REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Regulation (EC) 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation)
Date: 2012-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, cross-frontier data flow, exchange of information, single market, trans-European network

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.3.2012  
COM(2012) 100 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Regulation (EC) 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for 
the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection 
cooperation) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

The CPC Network: recent developments in the legal and institutional framework..... 4 

The legal framework .................................................................................................... 4 

Recent developments in the institutional framework................................................... 4 

The CPC-System.......................................................................................................... 5 

Resources allocated to the CPC Network .................................................................... 6 

The CPC Committee .................................................................................................... 6 

The CPC Network: many improvements but still a long way ahead ........................... 7 

Statistical trends during the reference period............................................................... 7 

General assessment ...................................................................................................... 8 

The CPC-Network: further efforts needed................................................................... 9 

Other areas of cooperation: Common activities and the exchange of officials.......... 11 

Common activities and the exchange of officials ...................................................... 11 

International cooperation ........................................................................................... 11 

Conclusions and the way forward .............................................................................. 11 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 11 

The way forward ........................................................................................................ 13 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 15 

EN 

2 

   EN 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Regulation (EC) 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for 
the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection 
cooperation) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The internal market has become part of consumers' everyday life whenever they buy 
goods  and  services.  In  order  to  fully  unlock  the  potential  benefits  and  new 
opportunities  it  offers  in  terms  of  choice,  quality  and  price,  European  consumers 
must feel confident that their rights are protected wherever they chose to buy. This is 
particularly true for the on-line dimension of the internal market.  

The Regulation on consumer protection cooperation1 ('the Regulation') was adopted 
in  2004  with  that  purpose.  It  lays  down  a  framework  enabling  enforcers  in  the 
Member  States  to  work  closely  together  in  order  to  swiftly  and  effectively  stop 
commercial practices breaching consumer laws whenever consumers and traders are 
established  in  different  countries.  To  businesses,  the  Regulation  guarantees  a  level 
playing  field  and  offers  the  assurance  that  rogue  traders  will  be  driven  from  the 
market.  

The present report is required by Article 21 of the Regulation which provides for an 
assessment of its application on a biennial basis. The present report covers the years 
2009 and 2010. It is the second biennial report established by the Commission2.  

The  report  combines  both  the  Commission's  appraisal  of  developments  and  the 
feedback received from Member States in the form of national reports submitted to 
the Commission during the first quarter of 2011. It focuses on the operations of the 
CPC  Network  set  up  by  the  Regulation  and  examines  in  particular,  whether  the 
shortcomings identified in the Commission biennial report of 2009 were successfully 
addressed.  

The  report  is  also  to  be  read  in  the  context  of  an  ongoing  reflection  on  the 
Regulation's  success  in  meeting  its  objective  of  enhancing  the  protection  of 
consumers' economic interests3.  

1 

2 
3 

Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on 
cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws 
(the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation); OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1. 
COM(2009) 336 final of 2.7.2009. 
Article 1 of the Regulation. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

THE CPC NETWORK: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL 
FRAMEWORK 

2.1. 

The legal framework 

The Regulation's cooperation mechanisms only apply to the enforcement of the legal 
acts listed in its annex.  

Since the Regulation was adopted in 2004, several legislative proposals have resulted 
in  changes  to  the  annex,  mainly  to  expand  the  list  of  legal  acts  (e.g.  inclusion  in 
November  2009  of  Article  13  of  the  Directive  on  privacy  and  electronic 
communications4).  Further  changes  were  introduced  by  the  change  in  scope  of 
Directive on misleading and comparative advertising5 and the repeal of the Directive 
87/102/EEC on consumer credits. 

To  eliminate  any  potential  ambiguity  on  the  scope  of  the  Regulation,  the 
Commission tabled in 2010 a legislative proposal6 that was adopted on 14 September 
2011  and  that  modified  the  Regulation's  annex  in  order  to  reflect  all  the  changes 
occurred since 2004. It will in particular bring legal clarity regarding the inclusion of 
the new Directive 2008/48/EC7 on credit agreements for consumers8.  

2.2. 

Recent developments in the institutional framework 

The CPC Network comprises of national enforcement authorities that are notified by 
Member  States  to  the  Commission.  The  list  of  these  authorities  is  published  every 
year in the Official Journal9.  

Since 2009, the Network has in general terms entered a more stable phase in terms of 
its  institutional  framework,  whereas  the  first  two  years  of  operations  had  been 
marked by the efforts undertaken by Member States to fully set up the CPC Network.  

Some of the changes in the Regulation's annex described above have had an impact 
on the Network: (1) the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Directive 
2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers were temporarily excluded until the 
amendment to the Regulation is adopted and (2) new authorities responsible for the 
enforcement of Article 13 of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications 
are being connected as notified to the Commission.  

Other adjustments to the Network notified to the Commission following for instance 
shifts  in  ministerial  portfolios  at  national  level  could  all  be  implemented  without 
adversely affecting the Network, with the exception of one Member State that reports 
significant difficulties and delays at national level for one authority. 

The absence of any connection to the common IT-tool used by the Network has now 
become  marginal  and  is  generally  situated  in  areas  where  cooperation  remains 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

9 

OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37. 
OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 21. 
OJ L259, 4.10.2011, p1 
OJ L133, 22.5.2008, p. 66. 
The  CPC  Regulation's  annex  may  be  changed  further  in  future  years  due  to  the  adoption  of  new 
legislative texts in the area of consumer protection  
Last publication: Full list - OJ C 206, 2.9.2011 and Addendum – OJ 356, 6.12.2011. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
occasional  (e.g.  enforcement  of  Articles  86–100  of  Directive  2001/83/EC).  The 
Commission continues to closely monitor these situations.  

2.3. 

The CPC-System  

One  central  element  of  the  CPC  Network  is  the  CPC-System,  the  common  IT-tool 
used by the authorities for the exchange of information.  

