Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions - Professional Services - Scope for more reform - Follow-up to the Report on Competition in Professional Services, COM(2004) 83 of 9 February 2004 (SEC(2005) 1064)
Date: 2005-09-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition, competition law, liberal profession, professional association, provision of services, services of general interest

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.9.2005 
COM(2005) 405 final 

. 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND 
SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Professional Services - Scope for more reform  

Follow-up to the Report on Competition in Professional Services, COM(2004) 83 
of 9 February 2004 

(SEC(2005) 1064) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Background .................................................................................................................. 3 

Better defining the public interest ................................................................................ 5 

Activities by the Commission and national competition authorities ........................... 6 

Progress by Member States.......................................................................................... 6 

Application of the EC competition rules...................................................................... 8 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 9 

Way forward .............................................................................................................. 10 

ANNEX: Progress by Member States in reviewing and eliminating restrictions to Competition 
in the area of Professional Services, SEC(2005) 1064 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

BACKGROUND 

Professional  services  are  a  key  sector  of  the  European  economy  and  are  entrusted 
with  the  delivery  of  services  of  considerable  public  importance.  Figures  for  2001 
show that ‘business services’1 generated turnover in excess of 1 281 billion Euros, or 
approximately 8% of total turnover of the EU2. This generated more than 660 billion 
Euros of value added in 2001. Approximately one third of this can  be attributed to 
‘professional services’. The Irish antitrust authority for example has estimated that in 
Ireland expenditure on legal services alone in 2001 had reached 1 140 million Euros, 
or nearly 1% of total GDP. In employment terms, ‘other business services’ employed 
almost  12  million  people  in  20043,  or  6.4%  of  total  employment,  up  from  5.7%  in 
2002.4 

The sector is characterised by high levels of regulation. This is often a mix of State 
regulation,  self-regulation  and  custom  and  practice,  which  has  evolved  over  a 
number of years. 

The  importance  of  freeing  up  all  markets  and  removing  unnecessary  regulation  to 
promote greater competition was underlined by the Kok Report in November 2004. 
This urges a systematic review of regulation to ensure that it does not unnecessarily 
impede economic activity5. To further this aim, the Commission Communication to 
the  2005  Spring  European  Council,  and  the  reinvigorated  Lisbon  strategy,  feature 
improving regulation to promote competitive markets as a key strand of work for the 
future.  Moreover,  the  European  Council  in  its  March  2005  Conclusions  underlined 
the  importance  of  this  task  by  calling  on  Member  States  to  screen  domestic 
legislation  for  compatibility  with  EU  rules  in  order  to  remove  market  barriers  and 
open up competition in the internal market6.  

The  Commission’s  work  in  the  area  of  the  professional  services  should  be  seen 
within this context. It has been targeted at examining whether the current regulatory 
mix  is  the  most  efficient  and  least  restrictive  of  competition,  or  whether  better 
regulation, more adapted to the modern world could help spur economic growth, and 
deliver better services and value for consumers.  

Category  72  ‘Computer  Services  and  74  ‘Other  Business  Services’  of  the  NACE  classification. 
Category 74 of the NACE classification includes legal, accounting and auditing activities; consultancy; 
market research; business and management consultancy; management activities of holding companies; 
architectural and engineering activities and related technical consultancy; technical testing and analysis; 
advertising;  labour  recruitment  and  provision  of  personnel;  investigation  and  security  activities; 
industrial cleaning and miscellaneous others. 
Source:  Eurostat,  ‘Developments  for  turnover  and  employment  indices  for  services  during  the  third 
quarter  of 2004’,  Statistics  in focus  11/2005. Data  refers  to  the following  14  countries:  BE, DK, DE, 
ES, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, AT, PT, FI, SE and UK. 
Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, 2004. 
It is planned that the collection of statistics on business services will become part of the regular annual 
surveys covering all 25 Member States from the reference year 2006 or 2007 onwards. 
See  page  25  of  the  Report  from  the  High  Level  Group  chaired  by  Wim  Kok,  November  2004.  The 
Report is available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/growthandjobs/pdf/2004-1866-EN-complet.pdf 
European  Council  Presidency  Conclusions,  Brussels,  22-23  March,  2005.  These  are  available  at: 
http://www.europa.eu.int/european_council/conclusions/index_en.htm 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Following  a  stocktaking  exercise  in  2002-03  to  gain  insight  into  current  regulatory 
practices,  the  Commission  published  a  Report  on  Competition  in  Professional 
Services7 in February 2004 (hereafter referred to as the ‘2004 Report’). This Report 
was  supplemented  by  the  Stocktaking  Exercise  on  Regulation  of  Professional 
Services in the new EU Member States, published in November 20048.  

