Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive : final report.
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, administrative formalities, approximation of laws, building industry, domestic market, freedom to provide services, mutual recognition principle, right of establishment, service, services contract, simplification of formalities

Simplification and mutual recognition in the 
construction sector under the Services 
Directive 

MARKT/2014/087/E 

Final Report 

Written by ECORYS Nederland B.V., in association with Delft, University of Technology 
November – 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, ntrepreneurship and SMEs  
Directorate E — Modernisation of the Single Market  
Unit E1 — Service Policy for Consumers 

Contact: GROW-E1@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Simplification and mutual recognition in the 
construction sector under the Services 
Directive 

MARKT/2014/087/E 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-51535-4 
Doi:10.2873/964404 

© European Union, 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual 
recognition in the construction 
sector under the Services Directive 

MARKT/2014/087/E 

Final Report 

Disclaimer: 
The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily 
reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy 
of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the 
Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

November 2015 I 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 8 

Study Objectives and Overview ...................................................................... 8 
1.1 
1.2 
Analytical Framework and Methodological Steps ............................................... 9 
1.3  Overview and Analysis of Horizontal Authorisation Schemes ............................. 10 
1.4 
Key findings on horizontal authorisation schemes ............................................ 12 
1.5  Overview and Analysis of Building Permit Procedures ....................................... 15 
1.6 
Evaluation  of  Voluntary  Certification  Schemes  against  the  Principles  of 
Mutual Recognition and Simplification – Key Findings ....................................... 20 
1.7 
Stakeholders Interviews: Key Findings ........................................................... 21 
1.8  General conclusions ..................................................................................... 22 

2 

METHODOLOGY  FOR  THE  LEGAL  EVALUATION  OF  HORIZONTAL  AUTHORISATION 
SCHEMES AND BUILDING PERMIT LEGISLATION ...................................................... 24 

2.1  Methodology ............................................................................................... 24 
Services Directive Indicators ......................................................................... 24 
2.2 
2.3 
Legal  evaluation  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and  building  
permit legislation ........................................................................................ 31 

3 

LEGAL INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL AUTHORISATION SCHEMES ..... 33 

3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 
3.5 
3.6 
3.7 
3.8 
3.9 

Identification and assessment of horizontal authorisation schemes .................... 33 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 5 .............................................. 40 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 8 .............................................. 46 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 9(1) .......................................... 47 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 10(3)(4) .................................... 50 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 11(1) ........................................ 54 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 13(2)(3)(4) ................................ 56 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 16(2b) ....................................... 59 
Aggregate indicator results and identification of good practice .......................... 63 

4 

OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL INVENTORY OF BUILDING PERMIT LEGISLATION ................ 72 

4.1  Overall  legal  framework  for  building  permit  procedures  and  technical 
building  regulations,  and  the  extent  of  the  use  of  mutual  recognition  
principles and procedures ............................................................................. 73 
Application procedures and categorisation of construction works ....................... 79 
Submission demands and online handling ....................................................... 85 
Plan approval, site inspections and completion ................................................ 92 
Fees ........................................................................................................ 104 
Procedure times ........................................................................................ 111 
Liability and insurance ............................................................................... 115 

4.2 
4.3 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 

5 

EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT LEGISLATION .................................................. 122 

5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 
5.5 
5.6 

Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 5 ............................................ 122 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 8 ............................................ 132 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 9(1) and Article 16(2)b .............. 134 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 10(3)(4) .................................. 141 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 13(2)(3)(4) .............................. 146 
Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 16(2)(f) ................................... 159 

 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

5.7 

Aggregate indicator results and identification of good practice ........................ 160 

6 

ASSESSMENT  OF  VOLUNTARY  CERTIFICATION  SCHEMES  IN  THE  CONSTRUCTION 
SECTOR AND EVALUATION .................................................................................. 169 

6.1  Overview of Task 2 .................................................................................... 169 
EU legislation supporting mutual recognition of voluntary certification .............. 170 
6.2 
Voluntary Certification Schemes Examined by the Study ................................ 170 
6.3 
Evaluation against the principles of mutual recognition .................................. 174 
6.4 
Procedural characteristics of the certification schemes ................................... 187 
6.5 
6.6 
Evaluation against the principles of simplification .......................................... 197 
6.7  Overall conclusions .................................................................................... 201 

7 

8 

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES ............... 205 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 212 

8.1  Overall 

Conclusions 

of 

the 

Assessment 

of 

Horizontal  

Authorisation Schemes............................................................................... 212 
8.2  Overall Conclusions of the Assessment of Building Permit Legislation ............... 214 
Article-Specific Conclusions ........................................................................ 218 
8.3 
8.4  Recommendations  jointly  addressing  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and 

building permit legislation .......................................................................... 223 

8.5  Recommendations  provided  by  interviewees  relating  to  building  /  permit 

control procedures and the internal market for construction services ............... 224 

8.6  Conclusions 

and 

Recommendations 

on 

Voluntary 

Certification  

Schemes .................................................................................................. 225 

November 2015 I 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Executive Summary 

1.1  Study Objectives and Overview  

1.1.1  Main study objectives  

The  Services  Directive  (2006/123/EC)  aims  to  remove  obstacles  to  cross-border 
provision  of  services  in  the  internal  market,  either  on  a  temporary  basis  or  on  the 
basis  of  secondary  establishment.  The  Directive  also  benefits  service  providers  who 
are active in a domestic market only. In this context, the main thrust of the Directive 
is  to  ensure  that  authorisation  schemes  and  controls  that  apply  to  service  providers 
are  aligned  to  the  Directive's  rules  that  support  administrative  and  regulatory 
simplification and mutual recognition.  

The main objective of this study was to determine whether  Member  States make full 
use  of  the  principles  of  administrative  and  regulatory  simplification,  including  by  way 
of mutual recognition, as part of their relevant authorisation schemes for construction 
service providers.  

With  this  objective  in  mind,  the  study  compared  the  relative  administrative  and 
regulatory burden associated with the Member State authorisation schemes examined. 
In  addition,  good  practices  were  identified  that  illustrate  how  better  alignment  with 
Services  Directive  can  be  obtained  across  all  Member  States.  The  overall  study 
findings  informed  the  development  of  recommendations  to  encourage  legislative 
reforms.  

1.1.2  Types of authorisation schemes in the study scope  

In terms of the types of authorisation schemes of interest to this study, the research 
examined  those  schemes  that  are  imposed  on  contractors  and  developers  (although 
authorisation schemes that apply equally to all sectors were not examined). This study 
has considered private works only. 1 

  In  line  with  the  scope  of  the  research,  the  two  types  of  schemes 
examined are horizontal authorisation schemes and building permits:  

  A horizontal scheme concerns all, or certain, construction service providers 

which need authorised access to the construction services market; 

  The building permit procedure, as described further in section 4, that has been 

subject to examination relates to the process of:  

o  Preparation of applicant submission demands for a building permit 

including necessary plans; 

o  Plan approval by a relevant authority. 

  The following aspects of the building permit procedure (which are often 

considered in the broader context of building control) have also been covered:  

o  Site inspections;  
o  Completion and official sign-off of the building works.  

This  study  does  not  address  professional  qualification  requirements,  for  example 
regarding architects, engineers and craftsmen. A study was recently conducted on an 

1   Public works are understood as execution, or both design and execution, of a work by or for the State, 
regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law or associations formed by one or more such 
authorities or one or more such bodies governed by public law. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

‘Inventory of reserves of activities linked to professional qualifications requirements in 
13  EU  Member  States  and  assessment  of  their  economic  impact’,  and  this  study 
targeted  construction  service  professionals.2  A  ‘Mutual  evaluation  of  regulated 
professions’  is  also  ongoing.3  Moreover,  the  research  scope  does  not  cover  controls 
targeting  the  employment  relationship  of  workers  with  employers  in  the  construction 
services sector.4  

1.2  Analytical Framework and Methodological Steps  

1.2.1  Analytical framework  

The  analytical  framework  for  this  study  was  designed  to  support  an  in-depth 
assessment  of  national  legislation  against  the  principles  of  simplification  and  mutual 
recognition of the Services Directive.  

The  principle  of  administrative  simplification  aims  to  ensure  that  authorisation 
schemes  operate  in  an  efficient  and  less  burdensome  manner,  thereby  reducing 
bureaucratic barriers. Under Articles 5, 8 and 13 of the Services Directive, procedures 
should be simple to follow, not subject to undue delays, have clear deadlines and not 
allow  unjustified  extensions.  Any  submission  demands  should  be  requested  in  simple 
copy  and  electronic  form,  certified  documents  should  be  required  only  when  justified 
by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, and equivalent documents must 
be accepted as proof that a requirement has been met. Tacit approval should apply as 
a rule.  

Regulatory  simplification  of  authorisation  schemes,  as  required  by  Articles  9,  10,  11 
and  16  of  the  Services  Directive,  aims  to  ensure  that  requirements  are  necessary, 
suitable and proportionate in attaining public interest goals.  

Mutual  recognition,  as  governed  by  Article  10  and  16,  guarantees  that  cross-border 
service  providers  are  not  subject  to  duplicate  requirements  and  controls  where  the 
same  service  providers  have  already  complied  with  equivalent  or  essentially 
comparable requirements in their home Member State.  

1.2.2  Indicators used to measure the extent of procedural restrictiveness  

The analytical framework was underpinned by a series of indicators for the purpose of 
evaluating the extent of Member States' restrictiveness against the Services Directive. 
This  methodological  approach  scored  the  extent  of  legislative  and  procedural 
restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  to  6,5  in  a  similar  way  as  the  indicator  framework 
developed by the OECD to monitor Product Market Regulation (PMR).6 

2   The study report is available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/news/20120214-report_en.pdf. 

3   Under Article 59 of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications – further 

information at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/free-movement-
professionals/transparency-mutual-recognition/index_en.htm. 

4   For example, controls on posted workers put in place under the Enforcement Directive for the Posting of 

Workers Directive (2014/67/EU). This Directive should be implemented by 18 June 2016. 

5   A score of 0 indicates a good level of compliance with the Services Directive. A score of 6 indicates a 

very poor level of compliance with the Services Directive.  

6   http://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/indicatorsofproductmarketregulationhomepage.htm. 

November 2015 I 9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
1.2.3  Methodological  steps:  country  selection,  legal  mapping,  application  of 
the  indicator  framework,  stakeholder  interviews  and  identification  of 
good practices  

The  methodological  steps  established  to  structure  the  research  and  legal  analysis 
were:  

1.  Fourteen Member States were selected with representative approaches7 to 

establishing horizontal authorisation schemes and/or building permit /control 
procedures for in-depth analysis; the countries selected (and regions/cities in 
decentralised Member States) were: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany 
(region Nord-Rhein Westfallen), Denmark, Greece, Spain (Madrid), Finland, 
France, Italy (Milan), the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and the 
United Kingdom (England); 

2.  Legal analysis was performed with the support of the indicator framework to 
identify the extent to which the selected Member States (or regions/cities in 
those Member States with more decentralised construction sector regulation) 
are making full use of the principles of simplification and mutual recognition as 
established under the Services Directive in their horizontal authorisation 
schemes and building permits procedures for construction service providers;  

3.  In this context, the indicator framework was used to measure the extent of 

regulatory and administrative restrictiveness in relation to key features of the 
national authorisation schemes against individual Articles. An overall score was 
allocated to each Member State to indicate the extent of compliance with the 
Services Directive;  

4.  With a view to considering alternative methods that encourage simplification 

and mutual recognition, the study analysed a number of different voluntary 
certification schemes for construction service providers that are recognised by 
authorities as providing an alternative to regulatory compliance and/or help 
service providers to meet requirements set in law;  

5.  In order to strengthen the evidence base, an interview programme was 

implemented with a limited number of stakeholders in the fourteen Member 
States; 

6.  In the context of the principles of simplification and mutual recognition, good 

practice, as well as recurrent problems, were identified. 

1.3  Overview and Analysis of Horizontal Authorisation Schemes  
A key study objective was to perform a legal mapping exercise and analysis of national 
legislation relating to horizontal authorisation schemes against relevant Articles of the 
Services Directive.  

7  

In  accordance  with  the  following  criteria:  1)  geographical  spread  and  size  of  countries;  2)  Countries 
with horizontal authorisation schemes as indicated in the ‘Performance check of the Services Directive’; 
3)  Distribution  of  countries  with  comparable regulatory  features  (building permit  area)  –  e.g.  National 
vs  regional  level  regulations;  Strong  technical  enforcement  of  projects  vs.  reserving  activities  to 
regulated  professions;  Countries  with  regular  procedures  only  for  submitting  building  permits  vs. 
countries  with  optional  lighter  procedures  for  documentary  requirements;  Whether  checks  are 
performed by more than one or more authorities; Whether or not a declaration of completion is required 
from the owner / builder or architect;; 4) All selected countries were included in the ‘Study to provide 
an Inventory of Reserves of Activities linked to professional qualification requirements in 13 EU Member 
States (2002)’. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

1.3.1  Categories of horizontal authorisation schemes examined 

The legal mapping exercise identified that in 6 countries (Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, 
Spain,  Italy  and  Portugal)  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  are  in  operation 
controlling  a  range  of  different  requirements  and  conditions.  They  fall  into  the 
following categories:  

  Company registration schemes that grant authorisation to companies 

(contractors and developers) to enter the construction services market in 
Bulgaria, and Portugal. These schemes control a wide range of requirements 
such as:  

o 

o 

financial and economic capacity (requirements are in place to restrict 
insolvent or bankrupt entities and, in Portugal, 10% of equity is required 
according to the value of the category of works);  

technical and professional requirements (for example equipment 
requirements are in place in Bulgaria and qualified personnel in both 
countries);  

o  and insurance requirements (although all Member States impose 

insurance requirements for the performance of construction works, only 
Bulgaria and Portugal, as well as Denmark mentioned below, -out of the 
14 Member States covered by the study -control insurance coverage in 
the context of a horizontal authorisation scheme, and define the 
segment of the construction sector that service providers are permitted 
to operate within). 

  While less broad in scope, Spain requires service providers to demonstrate that 
construction health and safety requirements have been complied with. Spain is 
the only Member State covered by the study which imposes a targeted control 
on health and safety for the construction sector in the framework of an 
authorisation procedure. Other Member States also impose organisational 
health and safety requirements to be respected by a company in order to 
implement Article 7 of Directive 89/31/EEC but do not link them to a prior 
authorisation specific to construction service provision;  

  Company registration schemes that grant authorisation to companies 

(contractors and developers) to enter specific segments of the construction 
services market: in Denmark, an authorisation scheme controls access to the 
trade activities of electrical, gas, plumbing and sewerage installation. It relates 
to the registration of electrical, gas, plumbing and sewerage installation 
companies; 

  Authorisation schemes that grant authorisation to construction professionals 
involved in construction works (going beyond just the control of professional 
qualifications): the scheme identified in Denmark for registration of electrical, 
gas, plumbing and sewerage installation companies imposes conditions 
specifically referring to professional; 

  A proposed scheme in Greece, the ‘Register of building design engineers and 
construction supervising engineers’, seeks to link building permit applications 
to the designer responsible for preparing the technical plans by issuing a 
designer ID to architects and engineers; 

  Mandatory certification schemes relating to contractors, developers and 

professionals: For instance, a legal requirement identified in Italy demands 
services providers that enter into contracts with a value equivalent to or 
greater than €500,000, to hold EN:ISO 9001:2008 quality management system 
certification. Another Italian scheme is the Certificate of Undeclared Work 
(DURC) which demonstrates that construction companies have complied with 
their tax and social security obligations and must be submitted as part of the 

November 2015 I 11 

 
 
application for a building permit. The Danish scheme mentioned above is also a 
mandatory certification scheme. 

These  authorisation  schemes  apply  to  establishing  and  temporary  cross-border 
providers  in  5  Member  States.  In  Denmark  and  Italy  (DURC  scheme),  authorisation 
schemes  are  more  stringent  for  temporary  provision  of  services,  compared  to 
establishment  situations.  Bulgaria  introduced  a  less  onerous  notification  procedure 
specifically to (first-time) temporary cross-border service providers. Portugal’s controls 
on incoming temporary service providers are only slightly different than those imposed 
on establishing service providers. 

1.4  Key findings on horizontal authorisation schemes 

1.4.1  Simplification  and  mutual  recognition  requirements  of  the  Services 

Directive  

The  main  requirements  of  the  Services  Directive  supporting  regulatory  and 
administrative simplification are:  

  Authorisation schemes should be justified by an overriding reason of public 

interest. In order for them to prove proportionate, it should be demonstrated 
that the same function cannot be realised through alternative less restrictive 
methods;  

  Regarding the provision of temporary cross-border services, authorisation 

schemes are justifiable only under reasons of public policy, public health, public 
safety and the protection of the environment.8 

With  these  requirements  in  mind,  it  seems  difficult  to  justify  the  imposition  of  a 
horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  proportionate  terms  considering  the  widespread 
implementation  of  building  control  authorisation  procedures  during  individual  works. 
This is certainly the case for the temporary cross-border provision of services.  

As  a  result,  the  study  has  generally  concluded  that  none  of  the  horizontal 
authorisation  schemes  identified  appear  to  be  justified  and  proportionate  under  the 
Services Directive given that temporary cross-border providers are already subject to 
controls  such  as,  where  relevant,  initial  building  permit  procedures  and  in  particular, 
site  inspections.  Considering  that  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  are  similar 
(although in some case more burdensome such as in Denmark and Italy), their lack of 
regulatory  simplicity,  mutual  recognition  and  even  simplification  makes  subsequent 
building permit procedures unduly complex and unsuited for temporary l cross-border 
service provision. Bulgaria does require just the prior notification of temporary cross-
border  providers,  focusing  only  on  technical  and  professional  capacity.  While  the 
procedure is in itself less burdensome, a justification of this underlying condition under 
the Services Directive remains doubtful. 

However,  at  the  same  time,  it  should  be  recognised  that  under  the  right  of 
establishment,  construction  companies  might  benefit  from  simpler  building  permits  if 
there  are  synergies  with  previous  controls  implemented  by  a  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme enabling firms to access the market. For instance, building permits could then 
focus  on  on-site  aspects  of  service  provision  only  so  that  the  number  of  regulatory 
conditions  can  be  reduced  and  duplication  could  be  avoided.  Ultimately,  service 

8   As prescribed by Article 16 of the Services Directive. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

providers  would,  be  faced  with  less  burdensome  regulatory  and  administrative 
requirements altogether.  

1.4.2  Regulatory burden 

In  terms  of  the  number  of  administrative  procedures  to  complete  an  authorisation 
process, with the exception of Denmark, all horizontal authorisation schemes operate 
in  the  context  of  a  single  administrative  procedure  managed  by  a  single  authority. 
While  this  is  a  positive  finding,  this  does  not  mean  that  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes are simple overall, as required by the Services Directive.  

However, the six Member States that have adopted horizontal authorisation schemes 
require  specific  professional  qualifications  of  key  construction  personnel  such  as 
architects and/or engineers involved in the construction works. Such professionals are 
subject to their own authorisations and, throughout their performance, to a number of 
exercise requirements pertaining to quality of services and ethics. But none of the six 
Member States do away with the horizontal authorisation schemes for contractors and 
developers making use of key construction personnel which are appropriately qualified 
and/or certified. 

None of the horizontal authorisations issued in any of the six Member States are valid 
indefinitely.  The  Italian  DURC  authorisation  is  valid  for  90  days,  and  the  Bulgarian 
authorisation is valid for one year, as is the standard Portuguese authorisation (while 
the simplified authorisation is valid for 5 years). Danish authorisations are valid for 2 
years  (due  to  the  expiration  of  the  underlying  certification  scheme).  Both  the  Italian 
mandatory  ISO  certification  scheme  and  the  Spanish  authorisation  regarding  health 
and safety are valid for 3 years. 

In Denmark, Spain and Italy, the limited duration of the authorisations issued means 
reinitiating the initial procedure with all costs implied, including the relevant fees.  

In  Portugal  (regarding  insurance)  and  Spain  (regarding  health  and  safety),  some  of 
the conditions imposed for granting these horizontal authorisations seem to be broadly 
duplicated in the context of building permit procedures. 

1.4.3  Mutual recognition 

Mutual  recognition  principles  for  cross-border  service  providers  are  in  place  for  both 
insurance  and  other  requirements,  with  the  exception  of  Bulgaria.  However, 
procedures  that  ensure  an  equivalence  assessment  on  the  ground  are  not  formally 
described in the law and are generally inoperative. 

Portugal  (with  specific  rules  in  place  for  technical/professional  and  financial  capacity) 
and Italy (regarding the ISO scheme, based on European and international standards) 
are the exceptions.  

Regarding  insurance  requirements,  Bulgaria,  Denmark  and  Portugal  have  foreseen  a 
mutual  recognition  principle  which  could  apply  in  the  context  of  horizontal 
authorisation schemes, but it is not operational in practice. 

In  contrast,  there  are  no  mutual  recognition  rules  in  place  for  other  requirements 
regarding  technical/professional  capacity  in  Bulgaria,  registration  and  certification  in 
Denmark and organisational health and safety requirements in Spain.  

November 2015 I 13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.4.4  Administrative burden 

In  terms  of  the  overall  level  of  administrative  burden,  the  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes proved excessively restrictive. 
While  E-procedures  and  equivalent  documents  seem  to  be  accepted  everywhere, 
simple  copies  are  only  accepted  in  half  of  the  countries.  In  Portugal  originals  or 
certified copies may be required where there are cases of doubt, and in Bulgaria and 
Spain  certified  translations  by  professionals  registered  in  those  countries  are  always 
required.  

In addition, the administrative burden in terms of the number of documents required 
varies across Member States, whether or not information is made available in English 
and whether English language documents are permitted for submission. In 4 out of 6 
Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark,  Italy and Portugal) fees are not  proportionate to 
the cost of administering the approval process. Tacit approval is the rule only in Italy 
(with regard to its DURC scheme) Portugal and Spain. 

1.4.5  Overall level of restrictiveness of horizontal authorisation schemes 

The  overall  results  of  the  assessment  of  the  extent  of  the  administrative  and 
regulatory  burden  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  led  to  the  ranking  of  the 
fourteen study countries. The key findings are:  

  The Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Poland, 

Slovenia and the United Kingdom appear to offer a higher level of compliance 
with the Services Directive because in these countries, horizontal authorisation 
schemes have not been established as building control procedures are deemed 
to offer a sufficient level of control;  

  Bulgaria and Denmark have the most restrictive horizontal authorisation 

schemes. The Danish scheme combines an authorisation procedure with a 
mandatory certification process and therefore has performed less well against a 
number of indicators;  

  While the Italian horizontal authorisation schemes individually performed 

comparatively better than others, the cumulative impact of these should be 
considered;  

  Spain and Portugal are comparatively less restrictive mainly because they 

apply tacit approval and to some extent mutual recognition;  

  Greece appears to also offer a less restrictive environment. However, this 

scheme has been defined in the context of a legislative proposal and is not 
operational at this stage. A full assessment against all of the indicators could 
not be undertaken. 

Figure  1.1  provides  the  combined  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall 
restrictiveness  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes.  This  assessment  combines  the 
results  around  the  assessment  of  administrative  and  regulatory  burdens.  The  least 
restrictive  countries  are  associated  with  low  scores,  while  the  reverse  is  true  for 
countries  with  high  scores.  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual 
indicator  results  in  relation  to  the  individual  scores  for  administrative  and  regulatory 
burdens.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Figure 1.1 Overall restrictiveness of horizontal authorisation schemes in 6 Member 

States 

1.5  Overview and Analysis of Building Permit Procedures 

1.5.1  Description of the building permit procedure  

A  legal  mapping  and  evaluation  exercise  was  also  undertaken  to  examine  building 
permit  legislation in  all 14  Member  States  covered  by  the  study.  A  building  permit is 
recognised by the study as a legal requirement and procedure which ultimately allows 
for the construction work of a certain building, its renovation as well as an engineering 
work to take place in a given location. To ensure consistency, two types of  reference 
construction  works  were  used  as  benchmarks  so  that  similar  situations  could  be 
compared:  a  one  storey  two  bedroom  house  (100m2)  and  a  ten  storey  office  block 
(2000m2).  Furthermore,  the  study  focused  on  requirements  for  the  performance  of  a 
construction project9 only, but not on other rules, such as spatial planning rules.  

The  building  permit  application  procedures  were  analysed  in  the  context  of  the 
following typology10:  

  Regular procedure: in relation to building work that requires a building permit, 

plans are submitted to a relevant authority for assessment against the 
technical requirements for building works. If approved, construction works may 
proceed in line with the design specifications agreed;  

  Building notice: building work may commence on the basis of a notification to 
the relevant authority or on the basis of tacit approval if an official response is 

9  

in this study "requirements for the performance of a construction project" comprise all rules 
(requirements, as defined under the Services Directive), irrespective of their nature (environmental, 
energy efficiency, real estate/cultural heritage protection, use of equipment, professional capacity, 
insurance, health and safety and others), specifically governing the performance of a certain 
construction work, from design to execution, except for those rules referring to the use of building 
materials or waste management; it does not include rules on the employment relationship of workers or 
rules directed at the technical features of the future building or civil engineering work, once completed, 
which do not simultaneously govern the respective construction process; it does not refer to land-use 
requirements or the use of a building, once completed. 

10   This typology was heavily informed by previous research undertaken by Frits Meijer, TU Delft University 

(OTB). 

November 2015 I 15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
not given in the comparatively short fixed period. In some cases, the 
submission demands may relate to a limited set of documentation (which may 
not include technical drawings);  

  Light procedure: compliance of the building design with building regulations is 
not examined in-depth by building control authorities (as the design has been 
verified already by a registered third party). Alternatively, an authority may 
grant a type approval for a building design which can be used for subsequent 
applications without further approvals required;  

  Self-certification: plan approval and designated types of construction works are 
not subject to public building control procedures if qualified or certified persons 
self-certify their own work. Self-certification may be combined with any one of 
the procedures indicated above;  

  Exemptions for minor works: construction works can start without any previous 

building control procedure. 

Using  this  typology,  it  was  possible  to  categorise  the  country  systems  examined.  As 
Table 1 indicates, each Member States has opted for its own particular combination of 
possible building permit application procedures and in some cases these are combined with the 
practice  of  the  self-certification  of  plans  by  designers  (or  self-certification  of  on-site 
works by contractors).  

Table 1.1 Overview of Member States’ building permit application procedures  
Member 
State  

Light 
procedure  

Regular 
procedure 

Building 
notice  

Self-certification of 
plans by designers / of 
own works by 
contractors  

Exemptions 
for minor 
works 

X  

X  

X 

X  
X  

X 
X 

X 

X 

X  
X 
X 

X 

X 

BG 
CZ 

X 
X 

DE (NRW)  X 
X 
DK 

EL 

X  

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

ES 
(Madrid) 

FI 
FR 
IT (Milan) 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

X  (Smaller 
works) 

(for 

X 
complex 
works) 

The building notice 
procedure is combined with 
self certification of plans.  

of 
Construction 
transportable 
structures 
can  be  self  certified  by 
certified service providers. 
The regular procedure is 
combined with self 
certification of plans. 
The 
notice 
procedure  (Declaration  of 
Responsibility) enables self-
certification of plans.  

building 

The building notice 
procedure is combined with 
self certification of plans. 

The regular and building 
notice procedures are 
combined with self 
certification of plans. 
Self  certification  of 
plans for smaller works.  

the 

X  
X 

X 
X 

Notification  

X 

X 
X 
X 

X  

X 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Member 
State  

Regular 
procedure 

Building 
notice  

Light 
procedure  

UK 
(England) 

X  

X  

(Type 

X 
approval)  

Self-certification of 
plans by designers / of 
own works by 
contractors  
Installation  work  can  be 
self  certified  by  certified 
contractors 

Exemptions 
for minor 
works 

X 

1.5.2  Key findings on building permits 

Building  permits  apply  equally  to  establishing  and  temporary  cross-border  providers. 
This  means  the  building  permits  (as  well  as  building  controls  in  general)  and  their 
underlying  requirements  can  only  be  justified  by  reasons  of  public  policy,  public 
safety, public health and the protection of the environment.11  

Furthermore, because building permits control on-site aspects of service performance, 
the authorisation procedure is repeated every time construction services are provided 
to  commercial  or  residential  clients.  In  order  to  achieve  proportionality  and  to  limit 
any  burdensome  effects,  these  procedures  must  operate  as  simply  as  possible.  In 
particular,  conditions  for  granting  the  building  permit  which  do  not  relate  to  on-site 
aspects of service provision should not be repeated, but rather controlled once only. 

1.5.3  Regulatory burden 

Building  permit  procedures  across  the  14  Member  States  analysed  often  present  a 
high level of regulatory restrictiveness. 

Nation-wide  validity  for  building  permits  is  only  an  issue  for  non-site  specific  aspects 
of  service  performance.  Although  most  Member  States  do  not  differentiate,  Germany 
and the United Kingdom have put in place a nationwide approval  process for building 
designs that are non-site specific. 

No  Member  State  controls  building  activities  through  a  single  one-off  building  permit 
control, eventually coupled with on-site inspections. Instead, they impose a number of 
administrative  control  procedures  from  the  initial  application,  to  the  commencing  of 
the works on the ground until final completion. With the exception of the Netherlands, 
all  Member  States  impose  3  or  more  separate  control  procedures  that  collectively 
constitute  the  building  permit  /  control  process.  However,  most  Member  States  have 
put  in  place  alternative  procedures  for  simpler  building  works  (except  for  Denmark, 
Finland,  France,  the  Netherlands  and  Poland),  and  all  exempt  minor  works12  from 
building  permit  procedures,  except  for  Greece  which  imposes  a  notification  for  such 
works.13 

1.5.4  Mutual recognition 

Technical standards play a key role in how to conduct building works. In view of their 
complex  nature,  mutual  recognition  of  these  technical  rules  across  Member  States  is 
only  feasible  if  performance-based  standards  are  adopted  by  Member  States.  This  is 
the  case  for  Greece,  Spain,  France  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Other  Member  States 

11   As prescribed by Article 16 of the Services Directive. 
12   However, the concept of "minor work" varies greatly across Member States. 
13   The  scores  for  these  indicators  are  included  in  the  graph  for  administrative  barriers,  given  their 

relevance for Article 5 of the Services Directive. 

November 2015 I 17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
have  adopted  a  combination  of  prescriptive  and  performance-based  standards  to 
varying extents, with the exception of Portugal.14 

The existence of rules permitting the use of equipment as part of a service activity in a 
host  Member  State  according  to  regulations  established  in  a  home  Member  State  do 
not  seem  to  be  common.  However,  given  that  many  substantive  rules  on  equipment 
use  are  based  on  European  or  International  Standards,  there  seems  to  be  no  real 
problem on the ground when using equipment across borders.  

Insurance  requirements  are  widespread  and  divergent  across  Member  States.15 
However, mutual recognition is not applied in practice due to the absence of a specific 
procedure for assessing equivalence of insurance coverage.  

Companies  follow  organisational  rules  for  health  and  safety  according  to  their  home 
Member  State  requirements  implementing  Article  7  of  Directive  89/31/EEC.16  These 
rules  oblige  companies  to  set  up  internal  health  and  safety  structures  comprising 
certain  professionals  with  the  necessary  capabilities,  aptitudes  and  means,  including 
equipment. Companies may avoid setting up such structures by hiring external health 
and  safety  service  providers  in  a  home  country.  It  appears  that  companies  are  often 
not  in  a  position  to  obtain  mutual  recognition  by  being  allowed  to  keep  their 
organisational arrangements (be it an internal or external service). Due to absence of 
specific  mutual  recognition  rules,  companies  going  cross-border 
to  provide 
construction  services  need  either  to  restructure  their  health  and  safety  internal 
organisation locally (which is often too expensive and impracticable) or  to hire a local 
external  health  and  safety  service  provider  (but  not  the  service  provider  previously 
used in the home Member State). 

1.5.5  Administrative burden 

In  terms  of  the  extent  of  administrative  burdens,  building  permit  schemes  proved 
particularly restrictive. 

E-procedures  are  not  available  everywhere.  Only  Finland,  the  Netherlands  and  the 
United Kingdom provide for full-case handling online, while most Member States only 
allow  for  paper  forms  to  be  downloaded.  The  Czech  Republic,  Germany  and  Spain 
allow  for  some  electronic  intake.  Information  in  English  is  partially  available  in  the 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. Simple copies are accepted in 
7  Member  States.  In  Bulgaria  and  Spain,  certified  translations  by  professionals 
registered in those countries are required. Moreover, all other Member States require 
simple translations.  

The  number  of  documentary  submission  demands  required  varies  across  Member 
States.  Fees  vary  even  more,  ranging  from  €35  in  the  Czech  Republic  (for  a  one-
storey  2  bedroom  house)  to  €125.000  in  the  Netherlands  (for  a  10-storey  office 
block),  where  they  do  not  seem  to  be  proportionate  to  the  cost  of  administering  the 
authorisation  procedure.  In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  only  one  authority  is 
involved  in  the  process  of  approving  submission  demands  necessary  for  a  building 
permit (except for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, France and Poland).  

14   Although Portugal seems to be in the process of moving in the direction of introducing performance 

based standards.  

15   Some Member States require insurance coverage for one or more types of insurance coverage (work 

performance, latent defects and tort liability). 

16   Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage 

improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Some  Member  States  control  planning  issues  in  a  separate  procedure:  these  are  the 
Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Spain,  the  United  Kingdom  and,  in  the  absence  of  spatial 
planning regulations for the area concerned, France and Poland. In these countries the 
duration  of  procedures  should  be  shorter  and  tacit  approval  more  widespread.  The 
duration of procedures in these countries range from 2 days in Greece to 12 weeks in 
Spain  (for  a  10-storey  office  block).  Germany  stands-out  with  short  procedural 
durations  (4  or  8  weeks)  and  tacit  approval.  However,  10-storey  office  blocks  in  the 
Netherlands take up to 26 weeks to receive approval. Twelve Member States (except 
for Finland and the United Kingdom) do not accept designs submitted by professionals 
operating from another Member State.  

1.5.6  Overall Level of restrictiveness of building permit schemes 

The key findings are:  

  The United Kingdom (England) has the least restrictive building control regime 
when examined against the relevant Articles of the Services Directive. Better 
performance could be attained regarding mutual recognition and tacit approval;  

  Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain have performed in 
a satisfactory manner against the indicators. There are various strengths and 
weaknesses linked to each country. Finland, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands 
have relatively low scores regarding administrative simplification. Most of these 
countries have performed well on regulatory restrictiveness. Finland and the 
Netherlands have very good scores regarding e-procedures. However, better 
performance could be attained regarding mutual recognition; 

  Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France Poland, Portugal and Slovenia 
have performed less well against the indicators. The Czech Republic, France 
and Portugal are more restrictive in terms of mutual recognition. The remaining 
countries have not performed well on administrative simplification.  

Figure  1.2  provides  the  combined  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall 
restrictiveness  of  building  permit  legislation.  This  assessment  combines  the  results 
around the assessment of administrative and regulatory burdens.  The least restrictive 
countries are associated with low scores and the reverse is true for countries with high 
scores.  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual  indicator  results  in 
relation to the individual scores for administrative and regulatory burdens.  

November 2015 I 19 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1.2 Overall restrictiveness of building permits  

1.6  Evaluation  of  Voluntary  Certification  Schemes  against  the 
Principles of Mutual Recognition and Simplification – Key Findings 
A  sample  of  different  types  of  voluntary  certification  schemes  in  12  Member  States 
were  selected  for  assessment  and  evaluated  against  the  principles  of  mutual 
recognition  and  simplification.17  The  evaluation  took  into  account  whether  authorities 
recognise  such  voluntary  certification  schemes  as  an  alternative  to  regulatory 
compliance or help service providers to meet requirements set in law.  

In terms of the voluntary schemes that act as an alternative to regulatory compliance, 
it  was  found  that  only  a  small  proportion  offer  this  feature  namely  those  based  on 
national  standards  with  direct  reference  to  national  legislation.  This  category  of 
voluntary  certification  scheme  based  on  national  standards  performs  well  against  the 
principle  of  simplification.  However,  such  schemes  do  not  support  mutual  recognition 
of  service  providers  since  construction  regulations  and  standards  vary  widely  across 
Member States. 

In contrast, voluntary certification schemes based on international (ISO) or European 
standards offer the potential for the mutual recognition of service providers, given that 
the relevant certification bodies operate under Regulation 765/2008, on accreditation. 
Therefore,  certification  issued  in  one  Member  State  should  be  recognised  in  another 
Member  State.  However,  it  is  normally  the  case  that  certification  of  this  nature  does 
not  provide  an  alternative  to  regulatory  compliance.  Therefore  it  performs  less  well 
regarding  their  potential  for  simplification  of  formalities  accessing  foreign  markets. 
Voluntary  certification  schemes  can  only  be  tools  for  simplification  and  mutual 
recognition if certain conditions are met, of which the most important are: 

  The use of an initial and one-off control procedure (e.g. type approval of plans 
or certification of service providers) to enhance the potential for simplification 
of subsequent authorisations made in the context of recurrent building permit 
procedures; 

17   Suitable  voluntary certification  schemes  that  would  add  value  to  the  sample  could  not be  identified  in 

CZ and EL.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

  Restriction to standard / recurrent activities or construction works where it is 
easier to develop internationally accepted norms to enhance the potential for 
mutual recognition in building permit procedures; 

  Accreditation, to signal to cross-border clients the ability to comply with 
national regulations, both for management systems and for professional 
qualifications.  

1.7  Stakeholders Interviews: Key Findings  

The  final  study  task  was  to  conduct  interviews  with  stakeholders  located  in  the 
fourteen Member States to collect feedback on: 

  Where the main problems and costs for going cross-border reside; 

  Whether electronic document submission, procedures and formalities are 
available as part of horizontal authorisation schemes and building permit 
processes;  

  The practical implementation of the mutual recognition principle in the context 

of cross border authorisation and how it can be improved. 

Only  a  total  of  thirty  interviews  were  conducted  with  European  and  national  level 
associations,  architects,  building  engineers  and  construction  services  companies.  Due 
to the limited number of interviewees per Member State, the interview results should 
be  seen  as  illustrative  only  and  not  as  representative  of  the  construction  services 
sector. When companies work cross-border, the main problems relate to:  

  Understanding the requirements of specific local regulations, for example those 
related to cultural heritage and environmental issues, since these differ per 
country, municipality and city; 

  Understanding what documents need to be submitted and in which way, for 

example who needs to sign? Is an official translation needed or not? 

  Unidentified risks that have to be taken into account due to unfamiliarity with 

local administrative practices or unexpected delays in procedures;  

  Where only locally-registered professionals may submit designs while applying 

for building permits; 

  Where only very large companies have access to (very costly) international 

insurance policies which may be recognised across Member States; 

  The local languages that are used by legislative documents and documented 
procedures and have to be followed in the context of the building permit 
application. 

It  was  found  that  many  companies  choose  not  to  work  cross-border  due  to  these 
problems.  If  cross  border  services  are  provided,  a  number  of  different  strategies  are 
used to circumvent problems, such as setting up a joint venture with a local company, 
or hiring a local architect or firm to handle administrative procedures. This can explain 
why regulatory hurdles regarding organisational aspects of the cross-border operation 
(such as equipment and professional capacity requirements, health and safety service 
structures)  are  not  highlighted  as  common  obstacles.  A  local  structure  according  to 
host Member State rules is commonly set up precisely to avoid such barriers.  

Most interviewees think that online case handling has significant benefits for improving 
the  efficiency  of  application  processes.  Almost  all  interviewees  are  in  favour  of  EU-

November 2015 I 21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
level reforms aimed at harmonising and simplifying cross border procedures that apply 
to  the  construction  sector.  The  scope  of  such  reforms  could  include  streamlining 
regulatory  conditions  with  respect  to  economic  and  financial  capacity,  insurance, 
health  and  safety,  and  good  repute  of  service  providers.  To  address  this  issue, 
interviewees  were  of  the  opinion  that  EU-level  forms  and  procedures  could  be 
introduced.  

1.8  General conclusions 

The table below provides an overview of the indicator results for each of the Member 
States  examined  in  terms  of  the  level  of  compliance  with  the  Services  Directive 
regarding  legislation  for  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  (weighted  to  30%)  and 
building  permit  legislation  (weighted  to  70%).  An  overall  score  is  also  provided.  The 
least  restrictive  countries  are  associated  with  low  scores,  and  the  reverse  is  true  for 
countries with high scores.  

Figure 1.3 Overall restrictiveness of authorisation schemes  

DK
BG
PT
IT
PL
ES
FR
EL
SI
CZ
DE
FI
NL
UK

Horizontal authorisation
schemes

Building permits

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Based  on  the  research  findings,  there  is  considerable  room  for  simplification  of 
procedures  imposed  on  cross-border  service  providers  of  construction  services,  in 
terms of establishment and those offering temporary cross border services.  

Horizontal authorisation schemes: In the 6 Member States that impose them, they 
have  little  or  no  impact  in  simplifying  subsequent  building  control  procedures  and 
operate as barriers to service provision. 

In  most  cases,  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  apply  equally  to  temporary  cross-
border  providers.  Authorisations  are  not  valid  indefinitely  and  often  require  service 
providers  to  undergo  the  initial  procedure  (whether  completely  or  partially)  on 
subsequent  occasions.  Their  proportionality  is  also  questionable  given  their  uniform 
application to all kinds of works, simple or complex. 

Building permits, are also in need of considerable simplification. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

  They apply unevenly to categories of works across Member States. Alternative 
procedures and the exemptions available should be expanded upon to cover a 
greater variety of works; 

 

In the same way as horizontal authorisation schemes, declarations and self-
certifications are generally not used by building permit procedures; 

  Non-site specific issues are often controlled repeatedly for each building 

project.  

A  common  element  for  both  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and  building 
permits seems to be the lack of clear mutual recognition principles and procedures: 

  For example, a cross-border service provider is forced to restructure its 

approach to service provision when going cross-border, even temporarily. Or it 
must adapt to new requirements, in view of technical and professional capacity 
requirements, and associated certifications, that are imposed whilst 
disregarding safeguards previously complied with in a home Member State. 
Health and safety service structures have to be set up irrespective of home 
Member State facilities and resources. Technical standards which are not 
performance based may be more difficult to comply with and may require the 
advisory inputs of local professionals. Insurance coverage needs to be 
purchased locally, on top of every other previously acquired across Member 
States; 

  The few exceptions are either linked to recognition of international standards 
(Italy), of professionals qualified according to home Member State rules 
(Portugal), in relation to horizontal authorisation schemes, and, more 
decisively, the widespread use of performance-based technical requirements 
(especially in Greece, Spain, France and the United Kingdom). Voluntary 
certifications schemes available in the market today, while helpful for providers 
complying with rules at a national level, where found not to offer potential for 
enhancing mutual recognition: either they focus on issues largely irrelevant for 
regulatory compliance or, if not, are not recognised cross-border given the 
disparity of the underlying standards they are based on.  

regarding  both  horizontal 
From  an  administrative  burden  perspective 
authorisation  schemes  and  building  permits,  a  number  of  issues  have  been 
identified such as:  

  e-procedures are only partially adopted;  

  Evidentiary requirements are too stringent, with little room for simple 

declarations and self-certifications; 

  Certified and authenticated copies are still required, and sometimes need to be 

produced in the host Member State; 

 

in some cases, fees are disproportionate to costs; 

  and tacit approval is not a widely adopted practice, even for horizontal 

authorisation schemes and building permits not controlling zoning aspects.  

November 2015 I 23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2  Methodology for the legal evaluation of horizontal 

authorisation schemes and building permit 
legislation  

2.1  Methodology  

The  objective  of  the  study  methodology  is  to  evaluate  national  legislation  for 
horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and  building  permit  legislation  against  relevant 
Articles of the Services Directive:  

  Both horizontal authorization schemes and building permit legislation are 

evaluated against Articles 5, 8, 9(1), 10 (3)(4), 13(2)(3)(4), 16(2)(b) (f);  

  The horizontal authorisation schemes are also evaluated against Article 11(1) 

(2).  

A  secondary  objective  was  to  evaluate  voluntary  certification  schemes  offered  to 
construction  service  providers  against  the  principles  of  simplification  and  mutual 
recognition established by the Services Directive.  

This  chapter  indicates  the  approach  used  by  the  study  to  perform  the  analysis  of  14 
Member State legal frameworks and individual voluntary certification schemes.  

2.2  Services Directive Indicators  
With  a  view  to  examining  the  extent  of  compliance  of  national  legislation  with  the 
Services Directive, the study performed its analysis with the assistance of an indicator 
framework directly linked to specific Articles of the Directive.  

The  indicator  framework  used  by  the  study  was  informed  by  the  principles  and 
approach  developed  by  the  OECD  to  monitor  Product  Market  Regulation  (PMR).18 
Some  of  the  key  principles  of  the  PMR  indicator  methodology  are  indicated  in  the 
following text box.  

  Key Principles of the OECD PMR indicator methodology 

  The  OECD  PMR  indicators  examine  the  performance  of  regulation  that  affect 
competitive  pressures  in  areas  where  competition  is  economically  viable.19 
The aspects of regulation that are focused on relate to requirements for curb 

efficiency-enhancing  competition,  whereas  regulations  in  areas  in  which 

competition would not lead to efficient outcomes (e.g. natural monopolies) are 
not considered.20  

 

  For the  purpose  of assessing  regulations in the professional  services  sectors, 

the  implicit  assumption  of  the  PMR  approach  is  that  barriers  to  entry,  or 

constraints  on  conduct  that  exist  in  one  country  but  not  in  others,  are  not 

18   http://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/indicatorsofproductmarketregulationhomepage.htm. 
19   http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/362886816127. 
20   http://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/indicatorsofproductmarketregulationhomepage.htm. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

needed to  ensure  service quality,  protect  workers  or  protect  consumers  and, 
hence, unnecessarily distort competition.21 

  However, the  PMR indicators are  silent  on the quality of regulation according 

to  criteria  other  than  encouraging  competition,  or  the  extent  to  which 

regulations achieve non-economic policy goals.  

 

  The  PMR  indicators  only  examine  the  specific  regulatory  requirements  when 

measuring performance, rather than analysing stakeholder responses on their 

suitability.  The  benefits  of  this  approach  are  that  the  indicator  results  are 

isolated  from  context-specific  assessments  and  can  be  compared  between 
countries.22  

 

  The PMR indicator framework relies upon a system of coding, aggregation and 

weighting.  In  relation  to  each  of  the  indicators,  the  results  are  coded  by 

assigning a numerical value to each of the possible replies to a given question. 

For  example,  0  to  6  reflecting  increasing  restrictiveness  of  regulatory 

provisions to competition.  

 

  For  the  purpose  of  aggregation,  the  individual  indicators  are  grouped 

according to a specific hierarchy  with for example a series of complementary 

‘low-level’  indicators  being  collectively  linked  to  a  ‘higher  level  indicator’.  At 

each level of the hierarchy, the results are aggregated and a numerical value 

of 0 to 6 is given.  

 

  A weighting system is used to take into account the relationship between the 

specific  legal  feature(s)  examined  by  the  indicators  at  various  levels  of  the 

hierarchy, and the extent to the indicators individually and collectively impact 

on market access and competition.  

 

  Furthermore,  the  0  and  6  scores  are  relative  to  theoretical  situations  (best 

practice  or  worst  practice,  respectively)  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the 

extreme  situations  found  in  the  sample  of  countries  that  are  examined. 

Hence,  the  rankings  are  not  sensitive  to  changes  in  country  coverage  if  the 

assessment is extended to a different country sample.  

 

With  a  view  to  ensuring  conformity  with  the  OECD  PMR  indicator  methodology,  a 
number of methodological features were adopted for the development of the indicator 
framework linked to the relevant Articles of the Services Directive:  

 

In order to examine whether specific regulatory features are apparent in 
national legislation, the indicators were based on ‘Yes/No’ questions or were 
linked to a sliding scale of procedural restrictiveness e.g. "Yes" – 0 points, 
"Partially" – 3 points, "No" – 6 points;  

21   This seems a reasonable assumption to make when dealing with inherently competitive sectors in OECD 

countries, which have by and large similar degrees of development, institutional quality, social 
protection systems and product quality enforcement. This assumption is supported by a growing body of 
research showing that many of the entry and conduct restrictions observed in the professional services 
industries tend to benefit incumbents at the expense of productive efficiency and the welfare of 
consumers (OECD, 2000). 

22   Ibid.  

November 2015 I 25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  The low level indicators were coded (from 0 to 6 in relation to increasing levels 
of restrictiveness) and weighted according to the extent to which the legal 
feature examined impacts on the efficiency of regulatory compliance with the 
relevant authorisation procedure;  

  The first level of aggregation applies at the level of an individual Article 

(assuming that more than one indicator was used for a given Article). A score 
of 0 to 6 was given; 

  The second level of aggregation relates to the sum of the Articles used for the 

indicator analysis. A score of 0 to 6 was given; 

  Each indicator was weighted according to the effects that certain legal features 

have in terms of impacting on the overall level of restrictiveness of the 
authorisation procedure;  

  The indicator analysis was conducted objectively. It did not rely upon the 

evaluative inputs of stakeholders with regard to their views on the extent of 
restrictiveness of specific aspects of national regulation;  

  The indicators are silent on the quality of regulation at national level; 

Given the competitive position of the construction sector in Europe, it is assumed that 
where  restrictions  are  not  apparent  in  one  country  they  are  not  needed  in  other 
countries in order to ensure service quality, protect workers or consumers and, hence, 
unnecessarily  distort  competition.  The  indicators  used  by  this  study  are  indicated 
below. Table 2.1 sets-out the indicators used to examine the horizontal authorisation 
schemes.  Table  2.2  indicates  the  indicators  used  to  assess  national  building  permit 
legislation.  In  each  of  the  tables,  percentage  figures  are  given  which  indicate  the 
weighting system adopted for each of the indicators. The right hand column indicates 
the  ‘low  level  indicators’  that  relate  to  the  specific  legal  features  examined.  The  left 
hand column relates to the ‘high level indicators’ at the level of individual Articles. An 
overall  weighting  is  given  to  the  entire  indicator  framework  for  both  horizontal 
authorisation schemes (30%) and building permit legislation (70%).  

Table 2.1 Service Directive Compliance Indicators (the indicators for horizontal 

authorisation schemes).  
Summarised Articles  
Articles and indicators applicable to horizontal authorisation schemes (30%)  
Article 5 Simplification of 
procedures 

Proposed Low level Indicators 

Number of authorities involved in the process of approving 
submission demands necessary for a horizontal authorisation 
scheme (for example: 1 – 0 points; 2: 2 points; 3: 4 points; 
more than 3: 6 points); -25%. 

(15%) 

How many categories of documents / statements apply to 
authorisation schemes? (for example: 1 – 1 points; 2: 2 points; 
3: 3 points; 4-4 points; 5-5 points; 6 or more than 6: 6 points); 
- 20%. 

Are simple copies accepted? (0 Y/ some docs or after further 
formalities 3/ N 6) – 10%. 

Is EN accepted? (0 Y/ some docs 3/ N 6) – 10%. 

Where a certificate, attestation or other document proving that a 
requirement has been satisfied is demanded, do authorities 
accept equivalent documents issued in another Member State (Y 
0/ some docs or with other supporting docs 3 N 6); – 15%. 

Are certified or authenticated documents (including translations) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Summarised Articles  

Proposed Low level Indicators 
issued in other MS accepted? (Y 0/, only after further formalities 
are observed or some docs 3, N 6); - 10%. 

Is the legislation and website available in EN? (Y0/ partially 3 
/N6) - 10%. 
Is the entire application process (from initial submission to final 
approval) supported electronically and can it be performed at a 
distance:  
 
 
 
 

There are no electronic procedures available 6; 
Paper forms can be downloaded 4; 
Electronic intake in some areas is possible 2; 
Full case handling is possible 0. 

Are construction service providers subject to approval through a 
horizontal authorisation scheme prior to applying for a building 
permit (Y 6 /N 0) (This does not include authorisation schemes 
that specifically control regulated professions). – 50% 

Number of horizontal administrative procedures to be completed 
by a contractor or developer (for example: 1 – 0 points; 2: 2 
points; 3: 4 points; more than 3: 6 points); – 25% 

Possibility of exemption from administrative procedures for 
certified or qualified service providers (for example: yes – 0 
points, for some –points, no – 6 points). – 25% 

Is there a country of origin and/or mutual recognition principle in 
place, in this case with a mutual recognition procedure? (Y 0) Or 
a mere mutual recognition principle with no mutual recognition 
procedure? (Y 3) Or neither? (6) -70%. 

Is there a country of origin and/or mutual recognition principle in 
place for insurance, in this case with a mutual recognition 
procedure? (Y 0) Or a mere mutual recognition principle with no 
mutual recognition procedure? (Y 3) Or neither? (6) -30%. 

Does the horizontal authorisation scheme enable the provider to 
have access to the service activity, or to exercise that activity, 
throughout the national territory? (Y 0 / N 6). 

Are authorisations granted for a limited period (N 0); 

If yes, A differentiation in the score should be made for the 
cases of: 
a) automatic renewal of the authorisation 1, b) renewal upon 
payment of a fee 2 c) renewal requires a new application 4, d) 
with the same procedure as for the initial authorisation 6. 

Article 8 Procedures by 
electronic means 

(10%) 

Article 9 (1) Member 
States should not make 
access to a service activity 
or the exercise thereof 
subject to an authorisation 
scheme unless specific 
conditions are satisfied  

(20%) 

Article 10 (3)  
The conditions for granting 
authorisation for a new 
establishment shall not 
duplicate requirements and 
controls which are 
equivalent or essentially 
comparable as regards their 
purpose to which the 
provider is already subject in 
another Member State or in 
the same Member State. 

(20%) 

Article 10 (4) The 
authorisation shall enable 
the provider to have access 
to the service activity, or to 
exercise that activity, 
throughout the national 
territory. 

(5%) 

Article 11 (1) An 
authorisation granted to a 
provider shall not be for a 
limited period, except 
where: 
(a) the authorisation is 
being automatically renewed 
or is subject only to the 
continued fulfilment of 
requirements; 

November 2015 I 27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposed Low level Indicators 

Summarised Articles  
(b) the number of available 
authorisations is limited by 
an overriding reason relating 
to the public interest; 
or 
(c) a limited authorisation 
period can be justified by an 
overriding reason relating to 
the public interest. 

(5%) 

be 

not 

Article 13 (2) Authorisation 
procedures  and  formalities 
shall 
unduly 
complicated  or  delay  the 
provision of the service. Any 
charges which the applicants 
their 
may 
be 
application 
reasonable 
and 
proportionate.  

from 
shall 

incur 

Article 13 (3) Authorisation 
procedures  and  formalities 
shall  provide  applicants  with 
a  guarantee 
their 
application will be processed 
as quickly which is fixed and 
made public in advance  

that 

Article 13 (4) Failing a 
response within the time 
period set or extended in 
accordance with paragraph 
3, authorisation shall be 
deemed to have been 
granted. 

(10%) 
Article 16 (2)b Member 
States may not restrict the 
freedom to provide services 
in the case of a provider 
established in another 
Member State by imposing: 
an obligation on the provider 
to obtain an authorisation 
from their competent 
authorities including entry in 
a register etc. 

Article 16 (2) f Member 
States may not restrict the 
freedom to provide services 
in the case of a provider 
established in another 
Member State by imposing 
requirements, except for 
those necessary for health 

Are fees proportionate to cost? (Y 0 / N 6) – 25% 

How long is the (initial) fixed period for decision (< 15 working 
days 0/ 15-30 working days – 3/ > 30 working days or not fixed 
6) -25% 

Can fixed periods be extended by the competent 
authority for a minimum time (no extension 0 / 1 extension: 3/ 
more than one extensions: 6); -10% 

Are applicants notified of extensions before the original period 
has expired (Y/NA 0 / N 6); -10% 

If fixed periods have expired, are authorisations deemed to have 
been granted (Y 0 / N or no fixed periods 6); -30% 

Where service providers are established in another Member 
State and intend to provide temporary cross-border services, are 
horizontal schemes imposed (no requirement 0; notification 3 or 
authorisation 6)? (This does not include authorisation schemes 
that specifically control regulated professions) -70% 

Where service providers are established in another Member 
State and intend to provide temporary cross-border services, are 
requirements on the use of equipment imposed? (Y 6 / N 0); -
30%  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Proposed Low level Indicators 

Summarised Articles  
and safety at work, which 
affect the use of equipment 
and material which are an 
integral part of the service 
provided; 

(15%) 

The table below relates to the indicators established for the analysis of building permit 
legislation.  

Table 2.2 Service Directive Compliance Indicators (the indicators for building permit 

legislation).  
Summarised Articles  
Articles and indicators applicable to building permit legislation (70%) 

Proposed Low level Indicators 

Article 5 Simplification of 
procedures 
(25%) 

Number of authorities involved in the process of approving 
submission demands necessary for a building permit under the 
regular procedure (for example: 1 – 0 points; 2: 2 points; 3: 4 
points; more than 3: 6 points); - 15% 

How many categories of documents / statements apply to the 
regular procedure? (for example: 1 – 1 points; 2: 2 points; 3: 3 
points; 4-4 points ; 5-5- points; 6 or more than 6: 6 points); - 
10% 

Are simple copies accepted? (0 Y/ some docs or after further 
formalities 3 N 6) – 5% 

Is EN accepted? (0 Y/ some docs 3 N 6) – 5% 

Are there optional procedures available for the categories of 
buildings included in the study (one storey house, ten storey 
office block) such as regular procedures alongside building 
notices (0 Y/ N 6) – 10%; 

Are there procedural options to the applicant to comply with a 
regular procedure for the categories of buildings included in the 
study (one storey house, ten storey office block) that reduce the 
complexity of the submission demands(0 Y/ N 6) – 5%; 

Is minor work exempt from building permit requirements (Y0/ 
Notification 2 / simplified procedure 4 N 6) - 15%; 

Is the activity of applying for a building permit reserved to a 
regulated profession(s) (N – 0 points, Y, for more than one 
profession – 3 points ; for one profession – 6 points) -15% 

Where a certificate, attestation or other document proving that a 
Requirement to obtain the building permit (not to recognise 
professional qualifications) has been satisfied is demanded, do 
authorities accept equivalent documents issued in another 
Member State (Y 0/ some docs or with other supporting docs 3 N 
6); -10% 

Are certified or authenticated documents (including translations) 
issued in other MS accepted to obtain the building permit (not to 
recognise professional qualifications)? (Y 0/, only after further 
formalities are observed or some docs 3, N 6); -5% 

November 2015 I 29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summarised Articles  

Proposed Low level Indicators 

Is the legislation and website available in EN including the listing 
of standards? (Y0 partially 3/N6) -5% 

Article 8 Procedures by 
electronic means 
(10%) 

Is the entire application process (from initial submission to final 
approval) supported electronically and can it be performed at a 
distance:  

 
 
 
 

There are no electronic procedures available 6; 
Paper forms can be downloaded 4; 
Electronic intake in some areas is possible 2; 
Full case handling is possible 0. 

Number of administrative procedures to be completed from 
building permit to final completion in the framework of a building 
permit application under the regular procedure (for example: 1 – 
0 points; 2: 2 points; 3: 4 points; more than 3: 6 points). – 
70% 

Possibility of exemption from administrative procedures from 
building permit to final completion for certified or qualified 
service providers (for example: yes – 0 points, for some –points, 
no – 6 points). – 30% 

Is there a country of origin and/or mutual recognition principle in 
place (for example, relating to equipment to be used, health and 
safety rules to follow, technical rules to follow (European or 
international standards or performance-based standards are 
considered mutual recognition clauses), in this case with a 
mutual recognition procedure? (Y 0) Or a mere mutual 
recognition principle with no mutual recognition procedure? (Y in 
a MS with performance-bases technical standards 3 in a MS with 
combined prescriptive and performance-based standards 4 in a 
MS with mainly prescribed standards 5) Or neither? (6) – 70% 

Is there a country of origin and/or mutual recognition principle in 
place for insurance, in this case with a mutual recognition 
procedure? (Y 0) Or a mere mutual recognition principle with no 
mutual recognition procedure? (Y 3) Or neither? (6) – 30%  
In so far as building permits control compliance with 
requirements which are not site-specific, are such parts of the 
authorisation schemes valid nationwide? (Y or N/A 0 / N 6)  

Article 9 (1) Member 
States should not make 
access to a service activity 
or the exercise thereof 
subject to an authorisation 
scheme unless specific 
conditions are satisfied  

Article 16 (2)b Member 
States may not restrict the 
freedom to provide services 
in the case of a provider 
established in another 
Member State by imposing: 
an obligation on the provider 
to obtain an authorisation 
from their competent 
authorities including entry in 
a register etc. 

(15%) 

Article 10 (3)  
The conditions for granting 
authorisation for a new 
establishment shall not 
duplicate requirements and 
controls which are 
equivalent or essentially 
comparable as regards their 
purpose to which the 
provider is already subject in 
another Member State or in 
the same Member State. 

(25%) 

Article 10 (4) The 
authorisation shall enable 
the provider to have access 
to the service activity, or to 
exercise that activity, 
throughout the national 
territory. 

(5%) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Proposed Low level Indicators 

Are fees proportionate to cost? (Y 0 / N 6) -25% 

How long is the (initial) fixed period for decision (< 15 working 
days 0/ 15-30 working days – 3/ > 30 working days or not fixed 
6) -25% 

Can fixed periods be extended by the competent authority for a 
minimum time (no extension 0 / 1 extension: 3/ more than one 
extensions: 6); -10% 

Are applicants notified of extensions before the original period 
has 
expired (Y/NA 0 / N 6); -10% 

If fixed periods have expired, are authorisations deemed to have 
been granted (Y 0 / N 6); -30% 

Where service providers are established in another Member 
State and intend to provide temporary cross-border services, are 
requirements on the use of equipment imposed? (Y 6 / N 0). 

be 

not 

Summarised Articles  
Article 13 (2) Authorisation 
procedures  and  formalities 
shall 
unduly 
complicated  or  delay  the 
provision of the service. Any 
charges which the applicants 
their 
may 
be 
application 
reasonable 
and 
proportionate.  

from 
shall 

incur 

Article 13 (3) Authorisation 
procedures  and  formalities 
shall  provide  applicants  with 
a  guarantee 
their 
application will be processed 
as quickly which is fixed and 
made public in advance  

that 

Article 13 (4) Failing a 
response within the time 
period set or extended in 
accordance with paragraph 
3, authorisation shall be 
deemed to have been 
granted. 

(15%) 

Article 16 (2) f Member 
States may not restrict the 
freedom to provide services 
in the case of a provider 
established in another 
Member State by imposing 
requirements, except for 
those necessary for health 
and safety at work, which 
affect the use of equipment 
and material which are an 
integral part of the service 
provided; 
(5%) 

2.3  Legal evaluation of horizontal authorisation schemes and building 

permit legislation  

The subsequent step in the assessment was the legal evaluation of the building permit 
and  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  legislation  against  relevant  articles  of  the 
Services Directive where: 

  Both legal inventories were evaluated against articles 5, 8, 9(1), 10 (3)(4), 

13(2)(3)(4), 16(2)(b) (f);  

  The horizontal authorisation scheme inventory was also evaluated against 

article 11(1) (2).  

November 2015 I 31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The legal evaluation further reinforced the findings of the quantitative indicator results 
highlighting areas of relative restrictive and non-restrictive measures in the context of 
the relevant Articles. The aim was to demonstrate that in relation to all Articles of the 
Services  Directive,  one  or  more  Member  States  were  very  likely  to  have  already 
adopted  certain legal  features  that  are  compliant  with  the  Directive  and  demonstrate 
high levels of procedural efficiency. Therefore, in this context, a key task of the legal 
evaluation  was  to  pin-point  areas  of  Member  State  legislation  that  are  indicative  of 
good (and poor) practice.  

The  legal  evaluation  was  supported  by  feedback  and  analysis  of  interview  results 
collected  from  30  industry  stakeholders,  consisting  of  European  and  national  level 
associations,  architects,  building  engineers  and  construction  services  companies.  The 
interview  questions  were  designed  to  complement  the  indicator  framework  and 
Articles of the Services Directive. The aims of the interviews were to establish ‘on the 
ground’: 

  Where the main problems and costs for going cross-border reside; 

  Whether electronic document submission, procedures and formalities are 
available as part of horizontal authorisation schemes and building permit 
processes;  

  The practical implementation of the mutual recognition principle in the context 

of cross border authorisation and how it can be improved. 

Based on these findings, a number  of good practices were highlighted and suggested 
for adoption to meet the needs of the relevant Articles by all Member States.  

As  a  result  of  the  nature  of  the  data  obtained  it  was  difficult  to  examine  the  costs 
quantitatively  of  going  cross  border  for  multiple  reasons,  including  the  fact  that  the 
costs differ widely depending on the nature of the business strategy and construction 
works implemented by individual companies. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

3  Legal 

inventory  and  evaluation  of  horizontal 

authorisation schemes 

A  key  study  objective  was  to  perform  a  legal  mapping  exercise  and  evaluation  of 
national legislation relating to horizontal authorisation schemes.  

According to the definition used by this study, a horizontal authorisation scheme is a 
legal requirement and procedure that all or certain construction service providers must 
fulfil in order to gain authorised access to the construction services market, although 
authorisation  schemes  controlling  only  professional  qualifications  and  very  closely 
related conditions are not the object of this study. 

Importantly,  the  Services  Directive  does  not  restrict  Member  States  from  introducing 
horizontal  authorisation  schemes  to  control  the  establishment  of  service  providers, 
particularly  where  their  introduction  can  be  justified  by  an  overriding  reason  relating 
to the public interest.  

Horizontal  authorisation  schemes  can  provide  efficient  methods  of  regulatory  control 
for  example  by  introducing  one-off  or  national  regulatory  compliance  processes,  and 
restricting the need for further official assessments to be made as part of the control 
of specific aspects of service delivery.  

However,  where  Member  States  have  established  horizontal  authorisation  schemes, 
these  must  comply  with  the  requirements  of  mutual  recognition  and  simplification  of 
the  Services  Directive.  The  legal  evaluation  in  this  section  therefore  examines  the 
extent of regulatory compliance with the Services Directive in this regard.  

This  chapter  initially  provides  an  overview  of  the  legal  inventory  for  horizontal 
authorisation schemes in the fourteen study countries. This is followed by an indicator 
analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  examining  the 
extent  of  compliance  against  individual  Articles  of  the  Services  Directive.  Finally,  an 
aggregate 
is  undertaken  assessing  the  overall  degree  of 
restrictiveness against the Services Directive for each country.  

indicator  analysis 

3.1  Identification  and  assessment  of  horizontal  authorisation 

schemes  

Country / regional overview  
On the basis of a legal mapping exercise in the fourteen study countries, a number of 
different  types  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  that  apply  to  the  construction 
services sector were identified. These have one or more of the following attributes:  

  Company registration schemes that grant authorisation to construction 

contractors and developers, broadly speaking to enter the construction services 
market in general or specific segments of the construction services market;  

  Authorisation schemes that grant authorisation to architects, engineers and 

other professionals where there are activities reserved to these professions as 
indicated in the relevant building control legislation: for example, regarding the 
drawing of technical plans and submission of building permits. But, not those 
that enable construction professionals (natural persons) to access the 
construction market in general by controlling only their professional 

November 2015 I 33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
qualifications and other conditions very closely related, as listed in Annex VII of 
Directive 2005/36/EC;  

  Mandatory certification schemes relating to contractors, developers and 

professionals, but not those that enable construction professionals (natural 
persons) to access the construction market in general (that is, not in relation to 
reserved activities linked to building regulations), by controlling only their 
professional qualifications and other conditions closely related, as listed in 
Annex VII of Directive 2005/36/EC. 

The  results  of  a  legal  mapping  exercise  suggest  there  are  only  a  small  number  of 
horizontal authorisation schemes that correspond with the definitions indicated above 
in  the  14  study  countries.  Table  3.1  sets  out  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes 
identified and this is followed by a description of each.  

Table 3.1 Identification of Horizontal Authorisation Scheme  
Member 
State  

Registration 
for 
developers  

contractors 

schemes 
and 

Horizontal Authorisation Scheme  
Authorisation  schemes  that 
grant 
to 
construction professionals  

authorisation 

BG 

CZ 
DE (NRW) 
DK  

Professional 

Central 
Builders Register 
N/A  
N/A  

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

EL 

N/A 

ES 
(Madrid) 
FI 
FR 
IT (Milan)  

Register  of  Accredited 
Companies  
N/A 
N/A 

Act on the approval of establishments in electrical, plumbing and sewer 
installation 
Register  of  building  design 
engineers  and  construction 
supervising engineers 
N/A  

N/A 

N/A 

relating 

certification 
Mandatory 
schemes 
to 
contractors  ,  developers 
and professionals  
N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

N/A  
N/A  
N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A 
N/A 
(1)  Certificate of 

Undeclared Work 
(DURC)  

(2)  Mandatory 

Certification 
9001.2008 

N/A  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

NL 

PT 

PL  

SI 

UK 
(England) 

N/A  

Legal 
framework 
applicable  to  practice  of 
construction activities  
N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

The  Bulgarian  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  “Registration  under  the  Chambers  of 
Builders  Act”23  is  managed  by  the  Bulgarian  Construction  Chamber.24  Article  3(2)  of 
the Chambers of Builders Act indicates that contractors providing construction services 
from the first to fifth categories below must be registered:  

23   http://register.ksb.bg/normativni_dokumenti/2014/Chamber_of_Builders_Act.pdf. 
24   http://www.ksb.bg/en/. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

1.  Large infrastructure projects of national importance such as highways, 

railways; public ports and airports;  

2.  Smaller projects of national or regional importance such as certain categories 

of roads; 

3.  Municipal roads and low class primary streets; elements of the technical 
infrastructure, hydro-technical, hydro-ameliorative and other networks; 

4.  Private roads, secondary street networks, dwelling and multi-purpose buildings 
of average height, public service buildings and facilities of 1000–5000 m2 or for 
100–200 visitors, industrial buildings with 50–100 working place, parks and 
gardens of up to 1 hectare, or immovable cultural heritage of local importance; 

5.  Low-height residential and multi-purpose buildings, villas, public service 
buildings and facilities of less than 1000 m2 or for less than 100 visitors, 
industrial buildings with less than 50 working place, and reconstruction and 
repair works of the buildings in this category.  

However,  construction  companies  are  not  required  to  register  with  the  Builders 
Register  if  they  provide  services  in  relation  to  some  types  of  buildings  and  works 
connected to category five above and those that fall into the sixth category below:  

1.  Temporary structures erected for construction purposes and other minor works 

for which design approval is not required.  

According  to  Article  14  of  the  Chambers  of  Builders  Act,  service  providers  that  are 
registered  under  the  first  category  are  entitled  to  provide  services  across  all 
construction  categories.  Similarly,  service  providers  registered  under  the  second 
category  can  perform  works  in  all  other  categories  except  the  first  category.  Service 
providers  registered  under  the  third,  fourth  and  fifth  categories  are  entitled  to  carry 
out  construction  works  as  indicated  in  the  relevant  registration  certificate.  As 
mentioned  in  section  3.8,  construction  companies  that  intend  to  perform  temporary 
cross-border  services  are  not  required  to  register.  In  this  case,  firms  provide 
notification  (which  may  include  evidence  of  a  building  permit)  to  the  Chamber 
responsible for the Builders Register.  