During the reference period, the Commission has pursued its efforts to improve the 
tool  and  enhance  its  user-friendliness  with  the  assistance  of  the  group  of  key  users 
established in 2006.  

The  extensive  preparatory  work  that  precedes  the  development  of  new  IT-features 
was finalised for Article 9 of the Regulation. The implementation of this article in the 
IT-tool had been delayed in agreement with Member States in order to gain sufficient 
practical  experience  in  the  framework  of  the  sweeps,  the  first  concerted  market 
surveillance  and  enforcement  activities  carried  out  by  the  CPC  Network.  The 
implementation in 2012 of these new functionalities will facilitate the coordination of 
enforcement activities involving several authorities.  

Other improvements in the pipeline suggested by users include the enhancement of 
the search functionality and the development of the CPC-System into a multilingual 
tool.  Users  also  noted  it  was  relatively  slow  in  responding.  This  matter  has  been 
investigated by the Commission's IT-services and is being addressed. 

Data  protection  considerations  have  also  marked  the  reference  period.  The  main 
priority  of  the  Commission  has  been  to  implement  most  of  the  recommendations 
made  in  September  2007  by  the  Article  29  Working  Party,  which  comprises  the 
national  data  protection  authorities.  The  relevant  Commission  decision10  and 
Recommendation11  were  drafted  and  discussed  with  Member  States  in  2010  and 
formally  adopted  on  1  March  2011.  Additional  data  protection  safeguards  in  the 
CPC-System, for instance in the form of warnings to users in pop-up messages at key 
stages of the workflow, had previously been implemented in 2009. 

The Commission also worked closely with the European Data Protection Supervisor 
(EDPS) during this period to finalise the prior checking procedure. In his opinion12 
the EDPS confirms that Regulation provides a solid legal basis for the exchange of 
information  and  welcomes  the  efforts  undertaken  by  the  Commission  to  integrate 
data  protection  in  the  design  of  the  IT-tool  as  well  as  in  the  common  handling 
procedures  established  for  the  Network.  But  the  EDPS  recommends  considering 
further improvements.  

The most urgent issue that needs to be addressed is to find a workable mechanism for 
the  handling  of  incoming  requests  from  data  subjects  concerning  access  rights  and 
replies  to  such  requests.  The  establishment  of  such  a  coordination  mechanism  is 
proving  particularly  complex.  The  main  challenge  will  be  to  strike  a  fair  balance 
between the right to privacy and protection of personal data and the need to exchange 

10 
11 
12 

OJ L 59, 4.3.2011, p. 63. 
OJ L 57, 2.3.2011, p. 44. 
Opinion  of  the  EDPS  on  Commission  Decision  2011/141/EU  and  on  Commission  Recommendation 
2011/136/EU on guidelines for the implementation of data protection rules in the CPCS dated 5 May 
2011. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
information in the framework of enforcement and investigative cooperation under the 
Regulation  in  order  to  stop  breaches  to  EU  consumer  legislation.  The  fact  that 
national  consumer  and  data  protection  legislation  varies  significantly  between 
Member States complicates the matter further.  

The  implementation  of  the  other  steps  recommended  by  the  EDPS,  such  as  the 
development  of  new  IT-features,  will  be  assessed  in  a  second  phase  once  the 
principles  of  a  common  coordination  mechanisms  is  agreed  between  Network 
authorities and the Commission.  

2.4. 

Resources allocated to the CPC Network 

As  in  2009,  the  national  biennial  reports  provide  limited  data  on  the  resources 
allocated by national authorities to the application of  the Regulation. In most cases 
Member States report that the CPC activities are embedded in the general activities 
and  budget  of  the  authorities;  collecting  CPC  specific  data  thus  seems  to  be 
impracticable.  

Several  reports  highlight,  whilst  not  providing  concrete  figures  on  resources,  that 
authorities would be interested in stepping up their involvement in CPC activities but 
are  often  constrained  in  their  decisions  by  the  resources  available  to  them.  This 
concerns in particular, but not only, the common activities of the Network as well the 
exchanges of officials, which are both projects co-funded by the EU budget.  

On the grounds of the data presently available to the Commission, it is not possible 
to robustly assess whether Member States are fully complying with their obligation 
under  Article  4  (7)  of  the  Regulation  which  calls  for  authorities  to  be  adequately 
resourced.  

The national reports however give some evidence that the efficiency (and thus also 
the  effectiveness)  of  the  Network  may  be  suffering  from  resource  constraints  in 
authorities.  In  some  cases,  this  concerns  the  Single  Liaison  Offices  which,  as 
coordinators  at  national  level,  have  a  critical  role  to  play  in  the  application  of  the 
Regulation, especially in countries where the enforcement tasks under the Regulation 
are  shared  by  several  authorities.  The  issue  will  be  analysed  in  more  detail  in  the 
framework of the ongoing overall evaluation of the CPC Network.  

2.5. 

The CPC Committee 

The Regulation establishes a Committee of Member States' representatives, the CPC 
Committee, to assist the Commission in its implementing tasks.  

During the reference period the Committee met between 3 and 4 times per year. On 6 
December  2010  it  issued  a  favourable  opinion  on  a  draft  amendment  to  the 
Commission  decision13  implementing  the  Regulation,  which  was  adopted  by  the 
Commission  on  1  March  2011.  The  amendment  established  new  rules  for  the 
implementation  of  Article  9  of  the  Regulation  and  closed  gaps  by  clarifying  the 
grounds for the deletion of information in the CPC System.  

The Committee plays a central role for the CPC Network. It provides in particular, a 
platform for discussion of trends in consumer protection; contributes to developing a 

13 

Commission Decision 2007/76/EC; OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p.192. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
common approach in enforcement within the CPC Network through the endorsement 
of common standards and guidelines (e.g. the Manual for internet investigations, the 
CPC operating guidelines) and gives operational orientations to the CPC Network in 
the  form  of  annual  Enforcement  Action  Plans.  The  Enforcement  Action  Plans 
focuses  on  the  common  activities  carried  out  by  the  Network,  such  as  its  annual 
internet checks, the "sweeps".  

