COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Assessment of the performance of SOLVIT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Action plan on the Reinforcement of SOLVIT: Bringing the benefits of the Single Market to citizens and businesses
Date: 2017-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU national, European Economic Area, action programme, administrative cooperation, alternative dispute resolution, cross-border cooperation, free service, infringement of EU law, single market, type of business

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.5.2017  SWD(2017) 210 final   COMPLIANCE PACKAGE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Assessment of the performance of SOLVIT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Action plan on the Reinforcement of SOLVIT: Bringing the benefits of the Single Market to citizens and businesses {COM(2017) 255 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

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

Background .................................................................................................................. 3 

Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6 

The developments of the SOLVIT network ................................................................. 8 

Period 2001-2013 ......................................................................................................... 8 

Period 2013 and onwards ........................................................................................... 10 

Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 13 

5.1.  

The extent to which the objectives have been achieved ............................................ 13 

5.1.1. 

Intended objectives and effects of SOLVIT............................................................... 13 

5.1.2.  The quality of the service-Operational targets ........................................................... 13 

5.1.3.  The quality of the service-adequate staffing, legal expertise and authority ............... 18 

5.1.4.  The use of SOLVIT .................................................................................................... 21 

5.1.5.  The handling, follow-up and reporting of 'structural problems' linked to breach of EU 

law by the Member States and unresolved cases and the link to formal Commission 
complaint handling procedures .................................................................................. 25 

5.1.6.  Factors influencing the effectiveness SOLVIT .......................................................... 30 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

The extent to which SOLVIT is cost efficient ........................................................... 34 

The extent to which SOLVIT is relevant ................................................................... 38 

To what extent is SOLVIT coherent internally and with wider EU policy ............... 39 

5.5.  What is the EU added value of SOLVIT ................................................................... 41 

6. 

7. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 42 

ANNEX: Existing framework and existing studies and evaluations ......................... 43 

2 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

SOLVIT is a network set up by national governments in the EU in order to provide fast and 
effective help to individuals and businesses who have been deprived of their EU rights in the 
Single  Market.  The  purpose  of  this  document  is  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  SOLVIT 
network after the adoption of the 2013 Recommendation, using the criteria of effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value to guide this analysis. This analysis does 
not  aim  at  evaluating  comprehensively  the  functioning  of  SOLVIT  or  its  contribution  and 
wider impacts to the functioning of the Single Market but critically assesses the functioning of 
the network vis-à-vis its objectives since the adoption of the 2013 Recommendation.  

BACKGROUND 

2. 
SOLVIT was launched on the basis of a Commission Recommendation in July 2002.1 It is an 
informal problem solving network within Member States, coordinated by the Commission and 
has  developed  significantly  since  its  creation.  The  principles  governing  SOLVIT  have  been 
updated  -  to  take  into  account  developments  of  the  first  10  years  of  SOLVIT  -  by  the 
Commission Recommendation of 20132 (replacing the initial 2001 Recommendation). 

According  to  its  mandate  as  described  in  the  2013  Recommendation,  SOLVIT  deals  with 
cross-border  problems  caused  by  a  potential  breach  of  Union  law  governing  the  internal 
market by a public authority, where and to the extent such problems are not subject to legal 
proceedings  at  either  national  or  Union  level.  It  contributes  to  a  better  functioning  Single 
Market by fostering and promoting better compliance with Union law. Its objectives will be 
further elaborated in section 4.  

The service is provided free of charge by civil servants of the national administration in each 
EU country and in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Although there is a SOLVIT centre in 
each country, the complaints are mostly submitted directly through an online complaint form3 
linked  to  the  Internal  Market  Information  System  (IMI  system)4,  which  is  provided  by  the 
Commission and respects all data protection rules. The sources of SOLVIT cases are internet 
searches, signposting by other partner networks (Your Europe Advice and to a lesser extent 
the Europe Direct Contact Centre, Ombudsmen, Chambers of commerce etc) or government 
authorities and word of mouth in particular among migrant or professional communities. 

The  position  of  each  SOLVIT  centre  within  the  national  administration  differs.5    SOLVIT 
aims  to  find  solutions  within  10  weeks  –  starting  on  the  day  the  case  is  taken  on  by  the 
SOLVIT  centre  in  the  country  where  the  problem  occurred.  Submitting  a  case  to  SOLVIT 
doesn’t suspend any formal or administrative deadlines under national law. 

1  

2  

3  
4  

5  

Commission  Recommendation  of  7  December  2001  on  principles  for  using  "SOLVIT"  –  the  Internal  Market 
Problem Solving Network. 
Commission Recommendation of 17 September 2013 on the principles governing SOLVIT (2013/461/EU), OJ L 
249, 19.9.2013, p. 10–15. 

http://ec.europa.eu/eu-rights/enquiry-complaint-form/home?languageCode=en&origin=solvit-web 
See  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2012  on 
administrative  cooperation  through  the  Internal  Market  Information  System  and  repealing  Commission  Decision 
2008/49/EC (‘the IMI Regulation’) OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 1–11. 
For  example,  in  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs,  the  Business  Authority,  the 
Ministry of Justice. For an overview please visit http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/contact/index_en.htm 

3 

  
 
 
                                                 
Whilst  SOLVIT  is  informal  and  pragmatic  in  nature,  its  set-up  contributes  to  ensuring  that 
solutions  found  are  compliant  with  Union  law.  SOLVIT  is  based  on  a  transparent  problem-
solving  process  involving  two  Member  States.  The  SOLVIT  cases  are  managed  through  a 
procedure  which  is  described  in  the  2013  SOLVIT  Recommendation.  The  two  SOLVIT 
centres cooperate to solve cases through the SOLVIT database, which is integrated in the IMI 
system. The database  enables SOLVIT centers to register cases under certain categories and 
provide a description of the circumstances relating to each case, appropriate follow-up alerts 
at  appropriate  stages  of  the  case  which  need  to  be  answered;  search  functions  to  identify 
specific cases; possibility to export cases in order to provide statistics etc.  

European  Commission  officials,  national  SOLVIT  centres  and  other  national  bodies 
communicate  via  electronic  correspondence  (the  SOLVIT  application  is  part  of  the  IMI 
application),  inter  alia  for  the  case  handling  and  the  provision  of  informal  legal  advice. 
Complainants usually submit their cases through an online complaint form. Other sources of 
cases to SOLVIT are transfers from the networks of Your Europe Advice and Europe Direct 
Contact Centre as well as submission by letter, email etc. to the SOLVIT centre established in 
the country of the applicant. When submitted through the online complaint form or transferred 
by YEA and EDCC, the cases are stored as drafts directly in the SOLVIT database, which is a 
module  of  the  IMI  System.  When  submitted  through  traditional  means,  the  centre  that 
receives  the  case  must  record  it  in  the  database.  There  are  always  two  SOLVIT  centres 
cooperating  through  the  SOLVIT  database  to  resolve  a  case:  the  centre  established  in  the 
country of the origin or residence of the applicant (Home centre) and the centre established in 
the  country  where  the  problem  has  occurred  (Lead  centre).  When  a  complainant  submits  a 
problem  to  the  network,  the  Home  SOLVIT  centre  legally  analyses  the  complaint.  When  it 
fits the SOLVIT criteria (cross-border issue, public authority involved, no legal proceedings 
at stake and alleged breach of EU law) the Home centre submits the case through the SOLVIT 
application  to  the  Lead  centre.  The  Lead  centre  contacts  the  relevant  authority  and  comes 
back with a solution that it proposes - again through the database - to the Home centre. Whilst 
the  Commission  is  not  normally  involved  in  resolving  cases,  it  is  in  close  contact  with 
SOLVIT centres, offers regular legal training and, in some complex cases, provides informal 
legal advice. It also monitors SOLVIT case handling and outcomes via the on-line database.  

SOLVIT  deals  with  all  cross-border  problems  related  to  the  four  freedoms  of  movement 
(persons, goods, services and capital) including supporting policies that have a direct impact 
on  the  Single  Market  (such  as  taxation,  employment,  social  policy  and  transport).    Single 
Market legislation includes measures considered to have an impact on the functioning of the 
Single Market, as defined in Articles 26 and 114 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU). The most recurrent legal areas are social security, free movement of 
persons and residence rights, recognition of professional qualifications. 

The  diagram  below  sets  out  the  needs  and  objectives  of  SOLVIT,  its operational objectives 
and inputs and outputs and the results achieved by SOLVIT both in the shorter term and the 
longer term. 

4 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Graph 1: SOLVIT intervention logic 

An  external  evaluation  was  conducted  in  20116  for  the  Commission  Services  on  the 
SOLVIT's  set-up  and  performance.  The  evaluation's  findings  were  used  to  deploy  the 
Commission'  s  strategy  for  SOLVIT  in  20127,  which  was  followed  by  the  adoption  of  the 
updated  Recommendation  on  the  priciples  governing  SOLVIT  in  2013.  The  evaluation  was 
based  on  an  analysis  of  documents  and  SOLVIT  data,  as  well  as  a  series  of  surveys  and 
interviews  with  SOLVIT  centres,  citizens  and  businesses  that  have  used  SOLVIT, 
representative  organisations,  staff  of  various  departments  belonging  to  the  national 
administration, EU Pilot contact points, national ombudsmen, Commission staff dealing with 
infringement cases and assistance services such as Your Europe Advice, European Consumer 
Centres or Enterprise Europe Network. 

The evaluation came to the following conclusions:  

  SOLVIT  offers  fast  and  effective  solutions  to  citizens  and  businesses,  both  from  a 
qualitative  perspective  (user  satisfaction  is  high  and  SOLVIT  centres  have  a  solid 

6  

7  

See  ''Evaluation  of  SOLVIT-Final  Report''  conducted  by the  Centre  for  Strategy  and  Evaluation  Services  for  the 
Directorate  General 
at 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/_docs/2011/2011_solvit-assesses-relevance_en.pdf 
See  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  'Reinforcing  Effective  Problem-Solving  in  the  Single  Market  – 
Unlocking SOLVIT's full potential at the occasion of its 10th anniversary', SWD(2012) 33 final. 

Services,  November 

2011.  Available 

Internal  Market 

for 

5 

  
 
 
 
                                                 
reputation  within  their  own  administrations)  and  a  quantitative  perspective  (the 
benefits offered by SOLVIT are at least 6 times higher than the costs of running the 
network).  SOLVIT  centres  also  act  as  ‘agents  for  change’  and  lead  to  overall  better 
compliance  with  single  market  rules  by  national  authorities,  which  further  increases 
the positive effects of SOLVIT; 

  SOLVIT’s  main  strengths  are  its  user-centric,  pragmatic  and  informal  approach  to 
problem solving, facilitated through an on-line tool and the ‘network spirit’ that binds 
administrations  from  the  Member  States.  SOLVIT  has  shown  itself  capable  of 
handling a wide variety of cases in a pro-active manner; 

  SOLVIT’s  main  weaknesses  are  scarce  resources  and  limited  legal  expertise,  in 
particular in light of the increasing variety of cases SOLVIT is called upon to address. 
In  addition,  some  centres  lack  the  independence  and  authority  necessary  to  secure 
good results; 
In  order  to  enhance  SOLVIT’s  capacity  and  output,  stronger  synergies  between 
SOLVIT  and  other  information  and  assistance tools  should be  explored.  In  addition, 
the relationship between SOLVIT and EU Pilot should be clarified; 

 

  There is a need to further modernise the day to day running of the SOLVIT network, 

amongst others by improving the functionalities of the SOLVIT database; 

  SOLVIT  still  only  works  for  a  limited  number  of  complainants:  too  few  potential 
users are finding their way to SOLVIT, meaning many single market problems remain 
undetected and unresolved; 

  SOLVIT  offers  a  rich  source  of  information  on  how  the  single  market  works  in 
practice  and  where  shortcomings  remain.  In  general,  however,  that  data  remains 
under-explored and there is no systematic follow-up procedure for problems identified 
via SOLVIT. 

All these issues were addressed in the 2013 SOLVIT Recommendation as described in section 
4. 

3. 

METHODOLOGY 

This  analysis  critically  investigates  the  functioning  of  the  SOLVIT  network  following  the 
adoption  of  the  Recommendation  re-establishing  the  principles  of  SOLVIT  in  2013  and  it 
therefore covers the period from 2013 until 2015. As a guide for the assessment, the analysis 
is  based  on  the  Commission's  five  standard  evaluation  criteria  (effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance,  coherence,  and  EU  added  value),  through  a  set  of  questions  answered  below  in 
section  5.  It  does  not  aim  at  replacing  a  comprehensive  evaluation  of  the  performance  of 
SOLVIT.  Section  4  first  describes  the  developments  of  SOLVIT  over  the  years  of  its 
existence and the objectives set out by the 2013 Recommendation. 

6 

  
 
 
 
 
This analysis is based on various sources of information related to the use and performance of 
SOLVIT,  such  as  the  annual  assessments  of  the  performance  of  the  SOLVIT  network, 
published since 2012 in the Single Market Scoreboard8, using four main indicators (see point 
5.1.2).  
Besides, this analysis takes into account the outcome of the monitoring of the case handling 
done by the Commission services, as well as the recommendations included in the individual 
reports  sent  each  year  to  the  national  administrations,  based  on  assessments  of  the 
Commission team that coordinates the network.  
But  beyond  the  annual  assessment  done  in  the  Scoreboard  and  in  recommendations  to 
Member  States,  it  would  be  difficult  to  set  up  more  detailed  quality  performance  indicators 
for  SOLVIT  centres,  because  of  the  qualitative  nature  of  the  performance  of  SOLVIT  and 
because  of  the  diversity  of  the  workload  in  SOLVIT  centres  (different  case  load,  different 
legal areas), in combination with the informal set up of the network.  
Apart from the annual assessments of SOLVIT, several discussions take place with Member 
States in the context of SOLVIT bi-annual workshops. In relation to the current analysis, the 
first discussion on the network's functioning and its future role took place during an informal 
meeting between 18 Member States in Lisbon in September 2015, which was followed by the 
SOLVIT  workshop  organized  in  Rome  in  October  2015.    More  in  depth  discussions  were 
conducted  during  the  subsequent  workshops  in  March  2016  in  Brussels  and  in  September 
2016 in Luxembourg. 