A horizontal authorisation scheme is in operation in Denmark which controls access to 
the  trade  activities  of  electrical,  gas,  plumbing  and  sewerage  installation  as  defined 
under  two  Executive  Orders  and  supporting  laws  on  authorisation  of  relevant  service 
providers.25  This  is  managed  by  the  Danish  Safety  Technology  Agency.  While 
authorisation schemes that control professional qualifications are outside the scope of 
this  study,  the  requirements  which  applicants  are  required  to  follow  go  beyond 
authorisation  of  qualifications  alone,  and  impact  on  the  approach  to  market 
participation.  In  relation  to  each  of  the  trade  activities,  there  are  two  cumulative 
application  procedures  for  individuals  to  register  as  a  ‘technically  responsible  person’ 
and one for companies:  

  Application for working permanently in Denmark as an individual, under 

Authorisation of temporary and occasional pursuit of profession for individuals 
– see section 3.8; 

  Company application. There are slightly different conditions for companies 
seeking to register permanently and those wishing to provide temporary or 
occasional services – see section 3.8.  

A key feature of the application procedure for ‘technically responsible persons’ is that 
individuals must be affiliated with an authorised company for a minimum of 30 hours 

25   https://www.sik.dk/Global/English/Authorisation-and-approval/Relevant-regulation. 

November 2015 I 35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
per  week.  In  addition,  the  application  procedure  for  individuals  demands  that  the 
company application procedure is also completed. Therefore, the company application 
procedure is mandatory for all individual applicants.  

A key feature of the company application procedure is that evidence must be provided 
that  the  firm  operates  an  approved  quality  management  system  for  production  and 
end  control:  that  is  a  mandatory  certification  scheme  as  defined  by  this  study.  The 
certification  for  the  quality  management  system  is  available  from  certification  bodies 
approved by the Danish Safety Technology Agency - not an Accredited Body under the 
EU Accreditation Regulation. However, as stated in the supporting text explaining the 
application procedure, if the company already operates a quality management system 
that  is  based  on  European  or  national  standards,  evidence  of  this  approved  by  a 
registered  certification  body  can  be  provided  in  order  to  seek  compliance  with  the 
procedure. Compliance is granted after an assessment is made to verify the suitability 
of the existing quality management system.  

In  Greece,  the  building  permit legal  framework  has  been  reformed  recently  with  the 
introduction  of  Law  4030/201126  and  Law  4067/2012.27  These  pieces  of  legislation 
have  identified  the  need  for  the  future  introduction  of  a  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme  for  architects  and  engineers  performing  key  reserved  activities  namely  plan 
preparation  and  submission  of  applications  for  building  permits.  This  proposed 
authorisation  scheme  will  not  control  professional  qualifications  specifically.  This 
procedure  is  performed  under  an  existing  authorisation  scheme  and  is  outside  the 
scope  of  this  study.  Rather,  the  objective  of  this  proposed  scheme  is  to  create  an 
electronic register of building designers on the basis of a personal Building ID that will 
be necessary for indication as part of the application for a building permit. The aim is 
to link completed construction works to the architect or engineer responsible ensuring 
that  any  building  defects  are  traceable  to  the  relevant  designer.  This  may  include 
publication of track records of works performed. Currently, given that the initiation of 
this  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  is  dependent  upon  the  issuing  of  a  Ministerial 
Decision, it remains a legislative proposal at this stage and the scheme’s requirements 
are  not  fully  known.  However,  it  is  foreseen  that  the  scheme  will  support  mutual 
recognition of cross-border service providers. 

With regard to Italy (Milan), a horizontal authorisation scheme is in operation known 
as  the  DURC  (Documento  Unico  di  Regolarità  Contributiva)  as  supported  by  Law  No. 
266/2002  and  Decree  Law  No.  276/2003.28  29  30  DURC  certificates  are  issued  by  the 
Cassa  Edile  (Construction  Fund)  which  has  branches  across  Italy.31  The  aim  of  the 
DURC is to address the problem  of the black economy in the construction sector and 
applies  to  both  national  and  cross-border  construction  service  providers,  operating 
through  secondary  establishment  or  providing  temporary  cross-border  services.  The 
DURC is a certificate indicating compliance with legal obligations to pay social security, 
welfare  and  insurance  contributions.  Regarding  private  works,  a  DURC  certificate  is 
required  as  part  of  the  submission  demands  for  a  building  permit.  As  part  of  the 
procedure  to  issue  a  DURC  certificate,  Cassa  Edile  gathers  relevant  data  from  social 
security  agencies.  This  includes  data  linked  to  all  building  sites  and  workers  in  the 
geographical area of the relevant branch of Cassa Edile. If the company is identified as 
compliant  on  the  basis  of  a  regional  examination  and  is  not  included  in  the  national 

26   http://www.ypeka.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=778&sni%5B1155%5D=1556&language=el-GR. 
27   http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WsLJDdwJvpw%3d&tabid=506&language=el-GR. 
28   http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2003-09-10;276!vig=. 
29   http://www.tuttocamere.it/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=271. 
30   http://www.ambientediritto.it/Legislazione/appalti/2002/l%202002%20n.%20266.htm. 
31   http://www.cassaedile.it/. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

database of non-compliant companies, Cassa Edile issues the certificate (enabling the 
application for a building permit to be made). A DURC certificate is valid for 90 days.32 

A second horizontal authorisation scheme is in operation in Italy (Milan) as defined by 
Decree  Law  163/06.33  This  law  demands  mandatory  EN  ISO  9001:2008  quality 
management  system  certification  of  construction  firms  in  relation  to  operators 
providing services on the basis of private sector contracts with a value equivalent to or 
greater  than  €500,000.  This  requirement  seeks  to  ensure  that  construction  service 
providers  have  established  organisational  measures  appropriate  to  the  scale  of  the 
contracts they are seeking to manage. The aim of EN ISO:9001 is to support ongoing 
improvement  of  organisational  quality  management  systems  with  a  view  to  meeting 
customer requirements and ensuring a high level of service quality.34 The certification 
is  obtainable  from  an  accredited  certification  body.  The  certification  process  can  be 
quite  lengthy  and  may  take  several  months  to  complete  with  several  applicant  visits 
and  assessments  made  by  the  certification  body.  Often,  after  receiving  advice, 
applicants  are  initially  required  to  implement  the  ISO:9001  standard.  The  progress 
made is then examined by the certification body on the basis of a series of audits. The 
certification is awarded when the applicant is in a position to demonstrate compliance 
with the requirements.  

In Portugal, a horizontal authorization scheme is in operation as defined by the ‘Legal 
Framework Applicable to Practice of Construction Activity’ (Regime jurídico aplicável ao 
exercício  da  atividade  da  construção).35  This  includes  Government  Ordinance  no 
18/2004 which indicates the documents required to access categories of  construction 
service activities.36 The Portuguese Institute of Construction and Real Estate (Instituto 
da  Construção  e  do  Imobiliário  –  InCI)  manages  the  authorisation  process.  Service 
providers  established  in  Portugal  intending  to  provide  construction  services  on  a 
permanent  basis  should  apply  for  a  licence.  Services  providers  established  in  other 
Member  States  should  apply  for  a  declaration  but  this  provides  authorisation  in 
connection  with  the  services  provided  for  an  individual  contract  for  a  construction 
project.  

However,  prior  to  the  finalisation  of  the  study  a  new  piece  of  legislation  was 
introduced  in  July  2015  (Law  no.  41/2015)  that  has  revoked  the  existing  legal 
framework  for  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme.  Hence,  it  should  be  recognised 
that the analysis undertaken in the context of the Portuguese horizontal authorisation 
scheme may not be in line with the current requirements and conditions.  

The  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  identified  in  Spain,  through  the  Register  of 
Accredited  Companies,  which  operates  under  the  Ministry  of  Employment  and  Social 
Security.  This  register  supports  the  authorisation  of  contractors  and  subcontractors 
seeking to offer services to the construction market.37 It includes cross-border service 
providers  operating  on  the  basis  of  secondary  establishment  or  providing  temporary 
cross-border  services.  In  Madrid,  the  Registry  or  Accredited  Companies  was 
established  by  Decree  91/2008,  of  July  10th,  published  in  the  Official  Bulletin  of  the 

32 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/emcc/case-studies/tackling-undeclared-work-in-

europe/certification-of-labour-compliance-italy. 

33   Decree  Law  163/06:  Codice  dei  Contratti  Pubblici  dei  lavori,  servizi  e  forniture  in  attuazione  delle 
direttive 2004/17CE e 2004/18CE. http://www.bosettiegatti.eu/info/norme/statali/2006_0163.htlm 
34   ISO  9001:2008  is  based  on  eight  quality  management  principles:  Customer  focus:  Leadership: 
Involvement  of  people:  Process  approach:  System  approach:  Continual  improvement:  Fact-based 
decision making: and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. 

35   https://dre.pt/application/file/217215. 
36   https://dre.pt/application/file/240965. 
37   http://rea.mtin.gob.es/rea/. 

November 2015 I 37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Community of Madrid on July 14, 2008.38 The Registry of Accredited Companies aims 
to  ensure  that  contractors  and  subcontractors  can  demonstrate  their  solvency,  prove 
an  appropriate  level  of  health  and  safety  organisational  capacity,  and  indicate 
completion  of  health  and  safety  training.  Since  26th  August  2008,  companies  that 
contract  or  subcontract  the  performance  of  any  work  on  a  construction  site  must 
certify  that  its  contractors  or  subcontractors  are  registered  in  the  Registry  via  a 
request  for  a  certificate  of  registration.  This  activity  must  be  fulfilled  prior  to  the 
commencement of the contracting or subcontracting procedure.  

Table  3.2  lists  the  categories  of  submission  demands  required  for  each  of  the 
horizontal  authorisation  schemes.  This  table  is  analysed  as  part  of  the  Article  5 
indicator assessment.  

Table 3.2 Number of documents by categories of submission demands for horizontal 
authorisation schemes39  
Professi
Standa
Member 
on 
and 
rds  
State  
technical 
al 
capacity 

Applicat
ion form 
/ letter  

Heal
th 
and 
Safe
ty  

Good 
repute  

Equipm
ent  

Insura
nce  

Other  

BG 
CZ 
DE 
(NRW) 
DK  

N/A 
N/A  
N/A  

1  
(Firms 
only) 

4 
N/A  
N/A  

N/A  
N/A  
N/A 

1 
N/A  
N/A 

140 
N/A  
N/A 

2(individu
als) 

N/A 

N/A  

N/A 

N/A  

Econo
mic 
and 
financi
al 
capacit
y  
3 
N/A  
N/A 

1 
N/A  
N/A 

 1 
N/A  
N/A  

1 
(perman
ent 
workers 
and 
firms)41 
1 
(permane
nt and 
occasion 
al 
workers)
42 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

2 
(individu
als  and 
firms) 

 1 
 1 
N/A 
N/A 
 143 

 N/A  
N/A  
N/A 

1 

(Passp

ort – 

perme

ant 

worker

s) 

N/A  
N/A  
N/A  
N/A  

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

2 
N/A  
N/A  
N/A  
N/A 

1 

N/A 
2 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
 2 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

 1  

EL 
ES  
FI 
FR 
IT  
(DURC) 
IT 
(ISO:900
1)44 
NL 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

38   http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?c=CM_InfPractica_FA&cid=1142349804727&idConsejeria 

=1142697631805&idListConsj=1109266100973&idOrganismo=1109266228548&language=es&pagena
me=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstructura&pv=1142349819283&sm=1109266100977. 

39   This table refers to documents required for primary/secondary establishment and not temporary cross-

border providers. 

40   Please see section 4.7 on insurance for further details.  
41   This relates to a criminal record check. 
42   This is related to evidence of non-exclusion from the sector. 
43   After  data  is  provided  in  the  form,  the  authorisation  body  requests  information  from  social  security 

bodies to check the data provided in the form is accurate. 

44   Certification  bodies  independently  establish  their  own  requirements  for  submission  demands  that  may 
go  beyond  the  minimal  requirements  set  by  accreditation  bodies.  Therefore,  the  data  presented  is 
indicative.  

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Member 
State  

Standa
rds  

Equipm
ent  

Insura
nce  

Professi
on 
and 
technical 
al 
capacity 

Heal
th 
and 
Safe
ty  

PT 

PL  

SI 
UK  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A  

4 

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A  

N/A 

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

145 

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

Econo
mic 
and 
financi
al 
capacit
y  
2 

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

Good 
repute  

Applicat
ion form 
/ letter  

Other  

N/A 

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

 1  

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

Table  3.3  details  the  fees  imposed  to  complete  a  horizontal  authorisation  procedure. 
This table is analysed as part of the Article 8 indicator assessment.  

Table 3.3 Fees imposed to complete a horizontal authorisation procedure 
Member State  
BG 

Renewal  

Fees  

Applicants pay 0.1% of their net 

To change construction category, a 

revenue for the last financial year 

fee of €255.65 is required. An annual 

but not less than €613. The 

fee is imposed linked to the 

CZ 
DE 
DK  

EL 
ES  
FI 
FR 
IT  

(DURC) 
IT  

maximum fee rate is €15,338. 
N/A  
N/A  
€334  (This  relates  to  the  joint  fee 
for  two  authorisation  procedures 
for  companies  and 
individuals 
applying for permanent status46) 
€1500 approx. (Certification fee 

for the mandatory quality 
management system)47  
Not known at this stage.  
Free of charge49 
N/A 
N/A 
Free of charge50 

€4000-5000 approx.51 

(EN:ISO9001:2008 

NL 
PT52 

N/A  

The fee system in PT for 

registration is complex and is 

construction category.  
N/A  
N/A  

€1000 approx. 48(a recertification fee 
is imposed every two years for the 

quality management system) 

N/A 
N/A  
N/A  
N/A  
N/A 

€3000-4000 approx.(a recertification 
fee  is imposed  every  three  years for 
the quality management system) 
N/A  

To  change  construction  category,  a 
fee  is  imposed  dependent  on  the 

45   Please see section 4.7 on insurance for further details.  
46   This  relates  to  €167  for  each  procedure.  There  is  no  processing  fee  for  notification  of  temporary  and 

occasional pursuit of profession for individuals. 

47   The  fees  are  indicative  as  they  depend  on  the  sector,  the  specific  services  the  firm  wishes  to  be 
approved for, and the number of visits required before the firm is found to meet the requirements. The 
fees indicated relate to the general estimated costs for a small business (up to 10 persons) and include 
registration, initial visit, a follow-up visit, and assessment of company documentation.  

48   This  fee  relates  to  recertification  visits  to  the  same  firm  assuming  other  conditions  are  found  to  be 

compliant.  

49   Free of charge in Madrid but not all regions e.g. Catalonia. 
50   The authorisation process is free of charge. There is an annual cost of ten euros (€10) relating to each 

100 mega-bytes of storage needed to maintain data on applicants.  
51   This relates to the approximate costs for a small firm (up to 10 persons).  
52   Please note that this assessment applies to the previous piece of legislation which has been replaced by 

a new law introduced in June 2015.  

November 2015 I 39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Member State  

Fees  

linked to a small percentage cost 

of the wage salary index for 

specific groups of contractors.  

Renewal  
fee 
is 
category.  A 
similar 
imposed 
calculation methodology as the initial 
fee.  

revalidation 
a 
on 

based 

PL  

SI 

UK  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

3.2  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 5  
The section below provides the indicator analysis and legal evaluation of the horizontal 
authorisation  schemes  identified.  Member  States  that  appear  to  have  not  established 
horizontal authorisation schemes in line with the study definitions are indicated as not 
applicable  in  the  assessment  (CZ,  DE,  FI,  FR,  NL,  PL,  SI,  UK).  To  begin  with,  an 
indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  is  performed  under  Article  5  of  the  Services 
Directive.  

Summary of Article 5 

  Article 5 (simplification of procedures) Member States shall examine the 

procedures and formalities applicable to access a service activity and to the 
exercise thereof. Where procedures and formalities examined under this 
paragraph are not sufficiently simple, Member States shall simplify them; 

  Article 5 (simplification of procedures): Where Member States require a 

provider or recipient to supply a certificate, attestation or any other document 
proving that a requirement has been satisfied, they shall accept any document 
from another Member State which serves an equivalent purpose or from which 
it is clear that the requirement in question has been satisfied. They may not 
require a document from another Member State to be produced in its original 
form, or as a certified copy or as a certified translation, save in the cases 
provided for in other Community instruments or where such a requirement is 
justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, including public 
order and security. 

Interpretation of the articles above in the context of horizontal authorisation 
scheme legislation  
Article  (5)  requires  Member  States  to  establish  authorisation  procedures  that  offer 
efficient  routes  to  regulatory  compliance  for  service  providers  established  nationally 
and  cross-border.  In  doing  so,  the  legislation  and  relevant  websites  should  be 
provided in EN. In addition, where the submission of professional certificates or similar 
are  required,  non-bureaucratic  mutual  recognition  procedures  should  be  established, 
permitting the use of simple copies, EN language documents, and requesting a limited 
range of submission demands.  

Indicator analysis Article 5 (Simplification of procedures) 
The table below provides an analysis of the horizontal authorisation schemes identified 
against  a  number  of  indicators  developed  under  Article  5  (simplification  of 
procedures). These aim to assess whether:  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

  Procedures are sufficiently simple for example in terms of the number of 

authorities involved in the process and the number of categories of documents 
accepted;  

  Simple copies (e.g. photocopies of original documents) are accepted;  

  EN language versions of documents are accepted;  

  Certified or authenticated copies are requested. For example, official 

documents issued by competent authorities in other Member States or 
documents that have been verified as authentic by a legal authority in other 
Member States;  

  Equivalent documents are accepted. For example, documents that contain 

equivalent content that equally demonstrate the relevant requirements have 
been met.  

Table 3.4 Indicator analysis Article 5 

Article 5 Simplification of procedures 

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

I
T
53 

I
T
54 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

Number of authorities 
involved in the process of 
approving submission 
demands necessary for a 
horizontal authorisation 
scheme (for example: 1 – 0 
points; 2: 2 points; 3: 4 
points; more than 3: 6 
points); 
How many categories of 
documents / statements 
apply to authorisation 
schemes? (for example: 1 – 
1 points; 2: 2 points; 3: 3 
points; 4: 4 points; 5: 5 
points; 6 or more than 6: 6 
points);55 
and 
the 
Is 
website available  in EN?  (Y0 
/ partially 3 /N6) 

legislation 

Are  simple  copies  accepted? 
(0  Y/  some  docs  or  after 
further formalities 3 / N 6) 

Is  EN  accepted?  (0  Y/  some 
docs 3 / N 6)  

6 

Where a certificate, 
attestation or other 
document proving that a 
requirement has been 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

2  0  0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

4  2  3 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

1  2 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

4 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

3 

3
56 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

3 

0 

3 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

3 

6 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6  3 

0  0 

6 

0 

6 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

3 

3
57 

3 

0 

53   This corresponds to the DURC scheme. 
54   This corresponds to the EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme. 
55   Please note that the analysis of categories of documents relates to the number of different categories 

overall not the number of individual documents (please see table 3.2).  

56   Certified translations must be submitted in original format.  
57   If  there  are doubts,  original  copies  may  be requested  by  the  authority  and  therefore  a score of 3  has 

been given.  

November 2015 I 41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Article 5 Simplification of procedures 

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

I
T
53 

I
T
54 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

satisfied is demanded, do 
authorities accept equivalent 
documents in another 
Member State (Y 0/ some 
docs or with other 
supporting docs 3 N 6); 

Are certified or 
authenticated documents 
(including translations) 
issued in other MS 
accepted? (Y 0/, only after 
further formalities are 
observed or some docs 3, N 
6); 

3
58 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

N
/
A 

3
59 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

In  Bulgaria,  engagement  with  one  authority  is  required  as  part  of  the  horizontal 
authorisation procedure (Bulgarian Construction Chamber). The legislation is available 
in  a  non-official  EN  version.60  The  website  and  application  form  is  available  in  BG.61 
There are several categories of documents required suggesting a score of 6 should be 
allocated  against  the  relevant  indicator.  The  categories  are  an  application  form,  four 
types of professional capacity documents, an equipment inventory, copies of insurance 
documents,  a  document  of  good  repute,  and  three  types  of  economic  and  financial 
capacity  documents.  Simple  copies  of  all  documents  are  accepted  but  not  official 
translations  which  must  be  submitted  in  original  format  and  certified  by  a  translator 
registered  in  BG  (as  a  result  a  score  of  3  has  been  awarded).  EN  documents  and 
procedures are not accepted as all foreign language documents must be supported by 
official translations, and therefore a score of 6 has been given.  

The  legal  text  makes  it  clear  that  where  relevant  certified  documents  issued  by  a 
relevant  authority 
in  another  Member  State  are  accepted  as  meeting  the 
requirements, for example a document on the right to perform construction works and 
payment  of  social  security  and  tax  obligations.  However,  a  score  of  3  applies  in  this 
instance  due  to  translations  issued  in  the  home  MS  not  being  accepted.  The 
requirements  support  the  submission  of  equivalent  documents.  For  example,  Article 
17, paragraph 3, of the Chamber of Builders Act indicates that applicants must submit 
a document, certifying the right of the applicant to perform construction works, issued 
by  a  competent  authority  of  a  Member  State  of  the  European  Union,  or  of  another 
country which is party to the Agreement in the European Economic Area, or the Swiss 
Confederation.62  Similarly,  with 
financial  and  economic  capacity 
requirements,  documents  may  be  submitted  proving  fulfilment  of  tax  and  social 
security  obligations  issued  by  a  competent  authority  in  another  Member  State.63 
Where  relevant,  equivalent  documents  can  be  prepared  by  representatives  of 

regard 

to 

58   Translations must be certified in the host MS (by translators registered in BG). 
59   Translations must be certified in the host MS (by translators sworn in in ES). 
60   http://register.ksb.bg/normativni_dokumenti/2014/Chamber_of_Builders_Act.pdf. 
61   http://register.ksb.bg/normativni_dokumenti/2013/Zayavlenie_parvona4alno_foreign 

_company_502.doc. 

62   Alternatively,  applicants  may  provide  indication  of  the  relevant  home  Member  State  legislation  that 

gives the applicant the right to provide construction services.  

63   or  of  another  country  -  party  to  the  Agreement  on  the  European  Economic  Area,  or  of  the  Swiss 

Confederation. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

economic  entities  established  in  the  EU  such  as  annual  financial  reports  for  the 
previous three years. A score of 0 has been awarded. 

In Demark, the authorisation procedure is managed by a single authority, the Danish 
Safety Management Authority. However, in the case of the authorisation procedure for 
companies, a third party is required to initially participate in the process with a view to 
certifying the firm’s quality management system. A score of 2 has been given relating 
to the number of authorities involved in the approval process. The relevant legislation 
is in DK and the website is in EN and therefore a score of 3 has been given.64  

It  is  stated  that  the  authorisation  procedure  corresponds  to  the  requirements  of  the 
Professional  Qualifications  Directive 
(2005/36/EC).  Translations  of  essential 
documents are required if genuinely needed for processing the application, given that 
translations may be required a score of 3 has been allocated to the indicators relating 
to  EN  documents.  A  number  of  categories  of  documents  are  required  for  submission 
by  both  individuals  and  firms.  These  are  two  application  forms,  ID,  two  professional 
capacity  documents,  evidence  of  non-exclusion  from  the  profession,  an  approved 
quality management system, a criminal record, and certified evidence of non-exclusion 
from the sector. Therefore an overall score of 5 has been awarded for the number of 
categories  of  documents  required  given  that  both  types  of  authorisation  processes 
must be followed to access the market (for individuals and for firms).  

Simple copies of documents are accepted in all cases therefore a score of 0 has been 
awarded. Certified documents are required, such as the document requested certifying 
lawful  establishment  in  another  Member  State.  A  certified  document  is  also  required 
certifying  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  formally  excluded  from  providing  relevant 
services  even  temporarily  in  the  Member  State  where  the  service  provider  is 
established. Given their nature, they are all issued in the home MS. A score of 0 has 
been  given  in  the  context  of  acceptance  of  certified  documents.  The  requirements 
make  it  clear  that  equivalent  documents  issued  by  the  relevant  authorities  in  the 
home Member State should be submitted (namely the documents indicated above). A 
score of 0 has been awarded in this regard.  

The  indicator  results  for  Greece  are  speculative  as  the  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme  is  not  yet  operational.  It  is  assumed  the  submission  demands  will  include  at 
least a completed application form, evidence of professional qualifications and proof of 
registration  with  a  professional  body  or  a  competency  statement  from  a  public 
authority. A score of 2 has been given against this indicator. It is premature to assess 
the prospective scheme against the other indicators, however, it is assumed that one 
authority will manage the process and therefore a score of 0 has been awarded.  

The DURC scheme in Italy (Milan) is managed by regional branches of Cassa Edile. It 
is clear that only one authority manages this scheme. Therefore, a score of 0 has been 
given.  A  form  needs  to  be  completed  indicating  the  complete  list  of  the  operational 
building  sites,  the  name  of  each  worker  and  the  specific  building  site  where  each 
worker is located. A score of 1 has been given in terms of the number  of documents 
required  and  a  score  of  0  in  terms  of  whether  simple  copies  are  accepted.  The 
legislation and website are available in IT.65  

From  a  cross-border  perspective,  a  slightly  different  procedure  is  followed.  Instead, 
certified  documents  issued  by  an  authority  in  another  Member  State  need  to  be 

64   http://www.sik.dk/Global/English/Authorisation-and-approval. 
65 

http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?c=CM_Tramite_FA&cid=1142439094166&definicion=Inscripcion+Re
gistro&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstructura&tipoServicio=CM_Tramite_FA. 

November 2015 I 43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
provided  that  meet  the  legislative  requirements  demonstrating  fulfilment  of  tax  and 
social security obligations. Therefore a score of 0 has been awarded in relation to the 
indicator for certified documents. The documents provided need to be translated in IT. 
Therefore  a  score  of  6  has  been  given  against  the  indicator  for  EN  documents.  The 
indicator  examining  the  number  of  categories  of  documents  could  possibly  need  to 
increase if multiple documents are  required to meet the needs of the legislation (see 
section  3.8).  Regarding  equivalent  documents,  the  requirements  demand  the 
submission of documents (mentioned above) issued by the relevant authorities in the 
home Member State. A score of 0 has been awarded.  

The  mandatory  Italian  certification  scheme,  EN:ISO  9001:2008,  is  managed  by  a 
number  of  certification  bodies  that  are  accredited  by  a  state-sponsored  accreditation 
body. Applicants need to only engage with one certification body. While the number of 
categories of submission demands may vary according to the needs of the certification 
body, as a minimum, applicants will need to complete an application form and submit 
a  report  outlining  their  existing  quality  management  system.66  The  legislation  is 
available  in  IT.  A  certification  body  based  in  Milan  has  made  available  its  website  in 
EN, and therefore a score of 3 has been awarded.67The submission demands are very 
likely  required  for  submission  in  IT.  A  score  of  6  has  been  given  as  all  certification 
bodies  are  unlikely  to  be  able  to  manage  EN  documentation.  Simple  copies  of 
documents  are  required  and  a  score  of  0  has  been  awarded  (normally  certified 
documents  are  not  demanded).  Regarding  equivalent  documents,  the  documents 
required  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  application  can  be  prepared  by  a  company 
representative  based  in  the  home  Member  State  (e.g.  descriptions  of  existing  quality 
management  approaches)  and  therefore  a  score  of  0  has  been  awarded  against  this 
indicator. 

The  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  Portugal  is  managed  by  one  authority,  the 
Portuguese  Institute  of  Construction  and  Real  Estate.68  The  scheme  requires 
completion  of  an  application  form,  four  documents  proving  professional  identity  and 
capacity,  a  copy  of  an  insurance  document,  two  financial  and  economic  documents 
including  a  copy  of  the  accounts  for  the  previous  financial  year,  and  a  certified 
declaration of an accountant attesting the firm’s good financial standing. A score of 4 
has  been  given  for  the  number  of  categories  of  documents.  EN  documents  are 
accepted  but  only  if  they  have  been  made  available  by  the  applicant  online. 
Documents that were originally written in EN can be submitted as long as they are not 
regarded  as  highly  technical.  Therefore,  a  score  of  3  has  been  given  in  this  regard. 
Simple  copies  are  permitted  of  all  documents  and  therefore  a  score  of  0  has  been 
awarded.  

Certified  documents  are  requested  such  as  a  declaration  made  by  an  accountant 
attesting  the  firm’s  good  economic  and  financial  standing  and  a  document  attesting 
the  provider’s  qualification  to  carry  out  construction  activities  issued  by  the  relevant 
competent  authority  in  the  Member  State  of  establishment.  A  score  of  0  has  been 
awarded  in  terms  of  certified  documents.  Equivalent  documents  (namely  those 
described  above)  issued  in  another  Member  State  either  by  a  relevant  competent 
authority  or  where  relevant  prepared  by  an  economic  entity  established  cross-border 

66   This is likely to contain an overview of their organisation structure; staff responsibilities and processes 
for  managing  and  recording  information  and  issues;  lines  of  communication  throughout  the  company; 
what  actions  are  required  and  are  normally  taken;  processes  for  managing  clients;  how  continuity  is 
maintained as staff change etc.  

67 

http://www.sgsgroup.it/EN/Construction/Quality-Health-Safety-and-Environment/Quality/Quality-

Management-Systems/ISO-9001-Certification-Quality-Management-Systems.aspx. 

68   It  is  understood  that  a  new  piece  of  legislation  will  come  into  force  from  August  2015  related  to  this 
Horizontal Authorisation Scheme and therefore the results of the indicator analysis may no longer apply 
in some areas. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

are accepted. A score of 0 has been awarded. The legislation is in PT.69. The website 
is available in EN.70. 

In  Spain  (Madrid)  the  Register  of  Accredited  Companies  is  managed  by  the  labour 
authority  where  the  registered  office  of  the  company  is  located.  The  legislation  and 
website  are  in  ES  in  Madrid.71  The  documents  demanded  include  a  completed 
application  form  (including  data  indicating  that  the  firm  is  solvent),  proof  of 
compliance  with  health  and  safety  legislation,  proof  of  appropriately  trained  staff  in 
health, and safety matters and proof of representation, if any. A score of 3 has been 
given  that  these  documents  fall  into  3  categories.  The  document  indicating  proof  of 
compliance  with  health  and  safety  legislation  relates  to  a  form  available  online  that 
must  be  signed  by  the  service  provider.  The  proof  of  appropriately  trained  staff  in 
health  and  safety  requirements  relates  to  submission  of  a  certificate  of  training 
completed.  However,  cross-border  service  providers  have  the  option  of  providing  a 
signed  statement  instead  of  submitting  a  training  certificate,  but  this  must  confirm 
that  an  equivalent  type  of  training  course  has  been  completed.  A  certified  document 
by  a  relevant  authority  must  be  submitted  indicating  that  30%  or  above  of  the  total 
number of staff have a permanent contract. A score of 0 has been awarded in relation 
to  certified  documents.  Simple  copies  of  the  submission  demands  can  be  submitted, 
and a score of 0 has been awarded. However, a score of 6 has been given in relation 
to EN language versions of documents as the submission demands must be translated 
in ES. The certified documents requested need to be translated in certified form by a 
sworn  translator  in  ES.  Therefore  some  certified  documents  (translations)  issued  in 
another  MS  are  not  accepted  in  ES,  a  score  of  3  has  been  awarded.  In  all  cases, 
equivalent  documents  (relating  to  those  described  above)  issued  by  the  relevant 
authority  or  where  relevant  produced  by  the  relevant  economic  entity  based  in  the 
home Member State are accepted. A score of 0 has been awarded.  

Legal Evaluation Article 5 (Simplification of procedures)  
Where Member States have established horizontal authorisation schemes, the Services 
Directive  requires  their  operation  to  comply  with  a  specific  set  of  simplified 
procedures. For example, a key requirement is ensuring that the number of authorities 
involved  in  the  process  of  authorisation  is  limited  to  a  small  number.  The  horizontal 
authorisation  schemes  identified  correspond  well  with  this  demand  broadly  speaking. 
However,  the  scheme  in  Demark  is  slightly  more  restrictive  given  that  authorisation 
by  a  nationally  registered  third  party  is  required  in  order  to  receive  approval  of  the 
quality management system as part of the authorisation process. 

With  regard  to  Bulgaria,  Denmark  and  Portugal,  given  that  the  focus  of  these 
schemes  is  to  support  authorisation  of  market  access,  the  number  of  categories  of 
documents  required  is  numerous.  This  makes  the  procedures  comparatively  more 
burdensome  than  other  schemes  where  the  type  of  authorisation  is  focused  on  a 
specific  area:  for  example,  demonstrating  that  social  security  payments  have  been 
made  (IT  -DURC),  or  confirming  compliance  with  health  and  safety  standards  (ES). 
However,  in  those  countries,  it  is  suggested  that  the  number  of  categories  of 
submission demands are reviewed to examine if they are essential to the authorisation 
process,  given  that  similar  authorisation  procedures  are  not  required  in  a  number  of 
other study countries.  

There  is  an  incongruity  with  the  spirit  of  the  Services  Directive  where  legislation  for 
horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and  relevant  websites  are  not  available  in  EN.  This 

69   http://www.parlamento.pt/ActividadeParlamentar/Paginas/DetalheIniciativa.aspx?BID=38484. 
70   http://www.inci.pt/Portugues/EngVrs/Paginas/Declaration_ForeignEntities.aspx. 
71   http://rea.mtin.gob.es/rea/. 

November 2015 I 45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
provides an immediate obstacle to cross-border service provision. While the legislation 
is available in EN in BG, this is not the case in the remaining countries. However, DK 
and  PT  have  made  online  provisions  in  EN  explaining  the  authorisation  procedure  to 
be  followed.  To  ease  cross-border  services,  legislation  for  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes and corresponding websites should be made available in EN.  

It  terms  of  whether  EN  versions  of  documents  are  permitted,  there  are  certain 
circumstances where DK (a translation may not be required) and PT (if the document 
is available online, if the subject matter is not too technical and if the document was 
originally  prepared  in  EN)  permit  the  submission  of  EN  versions.  The  remaining 
countries  require  translated  versions  in  all  cases.  This  makes  the  authorisation 
procedure more restrictive.  

In  most  cases,  simple  copies  of  documents  can  be  submitted.  However,  in  PT  the 
authority  may  request  original  documents  if  there  are  doubts.  In  addition,  in  BG, 
certified  translations  of  all  documents  must  be  provided  in  original  format  and  these 
must  be  prepared  by  a  registered  translator.  These  approaches  are  at  odds  with  the 
needs  of  the  Services  Directive.  In  ES  translations  also  need  to  be  certified  by 
translators  sworn  in  ES  (although,  in  this  MS,  simple  copies  of  translations  are 
allowed). 

With the exception of these translation documents, certified documents issued in other 
Member States are frequently demanded and accepted without further formalities such 
as  the  Hague  Apostille,  and  often  even  simple  copies  of  these  certificates  are 
accepted.  Moreover,  the  requirement  to  enable  applicants  to  submit  equivalent 
documents  (issued  by  competent  authorities  or  prepared  by  economic  entities  in  the 
home  Member  State)  is  successfully  complied  with  by  all  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes.  

3.3  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 8 
The following section provides an indicator analysis and legal evaluation of horizontal 
authorisation scheme legislation under Article 8 of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) 

  Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) Member States shall ensure that all 
procedures and formalities relating to access to a service activity and to the 
exercise thereof may be easily completed, at a distance and by electronic 
means.  

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme legislation  
Horizontal  authorisation  schemes  must  be  supported  by  systems  that  facilitate  full 
electronic case handling enabling the efficient submission of applications at a distance. 
Competent  authorities  should  accept  the  submission  of  simple  electronic  copies 
relating to all submission demands.  

Indicator analysis Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) 
Table  3.5  provides  an  indicator  assessment  of  horizontal  authorisation  scheme 
legislation  against  Article  8  (procedure  by  electronic  means).  This  aim  is  to  examine 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

the  extent  of  compliance  with  the  Services  Directive  ranging  from  ‘there  are  no 
electronic procedures available’ to ‘full case handling is possible’.  

Table 3.5 Indicator analysis Article 8 

Indicator 

Article 8 Procedures by electronic means 
I
T 

B
G 

F
R 

D
K 

E
S 

C
Z 

D
E 

I
T 

E
L 

F
I 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

Is  the  entire  application  process 
supported  electronically  and  can 
it be performed at a distance.  

no 

electronic 

There 
are 
procedures available (6) 
Paper  forms  can  be  downloaded 
(4) 
Electronic intake is possible (2)  
Full  case  handling  is  possible  (e-
ID  and  e-signatures  issued  in 
other  MS  not  always  accepted) 
(0)72 

0 

74 

2

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0  0  0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A

0
73 

N
/
A 

N
/
A

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

The Central Professional Builders Register in Bulgaria is available online.75 Online and 
downloadable  templates  of  all  required  forms  with  corresponding  instructions  are 
available. The application form (if downloaded) should be sent by post along with the 
supporting  documents  requested.  A  score  of  2  has  been  given  as  some  electronic 
intake is possible but not in all areas.  

In  Demark,  full  case  handling  is  available,  and  application  forms  can  be  completed 
electronically  and  the  entire  application  can  be  emailed.76  A  score  of  0  applies.  In 
Greece, although not available yet, research suggests that the application system for 
the  prospective  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  will  be  managed  on-line  exclusively. 
Italy (both the DURC and EN:ISO 2008 schemes) and Portugal provide full electronic 
case  handling  and  have  been  given  a  score  of  0.  The  system  in  Spain  supports 
electronic  case  handling  through  eGovernment  web  and  permits  uploading  of 
documents.  

Legal evaluation Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) 
There appears to be good alignment with Article 8 across the  relevant countries  with 
investments being made in systems supporting full electronic case handling.  

However,  in  the  case  of  BG,  while  elements  of  the  authorisation  procedure  can  be 
completed  online,  paper  versions  of  most  of  the  submission  demands  are  required. 
This provides an immediate obstacle to service providers particularly considering that 
many companies have electronic documents readily available.  

3.4  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 9(1)  
The following section provides an indicator analysis and legal evaluation of horizontal 
authorisation scheme legislation under Article 9 (1) of the Services Directive.  

72   E-ID and e-signatures may be required and, if so, those issued in other MS may not be accepted. 
73   This corresponds to the DURC scheme. 
74   This corresponds to the EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme. 
75   http://register.ksb.bg/. 
76   http://www.sik.dk/Global/English/Authorisation-and-approval/Application-forms. 

November 2015 I 47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Summary of Article 9(1) (Authorisation schemes) 
Member  States  shall  not  make  access  to  a  service  activity  or  the  exercise  thereof 
subject to an authorisation scheme unless the following conditions are satisfied:  

a.  The authorisation scheme does not discriminate against the provider in 

question; 

b.  The need for an authorisation scheme is justified by an overriding reason 

relating to the public interest; 

c.  The objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive 

measure, in particular because an a posteriori inspection would take place too 
late to be genuinely effective. 

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme legislation  
Horizontal  authorisation  schemes  should  not  discriminate  against  services  providers, 
they should be justified by an overriding reason to the public interest, and it should be 
demonstrated  that  the  same  function  cannot  be  realised  through  alternative  less 
restrictive methods. However, in the context of the construction sector, in some cases, 
it is difficult to imagine circumstances where a public interest reason would justify the 
introduction  of  a  horizontal  authorisation  scheme.  This  is  particularly  so  considering 
the  implementation  of  building  control  authorisation  procedures  during  individual 
works,  unless  building  permits  are  made  simpler  by  the  previous  control  of  a 
horizontal  authorisation  scheme:  for  example,  reducing  the  number  of  regulatory 
demands and/or limiting the building permit to on-site aspects of service provision.  

Indicator analysis Article 9(1) (Authorisation schemes) 
The  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  identified  are  examined  in  Table  3.6  against  a 
number  of  indicators  developed  under  Article  9(1).  These  seek  to  examine  whether 
authorisation  schemes  are  imposed  prior  to  the  application  for  a  building  permit,  the 
number  of  procedures  to  be  completed,  and  the  possibility  of  exemption  from 
procedures for certified or qualified service providers.  

Table 3.6 Indicator analysis Article 9(1) 

Article 9(1) Access to a service activity  

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

I
T
77 

I
T
78 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

control 

service 

specifically 

construction 

providers 
Are 
subject  to  approval  through  a  horizontal 
authorisation  scheme  prior  to  applying 
for  a  building  permit  (Y  6  /N  0)  (This 
does  not  include  authorisation  schemes 
regulated 
that 
professions). 
Number  of  horizontal  administrative 
procedures 
to  be  completed  by  a 
contractor  or  developer  (for  example:  1 
–  0  points;  2:  2  points;  3:  4  points; 
more than 3: 6 points); 
Possibility 
from 
administrative procedures for certified or 
qualified  service  providers  (for  example: 

exemption 

of 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A  6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

6 

6 

6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A  4  0  0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A  0 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A  0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6  6  6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

0

6 

77   This corresponds to the DURC scheme. 
78   This corresponds to the EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article 9(1) Access to a service activity  

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

I
T
77 

I
T
78 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

yes – 0 points, for some  –points, no – 6 
points). 

With regard to all countries (BG, DK, EL, ES, IT, PT), in order for professionals and 
contractors  to  participate  in  construction  works,  authorisation  is  required  under  the 
relevant  schemes.  A  score  of  6  has  been  allocated  to  all  countries  against  the  first 
indicator as approval is required before a building permit is submitted.  

In most cases, only one administrative procedure is required for completion (BG, EL, 
ES, PT). However, in Demark, the scheme requires companies to seek approval from 
a third party (not the competent authority granting the authorisation) regarding their 
quality management systems and their staff needs to undergo controls going beyond a 
mere  control  of  professional  qualifications.  As  such  three  administrative  procedures 
need to be followed (corresponding to a score of 4). While the horizontal authorisation 
scheme in IT (DURC) can be completed through a single procedure (and a score of 0 
has been given) it should be kept in mind, as stated below regarding the time validity 
of  the  scheme,  that  the  DURC  certificate  has  90  days  of  validity  and  the  same 
procedure is needed to be performed on several occasions annually.  

With  regard  to  all  of  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  examined,  qualified  or 
certified service providers are not exempt  from the procedures, and a  score of 6 has 
been  given  against  the  relevant  indicator.  This  even  includes  the  mandatory 
certification  scheme  in  IT  (EN:ISO  9001:2008),  because  even  though  a  contractor 
may have already established independently a suitable quality management system, it 
would still require verification by a certification body.  

Legal evaluation Article 9(1) (Authorisation schemes) 
With regard to CZ, DE, FI, FR, NL, PL, SI and UK, it seems that no justifiable reason 
has  been  identified  for  the  introduction  of  a  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  line 
with  definitions  used  by  this  study.  Where  issues  of  regulatory  compliance  are 
concerned, it seems that more efficient authorisation methods are used to approve the 
quality  of  service  provision  (e.g.  the  operation  of  building  control  procedures).  As  a 
result,  it  seems  that  these  countries  are  examples  of  good  practice  in  the  context  of 
Article 9(1).  

However,  other  countries  have  established  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  which 
provide  a  more  restrictive  environment  to  accessing  a  service  activity.  This  includes 
BG,  DK,  ES,  (and  EL,  if  the  scheme  identified  is  introduced)  IT,  and  PT.  While  the 
Services Directive does not  restrict the  establishment of authorisation schemes, their 
introduction  is  dependent  upon  the  identification  of  a  need  to  protect  the  public 
interest and when a posteriori inspection would come too late to safeguard consumers.  

As  a  result,  considering  the  indicator  results  above  demonstrate  that  authorisation is 
required in all countries prior to the submission of an application for a building permit 
and  participation  in  construction  activities.  It  should  be  examined  if  national  building 
control mechanisms are sufficient to obtain an appropriate level of public protection in 
the  absence  of  the  relevant  horizontal  authorisation  schemes.  This  recommendation 
particularly  applies  to  BG,  DK,  and  PT  where  the  relevant  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes govern market access for contractors broadly speaking. This is particularly so 

November 2015 I 49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regarding  insurance  controls  in  PT  and  health  and  safety  controls  in  ES,  which  again 
appear in the context of building permits (see section 4.3). 

Moreover,  the  indicator  results  suggest  that  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes 
appear  relatively  efficient  given  that  only  one  procedure  needs  to  be  followed. 
However,  the  scheme  in  Denmark  demands  the  involvement  of  a  third  party  which 
duplicates  the  administrative  procedures  required,  making  the  approach  more 
burdensome.  Moreover,  a  certification  requirement  is  usually  linked  to  voluntarily 
meeting  high  quality  standards  and  to  impose  it  by  law  in  the  cases  of  DK  and  IT 
(EN:ISO 9001:2008), seems unjustified and disproportionate. 

A  practice  not  adopted  by  any  of  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  is  the 
exemption  of  certified  or  qualified  service  providers  from  administrative  procedures. 
As  a  suggestion,  a  notification  procedure  could  be  introduced  based  on  a  limited 
submission  of  qualifications  or  certificates  with  a  view  to  providing  service  providers 
immediate access to the market.  

3.5  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 10(3)(4) 
The following section provides an indicator analysis and legal evaluation of horizontal 
authorisation scheme legislation under Article 10(3)(4) of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 10(3)(4) (Conditions for the granting of authorisation) 

  Article 10(3) The conditions for granting authorisation for a new establishment 

shall not duplicate requirements and controls which are equivalent or 
essentially comparable as regards their purpose to which the provider is 
already subject in another Member State or in the same Member State; 

  Article 10(4) The authorisation shall enable the provider to have access to the 
service activity, or to exercise that activity, throughout the national territory, 
including by means of setting up agencies, subsidiaries, branches or offices, 
except where an authorisation for each individual establishment or a limitation 
of the authorisation to a certain part of the territory is justified by an overriding 
reason relating to the public interest. 

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme legislation  
Horizontal authorisation schemes must not demand additional requirements which are 
comparable  to  similar  requirements  already  imposed  in  the  Member  State  where 
services are being provided or a Member State where a cross-border service provider 
is  established.  To  meet  this  objective,  Member  States  should  establish  mutual 
recognition  principles  and  procedures  for  cross-border  service  providers  operating  in 
the  construction  sector  ensuring  that  key  requirements  such  as  insurance,  technical 
requirements,  health  and  safety,  and  use  of  equipment  are  recognised  cross-border. 
Moreover,  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  must  not  restrict  service  providers  to  a 
limited part of the national territory.  

Indicator  analysis  Article  10(3)(4)  (Conditions 
authorisation) 
Table  3.7  provides  an  indicator  analysis  of  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes 
against  three  indicators  developed  under  Article  10(3)(4).  This  assessment  examines 

for  the  granting  of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

whether  suitable  mutual  recognition  principles  and  procedures  are  in  place  for  cross-
border  service  providers  enabling  firms  to  access  cross-border  markets  according  to 
equivalent  or  essentially  comparable  home  country  requirements  that  have  been 
previously  complied  with:  for  example,  in  relation  to  technical  requirements,  use  of 
equipment, health and safety, and insurance requirements. In addition, the horizontal 
authorisation  schemes  are  assessed  as  to  whether  they  enable  service  providers  to 
have access to the market throughout the national territory. 

Table 3.7 Indicator analysis Article 10(3)(4) 

Article 10 (3)(4) Conditions for granting authorisation and national access 
to a service activity 

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

Is  there  a  country  of  origin  and/or 
mutual  recognition  principle  in  place,  in 
this  case  with  a  mutual  recognition 
procedure?  (Y  0)  Or  a  mere  mutual 
recognition  principle  with  no  mutual 
recognition procedure?  (Y 3) Or neither? 
(6) 
Is  there  a  country  of  origin  and/or 
mutual  recognition  principle  in  place  for 
insurance,  in  this  case  with  a  mutual 
recognition  procedure?  (Y  0)  Or  a  mere 
mutual  recognition  principle  with  no 
mutual  recognition  procedure?  (Y  3)  Or 
neither? (6) 
authorisation 
horizontal 
the 
Does 
scheme  enable  the  provider  to  have 
access  to  the  service  activity,  or  to 
exercise  that  activity,  throughout  the 
national territory? (Y 0 / N 6) 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

I
T
79 

I
T
80 

0 

N
/
A

6 

N
/
A 

3 

N
/
A 

3 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

3 

N
/
A

N
/
A

3 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A

N
/
A

N
/
A 

N
/
A

N
/
A

N
/
A

3 

0 

N
/
A

N
/
A

0  0  0 

N
/
A

N
/
A

0 

0 

N
/
A

N
/
A

0 

N
/
A

N
/
A

N
/
A  

N
/
A  

In  Bulgaria,  the  Chambers  of  Builders  Act  dictates  that  its  scope  applies  to  both 
national and foreign legal and natural persons registered as economic operators under 
their  national  legislation,  as  well  as  service  providers  operating  through  secondary 
establishment.  The  Chambers  of  Builders  Act  requires  that  foreign  service  providers, 
that have the right to offer construction services under the law of a Member State of 
the  European  Union,  must  submit  an  application  for  registration.  The  Chambers  of 
Builders  Act  describes  the  requirements  and  authorisation  procedure  that  should  be 
followed  but  these  do  not  indicate  that  entry  to  the  market  can  be  granted  on  the 
basis  of  the  country  requirements  where  the  cross-border  service  provider  is 
established: for example, technical requirements, health and safety requirements and 
use of equipment.  

For example, the legislation states that the technical personnel should have a capacity 
in  accordance  with  the  acquired  speciality  and  educational  and  qualification  level, 
professional  experience,  knowledge  of  and  technical  competence  established  by  the 
national  legislation.  In  addition,  the  legislation  explains  that  service  providers  must 
have  the  necessary  personal  for  control  of  health  and  safety  conditions.  It  is  also 
indicates  that  companies  should  possess  technical  equipment  necessary  for  carrying 
out the relevant construction works. As a result, the legislation is not clear that foreign 
professionals  will  be  offered  mutual  recognition  in  principle  and  on  the  basis  of  a 

79   This corresponds to the scheme DURC. 
80   This corresponds to the scheme EN:ISO 9001:2008. 

November 2015 I 51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
specific  procedure.  Therefore,  a  score  of  6  has  been  given.  It  should  be  mentioned 
that  the  financial  and  economic  capacity  of  EU  cross-border  service  providers  is 
recognised  regardless  of  the  Member  State(s)  of  establishment  and  this  seems  to  be 
better aligned with the concept of mutual recognition.  

The  Chambers  of  Builders  Act  requests  service  providers  to  submit  copies  of 
equivalent insurance documents as part the registration process. The Spatial Planning 
Act  demands  compulsory  insurance  of  all  parties  responsible  for  the  construction 
project (please see section 4.7). However, this requirement does not apply to persons 
from  another  Member  State  established  on  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Bulgaria 
that  have  equivalent  insurance  of  professional  liability  or  a  guarantee.  A  score  of  3 
applies  to  BG  as  a  mutual  recognition  principle  but  not  a  procedure  have  been 
established for insurance requirements.  

In Portugal, the legislation specifically describes its scope as applying to cross-border 
service  providers.  Equivalent  insurance  obtained  in  other  Member  States  is  accepted 
given  that  professional  liability  insurance  is  mandatory  (see  section  4.7).  The  online 
registration  procedure  echoes  the  actions  to  be  followed  in  the  legislation  and 
indicates its recognition of equivalent documents including insurance products. A score 
of 3 for insurance applies to PT as a mutual recognition principle but not a procedure 
has  been  established.  Regarding  mutual  recognition  of  other  applicable  requirements 
(including  technical/professional  capacity)  a  mutual  recognition  principle  is  in  place 
and a specific procedure has been established (a score of 0 has been awarded) under 
which professionals hired in the home MS are accepted under home MS rules, except if 
they  physically  move  to  PT,  in  which  case  controls  of  the  Professional  Qualifications 
Directive (2005/36/EC) apply. 

The  Danish  legislation  relating  to  the  authorisation  procedure  of  installation 
professionals  (electricity,  plumbing,  gas  and  sewerage  installation)  that  have  foreign 
professional  qualifications  has  established  mutual  recognition  principles  and 
procedures  for  mutual  recognition  of  foreign  service  providers  in  line  with  the 
Professional  Qualifications  Directive  (2005/36/EC).81  82  However,  in  terms  of  the 
recognition  of  the  required  quality  management  system,  only  if  a  firm  already  holds 
certification  based  on  European  standards  is  mutual  recognition  operational.  The 
relevant  documentation  can  be  submitted  for  assessment  by  an  approved  certifying 
body.  On  the  basis  of  reports  received  from  the  recognised  certification  agency  that 
originally issued the certification which the applicant already holds, the certifying body 
examines  whether  the  company  operates  in  accordance  with  its  existing  quality 
management  system.  For  certifications  based  on  national  standards  as  well  as  other 
previous controls on similar requirements, no mutual recognition practice seems to be 
in place.83 As a result, a score of 3 has been given against the first indicator above.  

In  the  legislation  and  application  form  for  occasional  and  temporary  pursuit  of  a 
profession for individuals, it is requested that the applicant should submit information 
on any insurance cover or other means of personal or collective protection with regard 
to  professional  liability.  However,  it  is  not  explicitly  clear  in  the  legislation  that 
equivalent  insurance  products  are  recognised.  Nonetheless,  the  national  legislation 
that  transposes  the  Services  Directive  indicates  that  equivalent  professional  liability 

81   The  relevant  legislation  notes  that  the  legal  texts  contain  provisions  implementing  parts  of  European 
Parliament and Council Directive 2005/ 36 / EC of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional 
qualifications. 

82   https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=105216. 
83   Ad  hoc  recognition  of  equivalent  certifications  based  on  national  standards  have  been  known  to  take 

place, but no clear procedure is in place. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

insurance products are recognised as sufficient.84 This suggests that the authorisation 
procedure  does  permit  equivalent  insurance  documents.  However,  it  appears  that 
there  is  no  specific  mutual  recognition  procedure  in  place  for  the  recognition  of 
equivalent  insurance  products  issued  by  an  insurer  established  in  another  Member 
State, and a score of 3 has been given. 

With  regard  to  Italy  (DURC)  in  view  of  the  type  of  requirements  to  be  met  by 
construction service providers, mutual recognition is not applicable. This authorisation 
scheme focuses on a very specific area of regulatory compliance (i.e. demonstration of 
fulfilment of tax and social security obligations) and is therefore not examined in the 
context  of  mutual  recognition  of  cross-border  service  providers  operating  in  the 
construction sector. With regard to the Italian scheme relating to EN:ISO 9001:2008, 
mutual recognition of European and international standards operates in the framework 
of Regulation 765/2008 (see chapter 5 on voluntary certification schemes).85A score 0 
has been given in this instance.  

Regarding  Spain,  the  health  and  safety  requirements  to  be  met  are  based  on  those 
established  by  European  legislation.  There  is  recognition  of  cross-border  service 
providers  as  long  as  firms  have  conducted  equivalent  types  of  training  and  have 
introduced health and safety organisational measures (as indicated by Law 32/2006). 
However,  the  law  is  not  specifically  clear  as  to  whether  firms  that  have  already  met 
their own national requirements will receive mutual recognition. A score of 3 has been 
awarded.  

However, insurance products are not requested as part of the submission demands by 
the horizontal authorisation schemes in  Italy and Spain. While mandatory insurance 
requirements  are  imposed  on  construction  service  providers  in  these  countries  (see 
section  4.7),  the  authorisation  schemes  in  question  do  not  govern  market  access 
broadly speaking (rather they have a specific focus on demanding that social security 
payments have been made or that health and safety requirements have been met). As 
a  result,  these  schemes  are  not  appropriate  mechanisms  through  which  mutual 
recognition  procedures  for  insurance  products  should  be  established.  Consequently, 
the  indicator  analysis  relating  to  recognition  of  insurance  requirements  has  not  been 
extended to these countries.  

Given  that  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  Greece  is  not  yet  operational,  the 
indicator analysis cannot be performed under Article 10(3)(4).  

In all countries, the horizontal authorisation schemes examined give access to service 
providers  to  operate  in  all  parts  of  the  national  territory  and  are  compliant  with  the 
Services Directive in this regard. 

Legal  evaluation  Article  10(3)(4)  (Conditions 
authorisation) 
The  analysis  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  legislation  suggests  that  there  are 
mixed  results  regarding  whether  specific  principles  and  procedures  are  established 
supporting  mutual  recognition.  In  terms  of  the  mutual  recognition  of  requirements 
examined  under  the  first  indicator  in  table  3.7,  Portugal  has  established  principles 
and  procedures  that  correspond  well  with  the  needs  of  the  Services  Directive. 
Denmark's  requirements 
limited  to  professional 
qualification issues, while for the rest of the applicable conditions mutual recognition is 

for  mutual  recognition  are 

the  granting  of 

for 

84   http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/file/38199/Danish_law_on_services_EN_110509.pdf. 
85   Setting  out  the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of 

products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93. 

November 2015 I 53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
limited  to  situations  where  the  provider  was  previously  certified  under  European 
standards.  The  Italian  mandatory  certification  scheme  (EN:ISO  9001:2008)  already 
operates in the context of a legal framework under Regulation 765/2008 that supports 
mutual recognition of European and international standards. However, the legal texts 
are less clear in Bulgaria and Spain regarding whether service providers can operate 
cross-border  according  to  the  same  or  essentially  comparable  requirements  already 
complied with and therefore these horizontal authorisation schemes are comparatively 
more restrictive. 

Where  insurance  requirements  are  established  for  market  participation,  the  relevant 
legal  texts  suggest  that  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  has  been  established. 
However,  they  are  not  accompanied  by  specified  procedures  to  make  mutual 
recognition operational (BG, DK, PT) and therefore there is lack of clarity around the 
processes by which the requested insurance products will be assessed and the criteria 
that will be followed.  

In  addition,  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  reviewed  provide  access  to  service 
providers  to  the  relevant  national  territories  and  are  therefore  compliant  with  Article 
10(4).  

3.6  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 11(1)  
The following section provides an indicator analysis and legal evaluation of horizontal 
authorisation scheme legislation under Article 11(1) of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 11(1) (Duration of authorisation) 
An authorisation granted to a provider shall not be for a limited period, except where: 

(a.) The authorisation is being automatically renewed or is subject only to the 

continued fulfilment of requirements; 

(b.)The number of available authorisations is limited by an overriding reason 

relating to the public interest; 

(c.) A limited authorisation period can be justified by an overriding reason relating 

to the public interest. 

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme legislation  
Horizontal  authorisations  schemes  should  not  grant  authorisation  to  construction 
service providers for a limited period (unless for the reasons indicated above).  

Indicator analysis Article 11(1) (Duration of authorisation) 
The  table  below  provides  an  indicator  assessment  of  the  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes  reviewed  against  an  indicator  developed  under  Article  11(1).  This  examines 
the  extent  of  compliance  from  ‘automatic  renewal’  to  ‘the  same  procedure  must  be 
followed as the initial authorisation’.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 3.8 Indicator analysis Article 11 (1) 

Article 11 (1) Duration of authorisation  
I
T
86 

B
G 

F
R 

D
K 

E
S 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
L 

F
I 

Indicator 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

I
T
87 

6 

2 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

4

N
/
A 

6

N
/
A

N
/
A 

6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

2 

N
/
A 

N
/
A  

Are  authorisations  granted  for  a  limited 
period  (N  0);  If  yes,  a  differentiation  in 
the  score  should  be  made  for  the  cases 
of 
a) automatic renewal of the authorisation 
1,  
b) renewal upon payment of a fee 2  
c) renewal requires a new application 4,  
d)  with  the  same  procedure  as  for  the 
initial authorisation 6 

In  Bulgaria,  all  construction  service  providers  are  required  to  pay  an  annual 
maintenance  fee  and  therefore  a  score  of  2  applies.  In  Denmark,  service  providers 
established  nationally  are  not  required  to  renew  their  application,  however,  the 
mandatory  quality  management  system  does  need  to  be  renewed  every  two  years 
because  the  underlying  certification  scheme  has  a  limited  duration.  A  score  of  4  has 
been  given.  In  Italy,  (DURC)  the  same  procedure  must  be  followed  by  service 
providers on every occasion (after the relevant certificate has expired after 90 days). 
As a result, a score of 6 has been awarded. The Italian mandatory certification scheme 
(EN:ISO  9001:2008),  requires  a  new  application  every  three  years  and  follows  the 
same  procedure  (a  score  of  6  has  been  awarded).  In  Portugal,  entities  registered 
nationally  are  subject  to  a  revalidation  fee.  A  score  of  2  is  relevant  in  this  case.  In 
Spain,  renewal is  required  every  three  years  and  the  applicant is  required  to  submit 
updated documents and provide a newly completed application form. A score of 6 has 
been  awarded.  Given  that  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  Greece  is  not  yet 
operational,  the  indicator  analysis  cannot  be  performed  in  this  case  under  Article 
11(1).  

Legal evaluation Article 11(1) (Duration of authorisation) 
In Bulgaria and Portugal, while the administrative step of payment of an annual fee 
is  less  burdensome  than  the  initial  authorisation  procedure,  it  does  impose  ongoing 
requirements on service providers. Eliminating this requirement is suggested.  

In  Denmark,  the  authorisation  procedure  is  not  required  to  be  followed  on 
subsequent occasions for those seeking permanent establishment but applicants need 
to  ensure  their  quality  management  system  is  kept  up  to  date  meaning  that  repeat 
approvals by a certification body are necessary. This process seems to be at odds with 
the spirit of the Services Directive.  

Similarly, given that ISO certification often requires verification by certification bodies 
every  three  years,  in  the  context  of  the  Services  Directive,  it  seems  disproportionate 
to require service providers to obtain the standard EN:ISO 9001:2008 (as is the case 
in Italy) on a mandatory basis. 

In  the  cases  of  Italy  (DURC)  and  Spain,  the  procedures  are  comparatively  more 
burdensome  given  that  the  same  steps  need  to  be  followed  repeatedly.  These 
authorisation processes would benefit if their duration of authorisation are extended.  

86   This corresponds to the DURC scheme. 
87   This corresponds to the EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme.  

November 2015 I 55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
3.7  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 13(2)(3)(4) 
The following section provides an indicator analysis and legal evaluation of horizontal 
authorisation scheme legislation under Article 13(2)(3)(4) of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 13(2)(3)(4) (Authorisation Procedures) 

  Article 13 (2) Authorisation procedures and formalities shall not be unduly 
complicated or delay the provision of the service. Any charges which the 
applicants may incur from their application shall be reasonable and 
proportionate; 

  Article 13 (3) Authorisation procedures and formalities shall provide applicants 
with a guarantee that their application will be processed as quickly as possible 
in a reasonable period which is fixed and made public in advance. When 
justified by the complexity of the issue, the time period can only be extended 
once for a limited time;  

  Article 13 (4) Failing a response within the time period set or extended in 
accordance with paragraph 3, authorisation shall be deemed to have been 
granted. Different arrangements may nevertheless be put in place, where 
justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.  

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme legislation  
In  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  legislation,  Member  States  must 
ensure  that  authorisation  procedures  are  efficient  and  non-burdensome,  approval 
processes are linked to fixed periods which can only be extended once and ideally tacit 
approval  is  granted  if  a  decision  on  the  application  is  not  issued  in  the  appropriate 
period.  Any  fees  imposed  must  be  directly  linked  to  the  costs  of  managing  the 
authorisation procedure.  

Indicator analysis Article 13(2)(3)(4) (Authorisation Procedures) 
The  table  below  provides  an  indicator  assessment  of  the  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes  against  a  number  of  indicators  developed  under  Article  13(2)(3)(4).  This 
analysis examines whether fees are proportionate to costs, the length of fixed periods, 
whether  application  periods  are  fixed  and  made  public,  and  whether  notification  of 
time extensions and tacit approval apply.  

Table 3.9 Indicator analysis Article 13(2)(3)(4) 

Article 13(2)(3)(4) (Authorisation Procedures) 

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

Are  fees  proportionate  to 
cost? (Y 0 / N 6) 

6 

How  long  is  the  (initial) 
fixed period for decision (< 
15  working  days  0/  15-30 
working  days  –  3/  >  30 
working days or not fixed 6 

0 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

D
E 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

D
K 

6  

6 

E
L 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

E
S 

0 

0

F 
I 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

F
R 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

I 
T
88 

0 

3 

88   This corresponds to the DURC scheme. 
89   This corresponds to the EN:ISO 2008 scheme. 

I 

N
L 

T
89 
6  N
/
A 
N
/
A 

6 

P
L 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

P
T 

6 

3 

S
I 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

U
K 

N
/
A 
N
/
A 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article 13(2)(3)(4) (Authorisation Procedures) 

Indicator 

time 

than 

fixed  periods  be 
Can 
extended 
the 
by 
competent  authority  for  a 
minimum 
(no 
extension  0  /  1  extension: 
3/  more 
one 
extensions: 6);  
Are  applicants  notified  of 
extensions 
the 
original  period  has  expired 
(Y/NA 0 / N 6);  
fixed  periods  have 
If 
expired,  are  authorisations 
deemed 
to  have  been 
granted  (Y  0  /  N  or  no 
fixed periods 6) 

before 

B
G 

0 

0 

6 

C
Z 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

D
E 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

E
S 

D
K 

E
L 

N
/
A 

6 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

0 

6 

6 

F 
I 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

F
R 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

I 
T
88 

0 

0

0 

I 

N
L 

T
89 
6  N
/
A 

6  N
/
A 

6 

N
/
A 

P
L 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

P
T 

0 

0 

0 

S
I 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

U
K 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

In Bulgaria, the certificate of registration or the refusal thereof must be issued within 
15  days  following  the  receipt  of  the  application.  Extensions  of  the  authorisation 
procedure  are  not  available.  According  to  the  Administrative  Procedure  Code,  when 
the  competent  authority  does  not  issue  a  decision/written  statement,  it  should  be 
considered as a tacit refusal. In this case, the method of fee calculation is not directly 
linked to the costs of authorisation but rather company revenue (see table 3.3).  

With  regard  to  Denmark,  a  triple  fee  is  imposed:  two  relating  to  the  company  and 
individual  authorisation  schemes  that  need  to  be  jointly  followed  which  are  relatively 
small and relate to the administrative costs of processing the application borne by the 
authority;  however  the  procedure  relating  to  the  underlying  mandatory  certification 
scheme is high cost and profit-driven (see table 3.3). A score  of 6 has been given in 
this  instance.  The  authorisation  process  (proper)  can  take  up  to  60  days  and  if  the 
application  is  determined  as  complicated  the  procedure  can  be  extended  with  the 
applicant  being  notified.  However,  the  certification  scheme  has  no  fixed  period  for 
decision  and  is  subject  to  variation  as  to  a  large  extent  the  completion  of  the 
procedure  rests  upon  the  applicant  to  introduce  appropriate  systems  to  demonstrate 
to  the  certification  body  full  compliance  with  the  requirements.  Given  that  formal 
arrangements  are  not  in  place  for  notifications  and  extensions  in  the  context  of 
certification processes, a score of 6 has been awarded. Tacit approval does not apply 
in this instance.  

In  Italy  (DURC),  the  authorisation  procedure  lasts  for  30  days.  There  are  no 
extensions and the certificate is granted automatically at the end of this period even if 
the  authority  has  not  been  able  to  complete  the  assessment.  The  authorisation 
procedure is free of charge.90  

With regard to the Italian EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme, the fees are not proportionate 
to  costs  as  certification  services  are  profit  driven.  The  certification  process  does  not 
operate in a fixed period as the process largely rests upon the applicant to introduce 
appropriate systems to demonstrate to the certification body full compliance with the 
requirements. Formal arrangements are not in place for notifications and extensions in 

90   However, a small annual fee of €10 is charged for annual storage of applicant’s data relating to each 

100 mega-bytes. 

November 2015 I 57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
the  context  of  the  certification  process.  A  score  of  6  has  been  awarded  against  all 
criteria.  

In  Portugal,  the  method  of  fee  calculation  is  not  linked  to  the  costs  of  the 
authorisation  procedure.  Rather,  the  fee  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  a  small 
percentage of an indexed wage salary linked to the various categories of construction 
services.91 The approval process is restricted to 20 days with no extensions. If a reply 
is not issued in this period, tacit approval applies.  

In  relation to  Spain  (Madrid), the procedure lasts for a  maximum of 15 days. Single 
extensions  and  timely  notifications  to  applicants  feature  as  part  of  the  authorisation 
process  but  these  are  only  used  in  circumstances  where  the  applicant  has  submitted 
an  incorrect  application  and  therefore  a  score  of  0  has  been  given.  Tacit  approval 
applies. The authorisation procedure is free of charge.92 

Given  that  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  Greece  is  not  yet  operational,  the 
indicator analysis cannot be performed under Article 13(2)(3)(4).  

Legal evaluation Article 13(2)(3)(4) (Authorisation Procedures) 
With  regard  to  the  issue  of  fees,  it  appears  that  attempts  have  been  made  in  some 
instances  (DK)  to  ensure  that  the  fees  imposed  are  linked  to  the  costs  of  the 
authorisation procedure managed by the competent authority.  However, in this case, 
the  costs  are  profit  driven  for  the  mandatory  quality  management  system  element 
that needs to be followed initially to meet the needs of the authorisation scheme. This 
finding also applies to the mandatory EN:ISO 9001:2008 certification scheme in Italy.  

Similarly,  the  research  has  revealed  that  some  methods  of  fee  calculation  are  not 
linked to the costs of the authorisation procedure (BG, PT). Reform of these methods 
is required to ensure compliance with Article 13(2).  

The  fixed  period  for  decision  is  relatively  efficient  in  most  cases  with  designated 
timeframes of up to 15 days (BG, ES) or up to 30 days (IT -DURC, PT). However, in 
the  case  of  Denmark,  the  approval  period  is  up  to  60  days  and  the  underlying 
certification  scheme  has  no  fixed  period  for  decision  (as  is  the  case  with  the  Italian 
EN:ISO  9001:2008  certification  scheme).  As  a  result,  these  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes  seem  to  perform  badly  compared  to  the  efficiency  of  authorisation 
procedures  in  other  Member  States.  Shortening  of  the  relevant  period  in  line  with 
wider practice and replacing the certification requirement with other (lighter) controls 
is suggested. 

In most cases, extensions are not used for reasons other than incomplete applications 
(BG, ES, IT-DURC PT). In Denmark, an extension can be employed if the application 
is considered complex. However, considering that the fixed period in this case is up to 
60 days, this does not seem appropriate and a modification of the procedure based on 
the  approach  used  in  other  countries  is  suggested.  Moreover,  certification  schemes 
(e.g.  IT:EN:ISO  9001:2008,  DK)  do  not  normally  formally  establish  fixed  periods, 
extensions  and  notifications  given  that  such  approval  processes  are  designed 
specifically  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  applicant.  However,  this  type  of  practice  runs 
counter to the requirements of the Services Directive.  