The  CPC  Network's  success  depends  to  a  great  extent  on  the  Committee  giving 
impetus and support needed to meet the Network's objectives.  

The Commission is further exploring whether the Consumer Policy Network (CPN), 
which  brings  together  the  Directors  General  of  national  consumer  ministries,  could 
also have a role to play.  

3. 

THE CPC NETWORK: MANY IMPROVEMENTS BUT STILL A LONG WAY AHEAD 

3.1. 

Statistical trends during the reference period 

Overall  the  Network  has  handled  an  amount  of  cases  that  is  comparable  to  the 
previous reference period, i.e. roughly 540 requests for either information or to take 
enforcement  measures  in  order  to  stop  a  detected  infringement14.  The  number  of 
alerts however significantly decreased, i.e. the number of unilateral messages that are 
sent by one authority to other concerned authorities to warn about an infringement to 
consumer laws that was detected or which it has reasonable grounds to suspect.  

In terms of the directives infringed, breaches to the provisions on misleading and/or 
other  deceptive  advertising  practices,  covered  by  Directive  2005/29/EC  on  unfair 
commercial  practices15  are  the  most  common  type  of  breaches  handled  by  the 
Network, followed by breaches to the provisions of the e-commerce Directive16.  

Since  the  beginning,  most  of  cases  handled  by  the  Network  relate  to  practices  that 
use on-line means of advertising: in 2010 45% of the information requests referred to 
messages  targeting  consumers  by  e-mail,  text  messages  or  the  internet.  The 
equivalent figure for enforcement requests increases to 77%. This is partially due to 
the annual "sweeps" carried out by the CPC-Network. In these "sweeps" authorities 
simultaneously  check  on-line  sites  of  a  chosen  sector  for  compliance  with  legal 
requirements. The follow-up of the cross-border breaches detected in the framework 
of  these  concerted  exercises  naturally  leads  to  increased  exchanges  between 
authorities.  Moreover  new  technologies  (e.g.  the  internet)  offer  opportunities  for 
easily reaching a potentially important number of consumers and are, in this sense, 
more likely to produce a typical "CPC infringement" to collective interests.  

Since  the  second  half  of  2009,  there  is  a  relative  decline  of  the  case-handling 
activities  of  the  Network  in  terms  of  the  number  of  new  cases  created  by  the 
authorities. (Please refer to the annex of this report for 2009 - 2010 statistical data). 

14 

15 
16 

It  is  worth  noting  in  this  context,  that  the  Network  only  deals  with  breaches  to  collective  consumers' 
interests  in  cross-border  situations  and  not  with  individual  complaints  (Article  1  and  3  of  the  CPC 
Regulation). 
OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p.22 
OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
So  far  the  trend  has  spared  the  enforcement  requests  which  have  remained  fairly 
stable with 120 new cases recorded in the CPC-System end of 2010.  

The  precise  causes  for  this  trend  have  not  yet  been  identified  and  it  is  likely  that 
several factors play a role. Authorities have not reported a reduction of the number of 
cross-border  breaches  to  consumer  laws,  but  they  have  highlighted  in  their  reports 
the need to better agree enforcement priorities. To note too in this context, that the 
most  recent  sweeps  have  detected  fewer  cross-border  issues  than  the  first.  Another 
factor that should be born in mind is that authorities have become more familiar with 
the  cooperation  rules  under  the  CPC  Regulation.  This  has  lead  to  fewer  but  better 
prepared  cases  and  a  more  rational  use  of  the  cooperation  mechanisms  under  the 
Regulation. The improved handling of cases is also reflected in the decrease of the 
average  handling  time  of  requests  for  mutual  assistance  which  for  the  enforcement 
requests for instance has dropped from 177 days in 2008 to 92 days in 2010. Finally, 
there are some technical aspects to consider: the database now allows the handling of 
cases with multiple infringements, whereas in the first year several parallel cases had 
to be created by the authorities, i.e. one per infringement.  

3.2. 

General assessment  

The reference period of the present report can be summarised as one of stabilisation 
and  consolidation  of  the  Network’s  activities,  despite  the  constraints  reported  by 
authorities due to the difficult economic and financial environment in which they had 
to  operate.  This  is  the  general  conclusion  that  derives  from  the  Member  States’ 
Biennial reports and the Commission's own experience in monitoring the Network.  

A  majority  of  authorities  considers  that  the  Network  has  overcome  the  “teething 
problems”  that  characterised  the  first  two  years  of  operations.  The  lower  average 
duration (please refer to table 4 in the annex) of cases shows that competent officials 
in  the  authorities  are  becoming  more  comfortable  handling  mutual  assistance 
requests referred to them through the Network.  

The CPC Network has moreover developed a solid core of joint activities in addition 
to the bilateral enforcement cooperation. This joint work aims at giving a new EU-
wide dimension to enforcement and ultimately at enhancing consumer protection in 
the  internal  market.  In  the  past  two  years,  this  common  enforcement  work  has 
become  an  integral  part  of  the  Network’s  activities.  The  internet  inquiries  the 
Network  carries  out  every  year,  i.e.  the  “sweeps”,  are  the  central  element  of  this 
the  common 
work.  They  produce  concrete  results  for  consumers 
enforcement  phase  during  which  the  authorities  follow  up  on  detected  breaches  to 
ensure  compliance.  At  the  end  of  2010,  a  group  of  authorities  engaged  in  a  new 
project  (co-funded  by  the  Commission)  that  explores  options  for  further  enhancing 
the  Network’s  online  enforcement  capabilities  through  improved  techniques  and  a 
more systematic sharing of knowledge and expertise. 

through 

The  Network’s  recent  evolution  can  partly  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  authorities 
have  learnt  in  the  past  two  years  to  cooperate  through  the  Network,  i.e.  become 
(more) familiar with the cooperation mechanisms introduced by the CPC Regulation 
and the IT-tool developed by the Commission for the information exchanges of the 
Network.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

The  trend  however  also  shows,  as  highlighted  in  many  of  the  national  Biennial 
reports, that the measures undertaken to address the shortcomings identified in 2009 
in the first Biennial Report have produced positive results.  

