Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee - The follow-up to the Green Paper on commercial communications in the internal market
Date: 1998-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic growth, employment policy, means of communication, single market

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 04.03.1998 
COM(1998) 121  final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

The follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications 
in the Internal Market 

Table  of ('ontents 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY. 

' 

INTRODUCTION. 
Objective. 
The Green paper's proposals. 
Response  to consultation. 
SECTION  I.  SUMMARY  OF  RESPONSES TO THE GREEN  PAPER ON  COMMERCIAL 

COMMUNICATIONS. 
The  European  Parliament 
The  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Member  States 
Interested  parties 
SECTION  II.  THE  COMMISSION'S  RESPONSE 
1. Objective 
2. Scope 
3.  Actions 
1 ) Applying  a transparent assessment  methodology. 
2) Setting  up a Commercial  Communications'  Expert  Group. 
3) Making  available  a Commercial  Communications'  contact point  and 
information  network. 
4) Establishing  a Commercial  Communications'  Database. 
5) Accelerating  complaint  resolution 
6) Setting  up an Expert  network. 
7) Promoting  International  co-operation. 
8) Clarifying  electronic commerce  aspects. 
9)  Keeping  the  Parliament  informed. 
4.  Priority  areas for the Expert Group's  consideration. 
1 ) The protection  of minors. 
2) Unfair  competition  laws and  associated  matters. 
3) Sponsorship. 
4) Claims  and  misleading  advertising. 
5)  Redress  systems. 
6) Application  of the proportionality  assessment  methodology  at national  level. 

1 
1 
2 
2 

4 
4 
4 
4 
5 
7 
7 
7 
8 
8 
10 

12 
13 
13 
13 
13 
14 
14 
14 
14 
15 
15 
16 
16 
17 

Annex 1. A summary of the proposals made in the Green paper on Commercial 
Communications in the Internal Market. 
Annex  2.  Summary of responses to the Green paper on Commercial  Communications  in the 
Internal Market. 

<  c\ 

E X E C U T I VE  S U M M A R Y. 

The  May  1996  Green  paper  on  Commercial  Communications  in  the  Internal  Market 
recognised  the  importance of the sector  in terms of employment  and  growth  potential  and  its 
key  role  in  helping  European  businesses  and  non-profit  making  associations  to  market  their 
goods and services throughout  the Union. These services affect  a number of  important  public 
interest  objectives  such  as  the  protection  of  consumers  and  public  health  and  are  therefore 
subject  to  a  variety  of  different  national  regulations.  The  Green  paper  noted  that  the 
divergence  of  these  national  regulations  together  with  the  development  of  cross-border 
commercial  communications was leading to obstacles to the proper functioning  of the Internal 
Market.  At  the  same  time,  the  increase  in  cross-border  commercial  communications,  in 
particular  in  the  area  of  new  Information  Society  services  and  electronic  commerce,  could 
adversely affect  the efficient  protection of public  interest objectives. 

The  very  high  level  of  response  confirmed  this  sector's  importance.  In  addition  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  ten  Member  States,  433 
interested  parties responded  to the call  for comment over the past  18 months. In general, there 
was  strong  support  for  the  Commission's  proposals.  Indeed,  suggestions  were  made  both  to 
strengthen and add to them. 

The  Commission  has  therefore  decided  to  adopt  a  range  of  actions  in  this  sector  with  the 
objective  of  facilitating  the  cross-border  provision  of  commercial  communication  services 
through the establishment of an efficient  and transparent  framework  which will also ensure an 
appropriate  protection  of  public  interest  objectives  concerned.  These  actions  represent  a tool 
to assist  relevant  authorities  in their analysis  of problems  in this field. This approach  is  fully 
consistent  with, and  complementary  to, the  Single  Market  Action  Plan's  Strategic  target  I of 
making rules more  effective. 

More specifically,  the Commission  proposes: 

1) The application of a transparent,  assessment methodology. In many cases, the examination 
of the compatibility of a restriction  to cross-border  commercial  communications  with  Internal 
Market  principles  raises  the  issue  of  its  proportionality  with  the  public  interest  objective 
pursued.  The  Commission  will  apply,  where  appropriate,  the  proportionality  assessment 
methodology  described  in the  Green  paper.  This  will  increase  the  speed  and  efficiency  with 
which  infringements  are  processed  and  also  improve  the  quality  of  any  harmonisation 
initiatives the Commission  will propose in the field of commercial  communications. 

2) Setting  up a  Commercial Communication Expert  Group. The  Commission  will  set  up  a 
transparent  and  efficient 
Commercial  Communications  Expert  Group 
administrative  co-operation  between  itself  and  the  Member  States  and  a  dialogue  with 
interested  third  parties.  In response to the calls  of the  Parliament  and  the  Member  States, the 
Commission  will  ensure  that  any  possible  duplication  with  Commission  Committees' 
activities will  be avoided.  It will also ensure that the Expert Group acts rapidly  in the relevant 
areas.  The  Expert  group  will  not  cover  issues  that  are  already  dealt  with  by  Commission 
committees. 

to  establish 

3) Making available a Commercial Communications ' contact point  and  information network. 
The  Commission  will  establish  a  central  contact  point  in  the  Directorate  General  for  the 
Internal  Market  and  Financial  services  (DGXV)  for  interested  third  parties  which  will  work 
closely  with  the  other  Directorates  General  involved  with  policy  in  this  field.  It  will  also 
establish  a Web site to facilitate  information  flows and transparency. 

4) Establishing  a Commercial Communications Database. The Commission  will establish an 
information  database on national and Community  regulations and self-regulatory  codes. 

1b 

5) Accelerating  complaint processing. The  Commission  will  continue  its  general  efforts  to 
speed  up  the  handling  of  complaints.  In  this  field,  it will  make  efforts  to  reduce  delays  by 
using, where appropriate,  the proportionality assessment  methodology. 

6)  Setting  up  a  network  of  academic  experts.  The  Commission  will  establish  a  " 
representative  group  of  academic  experts  " 
interested  in  the  various  aspects  of  the 
commercial  communication  field  in order  to  assist  its work  and  that  of  the  Expert  Group of 
Member  States'  representatives.  The  network  of  academic  experts  will  be  invited  by  the 
Commission  to provide opinions on specific  issues. 

7) Promoting International co-operation. The Commission  will  promote the principles of this 
approach  in international  negotiations. 

S) Clarifying  electronic commerce issues. The  Commission  will  take  account  of  restrictions 
concerning  commercial  communication  services  in  its  current  examination  of  the  specific 
legal  issues  relating  to  the  development  of  cross-border  services  in  the  Information  Society. 
In certain  areas where  there  is legal  insecurity  it will  propose clarification  in the context  of a 
proposal  relating to electronic commerce and associated  Information  Society services. 

9) Keeping  the  European Parliament informed. The  Commission  will  inform  the  European 
Parliament  on  the  application  of this approach  including  an  evaluation  of the  work  carried 
and an update of the work programme. 

The  Commission  will  apply  this  approach  to  four  key  areas  where  commercial 
communication  regulations at the national  level diverge significantly  and therefore  potentially 
give rise to both  Internal  Market  barriers and to a lack of effective  protection  across  borders 
within the Community. The four areas are (i) the protection of minors, (ii) unfair competition, 
(iii) sponsorship and (iv) misleading claims. 

m 

-ic 

INTRODUCTION. 

Objective. 

The  European  Commercial  Communications  sector  plays  a  key  role  in  the  European 
Community.  It  employs  in  excess  of  1 million  Europeans  and  it  is  growing  thanks  to  the 
development  of new communications  technologies and  demand.  Examples of this growth  are 
well  reported.  In  the  specialised  area  of  telemarketing  the  current  number  of  193,500 
employees  in  Europe  is  forecast  to  grow  to  669,500  in  the  year  2001. Growth  of  internet 
related  commercial  communications  is similarly  expected  to  increase.  For  France,  Germany, 
the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom  alone  it  is  forecast  that  these  new  commercial 
communication  services  could  amount  to  1.3  billion Ecus  in  2002.  This  is  reflected  in  the 
development  of  new  specialised  on-line  agencies  and  internet  audience  measurement 
specialists.  Its  importance  for  employment  is further  emphasised  by the  fact  that  many  users 
of  commercial  communications  have  marketing  and  marketing  research  personnel  that  must 
be  added  to  the  total  employed  directly  by  the  sector.  It  should  be  emphasised  that  the 
creative  parts of this sector depend  on new young talent  and the sector  is therefore  important 
in terms of youth employment  in Europe. 

The  sector  also  plays  a  key  role  in  promoting  the  competitiveness  of  European  business. 
Without  cost-effective  marketing  campaigns,  businesses  cannot  develop  markets  or  indeed 
are unable to render viable  investments  in new products or services. Furthermore, commercial 
communication  services  are  critically  important  for  the  realisation  of  the  Internal  Market 
given  that  if  businesses  cannot  communicate  their  presence,  products  and  services  across 
borders, they will not be able to engage in cross-border trade. Finally, these services also help 
finance all media. It  is recognised  internationally  that the development  of information  society 
services  and  electronic  commerce  are, and  will  continue  to be,  largely financed by  revenues 
earned  from  carriage of these services. 

The  Commission  acknowledges  that  an  Internal  Market  approach  was  required  in  this  area 
given  that  there  existed  no  co-ordinated  framework  for  the  sector  even  though  it  is:  (i) 
regulated  for a wide variety of public interest objectives and (ii) increasingly offering  services 
across borders, thanks to the development of new communications channels. 

The  Commission's  approach  to the  area of commercial  communications  has to take  account 
of  the  importance  and  sensitivity  of  the  various  public  interest  objectives  -  such  as  health, 
safety,  environmental  and  consumer  protection-  which  may  be  pursued  by  Member  State 
measures  giving  rise  to  difficulties  for  cross-border  commercial  communications.  Article 
100a  of  the  Treaty  makes  it  clear  that  Internal  Market  measures  which  affect  such  public 
interest  objectives  must  take as a base a high  level of protection. The  importance  accorded  to 
these  public  interest  objectives  by Community  law  is reflected  also  in  Article  129,  129a and 
130r of the Treaty. 

It follows  that  a certain  balance  must  be struck  between  Internal  Market  concerns  and  other 
objectives  validly  pursued  by  Member  States.  In  determining  what  action  the  Commission 
should  take  in this  area, a certain  sensitivity  must  be  shown  towards the different  social  and 
cultural  situations in the various Member States. 

This  Communication  summarises  the  responses  to  the  Green  paper  on  Commercial 
Communications  in the Internal  Market (COM(96)  192 final) and presents the  Commission's 
approach  aiming  at  establishing  a  European  policy 
for  commercial 
communication  services. Commercial  communications means: 

framework 

"All forms  of communication seeking to promote  either products, services or the image of a 
company or organisation to final  consumers and/or distributors" 

d 

The Green  paper's  proposals. 

On  8 May  1995, the Commission  adopted  a Green  paper on Commercial  Communications  in 
the  Internal  Market.  The  Green  paper  followed  an  extensive  survey  exercise  to  which  over 
1,000  interested  parties  responded. 

to 

The  Green  paper  stressed  that  the  sector  of  commercial  communications  was  of  significant 
importance 
the  functioning  of  the  European  economy;  cross-border  commercial 
communications  were a growing  phenomenon  in the  Internal  Market;  differences  in  national 
regulations  gave  rise  to regulatory  problems  for  users, suppliers  and carriers of such  services 
as  well  as  their  recipients  and  these  problems  were  likely  to  become  more  manifest  as 
communications  possibilities  improved  with  the  advent  of  the  Information  Society.  These 
problems  are  witnessed  by the  increasing  number  of complaints  in this field. The  number of 
these  complaints  and  the  calls  for  European  action  from  interested  parties  will  multiply  as a 
consequence  of  the  technical  ease  with  which  commercial  communication  services  can  now 
cross-borders thanks to the development  of electronic commerce. 

Given  these  concerns  and  since  these  services  are  used  to  promote  cross-border  trade  of all 
goods  and  services  circulating  within  the  Internal  Market,  the  Green  paper  proposed  (see 
Annex  !) a review  of existing  restrictions to ensure that  there exists a qualitative  Community 
framework  allowing for cross-border  provision  of such  services together with effective  cross-
border protection  of public  interest objectives  and redress against abuses. 