91   https://dre.pt/application/file/240955. 
92   However, it is noted that in some Spanish regions fees may be imposed by this horizontal authorisation 

scheme. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

The  principle  of  tacit  approval  seems  to  be  regarded  as  good  practice  by  some 
countries  (ES,  IT  –DURC,  PT).  However,  Bulgaria,  Denmark  and  Italy  -  EN:ISO 
9001:2008  have  not  adopted  this  preferential  legal  feature  as  suggested  in  the 
Services  Directive.  Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  tacit  approval  could  be  offered 
under  a  certification  process  further  suggesting  that  mandatory  certification  is  not  a 
justifiable legal requirement.  

3.8  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 16(2b) 
The following section provides an indicator analysis and legal evaluation of horizontal 
authorisation scheme legislation under Article 16(2b) of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 16(2b) (Freedom to provide services) 

  Article 16(2b) Member States may not restrict the freedom to provide services 
in the case of a provider established in another Member State by imposing an 
obligation on the provider to obtain an authorisation from their competent 
authorities including entry in a register etc. 

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation 
scheme legislation  
Requirements imposed on temporary cross-border service providers to register with a 
competent  authority  are  generally  incompatible  with  the  requirements  described  by 
Article  16(2b).  Member  States  should  ensure  that  temporary  cross-border  service 
providers  are  not  subject  to  controls,  or,  while  not  ideal,  restrict  the  authorisation 
processes to non-burdensome procedures such as notifications.  

Assessment of the horizontal  authorisation schemes to support the indicator 
analysis under Article 16(2b)  
To support the indicator analysis under Article 16(2b), further background information 
is  provided  on  the  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  in  this  section.  The  main  reason 
for  this  is  that  some  of  the  key  requirements  have  a  slightly  different  focus  for 
temporary  cross–border  service  providers  and  these  should  be  taken  into  account 
when  examining  the  extent  of  procedural  restrictiveness  in  this  context.  Table  3.10 
indicates the number of documents by individual categories requested from temporary 
cross-border service providers.  

Table 3.10 Number of documents by categories of submission demands for horizontal 

authorisation schemes with regard to temporary cross-border service providers  
Mem
ber 
State  

Good 
repute  

Insura
nce  

Equip
ment  

Stand
ards  

Other  

Applic
ation 
form / 
letter  

Hea
lth 
and 
Saf
ety  

Profes
sion 
and 
technic
al 
al 
capacit
y 
1 

Econo
mic 
and 
financi
al 
capacit
y  
N/A 

BG 

N/A 

N/A   N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

 1 

CZ 
DE 
(NRW

N/A  
N/A  

N/A  
N/A  

N/A   N/A  
N/A  N/A 

N/A  
N/A 

N/A  
N/A 

N/A  
N/A 

N/A  
N/A  

1 
(Building 
permit) 
N/A  
N/A 

November 2015 I 59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
DK  

EL 
ES  
FI 
FR 
IT 
(DUR
C) 
IT 
(EN:I
SO 
9001:
2008) 
NL 

PT 

PL  

SI 

Mem
ber 
State  

Stand
ards  

Hea
lth 
and 
Saf
ety  

Profes
sion 
and 
technic
al 
al 
capacit
y 

Equip
ment  

Insura
nce  

1  
(Firms 
only) 

2 
(individ
uals) 

N/A  N/A  

N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

2 
N/A  
N/A  
N/A  
N/A 

N/A  N/A 
2 
N/A 
N/A  N/A 
N/A  N/A 
N/A  N/A 

193 
(non-
permea
/ 
nt 
occasio
nal 
individu
als) 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

Econo
mic 
and 
financi
al 
capacit
y  

N/A  

Good 
repute  

Other  

Applic
ation 
form / 
letter  

1 
(firms)94 
1)95 

2(indiv
iduals 
and 
firms) 

1 
(Passpor
t) 

N/A 
 2 
N/A 
N/A 
2 

N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

 1 
 1 
N/A 
N/A 
 196 

N/A 
N/A 

1 

N/A  

N/A  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A   N/A  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A  

N/A  N/A  

N/A   N/A  

N/A  
197 
N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

2 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

 1  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

UK  

N/A  

With  regard  to  the  Bulgarian  control  process  for  temporary  cross-border  services,  a 
notification procedure has been made available for the provision of services related to 
individual  projects.  This  includes  a  notification  letter  indicating  the  details  of  the 
construction project, a simple copy of a certified document indicating the right of the 
service  provider  to  provide  services  in  the  Member  State  where  they  are  established 
(including  its  certified  BG  translation  in  original  format)  and  a  simple  copy  of  the 
relevant building permit (applicants may also opt to submit a simple copy of the client 
contract).  

In  Denmark,  the  authorisation  scheme  requests  a  similar  set  of  documents  for 
temporary  cross-border  service  providers  as  those  seeking  permanent  establishment 
(please see section 3.2). However, an additional requirement is imposed as applicants 
need to submit evidence of professional indemnity insurance.  

93   This is a professional indemnity insurance for non-permeant / occasional individuals. 
94   This relates to a criminal record check. 
95   This is related to evidence of non-exclusion from the sector. 
96   After  data  is  provided  in  the  form,  the  authorisation  body  requests  information  from  social  security 

bodies to check the data provided in the form is accurate. 

97   Please see section 4.7 on insurance for further details.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In Greece, it is assumed the same requirements will relate to temporary cross-border 
service providers but this cannot be verified as the horizontal authorisation scheme is 
not yet operational (please see section 3.2).  

In  relation  to  Italy  (DURC),  the  procedure  applies  to  all  service  providers  but 
temporary  cross-border  service  providers  are  exempt  from  the  authorisation 
procedure  for  services  consisting  of  less  than  3  months.  In  addition,  it  is  likely  that 
temporary  cross-border  service  providers  will  be  requested  to  submit  additional 
documents namely certified documents indicating fulfilment of tax and social security 
obligations (rather that completing the application form only as the relevant authority 
is  not  in  a  position  to  independently  verify  fulfilment  of  these  conditions).  It  is 
estimated that this relates to at least two certified documents but the exact number is 
likely to vary depending on the arrangements for each Member State. 

In  Italy  (EN:ISO  9001:2008)  if  the  temporary  cross-border  service  provider  already 
holds the relevant certification, the documentation approved by the certification body 
that  managed  the  initial  certification  procedure  can  be  submitted  to  a  certification 
body in Italy (this activates the mutual recognition procedure).  

In  terms  of  Portugal,  there  are  slightly  different  requirements  for  temporary  cross-
border service providers. Applicants established in other Member States are requested 
to apply for a declaration (Registo).98 This provides temporary access to the market in 
connection  with  an  individual  contract.  However,  according  to  interview  feedback 
received, in practice, if the applicant intends to provide similar construction services in 
connection  with  a  subsequent  contract  and  a  limited  period  of  time  has  passed  since 
the  previous  application,  the  service  provider  may  use  the  declaration  previously 
obtained  in  order  to  access  the  market.  In  terms  of  the  categories  of  documents 
required,  these  are  equally  as  numerous  as  those  required  by  the  authorisation 
procedure facilitating permanent access to the market (see section 3.2).  

In Spain, the same number of categories of documents are required from temporary 
cross-border  service  providers  as  those  established  permanently  (please  see  section 
3.2). However, with regard to temporary cross-border services consisting of less than 
8 days, an exemption is offered from the authorisation scheme. In relation to the first 
application,  a  completed  application  form  is  required  along  with  evidence  of  solvency 
(the  company  is  regarded  as  registered  until  the  labour  authority  resolves  the 
application).  Subsequent  authorisation  procedures  require  all  documents  to  be 
submitted.  

Indicator analysis Article 16(2b) (Freedom to provide services) 
Table 3.11 provides an indicator assessment of the horizontal authorisation scheme in 
relation  to  Article  16  (2b)  (freedom  to  provide  services).  This  examines  whether 
temporary  cross-border  service  providers  are  subject  to  horizontal  authorisation 
requirements on the basis of no authorisation, notification or full authorisation.  

98   http://www.inci.pt/Portugues/Construcao/Documents/REQUERIMENTO_%20LPS.pdf. 

November 2015 I 61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 3.11 Indicator analysis Article 16 (2b) 

Article 16 (2b) freedom to provide services cross-border  

Indicator 

B
G 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

I
T
99 

I
T
100 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

Where  service  providers  are  established 
in  another  Member  State  and  intend  to 
provide temporary cross-border services, 
are  horizontal  schemes  imposed  (this 
does  not  include  authorisation  schemes 
regulated 
that 
0; 
(no 
professions) 
notification 3 or authorisation 6)? 

requirement 

specifically 

control 

3 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

6 

6 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6 

6 

N
/
A

N
/
A

6

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

The  horizontal  control  scheme  in  Bulgaria  permits  temporary  cross-border  service 
providers to follow a notification procedure. In this case, the submission demands are 
much lighter and permission to provide services is given upon submission of a copy of 
the  relevant  building  permit  and  a  limited  number  of  other  documents.  A  score  of  3 
appears relevant given that a notification procedure has been made available.  

There  are  no  exemptions  made  for  temporary  cross-border  service  providers  in 
Demark  as  a  specific  authorisation  procedure  has  been  established  for  this  group. 
This  procedure  is  more  onerous  than  the  procedure  for  permanent  workers  as 
insurance  products  are  requested.  In  addition,  if  a  temporary  cross-border  service 
provider  already  holds  certification  it  will  need  to  be  authorised  as  compliant  by  a 
certification body. If a temporary cross-border service provider does not hold relevant 
certification,  the  applicant  will  need  to  comply  with  a  designated  certification 
procedure. A score of 6 has been awarded. 

Given  that  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  in  Greece  is  not  yet  operational,  the 
indicator  analysis  cannot  be  performed  under  Article  16(2b)  with  accuracy.  However, 
given  that  the  focus  of  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  is  to  link  building  work 
with specific designers on the basis of a designated ID, an assumption has been made 
that  procedural  exemptions  will  not  be  offered  to  temporary  cross-border  service 
providers and therefore a score of 6 has been given.  

In  Italy,  (DURC)  the  procedure  applies  to  all  service  providers  but  temporary  cross-
border service providers are exempt from authorisation for works on sites for less than 
3  months.  However,  a  score  of  6  has  been  given  as  exemption  is  not  offered  to  all 
categories  of  temporary  cross-border  service  providers.  With  regard  to  the  Italian 
EN:ISO  9001:2008  scheme,  authorisation  is  required  of  temporary  cross  service 
providers  that  already  hold  the  relevant  certification.  If  a  temporary  cross-border 
service  provider  does  not  hold  the  relevant  certification,  the  applicant  will  need  to 
comply with a designated certification procedure. A score of 6 has been awarded. 

In Portugal, authorisation is required on the basis of a request for a declaration which 
is specific to temporary cross-border service providers. However, this procedure does 
not  seem  significantly  lighter  than  the  procedure  to  apply  for  a  permanent  license 
given  that  a  similar  number  of  categories  of  documents  are  required.  Therefore,  a 
score of 6 applies in this case.  

In Spain, while there are beneficial arrangements for companies providing temporary 
cross-border  services  for  a  very  limited  duration  (i.e.  8  days)  or  making  their  initial 

99   This corresponds to the DURC scheme. 
100   This corresponds to the EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

application  (this  procedure  can  be  initiated  on  the  basis  of  a  limited  number  of 
submission  demands),  these  are  not  offered  to  all  categories  of  temporary  cross-
border service providers. Therefore, a score of 6 applies in this case.  

Legal evaluation Article 16(2b) (Freedom to provide services) 
Overall,  the  results  tend  to  indicate  that  the  same  requirements  imposed  on  service 
providers  established  nationally  are  demanded  of  temporary  cross-border  service 
providers  (DK,  EL,  ES,  IT,  PT).  This  approach  is  at  odds  with  the  requirements  of 
Article 16(2b) given that Member States should not establish horizontal authorisation 
schemes for temporary cross border service providers.  

There are, nonetheless, examples of slightly better practice whereby temporary cross-
border services providers are subject to notification procedures in  BG (or exemptions 
in ES and IT, although in these cases the circumstances where these practices apply 
are very limited). A limited degree of compliance with Article of 16b could be obtained 
if  this  practice  is  extended  to  other  countries  where  detailed  authorisation  methods 
are used for this category of service provider (DK, PT). However, ideally, to obtain a 
very  good  level  of  compliance  with  Article  16(2b),  temporary  cross-border  service 
providers should not be subject to any controls.  

However,  there  could  be  some  instances  where  authorisation  processes  that  use 
notification procedures for temporary cross border service providers generate positive 
spill-over  effects  in  some  areas.  For  example,  if  a  notification  procedure  supported  a 
one-off  control  limiting  the  need  for  further  repeat  controls  (for  example,  as  part  of 
building control procedures), simplification gains could be generated.  

3.9  Aggregate indicator results and identification of good practice 
This  section  provides  an  overall  analysis  of  the  indicator  results  examining  the 
performance  of  national  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  legislation  leading  to  the 
presentation of good practice identified. 

Table  3.12  presents  the  indicator  results.  As  mentioned  previously  in  Chapter  1,  the 
greater  the  score  highlighted  by  the  indicator  analysis,  the  greater  the  level  of 
procedural  restrictiveness  at  country  level  for  construction  service  providers  in  the 
context of the Services Directive. The relative percentage weightings of the indicators 
at the level of each Article are indicated in the left hand column. 

Table 3.12 Horizontal Authorisation Schemes - overall indicator results 

Article and 
weighting  
Article 9  
(20%) 
Article 10 (3) 
(20%) 
Article 10 (4) 
(5%)  
Article 11 (1) 
(5%)  
Article 16 
(15%)  

BG   CZ  DE  DK  EL 

ES 

4,5
0 
5,1
0 
0 

2,0
0 
3,0
0 

N/A  N/A  5,5

0 

N/A  N/A  3,0
0  
N/A  N/A  0 

N/A  N/A  4,0
0  
N/A  N/A  6,0

0 

4,5
0 
0 

0 

0,0
0 
6,0
0 

4,5
0 
2,1
0 
0 

6,0
0 
6,0
0 

101   This relates to the EN:ISO 9001:2008 scheme. 

FI 

FR 

IT
101 
N/A  N/A  4,5

0 
N/A  N/A  0 

N/A  N/A  0 

NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

N/A  N/A  4,5

N/A  N/A 

0 

N/A  N/A  0,9
0  
N/A  N/A  0 

N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A  6,0

N/A  N/A  2,0

N/A  N/A 

0 

0 

N/A  N/A  6,0

N/A  N/A  6,0

N/A  N/A 

0 

0 

November 2015 I 63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
BG   CZ  DE  DK  EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

3,8
0 

2,7
0 
2,0
0 
3,3
0 
2,6
7 

3,4
1 

N/
A 

N/
A 

4,3
1 

N/A  N/A  1,9

0 

N/A  N/A  0,0

0 

N/A  N/A  6,0

N/
A 

N/
A 

0 
2,5
3 

N/A  N/A  3,6

9 

2,7
7 

0,4
0 
0,0
0 
0,0
0 
0,1
7 

1,8
6 

3,8
8 

2,4
0 
0,0
0 
0,0
0 
1,0
3 

2,8
8 

IT
101 
3,2
3 

NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

N/
A 

N/
A 

3,2
0 

N/
A 

N/
A 

N/
A 

N/
A 

N/A  N/A  1,3

N/A  N/A  1,7

N/A  N/A 

0 

0 

N/A  N/A  0,0

N/A  N/A  0,0

N/A  N/A 

0 

0 

N/A  N/A  6,0

N/A  N/A  2,2

N/A  N/A 

N/
A 

N/
A 

0 
2,2
7 

N/
A 

N/
A 

5 
1,3
7 

N/
A 

N/
A 

N/A  N/A  2,9

N/A  N/A  2,5

N/A  N/A 

0 

6 

Article and 
weighting  
Overall – 
regulatory 
burden 
Article 5  
(15%) 
Article 8  
(10%) 
Article 13 (2)  
(10%)  
Overall – 
administrative 
burden 
Overall 
(regulatory 
and 
administrative 
burden) 

The  indicator  results  provide  a  clear  overview  of  the  relative  ranking  of  each  of  the 
study countries: 

  CZ, DE, FI, FR, NL, PL, SI, UK appear to offer the greatest level of compliance 

with the Services Directive. In these countries, horizontal authorisation 
schemes have not been established as official approvals of the quality of 
service provision where deemed necessary are implemented in the context of 
the building control process or through other measures;  

  EL (1,86) appears to offer the least restrictive environment. However, the 
results should be interpreted with caution as this horizontal authorisation 
scheme relates to a legislative proposal at this stage and is not clearly defined 
or operational. A full assessment against all of the indicators could not be 
undertaken;  

  The impact of the most restrictive Italian horizontal authorisation scheme 

(EN:ISO 9001:2008) has been considered only  (2,90). It is not perceived as 
restrictive in relation to Article 10(3) but not does not perform well in the 
context of Article 11(1) and Article 16. PT (2,56) has received relatively low 
scores against Article 10(3) and Article 13(2). ES (2,88) also appears to have a 
moderate level of restrictiveness performing better than other countries in the 
context of Article 13(2);  

  BG (3,41) and DK (3,69) have obtained the highest scores and are the most 
restrictive horizontal authorisation schemes. A key reason for this is that the 
BG scheme has performed less against Article 10(3). The DK scheme combines 
an authorisation procedure with a mandatory certification process and 
therefore has performed less well against a number of indicators including 
Article 13(2).  

Figure  3.1  provides  the  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall  level  of 
regulatory  restrictiveness  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  (i.e.  the  issues 
examined  around  regulatory  burdens  and  mutual  recognition).  The  least  restrictive 
countries  are  associated  with  low  scores  (the  reverse  is  true  for  countries  with  high 
scores).  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual  indicator  results  in 
relation to specific regulatory demands of the Services Directive. 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Figure 3.1 Overall regulatory restrictiveness of horizontal authorisation schemes 

DK

ES

BG

IT

PT

EL

Horizontal authorisation
(including number of
procedures and
possibilities of exemption)

Existence/functioning of
mutual recognition and
national validity of
authorisation

Validity of authorisation in
time

Freedom to provide
services cross-border

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure  3.2  provides  the  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall 
administrative restrictiveness of horizontal authorisation schemes. The least restrictive 
countries  are  associated  with  low  scores  (the  reverse  is  true  for  countries  with  high 
scores).  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual  indicator  results  in 
relation to specific procedural demands of the Services Directive. 

Figure 3.2 Overall administrative restrictiveness of horizontal authorisation schemes 

BG

DK

IT

PT

ES

EL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Complexity of procedures
(incl number of authorities
involved/documents to be
submitted, availability of
legislation in EN and
acceptance of documents)
Availability of electronic
means to complete
procedures

Authorisation procedures
(including fees and decision
periods)

November 2015 I 65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3.3  provides  the  combined  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall 
restrictiveness  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  (this  assessment  combines  the 
Figure  1  and  2  results  around  the  assessment  of  administrative  and  regulatory 
burdens). The least restrictive countries are associated with low scores (the reverse is 
true  for  countries  with  high  scores).  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the 
individual  indicator  results  in  relation  to  the  individual  scores  for  administrative  and 
regulatory burdens.  

Figure 3.3 Overall restrictiveness of horizontal authorisation schemes in 6 Member 

States 

DK

BG

IT

ES

PT

EL

Regulatory burden

Administrative burden

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

An  overview  of  the  good  practice  identified  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  individual 
Articles  of  the  Services  Directive  is  presented  below.  This  is  accompanied  by  an 
account of less effective methods of compliance where these have been substantiated. 
It  should  be  noted  that  for  each  Article,  good  approaches  to  compliance  are 
established,  suggesting  that  stronger  levels  of  compliance  with  the  requirements  of 
the Service Directive can be realised for all Member States. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 3.13 Horizontal Authorisation Schemes – Identification of Good Practice and Areas of Less Effective or Non-compliance  
Examples of less effective compliance  
Article  Good practice (GP)  
A large number of categories of submission 
Article 
demands and a large number of documents overall 
5 
are requested in other countries representing a 
significant administrative burden (e.g. BG, DK and 
PT).  

Good practice examples  
A number of horizontal authorisation schemes 
request a small number of categories of 
documents and a limited number of documents in 
the relevant categories (e.g. EL). 

It is essential for cross-border service providers 
to get access to online information in English on 
authorisation procedures including both relevant 
legislation (BG) and websites (DK, PT).  

Horizontal authorisation scheme legislation and 
websites are made available in the national 
language only which provides an immediate 
obstacle to the efficient access to cross-border 
markets (e.g. ES, IT).  

Most countries permit the submission of simple 
copies of the submission demands requested 
(DK, ES, IT, PT).  

BG requires translations to be presented in 
certified and original form. 

The submission demands 
required are limited to a 
small number of categories 
of documents and are few in 
number reducing the overall 
administrative burden.  
The legislation and websites 
supporting horizontal 
authorisation schemes are 
made available in English to 
enable efficient company 
compliance activities.  
Simple copies should be 
accepted limiting the costs 
involved in producing 
certified copies or time 
wasted in managing the 
exchange of original copies.  
Documents should be 
accepted in EN or supported 
by EN translations (by non-
certified translators) 
ensuring that the same 
documents can be used for 
authorisations EU-wide.  

PT provides a good example of accepting EN 
versions of documents that are made available 
online or EN versions of documents that are 
originally produced in English but are not 
deemed as too technical or complex. However, 
accepting EN versions of all types of documents 
is the optimal approach.  

Certified or authenticated 
documents issued in other 
MS should be accepted 
(without requiring further 
formalities) ensuring the 
efficiency of the submission 
procedure.  
Where a certificate, 
attestation or other 
document proving that a 

Although requirements for certified documents 
are imposed in many Member States (BG, DK, 
ES, IT, PT), those issued in the home Member 
States are generally accepted. Furthermore, as 
stated above, even for these documents 
(originally issued in certified form), a simple copy 
may be submitted (DK, ES, IT, PT). 
In a small number of cases equivalent documents 
are accepted. For example, balance sheets 
prepared by a company representative may be 

In many cases, EN versions of documents are not 
permitted (e.g. BG, DK, ES, IT). This procedure 
forces companies to pay for multiple translations 
of documents where they are required if they wish 
to access more than one cross-border market 
where EN is not the national language. To 
eliminate this barrier, EN translations of all 
submission demands should be permitted (BG, DK, 
ES, IT, PT). 
BG and ES require translations of certified 
documents issued in BG/ES (by registered/sworn 
translators). 

Many horizontal authorisation schemes do not 
accept equivalent documents at all (DK, ES, IT-
DURC) or only a small number of such documents 

November 2015 I 67 

 
 
 
 
 
Article  Good practice (GP)  

requirement has been 
satisfied is demanded, 
equivalent documents 
should be deemed 
acceptable in another 
Member State (without 
requiring further formalities) 
ensuring the efficiency of 
the submission procedure.  
Electronic procedures permit 
full case handling and 
uploading of electronic 
copies of documents to 
ensure efficient submission 
of all documents required.  

Contractors and developers 

are not subject to horizontal 

authorisation schemes, or 

where they are established, 

their operation is based on 

highly efficient authorisation 

procedures.  

Article 
8  

Article 
9(1)  

Article 
10 (3)  

To avoid the need for 
additional requirements and 

Good practice examples  
submitted in BG and PT. Descriptions of quality 
management systems may be submitted IT 
(EN:ISO 9001:2008).  

Examples of less effective compliance  
(BG, IT –EN:ISO 9001:2008, PT). 

A number of countries have established online 
systems that permit full electronic case handling 
and uploading of documents (ES, PT). In other 
cases, applications can be emailed (DK).This 
ensures that submission of documents can be 
completed at a distance efficiently.  

It seems that a number of Member States have 
not established horizontal authorisation schemes 
as defined by this study. The assumption can 
made that these countries rely on other 
authorisation mechanisms (such as building 
control) to ensure that quality standards are 
met. This approach supports efficient access to 
the market for national or cross-border service 
providers (CZ, DE, FI, FR, NL, PL, SI, UK) if 
requirements are not repeated and refer to on-
site specific issues.  

However, where there has been a perceived need 
in the public interest to justify their 
establishment, authorisation procedures should 
be made as efficient as possible including limiting 
the number of authorisation procedures to be 
completed to one procedure and addressing 
requirements not repeated in subsequent 
building permit controls.  
The authorisation process extends to recognition 
of equivalent insurance documents (BG, DK PT).  

In Bulgaria, while online systems are available e.g. 
by enabling the downloading and submission of 
forms, its paper based system is less adept at 
meeting the needs of the modern business 
environment where full electronic case handling is 
often expected including the electronic submission 
of all documents.  
Clearly, countries that have established horizontal 
authorisation procedures that need to be fulfilled 
prior to the application for a building permit and 
repeat the same kind of requirements in building 
permits subject service providers to a more legally 
restrictive environment (PT regarding insurance, 
ES regarding health and safety). In addition, it 
appears that exemptions from the authorisation 
process are not offered to qualified or certified 
service providers (BG, ES, IT, PT). 

However there are no specified procedures in place 
for the mutual recognition of insurance products 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article  Good practice (GP)  

Good practice examples  

controls imposed on service 
providers, mutual 
recognition principles and 
procedures should be 
adopted.  

Article 
10 (4)  

Article 
11(1) 

Horizontal authorisation 
schemes should permit 
access to the market 
nationwide.  
Authorisation of services 
providers should be given on 
a permanent basis.  

Mutual recognition of other requirements is 
limited to a small number of countries. The PT 
scheme offers mutual recognition of a range of 
technical requirements. The IT EN:ISO 9001 
2008 scheme operates in a regulatory framework 
that establishes mutual recognition at EU-level.  
The horizontal authorisation schemes examined 
(BG, ES, IT PT) offer service providers access to 
their national markets (thereby not restricting 
companies geographically).  
N/A 

Article 
13 (2) 
(3) (4)  

Authorisation is granted in 
15 days or less ensuring 
speedy access to the market 
for service providers.  

Efficient authorisation procedures can be 
detected in Bulgaria and Spain where the 
approval process is fixed to a period of 15 days.  

The fees imposed are low 
cost and reflect the time 
taken to manage an 
authorisation procedure 
involving assessment of 
simple documentation.  

In some cases, the authorisation approval 
process is very low cost or free of charge (ES, IT-
DURC).  

Examples of less effective compliance  
(BG, DK). Mutual recognition of other 
requirements is non-existent in other cases (e.g. 
BG, ES IT-DURC).  

N/A  

In some cases, authorisation procedures require 
service providers to pay renewal (BG) or 
revalidation (PT) fees. In other cases, subsequent 
authorisations are required that appear to be as 
equally burdensome as the initial procedure (ES, 
IT). In Denmark, services providers established 
nationally are required to renew their applications 
as authorisation is based on a certification with a 2 
year validity limit. The same applies in Italy in 
relation to the 3 year ISO 9001 certification 
schemes. 
Authorisation procedures are comparatively less 
efficient elsewhere with fixed periods of up to 30 
days (IT -DURC, PT). Where other horizontal 
authorisation schemes rely upon certification 
requirements being met, there are no specified 
authorisation periods (DK, IT-ISO:EN 9001:2008).  

The method of fee calculation in other countries 
(BG, PT) is divorced from the cost of resources 
required to authorise applications. In some cases 
(DK, IT- ISO:EN 9001:2008), fees are profit driven 
(for the underlying certification scheme imposed 
by law). 

Authorisation procedures 
are governed by fixed 

A number of horizontal authorisation schemes do 
not permit the use of extensions supporting 

While the horizontal authorisation scheme in 
Denmark can only make use of one extension and 

November 2015 I 69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Article  Good practice (GP)  

periods that ideally do not 
permit extensions or can 
only be used on one 
occasion ensuring that 
service providers have a 
clear understanding of when 
they are likely to be able to 
access the market.  
Applicants are notified of 
extensions before the 
original period has expired  
Ideally, tacit approval is 
given if a response has not 
been issued before the end 
of the fixed period  

Ideally, temporary cross-
border service providers are 
not subject to horizontal 
authorisation schemes, or 
where they have been 
established, lighter 
procedures for this category 
of service provider are 
imposed.  

Article 
16(2) 
(b)  

Good practice examples  
efficient access to the market for service 
providers (BG, ES, IT, PT).  

Examples of less effective compliance  
is therefore compliant with the Services Directive, 
it appears that more efficient approaches are used 
in other countries (DK).  

N/A  

The less preferential practice of not offering tacit 
approval is conducted in other countries (BG, DK) 
potentially resulting in delays to service provision.  

In Portugal, temporary cross-border service 
providers are subject to a specific authorisation 
procedure but this is not significantly lighter than 
the process which firms established nationally 
need to follow. In Denmark, the process offered to 
temporary cross-border service providers is very 
similar to the one applicable to establishing 
providers although there is an additional demand 
to provide insurance documents.  

Where extensions are used, applicants are 
notified accordingly during the course of the fixed 
authorisation procedure (DK).  
A number of horizontal authorisation schemes 
(ES, IT, PT) offer tacit approval if no response is 
given at the end of the fixed period thereby 
ensuring quick access to the market for service 
providers.  
A number of countries do not require 
authorisation of temporary cross-border service 
providers through horizontal authorisation 
procedures. This approach may offer a much less 
restrictive environment to the internal market for 
services (CZ, DE, FI, FR, NL, PL, SI, UK) provided 
requirements are not repeated in building permit 
controls (e.g.ES insurance requirements could 
perhaps be more efficiently controlled a priori, in 
a one-off control).  

It should be mentioned that controls for 
temporary cross-border providers should be truly 
exceptional, and justified by overriding reasons 
of general interest (only public policy, public 
health, public safety, protection of the 
environment).  

While a number of countries subject temporary 
cross-border service providers to horizontal 
authorisation procedures, in some cases lighter 
procedures are used offering exemptions, 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article  Good practice (GP)  

Good practice examples  
although for very for limited periods (ES, IT -
DURC) or notification procedures combined with 
a reduction in the complexity of the submission 
demands (BG).  

Examples of less effective compliance  

November 2015 I 71 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

4  Overview  of  the  legal  inventory  of  building  permit 

legislation  

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the legal inventory for building permit legislation in 
the  fourteen  study  countries.  To  enable  the  comparison  of  the  different  country 
systems,  the  legal  requirements  were  categorised  into  a  number  of  core  elements 
encompassing the:  

  Overall legal framework such as whether the requirements are set nationally or 

regionally and if mutual recognition of requirements are established;  

  Methods used by different types of building permit application procedures and 

their correspondence to different categories of building work;  

  Extent of the submission demands requested and the type of information they 

require;  

  Process of plan approval, site inspections and completion indicating the actors 

involved and corresponding procedures;  

  Nature and extent of building control fees imposed;  

  Building permit procedure times and related conditions;  

  Liability and mandatory insurance requirements imposed on construction 

service providers.  

Given  that  national  building  control  legislation  is  subject  to  variation,  to  assist  the 
indicator analysis and legal evaluation as provided in Chapter 4, two reference works 
were  used  as  benchmarks  to  examine  in  what  ways  the  legal  framework  impacts  on 
similar types of building projects in different countries, as follows:  

  A one storey two bedroom house 150m2 (with a construction value of 

€150,000);  

  A ten storey office block 2000m2 (with a construction value of €5 million).  

This chapter reviews the core elements of legal framework described above taking into 
account how the two reference works are exposed to different requirements across the 
Member States.  

Before  this  section  is  introduced  it  is  worthwhile  to  point  out  that  that  in  relation  to 
each  core  element  of  the  building  permit  procedure  (as  indicated  above)  there  are 
only a small number of approaches to establishing authorisation processes. Therefore, 
while each of the study countries have established a unique combination of procedures 
and requirements, there are only a small number of possible types of procedures and 
requirements  across  each  of  the  core  elements  that  make-up  the  building  permit 
process.102 103 

As a result, it is unlikely if the remaining Member States that have not been examined 
by  this  study  operate  procedures  and  requirements  that  are  significantly  different  to 
those identified.  

Nevertheless,  the  findings  suggest  the  Services  Directive  provides  a  number  of 
solutions  supporting  mutual  recognition  and  simplification  that  are  suitable  for 

102   This echoes the findings of a study conducted by the European Consortium of Building Control.  
103   An interesting feature of building permit / control legislation identified by the level of legal mapping and 
analysis performed by this study, is that when considering the fourteen study countries overall, Member 
State authorisation procedures cannot be easily linked to the relevant European model of public policy 
normally used to compare and assess policy traditions. The key reason for this is that the assessment of 
country  characteristics  demonstrated  limited  consistency  between  the  countries  usually  grouped 
together in the context of individual policy models.  

November 2015 I 72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

adoption  by  all  national  building  permit  /  control  systems.  For  these  reasons,  the 
study recommendations have broad implications for all Member States including those 
not analysed.  

4.1  Overall  legal  framework  for  building  permit  procedures  and 
technical building regulations, and the extent of the use of mutual 
recognition principles and procedures  

Country / regional overview 
Member  States  use  a  range  of  approaches  to  establishing  building  permit  legislation 
and  associated  technical  requirements  for  building  works.  In  various  combinations, 
legislation is set at national and/or regional levels as indicated below.  

Table 4.1 Level of the legal framework for building permit and technical regulations  
Member 
State  

Regionally set 
building permit 
procedure 

Regionally set 
technical 
regulations 

Nationally set  
building permit 
procedure 
x 
x 
x 

Nationally set 
technical 
regulations 
x 
x 
x 

(North 

BG 
CZ 
DE 
Rhine-
Westphalia) 
DK 
EL  
ES (Madrid) 
FI 
FR 
IT(Milan) 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x (minor 
divergence 
between Lӓnder) 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x (the 
procedures also 
apply to Wales) 

x (very minor 
divergence with 
Wales) 

In  Bulgaria,  the  technical  building  regulations  including  building  permit  procedures 
are  set  at  national  level  and  are  linked  to  several  pieces  of  primary  and  secondary 
legislation  and  ordinances  including  the  Spatial  Planning  Act.104  Applications  for  a 
building permit are managed and approved by local authorities.  

The  national  level  Building  Act  establishes  the  requirements  for  building  permit 
procedures and building regulations in the Czech Republic.105 The Act establishes the 
supervision  and  designated  powers  of  the  system  of  local  authority  building  control 
(Building  Office),  authorised  inspectors,  and  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of 
participants in the construction process. 

In  Denmark,  national legislation  sets-out  the  principles  and  general  requirements  of 
the  technical  building  regulations  (Building  Act).106  The  Building  Regulations  contain 
the  technical  building  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  on  building  permit 

104   http://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135163904. 
105   http://www.uur.cz/images/uzemnirozvoj/stavebnirad/183_2006_EN.pdf. 
106   https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=133389. 

November 2015 I 73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                           
procedures.107  The  building  permit  process  is  managed  by  local  authorities  that  have 
decision-making discretion in key areas.  

Nationwide  requirements  controlling  land  use,  spatial  planning,  construction  and 
building permit procedures are established by the  Finnish Land Use and Building Act 
132/1999  and  other  supporting  legislation.108  The  National  Building  Code  contains 
detailed  technical  regulations  and  guidelines  that  complement  the  Act.109  In  addition, 
local  technical  building  regulations  subordinate  to  national  laws  are  defined  in 
municipal building codes.  

In France, the Building and Housing Code and the Urban Planning Code are applicable 
nationwide  and  set  out  technical  regulations  and  building  permit  procedures 
respectively.110  However,  there  are  local  requirements  established  in  the  Plan  Local 
d'Urbanisme  related  to  building  permit  procedures.  While  most  of  the  technical 
regulations  apply  nationally,  some  rules  are  set  at  municipal  level  such  as 
requirements related to the building plot.  

In  Germany  (North  Rhine-Westphalia),  the  construction  planning  regulations  are  set 
at  federal  level  and  relate  to  several  different  pieces  of  legislation  covering  technical 
requirements  and  building  permit  procedures  and  this  includes  the  Building  Code. 111 
However,  there  are  complementary  pieces  of  legislation  establishing  the  legal 
framework  at  Lӓnder  level  that  empower  the  relevant  authorities  to  carry  out  their 
tasks  such  as  the  Federal  Building  Act.112  In  addition,  there  are  minor  differences 
between the Lӓnder in terms of the technical building regulations.  

In  Greece,  technical  building  provisions  are  indicated  in  the  national  New  Building 
Regulation  4067/2012.113  These  technical  regulations  may  differ  from  municipality  to 
municipality  due  to  zoning  rules,  which  are  developed  at  local  level,  but  approved  at 
national  level.  The  national  law  4030/2011  determines  the  procedural  aspects  of 
issuing  a  building  permit,  including  specific  tasks  and  allocation  of  responsibilities  to 
local authorities.114  

In  Italy  (Milan),  the  national  law  DPR  380/2001  provides  the  basic  principles  and 
general  rules  of  building  permit  procedures  and  defines  the  legislative  powers  of 
regional authorities and municipalities (which may establish their own requirements in 
compliance  with  regional  and  national  rules).115  The  Technical  Regulations  for 
Construction 2008 define nationally the principles for the design, implementation and 
testing of buildings.116 However, municipalities may set additional standards.  

The  building  regulations  apply  nation-wide  in  the  Netherlands.  The  procedures  for 
applying  for  a  building  permit  are  established  in  the  Housing  Act117  while  technical 
building  regulations  are  indicated  in  the  Building  Decree  and  other  supporting  pieces 
of legislation.118 Building permit approval procedures are managed by municipalities.  

107   http://www.buildup.eu/publications/34282 http://w2l.dk/file/155699/BR10_ENGLISH.pdf. 
108   www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf. 
109   www.ym.fi/. 
110   www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074096. 
111   http://www.bauordnungen.de/html/nrw.html. 
112   http://www.bauordnungen.de/Baugesetzbuch.pdf. 
113   http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5nRUKLGlL8E%3D&tabid=506&language=el-GR. 
114   http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WsLJDdwJvpw%3d&tabid=506&language=el-GR. 
115   http://www.bosettiegatti.eu/info/norme/statali/2001_0380.htm#003. 

http://leg16.camera.it/561?appro=39. 

116   http://www.bosettiegatti.eu/info/norme/statali/2008_dm1401.htm. 
117 http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005181/geldigheidsdatum_19-01-2015. 
118   http://vrom.bouwbesluit.com/Inhoud/docs/wet/bb2012. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In the case of Poland, two national laws direct the technical building regulations, the 
Building  Law119  and  the  Law  on  technical  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  buildings  and 
their  surroundings.  Building  permit  requirements  are  defined  in  the  Building  Law 
120adopted  in  1994  and  apply  nationally.  Municipal  authorities  manage  the  building 
control process.  

Portugal  has  established  its  main  legal  requirements  at  national  level.  The  General 
Building  Regulation  is  the  main  piece  of  legislation.121  In  addition,  several  national 
regulations, rules and measures are in place regarding specific technical requirements. 
The  building  permit  procedures  are  established  the  Legal  Framework  for  Urban 
Development  and  Construction  Works  and  this  has  complementary  provisions.122  In 
addition,  municipal  authorities  may  establish  ordinances  and  by-laws  and  have  the 
role of managing the building control process.  

All  relevant  legislation  is  set  at  the  national  level  in  Slovenia.  The  main  piece  of 
legislation is the Construction Act which regulates the roles of professionals involved in 
the  construction  process,  building  permit  procedures,  inspection  procedures  etc. 123 
There are a number  of  regulations designated to technical requirements for buildings 
such  as  safety.  Slovenia  has  a  combined  planning  and  building  permit  procedure 
system  whereby  both  sets  of  requirements  are  examined  under  building  permit 
procedures by local authorities.  

In Spain (Madrid), legislation for building control are established at national, regional 
and  local  levels.  The  Ministry  of  Housing  is  responsible  for  setting  requirements  and 
procedures  for  building  activities.  The  Building  Act  establishes  the  responsibilities  of 
actors  in  the  building  process.124  The  national  Technical  Building  Code  provides  the 
basic  technical  requirements  for  buildings  and  is  applicable  nationwide.125  However, 
local  authorities  may  define  additional  standards.  The  17  Spanish  Autonomous 
Communities  are  formally  responsible  for  planning  and  building  control  including 
Madrid (with local authorities playing a key role in implementing the provisions).126  

In  the  case  of  the  UK  (England),  the  Building  Regulations  2010  and  Approved 
Documents  establish  the  building  permission  procedures  and  technical  building 
regulations,  and  apply  to  England  and  Wales.127  However,  competencies  for  building 
regulations were recently devolved to the Welsh Assembly (2011). While interviewees 
considered  that  there  are  very  minor  differences  emerging  in  terms  of  the  technical 
building  regulations  between  England  and  Wales,  the  procedures  for  applying  for 
building  permission  remain  unchanged  between  the  two  nations.  A  system  of  local 
authority  building  control  manages  the  authorisation  process.  However,  service 
providers  may  alternatively  use  private  building  control  bodies  known  as  Approved 
Inspectors to provide plan approval, site inspection and completion services.  

Specific  building  regulations  on  mutual  recognition  of  cross-border  service 
providers  
As part of the review of the overall legal framework at national and regional levels, the 
research sought to clarify whether there are any specific rules that address the needs 
of  cross-border  service  providers.  Notably  specific  rules  designed  to  support  cross-
border  service  providers  by  recognising  their  right  to  provide  construction  services 

119   http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19940890414. 
120   http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20020750690. 
121   https://dre.pt/application/file/289115. 
122   https://dre.pt/application/file/655583. 
123   https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/zgo-1. 
124   www.boe.es/boe/dias/1999/11/06/pdfs/A38925-38934.pdf. 
125   www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/03/28/pdfs/A11816-11831.pdf. 
126   www.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=520&cdestado=P. 
127   www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/55. 

November 2015 I 75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
based on national requirements established or already met in their home countries, in 
case of requirements that are not site-specific. Ideally, if an equivalence assessment is 
required  between  home  and  host  Member  State  requirements  (if  justified  and 
proportionate),  the  host  Member  State  requirements  would  be  complemented  by 
mutual  recognition  procedures  to  facilitate  service  providers’  efficient  engagement 
with the relevant authorities.  

However,  no  specific  requirements  relating  to  cross-border  service  providers  were 
identified in national legislation on building permit procedures or building regulations. 
In response to this particular question,  public authorities generally made it clear that 
national  and/or  regional  legal  requirements  are  not  formally  discriminatory  to  any 
form  of  service  provider.  While,  it  is  a  positive  finding  that  no  formal  element  of 
discrimination  is  present,  given  that  no  specific  rules  exist  also  means  that  Member 
States do not provide for a different treatment between established and cross-border 
providers  as  appropriate.  It  should  be  recognised  that  in  the  absence  of  country  of 
origin  principles  or  mutual  recognition  clauses  for  cross-border  service  providers, 
economic entities from another Member State will often be unable to provide services 
cross-border  in  line  with  the  requirements  (namely  non-site-specific  requirements) 
that were already (or at least partially) met or established in their home countries.  

Extent of the use of performance based standards for building works  
This  line  of  analysis  was  taken  further  through  an  assessment  of  whether  technical 
requirements  for  building  works  are  established  on  the  basis  of  performance  based 
standards  or  whether  certain  types  of  standards  prescribe  the  permitted  technical 
solutions.  The  rationale  for  this  is  that  performance  based  standards  demand  service 
providers  to  meet  performance  based  requirements  but  without  prescribing  the 
method to attain the requirements defined. As a result, mutual recognition of technical 
solutions for building works is made possible as cross-border service providers are not 
constrained to a list of specific prescribed standards as long as evidence is provided to 
demonstrate  that  the  performance  based  requirements  are  satisfied.  The  results  of 
this assessment are indicated below:  

Table 4.2 Approach to establishing technical requirements for buildings works  
Member State  

Prescribed 
standards 

A combination of performance 
based and prescribed 
standards 

Vast majority of 
standards are 
performance 
based standards 

BG 
CZ 
DE  (North  Rhine-
Westphalia) 
DK 
EL 
ES (Madrid) 
FI 
FR 
IT (Milan) 
NL 
PL 
PT 

SI 
UK (England) 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

An  initial  observation  is  that  the  study  countries  have  not  established  performance 
based  standards  to  a  large  extent  in  all  areas.  Moreover,  it is  difficult to  position  the 
study  countries  using  the  categories  above  given  that  one  needs  to  consider  the 
general  weighting  of  these  Member  States  towards  either  performance  based  or 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

prescribed  standards  systems  or  whether  there  is  a  decent  enough  mix  of  the  two 
approaches for a country to be characterised as a combined system.  

However,  it  is  clear  that  certain  country  systems  are  generally  reflective  of  the 
approach to define building regulations on the basis of performance based standards. 
This  is  the  case  in  France  and  the  UK  where  the  vast  majority  of  standards  are 
performance  based  (except  in  a  minority  of  areas  for  example  electrical  installation 
and testing).  

In  Denmark,  the  framework  for  standards  has  been  described  as  a  combination  of 
performance  based  and  prescribed  standards.  While  the  legislation  permits  deviation 
from the rules if it can be demonstrated to the relevant authority that it is safe to do 
so  (paragraph  5  of  the  Building  Regulations),  the  country  researcher  indicated  that 
this practice is not often followed or well embedded in construction practice.  

In  Greece,  in  recent  years,  efforts  have  been  made  to  move  to  a  system  based  on 
performance based standards (although until recently the approach was not very well 
recognised).  This  has  been  facilitated  by  enabling  registered  designers  to  self-certify 
their own plans.  

The  German  (NRW)  technical  requirements  are  a  mix  of  prescriptive  and 
performance-based  technical  standards.  The  trend  towards  using  performance  based 
standards has been ongoing for a number of years but this process is still underway. It 
is seems appropriate to describe this country as a combined system. The  Bulgarian, 
Dutch, Polish and Slovenian systems can also be characterised in this way.  

While  Portugal  is  beginning  to  introduce  performance  based  standards,  most  of  the 
existing  standards  use  prescriptive  approaches  (and  therefore  PT  has  been 
characterised as a prescriptive system).  

Mutual recognition of health and safety requirements for building works  
National  health  and  safety  legislation  was  examined  with  regard  to  whether  mutual 
recognition  principles  or  procedures  have  been  established  for  cross-border  service 
providers  enabling  provision  of  services  based  on  their  own  national  requirements.  It 
should  be  mentioned  that  national  health  and  safety  legislation  for  construction  sites 
are  heavily  informed  by  EU  requirements  (this  includes  among  other  requirements 
Directives  89/391/EEC128  and  92/57/EEC  on  the  implementation  of  minimum  safety 
and  health  requirements  at  temporary  or  mobile  construction  sites).  However,  the 
research suggests that there are not specific legal requirements or procedures in place 
to support the process of mutual recognition.  

For example, to help clarify the problem, it should be kept in mind that companies are 
required  to  follow  organisational  rules  for  health  and  safety  according  to  their  home 
Member  State  requirements  implementing  Article  7  of  Directive  89/391/EEC.  These 
rules  oblige  companies  to  set  up  internal  health  and  safety  structures  comprising 
certain  professionals  with  the  necessary  capabilities,  aptitudes  and  means,  including 
equipment.  In  addition,  companies  may  avoid  setting  up  such  structures  by  hiring 
external health and safety service providers in a home country.  

However,  it  appears  that  companies  are  often  not  in  a  position  to  obtain  mutual 
recognition  by  being  allowed  to  keep  their  organisational  arrangements  (be  it  an 
internal  or  external  service).  As  a  result  of  absence  of  specific  mutual  recognition 
rules,  companies  going  cross-border  to  provide  construction  services  need  either  to 
restructure  their  health  and  safety  internal  organisation  locally  (which  is  often  too 

128   Council  Directive  89/391/EEC  of  12  June  1989  on  the  introduction  of  measures  to  encourage 

improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. 

November 2015 I 77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
expensive  and  impracticable)  or  hire  a  local  external  health  and  safety  service 
provider (but not the service provider contracted in their home Member State). 

Mutual recognition of the use of equipment for building works  
Use of equipment legislation was examined with regard to whether mutual recognition 
principles  or  procedures  have  been  established  facilitating  provision  of  cross-border 
services in line with the requirements of the Member State where the relevant service 
provider  originates  from.  National  legal  frameworks  on  the  use  of  equipment  are 
informed  by  EU  requirements  (for  example  Directive  2009/104/EC  –  use  of  work 
equipment).  However,  a  similar  finding  emerged  as  there  appears  to  be  a  lack  of 
specific  mutual  recognition  principles  in  most  Member  States  and  procedures 
established in national use of equipment legislation for cross-border entities. 

Mutual  recognition  requirements  in  legislation  that  transposes  the  Services 
Directive  
National legislation that transposes the Services Directive was examined with a similar 
aim  of  identifying  whether  any  mutual  recognition  principles  or  procedures  are 
established  for  cross-border  service  providers.  The  table  below  examines  whether 
national  legislation  makes  it  clear  that  equivalent  home  country  requirements  in 
general  are  recognised  as  acceptable,  whether  the  use  of  equipment  essential  to  a 
service  activity  is  permitted  cross-border  and  whether  equivalent  insurance  products 
are deemed acceptable as a matter of principle.  

Table 4.3 Mutual recognition requirements in legislation that transposes the Services 

Directive 
Member State  

(North 

BG 
CZ 
DE 
Rhine-
Westphalia) 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IT (Milan) 
NL 
PL 
PT 

SI 
UK (England) 

Equivalent 
Requirements in 
general 
Principle 
Principle 
No horizontal law 

Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
No horizontal law 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle129 
Principle 

Use of equipment 

Insurance 

Principle 

No horizontal law 

Principle 
Principle 
Principle 

Principle 
Principle 

No horizontal law 
Principle 

Principle 

Principle 

Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
No horizontal law 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle 
Principle 

Principle 
Principle 

On  the  basis  of  a  review,  it  appears  that  many  countries  have  established  principles 
supporting  mutual  recognition  of  requirements  in  general  and  insurance  (however, 
specific  procedures  to  support  these  were  not  identified).  However,  in  the  legislation 
transposing  the  Services  Directive,  there  appears  to  be  some  gaps  in  terms  of 
recognition of the use of equipment as indicated above.  

129   Except  documents  concerning  professional  qualifications  for  regulated  professions  or  professional 

activities. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

4.2  Application procedures and categorisation of construction works  
The Services Directive requires the simplification of authorisation procedures ensuring 
efficient access to the market for services providers. This section provides an overview 
of  the  application  procedures  for  building  permits  in  relation  to  corresponding 
categories of construction works established in the fourteen study countries as follows:  

 

Initially, an assessment is made of the range of application procedures for a 
building permit that are available in each country;130  

  Secondly, the relevant application procedures relating to the two reference 
works (a one storey two bedroom house and a ten storey office block) are 
identified and examined.  

To  begin  with,  a  summary  overview  of  the  different  categories  of  application 
procedures identified are set-out below.  

Country / regional overview 
By building on the findings of previous research, this study has aimed to characterise 
the  application  procedures  for  a  building  permit  in  the  fourteen  study  countries 
according  to  specific  types.131  The  main  reason  for  this  is  that  different  categories  of 
application  procedures  are  associated  with  different  administrative  requirements, 
procedural steps and controls. It should be stressed that all building permit procedures 
have  their  own  idiosyncrasies,  resulting  in  variation  between  procedures  falling  into 
the  same  category.  However,  on  the  basis  of  generalisations,  building  permit 
application procedures can be characterised according to the following categories:  

  Regular procedure: in relation to building work that requires a building permit 
and/or official permission, plans are submitted to a relevant authority for 
assessment against the technical requirements for building works. If approved, 
construction works may proceed in line with the design specifications agreed;  

  Building notice: building work may commence on the basis of a notification to 
the relevant authority or on the basis of tacit approval if an official response is 
not given in the comparatively short fixed period. In some cases, the 
submission demands may relate to a limited set of documentation (which may 
not include technical drawings). Moreover, official approval of the plans or 
works may not given by the relevant authority, resulting in the authorisation of 
the construction works taking place under the site inspection regime only; 

  Light procedure: compliance of the building design with building regulations is 
not examined in-depth by building control authorities (as the design has been 
verified already by a registered third party). Alternatively, an authority may 
type approve a building design and this can be used for subsequent 
applications without further approvals required;  

  Self certification: plan approval and designated types of construction work are 
not subject to rigorous building control procedures if qualified or certified 
persons self-certify their own work;  

  Exemptions from the building permit procedure: construction works that have 

to meet planning demands and normally the designated technical requirements 
but are exempt from building control procedures.  

As will be explained in more detail, the procedures indicated above are associated with 
different  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  terms  of  their  procedural  efficiency. 
However,  countries  with  multiple  procedures  available  can  offer  service  providers 
procedural  flexibility  regarding  how  they  wish  to  engage  with  the  building  control 

130   This  does  not  include  the  regularisation  procedure  which  relates  to  building  work  initially  conducted 

without building permission.  

131   This relates to definitions developed by the Research Institute for the Built Environment (OTB) TU Delft 

University. 

November 2015 I 79 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
process  for  certain  categories  of  building  works.  This  provides  simplification  benefits 
for  particular  types  of  applicants.  Moreover,  self  certification  of  plans  or  construction 
works may also provide simplification benefits given that the service provider does not 
require  official  approval  of  services  provided.  An  overview  is  provided  below  of  the 
range of procedures that have been established in the fourteen study countries.  

Table 4.4 The type of procedures available for applying for a building permit and 

exemptions from the procedure  
Building 
Regular 
Member 
notice 
procedure  
State  
procedure  
X  
X  

BG 
CZ 

X 
X 

DE (NRW)  X 
X 
DK 

EL 

X  

ES 
(Madrid) 

FI 
FR 
IT (Milan) 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X  (Smaller 
works) 

UK 
(England) 

X  

X 
X 

X 

X 

X  
X 
X 

X 

X 

X  

Light 
procedure  

Self-certification  

X  

X  

X 

(for 

X 
complex 
works) 
X 
approval)  

(Type 

The building notice 
procedure is combined 
with self certification of 
plans.  

of 
structures 

Construction 
transportable 
can be self certified.  
The regular procedure is 
combined with self 
certification of plans. 
The 
notice 
procedure  (Declaration  of 
Responsibility) 
enables 
self-certification of plans.  

building 

The building notice 
procedure is combined 
with self certification of 
plans. 

The regular and building 
notice procedures are 
combined with self 
certification of plans. 
Self  certification  of  the 
plans for smaller works.  

Installation  work  can  be 
self certified. 

Exemptions 
for minor 
works 
X  
X 

X 
X 

Notification  

X 

X 
X 
X 

X  

X 

X 

X 

X 

In Bulgaria, most works are subject to the regular procedure. However, an applicant 
may  opt  to  have  the  plans  initially  approved  by  a  third  party  as  described  under  the 
light  procedure.  A  building  notice  procedure  applies  to  agricultural  works  and  some 
minor  works  (e.g.  greenhouses,  pools,  fences).  Under  this  procedure,  a  building 
permit is issued on the basis of an application submitted but approval of the design is 
not  required.  Minor  construction  work  such  as  maintenance  works  and  internal 
reorganisation of buildings are exempt from building permit procedures. 

In the Czech Republic, the building notice procedure applies to simple structures and 
other categories of building works such as many types of residential buildings. In this 
case,  a  self-certified  design  is  required  from  a  registered  designer  but  this  is  not 
assessed  for  compliance  by  the  local  authority.  Tacit  approval  of  the  application  is 
given if the authority does not respond in the fixed period. A range of non-residential 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

and  industrial  structures  are  exempt  from  building  permission  procedures.  All  other 
categories of works require a building permit and fall under the regular procedure.  

In Denmark, the building notice procedure applies to a range of categories of works 
such as alteration of annexes of no more than 50 m², alterations of single residential 
units  in  multi-storey  buildings  and  minor  infrastructure  works.  In  this  case,  the 
building  design  is  not  checked  against  conformity  of  the  requirements  and  no 
inspections  or  completion  processes  are  undertaken.  Construction  work  exempt  from 
building  permit  procedures  include  simple  alterations  to  single-family  houses, 
construction  work  performed  on  buildings  of  no  more  than  10  m²,  and  construction 
work defined as having a limited urban significance. The regular procedure applies to 
all  other  construction  works.  Interestingly,  service  providers 
that  construct 
transportable  structures  (such  as  concert  stages  and  commercial  tents)  can  do  so 
based on self-certification.  

In Finland, the two main types of procedures are the regular procedure and building 
notice procedure. Under the regular procedure, a building permit is required for works 
relating to the construction of a building, work which is comparable to the construction 
of a building etc. An action permit is required for measures altering the appearance of 
a  building  and  rearrangement  of  dwellings  in  a  residential  building  etc.  However,  a 
local  authority  may  stipulate  in  its  building  ordinance  that  building  activities  with 
minor  importance  may  commence  upon  notification.  In  this  instance,  building  works 
may  begin  if  the  local  authority  decides  that  an  application  for  a  permit  is  not 
necessary.  

In  France,  a  regular  procedure,  a  building  notice  procedure  and  exemptions  are 
available.  The  list  of  exemptions  is  limited  to  certain  types  of  minor  and  industrial 
works. The building notice procedure applies to minor construction works or works on 
existing  buildings  etc.  In  this  case,  building  designs  are  checked  for  compliance  with 
zoning demands but are not checked against conformity with the building regulations. 
Tacit  approval  is  available  under  this  procedure  if  a  response  is  not  issued  by  the 
authority  in  the  fixed  period.  The  regular  procedure  covers  all  other  construction 
works.  

In  Germany  (NRW),  a  light  procedure  is  available  for  construction  work  relating  to 
low  rise  residential  buildings  and  certain  types  of  one-storey  commercial  buildings. 
Under  this  procedure,  a  local  building  control  authority  does  not  check  the  plans  if 
designers certify that they comply with the building regulations and verification of the 
plans has been made by a state recognised expert. National type approval of designs 
for buildings and industrial structures is also available (but this is infrequently used). 
An  extensive  list  of  construction  activities  are  exempt  from  building  permission 
procedures (including in some cases construction of residential properties that clearly 
meet the technical and zoning requirements, and in such cases notification is required 
only  and  tacit  approval  applies if  no  official  response  is  given  at  the end  of  the  fixed 
period).  All  remaining  building  work  is  subject  to  the  regular  procedure  requiring  the 
plans to be drawn-up by designated designers, verification of the design by recognised 
experts,  and  finally  examination  of  the  plans  against  the  technical  requirements  by 
building control authorities.  

In Greece, there is a two phase regular procedure for building permit applications for 
new construction works (the first step relates to building permission approval and the 
second  step  plan  approval).  Certain  categories  of  installation  works  are  subject  to  a 
‘small  scale  works  approval’.  For  small  scale  internal  or  external  maintenance,  small 
repairs  and  other  auxiliary  work,  there  is  a  requirement  to  notify  the  municipal 
building authority 48 hours prior to commencing work.  

November 2015 I 81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Italy,  a  building  permit  issued  under  the  regular  procedure  is  required  for  new 
construction  works,  renovation  and  urban  developments.  The  Milan  municipal 
authority  indicates  fifteen  types  of  minor  works  that  fall  under  the  notification 
procedure  (known  as  the  C.I.A.L).  However,  Milan  has  extended  the  scope  building 
notice procedure (known as the S.C.I.A) and this applies to many categories of work 
that  would  normally  fall  under  the  regular  procedure.  A  key  feature  of  the  building 
notice procedure is that the designer guarantees the conformity of the building design 
with  the  technical  requirements  and  work  can  commence  immediately.  The  local 
authority does not verify the technical plans and tacit approval applies if the authority 
does not issue a response in the fixed period.  

In  the  Netherlands,  minor  construction  works  as  defined  by  the  legislation  are 
exempt  from  the  building  permit  process.  All  remaining  types  of  work  are  subject  to 
the regular procedure requiring an application for a building permit.  

In  Poland,  there  are  two  categories  of  application  procedure  and.  exemptions  are  in 
place  for  a  small  number  of  categories  of  minor  works.  A  notification  applies  to 
renovation works and various small scale building works enabling service providers to 
commence work immediately unless the local authority objects in the fixed period. All 
other  building  works  are  subject  to  the  regular  procedure  and  require  a  building 
permit.  However,  the  legislation  is  likely  to  be  reformed  with  the  possibility  of  the 
extension  of  the  scope  of  the  building  notice  procedure  to  larger  works  such  as 
individual family houses.  

In  Portugal,  the  regular  and  building  notice  procedures  have  been  adopted.  Under 
both procedures, designers self-certify their own plans. The building notice procedure 
relies  upon  an  administrative  check  of  the  application  dossier  and,  if  compliant, 
approval is given in an 8 day fixed period.  In this case, the  submission demands are 
more  numerous  than  the  requirements  for  the  regular  procedure.  The  regular 
procedure  involves  a  two  step  process  involving  an  administrative  check  of  the 
architectural  plans  and  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  planning  aspects  (but  these 
processes can be combined). Exemptions from the building permit procedure apply to 
interior construction works and works of ‘small urban relevance’.  

In Slovenia, exemptions are available for very simple construction works which have 
no  impact  on  the  environment.  In  the  case  of  simple  structures  such  as  houses, 
designers self certify their own plans and the authority examines the completeness of 
the application dossier (this can be implemented within a shortened duration if there is 
no  impact  on  neighbouring  sites).  Complex  building  works  fall  under  the  light 
procedure  as  an  auditor  may  be  required  to  examine  the  plans.  Again,  the  authority 
examines the completeness of the application dossier only, however, there is a longer 
approval  duration  given  the  wider  range  of  planning  issues  to  consider  for  larger 
works.  

In Spain, application for construction of new buildings are subject to a regular or light 
procedure  where  the  plans  are  verified  initially  before  the  application  for  building 
permit is made.  In  Madrid, depending on the category  of buildings, initial verification 
can  be  obtained  from  either  the  municipality  or  a  collaborating institute  composed  of 
registered  architects  (Entidades  Colaboradoras  Urbanisticas).  With  regard  to  certain 
types  of  office  buildings  used  by  financial,  insurance  or  legal  services  sectors,  the 
construction service provider can optionally submit a Declaration of Responsibility with 
proof  of  insurance,  which  exempts  the  service  provider  from  the  building  permit 
procedure.  Work  can  commence  immediately  upon  submission  of  the  application  and 
there  is  no  need  for  official  approval.  This  has  been  classified  as  a  building  notice 
procedure combined with the self-certification of technical plans.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In UK (England), the two main types of procedures are the regular and building notice 
procedures. Persons undertaking building work may follow either procedure unless the 
work falls under certain categories (e.g. where buildings are subject to the Fire Safety 
Order  2005)  in  which  case  the  regular  procedure  is  mandatory.  Under  the  building 
notice  procedure,  work  can  commence  immediately  upon  notification  and  technical 
plans  are  not  required  for  submission.  Moreover,  twenty  types  of  construction 
installation services may follow self-certification procedures. Exemptions are available 
for a wide range of relatively minor construction activities. In addition, a national type 
approval  system  is  available  for  standard  designs  that  can  be  used  by  service 
providers as part of the regular procedure nationally.  

With a view to analysing the procedures available in the fourteen study countries, the 
table below indicates how they correspond to the two reference works. In addition, the 
table  indicates  whether  zoning  procedures  are  integrated  with  the  building  permit 
procedure or form separate procedures. The aim is to examine whether applicants are 
obliged  to  go  through  more  than  one  procedure  as  part  of  the  overall  authorisation 
process for zoning and building permission.  

Table 4.5 The type of procedures available for the construction of a one storey house 

and a ten storey office block 

Type of procedure  

Country   Reference 

Regular  

Building 

Building 
notice  

Light  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

BG 

CZ 

DE 
(NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 
(Madrid) 

FI 

FR 

IT 
(Milan) 

1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Self- 
certification 
of plans  

Combined or 
separate zoning 
and building 
permit 
procedures  
Combined  

X 

X 

X 

X 

Separate but can 
be combined in 
some cases 

Combined  

Combined  

Separate  

Separate  

Combined  

Combined  and  but 
can  be  voluntarily 
separated 

X 

X 

Combined 

November 2015 I 83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country   Reference 

Regular  

Building 

Building 
notice  

Light  

Self- 
certification 
of plans  

Combined or 
separate zoning 
and building 
permit 
procedures  

Type of procedure  

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK 
(England) 

10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house  
10-storey 
office  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
(type 
approval) 

Combined 

Separate  but  can 
be 
in 
combined 
some 
circumstances  
Combined  

Combined  

Separate  

Five of the study countries only make available the regular procedure for applications 
for  a  building  permit  for  both  houses  and  office  block  (Denmark,  Finland,  France, 
the  Netherlands  and  Poland).  Greece  follows  a  similar  logic  but  the  regular 
procedure involves the self certification of plans.  

In  Bulgaria,  the  light  procedure  is  available  if  applicants  wish  to  have  their  plans 
certified by a third party (otherwise, the regular procedure applies).  

In the Czech Republic, a one-storey house qualifies for the building notice procedure 
(if  less  than  150m2)  involving  the  self  certification  of  plans.  Ten-storey  office  blocks 
are subject to the regular procedure.  

In  Germany,  in  relation  to  residential  dwellings,  the  light  procedure  is  most 
commonly used. There is also a notification procedure for small houses built in an area 
where  a  zoning  plan  is  in  force.132  The  regular  procedure  applies  to  office  buildings. 
The type approval system is infrequently used for such structures and is not indicated 
as relevant.  

In  Italy  (Milan)  the  regular  procedure  applies  to  residential  properties  and  offices 
buildings but the building notice procedure (S.C.I.A) in Milan is also available to these 
types of works involving self certification of plans.  

In  Portugal,  where  zoning  arrangements  have  already  been  satisfied,  the  building 
notice  is  available  for  both  reference  works.  The  regular  procedure  applies  otherwise 
but this can be combined with the zoning procedure. Self certification of plans applies 
in both instances.  

132   This is the case when the building plan fits within the provisions and determinations of the zoning plan 
and there are no other contradictions with the building regulations. The applicant has to fill in a form for 
a  preliminary  building  permission.  If  local  authority  building  control  does  not  declare  within  a  month 
that is necessary to start a formal (simplified) approval procedure, the construction work can start. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In  Slovenia,  the  regular  procedure  applies  to  one  storey  houses  (involving  the  self 
certification of plans) and a light procedure to ten storey office buildings. 

In Spain (Madrid) a one storey house is subject to the regular procedure. In Madrid, 
depending  on  the  route  taken  and  the  use  of  the  building,  an  office  block  can  be 
approved  under  the  regular,  light  or  building  notice  procedure  (Declaration  of 
Responsibility). This former procedure supports enables the self-certification of plans.  

In the UK (England) the regular procedure is available to work premises such as office 
blocks  only.  Both  the  building  notice  and  regulator  procedures  are  available  for 
residential properties. A system of national type approval applies and in practice this is 
sometimes  used  for  housing  developments  if  a  developer  wishes  to  construct  houses 
with the same design specifications in more than one locality.  

Moreover,  in  the  majority  of  study  countries,  the  planning  and  building  permit 
procedures are combined. However, in Greece, Spain and the UK, services provided 
need to follow separate authorisation procedures. In the Czech Republic, France and 
Poland,  the  procedures  may  be  undertaken  separately  in  certain  circumstances. 
Clearly,  separate  procedures  expose  service  providers  to  additional  authorisation 
processes  compared  to  a  single  procedure  used  as  part  of  an  integrated  zoning  and 
building permit approach.  

4.3  Submission demands and online handling  

Country / regional overview 
As part of the application for a building permit, the range of categories of submission 
demands  requested  impacts  directly  on  the  extent  of  the  administrative  burden  that 
service  providers  must  manage.  An  examination  of  the  number  of  categories  of 
documents requested has been undertaken based on the following criteria:  

  Building application form / notice (indicating the details of the applicant and 

construction work);  

  Site plans (indicating the positioning of the construction work in relation to the 

boundaries); 

  Technical plans (providing drawings and calculations demonstrating compliance 

with certain technical requirements);  

  Declarations of any kind confirming that the applicant has followed certain rules 

(e.g. declarations conforming compliance with the building regulations, 
planning rules, structural stability, fire safety regulations, accessibility, parking 
rules, etc.);  

  Certificates demonstrating professional capacity / standards / health and safety 

compliance;  

  Proof of ownership of property;  

 

Insurance of services and latent defects;  

  Equipment to be used;  

  Environment and energy efficiency compliance documents; 

  Proof of fees paid (e.g. architect fees or payment of the building permit fees);  

  Zoning documents to demonstrating compliance with planning requirements 

and other items. 

The  table  below  provides  a  brief  overview  of  the  range  of  categories  of  submission 
demands  that  are  expected  as  part  of  an  application  for  a  building  permit.  This  is 

November 2015 I 85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
examined  in  the  context  of  the  two  reference  works  (a  one  storey  house  and  a  ten 
storey office block) and associated procedures that may be followed. (An attempt has 
been made to number the amount of documents requested for each of the categories 
but this may not be entirely accurate given the lack of detail in the legislation (e.g. an 
official request may be made for technical plans only and in practice service providers 
may  provide  three  or  four  types  of  plans  to  demonstrate  compliance  in  different 
areas).  

Unlike horizontal authorisation schemes, good repute and financial/economic capacity 
are not checked under building permit procedures. 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 4.6 The submission demands requested in relation to the procedures relevant to the reference work 
MS 

Proce
dure  

Refer
ence 
work 

Techn
ical 
plans  

Sit
e 
Pla
ns  

Buildin
g 
applica
tion 
form / 
notice 

Declara
tions of 
complia
nce * 

Volunt
ary 
certific
ates  

Manda
tory 
insura
nce 
docum
ent  

Health 
and 
safety 
docum
ents  

Planni
ng 
docum
ents  

Ene
rgy  

Environ
ment  

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

11 

4 

3 

2133 

BG 

Regula
r  

CZ 

DE  
(NR
W)  

DK 

EL 

Regula
r 

Regula
r  

/ 

Regula
r 
(office
) 
Light 
(hous
e) 
Regula
r  

Regula
r  

Regula
r 

10-
storey 
office 
1- 
storey 
house  
10-
storey 
office 
1- 
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office  
1- 
storey 
house 

10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 

7 

4 

4 

4 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2134 

1 

3 

133   These are two fire safety declarations issued by the designer and state expert.  
134   A declaration from the architect regarding conformity with the building regulations. A declaration on parking areas.  

11 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Equip
ment  

Proof 
of 
owner
ship 

1 

1 

1 

Oth
er  

Pro
of 
of 
fee
s 
pai
d 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

November 2015 I 87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Oth
er  

Pro
of 
of 
fee
s 
pai
d 

2 

MS 

Proce
dure  

Refer
ence 
work 

Techn
ical 
plans  

Sit
e 
Pla
ns  

Buildin
g 
applica
tion 
form / 
notice 

Declara
tions of 
complia
nce * 

Volunt
ary 
certific
ates  

Manda
tory 
insura
nce 
docum
ent  

Health 
and 
safety 
docum
ents  

Planni
ng 
docum
ents  

Ene
rgy  

Environ
ment  

Equip
ment  

Proof 
of 
owner
ship 

ES 
(Mad
rid) 

Regula
r  

Buildin
g 
notice  
Regula
r  

FI 

FR 

Regula
r 

Regula
r  

1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
Office 
buildin
gs  
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 

1-
storey 
house 

2 

1 

1 

2135 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1136 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1137 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

135   A  declaration  from  the  designer  regarding  conformity  with  town  planning  and  structural  feasibility  regulations.  Declaration  of  the  establishment  of  an  onsite  signpost 

indicating the building permit application and proposed activities.  

