 
involving tourist information activities while performing their duties, although Portugal 
reports that this requirement is being revised. A similar restriction has been reported by Italy, 
where tourist guides cannot engage in other commercial services aimed at their direct clients. 
6.2.2.2.   Requirements applying to cross-border services 
In a number of cases, requirements no longer ap ply to cross-border service providers because 
this was considered unjustified or disproportiona te. Still, some Member States have reported 
restrictions on tourist guides an d other providers of cross-bord er services. Reasons of public 
security and environmental protection have b een invoked to justify these restrictions.  
Obligation to have an establishment : Austria has reported an establishment requirement for 
tourist guides.  
Obligation to obtain an authorisation : Austria still has authorisation schemes for cave and 
mountain guides who provide cross-border services. Malta previ ously required an 
authorisation for cross-border t ourist guides, but now requires  only a prior declaration. In 
Greece, tourist guides still need an authorisation. 
Ski instructors providing cross-bo rder services require a prior au thorisation in several Italian 
and Austrian regions. In at least one Italian region, cross-border ski in structors for services 
lasting more than 15 days in a ski season may on ly come with their ow n clients. Austria and 
Italy say these requirements are justified on gr ounds of public security. In Italy and Malta, 
providers of diving services n eed to obtain an authorisation. 
Application of specific contractual arrangements : Greece has stated that it will abolish the 
obligation for tourist guides to provi de their services as employees.  
Obligation to possess an identity document : At least one Spanish region has abolished such an 
obligation previously imposed on tourist guide s, whereas Austria and Greece have reported 
that cave, climbing and tourist guides must ca rry an ID card provid ing evidence of their 
professional capacity. In Austri a this requirement also applies to ski instructors. 
 
EN 73  EN 6.2.3.  Accommodation (including hotels, hostels, apartments, camping etc.) 
6.2.3.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Many Member States have reported author isation schemes for tourist accommodation,167 and 
there is a general tendency to keep these sche mes in place. A considerable number of these 
schemes seem to be aimed at verifying that the facilities meet various conditions or standards 
relating, for example, to health and safety, th e environment and the quality and maintenance 
of equipment. In other cases, th e authorities carry out prior inspect ions in order to classify the 
tourist establishment in a particular category. 
Spain (most regions), Italy (some regions) an d Slovakia have replaced some authorisation 
schemes by declarations /notifications. 
¾ Article 15 requirements 
A limited number of Article 15 requirements ha ve been reported in this sector.  
Quantitative and territorial restrictions : Italy, Lithuania and one re gion in Spain have reported 
specific rules as to the where ru ral accommodation can be located. 
Legal form requirements : Belgium has abolished the obligation that the service provider be 
constituted as a company. In at least one Italian region, youth hoste ls may be run only by 
legal persons who are non-profit.  (This obligation has been reported as a bolished in another 
region).  
Tariffs : Italy has reported tariffs applying to  rural accommodation (‘agritourism’). 
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities 
There seem to be very few restrictions on multidisciplinary activities in the accommodation 
services sector.  
In Portugal, owners or managers of hotels ar e not allowed to exerci se any other profession 
involving tourist information activities when  they perform manage rial duties, but the 
authorities say that they will amend this requ irement. The authorities in one region in Spain 
report that they no longer prohibit rural es tablishments from providing accommodation as 
well as running a restaurant. 
6.2.4.  Car rental services 
6.2.4.1.   Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, Malta and Portugal have reported that undertakings wishing to set up 
a car or motorbike rental bus iness are obliged to obtain an authorisation. The Greek 
authorisation scheme contains requirements ob liging the operator to provide a bank guarantee 
and to have a certain level of education. 
                                                 
167  Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Ir eland, Iceland, 
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portuga l, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
EN 74  EN ¾ Article 15 requirements 
Cyprus has reported that quantitative restrictions  applicable to car rental services are in the 
process of being abolished. 
6.2.4.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services 
Obligation to have an establishment : In Iceland, car rental bus inesses must be run from a 
‘stable infrastructure’. Icela nd has justified this obligation on grounds of public security.  
Obligation to obtain an authorisation : Portugal has reported that it intends to abolish an 
authorisation applicable to car rental operators providing cross-border services.  
 
6.2.5.  Food and beverage (including catering services and bars) 
6.2.5.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes  
Many Member States require prio r authorisation for setting up bars, restaurants and catering 
establishments. Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Finl and, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, 
Norway and Iceland have notified such sc hemes, whereas Slova kia has established 
notification obligations. 
Most authorisation schemes are reportedly ai med at checking compliance with rules on 
hygiene (Belgium), safety (Belgium, the Un ited Kingdom) or food conditions (the United 
Kingdom). In other cases, operato rs running restaurants,  bars or other establishments serving 
alcoholic beverages must obtain a specific li cence (Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and 
Iceland).  
Belgium, and the Netherlands have reported au thorisation schemes fo r operating terraces and 
food stands in public places. Ital y abolished a specific author isation scheme for catering 
services in work places, means of transport, schools, hospitals , etc. (The authorisation has 
been replaced by a declaration). 
¾ Article 15 requirements 
A number of Member States have reported Artic le 15 requirements, mostly for establishments 
serving products that could pose public health h azards or generate some sort of nuisance to 
the public. 
Quantitative and territorial restrictions : Austria has reported quantitative restrictions on the 
use of outside terraces for rest aurants and bars. In Spain, esta blishments which provide food 
and drinks on the beach must be a certain minimum distance apart. 
In Italy, national and regional la w no longer require the local au thorities to limit the number 
of authorisations for new restaurants and bars  on the basis of the population living in a given 
area. (Nevertheless, some regi ons indicated they are mainta ining these restrictions).  
France and Ireland have reported th at they restrict the number of  establishments distributing 
alcoholic beverages, whereas Luxembourg has a nnounced that it will abolis h this restriction. 
Finally, Portugal has reported a territorial restriction prohibi ting the sale of alcoholic 
beverages near primary and secondary schools. 
EN 75  EN Minimum or maximum tariffs : Hungary has abolished a maximum tariff for service fees 
imposed on restaurateurs.  
6.2.5.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services 
In some Member States certain requirements apply to cross-border providers of food and 
beverages, notably catering services. 
Obligation to have an establishment : Luxembourg has indicated it will abolish the obligation 
for operators to have an establishment if th ey intend to serve al cohol through  catering 
services.  
Obligation to obtain an authorisation : In Portugal, catering firms wishing to provide their 
services at more than ten events per year must  obtain an authorisation for the premises where 
the food is served, if those premises are public accessibl e and not already licensed as a 
restaurant or bar. Portugal cites public health reasons to justify this restriction. In Italy, 
authorisations imposed on caterin g providers offering their servi ces at fairs, festivals and 
similar public events have been reported, at leas t by some regions, as appl icable also to cross-
border providers. Italy has invoked grounds of public heal th and public security  to justify this 
restriction. 
In Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands  and the United Kingdom, operators intending 
to provide catering services on a temporary ba sis must obtain a licence to serve alcoholic 
beverages. Reasons such as public health, public security and the protection of the 
environment have been invoked in or der to justify this requirement. 
Obligation to make a declaration : In Italy, some regions notifie d prior declaration imposed on 
caterers who provide their services on means of  transport and at the consumer’s home as 
applicable also to cross- border service providers. 
Obligation to take out insurance : In Portugal, operators wishing to provide catering services 
on a temporary basis are obliged to take out in surance. This obligation has been justified on 
grounds of public health and protection of the environment. 
 
CONCLUSION: 
The level of regulation in the tourism sector seems to vary considerably between the Member 
States.  
The implementation of the Services Directiv e has resulted in a considerable number of 
legislative amendments, the most significant ones being those affecting travel agencies and 
tourist guides. Many Member States have abolished requirements that they considered 
unjustified or disproportionate. Nevertheless, difficulties for se rvice providers to exploit the 
internal market potential of this sector seem  to remain. This seems to be the case, in 
particular, as regards the cross- border services provisions of  travel agencies/travel agents 
and tourist guides.  
The discussion on the regulation of this sector was very lively, in particular as regards the 
situation of cross-border servi ce providers. Many Member Stat es questioned the justification 
of certain requirements. The discussion has show n that the significant cross-border potential 
of this sector has yet to be exploited. 
As regards travel agencies, the question of the relationship with the Package Travel Directive 
was intensively discussed, in particular as regards insurance or guar antee requirements for 
cross-border service providers. It  seems that the obligations la id down by the Package Travel 
EN 76  EN Directive may have led certain Member States to  consider themselves justified in imposing 
requirements such as prior authorisation on cross-border travel agents. However, other 
Member States argued that the provision of cros s-border services should in principle not be 
subject to any requirements by the Member State where the service is being provided, 
especially in view of the Package Travel Direc tive. Member States high lighted that it would 
be important to ensure that the insurance/guar antee obligation to which travel agencies are 
subject in their Member State of  establishment also covers the provision of services across 
borders and that he insurance market is well able  to cater for the insurance needs of travel 
agents who wish to exploit the pot ential of the internal market. 
As shown by the discussion amongst Member Stat es, tourist guides wishing to provide cross-
border services seem to encount er constant difficulties in m any countries. Some of these 
difficulties may be due to a misapplication of  national legislation, but  others seem to stem 
directly from requirements that  have been maintained in certain Member States. Maintaining 
these requirements restricts cross-border serv ice provision just as much as imposing an 
establishment requirement or an authorisation sc heme. Similar difficulties are encountered by 
other providers of services  in the tourism sector.  
EN 77  EN 6.3. Services in the construction sector  
The construction sector encompasses a wide rang e of service activities.  Construction includes 
not only the actual building but al so the planning and surveilla nce of construction work, the 
services of craftsmen (such as plumbers and electricians) and other services such as those 
provided by architects or constr uction engineers. Othe r important services in the construction 
sector include installation, maintenance and inspection.  
Some of these services, e.g. arch itects, are regulated professions in all or almost all Member 
States, whereas others (e.g. certain crafts) ar e regulated in only a few Member States.  
Member States have reported a very uneven number of authorisation schemes and other 
requirements affecting services in the construc tion sector. Indeed, the level of regulation, the 
regulatory tools used and the construction activi ties regulated seem to vary widely from one 
country to another. 
There are two main regulatory approaches in th is sector. In a minority of Member States, the 
focus is essentially or exclusively on the activity or its result, which is (in general) carefully controlled by the competent authorities. They  issue building permits or project-related 
authorisations and they carry out  inspections. However, in most Member States the authorities 
also regulate the competence of the professi onals and companies involved in providing the 
service. In these countries, th e checks carried out by the comp etent authorities seem to be 
fewer or less intensive than in those countries  which do not regulate (or regulate less strictly) 
the competence of the providers.  
6.3.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
6.3.1.1.   Authorisation schemes 
Member States have notified a large number of authorisation schemes covering major parts of 
the construction sector. However, as indicate d before, there are considerable differences 
between Member States.  
Authorisation schemes imposed on se rvices providers in the construction sector fall into three 
broad categories: (i) authoris ation affecting the constructi on sector in general; (ii) 
authorisation for specific activities in the construction sector; and (iii) authorisation required in specific situations (notably for hazardous act ivities and activities presenting a danger to the 
environment). Justifications for authorisation schemes in the construction sector are generally 
based on public safety and the protection of cons umers but also to some extent, for specific 
activities, on the protec tion of the environment. 
As a result of the implementation of the Serv ices Directive, a number of authorisation 
schemes that were previously imposed on servic e providers in the field of construction have 
been abolished or have been made less stringe nt because they have been found unjustified 
and/or disproportionate. Author isation schemes have notably been abolished in Spain and 
Sweden. In Spain, national authorisation is  no longer required for gas installers and 
companies installing gas facilities, for comp anies installing high vo ltage lines, for high 
pressure equipment installers or for companies installing lifting equipmen t. At regional level 
authorisation is no longer required for heating systems installers and electrical equipment 
installers. In Sweden, it is no longer necessa ry for the inspection of lifts and other motor-
driven installations in constr uction work to be carried out by bodies whose competence has 
been confirmed through accreditation. Portugal and Latvia have both indi cated that they are 
changing the cross-cutting authorisation scheme s for several construc tion service providers. 
EN 78  EN Nevertheless, a large number of authorisations applicable to service activities in the 
construction sector are still in force in many Member States.  
¾ Authorisation schemes affecting the construction sector in general  
Some Member States seem to apply authorisatio n schemes for all (or almost all) construction 
services. This is the case in  those Member States, such as  Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, 
which apply cross-cutting authorisation schemes to  all or a large variet y of services (beyond 
the construction sector). Where such schemes exist,  they of course affect  construction services 
as well.  
Other Member States seem to impose a cross-cu tting authorisa tion regime on all or most of 
the construction service providers. A scheme of this  kind appears to be in force in Bulgaria, 
where all construction service pr oviders have to be authorised and registered before they 
begin operating. Similar schemes seem to exist in  Latvia and Portugal but  are being modified. 
In Spain, a company must be authorised and registered before it can be a construction 
subcontractor or deal with subcontractors.  
¾ Authorisation schemes for specific ac tivities in the construction sector 
The specific activities in the construction sector which are subject to an  authorisation scheme 
are many and diverse, and the situation vari es considerably from country to country.  
Member States report a significant number of authorisation schemes fo r professionals whose 
job it is to supervise and inspect construction works and control building quality and safety . 
These include the people who supervise the work  while it is being carried out, those who 
inspect the completed work and those who carry out administrative supervision. For instance, 
building inspectors and foremen of works (constr uction supervisors) must be authorised in 
Hungary, as must chartered inspectors in th e Czech Republic and in Denmark, surveyors and 
civil and environmental engineers in Italy, an d building inspectors in France. Construction 
engineers are also subject to an authoris ation requirement in the Czech Republic and 
Slovakia. Consulting engineers and test engine ers are subject to authorisation, at regional 
level, in Germany. Mechanical and electrical engi neering service provi ders need to be 
authorised in Malta. Similar requirements exist in other Member States. 
The profession of architect is in principle a regulated profession in all Member States.168. 
Authorisations for architects were notified by the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Latvia, 
Malta and Slovakia (both for architects and land scape architects). Hungary has indicated that 
architectural, engineering and urban planning activities can onl y be exercised by authorised 
professionals. In Hungary, an authorised pla nning inspector must be involved in approving 
plans for buildings for use by the public, by the national defence forces or for national 
economic purposes. 
It is clear that a large number of authorisation schemes also exist in areas traditionally referred 
to as crafts  (plumber, mason, tiler, carpenter, etc.),  which are regulated professions in some 
Member States. Some authorisation schemes ha ve been reported and more may well exist. 
The Czech Republic has notified authorisation re quirements for service providers dealing with 
the construction and alteration of buildings, roofing and carpentry, painting, insulation, 
plumbing and heating, electrical work, bricklaying, flooring and woodworking, stone 
                                                 