Two  key  proposals  were  made  to  ensure,  in  view  of  the  expected  growth  in  cross-border 
commercial  communication  services,  that  this  review  would  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a 
high quality, appropriate and coherent  European  framework: 

• 

the  application  by  the  Commission's  services  of  an  assessment  methodology  aiming  to 
facilitate  and  render  transparent  the  assessment  of  the  compatibility  with  the  Treaty  of 
restrictions on cross-border commercial  communications; 

.• 

two  inter-related  tools  to  improve  co-ordination  and  information  exchange  between  the 
Commission, the Member States and  interested  parties: 

!.  An Expert Group of Member Slates representatives whose aim  would  be, on the basis 
of  the  proposed  assessment  methodology,  to  help  find  constructive  solutions  to 
problems  for  cross-border  commercial  communications,  to  safeguard  the  coherence 
of  national  initiatives  and  to  improve  the  cross-border  protection  of  public  interest 
objectives  in this  field. 

2. 

In  response  to both  the call  for  improved  information  flow  and  the  need  to  provide 
the data  required  for the application  of the assessment  methodology, the  Commission 
will  establish  a  central  information  contact  point  which  would  co-ordinate  an 
information  and  communications  network  between  itself,  the  Member  States  and  all 
interested parties. 

These  proposals  meet  the  objective  of  ensuring  effective  regulation  as  set  out  in  the 
Commission's  Single Market  Action  Plan which  was adopted  in June  1997 (CSE(97)1  final). 
More specifically,  they  represent  a framework  for  enforcement  and  problem  solving  in order 
to improve the Community  legal  framework  for commercial  communications. 

Response to consultation. 

European Parliament. 
The European  Parliament  adopted  its resolution  on the Commission  Green paper on 
Commercial Communications  in the Internal Market ((COM(96)0192 - C4-0365/96). PE 
260.946) at its Plenary meeting on  15.7.97. 

Economie and Social C 'ommiUec. 

On  the  27  November  1996 the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  adopted  its opinion on  ihe 
Green  paper  from  the  Commission  on  Commercial  Communications  in the  Internal  Market. 
(O.J.N0C66/II  of3.3.97). 

Member States. 

To date, the Commission  has received  responses from  ten  Member  States. These are Austria, 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Finland,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the 
United  Kingdom. 

Interested parties. 

The  Commission  received  433  replies  from 
interested  parties 
demonstrating  the wide interest in this field of Community  policy. These can be broken down 
as  follows:  127  suppliers  of  commercial  communication  services  (e.g.  advertising  agencies 
and of which  30 were  European  or national  trade associations), 44 receiver associations (e.g. 
consumer  associations  or  public  health  bodies),  197  users  (e.g.  advertisers,  of  which  70 
associations) 52 carriers (e.g. media, of which  18 associations) and  13 self-regulatory  bodies. 

the  five  groups  of 

:ECTIOM 

I.  SUMMARY  OF  REACTIONS  TO  THE  GREEN  PAPER  ON  COMMERCIAL 

:OMMUNICATIONS. 

Given  the  purposefully  broad  questions  that  were set  at the end  of each  section  of the Green 
paper, responses  have tended  to comment  on the entire text and all  its proposals. The detailed 
summary  in  Annex  2  of .this  Communication  covers  those  points  that  received  the  most 
comments. The key positions of the Institutions and  interested  parties were as follows. 

The European  Parliament. 

The European  Parliament  in its resolution  dated  15.07.97 gave strong support to the proposals 
made  in  the  Green  paper.  The  Parliament  wished  for  the  scope  of  the  definition  of 
commercial  communications  to be extended  to include  on-pack  commercial  communications 
such as on-pack  price promotions, coupons, free-gifts  etc. 

Regarding the two key proposals the Parliament's position  was as follows: 

On  the  proposed  assessment  methodology,  the  Parliament  gave  its  full  support  and  indeed, 
demanded  for  it  to  be  strengthened  by  making  it  mandatory  for  the  Commission's  work, 
adding  strict  time  limits  for  Commission  decisions  and  requiring  that  it  be  applied  to  all 
national restrictions whether they be in law or self-regulatory  codes. 

As regards the Expert Group, contact point and the  information  network, again the  Parliament 
voted  with a strong majority  in favour of these proposals. 

On the  Expert  Group, the  Parliament  called  for  it to be as open and transparent  as possible. In 
order  to  ensure  transparency  and  efficiency  it  also  called  for  the  Expert  Group  to  meet 
regularly  and  reach  opinions  on  specific  issues raised  to  it within  short  and  strict  time  limits. 
It requested  that  the  Expert  Group should  prepare a regular report  for the  Parliament  to allow 
the  latter  to  monitor  its  progress.  Finally,  it  felt  that  the  contact  point  should  also  provide a 
centra! data bank on regulations and self-regulatory  codes in the European  Community. 

The  Parliament  also  identified  the  areas  of  regulations  that  it  felt  should  be  the  first  to  be 
examined  under  the  new  approach.  These  were  regulations  on  commercial  communications 
for  children,  the  regulatory  framework  for  unfair  marketing  methods  and  differing  national 
restrictions  on  brand  diversification,  on-pack  commercial  communications,  events  and 
television  sponsorship. 

Finally,  it  added  to  the  proposals.  It called  for  a system  of  appeal  against  the  Commission's 
decision  to  proceed  with  or  close  infringement  cases  and  added  that  all  efforts  should  be 
made to ensure  that  self-regulatory  systems  be strengthened  as well  as operated  according to 
the principle of country of origin control. 

The Economic and  Social  Committee. 

In  its  opinion,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  strongly  supported  all  of  the  proposals 
made  in the  Green  paper.  Unlike the Parliament,  it did  not  indicate  a priority  on which  areas 
of regulations should first  be subject to the proposed  approach. 

The Economic  and Social  Committee was particularly  supportive of the proposed  assessment 
methodology  and  especially  the  economic  chain  reactions  which  it  felt  accurately  mirrored 
how the  market  for  commercial  communications  operated  in the real  world.  It applauded  the 
establishment  of  the  Expert  Group  and  suggested  that  Member  States  should  copy  the 
Commission's  lead  by  establishing  national  central  contact  points  for  policy  in  the  field  of 
commercial  communications. 

Member  States. 

A  large  majority  of  the  ten  Member  States  who  responded  was  supportive  of the  proposals. 
Only one of the ten felt that the  assessment methodology was not acceptable  in principle. The 

others were supportive  with a few suggesting that the consumer  impacts should  be more  fully 
integrated  in the economic chain  reaction. 

Likewise, all the  Member  States who responded on the proposal to establish  an Expert Group 
were  favourable.  Two  stated  that  consumer  associations  should  be  involved  as  well  as seif-
regulatory  bodies  and  another  two  insisted  that  it  should  not  duplicate  the  work  of  other 
committees or  in any  way add  further  delay  to the Commission's  already  long  infringements' 
procedure. 

Seven  of  the  ten  Member  States  commented  on  the  contact  point  and  information  network. 
They all agreed  to these but two made the  point that consumer associations  should  be able to 
have full  access to these and should be given sufficient  resources to be  effective. 

Finally,  the  Member  States  went through  the  priority areas  listed  in the Green  paper  in detail 
(see  Annex  2)  pointing  out  where  they  thought  the  new  approach  should  first  be  applied. 
They also  made a  number  of  further  proposals  including  the  need  for  further  work  on cross-
border  dispute  settlement  systems  and  the  need  to  accelerate  the  existing  infringement 
procedure which  was considered  to be too slow. 

Interested  parties. 

A  large  number  of  interested  parties (both  from  consumer  associations  and  industry)  agreed 
with the Parliament  that the definition  of commercial  communications should  include on-pack 
forms  of  such  services.  A  large  majority  of  interested  parties  favoured  the  assessment 
methodology  and  a  number  of  differing  suggestions  were  made  to  strengthen  this.  This 
majority  called  for  mandatory  application  of  the  methodology.  A number  also  felt  that  new 
legislative  proposals  should  be  assessed  with  the  proposed  methodology  to  ensure  that  they 
would  not  create  new  barriers  in  the  Internal  Market.  Self-regulatory  codes  should  also  be 
subject  to  it.  Finally,  the  majority  believed  that  the  Commission  should  make  a commitment 
to  process  infringement  cases  in  this  field  more  rapidly  given  that  the 
assessment 
methodology  should  allow  the  Commission  to  be  more  efficient  in  its  future  work.  Certain 
consumer associations  had doubts that the methodology would  work without  improvement. In 
particular, they felt  that the economic chain  reaction  should give more emphasis to impacts on 
consumers.  A  few  respondents  from  all  the  responding  groups  stated  that subsidiarity  was 
more  important  than  proportionality  and  finally  a  few  respondents  suggested  that  the 
economic chain reaction was far too complex to evaluate and should therefore  be dropped. 

On the  Expert Group the vast  majority  of respondents  from  all five interest  groups  welcomed 
this  proposal.  However,  most  called  for  the  Expert  Group  not  to  add  to  add  further  delays 
either  to the  processing  of  infringement  cases  or  to the  launching  of  required  harmonisation 
initiatives.  Various  suggestions  were made  as to  how the  Expert  Group  should  be composed 
and  operate  ranging  from  the  use  of  opinions  from  accompanying  industry  or  consumer 
groups  which  would  bring  together  national  associations  representing  interested  parties to  its 
dependence  on  public  hearings.  Consumer  associations  opposed  the  continual  presence  of 
self-regulatory  bodies  and  felt  that  this  should  be  balanced  with  a  representation  of 
themselves. Many  respondents from  the five consulted  groups called  for the  Expert Group to 
draw  conclusions  on  a  specific  point  within  a  fixed  time  frame  and  requested  that  these 
conclusions  be  made  public. There  was  broad  support  for  the  contact  point  and  information 
network. 

Given  the very  large  number  of  respondents  and  their  different  concerns  it  is not  possible to 
summarise  the  priority  areas  that  were  mentioned  by  them  all.  However,  it  is  important  to 
note that  all the problems  raised  In  the Green  paper were referred  to across the responses that 
were received. 

Finally, a number  of consumer  associations  and  public  health  bodies called  for  easier  access 
to national  and Community  regulations  in this field for their members. They also called on the 

Commission  to  enforce  its  efforts  on  effective  enforcement,  particularly  in  cross-border 
cases.  They  felt  that  the  Commission  should  examine  and  develop  new  systems  for  cross-
border  dispute  settlement  systems  given 
in  cross-border  commercial 
communications  that  was  expected.  Industry  was  critical  of  the  existing  infringements' 
procedure  and  called  for  improvements.  In  particular,  it  was  felt  that  this  should  be  made 
more transparent and timely. Some respondents called  for the Commission  to commit  itself to 
strict processing time  limits and to decisions that should  be subject  to appeal  by all  interested 
parties concerned. 

increase 

the 

S E C T I ON  H.  T HE  C O M M I S S I O N 'S  R E S P O N S E-

/.  Objective. 

The approach  seeks  to  facilitate  the  cross-border provision  of  commercial communication 
services  within the Internal Market through the establishment of an efficient and transparent 
framework.  This  will  promote  the  growth  of  the  European commercial  communications' 
sector  and  allow for  the  development  of  efficient  cross-border  marketing  strategies  by 
European industry. 

This  approach  will  at  the  same  time  ensure  the  efficient  protection  of  public  interest 
objectives. The Commission  considers consumer protection  and the protection  of other public 
interest objectives as being essential for the development of the European Community and the 
proposed  approach  in  the  field  of  Commercial  Communications  intends  to  meet  these 
objectives.  The  Commission  considers  that  an  efficient  protection  of  such  public  interest 
objectives  across  the  entire  Community  also ensures  the efficient  functioning  of the  Internal 
Market.  There  is  therefore  a  balance  to  be  found  between  the  objective  of  promoting  the 
growth  of  cross-border  commercial  communication  services  and  that  of  ensuring  consumer 
protection. 

2. Scope. 

The  C 'ommission approach  will  he  applicable  to  all forms  of  communication  seeking  to 
promote  either  products,  services  or  the  image  of  a  company  or  organisation  to  final 
consumers  and/or  distributors.  This  includes  all forms  of  advertising,  direct  marketing, 
sponsorship,  sales  promotions,  public  relations  and those  services  ttsed  in  the  design  of 
packaging excluding labelling. 

The 'Commission  has  extended  the  scope  of  the  definition  proposed  in  the  Green  paper  to 
include on-pack communications which are not covered  by labelling regulations following,  in 
particular, comments from  consumer bodies and advertisers. 