136   Sworn statement validating the Statement of Responsibility. 
137   A document from the applicant stating compliance with the requirements on fire safety and accessibility.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

MS 

Proce
dure  

Refer
ence 
work 

Techn
ical 
plans  

Sit
e 
Pla
ns  

Buildin
g 
applica
tion 
form / 
notice 

Declara
tions of 
complia
nce * 

Volunt
ary 
certific
ates  

Manda
tory 
insura
nce 
docum
ent  

Health 
and 
safety 
docum
ents  

Planni
ng 
docum
ents  

Ene
rgy  

Environ
ment  

Equip
ment  

Proof 
of 
owner
ship 

Pro
of 
of 
fee
s 
pai
d 

Oth
er  

8 

4 

3 

1 

3138 

2 

6 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1139 

1140 

1 

1 

4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

138   Certification of Conformity of the works to the Urban Planning Instruments and Building Regulations. Substitutive declaration of notary act of by filling form downloaded 
from the website. Declaration by the Owner/Construction Supervisor (appointed) attesting the verification of the technical-professional suitability of the Main foster 
Companies. 

139   A document certifying that the project designer is certified and registered in a professional chambers. 
140   Ibid. 

November 2015 I 89 

IT 
(Mila
n) 

NL 

Regula
r  and 
buildin
g 
notice  

Regula
r  

PL 

PT 

Regula
r  

Regula
r 

Regula
r 

Buildin
g 

10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
MS 

Proce
dure  

Refer
ence 
work 

Techn
ical 
plans  

Sit
e 
Pla
ns  

Buildin
g 
applica
tion 
form / 
notice 

Declara
tions of 
complia
nce * 

Volunt
ary 
certific
ates  

Manda
tory 
insura
nce 
docum
ent  

Health 
and 
safety 
docum
ents  

Planni
ng 
docum
ents  

Ene
rgy  

Environ
ment  

Equip
ment  

notice 

SI 

Light  

UK  - 
Engla
nd 

Regula
r  

Buildin
g 
notice  
Regula
r 
proced
ure  

1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 
1-
storey 
house 
10-
storey 
office 
1-
storey 
house 

1141 

1142 

3 

3 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

(maybe
) 

Proof 
of 
owner
ship 

Oth
er  

Pro
of 
of 
fee
s 
pai
d 

1 

1 

1 

3 

141   Consent form from local authorities.  
142   Consent form from local authorities. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In Bulgaria, the individual complexity of the submission demands differ in respect of 
the construction category. However, an investor must provide the range of documents 
indicated  above  for  a  building  permit  under  the  regular  procedure  for  both  reference 
works. There is not a standard template of the application form and it should be kept 
in mind that the submission demands can differ from municipality to municipality. 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  with  regard  to  a  ten  storey  office  block,  the  opportunity  to 
combine  the  planning  and  permit  procedures  results  in  a  larger  number  of  ‘technical 
condition’  documents  required  from  planning  authorities  and  a  geodesic  plan.  Apart 
from these documents, there is continuity with the categories of documents requested 
between the two reference works.  

In  Denmark,  the  municipality  determines  the  submission  demands  required  and 
therefore it is not possible to provide a conclusive assessment. However, the range of 
documents  requested  depends  on  this  technical  complexity  of  the  building  and 
differences  have  been  identified  between  the  reference  works  with  more  technical 
plans  required  for  large  office  blocks  (for  example  detailed  calculations  of  the 
performance of load bearing structures).143 

In Finland, the application for a building permit for a one storey house and ten storey 
office  building  fall  under  the  regular  procedure  and  are  generally  similar.  The 
submission  demands  for  a  building  permit  are  the  same  in  all  municipal  areas  of 
Finland as indicated in the National Building Code.  

In France, both the one storey house and ten storey office building require a building 
permit under the regular procedure. The submission demands are slightly different for 
the reference works. Two different application forms with their own requirements are 
used.  There  are  certain  documentary  requirements  that  may  need  to  considered  for 
buildings open to the public that are not specified for small private buildings.  

In  Germany,  there  are  no  striking  differences  between  the  categories  of  documents 
required  for  either  a  house  or  an  office  building.  However,  the  legislation  is  quite 
detailed  and  therefore  in  this  case  it  is  possible  to  determine  with  a  greater  level  of 
certainty the types of technical plans requested.  

In  Greece,  similarly,  there  are  no  major  differences  in  the  categories  of  submission 
demands  required  for  either  reference  works.  The  categories  of  documents  indicated 
above take into account the documents required for the two phase process to applying 
for building permission.  

In Italy, (Milan) the same categories of documents are required under the regular and 
building  notices  (S.C.I.A)  procedures.  This  includes  a  wide  range  of  planning 
documents given the integrated approach to authorisation. However, the authority has 
the right to determine the scale and scope of the documents depending on the nature 
or the building and its location.  

In  the  Netherlands,  the  regular  procedure  applies  to  the  reference  works  and  the 
submission  demands  are  similar  for  both  the  one  storey  house  and  10  storey  office 
block.  The  most  important  documentation  are  the  application,  scale  drawings  and 
calculations to demonstrate minimal performances. 

In  Poland,  the  obligatory  documents  to  obtain  building  permit  differ  slightly  from  a 
one  storey  house  to  a  ten  storey  office  building.  However,  there  are  a  series  of 

143 The declarations demanded include: certificate from a state-recognized expert indicating that the 

construction plan meets the demands on fire protection (this demand is not however not applicable for 
dwellings of a limited height). Also, a declaration of the designer/architect that the building plan meets 
the fire protection demands. 

November 2015 I 91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
additional documents which may apply under certain circumstances to both buildings. 
The obligatory documents are indicated only above and it may be the case that there 
are more to consider.  

In Portugal, the construction of a new house or office building can go through either 
a  building  notice  procedure  or  regular  procedure.  Interestingly,  there  are  more 
documents required under the building notice procedure such as a greater number of 
insurance and liability documents, however, the range of categories of documents are 
the same.  

In  Slovenia,  the  submission  demands  are  the  same  both  reference  works  and  are 
determined at national level. However, an auditor’s assessment may be required for a 
ten storey office block.  

In  Spain  (Madrid),  there  are  a  different  number  of  categories  required  in  terms  of 
whether  the  regular  procedure  or  building  notice  procedure  (Declaration  of 
Responsibility)  are  used.  In  terms  of  the  regular  procedure  which  applies  to  both 
reference works, a detailed set of technical, site and planning documents are required. 
The  building  notice  procedure  largely  relies  on  submission  of  a  declaration  and 
technical plans.  

In  the  UK  (England),  there  are  two  procedures  that  relate  to  the  reference  works. 
Under  the  building  notice  procedure  (which  applies  to  a  one  storey  house  only) 
applicants  need  to  provide  a  building  notice  and  site  plans.  Under  the  regular 
procedure (which applies to both reference works) technical plans must also be given. 
A  notification  must  be  given  to  the  health  and  safety  authority  in  both  instances  for 
both  categories  of  reference  works  (which  are  likely  to  meet  the  minimum 
requirements  for  submitting  a  notification).  If  an  applicant  wishes  to  use  a  type 
approved design for a house, a voluntary certificate may be submitted demonstrating 
that  the  technical  plans  have  already  been  approved  under  a  previous  authorisation 
procedure.  

4.4  Plan approval, site inspections and completion 

Country / regional overview 
A key objective of the building control process is to ensure construction work complies 
with  the  minimum  technical  standards  for  buildings.  This  objective  can  be  realised 
through  a  variety  of  different  processes  and  requirements  depending  on  the  type  of 
building  permit  procedure  followed.  The  three  key  three  steps  in  the  building  control 
process include:  

  Plan approval: the process of building control often commences with 

assessment of the technical plans and their approval (this activity may 
not be followed by some procedures); 

  Site inspections: this is followed by site inspections by relevant 

authorities to ensure that the actual building work is compliant. It may 
be the case that some or all of the inspection duties are allocated to 
the person undertaking building work or private sector service 
providers;  

  Completion or use: finally, a completion or use process is performed 

often on the basis of a final inspection (and in some cases submission 
of documentation) which is normally followed by the issuing of a 
completion or use certificate by the relevant authority.  

This  section  explores  areas  of  comparative  restrictive  and  non-restrictive  practice  as 
defined  under  the  Services  Directive  with  regard  to  the  three  key  steps  indicated 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

above. As will be examined in the legal evaluation, a key area of assessment has been 
the issue of whether duplication of authorisation applies during the three key steps of 
the  building  control  process.  In  particular,  it  is  interesting  to  compare  the  extent  to 
which  certain  responsibilities  to  demonstrate  compliance  are  delegated  to  legally 
designated service providers and/or third parties in charge of supervision/inspection of 
building works or whether the person undertaking building work is obliged to meet the 
technical requirements. 

In  addition,  it  is  also  interesting  to  compare  whether  or  not  the  process  of  building 
control  is  supplemented  by  further  detailed  inspections  undertaken  by  public 
authorities  particularly  where  designated  service  providers  and/or  third  parties  have 
been mandated to perform key tasks in the first instance. ` 

To  begin  with,  an  overview  is  provided  below  of  the  actors  responsible  for  plan 
approval in the context of the regular procedure in relation to the two reference works 
(a one storey two bedroom house and a ten storey office block).  

Table 4.7 The type of authorities involved in plan approval under the regular 

Reference 
works  

Local 
authorities 

procedure  
Member 
State  

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

10-storey office 
1-storey house 
10-storey office 
1-storey house 
10-storey office 
1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

ES (Madrid) 

10-storey office 

FI 

FR 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

IT (Milan) 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Other public 
authorities as 
part of separate 
procedures 

x 

Private building 
control services / 
State registered 
experts 
x (optional) 
x (optional) 

x (optional) 
x (mandatory) 
x (mandatory) 

x (optional) 

x (optional) 

x (mandatory) 

x (potentially 
requested by the local 
authority) 
x (potentially 
requested by the local 
authority) 
x (mandatory) 

x (a mandatory 
system has been 
proposed) 

x (optional) 

x (optional) 

x 

10-storey office 

State authority 

1-storey house 

State authority 

x (potentially 
mandatory) 

November 2015 I 93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State  

Reference 
works  

Local 
authorities 

UK 
(England) 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

x 

x 

Other public 
authorities as 
part of separate 
procedures 

Private building 
control services / 
State registered 
experts 
X (optional) 

X (optional) 

Municipal  authorities  in  Bulgaria  issue  building  permits  for  both  types  of  reference 
works (a one storey house and a ten storey office block) and the approach is similar in 
each case. The technical design must be signed by a registered architect and assessed 
initially  by  a  municipal  or  a  private  building  control  body.  The  next  step  is  to 
coordinate  the  application  for  a  building  permit  with  the  municipal  authority  with  a 
view  to  seeking  approval.  If,  however,  a  private  building  control  body  has  not  been 
used for the initial plan assessment, the design is reviewed again by other officials as 
part  of  an  internal  procedure  in  the  municipal  authority  (for  example  after  the  Chief 
Architect from the municipal authority has approved the plans a subsequent approval 
is required by the Municipal Expert Council on Spatial Planning). 

In the Czech Republic, the technical plans need to be prepared and authorised by a 
registered architect or engineer for both types of reference works. The application for 
both types of reference works requires approval from the municipal authority but the 
plans  are  not  checked  against  technical  requirements  for  a  one  storey  house.  In  the 
case  of  a  ten  storey  office  block,  multiple  authorisations  from  several  authorities  are 
required as part of the building permit application. According to practice, the services 
of  an  authorised  inspector  (private  sector  building  control)  are  requested  for  small 
building  works  (e.g.  a  one  storey  house)  and  correspond  to  about  10%  of  building 
permit applications. Under this system, the authorised inspector will give a certificate 
to  the  municipal  authority  to  indicate  compliance  of  the  plans.  As  part  of  plan 
approval, the authorised inspector and chief designer may be invited for interview by 
the municipal authority (at the expense of the authority).  

In Denmark, plan approval conducted by  a local authority is required  for both types 
of reference works. The person submitting the plans is responsible for complying with 
the  legal  requirements.  In  the  case  of  a  ten  storey  office  block,  given  that  failure  of 
the  load  bearing  structure  is  a  major  safety  hazard,  a  signed  declaration  is  required 
from  a  certified  structural  engineer  accompanying  the  structural  plans.  During  plan 
approval,  local  authorities  examine  plans  submitted  against  zoning,  aesthetic  and 
technical requirements.  

Plans must be submitted for approval to a local authority in  Finland by the owner of 
the  building  or  a  legally  authorised  representative  for  both  types  of  reference  works. 
The  activities  of  plan  preparation  and  submission  are  not  reserved  to  a  regulated 
profession.  During  the  plan  approval  phase,  the  local  authority  examines  the 
submission  demands  against  the  zoning,  aesthetic  and  technical  requirements. 
However, if there is uncertainty, the local authority may require an expert opinion on 
whether the suggested building design meets the legal requirements (if this possibility 
arises, the costs are borne by the applicant). 

The  legal  framework  in  France  dictates  that  it  is  not  mandatory  to  request  the 
services of a qualified architect for the development of the technical plans for buildings 
with  a  net  floor  area  of  less  than  170m²  (such  as  a  one  storey  house).  In  this  case, 
free  technical  advice  is  available  to  applicants  from  public  bodies144  (and  it  is 
recommended  that  this  service  is  used  as  plan  approval  may  take  longer  if  the 

144   An architect of the Council of Architecture, Urban Planning and Environment (Conseil d'Architecture, 
d'Urbanisme et d'Environnement - CAUE), the local building authority where the construction work is 
located, or the departmental offices of infrastructure (Directions Départementales de l'Equipement et de 
l’Agriculture - DDEA). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

services of an architect are not employed). Buildings that are 170 m² or greater (such 
as a ten storey office block) are required to be designed and the plans signed-off by a 
qualified architect. In addition, with regard to very tall buildings (e.g. ten storey office 
blocks),  as  part  of  comprehensive  schemes  for  building  control,  the  services  of  a 
registered building surveyor are required to cross examine the design. During the plan 
approval  process,  under  the  regular  procedure,  the  municipality  checks  whether  the 
application  complies  with  submission,  zoning  and  aesthetic  requirements.  However, 
the  municipality  only  examines  compliance  with  the  technical  requirements  for 
buildings open to the public and very tall buildings (e.g. ten storey office blocks) and 
such  checks  are  limited  to  fire  safety  and  access  to  disabled  persons.  As  part  of  an 
internal  procedure,  other  authorities  are  consulted  on  the  application  in  relation  to 
their official competencies.145 

The plan approval process in Germany operates according to two steps. Firstly, plans 
must  prepared  and  certified  by  a  registered  architect  or  engineer  and  then  assessed 
and  approved  by  a  state  registered  expert.  Secondly,  the  relevant  architect  or 
engineer  is  needed  to  submit  the  plans  to  a  local  authority  to  seek  approval.  With 
regard  to  one  storey  houses,  the  local  authority  will  not  check  the  plans  if  designers 
certify  compliance  with  the  building  regulations.  However,  in  relation  to  ten  storey 
office  blocks,  the  local  authority  will  check  the  plans  against  aesthetic,  zoning  and 
technical  requirements.  If  the  application  is  determined  as  compliant,  a  building 
permit will be issued which may be subject to certain conditions.  

In  Greece,  the  technical  plans  for  both  types  of  reference  works  are  required  to  be 
certified by a registered engineer or architect. Municipal building authorities undertake 
an assessment of the completeness of the building permit application but they do not 
undertake  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  technical  plans  as  it  is  the  responsibility  of 
registered  architects  or  engineers  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  technical 
requirements. If the submission dossier is accurate, approval is granted automatically.  

The  process  of  plan  approval  in  Italy  initially  relies  upon  a  registered  designer 
certifying that the plans meet the technical requirements. The plans are submitted to 
a  local  authority  for  approval  against  the  technical  requirements.  An  internal 
procedure  with  subordinate  authorities  (i.e.  historical  and  environmental  protection) 
takes  place  to  examine  compliance  with  the  full  arrange  of  relevant  legal 
requirements. Alternatively, the applicant may choose to receive approval from these 
authorities  in  the  first  instance  as  part  of  separate  procedures.  The  process  of  plan 
approval is similar for both reference works.  

The  activities  of  plan  preparation  and  submission  are  not  reserved  to  a  regulated 
profession in the Netherlands. Municipal authorities are responsible for plan approval 
relating to both reference works (but it is expected that a mandatory private building 
control  system  will  be  introduced  in  the  future  initially  for  smaller  scale  construction 
works  such  as  one  storey  houses).  An  assessment  is  made  against  all  technical 
requirements including zoning requirements.  

Registered designers are required to certify technical plans for both reference works as 
part  of  building  permit  applications  in  Poland.  Country  Governor’s  issue  building 
permits  after  an  assessment  of  the  application  against  the  technical  requirements  is 
made  by  the  District  Inspector.  The  General  Inspector  supervises  and  controls  the 
work  of  lower  ranking  officials  and  occasionally  this  may  lead  to  examination  of 
building permit applications initially assessed by the District Inspector. In addition, in 
relation  to  a  ten  storey  office  block,  as  part  of  separate  procedures,  plan  approval is 
required from the sanitary and fire safety authorities.  

145   The police, the highways service, the fire service and the Architects of the Buildings of France 

(Architectes des Bâtiments de France – ABF). 

November 2015 I 95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Design  liability  declarations  are  required  to  be  submitted  by  designers  as  part  of 
building permit applications in Portugal. As a result, while this is not always the case, 
there  is  a  trend  for  the  municipal  authority  not  to  perform  a  detailed  assessment  of 
the plans against the technical requirements (rather the approval process  focuses  on 
the  zoning  aspects).  Coordination  takes  place  with  other  relevant  authorities  (e.g. 
cultural heritage) that may be called upon to provide an assessment of the application 
if it falls into their field of competency. 146 

In  Slovenia,  plan  approval  is  initially  subject  to  the  design  being  prepared  and 
authorised  by  a  registered  architect  or  engineer.  With  regard  to  complex  structures, 
(this  may  relate  to  a  ten  storey  office  block)  a  certified  auditor  may  be  required  to 
assess  the  building  permit  application.  The  application  is  subsequently  submitted  to 
the  State  Authority  for  approval.  This  public  body  has  the  role  of  examining  the 
submission  dossier  and  planning  requirements  but  does  not  perform  a  detailed 
assessment of the plans against the technical requirements.  

Responsibility  for  drawing-up  technical  plans  is  designated  to  registered  architects  in 
Spain. A seal of approval (‘visado colegial’) confirming the technical compliance of the 
plans  needs  to  be  submitted  with  the  application  for  a  building  permit.  In  Madrid,  in 
terms  of  the  construction  of  new  office  buildings,  a  ‘visado  colegial’  can  be  obtained 
either  from  the  municipality  or  from  a  collaborating  institute  composed  of  registered 
architects  (Entidades  Colaboradoras  Urbanisticas).  With  regard  to  the  construction  of 
houses,  a  ‘visado  colegial’  is  obtainable  from  the  municipality.  The  building  permit 
application is submitted to the municipal authority that has the role of examining the 
completeness of the submission dossier (but a subsequent detailed assessment of the 
technical plans is not undertaken).  

In  the  UK  (England),  local  authorities  are  responsible  for  building  control  but 
applicants  may  opt  to  receive  building  control  services  from  a  private  sector  third 
party  (known  as  an  Approved  Inspector).  The  activities  of  plan  preparation  and 
submission  are  not  reserved  to  a  regulated  profession.  Local  authorities  are 
responsible for the assessment of technical plans against the building regulations and 
will  either  give  building  permission  if  they  are  found  to  be  compliant  or  will  request 
changes to the plans to be made. Alternatively, if private building control is opted for, 
an Approved Inspector will notify the local authority regarding the commencement of 
building  work  and  submit  plans  (however,  the  local  authority  will  not  undertake  a 
detailed technical assessment of the plans as Approved Inspectors are responsible for 
their  accuracy).  Local  authorities  and  Approved  Inspectors  engage  with  other 
authorities  such  as  fire  safety  (where  relevant)  and  sewer  management  bodies  but 
these steps are managed internally as part of the same approval process.  

The  actors  involved  in  the  site  inspection  process  in  relation  to  the  two  reference 
works are indicated in table 4.8:  

Table 4.8 The type of authorities involved in site inspections  
Member 
State  

 Local 
authorities  

Reference 
works  

Other 
public 
authorities  

Private 
building 
control 
services / 
State 
registered 
experts 

Architects 
/ 
Engineers  

Technical 
advisor / 
contractor  

BG 

10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
(mandatory) 
x 
(mandatory) 

146   In  the  case  of  the  building  notice  procedure,  external  public  authorities  have  to  be  consulted  by  the 

applicants themselves as part of a separate procedure.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Member 
State  

Reference 
works  

 Local 
authorities  

Other 
public 
authorities  

CZ 

DE 
(NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK 
(England) 

10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office  
1-storey 
house 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
(potentially) 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Private 
building 
control 
services / 
State 
registered 
experts 

x 
(mandatory) 
x 
(mandatory) 

x 
(mandatory) 
x 
(mandatory) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x (optional) 

X (optional) 

Architects 
/ 
Engineers  

Technical 
advisor / 
contractor  

x 

x 

x 
(potentially) 
x 
(potentially) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

In terms of the allocation of building control responsibilities, the distribution of actors 
indicated above are positioned against key tasks in table 4.9.  

November 2015 I 97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.9 Site inspection tasks allocated to authorities and other service providers  
Approval of 
installations 

Energy 
conservation 

Structural 
safety 

Fire safety 

Authorities 
Municipal  

Other Authority  

Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
England 
Germany (NRW)  
Finland 
France 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 
Italy 

Bulgaria 
Poland 
Slovenia 
Italy 

Service providers 
Architect/designer   Czech Republic 

(Technical) 
advisor/contractor 

Finland  
Spain 
Italy 
Portugal  
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Germany (NRW)  
Finland 
Poland 
Portugal 

Czech Republic 
Denmark 
England 
Germany (NRW) 
France 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 

Czech Republic 
Denmark 
England 
Germany (NRW) 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 
Italy 

Slovenia 
Italy 

Bulgaria 
Czech 
Denmark 
England  
Finland 
Portugal 
Slovenia  
Italy 

Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
England 
Germany 
(NRW) 
Finland 
France 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 
Italy 
Finland 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovenia 

Czech Republic 
Finland  
Spain 
Portugal 

Czech Republic 
Finland 
Spain 

Czech Republic 
Finland  
Spain 

Czech Republic 
Germany (NRW)  
Finland 
Poland 
Portugal 

Czech Republic 
Germany (NRW)  
England  
Finland 
Poland 
Portugal 

Private 
sector 
building  control  / 
State 
recognised 
expert 

Bulgaria 
England 
Finland 
France 
Germany (NRW) 
Greece 
Portugal 
Slovenia  

Bulgaria 
England 
Finland 
France 
Germany (NRW) 
Greece 
Portugal 
Slovenia 

Bulgaria 
England 
Finland 
France 
Germany (NRW) 
Greece 
Portugal 
Slovenia 

The approach in Bulgaria dictates that in relation to both of the reference works, site 
inspections  are  performed  by  a  private  building  inspector  appointed  by  the  investor. 
This  is  on  the  basis  of  five  inspections  phases  (relating  to  both  reference  works).  In 
addition,  at  appropriate  intervals,  site  inspections  are  carried  out  by  municipal  and 
state authorities namely the Regional Construction Control Directorate and the District 
Directorate “Fire Safety and Civil Protection”. 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  municipal  authority  performs  site  inspections.  Site 
inspections are only conducted by the authority on small constructions works (e.g. one 
storey  houses)  if  complaints  are  made  e.g.  with  regard  to  noise,  dust  etc.  Site 
inspections are carried out on large construction works (e.g. ten storey office blocks) 

Czech Republic 
Germany 
(NRW) 
Greece  
England  
Finland 
Poland 
Portugal 
Italy 
Bulgaria 
England 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
(NRW) 
Greece 
Portugal 
Slovenia 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

at  fixed  construction  phases  and  at  regular  inspection  points  by  several  authorities 
(including the municipal authority, traffic authority, fire safety and sanitation).  

In  Denmark,  the  local  building  authority  has  the  role  of  supervising  all  construction 
work and may carry out site inspection of individual sites at random without previous 
notification  (although  this  does  not  apply  to  all  construction  works).  Moreover,  the 
building control authority may specify the timing of site inspections in line with certain 
project  intervals  or  conduct  an  inspection  on  an  unannounced  basis.  If  deeded 
necessary,  inspections  may  be  conducted  by  fire  or  sewerage  authorities.  Ongoing 
building  control  is  carried  out  by  the  principal  contractor  or  alternatively  a  building 
surveyor  may  be  appointed  to  perform  this  task.  The  principal  contractor  or  building 
surveyor  normally  conduct  site  inspections  upon  completion  of  key  construction 
phases.  

It is the responsibility of local authorities in  Finland to carry out site inspections and 
these  can  take  place  at  any  point  during  the  construction  works  as  deemed 
appropriate. However, on the basis of a legally designated start-up meeting (attended 
by  the  local  authority,  the  owner  of  the  building  or  a  representative,  the  principal 
designer  and  the  site  manager),  building  control  may  be  delegated  to  the  principal 
designer  depending  on  the  complexity  of  the  construction  works  and  providing  that 
sufficient expertise to meet the legal requirements can be demonstrated (this does not 
include  the  final inspection).  If  the  building  control  activities  are  delegated,  reporting 
obligations  are  placed  on  the  parties  undertaking  building  work  on  the  basis  of  a 
reporting logbook to be submitted to the local authority. Other inspections may need 
to be conducted by technical specialists e.g. for heating, plumbing and air-conditioning 
etc.  

The  approach  to  site  inspections  differs  in  France  regarding  the  two  types  of 
reference  works.  In  relation  to  tall  buildings  (e.g.  a  ten  storey  office  block)  a 
registered  private  building  control  service  provider  is  required  to  perform  site 
inspections  e.g.  for  structural  safety,  fire  safety  and  installation.  A  building  control 
plan is agreed with the developer at the outset of the project. Compliance may also be 
examined  for  non-statutory  requirements  (e.g.  mechanical  and  engineering  services, 
sound  insulation  etc.).  On  a  voluntary  basis,  with  regard  to  construction  work 
associated with fewer risks (e.g. a one storey two bedroom house) the developer may 
choose to hire a registered building control service provider. Local building authorities 
have  the  legal  power  to  stop  construction  work  where  there  are  indications  of  non-
compliance.147  Normally,  site  inspections  conducted  by  local  authorities  examining 
legal  compliance  are  conducted  randomly  either  during  the  performance  of  the 
construction works or up to 3 years after the building has been completed.  

The site inspection process in Germany requires the applicant to appoint a contractor 
and a site manager. The contractor must carry out the construction work in line with 
the technical requirements and the site manager should ensure this objective is met. 
Site  inspections  are  conducted  by  the  local  authority  to  ensure  compliance  of  the 
building  work  in  relation  to  two  legally  designated  points  (after  the  building  shell  is 
completed  and  upon  completion).  However,  the  local  authority  may  enter  the  site  at 
any  point  during  the  construction  works.  Moreover,  inspections  of  structural  stability 
are normally delegated to a state registered expert. Building surveyors are required to 
examine sound insulation and energy conservation.  

Site inspections in Greece are conducted on two or three occasions depending on the 
size  of  the  building.  This  includes  an  initial  inspection  (of  the  foundations  and  cellar 
walls) and a final inspection of the whole building. In relation to buildings larger than 
2,000 m2 (e.g. a ten storey office block), an interim inspection takes place of the load 
bearing  structure  and  masonry.  Prior  to  the  designated  inspection  phase,  the 

147   Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Spatial Planning and the Ministry of Housing. 

November 2015 I 99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
contractor  must  submit  notification  to  the  municipal  authority.  Site  inspections  are 
conducted by a registered private building control inspector selected randomly by the 
municipal authority. Different private building control inspectors are selected for each 
of  the  inspection  phases.  An  inspection  of  the  energy  performance  of  the  building  is 
conducted by a qualified energy inspector.  

There is a private system of building control in terms of site inspections in  Italy. The 
applicant  appoints  a  building  surveyor  (normally  the  designer  or  someone  from  the 
design  team)  to  ensure  that  on  an  ongoing  basis  the  building  work  is  compliant  with 
the conditions of the building permit. The building surveyor is not responsible for any 
non-  compliance  identified  if  s/he  informs  the  local  authorities.  In  addition,  the  local 
building  authority  can  perform  site  inspections  at  any  time  but  normally  this  only 
relates  to  large  construction  works  (such  as  ten  storey  office  blocks)  i.e.  when  the 
concrete/steel  structure  is  in  place  and  when  the  construction  is  completed.  Building 
authorities  conduct  site  inspections  on  structural  safety,  energy  conservation  and 
installations.  Other  authorities  are  required  to  perform  inspections  according  to  their 
competencies e.g. fire safety.  

Only  municipalities  in  the  Netherlands  carry  out  site  inspections  with  regard  to  all 
aspects  of technical compliance. The intensity of the inspection regime is determined 
on the basis of a risk assessment and clearly this will lead to a different number of site 
inspections  required  in  relation  to  a  one  storey  house  and  a  ten  storey  office  block. 
There are no legal obligations imposed on the applicant to appoint a service provider 
to oversee ongoing compliance with the technical requirements.  

The  approach  to  building  control  in  terms  of  the  site-inspection  process  in  Poland  is 
multi-layered.  There  is  a  legal  requirement  to  establish  a  number  of  designated 
persons  with  corresponding  qualifications  and  duties  as  part  of  the  process  ensuring 
compliance  of  the  construction  works  i.e.  the  investor,  the  investors  supervisory 
representative  (a  private  building  control  representative)  a  designer  and  a 
construction site manager. In terms of complex building work (e.g. in some cases this 
may  relate  to  a  ten  storey  office  block),  it  may  be  necessary  for  the  investor  to 
appoint  private  building  control  supervision  of  the  designer.  In  addition,  the  District 
Inspector is required to perform site inspections of the construction works at random 
intervals  corresponding  with  the  completion  of  key  phases  e.g.  foundations,  load 
bearing walls, external structure and installations. 

In  Portugal,  site  inspections  may  be  performed  by  public  authorities  (e.g.  the 
municipality,  sanitation,  labour  and  real  estate  and  construction  authorities)  to  verify 
compliance with the legal requirements where deemed appropriate (construction sites 
are  selected  randomly  for  inspection  and  when  complaints  have  been  made  but  the 
sanitation  authority  performs  a  mandatory  final  inspection).  In  addition,  a  technical 
director  is  required  to  be  appointed  by  the  service  provider.  With  regard  to  small 
construction  works,  such  as  one  storey  houses,  the  technical  director  is  often  a 
representative  of  the  contractor.  Regarding  large  construction  works,  such  as  a  ten 
storey  office  building,  there  is  usually  a  separation  of  responsibilities  between  the 
technical  director,  a  building  surveyor  (appointed  by  the  applicant  to  assess  if  the 
construction  works  complies  with  the  approved  building  design)  and  a  designer 
(appointed to provide technical assistance). 

During the construction phase, in Slovenia, the investor is legally required to appoint 
a  registered  construction  site  manager  and  a  registered  supervisor  to  perform  site 
inspections.  The  Construction  Inspectorate  performs  site  inspections  at  random  but 
does  not  investigate  all  construction  projects.  The  Construction  Inspectorate  has  the 
powers  to  halt  construction  work  if  non-conformity  with  the  legal  requirements  is 
identified.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In  terms  of  the  situation  in  Spain,  support  with  ensuring  ongoing  compliance  of  the 
construction  works  with  the  technical  requirements  is  provided  by  a  registered 
architect.  During  the  construction  phases,  a  ‘building  book’  is  assembled  indicating 
how technical compliance has been attained. A single site inspection is carried by the 
local authority at the end of the project.  

Recent  adaptations  to  the  regulations  in  the  UK  (England)  empower  local  authorities 
to determine the frequency and timing of site inspections on the basis of a risk based 
approach relevant to the nature of the construction work. Inspections can correspond 
to various stages of the building project from the initial foundations being prepared to 
the  finalisation  of  the  building.  If  private  sector  building  control  is  opted  for, 
inspections  may  be  carried  out  by  an  Approved  Inspector.  Similarly,  the  Approved 
Inspector  will  determine  the  nature  of  the  inspection  regime.  There  are  no  legal 
obligations imposed on the applicant to appoint a service provider to oversee ongoing 
compliance with the technical requirements. In relation to a ten storey office block, a 
fire safety officer may examine the site but these are conducted as part of risk based 
market  wide  surveillance.  An  energy  assessment  must  be  conducted  by  an  approved 
energy  assessor  and  the  assessment  made  must  be  approved  by  a  local  authority  or 
an  Approved  Inspector.  Moreover,  in  relation  to  technical  installation  activities  (e.g. 
electrical  installation),  these  are  not  subject  to  site  inspections  if  the  work  is 
conducted  by  a  Competent  Person  as  compliance  with  the  technical  requirements  is 
self-certified.  

The table below provides an overview of the bodies responsible for issuing completion 
certification.  

Table 4.10 The type of authorities involved in issuing completion certificates  
Member 
State  

Other public 
authorities  

 Local 
authorities  

Reference 
works  

Private building 
control services 
/ State experts 

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

10-storey office 
1-storey house 
10-storey office 
1-storey house 
10-storey office 
1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 
1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  

X (this applies to 
the user of the 
building only) 
N/A  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X (mandatory) 

X (mandatory) 

X (optional) 

November 2015 I 101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State  

Reference 
works  

 Local 
authorities  

Other public 
authorities  

SI 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

UK (England) 

10-storey office 

1-storey house 

X 

X 

x 

Private building 
control services 
/ State experts 

x 

In  Bulgaria,  10  storey  office  buildings  are  commissioned  by  obtaining  a  use  permit 
issued by the National Construction Control Directorate (within the Ministry of Regional 
Development  and  Public  Works).  Dwellings  are  commissioned  on  the  basis  of  a  use 
permit  issued  by  the  body  that  has  approved  the  construction  works  (normally  a 
municipal  authority).  To  obtain  a  use  permit,  a  final  examination  is  conducted  and  a 
technical passport and drawing of the building are prepared for approval.  

In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  completion  process  relates  to  large  construction  works 
only  (e.g.  a  ten  storey  office  building)  with  completion  certificates  issued  by  the 
municipal  authority.  This  is  subject  to  a  final  inspection  being  made  by  several 
authorities  (municipal,  traffic  authority,  sanitation,  the  fire  authority)  determining 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.  

The approach in Denmark dictates that as soon as the construction work is completed 
the  applicant  submits  a  completion  notification  to  the  local  building  authority.  The 
applicant  must  confirm  to  the  local  authority  that  the  construction  works  has  been 
conducted  in  accordance  with  the  building  permit.  Technical  documentation  is 
submitted  to  prove  that  the  building  is  compliant  with  the  building  regulations. 
Interestingly, the local building authority does not have to carry out a final inspection 
and often relies on the building control results indicated in the documentation provided 
by the contractor or building surveyor.  

Completion  certificates  are  issued  by  local  authorities  in  Germany  (NRW).  The  site 
manager is required to notify that the building work is ready for a final inspection. The 
local  authority  examines  whether  the  building  work  is  compliant  with  the  technical 
requirements and zoning plan, and provides the certificate if the building is deemed fit 
for use.  

In Greece, a completion certificate is issued by the private building control inspector 
after  the  final  inspection  is  performed  and  legally  compliant  results  are  identified. 
Receipt of the certificate enables the owner of the building to submit an application to 
the municipal authority for a connection to the public utility networks.  

The  approach  is  similar  in  Finland.  The  activity  of  issuing  a  completion  certificate  is 
an  obligatory  task  of  local  authorities  providing  the  construction  work  complies  with 
the legal requirements (this is determined through a final inspection).  

However,  the  approach  is  slightly  different  in  France.  In  relation  to  both  reference 
works,  within  30  days  after  the  completion  of  the  construction  works,  a  declaration 
attesting that compliance with the building permit application must be submitted to a 
local  authority.  This  should  be  complemented  by  a  certificate  indicating  compliance 
with the building regulations regarding access to disabled persons, seismic safety and 
thermal performance issued by a designer (but not the designer of the building) or a 
building  surveyor.  However,  with  regard  to  tall  buildings  (e.g.  a  ten  storey  office 
block),  a  use  permit  is  also  required  which  is  issued  on  the  basis  of  the  successful 
completion  of  a  final  site  inspection  conducted  by  the  local  authority.  Normally,  to 
support  the  process  of  final  site  inspection,  a  building  surveyor  is  hired  to  prepare  a 
safety report.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

The completion process in Italy (Milan) dictates that the building surveyor must notify 
the local authority that the construction work has been carried out in accordance with 
the  building  permit.  Subsequently,  a  final  site  inspection  is  carried  out  by  the  local 
building  authority  and  other  building  authorities  for  public  buildings  (potentially  this 
could  apply  to  a  ten  storey  office  block  if  it is  a  public  works).  The  building  surveyor 
should request a use permit and this application should contain supporting documents 
such as land registry documentation, installation certificates, a structure certificate, a 
declaration attesting conformity with the technical requirements, energy performance 
certification  etc.  An  approval  from  the  Public  Health  Agency  certifying  the  sanitation 
requirements have been satisfied is required or alternatively this can be self-certified 
(although  self-certification  may  delay  the  issuing  of  the  use  permit  up  to  60  days  as 
oppose to up to 30).  

In  the  Netherlands,  after  satisfactorily  complying  with  the  inspection  regime,  the 
applicant  must  notify  the  local  authority  upon  completion  of  the  construction  works. 
After  this  notification  is  made,  the  relevant  official  closes  the  file  on  the  building 
permit  application.  It  should  be  noted  that  final  inspections  are  not  mandatory  and 
completion  certification  is  not  issued.  However,  with  regard  to  a  ten  storey  office 
building, a request for  a use permit should be made by the user of the building (and 
therefore  this  requirement  does  not  apply  directly  to  the  construction  service 
provider).  This  permit  requires  demonstration  of  compliance  with  fire  safety 
requirements.  

Utilisation of a building in Poland requires the construction team to notify the District 
Inspector  that  the  construction  work  is  finalised  (this  is  subject  to  the  authority  not 
raising  any  objections  21  days  after  the  receipt  of  the  notification).  However,  if  the 
building falls under certain categories including office buildings, it is required to obtain 
a final utilisation permit. In this case, the applicant/investor must also notify the State 
Sanitation Inspectorate and the State Fire Service. The utilisation permit is issued by 
the District Inspector of Building Control. 

In  Portugal,  an  occupancy  permit  must  be  issued  by  the  municipality  before  the 
building  can  be  used  legally  by  the  applicant.  There  is  a  statutory  list  of  submission 
demands  required  including  an  updated  set  of  design  documents  (if  the  design  has 
been amended since the submission of the building permit), the construction log book 
and a liability declaration prepared by the construction director. A liability declaration 
by  the  designer  may  also  be  submitted.  Within  10  days,  the  municipal  authority 
informs  the  applicant  whether  the  permit  will  be  granted  or  if  deemed  necessary  a 
final  site  inspection  will  be  performed  (which  may  result  in  demands  for  modification 
work to be made).  

In terms of Slovenia, residential buildings such as a one storey house are not subject 
to  completion  certification  requirements  but  the  designer  or  supervisor  must  confirm 
that the building has been completed in accordance with the building permit (but the 
option is available to the investor to apply for a completion certificate). With regard to 
office  buildings,  the  State  Authority  makes  a  technical  inspection  attended  by 
representatives  of  those  organisations  which  gave  prior  consent  to  the  project,  and 
representatives  of  other  Inspection  Authorities  (if  applicable)  after  which  a  certificate 
of completion is issued.  

In Spain (Madrid), all buildings are subject to a use permit inspection, including office 
buildings that have been built on the basis of a Declaration of Responsibility (for which 
no building permit is required). This is the only external inspection that is carried out. 
In  terms  of  residential  houses,  this  is  performed  by  the  municipality.  With  regard  to 
office buildings, this is either the municipality or a collaborating institute depending on 
the  body  selected  to  perform  building  control  by  the  applicant.  Receipt  of  the  use 
permit  is  also  dependent  on  submission  of  the  ‘building  book’  to  the  municipal 
authority.  

November 2015 I 103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With regard to the UK (England), completion certificates are issued by local authorities 
when  they  have  been  notified  that  the  building  work  has  been  completed  and  the 
requirements are satisfied. There is no legal requirement for a final inspection but the 
local authority may consider this as necessary. If a private sector building control body 
(Approved  Inspector)  has  managed  the  building  control  process,  this  third  party 
service provider notifies the local authority that the technical requirements have been 
met when the appropriate stage is reached.  

4.5  Fees  

Country / regional overview 
The fee system is a key element of the building control process that impacts directly 
on  the  performance  of  service  providers.  The  Services  Directive  aims  to  ensure  that 
the  costs  associated  with  approval  process  are  proportionate  to  the  extent  of  the 
authorisation activities undertaken. This section provides a comparative assessment of 
the legal framework for public authority fees.  

It appears that the vast majority of countries have established legislative frameworks 
for  the  fee  system  for  building  control.  There  does,  however,  appear  to  be  some 
divergence (which is very minor in some areas) in terms of whether there is:  

  General legal framework for the fee system in place;  

  Reference to specific fee rates;  

  Exact method of calculation;  

  Need to avoid making a profit.  

The table below indicates how the  fourteen study countries  regulate  their fee system 
for public authority building control with the above factors in mind.  

Table 4.11 The legal framework for building control fees  
Member State  

Are specific fees 
rates determined 
in the legislation  

Is the 
general 
framework 
for fees 
regulated  
Yes 
Yes 
Yes  
Yes 
Yes 
N/A 
No 
N/A 
Yes 

Yes  

Yes 

Yes  

Yes 

Yes  

No  
Yes 
Yes  
No 
Yes 
N/A 
No 
N/A 
No 

No  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No  

BG 
CZ 
DE (NRW) 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IT 

NL 

PL  

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

Is the exact 
method of 
calculation 
determined in 
the legislation  
Yes 
Yes 
No  
No 
Yes 
N/A 
No 
N/A 
No 

Yes  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No  

Can profit be 
made by the 
relevant 
authority  

No 
No 
No  
No 
No  
N/A 
No 
N/A 
No 

No  

No 

No 

No 

No  

In Bulgaria, the rules for setting fees are determined in the State Fees Act and Local 
Taxes  and  Fees  Act.  There  are  also  municipal  fee  ordnances  established.  Municipal 
authorities are required to adopt and make public an ordinance on the rules for setting 
and  collecting  local  fees  for  services.  The  fees  for  obtaining  a  use  permit  are  usually 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

calculated on the basis of the gross floor area and the type of construction works (this 
includes  the  costs  of  plan  approval  and  the  final  approval  phase).  However,  specific 
fee rates are not set at national level. In addition, the costs of private building control 
apply in relation to site inspections (there are no regulations relating to fees although 
guidelines  have  been  published  by  the  Bulgarian  Association  of  Architects  and 
Engineers).  

With regard to the Czech Republic, both the fee system and rates are set at national 
level and different rates are established for different categories of buildings. The fees 
cover  plan  approval  but  inspections  are  free  of  charge  where  they  occur  e.g.  the 
mandatory final inspection.  

In Denmark, the principles for setting fees are determined at national level (Building 
Act  and  the  Building  Regulations).  The  fees  established  must  also  follow  the  general 
rules for setting and collecting fees. Danish law provides that any fee must not exceed 
the  total  expenditure  by  the  authority  in  relation  to  the  delivery  of  the  service 
(otherwise it would be considered as a tax). The fee rates are fixed at local level and 
there  is  very  wide  variation  in  the  actual  costs  that  apply.  The  Building  Regulations 
state that municipalities can decide to charge fees for all works or only charge fees for 
certain works. Therefore, there are no harmonised calculation methods relating to the 
reference  works  (charges  could  relate  to  fixed  fees,  floor  area,  cubic  area,  or  hourly 
rates).  If  costs  apply,  it  is  likely  the  authority  will  charge  for  plan  approval  and  not 
inspections (estimations are provided below taking into account the variation between 
municipalities).  

Under  the  Finnish  Land  Use  and  Planning  Act  (132/1999),  municipal  authorities  are 
required to impose fees for inspection, supervision measures and other  official duties 
connected  to  building  control.  However,  the  general  framework  for  fee  calculation  is 
not regulated. The method of calculating the building permit fee along with designated 
rates are determined by each separate local municipal authority. However, the system 
in  Helsinki  relies  upon  fixed  fee  rates  multiplied  by  the  floor  area  of  the  building.  In 
addition,  an  architect  may  be  deemed  fit  to  perform  inspection  duties  negating  the 
need for site inspections conducted by the authority.  

In  France,  there  are  no  fees  imposed  for  the  submission  of  a  building  permit  and 
subsequent  public  authority  inspections  (however,  successful  applications  are  subject 
to a planning tax - taxe d’aménagement - which is not directly related to the costs of 
the  building  permit  procedure  and  is  therefore  outside  the  scope  of  the  Services 
Directive).  A  system  of  mandatory  private  sector  building  control  applies  for  certain 
types of construction works such as office buildings (over 280 metres high).  

The  situation in  Greece  is  similar  as  building authorities  do  not  impose  fees  for  plan 
approval  and  the  issuing  of  the  building  permit.  A  mandatory  system  of  private 
building  control  governs  the  site  inspection  and  completion  process  and  there  is  a 
regulated system of fixed fees in this regard. The costs are defined on the basis of a 
simple  formula  taking  into  account  the  combined  floor  area  of  the  building  and  the 
point in the construction phase where inspections occur.  

In Germany (NRW), the legally established principles for setting fees are determined 
in  the  Federal  Building  Act.  The  value  of  the  fee  rates  are  determined  at  state  level. 
The  basis  of  the  fee  calculations  is  the  volume  of  the  construction  multiplied  by  the 
building  costs.  The  exact  calculations  vary  however  between  the  individual  states 
leading to variation in the charges imposed on service providers for the same types of 
buildings. The legislation indicates that the fees should be based on the costs incurred 
by the authority.  

The  principles  for  setting  the  fees  are  determined  at  national  level  in  Italy  (Milan). 
The  fee  rates  are  determined  regionally  and  locally.  Fees  to  obtain  a  building  permit 

November 2015 I 105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
are  determined  based  on  the  planning  costs  to  integrate  the  building  into  a  range  of 
systems and services and the construction costs. The general approach determined by 
the  authority  in  Milan  is  to  request  the  fees  related  to  the  planning  costs  during  the 
issuing  of  the  building  permit  and  the  fees  related  to  the  construction  costs  are  paid 
up to 60 days after the completion of the works.  

In  the  Netherlands,  there  are  general  principles  in  place  regarding  how  local 
authorities  can  establish  their  own  fixed  charges  for  building  control  based  on  a 
percentage  of  the  construction  cost  (approx.  2.5%).  The  extent  of  building  control 
revenues  must  be  equal  to  the  costs  incurred  to  the  authority.  However,  larger 
construction  projects  (i.e.  €  100,000  or  more)  are  charged  at  disproportionately 
higher  fee  rates  (thereby  subsidising  smaller  building  projects).  The  Dutch  Council  of 
Municipalities  (VNG)  has  drawn-up  a  calculation  scheme  that  municipalities  may  use 
on a voluntary basis. There are proposals under consideration regarding reform of the 
fee system. However, it needs to be kept in mind that this includes all possible permits 
and  charges  under  the  planning  and  building  permit  systems  as  the  Netherlands 
operates an integrated system.  

In Poland, the calculation methodology is established nationally. A number of charges 
apply  for  both  reference  works  including  an  application  fee,  a  building  permit  fee 
(which  has  a  maximum  upper  limit  cost  associated  with  it)  and  a  use  permit.  A  ten 
storey  office  block  also  requires  a  health  and  safety  permit,  fire  authority  permit, 
sanitary authority permit and a geodetic survey. In relation to larger works, it may be 
necessary  to  pay  for  the  services  of  a  private  building  control  supervisor.  Public 
authority site inspections are free of charge.  

In  Portugal  the  legal  principles  for  setting  fees  are  determined  at  national level  and 
the  value  of  the  fee  rates  are  fixed  at  local  level.  The  municipalities  must  justify  the 
value  of  the  fees  rates  in  relation  to  the  administrative  costs  they  incur.  The  fees  to 
obtain a building permit are usually determined based on the floor area and the use of 
the  building.  There  is  also  a  fee  for  the  use  permit.  There  are  obligations  to  appoint 
private  persons  such  as  technical  directors,  building  surveyors  and  designers  to 
perform building control duties for complex works.  

In Slovenia, the building permit fee calculation method and rates are set at national 
level.  In  addition  to  a  small  administrative  fee,  a  percentage  (0.01%)  of  the 
construction  works  is  charged  above  certain  thresholds  linked  to  the  category  of 
works.  Site  inspections  performed  by  private  building  control  service  providers  are 
mandatory.  

The approach in Spain (Madrid) is quite different. A system of taxes under the Royal 
Legislative  Decree  2/2004  approving  the  revised  text  to  the  Law  Regulation  Local 
Taxation  has  been  established  which  is  linked  to  the  building  control  system  but  it 
does not relate directly to the costs of managing the authorisation process. The taxes 
relate  to  the  costs  of  planning  for  buildings,  using  municipal  services  and  public 
spaces. As a result, these are outside the scope of the Services Directive.  

In  the  UK  (England),  there  are  specific  regulations  related  to  the  charging  schemes 
that  local  authorities  can  establish  independently.  Local  authorities  determine  their 
own fixed charges but on an annual basis these, as near as possible, should equate to 
the costs incurred by the local authority in providing chargeable functions. There are a 
wide  variety  of  factors  that  local  authorities  have  the  right  to  consider  when 
establishing  their  method  of  calculation  (e.g.  frequency  of  inspections,  floor  area, 
duration  of  the  work  etc.).  Local  authorities  must  publish  their  fixed  charges  and 
indicate  how  they  apply  as  part  of  a  charging  scheme.  Local  authorities  are  not 
permitted to apply charges for building work solely for disabled persons. The costs of 
services  provided  by  private  building  control  bodies  (Approved  Inspectors)  are  not 
regulated.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

The table below provides an overview of the costs incurred as part of public authority 
building  control  in  the  fourteen  study  countries.  Please  note  that  these  costs  have 
been obtained through interviews with stakeholders and desk research, and should be 
perceived as generally indicative of the types of costs that may apply to the reference 
works. 

November 2015 I 107 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 4.12 Estimated building control fees for a one storey two bedroom house (150m2 with a construction cost of €150,000) and a ten 

storey office block (2000m2 with a construction value of €5 million) 
Member 
State  

Calculations and issues for consideration  

Fees for  
Reference 
works  
10-storey office  
€20941 

1-storey house 
€1803  

10-storey office  
€3500  
1-storey house 
€35  
10-storey office 
€ 33.000 

1-storey house 
€2300  

Design visa – 76.89 € ; Application for design co-ordination and approval – €200 (0.10 €/m2 gross floor area e.g. 
2000m2); Issuing of a building permit –€12280; Issuing of a use permit €384.45.  
€8000 - site inspections performed by a private building control company(€4 /m2). 
Design visa – 20.50 €; Application for design co-ordination and approval e.g. €6 (0.04 €/m2 gross floor area e.g. 
150m2).  
Issuing of a building permit €921 (6.14€/m2). Issuing of a use permit €255.65.  
€600- site inspections for a private building control company (€4 /m2). 
Building permit (€1500) and geodesic plan (€2000). 

Issuing a decision on the building only€35. 

Fee for application € 9.487 (including additional cost for the height of the building). Fee for plan approval € 12,.506. Fee 
for inspections € 2,087. 
State expert verification: €11,000 (check on structural design structural stability, and fire safety). 
Fee for application € 535. Fee for plan approval €643. Fee for two inspections € 130. Assumptions have been made 
regarding the features of the building in order to apply the calculation methodology.  
State expert verification: €1015 (check on structural design structural stability, and fire safety).  

10-storey office 
€16,000 
1-storey house 
€800 
10-storey office  N/A there is a tax based system in Spain with the charges not directly linked to the authorisation costs of building 

Based on an average of different calculation methods the costs are €16,000 (however, the costs could vary across the 
country from €4000 to €40000).  
Based on an average of different calculation methods the costs are €800 (however, the costs could vary across the 
country from €150 to €2000). 

1-storey house 

control. 

10-storey office  
€1700 
1-storey house 
€400 
10-storey office 
€13259 
1-storey house 
€1235 

The initial inspection fee is set to €300; The intermediate inspection fee is €0.3/m2, €600; The final inspection fee is set 
at: €0.4/m2 €800. 
In relation to a house 150m2.The initial inspection fee is set to €200. The final inspection fee is €0.5/m2 with a minimum 
fee of €200.  
Permit fee for one building = €548 Area fee 6.5x2000 m2 = €13,000. This includes any inspection costs.  

Permit fee = €259 Area fee 6.5x150 m2 = €975 This includes any inspection costs. 

November 2015 I 108 

BG (Sofia) 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 
Euskirchen 

DK 

ES 

EL 

FI  
(Helsinki)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Fees for  
Reference 
works  
10-storey office 
€30,000  

Calculations and issues for consideration  

A planning tax applies in France. 
Depending on the height of the building, private building control is mandatory. An estimate of €30,000 has been 
provided by the country researcher.  

This has been difficult to identify. A world bank estimate has been given.148  

This is an estimated figure.  

1-storey house  A planning tax applies in France. 
10-storey office 
€38,661 
1-storey house 
€16150 
10-storey office 
€ 125,000 
1-storey house 
€3750 
10-storey office 
€1310 

The fee for a10 storey office building is around 2.5% of the construction costs (based on gross floor area of 2.000 m2 
and initial building cost of € 5.000.000).  
The fee for a single family house is around 2.5% (based on initial building cost of € 150.000) 

Acceptance of building project: €11 Document confirming appointment of an attorney. €4. Building permit (1 PLN per m2 
but a max of 539PLN) €128. € Fire safety permit €239 Sanitary permit: free. Work safety assessment: €418 € Use 
permit €32. State inspection: free Geodetic survey. €478 

Member 
State  

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL(Warsaw) 

1-storey house 
€82  

Acceptance of building project: €11 Document confirming appointment of an attorney. €4. Building permit (1 PLN per 
m2) €35. Use permit €32, State inspection: free.  

PT (Oeiras)  

10-storey office 
€8690 

The building permit is: 357,25 € + 2000 m² x 4,02 €/m² = €8397 
€292.69 for the use permit.  
Any inspections are free of charge. 

SI  

1-storey house 
€975 

10-storey office 
€1220.8 

1-storey house 
€292.8 

UK - England 
(Manchester)  

10-storey office 
€6682  

The building permit 57,25 € + 150 m2 x 3,32 €/m2 = € 855 for the building permit.  
€120 for the use permit.  
Any inspections are free of charge. 
For an office building with construction costs of €5 million there is a fee of 725 EUR. A percentage charge 0.01% of the 
construction costs applies but only to the costs over the sum of €420,000 (€495.8). There is also requirement for a 
private supervisory professional the costs for which are not indicated here.  
For a one storey two room residential property (estimated construction costs 150,000 EUR) an admin fee of 282 EUR 
applies. A percentage charge 0.01% of the construction costs applies but only to the costs over €42,000 (€10.8). There 
is also requirement for a private supervisory professional the costs for which are not indicated here.  
In relation to the local authority charging scheme reviewed and interviewees, charges are individually determined for 
complex commercial buildings exceeding 250 m2 therefore the figure provided is not based on a published methodology. 

148   http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/italy/dealing-with-construction-permits/. 

November 2015 I 109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Member 
State  

Fees for  
Reference 
works  

Calculations and issues for consideration  

1-storey house 
€2331 

However, an estimate has been provided related to plan approval, a building notice and 10 inspections (but approval of 
the installation work is not considered as the self certification procedure is assumed to apply).  
This figure assumes the house is less than 250 m2, the building notice procedure has been followed only, two site 
inspections are undertaken but the installation work is regarded as self-certified.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

4.6  Procedure times 

Country / regional overview 
In  the  context  of  the  Services  Directive,  building  control  systems  must  demonstrate 
efficient procedural timeframes within which building permit applications are examined 
and approved if complaint. This includes limiting the number of possible extensions to 
the  approval  process,  issuing  notifications  to  applicants  if  the  approval  process  is 
extended  and  the  possibility  of  tacit  approval  if  a  non-response  by  the  authority  has 
occurred at the end of the specified authorisation period. An overview of the approach 
adopted by the fourteen study countries / regions is indicated below.  

Table 4.13 Procedures times and tacit approval  
Member 
State  

Reference 
works  

Are there fixed procedure times? 

BG 

CZ 

DE 
(NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 

1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 

Is tacit 
approval 
granted? 
No 

2 to 4 weeks (design visa, building permit) 

2 to 4 weeks (design visa, building permit) 

No 

4 weeks  

4 weeks  

8 weeks  

4 weeks  

No (average time 11 weeks) 

No (average time 9 weeks)  

2 days  

2 days 

8 weeks  

12 weeks 

No (average time 4 to 12 weeks) 

No(average time 12 to 20 weeks)  

12 weeks or 26 weeks depending on the 
category of building  
8 weeks  

20 weeks  

20 weeks  

Up to 26 weeks for complex projects that 
are not part of the zoning plan and those 
associated with significant environmental 
impacts e.g. office blocks.  
8 weeks  

9 weeks  

9 weeks 

No 

No 

Yes  

Yes  

No 

No 

Yes  

Yes  

Yes  

Yes  

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes  

Yes  

Yes in some 
circumstances  

Yes  

No 

No 

November 2015 I 111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State  

Reference 
works  

Are there fixed procedure times? 

PT 

SI 

UK -
England 

house 

10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 
10-storey 
office 
1-storey 
house 

1 week (building notice) 
15 weeks (regular procedure) 
1 week (building notice) 
15 weeks (regular procedure) 
8 weeks 

4 weeks 

5 weeks (regular procedure)  

Immediate after notice is given by the 
applicant (building notice procedure)  
5 weeks (regular procedure)  

Is tacit 
approval 
granted? 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No  

The  Bulgarian  Spatial  Planning  Act  sets  out  maximum  procedure  times  for  the 
approval  of  construction  documents  and  the  issuing  of  building  permits  which  are 
applicable to both reference works. A municipality must issue an initial building design 
visa  within  14  days  after  the  application  has  been  received.  Investment  projects 
(building designs) have to be approved or rejected within 14 days of their submission 
or  within  one  month  if  the  initial  plan  compliance  assessment  is  made  by  the 
municipality  and  not  a  third  party.  A  building  permit  can  be  issued  along  with  the 
approved  investment  project  (building  design),  providing  that  the  investor  has 
requested  it in  his/her  application.  If  not,  the  building  permit is  issued  within  7  days 
after receiving a written application. The Spatial Planning Act does not provide for an 
extension  of  the  deadlines  for  the  issuing  of  the  design  visa  and  the  approval  of 
investment  projects.  If  these  deadlines  are  not  met  (i.e.  a  written  statement  is  not 
issued  by  the  authority)  the  applicant  should  regard  the  non-response  as  a  tacit 
refusal of the application (but the applicant can appeal to the relevant authority as a 
result of this outcome).  

In  the  Czech  Republic,  for  buildings  where  the  building  permit  procedure  applies 
(this  can  relate  to  both  a  one  storey  house  and  an  office  block)  the  authorisation 
period  has  a  duration  of  up  to  30  days.  Interestingly,  the  application  for  a  building 
permit can be applied for simultaneously with the zoning permit (known as a location 
permit) after other authorisations have been obtained and there is a combined period 
of 37 days to obtain both of these.  Extensions  are available if the applicant does not 
provide correct submission demands.  

A  different  approach  is  in  operation  in  Denmark  as  there  are  no  designated  periods 
set in law for the approval and issuing of building permits. The period for approval is 
subject  to  the  applicant  providing  the  correct  documents  and  the  time  taken  for  the 
local authority to perform the authorisation procedure. The Danish Energy Agency has 
conducted research that indicates that the average application processing period for a 
house  is  9  weeks  and  an  office  building  is  11  weeks.  A  working  group  has 
recommended  that  the  building  permit  processing  procedure  should  be  made  more 
efficient.149  Tacit  approval  is  not  available  given  that  ultimately  a  response  is  issued 
when the authority deems it appropriate.  

Similarly, in Finland, no binding procedure times are indicated in law. However, after 
an  assessment  of  the  application,  local  authorities  determine  the  extent  of  the 
authorisation  period.  Based  on  the  results  of  interviews,  the  average  application 

149   http://www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/byggeri/byggesagsbehandling/anbefalinger-effektiv-

byggesagsbehandling/Afrapportering%20til%20arbejdsgruppen%20FINAL.pdf. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

processing time in the Helsinki area is 4 to12 weeks for a house and 12 to 20 weeks 
for an office building. There is no system of tacit approval.  

There  are  fixed  periods  linked  to  the  authorisation  process  set  in  the  Urban  Planning 
Code in France. After the application is received, there is a period of two months for 
individual  houses  and  three  months  for  other  projects.  There  is,  however,  an 
authorisation period of six months for buildings open to the public. Therefore, an office 
building  may  fall  into  either  of  these  categories  depending  on  its  use.  Possible 
extensions are available as indicated in the law:  

  An extension of one month is available if the project requires examination 

under another piece of legislation; 

  The authorisation period may be extended by two months if the project 

requires the consultation of a regional commission; 

 

In exceptional circumstances, an extension of one month is possible; 

  Applicants must be informed of extensions during the month that follow the 

submission of the application. 

If an applicant does not receive a response within the maximum procedure time, the 
application  for  a  building  permit  is  approved  (i.e.  tacit  approval  is  granted)  but  this 
does  not  apply  in  all  cases  e.g.  for  proposed  building  work  in  conservation  areas.  In 
this eventuality, the municipality has up to two months to inform the applicant of any 
fees and other contributions. The overall period of time to receive approval of building 
works  including  the  building  permit  procedure  has  been  regarded  as  too  time 
consuming by the French government.150  

The Building Code of Germany (NRW) sets a maximum procedure time for the issuing 
of building permits. Under the light procedure, (e.g. a house) the maximum procedure 
time  of  a  building  permit  is  one  month  after  submission.  The  maximum  time  for  the 
local building authorities to process a regular building permit application is two months 
(e.g.  an  office  block).  If  the  deadlines  are  not  met,  the  permit  is  automatically 
granted.  According  to  the  public  authority  interviewed,  most  applications  are  settled 
before the end of the maximum period.  

With regard to Greece, in relation to the specific issue of requesting a building permit, 
there is a legally designated period of up to two days for the authority to give approval 
(according  to  interviewees  in  practice  this  takes  up  to  30  days).  Tacit  approval  is 
available  but  this  is  hardly  taken-up  by  applicants  given  the  perceived  legal 
uncertainties associated with it.  

In  Italy  (Milan),  as  set  out  in  DPR  380/2001,  cities  with  over  100,000  inhabitants 
have a 120 day period to issue a ‘proposal of decision’ in response to a building permit 
application.  Up  to  15  days  after  this  point,  authorities  must  issue  a  ‘final  decision’. 
Local authorities (with over 100,000 inhabitants) can suspend the procedure up to 30 
days  to  request  further  documentation.  If  the  authority  does  not  issue  a  response  in 
the timeframe,  Law Decree no. 70 2011 indicates a procedure of  ‘consent by silence’ 
and  the  service  provider  is  able  to  commence  work.  However,  this  does  not  apply  in 
circumstances  where 
the  construction  site  (e.g. 
environmental, cultural etc.).  

there  are  restrictions  on 

In the Netherlands, there are two periods set in law for the authorisation of building 
permit applications: 

 

In terms of simple buildings (e.g. residential properties that are part of the 
zoning plan), the procedure lasts a maximum of eight weeks. Within this 
period, a municipal authority can extend the deadline once up to six weeks; 

150   http://www.atlantico.fr/pepites/permis-construire-francois-hollande-veut-reduire-delais-attribution-

949108.html. 

November 2015 I 113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Complex applications such as those that are not part of the zoning plan or with 
a high risk to the environment (e.g. office blocks) can last up to 6 months. 
Within the first eight weeks, the assigned authority can decide to extend the 
term once up to six weeks. 

In  terms  of  applications  that  are  in  the  scope  of  the  zoning  plan, if  the  deadlines  for 
both  type  of  reference  works  are  not  met  by  the  authority,  the  permit  is  granted 
automatically (i.e. tacit approval applies). A key factor to consider is that the planning 
system  and  building  regulations  are  integrated  under  the  Environmental  Law  and 
therefore  the  extended  period  of  6  months  encompasses  extensive  planning 
deliberations normally associated with complex projects.  

According  to  the  Construction  Act,  in  Poland,  local  authorities  must  issue  a  decision 
concerning an application for a building permit within 65 days. The authority has the 
right  to  suspend  the  application  period  if  further  explanations  are  required  from  the 
applicant. Tacit approval is not available.  

In  Portugal,  there  are  two  designated  authorisation  periods  that  apply  to  both 
reference works.  

Under the building notice procedure, a decision on a complete application is issued in 
8  days.  After  fees  have  been  paid,  the  applicant  may  start  work.  In  terms  of  the 
regular procedure, if the applicant submits the technical design and project documents 
jointly, the period given is 75 days. After fees have been paid, the authority has up to 
30  days  to  issue  the  building  permit.  After  a  period  of  8  days,  extension  of  up  to  15 
days  can  be  granted  as  a  result  of  missing  documents  from  the  application.  Tacit 
approval  is  not  available  but  the  applicant  has  the  right  to  take  legal  action  if  the 
municipal authority does not issue a response in the designated timeframe.  

In  Slovenia,  a  building  permit  for  a  house  must  be  issued  within  one  month  after  a 
correct application is submitted. A building permit for complex buildings such as office 
blocks must be issued within two months. Tacit approval does not apply in both cases. 
The  applicant  has  the  right  to  appeal  if  the  authority  does  not  provide  a  response  in 
the designated timeframe but this rarely occurs (and if it does the applicant normally 
chooses  to  request  the  authority  to  issue  a  speedy  decision).  Extensions  to  the 
authorisation period cannot be made.  

In  Spain  (Madrid),  there  is  a  legally  designated  period  (Law  9/2001  Madrid)  for  the 
authorisation of a building permit of up to 12 weeks for houses and 8 weeks for office 
buildings.  The  local  authority  confirmed  that  a  period  of  up  to  8  weeks  operates  in 
practice in both instances.  There are circumstances where tacit approval applies as a 
result  of  administrative  silence.  However,  tacit  refusal  should  also  be  assumed  as  a 
result  of  administrative  silence  in  cases  of  construction  works  for  the  public  domain, 
where  environmental  controls  apply,  if  earthworks  need  to  be  undertaken,  if  the 
project  relates  to  new  plant  facilities,  if  tree  are  required  to  be  felled  and  where  the 
application is contrary to the urban planning strategy.  

In the  UK  (England), local authorities have a five  week period for plan approval that 
can be extended to eight weeks upon notification in writing to the applicant. The local 
authority  must  approve  the  plans  unless  defective  or  contravenes  the  building 
regulations  (or  plans  can  be  passed  subject  to  conditions).  Plans  submitted  do  not 
receive  tacit  approval  if  this  deadline  is  not  kept  by  the  authority.  In  relation  to  the 
notifications made by Approved Inspectors to local authorities, the period within which 
a  local  authority  may  approve  or  rejection  an  Initial  Notice  is  five  days.  However, 
Approved  Inspectors  can  manage  the  plan  approval  process  in  a  three  week  period 
according  to  interviewees.  Under  the  building  notice  procedure  (which  applies  to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

houses),  construction  work  can  commence  immediately  after  the  applicant  has  given 
notice to the authority (unless the authority issues an objection).  

4.7  Liability and insurance 

Country / regional overview 
The  study  sought  to  clarify  the  situation 
countries/regions in relation to whether:  

in  the 

fourteen  selected  study 

  Service provider liability for construction works is established in legal terms;  

  Corresponding insurance products are mandatory in order to perform 

construction activities (apart from general insurance products applicable to all 
industries). 

Article  10  (3)  makes  it  clear  that  conditions  for  granting  authorisation  for  a  new 
establishment  should  not  duplicate  requirements  that  have  already  been  imposed  in 
another  Member  State  such  as  insurance  requirements.  There  is  therefore  a  need  to 
ensure  that  mutual  recognition  principles  and  procedures  exist  as  part  of  relevant 
authorisation  schemes  to  remove  any  obstacles  to  the  use  of  existing  insurance 
products  in  a  cross-border  context.  The  fourteen  study  countries  are  subject  to  this 
line  of  analysis  examining  whether  suitable  mechanisms  are  established  to  support 
mutual  recognition.  This  can  be  found  in  the  sections  containing  the  corresponding 
indicator analysis and legal evaluation under Article 10 (3).  

As  pointed  out  by  stakeholders  interviewed,  the  table  below  provides  an  overview  of 
the  type  insurance  products  that  are  mandatory  during  the  performance  of 
construction works.151  

151   Some  of  the  data  has  been  collected  from:  ELIOS  (2010)  Liability  and  insurance  regimes  in  the 

construction sector: national schemes and guidelines to stimulate innovation and sustainability.  