Moreover,  in  order  to  address  the  needs  of  business  and  their  feedback  on  the  existing 
functioning of the network, consultations in the form of conferences and meetings with key 
representatives of business stakeholders took place in June 2016 and are ongoing. 

As regards ongoing regular  users' feedback, it focuses on accessibility and user-friendlines of 
the  application,  so  the  setup  of  the  current  user  survey  does  not  allow  drawing  systematic 
conclusions on the performance of SOLVIT. 

Finally, although this assessment is covering years 2013 to 2015 and despite operational and 
quality  objectives  set  out  by  the  2013  Recommendation,  as  described  in  section  4,  the 
conclusions  of  the  external  evaluation  of  SOLVIT's  set-up  and  performance  conducted  in 
2011 remain relevant for the analysis in terms of baseline.    

Annex I contains the list of the existing studies, reports and evaluations on SOLVIT. 

8  

During the previous years, an individual report on SOLVIT was published. For an overview of the existing reports 
see http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/documents/index_en.htm 

7 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

 THE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SOLVIT NETWORK 

4.1. 

Period 2001-2013 

The SOLVIT Network was set up by a Commission Recommendation in June 2002.9It built 
upon  an  existing  network  of  Co-ordination  Centres,  one  for  each  Member  State,  which  had 
been  established  in  199710  to  deal  with  such  problem  cases.  This  network,  however,  had 
certain shortcomings which were subsequently addressed by the 2001 Recommendation. 11 
According  to  the  2001  Recommendation,  the  general  objective  of  the  network  was  the 
effective informal problem resolution to cross-border problems, confronting an individual or 
business  in  a  Member  State  involving  the  application  of  Internal  Market  rules  by  a  public 
authority  in  another  Member  State.  This  included  situations  where  a  citizen  or  business 
having  an  administrative  link  (e.g.  nationality,  qualifications,  establishment)  with  one 
Member  State  is  already  in  the  second  Member  State  where  the  problem  occurs.  Internal 
Market  rules  were  defined  as  the  provisions  governing  the  functioning  of  the  Internal 
Market.6 

The operational objectives set for the Member States were to ensure that adequate human and 
financial  resources  are  available to  the  centres  in  order  to  be  able to  deal  with  an  increased 
number  of  cases,  to  provide  a  high  quality  service  to  users  and  to  promote  awareness.  In 
addition, time deadlines were set to the Lead Centre as follows12: 

• 

• 

• 

It should confirm acceptance of the case within one week; 

It should update the information in the database whenever there is a change or at 
least once a month; 

The deadline for the resolution of a case was set to ten weeks. 

In the first 10 years of its existence, SOLVIT's caseload increased tenfold. An overview of the 
evolution in the number of cases received from 200313 to 2012 is provided in table 1.14 This 
was also due to the subsequent enlargements of the EU in 2004 and 2007 and the addition of 
new centres.  
Based on the 2004 yearly report on the performance of SOLVIT, the overall case flow of the 
SOLVIT network increased by 73% from 167 cases in 2003 to 289 in 2004. 94 out of these 
289 were cases submitted or received by one of the ten new SOLVIT centres, indicating that 
inclusion of the new Member States accounted for a 56% increase in the case flow. A further 
17% of case increase was unrelated to enlargement.15 

9  

10  
11  

12  
13  
14  
15  

Commission  Recommendation  of  7  December  2001  on  principles  for  using  "SOLVIT"  –  the  Internal  Market 
Problem Solving Network. 
See Single Market Action Plan of 1997 CSE (97) 1 final of 4.6.1997. 
See  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  Effective  Problem  Solving  in  the  Internal  Market  ("SOLVIT"), 
COM/2001/0702 final. 
Centre in the Member State where the problem has occurred. 
As SOLVIT was established in June 2002, the year 2002 is not statistically relevant. 
All the cases are recorded in the SOLVIT database.  
See 
http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/_docs/annual_reports/2004_solvit_annual_report_en.pdf 

performance 

available 

SOLVIT 

yearly 

report 

2004 

the 

the 

for 

on 

of 

at 

8 

  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Similarly,  according  to  the  2007  yearly  report  on  its  performance,16  SOLVIT  handled  75% 
more  cases  (765  cases)  than  2006  (481  cases).  15%  of  this  increase  was  due  to  the  EU 
accession of Bulgaria and Romania. 
Table 1: Evolution in the number of cases in SOLVIT-2003 to 2012 (source SOLVIT database) 

SOLVIT cases 
Total 

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Table 2: Evolution of number of unresolved versus solved cases in SOLVIT-years 2003 to 2012 (source SOLVIT 
database) 

SOLVIT cases 
Unresolved-Solved 

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

16  

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

the 

See 
http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/_docs/annual_reports/2007_solvit_annual_report_en.pdf 

performance 

SOLVIT 

yearly 

report 

the 

on 

of 

for 

2007 

available 

at 

9 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  success  of  SOLVIT  is  illustrated  by  its  high  resolution17  rate  over  these  years,  as 
presented  in  table  2.  Whilst  the  network  had  been  very  successful  in  its  first  10  years  of 
existence, it also faced a number of challenges.  

The external evaluation conducted in 201118 for the Commission Services on the SOLVIT's 
set-up  and  performance  demonstrated  the  need  to  clarify  SOLVIT's  mandate,  strengthen 
synergies between SOLVIT and assistance services that offer information and  advice, better 
integrate SOLVIT in complaint-handling by the Commission, enhance SOLVIT's capacity to 
deal  with  social  security  cases,  by  strengthening  synergies  between  SOLVIT  and  the 
Administrative  Commission  for  the  coordination  of  Social  Security  Systems,  establish 
minimum staffing benchmarks, ensure proper legal expertise and assistance, provide SOLVIT 
with  a  new  IT  tool,  introduce  new methods  of  quality  control,  enhance  the  visibility  of  and 
access  to  SOLVIT  and  make  more  effective  use  of  SOLVIT's  case  results  to  improve  the 
functioning of the Single market.19 

4.2. 

Period 2013 and onwards 

Following the 2011 evaluation for SOLVIT  and a strategy paper adopted by the Commission 
in 201220, the legal framework governing SOLVIT was modernized in 201321. 
According to the 2013 Recommendation, the general objective of SOLVIT is to deliver fast, 
effective and informal solutions to problems individuals and businesses encounter when their 
EU rights in the internal market are being denied by public authorities and to contribute to a 
better  functioning  Single  Market  by  fostering  and  promoting  better  compliance  with  Union 
law. 
In order to achieve this purpose:  
i. Its mandate was clarified as follows:  

• 

• 

'Structural cases' caused by a national rule in  breach of EU law and involving at 
least two Member States should also fall under the SOLVIT remit as it turned out 
that in practice these cases were already taken on board by most of the SOLVIT 
centres; 
'Union law governing the internal market' is defined as any Union legislation, rules 
or principles related to the functioning of the internal market within the meaning 
of article 26(2) TFEU. This includes rules that do not aim to regulate the internal 
market  as  such  but  have  an  impact  on  the  free  movement  of  goods,  services, 
persons or capital between Member States; 

17  

18  

19   

20  
21  

Cases are considered as “resolved” where the incorrect implementation or application of EU law is redressed and 
the problem is solved for the client, but also where SOLVIT established that EU law was correctly implemented or 
applied. 
See  ''Evaluation  of  SOLVIT-Final  Report''  conducted  by the  Centre  for  Strategy  and  Evaluation  Services  for  the 
Directorate  General 
at 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/_docs/2011/2011_solvit-assesses-relevance_en.pdf 
See  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  'Reinforcing  Effective  Problem-Solving  in  the  Single  Market  – 
Unlocking SOLVIT's full potential at the occasion of its 10th anniversary', SWD(2012) 33 final. 
Idem. 
Commission Recommendation of 17 September 2013 on the principles governing SOLVIT (2013/461/EU), OJ L 
249, 19.9.2013, p. 10–15. 

Services,  November 

2011.  Available 

Internal  Market 

for 

10 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ii. The role of the Commission in the network was explicitly addressed. It was clarified that 
the Commission should organise training sessions and network events, provide case-handling 
assistance  and  informal  legal  advice  in  complex  cases  and  cases  relating  to  'structural 
problems', monitor the quality and performance of SOLVIT centres as well as the cases they 
handle  and  promote  the  knowledge  and  use  of  SOLVIT  within  European  stakeholder 
organisations  and  European  Union  institutions,  as  well  as  improve  the  accessibility  and 
presence of SOLVIT via on-line means. Regarding unresolved and 'structural problems', the 
Commission  should  secure  appropriate  communication  between  SOLVIT,  CHAP22  and  EU 
PILOT23  in  order  to  ensure  an  appropriate  follow-up  of  unresolved  SOLVIT  cases,  monitor 
structural cases, avoid duplication in the handling of complaints and inform SOLVIT centres, 
at their request, about the follow-up given by the Commission to unresolved cases, where a 
complaint has been lodged with the Commission. 
iii.  The  Recommendation  set  out  minimum  standards  and  specific  qualitative  objectives 
SOLVIT  centres  should  comply  with  in  order  to  apply  the  same  rules  and  deliver  the  same 
consistent type of service across the network. These relate to three main areas: (i) the quality 
of  the  service  (ii)  the  use  of  SOLVIT  and  (iii)  the  handling,  follow-up  and  reporting  of 
'structural problems' linked to breach of EU law by the Member States as presented in table 3.  
Table  3:  SOLVIT  quality  standards  and  objectives  set  out  by  the  2013  Recommendation  (source  Commission 
services) 

The quality of the service 

  Operational targets 

1) Initial contact with the applicant – the target deadline is 7 days maximum 

2) Time taken to prepare cases for transfer to the SOLVIT centre in the Member State 
where the problem occurred – the target deadline is 30 days maximum  

3) Time taken to handle a case – the target deadline is 10 weeks maximum 

4) Resolution rate of cases 

  Adequate staff resources and legal expertise  in the SOLVIT centres 
1) Sufficient and well-trained staff with an operational knowledge of more than one 
Union  language  where  needed  to  ensure  fast  and  transparent  communication  with 
other SOLVIT centres 

2) Adequate legal expertise or relevant experience with the application of Union law 
in order to be able to make independent legal assessments of cases 

3)  SOLVIT  centres  are  situated  in  the  part  of  the  national  administration  with 
sufficient powers of coordination to be able to ensure the correct implementation of 
Union law  

4) SOLVIT centres are able to establish a network within the national administration 
in order to have access to the specific legal expertise and support needed in order to 

22  

23  

Commission complaint registration system (Complaint Handling – Accueil des Plaignants). 

COM (2007) 502 final. 

11 

  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
find practical solutions to cases 

The use of SOLVIT 

1) Member States should ensure that user-friendly information and easy access to the 
SOLVIT  services  is  available,  in  particular  on  all  relevant  websites  of  the  public 
administration 

2) Member States should also undertake activities to raise awareness about SOLVIT 
amongst its stakeholders 

3) SOLVIT centres should co-operate with other European and national information 
and help networks 

4) The Commission will promote the knowledge and use of SOLVIT with European 
stakeholder  organisations  and  European  Union  institutions  and  will  improve  the 
accessibility and presence of SOLVIT via on-line means 

Handling, follow-up and reporting of 'structural problems' linked to  breach  of 
EU  law  by  the  Member  States  and  unresolved  cases  and  link  to  formal 
Commission complaint handling procedures 

1)  SOLVIT  centres  should  flag  these  cases  in  the  database  so  as  to  enable  the 
Commission to systematically monitor them 

2)  The  Lead  centre  should  assess  as  soon  as  possible  whether  the  problem  can  be 
resolved  through  the  SOLVIT  procedure.  If  it  considers  that  this  is  not  possible,  it 
should  close  the  case  as  unresolved  and  inform  the  relevant  national  authorities 
responsible for the correct implementation of Union law in that Member State, so as 
to secure that the breach of Union law is effectively put to an end. The Commission 
should also be informed through the database 

3)  SOLVIT  centres  should  be  in  regular  contact  and  co-operate  closely  with  their 
national EU Pilot Contact Points, in order to secure a proper exchange of information 
on cases and complaints received 

4) The Commission will closely monitor these cases and, where needed, lend advice 
and assistance to ensure that the structural problem is put to an end. The Commission 
will consider whether unresolved structural problems require further follow-up 

5)  Within  the  reporting  framework  for  SOLVIT,  the  Commission  will  separately 
report on structural cases 

6)  The  Commission  also  secures  appropriate  communication  between  SOLVIT, 
CHAP    and  EU  Pilot    in  order  to  ensure  an  appropriate  follow  up  of  unresolved 
SOLVIT cases, to monitor structural cases and to avoid duplication of the handling of 
complaints 

7)  The  Commission  informs  SOLVIT  centres,  at  their  request,  about  the  follow-up 
given  by  the  Commission  to  unresolved  cases,  where  a  complaint  has  been  lodged 
with the Commission 

8)  Where  appropriate,  the  Commission  may  refer  complaints  it  has  received  to 
SOLVIT with a view to finding a rapid and informal solution, subject to the consent 
of the complainant (possibility of transfer of cases from CHAP to SOLVIT) 

12 

  
 
 
 
5. 

ANALYSIS 

5.1.   The extent to which the objectives have been achieved 

5.1.1. 

 Intended objectives and effects of SOLVIT. 

The  general  objective  of  SOLVIT  is  to  deliver  fast,  effective  and  informal  solutions  to 
problems individuals and businesses encounter when their EU rights in the internal market are 
being denied by public authorities and to contribute to a better functioning Single Market by 
fostering and promoting better compliance with Union law.  