These  services  fall  within  the  scope  of  Articles  59  and  60  such  as  interpreted  by  the 
jurisprudence  of  the  Court.  Indeed,  such  services  are  remunerated  and  can  be,  or  are, 
provided  on  a cross-border  basis.  The  fact  that  these  services  (be  they  to  an  individual  or 
other business) are not paid for by the final  consumer cannot be invoked to contest the service 
nature of these activities. 

In  certain  circumstances  commercial  communication  activities  could,  according to the  case 
Law of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  benefit  from  the  application  of  Article  30  of  the EC 
Treaty  relating  to  the  free  movement  of  goods.  The  Court's  recognition  of  the  indirect 
economic  link  between  commercial communication  services and the  sale of goods  is clearly 
explained  in a number of cases that were referred to in the Green paper. 

.?. Actions. 

1) Applying a traii^purenlt  assessment methodology. 

The  Commission's  services  will,  in  future  decisions  taken  in  this  field,  apply,  where 
following  assessment  methodology  which  builds  on  that  described  in  the 
appropriate,  the 
Green paper  (see Annex  1) but  adds two further  criteria  in recognition  of cultural  and  social 
differences  in  the  Member  States  and  the  need  to  ensure  coherence  across  public  interest 
objectives. The methodology consists of two steps. 

First  step:  (Analytical  overview).The  objective  of  the  first  step  is  not  to  undertake  the 
proportionality  test as such but to set out a complete "picture" of the impacts of the measure. 
The aim  is not to identify  restrictions but to provide a factual  overview of all possible  effects 
of a measure  in particular  on  activities  that the measure  is meant  to regulate  and  also on the 
public  interest  objectives  such  as  consumer  protection  and  public  health.  The  first  step 
characterises  either  (i)  the  relevant  national  measure  restricting  the  free  movement  of 
commercial  communication  services  or  (ii)  the  harmonisation  measure  proposed  by  the 
Commission. 

Seven  criteria  arc proposed  for this characterisation;  (i) What  is the potential  economic  chain 
reaction  and  the  resulting  impact  on  consumers  caused  by  the  measure?  (ii)  What  are  the 
public  interest  objectives  motivating  the measure?; (iii)  Is the measure  linked  to the  invoked 
public  interest  objective?;  (iv)  Does  the  measure  affect  other  public  interest  objectives?  (v) 
How efficient  is the measure in achieving the invoked public interest objective?  (vi) Does the 
measure reflect  cultural  or social specificity? (vii> Is the measure coherent across all relevant 
public interest objectives and notably those of consumer protection and public health? 

Second  step:  (Legal  assessment).On  the  basis  of  this  overview  and  the  factual  information 
that  it  provides,  the  second  step  consists  of  an  overall  legal  assessment  of  whether,  for  a 
national  measure,  it  could  be  considered  to  be  proportional  or,  in  the  case  of  Community 
measure,  it  would  be  proportional  and  also  coherent  with  other  Community  measures.  By 
knowing  the key  characteristics  of the measure, the above  mentioned  seven  criteria  will  help 
the relevant authority to be in a better position to assess its proportionality and coherence. 

impact  of  commercial 
thus  take  particular  account  of  the 
The  methodology  will 
communications  on  the  public  interest  objectives  of  the protection  of  consumers  and  public 
health. This methodology  is not an automatic test for assessing proportionality  which is left to 
the  decision  of  the  relevant  authority.  Nor  is  it  a  cost-benefit  or  a  mathematical  analysis 
seeking  to quantify  the value of public  interest objectives. It is only  a means of ensuring that 
such  evaluations  are based on a complete overview  of the effects  of the measure  concerned. 
In  this  respect  this  methodology  does  not  substitute  the  criteria  developed  by  the  Court  but 
rather  assists in their  application.  Even  if the application  of this methodology  is not rendered 
mandatory,  as  was  explicitly  requested  by  the  parliament,  the  Commission's  services  will, 
where appropriate, apply it when: 

-  (i)  considering  infringement  cases  in  the  field  of  commercial  communication  services 
raising the issue of proportionality. 

- (ii) providing analysis and discussing issues within the Commercial  Communications  Expert 
Group  (see  below).  The  Commission  plans  that  discussions  on  the  regulatory  problems  for 
cross-border  commercial  communications  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Expert  Group  will 
be oriented  on the basis of this methods, ;ogy. 

The  Commission's  services  will,  where  appropriate,  apply  the  assessment  methodology 
when  designing  the Commission's  own  initiatives  which  are directly  linked  to the  provision 

of commercial  communication  services. This will further  help to ensure the transparency and 
coherence of such proposals across the Community's policy competencies. 

The assessment methodology will provide the following  benefits; 

(i) Facilitate the required application of the Treaty. 

As  the  guardian  of  the  Treaty,  the  Commission,  taking  account  of  all  the  objectives  of  the 
Treaty,  should  assess  the  compatibility  with  the  principle  of  free  movement  of  services  of 
restrictions  arising  from  the  application  of  differing  national  regulations  to  cross-border 
commercial  communication  services.  As  demonstrated  in  the  Green  paper,  many  of  these 
cases  give  rise  to problems  of  proportionality  of the  relevant  measures  and,  in any case, the 
Commission  has to assess  proportionality  in conformity  with  the jurisprudence  of the  Court. 
The  Commission  is obliged  to  undertake  this task  to ensure that  it  is not  possible to  remove 
barriers that have been  identified  by application  of the Treaty. This has to be assessed  before 
proceeding  with  Internal  Market  harmonisation.  It  is worth  noting  that  in  the  opposite  case 
where  measures  are  considered  as  being  disproportionate  this  does  not  mean  that  Member 
States  cannot  take  measures  to protect  the  public  interest  objectives  concerned.  They  would 
rather  be  required  to  adopt  other  measures  which  meet  these  objectives  in  a  more 
proportionate way. 

(ii) Achieve greater transparency and  legal security. 

Some legal uncertainty  in the field of commercial communications could  follow  from  the lack 
of transparency  and  differing  interpretations  of the  principle  of  proportionality  in Article  3B 
of  the  Treaty  and  in  the jurisprudence  of  the  Court  on  the  principles  of  free  movement.  In 
presenting  how  it  intends  to  proceed  when  assessing  the  proportionality  of  national 
restrictions  or  Community  initiatives  in  the  field  of  commercial  communications,  the 
Commission  seeks  to achieve  greater  transparency  and  legal  security vis à vis  the  European 
Institutions,  Member  States  and  interested  parties.  This  legal  security  is  crucial  for 
entrepreneurs considering investing in Europe in electronic commerce. 

(iii) Improve the protection of public interest objectives. 

It  is  important  that  in  line  with  existing  Community  directives  or  proposals  for  such 
directives,  the  Community  and  Member  States  should  efficiently  protect  public  interest 
objectives  such  as  the  protection  of  consumers  and  public  health.  However,  it  is  also 
important  to  avoid  these  objectives  being  unjustifiably  invoked  so  as  to  protect  their  own 
national  market  and  thus  fragment  the  Internal  Market.  The  only  way  to  achieve  these 
requirements within the area without frontiers  is to promote an approach which focuses on the 
quality  and  the  substance  of  the  protection  aimed  for  by  the  measure.  The  recognised 
intention  to  protect  should  be  apparent  from  an  assessment  of  the  concrete  content  of  the 
measure.  Furthermore,  a  more  systematic  analysis  of  the  effects  of  measures  would  help 
detect  where existing  measures are  not  sufficient  for  protecting  the public  interest  objectives 
and, therefore,  where supplementary  measures are necessary. In this respect  it is worth  noting 
that  through  assessing  the  reactions  in  the  market,  the  methodology  identifies  the  overall 
impact on consumer protection or other public interest objectives such as public health. 

In this context  the application  of a transparent  assessment  methodology  would  have  positive 
impacts on consumer protection and the protection of public health since: 

-  It  would,  in  particular,  help  identify  national  legislation  in  terms  of  consumer 
protection  or  other  public  interest  objectives  which  offers  best  practice  in  the  Community. 
Given that any citizen could expect to benefit  from  a high  level of protection, such a common 
methodology will facilitate  the assessment of the differing  levels of consumer  protection. 

-  It  will  contribute  to  the  design  of  efficient  initiatives  in  this  field.  For  example, 
through the economic chain reaction assessment one can evaluate how market players react to 

the  specific  regulation  in  order  to  see  whether  the  final  outcome  is  positive  or,  indeed, 
counterproductive  for the consumer. 

-  It  will  facilitate  the  explanation  to  interested  parties  of  Community  initiatives 

seeking to promote public  interest objectives which affect  commercial  communications. 

-  It  will  incite  an  improvement  in  information  gathering  relating  to,  for  example, 

research and factual  evidence on the risks to and the behaviour of consumers. 

(iv) Facilitate  assessment. 

The assessment  methodology is not difficult  to apply since it relies on the analysis of concrete 
and  real  situations.  In  particular,  the  economic  chain  reaction  analysis  of  the  market  that 
drives these services is based on factual  information  which can easily be made available. 

(v) Allow the use of a tool that is both efficient  and  flexible. 

The  Commission  will  apply  the transparent  proportionality  assessment  methodology  where 
appropriate.  It  recommends  that  national  authorities  should  also  apply  such  a  methodology. 
However the Commission  considers, at this stage, that it is not necessary to propose a binding 
instrument. The Commission  will monitor the efficiency  of this approach  and according to its 
result could  make additional  proposals in the future. 

This  tool  can also  be applied  by and to self-regulatory  bodies  which  are present  in certain 
Member  States  in  this  field.  The Commission  recognises  the efforts  that  the national  self-
regulatory  bodies  have  made  in establishing  a cross-border  complaint  system  that  works on 
the  basis  of  the  country  of  origin  control  principle  in the  European  Advertising  Standards 
Alliance  (EASA).  The Commission  believes  that  self-regulation  is  only  effective  when  its 
codes are adhered  to in a comprehensive  fashion  by all parties, its sanctions are effective and, 
at the European  level, it works on the basis of mutual  recognition. The Commission  identifies 
the  lack  of mutual  recognition  in certain  self-regulatory  regimes  as a clear  indicator  that the 
proportionality  assessment  methodology  should  be applied to codes and that certain  national 
systems  are still  requiring  development.  In any event,  the codes  should  be compatible  with 
the  Treaty  in  order  to  avoid  the  introduction  of  Internal  Market  barriers  through  self-
regulation. 

2) Setting  up a Commercial  Communication  Expert Group. 

The  Commission  will  establish  a  Commercial  Communications  Expert  Group.  It  will  have 
four  functions: 

- Facilitate the exchange of views between the Commission  and the Member States. 

-  Help the Commission  to identify  solutions  to problems  in the field of cross-border 
commercial  communication  services which will  either: (i) allow for the application  of mutual 
recognition  or (ii) identify  precise harmonisation needs. 

- Provide data and facilitate  information  exchange on national measures in the field of 
cross-border  commercial  communication  services  in order  to  assist  the Commission  to: (i) 
establish  and  run  a  database;  (ii)  collect  information  on  its  specific  request;  (iii)  collect 
information  on the Member  States'  regulatory  problems  with  services  emanating  from  third 
countries. 

-  Provide  information  for the work of committees  established  by secondary  Community law 
in  the field of  cross-border  commercial  communication  services.  The Expert  Group  will be 
chaired  by an  official  of the  Commission.  Its members  will  consist  of two  representatives 
appointed  by  each  Member  State.  The Commission  will  invite  groups,  where  they  exist, 
made  up of national  representatives of interested  parties  (from  all areas  including  consumer 
associations)  to  present  their positions on the issues being considered. The Expert Group will 

10 

meet on a regular basis.  The Commission  will decide on its agenda in view of the  information 
it receives  from  the  information  network (see below) and the problems raised  by the Member 
States themselves. Furthermore: 

-  The  agenda  of  Expert  Group  meetings  will  be  made  public  via  the  information  network 
where appropriate. 

- The Expert Group should seek to reach an opinion on a specific  point within six months. 

-  Its  opinion,  where  appropriate,  will  be  made  public  by  the  Commission's  central  contact 
point (see below) to interested parties. 

-  The  work  oi' the  Expert  Group  will  be  without  prejudice  to  the  Commission's  power  of 
initiative  and  its  discretion  to  propose  legislation  or  to  begin  infringement  proceedings 
accorded  by  Article  169  of  the  Treaty.  Furthermore,  complaints  made  to  the  Commission 
under Article  169 will not be forwarded  to the Expert Group. 

