COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services, and amending Directive 2006/123/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System
Date: 2017-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, application of EU law, approximation of laws, disclosure of information, exchange of information, freedom to provide services, information system, right of establishment, service, single market

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.1.2017  SWD(2016) 435 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services, and amending Directive 2006/123/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System  {COM(2016) 821 final} {SWD(2016) 434 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment for the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, 
laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to 
services, and amending Directive 2006/123/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on 
administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
To avoid the introduction of unjustified and disproportionate national regulatory measures, the 
Services Directive includes a procedure whereby Member States must notify the introduction 
of/or changes to regulatory measures. The procedure was designed to ensure the compliance 
of  new/changed  national  regulatory  measures  with  the  Services  Directive.  The  existing 
procedure,  however,  has  several  important  shortcomings,  which  render  it  ineffective.  Many 
Member States fail to notify new or changed regulatory measures, only notify already adopted 
measures,  or  do  not  supply  necessary  information.  The  scope  of  the  notification  obligation 
excludes some key requirements covered by the Services Directive. The consequences of non-
notification are not clear. 
What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
The  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  contribute  to  more  competitive  and  integrated  services 
markets  through  an  improved  application  of  the  Services  Directive  and  by  preventing  the 
introduction of unjustified and disproportionate regulatory barriers contradicting the Services 
Directive  and  hampering  the  freedom  of  establishment  and  the  freedom  to  provide  services 
cross-border. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
Reforming an existing notification procedure established at EU level to improve compliance 
with  the  EU  Services  Directive  is  possible  only  through  action  at  EU  level.  In  the  single 
market, any regulatory requirement adopted by one Member State impacts the single market 
as  a  whole  as  it  may  create  obstacles  to  any  services  provider  seeking  to  establish  in  that 
Member State (domestic or foreign) or seeking to offer cross-border services. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a 
preferred choice or not? Why? 
Beyond  the  status  quo  (baseline  scenario),  four  policy  options  have  been  considered  in 
addition  to  two  options  which  have  been  discarded.  The  option  to  include  services  in  the 
Single Market Transparency Directive was discarded due to fact that the regulation of goods 
and services in  EU law  differs fundamentally.  The option to  merge the obligation under the 
Professional Qualifications Directive with the notification obligation of the Services Directive 
was not considered given that the two Directives differ in scope and subject-matter. 
Non-legislative  guidelines  (option  2)  could  help  to  clarify  the  current  procedure  and 
obligations  stemming  from  it,  but  could  not  change  the  design  of  the  existing  procedure  to 
make it more effective and efficient. 
A  legislative  initiative  could  encompass  several  options.  It  could  aim  to  increase  the 
effectiveness, content and quality of the notification procedure, introducing the obligation to 
notify  draft  legal  acts,  making  the  system  transparent,  clarifying  steps  and  tasks  in  the 
procedure  and  improving  the  quality  of  the  information  submitted  as  part  of  a  notification 
(option  3).  To  make  it  more  effective  and  relevant,  the  notification  obligation  could  be 
extended  in  scope  to  cover  important  regulatory  requirements  falling  under  the  Services 

2 

 
– 

of 

by 

out 

legal 

spelling 

consequences 

non-notification 

Directive  but  not  the  existing  notification  obligation  (option  4).  And  it  could  additionally 
include  instruments  to  enhance  the  compliance  of  Member  States  with  the  notification 
obligation 
two 
sub-options exist in this regard (options 5a & 5b). 
The preferred choice is a combination of options 3, 4 and 5a. This would allow best for the 
identified  shortcomings  to  be  addressed  and  would  establish  an  effective  and  efficient 
notification  procedure  with  only  a  small  increase  in  administrative  costs  for  national  public 
authorities and the Commission. 
Who supports which option? 
The  baseline  scenario  (option  1)  has  been  discarded  by  nearly  all  stakeholders,  who  instead 
consider necessary action at EU level to improve the current notification obligation. Option 2 
has  met limited  support as  stakeholders  prefer a  more comprehensive reform of  the existing 
procedure requiring a legislative instrument. Stakeholders welcome the measures contained in 
option  3,  but  do  not  regard  it  sufficient  and  would  like  to  see  the  scope  of  the  notification 
obligation better aligned with the requirements of the Services Directive. Stakeholders support 
clearer legal consequences of non-notification. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option? 
The  preferred  option  would  turn  the  existing  notification  procedure  into  an  effective  tool  to 
improve the application of the Services Directive leading to more competitive and integrated 
EU  services  markets.  The  reformed  procedure  would  prevent  the  introduction  of  unjustified 
and disproportionate regulatory measures that are not complying with the Services Directive. 
It  would  do  so  by  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  the  notification  procedure,  improving  the 
quality and content of notifications submitted, aligning the notification obligation closer to the 
scope of the Services Directive and enhancing compliance with the notification obligations. 
What are the costs of the preferred option? 
The preferred option would lead to some increase of administrative costs for national public 
authorities and the Commission due to the larger scope of regulatory measures to be notified, 
the obligation to notify acts at draft stage necessitating re-notifications where substantive 
changes are made to the notified draft act, and transparency for stakeholders. At the same 
time, as a result of improved compliance of national regulatory measures with the Services 
Directive, the number of legal enforcement actions against Member States would decrease, 
reducing the administrative costs associated to such actions. 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
The preferred option does not entail obligations for business and therefore will not impose 
administrative costs upon them. Yet, businesses will benefit from less unjustified and 
disproportionate regulatory barriers hampering the establishment of services providers and the 
cross-border provision of services. Transparency of notifications will mean businesses have 
more information on new/changed regulatory requirements and the opportunity to comment 
on draft measures. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
No. 
Will there be other significant impacts? 
No.  

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed? 
A report on the application of the revised notification procedure is foreseen every three years. 

3