As  analysed  in  section  4,  the  general  objective  of  SOLVIT  is  supported  by  minimum 
standards and specific qualitative objectives SOLVIT centres should comply with in order 
to apply the same rules and deliver the same consistent type of service across the network that 
relate  to  three  main  areas:  (i)  the  quality  of  the  service  (ii)  the  use  of  SOLVIT  and  (iii)  the 
handling, follow-up and reporting of 'structural problems' linked  to breach of EU law by the 
Member States  and  unresolved cases and  the link to  formal  Commission  complaint handling 
procedures.  The  following  sections  analyse  the  effectiveness  of  SOLVIT  towards  these 
objectives. 

 The quality of the service-Operational targets 

5.1.2. 
The performance of SOLVIT and national SOLVIT centres is reported yearly as of 2012 24 in 
the Single Market Scoreboard.25  The data used for these assessments are extracted from the 
SOLVIT database where all the cases are stored. This scoreboard aims to give an overview of 
the  practical  management  of  the  Single  Market  and  a  performance  overview for  all  the 
Member  States  and  in  particular  their  SOLVIT  centres.  It  also  covers  the  results  that  have 
been  achieved,  the feedback  received  and  conclusions drawn,  providing  a  basis  for  future 
action. 
 The  overall  performance  of  Member  States  is  measured  through  their  performance  in  four 
operational indicators: 

Table 4: Analysis of SOLVIT operational indicators (source Commisison services) 

Indicator 

Value a country is assigned 

When 

Initial 

contact  with 

1. 
the 
applicant-the  target  deadline  is  7 
days maximum 

GREEN = +1 

YELLOW = 0 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  more  than  75% 
of the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  55-75%  of  the 

24  

25  

During the previous years, an individual report on SOLVIT was published. For an overview of the existing reports 
see http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/documents/index_en.htm 
See  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/solvit/index_en.htm.  The 
data for 2016 will be published on July 2017. 

13 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
RED = -1 

2. Time taken to prepare cases for 
transfer to the SOLVIT centre in the 
Member  State  where  the  problem 
occurred-the  target  deadline  is  30 
days maximum 

GREEN = +1 

YELLOW = 0 

RED = -1 

3. Time taken to handle a case- the 
is  10  weeks 
target  deadline 
maximum 

GREEN = +1 

YELLOW = 0 

RED = -1 

4. Resolution rate of cases 

GREEN = +1 

YELLOW = 0 

RED = -1 

cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target in less than 55% of 
the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  more  than  75% 
of the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets  the 
target  in  55-75%  of  the 
cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target in less than 55% of 
the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  more  than  75% 
of the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  55-75%  of  the 
cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target in less than 55% of 
the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  more  than  90% 
of the cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target  in  70-90%  of  the 
cases 

SOLVIT centre meets the 
target in less than 70% of 
the cases 

A country's overall performance is based on the sum of the scores in the 4 indicators. A 
country's performance is assessed as: 

  satisfactory (green value) if the sum is 2 or more points on the above indicators; 
  needs improvement (yellow) if the sum is 1, 0 or -1 points on the above indicators; 
  poor (red) if the sum is -2 or lower points on the above indicators. 

In 2015, as presented in table 5,  out of 31 SOLVIT centres (one in each Member State and 
Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, 16 overall performed satisfactory (green value) whereas 13 
needed improvement (yellow value). No assessment was made for Iceland and Liechtenstein 
as they had no cases. 

14 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  5:  2015  overall  performances  and  per  indicator  (source  Single  Market  Scoreboard-2015  edition).  The 
countries shaded are countries with under 10 cases. 

[1] 

[2] 

[3] 

[4] 

* 

Home centre sending an initial reply within the 7-day target in: 

> 75% of cases 

   55-75% of cases 

< 55% of cases 

Home centre submitting case to Lead centre within 30-day target in: 

 > 75% of cases 

 55-75% of cases 

 < 55% of cases 

Cases handled by Lead centre within 10-week target in: 

 > 75% of cases 

  55-75% of cases 

< 55% of cases 

Resolution rate  

Countries with under 10 cases 

> 90% 

70-90% 

< 70% 

The  overall  performance  of  the  SOLVIT  network  on  the  4  indicators  is  comparable  in 
previous years. 
As  shown  in  graph  2,  in  2014,  16  performed  in  the  overall  satisfactory,  14  needed 
improvement and Iceland did not have any case. 

Graph  2:  2014  overall  performance  (source  Single  Market  Scoreboard-2014  edition).  The  countries  with  an 
asterisc are countries with under 10 cases. 

15 

Row LabelsATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEESFIFRGRHRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLNOPLPTROSESISKUKwithin 7 days78%73%83%50%78%54.7%88%100%92%43%49%69%89%46%89%71%89%75.0%92%75.0%94%100%81%95.5%79%76%73%100%93%within 30 days83%72%91%100%61%72%95%100%90%92%88%100%96%86%91%77%67%98%100%75%93%85%84%98%74.5%82%95%96%89%within 70 days73%57%75%85%31%72%50%100%68%67%58%63%73%71%58%54.9%60%81%100%78%91%59%76%60%71%65%70%88%82%Solved91%86%100%96%69%99%75%100%75%80%98%29%86%73%67%92%80%86%100%89%83%62%95%97%98%58%90.0%78%88%Overall indicator3042-1014201020111343314321233  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
As  presented  in  graph  3,  in  2013  14  centres  performed  in  the  overal  satisfactory  and  16 
needed improvement. Lichtenstein did not have any case.  

Graph  3:  2013  overall  performances  and  per  indicator  (source  Single  Market  Scoreboard-2013  edition).  The 
countries with an asterisc are countries with under 10 cases. 

This demonstrates that the overall quality and performance of the service as measured by the 
combination  of  the  four  operational  indicators  varies  across  the  network  due  to  different 
factors which will be further analysed in section 5.1.6. 
The  inconsistent  delivery  of  service  by  different  SOLVIT  centres  is  also  evident  in  the 
individual analysis of the distinct four indicators presented in table 6:  

Table 6: Analysis of performance of the SOLVIT network in individual indicators (source SOLVIT database) 

Target  of  7  days  to 
contact 
establish 
with  applicant  not 
met 
Target of 30 days to 
prepare  case  not 
met 
Target  of  10  weeks 
to resolve a case not 
met 

2013 (% cases) 
25,7% 

2014 (% cases) 
24,7% 

2015 (% cases) 
23% 

14,9% 

14,9% 

38% 

34% 

14% 

33% 

16 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Unresolved cases 

15% 

8% 

12% 

On  the  specific  indicators,  the  first  indicator  measures  the  time  taken  to  establish  initial 
contact  with  the  applicant.  The  target  deadline  is  7  days  maximum.  It  is  important  to 
establish  an  initial  contact  with  applicants  promptly.  In  that  way  SOLVIT's  role  can  be 
explained to them and any possible issues can be checked.  
In  2013  the  deadline  was  not  met  in  25,7%  of  the  cases  and  in  24,7%  in  2014.  In  2015,  in 
23% of the cases the applicants got their first reply after the deadline of 7 days. 
The situation has slightly improved but efforts are still needed. Based on the assessment of the 
Commission  services  that  coordinate  the  network,  the  reasons  not  to  contact  the  applicant 
within 7 days maybe due to overload of work or other tasks on top of the SOLVIT work.  

As  regards  the  second  indicator  on  the  time  taken  to  prepare  cases  for  transfer  to  the 
SOLVIT  centre  in  the  Member  State  where  the  problem  occurred,  in  2015  the 
preparation of cases took longer than the 30 days deadline in14% of the complaints (14,9% in 
both 2013 and 2014). Based on the assessment of the Commission services that coordinate the 
network,  the  reasons  for  this  maybe  the  legal  complexity  of    a  case,  the  need  to  gather 
documents from the applicant that are not yet available to legally assess the issue at stake or 
overload of work.   

On  the  third  indicator  and  the  time  taken  to  resolve  a  case,  in  2015  33%  of  cases  were 
closed  over  the  10  weeks  deadline  and  11%  amongst  them  were  closed  over  the  20  weeks 
deadline. The situation has slightly improved but efforts are still needed. In 2013 38% and in 
2014 34% of the cases were closed over the 10 week deadline and 14% and 12% respectively 
were closed over 20 weeks. Based on the assessment of the Commission services, the reasons 
for  taking  longer  maybe  the  legal  complexity  of  a  case,  the  difficulty  in  convincing  the 
national authority that they had breached EU rules, disagreements about the interpretation of 
EU  law,  the  long  time  it  can  take  in  some  cases  to  get  an  informal  legal  advice  from  the 
Commission services or overload of work.  

Concerning the fourth indicator on the resolution of cases via SOLVIT, 12% of the cases 
could not be resolved through SOLVIT in 2015, whilst in 2013 this percentage was 8% and in 
2014 15%. Although this indicator must be analysed in the light of its informal nature based 
on administrative cooperation between Member States, the Commission services attribute this 
variation partly to the fact that SOLVIT is dealing increasingly with complaints that relate not 
only  to  a  one-off  misapplication  of  EU  law  but  also  to  'structural'  and  'recurrent'  problems 
relating  to  national  legislation  or  administrative  in  breach  of  EU  law  (see  also  analysis  in 
section 5.1.5). The informal nature and the current functioning of SOLVIT are less effective 
in  resolving  there  'structural  and  recurrent  problems'  and  the  overall  resolution  indicator  is 
influenced by SOLVIT's performance in these cases. 

Similarly, the study 'Smart Single Market Regulation' of London Economics for the European 
Parliament26  also  notes  that  demand  for  the  services  provided  by  the  Single  Market 
governance tools (wider than only SOLVIT, also including EEN, EURES, ECC net ) has been 
continuously  rising  in  the  last  decade.  However,  in  line  with  what  is  shown  above,  there  is 

26  

See  'Smart  Single  Market  Regulation'  (IP/A/IMCO/2015-02  PE  563.442),  London  Economics  for  the  European 
Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A, Economic and Scientific Policy at the 
request of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. 

17 

  
 
 
 
                                                 
room  for  improvement.  In  particular,  long  case  handling  periods  and  limited  expertise  of 
network staff were mentioned.  
In  conclusion,  the  overall  quality  and  performance  of  the  service  as  measured  by  the 
combination of the four operational indicators varies to a rather large extent across the 
network.  The  resolution  rate  of  SOLVIT  is  underpinned  by  its  less  effective 
performance in resolving cases linked to 'structural' and 'recurrent problems' linked to 
national legislation or administrative practice in breach of EU law. 

5.1.3. 

 The quality of the service-adequate staffing, legal expertise and authority  

The staffing levels for the SOLVIT centres are also assessed in the Single Market Scoreboard 
by measuring the time spent on SOLVIT work in relation to the caseload.  

The Commission services have set up targets as regards the minimum number of staff (FTEs 
or full-time  equivalents)  which  is  determined  by  the  caseload  of  the  SOLVIT  centres  as 
follows: 

 

small SOLVIT centres (16-50 cases) => 1 FTE 

  medium SOLVIT centres (51-150 cases) => 2 FTEs 

 

large SOLVIT centres (151-300 cases) => 3 FTEs 

  very large SOLVIT centres (over 300 cases) => 3.5 FTEs 

In order to take into account the added value of experienced members of the network, trainees 
working in SOLVIT are considered as ½ FTEs. 

In  2015,  the  Commission  services'  assessment  on  staffing  as  illustrated  in  table  7 
demonstrates  that  many  SOLVIT  centres  continue,  as  in  previous  years  presented  in 
subsequent reports in the Single Market Scoreboard, not to meet the staffing target. Based on 
the assessment of the Commission services that coordinate the network, in many cases, staff 
may  be  unable  to  cope  with  any  further  caseload  increases.  Many  centres  also  seem  to 
experience  difficulties  with  communicating  promptly  (replying  to  e-mails,  telephone  calls 
etc.).  High  turnover  in  some  centres  makes  business  continuity  and  efficient  case  handling 
more difficult. In addition, many SOLVIT centres often have to give priority to other tasks for 
their  national  administrations,  leaving  insufficient  time  for  SOLVIT  duties.  Taking  this 
assessment  into  account,  the  priorities  established  in  the  2015  Single  Market  Scoreboard 
report on the SOLVIT performance indicate that further work is required from governments 
in  making  sure  that  SOLVIT  centres  are  adequately  staffed,  in  enabling  them  to  prioritise 
SOLVIT work and in ensuring a degree of staffing continuity. 

Table 7: 2015 staffing performance (source Single Market Scoreboard-2015 edition) 

Number and volume of SOLVIT centres 

Number of centres that did not meet the 
staffing target 

8 small 

10 medium 

5 

2 

18 

  
 
 
 
 
9 large 

4 very large 

4 

4 

As  regards  the  quality  standards  set  out  in  the  2013  Recommendation  for  staff  in  the 
SOLVIT  centres  presented  in  table  3,  apart  from  the  FTEs  of  each  centre,  the  Commission 
services  monitor  the  authority,  relations  within  the  administration,  case  handling  and  legal 
expertise of SOLVIT centres through their support and advice in cases and ensuring that the 
solutions are in line with EU law. Because of the qualitative nature of these standards, the fact 
that the staff in the SOLVIT centres are civil servants part of the national administration, the 
diversity  of  the  work  in  and  between  SOLVIT  centres  (different  case  load,  different  legal 
areas)  in  combination  with  the  informal  set  up  of  the  network,  it  is  not  feasible  for  the 
Commission nor in its competence to set up more detailed and relevant quality performance 
indicators than those already used for the annual assessment in the Single Market Scoreboard. 

If  necessary,  the  Commission  services  address  issues  through  recommendations  in  the 
individual  reports  sent  each  year  to  the  national  administrations.  A  SOLVIT  centre's 
authority and relations depend on the type of cases they deal with and their position within 
the  national  administration.  Their  current  position  varies  across  the  network,  but  they  are 
mainly located in the Ministries of Economy, Finance etc and Foreign Affairs, Justice etc. as 
presented in table 8. 

Table 8: Position of SOLVIT centre within national authority (source Commission services) 

Government Office, Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs, Justice etc. 