• The  work  of the  Expert  Group will  obviously  not cover national  measures  which  transpose 
existing  directives  nor  will  it  overlap  with  work  of  committees  established  under  such 
directives  (e.g.  the  contact  committee  of  the  TVWF  directive  (Directive  89/552  EEC  as 
amended by Directive 97/36 EC)). 

-  The  Commission  will  keep  the  Parliament  informed  of  the  work  and  conclusions  of  the 
Expert Group. 

The  Expert  Group  represents  a  new  tool  for  implementing  Commission  policy  in  this field 
and will offer  the following  advantages: 

(i) Increased  problem  resolution  efficiency. 

The  Expert  Group  would  improve  the  possibility  of  solving  problems  concerning  cross-
border commercial  communication  services by: 

-  Providing  an  easily  accessible  forum  for  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  hold 
constructive discussions. 

-  Facilitating  the  awareness  of  national  authorities  to  potential  problems  of  a  Community 
dimension. 

- Facilitating informal  information  flows  between national authorities and the Commission. 

- Allowing the Commission  services to have greater information  for assessing the possibilities 
for  applying  mutual  recognition  or,  where  this  proves  not  to  be  possible,  for  preparing 
targeted harmonisation  initiatives. 

The work  of the  Expert  Group  will  not overlap  with  the Commission's  power  in the field of 
Article  169  infringements.  The  Commission's  powers will  be  fully  maintained  to  initiate  an 
infringement  procedure or to decide whether or not to proceed with a complaint. 

(ii) Increased  transparency of the policy-making process. 

The Expert Group will clearly reinforce  transparency  through: 

- The publication  of its agendas and opinions. 

- Allowing  interested  parties to participate in the policy process. 

11 

- Ensuring that the Parliament  is kept fully  informed  and aware of policy developments. 

In conformity  with the Parliament's resolution  it will  be kept closely  informed  of the work of 
the Expert Group. By keeping the Parliament  informed  directly  it will be possible to involve 
the Parliament  in this approach. The latter will therefore be able to plan and inform  its debates 
on future  proposals  in a more efficient  manner 

- Keeping interested  parties involved  in the policy debate. 

Interested  parties,  in  particular  consumer  associations,  will  benefit  from  the  Expert  Group 
because: 

-  They will have far easier access to information  in this  field. 

- They can submit written  representations. 

-  They  will  be  incited  to  co-ordinate,  where  possible,  their  opinions  at  Community 
level. 

- Avoiding polarisation  of the policy debate. 

Polarisation  of policy debates will be avoided by allowing a wide variety of interested  parties 
to have access to the Expert Group's findings. 

3)  Making  available  a  Commercial  Communications'  contact  point  and  information 
network. 

The  Commission  will  establish  a  central  contact  point  in  the  Directorate  General  for  the 
Internal  Market  and  Financial  services  which  will  work  closely  with  the  other  relevant 
Directorates General. Its role will be: 

- To respond  to request  for  information  regarding the Commission's policy in this field. 

-  To  collect  information  especially  about  problems  regarding  the  efficient  operation  of  the 
Internal  Market  in this domain. Obviously,  formal  complaints  (Article  169 proceedings)  will 
be sent  to the Secretariat  General  of the Commission  for registration. Complaints with  respect 
to existing directives  will  be passed  to those services of the Commission  responsible  for their 
transposition  and  management. 

-  To  maintain  communications  between  the  Commission,  the  Parliament  and  the  Member 
States. 

Other  Commission  services will be closely associated with and be kept fully  involved  by the 
central contact point to ensure a better flow of  information. 

As  a  complement  to  the  existing Commercial Communications newsletter,  the  Commission 
will establish a Web site. It will: 

-  Make  available  information  on  the  Expert  Group's  work  (work  programme,  opinions, 
follow-up  etc.) 

-  Give  access  to  the  database  on  European  commercial  communication  regulations  (see 
below). 

These actions will bring a number of advantages: 

- Interested  parties will benefit  from  the Web site since they will have the possibility of letting 
their views be known directly to the Commission  and the Member States. 

-  Unlike the organisation  of  formal  public hearings which  restrict participation  in debates to a 
select  number  of  participants  , the  network  will  allow  for  a  far  larger  number  of  interested 
parties  to  be  reached  and  likewise  allow  them  to  provide  comprehensive  information  to the 
policy process. 

12 

-  I he Web site and network  will allow the Commission  to disseminate policy information  to a 
very large number of interested parties; 

-  The  contact  point  will  facilitate  information  collection  as  well  as  assist  co-ordination  of 
policy  in this field. 

4) Establishing a Commercial Communications  Database. 

The  Commission  will  establish  a database  on  national  and  Community  regulations  and  self-
regulatory codes in this field. 

This initiative responds to the call for easier access to national and European  regulations. The 
Commission  believes  that  this  database  should  be  constructed  on  the  basis  of  information 
exchanged  between  the  Commission,  national  authorities  and  self-regulatory  bodies.  The 
database will be accessible via the Commercial Communications  Web site. This would ensure 
that  interested  parties receive the most up to date regulatory  information  available  from  those 
competent  for applying the relevant rules. 

5) Accelerating complaint  resolution. 

In  line  with  its  general  policy  which  seeks  to  improve  its  handling  of  infringements,  the 
Commission  will also seek to accelerate complaint resolution  in this field. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  contact  point,  the  information  network  and  the 
proportionality  assessment  methodology  should  result  in faster  processing  of complaints  and 
thus  greatly  help  the  sector  and  its users  as well  as the  consumers  who  are the  receivers  of 
such  services.  Indeed,  all  these  measures  will  increase  the  transparency  of  the  proceedings 
the 
and  therefore 
Commission  services  involved  will all be able to work  in a more efficient  and  rapid  manner. 
This  is,  of  course,  without  prejudice  to  the  confidentiality  of  procedures  between  the 
Commission  and the relevant  Member State concerning  possible solutions to an  infringement 
proceeding.  The  analysis  of  measures  requires  as  much  precise  and  factual  information  as 
possible and this should  be more forthcoming  under this approach. 

the  responding  national  regulatory  authorities  and 

the  plaintiffs, 

6) Setting up an Expert  network. 

'Hie  Commission  will  encourage  the  establishment  of  a  network  of  independent  experts 
interested  in the  various aspects of the commercial  communication  field  in order to assist  its 
work  and  that  of the  Expert  Group. The network  of academic  experts  will  give  views  at  the 
Commission  services'  request. 

In view of the need  to assess proportionality vis à vis the relevant  public  interest objectives, it 
could  be  necessary  on  a  case  by  case  basis  to  benefit  from  the  assistance  of  recognised 
experts which  represent  all the differing  interests concerned.  In order  not to limit the  number 
of experts, the Commission  will use the new possibilities offered  by the  internet as a basis for 
organising the work and communication  within this network. 

7) Promoting International  co-operation. 

The Commission  will ensure that EU policy in this field will be promoted  in  internationalfora 
and, in order to facilitate  cross-border commercial communication  services at the global level, 
will promote the principles of this approach  in international discussions. 

The  principles  of this approach,  in particular  the  objective  of  further  improving  the  analysis 
of  proportionality  and  coherence  of regulation  in this field, have  already  been  welcomed  by 
our  major  trading  partners  as  well  as  many  operators.  Given  that  the  advent  of  the 
Information  Society  leads to the globalisation  of commercial  communication  services, cross-

13 

border  problems  with  such  services  from  third  countries  are  likely  to  increase.  Therefore, 
there  is  a  need  to  find  international  solutions  to  achieve  more  efficient  protection  of  public 
interest  objectives  in  an  increasingly  cross-border  trading  environment.  The  Internal  Market 
regulatory  framework  represents  a  good  starting  point  for  reaching  such  solutions  and 
therefore  the Community  should  be  involved  in  international  discussions  on these  issues. 

8) (iarilying  electronic commerce  issues. 

The  Commission  is  examining  the  specific  legal  issues  relating  to  the  use  of  cross-border 
commercial  communication  services  in  the  Information  Society  and  will  propose  possible 
clarification  in  the  context  of  a  proposal  relating  to  electronic  commerce  and  associated 
Information  Society  services. 

Revenues  generated  from  commercial  communication  services  represent  one  of  the  major 
sources  of  funding  for  Information  Society  services.  This  form  of  funding  needs  to  be 
promoted  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  distribution  of  high  quality  information  will  increase  and 
remain  accessible  free  of  charge.  There  are  already  indications  that  cross-border  commercial 
communication  services  on  the  internet  are  subject  to  legal  insecurity  and  barriers.  Examples 
include  whether  or  not  Web  sites  are  to  be  considered  as  advertising  or  points  of  sale, 
transparency  provisions  for  sponsorship  which  vary  between  Member  States  and  differing 
national  restrictions  on  advertising  for  the  liberal  professions  that  could  undermine  the 
development  of  their  on-line  information  services.  Other  complex  issues  such  as  those 
relating  to  intellectual  property  rights  and  branded  domain  names  also  need  to  be  addressed. 
Moreover,  as  regards  new  national  proposals  for  regulations  pertaining  to  on-line  commercial 
communication  services,  the  compatibility  of  these  with  the  Treaty  will  be  evaluated  via  the 
application  of  the  currently  proposed  third  amendment  of  Directive  83/189/EEC  concerning 
regulatory  transparency  in  the  internal  market  for  information  society  services.  A  common 
position  was  reached  on  this  proposal  in the  Council  on  26 January  1998. 

9)  Keeping  the  Parliament  informed. 

The  Commission  will  inform  the  Parliament  on  the  application  of this  approach  including  an 
evaluation  of the  work  carried  out  and  update  the work  programme. 

In  its  resolution,  the  Parliament  explicitly  asked  to  be  kept  informed  by  calling  on  the 
Commission  to  ensure  that  the  Expert  Group  would  work  in  a transparent  manner  and  would 
have  its  results  reported  to  the  European  Parliament.  The  Parliament  sought,  through  this 
proposal,  to  express  its  willingness  for  this  approach  to  lead  to  rapid  results  and,  where 
necessary,  to  propose  to  adapt  the  approach  in  the  light  of  this  monitoring.  Given  the 
significant  number  of  important  public  interest  objectives  (e.g.  consumer  protection  and  the 
protection  of  public  health)  pursued  in  this  field,  it  is  crucial  to  keep  the  Parliament  actively 
involved  in the  development  of this  approach. 

4.  Priority  areas  for  the  Expert  Group \v  consideration. 

According  to  information  and  responses  received  during  the  consultation  on  the  Green  Paper, 
and,  in  order  to  ensure  rapid  and  efficient  results  of  its  policy,  the  Commission  will  prioritise 
its  work.  During 
the 
Commission  will  call  on  the  Expert  Group  to  examine  problems  arising  from  cross-border 
commercial  communications  and  the  objectives,  levels  and  means  of  protection  ofpublic 
interest  objectives  of differing  national  regulations  pertaining  to them  in the  following  areas: 

the  adoption  of  this  Communication, 

the  two  years  following 

1) The  protection  of  minors. 

In  the  field  of  television  advertising  the  Commission  has  already  undertaken  minimal 
harmonisation  regarding  advertising  to  minors  (Directive  89/552  EEC  as  amended  by 
Directive  97/36/EC).  However,  further  problems  have  been  raised  in  the  context  of  minors' 

14 

advertising.  The  European  Parliament 
in  its  resolution  has  requested  for  a  more  detailed 
assessment  of  the  effects  of  commercial  communications  on  children.  This  issue  has  also 
been  raised  in a number  of  positions  on  the Green  paper. 

Consumer  associations  and  public  health  bodies  have  called  for  harmonisation  of  regulations 
and  in  some  areas  for  strengthening  of  protection  concerning  commercial  communications 
aimed  at  minors. 

Operators  complained  about  certain  national  restrictions  causing  barriers 
services  that  were  invoking  the protection  of  minors. 

to  cross-border 

The  key  problem  areas  that  were  highlighted  and  that  will  need  to  be addressed  are: 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  sponsorship  for  educational  programmes, 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  direct  marketing  targeted  at  minors, 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  television  advertising  aimed  at  minors  (toys,  snack  foods, 
confectionery) 
in  so  far  as  these  are  not  already  covered  by  Directive  89/552  EEC  as 
amended  by  Directive  97/36/EC  or by  work  of  its contact  committee. 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  the  sponsorship  of  sports  events  by  brands  that  are 
associated  with  products  aimed  at children  or that  can  have  harmful  effects  on  public  health. 

2)  Unfair  competition  laws  and  associated  matters. 