November 2015 I 115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 4.14 Mandatory insurance requirements for developers and contractor 
MS  

Reference 
works  

Mandatory 
insurance of 
the 
construction 
works  

Type of mandatory 
insurance  
  Work Performance  
  Tort Liability  
  Latent defects  

Entity 
insured  

Duration of the 
insurance (if 
mandatory) or 
liability if set in 
law  

Type of liability  
  Work 

Performance  
  Tort Liability  
  Latent 

defects 

Legal liability 
for 
construction 
work 
imposed on 
developers 
and 
contractors  
Yes 

BG 

CZ 

10-storey office 
and  
1-storey house 

10-storey office 
and  
1-storey house 

DK  

DE 
(NRW) 

10-storey office 
1-storey house 
10-storey office 
and  
1-storey house 

EL 

ES  

FI 

10-storey office 
and  
1-storey house 
10-storey office 
and 1-storey 
house 
10-storey office 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Work performance 
Latent defects  

Yes  

Work performance  

Work performance 
Latent defects 

Yes for both 
types of 
liability 

Not mandatory 

Key service 
providers e.g. 
designer, 
contractors  
N/A  

Latent defects 
Latent defects 
Work Performance  
Latent defects  

N/A 
Yes 
Yes 

Not mandatory 
Building defects 
Work performance  
Latent defects  

N/A 
Developer  
Contractors  
Developers  

Work performance  
Latent defects  

No 

Not mandatory 

N/A  

10 years  

3 years (work 
performance) 

3 years (building 
defects)  
N/A  
10 years 
Period of 
construction 
works (work 
performance)  

5 years (building 
defects) 
10 years  

Work performance  
Latent defects 

Yes 

Work performance  
Latent defects 

Contractors  
Developers 

10 years  

N/A  

N/A  

No  

Not mandatory 

N/A  

N/A  

1-storey house 

Yes 

FR 

10-storey office 

Yes 

Work performance  
Latent defects 
Work performance   Yes 

Yes 

Work performance  
Latent defects 
Work performance  

Developer / 
contractor  
All parties 

10 years  

10 years  

November 2015 I 116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  

Reference 
works  

Legal liability 
for 
construction 
work 
imposed on 
developers 
and 
contractors  

and 1-storey 
house 

IT 

10-storey office 
and 1-storey 
house 

Yes 

NL 

10-storey office  

Yes 

PL152 

PT 

SI 

1-storey house 

Yes  

10-storey office 
and 1-storey 
house 

10-storey office 
and 1-storey 
house 

10-storey office 
and  
1-storey house 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Type of liability  
  Work 

Performance  
  Tort Liability  
  Latent 

Mandatory 
insurance of 
the 
construction 
works  

Type of mandatory 
insurance  
  Work Performance  
  Tort Liability  
  Latent defects  

Entity 
insured  

Duration of the 
insurance (if 
mandatory) or 
liability if set in 
law  

defects 

Latent defects 
Tort Liability  

Latent defects 
Tort Liability 

Work performance  
Latent defects 

Yes  

Work performance  
Latent defects 

involved in 
the 
construction 
works  
Professionals 
/ contractors  

10 years  

Work performance  
Latent defects 
Work performance  
Latent defects 
Work performance  
Latent defects 

No  

Yes  

Yes 

No  

N/A  

Latent defects 

Developer  

10 years  

Work performance  

Work performance  
Tort liability  
Latent defects 

Yes  

Work performance  
Tort liability  

Work performance  
Latent defects 
Tort liability  

Yes 

Work performance  

Key 
professionals 
and 
contractors  
Key 
professionals 
and 
contractors 
Main 
construction 
workers  

5 years  

5 years  

10 years  

152   Data was provided by a Polish insurance firm on the cost of latent defects insurance:  

An average cost of insuring the risks of construction for a building (up to 4 - 5 floors), assuming a standardized risk insurance during the warranty period of no longer 
than 36 months may be in the range of 0.9 - 1.3 parts per thousand of the contract value / sum insured. Buildings over 4 - 5 floors will be characterized by a different 
range of risks (e.g. fire hazard), so the price is higher. (1.6 - 2.0 parts per thousand). Price & insurance conditions may also vary depending on the depth of the building 
(the greater the number of floors underground the greater the risks). Ultimately, the final price is set individually and may differ from these parameters after taking into 
account specific data for risk assessment, including the experience of contractors, fire and flood risks, and assessment of geotechnical conditions. The price of insurance 
will also have an impact on the selected insurance coverage. 

November 2015 I 117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
MS  

Reference 
works  

UK - 
England 

10-storey office 
and 1-storey 
house 

Legal liability 
for 
construction 
work 
imposed on 
developers 
and 
contractors  
Yes  

Type of liability  
  Work 

Performance  
  Tort Liability  
  Latent 

Mandatory 
insurance of 
the 
construction 
works  

Type of mandatory 
insurance  
  Work Performance  
  Tort Liability  
  Latent defects  

defects 

Entity 
insured  

Work performance  
Latent defects 

No 

N/A (de facto mandatory for 
dwellings)  

N/A 

Duration of the 
insurance (if 
mandatory) or 
liability if set in 
law  

10 years (de 
facto mandatory 
for dwellings)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

The  Bulgarian  Spatial  Planning  Act  (Art.  171)  requires  service  providers  operating 
under  the  investor  (designers,  contractors,  supervisors  etc.)  to  hold  professional 
liability insurance. This is to protect against any damages caused to other participants 
as  a  result  of  negligence.  The  duration  of  the  insurance  is  10  years.  Under  the  Civil 
Code,  there  is  also  contractual  liability  requirements  for  latent  defects  (up  to  ten 
years) although no mandatory insurance requirements are imposed.  

In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  Civil  Code  (Art.  106)  imposes  liability  requirements  on 
construction  service  providers  and  injured  parties  can  seek  compensation  two  years 
from when the damages were identified but not more than three years from the actual 
event.  In  terms  of  intentional  damages,  there  is  a  liability  period  of  up  to  10  years. 
Art. 646 of the Civil Code defines a statutory period of building defects warranty of 3 
years  (with  a  period  or  18  months  relating  to  repair  work).  However,  there  are  no 
mandatory insurance requirements imposed on service providers.  

In Denmark, a developer of new buildings mainly to be used for residential purposes 
is  required  to insure  the  buildings  against  building  defects.  The  period  of  coverage  is 
10 years as indicated in the Danish Limitations Act. However, there are certain types 
of  buildings  that  are  excluded  from  compulsory  insurance  (e.g.  buildings  that  fall 
under the legislation for city development or where a building is not a dwelling).  

Normally,  contractual  liabilities  for  construction  works  are  established  as  part  of 
commercial  contracts  in  Finland.  However,  under  the  Housing  Transaction  Act 
843/1994,  there  are  liabilities  arrangements  in  place  for  dwellings  and  mandatory 
insurance is required. This relates to both contractual liability and latent defects (up to 
10 years).  

In  France,  under  the  Spinetta  law  (1978),  all  parties  involved  in  construction  works 
(contractors, architects, engineers, Bureaux de contrôle) are liable in all areas except 
penal  responsibilities.  Mandatory  insurance  is  imposed  and  it  is  the  responsibility  of 
the  architect  to  ensure  that  all  liable  parties  are  insured  during  the  construction 
process covering the following areas:  

  Responsibility of perfect achievement: introduced by the 1978 law and running 
for a period of one year starting from handover of the works to the client; 

  Biennial responsibility for satisfactory functioning: introduced by the law of 

1967 to cover minor works and lasting for a period of two years starting from 
handover of the works to the client; 

  Decennial responsibility: as set out in articles 1792 and 2270 of the Napoleonic 

Code and lasting for a period of 10 years starting from the handover of works 
to the client; 

  Third party responsibility under common law: starting from the moment the 
third party is damaged and (since 1985) lasting for a period of 10 years. 

With regard to Germany (NRW), contractors must carry work performance insurance 
and such professionals are liable for any damages that occur during the performance 
of the construction works. Under the Civil Code, there is a mandatory requirement for 
latent defects insurance that applies to developers with a duration of  5 years and up 
to 10 years for intentional damages.  

There  are  no  mandatory  insurance  products  that  are  imposed  on  construction 
professionals  in  Greece.  However,  there  are  contractual  liabilities  and  latent  defect 
rules  that  apply  to  construction  professionals  (engineers  and  contractors)  with 
supervisory functions (for a period of up to 10 years as defined in the Civil Code).  

November 2015 I 119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art.1662  of  the  Civil  Code  in  Italy  dictates  that  building  contractors  are  obliged  to 
perform  construction  works  to  professional  standards  with  building  defects  being 
considered  as  non-compliant  with  this  legal  obligation  (there  is  a  liability  period  2 
years  for  defects  and  up  to  10  years  for  stability  defects).  Under  Law  210/2004,  a 
decennial  insurance  obligation  has  been  extended  to  the  private  sector.  In  addition, 
there  is  a  system  of  mandatory  third  party  liability  insurance  for  principal  and  main 
contractors.  

In the Netherlands, under the Housing Act there are liabilities imposed on the person 
constructing  or  demolishing  a  building  including  preventing  the  building  or  property, 
its use, or its construction or demolition from causing or continuing a situation which 
endangers  public  safety  or  public  health.  However,  there  are  no  mandatory 
requirements  for  insurance  of  construction  sites.  There  are  latent  defect  liability 
requirements under the Civil Code from a period of two to a maximum of 20 years. A 
majority  of  local  authorities  have  made  housing  warranties  mandatory  (these  have  a 
duration  of  6  years  under  the  general  warranty  and  10  years  in  terms  of  serious 
structural defects). 

In Poland architects, site managers and the investor’s supervision representative are 
required  to  be  members  of  professional  bodies  in  order  to  have  professional  liability 
coverage.  Persons  who  carry  out  independent  technical  functions  bear  professional 
liability (Building Law Art 95). In terms of insurance requirements, designers and site 
managers  must  possess  liability  insurance.  Contractors  must  carry  two  types  of 
insurance  products  (civil  liability  and  insurance  of  material  damage/loss).  Under  the 
Civil Code, there are liability arrangements in place in relation to latent defects (with a 
5  year  duration).  However,  there  are  no  mandatory  insurance  requirements  in  this 
regard.  

In Portugal, a liability declaration must be submitted as part of the application for a 
building  permit.  Portuguese  law  (Law  no.  31/2009  Art  24  and  29.2)  dictates  that 
designers,  building  surveyors  and  technical  directors  must  carry  liability  insurance. 
Contractors must have an insurance policy covering worker accidents. Contractors are 
liable  to  repair  latent  defects  within  5  years  after  the  building  is  completed  (Decree 
Law 67/75). However, there are no mandatory insurance requirements in this area.  

In Slovenia, the investor, project designer, construction site manager, supervisor and 
auditor  are  liable  for  damages  which  are  caused  to  third  persons  and  mandatory 
liability  insurance  is  required  (Construction  Act,  Article  32).  Liability  for  damages  is 
provided also in the general law on torts for the investor and project designer (Code of 
Obligations,  Article  662).  The  Civil  Code  also  indicates  liability  in  terms  of  latent 
defects for up to 10 years. However, there are no mandatory insurance requirements 
in relation to the previous two items.  

The  Spanish  (Madrid)  Building  Act  (38/1999)  holds  participants  in  the  construction 
process  liable  for  their  work  in  their  respective  fields.  The  duration  of  the  liability 
relates  to  1  year  for  deficiencies,  3  years  for  defects  and  10  years  with  regard  to 
structural  damages.  There  is  a  compulsory  system  of  mandatory  insurance  for 
dwellings  and  office  blocks  and  as  part  of  the  application  for  a  use  permit,  the 
developer  /  contractor  has  to  submit  a  liability  insurance  contract  (Madrid  Ordnance 
Town  Planning  License,  2004).  In  cases  where  office  buildings  have  been  granted 
building  permission  with  the  use  of  a  Declaration  of  Responsibility,  the  developer  / 
contractor  assumes  the  risk  but  this  is  complemented  by  a  liability  insurance  policy 
held by the institute supporting the use of the Declaration.  

In the UK (England), there are no legal requirements for persons conducting building 
work to procure specified insurance products. However, under the Building Regulations 
(2010)  persons  are  liable  to  ensure  their  building  work  meets  the  regulatory 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

requirements  during  the  construction  phase.  In  addition,  the  Defective  Premises  Act 
1972  indicates  liability  relating  to  dwellings  for  a  period  up  to  6  years  after  the 
completion  of  works.  In  the  Limitations  Act  (1980),  there  are  legal  principles 
established  supporting  the  claims  process  for  contracts  under  seal  with  a  duration  of 
up  to  12  years.  However,  there  are  voluntary  warranty  and  insurance  schemes  in 
place relating to dwellings and these are used widely by home builders and are often 
demanded by mortgage lenders (e.g. NHBC products have a duration of 10 years).  

November 2015 I 121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  Evaluation of building permit legislation 

This  chapter  examines  the  legal  framework  for  building  permit  legislation  in  the  14 
selected  Member  States  against  the  relevant  Articles  of  the  Services  Directive. 
Selected  features  of  the  building  permit  legal  framework  are  examined  in  terms  of 
their overall restrictiveness on the basis of an indicator analysis and legal evaluation. 
Finally, an aggregate indicator analysis is undertaken assessing the overall degree of 
restrictiveness against the Services Directive for each of the selected Member States.  

5.1  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 5 
The  following  section  provides  an  indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  building 
permit legislation under Article 5 of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 5  

  Article 5 (simplification of procedures) Member States shall examine the 

procedures and formalities applicable to access a service activity and to the 
exercise thereof. Where procedures and formalities examined under this 
paragraph are not sufficiently simple, Member States shall simplify them; 

  Article 5 (simplification of procedures): Where Member States require a 

provider or recipient to supply a certificate, attestation or any other document 
proving that a requirement has been satisfied, they shall accept any document 
from another Member State which serves an equivalent purpose or from which 
it is clear that the requirement in question has been satisfied. They may not 
require a document from another Member State to be produced in its original 
form, or as a certified copy or as a certified translation, save in the cases 
provided for in other Community instruments or where such a requirement is 
justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, including public 
order and security. 

Interpretation of the article above in the context of building permit legislation  

  Procedures and categorisation of construction work. Member States 

should establish procedures that offer routes to regulatory compliance that are 
sufficiently simple in terms of their processes and with sufficient variety to 
meet the needs of different categories of service providers; 

  Submission demands. Member States should offer relevant legislation and 
websites in EN so that the procedures and submission demands can be easily 
understood. An appropriate number of categories of submission demands 
should be requested ideally limiting the request to essential documents only. 
Alternative routes to regulatory compliance could be made available that offer 
a reduced number of submission demands compared to the regular procedure 
or in relation to the complexity of the construction work. Moreover, the 
requirements should permit the submission of simple copies and recognition of 
equivalent and authenticated documents; 

  Plan approval, site inspections and completion. The procedures 

supporting the building control process should be sufficiently simple to enable 
efficient engagement with the authorities and realisation of the use of the 
building. A key element is the avoidance of duplication of authorisation 
processes performed by multiple authorities under separate procedures in the 
context of plan approval, site inspections and completion.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Indicator  analysis  Article  5  -Procedures  and  categorisation  of  construction 
works  
Two  indicators  have  been  developed  under  Article  5  examining  procedural  efficiency. 
The  first  examines  whether  optional  procedures  are  available  to  service  providers  in 
relation to the reference works outside of the regular procedure. The second examines 
what minor work is exempt from building control.  

Table 5.1 Article 5 Indicators – Procedures and categorisation of construction works 

Article 5 Simplification of procedures 

BG  CZ  DE  DK  EL  ES  FI  FR  IT  NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 
0 

6 

0 

6 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Indicator 
Are there optional 
procedures available for 
the categories of 
buildings included in 
the study (one storey 
house, ten storey office 
block) such as regular 
procedures alongside 
building notices (0 Y/ N 
6) 
Is minor work exempt 
from building permit 
requirements (Y0/ 
Notification 2 / 
simplified procedure 4 
N 6) 

A number of countries have made available optional procedures other than the regular 
procedure  relating  to  the  reference  works.  This  includes  BG,  DE,  ES,  SI  and  the  UK 
(type  approval)  regarding  the light  procedure,  CZ,  (in  some  case  DE)  ES,  IT  PT,  and 
the  UK  regarding  the  building  notice  procedure,  and  CZ,  EL,  ES,  IT,  PT  and  SI 
strengthen the efficiency of the approach on the basis of the self-certification of plans. 
The remaining countries rely heavily on the regular procedure in all instances (DK, FI, 
FR, NL and PL).  

In  the  majority  of  the  study  counties,  minor  work  is  exempt  from  building  control. 
However,  in  Greece,  notification  is  required  48  hours  before  commencing  work.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  are  likely  to  be  vast  differences  in  terms  of  the 
scope of minor works that are exempt of building permit between the Member States.  

Legal evaluation Article 5 - Procedures and categorisation of works  
In relation to the two reference works, a key observation is that some countries have 
made available alternative procedures that offer certain categories of service providers 
a  less  restrictive  authorisation  process  than  the  regular  procedure.  These  procedures 
provide advantages to various extents. The light procedure removes the need for local 
authorities to approve plans as verification is performed by a third party (BG, DE, ES, 
SI). Self-certification provides an efficient approach to obtaining compliance given that 
official approval of the plans is not required (CZ, EL, ES, IT PT and SI).  

A Czech architect commented that the self-certification of plans used alongside the 
building notice procedure that applies to dwellings, is much more efficient and less 
complicated to engage with than the more extensive approval process that applies 
to larger works requiring verification of designs.  

A German architect noted that the light procedure available for houses only reduces 
the  restrictiveness  of  the  building  permit  procedure  slightly.  This  is  because 
verification  of  the  plans  is  still  required  by  a  third  party  and  therefore  architects 
need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements to a high standard.  

November 2015 I 123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While the building notice procedure operates on a slightly different basis between the 
study  countries,  compared  to  the  regular  procedure,  the  approach  offers  a  highly 
efficient  approval  method  (CZ,  PT)  or  enables  service  providers  to  commence  work 
immediately (ES, IT UK).  

A  Portuguese  association  commented  that  building  notice  procedure  in  Portugal  is 
much easier to deal with than the Portuguese regular procedure. While the amount 
of  documents  remain  relatively  complicated  to  produce,  after  submission,  the 
project can commence in a much shorter timeframe (i.e. about 8 days) given. The 
regular procedure takes roughly 15 weeks to complete.  

Overall,  alternative  routes  are  likely  to  offer  time  and  potentially  cost  savings  when 
they are seen as preferable by some categories of service providers, for example if a 
designer is not required to prepare technical plans.  

A Danish association mentioned that an alternative light procedure is missing from 
the  Danish  building  permit  system.  The  same  procedure  needs  to  be  followed  for 
every  type  of  building  permit  which  was  described  as  lengthy.  As  a  result,  the 
system was labelled as restrictive.  

A  Polish  construction  association  welcomed  the  fact  that  the  scope  of  the  Polish 
building  notice  procedure  will  be  extended  to  works  of  a  bigger  scale  including 
individual  family  houses,  enabling  immediate  access  to  service  provision  by 
removing the need to go through the regular procedure.  

However, where alternative routes are available, service providers may be exposed to 
greater risks if they do not have the necessary experience to comply with the technical 
requirements on-site: for example, under the building notice procedure in ES, IT and 
UK technical plans do not receive official approval.  

An  architect  (UK)  mentioned  that  England’s  building  notice  procedure  benefits 
construction service providers that do not have internal design capabilities and have 
the  capacity  to  successfully  manage  construction  works  without  the  approval  of 
technical  plans.  This  helps  to  avoid  the  costs  associated  with  the  services  of  an 
architect. However, under this procedure, it was confirmed that local authorities are 
more heavily involved in the site inspection process, with less room for manoeuvre 
for the service provider with the regard to the implementation of design solutions.  

A  second  architect  from  the  UK  commented  that  the  building  notice  procedure  is 
only likely to be beneficial for small contractors that wish to cut out the costs of an 
architect.  It  allows  contractors  to  take  control  of  the  building  control  process  by 
allowing them to start immediately and without the need for approval. However, it 
should  be  recognised  that  the  procedure  is  only  suitable  for  small  projects  and 
domestic work.  

In  the  majority  of  cases,  minor  work  is  exempted  from  building  notice  procedures. 
However,  there  appears  to  be  greater  emphasis  on  notifications in  Greece  for  works 
that  could  be  considered  as  falling  into  this  category.  It  is  suggested  that  this 
procedure  is  removed  for  works  that  are  considered  as  minor.  Moreover,  Member 
States may wish to consider extending the scope of the concept of minor work to new 
areas to promote the efficient access to service provision.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

A  UK  association  representing  construction  SMEs  mentioned  that  it  is  essential  for 
the domestic works market to be exempt from building control or notice procedures 
to enable relatively low value projects to commence efficiently.  

In terms of a general finding from the interviews, where alternative procedures are 
available,  within  certain  contexts  they  can  benefit  certain  categories  of  service 
providers and are to varying extents more efficient than the regular procedure.  

Indicator analysis Article 5 -Submission demands  
A  number  of  indicators  have  been  established  under  Article  5  (simplification  of 
procedures)  to  examine  whether  the  process  of 
identifying  the  appropriate 
requirements  and  preparing  submission  demands  are  sufficiently  simple.  The 
assessment considers whether:  

  Procedures are sufficiently simple for example in terms of the number of 

authorities involved in the process and the number of categories of documents 
requested;  

  Simple copies (e.g. photocopies of original documents) are requested;  

  EN language versions of documents are accepted;  

  Certified or authenticated copies are requested (e.g. official documents issued 

by competent authorities in other Member States or documents that have been 
verified as authentic by a legal authority in other Member States);  

  Equivalent documents are requested (e.g. documents that contain equivalent 

content that demonstrate the relevant requirements have been met).  

Table 5.2 Article 5 Indicators – submission demands  

Article 5 Simplification of procedures 
F
I 

B
G 

D
K 

E
S 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
L 

Indicator 

F
R 

I
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

Is the legislation and website available in 
EN including the listing of standards? (Y0 
partially 3/N6) -5% 

6  3  6  3  6  6  3  6  6  3  6  6  6  0 

to 

the 

apply 

How  many  categories  of  documents  / 
statements 
regular 
procedure?  (for  example:  1  –  1  points; 
2:  2 points;  3:  3 points;  4-4  points  ;  5-
5- points; 6 or more than 6: 6 points); - 
10% 
Are  simple  copies  accepted?  (0  Y/  some 
docs or after further formalities 3 N 6) – 
5% 
Is EN accepted? (0 Y/ some docs 3 N 6) 
– 5% 
Where  a  certificate,  attestation  or  other 
document  proving  that  a  requirement  to 
to 
obtain 
recognise professional qualifications) has 
been 
do 
is 
authorities  accept  equivalent  documents 
in  another  Member  State  (Y  0/  some 
docs  or  with  other  supporting  docs  3  N 
6); -10%  
Are certified or authenticated documents 
(including  translations)  issued  in  other 
MS  accepted  to  obtain  the  building 
permit  (not  to  recognise  professional 
qualifications)?  (Y  0/,  only  after  further 

the  building  permit  (not 

demanded, 

satisfied 

6  4  5  4  6  6  6  6  6  3  6 

5 

4  5 

3  0  6  0  6  6  0  0  6  0  6  3  0  0 

6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

3  0 

N
/
A 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

0 

N
/
A 

N
/
A 

6  6  6  6  6  6  0  6  6  6  6  6  6  0 

November 2015 I 125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 5 Simplification of procedures 
F
I 

B
G 

D
K 

E
S 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
L 

Indicator 

F
R 

I
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
I 

U
K 

formalities are observed or some docs 3, 
N 6); -5% 
Are  there  procedural  options  to  the 
applicant  to  comply  with  a  regular 
procedure for  the categories of buildings 
included in the study  (one storey house, 
ten  storey  office  block)  that  reduce  the 
complexity  of  the  submission  demands? 
(0 Y/ N 6) – 5% 
Is  the  activity  of  applying  for  a  building 
regulated 
permit 
profession(s)  (N  –  0  points,  Y,  for  more 
than one profession  –  3 points ; for  one 
profession – 6 points) -15% 

reserved 

to 

a 

6  0  6  0  0  0  6  6  6  6  6  6  0  0 

3  3  3  3  3  3  0  3  3  3  0  3  3  0 

Regarding the first indicator, many Member States have yet to provide their legislation 
including the listing of standards and relevant local authority webpages in EN (BG, DE, 
EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  PL,  PT,  SI)  and  have  been  given  a  score  of  6.  Countries  that  have 
been allocated a score of three appear to have translated the relevant legislation and 
list of standards (CZ) or parts of the legislation (DK, FI and NL) to EN.  

Where EN is not a mother tongue language, submission demands cannot be submitted 
in EN (BG, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR,  IT, NL, PL, PT, SI). A score of 6 has been 
awarded.  

In  terms  of  the  number  of  categories  of  documents  requested,  there  does  appear  to 
be some variation between the study countries. For example,  BG, EL, ES, FI, IT and 
PL  require  6  or  more  categories  of  documents.  This  can  be  contrasted  with  the 
Netherlands that requires documents corresponding to three categories.  

Where certified documents are required, such as technical plans, (and although simple 
copies of these documents are accepted at the time of submission in some countries, 
as highlighted below) it seems that documents certified in another Member State are 
not  accepted.  The  main  reason  is  that  where  certified  designs  are  required,  the 
relevant  designer  must  be  registered  with  a  national  body.  As  a  result,  there  are 
obstacles to submit certified documents cross-border. Therefore, a score of 6 has been 
given  where  this  is  the  case  (BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  PL,  PT,  SI). 
Furthermore,  translations  are  sometimes  required  to  be  certified  by  professionals 
registered/sworn in in the Member State in question (BG/ES).  

The  assessment  of  the  submission  demands  suggests  that  certificates  demonstrating 
technical/professional  capacity  (this  does  not  include  an  assessment  of  professional 
qualifications)  are  not  often  requested  as  part  of  building  permit  applications.  As  a 
result, documents that could be regarded as equivalent in this regard are not normally 
required. The submission demands requested are normally specific to the construction 
project  requiring  bespoke  information  and  completion  of  relevant  forms.  However,  in 
the case of Germany, a map is required from the Land Registry. While it is not certain 
if an equivalent document could be obtained from an authority outside of Germany, a 
score  of  3  has  been  given  in  this  case.153  In  Demark,  Portugal  and  Spain,  insurance 
documents  are  required  as  part  of  the  submission  demands  for  a  building  permit. 
While no mutual recognition principles or procedures are established in building permit 
regulation,  the  national  laws  that  transpose  Services  Directive  in  these  countries 

153   A  Dutch  firm  mentioned  that  preparation  of  applications  for  a  building  permit  are  project  specific  and 

that it is difficult to see how this could be changed.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

establishes  the  principle  that  equivalent  insurance  products  are  recognised,  which 
implies  that  supporting  documents  (equivalent  to  those  specifically  requested  under 
national  law)  are  accepted  as  issued  under  home  Member  State  rules.  Therefore,  a 
score of 0 has been given.  

Simple  copies  of  documents  are  accepted  in  the  study  countries  generally  speaking 
(BG, CZ, DK, FI, FR, NL, SI, UK) and a score of 0 has been allocated. However, this 
is  not  the  case  in  Greece,  Poland  and  Spain  (as  the  technical  plans  need  to  be  in 
original  format).  In  Italy  (Milan)  signed  copies  of  the  forms  downloaded  from  the 
submission website are demanded. A score of  6 applies to these countries.  Portugal 
has been given a score of 3 in relation to simple copies as originals may be requested 
by the authority if there are doubts. In Bulgaria, translations should be submitted in 
certified  and  original  format  and  a  score  of  3  has  been  given.  Germany  (NRW)  has 
been given a score of 6 as although it seems that the legislation does not  restrict the 
submission  of  simple  copies,  two  interviewees  (one  German  and  one  Dutch) 
complained that original versions are demanded by authorities.  

In  many  cases,  the  categories  of  submission  demands  required  for  both  reference 
works are very similar (BG,  DE, FI,  FR,  IT, PL, PT).  However,  other countries have 
introduced  measures  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  submissions  for  certain  types  of 
works either as result enabling local authorities to have discretion over the submission 
demands required (DK), or to permit the self certification of plans (CZ, EL, SI) or to 
make available building notice procedures that are associated with a lower number of 
categories of documents than the regular procedure (ES, UK).  

A number of countries have reserved the activities of plan preparation and certification 
to  designers  registered  in  the  home  Member  State.  However,  it  seems  that  in  most 
cases more than one type of registered professional can provide these services, and as 
a result, a score of 3 has been allocated to these countries (BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, IT, 
PL,  PT,  SI).  In  France,  such  services  are  reserved  specifically  to  architects  but  only 
with regard to buildings over 170m2 and therefore a score of 3 has been given. A rule 
with a similar logic applying to engineers is apparent in Denmark but this only relates 
to larger buildings when deemed necessary and a score of 3 has been given. 

In  the  case  of  the  FI,  NL,  and  UK,  there  are  no  reserved  activities  linked  to 
professional  qualifications  regarding  the  development  of  plans  and  a  score  of  0 
applies.  

Legal evaluation Article 5 -Submission demands  
Overall,  there  appear  to  be  limited  efforts  made  to  ensure  that  the  relevant 
information is available in EN with regard to the applicable standards, the application 
procedures,  submission  demands  required  and  relevant  webpages.  The  internal 
market  for  construction  services  would  benefit  if  construction  service  providers  have 
efficient access to information on the rules and procedures that they need to follow.  

Two  European  construction  associations  mentioned  that  a  key  obstacle  to  the 
provision  of  cross-border  services  relates  to  understanding  where  the  main 
differences are in the technical standards for building works. It was suggested that 
providing  indication  of  which  standards  apply  (in  EN)  would  provide  some  support 
to  address  this  issue,  and  that  further  EU  assessments  of  the  scale  and  nature  of 
the differences between the relevant country standards would be helpful. 

A German contractor suggested that it is normally the duty of the client to manage 
the  building  permit  process  cross-border  and  nationally.  However,  it  was  clarified 
that the lack of available standards in EN is a costly issue as foreign languages are 
difficult  to  deal  with.  The  example  was  given  of  the  road  building  sector  where 
there  is  variation  in  technical  standards  between  countries  and  it  was  suggested 

November 2015 I 127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
that the lack of understanding of these requirements provide an immediate barrier 
to service providers (especially SMEs).  

Similar, a Czech contractor mentioned  that clients or developers normally manage 
the  building  permit  application  process  and  could  not  comment  on  specific  issues 
related  to this.  However,  it  was  considered  necessary  to operate  alongside  a local 
partner given that it is riskier to undertake business abroad without understanding 
the full range of legal issues that may emerge. While providing legislation in EN will 
not entirely solve this problem, it was suggested that it would provide assistance as 
part of initial assessments of market entry.  

The  number  of  categories  of  submission  demands  required  under  the  regular 
procedure  is  a  key  issue  when  considering  the  extent  of  the  administrative  burden 
imposed  on  service  providers.  Again,  there  appears  to  be  limited  effort  made  to 
reduce the categories to essential documents only. The Netherlands is the strongest 
performer in this regard with only three categories of documents required.  

Furthermore,  by  contrasting  HAS  and  building  permit  document  requirements,  there 
appears  to  be  duplication  while  controlling  for  insurance  products  in  Portugal  and 
health and safety requirements in Spain.  

With  regard  to  participating  in  building  control  procedures,  a  Polish  association 
commented that the ‘preparation of documents is the most burdensome part of the 
whole process’. It was considered that efforts could be made to reduce the burden 
imposed by the submission demands.  

A Portuguese association mentioned that the costs for architects and engineers for 
preparing  the  administrative  documents  in  Portugal  are  very  high  since  there  is  a 
very long list of documents to be completed.  

Establishing procedures that help to reduce the complexity of the submission demands 
relating  to  certain  categories  of  works  is  likely  to  bring  benefits  to  some  service 
providers. The building notice procedure in Spain and the UK are good examples along 
with the discretionary approach adopted in Denmark. Self certification of plans is also 
likely  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  documents  required  (CZ,  EL,  ES,  IT  PT  and  SI). 
Administrative  efficiency  gains  could  be  made  in  the  remaining  study  countries  if 
similar practice were adopted.  

As  part  of  the  normal  practice  of  modern  authorisation  processes,  the  submission  of 
simple copies seems to be a generally accepted practice, even if a document needs to 
be  specifically  issued  in  certified  or  authenticated  form  for  the  submission  at  hand, 
such  as  technical  plans  (CZ,  DK,  FI,  FR,  NL,  PT,  SI,  UK).  However,  Greece,  Italy 
(Milan) Poland and Spain have not adopted this practice in all areas suggesting that 
service providers are subject to a greater administrative burden. Interviewee feedback 
also  suggests  that  original  copies  must  be  submitted  in  Germany.  In  Bulgaria,  any 
translated documents must be submitted in certified and original format.  

A  Spanish  architect  with  experience  of  providing  services  to  large  projects  in  the 
Spanish,  Italian  and  Polish  markets  suggested  that  the  provision  of  original 
documents is a costly and time consuming feature of the building permit systems in 
these  countries,  particularly  considering  the  range  of  documentation  required. 
Moreover,  a  key  problem  identified  is  lack  of  consistent  enforcement  of  standards 
regarding the format of the documents required across municipalities.  

Similarly,  a  Polish  association  confirmed  that  simple  copies  are  not  accepted  in 
Poland and often the documents need to be delivered in person, which was viewed 
as very unsatisfactory.  

According  to  two  interviewees  (NL  and  DE)  simple  copies  are  not  accepted  in 
Germany.  The  relevant  documentation  needs  to  be  stamped  and  submitted  in 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

hardcopy.  The  German  interviewee  nuanced  the  comment  slightly  stating  that  it 
depends  on  what  information  needs  to  be  provided,  but  that  in  general  original 
documents are required.  

It appears that the submission demands for a building permit cannot be submitted in 
EN  in  non-native  speaking  countries.  The  internal  market  for  construction  services 
would  benefit  if  this  were  the  case  reducing  the  need  for  hiring  local  specialists  to 
manage key processes.  

A  Dutch  firm  mentioned  that  partnering  with  a  local  service  provider  is  normal 
practice  as  part  of  market  entry  cross-border.  Management  of  national  language 
issues  around  the  submission  of  documentation  is  one  reason  for  this  practice 
(among  others).  In  Poland,  an  association  mentioned  that  documents  would  need 
to be submitted in Polish requiring the use of an official translator for cross-border 
service providers.  

A  Czech  contractor  suggested  that  not  being  able  to  submit  documents  cross-
border in EN is a problem. This immediately necessitates the use of a local partner.  

However, a French federation, a French architect and a Czech firm mentioned that 
while the submission of EN documents would help to slightly improve the efficiency 
of application processes, the use of a local partner would continue to be helpful for 
the completion of some tasks. This is because of the complexity of the rules around 
issues  such  as  planning,  building  permits,  contracts,  sale  of  real  estate  assets, 
employment  etc.  In  addition,  national  rules  are  normally  made  available  in  the 
home country language and require interpretation by an experienced professional.  

While reserving plan preparation activities to registered designers offers the possibility 
of  self-certification  (which  has  been  assessed  as  good  practice  in  the  following 
countries  CZ,  EL,  ES,  IT  PT  and  SI),  it  also  means  that  Member  States  restrict  the 
preparation  of  submission  demands  to  certain  professionals.  In  most  cases,  it  seems 
that  more  than  one  type  of  regulated  profession  can  offer  these  services  facilitating 
competition  between  service  providers.  A  related  issue  when  reserving  activities  to 
regulated professions is that certified plans cannot be submitted cross-border.154  

A  Dutch  firm  mentioned  that  one of  the  biggest  costs  of operating  cross-border  is 
the need to hire a local architect or engineer registered with a relevant professional 
body to engage in the building control process. 

A  Czech  contractor  operating  in  nine  Member  States  suggested  that  the  need  to 
hire a national architect in Western European markets is a significant cost burden. 

However,  FI,  NL  and  the  UK  have  not  reserved  plan  preparation  activities  to 
regulated  professions  which  strengthens  the  possibility  of  increased  competition  and 
efficient market access to these countries.  

Indicator analysis Article 5 -Plan approval site inspection and completion  
The indicator in this section (Table 5.3) relates to the number  of authorities involved 
in  the  plan  approval  process  under  the  regular  procedure.  This  takes  into  account 
whether one  or more authorities are involved in the process and the  extent to  which 
third  parties  are  necessary  to  verify  compliance  of  the  plans  with  the  legal 
requirements.  

154   Although  not  the  focus  of  this  study,  a  cursory  level  investigation  suggests  that  national  professional 
bodies are open to recognition of architects and engineers based on equivalent qualifications, applying 
procedures  similar  or  identical  to  those  of  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive  (2005/36/EC). 
However, this is an additional authorisation procedure that must be followed prior to submitting plans 
and  a  misuse  of  that  Directive  if  the  professionals  are  not  physically  present  in  the  host  MS  territory. 
Ideally home MS rules should determine whether a professional not present in the host MS is competent 
or not to draft technical plans.  

November 2015 I 129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 5.3 Article 5 Indicator: Number of authorities involved in the process of 

approving submission demands necessary for a building permit under the regular 

procedure 
Member State  

BG 
CZ 
DE (NRW) 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IT 
NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

Number of authorities involved in the process 
of approving 
submission demands necessary for a building 
permit under the regular procedure 
2 
6  
2  
0  
0  
0 
0  
2 
0 
0  

4  

0 

0  

0  

a)  1 – 0 points; 2: 2 points; 3: 4 points; more than 3: 6 points). 

A  score  of  2  has  been  given  to  Bulgaria  given  that  technical  plans  need  to  be 
authorised  on  two  occasions  by  the  municipal  authorities.  However,  if  private  sector 
control  is  opted  for  the  municipal  authority  accepts  the  third  party  confirmation  of 
compliance as given and a score of 0 is relevant in this instance.  

A score of 6 has been allocated to the  Czech Republic but this only relates to a ten 
storey  office  block.  In  this  case,  several  authorisations  are  required  from  multiple 
authorities as part of separate procedures under the building permit approval process. 
A score of 0 is relevant in terms of a one storey house given that plans are submitted 
to  the  local  authority  and  assessment  against  technical  requirements  is  not 
undertaken  given  that  registered  designers  provide  professional  sign-off.  A  similar 
situation  applies  to  Poland  in  the  case  of  a  ten  storey  office  block  where  multiple 
authorisations  are  required  from  several  authorities  as  part  of  separate  procedures 
(but not in the case of a one storey house).  

In  Greece,  given  that  technical  plans  are  certified  by  registered  designers, 
confirmation  of  compliance  is  accepted  as  given  by  the  municipal  authorities  and  a 
score of 0 has been allocated. A similar situation is applies to Portugal.  

In the case of Germany, a score of 2 has been given but this applies to the case of a 
ten storey office block as a state registered expert and a municipal authority examines 
the  plans  against  the  technical  requirements.  However,  in  terms  of  a  one  storey 
house, the municipal authority will accept the confirmation of compliance provided by 
the state registered expert as given and a score of 0 is relevant in this instance.  

For  France,  with  regard  to  a  ten  storey  office  block,  a  score  of  2  has  been  given  as 
both  a  building  surveyor  and  municipal  authority  examines  the  plans  against  the 
technical  requirements.  However,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  authority  only 
examines  the  plans  against  fire  safety  requirements  and  standards  around  access  to 
disabled persons. A score of 0 could be allocated in the case of a one storey house as 
there is no requirement to involve a building surveyor.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

With  regard  to  Denmark,  a  score  of  0  is  relevant  as  only  the  municipal  authority  is 
required to examine plans against technical requirements. The same situation applies 
to Finland (but it may be the case that the authority requests a second opinion by a 
third  party  and  a  score  of  2  could  apply  in  some  instances),  Italy  (Milan),  the 
Netherlands, Spain (authorisation of plans can undertaken by a local authority or an 
architectural institute in Madrid) and the UK (authorisation of plans can be undertaken 
by a local authority or an Approved Inspector in England). A score of 0 also applies to 
Slovenia  as  municipal  authorities  do  not  check  plans  against  technical  requirements 
but in the case of a ten storey office block the services of a third party are called upon 
to  verify  compliance,  however,  this  should  be  viewed  as  the  involvement  of  one 
authority only in the plan approval process.  

Legal evaluation Article 5 -Plan approval site inspection and completion  
The legal experts recognised the need for appropriate practice or procedures to ensure 
that  technical  requirements  are  met  by  service  providers  as  part  of  plan  approval. 
These  can  be  justified  by  overriding  reasons  relating  to  the  public  interest,  such  as 
assessments of structural safety, fire safety and health and safety.  

However,  the  number  of  authorities  involved  in  the  detailed  validation  of  the  plans 
against  the  technical  requirements  is  subject  to  variation.  For  example  in  some 
Member  States,  there  is  involvement  of  one  authority  in  the  detailed  examination  of 
technical plans against the requirements for building work (CZ, DK, EL, ES, IT, FI, NL, 
PT,  SI,  UK).  However,  under  certain  circumstances,  there  are  occasions  where  more 
than  one  authority  or  a  combination  of  an  authority  and  a  third  party  body  are 
involved  in  this  process  (BG,  FI,  FR,  DE,  PL).  Consequently,  the  level  of  compliance 
against  Article  5  is  less  effective  in  these  latter  cases  given  the  associated 
inefficiencies  of  obtaining  more  than  one  approval  for  a  single  submission  demand. 
This line of analysis has been further developed under Article 10.  

A German architect mentioned that the environmental control inspection process is 
a  burdensome  element  of  the  building  control  process,  given  that  a  different 
government agency other than the building inspectorate is involved in the process. 
According  to  the  interviewee,  this  inspection  process  can  take  up  to  6  months 
before the building permit is validated.  

Similarly, where the expertise of more than one public authority is required to support 
the  process  of  issuing  a  building  permit  (e.g.  fire  safety  and  sanitation  authorities), 
there appears to be some variation in the approach. For example, some countries use 
an  internal  integrated  procedure,  with  the  local  authority  engaging  with  other 
authorities  to  gain  their  advice  before  offering  an  opinion  on  whether  the  project  is 
technically  compliant  to  the  applicant  (e.g.  France,  the  Netherlands  and  UK).  This 
offers  a  simplified  approach  to  administrative  procedures  with  only  one  application 
process for the applicant to deal with as envisaged under Article 5.  

In  other  countries,  several  separate  authorisations  are  required  from  different 
authorities  as  part  of  the  approval  of  the  building  permit  and  these  need  to  be 
collected  separately  by  the  applicant  particularly  with  regard  to  ten  storey  office 
buildings  (e.g.  Czech  Republic,  Poland).  This  latter  example  does  not  offer  a 
simplified  approach  to  the  same  extent  as  an  applicant  is  required  to  deal  with 
separate  administrative  procedures  and  manage  the  decisions  received  from  several 
authorities as part of the single process of attempting to gain building permission. 

Given  the  number  of  authorisations  that  are  required  in  Poland,  an  association 
mentioned that ‘for a large residential development project, it takes up to two years 
to  collect  all  of  the  approvals  and  related  documents:  for  example,  arrangements 
such  as  reports  and  environmental  decisions,  approval  from  the  fire  brigade, 
sanitary, entry to public roads, planting of greenery, gas, water etc.  

November 2015 I 131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most interviewees do not see the site inspection regime as representing a barrier to 
the provision of services. However, in general, it can be concluded that the biggest 
barrier to companies working cross-border is that they often are not initially familiar 
with the Member State-specific process. Therefore, companies do not know what to 
expect and what preparations needs to be made.  

5.2  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 8 
The  following  section  provides  an  indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  building 
permit legislation under Article 8 of the Services Directive. 

Summary of Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) 

  Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) Member States shall ensure that all 
procedures and formalities relating to access to a service activity and to the 
exercise thereof may be easily completed, at a distance and by electronic 
means.  

Interpretation  of  the  article  above  in  the  context  of  horizontal  authorisation  scheme 
legislation  
Building permit application procedures should be supported by  systems that facilitate 
full  electronic  case  handling  enabling  the  efficient  submission  of  applications  at  a 
distance.  Competent  authorities  should  accept  the  submission  of  simple  electronic 
copies relating to all submission demands.  

Indicator analysis Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) 
Table  5.4  provides  an  assessment  of  the  horizontal  authorisation  scheme  against  an 
indicator  developed  under  Article  8  (procedure  by  electronic  means).  This  aims  to 
examine the extent of compliance with the  Services Directive ranging from ‘there are 
no electronic procedures available’, to ‘full case handling is possible’.  

Table 5.4 Article 8 Indicator (Procedures by electronic means)  
Article 8 Procedures by electronic means 

BG  CZ  DE  DK  EL  ES  FI  FR  IT  NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

Indicator 
Is the entire application 
process 
supported 
electronically and can it 
be  performed  at  a 
distance.  

4  

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

0 

4 

4 

0 

4 

4 

4 

0 

forms  can  be 

There  are  no  electronic 
procedures 
available 
(6) 
Paper 
downloaded (4) 
Electronic 
possible (2)  
Full  case  handling  is 
possible (0)155 

intake 

is 

In  Bulgaria  municipalities  often  make  available  application  form  templates  to 
download with instructions about the paper documents that have to be submitted. This 

155   E-ID and e-signatures may be required and, if so, those issued in other MS may not be accepted. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

is also the case in Demark, Greece, France and Portugal, although digital systems 
are proposed in these four countries. A score of 4 has been given.  

In  Germany  (NRW),  systems  are  not  in  place  to  handle  the  entire  procedure 
electronically  but  electronic  intake  in  some  areas  is  possible.  The  same  is  true  in 
Czech Republic. A score of 2 has been given.  

In  Madrid,  recent  developments  have  led  to  the  launch  of  an  electronic  system 
enabling full electronic case handling. However, according to interviewees, this system 
is  not implemented  across  Spain,  where  paper  copies  are  required  for  submission  in 
some regions. A score of 2 has been given in this case.  

In  Italy  (Milan),  there  are  possibilities  to  download  paper  forms  but  signed  copies 
must be submitted physically. A score of 4 applies.  

In Finland156 and the Netherlands157, there are national systems available enabling 
full case handling. In the UK (England), local authorities are mandated to design their 
own  electronic  systems.  The  assumption  was  made  by  interviewees  that  the  vast 
majority of municipalities are likely to have followed this requirement and at  the very 
least applications can be submitted by email. It was confirmed that the municipalities 
that  the  interviewees  have  experience  with  have  systems  that  permit  uploading  of 
documents. A score of 0 has been given to these countries.  

In Poland, paper forms can be downloaded from the internet. Online handling is not 
possible  as  the  documents  need  to  be  verified.  Similarly,  electronic  intake  is  not 
possible in Slovenia. A score of 4 applies to these.  

Legal evaluation Article 8 (Procedures by electronic means) 
To  ensure  that  authorisation  procedures  operate  efficiently,  full  electronic  case 
handling  should  be  made  available  for  building  permit  applications  (simultaneously 
enabling the submission of electronic copies).  

However,  Finland  and  the  Netherlands  are  the  only  countries  providing  national 
level electronic systems and are clearly examples of good practice. While it is strongly 
believed  that  full  case  handling  is  possible  in  the  UK  (England),  given  that  local 
authorities may design their own systems, a more fragmented approach to electronic 
handling  applies  nationwide.  To  support  simplification  efforts,  a  centralised  national 
submission portal is preferable.  

A  UK  (England)  architect  commented  that  the  process  of  electronic  submission  of 
an application for a building permit is much more efficient compared to the previous 
system  of  submitting  paper  copies.  Previously,  large  technical  plans  needed  to  be 
printed out and submitted by post or in person resulting in higher submission costs 
and more time spent managing the process by different categories of staff. Another 
UK  (England)  architect  echoed  these  findings  and  commented  that  the  current 
approach to electronic submission is very efficient (and gave the system a score of 
4 out of 5).  

The remaining countries are indicative of comparatively more restrictive practice either 
by enabling some form of  electronic intake only or by making forms available online. 
To meet the needs of Article 8, these Member  States could investigate how to better 
align their approach to electronic submission in line with the good practice examples. 
It  is  promising  to  learn  that  Denmark,  Greece,  France  and  Portugal  are  moving 

156   www.lupapiste.fi. 
157   www.omgevingsloket.nl. 

November 2015 I 133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
towards  the  introduction  of  such  systems  and  hopefully  full  electronic  case  handling 
will be made possible in due course.  

A Greek SME welcomed the fact that there are plans to introduce the submission of 
electronic  copies  of  documents  as  part  of  building  permit  application  procedures 
given  that  the  process  is  paper  driven  currently  (and  in  some  areas  relies  on 
original versions of documents). It was therefore viewed as burdensome.  

A Polish association commented that there are provisions in national legislation that 
promote  the  use  of  electronic  procedures  for  building  permit  submission  but 
unfortunately  electronic  case  handling  has  not  been  rolled-out  as  yet.  The  paper 
based approach to submission is regarded as ‘not efficient’ currently.  

A  German  architect  mentioned  that  the  situation  for  documentary  submission 
differs per region. In one area of Munich, documents can only be downloaded with 
three signed copies required for submission. 

5.3  Indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  Article  9(1)  and  Article 

16(2)b  

The  following  section  provides  an  indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  building 
permit legislation under Article 9 (1) and Article 16 2(b) of the Services Directive.  In 
the  context  of  the  evaluation  of  building  permit  legislation,  these  Articles  have  been 
applied  jointly  given  the  need  to  ensure  efficient  access  to  service  provision  for  both 
nationally established and temporary cross-border service providers.  

Summary  of  Article  9(1)  (Authorisation  schemes)  and  Article  16(2)b 
(Freedom to provide services) 
Article 9(1) Member States shall not make access to a service activity or the exercise 
thereof  subject  to  an  authorisation  scheme  unless  the  following  conditions  are 
satisfied:  

a)  The authorisation scheme does not discriminate against the provider in 

question; 

b)  The need for an authorisation scheme is justified by an overriding reason 

relating to the public interest; 

c)  The objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive 

measure, in particular because an a posteriori inspection would take place too 
late to be genuinely effective. 

Article 16(2)b Member States may not restrict the freedom to provide services in the 
case of a provider established in another Member State by imposing an obligation on 
the  provider  to  obtain  an  authorisation  from  their  competent  authorities  including 
entry in a register etc. 

Interpretation of the article above in the context of building permit legislation  

  Procedures and categorisation of construction work. The Services 

Directive indicates that official authorisations of building works should only be 
implemented when absolutely necessary. The reduced use of authorisations 
procedures could be realised through exemptions for qualified or certified 
service providers; 

  Plan approval, site inspections and completion. The number of 

administrative procedures which service providers are subject to should be 
limited to those that are absolutely necessary, with a view to avoiding any 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

duplication of authorisation activities relating to horizontal authorisation 
schemes and prior building permit approval processes. Delegating building 
control functions to certified or qualified service providers should assist in 
reducing the administrative burden.  

Indicator analyses Article 9(1) and Article 16(2)b 
The  indicator  assessment  in  Table  5.5  examines  whether  there  is  the  possibility  of 
exemption from administrative procedures from building permit to final completion for 
certified or qualified service providers. This includes the use of registered designers for 
plan  approval  and  construction  workers  broadly  speaking  whose  work  can  be  self-
certified.  

Table 5.5 Articles 9 (1) and 16(2)(b) Indicator (Exemption from administrative 

procedure for qualified or certified persons) 
Member State 

Possibility of exemption from administrative procedures from 
building permit to final completion for certified or qualified service 
providers (for example: yes – 0 points, for some –points, no – 6 
points 
6 

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

3 

6 

6 

3 

3 

3 

6 

3 

6 

6 

3 

3 

3 

In  the  Czech  Republic  and  Slovenia,  plans  for  a  one-storey  house  prepared  by 
registered  designers  are  not  subject  to  third  party  verification  or  examination  by  a 
local authority against technical requirements. The same is true but in relation to both 
types of reference works in Greece and Portugal.  

There  is  a  scheme  for  the  self  certification  of  the  construction  of  transportable 
structures  which  removes  the  need  for  a  building  permit  in  Denmark,  but  this  does 
not relate to a one storey house or ten storey office block. Therefore a score of 6 has 
been granted.  

In  Spain,  with  regards  to  certain  types  of  office  buildings  (financial  institutes, 
insurance  or  legal  services)  the  construction  service  provider  can  optionally  submit a 
Declaration  of  Responsibility  with  proof  of  insurance,  which  provides  exemption  from 
the  building  permit  procedure.  Similarly,  in  Italy,  the  building  notice  procedure 
supports the self-certification of plans.  

In Finland and Spain, site inspection activities are delegated to designers, apart from 
the final inspection.  

November 2015 I 135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  UK,  the  Competent  Person  certification  scheme  enables  twenty  types  of 
installation  service  providers  (including  electricians)  to  self-certify  their  own  work, 
removing the need for site inspections conducted by local authorities.  

In  all  other  cases,  the  practice  of  exemption  from  administrative  procedures  for 
certified or qualified professionals has not been identified. A score of 6 has been given 
in these instances.  

Indicator analyses Article 9(1) and Article 16(2)b 
Under  Article  9(1)  and  Article  16(2)b  an  indicator  assessment  (Table  5.6)  examined 
the  administrative  procedures  to  be  completed  under  the  system  of  building  control 
from  start  to  finish  under  the  regular  procedure.  This  takes  into  account  the  initial 
administrative  process  of  plan  submission,  any  administrative  processes  to  be 
completed  during  the  site  inspection  phase,  and  finally  whether  it  is  mandatory  to 
request  completion  certificates  and  submit  any  final  documents.  It  has  not  been 
possible  to  take  into  account  the  frequency  of  site  inspections  given  that  these  are 
subject  to  discretion  in  many  cases.  Where  administrative  activities  or  obligatory 
actions are required to be undertaken as part of these three steps, these are indicated 
in the text below and the extent of their restrictiveness assessed.  

Table 5.6 Articles 9 (1) and 16(2)(b) Indicator – Number of Administrative 

Procedures  
Member State   Number of administrative procedures to be completed from building 

permit to final completion in the framework of a building permit 
application under the regular procedure 
1 – 0points; 2: 2 points; 3: 4 points; more than 3: 6 points 
6 
6 
6 
4 
4 
4 
4 
6 
6 

2 

6 

6 

6 

4 

BG 
CZ 
DE (NRW) 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

In Bulgaria, there are two initial administrative procedures as part of plan approval: 
verification of the plans either by a public or private body and then coordination of the 
building  permit  application  with  a  local  authority).  A  mandatory  regime  of  site 
inspection exists involving both private building control and two authorities. As part of 
the completion phase, a further administrative procedure to obtain a use permit takes 
place with technical documents required for submission. A score of 6 is relevant in this 
case.  

In  Czech  Republic,  plan  approval  relies  upon  one  administrative  procedure,  and  if 
deemed  necessary  this  may  be  supplemented  by  an  interview  with  the  architect.  In 
terms of ten storey office blocks, the inspection regime is fixed and overseen by both 
private  actors  and  four  public  bodies.  A  request  for  final  certification  for  a  ten  storey 
office building is required, with inspections being made by four authorities. A score of 
6 has been given.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In the case of Denmark, there is only one administrative procedure to follow as part 
of  plan  approval.  Site  inspections  are  performed  by  the  contractor  (or  building 
surveyor)  supplemented  by  risk  based  supervisory  activities  by  public  authorities.  In 
addition, technical documents are submitted by the applicant as part of the completion 
process and therefore a score of 4 has been allocated. However, given that submission 
of  the  documents  often  results  in  the  absence  of  a  final  site  inspection  this  could  be 
viewed as an advantage.  

The number of administrative steps is subject to variation in Finland. Plan approval is 
often  subject  to  one  administrative  procedure:  but, it  may  be  the  case  that  the  local 
authority  requests  third  party  verification  of  the  plans.  In  addition,  if  the  local 
authority deems it appropriate to delegate the site inspection process to the principal 
designer,  there  is  a  need  to  submit  a  reporting  logbook.  While  this  is  a  further 
mandatory  administrative  procedure  it  could  also  be  viewed  as  an  efficiency  gain.  A 
completion inspection applies managed by the local authority. Given these variables, a 
score of 3 has been allocated.  

In  France,  in  terms  of  ten  storey  office  blocks,  technical  plans  are  required  for 
submission  to  both  a  building  surveyor  and  local  authority.  Site  inspections  are 
managed  by  private  building  control  and  the  local  authority  operates  a  system  of 
market  surveillance.  As  part  of  the  completion  process  a  declaration  of  compliance 
with the building permit and a certificate indicating compliance with various aspects of 
the  technical  requirements  are  submitted  jointly.  In  the  case  of  a  ten  storey  office 
block,  a  safety  report  is  often  produced  to  facilitate  the  final inspection.  A  score  of  6 
has been allocated.  

With  regard  to  Germany  (NRW),  plan  approval  is  required  by  a  state  registered 
expert  initially  and  a  municipal  authority  subsequently.  There  is  a  fixed  inspection 
regime  managed  by  the  local  authority  with  aspects  delegated  to  private  building 
control. A final inspection process leads to the issuing of completion certification, and 
a score of 6 applies in this case.  

In terms of Greece, there is one administrative process to be followed only (as part of 
the  plan  approval  stage)  and  site  inspections  are  conducted  by  a  private  building 
control body. A final inspection is required with a view to determining if the completion 
certificate should be issued by the local authority. A score of 4 has been allocated. 

A single administrative process governs the plan approval process in  Italy. However, 
given that there is a private system of building control for the site inspection process 
(which  could  be  viewed  as  an  advantage)  technical  documents  are  required  for 
submission  to  support  the  completion  process.  Ongoing  building  control  is  performed 
by a private building surveyor with a risk based approach to inspections conducted by 
the local authority and also an inspection by the fire authority. A score of 6 has been 
given.  

Multiple  authorities  are  involved  in  administrative  procedures  linked  to  the  plan 
approval and completion processes for ten storey office blocks in Poland. A number of 
designated  private  actors  are  required  to  perform  building  control  duties  on  site  with 
the District Inspector undertaking random inspections of the site. A score of 6 appears 
relevant.  

The  system  in  Portugal  demands  submission  of  technical  documents  as  part  of  plan 
and  completion  processes.  Designated  private  service  providers  are  required  to 
manage the building control process on site with risk based site inspections conducted 
by the local authority and an inspection made the sanitation authority, and therefore a 
score of 6 appears relevant). 

November 2015 I 137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the Netherlands there is one administrative process to be followed only (as part of 
the  plan  approval  stage)  and  risk  based  site  inspections  are  conducted  by  a  public 
body.  A  final  inspection  may  not  be  required,  and  a  completion  certificate  is  not 
issued. A score of 2 has been given.  

The requirements in  Slovenia dictate that for a ten storey  office block, the technical 
plans are likely to require an initial verification by an auditor and then approval by a 
local authority. A private building surveyor is appointed to oversee the building control 
process and a local authority may consider inspecting the site. The relevant authorities 
conduct final inspections.  

In Spain, there are two administrative procedures governing plan approval, an initial 
verification  of  the  plans  by  a  local  authority  or  a  private  institute,  and  then 
coordination  of  the  building  permit  application  with  a  local  authority.  Given  that 
responsibility for the site inspections phase is borne by the architect (and this could be 
seen  as  advantage),  a  ‘building  book’  is  submitted  to  a  local  authority  as  part  of  the 
completion process. A single inspection is performed at the end of the project by the 
local authority. A score of 4 has been allocated.  

In terms of the UK, there is one administrative process to be followed only (as part of 
the plan approval stage) and risk based site inspections are conducted by a private or 
public  body.  A  final  inspection  may  not  be  required  as  part  of  the  process  of  issuing 
the completion certificate. A score of 4 has been allocated.  

Legal evaluation Article 9(1) and Article 16(2)b 
A key objective of Article 9 (1) is to limit the number of administrative procedures to 
those  which  are  absolutely  necessary.  In  particular,  authorisations  should  only  occur 
where  a  posteriori  inspection  is  too  late  to  be  genuinely  effective.  Moreover,  cross-
border service providers, whether established nationally or providing temporary cross-
border  services,  should  not  be  exposed  to  burdensome  authorisation  requirements. 
Therefore,  systems  which  avoid  the  implementation  or  duplication  of  administrative 
procedures offer a strong level of compliance with the Services Directive.  

As part of plan approval, there are a number of good examples where authorisation of 
technical  plans  takes  place  on  one  occasion.  For  example,  in  the  Netherlands  and 
UK,  given  that  technical  design  activities  are  not  reserved  to  regulated  professions, 
local authorities are required to examine the plans on one occasion. Or in the case of 
the UK, Approved Inspector can be optionally called upon notify a local authority that 
the  plans  are  compliant.  The  same  is  true  in  Demark  and  France  in  terms  of  small 
one  storey  houses  where  the  design  activity  is  not  reserved  and  authorisation  is 
required  from  the  local  authority  only.  This  is  also  the  case  in  Finland  for  both 
reference  works  (unless  the  local  authority  decides  not  to  require  the  use  of  third 
party  verification)  and  again  the  design  activities  are  not  reserved  in  this  case.  In 
other countries where technical design activities are reserved to regulated professions, 
qualified professionals can self certify their own work and a subsequent authorisation 
is  not  required  from  the  local  authority  for  either  one  or  both  of  the  reference  works 
(the  Czech  Republic,  Slovenia,  Greece  and  Portugal).  These  systems  generally 
demonstrate good practice.  

However, in some cases administrative procedures supporting detailed examination of 
technical plans against the technical requirements (either by a local authority or third 
party) is required on one occasion in some countries even though design activities are 
reserved  to  regulated  professions  for  either  one  (Denmark,  France,  Germany)  or 
both  or  the  reference  works  (Bulgaria,  if  private  control  is  used,  Italy,  Poland, 
Spain). In one respect, as only one authorisation focusing on a detailed assessment of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

compliance  with  the  technical  requirements  is  mandated,  this  approach  does  offer  a 
level  of  compliance  with  Article  9  (1).  However,  as  demonstrated  by  the  countries 
above, the requirement of the use of registered designers is considered as sufficient in 
terms  of  ensuring  that  the  technical  requirements  are  satisfied  and  further 
examinations  of  plans  against  the  technical  requirements  is  not  conducted.  This 
alternate  approach  offers  a  stronger  level  of  compliance  and  benefits  industry  given 
the associated efficiency gains.  

There  are  cases  where  there  appears  to  be  assessment  of  drawings  against  the 
technical requirements on more than one occasion as part of duplicate administrative 
procedures  either  by  local  authorities  or  a  combination  of  local  authorities  and  third 
parties.  This  is  the  case  in  Bulgaria  (if  local  authorities  are  called  upon  for  the  plan 
approval process), Finland (if a local authority calls upon the services of a third party) 
France (for a limited range of the technical requirements in terms of ten storey office 
blocks)  Germany  for  ten  storey  office  blocks  and  Poland  (if  cross  examination  is 
undertaken  internally  by  public  officials).  Given  that  these  systems  demand  technical 
plans  to  be  prepared  by  registered  designers  in  the  first  instance,  it is  not  clear  why 
two  separate  administrative  procedures  to  perform  assessment  of  technical 
requirements  are  required  and  such  approaches  demonstrate  non-compliance  with 
Article 9 (1).  

In terms of the site inspection regime, at an overarching level, there are a number of 
systems  that  appear  not  to  duplicate  the  site  inspection  process  as  either  a  local 
authority or private building control takes  full responsibility: or, a combination of the 
two  but  with  the  local  authority  undertaking  on-site  inspections  in  certain 
circumstances, for example as part of market wide risk based assessments. 

For  example,  in  Denmark,  the  Netherlands  and  UK,  no  designated  private  actors 
are  mandated  to  take  responsibility  for  building  control  activities  and site inspections 
are performed by a local authority (or alternatively an Approved Inspector in the UK) 
on a risk based approach.  

All  Danish  interviewees  mentioned  that  while  the  system  of  building  control  often 
runs smoothly, fire safety authorities are more burdensome to deal with and seem 
to  be  disjointed  from  the  construction  process.  The  rules  around  fire  safety  for 
buildings were also regarded as inflexible even  in  circumstances  were sufficient or 
better design solutions could be identified.  

A  Polish  construction  association  suggested  that  fire  safety  regulations  and  fire 
safety authorities are some of the most difficult building control issues to deal with 
for  cross-border  service  providers.  The  route  to  managing  this  issue  from  a  cost 
and efficiency perspective is to hire local experts.  

Similarly,  a  Czech  architect  mentioned  that  the  approval  needed  from  the  fire 
authority as part of the application for a use permit is the most difficult part of the 
process to manage.  

A UK (England) architect commented that engaging with local authorities as part of 
the site inspection process is a non-burdensome process to manage. However, it is 
believed that service providers that are unaware of the quality standards that need 
to be met are likely to face serious difficulties. In terms of temporary cross-border 
service providers operating in the UK, It seems that sometimes they are surprised 
of the level of involvement of public bodies in the site inspection process and that 
certain  rules  (such  as  fire  safety)  should  be  followed  rigorously.  The  impression 
given  is  that  some  temporary  cross-border  services  are  used  to  operating  in 
environments with weak levels of public enforcement.  

Another UK (England) architect suggested the site inspection process was generally 
non-burdensome  and  if  the  requirements  are  followed  a  good  rapport  can  be 

November 2015 I 139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
established with the  inspectors.  A slight  concern is that sometimes it take  time to 
arrange  appointments  linked  to  specific  build  stages.  Contractors  may  be  delayed 
slightly given that they cannot proceed with their work until the particular stage is 
approved  by  the  authority.  However,  it  was  mentioned  that  this  does  not  occur 
often. 

The same UK (England) architect suggested that private building control inspectors 
add  more  value  to  the  building  control  process.  This  is  because  they  can  often 
better  support  the  transfer  of  original  and  innovative  solutions  that  meet  the 
performance  based requirements.  On  the  other hand,  local authorities may simply 
determine if a solution is compliant or not. 

In  the  UK,  twenty  types  of  installation  service  providers  (including  electricians)  can 
self-certify  their  own  work.  This  means  that  the  person  undertaking  the  installation 
work can certify compliance with the regulations upon submission of documentation to 
the local authority.  

A  Polish  association  commented  that  most  installation  work  conducted  in  Poland 
needs  to  be  approved  by  external  parties  with  larger  buildings  been  subject  to  a 
higher  frequency  of  examinations.  Similarly,  a  Czech  architect  confirmed  that 
installation  work  must  go  through  a  final  inspection  before  official  approval  of  the 
building  is  given.  As  such,  installation  activities  were  viewed  as  being  subject  to 
tight controls for all works.  

In the Czech Republic, site inspections are performed by the local authority in terms 
of  ten  storey  office  blocks  but  inspections  are  only  made  of  one  storey  houses  if 
complaints  are  made.  Whereas  in  Finland  and  Spain,  site  inspection  activities  are 
delegated to designers that take responsibility for building control. In France, there is 
no  requirement  to  hire  a  private  building  control  service  provider  for  a  one  storey 
house, and the local authority may not perform site inspections in this instance. There 
appears  to  be  one  level  of  public  or  private  building  control  in  terms  of  overall 
responsibility in France (for ten storey office blocks) Greece and Germany. In Italy, 
Portugal  and  Slovenia,  building  control  is  generally  delegated  to  private  actors  but 
local authorities may choose to  perform inspections if needed as part  of market-wide 
risk based assessments.  

However, with regard to Bulgaria and Poland, there appears to be a strong aspect of 
duplication  of  administrative  procedures  as  both  designated  private  and  public  actors 
are heavily involved are required to take responsibility for the site inspection process. 
These are comparatively more restrictive according to Article 9 (1).  

With  regard  to  the  number  of  administrative  procedures  around  the  completion 
process,  again  there  appears  to  be  some  variance  with  some  systems  demonstrating 
high levels of efficiency. In the Netherlands, there is no mandated requirement for a 
final  inspection  but  notification  of  completion  must  be  given  and  completion 
certification  is  not  issued.  There  is  a  similar  approach  in  the  UK  (England)  but 
completion  certification  is  issued.  There  is  no  completion  process  in  the  Czech 
Republic  with  regard  to  one  storey  houses,  and  there  is  a  notification  of  completion 
needs to be submitted to the local authority. In other systems, a final inspection and 
the issuing of completion certification takes place (Germany, Greece).  

In the case of Denmark and Portugal, technical documents are submitted as part of 
the  completion  process  but  a  final  inspection  may  not  take  place,  and  therefore  this 
process could be perceived as beneficial to some.  

With  regard  to  Finland  and  Spain,  as  part  of  the  completion  process,  a  final 
inspection  by  the  local authority  is  undertaken  and  technical  documents  are  required 
for  submission,  but  building  control  is  delegated  to  designated  private  professionals 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

prior  to  that  point,  and  therefore  there  are  efficiency  benefits  associated  with  this 
process.  

Whereas  in  other  countries  the  process  is  comparatively  more  burdensome  as  there 
are submission demands to be made by the person undertaking building work as well 
as final inspections and the issuing of completion certificates. This is the case in terms 
of ten storey office blocks in France and both reference works in Bulgaria and Italy. 
Moreover, several authorisations from different authorities are required as part of the 
completion process in Italy and Poland for both reference works and also Czech and 
Slovenia  in  the  case  of  ten  storey  office  blocks.  These  approaches  perform  less  well 
against Article 9 (1).  

In  the  experience  of  a  Spanish  architect  working  in  Spain,  Italy,  Poland  and 
Germany the biggest difficulty occurs when the architect is not always aware of all 
different inspection procedures in a country. Prior understanding is often needed.  

5.4  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 10(3)(4) 
The  following  section  provides  an  indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  building 
permit legislation under Article 10(3)(4) of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 10(3)(4) (Conditions for the granting of authorisation) 

  Article 10(3) The conditions for granting authorisation for a new establishment 

shall not duplicate requirements and controls which are equivalent or 
essentially comparable as regards their purpose to which the provider is 
already subject in another Member State or in the same Member State; 

  Article 10(4) The authorisation shall enable the provider to have access to the 
service activity, or to exercise that activity, throughout the national territory, 
including by means of setting up agencies, subsidiaries, branches or offices, 
except where an authorisation for each individual establishment or a limitation 
of the authorisation to a certain part of the territory is justified by an overriding 
reason relating to the public interest. 

Interpretation of the article above in the context of building permit legislation  

  Mutual recognition of services provided. Authorisation of building works 
should be permitted on the basis of requirements equivalent or essentially 
comparable as regards their purpose to which the provider is already subject in 
another Member State or in the same Member State. This suggests that mutual 
recognition principles and procedures could be established, ideally in building 
permit legislation, ensuring that key requirements such as insurance, technical 
requirements, health and safety, and use of equipment are recognised cross-
border; 

  Procedures and categorisation of construction work. Moreover, where 
elements of technical plans submitted for authorisation are not site specific, 
efforts should be made to ensure that national approvals are available to 
reduce the need for multiple authorisations for construction works based on the 
same technical designs.  

Indicator analysis Article 10(3) Equivalent requirements  
The  indicator  analysis  in  Table  5.7  examined  whether  there  are  mutual  recognition 
principles  and  procedures  in  place  to  support  recognition  of  cross-border  service 
providers.  

November 2015 I 141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.7 Article 10(3) Indicator – Conditions for granting authorisation  

Article 10 (3) Conditions for granting authorisation  

BG  CZ  DE  DK  EL  ES  FI  FR  IT  NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

4 

4 

4  

4  

3 

3 

4   3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

4   3 

Indicator 
Is  there  a  country  of 
origin  and/or  mutual 
recognition  principle  in 
place,  in  this  case  with 
recognition 
a  mutual 
procedure?  (Y  0)  Or  a 
mutual 
mere 
principle 
recognition 
mutual 
no 
with 
recognition  procedure? 
(Y 
in  a  MS  with 
performance-bases 
technical standards 3 in 
a  MS  with  combined 
prescriptive 
and 
performance-based 
standards  4  in  a  MS 
with  mainly  prescribed 
Or 
standards 
neither? (6) 

5) 

Overall,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  specific  principles  or  procedures  in  place 
supporting  mutual  recognition  of  construction  service  providers  in  building  permit 
legislation  enabling  firms  to  provide  services  according  to  their  home  country 
requirements. However, the use of performance based standards across most areas of 
construction  works  is  strongly  established  in  France  and  UK.  Recently  Greece 
introduced  the  approach  supported  by  the  procedure  of  self-certification  of  plans. 
Other countries have been characterised as relying on a combination of prescribed and 
performance based standards or heavily rely on prescribed standards only.  

Similarly,  mutual  recognition  principles  and  procedures  are  not  established  in  health 
and  safety  legislation  enabling  firms  to  provide  services  according  to  their  home 
country legislation.  