Training  needs  have  been  met  more  effectively  since  a  training  plan  is  established 
every  year  with  the  authorities.  A  network  of  national  trainers  was  established  in 
2009  to  expand  the  training  capacities  of  the  Commission.  The  central  Help  Desk 
was also re-organised during the reference period to respond more quickly to users’ 
queries.  

The planning of common  activities (and thus of resources) through the adoption of 
annual  Enforcement  Action  Plans  provides  a  sound,  structured  and  transparent 
programming  process.  These  plans  contribute  to  identifying  the  areas  of  common 
interest  and  comprise  all  the  common  activities  carried  out  by  the  Network  in 
addition to the hard core (generally bilateral) enforcement cooperation.  

The  production  of  guidance  documents  has  helped  to  develop  more  of  a  common 
understanding  about  how  to  cooperate  within  the  CPC  Network.  These  documents 
comprise in particular the "CPC operating guidelines" prepared by the Commission 
and  which  provide  practical  guidance  on  the  application  of  the  CPC  cooperation 
mechanisms based on the common practice that emerged from the discussions with 
authorities in a workshop on the Network's operations in December 2009. 

The  workshops  that  have  been  regularly  organised  since  2009  offer  an  additional 
opportunity  for  authorities  to  exchange  views,  best  practise  and  so  work  towards 
reaching  a  common  understanding  and/or  approach  to  enforcement.  The  topics 
discussed in these workshops are agreed with the authorities in the framework of the 
annual  Enforcement  Action  Plan  discussions.  They  range  from  more  legal 
discussions regarding the enforcement of, or part of, the consumer acquis listed in the 
Regulation’s annex to more operational discussions about how to prepare a request 
for enforcement measures. 

Whilst  the  CPC  Network  has  undeniably  consolidated  its  activities  in  the  past  two 
years, there is also clear evidence that the network has yet to reach its full potential. 
There  are  still  a  few  Member  States  that  have  never  issued  a  request  for  mutual 
assistant (or only an alert) and a non negligible number that has dealt with fewer than 
5 requests all types comprised. As things stand, a maximum of 9 Member States can 
be considered to have been using the system actively since the beginning.  

3.3. 

The CPC-Network: further efforts needed  

During  the  first  years  of  operations,  authorities  devoted  their  efforts  primarily  to 
ensuring  that  the  access  to  the  IT-tool  was  operational  and  becoming  familiar  with 
the new cooperation mechanisms. Attention now has to shift to taking full advantage 
of the opportunities offered by the Network if it is to deliver as expected. 

More work is in particular needed in the areas described below.  

The  number  of  authorities  that  do  not  actively  use  the  cooperation  mechanisms 
established by the CPC Regulation remains significant. This applies in particular to 
the enforcement of the sectoral legislation listed in the CPC Regulation’s annex but 

EN 

9 

   EN 

not exclusively. As highlighted in the first Biennial Report, the existence of parallel 
networks in these areas17 may have had an impact on the CPC Network effectiveness 
but this still needs to be confirmed. Moreover many consumer authorities in Member 
States seldom use the CPC Network. Further analysis is thus required. 

There  is  no  uniform  understanding  about  how  to  use  the  cooperation  tools 
established by the Regulation despite the development of commonly agreed rules and 
guidance documents. Partial knowledge of the rules and a certain lack of discipline in 
applying  them  are  factors  in  this  context  (e.g.  few  authorities  provide  regular 
feedback  on  the  progress  made  in  their  investigative  and  enforcement  activities  as 
established) but there are also more fundamental divergences that stand in the way of 
a more efficient use of the CPC mechanisms. In particular for the alerts, where there 
no common approach among authorities about how and when to use them, as well as 
the  requests  for  enforcement  measures,  for  which  authorities  have  (very)  different 
standards of legal analysis and evidence.  

There is no common approach to the Network’s enforcement priorities. The annual 
Enforcement Action Plans identify areas of common interest but do not cover all the 
Network  activities.  The  main  challenge  will  be  to  continue  working  towards 
developing  a  common  understanding  of  relevant  consumer  issues  and,  possibly,  to 
agreeing  common  standards  that  ensure  that  the  CPC  Network  is  used  in  a 
comparable  way  by  all  the  authorities  without  however  negating  the  obligation  to 
respond to a request for assistance.  

The  Network  has  not  succeeded  in  developing  a  “corporate  identity”  and  remains 
mostly  a  virtual  network  linked  by  a  common  IT-tool.  Contacts  between  case-
handlers if not related to the dealings of a given case remain the exception and could 
perhaps  explain  why  the  Network  has  never  used  the  forum  in  the  CPC-System. 
Language barriers are likely to play a role in this context but do not suffice to explain 
the absence of exchanges between authorities.  

Some horizontal issues, many of them already identified in the 2009 Biennial report, 
also continue to affect the CPC Network: 

• 

• 

• 

The  differences  in  national  consumer  legislation  in  the  EU  contribute  to 
lengthening the proceedings and add complexities to cooperation as authorities 
must first verify whether cooperation can be envisaged and to what extent. 

The issue of applicable law continues to split the Network; new questions have 
now arisen in the framework of the workshops dedicated to this topic in terms 
of the applicable law and the national procedural rules. 

Little  is  communicated  about  the  Network’s  successful  cases,  even  inside  the 
Network and this might be generating the perception that the network may not 
be meeting expectations. At the same time authorities are reluctant to share this 
type  of  information:  only  a  couple  of  national  biennial  reports  include 
examples  of  successful  cases  although  this  was  part  of  the  agreed  common 
structure.  