This  issue  was  raised  by  the  European  Parliament  who  called  for  a  framework  of  rules  on 
dishonest  marketing  methods. 

laws  preventing  unfair 
Certain  consumer  associations  also  felt  that  harmonisation  of 
marketing  practices  was  necessary.  This  is  a  particularly  important  point  in  view  of  the 
development  of  electronic  commerce.  Consumer  associations  also  wished  to  ensure  that 
fraudulent  schemes  and  pyramid  selling  techniques  are outlawed  across  the  Community. 

Operators  pointed  to  the  significant  variations  in  national  regulations  concerning  discounts, 
the  development  of  cross-border 
gifts  and  competitions,  which  effectively 
techniques  (i.e. 
promotional  campaigns. 
They  also  noted 
(non-salaried) 
promotion  and  selling  of  products 
distributors)  could  develop  as  a  consequence  of  the  possibility  of  networking  independent 
agents  globally. 

impeded 
that  multi-level  marketing 

through  networks  of 

independent 

More  specifically,  the  following  problem  areas  will  be  addressed: 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  discounts 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  couponing 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  free  offers  and  gifts 

- Differing  national  regulations  on  prize competitions,  commercial  lotteries  and  sweepstakes. 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  multi-level  marketing  and  pyramid  selling. 

3)  Sponsorship. 

Whilst  recognising  that  certain  aspects  of  TV  sponsorship  had  already  been  subject  to 
harmonisation  by  Directive  89/552  EEC  as  amended  by  Directive  97/36/EC  the  European 
Parliament  called  for  the  different  national  regulations  relating  to  sponsorship  which  are  not 
harmonised  by  this  directive  and  patronage  to be  examined. 

A  number  of  interested  parties  noted  the  differences  in  definitions  of  sponsorship  or  even 
their  absence  (whereby  sponsorship  is  treated  as  identical  to  advertising)  for  regulatory 
purposes  across  the  Member  States.  They  complained  of  the  legal  uncertainty  that  arose  as  a 

15 

consequence.  Likewise,  certain  parties  also  noted  that  TV  sponsorship  regulations  vary 
significantly  between countries. 

The following  problems will be addressed: 

Differing  national  regulations on sponsorship services related to particular products. 

Differing  definitions  in  national  regulations  of  sponsorship  and  patronage  which  restrict  the 
development  of cross-border services in this area. 

Differing  national  regulations  on  TV sponsorship  insofar  as  they  concern  aspects  which  are 
not covered  by  Directive  89/552  EEC as amended  by  Directive  97/36/EC  or the  work  of  its 
contact committee. 

4) Claims and misleading advertising. 

The  Green  paper  noted  that  Directive  84/450  EEC  has  already  harmonised  misleading 
advertising  and  more  recently  comparative  advertising.  Flowever,  additional  calls  for  action 
were made in this field as regarded claims. 

( 'onsumer associations and public health bodies wished to see stricter harmonised  rules at the 
European  level  controlling  the  use  of  certain  health  and  nutritional  claims.  Consumer 
organisations  noted  that  differences  remain  in  the  interpretation  of  what  is  misleading 
advertising  between  the  Member  States. They  pointed  out  that  this  leads  to great  difficulties 
in the processing of cross-border complaints. 

Operators criticised  differing  national  restrictions on  requirements of packaging which went 
beyond  the prescribed  requirements of  labelling  legislation. These not only covered  "product 
information"  (i.e.  claims)  but  also  use  of  brand  names  (certain  Member  States  have 
restrictions on  brand  diversification  for  brands associated  with  particular  product categories), 
and the use of licensed graphics. 

The following  problems will be addressed: 

-  Specific  areas  where  differing  national  regulations  are  giving  rise  to  divergent 
interpretations  of  "misleading".  This  is  giving  rise  to  evident  legal  uncertainty  for  cross-
border commercial  communication  services and their recipients. 

-  Differing  national  regulations on product or service "claims" that have not been  covered by 
legislation on  labelling requirements. 

-  Differing  national  regulations  on  brand  diversification  relating  to  particular  products  or 
services. 

5) Redress systems. 

The Commission  has already proposed to improve access to justice with  its modified  proposal 
for  a  directive  on  injunctions  for  consumers  interests  (Council  Common  position  CE  n° 
48/97). 

Whilst welcoming this action, consumer associations called for  improvements  in both judicial 
and extra-judicial  cross-border  redress systems against misleading and fraudulent  commercial 
communication  services. 

The following  issue will be addressed: 

-  The  Expert  Group  will  examine  how  existing  redress  and  dispute  settlement  systems 
(including  those  operated  by  self-regulatory  bodies)  can  be  improved  in  a  cross-border 
environment. 

6) Application of the proportionality  assessment  methodology  at national level. 

Some national authorities have indicated  to the Commission  their support  for the application 
of  the  assessment  methodology.  The  Commission  would  recommend 
its  assessment 
methodology to be applied at national  level by relevant national authorities. 

In this context the members of the Expert Group will be invited to indicate: 

- how they apply the principle of proportionality (organisational aspects), 

- to what extent they are applying the Commission's methodology and,  if not, 

- whether they would  be prepared to adopt this methodology. 

17 

Annex  î.  A summary  of the  proposals  made  in the  Green  paper  on  Commercial 
Communications  in  the  Internal  Market. 

1. Definitions  and  scope. 

The  Green  Paper  defined  commercial  communications  as:  "All  forms  of  communication 
seeking  to promote  either  products,  services  or  the  image  of  a  company  or  organisation  to 
final  consumers  and/or  distributors.''''  This  covers  all  forms  of  advertising,  direct  marketing, 
sponsorship,  sales  promotions  and  public  relations.  It  encompasses  the  use  of  such  services 
by all  goods  and  service  industries  as well  as  public  and  semi-public  bodies. 

2. The  proposed  assessment  methodology. 

The  Green  paper  explained  the  implications,  in  terms  of  Community  action,  that  could  follow 
the  expected  increase  in  cross-border  commercial  communication  services.  It  was  likely  that 
restrictions  to  cross-border  services  would  appear  as  well  as  problems  for  the  efficient 
protection  of  public  interest  objectives  as  a  consequence  of  Member  States  applying  their 
laws'  provisions  to  incoming  services.  This  problem  is  particularly  relevant  to 
differing 
commercial  communications  given  the  disparity  of  public  interest  objectives  pursued  by 
Member  States  regulations. 

This  view  resulted  from  the  analysis  of  existing  laws  in  the  Green  paper.  This  not  only 
highlighted  that  national  rules  differed  significantly  across  Community  borders  but  also  that 
the  compatibility  of  any  resulting  cross-border  restrictions  with  EC  law  would  depend,  for  the 
most  part,  on  whether  or  not  they  met  the  principle  of  proportionality  i.e.  if  the  measure  is 
proportional  to  the  pursued  public  interest  objective.  Applicable  national  legislation  on 
commercial  communications  pursues 
interest  objectives  such  as  the 
protection  of  consumers,  the  protection  of  minors,  the  protection  of  public  health,  the 
protection  of  pluralism  etc.  For  Community  measures  in  this  field,  the  Green  paper  examined 
how  a  measure  pursuing  one  public  interest  objective  might  impact  on  a  number  of  other 
public  interest  objectives  and  therefore  how  there  was  a  need  to  ensure  coherence  of  the 
Community  framework.  A  careful  assessment  of  proportionality  was  therefore  considered  to 
be essential  in  this  field. 

important  public 

The  methodology 
is  not  an  automatic  test  for  assessing  proportionality  which  is  left  to  the 
decision  of  the  relevant  authority.  Nor  is  it  a  cost-benefit  or  a  mathematical  analysis  seeking 
to  quantify  the  value  of  public  interest  objectives.  It  is  only  a  means  of  ensuring  that  such 
evaluations  are  based  on  a  complete  overview  of the  effects  of the  measure  concerned.  In  this 
respect  this  methodology  does  not  substitute  the  criteria  developed  by  the  Court  but  rather 
assists  in their  application. 

As  specified  in  the  Green  paper,  according  to  the  case  law  of  the  Court,  the  assessment  of 
proportionality  requires:  first  the  verification  of  the  appropriateness  of the  national  restrictive 
measure'vis  à vis  the  pursued  objective  i.e.  it must  be such  as  to guarantee  the  achievement  of 
the  intended  aim;  and  secondly,  testing  that  the  national  restrictive  measure  does  not  go 
beyond  that  which  is  necessary  in  order  to  achieve  that  objective  or  in  other  words  that  the 
same  result  cannot  be obtained  by less restrictive  rules. 

Since  the jurisprudence  of  the  Court  has  not,  as  yet,  provided  precisely  defined  elements  that 
would  allow  for  the  assessment  of  the  proportionality  of  national  or  Community  measures, 
the  Commission  proposed  a  methodology  in  the  Greer,  paper  which  would  help,  where 
necessary,  to  further  improve  a  systematic  and  well  informed  analysis.  The  Commission 
suggested  that  this  methodology  would  help  appreciate  the  proportionality  and  coherence  of 
national  or  Community  measures  in this  field. 

If 

The methodology  drew on the jurisprudence  of the Court and an analysis  of the  Community 
market  for  commercial  communication  services  in particular,  in terms of  how  these  services 
impact on public interest objectives, such as the protection of consumers and public health. 

It consisted of a two step procedure: 

First step: (Analytical  overview). 

The objective  of the first step was not to undertake the proportionality  test  as such  but to set 
out  a  complete  "picture"  of  the  impacts  of  the  measure.  The  aim  was  not  to  identify 
restrictions but to provide a factual  overview of all possible effects  of a measure  in particular 
on  activities  that  the  measure  is meant  to regulate  and  on  the  public  interest  objectives  also. 
The  first  step  was to characterise  either  (i)  the  relevant  national  measure  restricting  the  free 
movement  of  services  or (ii) the  harmonisation  measure  proposed  by the  Commission.  Five 
criteria were proposed  for  this characterisation; Assessment criterion A.  What  is the potential 
economic chain reaction caused by the measure? This consisted of assessing how the business 
strategies  of  the  economic  players  involved  would  alter  in  response  to  the  measure  being 
examined or proposed  in order to assess the overall  impact of that measure or proposal  on the 
consumers  that  it  seeks  to  protect; Assessment  criterion  B:  What  are  the  public  interest 
objectives  motivating  the  measure?;  Assessment  criterion C: Is  the  measure  linked  to  the 
invoked  public  interest  objective?;  Assessment  criterion D:  Does  the  measure  affect  other 
public  interest  objectives?  And  Assessment  criterion  E:  How  efficient  is  the  measure  in 
achieving the invoked public  interest  objective? 

Second step: (Legal assessment). 

On  the  basis  of  this  overview  and  the  factual  information  that  it  provides,  the  second  step 
would  consists of an overall  legal  assessment of whether,  for  a national  measure, it could be 
considered  to be proportional  or, in the case of Community measure,  it would be proportional 
as  possible  taking  into  account  the  overall  objectives  of  the  Treaty  and  also  coherent  with 
other  Community  measures.  By  knowing  the  key  characteristics  of  the  measure,  the  above 
mentioned  l~i\c  criteria  will  help the  relevant  authority  to be  in a better  position  to assess  its 
proportionality and coherence. 

3. Improved co-ordination and information at the European level. 

The  Commission  proposed  in  the  Green  paper  to  establish  a  Expert  Group  to  consider 
commercial  communications'  issues. This Expert Group's discussions would be based on the 
assessment  methodology.  It  would  seek  to  establish  a  constructive  dialogue  between  the 
Commission,  Member  States  and  interested  parties.  It  would  allow  for  agreement  on 
application  of mutual  recognition  by permitting the Commission  and  Member  States to reach 
consensual  solutions  and  thus  avoid  excessive  reliance  on  the  conflictive  infringements' 
procedure.  Where  mutual  recognition  would  prove  not  to  be  possible,  it  would  represent  a 
new, rapid  and  precise  manner to detect  specific  problems requiring harmonisation.  It would 
therefore  avoid broad, all-embracing harmonisation initiatives. 

The Expert Group was also to act as a forum  for administrative co-operation,  in particular, to 
allow  for an exchange of information  on new  Information  Society developments  in this field. 
It was proposed that it would therefore  consider how the Community approach  to commercial 
communications  could  be  promoted  at  the  international  level  which  is  essential  given  the 
global nature of the Information  Society. 