National  legislation  was  reviewed  to  examine  whether  country  of  origin  or  mutual 
recognition  principles  and  procedures  are  established.  The  following  results  were 
identified:  

  No country of origin principle was found; 

  Mutual recognition procedures are not in place for cross-border service 

providers in any MS;  

  Principles for the mutual recognition of equivalent requirements are indicated in 

the relevant legislation for BG, CZ, FI, IT, NL, PT and UK;  

  No principles of mutual recognition for health and safety were found; 

  Principles for the mutual recognition of the use of equipment are indicated in 

the relevant legislation for BG, EL, ES, IT, PT and UK; 

  Performance-based technical standards, which by definition enable mutual 

recognition, are predominant in EL, ES FR and UK. In all other countries except 
PT, they are combined with prescriptive standards; 

  Mutual recognition principles in legislation transposing the Services Directive 

are present in all Member States except where horizontal legislation 
implementing the Services Directive is not available (i.e. DE and FR).  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Given  that  country  of  origin  principles  or  specific  mutual  recognition  procedures  are 
not established, a score of 0 has not been given to any country. General principles of 
mutual recognition in legislation transposing the Services Directive along with systems 
using mainly prescribed standards were given a score of 5. Combined prescriptive and 
performance-based  standards  were  awarded  a  score  of  4,  while  predominant 
performance-based standards were awarded 3.  

Legal evaluation Article 10(3) Equivalent requirements  
Given  that  no  mutual  recognition  procedures  are  established  in  national  legislation, 
currently  services  providers  are  at  risk  of  not  being  able  to  provide  services  on  the 
basis  of  home  country  requirements.  It  is  suggested  that  suitable  procedures  and 
principles are established particularly for construction service providers in the context 
of  building  permit  legislation  enabling  firms  to  receive  recognition  prior  to  market 
participation.  

A  French  architect  commented  that  the  key  difficultly  for  cross-border  service 
providers when entering a new market is learning about the regulatory environment 
including the building regulation and the technical standards for building works. The 
main issue is not that regulations in other Member Sates are more burdensome but 
rather  instances  where  they  are  different  and  learning  about  such  differences 
imposes costs.  

A  Dutch  firm  mentioned  that  it  is  nearly  impossible  for  Dutch  service  providers  to 
apply  for  a  building  permit  in  Germany,  simply  because  relevant  activities  are 
reserved  to  registered  architects  who  are  registered  with  the  Architektenkammer. 
In  Germany,  the  architect  must  apply  for  the  permit,  and  he  is  ultimately 
responsible for the construction works. As a result,  this practice was viewed as an 
obstacle to the provision of cross-border services.  

A  limited  number  of  countries  use  the  approach  of  performance  based  standards 
across the vast majority of their technical requirements. France and the UK are good 
examples  of  countries  that  rely  heavily  of  performance  standards  suggesting  that 
similar practice could be adopted elsewhere providing designers with some flexibility in 
their proposed design solutions.  

A UK architect suggested that on the basis of submitting plans for approval to the 
authorities,  designers  can  develop 
the 
performance  based  standards  given  that  they  are  not  constrained  to  a  prescribed 
approach.  

imaginative  solutions 

to  meeting 

A  second  UK  architect  mentioned  that  the  performance  based  standards  enable 
service  providers  to  challenge  local  authorities  in  relation  to  design  solutions  that 
are  not  initially  approved  by  providing  appropriate  evidence.  The  example  was 
given where a local authority had declined the proposed installation of a new type 
of insulation system but on the basis of collecting evidence from the manufacturer, 
it was demonstrated that the performance based standards could be satisfied.  

It  seems  that  mutual  recognition  principles  and  procedures  enabling  firms  to  provide 
services  on  the  basis  of  home  country  requirements  in  relation  to  health  and  safety 
and use of equipment are not established. It is suggested that these are introduced as 
there may be instances in some countries (as indicated below) where service providers 
face specific issues that do not apply in their home Member State.  

A  Czech  contractor  considered  that  the  health  and  safety  rules  for  construction 
works  in  his  own  country  are  more  complicated  to  deal  with  than  those  in 
neighbouring  countries.  The  suggestion  was  made  that  a  cross-border  service 
provider  would  be  exposed  to  a  comparatively  more  burdensome  regulatory 
environment in the Czech Republic.  

November 2015 I 143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A French architect considered that  EU  health and safety legislation facilities cross-
border service provision as there is common ground in this area, although there are 
minor issues to deal with specific to certain countries.  

Indicator analysis Article 10(3) Equivalent requirements – Insurance  
The indicator analysis in Table 5.8 examines whether there are any mutual recognition 
procedures or principles established in national legislation for insurance products.  

Table 5.8 Article 10(3) Indicator – Conditions for granting authorisation  

Article 10 (3) Conditions for granting authorisation 

BG  CZ  DE  DK  EL  ES  FI  FR  IT  NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

6 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Indicator 
Is  there  a  country  of 
origin  and/or  mutual 
recognition  principle  in 
place  for  insurance,  in 
this  case  with  a  mutual 
recognition  procedure? 
(Y 0) Or a mere mutual 
principle 
recognition 
with 
mutual 
no 
recognition  procedure? 
(Y 3) Or neither? (6) 

Based on a review of national legislation that transposes the Services Directive, in the 
majority  of  cases,  principles  have  been  established  recognising  suitable  insurance 
products held by cross-border service providers. Moreover, building legislation in some 
countries  echoes  this  principle  e.g.  BG,  FI,  SI.  This  is  supported  by  practice  in  some 
countries where it is not mandatory to hold insurance products such as CZ, EL and the 
UK.  However,  no  specific  procedures  recognising  insurance  products  held  by  cross-
border  service  providers  were  identified.  Although,  Germany  has  not  implemented 
horizontal  legislation  transposing  the  Services  Directive,  the  Trade  Law  supports  the 
principle of recognition of cross-border insurance products.  

The situation appears different, however, in France.  The Spinetta Law dictates that a 
specific  liability  insurance  product  offered  mainly  by  national  insurance  providers 
should be held by contractors to enable the site inspection process to go ahead. As a 
result, neither a principle nor a procedure are available to support mutual recognition 
in France. A score of 6 has been allocated.  

Legal evaluation Article 10(3) Equivalent requirements – Insurance  
The mapping exercise indicated in section 4.7 makes it clear that liability requirements 
are  imposed  on  construction  service  providers  related  to  service  provision  and  latent 
defects.  In  most  countries,  it  is  mandatory  for  construction  service  providers  to  hold 
insurance products to ensure that the relevant liability requirements are appropriately 
covered.  For  these  reasons,  Member  States  could  develop  appropriate  principles  and 
procedures in their building permit legislation in this area.  

With  regard  to  France,  it  seems  that  the  current  regulatory  framework  does  not 
correlate  well  with  the  obligations  of  the  Services  Directive.  It  is  suggested  that  the 
Spinetta  Law  is  reformed  with  a  view  to  supporting  mutual  recognition  of  insurance 
products held by cross-border service providers.  

A French architect explained that in relation to cross-border service providers, there 
are difficulties for contractors to procure the obligatory national insurance products 
that support market participation in France (but apparently this is not impossible). 
It was noted that German  insurance  companies had  developed arrangements with 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

partner companies in France enabling Germany firms with recognisably high quality 
standards to enter the French market. 

When  asked  about  internal  market  barriers  in  relation  to  national  insurance 
legislation,  two  European  associations  indicated  that  a  major  obstacle  is  apparent 
on  the  French  market.  For  example,  temporary  cross-border  service  providers 
encounter  difficulties  given  that  they  do  hold  the  prescribed  insurance  products, 
and the annual cost of insurance was identified as prohibitive to temporary market 
participation for this category of service provider.  

Indicator analysis Article 10(4) National access to a service activity  
The  indicator  analysis  (Table  5.9)  under  Article  10(4)  examined  whether  efforts  had 
been made to ensure national access to a service activity in the construction services 
sector.  

Table 5.9 Article 10(4) Indicator – Conditions for granting authorisation  

Article 10(4) National access to a service activity 

BG  CZ  DE  DK  EL  ES  FI  FR  IT  NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

6 

6 

0 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

0 

Indicator 
In  so  far  as  building 
control 
permits 
with 
compliance 
requirements  which  are 
not  site-specific,  are 
such  parts 
the 
authorisation  schemes 
valid  nationwide?  (Y  or 
N/A 0 / N 6)  

of 

Germany  (NRW)  and  the  UK  (England)  have  established  national  type  approval 
procedures  for  building  designs.  The  use  of  the  procedure  in  Germany  (NRW)  is 
generally  limited  in  scope  to  certain  types  of  buildings  and  industrial  structures  (e.g. 
wind turbines, (grain) silos or (small) prefabricated houses) although legally speaking 
it  is  not  constrained  to  these  categories.  In  the  UK  (England),  the  procedure  is 
advertised  as  covering  residential  and  non-residential  buildings  as  well  as  building 
systems.158 

In addition, in ES, health and safety certification is required for submission as part of 
the  submission  demands  for  a  building  permit.  Similarly,  insurance  documents  are 
required for PT and DK and ES. The DURC certificate examined under the analysis of 
horizontal  authorisation  schemes  must  be  submitted  as  part  of  each  building  permit 
application.  Given  that  these  are  not  site-specific,  a  nation-wide  one-off  approval  is 
preferable. 

Legal evaluation Article 10(4) National access to a service activity  
UK  (England)  has  introduced  a  national  type  approval  system  that  offers  procedural 
efficiency gains to service providers wishing to build the same structure in more than 
one  locality.  After  approval  of  the  design  is  given  by  one  authority,  a  certificate  is 
issued that can be submitted to other authorities facilitating automatic approval of the 
design  as  part  of  subsequent  building  permit  procedures.  This  enables  the  service 
provider  to  commence  work  quickly  if  the  intention  is  to  reuse  the  same  approved 
design on a second occasion.  

Given that technical plans that are normally demanded by building permit procedures 
contain features that are not site specific, similar approaches could be adopted in the 

158   http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/bc_registered_details_faq_21092.htm. 

November 2015 I 145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
remaining  Member  States,  providing  certain  categories  of  service  provider  with  the 
option of receiving national type approval of their building designs.  

A UK (England) architect suggested that although the procedure is used by a small 
part  of  the  market,  some  housing  developers  are  taking  advantage  of  the  type 
approval  procedure.  This  enables  service  providers  to  quickly  commence  building 
work  safe  in  the  knowledge  that  their  technical  plans  that  have  been  approved 
already cannot be rejected by local authorities.  

Moreover, although not examined specifically by this study, the same UK (England) 
architect  suggested  that  there  are  benefits  associated  with  the  system  of  private 
building  control.  For  example,  if  an  architect  wishes  to  use  an  original  design 
solution in the context of the performance based standards, the evidence required 
need  only  be  provided  to  the  private  building  control  body  on  one  occasion.  The 
same  approved  solution  could  then  be  used  on  a project  in  a  different  part  of  the 
country.  However,  if  local  authorities  were  used,  the  evidence  would  need  to  be 
provided on two separate occasions.  

In addition, Member States should avoid requesting documentation which is not site-
specific. Currently, some documentation (such as health and safety certification in ES, 
DURC  certificate  in  IT  and  insurance  documents  in  PT,  ES  and  DK)  are  requested  on 
repeated  occasions  under 
the  building  permit  procedure.  Preferably,  such 
requirements  should  be  subject  to  a  one-off  control.  In  addition,  the  requirements 
demanded in ES (health and safety) and PT (insurance) are also demanded as part of 
the horizontal authorisation schemes (see section 3.2).  

5.5  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 13(2)(3)(4) 
The  following  section  provides  an  indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  building 
permit legislation under Article 13(2) (3)(4) of the Services Directive 

Summary of Article 13(2)(3)(4) 

  Article 13 (2) Authorisation procedures and formalities shall not be unduly 
complicated or delay the provision of the service. Any charges which the 
applicants may incur from their application shall be reasonable and 
proportionate and not exceed the costs of the authorisation procedure;  

  Article 13 (3) Authorisation procedures and formalities shall provide applicants 
with a guarantee that their application will be processed as quickly as possible 
and, in any event, within a reasonable period which is fixed and made public in 
advance. The period shall run only from the time when all documentation has 
been submitted. When justified by the complexity of the issue, the time period 
may be extended once, by the competent authority, for a limited time. The 
extension and its duration shall be duly motivated and shall be notified to the 
applicant before the original period has expired; 

  Article 13 (4) Failing a response within the time period set or extended in 
accordance with paragraph 3, authorisation shall be deemed to have been 
granted. Different arrangements may nevertheless be put in place, where 
justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest, including a 
legitimate interest of third parties.  

Interpretation of the article above in the context of building permit legislation 

  Fees, Member States should ensure that the fees linked to the provision of 
building control services are reasonable and proportionate to the approval, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

inspection and completion activities undertaken. Profit should not be made on 
building control functions managed by public authorities; 

  Procedure time. The building permit authorisation period shall be fixed and 
advertised with extensions being made for a single limited period and for 
reasons of significance only. Ideally, building permit procedures should 
establish the principle of tacit approval if authorities do not provide response in 
the fixed period. A key objective is the avoidance of delaying the provision of 
construction services as a result of poorly designed authorisation processes.  

Indicator analysis Article 13 (2) 
An  indicator  developed  under  Article  13(2)  is  presented  in  Table  5.10.The  indicator 
aims  to  examine  whether  fees  are  proportionate  to  costs.  Since  it  is  has  not  been 
possible  to  fully  examine  and  compare  the  extent  of  building  control  activities 
undertaken  by  local  authorities,  the  analysis  centres  on  whether  the  legislation 
specifically constrains authorities from profit making activities.  

Table 5.10 Indicator Article 13(2) – see table 4.1.1 

Member State 

Are fees proportionate to cost? (Y 0 / N 6) 

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  

N/A (Three taxes apply) 

0  

N/A (Planning taxes apply).  

0 

6 

0  

0 

0 

0  

In  Bulgaria,  authorities  are  required  to  establish  their  own  fee  rates  linked  to 
standardised calculation methods based on the floor area of the building (this relates 
to  plan  approval  and  issuing  building  permits  and  completion  certificates).  The 
estimated costs for Zone 2 of Sofia are €20,941 for a 2000m2 office block and €1,803 
for  a  150m2  one  storey  house.  The  costs  of  private  building  inspectors  also  apply. 
Given the clear legal framework, the fees have been regarded as proportionate.  

The  situation in  the  Czech  Republic  appears  to  be  cost  effective  and  the  method  of 
calculation  and  rates  are  fixed  nationally.  In  relation  to  a  one  storey  house,  a  fee  of 
€35 is imposed but this relates to issuing a decision on the building and assessing the 
completeness of the submission dossier. The plans are not checked in detail and there 
are no site inspections or completion processes managed by the authority. In relation 
to a ten storey office, the costs are estimated at €3,500 for the building permit. In this 
instance, the site inspection regime is provided free of charge by authorities. A score 
of 0 has been given. 

With regard to Denmark, while the general framework is established at national level, 
local  authorities  may  establish  their  own  fee  rate  and  there  is  very  wide  variation  in 
the actual costs that apply. However, based on broad estimates a fee of €16,000 could 

November 2015 I 147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
be  incurred  for  plan  assessment  and  approval  for  a  ten  storey  office  block  and  €800 
for a one storey house. The Danish legislation prevents authorities from generating a 
profit  on  any  fees  imposed,  and  therefore  this  system  has  been  regarded  as 
proportionate by the indicator analysis.  

In Germany, the fees related to building control activities must be linked to the costs 
incurred  by  the  authority.  In  relation  to  a  one  story  house,  taking  into  account  the 
costs of the building permit, plan approval by the state expert and inspections, a fee 
of €1,300 has been estimated. Similarly, taking into account these three elements, a 
fee  of  €24,000  has  been  estimated  for  a  ten  storey  office  block.  The  legislation 
prevents  authorities  from  making  a  profit  and  therefore  the  fees  are  regarded  as 
proportionate.  

The  system  of  private  building  control  is  regulated  in  terms  of  the  method  of 
calculation and specific fee rates in Greece. It can therefore be stated that the costs 
of  building  control  services  provided  are  proportionate  given  a  level  playing  field  is 
established  in  the  market.  Based  on  the  relevant  methodology,  the  site  inspection 
charges  for  a  10  storey  office  block  are  €1,700  and  a  house  €400.  Plan  approval  is 
provided  free  of  charge  by  the  authority  but  this  relates  to  a  simple  check  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  submission  dossier.  In  Greece,  designers  are  required  to  adopt  a 
significant level of liability for their construction work and this seems to impact on the 
extent of the building control regime. A score of 0 has been allocated.  

In  terms  of  Finland,  authorities  are  free  to  establish  their  own  fee  rates  and 
calculation methods. In Helsinki, the approximate cost of the building permit equates 
to  €13,259  for  an  office  block  and  €1235  for  a  house.  Inspections  provided  by  an 
authority are free of charge. However, one needs to take into account that a designer 
may  be  deemed  fit  to  perform  building  control  duties  during  the  construction  phase 
and  prepare  submission  demands  for  the  completion  phase  and  these  are  not 
accounted for here. However, the public authorities’ fee system seems proportionate.  

In  France  there  is  a  system  of  planning  taxes  which  are  outside  the  scope  of  the 
Services  Directive.  Private  building  control  are  mandatory  when  the  height  of  the 
building exceeds 280 metres. A cost of €30,000 has been estimated in the context of 
the office block reference works.  

The  principles  for  setting  the  fees  are  determined  at  national  level  in  Italy  (Milan). 
The  fee  rates  are  determined  regionally  and  locally.  Fees  to  obtain  a  building  permit 
are determined on the planning costs to integrate the building into a range of systems 
and  services  and  the  construction  costs.  The  general  approach  determined  by  the 
authority  in  Milan  is  to  request  the  fees  related  to  the  planning  costs  during  the 
issuing  of  the  building  permit  and  the  fees  related  to  the  construction  costs  are  paid 
up to 60 days after the completion of the works.  

In  the  Netherlands,  the  fee  rates  for  building  control  are  determined  by  local 
authorities  and  normally  this  is  a  fixed  percentage  of  the  construction  costs  (e.g. 
2.5%).  Currently,  there  is  a  situation  of  cross  subsidisation  of  the  cost  of  building 
control  for  smaller  works  via  fees  paid  by  applicants  of  larger  works.  The  cost  of 
building  control  fees  for  a  house  is  approximately  €3750  (based  on  building  costs  of 
€150,000)  and  €125,000  for  an  office  block  (for  a  building  costing  €5  million  to 
construct).  Given  the  disproportionate  costs  incurred  by  major  service  providers,  a 
score of 6 applies in this instance. It is understood that this system may be reformed.  

In  Poland,  the  calculation  methodology  is  established  nationally.  It  has  been 
estimated that a building permit and related permits and documents  for  a ten  storey 
office block has a cost in the region of €1,310 and €82 for a one storey house. Public 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

authority  inspections  are  free  of  charge  and  there  is  a  fee  ceiling  (of  €128)  for  a 
building permit. The fees are regarded as proportionate.  

In  Portugal,  building  control  functions  are  linked  to  fee  rates  determined  by  local 
authorities  and  these  need  to  be  proportionate  to  the  services  provided.  The  fees  to 
obtain  a  building  permit  are  usually  determined  in  relation  to  the  floor  area  and  the 
use of the building. An office building (2000m2) is associated with a cost of €8,690 and 
a house (150m2) is in the region of €975. Authorities do not normally perform detailed 
assessments  of  technical  plans  and  construction  sites  are  selected  randomly  for 
inspection  that  are  free  of  charge.  There  are  obligations  to  appoint  private  persons 
such  as  technical  directors,  building  surveyors  and  designers  to  perform  building 
control duties for complex works and these costs are not considered above. A score of 
0 has been given.  

The fee rates for building control in Slovenia are based on a small administrative fee 
and  a  percentage  (0.01%)  of  the  costs  of  the  construction  works  over  a  designated 
amount  linked  to  the  category  of  works.  An  office  block  with  building  costs  of  €5 
million  is  likely  to  incur  a  charge  of  €1,221,  and  a  house  with  building  costs  of 
€150,000  is  associated  with  a  cost  of  €293.  However,  a  certified  auditor  may  be 
required  to  assess  the  building  permit  application  for  a  ten  storey  office  block  if 
requested  by  the  authority  and  this  cost  is  not  considered  here.  Other  costs  not 
considered  are  the  requirements  to  appoint  a  registered  supervisor  to  perform  site 
inspections and a qualified site manager to  manage the project. Public authorities do 
not  inspect  all  construction  works.  Overall,  a  score  of  0  appears  relevant  given  that 
costs are proportionate to the administrative services provided.  

In  Spain,  three  taxes  apply  as  part  of  the  authorisation  for  building  permission  that 
are  not  directly  related  to  the  cost  of  building  control  (and  this  system  is  not 
considered in the context of the indicator analysis given that it is outside the scope of 
the Services Directive). However, other costs not examined here include the fee for a 
‘visado  colegial’  to  demonstrate  conformity  of  the  plans  with  the  technical 
requirements.  In  addition,  a  registered  architect  is  appointed  to  provide  building 
control services during the site inspection phase. Spain is determined as not applicable 
under this indicator given that it uses a tax based system.  

In  relation  to  the  UK,  the  costs  for  a  one  storey  house  under  the  building  notice 
procedure  are  in  the  region  of  €2,711  (this  includes  a  building  notice  and  two  site 
inspections). The costs of building control for a ten storey office block are estimated at 
€6,682,  and  this  cost  includes  plan  approval  and  ten  inspections.  A  score  of  0  has 
been  provided  as  the  system  appears  proportionate  particularly  considering  that 
building  authorities  on  an  annual  basis  are  not  permitted  to  make  a  profit  on 
chargeable functions.  

Legal Evaluation Article 13(2) 
Overall,  the  analysis  indicates  that  fees  are  proportionate  given  that  national 
legislation  generally  prevents  local  authorities  from  making  a  profit  on  the  fees  they 
charge for building control functions. 

fee  calculation  methodologies  often 

linked  to  specific  building 
In  addition, 
specifications  have  been  established  which  provide  transparency  to  applicants  on  the 
reason  why  certain  costs  have  been  imposed.  In  some  countries,  there  are  upper 
ceilings (such as Poland) on the costs for a building permit enabling low charges to be 
incurred for larger works. Moreover, public authority site inspections are free of charge 
in some Member States (e.g. Czech, Poland and Portugal).  

November 2015 I 149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, while public authorities in the Netherlands are legally constrained to make a 
profit  on  their  building  control  functions,  the  fee  methodology  negatively  impacts  on 
larger works given that it is based on a relatively high percentage of the value of the 
building costs. As a result, fees relating to larger works subsidise the costs of building 
control  for  smaller  buildings.  It  is  suggested  that  a  proportionate  system  should  be 
introduced in this Member State.  

A  Dutch  contractor  commented  that  the  fees  are  an  estimated  2%  of  total 
construction costs. It was mentioned that regardless of the type of building, service 
providers will incur more or less the same rates. 

Generally  speaking,  interviewees  do  not  consider  the  building  permit  fees  as  a 
problem  since  the  fees,  if  they  have  to  pay  them,  are  generally  very  low 
considering the overall costs of the building works.  

While  the legal  evaluation  found  that  in  many cases  the  fee  system  is  proportionate, 
there  were  some  issues  raised  by  service  providers  that  they  may  not  be  receiving 
value for money.  

A  Portuguese  association  commented  that  the  inspection  fees  are  not  well 
considered.  For  example,  if  an  apartment  block  is  inspected,  often  a  small 
proportion  of  the  dwellings  in  the  apartment  block  are  examined  e.g.  25%  of  the 
dwellings. However, the fees will relate to the whole building.  

Indicator analysis Article 13(3) Procedure times  
The  indicator  assessment  in  Table  5.11  seeks  to  asses  the  time  take  taken  for  the 
(initial)  authorisation  process  for  an  application  for  a  building  permit.  Authorisation 
periods  less  than  15  working  days  are  recognised  as  the  least  burdensome,  followed 
by periods of 15 to 30 days, and finally, application processes that take longer than 30 
days are considered as the most restrictive. 

Table 5.11 Indicator Article 13(3)  

Member State 

How  long  is  the  (initial)  fixed  period  for  decision  (<  15  working 

days 0/ 15-30 working days – 3/ > 30 working days or not fixed 6) 

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

3 

3 

6 

6 

3 

3 

6 

6 

0 

6 

6 

3 

6 

3 

Bulgaria  and  Czech  Republic  have  been  allocated  a  score  of  3  given  that  their 
authorisation processes have a duration relating to the category of 15 to 30 days. It is 
possible, however, for  plan approval to be issued in 14 days in  Bulgaria if the plans 
are initially verified by a third party.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

In  Denmark,  there  are  no  fixed  periods  and  therefore  a  score  of  six  applies 
automatically. The Danish Energy Agency has conducted research which indicates that 
the average application processing period for a house is 9 weeks and an office building 
is 11 weeks.  

In  Finland,  there  are  no  fixed  periods  and  therefore  a  score  of  six  applies 
automatically.  Based  on  the  results  of  interviews,  the  average  application  processing 
time in the Helsinki area is 4 to12 weeks for a house and 12 to 20 weeks for an office 
building.  

With regard to France, there is a period of two months for individual houses and three 
months for other projects. There is, however, an authorisation period of six months for 
buildings open to the public. A score of 6 is relevant in this case.  

Although  the  approval  of  the  building  permit  application  is  limited  to  2  days  in 
Greece,  in  practice,  according  to  interviewees,  this  rarely  occurs  and  normally 
approvals are made within 30 days. A score of 3 has been allocated.  

In Germany (NRW), although the authorisation process for a one storey house is one 
month (given that the results of third party plan approval are accepted without further 
assessment),  a  period  of  two  months  is  required  for  a  ten  storey  office  block. 
Therefore, a score of 6 has been given.  

A period of up to 20 weeks is available in Italy (Milan) under the regular procedure. 
However, the building notice procedure can be used to commence work immediately. 
A score of 3 has been given.  

In the Netherlands, a period of 8 weeks has been established for one storey houses 
and  up  to  6  months  for  complex  projects  such  as  office  blocks.  In  Poland,  local 
authorities should issue a decision within 65 days. In Slovenia, a building permit for a 
house must be issued within one month, however, a building permit for an office block 
must be issued within two months. All four of these countries have been given a score 
of 6.  

Portugal has been given a score of 3 as its building notice procedure enables work to 
commence after an approval period of 8 days. However, under the regular procedure, 
the period for approval is around 15 weeks.  

In  Spain  (Madrid),  there  is  a  period  of  up  to  12  weeks  for  houses  and  8  weeks  for 
office  buildings.  However,  given  that  the  building  notice  procedure  is  available  for 
certain types of office buildings enabling work to commence immediately, a score of 3 
has been given.  

The UK (England) has been given a score of 3 as even though the designated period is 
5  weeks  for  a  ten  storey  office  block,  construction  work  can  commence  immediately 
after  notice  is  given  under  the  building  notice  procedure  in  relation  to  a  one  storey 
house.  In  addition,  according  to  interviewees,  large  service  providers  often  call  upon 
the  services  of  private  building  control  bodies  (Approved  Inspectors)  and  normally 
approval to commence work is issued in a three week period via this route.  

Legal Evaluation Article 13(3) Procedure times  
Article 13(3) demands that authorisation procedures operate as quickly as possible or 
in a reasonable period which is fixed and made public.  

November 2015 I 151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With the assistance of the building notice procedure, two countries (IT and UK) stand 
out as offering service providers very efficient access to the market subject to certain 
criteria. In Italy and the UK, after applicants have given notice, service providers may 
commence work immediately. In Portugal there is a very short fixed approval period 
of  8  days.  Where  planning  and  certain  technical  criteria  are  already  satisfied,  it  is 
possible for service providers to have highly efficient access to their service activities 
as envisaged under the Services Directive.  

A  UK  architect  mentioned  that  for  smaller  works,  the  building  notice  procedure 
provides  contractors  with  a  quick  means  to  commence  work  by  cutting  out  the 
approval  process.  Another  UK  architect  mentioned  the  building  notice  procedure 
could  be  used  if  the  service  provider  is  under  pressure  to  commence  work 
immediately.  

Another  UK  architect  suggested  that  the  system  of  private  building  control  is 
comparatively  more  efficient  than  the  authorisation  process  managed  local 
authorities generally speaking, including during the plan approval phase.  

Currently,  it  seems  that  authorisation  procedures  supporting  approval  of  a  building 
permit  can  be  sufficiently  managed  within  a  fixed  for  a  period  of  30  days  for  both 
reference  works  (BG,  CZ)  or  30  days  for  one  storey  house  (SI).  These  examples 
employ  integrated  building  permit  and  zoning  procedures  demonstrating  that  both 
types of approvals can be managed efficiently, and are indicative of good practice.  

A Czech contractor with experience of working in several Member States suggested 
that  the  CZ  building  control  authorities  are  normally  efficient  and  meet  their  own 
approval deadlines (and are more efficient than similar authorities in neighbouring 
countries).  

There are several country examples where the involvement of private building control 
actors  support  the  efficiency  of  the  administrative  approval  process.  For  example, 
where  third  parties  are  called  upon  to  verify  plans,  the  fixed  period  for  approval  is 
shortened to 14 days in Bulgaria and one month in Germany, in this former case this 
relates  to  a  one  storey  house.  Moreover,  private  building  control  bodies  in  the  UK 
(England) offer an alternative pathway to authorisation by shortening the fixed period 
from 5 weeks as performed by public authorities to approximately 3 weeks according 
to interviewees.  

However, in the remaining countries, and for  certain types of works, the fixed period 
for  approval  is  slightly longer.  It  is  acknowledged  that  in  some  cases  building  permit 
authorisation  procedures  are  integrated  with  planning  procedures  and  these  clearly 
will  have  an  impact  on  the  issuing  of  approval  to  commence  work.  However,  in 
countries where the authorisation procedure is longer than two months (either linked 
to one or more building permit procedures and for either one or both reference works) 
it  is  suggested  that  the  fixed  period  is  subject  to  review  to  identify  where  efficiency 
gains can be made to ensure that the period is regarded as reasonable (FR, ES, NL, 
PL, PT).  

In  Greece,  the  designated  fixed  period  of  2  days  is  rarely  kept  according  to 
interviewees.  While  this  approach  is  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  Services 
Directive,  it  is  suggested  that  administrative  procedures  are  reviewed  to  ensure  that 
this fixed period is regarded as meaningful to applicants.  

A  Greek  association  commented  that  the  2  day  fixed  period  is  rarely  kept  and 
normally the authorisation procedure takes up to 30 days. 

With  regard  to  Denmark  and  Finland,  it  is  clear  that  the  lack  of  fixed  procedures 
defined  nationally  runs  contrary  to  the  requirement  of  Article  13(3).  In  addition,  the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

average  duration  for  a  building  permit  can  exceed  a  period  of  two  months  for  both 
types  of  reference  works.  Reforms  are  suggested  for  these  countries  in  line  with  the 
relevant good practice identified and the needs of the Services Directive. 

A Danish association mentioned that the most significant problem in engaging with 
the building control system in Denmark is the amount of time it takes to receive a 
permit.  While  statistics  are  published  on  this  issue,  it  was  mentioned  that  is  not 
enough to improve the efficiency of the system.  

Indicator analysis Article 13(3) Extensions  
The  indicator  analysis  in  table  5.12  below  examines  the  extent  of  the  use  of 
extensions  as  part  of  the  authorisation  process.  The  benchmarks  adopted  for  this 
assessment consider the least  restrictive systems as those that do not use  extension 
procedures,  followed  by  systems  that  make  available  one  extension  only  and  finally, 
countries that have the option of implementing multiple extensions.  

Table 5.12 Indicator Article 13(3) 

Member State 

Can  fixed  periods  be  extended  by  the  competent  authority  for  a 

minimum  time  (no  extension  0  /  1  extension:  3/  more  than  one 

extensions: 6);  

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0  

0 

6 

6 

0 

3 

6 

3 

0 

3 

In  a  number  of  countries,  there  are  no  possible  extensions  available  as  part  of  the 
authorisation  process  for  a  building  permit  (BG,  DE,  EL,  SI).  A  score  of  0  applies  in 
these cases.  

In  other  systems,  extensions  are  available  but  in  instances  where  the  applicant 
submitted  an  incorrect  or  incomplete  application  (CZ,  IT)  or  if  technical  deficiencies 
are identified (ES). However, these can only take place on one occasion. A score of 0 
has  been  allocated  given  that  these  circumstances  relate  to  where  the  applicant  has 
made an error.  

In Denmark and Finland, there are no legally designated fixed periods or extensions 
and  therefore  a  score  of  6  applies  automatically  in  these  cases  as  rules  on  the 
authorisation period are not clearly set out to applicants in a uniform manner.  

With  regard  to  France,  there  are  three  types  of  extensions  that  can  be  drawn  upon 
depending  on  the  circumstances  associated  with  a  building  permit  application.  This 
includes  a  one  month  extension  where  other  legislation  applies,  a  two  month 

November 2015 I 153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
extension for consultations with the Regional Commission, and a six month extension 
for buildings open to the public. A score of 6 has been allocated.  

In terms of the  Netherlands, a municipal authority may choose to use an extension 
procedure but this can only be used once. A score of 3 applies in this instance.  

In Poland,  the procedure permits the authority to request further documents  and/or 
clarifications  from  the  applicant  on  as  many  occasions  as  deemed  appropriate,  in 
which  case  the  authorisation  procedure  is  suspended  until  the  applicant  provides  the 
response. Given that requests for clarifications can be made on repeated occasions, a 
score of 6 applies.  

With  regard  to  Portugal,  two  types  of  extensions  are  possible  in  the  cases  of 
incomplete  submission  dossiers  and  if  there  is  a  need  to  consult  with  other  public 
authorities (up to 45 days). A score of 3 is relevant in this case.  

In  the  UK  (England),  as  part  of  the  procedure  linked  to  the  approval  of  plans,  a 
municipal  authority  may  choose  to  extend  the  authorisation  period  on  one  occasion, 
but  this  is  not  limited  in  the  law  to  a  specific  circumstances.  A  score  of  3  has  been 
allocated.  

Legal Evaluation Article 13(3) Extensions  
In  relation to the matter  of  extensions, as defined under Article 13(3), depending on 
the complexity of the issue, authorisation procedures are permitted to offer extensions 
on one occasion only for a limited time.  

A  number  of  countries  appear  to  have  established  good  practices  with  regard  to  this 
aspect  given  that  they  do  not  use  extensions  as  part  of  their  building  permit 
procedures  (BG,  DE,  EL,  SI)  or  extensions  are  limited  to  circumstances  where  the 
applicant has submitted a non-compliant application and can be used on one occasion 
only  (CZ,  ES,  IT).  In  the  spirit  of  the  Services  Directive,  this  approach  ensures 
efficiency  of  authorisation  procedures  given  that  public  authorities  are  unable  to 
extend  designated  periods  for  reasons  other  than  where  the  applicant  has  submitted 
an  aspect  of  their  application  in  error.  As  a  result,  service  providers  are  in  a  better 
position  to  plan  their  construction  activities  with  the  understanding  that  a  response 
will be provided by the authority in a specified timeframe. Compliant applications will 
therefore result in the provision of services at a time originally foreseen. 

All  Italian  interviewees  confirmed  that  Italian  authorities  mostly  respect  the 
deadlines. Normally tacit approval is not given according to one of the Italian firms, 
however exceptions are made under the building notice procedure.  

Other  counties  appear  to  be  less  closely  aligned  with  the  requirements  of  Article 
13(3).  Given  that  there  is  not  national  legislation  in  place  to  govern  possible 
extensions  in  Denmark  and  Finland,  service  providers  are  subject  to  an  uneven 
system  across  municipalities  and  in  some  cases  possibly  in  relation  to  individual 
applications  with  the  same  municipality.  As  a  result,  service  providers  do  not  benefit 
from  the  conditions  stipulated  under  the  Services  Directive  and  could  face  delays  to 
their  project  activities  even  if  their  application  is  legally  compliant  when  first 
submitted.  

All  Danish  interviewees  confirmed  that  the  process  takes  a  long  time,  impacting 
negatively on the efficiency of project implementation.  

In  the  cases  of  France  and  Portugal,  extensions  are  available  for  the  purpose  of 
consultation  with  other  public  authorities  when  required.  Given  this  may  delay 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

proceedings in some cases by up to 45 days (PT) and two to six months (FR), service 
providers  could  be  subject  to  significant  delays.  It  is  possible  to  question  whether 
these schemes are aligned to the notion of efficiency of authorisation processes.  

A  French  architect  commented  that  French  authorities  frequently  use  extensions, 
delaying the process, but notifications of such actions are given.  

In terms of the Netherlands and the UK, while it is the case that extensions can be 
made  on  one  occasion  only,  it  seems  that  authorities  can  use  they  own  discretion  in 
doing so. Without specifically restricting extensions to non-compliant applications only, 
service providers may experience delays to the provision of their services for reasons 
outside  of  their  control.  This  approach  does  not  seem  to  offer  efficiency  of 
authorisation processes as foreseen under the Services Directive. 

While Poland permits extensions in circumstances of non-compliant applications only, 
clarifications  can  be  requested  of  applicants  on  multiple  occasions.  This  impacts 
negatively on service providers as the authorisation procedure has the potential to be 
suspended repeatedly resulting in uncertainty and potentially several delays.  

A  Polish  association  commented  that  Polish  authorities  are  not  being  held 
accountable  for  the  number  of  extensions  to  the  procedure  they  make.  The 
approval process was regarded as too slow for this reason.  

Indicator analysis Article 13(3) Notification of extensions  
The  aim  of  the  indicator  assessment  in  Table  5.13  is  to  benchmark  the  level  of 
restrictiveness  in  terms  of  whether  applicants  are  notified  of  extensions  before  the 
original period has expired (where they apply). If this is the case, country systems are 
classified as comparatively less restrictive than those that do not notify applicants with 
the timeframe.  

Table 5.13 Indicators established under Article 13(3) 

Member State 

Are applicants notified of extensions before the original period has 

expired (Y 0 / N 6);  

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

6 

6 

N/A 

6 

0 

N/A 

0 

0 

0 

N/A 

0 

A  number  of  countries  do  not  use  extension  procedures  and  therefore  the  indicator 
assessment is not applicable (BG, DE, SI). 

A  request  for  further  documentation  must  be  made  by  an  authority  in  the  relevant 
authorisation  timeframe  in  the  Czech  Republic.  In  France,  the  relevant  authority 

November 2015 I 155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
must notify the applicant in the month that follows the submission of the application. 
In Italy (Milan) and Poland,  official suspensions to the procedure can only be made 
during  the  specified  authorisation  period.  In  terms  of  the  Netherlands,  extensions 
are  notified  to  applicants  in  the  first  eight  weeks.  In  Portugal,  notifications  must  be 
given  to  applicants.  This  is  8  days  if  the  application is incomplete  and  up  to  45  days 
regarding  comments  on  the  engineering  project  requested  from  other  authorities. 
Notifications  of  extensions  must  be  given  to  applicants  within  the  first  10  days  after 
submission in  Spain (Madrid). In the  UK  (England) notification must be given to the 
applicant  in  the  initial  five  week  period  if  the  extension  procedure  is  to  be  used.  A 
score of 0 applies to this group.  

In Denmark and Finland, there are no legally designated fixed periods, extensions or 
uniform rules on notifications and therefore a score of 6 applies automatically in these 
cases.  

According  to  interviewees,  even  though  the  use  of  extensions  does  not  apply  to 
Greece,  the  two  day  rule  for  plan  approval  is  hardly  kept  and  applicants  are 
sometimes  notified  of  extensions  after  the  two  day  timeframe.  Given  these 
circumstances, a score of six has been allocated.  

Legal Evaluation Article 13(3) Notification of extensions  
The  Services  Directives  dictates  that  official  extensions  to  an  authorisation  scheme 
shall be notified to the applicant before the original period has expired. 

Overall, there does seem to be a high level of compliance with this requirement across 
the  14  study  countries  given  that  a  number  of  countries  do  not  use  extension 
procedures (BG, DE, SI) and those that do use extension procedures have mandated 
the  use  of  notifications  to  applicants  before  the  original  period  has  expired  (CZ,  FR, 
IT, PL, NL, PT, ES, UK).  

However,  across  the  latter  group  of  countries,  there  are  distinctions  that  need  to  be 
made with regard to the timing of the use of  notification of extensions. For  example, 
in  relation  to  incomplete  applications,  Portugal  (8  days)  and  Spain  (10  days)  issue 
notifications  in  a  very  short  timeframe.  These  are  clearly  examples  of  good  practice 
and could be adopted by other countries.  

Notification  of  extensions  are  issued  at  a  much  later  stage  in  the  authorisation 
procedure in other countries and the reasons for the use of the extension may relate 
to a wide range of issues. This includes the Netherlands (8 weeks) and UK (5 weeks) 
among others. It goes without saying that if notifications are issued towards the latter 
stages  of  the  initial  authorisation  period, it  may  result in  an  unexpected  delay  to  the 
provision of services.  

In  Denmark  and  Finland,  given  the  absence  of  national  rules  that  govern  the 
functioning  of  authorisation  processes,  it  is  not  clear  how  the  notification  procedure 
operates  across  all  municipalities.  The  resulting  lack  of  certainty  is  detrimental  to 
service  providers  particularly  if  extensions  are  made  without  sufficient  notification  of 
applicants. This approach is not aligned to the principles of Article 13(3).  

Although extensions are not available in  Greece, according to interviewees, the two-
day  period  for  approval  of  the  application  is  not  often  kept  and  notifications  of 
extensions are not made in the initial period. This practice is not indicative of a strong 
level of compliance with Article 13 (3).  

A  UK  architect  commented  that  local  authorities  normally  issue  decisions  in  the 
period given and  notify applicants when extensions are  used. However, given that 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

authorities can issue comments and conditions when permission is given, there is a 
feeling that sometimes authorities have not reviewed the applications in detail. For 
example,  information  requested  may  be  contained  in  the  original  application. 
Applicants, however, need to prepare a note indicating where the authority can find 
the information.  

A Greek association commented that notifications of extensions are not made in the 
2 day fixed period. Rather, they take place after this timeframe.  

Indicator analysis Article 13(4) Tacit approval  
The  Services  Directive  recommends  the  use  of  tacit  approval  subject  to  other  needs 
that may need to be considered related to the public interest.  

The  indicator  analysis  in  Table  5.14  examines  if  tacit  approval  features  in  building 
permit  legislation.  Systems  that  have  adopted  this  practice  are  regarded  as  less 
restrictive  than  those  that  have  not.  Moreover,  with  a  view  to  supporting  the  legal 
evaluation,  the  indicator  analysis  takes  into  account  whether  zoning  approval  is 
granted separately or as part of an integrated  procedure combined with the approval 
of the building permit. This is to help identify where opportunities may be apparent for 
the uptake of the tacit approval principle.  

Table 5.14 Indicator Article 13(4)  

Member 

If  fixed  periods  have  expired,  are  authorisations  deemed  to  have  been 

State 

granted (Y 0 /3 in some cases/ N 6); The issue of whether zoning approval 

forms  part  of  the  authorisation  is  highlighted  to  support  the  legal 
analysis.159  

BG 

CZ 

DE 

(NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK 

(England) 

6 

6 

0 

6 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

6 

6 

6 

6  

Combined planning and building permit procedures  

Zoning approval is required under a separate procedure prior to applying for 

a building permit. However, in certain circumstances, the procedures can be 

combined  e.g.  where  zoning  plans  are  well  established  and  for  works  such 

as one storey houses.  

Combined planning and building permit procedures 

Combined planning and building permit procedures 

Planning approval is required first as part of a two step approach.  

Separate planning and building permit procedures  

Zoning approval and the building permit procedures are integrated.  

Combined  and  separate  planning  and  building  permit  procedures  are 

available optionally to applicants  

Combined planning and building permit procedures 

Combined planning and building permit procedures 

Separate  planning  and  building  permit  procedures.  However,  zoning 

approval and the building permit procedures are integrated if a zoning plan 

is in place. ( 

Zoning approval and the building permit procedures are combined.  

Zoning approval and the building permit procedures are integrated.  

Separate planning and building permit procedures 

159   The data was collected from a study undertaken by OTB. 

November 2015 I 157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The  legal  mapping  exercise  suggests  that  six  countries  have  made  it  clear  in  their 
legislation that a system of tacit approval applies and a score  of 0 has been given in 
these cases.  

In Germany (NRW), tacit approval is available if deadlines have not been kept but an 
interviewee commented that authorities work very efficiently normally. Tacit approval 
is available in Greece although interviewees suggested that applicants are not keen to 
commence building work under this procedure given the legal uncertainties associated 
with it. In this instance the 2 day deadline is not often met.  

In relation to France, applicants can assume that tacit approval applies if a response 
within  the  maximum  procedure  time  is  not  given,  although  this  does  not  apply  in  all 
cases  for  example  for  proposed  building  work  in  conservation  areas.  In  Italy,  if  the 
authority  does  not  issue  a  response  in  the  timeframe,  a  procedure  of  ‘consent  by 
silence’  applies  but  this  does  not  apply  in  circumstances  where  there  are  restrictions 
on the construction site (e.g. environmental).  

In  the  Netherlands,  in  terms  of  applications  that  are  in  the  scope  of  the  existing 
zoning  plan,  if  authorisation  deadlines  are  not  met  by  authorities,  tacit  approval 
applies.  There  are  circumstances  where  tacit  approval  applies  as  a  result  of 
administrative  silence  in  Spain.  However,  tacit  refusal  should  also  be  assumed  as  a 
result of administrative silence as a result of a number of zoning matters as indicated 
in the section on procedure times.  

In the remaining countries (BG, CZ, DK, FI, PL, PT, SI and UK), the legal feature of 
tacit  approval  is  not  indicated  in  their  legislation  and  these  countries  have  been 
allocated a score of 6.  

Legal evaluation Article 13(4) Tacit approval  
A  number  of  countries  have  adopted  the  requirement  of  tacit  approval  failing  a 
response by the relevant authority within the period set or extended.  

A  key  example  of  good  practice  is  Germany  (NRW)  where  applications  are 
automatically approved failing a response in the designated timeframe. It is assumed 
that a procedure of this nature provides an incentive to authorities to efficiently meet 
deadlines.  However,  interviewees  mentioned  that  deadlines  are  normally  kept  by 
authorities.  

Where  approval  deadlines  are  very  occasionally  not  met  by  authorities,  a  German 
association mentioned that German firms do not feel legally secure to proceed with 
the building work when they are given tacit approval and prefer to wait for official 
approval to be given. However, a German firm mentioned that tacit approval is not 
available  suggesting  that  there  may  be  some  confusion  around  the  availability  of 
this procedure.  

Other countries (ES, FR, IT, NL) offer tacit approval subject to certain zoning criteria. 
In  these  cases,  there  has  been  consideration  to  instances  where  there  is  a  justified 
reason  where  tacit  approval  should  apply.  Similarly,  such  approaches  demonstrate 
good practice according to Article 13(4).  

A French architect commented that service providers do feel secure if they use the 
tacit  approval  procedure.  However,  it  was  mentioned  that  service  providers  must 
notify  the  authority  of  their  intentions  and  wait  two  weeks  in  case  an  official 
response is issued before going ahead with the works.  

In  the  case  of  Greece,  tacit  approval  is  available  and  this  demonstrates  good 
compliance  with  the  Services  Directive.  However,  given  that  interviewees  indicated 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

that  tacit  approval  is  not  frequently  assumed  by  applicants  as  a  result  of  legal 
uncertainties,  it  would  be  helpful if  the  authorities  clarified  when  it  is appropriate  for 
services providers to act on this procedure.  

A  number  of  countries  have  not  adopted  the  principle  of  tacit  approval  in  their 
legislation (BG, CZ, DK, FI, PL, PT, SI and UK). It is not clear if these countries have 
undertaken  a  review  to  identify  circumstances  where  tacit  approval  could  possibly 
apply.  In  some  cases,  such  as  CZ  and  the  UK  (England),  planning  permission  is 
granted  under  a  separate  initial  procedure  suggesting  that  tacit  approval  could  be 
adopted if authorities fail to respond within the period set or extended.  

A Danish association mentioned that deadlines for a building permit are sometimes 
not  kept  and  the  procedure  occasionally  ‘drags  on’.  Stronger  mechanisms  were 
recommended to enhance the efficiency and consistency of the process.  

A  UK  architect  mentioned  that  tacit  approval  does  not  apply  in  England  but  the 
opinion of the interviewee was that it would not be an attractive feature given the 
risks. However, where delays in receiving approval have very occasionally occurred, 
it was indicated that developers have commenced work and notified the authority of 
their  actions  and  that  they  wish  to  receive  approval  swiftly.  Another  UK  architect 
mentioned  that  local  authorities  can  independently  establish  tacit  approval 
procedures but that  it  is better to commence  work  and request approval from  the 
authority.  

5.6  Indicator analysis and legal evaluation Article 16(2)(f) 
The  following  section  provides  an  indicator  analysis  and  legal  evaluation  of  building 
permit legislation under Article 16(2)f of the Services Directive.  

Summary of Article 16(2)(f) 

  Member States may not restrict the freedom to provide services in the case of 
a provider established in another Member State by imposing requirements, 
except for those necessary for health and safety at work, which affect the use 
of equipment and material which are an integral part of the service provided; 

Indicator analysis Article 16(2)(f) 
The indicator analysis is presented in Table 5.15.  

Table 5.15 Article 16 (2f) Indicator (Use of Equipment)  

Member State 

Where  service  providers  are  established  in  another  Member  State 

and 

intend  to  provide  temporary  cross-border  services,  are 

requirements on the use of equipment imposed? (Y 6 / N 0); 

BG 

CZ 

DE (NRW) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

0 

0  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  

November 2015 I 159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Where  service  providers  are  established  in  another  Member  State 

and 

intend  to  provide  temporary  cross-border  services,  are 

requirements on the use of equipment imposed? (Y 6 / N 0); 

PL 

PT 

SI 

UK (England) 

0 

0 

0 

0  

With  regard  to  the  indicator  corresponding  with  Article  16  (2f),  it  appears  that  the 
building  permit  procedure  does  not  impose  requirements  on  the  use  of  equipment 
based on non-harmonised national rules.  

Legal evaluation Article 16(2)(f) 
The  countries  analysed  were  found  to  be  compliant  with  this  particular  Article 
demonstrating good compliance with the Services Directive.  

5.7  Aggregate indicator results and identification of good practice 
The  indicator  results  relating  to  the  overall  assessment  of  building  permit  legislation 
are  provided  below.  Overall  scores  are  provided  as  well  as  scores  for  regulatory  and 
administrative burden separately. All scores are expressed in a scale from 0 to 6. 

Table 5.16 Building permit legislation - overall indicator results  

Article 9 (1) and 16 2 (b) 

B

G  

6,

C

Z 

5,

D

E 

6,

D

K 

4,

E

L 

3,

E

S 

3,

FI  F

IT  N

R 

6,

5,

L 

3,

3,

P

L 

6,

P

T 

5,

SI  U

K 

3,

5,

(15%) 

00 

10 

00 

60 

70 

70 

70 

00 

10 

20 

00 

10 

10 

70 

Article 10 (3) (25%) 

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

3,

4,

3,

3,

70 

70 

70 

70 

00 

00 

70 

90 

70 

70 

70 

40 

70 

00 

Article 10 (4) (5%)  

6,

6,

0,

6,

6,

6,

6,

6,

6,

6,

6,

6,

6,

0,

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

Article 16 f (5%) 

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

Overall – regulatory 

burden 

Article 5 (25%) 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

4,

2

5 

2,

3,

9

8 

2,

3,

6

5 

3,

3,

8

3 

2,

3,

2

1 

2,

3,

2

1 

2,

3,

5

6 

1,

4,

3

5 

3,

3,

9

8 

2,

3,

4

1 

2,

4,

2

5 

3,

4,

3

3 

2,

3,

9

8 

1,

2,

6

1 

0,

70 

50 

05 

20 

55 

25 

95 

15 

55 

40 

30 

30 

75 

50 

Article 8 (10%) 

4,

2,

2,

4,

4,

2,

0,

4,

4,

0,

4,

4,

4,

0,

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

Article 13 (15%) 

0,

2,

1,

4,

1,

0,

4,

2,

0,

3,

3,

2,

3,

2,

Overall – administrative 

burden 

Overall (regulatory and 

administrative burden) 

75 

55 

50 

50 

35 

75 

50 

10 

00 

30 

90 

85 

30 

85 

2,

3

8 

3,

3

1 

2,

4

2 

3,

2

0 

2,

3

8 

3,

0

1 

3,

2

5 

3,

5

4 

2,

4

8 

2,

8

5 

1,

7

5 

2,

4

8 

2,

3

3 

2,

9

4 

3,

0

1 

3,

6

8 

2,

0

8 

3,

0

3 

2,

1

9 

2,

8

0 

3,

6

2 

3,

9

4 

2,

8

1 

3,

5

7 

2,

6

7 

3,

3

2 

1,

1

1 

1,

8

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

  UK (England) (1,86) has the least restrictive building control regime when 

examined against the relevant Articles of the Services Directive. In particular, 
compared to other Member States, this country has performed well against 
Article 5, Article 8, Article 10(4), Article 9(1) and Article 162(b). However, 
better performance could be attained under Article 10(3) and Article 13; 

  FI (2,94), DE (3,01), EL (2,85), IT (3,03) the NL (2,80) and ES (2,48) have 

performed quite well against the indicators. There are various strengths and 
weaknesses linked to each country. FI, EL, ES and NL have relatively low 
scores under Article 5. Most of these countries have performed quite well under 
Article 9 (1) and 16 2 (b). FI and NL have very good scores under Article 8. 
However, better performance could be obtained under Article 10(3)(4); 

  BG (3,31), CZ (3,20), DK (3,54), FR (3,68), PL (3,94), PT (3,57) and SI 

(3,32) have performed slightly less well against the indicators. CZ, FR and PT 
are slightly more restrictive in terms of Article 10(3) and FR against Article 
10(4). Apart from DK, the remaining countries have not performed well against 
Article 5. Generally speaking, these systems have generated more points under 
Article 9(1) and Article 8.  

Figure  5.1  provides  the  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall  level  of 
regulatory  restrictiveness  of  building  permit  legislation  (i.e.  the  issues  examined 
around regulatory burdens and mutual recognition). The least restrictive countries are 
associated  with  low  scores  (the  reverse  is  true  for  countries  with  high  scores).  A 
colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual  indicator  results  in  relation  to 
specific legal and procedural demands of the Services Directive. 

Figure 5.1 Overall regulatory restrictiveness of building permits 

Figure  5.2  provides  the  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall 
administrative  restrictiveness  of  building  permit  legislation.  The  least  restrictive 
countries  are  associated  with  low  scores  (the  reverse  is  true  for  countries  with  high 

November 2015 I 161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
scores).  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual  indicator  results  in 
relation to specific legal and procedural demands of the Services Directive. 

Figure 5.2 Overall administrative restrictiveness of building permits 

Figure  5.3  provides  the  combined  results  of  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  overall 
restrictiveness of building permit legislation (this assessment combines the Figure 5.1 
and 5.2 results around the assessment of administrative and regulatory burdens). The 
least  restrictive  countries  are  associated  with  low  scores  (the  reverse  is  true  for 
countries  with  high  scores).  A  colour-coded  break  down  is  provided  of  the  individual 
indicator  results  in  relation  to  the  individual  scores  for  administrative  and  regulatory 
burdens.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Figure 5.3 Overall restrictiveness of building permits  

Taking  on  board  the  results  of  both  the  indicator  assessment  of  the  horizontal 
authorisation  schemes  (see  Chapter  4)  and  building  permit  legislation,  an  overall 
analysis of the study countries is presented in Table 5.17.  

Table 5.17 Overall indicator results for the assessment of the building permit 

legislation and horizontal authorisation scheme 

BG   CZ  DE  DK  EL  ES  FI 

FR 

IT  NL  PL  PT  SI  UK 

HAS (30%) 

Building permit 
(70%) 
Total score 

3,4
1 
3,3
1 
3,
34 

N/
A 
3,2
0 
2,
24 

N/
A 
3,0
1 
2,
11 

3,6
9 
3,5
4 
3,
58 

1,8
6 
2,8
5 
2,
55 

2,8
8 
2,4
8 
2,
60 

N/
A 
2,9
4 
2,
06 

N/
A 
3,6
8 
2,
57 

2,9
0 
3,0
3 
2,
99 

N/
A 
2,8
0 
1,
96 

N/
A 
3,9
4 
2,
75 

2,5
6 
3,5
7 
3,
27 

N/
A 
3,3
2 
2,
33 

N/
A 
1,8
6 
1,
30 

  UK (England) (1,30), has the least restrictive regime considering the absence 
of horizontal authorisation schemes and, comparatively speaking, a non- 
restrictive building control regime; 

  CZ (2,24), DE (NRW) (2,11), FI (2,06), NL (1,96) and SI (2,33) have 

performed quite well considering the absence of horizontal authorisation 
schemes but they have significantly more restrictive building control regimes; 

  ES (Madrid) (2,60), EL (2,55), IT (Milan) (2,99) have established horizontal 

authorisation schemes but their building control regimes are similar in terms of 
the level restrictiveness as the countries indicated above; 

  FR (2,57) and PL (2,75) do not have horizontal authorisation schemes but 

relatively more restrictive building control regimes; 

  BG (3,34), DK(3,58), and PT (3,27) have horizontal authorisation schemes 

and significantly more restrictive building control regimes. 

An overview is presented in Table 5.18 of the good practice identified against each of 
the  Articles  of  the  Services  Directive  along  with  areas  of  less  effective  compliance  in 
relation to the fourteen study countries.  

November 2015 I 163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 5.18 Identification of good practice, areas for suggested improvement and non-compliance 
Article  Good practice (GP)  

Examples of less effective compliance  

Good practice examples  
A  number  of  countries  have  made  available  optional 
procedures  relating  to  either  one  or  both  of  the 
reference works.  

Optional 
procedures 
are 
significant 
for 
available 
categories  of  works  (e.g. 
dwellings  or  /  and  office 
blocks) 

This  includes  BG,  DE,  ES  and  SI  regarding  the  light 
procedure  where  plans  are  verified  by  third  parties. 
The  building  notice  applies  to  CZ,  (in  some  case  DE) 
ES, IT and PT.  

CZ,  EL,  ES,  IT PT and  SI  have adopted  the  approach 
of self-certification of plans.  

The  Spanish  Declaration  of  Responsibility  is  a  good 
example  of  enabling  service  providers  to  self-certify 
their  own  plans  and  limiting  the  extent  of  the  site 
inspection regime.  

The following countries rely heavily on the regular 
procedure for dwellings and office blocks (DK, FI, 
FR, NL and PL).  

Article 
5 

Minor  work  is  exempt  form 
building control procedures  

Minor  work,  defined  in  various  ways,  is  exempt  from 
building control procedures (BG, CZ, DE, DK , ES, FI, 
FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK) 

A  notification  procedure  applies 
categories of minor work in Greece.  

to  broad 

information 

Key 
is  made 
available  in  English  including 
building  regulations,  lists  of 
relevant  standards,  building 
and 
permit 
submission procedures.  

webpages 

copies 

Simple 
should  be 
accepted  limiting  the  costs 
producing 
in 
involved 
time 
certified 
or 
copies 
wasted 
the 
exchange of original copies.  

in  managing 

Some  Member  States  have  provided  certain  items  in 
EN.  This  includes  relevant  legislation  and  lists  of 
standards (CZ) or parts of the legislation (DK, FI and 
NL).  

Simple copies of documents are accepted in the study 
countries  generally  speaking  (CZ,  DK,  FI,  FR,  NL,  SI 
UK)  even  if  the  production  of  the  documents  is  in 
certified  or  authenticated  form  (such  as  technical 
designs, by registered professionals) FI, UK and NL do 
not  even  require  initial  production  in  certified  or 
authenticated form 

The 
demands 
required are limited to a small 

submission 

The  Netherlands  is  a  good  practice  example  given 
that  the  submission  demands  are  limited  to  3 

No  Member  State  where  EN  is  not  the  native 
language  has  provided  all  of  the  key  information 
in  EN  including  building  regulations,  listing  of 
relevant standards, building permit webpages and 
submission  procedures. (BG, CZ,  DE, DK, ES,  FI, 
FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI).  

 In Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain (in 
some regions outside of Madrid) original versions 
of key documents are required. In BG translations 
need  to  be  submitted  in  certified  form  (by 
translators  registered  in  BG  –  ES,  however, 
accepts  simple  copies  of  translations  certified  by 
sworn translators) The authorities in PT may also 
request original documents if there are doubts.  
A  large  number  of  categories  of  submission 
demands and are requested in the other countries 

November 2015 I 164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article  Good practice (GP)  
number  of 
categories  of 
documents  and  are  few  in 
number  reducing  the  overall 
administrative burden.  

Good practice examples  
categories of documents.  

options 

are 
Procedural 
available 
the 
(related 
either  one  or  both  of  the 
reference  works)  that  reduce 
the 
the 
complex 
submission demands.  

ty  of 

to 

Some  countries  have  introduced  measures  to  reduce 
the  complexity  of  submissions  for  one  or  both  of  the 
reference works e.g. enabling local authorities to have 
discretion  over  the  submission  demands  required 
(DK),  or  to  permit  the  self  certification  of  plans  (CZ, 
EL, SI) or making available building notice procedures 
that  require 
the  regular 
procedure (ES, UK). 

less  documents 

than 

should 

Documents 
be 
accepted  in  EN  or  supported 
by  EN  translations  (by  non-
certified translators).  

N/A  

Certified  or  authenticated 
documents issued in other MS 
should  be  accepted  (without 
requiring  further  formalities) 
ensuring  the  efficiency  of  the 
submission procedure.  

Finland,  the  Netherlands  and  the  UK  do  not  require 
the submission of certified plans.  

Examples of less effective compliance  
with  some  countries  requesting  6  or  more 
categories (BE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT).  

In  many  cases,  the  categories  of  submission 
demands  for  both  reference  works  are  very 
similar (BG, DE, FI, FR, IT, PL, PT). 

No  Member  State  where  EN  is  not  the  native 
language  permits  the  submission  of  documents 
needed for a building permit in EN.  
(BG, CZ, DE, DK , EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, 
SI) 

Certified  plans  signed  by  an  architect  /  engineer 
registered  with  a  national  body  are  required  for 
submission  (BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  ES,  EL  FR,  IT,  PL, 
PT, SI).  

a 

been 

satisfied 

Where 
certificate, 
attestation or other document 
proving  that  a  requirement 
has 
is 
demanded, 
equivalent 
documents  should  be  deemed 
acceptable in another Member 
requiring 
State 
further  formalities)  ensuring 
the 
the 
of 
efficiency 
submission procedure.  

(without 

Electronic  procedures  permit 
full 
and 
uploading of electronic copies 

handling 

case 

are 

not 

capacity 

certificates 

It  seems  that  equivalent  documents  are  often  not 
demanded  as  part  of  building  permit  procedures 
demonstrating 
because 
technical/professional 
often 
requested  as  part  of  building  permit  applications 
(requirements  are  normally  linked  to  the  specific 
site).  However,  in  some  cases,  certificates  or  other 
documents  proving  that  a  requirement  has  been 
satisfied  are  demanded  (such  as  health  and  safety 
certificates in ES and insurance documents in DK and 
PT). Given that these are  not site specific, equivalent 
documents are accepted.  
Finland  and  the  Netherlands  provide  an  online 
centralised  national  system  for  the  submission  of 
building  permit  applications  that  offers  full  electronic 

 As  part  of  submission  demands  in  DE,  a  map  is 
required  from  the  Land  Registry.  While  it  is  not 
certain  that  an  equivalent  document  could  be 
provided  by  a  body  outside  of  DE,  it  is  not  good 
practice 
for 
restrict 
issued  by 
submission  bodies  to  documents 
national bodies.  

requirements 

the 

to 

Apart  from  the  UK  that  provides  full  electronic 
case  handling  at  local  authority  level,  and  ES 
which offers full electronic case handling in some 

November 2015 I 165 

 
 
 
 
 
Article  Good practice (GP)  
Article 
8  

of  documents 
to  ensure 
efficient  submission  of  all 
documents required.  

Good practice examples  
case handling.  

Examples of less effective compliance  
the  remaining  countries  only 
regions  only, 
partially 
of 
electronic 
documents  or  make  forms  available  online.  (BG, 
CZ, DE, DK, EL, FR, IT, PL, PT, SI). A centralised 
point of submission is preferable. 

submission 

accept 

Article 
9(1)  

Article 
10 (3)  

should 

are 
from 

Certified  or  qualified  service 
offered 
providers 
building 
exemption 
control procedures.  
Country  of  origin  or  Mutual 
recognition  principles  and 
procedures 
be 
enabling 
established 
construction 
services 
providers  to  provide  services 
cross-border  on  the  basis  of 
home  country  requirements 
technical 
including 
requirements, 
and 
safety  requirements  and  use 
of equipment  

health 

CZ,  EL,  ES,  IT PT and  SI  have adopted  the  approach 
of  self-certification  of  plans.  The  UK  permits 
installation  service  providers  to  self-certify  their  own 
work.  

Self-certification is not practised in the remaining 
study countries. (BG, DE, DK, FI, FR, NL, PL). 

There are some study countries that have established 
technical  requirements  that  strongly  lean  towards 
performance based standards (EL, FR, UK). (All other 
MS  except  PT  have  a  combination  of  performance-
based and prescriptive standard) 

No  study  countries  complies  in  full  with  this 
requirement.  
(BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT, 
SI, UK).  No country of  origin principle was found 
and  the  general  principle  of  mutual  recognition 
(not present in FR or DE) is inoperative 

Article 
10 (3)  

Mutual  recognition  principles 
and  procedures  should  be 
established  enabling  cross-
border  construction  services 
home 
providers 
use 
country 
insurance  products 
cross-border  

to 

Most  study  countries  have  established  specific 
principles  recognising  insurance  products  held  by 
cross-border  service  providers  in  national  law  that 
transposes  the  Services  Directive  (BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK  , 
EL, ES, FI, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK). 

Article 
10 (4)  

In  so  far  as  building  permits 
control 
compliance  with 
requirements  which  are  not 
site-specific,  schemes  could 
be  made  available  to  ensure 
nationwide 
of 
building designs.  

approval 

UK (England) has introduced a national type approval 
system  that  offers  procedural  efficiency  gains  to 
service  providers  wishing to  build  the  same  structure 
in more than one location. Plans are approved on one 
occasion  and  can  be  re-used  as  part  of  subsequent 
building permit applications.  

All  study  countries  have  not  established  specific 
procedures.  
(BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT, 
SI, UK). 
In  France,  the  Spinetta  Law  dictates  that  a 
specific  liability  insurance  product  offered  mainly 
by national insurance providers should be held by 
contractors.  This  is  in  contradiction  with  the 
Service Directive.  
DE has established a type approval scheme but it 
does not appear to be widely promoted for use in 
the context of the reference works.  
The remaining study countries do not comply with 
this requirement (BG, CZ, DK , EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, 
NL,  PL,  PT,  SI).Some  countries  duplicate  non-
site-specific  controls  in  each  building  permit 
scheme  (ES,  DK,  PT)  and  sometimes  even 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article  Good practice (GP)  

Good practice examples  

The  fees  are  proportionate  to 
costs  and  authorities  are 
restricted  from  profit  making 
activities.  Cross  subsidisation 
of  building  control  services  is 
not applied.  

The  method  of  fee  calculation  in  most  countries  is 

regarded  as  proportionate.  (BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES, 

FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK). 

Article 
13  (2) 
(3) (4)  

periods 

for 
Fixed 
authorisation 
building 
permit  applications  should 
ideally  relate  to  a  duration  of 
15 to 30 days.  

of 

With  regard  to  the  reference  works,  the  building 
notice  procedure  enables  services  providers 
to 
commence  work  immediately  in  IT  and  UK  (a  similar 
approach  is  available  in  DE  and  ES  but  these  are 
limited  to  specific  circumstance).  The  building  notice 
procedure in PT has a fixed period of 8 days.  

Bulgaria and Czech  Republic offer fixed periods of  up 
to 30 days for both reference works.  

Ideally,  extensions  should 
only  be  available  on  one 
and 
occasion 
relate 
to  where  an 
specifically 
applicant has made a mistake 
in the application.  

In  a  number  of  countries,  there  are  no  possible 

extensions  available  as  part  of  the  authorisation 

process  for  a  building  permit  (BG,  DE,  EL,  SI).  In 

some  cases  they  can  only  be  used  instances  where 

the  applicant  submitted  an  incorrect  or  incomplete 

application (CZ, ES, IT).  

Examples of less effective compliance  
between HAS and building permits (ES, PT). 
In the Netherlands, the methodology for building 
control  fee  calculation  negatively  impacts  on 
larger  building  works  as  the  system  supports 
cross subsidisation.  

In  some  countries,  such  as  Portugal, 
the 
inspection  process  is  not  considered  as  value  for 
money  by  some  companies,  as  inspection  of  all 
parts of the building may not take place even if it 
is charged for.  
Under the regular procedure, there is an approval 
process of 8 to 12 weeks in Spain.  

In the Netherlands, a period of 8 weeks has been 
established  for  one  storey  houses  and  up  to  6 
months  for  complex  projects  such  as  office 
blocks.  

In  Denmark,  there  are  no  fixed  periods  and  the 
average application processing period for a house 
is 9 weeks and an office building is 11 weeks.  

In  Finland,  there  are  no  fixed  periods  and  in  the 
Helsinki  area  the  approval  process  is  4  to12 
weeks  for  a  house  and  12  to  20  weeks  for  an 
office building.  

In  Portugal,  under  the  regular  procedure,  the 
period for approval is around 15 weeks. 

The legislation is less clear on the specific reasons 
for  their  use  in  other  countries  (NL,  UK).  They 
can be used in PT if other authorities participating 
in  the  approval process  are  late in  submission  of 
their inputs. In Poland, the procedure permits the 
authorities  to  request  further  documents  and/or 
clarifications  from  the  applicant  on  as  many 
occasions  as  deemed  appropriate.  In  France, 

November 2015 I 167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article  Good practice (GP)  

Good practice examples  

Applicants  should  be  notified 
of  extensions 
in  the  fixed 
period.  

On  the  whole,  many  countries  have  adopted  the 
policy of notifying applicants of extensions in the fixed 
period. (BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK). 

Examples of less effective compliance  
there  is  a  two  month  extension  for  consultations 
with the Regional Commission.  

However, interviewees commented that this often 
not the case in EL. In Denmark and Finland, there 
are  no 
fixed  periods, 
extensions  or  uniform  rules  on  notifications. 
There is therefore lack of clarity currently.  

legally  designated 

Ideally, tacit approval is given 
if  a  response  has  not  been 
issued  before  the  end  of  the 
Service 
fixed 
also 
providers 
consider 
in  a 
legally  secure  position  to  go 
ahead with the works.  

themselves 

period. 

should 

Although  deadlines  are  mostly  kept,  tacit  approval  is 
available  to  service  providers  in  Germany.  Other 
countries (ES, FR, IT, NL) offer tacit approval subject 
to certain zoning criteria.  

