COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL setting out the conditions and procedure by which the Commission may request undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide information in relation to the internal market and related areas
Date: 2017-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU competence, EU initiative, administrative cooperation, application of EU law, cross-frontier data flow, data collection, exchange of information, single market, trade information, type of business

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.5.2017  SWD(2017) 215 final   Compliance package COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a   REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  setting out the conditions and procedure by which the Commission may request undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide information in relation to the internal market and related areas  {COM(2017) 257 final} {SWD(2017) 216 final} {SWD(2017) 217 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

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

2.  Results of the public consultations ................................................................................................. 3 

2.1.

  Description of respondents ..................................................................................................... 3 

2.2.

  Analysis of responses............................................................................................................... 4 

3.  Results of the targeted consultations ........................................................................................... 10 

4.  How the results of consultations were used ................................................................................. 11 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  synopsis  documents  all  the  consultation  activities  accompanying  the  preparation  of  the 
proposal to introduce a Single Market Information Tool.  

The public consultation on the proposal took place between 2 August and 7 November 2016. There 
were additional targeted consultations with the following business representatives in the course of 
2016: BusinessEurope, EuroCommerce, UEAPME and PostEurop. The issue was also discussed with 
Member States during several working party meetings within the Council in 2015 and 2016. 

The results of these consultations were used for the preparation of the proposal and accompanying 
impact assessment. 

2.  RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 

The on-line public  consultations  for  this  initiative  were  announced on Your  Voice  in  Europe1,  used 
EUSurvey  as  consultation  tool  and  lasted  for  14  weeks.  They  consisted  of  three  dedicated 
questionnaires for citizens, firms and Member States available in three languages: German, English 
and French. Five replies came by mail as position papers only2. Responses to public consultation are 
voluntary and represent only views of the respondents. Consequently they cannot be interpreted as 
representative in a statistical sense to the whole EU. 

2.1.

 Description of respondents 

Responses  are  classified  based  on  self-identification  by  the  respondent.  By  the  end  of  the 
consultation  period  the  Commission  received  71  replies:  44  replies  from  firms  (including  31 
associations  and  13  individual  firms),  sixteen  replies  from  citizens  (including  four  replies  from 
organisations  representing  consumers,  civil  society,  or  non-governmental  organisations  in  Greece, 
Italy,  Portugal  and  Spain),  and  eleven  replies  from  authorities  representing  ten  Member  States3 
(including  9  national  and  2  regional  level).  The  replies  came  from  18  EU  Member  States,  an  EEA 
country and a non-European country. The geographical distribution of responses is depicted on Fig. 
1. 

Among the 13 individual firms who responded, four were micro, three small, two medium-sized and 
four  large  firms.  All  but  the  large  firms  came  from  Germany;  the  large  firms  came  from  Spain, 
France, Poland and Portugal. Five firms were in manufacturing, two firms in wholesale, two firms in 
transport,  two  firms  in  professional  activities,  one  firm  in  administrative  and  one  in  information 
technology. Three out of four microenterprises exported to three other EU Member States, all small 
firms  exported  to  from  one  to  seven  EU  Member  States,  all  but  one  medium-sized  and  large 
company exported to up to 26 other EU Member States. 

1 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8899  
2 Numerical analysis of responses is based only on those that came via EUSurvey, position papers not following 
the questionnaire of the EUSurvey are used only for describing arguments presented by stakeholders and for 
description of respondents. 
3 Two different authorities from one Member State replied, so there are only ten Member States represented 
in this consultations. 

3 

 
                                                            
Among  the  31  associations,  nine  represent  SMEs  only  (one  with  1  million  members,  one  with 
450,000 members and the rest with less than 120,000 members), and 22 all kind of companies (one 
with 200,000 members, three with between 200,000 and 300,000 members, the rest below 20,000 
members). Altogether the business associations responding represented more than 20 million firms. 
22 associations act on behalf of businesses only in their own country, 2 were present in up to five 
countries, and 7 are pan-European. 