As  regards  the  format  of  the  Expert  Group,  the  Commission  proposed  that  it  should  be an 
Expert  Group  which  would  be  called  when  problems  arose.  The  problems  to  be  discussed 
would  be  tabled  by  the  Commission.  The  Expert  Group  would  be  composed  of 
representatives  of  the  Member  States.  These  could  be  accompanied  by  national  self-
regulators when the issue discussed entered their fields of competence. 

tf 

For the Commission's  work  to be well targeted  and  informed,  and  in order to ensure that the 
Expert Group  focussed  its attention  on key  issues affecting  "receivers",  "suppliers", "users" 
and  "carriers"  aï  commercial  communications,  the  Commission  made  two  proposals  to 
improve  information  provision  and  communication  with  interested  parties.  Hie  first  was  a 
central  information contact point which could both give and collate  information  on  regulatory 
issues  affecting  these  services.  The  second  was  an  on-line  information network  that  would 
enable  interested  parties to have direct  access to the Commission's  and  Expert  Group's  work 
and would complement the existing, commercial communications  newsletter1. 

4. Areas of commercial communications  regulations  requiring priority attention. 

Parts  I, II and  III of the Green  paper called  on  respondents  to comment on the  Community's 
objectives  in  this field and  also  to comment  on  the  problem  areas  that  the  Commission  had 
identified  thanks to the survey exercise that it had conducted  prior to the drafting  of the text. 

1  Commercial Communications is a bi-monthly publication circulated to 5,000 interested parties in this 
field  including members of the European Parliament and national administrations. Enquiries on this 
newsletter should be made to the Editor (Fax(00 44) 1  273 772727 and e-mail:asi@dial.pipex.com). 

^o 

Annex  2. Summary  of  responses  to the Green  paper on Commercial  Communications  in 
the  Internal  Market. 

1. Definitions  and  scope. 

European  Parliament. 

the  scope  of  commercial  communications  to  be 
In  its  resolution  the  Parliament  called  for 
delimited  in  terms  of  the  service  providers  covered.  It also  suggests  that  this  scope  should  be 
extended  to  cover  packaging  by  calling  on  the  Commission  to  study  the  obstacles  of  using 
commercial  communications  on  packaging1. 

Economic  and  Social  Committee. 

The  Committee  did  not  contest  the  scope  of  the  Green  Paper  but  insisted  that  commercial 
communication  services  used  or  supplied  by  charities  and  non  profit  organisations  should  be 
included  in the  scope  of the definition  given  the  important  role  that  these  services  have  for  the 
operations  of these  organisations. 

Member  States. 

No  Member  State  contested  the  definition  of  commercial  communications  set  out  in  the 
Green  paper. 

Interested  parties1. 

Certain  users  of  commercial  communications  (e.g.  advertisers)  and  consumer  associations 
criticised  the  definition  for  not  including  on-pack  commercial  communications  which  were 
closely  associated  with  the  other communication  services  listed  in the  definition.  It was  noted 
that  on-pack  commercial  communications  were  directly  associated  to  branding  strategies. 
Consumer  associations  pointed  out  that  claims  and  promotions  made  on  pack  attract 
consumers'  awareness  and therefore  should  be regulated  accordingly. 

In addition  a  few  consumer  associations  contested  the  entire  policy  by  constructing  two  lines 
that  since  consumers  did  not  demand  commercial 
of  reasoning.  First,  they  claimed 
communication  services  they  could  not  be  considered  as  services  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Treaty.  Secondly,  they  claimed  that  the  recent  jurisprudence  of  the  Court  suggested  that 
restrictions  on  "sales  methods"  could  not  be  analysed  under  the  EC  Treaty's  provisions  on 
free  movement  unless their application  was  discriminatory 

2. The  assessment  methodology. 

European  Parliament. 

The  Parliament's  resolution  was  clearly  supportive  of  the  proposed  methodology.  To  quote 
the  resolution,  the  Parliament: 

the  approach  proposed 

"Supports 
measures  are proportionate 
that  the  area  without  frontiers  operates  effectively  and  provides  better  protection 

restrictive 
to  their  intended  purpose,  as  this  will  make  it possible  to  ensure 
for 

in  the  Green  paper  of  assessing  whether 

1  For example, promotions such as vouchers or competitions placed on the packaging of the product. 
2 The five  interest groups are "receivers" (i.e. all forms of consumer and public health associations), 
"users" (e.g. advertisers), "suppliers" (e.g. advertising or direct marketing agencies), "carriers" (e.g. 
media or sports events organisers) and "self-regulators" who were the five target groups of the initial 
surveys run by the Commission  prior to the preparation  of the Green  Paper. 

d( 

objectives  of  public 
protection  of  intellectual  and  commercial  property  and  the protection  of  privacy" 

interest,  such  as  consumer  protection,  public  health  protection, 

the 

The Parliament  made  a number  of suggestions as  to  its  implementation.  More specifically,  it: 

the  Commission 

-  "Asks 
[in 
proportionality  assessment  methodology,  which  .includes  strict  time  limits  for  decisions, 
based  on  existing  jurisprudence  and  explains  how  it  is  applicable 
national  and  Community  level,  self-regulatory  codes  and  new  legislative  proposals" 

the 
is 
to  existing  legislation  at 

this  Communication]  the  definition  of 

to  publish 

-  calls  for  the  approach  "to  be  based  on  (a)  the  need  to  combine  market  opening  objectives 
with  the  maintenance  and  improvement  of  high  standards;  (b)  the  need  for  an  appropriate 
blend  of  legislation  and  self-regulation  which  reflects  the  cultural  differences  in the  Member 
States." 

Economic  and  Social  Committee. 

The  Committee  commended  the  examination  of  potential  economic  chain  reactions  (Criterion 
A) as  an  important  part  of the  overview  process  proposed.  It gave  a favourable  opinion  on  the 
usefulness  of  the  proposed  methodology  and  the  analysis  on  which  it  was  based,  as  provided 
in the  Working  document  that  was distributed  with  the Green  Paper.3 

More  generally  in  its conclusions  the Committee  noted  that: 

"..the  introduction  of  this  type  of  methodology  would  offer  the  prospect  of  a  comprehensible 
and  agreed  assessment  procedure  which  would  reduce  the  ambiguity  and/or  uncertainty 
which  prevails  in its  absence." 

Whilst  noting  that  any  reduction  in  consumer  protection  must  be  avoided  as  should  the 
provision  of an  unfair  advantage  to multi-national  enterprises, the Committee  considered  that; 

"...the  methodology  may  offer  the prospect  of  combining  enhanced  consumer  protection  with 
the  opportunity  for  harmonisation  of the practices  used  in commercial  communications.  As  a 
result,  this  should  also  help  to  create  more  open  competition  between  enterprises  creating 
and  supplying  commercial  communications." 

Member  States. 

Nine  Member  States  made  comments  on  this  proposal.  They  can  be  broadly  divided  into  two 
camps.  Those  who  supported  it  and  one  that  was  completely  against  the  methodology  in 
substance. 

Of  the  eight  in  support  two  gave  their  full  backing  to the  methodology  .To  quote  one: 

"The  ..  Government  has  no  objections  to  the  methodology  proposed  by  the  Commission  for  a 
including  Community  measures.  The  methodology  gives 
uniform  assessment  of  measures, 
tangible  expression, 
that  also 
underlie  [its] 

in  the  area  of  commercial  communications, 

to  the  principles 

legislation." 

The  third  was  supportive  but  felt  that  more  consultation  would  be  required  to  make  it  as 
transparent  and  efficient  as  possible.  The  fourth  suggested  that  it  should  be  less  focussed  on 
the  Internal  Market  policy  objective.  The  fifth  and  sixth  thought  that  the  methodology  would 
be  useful  but  suggested  that  the  economic  chain  reaction  should  include  more  detail  on  the 
impact  on  consumers.  The  next  felt  that  the  methodology  could  not  be  legally  binding  since 
only  the  Court's jurisprudence  could  be  referred  to, whereas  the  eighth  believed  that  although 

3  ".. confirms, in analytical form,  the experience of members of the Committee who have experience of 
the production and marketing of goods and services and also those who have examined the prospects 
from  a consumer viewpoint." 

o» 

it  did  not  object  in  principle,  the  infringements'  system  was  sufficiently  effective  and  the 
(  ouil's  jurisprudence  could  he relied  upon  to deal  with  the  highlighted  problems. 

Only  one  Member  State  was  opposed  to  the  proportionality  assessment  methodology  in 
principle.  It  believed  the  proposed  methodology  to  be  vague  and  unpractical  to  apply.  4 
Furthermore,  it  did  not agree that  country  of origin  control  is required  in this  area. 

Interested  parties. 

Four  types  of  views  were  received  regarding  the  proposed  proportionality  assessment 
methodology.  These  can  be summarised  as  follows: 

The  proportionality 
mandatory  since  in its application  its results  are  neither  politically  nor  legally  binding. 

assessment  methodology  needs 

to  be  strengthened  and 

rendered 

Respondents  across  the  spectrum  of  interested  parlies  who  were  generally  positive  about  the 
methodology  wished  to  strengthen  its  application  and  legal  standing.  In  particular,  foui-
suggestions  were  made: 

to 
-  The proportionality  assessment  methodology  should  be  applied  in  a  mandatory  fashion 
all  decisions  made  by  the  Commission  in  this  field  (i.e.  when  examining  national  restrictions 
and  when  preparing  harmonisation  initiatives). 

-  Member  States  should  be  obliged  to  notify  any  new  measures  affecting  these  services  and 
to  the  proportionality  assessment  methodology  prior  to  being 
these  should  be  subjected 
adopted. 

-  Self-regulatory  codes  should  be promoted  by  the  Commission  and  also  be subjected  to  the 
proportionality  assessment  methodology. 

-  The proportionality 
assessment  methodology  should  be  applied  efficiently  so  as  not  to  add 
further  delays  to the  existing  lengthy  infringements'  procedure.  In  particular,  it was  suggested 
that  the  Commission  should,  in  view  of  the  adoption  of  this  agreed  methodology,  make  a 
commitment  to  process  169  infringement  complaints  (under  Article  169  of  the  Treaty)  in  a 
more  timely  fashion. 

The  assessment  methodology 
receivers  of commercial  communication  services. 

is  market  driven  and fails  to  account  for  the  interests  of  the 

This  criticism  was  made  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  responding  consumer  associations  and 
public  health 
lobbies.  In  essence,  these  suggested  that  criterion  A  on  economic  chain 
reactions  is  supply-led  and  therefore  fails  to  account  for  the  needs  of  receivers  of  commercial 
communications  in  their  various  forms.  It  was  further  suggested  that  in  proposing  this 
assessment  the  Commission  intended  to  ignore  the  evidence  showing  how  recipients  can 
suffer  from  certain  forms  or types  of commercial  communication  services. 

The  assessment  methodology 
rather  than  proportionality. 

is  not  relevant  since  the  emphasis  should  be  on  subsidiarity 

Proportionality  of  a  restriction  was  not  considered  to  be  important  by  certain  interested 
parties.  These  suggested  that,  because  commercial  communications  were  culturally  sensitive, 
they  could  not  be  treated  the  same  as  other  services  but  rather  had  to  account  for  national 
sensitivities  as  reflected  in  existing  national  rules.  This  view  was  received  from  certain 
interest  groups.,  certain  advertisers  (largely  nationally  based  ones)  and  self-
consumer 

4  It stated that: 
"  //  will  not  be possible  to produce  a summary  of all  the possible  effects  of a measure  on  the  market.  It 
is doubtful  whether  the  chain  reaction  analysis  will  be realistic,  capable  of being  implemented,  or  of 
any  help.  It  will  be  very  difficult  to  identify  and  define  the specific  objective  of the  measure  . It will  also 
be difficult  to  identify  and  evaluate  the negative  side-effects  of the  measure." 

M 

regulatory  bodies.  The  suggestion  made  was  that  before  considering  proportionality,  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity  should  be  used  to,  in  a  sense,  "cut  out"  commercial  communications 
from  the  remit  of  the  Commission's  existing  and  future  action.  Depending  on  replies,  the 
scope  of this  exclusion  varied.  The  most  extreme  being the total  exclusion  suggested  by a  few 
consumer  organisations.  Areas  such  as  the  portrayal  of  women,  the  use  of  nudity  in 
advertising  etc  were  often  cited. 

The proportionality  assessment  methodology  is  impossible  to apply  and  it  would  therefore  be 
far  wiser for  the  Commission  to propose  general  guidelines  and  harmonise  on this  basis. 