17 

This  applies  to  the  Regulation  261/2004  on  Air  Passenger  Rights,  articles  86  to  100  of  Directive 
2001/83/EC  on  medicinal  products  for  human  use  and,  according  to  remarks  taken  in  the  national 
biennial reports to the articles from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
• 

Different views have emerged regarding the role the Commission should have 
in the framework of enforcement cooperation. 

4. 

OTHER  AREAS  OF  COOPERATION:  COMMON  ACTIVITIES  AND  THE  EXCHANGE  OF 
OFFICIALS 

4.1. 

Common activities and the exchange of officials  

The Commission continued during the reference period to provide funding for both 
common activities and a scheme of officials’ exchanges. The main purpose of these 
activities is to provide the CPC authorities with a framework for the exchange of best 
practice  and  common  working  that  helps  avoiding  duplication  of  efforts  and,  more 
importantly, make it easier to know and learn from each other.  

As in the 2009 reports, the feedback in the national biennial reports regarding these 
activities  is  positive:  authorities  make  a  modest  but  consistent  use  of  the  funds 
available to them every year. 

Despite  efforts  undertaken  to  make  the  activities  more  attractive  to  authorities,  the 
latter highlight in their reports difficulties comparable to those identified in 2009: 

Resource  constraints  prevent  many  authorities’  from  participating  in  exchanges  of 
officials or in joint projects 

The complex rules governing the application procedure and subsequent management 
of the funds dissuade competent authorities from engaging in this type of activities. 
Language  barriers  are  a  further  factor  that  explains  the  relatively  low  number  of 
exchanges of officials 

The scheme for officials lacks the flexibility required to swiftly respond to short-term 
needs that arise in the course of investigations 

4.2. 

International cooperation  

The Council granted the Commission the authorisation to open negotiations with the 
United  States  in  order  to  negotiate  a  cooperation  agreement  on  enforcement  of 
consumer legislation in May 2009. During the period covered by the report a number 
of meetings were held with the Federal Trade Commission, the US counterpart, but 
progress remained difficult due to different approaches to data protection.  

5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD  

5.1. 

Conclusions 

The  CPC  Network  has  entered  a  phase  of  consolidation  and  stabilisation  of  its 
activities. The main achievements during the period covered by the present report are 
as follows:  

• 

The  teething  problems  of  the  first  few  years  (e.g.  connection  difficulties  or 
other technical issues related to the use of the database) have been addressed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Authorities  have  learnt  to  use  the  cooperation  tools  established  by  the  CPC 
Regulation  more  effectively  as  they  have  become  more  familiar  with  the  IT-
tool and new procedures.  

The sweeps, coordinated and monitored by the Commission, have become part 
of  the  Network's  regular  activities  and  have  ensured  some  visibility  to  the 
network through the related press activities.  

The Network discusses and plans its concerted activities in annual enforcement 
activities plans.  

Training courses are organised more efficiently on the basis of annual training 
plans and through the network of national trainers. 

A  common  approach  to  working  together  in  the  Network  is  slowly  emerging 
through  discussions  in  workshops  as  well  as  the  practical  experience  gained 
during the four years of operations. 

Operating  guidelines,  elaborated  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the 
conclusions  of  a  workshop  in  December  2009,  provide  practical  guidance  to 
competent officials about how the network works and how to prepare requests 
for mutual assistance under the CPC Regulation. 

The  assessment  of  the  past  two  years  of  operations  however  also  shows  that 
shortcomings  persist  and  that  the  Network  has  yet  to  reach  its  full  potential.  Many 
authorities  rarely  or  never  use  the  CPC  cooperation  mechanisms  and  some  of  the 
most active players of the first years have reduced their engagement, which partially 
explains the relative slowing down of Network activities in terms of new cases since 
2010.  

The  complexities  of  cross-border  enforcement  that  derive  from  diverging  national 
consumer  legislation  and  differences  in  the  procedural  rules  applicable  in  the 
Member  States  have  become  more  apparent  compared  to  the  first  years  of  the 
Network  when  authorities  primarily  focussed  on  learning  how  to  use  the  system. 
Lengthy  procedures,  different  approaches  to  enforcement  and  levels  of  experience 
have further tested authorities’ readiness to work through the CPC Network.  

In  some  instances,  the  difficulties  encountered  by  the  authorities  could  be  a  first 
indication that the legislative framework established by the CPC Regulation needs to 
be  adapted  in  order  to  enhance  cross-border  enforcement.  It  may  also  suggest  that 
national procedures need to be reviewed further in the light of the CPC cooperation 
framework to ensure that authorities are able to meet the Regulation’s objectives in 
full.  

The technical amendment of the CPC Regulation’s annex, adopted in 2011, brought 
additional  legal  clarity  as  regards  the  list  of  provisions  to  which  the  cooperation 
mechanisms  apply.  To  date  there  is  however  insufficient  evidence  to  engage  in  a 
legislative  process  that  would  revise  the  Regulation  more  substantially.  The 
Commission's evaluation of the years covered by the present report demonstrates on 
the  contrary  that  many  of  the  difficulties  encountered  by  the  Network  can  be 
addressed within the existing legal framework.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

More experience and information therefore need to be gathered to form a better view 
of whether the Regulation should be reviewed and if so how. In particular the issue 
of  the  Regulation's  scope  needs  to  be  evaluated  in  depth,  including  the  question  of 
the  possible  insertion  of  additional  substantive  laws  in  the  Annex.  Furthermore, 
ensuring that adequate resources are allocated to the authorities will remain a major 
challenge in future years as well as a factor critical to the Network’s success.  

5.2. 

The way forward 

Against this background, the Commission's first priority will be to work closely with 
Member States to address the shortcomings identified within the existing legislative 
framework.  

The Commission has identified the following areas where efforts should concentrate 
in the short and medium term: 

• 

Pursue  efforts  to  consolidate  the  Network  by  enhancing  the  functionalities  of 
the  Network’s  IT-tool,  securing  training  for  competent  officials  through  the 
trainers' network and ensuring that the implementing rules facilitate consistent 
and quicker handling of mutual assistance requests.  