Ministry of Economy, Finance, 
Commerce etc 

Decentralised authorities 

Denmark- Internal Market 
Centre,  placed  within  the 
Business 
Danish 
Authority,  which 
falls 
under the responsibility of 
the  Minister  of  Business 
and Growth 

Sweden- National Board 
of Trade 

Belgium- Directorate General 
for European Affairs and 
Coordination  

Austria-  Federal  Minister  of 
and 
Science, 
Economy 

Research 

Bulgaria- 
Affairs 
EU 
Department  of  the  Council  of 
Ministers 

Cyprus- Ministry of Energy, 
Commerce, Industry and 
Tourism 

Spain-  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs and Cooperation 

Czech Republic-Ministry of 
Industry and Trade 

France-  General  Secretary  for 
which 
European 
depends directly from the Prime 
Minister 

Affairs 

Germany-Federal  Ministry  of 
Economic Affairs and Industry 

19 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary-Ministry of Justice 

Italy- Ministry of European 
Policy of the Presidency of the 
Council of the Ministry 

Estonia- Ministry of Economic 
Affairs and Communication 

Greece- Ministry of Finance 

Portugal-  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs, DG European Affairs 

Finland-Ministry of 
Employment and Economy 

Romania-  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs, 
for 
Approximation of Legislation 

Directorate 

Croatia- Ministry of Economy 

Slovakia-Government Office of 
the Slovak Republic.  

Ireland- Single Market Unit of 
the  Department  of 
Jobs, 
Enterprise and Innovation 

Lichtenstein- EEA 
Coordination Unit 

Lithuania- Ministry of 
Economy 

Luxembourg- Ministry of 
Economy 

Latvia- Ministry of Economy 

Malta- Ministry for the 
Economy, Investment and 
Small Business 

Netherlands-Ministry of 
Economic Affairs 

Norway-  Ministry  of  Trade, 
Industry, and Fisheries 

Poland- Ministry of Economy 

Ministry 

Slovenia- 
of 
Economic  Development  and 
Technology 

UK-  Department  for  Business, 
Innovation and Skills 

As  regards  the  legal  expertise,  consultations  with  the  SOLVIT  centres  and  the  business 
stakeholders  demonstrate  that  there  is  need  to  enhance  the  legal  expertise  of  SOLVIT, 
especially  in  complex  legal  areas,  their  administrative  capacity  and  their  authority  by 

20 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
increasing  the  support  of  the  Commission  services,  inter  alia  in  legal  advice  as  regards  the 
interpretation  of  EU  law.  The  fact  that  SOLVIT  has  a  wide  mandate  covering  the  full 
spectrum of Single Market legislation must also be taken into account as in some cases, the 
different Commission services deploy more expertise as regards the interpretation of EU law 
than individual SOLVIT centres. 

In conclusion, the staffing target in absolute numbers is not met across the network, the 
authority  and  relations  of  SOLVIT  centres  within  their  national  administration  vary 
and  there  is  need  to  reinforce  the  administrative  capacity  and  the  legal  expertise  of 
SOLVIT, especially in legally complex areas. 

5.1.4. 

 The use of SOLVIT 

The 2013 Recommendation prescribes quality objectives to increase the use of SOLVIT that 
relate to user-friendly information and easy access to the SOLVIT service, awareness raising 
activities and cooperation with other European and national networks at the national and EU 
level  and  improvement  by  the  Commission  services  of  the  accessibility  and  presence  of 
SOLVIT via on-line means. 

The  cases  submitted  in  SOLVIT  are  increasing,  although  steadily  in  2015.  In  2015,  the 
SOLVIT  caseload  was  2  228  cases.  An  overview  of  the  evolution  in  the  number  of  cases 
received for the period 2012-2015 is provided in table 9. 

Table 9: Evolution in number of cases 2012-2015  

Evolution  number of cases 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

Firstly,  as  regards  the  user  friendliness  of  the  information  on  SOLVIT  and  its  on-line 
presence, this is currently measured only by a very limited, unstructured user survey feedback 
which  focuses  on  whether  the  information  on  the  SOLVIT  website  is  easily  found  and  is 
clear,  if  an applicant  easily  understands  whether  or  not  SOLVIT  could  be  of  assistance  and 
whether  it  was  easy  to  submit  a  problem  to  SOLVIT.  The  setup  of  the  current  user  survey 

21 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
does not allow drawing systematic conclusions on the performance of SOLVIT in this area. 
This issue should be addressed.  
Secondly,  regarding  the  cooperation  of  SOLVIT  with  other  networks,  it  currently  entails 
information  and  signposting  from  all  partner  networks  apart  from  Your  Europe  Advice  and 
Europe  Direct Contact Centre.  In 2013, SOLVIT stepped up cooperation with  two services: 
Europe  Direct  Call  Centre  (EDCC),  an  information  service  that  answers  general  enquiries 
about  the  EU,  and  Your  Europe  Advice  (YEA),  an  advisory  service  providing  personalized 
advice  on  EU  rights.  Both  services  are  provided  by  external  contractors  under  contracts 
signed with the European Commission. 
In detail, since 2013, a technical innovation enables queries to be transferred seamlessly from 
Your  Europe  Advice  and  EDCC  to  SOLVIT.  Whenever  YEA/EDCC  experts  think  a  query 
involves  a  problem  that  could  be  handled  by  SOLVIT,  they  can  transfer  it  directly  to  the 
SOLVIT application. Cases transferred by YEA/EDCC are identified  by their reference and 
have the reply provided by the expert attached to the case. This guarantees the transparency 
and consistency of the replies. 

This  increased  cooperation  is  expected  to  have  2  results:  (a)  SOLVIT  will  be  able  to  help 
those entitled to its assistance, and (b) it can reduce the incidence of queries falling outside its 
remit.  EDCC  and  YEA's  prior  assessment  of  the  issues  concerned  should  ensure  the 
initiative's success. 

In 2014, the cooperation with Your Europe Advice (YEA) has been further strengthened by 
enabling SOLVIT to directly transfer questions to YEA, in order to assist national centres in 
legally assessing a case. 

In 2015, 51% of the cases were submitted online, 12% were transferred by YEA and 1% were 
transferred  by  EDCC.  The  rest  were  submitted  via  other  means  (e-mail,  phone,  post,  in 
person).  

In 2015 SOLVIT also received an additional 2 500 complaints that were not within its remit 
(the figure for 2014 was 2 400). For those cases, SOLVIT helped complainants by explaining 
their EU rights in more detail or by finding another means of redress. 

The proportion of 47% for the in and out of scope cases (2 228 vs 2 500 in a total of 4 728) 
cannot be considered satisfactory and deviates the reduced resources of the national SOLVIT 
centres from their main tasks. In 2013, the proportion of eligible cases was 45% and 49% in 
2014.  

Efforts need to continue to address the issue of out of scope cases and cooperation with other 
networks needs to be further strengthened in order to raise awareness of SOLVIT and clarify 
the services it offers. 

Another  point  as  regards  the  use  of  SOLVIT  is  that,  although  the  number  of  cases  has 
increased  significantly  in  the  period  2012-2015,  this  is  mainly  due  to  the  increase  of 
submission  of  cases  in  two  specific  legal  areas,  namely  social  security  and  residence  rights 
which  relate  to  citizens.  The  other  areas  do  not  have  the  same  level  of  increase.  This  is 
obvious  from  the  comparison  of  the  legal areas  in  SOLVIT  for  the  years  2012  and  2015  in 
table 10. 

22 

  
 
 
 
Table 10: Evolution in legal areas 2012-2015 (source SOLVIT database) 

Coherent with  this trend in the legal areas  over the years, businesses have submitted only a 
fraction of the number of cases compared with those submitted by individuals as highlighted 
in  table  11.  In  2015,  SOLVIT  received  107  out  of  2  228  cases,  which  were  10  less  than  in 
2014.  
Table 11: Evolution of citizens' vis-à-vis business cases 2010-2015 (source SOLVIT database). 

The main legal areas on business cases in 2015 were taxation (30 cases), free movement of 
services (24 cases) and free movement of goods (21 cases). 

23 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  resolution  rate  of  business  cases  is  lower  than  the  network  average  at  83%.  It  is 
particularly  good  in  the  taxation  field  (where  there  are  many  cases  of  late  VAT 
reimbursement), though less so where the free movement of goods and services is concerned. 

Most goods and services cases are about the justification of a national measure restricting the 
marketing of a good or the provision of a service. It is often very hard to analyze, prove and 
convince  a  national  authority  in  an  informal  way  that  a  given  measure  is  disproportionate, 
especially where large sums are involved.  

Recent  findings  supporting  the  lack  of  awareness  for  SOLVIT    are  included  in  the  study 
'Smart  Single  Market  Regulation'  of  London  Economics  for  the  European  Parliament.27  It 
underscores  that  a  number  of  studies28  have  shown  the  level  of  awareness  of  the  various 
information  and  assistance  services  on  the  Single  Market  –  ranging  from  the  Your  Europe 
portal to Your Europe Advice and SOLVIT  - is very limited among both European citizens 
and businesses. For example, only around 7% of consumers and 9% of businesses surveyed in 
2013 indicated that they had heard of Your Europe when specifically prompted, and less than 
0.5%  of  both  respondent  groups  named  the  information  portal  when  asked  about  EU-level 
online services they would turn to if they needed information or advice on EU legislation. For 
SOLVIT, the level of prompted awareness amongst survey respondents is 4%. 

Similarly,  according  to  the  December  2015-January  2016  panel  survey  on  the  European 
Internal  Market  conducted  by  the  Netherlands  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the    80%  of  Dutch 
entrepreneurs  who  are  doing  business  in  the  internal  market  have  never  heard  of  the  listed 
online  information  and  advisory  services  (including  SOLVIT).    Among  them,  35%  of 
entrepreneurs who did experience such problems (n=150), do what the government asks, even 
when  they  know  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  EU  law,  26%  give  up  and  1,1%  contact 
SOLVIT.29 

This  is  also  recognized  in  the  2015  Single  Market  Scoreboard  report  on  the  SOLVIT 
performance as an area for the European Commission to further prioritize work and reach out 
to  business  –  mainly  via  the  Your  Europe  Business  portal,  EU-level  business  organisations, 
networks like the EEN and goods/services national contact points. 
In  the  same  line,  the  April  2016  study  "Reducing  Costs  and  Barriers  for  Businesses  in  the 
Single  Market"30  conducted  by  London  Economics  Europe  for  the  European  Parliament 
mentions that the reduction of barriers to the European labour market is especially important 
due  to  the  ongoing  demographic  change  which  will  increasingly  trigger  labour  shortages 
especially in the market for skilled workers. It notes that some existing e-government tools, 
such  as  SOLVIT  address  these  issues  but  their  main  challenge  is  their  visibility.  Target 
audiences  are  currently  too  unlikely  to  discover  the  appropriate  assistance.  The  study  also 
highlights  that  an  exploratory  visibility  check  using  Google  showed  that  the  services  of 
SOLVIT and Your Europe Advice are more easily accessed if a search is carried out in Italian 

27  

28  
29   
30  

See  'Smart  Single  Market  Regulation'  (IP/A/IMCO/2015-02  PE  563.442),  London  Economics  for  the  European 
Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A, Economic and Scientific Policy at the 
request of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. 
Sources: London Economics (2013), Eurobarometer (2013), Eurobarometer (2010). 
See Panel survey European Internal Market, Netherlands Chamber of Commerce, December 2015 / January 2016. 
See Study "Reducing Costs and Barriers for Businesses in the Single Market" IP/A/IMCO/2015-06 April 2016 PE 
578.966, Conducted by LE Europe for the Policy Department A at the request of the Internal Market and Consumer 
Protection Committee of the European Parliament. 

24 

  
 
 
                                                 
or  Spanish,  than  they  are  for  example  in  English,  German,  or  French.31  Quick  fixes  to  the 
existing  services  might  be  attained  through  Search  Engine  Optimization,  and  more  user 
friendly layouts of the websites. 
Along the same spirit, in April 2016 the European Parliament32 stated its concern by the low 
level  of  awareness  and  understanding  among  Europeans  of  the  services  available,  such  as 
Your  Europe,  Your  Europe  Advice  and  SOLVIT,  noted  that  only  4%  of  consumers  and 
companies are aware of such tools and that the level of take-up of these services is very low at 
present.  It  called  on  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  with  a  view  to  resolving  this 
problem, to foster further awareness of such tools, while examining whether the outcomes and 
responses they generate are adequate for users. Furthermore, it called on the Commission, to 
work on better cooperation between the various assistance services, such as Your Europe and 
SOLVIT,  with  the  aim  of  increasing  user  satisfaction.  This  was  reiterated  in  May  2016,  33 
with a call to raise awareness of the network amongst citizens and SMEs and of its practical 
role in solving interpretation problems relating to the Single Market. 

Finally,  targeted  consultations  of  the  Commission  services  with  business  stakeholders  also 
highlighted the issue of awareness and visibility of SOLVIT and insufficient cooperation with 
partner  networks  and  business  organizations  as  a  factor  undermining  the  effectiveness  of 
SOLVIT.  
In conclusion, the quality objectives set out in the 2013 Recommendation that relate to 
the  use  of  SOLVIT  have  not  been  met.  There  is  lack  of  a  comprehensive  user  survey 
feedback  on  the  user  friendliness  of  the  information  on  SOLVIT  and  its  on-line 
presence.  The  cooperation  with  other  networks  has  not  been  fully  developed  to  raise 
awareness of SOLVIT and clarify the services it offers, especially as regards businesses. 
The  network  continues  to  receive  too  many  out  of  scope  cases  and  a  very  small 
proportion of business in comparison to citizens' cases. 

5.1.5.  The  handling,  follow-up  and  reporting  of  'structural  problems'  linked  to  breach  of 
EU  law  by  the  Member  States  and  unresolved  cases  and  the  link  to  formal 
Commission complaint handling procedures 

As outlined in table 3, the 2013 SOLVIT Recommendation sets out specific quality objectives 
for the handling, follow-up and reporting of structural problems linked to breach of EU law by 
the Member States and unresolved SOLVIT cases.  