A  minority  of  respondents  across  all  the  interest  groups  suggested  that  the  chain  reaction  was 
far  too  complex  to  evaluate  and  apply  and  that  it  would  be  far  simpler  to  lay  down  some 
common  guidelines*. 

3.  Improved  co-ordination  and  information  at  the  European  level. 

Euro/wan  Parliament 

The  Parliament  voted  to  support  the  Expert  Group  with  a  large  majority  and  insisted  that  it 
should  be  strengthened.  It  called  for  the  establishment  of  a  tripartite  Committee  made  up  of 
equal  numbers  of  representatives  of the  Member  States,  industry  and  consumer  organisations, 
and  asked  to  be consulted  on  its rules of  procedure. 

The  Parliament  also  called  on  the  Commission  to  make  its  procedures  fully  transparent  and 
insisted  that  the  Commission  ensure  that: 

"..the  Committee  consults  thoroughly  with  the  complaining  parties,  meets  regularly,  operates 
according  to  strict  time  limits,  publishes  its  results,  considers  all  complaints  lodged  with  the 
Commission  and  reports  to the  European  Parliament." 

As  regards  the  contact  point  and  information  network,  the  Parliament  requested  that  the 
contact  point  should,  as  a  priority,  establish  a  central  databank  on  regulations  and  self-
regulatory  codes  in this  area  and  report  back  to the  Parliament  on the  latter. 

Economic  and  Social  (  'ommitlee. 

The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  welcomed  the  Expert  Group  proposal.  It also  welcomed 
the  notion  of  bringing  together,  within  a  designated  Directorate  General,  responsibility  for 
giving  an  overall  lead  for  the  Commission  on  Commercial  Communications.  It  felt  that  such  a 
central  contact  point  should  ensure:  "a  common  and  consistent  approach  to  this  complex 
topic." 

It  finally  added  that: 

"The  Governments  of  the  Member  States  might  also  consider  parallel  arrangements 
subjects  falling  within  national  regulatory  authorities." 

for 

Member  States. 

Nine  Member  States  commented  on  the  proposal  to  set  up  a Expert  Group.  A  majority  of 
Member  States  supported  the  idea  of a Expert  Group. Two  agreed  that  it would  be  useful  and 
noted  that  it should  not  undermine  the Commission's  power  of  initiative  nor prolong  the  time 
taken  by  the  Commission  to  deal  with  cases.  One  questioned  whether  the  self-regulatory 
bodies  should  be  admitted  to  the  Expert  Group.  A  further  two  insisted  that  consumer 
associations  be  more  involved.  Another  noted  its support  and  suggested  that  the  Expert  Group 
should  maintain  a  core  membership  at  successive  meetings  to  ensure  consistency.  Two 

5  Typically, "users", "suppliers" and "carriers" who called  for such an alternative wished to sec non-
binding  European guidelines whereas consumer groups in particular felt that these guidelines should be 
the basis of European  harmonisation. 

n 

Member  States  did  not  object  in  principle  to  the  proposal  but  felt  that  care  should  be  taken 
such  that  it  would  not  duplicate  certain  other  committees  work  and  that  further  evaluation  of 
how  it would  work  would  be  useful. 

One  Member  State  was  opposed  on  the  grounds  that  the  on-line  information  network  and 
contact  point  would  be  sufficient  to exchange  information  between  Member  States. 

As  regards 
the  central  contact  point  and  information  network,  seven  Member  States 
commented  on  this  proposal  and  agreed  with  it  in  principle.  Five  gave  their  support.  Two 
other  Member  States  agreed  with  this  proposal  but  insisted  that  particular  attention  should  be 
given  to  ensure  that  consumer  associations  had  adequate  resources  to  play  their  part  in  such  a 
network. 

Interested  parties. 

Expert  Group  must  meet  strict  deadlines  and  not  serve  as  a  manner 
administrative  delay  in processing  complaints. 

to  add 

further 

the  vast  majority  of  parties  from  all  five 

Although 
the 
establishment  of  the  Expert  Group  and  its  role,  there  were  concerns  expressed  that  it  should 
not  lead  to  a  further  administrative  burden  for  the  Commission  when  dealing  with  complaints 
or  calls  for  harmonisation.  Interested  parties  wished  to  see  the  Expert  Group  working  in 
parallel  to  either  the  infringement  procedure  or  the  Commission's  existing  initiatives  to 
harmonise  certain  regulations  regarding commercial  communications. 

interest  groups6  welcomed 

Expert  Group  must  be far  more  open  and  transparent  in its  operation. 

"Users",  "suppliers"  and  "carriers"  were  generally  open  towards  the  composition  of  the 
Expert  Group  although  a  number  of  their  trade  associations  called  for  the  right  to  be  present 
on  the  Expert  Group  or  at  least  to  make  representations  to  it.  Suggestions  varied  between  full 
participation,  in  which  case  the  Expert  Group  would  work  in  open  and  would  hold  public 
hearings,  or  the  composition  of  shadow  committees  for  each  of  the  five  interested  parties  that 
would  select  representatives  who  would  present  at  selected  Expert  Group  meetings  the 
written  representation  of their  respective  "constituencies". 

Consumer  associations  did  not  agree  that  se If-regulatory  bodies  should  be  the  only  group 
other than  the  Member  States  who could  attend  such  meetings. 

Expert  Group's  agenda  must  be known  and  its results  must  be  published. 

Those  in  favour  of  the  Expert  Group,  but  concerned  that  it  should  operate  in  as  transparent  a 
manner  as  possible,  called  for  its  agenda  to  be  made  public  prior  to  it  beginning  discussions 
on  a  specific  issue.  Furthermore,  many  respondents  from  the  (\\'c consulted  groups  called  for 
the  Expert  Group  to  draw  conclusions  on  a  specific  point  within  a  fixed  time  frame  and 
requested  that  these  conclusions  be published  and  made  available  to all  interested  parties. 

4• Areas  of commercial  communications  regulations  requiring  priority  attention. 

European  Parliament. 

The  Parliament  asked  the  Commission  to  list  in  this  Communication  a  full  inventory  of 
existing  barriers  to  the  free  circulation  of  commercial  communication  services  but  then  went 
on to  note  that  it believed  the  following  areas  were  particularly  in need  of  attention: 

- multi-level  marketing  restrictions,7 

6  See footnote  2. 
7  Multi-level  marketing refers to door-step and in the home marketing systems whereby agents 
working as freelance  salespersons  for a particular company market  that company's products or services 

ti 

-  restrictions  on  brand  diversification, 

-  restrictions  on  commercial  communications  on  packaging,  and 

-  restrictions  on  both  events  and  television  sponsorship. 

The  Parliament  called  on  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  a  more  detailed  assessment 
of  the  effects  of  commercial  communications  on  children  as  well  as  their  impact  on  privacy 
and  the  mechanisms  through  which  consumer  cross-border  complaints  should  be  addressed. 

It  also  called  on  the  Commission  to  propose  a  framework  of  rules  on  dishonest  marketing 
methods. 

Finally,  without  making  reference 
legislative  texts  should  be  reviewed, 
to  which 
Parliament  believed  that  the Commission  should  consider  a SLIM8  analysis  of the  sector. 

the 

Economic  and  Social  I  'ommitfee. 

The Committee  did  not  comment  on  this  point. 

Member  States. 

Seven  of the  Member  States  who  responded  to the  consultation  commented  on  this  point.  One 
felt  that  differing  national  misleading  advertising  restrictions  on the  regulated  professions 
should  not  be  reviewed.  Whilst  noting  that  it  has  repealed  its  ban  on  price  advertising  and 
is  required.  It 
discounts,  it  felt  that  harmonisation  of 
further  called  for  a  harmonised  ban  on  cold-calling  without  prior  consent  and  similar 
restrictions  for  e-mail  and  internet  communications.  On  children,  it  stressed  that  any  future 
information  and  commercial  communications.  As  for 
action  must  distinguish  between 
in  this  area  was  considered  to 
financial 
undermine  consumer  confidence  in non-domestic  firms. 

''bait"9  and  unfair  price  undercutting 

the  lack  of  advertising  harmonisation 

services 

'The  second  Member  State  pointed  out 
laws  on  sales  periods  could  require 
that 
modification  and  that  its  regulations  on free  gifts,  promotional  offers  and  competitions  are 
some  of  the  most  restrictive  in  Europe  and  are  being  reviewed. 

its 

The  third  suggested  that  the  Green  paper  should  have  given  more  emphasis  to  protecting  and 
developing  consumer-related  regulations.  At  the  European 
level,  in  the  area  of  unfair 
it  suggested  that  the  International  Chamber  of  Commerce  codes  in  the 
marketing  practices, 
field  would  serve  as  a good  basis  for  harmonisation. 

It 

The  fourth  noted  that  its  regulations  on  pharmaceuticals  advertising  are  compatible  with  EC 
commercial 
remained 
law. 
communications,  environmental  advertising  and  more  generally  commercial 
communications 
and public  health. 

that  problems 

field  of 

Internet 

related 

felt 

the 

in 

The  fifth  went  through  the  list  of  areas  highlighted  in  the  Green  paper  and  suggested  that  it 
does  not  apply  any  incompatible  restrictions  to  cross-border  commercial  communications.  It 
believed  that  no  further  harmonisation 
is  required  in  any  of  these  areas  and  that  any 
restrictions  elsewhere  should  be  remedied  by  the  Member  States  themselves  and  not  the 
Community. 

The  sixth  believed 
that  there  may  be  further  grounds  for  harmonisation  of  consumer 
protection  laws  through  the  application  of  Article  129a (3)  and  contested  the  need  for  any 
lowering  of national  restrictions  whatsoever  on  the  grounds  of  Internal  Market  principles. 

by advertising their presence at local level and seeking to arrange meetings with particular clients in 
their homes or other pre-arranged  locations. 
8  SLIM stands for Simpler Legislation  for the Internal Market 
9  "Lockvogelwerbung". 

X 

The  seventh  Member  State  stressed  that  in the  area  of  pharmaceuticals'  advertising  Directive 
92/28/EEC  should  be  transposed  by  all  the  Member  States.  It  also  raised  the  issue of  alcohol 
sponsorship  arguing  for  self-regulatory  codes.  In  the  field  of  public  relations  services  it 
questioned  restrictions  caused  by  insistence  on  detailed  requirements 
relations 
companies  tendering  for  public  procurement  contracts. 

for  public 

Interested  parties. 

Given  the  very  diverse  range  of  interested  parties  that  responded  to  the  Green  paper  and  the 
fact  that  some  were  individuals  and  others  representative  bodies,  it  is  not  feasible  for  the 
Commission  to  list  priorities  simply  according  to  the  quantity  of  references  made  to  one  or 
other  specific  problem10.  However,  it should  be noted  that  all  the areas  identified  in the  Green 
Paper  as  requiring  analysis  were  confirmed  by a number  or  many  respondents. 

5. Other  actions  called  lor  during  the  consultation. 

Summary  of  responses  received. 

European  Parliament. 

The  Parliament  criticised 
in  processing 
infringement  complaints  and  believed  that  Commission  decisions  on  whether  or  not  to 
proceed  with  such  complaints  should  be  open  to  appeal,  in  order  to  render  the  Commission 
more accountable.  It  therefore: 

the  Commission 

long  delays 

takes 

that 

the 

"Asks for  the  introduction  of  a  Council  decision  to  enable  possible  infringement  proceedings 
in the  Court  of  First 

Instance.u" 

It  believed  that  the  Commission  should,  when  restrictions  are  proportional  and  harmonisation 
is  required,  study  International  Chamber  of  Commerce  codes  as  a  model  for  such 
harmonisation  particularly  in the  field  of on-line  commercial  communications. 

Finally,  the  Parliament  called  on  national  regulatory  bodies  to  apply  the  country  of  origin 
control  principle  and  believed  that  the  Commission,  consumer  organisations  and  industry 
should  consider  strengthening  self-regulatory  cross  border  systems  such  as  that  operated  by 
the  I-AS A12. 

Economic  and  Social  Committee. 

The Committee  did  not  add  to the  proposals  made  in the Green  paper. 

Member  States. 

One  Member  State  believed  that there  should  be  a more  detailed  investigation  of the  need  for 
EU  regulations  for  the  purposes  of consumer  protection  or for  the  general  good. 

that 

insisted 

the  removal  of 

Another 
the 
establishment  of  a Community  network  for  dispute  settlement  both  through  the  courts  and  out 
of  court,  combined  with  a  coherent  system  for  providing  legal  assistance  to  Community 
citizens  not  resident  in the  Member  State  where the dispute  arises. 

trade  barriers  should  be  accompanied  by 

A  third  criticised  the  existing  infringement  mechanism  as  being  slow  and  ineffective  and 
called  for  improvements  to  the  complaints  procedure.  It  felt  that  the  experience  of  self 
regulators  should  be drawn  on  in this  field  particularly  in view  of the  Information  Society. 