168  See title III of the Directive 2005/3 6 on the recognition of professional  qualifications. In some Member 
State the effect of the professional qu alification is limited to make sure that only qualified architects can 
call themselves architects. In others, in addition to  that, the professional qualification is linked to a 
reserve of activity in favour of qualified architects.  
EN 79  EN processing and specialised technical work. Aust ria requires an authorisation for appointing a 
manager or branch manager in certain profe ssions, notably master builders, electrical 
engineers and master carpenters. An authorisat ion is also required in  Austria for engineers 
who test heating systems and in Portugal fo r gas equipment installers and gas network 
installers. In Spain, at regional level, authoris ation procedures have been reported for heating 
and air conditioning installers, gas equipment instal lers and electrical equipment installers. In 
Denmark, technicians who check ventilation an d air conditioning systems must be accredited, 
and mechanical and electrical engineering service providers need to be au thorised. At regional 
level, an authorisation scheme was notified in Italy for chimney sweeps and noise emission 
technicians. In Finland, electri cal works must be supervised by an authorised professional. In 
Lithuania, welders’ qualifications must be certif ied. In Hungary, natural persons in charge of 
controlling gas-fitters and professionals w ho repair gas-burning equipment must be 
authorised. 
A number of authorisation schemes have also been reported for elevator maintenance and 
installation services . For example, in Finland, lift works must be supervised by an authorised 
professional. In Austria, at regional level, li ft inspectors must be authorised. In Hungary, 
natural persons responsible for inspecting elev ators and escalators must be authorised.  
In the construction sector there are a num ber of certification (or similar) services  (e.g. the 
certification of energy performance169 and certification of construction products170). These too 
are often subject to authorisation schemes. However, only a few such schemes have been 
notified. In Austria, at regional level, authorisations can be required for service providers who 
certify building activities. Those who carry out  the technical certifi cation of construction 
products must be authorised in Slovakia. The same  is true in Germany, at regional level, for 
bodies in charge of certification procedures. En ergy efficiency certifica tion service providers 
are subject to an authorisation scheme in th e Czech Republic and Slovakia, but are subject 
only to a notification requirement in Hungary . In the United Kingdom, in Scotland, it was 
reported that service providers issuing ener gy performance certificates must be licensed. 
¾ Authorisation schemes for particu lar activities or situations 
In some cases, authorisation schemes concern cons truction activities in particular locations or 
specifically sensitive or dangerous  activities, e.g. those which present a specific danger to the 
environment. It is clear that such rules exis t in many Member States  (though not all of them 
seem to have been reported).  
For example, Austria has notified authorisation schemes for activities presenting a particular 
danger  to the environment. Austria also notified an authorisation required for certain activities 
that affect running water, na tural springs or ground waters . The United Kingdom has notified 
authorisations for services in coastal areas or  near rivers and specific licences required for 
handling waste, asbestos and dangerous chemi cals. The United Kingdom also reported that 
authorisations are required for drainage activities, for constr uction works within the marine 
environment and for activities involving placing materials in the sea or on public highways. 
The Netherlands have notified environmenta l authorisation schemes and authorisation 
schemes for dangerous activities (such as drilling, excavating work s or the use of explosives 
                                                 
169  Directive 2002/91/EC of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the 
energy performance of buildings. OJ L 1, 4.1.2003. 
170  Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions of the Me mber States relating to constructi on products, modified by Directive 
93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 and Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 29 September 2003 OJ L 284, 31.10.2003. 
EN 80  EN for construction activities) and for activities in protected natural monuments. France has 
notified authorisation obliga tions for people working on gas equipment, in asbestos 
decontamination activities or checking the safety of water works.  
Specific rules applying to the conservation of historic  and artistic heritage or ‘listed’ historical 
buildings have been notified by some Member States . For instance, the restoration of cultural 
monuments must be authorised in Austria, in the Czech Republic, in Latvia and in Slovakia. 
Authorisation requirements for construction activiti es involving archae ological excavations 
were notified by France, the Netherlands and Spain. In Malta, the profession of 
conservator/restorer (for the pr otection of cultural heritage) requi res a specific authorisation. 
Nature protection experts must be aut horised and registered in Hungary.  
Special rules may also be imposed for large-scale construction projects . For instance, 
Lithuania reported that a certificate must be obtained for construction works of exceptional 
significance. 
6.3.1.2.  Article 15 requirements 
The service activities which are subject to Article 15 requirements, and the type of 
requirement imposed, vary from one Member State to another. Fixed tariff requirements appear to be relatively frequent in the construction sector, mostly for the services of architects 
and inspection activities. . Justifying this, Member  States often referred to the need to protect 
consumers and public security, and (for mini mum tariffs) the objective of ensuring fair 
competition.  
A number of requirements previously imposed on construction service providers have been 
modified or abolished as they have been  found unjustified and/or disproportionate. For 
instance, Lithuania has abolished a legal fo rm requirement imposed on service providers 
exploiting energy installations. Cyprus has announced  that its legislation is being modified to 
allow legal persons, in addition to natural persons, to provide engineering services. Luxembourg indicated that it is repealing a shareholding requirement that craftsmen should 
own at least 50
 % of the shares of a craft company. In Malta, fixed tariffs for Periti (architects 
and civil engineers) have been abolished. In Germany, regional authorities say they have made less stringent the legal form requirement for test engineers and have also reduced or 
abolished the requirement that test engineers sh ould have only one establishment. In Spain, an 
obligation for pressure equipm ent installation and repair providers to have a minimum 
number of employees has been abolished. 
A good number of Article 15 requirements neverthele ss still seem to be in force. As indicated 
previously, some Member States impose cer tain Article 15 requirements on regulated 
professions in general (for instan ce restrictions relating to legal form or to capital ownership). 
Such requirements would also affect a number of  service providers in the construction sector. 
Austria has reported te rritorial restrictions
 imposed on chimney sweeps. 
As to legal form requirements , Austria has indicated that ch imney sweep activities must be 
provided by natural persons or registered partnerships, and one  of the partners must be a 
natural person and personally liable. Lithuania imposes a legal form requirement on service 
providers wishing to engage in construction work of excep tional significance. In Italy, 
architects’ activities can only be carried out by individuals or in the form of a partnership 
(‘società di persone’ ) or an association be tween professionals. Lega l form requirements for 
architects seem to be also imposed in Austri a, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Malta and Romania. In Italy, at  regional level, craft companies (‘ società artigiane’ ) 
cannot take the form of limited companies ( ‘società per azioni’).  
EN 81  EN When it comes to shareholding requirements , in Belgium, the profession of architect can be 
exercised by a legal pe rson only if at least 60  % of the company shares are owned directly or 
indirectly by architects register ed on the records of the Order of Architects. The remaining 
shares cannot be held by persons exercising a pr ofession that may conflic t with the profession 
of architect. In France, more than 50  % of the company’s shares and voting rights must be 
held by architects or by firms pr oviding architectural se rvices. In Germany, at  regional level, 
the majority of the capital and the voting rights  have to be held by ar chitects. Shareholding 
rules are also imposed on architects in Aust ria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Spain. In Italy, at least 51  % of the capital of a craft 
enterprise (‘ impresa  artigiana’ ) must be held by qualified crafts persons.  
Fixed tariff  requirements appear to be quite frequently  in force in the construction sector and 
have been reported by ten different Member  States. In Bulgaria, Germany and Greece, 
minimum tariffs are imposed on architects for va rious types of work. Minimum tariffs have 
also been reported in some regions of Germany for experts in the field of construction, fire 
prevention experts and test engineers. In Spai n, coastal construction or  excavation activities 
seem to be subject to minimum and maximu m tariffs. Fixed maximum tariffs are also 
imposed on chimney sweeps in Finland, Germany a nd, at regional level, in Austria and Italy. 
In Denmark, authorised building surveyors,  boiler and heating system inspectors and 
authorised energy consultants are under an obl igation to comply with maximum tariffs.  
Requirements regarding the mi nimum number of employees  are imposed in Germany, at 
regional level, on certification bodies in the c onstruction sector. In C yprus they apply to 
electrical installers and in Spai n, at regional level, to test la boratories for construction works. 
In Portugal, the obligation to have a minimum number of certain specif ic employees applies 
to the technical inspection of lifts, skip hoist s and moving walkways, th e technical installation 
of gas networks and the fitting and/or repair of gas appliances. Bulgaria also requires a minimum number of employees for service providers in the construction sector. 
Austria reports banning chimney sweeps fr om having more than one establishment
.  
Austria also requires chimney sw eeps to supply other specific services jointly with their 
chimney-sweeping service . 
6.3.1.3.  Restrictions on multidis ciplinary activities  
Many restrictions on multidisciplinary activities have been reported for architects and, to a 
lesser extent, for inspection and supervision activities. 
For example, in Belgium, a legal person ex ercising the profession of architect can only 
provide services that arise from the exercise  of that profession. Bulgaria prohibits anyone 
from carrying out building work on a project while at the same  time being the architect for 
that project. France restricts the freedom of an  architect to provide other services, either 
jointly or in partnership171. In Luxembourg, the activities of  an architect or a landscape 
architect are considered incompatible with commer cial or craft activities or with the exercise 
of any other activity that might compromise their professional i ndependence. Italy restricts the 
possibility of architects, cultural and environm ental heritage experts and landscape architects 
to provide another service, either jointly or in  partnership. The Czech Republic also appears to 
impose limitations on the multidisciplinary ac tivities of architects. Germany reportedly 
prohibits anyone working on a construction project  from carrying out both expert assessments 
and planning activities fo r that project. In Malta, Periti  partnerships can only have as their 
objective the practice of that profession. 
                                                 
171  To associate with or be employed by  professionals in the construction sector. 
EN 82  EN Limitations on multidisciplinary activities also exist in other professions. For example, such 
restrictions have been reported for elevator and escalator inspect ion activities in Austria (at 
regional level), France and Portuga l, where lift inspectors are not  allowed to be economically 
dependent on firms that build or maintain lif ts, and must avoid any situation that could 
compromise their independence. France also says it bans the exercise of any activity that 
could compromise the independence of build ing inspectors. Germa ny has notified such 
limitations for structural inspectors/structural inspection engineers, who are prohibited from 
serving as experts or engineer s on projects which they we re involved in  planning or 
executing. Italy notified limitations for civil and environmental engineers: they can carry out 
collective exercises only if prof essional responsibility remains individually attached to each 
member of group.. In Norway, restrictions ar e imposed on the provision (jointly or in 
partnership) of services relate d to supervision of electrical sy stems, and of other services 
related to the installation and operation of elect rical systems. Limitations on multidisciplinary 
activities have also been notifie d by Portugal for inspectors of ga s networks and inspectors of 
petrol fuel installations. In contrast, Cyprus has reported th at the obligation for building 
contractors to carry out only building work is be ing replaced by an obliga tion that this be their 
main activity. 
6.3.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services 
As a result of the implementation of the Serv ices Directive, some requirements that were 
previously imposed on cross-border service prov iders in the field of construction have been 
abolished or have been (or will be) made less stringent because they have been found discriminatory, disproportionate or unjustified. For instance, establishment requirements have been/are being abolished in Spai n, at regional level, for industrial safety inspectors and in 
Germany, at regional level, for test engineers.  Germany has also amended its legislation on 
engineers and architects to make it clear th at fixed, minimum or ma ximum tariffs are not 
applicable to cross-border serv ices. In Spain, the obligation to  obtain an authorisation for 
installing low-voltage and high-voltage lines has been abolished, while several other 
authorisation schemes are being modified (e.g. for lift installers, boiler repairers, gas installers 
and electrical installation inspectors). In Cypr us, the authorisation/“special permit” imposed 
on natural and legal persons for the provision of  cross-border services has been reported as 
being abolished. Estonia has repl aced by a declaration the authorisation previously applicable 
to cross border providers of services related to electrical safety, machinery safety, pressure equipment safety, fuel gas safety, lifts and cable way installations safety with a declaration A 
large number of requirements applying to cro ss-border services have nevertheless been 
notified. In many cases, Member States seem to  apply the same requirements to cross-border 
services as they apply to established operators. However, there are considerable differences between the Member States. In some countries it  is not entirely clear how certain construction 
activities are regulated and monitore d for cross-border service providers
172. Reasons generally 
given for imposing requirements on cross-border service providers are public security and the 
protection of the environment. 
6.3.2.1.  Obligation to have an establishment  
Germany, at regional level, obliges imposes an establishment obligation to test engineers.. 
                                                 
172  For instance, Latvia only notified establis hment requirements in the construction sector. 
EN 83  EN 6.3.2.2.  Obligation to obtain an authorisation  
A large number of authorisation schemes appl ying to cross-border services have been 
notified. But, as indicated above, the situation va ries considerably from country to country.  
For instance, the general authorisation scheme for construction activities in Portugal is also 
imposed on incoming cross-border services prov iders, but is reportedly being simplified173. In 
contrast, the cross cutting authorisation scheme applied to construction services in Latvia has 
not been reported as app licable to cross-border service providers. The general authorisation 
scheme for construction activities in Bulgaria seems to be imposed only on service providers 
established in Bulgaria174.  
In Lithuania, service providers established in  other Member States wishing to carry out 
design, construction and manage ment activities for construc tion works of exceptional 
significance are subject to a spec ific authorisation procedure. In Liechtenstein, ‘coordinators’ 
for planning or executing large scale construction proj ects need an additional authorisation.  
In Lithuania, authorisation is needed for ma naging technical activities such as the design 
documentation for building works, specialised work relating to building, or technical supervision of building works. In France, bu ilding inspectors, certification providers for 
asbestos decontamination works and lift inspect ors need an authoris ation. In Denmark, an 
authorisation is needed by chimney sweeps, by  companies carrying out work on electrical 
installations and by plumbing companies (w orking on water, heating and sanitary 
installations). In Germany, authorisation proce dures are imposed, at regional level, on test 
engineers, bodies in charge of building certification procedures , construction experts
175 and 
experts in energy-saving. In Malta, stone masons who design and erect a building must be 
authorised. In Greece, an auth orisation scheme for architects  from other Member States 
providing cross- border servic es has been reported.  
A large number of authorisation schemes for sensitive or dangerous activities or construction 
activities at particular locations have been not ified as applying to cross-border services. The 
Netherlands have notified environmental author isation schemes, authorisation schemes for 
dangerous activities, drilling activities, water management and water abstraction, earth 
removal, excavating works, waste disposal (breaking up building and demolition waste ) and 
the use of explosives for cons truction activities. France has notified that authorisations are 
needed by service providers wo rking on gas equipment, in asbe stos decontamination activities 
or checking the safety of water works. In th e United Kingdom, service providers who handle 
waste, asbestos, and dangerous chemicals need  a specific licence. The United Kingdom also 
says that authorisations  are required for drainage activities,  for construction work within the 
marine environment and for works that involv e depositing materials at sea or on public 
highways. In Germany, at regional level, envi ronmental experts and bod ies investigating soil 
protection must be authorised, as must experts who carry out safety inspections and audit 
safety-related documents. Authorisation requi rements for constructi on activities involving 
archaeological excavations were notified by Fran ce, the Netherlands a nd Spain. Authorisation 
schemes were also notified by the Netherlands fo r activities in protected natural monuments.  
                                                 