The  Commission  has  focused  on  six  professions  -  lawyers,  notaries,  engineers, 
architects,  pharmacists  and  accountancy  (including  the  neighbouring  profession  of 
tax  advisers),  and  analysed  in  detail  five  key  restrictions  on  competition  (i)  fixed 
prices, (ii) recommended prices, (iii) advertising regulations, (iv) entry requirements 
and  reserved  rights,  and  (v)  regulations  governing  business  structure  and  multi-
disciplinary practices.  

In  many  instances  traditional  restrictive  rules  in  these  areas  are  serving  to  restrict 
competition.  Such  regulations  may  eliminate  or  limit  competition  between  service 
providers  and  thus  reduce  the  incentives  for  professionals  to  work  cost-efficiently, 
lower  prices,  increase  quality  or  to  offer  innovative  services.  This  is  bad  for 
consumers,  the  economy  and  society  generally.  The  availability  of  better  and  more 
varied professional services could also increase demand, which in turn could have a 
positive impact on job creation in this important sector where jobs are high-skill and 
high-paying.9 

In the 2004 Report, the Commission suggested that a proportionality test should be 
used to assess to what extent anti-competitive professional regulations and rules truly 
serve the public interest and can be objectively justified. The 2004 Report suggested 
that  for  this  purpose  it  would  be  useful  that  each  rule  had  an  explicitly  stated 
objective  and  an  explanation  how  the  chosen  regulatory  measure  was  the  least 
restrictive  mechanism  of  competition  to  effectively  attain  the  stated  objective.  The 
Commission invited all to work in partnership –regulatory authorities in the Member 
States and professional bodies10 - to review existing rules  taking into consideration 
whether  those  rules  are  necessary  for  the  public  interest,  whether  they  are 
proportionate and whether they are justified. For the purpose of this Communication, 
those  restrictions  that  do  not  meet  the  proportionality  test  as  suggested  in  the  2004 
Report are called ‘unjustified’ or ‘disproportionate’. 

The Report is available at: 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/liberal_professions/final_communication_en.pdf 
Stocktaking Exercise on Regulation of Professional Services - Overview of Regulation in the New EU 
Member States dated November 2004, can be found at: 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/liberalization/conference/overview_of_regulation_in_the_
eu_professions.pdf 
See Commission publication “Employment in Europe 2004”, Chapter 3, which concludes that 
compared to the US there is significant untapped job creation potential in the European services sector, 
including in business/professional services. This can be found at: 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/publications/2004/keah04001_en.pdf 
In this context the term ‘professional bodies’ refers to non-governmental self-regulating bodies, while 
the 
to  governmental  bodies/departments  with 
term  ‘national  regulatory  authorities’  applies 
responsibility for regulatory oversight of the professions. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

2. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

This  Communication  reports  on  progress  in  the  review  and  removal  of  such 
unjustified  restrictions11  by  Member  States  using  the  detailed  analysis  contained  in 
the Commission staff working document annexed to this Communication12. 

BETTER DEFINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST 

There  are  reasons  why  some  carefully  targeted  regulation  of  professional  services 
can be necessary: 

•  firstly,  because  there  is  an  “asymmetry  of  information”  between  customers  and 
service  providers  of  professional  services  in  that  they  require  practitioners  to 
display  a  high  level  of  technical  knowledge.  Consumers  may  not  have  this 
knowledge and therefore find it difficult to judge the quality of the services they 
purchase; 

•  secondly, the concept of “externalities”, whereby the provision of a service may 
have an impact on third parties as well as the purchaser  of  the service.  A prime 
example is an inaccurate audit which may mislead creditors and investors; and  

•  thirdly,  certain  professional  services  are  deemed  to  produce  ‘public  goods’  that 
are  of  value  for  society  in  general  –  for  example  the  correct  administration  of 
justice.  It  is  possible  that  without  regulation  there  might  be  an  inadequate  or 
undersupply of these services. 