10 This would  lead to a bias against consumer and public health bodies, who ,de facto, are less 
numerous than the various industry representations. 
1 ! This is in line with  Parliament's Resolution of  16/9/93 on the role of the Court of Justice in the 
development  of the European Community's constitutional  system (OJ C 268, 4.10.93, pi 56) 
I2European  Advertising Standards Alliance. 

a? 

Interested parties. 

Consumer  organisations  and  public  health  bodies  representing  "receivers"  felt  that  the 
Commission  should  give  far  more  emphasis  to  the  problems  caused  by  cross-border 
commercial  communications  for  consumers.  In addition  to the Commission  making  publicly 
available easy access to all national  laws and self-regulatory  codes  in this domain, they made 
two  other  proposals.  On  the  one  hand  they  called  for  harmonisation  to  ensure  that  national 
standards  were  not  undermined  and, on the other, they felt  the Commission  should  focus  its 
efforts  on  effective  enforcement,  particularly  in  cross-border  cases.  They  stressed  that  it 
should  be encouraged  to establish  systems  for  resolving cross-border  disputes and  exchange 
of information  about national regulations and their  enforcement. 

"Users",  "suppliers"  and  "carriers" argued  that  the  existing  infringements  procedure  should 
be  improved  so  that  they  could  become  more  transparent,  timely  (some  calling  for  the 
application  of  strict  time  limits  for  the  processing  of  cases)  and  be  altered  such  that 
Commission  positions  to  proceed  or  not  with  a complaint  could  be  subject  to appeal  by all 
interested  parties concerned. 

& 

Financial  Memorandum 

1. INTITULE DE L'ACTION 

Communication on the follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications 
in the Internal Market 

2. LIGNE BUDGETAIRE  CONCERNEE 

B5 -  3000 Strategic Programme for Internal Market 

3. BASE LEGALE 

Communication on the follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications 
in the Internal Market. (Articles 52-66 and 100a.) 

4. DESCRIPTION DE L'ACTION: 

The May  1996  Green paper on Commercial  Communications  in the Internal 
Market recognised  the  importance  of the  sector in terms of  employment  and 
growth  potential  and  its  key  role  in  helping  European  businesses  and  non 
profit  associations  to  market their goods  and services  throughout  the  Union. 
However, the Green paper also identified  a range of obstacles to cross-border 
commercial  communications  which  hamper  the  proper  functioning  of  the 
Internal Market. 

The  very  high  level  of  response  confirmed  this  sector's  importance.  In 
addition to the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and 
ten Member  States,  433  interested  parties responded to the call for  comment 
over the  past  18 months.  The 433  interested  parties  can be  broken  down as 
follows:  127  suppliers  of  commercial  communications  services  (e.g. 
advertising  agencies  of  which  30  were  European  or  national  trade 
associations),  44  receiver  associations  (e.g.  consumer  associations  or  public 
health bodies),  197 users (e.g.  advertisers,  of which 70 trade associations)  52 
carriers (e.g. media companies of which  18 trade associations) and  13 national 
and  European  self-regulatory  bodies.  In general,  there was strong  support  for 
the  Commission's  proposals: 
indeed,  suggestions  were  made  both  to 
strengthen and add to them. 

The communication  proposes that the Commission adopt a range of actions in 
this  sector  with  the  objective  of  facilitating  the  cross-border  provision  of 
commercial  communication  services through the establishment  of an  efficient 
and  transparent  regulatory  framework  which  will  also  ensure  an  appropriate 
protection  of  public  interest  objectives  concerned.  This  approach  is  fully 
consistent  with,  and  complementary  to,  the  Single  Market  Action  Plan's 
Strategic target  1  of making rules more  effective. 

More specifically,  the Commission proposes: 

1)  The application  of a  transparent, proportionality  assessment  methodology 
to identify regulatory  restrictions to cross-border commercial  communication 
services. 

& 

2) Setting up a Commercial Communication Expert Group. 

3)  Making  available  a  Commercial  Communications' contact  point  and 
information network 

4) Establishing  a Commercial Communications Database. 

5) Accelerating complaint processing 

6) Setting up an Expert network. 

7) Promoting International co-operation 

8) Clarifying electronic commerce issues. 

9) Presenting a report to the Parliament 

The Commission will apply this approach to four key areas where commercial 
communication  regulations  at  the  national  level  diverge  significantly  and 
therefore  potentially give rise to both Internal Market barriers and to a lack of 
effective  protection  across borders within  the Community.  The four  areas  are 
(i) the protection of minors, (ii) unfair competition,  (iii) sponsorship and (iv) 
misleading claims. 

4.1 Objectif général de Taction 

The establishment of an Information Network 

The Information Network will help to improve co-ordination and  information 
at the European Level and will support the Commission in assisting the 
Member States in making action in this field more transparent. It will also 
improve the exchange of data between various organisations and the national 
and European regulatory authorities. The financial implications consist of 
bringing together the necessary regulatory data, ensuring its timely 
dissemination and enabling Member States and other associated parties to 
share this and other relevant policy information.  This will complement the 
existing commercial communications newsletter. Both of these actions have 
received unanimous support by all respondents to the Green paper. 

4.2 Période couverte par l'action et modalités pour son renouvellement 

The Information Network 

The principal means by which the information  will be stored,  disseminated 
and exchanged will be a Web-site. The initial development, testing and 
running of this will be entrusted to an outside contractor. This would set down 
the necessary channels between the Commission and Member  States' 
authorities, through which regulatory data would be exchanged. 

! 
1  B5-3000 

1998 
158,5 

1999 
135 

2000 
115 

2001 
115 

(inKECU) 
Total 
523,5 

36 

5. CLASSIFICATION DE LA DEPENSE 

5.1 Dépenses non obligatoires 

5.2 Crédits non dissocies 

6. TYPE DE LA DEPENSE 

6.1 Type de la dépense 

The Information Network 

Expenses for outside contracts establishing the web-site: bringing together, 
connecting and loading the regulatory data and developing the information 
exchange channels and ensuring function of the network over a pilot period of 
four years. 

7. INCIDENCE FINANCIERE SUR LA PARTIE B 

1999 

2000 

1998 

30 
10 
15 

B5-3000 
Global contracts for establishment of network infrastructure 
Server: 
- hardware, 
-  software, 
- Internet access, 
- maintenance (hard and  soft) 
-  infrastructure 
Personnel*: 
LSA, 
Web master 
Converting legislation: 
(4 ECUs/page-20.000 pages) 
Total 

60 
158,5 

12,5 
25 

30 
4 
6 

30 
4 
6 

25 
50 
-

20 
135 

25 
50 

115 

6 

2001 

(inKECU) 
Total 

30 
4 
6 

25 
50 
-

115 

I 

; 

30 
4 
6 

87,5 
175 

80 
523,5 

*) Six months during the first year. 

8. DISPOSITIONS ANTI-FRAUDE PREVUES 

The verification  of expenditure comprises checking that tasks have been correctly 
performed  before payment, taking into account contractual obligations and the 
principles of economy and sound financial management. Anti fraud provisions 
(verification,  presentation of reports etc.) will be included in all contracts concluded 
between the Commission and the Contractors. 

21 

9. ELEMENTS D'ANALYSE  COUT-EFFICACITE 

9.1 Objectifs  spécifiques  quantiilables, population  visée 

The Information Network 

The specific objective is to facilitate trade in commercial  communication 
services within the Internal Market, in addition to helping the Member States 
to ensure integration of the Internal Market. The action seeks to ensure that the 
future European regulatory framework will help encourage investments in 
these services, which will obviously assist the competitiveness of European 
industry as well as incite employment creation within it. 

The targeted sector is very wide. In addition to the commercial 
communications sectors themselves who employ over 1 million people in the 
Community, this approach should also benefit their users (i.e. all firms and 
organisations who use such services) and also consumers who should receive 
more information  on the choice of products and services available to them in 
the Internal Market. Finally, and certainly not least, an efficiently  operating 
commercial communications sector results in more expenditure in the media 
and the new media. Hence the media and electronic commerce business would 
also benefit from this action. 

The Information  Network also seeks to make the work of the accompanying 
Expert Group as open and transparent  as possible and to facilitate the 
exchange of regulatory data. 

9.2 Justification  de Paction 

The Information Network 

The Community  has exclusive competence for the Internal Market  objective 
and the need is for  a dialogue between the Member States based on an agreed 
methodology chaired  and structured by the Commission so as to help them 
make the Internal Market work. 

The type of intervention has been chosen because the alternative approach is 
to be faced with a heavy wave of infringement  complaints and calls for 
harmonisation. This approach should help limit such future  Commission 
involvement and help the Member States to meet their tasks more  effectively 
with a net saving in Community resources. 

The Information Network will build on the foundations  already laid by the 
existing Newsletter on Commercial Communications, launched prior to the 
Communication, as a forum  for discussion. 
The Network will also meet the demand from consumer associations and 
public health bodies to give easier access to national and Community 
regulations in this field for their Members. 

Derived or multiplicative benefits will flow from this action 

n 

9.3 Suivi et évaluation de Taction 

Performance indicators will be eventual modifications of national measures 
which will allow for the principle of mutual recognition to be applied between 
Member States in this field of the regulation of commercial communication 
services. 

Bi-annual monitoring reports will be presented to the European Parliament 

10. DEPENSES ADMINISTRATIVES (PARTIE A DE LA SECTION HI DU 
BUDGET GENERAL) 

Actual mobilization of the necessary administrative resources will depend on the 
Commission's annual decision on the allocation of resources, taking into account the 
number of staff and additional amounts authorized by the budget authority. 

10.1 Incidence sur le nombre d'emplois 

Types d'emplois 

Effectifs a affecter a la 
gestion de Faction 
Emplois 
temporaire 

Emplois 
permanents 

Fonctionnaires 

ou agents 

temporaires 
Autrcs res sources 
Total 

A 

B 

C 

1,5 

1 

2,5 

Dont 

duree 

Par utilisation 
de ressources 
existantesau 
sein de la DG 
ou du service 
concerne 
1,5 

1 

2,5 

Par recours a 
des ressources 
supplementaires 

Au 
moins 
Sans 

dureede 
Taction 
dureede 
Taction 

i 
i 

i 

10.2 Incidence financière globale des ressources humaines. 

By using existing resources being assigned to manage the operation 2.5 men/year * 
108,000 ECU =  270,000 ECU. (calculation based on chapters A-l, A-2, A-4, A-5 and 
A-7). 

Types d'emplois 

Effectifs  a affecter a la gestion de Taction 

Emplois Permanents * 
montant annuel 

1  Emplois temporaire 
! 

Fonctionnaires 

ou agents 

temporaires 
Autres ressources 
Total 

A 

B 

C 

1,5*108 

1*108 

2,5*  108 

(inKECU) 
Cout 
Annuel 

162 

108 

270 

23 

10 J  Augmentation d'autres dépenses de fonctionnement  découlant de Paction 

Ligne 
Budgetaire 
(no et intitule) 

A-7030, 
meetings 
(accompanying 
Expert Group) 

A - 7 01 
Mission 
expenses 

Montants 

(inKECU) 
Module de calcul 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

19,5 

39 

39 

39 

39 

11,75 

11,75 

11,75 

11,75 

11,75 

15 representatives *650ECU 
* 4 meetings = 39, 000 
ECU/year, first year only 
two meetings forseen= 15 
M.S.*650ECU*2 = 
19,500 
-one day visit of each EU 
capital=650ECU* 15 
capitals= 9,750 ECU per 
year. 
- 2* one day visits of 
Geneva=2*l,000ECU= 
2,000 ECU 
=  11,750 ECU/year 

Total 

31,75 

50,75 

50,75 

50,75 

50,75 

For 1998, the other expenditures related to the action (appropriations requested on 
budget line A-7030 and A-7010) are covered by the appropriations given by the 
Commission to DG XV (global envelope to be decided by the Commission on the 18 
February). For the following years effective  administrative resources will depend on 
the annual decision of the Commission concerning the appropriation of resources, 
taking into account the global amount allocated by the budgetary authorities. 

3e? 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(98) 121 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

10  02  09  04 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-98-141-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-31853-1 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

1<