173  Portugal indicated that temporary cross-border pr oviders will have to make a declaration including 
proof of having the minimum human resources (not necessarily their own employees) to carry out the 
specific type the construction and proofs of good repute and insurance. 
174  Cross border providers are subj ect to a notification obligation. 
175  For stability and solidity of constructions, metal and wood construction, structural fire protection, 
geotechnical engineering, sound and heat insulation. 
EN 84  EN 6.3.2.3.  Declarations/notifications 
Relatively few declarations or notification proc edures have been notif ied by Member States 
for activities in the construction sector. Some of those reported may relate to professional 
qualifications.  
In Belgium, any service provider wishing to exercise a commercial, craft or professional 
activity (including activities in the constructio n sector) as part of the free movement of 
services must give prior notification. This is  also the case for craftsmen in Luxembourg. In 
Germany, at regional level, notification schemes have been reported for structural inspectors / 
structural inspection engineers, fo r experts preparing building documents176, for consulting 
engineers or environmental experts and bodies  investigating soil protection. In Hungary, a 
notification is required from construction service providers in order to prove they have an 
appropriate professional qualific ation. Estonia reported requirin g a notification from persons 
handling explosives. 
6.3.2.4.  Obligation to take out insurance  
Member States have reported that they requir e providers to provide in surance or a financial 
guarantee affecting various servic e activities.. Several more such requirements may exist but 
have not been notified.  
Slovenia has notified an obligation to have insurance for supervising building works. In 
France, all service providers in the constructi on sector (except for repair and maintenance 
activities) need a ten-year insurance policy in the case of new buildings. In Latvia, a building permit cannot be issued unless the builder has indemnity insurance.  Liability insurance is 
required for certain construction services in Sl ovakia and Slovenia. In Germany, at regional 
level, laboratories testing pi pelines, environmental experts and bodies inves tigating soil 
protection are all obliged to prove  that they have liability insu rance. In Portuga l, technicians 
signing construction projects, bodies installing gas networks and gas appliances, technicians 
supervising or inspecting constr uction works, and bodies inspecting gas appliances, lifts and 
petrol fuel installations are all obliged to have a valid professional liability guarantee 
(equivalent to the professional liability insura nce required for established technicians who 
perform the same tasks). 
6.3.2.5.  Requirements affecting the use of equipment 
In Germany, at regional level, requirements aff ecting the use of equipment have been reported 
for environmental experts and bodies inves tigating soil protection. Austria too has 
requirements affecting the use of equipment for inspecting heating facili ties and for checking 
the safety of lifts. The Netherlands also notif ied requirements affecting the use of equipment 
(e.g. for scaffolding, ladders, piling, conveyors and other material)
 for certain construction 
activities. 
 
CONCLUSION: 
Very different situations seem to exist in different Member States as regards the level of 
regulation, the type of regulatory tools in fo rce and the categories of construction activities 
regulated. There are two main regulatory opti ons that can be identified.. A minority of 
countries seem to focus essentially or exclus ively on controlling the activity and checking its 
                                                 
176  The laws generally impose (only) a notification requ irement if the qualification is equivalent. Otherwise 
a registration or authorisation is required. 
EN 85  EN outcome. The majority of Member States not  only require building permits and carry out 
inspections but also regulate the competen ce of the professionals and companies involved. 
As a result of implementing the Services Dire ctive, a number of impor tant changes have been 
made in the rules applicable to the construction sector. In some Member States, authorisation 
schemes are being made less st ringent and other requirements, in cluding tariffs, or legal form 
requirements, have also been abolished, ame nded or made non-applicable to cross-border 
service providers.  
Nevertheless, the construction sector is still he avily regulated. To justify their requirements, 
Member States have generally invoked the need to prevent serious damage to the health or 
safety of the service recipient or to pr otect consumers and (to a lesser extent) the 
environment. Most requirements  are authorisation schemes. In  some cases, cross-cutting 
authorisation schemes affect the whole construction sector. In ot her cases, authorisations are 
for specific activities, such as supervision and  inspection, or activitie s presenting a danger to 
the environment. Member States also repo rt a large number of tariffs, legal form 
requirements, shareholding requirements and rest rictions on multidisciplinary activities, in 
particular for architects, building surveyors, test  engineers, etc. A significant number of 
requirements, notably authorisations, also seem  to be imposed on cross-border services.  
The discussion showed that the construction sector, which has great potential for cross-
border activities, is seen as highly regulated. Se veral requirements, such as fixed tariffs or 
minimum numbers of employees, were called into  question. Doubts were raised as regards the 
application of requirements such as cross- cutting authorisation schemes to cross-border 
services. Discussion also showed that service providers have difficu lty obtaining reasonably-
priced insurance cover for cross-border services. 
 
6.4. Real estate services 
Real estate covers a variety of  different service activities, including acting as intermediary in 
the selling, buying and renting of property. It also embraces the evaluation and management 
of real estate, and activities relating to land surveying, and the demarcation of real-estate 
properties.  
This field of activity is highly regulated in some Member States. For example, real-estate 
agents are a regulated profession in several coun tries. In other Member States it is hardly 
regulated at all. The most re gulated activities in this sect or relate to land surveying. 
 
6.4.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
6.4.1.1.  Authorisation schemes  
Real-estate agents seem to be a regulated profe ssion in 12 Member States.177 Lithuania has 
indicated that the requirement for propert y assessment service providers to hold a 
qualification certificate is in the pr ocess of being made less stringent. 
Authorisation schemes applying to real-estate and property management services have been 
reported by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Slovakia and Sweden. In Romania, real-
estate service providers need to register with the National Office for Trade Registry. In 
                                                 
177  Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Icelan d, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and 
Sweden. 
EN 86  EN Greece an obligation to register is imposed bo th on established and cross-border service 
providers. In addition, an obligation to be certified has been reported in France for 
professionals making diagnostic examinations178 of real-estate properties. In Latvia, 
professionals offering real-estat e evaluation services must be certified. Such authorisation 
schemes for real-estate activities were reporte d as justified mainly in order to protect 
consumers, the recipients of serv ices and their financial security. 
Land surveyors seem to be a regulated profe ssion in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, 
Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovakia, Slove nia and the United Kingdom. Authorisation 
schemes have been reported for surveyors an d cartographers in Denmark, France, Hungary, 
Latvia and Slovakia. In Estonia,  providers wishing to engage in land readjustment work and 
the valuation of land must obtai n a licence. These authorisation schemes have generally been 
reported by Member States as justified for reasons of public policy, the protection of 
consumers and the protection of re cipients of services, but also to some extent to combat 
fraud. 
6.4.1.2.  Article 15 requirements 
Most of the requirements reported are legal form requirements, shareholding requirements 
and tariffs and they have mostly been notified for land surveying activities. Member States have indicated that legal form and shareh olding requirements are usually imposed to 
guarantee the independence and impartiality of pr ofessionals and to prevent conflicts of 
interest, whereas tariffs are ofte n deemed to be justified in or der to protect consumers and the 
recipients of services.  
A number of the existing requirements were found unjustified and disp roportionate and thus 
abolished or modified. For instance, in De nmark, a requirement for real-estate service 
providers to take a specific legal form has reportedly been abolished. Belgium has indicated 
that it would abolish a requirement that r eal-estate agent activitie s be exercised only by 
natural persons. France has amended its legislation on land surveying activities. Previously, 
land surveyors were oblig ed to hold at least 75
 % of their company’s capital: the new law 
reduces this figure to 51  %. 
A number of requirements have nevertheless been  maintained. Some Member States still have 
legal form requirements.  In Denmark, for example, land surveying activities may only be 
provided by a natural person, a grouping of seve ral land inspectors, a p ublic limited liability 
company or a private limited company. In France,  land surveyors can pr ovide services as a 
natural person or as a legal person in certain forms179. Legal form requirements for land 
surveyors also seem to be in force in Austria, Italy, Lithuania and Portugal.  
Shareholding requirements  are imposed on land surveyors in Austria, Denmark, France, 
Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and Romania. Norw ay imposes specific ownership rules on 
real-estate agents.  
As regards fixed tariffs , Austria has a federal regulation that imposes maximum tariffs on 
real-estate activities. In Sweden, a statutory maximum tariff is imposed on letting agents. 
Maximum tariffs are also imposed in Germany, at  national level, on rental agency activities. 
For real-estate activities, the obj ective of protecting the consumer /recipient of services is the 
overriding reason of general interest most co mmonly given to justify the maximum tariffs. 
However, the objective of combating potential fraud has also been reported. In Romania, 
                                                 
178  Inspecting for lead, asbestos and termites, and assessing gas, electricity and energy performance. 
179  In the form of ‘Sociétés civiles professionnelles ou interprofessionnelles’, ‘Sociétés d’exercice libéral’ 
and ‘Sociétés anonymes ou sociét és à responsabilité limitée’.  
EN 87  EN maximum tariffs are imposed on surveying activities. For land surveyors, maximum tariffs are 
also in force in Italy while minimum tariffs are imposed in Bulgaria and fixed tariffs are imposed by Germany.  
6.4.1.3.  Restrictions on multidis ciplinary activities  
Cyprus reported to have abolis hed a restriction obliging real-est ate agents to exercise this 
activity exclusively. In Portugal, an obligation fo r real-estate agents to exercise their activity 
exclusively is reportedly being replac ed by specific rules on incompatibility. 
Remaining restrictions on multidisciplinary acti vities have been notified both for real-estate 
agents and (land) surveyors. They can in any case only be imposed if these professions are 
regulated professions in th e Member State concerned.  
Limitations on multidisciplinary activities apply to real-estate agents in Norway, which 
prohibits them from offering real-estate and ot her services, jointly or  in partnership, if 
providing such other services woul d affect the agent’s independence.  In Sweden, real-estate 
agents may engage in other activities if it is proved that these activities are not likely to discredit them as real-estate agents.  
Regarding land surveying activities, in Slovakia,  geodesists and cartographers are obliged to 
exercise their activity exclusively. A similar limitation to just one activity is also imposed on land surveyors in Denmark. Fran ce has notified limitations for re al-estate expertise activities, 
prohibiting service providers from exercising  any activity that could compromise their 
independence. Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities are also imposed on land surveyors in Belgium, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg.  
 
6.4.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services 
A certain number of requirements have been m odified (or are reportedly being modified) as 
they were found unjustified and disproportionate.  
For real-estate activities, an obligation to have a financial guarantee for professionals wishing 
to exercise real-estate activities in France has been modified in order to impose it only on 
certain types of activit y. Slovenia has reported ly abolished the establ ishment requirement for 
land surveying activities. In Lithuania, an obligation for companies engaging in property 
assessment services to be registered is repor tedly being abolished for cross-border services. 
Cyprus says it has abolished a requirement that real estate agents from other Member States 
operating in Cyprus must work together with a licensed real estate agent established in Cyprus. It has also abolished a requirement th at real-estate agents established in other 
Member States must pass an examination se t by the Real Estate Registration Board.  
Nevertheless a considerable num ber of requirements have b een maintained, generally on 
grounds of public policy and environmental protection. 
As regards authorisation schemes
, Greece reported an obligation for real-estate activities to be 
registered. An obligation to be certified has been reported in France for professionals making 
real-estate diagnostic tests (f or lead, asbestos, termites, gas, electricity and energy 
performance). An authorisation imposed on a specific category of land surveyors for the 
cross-border provision of services has been reported by the Czech Republic. Romania also 
imposes an authorisation on land surve yors who provide cross-border services. 
EN 88  EN In France, a notification  including proof of legal establishment and absence of prohibition to 
exercise in another Member State is required from professionals wish ing to carry out real-
estate activities as part of the free movement of services. 
As regards insurance/financial guarantee  requirements, Spain, at regi onal level, has notified a 
requirement to have a financial guarantee for real-estate activities. France, Portugal and 
Slovenia oblige real-estate agents and real-estat e property managers providing services across 
borders to give proof of insurance and/or a fi nancial guarantee. This also applies to service 
providers who wish to set up their business in those countries. The Memb er States concerned 
have justified this on grounds of public policy (France and Portugal) and public security 
(Slovenia). Portugal also requires real-estate valuers to provide a valid financial guarantee if 
the real-estate property in question is located in Portugal. Insurance obligations are also 
imposed in France on land surveyors and on professionals who check the quality of real-estate properties. 
In Sweden, a statutory maximum tariff is impo sed on professional housing agency services 
(letting agents) established in the country or  taking advantage of the free movement of 
services. 
CONCLUSION: 
Land surveying activities seem to be the most re gulated activities in th is sector. Real-estate 
activities are also regulated in many Member States. To justify regulating these activities, 
Member States usually refer to the need to pr otect consumers and/or recipients of services.  
Many of these rules (on establishment and on cross-border services) have been changed 
during implementation of the Se rvices Directive, in particular for real-estate services. 
Nevertheless, during the discussions, questions were raised about the level of regulation and 
whether it is necessary and proportional, especially  as regards cross-border services. It was 
pointed out that a good number of  requirements imposed on cross-border services have been 
maintained and that the justifications given of ten appear no different from those given for 
establishment cases. In parti cular, doubts were raised re garding insurance and financial 
guarantee obligations imposed on cross-border serv ice providers, since these obligations may 
in many cases hinder the service provision.  The proportionality and necessity of such 
requirements has been questioned. 
 