•  Maintain the funding of common activities to further encourage the exchange 
of  best  practice  and  experience  but  re-evaluate  the  current  officials  exchange 
scheme  in  the  light  of  the  experience  gained  and  comments  from  national 
authorities.  

• 

• 

• 

Continue  working  with  authorities  to  develop  a  common  approach  to 
enforcement through discussions in workshops, the common activities and the 
sweeps. The Network could also benefit from exploring new ways of carrying 
out  concerted  enforcement  and  market  monitoring  activities  as  laid  down  in 
Article  9  of  the  Regulation.  This  was  demonstrated  by  the  2009  and  2010 
sweeps  where  a  group  of  authorities  combined  the  sweep  with  other 
enforcement  activities  to  maximise  the impact.  A  discussion  on  how  to  make 
the best use of alerts within the Network is also needed.  

Further  enhance  the  planning  of  Network  activities.  The  annual  Enforcement 
Action  Plans  constitute  a  first  step  forward  to  identifying  areas  of  common 
interest  for  the  Network  authorities  but  this  work  needs  to  be  taken  forward. 
This has becomes even more important as authorities are operating in a climate 
characterised  by  resources  constraints  and  experience  difficulties  reconciling 
national  priorities  with  CPC  ones.  Authorities  had  a  first  discussion  on  the 
matter in the framework of a workshop on prioritisation of activities at the end 
of 2011.  

In  the  same  vein,  the  Network  needs  to  develop  more  effective  ways  of 
identifying enforcement priorities at European level, bringing together the first 
hand information from consumers that is available at national level and the data 
stemming  from  tools  such  as  the  Consumer  Markets  Scoreboard,  the  new 
complaints  database  or  the  ECC-Network’s  database.  For  the  EU  sweeps,  a 
group  of  authorities  is  currently  exploring  how  to  better  identify  emerging 
threats on the internet and subsequently ensure that adequate follow-up action 
can be identified by the Network.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

• 

Develop  efforts  to  raise  the  public  profile  of  the  CPC  Network.  The  press 
activities  related  to  the  sweeps  give  some  visibility  to  the  Network’s 
achievements but too little is still known about the outcome of the (generally) 
bilateral  enforcement  cooperation.  The  national  biennial  reports  indicate  that 
the  work  in  the  CPC  is  producing  tangible  results  for  consumers  but  the 
information provided remains limited. Again, a group of authorities is currently 
working  on  the  creation  of  an  internal  and  external  communication  strategy 
that  would  be  implemented  in  the  form  of  communication  plans  endorsed  by 
the  CPC  Committee.  The  group  has  already  produced  first  tangible  results  in 
the form of a newsletter that is sent to the authorities twice a year.  

In a more long term perspective, the Commission is further assessing the cooperation 
framework  and  procedures  established  by  the  CPC  Regulation  with  a  view  to 
evaluating whether some of the difficulties encountered by the Network may require 
a legislative response.  

The findings of the present report constitute a first step in this process and have been 
the  basis  for  preparing  the  terms  of  reference  of  an  external  evaluation  the 
Commission is about to launch and that will deliver results in 2012. One issue that 
needs to be examined in this context is the impact that the fairly broad scope of the 
CPC  Regulation’s  annex  is  having  on  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the 
Network,  especially  in  areas  where  other  cooperative  frameworks  exist.  The 
Commission’s role in the Network’s activities also needs to be appraised.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

1. 

Total number of mutual assistance requests 

ANNEX 

Year 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

TOTAL 

Alerts 

(Art. 7) 

71 

100 

44 

37 

252 

Information 
Requests 

(Art. 6) 

Enforcement Requests 

(Art. 8) 

TOTAL 

161 

122 

150 

89 

522 

95 

170 

170 

134 

569 

327 

392 

364 

260 

2. 

Mutual assistance requests per directive infringed (2007 – 2010) 

Art. 6 Information 

Art. 7 Alerts 

Art. 8 Enforcement 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010  2007  2008  2009  2010  2007  2008  2009 

2010 

Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices 

Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading advertising 

Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce 

1 

48 

3 

Directive 93/13/EC on unfair terms in consumer contracts 

21 

10 

EN 

15 

86 

125 

68 

0 

40 

30 

29 

4 

73 

112 

86 

0 

9 

0 

13 

30 

0 

34 

0 

0 

16 

7 

20 

14 

6 

15 

7 

6 

0 

8 

1 

35 

15 

10 

0 

48 

14 

0 

54 

14 

0 

40 

37 

TOTAL 

654 

117 

247 

171 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Directive 97/7/EC on distance contracts 

Directive 97/55/EC amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising 
so as to include comparative advertising 

Directive 94/47/EC on timesharing 

Directive 85/577/EC on contracts negotiated away from business premises  

Directive 2001/83/EC on medicinal products for human use 

Directive 1999/44/EC on sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees 

Regulation  (EC)  N°  261/2004  on  denied  boarding  and  cancellation  or  long  delay  of 
flights 

Directive 98/6/EC on indication of prices 

Directive 90/314/EC on package travel, package holiday and package tour 

Directive 2002/65/EC on distance marketing of consumer financial services 

Directive 87/102 on consumer credit 

Directive 89/552 on television broadcasting activities 

11 

40 

27 

1 

2 

2 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

10 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

18 

22 

0 

0 

2 

3 

2 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

4 

4 

1 

0 

3 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

11 

0 

1 

6 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

9 

3 

0 

1 

6 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

22 

35 

19 

161 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 

4 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

4 

8 

7 

5 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

5 

7 

8 

1 

1 

5 

1 

0 

0 

47 

30 

36 

29 

39 

20 

15 

16 

9 

5 

2 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
3. 