These  factors  do,  however,  not  affect  all  users  of  professional  services  in  the  same 
way.  In  view  of  this  and  following  discussion  with  the  professions,  users  and 
Member  States  (competition  and  regulatory  authorities),  the  Commission  has  come 
to the conclusion that it would be useful to refine and deepen its economic analysis 
of  the  professional  services  market,  and,  in  particular,  give  more  consideration  to 
what  is  meant  by  the  public  interest  in  different  markets.  This  would  facilitate  a 
better  understanding  of  the  interplay  between  supply  and  demand  for  each 
professional service under consideration, and help set the framework for the review 
of existing regulation. 

The  Commission  has  undertaken  some  analysis  of  the  different  markets  involved. 
This can be found in the annexed Commission staff working document. It identifies 
in  general  terms  who  is  buying  or  using  different  services  -  whether  small  or  big 
business,  consumers  or  the  public  sector  -  and  then  identifies  more  precisely  how 
existing regulatory practice impacts on these users. 

The  key  finding  is  that  one-off  users,  who  are  generally  individual  customers  and 
households,  may  need  some  carefully  targeted  protection.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
main users of professional services - businesses and the public sector – may not need, 
or  have  only  very  limited  need  of,  regulatory  protection  given  they  are  better 
equipped  to  choose  providers  that  best  suit  their  needs.  The  picture  is  not  entirely 
clear  with  respect  to  small  business  and  further  analysis  is  needed  to  assess  more 

11 
12 

As defined in paragraph 8 above. 
‘Progress  by  Member  States  in  reviewing  and  eliminating  restrictions  to  competition  in  the  area  of 
professional services’, Commission staff working document, SEC(2005)1064. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
fully their needs for regulatory protection. Moreover, there is little margin for new, 
innovative  and  demand-driven  services  to  emerge  in  the  current  regulatory  set-up. 
This  in  turn  can  create  costs  for  business.  The  differing  interests  of  these  groups 
should therefore be paramount in reviewing existing regulation and rules. 

3. 

14. 

ACTIVITIES BY THE COMMISSION AND NATIONAL COMPETITION AUTHORITIES 

During  2004  the  Commission  established  a  structured  dialogue  with  the  European 
professional  bodies  of  lawyers,  notaries,  engineers,  architects,  accountants,  tax 
advisers,  and  pharmacists,  and  with  national  regulatory  authorities  to  discuss  the 
justification  of  existing  professional  rules  and  explore  what  can  be  done  to  make 
them  more  pro-competitive.  The  level  of  receptiveness  to  reform  varied  depending 
on how open and deregulated the particular profession under discussion already was. 

15. 

National competition authorities have been active and a step change has been seen in 
their activity with the majority reporting being engaged in work in this field during 
2004/05. Work undertaken has included:  

•  bilateral discussions with national regulatory authorities and professional bodies; 

•  participation in seminars/conferences on competition in the liberal professions; 

•  the issuing of opinions on draft legislation, which contain provisions likely to be 

restrictive of competition, and 

•  stocktaking exercises and sector studies. 

This  work  has  resulted  in  the  removal  of  some  restrictions  which  were  unjustified 
within the meaning of paragraph 8 above, and been a key factor in the setting up of 
government sponsored committees to consider in detail recommendations made and 
bring  forward  proposals  for  more  radical  change.  During  2004  the  EFTA 
Surveillance  Authority  has  also  undertaken  an  analysis  of  the  regulatory  situation 
existing  in  the  professional  services  area  in  the  three  EFTA  countries  (Iceland, 
Liechtenstein and Norway).13 

PROGRESS BY MEMBER STATES 

Table  1  below  shows  the  level  of  progress  made  by  each  Member  State  during 
2004/05 in reviewing and eliminating disproportionate restrictions in legislation and 
the  rules  and  regulations  of  professional  bodies.14  Individual  ratings  have  been 
arrived at using information provided by Member States. The level of progress made 
must  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  level  of  existing  regulation  in  these  countries. 
Some countries have low levels of existing regulation and have less to do in terms of 
reform (see Figures 1 and 2).  