EN 89  EN 6.5. Business services  
Business services cover a wide range of different service acti vities used by businesses (B2B) 
in the context of their operations. It is a large and heterogeneous sector. The following services were covered by the process of mutual  evaluation: employment agencies, advertising 
agencies, exhibitions and trad e fairs and debt collection se rvices. In addition, given the 
importance of these services for the business sector as a whole, a number of professional 
services were also discussed, such as serv ices provided by tax advisers, insolvency 
practitioners, patent/tra demark agents as well as interpre ters and translators. Services 
provided by lawyers and accoun tants, although highly releva nt to business, were not 
examined in this context as they are to a large extent dealt with in the section of this document on legal form, shareholding requirements a nd limits on multidisciplinary activities.  
In general, Member States cons idered business services to be lightly regulated. Nevertheless, 
some services, for instance employment agents and debt collectors, ar e regulated in many 
Member States, as are the tax advisers, patent agents and insolvency administrators. 
 
6.5.1.  Services provided by employment agencies (including agents for 
specific professions, information for job seekers, etc.) 
Employment services cover a range of serv ices including placement consultancy services, 
recruitment services and labour market data ga thering. Employment agencies provide services 
to both employers and potential employees. They often also pr ovide services of temporary 
work agencies.
 However, the Member States did not review or discuss the requirements 
applicable to this specific activity as th ey are not covered by th e Services Directive.180  
6.5.1.1.   Requirements applying to establishment  
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Most Member States seem to require em ployment agencies to be authorised.181 Furthermore, 
in Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland and Sl ovakia, employment agents are a regulated 
profession. Some Member States (Belgium  (Flanders) and Slovakia) have separate 
authorisation schemes for entities providing guidance and counselling to jobseekers. Poland 
has reported that, althou gh it has only one author isation scheme, applicants have to indicate 
the type of service182 that they intend to deliver. Belgium and France seem to have separate 
authorisation schemes for employment intermed iation services for athletes, models, and 
artists.  
Some Member States do not impose authoris ation schemes for providers of employment 
services. In Belgium (Wallonia), Hungary, Lith uania and Slovakia, empl oyment agencies are 
subject to a notification/declaration requirement . Other Member States, such as Estonia, do 
not have specific rules appli cable to employment agencies. 
                                                 
180  See Article 2(2)(e) of the Services Directive. 
181  Belgium, Bulgaria, Cy prus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Fr ance, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Liechtenstein, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain. 
182  Job placement services in Poland, job placement services abroad with foreign employers, vocational 
counselling services, personal advisory se rvices, temporary work agency services. 
EN 90  EN Member States usually justify their authorisat ion schemes by public policy and social policy 
objectives, the need to protect jobseekers and to ensure a high quality of services. Some 
Member States also identified pe rceived risks for jobseekers in terms of lack of information, 
especially when the jobs offered are abroad. 
Generally, the Member States that require auth orisation set conditions for the management or 
staff providing this service, generally consider ed to be necessary to ensure professional 
competence or good repute (Belgium, Cyprus, Fran ce, Liechtenstein and Portugal). In some 
instances, Member States (in particular Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Romania, 
Portugal) also impose requirements on the level of education needed, which varies greatly 
from high school to specialised master degrees a nd from no previous experience to five years 
in the field. Another specific condition for obtaini ng authorisation concerns the premises 
and/or equipment used by the service provider, which is required in Belgium, Greece, Liechtenstein, Portugal and Slovenia. Italy and Slovenia require proof of financial resources 
as a condition for obtaining authorisation.  
As a result of implementing the Services Direc tive, some Member States have made certain 
amendments because the requirements were f ound to be unjustified or disproportionate. For 
example, Belgium reported that the Brussels Re gion plans to abolish the current authorisation 
scheme. Slovakia replaced the authorisation sche me by a declaration. Latvia has indicated that 
it is considering amending its existing authorisation scheme, maintaining it only for agencies 
offering recruitment abroad, as they were iden tified as posing greater risks for jobseekers.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
In general, only a few Article 15 type requirements were re ported. Those reported mostly 
concerned tariffs, legal form and shareholding requirements.  
Belgium, Greece and France reported maximum tariffs
. The requirements were typically 
justified as protection of jobseekers, the specifi c needs of the category of employees protected 
(athletes, models, artists) and as considered necessary to prev ent fraud. Ireland communicated 
its intention to remove fixed tariffs  imposed on employment agencies.  
Belgium, Italy, Liechtenstein and Spai n reported legal form requirements  applicable to 
employment agencies. Some of the justificati ons put forward by the Member States cited the 
protection of jobseekers, principles of equality of opportunity, access to employment and non-discrimination. 
Italy reported a minimum capital requirement
 (of up to €  600  000, depending on the specific 
activity carried out), justified as needed to ensure the seriousness of  the provider, and as 
means to protect the recipients of the service.  
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities  
Only a few restrictions on multidisciplinary acti vities were reported. Of  course, under Article 
25, such restrictions can only be justified, if co mpliant with the conditions laid down in this 
article and  if applied to regul ated professions (or to certification and similar services).  
Belgium reported that employment agencies must  provide their services exclusively. France 
reported a list of services deemed incompatible  with sports agents (such as managing sport 
associations or federations). The same applied to agents of artists, who are not allowed to provide  certain services (s uch as managing theatres, produc ing films or manufacturing 
musical instruments).
  
EN 91  EN 6.5.1.2.   Requirements applying to cross-border services  
A considerable number of requirements applicab le to cross-border se rvice provision were 
reported for employment agencies under Arti cle 16. Member States typically cited as 
justifications public policy and indicated mo re specifically that these requirements are 
necessary to prevent illegal wo rk, human trafficking, prostitu tion and fraud, and to ensure 
compliance with jobseekers’ rights. 
Belgium (Flanders) and Slovenia repor ted an establishment requirement  for career guidance 
centres. Ireland reported its inte ntion to scrap this requireme nt for employment agencies 
established in other Member States. 
Authorisations  are required by several Member States  for the cross-border provision of 
employment services: Belgium,  Bulgaria, Cyprus and Ireland.183 However, some Member 
States reported abolishing, or th eir intention to abolish, current authorisations for cross-border 
provision of employment services because they were found to be unjustified or disproportionate. France has abolished the author isation scheme for employment agencies and 
intends to replace it by a declaration for sport agents. Portugal intends to replace its authorisation for employment ag encies by prior notification. 
Declaration requirements
 were reported by France (prior de claration for modelling agencies), 
Liechtenstein, Lithuania and Malta.  
Malta also reported an obligation to indicate an address  in Malta ‘from which the activity will 
be carried out’.  
In some cases, Member States referred to other requirements, such as information and 
disclosure obligations  as well as limitations to the possibility of charging jobseekers a fee  
(only allowed for recruitment in  the entertainment sector in  the United Kingdom) or other 
conditions  (good repute of the provider, its partners and managers and the obligation that jobs 
are advertised in Portuguese in Portugal).  
Portugal and France reported an obligation to  take out insurance/provide a guarantee  for 
modelling agencies. However, Fran ce is nevertheless abolishing the insurance requirement for 
sport agents. To justify these requirements, Me mber States cited public  policy and indicated, 
more specifically, the need to protect employ ees (France) and the need to ensure the 
repatriation of workers from abroad (Portugal). 
 
6.5.2.  Advertising  
Advertising agencies usually provi de a wide range of services to their clients related to the 
promotion of goods, services or corporate image (e.g. designing and running advertising 
campaigns, developing a brand image, media planning and buying). Broadly speaking, this 
area seems to be generally lightly regulated and few Member States reported requirements 
applicable specifically to the services pr ovided by advertising agencies as such.  
However, it is clear that there are a number of requirements, which do not directly regulate 
advertising agencies but which ne vertheless affect the provision of these se rvices by laying 
down rules on certain advertising modalities or  other forms of commercial communication.  
                                                 
183  It seems that it is not necessary to obtain a licence in Ireland if the employment agency is regulated 
under the law of another Member State and that regulation is the same or similar to the regulation in 
Ireland. 
EN 92  EN For instance, several Member States reported authorisation schemes re lated to the use of 
outdoor facilities (for example historical build ings) or public space for advertising purposes. 
Others reported authorisation schemes applicable  to specific means of advertising such as 
aerial advertising, distribution of  flyers for commercial purposes , the physical infrastructure 
in which advertising is placed and parking adve rtising vehicles. Many of these schemes also 
apply to cross-border service providers. To ju stify the requirements, Member States cited 
reasons of public security (aer ial advertising, vehicles) and the protection of the environment.  
Other requirements related to commercial co mmunications, e.g. restric tions to the use of 
certain forms of commercial communication or  the content of the communication or the 
language used, which exist in many areas, ma y also affect the services provided by 
advertising agencies. Only a few such restri ctions were reported under Article 16, which 
should indicate that Member States do not apply commercial communication requirements to 
cross-border providers. Denmar k expressly indicated that it excludes cross-border providers 
from the ban on using vouchers and promotional competitions as marketing tools.  
 
6.5.3.  Organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs 
Exhibitions and trade fairs are large to medi um-sized events where entrepreneurs from a 
specific field of activity present, promote, an d/or sell their products/services to potential 
distributors, business partners, wholesalers, reta ilers or consumers. The organisation of such 
events is subject to different t ypes of requirements:  requirements  applicable to the activity of 
the organiser of the specific exhibition and trade fair; requirements applicable to the 
organisation of exhibitions and tr ade fairs in general and requirements applicable to certain 
types of exhibition and trade fairs.  
Requirements applicable to the activity of organisi ng exhibitions/fairs seem rather rare. In this 
category, Greece reported that the activity of trade fair organiser is subject to a good repute requirement, an exclusivity requirement (althoug h Greece reported its inte ntion to abolish it) 
and specific financial guarantees. Italy (at leas t one region) reported a legal form requirement
 
for organisers of trade fairs. 
By contrast, many requirements apply to the or ganisation of exhibitions /fairs in general, 
particularly concerning the use of premises . Several Member States reported such prior 
authorisation schemes,   usually issued by regional or local authorities: Bulgaria, France, 
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Neth erlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.  
Finally, Member States have reported severa l requirements specific to the type of 
product/service promoted or pr esented in the fair/exhibit ion. Specific authorisation 
requirements  exist, for example in Greece for book fairs,  in Hungary for firearms fairs, in 
Spain and Norway for animal fairs or public display of animals in general.  
 
6.5.4.  Debt collection services 
Debt collection means  the activity of pursuing payment on debts owed by individuals and 
businesses. In principle, it covers judicial and non-judicial recovery of  debt. A debt collection 
agency usually operates as an agent of creditor s and collects debts for an agreed price or a 
percentage of the total amount owed. Debt collec tion should be distingui shed from ‘factoring’ 
where claims are actually purchased and then pursued on behalf of the new owner of the 
claim. Factoring is a financ ial service and thus is not covered by the Directive.  
EN 93  EN Based on information available, it seems that debt  collection is a regulat ed profession only in 
Norway and Austria. In other countries, this acti vity may be fully or partly (e.g. as regards the 
judicial recovery of debt) rese rved to regulated pr ofessions, e.g. lawyer s. For instance, in 
Portugal, all debt collection servi ces are reserved to lawyers and ‘ solicitadores' .  
Only a limited number of requirements were re ported to apply to debt  collection services. 
Hardly any seem to concern the judicial reco very of debts. A number of Member States 
reported authorisation schemes  applicable to debt collection services: Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  
Belgium reported a legal form requirement  laying down that recovery of debt may only be 
exercised by a natural person or by a company with the legal form of ‘ sociétés commerciales’  
but it would appear that this is in the process of being amended.  
Austria reported a maximum tariff requirement . 
Some Member States reporte d an authorisation scheme  for the cross-border provision of debt 
collection services : Belgium Denmark, Iceland, Italy a nd the United Kingdom. Norway has, 
however, abolished its authorisat ion and registration requirement  for cross-border services. 
Belgium reported the obligation to  have professional insurance  when the service provider 
collects consumer debts, while Iceland and No rway reported a general insurance obligation . 
Austria reported that maximum tariffs  apply to cross-border services and established 
providers alike.  
Most Member States cited objec tives like the prevention of fr aud, the protection of debtors 
and creditors and efficient supervision as jus tification. For cross-border services, Member 
States mainly cited public s ecurity and public policy.  
 
6.5.5.  Tax advisers 
Tax advisers are often highly re gulated. In many cases, this activity is considered to be a 
separate regulated profession (for example in  Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary and Poland). In other countries, providi ng tax advice is reserved  to other regulated 
professions, such as accountants or  lawyers (for example in France or Italy). In some Member 
States, however, it does not seem  to be a regulated professi on, for example in Denmark, the 
Netherlands or Slovenia.  
6.5.5.1.   Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
The provision of tax advice is a regula ted profession in 10 Member States.184 Authorisations 
for tax advisers have been reported by the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland 
and Slovakia. In addition, in the Member Stat es that reserve tax advice to other regulated 
professions, the authorisations fo r these professions also apply.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Some Article 15 requirements for tax advisers (legal form and shareholding requirements) 
were notified by a number of Member States. In the Member States where tax advice services 
                                                 