A  number  of  countries  have  not  adopted  the 
principle of tacit approval in their legislation (BG, 
CZ, DK, FI, PL, PT, SI and UK). 

Article 
16(2) 
(f)  

National  requirements  on  the 
use  of  equipment  do  not 
restrict 
providers 
from  using  their  equipment 
cross-border.  

service 

No  specific  barriers  were  identified  in  the  study 
countries.  
(BG,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  SI, 
UK). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

6  Assessment of voluntary certification schemes in the 

construction sector and evaluation 

6.1  Overview of Task 2 
Voluntary  certification  schemes  relating  to  construction  services  are  available  in  a 
number  of  different  forms  to  service  providers.  Normally,  their  main  objective  is  to 
ensure  that  service  providers  can  voluntarily  demonstrate  that  they  conform  to 
recognised  industry  standards,  including  legal  requirements.  This  may  be  to  validate 
that certain standards can be realised on-site, and in a small number of cases, enable 
the  efficient  functioning  of  building  control  procedures  for  certified  service  providers. 
Voluntary  certification  schemes  may  also  be  designed  to  facilitate  recognition  of 
requirements that have been previously met cross-border.  

With  these  functions  in  mind,  this  chapter  examines  the  extent  to  which  voluntary 
certification can play a role in supporting simplification and mutual recognition in the 
construction services sector: 

  Firstly, voluntary certification schemes are examined in relation to whether 

they support mutual recognition of service providers operating cross-border. 
This assessment has a particular focus on whether voluntary certification 
awarded in the home Member States can be used to demonstrate that 
equivalent requirements have already been met in the context of service 
provision to clients in the host Member State. The role of Regulation 765/2008 
which supports mutual recognition of certification issued by accredited bodies is 
examined; 

  Secondly, voluntary certification schemes are then examined considering the 
extent to which they are accepted as an alternative proof of compliance with 
regulatory requirements. In particular, voluntary certification schemes may 
play a role in the simplification of building permit procedures, for example by 
proving compliance on one occasion under a given voluntary certification 
scheme rather than needing to provide all supporting evidence for each 
building project. In addition, the potential for simplification of the procedures 
underlying the voluntary certification schemes themselves is briefly discussed. 

The structure of this chapter is as follows:  

  Section 6.2 indicates how EU legislation on accreditation (Regulation 765/2008) 
provides a number of articles relating to requirements for mutual recognition of 
accredited schemes;  

  Section 6.3 introduces fourteen voluntary certification schemes that have been 

selected for assessment;  

  Section 6.4 provides the results of the evaluation against the principle of 

mutual recognition;  

  Section 6.5 provides an assessment of the procedures and demands of the 

voluntary schemes;  

  Section 6.6 examines the potential of the voluntary certification schemes to 

support simplification of building permit procedures. 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  in  this  chapter  are  based  on  a  combination  of  desk 
research and interviews with certification and accreditation bodies.  

November 2015 I 169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2  EU 

legislation  supporting  mutual  recognition  of  voluntary 

certification  

Regulation  765/2008  establishes  the  legal  framework  for  accreditation  in  Europe 
(Chapter  II  of  the  Regulation).160  In  addition,  it  sets-out  specific  requirements  for 
market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products  (Chapter  III  of  the 
Regulation) but this goes beyond the scope of this study.  

Article  8  in  Chapter  II  of  this  Regulation  lays  down  the  requirements  for  national 
accreditation bodies. Article 9 provides the necessary measures to ensure compliance. 
Article  10  provides  the  requirement  of  peer  evaluation  among  the  national 
accreditation  bodies  of  the  EU  countries.  On  the  mutual  recognition  of  voluntary 
certification, Article 11.2 provides the following161: 

“National  authorities  shall  recognise  the  equivalence  of  the  services  delivered  by 
those  accreditation  bodies  which  have  successfully  undergone  peer  evaluation 
under  Article  10,  and  thereby  accept  […]  the  accreditation  certificates  of  those 
bodies and the attestations issued by the conformity assessment bodies accredited 
by them.” 

This implies that certification issued by accredited certification bodies in the EU should 
be recognised unconditionally in all other Member States, as long as they relate to the 
same norms or regulations.  

However,  ensuring compliance with this requirement depends  on the  extent to  which 
the  norms  or  regulation  are  international  or  country-specific.  If  an  EU  Member  State 
accepts an ISO certificate as an alternative for demonstrating compliance with certain 
norms,  it  shall  also  accept  that  certificate  issued  by  an  accredited  certification  body 
from another EU Member State. On the other hand, if a national certificate attests to 
compliance with regulations of that specific country, then it arguably does not attest to 
compliance with different regulations of other countries and does not necessarily need 
to  be  recognised  cross-border.  However,  if  the  voluntary  certification  scheme  attests 
regulatory  compliance  under  the  law  of  a  Member  State,  and  similar  laws  exist  in 
other  Member  States,  then  the  national  certification  scheme  should  be  mutually 
recognised. 

Thus the potential for cross-border recognition of certificates within the EU depends on 
three factors: 

  Accreditation as defined by Regulation 765/2008; 

  The cross-border equivalence of the underlying norms or regulations; 

  The acceptance of the certificate as proof of compliance with construction 

services requirements. 

6.3  Voluntary Certification Schemes Examined by the Study 
During  the  course  of  the  study,  desk  research  and  interviews  with  public  authorities 
and national associations was undertaken to identify the type of voluntary certification 
schemes available in the 14 study countries for construction services providers. On the 
basis  of  a  review  of  those  identified,  a  number  of  types  of  voluntary  certification 
schemes appear to be available (in some cases more than one characteristic relates to 
an individual scheme reviewed):  

160   http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/ 
internal-market-for-products/accreditation/index_en.htm. 

161   Underlining by the authors of this report. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

1.  International certificates including ISO 9001, 14001 and 18001; 

2.  Management system certificates tailor-made to national construction 
regulations (which are sometimes informed by ISO approaches);  

3.  Training certificates; 

4.  Certification attesting to compliance with pieces of construction site legislation 

supported by private inspections; 

5.  Self-certification; 

6.  Type approval.  

Certificates attesting to standards that go beyond legal requirements, such as e.g. the 
Passivhaus certificate, are considered out of scope for the reason that promoting such 
a  system  would  imply  promoting  very  high  industry  standards,  whereas  the  focus  of 
this study is on compliance with legal requirements.  

In  order  to  ensure  coverage  of  the  fields  above,  a  number  of  voluntary  certification 
schemes  were  selected  for  evaluation  against  key  principles  of  the  Services  Directive 
(Table 6.1).  

Title of the scheme  
ISO 9001:2008 
--- 

DE 
DK 

Table 6.1 Voluntary certification schemes examined 
MS  Type of scheme  
ISO Certification  
BG 
None  related  to  building  permit 
CZ 
regulation 
Construction Quality Certification  
Certification 
demonstrating 
compliance  with  specific  pieces  of 
legislation  
None  related  to  building  permit 
regulation 
ISO Certification 
Construction Quality Certification  

ES 
FI 

--- 

EL 

SCC (Safety Certificate Contractors) 
Certification Scheme for Transportable Structures  

OHSAS 18001  
Construction  Quality  Association  Competence 
Certification (RALA) 
Quality of building works-related services for private 
clients  
ISO 14001  

FR 

Construction Quality Certification 

ISO Certification 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

SI 

Construction Quality Certification  

VCA-certification 

ISO Certification 

PN-EN ISO 9001 

Construction Quality Certification 

LNEC Quality Mark 

Certification 
demonstrating 
compliance  with  specific  pieces  of 
legislation 

Licenses of the Slovenian organisation for fire safety 

UK1  Qualification  and  Compliance  ID 
Card for Construction Site Workers  

Construction Skills Certification Scheme  

UK2  Self-certification 

UK3  Type Approval 

Competent Person Scheme 

UK National Type Approval Certification 

ISO norms 
ISO  9001:2008  certification  specifies  requirements  for  quality  management 
systems.  The  certification  enables  organisations  to  demonstrate  their  ability  to 
consistently  provide  products  and  services  that  meets  customer  and  applicable 
statutory  and  regulatory  requirements,  and  aims  to  enhance  customer  satisfaction 
through  the  effective  application  of  the  system,  including  processes  for  continual 
improvement  of  the  system  and  the  assurance  of  conformity  to  customer  and 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.  

November 2015 I 171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  ISO  14001  certificate  attests  to  a  management  system  for  environmental  care. 
In  Italy,  the  ISO  14001  certificate  in  addition  attests  to  compliance  with  Legislative 
Decree  115/08  on  Energy  Efficiency  in  end-use  Energy  Services.  In  Italy,  the  ISO 
14001  certificate  is  not  tailor-made  to  any  sector,  and  the  environmental  system 
management  requirements  are  the  same  for  all  sectors.  Although  no  figures  are 
available  for  the  specific  segment  of  residential  and  office  buildings,  take-up  of  this 
certificate in the construction sector is quite low at roughly 0.2 per cent (1,258 out of 
more  than  600,000  Italian  construction  companies  were  ISO  14001  certified  at  the 
start of 2012).162  

OHSAS  18001  is  a  voluntary  standard  that  establishes  the  requirements  to  assess 
and  certify  the  management  system  for  Safety  and  Health  at  Work.  It  provides 
organisations  a  model  system  for  identifying  and  assessing  risks  at  work  and  the 
requirements  that  the  law  requires  in  each  case.  It  also  defines  the  political, 
organisational  structure,  responsibilities,  functions,  planning  activities,  processes, 
procedures,  resources,  etc.,  required  to  develop,  implement,  review,  maintain  and 
improve a SHW management system. 

National management system certificates 
The German  Safety  Certificate  for  Contractors  (SCC) is a  certificate that attests 
to standards with respect to management and continual improvement in the areas of 
safety  and  health  at  work  and  environmental  care,  both  within  the  firm  and  for 
subcontractors  hired  by  the  firm.  This  certificate  focuses  heavily  on  assessing 
statistical  reports  regarding  work  related  accidents  with  a  view  to  examining  the 
performance  of  the  health  and  safety  procedures  established.  It  is  developed  in 
Germany  and  Austria  and  is  mutually  recognised  by  the  Dutch-Belgian  VCA 
certification scheme. The SCC certificate can be acquired together with the ISO 9001 
and ISO 14001 certificates.  

The  Dutch  VCA  certification  (this  translates  as  the  Safety,  Health  and  Environment 
Checklist  for  Contractors)  offers  a  programme  whereby  companies  are  tested  in  a 
structured  and  objective  manner  to  demonstrate  that  a  range  of  safety,  health  and 
environmental requirements are met relating to complex projects. The VCA-certificate 
implies compliance with ISO 9001 and 14001 standards, and a special VCA** variant 
implies  compliance  with  OHSAS  18001  standards.  A  specific  feature  of  the  VCA 
certificate is that it extends to developing responsibilities towards services provided by 
subcontractors;  in  the  VCA**  variant  in  addition  action  plans  after  accidents  are 
evaluated.  It  is  mutually  recognised  by  the  SCC  certification  scheme  developed  in 
Germany and Austria described above. 

RALA  certification  (Finland)  is  a  voluntary  procedure  for  the  evaluation  and 
approval  of  the  management  systems  of  companies  engaged  in  engineering  design, 
construction  management,  construction  and installation.  The  scheme  offers  a  tool  for 
improving  quality  systems  and  developing  business  functions.  At  the  same  time,  it 
offers developers the opportunity to evaluate and select contractors. RALA certification 
is based on the ISO 9001:2008 standard but the approach has been modified to taken 
into  account  the  needs  of  the  construction  sector.  In  particular  it  attests  that 
construction workers in the firm have the (technical) competences required by Finnish 
law.  

The  French  voluntary  scheme  Quality  of  construction  related  services  provided 
to  private  clients  enables  certified  construction  companies  to  demonstrate  the 
quality, reliability and performance of their commercial services.163 More specifically it 

162   www.oice.it/adon.pl?act=Attachment&id=6707c0b22db4bd89109c46be159824e6, Figure 4. 
163   Qualité des services associés aux prestations de travaux de bâtiment dans les marchés privés. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

enhances  the  quality  of  the  information  provided  to  clients,  the  drafting  of  the 
contractual documents, the processing of customer requests, site preparation and the 
management of claims.  

Certification supported by private construction site inspections 
Private  construction  site  inspections  are  the  cornerstone  of  some  certificates.  The 
Portuguese LNEC Quality Mark supports the certification of construction work in line 
with  technical,  social  and  economic  standards.  The  certification  relates  to  three 
categories  of  projects:  buildings  and  monuments,  transportation  networks  and  town 
planning  works,  and  hydraulic  works.  LNEC  QM  certification  relates  to  construction 
works totally or partially promoted by public authorities and public companies, as well 
as all construction works subject to licencing, which includes works initiated by private 
developers.  

The  UK’s  Competent  Person  Schemes  (CPSs)  were  introduced  by  the  UK 
Government  in  2005  to  allow  individuals  and  enterprises,  e.g.  electrical  installers,  to 
self-certify  their  own  construction  services  as  compliant  with  the  technical 
requirements  established  by  the  Building  Regulations  2010.  For  this  they  need  to  be 
registered as a Competent Person with a Scheme Operator that has been approved by 
the  Department  for  Communities  and  Local  Government  (DCLG),  after  successfully 
having passed construction site inspections. The Building Regulations 2010 oblige local 
authorities  to  accept  a  certificate  issued  by  a  Competent  Person  service  provider  as 
evidence that the Building Regulations have been satisfied. 

Training certificates 
Adequate training of staff in key functions is typically a requirement for ISO norms or 
national  management  system  certificates,  but  stand-alone  training  certificates  also 
exist.  One  example  examined  is  a  licence  issued  by  the  Slovenian  Association  of 
Fire  Safety  to  construction  workers  that  have  successfully  passed  an  exam  on  fire 
safety.  The  UK’s  Construction  Skills  Certification  Scheme  (CSCS)  offers  a 
Qualifications  and  Compliance  ID  Card  to  construction  site  workers  in  order  to 
demonstrate  their  relevant  training  to  meet  regulatory  standards  (e.g.  health  and 
safety and environment) and also professional training / qualifications specific to their 
services.  

Type approval 
The  Danish  Certification  Scheme  for  Transportable  Structures  (such  as 
commercial tents, marquees, stages, stands, pedestrian bridges, etc.) enables service 
providers to establish such structures on repeated occasions without the need to apply 
for a building permit from the municipality.  

The  UK  /  England’s  National  Type  Approval  Certification  is  a  voluntary  scheme 
enabling  national  type  approval  of  technical  plans  for  building  designs  by  attesting 
compliance  with  the  Building  Regulations  2010.  It  is  operated  by  the  Local  Authority 
National Type Approval Confederation (LANTAC), a Local Authority Building Control164 
organisation  comprised  of  all  Building  Control  Authorities  in  England  and  Wales.  It 
aims  to  offer  a  fast-track  through  the  building  control  procedures  for  standard 
buildings, modular buildings and building systems by providing a one-off approval for 
building  designs.  The  approved  designs  can  be  used  on  subsequent  occasions  for 
identical / very similar building projects without the need for repeat approvals. 

164   http://www.labc.co.uk/. 

November 2015 I 173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
6.4  Evaluation against the principles of mutual recognition 
As  discussed  in  Section  6.2,  the  potential  for  mutual  recognition  of  certificates 
depends  on  three  factors:  accreditation,  international  equivalence  of  the 
underlying  norms  or  regulations,  and  acceptance  as  proof  of  compliance.  Before 
discussing  the  actual  application  of  mutual  recognition  in  this  section,  these  three 
conditions are discussed, in the context of the country where the certificate is issued. 
Lastly,  two  aspects  which  are  not  requirements  for  mutual  recognition  but  which,  in 
specific circumstances, may strengthen the potential of voluntary certification schemes 
to  support  mutual  recognition  are  discussed:  the  use  of  international  experts  and 
(international) safeguards of independence.  

international  equivalence  of  certificates 

The 
is  assessed  by  checking  their 
correspondence  to  international  norms  and  EU  legislation.  The  classic  ISO  norms  are 
by  definition  international.  However,  in  some  cases,  certification  schemes  may  tailor 
ISO  norms  to  the  construction  sector  and  national  regulations.  In  some,  but  not  all 
cases, the development of these tailor-made certificates is co-ordinated internationally 
which  ensures  international  equivalence  to  a  certain  extent.  Certificates  may  directly 
attest  to  compliance  with  EU  legislation,  or  to  compliance  with  national  regulation 
transposing  EU  legislation.  In  these  two  cases,  there  is  a  greater  likelihood  of 
international  equivalence.  Other  possibilities  are  that  the  certificate  attests  to  norms 
that  go  beyond  EU  minimum  requirements,  or  do  not  have  any  relation  with  EU 
legislation.  In  these  two  cases,  the  underlying  norms  or  regulations  are  less  likely  to 
gain  equivalence  in  a  cross-border  context.  However,  if  the  voluntary  certification 
scheme  attests  regulatory  compliance  under  the  law  of  a  Member  State,  and  similar 
laws  exist  in  other  Member  States,  then  the  national  certification  scheme  should  be 
mutually recognised. 

The acceptance of a certificate as proof of compliance in the home country is assessed 
by examining the national regulations corresponding to the certificate if there are any. 
In  addition,  certification  or  accreditation  bodies  were  asked  to  indicate  whether 
various  forms  of  informal  acceptance  applied,  perhaps  in  the  form  of  a  lighter 
inspection regime etc.  

Lastly  in  terms  of  the  accreditation  of  certification  bodies,  the  regulation  of  the 
accreditation bodies and their successful peer evaluation have been examined by desk 
research.  

Accreditation 
Member States are required to recognise certificates issued by accredited certification 
bodies  as  meeting  the  required  standards  for  certification,  even  if  the  certification  or 
accreditation  body  is  established  in  another  EU  Member  State.  However,  it  is  not 
forbidden  to  recognise  certification  bodies  that  are  not  accredited.  For  example  the 
Slovenian  organisation  for  fire  safety  is  not  accredited  but  its  licence  has  been 
required once in a Slovenian public procurement action.  

In general, ISO certificates are issued by accredited certification bodies and the same 
is true for national management system certificates (Table 6.2). The exception is RALA 
but  it  should  be  noted  that  the  RALA  certificate  not  only  attests  to  compliance  with 
ISO  9001  standards,  but  also  to  employment  of  personnel  with  the  competences 
required by Finnish law. In general, the accreditation scheme appears to work well for 
ISO  norms  and  management  system  certificates.  Interestingly,  the  requirements  for 
accreditation  under  a  scheme  can  go  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  EU  Regulation 
765/2008 as is the case for the SCC scheme in Germany and the VCA scheme in the 
Netherlands  where  the  boards  of  development  have  arranged  these  extra 
requirements in a contract with the accreditation body.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Schemes that are based on on-site inspections can very well be accredited as well, as 
is the case for the French AFNOR construction quality certificate, the Portuguese LNEC 
Quality Mark and the UK Competent Person Scheme.  

Organisations managing training certification schemes are sometimes accredited as in 
the  UK  skills  card  scheme  but  not  always  as  in  the  Slovenian  fire  safety  certification 
scheme.  A  fundamental  question  is  whether  a  provider  of  training  courses  can  be 
accredited  at  all,  because  they  grant  certificates  for  training  they  have  themselves 
provided.  In  the  UK  the  skills  card  scheme  is  accredited  through  the  CITB 
(Construction  Industry  Training  Board)  but  the  CITB  does  not  itself  provide  the 
training courses. From the interview with RALA, it is clear that the ISO 9001 certificate 
granted  by  the  Finnish  accreditation  body  FINAS  is  generally  regarded  as  an 
accreditation  for  the  RALA  certificate  with  regard  to  ISO  9001  norms  but  not  for  the 
skills  certificates.  RALA  has  an  independent  Certification  Board  but  perhaps  a  set-up 
as  in  the  UK  skills  card  scheme  would  be  needed  for  accreditation.  Another  difficulty 
for  accreditation  of  training  certificates  is  that  equivalent  training  certificates  issued 
abroad  would  need  to  be  recognised,  which  in  turn  would  require  the  assessment  of 
equivalence  of  voluntary  training  programmes  in  different  countries.  This  recognition 
procedure  is  forms  part  of  the  UK  skills  card  scheme  but  not  the  RALA  scheme.  In 
general the accreditation scheme requires a specific set-up for training certificates to 
safeguard the avoidance of conflicts of interest and in addition a means to assess the 
equivalence of voluntary training certificates operated in different countries.  

Lastly,  type  approval  schemes  may  be  accredited  as  is  the  case  in  the  Danish 
voluntary  Certificate  for  Transportable  Structures.  The  UK  voluntary  LANTAC  Type 
Approval  for  building  designs  is  run  by  the  local  authorities  themselves  and  perhaps 
the need for accreditation is not apparent.  

Member  Regulation 
EA 

Law on National Accreditation of 
Conformity Assessment Bodies. 

It regulates inter alia recognition 
of foreign accredited certification 
bodies such as e.g. Bureau Veritas 
Certification and Lloyd’s Register 
Quality Assurance (UKAS) and 
RINA Services (ACCREDIA) 

Table 6.2 Aspects of accreditation 
MS  Certificate 
BG 

Accredited by 
BAS (Bulgarian 
Accreditation 
Service), or abroad 

ISO 9001:2008  
Issued by e.g. 
CBS Ltd; AQ 
Cert; Exact-
Certification and 
by foreign 
certification 
bodies operating 
in Bulgaria such 
as Bureau Veritas 
Certification; 
Lloyd’s Register 
Quality 
Assurance; RINA 
Services 
--- (none 
identified) 
SCC (Safety 
Certificate 
Contractors) 

CZ 

DE 

(N.A.) 

(N.A.) 

(N.A.) 

DAkkS (Deutsche 
Akkreditierungsstelle 
GmbH) 

EA, IAF 

The SCC certificate can be 
obtained form various German 
certification bodies that have to be 
accredited according to SCC Rules 
and Regulations by DAkkS, a non-
profit organisation owned by the 
Federal Republic of Germany, the 
Federal states and the industry 
represented by the Bundesverband 
der Deutschen Industrie e. V. 
DAkkS applies German 

November 2015 I 175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Certificate 

Accredited by 

Member  Regulation 

DK 

Certificate for 
Transportable 
Structures  

Danish Accreditation 
and Metrology Fund 
(DANAK) 

EA, IAF 

EA, IAF 

AFNOR is a private company and 
IQNet Partner (see ES above) 

administrative law as part of its 
public authority accreditation 
activities. 
The inspection body must be 
accredited as a Type A body in 
accordance with ISO / IEC 17020 
for inspection in accordance with 
the Certification Order for portable 
tents and structures.  
(N.A.) 

AENOR is a private company and 
IQNet Member, who mutually 
recognize the ISO 9001, ISO 
14001, OHSAS 18001 and various 
other certificates of all other IQNet 
Partners as being equivalent to 
their own 
(N.A.) 

ACCREDIA was founded in 2009 as 
a non profit entity by ministries, 
national administrations and 
professional/enterprise 
organizations. 
The RvA has accepted the VCA 
certification system and can issue 
VCA accreditation to certification 
bodies on the basis of ISO 17021 
and a contract with the CCVD-VCA 
Accreditation ensures that 
certification bodies are impartial 
and independent. Certification 
bodies should have independent 
unit comprised of external experts 
who are not connected with the 
certification body that once a year 
check the functioning of the 
certification body. 
LNEC is a state owned research 
and development institution 
established by Decreto-Lei 310/90 
(N.A.) 

CSCS is a not-for-profit limited 
company. Its directors are from 
employer organisations and unions 
representing the breadth of the 
industry. The Scheme’s application 
processing and contact centre is 
delivered under contract by CITB. 

--- (none 
identified) 
OHSAS 18001  
issued e.g. by 
AENOR 

(N.A.) 

ENAC (Entidad 
Nacional de 
Acreditación) 

(N.A.) 

EA, IAF 

Construction 
Quality 
Association 
Competence 
Certificate (RALA) 
Quality certificate 
of building works-
related services 
for private 
clients, issued by 
AFNOR 
ISO 14001  

None, although 
RALA is ISO-9001 
certified by FINAS 

(N.A.) 

COFRAC (Comite 
Francais 
d'Accreditation) 
DAkkS (DE), 
ACCREDIA (IT), 
UKAS (UK) 
ACCREDIA 

EA, IAF 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

VCA-certificate  
Developed by 
CCVD-VCA 

RvA (Raad voor 
Accreditatie) 

EA, IAF 

PL 

PN-EN ISO 9001 

Polskie Centrum 
Akredytacji (PCA) 

EA, IAF 

PT 

SI 

LNEC Quality 
Mark 

Slovenian 
organisation for 
fire safety licence 

UK1  Construction 

Skills Certification 
Scheme (CSCS) 
Under contract by 
CITB 
(Construction 
Industry Training 

IPAC (Instituto 
Português de 
Acreditação, I.P.) 
None 

EA,IAF 

(N.A.) 

UKAS (United 
Kingdom 
Accreditation 
Service) 

EA, IAF 

 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Accredited by 

Member  Regulation 

MS  Certificate 
Board) 

UK2  Competent 

Person Scheme 

UKAS (United 
Kingdom 
Accreditation 
Service) 

EA, IAF 

CITB is accredited to ISO/IEC 
17024:2012 to provide 
certifications to persons. 
The  Department  for  Communities 
and  Local  Government  (DCLG)  is 
in  charge  of  authorising  Scheme 
Operators that manage Competent 
Person 
Scheme 
Schemes. 
Operators need to:  
  Be accredited by UKAS to 
standard BS EN 45011; 

  Be subject to monitoring by 
representatives of DCLG of 
quality management systems 
and of assessors.  

  Avoid conflicts of interest;  
  Ensure that its members (i.e. 

registered Competent Persons) 
are up to date with technical 
developments resulting from 
revisions to the Building 
Regulations; 

  Survey their members’ work, 
including periodic random 
inspections of a representative 
sample of each member’s work, 
during or after completion, to 
check compliance with the 
Building Regulations; 

LANTAC is set up by the local 
authorities in England and Wales 
through the Local Authority 
Building Control (LABC).  

UK3  UK National Type 
Approval 
Certification 
(LANTAC) 

None 

(N.A.) 

(N.A.)  means  not  applicable; note  that  the  EA  and IAF membership  of FINAS  is  N.A.  because  RALA  is  not 
fully accredited. 

In  all  cases,  accreditation  bodies  are  members  of  the  European  Accreditation 
organisation  (EA).  With  the  exception  of  Bulgaria,  all  accreditation  bodies  in  the 
examined  countries  are  members  of  the  International  Accreditation  Forum  as  well. 
This  means  that  wherever  the  certificates  are  issued  by  the  accredited  certification 
bodies an important requirement for recognition in other Member States is satisfied.  

International equivalence 
With  regard  to  aspects  of  international  equivalence  (Table  6.3),  ISO  certificates  are 
closely  related  to  EU  legislation,  both  directly  (e.g.  Bulgarian  and  Polish  ISO  9001 
certificates),  and  indirectly  through  attesting  compliance  with  national  law  which is  a 
transposition of EU law (Spanish OHSAS 18001 and Italian ISO 14001 certificates). In 
both cases, the classic ISO certificates attest to compliance with EU-wide norms.  

Table 6.3 Aspects of international equivalence 
MS  Certificate 

Relation with EU legislation 

BG 

ISO 9001:2008 

CZ 

--- (none 
identified) 

A large number of EU Directives, mostly related to 
the marketing of products, impose minimum 
conditions on quality management systems. ISO 
9001 attests to compliance with full quality 
assurance (for design, production and products)  
--- 

Norm 
equivalence 
EU 

--- 

November 2015 I 177 

 
 
 
 
 
MS  Certificate 

Relation with EU legislation 

DE 

SCC (Safety 
Certificate 
Contractors) 

DK 

EL 

ES 

Certificate for 
Transportable 
Structures  
--- (none 
identified) 
OHSAS 18001  

FI 

FR 

IT 

Construction 
Quality 
Association 
Competence 
Certificate (RALA) 
Quality of building 
works-related 
services for 
private clients  
ISO 14001  

NL 

VCA-certificate 

In the field of occupational safety many EU Directives 
have been established under the so called 
Framework Directive 89/391/EEC a)  
It supports OHSAS 18001 and an aim for the near 
future is to also support ISO 9001 and 14001 (see 
BG above and ES and IT below). In addition, the 
certificate attests to compliance with norms that go 
beyond the minimum requirements of the relevant 
EU Directives. 
None, it relates to the Danish Building Act and 
Building Regulations. 

--- 

OHSAS 18001 attests to compliance with the act on 
health and safety at work (Ley 31/1995, of 8 
November on Prevention of Occupational Risks) and 
its implementing regulations. This act is the Spanish 
transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC, as well as 
Directives 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EEC and 91/383/EEC 
The RALA Certification scheme is based on the ISO 
9001:2008 standard (see further BG) but in addition 
attests to competences of personnel required by 
Finnish law. International recognition and 
cooperation applies to the extent of ISO 9001:2008. 
None, it attests to compliance with the French norm 
NF P 03-700 which is not referred to in French 
regulations and therefore is not mandatory. 

ISO 14001 (Italian UNI EN ISO 14001:2004) attests 
to compliance with Legislative Decree 115/08 on 
Energy Efficiency in end-use Energy Services, the 
Italian transposition of Directive 2006/32/EC. 
See DE 

PN-EN ISO 9001 
LNEC Quality Mark  None, it attests to meeting Portuguese legal 

See BG 

Norm 
equivalence 
AT, DE, BE, 
NL 

--- 

--- 

EU 

--- 

--- 

EU 

AT, DE, BE, 
NL 
EU 
--- 

PL 
PT 

SI 

Slovenian 
organisation for 
fire safety licence 

UK1  Construction Skills 
Certificate 

UK2  Competent Person 

Scheme 

UK3  UK National Type 
Approval 
Certification 

construction requirements in general. 
The organisation refers to the technical guideline 
TSG-1-001:2010, Fire Safety in Buildings issued by 
the Ministry of Environment but other than a 
reference to Directive 98/34/EC there is no relation 
with EU legislation.  
The certificate attests competences of site workers in 
the fields of health, safety and environment as 
defined under the UK Construction Design and 
Management Regulations 2007 (this law transposes 
Directive 92/57/EEC). 
None, it refers to requirements in the UK Building 
Regulations 2010 
None, it refers to requirements in the UK Building 
Regulations 2010 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

a)  This is the Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (89/391/EEC), see further: 
https://osha.europa.eu/en. 

Various  certificates  support  ISO  norms  but  have  certain  additional  requirements.  The 
Finnish  RALA  certificate  overlaps  partly  with the  ISO  9001  certificate  but  also  attests 
that the company  employs personnel that have the (technical) competences required 

 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

by  Finnish  law.  The  Finnish  RALA  company  accepts  ISO  9001  certificates  issued  in 
other countries and the RALA  certificate is accepted by foreign certification bodies as 
an  ISO  9001  certificate.  The  German/Dutch  SCC/VCA  scheme  which  supports  ISO 
9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 but has more substantial additional requirements, 
e.g. registration of inspections and management of compliance with health and safety 
requirements  by  sub-contractors.  The  requirements  for  this  scheme  are  co-ordinated 
between four countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands).  

Lastly,  certificates  that  are  neither  classic  ISO  certificates  nor  based  on  ISO  quality 
management systems,  attest to compliance with specific national norms, such as the 
Danish Certificate for Transportable Structures, the French certificate for the quality of 
building-related  services  for  private  clients,  the  Portuguese  LNEC  quality  mark,  the 
Slovenian fire safety licence and the UK competent person scheme and type approval 
scheme. These norms are not equivalent with norms in other countries or international 
regulations and thus have less potential for mutual recognition.  

Lack  of  acceptance  as  proof  of  compliance  –  lack  of  potential  for  mutual 
recognition 
Although  all  voluntary  schemes  discussed  in  this  chapter  have  some  relation  with 
national or EU legislation, voluntary certificates are generally not accepted by building 
control  authorities  as  an  alternative  proof  of  compliance  limiting  the  need  for 
authorisation procedures to take place. As discussed in greater detail in a later section 
of  this  chapter,  one  of  the  main  benefits  of  voluntary  certification  schemes  is  to 
facilitate demonstration of compliance to inspectors, and to signal to clients the ability 
to  do  so.  In  addition,  clients  may  view  such  certificates  as  marks  of  excellence  and 
require them. Therefore, the role of voluntary certification schemes is often not to ‘do 
away’ with authorisation procedures but to ensure that firms perform well when  they 
need to demonstrate compliance as part of authorisation processes.  

Two hypothetical examples may illustrate the role of voluntary certificates even if they 
are not accepted by inspectors as proof of compliance. For example, suppose that an 
accident  occurs  at  work  and  an  inspector  requests  proof  of  identification  of  the  risks 
associated  with  the  relevant  working  environment  and  the  appropriate  safety 
measures  taken.  Certification  increases  the  likelihood  that  these  aspects  are  already 
covered  by  the  management  system.  In  addition,  national  law  may  require  the 
employment of qualified staff. Formally the inspector requires the diplomas of all key 
staff but informally the diplomas will not be checked individually if a certificate attests 
the employment of qualified staff.  

Having noted that voluntary schemes are valuable even without being accepted as an 
alternative route to proof of compliance, it needs to be noted that voluntary schemes 
analysed herein are accepted as such in only two countries: in Denmark, a certificate 
is available for the construction of transportable structures and in the United Kingdom, 
a  Competent  Person  Scheme  and  the  LANTAC  national  type  approval  scheme  are  in 
operation.  In  Denmark,  no  building  permit  is  needed  for  portable  commercial  tents 
and  structures  with  a  certified  design.  In  the  United  Kingdom,  contractors  with 
Competent  Person  status  e.g.  electrical  installation  service  providers,  do  not  need 
building permits if they self-certify their own work. And the UK LANTAC type approval 
exempts already approved designs from being submitted and checked on subsequent 
occasions which speeds up the building permit procedure.  

November 2015 I 179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6.4 Aspects of acceptance of proof 
MS  Certificate 

Legal role in building 
control 
None 

BG 

ISO 9001:2008 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

--- (none 
identified) 
SCC (Safety 
Certificate 
Contractors) 
Certificate for 
Transportable 
Structures  

EL 

ES 

--- (none 
identified) 
OHSAS 18001  

FI 

FR 

Construction 
Quality Association 
Competence 
Certificate (RALA) 
Quality of building 
works-related 
services for private 
clients  
ISO 14001  
VCA-certificate 
PN-EN ISO 9001 
LNEC Quality Mark 
Slovenian 
organisation for fire 
safety licence 
UK1  Construction Skills 
Certificate 
UK2  Competent Person 

IT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
SI 

Scheme 

UK3  UK National Type 
Approval 
Certification 
(LANTAC) 

--- 

None 

The Building Act provides that 
building permits are not 
required for portable tents 
and structures with a 
voluntary valid design 
certificate, for which the rules 
are given in the Certification 
Order. 
--- 

None 

None 

None 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 

None 

The Building Regulations 
2010 provides that 
Competent Persons in various 
areas such as e.g. electrical 
installation do not need a 
building permit but must 
issue a completion certificate 
to the owner and the local 
authority within 30 days. 
LANTAC is an organisation 
comprised of all Building 
Control Authorities in England 
and Wales. LANTAC certified 
building designs are not 

Other legal acceptance / 
requirements 
The Bulgarian Public Procurement 
Act provides for the possibility of 
requesting a ISO 9001 certificate 
of quality management control, 
both for contractors and 
subcontractors (such a provision is 
e.g. not given for the ISO 14001 
certificate). 
--- 

None 

None 

--- 

Reduction of contributions for 
occupational contingencies 
according to Order TIN/ 
1448/2010 
None 

None 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 

None 

None 

None 

 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

MS  Certificate 

Legal role in building 
control 
submitted and checked for a 
building permit which speeds 
up the procedure.  

Other legal acceptance / 
requirements 

Certification  bodies  and  accreditation  bodies  were  asked  to  indicate  other  benefits  of 
the voluntary scheme in relation to legal requirements, including: 

  Faster authorisation; 

  Fewer documents need to be submitted; 

  Clarification of how to comply with unspecific regulations; 

  Fewer inspections; 

  Reduced fees or contributions; 

  Reduced fines or liability. 

However,  only  in  Spain  one  of  these  additional  benefits  of  voluntary  schemes  was 
mentioned,  namely  reduced  contributions  for  occupational  contingencies.  In  Bulgaria 
the  law  provides  that  public  authorities  may  require  the  ISO  9001  certificate  in  the 
context  of  public  procurement  activities  and  in  Portugal  the  law  indicates  that  the 
certificate  is  intended  to  support  the  quality  assurance  of  developers.  Hence,  the 
conclusion is that if regulations do not explicitly indicate that a voluntary certificate is 
accepted as proof of compliance, this is not indirectly the case either. 

Overall,  the  conclusion  is  that  the  main  obstacle  to  mutual  recognition  of  voluntary 
schemes is not so much lack of accreditation or international equivalence of norms but 
rather,  the  still  insufficient  availability  of  (international)  standards  in  key  areas  of 
construction services delivery and the acceptance  of  certification, where available, as 
an alternative proof of compliance, even in the country where the certificate is issued. 
Voluntary  schemes  that  are  accepted  as  alternative  proof  of  compliance  (Danish 
Certificate for Transportable Structures, the UK Competent Person Scheme and the UK 
LANTAC Type Approval) have the following two elements in common: 

  They attest to compliance with specific national regulations regarding 

construction activity; 

  Certificates are based on inspections. 

Although these three  schemes are accepted as alternative proof of compliance in the 
home country, they attest to compliance with specific national regulations which have 
no equivalence in other countries and are not recognised as alternative proof in other 
countries.  

There  may  be  other  situations  where  mutual  recognition  of  voluntary  certificates  is 
required  under  EU  legislation,  for  example  if  the  certificate  is  required  in  the  public 
procurement  of  works  (both  under  Regulation  765/2008  on  accreditation  in  general 
and  the  Public  Procurement  Directive  24/2014/EC  to  the  extent  the  public 
procurement falls under scope of that directive). Such recognition is likely regulated in 
the  national  public  procurement  act  but  this  is  out  of  scope  of  this  study  on  building 
permit procedures. 

Mutual recognition outside of regulatory compliance  
It  should  be  noted  that  accreditation  or  certification  bodies  should  recognise 
equivalent  certificates  that  are  issued  by  accredited  certification  bodies  abroad  if  the 
standards  are  purely  voluntary,  i.e.,  not  alternatives  to  regulatory  compliance.  A 
relevant question is whether this is sufficient for cross-border clients. For example, if a 
French  certificate  attests  that  all  French  local  offices  comply  with  the  OHSAS  18001 

November 2015 I 181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
standard,  can  a  Spanish  client  assume  the  same  will  be  true  for  the  Spanish  local 
offices  of  the  same  company?  A  Spanish  private  client  might  therefore  insist  on  a 
certificate  accredited  by  the  Spanish  accreditation  body.  In  this  situation  Article  6(2) 
of  the  EU  Regulation  765/2008  provides  that  national  accreditation  bodies  shall  not 
compete  with  other  national  accreditation  bodies.  Thus,  the  Spanish  accreditation 
body may not accredit the French scheme as is typically regulated via the regulations 
establishing the national accreditation body or its statutes.  

Instead,  this  situation  is  usually  arranged  via  multilateral  agreements,  both  between 
accreditation  bodies  and  between  certification  bodies.  The  multilateral  agreement 
between  accreditation  bodies  in  the  EU  is  arranged  via  the  EA  and  all  its  Members 
have signed this agreement.165 The practical implication is that private clients can be 
persuaded to accept foreign certificates on the basis of this multilateral agreement.  

Examples  of  multilateral  agreements  between  certification  bodies  are  the  IQNet 
Passport to which e.g. the French and Spanish AFNOR and AENOR are parties, and the 
SCC scheme to which the German/Austrian SCC and the Dutch/Belgian VCA schemes 
are  parties.  In  both  multilateral  agreements  the  certificates  covered  by  the  scheme 
are mutually recognised between the certification bodies granting these certificates. In 
the IQNet system, audits at local offices are done by the certification body established 
in that country, whereas in the SCC scheme certification bodies are allowed to operate 
cross-border.  

In the above example of a French certified contractor operating cross-border in Spain, 
AENOR  will  issue  an  AENOR  certificate  based  on  a  local  audit  (for  which  AENOR 
charges a fee) and the recognition of the AFNOR certificate. In the example of a Dutch 
certified  contractor  operating  cross-border  in  Spain,  the  same  certification  body  that 
has  granted  the  Dutch  VCA  certificate  can  issue  a  German  SCC  certificate  after  local 
audits in Germany.  

In practice, mutual recognition principles are in place for the classic ISO certificates 
throughout  Europe,  and  for  other  management  system  certificates  to  the  extent 
that the norms are internationally equivalent (Table 6.5).  

The  examined  training  certificates  (Slovenian  fire  safety  certificate,  UK  skills  card 
scheme and the competence certificates issued by RALA) are not mutually recognized 
between  countries.  However,  in  the  UK  skills  card  scheme  a  system  is  in  place  to 
recognise  equivalent  qualifications  (but  all  applicants  must  undertake  a  health  and 
safety test).  

The  certificates  based  on  inspections  assessing  compliance  with  specific  national 
regulations are not  mutually recognised,  even if the certificate is accredited as is the 
case for the French construction quality certificate, the Portuguese LNEC Quality Mark 
and the UK Competent Person Scheme, for the reason that the underlying norms are 
not equivalent in other countries.  

For type approval, a mutual recognition principle applies to the Danish certificate for 
transportable structures through the regulation of mutual recognition via accreditation. 
The UK LANTAC  scheme is not accredited and no mutual recognition principles are in 
place.  

165   www.european-accreditation.org/mla-and-bla-signatories. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 6.5 Mutual recognition of voluntary schemes 
MS  Certificate 
BG 

ISO 9001:2008 

Mutual recognition principles 
Article 5a of the Law on National Accreditation of Conformity 
Assessment Bodies explicitly stipulates that documents, issued by 
foreign conformity assessment bodies, are considered official 
documents provided that they are in compliance with the applicable 
requirements and are issued by conformity assessment bodies, 
accredited by national accreditation bodies, which have undergone 
peer evaluation in the respective field in accordance with 
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. Thus, ISO 9001:2008 certificates 
are recognised in other countries as long as the conformity 
assessment body, which granted the certificate, is accredited in the 
respective country or is a member of the International 
Accreditation Forum. 
--- 

In a co-operation agreement that was signed in March 2013 by the 
Netherlands and Germany the mutual recognition was established 
of the Dutch VCA and the German SCC certificates. The agreement 
provided clarity and legal certainty for the employees, employers 
and clients who perform cross-border work. The main points of the 
agreement are that the Dutch B-VCA and VOL-VCA diplomas and 
the German SCC certificates 'Operativ tätige Mitarbeiter' (operating 
employees) and 'Operativ tätige Führungskraft’ (operating staff 
members)’ are mutually recognized in both countries. The 
underlying ISO certificates IEC 17021 and 17024 are also 
recognized in the agreement. In practice a German certificate can 
be obtained via a Dutch certification body and vice versa. 
International standards are overall used for the accreditation and 
the accreditation of the inspection bodies is open to all inspection 
providers who are qualified to carry out the inspections. The 
inspection body must be accredited by the Danish Accreditation and 
Metrology Fund (DANAK) or an equivalent accreditation body that is 
a signatory of the EA (European co-operation for Accreditation) or 
ILAC's (the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) 
multilateral mutual recognition agreement. 
--- 

Certified companies obtain IQNet Passport, recognised by 
international certifying service providers. 
The RALA certification scheme is based on the ISO 9001:2008 
standard. RALA only certifies organisations in Finland. However, 
International recognition and cooperation to the extent of ISO 
9001:2008 also applies to the certification scheme of RALA.  
The scheme is not cross-border, therefore the scheme does not 
seem à priori to enhance mutual recognition. This scheme is not 
recognized abroad. Foreign companies could apply to the scheme. 
No detailed information regarding the scheme is available in 
another language: the standard on which is based the certification 
is not available in English (only limited information available), the 
detailed description of the scheme neither, etc.  
The Italian ISO 14001 certificate is not tailor-made to the 
construction sector or Italian regulations. It does attest to 
compliance with the Italian Legislative Decree 115/08 on Energy 
Efficiency in end-use Energy Services, the Italian transposition of 
Directive 2006/32/EC, and is mutually recognized between 
countries where the certification body is accredited by a member of 
EA or IAF. 
Belgium is the only country with a fully equivalent system and 
associated structure. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands 
already officially recognize each others systems. Austria and 
Switzerland also have a system that is (to a slightly lesser extent) 

November 2015 I 183 

CZ 

DE 

--- (none 
identified) 
SCC (Safety 
Certificate 
Contractors) 

DK 

Certificate for 
Transportable 
Structures  

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

--- (none 
identified) 
OHSAS 18001  

Construction 
Quality Association 
Competence 
Certificate (RALA) 
Quality of building 
works-related 
services for private 
clients  

IT 

ISO 14001  

NL 

VCA-certificate 

 
 
MS  Certificate 

PL 

PN-EN ISO 9001 

PT 

LNEC Quality Mark 

SI 

Slovenian 
organisation for fire 
safety licence 
UK1  Construction Skills 
Certificate 

UK2  Competent Person 

Scheme 

UK3  UK National Type 
Approval 
Certification 
(LANTAC) 

Mutual recognition principles 
comparable to the VCA.  
There are 2 systems in the world regarding accreditation: European 
Accreditation (EA), its members are national accreditation bodies 
which apply a rule of mutual recognition. Second is International 
Accreditation Forum (IAF), its members are private accreditation 
bodies. IAF has a rule that a certificate issued by IAF member is 
recognized in all countries where IAF rules are applied. The Polish 
accreditation body is member of both EA and IAF.  
There are no processes to ensure mutual recognition by the 
certifying bodies. Online information and certificates are in 
Portuguese. There are no specific provisions on cross-border 
recognition of general quality managers. 
None 

The CSCS scheme does not offer mutual recognition of ID cards 
issued by bodies located in other countries. A key issue is that 
professional qualification demands vary greatly in relation to similar 
service activities across Member States, and health and safety 
requirements are interpreted differently resulting in diverging 
practice despite harmonised legislation being in place. However, 
there is a system of mutual recognition in place between CSCS 
Northern Ireland and a similar scheme that operates in the 
Republic of Ireland given that the labour market to a certain extent 
operates cross-border.  
CSCS does offer mutual recognition of professional qualifications 
from applicants originating from all EU Member States.  
Given that technical standards established by qualifications vary 
across Europe, holders of foreign qualifications may be required by 
the Scheme Operator to have their experience examined on the 
basis of a full on-site audit of competencies. This is determined 
during the course of the audit. However, foreign qualifications can 
be recognised by Scheme Operators through the UK National 
Recognition Information Centre.  
LANTAC is available in the UK only and does not operate a system 
of mutual recognition of technical plans approved in other Member 
States. 

Two  aspects  of  voluntary  schemes  which  are  not  requirements  but  which  may 
strengthen  the  potential  for  mutual  recognition  are  the  role  of  international  experts 
and (international) safeguards of independence (Table 6.6 below).  

For all examined ISO schemes, certification bodies hire foreign experts to cover a lack 
of  expertise,  in  particular  for  cross-border  certification.  For  training  certificates 
(Slovenian fire safety licence, UK Construction Skills Certificate) and certificates based 
on  on-site  inspections  with  regard  to  national  regulations  (Portuguese  LNEC  Quality 
Mark, UK Competent Person Scheme), foreign experts do not play a role.  

For  other  types  schemes  the  role  of  international  experts  varies.  Among  the  national 
management  certifications  schemes,  the  German/Dutch  SCC/VCA  norms  are 
developed  internationally  and  accredited  certification  bodies  can  certify  companies 
across-borders.  However,  foreign  experts  play  no  role  in  the  Finnish  RALA  and  the 
French  construction  quality  certificates.  For  type  approval,  the  foreign  certification 
bodies  can  certify  portable  structures  if  they  are  accredited  by  the  Danish 
accreditation body DANAK, however, foreign  experts or foreign certification bodies do 
not play a role in the UK LANTAC schemes where type approval of building designs is 
granted by local authorities.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Where  schemes  are  accredited,  accreditation  is  the  safeguard  of  independence,  both 
nationally and internationally. Where voluntary certification schemes are supported by 
legislation  (Portuguese  LNEC)  or  local  building  authorities  (LANTAC),  this  provides  a 
national safeguard of independence, but this does not necessarily extend cross-border. 
It  appears  that  only  for  training  certificates,  independence  is  more  difficult  to 
safeguard; for the RALA scheme the safeguard consists of an internal board comprised 
of  industry-wide  members  and  for  the  Slovenian  fire  safety  licence  there  is  no 
safeguard  of  independence.  To  safeguard  independence  and  qualify  for  accreditation, 
training  certificates  may  require  an  arrangement  as  in  the  UK  skills  card  scheme, 
where the scheme is managed by an accredited organisation which does not issue the 
qualification certificates.  

Table 6.6 Role of international experts and safeguards of independence 
Role of international 
MS  Certificate 
experts 
Many foreign certification 
bodies are operational in 
Bulgaria. 

ISO 9001:2008 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

--- (none 
identified) 
SCC (Safety 
Certificate 
Contractors) 

Certificate for 
Transportable 
Structures  

EL 

ES 

--- (none 
identified) 
OHSAS 18001  

FI 

Construction 
Quality Association 
Competence 
Certificate (RALA) 

-- 

Foreign SCC- or VCA- 
accredited certification bodies 
can certify construction 
activities in Germany  
Foreign certification bodies 
can certify transportable 
structures as long as they are 
accredited by DANAK. 

-- 

AENOR hires international 
experts to examine firms that 
wish to be certified, when 
those firms are: 
  Foreign companies willing 

to certify their activity in 
Spain, or  

  Companies willing to obtain an 

international certificate. 

None 

FR 

Quality of building 
works-related 
services for private 
clients  

None 

Safeguards of independence 

Accreditation, for which the 
Bulgarian accreditation body 
requires either a code of ethics or 
a declaration of impartiality and 
underlying documents describing 
the principles and the procedures 
applied to safeguard impartial and 
independent certification audits.  
-- 

Accreditation according to SCC 
Rules and Regulations. 

The inspection body must be 
accredited as a Type A body in 
accordance with ISO / IEC 17020 
for inspection in accordance with 
the Certification Order for portable 
tents and structures.  
-- 

  Accreditation by ENAC (National 

Entity of Accreditation) 

  Abstinence from consultancy on 
implementation of the system 

  Complaint procedure 

A Certification Board which 
reviews applications for 
competence certification filed by 
companies based on the reports 
submitted by the reviewers and 
issues the certificates. Its 
members represent a balanced 
range of expertise in the 
construction business. 
AFNOR Certification is accredited 
by the State. This accreditation 
demonstrates the independence 
and the avoidance of conflict of 
interests. In this view, AFNOR 

November 2015 I 185 

 
 
 
MS  Certificate 

Role of international 
experts 

IT 

ISO 14001  

NL 

VCA-certificate 

PL 

PN-EN ISO 9001 

The certification bodies 
employ foreign experts in 
case they need to certify a 
foreign company. E.g. if they 
need to certify a German 
company, they have German 
experts in environmental 
legislation examine the firm. 
Foreign VCA- or SCC- 
accredited certification bodies 
can certify construction 
activities in Germany  

In Poland, sometimes foreign 
experts are asked to take 
part in certification process if 
there was lack of specific 
competencies within 
certification body. 

PT 

LNEC Quality Mark 

So far no foreign experts 
have been involved in LNEC 
QM. 

SI 

Slovenian 
organisation for fire 
safety licence 
UK1  Construction Skills 
Certificate 

None 

None 

UK2  Competent Person 

None 

Scheme 

UK3  UK National Type 
Approval 
Certification 
(LANTAC) 

None 

Safeguards of independence 

Certification is audited and must 
comply with a standard (NF ISO 
1705). 
Accreditation, in Italy based on 
conformity of products and 
processes to the reference 
standards.  

Accreditation based on ISO 17021 
and an agreement with SSVV 
which manages the VCA norms, 
and an agreement between the 
certification body and SSVV.  
Accreditation ensures that 
certification bodies are impartial 
and independent. Certification 
bodies should have independent 
unit comprised of external experts 
who are not connected with the 
certification body that once a year 
check the functioning of the 
certification body. 
The commission for the 
qualification of general quality 
managers is composed by 
members from LNEC and 
representatives of several entities 
particularly interested in the 
promotion of the quality 
assurance. 
LNEC is a state owned research 
and development institution. 
None 

Accreditation. In addition, an 
independent body is used to 
perform the recognition of 
equivalent professional 
qualifications issued in other 
Member States. 
Accreditation according to strict 
rules of the scheme.  
All local authorities adhere to strict 
rules regarding impartiality as 
required by Local Authority 
Building Control (LABC), through 
compliance with a Code of 
Conduct. Complaints procedures 
are available.  

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

6.5  Procedural characteristics of the certification schemes 
Before  discussing  the  potential  of  certification  schemes  for  simplification  in  the 
following  section,  the  procedures  for  certification  are  described  in  table  6.7,  with 
regard to application procedures, submission demands, deadlines, fees and duration of 
the certification offered by the voluntary schemes reviewed.  

November 2015 I 187 

 
 
 
Table 6.7 Procedures and demands 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

BG 

ISO 
9001:2008 

DE 

SCC-
certificate 

DK 

Certificate for 
Transportable 
Structures  

 

 

Preliminary 
audit  
initial audit 
(adequacy 
audit);  
  Certification 

audit 
(conformity 
audit); 
Issuing the 
certificate; 

 

  Supervisory 

 

inspections for 
3 years.  
The applicant 
should identify 
the relevant 
level of 
certification and 
implement the 
necessary 
measures  
  An application 
must be done 
for certification 
and audits will 
be conducted 
  Owner of the 
structure 
requests the 
certification 
from the 
inspection 
body; 
The inspection 
body inspects 

 

Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Submissions 
demands  
  Quality management 
system documents 
(documented 
procedures) 
  Reports after 

completed internal 
audits  

  Management review 

of the system  

Form  

In addition 
to 
assessment, 
simple 
copies of 
documents 
need to be 
provided 

Simple 
copies 

  Company details 
  Proper HSE 

management system 
  Reports on accidents 

at work 

(see NL below for more 
details) 

  Instructions for use / 

installation  
  Maintenance 
instructions. 
  Static stability 

calculations and 
documents.  

Decided in 
advance by 
inspection 
body  

Electronic 
procedures  
Compliance 
is assessed 
at the 
applicant’s 
premises; 
the 
certifying 
body checks 
documents 
in any form 

Generally 
documents 
can be 
emailed. 
Checklists 
can be 
downloaded.  

Inspection 
body 
decides in 
advance 
whether 
electronic 
versions of 
documents 
can be used 

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

Depends on nr 
of 
locations/offices, 
nr staff and nr 
certified 
activities)  
Most 
certification 
services only 
assess QM 
systems that 
function at least 
3 months 

No deadlines 

Three years 

Depends on 
nr of 
employees 
and 
locations 

Three years 

The fees are 
in the same 
range for 
similar 
situations 
and depend 
on sector, nr 
staff, 
turnover, nr 
locations 

No deadlines or 
complaints 
procedure 

€160 per 
hour – the 
final figure 
depends on 
the size of 
the structure  

Five years but 
less if technical 
aspects of the 
design clearly 
limit the 
duration of the 
transportable 
structure to 
less than five 

November 2015 I 188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

Submissions 
demands  

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

ES 

OHSAS 
18001 

relevant 
documents.  
The inspection 
body performs 
an onsite 
inspection.  
Issuing of 
certification.  

 

 

  Applicant 
should 
implement the 
system three 
months before 
the certification 
process 
commences  

  Management system 

documents 

  For equipment: CE 

Simple 
copies  

markings, 
declarations of 
conformity and 
maintenance 
certifications; 

  Audit of 

  Proof of professional 

documentation  

capacity; 

  Audit of 

  Statistics on health 

 

organisation  
Introduce 
corrective 
actions 

  Granting 

certification  

  Annual 

surveillance 
audits  

and safety; 
  Other licences; 
  Emergency plan; 
  Proof of social 

security 
contributions; 
  Proof of worker 
representation. 

years 

Online 
application 
is possible 
but 
documents 
must be 
sent in 
printed 
form. 

Not 
disclosed 

No deadlines but 
in general the 
auditing phase 
should not take 
more than 3 
months 

One year for 
the first issue, 
three years for 
subsequent 
issues with 
annual 
surveillance 
audits 

FI 

RALA 

  An initial 

evaluation of 
the company 
and documents 
are made 

  An audit is 

performed and 
corrective 
measures are 

Simple 
copies  

  Application form and 
self assessment  
  The company's own 
reports on quality, 
developing 
operations and 
procedures 

  Agreement with RALA 

if applicant is an 

An 
application 
can be 
downloaded 
and 
documents 
emailed. 

There are no 
deadlines. The 
timetable 
depends on how 
efficiently the 
firm provides 
the documents 
and meets the 
requirements.  

€290 to 
€1400 
depending 
on the value 
of firm 
turnover  

The firm has to 
pass an annual 
review and 
annual fee is 
imposed as 
indicated in the 
adjacent cell.  

November 2015 I 189 

 
 
 
 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

Submissions 
demands  

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

requested.  

  A follow 

evaluation 
takes to 
examine 
compliance  
  An assessment 
board decision 
is made as to 
whether the 
certification 
should be 
issued.  
Evaluation of 
firm document 
s 
 
Firm audit  
  Corrective 

 

actions issued 
and 
implemented  
Issuing the 
certification 

 

FR 

Quality of 
building 
works-related 
services 
provided to 
private 
clients  

authorised 
representative of 
applicant company 

  Technical folder 

(admin documents)  
  Service quality folder 

(describes firms 
quality services)  

No specific 
requirements 

Documents 
can be 
submitted in 
the form of 
(electronic) 
files 

IT 

ISO 14001  

  Carrying out an 

initial 
environmental 
audit and 
review by 
describing and 
analyse the 
processes and 
corporate 
activities, in 

Copies of manuals and 
procedures describing 
the environmental 
management system of 
the company.  

No specific 
requirements 

Not 
specified 

Three years 
unless an 
annual follow-
up leads to a 
withdrawal 

Three years 

The files must 
demonstrate 
compliance with 
standards for at 
least 6 months. 
Audit within 2 
months after all 
files are 
accepted, 1 
month for 
applicant to 
implement 
changes if 
needed 
No deadlines. In 
practice, the 
procedure may 
take 6-8 months 
for small firms 
with a QM 
system but not 
yet with 
environmental 
guidelines, up to 

€ 800 excl. 
VAT per 
audit (one 
per 
location). In 
addition 
registration 
costs, 
management 
costs and 
right to use 
the NF brand 
which were 
not disclosed 
For small 
companies 
with less 
than 10 
employees € 
4,500 to 
5,000 in 
three years, 
more for 
large 

 
 
 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

Submissions 
demands  

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

order to 
identify and 
evaluate main 
environmental 
aspects to be 
considered; 
Implementation 
of the 
environmental 
management 
system; 
  Starting the 

 

adoption of the 
management 
system 

 

  Realization of 
an audit done 
in two phases 
by a third part 
entity 
The applicant 
should identify 
the relevant 
level of 
certification and 
implement the 
necessary 
measures  
  An application 
must be done 
for certification 
and audits will 
be conducted  

NL 

VCA-
certificate 

18-24 months 
for large 
companies  

companies 

Simple 
copies 

  Structure of the 

company: main and 
sub-branches (if 
any). 

  Organization chart. 
  Nr employees or 
man-hours per 
annum. 

  Nr of projects in 

progress. 
  Average nr of 

locations at which the 
company works 
simultaneously 

  Technical/engineering 
activities requiring a 
specific expertise. 

Three years  

Depends on 
the 
accredited 
institution, 
but 
generally 
documents 
can be 
emailed. 
Checklists 
can be 
downloaded.  

No deadlines. 
The 
management 
system needs to 
be operational 
at least 3 
months before 
the first audit. 

The fees are 
in the same 
range for 
similar 
situations 
and depend 
on sector, nr 
staff, 
turnover, nr 
locations 

November 2015 I 191 

 
 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

PL 

PN-EN ISO 
9001 

  Select potential 
certificate 
issuing body 
  Submit enquiry, 
application, 
documents 
introducing the 
company and 
quality 
management 
system. 

Submissions 
demands  
  The scope of the 
certification, 
including the NACE 
Code (rev. 2). 

  A SHE management 
system according to 
the VCA checklist 
including  
1.policy documents 
2.risk management 
manuals 
3.documentation of 
training 
4.awareness plan 
5.project plan 
6.environment plan 
7.emergency plan 
8.registration of 
inspections 
9.company health 
care 
10.use of equipment 
11.register of sub-
contracting 
12.accident 
registration 
Documents to be 
submitted include: 
National Court Register; 
enquiry, application, 
company introduction, 
description of quality 
management system. 
Electronic version of 
documents is sufficient. 
The documents from 
foreign countries are 

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

Simple 
copies 

Documents 
can be 
emailed. 

No deadlines. 

The cost 
depends on 
the 
complexity, 
size of the 
company. 
Small firms: 
several 
thousand 
PLN; very 
big 

Three years, 
but during 
those three 
years there are 
check-ups 
confirming the 
effective 
implementation 
of quality 
management 
system. 

 
 
 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

  Then the 

certification 
process starts 
which depends 
on the size of 
the company 

  Developer 

requests LNEC 
QM  

  An audit group 

is created and a 
quality manager 
selected  
  The quality 

manager works 
with the 
developer on 
several 
construction 
phases 

  The audit group 
perform site 
inspections  
  An declaration 

of conformity is 
issued.  
  Mandatory 
course 
  Mandatory 
workshop 
  Mandatory 
exam 
  Submit an 
application 
form  

  Undertake a 

health, safety 

PT 

LNEC Quality 
Mark 

SI 

Slovenian 
organisation 
for fire safety 
licences 

UK1  Construction 
Skills 
Certificate 

Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

Submissions 
demands  
accepted if they are in 
common language such 
as English.  

Developers submit an 
application form  

Simple 
copies  

Documents 
can be 
emailed  

Deadlines are 
not regulated – 
they are project 
specific.  

companies: 
several 
hundred 
thousand 
PLN.  

The fee is 
20% of the 
design fees 
for the 
construction 
wok.  

No limited 
duration.  

(not applicable) 

(not 
applicable) 

(not 
applicable) 

(not applicable) 

€150 

Three years 

  Application form  
  Professional training 

Simple 
copies  

certificates  

Online 
application 
and test.  

20 days 

£17.50 (cost 
of the card 
only) 

Five years 

November 2015 I 193 

 
 
 
MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

Submissions 
demands  

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

UK2  Competent 

Person 
Schemes 

and 
environment 
test 
Issue the card. 

 
  Submit an 
application 
form  
  Optionally 

undertake test 
  On site audits  

  Application form 
  Professional 

Simple 
copies 

(not 
applicable) 

No deadlines 

qualifications or 
passing a written and 
practical test 
provided by the 
Scheme Operator 

UK3  National Type 
Approval 
Certification 

Same as building 
permit 

Same as building permit  Same as 
building 
permit 

Same as 
building 
permit 

Same as 
building permit 

Depends on 
Scheme 
Operator 
(=certifying 
body), type 
of work, 
number of 
operatives.  

For electrical 
installation 
e.g. 
membership 
costs £576, 
the 
application 
fee is £156 
plus £60 for 
every 
additional 
operative, 
and an 
annual audit 
of £408 for 
up to 10 
operatives.  
None 

Annual renewal 

The LANTAC 
certificate 
offers ongoing 
regulatory 
compliance for 
approved plans 
regardless of 

 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

MS  Scheme  

Procedure  

Submissions 
demands  

Form  

Electronic 
procedures  

Deadlines  

Fees  

Duration  

updates to the 
Building 
Regulations.  

November 2015 I 195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Classic ISO certificates and national management system certificates 
Most  schemes  consist  of  a  preparation  phase  and  an  audit  phase  (ISO  schemes, 
OHSAS 18001, German SCC and Dutch VCA, Finnish RALA, French construction quality 
certificate, Dutch VCA). During the preparation phase the quality management system 
needs to be developed and manuals need to be submitted, where simple copies and/or 
electronic  documents  generally  suffice.  The  German  and  Dutch  SCC/VCA  schemes 
make  additional  demands  on  the  training  of  workers,  use  of  equipment  and  accident 
registration.  The  management  system  generally  needs  to  be  operational  3  months 
before  the  first  audit,  but  6  months  for  the  French  certificate.  Except  for  the  French 
certificate  there  are  no  formal  deadlines  but  informally  a  planning  is  typically  agreed 
during  the  intake.  The  fees  are  determined  on  a  case  by  case  basis  but  vary  from  a 
few thousands to several tens of thousands of euros depending on company size and 
number of locations. The certificates typically have a validity of three years. 

Training certificates 
Two  certificates  attest  that  training  has  been  successfully  completed:  the  Slovenian 
fire safety certificate and the UK Construction Skills Certificate and have relatively low 
costs per participant (around 20 to 150 euros).  

Certificates based on inspections 
The  Portuguese  scheme  operates  on  a  project  basis,  the  certificate  only  attests  the 
quality of one construction project and is mainly based on inspections, at a cost of 20 
per cent of the design fees.  

The  English  Competent  Person  Scheme  requires  the  applicant  to  have  the  necessary 
training  and  to  be  audited  on-site,  before  s/he  can  self-certify  the  quality  of  his/her 
own construction work. The auditing services cost in the region of €700 EUR.  

Type approval 
The  UK  LANTAC  certificate  is  a  voluntary  certificate  that  can  be  obtained  after 
following  the  regular  building  permit  procedure.  The  Danish  certificate 
for 
transportable  structures  can  also  be  regarded  as  a  type  approval.  In  both  cases,  the 
usual regulatory procedure is followed the first time. Efficiency gains are realised if the 
same  technical  plans  and  transportable  structures  are  used  in  more  than  one 
construction project.  

Involvement of public authorities 
With the exception of type approval systems, public authorities are not involved in the 
auditing  procedure  for  applicants  to  obtain  the  voluntary  certificate.  However,  public 
authorities have contributed to the development and performance of various schemes. 
For ISO norms, officials may have a seat in the board that oversee the development of 
the  international  ISO  norms.  And,  for  example,  when  the  Dutch  VCA  scheme  was 
developed  in  the  early  nineties,  officials  from  the  Dutch  Labour  Inspectorate 
participated in the Central College of Experts which advised on key procedural aspects 
to be adopted (though not on norms and standards).166  

166   TienOrganisatieAdvies  (2011),  Onderzoek  zelfregulering  arbeidsomstandigheden  (Study  of  self-

regulation of health and safety at work). 

November 2015 I 196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

6.6  Evaluation against the principles of simplification 
The  evaluation  of  the  voluntary  certification  schemes  against  the  principles  of 
simplification mainly focused on the possibilities that the schemes offer to comply with 
the  regulations  and  procedures  on  building  permits.  Building  permit  procedures  are 
one of the main authorisation processes to the provision of construction services, and 
demand  applicants  to  fulfil  multiple  requirements.  As  a  result,  by  providing  an 
alternative  to  regulatory  compliance,  voluntary  certification  schemes  can  reduce  the 
burden of undergoing authorisation procedures.  

A key issue to be clarified for the evaluation of voluntary certification schemes against 
the principles of  simplification is the relationship between  such schemes and national 
regulation.  Table  6.8  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  relationship  (largely 
overlapping  the  relationship  with  EU  regulations  in  Table  6.3  above)  and  indicates  in 
what  ways  voluntary  certification  provides  simplification  benefits  to  construction 
service providers.  

Table 6.8 Relationship between voluntary certification schemes and national 

regulation 
MS  Title of the 

scheme  
ISO 9001:2008 

BG 

DE 

SCC 

DK 

Certification 
Scheme for 
Transportable 
Structures  

ES 

OHSAS 18001 

FI 

Construction 
Quality 
Association 

Relationship to regulation  

Simplification role and 
benefits  

Indirectly provides a means to 
comply with general quality 
construction requirements in the 
Spatial Planning Act.  

Indirectly provides a means of 
compliance with general quality 
standards in the Public 
Procurement Act. However, 
contracting authorities can 
specifically demand ISO 
certification if they require it.  
It attests to compliance with 
certain Articles of the DGUV 
(Deutsche Gesetzliche 
Unfallversichering – German 
Accident Insurance). 
In addition, EMAS III transposing 
EU Regulation Nr. 1221/2009 
regulates voluntary participation 
in an environment management 
system. 
Provides an official alternative 
means of compliance for the 
construction of transportable 
structures under the Building Act.  

The scheme attests to compliance 
with the National Law related to 
safety and health at work (Ley 
31/1995, of 8 November 
Prevention of Occupational Risks 
and its implementing regulations, 
which transposes EU health and 
safety directives)  
The scheme generally attests 
compliance with nine national 
building regulations in areas 

 

 

 

Improves and clarifies how 
general quality construction 
standards set in regulation 
have been met;  
Enables compliance with 
mandatory public procurement 
requirements when these are 
specified by contracting 
authorities.  

The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements. 

  Offers an alternative means of 

compliance as service providers 
do not need to apply for a 
building permit as the 
certificate demonstrates that 
technical building requirements 
are successfully met.  
The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements.  

 

 

The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 

November 2015 I 197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Title of the 

Relationship to regulation  

FR 

scheme  
Competence 
Certification 
(RALA) 
Quality of 
construction 
works-related 
services 
provided to 
private clients  

IT 

ISO 14001  

NL 

VCA-
certification 

PL 

PN-EN ISO 
9001 

PT 

LNEC Quality 
Mark 

SI 

Slovenian 
organisation for 
fire safety 
licence 
UK1  Construction 
Skills 
Certification 
Scheme  

UK2  Competent 

Person 
Schemes 

where the scheme provides 
accreditation.  

The scheme in based on a non-
mandatory standard NF P 03-700. 
The standard does not feature in 
legislation.  

This non-mandatory scheme is 
designed to comply with 
Legislative Decree 115/08 on 
Energy Efficiency in end-use 
Energy Services. The Legislative 
Decree is the transposition of the 
European Directive 2006/32/CE. 
The certification includes 
verification of compliance with 
certain aspects of the Working 
Conditions Act. 
The Polish construction law has no 
direct reference to ISO 9001. 
However, Art. 25,26,27 of 
Construction Law deal with issues 
of quality in relation to the rights 
and obligations of the investor's 
inspector 
The LNEC Quality Mark is 
supported by Decree Law no. 
310/90. The scheme supports 
developers to meet and exceed 
minimum regulatory requirements 
for wide a range of legislation 
applying to construction works.  
The certification supports 
compliances with Technical 
Directive on Fire Safety 2010.  