28 business associations and 4 firms were registered in the EU Transparency Register4. 

Fig. 1. Distribution of answers to public consultations by country and stakeholder type. 
Note: * 9 EU wide business associations are located in Belgium; ** 2 replies from Sweden 

2.2.

 Analysis of responses 

2.2.1.

Issues causing firms not to share information with authorities via general consultations 

The  majority  (three  quarters)  of  responding  firms  participated  in  some  form  of  consultation 
launched  by  public  authorities  during  the  last  five  years.  They  were  asked  what  type  of  questions 
they usually do not respond to. The remaining quarter of responding firms were asked hypothetically 
which  information  they  would  prefer  not  to  provide  if  they  were  asked.  Table  1  summarises  the 
responses. 

Table 1. Types of sensitive information asked in consultations 
Information on 

Those participating in 
consultations and asked for 
sensitive information*, said that 
such information was 

Those without experience in 
consultations said that they 
would prefer not to provide 
information on the following** 

Cost not included in financial reports 
Business strategy (e.g. pricing policy) 
Turnover, volumes or profit 
Ownership structure 

Provided 

Not provided 

0 
4 (90) 
4 (8,000) 
4 (9,300) 

5 (490,000) 
3 (480,000) 
4 (460,000) 
2 (450,000) 

4 (4) 
8 (8) 
4 (4) 
1 (58) 

4 http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do  

4 

024681012141618No. of responsescitizensfirmsauthorities•31 business associations representing  20m firms•13 individual firms•8 governments** and 2 local authorities•4 consumer organisations/NGOs•12 individual citizens11 (15%)44 (62%)16 (23%) 
 
 
 
                                                            
1 (1) 

3 (60) 

7 (24,000) 

3 (450,000) 

Contract details and relations with suppliers or 
other business partners 
Cross-border business (e.g. foreign branches or 
subsidiaries, costs of cross-border operations, 
direct cross-border provision of services) 
Geographic location of headquarters, 
warehouses and distributors 
Employment contracts and/or number of 
employees 
Product characteristics and production process 
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate no. of firms represented by respondent. Numbers of firm rounded to nearest thousand, 
hundreds or tens; * between 16 and 23 firms (36-52%) were not asked the above questions, and between 17-18 (40%) did 
not provide any answer; ** 2 (751) firms said none of the questions is problematic 

4 (43,000) 

5 (41,000) 

4 (9,400) 

5 (62) 

6 (63) 

1 (80) 

2 (80) 

2 (90) 

2 (80) 

0 

0 

Firms  were  not  providing  information  mainly  on  unpublished  costs,  business  strategy,  turnover, 
volumes and profits, ownership structure and contract details with business partners. The answers 
from companies that have never participated in consultation activities were similar. 

Subsequently,  those  respondents  who  did  not  provide  the  information  requested  by  public 
authorities  were  asked  for  the  reasons  not  to  do  so.  Four  respondents  (representing  490,000 
companies)  said  it  would  be  too  costly  to  extract  the  information;  3  respondents  (representing 
480,000 firms) were concerned that information might leak and be used either by competitors or 
public  authorities;  one  respondent  (representing  1,300  firms)  was  concerned  that  information 
might  be  made  public.  Similar  reasons  were  given  by  those  who  have  not  yet  participated  in 
consultations (2 answers, representing 4 firms each). 

2.2.2.