184  Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Gr eece, Hungary, Ireland, Pola nd, Slovakia and United 
Kingdom (only for ‘chartered’ tax advisers). 
EN 94  EN are provided by lawyers/accountant s, the requirements applicable to these professions also 
apply to tax advice services. In some Member States where such  requirements are applied to 
regulated professions in general, they  may also apply to tax advisers.  
For instance, Belgium, Poland and Slovakia reported legal form requirements . Nevertheless, 
Poland reported abolishing a ban on carrying out the prof ession of tax advisor in the form of a 
limited joint-stock partnership, th erefore making the legal form re quirement less restrictive.  
Shareholding requirements  for legal persons providing tax c onsultancy services were reported 
by Belgium (a complex list of different cases),  Poland (majority of voting rights to belong to 
tax advisers and the rest to other specifi c regulated professionals) and Slovakia (75  % of 
voting rights or the capital must  be held by tax advisers). 
Member States typically justified these le gal form and shareholding requirements as 
necessary to ensure the indepe ndence of service providers. In some cases, they are deemed 
necessary to ensure the reliability or solvency  of the service provider. Some Member States 
also cited the need to ensure that only provide rs with the requisite skills and qualifications 
provide these services. 
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities  
Belgium, Italy, Poland and Germ any reported incompatibilities in  the provision of tax advice 
and justified them by the need to prevent conflic ts of interest and guarantee the impartiality 
and independence of professionals. In some cases , there is a general in compatibility with any 
other activity. In others, incompatibilities relate  to certain specific ac tivities. In Member 
States with general incompatibilities applicable  to regulated professi ons (such as a general 
prohibition of joint exercise), such incompatibilitie s also apply to ta x advisers. And, of 
course, since these services are reserved to ot her regulated professions, rules applicable to 
them may also have an impact on tax ad vice services. Poland re ported that the Act 
implementing the Services Directive has allowed advocates, legal advisors  and tax advisers to 
cooperate within one multidisciplinary partnership.  
6.5.5.2.   Requirements applying to cross-border services 
Hardly any requirements were reported for th e cross-border provisio n of services. Only 
Greece reported an authorisation requirement  and justified it for reasons  of public security. Of 
course, as for all regulated professions in thos e Member States where the activity is reserved 
to a regulated profession, se rvice providers may be subjec t to an annual declaration  in line 
with the Professional Qualifications Direc tive. Other requirement s may not have been 
reported.  
6.5.6.  Insolvency practitioners 
Insolvency practitioners are taken to mean  those who provide ad vice on and who are 
appointed in formal insolvency procedures . These procedures can be either personal 
(bankruptcies, sequestrations, i ndividual voluntary arrangemen ts, etc.) or specific to 
companies and partnerships (liquidations, comp any and partnership vo luntary arrangements, 
administrations and administrative receiverships, etc.). In general, they are appointed by the 
shareholders, unsecured creditors or by court order to manage the winding up of a firm by 
selling off its assets. Another commonly used term is ‘liquidator’. 
EN 95  EN In some Member States, insolvency practitione rs are is a separate regulated profession. In 
other Member States, these services may again be reserved to other regulated professions, 
such as lawyers.  
6.5.6.1.   Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes  
Insolvency practitioners seem to be a regulated  profession in France, the Netherlands, Poland 
and the United Kingdom. Authorisation schemes fo r insolvency practitioners were reported 
by the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Latvia , Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and the 
United Kingdom. In Portugal, only insolvency practitioners appointed by court order are 
regulated professionals (considered by Portugal as exercising public authority). 
The United Kingdom reported abolishing the ban preventing insolvency practitioners 
authorised in Northern Ireland from acting in Great Britain.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Few requirements were reported under Article 15 specific to in solvency practitioners. Those 
that were mostly concerned legal form a nd shareholding requirements. However, more 
requirements may well apply to insolvency services where Member States reserve these services to other regulated pr ofessions. Moreover, in cases in which Member States apply 
certain restrictions to regulated  professions in general, these restrictions may also apply to 
insolvency practitioners. As justification, Member States mostly cited protection of 
recipients/creditors and proper administration of justice.  
Quantitative restrictions 
were reported only by Hungary, wher e a public tender is organised 
every seven years based on the need s established by the Government.  
Legal form requirements  were reported to apply in the Czech Republic (natural persons, 
unlimited liability partnerships or foreign comp anies providing the same liability guarantees), 
Hungary (limited liability companies), Germa ny (only natural persons ) and Romania (only 
natural persons, associated offi ces or civil partnerships).  
Shareholding requirements  were reported by the Czech Repub lic (an insolvency practitioner 
can only practice in one unlim ited liability partnership or foreign company providing the 
same liability guarantees) and Romania (the capital must be held by insolvency practitioners, who can practice only in one partners hip, with a minimum capital of € 10
 000). The 
justifications put forward by Member States we re the need to guarantee the independence and 
impartiality of professionals or to ensure the service is provided directly by qualified 
professionals. The minimum capital requirement  was deemed to enhance the liability, 
solvency or personal responsibil ity of the service provider. 
Tariffs  were reported by Germany and Hungary.  
Requirements imposing a  minimum number of employees  were reported by Hungary and 
Lithuania. In Hungary, at least two employees or partners belonging to certain categories of 
professionals, such as lawyers, economists, audi tors, etc., are required to provide insolvency 
practitioner services. In Lithuani a, a new law requires that at least two persons are available 
with the qualification of corporat e restructuring administrator/co rporate receivership (be they 
employees or bound by some other contractual ar rangement). Again, Member States justified 
this as necessary to ensure that the servi ce is directly provided by qualified professionals. 
EN 96  EN ¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities  
Very few Member States reported multidisciplin ary restrictions on insolvency practitioners. 
Hungary reported incompatibil ities with certain activities and Romania reported an 
exclusivity requirement. However, similarly to requirements notified under Article 15, in 
cases where services of insolvency practitione rs are reserved to a (different) regulated 
profession, the requirements applicable to thes e regulated professions  will apply. Moreover, 
in Member States where general incompatibiliti es apply to regulated professions, they may 
also apply to insolv ency practitioners.  
6.5.6.2.   Requirements applying to cross-border services  
Very few requirements were reported for inso lvency practitioners providing cross-border 
services. However, since these services are of ten provided by regulated professions, providers 
are often required to submit an annual declaration. In addition, requirements applying to other regulated professions may also appl y to insolvency-related services.  
In respect of cross-border serv ices, authorisation requirements
 were reported by Lithuania 
(only for natural persons, legal persons, by contrast, are subject to an establishment 
requirement ), Slovakia and the United Kingdom. They were deemed to be necessary for 
reasons of public policy. More specifically, Member States point ed to the need to ensure the 
protection of all parties aff ected by insolvency: individuals and businesses, creditors, 
employees, shareholders, the insolvent party et c., and to ensure proper administration of 
justice.  
The United Kingdom reported the oblig ation to take out insurance . However, the United 
Kingdom reported amending the legi slation, to recognise profe ssional liability insurance 
cover or guarantees obtained in another Member State.  
 
6.5.7.  Patent/trademark agents 
Patent or trademark agents typi cally assist and represent clie nts in securing proper protection 
of their industrial prop erty rights and advise on the impact of rights of others on their client’s 
business. They usually draft the required app lications, follow them th rough the various stages 
on behalf of the applicant, provi de advice on the use of  the right s and so forth. In this field, 
the terms ‘agent’ and ‘attorney’ are sometimes used alternatively, but there may be  some 
differences in competences, especially in respect of in-court representation. 
Patent agents and trademark agents are regulat ed professionals in many Member States. In 
others, these services are provided by other pr ofessionals, for example lawyers. In some 
countries, they are not considered  to be a regula ted profession. 
6.5.7.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes  
Patent/trademark agents seem to be a re gulated profession in 16 Member States.185 
Authorisation schemes were reported by the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, 
Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Lu xembourg, the Netherlands (where lawyers can 
                                                 
185  Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finl and, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. 
EN 97  EN also act as patent agents), Portugal, Slovakia and Spain. In some cases, authorisation schemes 
apply to agents of industrial pr operty rights in general, whil e some Member States reported 
different schemes, depending on the type of i ndustrial property rights . These were generally 
deemed to be necessary to ensure the protection of the recipient and the quality of services.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Very few Member States reported Article 15 re quirements specific to patents or trademark 
agents. However, where Member States apply rest rictions to regulated professions in general, 
these restrictions may also apply to patent or trademark agents. Furthermore, if these services 
are restricted to other regulated  professions, e.g. lawyers, the regulation applicable to that 
profession will also apply.  
Shareholding requirements : Germany reported that shares must be held by patent agents only 
or the majority must belong to patent agents and the rest to specific regulated professions 
(lawyers, tax advisers, auditors , and accountants) and cited as a justification the need to 
ensure the independence and impartiality of providers. Liechtenstein reported an obligation that the majority of the capital  be held by Liechtenstein or EE A citizens and that the executive 
manager be a patent agent. This was again jus tified by the need to ensure the independence of 
the patent agent and the proper functioning of the legal system. Similar requirements may well exist in other Member States. 
Slovenia reported the requirement sett ing a minimum number of employees
, justified by 
public policy and protection of th e recipients of services.  
¾ Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities  
As regards patent or trademark agents , only Germany reported restrictions to 
multidisciplinary activities. Similar restrictions  may however exist in other Member States: 
for example, where incompatibilities apply to re gulated professions in ge neral, they may also 
apply to patent or trademark agents. Equally, when the service is restricted to lawyers, 
existing restrictions applicable to this profession will also apply. 
6.5.7.2.   Requirements applying to cross-border services  
Very few Member States reported requirement s applicable to the cross-border provision of 
services by patent or trademark agents. However,  since these services are often provided by 
regulated professions, providers  are often required to subm it an annual declaration. In 
addition, requirements applicable  to other regulated professi ons may also apply to these 
services.  
Slovenia reported a registration requirement .  
Hungary and Liechtenstein reported no tification or declar ation requirements . 
Austria imposes an insurance obligation for patent agents offeri ng cross-border services, 
while Slovakia requires  an indica tion of a delivery or postal address  in the national territory. 
Hungary reported a professional ID requirement . 
Liechtenstein reported a ban on infrastructure requirement  since, by setting up chambers or 
offices in Liechtenstein, a patent agent is considered to be established in that country, for reasons of public policy. 
EN 98  EN The Member States gave various reasons ju stifying these requirements under public policy: 
protection of recipients, proper functioning of the legal system and allowing authorities to 
keep reliable statistics.  
 
6.5.8.  Translators and interpreters  
Translation and interpretation se rvices are used by public author ities, business and citizens 
and play an essential role, es pecially in cross-border activ ities. Sometimes the exact and 
correct meaning is important enough to require  certified translation or interpretation and 
Member States’ regulations contain many instances when this is compulsory.  
Translation and interpretation ar e regulated professions in seve ral Member States. In some 
cases, only sworn or certified transl ators and interpreters (the person needs to be sworn in or 
publicly appointed and services are provided  during court proceedings or with public 
authorities, the police, etc.) cons titute regulated professionals. 
6.5.8.1.   Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes  
It appears that translation a nd interpretation are regulated pr ofessions in Denmark, Germany, 
Greece, Iceland, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. In some of these Member States, only sworn or certified translators and interprete rs are regulated. Author isation schemes were 
reported by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, De nmark, Germany, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. Slovakia indi cated that it has amended its scheme to 
make authorisation mandatory only for sworn tr anslators and interpreters, the others being 
subject only to notification. As justification, Member States of ten cited public policy, public 
security, the proper administration of justice a nd protection of the reci pients of services. 
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Only a few requirements specific to translators and interpreters were reported by the Member 
States under Article 15. However, requirements a pplicable to all regulated professions may 
also apply to translators and interprete rs, if these are regu lated professions.  
The Czech Republic, Germany,  Poland, Romania and Sweden repor ted that the services of 
translators and interpreters provided in court or  in other official proc eedings are subject to 
fixed fees, usually set by legisl ation or by courts (the se tariffs are however not subject to the 
Services Directive when they apply to  services provided to the State).   
6.5.8.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services 
Very few Member States reported requirements applicable to the provision of cross-border 
services by translators and interpreters establishe d in other Member States . As far as they are 
regulated professions, an annual declaration ma y be imposed, in line with the Professional 
Qualification Directive.  
Germany (at regional level) ha s abolished establishment require ments that applied to these 
services but it has maintained author isations. Authorisation requirements  are also maintained 
in  the Netherlands, Slovakia ( only for sworn translators and in terpreters) and Slovenia. They 
have been justified by Member States by publi c policy. More specifically, Member States 
EN 99  EN cited the need to ensure the quality of the service and the integrity of translators and 
interpreters, as their services have a direct in fluence on decisions taken by public authorities. 
Denmark reported information requirements  for the benefit of recipi ents and requirements to 
take out insurance (only applicable to interpreters and tran slators having the protected title of 
‘translatør’).  
 
CONCLUSION: 
Business services cover a wide range of activities, for inst ance services of employment 
agencies, advertising, organisation of exhibitions  and trade fairs and debt collection services. 
but also, when services are prov ided to other service providers,  it also includes many other 
services provided by more traditional regulated  professions, such as tax advisers, insolvency 
practitioners, patent/trademark agent s and interpreters and translators.  
Some services are lightly regulat ed. Others are subject to stri cter regulation, for instance 
employment agents and debt collectors. Quite a few are considered to be a regulated 
profession (or are reserved to a regulated prof ession). For certain business activities (e.g. 
employment agencies, debt collection, translati on and interpretation services), the level of 
regulation differs considerably be tween the Member States, from no/very light regulation to 
major restrictions to the freedom of establishment and to provide services. 
Implementation of the Services Directive led to certain change s. Nevertheless, the discussion 
identified some residual diffic ulties. Some Member States ques tioned the level of regulation, 
e.g. for translation and interpreta tion services. Moreover, specifi c questions were raised as 
regards the cross-border provision of  business services in general.  
EN 100  EN  
6.6. Private education services  
The private education sector encompasses a wi de range of different activities. During the 
process of mutual evaluation, the following se rvices were discussed: higher education 
services, vocational training, a dult education, language, dancing, dramatic arts and similar 
courses, as well as driving courses. This  document does not include any information on 
providers of primary or secondary educa tion, neither does it include information on 
requirements related to providers of courses th at do not have as their objective professional 
training (except adult education, language, dancing, dramatic arts and similar courses as well 
as driving courses) or on requirements fo r short-term (e.g. day or week-long) courses.186 
The provision of higher education services, vocational training and driving courses is 
regulated in most Member States. The opposite is true for language, dancing, dramatic arts 
and adult education, which is regulat ed only in a few Member States. For  vocational training 
and driving schools, there ar e considerable differences in the level of regulation.   
 