16. 

4. 

17. 

13 

14 

Further  detail  on  all  of  this  activity  can  be  found  in  Section  3  of  the  Commission  staff  working 
document - see footnote 12. 
Detailed information on activity undertaken can be found in Section 4 of the Commission staff working 
document - see footnote 12. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
18. 

19. 

The table shows that most progress is being made in those countries where there is a 
structured programme of pro-competitive or regulatory reform in place – Denmark, 
Netherlands  and  the  UK.  These  countries  also  have  some  of  the  lowest  levels  of 
existing regulation. Furthermore, it is notable that in these countries there is a close 
partnership between government and national competition authorities, and that often 
substantive reform in a given sector is preceded by an in-depth analysis of existing 
restrictions  by  the  competition  authority.  Experience  also  shows  that  in  these 
countries  fixed  pricing  and  advertising  restrictions  have  been  tackled  first,  to  be 
followed subsequently by more far reaching structural reforms. 

In view of the above, it is encouraging that over a third (9 in total) of Member States 
report  that  analytical  work  is  underway,  which  it  is  hoped  will  lead  to  substantive 
reform  in  the  near  future.  Six  other  countries  report  that  minor  reforms  have  been 
made  e.g.  a  slight  easing  of  qualitative  entry  qualifications.  In  the  other  seven 
countries the reform process has been slow to get off the ground and no activity is 
reported as yet. 

Table  1:  Level  of  Member  State  activity  during  2004/5  to  reform  legislation  and 
professional rules and regulations in the professional services sector 
Level of activity 

Member States  

No activity 

Minor reforms  

Czech Republic, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Malta, Spain, Sweden  

Austria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia, Portugal  

Analytical work in progress  

Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland 

Both  minor  reforms  and  analytical 
work 

France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia 

Substantial structural reform 

Denmark, Netherlands, UK 

Note: This does not take account of activity in this sector by national competition authorities  

Figure 1: Index of level of regulation in Member States 

Level of 
regulation

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

IE UK DK FI NL SW SI P L HU SK B E EE FR LV LT CZ ES P T CY DE LU AT IT EL

Pharmacists

Law yers

Accountants + auditors

Architects

Engineers

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
Source: IHS Study15 updated to include new Member States and reflect reforms reported  

Figure 2: Comparison of Member States’ reform activity (Table 1) against level of 
existing regulation (Figure 1) 

EL

CY

ES
CZ

SW

FI

AT

PT

LV
EE
HU

SI

IT

LU

BE

PL

DE

LT
FR
SK

40

Level of 
regulation

35

30

25

20

15

NL
DK
UK

4

10

5

IE

3

-1

0

1
2
Rank in changes 
in 2004/05

Note: Malta is not included due to missing information 

5. 

20. 

21. 

15 

16 

APPLICATION OF THE EC COMPETITION RULES  

As  a  result  of  modernisation  of  antitrust  enforcement,  national  competition 
authorities and national courts can apply Article 81 of the EC Treaty in its entirety 
i.e.  decide  upon  the  existence  of  a  restriction  under  Article  81,  paragraph  1,  and 
whether the conditions laid down in Article 81, paragraph 3 are satisfied, so that the 
prohibition does not apply. Moreover, national competition authorities and national 
courts  can  directly  apply  Article  82  of  the  EC  Treaty.  Since  the  vast  majority  of 
competition restrictions in the professional services area have their origin and effect 
in  a  single  Member  State,  administrative  enforcement  falls  mainly  to  national 
competition authorities and private enforcement of these rules can be achieved in the 
national courts. 