  Questions  on  breaches  of  EU  rights,  examples  of  information  provided  to  solve  the  case 

and associated costs 

A  quarter  of  responding  firms  (11  answers,  representing  770,000  firms)  and  almost  half  of  the 
citizens  (6  answers,  including  from  2  consumer  organisations  from  Greece  and  Portugal)  faced  a 
situation of their rights arising from EU law (such as equal treatment, freedom of movement, etc.) 
not  being  respected  in  another  Member  State.  For  instance  one  EU  association  stated  that  its 
'members  face  this  on  a  daily  basis.  Frequently,  Member  States  do  not  respect  EU  law,  introduce 
national  barriers/measures  to  establish  or  operate,  or  apply  rules  in  a  discriminatory  way';  other 
complaints  related  to  public  procurement  and  unfair  practices  in  business  relations  between 
partners with different market power as well as geo-blocking. Citizens and consumer organisations 
were complaining about problems with price discrimination based on residence, different forms of 
geo-blocking:  restricted  access  to  on-line  audio-visual  content  while  abroad,  delivery  of  on-line 
purchases not possible to certain countries and problems with cross-border redress.   

Forty  percent  of  responding  firms  (18  answers,  representing  380,000  firms)  and  30  percent  of 
citizens (four individuals) did not encounter such situation, the rest either provided no answer or did 
not know.  

In case of breach of EU law, firms complained either directly to those who violated their rights (six 
answers),  to  the  European  Commission  or  to  the  European  Parliament  (seven  answers),  to 
authorities  in  concerned  Member  State  (five  answers)  or  at  home  (four  answers).  In  five  cases 
(representing  100  firms)  respondents  were  asked  to  submit  additional  information  to  public 
authorities to solve the issue, in four cases the information was confidential, and two respondents 
(representing  80  firms)  did  not  provide  it  in  all  cases.  Confidential  information  concerned  mainly 

5 

 
business  strategy,  contract  details,  ownership  structure,  cross-border  operations  and  turnover 
(three answers each, representing 80 firms). Respondents compiled the requested information using 
their  own  records,  but  also  needed  to  contact  business  partners.  Legal  and  accounting  firms  were 
contracted by three respondents (representing 100 firms) to prepare the information.  

Regarding  the  cost  of  preparation  of  a  reply,  an  association  said  that  '[t]hese  information 
requirements are too burdensome and confusing for most companies, especially the SMEs', and that 
the cost is case-specific and varies. An individual firm estimated that time to prepare information in 
one case was around 30 man-hours (but cautioned that the figure is low as information was already 
prepared for another case) and estimated the cost of external firm advice at around EUR4,000 per 
reply. 

Five respondents (representing 180 firms) and 2 consumer organisations reported that the problem 
was  not  resolved.  When  asked  why,  they  pointed  either  to  firms  from  other  Member  States  or 
national authorities not cooperating; one association explained that '[t]he European Commission did 
not act against the Member State or the process took so long that our members had no other choice 
than to adapt to the situation. The Member State did not provide information, flawed or incomplete 
information, did not respect deadlines to reply or simply chose to ignore EU law'; another respondent 
said that the process was 'too costly or too complex to engage'; one respondent firm said that EU 
institutions were not interested to follow the case. 

2.2.3.

  Conditions making firms more willing to share sensitive information with authorities 

Subsequently, firms were asked to identify the conditions necessary to increase their willingness to 
provide information to authorities in order to solve cases of breach of EU rights (Table. 2).  

Table 2. Conditions necessary for firms to provide confidential information to the authorities 
Condition 

Absolutely 
essential 

Very 
important 

Of average 
importance 

Of little 
importance 

Information would remain confidential 

Information would be used only for the 
purpose of the investigation 
My participation would not be disclosed 

59%  
(26, 1.4m) 
50%  
(22, 1.2m) 
41%  
(18, 1m) 
41%  
(18, 1.4m) 
43%  
(19, 1.1m) 
41%  
(18, 1.2m) 

20%  
(9, 7k) 
25%  
(11, 12k) 
16%  
(7, 300k) 
23%  
(10, 25k) 
27%  
(12, 23k) 
27%  
(12, 230k) 

7%  
(3, 170) 
7%  
(3, 380) 
18%  
(8, 47k) 
16%  
(7, 7k) 
11%  
(5, 220k) 
11% 
(5, 470) 

0 

2%  
(1, 1) 
5%  
(2, 90) 
5%  
(2, 2) 
2%  
(1, 1) 
5%  
(2, 1.3k) 