The certification enables 
compliance with health and safety 
law relating to construction site 
workers (the Construction Design 
and Management Regulations 
which transposed Directive 
92/57/EEC).  
Competent Person Schemes (CPS) 
allow individuals and enterprises 
to self-certify their own building 
work as compliant with the 
technical requirements 
established by the Building 
Regulations 2010.  

Simplification role and 
benefits  

requirements.  

 

 

 

The scheme does not offer 
strengthened compliance with 
legislation but rather non-
mandatory standards; 
In a general sense, it could 
offer firms a method to deal 
with their obligations under 
consumer law given the focus 
on strengthening service 
provision.  
The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements;  

 

  Given the knowledge attained, 
firms may choose to exceed 
standards set in national law.  
The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements.  
The scheme offers firms a 
method to deal with their 
obligations under consumer 
law. In this sense, regulatory 
compliance is enhanced.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements; 
The scheme enables firms to 
surpass minimum quality 
assurance requirements.  
The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements on fire safety.  
The scheme clarifies and 
improves compliance with 
specific regulatory 
requirements relating to 
construction site workers.  

This route to regulatory 
compliance is a voluntary 
alternative to the procedure of 
submitting a building notice and 
complying with the 
requirements of site inspections 
performed by building control 
authorities; 

  Service providers can perform 
their work without the need to 
submit a building notice on 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

MS  Title of the 

Relationship to regulation  

scheme  

Simplification role and 
benefits  

UK3  National Type 
Approval 
Certification 

LANTAC certification demonstrates 
compliance with the technical 
requirements for building work 
established by the Building 
Regulations 2010. 

 

 

each occasion. Service 
providers also do not need to 
arrange site inspection 
meetings with building 
authorities. 
This scheme offers a voluntary 
alternative to the building 
permission procedure (deposit 
of full plans) under the Building 
Regulations 2010; 
LANTAC certificates for 
standard details speeds-up the 
approval process given that 
compliance with the Building 
Regulations 2010 has been 
demonstrated through previous 
application procedures. This 
avoids the need to provide local 
authorities with the same 
information over and over 
again in response to their 
queries on Building Regulation 
submissions. 

Issues around procedural simplification of applying for building permits 
For all voluntary schemes that are accepted by building authorities, the simplification 
of  procedures  is  clearly  evident  for  the  two  type  approval  schemes  where  designs 
need to be submitted only once and not for every construction project, and for the UK 
Competent  Person  Scheme  where  Competent  Persons  do  not  need  to  apply  for 
building  permits  as  long  as  they  successfully  pass  periodic  random  inspections  and 
self-certify  their  completed  works.  The  Danish  certificate  for  portable  structures  and 
the  UK  Competent  Person  Scheme  (e.g.  for  electrical  installers)  are  both  limited  to 
areas  where  nation-wide  norms  can  be  developed.  This  begs  the  question  as  to 
whether these schemes cannot be  replicated by other Member States  or whether the 
norms in these areas cannot be established internationally as well. 

However,  most  schemes  currently  do  not  play  a  role  as  an  alternative  to 
demonstrating compliance with regulations, neither in  building permit procedures nor 
in  on-site  inspections.  For  the  ISO  certification  schemes  and  other  management 
system certificates, their potential for simplification is not in the fee imposed (several 
thousands  of  euros  for  small  companies  to  several  tens  of  thousands  of  euros  for 
larger companies), nor in short deadlines which usually are absent, but rather the fact 
that  a  certificate  is  issued  for  multiple  years.  However,  given  that  certificates  by 
nature  are  subject  to  renewal  processes,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  certificates 
only partially meet the  principle of simplification used in the Services  Directive which 
seeks  to  promote  one-off  authorisation  processes  which  is  not  practical  for 
implementation of certification processes.  

Furthermore, ISO and other management system certificates attest to compliance with 
part  of  the  national  (health,  safety,  environment)  regulations  but  not  all.  In  this 
regard,  the  schemes  that  demonstrate  compliance  completely  with  national 
regulations have a greater potential for simplification of building control process than 
international ISO certificates that are not tailor-made to national law. The potential for 
cross-border  simplification  in  building  control  is  even  greater  in  schemes  where 
national norms have been harmonised in co-operation with building control authorities 
as is the case in the German/Dutch SCC/VCA scheme.  

November 2015 I 199 

 
 
 
 
 
On  the  other  hand,  in  public  procurement  the  requirement  of  ISO  certificates  rather 
than  national  certificates  simplify  cross-border  bidding  for  construction  works.  In 
Bulgaria,  ISO  9001  certificates  (but  not  other  ISO  certificates)  may  be  required  by 
public  procurement  actions.  In  Italy,  ISO  9001  certificates  (but  not  other  ISO 
certificates) are even required by law Italy for large construction projects of more than 
€  500,000).  However,  it  needs  to  be  mentioned  that  mandatory  certification 
requirements  do  not  correspond  well  with  the  requirements  of  the  Services  Directive 
and Member States should avoid using this practice (see Chapter 3).  

Simplification  benefits  in  terms  demonstration  of  effective  compliance  and 
marketing  
The majority of voluntary schemes are based on verification of management systems. 
In  various  cases,  public  authorities  were  involved  in  the  development  of  the 
certification  system,  e.g.  with  regard  to  norms  or  procedures.  The  potential  of  these 
schemes  is  further  enhanced  by  client  demands  and  accreditation  which  gives 
credibility  to  the  assumption  that  the  certified  company  indeed  complies  with  the 
national  regulation.  However,  all  of  these  safeguards  are  designed  for  the  needs  of 
clients,  as  an  assurance  that  the  certified  companies  are  likely  to  comply  with  the 
national  law  and  not  for  building  control  authorities  which  do  not  accept  these 
certificates as alternative proof  of compliance. Where  certification is held by qualified 
workers,  it  is  not  always  the  case  that  the  service  providers  are  free  from  site 
inspections and it is open to debate as to whether they should be.  

In  the  Portuguese  voluntary  scheme,  LNEC  certifies  constructions  works  after 
successful  completion  of  a  construction  project  as  verified  by  a  number  of  on-site 
inspections  examining  all  relevant  construction  regulations  are  complied  with.  LNEC 
has  the  contractual  power  to  stop  construction  activities  until  errors  are  addressed. 
Although  this  is  not  accepted  as  an  alternative  route  to  complying  with  building 
regulations  in  Portugal,  LNEC  basically  performs  the  same  tasks  as  public  control 
bodies but with additional levels of advisory support to meet compliance requirements 
for  example  during  the  project  planning  phase  which  clearly  demonstrates  the 
potential  for  simplification,  even  though  it is  currently  not  accepted  as  an  alternative 
proof of compliance with Portuguese regulations.  

Where  legislation  provides  that  construction  workers  must  work  according  to  certain 
(safe)  procedures,  recognised  training  certificates  such  as  the  Slovenian  fire  safety 
training  and  the  UK  Construction  Skills  Certificate  directly  demonstrate  the 
qualification of workers to do so. However, again, the question remains open whether 
it can be assumed that qualified workers will comply with national regulations without 
inspections.  

Simplification by providing alternatives to regulatory compliance in the host MS (even 
if not in the home MS) 
As  discussed  earlier,  none  of  the  examined  schemes  are  accepted  as  proof  of 
compliance  with  building  regulations  in  other  Member  States.  The  Danish  voluntary 
scheme  for  portable  structures  such  as  commercial  tents  comes  perhaps  closest  to 
offering  simplified  procedures  for  cross-border  service  providers.  The  cross-border 
service  provider  would  have  to  provide  the  parameters  required  by  Danish  law  to 
obtain  the  Danish  certificate,  but  their  portable  structures  might  already  meet  the 
Danish  requirements.  It  appears  to  be  a  scheme  that  can  be  developed  in  other 
countries as well with the same parameters required by Danish law. If such a scheme 
in those other Member States were to be accredited, it would have to be accepted by 
the  Danish  authorities.  If  all  of  this  were  to  happen,  the  Danish  acceptance  of  the 
voluntary  certificate  could  be  said  to  create  a  market  for  the  same  scheme  in  other 
countries.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Construction  service  providers  in  the  fourteen  countries  of  this  study  were  asked 
about  their  experience  with  cross-border  acceptance  of  voluntary  schemes  as  an 
alternative to regulatory compliance. In line with the selected schemes discussed in 
this  chapter,  few  construction  service  providers  indicated  that  voluntary  schemes 
are  an  alternative  for  demonstrating  compliance  cross-border.  Only  in  Italy  and 
Portugal it was mentioned that voluntary certification schemes obtained in another 
Member  state  are  taken  under  consideration.  In  Italy  the  voluntary  certifications 
were  said  in  one  interview  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  authorisation  processes 
however other interviews offered no opinion or the opposite opinion. In Portugal all 
certification  deriving  from  EU  legislation  were  said  in  one  interview  to  be  taken 
under  consideration  and  valid  and  the  authorities  will  try  to  issue  an  equivalent 
Portuguese  certificate  if  the  company  in  addition  is  registered  under  a  public 
institute  in  their  home  country.  However,  the  interviewees  indicated  at  the  same 
time that companies still have to comply with the national construction regulations 
to obtain building permits and/or comply with on-site inspections. 

6.7  Overall conclusions 
When  summarising  the  potential  for  mutual  recognition  and  simplification  through 
acceptance  as  proof  of  compliance  in  building  permit  procedures,  the  schemes  with 
the greatest level of potential simplification are schemes for which mutual recognition 
appears  the  most  difficult  to  implement  and  vice  versa,  because  certification  is  only 
accepted as proof of compliance if it is based on national regulations (and these often 
vary greatly across MS) (Table 6.9).  

Table 6.9 Mutual recognition and acceptance as proof of compliance 

MS  Certificate 

Accreditation  International 

Mutual 

Accepted as 

equivalence 

recognition 

proof of 

compliance 

Classic ISO schemes 

BG 

ES 

IT 

PL 

ISO 9001:2008 

OHSAS 18001  

ISO 14001  

PN-EN ISO 9001 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

National management system certificates 

DE 

Safety Certificate 

FI 

NL 

FR 

Contractors 

RALA certificate 

VCA-certificate 

Quality of building 

works-related 

services for private 

clients  

++ 

-c) 

++ 

++ 

Training certificates 

SI 

Slovenian 

-- 

organisation for fire 

safety licence 

UK1  Construction Skills 

++ 

Certificate 

Inspection based certificates 

PT 

LNEC Quality Mark 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+b) 

-c) 
+b) 

-- 

-- 

-d) 

-- 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+b) 

0 
+b) 

-- 

-- 

-d) 

-- 

-a) 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

November 2015 I 201 

 
 
 
 
 
MS  Certificate 

Accreditation  International 

Mutual 

Accepted as 

UK2  Competent Person 

++ 

Scheme 

Type approval 

DK 

Certificate for 

++ 

Transportable 

Structures  

UK3  UK National Type 

-- 

Approval Certification 

(LANTAC) 

equivalence 

recognition 

proof of 

compliance 

-- 

-e) 

-- 

-- 

-e) 

-- 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ means yes, -- means no, + and - mean limited 

a)  Only accepted if required in public procurement 
b)  Limited to Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands 
c)  Only with regard to ISO 9001 
d)  Only with regard to mutual recognition of underlying qualifications 
e)  Only to the extent that Danish norms are met 

All  in  all,  it  can  be  concluded  that  voluntary  type  approval  for  simple  structures  and 
voluntary  skills  certificates  for  self-certification  in  limited  areas  have  the  greatest 
potential  for  simplification  in  building  permit  schemes  nationally  and  cross-  border, 
provided that other  Member States have  similar regulatory  requirements as the  ones 
covered  by  these  certification  schemes.  The  Danish  voluntary  certificate  for 
transportable structures and the UK Competent Person scheme both provide excellent 
blueprints for this because: 

  They are accepted as alternative proof of compliance; 

  They are accredited schemes; 

 

In the Danish scheme foreign certification bodies can be accredited and in the 
UK scheme foreign qualifications can be recognised as being equivalent.  

Besides  these  two  schemes,  the  UK  LANTAC  voluntary  scheme  for  type  approval  of 
building designs is accepted as proof of compliance, however since the building design 
is  checked  against  all  British  building  regulations,  the  scheme  is  not  accredited  and 
foreign  experts  or  cross-border  recognition  play  no  role.  While,  it  may  serve  as  a 
blueprint  for  simplification  in  other  countries,  it  may  not  necessarily  support  cross-
border mutual recognition of service providers.  

The Portuguese LNEC Quality Mark may serve as a blueprint for alternative private on-
site inspections since all elements of public building control inspections are covered in 
this scheme. In Portugal there is no plan to accept this Quality Mark as an alternative 
route  to  proving  compliance,  however,  for  example  in  the  Netherlands  law  makers 
have  discussed  possibilities  to  develop  such  a  system  as  an  alternative  for  public 
building  control  inspections.167  Hence,  in  the  same  way  as  the  UK  LANTAC  scheme, 
this  scheme  has  potential  for  simplification  but  is  likely  to  be  suitable  for  supporting 
mutual recognition.  

All  three  schemes  examined  that  are  accepted  in  building  permit  procedures  have  in 
common that the certificates attest to compliance with national rules and are based on 
one-off  inspections.  Another  route  to  simplification  and  mutual  recognition  may 
therefore be via: 

167   Report  of  the  Commissie  Fundamentele  Verkenning  Bouw  (Commission  Fundamental  Exploration  of 

Building Regulations), 2008. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

  Harmonization of national norms into European Norms or International 

Standards; 

  Strengthening the role of one-off on-site inspections before certificates are 

issued. 

One  scheme  that  appears  to  have  potential  for  both  simplification  and  mutual 
recognition, at least for on-site inspections though not for building permit procedures, 
is  the  German/Dutch  SCC/VCA  scheme,  which  attest  to  compliance  with  national 
norms  that  have  been  harmonized  between  Austria,  Belgium,  Germany  and  the 
Netherlands.168 The general SCC/VCA scheme is essentially still a management system 
certification scheme, however a petrochemical variant of the SCC/VCA scheme comes 
close to meeting the requirements for simplification and mutual recognition. According 
to  Dutch  inspection  bodies169,  certain  obstacles  need  to  be  overcome  before  this 
scheme  can  play  a  greater  role  as  an  alternative  for  demonstrating  compliance  with 
regulations: 

  Clients do not inspect actual compliance on-site, except in the German/Dutch 

petrochemical variant of the SCC/VCA certificate; 

  The certificates do not define responsibility for accidents but only a 

requirement to reduce the risk, except in the German/Dutch petrochemical 
variant where the client accepts full responsibility; 

  The certificates attest to compliance with part of the national (health, safety, 

environment) regulations but not all. 

Therefore, the petrochemical variant of the SCC/VCA might serve as a blueprint if their 
scope  is  enlarged,  although  it  will  be  a  challenge  to  cover  all  national  regulations  in 
the  area  of  health,  safety  and  environment  and  to  harmonize  the  norms  between  all 
participating countries.  

For training certificates, the potential for mutual recognition is determined by mutual 
recognition of the underlying qualifications. Qualifications could possibly be developed 
internationally  for  certain  areas  as  such  as  those  covered  by  the  various  Competent 
Person Schemes in the areas of: 

  Low-voltage electrical installations; 

  Lighting or heating electrical installations; 

  Cavity insulation (in walls); 

  Plumbing and heating; 

  Ventilations and air-conditioning; 

  Replacement windows or doors; 

  Roof coverings and thatching; 

 

Installation of certain appliances (e.g. solar panels, fire alarm, burglary alarm). 

However,  even  if  voluntary  certificates  are  not  accepted  by  building  control 
authorities,  neither  in  building  permit  procedures  nor  in  on-site  inspections, 
certificates  can  still  be  useful  in  demonstrating  to  clients  the  ability  to  comply  with 
regulations.  The  classic  ISO  certificates  are  accredited  and  in  addition  it  is  standard 
practice of certification bodies to hire foreign experts to cover any lack in expertise in 
cross-border  certification.  Management  system  certificates  that  are  tailor-made  to 
national  norms  have  even  greater  potential  to  signal  the  ability  to  comply  with 
national  regulations  but  require  greater  efforts  around  the  harmonisation  of  norms 
the  (accredited)  German/Dutch  SCC  scheme  shows. 
between  countries,  as 

168   The  norms  have  only  been  harmonized  between  these  four  countries,  and  are  therefore  not  EU  or 

world-wide standards although the norms are ultimately based on various EU Directives. 

169   TienOrganisatieadvies (2011), ibid. page 47. 

November 2015 I 203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Accreditation  may  also  persuade  clients  to  accept  other  types  of  certificates  cross-
border.  Both  for  training  certificates  (the  UK  skills  card)  and  for  type  approval  (the 
Danish  certificate  for  transportable  structures)  an  accredited  scheme  was  identified 
which  shows  that  accreditation  for  such  schemes  is  possible  if  set  up  in  a  certain 
matter, in particular to safeguard independence.  

Overall,  the  schemes  with  the  greatest  potential  as  alternatives  for  demonstrating 
compliance  with  (national)  regulations  seem  to  have  the  least  potential  for  mutual 
recognition  and  vice  versa,  because  national  (technical)  regulations  are  generally 
complex.  This  means  that  voluntary  schemes  can  only  be  tools  for  simplification  and 
mutual recognition if certain conditions are met, of which the most important are: 

  One-off full control procedures (for type approval) to enhance the potential for 
simplification of building permit procedures for subsequent applications,~(at 
least that is how the current type approval schemes in the countries researched 
are arranged and more in general there are no examples where public building 
control is absent (at most it is delegated to recognised private bodies in specific 
cases as e.g. in Spain)); 

  Limitation to standard / recurrent activities or construction works where it is 
easier to develop internationally accepted norms to enhance the potential for 
mutual recognition in building permit procedures; 

  Accreditation to signal to cross-border clients the ability to comply with national 
regulations (though not necessarily actual compliance), both for management 
systems and for skills qualifications. For management systems, the use of 
foreign experts or the harmonization of norms enhances this signalling 
function. For training certification, a specific set-up such as the use of an 
independent qualification body in the UK skills card scheme may be needed to 
safeguard independence.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

7  Summary  of  stakeholder  interviews  and  analysis  of 

responses 

The  final  study  task  was  to  conduct  interviews  and  analyse  responses  from 
stakeholders located in the fourteen Member States. The aims of the interviews were 
to establish: 

  Where the main costs for going cross-border reside; 

  Whether electronic document submission, procedures and formalities are 
available as part of horizontal authorisation schemes and building permit 
processes;  

  The practical implementation of the mutual recognition principle in the context 

of cross border authorisation and how it can be improved. 

A total of thirty interviews have been conducted with industry stakeholders (consisting 
of  European  and  national  level  associations,  architects,  building  engineers  and 
construction  services  companies).The 
to 
complement the indicator framework and Articles of the Services Directive.  

interview  questions  were  designed 

The  study  experienced  difficulties  in  organising  interviews  with  businesses  and 
associations willing to answer the questions for the following reasons:  

 

In general, it was difficult to find EU based firms working in the construction 
sector for one-storey houses and ten-storey office buildings that provide 
services cross-border in another EU country; 

  Many firms responded that the building industry in Europe is facing difficult 

times and that they cannot use their time to participate in a study;  

  Especially in larger firms, a number different employees were needed to 

answer the questionnaire given the division of labour and the corresponding 
breadth of issues covered by the questionnaire. Therefore these firms often 
gave a negative response; 

  Over three hundred emails and telephone calls were made. This generated a 

response rate of just less than 10%.  

Main conclusions 
The main problems that companies face while working cross border are: 

  Local languages – in terms of day to day working, legislation and the building 

permit application process; 

  Understanding the requirements of specific local regulations, for example those 
related to cultural heritage and environmental issues, since these differ per 
country, municipality and city; 

  Understanding what documents need to be submitted and in what manner: 

what stamps are needed? Who needs to sign? Is an official translation needed 
or not? 

  Unidentified risks that have to be taken into account.  

In many cases, the main costs that companies experience are related to one or more 
of these problems, for  example: translators that need to be hired and the extra time 
that is needed to manage processes such as this.  

Not seen as problematic by some stakeholders are: 

November 2015 I 205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Building control fees as these normally represent a small proportion of the 

overall costs and are borne by the client; 

  Technical requirements and requirements with regard to health and safety 

where these are similar between countries or are manageable to deal with (by 
some but not all cases); 

  Business development costs. 

The four main strategies companies use when working cross-border are:  

  The company hires a local architect / company:  

o  Advantage: the local architect / company speaks the local language, 

understands the local working culture and regulations etc.; 

o  Disadvantage: The costs of a local architect / company - especially in 
terms of Southern and Eastern European firms working in Northern 
Europe.  

  The company teams up with a local company / architect 

o  Advantage: There is a fixed company associate promoting the firm cross 

border; 

o  Disadvantage: The company is dependent on the chosen partner.  

  The company starts an office abroad 

o  Advantage: The company is close to the client, the company can hire 

local staff, and the company gets to know the local working culture, 
language and regulations etc.; 

o  Disadvantage: Setting up an office abroad generates more risks and this 
is the most costly option that companies can opt for when working cross 
border i.e. there is a fixed investment in an uncertain environment. 

  The company is working from their home office while managing projects 

abroad: 

o  Advantage: There is no fixed investment and total control of the budget; 
o  Disadvantage: The company is not close to the client, doesn’t quickly 

get to know the local working culture, language and regulations and 
most importantly the company faces the risk of making mistakes.  

Regulatory costs  
Not many interviewees see applying for a licence to provide services or building permit 
and  engaging  with  the  building  control  inspection  process  as  a  major  problem.  The 
fees are not seen as unreasonable. Major difficulties interviewees face are: 

  The translations that are often needed take a lot of time and money; 

  The process is not always clear i.e. what documentation is needed, the timing 
and frequency of site inspections take place, etc. It takes time to learn of the 
process often through experience gained rather than through detailed 
signposting to information on the requirements; 

  Many interviewees stated that hiring local country specialists / architects / 

engineers is a must when working cross border. Such professionals are hired so 
that the company is able to manage the local language and regulations. The 
costs that are paid for local professionals differ per country. Generally 
speaking, Northern European professionals are seen as more expensive than 
the Southern and Eastern European professionals. Specifically German, Dutch 
and Danish professionals are mentioned as very expensive. 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Many  interviewees  see  the  preparation  of  administrative  documents  to  demonstrate 
compliance with national requirements as a major problem. The main reasons that are 
mentioned by interviewees are: 

  The process is very time consuming; 

  The documents have to be completed in (in the far majority of the countries) in 

the local language. Translation costs can be expensive; 

  Verifying what documents need to be handed in is seen as a burden, because 

the regulations are often in the local language; 

  Many companies hire a local consultant to help with preparing these 

documents. This relates to additional costs;  

 

In many countries the documents that have to be handed-in differ per project, 
so for each project companies need to understand new requirements;  

  Countries that are mentioned by interviewees as especially difficult are: 

Germany (which is viewed as very strict), Spain viewed as bureaucratic), 
Poland (the rules are view as unclear and the authorities are not helpful) and 
Portugal (a large number of documents are needed).  

Almost  all  interviewees  consider  complying  with  health  and  safety  legislation  cross-
border as relatively easy to manage given their experience with home country rules. A 
small  number  answered  that  these  requirements  are  difficult  because  they  are 
different for each country.  

Some  interviewees  answer  that  their  clients  require  local  insurance  products  when 
they provide cross-border  services. Very large  companies  often have  an international 
insurance policy that is recognised everywhere. However, this type of insurance cover 
is very costly. 

Specific problems are seen in Germany, France and the UK. In Germany, although this 
issue  is  not  specifically  a  mandatory  insurance  problem,  an  interviewee  mentioned 
that  a  10  percent  deposit  is  always  required  in  case  of  future  damages.  In  France, 
interviewees mentioned it is very difficult for cross-border companies to purchase the 
relevant insurance product required by law. This was seen, for example, as a problem 
for  German  companies  operating  cross-border.  The  main  difficulty  mentioned  related 
to  the  five  year  coverage  of  construction  works.  In  the  UK,  it  was  mentioned  that 
clients  often  require  a  local  insurance  product.  Since  the  local  insurance  experts  are 
very expensive, the total costs for insurance are very high. The issue of insurance for 
one interviewee was the main reason to cooperate with a local firm.  

Other regulatory and non-regulatory costs 
Most  respondents  state  that  there  are  greater  risks  to  be  taken  into  account  when 
providing  cross-border  services.  The  interviewees  see  these  risks  in  terms  of  the 
language barrier, the different environmental rules, the different political environment, 
and the lack of knowledge of the local regulations. Many interviewees mentioned that 
the  risks  can  be  reduced  by  increasing  company  knowledge  of  the  local  culture, 
language  and  regulations  etc.  One  interviewee  specifically  mentioned  that  their 
company reserves 5  – 10% of the total budget for risks when providing cross-border 
services.  

The interviewees stated that the main cost when setting-up an office abroad related to 
country  specific  cost  conditions.  Western  European  countries  are  seen  as  more 
expensive  than  Southern  and  Eastern  European  countries.  The  costs  depending  on 
whether  the  local  office  is  rented  for  the  period  of  one  project  only  or  on  permanent 
basis.  One  UK  respondent  mentioned  that  it  is  probably  easier  to  set  up  an  office  in 
Eastern Europe than London for this reason.  

November 2015 I 207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A little more than 50% of the interviewees think legal costs are significant because of 
the  professional  advice  that  is  often  needed.  Lawyers  are  often  very  expensive  to 
include in the project budget. The other interviewees do not consider the legal costs as 
a major problem.  

Scores  
Figure  7.1  contains  boxplots  based  on  the  scores  given  by  the  interviewees  of  the 
questions related to regulatory and non-regulatory costs. The X axis indicates different 
types of costs that firms may experience (see the list of types of costs below) and the 
Y axis indicates the relative perception of the cost (from 1 not costly to 5 very costly). 
The  boxes  represent  50%  of  the  answers  and  the  start  and  end  points  of  both  lines 
above and below the boxes represent the maximum and minimum scores respectively. 
The higher the box, the higher the majority of  the scores. A longer box means more 
diverse answers, a short box indicates that answers are more in line with each other. 
For example, answers to the question 1.B.h (very small box and lines range from 1  - 
2) were more consistent than the answers to 1.B.g (large box and lines range from 1 
– 5). 

Figure 7.1 

Figure  7.1  summarises  all  scores  received  per  question  from  all  stakeholders.  The 
question numbers indicated by the X axis relate to the following:  

Regulatory costs 

  1.B.a applying for a license to operate e.g. for a building permit or engaging 

with control processes;  

  1.B.b preparing administrative documents to comply with national 

requirements; 

  1.B.c delays caused by the uncertain legal viability of the building permit (e.g. 

as a result of lobby groups seeking re-examination of the building application 
through court procedures or other factors);  

  1.B.d familiarisation and complying with technical requirements; 

  1.B.e familiarisation and complying with health and safety requirements. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Non-regulatory costs  

  2.B.a business development costs;  

  2.B.b there are greater risks to be taken into account; 

  2.B.c setting up and staffing a local office;  

  2.B.d legal costs associated with establishing contracts with clients;  

  and 2.B.e other non-regulatory costs. 

Overall,  the  non-regulatory  costs  are  particularly  burdensome.  Technical  regulations 
are  expected  and  can  be  followed  regardless  of  the  differences.  Non-regulatory  costs 
are harder to provide solutions for, as they relate to ways of doing business.  

Lighter procedures 
Interviewees  mention  that  in  some  countries  a  lighter  procedure  for  building  permit 
applications is  available  (e.g.  Belgium,  France,  Portugal,  and  Czech  Republic).  Where 
there is a lighter procedure, most interviewees stated that the process is indeed easier 
to  deal  with  compared  to  the  regular  procedure  for  submitting  a  building  permit. 
However,  generally  speaking,  the  documents  needed  for  the  construction  of  a  one-
storey  house  are  less  burdensome  than  for  a  ten-storey  office  building  since  the 
construction works is less complex.  

Simple copies 
In  some  countries,  simple  copies  are  accepted.  Interviewees  mention  that  in  the 
Netherlands, France and Finland this is the case.  However, in other countries, simple 
copies  are  not  permitted  (Germany,  Bulgaria, Spain,  Italy,  Poland).  In  most  of  these 
countries  some  documents  need  to  be  certified.  In  Bulgaria,  for  example,  simple 
copies are accepted however these copies need to be certified with the sentence “true 
to the original” and signed. In Greece the interviewees mention that simple copies are 
not  accepted,  but  they  expect  this  requirement  to  be  introduced  in  the  future. 
Interviewees  gave  conflicting  information  regarding  Denmark.  In  some  cases, 
Denmark  was  regarded  as  a  country  where  full  case  handling  is  possible  while  some 
documents still need to be sent in hard copy. This may be because there are uneven 
practices  across  local  authorities.  Finally,  there  were  two  interviewees  with  cross 
border  experience  that  stated  that  in  practice  there  are  no  countries  that  accept 
simple copies from cross-border service providers.  

Language 
All  interviewees  stated  that  English  is  never  permitted  as  a  working  language  when 
applying for a building permit in a country where it is not the mother tongue language. 
Interviewees differ in their view of how significant this is as a problem.  

Tacit approval and meeting internal authorisation deadlines  
The situation regarding tacit approval and whether authorities are generally perceived 
as  meeting  their  own  internal  deadlines  for  issuing  authorisations  differs  greatly  per 
country. According to the interviewees:  

  Authorities in the UK, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Finland, Denmark, Italy and the 
Czech Republic issue a decision within the deadline and therefore it was 
generally considered that tacit approval is not normally demanded;  

  Authorities in France, Poland, Spain and sometimes Portugal do not always 
respond within the deadline, however, in France it was mentioned that the 
authorities always issue notifications if this is the case; 

November 2015 I 209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Tacit approval is not possible in Bulgaria, Poland, Denmark, Italy170, UK;  
  Tacit approval is practiced in the Netherlands, France and the Czech Republic 

and in these countries service providers feel legally secure to proceed with their 
building works. In France however, service providers only feel secure when 
they have followed a further procedure i.e. writing to the authorities stating 
that they understand they have tacit approval and then waiting a further2 
weeks for the authorities to respond to the letter or not; 

  There is tacit approval available in Finland, Greece, and Portugal, but in these 
countries service providers do not feel legally secure to proceed with the 
building work. Four interviewees stated in general that they would never start 
construction work without a building permit and would thus never rely on tacit 
approval;  

  Respondents in the UK mentioned that they do not wish to see tacit approval 
introduced. However, sometimes contractors do commence work without 
approval if there is no response and demand a response from authorities 
regarding the approval of the plans submitted already. 

Electronic procedures 
The possibility of electronic procedures differs greatly among countries: 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Czech Republic there are no electronic procedures available; 

In Germany, Poland and Spain paper forms can be downloaded; 

In Italy electronic intake is possible in some regions or cities: Italy is seen by 
many interviewees as ‘’many countries’’ in one country; 

In Greece, Portugal electronic intake of some documents is possible however 
many certified drawings still need to be sent in hard copy; 
In the UK and the Netherlands171 full electronic case handling is possible for the 
entire building permit application.  

Most  interviewees  think,  when  online  case  handling  is  made  possible,  the  system  is 
very  efficient  to  use  compared  to  the  earlier  situation  when  only  paper  forms  can  be 
submitted.  

Site inspection regime 
Most  interviewees  do  not  see  the  site  inspection  regime  as  representing  a  barrier  to 
providing cross border services. In general, the biggest barrier to companies working 
cross  border  is  lack  of  familiarity  with  the  process.  Companies  do  not  know  what  to 
expect  and  what  needs  to  be  prepared  for  the  site  inspections.  Furthermore,  they 
mentioned  that  they  can  only  ask  these  questions  to  expensive  private  consultants. 
There are some country specific answers given by the interviewees:  

 

 

 

 

 

In the UK, the electrical installation inspection process is very burdensome for 
non-certified contractors;  

In Denmark, the fire regulations are seen as very strict and burdensome; 

In Poland, the preparation of the documents is the most burdensome part of 
the whole process;  

In Finland, the energy inspection can be quite burdensome; 

In the Czech Republic, the fire inspection is the biggest burden. 

170   There is for very light procedures. 
171   Interviewees also mentioned DK as a country where full electronic case handling is possible – this does 

not, however, correspond to the findings of the study. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Voluntary Certification schemes 
Only  in  Italy  and  Portugal,  it  was  mentioned  that  voluntary  certification  schemes 
obtained  in  another  Member  state  are  taken  under  consideration  and  reduce  the 
complexity  of  authorisation  processes.  In  Italy,  voluntary  certification  reduces  the 
complexity  of  the  submission  demands  for  a  building  permit  and  in  Portugal  all 
international certification is taken under consideration and valid. However, companies 
still have to comply with the national requirements.  

Harmonisation among EU countries 
Almost all interviewees would like to see more harmonisation among the EU countries. 
There was general agreement that standardised documents or forms could help firms 
operate cross-border to meet a range of requirements already complied with and this 
could relate to legal demands and authorisation processes broadly speaking.  

However, while there was general support for policy interventions in this regard, many 
of the interviewees questioned how this could be introduced. A very small minority of 
stakeholders (namely two UK respondents) did not see the validity of such forms e.g. 
building notice forms are very simple documents to complete and standardising these 
across Europe would create more problems than they would solve.  

November 2015 I 211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8  Conclusions and recommendations 

This  section  provides  an  overview  of 
the  main  study  conclusions  and 
recommendations.  To  begin  with,  overall  conclusions  for  the  horizontal  authorisation 
schemes  and  building  permit  legislation  are  indicated  separately.  These  are  grouped 
according  to  a  number  of  sub-categories  namely  key  findings,  regulatory  burdens, 
mutual  recognition  and  administrative  burdens.  A  number  of  Article  specific 
conclusions are then presented.  This is followed by the main study recommendations 
that  generally  apply  to  both  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and  building  permit 
processes.  

Finally,  the  results  of  the  assessment  of  the  voluntary  certification  schemes  are 
elaborated  with  suggestions  on  how  these  can  be  strengthened  to  support 
simplification of authorisation processes and mutual recognition of service providers.  

8.1  Overall Conclusions of the Assessment of Horizontal Authorisation 

Schemes  

A number of overall conclusions of the assessment of horizontal authorisation schemes 
are as follows (the Article specific conclusions are presented in section 8.3):  

8.1.1  Key findings on horizontal authorisation schemes  

  The results of the legal mapping exercise suggest that almost half of the study 

Member States have introduced horizontal authorisation schemes for the 
construction services sector (in total six of the fourteen Member States); 

  The Services Directive does not restrict Member States from establishing 

horizontal authorisation schemes for service providers undergoing 
establishment particularly when their introduction can be justified by an 
overriding reason relating to the public interest and where there are positive 
spill-over simplification effects for subsequent building permits and controls; 

  However, where Member States have established horizontal 

authorisation schemes, these must comply with the requirements of 
mutual recognition and simplification of the Services Directive. The 
results of the legal evaluation suggest that all of the horizontal 
authorisation schemes examined must do better in terms of meeting 
these requirements (see section 8.3 which provides a series of article 
specific conclusions); 

  Considering horizontal authorisation schemes are similar (although in some 

case more burdensome such as in Denmark and Italy), their lack of regulatory, 
simplicity, mutual recognition and even simplification makes subsequent 
building permit procedures unduly complex and unsuited for temporary l cross-
border service provision;.  

  Even where a limited procedures such as prior notification of temporary cross-

border providers is required focusing only on technical and professional 
capacity (such as Bulgaria), while the procedure is in itself less burdensome, a 
justification of this underlying condition under the Services Directive remains 
doubtful; 

  Given that half of the study countries appear to have not established horizontal 
authorisation schemes, it could be suggested that more efficient methods of 
control could be established in some areas. For example, the horizontal 
authorisation schemes in Bulgaria and Portugal which provide access to service 
providers to specific segments of the market seem at odds broadly speaking 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

with the approach taken in other countries where market-entry controls are not 
in place and where more proportionate methods of service delivery control 
(such as the use of building permit and site inspection procedures only) are 
more commonly used;  

  However, at the same time, it should be recognised that under the right of 
establishment, construction companies might benefit from simpler building 
permits if there are synergies with previous controls implemented by a 
horizontal authorisation scheme enabling firms to access the market. For 
instance, building permits could then focus on on-site aspects of service 
provision only so that the number of regulatory conditions can be reduced and 
duplication could be avoided. Ultimately, service providers would be faced with 
less burdensome regulatory and administrative requirements altogether; 

  While all horizontal authorisation schemes require reform, the aggregate 

indicator analysis demonstrates there are examples of horizontal authorisation 
schemes which have a high level of restrictiveness for example where they 
combine authorisation and certification requirements (e.g. DK) and those that 
have not clearly established mutual recognition principles and procedures in the 
relevant legal texts (e.g. BG and ES). 

8.1.2  Regulatory burden  

  The six Member States that have adopted horizontal authorisation schemes 

require specific professional qualifications of key construction personnel such as 
architects and/or engineers involved in the construction works. Such 
professionals are subject to their own authorisations and, throughout their 
performance, to a number of exercise requirements pertaining to quality of 
services and ethics. But none of the six Member States does away with the 
horizontal authorisation schemes for contractors and developers making use of 
key construction professionals that are appropriately qualified and/or certified; 

  Similarly, mandatory certification schemes do not fit well with the Services 

Directive. Certification schemes often focus on ensuring that service providers 
attain particularly high industry standards which are externally verified by 
accredited certification bodies, and therefore it seems disproportionate to 
require service providers to obtain certification on a mandatory basis. In 
addition, given the very nature of certification of service providers, it is virtually 
impossible to adopt authorisation processes that operate in line with the 
requirement of simplification (such as adopting fixed periods, standard 
notification and extension procedures, tacit approval etc.);  

 

In terms of proportionality, Portugal does differentiate between more complex 
and simpler works, the latter being subject to a simplified authorisation 
procedure. Other countries, however, do not use this distinction to determine 
the extent of requirements associated with the authorisation procedure; 

  None of the horizontal authorisations issued in any of the six Member States 
are valid indefinitely: the Italian DURC authorisation is valid for 90 days; the 
Bulgarian authorisation is valid for one year, as is the standard Portuguese 
authorisation (while the simplified authorisation is valid for 5 years). Danish 
authorisations are valid for 2 years (due to the expiration of the underlying 
certification scheme); both the Italian mandatory ISO certification scheme and 
the Spanish authorisation regarding health and safety are valid for 3 years; 

November 2015 I 213 

 
 
 
 

In Portugal (regarding insurance) and Spain (regarding health and safety), 
some of the conditions imposed for granting these horizontal authorisations 
seem to be duplicated in the context of building permit procedures.172 

8.1.3  Mutual recognition  

 

In terms of mutual recognition, principles for cross-border service providers are 
in place for both insurance and other requirements (with the exception of 
Bulgaria). However, procedures that ensure an equivalence assessment on the 
ground are not formally established. Portugal (with specific rules in place for 
technical/professional and financial capacity) and Italy (regarding the ISO 
scheme, based on European and international standards) are the exceptions; 

  Regarding insurance requirements, Bulgaria, Denmark and Portugal have 

foreseen a mutual recognition principle which could apply in the context of 
horizontal authorisation schemes but it is not operational in practice; 

 

In contrast, there are no mutual recognition rules in place for other 
requirements (regarding technical/professional capacity in Bulgaria, registration 
and certification in Denmark and organisational health and safety requirements 
in Spain).  

8.1.4  Administrative burden  

 

In terms of the overall level of administrative burden, the horizontal 
authorisation schemes proved excessively restrictive;  

  While E-procedures and equivalent documents seem to be accepted 

everywhere, simple copies are only accepted in half of the countries (in 
Portugal originals or certified copies may be required where there are cases of 
doubt, and in Bulgaria and Spain certified translations by professionals 
registered in those countries are always required);  

 

In addition, the administrative burden in terms of the number of documents 
required, whether or not information is made available in English and whether 
English language documents are permitted for submission varies across 
Member States. In 4 out of 6 Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy and 
Portugal) fees are not proportionate to the cost of administering the approval 
process. Tacit approval is the rule only in Italy (with regard to its DURC 
scheme) Portugal and Spain. 

8.2  Overall  Conclusions  of  the  Assessment  of  Building  Permit 

Legislation  

A number of overall conclusions of the assessment of building permit legislation are as 
follows (the Article specific conclusions are presented in section 8.3):  

8.2.1  Key findings on building permit procedures  

  Member State authorisation procedures cannot be easily linked to the relevant 
European model of public policy normally used to compare and assess policy 
traditions. Therefore, grouping and analysing the fourteen study Member 

172   The  exact  conditions  imposed  are  slightly  different;  still,  it  could  be simpler  to  impose conditions  of a 
specific  type  (such  as,  in  these  cases,  insurance  or  health  and  safety)  in  the  context  of  a  single 
procedure. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

States in line with the typical models of public policy (e.g. Liberal, Corporatist, 
Nordic, Southern European etc.) was not appropriate in this case; 

  The results illustrated that in relation to each core element of the building 

permit procedure, there are only a small number of approaches to establishing 
authorisation processes. Therefore, while each of the study countries has 
established a unique combination of procedures and requirements, there are 
only a small number of possible types of procedures and requirements across 
each of the core elements that make-up the building permit process;173  
  As a result, it is unlikely if the remaining Member States that have not been 

examined by this study operate procedures and requirements that are 
significantly different to those identified. Moreover, the findings suggest the 
Services Directive provides a number of solutions supporting mutual 
recognition and simplification that are suitable for adoption by all national 
building permit / control systems. For these reasons, the study 
recommendations have broad implications for all Member States including 
those not analysed;  

  Building controls are often fully-fledged authorisation schemes as defined by 
the Services Directive and should, therefore, be justified by an overriding 
reason to the public interest. To ensure that such controls are proportionate, it 
should be demonstrated that the same function cannot be realised through 
alternative less restrictive methods. With these rules and principles in mind, in 
line with relevant categories of works, alternative procedures such as building 
notices, self-certification of plans and targeted exemptions for particular types 
of works should be considered;  

  Building permits control an activity which impact on a number of relevant 

public interests and therefore may be justified in the context of cross-border 
service provision. However, given the fact that they control on-site aspects of 
service performance, they apply equally to establishing and temporary cross-
border providers. This means the building permits (as well as building controls 
in general) and their underlying requirements can only be justified by reasons 
of public policy, public safety, public health and the protection of the 
environment;  

  The legal evaluation illustrates that with regard to most Articles examined, 

good examples of compliance have already been adopted by Member States. 
The key issue is to ensure that these are widely shared and adopted. Examples 
of good practice include: 

o  The Spanish Declaration of Responsibility is a good example of enabling 

service providers to self-certify their own plans and limiting the extent 
of the site inspection regime;  

o  The Netherlands requires submission demands limited to 3 categories of 

documents; 

o  Finland and the Netherlands provide an online centralised national 

system for the submission of building permit applications that offers full 
electronic case handling.  

  Systems that have not performed well have generally adopted a combination of 

a poor level of compliance with the mutual recognition requirements 
established by Article 10(3) and simplification requirements such as those 
established by Article 5 and Article 8.  

173   This echoes the findings of a study conducted by the European Consortium of Building Control. 

November 2015 I 215 

 
 
 
 
                                           
8.2.2  Regulatory burden  

  Building permit procedures across the 14 Member States analysed often 
present a high level of regulatory restrictiveness. Nation-wide validity for 
building permits is only an issue for non-site specific aspects of service 
performance. Although most Member States do not differentiate, Germany and 
the United Kingdom have put in place a nationwide approval of building designs 
that are non-site specific; 

  No Member State controls building activities through a single one-off building 
permit control, eventually coupled with on-site inspections. Instead, they 
impose a number of administrative control procedures from the initial 
application, to the commencing of the works on the ground until final 
completion. With the exception of the Netherlands, all Member States impose 3 
or more separate control procedures that collectively constitute the building 
permit / control process. However, most Member States have put in place 
alternative procedures for simpler building works (except for Denmark, Finland, 
France, the Netherlands and Poland) and all exempt minor works174 from 
building permit procedures, except for Greece (which imposes a notification for 
such works);175 
In relation to simpler building works, no Member State has put in place the 
possibility of exemption from building control procedures for qualified or 
certified service providers. This is in spite of the vast majority of Member 
States (except for Finland, Poland and the United Kingdom) requiring regulated 
professionals to submit building permit applications. Due to professional 
qualification rules and controls in place, building permit applications submitted 
by qualified professionals should be presumed to comply with the law and merit 
a perfunctory check only. 

 

8.2.3  Mutual recognition  

  Given that building permits contain no specific provisions for temporary cross-

border providers, effective mutual recognition under an equivalence 
assessment is all the more crucial; 

  Technical standards play a key role in how to conduct building works. In view 
of their complex nature, mutual recognition of these technical rules across 
Member States is only feasible if performance-based standards are adopted by 
Member States. This is the case for Greece, Spain, France and the United 
Kingdom. Other Member States have adopted a combination of prescriptive and 
performance-based standards to varying extents, with the exception of 
Portugal;176 

  The existence of rules permitting the use of equipment as part of a service 

activity in a host Member State according to regulations established in a home 
Member State do not seem to be common. However, given that many 
substantive rules on equipment use are based on European or International 
Standards, there seems to be no real problem on the ground when using 
equipment across borders;  

 

Insurance requirements are widespread and divergent across Member 
States.177 However, mutual recognition of equivalent insurance coverage is 
absent even though a general principle is in place but in most cases it is not 

174   However, the concept of "minor work" varies greatly across Member States. 
175   The  scores  for  these  indicators  are  included  in  the  graph  for  administrative  barriers,  given  their 

relevance for Article 5 of the Services Directive. 

176   Although  Portugal  seems  to  be  in  the  process  of  moving  in  the  direction  of  introducing  performance 

based standards.  

177   Some  Member  States  require  insurance  coverage  for  one  or  more  types  of  insurance  coverage  (work 

performance, latent defects and tort liability). 

 
 
 
                                           
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

applied in practice due to the absence of a specific procedure for assessing 
equivalence of insurance coverage; 

  Companies follow organisational rules for health and safety according to their 

home Member State requirements implementing Article 7 of Directive 
89/391/EEC. These rules oblige companies to set up internal health and safety 
structures comprising certain professionals with the necessary capabilities, 
aptitudes and means, including equipment. Companies may avoid setting up 
such structures by hiring external health and safety service providers in a 
home country. It appears that companies are often not in a position to obtain 
mutual recognition by being allowed to keep their organisational arrangements 
(be it an internal or external service). Due to the absence of specific mutual 
recognition rules, companies going cross-border to provide construction 
services need either to restructure their health and safety internal organisation 
locally (which is often too expensive and impracticable) or hire a local external 
health and safety service provider (but not the service provider previously used 
in the home Member State). 

8.2.4  Administrative burdens  

 

In terms of the extent of administrative burdens, building permit schemes 
proved particularly restrictive, even more so when compared to horizontal 
authorisation schemes; 

  For example, E-procedures are not available everywhere: only Finland, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom provide for full-case handling online, 
while most Member States only allow for paper forms to be downloaded. The 
Czech Republic, Germany and Spain allow for some electronic intake. 
Information in English is only partially available in the Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. Simple copies are accepted in 7 
Member States; in Bulgaria and Spain, certified translations by professionals 
registered in those countries are required. Moreover, all other Member States 
also require translations; 

  The number of documentary submission demands required varies across 

Member States. Fees vary even more, ranging from €35 in the Czech Republic 
(for a one-storey 2 bedroom house) to €125.000 in the Netherlands (for a 10-
storey office block), where they do not seem to be proportionate to the cost of 
administering the authorisation procedure. In the majority of Member States, 
only one authority is directly involved with the applicant (except for Bulgaria, 
the Czech Republic, Germany, France and Poland);  

  Some Member States control planning issues in a separate procedure (the 
Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, the United Kingdom and, in the absence of 
spatial planning regulations for the area concerned, France and Poland). In 
these countries the duration of procedures should be shorter and tacit approval 
more widespread. Procedural duration in these countries range from 2 days in 
Greece to 12 weeks in Spain (for a 10-storey office block). Germany stands-out 
with short procedural durations (4 or 8 weeks) and tacit approval. However, 
10-storey office blocks in the Netherlands take up to 26 weeks to receive 
approval. Twelve Member States (except for Finland and the United Kingdom) 
do not accept designs submitted by professionals operating from another 
Member State. These 12 Member States force professionals to go through 
procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications.  

November 2015 I 217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.3  Article-Specific Conclusions  

In  order  to  provide  the  reader  with  a  detailed  Article-by-Article  assessment  of  the 
national  legislation  examined,  Table  7.1  provides  a  list  of  Article-specific  conclusions 
emerging  from  the  legal  evaluation  of  horizontal  authorisation  schemes  and  building 
permit legislation. 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Table 8.1 Article –specific conclusions  
Article 

Conclusions  

Article 5  
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes and Building 
Permit / Control 
Legislation  

Article 5  
Building Permit / 
Control Legislation 
Only  

 

The overall number of documents and the number of categories of submission demands requested vary greatly between 
Member State’ legislation for horizontal authorisation schemes (e.g. in Bulgaria 6 categories of documents are 
requested) and building permit legislation (e.g. in Italy 9 categories of documents are requested). In some cases, the 
administrative burden created by the number of categories of submission demands requested is particularly high.  
In terms of horizontal authorisation schemes ,there are mixed results regarding whether Member States have made 
available their legislation (BG) and websites in EN (DK, PT) and in some countries this is not the case at all (ES, IT); 
  Regarding building permit legislation, no Member State where EN is not the native language has provided all of the key 
information in EN including building regulations, listing of relevant standards, building permit webpages and submission 
procedures (BG, CZ, DE, DK , ES, FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI).  

 

  While certified documents are often requested, these can be submitted in simple copy format. The submission of simple 
copies are requested by a number of horizontal authorisation schemes but this is not always the case (e.g. BG in terms 
of translations).Some Member State building permit legislation do not permit the submission of simple copies (e.g. DE, 
El, ES, IT, PL).  

  Apart from one horizontal authorisation scheme (PT), submission demands cannot be provided in EN as well as EN 

translations of original documents. This is also the case with regard to building permit legislative requirements in 
countries where EN is not the mother-tongue language.  

  Although certified document requirements are imposed by horizontal authorisation schemes in many Member States 

(BG, DK, ES, IT, PT), those issued in the home Member States are generally accepted; 

  With regard to building permit legislation, certified plans signed by an architect / engineer registered with a national 

body are required for submission in many cases (BG, CZ, DE, DK, ES, EL FR, IT, PL, PT, SI) apart from in FI, NL and the 
UK. This creates a barrier to submitting plans cross-border and creates an immediate need to hire a locally registered 
professional.  

  Where certified documents or similar are requested by horizontal authorisation schemes proving that a requirement has 

been satisfied, it is normally the case that equivalent documents are not deemed acceptable for submission; 
  Certified documents or similar, proving that a requirement has been satisfied, are often not demanded by building 

permit legislation (these are required in a small number of cases but it is not clear that equivalent documents can be 
submitted).  

  A number of countries have made available optional procedures relating to either one or both of the reference works. 

 

This includes BG, DE, ES and SI regarding the light procedure. The building notice applies to CZ, (in some case DE) ES, 
IT, PT and UK; 
In certain cases, alternative procedures reduce the number of categories of submission demands requested (ES, UK). 
Some alternative procedures enable service providers to commence work immediately or in a very short fixed period 
(ES, IT, PT UK). A procedure in Spain enables authorised and appropriately insured companies to self-certify their own 
plans and perform their own site inspections (although a final use permit inspection is required) on the basis of a 
Declaration of Responsibility. Many Member States exempt certain categories of minor works from building permit 
procedures; 

  According to interviewees, optional procedures benefit some categories of service providers even if these are associated 

November 2015 I 219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 

Conclusions  

Article 8  
Building Permit / 
Control and 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  
Article 9(1) 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes Only  

Article 9 (1) 
Building Permit / 
Control Legislation 
Only  
Article 10 (3)  
Building Permit / 
Control and 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  

Article 10 (4)  
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  

with greater risks or less flexibility with regard to the design solutions that can be proposed.  

  A number of horizontal authorisation schemes have established online systems that permit full electronic case handling 
and uploading of documents or permit documents to be submitted via email (DK, ES, IT, PT) but this is not the case in 
BG; 

  Only a small number of countries support full electronic case handling of submission demands for building permits (FI, 

 

 

 

NL UK).The remaining study countries only partially accept electronic submission of documents or make forms available 
online.  
It seems that a number of Member States have not established horizontal authorisation schemes as defined by this 
study. The assumption can made that these countries rely on other authorisation mechanisms (such as building control) 
to ensure that quality standards are met. This approach supports efficient access to the market for national or cross-
border service providers (CZ, DE, FI, FR, NL, PL, SI, UK) if requirements are not repeated and refer to on-site specific 
issues;  
In some cases, it seems that requirements are duplicated under horizontal authorisation schemes and building permit 
legislation (e.g. insurance requirements in PT and health and safety requirements in ES); 
There are examples of schemes that demand mandatory quality management system certification (DK, IT) of service 
providers. It does not seem justified or proportionate to demand certification of this nature considering that these seek 
to establish very high industry standards and the certification process itself cannot be easily aligned to the requirements 
of simplification as defined by the Services Directive. 

  CZ, EL, ES, IT, PT and SI have adopted the procedure of self-certification of plans in certain areas or as a general 

practice. The UK provides a good example where certified installation service providers can self-certify their own work. 

  Mutual recognition principles and procedures are only clearly defined in a small number of horizontal authorisation 

 

schemes (DK, PT). These seem to be lacking in other cases (BG, ES, IT); 
In the context of building permit legislation specifically, it is not made clear that cross-border service providers in the 
construction sector are supported regarding the mutual recognition of the same or essentially comparable requirements 
that have been already been complied with in their home Member State (although in many countries, the principle of 
mutual recognition relating to requirements generally speaking has been established in national legislation that 
transposes the Services Directive, and a small number of countries have moved towards systems largely based on 
performance based standards for construction works); 

  With regard to insurance requirements specifically, while national legislation that transposes the Services Directive has 

in most cases established the principle of recognition, this is often not the case in legislation for horizontal authorisation 
schemes and building permit systems. Similarly, there is absence of clearly defined recognition procedures for insurance 
products.  
The horizontal authorisation schemes examined (BG, ES, IT PT) offer service providers access to their national markets 
(thereby not restricting companies geographically).  

 

 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

Article 

Conclusions  

Article 10 (4)  
Building Permit / 
Control Legislation  

  UK (England) has introduced a national type approval system that offers procedural efficiency gains to service providers 
whishing to build the same structure in more than one location. Plans are approved on one occasion and can be re-used 
as part of subsequent building permit applications. 

Article 11  
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  

Article 13(2)  
Building Permit / 
Control and 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  

Article 13(3) 
Building Permit / 
Control and 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  

 

 
 

 

In some cases, authorisation procedures require service providers to pay renewal (BG) or revalidation (PT) fees. In 
other cases, subsequent authorisations are required that appear to be as equally burdensome as the initial procedure 
(ES, IT). In Denmark, services providers established nationally are required to renew their applications as authorisation 
is based on a certification with a 2 year validity limit. The same applies in Italy in relation to the 3 year ISO 9001 
certification schemes.  

In some cases, the horizontal authorisation approval process is very low cost or free of charge (ES, IT-DURC); 
The method of fee calculation in other countries (BG, PT) is divorced from the cost of resources required to authorise 
applications. In some cases (DK, IT- ISO:EN 9001:2008), fees are profit driven (for the underlying certification scheme 
imposed by law); 
It seems that fees that form part of building permit systems are relatively proportionate to the costs of authorisation 
and public authorities cannot make a profit from their building control activities. However, in NL, the costs of building 
control of fall unevenly on larger projects that cross-subsidise applications made for smaller works.  

  Some horizontal authorisation schemes (BG and ES) offer approval processes that are fixed to a period of 15 days. 

(This is not the case in countries such as PT with fixed periods of up to 30 days and countries that support mandatory 
certification schemes such as DK and IT that are likely to subject applicants to heavy delays); 

 

  A number of horizontal authorisation schemes do not permit the use of extensions therefore supporting efficient access 
to the market for service providers (BG, ES, IT PT). But this is not the case in DK although applicants are notified when 
extensions are made; 
The building notice procedure enables services providers to commence work immediately in IT and UK (a similar 
approach is available in DE and ES but these are limited to specific circumstance). The building notice procedure in PT 
has a fixed period of 8 days; 
In some countries, the regular procedure is fixed for more than 6 weeks (e.g. NL, PT). In other countries, there are no 
fixed periods (FI, DK). In BG and CZ, the regular procedure has a duration of 4 weeks; 
In a number of countries, there are no possible extensions available as part of the authorisation process for a building 
permit (BG, DE, EL, SI). In some cases they can only be used instances where the applicant submitted an incorrect or 
incomplete application (CZ, ES, IT). However, elsewhere (NL, PL, FR, UK), extensions can be made for various reasons 
or the reasons are not clearly defined why they can be used; 

 

 

  Notifications under building permit procedures are undertaken were extensions are made. However, this does not seem 

to be the case in EL, and the lack of fixed periods in FI and DK means that there is uncertainty for applicants with the 
duration of the process.  

November 2015 I 221 

 
 
 
 
 
Article 

Conclusions  

Article 13(3) 
Building Permit / 
Control and 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  
Article 16(2) (f)  

Article 16(2b) 
Horizontal 
Authorisation 
Schemes  

  A number of horizontal authorisation schemes (ES, IT, PT) offer tacit approval if no response is given at the end of the 

fixed period thereby ensuring quick access to the market for service providers; 

  With regard to building permit legislation, although deadlines are mostly kept, tacit approval is available to service 
providers in Germany. Other countries (ES, FR, IT, NL) offer tacit approval subject to certain zoning criteria.  

  No specific barriers were identified in the study countries regarding the use of equipment; 
 
  A number of countries do not require authorisation of temporary cross-border service providers through horizontal 

(BG, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK). 

procedures. This approach may offer a much less restrictive environment to the internal market for services (CZ, DE, 
FI, FR, NL, PL, SI, UK) provided requirements are not repeated in building permit controls (e.g.ES insurance 
requirements could perhaps be more efficiently controlled a priori, in an one-off control); 

  While a number of countries subject temporary cross-border service providers to horizontal authorisation procedures, in 
some cases lighter procedures are used offering exemptions, although for very for limited periods (ES, IT -DURC) or 
notification procedures combined with a reduction in the complexity of the submission demands (BG); 
In Portugal, temporary cross-border service providers are subject to a specific authorisation procedure but this is not 
significantly lighter than the process which firms established nationally need to follow. In Denmark, the process offered 
to temporary cross-border service providers is more onerous given that evidence of insurance is demanded. 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive 

8.4  Recommendations 

jointly  addressing  horizontal  authorisation 

schemes and building permit legislation 

To  address  the  issues  raised  in  the  context  of  the  legal  evaluation  of  horizontal 
authorisation  schemes  and  building  permit  legislation,  a  series  of  recommendations  are 
outlined in Table 8.2.  

The purpose of the recommendations is to encourage better alignment with the Services 
Directive  thereby  fostering  regulatory  and  administrative  simplification  of  national 
authorisation  schemes  for  construction  service  providers.  Further  details  on  suggested 
approaches  to  obtain  conformity  with  these  recommendations  are  available  in  the  good 
practice tables indicated in sections 3.9 and 5.7.  

Table 8.2 Recommendations for horizontal authorisation schemes and building permit 

legislation  

Recommendations  
1.  Where requirements for building permits are not site-specific 

and can be met through a one-off control, construction 
companies should benefit from simpler building permits through 
synergies with previous controls of a horizontal authorisation 
scheme (alternatively this could be done on the basis of a type 
approval for relevant segments of the market). As a result, 
building permits could then focus on on-site aspects of service 
provision only; 

2.  Where horizontal authorisations schemes do not have the role of 

supporting regulatory simplification (as described in 
Recommendation 1), it should be examined if it is justified and 
proportionate to impose such controls on construction service 
providers (given that design and on-site service delivery is 
subject to building permit legislation); 

3.  Self-certification or responsible declarations (by which the 

service provider assumes liability for regulatory non-compliance) 
issued by previously certified or regulated professionals should 
replace or simplify control procedures that are applied in the 
context of horizontal authorisation schemes and the building 
permit process including site inspections;  

4.  Quality assurance certification should not be a mandatory 

requirement of authorisation schemes for construction service 
providers; 

5.  Mutual recognition principles should become fully operational 

through detailed national procedures and guidelines and apply 
where relevant to all requirements including health and safety 
and insurance requirements. Performance based standards 
should be broadly adopted.  

6.  Authorisation schemes for construction service providers should 
be closely aligned to the principle of simplification, examples of 
this alignment should at the very least cover the:  

o 

Introduction of efficient alternative application 
procedures for simpler building works;  

o  Extension of the scope of works exempt from controls; 
o  Short fixed periods should be established; 
o  Extensions should only be used where an error is 

identified in the application;  

o  Non-site specific authorisations should be granted on a 

permanent basis;  

o  Fees should be aligned to the administrative cost of the 

November 2015 I 223 

Regulatory 
simplification 

Administrative 
simplification 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

authorisation procedure. 

7.  Tacit approval should become the rule (with a view to 

encouraging public authorities to meet their own deadlines for 
approval of applications);  

8.  Reduce document submission demands and, for the few 

documents required, accept simple copies, if possible in English, 
and as issued in the home Member State by either competent 
authorities or regulated professionals; 

9.  Comprehensive online information on applicable requirements 

and formalities as well as e-procedures for submission and case 
handling centralised nationally should be made available (in the 
national language and if possible in English). 

8.5  Recommendations  provided  by  interviewees  relating  to  building  / 
permit  control  procedures  and  the  internal  market  for  construction 
services  

During  the  course  of  the  interview  programme  with  construction  sector  stakeholders, 
interviewees were invited to provide recommendations to support the reform of building 
permit  /  control  procedures  and  to  strengthen  the  internal  market  for  construction 
services.  The  recommendations  indicated  below  include  those  that  were  mentioned  that 
fall outside of the Article specific recommendations.  

It is recommended that the Commission and Member States review these suggestions to 
support the introduction of further legislative and policy developments. These have been 
generalised as follows:  

1.  There was strong support for the introduction of EU-level forms or similar to 

support the process of mutual recognition managed by all relevant authorities. 
One suggestion was for a ‘construction industry passport’ that could be introduced 
demonstrating the full range of requirements already complied with in the home 
Member State. The form could indicate the competency of the firm, director 
qualifications, membership of professional bodies, insurance products, financial 
standing, payment of taxes, good repute etc. It was mentioned that the up-take 
of the passport could be driven by public procurement activities; 

2.  To increase the level of understanding of the regulatory framework in Member 

States, further EU research was suggested on mapping national construction 
standards and assessing the scale and nature of the differences between the 
relevant countries;  

3.  Complementing the recommendation above, it was suggested that an EU-level 

construction regulation observatory could be established that had an ongoing role 
of monitoring national regulatory developments and providing advice to 
stakeholders on the regulatory context in other Member States; 

4.  With a view to overcoming differences with the health and safety regulation of 
construction sites, it was suggested that the EU should introduce regulations 
instead of directives in this regard. The legal texts should also provide clear 
details on how the requirements should be met; 

5.  It was mentioned that the Euro-codes provide a good example of harmonisation of 

building standards at European-level. It was suggested by a number of 
organisations that the Commission could review other possible types of building 
standards that could undergo similar harmonisation processes. One suggestion 
was fire regulations for buildings (although some Eurocodes already cover fire 
safety to some extent);  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.  Member States should consider introducing private building control bodies to 

oversee the plan approval and site inspection process. In countries where such 
bodies and procedures are currently in place, compared to public bodies, these 
were noted as offering service providers a stronger level of support when seeking 
to obtain regulatory compliance and played a larger role in supporting the design 
process (e.g. by suggesting innovative solutions to meet compliance 
requirements). In addition, it was mentioned that such bodies are in a much 
better to position to provide advice to cross-border service providers in the 
context of building control procedures given that they can provide a wide range of 
ancillary services. 

8.6  Conclusions  and  Recommendations  on  Voluntary  Certification 

Schemes  

A  number  of  conclusions  are  provided  below  regarding  the  potential  contribution  of 
voluntary  certification  schemes  to  support  simplification  of  building  permit  authorisation 
controls  and  mutual  recognition  of  construction  service  providers.  This  is  followed  by  a 
series  of  complementary  recommendations  to  support  the  development  of  voluntary 
certification schemes aligned to these principles.  

8.6.1  The  potential  contribution  of  voluntary  certification  schemes  to  support 

the simplification of procedures  

  Many types of voluntary certification schemes do not immediately offer service 

providers with an alternative to regulatory compliance on the basis of initially 
complying with certification processes. However, a small proportion of bespoke 
schemes do demonstrate this quality and provide an alternative route for service 
providers to gain approval of technical plans and onsite construction activities;  

 

In many cases, voluntary certification schemes (such as ISO certification) help to 
demonstrate that firms have the ability to comply with industry standards and 
potentially a number of regulatory requirements (e.g. health and safety) and can 
also support the ongoing strengthening of organisational methods to meet these 
requirements. Normally, however, the aim is to indicate to clients that the 
required standards can be met rather than demonstrating to building control 
authorities or similar that the relevant regulations have been complied with (and 
therefore site inspections or other controls will still need to take place even if a 
firm is certified);  

  Some quality management certification schemes, informed by ISO approaches, 

offer a greater level of simplification benefits given that there is a stronger level of 
tailoring to national legal requirements such as the SCC / VCA schemes. 
Therefore, firms are in a better position to demonstrate that they have the ability 
to meet the relevant legal requirements. However, still, this type of certification 
does not offer an alternative to regulatory compliance (as site inspections still 
need to be performed). Moreover, while there is a greater level of correspondence 
with national legal texts, it is unlikely if a full body of legislation, such as health 
and safety legislation, is covered by the scope of the certification;  

  The Portuguese LNEC Quality Mark provides an additional layer of site inspections 
provided by an auditor enabling demonstration to clients that particularly high 
standards have been met. Again, this approach does not offer an alternative to 
regulatory compliance although it does support service providers to meet all 
relevant requirements that may not be examined by a public authority building 
control; 

  However, some schemes, that are directly linked to national regulations (and are 
currently based on national standards) offer the greatest level of simplification 
benefits in terms of providing alternatives to regulatory compliance; 

  This includes type-approval certification schemes (such as the LANTAC type 
approval scheme in the UK and the voluntary certificate for transportable 

 
 
 
 
 
 
structures in Denmark) which enable service providers to submit plans for 
approval on one occasion and supports replication of the same structures on 
repeat occasions without further need of subsequent design approvals. The 
Competent Person scheme in the UK has a similar role as certified service 
providers can self-certify their own work without the need for site inspections by 
building control authorities. Such schemes (namely the UK Competent Persons 
scheme and the transportable structures certificate in Denmark) tend to have a 
focus on the service providers themselves performing their own site inspections 
with this skill being demonstrated as part of the certification process. 

8.6.2  The  potential  contribution  of  voluntary  certification  schemes  to  support 

the mutual recognition of service providers  

  A key observation is that the voluntary certification schemes that performed less 
well in the evaluation against the principle of simplification perform better when 
assessed against the principle of mutual recognition. This is because these 
schemes are bases on international standards, such as ISO certificates, and are 
offered by accredited certification bodies that operate under Regulation 765/2008 
which mandates mutual recognition of certification. Therefore, by providing the 
necessary evidence, cross-border service providers can have their existing 
certification recognised by a certification body established in another Member 
State; 

 

In some cases, voluntary certification schemes, informed by ISO approaches, 
have gone beyond the requirements of Regulation 765/2008. For example, the 
Germany SCC and Dutch VCA schemes have established their own multilateral 
agreements supporting mutual recognition of their respective certificates and 
support cross-border operation of the certification bodies;  

  However, as indicated, the schemes that currently perform well against the 
principle of mutual recognition do not offer an alternative to regulatory 
compliance. Service providers that hold ISO certification, or certification based on 
ISO approaches, are still subject to controls such as site inspections;  

  Other schemes not based on ISO approaches support mutual recognition. For 
example, the UK skills card scheme offers mutual recognition of professional 
qualifications (but cross-border applicants are still requested to undertake a 
health and safety test). However, other schemes with a training element do not 
mutually recognise cross-border qualifications (e.g. Slovenian fire safety 
certificate). However, again these schemes do not offer an alternative to 
regulatory compliance;  

 

It appears that where the underlying norms are not equivalent in other countries, 
there is lack of mutual recognition (even in cases where the certification body has 
been accredited by a national accreditation body). This relates certificates based 
on assessing compliance with specific national regulations and often use external 
inspection methods or certify that service providers can perform their own 
inspections such as the French construction quality certificate, the Portuguese 
LNEC Quality Mark and the UK Competent Person Scheme. There is also relates to 
the type approval schemes namely the UK LANTAC scheme and the Danish 
scheme for transportable structures;  

  Where mutual recognition is supported, the process seems to be enhanced where 
foreign experts are involved in the certification process and independent bodies 
examine requirements already complied with.  

8.6.3  Recommendations for voluntary certification schemes  

Table  8.3  indicates  a  number  of  key  conclusions  and  recommendations  that  have 
emerged from the evaluation of voluntary certification schemes against the principles of 
certification and mutual recognition. 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 8.3 Voluntary certification schemes - recommendations 

Recommendations  

Regulatory 
simplification 

Mutual 
recognition  

1.  Member States should consider in what way voluntary certification 

schemes can be introduced to offer alternatives to regulatory 
compliance as part of building permit / control procedures. In 
particular, certification schemes should aim to demonstrate that 
service providers have the necessary skills to independently provide 
services without the need for further authorisations (for example , by 
enabling service providers to approve their own work and to use 
plans already approved for subsequent projects); 

2.  To support service-providers to meet regulatory requirements, 

voluntary certification schemes could be introduced that correspond 
well with key national and EU legislation. While the ISO approach 
provides a very good starting point for the introduction of effective 
quality management systems, further adaptations could be made with 
a view to meeting regulatory requirements broadly speaking. 
Although certification schemes of this nature will not offer an 
alternative to regulatory compliance, service providers will be in a 
stronger position to develop their organisational approaches to 
demonstrate compliance with the relevant legal requirements broadly 
speaking.  

3.  To meet the objective of developing voluntary certification schemes 

that have the potential for simplification and mutual recognition, the 
Commission, Member States and certification bodies should identify 
national legislation and standards that are suitable for harmonisation 
on the basis of EN standards. Such schemes should offer an 
alternative to regulatory compliance (by reducing the need for site 
inspections or subsequent approval of plans already approved) with 
the certification issued being recognised cross-border by accredited 
certification bodies. One example for exploration is the UK’s 
Competent Persons scheme; 

4.  In terms of schemes that do not offer an alternative to regulatory 

compliance but do demonstrate that requirements can be successfully 
met by service providers (e.g. the SCC and VCA schemes), efforts 
could be made to identify how mutual recognition procedures can be 
strengthened that go beyond Regulation 765/2008; 

5.  Mutual recognition of voluntary certifications which operate as 
alternatives to regulatory compliance should be, in any case, 
observed irrespective of the harmonisation of standards at European 
or international level. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
1
-
1
6
-
0
7
3
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

               doi:10.2873/964404