6.6.1.  Higher education services 
Higher education services include any kind of post-secondary (tertiary) academic education, 
such as a private university, college  etc. offered by service providers. 
9 Member States187 did not report any requirements re lated to higher education. Some 
(Denmark, Finland, Poland and Sweden) explained that higher education services (even those 
offered by private operators) in their Member States are essen tially financed by public funds 
and are thus regarded as non-economic serv ices, which are not c overed by the Services 
Directive. Hungary and Slovenia reported the same but nevertheless reported requirements 
concerning providers establishe d in other Member States.  
6.6.1.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Most Member States188 reported that, to ensure a high qua lity of education, providers of 
higher education services are ob liged to obtain authorisation for establishing and operating a 
higher education institution. In a number of Memb er States (e.g. Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, 
Slovakia and Spain), this is coupled with the requiremen t to obtain accreditation of 
programmes of study offered by the institution.  
In many cases, authorisation schemes do not apply to all higher education institutions, or not 
in the same way. In fact, the main criterion a ffecting the degree of regulation in the field of 
higher education services often seems to be th e type of diploma (qualification) issued upon 
completion of the course: 
                                                 
186  For example, this document does not include information on providers of sailing, surfing, skiing, horse 
riding, parachute jumping, aviation or similar courses. Some of these services, namely those that fall in 
the category of ‘leisure activities’, are dealt with in the section on tourism. 
187  Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden. 
188  Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Re public, Estonia, France, Germany,  Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom. 
EN 101  EN - for higher education institutions which offer State-approved programmes and issue diplomas 
belonging to the educational syst em of the Member State in question (or diplomas that are 
officially recognised as equivale nt to national diplomas), an au thorisation or a ccreditation of 
the school issuing the diplomas  and often also of the progr ammes of study is generally 
required, whereas  
- for higher education institutions which issue dipl omas that are not officially recognised or 
that issue diplomas belonging to the educational system of another Member State (i.e. cases in 
which a branch of a foreign higher education in stitution issues diplomas officially recognised 
in the Member State of its primary establishment), the requirement to obtain authorisation is often made less stringent or dropped altogether.  
For example, Spain only regulates the provision of higher education for institutions issuing 
diplomas which are officially recognised by the State, while access to the activity of all other 
institutions is only subject to  information obligations. Hungar y reported that foreign higher 
education institutions establishing in Hungary mu st provide evidence that  they are recognised 
as higher education institutions in  their country of origin and th at diplomas issued by them are 
officially recognised in their country of orig in. Romania reported that  branches of foreign 
universities that issue diplomas belonging to other educational systems do not need 
authorisation. 
By contrast, some Member States (e.g. Latvia, Portugal) seem to require all higher education 
institutions (regardless of the type of  diplom a awarded) to be authorised or accredited. The 
justification given is th at all types of higher education s hould be regulated to ensure that 
citizens obtain high quality educational services  adequately preparing them for the labour 
market.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Very few requirements were reported. Most co ncern the legal form. Many Member States 
require higher education instituti ons to be set up as a legal person. 
Regarding the obligation to take a specific legal form
, in the Czech Republic, Cyprus and 
Slovakia, private universities can be operate d by legal persons only. In Italy, all higher 
education institutions must take the form of public  law entities. In Estonia, private universities 
must be public limited companies or private limited companies entered in the commercial 
register or a foundation or non-profit associatio n entered into the non-profit associations and 
foundations register. In Liechtenstein, higher educa tion institutions must be either public-law 
institutions/foundations or le gal entities under civ il law. Portugal reported that higher 
education services can only be provided by ce rtain legal persons with a specific corporate 
purpose. In Romania, higher education serv ices can only be provided by legal persons 
operating for no profit. Justifications given by Member States for these requirements varied. 
For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia cited the nature and complexity of services, Estonia explained that the re quirement was necessary to en sure better protection of 
consumers’ (students’) rights, especially with regard to insolvency of  the service provider. 
Liechtenstein indicated that higher education institutions operated as one-man companies are not practicable and they must endure beyond the natural life of individuals.  
By contrast, Greece reported a legal form requirement for private schools of supportive 
teaching which can only be provided by natural persons, thus excluding legal persons from providing these services.  
EN 102  EN Regarding the ban on having more than one establishment , in Greece the same person cannot 
operate more than one private school of supportive teaching.  
Regarding requirements fixing a minimum number of employees , Spain notified a number of 
requirements concerning staff teaching at higher education institutions issuing diplomas 
which are officially recognised by the state. For example in one region, universities must 
ensure that there is at least one academic teac her per 25 students. Sp ain cited the need to 
ensure an adequate level of training. Port ugal also reported a similar requirement. 
6.6.1.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services  
Higher education services may be offered acr oss borders, for example, by way of online 
courses or in the framework of educational franchising or validation agreements. Franchising and validation agreements are concluded between universities or other institutions of higher education which award diplomas, ce rtificates or degrees  and educational inst itutions (or other 
entities) responsible for running study programmes that lead to the award of these diplomas. 
‘Validation’ is a process under which an institution awarding a diploma reviews a programme of study developed by another educational institu tion (i.e. reviews its content, teaching staff, 
facilities and resources available, etc.) and, when the outcome of the review is positive, validates (authorises) the programme as lead ing to the award of its diploma. Under 
‘franchising’, in principle (giv en the many variations of this model), an existing programme 
of study offered by an institution awarding the di ploma is submitted to be run at a partner 
institution under the supervisi on of the awarding in stitution, culminating in  a diploma issued 
by the awarding institution. In both  cases, i.e. ‘validatio n’ and ‘franchising’,  the characteristic 
element is that one educational institution is re sponsible for the day-to-day running of a study 
programme and the other awards a diploma at  its completion and th erefore guarantees the 
quality of the programme.  In  case of cross-border educational franchising/validation 
schemes, the institution issuing the diploma is located in one Member State and the institution 
running the programme in another. 
Not many Member States reported requirements applying to cross-border higher education 
services. This may be due to the fact that educational franchising/validation schemes are a 
relatively new development in th e area of education services a nd not all Member States have 
yet put in place appropriate regulatory framewor k or that appropriate regulations have not 
been detected and screened due to the particul ar characteristics of this type of service 
provision (cooperation between institution pr oviding services across borders and the 
institution established in the given Member State).  
Regarding the obligation to have an establishment
, Lithuania reported th at only State higher 
education institutions, private higher education institutions and branches of foreign higher 
education institutions established in the Repub lic of Lithuania can provide study programmes 
and related activities. Lithuania explained that the re quirement to have an establishment was 
necessary to ensure complian ce with public order and nati onal security under national 
legislation. Greece requires provide rs of higher education in dance and dramatic arts to be 
established in Greece. Romania also notifie d an establishment requirement for higher 
education institutions.  
Italy, Portugal and Slovenia require authorisation  for the provision of cross-border services by 
foreign higher education instit utions. Such requirements are typically justified by Member 
States for reasons of public  policy. The Netherlands re ported authorisation schemes 
concerning the organisation of courses in public  places (such as lakes, parks, etc.). By 
contrast, Hungary has amended its scheme fo r cross-border services of foreign higher 
EN 103  EN education institutions by replacing the authoris ation scheme with a notification requirement . 
Hungary indicated that the notific ation obligation must be maintained as the status of being a 
student of such institutions give s rise to certain rights in Hunga ry, such as student cards (and 
related benefits) or student loans.  
Some Member States also re ported other schemes applicab le to cross-border services . For 
instance, the German Land of Nordrhein-West falen reported special schemes under which 
private universities and art academies may coop erate with institutions from other Member 
States in the framework of educational franchis ing (i.e. the diploma is issued by the institution 
located in another Member State). Under these schemes, universities and academies must submit evidence that the programme taught in Nordrhein-Westfalen is taught in the same 
manner as in the State in which the instituti on awarding the diploma is established and that 
the diploma is accepted in this Member St ate despite it being conducted in Nordrhein-
Westfalen.  
Portugal reported a ban on educational franchising,
 claiming that it would put the fundamental 
rights to high quality education at risk, even with restrictions linke d to the programmes. 
Regulations on educational franchising also exis t in Greece and Cyprus (the latter has recently 
lifted a ban on cooperation with foreign ins titutions in the framework of educational 
franchising).  
 
6.6.2.  Vocational training  
Services of vocational training include training serv ices that prepare learne rs for jobs based in 
manual or practical activities, traditionally non-academic and re lated to a specific trade, 
occupation or vocation. These ac tivities seem to be fairly highly regulated in a great number 
of Member States but consider ably less regulated in others.  
6.6.2.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
There appear to be two different types of vocational training cour ses: those that attest certain 
professional skills and lead to a diploma and those that do not attest professional skills but 
lead to the acquisition of certain general skills, such as first ai d skills. For the former, Member 
States typically justify the existence of authoris ation schemes by the fact that training leads to 
officially recognised titles or skills entitling the graduates to  perform specific activities. 
Members States explain that provi ders of these courses need to be authorised (accredited) to 
ensure that instructors/teachers have the necessary qualifications , appropriate teaching 
methods and materials/equipment are used, the programme covers the required minimum 
content, etc. For the latter type of training c ourse, Member States often indicated that, even 
though the course does not lead to professional qua lifications, the skills th at it develops are so 
vital to society that their teaching must be properly supervised. Examples of such courses 
include occupational first ai d training or cardiopulmonary  resuscitation courses. 
Many Member States reported a very high number of authorisa tion schemes for the provision 
of vocational training. Others , including Cyprus, Greece, Ic eland, Liechtenstein, Malta, 
Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, di d not report any au thorisation schemes.189 
                                                 
189  Some of these Member States, however, reported requirements on ‘further education’ or ‘private 
schools’ which, depending on the educational system, may also cover vocational training. Other 
EN 104  EN Certain Member States (e.g. Hungary, Romania,  Spain) reported diffe rent authorisation 
schemes concerning various kinds of vocational training. Others reported the majority of their 
authorisation schemes in the same domain e.g. France (m edical training) and Poland 
(agricultural training). Some Member States , such as Spain, only regulate the provision of 
vocational training if the course leads to a dipl oma that is officially recognised by the State, 
while access to the activity of institutions issuing diplomas which are not recognised by the State is subject solely to c onsumer protection regulations.  
The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia , Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania 
and some regions in Spain reported more gene ral schemes that cover a higher number of 
vocational training providers. However, in most cases, there are specific authorisation 
schemes concerning the provision of particular  vocational training such as, for example, 
training for: 
- technical staff  (e.g. workers in all sectors engaged in manual handling tasks in Ireland; 
operators of high-risk equipment and facilit ies in Bulgaria; personnel involved in highly 
specialised technical work in the Czech Re public; specialists in developing thermal 
installations projects in Spain; specialists in  developing electronic co mmunication networks in 
Portugal); 
- health professionals (fur ther/additional training)  (e.g. medical and paramedical staff in the 
Czech Republic; medical professionals in Hung ary, France and Germany, sport masseurs and 
doctors in Italy);  
- lawyers (further/additional training)  (e.g. trainee lawyers and lawyers in the Netherlands);  
- teachers (further/additional training)  (e.g. further education of  teachers in the Czech 
Republic and Romania);  
- transport professionals  (e.g. transport operators and personnel managing or performing 
roadworthiness testing in Finla nd; personnel specialised in ro ad transport in Romania);  
- safety specialists (e.g. security advisors in  Slovakia; railway transport safety instructors in 
Hungary; safety advisors in the transport of  dangerous goods in Hungary; industrial safety 
specialists in Spain; maritime rescue specialists  in Denmark; fire security specialists in 
France; safety advisors in railway transport in Poland); 
- environmental specialists  (e.g. specialists in environm ental management and audit in 
Slovakia, environmental specialists in soil cont amination and environmental coordinators in 
Belgium);  
- cave guides  (e.g. in Hungary and Slovenia); 
- veterinarians (furth er/additional training)  (e.g. in Germany and Poland); 
- social services professionals  (e.g. social service specialists in Germany); 
- aviation personnel  (e.g. in Poland); 
- employment services specialists  (e.g. in Belgium and Italy); 
- sport professionals  (e.g. in Spain and Portugal); 
- agricultural specialists  (e.g. in Portugal and Austria, integr ated production specialists, plant 
protection products specialists). 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Member States reported schemes on ‘adult education’ which may also cover vocational training — 
these schemes are referred to below. 
EN 105  EN As a result of implementation of the Servic es Directive, many authorisation schemes and 
procedures applicable to vo cational training have been or  will be simplified and/or 
accelerated. For example, Spain reported its in tention to make a number of changes to 
simplify authorisation schemes that involve more than one authority.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
A limited number of Article 15 requirements were  reported. Most concern the legal form and 
often require the provider  to be a legal person.  
Regarding quantitative/territorial restrictions , France requires that cen tres providing training 
courses to certain medical prof essions are located in cities in which regional hospitals are 
located to ensure that student s have access to technical trai ning at the departments of the 
hospital. 
Regarding the obligation to take a specific legal form , in the Czech Republic, advanced 
vocational education can be provided only by legal persons. In Estonia, providers of 
vocational training must be legal persons in or der to ensure the prot ection of consumers’ 
rights, including in the event of insolvenc y. Romania reported a num ber of obligations on 
vocational training providers to be legal pe rsons. By contrast, the Netherlands reported 
abolishing a legal form requirement for traini ng organisations that train persons for the 
obligatory ‘integration exam’. These services can now also be provide d by natural persons. 
Regarding the reserve of activity , in Belgium supplementary and further training of 
entrepreneurs can only be provided by recognised profe ssional and inte r-professional 
organisations of small and medium-sized busine sses. These limits were deemed necessary to 
guarantee the availability and quality of training. 
Regarding requirements setting a minimum number of employees , Spain notified a number of 
requirements concerning the ratio between students and teachers in vocational training 
institutions issuing officially recognised diplomas to ensure an  adequate level of training.  
6.6.2.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services  
A high number of requirements, in particular au thorisation schemes, were reported for cross-
border providers of vocational training. Some Member States indicated that a distinction 
should be made between providers that offer courses leading to a certificate or diploma 
officially recognised in the host Member Stat e and those that do not. Member States often 
justified such requirements by the need to ensure  a high level of training and cited reasons of 
public policy or a combination of the four reasons set out in Article 16 of the Services 
Directive.  
Lithuania requires permanent establishment  for providers of vocational education services, 
explaining that it was necessary to ensure the required high level of education. Poland 
requires permanent establishment for providers of  training for safety ad visers, explaining that 
it was needed to ensure the right level of traini ng, identification of providers and to carry out 
controls.  
Many Member States notified authorisation requirements  for providers of cross-border 
vocational training, for example: Ire land (training of workers in a ll sectors of work engaged in 
manual handling tasks), Slovenia (training in plant protection medicine and training for 
lifeguards), Lithuania (vocational training in ge neral); Germany (traini ng of psychotherapists, 
further training for doctors); Spain (hygiene-sanitary trai ning); Belgium (training for 
EN 106  EN environmental specialists in soil contamina tion, environmental coordinators, employment 
services specialists, entrepreneurs), Romania (t raining for technical staff), France (training for 
fire security specialists, health professionals, persons working with asbestos), Poland (training 
in trading, packaging and application of plant protection products). Portugal imposes 
authorisation schemes for courses on agricultur e, courses for driving instructors and deputy 
directors of driving schools, courses for el ectronic communication networks developers, 
training courses for managers of sport facilities, training courses in health  and safety at work. 
However, the authorisation procedure for a num ber of these courses in Portugal is in the 
process of being replaced by declarations. The ju stification often used by Member States for 
authorisation concerns the need to ensure a high le vel of training throug h prior accreditation 
of training programmes. 
Hungary requires a declaration  from organisers of training in connection with the fire 
protection examination. It explained that the authority needs to be informed about the 
activities of such providers and be able to monitor them.  
 