I would not be asked for information on 
a regular basis 
Required information would be easy to 
extract and compile 
Public authorities could not acquire the 
information via other channels (e.g. 
consultations, studies, etc.) 
Legend: % of all firm answers (number of answers, number of firms represented by respondents), numbers rounded 

2%  
(1, 1) 

Not 
important at 
all 
0 

0 

7%  
(3, 300) 
2%  
(1, 300) 
0 

Firms are overwhelmingly of the opinion that information should remain confidential , be used only 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  collected,  individual  firms  participation  should  not  be  disclosed, 
information  should  be  easy  to  extract  and  compile  and  should  be  asked  only  if  not  available 
elsewhere. 

Respondents stressed the need for a strong legal framework for any tool allowing the Commission to 
request market information from firms. Such tool would need to guarantee at least confidentiality, 

6 

 
proportionality,  neutrality,  non-discrimination,  a  level  playing  field  and  a  possible  right  of  appeal. 
Among other concerns, limiting the burden on companies was often raised, as well as not requesting 
information that is in possession of another public authority. Secure systems for data storage that 
should  protect  business  secrets  from  leakage  or  data  hacking  were  prominent  as  well  as  calls  to 
clarify how long the data would be kept, who would have access and who would own it. Firms were 
also concerned about small concentrated markets where the identification of respondent could be 
possible  even  despite  anonymizing  the  replies.  Several  companies  were  advocating  only  voluntary 
participation  in  data  requests.  It  was  suggested  that  companies  would  be  more  willing  to  provide 
information if reassured that it would not be used against them by national authorities; otherwise 
legal  assistance  would  be  necessary  to  prepare  their  answers,  increasing  the  cost  of  replying.  An 
association of small crafts asked for a simple, clear and targeted questionnaire that would be easy to 
answer  to  small  firms.  Another  answer  said  that  the  cost  might  rise  also  when  information  is 
available to the respondent, but in different format than requested. Use of local organisations who 
could  gather  information  and  send  aggregated  responses  was  suggested.  It  was  also  stressed  that 
business  would  be  more  willing  to  participate  if  the  Commission  could  demonstrate  that 
participation speeds up the resolution of market problems.  

Were  the  above  conditions  secured,  firms  would  be  willing  to  provide  all  kinds  of  information  to 
authorities,  with  most  positive  answers  concerning  information  on:  turnover,  volumes,  profits, 
geographical distribution, ownership, employment and cross-border business.  

Table 3. Types of sensitive information firms would provide upon satisfying certain conditions 
Turnover, volumes or profit 
Geographic location of headquarters, warehouses and distributors 
Ownership structure 
Employment contracts and/or number of employees 
Information on cross-border business (e.g. foreign branches or subsidiaries, costs of cross-border 
operations, direct cross-border provision of services) 
Business strategy (e.g. pricing policy) 
Contract details and relations with suppliers or other business partners 
Product characteristics and production process 
Information on cost not included in financial reports 

18% (8, 2.4k) 
16% (7, 10k) 
14% (6, 8.4k) 
11% (5, 220k*) 

39% (17, 240k*) 
37% (16, 690k*) 
32% (14, 700k*) 
30% (13, 240k*) 

27% (12, 230k*) 

None 

18% (8, 180k) 

Other 
Legend: % of all firm answers (number of answers, number of firms represented by respondents), numbers rounded 
* includes answer of a tax advisors association (around 220k firms) 

30% (13, 650k) 

In the 'other' category respondents suggested that information must be readily available in company 
records. It should not be requested several times by different governmental bodies. One association 
noted  that  the  older  information  gets  the  less  sensitive  it  becomes  thus  easier  to  provide.  Others 
stressed that the type of information they could submit depend on the company type and case at 
hand  and  cannot  be  determined  in  advance.  There  was  also  opposition  to  requesting  sensitive 
information from companies and support for a voluntary approach.  