Furthermore, in the CIF16 judgment the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that 
where  undertakings  engage  in  conduct  contrary  to  Article  81(1)  and  where  that 
conduct is required or facilitated by State measures, a national competition authority 
has a duty to disapply those State measures and give effect to Article 81/82. Details 

“Economic Impact of regulation in the field of liberal professions in different EU Member States”, Ian 
Paterson, Marcel Fink, Anthony Ogus, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, January 2003, available 
at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/liberalization/conference/libprofconference.html 
Case C-198/01 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) [2003] ECR I-08055.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
of  enforcement  activities  by  the  Commission,  national  competition  authorities  and 
courts  during  2004/05  in  the  professional  services  sector  are  given  in  the 
Commission  staff  working  document.  Ten  cases  were  opened  by  national 
competition authorities under the EC competition rules in the six professions under 
study by the Commission. These covered a variety of restriction type and profession. 
Member  States  are  also  pursuing  further  regionally  confined  cases  under  their 
national competition rules. The Commission also issued a decision condemning the 
recommended minimum fee scale operated by the Belgian Architects’ Association17 
in June 2004. Moreover, on 17 February 2005, the ECJ gave a preliminary ruling on 
Mauri18  -  an  Italian  case  concerning  the  State  examination  for  access  to  the  Italian 
Bar. The ECJ’s order assessed the facts on the basis of the criteria mentioned in Case 
C-35/99 Arduino. 

Private  enforcement  in  national  courts  does  not  only  cover  Articles  81/82  as  they 
apply  to  undertakings  and  associations  of  undertakings,  but  is  also  possible  against 
Member  States  under  Articles  86(1)  in  conjunction  with  Articles  82/81  or  against 
them under Articles 3(1)(g), 10(2) in conjunction with 81/82. 

Apart  from  enforcing  Articles  81/82  against  undertakings  and  associations  of 
undertakings,  the  Commission  can  also  act  against  restrictive  behaviour  by  a 
Member  State.  To  date,  the  legal  base  in  the  professional  services  sector  has  been 
Articles  3(1)(g)  and  10(2)  read  in  conjunction  with  Article  81.  However,  it  is 
conceivable to use Article 86 in conjunction with Articles 82/81 as a legal base when 
the  conditions,  as  established  by  the  case-law19  are  met.  Article  86(1)  obliges 
Member  States  in  the  case  of  public  undertakings  and  undertakings  to  which  they 
grant special or exclusive rights, neither to enact nor maintain in force any measure 
contrary  to  the  EC  Treaty  rules.  It  is  designed  for  the  specific  situation  where  a 
Member  State  has  special  influence  over  public  undertakings  due  to  the  fact  that  it 
controls  them,  or  over  privileged  undertakings,  due  to  the  fact  that  it  grants  them 
special  or  exclusive  rights.  Article  86(3)  gives  the  Commission  special  power  to 
ensure the implementation of Article 86 and where necessary to address appropriate 
decisions  or  directives  to  Member  States  directly.  It  is  therefore  arguable  that  the 
Commission should in appropriate cases make use of Article 86(3). For example, it 
could be used in cases where restrictions on the number of professionals allowed to 
practise amount to special or exclusive rights. An assessment of the possibility to use 
Article 86 will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The key conclusion is that more urgency by the majority of Member States to bring 
about systematic pro-competitive reform in this sector would bring about significant 
economic  and  consumer  benefits.  In  practical  terms,  this  means  Member  States 
taking ‘political ownership’ of this work at national level to drive forward the reform 
process.  This  has  been  recognised  more  generally  in  the  Lisbon  agenda  mid-term 
review,  and  in  the  European  Council  Conclusions  mentioned  above,  which  re-

22. 

23. 

6. 

24. 

17 

18 
19 

Decision of 26.06.2004, COMP/38.549 - PO / L'Ordre des Architectes belges, 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_77.html#i38_549 
Case C-250/03 Mauri [2005] ECR I-0000. 
See Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glockner, [2001] ECR1-8089. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
25. 

26. 

7. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

launched the Lisbon agenda refocusing on growth and employment, and agreed that 
Member  States  should  present  national  reform  programmes  for  supporting  growth 
and employment at national level, and appoint a Lisbon national co-ordinator.  

