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 a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions
Date: 2017-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: access to a profession, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, job creation, principle of proportionality, professional qualifications, provision of services, right of establishment, simplification of legislation, single market

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.1.2017  SWD(2016) 462 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 a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions {COM(2016) 822 final} {SWD(2016) 463 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on Proposal to introduce a proportionality test for the regulation of professions 

Executive Summary Sheet 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  

A. Need for action 

With  around  5600  EU  regulated  professions  directly  affecting  a  large  part  of  the  European  labour 
force, disproportionate regulation represents a significant obstacle to the Single Market in services and 
has  widespread  negative  economic  effects.  Regulatory  decisions  are  often  taken  without  thorough 
analysis  or  transparent  procedures.  The  Professional  Qualifications  Directive  requires  Member  States 
to  assess  proportionality  of  their  regulations  but  does  not  provide  a  common  set  of  criteria  for 
conducting this or prevent disproportionate measures from being adopted.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  

The objective is  to clarify  minimum  criteria  by  creating a  transparent and predictable framework  for 
Member  States  to  assess  proportionality  before  adopting  new  regulation.  It  aims  at  preventing 
disproportionate measures by: 

  making proportionality checks more objective, comprehensive and comparable; 
  ensuring the rules are applied in an equal manner by all national authorities  
 
 

requiring solid evidence and involvement of stakeholders in policy making;  
stimulating innovation while ensuring that rules are up to date due to periodic reviews; 

           allowing for the analysis to be publicly available and thus enable peer review. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  

Current uneven scrutiny of the regulation of professions has a negative impact on the Single Market, 
the  provision  of  services  and  the  mobility  of  professionals.  Action  by  Member  States  alone  will  not 
ensure  a  coherent  EU  legal  framework  and  address  the  existing  problems  faced  by  national 
authorities. The objectives of the action could be achieved more successfully at EU level by virtue of 
its  scale  and  effects  through  the  introduction  of  a  common  and  comparable  EU-wide  assessment 
mechanism.  In  view  of  frequent  changes  to  professional  regulation,  without  EU  action,  there  is  the 
risk that the gap between those who already apply good regulatory practices and those who do not 
will  widen,  increasing  divergence  in  quality  of  regulation.  This  ultimately  has  a  negative  effect  on 
access to a profession; ensuing negative consequences for mobility and economic performance.  

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why?  
3 policy options are considered: 1) Guidelines and in-depth information exchange between authorities 
could  help  Member  States  to  perform  proportionality  tests,  but  will  have  very  limited  impact. 
Establishing  an  EU  wide  proportionality  test  for  regulated  professions  could  encompass  several 
options. It could lay down the minimum criteria for conducting proportionality checks, based on and 
complementing  the  case-law  and  by  introducing  transparency  on  Member  States'  assessments 
through a binding instrument (2a) or in a Recommendation (2b). Additionally, it could further include 
procedural  aspects,  such  as  public  consultations  and  periodic  reviews  to  ensure  that  proportionality 
checks are conducted in an objective and independent manner to ensure comprehensive assessments 
in  all  sectors  of  activities  (two  sub-options  exist  in  this  regard  (3a  EU  Directive  and  3b 
Recommendation). Although the options are not mutually exclusive, the preferred option is Option 3a, 
as  it  would  address  most  adequately  the  problems  at  all  levels  of  regulation  (ex-ante  effect)  and 
generate the most benefits. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Who supports which option?  
There is a general consensus across stakeholders that EU action should be taken to introduce clarity 
and a common approach as regards proportionality tests and strong support for it to be mandatory. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  

The benefits for professionals, consumers and public administrations lie in ensuring better regulation 
by preventing disproportionate rules being adopted. A Directive would guarantee that Member States 
implement the test in an equivalent manner in order to avoid fragmentation of the Single Market. The 
binding  option  compels  objective  prior  analysis,  clarity,  and  information  sharing  to  promote  reliable 
and comprehensive tests that evidence the robustness of final decisions. The preferred option would 
increase  confidence,  innovation  and  technological  developments  through  regular  reviews  of  national 
regulation of professions. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  

The  costs  related  to  the  proportionality  assessments  in  general  stem  mainly  from  the  current 
obligations  as  set  out  in  the  Qualifications  Directive  and  the  case-law  and  thus  do  not  be  represent 
new additional administrative cost. However, the extended scope to include procedural aspects, such 
as public consultations, may increase costs and the workload of public authorities. On the other hand, 
the preferred option would impact positively the Single Market for professional services and it will help 
preventing  disproportionate  regulatory  barriers  in  all  sectors  of  activities  in  a  consistent  way.  It  is 
expected to promote social and economic integration especially for young skilled workers. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

The  option  does  not  entail  any  obligation  for  professionals  and  business.  Rather,  the  prevention  of 
unnecessary burdens should benefit them.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
There  will  be  a  limited  increase  in  administrative  costs  for  both  national  administrations  and  the 
Commission  but  this  impact  is  expected  to  be  largely  compensated  by  the  lower  cost  of  litigation 
procedures for non-compliance with the proportionality principle. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  
No other significant impacts are anticipated. Fundamental rights are fully respected. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The  Commission  would  report  regularly  on  the  implementation  of  the  test  at  national  level  and  an 
evaluation would be carried out within 5 years of the adoption. 

3