2.2.4.

  What powers Member States currently have 

Only three out of ten replying Member States reported having powers that allow them to ask market 
participants for information on an ad hoc basis: a United Kingdom authority reported being able to 
ask for information for the purpose of law enforcement (e.g. information on staff salaries); a regional 
authority  in  Spain  reported  having  powers  that  allow  it  to  collect  information  for  the  purpose  of 

7 

 
policy development; an authority in France reported having powers to ask for information for both 
the  enforcement  of  existing  rules  and  preparation  of  policy,  but  exclusively  in  the  fields  of 
competition and product safety, which are endowed by Union rules, and in taxation. Three Member 
States  (the  Czech  Republic,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden)  and  one  local  government  in  Germany 
indicated having no such powers.5 

France  reported  having  in  certain  cases  powers  to  sanction  firms  for  noncompliance  with 
information requests and noted that in areas where sanctions are not possible firm participation is 
negatively  impacted.  The  Spanish  regional  authority  state  that  despite  voluntary  nature  of  its 
information  requests  the  quality  of  data  was  not  affected.  Both  Spanish  and  French  authorities 
stated  that  they  would  be  able  to  share  information  with  the  Commission;  conversely  the  United 
Kingdom authority could not share such data. 

Three  authorities  encountered  a  situation  when  lack  of  firm  data  limited  their  enforcement  or 
legislative activity, while other three did not. One authority reported problems with obtaining data 
from  companies  located  in  another  Member  State,  as  either  firms  or  foreign  authorities  did  not 
cooperate. Another  explained that lack  of  resources  or  time pressure could also  explain why  firm-
level information is not gathered. 

2.2.5.

  When a single market information tool should be used 

In all three questionnaires the Commission asked when it should be possible to query companies for 
information.  Most  support  in  all  categories  of  respondents  concerned  (1)  solving  breaches  of  EU 
rights of firms and citizens, followed by (2) prevention of future breaches. 

As for the answers from authorities, three of those having national powers and one with no national 
power  supported  the  first  case  (1),  and  two  with  national  powers  supported  the  second  case  (2). 
Two national authorities expressed their preference for the Commission to coordinate information 
requests; two opted for direct power to ask firms in any Member State without involvement of the 
Commission. Two authorities with no national powers said that public authorities should never ask 
firms for sensitive information. 

All four responding consumer organisations supported the first case (1) and two supported as well 
the second (2). 

Table 4. In which cases public authorities could ask firms for sensitive information 

(1) When the information is crucial for resolving a breach of consumers' or 
firms' EU rights (such as equal treatment, freedom of movement, provision of 
services, establishment, and other situations with a strong cross-border 
context) 
(2) When the information is crucial for preventing future breaches of 
consumers' or firms' EU rights by reviewing existing or preparing new EU 
rules 
Never 

Other 

Firms 
41%  
(18, 250k) 

Authorities 
40%  
(4) 

Citizens 
69%  
(11) 

18%  
(8, 26k) 

14% 
(6, 340k) 
32% 
(14, 1.2m) 

20%  
(2) 

33%  
(3) 
0 

31%  
(5) 

19%  
(3) 
0 

5  Additionally  a  Danish  business  association  (non-governmental)  in  their  reply  informed  that  the  Danish 
government has powers to request sensitive firm data when investigating potential rule breaking 

8 

 
 
                                                            
Legend: % of all answers in a given respondent category (number of answers, number of firms represented by respondents 
– in case of Firms), numbers rounded 
Note: 'No answer' not shown 

In case of firms, the 'other' category included limitation only to cases of breach of competition law, 
and calls for more cooperation with companies on concrete cases. One association suggested that it 
should be used when quick Commission action could prevent damage to consumers and businesses 
or prevent persistent breaches of EU law. Fears about administrative burden creation or statements 
of opposition to granting such powers to authorities were also aired. 