'Structural cases' are usually highly complex. They often entail amendments to national laws, 
so  resolving  them  usually  takes  longer  than  the  SOLVIT  10-week  deadline.  These  cases  are 
recorded under a distinct classification in the database and are reported separately in the yearly 
assessments  of  SOLVIT  in  the  Single  Market  Scoreboard  as  provided  in  the  2013  SOLVIT 
Recommendation.  

In detail, the number of cases linked to structural problems handled in SOLVIT increased in 
2015 to 97 cases (64 in 2014) and the cases closed within 10 weeks were 39%. The main legal 

31  

32  

33  

The  study  searched  on  Google  for  “getting  certificate  recognized  abroad”  and  “why  aren’t  I  allowed  to  work  in 
Spain”  in  English,  German,  Italian,  French,  and  Spanish  and  monitored  the  quickest  link  to  SOLVIT  and  Your 
Europe Advice. 
See  Resolution  'Towards  improved  single  market  regulation',P8_TA(2016)0105,  (2015/2089(INI)),  European 
Parliament, April 2016.  
See  Report  "The  Single  Market  Strategy"  (2015/2354(INI),  rapporteur  Lara  Comi,  European  Parliament,  May 
2016. 

25 

  
 
 
 
                                                 
areas  were free  movement  of  people  and  residence  rights  (50),  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications (14), free movement of workers (10) and social security (10). As is illustrated in 
table 12, 43 of them related to lack of/inappropriate transposition of EU law and 54 to national 
rule conflicting with EU law.  
Table 12: Evolution of structural problems 2014-2015. As the provisions of the Recommendation apply from 1st 
October 2013, this year is not statistically relevant for the evolution of 'structural problems' detected through the 
SOLVIT database (source SOLVIT database). 

Cases linked to structural problems 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Lack of/inappropriate transposition of EU law

National rule conflicting with EU law

2014

2015

Although the number of the 'structural problems' handled in SOLVIT is increasing, the current 
handling, follow-up and reporting on these problems is not allowing for a systematic follow-up 
to  structural  problems  as  detected  through  SOLVIT  to  promote  Member  States'  smart 
compliance with EU law.  

As  presented  in  table  13,  out  of  the  97  structural  cases  in  2015,  84  were  unresolved  and  13 
solved. This corresponds to a resolution rate of 13%.  

26 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 13: Resolution of structural problems 2014-2015 (source SOLVIT database). 

Although this can be justified by the informal nature of SOLVIT, this can also be attributed to 
the fact that there is currently no systematic and structured set-up for the handling, follow-up 
and reporting of 'structural problems' detected in SOLVIT linked to breach of EU law by the 
Member States and unresolved SOLVIT cases. The 2013 SOLVIT Recommendation provides 
that when a SOLVIT centre does not succeed within the SOLVIT time frame of ten weeks to 
solve  a  case  linked  to  a  'structural  problem',  this  case  should  be  closed  as  'unresolved'.  This 
time  frame  is  extended  only  if  the  SOLVIT  centre  believes  that  there  is  added  value  in 
continuing  to  work  on  a  'structural  case'  beyond  this  deadline.  In  practice,  the  Commission 
services  observe  that  cases  are  closed  as  unresolved  and  if  a  SOLVIT  centre  succeeds  to 
persuade  its  national  administration  to  change  its  legislation  or  administrative  practice  in 
conflict  with  EU  law,  it  requests  to  change  the  status  of  the  case  to  resolve.  The  current 
functionalities  of  the  SOLVIT  application  do  not  allow  for  a  systematic  monitoring  of  the 
actions undertaken at the national level to address these problems. In addition, the Commission 
services  currently  do  not  engage  in  a  systematic  and  structured  use  of  the  evidence  in  the 
SOLVIT application for the follow-up, if appropriate, of structural and unresolved cases in the 
infringement and policy strategy of the Commission. Based on the low resolution rate and the 
assessment  of  the  Commission  services  on  the  functioning  of  the  network,  this  lack  of 
structured  and  systematic  use  of  the  information  detected  in  SOLVIT  does  not  allow  for  the 
effective case handling of 'structural cases' in SOLVIT.  There is lack of a clear and systematic 
cooperation  mechanism  between,  on  the  one  hand,  SOLVIT  and  the  evidence  gathered, 
through  its  cases,  from  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Single  Market  legislation  'on  the 

27 

  
 
 
 
 
 
grounds'  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  infringement  and  policy  strategy  of  the  Commission 
services. 

This conclusion is also supported by the Member States. In September 2015, all the Member 
States endorsed a policy paper (the so-called 'Lisbon paper') on the future of SOLVIT34. The 
paper was presented to the Competitiveness Council in November 201535. The Member States 
point  out  that  SOLVIT  cannot  live  up  to  its  full  potential  for  businesses  and  citizens.  They 
stress  that  unresolved  and  repetitive  cases  are  often  rooted  in  difficulties  with  national 
implementation and application of EU law. A clear follow-up procedure for these unresolved 
cases is lacking. Neither SOLVIT centres nor complainants are informed about whether there 
will be a follow-up. Repetitive cases without structural solutions are not effectively dealt by 
the Commission or referred to the Council and co-legislators. The paper stresses that citizens 
and  businesses  should  not  have  to  lodge  their  complaint again  if their case is  unresolved  in 
SOLVIT  as  is  the  current  situation.  Moreover,  it  notes  that  the  follow-up  of  the  unresolved 
SOLVIT cases is not transparent and there is a lack of clear reporting and mechanism to the 
Member States and SOLVIT centres. The 'Single Market 'Scoreboard' focuses too stringently 
on the statistical performance of SOLVIT centres and not on problem areas. 
This is also confirmed by the study 'Smart Single Market Regulation' of London Economics 
for the European Parliament36 which highlights that the Single Market tools potentially offer 
valuable information about the issues hindering a successful implementation of the different 
Single  Market  areas.  This  information  could  be  used  to  inform  new  policy  priorities  and 
adjustments  to  existing  programmes  and  policies.  Conversely,  policy  adjustments  might  be 
able to address those factors that impair the effectiveness of assistance tools. 

Similarly,  the  April  2016  study  'Reducing  Costs  and  Barriers  for  Businesses  in  the  Single 
Market'  of  LE  Europe  for  the  European  Parliament37  stresses  that  a  coherent  and 
comprehensive system for collecting and collating information on the costs and barriers to the 
Single  Market  needs  to  be  developed  and  implemented.  In  order  to  achieve  this,  existing 
information  tools,  such  as  SOLVIT,  Your  Europe  Advice,  and  Enterprise  Europe  Network 
should be redefined and linked with other existing tools that collect information about barriers 
and costs. A dedicated and frequently updated report on the state of play and progress on the 
Single Market should be published, based on the information produced by the recommended 
information system.  Moreover, it highlights that information about enquiries, complaints and 
barriers  derived  from  tools  such  as  SOLVIT,  Your  Europe  Advice  and  Enterprise  Europe 
Network  is  a  potentially  very  valuable  input  to  Single  Market  policy-making.  That 
information can provide a basis for specific actions to address barriers to the Single Market. 
There are already examples of actions being taken on the basis of this type of information, but 
more  systematic  and  transparent  use  of  this  information  needs  to  be  developed.    Along  the 

34  

35  

36  

37  

The paper was the outcome of a conference on SOLVIT held in Lisbon and organized by 18 SOLVIT centres on 18 
September 2015. It contains specific actions and calls for the reinforcement of SOLVIT through (i) its promotion as 
the first step in the enforcement of EU law, (ii) the systematic follow-up by the Commission services of unresolved 
and repetitive cases and (iii) the establishment of regular reporting for SOLVIT to the Council. 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2015/11/30-01/ 

See  'Smart  Single  Market  Regulation'  (IP/A/IMCO/2015-02  PE  563.442),  London  Economics  for  the  European 
Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A, Economic and Scientific Policy at the 
request of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee 
See  "Reducing  Costs  and  Barriers  for  Businesses  in  the  Single  Market"  IP/A/IMCO/2015-06  April  2016  PE 
578.966  conducted  by  LE  Europe  for  the  European  Parliament,  Directorate  General  for  Internal  Policies,  Policy 
Department  A,  Economic  and  Scientific  Policy  at  the  request  of  the  Internal  Market  and  Consumer  Protection 
Committee. 

28 

  
 
 
                                                 
same spirit, in April 2016 the European Parliament38 urged the Commission to launch timely 
and  faster  infringement  proceedings  where  evidence  exists  to  demonstrate  a  failure  in 
implementation  and  where  reasonable  efforts  to  solve  problems  through  tools  such  as 
mediation,  in  the  form  of  SOLVIT  or  other  pre-infringement  mechanisms,  have  failed.  It 
stressed  that  Member  States  have  an  equal  responsibility  to  enforce  EU  law,  and  should 
ensure  effective  and  efficient  enforcement  in  order  to  uphold  consumer  rights  and  create  a 
level playing field for businesses throughout Europe. This was reiterated in May 2016,39 when 
the  European  Parliament  emphasised  that  it  is  necessary  to  reinforce  the  SOLVIT  network, 
particularly  by  extending  the  interaction  between  SOLVIT,  CHAP,  EU  Pilot  and  Enterprise 
Europe  Network  (EEN)  to  streamline  the  broader  framework  of  EU  complaint  procedures.  In 
addition, it stressed that data on issues raised through the SOLVIT network should be taken into 
account  when  the  Commission  considers  how  to  identify  priorities  for  enforcement  action  and 
called  on  the  Commission  to  strengthen  its  efforts  to  help  Member  States  solve  the  most 
problematic cases. 

Apart  from  dealing  with  'structural  problems'  linked  to  breaches  of  EU  law,  the  2013 
Recommendation provided a link of the formal complaint handling of the Commission with 
SOLVIT. In details it provides thatt where appropriate, the Commission may refer complaints 
it has received to SOLVIT with a view to finding a rapid and informal solution, subject to the 
consent  of  the  complainant.  Where  these  complaints  are  individual,  non-sensitive  cases 
fulfilling the SOLVIT criteria40 and are not subject to legal proceedings, ideally they should 
be considered for submission to SOLVIT.41  

To facilitate this process, an automatic technical  transfer from the Commission's complaint 
handling mechanism to SOLVIT was established in October 2014 and the EC SOLVIT team 
conducts training for EC case handlers to promote the use of this transfer. Up to date, this is 
used in a very limited way.  In 2015, only one case was transferred and closed as resolved in 
SOLVIT. The 2015 Single Market Scoreboard assessed that the European Commission must 
continue  efforts  inside  the  Commission  to  increase  awareness  and  use  of  SOLVIT  to  make 
more use of this possibility.   

In conclusion, as regards the  objectives related to handling, following-up and reporting 
of  'structural  problems'  linked  to  breach  of  EU  law  by  the  Member  States  and 
unresolved SOLVIT cases, SOLVIT is not currently effective. The lack of structured and 
systematic  use  of  the  information  detected  in  SOLVIT  does  not  allow  for  the  effective 
case  handling  of  'structural  cases'  in  SOLVIT.  In  addition,  there  is  lack  of  a  clear  and 
systematic  cooperation  mechanism  between  on  the  one  end  SOLVIT  and  the  evidence 
gathered,  through  its  cases,  from  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Single  Market 
legislation 'on the grounds' and on the other end the infringement and policy strategy of 
the Commission services. Finally, the Commission's complaint handling link to SOLVIT 
is  not  functioning  effectively  as  in  2015  only  one  case  was  transferred  to  SOLVIT  and 
subsequently closed as resolved.  

38  

39  

40  

41  

See  Resolution  'Towards  improved  single  market  regulation',P8_TA(2016)0105,  (2015/2089(INI)),  European 
Parliament, April 2016. 
See  Report  "The  Single  Market  Strategy"  (2015/2354(INI),  rapporteur  Lara  Comi,  European  Parliament,  May 
2016. 
There is a potential breach of EU law, the problem has been caused by a public authority in the EU or in Norway, 
Liechtenstein and Iceland and there is a cross-border element. 
Communication from the Commission  'EU law: Better results through better application', C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 
19.1.2017, p. 10–20. 

29 

  
 
 
                                                 
5.1.6.  Factors influencing the effectiveness SOLVIT 

Several factors influence the effectiveness of SOLVIT. 

5.1.6.1.  Factors improving the effectiveness of SOLVIT and SOLVIT centres.  

The use of IMI 
The use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for the SOLVIT database is working 
very well and is considered the appropriate IT basis for the tool. Both Member States and the 
Commission  appreciate  the  quick  adaptations  of  IMI,  tailored  to  the  particular  needs  of  the 
users and to the technical developments. Overall it is considered to be a user-friendly tool. 
Nevertheless,  as  analysed  in  section  5.1.5  the  current  functionalities  of  the  SOLVIT 
application, on the one hand, do not allow for a systematic and structured use of the evidence 
available  for  the  follow-up,  if  appropriate,  of  structural  and  unresolved  cases  in  the 
infringement and policy strategy of the Commission and, on the other hand, do not allow for a 
systematic  monitoring  of  the  actions  undertaken  at  the  national  level  to  address  these 
problems.  
In conclusion, being part of the IMI substantially improves the effectiveness of SOLVIT. 
Yet  further  adaptations  in  the  SOLVIT  database  to  handle,  monitor  and  report 
structural  and  recurrent  problems  in  a  more  systematic  way  would  enhance  the 
administrative  capacity  of  the  SOLVIT  centres  and  increase  transparency  of  actions 
undertaken to address these issues. 

