Report from the Commission on training and exchanges of officials in charge of the implementation of mutual assistance under the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) SEC(2010)395
Date: 2010-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative cooperation, exchange of information, information system, provision of services, services contract, single market, vocational training

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.4.2010 
COM(2010)134 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

On training and exchanges of officials in charge of the implementation of mutual 
assistance under the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) 

SEC(2010)395 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

On training and exchanges of officials in charge of the implementation of mutual 
assistance under the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

An important and innovative part of the Services Directive1 concerns administrative 
cooperation.  Competent  authorities  at  national,  regional  and  local  level  in  all 
Member States2 are required to assist each other directly and across borders, in order 
to  avoid  a  multiplication  of  controls  and  to  ensure  effective  supervision  of  service 
providers (Articles 28 to 36). 

The Internal Market Information System (IMI) supports authorities in this task. IMI 
is  an  IT-based  information  network  developed  by  the  Commission  in  close 
cooperation with Member States. It allows authorities to identify their counterparts in 
other countries and to exchange information with them in their own language using 
pre-translated questions and answers. In the event of problems, IMI coordinators can 
intervene.  At  present,  IMI  is  being  used  in  the  context  of  the  Directive  on  the 
recognition of professional qualifications3 and of the Services Directive. 

Article 34(2) of the Services Directive calls on Member States, with the assistance of 
the  Commission,  to  facilitate  training  and  exchanges  of  officials  in  charge  of 
administrative cooperation. 

Article  34(3)  asks  the  Commission  to  "assess  the  need  to  establish  a  multi-annual 
programme in order to organise relevant exchanges of officials and training". 

This report summarises the findings of the assessment, which was carried out on the 
basis of data gathered from a number of different sources, including surveys amongst 
all IMI users and coordinators as well as feedback from IMI trainers.4  

2. 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT 

The  feedback  received  from  IMI  users,  coordinators  and  trainers  allows  drawing 
eight main conclusions: 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Directive  2006/123/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on 
services in the internal market (OJ L376 of 27.12.2006, p. 36).  
The term 'Member States', in this document, is used to refer to the 27 EU Member States and the three 
EFTA countries participating in the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. Norway, Iceland and 
Liechtenstein.  
Directive  2005/36/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  September  2005  on  the 
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L255 of 30.9.2005, p. 22).  
For a detailed description of the assessment and its results, please refer to the Staff Working Paper that 
accompanies this report. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

IMI is user-friendly, but training remains necessary. 

Training  in  the  legal  and  practical  implications  of  the  Services  Directive  is 
more  challenging  than  training  in  how  to  use  IMI  from  a  technical  point  of 
view. 

General  language  and  computer  training  is  offered  as  part  of  on-the-job 
training and is not essential for administrative cooperation. 

Users like to be trained locally. 

The  availability  of  trainers  with  the  right  skills  is  more  of  a  concern  than 
training costs. 

The support material produced by the Commission is much appreciated, but 
not known well enough. 

The main responsibility for training now lies with the Member States, but the 
Commission should play a role as well. 

(8) 

Exchanges of officials could add significant value. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES OF MEASURES TO BE TAKEN 

The  overall  objective  of  any  measures  to  be  taken  on  the  basis  of  the  needs 
assessment  has  to  be  to  ensure  that  IMI  users  have  the  necessary  knowledge  and 
skills to be able to use IMI effectively. For this purpose, training should be provided 
close to the user and as consistently as possible throughout the EU. In the provision 
of training, IMI coordinators play a crucial role in which they should be supported. It 
is too early to define objectives in terms of the content of training, as needs are not 
unlikely to change over time.5 

Support  material  should  be  made  better  known  and  more  used.  This  is  true  in 
particular for the self-learning material. 

As IMI users consider that it could add significant value to meet officials from other 
countries in order to exchange experiences, another objective should be to promote 
and support exchanges of officials. 

4. 

COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS 

The Commission could maintain the status quo and continue providing assistance 
to Member States in the same way as to date. These activities meet with high levels 
of  satisfaction.  However,  they  do  not  address  all  of  the  difficulties  that  those  in 
charge  of  training  and  raising  awareness  are  facing,  such  as  insufficient  human 

5 

The surveys were carried out at a time when, in many Member States, national legislation to implement 
the  Services  Directive  had  not  yet  been  adopted  and/or  training  on  legal  issues  had  not  yet  been 
provided 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
resources,  lack  of  expertise  in  conducting  training  and  lack  of  support  from  their 
hierarchy. 

The  Commission  could  adapt  and  extend  its  current  approach  in  line  with 
emerging needs in the Member States. For example, the Commission could help in 
the  organisation  of  conferences  with  participants  from  several  Member  States.  It 
could establish contacts between Member States that are interested in exchanges of 
officials  and  provide  advice  to  them.  The  Commission  could  also  assign  a  higher 
priority to wishes voiced by some coordinators, concerning e.g. translation of support 
material and preferences in the development of the system.  

The  Commission  could  seek  additional  resources  and  set  up  a  multi-annual 
programme,  which  would  allow  for  a  sharp  increase  in  the  scale  of  training  and 
awareness-raising  activities.  Systematic  training  in  all  Member  States  provided  by 
external  specialists,  professional  assistance  in  organising  cross-border  conferences 
and  a  centralised  system  for  exchanges  of  officials  are  examples  of  measures  that 
could  be  comprised  in  it.  The  impact  in  terms  of  financial  and  human  resources 
would depend on the number and scope of such measures. However, it is not clear at 
this stage whether the substantial costs of such a multi-annual programme would be 
balanced by its benefits as long as the medium- and long-term needs of the Member 
States have not been identified. 

The  second  approach  would  allow  for  flexibility  in  respect  of  emerging  needs  and 
could  be  implemented  immediately.  It  may  not  be  as  effective  as  a  multi-annual 
programme  in  reaching  a  lot  of  IMI  users  in  a  consistent  manner  and  it  would  not 
address  some  of  the  coordinators'  concerns.  However,  it  could  provide  flexible 
support, whilst not precluding a more resource intensive solution at a later stage. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The overall results of the needs assessment suggest that there is currently insufficient 
justification  to  adopt  a  multi-annual  programme  for  training  and  exchanges  of 
officials. Such a programme would be premature, at a point in time when cooperation 
under the Services Directive has only just become operational. The Commission and 
IMI  coordinators  need  to  gain  more  experience  in  order  to  be  able  to  identify  the 
medium- and long-term needs for training and, potentially, exchanges of officials. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Commission  will  continue  its  current  efforts  in  supporting 
Member  States  in  raising  awareness  for  administrative  cooperation  and  in  training 
IMI users, which have been very successful so far. However, it proposes to adapt and 
extend  them  in  a  flexible  manner  as  and  when  it  receives  corresponding  requests 
from  Member  States.  On  the  part  of  the  Member  States,  and  in  particular  IMI 
coordinators,  this  requires  that  they  take  seriously  their  crucial  role  in  raising 
awareness and in training officials, by making use of the Commission's support and 
by allocating sufficient financial and human resources to these tasks. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  developments  in  the  Member  States 
closely  and  will  re-assess  the  necessity  to  adopt  a  multi-annual  programme  on  the 
basis of the experience that will be gathered during the first year of mandatory use of 
the IMI module for services. The Commission will report on the situation in the IMI 
Annual  Report  for  2010,  which  is  planned  to  be  published  in  February  2011.  The 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Commission will also transmit necessary statistical information to Member States on 
a regular basis, in order to allow them to provide their input for the annual report.6  

6 

For  details  about  the  arrangements  for  monitoring  and  evaluation,  please  refer  to  the  accompanying 
Staff Working Paper. 

EN 

5 

   EN