Thirteen  firms  additionally  sent  position  papers.  They  argued  that  Member  States  rather  than 
companies are creating most of the barriers in the single market6. Eleven expressed serious concerns 
about the introduction of a tool allowing the Commission to request market information from firms, 
calling  it  disproportionate,  intrusive  and  causing  administrative  burden.  Two  remained  neutral 
highlighting conditions necessary to make a possible market information tool as easy for companies 
as  possible.  It  was  pointed  out  that  firms  are  already  subject  to  a  plethora  of  different  formal 
reporting  and  informal  requests  which  are  increasingly  costly  to  comply  with,  thus  diverging 
resources from the core business. Hence, it was highlighted that any information requested should 
be  readily  available.  Requests  targeting  SMEs  should  be  proportionate  to  their  capabilities. 
Commission was asked for no new regular reporting obligation and asked to reuse existing tools and 
sources of information (including competition tools, improved consultations, etc.) and avoid 'double 
reporting'. There were also calls for more cooperation and data exchange between institutions and 
Member states as well as for more cooperation with business organisations. The voluntary nature of 
any participation of companies was raised repeatedly, with strong opposition to any sanctions (both 
for  non-submission  and  errors  in  submission).  Also,  the  importance  of  securing  legal  certainty  to 
participating firms was highlighted, including possibility for appeals and remedies. In case the tool is 
adopted it should be used very infrequently, after exhausting all other information sources and only 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  collected.  The  need  to  protect  confidential  business  information 
with state-of-the-art systems was prominent. One respondent suggested outsourcing the collection 
of information to an independent and neutral entity. It was suggested that information could only be 
requested in cases of national administrative or criminal proceedings, only when there is suspicious 
of law being breached. Many respondents asked for clarification of when a market information tool 
would be used and which its added value would be in comparison to the existing tools. Others asked 
for  clarification  of  the  consequences  of  no-replying  to  requests  for  market  information.  One 
respondent  called  for  more  transparency  in  firm  reporting  and  electronic  access  to  financial 
statements. 

Position papers were also sent by national authorities. One supporting Member State called to use a 
It  also  suggested  that 
possible  market 
proportionate  sanctions  are  necessary  to  ensure  participation7.  A  few  cautioned  about  excessive 
burden that could be minimised by e.g. high threshold for the Commission to launch a request for 

information  tool  to  prioritise 

infringement  cases. 

6 One organisation explained that for instance geo-blocking exists because it is often the only way to operate in 
a fragmented single market. 
7  The  reply  stated:  'For  SMIT  to  work  companies  must  supply  the  information  requested  by  the  Commission. 
(…)If the Commission has been unable to ensure compliance by other means and they judge that obtaining the 
information  is  important  enough  then  they  should  have  the  power  to  impose  fines  on  companies  for  non-
compliance.' 

9 

 
                                                            
market information, such as College of Commissioners decision as well as offering different ways to 
reply (face-to-face, phone, e-survey). Calls for clarification when a possible market information tool 
could  be  used  were  also  made.  Advantages  of  collaboration  with  Member  States  in  the  data 
collection process were highlighted, including prior checking if national authorities already have the 
information to avoid double reporting. However, it was also noted that for the information gathering 
to  be  effective  no  Member  State  should  be  able  to  veto  the  request  of  the  Commission.  Another 
Member State asked to clarify how the information would be used, as well as to demonstrate why 
national authorities could not handle such requests themselves. It was also suggested that Member 
States are better placed to conduct such inquires and investigative powers in sector legislation could 
be extended. Those Member States against a possible market information tool for the Commission 
requested  a  thorough  assessment  of  the  actual  need  for  such  a  tool,  suggesting  better  use  of 
existing  information  sources:  annual  accounts,  national  statistics,  business  registers,  SOLVIT8,  the 
Internal Market Information system (IMI)9, or REFIT10. They also found sanctions proportionate only 
in the event of potential rule-breaking by a company.  