The  support  provided  by  the  European  Commission  through  trainings,  workshops  and 
informal legal advice 
According  to  feedback  from  SOLVIT  centres,  meetings  and  trainings  organised  by  the 
Commission are very well received and are perceived as a key element of the functioning of 
the network. Each year, two SOLVIT workshops are organised by the Commission with the 
cooperation of responsible Commission experts42 per legal area. The user surveys conducted 
among  SOLVIT  centres  demonstrate 
the 
increased 
participants,  especially  for  the  legal  sessions.  Currently,  online  interactive  tools  such  as  'e-
learnings' are not used. 
In addition, the Commission services provide informal legal advice (ILA) in cases where two 
SOLVIT  centres  have  already  prepared  different  legal  assessments  of  the  case,  but  cannot 
agree which of them is right. 43 The overview of issues reported, the adequate preparation and 
coordination  of  the  requests  for  ILA  submitted  and  the  informal  relations  necessary  to 
motivate this voluntary supply of expertise are managed by the team coordinating the network 
in  the  Commission  (EC  SOLVIT  team).  The  use  of  the  tool  of  the  informal  legal  advice 
improves  the  SOLVIT  service  and  the  legal  expertise  of  the  network.  It  could  be  further 
improved  through  a    more  direct  cooperation  between  Commission  experts  and  SOLVIT 
centres  as  requested  by  the  Member  States  in  their  2015  policy  paper  on  SOLVIT  ('Lisbon 
Paper').   

levels  of  statisfaction  amongst 

42  
43  

Up to date 42 SOLVIT workshops have been organised. 
This advice does not express the official position of the Commission, but merely an informal opinion on the case 
given by the Commission’s expert in the area concerned. 

30 

  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  2015,  out  of  50  informal  legal  advices  provided,  18  took  longer  than  two  weeks  to  be 
delivered. Although there is a possibility provided to the centres to give feedback on the ILA 
provided, this was never used.  Around 50% of the cases where an ILA was delivered were 
unresolved. 
In  conclusion,  the  legal  support  of  the  Commission  services  through  trainings, 
workshops  and  informal  legal  advice  is  a  factor  contributing  to  the  effectiveness  of 
SOLVIT but it should be further enhanced, inter alia through the use of interactive tools 
and direct cooperation of Commission experts and SOLVIT centres. 

5.1.6.2.  Factors impeding the effectiveness of SOLVIT and SOLVIT centres. 

Lack  of  systematic  and  structured  set-up  for  the  handling,  follow-up  and  reporting  of 
problems detected in SOLVIT linked to breaches of EU law by the Member States 
As analysed in section 5.1.5, the 2013 Recommendation clarified that, apart from individual 
complaints  relating  to  one-off  misapplications  of  EU  legislation  by  public  authorities, 
SOLVIT also deals with problems linked to breaches of EU law. Quality objectives were also 
set to achieve this objective. Nevertheless, currently there is no systematic and structured set-
up  for  the  handling,  follow-up  and  reporting  of  these  problems  detected  in  SOLVIT.  This 
impedes the effectiveness of the network to address barriers in the Single Market and should 
be addressed. 
This factor is also identified in the Member States' policy paper from September 2016 on the 
future  of  SOLVIT.  They  stress  that  repetitive  cases  without  structural  solutions  are  not 
effectively dealt with by the Commission or referred to the Council and co-legislators. A clear 
follow-up  procedure  for  these  unresolved  cases  is  lacking.  Neither  SOLVIT  centres  nor 
complainants are informed about whether there will be a follow-up. The paper notes that the 
follow-up of the unresolved SOLVIT cases is not transparent and that there is a lack of clear 
reporting and mechanism to the Member States and SOLVIT centres.  
Similarly,  consultations  with  key  representatives  of  business  stakeholders  on  the  existing 
functioning  of  the  network  demonstrated  the  expectation  from  business  for  a  more  active 
engagement  of  the  Commission,  inter  alia  through  strengthening  the  provision  of  informal 
legal advice, in technical/politically sensitive issues, as well as through reporting and ensuring 
the assessment and the follow-up of unresolved SOLVIT cases by the relevant Commission 
services.  This  comes  up  as  an  important  element  to  increase  SOLVIT's  problem-solving 
capacity and its role as a smart enforcement tool for the application of EU legislation on 'the 
ground'. 

Lack of adequate staffing, legal expertise and authority for SOLVIT centres  
The  2013  Commission  Recommendation  stressed  that  Member  States  should  ensure  that 
adequate  human  and  financial  resources  are  available  so  that  SOLVIT  can  deal  with  its 
caseload and provide a high  quality service to users.  Nevertheless, as  illustrated in  the staff 
assessment  in  section  5.1.3  in  2015,  the  staffing  levels  in  SOLVIT  centres  continue  to  vary 
and,  in  some  centres,  high  turnover  makes  business  continuity  and  efficient  case  handling 
more difficult. 44 

44  

See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/solvit/index_en.htm 

31 

  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  as  analysed  in  section    5.1.3,    consultations  with  the  SOLVIT  centres  and  the 
business  stakeholders  demonstrate  that  there  is  a  need  to  enhance  the  legal  expertise  of 
SOLVIT  centres,  especially  in  complex  legal  areas,  as  well  as  their  administrative  capacity 
and their authority, by increasing the support of the Commission services, inter alia in legal 
advice  as  regards  the  interpretation  of  EU  law.  The  fact  that  SOLVIT  has  a  wide  mandate 
covering the full spectrum of Single Market legislation usually makes it easier for the relevant 
Commission services to deploy their expertise as regards the interpretation of EU law than for 
individual SOLVIT centres. 

In  their 2015 policy paper (the so-called 'Lisbon  paper')  on  the future of SOLVIT,  Member 
States  stress  that  in  order  for  SOLVIT  to  be  more  effective,  the  network  requires  a  better 
connection  with  the  Commission  services.  SOLVIT  should  be  widely  regarded  as  the  first 
step in the enforcement of EU law. Linking EU complaint procedures would also ensure more 
pressure  to  push  for  better  administrative  practices  or  legal  reforms,  where  appropriate. 
Investigation  by  the  Commission  of  structural  breaches  of  EU  law  which  SOLVIT  was  not 
able  to  solve,  would  moreover  give  national  authorities  an  incentive  to  cooperate  with 
SOLVIT. 
The  importance  of  Member  States  appropriately  equipping  and  positioning  their  national 
SOLVIT centres to adequately fulfil SOLVIT's role as the first step in the enforcement of the 
EU  acquis  was  reiterated  in  the  Competitiveness  Council Conclusions  on  February  2016.  45
This  was  repeated  in  May  201646  by  the  European  Parliament,  which  called  on  the  Member 
States to appropriately equip and adequately position their national SOLVIT centres in order for 
them to fulfil their role. 
The limited authority and legal expertise of SOLVIT have also been reported as reasons for 
not using SOLVIT by business: 47 

  Businesses  may  question  SOLVIT's  capacity  to  act  independently  of  other 

authorities, since SOLVIT centres are part of national administrations. 

  The financial interests at stake are generally higher than with citizens' cases, making 

national authorities more reluctant to comply. 

  Businesses usually prefer to have more legal certainty. 

  Proving that a particular national restrictive measure is unjustified calls for technical 
expertise  and  formal  powers  that  SOLVIT  centres  do  not  have  (for  example  in  the 
area of mutual recognition for non-harmonized goods). 

Limited awareness of SOLVIT and the services it offers, especially by businesses 
As analysed above in section 5.1.4 on the use of SOLVIT, limited awareness and still weak 
cooperation  of  SOLVIT  with  partner  networks  hinders  its  full  potential  to  ensure  that  all 
individuals  and  businesses  have  access  to  a  means  of  redress  when  their  EU  rights  are 
breached. Up to date, the awareness raising strategy on SOLVIT has mostly resulted in a high 

45  
46  

47  

See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6622-2016-INIT/en/pdf.    
See  Report  "The  Single  Market  Strategy"  (2015/2354(INI),  rapporteur  Lara  Comi,  European  Parliament,  May 
2016. 
Source 2011 SOLVIT evaluation, 'Enforcement in the EU Single Market', Jacques Pelkmans and Anabela Correia 
De  Brito,  Centre  for  European  Policy  Studies,  10  October  2012,  SOLVIT  annual  reports,  consultations  with 
business stakeholders over the years and in 2016. 

32 

  
 
 
 
                                                 
percentage of out scope cases received by the network (53% in 2015) and still a very small 
proportion of business in comparison to citizens cases (4% in 2015). 

Conclusion 

The general objective of SOLVIT to deliver fast, effective and informal solutions to EU 
internal  market  problems  individuals  and  businesses  encounter  and  to  contribute  to  a 
better  functioning  Single  market  by  fostering  and  promoting  better  compliance  with 
Union law has not been fully met.  
The    minimum  standards  and  operational  and  quality  objectives  set  out  by  the  2013 
Recommendation  for  the  network  and  the  Commission  have  also  not  been  fully  met. 
They relate to three main areas: (i) the quality of the service (ii) the use of SOLVIT and 
(iii)  the  handling,  follow-up  and  reporting  of  'structural  problems'  linked  to  breach  of 
EU law by the Member States and unresolved cases and the link to formal Commission 
complaint handling,.  
The  effectiveness  of  SOLVIT  as  regards  operational  targets  varies  across  the  network 
and could be further improved. In 2015, 12% of the cases could not be resolved, in 23% 
of  the  cases  the  applicants  got  their  first  reply  after  the  deadline  of  7  days,  the 
preparation of cases as home centre took longer than the deadline of 30 days in 14% of 
the cases and 34% of the cases took longer than the aim of 10 weeks. Businesses are not 
currently using so much of SOLVIT and the network continues to receive a lot of out of 
scope cases. The resolution rate of SOLVIT on cases related to breaches of EU law is low 
(19%  in  2015)  and  very  few  individual  complaints  are  transferred  from  the  complaint 
handling procedure of the Commission to SOLVIT (1 closed SOLVIT case in 2015).  
The effectiveness of SOLVIT is undermined by a number of factors, namely the lack of 
systematic and structured set-up for the handling, follow-up and reporting of problems 
detected  in  SOLVIT  linked  to  breaches  of  EU  law  by  the  Member  States,  the  lack  of 
adequate  staffing,  legal  expertise  and  authority  for  SOLVIT  centres  and  the  limited 
awareness of SOLVIT and the services it offers, especially by businesses. 
In  addition,  although  being  part  of  the  IMI  improves  the  effectiveness  of  SOLVIT, 
further  adaptations  in  the  SOLVIT  database  to  handle,  monitor  and  report  structural 
and  recurrent  problems  in  a  more  systematic  way  would  enhance  the  administrative 
capacity  of  the  SOLVIT  centres  and  increase  transparency  of  actions  undertaken  to 
address  these  issues.  Likewise,  the  legal  support  through  trainings,  workshops  and 
informal  legal  advice  by  the  European  Commission  is  a  factor  improving  SOLVIT's  
functioning.  This  should  be  further  enhanced,  inter  alia  through  the  use  of  interactive 
tools and direct cooperation of Commission experts and SOLVIT centres. 

33 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2. 

The extent to which SOLVIT is cost efficient  

The  affected  stakeholders  by  the  SOLVIT  intervention  are  citizens  and  to  a  lesser  extent 
businesses, Member States' administrations and European Commission services.  

Citizens and businesses are not required to pay any administrative fee in any of the Member 
States  for submitting a case to  SOLVIT, which  is  provided free of charge. The costs of the 
operation of SOLVIT are related mainly  to the staffing of the national SOLVIT centres and 
the support and coordination by the European Commission.  

As regards SOLVIT's benefits, SOLVIT is providing a unique problem solving service and its 
benefits  cannot  be  credibly  quantified.  For  example  it  is  difficult  to  credibly  quantify  the 
benefit from one SOLVIT case which helped to change the administrative practice affecting 
many  more  similar  cases  that  were  not  recorded  in  SOLVIT.  For  illustration  purposes, 
SOLVIT's benefits can be highlighted in comparison to the costs that would occur for citizens 
and  businesses,  national  administrations  and  the  European  Commission  in  the  absence  of 
SOLVIT and the use of other alternative means of redress for problems related to EU rights. 
These alternative means are national legal advice, court procedures at the national level and 
formal infringement proceedings at the EU level. 

In detail: 

Costs 

Citizens  and  business  are  not  required  to  pay  any  administrative  fee  in  any  of  the  Member 
States for submitting a case to SOLVIT, which is provided free of charge.  

It is very difficult to credibly quantify the costs of the operation of the SOLVIT network at 
the national level taking into account the the fact that SOLVIT centres are part of the national 
administration in Member States. The staff numbers are different and vary across the network 
(from 0.1 to 4 FTE) as analysed in section 5.1.3. The SOLVIT average staff in terms of  FTE 
across the network is 1,9 FTE and in total  57,2 FTEs for 2015. In  addition, for subsidiarity 
reasons every MS is free to decide about the organisation of the system meaning that it could 
happen that a given MS allocates part of the resources (staff, rooms, IT, etc.) to SOLVIT and 
the rest to other projects and that this can change even in the course of a given year. 

The cost of support from the Commission Services is also difficult to quantify. The support is 
provided from the EC SOLVIT team within DG GROW (4 FTEs) but also from case handlers 
in  other  DGs  as  SOLVIT  covers  the  whole  spectrum  of  the  Single  Market  legislation  (i.e. 
preparation of informal legal opinions, trainings etc).  

SOLVIT  does  not  have  a  dedicated  budget  line  for  its  operation  but  it  is  integrated  in  the 
budget of the Internal Market Governance Tools (budget line 02.030400). For 2015, the cost 
of trainings and workshops was very limited, amounting to 50 000 euros. 

It  is  even  more  difficult  to  quantify  the  costs  of  SOLVIT  in  its  contribution  to  a  better 
functioning Single Market, by fostering and promoting better compliance with Union law, as 
this  entails  reforms  and  changes  in  the  administrative  practice  and  legislation  of  Member 
States. 

34 

  
 
 
 
 
Benefits  

The  service  of  SOLVIT  is  provided  free  of  charge  to  citizens  and  businesses  and  aims  to 
deliver a solution within 10 weeks. In 2015, the average time taken to handle a case was 69 
days.  