6.6.3.  Adult education and arts, language, dancing schools 
Adult education covers all type s of training for adults who ha ve left initial education and 
training, however far that proce ss went. It includes learning fo r personal, civic and social 
purposes (and can therefore enco mpass arts, language and danci ng classes), as well as for 
employment-related purposes (therefore encomp assing vocational traini ng). The concept of 
arts, language, dancing and similar schools covers any kind of school or training in this area 
which is not part of a formal education (for  example it does not cover higher education in 
these fields).  
Only some Member States reported genera l schemes concerning adult education covering 
training in arts, language and da ncing, but also, in certain cases cover vocational training. In 
most Member States, there are no specifi c requirements for schools offering non-formal 
training in dramatic arts, danc ing or language. However, a numb er of Member States reported 
specific schemes applicable to these courses.  
6.6.3.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Estonia, France, Hungary, Lithuania and Spai n reported authorisation schemes concerning 
adult education. These schemes ar e often justified by Member Stat es by the fact that providers 
of adult education services issu e officially recognised diplomas , hence the need to ensure an 
appropriate level of education.  
Relatively few Member States, including Aust ria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, 
Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Spain190 reported authorisation schemes for non-formal 
education in dramatic arts, dancing or lang uage. These Member States usually require 
providers to obtain an authorisat ion, citing various jus tifications ranging from ensuring a high 
level of education, safety of r ecipients of services, protection of consumers, transparency, tax 
records and the protection of  neighbours of these establishments from emissions.  
                                                 
190  Spain explained that (except in the regions of the Basque Country an d Andalusia) only art schools with 
programmes resulting in officially recognised art qu alifications are subject to authorisation schemes. 
EN 107  EN The remaining Member States di d not report any aut horisations in this  area. Finland and 
Sweden indicated that private language school s or private schools in visual arts were 
regulated to the extent any business activity is regulated and do not require any specific 
licence.  
Malta reported that scho ols teaching English as a foreign la nguage required an authorisation. 
The Czech Republic imposes an  authorisation scheme for operating a language school 
authorised to conduct state language ex ams and issue official certificates.  
Slovakia reported an authorisation scheme for education in arts culminating with an official 
certificate. To provide such e ducation, one must have complete d studies at an art school or 
have ten years' experience. Similarly, Slovakia reported an aut horisation scheme for education 
in foreign languages culminating with an offici al certificate, which also requires completed 
study of languages at university level or cert ificate of the state language examination, 
alternatively proof of a ten-year stay in a count ry that has same the of ficial language as the 
one to be taught.  
Spain reported that, in some regions, an au thorisation is required for non-formal music 
education.  
Estonia imposes a registration obligation repo rted as an authorisation for non-academic 
schools and their curricula explaining that thes e requirements are justified by public safety 
(safety of the children attending the school), public health  (health protection of the children 
attending the school), protection of consumers and users of the servi ce (protection of the 
rights of the parents and the children), social  and cultural policy obje ctives, protection of 
users of the service in case of insolvency of  the school and the need to ensure a high level of 
the education.  
Greece notified authorisation schemes for language schools, music schools and private dance 
schools for amateurs. Greece justifies the aut horisation schemes by the need to protect 
recipients of services, fight fraud and unfair competition and ensure transparency and a high 
level of education.  
France requires providers of dance cla sses to obtain an authorisation.  
In Austria, a number of regions also impose authorisation schemes on providers of dance 
lessons.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
Very few Article 15 requirements were reported. They would appear to be very exceptional.  
Austria abolished a ban on having more than one establishment  applicable to dancing schools. 
Regarding quantitative/territorial restrictions , in Greece, authorisation to open a private art 
school can be refused if similar school s already exist in the same district. 
Regarding the obligation to take a specific legal form , in Estonia all private schools (and non-
academic schools) must take the form of a le gal person governed by private law to ensure 
better protection of consumers’ rights, including in the event of insolvency of the provider.   
EN 108  EN 6.6.3.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services  
Only a very limited number of requirements were reported in this area. The requirements 
applicable to cross-border servi ces were typically justified by Me mber States as necessary to 
ensure a high level of training, citing reasons of public policy.  
Greece reported an obligation to have an establishment in Greece for non-formal training in 
dancing, explaining that both the facilities and staff's qualifications ne eded to be checked. 
France required providers of adult education a nd dance classes to obtain an authorisation .  
Austria notified a number of authorisations  applicable to dancing schools. 
A declaration  is required in Hungary fo r providing adult education.  
 
6.6.4.  Driving courses 
All (or at least almost all) Member States regulate driving lessons. Some apply specific rules, 
in particular authorisations, to driving instruct ors as well as to driving schools, whereas other 
Member States only have rules app licable to driving instructors.  
Driving instruction is often cons idered to be a regulated prof ession. In some Member States, 
driving school operators/managers are also considered to be regulated professionals. 
6.6.4.1.  Requirements applying to establishment 
¾ Authorisation schemes 
Driving instruction seems to be a regul ated profession in 17 Member States.191 Authorisation 
schemes for driving instructors we re reported by 24 Member States.192  
Driving school owners/managers seem to be re gulated professionals in four Member States.193 
Authorisation schemes for driving school s were reported by 21 Member States.194 Latvia 
reported that it had abolished its scheme.  
Many Member States reported separate author isation schemes for training non-professional 
drivers and professional drivers (e .g. taxi drivers, bus drivers,  transport vehicles drivers). 
To justify such authorisation schemes, Member States generally cited public safety reasons 
and the need to ensure that services are de livered by qualified driving instructors using 
approved facilities and, in pa rticular, approved vehicles.  
Driving school operators must typically comply  with the following (or similar) requirements: 
employ licensed driving instructors, have specific teaching facilities and in  particular specific 
vehicles, practice areas and theo retical training areas. Sometimes operators must also comply 
                                                 
191  Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech  Republic, Denmark, Finland, Fr ance, Greece, Iceland, Malta, the 
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
192  Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,  Greece, Hungary, Iceland, 
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. 
193  Belgium, the Czech Re public, France and Spain. 
194  Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Est onia, Finland, France, Germany, Gr eece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden (Sweden explained that the authorisation scheme for driving school operators/managers encompasses 
the right to manage a driving school as well as the right to provide education and driving training to 
students). 
EN 109  EN with specific requirements re garding the course content, du ration of training, organisational 
structure etc. For example, in Portugal, drivi ng schools must have a qua lified deputy director. 
In Cyprus, in order to obtain a licence for opening a driving school, the applicant must 
comply with conditions concerning age, good re pute, experience, facilities and staff.  
Finally, certain Member States also reported authorisation schemes for additional training. 
For example, Sweden notified risk training for learner drivers of pass enger cars and motor 
cycles, training for learner driv ers of mopeds, snowmobiles and off-road vehicles (quads) and 
a scheme providing training to ‘t utors’ who have a right to tr ain learner drivers. Luxembourg 
reported additional mandatory training for drivers.  
¾ Article 15 requirements 
A certain number of requireme nts applicable to driving sc hools were notified. Several, 
however, have been or are being abolished.  
As a result of implementation of the Services Di rective, Spain reported th at it had abolished a 
ban on having more than one establishment of dr iving school operators. Slovenia reported that 
it had abolished the requirement under which dr iving schools must employ at least three 
driving teachers and one expert supervisor and the requirement that all providers (including 
those providing cross-border services) must have  specific learning facilities for road safety 
teaching in Slovenia. 
Finland reported as quantita tive/territorial restrictions  the fact that a licence to instruct 
(learner) taxi drivers is restri cted to a particular region, i.e.  it does not cover Finland in its 
entirety. A similar situation exists in Poland, where permits for various types of drivers training are valid only in the area in which the issuing authority is competent.
195 Portugal 
reported a ban on setting up driving sc hools at a distance of less than 500  m from one another. 
Portugal explains that the require ment contributes to a wider terr itorial distribution of training 
providers but adds that it is currently considering repealing this requirement. 
Regarding the obligation to take a specific legal form , some Member States reported rules 
under which providers of certain driving training must be lega l persons: Finland (training for 
truck drivers/bus drivers, training for taxi driv ers) and Estonia (all driving schools). In Malta 
driving instructors can only o ffer their services through an  authorised driving school. 
Requirements are typically justified by the n eed to ensure adequate  quality of training. 
Luxembourg has maintained a maximum tariff  for services provided by driving schools.  
6.6.4.2.  Requirements applying to cross-border services  
A relatively high number of authorisations for the cross-border provision of driving 
instruction were reported. In addition, some Me mber States reported an obligation to have 
established certain infrastructure in their terr itory. It would seem that, similarly to the 
situation concerning established operators, th e cross-border provision of driving instruction 
remains strongly regulated. 
Regarding the obligation to  have an establishment , Norway reported th at all driving schools 
must have a permanent establishment in Norway in order for it to carry out non-notified controls.  
                                                
 
195  Although they were reported under Article 15, th ese requirements may constitute restrictions falling 
within the scope of Article 10(4) of the Servi ces Directive (i.e. the ru le according to which 
authorisations should be valid throughout the natio nal territory and not limited to a particular area). 
EN 110  EN A number of Member States reporte d that the authorisation schemes  for driving instructors 
(Denmark, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingd om) or driving schools (Bulgaria, Cyprus, 
Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway, Portugal196 and Slovenia are also applied for cross-border 
service providers.  
Poland requires all providers of dr iving school services to have ad equate infrastructure within 
its territory.  
CONCLUSION: 
The private education sector en compasses a wide range of di fferent activities, including 
higher education services, voca tional training, adult educati on, language, dancing, dramatic 
arts courses and driving courses. The provis ion of higher education services, vocational 
training and driving courses are relatively st rongly regulated in most Member States. The 
opposite is true for non-formal training in language, dancing and dramatic arts, which is 
regulated only in a few Member States.  
As regards the establishment of branches of higher education institutions, it seems that there 
are substantial disparities between the regul atory approaches adopted by the Member States. 
In some cases, the extent of regulation varies  depending on the nature of the diploma issued 
upon completion of the course (i.e. between dipl omas that are officially recognised in the 
Member State in question and th ose officially recognised in another Member State), while 
others do not make this distinction. 
Implementation of the Services Directive has led to certain c hanges. In particular, a number 
of requirements falling under Article 15 of th e Services Directive have been made less 
stringent or abolished.  
However, a number of Member States have maintained major restrictions, e.g. establishment 
requirements, which exclude the cross-border prov ision of services. The existence of these 
requirements has been questioned in discussions  between Member States . Similarly, a number 
of Member States have identified  residual difficulties  regarding cross-border services in the 
area of educational franchising, voca tional training and dr iving courses.  
                                                 
196  Portugal reported that authorisation applies on ly to cross-border service providers who set up 
(temporary) driving schools in Portugal. 
EN 111  EN 7. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
7.1. Introduction 
A public consultation was held as part of the mutual evaluation proce ss. Interested parties 
were consulted on the results of the review of legislation carried out by Member States during 
the implementation period (as required by Article  39(2) of the Directive). The objective of 
this consultation was to get the views of consum ers, businesses and other interested parties on 
the results achieved and on the areas wher e problems for stakeholders persist.  
The public on-line consultation took pl ace between 30 June and 13 September 2010. 
Replies came from a wide range of respondent s: individual citizens (mostly exercising a 
regulated profession), trade unions, consumer pr otection associations, chambers of commerce, 
individual business, companie s and business organisations.  
The consultation did not cover all aspects of implementation of the Services Directive but 
focused, in line with Article 39(2) of the Di rective, on national measures  covered by the 
mutual evaluation process. Nevertheless, some replies covered a wider range of issues (from 
general statements on the functioning of the intern al market for services to issues such as the 
Points of Single Contact). Thes e are not reflected here but al l replies are available online, 
together with a summary, at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/intern al_market/consultations/2010/ services_directive_en.htm   
 
7.2. The results of the consultation in detail 
 
7.2.1.  Authorisations (Article 9) 
Most of the replies received concerned aut horisation schemes. In most cases, respondents 
considered that the specific au thorisations were (still) too bu rdensome and could be simplified 
or, in some cases, abolished. Co mments also concerned the sc ope of horizontal/cross-cutting 
authorisation schemes, which many respondent s suggested reducing (t o exclude simpler/less 
dangerous activities).  
Examples specifically mentioned in the replies included the general trade licence required in 
Luxembourg (considered as disproportionate),  and authorisation schemes for certain 
professions, e.g. for certain land surveyors. The construction sector was singled out by a 
number of respondents, who iden tified an excess of different au thorisations (sometimes for 
rather simple activities). Other respondents high lighted authorisations required in the tourism 
sector, in particular for scheme s regulating activities in certain sites or areas (considered as 
excessive or fragmenting the profession), in addition to specific requirements of professional qualifications. 
Significant problems of duplication and opaque aut horisation procedures were highlighted for 
retail establishments, sometimes aggravated by  economic needs tests and an involvement of 
competitors in decisions on individual cases. Respondents specifically mentioned the situation 
in Belgium, Germany (in some Länder ), Luxembourg and Spain (in some regions).  
By contrast, some consumer protection organi sations stated in general that eliminating 
authorisations could be de trimental to consumers.  
EN 112  EN 7.2.2.  Requirements covered by Article 15 
Several respondents addressed Arti cle 15 requirements, in particul ar requirements as to the 
legal form of service providers. In many cases , these were considered as unjustified or 
disproportionate.  
For instance, several respondents raised que stions regarding legal form requirements , in 
particular cross-cutting requirements imposed  on all/many regulated professions (France, 
Italy, Latvia and Spain were mentioned as exampl es). A number of replies raised problems as 
regards legal form requirements imposed on veterina rians, in particular in  France. Restrictions 
on accountants, in particular  shareholding requirements  in France, were also raised as were 
tariffs , in particular tariffs impos ed on lawyers, architects and engineers in Greece. The ban 
on lawyers having more than one establishment  in Greece was also flagged as a major 
problem for professionals. Several replies addressed the issue of reserve of activities . 
Examples included the reserve of activity in the case of training in craf ts, which in France can 
only be provided by the Chamber of Crafts, and the reserve of activity in the case of real 
estate administrators in Spain.  
By contrast, several replies to the consulta tion sent by representatives of regulated 
professions, in particular profe ssional associations, stated that  there were no unjustified or 
disproportionate requirements in their Member State.  
 
7.2.3.  Restrictions on multidisciplin ary activities (Article 25) 
Few replies addressed restrictions on multidisciplinary activities. However, several 
respondents raised the issue of restrictions on multidisciplinary activities for land surveyors 
(in France), tourist gui des (in Italy) and veterinarians (in France).  
 