3.  RESULTS OF THE TARGETED CONSULTATIONS 

The Commission discussed a possible market information tool during bilateral meetings with several 
pan-European  business  organisations:  BusinessEurope,  EuroCommerce,  UEAPME  and  PostEurop 
during the course of 2016 (all of these organisations are registered in the Transparency Register). All 
of  them  expressed  their  reservations,  mainly  due  to  the  increase  of  administrative  burden  by  yet 
another information request. One stressed that existing competition tools are sufficient and should 
not be extended. They pointed to the fact that even readily available information would have to be 
reworked before it is sent. Thus, they stressed that, if adopted, a possible market information tool 
should  only  be  used  on  an  exceptional  basis.  There  were  also  fears  about  safeguards  on  the 
protection  of  commercially-sensitive  data.  One  association  stated  based  on  experience  with 
competition  requests  that  preparation  of  additional  non-confidential  version  of  reply  to  Member 
States  was  extremely burdensome. The compulsory  nature of  the requests  and the  potential fines 
for not-replying or for providing misleading information were not welcome either. A need for appeal 
possibility  against  information  request  was  also  raised.  One  claimed  that  companies  are  willing  to 
provide  evidence  of  single  market  infringements  by  Member  States  to  the  Commission,  but  that 
companies are frustrated by no or slow reaction from the Commission to resolve breaches of single 
market rules. 

A  possible  market  information  tool  was  also  discussed  in  some  meetings  of  the  Council  Working 
Party on Competitiveness and Growth in 2015 and 2016, as well as at the High Level Working Group 
on  Competitiveness  and  Growth  and  during  several  bilateral  meetings  with  individual  Member 
States. National authorities were mainly interested in which conditions would need to be satisfied by 
the  Commission  to  be  able  to  launch  requests  for  information  to  firms,  who  would  collect  the 
information,  what  the  role  of  the  Member  States  would  be  and  whether  data  collected  by  the 

8 http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm   
9 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/index_en.htm  
10 http://ec.europa.eu/info/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-
simpler-and-less_en  

10 

 
                                                            
Commission would be shared with Member States, the administrative burden that such a tool would 
cause and the proportionality of any sanctions.  

4.  HOW THE RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WERE USED 

The suggestions by stakeholders were taken on board in the preparation of the initiative on a market 
information tool. Notably the calls for sparse application of the tool and clarification when it would 
be used were translated into demanding ex-ante requirements – the market information tool would 
only  be  used  for  cases  of  high  single  market  significance,  the  Commission  would  need  to 
demonstrate that all sources of information available cannot provide the information at stake and 
approval  by  the  College  of  Commissionaires  would  be  needed  before  launching  requests  for 
information.  It  has  also  been  explained  in  the  impact  assessment  why  the  existing  tools,  including 
the ones in the competition area, cannot deliver the kind of information at stake in the single market 
setting: EU law restricts the use of information collected under the competition rules to use by the 
Commission for competition purposes only; while other tools such as SOLVIT, IMI and REFIT do not 
collect  the  kind  of  firm-level  information  considered  in  this  initiative.  The  aspect  of  protecting 
confidential  information  was  strengthened  by,  among  others,  following  state-of-the-art  tools  and 
procedure used in the competition enquires. On the controversial issue of sanctions for not replying, 
the proposal was made clearer showing that they act as an incentive to reply (not punishment for 
wrong behaviour), in practice are hardly ever used (based on experience of the competition cases) 
and  will  always  be  considered  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  As  from  every  Commission  decision  the 
appeal  possibility  to  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  was  explicitly  highlighted.  On 
administrative burden reduction, the proposal stressed that information should be easily available to 
firms, questionnaires should be clear and simple allowing for alternative ways to reply.  

Feedback and concerns raised by the Member States have been taken into account in the design of 
the options, particularly with regard to the proportionality of an information tool, subsidiarity (most 
notably  in  terms  of  an  appropriate  role  for  the  Member  States),  and  measures  to  minimise  the 
administrative burden for the replying firms. 

11