Mutual assistance requests per sector (2007 – 2010) 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Total 

Art 6  Art 8 

Art 7  Art 6 

Art 8 

Art 7  Art 6 

Art 8 

Art 7  Art 6 

Art 8 

Art 7 

Clothing and footwear 

Communication 

Education 

Food and non-alcoholic beverage 

Furnishing, household equipment and routine 
household maintenance 

Health 

Housing,  water,  electricity,  gas  and  other 
fuels  

Miscellaneous goods and services 

Outside classification 

Recreation and culture 

Restaurants and hotels 

Transport 

TOTAL 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

6 

0 

30 

10 

35 

5 

72 

161 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

11 

0 

10 

9 

13 

2 

46 

95 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

6 

0 

9 

4 

4 

1 

45 

71 

0 

4 

0 

2 

1 

5 

1 

8 

59 

15 

19 

8 

5 

25 

2 

0 

1 

14 

0 

24 

39 

13 

0 

47 

0 

15 

0 

0 

1 

6 

0 

12 

35 

17 

8 

6 

1 

9 

0 

4 

9 

6 

4 

24 

37 

23 

6 

26 

3 

24 

0 

2 

6 

11 

0 

27 

23 

33 

5 

36 

1 

4 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

18 

5 

7 

0 

7 

2 

3 

0 

2 

5 

9 

2 

17 

11 

26 

7 

5 

0 

8 

0 

3 

4 

10 

0 

27 

9 

39 

4 

30 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

2 

0 

6 

6 

9 

3 

4 

122 

170 

100 

149 

170 

44 

89 

134 

37 

14 

97 

3 

19 

30 

87 

7 

212 

247 

234 

60 

332 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
4. 

Days (average) to close a mutual assistance requests in the CPCS  

Information requests (art. 6) 

Enforcement Requests (art.8) 

2008 

148 

177 

2009 

208 

283 

2010 

125 

128 

5. 

Mutual assistance requests per selling method (2007 – 2010) 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Total 

Art 6  Art 8 

Art 7  Art 6 

Art 8 

Art 7  Art 6 

Art 8 

Art 7  Art 6 

Art 8 

Art 7 

Away from business selling 

Catalogue 

Door step selling 

E-mail 

Face to face 

Fax 

Internet 

Mail 

Newspaper 

Not known 

EN 

0 

6 

0 

1 

44 

0 

91 

14 

0 

0 

5 

4 

0 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

63 

54 

5 

2 

1 

6 

2 

1 

11 

0 

4 

0 

27 

0 

32 

36 

0 

5 

3 

2 

1 

0 

3 

0 

136 

13 

0 

3 

18 

8 

1 

2 

0 

12 

0 

72 

3 

1 

2 

6 

1 

0 

7 

5 

4 

89 

38 

2 

1 

3 

3 

2 

2 

6 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

137 

34 

10 

2 

1 

4 

1 

2 

3 

1 

0 

0 

17 

58 

9 

2 

7 

2 

3 

0 

0 

1 

8 

0 

3 

1 

1 

3 

4 

1 

110 

25 

10 

0 

0 

5 

7 

1 

45 

19 

10 

19 

131 

66 

852 

146 

24 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Phone 

Shop 

Text message 

6 

0 

0 

11 

4 

1 

7 

2 

1 

15 

1 

0 

8 

6 

2 

2 

0 

1 

9 

0 

4 

10 

0 

7 

3 

0 

0 

4 

0 

17 

5 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

81 

13 

35 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
6. 

Mutual assistance requests issued/received (Art. 6-7-8) by Member State in 2007-2010 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Deutschland 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

2 

128 

12 

0 

2 

5 

12 

8 

0 

5 

40 

0 

70 

0 

2 

0 

0 

4 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

7 

0 

2 

United Kingdom 

14 

67 

67 

57 

60 

59 

72 

64 

57 

72 

58 

65 

58 

63 

72 

59 

57 

62 

63 

55 

102 

61 

60 

53 

65 

59 

65 

90 

3 

119 

2 

0 

0 

12 

14 

12 

8 

31 

16 

0 

30 

0 

2 

0 

0 

11 

0 

13 

9 

1 

0 

33 

0 

3 

65 

72 

85 

63 

64 

66 

101 

66 

71 

98 

75 

88 

68 

61 

84 

62 

67 

70 

66 

55 

7 

84 

1 

0 

4 

16 

10 

6 

23 

2 

56 

0 

23 

2 

4 

4 

1 

6 

3 

120 

28 

65 

68 

53 

79 

67 

72 

84 

3 

3 

1 

12 

0 

11 

45 

TOTAL 

317 

384 

355 

44 

51 

34 

34 

36 

64 

37 

40 

65 

33 

81 

31 

32 

48 

42 

33 

39 

36 

34 

82 

35 

39 

35 

44 

31 

36 

84 

7 

29 

4 

1 

4 

13 

10 

1 

28 

2 

60 

1 

22 

0 

2 

4 

2 

6 

8 

9 

5 

0 

0 

6 

1 

6 

27 

258 

29 

28 

21 

26 

27 

59 

23 

21 

50 

23 

38 

23 

28 

36 

33 

22 

27 

24 

23 

61 

28 

29 

25 

30 

21 

28 

54 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

Mutual assistance requests issued/received by Member State in 2007 

Information Requests 
Art. 6 

Alerts 
Art. 7 

Enforcement Requests 
Art. 8 

TOTAL 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Deutschland 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

1 

42 

4 

0 

1 

1 

12 

1 

0 

5 

19 

0 

68 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

4 

7 

2 

3 

4 

10 

7 

2 

10 

3 

6 

2 

4 

7 

3 

2 

4 

5 

1 

27 

3 

5 

3 

6 

2 

0 

51 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

7 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

56 

54 

55 

56 

55 

55 

55 

53 

52 

54 

56 

55 

55 

56 

54 

54 

56 

54 

54 

60 

55 

55 

49 

54 

54 

1 

35 

8 

0 

1 

2 

0 

6 

0 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

7 

0 

0 

1 

0 

7 

2 

2 

10 

1 

3 

1 

4 

9 

2 

1 

2 

4 

0 

15 

3 

0 

1 

5 

1 

2 

128 

12 

0 

2 

5 

12 

8 

0 

5 

40 

0 

70 

0 

2 

0 

0 

4 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

7 

0 

67 

67 

57 

60 

59 

72 

64 

57 

72 

58 

65 

58 

63 

72 

59 

57 

62 

63 

55 

102 

61 

60 

53 

65 

59 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Slovakia 

United Kingdom 

0 

0 

8 

18 

0 

5 

55 

63 

TOTAL 

160 

158 

71 

2 

9 

86 

2 

9 

92 

2 

14 

317 

65 

90 

8. 