The weight of tradition should not be underestimated as affecting the pace of change, 
and  in  many  countries  regulators  fail  to  see  how  things  can  be  done  differently. 
Moreover, the professions themselves have in general not been actively promoting it. 
The  current  picture  could  also  indicate  that  some  countries  have  relatively  weak 
regulatory  oversight  of  the  professions.  This  could  be  caused  by  the  economic 
phenomenon  of  regulatory  capture  which  is  not  uncommon  especially  in  areas 
subject to self-regulation. 

The Commission recognises that it is the Member States’ prerogative to determine to 
what extent they want to regulate the professions directly by State regulation, or to 
leave  the  matter  to  self-regulation  by  professional  bodies.  However,  good 
governance  would  require  that  Member  States  oversee  the  impact  of  national  self-
regulation  to  guard  against  it  becoming  overly  restrictive  and  detrimental  to 
customers’ interests. 

WAY FORWARD 

The Commission remains fully committed to bringing about wide scale reform to this 
sector and encourages Member States to take the initiative to drive forward reform at 
national level. There continues to be room for improvement in all Member States. 

Since  restrictive  regulation  in  this  sector  is  developed  and  impacts  at  the  national 
level, it is up to national regulatory authorities and professional bodies to bring about 
change  having  due  regard  to  the  specificities  of  the  relevant  profession  in  each 
country. Experience shows that such a process will not start without strong political 
backing.  Given  the  importance  of  this  sector  to  the  EU  economy,  the  Commission 
calls  on  Member  States  to  address  the  issue  of  modernising  the  rules  affecting  the 
professions  in  their  national  reform  programmes  for  implementing  the  Lisbon 
agenda,  which  are  due  to  be  presented  in  autumn  2005.  Further  reporting  will 
therefore be made in the context of the overall Lisbon process.  

As  a  start  Member  States  should  initiate  –  where  they  have  not  already  done  so  - 
analytical  work  to  review  existing  restrictions.  A  first  stage  of  this  could  be  to 
identify  those  restrictions  on  competition  which  can  be  removed  quickly  without 
further  analysis  being  necessary  e.g.  certain  fixed  and  recommended  prices,  and 
certain advertising restrictions. At the same time, more substantial structural analysis 
should begin – for example of regulatory structures - to assess the need and open the 
way for wider reforms. This would enable Member States to make good progress by 
2010. 

The  Commission’s  further  refinement  of  its  economic  analysis  of  the  different 
markets  for  professional  services,  leads  the  Commission  to  the  conclusion  that 
consumers  and  one-off  users  may  have  a  greater  need  of  some  carefully  targeted 
regulatory  protection.  However,  the  main  users  of  professional  services  –  business 
and  the  public  sector  –  may  have  no,  or  only  very  limited,  need  of  regulatory 
protection. The position with respect to small business users is not entirely clear and 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
further work is required to assess their specific needs. The current regulatory set-up 
is unsatisfactory for these two latter groups given its lack of flexibility and hinders 
the development of innovative and demand-driven services. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  act  as  a  facilitator  in  this  exercise,  helping  to 
spread  best  practice.  It  will  increase  partnership  working  with  national  competition 
authorities,  who  have  already  started  some  promising  work,  so  that  they  take  even 
greater ownership to progress this at national level. It will also continue and improve 
its  relations  with  national  regulatory  authorities  by  organising  a  more  structured 
debate  and  raising  the  profile  of  this  work  with  them.  This  will  pave  the  way  for 
greater  co-operation  between  national  competition  authorities  and  regulatory 
authorities. 

As a start, over the coming months the Commission will publicise fully the findings 
of  this  Communication  to  ensure  that  the  main  messages  on  the  need  to  modernise 
the  professions  in  Europe  are  understood  by  all  key  players  -  in  particular  national 
parliaments and policy makers. 

The  Commission  will  consider  taking  further  appropriate  enforcement  action  using 
the  EC  competition  rules,  including  the  option  of  intervening  under  Article  86  if 
possible and necessary. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

EN 

11 

   EN