7.2.4.  Requirements for cross-border services (Article 16) 
A great many replies addressed the requirements imposed on cross-border services. Many 
identified specific examples of requirements ap plicable to cross-border  provision of services 
that respondents deemed to be either unjustifi ed on the basis of the four reasons set out in 
Article 16 or as overly burdensome/dispropor tionate. In many cases, respondents also 
described lengthy and burdensome procedures . In several cases, respondents reported 
problems of duplication of requirements (i.e . where a requirement, such as a training 
obligation, is imposed both by the Member State of establishment and the Member State in 
which the service is provided including area s covered by EU inst ruments. Respondents 
considered that a multiplication of requireme nts should be avoided. Some respondents also 
expressed general concerns over the correct impl ementation of the Services Directive in this 
respect.  
Requirements specifically mentioned include cross-cutting requirements, such as the 
LIMOSA system in Belgium and the RUT-register in Denmark.197 Others concern a wide 
variety of different requirements applicable to many different services, for instance: prior 
                                                 
197  LIMOSA is a mandatory declaration applicable to non-Belgian employers and self-employed person 
which intend to carry out temporary activities in Belgium. This declaration must be submitted 
electronically and in advance. RUT is a register where non-Danish service providers need to be 
registered before providing services in Denmark in respect of posted workers but also, according to one 
of the respondents to the consultation, soon to be applicable to self-employed non-Danish service 
providers. 
EN 113  EN authorisation procedures for scaffolding work (d escribed as very stri ngent and burdensome in 
Denmark); mandatory safety training in the construction sector (Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain 
and the UK were mentioned as not taking into account training in othe r Member States ); 
certification requirements for services provi ded by electricians, plumbers and heating 
installers (in Denmark and Sw eden), waste management and restrictions to commercial 
communication for veterinarians. Many respondent s addressed insurance obligations (e.g. for 
real estate services in Spain), travel agents (in general) and insurance in the construction sector (in France).  
 
7.2.5.  Relationship between other EU legislation and the Services Directive 
A recurring concern raised by many respondent s is the relationship between the Services 
Directive and other EU instruments. Several re spondents considered that  there is room for 
improving the application of certain EU in struments by national administrations and 
considered that the European Commission should provide clarification on the applicable rules 
in areas also covered by other EU legislation. Other EU instru ments that were  specifically 
mentioned include Directive 2005/36/EC  on the recognition of pr ofessional qualifications; 
Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, pack age holidays and package tours; Directive 
2008/98/EC on waste and repeali ng other directives (Waste Framework Directive) and 
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste. 
 
EN 114  EN  
ANNEX  
THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO SERVICES IN THE EU 
IMPROVEMENTS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SERVICES DIRECTIVE  
The regulatory framework applicab le to services in the EU has improved considerably with 
the implementation of the Services Directive.  This improvement is still ongoing as a number 
of Member States have not yet completed all the changes required to comply with the Directive
198.  
In addition to adopting legislation implementing the general principles and provisions of the 
Directive in a horizontal manner, most Member States have undertaken a thorough 
examination of the requirements they imposed on service providers wanting to establish in 
their territory or wanting to provide services there on a temporary basis. Many Member States 
have abolished or modified requirements that we re found to be discrimi natory, unjustified or 
disproportionate. To illust rate the concrete result s of this work, this annex presents a number 
of examples of important changes made as well as some of the sectors that are expected to 
benefit the most from these changes.  
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT  OF 
SERVICE PROVIDERS  
Important progress has been made  as regards prior authorisation schemes – one of the most 
common requirements imposed on service providers.  
In those Member States where cr oss-cutting authorisation schemes  are in place (i.e. schemes 
applied generally to service activities or at  least to a high number of different service 
activities) a number of changes have been in troduced to make them less burdensome. For 
instance, in Slovakia  all authorisations covered by the Tr ade Licences Act have been replaced 
by declarations. Malta  has replaced a good number of au thorisation procedures under its 
general trading licence by declarations. So has Hungary , as regards the general authorisation 
scheme in the retail sector and the new act on individual entrepreneurs. Similar changes are 
pending in Bulgaria  and have been announced by Cyprus .  
Sector-specific authorisation schemes  have been abolished or simplified in a number of key 
economic sectors.  
For instance, in the retail sector  there have been significant im provements in particular as 
regards the conditions for the opening of la rge and medium-sized retail establishments. 
"Economic needs tests" (such as the making of the granting of an au thorisation subject to 
proof of the existence of a market demand) in authorisat ion regimes applicable to retail 
services have been eliminated in Belgium , France , Italy  and Spain . The Netherlands have 
introduced in their zoning regulations an explicit prohibition of such practices.  Luxembourg  
and Greece  have announced similar changes to their existing authorisation schemes. 
                                                 
198  On the basis of the information reported to the Commission by Member States themselves this is 
notably the case of Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia where a high number of planned changes 
have been reported. Work also seems to be ongoing in countries like Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Latvia  or 
Luxembourg.  
EN 115  EN Furthermore, some Member States like France, Italy or Spain  have raised the thresholds 
above which retailers need to apply for an author isation, thus facilitating  the establishment of 
smaller retailers. In addition, the criteria for the granting of authorisations have often been 
clarified and/or simplified. Author isation schemes appli cable to the retail of specific products 
have in a number of occasions also been abol ished, modified or replaced by declarations. The 
regulatory framework for other forms of retail such as itinerant sales (e.g. in Germany,  Italy , 
Latvia, Spain  or the United Kingdom ) or franchises (e.g. in Spain ) has also been simplified. 
In the field of construction,  a high number of authorisation  schemes that were previously 
imposed on service providers have also been a bolished or made less stringent. The examples 
are as varied as services in the construc tion sector are. For instance, changes in Sweden  cover 
activities such as the inspection of lifts and other motor-driven installations and in Hungary  
activities such as energy efficiency certific ation or design of built-in fire protection 
installations. Of a more cross-cutting nature  are changes such as those in Latvia  where the 
obligation imposed on professionals working in construction activities to obtain a "builder's 
practice certificate" is be ing replaced by a registrati on obligation and those in Bulgaria  where 
changes have been adopted in order to reco gnise registrations already made in another 
Member State. In Portugal a horizontal authorisation scheme imposed on several 
construction service providers has also been re ported as in the pro cess of being modified. 
Other sector-specific authorisation schemes  applying to very different  service activities have 
been abolished or simplified in a number of  key economic sectors and in a good number of 
different Member States. Beside s construction and retail, the s ectors of tourism and business 
services seem to have been among the main  beneficiaries of this simplification.  
Clearly, there has been a trend in  a number of Member States to replace authorisations by 
declarations . Italy  has established a general principle that all economic activities that 
previously required an authorisation (save in exceptional cases) can be  started upon filing a 
simple declaration to the competent authorities; in Hungary  more than 50 authorisation 
schemes have been replaced by declarations (f or various activities ranging from tourist 
guides, private recruitment agenci es to property management); in Spain , more than 30 
authorisation schemes in the ar ea of industrial services have been replaced by declarations 
(e.g. companies installing high voltage lines, hi gh pressure equipment or lifting equipment), 
etc, etc. Administrative simplification efforts have  also been directed to eliminate duplication 
of authorisations.    
It is also important to stress  that most Member States have  by now incorporated in their 
national legal systems the principle of tacit agreement  in the granting of authorisations, their 
unlimited duration  or the recognition of their national validity . 
Other changes in legislation affecting the es tablishment of service providers have been 
particularly important in the area of the regulated professions . A number of legal form 
requirements  (such as the obligations imposed on provide rs of certain services to operate as 
natural persons or under specific legal forms) have been abolished or made less stringent: for example, in Poland for the legal professions and tax advisers, in Germany for architects and 
engineers and in France  for accountants. Other activities bene fiting from this type of changes 
include recovery of debt services in Belgium,  real estate agents and accountants in Denmark, 
travel agents in Spain and itinerant sales in Italy.  Similar changes are pending in Portugal, 
Estonia  or Lithuania . Equally burdensome for the regulated professions are capital 
ownership requirements  (such as the obligations to have a specific qualification in order to 
hold capital, thus limiting the amount of capital that  can be held by third parties). These have 
EN 116  EN been made less stringent in several cases. Important changes, due to their cross cutting nature, 
have been adopted to raise the amount of capita l that can be owned by third parties (i.e. non-
professionals) in companies providing professional services for instance in France or in 
Spain (in both countries such external participation in capital can now  go up to 49%). Other 
important changes related to shareholding re strictions are pending, for instance in 
Luxembourg for crafts. 
Minimum capital requirements  (i.e. the obligation to have a minimum amount of capital in 
order to start an activity) have  also been abolished in a numbe r of Member States, notably in 
the tourism sector, for instan ce, for travel agencies in Spain or Belgium (similar changes, 
covering car rental  too, are pending in  Portugal ). Quantitative and territorial restrictions  (for 
instance, requirements fixing the number of pr oviders according to population or through a 
minimum geographical distance between them) ha ve also been abolished - or are in the 
process of being abolished – in a number of cases . This has been done as  regards activities as 
varied as the establishmen t of petrol stations in Italy and Spain,  travel agencies in Italy or the 
services of ski schools in Austria . Similar  changes have been notified as pending in Cyprus , 
Greece and Portugal . A similar type of restriction - bans on having more than one 
establishment  - have been abolished in some Italian  and Austrian  regions for ski instructors 
or in France  for veterinaries, while their abolition is pending in Greece  for employment 
agencies.  
Important progress has been made  as regards compulsory tariffs . In some cases, this has led to 
a complete abolition of all tariffs such as in the case of Malta . In others, changes affect all 
tariffs for specific types of service activities such as in the case of Italy where  all legislation 
providing for compulsory fixed and minimum tari ffs as regards liberal professions has been 
repealed or in the case of Spain where professional associations are no longer allowed to set 
up indicative tariffs (and where compulsory tari ffs had already been abolished). Tariffs have 
also been abolished for specific servi ces such as architect services in Belgium , veterinary 
services in Romania , employment agency services in Ireland , waste management services in 
Belgium , catering services in Hungary , and tourist and mountain guide services in  Italy . 
Germany  has abolished tariffs for some of the services provided by architects. A general 
reform to eliminate tariffs applicable to several regulated prof essions is pending in Greece . 
Finally,  obligations to exercise an activity exclusiv ely or restrictions on exercising the activity 
jointly or in partnership  have also been abolished, for instance in Belgium and Spain  for 
travel agencies, in Cyprus for real estate agents and building contractors or in France  for 
auctioneers. In some cases they have been significantly lightened such as in the case of 
Poland for advocates, legal advisors, tax advisors and patent agents.  
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE CROSS -BORDER  
PROVISION OF SERVICES  
Many Member States have made important ch anges aiming at lifting unjustified barriers to 
the provision of cross-border services into their territory. The inclusion of “free movement 
clauses” in the new horizontal laws or in sector-specific legislation  should greatly  improve the 
situation of business and self employed wa nting to provide services across borders.  
These general clauses have been often accompanied by further modifications in existing 
legislation. As a result, most of th e remaining establishment requirements  (i.e. requirements 
obliging the service provid er to be established in the country  before it can provi de the service) 
have been abolished. Some of the changes, such as those in the commercial code in Portugal , 
EN 117  EN are particularly relevant b ecause of their cross-cutting nature. Specific establishment 
requirements have been abolished for services in important sectors su ch as the construction 
and maintenance sectors (for instance in Austria  or Germany ), the tourism sector (in 
Belgium, Spain or Slovenia ), the business services sector (such as for interpreters and 
translators in Germany ) or regarding inspection services ( The Netherlands ). Plans aiming at 
abolishing establishment requirements remaining in  different sectors (such as land surveying 
activities or property and business assessment services) exist in Slovenia and Lithuania . 
Prior authorisations  imposed on those that want to provide  cross-border services have also 
been removed. Again some of these changes ar e particularly important due to the cross 
cutting nature of the laws they modified or thei r large scope. For instance, in the case of the 
changes to the Foreign Branches Act in Sweden , to the obligation to obtain a trade licence in 
the Czech Republic, to the Trading Licence Act in Malta , to the National Court Register and 
the Register of Business Activity in Poland , and to the general business registers in Belgium . 
Changes of a similar nature have been adopted in Bulgaria  and Slovenia  for crafts, in 
Estonia  for construction and related activities, in Germany  for itinerant sales. Portugal  has 
reported that the general authorisation scheme fo r construction activities is in the process of 
being modified. In Cyprus  the special permit imposed on cross-border providers of 
construction services is being abolished.  
In addition, authorisat ion schemes existing for specific service activities  have been removed 
or made non-applicable for cro ss-border services (in some cases  they have been replaced by 
notification requirements) in im portant sectors such as the c onstruction sector, the business 
services sector, the tourism sector, the educat ion sector or the serv ices of the regulated 
professions. Services as divers e as building contractors, gas installation services, property 
developers, engineering consultanc ies, patent agents, travel ag encies, tourist guides, distant 
sales, auctioneering, real estate agents, recrui tment services, driving in structors, car rental, 
commercial agents or services of foreign hi gher education institutions or of vocational 
training can now be provided across the borders in  a majority of Member States without being 
imposed a prior authorisation. 
A number of notification requirements  imposed on cross-border service providers have also 
been abolished. Some of these changes are agai n particularly important  due to their cross-
cutting nature such as the removal of the horizontal notification sc heme for cross-border 
service providers in the trade law in Germany. 
Other types of requirements  applied to cross-border services  have also been abolished. For 
instance Denmark  has made requirements limiting th e use of certain marketing methods  
(such as the use of vouchers and prize competiti ons) not applicab le to cross-border retailers 
providing services in their territory. Sweden  has reported that the law on contractual terms 
between traders , the obligation to provide guarantees  for trips other than package tours, and 
certain rules on distant/doorstep selling/off-premises sales do not  longer apply to cross border 
service providers. Tariffs have been abolished in Germany  for architects and engineers 
providing services from an establishment in an other Member State. An obligation to have a 
financial guarantee  for professionals wanting to exercise real-estate activities in France  has 
been modified in order to impose it onl y on certain types of activities. The United Kingdom  
has abolished the obligation to have an address  in its territory that was previously imposed on 
providers from other Member States wishing to provide cross-border serv ices in this country. 
Also obligations on the use of equipment  or insurance obligations  have been modified in a 
number of areas to, at leas t, take account of requirement s complied with by the service 
provider in the country of establishment.  
EN 118  EN