Mutual assistance requests issued by Member State in 2008 

Information Requests 
Art. 6 

Alerts 
Art. 7 

Enforcement Requests 
Art. 8 

TOTAL 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Deutschland 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

1 

28 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

10 

0 

0 

7 

0 

6 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

15 

3 

9 

0 

0 

2 

13 

1 

0 

29 

1 

5 

5 

3 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

24 

1 

1 

0 

2 

1 

43 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

20 

0 

0 

4 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

1 

0 

10 

66 

70 

63 

64 

63 

68 

64 

64 

59 

74 

65 

63 

55 

63 

51 

63 

68 

63 

54 

59 

63 

63 

53 

72 

1 

48 

2 

0 

0 

7 

13 

2 

8 

11 

9 

0 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

7 

7 

0 

0 

8 

3 

6 

0 

0 

1 

20 

1 

7 

10 

0 

18 

0 

3 

19 

8 

3 

1 

2 

0 

37 

1 

4 

0 

5 

3 

119 

2 

0 

0 

12 

14 

12 

8 

31 

16 

0 

30 

0 

2 

0 

0 

11 

0 

13 

9 

1 

0 

33 

72 

85 

63 

64 

66 

101 

66 

71 

98 

75 

88 

68 

61 

84 

62 

67 

70 

66 

55 

120 

65 

68 

53 

79 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Slovenia 

Slovakia 

0 

0 

United Kingdom 

43 

1 

4 

8 

0 

0 

12 

64 

63 

65 

0 

3 

10 

2 

5 

11 

0 

3 

65 

67 

72 

84 

TOTAL 

118 

121 

100 

166 

167 

384 

9. 

Mutual assistance requests issued by Member State in 2009 

Information Requests 
Art. 6 

Alerts 
Art. 7 

Enforcement Requests 
Art. 8 

TOTAL 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Deutschland 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

0 

25 

1 

0 

0 

3 

6 

0 

7 

0 

40 

0 

10 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

7 

11 

3 

3 

2 

14 

1 

3 

15 

0 

20 

0 

1 

2 

3 

1 

4 

3 

3 

Netherlands 

26 

21 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

25 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

32 

36 

31 

31 

31 

36 

32 

33 

37 

31 

38 

31 

31 

32 

35 

31 

31 

31 

31 

32 

33 

34 

31 

6 

34 

0 

0 

4 

13 

4 

6 

12 

1 

15 

0 

12 

1 

2 

2 

1 

5 

3 

1 

3 

3 

1 

5 

4 

0 

0 

3 

14 

4 

4 

13 

2 

23 

0 

0 

14 

4 

1 

4 

2 

0 

29 

1 

4 

4 

7 

84 

1 

0 

4 

16 

10 

6 

23 

2 

56 

0 

23 

2 

4 

4 

1 

6 

3 

28 

3 

3 

1 

44 

51 

34 

34 

36 

64 

37 

40 

65 

33 

81 

31 

32 

48 

42 

33 

39 

36 

34 

82 

35 

39 

35 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

4 

0 

2 

United Kingdom 

22 

TOTAL 

150 

4 

0 

0 

21 

149 

0 

0 

0 

8 

44 

35 

31 

31 

39 

8 

0 

9 

15 

161 

5 

0 

5 

24 

169 

12 

0 

11 

45 

355 

44 

31 

36 

84 

10. 

Mutual assistance requests issued by Member State in 2010 

Information Requests 
Art. 6 

Alerts 
Art. 7 

Enforcement Requests 
Art. 8 

TOTAL 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

issued 

received 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Deutschland 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

3 

12 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

45 

0 

9 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

2 

0 

2 

0 

12 

0 

0 

10 

0 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

0 

3 

0 

1 

16 

0 

1 

0 

6 

4 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

5 

1 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

22 

24 

21 

22 

22 

26 

23 

21 

31 

21 

23 

22 

21 

23 

26 

21 

23 

21 

21 

24 

23 

27 

4 

11 

0 

0 

1 

11 

10 

1 

22 

0 

14 

1 

10 

0 

1 

3 

0 

6 

8 

6 

5 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

5 

21 

0 

0 

9 

2 

14 

0 

5 

10 

6 

1 

1 

3 

1 

21 

5 

1 

7 

29 

4 

1 

4 

13 

10 

1 

28 

2 

60 

1 

22 

0 

2 

4 

2 

6 

8 

9 

5 

0 

29 

28 

21 

26 

27 

59 

23 

21 

50 

23 

38 

23 

28 

36 

33 

22 

27 

24 

23 

61 

28 

29 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

United Kingdom 

0 

1 

1 

1 

6 

TOTAL 

89 

1 

4 

0 

4 

18 

87 

0 

2 

0 

0 

11 

37 

23 

22 

21 

23 

25 

0 

3 

0 

5 

10 

132 

1 

4 

0 

1 

11 

128 

0 

6 

1 

6 

27 

258 

25 

30 

21 

28 

54 

11. 

CPCS connection and usage check - Number of Competent authorities (December 2010)  

CPCS Users 

Authorities 

Total of 750 active users in 30 countries. 

Total  of  346  authorities  and  30  Single  Liaison  Offices  with 
CPCS access. 

30  %  of  these  never  issued  a  request  for  mutual  assistance 
despite having a password. 

EN 

25 

   EN