The  benefits  from  the  operation  of  SOLVIT  are  not  credibly  quantifiable.  They  can  be 
presented  in  comparison  to  the  costs  and  the  time  related  to  the  absence  of  the  SOLVIT 
intervention in a cross-border problem faced by a citizen or a business. As alternatives to the 
use  of  SOLVIT  can  be  considered  legal  advice  and  administrative  appeals,  national  courts 
procedures and formal European Commission infringement procedures which are costly and 
lengthy for i) citizens and businesses, ii) national administrations and iii) the European 
Commission. 

i)  For  citizens  and  businesses,  in  the  pre-litigation  stage,  the  main  costs  to  take  into 
consideration  are  linked  to  finding  (legal  counsel)  and  paying  counsel’s  pre-litigation  fees. 
The  litigant’s  first  concern  is  to  assess  the  opportunity  cost  of  taking  legal  action  and  to 
evaluate  the  expenses  inherent  by  obtaining  relevant  information  and  making  appropriate 
requests. 48  

As  regards  the  cost  of  national  court  procedures,  the  five  main  sources  of  costs  for  court 
procedures in the Member States are as follows: (a) court fees, (b) lawyer’s fees, (c) bailiffs’ 
fees  (or,  when  there  is  no  status  such  as  bailiff  in  the  Member  State,  the  cost  for  the 
judgement enforcement), (d) expert fees, and (e) translation fees. Litigation costs in civil and 
commercial matters are governed by national legislation and costs are not harmonised at EU 
level. Thus, costs vary from one Member State to another and are difficult to evaluate as they 
depend on each case. 49  An example of the aggregate costs for a first instance court proceeding 
for a family law case in a cross-border situation is €2 259.74 euros in Austria and €3 972.00 
in Cyprus. 

Lawyers’ fees constitute a major part of costs of justice. They are also difficult to evaluate for 
several  reasons.  First,  in  certain  countries,  regulations  forbid  the  publication  of  lawyers’ 
services fees. Second, each case is unique and lawyers are most often paid according to the 
time spent on a case. 50 

An illustration of the average of lawyers' fees based on a public questionnaire is presented in 
the following table: 

48  

49  

50  

See Study on the Transparency of Costs of Civil Judicial Proceedings in the European Union, Demolin, Brulard, 
Barthelemy  conducted  for  the  European  Commission,  DG  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,    2006,  available  at 
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_costs_of_proceedings-37-en.do 
See Study on the Transparency of Costs of Civil Judicial Proceedings in the European Union, Demolin, Brulard, 
Barthelemy  conducted  for  the  European  Commission,  DG  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,    2006,  available  at 
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_costs_of_proceedings-37-en.do 
See Study on the Transparency of Costs of Civil Judicial Proceedings in the European Union, Demolin, Brulard, 
Barthelemy  conducted  for  the  European  Commission,  DG  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,    2006,  available  at 
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_costs_of_proceedings-37-en.do 

35 

  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 14: Average lawyers' fees on an per hour basis (source public questionnaire, Study on the Transparency 
of Costs of Civil Judicial Proceedings in the European Union, 2006) 

Therefore,  the  intervention  of  SOLVIT,  which  is  provided  free  of  charge,  can  be 
assessed as efficient in comparison  to the different costs citizens and businesses have to 
incur  if  they  seek  redress  through  a  legal  advice  to  make  an  administrative  appeal  or 
pursue national court procedures. 

The  time  needed  to  resolve  administrative  cases  in  court  procedures  also  varies  in  Member 
States.  In  2013,  the  average  disposition  time  in  the  EU  in  first  instance  courts  for 
administrative  cases  was  441  days.51  In  31st  December  2013,  the  number  of  administrative 
cases  pending  in  first-instance  courts  per  Member  State  (EU  average)  was  81  365  cases. 
Similarly,  in  comparison  to  previous  years,  the  conclusion  of  the  E-justice  scoreboard  for 
2015  was  that  for  administrative  cases,  the  length  of  proceedings  has  worsened  in  more 
countries than it has improved. In addition, most Member States have a clearance rate below 
100% which shows that they are facing difficulties in coping with incoming cases. 52 

51  

52  

See'  Study  on  the  functioning  of  judicial  systems  in  the  EU  Member  States,  Facts  and  figures  from  the  CEPEJ 
questionnaires  2010-2012-2013,  Study  prepared  under  the  authority  of  the  Working  Group  on  the  evaluation  of 
judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL), for the attention of the European Commission (Directorate General Justice), 
16th 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-
justice/files/cepj_study_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf 
See 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm 

available 

February 

2015 

at 

36 

  
 
 
  
 
                                                 
As  regards  Commission  infringement  procedures,  in  December  2015,  around  732 
infringement  proceedings  were  pending  in  the  area  of  the  Single  Market.  On  average, 
infringement proceedings take 30 months to address the issues contested.53  

Therefore, the intervention of SOLVIT, in an average of 69 days in 2015, can be assessed 
as  efficient  in  comparison  to  the  EU  average  of  441  days  in  first  instance  court 
procedures  for  administrative  cases  and  to  the  30  months  average  length  of  a  formal 
European Commission infringement procedure.  

ii) For national administrations, it could be expected that, in the absence of SOLVIT, most 
of the cases would be directly submitted to court procedures. Nevertheless, it is very difficult 
to  credibly  quantify  the  benefits  of  the  SOLVIT  intervention  as  a  presentation  of  the 
operational  costs  of  court  procedures.  This  entails  the  calculation  of  operational  costs  (eg 
staffing  of  judges,  administrative  posts  etc)  for  administrative  cases  related  to  EU  law  that 
include a cross-border element in national court procedures. For illustration purposes, in 31st 
December  2013,  the  number  of  administrative  cases  pending  in  first-instance  courts  per 
Member State (EU average) was 81 365 cases and the total of resolved cases in first-instance 
courts  for  all  legal  areas  excluding  criminal  law  was  1  315  018    per  Member  State  (EU 
average).  This  amounts  to  a  proportion  of  0,061  administrative  cases  in  the  total  of  cases 
related to all other legal areas apart from criminal law (EU average). The EU average number 
of  judges  was  2  624  and  of  administrative  staff  7  602  (total  10  226  FTEs),  amounting 
proportionally to 632 FTEs on an EU average for administrative cases.54 

iii)  Similarly,  for  the  European  Commission,  it  could  be  expected  that,  in  the  absence  of 
SOLVIT,  most  of  the  cases  would  be  directly  submitted  to  the  Commission  as  complaints, 
thereby substantially increasing the workload of relevant Commission services. Nevertheless, 
it  is  very  difficult  to  credibly  quantify  the  benefits  of  the  SOLVIT  intervention  as  a 
presentation  of  the  costs  of  the  operation  for  the  formal  infringement  procedures  of  the 
European  Commission.  This  entails  the  operational  cost  of  the  different  case  handlers  etc. 
across the European Commission dealing with its enforcement strategy. 

Therefore,  although  not  credibly  quantifiable,  the  intervention  of  SOLVIT  with  the 
limited operational resources it requires (1,9 FTE on EU average and limited resources 
at  the  Commission's  level)  can  be  assessed  as  efficient  in  comparison  to  operationally 
costly  and  lengthy  court  procedures  at  the  national  level  and  fomal  infringement 
procedures of the European Commission. 

53  
54  

See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/infringements/index_en.htm 
See'  Study  on  the  functioning  of  judicial  systems  in  the  EU  Member  States,  Facts  and  figures  from  the  CEPEJ 
questionnaires  2010-2012-2013,  Study  prepared  under  the  authority  of  the  Working  Group  on  the  evaluation  of 
judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL), for the attention of the European Commission (Directorate General Justice), 
16th 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-
justice/files/cepj_study_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf 

available 

February 

2015 

at 

37 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Conclusion 

SOLVIT is providing a free, unique and efficient problem solving service for (a) citizens 
and to a lesser extent businesses, in comparison to costly and lengthy legal proceedings, 
(b) Member States that do have the obligation to implement EU law and to ensure that it 
is  correctly  applied,  in  comparison  to  costly  and  lengthy  legal  proceedings  at  the 
national  level  and  formal  infringement  proceedings  at  the  EU  level  and  (c)  the 
Commission in its role as guardian of the treaties, in comparison to costly and lengthy 
formal infringement proceedings.  

5.3. 

The extent to which SOLVIT is relevant 

SOLVIT  meets  the  need  of  EU  citizens  and  businesses  of  having  access  to  an  easy  and 
informal out of court solution to their cross-border complaints regarding breaches of EU law 
by national authorities. In terms of providing this kind of solution in the Single Market area, 
SOLVIT is the only service provider covering this 'niche'.  

SOLVIT  deals  with  all  cross-border  problems  related  to  the  four  freedoms  of  movement 
(persons, goods, services and capital) including supporting policies that have a direct impact 
on  the  Single  Market  (such  as  taxation,  employment,  social  policy  and  transport).    Single 
Market legislation includes measures considered to have an impact on the functioning of the 
Single Market, as defined in Articles 26 and 114 (1) in the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU).  

While it is difficult to assess the exact size of the cross border dispute resolution 'market', it is 
clear that there is a need for an informal problem-solving tool such as SOLVIT. The numbers 
are growing steadily. In 2014, around 8.2 million EU-28 citizens were working or looking for 
a job in one of the 28 EU Member States other than their country of citizenship. Compared to 
2013,  the  number  of  active  EU-28  movers  in  the  Member  States  increased  by  around  7%. 
Among  those  8.2  million  active  EU-28  movers,  around  4.3  million  have  moved  to  their 
current country of residence in 2004 or later (‘recent’ movers). In 2014, around 11.1 million 
EU-28 citizens of working age (including employed and unemployed job-seeking) were living 
in  an  EU  Member  State  other  than  their  country  of  citizenship.  Cross-border  work  has 
increased  over  the  last  10  years,  largely  due  to  the  accessions  of  the  new  Member  States.55 
The  figures  show  that  the  Single  Market  is  becoming  a  stronger  reality,  and  therefore 
SOLVIT has a more than ever important role to play in handling individual complaints and 
enforcing the Single Market legislation. 

Over the years, the number of cases in SOLVIT has grown from 155 in 2003 to 2 228 in 2015. 
In 2015, apart from handling 2 228 cases falling within its mandate, it also received another 
2 500 complaints falling outside its remit. For the latter cases, SOLVIT helped complainants 
by explaining their EU rights in more detail or by suggesting other means of redress. In 2015, 
12% of all SOLVIT cases and 84% of cases related to breaches of EU law were unresolved.  
This  evidence  clearly  suggests  that  the  objectives  of  SOLVIT  still  remain  valid  and  that 
problems related to breaches of EU law by Member States persist. 

55  

See 2015 European Commission's Annual Report on Labour Mobility. 

38 

  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Consultations with key representatives of business stakeholders on the existing functioning of 
the network demonstrated the interest of businesses in making more use of SOLVIT.  At the 
same  time,  businesses  request  more  active  engagement  from  the  Commission  in  supporting 
the  network,  inter  alia  through  strengthening  the  provision  of  informal  legal  advice,  in 
technical/politically sensitive issue and through reporting and ensuring the assessment and the 
follow-up  of  unresolved  SOLVIT  cases  by  the  policy  units  responsible  across  the 
Commission.  This  seems  an  important  element  to  increase  the  authority  of  SOLVIT  and 
consequently  both  its  problem-solving  capacity  and  its  role  as  a  smart  enforcement  tool  for 
the application of EU legislation on 'the ground'. 

The  functioning  of  the  SOLVIT  network  is  based  on  the  IMI  regulation,  which  allows  easy 
adaptation to technological developments when necessary. 

Conclusion 

The  need  for  an  effective  functioning  of  the  Single  Market  for  citizens  and  businesses 
remains highly relevant, taking into account the steady increase in cross border activity. 
In  this  context,  the  need  for  problem  solving  services  offered  to  citizens  and  businesses 
when  their  EU  internal  market  rights  are  breached  by  public  authorities  also  remains 
highly valid, given the regular increase in the number of SOLVIT cases and the number 
of  unresolved  SOLVIT  cases,  especially  those  related  to  breaches  of  EU  law.  The 
functioning  of  the  SOLVIT  network  is  based  on  the  IMI  regulation,  which  allows  easy 
adaptation to technological developments when necessary. 

5.4. 

To what extent is SOLVIT coherent internally and with wider EU policy 

As analysed in the previous section, SOLVIT is a unique cooperation tool between Member 
States'  administrations  and  the  European  Commisson,  to  help  citizens  and  businesses  with 
their cross border activities when their EU rights have been denied by a public authority.   

To  ensure  coherence  and  complementarity  with  other  EU  and  national  assistance  and 
information  services,  the  2013  Recommendation  contains  provisions  on  cooperation  with 
other networks and contact points such as Your Europe, Europe Direct, Your Europe Advice, 
the  Enterprise  Europe  Network,  European  Consumer  Centres,  EURES,  Fin-Net  and  the 
European  Network  of  Ombudsmen.  Cooperation  between  SOLVIT  and  other  organisations 
predominantly  takes  the  form  of  signposting  cases  from  one  organisation  to  the  other. 
Complaints  and  questions  can  now  be  directly  transferred  from  SOLVIT  to  Your  Europe 
Advice  and  the  Europe  Direct  Contact  Centre  and  vice  versa.  In  addition,  the  Your  Europe 
website contains an online "Get help and advice" button that sign-post users (after replying to 
some questions) to either SOLVIT or Your Europe Advice. This Common Intake Form aims 
to  lower  the  number  of  cases  that  had  been  incorrectly  directed  to  SOLVIT.  Furthermore, 
Your  Europe  Advice  is  providing  a  supporting  role  to  SOLVIT  in  terms  of  providing  legal 
advice  to  fill  current  gaps.  As  analysed  in  section  5.1.4  on  the  use  of  SOLVIT,  the 
cooperation with other networks has not been fully developed to raise awareness of SOLVIT 
and clarify the services it offers, especially as regards businesses. The network continues to 
receive too many out of scope cases and a very small proportion of business in comparison to 
citizens' cases. 

39 

  
 
 
 
 
 
SOLVIT  is  conceptually  coherent  with  the  European  Commission's  complaint  handling  and 
enforcement  policy56  as  it  aims  to  adress  barriers  in  the  Single  Market  and  improve  the 
enforcement of EU law. Nevertheless, although, as analysed in the section on the effectiveness 
of SOLVIT, the 2013 Recommendation set out minimum standards and quality objectives for 
the handling, follow-up and reporting of 'structural problems' linked to breach of EU law by 
the  Member  States  and  unresolved  cases  and  the  link  to  formal  Commission  complaint 
handling, SOLVIT is not currently effective. The lack of structured and systematic use of the 
information  detected in SOLVIT does  not allow for the effective case handling of 'structural 
cases' in SOLVIT. In addition, there is lack of a clear and systematic cooperation mechanism 
between  on  the  one  end  SOLVIT  and  the  evidence  gathered,  through  its  cases,  from  the 
practical implementation of the Single Market legislation 'on the grounds' and on the other end 
the infringement and policy strategy of the Commission services. 

 In  addition,  the  Commission's  complaint  handling  link  to  SOLVIT  is  not  functioning 
effectively as in 2015 only one closed case was transferred to SOLVIT.  

Finally, ensuring a deeper and fairer Internal Market is one of the ten priorities of the current 
Commission.  To  ensure  a  fairer  Single  Market,  the  EU  must  address  the  concerns  of  both 
citizens  and  businesses.  They  must  have  the  assurance  that  the  Single  Market  works  in 
practice and feel empowered to benefit from it.57  The Single Market Strategy aims to achieve 
this  through  targeted  actions  in  three  key  areas:  creating  opportunities  for  consumers, 
professionals and businesses; encouraging and enabling the modernisation and innovation that 
Europe  needs;  ensuring  practical  delivery  that  benefits  consumers  and  businesses  in  their 
daily lives. This approach was widely endorsed by the Competitiveness Council in November 
201558 and by the December 2015 European Council59. 

In the context of ensuring practical delivery, the SMS stresses the importance of a culture of 
compliance  and  smart  enforcement  to  be  achieved  inter  alia  through  strengthening  and 
streamlining  the  Single  Market  problem-solving  tools,  including  the  SOLVIT  network  and 
considering  giving  appropriate  follow-up  to  recurrent  or  structural  cases  that  could  not  be 
resolved through SOLVIT. 60 

Conclusion 

SOLVIT is  a unique cooperation tool between Member States' administrations to  help 
citizens and businesses with their cross border activities when their EU rights have been 
denied  by  a  public  authority.  It  is  conceptually  coherent  with  other  information  and 
assistance  networks  at  the  EU  and  national  level  but  there  is  need  to  strengthen  their 
cooperation  to  raise  awareness  of  SOLVIT  and  clarify  the  services  it  offers  to  fully 
exploit  synergies  and  efficiencies.  SOLVIT  is  also  conceptually  coherent  with  the 
European Commission's enforcement policy but a  systematic and structured reporting 
on problems linked to breaches of EU law detected through SOLVIT is missing. 

56  

58  

59  

60  

See 'Better Governance for the Single Market', European Commission Communication COM (2012) 259 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and 
business”, Brussels, 28.10.2015 COM (2015) 550 final. 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2015/11/30-01/ 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/12/18-euco-conclusions/ 

Action  4.1.  ‘Ensuring  practical  delivery:  A  culture  of  compliance  and  smart  enforcement’  of  the  ‘SMS’,  COM 
(2015) 550 final. 

40 

  
 
 
                                                 
  The  Single  Market  Strategy  has  identified  strengthening  SOLVIT  as  a  tool  to  ensure 
the practical delivery of the Single Market to citizens and businesses and to promote the 
smart enforcement of EU law. 

5.5.  What is the EU added value of SOLVIT  

The  Single  Market  offers  many  opportunities  to  individuals  who  want  to  live  and  work  in 
another  Member  State  and  to  businesses  that  wish  to  expand  their  markets.  Problems  arise 
where public authorities do not respect Union law. 

Member States  have  the primary responsibility for the correct transposition,  application and 
implementation  of  EU  law.61  As  guardian  of  the  Treaties,  the  Commission  has  the  duty  to 
monitor  the  Member  States’  action  in  implementing  EU  law  and  to  ensure  that  their 
legislation  and  practice complies  with  EU  law.62  The  2013  Recommendation  reaffirmed  the 
principles governing SOLVIT, which is a network of centres set up by Member States within 
their  own  national  administrations,  as  a  fast  and  informal  means  of  resolving  problems 
individuals and businesses encounter when exercising their rights in the Single Market. 

The wide mandate of SOLVIT covering all EU law governing the Single Market, including 
the  four  freedoms  and  supporting  policies  that  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  Single  Market 
(such  as  taxation,  employment,  social  policy,  education,  culture,  public  health,  consumer 
protection,  energy,  transport,  environment  except  nature  protection  and  information  society 
and media) justifies the necessity to undertake action at EU level for its objectives. 

SOLVIT  deals  with  cross-border  problems  which  justifies  the  need  for  a  coordinated 
administrative cooperation at the EU level rather than individual actions by Member States. 
As already indicated beforehand, it is difficult to estimate the exact size of the cross border 
dispute  resolution  'market'.  Nevertheless,  the  cross-border  mobility  in  the  EU,  the  steadily 
increasing number of cases in SOLVIT in combination with the unresolved cases demonstrate 
that  action  is  necessary  at  EU  level  for  the  reinforcement  of  this  informal  problem  solving 
tool.  

Conclusion 

The wide mandate of SOLVIT covers all EU law governing the Single Market, including 
the  four  freedoms  and  supporting  policies  that  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  Single 
Market.  There is  an EU added value  due to  the necessity, on the  one hand, to  provide 
fast and informal problem solving services to citizens and business when their EU rights 
are not respected by public authorities and, on the other hand, to contribute to a better 
functioning Single Market by fostering and promoting better compliance with EU law. 
As  the  problems  addressed  are  by  definition  cross-border,  the  EU level  added  value  is 
self-explanatory.  

61  
62  

  Article 4(3) TEU, Articles 288(3) and Article 291(1) TFEU. 

    Article 17(1) TEU. 

41 

  
 
 
 
                                                 
6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  analysis  has  shown  that  even  if the  adoption  of  the  2013  Recommendation  set  out 
minimum  standards  and  operational  and  quality  objectives  for  the  network  and  the 
Commission in three main areas: (i) the quality of the service (ii) the use of SOLVIT and 
(iii)  the  handling,  follow-up  and  reporting  of  'structural  problems'  linked  to  breach  of 
EU law by the Member States and unresolved cases and the link to formal Commission 
complaint handling, these objectives have not been fully met.  
The effectiveness of SOLVIT is undermined by a number of factors, namely the lack of 
systematic and structured set-up for the handling, follow-up and reporting of problems 
detected  in  SOLVIT  linked  to  breaches  of  EU  law  by  the  Member  States,  the  lack  of 
adequate  staffing,  legal  expertise  and  authority  for  SOLVIT  centres  and  the  limited 
awareness of SOLVIT and the services it offers, especially by businesses. 
In  addition,  although  being  part  of  the  IMI  substantially  improves  the  effectiveness  of 
SOLVIT,  further  adaptations  in  the  SOLVIT  database  to  handle,  monitor  and  report 
structural  and  recurrent  problems  in  a  more  systematic  way  would  enhance  the 
administrative  capacity  of  the  SOLVIT  centres  and  increase  transparency  of  actions 
undertaken  to  address  these  issues.  Likewise,  the  legal  support  through  trainings, 
workshops and informal legal advice by the European Commission is a factor improving 
SOLVIT's  functioning. This should be further enhanced, inter alia through the use of 
interactive tools and direct cooperation of Commission experts and SOLVIT centres. 

However, the need for problem solving services offered to citizens and businesses when 
their  EU  internal  market  rights  are  breached  by  public  authorities  remains  highly 
relevant,  and  coherent  with  other  EU  policy  actions.  With  the  existing  functioning  of 
SOLVIT  failing  to  reach  fully  its  objectives,  EU  action  is  considered  necessary  to 
address  identified  shortcomings  to  turn  the  SOLVIT  network  into  a  more  effective 
instrument  to  deliver  fast,  effective  and  informal  solutions  to  EU  internal  market 
problems individuals and businesses encounter and to contribute to a better functioning 
Single market by fostering and promoting better compliance with Union law. 

42 

  
 
 
 
 
7. 

ANNEX: EXISTING FRAMEWORK AND EXISTING STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS 

Date 

2011 

Title 
study/assessment 

of 

Conducted by  Evaluation activity 

by 

TNS 
Conducted 
Opinion  &  Social  on 
behalf  of  the  EC  DG  for 
and 
Internal  Market 
Services. 

'Special 
Eurobarometer  363. 
Internal 
Market: 
Awareness, 
perceptions 
impacts’. 

and 

Eurobarometer 
survey 
conducted  by 
TNS  Opinion 
&  Social  on 
behalf  of 
the 
EC DG 

Internal 
and 

for 
Market 
Services. 

2011 

'Help  us 
identify 
business  obstacles  in 
the internal market' 

European 
Business  Test 
Panel 

Survey 

November 
2011 

Final 
'Evaluation 
SOLVIT' 

Report 
of 

Framework  Contract  for 
projects 

relating 
and Impact 

to  Evaluation 

Assessment activities 

for 
and 

on 
of 

for 

Centre 
Strategy 
Evaluation 
Services 
behalf 
Directorate 

General 
Internal 
Market and 

Services 

2012 

 ‘Enforcement  in  the 
EU Single Market’. 

for 

Centre 
European 
Policy Studies 

Study  (Pelkmans,  J.  and 
Correia  de  Brito,  A.  for 
CEPS) 

43 

of 

Categories 
stakeholders 
interviewed 

had 

EU  citizens  were 
asked 
to  whom 
they would turn if 
a 
they 
problem related to 
the  breach  of  EU 
law  by  a  public 
in 
authority 
another country. 

businesses 
359 
mostly 
from 
Germany,  Poland, 
the  Netherlands 
and Hungary.   

The  fieldwork  for 
evaluation 
this 
was  carried  out 
between  February 
2011 and April 

2011.  It  includes 
interviews 
of 
SOLVIT  centres, 
Commission 
officials 
external 

and 

parties  at  national 
also 
level. 
It 
an 
included 
analysis 
of 
documentation, 
SOLVIT cases 

in 
the  database 
and  two  on  line 
surveys. 

Desk study 

  
 
 
 
 
 
2012 

2012 

European 
Commission 

European  Commission 
Communication 

- 

the 

'Better  Governance 
for 
Single 
Market', 
Commission 
Communication 
COM(2012) 
final 

259 

European 
Commission 

Staff working document 

staff 
document 

Commission 
working 
"Reinforcing 
problem-
effective 
solving in the  Single 
Market 

Unlocking 
– 
full 
SOLVIT's 
potential 
the 
occasion  of  its  10th 
anniversary", 
SWD(2012) 33 final, 

at 

24.02.2012 

Findings  of 
the 
2011 Final Report 
'Evaluation 
of 
SOLVIT' 
complemented 
and  enriched  by 
other 

sources 
of 
information,  such 
as 
SOLVIT's 
reports63  
annual 
and  the  results  of 
various recent 

by 
studies 
Eurobarometer64. 

2012 

September 
2015 

'Making  the  Single 
deliver- 
Market 
Annual  performance 
check-up 2011'   

'Smart Single Market 
Regulation' 
(IP/A/IMCO/2015-
02 PE 563.442) 

European 
Commission 

Study 

Study  

Desk study 

London 
Economics  for 
the  European 
Parliament, 
Directorate 
General 
Internal 
Policies, 
Policy 
Department  A, 
Economic  and 
Scientific 

for 

63  

64  

See, for the results of 2011, the Commission's Staff Working Paper 'Making the Single Market Work: 
Annual Governance Check Up 2011' 
Special  Eurobarometer  survey  number  363:  "The  Awareness,  Perception  and  Impacts  of  the  Internal 
Market", run in February 2011 in the form of individual interviews with 26 836 citizens from all over 
the  EU  http://  ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_363_en.pdf;  Eurobarometer  Qualitative 
the  Single  Market,  September  2011  - 
Study,  Local  Government  and 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_local_authorities_en.pdf; 

the  governance  of 

44 

  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the 
Policy  at 
request  of  the 
Internal 
Market 
Consumer 
Protection 
Committee 

and 

European 
Commission 

European  Commission 
Staff Working Document 

Study 

October 
2015 

Staff 
Commission 
Working  Document 
'A  Single  Market 
Strategy for Europe - 
Analysis 
and 
Evidence' 
SWD(2015) 
final 

202 

survey. 
Panel 
Entrepreneurs 
were 
asked about modes of EU 
internationalisation, 
benefits, 
perceptions, 
obstacles  and  knowledge 
information 
and 
provision  with  regard  to 
doing  business 
the 
internal market. 

in 

Study 

 Out  of  the  6,576 
entrepreneurs 
in 
chamber’s 
the 
entrepreneurs 
that  were 
panel 
asked 
to 
participate,  2,585 
entrepreneurs 
filled 
the 
in 
questionnaire  –  a 
response  rate  of 
39.3%.  

Desk study 

December 
2015 
/ 
January 
2016 

Panel survey 

European 
Market 

Internal 

Netherlands 
Chamber 
Commerce 

of 

April 2016  "Reducing Costs and 
Barriers 
for 
in 
Businesses 
the 
Single 
Market" 
IP/A/IMCO/2015-06 
April 2016 

PE 578.966 

Conducted  by 
LE  Europe  for 
the 
Policy 
Department  A 
at  the  request 
of the Internal 

and 

Market 
Consumer 
Protection 
Committee  of 
the  European 
Parliament 

April 2016 

 'Towards  improved 
single 
market 
regulation', 

P8_TA(2016)0105,  

 (2015/2089(INI)) 

Resolution 

May 2016 

 "The  Single  Market  European 

Report 

45 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parliament 

Strategy" 
(2015/2354(INI), 
rapporteur 
Comi 

Lara 

July 2016 

Single 
Scoreboard 

Market 

European 
Commission 

Annual assessment of the 
performance of SOLVIT.  

46